haha...hahahahaha!

Ummm, sorry, Coney, but I do believe his middle initial was M, for Milhouse.

 

Really? I posted a one-line statement saying that Vietnam was more a
political defeat than a military one. Then I mentioned how South korea was a
better place to live than North Korea, which apparently got your knickers in
a twist.

And interestingly, you haven't produced any contrary evidence.

Are you always this screechingly incoherent?

That's nice. What does that have to do with what I just said?

So...did he step down or not? What forces exactly were going to bring him to
account if he didn't?

Well, you can't refute anything I've actually written. You do however seem
intent on throwing a series of rather amusing hissy fits, and raving about
things which weren't even under discussion.

I guess that's an admission that you are unable to sanely discuss anything
that's been raised here. Gotcha.

It's meant as a joke, you sadcase.

You mean, you refute the point about a "factoid" which I never actually
raised in the first place.

Escape hatch? I've met toddlers more difficult to debate than you. The point
in brackets was made in reponse to your blathering about me being a
'right-winger'. Problem is, I hold an awful lot of views which don't fit
into your neat terminology (as and evidenced by your paragraph below, it
seems to be causing you some serious trauma....)

mmmmkayyyy.....Mate, whatever medication you're on, I suggest you cut the
dosage.

 

You've clearly been watching too much American television,
and are equally clearly clueless about what prozac is
(was?), and what it's used for.

Fundamentally, you're clueless.

G

 

Lemme guess... prozac? Cowabunga, er, dude.

Clueless twat.

G

 

ooooh, that was deep........

 

treats depression, and is likely is reduce the bouts of pointless,
incoherent rage that IK seems to suffer from

 

Doubly so.


G

 

Heh. Whatever you say, wanker........

 

Well if that's what you consider deep it explains a lot about your posts
then.

 

self effacing?
http://www.redcoat.net/pics/tubgirl.jpg


oh, sorry, thought you meant self fecating





warning, not work safe, but coney will get a soft on

 

And the problem with that is? Victimless crimes?

Theo

 

Prozac is for killing people. Isn't it?
http://www.rense.com/general/pro.htm

Prozac is for sueing greedy, uncaring drug companies. Isn't it?
http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/ClassActionAmerica-Prozac-Zoloft-
Paxil.htm


Gary

 

This coming from someone who responded with "yeah right!"

 

Only when read by troglodytes.

Plenty, not that you'd let yourself see it. An oppressive ruler stepping
down out of the goodness of his heart is quite a different proposition
to him getting the **** out of Dodge before his people dangle him off a
balcony of his palace by his nuts now that he no longer has foreign
money with which to pay his secret police and foreign intelligence to
help him keep track of opposition to him.

Probably similar ones to those which had, at the time, already done so
for the military junta next door, in Argentina. He realised that, even
if you're too thick and comfortable on your fat arse to see it.

Well, I can only provide historical facts which put your contentions on
shaky foundations. I can't get into your head and rewire the part of
your brain which keeps convincing you you're correct, no matter what
happens.

You know how there are guys who'll get a drink splashed in their face at
a club when a pick-up doesn't go according to plan and who'll react to
it with "Lesbian."?

That's you.

The idea of all this isn't to win you over to my way of thinking. It's
to goad you into more displays of reactionary non-thought, to ensure
anyone not as voluntarily stunted as you considers you a laughing stock.

The correct response when someone comes out with the actual numbers or
events you base your argument on, but were too vague to remember, should
be "Thank you".

You say, "Oh, the USSR collapsed because they couldn't keep up with
American military spending."

I say, "That contention is based on the 'accepted' figure of the USSR
having been spending 25% of its GDP on defence. That is false. It was
made up by the Pentagon to keep its funding. Thus, what you're spouting,
being based on a fabrication, is crap, and you're a fool for having
swallowed it so completely".

You're more of a fool for trying to quibble your way out of it the way
you are.

Then why do you get so defensive as to rattle off a personal manifesto
of crock-of-shit supposedly-progressive beliefs in response?

"I'm not right wing. I support prostitution. So, ner."

If that's what I can provoke you into, I'd hate to see the mess these
toddlers you mention leave behind when they're done pulling apart the
propaganda which passes for your worldview.

 

No, he just had a small outfit known as the military. It proved quite
effective in restricting opposition to his rule.

And your paragraph on Wolfowitz still has no relevance to comparing
Pinochet's regime to other dictatorships.

So, you have no evidence the *chileans* were going to toss Pinochet out of
power.......

No, you can provide facts relevant to the discussion at hand, which you
haven't been too good at doing. I mention Pinochet's regime is preferable in
relative terms to another dictatorship, you post a paragraph saying how
Wolfowitz doesn't want the US to support dictators. Another subject
entirely.

Except I wouldn't do it. Carry on.....

You talk of "reactionary non-thought", yet your responses consist of a)
insults, b) changing the subject, c) bizarre rants about gays and tuxedo
rentals.

Well, didn't use that "accepted figure". You seem quite good at arguing
against points which haven't actually been made.

That's nice. Why not tell it to the person who actually wrote it?

And again, I didn't mention it, thus you are refuting an argument which
wasn't made.

LOL

Yeah, I guess it's "quibbling" to point out that I didn't mention something
you think I mentioned.

Yet another assertion you made which is false, that's why. Sorry the real
world doesn't fit into your picture-book analysis.

And if I can provoke you into posting screaming rants about gay marriage,
lesbians, tuxedos, and refuting arguments which weren't actually made, I'd
say you aren't quite in a position to lecture anyone.........

Regards,
Tex

 

It's something you can understand.

 

American helicopters evacuating personel from the Embassy whilst NVA
troops marched into Saigon looked pretty military to me...

 

Well, you've shown how trifling you think daily street battles with
police are as a manifestation of popular unrest, so...

You say, "the USSR broke up because it couldn't keep up with American
military spending"

I say, "No, it didn't. The basis of that assertion, (cite fabricated
figures about Soviet military expenditure as proportion of GDP), is
false. Thus, the assertion itself can't be worth much, either".

You say, "Pinochet stepped down voluntarily and gave Chile democracy".

I say, "No, he didn't. Immediately prior to his giving up power and
running off to hide under the skirts of a friendly European government,
his American lifeline was cut. Thus, it is more likely that he fled
rather than face popular revolt which would've seen him tried and jailed
like his counterparts throughout South America".

If you insist on taking events and drawing childishly biased, and,
what's more, prefabricated, conclusions about them, what's any of the
reasoning you're capable of worth?

Bleating on about wanting facts, and where are the facts because you
keep ignoring unpalatable facts being served in response to your
requests makes you an idiot.

No, first, I ask whether your experience of the two regimes is extensive
enough to justify the weight you're trying to put behind your callous
aspersions.

Only then do I go on to, again, present facts which you're either too
ignorant or two-faced to acknowledge yourself, to disprove your contention.

Of course you wouldn't. You wouldn't have the confidence. I've seen how
much of your arse spills over either side of a bike's ducktail when you
ride.

It's called "ridicule". It's what someone whose sum contributions to
this newsgroup amount to rising, in dog-whistle fashion, to:

a) bash Hatz over the head with how great Doohan was compared to Rossi
when he states otherwise.

b) whimper, "No, they didn't. It was a tie." whenever someone makes a
Vietnam joke at the expense of the US.

Get that through your thick, spoilt-brat, materialistic head ("I'm
thinking of buying a Subaru Liberty", deep like a river, you are). The
products of what you kid yourself is your reasoning and analysis are
laughable, and insulting.

A past girlfriend of mine's father was a prominent Chilean socialist. He
spent time in one of Pinochet's jails, and actively agitated against him
from here after he emigrated.

Where's your watching of docos on SBS now, armchair-expert?

 

Again, please present evidence Pinochet's position was actually *in danger*.

You mean, the fabricated figures I never actually cited? The one my
assumption wasn't based on?

Not too bright are ya.....

And you can't display how this "cut lifeline" put him in any danger

He stepped down in 1990
He didn't quit as leader of the military until 1997

Funny, he hung around for quite a while after that 'lifeline was
cut'.............

Please show evidence of the "popular revolt" he "fled" from.

And I hate to raise the point and disturb your ravings, but how does any of
this relate to Chile being a better place to live than other dictatorships?

And again, given your habit of refuting points I haven't actually made, and
lauching bizzaro rants about tuxedos and lesbians, you are in no position to
lecture anyone on reasoning skills.

What "facts" have I been ignoring?

Unpalatable facts like lesbians, tuxedos and arguments I never made?

Yes, and I answered with a list of points, none of which you were able to
refute, except for a claim that Pinochet actually fled some phantom
revolution.

contention.

Again, how does Wolfowitz relate to the point I made about Chile being
preferable to other dictatorships?

Heh, so let's see if I have this right: I'd call a girl a "lesbian", but I
actually wouldn't? Which is it? Make your mind up. That temper of yours
seems to make your mind quite unhinged and rant about lesbians and
ducktails........

What was that you were saying about non-thought?

Oh goodness. How traumatic for you. A discussion on Doohan vs. Rossi in a
motorcycle forum....the horror.....

Here you are telling lies about what I said again.... I said it was more a
political defeat than a military one. You will notice the word "defeat" in
there....

Geeze, you're throwing another hissy fit again. (I guess the thought of
someone buying a car is deeply traumatic to you)

This coming from the fellow who invents things I didn't say, and changes the
topic to rant about lesbians and tuxedos. Quite the mental giant

I guess you missed the bits where I described Pinochet as a dictator and a
thug. You seem to lack basic skills in reading and comprehension.

Cheers,
Tex

 

One of my more successful opening gambits, I think.

IK and Tex will still be fighting this battle when the Americans have
notched up another foreign-policy triumph and glorious military victory in
Iraq.

Or is Iraq merely the sideshow to deflect attention from their previous
glorious military and foreign-policy successes in Afghanistan?