Got into a little Twitter flare up over just who is the Putin stooge in this election – Hillary or Trump? Team Hillary was all afire on Monday with dark hints about Trump’s nefarious ties to Putin…and Never Trump quickly seconded her charges, apparently forgetting Hillary’s little Bribes-For-Uranium deal with Russian “businessmen” who would make Don Corleone blush. But the underlying thing here is just how much a threat Putin’s Russia poses.
Now, to be sure, Romney was quite right in 2012 that Russia was no partner of the United States – was, in fact, working diligently against American interests in Europe and the Middle East. Romney was ridiculed for that by all Democrats – someone quipping that the 1980’s called and they wanted their foreign policy back, I believe. Fast forward to 2016, and all of a sudden our Democrats are more vigorously anti-Kremlin than Reagan was 30 years ago. What changed? Electoral politics – a foreign bogey-man is always useful in politics, if you can somehow tie your opponent to same. It is a bit of a stretch to tie Trump to Putin – the closest connections seem to be with a person who used to work for Trump’s campaign – but off they go, and the MSM gladly helps Team Clinton out. But is Russia all that much a threat? Let’s take a look:
Population:
USA – 324 million
Russia – 143 million
Fit for military service (males):
USA – 59 million
Russia – 21 million
Naval power:
Carriers – USA 10, Russia 1
Amphibious assault ships – USA 9, Russia 0
Cruisers – USA 22, Russia 4
Destroyers – USA 63, Russia 21
Ballistic Missile Submarines – USA 10, Russia 4
Attack Submarines – USA 52, Russia 18 (plus some old diesel boats rusting around).
I could go on like that – not much of a military threat to the United States. Given that Russia’s GDP is somewhat less than South Korea’s, they aren’t going to become a big threat any time soon. On the other hand, there’s China, with a GDP about 9 times that of Russia and 314 million men fit for military service…perhaps China might be a bigger worry? You know, given the number of men they can put under arms just about equals our population? Given that they are challenging our supremacy in the western Pacific and the South China Sea? Given that they have said that their national policy is to displace us? Maybe we should be a little more concerned about China?
Naw, can’t have that – too many of our largest corporations and banks are heavily invested in China. Conflict with China would be bad for business – theirs, not ours. Doesn’t really help us that cheap consumer goods are made in China…does help the Chinese and the corporations which invest there, of course…and, so, Russia’s the bad guy…China’s just this thing, and if you please ignore the fact that they are engaged in building a blue water Navy specifically to challenge us, that would be great.
It has been my conviction for many years now that if WWIII ever comes, it will start in Asia, not in Europe. I doubt the Europeans will even involve themselves in World War Three, if they could in any way scurry out of it. The battle will be between the United States and China, and whatever allies each can gather. We’ve got Japan and South Korea because they’ve got no choice – and when push comes to shove, we’ll probably have India, as well. But it would be tremendously useful for us if at least a good portion of China’s military force is looking over it’s should, to the north – to Russia, that is. And, of course, Russia can’t hold on to Siberia without our aid.
Now, I don’t like Putin, either – but he’s also not forever. And foreign policy can’t be dictated by personalities – it always has to be dictated by interests. Right now, Putin sees his chance to cobble together a bit of the old Russian Empire – our weakness is his chance. But think about what he’s doing – he’s grabbing those border areas which are largely Russian in population. He’s also working out plans and programs to get Russia’s population increased via natural means (there’s even a move to ban abortion in Russia). Putin is trying to get together as much manpower as he can – just in case of war, when Russia will need every soldier it can put into uniform. Russians, for instance, make up 17% of Ukraine’s population – about 8 million people, or about 800,000 males fit for military service. Having those Russians in Ukraine does Russia not the least bit of good – having them in Russia, does. As it turns out, most of the Russians live in precisely the areas of Ukraine where Putin is exerting military force on the sly. You don’t have to like it – but you should at least understand why it’s happening.
Our interests lie in keeping China boxed in – a China able to rampage over the world represents a threat that Germany and Japan, combined, didn’t represent in 1941. With their population and industrial base – a lot of it formerly our industrial base, before we outsourced it – gives them the ability to wage war on many fronts simultaneously. Our foreign policy job is to make sure that if China ever decides to try conclusions with us that they are, indeed, forced to fight on many fronts. On the seas with us, on land with India – and Russia. And Vietnam, and South Korea, and Japan…and anyone else we can convince to go along with us. In point of fact, India would provide sufficient manpower to completely overbalance China…but India has no easy way to attack China on land – they’d have to go through the Himalayas, an almost impossible task. Russia, though, has easy access to the very heart of China (China has the same to Russian Siberia). In a real war – a World War – a American-Russian-Indian army poised around Lake Baikal is a deadly threat to China…the sort of thing which keeps China from getting into Southeast Asia, or the Philippines.
Don’t give me nonsense about a Russian threat to the United States – they have nukes, but that is about it. On their own, they don’t dare attack us. Eventually, Russia will see that playing around with China just to irritate us is the wrong path…and, in fact, they probably know it and are only doing it to keep us off their back while they re-absorb those former parts of the Russian Empire they think they need. As long as Russia isn’t rolling into Poland, or taking Kiev, I’m not particularly worried about what they are doing. I don’t care, that is, if they absorb some territory largely populated by Russians and only set in non-Russian territory by Stalin as a means to retain control of the various “republics” which made up the old USSR. At the end of the day, Russia will want to hold on to Siberia and the only way they can do that against China – the only nation which covets Siberia – is in alliance with us. An alliance that they and we need…not that we care about Russian rule in Siberia, but we do care about making sure that China, desiring war, is instantly confronted with the fact of war in the north as well as everywhere else. It is essentially a revival of the old policy of Churchill vis a vis Nazi Germany – bind together the lesser States surrounding Germany so that any German attack would result in an overwhelming force being brought against Germany from all directions. No one wanted to do that, and so Hitler was able to pick off enemies one by one…China will do the same, unless we construct a new set of alliances to counter it.
One thing you can be certain about in world affairs is change – it’s always breaking apart and coming together in new combinations. Hanging fast to NATO as if Russia is still poised to burst through the Fulda Gap in central Germany is absurd. I can’t imagine a set of circumstances which move Russia to invade central and western Europe. I also can’t imagine a set of circumstances which would see a British army come to our assistance as we tried to repel a Chinese attack on Japan…and Britain is a solid ally; as for France and Germany, they’d probably be selling China military material and demanding we don’t sink their ships transporting it to China! These are new times, with new issues – and trying to jam them into the times of 50 years ago won’t work. We need, as in all things, to think anew and act anew…and giving up the Russian bugbear and turning our full attention to China is one of them. We also need new policies towards Iran, but even that is a lesser threat than China, in the long run.
China is the challenge – we must rework our trade with China so that we’re not longer helping them build the industrial sinews to war with us. We must rebuild our own industrial strength so that if we have to go to war, we’ve got at least most of what we need right here in the USA. We need a new system of alliances geared towards modern challenges. We need a much larger Navy, a much larger Air Force. We need to be working on ever more advanced military technologies so that we can outgun a China we won’t be able to out-man. We need, first and foremost, to shake free of the geo-political shackles of the past. This isn’t 1956 – it’s 2016.
Blogs For Victory 
the problem is if Russia, China, Iran, N Korea form an alliance against us who will stand with us?
Who else on our side is a nuclear power? and will they go to the mat for us? We are weaker now than under the other KKKlintoon…..the rapist.
I’m pretty sure all those players are already against us, formally allied or not. No other nation stands for us, which is why our military must be kept at peak capability at all times. I pray Clinton will not destroy our military as her husband did.
Mark, I’ve read from multiple sources that, if Hillary wins, Putin has said war with the U.S. is inevitable. That baffles me. Most of the reports are from marginal news sites, and I’d think if Putin has actually made such a public statement it would be front page, headline news everywhere. I guess it’s possible that the Russians have hacked Hillary emails in which she brags about putting Putin in his place if she wins. Any thoughts on this?
I haven’t seen a credible source for that quote yet, but if true it shows all the more that Putin prefers Trump, which should make us all concerned as to why.
which should make us all concerned as to why.
Well, just a WAG, but it could be that Putin doesn’t want war with us.
Of course Putin does not want war with the U.S. That seems an unlikely scenario no matter who wins. What he wants is a U.S. he can manage, a U.S. in disarray, and he sees Trump as the one who can best assure that outcome.
Foreign leaders don’t like any questions about American leaders – they downright hate it…and our enemies hate it even more than our friends. Little side note on this: Nixon had Kissenger put it about in a quiet way to the Russians that Nixon was nuts and might push the button at any minute…that only Kissenger and Russian reasonableness stood in the path of nuclear destruction. Nixon burnished this by having a squadron of bombers the Russians knew were nuclear-armed fly right up to the edge of Russian air space. It rattled them – made them wonder if Nixon was really all there. And it helped in policy…the Russians never pressed us too hard because they were worried about what might happen.
Hillary is an entirely predictable quality – she can be bribed and she will solicit bribes. Trump is a complete X factor – no one knows what he will really do.
I doubt any prospect of a war with Russia – Russia knows that, without major allies, that is a completely losing proposition…and even if they get allies, then they might find themselves conscript-allies as Italy was in World War II. I do believe that Putin wants to improve Russia’s strategic position – I personally think he’s being a little foolish in helping Iran vis a vis Syria because the Iranian government will turn on him as soon as it suits them (remember, Iran has claim to a lot of territory in the Caucasus and elsewhere which was taken by Russia in the 19th century). But Putin believes he is doing right by Russia. We’ve got to do right by ourselves.
In my view, I just don’t see the upside of NATO – it can, perhaps, be salvaged, but that would take the Europeans putting together a collective fleet of at least 300 ships and an Army of at least 800,000 troops…and all up to the minute, ready to go. The German army is currently 59,000 troops; the French army only a little over 100,000; the British army 87,000…and that is in total, I’ll bet the “bayonet” strength of the entire European NATO force isn’t even 500,000. The Royal Navy has only about 30 major combatant ships…they aren’t even remotely ready for war, and we need allies who are ready for war. And, in addition, in any non-European war I don’t see NATO lending a hand.
I don’t think that anyone out there is particularly concerned who wins – right now, as a global factor, we’re at our lowest ebb since before World War One. No on trusts us – that is the real problem. Japan is starting to build aircraft carriers…simply because they aren’t sure that if the guns go off that American carriers will be available for the defense of Japan. They probably hope they will; they probably lay some of their plans on the assumption we’ll be there…but they are also laying plans for defending themselves, alone. This is what comes from our Progressives thinking that we’re the cause of the trouble…actually, as you and I know, the only thing which has kept a lid on the vicious nationalism of the world has been overwhelming US power since WWII.
Well… I can’t find anything to disagree with you on. I think we’ve seen as matter of history an uneasy understanding between our two nations. In the aftermath of WWII and the Russian’s acquisition of the bomb, the world in many cases was held in check waiting to see if we’d come to blows. Toward the end of the cold war and the USSR, even though we’d not seen the our nemesis’s demise coming, what did Reagan advise? Trust, but verify. We can work with them. After all, we have, can and will continue to not just with the Russians, but anyone when our mutual interests coincide. Such is our nature. We’re capitalist!
Where our interests coincide, we can – and I think that Russia’s desire to hold on to Siberia and our desire to have a northern front against China are interests which coincide.
Putin may prefer Trump because he doesn’t want an escalating conflict with the US. It’s also highly probable he finds Hillary just as personally distasteful as the rest of us do.
For all the worrying in the press about Trump and Putin, what’s wrong with a bit of diplomacy here? A Clinton presidency promises to be highly antagonistic toward Russia and may indeed escalate into something serious. Her recommendation for a no fly zone in Syria is considered reckless by many top generals–it’s all too easy to imagine a Russian plane going down in flames. What happens then, with Putin and Clinton already hating each other’s guts?
Isn’t it much better (as Mark says) to back off of Russia? Talk with them and establish a chilly diplomacy; lay out expectations and agree to leave each other alone. I don’t know a heck of a lot about this but aren’t we the ones who’ve basically been antagonizing Russia since the end of the Cold War with our expansion of NATO and pushing anti ballistics technology right up to it’s borders? How would we feel if they were doing that to us?
Yes, yes, by all means, back off Putin. Let’s not anger him or he just might annex part of a sovereign nation or enter a civil war on the opposite side of the U.S.
Wasn’t making Russia like us the winning policy last time Russia was our global opponent? I don’t recall.
“aren’t we the ones who’ve basically been antagonizing Russia?” asks Rusty.
What was untrue about what I said? Expanding NATO and pushing missile technology to Russia’s borders is not antagonistic? And since you’re apparently against leaving Russia alone, what’s your plan?
“aren’t we the ones who’ve basically been antagonizing Russia?” asks Rusty.
IDK, but I don’t think the majority here agree with that sentiment.
But this is not about my thoughts on Russian policy, it is about Putin preferring to see President Trump than President Clinton. See, I don’t like the friend of my enemy, so I think it is a black mark that our opponent wants Trump.
Hey, what if Khamenei prefers Trump? Kim, too? Would that be a good thing in your view?
“IDK”
Fine, by your own words you don’t know what you’re talking about. That was the quickest resolution to a disagreement I’ve ever had with!
“Hey, what if Khamenei prefers Trump? Kim, too? Would that be a good thing in your view?”
My view is that easing up on the peddle with Russia would be a good thing. My view, as I’ve said, is to talk with them and establish a chilly diplomacy; lay out expectations and agree to leave each other alone.
Again, what’s your plan Churchill? Other than just saying my thoughts are wrong I mean.
Hey, what if Khamenei prefers Trump? Kim, too? Would that be a good thing in your view?
Depends on their reason. If it’s because they’d like to avoid war, then I don’t see how you would describe that as a “bad” thing.
Rusty
You are just too smart for me. I mean, I thought I was being cute with the “idk” but you used my own words to DECIMATE my argument. Obviously you are a superior intelligence to me, why do you even bother to engage me?
By the way, one eases up on the “pedal,” if I dare get all Amazona on your language.
Spook
Considering no one knows why Putin prefers Trump, why would it matter why Khamenei and Kim do, right? Wouldn’t it be great if ALL our enemies backed Trump, as that is a sure sign they all wish to avoid war…
“what’s your plan Churchill?” asks Rusty
I don’t know if I’ve made it clear but my plan is to not vote for the guy Putin prefers, whose rise reminds of Hitler, whose diplomatic skills parallel an ADHD tween, and whose list of other problems far exceeds any need for me to detail.
That’s my plan, Chamberlain.
Sorry. For metaphic consistency, please change my last line as follows:
That’s my plan, Hindenburg.
* metaphoric
“I don’t know if I’ve made it clear….”
I can’t speak for other posters, but by the time you had harped on this for something like the 9,724th time I was starting to figure it out. You’ve typed it, droned it, hollered it, whined it, and gone through it in four part harmony. I think the mole people on Mars know it by now. It’s basically all you can say. Even when you try to talk about something else, it seems to always come back to this. Over and over and over and over and over again, and then you take a breath and start in again. Over and over and over and over again, till you take a breath and start in again. And so on, incessantly, without relief.
Maybe a grapic? A multi-colored cartoon? I’d love to keep you busy with some crayons so you could have a blog thread without you carrying on about how you are not going to vote for Trump. If for no other reason November 8 can’t come soon enough, though I am pretty sure that if Trump wins we will just get another torrent of reasons why this spells doom for civilization, and if he loses it will be smugness as annoying as this constant repetition.
A question, though, Oh MIghty Brilliant One who calls Rusty stupid, did you mean to say that his response only destroyed 10% of your argument? Really?
Bob queries: “……….why do you even bother to engage me?”
It’s a question we have all asked ourselves. Why bother?
Amazona
Apparently Rusty was not clear, as he asked for my plan (and compared me to Churchill – thanks!). You can thank Rusty for the repeat.
While you are thanking him, you can laud his idea that the U.S. has been provoking Russia, as he feels the posters here agree with him. IDK, but I think he is wrong.
I meant: “That was the quickest resolution to a disagreement I’ve ever had!”
Try to cool it with the gratuitous insults, Bob. //Moderator
Fair call, Moderator. I agree and apologize.
“aren’t we the ones who’ve basically been antagonizing Russia?” asks Rusty.
Still haven’t heard the regular posters on this site supporting that statement, so IDK, but you may be alone on that thought.
No, it’s just that your incessant whining about all the gajillion reasons to not vote for Trump disinclines most of us from getting dragged into your obsession.
So Churchill was whining too much about Hitler before he became Prime Minister? I guess your definition of “whining” matches my definition of “warning people of a clear and present danger,” so you should expect more whining from me in the near future.
(funny it isn’t whining when I read your repeated boilerplate about “a federal government limited in scope, etc.” or that “Hillary held Obama’s hand” any of your running themes)
Wow, you caught me transposing a homonym; you’re clearly the superior intellect. You won’t catch me playing that game with you though as pointing out the endless errors and typos in your posts would cost me more time than I could afford.
“Decimate” your argument? What argument? You offered no argument for why you criticized my original post. Basically you haven’t put forth anything except for the reasons why you won’t vote for Trump (didn’t ask, don’t care).
Oh sorry, you did offer the idiotic opinion that if Putin prefers Trump (something you don’t know for a fact by the way) you won’t vote for him. So if a bad man likes somebody Bob doesn’t. To each his own, but personally I won’t be letting Putin make my decisions for me.
“Still haven’t heard the regular posters on this site supporting that statement, so IDK, but you may be alone on that thought.”
Ever occur to you that you are alone in thinking I’m wrong? But if you think somethings wrong with that statement why don’t you put forth an argument? Shameful to just be prodding others to do it for you.
“warning people of a clear and present danger”
Sorry Bob, that’s not what you’re doing, you’re whining. I think you tried arguing why Trump was Hitler in the past but gave up when it was clear you didn’t know what you were talking about. I think that was around the time you insisted the Holocaust was not the biggest gripe Jews have with Hitler.
Rusty
IDK why I compare you to that proverbial pigeon when you continue to destroy my arguments.
I point out that the posters here disagree with your assertion the U.S. has been antagonizing Russia and you bypass the point by my use of “IDK.” A high mark of debate methodology.
I point out your IDK argument is ridiculous and you glom onto the tagged-on correction of your English. Set and match.
Truly, it is an honor to debate someone so far out of my league.
Rusty
IDK if anyone agrees with you but the dearth of response would make one think not.
“I point out that the posters here disagree with your assertion the U.S. has been antagonizing Russia…”
Who disagreed with it? Where? You’ve pointed out nothing.
You seem obsessed with this “IDK” thing. Here’s how things went:
I made a statement. You said the statement was ridiculous. I said “How so?” You said “I don’t know”.
Now call me crazy but I don’t think I’m the one coming off bad in that exchange.
“I point out your IDK argument is ridiculous and you glom onto the tagged-on correction of your English. Set and match.”
I have no bloody idea what you’re talking about. Haven’t checked out a communications class like I’ve recommended, have you Bob?
If you have an issue with something I’ve said just go ahead and make your argument. I promise to go light on you. This endless deflection of yours is just weird.
“IDK if anyone agrees with you but the dearth of response would make one think not.”
Huh? So if somebody fails to get an “I second that opinion!” on this blog their opinion is invalid? That’s a new one on me. I think you’re a bit confused, chappie.
“call me crazy but I don’t think I’m the one coming off bad”
agreed
From Trump’s speech this morning:
“All I see everywhere I travel in this nation – and I’ve been everywhere – is untapped potential waiting to be realized,” Trump told the people. “If we unlock the potential of this country and it’s incredible people, no dream is outside of our reach. If we stop believing in our failed politicians and start believing in ourselves, then anything – anything – is possible,” Trump said. “I’m asking you to dream big, to push for bold change, and to believe in a movement powered by our love for each other and our love for our country. That is how we will truly make America great again.”
Had he been saying this all along he would be 10 points up.
And Bob I will tell you this. I can understand your hesitation in voting for Trump, although the Putin angle is ridiculous, but supporting Hillary is completely unAmerican. Never has anyone so corrupt and so dishonest ran for POTUS and anyone who supports her is just as guilty as she is in ripping apart the fabric of this country. And knowing your support for Hillary should also disqualify you as someone who would “spearhead” and new conservative movement.
No doubt. And as I pointed out before, at this point if you don’t support Trump you’re supporting Hillary. Great quote by Trump btw.
Once again, you have convinced me to not vote for Hillary.
Conversation snippet at Bob’s house:
“Should we go with satellite or cable, dear?”
Bob: “What does Putin have?”
“Satellite.”
Bob: “It’s cable then!”
No, it is more like you are about to choose a security system and you think it best to use the system your neighbor, the robber, recommends.
Bob, you live next door to a known robber? That explains a lot.
Does anyone here wish to concur with Rusty’s question/statement “aren’t we the ones who’ve basically been antagonizing Russia?”
He seems to feel some of you agree but I think he is mistaken.
“He seems to feel some of you agree but I think he is mistaken.”
I never said nor indicated anyone here agreed with me. But you’re the only one who’s voiced objection and hilariously you just can’t explain why…
I’m not saying I agree with Rusty. Quite frankly I don’t follow U.S./Russian relations close enough to have a valid opinion, but from what little I have read, the international community is sort of divided on whether or not we’ve antagonized Russia
I got to the above article by doing a Google search on “has the U.S. antagonized Russia?” Google filled in the word Russia before I could enter it, so it’s obviously a question that at least a few people are asking.
Gee whiz, let me think about why I disagree with “aren’t we the ones who’ve basically been antagonizing Russia?”
Wow, I think I’ll have to get back to you, that is such a puzzler. You dun stumped me again.
Yeah, you keep us updated there, Bob.
Bob, once your support helps usher Hillary into the White House and before you embark on convening a “new conservative party”, you might encourage Hillary to start a really strong hashtag campaign against Putin along with possibly a strongly worded letter condemning his actions and promising to get the UN involved. That ought to really get Putin’s attention. Of course if Vladimir makes a sizable contribution to the Clinton Foundation well then all bets are off. Good luck with that though
Cluster
You can erroneously label me a Hillary supporter all you like. The thing is, whether I support her or not, she will be our next President.
When she is President I will, indeed, support her Presidency, as I would Trump’s and did Obama’s. I will always support the elected President, whether I voted for them or not. That is what a citizen should do.
Don’t worry. She’ll be elected despite your own wishes. You are as powerless as I in this election. Only you continue to back the GOP that brought this mess to us.
Wrong. I do not back the GOP and have told them that explicitly and have ceased donations. I no longer want to be a member of a party that boasts the likes of Bush, Kasich, McConnell, etc.. I also find it extremely ironic that you would blame the mess on the GOP and in the same post pledge your support for a President Hillary Clinton. Your mind is full of garbage.
Bob, as you dream of more status quo rule, keep in mind the following.
Seventy-one percent of the government’s career senior executives earned bonuses based on their job performance in fiscal 2015, up 2.8 percentage points from fiscal 2014, the Office of Personnel Management reported. The average individual performance award for those top career employees in fiscal 2015 was $10,742, up from $10,544 in fiscal 2014, according to the data. The number of all Senior Executive Service members – career, non-career, and limited-term – receiving the highest job performance rating in fiscal 2015 also was up slightly, from 48.6 percent in fiscal 2014 to 49.7 percent.
Those folks who are within the establishment are doing great.
Cluster There’s a simple solution to that. Just sayin’.
Have you forgotten about feeding the trolls?
Welcome to Bickerston, Rusty. I wandered down that path a time or two till I figured out that Bob feeds on the petty, and will drag it out for days. Once you nail something down he will skitter off in a different direction, or answer a question you never asked, or misquote you to go off on one of his tangents. It is all just silliness, his way of screaming LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME. He has never been able to hold his own in any discussion, and has never offered up a real idea other than his Trump obsession. He is wholly dependent on quibbling because as long as someone responds to him he feels validated.
He is wholly dependent on quibbling because as long as someone responds to him he feels validated.
There’s a simple solution to that. Just sayin’.
Why are you guys discouraging him just when his intellect had me cornered?
Bob, you remind me of a rodeo clown.
You mean, the brave and capable people who save bullriders when they are endangered?
Thanks, pigeon, and a glorious “coo-coo” to you and your peoples. You ain’t so bad after all.
Rusty, see what happens when you feed the trolls?
Listen to Spook. He is a wise man.
There’s a simple solution to that. Just sayin’.
No Bob, I meant it in the spirit of those people who run around looking ridiculous hamming it up for cheap laughs–a sideshow while the cowboys go about their serious business.
You don’t know much about rodeo, do you?
I know something about trolls. You’re not a very bright one.
“Rusty, see what happens when you feed the trolls?”
I know, I know. He’s just so much fun to bat around. Although I’ll admit it’s more fun when he tries to make an actual point, which he hasn’t done in days.
But in all seriousness I agree with Bob on his last point: comparing him to a rodeo clown is a gross insult to rodeo clowns. Comparing him to something on the bottom of my shoe is more apt.
Rusty, while rodeo clowns are now called bullfighters, and are skilled athletes who do a dangerous and important job, they do come across as idiots when they are not called upon to do the dangerous stuff, and I think you’re referring to that. I think there is a huge difference between this aspect of what they do and what you mean, which is that the rodeo clowns/bullfighters act this way on purpose, trying to come across as silly. It’s part of the show, till they have to face and distract an angry bull to keep him from injuring a downed rider. There is a big difference between purposely playing the fool and not even knowing that is what you are doing, so I don’t agree with your rodeo clown comparison. Bob’s self perception is that he is witty and delivering devastating ripostes, which certainly does not match the way he is seen by others. I can imagine him with his head cocked to the side, lips pursed, chins creased, pinkie finger planted firmly on his chin, while he one-fingers “Thanks, pigeon, and a glorious “coo-coo” to you and your peoples…” with the other hand, purring with self-satisfaction at his scathing wit.
Enter Bickerstown at your own peril, Rusty, realizing it is governed by Mayor McBickerston and the price of entry is exposure to nonstop bickering. It’s an Idea-Free zone.
Thank you, Amazona, for helping Rusty understand his metaphor was stu—misguided.
Rusty is just having such a good time giving me a what-fer, I don’t know why you recommend he back off. He is clearly winning.
It is odd you guys now consider me a troll. Over my time at this site I have found we agree on most everything. Even up to the point Trump was nominated, we were in complete agreement (including the Hitler thing, per a lengthy blog conversation between Amazona and I). Then the GOP moved to Trump and you guys moved with them and I didn’t. Now I’m persona non grata.
The discussion has devolved to the point that you feel more in common with a guy who thinks the U.S. has been antagonizing Russia too much, simply because he agrees Trump is a better choice than the inevitable.
After this election is behind us, our viewpoints will be back in sync and we can get back to pleasant conversation about all the items on which we agree.
In the meantime, lemme have my fun with the pigeon. As you and Spook rightly pointed out, he’s the one feeding this. He can stop it any time, but he won’t, as he wants to prove he is smart…to strangers on a blog…
“Rusty, while rodeo clowns are now called bullfighters, and are skilled athletes who do a dangerous and important job, they do come across as idiots when they are not called upon to do the dangerous stuff, and I think you’re referring to that.”
Well of course I’m referring to that! That’s why I said: “I meant it in the spirit of those people who run around looking ridiculous hamming it up for cheap laughs–a sideshow while the cowboys go about their serious business.”
For Pete’s sake, it was a stupid little quip, an allusion, a half-assed metaphor, not meant to be an exposition on rodeo clowns. Bob takes it literally because he’s a troll and he thinks he’ll score a point that way. Doesn’t bother me.
Rusty, of course I understood what you meant, and I am not the one who tried to turn it into a whole exposition of rodeo athletes. But once he did, the explanation that the bullfighters act like idiots on purpose with full awareness of their silliness, unlike Bob, was too good to pass up.
I am sure you noticed Bob’s sad and silly belief that Spook and I were talking about you. ” As you and Spook rightly pointed out, he’s the one feeding this…” I can’t imagine Bob being the boss of anything, but I can imagine him as the de facto head of the Clueless Society—unless, and this is a big UNLESS—-he is acknowledging my point, that engaging him merely contributes to his obsessive need to bicker and nitpick by feeding his pathetic need for attention.
After all, Spook’s comment was a response to something I said, which he even quoted to be sure it would not be misunderstood: “He is wholly dependent on quibbling because as long as someone responds to him he feels validated.” And the “he” in this sentence had already been identified as Bob.
His pattern is to say something stupid, wait for the inevitable response that it was stupid, and then play “I know what you are but what am I tee hee tee hee”.
Amazona
OK, so when I refuted Rusty’s point – the thing that started the bickering – that we should not ease off Putin, that was just stupid trolling. When he replied that the U.S. has been the antagonist in our relationship with Russia and I refuted that, that was infantile trolling.
I guess that means you agree with Rusty, that we have been antagonizing Russia and need to back off Putin, and to argue otherwise would be feeding a troll. Got it.
Rusty
I’m sorry I missed the point about rodeo clowns.
Most people I know who watch rodeo admire rodeo clowns and do not consider them buffoons to amuse while the “real cowboys” (um, you mean bullriders?) do the hard work.
You have my deepest apologies for not delving deeper into the rodeo clown gestalt. Again, you prove your incredible intellect. Maybe this explains why you don’t get the Hitler analogy that so many people have written about. You see things at another level, far beyond my limited comprehension, like Steven Seagal level stuff.
Rusty
To help you understand the Hitler thing, let me quote someone far smarter than either of us.
“No, Hitler is the right analogy. People are so gun-shy of comparing anyone to Hitler, because then the mind automatically goes to the Holocaust, SS troops and world domination. But the comparison to the early Hitler days when he preyed upon the fears and concerns of a troubled Germany, and made extravagant promises while using an oratory style that enflamed peoples’ emotions, is quite appropriate. (To be honest, some of the Trumpertantrums are also a little reminiscent of the ‘Hitler Reacts’ fad, particularly this one where Hitler calls people ‘losers’.”
Amazona, February 24, 2016 / 11:27 am
Ama,
I didn’t take any offense from you at all, I just find it weird for anyone to spend so much time adjudicating a lighthearted offhand quip. Nothing about what I said about rodeo clowns was meant to be taken too seriously, it was a flip, lighthearted metaphor–but since we’re all being so pedantic about the issue, here’s what Wikipedia says about rodeo clowns:
“Originally, the rodeo clown was a single job combining “bullfighting” – the protection of riders thrown from the bull, as well as being an individual who provided comic relief. Today in the USA, the job is split into two separate ones, hiring bullfighters who protect the riders from the bull, and entertainers, a barrelman and a clown, who provides comic humor.”
Boooya. My metaphor stands and as usual, Bob is the one who doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. Even at his clownish trolling he can’t win.
I wonder what his next gotcha is going to be, Putin doesn’t really have satellite TV?
“OK, so when I refuted Rusty’s point – the thing that started the bickering – that we should not ease off Putin, that was just stupid trolling. When he replied that the U.S. has been the antagonist in our relationship with Russia and I refuted that, that was infantile trolling”
You’ve refuted nothing. You’ve merely said I was wrong but are unable to explain why.
“Most people I know who watch rodeo admire rodeo clowns and do not consider them buffoons to amuse”
Well, most people you know are wrong and don’t recognize a clown when they see one. See above.
“You have my deepest apologies for not delving deeper into the rodeo clown gestalt.”
No need to apologize. Making you look like a fool is enough for me!
Poor Bob, can’t get it right even when he copies and pastes. He says his quote is “To help you understand the Hitler thing…….” but MY “Hitler thing” is not at all the same as his. Or at least I don’t think it is—he is so incoherent I often have no idea what the hell he is rambling on about.
Let’s take another look at my Hitler comment—in context, this time, not pulled out to try to support Bob’s uber-hysterical Trumphobia.
No, Hitler is the right analogy. People are so gun-shy of comparing anyone to Hitler, because then the mind automatically goes to the Holocaust, SS troops and world domination. But the comparison to the early Hitler days when he preyed upon the fears and concerns of a troubled Germany, and made extravagant promises while using an oratory style that enflamed peoples’ emotions, is quite appropriate. That “early Hitler days” was a hint of what was to come, which was a discussion of the similarities of appeal of each man to the masses in the early days of his rise to power. And that is all. It stopped there. No other comparison. None.
In other words, I did not compare Trump to Hitler so much as compare the arc of gaining popular support of one man to that of another.
Waaaaay too nuanced for Bob.
But he did finally get something right. “………”……. let me quote someone far smarter than either of us.” Well, half right, which for Bob is quite a feat. Now that the “either of us” includes Rusty, he made it all the way to 50% without stumbling. And no, before he gets his smirky snark on and tries to pretend I’m not saying “smarter than Bob” let me make this very very clear. In a post written by Bob, he should have just said “……..To help you understand the Hitler thing, let me quote someone far smarter than I am..” That would have been simpler and much more accurate.
Dolf and Rusty have never been birds of a feather. (What IS it with you and birds, anyway?)
Rusty would never drink zinfandel with brie.
“Rusty would never drink zinfandel with brie”
I might if I had started out with bourbon!
And you want me to stomp you on the Hitler thing too? Fine. You start. What is your point, that Trump is like Hitler? How so? Lay it out for me there, Bob.
Don’t play chess with a pigeon. They’ll crap all over the board and strut around saying they won.
“‘IDK’ Fine, by your own words you don’t know what you’re talking about. That was the quickest resolution to a disagreement I’ve ever had with!”
“Boooya. My metaphor stands ”
Hmm, maybe I am just too on-the-nose describing you thus. You are truly a debating juggernaut, La Paloma.
Please, oh, please do not stomp me, good sir. Go stomp Amazona, as she agrees with me comparing Trump’s rise to Hitler.
(well, she agreed before the convention, at least.)
While you are stomping Amazona, ask her to explain the inanity of your statement that the U.S. has been antagonizing Russia. I am too inept to make the argument, but I’m sure she can.
I mean, unless she agrees with the statement…
Bob, “the 1980’s called and want their foreign policy back”. Doesn’t it seem odd that Russia would be such a menace considering Obama’s pledge to be more “flexible”? Seriously your obsession with Russia is typical of small minded progressive people who obsess about single issues, even the irrelevant ones that they think can tarnish their opponents. Much like watson’s obsession with racism, so I guess you’re in good company.
btw, you are doing awesome.
Ha, ha, love it. As I said, it’s fun batting you around.
Looks like your definition of the term “batting around” is as off as your definition of “antagonizing.” Perhaps words aren’t your forte.
“Enter Bickerstown at your own peril, Rusty, realizing it is governed by Mayor McBickerston and the price of entry is exposure to nonstop bickering. It’s an Idea-Free zone”
Bickerstown aint so bad, it’s picking pieces of Mayor McBickerston from my teeth that’s mildly annoying…
“Looks like your definition of the term “batting around” is as off as your definition of “antagonizing.” Perhaps words aren’t your forte.”
I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say there and would hazard a guess no one else does either.
You are the most marvelous gift ever, Pidge. Stay golden.
Sweet of you to say, Bob. And don’t you go changing a bit either!
It is amazing that Amazona and Spook advised you, and you even reposted their words, and yet you cannot help yourself. You are definitely winning and not at all looking foolish.
Aww, your so cute!
* you’re
Awww, good, good, you got one! Atta boy!
Amazona and Spook
this
Final (hopefully) recap:
Bob has put forth no ideas.
Bob has not been able to explain a single one of his objections to my ideas, although he’s quite vehemently against them.
When challenged to elaborate on whatever strange point he appeared to want to make about Hitler=Trump, he refused.
When he tried to troll me about a metaphor, he failed.
But he spotted a missing apostrophe and a transposed homonym, and he’s fond of calling people pigeons. Bob considers this a good day.
Actually, for Bob that IS a pretty good day.
Har!
GO CUBS! Awesome night.
Rizzo!
Looked like a great game. I didn’t watch it but I followed the last two innings online—kind of interesting, a visual play by play—and was happy to see the Cubs not only win but win decisively.
Just the sports gods making up for those two pick-sixes on Sunday…
Now, now, Mark, no sour grapes. The Broncos defense is famous for creating opportunities. It is pretty well known to Broncos fans that the defense is responsible for our success record and our Super Bowl win, as our offense is a little inconsistent.
There is nothing better than a game 7 in the World Series regardless of who plays. The fact that we have two franchises that haven’t won it in over 70 years makes this one even better. Go Cubs!!!!
How can anyone believe that Mr. Trump will not keep good on his promises to make America great again? How do people know that for sure? How can they make such future predictions? Look at Obama, he was the one everyone was supposedly waiting for, everybody was gunghoe about him, “Heil, Obama, Heil Obama” millions flocked to his rallies, and look what he has done to this country? He has nearly crippled it to the point of no return. He has put more people on food stamps than any other President in history. He has kept women in the slums of the abortion industry. He has catered to the 3% minority of homosexuals who want to imprison pastors for preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, he has given aid to our worst enemies, and committed treason. And Hillary wants to do, and has done, that and more. Looks like people would have learned by now. Yet, they want to distrust Mr. Trump more? Why in the world the comparison of him to Hitler? What in the world are people thinking? I’ve never seen such ignorance. Who cares about Putin and what he thinks of who America votes for President? We could drop a bomb on him, and his puny army, and say, ‘now, this our land. Welcome to your newborn freedom.’
Now…
I’m sorry for disrupting this blog, you may return to your normal programming.
Sounds about right
Jeremiah, you can’t just disappear for years, drop in for a short post and then apologize for it and take off again!
I hope you read my explanation of my only use of the names Trump and Hitler in the same comment. I never hinted in any way that Donald Trump shares any characteristic with Hitler, other than his ability to appeal to people on a certain level because of the fears and uncertainties of their society at the time.
You can’t pay any attention to anything Bob says. He is pathologically anti-Trump, and addicted to petty sniping and nonstop bickering.
Garrison Keillor had a story in which a character’s mother was, to put it mildly, a pill. He said you could eat a meal she had prepared and then rave about it. (Paraphrasing) “The pot roast was the best ever made, the potatoes were perfectly mashed and seasoned, the green beans were wonderful, and the pie was heavenly. ” And she would listen to all this and then say “So you didn’t like the bread?” I think of this character sometimes when I see Bob scrounging around in a post for something to misquote, snipe at, snarl at, or try to use as a springboard to get people to pay attention to him.
This is a perfect example: You say “Who cares about Putin and what he thinks of who America votes for President?” and Bob, who has been carrying on for days about how we should care what Putin thinks (after consulting his crystal ball to determine what he thinks) responds with “Sounds about right.” Just ignore him. Most of us do.
So how have you been? We have missed you.
Amazona,
I’m doing okay, I guess. I have been in and out of the hospital over the latter half of this year. Been battling this thyroid thing, and several bad infections. So, I have managed to keep myself alive, with the help of doctors, and the good Lord’s help. I have felt better today than I have for quite a while, I moved one and three-quarter ton of coal to the wood and coal shed. Done some weed-eating, etc.
We have missed you.
Thank you! I appreciate that! So, how have you been?
I’ve been good, Jeremiah—thanks for asking. Have been working in our family company, and catching up after years of getting behind. I’m sorry to hear that things have been so rough with you, and glad that you are getting better. That’s a lot of coal to move—you must be on the mend. How are your eyes?
How are your eyes?
They’re doing good. Although I do need to have them checked again, and get some new lenses. These are getting old. The protective coating is just about all chipped away.
Sorry so short, but I have to keep on the run, between doctor appointments, going to the pharmacy, and running a make-shift “taxi service”.
good post Jer 🙂
Thanks Neo. 🙂
Note that now Bob is playing the infantile game of pretending that ignoring some stupid thing he said means agreement with the stupid thing.
No. I only responded at all because he is using my own words to try to support his manic Trumphobia, and I wanted to straighten that out. Otherwise, there is the hope that if he is ignored he will just go away.
Far, far away. Somewhere there might be a place that doesn’t just find his efforts to be witty to be puerile and stupid. Creepy to think so, but the world is a funny place, and there is a theory that there is a right place for everyone.
Cluster,
Funny how Watson is obsessing about the KKK, huh? Aren’t there like 50 Klansman left in the US? Yet this seems to be a major concern for him. Christ, he’s living in 1955 Alabama.
You have been given many chances to post something besides arguments and name calling and have decided to stick with arguing and name calling.
This post is over the line. It is offensive and this kind of thing will not be tolerated. We know you like to “stir things up” but this blog is not here for your entertainment and we are tired of it. You have not been adding anything of value to the blog.
From now on your posts will be evaluated and if they continue in the same vein you will not be allowed to post here any more.
Your recent posts and responses from Rusty and Amazona have been deleted because without your posts they don’t make sense. //Moderator
Well, Rusty, you’ve gone and done it—-I’m actually watching the game tonight. A double Old Fashioned, some blue corn tortilla chips, and the first TV baseball game I’ve watched in I don’t know how long. (Rooting for Cubs, of course.)
BTW, that Rizzo is cute. Have him washed and brought to my tent.
You go girl! Cubs looking good. And Rizzo has talent to go with those good looks!
Oh, dear. I just said a bad word. (Bottom of 8th)
That was a very exhausting game. I’m changing my mind about Rizzo, though—he’s just a little too reserved for my taste.
Awesome. We finally did it. Never thought I’d see it!
It was just awesome – heart-attack inducing, but awesome…
Funny you should say that–My heart was noticeably palpitating last night.
Same two teams next year? They both played their hearts out.
Well, I was ticked off. First the cliffhanger election making me crazy, and then that HR in the bottom of the 8th. But I stuck it out, and even though I had only been a Cubs fan for a day, it was tense.
I thought the Cubs just looked like a better team, overall. And an old football announcer cliche kept popping up in my mind: “These boys really came to play!”
I do suggest a new rule: If both teams have the same letter on the front of their caps, one has to change during the Series.
The last time the Cubs won the World Series there was no federal income tax. Maybe this is an omen.
I like the way you think.
More bad news for Hillary. Too bad, so sad!
As most of you know, I tend to pay attention to world events, especially WRT economics and financial markets, and particularly events that are rare or one-off. The S&P500 is on track to suffer its 8th straight daily decline, something that hasn’t happened since the 2008 collapse. It may not mean anything, but couple that with the Cubs’ win, and, well — you decide. Strange year!
Rush is saying he has it from a reliable source that those given immunity in the Hillary email scandal lied. That’s a no-no when you’re given immunity. I’m not seeing any news sites reporting this yet, but If Rush is correct, expect to see immunity agreements pulled and one or more Clinton insiders flip to save their rear ends. Wouldn’t you know, this is the first year in as long as I can remember that my grandsons’ boy scout troop isn’t selling popcorn.
CUBS !!!! What a game. Home run in 8th to tie, clutch hitting in the 10th to win – extraordinary series. Baseball is the best.
I have read that investigators have never stopped looking into the CGI, they never did destroy those laptops, and now have found even more damaging material on Weiner’s laptop. Indictment? I thought there was enough evidence to indict last time, but surely this should push it over the top. Besides, it is already proven that she lied to the FBI, and that alone would put most people in jail.
Best Newspaper headline on the Cubs:
Hell Freezes Over
You kinda knew the Clinton campaign was out of gas when they dragged out Alicia Machado to introduce Hillary at a Florida rally yesterday. looks to be a chaotic final few days, but I’m feeling much better about the outcome than I was a week ago.
I am still nervous
” it is already proven that she lied to the FBI, and that alone would put most people in jail.”
This has been bugging me for a while now. Comey as much as said she had lied to them, lying to them is a felony, the proof of lying was evident—-yet he recommended that they give that a pass, too. It never made sense.
Now they are in a bind, because if they prosecute those who got immunity for lying, it will be even harder to ignore Hillary’s lying.
What do you think of the guessing that she is so cocky because she knows Obama will pardon her? And what do you know about the nature of the pardons? That is, can the president pardon someone who has not yet been indicted much less convicted? Can he issue a blanket pardon for any deeds or misdeeds in the past, whether or not they are ever considered a crime or pursued as such?
Can he issue a blanket pardon for any deeds or misdeeds in the past, whether or not they are ever considered a crime or pursued as such?
Ford pardoned Nixon who had not been indicted, so I’m guessing the answer is yes.
This is the text of Ford’s proclamation:
By the President of the United States of America a Proclamation
Richard Nixon became the thirty-seventh President of the United States on January 20, 1969 and was reelected in 1972 for a second term by the electors of forty-nine of the fifty states. His term in office continued until his resignation on August 9, 1974.
Pursuant to resolutions of the House of Representatives, its Committee on the Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation on the impeachment of the President extending over more than eight months. The hearings of the Committee and its deliberations, which received wide national publicity over television, radio, and in printed media, resulted in votes adverse to Richard Nixon on recommended Articles of Impeachment.
As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.
It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.
While the scope of pardoned offenses is broad, the time frame is specific, and the reason for giving the pardon is explicit. Hillary Clinton did not lose her position as Secretary of State as a result of her misdeeds, so no one can say she has already paid a price—(“…a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office…”) She is not in office now and was not in office when she committed perjury, lying to the FBI. A Hillary pardon would have the opposite effect of the intended effect of the Nixon pardon—to “..expose to further punishment and degredation a (person) who has already paid the ……penalty…”
I’d be willing to go with a pardon – if she agreed to go on national television and admit all she’s done.
I’m not saying it couldn’t be done, just that it would be a lot harder to explain away. It would really tarnish Obama’s “legacy” and if Hillary is elected and pardons herself it would probably result in an amendment.
“I’d be willing to go with a pardon – if she agreed to go on national television and admit all she’s done.”
For goodness’ sake, why? A single mistake, maybe. But 30 years of corruption, lying, and most of all abuse of trust and authority call for a penalty a lot stronger than a mere mea culpa.
And which network would give her three hours to catalog “all she’s done”?
LOL – three days, more like. But, confession is good for the soul…and having her tell her own mindless followers that, yes, she was out there taking bribes would be wonderful to behold…
“… confession is good for the soul…” …… if you have one.
I’d rather have her plead guilty to several of dozens of charges laid out in detail by a prosecutor and THEN throw herself on the mercy of the court and weep that she is sorry, so sorry, so very very sorry.
As for having her fan club learn this about her: THEY. DON’T. CARE.
These are not people for whom morality, decency, honesty, integrity, matter a whit. There could be video of her ripping the heart out of a child with her teeth and giving a bloody grin at the camera and THEY. WOULDN’T. CARE.
Sorry about the o/t but I think this is pretty funny, over at the lonely swamp blog Watson continues his obsession with me. He quotes me out of context and rants:
“It’s fun batting you around.” “Making you look like a fool is enough for me!” That’s Rusty’s in a nutshell: crushing anonymous strangers on the Internet. Such a display of manly feats!
I’m sure Rusty’s family is proud. “Hey, sister, did you see where Dad beat up on that guy on the Internet again today?” “Yeah, that was amazing. He’s so awesome!”
Watson, you do realize the quotes you took from me are in response to a troll who was baiting me, right? You followed the whole conversation and noticed who began politely and who brought it down to the gutter, right? It’s not like I just come out and say things like that to people. That’s something you do. I can see why you approve of Bob’s level of discourse here, you’re about on the same level. Perhaps you can invite him on your blog; sure looks like you need the bodies!
As far as making it personal with my family, my kids are a bit young for the level of discourse at this blog, and I’m not just talking about the vituperative stuff. But in the abstract I have no problem with teaching them how to stand up to a bully, especially in verbal, non-violent form. Being able to effectively argue my positions and outdebate bullies has served me very well in life; it’s actually allowed me to avoid more than one physical conflicts as a younger man.
Perhaps you should turn your musings upon yourself. How would you justify your actions to your family? Are you proud, Watson? How would you explain your values: unable to debate someone you lock yourself in a safe space cocoon and continue to provoke them from afar. Now THAT’S something to be ashamed about, imo.
“Gee, dad got so frustrated at being outdebated he banned this guy from his blog! I wish daddy could talk better.”
“But if daddy is afraid to talk to the man why does he keep talking about him to himself? He’s been doing it for months! Have you seen him talking to this Rusty guy in the mirror while he’s shaving?!”
“Mommy said daddy is going to a special man who helps people with their problems…”
ROTFLMAO!!
At least he isn’t trying to charge you rent for the large space you seem to permanently occupy in his head. You apparently stomp around at all hours and play loud music, too.
BWT, we ran into much the same thing. When Cluster and his old buddy-boys started that Dark Side blog, they seemed to exist only to shout into the void the things they had been trying to say here before they got banned for just being troublemakers with nothing real to say. His rationale at the time was that he liked “debating” with people with different ideas. I got the impression he learned that there is no real “debating” with these people. They wait for you to say something, then attack what you said and you for saying it. The posts I saw were about what people had said over here. It was pretty funny, as they proved over and over again that they do not have ideas of their own, and can only bounce off the thinking of others in spasms of reflexive negativity.
I once said they reminded me of people standing along the sidelines in a bicycle race. Some people race, some people are support for the racers, some offer water and encouragement when the racers pass by, and some don’t really participate but pay attention and cheer. And then there are the blog trolls, who just lurk and wait for a chance to dart out and shove a stick through the spokes of those who are actually doing something. They contribute nothing, and just try to tear down what others are doing. This is why I started calling them blog vandals.
I know, I was an enthusiastic member of that blog! And yeah, we were hammering you guys, saying the things over there that we weren’t allowed to say here. Cluster and I used to bloody each other’s noses! Most of us have grown a bit since then.
Not Watson. His pathology today is much sicker than what we engaged in back then. Watson hasn’t been banned by anyone–HE’S the one doing the censoring AND the sniping from the sidelines. I hope he finds the right meds soon.
Btw, if he is in fact banned here I would encourage the moderators to lift it. He was never very rude in my experience and not much trouble, just wrong. When confronted with a factual argument he just taps out.
Bob,
The only time I “cood my victory” was in response to your trollish behavior. Go back and follow the thread from the beginning; I think you’ll find you’re the one who jumped right in with the snark and ridicule, from your very first comment I believe. You may think I haven’t nailed any points but I believe you’re in a minority of one. For example, I proved that my rodeo clown metaphor was spot on by definition after you repeatedly made a fool of yourself insisting I was wrong.
“For example, using the colloquialism idk” to invalidate my argument and then crowing about the victory”
Bob, I thought we covered that: I made a statement. You said the statement was ridiculous. I said “How so?” You said “IDK”.
I think that exchange plainly makes you look silly. Shall we take a vote on it? I didn’t “invalidate” your argument; you had no argument to invalidate.
Look Bob, I’m sorry you can’t match wits with me, but you started it. I led with a perfectly reasonable, polite opinion and you insisted on trying to mock it without ever explaining why. You upped the vitriol and I matched you. You claimed a metaphor of mine was ill-informed but I pointed out that it was you who was ill informed. I realize after all of your face-plants (on this and previous posts) you’re trying to get the better of me but sorry pal, not gonna happen.
This the first of several posts by Bob where he started right back in with personal attacks and insults. He does not seem to catch on very well. They have all been removed. If the people who responded to him have posts that don’t make sense any more, not our problem. You knew he would be deleted. //Moderator
You’re excluding your sarcastic, snarky, unsubstantiated comments that precede some of this. Look, it’s all right up there in black and white; I’m comfortable with letting readers decide who was being the (bleeped //Moderator) by looking at it in it’s entirety. I’ll just note it was you who had posts deleted and was warned about your insults, not me. You apologized. I have nothing to apologize about.
“You said to check our conversation yesterday, not go to the top of the thread”
What are you talking about? Every time I mentioned anything like this I was referring to going back and following our conversation from the begging; I think that was clear to most people. What else could I I mean by:
“Go back and follow the thread from the beginning”
or
“Look, it’s all right up there in black and white; I’m comfortable with letting readers decide who was being the (bleeped //Moderator)by looking at it in it’s entirety”
Wow, you’re really desperate, aren’t you?
Thats “beginning” not “begging”
Antagonism? All you have to do is display a bit of empathy–look at it through the eyes of the other guy. How would we respond if Russia installed advanced missile technology all along the border of Canada? We would rightly view that as antagonistic.
Here’s an article that fleshes out my statements about Russia, I pretty much agree with all of it. I just think this “who did bad things when to whom” mentality between the world’s nuclear superpowers is counterproductive to other global issues and potentially fatal. Look, we won the Cold War. Why did we continue Cold War policies after that? The military industrial complex, that’s why.
“The president’s new budget proposal for 2017 calls for a 200 percent increase for our military spending in Europe aimed at Russia—perhaps the most provocative step yet in our apparent efforts to encircle and antagonize that country.
Meanwhile, spending aimed at ISIS is to increase by 50 percent.
Since the fall of Communism, Russia has concentrated on internal matters—yes, sometimes in a manner contrary to our values. Its leaders and policies have been seriously flawed. If Russia is expanding its military capabilities, this is a trend we must attend to, but that does not reactivate its status as our enemy.
It remains the case that NATO countries hugely outspend Moscow when it comes to military procurement. There is no evidence whatsoever that Russia, as when it was the Soviet Union, is embarked on a wanton course of global expansion. This is a country that unilaterally pulled its occupying troops out of Eastern Europe, a door closing on the Cold War.”
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-america-restarting-the-cold-war-russia-15183
Whoever said anything about appeasing or apologizing?
Fine, if you want to characterize backing off of Russia over the Ukraine “appeasement” then I’ll accept that. I am not in favor of any action in that regard. Since you obviously are, what would you do instead?
Watson, I read a lot of things. I read plenty of opinions I don’t agree with. I read your blog because it absurd. Every time I check in I’m wondering if you could have possibly shoved your head (bleeped //Moderator) and It’s not often I’m disappointed. Now THAT’S entertainment.
If you can quote one single time I’ve ever begged to post on your site I’ll give you a thousand dollars. You’re a weak intellect and a liar.
As for you being banned here, give it a try. I was banned too but look at me now.
Bob is gone and it’s time to clean up the rest of the blog. Every now and then a mild profanity is tolerated but it’s a fine line. Avoid it.
Please don’t use this blog to talk to people on the Dark Side. //Moderator
Still takin’ the high road eh, Bob?
No problem. Thanks for putting up with it this long.