Redfury, 'Bush apologists' and a hearty FU

[XT]

From this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9919408#post9919408) thread:

Or are you (and Shodan, xt and any number of other professional Bush apologists) incapable of acknowledging that your President and many of his cohorts are simply criminals? Is butchering, torturing and uprooting a literally unknown number of people a peccadillo to be ignored due to Party allegiances?

Short and sweet as I don't see any point in drawing this out...fuck you, you Spanish prick. Or as we say where I come from 'tu madre, pendejo'. You can take the whole 'Bush apologist' rant and shove it up your tight Spanish ass...sideways. Fucking troll...

-XT

[magellan01]

Oh come on, now. You might as well be surprised at the stupidity coming from Der Trihs. Plus, he's probably drunk again. don't pay him no mind. I did make a comment on his...uh...dispassionate reasoned analysis...snicker... in the other thread though. The real beauty if this particular strain of drunk dolt is that he really thinks he's smart. I've gotten endless chuckles reading his drivel thinking of him holding his scotch as he Previews his spew and deems it BRILLIANT and hits Submit with smug satisfaction. Now THAT is comedy gold!

[XT]

I'm not surprised...I'm simply tired of the knee jerk 'Bush apologist' meme. And I'm especially tired of people trying to pin that shit on me...not that I think that there are ANY 'Bush apologists' left on this board at any rate. It's just short hand for anyone not marching in lockstep.

-XT

[Zoe]

What does his being Spanish have to do with it?

[XT]

What does his being Spanish have to do with it?

Nothing at all....it was a gratuitous slam on my part.

-XT

[Ensign Edison]

Are Spanish asses especially tight?

[FinnAgain]

It's actually a valid reference if you have the misfortune of knowing Red's posting habits. He likes to spew about how other people are nationalistic or excuse the sins of their own countries due to partisan loyalty, or what have you... while he has supported Spain's history of butchery and slavery during its Imperialist phase, using "White Man's Burden" rhetoric , as well as handwaving away the pervasive racism in Spanish society which includes but is not limited to police beating, murdering and raping foreigners while such actions are condoned by the Spanish government.

In short, he's a troll with a hardon for America who pretends to have certain beliefs which he doesn't actually hold, in order to rant about America and insult Americans.
And yet he's welcome by the mods to keep posting in GD.

~shrugs~

[elucidator]

I'll give it to you straight, XT, your kinda confusing. You tear into lefties with sneering snark at great length, and then, in kind of a footnote, you allow as how, yeah, the criticism is justified. Its like you can't disagree with lefties about Bush, because the facts just won't let you.

But you'd rather nail your pecker to a tree than admit that we're right about something.

So, yeah, its confusing.

[elucidator]

Its true, Finn, he could take some lessons in temperance and civility. But not from you.

[Der Trihs]

xtisme has always struck me as a right wing apologist who likes to pretend the opposite. Like elucidator says, he puts out little disclaimer footnotes, but most of his posts consists of sneers at the left, and claims that however much he "regrets" it, we have to do whatever Bush wants at the moment.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You kind of submarine yourself by throwing in the unnecessary xenophobic subtext (Finn's tortured attempt at an apology for it notwithstanding).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It's actually a valid reference if you have the misfortune of knowing Red's posting habits. He likes to spew about how other people are nationalistic or excuse the sins of their own countries due to partisan loyalty, or what have you... while he has supported Spain's history of butchery and slavery during its Imperialist phase, using "White Man's Burden" rhetoric , as well as handwaving away the pervasive racism in Spanish society which includes but is not limited to police beating, murdering and raping foreigners while such actions are condoned by the Spanish government.

In short, he's a troll with a hardon for America who pretends to have certain beliefs which he doesn't actually hold, in order to rant about America and insult Americans.
And yet he's welcome by the mods to keep posting in GD.

~shrugs~
If you think he's in violation of the rules, then why don't you report it? This kind of passive aggressive snivelling about the mods is never entertaining, never interesting and never insightful.

[FinnAgain]

Yes yes, because it's not relevant that someone who accuses people who do not want to disregard the law in order to call someone a criminal and punish them for "crimes" of being "professional apologists" for a partisan cause... is himself a partisan troll who doesn't even believe his own rhetoric.

P.S. Learn what "passive aggressive" means.
P.P.S. Don't presume to guess the contents of any private conversations I've had with the mods.
P.P.P.S. Go fuck yourself. :)

[elucidator]

....P.P.S. Don't presume to guess the contents of any private conversations I've had with the mods.....
"C'mon, Finn, please? Please be Supreme Moderator of Great Debates? You know you're the only one who truly understands what debate really is! Don't make us beg, c'mon, be a mensch...."

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Whoa.

It can be argued that the Iraq War is a war crime. Based upon the Nuremburg trials, we have the legal precept that aggressive war is criminal, therefore it is indeed possible to hold the people responsible for precipitating it responsible for war crimes.

That won't happen, but nevertheless it is unfair to castigate people for their beliefs. Particularly foreigners, who are not subject to our beliefs. They are entitled to hold their beliefs.

I'm really not fond of using somebody's nationality against them. RedFury is entitled to hold any opinion he so desires, this being a board comprised of numerous nationalities. The truth is that he is right, partisanship has a tendency to blind people to the realities of what we have done.

The Iraq War, whatever your opinions of it, has been a catastrophic failure. It would be hard to argue otherwise. Yet somehow you are attempting to do so. Do so at your own peril. Don't blame others for their opinions.

[FinnAgain]

It can be argued that the Iraq War is a war crime. Based upon the Nuremburg trials, we have the legal precept that aggressive war is criminal, therefore it is indeed possible to hold the people responsible for precipitating it responsible for war crimes.

Which is not his argument, but that the law should be discarded in order to find Bush guilty of crimes.


I'm really not fond of using somebody's nationality against them. [...]The truth is that he is right, partisanship has a tendency to blind people to the realities of what we have done.

One cannot honestly oppose blind partisanship while engaging in it. Along the same lines, one can't support blind partisanship and then pretend that those who believe in the rule of law are blind partisan "professional apologists".

It isn't his nationality that's being used against him, as it is that he is a nationalist who is on record as supporting Spanish imperialism and condoning Spanish governmental racism,while pretending that others are partisans for wanting to follow American law in order to determine and punish crimes under American law.

XT didn't give himself enough credit. The fact that Red is a troll who not only condones, but vocally supports the history of Spanish imperialism while simultaneously pretending to have a problem when America is the issue, is germane to the subject.

It's not a matter of him holding certain opinions, it's a matter of him pretending to hold them in order to spew at Americans. Honestly held opinions are fine. Trolling is not.
If Red honestly believed that invading a nation in order to plunder it while butchering and enslaving the populace was wrong, he wouldn't have gone as far as to champion such behavior when it was his nation that engaged in it. Since, by his own admission, he actually sees nothing wrong with imperialism and conquest, going so far as to support it (when it's his country doing the invading and butchery), he's trolling when he picks fights with Americans for not being against behavior which he himself supports, as long as it's his country that does it.


The Iraq War, whatever your opinions of it, has been a catastrophic failure. It would be hard to argue otherwise. Yet somehow you are attempting to do so.

Who has claimed that the war hasn't been a failure?

Don't blame others for their opinions.

Is it his opinion that he's being blamed for, or the fact that he's a troll who pretends to hold an opinion because he likes picking fights?

[elucidator]

But we can still rag on him about it, right? I mean, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, right?

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Which is not his argument, but that the law should be discarded in order to find Bush guilty of crimes.

Discarded? Indeed, if you don't believe in international law (which I don't). But is it so unreasonable that RedFury does?

It isn't his nationality that's being used against him, as it is that he is a nationalist who is on record as supporting Spanish imperialism and condoning Spanish governmental racism,while pretending that others are partisans for wanting to follow American law in order to determine and punish crimes under American law.

Is that so? Perhaps you can show me where RedFury has shown a propensity towards Spanish exceptionalism.

Who has claimed that the war hasn't been a failure?

Are you kidding? To quote President Bush: if you're not with us, you're against us. Clearly some believe that the war in Iraq was righteous, otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument.

Is it his opinion that he's being blamed for, or the fact that he's a troll who pretends to hold an opinion because he likes picking fights?

Lots of people like to pick fights here. I would call the OP a direct assault upon the sensibilities of others, particularly because the OP chose not to elaborate on what he objected to but opted to go right to name calling.

Short and sweet, the OP is wrong. Others can rightfully disagree with other people's opinions, and in this case they have a particular interest in doing so as the war has been more than a bit polarizing worldwide.

[magellan01]

Airman,

You're right in that his nationality has squat to do with anything. You're wrong other than that. And of all the times to come to someone's defense you choose THIS one? You've got to be kidding. Is this a whoosh? Did you read his latest stupidity—that he wants criminal charges and a conviction, even if we have to dispense with a little thing like the rule of law?!! That's not just dumb, that's a Gordian Knot of dumb. And it reveals once again his blind partisanship.

You do yourself no favor, Airman, coming to the defense of the drunk dolt in this particular instance. Disappointing. Oh, well...

[RedFury]

Gee whiz. A Pitting all of my own. And for what? Because I think that anyone that supports the current Administration and their tragicomic blunders, resulting in countless deaths, is out to lunch with their biased 'patriotism.'

And provided, no less, by xt, the most Patriotic and xenophobic "American" on board...who just happens to be alive due to his own Spanish blood and seems hell-bent on carrying on his Conquistador's lineage. Appears no scrubbing will do. It's the kind of self-hating that can lead to cutting oneself to ribbons. I almost feel bad for his sorry and confused ass. Which is obviously where his thinking comes out of.

BTW, nice back-stab there, dickwad. Next time grow a pair and link to the Pit thread.

---

As for Again, just that. Told him I wouldn't be responding to any more of his Zionist lunacy and I won't. His sole recourse is some bizarre obsession of diagnosing me as an alcoholic and obviating what I am saying and citing.

Thinks himself a Great Debater, while I doubt he'd make it as a Great Masturbater. He'd need to find his dick first.

Now get ready for some sort of mad dissertation as a response, while making sure to let everyone know just how brilliant he is.

Thanks Og for the scroll wheel!

---

As for vouching for discarding the law, plain bullshit. What I clearly said is to quit hiding behind minutia to defend the ultimate charge: Bush, War Criminal.

Argue that, cumstains.

---

Right. That was fun. Time for another liter of Scotch.

:::hiiick::::

Thank you and good night.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Airman,

You're right in that his nationality has squat to do with anything. You're wrong other than that. And of all the times to come to someone's defense you choose THIS one? You've got to be kidding. Is this a whoosh? Did you read his latest stupidity—that he wants criminal charges and a conviction, even if we have to dispense with a little thing like the rule of law?!! That's not just dumb, that's a Gordian Knot of dumb. And it reveals once again his blind partisanship.

You do yourself no favor, Airman, coming to the defense of the drunk dolt in this particular instance. Disappointing. Oh, well...

What else is new? If I lived my life based upon the opinions of those on this board, I'd never be right. Woe is me. It sucks being wrong all the time, I gotta tell you.

[Mighty_Girl]

It isn't his nationality that's being used against him, as it is that he is a nationalist who is on record as supporting Spanish imperialism and condoning Spanish governmental racism,while pretending that others are partisans for wanting to follow American law in order to determine and punish crimes under American law.Cite. Pretty please.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Finn, a lot of brave men and women (mostly men, I'm assuming) have given their lives to make the institution of trolling what it is today, and you cheapen the term by applying it to everyone you disagree with. My God, man, do you get royalties every time you type the word?

Further, I'm confident you're smart enough to realize that a goodly number of the "trolls" tu accuses aren't really trolls at all by the common definition, and that your Rain-Main-like repetition of the word relates to its perception on this board as a term of ultimate slander, like "child molester" or "liberal." There's a word for someone who posts things they know to be untrue, simply to evoke a reaction, but damned if I can think of it this early in the morning...

(I mean, RF may very well be a drunk dolt... I haven't personally seen anything to contradict that theory, but fair is fair, he's not a troll...)

[Grossbottom]

In short, he's a troll with a hardon for America who pretends to have certain beliefs which he doesn't actually hold, in order to rant about America and insult Americans.
And yet he's welcome by the mods to keep posting in GD.
At first I couldn't stand him but now I think he's a genius. I read all his posts in the voice of either Ramone from Whit Stillman's Barcelona, or the blustery voice of the Telemundo-sounding guy that does the in espanol parking information announcement at a local shopping mall.

[BrainGlutton]

...not that I think that there are ANY 'Bush apologists' left on this board at any rate.

Not even Shodan?

[RedFury]

Cite. Pretty please.

Obviously there's none to be found or proffered. Simply more of the foaming-at-the mouth style of posting that makes FinnAgain, The Masterbater.

A Legend In His Own Mind.

---

And BTW, xt, my Mother is dead, but in case your Spanish is rusty (as it should be for all that self-hatred I alluded to) it's "tu maldita madre, cabrón!"

De nada.

[BrainGlutton]

From this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9919408#post9919408) thread:



Short and sweet as I don't see any point in drawing this out...fuck you, you Spanish prick. Or as we say where I come from 'tu madre, pendejo'. You can take the whole 'Bush apologist' rant and shove it up your tight Spanish ass...sideways. Fucking troll...

-XT

Then you are being unfairly maligned by RedFury, and are, in fact, capable of acknowledging that Bush and many of his cohorts are simply criminals?

[jayjay]

It sucks being wrong all the time, I gotta tell you.

It's okay, Airman. We still like ya.


:D

[John Mace]

XT: I think it would help if you fleshed this out a bit more. And I know you and RF have this Spanish/Mexican thing going where you feel some kind of weird kinship through shared cultural ancestry or something, but it's really not good form to insult someone over their nationality. I mean, what does RF being Spanish have to do with anything?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Cite. Pretty please.
It's certainly true that FinnAgain and RedFury spent a full page of some thread flinging poo at each other over whether or not Spain is full of racists and the Spanish government follows a racist policy line. (it was some thread about something else entirely, so I doubt anyone will be able to find it for you without going through their posting histories)

I don't think anyone else really had an opinion one way or the other; they were both tossing out contradictory citations.

[Mighty_Girl]

It's certainly true that FinnAgain and RedFury spent a full page of some thread flinging poo at each other over whether or not Spain is full of racists and the Spanish government follows a racist policy line. (it was some thread about something else entirely, so I doubt anyone will be able to find it for you without going through their posting histories)

I don't think anyone else really had an opinion one way or the other; they were both tossing out contradictory citations.Yeah, but when one is willing to throw accusations such as this:
while he has supported Spain's history of butchery and slavery during its Imperialist phase, using "White Man's Burden" rhetoric and thisas well as handwaving away the pervasive racism in Spanish society which includes but is not limited to police beating, murdering and raping foreigners while such actions are condoned by the Spanish government
one has to have, at the very least, some proof of it, in case some nitpicking, busibody, such as myself, decides not to take your* word for it.

You know, my sister is a foreigner studying in Spain and I would like to warn her about these things. I would also like to check my gullibility-meter if it turns out that Red has indeed said these things.

I don't see how Finn would have any problem coming up with a cite, seeing as Red apparently done it on more than one occasion. You have to forgive me for not taking anyone's word as gospel.


*General you, not RATB you.

[FinnAgain]

There were no 'contradictory' cites pointed out, Red simply couldn't rebut the facts. I'll be happy to provide the cites and his claims again.

Cites in this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9883497&postcount=87) about the nature of racism in Spanish society and how their police have a history of beating, raping and murdering foreigners while the government condones such behavior.

The specific quote was from an Amnesty International investigation:

[AI] dedicated a report two years ago to racial abuse and torture by Spanish police.

The report detailed cases of deaths, rape, sexual assault and violence against foreigners while in custody, and lamented the impunity enjoyed by those responsible.

And, of course, his justification (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9880948&postcount=54) of Spanish imperialism because otherwise those nasty Aztecs would've been ripping hearts out (with extra 'if you think you need to know the facts before arguing something, you're pompous').

[Really Not All That Bright]

Yep. That's the one.

[Nava]

Cite. Pretty please.

Yes, please.

Mighty_Girl, I do know that profiling can be a problem, in Spain as elsewhere: a black person or someone tall, white-blonde and with blue eyes is a lot more likely to be asked for ID by a bored cop than someone who looks "local". It's linked to the immigration issues. Mind you, it's still quite unlikely to happen, as your average cop has no interest in trying to wade through the paperwork triggered by "oh noes, I asked a black dude for ID and he didn't have any!" The usual behavior for example when a pair of cops happen upon a blanket-top salesman suffering from bad reflexes and decide to do something about it is to ask for ID (unlikely to be produced), take down his name, nab the goods, then let the guy go without even a visit to HQ.

The claims of police brutality I've seen come more from the separatist field than from Red Cross and AI. The biggest complaint I've seen about police behavior linked to treatment of immigrants is about the overpopulation of detention centers.

This doesn't mean there is no police brutality, there's certainly its share of brutes in the Spanish police (and in Spain in general). It could be underreported, of course.

I hope your sister has a great time :)

[FinnAgain]

Yes, please.
[..]
This doesn't mean there is no police brutality, there's certainly its share of brutes in the Spanish police (and in Spain in general). It could be underreported, of course.


Please see above.
And from the claims I cited in the linked post, it certainly seems that the Spanish government is deliberately ignoring cases of racist violence and that they're underreported, so to speak, because they aren't actually tracked.

Of course, this doesn't mean that all Spanish police will jump at a chance to rape and kill some foreigners. But it does go on, and the government does condone the behavior. Which is to say nothing of endemic racist taunts at Spanish football matches...

The point, more in line with this thread, was that Red's response to the facts was to handwave them away while pointing out that Spain is a hot destination for immigration. Doesn't address, let alone rebut the fact that there are some serious problems with racism that need to be dealt with, but ah well.

[DanBlather]

Are Spanish asses especially tight?They were until the English started vacationing there.

[RedFury]

Yep. That's the one.

And the point is clear, is it not? I don't defend or condone Imperialism in any way, shape or form. But xt's constant bashing of Spain (now, new and improved with the addition of Frothing Finn) is simply ridiculous in light of the fact that the Spaniards did indeed mix with many natives -- as he himself freely admits, he has some of that "nasty" Spanish blood in him.

If that is not self-loathing I don't know what is. Which, once again, is the sole point being made.

As for The Frothing One, all he does is endlessly parrot the tired "Black Legend*" (http://www.hispaniceducation.org/ArticlesPage/news_articles_publications_004.htm).

:::shrug:::

I'm not here to educate him nor depose him of his anti-Spanish sentiments.

*easy enough to educate oneself on the matter. Literature on this topic abounds...although perhaps not as prolific in the English language. In fact, I purchased a couple of paperbacks on the topic in a recently held book fair, here, in the Dom Rep. I could also suggest a book or two for anyone interested.

[Mighty_Girl]

There were no 'contradictory' cites pointed out, Red simply couldn't rebut the facts. I'll be happy to provide the cites and his claims again.
I am sorry. I have read all the links posted in your post referred above, and I am still having trouble going from Data Point A to Conclusion B.

I see no proof that Spaniards are significantly more antisemitic than any other European nation. By that we can assume that all Europeans are as 'racist' as Spaniards. The first poll that you quoted does not lead me in any way to an accusation of antisemitism. I have a lot of disagreements with US policies, A LOT, and you cannot accuse me of being anti-usaism.

The closest one can come to antisemitism is the question about Jews still talking 'too much' about the holocaust. The Spaniards rated second lowest above the French. I need a little more information to get from there to 'antisemitic'.

The second point is about the Jews killing Jesus, this could actually be construed as antisemitism, but there is no enough details to ascertain the Spanish attitude. The average was 20% and it includes other nations. I find that surprisingly low, seeing as they were still saying that in Catholic school when I was a kid and there is no significant Jewish colony here*.


You posted this in that other thread:
And of course, there are a slew of other problems. Such as various events and circumstances, summed up by Amando de Miguel as:

''It is very clear that there is a race problem in Spain,'' I got news for you. It is very clear that there is a race problem in the whole world.

Have you read the Amnesty Intl. report on the US? What can we conclude from it?


The only proof you offer of Red's defense of the Spanish barbaric practices during the colonial period is this Of course, none of that changes the fact that Red actually had the chutzpah to support Spain's period of colonialist butchery, slavery and plunder. Characteristically, he displays some interesting stupidity in that the Aztecs, the actual heart rippers were just one of the cultures that the Spanish imperialists savaged. After all, the Spanish colonialists also brutalized, among others, the Mayans, Incas, and a good few others. But really, slaughtering, enslaving and pillaging was in those dirty natives' own best interests. They were just too filthy and savage to realize the grace of the Spanish boot on their throats. Silly natives.
Sorry, but "my post is my cite" has already been done. Please provide an actual cite.

These are not his actual words. And I just can't go from what he actually said to that. Not his most brilliant moment, but nowhere near what you attribute to him. All I can conclude is that you seem to have a problem with his being a Spaniard. He is not the Spanish police. I hope I am not held responsible for the actions of the Dominican police anymore than I hold Polycarp* responsible for Abu Ghraib.

I am very interested, please do provide some more cites.


By sheer coincidence I am holding a book called Los Judios en el Destino de Quisqueya right now. From what I see it is pretty pro-Jewish.

[Giraffe]

It's not a matter of him holding certain opinions, it's a matter of him pretending to hold them in order to spew at Americans. Honestly held opinions are fine. Trolling is not.Since, by his own admission, he actually sees nothing wrong with imperialism and conquest, going so far as to support it (when it's his country doing the invading and butchery), he's trolling when he picks fights with Americans for not being against behavior which he himself supports, as long as it's his country that does it.FinnAgain, I've seen you throw the trolling accusation at RedFury a lot lately. While you're welcome to your opinion of his motives, some of your statements in this thread have made me suspect that you don't really understand what trolling is for the purposes of message board moderation. If someone is inconsistent or hypocritical in their opinions, that doesn't automatically imply that they're lying and/or trolling. People are hypocritical all the time. Heck, given my general stances on invading other countries, it could easily be argued that my support for the invasion of Afghanistan was hypocritical and that I wouldn't have held that position had it been another country attacked by terrorists -- was I trolling when I said it was OK for us to invade? Or when I said it wasn't OK for us to invade Iraq?

On an anonymous internet message board, you'll never know for sure if people truly believe what they're typing, or are who they say they are. It comes with the territory.

[BrainGlutton]

The Frothing One[/b], all he does is endlessly parrot the tired "Black Legend*" (http://www.hispaniceducation.org/ArticlesPage/news_articles_publications_004.htm).

Remember the Maine, Spanish Brute! (http://www.stentorian.com/)

[XT]

Getting ready to jump on a plane so will be gone most of the day. Still, thought I'd respond to a few things here:

XT: I think it would help if you fleshed this out a bit more. And I know you and RF have this Spanish/Mexican thing going where you feel some kind of weird kinship through shared cultural ancestry or something, but it's really not good form to insult someone over their nationality. I mean, what does RF being Spanish have to do with anything?

Fair enough John...it's a valid question. First, what does his being Spanish have to do with anything? Well, nothing really...and yet, quite a bit. For the last several years Red and I have butted heads on numerous occations and he has made some things clear to me in those discussions...the biggest of which is that he is a class A hippocrate.

I'm not going to do the donkey work, but you are free to look for yourself if you like. The short of it though is that Red is an apologist for the brutal ways of his ancestors. He has linked in threads to Spanish apologists cites in the past and tried to portray some of the more aggregious Spanish actions in the past in the same light as Holocaust deniers do about the Nazi's and the Jews. He has told me (to paraphrase) that the indians ground under the Spanish boot during their various conquests were better off being civilized by the Spanish...since they would have simply been killing themselves off anyway using ritual sacrific and such.

Now...none of this is that big a deal. Red is proud of his Spanish heritage and he's willing to hand wave away or gloss over past crimes. Fine and dandy, though it rubs me raw a bit considering my own heritage...but ok, no biggie. However, it especially strikes me as hippocritical and trollish when he not only says I'm an American apologist (something that, while I disagree with at least could be debated I suppose) but a Bush appologist as well (something that is patently incorrect and simply put a load of horseshit). And this coming from someone who is pretty obviously either a complete troll or an apologist of the first order for his own birth country...or both.

Why did I throw in the parts about his being a Spanish prick? As I said, it was a gratutous slam on my part...HE knows very well why and this thread was aimed at him, not really for the general consumption of the board per se. Just know there is a lot of history between us...which is why he tossed in the 'Bush apologist' bit in the thread I refered to in the OP. Consider...was that necessary either? At least I confined my own acid response to the Pit...

Then you are being unfairly maligned by RedFury, and are, in fact, capable of acknowledging that Bush and many of his cohorts are simply criminals?

You know I don't BG, and you SHOULD know this has nothing to do with my supposed support for Bush et al. To me, they will be criminals when they are tried in a court of law, convicted and sentenced. Until then they are just fuckups and disasters as an administration and a President goes, and I can't wait until we shake the dust of their fucked up admin off our collective boots and move on.

I'll give it to you straight, XT, your kinda confusing. You tear into lefties with sneering snark at great length, and then, in kind of a footnote, you allow as how, yeah, the criticism is justified. Its like you can't disagree with lefties about Bush, because the facts just won't let you.

Some of the criticisms from the left (and center and everywhere else) about Bush are entirely justified. He DID lead us into a stupid war that we are now neck deep in for gods know how long. He HAS fucked up by the numbers in just about everything he's touched and I can't wait until he is finally gone.

But criminal charges need to be weighed and judged in a structured setting...not speculated on in a message board. I don't see any movement on actually DOING anything about these supposed charges against Bush and his merry men...and frankly it's wearing thin that Bush and the Evil Republican's are blocking movement, that the Dems can't do anything about it, or that the Dems are sucking up to Bush, going along, etc etc. If the Dems ARE sucking up to Bush or going along, then why vote for them 'luci? If they aren't going to do their part and maintain the checks and balances they are REQUIRED to, then the system is well and truly fucked.

If that's the case then a pox on both your houses 'luci...both parties are completely useless.

But you'd rather nail your pecker to a tree than admit that we're right about something.

Complete horseshit. I have changed many of my preconceptions and attitudes since I've come to this board. My entire stance on the Iraqi war has shifted and I have freely admitted I was wrong and many on the left were right...and my dick is un-nailed to any wooden structure. I've changed my in more subtle ways about even some left wing economics views, though I'm still pretty firmly an economic conservative.

So, yeah, its confusing.

Why? Because I don't agree with you (et al) about Bush being 'obviously' a criminal until, you know, there is a trial thingy? That makes me a 'Bush apologist' and confuses you? Doesn't matter that I didn't vote for the man, can't stand the man, think he's a terrible president, etc etc...I'm still a 'Bush apologist' because I disagree with you guys on this or some other points? Or it's confusing enough to you that you really can't tell?

C'est la vie...think what you will. At least YOU are a nationalistic, hippocratical prick with delusions of objectivity as friend Red obviously is.

-XT

[elucidator]

...At least YOU are a nationalistic, hippocratical prick with delusions of objectivity as friend Red obviously is.

Well, gee. Thanks. I guess.

(Given my proven talent for mind-reading, I have inserted a qualifying "not" in an appropriate place, presuming to know the intent beyond the wording...)

[Really Not All That Bright]

For the last several years Red and I have butted heads on numerous occations and he has made some things clear to me in those discussions...the biggest of which is that he is a class A hippocrate.
A student of Hippocrates? A container for large aquatic artiodactyls native to sub-Saharan Africa?

[FinnAgain]

FinnAgain, I've seen you throw the trolling accusation at RedFury a lot lately. While you're welcome to your opinion of his motives, some of your statements in this thread have made me suspect that you don't really understand what trolling is for the purposes of message board moderation.

I do, and I believe that the mods have adopted an improperly narrow definition.
I've elaborated on my claim, and I'd be happy to do so again if you'd like.


If someone is inconsistent or hypocritical in their opinions, that doesn't automatically imply that they're lying and/or trolling.

Automatically? No.
But blatant and massive hypocrisy in the service of picking fights certainly provides a good reason for taking a closer look.

Heck, given my general stances on invading other countries, it could easily be argued that my support for the invasion of Afghanistan was hypocritical and that I wouldn't have held that position had it been another country attacked by terrorists -- was I trolling when I said it was OK for us to invade? Or when I said it wasn't OK for us to invade Iraq?

Depends. If your position was that it's never okay to invade another country, and then you supported invading Afghanistan while alleging that anybody who supported invading another terrorist sponsor was a professional apologist nationalist warmonger?

Then the case could be made that you were either trolling or very dense and inconsistent.


On an anonymous internet message board, you'll never know for sure if people truly believe what they're typing, or are who they say they are. It comes with the territory.

That's certainly true, but there are always a good few indicators and ways of telling when someone is arguing honestly or simply trying to stir up shit.

[elucidator]

A student of Hippocrates? A container for large aquatic artiodactyls native to sub-Saharan Africa?


So long as it has nothing to do with pachouli oil or love beads, I'm cool with it.

[RedFury]

I'm not going to do the donkey work, but you are free to look for yourself if you like

Just as expected. Another mealy-mouthed weasel who can't support any of the feces he's desperately flinging in the hopes that they stick on sheer credulity.

Up yours, disposable skinbag of manure!

---

Not that it's anyone's business, but the accusations of racism against me go beyond the pale....my own son is not of "pure blood" as he's the descendant of an Irish/Dominican.

Make of that what you will.

[elucidator]

...Not that it's anyone's business, but the accusations of racism against me go beyond the pale....my own son is not of "pure blood" as he's the descendant of an Irish/Dominican.....
Good God, man! You impregnated a drunken nun? Well, don't get into the habit....

[Diogenes the Cynic]

"Hippocratical?" Is Redfury an anesthesiologist (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hippocratical)?

[RedFury]

Good God, man! You impregnated a drunken nun? Well, don't get into the habit....

Dick :p

But dontcha know? It's what "hippocrates" do.

There. I've confessed.

[jayjay]

Good God, man! You impregnated a drunken nun? Well, don't get into the habit....

Too many more of those and you'll be sent to conventry...

[elucidator]

....There. I've confessed.
Egotist te absolvo. Go, and keep on rockin' in the Free World.

[Maeglin]

Automatically? No.
But blatant and massive hypocrisy in the service of picking fights certainly provides a good reason for taking a closer look.

To be fair, even ironclad consistency in the service of picking fights is not exactly admirable. It is not altogether clear to me that one is better than the other. Using one's consistency as a bludgeon is not a great way to endear oneself at parties.

That's certainly true, but there are always a good few indicators and ways of telling when someone is arguing honestly or simply trying to stir up shit.

That is a slightly watered-down intentional fallacy. It really doesn't taste any better diluted.

[Giraffe]

Depends. If your position was that it's never okay to invade another country, and then you supported invading Afghanistan while alleging that anybody who supported invading another terrorist sponsor was a professional apologist nationalist warmonger?

Then the case could be made that you were either trolling or very dense and inconsistent.I think you have an unrealistic view of human nature. People have always viewed the actions of themselves, their families, their communities and their countries by a different measure than those of others.

In my case, had 9/11 taken the form of e.g. 19 Pakistanis blowing up buildings and killing 3500 people in India, I'd have still been strongly opposed to an Indian invasion of Pakistan. Not simply because of the geopolitical implications, but also because I'd have argued that the actions of a few people don't justify mass retaliation against a nation. Even if the government had previously shown complete disinterest in catching and prosecuting said terrorists, an Indian argument of needing to defend their national security wouldn't have been sufficient to me -- I would have felt such an invasion was wrong.

From a dispassionate standpoint, my views on the two situations are inconsistent, strongly colored by my views of the pre-invasion government of Afghanistan and by my assigning greater significance to an attack in my own country than one in another. Yet I still would feel no obligation to support a future invasion by another nation, even if the circumstances exactly mirrored the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. While inconsistent, I don't think such opinions are either dense or troll-like.
That's certainly true, but there are always a good few indicators and ways of telling when someone is arguing honestly or simply trying to stir up shit.I agree, but I don't think you are a good judge of those indicators when you're in the middle of an argument with someone.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

These are not his actual words. And I just can't go from what he actually said to that. Not his most brilliant moment, but nowhere near what you attribute to him. All I can conclude is that you seem to have a problem with his being a Spaniard. He is not the Spanish police. I hope I am not held responsible for the actions of the Dominican police anymore than I hold Polycarp* responsible for Abu Ghraib.

I am very interested, please do provide some more cites.


By sheer coincidence I am holding a book called Los Judios en el Destino de Quisqueya right now. From what I see it is pretty pro-Jewish.
Totally off topic, but have you read The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brief_Wondrous_Life_of_Oscar_Wao) by Junot Díaz? It just won the Pulitzer Prize. It's a strange but interesting novel about a Dominican "ghettonerd" growing up in Jersey. It's very much a Doper kind of book. The main character is a total sci-fi/fantasy/comic book geek. It's a combination of geek culture crossed with Dominican immigrant ghetto culture, punk culture and Dominican history under Trujillo. Great book. The author was on Stephen Colbert last night.

[Mighty_Girl]

I'm not going to do the donkey work, but you are free to look for yourself if you like. Is that how it works now? I have to bring my own cites to your argument?

[Maeglin]

Is that how it works now? I have to bring my own cites to your argument?

Those Latino immigrants to the US are so fuckin' lazy.

<d&r>

[Mighty_Girl]

Totally off topic, but have you read The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brief_Wondrous_Life_of_Oscar_Wao) by Junot Díaz? It just won the Pulitzer Prize. It's a strange but interesting novel about a Dominican "ghettonerd" growing up in Jersey. It's very much a Doper kind of book. The main character is a total sci-fi/fantasy/comic book geek. It's a combination of geek culture crossed with Dominican immigrant ghetto culture, punk culture and Dominican history under Trujillo. Great book. The author was on Stephen Colbert last night.G'darn, off to find that video.

Yes I read it. And fellow doper and Dominican resident Martha is one of his groupies :). It's a great book, better yet if you actually understand what he is talking about (or maybe not).

From what Martha, who's actually met him, told me, yes, he's totally Doper material.

[FinnAgain]

In my case, had 9/11 taken the form of e.g. 19 Pakistanis blowing up buildings and killing 3500 people in India, I'd have still been strongly opposed to an Indian invasion of Pakistan. Not simply because of the geopolitical implications, but also because I'd have argued that the actions of a few people don't justify mass retaliation against a nation.

The analogy is a bit overwrought. The Taliban made AQ a part of their Ministry of Defense. It wasn't a case of simply not opposing them, but of them supporting and giving shelter to them.
Even then, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and we didn't attack them.

A better analogy would be that you enthusiastically supported attacking Afghanistan for supporting Al Quaeda, but then when Nation X supported and gave shelter to Terrorists Y, you claimed that attacking Nation X would make one a warmongering fascist.
In that case, you'd either be dense or you'd be pretending to hold the view that attacking terrorist sponsors was bad, only in order to piss on your political opponents.


Yet I still would feel no obligation to support a future invasion by another nation, even if the circumstances exactly mirrored the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. While inconsistent, I don't think such opinions are either dense or troll-like.

It depends. If you've decided that it was wrong to invade Afghanistan, then you've changed your views. If you didn't change your views but you believe that the circumstances are sufficiently different to warrant a different position, no harm no foul. If you still supported the US' right to invade a terrorist sponsor but opposed any and all other nations' in identical circumstances, you'd be rather dense.

If, on the other hand, you put forth a view that it was always wrong and vile warmongering to attack a terrorist sponsor, and then spent your time calling people who supported such actions vile, imperialist warmongers... while still supporting the invasion of Afghanistan? I think that assuming you were anything other than a jerk or a troll would be a reach.


I agree, but I don't think you are a good judge of those indicators when you're in the middle of an argument with someone.

Possible, but by the same token, I lurk much more than I post and I would characterize some folks' posts the same way even if they were talking with someone else.

Oh, missed this one:


I see no proof that Spaniards are significantly more antisemitic than any other European nation.

The higher percentage of anti-Semitiic beliefs among Spaniards would be the proof of that. And I already cited it. If you don't understand why claiming that Jews control US policy or have traitorous dual loyalty to a foreign power/other Jews and are against the interests of their own homes, or that "Jews don't care what happens to anybody but their own kind" are all anti-Semitics statements, I suppose that any elaboration would be rather pointless.


The only proof you offer of Red's defense of the Spanish barbaric practices during the colonial period is this Sorry, but "my post is my cite" has already been done. Please provide an actual cite.

And this is where we end this dance, as you're bullshitting. I didn't cite my post as his support for Spanish imperialism, but his post. Ya know, the one where he said that Spanish imperialism was good, as it civilized the Aztecs? My post, the one you quoted while ignoring his, correctly summed up what the history of Spanish imperialism actually entailed. By logical necessity, anybody who supports the history of Spanish imperialism... supports the history of Spanish imperialism. This is hardly rocket science nor is it asking that my post be my cite.

So the "only proof" is where he explicitly supported the history of Spanish imperialism as a civilizing influence. I cited that specific post. That you missed it strains credulity beyond the breaking point.

If you don't understand why supporting the history of Spanish imperialism means supporting what Spanish imperialists did, butchery and all, and you're actually going to claim I'm putting words in someone's mouth, I have no desire to deal with such dishonesty.


All I can conclude is that you seem to have a problem with his being a Spaniard.

And all I can conclude is that you're full of shit.
Ah well.

[elucidator]

....And all I can conclude is that you're full of shit.
Ah well.
Mighty Girl treated you with respect and a careful civility, qualities that I can admire (without the slightest intention of emulating). She is a compliment to these Boards, and a graceful incarnation of the Goddess. Furthermore, she rocks.

You, on the other hand, are a dickosaurus.

[Mighty_Girl]

The higher percentage of anti-Semitiic beliefs among Spaniards would be the proof of that. And I already cited it. If you don't understand why claiming that Jews control US policy or have traitorous dual loyalty to a foreign power/other Jews and are against the interests of their own homes, or that "Jews don't care what happens to anybody but their own kind" are all anti-Semitics statements, I suppose that any elaboration would be rather pointless. Bolding mine.

Before you said:
60 percent said that, in general "Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the countries in which they live"Which is what the actual poll says ("Are Jews more loyal to Israel than this country?").

If you misrepresent your own cite, I don't see how we can go any further.

[Really Not All That Bright]

If you don't understand why claiming that Jews control US policy...

...are all anti-Semitics statements, I suppose that any elaboration would be rather pointless.
That would be a statement of fact, not an "anti-Semitic statement". Jews do control US foreign policy, which is predicated on the defense of Israel.

"Jews are evil and control US foreign policy" would be an anti-Semitic statement.

[elucidator]

The whole issue of support for Israel is a big ball of fishooks. I am an admirer of Israel, if for nothing else than a poltical theater that never lacks for wild enthusiasm, they are involved in their governance in ways I dearly wish we would emulate. Democracy is a gift squandered on the apathetic.

But I am deeply troubled by the extent of our committment there, we seem bent on her defense even when she is in the wrong. This is not to say she is always in the wrong, or even mostly, but the tragedy of the ME is mutual, each are victim to the other, each have legitimate grievances that cannot be resolved, only forgiven by people determined to have peace.

And there are so few. Alas, so very few.

[FinnAgain]

That would be a statement of fact, not an "anti-Semitic statement". Jews do control US foreign policy, which is predicated on the defense of Israel.

Sorry, tinfoil hattist anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering is still anti-Semitic, and still isn't factual. Yeah, those crafty Jews have been controlling Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld all along. I hear they even plot over a tombstone.

But props to you for admitting you're a racist.

[Ensign Edison]

That would be a statement of fact, not an "anti-Semitic statement". Jews do control US foreign policy, which is predicated on the defense of Israel.

"Jews" don't control anything as an entity. That's what makes the statement absolutely antisemitic. The missing word isn't "some", it's "the".

[John Mace]

And, of course, his justification (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9880948&postcount=54) of Spanish imperialism because otherwise those nasty Aztecs would've been ripping hearts out (with extra 'if you think you need to know the facts before arguing something, you're pompous').
Is that the extent of what Red has posted on the subject? It looks like a gratuitous insult to me, maybe in bad taste, but not a justification for imperialism. I think you're extrapolating way beyond what that one sentence meant. If you've got more, let's see it. XT seems to think there is, but wants others to search for it. Come on XT. You know that's not the way things work around here.

[Mighty_Girl]

But props to you for admitting you're a racist.Since I somewhat agree with him, can I please also get one of those labels you are distributing so freely. I always wanted to be a racist.

[Maeglin]

The higher percentage of anti-Semitiic beliefs among Spaniards would be the proof of that.

Maybe this is grist for the other thread (or completely futile), but if you believe this, then you are not really interpreting the Journal of Conflict Resolution cite properly.

Among other things, what the methodology does not capture at all are the interactions between the confounding effects. Spain is having a well-known immigrant crisis, so it is highly likely than anti-immigrant sentiment correlates highly with residence in Spain. Both will end up strong predictors of anti-Semitism by construction. Not to mention Spain's high and growing Muslim population.

More importantly, since the authors of the study use the odds ratio interpretation, it is all but impossible to compare the magnitude of effects across predictor variables. All you can do is look at the chi-squareds: the chi-squared for country is dwarfed by the anti-Israel index, largely exceeded by attitude towards immigrants, and performs really no better than religion.

[elucidator]

...But props to you for admitting you're a racist....
Dear Really:

Welcome to Finn's List! We are the club of Dopers who have been identified by Dickosaurus Vex as, racists and/or trolls, liars, anti-Semites and other affinity groups too numerous to list here. (The record for multiple identity is Red Furry, who is singularly identified as a drunk.)

We have no plans for a gathering, as stadium space that exceeds 1,000 seats is prohibitively expensive, but we welcome you to our number with the calm assurance that you will find convivial company, if not exactly exclusive.

Yours in amused disdain,

E.

[wring]

::kicks dirt:: Darn, I never get to be called racist troll or liar.

[MrDibble]

And this is where we end this dance, as you're bullshitting. I didn't cite my post as his support for Spanish imperialism, but his post. Ya know, the one where he said that Spanish imperialism was good, as it civilized the Aztecs?

You mean the post where he was deliberately poking and needling xt by denigrating the native side of his latino heritage? You're citing that as proof of how he really feels about Spanish imperialism? Seriously? I can understand it if it was a cite that RF can be an argumentative dick (as even he would admit, I'm sure) and nasty in a flamewar, but to think it says anything about how he really feels is a stretch, IMO.

Plus yeah, the Aztecs deserved killing. Well, the ones doing the heart-rippy-thing, anyway.

[elucidator]

Since I somewhat agree with him, can I please also get one of those labels you are distributing so freely. I always wanted to be a racist.
I'm sorry, but admission to Finn's List is strictly regulated. You must be directly identified by Himself. Given the calm and rational tone of your discourse, we are saving a seat for you in anticipation of your impending election.

E.

[Maeglin]

Sorry, tinfoil hattist anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering is still anti-Semitic, and still isn't factual. Yeah, those crafty Jews have been controlling Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld all along. I hear they even plot over a tombstone.

But props to you for admitting you're a racist.

Dude, seriously?

Lapsed Jew that I am, I get nothing from this administration.

But Kristol, Podhoretz, Wolfowitz, Libby, Perle, Kristol, and others too numerous to name certainly have cashed in. Hell, even that raving anti-Semite Murray Friedman wrote a book about it.

If it is anti-Semitic to say that there are a number of very powerful Jews out there who have had a great deal of influence on our foreign policy, well then fuck it, reality is anti-Semitic. It is no more inaccurate nor worse to observe that a lot of white males have had massive and even disproportionate impact on foreign policy.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Sorry, tinfoil hattist anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering is still anti-Semitic, and still isn't factual. Yeah, those crafty Jews have been controlling Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld all along. I hear they even plot over a tombstone.
Let's see if we can follow your logic here...

Because the statement is "tinfoil hattery", by which I presume* you mean "crazy conspiracy theory"-type stuff, and "anti-Semitic", it's anti-Semitic. Well, that's not circular reasoning at all. Also, "not factual", by which presumably you mean America has always chosen which nations to provide military support to by.... throwing darts at a map? Challenging the hopeful countries to a spelling bee? Help me out here. Funnily enough, I always thought it was based on voter preference.

*I don't presume with much conviction, since I'm not sure you speak the same language as the rest of us.

I must say, it's awfully nice that somebody has finally stepped up to the plate and given me a label. I can now make the necessary changes and move on.

By the way, you're a child molester.

[you with the face]

Everytime I read a bunch of posts by xistme and FinnAgain I always feel like I've taken a trip to Idiotsville by way of the Crazy Land Express.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Oh, by the way, luci, I have a few questions about my new affiliation.

1) Do we get decoder rings?

2) Since we're racist, do we have, like, separate offices for each race? I mean, I'm of Indian descent, so obviously I refuse to share a room with you, whitey. Put me in with ascenray.

[Shodan]

Everytime I read a bunch of posts by xistme and FinnAgain I always feel like I've taken a trip to Idiotsville by way of the Crazy Land Express.
Anything to make you feel at home.

Regards,
Shodan

[Really Not All That Bright]

Also, what does the fashion-conscious racist wear these days? Is it still jackboots and shaved heads? I really hope not- that look just doesn't work after April.

Is it a major faux pas if I go around stomping on the oppressed in flip-flops? It's too fucking hot here for Doc Martens. Gosh. I hate it when I have to join a new clique. So many rules!

[Spoke]

::kicks dirt:: Darn, I never get to be called racist troll or liar.

Well, it's easy, wring. All you have to do is suggest that US foreign policy tilts a little too heavily in Israel's direction. Then you wonder aloud if lobbying might be the reason. Then you mention AIPAC.

Presto! Before you can say "Joe McCarthy," FinnAgain will be along to call you a racist or a troll or a liar -- your semi-official induction into the club.

(Bonus troll points if you don't think Iran is the greatest threat to civilization since bobbed hair.)

[elucidator]

Oh, by the way, luci, I have a few questions about my new affiliation.

1) Do we get decoder rings?

2) Since we're racist, do we have, like, separate offices for each race? I mean, I'm of Indian descent, so obviously I refuse to share a room with you, whitey. Put me in with ascenray.

No such rings are necessary, it is perfectly obvious what you meant to say. All such determinations are made by Himself. There is no discussion, and no appeal. Certainly no appeal.

Rooms? Shit, we don't even have enough chairs!

[jayjay]

(Bonus troll points if you don't think Iran is the greatest threat to civilization since bobbed hair.)

I KNEW the Persians were in league with the Flappers!

[wring]

(Bonus troll points if you don't think Iran is the greatest threat to civilization since bobbed hair.)
well, hell do you realize how much damage bobbed hair did to Doris Day and Rock Hudson alone????? Iran's gotta pull some mighty big stuff iffin they want to get into the big leagues like bobbed hair!

[FinnAgain]

You mean the post where he was deliberately poking and needling xt by denigrating the native side of his latino heritage? You're citing that as proof of how he really feels about Spanish imperialism? Seriously? I can understand it if it was a cite that RF can be an argumentative dick (as even he would admit, I'm sure) and nasty in a flamewar, but to think it says anything about how he really feels is a stretch, IMO.

Well, I suppose you could claim that Red was simply supporting Spanish imperialism with some race-based insults to piss of XT, while not actually believing that Spanish imperialism was a good thing.
But then, that'd be the textbook definition of trolling even by this board's standards.

You're right though, I had assumed he was serious and I overlooked the possibility that he was trolling.

Is that the extent of what Red has posted on the subject? It looks like a gratuitous insult to me, maybe in bad taste, but not a justification for imperialism. I think you're extrapolating way beyond what that one sentence meant. If you've got more, let's see it. XT seems to think there is, but wants others to search for it. Come on XT. You know that's not the way things work around here.

I'll see if I can find more. For what it's worth, I've never subscribed to the idea that a joke of that sort can't be both a joke and have a core of an actual position.

If, for instance, someone said in an argument with a black person "Yeah, slavery was good. Civilized you spear chucking voodoo motherfuckers", it wouldn't be beyond the pale to assume that they were being an asshole, endorsing slavery and posting a gratuitous insult at the same time. I see it being no different from essentially saying "Yeah, Spanish imperialism was good. Civilized you heart-ripping motherfuckers."

That was the easiest one that I had access to as I knew where the cite was. There are a few more that I've seen over the years between XT and red, let me do some digging...
Okay, here's another that I can offer up with a minute or two of searching.

I'd wager, I've found one of the occurrences XT was referring to. Here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8750197&postcount=42) XT takes issue with Red's handwaving support of the history of Spanish imperialist atrocities.
In response,
here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8755990&postcount=51) Red, via emphasis, indicated his support for the claim that "The Spanish accepted the Indians into their society--however rudely--and sought to provide a philosophical and moral foundation for their actions in the New World." That while whitewashing the brutality of the Spanish colonialist period and claiming that they'd acted with 'moderation'.

In other words, that they provided a 'civilized' and/or 'civilizing' dynamic.
That philosophical and moral foundation, of course, included forced conversions to Christianity and imposed slavery upon populations that were forcibly converted, in order for them to "pay for the debt" of being given Christianity.

Let's see if we can follow your logic here...

Nope, seems you can't.

Because it's a lie that claims that Jews control the United States, it's a slur, a slander, and based on race. That makes it racist.

"Blacks are criminals"
"Mexicans are lazy."
"Jews control the United States."

I'd take time to explain how we didn't provide any significant support to Israel until it proved to be strong a Cold War ally, or how 'voting preference' means that the insigificant percentage of Jewish voters wouldn't actually make a dent... but then I'd be trying to explain facts to some asshole who belongs over at Stormfront talking about how Jews control the United States government.

Thanks for playing.

[FinnAgain]

P.S. I might point out spoke that (go figure) you're lying through your teeth. And unless I'm mistaken, you have a habit of lying habitually in any GD thread on Israel and when I routinely point out those lies, you whine like a little bitch.

No, you silly little liar, someone making the false-to-facts claim that AIPAC sets out national policy is simply wrong and not necessarily lying. If, however, they maintain such claims once the facts have been shown to them? Yeah, they're either shit-stupid, lying, or trolling.
And no, you silly little liar, I've never claimed that Iran is a threat to civilization, let alone the biggest one. I have taken issue, time and again, with liars who invent their own facts and engage in games of make-believe partisan whoring, when Iran is the subject. Getting the Usual Suspects not to lie their heads off in a GD thread where the word "Iran" comes up is a challenge, as y'all seem to really like lying.

I'd be happy to provide numerous cites where you lie through your rotten little teeth in GD threads.
Fair's fair, after all.

[you with the face]

Anything to make you feel at home.

I must decline your offer of hospitality since I'm only passing through with a drive-by post. Thanks for being a credit to your fellow townsfolk, though.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Because it's a lie that claims that Jews control the United States, it's a slur, a slander, and based on race. That makes it racist.

"Blacks are criminals"
"Mexicans are lazy."
"Jews control the United States."

I'd take time to explain how we didn't provide any significant support to Israel until it proved to be strong a Cold War ally, or how 'voting preference' means that the insigificant percentage of Jewish voters wouldn't actually make a dent... but then I'd be trying to explain facts to some asshole who belongs over at Stormfront talking about how Jews control the United States government.

Thanks for playing.
You could take all the time you want to explain those things, but you'd be making it up.

The United States of America was the first country to recognise the state of Israel. In 1948. That was, shockingly enough, prior to the Cold War.

"But," I hear you cry, "RNATB, we did that in keeping with our proud tradition of defending democracy, even at the expense of our own foreign policy interest!"

That must be why we recognise democratic Taiwan, and not mainland China. Oh, wait. Did I miss something there? That doesn't seem quite right, somehow.

[Caffeine.addict]

I'd wager, I've found one of the occurrences XT was referring to. Here XT takes issue with Red's handwaving support of the history of Spanish imperialist atrocities. In response, here Red, via emphasis, indicated his support for the claim that "The Spanish accepted the Indians into their society--however rudely--and sought to provide a philosophical and moral foundation for their actions in the New World." That while whitewashing the brutality of the Spanish colonialist period and claiming that they'd acted with 'moderation'.

Do you have some cites because I read those cites in a different way. The comments that you are attributing to him are from a cite he has offered.

My understanding of his argument is that the Spanish weren't any more brutal than any of the other colonizing powers such as the French, British, and maybe Portuguese. That might be an interesting thread topic to discuss. FWIW, I don't think that the Spanish were any more brutal than the other colonial powers. They came for the same reason that the rest of the powers did, for profit. I don't know about you but I don't see a whole lot of Native Americans where I live.

[Mighty_Girl]

:: Reads Finn's posts above ::


Ooook...


:: Slowly backs up towards the door ::

[Really Not All That Bright]

:: Reads Finn's posts above ::


Ooook...


:: Slowly backs up towards the door ::
Aren't you, like, black, or something? Yeah, that's right. Get out! Not welcome!

Am I doing it right?

[John Mace]

I'll see if I can find more. For what it's worth, I've never subscribed to the idea that a joke of that sort can't be both a joke and have a core of an actual position.
Possibly. But that type of over-the-top comment taken in the context of two people hurling insults at each other isn't enough, by itself, to merit a charge of being an apologist for imperialism.

If, for instance, someone said in an argument with a black person "Yeah, slavery was good. Civilized you spear chucking voodoo motherfuckers", it wouldn't be beyond the pale to assume that they were being an asshole, endorsing slavery and posting a gratuitous insult at the same time. I see it being no different from essentially saying "Yeah, Spanish imperialism was good. Civilized you heart-ripping motherfuckers."
Context matters. Those two have a history of ribbing each other (sometimes jokingly and sometimes not so jokingly) about the similarities and differences between Mexicans and Spaniards.

That was the easiest one that I had access to as I knew where the cite was. There are a few more that I've seen over the years between XT and red, let me do some digging...
Okay, here's another that I can offer up with a minute or two of searching.

I'd wager, I've found one of the occurrences XT was referring to. Here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8750197&postcount=42) XT takes issue with Red's handwaving support of the history of Spanish imperialist atrocities.
In response,
here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8755990&postcount=51) Red, via emphasis, indicated his support for the claim that "The Spanish accepted the Indians into their society--however rudely--and sought to provide a philosophical and moral foundation for their actions in the New World." That while whitewashing the brutality of the Spanish colonialist period and claiming that they'd acted with 'moderation'.
Nah, you're distorting what he said. The only thing I see about that exchange is that XT is upset that Red doesn't view the Spanish conquest with as much disgust as he, XT, does. And Red is correct in that the English were more brutal in N. America than the Spanish were in the South. The English/American view was pretty much to drive off and/or kill the natives. The Spanish were generally trying to convert them to Christianity. Yes, they often did so brutally, but they weren't the worst of the worst, which is what those guys were arguing about in that thread.

I mean, look at the first post he made in that thread:

No, I am not especially proud of our 'Golden Years', but to pick Spain as the worst of the worst as you continually do (especially, as I said, likely being at least partly a descendant of a Spaniard) is, at best, being rather ignorant of history, or at worst, carrying a grudge that you'll never be able to rid yourself of. Why? Because, as I said before, in either situation (native or not) you wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for my ancestors. And the fact that it's easy to judge in hindsight, for were the Romans, Mongols, Anglos, etc. any "better" than us?

Am I particularly proud of our Empire? Hell no. But to demonize it the way you do, while looking for outs for the actions of others (especially Anglos to this very day) is, again, more than a bit disingenuous on your part.
He's defending, correctly, the fact that the English/Americans treated Indians worse than the Spanish. Which I believe is true. That is not to say that the Spanish treated Indians well, and it's clear that Red doesn't think they did.

[Spoke]

P.S. I might point out spoke that (go figure) you're lying through your teeth.

Well, you got me. I never really believed bobbed hair was such a threat.

[Zebra]

Are Spanish asses especially tight?


Not in my experience.

[Shodan]

Regards,
Shodan

[Fuji]

The United States of America was the first country to recognise the state of Israel. In 1948. That was, shockingly enough, prior to the Cold War.


Actually, I think most historians would argue that the Cold War was well underway by 1948. Some would even say it dates back to the establishment of the original Bolshevik Republic of 1917.

I also think that all the arguments over whose colonial record is the worst are missing a big point. The Spanish may appear more benevolent than the English, but then they had a dense, settled population they could "improve", whereas the English could simply move aside the relatively few "savages" who threatened their farms and villages.

Though obviously separated by a few centuries, it is interesting to note that the same English who practiced local exterminations in sparsely settled North America ruled India with an, at times brutal, but never genocidal hand. From an imperialist's standpoint, once a subject population reaches a certain threshold, it's practical to keep them around.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Regards,
Shodan

Last edited by Shodan : Today at 05:17 PM. Reason: cheap shot deleted
For some reason, I find this post hilarious but I can't put my finger on why.
Actually, I think most historians would argue that the Cold War was well underway by 1948. Some would even say it dates back to the establishment of the original Bolshevik Republic of 1917
I can't argue with that - but I think we can all agree that Israel wasn't much of a "staunch Cold War ally" for quite a while after 1948, right?
Though obviously separated by a few centuries, it is interesting to note that the same English who practiced local exterminations in sparsely settled North America ruled India with an, at times brutal, but never genocidal hand. From an imperialist's standpoint, once a subject population reaches a certain threshold, it's practical to keep them around.
If anything, the English (and Portuguese, to a lesser extent) "conquest" of India was notable for a lack of brutality. Things were pretty unpleasant leading up to independence, of course, but it was pretty tame in comparison to most of the European colonial adventures.

[Fuji]

I can't argue with that - but I think we can all agree that Israel wasn't much of a "staunch Cold War ally" for quite a while after 1948, right?

No argument from me on that. Hard to help a friend when you're drowning yourself.

If anything, the English (and Portuguese, to a lesser extent) "conquest" of India was notable for a lack of brutality. Things were pretty unpleasant leading up to independence, of course, but it was pretty tame in comparison to most of the European colonial adventures.

That's what population density can do for you. The Aztecs and their brethren would have had a much better bargaining position without smallpox on their plate.

[you with the face]

Regards,
Shodan

Last edited by Shodan : Today at 10:17 PM. Reason: cheap shot deleted


Good call on deleting that "cheap shot" of yours. I really mean that. Because if you hadn't, people may have been confused why you were telling me to leave town by sundown.

[Grossbottom]

I also think that all the arguments over whose colonial record is the worst are missing a big point. The Spanish may appear more benevolent than the English, but then they had a dense, settled population they could "improve", whereas the English could simply move aside the relatively few "savages" who threatened their farms and villages.

Though obviously separated by a few centuries, it is interesting to note that the same English who practiced local exterminations in sparsely settled North America...
Local what? Give me a fucking break. Not every group of people that loses a war is the target of deliberate genocide. Try to restrain yourself from the Holocaust button, tia.

[Grossbottom]

Good call on deleting that "cheap shot" of yours. I really mean that. Because if you hadn't, people may have been confused why you were telling me to leave town by sundown.
You're classy

[Fuji]

Local what? Give me a fucking break. Not every group of people that loses a war is the target of deliberate genocide. Try to restrain yourself from the Holocaust button, tia.

Not every mention of the word "extermination" implies motive. Sometimes it is just the effect that matters.

[you with the face]

You're classy

Well, I've been called worse.

But point taken. Sorry I called out your deleted remark, Shodan. I should have been stopped myself, I know, but the smartass in me is not easily held back when the door is left wide open, flappin in the wind.

[FinnAgain]

Nah, you're distorting what he said. The only thing I see about that exchange is that XT is upset that Red doesn't view the Spanish conquest with as much disgust as he, XT, does

No, I'm not distorting anything. To describe the wholesale slaughter, slavery and oppression that imperialist Spain practices as having a "philosophical and moral foundation" is indeed providing an act apologetic and white washing.

Red was talking out of both sides of his mouth by saying he wasn't proud of it, but then holding it up as some sort of example of 'moderate' atrocities. It'd be like saying that one was not proud of Stalin, but his butchery was based on a "philosophical and moral foundation" and was comparatively "moderate" when placed next to Nazism.

Providing a bit of apologetics for Spanish imperialism and then going batshit nuts about US imperialism is, at best, nationalistic partisanship. At worst, outright trolling.

You could take all the time you want to explain those things, but you'd be making it up.

Doesn't it embarrass you to be so totally clueless of the facts while not only spewing, but alleging that someone who obviously actually knows what he's talking about, doesn't?

Yep, we recognized Israel. Which I think your fellow travelers would call "mere rhetoric". As a matter of fact, ya know, facts, the things you're supposed to have before babbling like an idiot?
Anyways, as a matter of fact, in 1949 the US was a signatory to the Tripartite Agreement, which placed an embargo on supplying Israel with weapons (what support!). Then the US sold hundreds of millions worth of weapons to Arab nations during the 50's and 60's, and not until 1962 did it sell the Hawk missile system to Israel.

The initial recognition wasn't accompanied by any significant military or economic grants either, until... we began to use Israel as an ally against the Soviet sponsored Arab nations and the Six Day War when Israel fought and won against a large number of Soviet funded-armed armies. Even then, economic and military aid didn't really spike until the years leading up to the Yom Kippur war and the events that followed it. Ignoring the role that the Cold War had in shaping our Israel policy is just standard boilerplate militant ignorance. But again, as you'd probably find it easier to talk to an uncritical audience about how "Jews control US foreign policy" over at Stormfront, I won't bother you with any further facts that would get in the way of your racism. They'll pat you on the back over there, actually.

Anyways.
Just like I said. Just as the facts confirm. Just like you've shown yourself to be ignorant and have no problem speaking from a position of ignorance.
How very unexpected.

[Giraffe]

It depends. If you've decided that it was wrong to invade Afghanistan, then you've changed your views. If you didn't change your views but you believe that the circumstances are sufficiently different to warrant a different position, no harm no foul.See, that's the thing. Of course I'm going to believe the circumstances are sufficiently different if my country is the one involved, even if they aren't. You're assuming that there is an absolute standard by which two situations can be judged to be sufficiently similar, when of course there isn't.
If, on the other hand, you put forth a view that it was always wrong and vile warmongering to attack a terrorist sponsor, and then spent your time calling people who supported such actions vile, imperialist warmongers... while still supporting the invasion of Afghanistan? I think that assuming you were anything other than a jerk or a troll would be a reach. Despite the unlikelihood of anyone actually taking such simplistic blanket positions like that, I still don't agree that hypocrisy automatically equates to jerkishness or trolling. Consistency is not the be all and the end all of social or political values. Someone can hold an irrational or immoral view on one subject and a moral view on another -- the former doesn't negate the latter.

In any event, I don't see what you've described as actually having happened here. I see you ascribing absolute positions to those you're arguing with, and claiming that they're trolling when they deviate from them. The only way for that to make sense is if there's clear evidence to support your initial interpretation of the other person's position.

For example:
Since, by his own admission, he actually sees nothing wrong with imperialism and conquest, going so far as to support it (when it's his country doing the invading and butchery), he's trolling when he picks fights with Americans for not being against behavior which he himself supports, as long as it's his country that does it.Your over the top interpretation of other people's views completely invalidate any point you're trying to make. Here, you claim that RedFury truly believes that invading and butchery is OK, and thus the only reason he's criticized the Iraq war is to piss off Americans. In other words, because he supports invading and killing people, he's actually happy that the Iraqis are being killed, and his only regret is that it's not at the hands of the Spanish.

I've read a lot of posts by RedFury and I've never seen anything to suggest that he's actually a comic book supervillain. I think he's more critical of the U.S. invasion of Iraq than he would be if the tables were turned and Spain was doing the invading, but that's human nature, as I said. It's not even close to the same thing as making up a position just to piss people off. IMO, calling him a troll makes you look like a nut -- stick to debating the facts with him, and you'll convince more people who read your threads, even if you never convince him.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Doesn't it embarrass you to be so totally clueless of the facts while not only spewing, but alleging that someone who obviously actually knows what he's talking about, doesn't?
Does it embarrass you that you're a complete and utter douchebag?

Should I even bother discussing US policy on Israel since 1967?

Not fucking likely - I'd probably get a more reasoned debate from Joe McCarthy on the potential benefits of Communism. Tool.

[SisterCoyote]

well, hell do you realize how much damage bobbed hair did to Doris Day and Rock Hudson alone????? Iran's gotta pull some mighty big stuff iffin they want to get into the big leagues like bobbed hair!

I, uh, I've been laughing for five minutes over this, and I'm not even sure why it's so funny.

[FinnAgain]

Your over the top interpretation of other people's views completely invalidate any point you're trying to make. Here, you claim that RedFury truly believes that invading and butchery is OK, and thus the only reason he's criticized the Iraq war is to piss off Americans. In other words, because he supports invading and killing people, he's actually happy that the Iraqis are being killed, and his only regret is that it's not at the hands of the Spanish.

No. It's that he whitewashes and provides an apologia for the butchery as long as it's Spain doing it. When it's the US doing it, not only is it horrible, but anybody who isn't willing to ignore the law in order to punish Bush is a "professional apologist".
Nor is it human nature to apply a sliding scale where one's own country is involved. It's perfectly possible to not only hold principles, but to stick to them. Partisanship isn't the default condition, although it is unfortunately prevalent.

When someone pretends to hold a position, but does not when it applies to them, then they're shown not to hold that position in actuality. If they use that position to start fights with people, then they're shown to be using a position that they don't actually hold in order to start fights.
That's trolling.


It's not even close to the same thing as making up a position just to piss people off.

So if, for instance, I claimed that posting without reading up on an issue was jerkish or trolling, and then posted in a thread on string theory, calling anybody who agreed with it a dupe and a patsy while I hadn't read a thing about string theory and didn't know it from shoelaces. That wouldn't be proof that I was only adopting a position to fuck with people and was bullshitting when I claimed certain things?
Just like when CBescapee, or whatever his name was, used to spew bigoted crap about how "Americans" were this or that, and then claim to be anti-bigotry and hassle posters who he viewed as being "bigots".

If your contention is that such crap is just normal human behavior and not indicative or jerkishness or trolling, that's your call. But I still say that you're wrong.


stick to debating the facts with him, and you'll convince more people who read your threads, even if you never convince him.

For what it's worth, 99% of the time when I actually do waste time responding to him and eviscerate his counter-factual babbling, it's in GD so not only do I not call him a troll, but I simply point out how, factually, he's full of shit. Here in the Pit, I can vent.

Speaking of folks who are full of shit...


Should I even bother discussing US policy on Israel since 1967?

Why? I already pointed out how you were bullshitting when you claimed that I 'made up' the fact that US support for Israel wasn't substantial until we began using them more and more against our Cold War enemies.
Do you feel a need to bullshit about post 1967 events instead?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Why? I already pointed out how you were bullshitting when you claimed that I 'made up' the fact that US support for Israel wasn't substantial until we began using them more and more against our Cold War enemies.
Do you feel a need to bullshit about post 1967 events instead?
Yes, dear. Now take your medicine.

[Giraffe]

When someone pretends to hold a position, but does not when it applies to them, then they're shown not to hold that position in actuality.Here I think is the kernel of our disagreement. I don't believe you can show that someone does not hold a position they claim to hold merely by showing that it's inconsistent with their position in a different situation, particularly if they have some strong identification with a party in one situation but not the other.

Anyway, I think we're going around in circles at this point, so we can just agree to disagree.

[FinnAgain]

Anyway, I think we're going around in circles at this point, so we can just agree to disagree.

That sounds fair enough.
And my thanks to you for actually providing a reasoned and well through out explanation of your position. I've actually got another point to make, but as it involves mod statements delivered in confidence, I'll shoot a quick PM to you.

[John Mace]

No, I'm not distorting anything. To describe the wholesale slaughter, slavery and oppression that imperialist Spain practices as having a "philosophical and moral foundation" is indeed providing an act apologetic and white washing.

Red was talking out of both sides of his mouth by saying he wasn't proud of it, but then holding it up as some sort of example of 'moderate' atrocities. It'd be like saying that one was not proud of Stalin, but his butchery was based on a "philosophical and moral foundation" and was comparatively "moderate" when placed next to Nazism.
Well, firstly those are not Red's own words, but the words of someone else he was quoting. I'm not even sure what that sentence means, but it seems to be referencing the fact that people in the 15th century didn't have the same sensibilities that we have today. At any rate, I don't agree 100% with either Red or XT on the subject, but I think Red is closer to the truth than XT is. No way were the Spanish worse than the English/Americans in their treatment of the Indian population. Frankly, there were enough atrocities committed by all the Colonial powers that we'd probably be better off just admitting that terrible things happened and not worry so much about who was better or worse. In fact, you don't even have to leave the continent to chalk up war after war in Europe itself. I can't even count the number of wars that were fought between the various states there throughout history.

[Algher]

I realize that this thread has drifted hither and yon (yon currently being defined as anti-semitism and Israel)...

I just want to ask how does one get hired to be a Professional Bush Apologist on the SDMB? I mean, I am just an amateur poster around here and if there is money to be made from posting irrelevant links and poorly thought out arguements (as is the character of many posters - Bush and non-Bush here) - I want in on the gravy train!

[FinnAgain]

Well, firstly those are not Red's own words, but the words of someone else he was quoting.

But do you really feel that Red wasn't endorsing those views via his quoting and underling them? If he didn't endorse them, why post them and emphasize them?


I'm not even sure what that sentence means, but it seems to be referencing the fact that people in the 15th century didn't have the same sensibilities that we have today.

Quite right, it was about the 'White Man's Burden' and how the Spanish conquerors believed that they were civilizing the Mayas, Incas, etc... with their brutality. But excusing it, or worse, championing it in order to piss someone off by bragging about the torments probably inflicted on their ancestors?

[John Mace]

Yes, I thought that insult was in bad taste, and I said so earlier. As was XT's in his OP.

[elucidator]

I realize that this thread has drifted hither and yon (yon currently being defined as anti-semitism and Israel)...

I just want to ask how does one get hired to be a Professional Bush Apologist on the SDMB? I mean, I am just an amateur poster around here and if there is money to be made from posting irrelevant links and poorly thought out arguements (as is the character of many posters - Bush and non-Bush here) - I want in on the gravy train!
Such a deal is available. Can you draw a pentagram?

[FinnAgain]

Yes, I thought that insult was in bad taste, and I said so earlier.

Well, I'd say that goes far beyond simple bad taste, like taunting a black person about how your ancestors might have owned theirs and they should consider themselves lucky because Africa was a real shit hole.

But I doubt that either of us is going to change the other's subjective interpretation.

[John Mace]

Well, I'd say that goes far beyond simple bad taste, like taunting a black person about how your ancestors might have owned theirs and they should consider themselves lucky because Africa was a real shit hole.

But I doubt that either of us is going to change the other's subjective interpretation.
Except that they have a history of insulting each other on a pretty personal level. If that came out of the blue, yeah it would've been beyond bad taste. In the context of the insults that fly back and forth, it's just one more to add to the list.

[RedFury]

Holy Popemobil, what have we got here? Looks as if FrothAgain is in full melt-down mode.

What a sorry fucking spectacle and yet I don't feel a thing for the douchebag. For why would I when he's confronted with facts by a very classy lady I am proud to know in person. Modest by nature, this most intelligent woman is quite a successful writer and entrepreneur...not to mention of being in possession of quasi-encyclopedic knowledge of the Dominican Republic's history and well beyond. Spend a couple of hours with her and you'll learn that you don't know shit from shinola.

OTOH, you're a scumbag unworthy of laying as dirt under her fingernails. If you were a quarter as smart as you think you are, you'd promptly realize how over your head she is in just about any department you can think of. Hmmm...yeah, perhaps that's why I don't give a shit if you're having some kind of psychotic episode and are in dire need of medical care.

Yep, yep, that about covers it.

So keep throwing your crazed, incoherent tirades at me but leave her the fuck out of it, Zionist asswipe.

[RedFury]

PS-I'd like to thank my very classy Latino friend, XT, for providing me with much needed amusement. For apart from the vulgar spectacle that is FrothAgain, this thread has what have to be some of the funniest posts I've read on the SDMB.

From links provided to "prove" my racism:

...but even I, prejudiced as I am against the Spanish

Hell's bells, I think I've just found another candidate for Himself to nominate as a racist scumbag. Or whatever the fuck he's babbling about.

Welcome to the club, xt! Just don't sit next to me.

[elucidator]

...Zionist asswipe.

Gotta confront you on that one, Red. I really wish you would not use the term "Zionist" as a pejorative without modifier. Zionism if defined simply as support for the notion of a Jewish homeland is not inherently evil. That some Zionists are inhumane in their approach is no reason to presume that all Zionists are complicit, any more than I can justifiably insult you for the activities of Pedro the Cruel.

With all due respect, and if its not too much to ask, could you knock it off?

[Maeglin]

Gotta confront you on that one, Red. I really wish you would not use the term "Zionist" as a pejorative without modifier.

I think the modifier here is "asswipe". I am a Zionist by any definition, yet so far as I am aware, there is no consensus that I am an asswipe.

[elucidator]

Understood, but I am under the impression that the term could stand alone and be intended as an insult. Like when my Uncle used the term "Mexican", it was always an insult, a pejorative.

I'd be happy to be wrong, and be so advised. As for "asswipe", well, 'nuff sed.

[RedFury]

Well, 'luc, as always, advice my way from you is well taken...thus "off" it is. But it was literally meant for FrothAgain and no one else.

Just sick and tired of his fucking 'Israel is all that and a bag of chips' crusade, is all.

[elucidator]

Pleased to hear it, you yurpeen tosspot.

[RedFury]

Ain't a thing, jelly bean. Guess I was just comfirming what MrDibble said. No doubt that I can be an "argumentative dick." Especially when pricked. ;)

But hey, I'm not really in the mood. There's a real football tournament going on that's keeping me quite happy these days. Not that a Texan Eskimo would know anything about that...

[elucidator]

Smilie when you say that, podnuh.....

[FinnAgain]

Red: stop drinking long enough to realize that I was proving your nature as a two faced flaming asshole by pointing out how you support your nation's imperialistic history and then spew at people in GD for not forgetting the law and just punishing Bush anyways.
Your nature as a racist is proven amply well by your random inclusion of the word "Jewish" as a pejorative adjective and your general babblings about evil Jews and their dastardly political machinations. I'm not sure why all you stormfront types are ashamed of your racism. Once you've gone the length of talking about Jewish control of various nations, just put on the white hood and be done with it.
I mean, why add cowardice to stupidity and racism? Not all that bright, rather amusingly, defended her anti-Semitism by claiming that she wasn't racist against all people, she just thinks that Jews control the US government's foreign policy. You know, like a cabal of old Jews. Well, elder Jews. And the important fact isn't so much that they're Jews but Zionists. So, ya know, Elder Zionists have taken over United States foreign policy to benefit the nation that they're primarily loyal to, which isn't their home.
And the dumb bitch has no clue as to why that might be racist, because all she did was allege that the US government was controlled by traitor-Jews, but didn't use the word "evil".

Speaking of drunken idiocy, the actual facts were that your sister in arms lied through her teeth and revealed an understanding of facts that rivals your average uneducated idiot. Unsurprising, as she's someone you hold in high regard apparently.
As you and your fellow travelers are apt to do, when caught lying, she first tried to change the subject and then resorted to the good ol' ad hom fallacy. Of course, like the rest of your follow travelers, she refused to retract her lie once caught. That you'd champion her, along with her little bit of racism about how Jews control US foreign policy, is rather unsurprising. That you actually believe that her act of lying is a 'fact' speaks volumes about your mental capacity. Or perhaps, simply about how many shots you've downed this evening.

I know that you're a drunken racist, so you're probably having a bit of trouble understanding text right now. But try to comprehend this: in each and every single encounter we've ever had in GD, I've proven you wrong on factual grounds. That is, I've caught you lying, distorting facts, and spewing ignorant shit. You have never, not even once in a discussion I participated in, advanced a true position or one that the facts didn't eviscerate. The same goes for your fellow travelers. They are proven wrong, continuously, on factual grounds. Ever stopped to wonder why your position can only be propped up by willful and ignorant omissions and fabrications?

It says a whole lot about you that you view someone being against lying as being wildly pro-Israel.
A whole lot.

Happy drinking, you sodden racist. :)

[RedFury]

Your nature as a racist is proven amply well by your random inclusion of the word "Jewish" as a pejorative adjective and your general babblings about evil Jews and their dastardly political machinations. I'm not sure why all you stormfront types are ashamed of your racism. Once you've gone the length of talking about Jewish control of various nations, just put on the white hood and be done with it.

Done. (http://k53.pbase.com/u15/ralphandkylie/large/41978560._MG_0559_edited1.jpg) I'm the guy standing the middle of course.

Say, if you need me to throw you another bone in your quest to self-implode don't hesitate to ask.

I mean, what are friends for, right?

[BrainGlutton]

Sorry, tinfoil hattist anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering is still anti-Semitic, and still isn't factual. Yeah, those crafty Jews have been controlling Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld all along. I hear they even plot over a tombstone.

But props to you for admitting you're a racist.

:rolleyes: Y'know, Finn, it's not easy, in this day and age (and Og be thanked!) to stir up any sympathy for Hitler. Not even Benjamin Netanyahu could manage that. But you, Finn, you could make the average Hasidic Jew stand in line to apply for SS membership. That's a rare accomplishment, and you ought to be proud of it. Or maybe not.

[Nava]

...I think he's more critical of the U.S. invasion of Iraq than he would be if the tables were turned and Spain was doing the invading, but that's human nature, as I said...

Actually, no. One of his reasons to support ZP is that he got Spain out of Irak (he mentioned it in a Pit thread he opened on the occasion of ZP's reelection).

To describe the wholesale slaughter, slavery and oppression that imperialist Spain practices as having a "philosophical and moral foundation" is indeed providing an act apologetic and white washing.

Bolding mine. Finn, would you like a current calendar?

[MrDibble]

Well, I suppose you could claim that Red was simply supporting Spanish imperialism with some race-based insults to piss of XT, while not actually believing that Spanish imperialism was a good thing.
But then, that'd be the textbook definition of trolling even by this board's standards.

Do yourself a favour. If you're going to continue to play on these here Intertubes, learn the difference between flaming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)) and trolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll). It might come in handy someday.

[MrDibble]

Done. (http://k53.pbase.com/u15/ralphandkylie/large/41978560._MG_0559_edited1.jpg) I'm the guy standing the middle of course.
:)

[Shodan]

Sorry I called out your deleted remark, Shodan. I should have been stopped myself, I know, but the smartass in me is not easily held back when the door is left wide open, flappin in the wind.
No worries. :cool:

Regards,
Shodan

[Grossbottom]

For why would I when he's confronted with facts by a very classy lady I am proud to know in person. Modest by nature, this most intelligent woman is quite a successful writer and entrepreneur...not to mention of being in possession of quasi-encyclopedic knowledge of the Dominican Republic's history and well beyond. Spend a couple of hours with her and you'll learn that you don't know shit from shinola.
I heard last year there's white sand beachfront lots down there going for $20-30k and no property taxes. True?

[Grossbottom]

Not every mention of the word "extermination" implies motive.
No, but the word "practiced" does, as in the phrase "the same English who practiced local exterminations". As in, believing himself intelligent, he imperfectly practiced the subtle art of acting coy on the internet.

[Mighty_Girl]

I heard last year there's white sand beachfront lots down there going for $20-30k and no property taxes. True?You are missing a zero. And I am talking about a mid-size condo, in some faraway spot.

Right now you could not buy a tent for 20K. :)


And Red, thanks. Although I don't know who that lady you describe is, I would sure like to meet her. :)

[RedFury]

I heard last year there's white sand beachfront lots down there going for $20-30k and no property taxes. True?

Although marginally involved in Real Estate, I couldn't assure you of said bargains as I'm solely involved in the capital, Santo Domingo...where that amount of money will likely buy you a tin-roofed shanty with a lovely view into our polluted river. And likely a Gazebo with a mosquito net in any of the well-known resorts such as Punta Cana, Casa de Campo and the Puerto Plata to Samana beach zone.

Some sources that might be of help:

Lots/Land For Sale in The Dominican Republic (http://www.viviun.com/Real_Estate/Dominican_Republic/Lots-Land/)

Dominican Republic Real Estate Section....... (http://www.thedominicanrepublic.net/Real_Estate/)

And this forum/website dedicated to helping ex-pats (mostly Americans) in all sorts of endeavor having to do with living/vacationing/buying proper ty or setting-up business ventures:

DR1.com (http://dr1.com/)

Hope that helps.

---

As it's virtually impossible to respond to each and every post made my way in this thread -- life interferes. Don't you just hate it when that happens? -- I'll just add briefly that Nava's right on point about my position w/regards to the Iraq invasion. Couldn't give a hoot if it was us that did it -- I'd still be livid if we had.

OTOH, I believe I am on record on this very board (or perhaps it was in my own old forum which I got tired of running at about the time I joined here. Can't recall) that I was a srong supporter of the attack on Afghanistan. Turns out, in hindsight, I might not have been right in that either.

Lastly, I sincerely appreciate the posts from people like John Mace, Maeglin, MG, BG, 'luc and others, who have the patience I lack in trying to explain my position on some of the issues that have been brought against me in this veritable tutti frutti of a Pitting. Obviously, we're never going to reach universal consensus on any number of this matters, but by the same token it is gratifying to see that not only so many of you are able to understand where I'm coming from, but even agree to some extent or another with many of those positions.

So thanks for that.

Away I must. Have a great one, kids.

[RedFury]

Shoot, almost a simulpost.

Buenos días, MG. Just look in the mirror if you'd like to meet her.

Gracias a ti.

Really, really hafta go!

[elucidator]

You know, I keep getting Mighty Girl and Big Girl mixed up. Which one has the rope that makes you tell the truth?

[Merijeek]

You know, I keep getting Mighty Girl and Big Girl mixed up. Which one has the rope that makes you tell the truth?

That'd be the CIA or Military Intelligence, depending on how the rope is used.

-Joe

[Vinyl Turnip]

You know, I keep getting Mighty Girl and Big Girl mixed up. Which one has the rope that makes you tell the truth?
Dunno, but I had an ex-girlfriend who used a tape measure---didn't make me tell the truth per se, but it sure made it harder to argue...

[Fuji]

No, but the word "practiced" does, as in the phrase "the same English who practiced local exterminations". As in, believing himself intelligent, he imperfectly practiced the subtle art of acting coy on the internet.

Or one could say, "he imperfectly practiced the subtle art of mind-reading over the internet."

I grew up in New England. The first thing I thought of in this context was the Pequot War. I think the phrase "practiced local exterminations" quite aptly applies to one particulary nasty episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_massacre) of that war.

Anyway, as I said in earlier posts, I don't find the English track record of colonial atrocities that egregious when compared with Spain, France, et al. Again, as I also said earlier, demographics and epidemiology go a long way towards explaining the differing behavior of European colonialists in different locales.

[BrainGlutton]

The main difference between Spanish and English New World colonization is that the Spanish (usually) sought to reduce the Indians to de facto slavery and the English (usually) sought to get rid of them entirely so they could use the land. Which is worse is debatable.

[Mighty_Girl]

The main difference between Spanish and English New World colonization is that the Spanish (usually) sought to reduce the Indians to de facto slavery and the English (usually) sought to get rid of them entirely so they could use the land. Which is worse is debatable.And an interesting debate it would be.

I think I have mentioned this in another thread long ago, but the Spaniards saw the Indians as eminently human, if inferior. Blacks, not so much. Indians were de facto slaves, although officially manumitted (speaking only of the Hispaniola). In less than 200 years they were entirely wiped out, mostly because of disease, and a very low birth rate.

The Catholic church, to their credit, tried to save their mortal life (not only their souls) and came up with the brilliant idea of importing - the seemingly sturdier - African slaves.

Many Spaniards married Taino wives (converted, obviously), marrying black slaves was unheard of. However, they did boink the slaves with gusto (I, and 80% of the Dominican population are living proof of that), and their children were not considered, nor treated, as slaves themselves. In that regard the Spaniards, horny dogs that they were, were a lot more open than the English.

The reason why treatment of the local, non-Spanish population, was different, I my estimation, is that the islands were never the final destination for entrepreneurial Spaniards, mostly a short stop towards the land and gold-rich mainland. Nobody brought their wives, so they had to make do with what they found here.

The history of the conquest is vastly different in the Spanish Caribbean from the mainland, and I wonder if the attitudes aren't different between us islanders and the mainland Latinos. We don't seem to resent the Spanish so much.

The Spaniards were vastly outnumbered in there, and the mainland societies were vastly more organized and advanced than in the islands. The conquistadors 'had' to kill as many as they could so they wouldn't be overtaken themselves. Luckily for them the locals couldn't be arsed to join against the Spanish enemy.

[Grossbottom]

Or one could say, "he imperfectly practiced the subtle art of mind-reading over the internet."
So first it's deliberate, then motive doesn't matter, but now we're back to deliberate? Nevermind, I'm sure you'll just keep flip-flopping until the renewed novelty of another man-weasel learning to type wears off for me, which is now.

I grew up in New England. The first thing I thought of in this context was the Pequot War. I think the phrase "practiced local exterminations" quite aptly applies to one particulary nasty episode of that war.
You mean where the Pequots got outmaneuvered politically and militarily and got destroyed? Where are your tears for the Averni? For Carthage? Did someone "practice" "extermination" on them too? Or is the suffering of their helpless somehow made less with time and distance? Are they undeserving of your noble and solemn remembrance? Or are they just too remote to pluck the fickle heartstrings of American white guilt pretension?

Spare me. Shit happens in wars over dirt, and nothing happened in the Northeast that hasn't happened before when two sufficiently different groups of people start trying to occupy the same geographical space. Using words like extermination, and throwing around implications of genocide, is the mark of a completely self-impressed douchebag. The world already has one Ward Churchill, thanks anyway.

[Fuji]

So first it's deliberate, then motive doesn't matter, but now we're back to deliberate? Nevermind, I'm sure you'll just keep flip-flopping until the renewed novelty of another man-weasel learning to type wears off for me, which is now.

Hmmm.... I suppose I could have used the phrase "effected regional depopulation, largely through native demographic collapse and English/British in-migration, combined with the sporadic usage of civilian massacres and forced native out-migration", but inspired by a negative example in this very thread, I instead went with a terser, though less precise, phrasing in order to be brief.

As to the question of motive, I have noted above, and in several other posts in this thread, that I understand a dramatically increased death rate, caused primarily by exposure to Old World pathogens, in combination with a greatly reduced birth rate, attributable largely to general societal collapse, to have been the primary killers of Native Americans in the colonial period. I have also stated that I didn't think the English were exceptionally bad in this respect.

You mean where the Pequots got outmaneuvered politically and militarily and got destroyed? Where are your tears for the Averni? For Carthage? Did someone "practice" "extermination" on them too? Or is the suffering of their helpless somehow made less with time and distance? Are they undeserving of your noble and solemn remembrance? Or are they just too remote to pluck the fickle heartstrings of American white guilt pretension?

Yes. Don't care. Don't care. Yes, Julius Caesar and Scipio Aemilianus, respectively. Yes. No. Can't answer as I'm not white enough (my father was born in Bihar) for white guilt.

Spare me. Shit happens in wars over dirt, and nothing happened in the Northeast that hasn't happened before when two sufficiently different groups of people start trying to occupy the same geographical space.

Fully agreed.

Using words like extermination, and throwing around implications of genocide, is the mark of a completely self-impressed douchebag. The world already has one Ward Churchill, thanks anyway.

MOO!

[Grossbottom]

MOO!
Outstanding! Bravo. I drink tonight in your honor, good sir! :)

[ElvisL1ves]

so far as I am aware, there is no consensus that I am an asswipe.
Not much, anyway. So far.

[ElvisL1ves]

Just to jog the memories of the longer-term members here: Collounsbury used to routinely post here drunk. Even though he had actual deep insights and personal knowledge to offer on the subjects he wrote about, he still eventually had to be forcibly removed.

Red, you just post drunk.

[elucidator]

Hey! Doesn't bother anybody that you post wearing women's underwear! Have a little tolerance, big guy!

[wring]

Hey! Doesn't bother anybody that you post wearing women's underwear! Have a little tolerance, big guy!
I wouldn't say that- I hear Carol Stream wants her panties back (I believe she said Elvis could keep the bra)

[ElvisL1ves]

That's going to give me nightmares. Thanks.

[kaylasdad99]

I wouldn't say that- I hear Carol Stream wants her panties back (I believe she said Elvis could keep the bra)Doesn't she think Elvis is up to keeping them twisty enough?

[Maeglin]

Not much, anyway. So far.

Despite my best efforts, you have consistently outshined me. I would even venture to say that you are the Tiger Woods of consensus-driven asswipedom: when you are around, you utterly dominate any competition. Even with a broken leg, you emerge victorious in the great race to ignominy.

[elucidator]

Wait. Tiger Woods wears women's underwear? Shit, that gets out, the whole damn PGA will be wearing panties.

[Maeglin]

Wait. Tiger Woods wears women's underwear? Shit, that gets out, the whole damn PGA will be wearing panties.

This would be an improvement on what the PGA wears today. Sadly, their complete inadequacy of style is not actually Elvis' fault.

[elucidator]

Can't wait to see the look on the old man's face when he finds out. Yeah, I'm evil.

[RedFury]

Just to jog the memories of the longer-term members here: Collounsbury used to routinely post here drunk. Even though he had actual deep insights and personal knowledge to offer on the subjects he wrote about, he still eventually had to be forcibly removed.

Red, you just post drunk.

:::kicks sand:::

I just knew I shouldn't have installed that breathalyzer on my monitor.

Oh well...guess it beats the reek of used tampons coming off of yours.

:::shrug:::

[Jackmannii]

a very classy lady...Modest by nature, this most intelligent woman...being in possession of quasi-encyclopedic knowledge of the Dominican Republic's history and well beyond. Spend a couple of hours with herThis sounds like one of Woody Allen's dream dates that went horribly wrong.