Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
From a brief review, I realize that I was misattributing bilmore's perspective on torture to you. I apologize for that.

bilmore's take was that "shit happens" in war, and that anyone's evocation of concern about torture that happens during that war is a whiny piece of shit, a Democrat simply out to get Our Leader, and someone focusing far too much on a couple of guys in Abu G. Fresh evidence suggesting that few of bilmore's precepts may actually be true inspired this post.

Club, for his part, took a slightly different tact in arguing that in certain circumstances, torture was no problem.

Your response, beyond general scorn for those concerned about the issue, seemed to revolve around a couple of points: (1) that yes, let's punish those responsible, but you had severe doubts about anyone over the rank of Sgt. really being found responsible, and (2) torture by American military personnel, while in itself wrong, can OTOH be just fine if the blood is smeared on the walls of Kabul instead of Peoria.

Gattigap

I believe my position was we should attend to investigating and punishing as appropriate. I think that is what happened.

The thing I didn't understand from you then was what you thought different should happen. You seemed to imply that the incident should point to something more dramatic- leave Iraq? torture some of us to make up? Fire Bush?

Oh, wait , now I remember. You didn't have any point beyond complaining. Business as usual.

Were you on the Kerry campaign?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I believe my position was we should attend to investigating and punishing as appropriate. I think that is what happened.

The thing I didn't understand from you then was what you thought different should happen. You seemed to imply that the incident should point to something more dramatic- leave Iraq? torture some of us to make up? Fire Bush?

Oh, wait , now I remember. You didn't have any point beyond complaining. Business as usual.

I believe that our points were/are more that:

(a) this shit should not be happening.

(b) the frequency with which it happens suggests that it is either overtly or tacitly approved by those higher up than the enlisted folks who are the usual fall guys.

[There were some fingers pointed at the highest levels, where we do actually have official memos and policies authorizing torture under special circumstances.]

(c) That frequency also suggests a bunch of poorly run detention facilities unless we want this to happen; so . . .

(d) Cut this shit out, and train people properly to treat prisoners properly (and IAW military regulations).

"Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue."

S_A_M

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I believe my position was we should attend to investigating and punishing as appropriate. I think that is what happened.

The thing I didn't understand from you then was what you thought different should happen. You seemed to imply that the incident should point to something more dramatic- leave Iraq? torture some of us to make up? Fire Bush?

Oh, wait , now I remember. You didn't have any point beyond complaining. Business as usual.

Were you on the Kerry campaign?

Let this be an example to the board. I've gone to the trouble of going back and looking, and giving credit where credit was due.

I will charatibly characterize Hank's response here as reciprocation, though perhaps I am expecting too much of his vocabulary and social graces.

Hank, my argument was that the Federal Government was being less than cooperative in releasing documents relative to investigations on the torture allegations. Encouraging the Administration to comply with the law instead of resisting the airing of uncomfortable information seems to be a reasonable request.

In your usual rhetorical style, you demonstrated your mastery of argument in responding by shitting on it so badly that not even Atticus could pause to admire its smell.

Insisting that you've taken the high road, and that others have no point "beyond complaining" is easy if you choose not to concern yourself with whether the investigations are being unduly restricted. I suppose you're also a fan of Bush investigating himself for Katrina, too.

[baltassoc]

While walking up to ACL this weekend, I came across an SUV with a "Keep Austin Weird" sticker, a No tolls on Texas freeways sticker and puzzlingly, a sticker that stated simply "Repeal The Federal Reserve Act."

So my question is, why would one want to repeal the Federal Reserve Act?

[Captain]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Let this be an example to the board. I've gone to the trouble of going back and looking, and giving credit where credit was due.

I will charatibly characterize Hank's response here as reciprocation, though perhaps I am expecting too much of his vocabulary and social graces.

Hank, my argument was that the Federal Government was being less than cooperative in releasing documents relative to investigations on the torture allegations. Encouraging the Administration to comply with the law instead of resisting the airing of uncomfortable information seems to be a reasonable request.

In your usual rhetorical style, you demonstrated your mastery of argument in responding by shitting on it so badly that not even Atticus could pause to admire its smell.

Insisting that you've taken the high road, and that others have no point "beyond complaining" is easy if you choose not to concern yourself with whether the investigations are being unduly restricted. I suppose you're also a fan of Bush investigating himself for Katrina, too.

I won't pretend to have fully caught on here, but I thought ignoring the Hank Chinaski and Penske Account socks was the only way to carry on an intelligent conversation. Do they ever post anything substantive?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Captain
I won't pretend to have fully caught on here, but I thought ignoring the Hank Chinaski and Penske Account socks was the only way to carry on an intelligent conversation. Do they ever post anything substantive?

This is one of those posts you know the poster wil never survive. And here I have been trying to reduce my number of fights, and then things like this start new death fights.

[Captain]

Originally posted by baltassoc
While walking up to ACL this weekend, I came across an SUV with a "Keep Austin Weird" sticker, a No tolls on Texas freeways sticker and puzzlingly, a sticker that stated simply "Repeal The Federal Reserve Act."

So my question is, why would one want to repeal the Federal Reserve Act?

It is a private corporation exercising governmental powers.

On the other hand, the proper powers of the Federal Reserve perhaps should be expanded to cover the printing of all paper currency, since the Constitution only gives the government the power to "coin" money, not to print paper.

But generally arguments like these only make sense as historical relics. I had no idea people made them today.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This is one of those posts you know the poster wil never survive. And here I have been trying to reduce my number of fights, and then things like this start new death fights.

I'm sorry. I thought this style was intentional. Do you have an interest in participating in substantive discussions?

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This is one of those posts you know the poster wil never survive. And here I have been trying to reduce my number of fights, and then things like this start new death fights.

You had lo-berry for a while. You have to take the bitter with the sweet.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by baltassoc
While walking up to ACL this weekend, I came across an SUV with a "Keep Austin Weird" sticker, a No tolls on Texas freeways sticker and puzzlingly, a sticker that stated simply "Repeal The Federal Reserve Act."

So my question is, why would one want to repeal the Federal Reserve Act?

In my younger days, when I was a Republican, I went as a delegate to the State Convention. The Platform Steering Committee included a plank calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. There was much debate on this, and it was only pulled after someone pointed out that without the FR, money supply would be determined by the then-Democrat-controlled Congress. Now that the Rs have Congress, they'll put it back in?

[SlaveNoMore]

baltassoc
So my question is, why would one want to repeal the Federal Reserve Act?

Those distant relatives of Aaron Burr still have it in for Alex Hamilton.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by baltassoc
While walking up to ACL this weekend, I came across an SUV with a "Keep Austin Weird" sticker, a No tolls on Texas freeways sticker and puzzlingly, a sticker that stated simply "Repeal The Federal Reserve Act."

So my question is, why would one want to repeal the Federal Reserve Act?

I would take it to be an effort to trump the bumper stickers that are still in vogue that say "Don't Blame me [for Watergate]: I'm from Massachusetts"

[Captain]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I would take it to be an effort to trump the bumper stickers that are still in vogue that say "Don't Blame me [for Watergate]: I'm from Massachusetts"

It also could be related to that "Keep Austin Weird" sticker.

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
In my younger days, when I was a Republican...

This obvious lie has all the hallmarks of - yet another - episode of the Slave Shoe Diaries.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This obvious lie has all the hallmarks of - yet another - episode of the Slave Shoe Diaries.

Improbable. I read that post several times, and unless Shifter's mastery of euphemism has vastly improved, it contained not one reference to anal sex.