|
|
Post by RocDoc on Jul 11, 2004 20:30:35 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, rocdoc, is there anything the Bush Administratin could do that you would consider a real mistake?Um what's this, Mary? Trafficking in large loads of broooooaad shit just like shin, for a change? Slumming for entertainment? Or is this just alla ya's circling the fucking wagons for him? Holy fuck NOW I've got to defend myself in print, repeating points I've made MANY times already regarding the dismay I feel at the position which poor planning and circumstances have placed us in Iraq? Holy FUCK, I HAVE been critical numerous times.....did you even read the start of the post I think you were responding to? Did it register that I was taking issue with thorn saying that "All ya conservatives are like 'My god how bloody WELL Iraq is going for the coalition'" My point there was to say how big a MORON someone would have to be to think that. Missed it? Uh, geeWHIZ, maaaaybe GWB's had a gaffe or 2...and I HAVE said it. So WTF are you talking about? I mean geez, I'm not a hugely memorable personage like fucking Voltaire or that depressed egotist fuck, Nietsche that I'd expect you to remember details of posts I'd made a coupla days or weeks ago....but look, you ARE full of shit here. *the crowd gasps*This must be about just precisely what I wrote, oh, 10-12 posts ago where I'd mentioned thorn's frustration at actual content of a post not being what's important, but some sort of a perceived 'persona' that the rest of you think is a fucking UNvariable constant...like this asshole 'Proud' thinking he's got a leg to stand on about what a supposed jerk Chrisfan always is. Look, she stands him on his ear! Always and forever. The little dog should just run away with his tail betw his fucking legs....instead it's 'Attaboy shin!' as tho the dipshit's made some slam-bam unassailable POINT. Rah-fucking-rah. Chrisfan's logic is a thing I admire here, defending her points extremely well...easily the conservative version of la Blaney, tho without your authoritarian squinty-eyed academic's rhetorical grabbag....'and another thing'....oooh. ...that being said'...oooh. And another thing... all these claims that 9/11 has introduced us to an entirely new, utterly unprecedented kind of threat which has drastically changed the entire world and requires that we scrap many old ways of dealing with international relations and give our leaders a wide leeway to experiment with new, more aggressive and hostile strategies—how quickly we forget. This country lived under the shadow of nuclear obliteration for decades following WWII. We lived through the endless games of brinksmanship which many believed had us teetering on the brink of unimaginable catastrophe. This is hardly the first time in American history that we've faced and struggled with the possibility of an attack that would demolish much of our infrastructure and tragically destroy the lives of tens of thousands of citizens.....yehyehyeh, 'and another thing' to you, (fuck!)I was alive during the Bay Of Pigs and as scary as that became, this is nowhere near comparble to some sort of a theoretical capability of Kruschev having deliverable nuclear warheads versus an entire VERY apparent entire SOCIETY of crazy(and organized)religious fanatics who have ALREADY done up the WTC's...oh! And not once, TWICE!....the SS Cole, Bali, Madrid....in our fucking faces! We've had that destruction DEMONSTRATED. Infrastructure WAS destroyed as well as thousands of citizens...this was NOT sabre-rattling you see. During the Cuban missile crisis there was NOTHING of that sort. Post 9 / 11 isn't exactly jst a 'shadow' of imminent destruction...we saw it. The security measures nearly everywhere are a bit of a change, no? And then there's glancing over your shoulder at how any skyscraper you pass could be imploded by some crazy fuck with the vaguest plan.... ~ ...um, regarding ESL, shin...WTF does my status with the language here have to do with anything? Couldn't really see my sarcasm regarding your willful incomprehension of my words there? That's it? Ah. ...born at 18th and California here, ethnic parents who didn't THEMSELVES speak much english so I learned when I began grade school...izzat OK with you? Chicago, U.S.A....see? Didn't know that 5-6 year olds can learn and speak any language easily and with better facilty than you'll muster on your best day, genius? Oh, but I'm the exception, eh? Plz continue to pat yourself on the back this way to bolster your esteem. 
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jul 11, 2004 21:16:09 GMT -5
Oh I got the sarcasm, don't worry about that. I just think it was amusingly ironic, which is something you are wont to do. Kinda like this:
The little dog should just run away with his tail betw his fucking legs....instead it's 'Attaboy shin!' as tho the dipshit's made some slam-bam unassailable POINT. Rah-fucking-rah.
Chrisfan's logic is a thing I admire here, defending her points extremely well...easily the conservative version of la Blaney, tho without your authoritarian squinty-eyed academic's rhetorical grabbag....'and another thing'....oooh.
Rah-fucking-rah. Slam-bam, thank you ma'am. Indeed. Didn't even need a "[...]", either.
And again, I comprehended your apologies words...just...fine. Sorry you don't appreciate having to see your words for what they are to others, instead of how you'd insist they be perceived. Sometimes you have to look at what you say through other peoples' eyes before you can truly appreciate where you stand. Unless you've crowned yourself to be unassailable, the pinnacle of wisdom and defender of all things True, well, sorry Sir, you too must go through the painful but necessary ego-bruise of criticism and debate.
Unless you consider calling people "dogs" an acceptable pass from judgment.
(Apologies for not being a good widdle boy and shutting up like you'd hope. Remember: Do not stare into the eyes, for fear of turning to stone!! He's turning everyone against me! Aaaah!)
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jul 11, 2004 21:28:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Jul 11, 2004 22:11:18 GMT -5
Ah, it's just like the good old days... * sigh *
|
|
|
|
Post by kats on Jul 11, 2004 23:14:42 GMT -5
Did it register that I was taking issue with thorn saying that "All ya conservatives are like 'My god how bloody WELL Iraq is going for the coalition'"
Just like some liberals took offense and issue to you and clicker proclaiming that all liberals were saddam and taliban and terrorist sympathisers, etc? Give me a baseball bat and I'd whack the fucker into Saddam's groin...but because I was anti war, I was flying the Saddam flag? See what I mean?
I'm not trying to start an argument, rocdoc, because I don't hold anything against you and have NO ill feelings...but there is a two sided coin here. You can get pissed off about the generalisation made about conservative people and rightfully so, because its WRONG...but you surely can't turn around and apply the same thing to liberals and expect nothing but your own reaction to the generalisations made against conservatives. This is all said respectfully, btw. I'm not having a wank off or airing dirty air or some such.
And come on, people. It's not that hard to avoid Michael Moore books/movies. He's just a media personality. He's not a politician. He doesn't need to be elected. He can't wield legal jurisdiction. He can sway public opinion, yeah, but if he does the onus is partially upon the people involved as they CHOSE to think that way. He's just presenting an argument that you and everyone else has the right to (dis)agree with but you don't need to read/watch it. Easy done. I do it with a local journo here who writes daily...more sensationalist than Moore actually...she's only existed one day of the year for me...when she came to uni for a debate on feminism's relevance and I got angry and shot her a filthy look. Then I never read anything she wrote since. Whilst what he is presenting he is presenting as 'fact', people still have the ability to prove him otherwise, and they don't have to sap it up...as many people here haven't. But the guy has done what he intended to do...he makes a good documentary technically...and he's brought a lot of renewed focus to the genre.
Now everyone hold hands and hug. This is quite possibly the most diplomatic I will ever be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 12, 2004 0:26:31 GMT -5
Actually rocdoc, I understood 100% that you recognized that things were messy and chaotic in Iraq, and that you recognized that the war on terror has not proceeded as smoothly as we might have wished in our most optimistic moments.
But it seemed that you were unwilling to blame the administration itself for any of this messiness. I thought you were saying that the state of the world today is such an unprecedented, complicated, scary, dangerous mess that it would be impossible for any president not to make occasional moves with completely unforeseen, negative consequences. So I wanted to know if you thought the situation was sooooo messy and murky that in fact we can't hold the administration directly accountable for anything that has gone awry post-9/11. Or would you actually grant that some of what's gone wrong now isn't just a result of the "world situation" but directly a result of incompetence, hubris, or good old-fashioned fuck-ups on the part of this administration? You seem to scoff at the idea that shin could think anyone could have done a better job than Bush, which I thought indicated that you were pretty much unwilling to blame Bush's administration itself for any of the problems we're encountering in the world today.
But I definitely didn't think you were denying the existence of those problems. It was more a question of accountability. Not "do X and Y and Z really suck?" but "is it Bush's fault that X and Y and Z suck?"
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my post about what I was asking, perhaps the tone was too sarcastic. But I sincerely can't find anything in my post that rose to anywhere near the level of personal animosity that you've expressed in your post. I didn't swear at you, I didn't mock your diction or choice of words and phrasing, I didn't slam your intellectual pursuits, I didn't suggest that only a moron would have read shin's posts the way you did, I didn't call you full of shit or authoritarian. If I misinterpreted you, it would have been sufficient simply to point that out.
M
|
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Jul 12, 2004 0:38:32 GMT -5
Just like the good old days, indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jul 12, 2004 4:22:14 GMT -5
How old would you have been during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Rocdoc?
|
|
|
|
Post by MELON on Jul 12, 2004 5:25:54 GMT -5
Good to see my good ole right wing buds rocdoc and Click here again. RIP Ronald Reagan.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 12, 2004 5:28:40 GMT -5
Criticising Mary for sounding academic is like criticising a cleaner for mopping the kitchen floor.
|
|
|
|
Post by MELON on Jul 12, 2004 5:32:58 GMT -5
Women don't know a thing about politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 12, 2004 5:40:47 GMT -5
Having seen Margaret Thatcher in action and read a few Ann Coulter articles, I guess you may have a point.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 12, 2004 7:00:07 GMT -5
The expansion under Reagan was third. I don’t think the facts really bear this out, however, if we were to paint the Kennedy/Johnson and Clinton adminstrations as "tax and spend" vs. the Reagan administration as a tax-cutters, so much for the argument that you can’t tax your way to prosperity.  But given that the Kennedy/Johnson years included tax cuts in 1964, you've got 2 in the "tax cut" column, 1 in the "raise taxes" column ... and a puzzle as to why the Kennedy/Johnson years go down as tax and spend equivilent to Clinton when they, like the Reagan years, included cuts. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 12, 2004 7:01:25 GMT -5
Criticising Mary for sounding academic is like criticising a cleaner for mopping the kitchen floor. Was it a criticism, or a mere statement? Mary sounds academic. I don't. Seems more like a well-stated well-backed up opinion to me than it does an insult on either side. |
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 12, 2004 7:30:40 GMT -5
Was it a criticism, or a mere statement? Mary sounds academic. I don't. Seems more like a well-stated well-backed up opinion to me than it does an insult on either side. Dunno which post you were reading, Blind Lemon Chris. |
|
