Once again, we need a comedy show (The Daily Show‘s Michelle Wolf, Ronny Chieng, and Michael Kosta) to give us the unvarnished truth about this monster who just died, and other US war criminals.
The late Anthony Bourdain, the much traveled chef, also had the right take on Kissinger way back in 2001.
Here’s the only eulogy to Henry Kissinger worth reading.
Rest in Peace, Anthony Bourdain. pic.twitter.com/ucBomXZjS0
— Amir (@AmirAminiMD) November 30, 2023
He got the send off he deserved did he? So they buried him with his head up his own ass? Interesting.
His remains should be treated as were bin Laden’s.
Kissinger made it to 100 years.
Bourdain killed himself at 61. The only eulogy he needs.
@ ^
Dafuck is that even supposed to mean? Whose eulogy? Kissinger’s should be about Bourdain? Bourdain’s should be about Kissinger? Bourdain’s only eulogy should be he killed himself at 61? Why? Kissinger’s only eulogy should be he lived a century? Why?
What the fuck are trying to say you nut?
X-D
Anyone’s, obviously. Dead people need nothing, hence anything at all is more than they need.
(Quite the simple syllogism, that is)
Complicated for some, but basically, the post is about the one, and I was riffing off the comment referencing the other. And putting them into perspective.
Or: why not?
This:
“Kissinger made it to 100 years.
Bourdain killed himself at 61. The only eulogy he needs.”
I reckon I succeeded in saying it, @ ^.
You two at it again? 🙄
Kissinger wasn’t a good person. I wonder if he’s thinking about the deaths he was responsible for . I’m still not sure why we were in Vietnam in the first place , let alone Cambodia . But I was just an isolated troubled teen back then and didn’t pay much attention to the war . Maybe I should go look that up. Bourdain was a good cook with an interesting show .
Nope. The NoisyBub is at it again. What, I’m supposed to ignore them?
Not my style.
The bub could stop any time at all; no stupid malicious sly digs at me, no retorts from me. And “we” would not then be “at it” again.
^ As could you, but nooooooo it’s all on Sbob -- you apparently have no agency in this matter.
^^^ they’re like a couple of eight-year olds who have to have the last word. Which is a shame, both are capable of interesting comments, but most of the time we get this.
No. We get this — ONLY — after the bubulus pops pus at me.
Only ever then.
Rest of the time, I make ordinary comments.
I shan’t stop RESPONDING to the specimen.
(Go on, tell me about how my comment @3 is about the PusBag snipe, Holms)
Your comments are up to you. Call them retorts or turnips or whatever you like, but every comment you make is up to you. Don’t pretend otherwise.
Holms, there is no pretence. I am not the initiator.
Go back for a few years now here and elseblog.
Only they instigate, only I retort.
Again: I can hardly retort without a provocation, can I?
One can only riposte after an antagonist’s attack.
What the RankDischarge achieves thereby is to make me post additional comments in the form of retorts. More comments.
It would seem stupid and counterproductive to have me make more comments, but that’s what the FetidBuba achieves. Pretty obvious to me that’s a goal.
(An achievement you’ve just emulated)
I call them what they are, obviously. Why would I call them something else, O bothsiderist?
Here is a silly little bit of blustery posturing favoured by the ScuzzBog, which anyone (even I) can essay:
retort
/rɪˈtɔːt/
verb
verb: retort; 3rd person present: retorts; past tense: retorted; past participle: retorted; gerund or present participle: retorting
1.
say something in answer to a remark, typically in a sharp, angry, or witty manner.
“‘No need to be rude,’ retorted Isabel”
Similar:
answer
reply
respond
say in response
acknowledge
return
counter
rejoin
riposte
retaliate
hurl back
fling back
snap back
round on someone
come back
2.
archaic
repay (an insult or injury).
“it was now his time to retort the humiliation”
turn (an insult or accusation) back on the person who has issued it.
“he was resolute to retort the charge of treason on his foes”
use (an opponent’s argument) against them.
“the answer they make to us may very easily be retorted”
noun
noun: retort; plural noun: retorts
a sharp, angry, or witty reply.
“she opened her mouth to make a suitably cutting retort”
—
Now, wasn’t this post supposed to be about Kissinger?
(with apologies to Python)
“Henry Kissinger
How we’re missing yer”
What, I’m supposed to ignore them? Not my style.
Or, you could simply not make stupid pointless comments that make people ask WTF you’re on about. Or is that “not your ‘style'” either?
Ah well, apparently I am far, far more interesting than Kissinger.
Fair enough.
I made the FesteringBot ask, you reckon. Like, totally my agency.
(Such power!)
Funnily enough, over the decades I’ve noticed how those who most engage with me end up mimicking my own techniques best as they can, much like a cargo cultist. That duly amuses me, especially when such people imagine they’re being ironic.
But hey, sure, I concede; I shall not dispute your claim that it is I who makes people unable to restrain from commenting about my commenting.
—
But what the hey, I will give you a tip for that: answering an intended rhetorical question as if it were a question is one of my techniques, and people sometimes get that. This is the cause of the DisgustingBlob’s claims about my supposed autism or lack of ability to grok metaphor or (most amusingly) hyperliteralism.
Nope. It’s a rhetorical technique.
So. The tip is to make sure your rhetorical question, should you pose it to me, cannot taken either way. There is nothing to stop me from taking it as it was intended, either.
Did you but get a touch of what I can manage in order to force people to ask WTF, be aware I can structure such ostensibly rhetorical questions so that it matters not whether or not they are taken literally.
(This revelation the esoteric is because I like you, RB)
—
Anyway. If you have to ask whether something is or is not my style, it ineluctably follows that you don’t understand my style.
(As is meet and proper, of course)
How about, when said commenter makes a comment over which Bob’s head itches, Bob asks said commenter what they mean instead of attacking the commenter? That would be where an 8 year old should already have learned to put their foot, instead of shoving it somewhere else.
Anyway, Kissinger was a monster in terms of his foreign policy and I would never defend him, but I would be almost certain that by much of his family he was loved.
Humans eh? Complicated….
Just the fully willing participant blaming someone else with the infantile “but he started it!”
It may be infantile, but it is quite true.
Go back for as many years as you want, see when it is I who starts things.
I made one (1) comment on this thread, until others took turns to comment to or about me, instead of about the topic.
Now, I’ve made five (5) additional comments, each and every one in response to a comment to or about me.
Again: I cannot possibly respond or retort or turnip to someone unless they first initiate the comment.
And the SputumBlob no less than you should be aware (I have explicitly told each of you this more than once) that if someone snipes at me, I shall respond.
FartyGob in particular used to make a song and dance of how I was such a troll and how I should be banned and whatnot, and I informed them at the time (most explicitly) that their sniping only made me post more comments.
Why should I shut up and cop it for no reason at all other than you prefer to punish the retaliator rather than the provoker?
—
Now, wasn’t this post supposed to be about Kissinger?
Somehow, it’s about me. Again.
Didn’t have to be, but there you go.
—
(with apologies to Python)
“Henry Kissinger
How we’re missing yer
But Morales is the Man”
And yet infantile. Also note you are the only one to be flustered by the snipes, as evinced by your repeated and lengthy screeds in response to many of his jabs. And let us not forget, your own thinking on commentary is that if something elicits a comment from one of us, that comment can be taken as evidence that the subject is a ‘big deal’ to that commenter -- ergo, Sbob’s comments are a big deal to you.
Young at heart, that’s me.
LOL.
What a silly thing to claim.
One comment from me yields 6 more comments from me in response to 6 more comments about me.
If responding on a 1-1 basis entails being flustered, then every single person who responded to me is flustered. Especially you.
Heh heh heh.
Such a failure of inference. Such a simplistic view of context!
(You want to imagine that an existence claim is perforce an universal claim, go for it. But it’s very, very wrong and very, very stupid)
<snicker>
And yet, I’ve only responded to the FecalGob the once.
And, as usual, the snipy ShitScrote only ever makes the one jibe and then bravely runs, runs away.
And the useful idiots latch onto the slime trail and suck it up gleefully.
(So, how many times have you responded to me, just on this thread? 😉 )
—
Anyway, the old pattern manifests itself again.
You will, indubitably, repeat your habit of persevering in responding to me (not that I’m a big deal, just big enough to merit a few hundred comments in a row) unless I (as a mature adult) spare Mano the need to once again close a thread because of your intransigence and mulishness.
You get one more on this thread before I ignore you, Holms.
(Make the most of it)
So.
Ahem, that is not my reasoning. I said “as evinced by your repeated and lengthy screeds in response to many of his jabs” and “your own thinking on commentary is that if something elicits a comment from one of us, that comment can be taken as evidence that the subject is a ‘big deal’ to that commenter”.
Holms, heh heh heh.
There it goes, your one retort.
But I am not normal, Holms. I am different.
What to you appears to be flustered is the merest stress of my regard.
That’s why you still yet have anything to post in this thread about anything but me and how I make you feel.
The Bee that Rages put it succinctly: “Or, you could simply not make stupid pointless comments that make people ask WTF you’re on about.”
Of course, such as a Bee cannot be expected to appreciate the actual sense of my comments, and so it follows (much as with the TapewormTongue) that ostensibly (to the degree they dare apprehend them, that is) they are gnomic.
So. I make people respond to me.
Basically, your evident behaviour here does not falsify the Bee’s point.
Actually, of all my interlocutors on this thread, not to mention the one and only thread ever that Mano masterfully closed once it became evident that my point had been made — that you would keep responding to me everlasting because of your psychological condition (and, secondarily, that I am certainly no less stubborn than are you) — you are most indisputably predictably forced to respond to me. It is a compulsion for you, as I have proven in the past.
And, of course, as I have already proven in the past, this is your quota of obsession with me for this thread.
—
So.
Me: “You will, indubitably, repeat your habit of persevering in responding to me”.
You: “I said “as evinced by your repeated and lengthy screeds in response to many of his jabs” and “your own thinking on commentary is that if something elicits a comment from one of us, that comment can be taken as evidence that the subject is a ‘big deal’ to that commenter”.”
So. Quite verifiably, I was correct, there was no doubt at all you would respond.
<ping!>
Why you imagine repeating yourself somehow is an argument is left so someone else to determine, or perhaps by you should you care for the least bit of intellectual honesty.
Tell ya what, go back and find our little exchange at the time, cut and paste it (or just link it and summarise it) and everyone will have the opportunity to see how things actually went.
(I double-dare you!)
—
BTW, for the record:
Hitherto,
comments from you about me: [X]
vs
comments from you to me: []
Just saying.
Kissinger, 0
Me, however many
[heh — erratum]
That should have been
(That’s the empty set, I concede that much, but my lazy lack of preview post hasty editing is mortifying enough for this very correction)
—
Hopefully, it’s clear that Holms has zero to say about whatever the topic, and much (a lot) to say about me.
A very rich comment, given your many times repeated bleating about being made to comment by people picking on you, which you call bullying.
Also very funny, given a) your admission in the midst of that sentence that you are at least as persistent (“I am certainly no less stubborn than are you”), necessarily meaning that my persistence is can be characterised as ‘forced to respond’ then so are you… and b) you are the only person to date that I have seen promise to another person that you will persist with your efforts specifically to have the last word. Oh! And c) the multiple occasions you have said you would no longer respond to an interlocutor, only to respond almost immediately.
*checks the length of John’s rambling*
Yep, another lengthy screed in response to a brief poke. True to form, John “I’m totally not flustered!” Morales.