Semi-OT: Went to an auction

[Rebel1]

The other way I heard it was: I refuse to enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. ;-)

[Steve B]

"HeyBub" wrote

If you don't like my stories, then go read the one's you do like.

Just plonk the moron. You won't be missing much.

Steve

[krw]

You gonna shoot the firemen?

[RicodJour]

...to reason. Yes, that much is clear. :)~

harry is the village idiot and you're the class clown. That is not necessarily a bad thing, you can be entertaining, but are you the class clown that's a clown because they don't understand what's going on in class, or the class clown that's bored because they already know all of the stuff being taught? You're acting like the former, though the actual state of affairs may be closer to the latter. It's not my fault you like being silly, Bub.

If someone posts a ridiculous opinion, they're begging to be ridiculed. I would be remiss if I let it go.

If someone makes shit up, they're begging to be called a liar. Though to be fair, I've never called you a liar.

The insulting thing I do for fun. I never said I was perfect. :)~

Isn't that the refrain of someone telling tall tales? "Let me tell you another one!" I don't have my handy dandy storytelling chart with me, so I'm a bit shaky on where embellishing a story to make a point becomes a complete fabrication. If it's just a story, I don't care if it's true or not, I just like a good story. But if someone is trying to make a point and creating supporting facts from whole cloth or filtering them through a highly-biased viewpoint, then it becomes an issue. Particularly on an open forum. I hadn't realized you were the sensitive type - if so, there are moderated forums that may suit your preferences better. Here we are both free to make a point or take issue with one. I think it's a dandy system.

I would be interested to hear those actual stories of yours, and am not so interested when you spew disinformation and skew your answers.

R

[HeyBub]

Show me one case of "spewed" disinformation (used to skew the answer or not), fool. Just one.

Oh I can be wrong, that's for sure. When someone points out a mistake of mine, I'm usually the first to acknowledge it. But when you claim I deliberately lie to press a point, that's insulting.

Best do so right away; I plan to remind you, thereby holding you up to the contempt and ridicule you so richly deserve.

Just one.

[RicodJour]

I'm not going to get any actual stories, huh?

As Wesley said in The Princess Bride, "As you wish."

You only asked for the one cite, and there it is, but as I'm in a good mood, here's you copping to making stuff up - no one put words in your mouth.

Out of context...? It doesn't read that way to me.

Here's someone taking to you to task on a number of issues, and you were strangely silent - never replied. So much for acknowledging your mistakes.

We both know I could do this all day, but it begins to bore me. I didn't want this job, you asked me to do it, so I did.

R

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

well, there is this:

Taken prisoner by Vespasian, Josephus presented himself as a prophet. Noting that the war had been propelled by an ancient oracle that foretold a world ruler would arise from Judaea, Josephus asserted that this referred to Vespasian, who was destined to become Emperor of Rome. Intrigued, Vespasian spared his life. When this prophecy came true, and Vespasian became Emperor, he rewarded Josephus handsomely, freeing him from his chains and eventually adopting him into his family, the Flavians. Josephus thus became Flavius Josephus.

as opposed to your version:

"Vespasian took a liking to the young man and had ben Matthias accompany him on his campaign of defeating the rebels in Jerusalem."

[krw]

Um, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 votes:

Original House bill: Democrats 152-96 (61%-39%) Republicans 138-34 (80$-20%)

Senate Cloture Democrats 44-23 (66%-34%) Republicans 27-6 (82%-18%)

Final Senate bill Democrats 46-21 (69%-31%) Republicans 27-6 (82%-18%)

House vote Democrats 153-91 (63%-37%) on senate version Republicans 136-35 (80%-20%)

When you start out with such lies, there is no point in reading the rest of your crap.

[RicodJour]

Looks like a quote of the Wiki entry. I found this part, right after the above, more interesting:

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7=9687 (7%=9693%) Southern Republicans: 0=9610 (0%=96100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%=966%) Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%=9615%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1=9620 (5%=9695%) Southern Republicans: 0=961 (0%=96100%) Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%=962%) Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%=9616%)

Not really that surprising, I guess, still it's interesting to see it in...ummm...black and white.

R

[Kurt Ullman]

See what I said earlier about rewriting history. You look at the actual votes as they took place, a HIGHER percentage of the GOP voted for it then the Dems. The original House version: ? Democratic Party: 152-96   (61%-39%) ? Republican Party: 138-34   (80%-20%) Cloture in the Senate: ? Democratic Party: 44-23   (66%­34%) ? Republican Party: 27-6   (82%­18%) The Senate version: ? Democratic Party: 46-21   (69%­31%) ? Republican Party: 27-6   (82%­18%) The Senate version, voted on by the House: ? Democratic Party: 153-91   (63%­37%) ? Republican Party: 136-35   (80%­20%)

When the bill came to the Senate, LBJ and Mike Mansfield did an end run around the Dem-controlled Judiciary and sent it directly to the Senate. The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and ****one*** Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. The GOP had roughly the same %ages voting for cloture which made it possible. Hard to suggest that 80% of the GOP was "a few" to use your words.

You missed an opportunity in this case, huh??

[George]

He did change a few words...

[krw]

Irrelevant. The other leftist's statements are blown away by the facts.

Perhaps interesting, but still irrelevant, as you normally are.

[Han]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

This happened before I was in the US. I believe the Democrat LB Johnson was the instigator of the legislation. It is gratifying as well as disappointing to see that (overall) Republicans of yore were more progressive than Democrats were at the time. Now, how I wish that were the case today.

In social aspects I'm "progressive", but that doesn't mean I fAVor handouts. Au contraire. In fiscal aspects I'm "conservative", which in my case means, the budget should income and expenses that come close to balanced, preferably with a little more income to cover eventualities. Investments by government should go to education, infrastructure, and perhaps defense, in that order. I'm in favor of free trade, but make sure that "the other guy" doesn't subsidize his exports. The tax book should be

100 pages or shorter, in 11 point or bigger.

[krw]

No, the "progressives" of today are like the "progressives" of the 1920s; hell bent on destroying the country. The Democrats of the '60s were *very* conservative, in contrast.

How can you balance the budget when the government hands out more an more (to unions)?

[Kurt Ullman]

Yep. The original statement (as can be seen above) was that LBJ "got a few GOP" votes and 80% of the caucus hardly qualifies as a few. Interesting that they then had to go by region to find something that made no difference. The FACTS remain that a higher percentage of the GOP caucus voted for it than did the Dem caucus. The GOP was the ONLY reason that cloture was invoked, even though the Dems had enough to do it on their own if they were really the ones interested in getting it passed.

[RicodJour]

"They" had to go by region? Is the "they" you refer to Wiki? Me and someone else? I did not argue either way - the vote was what it was and easily discovered. I merely added the breakdown that took the argument away from the Red State Blue State bullshit, and added interest to people that are actually interested in history as opposed to supporting their political worldview.

In future, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put my dog in a fight for me. In return, I won't put you on the NAMBLA mailing list. Thanks! ;)

I still find it interesting that the Southern Republicans were willing to turn their backs on their party for something they didn't believe in, and to do it in a pretty much unanimous vote. This rarely happens today.

I would also ask one more thing of you - use your quoting powers to include proper attribution when posting. It makes it easier for everybody to follow who said what in the thread. If it's not worth the attribution, it's not worth quoting. TIA.

R

[krw]

...gets his butt kicked and cries to mommy.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

there is a significant difference in the context of the story by those few words

[RicodJour]

rote:

Josephus himself wrote differing accounts of things at different points.

R

[HeyBub]

Huh? There's no conflict. I'd heard your version, but I didn't include it because I didn't want to be loquacious.

Besides, as a Jew, Josephus would have had a completely different definition of "prophet" than your source makes out. In Judaism, a prophet is one who warns and all Jewish prophecy is a conditional of the form "if (something) then (something)." Utterings by Jewish prophets need never come true.

Consider the prophet Jonah. When burped up by a whale on the shores of Nineveh, Jonah warned the citizens (prophesied) that they repent or God would destroy their city. They wore sackcloth and ashes and repented. Nothing happened to Nineveh.

In your version, Josephus would have been a "soothsayer," not a prophet.