I have no idea who either of Ralph Wiggum or Flander or his kid is, but I suppose it has something to do with this cultural imperialism you keep tormenting us poor Europeans with. For your own sake it better be something good or else I’ll be forced to fling a powerful invective your way.
That’s actually pretty funny DanielWithrow, for a pinko commie bastard naturally, but what exactly do you mean by “Post like a leftist”. Oh and I agree with you on the charming thing, I’ll even go so far as to say I’m one helluva charming guy – and I think you would too if you gave the matter a little thought.
Also Tars I must grudgingly admit your musical interlude was pretty funny too, for a garden gnome of course.
“….and this one time, at band camp, I stuck a swastika up my pussy”
Well actually no, a now discredited study relaeased in about 2001 caused a stir when among other things it reported that all the gang rapes had in Denmark in the last couple of years had been committed by seconmd generation immgrants and in one case an Eastern European crime gang. Note that ‘Muslims’ or ‘Arabs’ were never specifically referenced, it was the DDP that specifically referenced Muslims.
So I went to the local used stuff shop and asked for this Death thing. And you know what? The guy looked strangely at me and said he just sold the last one to some dude called Mr. Joseph Vissarionovich, Bummer eh! They seem to be really fashionable now. At least no one is selling. Not here
You know what? I recently read a study about the price of beans in China. Apparently the price is currently hovering around the 3£/lb price mark, but they expected it would test the 3.25£/lb ceiling soon. Also in the news some Norwegian scientist has published a report wherein they concluded smurfs didn’t really exist; they should be taken more like mythological or even analogous creatures – and even if they had existed they wouldn’t have been able to muster enough brain matter to be really intelligent. I know, I know. I thought it too; preposterous! But they did seem very certain in their findings. And anyway I can’t see what either this or that has got to do with me.
But don’t worry now. I’ve taken to gagging my brats at night, and Eva Braun is out of the twilight zone. So I’m fine, and you have been taken out of the coal cellar and put on a pink cloud. You and Tars both. I see you’re holding hands, fine, but if you want to take it further than that, please go to the designated rooms.
I don’t think these are parodies, they are mean spirited and that is their sole intent (see the “cast him/her in a bad light” section of the above quote).
Even if constued as parodies, the misquotes by WinstonSmith name names, which is not allowed (see bolded words in above quote).
Next? Next in line, yes that’d be me. I recon this is the thing you’re referring to: “Falsely attributing a quote to another user, or modifying another’s post in order to cast him/her in a bad light, even if meant in jest, is grounds for revocation of your posting privileges. This does not apply to parodies to which no name is attached.”
Well I can only find two places where quotes were changed, and I don’t think this rule with any reason can be applied to any of these cases. I actually did not know of this rule before it was pointed out to me by CarnalK, as for the thing about changing avatar names for fun being seen as very un-hip (pointed out by Miller). And you have no doubt noticed I haven’t done any of those two things after the fact was pointed out to me.
But since you feel the need to bring down the Spanish Inquisition on me on this matter, my solicitor Mr. Rumpole has advised me to raise these honourable points in my defence: 1) Neither of these quotes can with any reason be misunderstood as actually being anything but changed, e.g. no manipulation has been attempted. 2) The first (“yap yap”) is not a misattribution but an abbreviation; like writing “[…]” or “etc.” 3) Further none of them was made to cast anyone in a bad light, in jest or otherwise, and if you think writing “wky sluibzzsy quizuysoupi” is mean spirited – well all I can say is you must have lived a very sheltered life. Possible you’re in fact a mole?
However, for the record, if anyone in this thread are absolutely mortified by my creative, if perhaps misguided, use of quoting – I hereby offer my unreserved apology. If you wish I’ll stomp my own foot or poke myself in the eye.
And now to you Spiff, my little law nitpicking slime mole. I’m sure you have a promising career as a nitpick bureaucrat looming in front of you. (I have this image of our little lad Spiff standing in front of a poster: “The IRS wants you”)
While not knowing the rules is not much of an excuse, you Spiff just broke the most basic rule of them all: “Don’t be a jerk.” Which I very much assume you already knew about, you being such a fucking nitpicker an’ all. The question now is: will you, can you, stop being a jerk, now that it has been pointed out to you.
. . . . . . . . . .
Tars! You’re here still! Do you know how many garden gnomes it takes to change a light bulb?
Well the OP was a rant against branding the praiseworthy Mr. WinstonSmith a Nazi. Not calling Ann Coulter a Nazi or holocauster or whatever. So this is actually somewhat OT. Not that I mind since the on topic has already been sufficiently dealt with I think.
It’s hardly fair to throw in another cite, and pretend I have endorsed her remarks there. I made my observations on the first cite you provided. I have not given Ann Coulter carte blance to say whatever the fuck she wants for the rest of her life. Since you bring it up, I’ll now read the new article you have linked to and see if I find anything in there to call her a “holocauster”, but the discussion is on the cite already been put forward.
I don’t really know what you mean by holocauster. Is that an actual word or did you just verbilized the noun on the fly? I’m fully cognizant of the fact that holocaust has been used in other connections than that of Nazi. However I think the Nazi associations have overshadowed all other uses to the point of them being outmoded, no longer in use, especially when you use words like death camp in the same sentence – and Nazi already being very much in the air. So I’ll take the word to mean something like: A person actively engaged in the actual perpetrated wholesale slaughter of an entire people, singled out on the basis of race.
Well I actually think I have refuted these claims. But if you wish I’ll go over the highlights again.
A) First, I have no problem at all with you calling her a bitch, a slut, a wiry old hag, a low down cum guzzling whore, a midget, a turd burglar, a moaning Republican arse licker, or whatever else the heck you can come up with, you can even go so far as to call her a potato head if you want to get the really big guns out – I, for reason I think I have already made sufficiently clear, do have a problem with calling her a Nazi, a holocauster, a deathcamper (or whatever the verb would be) etc.
B) I’d be very wary of using such brandings on anybody but those who have actually perpetrated such crimes. 999 times out of 1000 I’d insist people should have blood on their hands before you go and call them a murderer (or murdereress). 1000 out of 1000 I’d insist people should have mass murder on their hands before you call them mass murderers. I’m aware of no mass murder committed by the US since 9/11 – let alone one wherein her hands are bloodied.
C) Specifically, the actual cite in question was this: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”
An inflammatory remark for sure, but worthy of being branded a Nazi? Let’s go over the points one at a time:
C1) “We should invade their countries”
She’s talking about countries she believe are actively involved in terrorist attacks on your (not mine mind you – your) country. This is called war. Invading countries is what you do when you’re in war. This is unavoidable, reasonable and fair – if unfortunate.
C2) “kill their leaders”
She’s talking about terrorist leaders, e.g. Osama Bin Laden. In this I fully agree with her. Bin Laden needs to be killed. If he’s not already up there buggering his 72 virgins (he’d miss his camels I recon), I think it only fair and reasonable if the US pursue this goal with all her might. And, I have asked you this once before, why do you not agree with me (and Coulter) on this – why is this such an terrible thing to say? And this is the only place she talks about killing, however it’s leaders she’s targeting not the general public, or indeed a whole people, or anything to do with race. I can’t see how you can torture the concept of “holocauster” to fit the picture.
C3) “convert them to Christianity”
Again she’s talking about Islamic terrorist, or the filthy nests which hatch them. FTR these are the bits I do not agree with. But if they’re rephrased a bit, I can easily find meanings wherein I would agree with such a statement. “We should convert them to democracy.”“We should convert them to basic human rights.”“We should convert them to female liberation.””We should convert them to freedom”“We should convert them to enlightenment””We should convert them out of the middle ages””We should convert them to free press, gays rights, freedom of religion” Etc. etc. All the things which the west (and you the US) try to live by, and which is so abhorred by these dirty throw backs. Now I’m far from an expert on American politics (what’s said and how), but I’d think that’s the flavour, if not actual words, of that sentence. And even were it not, it does not amount to holocaust.
C4) “We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers”
True. And good the same; such misapplied pity is often more hurtful than merciful. Anyway showing mercy to Hitler would be mockery to the memory of the multitude of uncounted victims. I recently read a short interview of a GI that stood for the hanging of some of the other top Nazis. He called it a good day’s work. A good day’s work; that’s what I’d call it too. Let Bin Laden swing and I’ll call it a good day’s work too.
C5) “We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians”
True. Killing of leaders, soldiers as well as civilians is unfortunately unavoidable in war. Well I’d even say she’s being a bit hard on the US there. I believe the US also during WWII tried for precision bombing, at least on the European front (with appalling consequences for the bombers, who suffered some of the highest casualty rates of the war I believe). The English, and to a lesser degree the Germans, did most of the carpet bombing, night bombing etc.
C6) “That’s war. And this is war”
Yes and yes. If you believe a foreign nation was in some way involved in the terrorist acts of 9/11 (as Afghanistan by all indication indeed was) I think it’s reasonable to call such an act of war. I think even most posters on this board agree with Ann Coulter here.
Now for the holocauster; wherein in all this did she preach extermination an entire people? Wherein did she play the race card? I’m not a devout follower of Ann Coulter, why should I? She’s preoccupied with American policy, which doesn’t interest me much. I have read none of her books, and few of her articles. But in what you have put forward I see no valid ground for such extreme branding. And as said other places, I can hardly imagine why you insist to pursue the matter so vigorously. I’d say this for you Tars, (unlike hysterical bureaucrats which shall remain unmentioned) you tend to grown on one; much the way of old warts and snotty kids. But you’re playing her game, ‘fer Christ sake! Giving her the ball. She’s basking in the sunlight of you attention. You’re spreading her gospel. No matter how you go about the matter; you’re going to lose and she’s going to win.
well, since i didn’t call you a Nazi, i believe it has.
That was just a general “I hate Anne Coulter” rant, based on the latest dumb thing she said. Since it was the pit i had an excuse to call her nasty names to improve my self esteem.
That is the definition i was using. I was thinking of different types of holocausts like Pol Pot and friends, the Rwandan thing, the Sebian thing, and other examples of mankind at his most natural. I don’t equate holocaust with Nazis, though i think all Nazis are holocausters. Anyone who agrees with speech describing holocausts i term a holocauster as well, therefore you fell into the category.
I disagree, i think people who call for the killing of groups of people are just as guilty as those who do the actual killing, in a moral sense. Hitler may have never actually shot a Jew (i have no idea if he did) but he set up the whole kill them all arena, by encouraging his men to kill them all. Anne Coulter is the same type of rabble rouser, just with no actual power and a scapegoat that can fight back (liberals)
Yet countries weren’t responsible for 9-11, terrorists were. She was advocating invading ALL Muslim countries. That would be like invading Ireland because of the IRA.
I disagree, i took this as the leaders of all the Muslim countries.
No, i took this as we should eliminate Islam from the earth, replacing it with the one true religion, Christianity. This is grounds for the holocauster remark, as she is actively advocating the elimination of a people off the earth (the Muslims) based entirely on their religion (either converting them or killing their leaders, and do you really think she’d let the ones that didn’t want to convert go?)
That is true, neither are we bothering to get just Saddam but his cronies, this part i don’t disagree with, i left it in because it leads to…
She is justifying the mass laughter of innocents because we did it once long ago. That was a different time, and we did try precision bombing at the time. However, with today’s technology, it is much easier to hit precision targets, and mass carpet bombing is a thing of the past, despite Anne’s wishes to inflict it upon the Islamic people.
It was a war against terror, not a war against Islam. Coutler blurred the lines to spew her vile hate of all things not white and Jesus worshiping. As a Christian, i can say this is not what Jesus would do, nor what any real Christian would do. And that is why she is a holocauster. And you indicated you agreed with those points, so i lumped you in as the same. Now it looks like you just interpreted it differently.
And to close…
Gnome, gnome on the range…
Where the deer and Anne Coulter play…
Where seldom is heard…
A rollercoastering word…
and the sky is not Potato all day!!!
