Chile Forum

Yeah, I saw many who cheered GWB in 2000/01. And also many who cheered Mr. Internet in 2000. I didn't cheer for either one of them. Heads or Tails. Take your pick.

I wonder what songs they sing around the camp fire? Probably not "Who'll stop the rain?". Maybe Sunshine Superman.

mlightheart wrote:Yeah, I saw many who cheered GWB in 2000/01. And also many who cheered Mr. Internet in 2000. I didn't cheer for either one of them. Heads or Tails. Take your pick.
I wonder what songs they sing around the camp fire? Probably not "Who'll stop the rain?". Maybe Sunshine Superman.

"Paint it Black", Rolling Stones in 2000, 2004, 2008....

I cheered Bush and still would still do so given who he ran against both times. Still, he was quite disappointing (for me personally, emphatically not talking about anyone else) on most topics outside of foreign policy/national security. Too tired of this Honduran topic to comment in detail today, likely to the relief of many. Maybe tomorrow, likely to the chagrin of many.

John Hyre

Maybe Purple Haze was in the camp fire play list too.

xxx

“I think it interesting that you ask for facts and then reject them (you remain un-honduran?)”

I think it interesting that you think I simply have to see the facts as you do once you have presented them. I remain not-Honduran. I explained, in no small detail, why I did not view that as a reason to refrain from opining as I have. Which response you chose to ignore.

“sounds like a lawyer rebuttal to the jury, just before they sequester leading to the verdict...highlight and re-iterate the points while distracting the nappers from the real points...create compelling reasons to ignore reality and follow the pattern that you have set before them”

I see. I am not discussing this topic in an honest manner. Rather, the dishonest shyster is misleading the disinterested into ignoring reality. If that’s how you want to play it, so be it. Just don’t snivel later that the mean lawyer picked on you. Let’s examine how journalists, present company emphatically included, “argue”.

Reading your prior post, I should have known. “Personally, I appreciate the fervor and fanatisim of the JohnHyre”. This is known as a “backhanded compliment”, which is no compliment at all. Instead of addressing the arguments and facts presented, you simply label something – or someone – as undesirable. Having an opinion and backing it up with facts & argument is “fanaticism” in your world. It is...how did you put it? Ah yes: “shoving his own view down people's throats” and “carve your view out of stone and and word by word pass them past teeth and tongue with the business end of a toilet plunger at mach speed”. Great imagery, complete disregard for what is actually happening, pathetic statement. Arguing facts & theories, addressing facts & theories presented by contrary views, this is really just insensitive bullying. Are the posters here so weak-minded, so delicate, so poorly able to support their own opinions that facts and arguments hurt their self-esteem, to the point that I am not just backing up what I think, but actually forcing my opinion on them? Poor dears! Silly me, actually looking at your facts & arguments and addressing them in an intellectually honest manner, point-by-point stating why I do not agree that my non-Honduraness doesn’t matter, explaining why law does matter, why I think the law has been followed, and forming a conclusion based on those arguments....here, all along, I was simply supposed to defer to the great Puelche, accept what he says, and have done with it – it’s that or “force your opinions down people’s throats” by daring actually argue.

Now, I know this is hard for you. Journalists are used to asking questions, not answering them. Inconvenient facts are supposed to stay on the cutting room floor and only rude, pushy people would ever think to pick those facts up off of the floor. The only rebuttal printed in the “letters” section is the one that the journalist wants printed. Lawyers have court stenographers to keep them honest (“I said WHAT?). Journalists? They set their own record. So it’s easy to see how something like a rebuttal would throw one of them off. Here’s what your two posts add up to: You put out some loose fact/feelings, such as “You are not Honduran”, “You cannot judge”, “I sh!t on the law” as an “argument”. I’d say it’s like Lite beer, tastes great (feeeeels soooo goooood), less filling (ignore the other guys facts & arguments, etc). Nonetheless, I addressed what you are saying, point by point, with principled disagreement – and trust me, it was like trying to grab water. And what do I get? “Mean, dishonest lawyer- baaaaaad lawyer” combined with “Hey, you are NOT supposed to dispute or interpret my facts”. Facts? One takes the time to look up some facts, including those posted by others, analyze points made, back up one’s own opinion, in other words “debate”....and it’s Meanie, meanie, meanie. And we are supposed to simply buy the feel-good human-interest piece full of “who are you to judge non-Honduran, I sh!t on the law and it’s about THE MAN holding them down?”. Pu-lease.

“Simply put, my point is that you are willing to die, with your language, aggressiveness, and opinion, on a Honduran hill....” Oh, baloney. More well-painted imagery, but not at all accurate in its depiction, again. I have an opinion. I can back it up. I enjoy give and take on the “give & take” part of the forum, at least when the other side presents facts and arguments worth considering, as opposed to pretty but empty images and amazingly delicate feelings. Good grief, whatever happened to having a nice knock down argument followed by a beer? No wonder the world is in trouble – too many eggshell egos covering an inability (or lack of desire) to actually think when simply “feeling” is so much easier and equally “valid”.

“The largest issue here, apart from those that will live and die in Honduras this week, is that the internet does not allow inflection or those blatant, subtle and revealing gestures, that come with the spoken word.” Yeah, online communication is different than face-to-face. Still, words mean things, we can communicate. One makes allowances. But some things do not need facial expressions or gestures to catch. Like, say, what I’ve put in quotes here.

“The sword is the law and it is infallable you say”. Never said any such thing, not even close. You would know this if you were to actually read the little squiggles that were in response to your elegant Defecation Argument. Typical journalist, you’d rather argue what you wish I’d said that what I actually did say.

“Why should I worry about the law that says in Dexter, Wyoming, you can't fish naked at night? I am not in Dexter, and I don't fish at night and if I did I would at least wear shoes and therfore not be naked. Honduras is that much furthur away and I read what goes on but then its their blood and bullets so I can't worry too much” Ah yes, argument by analogy. The Dexter law is stupid and distant, so who cares and Honduras is distant and so......You know, there was a far-away place that nobody ever heard of or paid attention to called Vietnam. But really, who but a fanatic, dishonest, pettifogger would care about such an insignificant hole? Much less want to discuss, debate or argue about it? Who indeed.

“in fact, most of the time I worry in the opposite direction then what the UN, Fox News, CNN or CNBC says I should.” A basis for agreement if ever I heard one. But not a reason to completely shut out the political world around us.

Yeah, to a guy with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. For each of our respective professions, words are nails, but what different hammers we wield.

Whether we support Castro, Chavez and people like them matters....ultimately in the way Middle of Nowhere, Vietnam did matter and the way BFE Iraq does matter. Whether we support a country with little history of law that is desperately trying to make law matter, matters. Law matters. Words mean things. Address the issues, if you can. But spare me the empty emotional imagery and knife in the ribs. It’ll work on the public, it will not work on me.

For those of you who have better things to do than discuss, argue and debate things you could not care less about, fair ‘nuff. For those of who bother to engage – why not be good at it? Or at least do it with some pride, style and substance? This whole substitution of personal attack & “pretty pictures” for actual argument gets old. Actually address what people say, not what you wish they’d said.

I mean to address what Cali & Laura took the time to post, though today the clock has run on me. Whatever DID happen to the old knock-down, drag out tradition of going AT it, followed by a brew? Are people really so freaking pathetic and “sensitive” now to make that an anachronism? You wanna hit me personally, I will bloody well hit you back. Otherwise, it’s just old fashioned back & forth. Still, there’s not a person on this site (not yet, anyway) with whom I’ve butted heads that after the dust clears, I wouldn’t have a beer with, real beer or imagined beer. Try me. Better yet, let’s start a big furball and then switch sides in the middle.

John Hyre, expected better from someone who is usually on the ball.

With regard to the "goat milk" problem, they must just use female goat milk: topic2857-30.html

I think el p put bullets into the campfire and they have started to go off.

Yeah, that sure interferes with Kumbayah around the fire. Bullets in the fire, that's forgiveable. Wine in the fire? Then he'd best have put ALL the bullets in the fire so I cannot stick one into the good old S&W.

John Hyre

I don't think he would waste putting wine in the fire. He'd be drinking it and watching the others while the popping starts.

Then no matter how far apart we might be on other things, we have a common base to work with: agreement as to the proper use of wine. Hopefully he'd not be too sozzled to duck if a bullet came his way.....or too sozzled to notice if it hit. It's the paradox of wine - is it wrong to get so sozzled that you do not taste the remaining wine?

John Hyre

If you wonder what Obama is trying to accomplish with everything he's doing check out http://cloward-piven.com

Heck, just plug cloward-piven into Google. You'll be amazed.