Sorry rsa, I meant to link to this thread in GD.
Do keep posting, Scylla. Nobody can remove all doubt about you better than you yourself.
Interesting theory? Well, I’ve never seen an explanation for this, which someone posted a while back:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm
It shows that Bush, for five minutes after he’s been told that the second plane hit the WTC, stayed at the classroom he was visiting. Then, according to the print source they cite, a conservative source, I might add, he continued to chat outside the classroom after this film cuts off.
I have no reasonable explanation for this one at all. Neither does anyone else. Given that, it’s a surprise more paranoid conspiracy theories haven’t popped up.
Myself, I just think he was out to lunch, as usual, and had no one with half a brain to tell him what he was supposed to do when the nation was under attack. Fits right in with his usual modus operandi. There’s a reason I call him Bush the Unready, and if this doesn’t illustrate his utter lack of independent thought, nothing will.
But it is very, very weird.
Xeno:
You’re right on cue! Goddamn you’re a predictable little turd.
That’s the spirit!
What am I gonna do now, Kreskin?
Send an e-mail to
<looks around shiftily>
. . . The Ringleader, perhaps ?
Scylla’s “brother” has the inside story, you know.
radio squawk: kkkkkkkkkkk!!!
Ringfellow six to Ringleader - Big Dawg is on the porch - Repeat! - Big Dawg is on the porch -
Request back up with flea spray - Over
kkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!
Xeno:
Attack personalities, tell me how bad a person I am. That kind of thing.
Then maybe Minty will show up and tell me what a terrible person I am, Desmostylus will say something else, Elucidator will crack something, then Elvis and London will start in, and the interesting discussion with Svin will be over.
It’s what cowardly little pricks like yourself do. They show up, make drive by comments, and engage in character asassination from a safety in numbers standpoint trying to provoke a trainwreck or a meltdown. You get off on causing trouble and trying to hurt other people because you have trouble making a positive contribution. LBJ said “Any mule can kick down a barn.” That’s what you’re doing.
You must feel good or get something out of saying mean things to people, otherwise you wouldn’t do it so often.
Small and mean cowards looking for an outlet for their aggressions are as common and predictable as fleas.
That’s pretty much what you’re doing here. You’re other choices are say nothing, or say something thoughtful. You instead have chosen to be a prick, and just post something nasty but empty. You are the sum of your choices.
Yes, I’m so mean to you. Nasty; nasty, spiteful and empty.
Not quite so empty as to base my political sensibility on schoolyard dynamics, nor so nasty as to advocate taking away ( :rolleyes: ) the “right to existence” of Palestinians, nor so spiteful as to reduce international dynamics to power fantiasies filtered through rank narcissism.
You know deep in your gut who the cowardly little prick is in your dealings with others. I honestly hope someday you overcome whatever disorder it is that makes you pathetic. But meanwhile, there’s a chance others might buy your bullshit (although they are getting fewer on this board), so again I ask that you continue on as you have.
Xeno:
You know, I almost posted that you would start using the rolleyes, thing… Oh well.
I see that you’re continuing to do just what I said you would do.
You’re saying “I’m not the one doing this… or I’m not the one doing that” Congratulations. You’re not doing anything. You offer nothing.
You could say “this is what I believe and this is why I believe it,” and discuss it with other people. You could even say “I believe you’re wrong, here’s why and here’s what I offer in it’s place.”
Instead you just act like a judgemental prick. You haven’t offered anything or brought anything to the table. You’re not arguing for anything. You’re just trying to tear other people down.
You’re total contribution is that my arguments make me a bad person. It’s the lowest shallowest argument. It’s the ugliest choice. That’s what you show to me. That’s the face you reveal to me. After a couple of years of this, I suspect that’s all there is to you.
Your criticisms and judgements are empty because you haven’t offered any ideas of your own by which I can judge the merits of your beliefs and weight their worth.
You know, Scylla, the martyr act is getting a little old. There is a better response to wit and fact and logic and reasoned argument than announcing that you are being bullied and oppressed because of your righteousness. To top it off with comments like this:
lead me to believe we are dealing with someone who has the out look of a ten year old with his own ball. In this game it isn’t your ball. We are all allowed to play with it. If you can’t enter into the spirit of the game without crying and wetting your pants every time you get kicked in the shins you aren’t being much of a player and you are slowing down the game.
Also. there are some places where anonymous accusations of cowardice are pretty generally abhored. You don’t accuse a man of cowardice unless you are prepared to go out side and prove it.
Svin:
He didn’t elaborate beyond the “asshole to the world,” and I don’t think I can be reasonably accused of missing the point on such a generalization.
I’m not really sure it was a projection of power, as I don’t understand what the mission was. We weren’t trying to capture anything or take anything over, and I’m not sure what we were doing beyond presenting targets of our servicemen.
What I said was pretty simple and largely correct within the generalizations of such things. The palestinians were offered citizenship. Instead they left, because they figured Israel’s neighbors would wipe her off the map and they’d be able to reclaim the whole thing for themselves. And yes, they should not have been allowed to continue to exist. Not in any genocidal oppressive meaning, but as a force to be dealt with, a group with a viable claim. Having left Israel if one of the host nations wanted to give them a place to stay, fine, but they didn’t deserve any territories or concessions and none should have been granted.
Covering a lot of ground in a couple of sentences. A criticism isn’t a rebuttal.
Well shit, you’re right. I concede that their has not been a direct substantive military attack against the US instigated by Saddam’s Iraq, and apologize for the rhetoric stating otherwise.
Brachiating proof. We’ll see if I can walk when I evolve out of the trees. Shit man, let’s have some substance, okay? I’m getting enough insults and mischaracterizations from your hostile wingnut brethren.
It ain’t that simple. Saddam’s an instigator, a supporter, even if only morally or as a symbol. The rules of engagement that I think apply is that he’s declared himself as a hostile on their side. He happened to have a country at his disposal. He did all kinds of bad shit. He’s more than fair game. Tactically, it would be stupid to leave a threat on the board, and that’s how he posed himself.
I think it was the right thing to do, and still feel that way though Bush misrepresented the nature of the threat he presented.
That’s what I call not doing shit. It’s worse than doing nothing. We kill a bunch of people and cause a bunch of damage simply for retaliation’s sake. It serves no useful purpose. Qaddaffi was not hurt. He still controlled a country, the whole nine yards. Nothing was changed or gained. It was no disincentive to Qaddaffi. All of a sudden the game changes and now he thinks the consequences will be that he gets pulled from a spider hole for a flea check and suddenly he’s playing a different tune.
This kind of thing is pretty clear evidence that Saddam’s removal has made an effect in the war on terror. We remove Saddam and one of the worst and intractible terrorists of the last 20 years suddenly wants to play nice.
You’re missing the point. I’m not a fan of empty retaliation. I wouldn’t mind bombing a nuclear weapons plant because that might accomplish some safeguarding, but retaliation bombing sucks. It doesn’t accomplish anything. If we’re not going to remove somebody from power what good does it do to bomb his country? Only the citizens will suffer.
That’s one of the things that was happening in Iraq. Saddam was held in check at the cost of the people of Iraq. It’s a shitty deal. What did they do? Removing Saddam attacks the target that needs to be attacked. Bombing the populace or starving them out and causing them hardships doesn’t really confront Saddam. He still has the resources of a country at his disposal. Why allow the citizens to carry the weight of Saddam’s actions and posturing?
I think it’s giving international relations to much credit to suggest that they’ve evolved beyond far beyond sandbox level. That’s a level that’s pretty simple and clear and that people can understand. I think if you are looking for a stance as your thesis of International relations it should be simple enough to translate into that level. Simplicity is a virtue. If it was overly simple you’d have a point, but there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with simple and basic. Quite the opposite.
Well good for you. Seriously. I’m not saying love it or leave it. But I feel if you think it’s evil you probably oughtta fight against it, Though the expat deprecating his former home is kind of a worn cliche.
I’ve read Charlie Wilson’s War which is pretty good on the subject. We certainly helped them out, I disagree with the creating them thing, though. Having helped them out you might think they’d be grateful. The fact that they feel they were using one Satan to fight another is entirely their own responsibility.
Rabid fundamentalism, repression, militant extremism, enforced ignorance, poverty, things like that.
Why not? If I thought we were evil, I think I would. What’s to stop me?
They are. You’re rhetoric is pretty extreme your making us look like Nazi Germany waging a war of conquest and genocide. I doubt that’s your intention (at least I hope not,) but quite a bit of that’s coming across.
In the face of the kind of level of evil you’re talking about simply complaining or talking about it seems trite. That level requires action, IMO.
Oh, and on your subsequent post, what is happening today in the occupied territories is a different argument than what should have been done in the past.
They’ve been there now for a generation, which makes it a different story. I’m saying they shouldn’t have been allowed their period.
Let me try to distill this. You say:
[ul]
[li]Fact: There is a conspiracy against you on this message board[/li][li]Fact: You know this because your brother told you - your brother ?[/li][li]Fact: The Ringleader of the conspirators tried to “enlist” your brother[/li][li]Fact: Your brother became your spy inside the conspiracy for a period[/li][li]Fact: Elucidator is, at least, a conspirator[/li][li]Fact: You say you don’t know who the Ringleader is[/li][li]The conspiracy in question may take the form of a loose Confederacy[/li][/ul]
You are a bare-faced liar but that notwithstanding, I hope for your own sake you have some grasp of how unwell the above makes you seem. Look, this is the problem:
PARANOIA: Definition: [n] a psychological disorder characterized by delusions of persecution or grandeur
- Reading waht you’ve written in this thread it doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable to suggest you’ve got both those bases covered.
Just so we all know where we are, would you please take the time to straighten out this conspiracy issue: Do you, for example, stand by everything you’ve written here ?
Most of you aren’t Texans, so you lack the inherent empathy and emotional inter-connectedness of such an upbringing. It behooves me to be generous with my insight. No, don’t thank me. Least I can do.
Somewhere, along the line, friend Scylla formed the idea that a man, a real man, is hard-headed, firm, and relentlessly realistic. Idealism and fantasy is for women, children and liberals. We all know men like this. At best they provide a brisk tonic to prevent simple foolishness. At worst, they are pricks. At one time or another, each and every one is called a prick. (He probably got this notion from a man he loved and respected. That’s usually how it happens.)
Hence, Scylla expects to be called a prick, would be worried and insecure if he weren’t.
But his invective gives him away, he tries to be scathing and vicious, to sink the barb deep enough to yank out a chunk of self-esteem, but really…the late lamentable Collounsbury had the gift for toxic vitriol because…he meant it!. At bottom, our Scylla lacks the essential malice that Coll has in such abundance, he lacks the one necessary ingredient for venom.
When Scylla flings an insult my way, I have learned to regard it as the approach of big, brown-eyed goofy puppy, proferring a well-chewed and slobbered tennis ball.
(Aside: Scylla posted a word or two in another pit thread, started by the esteemed Stoid that was thoughtful, intelligent, and stimulating. Considering his gift for domestic comedy as well, I vote we keep him.)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Spavined Gelding *
**You know, Scylla, the martyr act is getting a little old. There is a better response to wit and fact and logic and reasoned argument than announcing that you are being bullied and oppressed because of your righteousness.
[quote]
**
And when I get a witty or reasoned response I usually try to respond as it deserves. Insults and mischaracterizations, and attacks get something else.
More criticizing of me. Why? Say something about my arguments, address them. Make one of your own. This is fucking stupid. I make an argument, somebody else says I’m a bad person for making it. I say they’re bad for attacking me and not making a contribution of themselves, and now you’re criticizing my criticism of my criticism. What is your point, that I shouldn’t criticize my criticism if I don’t like being criticized?
Jesus.
I strongly disagree with your conclusion though your logic is sound. You’re simply not starting at the beginning. Casting the aspersion in the first place without being prepared to go outside is abhorent and cowardly. That’s what I mean by an empty insult.
If I call you a name here, it is inherently cowardly because I am unable to back it up by “going outside.” It has no consequences.
When I call it cowardly that is not abhorent, it is simply a statement of fact, at least to my eye.
Casting insults from safe venues without the possibility of consequence is is cowardly and meaningless.
I don’t mean physical consequences either. Quite frankly I’m not willing to step outside over words.
There are all kinds of other consequences besides physical ones that reside in the real world to casting insults that simply don’t hold true on the internet. When that’s all that one is doing here, I think cowardice is the logical conclusion.
I don’t mind a heated debate or discussion, or even the insult thrown in in the midst of argument. That’s par for the course.
Xeno however has not done this. He has offered nothing except the insult. There is no other context, or circumstance. Since it is without consequence it is also without meaning and cowardly in my opinion.
So, I stand by that characterization.
Why the plural?
Why “muslim terrorists”? Would christian terrorists be OK?
Actually I just wasn’t breastfed.
I’m sorry. I used to be sincerely venomous. After three years of insults that don’t mean anything being thrown back and forth in a general absence of debate with the same five or six people I’m finding it difficult to get sincerely worked up. Now it’s more like an exercise in creativity.
One day perhaps you and Xeno and the rest of three stooges will grow tired of telling me what kind of person I am, or psychoanalyzing me and actually have a discussion. We’ve done that once or twice, you know?
[My emphasis]
What are you calling for here, exactly? Presumably not for the jews to do unto others what was done to them, but it sounds awfully like it.
I’m not sure what it’s called, but it’s something like the gerundization of a phrase.
i.e.
after having won a (singular) tennis match:
“I enjoy winning tennis matches” See how the plural creeps in?
After pulling a (singular) dictator from a spider hole:
“Pulling dictators from spider holes is an example to evil men.”
Something like that.