It’s not bad taste to point out that someone who’s being diefied isn’t in fact a diety, even if the diefiers aren’t given a 24 hour head start. Some of the individual comments made may or may not have been tasteful but the concept of commenting itself? No problem with that at all.
Aw shit- how did I miss this? You’ve got a load of brass balls to bring this up here when you didn’t have the guts to finish it up in the pit thread you started, you lying sack of crap. I gave you the perfect chance to put up or shut up, offering to leave the board if you could demonstrate that you were not lying.
“Choices of phrases”? I suggest that in the future, you choose the ones that are true.
Seriously, call it spinning, dissembling, embellishing, engaging in mendacity, prevaricating, misstating the facts, overstating…whatever you want. But you are a grade A, top of the line, without equal master of the misstatement.
Next time save your sniping - finish it where you start it.
Gutless nitwit.
CBS News informed me last night that at this time, all Americans have put aside their political differences and are united in their mourning for Reagan. They had some sort of expert to back up this statement. Fuck them a lot for telling me I am un-American if I think the guy was a bastard and am not sad he’s gone. Liberal media, my ass. You know, even ruthless dictators are beloved by in their home countries, but we wouldn’t expect everyone who despised them to mourn their passing when they go.
Possibly. But the comments have very rarely been along the lines of “He wasn’t a diety”. They have much more commonly been along the lines of “He was in fact demonic”. Very different things. And yea, they could have toned those things down. Its simply respectful The GD thread was at least nominally about his policies rather than about him. The Pit thread has not such limitations. And as such is in bad taste.
pervert: You are aware, are you not, that the Pit is where people go to piss and moan and just generally curse like Longshoremen?
And I’m so sorry that I seem unable to show the respect that you think Reagan deserves. Of course, as has been said ad infinitum, respect is earned. And Reagan did squat to earn my respect.
And just for the record, I, at least, have never referred to him as demonic. A bastard, yes, but never a demonic bastard.
Shit the bed, man! If one can’t be in bad taste in the Pit, then where in hell can one be in bad taste? John Waters has only made so many movies.
Waste
cheddar:
I haven’t forgotten you! I only wanted to hear Sam’s response before I answered yours.
You’re right; the problem with SDI, had it actually been feasible, was that it threatened the previous balance of power (or terror, if one prefers) established by MAD. Though ostensibly “defensive,” SDI was, in reality, an offensive system, in that it would allow the US to launch a nuclear strike without fear of retaliation. If the project had had even a small chance of success it would have proven to be profoundly destabilizing.
The reason I posed the question I did is that, at least as I remember it, the view espoused above was scoffed at by Reagan and his right-wing supporters. At the time, they insisted that SDI was a purely defensive system, and that opposition to it was simply left-wing intellectual paranoid clap-trap. That’s why I found it interesting that Sam would, 20 years later, describe SDI as “threatening” the Soviet Union. Are proponents of anti-ballistic missile systems now admitting that they really are offensive, rather than defensive, weapons – just as the left has been arguing for all these years? Inquiring minds want to know!
Sam:
First, upon rereading:
I certainly do not think you are stupid or ignorant, although I admit there was a period when I was pretty pissed off at you, and may have written some unkind words as a result. Please accept my apology for those old offenses.
However, I do think that you are partisan. Your partisanship leads you to 1) gullibly swallow the party line of the Right, 2) rhetorically overstate your claims, 3) draw far-reaching conclusions that are seldom warranted by the actual facts of the matter, and 4) ignore, or downplay, evidence that contradicts your presuppositions about the world. Everyone does this to a certain extent, but your offenses in these matters seem particularly egregious. YMMV, but obviously I’m not the only one who feels this way.
In addition, I didn’t reference that thread (or you) at all; I simply stated a fact. I honestly thought you had at least conceded that Reagan (not you) had made those statements, since they appear to be an undisputed matter of public record. But now I’m still waiting for some sort of admission on your part that you’ve seen my last couple of posts and that you also concede that Reagan said these things, which, by the way, had nothing to do with oxides of nitrogen. Continuing:
I protest my innocence. I didn’t bring it up at all.
Not to belabor the point, but I thought we kind of argued to a standstill. Still, I can even link to debates that I “lose,” if I want to. No skin off my nose.
Finally, this:
This is just more of your insulting again. It’s a shame, because Gorbachev’s eulogy in the Times would be interesting to analyze a little more deeply. I have to say that I agree with the gist of XjetGirlX’s posts; it seems like Gorbachev had a soft spot for Reagan. Here’s another example, taken from Sify:
Still, I think Sam grants Reagan (and Thatcher, etc.) an awful lot of credit, while simultaneously failing to take into account the very significant contributions coming from the Russian side. Had Gorbachev been more of a nationalist, or hard-liner, things might have gone to hell in a hand basket, fast.
So, Sam – did Reagan actually claim that trees pollute more than automobiles do, or not?
When he was in Moscow standing at Red Square with Gorbachev, Reagan was asked by a reporter whether he still considered the Soviet Union to be an evil empire. Reagan looked at his colleague, smiled, and said, “No. That was a different time.” I liked that he was willing to change his mind and admit that he made mistakes.
Yes. And in a bizarre twist, befitting the Teflon President, it turns out that his opinion was not entirely bogus.
http://www.chennaionline.com/science/Environment/environment24.asp
It’s worth noting too that Mikhail Gorbechev’s standing WITHIN Russia is not exactly universally a stellar one. My understanding is that he spends far more time outside of Russia these days than within it, and that further, he makes more than a pretty penny from making regular appearances on the high-paid speaking circuit.
A cynic would argue that it’s very much within his interests to make the comments he’s making.
My contention remains unwavering - the Soviet Empire would have crumpled under it’s weak economy at some point regardless. The ballistic missile issue was the single most glaring example of showing good faith that the Russians no longer wanted to be the Western World’s enemy, but rather, actually wanted to be part of it. President Reagan was in the right place at the right time in my opinion. He did a very good job of achieving what he achieved, and I offer my kudos to him for that. I merely would like to add that I’m pretty sure that almost any US President at the time would have achieved much the same result.
Just a minute here, Isn’t that flip flopping???
If only Bushco would admit to mistakes. But of course, they can do no wrong.
Well, I do like the sentiment, don’t get me wrong, but he is not exactly admitting that he was wrong. Rather, he appears to be saying that times have changed, thus his opinion is different. But I am glad that he was able to forge a positive relationship with Gorbachev.
Boo Boo Foo: You’re right. Time for me to knock it off.
Mr. S: I am happy to consider that argument a draw if you are - I have to say that what has annoyed me in the past is that you’ve thrown that discussion out in other threads in an off-hand manner to suggest that I was either ignorant or blindly partisan, when in fact even a lot of people normally on your side were agreeing with me after I provided half a dozen academic cites. Let’s consider it even, and a debate well fought.
As for me being ‘partisan’ - I really am not nearly as partisan as you think. This board tends to push me into that camp mainly because there are so many people on the other side. On other boards, I’m often considered quite moderate. For instance, I think Clinton did a good job, and I think the attacks against him went way overboard. What I am, however, is a free-market economic conservative. That drops me into the Republican camp on most economic issues (but not all - I heartily lambasted Bush for his steel tariffs and farm subsidies, if you recall. And I heartily praised Clinton for signing the welfare reform act).
I have to say, though, that it is annoying to constantly get labelled a ‘partisan’ for defending the Republican side of things, when there are many very bitter partisans on the left on this board who don’t get called on it. Look at the recent Reagan threads for examples.
Hentor: It wasn’t lack of balls that had me give up on that other thread. It was the sheer futility of trying to knock sense into your concrete skull. I gave up, posted all the links to the threads in which you claimed I was ‘lying’, and invited anyone interested to go read them and judge for themselves. I’m done speaking with you about this, so let’s drop it.
Sam:
Yes, but do you, or do you not, deny that Ronald Reagan once claimed that trees pollute more than automobiles do?
Is that what it was? Unfortunately that didn’t prevent you from skulking in here to bring it up again.
Yes, and in the process posted new lies about what your original claim even was. Too bad you did not take me and my thick head up on the opportunity to be rid of me once and for all.
If you choose not to respond, that is your choice. If you do choose to respond, please do so to me directly.
Mr. Svinlesha: Reagan claimed he was misquoted, and that his original claim was that trees produced more ‘Oxides of Nitrogen’. I’ve brought that up several times in other threads, including a link to a cite where Reagan specifically mentioned the interview and where the incorrect quote came from. I’m sure you were a participant in at least one of those threads, but you may have forgotten.
Hentor: Your claim that I ‘lied’ is a gross exaggeration. Every time I repeat the claim with with slightly different wording, you claim that it was not what I originally said, and that I’m lying. You are a dishonest debator, in that you look for ways to play gotcha, rather than making a good faith attempt at understanding what your opponent is saying. And in the the meantime, your own claim that the budget from Clinton to Bush II was about the same is a gross distortion. So you have no moral high ground from which to call anyone a liar. And this is still a hijack of this thread. You want to keep up with this, go ahead. Start another thread. But at this point, I suspect even people who would like to agree with you are slowly backing away. You should quit now. Since other people on this board are making an honest effort to improve the tone around here, why don’t we just forget it all and move on?
Then you shouldn’t have run away from the other thread to bring it up here.
There’s still a thread open with an open request of you. Answer it there.
You may suspect that. You suspect a good deal that is quite distinct from the truth. You might also suspect that your loose respect for the truth and tendency to make broad misstatements is becoming quite evident. I don’t care what you suspect. Frankly I don’t care if people want to agree with me or not. I simply won’t let bullshit comments go unchallenged.
You keep responding with this. Please simply respond to the open issue, or don’t. I say again - either respond directly to me, or don’t. Simple. Straightforward.
Jumped the shark indeed.
Sam:
I know what Reagan claimed. I’m asking you if you believe that Reagan’s memory could have been askew, or if you believe that the quotes taken from americanpresidents.org and other sources on the web are false.
For what it’s worth I’m willing to entertain the idea that Reagan never said “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do,” and that the whole thing is just an urban legend, if you can provide evidence in support of that assertion (other than Reagan’s single, off-hand denial at the presidential convention). I’ve checked Snopes, though, and the authenticity of the quote is not mentioned there. It is quoted all over the internet, and I’ve found no denials of it authenticity, even from Reagan’s supporters (other than you). Rather, I’ve found a number of right-wing sources, like Free Republic.com, in which wing-nuts crow that he turned out to be “correct.”
Here’s your chance, Sam. Demolish this urban legend and prove me wrong, once and for all!
Why your stupid fetish with a possible Reagan quote, especially when it appears to be correct, even if possibly not authentic?
Well, then, we simply cut down those nasty forests, and we pretty much break even! So much for that problem. Next problem, poor folks. Answer: soylent green…