🚀 go-pugleaf

Jonathan Ball wrote:
> I P Seldom wrote:
> 
>> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>
>>> I P Seldom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I P Seldom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pit_Bull wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:55:23 GMT, Jonathan Ball 
>>>>>>>> <jonball@whitehouse.not>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think you would be pleasently surprised by just how 
>>>>>>>>>> articulate and
>>>>>>>>>> well-read "blue collar" workers can be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Undoubtedly some small number of them are.  They're a distinct 
>>>>>>>>> minority, as the intellectual tone of beer, pick-em-up truck 
>>>>>>>>> and various other blue-collar-oriented advertising makes clear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're an elitist pig. It comes through loud and clear in your 
>>>>>>>> posts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not an elitist, if by that you mean one who favors some kind 
>>>>>>> of aristocracy based on inheritance.  I do believe in a natural 
>>>>>>> merit-based elite, though.  Cream rises.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Intellectually, blue collar workers, on average, are skim milk.  
>>>>>>> That's just how it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, an elitist pig to the core, and you can't even see it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You just don't get it.  "Elitist" isn't the
>>>>> character-assassinating swearword you want it to be.  I
>>>>> believe in recognition of and rewards to merit, and it
>>>>> is clear that, because of differences in ability, there
>>>>> will be a natural elite.  There's nothing "unfair" (a
>>>>> meaningless word) or undemocratic about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> How sad.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What's sad, dumb LCD Rusty, is that you have been so thoroughly 
>>>>> indoctrinated with a completely bogus sense of egalitarianism as a 
>>>>> social organizing principle. Wait; "indoctrinated" is too tough a 
>>>>> word for a prole like you; how about "brainwashed"?  You clearly 
>>>>> suffer from a low intellect and an overpowering sense of envy
>>>>> toward your intellectual betters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Call me an "elitist" if it makes you feel better, LCD
>>>>> Rusty.  It only make me sneer at you that much more.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're the one being divisive
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought you said I was being elitist?  Which is it? What does being 
>>> divisive have to do with being elitist?
>>>
>>>> and trying to cause a gap between two classes,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The gap is already there.  You are the one trying to play on it, 
>>> illicitly.
>>>
>>>> I'm well aware that there are people who are less able to succeed, 
>>>> and those who are more able to succeed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll bet you are, dumbo.
>>>
>>>> Right there in your original post it shows you wish to divide people 
>>>> by what some have and what others do not,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.  The division is there already.
>>>
>>>> and you also lumped an entire class of people, blue collar workers, 
>>>> together by stating they are "intellectually...skim milk".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which they are, and which you haven't really disputed.
>>>
>>>> You did say "on average" which is a good qualifier, but you still 
>>>> tend to lump the whole group together.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You just don't like the way I see the group.  It doesn't mean my way 
>>> of seeing it is inaccurate.
>>>
>>>> I don't think there's anything wrong with feeling the way you do,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you do.  Your use of politically charged words like "divisive" 
>>> shows it.
>>>
>>>> but at least admit that you do,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I always have.  Where have you been?
>>>
>>>> instead of saying "I don't feel that way" and then "there's nothing 
>>>> wrong with me feeling that way."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't say either of those, or anything remotely like them.
>>>
>>
>> The hell you didn't.
> 
> 
> I didn't.  You put some things in quotes as if I had said them, and I 
> didn't.  Your quotes are fabricated. That means you made them up.  That 
> means you're a lying fat fuck.
> 
>> "I'm not an elitist" (scroll up to read it, I didn't snip anything).
> 
> 
> You left something off, you lying fabricating fat fuck.  I wrote, "I'm 
> not an elitist, if by that you mean one who favors some kind of 
> aristocracy based on inheritance."  Why did you omit the clause 
> beginning "if by that you mean..."?
> 
> I'll tell you why:  It's because you're a fabricating lying fat fuck, 
> and you're trying to "win" by twisting and misrepresenting.  You will fail.
> 
>> Then you backpedal and act like being an elitist is not bad,
> 
> 
> No backpedaling.
> 
>> in this quote:
>> "You just don't get it.  "Elitist" isn't the character-assassinating 
>> swearword you want it to be.  I believe in recognition of and rewards 
>> to merit, and it is clear that, because of differences in ability, 
>> there will be a natural elite."
> 
> 
> No backpedaling.  I never pretended I *don't* believe in some form of 
> elitism.  You are lying to suggest otherwise.
> 
>> Which is true, there are those naturally predispositioned towards 
>> success,
> 
> 
> "Predisposed", not "predispositioned", and no, there aren't.  I know 
> plenty of people with all the equipment for success EXCEPT for the 
> predisposition.
> 
>> and those who are equally predispositioned towards failure.
>> But, for God's sake, admit how you feel, instead of trying to play 
>> both sides of the issue.
> 
> 
> I have admitted to favoring a merit-based elite.  You are either too 
> fucking incompetent to read for comprehension, or you're a lying 
> fabricating fat fuck.  I favor the latter, because you deliberately 
> omitted a key clause from something I wrote.
> 

That's what I like about idiot elitists like yourself, when you're wrong 
you start cussing and calling names.
Rusty


-- 
Long ass Sig follows:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to 
develop
weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our
bottom line." ----- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program." ----- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face." ----- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten 
times since
1983." ----- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively 
to the
threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."  ----- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl 
Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and 
he has
made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."  ----- Rep. Nancy 
Pelosi (D,
CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."  ----- Madeline Albright, Clinton
Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will 
threaten the
United States and our allies."  ----- Letter to President Bush, Signed 
by Sen.
Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a 
threat
to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the
United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of
delivering them."  ----- Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical 
weapons
throughout his country."  ----- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to 
deter
and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in 
power."
----- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing
weapons of mass destruction." ----- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 
2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are 
confident that
Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological 
weapons, and
that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and
biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is
seeking nuclear weapons..."  ----- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the 
authority to
use force � if necessary � to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that
a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and
grave threat to our security." ----- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 
2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working 
aggressively to
develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next
five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the
progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." 
  -----
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has 
refused
to do."  ----- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons 
stock,
his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given
aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is
clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to
increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons."  ----- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct
10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity 
for the
production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout 
question, we
need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, 
leading an
oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because 
he is
so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and
his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of
Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... "  ----- 
Sen. John
F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.