The Gloating Thread by CHRISISALL

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Gloating Thread

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Sunday, March 5, 2023 08:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 11445
PAGE 4 of 4

Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:20 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Thanks for the clarification, Niki. But I get just as riled up as anyone on any number of topics. I try to be better than I am, though.

Universal human quest, I think. ;-)

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:40 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Feh, I don't pretend to not be partisan or have an agenda, nor do I pretend to be polite - although if I plan to be completely unreasonable about something I make that pretty clear up front.

And while I don't self-identify as "liberal", to say I've never had my knuckles rapped by liberal posters for being... unkind... is somewhat disingenious cause I've caught everything from rolled eyes to merry hell for it, and to say I've never called out or even on occasion gone toe-to-toe with "liberal" posters is absolute horseshit as well as some of those debates/confrontations have been far more brutal than any exchange with conservatives, who I mostly ignore or take pity on cause I consider some chunk of em here to be mentally ill - one noteable exception being Jongsie cause he's capable of reason.

HKCav said something a while back about what happens to folk when "side" becomes more important than "right", and he had a big point there - me, I care about "right"(morally, although based on a different set of morals, mind you) without caring about "side", and yet I seethe with condemnation not for partisan reasons, but because of the outrageous inhumanity displayed by modern conservatism which has transmogrified into a bizarre form of insanity combined with wishing for a better days that never was instead of objectively acting on the plain realities.

Oh, and speaking of calling bullshit...

I know of only ONE topic that'll get Anthony "riled" and even then it's a lot like watching Ned Flanders get pissed off, hell I don't think your CAPABLE of holding a longterm grudge, since you have to practically force yourself not to forgive certain people.

Me on the other hand.... wellllllll, you do know I drove that sumbitch from the game, I figure.
I *do* hold grudges - but there's both rationale and rules to it which fall into a morality most folk can't understand well even when I try to explain it, lets just say misogyny and bullying are asking for it, even if it results in the delivered retaliation being itself bullying and quite hypocritical, deliberately so.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 3:39 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ahh, but Anthony, I didn't say you didn't get riled up. The mark of a "good" (if you will) human is not that they don't HAVE emotions, it's what they DO with those emotions. Most of us don't "do" as well as you do! ;o)

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 4:07 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
In real life I get along with liberals quite well, even in political discussions.

I'm accusing you of having an anti-liberal bias, not of being so rabidly partisan that you can't hold down friendships with liberals in real life. God, I would hope that few of us here are that bad.

Quote:
Maybe it's just the particularly virulent brand I see here that sets me off.

I did consider that maybe you weren't anti-liberal, but just anti the liberals on this forum - but then I remembered that the person who seems to aggravate you more than anyone is Niki. Is she the most 'virulent' poster here? The most nasty, the most dishonest and partisan? No, definitely not. What she IS, perhaps, is the person who pushes the liberal message more than anyone else. And that rankles everyone on the board who is anti-liberal - namely all of our right-wingers, and you.

Quote:
So I'm a surrogate for your criticism of yourself?

$100.00 an hour, please.

No criticism amigo. I fight right-wing bullshit because I see it as more damaging - mainly in that it advances the right-wing cause. Left-wing bullshit is also offensive - it's bullshit after all - but there is no urgent need to fight it. And if I have a criticism of myself it's NOT that I don't spend enough time fighting political bullshit on the internet...

Quote:
Not too much, I always figured Kaneman was out there with PN, and Wulf seems to have enough problems. Besides, they didn't make a habit of insulting me.

You're mixing up cause and effect here. You didn't get insulted by them simply because you didn't get into debates with them. You only take on liberals, and so you only get insulted by liberals. That's the way the internet works. But the insults came AFTER you picked your fights - therefore they have nothing to do with why you picked the fights you did.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:33 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

KPO, I am in awe. Well said, and then some, and without any personal animosity to speak of, too.

Quote:
What she IS, perhaps, is the person who pushes the liberal message more than anyone else.

Izat what it is? Always been slightly confused as to why they hate me so MUCH...have to think about it, that may well be the answer. Unlike some here, I don't so much get into the extended personal tit-for-tat threads (except to complain about them IN them maybe ;o) ), but I do put up a lot of material with which I agree, which means it's exactly the opposite of anything with which THEY might agree, so you may be onto something there. Not of any importance, I just take it as it comes and they're incapable of hurting or upsetting me unless I try to engage them (even then, only pissing me off mildly), it just occurred to me now and again to wonder.

Quote:
I fight right-wing bullshit because I see it as more damaging

goes for me, too. What they would DO with the power if they got it is what scares me--and we've had excellent illustrations of that ever since the Tea Party took over the GOP in 2010, what regulations/laws/etc., they've passed. That's what bothers me.

Quote:
You're mixing up cause and effect here. You didn't get insulted by them simply because you didn't get into debates with them. You only take on liberals, and so you only get insulted by liberals. That's the way the internet works. But the insults came AFTER you picked your fights - therefore they have nothing to do with why you picked the fights you did.

MOST excellent. I couldn't have put it that well myself, but that's it in a nutshell, in my opinion.

You just went up several notches in my estimation--whether you like it or not ;o).

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:25 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Thanks for the kind words Niki. No, personal animosity's not really my thing, and I don't think Geezer's so bad. But he does come after you all the time, so I can understand you feeling differently.

Quote:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What she IS, perhaps, is the person who pushes the liberal message more than anyone else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Izat what it is?

I dunno, others have speculated differently. Only the righties can tell us - if they know themselves. Always been impressed with how you've handled it though.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:07 AM

OONJERAH

Is this thread scheduled to continue thru the 2016 election?

=========================

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:40 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:

Is this thread scheduled to continue thru the 2016 election?

=========================

I'm done with it. Niki and KPO can slag me in peace.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:22 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oonj,

that he means it when he says he's quitting.

Looking back, I jumped into a thread where he was arguing with Sig--seems I took the heat off her (I've noticed he goes after her a lot, too, by the way). After that, I was merely RESPONDING to his attacks on me...

Given he put so much effort into going after Sig, me, and even KPO I see, it would be nice if he quit while he was "ahead"...sadly, saying he's done with it is probably for only this thread, not in general (we should be so lucky!), and given he gets some kick out of reminding me of my sig, I guess it won't be the end of it completely.

At least it keeps him out of trouble elsewhere, I suppose, and it certainly doesn't bother me. I will, however, refrain from trying to communicate with him further and just put him back into the "snark and mock" category he was in before. As I said, it was worth a try...once.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2012 7:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

First of all, I vote with KIKI

Quote:
Ok Geezer, first of all don't pretend that your involvement in the partisan fray is so passive. It's not.
Is anyone's involvement here?
But you CLAIM to be non-partisan - that's the difference.
Your assumption that I'm saying ONLY liberals do such things makes me think I've hit pretty close to home.
Are you claiming that Wulf, Rappy, 6ix et al DON'T engage in this? Is that your claim?

Far as I can tell, Herr Geezer, you have not responded to this very on-point post. You ARE one-sided. You're not the objective rationalist you like to say you are. You are, however, a master rationalizer.

And on that note... back to our original discussion

Quote:
This'll probably cover some of what you've said below, but I'd rather put it all in one place that spread it around in chunks.

I think that the U.S. Cold Warriors were concerned about more than oil or capitalism. I think they were worried about maintaining democracy and freedom. I figure thay thought they had good reason.

Look at what they knew in the early to mid 1960s. The had seen the Soviet Union genocide the Ukrainians by starvation so they could sell their grain to raise money. They had seen the armed takeover of Eastern Europe and the Balkans at the end of WWII, the removal (often fatal) of all possible opposition, and the installation of brutal puppet regimes. They had seen China invade and conquer Tibet. They had seen the North Korean proxies of the Soviets and China (and eventually Chinese troops as well) invade South Korea, with the loss of 36,000 Americans in resisting them. They had seen the brutal supression of revolts in several Eastern European countries. They saw the Cuban 'land reformers' armed with nuclear missles by Russia. They heard Chairman Khrushchev threaten to bury us.

When they saw the Soviets were providing military or financial support to "peoples armies" in Central and South America, they feared (not unreasonably, I believe)that many more Cubas or Polands could be at hand. And they took what they thought were the best actions to prevent this. From 50 years later, we can see that some of their plans were flawed, but that historical view is a luxury they didn't have.

Then again, do you think that the Soviets didn't want to spread their viewpoint, and the same type of government they had installed in Eastern Europe, into the Americas?

I know KIKI responded to this point and said pretty much what I would have (to which you also didn't respond, BTW) but here's the thing:

I have spent many posts trying to show you how we can use that historical view to create a way of thinking which would prevent us from again rationalizing our way into brutal, pointless mistakes... and you keep repeating the same rationalizations over and over. Something tells me you're not getting the point.

What was so all-fired awful about communism that we "fixed"? We were so worried about repression, we installed brutal military dictators who disappeared and tortured victims just like communist regimes? We were so worried about saving lives we killed - or aided in the killing of- millions? We were so worried about a population's well-being, we fostered an economic system of bleeding dry the already poor?

At what point, exactly, did we start doing more harm than good? What assumptions, what rationalizations, allowed us to do that? And how do we not do that again?

I know that you like to think of "our" actions as "good" because they have acceptable-sounding slogans like "freedom" and "democracy", but I want to look at what we DID, not listen to what we SAID. If I may be a little Biblical about this... By their works you shall know them. Judging by our "works"... the installation of the Shah of Iran, whose Savak was so brutal it embarrassed the CIA; the installation of Pinochet who disappeared thousands and tortured thousands more; the installation of Sukarno, who killed 500,000... at what point did we become indistinguishable from what we were supposedly fighting?

Yes, I know... it's confusing. In times of civil war, when both sides are shooting and both sides will claim self-defense, whose side do we pick?

My answer is: if neither side is clearly fostering development... building schools, clinics and roads, digging wells or creating jobs... stay out of it militarily. Assist whatever development is going on. Do good, not harm.

War is a poor tool of peace. It is also a poor tool of development. Our collective interest is peace, prosperity, stability, and education.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2012 7:50 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:

Is this thread scheduled to continue thru the 2016 election?

=========================

To infinity, and beyond!

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2012 8:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, I didn't read the rest of the posts. Geezer said he appreciated the discussion, so I wanted to put in one more reply to see if I could make my point any clearer. But real life caught up with me, so my reply was delayed. I assure you, unless I get a response which is an actual reply to my point, I will not continue. If three tries hasn't done it, then four isn't going to help.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2012 9:43 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Far as I can tell, Herr Geezer, you have not responded to this very on-point post. You ARE one-sided. You're not the objective rationalist you like to say you are. You are, however, a master rationalizer.

Kiki does quite well making up what she thinks I think, so I have no desire to interfere with her conversation with herself. If she wants to talk about issues instead of pretending to read my mind, that's fine.

Quote:
... and you keep repeating the same rationalizations over and over. Something tells me you're not getting the point.

Strange, but I feel exactly the same way about you.

Quote:
What was so all-fired awful about communism that we "fixed"?

And once again, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Balkans, North Korea, etc. You don't think that folks, after seeing the awful things that happened there might feel that the didn't want communism any closer than it already was?

Quote:
We were so worried about repression, we installed brutal military dictators who disappeared and tortured victims just like communist regimes? We were so worried about saving lives we killed - or aided in the killing of- millions? We were so worried about a population's well-being, we fostered an economic system of bleeding dry the already poor?

In some cases. In some cases not. Then again, would the communists have done any better? And once again, compare, say, Cuba and the Dominican Republic, Vietnam and Thailand, North and South Korea.

Quote:
Yes, I know... it's confusing. In times of civil war, when both sides are shooting and both sides will claim self-defense, whose side do we pick?

My answer is: if neither side is clearly fostering development... building schools, clinics and roads, digging wells or creating jobs... stay out of it militarily. Assist whatever development is going on. Do good, not harm.

And when the side that doesn't want development blows up the wells and kills the diggers, blows up the schools and kills the teachers, blows up the infrastructure and kills the engineers?

Quote:
War is a poor tool of peace. It is also a poor tool of development. Our collective interest is peace, prosperity, stability, and education.

No freedom in your list? And what about when one of the forces in that particular country thinks turmoil, want, and ignorance provide a more fertile ground for their ideas, and is willing to kill to get them?

I would be perfectly happy for our foreign policy to be carried out entirely by not taking sides and supporting economic, infrastructure, and educational development. Unfortunately, there are folks (and were folks during the cold war.The Viet Cong come to mind) who see development as dangerous to their goals, either because they want folks miserable as a recruiting tool, or because they think education or improvement for certain groups are against god's will. When this occurs, your idea of "just build another well" doesn't work, and tends to get innocent people who want a well killed. If you can come up with a peaceful solution to the folks who'll kill to prevent your development, I'd be glad to hear it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2012 9:59 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Freedom is a powerful word, and is almost always the word we choose to use when we go to war. But it seems to me that Freedom is seldom the primary motivating factor.

I don't trust the rallying cry to defend Freedom. We can't even win that battle at home, much less in a foreign land.

If aid and development don't work, I honestly think retreating from interference is often a better, if less popular, option.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2012 10:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

GEEZER It's clear you have not yet gotten the point. Further discussion is not possible.

TONY

Quote:
I don't trust the rallying cry to defend Freedom. We can't even win that battle at home, much less in a foreign land.
If aid and development don't work, I honestly think retreating from interference is often a better, if less popular, option.

I agree. And we have lost a lot of our freedoms (and money) to the shibboleth of the military as being "the answer" to everything. You can't fight a "war on terrorism" or a "war on oppression". that's like fighting a "war on wars" or "fighting a war for peace". Those sayings are oxymorons.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) contains some pretty horrific language about indefinite preventive detention, and the NSA's cybersecurity plan allows boots on the ground in the USA. That's what comes of thinking of force and violence as universal tools... pretty soon, your whole society is militarized and it's applied to you as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2012 10:30 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Anthony: Amen to everything you said. "Freedom" is a visceral term that virtually all civilizations have utilized at some time or other to get what they want out of their populace. It is also too easily "defined" to be other than it is, and there is no such thing as complete freedom anyway within society, so figuring out just what someone means by that is difficult. I also note it's used by many in this country who mean anything BUT freedom, more likely their own freedom to force others. I highly mistrust anyone using that word because of that.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 5, 2023 8:16 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

Mitt Romney Goes After Pete Ass-Bandit Buttigieg
https://wibc.com/146905/mitt-romney-goes-after-pete-buttigieg/

Violent "Rolex Rippers" Caught by Gloating Selfies
http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullNews.asp?id=48333

and British Argentina discussion was here

UK reasserts Falklands are British territory as Argentina seeks new talks
https://apnews.com/article/falkland-islands-argentina-britain-agreemen
t-territory-db36e7fbc93f45d3121faf364c2a5b1f

Quote:

Britain has reasserted its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands after Argentina pulled out of a cooperation agreement and demanded new talks over the South Atlantic territory that sparked a 1982 war between the two countries.

The pronouncement came after Argentine Foreign Minister Santiago Cafiero said on Twitter that he informed British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly about his country’s decision when the pair met on the margins of the Group of 20 summit in India last week.

“The Falkland Islands are British,” Cleverly tweeted late Friday. “Islanders have the right to decide their own future — they have chosen to remain a self-governing U.K. Overseas Territory.”

Earlier, Cafiero said he told Cleverly that Argentina had decided to pull out of a 2016 agreement in which the the two countries pledged to work together on a variety of issues. While that agreement sought to improve cooperation in the South Atlantic, both sides continued to assert their claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, known as Islas Malvinas in Argentina.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE