Yeah. I couldn't say for sure, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Dave Sim has an aversion to charts/statistics "even when they're telling you what you want to hear" very similar to Chris'.



So I see. Unfortunately, just typing endless reams of paranoid stream-of-consciousness touching on select current events doesn't constitute a network of ideas. It's called raving.



Well, you're the one mimicking right-wing talk radio talking points and writing reams of paragraphs about them, you have admitted posting under the influence, and you just sort of aimlessly rant. To me, I guess the standard applies to anybody who fits that general description. Currently that's only you.



Well, that'd make for an interesting infographic. However, those responsible for 9/11 were submitting to the will of God, as they saw it. The problem with God's will is that you can make it say pretty much whatever you want, so I try to avoid it as much as possible. Is that a point of agreement or disagreement between us? I can't even tell.



That seemed to be the implication, but, OK, fair enough. Did you ever address the one illustrating Republican effect on the deficit over the last dozen presidencies or so? I forget.



Quoting them is perfectly valid. Disingenuously stripping them of context and distorting their meaning for your own purposes is more where you started to get into trouble.



Yeah ... I'm also American. Don't get into that thing where you speak as if you are a self-appointed representative of "The American People." It's a sleazy tack.



The notion we are war isn't something I've gone out of my way to try to deny. Me, I'd prefer it were a better defined war with clearer objectives, more clearly communicated between President and public. If you're attached enough to the idea of war, the world is wide enough and the term "war" metaphor-friendly enough that you can always claim we're at war with *something.* I'm not much of a hawk that way. My belief in regards to war efforts is that the terrorist group responsible for 9/11 ought to have been attacked and rubbed out, the end. Maybe it's not that simple, I am hardly the person to decide. But that's more or less all I wanted to see. What I hoped not to see was that the event be used as a springboard to some kind of foggy world-wide assault on the very idea of terrorism itself.

That's really the extent of my feelings about that. As to Molly Norris, I can see you are very interested in her story (as I'm sure Dave Sim is) and hey, more power to you, but I really have nothing to add to the subject one way or the other. I honestly haven't followed the story and I do not know the details. In terms of Muhammad cartoons generally, my feeling is this: I support the freedom of speech as a basic principle, and I do not think people ought to be punished for breaking religious taboos. On the other hand I think blatantly trampling all over a massive religion's taboos while people like you are simultaneously giving those people ever-increasing reason to believe we are "at war" with their entire faith, is not a terribly wise or responsible thing to do.

As to Iran and North Korea, I can understand why there is a lot of concern about them, and I agree that they pose a danger to the general peace of the world. I find North Korea -- and their not-so-tumultuous relationship with superpower China -- quite disturbing. North Korea is like something out of a science fiction horror movie and what is going on within its borders is very, very saddening.

We probably agree about that, so I'll end it on that note.

K

"... so I'll end it on that note."

And consummate work you have done, may I say. I raise my glass.
(Oh, and I'm not afraid to admit, on occasion, I post while drinking. In fact I recommend it. (Hic.) Ceci mentioned this thread has been spectacular; that's even more true after a couple of wines.)

I agree that this is shameful. We shouldn't have our civil rights restricted because of threats of violence from anywhere in the world. But on how to deal with this problem, it seems we still disagree.


In fact, the only connection that either of those guys apparently had was to the FBI, who supplied the fake explosives. However, the thugs who set fire to the mosque where Mohamed Osman Mohamud worshipped, I am hoping that they were isolated extremists, and not part of some worldwide conspiracy of Christians. I'm only joking there a little, because if I were a muslim, it would not be hard to take the idea of a Christian conspiracy seriously.

I've been making references to Marvel, DC and Star Wars all along too. F*cking comic book geeks!

[Scary thing is, Dave Sim didn't say anything that Peter Bagge didn't put into "Hate", but who gets the blame?]

Um. Ok. Are they linked with drawings of the prophet Muhammed?



Like Penn and Teller, the South Park guys won’t do it because they will be killed if they do. You’ll note Scientology, like Christianity, is fair game for both.



Love the blatant thuggery here. Because people don’t have a right to their own wealth, those that try to take their wealth[and the jobs it creates] out of the country should be punished by… losing their wealth. And if you don’t want foreign labor coming into the country, secure the borders.



The only place in Cuba where defense lawyers stand a chance of beating the government. Viva la Revolucion!



The infidel sees no pattern.




Do you have a fetish of having to go into hiding or something? She wasn’t a mob accountant for ten years, she was a cartoonist in Seattle encouraging other people to cartoon. From Fitna to South Park to Everybody Draw Muhammed Day, the “we will kill you if you do this” response has been universal.



No, it means I don’t pay for it. That is not the same as being free. Someone capable of making subtle distinctions would be able to see this. Then again, you accused Erik Larsen of swiping comics for the pages he was currently drawing, and you can’t even admit it when your accusations are quoted.



The security standpoint is what separates those who take the event seriously from those who don’t. ‘No, it didn’t blow up, so everything must be cool’ versus ‘holy shit, we did nothing to impede a person intending to blow up a plane’.



So your solution is to hope there’s a violent mob handy and leave it at that. So noted.



Good thing you don’t see the John Byrne comics sitting on my drawing board right now.



They also spend every single day of their lives devoting large amounts of attention towards the Kaaba, as does the worldwide House of Islam. Religious unity works differently from national unity.



Why should I when making false accusations takes precedence for you, and it’s already enlightening.



You think a lot of stupid things with no basis in reality. This is news?

Is about 99% of the crap you've brought up?



Did one person put forth a call for insulting imagery? No?



And do you think maybe there's a lesson there for Ms. Norris?



I don't recall saying anything like that.



Nor that.



If the foreign labor wants to come here, become Americans and pay taxes, I'm all for it.



And the only American territory where the denizens get free health care.



You're calling me an infidel? Am I reading that right?



He is in the process of doing so.



One of the points with which I am disappointed in him. And?



Only if you believe what Glenn Beck tells you.



And what response do you think she thought she was going to get from doing that? Since you're so awesome at reading minds.



Which means, for you, it's free.



No, I most certainly did not. You speak of distinctions, but cannot perceive them.



I ask again: What do you think should be done about it? No idea? Then shut up.



Keep fear alive.



Just admit you've got nothing to add to the discussion and move on.



That you're probably a homo? I don't know. Is it?

See, here's where you're getting confused, Weemie. It's not that nobody takes these events seriously. It's that nobody takes you seriously.

You.

Um, ok. I’ll take your word for it.

[Wait, Dave does have a handful of statistics he’s been throwing around for years – something% of alimony paid by men to women for instance – and has cited others. “Islam My Islam” had him citing statistics about the kill-rate in Afghanistan. #289/290 – the one with the female light and male void – was chock-full of ratios of atoms in molecules and things like that. So I guess Dave doesn’t have an aversion very similar to Chris’. What was your point anyway? That what I don’t parrot from Glen Beck I parrot from Dave Sim? Or I’m just drunk?]

Look at it from the point-of-view of a pseudonymous person on the internet. If I actually did use statistics, how would you know I’m not making it all up in the first place? It’s not like you’re going to check.



Dismissing something you don’t understand as raving doesn’t constitute a network of ideas either. It’s called avoidance.



Google the phrase “right-wing talk radio talking points” and you get quite links to quite a few people who, well, sound like you. My favorite is the one from ’08 where it’s the Hillary voters who are mimicking “right-wing talk radio talking points.”
[url=see if this works]http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=mimicking+right-wing+talk+radio+talking+points&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7TSNA_enIQ371IQ371#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-US%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7TSNA_enIQ371IQ371&q=%22right-wing+talk+radio+talking+points%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5968f614bc218727[/url]



Hes a riter??? On teh internet??? OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!!



And I’ve admitted posting sober. And I’ve admitted posting under “other” circumstances when I was a civilian. I defy you to correctly single out any post I’ve made on this board and identify what influence or lack thereof I was under when I made it.

If you can’t do that, how about dropping the ‘talk radio/Dave Sim/chemical influence’ line of attack altogether, and addressing what I actually say.



Here’s a hint: Only God decides what God’s will says. You’ve just made up a problem that doesn’t exist and projected it onto other people. You also have no problem avoiding things you have an aversion to, even though you castigate me for doing that.



No, but let’s say I did. Unhappiness with GWB’s spending fuelled discontent on the Republican side and lost multiple elections for them, which is why we’ve had a one-party government for the last two years. Unless the left wants to start giving Republican Presidents serious props for spending all of a sudden, it’s still this one-party administration cranking spending up to 11, including 2 years of a Democratic controlled House for whom Bush signed every spending bill. The Democrats controlled the purse during Reagan, Bush and Nixon’s terms in office as well.

I do think that the right-left approaches to spending are defined in this type of argument. I’m not enough of an economist to follow nuances of the deficit, but it falls into a person’s general approach to unemployment, government spending and taxes. Righties and lefties probably respond to their side’s choice side right down to their DNA, and neither side will budge an inch, even on lesser issues like unionization, tariffs, contract law, property rights, etc.

Economics, like so much else in the world, is a highly-specialized field requiring great expertise. So is statistics, I assume.



Quoted them accurately and demonstrated the validity of other perspectives, such as that of the enemy we’re at war with. The President’s apologists, both on this thread and across the internet, refuse to acknowledge any other perspective than their own, much less accept any validity to any of those perspectives.



So is accusing someone of doing something as a self-appointed something or other when I did nothing of the kind. After tea parties, the November elections and Massa-fucking-chusetts electing a Republican to the Senate, if you’ve got a better description of the will of the American People at the moment, let’s hear it.



Or think about obviously.



Islam wants to conquer the world. Some Islamic countries are allied with non-Islamic countries. The free world is trying to stop them.

GWB said it as much as he could and still function as the commander-in-chief of the free world at that time. Obama just doesn’t seem to believe it yet.



There is the “idea of war” and there is the reality of war. We (the US, the free world, the world) are at war for real.



Why would you assume the two can be separated? Perhaps they are inseparable by nature. Secondly, perhaps the war efforts are minimized by treating them as the same thing. That is, it could be done differently, but only with greater risk of successful strikes on the American homeland and for mass casualties on both sides.

The hundreds of people (just a guess) making up Al Qaida as they were when they hit us on 9/11 could be exterminated, and that would leave hundreds of groups, each with their own hundreds of members, who think and act similarly and for the same reasons. Then there’s the international networks of supporters and other associated groups. They aren’t BASED in a nation, they operate in many nations which have a variety of different relationships with us.



He’s got a phone number, you can call and ask him if you like. Since it’s so important to you.



Anybody want to photoshop a picture of themselves defiling a Koran and put it on the internet? “Piss Christ” was funded by the US taxpayer and hung in museums, South Park rips on Scientology, there’s gotta be something a free-minded artist can do with a Koran that would challenge people’s preconceptions.



So is it wise or responsible to cut the heads off of a journalist because he’s Jewish like Daniel Pearl? How about murdering someone the streets like Geert Wilders? How about threatening someone until they have to go into hiding for fear for their life?

[Dave Sim, by the way, was firmly against the Muhammed cartoons. He thought they were willfully offensive and had no business being published. So did Garry Trudeau, by the way. Strange place for First Amendment absolutists like them to suddenly find an exception, but there you have it. What does that do to your latest theory that I just copy Dave Sim?]

And they just did it again yesterday, extending BushJr's unsustainable tax plan for another two years. Republicans could have voted as a bloc against it, but most of them voted for it just to get that tax break for themselves and their rich friends, the deficit be hanged. They could have turned the bill into goddamn snowflakes, but they didn't.

Traditionally, when one uses statistics in an argument and wants to be taken seriously, one references the source. If that reference (be it a link to another webpage, or whatever) holds up, then it holds up. It’s irrelevant whether the person doing the referencing is pseudonymous or not. This is true of citing evidence in general, not just statistics. I’m always weary of people trying to emphasize how statistics and graphs can be misused right after they fail to produce evidence to back up their case.



I’m sure the people who attacked the US on 9/11 think the same.



Yeah, there are no problems in the world related to disagreement on what God really wills.



The point is not whether it is good or bad to spend per se, but that the notion that Republicans were more fiscally responsible over recent decades than Democrats wasn’t true. Arguably both sides spend too much, but to paraphrase Dean, better to be tax and spend than no tax and spend.



No one said you hadn’t quoted accurately, in the sense that those two words were actually used in the speech. This has been explained clearly to you more than once: it’s the context; you ignored it. When the two words were put in the context of the speech - heck, even just in the context of the rest of the paragraph they were from - your criticism lost most if not all of its validity.



Really? All of Islam wants to conquer all of the world? So what are they doing to conquer China?