Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Homer_Rice last won the day on December 21 2017

Homer_Rice had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

971 The F'n Man!

About Homer_Rice

  • Rank
    Pilgrim Shadow

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Homer_Rice

    Trump/Russia Investigation

    Gosh. I'm convinced, too, now. Temporary sig: "Good nations don't interfere in the internal politics of other nations." Source: Voice of America
  2. How the Democrat’s Corrupt Congressional Pay-to-Play Machine Sabotages Progressives and the Popular Will
  3. Homer_Rice

    Guns in America

    What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns
  4. Homer_Rice

    Fisher Cleared to Play

    You bet. I had the same fears when I had the dingus-ectomy that enlarged my penis from 2 to 4 inches. Glad to hear he's on the mend.
  5. Homer_Rice

    Guns in America

    Written after Newtown, but still relevant: From "Operation Wetback" To Newtown: Tracing The Hick Fascism Of The NRA
  6. Homer_Rice

    Trump/Russia Investigation

    More Reading: The Still-Missing Evidence of Russia-gate As the Dossier Scandal Looms, the New York Times Struggles to Save Its Collusion Tale Speech and Email Release: The Three Public Statement Signals Tied to Russia’s Dirt-as-Emails The Specter of Liberal Internationalism Neoliberals Used to Call Themselves New Democrats And an oldie, but goodie: A Game of Russian Roulette
  7. Homer_Rice

    Trump/Russia Investigation

    Wait. Is it true that you are a lawyer? That's what someone posted in the main forum but I couldn't tell if he was serious or just yanking your chain. If it is true, then that fact helps explain your behavior. And if it isn't true and someone was just pointing out the "jailhouse lawyer" tendencies you exhibit on this site, it still makes sense because you litigate some real stupid stuff--pretty much all the time. Whichever is true, well...Testify! Now, before I get into the meat of my comment, I'll dispense with the above post. You'll note that I am engaging in a discussion with you though you might not be so happy about it by the time I am through. In a way I have proven that you are a troll that likes to pick fights. It wasn't necessary for me to provide "proof" because you've provided ample evidence on you own. Not only here, not only now, but in this and hundreds of other threads over the years. Thinking people will agree with me even if they might not agree with my assessment. Some folks are more charitable than I am. Yet, while I've thought this about you for quite some time now, I've never bothered to speak up about it until you tried to pick a fight with me in the Ken Burns thread. (We'll get to that part soon enough.) I told you then how things would be. And troll that you are, ever since then you've been picking fights about picking fights. And when you ripped into USN in this thread you crossed a line. (And we'll get to that in due time as well.) On the personal attacks. Sorry to say, dude, but I haven't been making an argument ad hominem. Though I am not surprised you think so. Even though I offered you an opportunity to explain your epistemological precepts earlier, you passed. And that's characteristic of your behavior, too. You are pretty good at the "shift and evade" part of your "discussions." One wonders if that is a deliberate tactic on your part or simply a question of whether or not you actually are capable of saying something substantive on whatever topic you are avoiding in that moment. What I was doing was much more primitive and primal. I skipped right past the "argument/discussion" parts and just went straight to the "insulting you" part. You overlook one important aspect of all this: Because you have failed to satisfy the simple condition I made in order for you and I to have an actual discussion, I changed my intent. And intent is important. It was my intention to belittle you, to call you names, and in effect, to call you out. That's something you do quite frequently on this site with a lot of folks. Just giving you a dose of your own medicine, so to speak. Now that I've done that long enough to let you more nakedly expose your trollish proclivities, I'm going to stop at the end of this post. And if you want to truly discuss a topic with me, well, you know what you have to do... . In any event, if you still insist on the fantasy that this is some kind of argument, despite what I have just said, then let's create a logical fallacy to satisfy that urge. I know, we can call it an "argumentum contra poltroon." Now them there's some real good fightin' words, eh, bub? And if you were to reply, "You're just being an asshole, Homer," you would be right (for a change.) I've fit that bill plenty of times in my life, on this board and in real life. And while I would "argue" that I'm not an asshole at the core of my being, I do know how to pick my moments. Earlier you made the claim that you are "100% controlling how you ( I ) respond." That's a silly thing to say, but for the moment, let's stipulate it so we can get to another point, which is this: Be careful what you surmise is in your control because you might just be creating a horror show which could come back to bite you in the ass. Perhaps your lament, now, is this: "Why, oh why, Homer, won't you play by my rules? Other people do and that makes me feel like a big man." I'm going to tell you why. You are not the center of the universe. You are not even the center of the Go-Bengals universe, despite your efforts. And even though I have offered you an opening to make yourself relevant enough to exchange views with--an offer you refuse to consider (you know what it is)--other people are reading this. Personally, I think you are a like a tired old worn out speed bump in life, or maybe more like that fly at a picnic which keeps pestering folks by walking it's shit-laden feet all over the potato salad. Still, I think I have an obligation to explain to other members of this community just why I have drawn this particular line in the sand. This is a fine community and I've made a few friends here. And even if we are a bunch of sad sacks rooting for a middling team, there is an general attitude of hope in the face of adversity about the people here which I admire and enjoy. It's nice to know that there are other people out there who, for whatever reasons, have a sentimental attachment to the Bengals. Or maybe is just a case of "misery loves company." Who knows why we beat ourselves up year after year? You have a tendency to suck happiness and joy right out of this environment. It's like, whoosh, here comes that guy who like to flush the insights of other people right down the shitter with obstinate irrelevancy. Maybe you're that fellow who likes to inventory his turds before he sends them on their way; I don't know. Anyhow, live and let live. You've never bothered me so I won't bother you. Until... ...You asked me why I thought Ken Burns was an establishment documentarian. I probably should have answered your question with questions: "Don't you know who Donald Gregg is and what he represents, much less actually done, in life? Why would Ken Burns legitimize this abuser of humanity?" But I didn't want to go there; instead I took a shortcut and posted a lightly edited part of an email exchange I was having with a friend. Instead of your simply accepting that edit as a statement of my point of view you somehow felt the need to insert yourself into that exchange to nitpick. So I asked if you were picking a fight. With me? (The which, if you knew anything about my history on this forum, was a big mistake. You were in over your head right from the get-go.) You see, you horse's patoot, I occasionally like a good fight and I'm not afraid to admit it, especially if it is something about which I have strong thoughts and feelings. I'm a Vietnam era vet. And, out of respect for those who have, I'm always careful to point out that I never served in combat. I know of people who died in that war, including the older brother of a childhood friend. I served with a bunch of sailors who were both in-country and offshore during that war. I've known many a vet throughout my life who came back from that place a little fucked up. In some cases really fucked up--like ruin your life fucked up. Would you consider it possible that I may have spent a fair amount of time contemplating Vietnam? Not only through research and study, but also by reflecting on my interactions and experiences with others who suffered through that crappy moment in history? Do I seem like the kind of person who wouldn't have devoted some of both my heart and mind to that conflict? And this, you fucking twerp, is why I insisted on you making a demonstration of good faith. Something that, what, five or so pages later you still cannot do. I'm guessing you never served. I'm guessing that you are the kind of person who is willing to let others do your dirty work for you. I'm guessing that you never walked a patrol. I'm guessing that you were never a REMF. I'm guessing that you were never even a pogue, like me. Can you even conceive what it is like to stand a port lookout, during mid-watch, in the cold rain, shivering your ass off because you are in the North Atlantic, in effect manning the limes. I guess not. I despise most folks who tend to deify our veteran "heroes." Some of these people are genuine, like the nurse I know who works down at the V.A. They've developed a healthy respect for those who have taken a few years out of their lives to do something for their country. Same with naive youths--they don't know yet what they will later in life. In my experience, altogether too many adults who do the faux-hero worship are also living a subtext: "I would never do that." You can denigrate, quite vociferously as you did, USN's experiences as a lifer. You can show disdain, as you did and suggest that he is a liar and you can accuse him of being brainwashed as you also did to me. You can claim that he made up some stupid shit about his father. You can even claim to USN that "[y]our resume and so-called "life experiences" mean nothing to me." But here is what you cannot claim. You can't call him a brother. You can't understand the bond that many veterans share. And you cannot even begin to understand how each veteran has to individually reconcile their military experiences and their motivations for joining in the first place with the disparity between the ideals which this country represents when contrasted with the ever-widening distance that our actual policies move away from those ideals. If you were to ask me why USN seems to be jaded, I would consider the possibility that he is working that dissonance out in his own mind. And, bottom line, despite the differences in our political views, he is my brother. As are all the vets here and elsewhere. Doesn't mean I have to love them all, but I do recognize that we are "related." We are in a tough time. Rocky roads ahead, too. A couple of months into the Trump admin a friend asked me, "So where is all this going?" I'll tell you what I told him: "I think this ends in more war." So it behooves us to think carefully about what is happening. To take it seriously. To figure out, as individuals, just how we will respond as more shit hits an already crapified fan. Just as you are obstinate, I am. Just as you are a shit stirrer, I am. But it really is important to not be a frivolous twit. It really is important to act in good faith, even here in the backwaters of a sports forum. So, when you said to USN that: "Your 'expertise' is meaningless to me. I will debate anyone anytime. The debate will be won by the content of my arguments, not what is listed on a resume" you simply reaffirmed what so many people here already know. You live to pick fights, to argue, to be a troll. Too bad, because if you had simply admitted your feisty nature, I might have had something to say in return. Now that I've taken the time to explain myself to the board, I suspect you will still think that this makes you "important." Fred, you aren't important. But the times are. This isn't about you, much as you would like it to be. Speaking for myself, you could die and I wouldn't feel more than a momentary bit of sadness for another soul having departed life. In fact, let me write an epitaph for you to consider: Here lies Fred. Statistically speaking, he's dead.
  8. Homer_Rice

    Trump/Russia Investigation

    More reading: Judiciary Republican: If there was any Trump-Russia collusion, it would have leaked months ago David Brock And Clinton Pal Funneled $700K To Fund Trump Sexual Harassment Accusers How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt NYT Writes Epic Cover For Comey's FBI - Its Sole Source: "Officials Said" Russiagate Is Devolving Into an Effort to Stigmatize Dissent
  9. Homer_Rice

    Trump/Russia Investigation

    Ooh, been a while since I've thought of this aspect of Descartes' thought. Kinda pertinent here, too, if I may say so. Going from memory, so correct me if I'm mistaken, the evil demon argument has to do with Descartes attempts to cope with skepticism and is related to this question: "How can we know any truths if we can't get outside of our senses?" If the evil demon can deceive us, in toto, then how can we verify any truth at all? Also, intuition v logic concerned him. He wants to be, and is, a rationalist. One key element of "Cogito, ergo sum" is that by placing "I think" as prefatory to the proposition "I am" qualitatively changes the nature of the pursuit for truth and knowledge. By affirming the notion that he does have a "clear and distinct" idea that he does think, that act of thinking is one step in the direction of affirming that there does exist a world outside the senses. Briefly speaking, the act of thinking is on a higher order that brute sense perceptions. 17th century philosophers were preoccupied with questions about causality and logic. Also about the relation of truths/beliefs to both the outside world (beyond the mind, i.e. metaphysics) as well as how to distinguish between truth and belief (i.e. epistemology.) Rationalists thought that there was a natural order to the world such that humans could both understand it, and also participate in working towards a higher good. That's why Spinoza wrote the Ethics. He wanted to push a bit farther than Descartes and his chosen form was to present a series of logical propositions exploring these ideas. One of the great things about this period in history is the groundwork these folks did prepping the world for the scientific explosions of the 18th century and onward. Leibniz had a central idea which he explored his entire life: that knowledge could be represented in a universal symbolic language. Led to his work on the calculus, etc... All this from some serious thinking about causality, contemplating the world outside our skins, and human abilities to act in consonance with that outside world (to varying degrees of success.)
  10. Homer_Rice

    Trump/Russia Investigation

    There are a lot of non-structural rhetorical techniques. I've also seen them described as informal fallacies but strictly speaking, they are not formal fallacies. They fall outside of deductive and inductive structures. Better said, they are illogical or not susceptible to logic. And of course in this case, the OP was just throwing shit at a window. He wouldn't know modus ponens or modus tollens if they stopped him on a street corner and offered him a blow job.
  11. Homer_Rice

    Trump/Russia Investigation

    I hope you translated the French. And, of course, an ad hominem is not a logical "fallicy", or even a logical fallacy. If you knew logic you would know that. An ad hominem is a substitute for the use of logic. Anyhow, this is your choice. I told you from the very beginning how this was going to go. Do the research: ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) Did you really think that I would let you, a troll, dictate the manner in which I would respond? I have been very gracious and kind by offering you a path to redemption. All you had to do was acknowledge the obvious--that you like to pick fights. This is no secret; as I said previously, it's your M.O. Thus far you have failed to make the proper choice. And you force me, against my better nature, to treat you in the way you prefer. So, instead of having a "discussion" in good faith I have to treat you as a troll. I regretfully have to treat you like a shit-stirrer who likes to pick fights. I don't like to belittle you...but I will. Shame on you for making me take this path. I really resent it.
  12. Homer_Rice

    Trump/Russia Investigation

    Oh, jeez, what did I expect? “Ignorance is bliss “ — but, that the bliss be real, the ignorance must be so profound as not to suspect itself ignorant. With this understanding, Boileau’s line may be read thus: Le plus fou toujours est le plus satisfait, — “toujours” in place of “souvent.”
  13. Homer_Rice

    Trump/Russia Investigation

    More reading: The New Hysteria on Kremlin Trolls Liberals Getting Back in Touch With Their Authoritarian Roots The FBI’s Forgotten Criminal History After St. Petersburg Explosion, Putin Orders Police to ‘Liquidate’ Terrorists Russia warns US against 'meddling' in presidential election Fake News Russian Mole Trump Says Russia Inquiry Makes U.S. ‘Look Very Bad’ Trump: Even if there was collusion with Russia, 'it’s not a crime' China about to knock out petrodollar by trading oil in yuan Why the Russia Scare? Protect the Petrodollar The Petro-Yuan Bombshell and Its Relation to the New US Security Doctrine What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater
  14. Homer_Rice

    Trump/Russia Investigation

    I'm really in your head now, aren't I? Good. What to make of a doofus who extols the virtue of research for himself, but calls it brainwashing when others do it more openly? Apparently you have little faith in your fellow human beings. I think folks are capable of thinking for themselves and for parsing complex topics. And you still assiduously avoid my simple criterion that would demonstrate that you are acting in good faith. All you have to do is admit something that a lot of people here already know--that you like to pick fights. It really is amusing to watch you ignore, dodge, and deflect this request especially when the truth of the matter is so historically obvious when one observes your behavior. Naturally, this deliberate avoidance on your part tells me a lot about your character. But alright, we can go at this another way. How about you explain your epistemological views. I think everyone here would benefit from some erudite exposition from you explaining just what counts as truth for you. Feel free to reference any deep research you have done in the course of your life. Speaking for myself, if you refer to Plato and dialectics and/or the Socratic method, I'll be able to keep up with you. Likewise Aristotle and the development of logic. And if that's too ancient for you, go ahead and footnote any modern truth-seekers you admire. I'm familiar with Descartes' cogito and the more geometrico of Spinoza. After all, the proposition that the universe is both natura naturans and natura naturata is appealing and even persuasive to some people, along with its consequent epistemology. Don't worry, I can follow along. You can even discuss the influence of modern empiricism; Locke and Berkeley are less interesting to me, but I had to wade through that stuff to get to the good stuff, so I'll be conversant. I do hope you'll stay away from your study of Kant and Hegel though. Those fuckers are a slog and kind of put me to sleep.
  15. Homer_Rice

    Trump/Russia Investigation

    Yes, yes, I get it. You have me cowering in fear. Or maybe not. For a guy who places so much emphasis on research I'm kind of surprised that you object to me listing some of what I read in the off-chance that others might want to read some of it, too. I'll be getting back to this eventually, folks. In the meanwhile, refresh your memory on just how much of a piece of shit this sophist asshole is.

Go-Bengals.com on Facebook

Go-Bengals.com on Twitter