Don't take it so seriously. We're mostly just fucking with you. I don't hate the French, nor anyone particularly, for that matter. How could I hate everything French, you're my bro, for example. As condescendingly as that sounds; like a wine-and-cheese Northeast liberal talking about the many negroes he has befriended/employed. Anyway, the only person who gets fired up is you, I think we are for the most part taking the piss. Shit, we wouldn't HAVE patriots if it weren't for the French, unless they were loyal to the Crown.
I find your commitment admirable, I know far less about my own background, but am also proud.
Anyway, I hope things are better for you, sorry I can't be there to help, but you know I will do what I can. Make an effort to see me when I make it back to the States, aight? (ya cheese-eating surrender monkey, ya... ;))
im just saying that it deeply offends me and that now that ive laid it out in such terms i would appreciate it if my friends had enough respect for me to stop using passive aggressive disses
( ... )
Man, I just re-read my post. Did you read it? You sound hyper-sensitive in your reply.
I didn't understand this line: "it might be me being too sensitive, but i dont think that you can humor me."
I will thank you to not use loaded verbs like "blustered" if you want to engage in meaningful discourse in the future, particularly in reference to my family.
Anyway, you have some good points, but don't let emotion cloud your razor-sharp logic and historical knowledge. It's just unprofessional. Take it easy.
jesus, blustered is not a four letter word. i called it as i saw it, and saying that i saw it as such is not the same as saying that someone is a moron.
if i ask what is wrong with france and i hear: "jaque fucking chirac" witha tone of seriousness and then no meaningful explanation or support of it, i call it blustering
i felt it was loud (it was yelled; i did yell too) and i felt it was arrogant and unfounded in that there was little support of the specific critique of chirac being an asshole.
there were not threats, to be sure, so perhaps 1/3 of the definition of "blustering" was missing.
we turned the other cheek to atrocities that were RGULARLY being committed by saddam hussein in order to attack IRAN by proxy. we gave him all those fucking WMD that everyone is ranting about.
WE DID IT.
BECAUSE WE WANTED OUR SELFISH INTERESTS MET
and we didnt seem to have this pompous conservative "morality" that reagan always harped on when it came to power plays. we didnt give two fucking shits about the iraqis being oppressed.
rumsfeld shook his hand, all smiles.
I AM REALLY FUCKING TIRED OF CHEST THUMPING CONSERVATIVE HYPOCRISY. (this is aimed at national review writers and neocons)
i don not blame america first. but i am unwilling to overlook the things america has done when our government gets our populace to believe in our unchalleangeable moral righteousness.
a few pointsmestregruberMarch 6 2004, 21:13:53 UTC
I must admit I am a little taken aback by the defensive nature of your reply, given that I was trying to encourage you rather than say you are in the wrong
( ... )
i guess i had hoped that you had a little more respect for my thought processes, political and otherwise. referring to my reasons for disliking jacques chirac, (and russia, for that matter) as "blustering" is unfair. just because my reasoning was not satisfactory to convince you that french foreign policy has been anti-american does not mean that it is somehow less legitimate than your own ideas on the subject
( ... )
im just saying that reasons for chirac being a dick were never explained, even when i asked.
and the banter went too far and i feel i have to make my efforts to explain it
i can dig some dick jokes or whatnot, but i think there is this tacit disrespect for the french that undergirds alot of the "harmless" insults thrown around.
i think i made good points the other night, and i think that (maybe just for your dad) there was palpable NON HUMOROUS opinions of the french.
if you are going to call the french anti american (and you seemed not to be joking) i only expect some solid evidence to that end.
i love you, paul and i didnt mean to be curt or demeaning.
it was really great to see you, despite any political tensions (point of fact, outside of francophobia, i didnt take any of our debate beyond mere rhetoric and fun)
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't "francophobia" mean "a fear of all things French?" If so, surely there exists no such term. ;) Ok, ok... that's the last one.
On a serious note, if you say there was "palpable" harmful intent, yet we say there is none... ah, fuck it. If it offends you for real, we ought to knock it off. But it is not for you to determine what the "intent" was, since you obviously have no way of knowing precisely what the intent is, you can only infer it from tone, etc.
And again, just trying to get you to use better techniques, so you don't come off as over emotional. Let me restate: calling someone's argument "blustering" is scarcely conducive to useful dialogue, no matter how weak their argument. peace.
Comments 12
I find your commitment admirable, I know far less about my own background, but am also proud.
Anyway, I hope things are better for you, sorry I can't be there to help, but you know I will do what I can. Make an effort to see me when I make it back to the States, aight? (ya cheese-eating surrender monkey, ya... ;))
Reply
Reply
Did you read it? You sound hyper-sensitive in your reply.
I didn't understand this line: "it might be me being too sensitive, but i dont think that you can humor me."
I will thank you to not use loaded verbs like "blustered" if you want to engage in meaningful discourse in the future, particularly in reference to my family.
Anyway, you have some good points, but don't let emotion cloud your razor-sharp logic and historical knowledge. It's just unprofessional.
Take it easy.
Reply
if i ask what is wrong with france and i hear: "jaque fucking chirac" witha tone of seriousness and then no meaningful explanation or support of it, i call it blustering
i felt it was loud (it was yelled; i did yell too) and i felt it was arrogant and unfounded in that there was little support of the specific critique of chirac being an asshole.
there were not threats, to be sure, so perhaps 1/3 of the definition of "blustering" was missing.
fine, fine,
i felt it was a poorly defended statement.
balls.
the line about humoring got typed wrong.
i meant "but you should just humor me anyways"
argh
argh fuck it
isnt there a band called the thompson twins :)
Reply
we turned the other cheek to atrocities that were RGULARLY being committed by saddam hussein in order to attack IRAN by proxy. we gave him all those fucking WMD that everyone is ranting about.
WE DID IT.
BECAUSE WE WANTED OUR SELFISH INTERESTS MET
and we didnt seem to have this pompous conservative "morality" that reagan always harped on when it came to power plays. we didnt give two fucking shits about the iraqis being oppressed.
rumsfeld shook his hand, all smiles.
I AM REALLY FUCKING TIRED OF CHEST THUMPING CONSERVATIVE HYPOCRISY. (this is aimed at national review writers and neocons)
i don not blame america first. but i am unwilling to overlook the things america has done when our government gets our populace to believe in our unchalleangeable moral righteousness.
it sickens me.
THE END.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
im just saying that reasons for chirac being a dick were never explained, even when i asked.
and the banter went too far and i feel i have to make my efforts to explain it
i can dig some dick jokes or whatnot, but i think there is this tacit disrespect for the french that undergirds alot of the "harmless" insults thrown around.
i think i made good points the other night, and i think that (maybe just for your dad) there was palpable NON HUMOROUS opinions of the french.
if you are going to call the french anti american (and you seemed not to be joking) i only expect some solid evidence to that end.
i love you, paul and i didnt mean to be curt or demeaning.
it was really great to see you, despite any political tensions (point of fact, outside of francophobia, i didnt take any of our debate beyond mere rhetoric and fun)
anyhow.,
yeah
Reply
On a serious note, if you say there was "palpable" harmful intent, yet we say there is none... ah, fuck it. If it offends you for real, we ought to knock it off. But it is not for you to determine what the "intent" was, since you obviously have no way of knowing precisely what the intent is, you can only infer it from tone, etc.
And again, just trying to get you to use better techniques, so you don't come off as over emotional. Let me restate: calling someone's argument "blustering" is scarcely conducive to useful dialogue, no matter how weak their argument.
peace.
Reply
http://www.salon.com/media/feature/1999/06/25/coulter/
read it with my compliments.
Reply
Leave a comment