Comments Posted By martin.musculus
Displaying 11 To 17 Of 17 Comments
ONLY A REPUBLICAN COULD BE SO STUPID...
I really want to have a civil discussion, I hope that is possible.
TRY, PLEASE, TRY to understand what I'm typing here. My wife & I worship Ms. Malkin, so there MUST be something she sees in you. I really want to come to an understanding. I don't want to feel the need to re-evaluate my opinion of her.
I hope this isn't just a lost cause. I suspect that it is, and you haven't really read any of my posts.
Here we go:
------------------------------------
I am glad I have provided you with a laugh, although, considering the conditions, if you would read the whole set of posts, it really would be understandable.What has you mystified?
I attempted, under adverse conditions, to lay-out a logical argument. If your problem comes from vocabulary, I cannot help clarify.I was attempting to make two main point. Originally it was only one, but as I said, I was "forwarding a comment from my wife, who is at the office, behind a firewall on McGuire AFB that blocks access to your blog. This precluded her from directly typing her comment into your blog.
Was it the term firewall? USAF?
I admit I cannot spell, and there is way to do that from my PDA - my Palm Lifedrive.
Looking at it from a PC, I do see that the formatting is messed up. I did explain that I was working from a Palm Lifedrive, with a substandard browser. I note that the Blazer, (Palm's OSv5 browser) had problems interacting w/your blogware, causing it to screw-up the blockquotes. Although I hardly see that as much of an impediment, though it does damage readability.
Let me state that from this point on, I will use your method of denoting a slur, so as to pamper your sensibilities.
I quoted her verbatum using the term g***. She (as she would tell you, and you could see in person)is Chinese. She used that term, as charged as it, purposefully. To drive home a point. Racist logic is the basis of the whole "N***", thing anyway. And by racist logic - since she is Chinese - she can use the g*** word all she wants... even write songs with the word wall-to-wall.
All that "true Conservative" whale oil aside, you obviously have no idea what it means to BE conservative. I don't care that you you have allied with Malkin -- who is a conservative. You sirrah, are not.
Conservatism is a thinking intellectual ideology, as apposed to an emotive one. Again, if my vocabulary bothers you, I will restate each item as I go, but I will not censor myself as I write because THAT would chop it up & make it unintelligible.
What I am saying is that Conservatives THINK, Liberals FEEL. Feel, sir: which is exactly what you do in your column. You make unwarranted accusations, not borne out from the data presented. You are all queezy using the N-word, when there is nothing to suggest it use in that fashion.
You see nothing nothing wrong with attaching a man based on how he looks, but shy away from skin color. What is the difference? You say there is 10 words out of 50k that are always forbidden, and "any conservative would know that". No sir, WE don't label people to shut them up. I NEVER have, and NEVER WILL.
I commented that conservatives don't use that tactic to shut down discussions, but you are at home with it. Instead of attempting to understand my point, you called my a racist. Well, let me put the point more baldly: you don't throw out a man's comments because you don't like the way he thinks. He MIGHT have something important for you to hear.
If someone was telling you of a problem, say a child drowning or that that you were about to mistake poison for sugar, would you close your ears because he used the N-word? THAT was the point of post #22. I guess it is too hard to understand.
I remember there used to be far fewer words "forbidden". The Left will as label people any way they can, because your type of person will jump and ignore people they label using their old & new "forbidden" words as a club. "He is a racist, lets not listen to him! He has nothing to say! He is Evil!". It is a game that can only end one way. If you allow the Left to keep expanding the pool of words Never To Be Used, they will make sure that you can make no argument.
As I just stated, there were once far fewer words. Spade, for example. Used when I was a kid as: "Call a spade a spade, not a shovel". You see, a spade is for digging. . . it is pointy. A shovel has a square end on it, so to call a spade a shovel was to misname a situation and in that way make it harder to handle. That saying is forbidden, now. What about "Ace". It is another of those forbidden words. How about "denigrate" as in ":minimize: cause to seem less serious; play down". I remember reading about a man who lost his job over that one.
My point is that there are not 10, or 20, or 50, at least 100, and probably more, of English's 2 MILLION words that are forbidden. And you know what, The Left is making more. When you can't debate ideas, you shut down the debate. This is what you are assisting. At what point do we say STOP!
Which leads to this: How do we talk about these things if we can't talk about these things? I noticed that "Whop" was missing from your list. If I call someone a "Belly-whopper", which I did as a child at summercamp long ago, was I saying that he, like me was an Italian who liked pasta?
When I was growing up, 1930s, I was called a whop, and more. It didn't kill me -- I'm here typing. Opps, you see, I forgot to use the fancy new notation w***. Oh, that feels better.
They are just words. If you called me a w****, I don't care, because it really doesn't doesn't matter. People who are looking to take offense, will. They will invent reason, change the meanings of words, (see "denigrate", above), do what ever it takes, if we let them.
And what does the gesture teach? It teaches that if someone uses a word, you should sue the hell out of them. It teaches that other people define who you are, are in control of your life and success through so small a thing as what words are used around you. What a wonderful, conservative thing to teach! If this is the case, then I REALLY am not a conservative -- and glad of it.
You probably will laugh at this next part. That is ok. I don't really expect you to understand it. I simply have always lived by the notion that a person must do all they can before they walk away.
Are you a Christian? this is a serious question, and I mean it seriously. I am. That immediately puts me on the outs with many so-called conservatives. That I'm a "Jesus Freak" doesn't bother me either. Oh, is that another bad set of words? See how they pile up? It is like a person who offers to carry a bucket for a friend. The man picks up the bucket, and the friend says:"Wait! I have just a few more drops to add!" He adds them. A few paces later, that same friend repeats the process. Soon, the accumulation is so great that the bucket can't be moved.
No need to answer me about , but let supply background for what I say next: In The Lord's Sermon On The Mount, called the Beatitudes. People almost always only Matt 5:3-10. I however, think that all of it is important. The part is applies to my next point point was specifically about adultery, but if you look at the Beatitudes as a template, then consider:
Comment Posted By martin.musculus On 15.04.2008 @ 14:55Matt. 5:27-28
27 ΒΆ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.To me, the Lord is saying that it is our intent and out actions that matter - both. By this, your position seems that it is ok to "look on", by using "N***", but somehow this keeps you clean from actually doing the deed. How does that work? How does "N***", "C***", "W***" change anything? Am I so stupid I don't know know what "w****" means? If I am smart enough to know what "w***" means, how is it better than "whop"?
I don't know. It could be that you simply want to wind me up, and have no intention of an adult discussion. I'd like to believe you are capable of one.
BTW: verbatum means exactly as given
(No - "verbatum" is not a word. Now if you mean "verbatim" then you get a cookie for correct spelling. - ed.)
[cont from post #36 due to PDA's buffer filling up...]
...
a correction: that should read:... lacking the aability to decide is simply that: an indecisive nature., and fits the known data concerning BO.
Mr BOLDCAP,
You see racism where there is none because your native wetware is programmed to think that way. I grieve for you. Your world must be a very small dim place.I was going to include a deconstruction of your weighty, supremely intellectual comments, in depth.
Thinking about it - something some of us do, you know -- before we comment -- though, I realize that someone who can't read standard English, can not understand - nor string together a cogent three (3) item argument, wouldn't have the tools to follow any comments I make. I'd have to use really tiny words, no bigger than two(2) syllab -- opps, six(6) letters and tapping it out to teach someone on the same mental plain as my Chow is simply too wearing.
--- AND I was laughing so much I believe I used too much insulin, so I have to go eat.
but, WOW, it must be REALLY hard on ya crawling through life simply emoting...
(NB: I fully expect to be banned after this post... {grin & wink})
-martin.musculus
Jesus Lord God you are certifiable. Do you have the faintest notion that NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE WRITING?
Why ban someone who has given me more original entertainment than any one else in a long time?
ed.
Comment Posted By martin.musculus On 15.04.2008 @ 12:41
because of the Lifedrive's substandard browser, (Blazer2.0), formatting doesn't always display well. All formatting tags come out as bold, so please keep that in mind when reading these comments.
Also: is "-ed" in this case Mr. Moran, or did Blazer drop the "XYZ said:" part?
Wow, ed, nice boldface there. WTF yourself.
Interesting resort to the profain, there. Lack vocabulary, do we?
I assume, if you are a Christian, you have problems following The Savior's "stories", too -- after all, in some cases, they go on for an entire page.
NB:
I'm not comparing my wife's example "story" to His! He was a master at using that teaching method. I just quickly dashed down my wife's words w/alot of backgrnd noise at her office.I hope that my explaination (in the subsequent post) does it for you. I'm deeply sorry you can't follow an argument that has more that two (2) items.
Basically, JIC (Just In Case) you are stillremoving your socks to diagram my wife's argument :
The assumption made by Mr. Moran was:
1) Davis was implying BO was stooopid.
2) by that same argument, i.e. "he could not make a decision...", my wife, Chinese - naturalized American, who called herself a gook to illustrate the inferences Moran made from the statement of Davis, pointed out that not lacking ability to decide is simply that: an indecisive nature.If you had actually read my post, instead of just scanning it, you would have:
Comment Posted By martin.musculus On 15.04.2008 @ 12:12
a) understood my wife's argument.
b) not called me racist, (you twit)
c) not proved my point from post #22.
If -ed is Mr. Moran
I now understand why you push identity politics, and feel so comfortable seeing it in others -- you are projecting. I went to a great deal of trouble (remember I'm typing this in w/a stylus on a PDA), to point out that it was my wife's comment --}VERBATUM{-- , which she insisted I include, because the McGuire firewall wouldn't let her surf to this site, (although she *can* access Move-on...{grin}).
OPPS, PDA buffer's full, finishing thought in followin
Re-reading the post, (I'm working from a PDA w/a half-baked browser :- ), I realized that there might be some that wouldn't have a clue what wifey was saying.
It was:
There are other reasons - obvious ones - that align with both the language of the Davis comment *and* B.O. past behavior vis a vis unscripted decisions: Mr B.O. vacilates! When there's no script he is *indecisive*! With a nuclear scenerio, that's *terminally* indecisive!Don't you think the electorate *should* be made aware of that?
And, in response to the obvious attempt to deflect the question, perhaps the comment wasn't made clearer because Davis doesn't normally think in racist terms. Naive? Yes, it certainly would be/is, but I've met people like that - more often than you'd think. Not everyone thinks in terms of finding racists under every leaf & grassblade.
And for Busboy33:
Obama broke on the scene claiming to be "transending racial politics", so just as the: "No Morality Left" claims that conserv. must be held to a higher standard because we claim "family values", so to must the stinking pile of contradictions Mr B.O. be held to a higher standard.If we let the Left set the terms, (which we should *not*, but are), we should at least whack-em with their own rules when they violate them.
Or is Freedom so cheap we don't need to work to win?
- martin.musculus
Comment Posted By martin.musculus On 15.04.2008 @ 11:35
Mr. Moran:
...
Davis all but call?s Obama a stupid n*****.
Okay, now the elitist in me is about ready to emerge. But one look at this guy?s picture says it all. The Gomer Pyle ears, goober eatin? grin, and something inbred around the eyes bespeaks a throwback. Put a uniform and a badge on this guy and I can see him aiming the fire hose at women and children in Selma. .......
Only on a planet inhabited by such ignoramuses, such geese as this GOP Congressman from Kentucky
...
------
15
Kathy Said:
10:41 pm
...and cannot be taken as anything but a racist put-down if one is black. (And by the way I am not.)...et al...
I guess we see who enjoys identity politics here, via projection. Before the Left even have time to unlimber their guns, a "conservative" pulls his long knife & dons his brown shirt...
BTW, Mr. Moran, I showed my wife your column.... She's asked me to add the following to my post (expl. at end of post): Saturday, she could not make a decision over whether to prepare chicken or trout -- apparently, she's too stupid to figure it out, al la:
?I?m going to tell you something: That boy?s finger does not need to be on the button,? Davis said. ?He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.? [Davis]
Davis all but call?s Obama a stupid n*****. [Moran]
Her comment:
Thank you, Rick Moran for your adept analysis, by example, of my recent lapse. I now know I wasn't having an "indecisive moment", oh no, --- I'm a stupid gook*!
* NB: that was her contribution to this post. *Verbatum.* When I phoned her to see if she had visited here on her break, she told me the base's DOD firewall has blocked this site, Malkin's site, (but not Move-On's). So I sent a screencap. She wanted to comment and insisted I include the above w/my identity politics post.- martin.musculus
Gee - if you're going to be a racist idiot can't you at least be coherent? I have NO IDEA what you are talking about here. Something about your wife and cooking chicken being a sign of racial identity and....just WTF are you trying to get at here?
I'm sorry but I didn't learn gibberish when I was in school. You will have to translate.
ed.
Comment Posted By martin.musculus On 15.04.2008 @ 11:09
14
Kathy Said:
10:41 pmKathy, if I hadn't been stationed at Lackland AFB, I would probably find myself (partially) in agreement w/both you & Mr. Moran.
But I was, and I'm not. I was called "boy": "Hey Boy! Did you go to that ???? I told ya about? Mommasita sure can cook, huh -- they need a bigger place, but she does everything & any more chowin' down aday & she'd run herself to death..." (Southerners - Texans? - tend to talk in run-on sentences, too...).
And, I'm not, (wait for it....rimshot) Black.
As I've said, focusing on "forbidden words" is a game for the mentally vacous. (Rick, how's *that* for elitism? {wink}).
- martin.musculus
Comment Posted By martin.musculus On 15.04.2008 @ 07:58
3
busboy33 Said:
5:39 pmThe difference, sirrah, is the difference betwix shallow surface manufactured "what can be twisted to racism now" and true soaked w/cloaked amimosity comment.
Moran is wrong here, and his comments - particularly the unnecessary person appearence ones - show *both* why the Rep. party has become the wimpy party & the stupid party while dashing leftwards politically. For the sake of brevity I'll leave the obvious reasons & logical support for that previous comment for a later post, if you need a pic. painted. (besides which, I've never posted here, so I don't know if Moran will block me for crit., - I've had that happen at too many places lately...).
Any word can take on racist overtones if we let people twist it. That's why, instead of playing the "todays verbotten word" game, look at the substance of what is said. *That* is the difference between B.O.'s comments & the guy ref.'d here. Even if you semiphores or the symbols in B.O.'s speeches, the speeches *are still anti-American Republic and often border on racism*. That, of course, excludes the speeches where, if you asign content values to the referents and do the math, they zero out.
I am also tired of people using someone's outlook as a reason to disount what they say. If something is valid, why does the messanger being racist invalidate it? If a clansman walked up to me to tell me my son had fallen in a swimming pool & was drowning, would I discount it? All Mr. Moran's method does is allows a cry of "racism" - justified or not - to shut down discussion. Forget if what is said is true! *This* is the Maoist method, and to see the truth of its workings, note what's happened to Bill Cosby!
It is more work, certainly, but lets look at the **content** of a statement, and not scan it for today's trigger-words, simply to discount it -- unpondered -- if it contains a word the Left has labeled as "unmentionable".
- martin.musculus
Comment Posted By martin.musculus On 15.04.2008 @ 07:07
