[QUOTE=Zeriel]
And here I thought you were smart, XT. God damnit, chili is meat and chili. What you’re describing is a fine bean stew, I’m sure.
[/QUOTE]
Good grief…what ever gave you that impression?? :eek: As to chili, it requires beans. EVERYTHING in life (according to my mom, my grandma’s AND most of the rest of my extended family) requires beans. And cheese. And lard. And meat.
Oh, and lard. Plus, if I didn’t mention it, more lard…
-XT
If you don’t like their chili, maybe your aunt needs to put more lard in.
According to ancient family wisdom, you can’t have enough lard…either in the skillet or on the body. Like I said, I might love it (with or without the extra lard), but it just won’t be ‘chili’. 
(Actually, full disclosure here…I DON’T like the chili as I’ve had it in Cincinnati. Or some places on the east coast from places like Hard Times. Sorry folks from those parts, but it’s just not to my taste. And ‘chili’ here in New Mexico is also bean-less…it generally means a bowl of chili rojo, perhaps con carne, but not necessarily. It’s not what I grew up with that was called ‘chili’, which is more the California version…we didn’t really have any equivalent that I recall in Mexico where I was born. The only reason I dislike the type from Texas is, well, it’s from Texas…'nuff said. ;))
-XT
People that dis Cincinnati chili…have never TRIED Cincinnati chili. Especially on coneys. Really only then. This ain’t your forefather’s 7-11 canned shit-squeezings on a sweaty roller-dog at 4am. Its the shizzle.
You may want to rethink this statement. I’ve had it many times in Dayton, despite my pleas.
Pretty funny, since I’m from PA.
Hi, I’m Zeriel, I’ve got relatives and friends all over Ohio, and the chili there sucks ass. 
I like Cincinnati-style chili, but only when I make it at home. The stuff at Skyline et. al. is grotacular.
FoieGrasIsEvil, I’m wondering where you got your impression of what liberals are about
I’m a liberal and I endorse a STRONG military, want government spending to be constantly watched and cut whenever necessary, want strong regulation of corporations, am pro stimulation of business, want proactive foreign policy, want protection of American interests, within reason, and am pro nuclear power exploration. I’m not a particularly exceptional liberal in those attitudes, either.
This idea that the Republicans were ever better at spending reductions than Democrats is pure fantasy. If you look at the data over the 20th century to the present, it simply is not remotely accurate.
Look around the world right now. Austerity measures have failed everywhere they have been tried. For instance, did you know that the economic slump in England has now been going on longer than our own Great Depression of the 1930’s? Check it out here: The Greater Depression - The New York Times
People who prefer economic stimulus don’t just think it will “somehow” help. They have pretty clear economic models that have 1) been demonstrated in the past to work dramatically well in the real world (e.g. the Great Depression), and 2) have been accurately predicting the outcomes of various aspects of present efforts (see David Frum: “It’s Time We Republicans Finally Admitted that Paul Krugman Might Be Right”).
I’m sorry to partisan all over your sentiment, but it isn’t “partisan politics” that have fucked up our country. We weren’t particularly fucked just 12 short years ago, for example.
To that last point, people superciliously dismissing the problem as “Washington” or “partisan politics” in general, without regard to who’s actually doing it, are perhaps the biggest part of the problem. They’re enablers. They purport to deplore it, but are actually lazily invoking the false equivalence fallacy. Saying “They all do it” or “Both parties are at fault”, with a dismissive sneer, is both factually false and irresponsibly lazy, just as much as saying or implying that “Compromise is bad” or “The other side is anti-American”. Citizenship in a democracy requires a bit more respect for reality and a bit more actual involvement in the process. Yes, your hands get dirty in the process and yes, you do have to compromise to make any progress.
That’s seriously fucked up, man. I mean, seriously fucked up.
A Democratic president had dealt very well with Iraq for the better part of a decade before Bush. Remember? I can quote Dick Cheney’s opinion at the time, if you like.
Your HO is simply bullshit. Remember that “the system was blinking red”? Remember how the White House task force on terrorism simply did not meet? Bush appointed Cheney head of that body, but he didn’t even do that until May, 2001, five months into his presidency. They didn’t care. For instance:
This is after being specifically warned by the previous administration about the need to attend to terrorism. It was only 2 months after the Cole bombing that Bush took office, for fuck’s sake. Richard Clarke was present across the transitions, and tells a pretty clear picture of what happened.
We’ll never know with any certainty whether another presidential administration would have prevented the 9/11 attacks. We do know with certainty that the administration in office at the time clearly and demonstrably was not paying attention to the matter, in stark contrast to the one that preceded it and in defiance of the larger context of warning signs at the time.
But at least they cared about the budget deficit, right? After all, if they didn’t, their deficit-hawk base would have called them on it.
Probably the essence of complaints about right-wing thought processes: if were to have a thought experiment in which we posit
a) a U.S. economy running a budgetary surplus
b) with major terrorist attacks in check, and no foreign wars
c) under eight years of a Democratic President
followed by
d) a U.S. economy running a terrific deficit
e) with the biggest terrorist attack in history followed by two foreign wars
f) under eight years of a Republican President
IOW, the maximum possible difference in economy, terrorism/war, and partisan leadership, would everyone agree that serious leadership issues, going down to the root philosophical level, need to be closely examined (at the very least) with d), e) and f)?
The fact that Mr Moto and other righties insist that they would vote the same exact way if they had a do-over on 2000 and 2004 (in our little thought experiment) tells me that they will never (since we’ve got the maximum difference operating here) consider having made an error in judgment. These are not reasonable people differing from us on policy issues, and people we need to consult when deciding policy matters. These are fanatics, committed to upholding and defending their side, no matter how erroneous their side can be proven to be.
It was a very expensive thought experiment, and kinda rare that all the pieces fell into place so cleanly, but the conclusion (however unlikely) is very clear: righty thinking may safely be ignored.
which isn’t to say that righties can’t be discussed and addressed civilly, without all the ad hominems, gotcha points, clever wisecracks known to be factually insubstantial, etc. that posters such as Shodan rely on, in his case exclusively.
I don’t know Mr. Moto and I’m obviously dismissive of his political philosophy, but somehow I think if he and I ever met, we could get along and talk politics for an hour or so civilly and perhaps enjoyably. With an asshat like Shodan, it would be under five minutes that I would break something inside my head eye-rolling and would have to excuse myself.
Tastes vary. I disagree with every item above. You have an ideological sympathy…
Well played, Sir. Extremely well played.
Only people worth reading or responding to, on this Board, for content:
Sam Stone
Hellestal
Measure For Measure
Fotheringay-Phipps
MichaelReilly
Scylla
Shodan and Bricker for entertainment value, in that they create a tinderbox of rage and spew from the usual suspects.
Exapno Mapcase for links and data and such, although his constant lecturing about how everyone who disagrees with him is dumb or stupid becomes tiresome. I suspect he’s an academic at a middle-echelon institution somewhere, trying to overcompensate for something.
Since everyone above seems to be declining in posting frequency on the juicy topics, the board is definitely going downhill.
The quoted post above is great for its insight into thought processes of the board ultra-conservative.
He knows that Bricker and Shodan are being twats, but he likes it because the people he sees as his enemies are upset at their twattiness. It doesn’t matter that those people are advocating logic, intelligence and rationality. They are on the other side of the fence and the Mauleman hates them.
A list of people that meet his criteria for discussion, no one else has anything of value to say. The Mauleman is discerning. If you don’t fluff his ideological gills, you best step aside.
And the cherry on top is a sideways dig at stupid academics, with their tiny penises, acting all wise and smart. But they aren’t smarter than Mauleman… no siree. A life of banal ineptitude and willful ignorance makes the Mauleman the equal of any intellectual. His corn-fed, horse-sense, gut-intuition is the equal to any amount of book-learnin’ gosh-darnit.
Three questions:
Based on the above, are you saying that posting just to rile people up is acceptable behavior?
Who, in your view, are ‘the Usual Suspects’? Please name any three.
If, as often seems the case, Bricker and Shodan post simply to be a voice of political opposition rather than having a legitimate interest in a subject up for debate, are they not ‘usual suspects’ as well? If not, why not?
I think it’s a stretch to speculate any president would have prevented 9/11.
From the CIA perspective, OBL needed to be taken out for a long time (the 10 years prior to 9/11), and even though Clinton did authorize some action against him, it clearly wasn’t enough.
No, posting just to rile people up is not acceptable. Posting even though it riles people up is perfectly acceptable.
Because it is never the case that I post simply to be a voice of opposition rather than having a legitimate interest in a subject. (I don’t believe it is the case for Bricker either.)
You are making the usual asinine mistake - equating “posting something I don’t like” with trolling.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ve often thought that Bricker sometimes argues just for the sport of it and to stay in practice. A lot of it is cheap tricks, but he does them quite well. That and he is a wee bit trollish.