People who bitch all the time about things they really don't comprehend at all get boring after awhile.
Unfortunately, the ignorant can blog too.
However, I personally like the liberal blog that states "It is reported that people are eating corpses."
Re:
pudge on 2005-09-05T15:19:28
Why did you post that here? In fact, I almost always post detailed rebuttals when I disagree, so obviously you can't be referring to me.That smell...
phillup on 2005-09-05T23:11:33
I almost always post detailed rebuttals when I disagree
Like the one sentence post above, bitching about someone not knowing what he is talking about... when what the person actually does is point out articles written by others?
Yeah... right.
Any interested party could search thru your exchanges as see just how lacking your responses are.
I especially liked the part where you linked to his *entire* blog. Wouldn't by chance want every stinking point from a(ny) particular post thrown back in your face as being true now, would you?
Instead, you just look like more of an ass when I can't quite figure out what you have against emacs... the post that happens to be at the top of the pile as I write this.
If you don't want your idols to be called morons... don't idolize morons.
P.S. Yes, I know you can't see what I write. But I'm still gonna call bullshit.
P.P.S. I'm back from a long summer, miss me?;-) Re:That smell...
pudge on 2005-09-06T00:46:48
when what the person actually does is point out articles written by others?
So when he -- not quoting anyone else -- called Judge Roberts an asshole, that was merely pointing out articles written by others?
Pull the other one!
Any interested party could search thru your exchanges as see just how lacking your responses are.
Feel free. Is that supposed to make me worried, that you could "expose" me?
I especially liked the part where you linked to his *entire* blog. Wouldn't by chance want every stinking point from a(ny) particular post thrown back in your face as being true now, would you?
Oh yes, the reason I did that was because I was so afraid. Riiiiiight. Isn't it obvious that it's because I was not referring to a specific post, but to his general M.O.?
Hell, just take his last post preceding mine, where he says, "The US government's dalliance is all starting to look like some shitty sub-Saharan regime, where regions that don't vote "the right way" don't get help when it's famine/disaster time." The fact is that he -- as even he concedes, in the next sentence -- has no basis for making this claim, and yet he throws it out there just because he hates Bush. It's nonsensical bullshit.
Instead, you just look like more of an ass when I can't quite figure out what you have against emacs
If that's really what you thought I meant, then you're just making yourself look like an idiot.
If you don't want your idols to be called morons... don't idolize morons.
As I have no idols, and if I did they wouldn't be morons... what the hell are you talking about?
(Not that I really care about the answer, since I am quite positive it will be as uninteresting and as devoid of content as the post I am currently responding to.)
Re:That smell...
phillup on 2005-09-06T19:39:08
So when he -- not quoting anyone else -- called Judge Roberts an asshole, that was merely pointing out articles written by others?
See, this is part of my problem with your statement about 'detailed rebuttals'. You didn't provide a link...
I have to wade thru three pages of posts to even get a glimmer of what you are referring to. I couldn't even tell what your original post was referring to because of the lack of detail.
Nope, he wasn't just pointing out something written by someone else (in that case). Not at all.
That was definitely a statement of fact, or opinion on his part. (I'm in the 'fact' camp, everything I read about him just screams asshole. Granted, I haven't read a lot.)
But, I certainly wouldn't characterize it as bitching. I would characterize your response as bitching.
Hell, just take his last post preceding mine, where he says, "The US government's dalliance is all starting to look like some shitty sub-Saharan regime, where regions that don't vote "the right way" don't get help when it's famine/disaster time." The fact is that he -- as even he concedes, in the next sentence -- has no basis for making this claim, and yet he throws it out there just because he hates Bush. It's nonsensical bullshit.
How on earth can you say that he has no basis to make that claim?
First of all, it isn't as much of a "claim" as it is allegory (actually, it is probably a simile if we want to get technical). This looks like that. The two things look the same. And it very much looks like an issue of "helping the right people".
Well, it looks that way after someone actually convinced him that they *should* be providing help. I especially appreciated the part where they wait for everyone to start starving, then send in troops to shoot people stealing what they need to survive. Nice touch.
Then, Sean offers a possible explanation as to why it may look that way... incompetence. He definitely doesn't seem to be "conceeding" anythig.
More like adding fuel to the fire.
And, it isn't nonsensical bullshit... that is exactly what it looks like.
Corrupt and incompetent.
Just because you don't see it that way... doesn't mean others don't. (or something like that)Re:That smell...
pudge on 2005-09-06T20:14:01
See, this is part of my problem with your statement about 'detailed rebuttals'. You didn't provide a link...
So? You seem to think I care if you fully understand what I am referring to. I don't.
I couldn't even tell what your original post was referring to because of the lack of detail.
As noted in my last reply, I was not referring to anything specifically. Read much?
How on earth can you say that he has no basis to make that claim?
Apart from the fact that those regions voted mostly FOR Bush?
And it very much looks like an issue of "helping the right people".
Not to anyone who isn't clueless, no, it doesn't look like that at all, as there's no reasonable way to show that these are not "the right people."
Yes, New Orleans itself voted for Kerry, but most of the other areas didn't, and as everyone -- again, who isn't clueless -- knows, the Republicans have been making a huge push to *attract* black voters in the last few years, so even if they were going to "punish" people it wouldn't be the very voters they want to attract.
There's only one reason to think this was a matter of "helping the right people": that Bush is evil, so therefore that's what he would do. Of course, that's endlessly begging the question, but that's never stopped you before.
Re:That smell...
sigzero on 2005-09-07T18:12:17
As an aside, I just wanted to say that the gentleman you are currently sparring with has zero clue about what happened with the aftermath of Katrina and why.
Re:That smell...
phillup on 2005-09-14T21:09:08
You are right. I don't know what did happen. And a lot of effort is now being put into making sure others don't either.
But...
I was, a long time ago, in the National Guard and as part of that duty trained in responding to these kinds of issues.
As a National Guardsman I did actually respond to the Govenor's call to help with the riots in Miami in the early eightys.
I've also got 13 years experience and training as a "first responder" for nuclear incidences.
I also know that my wife works for an organization (the Forest Service) that is required, and capable, of putting incident command teams anywhere in the country in twelve hours. They are even on call right now.
But, I don't know what happened.
I only know what *should* have happened.Re:That smell...
pudge on 2005-09-14T21:56:51
I only know what *should* have happened.
Then you also know that the National Guard is directly the responsibility, and under the control of, the governor, not the President. Yet you still say Bush is primarily to blame for the supposed lack of response. Hum.
Re:That smell...
phillup on 2005-09-14T23:50:45
Then you also know that the National Guard is directly the responsibility, and under the control of, the governor, not the President.
It is a bit more complicated than that. (That is why there are Guard Units on the base closure list.)
Note that the above page says "When Air National Guard units are not mobilized or under federal control, they report to the governor of their respective state...". The state function is secondary (actually tertiary since they can be mobilized by the feds for emergencies in other states... just like is happening right now)
And, you can't deploy an asset that you don't have.That local knowledge is hard to replace with a body from the next state (or several states) over. The equipment helps too. Even if we are only talking about 30 percent of the poeple, which is one number I've seen. (Can't seem to find any reporting on the equipment.)"What you lost was a lot of local knowledge," Taylor said, as well as equipment that could have been used in recovery operations.
"The best equipment went with them, for obvious reasons," especially communications equipment, he added.
But the use of the National Guard isn't my (sole) issue.
Hell, my issue wasn't even with Katrina, it's handling or the subject of your original journal entry.
Yet you still say Bush is primarily to blame for the supposed lack of response.
First of all, I never said any such thing. (But he didn't help much by appointing an incompetent boob to head FEMA. That is the problem with rich people^H^H^H^Hpoliticians, [why can't you strike out text?] they actually think the spoils system is a good idea.)
Second of all, I've already told you that you are not free to say I have said something because you "infered" it.
You are wrong too often in your interpretations to be given that privilege.
I'd strongly suggest you start from the beginning and read the post I commented to and the comments I made.
Your "inferences" into the meaning are your own bias... not mine.
For the record, my initial entry into the conversation was your assertion that you always provide detailed rebuttals.
Yet this will be the actual first *link* to the original article in question. A detail that is apparently too damn hard to provide in a web based environment.
And, while my version of "the blame game" might otherwise be known as "accountability"... Bush isn't the sole person on the list.
And, the list isn't just Republicans either.
A LOT of people screwed up on this one. Too damn many to ignore.
And you know what? It doesn't matter if it was Republicans or Democrats... Sean is right... it looks like something you expect from a corrupt third world country... not a "super power".
The fact that it probably isn't corruption, just plain old incompetence is little solace.Re:That smell...
pudge on 2005-09-15T02:07:36
It is a bit more complicated than that.
Of course. But the bottom line is that she is the one responsible for having the personnel, being able to deploy them, and actually deploying them.
Hell, my issue wasn't even with Katrina, it's handling or the subject of your original journal entry.
And I hope it's been perfectly clear I couldn't care less what you think about that.
Second of all, I've already told you... ... many, many things I couldn't care less about.
You are wrong too often in your interpretations to be given that privilege.
According to who? You, whose views I could not care less about. Neat!
I'd strongly suggest... ... something I couldn't care less about.
For the record, my initial entry into the conversation was your assertion that you always provide detailed rebuttals.
That's a very nice lie, but too bad the record above proves I never said any such thing.
And you know what? It doesn't matter if it was Republicans or Democrats... Sean is right... it looks like something you expect from a corrupt third world country... not a "super power".
Yes, to someone who is ignorant and foolish. I agree.
Re:That smell...
phillup on 2005-09-15T18:29:31
And I hope it's been perfectly clear I couldn't care less what you think about that.
You sure have made a lot of entries trying to counter something I didn't say.
Maybe you should have someone check your meds. They aren't working.
You are wrong too often in your interpretations to be given that privilege.
According to who?
I am the authority on the meaning of what I say. Not you.
For the record, my initial entry into the conversation was your assertion that you always provide detailed rebuttals.
That's a very nice lie,
Because it couldn't possibly been a mistake?
but too bad the record above proves I never said any such thing.
Sorry, I missed the word "almost".
My assertion stands.
And... I'll add another: You are a dick.
Re:That smell...
pudge on 2005-09-15T18:58:03
You are a dick.
When people are dicks to me, I am often dicks back to them. It's a fair cop, but it's not exactly a point in your favor.
Re:Boring
jdavidb on 2005-09-07T19:42:09
I adopted that solution a long time ago.
Probably about the time comments went off in that journal. Why is it that superstitious fundamentalists like me can tolerate feedback and questioning of our positions, but you-know-who can't?
Re:Boring
sigzero on 2005-09-07T20:03:51
I don't know because I didn't read your post. : )Re:Boring
petdance on 2005-09-07T21:09:03
Who says he can't? Maybe he just doesn't care to.Nothing wrong with using one's journal as one-way communication.
Re:Boring
jdavidb on 2005-09-08T05:15:46
True, but most people don't want to listen if they don't get a chance to respond.
