I just got around to reading your three thousand word posts/screeds/rants/fantasies. You seem well versed in the worlds of homosexuality, child molesting and perversity. Your grasp on male homosexuality is indeed firm. That must be handed to you. As for your intimate knowledge of – how would you chaps say it – buggery? It seems you are quite well versed. I see that you are also well aware of NAMBLA. How nice for you.
Putting aside your references to NAMBLA and whatever other childish pursuits you may have, you scoffed at my post to Shibumi in which I admitted he may have been entirely clear and it may have been I that misunderstood him. That honest acknowledgment on my part of a misunderstanding of the content – irrelevant to me whether on his part or mine – brought a derisive response from you (a true indicator of your appreciation for intellectual honesty) that contained the only thing I have read from you that was fairly witty. The Random Inference Generator. I thought it was clever.
RIG indeed. I mentioned the word flaccid (you may want to look the word up - it has several non-sexual meanings) in one of my posts and you took us on a world tour of homosexual and child sexual perversion. Well done, old chap. Is that the mot juste in your country? Is the Brit inflection and spelling you employ natural to you or is it the result of cut-and-paste, or simply a pseudo intellectual affectation?
You could easily name RIG for yourself, I suppose, as you then proceeded to give a very amusing example of RIG when you blurt out an impulsive HUH? at a very simple and unambiguous post by Shibumi that is quite clear and even accompanied with a picture. I doubt that you would admit to having a weakness, however. Did his failure to use a word that can stimulate your over active sexual fantasies fail to get your attention? No sexual “shiny object” for you?
You still have not answered the questions put forth (which is understandable, given your penchant for delving into the male anatomy instead); why on earth it became the fault of the right in my country (I am still not clear about from where you are posting); for not getting out a message in a clearly demonstrable world of press (here in the US) that will not allow it out and how you could possibly, self-identified master intellect such as yourself, honestly see SEAN HANNITY as being a game changer?
Also, what possible advantage do we gain from NOT insisting on pursuing an aggressive war, beginning with any captured enemy of my country? And before you start another of your sexual deviancy rants, please note I said “enemy” not “enema.” I know now you that you might be distracted by things anal. I would include a picture of an actual enemy, but that does not seem to work for you, either.
Please feel free to respond with whatever puerile tirade you like, but the subject at hand, so to speak, is why insisting an aggressive conduct of a war against Islam should not be pressed? Why a good staunch conservative such as you would shrink from direct action in what has now become a shooting war on American soil?
If you can leave off the insults, I will be interested to hear what you say. If not, I will be about as interested as I have already indicated, which is to say, amused, but hardly impressed. Except for the RIG thing. That was pretty funny.
Your grasp on male homosexuality is indeed firm.
Wow, what a turn of phrase!
As for your intimate knowledge of – how would you chaps say it – buggery?
Chaps? Interesting. I like how this complements the phrase above. Very, very good stuff. Please do keep it up. Your posts are getting much more interesting.
The Random Inference Generator. I thought it was clever.
Why, thank you. I rather liked to myself. I wonder if the patent is available?
I mentioned the word flaccid... and you took us on a world tour of homosexual and child sexual perversion
Ooo, sorry. You missed that one. I never inferred anything from your use of flaccid other than your incorrect assessment that my argument is one of softness or weakness. My statements about homosexuality were simply a mockery of your repeated insistence that I was advancing positions which I did not advance, and then responding to my demand for proof by simply asserting that everything I said proved it. Well, everything you said proved your support for NAMBLA. Geese and ganders and all that, if you follow me.
Is that the mot juste in your country? Is the Brit inflection and spelling you employ natural to you or is it the result of cut-and-paste, or simply a pseudo intellectual affectation?
Oh oh, I see. And I thought "chaps" was meant humorously. Too bad, it was pretty good. However, in any case, why do you care about my spelling? Is that why you assume I am wrong on everything? Because you don't like my use of certain constructions? How silly.
It so happens that I spell funny because I have spent forty years reading funny, beginning with my beloved Encyclopaedia Britannica in grammar school, and so words look "right" to me when they aren't necessarily the American way. It is entirely unconscious and I suppose I don't try to change it as I don't really care how perfect my spelling is. I have never given a single thought to England vs. America just because I never give a thought to whether a word I spell would fall under the English style or the American style. At one time dialogue (my preference) was American, but now it is called British. Phooey, I ain't changing it. Too many years of dialogue to suddenly start trying to write dialog. It looks misspelled. But, I don't have a clue about English usage specifically, have never looked into it, and don't intend to. And as for "pseudo intellectual" that would require one to consider the British more intellectual, and it has never been my experience to see any evidence of that.
You could easily name RIG for yourself, I suppose, as you then proceeded to give a very amusing example of RIG when you blurt out an impulsive HUH? at a very simple and unambiguous post by Shibumi that is quite clear and even accompanied with a picture. I doubt that you would admit to having a weakness, however.
Actually, my post was ironic. His comment was so obvious as to be in your face, what with the pic. Coupled with his reticence in naming Obama I thought it was funny. My comment was meant to be so obviously ironic that I thought I would not need the sarc tag, and so didn't use it. My mistake, and I apologised and that was that. Go read the posts.
Since the rest of your post addresses different issues I will treat it separately so as not to be limited on space by these trivialities.
You still have not answered the questions put forth...; why on earth it became the fault of the right in my country (I am still not clear about from where you are posting); for not getting out a message in a clearly demonstrable world of press... that will not allow it out and how you could possibly, self-identified master intellect such as yourself, honestly see SEAN HANNITY as being a game changer?
I have clipped the above for brevity and clarity.
Sean Hannity did something very important in this last election, which demonstrates an unfortunately all-too-common mistake the Right makes. He endorsed as relevant a story which was not the real story, and by doing it he made it impossible for himself, and anyone who acted as he did, to react to the inevitable misdirection of the Left. The non-left-wing press (I won't call it Right wing) in this country (yes, I am posting from beautiful Florida where I live) is very small, and cannot afford to give the advantage to the other side, which is actually just what happened.
Now follow this hypothetical. If people like Sean Hannity had treated "Joe the Plumber" as he deserved, in other words as a complete non-entity who asked a question, and never talked to him, talked about him, or gave him a dumb nickname, they could have instead spent all that time talking about the gaffe of the President in admitting to the people before the election that he was basically a Marxist. Sure, we all know it now, but if you can remember that time clearly the position they were arguing was that Obama was just a moderate guy, and many voters were acting on that.
As you have argued the Left did a subsequent hatchet job on "Joe the Plumber." However, just ask yourself, why would that matter at all? Who cares if a guy who asks a question is this or that, when the answer is all that is important? Exactly, but if that is the case, then why did Fox News and those guys not pay any real attention to the answer, and instead went into heavy rotation with stories all about the guy who asked the question? The Left's hatchet job was misdirection so that we would stop talking about the Obama quote. However, the Fox News focus on Joe the Plumber was also misdirection serving the same purpose. Additionally, when the hatchet job happened what could the people on the Right do? Could they "keep" the attention on the Obama quote, the only thing that mattered? No, because they had already taken the attention off of it. Could they simply respond that the guy asking the questions doesn't matter? Of course not, since they had just spent a month arguing that he mattered very, very much. He was a hero. He was wonderful, and virtuous, and represented the conservative idea of America, blah, blah, blah. No way to get back to Obama's comment after that, and instead they had to defend Joe the Plumber, who never mattered in the first place.
Now, this is just an example of what I say we are doing too much of. We have to focus our attacks and be smart. When we use military force nobody expects us to just wildly send people over the lines, going this or that way as seems good, without any concern for a possible reaction on the part of the enemy. Being dumb is not strong, it is just dumb.
Also, what possible advantage do we gain from NOT insisting on pursuing an aggressive war, beginning with any captured enemy of my country?
I don't know. Why not go and ask somebody who has argued for that? I never addressed or implied anything about any of these. I said we need to be smart and not allow the other side to control the debate. I said we need to be careful and make sure our argument is serving our interest. I said we need to watch for traps, like the Sherrod video, and be aware that the Left will lie and cheat at any opportunity. It is not at all impossible that this mosque, for instance, was never going to be built and that all of this is some sort of a set up. I am not saying it is, but that it may be. I am definitely saying that the mosque argument is growing too big to control and somebody at any moment could mouth off in some stupid way and derail the entire thing.
I have no idea what you are talking about in regard to "captured enemies." Is this another random thing, or is it something from another thread, or is it something you just assume a person who spells a particular way must endorse? I certainly haven't a clue what you are talking about.
Please feel free to respond with whatever puerile tirade you like, but the subject at hand, so to speak, is why insisting an aggressive conduct of a war against Islam should not be pressed?
You seem to think so, but I have never argued this so I don't see how it could be the subject at hand. I have never supported any of these imaginary positions you keep saying I have just as you never posted about NAMBLA (see the point I was making there now?) and when I demand you show where I have endorsed any of these odd positions you simply respond with something akin to "all over the place." Meaningless and irresponsible. If you can't show where I have said weakness and softness is the way we should go then perhaps you are not seeing it from me, but are seeing it because you want to for some reason. But, I can't be held responsible for your strange jumps in reasoning.
Why a good staunch conservative such as you would shrink from direct action in what has now become a shooting war on American soil?
This yet another imaginary argument. Can't you understand why I mocked you for just seeing random implications in my posts? You have read past, over, and through every comment here and have yet to seemingly read the actual words for simply what they are.