Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
How are you defining "utility"?

Spanky says that once you drink the wine and it's gone, you're no better off than if you never had the wine at all. Personally, I'd rather drink with you.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I apologize. Bilmore used the word "traitorous," not "treasonous." Obviously, the two words are completely different. I regret my mistake.

If only Hillary was as forthcoming......

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I apologize. Bilmore used the word "traitorous," not "treasonous." Obviously, the two words are completely different. I regret my mistake.

This isn't even good misdirection. The question you asked me to address dealt with neither of these words or concepts.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
How are you defining "utility"?

In the classic economics sense. The marginal return for the extra $15 is almost umeasurably small. (Now, don't come back with the example of the $160 bottle that was on sale for $40, thus making the extra $15 very worthwhile. I'm speaking of usual price.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bilmore
Insinuate? Suggest? No. I'm stating, explicitly, that some Dems, for the sake of retaking national power, have performed traitorous acts and have supported and encouraged and rewarded terrorism, and, to some extent, are directly responsible for some aspects of the situation in Iraq, Iran, NorKor, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Ty said this is quite a strong statement. I am not trying to ask an "LSAT" question, but could you elabortate a little bit, and tell me what you think Bush was supposed to do about this (in your prior post you implied Bush should have done more about this)?

Well, Bilmore, here's your post and Spanky's take on it. FYI, FWIW, etc. etc.

Now, when weren't we talking about "traitorous acts"?


You may remember a certain Republican administration used to focus on making sure they had "plausable deniability" - what that means is, don't write down the things you're going to deny later on. Good advice for those who chant the Rove Mantra.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Actually, you refered to "Democrats responsible for some aspects of the situation in North Korea," not "Democrats who undercut U.S. policy." If you would like to go back and revise and extend your remarks so that they don't sound crack-addled, that would be fine with me.

eta: I apologize if quoting you is a "memory game."

Actually, he said Democrats were "directly responsible for some aspects of the situation in Iraq, Iran, NorKor, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, . . . "

Not that they "undercut U.S. policy" (somehow).

That they are "directly responsible." As in, providing nuclear secrets to North Korea, I suppose. Or helping arm Al Qaeda. Or some such.

Personally, I am not getting too hyped about the election or anything else right now. What's astounding to me, and has been astounding on this board for some time, is that the more obvious it becomes that Bush's policies are a complete failure*, the more shril the Repubs grow in defense of those policies.

So -- the years long insurgency, 1000s of US soldiers dead, approaching/imminent/in full swing civil war, $100s of billions of dollars spent, loss of all credibility and sympathy internationally, rush by N.Korea and Iran to get nukes in response to Bush's threats of preemptive war -- all the things that Dems here were worried about from the very outset of this fiasco -- well, now that all those things have happened, it can't be that they were a predictable result of deeply flawed policies and non-existent planning. (Even though they were not merely predictable, but predicted. That's just cut-and-run defeatocrat terror-symp talk.) It can only be because the "MSM" and Democrat traitors undercut Bush.



*leaving out all the unidentified good news from Iraq, of course -- y'know, the stuff Bilmore and Slave know about, and no one else.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore

(Now, don't come back with the example of the $160 bottle that was on sale for $40, thus making the extra $15 very worthwhile. I'm speaking of usual price.)

Bastard, you made me waste a good set up!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
This isn't even good misdirection. The question you asked me to address dealt with neither of these words or concepts.

Y'see, the question he asked is what he said. What you said is "traitorous." Also "directly responsible."

In-fucking-credible. Criticizing Bush's laughably (if it weren't for all the dead soldiers) incompetent policies = direct responsibility for our enemies' success.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky says that once you drink the wine and it's gone, you're no better off than if you never had the wine at all. Personally, I'd rather drink with you.

[etd] :blush: sorry Hank.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Well, Bilmore, here's your post and Spanky's take on it. FYI, FWIW, etc. etc.

Again?

Now, when weren't we talking about "traitorous acts"?

I was, originally, then Ty asked me a whole series of questions, then he said just answer the one about NorKor, so I did. I even copied out the question later. Now, where in his "question g" did he ask me about "traitorous acts"? In someone with a lawyer's mind and training, what impulse other than deception allows you to continue this word game of Ty's?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
This isn't even good misdirection. The question you asked me to address dealt with neither of these words or concepts.

Hell, it's not even misdirection at all. You said:

• [S]ome Dems, for the sake of retaking national power, have performed traitorous acts and have supported and encouraged and rewarded terrorism, and, to some extent, are directly responsible for some aspects of the situation in Iraq, Iran, NorKor, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, . .

It has become increasingly apparent that you meant to smear Democrats as terrorism-supporting traitors, while reserving the wiggle room to say that's not what you really mean about, say, North Korea, but it was hardly clear from that post.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So -- the years long insurgency, 1000s of US soldiers dead, approaching/imminent/in full swing civil war, $100s of billions of dollars spent, loss of all credibility and sympathy internationally, rush by N.Korea and Iran to get nukes in response to Bush's threats of preemptive war -- all the things that Dems here were worried about from the very outset of this fiasco -- well, now that all those things have happened, it can't be that they were a predictable result of deeply flawed policies and non-existent planning. (Even though they were not merely predictable, but predicted. That's just cut-and-run defeatocrat terror-symp talk.) It can only be because the "MSM" and Democrat traitors undercut Bush.

Exactly. But don't forget the drain on the budget and the economy, the distraction from issues at home, the creation of new havens for international terrorism, and the distraction from more critical efforts in Afghanistan.

But, after you add that stuff, can you shorten this a little so it will fit as the board title?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
*leaving out all the unidentified good news from Iraq, of course -- y'know, the stuff Bilmore and Slave know about, and no one else.

I hear the disco in the Emerald City is pretty cool.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
. . .the more obvious it becomes that Bush's policies are a complete failure . . .

Didn't work for the global warming crowd, does your logic no favors here.

The GW people decided, as a policy matter, to change the focus of their speech to "now that GW has been completely accepted by every single smart unbribed Real Scientist In The World . . ."

It's laughable.

Now you say "the more obvious it becomes that Bush's policies are a complete failure . . ."

It's laughable. You can't simply announce your unfounded, unsupported conclusion, and then offer to discuss the consequences of the conclusion as if they're foregone.

(Well, I guess, obviously you CAN. I mean, no real person who has a rational mind uses it as his main tactic.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Y'see, the question he asked is what he said. What you said is "traitorous." Also "directly responsible."

Excuse?

"(g) Democrats responsible for some aspects of the situation in North Korea,"

followed by

"Bilmore, you can start with the one about North Korea, seeing as how the board is fairly familiar with that issue just now."

You guys still doing the "make up shit as a team, post to each other laughing about the other poor rubes in place of logic or argument" thing?

I love tradition.