Making Baby Jesus Cry

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
PB Spanky is markedly condescending and unjustifiedly pedantic on this board. I don't find that to be a good argument strategy and certainly not a good social style.

This is how he got his initial lawtalkers nickname: Social Cripple. He's moved to other boards from time to time to try to wash the stigma away. Sad, really.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Interesting twist. Even if they are not all attributable to Castro, however, it still doesn't raise a counter example.

I don't even understand that.

Paigow, you should keep in mind that most people are acquainted with Spanky thru this board. Which explains our perhaps previously inexplicable-to-you dislike of him, as well as explaining the prior thread title.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't even understand that.

Paigow, you should keep in mind that most people are acquainted with Spanky thru this board. Which explains our perhaps previously inexplicable-to-you dislike of him, as well as explaining the prior thread title.

For the record, I think Spanky is neither a Social Cripple nor stupid.* I think he hasn't learned how to let go of a losing position on the PB gracefully.

*However, the idea that we should invade Cuba in 6 months is really, really stupid, unless he's got a long position in casino stocks.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
This is how he got his initial lawtalkers nickname: Social Cripple. He's moved to other boards from time to time to try to wash the stigma away. Sad, really.

People can have different personalities on different boards. the Spanky board isn't the FB because of the very reasons that makes him seem different there. plus everyone there welcomes him and everyone here attacks him. Like on the FB I'm generally considering charming- sparkling really, but on Spank board I'm seem as tiresome to some.

Originally posted by dtb
I was going to mention that very thing, but figured it wasn't worth it -- thanks for the backup, p.

I found the "Now you're learning" to be an espeically offensive. It is frankly very un-Spanky. I didn't relaly read past that line bc reading the politiical arguments would be about as much fun as sitting at a table of drunken middle aged men loudly debating the relative merits of a ketch versus yawl, and just as pointless.
But I think if I was yawl side and some ketch guy sayid "Now your're learning", it would ruffle my feathers. Its just rude and doesnt count as an argumentative point. Its like calling a dog an asshole.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't even understand that.

Paigow, you should keep in mind that most people are acquainted with Spanky thru this board. Which explains our perhaps previously inexplicable-to-you dislike of him, as well as explaining the prior thread title.

Name a non-despot with polical prisoners.

I think that hardcore conservatives and liberals alike can agree that George W. Bush does not contradict Spanky's statement, albeit for completely different reasons.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
[psst. dtb. this line of discussion is only going to lead to Spanky trying to out-worldly you. quit before he starts in with his Japan and Paris stories. seriously, this is one worldly mountain man.]

[ncs, I love ya and all, but please ix-nay on the arning-way. I'm actually waiting with some anticipation to hearing an anecdote that underpins this element of the Spanky Unified Theory. My guess is that his views on the Cuban people's warm embrace of an invasion derives from the time that a jarhead friend kicks the shit out of some Cuban policia defending Castro in a bar in Havana, subsequently being mobbed by delighted and thankful locals.]

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Cite, please.

Actually, I'm Dumbest, though I have some good competition lately.

As previously noted, the situations in Serbia and Cuba are hardly comparable. You're following your own straw man, not my logic.

No. You failed to distinguish the situations. Do you not see a distinction between genocide and a garden variety Caribbean dictator?

"Is Castro a threat to our national security? Last I checked, we were the ones that tried to invade Cuba, not the other way around. We were the ones who sought to assassinate Castro, not vice versa.* All he does is send Republicans to Florida which, however distasteful, is hardly cause for war. No serious national security argument can be made for invading Cuba.

You show appallingly bad judgment by proposing an unprovoked invasion of Cuba. Such an action would turn our country into a Rogue Nation. "

Did I read this wrong? Were you not saying that in order for us to be justified in invading Cuba that cuba would have to be a threat to our national secuirty? Human rights are not a justification. I think you said "that is "2" by "4" foreign policy." Did you also not say if we did invade them we would be a rogue nation?

My response was the Serbia was not a threat to our national security, so following your logic, we had no reason to bomb them, and bombing them made us a rogue nation. Did I get that wrong?

Then you adjusted your thesis to threat to national secuirty and genocide. And liked to point out that Castro is not committing genocide. And berated me for not seeing that distinction. So all of a sudden human rights can be used as an excuse. Well genocide anyway. But the problem is the Serbians were committing ethnic cleansing and not genocide. Most Kosovars were not killed, they were just ejected from the country.

So what is it? Is human rights a legitimate reason for military invasion? Then OK. Serbia was OK. But isn't Castro abusing human rights - political prisoners, etc. So I guess now it is military intervention is OK for certain human rights abuses but not others. And if you pick the wrong human rights abuses that makes you a rogue nation? So then did that make us a rogue nation to go into Somalia and Haiti?

But of course we had no justification for going into Iraq. But wait. Wasn't Saddam Hussein ethnically cleansing the Kurds?

Why don't you clear this up for me.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Not Bob
After all, if economics weren't an element of national security, why would the Mideast be a strategic region?

Well, F-15s & tanks don't run on batteries yet. I'm trying to think of a country or region in which we (act like we) have a real national security interest that is primarily economic but not military/political, and other than (arguably) post-soviet Europe I can't really think of one offhand. (Japan obviously doesn't meet that standard since it geopolitically key to the projection of US naval power in the Pacific.)

Spanky's question - whether European stability is in, or possibly even contrary to, our national interests - is actually an interesting one. Regardless of how one comes down on it, I don't think the post-cold-war answer is as obvious as most people assume.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Gattigap
[ncs, I love ya and all, but please ix-nay on the arning-way. I'm actually waiting with some anticipation to hearing an anecdote that underpins this element of the Spanky Unified Theory. My guess is that his views on the Cuban people's warm embrace of an invasion derives from the time that a jarhead friend kicks the shit out of some Cuban policia defending Castro in a bar in Havana, subsequently being mobbed by delighted and thankful locals.]

[The Cuba thing works well as part of his Unified Theory. what he forgot to mention, in order to tie it all up in a neat little package is that all hispanics Love Us(a). The Cubans have been sitting in line behind the Mexicans waiting for the results of the "next new US territory" lottery. They are cautiously optimistic. The baseball thing has been a real boon to their chances.]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
This is how he got his initial lawtalkers nickname: Social Cripple. He's moved to other boards from time to time to try to wash the stigma away. Sad, really.

Actually I do not think he is a Social Cripple. And by the wya, that isnt very nice. He might be a bit of a Political Debater Not Fully Able to Walk, but he is quite socially skillled I would say. I do prefer his wideeyed doe, cat raising schtick.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by dtb
And what if (hypothetically, of course), the people had the means, and didn't want to change their government?

Like I said before, you don't intervene in democracys.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Actually I do not think he is a Social Cripple. And by the wya, that isnt very nice. He might be a bit of a Political Debater Not Fully Able to Walk, but he is quite socially skillled I would say. I do prefer his wideeyed doe, cat raising schtick.

He is the one who threw the term out there, not I. Would you like a link to the conversation?

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
People can have different personalities on different boards. the Spanky board isn't the FB because of the very reasons that makes him seem different there. plus everyone there welcomes him and everyone here attacks him. Like on the FB I'm generally considering charming- sparkling really, but on Spank board I'm seem as tiresome to some.

This isn't about you Hank.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
[The Cuba thing works well as part of his Unified Theory. what he forgot to mention, in order to tie it all up in a neat little package is that all hispanics Love Us(a). The Cubans have been sitting in line behind the Mexicans waiting for the results of the "next new US territory" lottery. They are cautiously optimistic. The baseball thing has been a real boon to their chances.]

Castro was reportedly quite a pitcher back in the day -- if the scouts had seen him throw, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and he would still be up at Cooperstown today, boring Ryne Sandberg with a pedantic hours-long lecture on how he struck out Willie Mays four times in the '62 Series.