“out of nothing” or “out of something”, the meaning is precisely the same.

I assume this correction of typing, commas, and a half spider leg on the paper,is a desperate psychological attempt to avoid being confronted with the content of Mr. Curtin’s article

I think The United -Steins of America is a more accurate name and says more about the real conditions than the present.

but

why is the Operation Agent Orange JFK scumbag held up as a force kicking against the pricks, of his own class type, in this piece.

It’s almost like belief that any of the POTUS figureheads has innate high level power.

This site and it’s readers are pretending genocide isn’t happening. Shame on them.

Done 🙂

I actually find Rumsfeld’s words useful in certain scenarios, even if how he applied them weren’t to my taste.
_____________________________________

I agree with Curtin’s point that this widely-reported and cited, even infamous, Rumsfeld quote was an ingredient in his signature delivery of obfuscatory projectile word-salad purée. But I also always thought that the rancorous ridicule inspired by the excerpted comment was misplaced.

That is, his point about “knowns” is not especially outrageous duckspeak. To me, it’s the kind of routine, or typical, pedantic observation an Introduction to Philosophy, aka “Philosophy 101”, instructor might make. Sure, the students might scratch their heads and laugh at first blush, but despite the convoluted quality it’s rational enough.

The derisive, dismissive characterization of the remark as offensively blatant bullshit reminds me of a comparable comment by Bill Clinton when he offered an evasive and obfuscatory response to his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky: “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

I wasn’t shocked or dismayed that Clinton’s lawyerly– or “nonsensical”– phrase was aggressively circulated and mocked as a proof that Clinton is obviously a self-serving weasel and bullshitter. 

But as someone who worked with lawyers daily, I knew that Bill’s hair-splitting comment is fairly typical of legal argumentation. Far from being outrageous and pathetic gobbledygook spewed out by a scoundrel taking evasive action– a squiddy cloud of obfuscation– it was the kind of outrageous and pathetic gobbledygook thousands of lawyers get paid every day to spew while representing clients. 😒

Thanks. That would be great.

Damn! I was trying to catch up after not checking this site for a couple of days.

So I just posted this reply (click to view) to one of your related comments to the “While you were watching Israel…” article. I’m tempted to just re-post it here, but instead of gratuitous duplication I linked it instead. 😞