Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Ew.

We follow a "don't ask, don't tell" rule.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Bob
We follow a "don't ask, don't tell" rule.

But you are interacting with her in a political forum. It seems kind of unavoidable, unless she's agreed to lie or not talk at all. It's like going to a workshop on sexuality with someone gay, and trying to remain oblivious to the fact that they are gay.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
One can mention Hitler, one cannot alude that someone one is arguing with is Hitler-like. Also, there is an exception for Board management.

Example- say hypothetically several images are deleted I could say:

This jack booted night of the long knives when all my images were deleted.

I would not lose in that I can ascribe Nazi qualities to those in Power. Of course I would never do so, but I want you to understand the rule if you are going to post about it.

I'm sorry, you are incorrect.

Godwin's Law covers exactly this situation. It is not the poster who must be analogized to Hitler, but rather the subject.

ETA: Why didn't this hyperlink work?Here's just the link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

ETA2: Oh, I see, the software doesn't like the apostrophe. You'll have to cut and paste the entire link. Sorry.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
But you are interacting with her in a political forum. It seems kind of unavoidable, unless she's agreed to lie or not talk at all. It's like going to a workshop on sexuality with someone gay, and trying to remain oblivious to the fact that they are gay.

I am interacting with who (or "whom"? I used to know this stuff) on a political forum? Not nononono. (hmm. that sounds nice, no?)

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
But you are interacting with her in a political forum. It seems kind of unavoidable, unless she's agreed to lie or not talk at all. It's like going to a workshop on sexuality with someone gay, and trying to remain oblivious to the fact that they are gay.

Could we please keep this topic on the FB? Before I have to get Ty to invoke the nucular option.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I'm sorry, you are incorrect.

Godwin's Law covers exactly this situation. It is not the poster who must be analogized to Hitler, but rather the subject.

the more detailed definitions make quite clear that if the analogy to Hitler is 1 made as a legitimate comparison, and 2 not completely so strained as only made to shock* then the analog is acceptable.


*the example given is that "the economy is good." "so, Hitler was good at the economy."

My use- "ignoring the threat of the Jew hate is something done before to ill-result" is proper given the test.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I'm sorry, you are incorrect.

Godwin's Law covers exactly this situation. It is not the poster who must be analogized to Hitler, but rather the subject.

ETA: Why didn't this hyperlink work?Here's just the link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

ETA2: Oh, I see, the software doesn't like the apostrophe. You'll have to cut and paste the entire link. Sorry.

Godwin's Law is dated, irrelevant (and not to mention anti-intellectual, thus explaining its appeal to the left) and this board no longer has a responsibility to follow it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I am interacting with who (or "whom"? I used to know this stuff) on a political forum? Not nononono. (hmm. that sounds nice, no?)

You are both on a political forum?

OTOH, you don't have to live by my rules.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the more detailed definitions make quite clear that if the analogy to Hitler is 1 made as a legitimate comparison, and 2 not completely so strained as only made to shock* then the analog is acceptable.


*the example given is that "the economy is good." "so, Hitler was good at the economy."

My use- "ignoring the threat of the Jew hate is something done before to ill-result" is proper given the test.

Yes, but the application of the "ill-result" can only be based on rank speculation. Past events or socio-political behaviour have no probative value. While I am assume that there may be have been incidents of jew-hating/bias by political or nation-state actors resulting in ill-results for humanity, but those examples have no bearing or effect on today's political climate. How could they in a NRZ.

Plus Arafat is dead and all anti-jew bias died with him. did you not get the memo?

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske_Account
But for today's purposes, has anyone heard if Mrs. Clinton has made a statement on her candidacy today?

According to this, she's running:

http://michaelhodges.com/hillary.html

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
According to this, she's running:

http://michaelhodges.com/hillary.html

PotD!

So I can move to NY and safely know I will get a 6 year Senator?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Could we please keep this topic on the FB? Before I have to get Ty to invoke the nucular option.

Insurgents, unite!

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
So Wonk, I assume that your series of "dead" or "not in office" posts mean that once a political actor is dead or not in office the historical effect of their past actions or the events on the present are irrelevant once the actor is dead or out of office? So Arafat's beliefs and policies and philosophies died with him and as of his death the PLO, Hamas, FAtah et al became blank slates with regard to operational policy and mission. How did that work out, did they repeal the 1974 plan related to the destruction of Israel or does that automatically terminate on Arafat's death? Could I see a cite to the termination section? Also, did the leadership expressly repudiate Arafat's guiding statements of the mission or was it an automatic repudiation on death? If I pull past quotes from the current leadership expressing the same jew/Israel hating sentiments and destructive goals do I assume that those statements automatically lose effect on Arafat's death?

As for Clinton, I guess the lesson is there is no lesson to be learned from an examination of past history. Anything that happened under any former leader's watch is history, npi, upon the termination of that office. Nothing can be gained from looking at, discussing it and there is certainly no responsibility for it.

In fairness however, I don't understand why this "No-Responsibility Zone" should be applied solely upon your inferred defintion of a terminating event (i.e. death or lose of office). Why shouldn't start each day anew, free of responsibility from past action. Perhaps Bush made mistakes yesterday or last week or last year etc that resulted in problems yesterday in Iraq or the US, why he should be held accountable anymore than Clinton can no longer be held accountable for 8 years of foreign policy neglect and fiasco that were the direct causes for 911? Everyday should be a clean slate, Ground Hog Day style, iyw.

Good, the ground rules are now clear for our No-Responsibility Zone. (remember no comments about Reagan or Bush I or anyone in the Republican party for anything that they did or said prior to today. If the Senate applies this rule, the Roberts confirmation hearing will be a breeze).

Actually, I was just trying to get you to move the dialogue forward, instead of throwing out quotes and photoshops of Hillary like a chimp throwing feces.

If you want to discuss the current PLO leadership, then why not acknowledge that the current leadership has made anumber of arrests and also begun to take steps to deter the suicide bombings? They aren't completely successful, but an effort is being made.

As for Clinton, I hate to break it to you, but you guys won. Get over it.

With respect to Bush, I long ago agreed that it was largely irrelevant at this point whether or not there were ever any WMD. Take off your ideologue blinders, pay attention to what someone actually says, and respond to that, why don't you? The big issue in Iraq at this point, I would say the ONLY issue, is, since we're there, when is the Administration going to acknowledge (i) the fact that a larger, more expensive effort is needed and (ii) it's not going to be possible to cut taxes at the same time as this massive effort is being paid for.

Now, do you want to respond to my points, or are you going to fall back on cheap shots and inflammatory quotes from dead people again?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Exactly.

Of course, he *is* a Republican, so naturally he thinks that lassez faire only applies to others, and that he deserves a hand-out.

Oh, oh, oh, cheap shot. And not accurate (Hank owes me for this, since it may very well be true).

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
"jack booted" only describes fashion anymore in certain gay circles. the term is now used to desribe a quality or style of behavior.

As to Nixon, he should have had one of the younger staff attorneys on the Senate investigation team killed to provide a warning to them to back off. That's the way clinton would have played it, and that's nothing Hillary wouldn't have appreciated as the smart play and what she had coming.

Are you sticking to this Clinton-had-Vince-Foster-Killed thing because you actually believe it, or just to prove how persistent you can be?