Grist for rubato's mill.

[Gob]

So much for the winter holidays being a time of political quiescence.



On Sunday a Louisiana blogger reported that in 2002 Steve Scalise, then a state legislator, gave a speech to a white supremacist group holding a "workshop on civil rights" in Louisiana.

The following day Mr Scalise - now the third-ranking Republican in the US House of Representatives - acknowledged that he appeared before the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, although he says he didn't know the group had been accused of espousing a neo-Nazi agenda.

Complicating matters is the fact that one of the meeting's organisers was David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard who served as a Louisiana legislator and ran unsuccessfully for the state's governorship and a Senate seat.

Mr Duke, at the height of his power, wielded considerable political influence in Louisiana, and his presence within the Republican Party was condemned by prominent party officials, including then-President George HW Bush.

Mr Scalise says he didn't know Mr Duke was involved in the conference, but Mr Duke told the Washington Post that the congressman was "friendly" with Mr Duke's campaign manager, Kenny Knight, who had extended the invitation. (In 2008, the Daily Beast reports, Mr Knight donated $1,000 [£642] to Mr Scalise's congressional campaign.)

Mr Duke told Bloomberg News that "it would seem likely he did know", although "I can understand why his memory would fail him a little bit".

Other reporters have dug up old news stories connecting Mr Scalise to Mr Duke, including a 1999 piece from the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, in which the Mr Scalise addressed the possibility that both he and Mr Duke would run for the same congressional seat.

"The novelty of David Duke has worn off," Mr Scalise said. "The voters in this district are smart enough to realise that they need to get behind someone who not only believes in the issues they care about, but also can get elected. Duke has proven that he can't get elected, and that's the first and most important thing."

Quotes like this reveal the delicate line Southern Republicans have had to walk between advocating their core conservative beliefs while distinguishing themselves from those who share their politics but also harbour toxic views on race.

It's a challenge the party has grappled with for decades - and one that has brought down politicians more prominent that Mr Scalise.

The Daily Caller's W James Antle III - a conservative writing to a conservative audience - identifies the danger his party faces. He compares white supremacists like Mr Duke who attempt to enter mainstream Republican politics to termites, "eating away at the foundation of a house".

[rubato]

This has been in the news for several days and I have not yet felt any interest in commenting upon it. I cannot imagine a future in which that might change.


But then if you were more perceptive about other people your life would have been more successful and you'd be less of an asshole today then, wouldn't you?



yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's the way to start a New Year - boorish abuse for no reason whatever.

"Kenny Knight"? Oh, if only his middle name were Keith or Kevin!

[rubato]

It was his choice.


yrs,
rubato

[wesw]

if there is one thing in life that I know I m a natural at, it s fishing.

some fish just can t help rising to certain baits. they just can t help themselves.

don t be a fish

[Lord Jim]

This has been in the news for several days and I have not yet felt any interest in commenting upon it. I cannot imagine a future in which that might change.

But then if you were more perceptive about other people your life would have been more successful and you'd be less of an asshole today then, wouldn't you?

yrs,
rubato

Justice and fairness would be nice. Might even have a larger effect and a longer lasting one.

but you have to deal with reality to sort that one. Good luck.


yrs,
rubato

If any cared about facts it would be obvious that I respond in kind, but far less often, and to a lesser degree. But that is for those who care about facts.

yrs,
rubato

Most often it is a spontaneous shit-bomb from you, Joe Guy, and or Gob. As it is here.


yrs,
rubato

I prefer to believe that what rubato has is what many of us lack; a very centered belief in his place in this world and universe that he's not fluffed enough by the pig pile that he won't still participate in a place where he feels he is part of the community and enjoys much of the company.

I defend a general principle which in this case happens to also involve asking you guys to quit your adolescent pig-piling on every single post rubato posts here.

you challenge his ego because you refuse to be ruffled by even his ugliest attacks.

[Gob]

If rubato was less of an egoist he would notice that "more grist to rubato's mill" does not address him directly, but just provides evidence of more malfeasance by a republican.

[Lord Jim]

In rube's case, he may just not know what the expression "grist for the mill" means and assumed that since he saw his handle it must have been an insult directed at him...

I'm waiting for you-know-who to jump in to chastise you and Meade for attacking poor innocent Mr. Unruffled...

(She won't be chastising me of course, because she doesn't read my posts... )

[wesw]

so you call the man out by name, and say it wasn t addressed to him directly?

gob, I agree with most of what you post, but you called the man out by name.

god help me, I m defending rubato. it ain t easy.....

don t be a fish ....

[Gob]

Wes, I entitled the thread "more grist to rubato's mill" as rubato posts many anti-republican threads on the forum, I in no way "called him out" on anything.

To "call him out" I would have had to issue some sort of challenge.

No charge.

[BoSoxGal]

[rubato]

If rubato was less of an egoist he would notice that "more grist to rubato's mill" does not address him directly, but just provides evidence of more malfeasance by a republican.

Not even a logical defense. Calling someone by name is not a direct address?

Fucking stupid. My original response was spot-on.

But then if you were more perceptive about other people your life would have been more successful and you'd be less of an asshole today then, wouldn't you?

Since you have passed middle age the chance you can improve is basically nil.


yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

If rubato was less of an egoist he would notice that "more grist to rubato's mill" does not address him directly, but just provides evidence of more malfeasance by a republican.

Not even a logical defense. Calling someone by name is not a direct address?

Utterly stupid response. Calling a movie "The Life Of Brian" doesn't mean that you are holding Brian responsible for it.

God, you're dumb.

Explain this to me, what do accuse me of intending, in your minor mind, by entitling this thread "more grist to rubato's mill"?

We'll sit back and have another jolly good laugh at you now.

[Guinevere]

It does seem that putting his name in the title is, at a minimum, bringing the thread to rube's direct attention and asking for some response.

However that doesn't warrant the second paragraph of rube's response where he tosses out his ad hominem name calling.

[Lord Jim]

Just because someone's name is in the title of a thread doesn't make it an insult directed at that person...the other words and the context kind of, uh, determine that...

If a thread was titled "Grist for Jim's mill" and the OP consisted of an article showing the Traitor Snowden in a bad light, or showing the correlation between tax cuts and economic growth, or any other content that seemed to back up my position on something I've argued for on multiple occasions, I'd have to be a complete imbecile to interpret the subject line as an insult directed at me....

Such an interpretation would be ridiculous. Just as it is in this case...

Fucking stupid. My original response was spot-on. fucking stupid.

I believe that either rube did not know, (maybe still doesn't, if he hasn't bothered to look it up) what "grist for the mill" means, (rube has demonstrated repeatedly that he does not know the meaning of many common words and phrases that most adults are familiar with; this may just be another one) or that this disingenuous attempt to claim the subject line is somehow insulting was something he cooked up after the fact to try to provide an excuse for his own gratuitous insults.

Those seem like the two most plausible explanations for his laughable claim.

[wesw]

rube, you aren t blameless. your response was that of an easily caught fish. once the hook was set you were already dinner. the fisherman doesn t care if you shit on him after you are already landed, it just makes gutting you easier.

[Lord Jim]

Wes, there was no "hook" thrown out here for rube to "bite" on; since there was absolutely nothing insulting about the subject line.

It was just a case of rube doing his Shit Bomb Charley routine yet again, and then trying to come up with an excuse for it after the fact.

[wesw]

jim, I guess we just see it differently. I winced when I saw the title. I saw immediately that it would start another round of senseless namecalling and that a reasonable discussion would not be possible.

and why didn t you join in the gun debate, other than to jab at me?

if we don t hang together we ll all hang separately......

[Lord Jim]

and why didn t you join in the gun debate, other than to jab at me?

Wes, I know you haven't been here long enough to know this but there is no subject that we have more thoroughly discussed around here (and on the board before this one, and the one before that) then gun control and the second amendment...

Just about everything that could be said has been said, for my part I've posted extensively about it, and frankly I'm a little burned out on the topic. Also, for all the discussion over all the years, to the best of my knowledge not one single opinion has ever been changed on the subject.

A little later I'll either look up and copy and paste some of the things I've said for you or try to give you the Reader's Digest version of my position, and why (while just like all other Constitutional rights, this one is not absolute) I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court decision that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual one.

[wesw]

well, jim, anyone who reads the document honestly can see that we have an individualright, and can even form well regulated citizen militias if we see fit.

I get all the standard arguments so no need to cut and paste for me, but thanks for offering.

I , as usual, try to present non standard arguments, as the standard ones seem ineffective.

I even believe that dems and repubs can re unite into one people, and I try, fruitlessly it seems, to facilitate that happening