A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
When you post things like this, I would prefer you not do so with the prayer shawl and yarmulke avatar. I find the juxtaposition very offensive.

sincere hank.

you I respect. i think you are one of the few Dems who posts here and are intellectually honest- i disagree with you, but do respect that you opinions are honest. because of that I would change my avatar based solely on your request- BUT I can only do that at work. so I'll try to limit my posts to more white bread stuff until monday.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Can you imagine a newspaper in the United States publishing something classified during WW2?

There certainly has been a fundamental change in the mindset of the press and much of the body politic in that regard since WWII. I'd trace it back to Watergate as well as, but even more than, the Vietnam War.

When the country found out that the Administration had sanctioned, and that the President was actively attempting to cover up criminal, political activity (i.e. for personal gain), the trust in and respect for the office were largely gone -- and, even after some recovery, the relationship between our government and the public had fundamentally changed.

So now, the default reaction is to publish everything. I think that reaction is unfortunate, because I agree both that there are limits to the public's "right to know" -- which doesn't extend to every detail of our internal policy deliberations -- and that the media should exercise restraint in the interests of national security.

However, Hank -- we both know that documents are drastically overclassified, and that it is completely nonsensical to expect any media person in the modern era just to "take their word for it (i.e. the government) -- which leaves us with a subjective standard for publication, based in part upon the reporters' and editors' moral compass.

There have been some things published in the past few years that I wish hadn't been, and that I think hurt our security without any corresponding benefit. But I'm sure I'd draw that line differently than you. On this thing, I don't see any reason to publish it.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Can you imagine the political mindset of a person in that time who was pleased to read it the way you were now?

To the extent Ty was pleased to read it, I think he was pleased that he could hit Spanky on the head with it, and perhaps at the humiliation of a bunch of arrogant fuckups who are also his political adversaries, not at their underlying policy failures and the likely effects on this country.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
It's Rummy after the election, devastated and the poster boy for the defeat. Of course he is pessimistic. What makes me pessimistic is that the left wants us to lose.

I think much of the left wants the GOP to lose, but that very little of the left wants America to lose in Iraq. On that, I'll just say that as ye sow, so shall ye reap. The GOP had plenty of fun in 1996-2000 tormenting Clinton -- you can't expect that to have no after effects.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you hope to raise your children Shia or Sunni? I have a daughter. I hope you understand why I'm not on your side.

As for my daughters, I'm going Episcopalian. The extent of your personal animosity is somewhat disturbing, though.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty when this board meant something, when it wasn't simply Spanky saying shit he knows is outrageous, i actually was a major contributor. Now you have this board where you have "discussions" with Spanky, but no other R bothers. You talk about the "mess" of Iraq- well Iraq was fucked up before. This board was pretty cool before you fucked it up.
At least Rummy thought about criticism. Do you not see that this board is a wasteland?

I'm not sure why you constantly blame Ty for what you dislike about the Board. He is just one person. If you don't like his views or the way he argues -- just don't respond to him. Don't read his posts. Talk with other people, etc. etc.

I haven't spoken to anyone who has stopped posting here, so I don't know their motivations, but I find it hard to believe anyone would leave a board based on one poster.

It seems more likely to me that Slave, Club and others have limited their posting because they are dislillusioned with politics in general and/or just don't want to talk aabout much after the performance of their chosen party the past few years and the serious ass-whipping it just took. After all, they were all more active before the election.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I think Spank is just fucking with you, but whatever, you all believe he is divorced from reality- YET he is all that is left here. You have ran off everyone else. Slave links to lgf articles twice a week, but otherwise you've killed this place.

So, you agree that Spanky's style is so divorced from reality that you don't think he is serious? Good, I like that. Let's see what he says.

You haven't done much to help this place.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
because this place doesn't matter. I can shit here, and no one who I care about smells it.

Honest question.

Why are you trying so hard to make this place unpleasant?

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

So, you agree that Spanky's style is so divorced from reality that you don't think he is serious? Good, I like that. Let's see what he says.

Spank is often just arguing for the sake of it and going way out on a ledge. If you respected him at all you would see that. My point was 1) several of the Dems here posted that he is basically a dull wit who can't think logically (onthe FB to try to gain favor with someone arguing with Spank), and 2) he is really the only one left from the right. doesn't 1 + 2= something is wrong, and it's proven by your sense of the place.

You haven't done much to help this place.

S_A_M

ever make an omelet? what is the first thing you have to do? break stuff.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


ever make an omelet? what is the first thing you have to do? break stuff.

Perhaps, but your're the first I've seen that gleefully shits in the omelette and then complains to other patrons that attendance is down in the restaurant.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Perhaps, but your're the first I've seen that gleefully shits in the omelette and then complains to other patrons that attendance is down in the restaurant.

that was like, four posts ago. you didn't have to link to it. so it's MY fault that all the Reps quit? wow!

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
that was like, four posts ago. you didn't have to link to it.

It's a glimpse of self-awareness that deserves being saved for posterity, Hank. Be proud.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ummm, what did the polls say the day before?

and the NYT gleefully publishes a "confidential memo" and I ask WTF? and I'm the one changing the subject?

Ty when this board meant something, when it wasn't simply Spanky saying shit he knows is outrageous, i actually was a major contributor. Now you have this board where you have "discussions" with Spanky, but no other R bothers. You talk about the "mess" of Iraq- well Iraq was fucked up before. This board was pretty cool before you fucked it up.
At least Rummy thought about criticism. Do you not see that this board is a wasteland?

Last week, on FB you all blasted Spanky as being delusional in his arguing style. I think Spank is just fucking with you, but whatever, you all believe he is divorced from reality- YET he is all that is left here. You have ran off everyone else. Slave links to lgf articles twice a week, but otherwise you've killed this place.

Hank -

You're overreacting. I think Ty's generally an amiable sort who believes what he writes. He's relentless. So what? Do you suggest that his refusal to bend at all to your more centrist positions, and his consistent citation of left-leaning blog drivel has somehow infuriated Republicans to the point that they won't engage in discourse with him? I don't think that's the case. What I think is going on is that Libertarian types like Slave and I realize that there's not much point in arguing.

Do people on this board really think they'll cause another fucking lawyer to change his mind, or consider the other side's position? Come on. Lawyers don't do that. You can scream till you're blue in the face. The more reasoned and irrefutable the argument you offer, the more the other side just digs in. Say what you want about Spanky, he's actually one of the more open minded posters here. He'll admit the flaws in his party's plank.

I don't have a party to support anymore. I find myself arguing against both parties. I find myself more against the "Political Class" than any single party, so I find debates between GOP and Dem partisans kind of silly. I want something neither is willing to give - real true freedom from govt interference. That's never going to happen, so why should I argue?

All I can do right now is pray Rudy gets elected.

My simple take on all of it is that if you can safely say you believe in Liberalism, you're a fucking horse's ass. And you know it. The same goes for a person who believes the GOP can do no wrong.

Fuck anyone who takes a side and won't consider the other side's view. Those people are ruining this country.

SD

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by nononono
Why, exactly?

Enough people are killed in the name of God every day already, as has been the case throughout history, that I find Hank's use of the trappings of religion in conjunction with his particular brand of cynicism almost an endorsement of religious warfare and hate.

I would be just as offended if he did the same thing in his Jesus mode.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
sincere hank.

you I respect. i think you are one of the few Dems who posts here and are intellectually honest- i disagree with you, but do respect that you opinions are honest. because of that I would change my avatar based solely on your request- BUT I can only do that at work. so I'll try to limit my posts to more white bread stuff until monday.

Thank you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Hank -

You're overreacting. I think Ty's generally an amiable sort who believes what he writes. He's relentless. So what? Do you suggest that his refusal to bend at all to your more centrist positions, and his consistent citation of left-leaning blog drivel has somehow infuriated Republicans to the point that they won't engage in discourse with him? I don't think that's the case. What I think is going on is that Libertarian types like Slave and I realize that there's not much point in arguing.

Do people on this board really think they'll cause another fucking lawyer to change his mind, or consider the other side's position? Come on. Lawyers don't do that. You can scream till you're blue in the face. The more reasoned and irrefutable the argument you offer, the more the other side just digs in. Say what you want about Spanky, he's actually one of the more open minded posters here. He'll admit the flaws in his party's plank.

I don't have a party to support anymore. I find myself arguing against both parties. I find myself more against the "Political Class" than any single party, so I find debates between GOP and Dem partisans kind of silly. I want something neither is willing to give - real true freedom from govt interference. That's never going to happen, so why should I argue?

All I can do right now is pray Rudy gets elected.

My simple take on all of it is that if you can safely say you believe in Liberalism, you're a fucking horse's ass. And you know it. The same goes for a person who believes the GOP can do no wrong.

Fuck anyone who takes a side and won't consider the other side's view. Those people are ruining this country.

SD

Question: Should someone tell ppnyc that it turns day and night in Africa also?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Honest question.

Why are you trying so hard to make this place unpleasant?

S_A_M

He's not. He's reacting the same way the Left leaners here do.

I'll agree with a Democrat or a Liberal when he's right. I'll split my vote. I think people who accept 75% of any "movement" (Liberalism, being a Democrat or Republican, Social Conservativism, Religion, etc...) are idiots.

The Liberals on this board won't admit one fucking tiny element of any of Bush's policies are good. They buy into Berkeley-think nearly 100%. That's disingenuous, imbecilic and frustrating. I think a lot of the Left Leaners need to stop identifying with what they think are the necessary badges of their chosen ideology and start fucking thinking for themselves. No ational person can argue in this day and age that we should engage protectionism or grwo our govt's social safety nets. That's absurd and reckless and naive. Likewise, we cannot spend wildly on the GOP's wars of pre-emption, or drug entitlements.

My ex-party is a fucking mess. I'll admit it. So are the fucking Dems, and Liberalism is a bankrupt fucking concept only a goddamned child would argue for. There's a reason people age into political pragmatists, and laugh at their Liberal youths.

Liberals are free to post about whatever infantile social salves they like, and Hank's free to piss on them for it.

I'd rather just sit back and laugh at Liberals, but I'm not Hank.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Enough people are killed in the name of God every day already, as has been the case throughout history, that I find Hank's use of the trappings of religion in conjunction with his particular brand of cynicism almost an endorsement of religious warfare and hate.

I would be just as offended if he did the same thing in his Jesus mode.

Islam is the "Godfather III," "Jaws, The Revenge" or "Return of the Jedi" of religions. The Jews put together a very sensible social code and made up a myth about its divine origins to enforce it. Christians then took it and added a spin to it, gave it a new face and put out a fairly solid "Empire Strikes Back" or "Godfather Part II."

Unfortunately, for us, of the three, Islam somehow got the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" cult following.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Spank is often just arguing for the sake of it and going way out on a ledge. If you respected him at all you would see that.

I do get that sometimes he argues just for the sake of argument. I haven't recognized too often that he was saying things he doesn't believe. I don't NOT respect him.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My point was 1) several of the Dems here posted that he is basically a dull wit who can't think logically (onthe FB to try to gain favor with someone arguing with Spank), and 2) he is really the only one left from the right. doesn't 1 + 2= something is wrong, and it's proven by your sense of the place.

That is a problem, but is it the place or the people?

S_A_M