Jump to content

bloodyminded

Member
  • Posts

    7,308
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bloodyminded

  1. I just want to say that there's nothing wrong with criticizing Mcdonalds...and that doing so doesn't constitute "anti-freedom," as was early posited. (Some folks evidently are suffering a "the commies are coming!" hangover. Which is a sort of tragicomic delusion.) Second, Heather Mallick is singularly unimpressive, in my view.
  2. And here's hoping. It shouldn't be too surprising that Muslims want lives of stability and peace.
  3. Yeah. In fact, inciting us into wars in the ME was almost certainly part of the plan. However, thanks to several factors, including the apparent nature of the Arab uprisings and and the growing disaffection among Muslims for violent jihadis, it's quite possible that the terrorists severely misconceived how it would play out. They've no doubt played a part in the financial mess we've made. But they were going after something bigger. A replacement of the Arab dictators that Western leaders love with a different kind of Arab dictator, that Muslim theocrats could love. Overall, I don't think it's going to happen.
  4. Wow, you know a lot, Bob. (You've pointed this out many times.) It's as if you said "the IDF fired their weapons" and then you were scoffed at for your pretences to military know-how. Disrupting propellers is old hat, well known, and effective. Probably the IDF even considered it, but decided it lacked the proper theatrics. By the way....what's with all the insults, man? you've been especially promiscuous with them today. Simmer down, my brother, simmer down. I'm not quite as evil as you think.
  5. Wow. This dishonesty is amazing, AW. Here's exactly what you claimed is not true....based, again, on your own words, your post: You see? That's exactly how it was, word for word. You've now added in the other part (about not speaking to me again) because those words you uttered elsewhere (though in direct relation)...so you can now say that's the part which you claim is false. It isn't. (That addended part isn't either, by the way, but I'm sick of doing searches to prove you wrong...once a day should be sufficient, yes? The part you claim was false is in fact what you said. And you know it. So now you determine to change the context of what you yourself were responding to? Tch tch. Not nice. Yeah, the part where I quoted you directly must really obfuscate the matter. Yes, you're going to lie even when your back's against the wall. Good for you. You did claim it, AW. It's in your post. did you note that I quoted you? And did you note this time that I quoted this later response (Quoted it directly....which you didn't) and showed how you intentionally misquoted yourself to worm out of it? Too funny.
  6. Um...it was the post from which you quoted...meaning, surely, that you read it? Or maybe not. Again: you told me that my assertion--that you not so long ago called me an asshole--was a "false claim." (Your opinion presented as "fact," which you now say irks you, and that you never do it. ) Except you did it, of course...as I quoted you directly, from post #500 in the "Oslo Bombings" thread. I already showed you this...are you blind? So, you are either lying...or you're mistaken, and I've helpfully corrected you.(And without so much as a "thanks, bloodyminded, for correcting my foolish, factual error!" ) Are you going to continue to deny it? It's searchable...it's posted...and I even told what post it was. Christ on a cracker, you're dense.
  7. Full of CEO's of power companies? I'm going to go out on a limb and say "no."
  8. Then let me simplify it for you: either your lie has been exposed; or your mistake has been proven, 100%, incorrect...thanks to your own words, which I quoted directly. Whichever you prefer.
  9. Why don't you offer us your sage wisdom on the matter, instead of traipsing prettily from thread to thread to denounce good ol' bloodyminded, on everything from your own inability to understand my response to Wild Bill (your inability being my fault, in some strange way yet to be determined) to weird thoughts on what I might feel about circumcision. So...what's your take, Rue? Like Bob's? Or something a little more to the left of Pinochet-Hard-Right?
  10. Well, I'm a circumcised fellow, so I don't know what I could offer you on that score.... As to the rest; I will explain it again, sicne explaining it once was insufficient, for some reason: I wasn't speaking of being comnfortable...I was speaking about fear. If "simple prudence" is going to keep you away from a mosque (which is no doubt filled to the brim with ululating terrorists), then that speaks for itself. "Comfort"? Not what I was talking about.
  11. I wasn't responding to "feel[ing] comfortable"; I was responding to the notion that it's "simple prudence" not to go to a mosque...since they're so bloody dangerous and all. Ah. Disagreeing with you or your pet of the day (previously Oleg) is "self-righteous." You think awfully highly of yourself, big guy. That's what is termed...self-righteousness! What are you on about now? Nope. My point was that there is nothing "imprudent" abotu being inside a Mosque. See above. Here we go...another lecture by His Holiness the Moralizer. No you wouldn't. Because that's exactly what you got, from me, and for some reason that you can't articulate, it made you throw one of your patented wordy tantrums. So you couldn't give a damn about "an honest man," because of your intense politicization. Then we're in precise agreement...although I don't consider beards terribly relevant.
  12. That's pretty frayed and weak for a de facto concession that you've got nothing. Hell, you could have answered the simple question just as easily as declaring that you refuse, again, to answer it.
  13. I'm trying to get the joke, Rue. But you gotta help me out on this one, brother.
  14. Hmmm. For an "opinion," you sure are presenting this as "fact," AW. Here's you: (#500, "The Bombing in Oslo")As you say, let's point out when the other person is wrong. So...you're wrong. Me too. See above. How about when they are speaking correctly of your own stated opinions...and you still accuse them of making "false claims"? What then?
  15. All groups? Whites? Tea Partiers? African-Americans? Jewish people? I don't know; Muslims, yes, that much is clear. Who else? What other groups and scenarios exist that deserve the sobriquet?
  16. Oh, no. Not even a little. go back and find where you've done so. Good luck. So it does mean other things....on a fill-in-the-blank basis. (You feel disinclined to clarify, for...some reason, unstated.) It could mean anything and everything, then! What a fantastic little phrase.
  17. Wrong. My remarks about your "whining" is predated by your insults, by quite some time, in fact. I doubt you've forgotten. And even when I'm not. After calling me an "asshole" (which evidently was a reaction to my using the word "whining," today, in a terrific leap of temporal magic), you informed me that you weren't going to speak to me any more. Either way is no problem with me, incidentally. Speak to me, or don't.
  18. So I'm asking for a more expansive definition...unless "bleeding heart liberal," a term that's been around for quite some time, means exactly and only "those who are afraid to criticize Muslims," or something along those lines. Is that it? That's what "bleeding heart liberal" now means? If so, when did the term change from one connotative of all sorts of perceived liberal foolishness end, and its explicitly denotating a softness on Muslim intransigence begin? Some clarification would be nice.
  19. Israel has a formidable navy. They could have surrounded the flotilla. Easily. They could have disabled the propellers. That they took the most dangerous and least rational approach should anger you, not get you screeching about the evils of the dead men and so on. That's not too friendly.
  20. Sure, they were "amped up on bloodthirst" and ready to kill the IDF...but they forgot to bring suitable weaponry for the job. Slipped their mind. Did all the propaganda sites you've visited honestly and sincerely overlook this interesting matter? Is such an glaring error of ommission even possible? By god, I think it is. The wonders of propaganda, eh?
  21. And yet, directly subsequent to this preposterous claim, you answer my remark about your thinking that your opinion is fact: Yes, you certainly have. See above. Also, you state "findings" as plainly objective, ignoring the fact that plenty of "findings" are producing multiple narratives. You seem bent on holding others to a much higher standard than you hold yourself. Boy, for someone who complains a lot about "insulting language," in this post and elsewhere, you sure don't mind dishing it out. Hell, not so long ago you said I was an "asshole" with whom you weren't going to speak to anymore. And yet you don't believe what proven liars have to say?........Does that principle extrapolate inwards?
  22. He or she shouldn't. I completely agree. I totally disagree with divestment, with academic boycots of Israel...and, like I said, of such methods by protesters in certain times and places. But I disagree with you that it's bigotry, that's all. That you summoned, Bonam. Certainly not. I think it was misconceived....both because it was an unreasonable disruption in and of itself, and even by the standards of the protesters, as I believe such methods probbaly counter-productive, at least more often than not.
×
×
  • Create New...