Printable View
I just about pissed myself reading the previous posts! Keep the belly laughs coming! If it wasn't for the wild asses liberals on this board I'd be so bored I'd be bitching about remi costs from the airport. LOL.
Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
P. Well done fellas
Jackson - I first posted my comments on Kos and then here. The reactions to it were somewhat different as you would imagine.
Alamo - At least you serve a good American hamburger. I'll leave it at that.
Sidney - Yup! I am a liberal. Not ashamed at all about it. Think the US has seen its best days. Think the global crash pretty much sums up the validity of the Friedman / Greenspan laissez-faire, free market, invisible hand of self correcting markets, neo-liberal, neocon economic theory hog wash that became secular religion over the past thirty years and like all religions left havoc in its wake.
And, unlike your fellow commentators, I see no reason to hurl personal insults at people whose views differ from mine. Those people define themselves with their statements.
I do wonder the extent to which some of my (and Ted's) critics have ever made any effort to do anything for anyone other than themselves? Just wondering.
And finally, for the self-proclaimed mongerers among us, (and maybe it's my Catholic upbringing) I wonder how many who attack Teddy's morals ever look in the mirror and question their own - as they search for cheap pussy, complain about its rising cost, mindlessly exploiting the Argentine chicas, most of whom hate what they are doing and who they do it with, but need the money to feed their kids.
Now I bet that statement won't go down to well here!
Ricardo,
Your thesis or whatever you want to call it was very well written. You have a knack with words. I thought it was lifted from some national newspaper or magazine.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]I do wonder the extent to which some of my (and Ted's) critics have ever made any effort to do anything for anyone other than themselves? Just wondering.[/QUOTE]If you mean creating jobs, practicing kindness to other (the real kind where you actually do something rather than spout greeting card slogans) caring for the environment (again in real life not bumper sticker liberalism) paying taxes and not killing women who work for me, yes, I have made an effort.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]And finally, for the self-proclaimed mongerers among us, (and maybe it's my Catholic upbringing) I wonder how many who attack Teddy's morals ever look in the mirror and question their own[/QUOTE]Can you read or do you only write?
[QUOTE=Ricardo]exploiting the Argentine chicas, most of whom hate what they are doing and who they do it with, but need the money to feed their kids.[/QUOTE]Who is being exploited? The gringos who are diverting money that could be better spent feeding their own children or the Argentine temptresses who know we can not resist their charms?
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Now I bet that statement won't go down to well here![/QUOTE]Goes down fine, like one of Exon's girls from Checker's Pub. You see the difference here is that most of the mongering folks here welcome the opinions of others and the opportunity to debate -- based on the merits and not feel-good platitudes backed up by fluff and bull shit.
Great to know that Jackson's AP ranks #2 to the Daily Kooks. Way to go Jackson, you must have at least 3 people following your site (since Daily Kooks had 4, at last count)
Walleye. I stand by my comments as well. But my Jesuit training in logic stands in the way of me buying your rebuttal.
I am afraid that your concept of exploitation would be considered quite novel by most formally trained ethicists. And then, your snipe about the breadth or depth of my reading versus the quality of my writing is pretty lame.
I readily accept that you may have made many worthy contributions to the betterment of mankind. But let's not infer that your's are more legitimate, worthy or bigger than mine or Teddy's or my numerous liberal counterparts. Whose is bigger? You know where that leads.
If you will forgive the lesson in logic, some one who claims to "welcome the opinion of others" and "the opportunity to debate" would eschew the ad homonym insults you retreat behind. Words like "feel-good platitudes, fluff and bullshit" are legitimate only in the eye of the beholder and lack sufficient rigor to carry the day in a serious debate.
Now if you want to debate history, culture, economics, global trends, liberalism, conservatism, etc. Using facts, logic and learning that is my idea of a useful exercise.
Too bad those type of debates are hardly ever engaged in these days, either on the US media or global blogs - including Argentine Private - where slogan throwing is the preference.
Hey did you hear about the Kirchner death panels?
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Walleye. I stand by my comments as well. But my Jesuit training in logic stands in the way of me buying your rebuttal.
I am afraid that your concept of exploitation would be considered quite novel by most formally trained ethicists.[/QUOTE]Forgive me Brother O'Malley, I'm no Opus Dei but I've been around the church a bit too.
I am afraid that your fine Jesuit instructors skipped over humor and sarcasm and a host of other literary devices, whilst diligently drilling you on crafting earnest hyperbole.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]And then, your snipe about the breadth or depth of my reading versus the quality of my writing is pretty lame.[/QUOTE]Thank you for confirming my suspicion and once again not reading the written word.
A snipe is a bird, my comment was a quip. It was not about your breadth or depth of the immeasurable cornucopia of material that I am sure you have read, it was about you not reading what I had written. Specifically, I made a biblical (I was counting on that as being part of your cornucopia, mentioned above) reference about not casting the first stone because I too am a sinner.
I ask you, why, why should we write at all if no one cares to read what is written? For the artistry, the beauty and of course for the grace of God (after all, were it not for this last notion, we would have all been cheated out of the beauty that accompanied the beast of the Italian Renaissance)
[QUOTE=Ricardo]I readily accept that you may have made many worthy contributions to the betterment of mankind.[/QUOTE]Don't readily accept anything. I might surprise you.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]But let's not infer that your's are more legitimate, worthy or bigger than mine or Teddy's or my numerous liberal counterparts. [/QUOTE]I didn't. You assumed that I did based on: 1) your spotty attention to detail in the fine art of reading comprehension, or 2) your preconceived notions of how I think / act / speak, or 3) you lack of true conviction in your political beliefs because they are based on warm feelings, slogans and the influence of the opinions of others rather than on a concrete understanding through living it.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Whose is bigger? You know where that leads.[/QUOTE]I don't know where that leads. I've never been one to compare myself to others.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]If you will forgive the lesson in logic, some one who claims to "welcome the opinion of others" and "the opportunity to debate" would eschew the ad homonym [sic] insults you retreat behind. Words like "feel-good platitudes, fluff and bullshit" are legitimate only in the eye of the beholder and lack sufficient rigor [sic] to carry the day in a serious debate.[/QUOTE]My inference is valid, my reasoning correct.
I was trying to be nice with my ad hominem comments. How am I hiding behind them? My language may be colorful, however, my rigour is just fine, as is my principled position.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Now if you want to debate history, culture, economics, global trends, liberalism, conservatism, etc. Using facts, logic and learning that is my idea of a useful exercise. [/QUOTE]I would be intimidated by such interaction with an individual who clearly has a vastly superior intellect than I.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Too bad those type of debates are hardly ever engaged in these days,[/QUOTE]It's always in the last place you look.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]either on the US media or global blogs - including Argentine Private - where slogan throwing is the preference. [/QUOTE]Please reference the bird about your reading comprehension, above.
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Hey did you hear about the Kirchner death panels?[/QUOTE]No, is the Argentine senate going to remove that nonexistent facet from their legislation too? What a minute, how can you remove something that doesn't exist? I'm so confused!
Verb. To attack a person or a person's work with petulant or snide criticism, esp. Anonymously or from a safe distance.
[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snipe[/url]
Seems like a fairly apt characterization of your comments WW.
This Presidency is getting to the goods. Prostitution is on the way sooner rather than later, I can say that. I can't see how they're not about getting Israel wiped off the map. Argentina legalized drugs. Maybe it is a good time feel the vibes in Chicago, the only tolerable place of visit in the USA.
[QUOTE=Bame Mata]Verb. To attack a person or a person's work with petulant or snide criticism, esp. Anonymously or from a safe distance.
[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snipe[/url]
Seems like a fairly apt characterization of your comments WW.[/QUOTE]Very apt indeed, however, I was trying to be funny with the bird allusion (which I thought I wove into the end quite well)
I suspect that the reason you viewed my criticism as snide and petulant, had something to do with the fact that is how I intended it to be.
WW, I commend your honesty as you admit your intention to be "snide" and "petulant" in your response to my heartfelt comments on the passing of Ted Kennedy.
Of course your prior post suggested you were just trying to be "sarcastic" and "humorous" using "quips" and "colorful" words. Hmmmm. Oh well.
Let me end this little colloquy with an ancient Gaelic blessing for you (tailored for the current circumstance):
"May the sun shine warm upon your face;
The rains fall soft upon your fields;
May the road rise up to meet you.
And may the wind be always at your back."
Rather than coming out your ass! (emphasis added)
[quote] Whirlpool Corp. Announced Friday it will close its Evansville, Ind. Factory next year, moving the plant's production of top-freezer refrigerators to a facility in Mexico.
Citing the need to trim manufacturing capacity, Whirlpool said the mid-2010 plant closure will eliminate 1,100 full-time jobs.
Whirlpool (WHR) like most manufacturers, has seen its sales slump over the past year as a global economic recession and housing market slump hurt demand for home appliances. Whirlpool's latest revenue numbers show sales in the second quarter fell 18% to $4.17 billion from the second quarter of 2008. [/quote]Thank you so much Mr. President for letting these jobs go to Mexico. Why didn ’t we have some cash for clunker freezers?
[QUOTE=Toymann]I just about pissed myself reading the previous posts! Keep the belly laughs coming! If it wasn't for the wild asses liberals on this board I'd be so bored I'd be bitching about remi costs from the airport. LOL.
Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
P. Well done fellas[/QUOTE]NOSTALGIA, THE AMERICAN ELIXIR.
I'm with you, but it's the John Wayne crowd that are most entertaining.
Their "either you are a cowboy, or you're not" reflects their nostalgia for the good old days. Their need to insult and belittle people when claiming to be debating is pure arrogance. By the way, I'm conservative and do not have common grounds with the liberals.
[QUOTE=Punter 127]Thank you so much Mr. President for letting these jobs go to Mexico. Why didn 't we have some cash for clunker freezers?[/QUOTE]Cash for clunkers was a give-away to spike car sales and help out Obama Motors / UAW.
Forget what the main stream media says, the actual number of Americans who CANNOT get insurance is approximately 12 million people. That number is derived from the census bureau and excludes: I) illegal aliens, ii) those making more than $75k / year, iii) those who qualify for public assistance but do not take advantage of it, and iv) those who temporarily lose insurance (averaging 4 months or less) but are not chronically uninsured.
If that program was "cash for Health Insurance" it could have paid for private health insurance (of the same quality that I have for myself and family) for 1.25 million people (10.42% of those who CANNOT get health insurance) for a period of four months.
Alas, doing that would not qualify as payback owed to the UAW by BHO and Ried and Pelosi.
Ricardo, again, you have no sense of humor (a condition that plagues the left) and you have an alternative understanding of literary devices than the one I possess.
[quote]WW, I commend your honesty as you admit your intention to be "snide" and "petulant" in your response to my heartfelt comments on the passing of Ted Kennedy.
Of course your prior post suggested you were just trying to be "sarcastic" and "humorous" using "quips" and "colorful" words. Hmmmm. Oh well.[/QUOTE]What makes you say "hmmmm" (did you have your hands on your hips when you typed that? Shit, now I feel like I have to clean the garage instead of playing golf and drinking beer with my friends.
How is being humorous through the use of sarcasm and quips, delivered in a snide and petulant manner, inconsistent? Why do you put quotation marks around these words? Did I misused them somehow or bastardize their meanings?