billcoe Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Not difficult at all, Mike, but it can be tough when you post complete bullshit and you're called on it, eh? The complete bullshit is all coming from you. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 (edited) Hey, have your sent your signature "You're on notice" PM to Choad Boy yet? Fucking little limp dicked weasel. Edited March 6, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote
billcoe Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 That whole thing is surprising and calls into question competency and if they can get say....international relations.... right, or if it will take 3 or 4 try's at that as well. The Obama team was bragging at the start of this how deep and through the "vetting" process would be, yet they can't seem to pull it off anywhere close to flawlessly. It's a F**ked Up mess. Guys like Tvrash were calling Cheney all kinds of names a bit ago, but as confusing as his tax life must have been given the complexities of his various employments, no on even alleged he skipped any of his taxes ever. So this is how this will probably go: "Well we fucked that up Hillary, now lets move onto fixing the Middle East problem...." Hmmmmmm OK. What, specifically, are you refering to in the international relations front? Or do you even know? As for back taxes, they CAN be a big deal, but aren't always. ..... It's, well, a prime example of the clarity of thought we've come to expect from you, Bill. You can't be that stupid can you that you can't use your imagination? You called me a Dumb fuck yesterday and I don't appreciate it as I've not given you the shit you so rightfully deserve. So to toss your own words back at you do you just play at being a "dumb fuck" on the internet? Alright you stupid fuck, since you are playing at being dense and can't imagine a potential example - here's a real example. Try to read the entire thing and think about it first before you post your attack back. Yes, I know that will be hard for you. I'm talking things EXACTLY like this potentially happening. Alienating friends. Here is a concrete example so you can possibly imagine something else LIKE this. James_delingpoe piece from the telegraph.co.uk "On US radio's Garrison show today, I was asked for my reaction as a true born Englishman to President Obama's double insult - first the sending back of the Winston Churchill bust, then his snub to Gordon Brown. "Tough one. Really tough one," I said, torn - as most of surely are - between delight at seeing Brown roundly humiliated, and dismay at having the special relationship so peremptorily, cruelly and bafflingly ruptured. Michelle Obama's dress sense may be impeccable, but what of her politics? (Photo: Getty) Iain Martin is quite right here: no matter how utterly rubbish we have become as a nation in the Blair/Brown years, Britain's friendship is something Obama will come to regret having dispensed with so lightly. This was not the act of a global statesman, but of a hormonal teenager dismissing her bestest of best BFs for no other reason than that she felt like it and she can, so there. What was the guy thinking? In researching my new book Welcome to Obamaland, I discovered that Obama's judgment is pretty dreadful - but this? My favourite theory so far - suggested by presenter Greg Garrison - was that it was a move calculated to please his Lady Macbeth. At the moment in Britain, we're still in the "Doesn't she look fabulous in a designer frock" stage of understanding of Michelle Obama. Gradually, though, we'll begin to realise that she is every bit the terrifying executive's wife that Hillary Clinton was. Or, shudder, Cherie Blair. We may just LURVE Michelle's fashion sense. But Michelle doesn't reciprocate our affection, one bit. Her broad-brush view of history associates Brits with the wicked white global hegemony responsible for the slave trade. Never mind that a white, Tory Englishman - William Wilberforce - brought the slave trade to an end. Judging by her record, Michelle does not make room for such subtle nuance. Consider her notorious statement that: "For the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country." Consider her (till-recently suppressed) Princeton thesis, "Princeton Educated Blacks And The Black Community." In it she writes: "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second." Here we see that she has mastered the authentic voice of grievance culture. She also - the thesis was written in 1985 - pre-empts the Macpherson report's ludicrous, catch-all definition of racism: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person." No matter how hard young Michelle's white undergraduate contemporaries try to be nice, it's not their behaviour that counts, but how Michelle feels. More worrying, though, and dangerous, than young Michelle's desperate quest for validation through victimhood is the other strain within her thesis. "As I enter my final year at Princeton," she writes. "I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates - acceptance to a prestigious graduate or professional school or a high paying position in a successful corporation. Thus, my goals at Princeton are not as clear as before." "Yes, exactly, you silly girl" you want to shriek at young Michelle as you give her a good shake. "It's called 'opening your mind', 'broadening your experience', 'allowing youthful dogma to be shaped by reality.' It's why people go to university, don't you know?" This is an example. I was speaking hypothetically on potential diplomatic F*uck ups. Trying to help you out here. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Don't forget to chant your 'What Would Kevbone Do?' mantra! "I'll try harder in the future, Mommy Dearest!" Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Oh, and Bill, here's a time saving tip for you: I skip over your long posts. Quote
billcoe Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Fucking little limp dicked weasel. Is that what passes for wit in your trailer you fucked up piece of shit? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 (edited) No. That's actually my true opinion of you. No wit intended. Edited March 6, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote
jmo Posted March 6, 2009 Author Posted March 6, 2009 Commercial means a business license. Would you get a business license for your example? If so, then you're subject to inspection. Not only do I NOT have a problem with that, but I think selling guns commercially with a federal dealers license out of your home should be illegal, not just subject to inspection. Wanna sell guns? Open a proper store. These dealers sell most of the guns used in violent crime. It's a problem that's been known for decades (I first read about it around 15 years ago). So, after having waded through the misinformation you guys have foisted upon us here, and read a synopsis of the bill, I've decided that it's actually very good policy that addresses a long standing problem. I'm going to support it. You guys constantly complain about how you need your guns because the police aren't doing a good enough job fighting crime, then oppose the very kind of bills that would actually keep guns out the hands of criminals. Frankly, it smacks of pure self indulgence. The greater public good? Not even the remotest consideration. I posted that section of the bill because there was some dispute on the board about it. Wrong again. Stop posting your misinformation and liberal propaganda as fact. Do some research before you start typing. That is, you are only wrong if you can't find a way to redefine the word "most". According to the US DOJ, when a firearm was used in violent crime, 80% of them came from an illegal source, friends or family. I most cases, friends or family is also illegal. Souce: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=QAy&ei=pVOxSehqgfSwA9yhwXA&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=5.+Caroline+Wolf+Harlow,+Firearm+Used+by+Offenders+6+(Bureau+of+Justice+Statistics,+Nov.+2001&spell=1 Click on the top result. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Think for five seconds, jmo, just this once. Were those firearms ALWAYS illegal, or did they have to, at some point, originate from a legal source? Are there boatloads of firearms streaming into the country? Are people making millions of firearms from scratch in their basements? Probably not. YEEESSS, most of them originally come from a legal source...the one I cited. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 BTW, the Baby Jebus doesn't really hate you. He appreciates the fact that you care deeply about an issue and are willing to debate it passionately. Quote
billcoe Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Oh, and Bill, here's a time saving tip for you: I skip over your long posts. LOL! Thats funny. Probably a good thing in this case, I had some bad words in there. You can be a likable guy when you're not name calling ya know. Quote
bradleym Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 I have never stated the Republicans haven't done it. Most sources I've read say it is split, 60% dem and 40% rep. I'm not even sure that it's unethical. My point is, Obama said he wouldn't, and then he did. If I can come up with 6 "misstatements", or lies from the administration in the first month, what does that say about the character of it? This isn't change, this is more of the same, or change in the wrong direction. Hmmmm, my point is that Obama didn't do this, the collection of representatives and senators known as the Congress did this, including Republicans. Obama can either sign the bill or veto it. In deciding what to do, he must employ a complex, multi-variable and non-linear calculus that involves negotiations that go far beyond this bill alone. I have endeavoured to demonstrate with my little exegesis of the original FOX article that the reality behind each of the 'mis-statements' is a little less clear and simple than the writer would have us believe. Don't worry--I have no illusions about convincing you of that. But the approach taken by that writer (and frankly, by so-called 'liberal' writers engaged in political trench warfare) relies on a willfully selective use of 'facts', an unabashedly manipulative choice of words to describe and marshal those facts and a cynical insistence on binary modes of argumentation. E.g. Obama is either truthful or he is a liar. It is similar to what the Swift-Boat guys did so successfully to Kerry back in 2004. Even the 'I was for it before I was against it' brouhaha depended on eliding critical information about what actually took place. Rush's supporters complain right now that the same has been done to him with the 'I hope he fails' sound-bite controversy. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 OK, Bill XOXO from me. Have a good day. Sorry about the nastiness. Quote
ivan Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 this thread is a classic example of the fallacy of "those who don't know their history are condemned to repeat it" Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 (edited) I appreciated your analysis, for one. This is a great example of whay folks who are serious about figuring out what's going on gravitate towards more reputable sources like the WSJ, NYT, Economist, etc...rather than wade through news-entertainment-diarrhea of unprofessional outlets like FOX. It doesn't mean those sources are always 'right' or never make a mistake, but at least they're operating to a higher standard of veracity and fact checking. They're access to original sources is much better, as well. FOX has to settle for getting just about everything third hand (or they just make it up), because the newsmakers already know that they've got a known agenda and that their journalistic ethics blow goats. Edited March 6, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote
billcoe Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 OK, Bill XOXO from me. Have a good day. Sorry about the nastiness. Same here. Thanks! XXX Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 One last comment about the proposed gun legislation, or any gun legislation. If, in fact, a piece of gun legislation does reduce gun related crime (not easy to prove, I know), then it might actually reduce the general anti-gun anxiety in this country. That, in turn, might reduce public support for more draconian gun control measures in the future, which would seem to be a good thing to gun enthusiasts when it's all said and done. Just sayin... Quote
jmo Posted March 6, 2009 Author Posted March 6, 2009 I have never stated the Republicans haven't done it. Most sources I've read say it is split, 60% dem and 40% rep. I'm not even sure that it's unethical. My point is, Obama said he wouldn't, and then he did. If I can come up with 6 "misstatements", or lies from the administration in the first month, what does that say about the character of it? This isn't change, this is more of the same, or change in the wrong direction. Hmmmm, my point is that Obama didn't do this, the collection of representatives and senators known as the Congress did this, including Republicans. Obama can either sign the bill or veto it. In deciding what to do, he must employ a complex, multi-variable and non-linear calculus that involves negotiations that go far beyond this bill alone. I have endeavoured to demonstrate with my little exegesis of the original FOX article that the reality behind each of the 'mis-statements' is a little less clear and simple than the writer would have us believe. Don't worry--I have no illusions about convincing you of that. But the approach taken by that writer (and frankly, by so-called 'liberal' writers engaged in political trench warfare) relies on a willfully selective use of 'facts', an unabashedly manipulative choice of words to describe and marshal those facts and a cynical insistence on binary modes of argumentation. E.g. Obama is either truthful or he is a liar. It is similar to what the Swift-Boat guys did so successfully to Kerry back in 2004. Even the 'I was for it before I was against it' brouhaha depended on eliding critical information about what actually took place. Rush's supporters complain right now that the same has been done to him with the 'I hope he fails' sound-bite controversy. I think you only contested two of the five misstatements. You've brought up some good points about the pork barrel spending. Quote
jmo Posted March 6, 2009 Author Posted March 6, 2009 Think for five seconds, jmo, just this once. Were those firearms ALWAYS illegal, or did they have to, at some point, originate from a legal source? Are there boatloads of firearms streaming into the country? Are people making millions of firearms from scratch in their basements? Probably not. YEEESSS, most of them originally come from a legal source...the one I cited. Does it matter if they came from a legal source? I dealer in his house sells a gun to bob, then bob legally sells it to joe, then joe gives it to his buddy bill, and bill shoots someone, how is this the fault of the dealer in his house? Your question in irrelevant. I don't have a problem with the inspection part of the Blair Holt bill. I have a problem with the license part. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Yes, I also have concerns about that kind of licensing. It's yet another private information database the government has on you. How that information is treated is often not very controlled. Information is stolen, sold to corporations, corrupted with bad information that creates major legal hassles for the hapless victims, the list of concerns goes on and on. I'm still chewing on it. That concern might outweigh the desire to plug the home sellers loophole. Quote
DirtyHarry Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 Unbelievable. Civil political discourse on this board? WHAT THE FUCK? Quote
jmo Posted March 6, 2009 Author Posted March 6, 2009 Unbelievable. Civil political discourse on this board? WHAT THE FUCK? Not entirely. But it's close. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.