History

[Penn]

Re: Re: Fixations and Characteristics

Originally posted by Kain99
Kinky! but what about " Forgive and Forget?"

:razz2: You have a good point as well; but geez, how often can you "turn the other cheek"?
It's the history, dammit! If it were a mere two or three instances, I'd go along with your idea, however keep in mind another germ of a thought: he does this on purpose.

Vrai, is right - this kind of shock story - is the kind ST has posted before. The main idea is to stir up $h!t then weakly defend the position, failing that, apologize with a "if you understood my remark incorrectly", or "if you took it the wrong way", etc., well it has gotten old.
I only took Psych 101, but I'd wager you there's something beneath the surface of a person that makes one want to put his or herself in the kind of opinionated jeopardy he seems to relish achieving.

 

[SmallTown]

Re: Re: Re: Fixations and Characteristics

Originally posted by penncam
I only took Psych 101, but I'd wager you there's something beneath the surface of a person that makes one want to put his or herself in the kind of opinionated jeopardy he seems to relish achieving.

So which is worse, having someone onboard that just eats at you so much that you feel you are going to explode, or the tool who isn't bright enough to know how the ignore feature works?

If what I say is so bad, why do you keep on reading it? Seems you are the one who likes the pain and suffering. Hit the ignore button little buddy, works great.

And not only do you keep reading, but you keep responding. What, mommy not play with you enough when you were younger so now you just have to be the center of attention by conversing with someone you so despise?

Aside from your typical christian "Butt cheeks for ear muffs" attitude, you don't seem like too bad of a guy. Go have a drink, go have a smoke, go get laid, do something to loosen up a bit.

 

[Penn]

Listen Bonehead, most of the time I merely shake my head at your buffoonery.
You have to admit, I have not jumped on your case in weeks.

ST, it seems you have an educated head on your shoulders, however there seems to be a certain slant or bias, (that's as good as any psychic rational that I can come up with) in your "take on life", further, it appears you like to be butt of many people's derision.

It seems that any attention you get is better than no attention., buddy!

Don't you get enough at work or at home??

Maybe it's time you seek a different counsel!

 

[vraiblonde]

So if ST can make a comment and get everyone all stirred up, whose fault is that? ST's or the people who get spun? The fun is in the arguing back and forth. If you don't like arguing, don't do it. Put people on Ignore or don't answer back.

I don't think it's a sign of weak mind that you like to get people all juiced up - I think the weak mind is the one that takes it so seriously.

 

[Penn]

So, now it's alright.......the basic premise of comparing Dubya to Nazis philosphy is all just a joke.....is that what it's come down to?

I've been sorely tempted to invoke the old "Ignore" option on ST, however much of the time what he posts can be thought provoking if controversial.

BTW, I'm not that upset with him, never really have been. I do think, however, if one person is man enough to post outrageous fluff on these boards, he ought to be able to take some flak in return.

On another note, you don't really believe I'm the only one who's ever gotten feathers riled over something ST has posted, do you?

Just voicing my feelings, "so what?", ya know?!?

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by penncam
On another note, you don't really believe I'm the only one who's ever gotten feathers riled over something ST has posted, do you?

You MUST be kidding! I listened to Larry rave all day yesterday!

And that comment wasn't necessarily directed at you, Penn, just the board in general. Everyone says how boring it is when there's no heated debates or flame wars going on - ST is usually more than willing to liven the place up. And he takes the heat well, so what the heck.

 

[Tonio]

Vrai, if you want to rile things up, find a gay SOMD member to blast Bluto for coining the term "peace queer." This may make me sound homophobic, but when I first read Bluto's term, I pictured Christopher Lowell from the Discovery Channel dressed as a hippie. What if Bluto had chosen "peace ******" or "peace homo" instead?

 

[Kain99]

Queer

While the word queer can be used as a disparaging term for a homosexual .

I am certain that Bluto "coined" the phrase with the standard definitions in mind.

1. Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.
2. Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric. See Synonyms at strange.
3. Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious.
4. Slang. Fake; counterfeit.
5. Feeling slightly ill; queasy.

After all, Bluto would NEVER offend anyone.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Kain99
I am certain that Bluto "coined" the phrase with the standard definitions in mind.

What she said. Or maybe not - who knows with Bluto?

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah that...

So if ST can make a comment and get everyone all stirred up, whose fault is that? ST's or the people who get spun? The fun is in the arguing back and forth. If you don't like arguing, don't do it. Put people on Ignore or don't answer back.

Really digging deep into a topic from all sorts of angles is what is so enjoyable about the forums. It challenges me to think and think again about all sorts of issues. I'd like to think it does the same for whomever I'm chatting with. Sometimes it helps me form a new opinion, mostly it helps me find more reasons to reinforce the position I already have.

Unfortunately, there are points in a thread where the give and take leaves and nothing interesting happens.

As far as this thread goes, I have a thing against absurd Nazi analogies as it lessons the horror of a big part of our history. It tends to end up making contorted justifications for the darkest period in mankind’s history and it cheapens the sacrifice of those who fought it. I'd also argue it makes moral clarity more difficult as people lose a frame of reference through trivializing a person who made Hell shudder.

Iraq is a case in point. Most people can't remotely conceive of how barbaric Iraq has been for such a long time and comparing people like W to Hitler helps feed that intellectual paralysis.

People made all sorts of arguments against fighting Hitler in 1939.

"He just does what other leaders do"
"It would be nice if he was gone but..."
"It's not our business though he is kind of mean..."

 

[Tonio]

Re: Yeah that...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
I have a thing against absurd Nazi analogies as it lessons the horror of a big part of our history. It tends to end up making contorted justifications for the darkest period in mankind’s history and it cheapens the sacrifice of those who fought it. I'd also argue it makes moral clarity more difficult as people lose a frame of reference through trivializing a person who made Hell shudder.

Exactly my feelings, Larry.

 

[Penn]

Thanks for the narrative Larry, you summed up what both Tonio and I were thinking. Those points were lost somewhere in the dialogue, I think.

 

[Avatar]

B]I have a thing against absurd Nazi analogies as it lessons the horror of a big part of our history. It tends to end up making contorted justifications for the darkest period in mankind’s history and it cheapens the sacrifice of those who fought it. I'd also argue it makes moral clarity more difficult as people lose a frame of reference through trivializing a person who made Hell shudder

We sure do love to bring up this old dead mass murderer don't we? And why is Hitler the embodiment of evil? Is it because he is OUR historical enemy? He wasn't the worst, hell, many of the people he killed weren't even his own citizens. He was surpassed by Stalin and Mao, hey, Pol Pot killed the largest percentage of his own people (who?). But Hitler is OUR claim to fame and we defeated him. Hooray for us...Maybe that's why he's the second biggest metaphor next to the Titanic. Becasue in our 7 second attention span of history he is the face of evil...What did he do again? Oh yea , he killed a bunch of Jews, gypsies, and Homosexuals. And after we stopped him all the Jewish and Homo jokes stopped...
Yea, maybe it was the darkest hour in mankinds history...but when you take that same idea and spread it throughout the world for the next 50 years it tends to thin out and become almost non-exsistant...but still there....Oh, by the way, this rant is not directed at any individual so no need to feel defensive....Just a stream of consciousness rant......OK...as you were...

 

[vraiblonde]

Let me remind you that the US just took out another mass murderer, against the screaming and crying of people all over the world and some in this country. Bush sounds like he'd be happy to clean house on a worldwide level.

About Pol Pot - he was the leader in Cambodia from 1975-79. And as far as I know, we never did anything about him - the Vietnamese fixed his little red wagon. Why didn't we do anything? Let's see...who was the President of the US at that time...? Hmmm...it's right on the tip of my tongue.....

 

[Bruzilla]

My hats off to Smalltown for once again pointing out that Republicans and Conservatives have a very difficult time in keeping their eye on the ball and maintaining focus. I swear, I don't think there's any group that has more problems with not being able to see the forest for the trees!

Did you guys read the statement in Smalltown's post, or were you just locked into the picture? It talks about how the "common people" don't want war and how the government can convince them that war is good through the use of propoganda. How in the heck does this relate to what Bush did with Iraq?

There's always been about 50%-55% approval for Bush taking out Hussein. Factor in the numbers of Kinda Approve or No Opinion, and you only had about 25% opposing any action. The "Common People" were behind the war, it was the elites that were against it. While people like Steisand and Clooney were out condemning action, most of the "Common People" I know were wondering what was holding up the start of action. If the "Common People" were against the war, why were they lining up at recruiting stations to enlist? And don't backtrack Liberals... you'all are the ones who are always saying elites never go in the military.

Second... Nazi propoganda was based on lies. What did Bush say about the Irqi regime that wasn't true? They had ties to terrorists; they had weapons of mass destruction; they were murdering their own people; they were thieves who allowed their people to starve; they allowed the poisoning of the environment; etc. I know... the Libs here will say "THERE'S NO PROOF OF WMD OR TERRORIST CONNECTIONS!!!", but you were the same folks who refused to believe that Clinton actually did have sexual relations with that woman. So I figure in about five years you'll finally be able to admit to yourselves that the Republicans were right again.

Third, you might want to recall that the Nazis had a special place for dissenters in the press, religious, political, and education establishments... they were called Concentration Camps. There was no dissent against the propoganda coming out of the Reichstag. You cannot say the same for Bush and Iraq. For everything that the Administration said you had college professors, teachers, reporters, politicians, actors, and singers challenging it. By the way... these people are not exactly "Common People" are they?

The majority of "Common People" have long been for getting rid of scumbags like Hussein, and they know that sanctions don't work with guys who don't care about their people. "Common People" make up most of the military and understand that sometimes you need to go out and kick some a$$ to get other despots to get in line. Most "Common People" are the John and Jane Does who go to work each day, raise their kids, and want the world to be a better place. They don't spend all of their time sitting on protest lines or parading in marches.

One last thing... do you guys really believe that a lot of government propoganda would convince a majority of Americans to do anything? Fast food is still the number one consumeable, cigarettes are still flying off the shelves, alcohol and drug abuse continue to run rampant, and AIDS is still around despite all manner of government propoganda to change people's minds. If Americans, the "Common People", didn't want a war there's no amount of propoganda that would have resulted in the vast majority approving one.

 

[Flo]

Thanks Bru....