Althouse: "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen."

August 8, 2017

"North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen."

"He has been very threatening beyond a normal state and as I said they will be met with fire and fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before."

That's Donald Trump's threat. It counters this from North Korea: "Packs of wolves are coming in attack to strangle a nation. They should be mindful that the D.P.R.K.’s strategic steps accompanied by physical action will be taken mercilessly with the mobilization of all its national strength."

The NYT reports.

346 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 346 of 346

Anonymous said...: "Yet your argument was . . ." Not that was not my argument. I gave four examples of acts of war that various Kims have gotten away with, and you picked out the smallest of them as if it were the only one and rebutting (not refuting) it would suffice. That was dishonest. Enjoy your spurious victory.; 8/8/17, 8:14 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Dr Weevil:

Not that was not my argument.

Hmm...I asked why would North Korea attack a US city when the counterattack would destroy it, and your response was to say that he did these relatively small things, and we didn't go to war against them. I pointed out that destroying a city would be orders of magnitude different than the things you mentioned (e.g. two soldiers being killed by a group of North Korean soldiers). If I've misread something, feel free to correct me.; 8/8/17, 8:21 PM
Clayton Hennesey said...: A lot of false choices on this thread as well.

If a punk kid, Iranian or North Korean, threatens you with a drone, or a patrol boat, or a test ICBM, your choice is not only to invade his country and nuke his cities. You simply destroy his weapon, then remind him you're open to dialogue. If he does it again, you destroy his toy again, then remind him again you're open to dialogue. If that involves destroying his toy factories, you do that.

If he escalates, you counter-escalate until the threat is retired. Then you remind him again you're open to dialogue.

What you never do is appease his bullying, nor allow yourself to become lost in some sort of quavering existential Hamletian paralysis.

You contain and retire whatever threat exists, however long it exists. Period. Or you lose.; 8/8/17, 8:21 PM
J. Farmer said...: @BobJustBob: and President-Mom-Jeans:

Since both of you seemed to be so worked up about "leftists," let me point you to a critique of attacking North Korea from the right:

An America First Korea Policy by Pat Buchanan; 8/8/17, 8:23 PM
Rusty said...: We have nothing to fear. S.Korea and japan on the otherhand........

While J farmer you reassure us that we have nothing to fear from the little dictator he does posses nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them outside his boarders.
This is a worrisome situation. Your reassurances notwithstanding.
In this instance we know the gun is loaded and in the hands of a madman. The prudent assumption is that he is going to eventually shoot someone with it.
He is also Irans new best friend. I wonder what they talk about?; 8/8/17, 8:23 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Odd, and it seemed to me like your statement was Exhibit A of my point: "Actually, most righties are notoriously poor thinkers. Instead, they identify enemies and define the opposite of what they do as somehow 'good.'"

Not exactly. If you have an example, let me know. To be a good thinker requires being open-minded. There are non-righties who are poor thinkers but your better problem-solving in a society definitely doesn't originate on the right. They are emotionally tied to things from the past (or their conception of them) and are generally opposed to social problem-solving.

If they were less knee-jerk in their bashing of any interest in/concern for the things that bring the country/planet down, I'd change my mind. But they are way too cynical for that. In America they seem to think that unless it's a personal issue for them or someone they know then it's not worth doing anything about.; 8/8/17, 8:24 PM
Michael K said...: I like Pat Buchanan and his book on Nixon, like his essays is excellent.

He has an anti-Israel bias which annoys me but, on the whole, he is a useful opinion.

I think Trump's rhetoric was probably directed at China. So many people think him a fool that he is easily misunderstood, I hope not by the Chinese.

Both NK and Iran are run by characters far less predictable than the Soviets once Stalin was gone.; 8/8/17, 8:27 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Clayton Hennessey:

The problem with your analysis is that in the nearly 60 years that the Kim regime has ruled North Korea, South Korea has advanced leaps and bounds economically and technologically and is now among the highest standard of living countries in the world. And North Korea has been able to do absolutely nothing about South Korea's onward progress, hence why so many young South Koreans are apathetic or outright against unification. Seoul is well within reach of the North's conventional artillery, and the metropolitan area has 25 million people in it.; 8/8/17, 8:28 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: This encapsulates my point perfectly. The Left is either so hysterical or so laughably unserious -

It's not hysterical or laughably unserious to be acutely aware of humanity's capacity for self-destruction.

What is laughably hysterical is to hear someone so cocksure in his sunny disregard for virtually all of human history to remain ignorant of that fact.

In any event, your Orange Puppet is being led by a guy named Steve Bunion, and this guy is, unlike you, no believer in the phony "sunny side up accident" of history theory. His prescriptions for dealing with its ills are total bunk, but be aware that your fellow obliviously delusional optimists are not running your president's and party's show any longer.

The good things that have prevailed in history were largely not by accident. And that is why it is dangerous to have you paranoid, power-obsessed lazy-asses installed at the wheel house.; 8/8/17, 8:29 PM
J. Farmer said...: The Toothless Revolutionary:

Here's why you're framing of the issue is so problematic. Take the issue of immigration restriction. There are a lot of good cultural and economic reasons to be against immigration. Yet the most common refrain we get from the other side is "racist" and "xenophobic" and "what about Emma Lazarus." Are there people who perhaps have immigration restriction views because of a close-minded attitude? Sure. But who cares?! The important question is whether or not immigration restriction is good or not. Instead, we get this incessant obsession with what we should infer about people's motives and characters from position X.; 8/8/17, 8:30 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Michael K:

Both NK and Iran are run by characters far less predictable than the Soviets once Stalin was gone.

Oh, I don't think that is true at all. If anything, the Iranians and North Koreans have been consistent for decades. They're primary, overarching goal has been self-preservation, not irrational suicidality.; 8/8/17, 8:32 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "Let me then ask a basic question: if North Korea launched an attack on the US, it would be obliterated in the counterattack. So, what about the regime makes you think it's willing to commit suicide? Do you honestly believe that they have spent decades pursuing nuclear capabilities so that they can launch an attack on the US and get totally destroyed as a consequence?"

No. Has there been a day after Nagasaki when having nuclear weapons was about using them? I can't think of one.

I remember Trump was ridiculed during the campaign for asking some expert what was the point of having nuclear weapons if we can't use them. The usual suspects threw the usual fits, claiming Trump was just itching to push the button, but I thought it was an excellent, thoughtful question for a candidate to ask. What are the uses of nuclear weapons in a world where MAD is seemingly a given? Why would a grindingly poor nation like North Korea want them? Clearly, they confer power on the possessor and, just as clearly depending on the nature of the possessor, that power can be exerted in distinctly malign ways without ever splitting a single atom. Nuclear weapons aren't nullities just because they're unlikely to be used. Far from it.; 8/8/17, 8:35 PM
Birkel said...: Arguments about what has happened that assume a continuation are rhetorically empty.

Assuming rationality is a decent starting point but is certainly not always accurate. Many people have, in retrospect, been quite irrational based on what obtained. The assumptions, taken as a whole, might be crazy.; 8/8/17, 8:37 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Here's why you're framing of the issue is so problematic. Take the issue of immigration restriction. There are a lot of good cultural and economic reasons to be against immigration.

Yeah, but almost none that are logical.

Economically, it will help a teensy little bit.

But socialism (or at least anti-Wall Street corporatist crony capitalism of the sort that Trump LOVES but pretended to HATE) would do a lot more.

Emotionally, the Trumpies can't handle that, though.

Yet the most common refrain we get from the other side is "racist" and "xenophobic" and "what about Emma Lazarus."

It mostly is. As I said, Bunion's running the show. He thinks we're an ethno-nation state as exists most other places, including Europe. And so do Trump's followers. But we're not. That's not what we were founded on. You're lending a charity to their positions that is outsized in proportion to how realistic that framing really is.

Are there people who perhaps have immigration restriction views because of a close-minded attitude?

They all have something of a closed-minded attitude, though. Because as long as you're open-minded enough to let the facts in, you see that it's mostly demagoguing. Even allowing for the purported benefits in terms of safety or prosperity, there are much better ways of attaining those things that they won't allow. Look at the way the thing was implemented. Iran was banned, no terrorists from there. Saudi Arabia wasn't - and it's the biggest source of our terrorist problem - ideologically and practically, if 9/11 is what animates you on this.

Sure. But who cares?! The important question is whether or not immigration restriction is good or not.

To the extent they're taking it, it's not. Not at all. And you didn't even get on to mentioning the purported benefits that your straw men are aiming at. So you offer good faith to people who seem to have not proved deserving of it even to you.

Instead, we get this incessant obsession with what we should infer about people's motives and characters from position X.

Because any rational reasons they've offered for it - when they've bothered to (which they usually don't) - have been too poorly thought out and nonsensical to take seriously.

Immigration opposition is an "emotional" argument and you know it. Even calling it an argument is undeserving. It's an emotional position. Or just an emotion. Get real.; 8/8/17, 8:40 PM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

Immigration opposition is an "emotional" argument and you know it. Even calling it an argument is undeserving. It's an emotional position. Or just an emotion. Get real.

Read Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (a titan of 20th century American liberalism) in The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society; 8/8/17, 8:45 PM
J. Farmer said...: The Cracker Emcee Activist:

Why would a grindingly poor nation like North Korea want them?

I think the most obvious answer is as insurance against invasion and occupation from a larger power, which is why pretty much anyone who has nuclear weapons has them. Pakistan is a pretty poor country, too, with a relatively low standard of living, and yet they felt compelled to develop nuclear weapons in their decades long balance of power struggle with India over territorial disputes like Kashmir.; 8/8/17, 8:47 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” warned Mr. Trump from his golf club in Bedminster. “They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”

Although I am uncertain regarding the formal protocols involved, wouldn't it be more advisable when one threatens to nuke another nation to seek a grander venue than a golf course in New Jersey? Was Augusta unavailable?; 8/8/17, 8:48 PM
Birkel said...: Have the Leftist Collectivists stopped to consider the word 'met' in this context?; 8/8/17, 8:50 PM
Birkel said...: IOW, does it mean the threats or the threats if carried out?; 8/8/17, 8:51 PM
Unknown said...: BREAKING NEWS, God authorized strike on North Korea!

"Sometimes you've got to stop evil. It's biblical. In North Korea, it's pretty clear that their dictator is downright evil. So tonight, Pastor Robert Jeffress, a longtime evangelical backer of Donald Trump, just released a statement saying the president has the moral authority to take out Kim Jong-Un. This comes after Trump said today that if North Korea continues to threaten the U.S. then they will “be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen."

Here's the statement given to The Brody File:

“When it comes to how we should deal with evil doers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil. In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong-Un. I’m heartened to see that our president — contrary to what we’ve seen with past administrations who have taken, at best, a sheepish stance toward dictators and oppressors — will not tolerate any threat against the American people. When President Trump draws a red line, he will not erase it, move it, or back away from it. Thank God for a President who is serious about protecting our country.”"

http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/08/08/just-in-to-brody-file-pastor-robert-jeffress-says-lsquo-god-has-given-trump-authority-to-take-out-kim-jong-un-rsquo; 8/8/17, 8:52 PM
Birkel said...: UnknownCutAndPasteInga82,
Hey!; 8/8/17, 8:53 PM
JPS said...: J. Farmer,

I'm late to this, but two things you've written bear examination:

"I asked why would North Korea attack a US city when the counterattack would destroy it,"

and

"Seoul is well within reach of the North's conventional artillery, and the metropolitan area has 25 million people in it."

Could it never cross Kim's mind that maybe they could hit us once while simultaneously threatening the greater metropolitan area of Seoul, plus a large-scale release of chem and bioweapons if we respond?

I know this wouldn't work and we would nuke them back. You know that. How can you be so sure they know it? Do you live in a world in which megalomaniacs, advised by people who know they can be executed if their advice pisses off the boss [OK, Trump-haters, cue the labored jokes here], never miscalculate?

I rate the probability as low but nonzero. (I seem to recall the Japanese thought we'd absorb the sting of Pearl Harbor and butt right out of the Pacific, right? Yamamoto tried to persuade them otherwise but what did he know about us anyway?); 8/8/17, 8:55 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Why do I need to read Schlesinger? How out-of-date are his facts? Did his tome even make use of them? I'm sure we have better facts now if he even bothered to do that. I have a feeling it was a lament followed-up with little in the way of useful prescriptive analysis.

Kennedy-era historian Schlesinger served a president who was pre-Civil Rights Act. No wonder you're channeling him.

Culture matters. David Brooks wrote on this today. But the immigration-haters don't understand what America was about.

You hate immigration? Keep the Irish out. They bred like rabbits, populated the South, developed its plantation culture as vengeance against the Anglo Yankee elitists who made them feel so small centuries ago in another land, fought a horribly disastrous war against America to keep their immoral advantage, and have constantly nursed their grudge over this since. And now they've got a successor in Bunion to promote a pre-Enlightenment, 10th c. European theocratic order as the new salvation for America and the world. It's delusional. And he stoked the inherently irrational anti-Latino, anti-Muslim immigrant crowd to get enough votes for it.

See the bigger picture for once.; 8/8/17, 8:55 PM
Birkel said...: Leftist Collectivists have better facts.; 8/8/17, 8:59 PM
JPS said...: The Cracker Emcee Activist:

"I remember Trump was ridiculed during the campaign for asking some expert what was the point of having nuclear weapons if we can't use them. The usual suspects threw the usual fits, claiming Trump was just itching to push the button,"

Yeah - I had and have my misgivings about Trump, but I thought the freakout from some normally levelheaded analysts was ridiculous. Sure, you could interpret the statement as wanting to use them - or as probing for unexamined assumptions. If I were trying to be CinC, I wouldn't want anybody advising me on nukes who couldn't give me a compelling off-the-cuff answer to that question.; 8/8/17, 9:00 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Leftist Collectivists have better facts.

No shit. "Alternative facts" are no match for real facts, idiot.

And I love this "collectivism" slur. You can have your rugged individualism. What do you make annually? 30 grand?

Hey, if you can prove how awesomely independent you are of the government and the rest of society at that wage then I say go balls out, my friend. You are a total Hercules of the Ayn Rand-style hero myth. A captain of industry comprising your very own trailer.; 8/8/17, 9:04 PM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

I'm sure we have better facts now if he even bothered to do that. I have a feeling it was a lament followed-up with little in the way of useful prescriptive analysis.

Oh, you "have a feeling." Well, I certainly can't fight against that cold-eyed rationality. Weren't you just minutes ago railing about being on the side of rationality and open mindedness, yet you seem to be attacking a book you're not familiar with and have never read.

Kennedy-era historian Schlesinger served a president who was pre-Civil Rights Act. No wonder you're channeling him.

Well his book was written in 1991, and he lived until 2007. And the problems he was discussing have only worsened since then. It might be worth reading the book before actually dismissing it.; 8/8/17, 9:04 PM
J. Farmer said...: @JPS:

How can you be so sure they know it?

I can't know anything to that degree of certainty. If we're going to enter the world of flights of fancy, I could just as easily postulate that the North Koreans could surrender their arms tomorrow. I rate the probability as extremely low but nonzero. Still doesn't mean I think we should do anything in the present to account for that (extremely) remote possibility.

The regime's behavior for the last many decades has been its extreme prioritization of self-preservation, at the expense of nearly everything else. Since attacking the US mainland would invite a massive retaliatory strike that would end in the country being obliterated, I don't see how launching an attack on the US gets the North Koreans anything...from their own perspective.

As for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, it would not have been outlandish for the Japanese to believe they could survive a conventional military attack against the United States. The North Koreans would have no such belief that they could survive a US nuclear counterstrike.; 8/8/17, 9:11 PM
Michael K said...: Oh, I don't think that is true at all. If anything, the Iranians and North Koreans have been consistent for decades. They're primary, overarching goal has been self-preservation, not irrational suicidality.

I wish I was as sure. Errors in rational actors, like Hitler and the USSR, are not unknown. Both regimes are a bit short on history.; 8/8/17, 9:14 PM
Birkel said...: The ability to see others' respective perspectives is a real skill. So is reading chicken entrails.

Did anybody miss the whole behavioral economics discussion of rationality?; 8/8/17, 9:17 PM
Heywood Rice said...: Bill Clinton did, however, make a deal with NK to fund them and send fuel oil for a promise to stop their nuclear program,

Do you happen to remember how that turned out? About like Obama's Iran deal.

I'll grant you that Condi Rice convinced Bush to play along but Obama and Clinton kicked the can down the road as nuclear weapons got closer.

The Bush/Cheney administration ended the so called "agreed framework" initiated under Clinton, and replaced it with a policy of calling them names (Axis of Evil).

In 2006 North Korea conducted a successful nuclear test. This was during the Bush administration and they still had no policy. They tried to negotiate a new agreement and failed. It was left to the Obama administration to take care of, along with the economic collapse and the middle eastern melt down. Bush was quite proud of his foreign policy, the "Bush Doctrine" it's a shame no one likes to mention it anymore.; 8/8/17, 9:18 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/8/17, 9:19 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Oh, you "have a feeling." Well, I certainly can't fight against that cold-eyed rationality.

As I can't fight your regressive calculation that American academics somehow knew more in 1991 than we do 26 years later.

The title alone tells me that it's a lament. And it's not an unfamiliar one. Other non-WASP cultures are bad for us, un-American blah blah blah - so I'm sure you must be 100% English. And 100% blue blood, although you seem to have indicated in the past that you're no upper-cruster. Our "problems" are economic - and they were bred by right-wing prescriptions. There will be no control over a culture in a land with the first amendment. No matter how many un-aristocratic non-natives to the British Isles you keep out.

Again, your president's puppet-master thinks the worst thing for history was the Enlightenment - the very thing that America was founded on. We're not no fucking ethno-state. That's what made for Europe - and all of ITS horrifying problems! The problems are economic. Keep pining for England. Its best monarchs were Welsh (the Tudors, and Welsh meant "foreigner" in Old English), Scottish (the Stewarts), and then German. And this is all from a bloodline that never achieved greatness until it was invaded by William the Conquerer and his Scandinavian Norman-French.

Yep. Some European/WASP pure cultural ideal you're imagining. The problem with pure bloodlines and pure cultures is they can never be pure enough, now, can they?

Keep ignoring that economics is your only problem. Two things in the world never discriminate: Money and pussy. And there will always be a hell of a lot more of all that then there will ever be of some fictive cultural utopia that you and the Pat Buchanans (another culturally paranoid Irishman who loves his adopted Anglo-American "heritage") keep dreaming up.; 8/8/17, 9:21 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Michael K:

I wish I was as sure. Errors in rational actors, like Hitler and the USSR, are not unknown. Both regimes are a bit short on history.

Rationality is certainly no preventive for violent, destructive, self-defeating actions. People make errors all the time.

But the error that the Iranians and North Koreans would have to make in this case is the belief that they could launch a nuclear strike against the United States and face no counter attack. If they did believe that the US would counter strike, then you could only argue that they would launch a first strike if they were suicidal.; 8/8/17, 9:21 PM
Birkel said...: Condensed stupid is the best kind.; 8/8/17, 9:21 PM
Kevin said...: "The North Korean Government accused President Clinton today of provoking it with threats of war after he warned that the United States would retaliate if North Korea developed nuclear arms.

The statement by the Communist Government of Kim Il Sung came just hours after it handed over what it said were remains of 17 American soldiers killed in the Korean War.

On his weekend visit to South Korea, President Clinton warned that if North Korea developed and used an atomic weapon, "we would quickly and overwhelmingly retaliate."

"It would mean the end of their country as they know it," he said."; 8/8/17, 9:25 PM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

Again, you're criticizing a book you know nothing about and have never read. If you think that's a strike for open-mindedness and rationality, then more power to you. You've apparently made your mind up about the immigration issue and everyone who has an opposite view from you. It's almost as if you're defining enemies and then defining the opposite of that as "good." Now I could've swore I just read not that long ago someone complaining about that very phenomenon.; 8/8/17, 9:27 PM
Mr. Majestyk said...: One reason an attack on North Korea is unlikely is that they can shell Seoul and the millions who live there. In other words, the residents of Seoul are the North's "hostages." The U.S. has allowed that situation to continue since the early 50s with the signing of the Armistace. So why would North Korea think it needs nukes to preserve its power against outside invasion? Its nuclear program is provacative, to say the least, and actually makes an invasion and regime change more likely. So why pursue nukes? And why do it in such an in-your-face and provacative way? It doesn't seem rational.; 8/8/17, 9:28 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Again, you're criticizing a book you know nothing about and have never read.

As a normal, intelligent person with a life I don't have time to do lengthy assigned readings just to debate a pseudonymous internet commenter. If it's so important and made such an impression on you I don't see why it's so hard for you to actually state what you got from it. Unless I'm supposed to exhume Schlessinger's corpse and debate HIM on the subject. What's the summary... other non-Anglo cultures have changed American society and its traditions and now we'll never achieve greatness again unless we do something about it? Stop being so fucking cryptic and just tell me WTF your argument even is. You can't let dead people do your arguing for you - especially when you can't even quote a thing they said apart from the title of their book.; 8/8/17, 9:31 PM
Michael K said...: "it's a shame no one likes to mention it anymore. "

I did. You would be more believable if you once acknowledged such things.; 8/8/17, 9:33 PM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

I brought up the book for a very important reason. To see your reaction against it. And it's told me everything I need to know. You seem to have a predetermined point of view on the issue that you've decided is the "good" side, and people on the other side must be on the "bad" side. In both your posts, you made repeatedly innuendos about mine and Schlesigner's motives. Now you can call that anything you want, just don't call it rational and open-minded. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

In short, I think you're guilty of exactly what you claim to be against on the other side.; 8/8/17, 9:35 PM
walter said...: Mr. Majestyk said... Its nuclear program is provacative, to say the least, and actually makes an invasion and regime change more likely. So why pursue nukes? And why do it in such an in-your-face and provacative way? It doesn't seem rational.
--
The most charitable interpretation is that he's "enigmatic".
But his is on a scale such that makes suggesting equivalencies to Trump seem ridiculous.; 8/8/17, 9:38 PM
Howard said...: I think most people don't understand that the Kim Jun Fun rhetoric is for internal consumption. The regime is more afraid of home grown enemies than external. The jin'd up bellicosity helps Un keep a lid on his people and those who covet his hair crown.

In this way, Trump's crying wolf hews Kim to his throne.; 8/8/17, 9:39 PM
Achilles said...: The policy the Trump administration is pushing on North Korea are stiff sanctions that will topple the regime supported by the UN Security Council and the promise of overwhelming force and anhilation in response to any attack.

That seems a reasonable strategy given how pathetic the globalist Clinton Bush Obama strategy of letting North Korea have anything they needed to pursue ICBMs and Nukes the past 20 or so years.

I see a lot of false choice and pathetic wishful thinking on this thread. It apparently galls a lot of people that Trump is more competent than the uniparty was.; 8/8/17, 9:40 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I brought up the book for a very important reason. To see your reaction against it. And it's told me everything I need to know.

Yes. That titles have meaning, but that for you their greatest value is to use them as rhetorical devices and frame debates that you don't actually even intend to have.

Just fuck off and get back to me when you have something meaningful to say. Everyone's got to make a few conclusions and presumptions from time to time and your pretension to being too good to do that that is too circuitous, phony and masturbatory for me to even engage.

If your mind becomes so open that it falls out of your head then feel free to consult Michael K. Kontrol Freak for help. He has skills and experience in dealing with these things.; 8/8/17, 9:40 PM
Michael K said...: Farmer, arguing with kids who don't read is a fool's game. Sorry but even the Vox kids don't know anything but what was on TV last week.

It's really sad but there is nobody to debate. It's all invective and ad hominem.; 8/8/17, 9:41 PM
Michael K said...: "In this way, Trump's crying wolf hews Kim to his throne."

It's a fair point. I've read that NK is really a warlord regime and the Kims are figurehead's like Change Kai Shek.

I:'m not sure that's true with this guy because he seems to kill off all his rivals.; 8/8/17, 9:43 PM
Achilles said...: "In short, I think you're guilty of exactly what you claim to be against on the other side."

TTR occasionally engages. A great amount of time it is as you say.; 8/8/17, 9:43 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Farmer, arguing with kids who don't read is a fool's game.

Yeah. Farmer reads so much that he refuses to even summarize.

Apologies to the ghost of Arthur Schlesinger. His work was lost on an infinitely open-minded anti-immigration agitator who can't even remember what he read. Just that its title had nothing to do with what it was about.; 8/8/17, 9:44 PM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

Just fuck off and get back to me when you have something meaningful to say.

Oh that coldly calculating rationality. How it slays me. I guess anyone who can fulminate against people's close-mindedness while simultaneously fulminating against a work they know nothing about is quite comfortable with their cognitive dissonance.; 8/8/17, 9:44 PM
Anonymous said...: A good general rule: If you have to tell people you're a "normal, intelligent person", you're not.

Another one: A ruler who acquires nuclear weapons purely for self-defense would not go around provoking more powerful countries, but would stick to a "don't try none, won't be none" policy. He would probably want to test them on an uninhabited area in his own country so everyone knows he has them, but no more. A ruler with nukes who fires missiles into the territorial waters of a larger neighbor, kidnaps, tortures, and lobotomizes a citizen of a much larger nuclear power, and threatens to nuke far-away territories belonging to that much larger nuclear power, is not in fact interested purely in self-defense. Only someone deeply in denial could possibly think that.; 8/8/17, 9:46 PM
J. Farmer said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/8/17, 9:46 PM
J. Farmer said...: @DrWeevil:

Only someone deeply in denial could possibly think that.

Well then, since you presumably lack such denial, please tell us what the North Koreans are tying to do and why nuclear weapons will help them do that.; 8/8/17, 9:48 PM
J. Farmer said...: Yeah. Farmer reads so much that he refuses to even summarize.

And yet without even a summary, you felt compelled to launch an attack against it and its author. When people refer me to books I haven't read, I just say I haven't read them and don't know anything about them. I find that a pretty intellectually honest way to comport oneself.; 8/8/17, 9:52 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Oh that coldly calculating rationality.

Yes. Any rational person will conclude that you are a waste of time. Passionately wanting not to die of circuitous pseudo-conversations is rational. We don't have to be Dr. Lecter-level sociopaths to use our brains and be rational, you weirdo.

So maybe try writing a book. I can think of the title already: Thinking My Way to Non-Thought. How to Waste Precious Bandwidth by Pretending that a Book Was Actually about Its Title - by J. Farmer

(Or, How I dodged an argument by instead proving another way in which I could show that words are meaningless.)

I look forward to receiving an advance copy, asshole. Not that I'll read it. Just so I can someday use its title as a ruse to prove a point that I never intended on actually making on my own.

You must be one of those people with little purpose in life other than as an example of how things got to be so fucked up.; 8/8/17, 9:52 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't know what Kim is trying to do. I do know that he's not just trying to protect his own power, because what he is doing would be insanely counterproductive. He may be crazy enough to think he can get away with much more than he already has, which is plenty, and that nuking (e.g.) Guam would cause Trump to surrender and give him whatever else he wants. That might actually work with some presidents . . . .; 8/8/17, 9:54 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: And yet without even a summary, you felt compelled to launch an attack against it and its author.

It wasn't an "attack." Who's getting emotional now? And you didn't even write the fucking thing.

So to discuss something with you I apparently must avoid not only ad hominems but also ad Schlesingerisms. Good to know.

You get offended on behalf of the post-mortem feelings of the topic of conversation. That makes things so much easier.

Which other dead author's work can we not discuss while being hamstrung from even concluding what the title probably contains?; 8/8/17, 9:55 PM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

You can keep thinking this conversation is about a book when it's actually about your reaction. Again, you sing the praises of rationality and open-minded and yet when pointed towards a book criticizing immigration from a left perspective, your response was to attack it, its author, and it's author's motivation without knowing anything about it. So, if you can square that circle with your supposed affinity for rationality and open-minded, then more power to you.; 8/8/17, 9:55 PM
Howard said...: "I:'m not sure that's true with this guy because he seems to kill off all his rivals."

You are spot on... mostly based on listening to Michael Malice on a Joe Rogan podcast. He wrote a book that I've yet to read: Dear Reader: The Unauthorized Autobiography of Kim Jong Il

Malice had a lot to say about how the NorK power structure works. He also cautioned folks not to view them as cartoon idiots (like in "Team America") as they have perfected the art of absolute totalitarianism. Malice is no lefty (he does guest spots on Fox), but seems to have a solid deterministic view of politics which I like.; 8/8/17, 9:57 PM
Unknown said...: Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.
4:46 AM · Aug 31, 2013; 8/8/17, 9:57 PM
Achilles said...: Blogger J. Farmer said...
@DrWeevil:

Only someone deeply in denial could possibly think that.

"Well then, since you presumably lack such denial, please tell us what the North Koreans are tying to do and why nuclear weapons will help them do that."

The NKs are warlords who want money raw materials and better weapons so they can force everyone to give them more stuff. Essentially pirates.

Clinton gave them stuff for their promise to not develop nukes. He said we would wipe them out if they tested a nuclear weapon.

The norks obviously lied. The uniparty has been uniformly feckless.

Trump is actually dealing with the problem as a leader and an adult.

This should have been dealt with decades ago.; 8/8/17, 9:58 PM
pacwest said...: "But the error that the Iranians and North Koreans would have to make in this case is the belief that they could launch a nuclear strike against the United States and face no counter attack."

Leaving aside whether Kim is rational, or that his progeny will be irrational (nukes are forever), how would China feel about nukes rained in close proximity to their country? Russia? Does this factor into his thinking? Maybe he could get away with just one. If you are not talking about nuclear obliteration as a deterrent, how long would it take conventional forces to do the job? How many nukes can NK launch during that time?
Say he does drop one on LA. Do we want to risk nuclear war with NK's neighbors? And Seoul would still be under the same threats later down the road as it is now. +nukes.

How do our actions towards NK affect Iran's thinking? Can we stop nuclear proliferation? What price are we willing to pay to stop it?
If we bypass the chance now, what other tinpot dictators will get a bright idea about how they can keep the international community from deposing them?

IMO we are at an inflection point in history. Just saying. I have no answers. It's not hard to understand why this can has been kicked down the road. But it does seem to me that risk deferred is risk increased in this instance.; 8/8/17, 9:59 PM
Achilles said...: Blogger Unknown said...
"Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III.
4:46 AM · Aug 31, 2013"

Inga probably doesn't realize that this tweet is prescient and it proves Trump was correct.; 8/8/17, 10:01 PM
J. Farmer said...: @DrWeevil:

I do know that he's not just trying to protect his own power, because what he is doing would be insanely counterproductive.

Wouldn't simple incompetence account for that? Also, conventional military deterrence has kept the North's army on the other side of the DMZ for almost 60 years. Kim could have launched a military strike against Seoul anytime for years now. Yes, the Kim regime has been able to keep its grip on power at huge costs to the country. We've bombed seven different countries in the last 16 years, so I don't think there is any reason for the North Koreans not to expect a counterattack if they attacked. And again, striking the US would get nothing for the North Koreans from a strategic point of view.; 8/8/17, 10:02 PM
Michael K said...: "But it does seem to me that risk deferred is risk increased in this instance."

I would suggest we shoot down his missile test and, assuming that shows it works well, build a lot more of them,.

Reagan won the Cold War with just the threat,; 8/8/17, 10:03 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: You can keep thinking this conversation is about a book when it's actually about your reaction.

Yes. My "reaction" reflected an interest in not wasting time. Oh, it also reflected the very thoughtless presumption that titles probably describe the ideas contained in their work. How very mean of me.

Again, you sing the praises of rationality and open-minded and yet when pointed towards a book criticizing immigration from a left perspective, your response was to attack it, its author, and it's author's motivation without knowing anything about it.

Yeah, I kind of had to because after... an hour ten minutes now... you had... nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. So I did what a normal person does and entertained a presumption. I realize that offended you because you are so open-minded that you never DARE conclude anything.. (which leads me to wonder... do you actually know that the book even existed? Maybe you are just a cog in the Matrix and it was imagined... brain in a vat scenario. Maybe you're not actually on-line now)... but most people are rational to conclude that they'll never get through life or a cogent thought if they presume the nonsensical idea that all easily provided answers are withheld simply to provoke thought.

So, if you can square that circle with your supposed affinity for rationality and open-minded, then more power to you.

Yep. See above. Good luck to you in your search to prove that decisions should never be made, conclusions never drawn, ideas never defended. Because hey - imperfect information means no making any judgments. Ever. Unless we are irrational.; 8/8/17, 10:03 PM
Unknown said...: Yes, Trump was predicting his own horrendous leadership.True enough.; 8/8/17, 10:03 PM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

So to discuss something with you I apparently must avoid not only ad hominems but also ad Schlesingerisms. Good to know.

No, you just half to stop delivering accusatory fulminations of works you know nothing about. It's actually really simple. Especially for someone who champions open-mindedness and rationality. And if you recall, I didn't bring up immigration in order to adjudicate the point. I brought it up as an example of how people do exactly the thing you say they do. And then you went right ahead and did it. As I said, your own statements are Exhibit A.; 8/8/17, 10:06 PM
J. Farmer said...: Yep. See above. Good luck to you in your search to prove that decisions should never be made, conclusions never drawn, ideas never defended. Because hey - imperfect information means no making any judgments. Ever.

Actually, that should read: "Good luck to you in your search to prove that decisions should never be made, conclusions never drawn, ideas never defended against works you know nothing about."

You made a judgment about a work based solely on the fact that it was on the other side of the immigration debate than you. And then you proceeded to attack it and its authors on those terms. In other words, you're doing exactly what you were complaining about rightists doing. If you can't see that, then you can't see it.; 8/8/17, 10:09 PM
Mr. Majestyk said...: J. Farmer is right that an nuclear attack on the U.S. by North Korea would result in massive retaliation. We know that, and you would think Kim would know that too. But as North Korea is a brutal dictatorship, Kim's advisors are probably more interested in avoiding being shot to pieces with an anti-aircraft gun than with giving Kim reality-based advice. Imagine being the guy telling Kim that he should end the pursuit of nukes or even dial back the inflammatory rhetoric. How long would such a guy survive? Bottom line, in such a regime, truth and facts are beside the point. Saving one's skin is the main thing. So I am a bit uncomfortable relying on the assumption that Kim knows what we all know. Not sure what the answer is, but it's scary that North Korea is on the verge of being able to nuke an American city, even if doing so would be suicidal.; 8/8/17, 10:10 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: If you can't see that, then you can't see it.

You played a trick. How clever of you. It also proves you don't operate in good faith.

You're not a rationalist, dummy. You're just an anti-empiricist. If you had any interest in facts you wouldn't have wasted over an hour avoiding a way to provide or establish a single one.

Yes, disregard for facts is as strong in the tribe you're defending as disregard for reason.; 8/8/17, 10:16 PM
walter said...: Farmer,
You engage "Ed Hominem" at your own peril..; 8/8/17, 10:16 PM
Howard said...: I'm not at all opposed to shooting down the NorK missiles, but we should always deny it when it happens because it will make the regime look incompetent.

The fall of the Soviets benefited more from Nixon's trilateral diplomacy than Reagan's Star Wars bluster. Everyone at the time know it couldn't work. Reagan's relationship dwith Gorbachev was more instrumental as detente evolved into perestroika then glasnost which caused USSR to collapse from the inside.

Of course, we messed up the peace letting the KGB kleptocracy while we concentrated on Iraq, Yugoslavia and blue dresses...; 8/8/17, 10:16 PM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: Bitchmo got served.

Game, Set, Match, J. Farmer.; 8/8/17, 10:17 PM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

Good luck to you in your search to prove that decisions should never be made, conclusions never drawn, ideas never defended

I am actually not defending any tribe, mine or otherwise. Our exchange began with this statement of yours: "Actually, most righties are notoriously poor thinkers. Instead, they identify enemies and define the opposite of what they do as somehow 'good.'"

I then gave the example of immigration restriction. Your response: "Because any rational reasons they've offered for it - when they've bothered to (which they usually don't) - have been too poorly thought out and nonsensical to take seriously."

And yet, when I pointed out a major work by an author on the left side of the political spectrum, you attacked the work and the author. You've seemingly decided its bad, not from actually confronting the work or the arguments it makes, but because it simply is on the wrong side.

In other words...glass houses...stones...you know the cliche.; 8/8/17, 10:21 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Game, Set, Match, J. Farmer.

This is like listening to Stevie Wonder judging a skating competition.; 8/8/17, 10:21 PM
J. Farmer said...: Mr. Majestyk:

I guess my main response would be what has kept the North Korean army on their side of the DMZ for almost 60 years?; 8/8/17, 10:22 PM
walter said...: Cut off Kim's food and distilled beverage supply.; 8/8/17, 10:22 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: And yet, when I pointed out a major work by an author on the left side of the political spectrum, you attacked the work and the author. You've seemingly decided its bad, not from actually confronting the work or the arguments it makes, but because it simply is on the wrong side.

I made a reasonable judgment of its title, you refused (and STILL refuse) for over an hour to summarize its argument (despite insisting that I somehow got it wrong), got emotional over the treatment of its dead author, and still pretend you have a point. What's the point, that Schlesinger made a bad argument, too? That he couldn't have? That because he was or is deemed "liberal" for the purposes of this pointless exercise I'm supposed to agree with him or what he said? That he made such a major, liberal contribution to the anti-immigrant movement or its sentiments that you can't even recall what they are?

Why are you so embarrassed to admit what you did (or apparently didn't) get from the work? Aren't you done proving this dumb point of yours, that my avoidance of infinite, time-wasting caveats no one would presume somehow makes me a super judgmental partisan?

Your avoidance of finding any factual basis upon which to proceed with any argument makes you unfit for any debate, really. You present yourself as the guy who would declare a debate never occurred on account of the chairs and podia were not set up according to the rulebook's prescriptions.

What are you really trying to hide?; 8/8/17, 10:27 PM
pacwest said...: "I would suggest we shoot down his missile test and, assuming that shows it works well, build a lot more of them."

What would his reaction to that be? And that sounds like wack-a-mole to me. Just keep doing it until one gets through? Unless you have an impregnable shield it is just more can kicking.

What you suggest makes sense to me only if you are ready to release the dogs of war anyway. Might be a chance he would back off but I doubt it.; 8/8/17, 10:32 PM
Mr. Majestyk said...: @J. Farmer

I take it your point is that they think they would get wiped out. Seems reasonable. But why do they think the U.S. and South Korea have never invaded the North in 60 years? What has changed that requires nukes to guarantee their survival now? And if the answer is that nothing has changed, one wonders why they are hell bent on acquiring nukes, even though it makes an invasion more like, if anything, in my opinion.; 8/8/17, 10:34 PM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

Let me refer you to my first statement on this issue: "Here's why you're framing of the issue is so problematic." That's what I have always been talking about. "You're framing of the issue." I brought up how the immigration issue is framed in a problematic way. One side sees itself as good and sees the other side is bad, which is precisely what you were complaining about in our first back and forth.

What's the point, that Schlesinger made a bad argument, too?

No, that you'll criticize an issue from a tribal and not open-minded point of view. And you're attack on a book you hadn't read was evidence for my position.

That's been my position from the very beginning, and your two responses to that position are to say you "had a feeling" about the book and then that you "made a reasonable judgment of its title." Excuse me for not finding either of those defenses particularly persuasive.; 8/8/17, 10:35 PM
J. Farmer said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/8/17, 10:42 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Mr Majestyk:

But why do they think the U.S. and South Korea have never invaded the North in 60 years?

Primarily because there's never been a compelling reason to, even in the face of relatively minor agitations from the north. An invasion/occupation would be a very costly affair. There has also been the possibility of Russia and China intervening on the side of the North. Many things could have changed their calculus, including the collapse of the Soviet Union, a growing China that has become increasingly impatient and agitated with its client state, and a US polity showing an increasing tolerance for regime change operations. And also, it would be seen as a rather humiliating defeat for a nationalist country to be seen capitulating to what it considers an enemy power. And to turn your question back onto you, why would a country that has stayed in power for 60 years launch an attack on the United States that would, in all probability, most surely lead to its destruction?; 8/8/17, 10:44 PM
Mr. Majestyk said...: @J. Farmer

They probably won't launch an attack against us. Probably. But it' discomforting that they can, or about to acquire that ability. Not to mention whatever terroristic possibilities it opens to them. But like I said, I don't have the answers. Good talking to you. Gotta turn in for the night.; 8/8/17, 10:48 PM
Achilles said...: "And to turn your question back onto you, why would a country that has stayed in power for 60 years launch an attack on the United States that would, in all probability, most surely lead to its destruction?"

I hope it won't. But we should try to minimize the number of rogue states with nukes.

That's why the sanctions must be cranked up until the regime falls and we should continue to promise anhilation in response to any attacks. Any missile launches from North Korea that leave their airspace from this point on should be assumed to be attacks and shot down now that they have miniaturized warheads and the launching facility needs to be wiped out if at all possible.; 8/8/17, 10:53 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Two small cocks.

Big dicked dudes are better.

Just sayin'

Carry on.; 8/8/17, 10:54 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: J. Farmer accuses people of not being open-minded and then neglects, after desperate pleas, for around twenty rounds and several hours, to provide them with a single documented fact for them to be open-minded about.

Fuck you and the horse penis-shaped dildo your mother rode you in on. I have never in my life experienced someone so goddamn aggravating in his pointlessness as you. You're the intellectual equivalent of a prude prom date who's way too young to go anywhere, let alone all the way.

You deserve the movement that articulates all the potent ugliness you're too much of a pussy to articulate on your own, even when given the chance to parrot a watered-down liberal version of it.; 8/8/17, 10:57 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Achilles:

That's why the sanctions must be cranked up until the regime falls and we should continue to promise anhilation in response to any attacks.

I think that's a terrible idea. For one, South Korea (who our forces are purportedly there to protect) doesn't want the North to fall. And China most certainly doesn't want it to fall. Plus, a preventive attack on North Korea could very easily and very quickly escalate into a full-scale war with the country, which would come at tremendous human costs to United States and especially our treaty allies in East Asia.; 8/8/17, 11:00 PM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

Fuck you and the horse penis-shaped dildo your mother rode you in on.

Once again, I am devastated by your clever repartee. Please keep it coming.

Just admit you criticized a book you know nothing about on partisan terms. Go ahead. It'll be a good little character builder for you.; 8/8/17, 11:02 PM
Earnest Prole said...: Well that escalated quickly.; 8/8/17, 11:30 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: J. Farmer impressively astounds with all the facts he couldn't bring to make the argument designed prove how open-minded someone has proven to not be to said factless argument.

He's one hell of a reasoner, folks. If you get angry with him for insisting that his fact-free argument must somehow be engaged, then you are hopelessly irrational.

When you're done using your non-facts to prove things about me and ready to prove the actual argument - how these conservative positions are well-thought out and evidenced, let me know.

But it's pretty obvious by now that you can't. How many hours did you waste not providing that evidence, already?; 8/8/17, 11:31 PM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

Sweetie, I don't need facts. I "had a feeling," and I "made a reasonable judgment" of your title. Aren't those both rational, open-minded means of reaching conclusions? You seem to certainly think so.

How many hours did you waste not providing that evidence, already?

You tell me. I got all the evidence I needed for my position 4 hours ago, which because you seem perennially incapable of recalling, I'll remind you: "Here's why you're framing of the issue is so problematic." You've been spinning your wheels about immigration ever since.; 8/8/17, 11:41 PM
buwaya said...: Oh goodness!
"Disuniting of America" is extremely well known.
Its part of required reading in modern US politics. A bestseller in its day and on every serious reading list.
Its got its own wiki, commentaries and reviews all over the internet.
And it is a very short book.
You can skim your way through it in a couple of hours.
And be much better for the exercise.

And its not quantitative sociology. No math, no fear.

Read, read read, its one shortcut to depth. The other way of course is to actually do public affairs, but not all of us are Winston Churchill. The interesting bit is that most great statesmen in modern times were tremendous readers.

Currently reading the surprisingly sprightly British Official History of the RAF in WW2 "The Royal Air Force 1939-45" D.Richards - free online. Highly recommended.
This sort of thing (and there are libraries full of this sort of thing) gives you some idea of how options appear to a high command, how value judgements are made, how national and theater commands work under stress of every kind.
Following I think are "The British War Economy", Hancock
And in my pile "Postwar", Tony Judt, which I have been meaning to read for years.; 8/9/17, 12:07 AM
buwaya said...: If anything, Schlesingers book is rather less about immigration than it is about education - the deliberate failure to teach immigrants to be Americans and the deliberate exploitation of difference for political purposes.

More, worse perhaps than the failure to integrate the foreigner in the American tribe, the greater is the failure to teach kids any significant wisdom, to provide depth sufficient to inform judgement whatever tribe they are. See E.D.Hirsch, "Cultural Literacy".

That failure has led to the sad phenomenon of our friend Ritmo, betrayed and betrayed, and betrayed again. That he comes here full of random rage, and a hapless inability to improve himself, is no surprise. It is the inevitable result of two generations of failure.

The consequences Schlesinger warned against are upon us. The dumb, blank refusal to consider criticism by the powers that be (which rarely engage with any critics) is precisely the sort of thing that has led to this situation.; 8/9/17, 12:31 AM
Todd Roberson said...: Ritmo seems to have gone inside. It's safe to come back out now.; 8/9/17, 12:51 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/9/17, 12:54 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Grip your chain-link fence a little tighter, Todd.; 8/9/17, 12:55 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: And you can fuck off too, Alligator Face. There is no such thing as "required reading in American politics." That's why we never got a Marcos or Duterte to lead us. And why we managed to get a Trump, anyway.; 8/9/17, 12:57 AM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

Why did you delete your comment calling me a "stupid, anti-semitic faggot" or that I am "fucked worse than a gang-banged bukkake bitch in a glory hole?" Not are they exemplary of your intellect, such as it were, but both are shining examples of your self-proclaimed interest in open-mindedness and rationality. It's late in the evening, and you seem quite worked up and full of venom and anger. Is your health okay? I'm worried about you, sweetheart.; 8/9/17, 1:09 AM
J. Farmer said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/9/17, 1:13 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Sweetie, I don't need facts. I "had a feeling," and I "made a reasonable judgment" of your title. Aren't those both rational, open-minded means of reaching conclusions? You seem to certainly think so.

Don't fucking patronize me. (Is it a way of getting back at your frustration over unrequited crushes for straight men?) If you don't have a factual standard that you care to use (and I didn't provide a "title" for anything) then go ahead and admit that before assuming others need to be brought down to your substandard level.

"How many hours did you waste not providing that evidence, already?

You tell me. I got all the evidence I needed for my position 4 hours ago, which because you seem perennially incapable of recalling, I'll remind you: "Here's why you're framing of the issue is so problematic."

No one cares what "you're" position is; "You're" position doesn't matter. You said the argument was that conservatives are thoughtful people (or no more thoughtless) as proven by their supposedly well supported ideas about immigration. Then you neglected to provide a single FACT supporting whatever those ideas were. You keep forgetting what you're trying to prove and have been stuck in a mindless ad hominem loop the whole time.

You've been spinning your wheels about immigration ever since.

As I said, provide a fact supporting the supposedly thoughtful conservative position on the matter and put an end to it. This isn't a circle jerk. Apparently you like playing tag. I've provided facts supporting my contrary position. You haven't. You can't make it about the fallibility of concluding something about some book. Or how everything must be framed in terms that presumes everyone is equally fallible. But what you are proving is that concluding anything without a single supporting fact is a way to prove nothing.

Now go fuck off and tell some other straight guy who finds you disgusting and pathetic how cold your rationality is. Maybe throw in those signature anti-semitic quips of yours as well, since that's a really good sign of rationality also.; 8/9/17, 1:13 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Here is a screenshot -

Pretty pathetic. Get over yourself.

..both are shining examples of...

of colorful language, of my disinterest in taking your horseshit, and in insulting you in a much more emphatic way than you insult my intelligence by consistently refusing to appeal to a single fact and in personalizing everything.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Now go find some other straight guy to try to aggravate for the attention he doesn't otherwise care to give you. And come up with an actual fucking argument, FFS. Support it with a fact, you attention whore.; 8/9/17, 1:19 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Oh! Look who else deleted his own comment! Looky-looky!

Must be some kind of logic fail that proves you are a black hole of irrationality, or some bullshit like that.; 8/9/17, 1:20 AM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

Don't fucking patronize me.

But it's so much fun. Look how worked up you're getting over an anonymous internet commentator.

No one cares what "you're" position is; "You're" position doesn't matter.

Not true. I care, and it matters to me a lot.

You said the argument was that conservatives are thoughtful people (or no more thoughtless) as proven by their supposedly well supported ideas about immigration.

No, that actually isn't what I said at all, but you have a particular talent for missing the point by a mile.

You keep forgetting what you're trying to prove and have been stuck in a mindless ad hominem loop the whole time.

Wow. You have an admirable ability at unintentional self-mockery.

I've provided facts supporting my contrary position. You haven't.

Oh, you criticized a book without knowing anything about it, realized you were wrong, and then recanted? Oh, no, sorry, you doubled down in the most hilariously incompetent manner (e.g. made a reasonable judgment of its title). So, no, I'd say my position still holds up quite well all these hours later.

Now go fuck off and tell some other straight guy who finds you disgusting and pathetic how cold your rationality is.

This might be a blow to your ego, but pathetic, sub-schoolyard attempts at bullying with words isn't really going to get you very far. I've spent my entire adult life working with criminal and mentally ill populations. Your devotion (and reliance) on naughty words doesn't really do anything for me except perhaps bring a yawn.

Maybe throw in those signature anti-semitic quips of yours as well, since that's a really good sign of rationality also.

Please give one example of one of my "signature anti-semitic quips."; 8/9/17, 1:24 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: that actually isn't what I said at all

That's precisely what you implied. That's what anyone with a brain reading the dialogue would figure you'd implied. If it isn't what you implied, then this whole thing was obviously a waste from whenever you inserted your shriveled head into the thread with that shit, admit to the misunderstanding, and just go home. Either that or you're obviously just as poor a writer as you are a thinker. Either way, the point is moot, dummy.; 8/9/17, 1:26 AM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

Nothing more, nothing less.

No, it also shows your immaturity, your childish handling of language and arguments, and that your parents apparently did not do a particularly good job in raising you. I feel sorry for them. Hopefully you have other siblings who are less of a disappointment?

See? I can do this sort of thing, too. Not something I am particularly proud of, but the schoolyard seems to be about the level of discourse most useful in dealing wth an unpleasant character such as yourself.; 8/9/17, 1:26 AM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

Either that or you're obviously just as poor a writer as you are a thinker. Either way, the point is moot, dummy.

And yet I know enough that you cannot criticize a book that you haven't read and whose material is completely foreign to you. But hopefully one day you can achieve similar levels of enlightenment.; 8/9/17, 1:28 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: You have an admirable ability at unintentional self-mockery.

No, my admirable ability consists in mocking you with a new and different ad hominem each time. And I fully deserve to. You made the whole thread about me when it was about the failings of conservative vs. non-conservative approaches to positions. Apparently you did the same thing w/Schlessinger. Or something like that. Maybe it was the fallacy of composition. I don't suppose you understand logic fallacies either, though.; 8/9/17, 1:29 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: ...made a reasonable judgment of its title...

There's nothing wrong with that. Again, get over yourself. You were using its author to prove something - one presumes about his argument given his politics. No one presumes you were just trying to use it to attack an interlocutor, even though you did, and can't get over yourself for so doing. So much that you never even referred to its contents or significance since. You refuse to, in fact. No one sane goes through life without making a judgment, conclusion or presumption, eventually. Normal people have to, or they paralyze themselves trying to prove how unknowable everything is. Not everything is equally unknowable. Again, get over yourself.; 8/9/17, 1:33 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: But it's so much fun.

Ah, a need for negative attention based on others presuming you're worth being taken seriously. That must be a huge sign of maturity on your part.; 8/9/17, 1:34 AM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

No, my admirable ability consists in mocking you with a new and different ad hominem each time.

And it really is devastating. I am not even really sure where I am finding the strength to move.

You made the whole thread about me when it was about the failings of conservative vs. non-conservative approaches to positions.

No, actually, most of the thread is about North Korea, but I can see why you would want to believe it was the other way. But because I am a masochist, let me take one more swing at this. I'll go slow and simple so keeping up shouldn't be too tasking.

As I have said repeatedly, my issue with you starts: "Here's why you're framing of the issue is so problematic." Now, perhaps this might be difficult for you to conceive, but that statement is not about you. It's about how you're framing the issue. And the example I gave was immigration. Now, gain, try and keep up here. We're talking about how the issue of immigration is framed, not where anyone comes down on the question of immigration. I am immigration restrictionist, and I know many people who disagree with many of my points of view. I engage with them on a regular basis, and many are friends and families. I quite willingly accept that there are good arguments and positions opposite of my own.

You, on the other hand, wouldn't even make that small concession. You essentially declared that there were no good arguments on the other side and that there barely were arguments. Yet, huge amounts of thinking from all over the political spectrum. I pointed you to one, written by someone presumably close to your ideological worldview than mine, and you responded with a vituperative attack on it. And not because you were familiar with its theses or the arguments it makes but rather because it was on a different side than an issue that you're on. Now, like I said, you can call that anything you want. Just don't call it open-minded.; 8/9/17, 1:37 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: This might be a blow to your ego, but pathetic, sub-schoolyard attempts at bullying with words isn't really going to get you very far.

There's no "distance" I need to go with you because you are obviously impervious and thick. I will instead get my own amusement out of it, and for the benefit of anyone else who remembers your more tawdry moments.

I've spent my entire adult life working with criminal and mentally ill populations.

Well I guess that explains why you see yourself as so superior in valuing rationality. How impressive! Not.

Maybe try getting out more.

Your devotion (and reliance) on naughty words doesn't really do anything for me except perhaps bring a yawn.

I have no reason to be impressed by whatever it is you would find impressive, at this point. Especially seeing how you haven't managed to do anything impressive, yourself.

Please give one example of one of my "signature anti-semitic quips."

Oh my. You really are one slippery weasel of a xenophobe. Maybe another night. I've already wasted enough time on your other bullshit.; 8/9/17, 1:38 AM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

No one sane goes through life without making a judgment, conclusion or presumption, eventually.

Well, "eventually" usually means at least past the title page.

Not everything is equally unknowable.

True enough. The contents of a book in the public library and most major bookstores is not as unknowable as the motives of a dead author. And yet you presumed to know both. Quite an open mind you got there.; 8/9/17, 1:40 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: See? I can do this sort of thing, too. Not something I am particularly proud of,

Or even good at. But it does illustrate how needy you are at trying to feel vindicated.

..but the schoolyard seems to be about the level of discourse most useful in dealing wth an unpleasant character such as yourself.

Oh dear. Unpleasantness. Please help us, Lord. If only facts and reason were just endlessly pleasant things like sipping tea. What a silly little man you are.; 8/9/17, 1:41 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Well, "eventually" usually means at least past the title page.

Which you were asked to and refused to provide even a single word about umpteen times.

Which eventually led to a judgment of what your purpose was for bringing it up in the first place.; 8/9/17, 1:42 AM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

Oh my. You really are one slippery weasel of a xenophobe. Maybe another night. I've already wasted enough time on your other bullshit.

By asking you to substantiate an outlandish claim you made? Oh yeah, I'm real slippery. Your source for that must be the same source as your opinion on Schlesinger's book: that dreamy netherworld where you learn things through intuition. As I said, I made my point hours ago. Everything since has just been icing on the cake (i.e. further confirmation).; 8/9/17, 1:44 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: We're talking about how the issue of immigration is framed, not where anyone comes down on the question of immigration. I am immigration restrictionist, and I know many people who disagree with many of my points of view. I engage with them on a regular basis, and many are friends and families. I quite willingly accept that there are good arguments and positions opposite of my own.

You, on the other hand, wouldn't even make that small concession. You essentially declared that there were no good arguments on the other side and that there barely were arguments.

Yeah yeah yeah we get it. You're this others are that good pros and cons framing is the best thing to address for helping one's own case. Now tell me when we get around to the actual arguments. If you can't do that then my assertion can never be proven, so I'm not surprised that you set up this endless delay game.; 8/9/17, 1:46 AM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

Now tell me when we get around to the actual arguments.

I have made the argument I wanted to make repeatedly, which is that you're a hypocrite. You complain that "righties... identify enemies and define the opposite of what they do as somehow 'good.'" In other words, they do exactly what you've just done on the immigration issue, and which you've quite aptly demonstrated for all of us to see.; 8/9/17, 1:49 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: By asking you to substantiate an outlandish claim you made?

Can't be done, for the benefit of someone sympathetic to those against it, if you're unwilling to provide their arguments.

Oh yeah, I'm real slippery.

See above.

Your source for that must be the same source as your opinion on Schlesinger's book: that dreamy netherworld where you learn things through intuition.

Yes yes I know. You intuit nothing and declare either 100% perfect knowledge or no knowledge at all on any given thing. How wonderful it must be to lack an interest in constructing a more holistic, coherent general idea of anything at all.

As I said, I made my point hours ago. Everything since has just been icing on the cake (i.e. further confirmation).

Confirmation bias from someone who viciously argues for crumbs at the margins and has no understanding of give-and-take at all.; 8/9/17, 1:49 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I have made the argument I wanted to make repeatedly, which is that you're a hypocrite.

That's not an argument. That's an ad hominem. You're so much fucking worse at this than you think. You never even got around to learning fallacies.

Please do fuck off right now. Preferably with a screwdriver. You just totally insult the intelligence of whomever you're speaking with. No one even talks seriously about "arguments" if they have no clue what the fallacies even are - let alone how to avoid them.; 8/9/17, 1:51 AM
J. Farmer said...: Can't be done, for the benefit of someone sympathetic to those against it, if you're unwilling to provide their arguments.

In other words, you cannot substantiate your claim that I have "signature anti-semitic quips," but you won't retract it either. Yeah, sounds pretty par for the course.

You intuit nothing and declare either 100% perfect knowledge or no knowledge at all on any given thing.

No, I just don't fulminate against books or works I haven't read. Pretty basic concept there.; 8/9/17, 1:53 AM
J. Farmer said...: That's not an argument. That's an ad hominem.

Uh, no, if we were having a debate about the best North Korea policy, then calling you a hypocrite would be an ad hominem. Since the topic of my argument was your hypocrisy, it's not an ad hominem to call you a hypocrite. Anymore than it would be ad hominem to call someone a liar if they argument consisted of determine if they lie or not.

Please do fuck off right now. Preferably with a screwdriver. You just totally insult the intelligence of whomever you're speaking with.

I've lost count how many times you've told me to fuck off, but you do realize that you don't have to keep replying to me?; 8/9/17, 1:55 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: The "outlandish claim" was about the anti-immigration argument. Your entertainment of anti-semitism is not a part of this thread, just something you generally do on other threads.

If you don't like what was concluded, prematurely or not, about the damn book, then you can either discuss its relevance apart from me or drop the fucking thing. Just stop being a dildo. I can't understand why you talk about maturity and then refuse to stop regressing to this point where you can't figure out where there's a point or argument to be made and where there isn't. I think you just like roadblocks.; 8/9/17, 1:57 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Since the topic of my argument was your hypocrisy -

Oh, right. YOUR argument. Because that's what honest, decent people do. When they can't find the vindicating argument for your conservative defense of restricted immigration and other sloppy conservative ideas (since they are all sloppy), they change the subject to the speaker's hypocrisy. That way "THE" argument is now not about what I said and what you responded to, but about me. And that's not ad hominem at all.

Listen, you're just really, terribly, horribly bad at this. You are transparent in not having a clue as to how logical argumentation works. Just stick to working with the criminals and retards.; 8/9/17, 2:00 AM
J. Farmer said...: The "outlandish claim" was about the anti-immigration argument. Your entertainment of anti-semitism is not a part of this thread, just something you generally do on other threads.

So quote just one example.

If you don't like what was concluded, prematurely or not, about the damn book, then you can either discuss its relevance apart from me or drop the fucking thing.

If I started criticizing the way the abortion debate was framed in our country, it wouldn't be a response to then plunge into a pro-life or pro-choice argument. Those are completely beside the point. What is the point is how you address the issue, and you've repeatedly shown us how you do that.

Just stop being a dildo.

King of witty comebacks strikes again!; 8/9/17, 2:02 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: the topic of my argument was your hypocrisy

I just have to stand back and admire the sheer, self-unaware stupidity of this one. You rail and rail and rail against my immaturity, coarseness, whatever and then patently admit that instead of having an objective argument you thought that going after and attacking me personally WAS the argument.

Remind me about how "attacked" you thought I made the poor, dead, Mr. Schlesinger feel. Oh no. Mr. Schlesinger. Let's go and attack real live people in 2017 to avenge you - preemptively.

You are nuts, man.; 8/9/17, 2:05 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: So quote just one example.

I don't have to. It's not the topic tonight. Quit getting distracted.; 8/9/17, 2:05 AM
J. Farmer said...: (since they are all sloppy)

Except there are also left-wing arguments for immigration restrictionism. I tried to point one out to you, and you reacted with unhinged fulmination.

Listen, you're just really, terribly, horribly bad at this. You are transparent in not having a clue as to how logical argumentation works. Just stick to working with the criminals and retards.

You just keep impressing me with that damn open-mindedness of yours.; 8/9/17, 2:06 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Sorry I didn't take screenshots of them, Farmer.; 8/9/17, 2:07 AM
J. Farmer said...: Sorry I didn't take screenshots of them, Farmer.

Or remember any of them for that matter. Yet you seem to remember enough to say that I have "signature" ones. This is just getting pathetic. Come on, there has to be at least one more four-letter word that hasn't sprung from that open mind of yours.; 8/9/17, 2:09 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I tried to point one out to you, and you reacted with unhinged fulmination.

Quit getting emotional. There was no rational reaction to have, until you finally would relent (still haven't) and list, enumerate, explicate, consternate his argument. Who the hell is going to take a break from a comments thread to, 1) buy a book, 2) read said book, and then 3) get back to the thread a few days later and rejoin the argument? Not a fucking soul. Not a fucking soul.

You just keep impressing me with that damn open-mindedness of yours.

Let the record show that I am not open-minded enough to entertain a re-write of the dictionary, Wikipedia, or other source just so that the definition of "ad hominem" can be modified to exclude your abuse of it tonight.

Good fucking night.; 8/9/17, 2:11 AM
J. Farmer said...: Not a fucking soul. Not a fucking soul.

And those same fucking souls also usually refrain from commenting on said book. You didn't. You dove right into criticizing it from your predawn conclusions. The workings of a miraculous open mind if I ever saw one.

Goodnight, sweetheart. It's been fun. Well, for me anyway it's been fun. I'm not sure what got you into such a frothing-at-the-mouth state.; 8/9/17, 2:14 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: And those same fucking souls also usually refrain from commenting on said book. You didn't. You dove right into criticizing it from your predawn conclusions. The workings of a miraculous open mind if I ever saw one.

It was open enough to entertain whatever correction or explanation of it you thought you were too good (for several hours and several dozen comments) to offer. Dummy.

Goodnight, sweetheart. It's been fun. Well, for me anyway it's been fun.

Sexual harassers have to get their kicks somehow.; 8/9/17, 2:18 AM
J. Farmer said...: @The Toothless Revolutionary:

It was open enough to entertain whatever correction or explanation of it you thought you were too good (for several hours and several dozen comments) to offer. Dummy.

No correction needed. You demonstrated my point quite aptly.

Sexual harassers have to get their kicks somehow.

And now you've been sexually harassed? Quite a victim complex you've got there. I know that's impossible, because I only sexually harass rational people with open minds who criticize books they've read. I think that's like three strikes against you.; 8/9/17, 2:24 AM
Rusty said...: This has turned into a drunken ritmo shitfest.
Word of advice J.
Don't get into arguments with people who buy their vodka by the barrel and their meth by the pound.; 8/9/17, 3:56 AM
Rusty said...: To get back on topic.
Lets accept for a moment that Lil'Kim poses no real threat to the United States. What then is Kim's motivation? I propose that Kim wants to be player in the area. He has let his conventional military resources rot in favor of his nukes and missiles. He sees China defying the US and its neighbors and wants to be a big man in that theater. he too defys the US. After all the US didn't stop China from building islands in international waters. He poses a threat to his neighbors though.He has his big boom stick to influence policy in S Korea and Japan and to an extent China. That is his real threat.; 8/9/17, 5:31 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: "Steve Uhr said...
"I suppose a couple of nukes on Guam would take care of their horrible snake problem. Always a silver lining if you just look hard enough."

I would just like to point out that Uhr -- a man quick to point out perceived anti-semitism -- has no problem joking about the 'others' of Guam being annihilated by nukes.

I sense a Horrible Snake problem.

I am Laslo.; 8/9/17, 6:43 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Where's Madeline Albright now that we need her?"

Unfortunately, not in prison.; 8/9/17, 7:02 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Nothing gets the crusty panties of the resident leftists here moist like being able to take the side of a Communist dictatorship that is threatening the United States with nuclear weapons."

Who, here, has done that? No one. Your intellectually deficient or dishonest statement proves that you either lack the mental acuity to understand arguments more nuanced than grunting, or, you understand very well but for your own purposes lie and intentionally misconstrue arguments you can't effectively counter or simply dislike.; 8/9/17, 7:07 AM
Robert Cook said...: "I especially liked the classic 'They Only Need Nukes Because We Have Them Surrounded.'"

Why would you not think that a rational statement? After all, we did nuke two non-military targets populated with hundreds of thousands of civilians. Why would we not do that again? There have been advocates of this sporadically in the years since WWII.

And, it may be less the USA that they fear than other nuclear countries closer to them.; 8/9/17, 7:27 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Don't forget that NK will share these with anyone that will pay them. That is already happening with Iran.; 8/9/17, 8:33 AM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: Looks like that comment stung you, Cooktard, you unrepentant Stalinist, as you needed to reply 170 comments later. Hit a little too close to home?

Also really enjoyed Ritmo descending into homosexual slurs and sputtering rage after getting his ass spanked. How is the hangover today, Ritmo?; 8/9/17, 9:05 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Looks like that comment stung you, Cooktard, you unrepentant Stalinist, as you needed to reply 170 comments later. Hit a little too close to home?"

More like...I didn't return to the thread until this morning, after having last looked at it yesterday. Can you show me where I (or anyone else here) have "tak(en) the side of a Communist dictatorship that is threatening the United States with nuclear weapons?"

No, you cannot. Thus, you reply with an evasive non-sequitur.; 8/9/17, 11:21 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: And now you've been sexually harassed?

Go into any normal workplace and call your boss or co-worker "Sweetie" in a condescending way.

See how quickly H.R. throws you out of there.; 8/9/17, 7:01 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Let me then ask a basic question: if North Korea launched an attack on the US, it would be obliterated in the counterattack. So, what about the regime makes you think it's willing to commit suicide? Do you honestly believe that they have spent decades pursuing nuclear capabilities so that they can launch an attack on the US and get totally destroyed as a consequence?

One thing that I know I forgot. What if, as has been mooted previously, North Korea plans an EMP attack on the North American continent? Far more devastating than merely striking a city. KJU might even think he could get away with it.; 8/9/17, 10:56 PM