Gotta admit that’s why I post in the Pit so much. This Administration does so many things where there is no freakin’ justification that I can imagine. (Though the board’s conservatives often dazzle me with their ingenuity in that regard. :))
As special envoy for the Hegemon, Baker is supposed to act like a statesman, not go grubbing for a few quick bucks. It’s OK if he’s a crook, but he should limit himself to being Bush’s crook!
Though I like the idea of merging the BBQ Pit and Great Debates. Or, easier yet, open up Great Debates to permit Pit-like behavior, then save the current BBQ Pit for non-political, non-religious, general-purpose ranting.
:rolleyes: This from the guy who gets so upset about some ethnic cleansing on the part of a politician who’s been dead for over 150 years that he hijacks a rant about nickels in order to gripe about said dead politician. We should have just replied “A politician is a tyrant? What a scoop!” and left you to fume over old “Indian Hater Jackson” on your own.
Disappointing. I would have expected better from someone of your calibre, Kim. Beyond your decision to hijack this thread to attack me personally, which is not uncommon and ordinarilly wouldn’t so much as raise an eyebrow, there is the fact that you brought to the table such a wet-noodle argument, comparing a rant about a pickpocket to a rant about a mass murdering holocaust engineer and advocate.
Liberal:comparing a rant about a pickpocket to a rant about a mass murdering holocaust engineer and advocate.
Pooh. I’m not saying that Baker’s actions are as bad as Jackson’s: of course they’re not. (Although if what is said about Baker is true, he’s much worse than a mere “pickpocket”: burdening Iraq with shitloads of unnecessary debt, especially in its fragile state, isn’t would-be genocide but it’s seriously oppressive.) But that doesn’t mean that Baker’s actions don’t deserve to be ranted about. (Especially in a forum where people are free to rant about their arbitrary dislike of nickels!)
And I think you’re acting like a jerk when you sneer at somebody else’s OP just because you don’t find it important enough to rant over. How would you have liked it if I had belittled your anti-Jackson rant by saying “A politician is a tyrant? What a scoop!”? Because let’s face it, Jackson’s been dead a long time, and Indian-hating was certainly nothing unusual in his era, nor were massacres, and there are more important and pressing things to be concerned about nowadays.
But did I say anything like that? No, I respected your indignation over something that was clearly still a very emotional issue for you, and I read your posts carefully and even chipped in to help when you accidentally said the opposite of what you meant. I didn’t come around covertly sneering at you for being naive enough to get all worked up over something that was perfectly predictable and unsurprising.
As these comments indicate, I dislike “rant squelching” in general, because I think it’s a cheap shot on the part of someone who doesn’t really care, at the expense of someone who cares enough to have put some effort and emotion into bringing up the subject. The “squelcher” comes across as disdainfully looking down on the silly little OP for getting all upset and outraged. I think that’s contrary to the spirit of the Pit, where people are supposed to be upset and outraged about things.
And yes, it bugs me more when you do it, partly because you’re one of the worst offenders, and partly because everything annoying bugs me more when you do it. It’s just my way of saying I love you, Lib.
