Originally Posted by Steve
I don't see what this has to do with my question, for one, and secondly, I think Caitlyn does quite well at defending herself, so you ought to save your valiance for someone who needs it. She answered my question, was that not good enough for you?
Yes, Caitlyn does
very well at defending herself, better than I could ever do in her place, that wasn’t the issue. I was expecting your post to be a prelude for some more disrespectful and arrogant rhetoric slung towards her after her reply. You did it before, so was I so wrong in making an assumption that you were capable and willing to do it again? Caitlyn is my
friend. I have no delusions of wooing her into my bed for defending her, or making her swoon. Valiance certainly wasn’t my motivation for posting a remark in her defense.
Originally Posted by Steve
Since Caitlyn's post contained nothing but a compliment to Kong and a breathy exhortation to the effect of "exactly what I'd suspected about this one" I made the outrageously farfetched assumption that the second statement had something to do with the first.
Here is exactly what I mean. “…a breathy exhortation…” What prompted you into making a remark like this? It seems apparent that your implication is that she was just kissing Kong’s ass or that she is
all a flutter with what he has to say. It’s more passive disrespect on your point that I find irritating.
Originally Posted by Steve
As for Trent Lott...I think that all the evidence against him in the past makes my position look slightly better in hindsight, after the initial media explosion. I don't hear many Republican senators bemoaning the loss of the great patriot Trent Lott at the hands of the evil liberal media. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Your viewpoint on the matter has nothing to do with the negative rep points I gave you in that thread (which I later gave you positive points and an apology for my losing my temper). The reason I was angered was because of this remark,
“How humanistic! You think more about racism than I do because you are aware of the suffering of Native Americans..how self-righteous of you to even make the idea of who is 'more aware' of racism an issue. In all honesty, I don't care what you think about racism, I don't care who 'knows' more about it, and if you want to measure dick size, we can do that in person and not online.” She does know more about racism, white-boy-from-the-suburbs, because she has had first hand experience of it. Her family has lived with it for generations. You slapped her in the face with that remark as far as I’m concerned, just like you did to me because of my predilection towards war movies. I like war movies not because of the war itself
(gee, look at all the blood! Wheee…), but because I can appreciate the brotherhood bond that develops between men in combat. I can understand, from experience, valor. I’ve seen it! I’ve seen great bravery and sacrifice first hand and completely believe in the glorification of the men and women who put it all on the line to keep the people in their company alive. I can understand these things because I actually lived it. Then I have to put up with some guy like you, who’s still in high-school, smoking a joint, and having Mom wash his jeans, call
me a flippin’ war-monger. You couldn’t have insulted me more if you spit in my face.
Originally Posted by Steve
And you're right, I don't like war-mongers. I have a worse time with Clancyites than I do with liberals when I debate the goods and bads of the war on terror. Cheers.
You have no idea who to call war-monger. You throw the word around as if you’re so enlightened. But you can’t tell the difference between a grunt who’s following orders, a person who enjoys war movies, and a man like Saddam Hussein. Also, what’s point with your last sentence? So what if you find it more difficult to debate with someone who gets off on military technology compared to a tree-hugger? Are you calling me a Clancyite now? Because I have never desired to read any of his novels. I'm not a war-monger.
Cheers to you too.