profitsbeard on January 3, 2007 at 1:03 AM

Thanks, I think.

(”obsessive”, however, was simply mispelled.)

Herr Hussein must be cursing me from Gehenna.

(I can only hope that the white hot helminths infesting his simmering soul don’t writhe any less for it.)

Not to be obessive about the possessive, but you forgot the apostrophe on your “others“. (It should be “others’“.) And, also, that “yours” of yours should be singular, as the removal of the phrase “and others” (sic) will show.

Otherwise, I completely agree with you that those who seriously take the tactic (and tack to their own trivial wind) of nitpicking about spelling and grammar are compleat axeholes.

The NYTimes has become an organ as vestigal as the appendix, and appears about to burst with its accumulated seditious rot.

(A little linguisitic note for the “Mr.” versus “Herr” quibbler: during the lead up to and during WW II “Herr” -literally “Mr.” in Deutsch- was considered a slightly goofy word in common English, so calling Der Schicklegruber “Herr Hitler” was meant somewhat comically (alliteration always being a little silly) and emasculatingly (i.e.- “her”). While, to afford the slobbering psychopathic scumbag Sad(istic)dam(ned) with the false dignity of calling him “Mr. Hussein” -and not simply “mass-murderer Hussein”- is to betray the (as long as he was anti-Bush) dictator-loving sympathies of the Ashen Whore -formerly known as the “Grey Lady“- NYT.)

tickleddragon on January 2, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Thanks, one of the great parts of Hot Air is seldom do we point out grammatical errors. The ideas are what we like to consider. I am more interested in yours and others thoughts, not how best, well, good,their spell check woiks. BTW you mispelled asshole.

many others will take your tact, and begin to deny the negative comments they have written.

right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Oh would it were so. Chuckle. I believe you mean “take your tack”.

honora on January 2, 2007 at 12:07 PM

This was just SO juvenile… Now, look who’s a pompous a$$hole.

You didn’t make me pretty much laugh, I laughed completely and felt indisputably better!

naliaka on January 2, 2007 at 2:34 PM

BTW, your posts are really good. I always end up reading them twice.

naliaka on January 2, 2007 at 2:34 PM

Honora will claim that you mis-quoted her, she wrote “pretty much”, which means not quite as much as a “complete much”. So she is not sure it is indisputable, or even sure it is better or worse, it pretty much covers her from being pretty much wrong.
Us conservatives just don’t understand, we are pretty much confused.
One thing is for sure, Saddam is pretty much dead, and we are all completely much better.

The problem isn’t even that they bemoan the primitive way in which Saddam was executed, the ritual, before and after…

The issue is that they overtly decry his departure and have written at least 10 superfluous articles about every single insignificant idea/move related to the last few days. The only article they’ve yet to write is “Mr. Saddam let a last fart in defiance of the Persians and the Americans”.

Other than that, they covered all the bases. And they’re not even subte about it. Even the European media has done better than them in covering atrocities and the fact that a monster departed and joined the rest of them wherever they hang out now.

Have at it. I believe I may have stated that we (US) was better off with Saddam in power than we are now, which is pretty much indisputable.

Like I said, have at it.
honora on January 2, 2007 at 12:04 PM

was better off with Saddam in power than we are now, which is pretty much indisputable.
That is ignorant opinion/propaganda pretending to be fact. If the Left repeats it enough, it will become “reality.” But, a delusion is just a “lie.” From the perspective of certain New Yorkers drinking lattes at their comfy desks, there is no discernable difference in the comfy, violence-free coccon around them, but for the Iraqis who had to live with arbitrary murder and torture every single day, it is indisputable that they are better off. It seems the big problem is the inconvenience that is created by Saddam’s departure for the necessity for “reporters” to have to learn a whole bunch of new names, go through the hard slog of researching, interviewing and getting to know the new players in the Iraqi future. Looks like lazy inertia is the name of the game at the NYT.

Oh man, I misunderstood her posting again. I loved that “Oil for dead bodies” program. Thanks for pointing that out thirteen28, sometimes I am such a self righteous, pompous asshole.

right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 1:12 PM

No problem! Always glad to point out what a great humanitarian that Kofi guy was, who, along with Saddam, selflessly did sooooo much to help the Iraqi people (right honora?).

thirteen28 on January 2, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Oh man, I misunderstood her posting again. I loved that “Oil for dead bodies” program. Thanks for pointing that out thirteen28, sometimes I am such a self righteous, pompous asshole.

I believe I may have stated that we (US) was better off with Saddam in power than we are now, which is pretty much indisputable.

Well, honora at least you are beginning to walk that backtrack trail. Keep digging. We were not better off as a country or a world with Saddam in power, and neither was Iraq. If you believe that the torturing and death of thousands, along with promoting the destruction of our values, stabilzes our country or world than so be it. If you believe that the US was better off with Saddam in control, while murdering his people, than good for you.
A world without Saddam is a better world for all. If you do not believe that…so be it.
Does the words “cognitive dissonance” ring a bell? I think you have just defined it.

right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 12:28 PM

Maybe she meant that Kofi and son were better off with Saddam in power (which is indisputably true).

I believe I may have stated that we (US) was better off with Saddam in power than we are now, which is pretty much indisputable.

Well, honora at least you are beginning to walk that backtrack trail. Keep digging. We were not better off as a country or a world with Saddam in power, and neither was Iraq. If you believe that the torturing and death of thousands, along with promoting the destruction of our values, stabilzes our country or world than so be it. If you believe that the US was better off with Saddam in control, while murdering his people, than good for you.
A world without Saddam is a better world for all. If you do not believe that…so be it.
Does the words “cognitive dissonance” ring a bell? I think you have just defined it.

The New York Times is showing it’s blatant ethnocentric bias by trying to impose it’s own worldview over the traditional practices of people of color and other ethnicity.
naliaka on January 2, 2007 at 10:32 AM

And these would be the people we expect to nurture the flower of democracy? Does cognitive dissonance make you dizzy or do you just get used to it?
honora on January 2, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Dear honora, did Saddam NOT deserve what he did to his predecessor? Being dragged behind a truck was part of it – and that man was disposed violently out of his position by a coup, not a lawful, democratic process. Eye for an eye?
The Left spends a lot of time beating everyone else over the head for being culturally insensitive, without acknowledging that they themselves have a rigid, ethnocentric world-view. MY way or the high way. They deserve to be smacked with their own bat. They are arguing that the Iraqis shouldn’t be allowed to handle their own business. How chauvinistic is that? Since you read my posts, you did not recognize the SARC in that one?
WHat purpose does it serve now for the NYT to whine about Saddam’s execution? The man is dead, good riddence. A lot of Iraqis can begin moving on, begin what healing can be humanly done to cope with the loss of beloved family members – brutally murdered during a reign of terror that was made worse by capricious behavior – one never knew day to day whether a normal life was going to be destroyed by a simple wrong gesture or glimpse of an eye. THe NYT is indulging in prune-faced sour grapes – nothing constructive – the behavior of spoiled brats who didn’t get their way. One a soul at that paper understands what it was like to live under that man and his bloodthirsty crew, including his sociopathic sons, if they truly did, they wouldn’t make a peep about the appropriateness of Saddam’s execution.
I have no cognitive dissonance with the fact that a man was hanged for his crimes. It doesn’t make the Iraqis incapable of democracy, as your comment implies. Seems they have a better sense of the hard responsibilities that come with maintaining civilization against the barbarians – better than the coddled, selfish children at the NYT.

right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Oh would it were so. Chuckle. I believe you mean “take your tack”.

Escuse me Honora, I do not store a copy of everything I read on these blogs, but I distinctly remember you posting that Iraq was better off under Saddam than it is now.

It ticked me off then, I just (within days) had a nephew come back from Iraq and he told me the story of investigating the torture chambers of Saddam…your post brought up a huge anger in me. And I blasted you then. Now that you are backing away from it, it shows that either; you post to be controversial, you do not believe what you post, that you have a very short memory, or you are embarrassed by your past statement.
If you want to deny what you wrote, you have that right. I am satified that you no longer believe what you wrote and that Iraq is on a better path. I have a feeling that as postitive events unfold in the coming years in Iraq (and middle-east), many others will take your tact, and begin to deny the negative comments they have written.

right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 11:46 AM

This blog has a feature whereby you can go back and look at past postings. Have at it. I believe I may have stated that we (US) was better off with Saddam in power than we are now, which is pretty much indisputable.

Like I said, have at it.

Interesting sentiments from someone who thinks Iraq was better off under Saddam, than the democratic path they are taking now. You are hardly the person to lecture someone on “nurturing the flowers of democracy”. Choosing a difficult journey to freedom over a brutal, vicious, torturing, murdering dictator is something you will never have to face…it has already been done for you. And lives have been lost for your freedom to whine about others struggles.

right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Heads up Sparky. I have never stated that Iraq was better off under Saddam–straw man alert!!!! Can’t win the argument you opponent is makin? No problemo, put words into their mouth.

And try not to sound like such a self righteous, pompous asshole.

honora on January 2, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Interesting sentiments from someone who thinks Iraq was better off under Saddam, than the democratic path they are taking now. You are hardly the person to lecture someone on “nurturing the flowers of democracy”. Choosing a difficult journey to freedom over a brutal, vicious, torturing, murdering dictator is something you will never have to face…it has already been done for you. And lives have been lost for your freedom to whine about others struggles.

That is, left to their own devices, the culturally preferred method would have been to shoot him a few times, mangle his body, then drag it through the streets and finally hang up what was left in the center of the city for a week so that the carrion birds could have their quality time with the corpse.

The New York Times is showing it’s blatant ethnocentric bias by trying to impose it’s own worldview over the traditional practices of people of color and other ethnicity.

naliaka on January 2, 2007 at 10:32 AM

And these would be the people we expect to nurture the flower of democracy? Does cognitive dissonance make you dizzy or do you just get used to it?