Politics: A new beginning

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It was funnier when Tom Lehrer said it. In 1965.

Fuck you. Cave paintings were derivitive. You dodged my George Romney reference yesterday. i'm not even going to google this.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I read you prior post to say that most of the deaths couldn't be laid at SH's feet. Was this not your intent?

Read again.

As I tell the juniors, THINK! when you read. THINK! Then come back and explain to me how the hell you can analagoize my argument to Hitler not being responsible for the ovens.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And you and AG both wonder why people say you don't have a sense of humor.

It's the us/them crap that causes me to lose my sense of humor. Plus, unless you say you actually accept my presentation of the science stuff, there might be a joshing, elbow-in-the-ribs tone to your comment, but you actually are calling it junk science. So it's not a joke.

I think that kind of joking is what doesn't work well on boards -- in real life, all of us get away with saying this shit because we can say it in that wink-wink, ha-ha way that implies we aren't serious. It doesn't work well in writing.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Read again.

As I tell the juniors, THINK! when you read. THINK! Then come back and explain to me how the hell you can analagoize my argument to Hitler not being responsible for the ovens.

That's the problem with YOU folks. The world is not very simplistic because YOU ARE NOT VERY SMART.

Here's your post:

---"Since there was ongoing, organized civil strife in both Kurdistan and with the Shi'ites (both in the south and along the Iranian border), since at least one of his sons was an uncontrolled sadist, and since it was a state dominated by the military, there will be some significant numbers of people murdered by the state's hands in this period.

But the widespread mass murders that certainly can be laid at Hussein's feet belong to a different period."---

In the first paragraph you describe, for lack of a better word, "institutional murders" and attribute them to the current period (I assume "this" means current). You than seem to draw a distinction between institutional murders and those that can be laid at SH's feet, which I'll call "direct murders," and indicate that the direct murders occured in a different (and I assume prior period).

I make the analogy, because although Hitler didn't participate in many direct murders, he is responsible for the institutional murders in Germany and E. Europe.

What don't you understand?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
but you actually are calling it junk science. So it's not a joke.

I have no idea whether it exists or not. Is it possible? Sure. Is that data convincing? Not really, but only due to the short time period during which the temperature records have been kept.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's the problem with YOU folks. The world is not very simplistic because YOU ARE NOT VERY SMART.

Here's your post:

---"Since there was ongoing, organized civil strife in both Kurdistan and with the Shi'ites (both in the south and along the Iranian border), since at least one of his sons was an uncontrolled sadist, and since it was a state dominated by the military, there will be some significant numbers of people murdered by the state's hands in this period.

But the widespread mass murders that certainly can be laid at Hussein's feet belong to a different period."---

In the first paragraph you describe, for lack of a better word, "institutional murders" and attribute them to the current period (I assume "this" means current). You than seem to draw a distinction between institutional murders and those that can be laid at SH's feet, which I'll call "direct murders," and indicate that the direct murders occured in a different (and I assume prior period).

I make the analogy, because although Hitler didn't participate in many direct murders, he is responsible for the institutional murders in Germany and E. Europe.

What don't you understand?

Note that G^3 used "you" to mean you, sgtclub, an individual. You went to "you folks." Granted, partly in retaliation to my "you people/simplistic" thing.

And it's nice to know that you believe that all people who are not members of the GOP are not just misguided, but stupid. Gracias.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Plus, unless you say you actually accept my presentation of the science stuff,

Global warming isn't us versus them, if it were true. i'm as concerned about my great great grandkids as the average lib on the board. But throwing out science theories doesn't make them true. Take creationism vs. Evolution; both require miracles* (if you define miracle as a one in a billion chance), but only one will get youlabeled dumb if you argue it here.


* I'm not taking creationism's side. i'm just saying evolution REQUIRES some 1 in a billion occurances; why do peopletake it as Gospel?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Note that G^3 used "you" to mean you, sgtclub, an individual. You went to "you folks." Granted, partly in retaliation to my "you people/simplistic" thing.

I tend to lash out when chided.

Originally posted by ltl/fb And it's nice to know that you believe that all people who are not members of the GOP are not just misguided, but stupid. Gracias.

You've got this wrong. I think most people in general are stupid. GOP included.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Take creationism vs. Evolution; both require miracles* (if you define miracle as a one in a billion chance), but only one will get youlabeled dumb if you argue it here.

Those creationists that believe the Bible literally should be so labled.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Those creationists that believe the Bible literally should be so labled.

Yes. if for no other reason than the age of the Earth.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

I still don't understand how you make the connection. So, after making my juniors go through the motions a couple times, I come in and bail them out.

Much of this seems to come down to how you read this quote from me: "But the widespread mass murders that certainly can be laid at Hussein's feet belong to a different period."

Now, what am I doing here? I am specifically laying the widespread mass murders of the earlier period at SH's feet. So, please, again, how does this equate to me absolving Hitler of mass murders.

What seems to confuse you is that I am responding to fringey's request that I focus on the post 2000 period and what deaths occurred then. In the segment you quote, I note that I believe there is still state-sponsored murder going on. But I am simply saying they are not the widespread mass murders, the hundreds of thousands discussed before. So, I do not say there are not "widespread murders"; indeed, I think I have just explained that in a military state engaged in two civil conflicts I believe there are widespread murders going on. I also do not say there are not "mass murders"; it would not surprise me to find a mass Kurdish grave from the post-2000 period. What I say is there are not, read the words "widespread mass murders" like those of the earlier period.


YOU: I make the analogy, because although Hitler didn't participate in many direct murders, he is responsible for the institutional murders in Germany and E. Europe.

ME: I never used the phrase "direct" murders. You have read this in. You use the word "institutional" that is also not my word. Read again. With care. In context.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I suspect you are wrong.

Do you have any basis for your suspicions, beyond a hope that folks think its kind of tough and cool?

S_A_M

P.S. to Hank -- To quote one of the last truly great Republicans: "Stop lying about my record!" You sack of crap!

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
* I'm not taking creationism's side. i'm just saying evolution REQUIRES some 1 in a billion occurances; why do peopletake it as Gospel?

I take the theory of evolution as being most probably correct -- correct enough to teach as just about established truth -- because there exists a demonstrable, verifiable, tangible scientific record which is consistent with that theory.

You will not find that to be the case with classic creationism, or with any literal reading of the earliest bits of the Old Testament.

FWIW -- Evolution does require the belief that 1 in a billion events transpired -- over a period of time sufficiently lengthy to permit for the occurrence of at least quadrillions* of events. So, not so hard to believe that the 1 in a billion transpires. After all, when 1 in a million people die from Disease X, that means 280 Americans bit the dust.

The likelihood of creationism being correct -- of course -- can't be quantified at all, even in terms of the longest odds. That requires one to accept two unprovable premises: (a) God exists, and (b) God decided to do X.

I'll never understand why more of them don't say: (a) God exists and (b) God decided to allow evolution to occur -- but then, they wouldn't be creationsits, would they?

S_A_M

* Look it up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's not the "difference" being dicussed. It's Dean's position on B/S v. Iraq.

Do you really see no difference between what Dean supported in Bosnia and what he opposed in Iraq, or are you just making noise?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
Do you really see no difference between what Dean supported in Bosnia and what he opposed in Iraq, or are you just making noise?

What I really wanna know is if Dean supported Clark in Bosnia.