Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Is this the PB equivalent of spitting Diet Coke out of your pussy?

Which mental picture of me would you like to conjure?

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
I'm starting to get the feeling that the GOP is going to get a pretty serious reminder in 60 days or so.

Do you think the Dems will take both Houses of Congress? I'd say not. I predict significant gains in the Senate, and Speaker Pelosi (ouch) come January, 2007.

S_A_M

Tradesports currently agrees with you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Slave, maybe you want to edit that post? I don't think you meant to include all of that.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Explain to me how this differs from saying basically that all Arabs are legitimate targets because they're either terrorists, they don't fight terrorists, and anyway most of them probably want Israel destroyed. Your scapegoating an entire cultural and ethnic group.

I am not against Arab culture (except the part of it that calls for the destruction of Israel, is anti-Jew and/or anti-American) or the ethic group. I am not calling for the destruction of any Arab state. I am however, saying, if you support a government, a culture, an armed militia etc. that calls for the destruction of Israel and/or America and/or engages in acts that are designed to lead to either or both of those results then I identify you as part of the problem. Why do you think supporting or engaging in activitries as above are good things? or worthy of tolerance or respect?

Originally posted by taxwonk

Your whole "politics of personal destruction" schtick rings hollow. You are painting anyone who disagrees with you as being in some left-wing fringe lunatic element who, in your words, is willing to turn the whole country ove to Islamofacists. And you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of engaging in the politics of personal destruction?

Wrong. Politicvs of personal destruction is attacking the message not the messenger. More so, on a board such as this, its attacking the poster for supporting or asserting policies of politicians he/she supports. You and others of your team engage in that. I generally don't call you stupid or crazy or asshole, even though I disagree with some of the ideas you propigate,

Originally posted by taxwonk


I direct invective against the President because I think he's and idiot.

This is a statement that you would be unable to empirically prove and is likely false. It has always offended me about the Dems that this is the most consistent criticism of Bush over his presidency. If you don't like his ideas that is one thing, this is just gratuitious and ignorant personal invective and cheapens the person delivering it. Even Bush's IQ is not Clinton's or Carter's, those two are arguments as to why you don't want a smart president. Unless you are interested in failure.

Originally posted by taxwonk
Painting a whole party with the same brush is your thing.
I have biases and I have never claimed not to. You have your biases too. You just seem to feel the need to wrap yourself in teh flag and the bible and proclaim yourself right and everybody else a dangerous radical and coward because they disagree with you.

I paint the D party leadershop with the same brush because they enunciate the same ideas, all of which are dangerous to our nation's security, prosperity and future. I don't think you are dangerous if or because youi support them-you are essentially powerless in the equation, and given your locale, the vote is fixed anyway. The Daleys are dangerous.

Originally posted by taxwonk


Quit attacking me because I don't believe what you believe.

I don't. I criticise some of the misguided ideas you assert. Like Ty says, hate the sin, love the sinner.

Originally posted by taxwonk


Quit lumping me in with people I have nothing in common with. .

Who? Ty and SHP? Or Hillary?

Originally posted by taxwonk



You're so fond of stirring up the shit? Well this pot's full Penske. Either dump it or eat it.

Dump it where?

[Penske_Account]

I am on ignore?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am on ignore?

Just in case . . .

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Just in case . . .

Merci.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Key parts of Hank's movie were made up.

From an interview on MSNBC with someone from Editor & Publisher:

• Alison: Since you’ve seen the movie. A few of the scenes, one has former national security Sandy Berger refusing to give the go ahead to take out bin Laden. From your understanding, is this entirely accurate?
  
  Mitchell: No. It is entirely made up. Which is one of the problem. The other thing, which actually just came out today was that the screenwriter admitted on talk radio on the West Coast that this scene, while it was in the script, was partly improvised in the making of the movie. And quite dramatically with Sandy Berger slamming down the phone and cutting off all communication on making this decision to go after Osama. And it is great cinema. Not only did it not happen. The screenwriter says it wasn’t even in the script. And it was improvised on the spot. He liked the way it looked and it went over well in the, when it was being filmed so they left it in. It seem like an appalling thing to admit for a film on such a serious subject. Really on the most serious, most sensitive subject and mass murder. And to treat the facts that cavalierly seems to be the reason that ABC is under such pressure now to do a heavy editing job.

eta: link

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Key parts of Hank's movie were made up.

From an interview on MSNBC with someone from Editor & Publisher:

• Alison: Since you’ve seen the movie. A few of the scenes, one has former national security Sandy Berger refusing to give the go ahead to take out bin Laden. From your understanding, is this entirely accurate?
  
  Mitchell: No. It is entirely made up. Which is one of the problem. The other thing, which actually just came out today was that the screenwriter admitted on talk radio on the West Coast that this scene, while it was in the script, was partly improvised in the making of the movie. And quite dramatically with Sandy Berger slamming down the phone and cutting off all communication on making this decision to go after Osama. And it is great cinema. Iot only did it not happen. The screenwriter says it wasn’t even in the script. And it was improvised on the spot. He liked the way it looked and it went over well in the, when it was being filmed so they left it in. It seem like an appalling thing to admit for a film on such a serious subject. Really on the most serious, most sensitive subject and mass murder. And to treat the facts that cavalierly seems to be the reason that ABC is under such pressure now to do a heavy editing job.

"Editor and Publisher"? The editor-in-chief of which just voraciously defended all the fauxtography out of Lebanon?

Fahrenheit 9/11 won the Palm D'or - Perhaps this series will win an Emmy?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Editor and Publisher"? The editor-in-chief of which just voraciously defended all the fauxtography out of Lebanon?

Fahrenheit 9/11 won the Palm D'or - Perhaps this series will win an Emmy?

I don't know even the first thing about Editor & Publisher. But if they were defended some of that stuff out of Lebanon, then the bullshit in Hank's movie must be really, really blatant. Like just making shit up like that.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know even the first thing about Editor & Publisher. But if they were defended some of that stuff out of Lebanon, then the bullshit in Hank's movie must be really, really blatant. Like just making shit up like that.

It doesn't seem fair to me to reference Hank in your posts like this and then ignore him (as if he was a lesser class of humanoid, edible even) as you have been doing. Your rush to judgements has me worried, as I know you are better than this.

Are you okay?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Key parts of Hank's movie were made up.

From an interview on MSNBC with someone from Editor & Publisher:

this is an obvious case of censorship. A sad day for America and the truth.

The threat of Arkancide is a powerful deterrent. I miss Vince Foster [sniff]

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Like just making shit up like that.

I bet it shows people drinking coffee in cafes and children flying kites, which is then juxtaposed with images of Khobar and WTC.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It doesn't seem fair to me to reference Hank in your posts like this and then ignore him (as if he was a lesser class of humanoid, edible even) as you have been doing. Your rush to judgements has me worried, as I know you are better than this.

Are you okay?

We all know the movie here as Hank's movie, since he's the one who brought it up. And I'm sure that if he says something about it worth reading, someone will respond to it and it will not escape my attention.

And I'm fine, thanks for asking.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I bet it shows people drinking coffee in cafes and children flying kites, which is then juxtaposed with images of Khobar and WTC.

Not to split hairs, but that would be a little too derivative to be called made up.

Though everything is derivative, inasmuch as nothing is new under the Sun.