24
   

GIVING THE DEVIL HIS DUE

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 12:46 pm
@JTT,
I haven't stroked anyone. Your attempt to suggest that there were no real intent to criticize behind your sarcasm is transparent, which is why i responded to it. Your having followed that silly claim with the improbably suggestion that it is my aim to "stroke [a] war criminal" is evidence of that. That's a typical and lame rhetorical dodge, to lash out at someone, and then attempt to dismiss it as mere sarcasm.

Since you are reduced to nothing but vicious remarks, and are sinking deeper in to your partisan hysteria, i see no point in responding to you further. You can do your political jerk-off without my help.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 12:47 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
And if you're going to get over-excited about Mr Bush's record on moral grounds why are you not agititating to return your land to the aboriginal population and compensating the slave descendents?


That's something that could be raised at a later time but it's important to deal with these day to day criminals so decent society can continue to function. Get started on Tony Blair over there, Spendi.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 12:59 pm
@JTT,
I can hardly bear to write the guy's name JT.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 01:17 pm
@Setanta,
No need to inform me of your comings and goings, Set. It makes no nevermind to me.

Quote:
our attempt to suggest that there were no real intent


Dialectal variation, Set?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 01:27 pm
20 points for a straw man .... not bad Wink
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 09:07 pm
@Gelisgesti,
If you meant this, G,

Dialectal variation, Set?

I was genuinely interested. It wasn't the first time I'd seen it in Set's posts.

0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 09:16 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
HOW ARE DEER SUPPOSED TO KNOW THEY HAVE TO USE THE DEER CROSSING IF THEY CAN'T READ?



There's a picture.

(Been meaning to say that......)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 09:25 pm
Thanks, Miss Wabbit. I do regret that the signature lines are not as legible as once they were.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 01:47 am
@Phoenix32890,
Phoenix32890 wrote:

Set- I absolutely agree with you. He has shown a graciousness that has not been seen in other government transitions. Whatever his motives, he is leaving as a gentleman.

It isn't out of character. Bush has been and always will be a gentleman. Some of us have always known this, and thanks, Setanta, for making that observation. Sadly, not all politicians deserve that compliment. I believe Americans, when they wake up to what has been happening, will look back at Bush with overhwhelming respect and fondness. I love the man not because he did everything right, but because he loved my country and did an honest job. You never had to guess what Bush was all about or what he stood for. Our next president, I don't have a clue about what he is about or what he will stand for. Sorry to bring Obama into it, but that is the way I feel. Well, to be accurate, I do have clues, but the uncertainties and wide range of possibilities and expectations are cause for nervousness and worry.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 05:45 am
@okie,
I guess Id have to wish for competence over some naive sincerity. But thats just me. I agree that, Itd be nice to have both but if that makes Bush's legacy worshipful in your mind, then go for it.

I cannot respect him for his "honesty" because historical evidence will speak otherwise. For example, the entire "Awerial photo vidence" was trumped up in his name and presented to Congress and the UN. It was all phony, and I know that, as an exploration geologist , youve had ample expwrience at AP analysis. We were openly bamboozled in just that one area.


I, like Bi Polar BEar, will be happy when hes gone and I wish him a long life so that he can enjoy the fondness with which we shall remember him.

He does have a place in history, just not the place that you seem to wish for.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 06:05 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
You are reduced to speculating wildly about improbable acts of approval on my part, because you have no cogent argument against the sole instance of praising him that i have ever shown. You wanna continue to play the hysterical partisan hate monger? Help yourself



Fascinating, Ive been discussing an issue and , not once have I stooped to your playground name calling.SInce when does a careful analysis of clear evidence of manipulation by our president constitute "Hysterical partisan hate mongership? You are a somewhat weak debator because you rarely stay on point without name calling , Ive noticed this about you , youve got a pathological inability to even be disagreed with. I suspect that most posters , when confronted by your vicious name calling will just spit in your face and walk away. By walking away, they dont concde a damn thing, they just would rather enjoy some adult discussion and not engage in name calling.

This thread is not about you . Apparently you are the only one who doesnt seem to recognize that (if you wish it so, you should have posted your "media whore" disclaimer up top).

I will continue to speak in fairly respectful terms even when I disagree fully with your premise (Which is, by my previous summation,all wet).

I do hope that your anger management program goes better. You can now return to your narcissistic masturbatory thread, already in progress. Ill "Thumbs down" this whole thread, and your bad mannered rant will, like spendi, just disappear.

OKBYENOW
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 08:09 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Fascinating, Ive been discussing an issue and , not once have I stooped to your playground name calling.


You have a record of that effemm which dates back four years and it has been a constant theme of your's all through the intervening time up to today. This post above is more or less nothing else but name calling.

Quote:
SInce when does a careful analysis of clear evidence of manipulation by our president constitute "Hysterical partisan hate mongership?


Since when a "careful analysis of clear evidence" is merely an assertion.

Quote:
pathological


That's more than name calling. Bandying words like that about gratuitously is actionable.

Quote:
adult discussion


I hope nobody thinks the use of such an expression is proof that effemm is prepared to have an adult discussion. Anybody fool enough to think that should examine wande's Intelligent Design thread.

Quote:
respectful terms


Ditto.

Quote:
Ill "Thumbs down" this whole thread, and your bad mannered rant will, like spendi, just disappear.


Well -- we all understand that by now. When stumped effemm goes for the Ignore button. Sometimes. Other times he just insults and colours himself pale pink rose tint.

I thought Mr Bush looked "not very well". And no wonder. He has had an impossible job for 8 years. He has had to take the can for necessary dirty work whilst snivelling lefties get the benefits whilst washing their hands in superficial and ignorant invective. The cake and eating it and claiming moral superiority.

The Convention in 1787 discussed seriously a 3 man leadership so the burden would be shared.

Which country came to a civilised social contract without bloodshed. Most of the problems in Iraq were self-inflicted as the factions battled with each other. Where would they be now without the allied intervention which was voted on almost unanimously in many countries. A mutual defence pact with Russia or China maybe. Who knows? The cutting off of the water by the Kurds. Who knows. An uprising by the Shiites.

effemm doesn't know what he is talking about and he belittles the sacrifices of out troops so he can be popular with the lily-livered bleeding hearts who never stop to think why they are so comfy riding up and down the canals in their big boats and contributing to our welfare putting bloody fossils in glass cases and dreaming up teleologies about them to further their careers and insulting our God.

8 years of technology coupled with oil revenues might well have created WW111 by now or before too long. And another grab at Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Who knows?

Mr Bush was a great president and I think history will agree. And he paid a heavy price for it personally.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 09:04 am
@farmerman,
HEY, FM . . . GET A GRIP.

I did not call you any names. Raise the level of your competence in the use of this site slightly, and you'll see that the post of mine which you quoted was addressed to JTT, who has been calling names and dripping snide sarcasm.

SO I DID NOT SUBJECT YOU TO ANY "PLAYGROUND NAME CALLING."

Is it easier for you to understand if i type it all in caps?

For chrissake, it's bad enough dealing with a ****-slinger like JTT without you getting on your high horse for no goddamned reason. I will not grace the est of of your sanctimonious self-congratulation with a reply.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 11:43 am
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-0/

He might have been correct about global warming too.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 12:22 pm
Yeah, George is a real sweetie just bubbling over with compassion.

"In the year following her execution, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson questioned Governor Bush about how the Board of Pardons and Parole had arrived at the determination on her clemency plea. Carlson alleged that Bush, alluding to a televised interview which Karla Faye Tucker had given to talk show host Larry King, smirked and spoke mockingly about her:[8]

In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, "A number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker." "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them", he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must have looked shocked " ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel " because he immediately stops smirking.

Journalist Carlson followed up on Bush's remark by reviewing a videotape of the interview on Larry King's show. Carlson found that Tucker had in fact not uttered the entreaty, "Please don't kill me" or words to that effect.[9]

[edit] "
Complete article here ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 12:38 pm
@Gelisgesti,
Thankfully Europe doesn't use capital punishment. But we used to and many people were executed here on the watch of some illustrious leaders.


I assume the US has it because that's what the voters wish. It is government "by" the people isn't it?

Quote:
The issue of capital punishment came up in the October 13, 1988, debate between the two presidential nominees. Because she knew the Willie Horton issue would be brought up, Dukakis' campaign manager, Susan Estrich, had prepared with Bill Clinton an answer highlighting the candidate's empathy for victims of crime, noting the beating of his father in a robbery and the death of his brother in a hit-and-run car accident. However, when Bernard Shaw, the moderator of the debate, asked Dukakis, "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [his wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Dukakis replied, "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life", and explained his stance. After the debate, Dukakis told Estrich he was sorry and didn't realize it was that question.[7] Many observers felt Dukakis' answer lacked the passion one would expect of a person discussing a loved one's rape and death. Many " including the candidate himself " believe that this, in part, cost Dukakis the election, as his poll numbers dropped from 49% to 42% nationally that night. Other commentators thought the question itself was unfair, in that it injected an irrelevant emotional element into the discussion of a policy issue and forced the candidate to make a difficult choice.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 01:27 pm
So the Blair house if finally open to the Obama's now that it is almost time to move into the white house? I don't know if he bothered to move in or not.

Quote:
The White House has revealed that former Australian prime minister John Howard is one of the reasons US president-elect Barack Obama is living in a Washington hotel before his inauguration.

Mr Obama had asked if his family could move into the presidential guesthouse, called Blair House, early so that his daughters could start school this week.

But the White House told him it was booked for official functions and guests until just days before he is due to be sworn in.

Now a spokeswoman for First Lady Laura Bush has confirmed that Mr Howard will be spending at least one night there.






source
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 07:38 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

I guess Id have to wish for competence over some naive sincerity. But thats just me. I agree that, Itd be nice to have both but if that makes Bush's legacy worshipful in your mind, then go for it.

I cannot respect him for his "honesty" because historical evidence will speak otherwise. For example, the entire "Awerial photo vidence" was trumped up in his name and presented to Congress and the UN. It was all phony, and I know that, as an exploration geologist , youve had ample expwrience at AP analysis. We were openly bamboozled in just that one area.


I, like Bi Polar BEar, will be happy when hes gone and I wish him a long life so that he can enjoy the fondness with which we shall remember him.

He does have a place in history, just not the place that you seem to wish for.

So it all gets back to the issue of WMD and Bush made it all up, how predictable, fm, and I am surprised at a person that claims to have sound reasoning that you would swallow that spin hook line and sinker, that the media has spun, in cohort with the Democrats for the last eight years. Sorry, I don't buy it, for a number of reasons, and I have heard all of the arguments, but I do not believe one man has that kind of power to spin all of that, plus convince the foreign intelligence agencies, past presidents, and all of the other people that would have had to cooperate in all of it to make it work.

By the way, now that Obama is in, I see where his Interior secretary is going to make us energy sufficient, by doing wind, solar, and wise use of fossil fuels, and I suppose he is going to do this by following the Democratic philosophy of not drilling most places, etc. etc. punishing co2 producers as Obama as outlined, such as coal mining, etc. Good luck on that pie in the sky idea, fm. Being that they opposed nuclear and shut it down a few decades ago, I don't see much reality to their plans, fm, so good luck. Speaking of naivity,...........
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 08:02 pm
@eoe,
DrewDad wrote:

farmerman wrote:
I find it kind of funny that, after we all recognize what a disaster his regime has been for the country, someone wishes to applaud him for the way he dances off stage.

Ditto. +1.

Why? If at least in the way he "dances off stage" the man has shown grace or decency, why not comment on it?

We never hesitated to comment on every one of his follies and crimes (Set certainly didn't), so why not remark on something he did well, however puny it may be?

What does it cost you? Why would it bother you? Is there some superstitious fear that by acknowledging anything Bush does/did well, no matter how tangential, somehow the disastrous appraisal of his terms overall are at risk of being "infected" or weakened or some such?

I'm really at pains to understand why people would react so negatively to someone merely pointing out that, hey, at least in this one respect he behaved OK...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 08:05 pm
@rabel22,
rabel22 wrote:

So the danceing off stage negates the eight years of disaster his rule has been. I think not. But if you want too find a reason to admire him do so.

I mean, this is bizarre. How does anything Set or anyone said in this thread imply that it "negates the eight years of disaster his rule has been"? What mania makes someone assume that anyone who has anything positive at all, no matter how puny or tangential, about the man must just "admire him so"?

I mean, the thread is called "giving the devil his due", for pete's sake. And then the systematic downvoting of anyone who dares agree that maybe, at least in this one, purely gesturial way, Bush may have stumbled upon doing something right ... Weirdness.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 03:21:39