2016: Battle of the Dynasties?

"Germany is united, and a slab of the Berlin Wall sits right outside this Astrodome. Arabs and Israelis now sit face to face and talk peace, and every hostage held in Lebanon is free. The conflict in El Salvador is over, and free elections brought democracy to Nicaragua. Black and white South Africans cheered each other at the Olympics. The Soviet Union can only be found in history books. The captive nations of Eastern Europe and the Baltics are captive no more. And today on the rural streets of Poland, merchants sell cans of air labeled 'the last breath of communism.'

"... There will be more foreign policy challenges like Kuwait in the next 4 years, terrorists and aggressors to stand up to, dangerous weapons to be controlled and destroyed. Freedom's fight is not finished. I look forward to being the first President to visit a free, democratic Cuba. Who will lead the world in the face of these challenges? Not my opponent. In his acceptance speech he devoted just 65 seconds to telling us about the world.

"Then he said that America was, and I quote again -- I want to be fair and factual -- I quote, being 'ridiculed' everywhere. Well, tell that to the people around the world, for whom America is still a dream. Tell that to leaders around the world, from whom America commands respect. Ridiculed? Tell that to the men and women of Desert Storm."

-- George H.W. Bush, acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, August 1992

You said if you didn't pay taxes you'd be thrown in a cage. You're not in a cage. Whether or not you should be is moot.

Why, thank you, kind sir! Pocket found it successful enough to reissue it with a fancy new cover for the 40th Anniversary:



Which is probably why Flashy has convinced himself I live in a gated community with a house staff and pay somone else to write for me.

Poor Flashy!

Saying this over and over, no matter how rudely or loudly stated, still doesn't make it so, nor does it provide any evidence of such.

It says right on the cover, "great read," can anybody argue with that?

I've already provided evidence of such, and you have conveniently ignored same. Ignoring the evidence does not refute the claim.

Yes, actually, one can. One reviewer does not a consensus make, nor does a consensus = an individually applicable benchmark.

Here is this reviewer's verdict: It was okay. Not shitty, but not spectacular. If you're a fan of Star Trek, it was decent, but on its own, had it been its own standalone work, it would have been mediocre at best.

NM

Simple minds like his and Dayton's assume that I'd be as easily offended by some Keyboard Kommando's opinion as they would be if the situation were reversed.

Not even you.

Of course not. The consensus would be based on positive reader feedback, multiple positive reviews (Kirkus traditionally hates me), whether or not a volume makes one or more booklists, net sales figures and, in this instance, the willingness of the publisher to reissue a volume almost 20 years after the initial release.

As for an individually applicable benchmark - every word I write is the best word I have available at the time. What other criterion would any legitimate writer need?

Whereas this writer's opinion of the reviewer's verdict is that, at the most generous, he displays an almost Flashlight-level ignorance of the parameters of media tie-in fiction and, at worst, he's simply envious.

Sloth, greed, and mendacity is a brand?

I don't think you are offended at all Garamet.

Someone who doesn't hesitate to offend others is generally pretty indifferent.

And yet you persist.

So your every post indicates.

Every post?

Be honest Garamet. My comments about your writing and Black Dove's marriages are not that common. Occasional jabs here and there but it wouldn't be the Red Room without them

When you say "every post" you are more or less it seems referring to what Ed (IIRC) said about my very existence being some kind of offense.

Nothing more to say about the topic?

Is that like Honest Abe?

Political dynasties have been around in the U.S. since the Revolutionary War. Probably before.

What is the big deal about them now?

The same thing that's the big deal about anything now. It's now.

We don't want that shit. We, now, do not want that shit. It's only ever fucked us, and we're sick and fuckin' tired of getting fucked.

So no more of that shit.

That's what's the big deal about that shit now.

I didn't say they were a big deal or that they weren't. I simply put the question out to the forum. If you're bored with it, there's no need to keep posting here.

You know what "shit" Americans really don't want?

Americans don't want having to sort through a dozen or more candidates and evaluate them over the course of a 20 months long presidential campaign.

I've seen estimates that half of all American voters don't even pay attention to who is running for president until September. That isn't September 14 months before the election. It is September TWO MONTHS before the election.

Given that fact, an easy to recognize surname is vital. In any election.

It's too bad we don't have some kind of mechanism for indicating what shit we do or don't want. We could try some kind of national survey-type thing. Maybe every four years or so.

We have the same thing every two years, too, gargleblaster. How'd ya feel about this past November's showing? What'd that tell ya?

Vital?! With 'Clinton' or 'Bush' as a surname, it'll be fucking disastrous!

Jeb "Fuck American citizens!" Bush versus Hillary "I'm not responsible for anything!" Clinton!

I say, in the spirit and voice of Shakespeare, and meaning every single mother fucking word, "A plague o' both their houses!"

The problem is that Obama tried to take credit for a plan that was set in motion during the Bush administration. Obama just happened to President when the trigger was pulled. The only thing he did was sit in the situation room and tell Seal team six, "yes you can go ahead and follow through with the mission from ten years ago."

It was an election. People elected the representatives they wanted. The fact that I don't necessarily like all the representatives who got chosen doesn't negate that.

So you're saying that the people indicated what they do and do not want? How d'ya feel about what they made it clear they don't want?

Clueless and completely wrong as always. But we expect no less from you.

We could do worse.

We are doing worse.

So you're saying that the mission to take out Bin Ladin didn't originate during the Bush years? Please enlighten us all on how I'm wrong.

You're right about the part where he had the chance to get him in Tora Bora in December '01 and didn't.

So the original authorization to go after Al Queda is OK for going after ISIS, but the original plan for killing Bin Laden doesn't count? Got it.

The original plan for getting bin Laden failed. He was allowed to escape into Pakistan. You might want to learn a little something about the event before you post anything else.