The score of your post has nothing to do with the worth or validity of my statements. If scores matter at all, then it was worth replying because my the reply itself got modded up and is more likely to be seen by those who are looking for insights and opinions on this issue.
What could i have done with my 10 minutes that was more meaningful than standing up for civil rights?
I just believe that if it's called a marriage, that there is at least an implication that the union is in the eyes of God.
If two atheists are married by an atheist judge in a courthouse, where does God come in to play? Even if you think God is smiling down on those atheists' union, what does that have to do with our secular government?
You see, you wasted a considerable amount of time out of your no doubt busy schedule to flame a post that had a score of 1...
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that my goal was beating "the moron" in an argument.
My goal was pointing out the fallacy in a common anti-gay argument for anyone who happens to read this thread. The time investment was not particularly significant (20 seconds to find the text, 10 minutes to write the post) and the issue is important enough to justify it.
It wasn't a flame it was a lesson, but you can try to save face however you want.
You can try to be as pedantically logical as you want, but these words hurt people's feelings and by not challenging their use, we implicitly encourage homophobia. Emotional reactions are the point. I can say that from now on i will use "nigger" instead of the word rose. It's no less logical than any other symbolic link, but that doesn't change the effect of the word and the interpretation others have of it.
Here's a question: Why are you so defensive about this? I speak from direct experience with people who have been and continue to be hurt by others' ignorant and casual use of these words. People i care about are hurt by them every day - that's why i feel strongly about this. What's your story?
Just because you say it's plain and simple doesn't make it so.
Bigotry is not the special province of any one nationality, race, religion, or sexual orientation. You can try to overcome it or you can be a part of the same root problem that you yourself have faced.
Given that you think "fag" and "nigger" are ok, i wouldn't expect you to think twice about words that denigrate women, whites, or rural folks. I think that says more about you than it does about the words.
I do understand language change, but i don't think you are qualified to explain when or how it happens. If you think "nigger" is a neutral term then you are utterly clueless.
You are confusing a permissive attitude towards a denigrating term with the neutrality of the term. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are neither black nor gay and that you probably don't have many black friends or friends who admit to you that they are gay.
Don't confuse the words that your friends let you get away with using for words that are neutral. Go ask a black man on the street if he minds if you call him "nigger." Go to an LGBTA meeting and ask them if they mind being called "fag" by heterosexuals, or if it bothers them that anything someone doesn't like can be called "gay."
I think a lot of people are trying to excuse their insensitive language. If you want to talk like a bigotted asshole that's your right, but don't kid yourself into thinking it's ok to dismiss the casual, and pervasive persecution of a significant minority of people because you feel like using some new slang. Who's got it worse, people who get dirty looks when they say "fag," or people who are treated like second-class citizens every day of their life?
What about insect? That is the next step. Two consenting adults of the same specifies.
Insects can't consent - they're not a sentient species. I don't even know what "specifies" they are.
If you meant incest, then that's different. The argument you're trying to make is a logical bait-and-switch. We're not arguing that issue, but if it does come up as a significant issue, we can deal with it on its own. I haven't seen any incest-rights marches lately, so i'm not inclined to think of this as a pressing concern.
Black people wanted equal treatment to the whites in the 60's. Homosexuals have equal treatment already. They can already marry some one of the opposite sex. What they want is SPECIAL TREATMENT.
Not precisely. You can look at it as an increase in rights for everyone (straight people can marry other same-sex straight people too) or you can look at it more realistically, as if your head were not encased in your rectum. Straights have the right to have their romantic relationships sanctioned by law, same-sex couples don't. There are thousands of rights associated with marriage - property rights, inheritance, guardianship, adoption - that are currently denied to same-sex couples. That's unequal treatment.
Comparing the homosexual quest for marriage to civilrights is horrible in logic and in sensitivy.
Maybe when the butt fucking fags get out and start getting bit by police dogs, killed with buckshot, hit by water cannons, and arrested then you can compare the two. Until then stfu.
Bullshit. Look up the arguments that were used to defend anti-miscegenation laws. They are the same ones that are used against gay marriage.
And as to violence, maybe you never heard about a little phenomenon called gay-bashing? Not so different from lynching. Police have been raiding gay clubs, beating up, locking up, and generally persecuting homosexuals for years. I think that qualifies as "until then." Until you get past your uninformed bigotry, stfu.
I'd be happy to concede that marriage was originally a religious sacrament, but no such religious connotation is implied in modern, civil, male-female marriage and none would be implied in same-sex marriages. If marriage still had a necessary religious component in our country then judges and justices of the peace wouldn't perform it in courthouses and atheists wouldn't be able to get married. Marriage as it applies to our government is a purely civil union, but not all civil unions afford the same rights as marriage.
If you think it would be more palatable to the American public to replace all marriages with civil unions and allow same-sex couples to enter into those same types of civil unions, i'd be all for it. In this case, i think it's easier and more practical to say that same-sex couples can be legally married than it is to say that all marriages are now merely civil unions in the eyes of the law.
P.S. The version of the bible i checked (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html), Lev 25:13 says, "In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession." Not quite sure how that applies.
Perhaps you were looking for: Lev 18:22 is "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Or maybe: Lev 13:9-12 "These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." Had any good shrimp or lobster lately? Hope not. That's an abomination too!
Don't forget about Lev 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Denying them the right to marry is not enough. If you accept the biblical authority, you have to kill gay men. And people who curse their mom or dad. (Lev 20:9) And adulterers. (Lev 20:10) And people who sleep with their mothers/sons or stepmothers/stepsons. (Lev 20:11) And people who sleep with their fathers-in-law/daughters-in-law. (Lev 20:12) And men who do both a woman and her mom, as well as the mother/daughter. They get a special fiery death prescribed! (Lev 20:14) Also note that no out is given for rape, so even if a man rapes a mother/daughter pair, too bad - all three must die.
Lev 20:15-16 says that if men or women sleep with animals you have to kill them and the animals! Interesting to note that this is singled out for women as well as men - most of the others aren't. Does that mean that lesbians are ok? I guess father-daughter incest is covered by the mother/daughter prohibition, but it apparently ok to sleep with your stepdaughters. Unless that's covered by adultery, but given the rest of the special shout-outs, i doubt it.
And don't forget wizards and men and women with "familiar spirits" - burn them! No wait - don't burn them! They have to be stoned to death! (Lev 20:27)
"Christians" (What did Jesus say about this particular topic anyway?) love to pick and choose when it comes to Leviticus, but that's irrelevant because this nation does not recognize biblical authority.
We've got our own laws and some of the most important ones say you can't force your religion on anyone else or deny equal rights to all.
You can't even make a decent citation, much less an entire argument. I think that officially makes you the bitch.
so, since we will have gay characters in-game, can I have a sexy donkey in my game?
Way to throw that red herring in there. Consensual relationships between consenting adults of the same species are in a very different category than bestiality. If you can't see that then you are blind.
why is homosexuality being 'rammed' down everyones throat over the past few years?
Why did those uppity black people ram their race down everyone's throats in the 60's?
Why are some members of our secular (separation of church and state?) society being denied their rights based on moral definitions that are purely religious?
Not giving a rat's ass is easy when you are not among the oppressed.
People who don't use computers for anything more than Word and AOL generally don't give a rat's ass about the DMCA, RIAA, MPAA, and SCO, but that doesn't make them right.
It isn't just gamers, it is young men that are involved in healthy competition.
Using some of the most repugnant slurs is considered an acceptable part of "healthy" competition? Just because it's common doesn't make it right. How about instead of calling him a fag, nigger, whatever, you just beat him at whatever you're doing? That gets the point across best of all.
(If you absolutely feel the need to humiliate your opponent, you can then say, in your sweetest voice, "You tried so hard there! Keep up the good work!")
Regardless of the original meaning, in common parlance, gay means homosexual, and a faggot is a gay man.
To associate those words with negative qualities is inherently homophobic. Just becasue it has been applied to things that have no defined sexuality does not mean that it's suddenly a neutral term.
Bigotry and hate are learned in lots of ways. If kids learn that gay means bad that prejudices them against anyone who is described as gay whether or not they have a "moral" reason behind it.
Radio Tower - my favorite. Best mix of long-range and close-up, inside and outside. Biased towards defense, but not grossly so. I'd love to see an SF version, possibly a night-time one.
AA really is a hell of a game. Free to download and play, emphasis on teamwork.
I'm sure New Zealand is very frugal, but do most of its workers live on $35 to $100 a month like those in India? It costs less to buy some stuff in Iowa than it does in New York City, but that doesn't mean Iowa has a lot in common with India.
Normally, i detest whiners who complain about moderation, but this is a truly exceptional case.
How is it that a post that starts off with a "cleverly" disguised racial epithet (Translation for the clue impaired: "Fuh Q Raghead" = Fuck you raghead.) has anything other than flamebait mods?
The rest of the argument is entirely redundant when taken in context with the rest of the posts on this article, so what's the excuse?
Note to the cretin who wrote the original post: "raghead" is most often applied to Arabs, not Indians. If you're going to be a bigotted asshole you should at least do it right!
I agree with you, but i'll offer another reason as well.
A lot of foreign workers come here and take a job for less money than their American counterparts would, live much more frugally than their American counterparts would, and send a large portion of their income back to their relatives.
They are living a decent life (although perhaps not a luxurious one) and they're allowing their extended family to do the same.
To put it in more concrete terms, a single person making $30k can live on $15k, send $10k home, and pay their taxes with the remainder. That $10k is worth a lot more in places like India. Remember from the interview that "Many Indian workers live on between $35 and $100 per month."
The other shows two people in a crowd at the same protest two years before her trip. Saying the two are in the same boat because of that is like saying Lenin and Stalin were cut from the same cloth.
I wouldn't expect to see Bush come out clean either, given the doubts about his own military record, the allegations of drug abuse, the accusations of insider trading, the fact that he has completely abandoned the conservative principles of states' rights and small federal government, his erosion of church/state separation, usurpation of congressional power, charges of obstructionism in the 9/11 probe, misuse of intelligence, misuse and censorship of science, and the leaking of a CIA agent's identity. But remember, he's a uniter, not a divider.
No one is getting out of race without a being covered head-to-toe in brown goo. Still, it would be nice to have a candidate who at least appeared to have a soul and had a snowball's chance of winning. Politics suck, but they're better than tyranny.
He's proud of his anti-war activism, but "Hanoi Jane's" actions are in a whole different category. Lots of people who respect and agree with his anti-war position still label her a traitor.
This is more along the lines of those who link the Bush family to Hitler.
Jane Fonda is an actress who was a vocal critic of the Vietnam War. In 1972 she visited the capitol of North Vietnam. Many people branded her a traitor for visiting with the enemy of the United States while the US was still at war with them. They gave her the nickname 'Hanoi Jane' because of her actions. Some people still harbor great animosity for her for this.
Note: Her visit occurred in 1972. The real picture of her and Kerry at the same rally was taken in 1970.
2) But i wouldn't put much faith in anything FreeRepublic.com put out about John Edwards. (Incidentally, why did you work so hard to hide the site name by using its IP address instead of its name and by not actually providing a link? They are proud of their bias, why aren't you?) They got the story from CNSNews.com They claim CNS stands for Cybercast News Service (Cybercast News Service News.com? Brilliant.) but a quick scan of their supporters (Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, the FRC...) points more towards Conservative News Service as the real acronym.
At any rate, a quick search would've turned up a much more in-depth and balanced article on the subject in the New York Times. They don't clear Edwards of wrongdoing, but they also can't be accused of glossing over the story just to trash Edwards.
Trying to obscure your source and using a blatantly biased source when a less biased one is available weakens your argument, which at its heart is valid.
I personally find his statement that he "took the initiative in creating the internet" to be a grandiose attempt to take political advantage of the internet's popularity... He certainly was a supporter of the idea, but wrote none of the code, developed none of the protocols... he's trying to take credit for the hard work of a lot of scientists and engineers... I personally think that's obnoxious.
Then it's equally obnoxious for Bush to take credit for the liberation of Iraq, after all, he didn't coordinate the troop movements, go on any patrols, or capture Saddam himself, right? He's just trying to claim credit for the hard work (literal blood, sweat, and tears) of a lot of soldiers.
Slashdot Mirror
The score of your post has nothing to do with the worth or validity of my statements. If scores matter at all, then it was worth replying because my the reply itself got modded up and is more likely to be seen by those who are looking for insights and opinions on this issue.
What could i have done with my 10 minutes that was more meaningful than standing up for civil rights?
I just believe that if it's called a marriage, that there is at least an implication that the union is in the eyes of God.
If two atheists are married by an atheist judge in a courthouse, where does God come in to play? Even if you think God is smiling down on those atheists' union, what does that have to do with our secular government?
You see, you wasted a considerable amount of time out of your no doubt busy schedule to flame a post that had a score of 1...
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that my goal was beating "the moron" in an argument.
My goal was pointing out the fallacy in a common anti-gay argument for anyone who happens to read this thread. The time investment was not particularly significant (20 seconds to find the text, 10 minutes to write the post) and the issue is important enough to justify it.
It wasn't a flame it was a lesson, but you can try to save face however you want.
You can try to be as pedantically logical as you want, but these words hurt people's feelings and by not challenging their use, we implicitly encourage homophobia. Emotional reactions are the point. I can say that from now on i will use "nigger" instead of the word rose. It's no less logical than any other symbolic link, but that doesn't change the effect of the word and the interpretation others have of it.
Here's a question: Why are you so defensive about this? I speak from direct experience with people who have been and continue to be hurt by others' ignorant and casual use of these words. People i care about are hurt by them every day - that's why i feel strongly about this. What's your story?
Just because you say it's plain and simple doesn't make it so.
Bigotry is not the special province of any one nationality, race, religion, or sexual orientation. You can try to overcome it or you can be a part of the same root problem that you yourself have faced.
Given that you think "fag" and "nigger" are ok, i wouldn't expect you to think twice about words that denigrate women, whites, or rural folks. I think that says more about you than it does about the words.
I do understand language change, but i don't think you are qualified to explain when or how it happens. If you think "nigger" is a neutral term then you are utterly clueless.
You are confusing a permissive attitude towards a denigrating term with the neutrality of the term. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are neither black nor gay and that you probably don't have many black friends or friends who admit to you that they are gay.
Don't confuse the words that your friends let you get away with using for words that are neutral. Go ask a black man on the street if he minds if you call him "nigger." Go to an LGBTA meeting and ask them if they mind being called "fag" by heterosexuals, or if it bothers them that anything someone doesn't like can be called "gay."
I think a lot of people are trying to excuse their insensitive language. If you want to talk like a bigotted asshole that's your right, but don't kid yourself into thinking it's ok to dismiss the casual, and pervasive persecution of a significant minority of people because you feel like using some new slang. Who's got it worse, people who get dirty looks when they say "fag," or people who are treated like second-class citizens every day of their life?
What about insect?
That is the next step.
Two consenting adults of the same specifies.
Insects can't consent - they're not a sentient species. I don't even know what "specifies" they are.
If you meant incest, then that's different. The argument you're trying to make is a logical bait-and-switch. We're not arguing that issue, but if it does come up as a significant issue, we can deal with it on its own. I haven't seen any incest-rights marches lately, so i'm not inclined to think of this as a pressing concern.
Black people wanted equal treatment to the whites in the 60's.
Homosexuals have equal treatment already. They can already marry some one of the opposite sex. What they want is SPECIAL TREATMENT.
Not precisely. You can look at it as an increase in rights for everyone (straight people can marry other same-sex straight people too) or you can look at it more realistically, as if your head were not encased in your rectum. Straights have the right to have their romantic relationships sanctioned by law, same-sex couples don't. There are thousands of rights associated with marriage - property rights, inheritance, guardianship, adoption - that are currently denied to same-sex couples. That's unequal treatment.
Comparing the homosexual quest for marriage to civilrights is horrible in logic and in sensitivy.
Maybe when the butt fucking fags get out and start getting bit by police dogs, killed with buckshot, hit by water cannons, and arrested then you can compare the two. Until then stfu.
Bullshit. Look up the arguments that were used to defend anti-miscegenation laws. They are the same ones that are used against gay marriage.
And as to violence, maybe you never heard about a little phenomenon called gay-bashing? Not so different from lynching. Police have been raiding gay clubs, beating up, locking up, and generally persecuting homosexuals for years. I think that qualifies as "until then." Until you get past your uninformed bigotry, stfu.
I'd be happy to concede that marriage was originally a religious sacrament, but no such religious connotation is implied in modern, civil, male-female marriage and none would be implied in same-sex marriages. If marriage still had a necessary religious component in our country then judges and justices of the peace wouldn't perform it in courthouses and atheists wouldn't be able to get married. Marriage as it applies to our government is a purely civil union, but not all civil unions afford the same rights as marriage.
If you think it would be more palatable to the American public to replace all marriages with civil unions and allow same-sex couples to enter into those same types of civil unions, i'd be all for it. In this case, i think it's easier and more practical to say that same-sex couples can be legally married than it is to say that all marriages are now merely civil unions in the eyes of the law.
P.S.
The version of the bible i checked (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html), Lev 25:13 says, "In the year of this jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession." Not quite sure how that applies.
Perhaps you were looking for:
Lev 18:22 is "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Or maybe: Lev 13:9-12 "These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
Had any good shrimp or lobster lately? Hope not. That's an abomination too!
Don't forget about Lev 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Denying them the right to marry is not enough. If you accept the biblical authority, you have to kill gay men.
And people who curse their mom or dad. (Lev 20:9)
And adulterers. (Lev 20:10)
And people who sleep with their mothers/sons or stepmothers/stepsons. (Lev 20:11)
And people who sleep with their fathers-in-law/daughters-in-law. (Lev 20:12)
And men who do both a woman and her mom, as well as the mother/daughter. They get a special fiery death prescribed! (Lev 20:14)
Also note that no out is given for rape, so even if a man rapes a mother/daughter pair, too bad - all three must die.
Lev 20:15-16 says that if men or women sleep with animals you have to kill them and the animals! Interesting to note that this is singled out for women as well as men - most of the others aren't. Does that mean that lesbians are ok? I guess father-daughter incest is covered by the mother/daughter prohibition, but it apparently ok to sleep with your stepdaughters. Unless that's covered by adultery, but given the rest of the special shout-outs, i doubt it.
And don't forget wizards and men and women with "familiar spirits" - burn them! No wait - don't burn them! They have to be stoned to death! (Lev 20:27)
"Christians" (What did Jesus say about this particular topic anyway?) love to pick and choose when it comes to Leviticus, but that's irrelevant because this nation does not recognize biblical authority.
We've got our own laws and some of the most important ones say you can't force your religion on anyone else or deny equal rights to all.
You can't even make a decent citation, much less an entire argument. I think that officially makes you the bitch.
Hey dipshit - do the math.
Current US Population: (roughly) 300 million
15 million is about 5% of the current US population.
And, oh yeah, work on your critical reading skills. He was discussing the number of people raised in queer families, not the number of homosexuals.
The only reason anyone is happy to be in the closet is that they fear the repercussions of being openly gay.
so, since we will have gay characters in-game, can I have a sexy donkey in my game?
Way to throw that red herring in there. Consensual relationships between consenting adults of the same species are in a very different category than bestiality. If you can't see that then you are blind.
why is homosexuality being 'rammed' down everyones throat over the past few years?
Why did those uppity black people ram their race down everyone's throats in the 60's?
Why are some members of our secular (separation of church and state?) society being denied their rights based on moral definitions that are purely religious?
Not giving a rat's ass is easy when you are not among the oppressed.
People who don't use computers for anything more than Word and AOL generally don't give a rat's ass about the DMCA, RIAA, MPAA, and SCO, but that doesn't make them right.
It isn't just gamers, it is young men that are involved in healthy competition.
Using some of the most repugnant slurs is considered an acceptable part of "healthy" competition? Just because it's common doesn't make it right. How about instead of calling him a fag, nigger, whatever, you just beat him at whatever you're doing? That gets the point across best of all.
(If you absolutely feel the need to humiliate your opponent, you can then say, in your sweetest voice, "You tried so hard there! Keep up the good work!")
Regardless of the original meaning, in common parlance, gay means homosexual, and a faggot is a gay man.
To associate those words with negative qualities is inherently homophobic. Just becasue it has been applied to things that have no defined sexuality does not mean that it's suddenly a neutral term.
Bigotry and hate are learned in lots of ways. If kids learn that gay means bad that prejudices them against anyone who is described as gay whether or not they have a "moral" reason behind it.
I only wish we could wipe out bigotry so easily.
Wow! I am utterly cowed by your timely and witty rebuke! I can't believe it only took you 4 days to come up with that! You are da man!
Radio Tower - my favorite. Best mix of long-range and close-up, inside and outside. Biased towards defense, but not grossly so. I'd love to see an SF version, possibly a night-time one.
AA really is a hell of a game. Free to download and play, emphasis on teamwork.
I'm sure New Zealand is very frugal, but do most of its workers live on $35 to $100 a month like those in India? It costs less to buy some stuff in Iowa than it does in New York City, but that doesn't mean Iowa has a lot in common with India.
Apples and Oranges.
Normally, i detest whiners who complain about moderation, but this is a truly exceptional case.
How is it that a post that starts off with a "cleverly" disguised racial epithet (Translation for the clue impaired: "Fuh Q Raghead" = Fuck you raghead.) has anything other than flamebait mods?
The rest of the argument is entirely redundant when taken in context with the rest of the posts on this article, so what's the excuse?
Note to the cretin who wrote the original post: "raghead" is most often applied to Arabs, not Indians. If you're going to be a bigotted asshole you should at least do it right!
Man, you do not understand this. People in India earn less AND PAY LESS. They are not abused, well, not programmers anyway.
Why do they pay less? Because the goods and services that those well-paid programmers consume are made by a poverty-stricken people who are abused.
There's no denying that this is good for India, but let's keep looking at the bigger picture.
If it comes down to starving in my beloved homeland and feeding my family in India, i'll be in India.
That welfare reform that looked so good when everyone had jobs isn't so keen now that more people are needing it.
I agree with you, but i'll offer another reason as well.
A lot of foreign workers come here and take a job for less money than their American counterparts would, live much more frugally than their American counterparts would, and send a large portion of their income back to their relatives.
They are living a decent life (although perhaps not a luxurious one) and they're allowing their extended family to do the same.
To put it in more concrete terms, a single person making $30k can live on $15k, send $10k home, and pay their taxes with the remainder. That $10k is worth a lot more in places like India. Remember from the interview that "Many Indian workers live on between $35 and $100 per month."
The other shows two people in a crowd at the same protest two years before her trip. Saying the two are in the same boat because of that is like saying Lenin and Stalin were cut from the same cloth.
I wouldn't expect to see Bush come out clean either, given the doubts about his own military record, the allegations of drug abuse, the accusations of insider trading, the fact that he has completely abandoned the conservative principles of states' rights and small federal government, his erosion of church/state separation, usurpation of congressional power, charges of obstructionism in the 9/11 probe, misuse of intelligence, misuse and censorship of science, and the leaking of a CIA agent's identity. But remember, he's a uniter, not a divider.
No one is getting out of race without a being covered head-to-toe in brown goo. Still, it would be nice to have a candidate who at least appeared to have a soul and had a snowball's chance of winning. Politics suck, but they're better than tyranny.
He's proud of his anti-war activism, but "Hanoi Jane's" actions are in a whole different category. Lots of people who respect and agree with his anti-war position still label her a traitor.
This is more along the lines of those who link the Bush family to Hitler.
Jane Fonda is an actress who was a vocal critic of the Vietnam War. In 1972 she visited the capitol of North Vietnam. Many people branded her a traitor for visiting with the enemy of the United States while the US was still at war with them. They gave her the nickname 'Hanoi Jane' because of her actions. Some people still harbor great animosity for her for this.
Note: Her visit occurred in 1972. The real picture of her and Kerry at the same rally was taken in 1970.
1) That's interesting info and very relevant...
2) But i wouldn't put much faith in anything FreeRepublic.com put out about John Edwards. (Incidentally, why did you work so hard to hide the site name by using its IP address instead of its name and by not actually providing a link? They are proud of their bias, why aren't you?) They got the story from CNSNews.com They claim CNS stands for Cybercast News Service (Cybercast News Service News.com? Brilliant.) but a quick scan of their supporters (Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, the FRC...) points more towards Conservative News Service as the real acronym.
At any rate, a quick search would've turned up a much more in-depth and balanced article on the subject in the New York Times. They don't clear Edwards of wrongdoing, but they also can't be accused of glossing over the story just to trash Edwards.
Trying to obscure your source and using a blatantly biased source when a less biased one is available weakens your argument, which at its heart is valid.
I personally find his statement that he "took the initiative in creating the internet" to be a grandiose attempt to take political advantage of the internet's popularity... He certainly was a supporter of the idea, but wrote none of the code, developed none of the protocols... he's trying to take credit for the hard work of a lot of scientists and engineers... I personally think that's obnoxious.
Then it's equally obnoxious for Bush to take credit for the liberation of Iraq, after all, he didn't coordinate the troop movements, go on any patrols, or capture Saddam himself, right? He's just trying to claim credit for the hard work (literal blood, sweat, and tears) of a lot of soldiers.