Bill Thompson vs. Ted Kennedy

[Мастер]

What was this thing again about pig wrestling and internet trolls?

I guess pig wrestling is a human wrestling a pig? I have a hard time picturing two pigs wrestling each other. Unless "wrestling" is a euphemism here.

Also Arneb - ich kenne jemanden, der immer sagt, mit allen Dingen, gibt es Vorteile und Nachteile. Aber wenn er Bill Thompson kennen wuerde, wuerde er das nicht mehr sagen . . .

[Arneb]

Da hast Du sicher Recht, Meister. Und in der Tat ging es um Menschen (in dem Fall wir) die mit Schweinen (in dem Fall BT) ringen. Der Witz heißt: Eine Diskussion mit einem Internettroll ist wie ein Ringkampf mit einem Schwein: Du machst Dich schmutzig, und das Schwein hat auch noch Spaß dabei...

Fast fehlerloser Artikel :): "Bei", nicht "mit". Zur Not "in", aber das wäre ziemlich altmodisch.

[Мастер]

Da hast Du sicher Recht, Meister. Und in der Tat ging es um Menschen (in dem Fall wir) die mit Schweinen (in dem Fall BT) ringen. Der Witz heißt: Eine Diskussion mit einem Internettroll ist wie ein Ringkampf mit einem Schwein: Du machst Dich schmutzig, und das Schwein hat auch noch Spaß dabei...

Jetzt verstehe ich :)

Fast fehlerloser Artikel :): "Bei", nicht "mit". Zur Not "in", aber das wäre ziemlich altmodisch.

Die Unterschiedung zwischen "bei" und "mit" ist mir schwierig. Wie die Unterschiedung zwischen Schwein und Bill Thompson :P

[Arneb]

Die sind sich ja auch sehr ähnlich...
Verzeihung, ich wollte kein Schwein beleidigen.

[Bill_Thompson]

Let me add this. People should not be considered to be assholes just becuase you do not like their ideas. That is wrong. Just because I have a different view does not make me an asshole. Just because I think your hero should be dethroned does not make me an asshole.

I do not get how liberals think. They actually say physical harm should come to people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter just because of what they say or think. That is not right.

And yet drunk slobs like Edward Kennedy who actually physically caused the death of someone, gets a pass. And that is one of many things he did, not said; I mean actually got up and did, that was impropper, illegal, unethical and wrong. But because of something he said or his position or his color or his family, he is regarded as someone special.

[Enzo]

I do not get how conservatives think. Some say actual harm should come to President Obama.

Just because I have a different view does not make me an asshole.

Bill you are absolutely correct, your odd views are not what makes you an asshole. You are an asshole because of the way you express your views and mainly for the way you interact with others.

When people read your posts for the first time, they often ask, "What kind of an asshole is this guy?"

I always tell them, "First class."

[wring]

And yet drunk slobs like Edward Kennedy who actually physically caused the death of someone, gets a pass. And that is one of many things he did, not said; I mean actually got up and did, that was impropper, illegal, unethical and wrong. But because of something he said or his position or his color or his family, he is regarded as someone special.

And yet, drunk slobs like GWB and Dick Cheney not only got a pass, but authorized the breaking of international treaties and still aren't held accountable. And yet, folks like Laura Bush can kill some one while driving and never even get charged w/a crime, despite running a stop sign. And drunk slobs like Dick Cheney can shoot a guy in his face in front of witnesses and have the guy appologize to him.

Amazing.

[Bill_Thompson]

Doctor charged in DWI death of ballerina

Sept. 16: A prominent plastic surgeon is being charged with second-degree murder in the drunk-driving death of 20-year-old ballerina Elena Shapiro. TODAY’s Meredith Vieira talks to Elena’s friends about the tragedy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 9#32873869

The doctor otherwise seemed like a great guy in all accounts. Too bad he isn't a Kennedy. He is being charged with second degree murder. The same should have befallen Edward "Ted" Kennedy.

And can we stick to the subject for once? This particular news issue actually DOES have a point in how we deal with Kennedy. Dick Chaney or "HOW I express my view" DOESN'T have anything to do with Kennedy.

Oh and by the way, that is a cop-out to say that you disagree because of "how I say something". You are really saying that I am saying something that upsets you and it upsets you because you do not want to believe it. Matt Lauer tried to pull that bull shit on Ann Coulter on the Today's Show. What she wrote in her book was statistically accurate but it was mean and people did not want to hear the statistics about kids raised by single parents. When Coulter cited her sources and facts and could back up what she said, Lauer had to resort to the idea that she was just being cold and mean for bringing this to our attention. And eventhough it helps us all, in the end, to realise facts, they had to cut to commercial. Ask yourself who the real asshole is. I think what appears nice and polite on the outside often has a rotten core. And what seems rude and mean is in reality for your own good to swallow (no pun intended).

[Lance]

Oh and by the way, that is a cop-out to say that you disagree because of "how I say something".

But that's not what was said. You are twisting waht was said to suit your own needs. Or maybe you don't understand.

[Bill_Thompson]

Oh and by the way, that is a cop-out to say that you disagree because of "how I say something".

But that's not what was said. You are twisting waht was said to suit your own needs. Or maybe you don't understand.

No, it only sounds bad because it is not what she wants to hear. That is why she has to result to name-calling. You did not read the whole post, Lance.

And yet drunk slobs like Edward Kennedy who actually physically caused the death of someone, gets a pass. And that is one of many things he did, not said; I mean actually got up and did, that was impropper, illegal, unethical and wrong. But because of something he said or his position or his color or his family, he is regarded as someone special.

And yet, drunk slobs like GWB and Dick Cheney not only got a pass, but authorized the breaking of international treaties and still aren't held accountable. And yet, folks like Laura Bush can kill some one while driving and never even get charged w/a crime, despite running a stop sign. And drunk slobs like Dick Cheney can shoot a guy in his face in front of witnesses and have the guy appologize to him.

Amazing.

I am sorry. I do not speak liberish. I will have to get one of my liberal friends to translate. Are you saying that it is ok that Kennedy to get away with murder because Cheny shot a guy in a hunting accident and also approved of torture of terrorists? Is that what you are saying?

Or that it is ok for Kennedy to kill someone because some woman who later got married to a neocon was involved in an accident when she was 17 in which no charges were filed? Is that what you are saying?

[Lance]

Read this c a r e f u l l y, Bill:

You are an asshole because of the way you express your views and mainly for the way you interact with others.

It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with you.

Reading your posts is like opening a flaming bag of dog shit hoping to find a romantic love poem burried deep inside. It doesn't matter what the contents are. The delivery method is so vile that the contents become not worth the trouble.

So let me try it again. No one here disagrees with you. But they don't agree with you either. They dismiss you, with no consideration what so ever, for anything you have to say. They do this because you are an asshole.

[Lance]

That is why she has to result to name-calling.

I am sorry. I do not speak liberish.

Hypocrite much?

Or are you going to explain to us all how it's different when you do it? You're just pointing out an actual fact, right? It's not intended as an insult at all, is it?

[Мастер]

Die sind sich ja auch sehr ähnlich...
Verzeihung, ich wollte kein Schwein beleidigen.

:P

[wring]

I am sorry. I do not speak liberish. I will have to get one of my liberal friends to translate. Are you saying that it is ok that Kennedy to get away with murder because Cheny shot a guy in a hunting accident and also approved of torture of terrorists? Is that what you are saying?

Or that it is ok for Kennedy to kill someone because some woman who later got married to a neocon was involved in an accident when she was 17 in which no charges were filed? Is that what you are saying?

Fortunately, I'm quite fluent in idiot, so I'll try again.

You want us collectively to use todays laws and attitudes towards car accidents to condemn Ted Kennedy for his past actions (for which he was correctly held accountable according to the norms of that time). Fine. If so, then you'll need to condemn Cheney, GW Bush and Laura Bush for their actions in the past (for which only George and Dick were held in any way accountable at the time, though not nearly as severly as they'd be dealt with today), as well as you should be willing to hold Dick accountable for his recent actions (shooting his pal in the face) with the laws that are applicable at this time (I work w/offenders, and can assure you that hunting 'accidents' are indeed prosecuted).

Does that work better for you now?

[Bill_Thompson]

Fortunately, I'm quite fluent in idiot, so I'll try again.

Try attacking the argument instead of the arguer. Can you handle that?

You want us collectively to use todays laws and attitudes towards car accidents to condemn Ted Kennedy for his past actions (for which he was correctly held accountable according to the norms of that time).

In what reality is that true?

Are you saying that since the laws were lax at one time we should forgive and forget. That is insane. That is like saying that because of the particular condition at the particular time in jury for the OJ Simpson murder case was a particular way, we should also forgive and forget.

Are you saying that since we can argue that so-n-so from the oposition of his career did just as bad or worse we can also forgive and forget. That is insane too.

[Lance]

Try attacking the argument instead of the arguer. Can you handle that?

It's hard to believe you are THAT out of touch with reality.

[wring]

Try attacking the argument instead of the arguer. Can you handle that?

Obviously, since I did both at the same time.

You want us collectively to use todays laws and attitudes towards car accidents to condemn Ted Kennedy for his past actions (for which he was correctly held accountable according to the norms of that time).

In what reality is that true?

Are you saying that since the laws were lax at one time we should forgive and forget. That is insane. That is like saying that because of the particular condition at the particular time in jury for the OJ Simpson murder case was a particular way, we should also forgive and forget.

Are you saying that since we can argue that so-n-so from the oposition of his career did just as bad or worse we can also forgive and forget. That is insane too.

Ted Kennedy was held accountable at the time of the incident, according to the laws in effect at the time of the incident. You, by virtue of your posts here, want us collectively to hold him more accountable than he already has been.

Let me try and break it down further:

Many years ago, Ted did something bad. He was convicted of the bad thing then. He completed his sentence. He's gone on and done tremendous amounts of good things.

You want us to only look at that bad thing, to ignore anything else he did positively afterwards, and, in effect, continue to hold his entire being in contempt in perpetuity. That would hold him more accountable for the bad thing he did back then, than any law in effect then, or indeed any law in effect now for what he did. Therefore, you're attempting to have us treat him differently and more seriously than any other person (and I named several) for doing some bad thing.

You have no justification for that, other than your obvious inherent inability to see anything good in anyone w/whom you disagree politically. That trait puts you at the bottom of the "good morals" standard, which makes it incredibly ironic that you want to point at anyone else as being morally deficient.

[Superluminal]

As one of the few conservatives on this board, I would like to defend BT more often. But sometimes I think he is actually a liberal who comes on here and tries to make conservatives look bad. (I think he's actually Enzo's alter ego.) :P

Also, it seems to me that it should be the voters of Mass. who should be held accountable for Kennedy not being punished for Mary Jo, after all they kept re-electing him over and over.

[Мастер]

As one of the few conservatives on this board

I don't know what these words mean any more. Sometimes it seems to me there is as much variation among people calling themselves conservatives (and among people calling themselves liberals) as there is between liberals and conservatives. And these things also seem to depend on time and place; someone who is regarded as middle-of-the-road in the US today would be considered pretty right-wing in Europe, and would have been considered pretty right-wing in the US in the 1970s.

At the last place I worked, a certain periodical I subscribed to was denigrated by one of my co-workers as a mouthpiece of the Republican party (odd that such a mouthpiece would endorse Bush for US president in 2000 but Kerry in 2004, and that it endorsed B. Clinton at least once), and by another co-worker as that "liberal" (and I assure you, she meant liberal in a very American sense) rag.

But sometimes I think he is actually a liberal who comes on here and tries to make conservatives look bad. (I think he's actually Enzo's alter ego.) :P

I have suspected an agent provocateur sometimes myself. But I think in this case, the simplest explanation is the correct one.

Also, it seems to me that it should be the voters of Mass. who should be held accountable for Kennedy not being punished for Mary Jo, after all they kept re-electing him over and over.

Well, that's the thing, voters are never held accountable for anything.

[Bill_Thompson]

I think you are just pissed because you do not like
anyone trashing the leaders of your little quazi-
cult. It is like what would happen if I told a
Scientologist was a looser L. Ron Hubbard was. I
imagine the only think a Scientologist would say
in defense was "hey, that was a different time and
wife-beating was not regarded so badly back then" or
he would counter with telling me that Joesph Smith,
the leader of another religion, was just as bad in
some way. Much like you are doing now.

[Enzo]

Geez, SUperluminal, "alter ego?" BT's arguments are so entierly sophomoric and shallow, and you would accuse ME of them. tsk tsk.

[wring]

I think you are just pissed because you do not like
anyone trashing the leaders of your little quazi-
cult. It is like what would happen if I told a
Scientologist was a looser L. Ron Hubbard was. I
imagine the only think a Scientologist would say
in defense was "hey, that was a different time and
wife-beating was not regarded so badly back then" or
he would counter with telling me that Joesph Smith,
the leader of another religion, was just as bad in
some way. Much like you are doing now.

You overestimate your importance. I neither idolized nor demonized Ted Kennedy.

And, wasn't it you who thought you should attack the post, not the poster? This post contains only personal attacks on me.

Once again seems to be ok if you do it (or some one you idolize), but not if some one w/whom you disagree.

[Dragon Star]

Hah, a troll who idolizes someone on the internet? lol no I'm afraid that doesn't exist. Bill does have one idol however, everyone is familiar with his affinity for Brittany Spears here. Maybe I should dig up that old thread for you to read...we all had quite a laugh at Bill over that.

[Bill_Thompson]

I think you are just pissed because you do not like
anyone trashing the leaders of your little quazi-
cult. It is like what would happen if I told a
Scientologist was a looser L. Ron Hubbard was. I
imagine the only think a Scientologist would say
in defense was "hey, that was a different time and
wife-beating was not regarded so badly back then" or
he would counter with telling me that Joesph Smith,
the leader of another religion, was just as bad in
some way. Much like you are doing now.

You overestimate your importance. I neither idolized nor demonized Ted Kennedy.

And, wasn't it you who thought you should attack the post, not the poster? This post contains only personal attacks on me.

Once again seems to be ok if you do it (or some one you idolize), but not if some one w/whom you disagree.

How would you know if I overestimate my importance? You do not know me.

And how do you know the post contains personal attacks on you when I do not address you?

Actually, here is a funny fact. I didn't even read your post before I made mine. In fact, I wrote out this post in textpad and THEN opened this discussion thread to make the post.

If you think I am addressing you, you have a guilty conscious.

And who the hell do I idolize?

Geez, SUperluminal, "alter ego?" BT's arguments are so entierly sophomoric and shallow, and you would accuse ME of them. tsk tsk.

Enzo learned some new words.

Now she needs to lean what they mean.

[Dragon Star]

How would you know if I overestimate my importance? You do not know me.

You come on this forum to troll constantly, therefor you automatically overestimate your importance.

And who the hell do I idolize?

I asked "how stuff works" that very question, this was the result:

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/troll3.htm