I have appreciated your remarks in the past and admire the way you express yourself.

If you are referring to my dragging up the past, it is only in response to his "repeating" of the same attempt to insult me. I stand by my distaste for the manner in which the French government and Jacque Chirac in particular lead their nation. This offends Valdron and he threatened to throw a fit and he has. Even now in response to your post, he insists on rehashing it. If he ever decides to stop polluting these threads with his offensive tirades, then I will have no reason to put his attacks in to context by referencing the past. I too consider it unproductive.

If any of my remarks have offended you, I apologize. I appreciate your constructive advice.

Posted at April 10, 2007 11:12 PM in response to The Coming Fight Over No Child Left Behind

"...what I call "working hard in order to be offended." I'm not inclined to take it seriously, or to see it as anything more than an effort at childish or bullying behaviour. That's harsh language, but there we go...."

I really am amazed at this delusional behavior. How is it that I am working hard to be offended, when your very first comment to me was that YOU were offended and that I was a racist, because I said that French leadership in the 20th century had led the honorable French people off a cliff several times in the 20th century.

Talk about wanting to be offended. I told you then and have said so several times, I like the French people and love being amongst the French and I can go on and on, but the one aspect of the French experience that is lacking is their ability to govern and protect their people. They have an abysmal record on this, and it stands for itself. Just because someone does not worship every aspect of a certain culture does not mean they are a racist. You would not concede that point and wanted to be the "martyr" and use what you call "bullying tactics". I explained my self and you demanded that I retract it and I would not deny my distaste for lousy leadership in France. This angered you to start up the adhominem attacks and cuss words. And you go on now with the accusation of racism.

On the other hand, you use a racist epithet for black people that should never be spoken here or anywhere, you come on here and make derogotory remarks about American culture, American life, and American government, but a simple remark about French leaders making poor choices that result in their losing their country (which is an afront to the governed), and you fall into an irrational pit of anger and hatred.

As I just said earlier today, I could come on here and say the sky is blue and I will get cussed out, so I am not looking for sympathy nor have I ever asked for it. I only respond to these "Your mother is a whore" remarks of yours because you keep showing your pride in it and I continue to think it demonstrates the very nature of ad hominem attacks. It is a form of surrender that is resorted to when one your argument is so weak that it can not withstand a debate. Of all of the potty mouthed remarks I have seen on here, when a political debate reverts to someone saying "Your mother is a whore", I consider that the most dramatic swan dive into surrender I have ever seen.

For the record, if the reference to this dumb game you play is tiresome to others, let it be known, I don't bring up your "Whore" remarks or offensive behavior until you make one of your attacks.

BTW, If you want to visit America, make fun of our beer, our money, our hospitals and medical practitioners, or our government, I'm not going to call you a racist. Just be aware that you are doing the same thing that you accused me of that set you on this course of offensive tirades.

If you can not engage in a debate on worldly matters without resorting to screaming insults, then I think you are ill qualified to attempt this type of endeavor.

Posted at April 10, 2007 10:52 PM in response to The Coming Fight Over No Child Left Behind

"..None of the above..."

If you have pondered the Boxers v. Briefs question that long that to settle it you have chosen neither, I would say you are what they call a radical independent.

Posted at April 10, 2007 10:08 PM in response to On Pelosi: Blessed Are The Peacemakers

I think I've made my point.

Posted at April 10, 2007 2:47 PM in response to On Pelosi: Blessed Are The Peacemakers

I disagree with your point number one. A person's criticism of Americans, Democrats or Republicans is different depending on their citizenship. I consider American citizenship a very significant status and context. Your statement that they have Christians and not Republicans is acknowledgement that half of that statement was misleading. To answer your question about what it has to do with the validity of his statement,...If his using the real life example of his going to a surgeon and taking into consideration whether he is a member of a political party that does not exist in his country, turns out to be not a "real life" example, then it is false. If you agreed with the idea regardless of his supporting arguments then say so, but a person that uses intentionally misleading or false examples to support his point, has decreased the "validity" of the "comment" or argument regardless of whether the concept is true or not.

On your second point, you are reading a lot into my comments. I don't agree with the point he was making and therefore, by my pointing out one part that is factually false, it is not tangential or an attempt to settle a score.

On your third, What you refer to clever "yo momma" talk is an attack he made in previous posts based on my criticism of the French government which he called racist. I am disappointed to hear what you consider proper standards for civil discourse and it sounds as though you welcome his type of ad hominem attacks, but discourage what you consider excessive repetition.

I am afraid on the characterization of the disagreement and the appropriateness we disagree. Thank you for your response.

Posted at April 10, 2007 2:44 PM in response to The Coming Fight Over No Child Left Behind

"....It was you who referred to our 2nd in line for the Presidency as "Nancy Pants."...."

It appears as though you are making a plea that I owe more respect to the honor, the dignity and the nobility of the regal and high office of those that stand to be successors to the office of Vice President and President.

To hear you of all people make that plea, when you have no respect for the office of Vice President and President in the first place, is truly laughable. Shall I dredge up the never ending list of remarks about the Vice President and President.

I will make you a deal Jan. If I never again call her Nancy Pants, you promise never to call the President and Vice President names. I will do it regardless, but I sense that you are not interested in that deal in the least. Let's see.

Posted at April 10, 2007 10:26 AM in response to On Pelosi: Blessed Are The Peacemakers

Ned, It is commendable that you attempt to keep the discussion civil here. You and Viviane are two voices of reason here and have given me constructive reminders in the past. In this case, I am not sure why you have said that "I started it" and then gave me a "0" for a factual statement and then call his remark clever.

This is Valdron's favorite remark:

On March 21, 2007 - 3:39pm Valdron said:

Your a racist, and your mother is a whore.

Its not an argument, its just facts.

Not yet rated.

I consider this type of comment about the least clever type of remark I have heard here before.

On the other hand, my statement is factual. He is falsely trying to make people believe he lives in the United States, when he in fact does not. I think that is significant for a person to make false statements about facts. I do not make statements about other Americans being un-American although others use the phrase against me regularly. In this case, Valdron is telling stories about how he functions in an American society, but he is not American, that is a fact. I think it is noteworthy and significant.

I am not calling for sympathy, believe me. I'm only curious about your perspective, because you have made very fair and reasoned remarks about the civility of the discourse here in the past.

Posted at April 10, 2007 10:14 AM in response to The Coming Fight Over No Child Left Behind

You are trying to pass yourself off as an American by lying about choosing a Doctor who is not a Republican. You don't live in America, yet you are pretending that you are so you can sound like a self-critical American.

You are not American, Monsieur Valdron.

You are a poseur that lies to foment your Anti-American hate. Why don't you just be honest and say that you are an outsider looking in.

Posted at April 9, 2007 10:17 PM in response to The Coming Fight Over No Child Left Behind

"...I'm not inclined to choose a surgeon based on his Republican or Fundamentalist Christian bona fides. Call me elitist, but there you go...."

It must be an easy choice for you since you are not American.

Posted at April 9, 2007 1:49 PM in response to The Coming Fight Over No Child Left Behind

"...those who oppose a federal role in education..."

Many of the people that "oppose a federal role in education" oppose the "role" that ensures that the kids are receiving a decent education, but love the "role" that delivers wads of cash into a bloated bureaucracy.

Posted at April 9, 2007 10:51 AM in response to The Coming Fight Over No Child Left Behind