Why on Earth is Joe Biden thinking of running for President (again)?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Odin, I never realized you hated Bill Clinton so much .

He only looks good compared to Bush.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

OMFG, you're SO sophisticated.

Alas, as before in your previous posts, sarcasm fails you.


I would suggest a refresher course of Perelman, Parker and Ogden Nashery, except you might accuse me of being anti-American.

Does ANYONE know what molly was going for there with his.. um... menu?

Or is this is a joke that can only be shared within the confines of molly's skull?

Imran the Squeaky

Look, sweetie, I'll explain it as lucidly as one ristretto, one mocha and one cafe borgia allow me to:

I mocked (slightly) the amusing (to me) photo of the Biden brekkie because:

currently BBC2 is showing the BBC/HBO 'Rome' series, and the Juliae clan had a soiree at which someone was offered a dormouse (in honey, if memory serves...).

Now allowing that dormice might not be as familiar as guinea pigs to modern day Americans, I suggested that Biden might be tucking into shaved suntanned guinea pigs at his 'Imperial' breakfast- 'Imperial' because of that f**king great gold plated eagle on the table, see?

l.o.t.m in his infinite humourlessness, takes this as a broadside against the rude colonials by a soi-disant Eurocommie snob (moi, d'accord) and responds by showing me what a great bon viveur and cosmopolitan fellow Biden (and by extension undoubtedly all American politicians) are, and yet also needs to remind me that like all American politicians, Biden is at heart, a true Cincinnatus, a man of the people, for the people, by the people, because yea, verily, he will sit down to Velveeta and Oreo cheesecake with Joe Sixpack.

He has (for some time now) been misrepresenting me as anti-American, and in this previous thread he positively goes into what I can only describe as some hallucinogen fuelled fantasy of mischaracterization and whimsy:

its no use OO. MB's posts deny any connection between New England Puritanism and later New England Progressivism. Calvinism , in these posts is associated only with "old light" presbyterianism, Papist baiting bigots like Rev Ian Paisley, and contemporary american fundies (despite THEIR descent from UNCalvinist Seperatist Baptists) .

Liberalism it would seem, is necessarily associated with the Independent Labour Party, and the British anticlerical tradition.

MB really should be sentenced to a year at, say, Harvard University, where he can absorb, among the many different religions and races represented their, and amidst modern ideologies, some of the broad attitudes and mindsets that the Puritans brought over in the 1630's.

I suppose MB would sentence me to a year in Protestant Derry. I daresay hed have the better end of the deal

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142652

Now I wouldn't have minded the untruths and heavy handed, painfully laboured attempts at sarcasm, if he hadn't also in that thread managed to get easily researched dates of early British American and Stuart Restoration history hopelessly wrong.


Now after l.o.t.m. showed me what a gourmet Joe 'Sixpack' Biden was, with his zaftig TexMexMixteca Moderne Menu, I just had to make a few emendations to get back to a more authentic Aztec menu :

"Larvae harvesters poke about among the maguey's lower leaves, looking for the telltale tunnels at the base of the leaves near the outer edges. Working very carefully with a machete, so as not to disembowel the larvae unwittingly, they cut open the leaf. To extract the larvae whole, they use hooks formed by cutting thin strips from the edge of a maguey leaf. Then they remove all its spines except for one at the end of the strip. This they form into the hook they use to catch the larvae by the head. To store the larvae, they make pouches with the skin of a tender new maguey leaf, which is called mixiote (it gives its name, synecdochically, to a dish made of chunks of marinated meat wrapped in mixiote pouches and steamed)."

http://www.hollowtop.com/finl_html/magazines.htm

Which begs the point why would someone's heads implode, does that not imply endless vacuous space inside?

I'm sorry, but are you offering this from your extensive personal experience of vacuity ?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Now after l.o.t.m. showed me what a gourmet Joe 'Sixpack' Biden was, with his zaftig TexMexMixteca Moderne Menu, I just had to make a few emendations to get back to a more authentic Aztec menu

Many funny comments, but this was my favorite :LOL:

[lord of the mark]

Alas, as before in your previous posts, sarcasm fails you.


I would suggest a refresher course of Perelman, Parker and Ogden Nashery, except you might accuse me of being anti-American.




Imran the Squeaky

Look, sweetie, I'll explain it as lucidly as one ristretto, one mocha and one cafe borgia allow me to:

I mocked (slightly) the amusing (to me) photo of the Biden brekkie because:

currently BBC2 is showing the BBC/HBO 'Rome' series, and the Juliae clan had a soiree at which someone was offered a dormouse (in honey, if memory serves...).

Now allowing that dormice might not be as familiar as guinea pigs to modern day Americans, I suggested that Biden might be tucking into shaved suntanned guinea pigs at his 'Imperial' breakfast- 'Imperial' because of that f**king great gold plated eagle on the table, see?

Oh, i see, an eagle automatically means imperial Rome, gotcha. And that should bring up associations with a BBC series some of us have not seen. Gotcha.

l.o.t.m in his infinite humourlessness,

takes this as a broadside against the rude colonials by a soi-disant Eurocommie snob (moi, d'accord)

It did look like some kinda swipe against Biden as being crude. While others might not have seen it that way, I doubt many picked up on your allusions.

and responds by showing me what a great bon viveur and cosmopolitan fellow Biden (and by extension undoubtedly all American politicians)

I thought since we're talking Biden, and food, and since the REALITY is that American pols both have to eat junk, especially on the campaign trail - unlike, say, Augustus Caesar - cause you know this aint imperial Rome - but cause there ARE state dinners - and i know you have an interest in food, it might be interesting to show the menu for an ACTUAL state dinner. One Biden attended.

are, and yet also needs to remind me that like all American politicians, Biden is at heart, a true Cincinnatus, a man of the people, for the people, by the people,

Is this more of your sophisticated humo(u)r?

because yea, verily, he will sit down to Velveeta and Oreo cheesecake with Joe Sixpack.

Its reality.

He has (for some time now) been misrepresenting me as anti-American

I have simply tried to respond as I can to what I think youre saying. When you try to go so heavy on the irony and sarcasm, you have to accept that there many different plausible interpretations of what you say. When your use rhetoric that is particulary opaque, that is even more true.

, and in this previous thread he positively goes into what I can only describe as some hallucinogen fuelled fantasy of mischaracterization and whimsy:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142652

Of course no where in that did i call you antiamerican.

Now I wouldn't have minded the untruths and heavy handed, painfully laboured attempts at sarcasm, if he hadn't also in that thread managed to get easily researched dates of early British American and Stuart Restoration history hopelessly wrong.

odd given the only date mentioned is the 1630s. Are you suggesting that ISNT the date of the Puritan migration to New England?

Now after l.o.t.m. showed me what a gourmet Joe 'Sixpack' Biden was, with his zaftig TexMexMixteca Moderne Menu,

Do you actually know what the word Zaftig means?

I just had to make a few emendations to get back to a more authentic Aztec menu :

And what was the point of that? Did you actually think it was funny?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Oh, i see, an eagle automatically means imperial Rome, gotcha. And that should bring up associations with a BBC series some of us have not seen. Gotcha.

There's a thread about this 'Rome' series- a B.B.C. / HOME BOX OFFICE !!!! series in the Off Topic forum.

Sorry that you're unaware of the associations sparked in my mind by GOLD PLATED EAGLES and Imperial Rome. I do seem to recall THE EAGLES being quite important to Rome.

As you'd undoubtedly know if you'd read any Roman history, let alone seen a B.B.C. /HOME BOX OFFICE !!!!! co-produced television series.

And what was the point of that? Did you actually think it was funny?

No, I never think anything at all is funny, including and especially your attempts at sarcasm.

Of course no where in that did i call you antiamerican.

Didn't say you did. Notice the tense and phrasing utilised, please.

...odd given the only date mentioned is the 1630s.

You evidently didn't read the thread or my posts carefully enough- I'll make it simple for you.

What you said:

The last hanging of quakers in Massachusetts was several years earlier than Charles II's reign.

What actually happened:

Reign of Charles II: 1660-1685. He arrived back on English soil in May of 1660, at Dover.

Mary Dyer, Quaker, hanged in Massachusetts, June 1 1660.

William Leddra, Quaker, hanged 14th March, 1661.

And for good measure you were perhaps trying to prove how simply beastly England/Great Britain was to the Quakers by saying this:

and Quakers were hung in England,

But didn't come up with any casualty lists of neck-stretched Quakers to support this 'assertion'.

Strangely enough, the Society of Friends can't come up with any Quakers hanged for their religion in England/Great Britain.

Do you know something they don't ?

Do you actually know what the word Zaftig means?

Of course not !

I'm clearly using words in the same way you use historical dates and facts- as mere filigree fancy decoration, without any reference to their obloquy.

See ?

I just did it then.

I'd cascade another malapropism to you, but you'd undoubtedly replevin me with a tontine to the craniopagus, or give me an allegory on the shanks of denial.


Eagle enchilada, anyone ?

[lord of the mark]

1. Believe it or not, i dont read every thread here.
2. Eagle are associated with Rome, with the United States, with Russia, and with several other states.

You quoted something I said about Puritans that had one (correct) date in it, than said I had all the dates wrong. To back that up you went to something that you had not quoted, in this thread, and showed id gotten a date wrong, by about a year.

If you think that this is good netiquette, I can only shake my head.


I recall quite clearly reading of persecutions of Quakers in England. Im pleased if none were hung.

If you think 17th century Britain was paradise of religious freedom, as compared to brutally repressive Massachusetts, far be it from me to disabuse you of that notion.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom




No, I never think anything at all is funny, including and especially your attempts at sarcasm.

that attempt at sarcasm was distincly unfunny.

[lord of the mark]

Persecution of Quakers in England

"Imprisonment and Persecution of Quakers
Becky Roberg

In An Account of the Travels Sufferings and Persecutions of Barbara Blaugdone, Blaugdone describes her experiences as a traveling Quaker minister, most often those of persecution and imprisonment. Imprisonment was not an uncommon occurrence for Quakers, as Blaugdone exemplifies. Traveling from town to town, Blaugdone notes, “I had Prison in all those Places” (12). Although the Quaker ideal of denouncing the clergy was not necessarily uncommon, the Quakers were much more zealous in their pursuit to spread the Truth, therefore much of their persecution was due to their own perseverance (Trevett 18).

A common justification for Quaker imprisonment was blasphemy (Trevett 17). Elizabeth Hooton, a strong female figure in Quakerism, performed many of the same roles that Blaugdone did, and in return, she was imprisoned for merely reprimanding a priest (18). Hooton was arrested numerous times for activities such as public speaking, refusal to swear an oath in court, and disturbing the peace. In Blaugdone’s Account, disturbing the peace seems to be merely stepping foot in town. Numerous laws were also passed that enabled the arrest and persecution of Quakers, including The Blasphemy Act, The Conventicle Acts, The Five Mile Act and The Quaker Act. All of these laws basically prohibited Quakers from disrupting the ministry of the church (18). By challenging priests in their own churches, organizing and attending gatherings, and meeting with and preaching to others on street corners, Quakers broke the law. Blaugdone clearly took part in these ‘unlawful’ activities: “And then I was moved to go to Great Torrington in Devonshire, unto the Steeple-house there, where was a very bad Priest” (Blaugdone 13). Of course her only outcome at talking to the priest was to be once again put in prison.

By 1659, twenty-one Quakers had died in prison due to ill treatment, while countless others were crippled or their health had been permanently damaged (Trevett 18). Blaugdone reveals similar mistreatment in her Account: “and the nest day the Sheriff came with a Beadle, and had me into a Room, and Whipt me till the Blood ran down my Back” (15). Whipping was not the only form of punishment exercised against Quakers. Punishments included public humiliation, pelting, whipping sometimes after being stripped naked, fining family members, and confiscation of property (Trevett 21)"


But none were hung in England, apparently.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. Believe it or not, i dont read every thread here.
2. Eagle are associated with Rome, with the United States, with Russia, and with several other states.

No, and neither do I.

The point being, the GOLD PLATED EAGLE ON THE DINNER TABLE sparked those imperial associations for ME.

Got it ?


It really has nothing to do with whether or not YOU have seen the series 'Rome' since IMPERIAL eagles also feature (as you've noticed) in other civilizations too- Russian, Napoleonic French, Austro-Hungarian, Wilhelmine German.

However, the association was reinforced by the food, and by what I know about Roman cookery and the Roman avidity for rare and exotic foods.

I'm terribly sorry for having been inspired by such disparate imagery and events- I'll try to be much more prosaic in future.

...than said I had all the dates wrong.

I said nothing of the sort.

Find where I said that, I dares ya.

On the other hand, you asserted that I deliberately said things and implied I believed other things which were utterly and completely untrue:

MB's posts deny any connection between New England Puritanism and later New England Progressivism.

No they don't. And further:

Liberalism it would seem, is necessarily associated with the Independent Labour Party, and the British anticlerical tradition.

It is ? Not by me, not in any of my posts or threads.

If you think that this is good netiquette, I can only shake my head.

I do wish you'd actually take the time to read what's in my posts, rather than what you think is there.

You appear to think that making unfounded assertions about people's beliefs, not referencing quotes and making unsupported erroneous claims about historical events is good 'netiquette'. I'm applying for a neck brace....

I recall quite clearly reading of persecutions of Quakers in England. Im pleased if none were hung.

Persecution wasn't the issue- execution was.
A pity you didn't recall that none were hanged, unlike in Massachusetts.

If you think 17th century Britain was paradise of religious freedom, as compared to brutally repressive Massachusetts, far be it from me to disabuse you of that notion.

Oh, yawn.

This implies that either I stated Great Britain in the 17th Century was a wondrous realm of religious tolerance or that I'm too ignorant to have discovered otherwise.

Given that I knew that Quakers were executed in Massachusetts for their religious beliefs, and were not executed for them in Great Britain, and that I knew that Charles II Stuart was petitioned to end the religious and legal oppression in Massachusetts, you have no grounds for trying to imply I'm ignorant of 17th Century history- in the Calvinist theocracy of Massachusetts or in Great Britain.

But none were hung in England, apparently.

I'm so glad you've finally discovered that.

You could have taken it on trust from me, but it appears that you're more at home making up quotes and beliefs for me, rather than taking what I write at face value.

No symbols where none intended, as Samuel Beckett once wrote...

[lord of the mark]

I acknowledge that 17th century Mass was a theocracy, that oppressed religions other than Calvinist Protestentatism (and no, Im not searching for proof that they oppressed Lutherans)

I acknowledge that the end of that theocracy was a good thing.

I acknowledge that 19thc liberalism and reform in the US and America, including abolitionism, had at least some roots that were NOT in New England, or in British non-conformism, and that those roots included the French Enlightenment, and the English common law tradition. And some acts of the House of Stuart.


Now do YOU acknowledge that 19thc liberalism and reform had substantial roots in New England Calvinism and in English Non-conformism, including its Calvinist varieties? That the in the US in particular abolitionism and related mid 19th century reforms were led largely by the physical and institutional descendants of the Puritans? That attributing current day US fundamentalism to the Puritan heritage is questionable, at best?



If you do, then I think we can put this silly dispute behind us.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

That attributing current day US fundamentalism to the Puritan heritage is questionable, at best?

Am I meant to have done this ?

Because I certainly see similarities between illiberal religious/political groups now and then.

Have you heard of the documentary : 'Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will Be Done' by Antony Thomas ?

Quite an eye opener, and given that it was made in 1988, rather prescient considering the overt politicization of Right Wing Christian fundamentalists.

As far as I can see, all I did was to correct the erroneous notion that the Pilgrim Fathers (or as Slowwhand erroneously called them, 'the Puritans') came to North America in order to conceive of a more democratic republican confederation tolerant of other faiths and sects.

Neither they nor the real Puritans did so.


I also can't recall saying that 19th Century Liberalism (both British parliamentary and American) and American reform movements (especially abolitionism and for securing the rights of women) didn't have roots in Dissenting or Calvinist sects- but the danger is in writing history backwards, as Slowwhand did- and in ignoring the contributions of figures as different as Locke, Newton and James II Stuart to the eventual union of the United States.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by molly bloom

As far as I can see, all I did was to correct the erroneous notion that the Pilgrim Fathers (or as Slowwhand erroneously called them, 'the Puritans') came to North America in order to conceive of a more democratic republican confederation tolerant of other faiths and sects.

Considering his point was not that the Pilgrims (or Puritans) came to the new world to construct a confederation of other faiths and sects but moreover to avoid their own religious persecution which by the way was Slowwy's point ohhh vacuous one (that the US was a haven for those avoiding persecution from good ole mother Europe), your rants regarding their own tolerance to other religions is all the more humorous. Whether you wish to say they were in fact at that point in time hypocritical is well beyond the point and obviously your comprehension.

Your nonsequitorial historical slices in time are all the more humorous as I pointed out the reform church ultimately became the United Church of Christ one of the most progressive of all the current sects of Christianity.

[Seeker]

I was thinking of posting that old special olympics picture for the benefit of the little war on this thread but then I thought better.

[Zkribbler]

Does anybody remember Joe Biden?? This used to be a thread about Joe Biden.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Considering his point was not that the Pilgrims (or Puritans) came to the new world to construct a confederation of other faiths and sects but moreover to avoid their own religious persecution which by the way was Slowwy's point ohhh vacuous one (that the US was a haven for those avoiding persecution from good ole mother Europe), your rants regarding their own tolerance to other religions is all the more humorous. Whether you wish to say they were in fact at that point in time hypocritical is well beyond the point and obviously your comprehension.

You might spend your time more profitably in trying to be less personal and more accurate in your 'critiques'.

I don't rant- were you not so busy finding faults that weren't there, you'd understand that.

Whatever the Pilgrim Fathers or the Puritan sects became was neither here nor there- that they were intolerant of other faiths and sects was to the point. But thanks for playing.


Slowwy's point (for the hard of reading):

The USA was founded on religious principles.

Uh, no, it wasn't.

Slowwy's next 'point':

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong. Mayflower brought Puritans.

Bzzzz! Wrong!

'The Mayflower' brought Separatists- not 'Puritans'. The Plimouth Plantation was later absorbed into the Massachusetts Puritan theocracy.

The Separatists left the safety of the tolerant Protestant United Provinces out of dissatisfaction with with they saw as the laxness of Sabbath observance there. Minsters complained of :

"...the difficulty of reclaiming the country people on Sundays either from the sports or from their work."

Nathaniel Morton: New England's Memorial 1669- Chronicles of The Pilgrim Fathers

They came over religious freedoms.

So vague as to be meaningless- they came to establish their own religious communities where the franchise was restricted to a group within the religious grouping- authoritarian theocracies.

Slowwy's next 'point' :

Founding father's of the constitution were not the initial developers of this country.

If he means the United States of America, founded in the 18th Century, then he's BZZZTTT! Wrong again.

Slowwy says to MrFun:

Don't go putting yourself above me. I know history.

Just not the history of this timeline's U. S. A. , but some alternate one.

You interjected (irrelevantly) with:

And in fact now represent one of the most enlightened and progressive mainstream Christian schisms namely the UCC. With credits being progressive stances of abolitionist teachings pre civil war, in the forefront on racial issues and equality in the 50's-70s and now taken the mantle to allow gay marriages.

Damn those intolerant Pilgrims.

Well at least the last part we can agree on.

What various sects became wasn't the issue- 17th Century religious (in)tolerance and the supposed religious principles underlying the foundation of the United States were relevant, but you didn't address those.

Oh, and avoid remarks like these:

ohhh vacuous one

and

...is well beyond the point and obviously your comprehension.

since a little fact checking and close reading of text might do you a world of good, and not make you look foolish when you attempt to 'correct' my posts.