Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Sometimes you're obtuse. It sounds like what you're saying here is you hope GGG is intentionally pretending not to get it, because otherwise he really is stupid.

My wife always thought I was acute.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Hank,

I know you like to show up here whenever the rights taking a beating and knock the discussion level down a few points, but can you at least put some of this stuff in Haiku so it's just a bit amusing?

what beating? You've proven the point that nuking a few Islamic cities wouldn't make sense, and is racist. Way to go. But no one was really proposed that as an answer. The point you keep avoiding is what should we do instead. That is the interesting question.

And by the way, I don't dumb the conversation down, when I engage dumb its because the conversation was dumb, or real boring. But let me give you and Wonk credit, you have certainly proven that nuking an Islamic city would make us just as bad. maybe for your next issue you try this: "Resolved: Hank Chinaski sometimes has spelling errors."

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
And you would identify these people how, Bilmore?

Did you not notice my "signifying funny hats" comment? Was the whole idea of that post simply too . . . . obtuse, as Hank puts it?

Let me clarify:

I would love to kill all the guilty. But, until we can read minds, we have no way to tell who is guilty. Therefore, we can't simply nuke them.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I know you like to show up here whenever the rights taking a beating . . . .

You're being the poster child for "never post a subtle thought" and you're talking beatings?

Geezuz.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
obtuse, as Hank puts it?

i meant the "not pointed" definition, not the "lacking in intelligence" one. Sorry. Better word choice next time.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My favorite part was:
The Republican president, long known for verbal and grammatical lapses,

imagine how unflattering Reuters would be if there wasn't that conservative bias in the media.

So pissy, Hank. And unnecessary. Remember, they're just following GWB's lead:

In the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand. You may have noticed I have a few flaws, too. People sometimes have to correct my English -- I knew I had a problem when Arnold Schwarzenegger started doing it.

Verbal lapses = likeability = man you want to have a beer with = crushing electoral victory over Democratic antiwar weenies.

You should be thanking them.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
You seemed to imply a fight between our fundies and their fundies.

I would pay to see that.

However, while our fundies have bake sales, their fundies massacre non-combatants.

I find that sort of relativism amusing.

(A) How can you think I am drawing that comparison?

(B) My post, which did imply what you said, could much more rationally be read (as intended) to point out the strong influence of certain Christian fundamentalists (including our President) on U.S. foreign policy and the war against terrorism, and to note that the fight to the death has begun.

(C) My post was not about tactics, but the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't armed with brownies.

(D) While our troops haven't engaged in activities like those on the long list you've posted for the Islamicists, it is worth noting that plenty of non-combatants (including at least hundreds of children) have died in the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

(E) But those are the breaks, after all, because those wars were fought in self-defense (except for Iraq).

S_A_M

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what beating? You've proven the point that nuking a few Islamic cities wouldn't make sense, and is racist. Way to go. But no one was really proposed that as an answer. The point you keep avoiding is what should we do instead. That is the interesting question.

Well, actually, Hank...Pony did. Then Bilmore jumped in and agreed with Pony, but said he'd prefer it if the firestorm only fried "the bad Arabs." But he didn't say he wouldn't drop them because a nuke isn't smart enough to figure out who the good Arabs and the bad Arabs are.

And he does keep parading these lists of bad Arabs out, hoping that eventually we'll stop asking how it is that he was born with magical powers that will allow him to figure out who the good Arabs and the bad Arabs are.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i meant the "not pointed" definition, not the "lacking in intelligence" one. Sorry. Better word choice next time.

No, I understood it that way. I need to be more direct. I've learned not to tell my kids "you should perhaps think about the consequences of throwing that rock in your hand, since you're standing next to huge windows, and . . . . oh, shit", and move directly to "put down the damn rock!" I need to start using those skills in other settings, too.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Verbal lapses = likeability = man you want to have a beer with = crushing electoral victory over Democratic antiwar weenies.

You should be thanking them.

Agreed. It does make him for likable. But the quote does double duty as it reminds everyone that the other crapo al-Reuters publishes is biased.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Did you not notice my "signifying funny hats" comment? Was the whole idea of that post simply too . . . . obtuse, as Hank puts it?

Let me clarify:

I would love to kill all the guilty. But, until we can read minds, we have no way to tell who is guilty. Therefore, we can't simply nuke them.

You went well beyond the guilty, and indicated you wanted to kill all the guilty and anyone associated with the guilty. Now you're flip flopping and saying, oh, jee, maybe I don't want to kill everyone who sits silently by, maybe I want to just kill those sitting silently by if they're having bad thoughts while they sit silently by. And, of course, saying you were being "subtle", oh, yuck, yuck.

And you think the fact that doing so is impractical makes your sentiment alright?

One of the many points you've been missing is that exactly this expressed sentiment, the fact that you want to kill all those damn Islamicists and will actually say so in (sortof) public, is part of what gives credibility to the ObL's of the world, who are out there telling people that Americans would just as soon kill anyone who rejects Western ways.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore

I would love to kill all the guilty. But, until we can read minds, we have no way to tell who is guilty. Therefore, we can't simply nuke them.

This is a loooong way from "I agree with Pony, but let's design nukes that only kill people with funny hats. It's also the first time you've actually said "we can't simply nuke them."

Up until now, you've been justifying including an awful lot of people in the funny hat crowd, because they don't think the same way you do. And that sounds a lot more like a rationalization for killing them all, even a few innocents get taken out too.

[baltassoc]

And to even out the one vs. many terrorist acts, off the top of my head:

- Bombing at 1996 Olympics (does no one remember poor Richard Jewel? We should not forget, as he is the example we must remember when jumping to conclusions about guilt)

- Multiple bombings of abortion clinics (according to the ATF, 169 bombings or arsons of abortion clinics since 1982)*)

- Bombing of lesbian nightclub

- Bosnia, 1992-Present (repeat as necessary)

- Northern Ireland, 1917-Present (repeat as necessary - latest action: last week somebody drove an earthmover through a Catholic pub in Belfast. While much of the terrorist activity done by both sides of the NI conflict is almost comical in its inefficiency, the mid to late 90s saw a remarkable rise in big bombs on big targets. The Canary Wharf bombing was huge, as was the bombing of Manchester's city center.)

* The ATF's website is looking kind of sad these days, as though it's not getting the kind of support under this administration as it once was. Most of the information about big ATF activities seems to come from 1995-2000. Campaign promise fulfilled.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Well, actually, Hank...Pony did. Then Bilmore jumped in and agreed with Pony, but said he'd prefer it if the firestorm only fried "the bad Arabs." But he didn't say he wouldn't drop them because a nuke isn't smart enough to figure out who the good Arabs and the bad Arabs are.

And he does keep parading these lists of bad Arabs out, hoping that eventually we'll stop asking how it is that he was born with magical powers that will allow him to figure out who the good Arabs and the bad Arabs are.

Well, i think Pony was speaking mostly out of anger, but realized that nuking random cities wasn't justified, really. He can answer that if he'd like. I think B's point was more hypothetical- he'd like to launch the magic nuke that kills those who deserve it. But implicit is the lack of such a smart weapon (fucking Clinton budget cuts).

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
However, while our fundies have bake sales, their fundies massacre non-combatants.

I find that sort of relativism amusing.

Yup, that Eric Rudolph made one heck of a bundt cake. And I'm sure that he didn't get any help from the fine church-going folk of Western North Carolina (at least those who thought that abortion clinics, gay night clubs, and the Olympics were fair targets for bombs) while he was "camping" in the Nantahala National Forest.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1998/October/477crm.htm