Re: Not like the Nazis ...

On 26 Jan 2006 21:43:02 -0600, Jim Blansett
<jim_blansett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:37:15 -0700, Phil Earnhardt <pae@xxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:46:52 GMT, Wage Peace <whatif@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> You mean phil lies...just like his *** buddy bush..no way;]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't make sense. It's almost as goofy as the innuendo of the
>>>>>> "big lie" by Bush.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had already thoroughly discussed Jim's demand in the message
>>>>>
>>>>> Bull***! What you refused to do was back up your claim.
>>>>
>>>> Go read the posting http://tinyurl.com/8lxka , Jim!
>>>>
>>>> Shawn Hines himself had absolutely no problem with that *exact*
>>>> characterization of his behavior in the newsgroup:
>>>>
>>>1. Why do you care what I say?
>>
>>Shawn: you're always free to say anything that you want to here -- as
>>long as you don't break any laws, at least.
>>
>>What concerns me is where you are inconsistent with your words. You
>>say that you want people to think about the Iraq war -- but when
>>people make postings challenging your claims, you run away from the
>>discussion. You keep abandoning threads, and when people engage on
>>the issues, you launch into ad hominem attacks.
>>
>>There is a huge disconnect, Shawn, between your words and your
>>actions. You don't seem interested at all in an intellectually honest
>>discussion about the war in Iraq. You don't want people to think about
>>the war; you want people to think the way that you do. Huge
>>difference.
>>
>>Why don't you want to participate in an intellectually honest
>>discussion about this war? Why do you get so upset when people
>>challenge your conjectures?
>>
>>Why all of the indefensible ad hominem attacks?
>>
>>>2. Where did I, as you claim, say that "Bush is the equivalent of Hitler?"
>>
>>That has already been answered repeatedly in this thread. I was
>>characterizing your behavior, Shawn. It was not a quotation -- I never
>>used quotation marks. Anyone wishing to see what I actually said can
>>look it up in c5g6t1hguudj3h62s7t3iu7k7cs0tfta1j@xxxxxxx .
>>
>>Why are you using quotation marks around something that is obviously
>>not a quote?
>>
>>You had no problem with that *exact* characterization of your
>>behavior:
>>
>>Shawn Hines himself had absolutely no problem with that *exact*
>>characterization of his behavior in the newsgroup:
>>In BF9A7236.2157D%whatif@xxxxxxxxxxx on Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:07:20 EST
>>Shawn Hines wrote:
>>>> What would it take, Shawn Hines, for you to be responsible for your
>>>> statements here? How can anyone with a shred of integrity possibly
>>>> equivocate GW Bush with Hitler?
>>>
>>>Like this: George Bush has behaved frighteningly like Hitler, and that is
>>>particularly disturbing, given his family and historical ties to Hitler and
>>>the German Nazis.
>>>[...]
>>>I stand by those words. George Bush has more in common with Hitler
>>>than not. And that includes his family connections to Hitler from
>>>the '30s. But it's his actions as president that are the most disturbing.
>>
>>And you had the gall to say: "I stand by my words." You do not!
>>
>>>The last time quotes were an issue in a discussion with you,
>>
>>Last time????
>>
>>This current discussion has nothing to do about quotations. I
>>characterized your behavior. See above: back in November, you had
>>absolutely no issue with that characterization. Now, you act as if
>>you're outraged by it. Goofy.
>>
>>Did you go have a chat with the November 11 2005 version of Shawn
>>Hines about this? Why the flip-flop?
>>
>>> you pretended
>>>to be unable to recognize the argument because the quote was not "exact."
>>
>>What exact discussion are you talking about? Why so lazy? You do know
>>what references are, right? You know how to look them up, don't you?
>>
>>I presume you're talking about the discussion in
>>5b9ui110eghmm1osodfig3h4vaokic09pj@xxxxxxx . You had claimed that a
>>public official had made a particular statement. I googled on that
>>statement and found no hits -- and I asked you who you were quoting. I
>>asked because I wanted to know the exact quote you were talking about.
>>
>>Why do you think this current discussion and that one have anything at
>>all in common?
>>
>>>Now you are claiming I have said something I did not say, based on your own
>>>extrapolation.
>>
>>Wrong. Shawn: I didn't use quotation marks. I was characterizing your
>>behavior.
>
>You're either ignorant or a liar. Come to think of it, you could be
>both, since neither term is mutually exclusive when discussing your
>sententious demeanor.

> You did, indeed, use quoatation[sic]
>marks on the word equivalent: Message-ID:
><llc2t1tk6ma3dgfb5862e0216emc2q80p4@xxxxxxx>

The pertinent line from c5g6t1hguudj3h62s7t3iu7k7cs0tfta1j@xxxxxxx:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:07:54 -0700, Phil Earnhardt <pae@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
>We do know that you have categorically failed to defend your claim
>that Bush is somehow the "equivalent" of Hitler.

Jim: IT'S NOT A QUOTATION; it is a colloquial technique for
emphasizing one word -- usually with a bit of sarcasm.

Look at
http://www.wonderfulwritingskillsunhandbook.com/html/quotation_marks.html
if you don't understand.

>>>Come on, Phil.
>>
>>Why the flip-flop, Shawn? See above. You had absolutely no problem
>>with that exact characterization back in November of 2005.
>>
>>> When are you going to live up to your own expectations and
>>>demands?
>>
>>I have.
>>
>>> Are you even honest enough for that?
>>
>>I stand by the record. Since I went through the due diligence of
>>providing references, anyone who wishes is welcome to verify exactly
>>what I said.
>
>If they do, they'll find that, while you didn't use quotation marks in
>the post you referenced, you did use them elsewhere when making the
>false claim that Shawn has stated Bush and Hitler were equivalents.

But it wasn't ever a quotation! See above.

>>OTOH, you have repeatedly failed to explain: why did you have
>>absolutely no problem with my characterization of your behavior back
>>in November of 2005:

[Silence.]

Shawn seems unable to face the question. Do you have any explanation,
Jim?

>>> Just stop lying. Is that
>>>too much to ask? (rhetorical question - the answer is obvious).
>>
>>It's clear as mud, Shawn. Your reference to quotations makes no sense
>>whatsoever -- I never ever quoted you here.
>
>The third time this lie has been used by you - in this post alone.

Wrong. It wasn't a quotation, Jim -- it was putting quote marks around
a single word.

It is exceedingly sloppy of you to characterize this here as a "lie".

Why do you come in here and snipe in the discussion, Jim? It seems
have something to do with the candid comment you made last year:

In sficl15okic0e27pnu7m1up6ir4b1mn5eb@xxxxxxx on 19 Oct 2005 Jim
Blansett wrote:
>[...] And, phil, you have no idea how hateful I can be.

Jim, AFAICT, this is true. I have no idea. What seems to confuse you
is that we don't really *want* to know how hateful you can be.

Nobody does.

>>When someone tries to foist conjectures about Bush here, I challenge
>>them to produce the facts and reasoning to back up their claims.
>>George tried it yesterday in this thread.
>>
>>The difference with you is the violence of your ad hominem attacks
>>when someone dares to challenge your conjectures. And you seem to have
>>a superstition that repeating a conjecture over and over somehow
>>magically makes it true.
>
>P-K-B

What exact conjectures, Jim?

>>We get the same nonsense from your Democratic leadership. Howard Dean
>>claims he was taken "a little out of context" in December -- but
>>anyone listening to the entire interview knows that is fiction!
>>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051208-105231-8469r.htm
>
>Bush made the claim that the US couldn't "win the war on terror."
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?V5CF3598C
>
>Do you see Dean's statement being significantly different from the one
>made by Bush?

In the first place, Bush was talking about the war on terror -- not
the war in Iraq. Also, Bush clarified his statement the very next day.

Were you ignorant that Bush had done that? Go have a look at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5865710/

>>Can you explain Howard Dean's behavior? Can you explain why the
>>Democrats haven't jettisoned him? How could anyone possibly construe
>>the sound bite as "a little out of context"?
>
>Can you explain Bush's behavior?

He made a statement on a talk show and clarified it the next day.
Apparently, you were ignorant that Bush had clarified his statement.

Contrast that with what Howard Dean did: he claimed that his statement
was taken "a little out of context." But anyone listening to the
entire WOAI interview knows that's nonsense.

Even if you take Dean's comment on face value, he never ever explained
what his statement would mean if you actually took it in context.

AFAICT, Dean really doesn't think we can win the war in Iraq; he was
clearly a bit more candid in that radio interview than his handlers
would like.

You avoided my question with a question; can you answer it now? Do you
have another explanation?

> Can you explain why a majority of
>Americans feel we should be out of this engagement in Iraq?

Probably for the same reason that they want lower taxes, more free
health care benefits, etc. Do you have a reference for the poll?

What happens when those pollsters ask what should have happened
instead:

"Should we have given Saddam a mulligan on failing to honor the Gulf
War Armistice?"

Or maybe:

"Is the world a safer place with Saddam removed from power?"

Are those questions ever asked, Jim?

>>> Good luck with that ... You're not the first to
>>>try. [Ad hominem attack snipped.]
>
>[Ad hominem attack snipped.]

In sficl15okic0e27pnu7m1up6ir4b1mn5eb@xxxxxxx on 19 Oct 2005 Jim
Blansett wrote:
>[...] And, phil, you have no idea how hateful I can be.

Jim: we don't want to know! Trust me!

This is not something for you to be proud of! You will not get
accolades for this on Father's Day! There is no reason for your
hateful spews here!


>>>Your argument (and the argument of those you allow to think for you) appears
>>>to be that there are DIS-similarities, therefore no similarities exist.
>>
>>Nope. That ain't my argument. Of course there are similarities: Bush
>>and Hitler are both men. But they diverge rapidly from there: per our
>>Constitution, Bush could be impeached and convicted; it would have
>>been impossible to remove Hitler.
>>
>>>That is a weak argument and a false premise.
>>
>>It is a straw man! I have never ever said that!
>
>Based upon your other lie being exposed in this thread,

Not really. Jim: it was not a quotation. I wasn't quoting Shawn, and
you know that.

We could now call your claim in this posting a "lie" too. Or maybe you
could just cut out this goofiness now.

We really do have no idea how hateful you can be; we really don't want
to know, either.

> are you
>absolutely certain of your use of the word "never?"

Given that we really have no idea of your ... powers, I'm pretty darn
sure that you already researched the question.

To risk turning the discussion back to politics: do you actually
subscribe to this quaint belief that Bush is somehow comparable to
Hitler? Or is that as absurd to you as it is to anyone who understands
our system of checks and balances?


>>>And, as I have said before, it is the similarities that are getting people
>>>killed.
>>
>>That is another of your conjectures -- another one that you have run
>>away from in discussions.

And one, apparently, that Jim won't engage on, either.

I'd rather debate the issues; you'd rather spend your time on personal
attacks.


>>
>>>You are free to disagree.
>>
>>No kidding -- it's a discussion group.
>>
>>> But you cannot change the facts.
>>
>>The record indicates otherwise. If they actually were facts, you would
>>be able to defend them in an intellectually honest discussion. But you
>>do not -- you repeatedly run away from the discussion.
>>
>>>And you cannot show where I have said that Bush is the equivalent of Hitler.
>>>Because I have never said it.
>>
>>I was characterizing your behavior that way -- never ever quoting that
>>you used the word.
>
>Number 4, phil.

Number 4 -- for somebody!

Jim: IT WASN'T A QUOTATION! Look at
http://www.wonderfulwritingskillsunhandbook.com/html/quotation_marks.html
if you don't understand.

In sficl15okic0e27pnu7m1up6ir4b1mn5eb@xxxxxxx on 19 Oct 2005 Jim
Blansett wrote:
>[...] And, phil, you have no idea how hateful I can be.

.... but we do get a taste after a while!

--phil

.