Politics: A new beginning

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You still don't understand the point, which was a substantive point, that I was trying to make. Your post that I was responding to seemed to suggest that you were drawing a distinction between the murders that should be attributed to SH and those to the regime itself (remember, the discussion was over the 2MM figure). I was only pointing out that under that logic, not all of the murders in germany should be attributed to Hitler. That is it. It was a simple counter point/misunderstanding.

No, no, no. I answered this earlier (albeit in as condescending a fashion as I could muster). I NEVER drew a distinction in any way, shape or form that distinguished between what SH and the regime were responsible for -- why distinguish among co-conspirators like that? You invented words like "direct" and "institutional" that I never used, reading into what I said some kind of concept that there was direct involvement by SH only up to a point, which was never a point I made at all. They're blood on his hands even if he wasn't the trigger man, we are all agreed on that.

My distinction was between "widespread mass murders", e.g., the period of time in which Saddam Hussein and his cohorts engaged in killings that could be counted in the tens and even hundreds of thousands and the period in this century, as fringey put it, after the year 2000, where there were certainly murders to be laid at the feet of Saddam and his cohorts, but they were not the kinds one counts in 10s and 100s of thousands.

I then made the point that the widespread mass murders were most prevalent in the early 90s, on the first Bush's watch, and that if we were intervening to stop them, that was the time. By the time Bush intervened, yes, there were still murders going on, but not on the scale of the early 90s.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
No, no, no. I answered this earlier (albeit in as condescending a fashion as I could muster). I NEVER drew a distinction in any way, shape or form that distinguished between what SH and the regime were responsible for -- why distinguish among co-conspirators like that? You invented words like "direct" and "institutional" that I never used, reading into what I said some kind of concept that there was direct involvement by SH only up to a point, which was never a point I made at all. They're blood on his hands even if he wasn't the trigger man, we are all agreed on that . . .

See what can be resolved by rational discussion.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
The irony is, both you and AG will likely defend this (given your asterisked explanation) as not being insulting. I'm left to think that insults are only acceptable as long as they're of your chosing.

Want civility? Try it.

Bilmore, please. Over the years I've "known" you, you've proven yourself to be an excellent flak for men who (temporarily) share your interests, but none of your values. When you do this for money, it makes you, doubtless, an excellent lawyer. When you do this for free, it means you have bad judgment.

If you fail to see any distinction between the still hypothetical statement about willful doing wrong to children and the elderly and "The Democrats think 9/11 was just a petty crime," you're beyond help. By drawing the parallels, I was hoping you would see a distinction. Instead, you see a laughable similarity.

Clubby pissed all over the victims of 9/11 who happen to be Democrats. Had I done the same to Republicans, I don't think you'd be moving heaven and earth to rationalize it. And yet you consider it partisan to oppose Administration policy --- you're a veritable canary in a coal mine for partisanship. Whadda sick joke.

(Maybe you can respond to my inquiry over when I ever actually accused you of being a grandpa-killer, before it becomes part of the Bilmore lore of this board, i.e., a false memory.)

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But one thing I will not do is apologize. You can kiss my ass you whinly little bitch.

Bye. No need to leave or be voted off the island; I'll just have you on ignore. I say this not to be paigow, but because I don't want you to leave if others think there's something entertaining about engaging with you. I'm a giver.

BTW, I have a valediction for you, boyo. Work on your snaps.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Bye. No need to leave or be voted off the island; I'll just have you on ignore. I say this not to be paigow, but because I don't want you to leave if others think there's something entertaining about engaging with you. I'm a giver.

BTW, I have a valediction for you, boyo. Work on your snaps.

That's too bad, because I think we've had some fruitfull discussions in the past. But if you are not willing to see that, just maybe, you may have misunderstood my intentions (and perhaps overreacted just a wee bit), well there's nothing I can do.

To the rest: My offer to leave still stands.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
To AG:
. . . I never made a direct attack towards you. I said DEMS, in general, as in the actual politicians and operatives out there. I never told you how to "feel" about 9/11 or that you didn't feel it as deeply as I or anybody else did. You are simply reading this in to my post. What I did say was that the left and right view 9/11 differently, the right viewing it as war, the left more like a crime. Perhaps the word "petty" was a bit gratuitous, but I don't think conceptusally I really said anything that many on the left haven't said before.

Actually club, you said that Democrats view the 9/11 attacks as a petty crime, which has changed nothing. I noticed the comment too, and thought it was a fairly crappy thing to say, but chalked it up as a piece of particularly nasty hyperbole that you didn't really mean.

Given the standard shorthand used on the Board, you should certainly have expected that the posters here who are "on the left" might have thought that the comment was intended to apply to them.

Originally posted by sgtclub
If what I said crossed any line, then this is certainly not a board on which I want to post. I'll let others judge, and will gladly leave. But one thing I will not do is apologize. You can kiss my ass you whinly little bitch.

Now this part I don't understand, except as an emotional response of your own.

You "crossed a line" only if you consider this to be a Board where people generally try not to unleash personally offensive attacks upon each other. You say that you did not intend to do so, and I believe you. Nonetheless, what you said offended AG greatly as a personal attack. On such issues, your compadres on the Board are (within the limits of reasons) like the proverbial "eggshell plaintiff" -- you take them as they come.

No one ever suggested, or would suggest, that there is any reason for you not to post upon the Board. However, I don't understand why you would refuse to even offer an apology.
It seems to me that one of the principal tenets of civility, and of being a gentleman, is a desire to avoid needlessly (and certainly unintentionally) giving offense. It also seems that, when one has unintentionally given offense through word or deed, it is appropriate to offer a sincere apology.

From what I've read of this exchange, I think you could come up with a pretty good apology/explanation that you really meant -- and it would not be out of place. [You might want to leave out the "whiny little bitch" part, though.]

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You "crossed a line" only if you consider this to be a Board where people generally try not to unleash personally offensive attacks upon each other. You say that you did not intend to do so, and I believe you. Nonetheless, what you said offended AG greatly as a personal attack. On such issues, your compadres on the Board are (within the limits of reasons) like the proverbial "eggshell plaintiff" -- you take them as they come.

No one ever suggested, or would suggest, that there is any reason for you not to post upon the Board. However, I don't understand why you would refuse to even offer an apology.
It seems to me that one of the principal tenets of civility, and of being a gentleman, is a desire to avoid needlessly (and certainly unintentionally) giving offense. It also seems that, when one has unintentionally given offense through word or deed, it is appropriate to offer a sincere apology.

From what I've read of this exchange, I think you could come up with a pretty good apology/explanation that you really meant -- and it would not be out of place. [You might want to leave out the "whiny little bitch" part, though.]

S_A_M

Had he approached it differently, I would have. Had he said something like, "wow, club, did you just mean what I think you mean," it would have been different. I would have more clearly set out the substantive point I was trying to make, had a rational discussion of the issue, and apologize if I'd offended. But instead it was "fucking asshole", "fucking cocksucker" and similar words, plus attacks that I'm some sort of monster that is insensitve not only to the left's feelings on 9/11, but also to the VICTIMS of 9/11. If I was a fluffy, I could understand that type of backlash. But I'm not, and have never done anything on this board where it would be reasonable to conclude anything of the sort.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Nonetheless, what you said offended AG greatly as a personal attack. On such issues, your compadres on the Board are (within the limits of reasons) like the proverbial "eggshell plaintiff" -- you take them as they come.

I have it on good authority that Bilmore takes suggestions of right-wing conspiracies against the elderly very, very personally and seriously indeed. (Talk about blaming the victim!)

I expect his appology will be forthcoming, too? Or is he expected to live with "I was engaging in an excess hyperbole to make a not-really-inherently-offensive point - you people have no sense of humor"?

edited 'cuz my spellin sux

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._pe/us_obesity

Translation: U.S. Cattle Inc., U.S. Dairy Inc., U.S. Poultry Inc. (fat fat fat) basically run the USDA. So we (the Admin) had better denounce this. Who cares about what the CDC and the WHO say, the scientists of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association say otherwise. Not to be partisan, all three of these groups had the same control under Clinton.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._pe/us_obesity

Translation: U.S. Cattle Inc., U.S. Dairy Inc., U.S. Poultry Inc. (fat fat fat) basically run the USDA. So we (the Admin) had better denounce this. Who cares about what the CDC and the WHO say, the scientists of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association say otherwise. Not to be partisan, all three of these groups had the same control under Clinton.

Well the alternative is:

It also suggests governments limit food advertising aimed at children and encourage their citizens to eat healthier foods. Taxes and subsidies could be used to reduce the price of healthy food and make them more attractive to consumers, the report said

Dick Gephardt is introducing a bill next week to put the government into our kitchens.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Dick Gephardt is introducing a bill next week to put the government into our kitchens.

Fiscal conservatives will attack, calling it "another recipe for pork".

Ba-doom- swish! Thanks, you're a great audience. Don't forget to tip your server!

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well the alternative is:


Dick Gephardt is introducing a bill next week to put the government into our kitchens.

That's not what I want either. But Atkins is sending everybody in the wrong direction.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well the alternative is:

Dick Gephardt is introducing a bill next week to put the government into our kitchens.

Yea, even more farm subsidies! What a brilliant idea! Why didn't we think of that before?

WHO obviously has hit on a way to solve the global poverty problem by starving the agricultural workers of the third world to death.

BR(someone forgot to blame the cane plantation owners. They are the most nakedly obvious Minion of Evil here. One could make legitimate arguments that fat and salt are not, on recent evidence, particularly unhealthy compared to, say, bread, pasta and rice, but no has an argument that justifies sugar)C

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic


BR(someone forgot to blame the cane plantation owners. They are the most nakedly obvious Minion of Evil here. One could make legitimate arguments that fat and salt are not, on recent evidence, particularly unhealthy compared to, say, bread, pasta and rice, but no has an argument that justifies sugar)C

Bread, pasta and rice in THEIR unprocessed, whole grain forms are fine. In almost every other developed country, that is what you get. Not in the U.S. In the U.S. you get bio-genetic Monsanto seeds that can withstand the torrents of enormous amounts of pesticides. These pesticides are made by, you guessed it, Monsanto.

Atkins has brainwashed you as well I see.

Edited to add that, while purely anecdotal, I involuntarily lost 5 lbs in the past two weeks by decreasing meat in my diet, especially farm factory non-organic meat that contains loads of antibiotics, growth hormones to make the animal fat, and that are force-fed other animals when they're naturally vegetarians. So actually, meat is OK. U.S. meat is not. There's a reason Europe doesn't want it, and it's not (mostly) trade related

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
meat is OK. U.S. meat is not. There's a reason Europe doesn't want it, and it's not (mostly) trade related

My observation has been that (i) US beef is far superior to anything you can get in Europe (I pity you because it sounds like you eat shitty eastern corn-feed-lot-fed beef, and Yankees don't have a clue what they're doing), (ii) European lamb is far superior to anything you can get here, (iii) US chicken is tasteless but European chicken is stringy, (iv) US game meat found in stores is better simply because there is more of it in and out of season, but US and European hunted game excluding vennison is about the same in that picking buckshot out of your teeth is a pain in the ass, (v) venison is excellent in the US and Scandinavia, but the rest of Europe thinks deer are these pathetic, stunted, dog-like creatures, and (vi) everyone's fish is horribly and equally polluted.

I have no particular opinion on pork at this time.

That is all

BR(shouldn't have forgotten lunch)C