President Richard Nixon
Artemia Salina
I was fairly young when he was president, about 14 or so.
Mostly what I remember about him was his ending the Viet
Nam War and how relieved I was that I wouldn't be drafted
when I turned 18. Also I remember the Watergate scandal
because it dominated not only the news but also all of
entertainment television (I think I even remember an
episode of 'I Dream of Jeanie' where the actors broke
out of character in order to give speeches against Nixon).
All I actually thought back then was that Nixon was a
bad man, but I didn't really know why. Everyone just
said he was, so he MUST have been.
Now that I've seen the movie, I realize how wrong I was.
President Nixon was a VERY GOOD man who tried very hard
to bring about peace. He made peace with Russia, ended
the Viet Nam War -- even though he had to admit that
America had lost that war, a first in American history,
and he was even able to sit down with Chairman Mao and
begin negotiations with China.
He came up poor, like most of us. He had a good heart
and in fact was just too honest for his own good. He
tried to lock horns with the likes of Hoover and the
powerful elite who were pulling the strings in government
behind the scenes. He would be no one's puppet. I think
his only real failing was that he was convinced that he
had to be the strongest man in the world, and that belief
made him incapable of admitting that he was wrong about
anything.
He was made out to be the worst villain since Hitler,
on television when I was just a kid, and I bought the
whole package without question.
If President Nixon was alive today I think I'd write
him a letter and apologize to him for how I felt back
then.
I'm sorry Mr. President; you were indeed a good man.
Thank you for all you did for our country and the
world.
--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
KönigPrüß
Nixon was a Quaker and ate oatmeal and everything,
and because he was a Qauker, I want to think that he
was a good and peaceful man, but he was surrounded
by bad evil people maybe who liked to break into places
after hours and steal office supplies.
JFK, on the other hand, was perceived as a good and noble man
but was really very evil and had to be put to sleep for the good of
the American country and to insure a secure supply of Macanudos.
Kevin Cunningham
"Artemia Salina" <y...@sheayright.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.05....@sheayright.com...
Rev. Dr. Junior Mints
Anti-Pope of Atlanta
Talysman the Ur-Beatle
> Now that I've seen the movie, I realize how wrong I was.
> President Nixon was a VERY GOOD man who tried very hard
> to bring about peace.
*GASP!*
Nixon admitted in his writings that, while on a political trip
in south america, he punched a little boy in the back of the
head when no one was looking, because the boy was making faces
at him earlier.
and he wrote that he enjoyed it.
let's also not forget the red-baiting and his role in HUAC.
the best you can say is that Nixon was a basically good man led
astray by his own obsessions with power, vengeance, and paranoia.
the watergate and "enemies list" incidents were born out of his
lust for vengence and paranoia that everyone was out to get him.
in other words, he's a perfect example of "power corrupts".
still, he managed to accomplish a few good things as president.
he was a better president than Reagan, and after four years of
our current president, I long for the days of a Nixon. Bob Dole
would have been very much like Nixon, in both the good and bad
ways.
--
Talysman the Ur-Beatle, STRAWGRASPER
nu-monet v7.0
>
> let's also not forget the red-baiting and
> his role in HUAC.
Um, they got real communists who had infiltrated
the government with that one. Perhaps you're
thinking of the McCarthy Senate hearings. Two
very different things.
Here's the timeline:
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/20th/coldwarspies.html
BTW, only one of the Hollywood "blacklist" ever
renounced his communist background. Several admitted
and maintained proudly that they had been communists
who had conspired against the US (thus confessing to
illegal acts), but that they had been *persecuted*,
because they didn't think that what they did should
have been illegal.
This argument rarely works in court for any crime.
--
"By thy works, we shall know ye as
an asshole."
--nu-monet
Zapanaz
You have managed to leap from "The HUAC got real spies" to implying
that everybody they went after was committing real illegal acts and
almost made it sound like it made sense.
There are some real leaps of logic in there. Do you really want to go
into them? Do you really want to get into one of these endless
pointless fucking threads again?
When exactly did you decide you were going to be the knee-jerk
defender of all things right-wing?
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"As an American, I'm getting sick and tired of other countries."
Cris Langston
Accountant
iDRMRSR
defender of all things right-wing?
Whew! I'm glad you didn't say SOLE defender of all things right-wing. I'd
a cried...
[*]
-----
Kevin Cunningham
"nu-monet v7.0" <not...@succeeds.com> wrote in message
news:42051A...@succeeds.com...
This argument is posited in a series of lies. The HUAC did little or
nothing. There political hard work acomplished nothing of value. Their
best efforts were to elect more Nixons.
As to the extremely odd view that believing in communism makes you a
criminal. I believe in "boB", that doesn't make me a criminal, just smart.
According to the constitution you can believe what you like its your actions
that lead to crime. Most spies for Russia did it for the money, ideolouge
had nothing to do with it.
Face it, communism in America was beaten by the liberals. It was liberals
that drove commies out of unions and liberals like Humphrey who drew a line
in the sand. You right wingers kept behind McCarthy's coat tails. Oh,
McCarthy never caught a commie.
HellPope Huey
Nixon's finest hour: as the subject of a meerschaum pipe I once saw,
good and jowly, wit' shifty eyes and 6 o'clock shadow. His commemorative
stamp sold more poorly than that of any other President in history.
--
HellPope Huey
Oh, what a beautiful morning, ya jerks
"So you managed to get here
without having your knickers blown off.
~ Prince Philip, to a farmer's wife
from Northern Ireland
visiting London for a charity event.
"I like it, but of course,
I'm from the underbelly of society."
- "That 70s Show"
nu-monet v7.0
>
> You have managed to leap from "The HUAC got
> real spies" to implying that everybody they
> went after was committing real illegal acts
> and almost made it sound like it made sense.
No, what you just wrote is the leap of logic.
There is a difference between those that HUAC
investigated, most of whom were worthy of
investigation, and those that were both
indicted and convicted. HUAC *didn't*
prosecute a bunch of people it *could* have
prosecuted under the law at that time. What
the Hollywood 19 did *was illegal* at the time.
It is important to remember that HUAC was not
a criminal court. If it uncovered evidence,
then that evidence was turned over to a grand
jury--if HUAC voted to do so. If someone was
tried and convicted and sentenced to prison,
like Alger Hiss, they were done so by a jury,
not congress.
The Hollywood 19 were never "blacklisted" by
HUAC, they were "blacklisted" by their peers
in Hollywood. So in a sense, they got away
scott free.
Last but not least, remember that this was a
bipartisan effort, the rousting of communists
from the government *and* from positions where
they tried to influence the public. Democrats
and Republicans, both Dick Nixon and Robert
Kennedy, were attorneys hired to hunt down and
squish Stalin's fifth column operating in the
US.
And they *were* operating in the US, and trying
to both subvert US foreign and domestic policy,
and gathering intelligence to send to Moscow,
and trying to influence the public against anti-
communist sentiments. None of this is in dispute.
So, why do you feel compelled to defend such utter
traitorous assholes as these people? Individuals
who stole atomic secrets, who threatened the
complete nuclear annihilation of your parents even
before you had a chance to be born. These were not
nice people, and it's a damn good thing that Ronald
Reagan defeated them.
--
Herring communicate with each other
via a high-pitched, "raspberry"-like
sound emitted from their anuses.
These noises are not produced by
digestive gases.
-- from 'The New Scientist'
nu-monet v7.0
>
> Face it, communism in America was beaten
> by the liberals.
I am truly impressed. As impressed as if you said
that communism in America was beaten by the squirrels.
--
"I'd just like to say I'm sailing with the Rock
and I'll be back like Independence Day with Jesus,
June 6, like the movie, big mothership and all.
I'll be back."
--Executed Serial killer Aileen Wuornos
Zapanaz
Tell me with a straight face that you aren't aware that you are
spinning a bunch of utter bullshit. Or more to the point, mixing
truth with bullshit to imply a point you know is bullshit.
Is this a game where you are defending an arbitrary viewpoint, or do
you really believe all that stuff you're saying?
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
The world needs anger.
The world often continues to allow evil
because it isn't angry enough.
- Bede Jarrett
Zapanaz
<not...@succeeds.com> wrote:
>Kevin Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> Face it, communism in America was beaten
>> by the liberals.
>
>I am truly impressed. As impressed as if you said
>that communism in America was beaten by the squirrels.
He's got a good point.
If you really believe all that shit you have spewed so far about
communists being evil poison-breathing monsters then it wouldn't
surprise me that you can't see the point.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Frankly, nothing you can say will make the slightest difference in my
viewpoint, because I know what a deceptive person you are
- Blue Rajah
nu-monet v7.0
>
> Tell me with a straight face that you aren't
> aware that you are spinning a bunch of utter
> bullshit. Or more to the point, mixing truth
> with bullshit to imply a point you know is
> bullshit.
Oh, c'mon. You aren't even trying to refute or
argue, you just call what I say "bullshit", which
is bullshit, and you call me bullshit. When, in
fact, you have NOTHING to support your arguments.
That makes you the one who is full of bullshit.
So full of bullshit that it's running out your
ears. Admit the truth. You would defend Stalin
if you had convinced yourself that he was a good
liberal.
You *can't* refute what I said, so you don't even
try. That is just bullshit. If you can't deal
with history, ignoring it won't help.
--
"We're going to take things away from
you on behalf of the common good."
-- Hillary Clinton
nu-monet v7.0
>
> If you really believe all that shit you have
> spewed so far about communists being evil
> poison-breathing monsters then it wouldn't
> surprise me that you can't see the point.
Jesus fucking Christ. Those assholes are responsible
for killing from 75-100 million people and you are
defending them? That's some fucked up shit.
And the sickest part about it is that they are still
doing it. Still killing people. Starving millions
and torturing people. I just can't grasp that anyone
would or could defend that.
There is just no excuse for that.
--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"
--Kino Beman, brand name
HellPope Huey
"nu-monet v7.0" <not...@succeeds.com> wrote:
> There is just no excuse for that.
I paid $30 for the best excuse I'm likely to ever have, at least that
I'll YOU about.
You two need to get two rooms and each stay in your own room or you'll
end up going all Keith Moon on the place. Get with the program!
Communism is a bore, having essentially fallen on the twin swords of its
own incompetence and utter implausibility when practiced with real
humans. FASCISM is what's fer dinner now.
brt...@dangermedia.org
whore of an idiot.
Zapanaz
<not...@succeeds.com> wrote:
>Zapanaz wrote:
>>
>> If you really believe all that shit you have
>> spewed so far about communists being evil
>> poison-breathing monsters then it wouldn't
>> surprise me that you can't see the point.
>
>Jesus fucking Christ. Those assholes are responsible
>for killing from 75-100 million people and you are
>defending them? That's some fucked up shit.
>
>And the sickest part about it is that they are still
>doing it. Still killing people. Starving millions
>and torturing people. I just can't grasp that anyone
>would or could defend that.
>
>There is just no excuse for that.
Yeah, those Hollywood screenwriters killed at least 75-100 million
people in the fifties. I remember that. They almost had to cancel "I
Love Lucy".
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"Programming today is a race between software engineers
striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the
Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the
Universe is winning." - Rich Cook
Revi Shankar
"HellPope Huey" wrote
> In article <420558...@succeeds.com>,
> "nu-monet v7.0" <not...@succeeds.com> wrote:
>
> > There is just no excuse for that.
>
> I paid $30 for the best excuse I'm likely to ever have, at least that
> I'll YOU about.
>
> You two need to get two rooms and each stay in your own room or you'll
> end up going all Keith Moon on the place.
It'll end up just as messy, too. Reminds me of an old story:
http://www.disneyanaexchange.com/Photobin/Ale-Sos.Tar.jpg
Only this one NEVER ENDS.
nenslo
>
> He was made out to be the worst villain since Hitler,
> on television when I was just a kid, and I bought the
> whole package without question.
Yay! NEW PACKAGE!
Your beliefs are safe until you see another movie about Nixon.
Artemia Salina
> the best you can say is that Nixon was a basically good man led
> astray by his own obsessions with power, vengeance, and paranoia.
> the watergate and "enemies list" incidents were born out of his
> lust for vengence and paranoia that everyone was out to get him.
This was what the media tried to get the public to believe about him,
and they did it very successfully. The fact was that everyone WAS out
to get him. What Nixon was was a naive uncompromising idealist. He just
didn't get that those who backed him had ulterior motives or an agenda
of their own. He didn't believe that just because someone financially
backed his campaign he owed them any favors. In his mind you backed a
candidate because you believed that he was the best man to do what a
president should do: lead the country with the best interests of the
people in mind, not because you wanted political favors.
With an attitude like that, and its inevitable repercussions, who WOULDN'T
be paranoid and defensive? Even just having to work with J. Edgar Hoover
would make ME paranoid. And given his attitude why wouldn't he want
vengeance on those who sought to destroy him because they couldn't make
him bend to their will? To him they were scum; a corrupting influence, and
a threat to the country.
I wonder what his most vocal detractors would have done in that
environment.
Artemia Salina
SHUT UP.
nenslo
>
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 20:02:19 -0800, nenslo wrote:
>
> > Artemia Salina wrote:
> >>
> >> He was made out to be the worst villain since Hitler,
> >> on television when I was just a kid, and I bought the
> >> whole package without question.
> >
> > Yay! NEW PACKAGE!
> >
> > Your beliefs are safe until you see another movie about Nixon.
>
> SHUT UP.
IT WAS A MOVIE. Suddenly you KNOW THE TRUTH which is THE EXACT OPPOSITE
of what you've believed for years, just because you watched a movie - a
FICTIONALIZATION, an HISTORICAL DRAMA. You have replaced one form of
ignorance with another.
Expert - someone who saw something on TV once.
nenslo
>
> What Nixon was was a naive uncompromising idealist.
That must have been SOME movie. I was actually alive and partially
conscious during his presidency and experienced life in America during
that time and the impression I got was somewhat different from what you
got from that dramatic presentation.
Artemia Salina
> Artemia Salina wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 20:02:19 -0800, nenslo wrote:
>>
>> > Artemia Salina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> He was made out to be the worst villain since Hitler,
>> >> on television when I was just a kid, and I bought the
>> >> whole package without question.
>> >
>> > Yay! NEW PACKAGE!
>> >
>> > Your beliefs are safe until you see another movie about Nixon.
>>
>> SHUT UP.
>
> IT WAS A MOVIE. Suddenly you KNOW THE TRUTH which is THE EXACT OPPOSITE
> of what you've believed for years, just because you watched a movie - a
> FICTIONALIZATION, an HISTORICAL DRAMA. You have replaced one form of
> ignorance with another.
You don't know that that movie was inaccurate. Given that it was made
long after the events it portrayed it was no doubt much less biased,
much more fair to those involved, than accounts that were given at
the time.
True, it was a movie, but we're not talking about "The Spy Who Loved Me"
or "Jaws" or "This Island Earth."
> Expert - someone who saw something on TV once.
Critic: Someone who presumes that everything on television is false
and of no value, no matter what its original source or how much work
was put into making it accurate.
Artemia Salina
So when we look at this post and your other post together we see that
"Nixon" challenges the beliefs that YOU are predisposed to have about
events of the time. Tell me, how exactly did you gain your impression
of those times back then? Were you employed in the White House? Did
you have some other form of special access to those directly involved,
or are you going by what you were told by the news media, like the rest
of us who were around back then?
What makes you such an authority on the veracity of that movie?
nenslo
>
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 00:03:32 -0800, nenslo wrote:
>
> > Artemia Salina wrote:
> >>
> >> What Nixon was was a naive uncompromising idealist.
> >
> > That must have been SOME movie. I was actually alive and partially
> > conscious during his presidency and experienced life in America during
> > that time and the impression I got was somewhat different from what you
> > got from that dramatic presentation.
>
> So when we look at this post and your other post together we see that
> "Nixon" challenges the beliefs that YOU are predisposed to have about
> events of the time.
No we don't see that at all. We see that the single statement of yours
which I quoted differs from the impressions I got from my own
experience. That's all.
> Tell me, how exactly did you gain your impression
> of those times back then? Were you employed in the White House? Did
> you have some other form of special access to those directly involved,
> or are you going by what you were told by the news media, like the rest
> of us who were around back then?
I saw hippies who could see nothing right about Nixon and hardhats who
could see nothing wrong with Nixon, and I could tell they were
expressing their EMOTIONS and ignoring any facts which did not agree
with their preconceptions. I never felt any emotions about him myself
and could tell he was as complex an individual as anyone else, and a
damn sight more complex than most. I listened to what people said and
reserved judgment. If that makes me "brainwashed by the MEEEDIA," okay.
>
> What makes you such an authority on the veracity of that movie?
Nothing.
When people make a movie, they present the characters and situations in
a way which creates the story they want to tell. They try to make an
interesting and compelling entertainment. The entire life and career
and personality of a person cannot be crunched down into a few hours.
What you get from a movie is a fictional character, made up of tiny bits
of the real person's life. You do not get the truth, you get a fiction.
I can see you feel a connection of some kind with the fictional
character you watched for a few hours, but that was not Richard Nixon.
It was a character in a movie.
Artemia Salina
> good and jowly, wit' shifty eyes and 6 o'clock shadow. His commemorative
Just like Dan Rather.
nenslo
>
> You don't know that that movie was inaccurate. Given that it was made
> long after the events it portrayed it was no doubt much less biased,
> much more fair to those involved, than accounts that were given at
> the time.
I have never said it was inaccurate. A movie which is a couple of hours
long, depicting events which took decades to occur in real life,
necessarily selects only a tiny percentage of the things which really
happened. The events which were depicted, even if every one of them
happened exactly as depicted, were selected by the filmmakers to present
the characters in a way which would tell the story they wanted to tell.
I DO doubt that the few hours of fiction you saw were "less biased" than
the hundreds of thousands of hours of factual reporting on the life and
activities of the real person throughout his career. Your impression
that only or mostly negative statements were made about the man during
his life may be the result of your admitted lack of attention the the
events as they occurred. It wasn't really that way.
>
> True, it was a movie, but we're not talking about "The Spy Who Loved Me"
> or "Jaws" or "This Island Earth."
That is a specious or irrelevant comparison. A dramatic movie "based
on fact" is as much a movie as one which is entirely imaginary. It is a
drama, a fiction, not a documentary, NOT REALITY. You NEVER SAW Richard
Nixon. You saw an actor, a British actor at that, pretending to be
Nixon, reciting lines from a script written for the purpose of creating
a specific impression of that character. I'm glad you liked the movie,
but it wasn't reality.
>
> > Expert - someone who saw something on TV once.
>
> Critic: Someone who presumes that everything on television is false
> and of no value, no matter what its original source or how much work
> was put into making it accurate.
Always happy when someone confirms that I am not a critic. My sole
presumption is that a couple of hours of drama differs significantly
from decades of real life.
KönigPrüß
> My sole
>presumption is that a couple of hours of drama differs significantly
>from decades of real life.
In what way?
Artemia Salina
> Artemia Salina wrote:
>>
>> You don't know that that movie was inaccurate. Given that it was made
>> long after the events it portrayed it was no doubt much less biased,
>> much more fair to those involved, than accounts that were given at
>> the time.
>
> I have never said it was inaccurate. A movie which is a couple of hours
> long, depicting events which took decades to occur in real life,
> necessarily selects only a tiny percentage of the things which really
> happened. The events which were depicted, even if every one of them
> happened exactly as depicted, were selected by the filmmakers to present
> the characters in a way which would tell the story they wanted to tell.
And the story they wanted to tell could very well have been an
historically accurate account of what happened. A several hour
long movie can have the advantage of being able to summarize events
which spanned many years, allowing the viewer to keep disparate
events in mind more easily. Also, in the case of a movie that is
made about events of decades ago, those who were involved in those
events are more likely to be candid about them. Time heals all wounds,
etc.
> I DO doubt that the few hours of fiction you saw were "less biased" than
> the hundreds of thousands of hours of factual reporting on the life and
> activities of the real person throughout his career. Your impression
> that only or mostly negative statements were made about the man during
> his life may be the result of your admitted lack of attention the the
> events as they occurred. It wasn't really that way.
I never meant to say that I lacked attention to the events as they took
place; they were thrust in our faces daily, not only by the news media,
but also by every entertainer on television back then. What I had meant
was that my deepest impression of Nixon was brought about by his ending
the war in Viet Nam, and the constant bombardment of Nixon jokes, taunts,
and tirades made by famous entertainers on television. My guess is that
they had to scramble for new material once they didn't have him to kick
around any more.
>> True, it was a movie, but we're not talking about "The Spy Who Loved Me"
>> or "Jaws" or "This Island Earth."
>
> That is a specious or irrelevant comparison. A dramatic movie "based
> on fact" is as much a movie as one which is entirely imaginary. It is a
> drama, a fiction, not a documentary, NOT REALITY. You NEVER SAW Richard
> Nixon. You saw an actor, a British actor at that, pretending to be
> Nixon, reciting lines from a script written for the purpose of creating
> a specific impression of that character. I'm glad you liked the movie,
> but it wasn't reality.
What makes you think that I liked the movie? In fact I disliked it
intensely. I especially disliked the psuedo-psychedelic overlays,
for instance in the scene where Nixon confronted the director of
the CIA, and they overlaid time-lapse shots of flowers blossoming.
It was very distracting and bizarre.
> Always happy when someone confirms that I am not a critic. My sole
> presumption is that a couple of hours of drama differs significantly
> from decades of real life.
Of course it does. One difference is guaranteed to be the length of
time each takes. But that's the only difference that is guaranteed.
Talysman the Ur-Beatle
news:pan.2005.02.06...@sheayright.com:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:23:12 -0800, nenslo wrote:
>
>> Artemia Salina wrote:
>>>
>>> You don't know that that movie was inaccurate. Given that it was made
>>> long after the events it portrayed it was no doubt much less biased,
>>> much more fair to those involved, than accounts that were given at
>>> the time.
>>
>> I have never said it was inaccurate. A movie which is a couple of hours
>> long, depicting events which took decades to occur in real life,
>> necessarily selects only a tiny percentage of the things which really
>> happened. The events which were depicted, even if every one of them
>> happened exactly as depicted, were selected by the filmmakers to present
>> the characters in a way which would tell the story they wanted to tell.
>
> And the story they wanted to tell could very well have been an
> historically accurate account of what happened.
there's no such thing as historical accuracy, particularly in a MOVIE.
the reason why "history" and "story" resemble each other orthographically,
and in fact the french word "histoire" means "story" and not "history", is
because that's what a history is: a story. a retelling of selected events,
either documented or remembered. and there is *always* a bias.
--
Talysman the Ur-Beatle, STRAWGRASPER
HellPope Huey
wrote:
> that was not Richard Nixon.
> It was a character in a movie.
I felt that way when I saw him on the evening news. Any American who
can make the CHINESE smile like he did was obviously quite capable and
potent to some extent, even scary. Its just a shame he also made every
appearance of having a soul the size of a peanut.
Besides, anyone standing on the side of Order at all would have looked
like the proverbial devil during a time when all those goddamned hippies
were running loose wearing no bras. Well, it took a while, but Them
fixed that crap. The best way to undermine a revolution is to sell
t-shirts of its heroes.
Like Nixon was the worst one ever, pfooey. Dick is dead, long live the
clan of dicks from whence he came.
--
HellPope Huey
Well, dip me in a white wine sauce
and call me PookieBear
Friendship is usually treated by the majority of mankind
as a tough and everlasting thing
which will survive all manner of bad treatment.
But this is an exceedingly great and foolish error;
it may die in an hour of a single unwise word.
- Marie Louise De La Ramee
"Did you mean for all those words
to come together like that
or did they just fall out randomly?
- "King of the Hill"
HellPope Huey
Artemia Salina <y...@sheayright.com> wrote:
<THINGS>
Don't argue with Nenslo, you'll get coooooties. Its even worse if you
can occasionally catch him in a paradox, then he will make pooties as
well. Awful stuff.
polar bear
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:23:12 -0800, nenslo wrote:
>
> > Artemia Salina wrote:
> >>
>
> What makes you think that I liked the movie? In fact I disliked it
> intensely. I especially disliked the psuedo-psychedelic overlays,
> for instance in the scene where Nixon confronted the director of
> the CIA, and they overlaid time-lapse shots of flowers blossoming.
> It was very distracting and bizarre.
>
No doubt a reference to Mao's 1957 "let a thousand flowers bloom"
speech, or possibly to the little flower girl in the 1964 Johnson vs
Goldwater race, or maybe they're opium poppies (CIA/Laos - get it?)
Of course I've really no way to know without seeing the film.
PS: All the models went to Martinique for a photo shoot so It's a slow
day at the polar bear mansion.
pb
nu-monet v7.0
>
> Don't argue with Nenslo, you'll get coooooties.
> Its even worse if you can occasionally catch him
> in a paradox, then he will make pooties as well.
> Awful stuff.
Oh, and whatever you do, don't kick the snot out of
him in an argument, or call him an old yuppie wannabe,
or shit like I did or he'll first killfile you so you
will be a non-person, and then he'll start mailing you
dead pigeons and bats with their heads bitten off and
he'll call INS and try to have you deported as an
illegal alien and pay hookers with really bad herpes
to have sex with all your friends which really looks
gross, seeing all those people walking around with
facial sores.
--
"By thy works, we shall know ye as
an asshole."
--nu-monet
nenslo
>
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:23:12 -0800, nenslo wrote:
> A movie which is a couple of hours
> > long, depicting events which took decades to occur in real life,
> > necessarily selects only a tiny percentage of the things which really
> > happened. The events which were depicted, even if every one of them
> > happened exactly as depicted, were selected by the filmmakers to present
> > the characters in a way which would tell the story they wanted to tell.
>
> And the story they wanted to tell could very well have been an
> historically accurate account of what happened.
Oliver Stone is one of the most agenda-laden directors in cinematic
history. "Could very well have been" ain't IS and you know it. He
made you fall in love with the fantasy Nixon he created and THAT'S
GREAT. If you avoid learning any other viewpoints or facts about the
real guy you can preserve that love for a long time. Don't read any of
the Watergate Tape Transcripts especially. Those are mostly the
foulmouthed scheming old-time political machine operator Nixon, who
might dispel your "naive idealist" image of him.
Artemia Salina
> Artemia Salina <y...@sheayright.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2005.02.06...@sheayright.com:
>> And the story they wanted to tell could very well have been an
>> historically accurate account of what happened.
>
> there's no such thing as historical accuracy, particularly in a MOVIE.
>
> the reason why "history" and "story" resemble each other orthographically,
> and in fact the french word "histoire" means "story" and not "history", is
> because that's what a history is: a story. a retelling of selected events,
> either documented or remembered. and there is *always* a bias.
So then none of us should make any judgments at all about anything that
we didn't personally witness. After all, what is the news but a story,
as in "news story?" Since you had an opinion about Nixon earlier I guess
you must've been a fly on the wall in the White House, eh?
You say that you read "his writings" and that in them he punched some kid
in the back of the head. From that one incident you've developed a
complete personality profile of the man. Didn't your parents ever smack
you for getting out of line? Hell I've had teachers that did that. Back
in those days corporal punishment of children, even ones not our own,
was considered acceptable.
Have you ever noticed that people LOVE to believe the worst about other
people? Just listen to some gossip at work some time, or people's
opinions of Micheal Jackson or O. J. Simpson, etc. They have no fucking
clue as to what *actually* happened, they just go by what they're told
and their imaginations (and those imaginings are usually based on what
they imagine themselves doing in the same situations).
HellPope Huey
"nu-monet v7.0" <not...@succeeds.com> wrote:
>>>>and pay hookers with really bad herpes
> to have sex with all your friends which really looks
> gross, seeing all those people walking around with
> facial sores.
Been to an X-Day, have ya?
Zapanaz
<not...@succeeds.com> wrote:
>Zapanaz wrote:
>>
>> Tell me with a straight face that you aren't
>> aware that you are spinning a bunch of utter
>> bullshit. Or more to the point, mixing truth
>> with bullshit to imply a point you know is
>> bullshit.
>
>Oh, c'mon. You aren't even trying to refute or
>argue, you just call what I say "bullshit", which
>is bullshit, and you call me bullshit. When, in
>fact, you have NOTHING to support your arguments.
>
>That makes you the one who is full of bullshit.
>So full of bullshit that it's running out your
>ears. Admit the truth. You would defend Stalin
>if you had convinced yourself that he was a good
>liberal.
>
>You *can't* refute what I said, so you don't even
>try. That is just bullshit. If you can't deal
>with history, ignoring it won't help.
I just didn't want to get the fuck into it.
I really can't stand these stupid political arguments, because they
always go the same way, and there is nothing that will change that.
As I think nenslo said recently, you can go on arguing back and forth
forever but when it comes to True Beliefs you aren't going to budge
the other person one inch.
You've already taken recourse to accusing me of being a liberal
fanatic before I've even argued ANYTHING. Godwinned before it even
began. It really tells you all you need to know, that is the thread
that is about to happen in a nutshell. Nothing further to see here
folks, move along now. It doesn't matter what I say, how clearly
presented it is, or whether I am nice, cuttingly sarcastic,
artillery-strike aggressive, or whatever approach I take. I am one of
THEM and I am WRONG and you really aren't going to see anything I say
any more than a pinball machine sees the ball bouncing around inside
it, but to bounce it back with a spin on it.
Your brain has gone PINK, Dornobbo.
Not because it's right-wing bullshit, but because it's bullshit. You
can pigeonhole me as a liberal if you want, that's what pinks do, they
pigeonhole the world into neat tidy pigeonholes so they can go on
believing something dumb without having to think about whether it's
dumb or not. Whether you want to believe it or not I'm not a
knee-jerk liberal, certainly not in the way you seem to be implying.
I am a liberal in as much as I think the fundamental job of any
government is primarily to protect the freedom of the people in it,
and everything else is secondary to that.
But that's not really what you mean by liberal. I assume you mean
something which kind of vaguely implies people who are opposed to the
military and I guess Hillary Clinton fits in to your definition of
"liberal" somewhere and so I am somehow kinda ... part of HER KIND ...
or something ... and there was this guy once you argued with who was
in favor of gun control and he was SO STUPID and I am probably one of
HIS KIND somewhere in your definition of liberal ... your use of
"liberal" in general seems to cover a lot of ground from what I've
seen of it.
I know I'm critical of right wing stuff more often than left wing
stuff, but really I think right wing stuff is more completely
addle-nogginned more often then left wing stuff. There is certainly
left-wing stuff that I think is addle-nogginned.
In the fifties the words "liberal" and "egghead" were more or less
interchangeable, and that tells you something. The "right wing" has
always been characterized by a kind of automatic unquestioning
patriotism, and certainly in the fifties they had not noticed yet how
embarrassing it was to imply that "eggheads" ... i.e., people who
actually -think- about issues rather than automatically taking the
most patriotic stance ... are necessarily just wrong on general
principles.
The "right wing"' really -is-, then and now, characterized by a
willingness to act without thinking. So it doesn't strike me as
strange at all that I would more frequently find them to be comical
and insane. Neither does it strike me as evidence that I
automatically paint history in "good liberal" terms.
***
But none of that is to the point. I really didn't want to get into an
argument that I know will turn stupid and circular but oh well. You
argue this stuff without any humor, unless there is some subtle humor
you are seeing that is at some pitch that only hummingbirds can hear.
Fine, let's get in a long idiotic argument.
First let's recall that this started with somebody else mentioning
Nixon's involvement in HUAC as a negative point on Nixon.
Regardless of all the weird tangents you've flow off on, that is still
the context of this conversation.
One of the easiest ways to tell that a covnersation has flown off into
the irrational is how quickly the subject changes. When people are
arguing something they can't think clearly about they start throwing
things in that -feel- connected without any attempt to establish if it
is or isn't logically connected. If both sides have gone nuts then
the original topic is quickly forgotten. They run through their
emotional associations quickly until they get to the top of the
ladder, the most emotional association which connects to them in
whatever way with the original topic.
That's what Godwin's law is, really. It doesn't matter where you
start out; arguing about computers, politics, music, frop. YOu could
be arguing about what the best shampoo for dogs is. You always end up
at the same place.
My favorite example so far is when you jumped from a discussion of
Nixon's involvement in the HUAC to talking about how many people "the
communists" murdered.
Is there a -direct- connection between Nixon, HUAC, and blacklists;
adn those murders? No, of course not. Is there an -indirect-
connection? Definitely.
The difference though between rational and irrational is whether you
actually establish that connection. There are certainly ways you
could connect them, some more sensible and some less.
And if you had, you would still be involved in a discussion, rather
than a self-righteous tirade.
But you have worked yourself up beyond that point already. Not only
aren't you trying to establish a connection, your whole point is that
you don't need to; and that I shouldn't need to either. Anything
associated with communism is associated with the slaughters of Stalin,
Mao and Pol Pot (by six degrees of separation or less) so it is the
same whether it is connected in any logical way or not. Nice. You
should try fundamentalist xtianity next; you're almost there.
That was the most interesting one, but going back to the thread
chronologically.
The OP referred to Nixon's involvement in HUAC disparagingly. You
replied with a defence of HUAC, specifically of the blacklist.
In response I told you I could see leaps of logic in what you said,
and asked if you really wanted me to go into it. Because I really
didn't want to get into it but I just can't stand seeing a bunch of
leaps of logic presented as if it meant something.
You then posted six paragraphs in response to, I guess, what you
thought I was saying. I don't know, it was a complete non-sequiter.
Which, again, is why I hate getting into these emotionally-charged
political things. You get reams and reams of "kinda-related" stuff
that doesn't even connect but because the other person isn't thinking
anymore you have to reply to it.
By your next reply it had sunk in that I hadn't actually said anything
yet, which is true. You decided this was because I am a liberal
fanatic, despite that I told you exactly why I didn't respond already.
So getting back, again, to the original point; Nixon, the HUAC, and
the blacklists.
Yes, the HUAC and the FBI got real spies, as the article you linked to
points out.
The KGB were running spies and it is part of the spying game that one
finds them and deports or shoots them.
But then this paragraph:
>BTW, only one of the Hollywood "blacklist" ever
>renounced his communist background. Several admitted
>and maintained proudly that they had been communists
>who had conspired against the US (thus confessing to
>illegal acts), but that they had been *persecuted*,
>because they didn't think that what they did should
>have been illegal.
you have managed to make a number of wild leaps.
>only one of the Hollywood "blacklist" ever
>renounced his communist background
YOu seem to be implying by this that the rest were "unrepentant
communists", or something, I guess. It doesn't follow that the others
-were- communists but that is what you are implying.
In addition, you are implying that the spies; real, KBG spies; and
the 'communists' are interchangeable. That's nonsense. More on that
later.
>Several admitted
>and maintained proudly that they had been communists
>who had conspired against the US
In the previous sentence you are implying that the blacklistees were
all communists (otherwise, as a defence of HUAC, it makes no sense).
But now "several" "admitted" they were communists.
>(thus confessing to
>illegal acts)
Here and later you are using the fact that these acts "were illegal"
as a defence of HUAC.
Of course what HUAC did was legal at the time. What McCarthy did was
legal at the time he did it. What Eichmann did was legal at the time
he did it.
That's how governments work, they -can- make laws in support of what
they want to do. They -have to-.
It's absurd to defend HUAC on the grounds that what they did was
"legal at the time".
It's not even worth mentioning; if the government did it, it's a
tautology that it was legal at the time.
The primary thing that pisses me off about the whole thing, the way it
was done at the time and the defences of it now, is the way anybody
who "was a communist" is equated with real spies and KGB agents.
From the thirties through the sixties (mostly excluding the war years)
a lot of western Europeans and Americans were inpired by the ideal of
communism.
Much like the original ideal of a Republic/Democracy, what inspired
them was the idea of a world where there was no inequality, injustice
or oppression.
They really believed that the Soviets had attained this ideal. They
were wrong, but it wasn't an unrealistic belief, the Soviets presented
themselves that way.
Regardless of whether they were right or wrong though, it was a
perfectly valid political belief.
Supposedly, the whole idea of "liberty" (which, ironically, is always
the first word that those opposed to political freedom use in
defending their excesses) and the whole point of a democracy is that
people are free to form their own political ideas.
But in the HUAC years -being- a communist was a crime.
I agree totally that where people were performing illegal acts they
were rightly punished. But to say, ina democracy, that simply being
a member of a particular political party is a crime is madness and
completely opposed to the supposed idea of liberty.
And that's a part of what HUAC was.
Those ideals, whether people called them "communism" or not, have had
a large effect on the world today, and in many ways for the better.
The modern US government is very much influenced by socialist ideals.
the existence of unions and all forms of public support are part of
that.
I agree with a lot of the criticisms of that socialist side of our
government, but I don't doubt that if it hadn't been for those
influences we would live today in a world where the rich and the poor
were much more sharply and unjustly divided, a world much more like
the world which Marx decried.
I think the OP was right when he said that it was really the liberals
who brought down the Soviets.
Communism was always most popular where the oppression in a country
was worst; where the few ruled the many like medieval lords.
Without that injustice, communism loses much of it's momentum and
popular appeal.
It was -because- the west had selectively co-opted those aspects of
socialism that the voters felt most urgent, that there was no longer
the obvious line where you have oppressed, starving peasants on one
side and communist equality and justice on the other.
The western world was no longer evil enough to give the Soviets their
Emannuel Goldstein.
Which is not really meant to be a pro-communist view. I have never
really been in favor of communism, even when I was growing up and
being pro-communist was the hip thing to do. It was clear enough that
communist states were, in practice, totalitarian. Beyond that, the
collective, communal idea of communism is not appealing to me. It
doesn't inspire in anybody a sense of the grandiose. I disliked
communism on -aesthetic- grounds. for the record I guess.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
What if we'd just QUIT when Albert Einstein bombed Pearl Harbor? We'd all be
eating Matzoh ball soup and learning physics in school, that's what!
nu-monet v7.0
>
You just wrote a hell of a lot, and yet what you
generated in volume was wasted with lame content.
Your arguments are weaker than hell, and vacillate
between insulting, ingratiating, creating false and
insipid axioms and paradoxes, mis-stating what has
been said, and general rambling.
Is that what being a liberal means to you? I have
never equated liberals with "eggheads", and if they
had pretenses, calling themselves "intellectuals",
they were self-appointed, or called so by their
peers. In fact, that is where the derogatory term
of "pseudo-intellectual" came from, popular in the
1960s.
If anything, I think of liberals as being little
different from their forebears, who first supported
the keeping of slaves, which they themselves couldn't
afford, for the most part, but to insure that there
was a class of person lower than they to despise.
After slavery was ended, less by a "Republican" than
by a "classicalist", Lincoln, these ancestors of
liberals became the hate-filled segregationists and
anti-immigrant Klansmen.
Not restricted to the American South, however, in the
North they embraced Calvanism, and began to deplore
the behavior of the southerner, looking instead to
lord it over, and feel good ministering to the needs
of the black. Again seeking the feeling of superiority,
where none existed, they became closer to what the
modern liberal had become.
And yet no matter what minority they embraced as
backward and in need of being controlled and taken care
of, in exchange for fealty, these people eventually
demanded their own individual freedom and success,
which hurt the modern liberal to the bone. Like bad
children who curse their parents, for example, the
NAACP expelled all the white liberals from its ranks.
So once again, liberals have come full circle. Filled
with hate at those they despise as their lessers. And
convinced of their own superiority, even as their house
is burned down around them because of their incompetence.
What is left to them but hate? When their solution to
humiliating defeat is to embrace what caused their
downfall? To radicalize further? It is a path to
madness.
--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"
--Kino Beman, brand name
HellPope Huey
In other news, a new season of "Family Guy" is just around the corner.
I am given to understand that it has very little to do with Nixon.
ITS ABOUT TIME.
John Starrett
> If anything, I think of liberals as being little
> different from their forebears, who first supported
> the keeping of slaves, which they themselves couldn't
> afford, for the most part, but to insure that there
> was a class of person lower than they to despise.
See, this is how you can tell that he is pulling your chain, Joe. I
wanna see both you guys nude mud wrestling outside my office window at
12:00 noon tomorrow.
John Starrett
qu...@syntac.net
> Yeah, those Hollywood screenwriters killed at least 75-100 million
> people in the fifties. I remember that. They almost had to cancel
"I
> Love Lucy".
That's right Zapanaz, and remember they have not stopped the killing,
as nu-nazi keeps reminding us, I think "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"
at one point organized the ritual executions of hundreds of Fox TV
viewers at a tail-gate party, and that is not even a fraction of the
mortal toll collected by "Everybody Loves Raymond" -- thank Dobbs they
cancelled it before the slaughter got worse.
Anyway, Richard Nixon began the era of fiat money and US Dollar
Hegemony that sent the US on the road to its current trade deficit
crisis, under the weight of which your economy and is currently, and
spectacularly, collapsing, inspiring your ruling elite into desperate
acts of foreign adventurism and dangerous geostrategical games you can
not win in the long run.
Zapanaz
wrote:
yeah if he's going to pull my chain, at least it should be
entertaining.
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"Programming today is a race between software engineers
striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the
Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the
Universe is winning." - Rich Cook
Artemia Salina
> yeah if he's going to pull my chain, at least it should be
> entertaining.
To whom?
nu-monet v7.0
>
> That's right Zapanaz, and remember they have
> not stopped the killing, as nu-nazi keeps
Well, since you are such a racist that you don't
care about the North Koreans, or the Cubans or
the Peruvians or the Nepalese who are being
murdered, I don't suppose a little goose stepping
commie fascist like you minds if people darker
than you, or who don't believe in your fucked up
religion, die horribly.
You really are no different than a Taliban, except
you have dreams of genocide far beyond anything
they could imagine.
--
"Military intelligence is sifting
through the destruction..."
-- catchy quote from
The Washington Times
nenslo
>
> In other news, a new season of "Family Guy" is just around the corner.
> I am given to understand that it has very little to do with Nixon.
>
> ITS ABOUT TIME.
>
I came in late on the new episode they showed after the football game
and missed how the dog became an alien.
qu...@syntac.net
Does someone smell something?
Has nu-nazi been around?
Anyone seen a creepy little guy with a little mustache sneaking around
here? The smell is unmistakable, like the breath of a slug that has
been living on chicken shit and toilet water. He is usually in a state
of hysteria shouting "commie commie kill kill kill."
If you see him, keep a good distance, and avoid his drool and ever
present urine puddle at all costs.
Should contact occur, immediately contact HellPopeHuey for scrubbing.
nenslo
>
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:53:06 +0000, Talysman the Ur-Beatle wrote:
>
> > Artemia Salina <y...@sheayright.com> wrote in
> > news:pan.2005.02.06...@sheayright.com:
>
> >> And the story they wanted to tell could very well have been an
> >> historically accurate account of what happened.
> >
> > there's no such thing as historical accuracy, particularly in a MOVIE.
> >
> > the reason why "history" and "story" resemble each other orthographically,
> > and in fact the french word "histoire" means "story" and not "history", is
> > because that's what a history is: a story. a retelling of selected events,
> > either documented or remembered. and there is *always* a bias.
>
> So then none of us should make any judgments at all about anything that
> we didn't personally witness.
Deliberately erroneous conclusion intended to make the opponent's
statement seem ridiculous.
> After all, what is the news but a story,
> as in "news story?"
Misdirection - the subject being discussed is a movie, not a news story.
> Since you had an opinion about Nixon earlier I guess
> you must've been a fly on the wall in the White House, eh?
Deliberate and false absurdity intended to make opponent's point seem ridiculous.
These are all examples of dishonest discourse, the type of "argument"
people put up when they have no valid basis for contention.
>
> You say that you read "his writings" and that in them he punched some kid
> in the back of the head. From that one incident you've developed a
> complete personality profile of the man.
Another false claim made by you and not him.
> Didn't your parents ever smack
> you for getting out of line? Hell I've had teachers that did that. Back
> in those days corporal punishment of children, even ones not our own,
> was considered acceptable.
If this is intended to support your claim that it is possible to draw an
historically accurate image of a person's career and character (which
image as stated by you shows little resemblance to fact) from seeing an
actor portraying that person, it is INSANE.
>
> Have you ever noticed that people LOVE to believe the worst about other
> people?
This conflicts with your own apparent desire NOT to believe the worst
about a person, based on a movie you saw about him which led you to
completely reverse your previous views.
>Just listen to some gossip at work some time, or people's
> opinions of Micheal Jackson or O. J. Simpson, etc. They have no fucking
> clue as to what *actually* happened, they just go by what they're told
> and their imaginations (and those imaginings are usually based on what
> they imagine themselves doing in the same situations).
THEY HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE AS TO WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, THEY JUST GO BY
WHAT THEY WERE TOLD. Which is different from seeing a movie about what happened.
Zapanaz
<y...@sheayright.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:38:42 -0800, Zapanaz wrote:
>
>
>> yeah if he's going to pull my chain, at least it should be
>> entertaining.
>
>To whom?
ME "BOB" DAMMIT
It's MY bob dam usenet
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"It is no measure of health
to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
- Krishnamurti
John Starrett
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:21:32 -0700, John Starrett <jsta...@sdc.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>>nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If anything, I think of liberals as being little
>>>different from their forebears, who first supported
>>>the keeping of slaves, which they themselves couldn't
>>>afford, for the most part, but to insure that there
>>>was a class of person lower than they to despise.
>>
>>See, this is how you can tell that he is pulling your chain, Joe. I
>>wanna see both you guys nude mud wrestling outside my office window at
>>12:00 noon tomorrow.
>>
>>John Starrett
>
>
> yeah if he's going to pull my chain, at least it should be
> entertaining.
>
Like you guys nude mud wrestling outside my office window at
12:00 noon tomorrow. Wear sunscreen.
John Starrett
nu-monet v7.0
>
So, who do you hate the worst? Negroes, Jews,
or just everybody in the world who doesn't
believe in your twisted fantasies so you call
them Nazis?
And don't call yourself a Jew. You have no more
right to call yourself that any more than you have
to call yourself an American. Free speech ends
when you advocate genocide or holocaust denial.
--
"I can imagine a LOT when it comes
to unimaginable power."
-- nu-monet
HellPope Huey
qu...@syntac.net wrote:
> Should contact occur, immediately contact HellPopeHuey for scrubbing.
Don't offer to scrub me unless you mean it; I'll make you do ALL of the
cracks & crevices. Think you're man enough to handle all of that,
grassmoker?
--
HellPope Huey
Deadly, Illegal and Embarrassing, Attorneys at Law
Everybody gets so much information all day long
that they lose their common sense.
- Gertrude Stein
How would Jesus vote?
Heck, I'd be willing
just to see Him show up to REGISTER.
~Michael on a FreeRepublic.com forum
HellPope Huey
> > That's right Zapanaz, and remember they have
> > not stopped the killing, as nu-nazi keeps
> > reminding us...
> You really are no different than a Taliban, except
> you have dreams of genocide far beyond anything
> they could imagine.
He has a slight edge in variety due to exposure to our version of the
news and all those horror flicks, but I give the Taliban the edge for
sheer ignorant brutality. Yep, in a place where there is no toilet
paper, just stones, you're itchy-ouchie all the time and ready to stomp
hell out of anything at the drop of Allah's hankie. The world could not
help but be a better, more peaceful place if the less fortunate could
only have improved butt hygiene.
qu...@syntac.net
There's that smell again!
nu-nazi must be lurking around here somewhere!
You really can't miss him, constantly muttering delusional idiocy to
himself. Ocasionaly seig-heiling spazmaticaly. If you try to talk to
him, he'll just respond by foaming at the mouth and confusing what you
said with his own fantasies and bizaare Nazi fetishism, I recomend you
stay clear, since even Huey is now refusing to scrub away possible
contagions. Perhaps nenslo will hose you off from a safe distance.
nu-monet v7.0
>
I remember the story about a North Vietnamese
political officer who was captured in a village
where he had killed several people, because they
were in his way, or he just didn't like them.
The Legionnaires who captured him wanted some
information, so they wrapped time fuse around
his leg, ending up with a det cap in his crotch.
It must have been agonizingly painful for the
burning fuse to work its way around his leg,
which he could have stopped at any time by just
admitting to the people that communism was wrong.
Instead, he cursed dialectic at everybody until
his genitalia exploded.
That's the thing about you communists, you can
neither shut the fuck up, or admit that your way
is totally murderous and wrong.
Just like some damn Taliban, or Nazi, or Xtian
fundie, or Thughee. You are a real death-cult
member. Fucked up in the head.
Oh, yeah, and fuck you for calling me a Nazi.
I've lots of relatives who fought the Nazis and
Imperial Japan. Even more who have fought
communists, in both hot and cold wars.
Can you claim that any of your relatives have
done the same?
John Starrett
> qu...@syntac.net wrote:
>
>
> So, who do you hate the worst? Negroes, Jews,
> or just everybody in the world who doesn't
> believe in your twisted fantasies so you call
> them Nazis?
>
> And don't call yourself a Jew. You have no more
> right to call yourself that any more than you have
> to call yourself an American. Free speech ends
> when you advocate genocide or holocaust denial.
>
Err... no. That is where free speech begins.
John Starrett
nenslo
>
> Don't offer to scrub me unless you mean it; I'll make you do ALL of the
> cracks & crevices. Think you're man enough to handle all of that,
> grassmoker?
>
I've used a push broom before.
HellPope Huey
wrote:
Your time in the pornography video business isn't at issue. The
question was about your fortitude.
--
HellPope Huey
I mostly just want a better chair
and to not have to hold the chicken
between my knees.
Is that so WRONG??
How do I know pornography depraves and corrupts?
It depraves and corrupts me.
- Malcolm Muggeridge
"You think Christmas falls out of a clear blue sky??
Well it DOESN'T!! It falls out of my holly-jolly BUTT!!"
- "Family Guy"
Artemia Salina
> Artemia Salina wrote:
>> So then none of us should make any judgments at all about anything that
>> we didn't personally witness.
>
> Deliberately erroneous conclusion intended to make the opponent's
> statement seem ridiculous.
What makes you think it was DELIBERATE? Heh! Got you THERE, didn't I?
>> After all, what is the news but a story,
>> as in "news story?"
>
> Misdirection - the subject being discussed is a movie, not a news story.
No, what was being discussed was a STORY, as in HISTORY. Talisman
changed the focus of what was being discussed. I realize that you
want to argue with me more than nearly anything else in the world,
but there are more people than just you and I involved in this
discussion. This discussion does NOT revolve around you.
I was not misdirecting; I was making the point that the news
is a story just as much as a movie is. Unless you're trying to
say that "Nixon" was a complete LIE; that NONE of the events
depicted in it ever happened, then the comparison holds.
We were told "stories" by both newscasters and entertainers
about the wrongdoings of Nixon. If it is acceptable for
people to make judgments based on those stories, then it
should be equally acceptable for me to make judgments
based on a movie.
You yourself claim to have not made judgments about Nixon,
but then Talisman and I are not talking about you, as much
as you would LIKE us to.
>> Since you had an opinion about Nixon earlier I guess
>> you must've been a fly on the wall in the White House, eh?
>
> Deliberate and false absurdity intended to make opponent's point seem ridiculous.
> These are all examples of dishonest discourse, the type of "argument"
> people put up when they have no valid basis for contention.
You're stretching here. You know very well that "a fly on the wall"
is merely an expression which means "having special and secret access
to a conversation in which the candidness of the speakers can be assured,"
and is not generally intended to make one's point seem ridiculous.
>> You say that you read "his writings" and that in them he punched some kid
>> in the back of the head. From that one incident you've developed a
>> complete personality profile of the man.
>
> Another false claim made by you and not him.
The first sentence is not a false claim, and the second one is what I
inferred from the first. Again, you're being obtuse in order to support
your "point," which of course is dishonest discourse, the type of
"argument" that people put up when they have no valid basis for
contention.
>> Didn't your parents ever smack
>> you for getting out of line? Hell I've had teachers that did that. Back
>> in those days corporal punishment of children, even ones not our own,
>> was considered acceptable.
>
> If this is intended to support your claim that it is possible to draw an
> historically accurate image of a person's career and character (which
> image as stated by you shows little resemblance to fact) from seeing an
> actor portraying that person, it is INSANE.
It was intended to discount HIS implicit claim that a person can be judged as
bad, based solely on one anecdote. Surely, if my judgment of a person,
based on a three hour long movie about him cannot be valid, then Talisman's
judgment cannot be as well. TEN FOLD.
>> Have you ever noticed that people LOVE to believe the worst about other
>> people?
>
> This conflicts with your own apparent desire NOT to believe the worst
> about a person, based on a movie you saw about him which led you to
> completely reverse your previous views.
More obtuseness.
>>Just listen to some gossip at work some time, or people's
>> opinions of Micheal Jackson or O. J. Simpson, etc. They have no fucking
>> clue as to what *actually* happened, they just go by what they're told
>> and their imaginations (and those imaginings are usually based on what
>> they imagine themselves doing in the same situations).
>
>
> THEY HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE AS TO WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, THEY JUST GO BY
> WHAT THEY WERE TOLD. Which is different from seeing a movie about what happened.
Exactly.
qu...@syntac.net
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> Oh, yeah, and fuck you for calling me a Nazi.
Unlike you with your endless nonsense, I can justify why I call you a
Nazi.
Each one of these statements and many more Nazi traits of yours can be
proven by citing your own words.
Top 10 reasons why YOU ARE a Nazi.
10- you are motivated by hatred, not by any engagement with actual
arguments or people.
9- your arguments are based upon fallacy and personal
characterizations, unsubstantiated labels you place on others in order
to justify your hatred.
8- your are humourless.
7- you characterize any issue as "us" versus "them," including anyone
you hate in the "them" category and glorifying violence against "their
kind."
6- you question the legitimacy of the belonging of the target of your
hatred based upon your unsubstantiated labeling.
5- you glorify violence against people for expressing their opinions.
4- you ignore what the target of your hatred actually says, you never
cite their arguments, instead you mindlessly spew yet more hatefull
invective.
3- you are constantly trying create unsubstantiated connections
between who are you arguing with and some outside party, for the
purposes of justifying hatred and ignoring the actual arguments
presented.
2- you present a biased and ignorant view of history to justify your
hatred.
1- you endlessly repeat the same defeated arguments over and over
again, only adding more name calling and invective as if increasing
your hatred somehow makes a point.
> I've lots of relatives who fought the Nazis
How ironic then that you should be such a dedicated Nazi coward then,
you must be a great disappointment to them.
qu...@syntac.net
HellPope Huey wrote:
> Don't offer to scrub me unless you mean it; I'll make you do ALL of
the
> cracks & crevices.
With a falafel or a loofa?
> Think you're man enough to handle all of that,
> grassmoker?
That depends, how much do you have for me to smoke?
nu-monet v7.0
>
Oh, and did I say, fuck you, you commie bastard?
I am just one of the billions of people who hate
communists and have, in past, been afraid that
communists were willing to destroy the world,
literally, with nuclear weapons, and have stood
watch against their murdering legions. And WE
have put our very lives on the line to STOP YOU.
WE want nothing to do with your fucked up religion
or its murderous ways.
In that maybe four and a half of the six BILLION
people who live on this planet disavow you and
what you want, we outnumber you. Many of the rest
*would* disavow your fucked up religion, except
their communist government, or some murderous
communist revolutionary, would MURDER them for
doing so.
So, as far as you are concerned, more than TWO
THIRDS of the WORLD must be Nazis.
Either that or you are fucked up in the head beyond
belief. I am convinced that anyone who embraces
communism while living in a free, democratic country,
is mentally ill, utterly ignorant of the world around
them, or brainwashed like a religious cultist, or a
combination of the three.
And brainwashing, by the way, can be entirely
voluntary, which is how I think you became a
communist, seeing it as a magical cure for your
tremendous feeling of inadequacy, self-hatred and
self-deprecation.
All I am doing is validating what you really know about
yourself: that you *are* inadequate, *and* that your
self-hatred is justified, *and* you *should* remind
yourself of what a disgusting piece of filth you are
on a frequent basis.
You will *never*, *EVER*, get what you want. So I
laugh at you. Most of the world itself stands against
you, and each and every day, more and more people rise
up against your philosophy and tear another brick from
your prison walls. Your world does not get stronger,
it crumbles.
You have no part of the future. Just die.
--
Anyone with a gun pointed
at you is the government.
--nu-monet
qu...@syntac.net
idiotic rant remarkable only for its complete lack of any reference to
anything I have ever said, its sheer stupidity, and its devout fascism.
If anybody doubted thus guy was a Nazi, all they need to do is read his
words, "hate hate commie commie your kind kill kill" over and over
again, ad nauseum. No logic. No humour. Just mindless hate.
Revi Shankar
> All I am doing is validating what you really know about
> yourself: that you *are* inadequate, *and* that your
> self-hatred is justified, *and* you *should* remind
> yourself of what a disgusting piece of filth you are
> on a frequent basis.
>
> You will *never*, *EVER*, get what you want. So I
> laugh at you. Most of the world itself stands against
> you, and each and every day, more and more people rise
> up against your philosophy and tear another brick from
> your prison walls. Your world does not get stronger,
> it crumbles.
>
> You have no part of the future. Just die.
Life is much better when one has a clear grasp of reality.
--
"All in all, you are a very dying race,
Placing trust upon a cruel world.
You've never had the things you thought you should have had,
and you'll not get them now,
and,
all the while,
in perfect time,
your tears are falling on the ground."
nu-monet v7.0
>
Mindless hate is the essence of communism.
All forms of communism.
Their one ritual that works is murder.
--
"He's just screaming out
'Neuter Me!'"
-- some guy about his dog
John Starrett
Oops. I wasn't looking. Could you come back about 3:00 on Friday?
John Starrett
nenslo
>
> This discussion does NOT revolve around you.
That's where you are wrong.
>
> I was not misdirecting; I was making the point that the news
> is a story just as much as a movie is. Unless you're trying to
> say that "Nixon" was a complete LIE; that NONE of the events
> depicted in it ever happened, then the comparison holds.
A news story, or rather many hundreds of thousands of news stories in
the case of Richard Nixon, serves an entirely different purpose from
that served by a movie. They are two different TYPES of things. It is
an error to treat them as if they are the same. This is your
fundamental error in this entire discussion.
>
> We were told "stories" by both newscasters and entertainers
> about the wrongdoings of Nixon. If it is acceptable for
> people to make judgments based on those stories, then it
> should be equally acceptable for me to make judgments
> based on a movie.
The reporting of facts in a news story is not the same as a story told
by an entertainer. It is perfectly acceptable for you to make judgments
on any basis whatsoever. A judgment based on facts is different from
one based on entertainment. It is your fundamental error throughout
this discussion to assert that your judgment, based on entertainment, is
as accurate as, or more accurate than, one based on fact.
>
> You yourself claim to have not made judgments about Nixon,
> but then Talisman and I are not talking about you, as much
> as you would LIKE us to.
There again is where you are wrong, at least in your case.
>
> >> Since you had an opinion about Nixon earlier I guess
> >> you must've been a fly on the wall in the White House, eh?
> >
> > Deliberate and false absurdity intended to make opponent's point seem ridiculous.
> > These are all examples of dishonest discourse, the type of "argument"
> > people put up when they have no valid basis for contention.
>
> You're stretching here. You know very well that "a fly on the wall"
> is merely an expression which means "having special and secret access
> to a conversation in which the candidness of the speakers can be assured,"
> and is not generally intended to make one's point seem ridiculous.
Since you already knew that the answer to that question must necessarily
be "no," the question was asked for the sole purpose of raising a
spurious objection to the opponent's knowledge or qualifications.
>
> >> You say that you read "his writings" and that in them he punched some kid
> >> in the back of the head. From that one incident you've developed a
> >> complete personality profile of the man.
> >
> > Another false claim made by you and not him.
>
> The first sentence is not a false claim, and the second one is what I
> inferred from the first. Again, you're being obtuse in order to support
> your "point," which of course is dishonest discourse, the type of
> "argument" that people put up when they have no valid basis for
> contention.
Sorry, your unclear writing confused me. I didn't realize it was merely
a deliberately exaggerated false inference.
>
> >> Didn't your parents ever smack
> >> you for getting out of line? Hell I've had teachers that did that. Back
> >> in those days corporal punishment of children, even ones not our own,
> >> was considered acceptable.
> >
> > If this is intended to support your claim that it is possible to draw an
> > historically accurate image of a person's career and character (which
> > image as stated by you shows little resemblance to fact) from seeing an
> > actor portraying that person, it is INSANE.
>
> It was intended to discount HIS implicit claim that a person can be judged as
> bad, based solely on one anecdote. Surely, if my judgment of a person,
> based on a three hour long movie about him cannot be valid, then Talisman's
> judgment cannot be as well. TEN FOLD.
There is no such thing as an "implicit claim." That is a false
attribution of an idea, which was your creation, to your opponent. Your
judgment was not of a person, but of an actor portraying that person,
reciting lines from a script written to portray the person in a specific
manner. You were not watching factual reporting, you were watching a movie.
>
> >> Have you ever noticed that people LOVE to believe the worst about other
> >> people?
> >
> > This conflicts with your own apparent desire NOT to believe the worst
> > about a person, based on a movie you saw about him which led you to
> > completely reverse your previous views.
>
> More obtuseness.
Yours.
>
> >>Just listen to some gossip at work some time, or people's
> >> opinions of Micheal Jackson or O. J. Simpson, etc. They have no fucking
> >> clue as to what *actually* happened, they just go by what they're told
> >> and their imaginations (and those imaginings are usually based on what
> >> they imagine themselves doing in the same situations).
> >
> >
> > THEY HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE AS TO WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, THEY JUST GO BY
> > WHAT THEY WERE TOLD. Which is different from seeing a movie about what happened.
>
> Exactly.
Exactly.
nenslo
Okay, yes, we know, so shut up about it.
Artemia Salina
> Artemia Salina wrote:
>>
>> This discussion does NOT revolve around you.
>
> That's where you are wrong.
I've decided to just let you GUESS at what I WOULD have said
if I HAD deigned to respond to your post. FOR EVER.
Go ahead, stew, like a pot of boiled chicken necks.
Quirk
Yet another contentless, irrelevant and utterly meaningless
contribution from our village idiot.
...but not in the funny, provocative, madcap, taboo breaking kind of
idiot.
Our village is pretty much populated exclusively by that sort of idiot,
so our village idio, nu-nazi, is just a clueless, humourless,
blathering pink.
nu-monet v7.0
>
> Yet another contentless, irrelevant and
> utterly meaningless contribution from our
> village idiot.
"Our", as in, what? A random troll that seeks
"identity" with alt.slack?
> ...but not in the funny, provocative, madcap,
> taboo breaking kind of idiot.
No, but one who joins with 4.5 Billion other
"idiots" in wanting to kick your kind off the
planet.
> Our village is pretty much populated exclusively
> by that sort of idiot, so our village idio,
> nu-nazi, is just a clueless, humourless,
> blathering pink.
And so, of course, you know of the SubGenius doctrine
that those who call others "pink" are clearly ID'ed
as "pink" themselves.
Which would make sense, you pinko.
Which, by the way, refers to a communist such as
yourself. A communist who really, truly needs to
experience life in a workers' paradise some day.
--
"Money can't buy you happiness,
but when you're poor, you can't
buy shit, and nobody will loan
you happiness."
--nu-monet
Quirk
Welcome guys and gals, subgenii and other passing derelicts...
LET'S PLAY... SPOT THE NAZI!!
Ok, our contestant today is nu-nazi, recent winner of the international
urinal licking championships.
Here we go!
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> "Our", as in, what? A random troll that seeks
> "identity" with alt.slack?
Bing bing. Nazi! Trying to question my belonging by way of a
characterization.
> > ...but not in the funny, provocative, madcap,
> > taboo breaking kind of idiot.
> No, but one who joins with 4.5 Billion other
> "idiots" in wanting to kick your kind off the
> planet.
Ding ding. Nazi! Reference to cleansing "my kind" off of the planet.
> And so, of course, you know of the SubGenius doctrine
> that those who call others "pink" are clearly ID'ed
> as "pink" themselves.
Bleep bleep. Nazi! fanaticly sticking to some alleged "doctrine."
Congratulations, you are indeed a Nazi!
Sorry, there is no prize.
Thanks for playing!
Tune in next time when nu-nazi blows a gasket and blathers "die die
Quirk
nenslo wrote:
> Okay, yes, we know, so shut up about it.
Forgive me, I understand that most of you have killfiled him long ago
and that I am only amplifying to his ability to make noise by
responding to him. I will try to stop. But the temptation to make a
public farce of such an idiot is strong, and the flesh is weak.
Ok, fuck the fancy moral philosophication, sometime I get bored. Ok?
Damn, what do you want me to do with my computer, actually get some
work done?
nu-monet v7.0
>
Just like a fucking commie. Or leftists of
other stripes. What would your mother say
if she knew you masturbated while praying to
Adolf Hitler? I bet you fantasize about Hitler
and Stalin having homosexual sex.
You are a Hitler-Jugend running around going
"Hiya! Hitler!" and painting swastikas on
synagogues. And you fucking hate the country
you live in because it hasn't cut your hair
short and treated you in the homoerotic way
you think you deserve.
Well, keep trying, little Nazi. Murderous,
commie Nazi.
Quirk
Way to go nu-nazi, your fascist blather delivered as advertised and
exactly according to the script! And in record time!
And going well beyond the call of duty by sharing your homoerotic
fantasies with us along with your normal demented sputtering! Your
infinite generosity in making a pathetic ass of yourself is noted and
appreciated by all. Bravo!
Keep up the good work. Now tell me how much you hate me and how you
wish that I would just die, along with the rest of "my kind." That's so
clever and amusing, the entire newsgroup just can't get enough of it!
nu-monet v7.0
>
blah, blah. More commie-Nazi spew from a
sick, sick individual.
I haven't bothered with your last 20 posts,
no reason to read any of the rest.
Quirk
Your self reflection is admirable. However this is your most
minimalistic contribution to date.
Show, don't tell, nu-nazi. Show, don't tell.
Just writing "More Nazi spew from a sick individual" as a place holder
is not nearly as entertaining as when you demonstate what a sick
individual you are by actually spelling out the Nazi spew you are
famous for. Don't worry about endlesssly repeating yourself with the
same defeated rubbish, after all you have been repeating yourself this
long, why start worrying now?
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> I haven't bothered with your last 20 posts,
> no reason to read any of the rest.
Good nu-nazi, no need for you to read them, since you are unlikely to
comprehend them and since your hate is self-generated and unrelated to
anything I have actually said.
No nu-nazi, you are not expected to read any of my posts, so long as
you do not neglect to respond to every single post I make with some
creepy, embarrassing, idiotic blather, that is all I can expect from
you.
You haven't let me down yet.
nu-monet v7.0
>
Once again, the wormy-worm advocate of genocide
declares victory despite losing every damn fight
his kind have ever fought, except when those they
fought were harmless and helpless.
Yep, communists just love to kill women and children,
but are snivelling cowards when they try their
fascism on people who stand up and kick the snot out
of them.
I have met SO MANY ASSHOLES JUST LIKE YOU. They all
do NOTHING but SPEW DIALECTIC and curse their betters.
Which is damn near EVERYONE else. Communists deserve
what they do to others. They deserve being thrown
into the mass graves they dig for others. They deserve
being purged, being made "citizens", being forced to
present ID cards to every secret policeman they made.
They deserve to be tortured in basements by other
communist murderers. To be put in communist gulags
and communist re-education camps. And their families
should be forced to pay a few pennies for the bullet
when they are shot by a communist firing squad.
They, and I mean YOU, deserve to be put in communist
forced labor camps. Planting rice while being starved
and digging uranium ore with your bare hands, all at
the gunpoint of your FELLOW COMMUNISTS.
Oh, FUCK YEAH "venture communism" is different. As
different as a death camp in Cambodia is from a death
camp in China from a death camp in Russia from a death
camp in Czechoslovakia from Treblinka from Dachau from
every death camp ever made BY YOUR KIND.
Unlike the typical American who has never seen the horror
of what people like you do--I have.
Which is again why I hope you die of cancer, and are torn
apart by dogs.
Quirk
That's it Nu-nazi!
That's the sort of demented, idiotic, creepy and embarrassing rant I
was hoping for. Much better than your last effort.
This one has it all, complete detachment from anything external to your
blind hatred, idiotic glee in attacking straw men that only exist in
your imagination, lots of grizzly, sicko death wishes and
glorifications of violence that perfectly demonstrate your sniveling
cowardice and commitment to fascism. Bravo! That's our idiot!
Well done. Your obedience to my every command is much appreciated.
Ok, nu-nazi, now another! More! Now! Obey me!
Since your moronic and hysterical drivel makes even my least inspired
contributions seem magnificent in comparison, if I can only get you to
follow up every post I ever write, forever, I will look FUCKING
BRILLIANT. And every SubGenii will be seduced into believing my every
word, in fact there is no doubt that with your help, Venture Communism
will become the official investment strategy of the Church and DOBBS
HIMSELF will sanctify it.
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
My plan is perfect, I have no idea why Nenslo let this opportunity pass
him by.
nu-monet v7.0
>
You are a filthy communist-Nazi and a ghoul.
Stop endorsing genocide. Admit the Holocaust.
HellPope Huey
Nazis are so passe. Revitalized Facism is where the hip kids go now.
Get a business degree and get to swingin' with the new Triple-Shit
Generation. Jackboots are precious and all that, but a bearer bond,
summons or foreclosure are far more potent.
"There's a pile of dinosaur eggs, youngster. Now get sucking."
- Alan Moore in "V For Vendetta"
--
HellPope Huey
Searching for my inner Bastard
or my name isn't Sphinkler Bumcrot
If we are forced, at every hour,
to watch or listen to horrible events,
this constant stream of ghastly impressions
will deprive even the most delicate among us
of all respect for humanity.
- Cicero
Exit, pursued by a bear.
-William Shakespeare,
Stage direction in "The Winter's Tale"
Artemia Salina
> That's the sort of [...] rant I was hoping for.
It must be heartening to see that your carefully drafted
plan for a Utopian paradise wound up having no more value
than a mundane usenet troll.
Quirk
Artemia Salina wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:42:08 -0800, Quirk wrote:
> > That's the sort of [...] rant I was hoping for.
> It must be heartening to see that your carefully drafted
> plan for a Utopian paradise wound up having no more value
> than a mundane usenet troll.
Thank you Artemia, there is no higher form of art then utopian usenet
trolling. You flatter me.
Agitate. Educate. Organize.
Tootles.
Quirk
I think its time we moved on in our experiment, while making nu-nazi
jump through hoops like a trained dog has been great fun and all, he's
such a stupid mutt, perhaps we may want to take a closer look, after
all, we don't see a specimen quite as demented as this everyday.
The is an opportunity to make a contribution to the great science of
idiotology.
So, my fellow great men and women of the arts and sciences, let us
investigate, I present to you nu-nazi.
We find him here, as usual, talking to himself since one of his
remarkable forms of dementia is the inability to understand than not
everybody around him shares his views. He is consumed with hatred, so
he assumes that all around him are too. He is dedicated to fascism, so
he assumes all around him are too.
First, I will engage him in some polite conversation, then ask him some
questions, in the interest of research.
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> Stop endorsing genocide.
Good nu-nu! Yes, endorsing genocide is wrong. Very good!
Now, relax, relieve yourself in your pants as you normally do, and
listen carefully: When you group people together in blanket
generalizations, and then glorify their exclusion, torture and murder,
what you are endorsing is genocide. This is a primary characteristic of
fascism. In fact the label, "communist," you seem to use in exactly the
same way that Hitler did, to mean anybody who criticizes the right of
the elite to subjugate an underclass.
> Admit the Holocaust.
Good nu-nu! That's right! It was people who held exactly the same
beliefs that you hold that perpetuated this great crime against
humanity we call "the holocaust," in which members of my family where
displaced and murdered.
The methods of the murderers where exactly the same as yours, using
hatefull rhetoric and criminalizing beliefs, justifying hatred of
people based on arbitrary characterizations, their favourite, like
yours, was "communist."
Hitler loved to portray his enemies as "communists," which he believed
was indistinguishable from jewishness, in fact he frequently used the
term "judeo-communists" in denouncing the targets of his Hatred.
But enough of this, we have already firmly established your devotion to
Fascism, and the fact that you are indistinguishable from Hitler, now
it's time to move on.
nu-nu, since like your idol Adolf Hitler, you image yourself a great
believer in (so-called) "freedom" and love to explain the superiority
of your nation,
I have two questions for you, regarding the state of freedom in
America.
Since America is the "land of the free," why does the USA have the
highest per-capita prison population in the world? One that is three
times higher than the so-called "axis of evil" countries.
And While there is no doubt that African-Americans have made great
contributions to the wealth of America, why is it that despite making
up only 13% of the Population, they represent over 65% of those
admitted to state prisons?
Do you see a problem here? A systemicly racist police state perhaps?
KönigPrüß
I'm not going to go into the "why" of it,
but here in Virginia, Blacks constitute 20% of the population
but commit some 60% of the murders. Thus, Blacks are 10x's
more likely to commit murder than Whites. Who's the bad guy?
If I hear any more about "women and minorities" or "women and
people of 'color'" I'm going to kick all y'all asses and cut yo' face
pimp-style with a staight razor to remind yo' who's de bitch 'roud here!
88!
Quirk
König Prüß, GfbAEV <saurkr...@weinerschnitzle.com> wrote:
> Thus, Blacks are 10x's more likely to commit murder than Whites.
Who's the > bad guy?
A couple of follow-up questions.
Why do you think it is, do you believe that Blacks have a racial
predisposition to murder? What percentage of the victims are Black? Why
is it that in 1926 Blacks only made up 21% of the prison population?
You are an econometricist, could you give me the statics correlated
against poverty, instead of Race, and see if it corresponds better with
historical and international regressions?
You've read some Proudhon, you should understand how private ownership
of land makes poverty hereditary.
One out of every 142 Americans is in prison - and this does not include
military prisons or INS jails.
Some "land of the free."
It is, as I said, a systematicly racist police state. Open your eyes.
> If I hear any more about "women and minorities" or "women and
> people of 'color'" I'm going to kick all y'all asses and cut yo' face
> pimp-style with a staight razor to remind yo' who's de bitch 'roud
here!
Ok, König, after you die trying to cut someone with your straight
razor, can I have it? I could use a nice clean shave.
Regards.
KönigPrüß
Look, nigger behave badly.
I don't care why. It's not my job to fix it.
Jooz, 92% of them live in the world's top five
economies, what up wit dat? Like the gelt, do ya?
Show me da bling-bling!
Fucking parasitic assholes, I'll get it back if I have to
pull it out of your dead granny's teeth.
88!
Quirk
> Look, nigger behave badly.
So, why bother to look deeper, just lock them all up, or perhaps you
would prefer they where all killed?
You might call it the American holocaust, only that already happened
against the natives, so it would have to be the American Holocaust, the
sequel: Final Solution to the Slave problem.
> I don't care why. It's not my job to fix it.
Then why participate in this discussion? Just to express racist views
and then shrug away criticism?
> Jooz, 92% of them live in the world's top five
> economies, what up wit dat? Like the gelt, do ya?
Could the lack of a genocide against them in those top five economies
have something to do with it?
Before WWII what percentage of Jews lived in poor countires like Poland
and the Ukraine?
> Show me da bling-bling!
I'm glad you acknowledge that the african-american culture is the most
dynamic and influential one on the planet.
So much that even the language of racists is influenced by it.
> Fucking parasitic assholes, I'll get it back if I have to
> pull it out of your dead granny's teeth.
I'm sorry to see you are racist.
Thanks for the econometrics links anyway though. Too bad you seem
unable to learn from the data you have.
KönigPrüß
You want my razor AFTER I've used it?
What an anal retentive Joo puke you are!
You should get an infection in your genitals!
I hope your girl children are all shiksas to get
butt-plugged by schvartzes! Feh!
Go get your own Kesher razoor! Ya fucking joo moron.
Go circumcise a pig for your precious Jesus!
Feh! Eat chittlin's and die!
Hey! You know they moved the German government
back to Berlin? What day? Right before Hitler's birthday!
Right under your big Jew nose! Eat poop, and die, Jüde!
(Disclaimer: Yids! Don't try this at home!)
KönigPrüß
>König wrote:
>
>> Look, nigger behave badly.
>
>So, why bother to look deeper, just lock them all up, or perhaps you
>would prefer they where all killed?
>
>You might call it the American holocaust, only that already happened
>against the natives, so it would have to be the American Holocaust, the
>sequel: Final Solution to the Slave problem.
>
>> I don't care why. It's not my job to fix it.
>
>Then why participate in this discussion? Just to express racist views
>and then shrug away criticism?
>
>> Jooz, 92% of them live in the world's top five
>> economies, what up wit dat? Like the gelt, do ya?
>
>Could the lack of a genocide against them in those top five economies
>have something to do with it?
>
>Before WWII what percentage of Jews lived in poor countires like Poland
>and the Ukraine?
>
>> Show me da bling-bling!
>
>I'm glad you acknowledge that the african-american culture is the most
>dynamic and influential one on the planet.
>
Where do you get that???
50 million schvartes a year are dying between famine, AIDS, and war,
and that's not fast enough for me! Dynamic? Moron! Where is their
ag and industrial base? They like loud music and bright colors.
They are genetically/culturally primitive.
What, you got a case of "Jungle Fever?"
Fine. OK. Noted.
My sociology text notes that the schvartzes are an underclass.
Not the dominant class. Dynamic? Sheesh! The tail don't wag
the dog. Nigger all goin' off about gettin' shot by the cops; shit!
They yell stop! you stop! or yo' dead nigger! Yo' got a prob wit dat?
Oh, my baby boy was dealin' drugs out of a stolen car and when
the cops said Yo! he tried to run over them so they shot his nappy
Sulphur-8 stinkin' ass! Oh, the humanity! Wo bist the social justice!
It's up yo' LA Joo-boy ass!
Nyuk, nyuk!
Quirk
Look Doris! Another Nazi!
Amazing what you find creeping around.
Thanks for spelling it out so clearly for everyone, König.
Now I know why you are not welcome here in the faterland, they drove
you and your friends out. Now you're America's problem, I pity them.
Anybody else want to out themselves?
It seems like idiot Nazi pride day here in alt.slack.
I guess when you have as little to be thankfull for in life as these
guys, some hollow feeling of "racial superiority" is all you got.
Now, tell me again what you think should be done with Jews and Blacks?
Anybody else?
If I keep drawing the pinks out of the woodwork like this, I'm sure
I'll win the SubGenii of the year award and not only will Venture
Communism be adopted as our official investment strategy, but DOBBS
HIMSELF will reveal that he is both black, and a jew. Like Madonna.
Only with a pipe. And better music.
Quirk
Congratulations. You win the creepiest scumbag award!
Yikes. Your life must be really pathetic to harbour so much hate
towards your obvious superiors.
Nazi schweine.
Artemia Salina
> Thank you Artemia, there is no higher form of art then utopian usenet
> trolling. You flatter me.
With nu-monet's knee on your neck you manage to croak out, "I WAS ONLY
KIDDING! GLURPG!!"
Artemia Salina
> I'm glad you acknowledge that the african-american culture is the most
> dynamic and influential one on the planet.
And a longstanding culture, too.
"32-20 Blues" by Robert Johnson (~1938)
©(1978) 1990, 1991 Lehsem II, LLC/Claud L. Johnson
Administered by Music & Media International, Inc.
If I send for my baby
and she don't come
If I send for my baby
man, and she don't come
All the doctors in Hot Springs
sure can't help her none
And if she gets unruly
thinks she don't wan do
If she gets unruly
thinks she don't wan do
Take my 32-20 now and
cut her half in two
She got a 38 special but I believe its much too light
She got a 38 special but I believe its much too light
I got a 32-20, got to make the camps alright
If I send for my baby
and she don't come
If I send for my baby
man, and she don't come
All the doctors in Hot Springs
sure can't help her none
I'm gonna shoot my pistol, gonna shoot my Gatlin gun
I'm gonna shoot my pistol, gonna shoot my Gatlin gun
You made me love you
now your man has come
Ah-oh
baby where you stay last night
Ah-ah
baby where you stayed last night
You got your hair all tangled
and you ain't talkin right
Got a 38 special boys, it do very well
Quirk
Artemia Salina wrote:
> With nu-monet's knee on your neck you manage to croak out, "I WAS
ONLY
> KIDDING! GLURPG!!"
Is this some fantasy you are sharing with us?
Thankfully nu-nazi has never touched me, if you want to wrestle with
him, joke and "glurpg," he's all yours.
If you go for the Nazi type, perhaps you may want include KönigPruß
too, since you seem to be bending over backwards to ingratiate yourself
with the hatefilled, violence loving and intolerant crowd.
After they agree on wether it is the Jews, The Blacks, or The
"Communists" they would kill first, you can help them blow off some
pent-up frustration with some quick, clumbsy, angry, cold, sex.
It would help them though, might dampen their murderous fever.
I'm a little surprised you'd be into it, but hey, I admire the mercy.
By the way, I guess you missed my comment regarding Richard Nixon and
the US Dollar. This really the key to understanding his legacy. Which
is, as of today, a US Dollar worth .77 Euros, and falling, with no end
in sight.
Sorry for the tangent, but since this thread has been crossposted to
sci.econ, I though I'd add some relevant content.
Hope you're feeling better soon.
Artemia Salina
>
> Artemia Salina wrote:
>
>> With nu-monet's knee on your neck you manage to croak out, "I WAS
> ONLY
>> KIDDING! GLURPG!!"
>
> Is this some fantasy you are sharing with us?
>
> Thankfully nu-nazi has never touched me, if you want to wrestle with
> him, joke and "glurpg," he's all yours.
Oh, I see. You're taking me literally in order to set up a straw man.
How "artful" of you.
Quirk
Artemia Salina wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 06:45:21 -0800, Quirk wrote:
> > I'm glad you acknowledge that the african-american culture is the
most
> > dynamic and influential one on the planet.
> And a longstanding culture, too.
> "32-20 Blues" by Robert Johnson (~1938)
What is it you are trying suggest here Artemia?
Do you believe that Blacks are inherently violent? Sorry, if that's not
what you mean, please spell it out.
I mean, I love senseless SubGenii blathering as much as the next guy.
But sorry, I just don't find racism too funny.
Mississippi Goddam
Nina Simone, 1963
The name of this tune is Mississippi Goddam
And I mean every word of it
Alabama's gotten me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
Alabama's gotten me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
Can't you see it
Can't you feel it
It's all in the air
I can't stand the pressure much longer
Somebody say a prayer
Alabama's gotten me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
This is a show tune
But the show hasn't been written for it, yet
Hound dogs on my trail
School children sitting in jail
Black cat cross my path
I think every day's gonna be my last
Lord have mercy on this land of mine
We all gonna get it in due time
I don't belong here
I don't belong there
I've even stopped believing in prayer
Don't tell me
I tell you
Me and my people just about due
I've been there so I know
They keep on saying "Go slow!"
But that's just the trouble
"do it slow"
Washing the windows
"do it slow"
Picking the cotton
"do it slow"
You're just plain rotten
"do it slow"
You're too damn lazy
"do it slow"
The thinking's crazy
"do it slow"
Where am I going
What am I doing
I don't know
I don't know
Just try to do your very best
Stand up be counted with all the rest
For everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
I made you thought I was kiddin'
Picket lines
School boy cots
They try to say it's a communist plot
All I want is equality
for my sister my brother my people and me
Yes you lied to me all these years
You told me to wash and clean my ears
And talk real fine just like a lady
And you'd stop calling me Sister Sadie
Oh but this whole country is full of lies
You're all gonna die and die like flies
I don't trust you any more
You keep on saying "Go slow!"
"Go slow!"
But that's just the trouble
"do it slow"
Desegregation
"do it slow"
Mass participation
"do it slow"
Reunification
"do it slow"
Do things gradually
"do it slow"
But bring more tragedy
"do it slow"
Why don't you see it
Why don't you feel it
I don't know
I don't know
You don't have to live next to me
Just give me my equality
Everybody knows about Mississippi
Everybody knows about Alabama
Everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam
That's it!
Quirk
Artemia Salina wrote:
> Oh, I see. You're taking me literally in order to set up a straw man.
> How "artful" of you.
A "straw man"... usually that term is used in the context of a logical
debate, if you posted a logical argument somewhere, and I missed it,
please cite it. You posted nonsense, you got back ridicule. What did
you expect?