Sometimes hot words are called for IMO. Obviously I try not to make such posts on a regular basis / make it habit-forming but I felt I needed to speak my mind. I suspect many in this forum feel exactly the same way about Scott's posting habits but are simply more polite about it than I am. So, I spoke for them too hopefully.
If not, such is life. I'll take whatever the mods give me like a man.
Sometimes hot words are called for IMO. Obviously I try not to make such posts on a regular basis / make it habit-forming but I felt I needed to speak my mind. I suspect many in this forum feel exactly the same way about Scott's posting habits but are simply more polite about it than I am. So, I spoke for them too hopefully.
If not, such is life. I'll take whatever the mods give me like a man.
Right, but will you or others with similar posts have that same tolerance when it is coming from one of your ideological opponents, or will you put the squeeze on them under the guise of mock outrage?
It's a can of worms.
If others were polite about it, kudos to them. The grandiose non-politeness is supposed to have what effect? Silencing him? Making him give up and go elsewhere? No. It's merely a rallying cry to the converted.
Flip it and imagine a Bush supporter using the exact same tactic and language. Right. M-hm.
Apologizing in advance is cute but I doubt you'd accept it seriously if it was from the otherside.
Sorry. I don't mean to make too much of an issue of it, just speaking my mind. And don't think I at all went running to the mods. Personally I prefer a very wide range of expression. It's just that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
You're missing my whole point. It has much less to do with Scott's ideology than his posting habits. His trolling, his closed mindedness and all the rest. I am a rather moderate person, politically speaking so virtually everyone has some opinions I disagree with and agree with as well.
I'm not trying to get Scott to do anything but grow up. And my apology in advance was sincere. I don't care if anyone thinks it was a stunt. I don't feel good about posting like that, but sometimes I am compelled to. And as far as what happens when people curse at me, I couldn't care less.
I never tell the mods how to deal with other people.
I'm not defending Clarke here since clearly everyone was wrong WRT Rwanda, but at least try to provide the complete picture for those like Jubelum who form their beliefs based on incomplete information:
Not that this should be unknown to anyone who was politically conscious at the time
For the record, I'm square in the middle, not far right or left. Do you presume I'm a Bush supporter/Republican merely for me criticizing Clarke? Sure you did, admit it.
John, relax. If I was criticizing you for anything else I would have just come out and said it, as I will below.
Quote:
The extra stuff you quoted doesn't exactly prove anything. So? U.S. avoided and were leery of African missions. Clarke crafts a rigid set of conditions that most likely will never get fully met, thereby keeping the U.S. out most of the time. And?
That 'extra stuff' reminds you (*reminds* since this is not at all obscure) that Clarke was the exact opposite of an independent decision maker. Any criticisms you have of Clarke's overall work here needs to instead be directed at the entire US government, including congress. On the specifics, there are certainly valid criticisms. But to pretend that the hesitancy of the USW to get involved in Rwanda lies on Clarke's shoulders is ignorant in the extreme. The climate in the entire US government was and is against operations like this.
It is a strong republican position not to get involved in incidents like Rwanda, so when Bush supporters criticize clinton for the mistakes that were made, they are being hypocritical in the extreme.
Do you understand yet or do you need me to explain it to you more?
But to pretend that the hesitancy of the USW to get involved in Rwanda lies on Clarke's shoulders is ignorant in the extreme. The climate in the entire US government was and is against operations like this.
Certainly. And I don't seriously blame anyone 100% for anything. These things don't happen in a vacuum.
It is however a nice example of Clarke once again biting his tongue, putting aside any moral questions he might have, putting his nose to the grindstone, and helping to churn out some good President-pleasing bureaucracy.
The alternative is that he thinks the guidelines are peachy. Either way it's just bloody chum for the Bush sharks.
Comments
You can make the same points and still be within the posting guidelines. I just don't want you to be silenced merely for hot choice of wording.
If not, such is life. I'll take whatever the mods give me like a man.
Originally posted by Moogs
Sometimes hot words are called for IMO. Obviously I try not to make such posts on a regular basis / make it habit-forming but I felt I needed to speak my mind. I suspect many in this forum feel exactly the same way about Scott's posting habits but are simply more polite about it than I am. So, I spoke for them too hopefully.
If not, such is life. I'll take whatever the mods give me like a man.
Right, but will you or others with similar posts have that same tolerance when it is coming from one of your ideological opponents, or will you put the squeeze on them under the guise of mock outrage?
It's a can of worms.
If others were polite about it, kudos to them. The grandiose non-politeness is supposed to have what effect? Silencing him? Making him give up and go elsewhere? No. It's merely a rallying cry to the converted.
Flip it and imagine a Bush supporter using the exact same tactic and language. Right. M-hm.
Apologizing in advance is cute but I doubt you'd accept it seriously if it was from the otherside.
Sorry. I don't mean to make too much of an issue of it, just speaking my mind. And don't think I at all went running to the mods. Personally I prefer a very wide range of expression. It's just that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I'm not trying to get Scott to do anything but grow up. And my apology in advance was sincere. I don't care if anyone thinks it was a stunt. I don't feel good about posting like that, but sometimes I am compelled to. And as far as what happens when people curse at me, I couldn't care less.
I never tell the mods how to deal with other people.
Originally posted by johnq
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I'm not defending Clarke here since clearly everyone was wrong WRT Rwanda, but at least try to provide the complete picture for those like Jubelum who form their beliefs based on incomplete information:
Not that this should be unknown to anyone who was politically conscious at the time
For the record, I'm square in the middle, not far right or left. Do you presume I'm a Bush supporter/Republican merely for me criticizing Clarke? Sure you did, admit it.
John, relax. If I was criticizing you for anything else I would have just come out and said it, as I will below.
The extra stuff you quoted doesn't exactly prove anything. So? U.S. avoided and were leery of African missions. Clarke crafts a rigid set of conditions that most likely will never get fully met, thereby keeping the U.S. out most of the time. And?
That 'extra stuff' reminds you (*reminds* since this is not at all obscure) that Clarke was the exact opposite of an independent decision maker. Any criticisms you have of Clarke's overall work here needs to instead be directed at the entire US government, including congress. On the specifics, there are certainly valid criticisms. But to pretend that the hesitancy of the USW to get involved in Rwanda lies on Clarke's shoulders is ignorant in the extreme. The climate in the entire US government was and is against operations like this.
Originally posted by johnq
Ahhh ok. I see.
Yes, people, Bush = bad.
No, you obviously totally missed it.
It is a strong republican position not to get involved in incidents like Rwanda, so when Bush supporters criticize clinton for the mistakes that were made, they are being hypocritical in the extreme.
Do you understand yet or do you need me to explain it to you more?
Originally posted by giant
But to pretend that the hesitancy of the USW to get involved in Rwanda lies on Clarke's shoulders is ignorant in the extreme. The climate in the entire US government was and is against operations like this.
Certainly. And I don't seriously blame anyone 100% for anything. These things don't happen in a vacuum.
It is however a nice example of Clarke once again biting his tongue, putting aside any moral questions he might have, putting his nose to the grindstone, and helping to churn out some good President-pleasing bureaucracy.
The alternative is that he thinks the guidelines are peachy. Either way it's just bloody chum for the Bush sharks.