basso this whole down's baby thing is really your finest hour on the BBS since the great plagiarism thingy. You should be proud and regale your familly with tales of your amazing feats of awesomeness these past few weeks. I'm sure they will be impressed.
Why do you guys think that basso is taking the Trig thing seriously at this point? The only reason I posted my long bit was because it had clearly gone beyond any seriousness and I wanted to see how creative he could get in response. Unfortunately, he is not that creative so he has been ignoring it and now belatedly pretending Batman's references to it further feed what he always said. Although the Seinfeldian "anti-downsite" or whatever wasn't bad. I was hoping for some Mongol references, as well but maybe basso doesn't know about that? Hey, he is no TJ on creativlely weird response front...but to act as if his continued posts are legit (or to get offended by being called anti-SN and the like) is beyond silly.
You have yet to show batman making fun of Trig even once. You have yet to show batman mocking Palin for bearing Trig even once. It has all been highlighted, and you failed to address it. here is the link. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=4637752&postcount=91 Until you show proof of your accusations, they mean less than zero.
TJ: Honestly, I don't know what you are like in real life, but you are a giant dickwad in the D&D. If I could ban you, you'd have been banned 20 times over. You're a douchebag troll and a massive pain in the ass because virtually ever post reported is either by your or about you. I'm going to beg Clutch to ban you - at least from the D&D - if for no other reason than just to keep from having to see your name in my email box ever again.
i just dont understand why basso and him are here. this thread is a perfect example of the years i have spent reading different people's opinions on here. "what has obama done with foreign policy since elected" .... a lot "prove it" northside takes time to post 3 posts of information and nothing... its like a forum of the twilight zone where they are just here for the sheer hell of it. i dont understand it and im positive they dont either. ive never read enough to think he should be banned. i say just keep on keepin on and waste 10 more years ++++++++ of pointless attacks and wasting time.
The hilarious thing to me is how seriously people continue to respond to the trollacious triumvirate. bang your head against a brick wall enough, you'll lose enough brain cells to actually be able to argue at their level.
Jeff, friend, I have not reported any posts in quite some time, and over the past year, have reported very very few (less than 4?). So let's be clear that it's not me reporting posts and causing you this inconvenience. Now, if I may move on to more pressing matters, I have a very interesting secret.
Lost in all of this there is actually a substantive issue raised in the OP. How should a US President present history to others around the World? Everyone views history differently and the narrative of it between one side is going to be different even if the facts are agreed upon. To take on Liz Cheney's argument she is arguing that it is the role of the US president to expound on the American narrative and not the narrative of the country he is visiting. I think that goes to a question of whether we consider the role of the President overseas is to primarily be the expounder of America or to be cheif diplomat.
He represents America. and Cheney's point was not that this was a dig at Bush, or a slap at reagan, but rather that it went against years of US History, that included 9 US Presidents, 4 of whom were democrats.
Tell me, how does walking into Russia and expanding on the American narrative of the Cold War achieve anything? It's like running with a torch in gas. I can't say I'm glad that Obama doesn't have the balls to burn bridges, but he has shown good judgment before and in this case, I don't see why this is such a big issue (there would be so much more to lose then to gain if Obama went firebrand) . It is also, I should note, incredibly ironic that Liz is criticizing the same conciliatory attitude that is probably keeping her father out of prison.
What the heck is this "American narrative"? Or, for that matter "the Russian version" or "the truth"? There are many interpretations of the causes of the end of the Cold War, even within America. There is no monolithic American narrative. There is never any official narrative of any history. These are just models of what happened; none are true, some are useful. Do I need my president going to foreign countries to espouse some narrative of history he doesn't believe because some propagandist here will question his patriotism if he doesn't? I'd prefer to hear his god-honest opinion. If he has to bull**** us for diplomacy's sake, is beating his chest about how America is so much better than everyone else the strategy he really should be taking? I don't think so.
totally agree, what purpose does it serve? you would think that americans who are so wrapped up in the pride of being an american for all this country's greatness wouldn't worry about some "criticism" bringing down the morale of the country.
