I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
No link.
Anyone else?
The link worked for me.
The link worked fine for me. Try it again.
Yeah, well, Soros is a librul.
I thought Soros made a bundle on his English currency investment?
Why are there all those words in little boxes? This is too confusing.
Just imagine, you godless liberals, if Moon were to open his bank account
What?
Oh. Never mind.
Just imagine if I were to open *my* bank account.
Gorenfeld nails it. Well done.
He does seem to be missing a decimal point in his Soros "big gifts" column though.
But you must remember that 3.5 mill to spread truth is ever so much more powerful than hundreds of millions every year to spread lies. Course, that argument would move me more if we didn't have an illegally court-appointed president.
But bravo for Soros anyway -- it's amazing the hypocritical flak this is getting. Do we have any non-power suckup press anymore? I mean within our borders.
OK, fine. So Soros is rich and politically active--but does he have a cult that turns people into mindless automatons?
Humph. Didn't think so. He ain't no playa.
It's truly ironic that the "boogieman" of the early seventies suburban generation is now their patron.
Who was it who declared irony officially dead since 2000? It is.
check out the Taft endorsement of Moon...gives new meaning to the phrase "dead presidents"
oops sorry forgot to cap the link.
Matt Yglesias has a great take down.
It's true, it's true, Republicans are the party of the little guy while the Democratic Party serves exclusively to represent the interests of George Soros. Similarly, that whole "democracy in Eastern Europe" thing was just a Soros-backed plot to control international currency markets. He's a clever man.
And Matt has more, just click on the link - lately no one gives poor insta-vitriol more grief that Matt does.
Soros DID make a bundle on his Pound Sterling bet -- in fact, he did so well, it's led some to call him a vampire currency trader. Soros said he realized the British Government was proping up the Pound, and he bet the value would fall. It did -- he won.
George Soros was the single biggest loser in the stock market crash of 1987 -- he lost $600 million in a week, from a bad bet in the Chicago Futures market. When Soros cashed in, the markets began to recover.
More liberal-bashing of religion. Typical.
once again, Altermans "What liberal media" mantra rings true.
Why does it take salon.com to report on this assclown yet the mainstream media seems to avoid commenting about his influecnce.
What are they, scared? Big pussies.
This is exactly why I go to foreign news sources more and more nowdays. The "free press" in the US is becoming a bigger and bigger joke lately.
Anon:
Well, I'm duly chastened. If I dislike Reverend Moon, how can I possibly be religious?
More liberal-bashing of religion. Typical
F*ck you, you godless soul.
The correct question, pbg, would be "If I like Reverend Moon, how can I possibly be religious?"
What is perhaps a bigger scandal is the way the mainstream doesn't totally flay the atrocious record of the Moon-owned UPI or Washington Times, which are not only the consistently worst news sources but also consistently the most openly right-wing; before Faux N Balanced they were the rightward edge of the mainstream itself, and people just accepted them like they weren't owned by a cult leader who thinks he's Jesus, controls the sex lives of his slaves and puts words into the mouths of the dead. Doesn't that sound like a great story-about-a-story? Can't you just see the exposed Moonies outrunning the ABC or 60 Minutes cameras in a parking garage...but wait, a black NYT writer printed a lie not straight from the flood of lies out of the White [Man's] House, get him...
to flesh out what I was saying earlier in another place:
liberal: The Washington Times/UPI is an attempt to make more credible a bizarre mind-control cult out of an Indiana Jones movie...and that's just its Fascist bias! It's also dedicated to making the teachings of Mr. Sun Moon not sound completely insane or evil!
vs.
direct quotes from Moon about his control over his newsrooms, the personal loyalty oathes, the Annointed lineage of the True Parent, juxtaposed with WashTimes headlines or something...
Hey, Anonylous is pro-cult. WHo'd a thunk it.
I always thought he was more like these guys:
Evangelical Christian leaders expressed dismay yesterday over President Bush's statement that Christians and Muslims worship the same god, saying it had caused discomfort within his conservative religious base.
Holden - what got into Bushie, anyway? This isn't like him - oh wait, it must mean that the Home Security boys are rounding up a whole new batch of Muslims to be disappeared.
This was his "covering fire."
[[F*ck you, you godless soul.]]
Wow, how nice of you. Good thing liberals are proud of their kindness and concern for humanity.
Oh, you're back.
Wow, how nice of you. Good thing liberals are proud of their kindness and concern for humanity.
Tell me. What do you know about that?
I volunteer at a soup kitchen once a week.
[[does he have a cult that turns people into mindless automatons]]
Atrios does.
[[I volunteer at a soup kitchen once a week.]]
So?
Wow, good comeback, loser.
[[Tell me. What do you know about that?]]
I'm just wondering if you live by your own standards or not. If you don't, you are a hypocrite.
I'm just wondering if you live by your own standards or not.
I definitely live by my own standards. I have no problem looking in the mirror.
[[Wow, good comeback, loser.]]
Let me guess - you're a lonely woman, bitter about another solo Saturday.
Sad.
[[I definitely live by my own standards.]]
Really? Your "standards" are to say "fuck you" to people at the drop of a hat, and call them a "godless soul", without knowing a thing about that person?
Most people would call that "bigotry" or "prejudice" or "uncapped, unfocused reactionary hatred".
I'm glad your "principles" include that behavior.
Can someone make sure the morons on the Op-Ed page of the Post see this? thanks.
Let me guess - you're a lonely woman, bitter about another solo Saturday.
Well, actually, we just finished eating an excellent curry dish.
But my husband says,
"Hahahahahahahaha."
Your "standards" are to say "fuck you" to people at the drop of a hat, and call them a "godless soul", without knowing a thing about that person?
My standards allow me to say "fuck you" to people who make anonymous snide comments that twist what people have said here.
it should also be noted that the reverend and his cult have taken over uruguay. this makes them the current titular leader of the condor ops and the biggest narco-trafficker in the southern cone.
it is a sty that gets no air, but it is a sty that should get lots of air. my assumption has been that the bushies and the other neo-nazis have caused the squelching of this sty.
odessa lives and the bushies and the rev moon are acolytes.
that is the unreported history.
be afraid. be very afraid. especially now that you have observed that the wapo is as much an odessa asset as the watimes.
Really? Your "standards" are to say...Let me guess - you're a lonely woman, bitter about another solo Saturday.
Hysterical. You hypocrite.
Anonymous,
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. That was funny. What's that? you say you're not trying to be funny? Oh, Sorry.
So, Anonymous:
What do you think of the Reverend Moon?
pbg,
He's not sure, Rush hasn't told him what to think lately.
[[Hysterical. You hypocrite.]]
Do you understand the word "hypocrite"?
"a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion"
For me to be a hypocrite, I would have to be in violation of the virtues I espouse or go against my own principles. Since you don't know what they are, to call me a hypocrite (using the "I know you are..." method of debate -- nice touch) makes you look foolish and uneducated.
Are you foolish and uneducated, as well as being a hypocrite? Add that to angry, bitter loneliness, and we all have a mighty good picture of who you are.
Now, tell me I'm projecting. You know that's what you want to do.
[[My standards allow me ]]
Are you "pie"? No.
Anonymous:
What do you think of the Reverend Moon?
Anonymous, what do you think of the Reverend Moon wanting to be in your bedroom?
[[But my husband says,
"Hahahahahahahaha."]]
Why? Did you ask him "Am I attractive, dear?"
Tell him "fuck you, you godless soul". You seem to like saying that.
Good liberal.
Now, tell me I'm projecting. You know that's what you want to do.
You are getting sleepy... Your eyelids are getting heavy...
Sleepy...sleepy...sleepy...
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Pie, don't fall for AOL Annie's distract-o-traps.
Simply keep asking him things like this:
-- Why do you defend a man (Moon) who has stated that his two big enemies are America and Christianity?
-- Why do you defend a man (Moon) who forces his followers to marry people they've never met?
-- Why do you defend a man (Moon) who uses unpaid slave labor to prop up his worldwide financial empire?
Gosh, Pie, you sure have avoided questions about whether your behavior is consistent with your principles, given the reality of the current circumstance. Call me a "troll" -- that will let you off the hook, right?
Now refresh my memory about your collective distaste for the "politics of personal destruction".
Anonymous:
How can you defend Sun Myung Moon?
-- Why do you defend a man (Moon) who has stated that his two big enemies are America and Christianity?
-- Why do you defend a man (Moon) who forces his followers to marry people they've never met?
-- Why do you defend a man (Moon) who uses unpaid slave labor to prop up his worldwide financial empire?
Thanks, Phoenix Woman. I will.
He doesn't seem to want to answer the questions though. Guess he's stupid.
Please please please don't feed the anonymooses. It just makes it take longer to slog through the crap to get to the interesting posts from those who actually have something to say. Remember, if you feed strays they just keep hanging around for more...
Anonymous, how can you defend Sun Myung Moon?
Tell me three things about him that make him worth your defending him.
Rev Moon loves me,
Yes I know,
Saw it on the TV show
Little ones to him belong,
That is why I sing this song
Yeah, Rev Moon loves me!
Yeeh, Rev Moon loves me!
Yeah, Rev Moon loves me!
He's on the TV now.
Burp!
Pie can't deal with this:
[[I definitely live by my own standards.]]
Really? Your "standards" are to say "fuck you" to people at the drop of a hat, and call them a "godless soul", without knowing a thing about that person?
Most people would call that "bigotry" or "prejudice" or "uncapped, unfocused reactionary hatred".
I'm glad your "principles" include that behavior.
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 7:57 pm | #
Don't worry, MisterX. Pretty soon AOL Annie will give up, once he realizes he's getting nothing from Pie and me from now on but "why are you defending Sun Myung Moon?"
Rev Moon loves me,
Yes I know,
Saw it on the TV show
Little ones to him belong,
That is why I sing this song
Yeah, Rev Moon loves me!
Yeeh, Rev Moon loves me!
Yeah, Rev Moon loves me!
He's on the TV now.
Burp!
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 8:20 pm | #
Anonymous, how is pointing out the truth about Sun Myung Moon "bigotry"?
Please explain. Provide facts, not just invective and name-calling.
[[How can you defend Sun Myung Moon?]]
I'm defending him?
Sun Myung Moon
Landed in federal prison in the early '80s for tax crimes and conspiracy to obstruct justice. A group of lawyers in Japan accused his church of scamming widows out of $622 million, telling them their husbands would burn in hell unless they paid up.
What a guy! What a godless soul...
[[Anonymous, how is pointing out the truth about Sun Myung Moon "bigotry"?]]
Um, she called *me* a godless soul, after saying "fuck you" to me.
Perhaps it's her "holiness" which compels her to say such things. She doesn't seem to be able to explain it. Perhaps you can ask her?
Perhaps it's her "holiness" which compels her to say such things.
It is. I am holy.
Anonymous, you were the one who started it by implying that Pie was anti-religion because she liked this link.
So, tell us: What is about telling the truth about Sun Myung Moon that you don't like?
Whereas I would simply like to know what Mr. Anonymous thinks of the Reverend Moon.
Seriously.
How do you, as someone who dislikes liberals, view Reverend Moon?
As the 'enemy of my enemy' who is therefore my friend?
As someone with whom you share some core beliefs and not others, and that's OK?
I really am interested.
pbg,
He's not sure, Rush hasn't told him what to think lately.
Make that "What is it about telling the truth about Sun Myung Moon that you don't like?"
More liberal-bashing of religion. Typical.
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 7:08 pm
Would that be Moon's religion? The one where he is the messiah?
I guess Rush still hasn't commented on Moon. Otherwise, Anon would tell us what he's been told to think about him.
I guess Rush still hasn't commented on Moon. Otherwise, Anon would tell us what he's been told to think about him.
[[What a guy! What a godless soul...]]
Hi, Pie. You seem to have a mental disorder which makes you think that everyone is the same person. You said, "fuck you, you godless soul" to me, not to Reverend Moon.
Does your set of "principles" also allow you to lie like you are now?
You should share your unique principles with others, or simply admit that you don't live by them and are thereby a hypocrite.
The Reverend Moon is not an excuse for you to be an animal.
*Sigh* O.K., I'll play too.
[[How can you defend Sun Myung Moon?]]
I'm defending him?
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 8:26 pm | #
Well, let's look at your first post on this thread:
More liberal-bashing of religion. Typical.
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 7:08 pm | #
It seems to be that you are complaining about "liberal-bashing" of Moon's religion specifically, are you not? Isn't this "defending" him?
Bip-BOOP.
[[twist what people have said here]]
Really? What have I "twisted"?
The Reverend Moon is not an excuse for you to be an animal.
I am holiness personified.
I will smite you with a thunderbolt, yea, verily!!!
NEWSFLASH: Pie announces own stupidity
[[He doesn't seem to want to answer the questions though. Guess he's stupid.]]
So, not answering questions makes one "stupid" by your reckoning, Pie? You have not answered many basic questions, Pie. Ergo, by your "principles", you are stupid.
I'm glad we're getting the full picture.
I guess Rush still hasn't commented on Moon. Otherwise, Anon would tell us what he's been told to think about him.
Here's an idea:
Let's *ignore* Anonymous rather than engaging him/her. Scrolling past his/her comments has become boring and annoying and rather a waste of time. Stop baiting, folks.
[[I am holiness personified.
I will smite you with a thunderbolt, yea, verily!!!]]
Yes, please continue this silly little routine, Pie. Anything but answer why you feel the need to be unprincipled and hateful, yet try to give the appearance of being "good".
Do you always use others' behavior to justify your own nastiness?
Please don't tell me you have children and have raised them, being such a deep hypocrite.
Uh ho, now I'm really pissed.
Say your prayers, little man.
NEWSFLASH:
Anon can't answer questions about Moon because then Pie won't think he's stupid.
See how easy it is to use someone else's name, Pie?
Why are you doing all these things, Pie? Do you have any principles, or are you simply a beast?
Burp!
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 8:20 pm | #
pie | 11.22.03 - 8:23 pm | #
NEWSFLASH:
Anon can't answer questions about Moon because then Pie won't think he's stupid.
[[Please explain. Provide facts, not just invective and name-calling.]]
Where have I called someone a name? You must be confusing me with Pie.
So Non-a-lot, detail the liberal bashoing of religion. Leave out the "why are you defending Moon" questions. Just answer the question about religion bashing. As in, is it actually happening or is it just a product of your Limbaa-addled brain?
Your assertion is simply not good enough.
Anon can't answer questions about Moon because then Pie won't think he's stupid.
Nah, he's stupid either way.
Darn! I keep double posting. Sorry, I'm not afraid to admit I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.
That would be Gen. Wesley Clark (ret)
[[Where have I called someone a name?]]
Bite me, retard.
[[I guess Rush still hasn't commented on Moon. Otherwise, Anon would tell us what he's been told to think about him.]]
Ah, yes, when all else fails, talk about "Mommy's computer" and "meds" and "Rush" -- anything but answer about your own behavior.
I'm sorry if my questions cause you discomfort. Please tell me your principles, because, from what I see, it's okay to say to a total stranger, "fuck you, you godless soul", simply because you feel they are your "enemy".
Does liberalism and progressive attitudes of tolerance encourage dehumanizing people in such a manner and harboring that sort of hatred?
[[Anonymous, you were the one who started it by implying that Pie was anti-religion]]
Pie attacked me without me addressing her. It is best to get your facts straight before making an argument.
if only more moonies were about to ....nah, rather slap a bushie.
Evangelical Christian leaders expressed dismay yesterday over President Bush's statement that Christians and Muslims worship the same god, saying it had caused discomfort within his conservative religious base.
Why do they not have such discomfort about rev. Moon? Japan is as much a secular nation as it can get, and they try to stop him (A group of lawyers in Japan accused his church of scamming widows out of $622 million, telling them their husbands would burn in hell unless they paid up.)
Oh, you say they don't know ... well, lawdy, lawdy, I wonder why?!
Wouldn't it be nice if there were a sensible conservative that we could discuss this little discrepancy with?!
It seems to be that you are complaining about "liberal-bashing" of Moon's religion specifically, are you not? Isn't this "defending" him?
Answer the question, little man.
[[How do you, as someone who dislikes liberals]]
I dislike liberals?
You all have so many assumptions, don't you?
It must be very comforting to look at the world in terms of "friend" and "enemy", then simply treat all "enemies" in the most inhumane, beastish, and dishonest manner possible.
I'm glad you're all comfortable with having a variety of personal standards of behavior.
Anonymous, you were the one who started it by implying that Pie was anti-religion
This isn't true. Non-a-lot was implying that every liberal was religion-bashing. Pie merely stepped up to the plate to address this.
I hearby declare this thread closed on account of troll feeding. Good night and god bless.
WHo here has said they hate you? I am the one that brought up Rush. Not because he's been on Drugs for many years, but because I acn't think of any other reason that you wouldn't just say how you feel about Moon. I can tolerate and accept whatever beliefs you have, but until you are willing to tell me what they are, you cannot expect me to understand them. Meanwhile, I AM right with God. I hope you are, too. He really does not care about politics. I'm not sure that can be said of Moon.
[[It seems to be that you are complaining about "liberal-bashing" of Moon's religion]]
Did I say "... of Moon's religion"? Did I say "...of Reverend Moon"?
No.
Unlike many here, I use language with purpose. I mean what I say.
[[I hearby declare this thread closed on account of troll feeding. Good night and god bless.]]
Thank God--I'm late for the sleepover with Jacko.
Pie attacked me without me addressing her
I directed a statement to anonymous. Why do you think I directed it at you when there are millions of people that are *anonymous*.
All about you, isn't it? Ego.
Tsk. Tsk.
[[Anon can't answer questions about Moon]]
I suggest you get Pie to answer my many questions, then I may entertain yours.
I suggest you get Pie to answer my many questions
Effort to avoid the following question is noted:
"Where is the religion-bashing?"
[[Nah, he's stupid either way.]]
Well, Pie, by your own standards, you are stupid. That being the case, as an intelligent and educated person, your opinion is worthless to your fellow human beings.
Make note of that, and your life will be much happier.
[[I'm not afraid to admit I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.]]
Pie is.
{More liberal-bashing of religion. Typical.}
This is anon's original post to this thread.
{Unlike many here, I use language with purpose. I mean what I say.}
To me when you hyphenate two words as in "Liberal-bashing" it means that the liberals are being bashed. I didn't do so well in school, am I wrong?
[[[[Well, - that's not an answer to my question, you know.]]
It wasn't a question. It was a ridiculous and tired attempt at an insult.
[[What did you do to serve your country?]]
"Did"?
Anonymous | 11.21.03 - 9:29 pm | #
-------
You sound like George W. Bush saying "hey, that's a trick question".
You still haven't said what it is you did/do to serve your country.
Dolly World | Email | 11.21.03 - 9:39 pm | #
-------
[[You still haven't said what it is you did/do to serve your country.]]
Nor will I.
Anonymous | 11.21.03 - 9:40 pm | #]]]]
As you can see from last night's performance, I don't answer questions. And you can't make me!
Hey, coward. Coward. Coward.
You can't even pick a name.
Coward. Guess you're not able to stand up for what you believe.
Little man.
[[Where have I called someone a name?]]
Bite me, retard.
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 8:49 pm | #
=======
I often hear people complain loudly about "identity theft" here and so forth. Is this another one of those "principles" you all hold which are conditional?
I also see a number of you trolling. I thought you didn't like trolling.
I also note that one of your most damning charges about right-wingers is that they have one set of standards for themselves, and another set for other people, like Limbaugh with drugs.
Are you happy to be behaving just like them?
As you can see from last night's performance, I don't answer questions. And you can't make me!
That's because you're stupid and don't know the answers.
Sad.
[[Japan is as much a secular nation as it can get]]
Do you live in a shoebox at the bottom of a lake? You couldn't be more wrong.
[[Pie merely stepped up to the plate to address this.]]
Yes, by saying, "fuck you, you godless soul". I guess that's her way of expressing her moral superiority.
[[It seems to be that you are complaining about "liberal-bashing" of Moon's religion]]
Did I say "... of Moon's religion"? Did I say "...of Reverend Moon"?
No.
Unlike many here, I use language with purpose. I mean what I say.
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 8:56 pm | #
Alrighty then, which religion were you referring to? One off-thread? One from last week? The one you were talking about with that guy at work? More purposeful language, please.
BOOP-bip. (PONG(tm) sound effect, ca. 1976)
I am morally superior. Deal with it.
Ah, very good Anonymous, very good. I'll give you the chief snitch job at the re-education camp if you keep this up!
{Are you happy to be behaving just like them?}
well, now we know that Anon isn't a real repubulican or even conservative. If he were, he would never admit or acknowlege that {they have one set of standards for themselves, and another set for other people}. Thaqnks, Anon, for playing "devil's advocate" I feel assured that you'll vote for Dean when the time comes. You are a true Liberal Democrat.
I guess that's her way of expressing her moral superiority.
It's hard not to feel superior to someone who's too lazy to answer the simple question:
"Where's the religion-bashing?"
[[Who here has said they hate you?]]
Um, we've covered this. Pie said "fuck you, you godless soul" to me. That is a very hateful statement.
I continue to ask with sincerity how this behavior is in line with her supposed personal principles. She says she goes to a soup kitchen once a week, so she seems to fancy herself a "moral" or "good" person.
It's simply a question about what "principles" guide her to say what she said, given what I had said to her at that point.
Perhaps you can get her to answer. She seems to be frightened by her own hypocrisy and is doing everything to avoid confronting it.
Anonymous, your quote was:
"More liberal-bashing of religion. Typical."
Despite an unfortunate hyphen, and an incomplete sentence, which does, I admit, leave open ambiguities, it seemed to me that you were saying that liberals bash religion, and that this was a typical example of it.
"Bash" is not a neutral term. I therefore assumed you disliked what you consider this typical liberal practice.
And maybe it was presumptuous of me to assume you disliked the people who engage in the practice you dislike. Very well. Mea culpa.
Anonymous, what do you think of the Reverend Moon?
More liberal-bashing of religion. Typical
Ah, anony's first comment. Or one of millions of others that could have posted the comment.
[[I hearby declare this thread closed on account of troll feeding. Good night and god bless.]]
Thank God--I'm late for the sleepover with Jacko.
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 8:56 pm | #
======
Hmm. More "principled" behavior -- impersonation (poor) and trolling. I guess the ends justify the means, eh, "principles" be damned?
So, what great ends justify the means you all are using?
No one really wants to answer this question. The answer must cause you great trouble.
If she says "fuck you" that is an insult, not a statement of hate. If you are not godless then the rest of the line has no meaning, if you are godless, then it's not even an insult. Hate is hate and it is possible and even common for humans to insult people they don't hate. I'll even bet money (3-5 odds) that if you ask, Pie will say (s)he loves you and mean it, in spite of the insults.
[[I directed a statement to anonymous. Why do you think I directed it at you when there are millions of people that are *anonymous*.]]
Wow. Now you sound like someone from the Bush Adminstration, trying to cover their own ass.
I'm glad you've become what you say you despise.
No one really wants to answer this question. The answer must cause you great trouble.
You mean like the answer to the question:
"Where's the religion-bashing?"
causes you great trouble?
33 Years Later, Draft Becomes Topic for Dean
By RICK LYMAN and CHRISTOPHER DREW
n the winter of 1970, a 21-year-old student from Yale walked into his armed services physical in New York carrying X-rays and a letter from his orthopedist, eager to know whether a back condition might keep him out of the military draft.
This was not an uncommon scene in 1970, when medical deferments were a frequently used avenue for those reluctant to take part in the unpopular war in Vietnam. And this story would have little interest save that Howard Dean was the name of the young man. Now, 33 years later, he finds himself a leading Democrat in the quest for the party's nomination to be president of the United States.
Dr. Dean got the medical deferment, but in a recent interview he said he probably could have served had he not mentioned the condition.
"I guess that's probably true," he said. "I mean, I was in no hurry to get into the military."
But now that he is running for president, in a race when many Democrats believe they need a candidate with strong national security credentials to challenge President Bush, the choices Dr. Dean, a former Vermont governor, made 33 years ago are providing ammunition for critics.
Senator John Kerry and Gen. Wesley K. Clark, two of his strongest challengers for the Democratic nomination, have recently started running advertisements highlighting their military experience. And all the Democratic candidates except Carol Moseley Braun had to face the possibility of being drafted during the Vietnam War.
In the 10 months after his graduation from Yale, time he might otherwise have spent in uniform, Dr. Dean lived the life of a ski bum in Aspen, Colo. His back condition did not affect his skiing the way the rigors of military service would have, he said, nor did it prevent him from taking odd jobs like pouring concrete in the warm months and washing dishes when it got cold.
Even the candidate's mother, Andree Maitland Dean, said in a recent interview about his skiing after receiving a medical deferment, "Yeah, that looks bad."
But, she said, that is the nature of his condition. It is aggravated by certain kinds of physical activity but not all kinds, she said. The condition is called spondylolysis, a low-back pain that sometimes radiates into the legs, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons' online information site.
Dr. Dean said it was the military's decision to grant him the deferment, but he also said he was eager to get it. Had he wanted to serve, he probably could have.
Ever since the first politicians who came of draft age during the Vietnam War rose to the national stage, the question has been a recurring one: Did you serve in Southeast Asia, or did you take a different path?
Dan Quayle, the Republican vice-presidential candidate in 1988, was criticized by opponents who said he had used family connections to land a spot in the Indiana National Guard, which he
You have to marvel at the mutual manipulation going on between Moon and the NeoCon fundies.
After all, you can't tell me the RoveCo operation doesn't recognize the scam this guy's run over the years. Likewise for the Pat Robertson crew. Moon probably has a file with every Federal agency there is.
But still they milk him for money.
And in turn he gets to work like Rupert Murdoch, on a smaller scale, gobbling up some significant sources of propaganda- uh, excuse me, information.
I would like to know exactly who thinks they're using whom, and how.
Because although the idea of a few million voting zombies might be a real turn on for RoveCo, Moonie zombies might eventually eat the Republican party alive.
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 9:14 pm | #
I suppose this is another one of the millions.
[[I didn't do so well in school, am I wrong?]]
So, this is the point where we now start playing pedantic games about punctuation etc? Why not? Anything but deal with something meaningful, like having principles and standing by them.
[[Where have I called someone a name?]]
Well, here's a selection of some of my posts from yesterday. I confess, you decide.
[[Shut up, retard.]]
[[...why are you a retard? Are you a pussy, too? Broads like you are funny.]]
[[Ever considered thinking for yourself, or is that too much of a challenge, retard?]]
[[Rightfully. You're a hysterical bore.]]
[[Well, you're clearly a retard, so I can see why you can't catch a clue.]]
[[Bite me, jerk.]]
kelley b., glad you showed up.
[[You can't even pick a name.]]
I see. Now it's about the "name" someone uses, instead of the substance of the discussion?
Yes, this is one of many common avoidance tactics by people who really don't like debating something meaningful, and especially people whose ethics are being called into question, for which they have no answer which doesn't trouble them.
like having principles and standing by them.
What principles allow you to avoid the question:
"Where's the religion-bashing?"
[[As you can see from last night's performance, I don't answer questions. And you can't make me!]]
Wow. Now people are going back and rooting through old threads, instead of dealing with the issues at hand.
I hope you all realize how desperate you are behaving.
Anonymous, what do you think of the Reverend Moon?
instead of dealing with the issues at hand.
For example:
"Where's the religion-bashing?"
Okay, Pie, Anonymous, let's stop the sniping, it's tedious. Anonymous, we would all be happy to discuss ideas with you instead of all this silly name-calling and personal attacks. So, to repeat, what is your opinion on Rev. Moon? All us liberals here are genuinely interested in hearing what a conservative thinks about this. So, just answer the question...
Anything but deal with something meaningful, like having principles and standing by them.
Why do you try to determine someone's *principles* based on one statement.
Why don't you ever answer questions?
Everyone has asked you several; yet you don't provide any.
We can only conclude you don't know the answers.
[[which religion were you referring to]]
If you have trouble understanding a word, I suggest you use a dictionary.
More parsing games, when you understand the meaning. Avoidance.
Can anyone tell me what your principles are? I especially want Pie to tell me how her principles include telling strangers "fuck you, you godless soul". Perhaps someone with the appropriate "name" will get a response. Her principles tell her that a name is crucial to understand a message, and if one doesn't have the "right" name, then they should not be treated as a human being.
Anonymous: Any thoughts on Reverend Moon and the Unification Church?
So, my question was "am I wrong?" remember, it's OK to tell me I'm wrong.
I'll stand by my principles. I'll even tell anyone who asks how I feel about Rev. Moon. Or anything else. Or what I mean by religion bashing(if I were). DO you have principles? How do they interact with the teachings of rev. Moon?
Answer the questions.
Anonymous, pray, what do you think of the Reverend Moon?
[[Despite an unfortunate hyphen, and an incomplete sentence,]]
Yep -- more pettiness and avoidance.
Oh, I'm sorry. That was an incomplete sentence. I forgot this was the Internet, where everyone posts in complete sentences.
Never mind Moon, although it was his mechanism for self-enrichment that brought this up. Where's the religion-bashing?
Anonymous, what do you think of the Reverend Moon?
Looks like the Democratic candidate gets another dollar tonight.
George Soros wants to stop the Bush fascists from taking over the United States, that makes up for a lot. There isn't such a thing as a pure billionaire. Was it Balzac who said that behind every fortune was a great crime?
Sure our little friend will have some kind of inane retort. I think the guy that had him pegged as the egg>AM was on to something.
Do you live in a shoebox at the bottom of a lake? You couldn't be more wrong.
Anonymous | 11.22.03
No, I lived in Japan for three and half years. You're the one that is wrong.
You're the one that is wrong.
Anonymous doesn't like to be told he is wrong.
Oh, dear.
Oh, he must be composing a good one, folks.
[[ Or one of millions of others that could have posted the comment.]]
The use of "that" is very telling. You have now shown that you don't consider certain people to be human beings. Is this how you can justify your "fuck you, you godless soul" behavior? Because Bush and people like him do that by calling people "henchmen", "murderers", "terrorists", etc. Many right-wingers also dehumanize people with progressive beliefs the same way. They do it to people with different skin color, different languages, different cultures.
Are you proud that you behave like them, Pie?
This is getting to be like discussing theology with a ...ahem... MOONEY!
Just kidding anonymoose, ya big timewaster! It's not that interesting.
You should have heard him the other night.
Well, here's a selection of some of my posts from yesterday. I confess, you decide.
[[Shut up, retard.]]
[[...why are you a retard? Are you a pussy, too? Broads like you are funny.]]
[[Ever considered thinking for yourself, or is that too much of a challenge, retard?]]
[[Rightfully. You're a hysterical bore.]]
[[Well, you're clearly a retard, so I can see why you can't catch a clue.]]
[[Bite me, jerk.]]
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 9:17 pm | #
=======
More impersonation, with a stalking and obsessive tendency.
Please refresh my memory -- what do tolerant progressives have as principles? No one seems to want to share that, then make sense of the behavior you're demonstrating, right here and now.
{More parsing games}
{The use of "that" is very telling.}
I'm confused(easily done). Is parsing good or bad? Who gets to do it? Is it always good(or bad)?
Anonymous, i really would be interested in what you think of the Revrerend Moon.
hi Pie.
Always a pleasure to read you here!
I like Catholic liberals. I know you know I think it may have its faults, but for about 2000 years the Church has had good people genuinely concerned with human welfare and the human spirit.
Now that, I think, is real religion.
Myself, I'm an agnostic. My family vacillates between calling me an atheist and an animist. Me, I think every good Irishman has a deal with God(s): I don't question God, and I hope God doesn't question me.
Moon, on the other hand, has always struck me as a cynical manipulator of people. I first started running into Moonie fanatics in the early '70s.
Often they were people recovering from drug addiction who discovered they could feed the dopaminergic centers of their brains with mindless rapturous indoctrination.
That, to me, is not religion.
It seems to me that the Moonies have taken the extrinsic focus of Buddhism- finding the spirit of Buddha in all things, losing the tribulations of self in the All- taken the same meditations and focused it upon a charismatic charlatan whose sole insights on God reside in smoke and mirrors of the image of Moon.
They might as well try to find god in Cthulhu.
There's just a nightmare in human form.
Olog-hai (remember your Tolkien, now) aside, what do you think about Moon and the Republican party, pie?
Anonymous, most of us here don't want to "dehumanize" you, we just want to hear what you think about Moon. So, we're sorry if pie hurt your fragile feelings by calling you a godless soul, but puh-lease, can we move on? Again, what is your opinion of Rev. Moon?
[[What principles allow you to avoid the question:]]
I'm not avoiding you. I asked many questions before you asked yours. Please encourage Pie to stop running away and acting in a childish manner and simply confront the difficult questions I've asked.
Until then, you will have to wait.
I'm with pbg.
I mentioned on another thread that Stevfe Gilliard is planning to start blocking trolls from his comments.
Might be a good idea all around, this shit gets tedious.
The pronoun which refers to things; who (and its forms) refers to people; that usually refers to things, but it can also refer to people in a general kind of way.
Ah, yes. A general kind of way.
Okay. Sorry to have fed the troll for so long. Good night, all.
You, too, anonymous.
[[this silly name-calling and personal attacks]]
What "name-calling" have I done? Or are you just one more person who doesn't have principles, so you feel the need to lie?
As for "personal attacks", I believe Pie pre-emptively attacked me with "fuck you, you godless soul". I'm merely trying to find out how she justifies that under some set of principles she won't explain.
That's Steve Gilliard, of course. Atrios has a link for his blog if you want to read his reasoning for the change.
Who Cares what anonymus thinks of Rev Moon? I'm sure Rev Moon doesn't care. Rev Moon would only care if anon had lots of money and was a frightened widow!
You want to know, Non-a-lot? It's a progressive principle that a theocracy is an illegitimate form of government. And Moon violates that principle by spending billions from his self-enrichment program in order to create a theocracy with himself at the center.
I thought this was pretty obviously set out before.
Now then, where's the religion-bashing?
She's gone now (pie). Will you answer about Moon or will you leave us hungry for the "troll" perspective?
[[Why do you try to determine someone's *principles* based on one statement.]]
I haven't determined them, Pie. I have asked you to explain what they are, because I can't understand what kind of "tolerant" principles which would guide someone to say what you did, given no tangible reason.
I'm sorry if your hypocrisy bothers you, but you clearly are a hypocrite, unless you wish to share your unique personal principles.
[[You should have heard him the other night.]]
That's right, you should have heard me yesterday. One of my shining moments.
Check out the thread about Glenn Reynolds entitled "More Gratitude Please"--especially near the bottom, where I repeatedly mock a veteran of the Armed Forces who contracted a severe illness as a result of her service.
That should go a long way toward showing what I'm really all about. Don't take me too seriously, I just want lots and lots of attention, and I'll get it any way I can.
A preemptive move:
Religion in Japan.
Religions do not play a big role in the everyday lives of most Japanese people nowadays. The average Japanese just follows the religious rituals at a few ceremonies such as births, weddings and funerals.
Japan's two most important religions are Buddhism and Shinto. The two religions co-existed for several centuries and even complemented each other to a certain degree. The feeling of duty to belong to just a single religion as it is widespread among followers of the three large occidental religions, is therefore uncommon in Japan, and many Japanese consider themselves Shinto-Buddhists or marry in a Christian stlye even though they are not Christians.
The choice is between Open Society and Moon's theocratic dictatorship. Unless you're one of Moon's victums there isn't really a choice.
Soros is under attack because he's a very rich man who is trying to prevent a fascist takeover in the United States. Bush and his cartel want to bring a fascist government to the United States.
Being raised a Catholic I am familiar with the concept of heresy and heretics. A somewhat antiquated concept but it still applies I think even among protestants. At any rate Moon is the foremost Christian heretic of the 20th century.
No matter I suppose, for even among the drenched in Jesus true believers the main belief is not in Christianity but in wealth and power now. Moon is a brother in that faith.
I asked many questions before you asked yours.
You also made the original assertion, "More liberal-bashing of religion. Typical." that started this whole silly thing off. I really don't care that pie hurt your feelings, which seems to be the only thing you're on about now.
So where's the religion-bashing?
[[No, I lived in Japan for three and half years. You're the one that is wrong.]]
How am I wrong? Your living somewhere doesn't mean you understand that place.
In most debates about issues, people use something more than "because I say so" as "proof".
Whether or not Pie is a hipocrite, will you not answer either of the recurrent questions? How doe you feel about Moon? or Where is the "religion" bashing?
[[My standards allow me ]]
Are you "pie"? No.
Good job, you can tell the difference between "NTodd" and "pie". It's an open forum, dipwad, and I'll respond if I want.
And Jewish, don't forget that.
[[Is parsing good or bad?]]
I'm not parsing -- I'm observing. Someone with tendencies to dehumanize certain people also tends to express that tendency through language. She didn't use "who" she used "that", indicating, psychologically, that she doesn't believe certain people are different from things.
In most debates about issues, people use something more than "because I say so" as "proof".
That appears to be your standard for the statement, "More liberal-bashing of religion. Typical."
So where's the religion-bashing?
The pronoun which refers to things; who (and its forms) refers to people; that usually refers to things, but it can also refer to people in a general kind of way.
I said that both you and pie were attacking each other and calling each other names. And you suggest because I say that I have no principles and I am a liar. This sounds like name calling to me,
"Are you foolish and uneducated, as well as being a hypocrite? Add that to angry, bitter loneliness, and we all have a mighty good picture of who you are."
but maybe we have different standards. Anyway, I thought you might have something interesting to say about rev. moon, but I guess I was wrong, so I will stop talking to you now.
{
She didn't use "who" she used "that", indicating, psychologically, that she doesn't believe certain people are different from things.}
Riiiight. Please tell us your qualification to interpret psychological indications, then be sure you realize that some people have a nuanced understanding of the english language(see below).
{The pronoun which refers to things; who (and its forms) refers to people; that usually refers to things, but it can also refer to people in a general kind of way.}
[[twist what people have said here]]
Really? What have I "twisted"?
I'm guessing you really don't need me to answer this. I think somebody else observed your "liberal-bashing" comment. I'd say that's twisting. Now unbunch your panties and get a clue.
[[So, we're sorry if pie hurt your fragile feelings]]
"Fragile feelings"? I'm not offended by people with obvious mental problems, like Pie. She is obviously consumed by fear, so hatred and dehumanization are understandable responses, albeit psychotic ones.
I pity her, really, and actually want her to come to terms with the disconnect between her supposed beliefs and her action.
She does realize that right-wingers truly enjoy seeing "tolerant liberals" behave the way she does, because then they feel justified in behaving like they do (ie, reprehensibly).
[[I mentioned on another thread that Stevfe Gilliard is planning to start blocking trolls from his comments.]]
You'll have to find a new hobby, then, I guess.
Using double square brackets for quotes is really creepy. Or is it the content?
Just saying.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled troll and response...
Incidently, for those of you newcomers who don't know her, pie is no hypocrite, but a genuine, religious, woman.
Very happily married, with kids in fact, and not the slightest bit lonely.
However, she is very politically active and concerned over the direction of the nation.
That she exhibits an extreme response is indicative of extreme provocation.
That she eventually gave up the thread is a loss, for you, because she has substantial insight.
"Fragile feelings"? I'm not offended by people with obvious mental problems, like Pie. She is obviously consumed by fear, so hatred and dehumanization are understandable responses, albeit psychotic ones.
Gee, pie, maybe someday you and I, after lots and lots of treatment can be as rational as Anonymous.
The troll has succeeded in totally derailing this thread from its actual topic:
Moon's exploitation of religious idioms for personal gain.
Kinda like Georgie Bush. No wonder they like each other so much.
How am I wrong? Your living somewhere doesn't mean you understand that place.
In most debates about issues, people use something more than "because I say so" as "proof". Anonymous | 11.22.03
Good grief! Not very observant, are you?
Religion in Japan.
Religions do not play a big role in the everyday lives of most Japanese people nowadays. The average Japanese just follows the religious rituals at a few ceremonies such as births, weddings and funerals.
URL: http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e629.html
She didn't use "who" she used "that", indicating, psychologically, that she doesn't believe certain people are different from things.
Generally psychologists need to administer inventory tests that ask many questions that involve specifically-worded "truth factor" design, etc, before they would claim to have any insight into somebody's motivations to such a degree. You, on the other hand, are so brilliant you can take one word typed in a forum like this and immediately divine what somebody believes. Fascinating. I'll bet you could write a best-selling book that will save the world.
[[The pronoun which refers to things; who (and its forms) refers to people; that usually refers to things, but it can also refer to people in a general kind of way.]]
Nope. You're misusing and taking things out of context. Care to link to the source of that, or are you going to show us that another one of your "principles" is to outright lie to defend yourself?
That is cowardly. And since you decried cowardice earlier, again we see you are a hypocrite.
I aspire to be as thoughtful and well written as Pie and others like NTodd. I don't get out as often as I like, but I do enjoy the discourse.
[[You want to know, Non-a-lot? It's a progressive principle that a theocracy is an illegitimate form of government.]]
That "principle" allows you to say to strangers, with no reason, "fuck you, you godless soul"?
That's interesting.
Jesus Christ people, don't feed the fucking trolls.
If their posts start with [[, keep scrolling down to the post.
[[She's gone now (pie)]]
Yes, isn't that curious. I guess you're comfortable with her principles which are pretty much indistinguishable from a hypocritical right-winger?
That's nice. I, personally, wouldn't want such a person on my "team".
That's right, you should have heard me yesterday. One of my shining moments.
Check out the thread about Glenn Reynolds entitled "More Gratitude Please"--especially near the bottom, where I repeatedly mock a veteran of the Armed Forces who contracted a severe illness as a result of her service.
That should go a long way toward showing what I'm really all about. Don't take me too seriously, I just want lots and lots of attention, and I'll get it any way I can.
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 9:37 pm | #
===
More impersonation, trolling, and lying. Ends justify the means. Ends justify the means...
The troll has succeeded in totally derailing this thread from its actual topic:Seraphiel
True, that's why I'm donating money to the Democratic candidate every night he's on here.
Moon isn't a religous figure anymore than the Czar was or Georgus Bush is. He's an unusually ruthless gangster with an elaborate shell game. Religon is so hard to define so it's easy to hide in. I'm not playing along with that ruse anymore.
Nice to see you here, people with names.
Any responses to my general question above?
How far do you think Moon and the NeoCon fundies will ride together?
Sooner or later, the knives will come out there, too.
And how does Moon fit into Rummy's Korea battle plan?
That's right, you should have heard me yesterday. One of my shining moments.
All things being relative. One of [[HIS]] shining momemts.
[[The pronoun which refers to things; who (and its forms) refers to people; that usually refers to things, but it can also refer to people in a general kind of way.]]
Nope. You're misusing and taking things out of context. Care to link to the source of that, or are you going to show us that another one of your "principles" is to outright lie to defend yourself?
American Heritage Book of English Usage (1996) says this:
that instead of who. The man that wanted to talk to you just called back. Some people say that you can only use who and not that to introduce a restrictive relative clause that identifies a person. But that has been used in this way for centuries. It is a quintessential English usage, going back to the Old English period, and has been used by our best writers. So it is entirely acceptable to write either the man that wanted to talk to you or the man who wanted to talk to you.
Actually, it is I who live in a shoebox at the bottom of a lake. I was hoping to get a spot in a van down by the river, but, well, let's just say it didn't work out.
It is moist, though.
And, anonymous, we wouldn't pick on
you if we didn't luv you so much.
That "principle" allows you to say to strangers, with no reason, "fuck you, you godless soul"?
That's interesting.
No, that's a non sequitur. Where do you get the idea that it's a progressive principle to never hurt anyone's feelings? That sounds more like a dishonest right-wing reading of political correctness than something resembling the actual truth, which is something that right-wingers never have to bother themselves with.
And where's the religion-bashing?
Compare these two statements:
"Japan is as much a secular nation as it can get"
Streaker | Email | 11.22.03 - 8:53 pm | #
with
"Religions do not play a big role in the everyday lives of most Japanese people nowadays. The average Japanese just follows the religious rituals at a few ceremonies such as births, weddings and funerals.
Japan's two most important religions are Buddhism and Shinto. The two religions co-existed for several centuries and even complemented each other to a certain degree. The feeling of duty to belong to just a single religion as it is widespread among followers of the three large occidental religions, is therefore uncommon in Japan, and many Japanese consider themselves Shinto-Buddhists or marry in a Christian stlye even though they are not Christians."
Streaker | Email | 11.22.03 - 9:38 pm | #
???????????????
So what do you all think, is it like someone here said, that the enemy of my enemy is my friend for conservatives? Or are the conservative rank and file just not really aware that the moonies are working with the republican agenda? I mean, how are they comfortable with it? Clearly, I don't spend enough time with the relgious right to understand how their minds (mind in the case of brainwashed moonies)work. Anyone who has insight, please enlighten me on the subject...
Anon
{Nope. You're misusing and taking things out of context. Care to link to the source of that, or are you going to show us that another one of your "principles" is to outright lie to defend yourself?} It's either out of context and misused, or a lie. It cannot be a lie, because I had no intention of deceit. I have not said anything about cowardice, nor have I been accused of hipocracy, so, the last part of your post has no meaning, sorry.
BTW, I don't have a source. That was Pie's quote. She used the word "that in her post. She then gave the reason it was appropriate. If you think she was making it up, say so. I didn't think anyone would question it the second time it appeared in this thread, as no one questioned it the first time. I suggest that everyone that thinks the quoted information was wrong or incorrect, find a more definitive answer. For me, Pie's definition seems accurate. But I could be wrong(just ask my first wife).
Jesus. I'd always heard that Sun Myung Moon was a nut case. And now I find out he's endorsed by all 36 dead presidents!
[[I really don't care that pie hurt your feelings]]
Hmm. You seem to have trouble understanding English. Again, I say, she didn't hurt my feelings. I am merely curious about how she justifies lashing out as she did.
I do not get my feelings hurt by mentally deranged and unhappy people.
For God's sake, just ignore me.
I'm not--and have never been--here to contribute anything substantial to the conversation, only to get attention and affect a pretense of moral superiority superior by pedantically picking apart people's comments. That, as well as frustrate serious discussion by passive-aggressively refusing to answer serious questions.
I need help, but deep down I know I'll never get it this way.
Now, please, ignore me before I post again!
[[ It's an open forum, dipwad, and I'll respond if I want.]]
Oh, there we go, name-calling and personal attacks. I didn't ask you the question, so for you to reply is ludicrous.
But please go ahead and answer questions not directed at you, if you're that depserate for attention.
I am merely curious
Highly unlikely. Since she's not here, why are you still droning on and on about it instead of answering the simple question:
"Where's the religion-bashing?"
[[So where's the religion-bashing?]]
Are you a small child? I have told you -- my questions preceded yours. So, you can continue asking, but I won't answer you until I get an answer to mine.
Stop being like a little baby.
Oops. Ntodd beat me to it.
The pronoun which refers to things; who (and its forms) refers to people; that usually refers to things, but it can also refer to people in a general kind of way.
Listen! | 11.22.03 - 9:43 pm | #
===
Pie, why did you change IDs again? Is it so you can pretend you've left?
When are you going to provide the source of that quote, so we can look at its context? Are you taking something out of context, Pie?
You have so many interesting "principles".
Just wait until election 2004, Frederick, when Bush is re-elected by a massive graveyard vote.
By that time, if everyone relaize Saddam wasn't behind 9/11 and his numbers keep falling, nobody alive will vote for him.
Clearly, I don't spend enough time with the relgious right to understand how their minds (mind in the case of brainwashed moonies)work. Anyone who has insight, please enlighten me on the subject...
J.B.
It's been a while since I had direct contact with a moonie, though I was approached by one over the period of a week in the early period, around 1975. The guy seemed to have been programmed, just like they say. He had a set method of dealing with everything said to him. He felt like a charecter in the Manchurian Candidate. I hadn't even heard of Moon yet but could see that the guy wasn't thinking much at all. Tactics in place of reason. Or like a 1950's era Catholic textbook in dogma or cosmology. All was known and set down. Real thinking, except in a tactical sense, didn't seem to enter in to it at all.
[[I said that both you and pie were attacking each other and calling each other names.]]
I'm asking her questions. I'm not attacking her personally. She attacked me personally and I want to know what principles she has that drive and justify what she did?
I want to be a tolerant progressive, so I just want to know if it's okay to be as hypocritical as Pie.
And how does Moon fit into Rummy's Korea battle plan?
kelley b. | Email | 11.22.03 - 9:57 pm | #
Sheesh! Don't sneak up on me like that! The mind reels!
I'm anonymous. I put words into other peiople's mouths. I'm a genius. I'm a genius.
I know all grammar. I know everything. I know ever...
I know nothing.
[[ This sounds like name calling to me]]
No, that's a description based on evidence. Her behavior led to that conclusion. Contrast that to saying "fuck you, you godless soul". On what evidence did she base this?
my questions preceded yours. So, you can continue asking, but I won't answer you until I get an answer to mine.
I answered your question. But like a typical right-winger, you were too busy throwing a public tantrum to take notice. You can't stomp your feet forever, boy.
Where's the religion-bashing?
[[Gee, pie, maybe someday you and I, after lots and lots of treatment can be as rational as Anonymous.]]
You have a long way to go.
Yeah, but they don't do lobotomies most places these days.
More liberal-bashing of religion. Typical.
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 7:08 pm | #
What albert champion | Email | 11.22.03 - 8:03 pm | # said up there.
Uruguay really is worth watching if you're interested in Moon - for example, they managed to get US support for a spectacular banking crisis recently at the drop of a hat. Quite extraordinary.
"Real thinking, except in a tactical sense, didn't seem to enter in to it at all."
A lot of programmed people strike me this way. Whether Moonies, or what we used to call Jesus Freaks, or Young Republicans, they focus their minds on recruitment and the moment. They don't think about "why" or causation because these seem too troubling.
[[pie is no hypocrite, but a genuine, religious, woman.]]
Really? Then explain how such a "genuine, religious" person can say to a stranger, with no provocation, say "fuck you, you godless soul".
Was she possessed?
[[That she exhibits an extreme response is indicative of extreme provocation.]]
Really? What was this "extreme provocation"?
It must be nice to be able to justify such behavior. Does God like her saying such things, because I don't know many "genuine, religious" people who lash out like that with no justifiable reason.
I'm sorry she is so troubled to be so divided within.
Contrast that to saying "fuck you, you godless soul". On what evidence did she base this?
Uh, maybe as a Christian she finds the Unification Church to be a godless means of self-enrichment for Sun Myung Moon, and that you appeared to be defending said Unification Church in your statement, "More liberal-bashing of religion. Typical."?
It not very complicated.
BTW, where's the religion-bashing?
They don't think about "why" or causation because these seem too troubling.
kelley b.
Not to mention cable news.
NTodd, you are very angry. Perhaps you should consider anger management.
[[I aspire to be as thoughtful and well written as Pie and others like NTodd.]]
Aim for the bottom!
MisterX, I love making my mind or other minds reel.
So how does Moon fit into Rummy's Korea battle plan? Or into China, for that matter. Although I suspect there is a lot of latent antipathy there- look what the Chinese do to Falun Gong, for example.
Really? Then explain how such a "genuine, religious" person can say to a stranger, with no provocation, say "fuck you, you godless soul".
I've heard many Republican fundamentalists say much worse. And they lie like rugs too.
So how does Moon fit into Rummy's Korea battle plan?
One thing we know is it can't be good. I think he's pretty dangerous. One thing to look forward to is that he's not getting any younger. There's usually some kind of unpleasant succession war after the death of the godhead. A lot sometimes becomes clear when that happens.
Cable news is funny, EPT: they've created their own lowest common denominator, and they've talked themselves into a demographic corner.
If and when people really start to figure the magnitude of the Big Lie, Murdoch and Company will take a real hit.
I dunno if it'll happen, but its nice to think it might.
[[NTodd | Email | Homepage | 11.22.03 - 9:57 pm | #]]
Thanks, NTodd. The irony is that Pie launched into me about "agreement troubles" between "someone" and "themselves". Good to see you think she was really out of it with that.
On this matter, however, it still is interesting that she used the word "that", since she seems comfortable with "who" in similar situations.
You people sure get anxious when your consistency gets questioned.
[[Actually, it is I who live in a shoebox at the bottom of a lake.]]
You missed the reference, I see.
I hope this guy doesn't have kids.
The Reverend Moon is the kind of Christian I adore. Next to Conrad Black and our dear leader, President George W. Bush, he's my favorite Christian.
[[No, that's a non sequitur.]]
Don't embarass yourself with such weak excuses.
[[ Where do you get the idea that it's a progressive principle to never hurt anyone's feelings?]]
Wow -- still on the "hurt feelings" lie, I see. That's very important to your strawman argument.
You're not a very good debater. Are you stupid, sloppy, or both?
I dunno if it'll happen, but its nice to think it might.
kelley b.
I've been waiting so long. I keep waiting for the media to hit bottom but have yet to hear the thud. Michael Jackson, if this isn't the bottom there just might not be one.
I hope Soros can finance something, or Gore's deal will come through.
Turkey!!!!
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 10:19 pm | # 
Pathetic.
Anyone who calls Moon's cult a 'religion' is either in it, or some sort of deluded fool with access to no factual information whatsoever.
Indeed, chastising someone for critiquing Moon's dubious agenda (dubious, nay, ethically unacceptable from any point of view outside of Moon's own) is very much akin to chastising someone for critiquing the Branch Davidian's agenda.
It's strangely coincidental that this same individual instigated a massive trolling festival NOT because Moon is *one of the largest serial contributors and public apologists for the Republican party*, but because liberals "attack religion", which is an absolutely absurd statement to make in the context of the cult of the Moonies.
These same juvenile tactics that have become totally commonplace in the contemporary Republican parlance - when you have no rebuttal, change the subject.
When you have no answer, no rational justification for your point of view, attack the opposition.
When you have *nothing to say*, *preemptively slander the opposition* and then whine like a child when your initial attacks merit responses of a similar tone.
How very sad. How very immature.
How very typical.
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map...3d&
click=center
[[I don't have a source. That was Pie's quote.]]
You perpetuate things which may not be true? I personally like to verify things before buying into them.
Anonymous, you're a fool!
Lighten up!
Don 't be silly. The Reverend Moon is exactly the right kind of Christian, like the Reverend Robertson, the Reverend Fallwell, and the Reverend DeLay of the Cockroaches.
What? DeLay is not a Reverend. Well he should be.
I worship him anyway.
I fucking hate niggers.
[[Since she's not here]]
You know this how?
Not Holden.
I love to have conversations with myself. My name is anonymous.
[[ It's an open forum, dipwad, and I'll respond if I want.]]
Oh, there we go, name-calling and personal attacks. I didn't ask you the question, so for you to reply is ludicrous.
I will continue to call you names since you refuse to use one. Choose a moniker, and I will call you that.
And I don't give a damn if you didn't ask me the question.
Wow -- still on the "hurt feelings" lie, I see.
Seeing as you can't get over pie saying, "fuck you, you godless soul," it's a reasonable conclusion to draw. Any knucklehead can see where her comment came from, but you're a special knucklehead. Yaaaaaayyyyy!!!
So where's the religion-bashing?
[[I answered your question.]]
I didn't ask you a question.
[[But like a typical right-winger]]
I'm a right-winger?
[[you were too busy throwing a public tantrum to take notice.]]
I was throwing a tantrum?
[[You can't stomp your feet forever, boy.]]
I was stomping my feet? I'm a boy?
I'm just wondering why you feel to lie like you do. You can't seem to debate without lying profusely.
Perhaps you should go somewhere else before you further embarass yourself and what you supposedly stand for.
[[I hope this guy doesn't have kids.]]
I may or may not--I'll never answer if you ask me--but, sadly, my parents did, and the rest is infamy. Anybody want to have a sleepover?
This whole thread sounds like my (ex) marriage.
[[Uh, maybe as a Christian she finds the Unification Church to be a godless means of self-enrichment]]
I am not a member of that church. She was addressing me personally.
Why do you feel compelled to justify her behavior? Personally, I'd wish to distance myself from such behavior.
Maybe we're going about this the wrong way, maybe we should all do as [[Anonymous]] does and keep changing names. He'll never know if pie is here, or if pie is there, why pie might just be everywhere. Wonder if he'd be this OC about it if he hadn't hear she was a woman?
The sequence is clear:
[More liberal-bashing of religion. Typical.
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 7:08 pm]
[Typical
F*ck you, you godless soul.
pie | 11.22.03 - 7:19 pm]
One must conclude that anon is dissembling when s/he contends
that "liberal-bashing..." was a response to pie, or to anything other than the blog critical of Moon.
But given anon's attack on criticism of Moon, how can anon's claims not to be defending Moon be construed? As illogic, at the least, but probably as lies. (I won't accuse him of hypocricy though since he objects to it so, and I don't want to be one of those uncivil liberals).
Not Holden.
Nope | 11.22.03 - 10:27 pm | #
Hi, Holden. You complain a lot about "trolls" and people stealing each others' names. Why do you do it yourself, then? That's very, very hypocritical of you.
I thought you all were enraged with hypocrisy, especially with the Republicans in office.
I guess you're from the same tree.
Oh, I feel another one coming on. He's screwing his little head up now.
Wonder if he'd be this OC about it if he hadn't hear she was a woman?
Bingo.
[[I've heard many Republican fundamentalists say much worse. And they lie like rugs too.]]
Ah, so since I've seen people murder, it's okay for me to chop off someone's legs?
That's a wonderful moral code you have.
Thanks, NTodd. The irony is that Pie launched into me about "agreement troubles" between "someone" and "themselves". Good to see you think she was really out of it with that.
Huh? I was observing that "that" can be used in the same way as "who". I really don't know what you're talking about.
On this matter, however, it still is interesting that she used the word "that", since she seems comfortable with "who" in similar situations.
It is of no interest or import. What is of interest is your obsession with a point of grammar. No wait, that's not interesting either.
Hi, Holden. You complain a lot about "trolls" and people stealing each others' names. Why do you do it yourself, then? That's very, very hypocritical of you.
Yep, he was AM the other night.
I didn't ask you a question.
I answered it anyway. Fuck you, you godless soul.
I'm a right-winger?
It's a reasonable conclusion to make. Fuck you, you godless soul.
I was throwing a tantrum?
It's a reasonable conclusion to make. Fuck you, you godless soul.
I'm just wondering why you feel to lie like you do.
Prove it, Bubbles. Fuck you, you godless soul.
You can't seem to debate without lying profusely.
I haven't made a single statement that is an untruth. Fuck you, you godless soul.
Meanwhile, you haven't answered a single question put to you, while others have answered your questions. Your pattern of dishonesty should really embarrass you, but then right wingers have no shame.
And fuck you, you godless soul.
Hi my name is anonymous and i'm to obtuse to see the difference between satire and deceit.
I also come on to threads and make inflamatory comments and when someone who is deeply religious takes offense to that and calls me a "godless soul," I go on for over 100 comments about how said commenter is a hypocrite and/or mentally unstable. And then when people call me dipshit an say its an ad hominem attack.
Soros is exactly the wrong kind of Jew. Too liberal. My kind of Jew is not the Seymour Hersh kind. Not the Sidney Blumenthal kind. No, no. My kind of Jew is Richard Perle.
I'm going to back him for President next year.
[[Anyone who calls Moon's cult a 'religion' is either in it, or some sort of deluded fool with access to no factual information whatsoever.]]
religion, n.
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
You really aren't very clear-minded people.
A promise is a promise but I had to make sure. Good night. Or maybe not [[Anon.]] you'll never know for sure.
Personally, I'd wish to distance myself from such behavior.
Personally, I wish you would. Begone, demon!
I love to have conversations with myself. My name is anonymous.
I luv me | 11.22.03 - 10:29 pm | #
=====
More great "principles" in action, I see.
I'm glad you all don't realize that your behavior empowers right-wingers. I'm going to go pass around the URL to this thread to some moderate blogs. It's really a sight to see your behavior and compare it with what you profess to be about.
"Victory over self is true victory."
[[Lighten up!
laugh | 11.22.03 - 10:25 pm | #]]
I'm thoroughly amused with your antics. It's just a bunch of monkeys flinging feces and screeching. It's really quite a sight.
[[And I don't give a damn if you didn't ask me the question.]]
Okay, act like a street person. No one's stopping you.
I love to have conversations with myself. My name is anonymous.
[[Seeing as you can't get over pie saying, "fuck you, you godless soul,"]]
You're so cute. There are hundreds of posts here, and no one has offered an explanation as to why someone can be "religious" and "moral", yet yell at complete strangers, "fuck you, you godless soul".
It's very curious, and if part of my retinue of strengths was being principled and kind (that's a strong selling point for being a leftist), then I would try to help people to live by those principles, otherwise the group might be risking one of its greatest strengths and becoming that which they supposedly despise, which would be a tragedy.
I guess you don't care about the consequences of your actions. I hope you enjoy another Bush presidency for four more years.
[[I may or may not--I'll never answer if you ask me--but, sadly, my parents did, and the rest is infamy. Anybody want to have a sleepover?]]
More "Mommy" humor. You people are terribly unoriginal with your debating.
Next time we have a stadium wedding, say, four, five thousand faithful couples, I'm going to invite President George W. Bush to come on down and say, a few words like..
Mission Accomplished!
Do you think Iraq is ready for the message of our Lord?
Huh? Another four years?
Noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
Don't make me, mommy!
[[One must conclude that anon is dissembling when s/he contends
that "liberal-bashing..." was a response to pie, or to anything other than the blog critical of Moon.]]
Gee, more lies. Is it really hard for you all to debate based on the truth?
My opinion was to the thread. I didn't quote anyone before stating that opinion.
Keep dancing, hypocrites...
More liberal-bashing of religion. Typical.
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 7:08 pm | #
Unlike you, courageous one?
[[ What is of interest is your obsession with a point of grammar.]]
NTodd, missing the point, as usual, consumed with anger as he is.
I wasn't critiquing grammar, as you know, but please keep lying. I made an observation that her use of the word was telling.
[[And I don't give a damn if you didn't ask me the question.]]
Okay, act like a street person. No one's stopping you.
When you argue in the public square, expect the public to get involved in the argument.
na na na na boo boo...
I'm rubber, you're glue...
Dr. Squid, I am sorry you can't debate. Good luck.
Anon
I don't know if Pie is religious or not. Or if you are. I know that you haev made blanket statements about liberals (your first on this thread is one example). You have not defended those statements, let alone proven them. You have installed yourself on this thread and not come close to a statement either for or against Moon. when we have some Idea how you feel about atrios' post, then we'll have more fun with the "debat". until you take a position on Moon, there can be no debate.
[[someone who is deeply religious takes offense to that and calls me a "godless soul,"]]
You skipped the part where that "depply religious" person said "fuck you".
God doesn't like that.
You guys quit picking on that fine fine Christian, the Reverend Moon, who’s no moonie. He’s one of our best. Assets like that are very hard to find now that that Greek asshole, Tenet, has ruined the works.
From the Great Beyond
[[ What is of interest is your obsession with a point of grammar.]]
NTodd, missing the point, as usual, consumed with anger as he is.
I wasn't critiquing grammar, as you know, but please keep lying. I made an observation that her use of the word was telling.
I am not missing the point, nor am I lying. You made a ridiculous observation which has at its foundation a point of grammar about which you were wrong.
Further, you seem to ascribe great importance to her choice of a single, inconsequential word in a forum where people often spell things incorrectly, choose the wrong homonym, forget words, and just plain have brain farts while typing quickly in a little text box that (oops, I'd originally typed "which", which would have been wrong) lacks a preview function. I'd suggest you stop trying to apply some deeper psychological or moral significance to a mere utility word.
God doesn't like that.
In your case, I do.
"depply religious"
Hey, was he in "Pirates of the Caribbean"??
I'll observe I fucked up the that/which distinction one other time in my last post. Which, er...That annoys me to no end.
"depply religious"
Hey, was he in "Pirates of the Caribbean"??
"depply religious"
Johnny depp?
See, Anon, Mr. Colby has taken a position which may be debated. And he's dead.
[[I am not missing the point, nor am I lying]]
Since I made the point, angry one, then it's likely I'm familiar with that point.
Keep trying. Get angrier. Be an even "better" tolerant liberal.
God only likes it when a shallowly religious person says "Fuck You".
God told me that on his deathbed.
"depply religious"
Hey, was he in "Pirates of the Caribbean"??
John Johnson | 11.22.03 - 11:02 pm | #
"depply religious"
Johnny depp?
God | 11.22.03 - 11:02 pm | #
===
Ooh, typos. Such strong debaters. So very concerned with issues.
Lots of very principled, tolerant liberals here. Nice demonstration.
Glad to oblige. Visit often.
Nice demonstration.
Why, thank you.
It must be frustrating for you all to be manhandled by one person, one you call a "troll".
P A T H E T I C
[[I am not missing the point, nor am I lying]]
Since I made the point, angry one, then it's likely I'm familiar with that point.
Okay. Please clarify your point. I'm also curious from which school did you get your PsyD?
Now that you're shouting, can you stand on your head and whistle like your president.
[[You skipped the part where that "depply religious" person said "fuck you".
God doesn't like that.
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 10:59 pm]]
Oops, I'm making an ass of myself again. God doesn't like that. And I hear his voice in my head all the time. All the time, do you hear me?
P A T H E T I C.
Wrong. F U N.
No one can debate "issues" relevent to this thread with Anon, simply because he has not taken a position on Rev. Moon or his activities.
All right, what's really going on here? There WERE intelligent and thoughtful people on this thing. It's starting to sound like an insane asylum. Are you all the same person or what??? It reads like someone with multiple personality disorder. All the personalities seem to hate one another. This creeps me out.
Moonie:
His Times loses $100 million every year promoting the Republican cause. Pays lavish speaking fees to George H.W. Bush, William Bennett, and others. Has spotted Jerry Falwell and other hard-up Christian evangelicals for millions of dollars. Grassroots promotion of the Faith-Based Initiative, more. Cut a check for the "Contra" part of Iran-Contra.
Well, I never! If THAT'S how you feel about all nine of me!
Moonie:
Anti-Communism in Asia, South America. Amending the U.S. Constitution to enforce sexual purity. Korean reconciliation. Ensuring that newlyweds make love in white robes, with his photo nearby,
Yuk!!!!!!!
Don't you DARE say anything against sexual purity and the sanctimony of gracious multiple by the thousands matrimony in a stadium with klieg lights and emotional robots serving milk and cookies.
Don't you DARE! Why, why, I oughta exterminarate you.
In the old IRC days this anony troll would have been perma kick-banned months ago. Is this the one who uses his mom's AOL account, Hardin I think it was? Jeez people, it's like poking a rabid skunk with a stick, why do you still play with this thing?
What's great about the 'net is that when someone sends me links from the Washington Times or other Moonie-owned organizations, I can send 'em back some links exposing their contacts with Moon, along with a few more links to remind 'em what a maniac Moon is. There actually are a few folks left out there who remember when Moon was acknowledged by everyone, including the lapdog media, to be a Stone Cold Freak, and some of those folks have a tendency to be a bit shocked when they learn that Stone Cold Freak #1 has massive influence within the GOP.
Somebody remind me--what's that site that focuses on what Moon and his cultists are up to? I'm thinking it's a blog somewhere...
[[In the old IRC days this anony troll would have been perma kick-banned months ago.]]
Wanting to silence people because they have differing opinions? How terribly right-wing of you.
Catalexis: That's Fremlin. Harden was the San Antonian.
And yeah, best to play-not with it.
Wanting to silence people because they have differing opinions?
What differing opinions, moron? We've been waiting all evening to hear yours.
Don't rush the guy. He'll let you know just as soon as the little voices speak up.
God told me that on his deathbed.
I'm getting better!
For those few who are confused about the differences between the two political parties now extant in the US, here's an old adage that may help you: The Republicans won't give you the sweat off their balls, but the Democrats will. Now, this may not seem like much of a choice, but consider: If you're alone, on a parched desert, ball-sweat is better than dying of thirst.
Very glad to hear that, your majesty.
No insult intended. I like you Mr. Huffy - all nine of you.
Fremlin, right. All trolls look the same to me. I think they should be brought out into the daylight where they can become proper lawn ornaments. In my mind they all look like Pee Wee Herman with that stupid laugh and too much makeup.
Any more news on the radio network for Liberals? I can't imagine being able to compete timewise with the vulgar pigboy since Franken insists on fact checking and stuff like that. Of course if the doped up one winds up in the pen, well so much the better.
{Wanting to silence people because they have differing opinions? How terribly right-wing of you.}
Again, Anon tells us that people on the right wish to Silence opposition.
You see, he does have a position({right wingers want to silence opposition}), it just has nothing to do with this thread.
I'm getting better!
God | 11.22.03 - 11:28 pm | #
No, you're not. You'll be stone
dead in a moment.
[[What differing opinions, moron? We've been waiting all evening to hear yours.]]
Yep, the personal insults continue, in place of real debate. How very right-wing of you.
[[ it just has nothing to do with this thread.]]
The irony, of course, is that I didn't bring up the subject of silencing people. But, I can see that it's very right-wing of you to shift the blame.
Yep, avoiding the issue. Look over there!!!
How very right-wing of you, Anonymous.
OK, Anon. I'm ready to debate Moon vs. Soros. You start. Will you be pro-Moon or Anti-Moon?
catalexis sez: "Any more news on the radio network for Liberals? I can't imagine being able to compete timewise with the vulgar pigboy since Franken insists on fact checking and stuff like that. Of course if the doped up one winds up in the pen, well so much the better."
I've never been much a fan of the "liberal talk-radio network." It's either 'cause I'm an ex-DJ, and thus I know that all talk-radio is dork-radio, or I'd just as soon not watch liberals trying to play catch-up with the thugs. I've got the 'net. I don't need no talk-radio.
But yeah, I'm all for sending Rush to the pokey.
No, Anon didn't bring it up, he was the one who accused the right of that kind of activity. He must be a liberal. If he ever gets to his opinion of Moon, we won't be able to call him Coward.
Anonymous: Any thoughts on Reverend Moon and the Unification Church?
MisterX | 11.22.03 - 9:23 pm | #
Just checking. This is more fun than ACTUALLY HAVING FUN or something.
BIP-boop.
Killer, no troll feeding. Let him starve on silence.
Please. Don't try such futile moves, Mr. Censor.
Why do you censor, Atrios? I thought you were against "silencing people". In fact, you get enraged about it. How very right-wing of you to do exactly what you decry.
Are you people so weak that you can't pony up and get a real commenting system that requires registration and pretty much eliminates trolling?
You get what you pay for - so quit bitching about something you can control.
Is that little boy still here?
I'm watching Spiderman tonight? It's a much greater movie than most people say. I hate to admit it, but I still have my Spidey jammies.
Hey! Anonymous! Fuck you, you godless soul!
Scooter, I would have to agree that so far talk radio is for dorks. And, since our main complaint with the right-wing talk radio is the lies and vitrol, a left-wing version of the same would indeed not be a good thing. Still, I would like something out there to counter this crap. The Right likes to paint the Left as elitist becasue that plays to the disaffected anti-intellectual mindset. As with many things, a small amount of truth makes for the basis of a really big lie. The educated on the Left do look down on the ill-informed and wish them to examine things better before shooting off their mouths. The cynics on the Right look down on the ill-informed too but find in their ignorance a weapon to aim at their foes on the Left. The Left will challenge someone who doesn't know to learn, the Right will tell that same ignorant person that they are the real people and the enemy is all those Lefties over there trying to tell you you might want to change your mind.
It's never going to be easy and we can't even indulge in the fantasy of wiping out our enemies. We know they must be won over or endured, not a pleasent future to offer someone who thinks everything will be all right once they destroy the other side. The ignorant will almost always find it easier to gravitate toward the comforting manipulations of the Right, we, on the other hand, are naturally distrustful of easy charisma and will be less inclined to employ it. Evil rules the land for now and knowing they will destroy and call it freedom, kill and call it justice, lie and call it a higher truth, does not give us the ability to beat them at there own game and still be who we are. We must beat them at our game, we must not even play theirs; becoming better cheaters is not a victory we could survive.
Yeah, I know, I'm preaching to the choir, but have you seen the congregation? Eeeewwwww.
[[Hey! Anonymous! Fuck you, you godless soul!]]
I'm laughing with you, because if you think that hurts me personally, it doesn't.
Nice trolling, though. I look forward to decrying it under your normal ID. Very right-wing of you.
God, what a stupid thread. This guy is just shocked that someone who espouses a philosophy that involves helping people would use a curse word. He really doesn't deserve to be taken so seriously (although I understand, and I let these guys piss me off too, often enough).
catalexis | Email | 11.23.03 - 12:09 am | #
That was an excellent post. Very well said.
A total waste of a thread and you jerks who engage anonymous are just a culpable as he/she/it is.
[[This guy is just shocked that someone who espouses a philosophy that involves helping people would use a curse word.]]
Simpleton #87 misses the point again. Thanks, Simpleton #87.
[[A total waste of a thread and you jerks who engage anonymous are just a culpable as he/she/it is.]]
What did I do wrong?
I would say, though, cat, that this post:
catalexis | Email | 11.22.03 - 11:18 pm | #
sort of shows that perhaps you're also not heeding your own advice. Level up.
catalexis sez: "Still, I would like something out there to counter this crap."
We already have that. It's called the Internet.
If you want something out there to counter what the dittoheads are hearing, we're out of luck anyway. The dittoheads will never listen to a liberal talk-radio network, so they'll never hear the counters for Rush's and Hannity's lies.
From a purely practical standpoint, anyone starting a network to counter lies broadcast on another network is working impractically and inefficiently. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, and maybe we'd have something to work with then.
catalexis sez: "It's never going to be easy and we can't even indulge in the fantasy of wiping out our enemies."
(shrug) Fantasies are all the joy I get nowadays.
[[We already have that. It's called the Internet.]]
And what a fine job you're doing using it! Witness tonight.
::sheesh::
i was reading about Richard Mellon Scaife when I came across this sentence, about one of his top aids, Dan McMichael:
He wrote a novel (subsidized by Scaife) imagining a future United States taken over by the Soviet Union after being duped by a successor to the United Nations.
Well, I thought that would be an interesting novel to read! But I can't any more info about it. Anyone got any ideas? (Checked amazon, google, etc.)
link: http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemie...ies/
scaife.html
Let me guess - you're a lonely woman, bitter about another solo Saturday.
Sad.
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 7:55 pm | #
projection anyone?
i think that pie, if bitter, is so toward you because you're like the guy who weaves in and out through rush-hour traffic. You're not getting anywhere any faster, and you should wonder if your desire to piss people off so much is healthy.... or good for the America you so jingoistically defend.
IF you're so convinced of your own self importance, your righteousness, and your personal connetion with THE almighty and/or THE truth, as you seem to be, then i have but one question.
Why bother? If you've forgotten the element of civilized debate, and we're so wrongheaded and deplorable here, and you're so cool, why can't you find some really cool place to hang out?
All we got here is policy wonks. This is essentially boring but important shit we're trying to think through, amongst ourselves.
C'mon, Rush is back on the air, I'd think you trolls would be happier...
[[(shrug) Fantasies are all the joy I get nowadays.]]
Sad.
[[projection anyone?]]
Nope.
mdhatter
I am saying this with absolutely no malice, but you are completely clueless on everything you just said.
This was the funniest:
[[All we got here is policy wonks.]]
Hahahaha!!!!!
All you have here is a bunch of mentally-challenged left-wing hypocrites more attracted to pettiness than issues. Naysayers and noncreatives abound.
It actually depresses me. The level of discourse on dKos is much better than here, and even there is pretty middling.
[[This is essentially boring but important shit we're trying to think through, amongst ourselves.]]
Please. Check out the energy bill thread and see. Misinformed, incurious, limited, and naysaying, with very occasional signs of original and forward thinking.
Stop flattering yourselves, because it really isn't warranted. Again, I say that with no mailce.
[[your personal connetion with THE almighty]]
Huh?
Won't somebody pway wif me?
[[Won't somebody pway wif me?]]
More trolling and impersonation? You all keep decrying that behavior. Hmm.
I gotta new dolwy. It say "Bring em on!"
[[I gotta new dolwy. It say "Bring em on!"]]
Who is more fool? The fool or the fool who follows the fool?
Keep going.
Hewwo, Moon! Are you my Mother?
The interesting thing about the Moon phenomenon is the fact that such a nutcase--and I would think, heretic--can cooperate so closely with the standard brand bible-thumping fascists. Kind of makes you wonder if any old kind of puritanism (even Islamic?) is all right with them. It would explain a lot of otherwise puzzling alliances, e.g. Grover Norquist founding the Islamic organization that the "Portland seven" were arrested for connections with. It would also explain the odd roster of the Carlyle group. Maybe the important thing is to make sure we return to the Middle Ages. . .
Here's some advice for you hypocrites: nothing you say will make me feel bad. Keep than in mind.
Bash Bush, Rush, etc as much as you want. Bash anyone. It doesn't hurt me in the least.
Campaign Manager Ken Mehlman Outlines President Bush's Leadership in Uniting America to Confront the Challenges of Our Time
Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Manager, Ken Mehlman, delivered remarks to Republican Governors at their annual conference today. Below are some excerpts from this important speech.
"As a candidate for President, Governor Bush would often remark, 'Now is the time to do the hard things.' But who could have imagined the tests he would face ...
"President George W. Bush responded to each of these challenges by answering history's calling. Not only did he lead to confront these tests. He united Americans to overcome these challenges and proposed solutions that would transform crises into new opportunities ...
"These last three years have changed our world and our country. But they haven't changed our president. He is just as certain today as he was in 2000 of the principles that make America work ... and that make the world safe--freedom, opportunity, security. He's doing his part. Now we get to do ours. It's up to all of us to ensure that this good man remains in office to pursue these great principles.
"Eleven months from now, we will make a choice.
"Eleven months from now we will choose between victory in Iraq or insecurity in America.
"Eleven months from now we will choose between more money in the pockets of families or more money in the coffers of the government.
"And eleven months from now we will choose between a leader of principle or a politician of protest, pandering and pessimism. The choice is ours. But the legacy will belong to our children. What kind of world will we leave them? What kind of America will they inherit? Under President Bush's leadership, they will find the world a much better place, and a much stronger nation."
A-hole:
!Chinga tu madre! El GOPutos son cochinos repulsivos. ¡El tiempro obra a noestro favor!
One time, I was inna bwig pwace, and somebody say "Hey!" and I turn arouwd and look cuase i think they want me. But they don't, they are talking to the puppy.
Your Spanish is horrible.
Won't somebody pway wif me?
Anonymous | 11.23.03 - 12:37 am | #
I have a suggestion Poor Impersonator: if you want to have a chance at bothering or discrediting me, do a convincing job of impersonating me. Otherwise, you only make my case more solid about the rampant hypocrisy. Your puerile spews really do nothing.
I'm sure you're too stupid to heed my advice. Please continue.
Go pway wif yourself
Go pway wif yourself
Anonymous | 11.23.03 - 12:54 am | #
I'm sorry, but no, I'm not attracted to you.
That was textbook. Thank you for your help with my research, everyone.
El Culo:
It's horrible because you don't know what the fuck it means.
[[It's horrible because you don't know what the fuck it means.]]
Nope. Sorry. Try posting in a language you can use properly.
I don't think he's trying to bother or discredit you, Anonymous. I think he's trying to mock you, rather obviously doing so, because it is entertaining. There is a qualitative difference between openly mocking someone by using their handle and using someone's handle to put words into their mouth in an attempt to discredit them. Your tiresome obtuseness in, among other things, failing to distinguish between these two modes of rhetoric is precisely why you are such a rich target for mockery.
Further, the shouting of 'personal attack' coming from someone who said:
More liberal-bashing of religion. Typical.
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 7:08 pm | #
and:
Let me guess - you're a lonely woman, bitter about another solo Saturday.
Sad.
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 7:55 pm | #
make you seem a little, what's the word, hypocritical (another word you seem to like to throw around without the slightest sense of irony).
Finally, when people get sick of listening to the clinical obtuseness of your taking them to task for shiftily defined ethical transgressions and your further refusal to discuss anything substantive (especially just what your comment about liberal-bashing of religion is supposed to mean), it isn't censorship. It's not wanting to listen to you anymore because you obviously have nothing useful to add to this or any other discussion other than that we're, according to you, imperfect moral agents (who knew!).
[[ I think he's trying to mock you, rather obviously doing so, because it is entertaining.]]
I can see where a retard would find something like that amusing. Do you find it amusing? If so, you are a retard.
Shall I summon the nubby bus for you? Is your hockey helmet secure?
El Culo:
Give me your third-grade translation.
[[ the shouting of 'personal attack' ]]
I shouted? Huh. Another liar lies.
Thanks, liar.
[[Give me your third-grade translation.]]
Learn how to spell, then get back to me.
Your Spanish is horrible.
[[Make you seem a little, what's the word, hypocritical]]
Really? How am I violating my own personal principles?
Oh, I forgot, you're a retard. You have no idea what you're talking about. Forgive me.
Want some chocolate milk?
I can see where a retard would find something like that amusing. Do you find it amusing? If so, you are a retard.
Shall I summon the nubby bus for you? Is your hockey helmet secure?
[[ the shouting of 'personal attack' ]]
I shouted? Huh. Another liar lies.
Thanks, liar.
More personal attacks from the moral arbiter of Eschaton. You know it's funny that you can take obviously figurative language and construe it literally and then call me a retard.
More liberal-bashing of religion. Typical.
Anonymous | 11.22.03 - 7:08 pm | #
Jebus, dude, have you really been at this for 6 hours?
[[when people get sick of listening to the clinical obtuseness]]
Good one! I'm the clearest, calmest person here. I can see why you want to control people like you do, but it is hypocritical to cry about Republicans "shutting out Democrats" etc.
You really don't realize why you all are killing your own credibility with this behavior of yours. It's going to keep dogging Democrats at the ballot box, but please, keep up with the self-righteousness and hypocrisy. You'll learn your lesson the hard way, I guess.
Are you looking forward to another 4 years of Republican government? You must be, because you're doing everything you can to drive voters to them, despite their horrifically poor record since 2001. That's quite an achievement.
[[Jebus, dude, have you really been at this for 6 hours?]]
Ah, yes, the "you're here all day" line of argument. Very "strong".
::snicker::
Tell me about my Mommy and my meds. Make strawmen. Be a Masterdebater!
Good one! I'm the clearest, calmest person here. I can see why you want to control people like you do, but it is hypocritical to cry about Republicans "shutting out Democrats" etc.
Liar, I never said I wanted to control you. I said that when posters say they no longer want to listen to you it isn't censorship.
Way to lie, liar.
[[More personal attacks from the moral arbiter of Eschaton.]]
No, those weren't personal attacks, my mentally-challenged buddy. Those were conclusions based on evidence. I can see why you don't understand the difference.
[[figurative language]]
The word "shouting" was "figurative"? Perhaps you should learn how to more clearly express yourself in the English language, instead of being lazy and just saying whatever pops into your small skull. Then, you could explain your ideas with proper nuance.
[[Liar, I never said I wanted to control you.]]
"I didn't put up that 'Mission Accomplished' banner."
Very Bush-like of you.
So now you're lying about personal attacks, liar.
[[I said that when posters say they no longer want to listen to you it isn't censorship.]]
Turn The Channel.
Or, get a better messaging system.
Otherwise, your complaints are simply whining.
[[Liar, I never said I wanted to control you.]]
"I didn't put up that 'Mission Accomplished' banner."
Very Bush-like of you.
No, not really. Not at all.
[[So now you're lying about personal attacks, liar.]]
And you're riding nicely on my line. Keep flipping and flopping -- I'm enjoying it.
[[No, not really. Not at all.]]
Really, retard, your opinion is worthless, so please stop offering it.
Really, retard, your opinion is worthless, so please stop offering it.
Shut up, liar.
[[No, not really. Not at all.]]
Really, retard, your opinion is worthless, so please stop offering it.
Again, without a hint of irony the moral arbiter of the left calls me a retard and says that my opinion on whether my own words are "bush-like" is worthless.
"And you're riding nicely on my line. Keep flipping and flopping -- I'm enjoying it."
No, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.
http://www.google.com/search?q=C...=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8
I live my life on blogs! Derr! I am Carpbasman! I'm saving the world!!!!!!!!
[[No, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.]]
Here, retard, I will help you by speaking slowly with small words.
For me to be a hypocrite, I would have to have a personal principle that says, "It's bad to call someone a 'retard'. That's not nice."
But, I don't, so I can call you a "retard" freely and without any violation of my own standards.
Now, if I call myself a "genuine, deeply religious person", yet lash out at strangers, with no reasonable provocation with "fuck you, you godless soul", then I am not living by the principles I say I live by, and therefore, I am a hypocrite.
I am terribly sorry that your mind is so weak that it can't perceive such a clear distinction.
I live my life on blogs! Derr! I am Carpbasman! I'm saving the world!!!!!!!!
Yawn.
El Culo:
El Republicanos: La escoria de la tierra. What do that mean, Spanish experto?
one time, i peed in one part of the pool, and then i went over to the other part and drank out of it
The bottom line, retard, is what does the Left (to make a crude distinction, but one which many people follow) offer as a distinctive set of principles, and is their integrity with respect to those principles, as compared to the Right?
Again, I doubt you will grasp this and how fundamental it is in determining what happens with our world.
[[Yawn.]]
A direct hit!
People around here quite often, even usually, make comments that educate me about the issues involved. I value that a lot: learning is really the longest-lasting kick there is. Other times, I just take pleasure in the high quality of the writing and thinking.
When trolls like this one seize the opportunity to make stupid personal attacks on people whose deeper thoughts I'd rather be reading (however peppered the attacks are with college freshman words like "puerile"), it detracts from my enjoyment of the site, and I am sure I speak for a lot of others when I say I resent it.
Will this stop him? No. Fucking up other people's fun is quite clearly what this guy is all about. We can take comfort, though, in the safe knowledge that his life is miserable.
Everything, from the perspective of people like this one, is a question of who has the power: that's how they see the world. (This is why cheap putdowns strike them as being just as good as having an actual argument.) It begins with authoritarian parents, and goes on from there.
And there's always someone more powerful than you. Even being made to wait in line at the supermarket becomes an unbearable personal affront. And without empathy (something out of the question for people whose primary pleasure is in displeasing others), there can be no possibility of good sex. There's always that nagging fear. Am I being exploited?
So relax, all. You really have already won any battle that's worth fighting. Let's try to ignore this guy (me included--like I say I don't always manage this).
I live my life on blogs! Derr! I am Carpbasman! I'm saving the world!!!!!!!!
A direct hit!
[[What do that mean, Spanish experto?]]
-----
Here's some advice for you hypocrites: nothing you say will make me feel bad. Keep than in mind.
Bash Bush, Rush, etc as much as you want. Bash anyone. It doesn't hurt me in the least.
Anonymous | 11.23.03 - 12:43 am | #
-------
Why don't you just answer the questions?
You sound like a person that hates to be wrong.
Guess what... you're wrong!
AlanH, adding to the deep pile of hypocrisy! That was a beaut, boy!
El Culo:
Qué coño con más suerte.
Anonymous, adding to the deep pile of hypocrisy! That was a beaut, boy!
[[Guess what... you're wrong!]]
About what?
PS Censor, it won't work.
How is pointing out that you have nothing substantive to say hypocritical. You've spent quite a long time here and you're only point seems to be that we're all hypocrites and only you are ethically faithful to your own inner personal morality.
[[Anonymous, adding to the deep pile of hypocrisy! That was a beaut, boy!]]
Polly want a cracker?
[[How is pointing out that you have nothing substantive to say hypocritical.]]
Have I called someone hypocritical for pointing that out? Nope.
And the fact that you, with your obviously limited brain, can't discern substance, is not surprising. You seem like the kind of person that can handle things on only the most common level. Higher-level approaches to discourse and imbedded strategies really do elude you. You are a literalist, which is also very common among sheepy right-wingers.
Polly's not my name, but I'd like a cracker anyway. Anyone want some crackers cheese? Great midnight snack!
See I answered your question!
Why don't you answer the questions that were asked to you....
Unless.... you're afraid that you'll be proven wrong?
[[Guess what... you're wrong!]]
About what?
Oh, for one, about liberal bashing of religion. I don't know, that you're not a hypocrite for another. Oh then there's the whole puposeful obtusness thing, but since that has no ideological content it's not so much wrong as annoying.
Anonymous, you konoyaro, Streaker is right about Japan and you are wrong. I am Japanese, and two of my colleagues in the Dept. of Anthropology who specialize in Japanese culture also agree. Rev. Moon is a crook and a blot on the face of Eastern civilization.
[[you're(sic) only point seems to be that we're all hypocrites and only you are ethically faithful to your own inner personal morality.]]
You're never going to get it, are you? This has nothing to do with MY personal morality. God, you're fucking dense.
"You are a literalist, which is also very common among sheepy right-wingers."
"[[ the shouting of 'personal attack' ]]
I shouted? Huh. Another liar lies.
Thanks, liar."
What was that you were saying?
Ooh Anonymous used the f-word.. what was he saying about personal attacks?
Still hasn't answered MY question!
By the way, what do you REALLY think about the Rev. Moon?
And the "presidents" that are endorsing him even after they've died?
[[treaker is right about Japan and you are wrong.]]
No, he's not.
[[ I am Japanese]]
Really? What's your birthplace in Japan?
[[and two of my colleagues in the Dept. of Anthropology who specialize in Japanese culture also agree]]
Really? They agree with this statement?:
"Japan is as much a secular nation as it can get"
That is, they think Japan is the most secular nation in the world? Really? That's so laughably disprovable, it's not even funny.
[[What was that you were saying?]]
We've already covered the "shouting" issue, retard. I'm sorry you're sloppy with your words, and when challenged, say "I was being figurative".
Keep amusing me. I like having a dumb toy like you to bat about.
Now, if I call myself a "genuine, deeply religious person", yet lash out at strangers, with no reasonable provocation with "fuck you, you godless soul", then I am not living by the principles I say I live by
You're ascribing "principles" to someone else that they didn't say they had. That is, you're lying, liar.
Fuck you, you godless soul.
Suzanne, anonymous is allowed to use ad hominem attacks because his personal morality allows it. However, the left is not, and by extension we are not, because to do so goes against the left's moral code.
I like having a dumb toy like you to bat about.
I rest my case.
I'm sorry to say this Anonymous, I'm laughing so much at your comments.
The level of the comments you're saying is so asinine it's hilarious!
Thanks for cheering me up!
Nee, Sis-chan, dono gurai zaibei da ka?
[[What was that you were saying?]]
We've already covered the "shouting" issue, retard. I'm sorry you're sloppy with your words, and when challenged, say "I was being figurative".
Keep amusing me. I like having a dumb toy like you to bat about.
So you, without a hint of irony, take it as literal when I describe type-writen words as shouting and call me a liar as a result? And I'm supposed to be the literalist. And then when challenged about this you call my writing sloppy and me a retard.
Whoops, I forgot.
*sigh*
Good night. . .
I understand that Carpbasman.
I think s/he's just trying to annoy everyone.
S/He's just making himself look like a fool.
It's cracking me up so much... this is better than the SNL rerun tonight.
[[I rest my case.]]
Um, thanks hypocrite. Have a good one.
And, please, why don't you ungrip your coin purse and buy Atrios a messaging system that you don't "resent".
Save your crocodile tears. This is a free system. Deal with it and save your pompousness. It's pathetic and proves my point. You all really aren't catching a clue, are you?
Please, keep acting like right-wingers, while proclaiming yourselves to be "profound thinkers" and "ethical, humane, peace-loving people". You couldn't do anything that would be more effective in keeping people voting Republican than by being hypocrites.
Try knowing what your principles are and living them. Then, miracle of miracles, Americans will flock your way on Election Day. Saying "look how bad those right-wingers are", and acting only *slightly* less bad, won't do it. People expect right-wingers to be self-serving, conniving, petty bastards.
You won't get it, much to the world's detriment.
I think s/he's just trying to annoy everyone.
I don't really know what his agenda is other than to point out that the people of this site are discrediting the Democrats in re: the 2004 election because of our ethical failings, somehow. Although, I don't really know that a weblog is going to have much if any effect on the election given probably 99 percent of the country doesn't know what weblog is.
[[I think s/he's just trying to annoy everyone. ]]
Partially correct, but a limited view.
[[S/He's just making himself look like a fool.]]
You have a lot to learn about how things work. My methodology is working very well, although I am surprised at how resistant you all are. But you're coming around, slowly.
[[It's cracking me up so much..]]
Then again...
[[I don't really know what his agenda is other than to point out that the people of this site are discrediting the Democrats in re: the 2004 election because of our ethical failings, somehow. Although, I don't really know that a weblog is going to have much if any effect on the election given probably 99 percent of the country doesn't know what weblog is. ]]
You almost got it, but then lost it there in the end.
Wait a minute:
"left-wing bashing"
"typical right-winger"
Does this mean I'm an independent, now that Anonymous is calling us these labels?
El Culo:
No me vengas ahora con sandeces. ¿Qué te parece esto?
On that note: which party do you support, Anonymous?
[[You're ascribing "principles" to someone else that they didn't say they had.]]
Really? "Deeply religious, genuine" people say "fuck you, you godless soul" to total strangers without reasonable provocation? What religion is that exactly that they follow?
[[which party do you support, Anonymous?]]
Little, little people and their little, little minds... ::sigh::
"Gee, Bobby! Are you a Packers man or a Bears man?"
Derrrr
[[Does this mean I'm an independent, now that Anonymous is calling us these labels?]]
Goddamn. I thought I had seen some stupid people tonight, then you wander in.
Probably no religion, Anonymous.
After all there's a group called the Athiests, who don't believe in god and form their own religion.
Anyone a Jedi?
That's right, Sisi, I thought you were full of it. Thanks for the proof.
"You have a lot to learn about how things work. My methodology is working very well, although I am surprised at how resistant you all are. But you're coming around, slowly."
Given that you've spent the past seven hours railing against the fact that the posters at eschaton are imperfect moral agents I wouldn't pat yourself on the back to much about your methodology. I might also suggest that calling someone a retard in isn't a very usefull rhetorical strategy.
[[No me vengas ahora con sandeces. ¿Qué te parece esto?]]
I didn't expect you'd get it. Seems to be a pattern here.
I don't know anonymous, but someone who was deeply religious and liberal might take offense at your impugning lefty's as religion bashers. In fact a deeply religious liberal might find such an aspersion to be so offensive that in a moment of weakness they may retort by saying "f*ck you, you godless soul." So, I wouldn't say that her comment was 'without provocation.'
Wow.. you used the word goddamn? Unable to come up anything more astute to clarify your apparent frustrations?
Yet again on the personal attacks...
what a hypocrite (anonymous) to do after all this time just being an ass?
[[I wouldn't pat yourself on the back to much about your methodology]]
I'm pleased with the results. It's not important that you understand the process.
[[I might also suggest that calling someone a retard in isn't a very usefull rhetorical strategy. ]]
And I'd suggest that I don't need help debating from a poor debater, and also, that you might want to rethink that my purpose is to "win" a debate with you all. You all can't really debate decently anyway -- I gave up on that long ago. So, I'm trying other approaches, and they work much better.
[[your apparent frustrations]]
Key word: apparent. Apparent to you. Ergo, meaningless.
El Culo:
You've been exposed as a fucking fraud. You know from shit about Spanish, or English for that matter.
Go back where you feel at home, licking right-wing ass. And, before you leave: ¡Métetelo por el culo!
[[what a hypocrite (anonymous) to do after all this time just being an ass?]]
Speak English much?
Who said anything about 'winning.' The only thing that you've convinced me of is that you like to bait people in responding in kind to ad hominem so that you can point out their moral failings.
[[You've been exposed as a fucking fraud. You know from shit about Spanish]]
"noestro" (sic)??
"tiempro" (sic)??
LOL
[[The only thing that you've convinced me of is that you like to bait people in responding in kind to ad hominem so that you can point out their moral failings.]]
You truly amuse me with your spastic attempts to discern anything. Really.
[[Go back where you feel at home, licking right-wing ass.]]
Sad. So sad. So clueless.
Sheesh it's a simple question Anonymous!
In fact I'll yell it (yelling is in capital letters by the way) if you're not able to understand or not able to actually read what we're asking you:
WHICH PARTY ARE YOU SUPPORTING?
Want me to define the parties that are available to support?
Ok, here:
Democrats: also called liberals, on the left
Republicans: also called conservatives, on the right.
Independents: quasi-Republicans, quasi Democrats.
Jedi: May the force be with you
Sorry everyone, I tried to make it simple enough for Anonymous. He doesn't seem to understand our questions well enough to actually TRY answering them.
I do speak English.. apparently you can't read the language I'm writing.
Go on, little lad, just answer our questions. Expand what little you have in your head.
[[a moment of weakness]]
The Jim Baker move! "It was a moment of weakness!"
I understand that. However, the person with the principles has to admit that they've violated their own principles, yet in this case, given ample opportunity, this person just kept behaving in a more and more reprehensible manner, further undermining her stance as a "deeply religious, genuine" person.
So deos your rhetorical bag consist of anything but 'personal attacks' and arguments from authority? Because otherwise I don't really see how we're debating. You still haven't addresed the point of how it might be offensive to a religious liberal to accuse liberals in general of religion bashing, especially in light of a discussion on Rev. Moon who himself is a figure offensive to religious liberals.
Cross post
[[WHICH PARTY ARE YOU SUPPORTING?]]
I heard you the first time, and I found the question stupid then.
I know it's hard for you to grasp, but it is possible to live life and not take sides or choose from the Value Menu.
You won't get that, will you?
[[Go on, little lad, just answer our questions. Expand what little you have in your head.]]
Ah, yes. The tried and true "kid" and "stupid" putdowns, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Boring and meaningless.
Now is that reprehensible from the standpoint her moral code or your's?
And does your moral code allow you to smear the left with the accusation of religion bashing?
[[So deos your rhetorical bag consist of anything but 'personal attacks' and arguments from authority? Because otherwise I don't really see how we're debating.]]
"And I'd suggest that I don't need help debating from a poor debater, and also, that you might want to rethink that my purpose is to "win" a debate with you all. You all can't really debate decently anyway -- I gave up on that long ago. So, I'm trying other approaches, and they work much better."
Anonymous | 11.23.03 - 2:23 am | #
"Who said anything about 'winning.' "
[[You still haven't addresed]]
Um, yes I have. Are you not paying attention?
!
So far you haven't been able to answer the questions, therefore the "little kid" references. You're just making it worse for yourself.
People will think you're an idiot for not answering questions.
Oops, I meant to clarify that people already think you're an idiot.
[[You still haven't addresed]]
Um, yes I have. Are you not paying attention?
Actually, no you haven't said one whit about the religion bashing comment and how that might be offensive to a religious liberal, In fact you have steadfastly refused to comment on it, focusing instead on the fact that liberals are imperfect moral agents.
Anonymous is Hal 9000.
No, anonymous isn't an idiot, he's purposefully obtuse.
What have you addressed?
So far I've asked a number of questions and still no addressing, I feel so naked.
[[Now is that reprehensible from the standpoint her moral code or your's (sic)?]]
I've already covered my side, and despite repeated requests for her to explain her principles, she balked.
So, since she is not here, can you discern what religion she follows which makes the entire spectrum of her behavior here tonight consistent with its principles? She sure didn't have an answer other than trolling and acting like a child, which also seems to be strange behavior for a "genuine, deeply religious" person.
[[So far I've asked a number of questions and still no addressing]]
I've answered you. Move on.
[[In fact you have steadfastly refused to comment on it]]
::sigh::
2:31 am
[[imperfect moral agents]]
No, the term I have used is "hypocrites". It's not about "imperfection", it's about screaming loud, over-the-top hypocrisy that turns the stomachs of people with a decent amount of personal integrity.
If you haven't learned this about America yet, perhaps you shoud: people have more more respect and admiration for someone who is true to themselves than someone who simply says they hold the beliefs of someone "good".
It's so basic and so powerful, yet very few people learn it and apply it.
Nope, not much answering, I still feel naked.
Is there a draft in here?
No it's the air going through Anonymous's right ear and out the left. Just like questions that are of significant value which require a better detail of answers rather than avoidance.
*yawn* don't be so boorish, Anonymous.
Are we done?
Now I understand why this blog is called "Eschaton." And I do feel shat on.
[[No it's the air going through Anonymous's right ear and out the left.]]
Another suggestion: since I have been proven to be an intelligent person throughout my life, by all kinds of objective measurements and signals, any attempt to make me feel insecure about my brains is absolutely ineffective. I'm sure you'll keep trying, seeing as you aren't to quick to pick things up, but, hey, I let you know what's up.
[[avoidance]]
What am I avoiding?
Pick something to be and be true to it.
El Culo:
¿Cómo se te decir eso, chico puto?
Anonymous, I do wish you practiced what you preach. So far I haven't seen that.
You're avoiding questions, you're dodging questions, and you're afraid that you'll be wrong.
So tell me what do you think of Rev Moon?
I can answer that as simply as I can just to teach you a lesson: I think he's crazy and dangerous.
See how easy it was to answer that question?
Obviously you've never been to class so here in a simple two step procedure:
1) Question gets asked
EG: what's your favourite fruit?
2) Answer question as simply as you can
EG: my favourite fruit is a pear, although I'm partial to bananas.
Not: "I've answered that, move on"
Likewise.
[[So tell me what do you think of Rev Moon? ]]
No opinion.
John Gorenfeld - WELL DONE. Thanks for linking to this Atrios.
Moon BRAGS about using The Washington Times to influence the country.
from: The Last Days are Coming to America Sun Myung Moon September 13, 2002
I influenced America through the Washington Times and so many different activities. Do you want Father in America. (YES !! The ministers responded).......
The Last Days are coming to America. Be careful. Those that oppose Rev. Moon will perish. Since I came here, I didn’t get anything from America.
----
"With journalism, we have now reached success by establishing The Washington Times," Moon said, according to Soejima. "We now have a direct influence on Reagan through The Washington Times."(Washington Post 9/16/84)
"the last days are coming to America" now why would the conservatives work with someone like this? Think Jim Jones on steroids. Thanks conservatives glad you honored him, gave hinm a place at your table, now we have freaks running your party and the country, Moon financed that.
Moon believes Korea is to be #1. Where does that leave us? Huh? you conservative hypocrites.
[[Obviously you've never been to class]]
Yep, you didn't heed my advice, as expected. Please continue these pathetic attempts at insults.
Say you're tall. If I were to call you "Shrimp", and I intended to hurt your feelings (instead of being funny or ironic), then I would look like an idiot and you would feel no offense whatsoever.
You still won't get this, will you?
I'm sure you're intelligent Anonymous, but the level of comments you've been posting lack a tone of intelligensia. You make your postings seem smart by adding a lot of words but lack sustinence to them.
I'm not questioning your intelligence.
I'm just wondering why you can't answer a question quite simple as "What do you think of Reverend Moon" without resorting to an ad hominem attack.
Come on, I know you're afraid, but it's a simple question. It doesn't have a right or wrong answer, We're just asking you what your opinion is of Rev. Moon.
My opinion: He's scary.
See how easy that is to state an opinion instead of blathering on and on nonsense about a "curse word". Come on! I can see where your maturity has gone, like the wind whistling through your ears at this very moment.
Nope anonymous, the best you could come up with was that somehow the thread was typical liberal religion bashing, which it wasn't, and that you weren't addressing pie when making your comments. That still doesn't address the original smear and how that might be offensive to a religious liberal and how further that, as such, it was substantial provocation to say "fuck you, you godless soul." in response to the provocation. Instead you pretend that the culpability lies solely with pie and not at all with you since it is within your personal moral code to attribute qualities to people that they don't possess (or something). This all to further your thesis that people in eschaton's comments sections engage in the worst behavior attributed to the right wing without any further support than the fact that you say so and that this somehow will cost the Democrat's the election in 2004.
I just posted and I finally get an answer out of this guy.
"No opinion"
So we've been through all this shit for nothing?
Great!
1) Question gets asked
EG: what's your favourite fruit?
2) Answer question as simply as you can
EG: my favourite fruit is a pear, although I'm partial to bananas.
Not: "I've answered that, move on"
=======
Two things:
1) I find that very amusing, since this tedious exercise pretty much launched because people wouldn't answer my very straightforward and earnest questions. So, you're impugning all your blog buddies upstream with this attempted put-down of yours. Good work.
2) I did answer your question. It is not my responsibility for you to grasp that. I've told you this more than once, and it's clear you won't get it. So, continue as you will -- I;m just going to laugh and ridicule you fr my amusement.
[[So we've been through all this shit for nothing?]]
You can leave now. I encourage you.
"I'm not questioning your intelligence."
cf.
"Obviously you've never been to class"
"Is there a draft in here? No it's the air going through Anonymous's right ear and out the left."
etc etc
You did answer the question and you had no opinion so why keep going on?
You're being silly right now. Now go play with your toys.
[[intelligensia (sic)]]
Beautiful. That's always beautiful.
I'm just saying "you've never been to class", as in answering questions that have been asked to you repeatedly.
You're so close to figuring it out.
[[sustinence(sic)]]
More hilarity!
Here we go again:
It is possible not to take sides.
It is possible not to have an opinion about something, despite being a genius.
Now, get worked up about that. I know you have to.
I agree, unintended misspellings are beautiful. It just brings tears to my eyes
[[You did answer the question and you had no opinion so why keep going on?]]
Please leave. You're boring me, dullard.
[[unintended misspellings]]
Oh, stop with the lying. It's really unbecoming. Face the facts. I've been around the block -- why put up the pretensions?
What's so sad is conservatives will fight anyone who tries to expose their treason in working with someone who wants to subvert the constitution.
Moon has ONE goal - control the world. He thinks democarcy is just as failed as communism. But alas, the party who holds the last word on 'character' turns out is full of characters, Soul selling characters.
Moon began the big push to infiltrate and GUIDE the conservative movement in the early eighties and the soul selling theocrats and fascists latched onto 'True Fathers' coattails. Goldwater is spinning in his grave for sure. Moon was a VIP guest at the Reagan Bush inaugural in 1981. What has Moon received in return? Well a lot, but mainly a theocratic/fascist frieght train running our government.
Moon has been driving the conservative bus for twenty years.
By March of 1989, US News and World Report said this about Moon's 'church' and the conservative movement. See how Reagan's 11th evil empowering 11th commandement helped give Moon a home with conservatives.
....the church has established a network of affiliated organizations and connections in almost every conservative organization in Washington, including the Heritage Foundation, the largest of the conservative think tanks and an important source of government personnel during the Reagan administration.
.....
"Most people are afraid to address the issue because they don't want to publicize the extent of the church's involvement," says Amy Moritz of the Conservative National Center for Public Policy Research.
Because almost all conservative organizations in Washington have some ties to the church, conservatives also fear repercussions if they expose the church's role. That happened when one organization, the Capital Research Center, published a newsletter last November warning of the church's attempt to create a "centralized world theocracy." One of its board members, who was also on the board of the International Security Council, resigned in protest, and conservatives charging that the paper was creating discord on the right, besieged the center with angry calls. "We got a very, very strong reaction -- almost as if we were the enemy -- because we raised the issue," says CRC Chairman Willa Johnson, a former president of the Heritage Foundation.
"Please leave. You're boring me, dullard."
Help, we're being repressed!
So are you now a censor? Or should you just change the channel?
"I know it's a homophone, but it's an unintended misspelling, too!"
Pathetic. It's not a crime to be a poor speller, nor is it a crime to not be too bright or educated.
What is reprehensible is being what you aren't.
God, this is just too funny how you all keep making my point for me over and over...
why put up the pretensions?
Comimg from you Wile E. Coyote, that's hilarious.
[[Help, we're being repressed!
So are you now a censor? Or should you just change the channel?]]
Swing and a miss again!
I requested that someone leave. This is in stark contrast with a desire to "get rid of" someone. Don't want to scoot? Fine by me. Just not much point to it.
What is reprehensible is being what you aren't.
I submit that this is logically impossible.
[[Why put up the pretensions?
Comimg from you Wile E. Coyote, that's hilarious.]]
Do you know what the word "pretension" means? Obviously not.
Moon has been driving the conservative bus for twenty years.
from a 1997 article by Robert Parry another example of how Reagan's evil empowering 11th Commandment helped Moon find a home in the republican party.
Republican Warnings At times, Moon's penetration of conservative ranks has raised red flags among Republicans. In 1983, the GOP's moderate Ripon Society charged that the New Right had entered "an alliance of expediency" with Moon's church. Ripon's chairman, Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, released a study which alleged that the College Republican National Committee "solicited and received" money from Moon's Unification Church in 1981. The study also accused Reed Irvine's Accuracy in Media of benefitting from low-cost or volunteer workers supplied by Moon.
Leach said the Unification Church has "infiltrated the New Right and the party it (the New Right) wants to control, the Republican Party, and infiltrated the media as well." Leach's news conference was broken up when then-college GOP leader Grover Norquist accused Leach of lying. (Norquist is now head of Americans for Tax Reform and a prominent ally of -then- House Speaker Newt Gingrich.)
For its part, The Washington Times dismissed Leach's charges as "flummeries" and mocked the Ripon Society as a "discredited and insignificant left-wing offshoot of the Republican Party." (WP, Jan. 6, 1983)
everyone can continue looking at him like he's a nut, but he has tremendous influence thanks to Poppy Bush and Reagan mainlining him, he's on the march.
He is moving on the UN. Wants to 'make a new UN" which he said he would do in the 70's. He wants to add a theocratic body to become part of the UN.
check it out read the links within the post. Moon has said it is easier to influence the UN than it is to influence a country like America.
[[What is reprehensible is being what you aren't.
I submit that this is logically impossible.
]]
Rookie.
Are you lighweights done striking out with the Master?
Comment on the 't'. Come on. You know you want to.
It is impossible to be what you aren't (X cannot be identical to not X; freshman logic.)It is not impossible to try and be what you aren't. But hey I'm a literalist just like the right wing!
Yes I'm quite aware of what a pretense is. I'm also aware that joining Mensa is pretentious.
I'm with Dom. I came back hours later, this person was still here. When Anon finally expressed his opinion on the original thread topic, it was "no opinion". I'm not as bright as Anon, maybe that's why I can't figure why he came in the first place.
On Topic: Does anyone think that the saudis know how far up bush's ass Moon really is?
Engaging in meditation is, in some way, to realize one's buddha nature, our original or true nature. Zazen is not, therefore, a process of trying to attain something as what one is seeking is already attained. Just as one might hunt for a gold coin that is already in one's hand, so it would be silly to go looking for the buddha nature when we one has the buddha-nature anyway. According to Dogen. although 'we do not lack the highest wisdom...we do not always harmonize with it'. This failure to harmonze stems from forming opinions and desires for material things. However, 'when we sit cross legged...abandoning all things...we can enjoy great wisdom'.
My first wife quit mensa 'cause they're a "bunch of morons". That's not my opinion, it's hers.
[[I came back hours later, this person was still here.]]
Yep, you've tried this "strong" debate tactic before -- "You've been on here 24/7!"
Trite and useless. Try again.
El Culo:
¡Un hombre genial! ¿Es que eso tiene gracia?
[[It is impossible to be what you aren't (X cannot be identical to not X; freshman logic.)]]
Yep, that's freshman logic. You're absolutely right, rookie.
[[Yes I'm quite aware of what a pretense is.]]
No, not in the sense in which it was used. That's pretty clear.
[[I'm also aware that joining Mensa is pretentious.]]
Did someone mention Mensa or joining it?
Once again, I ask for Debate. I have not engaged in any, yet. I ask that my debate opponent take a pro or con position on the topic at hand. Anon, would you like to take a position? "No opinion" isn't much of a position to debate from. I'll tell you what, Will it still be a debate if I take both sides and you just give me a hard time?
[[I came back hours later]]
Yep, you came back. If it's such a meaningless situation, why would you come back?
Very good question.
Yeah, I once had a boss who hung a picture of Einstein on his office wall despite the fact that he got a business degree not a physics degree {I'm smart, just like Einstein!). His big selling point to the higher ups was his mensa membership.
Your Spanish is improving. Keep it up.
I don't understand your comment. I didn't come back for you, but to see how others feel about moon. there are a few resonable posts IMHO, upthread. So, Again, debate or no?
Carpbasman,
My IQ is 170. What's yours?
[[I don't understand your comment. I didn't come back for you, but to see how others feel about moon. there are a few resonable posts IMHO, upthread. So, Again, debate or no?]]
Please. More pretensions.
"Did someone mention Mensa or joining it?"
Nope, no one did. You're right. But hey, I'm a literalist.
"Yep, that's freshman logic. You're absolutely right, rookie."
So you admit it's impossible to be something you aren't, great. Glad we could find some common ground at last.
[[I ask that my debate opponent take a pro or con position on the topic at hand.]]
Ah, yes. The "topic at hand". Will you understand why this isn't working for you?
Prediction: no.
[[So you admit it's impossible to be something you aren't, great.]]
Hahahaha!!! You're so cute! Leaps of logic!
I agreed that that was freshman logic.
Anonymous, I don't care what your IQ is. It just makes you more annoying because it self justifies your sense of rightness.
You already think you know that my IQ is, what less than 75, is that the threshold for "retards"?
Sorry, Anon. I'm not smart enough to debate someone with no opinion. IQ of 170 means nothing if you have "no opinion" on the topic at hand. As bright as you are, you could have added much to this thread. Sorry you withhold your wisdom on Moon.
So, "Reverend" Moon exploits religion to advance a hyper-conservative agenda of bigotry, hatred, and self-aggrandizement.
Shocking news, I tell you. On the order of "water is wet."
As stunning as it is to learn that Moon is a cult leader of the lowest order, I'm more interested (in the immediate sense) to learn about the details of the Plame betrayal.
El Culo:
¿Habla usted español, chico puto? Creo que no.
Some say that my teaching is nonsense.
Others call it lofty but impractical.
But to those who have looked inside themselves,
this nonsense makes perfect sense.
And to those who put it into practice,
this loftiness has roots that go deep.
I have just three things to teach:
simplicity, patience, compassion.
These three are your greatest treasures.
Simple in actions and in thoughts,
you return to the source of being.
Patient with both friends and enemies,
you accord with the way things are.
Compassionate toward yourself,
you reconcile all beings in the world.
"I agreed that that was freshman logic."
Hmm, is there some sort of new logic that says X and ~X can both be true?
That would be great, because you can prove anything from a contradiction.
Oh well, I'm sorry, you know I'm a literalist n'all. Or you could just give up the pretense that you didn't misspeak.
[[You already think you know that my IQ is, what less than 75, is that the threshold for "retards"?]]
I could care less what your IQ is. However, you felt compelled to bring up your little story about your boss, so I thought I'd share my IQ with you. You responded like most people do.
If you think you're going to win some battle with me, then you're misguided. It's just not going to happen.
[[IQ of 170 means nothing if you have "no opinion" on the topic at hand.]]
You obviously missed the point of what I just said about this. You are very intent on talking about Moon. This will accomplish what?
Do you like patterns? I do.
Do you understand what a 'vehicle' is?
Sometimes a cigar is not a cigar. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it isn't.
[[So, "Reverend" Moon exploits religion to advance a hyper-conservative agenda of bigotry, hatred, and self-aggrandizement.
Shocking news, I tell you. On the order of "water is wet."]]
Right on. Someone who has a clue!
Why are righty-tighties so touchy about Moon?
[[Hmm, is there some sort of new logic that says X and ~X can both be true?]]
LOL!! Keep struggling!
Here. Here's a basic one (you've heard it before):
What's the sound of one hand clapping?
What does your freshman logic tell you about that? I'm sure it's a very "useful" answer. I can't wait to hear it.
[[Or you could just give up the pretense that you didn't misspeak.]]
"This sentence is false."
Get that freshman logic going on that one!
Good job at shutting down this thread, A.
Come see me at the office on Monday.
"I could care less what your IQ is. However, you felt compelled to bring up your little story about your boss, so I thought I'd share my IQ with you. You responded like most people do.
If you think you're going to win some battle with me, then you're misguided. It's just not going to happen."
I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to the person upthread whose wife quit mensa becasue "they were all morons" and relating a personal anecdote to the person regarding mensa members.
And if you don't care, don't ask. You were the person who brought up your intelligence upthread as if your skill at takimg the Stanford-Binet had any relevance to anything.
And once again, who said anything about winning.
No, the term I have used is "hypocrites". It's not about "imperfection", it's about screaming loud, over-the-top hypocrisy that turns the stomachs of people with a decent amount of personal integrity.
If you haven't learned this about America yet, perhaps you shoud: people have more more respect and admiration for someone who is true to themselves than someone who simply says they hold the beliefs of someone "good".
It's so basic and so powerful, yet very few people learn it and apply it.
Anonymous | 11.23.03 - 2:47 am | #
Yep, dead silence in response to that one. Figures.
Talking about Moon is what this thread is SUPPOSED to be about(sorry for the caps, I don't know how to underline in Haloscan). I'm sorry, with an IQ of 170 I assumed you knew what these threads are about. I may be dumb (I think my IQ isn't above 150), but I know the difference between an open thread and a topic thread. Sorry, I honestly thought you wanted to debate the thread topic, my bad. I'll assume, until you tell me otherwise, that you don't know anything about Moon. That means that I won't get to learn whatever wisdom you may actually have about the topic. Sad.
Pick something to be and be true to it.
Anonymous | 11.23.03 - 2:52 am | #
Yep, skipped that, too.
[_]?[_}
yet another iron butt farting
[[Talking about Moon is what this thread is SUPPOSED to be about]]
Really? Who determines this?
[[]![]]
a very tight iron butt farting
Please check the link you used to get here. I'll admit that you could also discuss Soros and the differences between Moon and Soros. Want to get back on topic?
[[You were the person who brought up your intelligence upthread as if your skill at takimg the Stanford-Binet had any relevance to anything.
And once again, who said anything about winning.]]
That last one is especially funny in its embedded hypocrisy. Thanks for that one!
[[Who...who]]
That's what all the owls say.
[[Please check the link you used to get here. I'll admit that you could also discuss Soros and the differences between Moon and Soros. Want to get back on topic?]]
Oh, wow. Those are really fascinating topics. Let's dig right into them.
Not.
You are quite the little control freak.
"No, the term I have used is "hypocrites". It's not about "imperfection", it's about screaming loud, over-the-top hypocrisy that turns the stomachs of people with a decent amount of personal integrity.
If you haven't learned this about America yet, perhaps you shoud: people have more more respect and admiration for someone who is true to themselves than someone who simply says they hold the beliefs of someone "good".
It's so basic and so powerful, yet very few people learn it and apply it."
Anonymous, you insult all liberals by saying we're engaging in typical liberal religion bashing. And when someone reacts to that you impugn everyone who comments at this site with hypocricy and further that such hypocricy will ultimately turn off the American public (despite the fact that such hypocricy if it exists, exists on an obscure web page.)
Zen koans have little if anything to do with logic. In fact they're deliberately set up that way so that the monk on meditating on them will not limit themselves to the material trappings of "logic" which only seek to hold us to the illusion of reality.
[[ceci n'e'st pas une pipe]]
It's "n'est" nor "n'e'st". Make a note of it.
(_)*(_)
Mooning moonies tonight...
nor = not
[_]+[_]
A small accident with your erector set?
[_)x(_]
Uh! That feels much better.
I'd love to stay and play "beat up the really smart guy", but it's after 11:00pm where I am (that means it's really late where you are). Letterman conmes on soon, and he's funnier than someone THAT doesn't have an opinion about Moon. I'm happy that none of my posts were torn apart by any of the cool people. Thanks, guys, for a good time. Let's do the second amendment some time.
[[Anonymous, you insult all liberals by saying we're engaging in typical liberal religion bashing.]]
I can see where an insecure person might feel that.
[[And when someone reacts to that you impugn everyone who comments at this site with hypocricy]]
Nope. I deal with specific instances of hypocrisy, but I can see where a broad-brusher such as yourself might feel that.
[[further that such hypocricy will ultimately turn off the American public (despite the fact that such hypocricy if it exists, exists on an obscure web page.)]]
We've covered this, and you still miss the point.
[[Zen koans have little if anything to do with logic.]]
Yep. That's right.
[[In fact they're deliberately set up that way so that the monk on meditating on them will not limit themselves to the material trappings of "logic" which only seek to hold us to the illusion of reality.]]
Yet, you battle over "stop being what you aren't", by appealing to "freshman logic", and despite saying you're not trying to "win".
nor = not
Trivially true, if you tie the inputs together. I've generally found quad Xnors more versatile, though.
[[I'd love to stay and play "beat up the really smart guy"]]
Hahaha!!! I'm tossing a perfect game tonight, and this little outburst is just icing for me. Thanks for that one, ya ninny.
[[Letterman conmes on soon, and he's funnier than someone THAT doesn't have an opinion about Moon.]]
Oh, yeah, that Dave sure is funny! I like those stupid pet tricks the best! Har har har!!! My next favorite show is "Tool Time" or maybe "Saved By the Bell". TV is awesome! Derrrrrrrrrrrrr.
[[I'm happy that none of my posts were torn apart by any of the cool people.]]
Unskilled and Unaware of It....
[[Trivially true, if you tie the inputs together. I've generally found quad Xnors more versatile, though.]]
Cheetos or Doritos tonight, fatman?
It is telling that the administration
feels comfortable with the local paper
being run by right-wing religious nut-cases. Perhaps it makes them feel
right at home.
Actually Anonyomous I was being overly pedantic to make a point. But then you know I'm the literalist.
"We've covered this, and you still miss the point."
Well, you know, we can't all have 170 IQs.
"I can see where an insecure person might feel that."
Oh, so you were praising us for our non-existent typical religion bashing that isn't really typical. I get it.
"I know it's a homophone, but it's an unintended misspelling, too!"
Pathetic. It's not a crime to be a poor speller, nor is it a crime to not be too bright or educated.
What is reprehensible is being what you aren't.
God, this is just too funny how you all keep making my point for me over and over...
Anonymous | 11.23.03 - 3:16 am | #
I guess this blog would close down if you all could sit with that one for awhile. You'll get it.
[[Well, you know, we can't all have 170 IQs.]]
It doesn't take a 170 IQ to grasp what I'm doing and saying.
You ever notice that the real troublesome people aren't the richest of the rich? It's the pretty-damn-rich-to-you-and-me that make all the trouble in the world.
Kinda works the same way with intelligence. The brightest don't tend to cause the most suffering, nor do the dullest. It's the pretty-damn-smart-to-most-people types.
Know any?
Oh, wait.
[_]=[_]
sideways is best!
[[Oh, so you were praising us for our non-existent typical religion bashing that isn't really typical. I get it.]]
You really are attached to this notion of "us" and your identity as being "a liberal", aren't you?
El Culo:
Entrego, el amigo. ¡Que tengas suerte!
[_]==[_]
let me prove how much I can take!
"You ever notice that the real troublesome people aren't the richest of the rich? It's the pretty-damn-rich-to-you-and-me that make all the trouble in the world."
Well, this is certainly debateable, well actually it's dead wrong but hell what's the point.
"Kinda works the same way with intelligence. The brightest don't tend to cause the most suffering, nor do the dullest. It's the pretty-damn-smart-to-most-people types."
Well I'm a retard so this clearly doesn't apply to me. But this is certainly debateable as well since the hyper intelligent tend to lack the social skills required to rule things. They also tend to be academics. I don't know that I want a bunch of academics (think communism) running things. So while this may be truem i don't think the evedince is in on this one yet.
[_]==#==[_]
just keep pounding it into me!
Carpbasman - this is a silly issue,
but one might guess that below average
people cause problems in rough proportion
to their numbers, like about half.
Sounds like our guy "has issues"...
What does the fact that I self identify as a liberal have to do with what you said and whether it was offensive? I self identify as liberal not because I feel the need to 'belong' but because liberal as an aproximation of my political beliefs is fairly if not completely accurate.
Carpbasman - this is a silly issue,
but one might guess that below average
people cause problems in rough proportion
to their numbers, like about half.
Oh sure, but this thread was ruined hours ago. This whole discusion is silly. But hell, I'm having fun, Anon is having fun, I guess. I just feel sorry for the people that think they're getting a 200 post long discussion of Moonies just to see Anon arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and whether his IQ is greater than that number. Alright, that was cheap,
[[Well, this is certainly debateable(sic), well actually it's dead wrong but hell what's the point.]]
Let me clarify this for a moment: How much time do you think you've spent thinking about Bush and his compatriots? And do you think he and his compatriots fall into the first or second category of "rich" that I described.
You're a real piece of work -- so far off sometimes it really is amazing.
[[Well I'm a retard so this clearly doesn't apply to me.]]
Yep, I guess so. Yep.
[[But this is certainly debateable (sic) as well since the hyper intelligent tend to lack the social skills required to rule things.]]
Oh, so we're talking about "ruling things" now? How quaint. And your proposition is that since they don't "rule things" (which is debatable, since Clinton has a 180 IQ or so, to demonstrate one exception to your thesis), that they DO cause suffering? Huh.
[[They also tend to be academics.]]
LOL!! I really don't think you understand how few people you're discussing. There are about 1,700 people (in a predicted distribution) with my IQ (or higher) in the United States. There's almost certainly more, but not likely more than a few times that.
Point is, your talk about their "tendencies" is really funny. Again, I can see how someone with your vantage point might misperceive things.
You know that John Madden and Sharon Stone have higher IQs than me? Not exactly "academics", are they?
[[Carpbasman - this is a silly issue,
but one might guess that below average
people cause problems in rough proportion
to their numbers, like about half.
Sounds like our guy "has issues"...]]
The dullards keep flocking to the light.
[[Excuuuuse me ...]]
Not me - it was him!
[[What does the fact that I self identify as a liberal have to do with what you said and whether it was offensive?]]
Um... everything. Taking offense is a function of one's attachments/identities. You don't know something that basic? Holy shit.
[[I self identify as liberal not because I feel the need to 'belong']]
That's EXACTLY why you do it. You've got some serious denial going on. Nothing to be ashamed about, again, but to not acknowledge the reality is to be a fool.
[[but because liberal as an aproximation of my political beliefs is fairly if not completely accurate.]]
You don't know what you believe. You're still in the "shopping" phase.
Say your last words, dullards.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz...
The volume of afflatus is flabbergasting.
Do they have relays of gasbaggers?
I can't believe that every "Saturday
Night Special" has his snout into the
slippery spot in the Moon.
Mark, is that you?
(#)*(#)
that's the way I like it!
¡Chinga tu madre, el culo!
Let me clarify this for a moment: How much time do you think you've spent thinking about Bush and his compatriots? And do you think he and his compatriots fall into the first or second category of "rich" that I described.
You're a real piece of work -- so far off sometimes it really is amazing.
Well, bush falls into the rich beyond reckoning old money framework. Then there is the rich beyond reckoning new money of people like Bill Gates, who I admit keeps himself to making people's lives miserable primarily though crappy software. But, you know the rest of Bush's compatriots probably fall somewhere in between so rich it is mind boggling and richer comparatively. All things considered, however I'd say that the really wealthy have caused their share of suffering in the world.
I didn't limit my comments to people with IQs over yours, but hey. And yes the hyper-intelligent seldom cause much harm because hey, they're a small sample and hey they tend not to be the people in power because a) as you provided there aren't many of them and b) they tend not to be in positions of power anyway. And the general point that as such, the isn't really much evidene of the harm that they might cause if they were, whatever.
Man, you're a hoot.
Dammit, A, go to bed! You've got flowers to distribute at the airport tomorrow.
Stop torturing these fools!
Remember to stop by the office on Monday. I have a more important mission for you.
Get some sleep!
Even George Wallace wound up asking
black Alabamans for their votes. What
has the Rev. Moon done to rehabilitate
himself?
Even the respectable resident wingnuts
at Calpundit will eventually be goaded
into defending the shipping of Canadian
citizens of Arab descent to Syria for
... interrogation.
They're shameless. Sinverguenza.
Nixon and Wallace belong to the good old days.
You don't know what you believe. You're still in the "shopping" phase.
Wrong
"That's EXACTLY why you do it. You've got some serious denial going on. Nothing to be ashamed about, again, but to not acknowledge the reality is to be a fool."
No, that's why I was a skater in high school. My politics were something I arrived at personally.
"Um... everything. Taking offense is a function of one's attachments/identities. You don't know something that basic? Holy shit."
Ah, I see. It has nothing to do with the fact that you impugned all liberals with religion-bashing nad everything to do with the fact that I'm a liberal. So it's my fault that you impugned liberals with religion bashing becasue I self identify as a liberal. Man, that is one neat moral framework you've worked out for yourself.
rev. moon = cartoon supervilliany, except without the cartoon.
Confessional mode:
I can't claim credit for my politics
or my unbelief. I'm a fourth or fifth
generation Democrat, and at least a
third generation atheist.
I was disappointed to learn in college
that, as a mere liberal, I didn't qualify
as a leftist. Oh, well. Life offers
worse disappointments 
I didn't think I'd outlast him. Man that was tiring. Can you believe he googled me to mock me for posting on blogs? That, was the funniest thing he did. It's maybe 60 entries going back to the beggining of this year, which is fairly light blog posting, on a diversity of topics from "Kim Du Toit is an idiot" to football. "I'm going to save the world," indeed. So you hijack a thread to prove a point, and I'm trying to save the world through blogging. *blink*
You're a good man, Carpbasman.
This thread has been toll-free for almost half an hour.
Oh and anonymous, since you will invariably come back I will concede this:
The typical Atrios comment thread is hardly a credit to American liberalism. While some of the commenters offer lucid arguments about the topic at hand, a great deal of the comments here are little more than name calling and invective, and quite a few are of the remove the beam from thine own eye variety.
However, when you introduce yourself, in a decidedly aggresive liberal forum, in a discussion about a cult-leader, by accusing all liberals of religion-bashing, you reap what you sow. You got called a name by a self professed religious liberal. Surprise, surprise. You attacked her religious beliefs.
Further, introducing your intelligence into a debate is bad form. If you are really that intelligent, your arguments should stand by themselves, regardless of the fact that some people called you stupid. Reacting to that just shows your sensitivity on the intelligence issue and how easily your buttons are pushed.
Lastly, throwing buddhist koans into a debate only shows your desperation. You might as well go into a western style debate on what the meaning of "justified" is in terms of a "justified true belief." Ohmigod we could all just be brains in vats! That was pathetic.
So are all leftests like eschatonian leftists? Is that why Bush will win? Why not have a talk about that and discuss it openly rather than set up a purposefully obtuse moral universe where no one knows what you're talking about but you?. Oh yeah youv'e got a 170 IQ. I forgot.
Bad Jim, I have given nothing but my time, and I don't think I accomplished anything but eating bandwith.
Nevertheless.
Credit is also due to w00t.
Xanthippe: yes, and we still owe a cock to Aesculapious
Carpbasman - well-played. A very entertaining thread (apologies to those who wanted to debate er somethin').
For the record, my IQ is 171, which means my opinion carries 10 times more weight than Anonymous' ("opinion weighting" works on a logarithmic scale--little known fact). Thus, I declare you the winner!
Atrios - maybe open threads on weekends when you aren't posting much? Just a thought, big guy...
Thus, I declare you the winner!
And for the record, my antecedent was Carpbasman, not Anonymous. Sorry for the ambiguity. And this was an incomplete thought that didn't really follow from the preceding sentence. Ah well, even we incredible geniuses need coffee before blogging. There ought to be a law.
Now where exactly did I put my wits...
This troll is like those Republicans who, years ago, made it a point to call our local radio talk shows every day. After a while we noticed a pattern, it was obvious that some of it was organized. Some of us suspected they'd been given talking points. Technology changes but the way Republican dirty tricksters work doesn't. This troll has appeared here in a number of guises, egg, AM, some think he goes back to Harden. Maybe they all carry on converstations among themselves in some tiny head somewhere. I doubt that his morphing will stop with his present form, his shrillness and, as Dr. Pedant pointed out, insistence on getting in the last word gives him away. Eventually he'll make some idiotic analogy between what someone has said and some o