Maker Pro
Maker Pro

OT: Al Franken

C

Chuck Harris

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tim said:
I agree absolutely, we'd have nuked Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Teheran,
Bagdadh, Kabul, Islamabad, Damascus, Amman, Cairo, and a few others
with 10 kTonners, and then taken over the oil[...]

You do realize you are insane, right?


Seth, meet sarcasm.


Tim

Nothing I have ever read from Walz would lead me to believe that he is
being sarcastic. Advocating the killing those that disagree with his
"utopic" visions of how life should be is very much within his doctrine.

-Chuck
 
T

Tim Auton

Jan 1, 1970
0
KR Williams said:
I agree absolutely, we'd have nuked Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Teheran,
Bagdadh, Kabul, Islamabad, Damascus, Amman, Cairo, and a few others
with 10 kTonners, and then taken over the oil[...]
You do realize you are insane, right?

Seth, meet sarcasm.

You obviously don't know RSW very well! He does belive this and
yes, *is* insane.

I went to look for some evidence of RSW's opinions in his posting
history. It's fascinating. Sufficiently fascinating that I withdraw my
judgement and will reserve it till can be bothered to gather enough
evidence. The first post I came across contained this:

"Myself, I greatly enjoyed my wife enjoying her birthday gangbang
from a number of our male friends, I was kissing her while they
pleasured her every other part, her mouth virtually turned to
butter, and feeling her response in her breath was miraculous."

I should add that I in no way disapprove of the above (in fact, it
sounds like jolly good fun if that's your thing), nor do I think it
adds to the argument that RSW is insane. It is the unexpected volume,
variety and nature of RSW's posts that is making me pause.


Tim
 
T

Tim Auton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Chuck Harris said:
Tim said:
I agree absolutely, we'd have nuked Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Teheran,
Bagdadh, Kabul, Islamabad, Damascus, Amman, Cairo, and a few others
with 10 kTonners, and then taken over the oil[...]
You do realize you are insane, right?

Seth, meet sarcasm.

Nothing I have ever read from Walz would lead me to believe that he is
being sarcastic. Advocating the killing those that disagree with his
"utopic" visions of how life should be is very much within his doctrine.

I've looked about a bit and I suspect you may be right. From what he
wrote I assumed he must have been taking the piss.


Tim
 
K

KR Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
KR Williams said:
[email protected] (Seth Koster) wrote:

I agree absolutely, we'd have nuked Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Teheran,
Bagdadh, Kabul, Islamabad, Damascus, Amman, Cairo, and a few others
with 10 kTonners, and then taken over the oil[...]

You do realize you are insane, right?

Seth, meet sarcasm.

You obviously don't know RSW very well! He does belive this and
yes, *is* insane.

I went to look for some evidence of RSW's opinions in his posting
history. It's fascinating. Sufficiently fascinating that I withdraw my
judgement and will reserve it till can be bothered to gather enough
evidence. The first post I came across contained this:

"Myself, I greatly enjoyed my wife enjoying her birthday gangbang
from a number of our male friends, I was kissing her while they
pleasured her every other part, her mouth virtually turned to
butter, and feeling her response in her breath was miraculous."

I should add that I in no way disapprove of the above (in fact, it
sounds like jolly good fun if that's your thing), nor do I think it
adds to the argument that RSW is insane. It is the unexpected volume,
variety and nature of RSW's posts that is making me pause.

If you think simply he's happy with having others "bonk" his wife
while he watched and let the rest of the world live, you haven't
read enough RSW. Do continue reading. He *is* looney. ...and
*does* believe that those who don't agree with him should be
killed.
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
And use bombs to prove it.

Communism is infinitely optimistic, and engages in best-case
design. I
wouldn't want to drive over a bridge designed on best-case
assumptions.

John
-----------------
Nonsense, I believe in the entirely sufficient near-perfection of
humankind by the proper laws and their enforcement with the most
frightening and immediate penalties.

If you believe you're right, then enforce it brutally, and if you
don't, then nobody should bother to care what you think.

All I want is better laws (Communist Laws), and their very
frightening, immediate, and most intense enforcement.

-Steve
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
KR said:
...or designed by someone who thought that someone else should be
responsible for his work.
-----------------
Nonsense, calling Communists "optimistic" is like calling Nazis
"laid-back".

We Communists believe that the only individual perfection possible
is best accomplished from without, by brutal enforcement of the
right laws.

-Steve
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Seth said:
You do realize you are insane, right? This is a serious question.
---------------
I'm not insane, I simply don't believe in defeat of the Goodness,
and I would go to any lengths to defeat Evil. If you want Evil
insanity look at Islam and the Taliban. ANYONE supporting that
oppression and enslavement of humans in word or deed should be
shot down in the street like a dog.

I mean you sound a bit like Hitler with all this talk of immediate
executions, obliteration, bugging, gassing, targetting demonstrations
with bombs, etc... I recommend that you look into treatment options.
----------------
Every Allied general has discussed those same things. Vengeance is
an entirely normal reaction of self-defense. You were simply raised
to be a pansy-assed wussy.

None of this is an attack or meant in jest, I really think you might
find some use from either an intensive psycho-therapy regimen or a
voluntary commitment.
-----------------
You're a idiot and a moron. Do you expect to defeat ALL your political
opponents by convincing them they're insane? If so you should just
give up now, as you're not very good at it.

Advocating genocide on the basis of someones
religion is not a sane position.
---------------------
Sure it is, if the religion is insane and evil. And without
targetting people by race it isn't "genocide", the killing
of a whole kind, because religion is NOT a "kind", it's a
belief system, like Fascism.

You have simply absorbed too much "tolerance of all religions"
nonsense. If religionists could fucking keep it to themselves
and not inflict it politically on others, and on their own
children, abusing them and destroying their lives, then maybe
they'd have a genuine cause for tolerance, but if they are
militating to remove anyone's rights, then they are an eligible
political and military target.

Nazi-ism was/is a religion, so's the Ku Klux Klan, it says
so in their charter. When we get done killing the Fundies on
that side of the world, it will be closer to the time when
we can start killing all the abusive Fundies over here!!

-Steve
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
KR said:
I agree absolutely, we'd have nuked Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Teheran,
Bagdadh, Kabul, Islamabad, Damascus, Amman, Cairo, and a few others
with 10 kTonners, and then taken over the oil[...]
You do realize you are insane, right?

Seth, meet sarcasm.

You obviously don't know RSW very well! He does belive this and
yes, *is* insane.
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
KR said:
KR Williams said:
[email protected] (Seth Koster) wrote:

I agree absolutely, we'd have nuked Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Teheran,
Bagdadh, Kabul, Islamabad, Damascus, Amman, Cairo, and a few others
with 10 kTonners, and then taken over the oil[...]

You do realize you are insane, right?

Seth, meet sarcasm.

You obviously don't know RSW very well! He does belive this and
yes, *is* insane.

I went to look for some evidence of RSW's opinions in his posting
history. It's fascinating. Sufficiently fascinating that I withdraw my
judgement and will reserve it till can be bothered to gather enough
evidence. The first post I came across contained this:

"Myself, I greatly enjoyed my wife enjoying her birthday gangbang
from a number of our male friends, I was kissing her while they
pleasured her every other part, her mouth virtually turned to
butter, and feeling her response in her breath was miraculous."

I should add that I in no way disapprove of the above (in fact, it
sounds like jolly good fun if that's your thing), nor do I think it
adds to the argument that RSW is insane. It is the unexpected volume,
variety and nature of RSW's posts that is making me pause.

If you think simply he's happy with having others "bonk" his wife
while he watched and let the rest of the world live, you haven't
read enough RSW. Do continue reading. He *is* looney. ...and
*does* believe that those who don't agree with him should be
killed.
Keith
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tim said:
Chuck Harris said:
Tim said:
[email protected] (Seth Koster) wrote:

I agree absolutely, we'd have nuked Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Teheran,
Bagdadh, Kabul, Islamabad, Damascus, Amman, Cairo, and a few others
with 10 kTonners, and then taken over the oil[...]

You do realize you are insane, right?

Seth, meet sarcasm.

Nothing I have ever read from Walz would lead me to believe that he is
being sarcastic. Advocating the killing those that disagree with his
"utopic" visions of how life should be is very much within his doctrine.

I've looked about a bit and I suspect you may be right. From what he
wrote I assumed he must have been taking the piss.

Tim
 
R

Ratch

Jan 1, 1970
0
---------------------
Sure it is, if the religion is insane and evil. And without
targetting people by race it isn't "genocide", the killing
of a whole kind, because religion is NOT a "kind", it's a
belief system, like Fascism.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:
gen·o·cide n. The systematic and planned extermination of an entire
national, racial, political, or ethnic group. [Greek genos, race; see gen.-
below + -cide.] --gen"o·cid"al adj. --gen"o·cid"al·ly adv.

Don't politics largely involve beliefs, and if so, isn't it genocide if you
exterminate people based on their political beliefs?

Do you still believe that folks who deliberately run stop signs should be
executed? Isn't that digital thinking, i.e., life/death, bad/good, on/off,
high,low, etc. Isn't there some middle gray ground or gray area. Don't you
think that you need some analog perspective in your life. Ratch
 
S

Seth Koster

Jan 1, 1970
0
You do realize you are insane, right?
I've looked about a bit and I suspect you may be right. From what he
wrote I assumed he must have been taking the piss.


Tim

Tim, I certainly understand how you might have thought he was being
sarcastic, and I take no offense at your assumption that my abilities
to detect sarcasm were suspect at best. I do assure you, however,
that I have waded through enough of Steve's posts to be pretty sure
that he is, to put it quite bluntly, a raving lunatic. I honestly
think some psychological help might be in order. I don't joke around
about these things, as when I was young a close friend took his own
life in a situation where I believe counseling might have helped. In
Steve's case I fear that the life or lives taken may not be his.
I am curious as to what 'taking the piss' means and refers to. I
assume it has to do with being sarcastic, considering the context, but
I have absolutely no idea how or why.
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ratch said:
---------------------
Sure it is, if the religion is insane and evil. And without
targetting people by race it isn't "genocide", the killing
of a whole kind, because religion is NOT a "kind", it's a
belief system, like Fascism.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:
gen·o·cide n. The systematic and planned extermination of an entire
national, racial, political, or ethnic group. [Greek genos, race; see gen.-
below + -cide.] --gen"o·cid"al adj. --gen"o·cid"al·ly adv.
-------------------
Give us a break, that's just shoddy dictionary confabulating. Killing
every combative Nazi on earth is a patently Good Thing(tm). While it
seems a fair thing to not hold people culpable for their beliefs,
if their belief is that they must harm you for yours, then their
belief has become a malignant influence, and one you must destroy.

Don't politics largely involve beliefs, and if so, isn't it genocide if you
exterminate people based on their political beliefs?
--------------------
The dictionary is wrong, that's NOT what anybody means when they
allude to the Latin word "genus".

Do you still believe that folks who deliberately run stop signs should be
executed?
------------------
Sure, if they won't stop from the threat, it means they are going to
kill one of us at some point, let's make sure it's THEM!

Isn't that digital thinking, i.e., life/death, bad/good, on/off,
high,low, etc.
-------------------
That's irrelevant, ridiculous, even puerile.

Do you want Good or Evil? Decide!

Isn't there some middle gray ground or gray area.
------------------
What would be the mixture of Good and Evil, would they only beat you
for masturbating some of the time, and suck your dick the other times?
Wouldn't that give you a nervous twitch?

ANY Evil is Evil!! Period.

Don't you
think that you need some analog perspective in your life. Ratch
-------------------
No, that notion is merely a fraudulent and absurdist usage and
facetious and not well thought-out juxatposition of those words.

Not every possible collection of words yields something useful
when they are conjoined. The belief that they somehow must is
merely fuzzy thinking bordering on the notion that fine art can
be made by a random number generator.

-Steve
 
R

R. Steve Walz

Jan 1, 1970
0
Seth said:
Tim, I certainly understand how you might have thought he was being
sarcastic, and I take no offense at your assumption that my abilities
to detect sarcasm were suspect at best. I do assure you, however,
that I have waded through enough of Steve's posts to be pretty sure
that he is, to put it quite bluntly, a raving lunatic. I honestly
think some psychological help might be in order. I don't joke around
about these things, as when I was young a close friend took his own
life in a situation where I believe counseling might have helped.
 
B

Bill Sloman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tim, I certainly understand how you might have thought he was being
sarcastic, and I take no offense at your assumption that my abilities
to detect sarcasm were suspect at best. I do assure you, however,
that I have waded through enough of Steve's posts to be pretty sure
that he is, to put it quite bluntly, a raving lunatic. I honestly
think some psychological help might be in order. I don't joke around
about these things, as when I was young a close friend took his own
life in a situation where I believe counseling might have helped. In
Steve's case I fear that the life or lives taken may not be his.
I am curious as to what 'taking the piss' means and refers to. I
assume it has to do with being sarcastic, considering the context, but
I have absolutely no idea how or why.

"Taking the piss" is an English locution. John Woodgate would probably
be a more reliable source than I am, but IIRR it means feeding someone
an implausible story which the victim will find believable because it
is a story that they want to believe, or because their critical
faculties aren't up to much.
 
G

Guillaume

Jan 1, 1970
0
We Communists believe that the only individual perfection possible
is best accomplished from without, by brutal enforcement of the
right laws.

"brutal enforcement of the right laws" ?

It's extremely dangerous. Who is to say what is right and what is
wrong, to begin with? And what do you mean by "brutal enforcement" ?
 
C

Chuck Harris

Jan 1, 1970
0
R. Steve Walz said:
Tim Auton wrote:

As near as I can tell, it is a reference to the color of beer.

If a Brit tells you he is "pissed" he means that he is drunk.

-Chuck
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
We Communists believe that the only individual perfection possible
is best accomplished from without, by brutal enforcement of the
right laws.

That prety much sums up what we feared about you.
 
J

John Larkin

Jan 1, 1970
0
-----------------
Nonsense, calling Communists "optimistic" is like calling Nazis
"laid-back".

We Communists believe that the only individual perfection possible
is best accomplished from without, by brutal enforcement of the
right laws.

Exactly. You make best-case assumptions about the enforcers.

John
 
Top