Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You are a big, fat, mentally out of shape target, and we don't mind deflating you.

Who is "we?" You and the mouse in your pocket?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Nobody thinks you're the superior one here.

Speak for yourself.

[BigV]

Happy Monkey:

To speak for oneself, it is necessary to first think for oneself.

This is why your excellent suggestion will go unheeded.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Ibram

UG, all you're doing is making YOURSELF look pretentious. I quite respect richlevy, but every time you 'open your mouth' my respect for you drops a bit lower.

Now, you're catching on.

[Ibby]

Not catching on, Bruce, I've been 'cought on' for a while.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by glatt

Who is "we?" You and the mouse in your pocket?

Oh, glatt, do you harbor anything like respect for tw? And if so, why, for crying in a bucket?

This is a communist I'm kicking ass on, remember? A communist who has no more notion of history than he does of writing. A communist who can neither spell nor edit his way out of a wet paper bag.

I'd appreciate a little more decent anticommunism and anti-idiocy and a little less "fashionable" leftism, okay? Leftism's going out of fashion these days, and good riddance.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Ibram

UG, all you're doing is making YOURSELF look pretentious. I quite respect richlevy, but every time you 'open your mouth' my respect for you drops a bit lower.

Rich is not totally without intellect or learning -- but what he does with them gives me the same reaction, to a milder degree, that I had on listening to Mario Cuomo's long-defunct radio talk show: How does someone of that obvious intelligence stay so wrong?

I seem to recall encountering a "RichLevy" in AOL Chat back when I haunted those chatrooms. I wasn't impressed then, either.

Summing up, the man's not clinically insane, and he doesn't seem grossly immature like tw, but I'm not seeing deep wisdom there either. Guys who aren't pro-gun (thus antigenocide in the real way) generally aren't blessed with wisdom.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Speak for yourself.

I speak for myself, and for everyone here who is more emotionally mature, less neurotic, and less outright communist than tw.

That means I speak for you too -- this time, at any rate. You don't have to like it, but you get it anyway, and I'll not do you wrong.

To speak for oneself, it is necessary to first think for oneself.

This is why your excellent suggestion will go unheeded.

V, in not agreeing with the leftists who jabber on this board, I think for myself rather than become some chatterclone. I think for myself whether you can believe that or not -- your belief or unbelief isn't exactly going to tip the scales, is it? I've read almost everything Heinlein ever wrote, and I think you could stand to do the same. I read American Spectator pretty regularly, and sample National Review from time to time. Those people really do think, and I think they think better than even the Left's leadingest lights. I'm pro-gun -- and therefore, as the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership teaches us, more antigenocide, in realer ways, than anyone here who is antigun or even anti-NRA -- and pro-abortion, though recognizing, through experience, that it carries an emotional cost. I've been around the world, and seen autarchy -- and seen the price of autarchy, what it does to the human spirit and to the wealth of nations; neither is well treated.

Let these few examples stand for many. I'm reading a lot of nonfiction these days -- history and current events, history's second draft. Therefore, I just say that the "excellent suggestion" isn't being heeded any more now than it was previously; I've already got that covered.

So, BigV, show me that you've learned, and that you understand. Bear in mind that you cannot push me into defensiveness.

[Skunks]

What's wrong with being a communist?

I concede that communism is flawed, most notably in that it in practice fails; but it seems as though you're saying 'communism' instead of 'wrong' or 'doesn't agree with me.' It seems silly to dismiss a person's ideas because they are a communist; or for any other reason, really, except perhaps a historical tendency to have bad ideas. It seems that to dismiss an idea for any reason which doesn't directly pertain to the idea in question is a failure of discourse & debate. The 'communist' lable seems to be another knot on a long string of failed communication that, of late, has tangled itself around this forum.

To quote a coffeeshop friend of mine, meaning is hard. It takes work. I see a lot of people working very hard for cheap thrills: cheap shots & a warm fuzzy feeling for 'being right.' I have come to believe that too many vocal characters hereabouts care more about their opinion than in changing it; and to my mind that is fundamentally the wrong perspective from which to debate. It is the right opinion for a talkshow, a soapbox, a yelling match, or masturbation. But if you are interacting with someone else, someone with whom you do not agree, and are from the beginning convinced that you are more correct than they, then you are wasting your time & theirs & mine for reading it. It sets the tone of lecturing, condesension, & closemindedness, from which meaning & understanding rarely come.

[Ibby]

This is a communist I'm kicking ass on, remember? A communist who has no more notion of history than he does of writing. A communist who can neither spell nor edit his way out of a wet paper bag.

I'd appreciate a little more decent anticommunism and anti-idiocy and a little less "fashionable" leftism, okay?

So declaring someone a communist gives you free right to say or do what you like to them? Likewise, anti-anybody is decent? That seems to be your logic...

I'm probably the biggest communist sympathiser here, INCLUDING tw. I think Karl Marx has a downright BIRLLIANT idea, the only problem with which is that nobody has ever actually executed it without changing it enough to make themselves supreme ultimate dictator, free to do whatever the hell they want. THAT is the problem with Communism. Nobody's ever done it.

Leftism's going out of fashion these days, and good riddance.

...I'm not even gonna comment.

Guys who aren't pro-gun (thus antigenocide in the real way) generally aren't blessed with wisdom.

A.) What does that have to do with the fact that richlevy is obviously more mature than you, mature enough to not sink to petty attacks like you are? Nothing. As with most things you say (TW IS A COMUNST!!!one!!eleven) (LOLZ U R FAT AND STOOPD), it has no bearing on the argument at hand.

B.) How is being anti-gun a bad thing, pray tell? Your, uh, 'explaination' wasn't very clear, to say the least. If nobody has a gun, nobody gets shot. Pretty simple.

I speak for myself, and for everyone here who is more emotionally mature, less neurotic, and less outright communist than tw.

Lets have a show of hands, how many people think richlevy was the 'superior one' in that argument?

[tw]

From the NY Times of 1 Jun 2006:

Bush's Realization on Iran: No Good Choice Left Except Talks
After 27 years in which the United States has refused substantive talks with Iran, President Bush reversed course on Wednesday because it was made clear to him — by his allies, by the Russians, by the Chinese, and eventually by some of his advisers — that he no longer had a choice.
During the past month, according to European officials and some current and former members of the Bush administration, it became obvious to Mr. Bush that he could not hope to hold together a fractious coalition of nations to enforce sanctions — or consider military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites — unless he first showed a willingness to engage Iran's leadership directly over its nuclear program and exhaust every nonmilitary option.

Good news, Foreign allies, Russians, and Chinese have conspired to stop the invasion of Iran. Have conspired to save American soldier lives from the evil 'do gooder' George Jr.

And while the Europeans and the Japanese said they were elated by Mr. Bush's turnaround, some participants in the drawn-out nuclear drama questioned whether this was an offer intended to fail, devised to show the extent of Iran's intransigence.

That they are asking suggests they now understand who the George Jr administration really is. That they are asking says it will be difficult to unilaterally attack Iran only because god told George Jr to do so.

In the end, said one former official who has kept close tabs on the debate, "it came down to convincing Cheney and others that if we are going to confront Iran, we first have to check off the box" of trying talks.

Got to remember who really makes the decisions. George Jr still does not read his PDBs which was one of Potter Goss's big complaints. A complaint that helped get him fired. Reality is not always appreciated in this White House.

[Ibby]

Whoa, I just realized that Skunks posted while I was typing... Great minds, huh?

[Griff]

Don't support Communism just because UG says he opposes it. In this case the stopped clock is correct. It is the single most murderous philosophy ever developed by man. The Neo-Con body count will never approach it, although it does have great potential for slaughter.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Oh, glatt, do you harbor anything like respect for tw? And if so, why, for crying in a bucket?

I'm not glatt, but I can answer this. First, I do respect tw more than you. Second, you were talking about richlevy, not tw, and I respect richlevy more than you, too.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Rich,
...
quit being such a blue-footed booby.

Or if you'd rather, a "popinjay," "truculent," or perhaps "contumelious."

Nobody thinks you're the superior one here.

This is not true.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Griff

Don't support Communism just because UG says he opposes it.

*snort* You think UG has any sway on me? I support the basic theory of communism, but I agree with both skunks and you, that it is the IMPLEMENTATION that is its downfall, and that, because it is always implemented horribly wrong, ENDS UP being the most murderous philosophy ever developed by man. Its core ideal isn't to kill people, it's to help. But Karl Marx himself said that it could never happen in this world unless every nation decided to implement it together (and, obviously, correctly), because... well, we've seen the outcome.

Just some food for thought: Cuba has a higher literacy rate and lower infant mortality rate than the US, but is dirt poor because of the US, mostly. Not that I'm defending Castro, he's about as evil as Mao or Pol Pot.