Here We Go Again…
Here’s an excerpt from Tom Friedman’s piece in the Times today:
So here’s my bottom line: I’m glad the president is changing his rhetoric on energy and says he is changing his fundamental priorities. It makes for a great headline. But he has to go much further if he wants to make a great difference. There’s no pain-free solution […] And if he fails to carry through with this energy initiative, I’ll be the first to rip him for it. In the meantime, I prefer to give him a new reputation to live up to. You never know… and by the way, pal, do you have a better horse to ride right now?
Actually, buddy, I do. It’s called “limit the damage this administration can do for the next three years until we can elect someone who actually knows how to govern.” The Bush administration is King Midas in reverse. They can do nothing right. If you need examples, check out the lack of post-war planning in Iraq, the inept response to Hurricane Katrina, the irresponsible fiscal policies, the pork-laden spending bills signed without even the threat of a veto, the Medicare drug benefit debacle, torturing prisoners… the list goes on and on.
Without any ability to influence this administration’s behavior, the best thing we in the reality-based community can do is to oppose and obstruct anything and everything it proposes. And that means, Tom, that you have to stop acting like the battered wife who keeps crawling back to her husband because she thinks he might have really changed this time.
I wish we had a better option. I wish we could all just sit down and negotiate a reasonable settlement. But that’s just not going to happen. Bush has operated the same way for the past five years, and I don’t see any reason for him to change now. As teh Krugman writes today:
In other words, this administration is all politics and no policy. It knows how to attain power, but has no idea how to govern. That is why the administration was caught unaware when Katrina hit, and why it was totally unprepared for the predictable problems with the drug plan. It is why Mr. Bush announced an energy plan with no substance behind it. And it is why the state of the union – the thing itself and not the speech – is so grim.
You’d do well to heed those words, Tom. Unless, of course, you want that football pulled away again.
***And if he fails to carry through with this energy initiative, I’ll be the first to rip him for it.***
Talk about the mouse that roared. Ooooh, what a threat! Tom Fweidman might write somefing NASTY if the Pwesident doesn’t keep his word!
Bet that’s got Shrub and Cheney shaking in their boots!
How out of the loop is Friedman anyway? Guess he didn’t get the word that the Chimp was only kidding about that reduction-of-oil-dependency thing.
What a useless fucktard.
both analogies dead on.
Also, how has Bush “changed” his rhetoric on energy? Nothing’s changed; he’s been saying that for years and doing diddly shit about it.
And that means, Tom, that you have to stop acting like the battered wife who keeps crawling back to her husband because she thinks he might have really changed this time.
BRAVA! BRAVA!
Brad R. for President
Like, you know, actually doing something about it? Inconceivable!
Tom Friedman replies:
Dear Brad,
An abused spouse?
Hey, c’mon. I categorically deny that.
He’ll change this time. Really. You should see him when we’re alone. He’s actually very sweet. He bought me flowers last week. Roses. I mean he hit me first, but he’s just been under a lot of pressure lately. If I didn’t ask so much of him, he wouldn’t get so mad.
God, why am I so demanding? I drove him to do all this. I wrote all those columns saying the Iraq war was a good idea. I asked for a Manhattan Project-style effort to find oil alternatives. And look what it got him!?!? Poor thing! It’s all my fault! I’m so bad.
Sincerely,
Tom Friedman
“The Bush administration is King Midas in reverse. They can do nothing right.”
Well, at the very least, one must acknowledge that they’ve done at least two things right: Robertson, and Alito. The Bush administration has also made it harder for women to discriminate against tiny little people for being developmentally premature: a phenomenon I refer to as a lethal form of developmental discrimination or ageism.
Word to the mutha: Watch out for mercury-carrying agents such as albacore tuna, being under the influence of methamphetamines while pregnant, and abortion. All can be a hazard to the health of your unborn child.
You never know… and by the way, pal, do you have a better horse to ride right now?
A lame horse with parasites would be a better horse to ride right now, pal — at least it could be put out of its misery. A dead horse would be better to ride — at least in won’t take you in the opposite direction. A carousel horse? Much better. The Trojan Horse is a slightly less damaging horse to ride. A rocking horse has more intuitive intelligence.
What, you, Tom Friedman are looking to ride is a horse of the Apocalypse. Just consider for one fucking moment the horseman, you ignorant slut.
Actually, in the myth, Midas was a big fuck-up. In the famous “Midas touch” myth, it turned out that was a horrible idea because while gold is great, you don’t want golden food and relatives (unless you’re Goldfinger). In another myth, he chose Pan over Apollo in a music contest and got donkey ears. So Bush is like Midas.
Neoconartist–
So, if I eat a lot of mercury-infested fish that I catch out of my local stream, which, if it’s like many rivers and streams in America, has been polluted by industrial waste that is no longer regulated thanks to Bush’s enviornmental “policy,” and the reason I’m having to catch my own fish is that I am now too poor to buy all the groceries I need for my disabled-in-Iraq husband and two children (despite holding a minimum wage job that only allows me 30 hours a week) thanks to losing my food stamps in the last round of “compassionate” budget cuts, and I happen to be pregnant yet again because my local Walgreens pharmacist refused to fill my birth control prescription and the nearest alternative pharmacy is 2 hours away, then I’m guilty of something as bad as abortion? Really…
Didn’t you hear Bush’s State of the Union address? What could be more enviornmentally-friendly than giving up our addiction to oil?
As for your disabled husband, I’m sure you’ve heard of disability insurance. As a vet, he’s got great coverage. I’m sure its enough to allow you to give up the food stamp addiction and the fishing expeditions. As for your Walgreens pharmacist, I’m sure there must be a few remaining pharmacists out there who can give you anything you need to take care of the your “problem” (synonym for the prospect of an unborn child among many liberal women) before he/she becomes a bigger “problem,” the one that will force you to have an abortion that you will later blame on everybody and everything except yourself. Have you ever heard of the concept of accepting responsibility for your own actions?
Have you ever heard of the concept of accepting responsibility for your own actions?
I learned it from watching you, dad!
Don’t you ever get tired of lying on behalf of an Administration that has taken exactly zero responsibility for anything? Listen Rube, I generally don’t give a shit about you, but today, I’m particularly tired of the rampant amounts of obtuse bullshit flooding this once great country and this —”Didn’t you hear Bush’s State of the Union address? What could be more enviornmentally-friendly than giving up our addiction to oil?” — has a particularly rank stench.
I know, I know, I apologize to everyone else here for even addressing this obviously lonely and sad creature, but I’m just about at that point in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof when Big Daddy loses it. The air is too fucking thick with mendacity.
Hysterical: Yes, but I believe the point is that he can’t even get the “turning things into gold” part right. Instead, he turns them into shit.
And just what the hell is Friedman yammering on about, anyway? Why the hell is he getting paid for anything?
Actually, in the myth, Midas was a big fuck-up.
OK, so it’s an imperfect metaphor.
Even so…
In Tommy’s defense, he used to be one of the very best international reporters on the planet. His dispatches from Lebanon were terrific.
But since the mid-’90s he’s basically started writing press releases for American CEOs about the wonders of globalization, as well as the odd column supporting American empire. Very sad indeed.
I’m afraid your estimates of the recomp package for vets is a bit too optimistic, my friend:
$112 to $2,393 is your average amount being paid to a disabled vet (scaling for severity, obviously, though I believe we are likely talking towards the middle of that range, so say, 1250 dollars), plus between 210 and 500 dollars assuming he’s not into the 30-100 range of disablement.
Assuming he has Medicaid to take care of meds is fine, but we’re still talking well below the poverty line if our lady has a minimum wage job and two kids.
If their total income is under 18,000, then he is entitled to a pension to reach that amount.
It isn’t going to be a very pleasent lifestyle, nor will it be one able to handle life without social welfare programs.
Abortion is caused by economic factors for the most part- eliminate the inability for families to financially handle a child, you eliminate a great number of abortions.
The concept of ‘sink or swim’ is one I find so utterly disgusting that I shall not speak of it any longer, but merely quote St. Basil:
“When someone strips a man of his clothes we call him a thief. And one who might clothe the naked and does not — should he not be given the same name? The bread in your board belongs to the hungry: the cloak in your wardrobe belongs to the naked, the shoes you let rot belong to the barefoot; the money in your vaults belongs to the destitute.”
Jay Brida, it looks like I brought out the passion in your soul and for that, I accept full responsibility.
As for:
“…this obviously lonely and sad creature…”
I’m not that lonely and not that sad. My right-wing, songwriting shrink cum blogging ventriloquist never leaves my side. Besides, I treasure my own company.
Looks like Dr. BLT gave me some fuzzy figures to work with on the disability insurance issue. He always told me statistics wasn’t his best subject. I’m sure he’ll take full responsibility for his error. Nevertheless, if the good professor Illuminata was able to come up with a post so ineffably witty, he or she must possess the skills to secure a better job.
GG, I’ll agree that abortion is an issue that must be macro- and not micro-managed, and societal factors do, in fact, contribute to the problem. But ultimately it boils down to the individual and to individual choices that cancel out any future choices for the would-be child.
Yep, if that poor woman wasn’t so irresponsible as to get raped, then none of this would’ve happened right? Or if the birf control hadn’t failed, or if she hadn’t been denied meaningful sex education to arm her with the knowledge she needs in order to avoid an unplanned pregnancy….but it’s always the individuals fault. Right. Of course it is. Because, to admit otherwise would mean that you are a callous self-righteous SOB who wants to impose your own narrow world view on everyone around you by force if necessary and tolerate no dissent.
I have mixed feelings on the abortion issue as a whole. On the one hand, I think it should stay legal. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s desirable, and I think we should actively work on measures that would prevent unwanted pregnancy (access to emergency contraception) and set up adoption programs for women who can’t afford to keep their children.
But you can’t simply ban abortion and expect it to go away. I don’t want to live in a country where we lock up women who try to terminate their pregnancies.
the one that will force you to have an abortion that you will later blame on everybody and everything except yourself. Have you ever heard of the concept of accepting responsibility for your own actions?
You are vile. Go sneer at the other Pharisees for a change.
“You are vile.”
BLT, why are you having me do all the dirty work for you, and why are you having me take all of the abuse on your behalf?
“…wants to impose your own narrow world view on everyone around you by force if necessary and tolerate no dissent…”
I happen to think that, rather than a “narrow world view,” it is wider than one—one that does not exclude anybody–one that opens the door for everyone to be included, regardless of age or relative developmental stage.
But, given that right-wingers tend to want to reverse Roe vs. Wade, and moderate, reasonable left-wingers like Brad want to at least work towards reducing the numbers of abortions, we should all work towards finding common ground and work from there. I realize that reversing Roe vs. Wade may not work, so if we can just start moving things in a life-affirming direction, I would be satisfied with that result. Follow Bono’s lead: Hold to your liberal humanitarian ideals, while uniting with the right!
But ultimately it boils down to the individual and to individual choices that cancel out any future choices for the would-be child.
That assumes ideal, or at least semi-ideal conditions for that type of reasoning to be at all defensable. As it stands, we are not providing couples with adequete education, contraceptive options or economic safety nets in order to say such a thing. Such reforms would drastically lower the number of abortions in the US of A.
I’m all for regulating it and even support parental notifacation laws with sufficient judicial bypass options so as to be acceptable under current precedent, but banning first term abortions and morning after pills… that’s not the way to make the problem go away.
I still think it’s morally questionable territory, but much less clear cut than, say, letting millions of Africans die of AIDS,starvation and God knows what else.
That’s where the advocacy money from both sides should really go, goodness knows.
GuinnessGuy, Dr. BLT and I approve of your initiatives. You are clearly not among the defeatists at this site who see everything in black and white, all good or all bad terms, with anything conservative falling in the “all bad” category.
And Brad, since you seem to be quite reasonable, rather sane, and relatively balanced, why do you think this site of yours attracts so many extremists?
“oppose and obstruct anything and everything it proposes”
Exactly what part of “it’s” addenda have you obstructed lately Brad?
Hint: swapping spew with fellow mooreabites on this little weblog isn’t gonna Git-r-dun.
What’s a “mooreabite?” Your crappy attempt to be clever?
From the look of your reply I get the feeling you know exactly what the term means, uh Fred
“mooreabites”? Does Watchman mean that we’re financially successful satirical film-makers? Cause, you know, I could use the money.
“Didn’t you hear Bush’s State of the Union address? What could be more enviornmentally-friendly than giving up our addiction to oil?”
Actually doing something about it instead of making false promises.
“Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: ‘par-&-“sIt
:an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism [defined as] an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures”
“Main Entry: em·bryo
Pronunciation: ’em-brE-“O
:an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception” during which time it is completely dependent upon the mother at the expense of her nutrition and sometimes her health.
Exactly what part of “it’s” addenda have you obstructed lately Brad?
Remember social security privatization?
…because, ingesting these things during pregnancy can result in your child growing up to be a Republican. Also, cut down on the 150 proof liquor.
Neoconartist-
It’s just a really partisan time right now. People on my side of the isle are justifiably angry at this administration, and aren’t willing to compromise one inch.
It all started in the run-up to the 2002 midterm elections when:
1.) The administration used the midterm elections as a way to bully and pressure Congress into giving them the authority to go to war with Iraq. Any Democrats that dissented had their patriotism/manhood challenged.
2.) The GOP worked language into the Homeland Security Dept. act gutting rights for public employee unions. This caused many Democrats to vote against the act, even though it was actually a Democrat idea. Once again, Bush used this to attack the opposition, saying “They’re more interested in defending union bosses than defending the country.”
That’s basically where it started, and it’s only gotten worse since then. The way this administration has operated- unilaterally pulling out of the Kyoto protocol, running roughshod over human rights laws, shredding our long-held alliances, insisting on making its tax cuts permanent even during a time of war, smearing John Kerry’s war record… this administration has given people on my side zero reason to trust it, zero reason to expect compromise and negotiation will be fruitful.
Neoconartist, if you think that Roberts and Alito were a good thing because they oppose abortion, I have to wonder to what lengths you would go to end this “developmental discrimination”?
Alito’s record shows that he nearly always rules on the side of governmental and corporate priviledge over the individual, and most of these rulings were overturned (when on a single-judge case) or in the minority opinion (on “panel” cases). So while you’re waiting for Alito to get the chance to rule against abortion rights, what are you willing to support?
The belief that it’s OK for police to strip-search a ten-year-old girl without a warrant?
The “unitary executive” philosophy that means the Executive branch is supreme over the other two? (Or, more pithily, it’s the “urinary” executive philosophy, cause it means the executive branch can piss on the Constitution whenever it wants.)
The idea that any comment the president makes in the moment he signs a bill has more weight in determining legislative intent than weeks of officially conducted and recorded debate in both houses of Congress?
The belief that (and this is my favorite!) new evidence of innocence is not sufficient to reverse a death sentence if there were no “procedural abnormalites” in the original trial? (In the case in question, subsequent DNA tests cleared the prisoner while he waited on death row, but Alito said that alone was not enough to overturn a conviction?
I hope you’re willing to sign on to these judicial philosophies and more, because that’s the price of maybe getting the chance to overturn Roe v. Wade.
“Neoconartist, if you think that Roberts and Alito were a good thing because they oppose abortion, I have to wonder to what lengths you would go to end this “developmental discrimination”?”
I believe you are putting words in my mouth, Dorothy, and you are not even my ventriloquist. You assumed that my reasons for liking Roberts and Alito were because they each seem to be pro-life on the issue of abortion.
I think Roberts and Alito are a good thing because I think they each have histories that demonstrate a fair, intelligent and honest approach to the law. The reason the filibuster didn’t take hold is because certain democrats were painfully aware that Alito had a stellar record and to go against him strictly on the basis of a political litmus test, rather than an honest appraisal of their respective abilities would have represented the most abysmal form of opportunism and
intellectual dishonesty.
“The administration used the midterm elections as a way to bully and pressure Congress into giving them the authority to go to war with Iraq.”
Brad, with all due respect, because I like you and I think you are fair and reasonable in ways that many who merely visit here are not), the anger started long before those events that you’ve mentioned. It goes back to the day they took Clinton to task, ostensibly because he lied under oath about the Lewinsky matter. Although Clinton excercised extremely poor judgement, some used his act of adolescent regression to play “gotcha” politics and went to far in the process, so the anger, may have been justified to some degree.
Their anger intensified when the supreme court came down on Bush’s side. The election was won fair and square, but the dems portrayed Bush as a thief who stole the election. They grossly underestimated his staying power and, and ignored the core values of the masses, and, in the process and Bush won the next election, without any help from the supremes.
Now, as for the matter of war with Iraq, what was the administration going to do to those who voted against giving them the authority to go to war with Iraq, torture them? Shoot them in the back of the head? Would you want somebody representing you in Congress that voted on the basis of feeling pressured rather than according to their own conscience and their own honest appraisal of the situation? The fact that is so often obfuscated with liberal talking points is that many dems, including John Kerry were every bit as gung ho about going to war with Iraq as Bush was. They all changed their tunes when they found out that they were wrong on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and it was no longer politically expedient to support the war efforts.
You never know… and by the way, pal, do you have a better horse to ride right now?
That’s right, chump, ya gotta go with the president ya have, not the president you’d like to have. When are ya gonna get on board and be a team player already?
Sheesh, whadda bunch of obstructionists.
I think Roberts and Alito are a good thing because I think they each have histories that demonstrate a fair, intelligent and honest approach to the law.
Wrong.
Their anger intensified when the supreme court came down on Bush’s side. The election was won fair and square,
Wrong.
Wow, that was easy.
Brad, with all due respect, because I like you and I think you are fair and reasonable in ways that many who merely visit here are not), the anger started long before those events that you’ve mentioned.
There was the usual partisan anger, but it only really intensified after the 2002 midterm elections and the start of the Iraq war. That’s when Howard Dean started gaining appeal.
Remember, Bush had very high approval ratings for a couple years after 9/11.
Now, as for the matter of war with Iraq, what was the administration going to do to those who voted against giving them the authority to go to war with Iraq, torture them?
Hey, that’s what they did to prisoners of war. They might as well have given it a shot.
Would you want somebody representing you in Congress that voted on the basis of feeling pressured rather than according to their own conscience and their own honest appraisal of the situation?
Conscience and honest appraisal. And the administration basically ramped up their campaign for the Iraq war right before the 2002 midterms.
As for all the Democrats being totally “gung ho,” about the war, here’s what then-Senate majority leader Tom Daschle said on September 26, 2002:
I was given a report about a recommendation made by Matthew Dowd, the pollster for the White House and the Republican National Committee. He told a victory dinner not long ago, I quote, “The No. 1 driver for our base motivationally is this war.”
Dowd said war could be beneficial to the G.O.P. in the 2002 elections.
And then, I quote, “When an issue dominates the landscape like this one, it will dominate the landscape in a way that probably for a long time to come would put the Republicans on a very good footing.”
I thought, well, perhaps that’s a pollster. Perhaps pollsters are paid to say what’s best, regardless of what other considerations ought to be made. Pollsters are paid to tell you about the politics of issues. And were it left with pollsters, perhaps I wouldn’t be as concerned. But then I read that Andy Card was asked, well, why did this issue come before Washington and the country now? Why are we debating it in September? Where were we last year? Where were we last spring? And Mr. Card’s answer was, “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.” […]
“Is the White House politicizing the war?” And I have said, without question: “I can’t bring myself to believe that it is. I can’t believe any president or any administration would politicize the war.”
But then I read in the paper this morning, now, even the president, the president is quoted in The Washington Post this morning as saying that “the Democratic-controlled Senate is not interested in the security of the American people.”
Not interested in the security of the American people? You tell Senator Inouye he’s not interested in the security of the American people! You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War II they’re not interested in the security of the American people! That is outrageous! Outrageous!
And Daschle was right, of course, but the dummy voted to give Bush the authority anyway, saying that the country ought “to speak with one voice at this critical moment.”
And his reward was to be further painted as a partisan obstructionist.
So like I’ve said, there is absolutely no point in negotiating with the Bush administration. If you are the opposition party, they are out to get you. It doesn’t matter how important the issue is.
Oh, and there’s also the matter of the oh-so-cute stuff Karl Rove does to his political opponents during campaigns. Basically, shady whisper campaigns follow him wherever he goes. When Bush was running against Ann Richards, rumors flew around that she was a lesbian. when he ran against McCain, he had people make phone calls implying that McCain had fathered an illegitimate child with a black woman. And of course, we all remember the glory that was the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth.
So yes, these sort of things tend to make you angry and uncompromising. When you have a White House that is determined to screw you over, even when you’re willing to deal with it, you tend to get nasty and bitter.
Your responses are refreshingly intelligent, Brad. Still there is at least one major flaw in your argument.
“And the administration basically ramped up their campaign for the Iraq war right before the 2002 midterms.”
Brad, the co-occurance of events doesn’t necessarily prove cause-and-effect. Just because one observes that more people buy ice cream cones in the summer doesn’t prove that heat caused them to purchase the cones. When one jumps to these sorts of conclusions, one ignores the possibility of extraneous variables that might be contributing to the phenomenon. All possible extraneous variables must be systematically accounted for before one can assume a cause-and-effect relationship between variables.
And if anyone believes that I selectively apply this truism, I swear that this is the same statement I made when everyone was accusing Clinton of waging a wag-the-dog campaign to obfuscate the Lewinsky matter.
The cyanide of cynicism leads members of both parties to automatically draw these cause-and-effect conclusions. That is why ab initio, accusations have been flying back and forth between dems and republicans implying that members of the opposite side are using the war for political gain. While common sense suggests that political motives are involved in virtually every issue, this is an impossible premise to prove and, at the very least, one must distribute one’s suspicions equally across party lines and not just assume that only one party is guilty of exploiting issues for political gain.
People, your attempts to “educate” our fake troll, “neoconartist,” are fairly pointless. He’s just Dr. BLT in another guise. You’ve ran those arguments past him before, and it accomplished exactly… what? So, don’t act like this is someone new, who you might have the possibility of having a rational conversation with. Respond to him exactly as you would to Dr. BLT, because… That’s. Who. He. Is.
Oh goody, neoconartist remembers his Philosophy 101 course and that correlation doesn’t equal causation. Which is where he no doubt picked up the vulgar caricature of what he will probably be pleased to call “the scientific method” when he writes: “All possible extraneous variables must be systematically accounted for before one can assume a cause-and-effect relationship between variables.” His prized A in that course and his equally prized memory of his professor patting him on the head is probably what he thinks entitles him to such lordly condescension as complimenting Brad on his “refreshingly intelligent” answers. Of course that the covering law model of causation for social events, by locking them into a monocausal schema, is usually thought of as an outdated, mid-century model that wrongfully uses a physics model for a multicausal social event, escapes him, which is why he never seems to have advanced beyond Phil 101. But enough of putting down the amateur who thinks his having learned to parrot old formulas and to condescend to his interlocutors will make him seem to have the “intelligence” he so gracefully confers on Brad. The point is that Brad didn’t simply posit that the Bush admin timed its war campaign with the 2002 midterms, but that he offered evidence of the smearing and intimidation that accompanied that campaign, along with lots of other evidence of their dirty tricks. Evidence rather than condescension. Pretty refreshingly intelligent in my book too.
Looks like you’ve out-condescended me, John. Great job! I’ve heard of mulicausation and I’ve studied General Systems Theory. I know that theoretically, events don’t occur in a linear fashion, but in the real world, one has to occasionally use linear explanations as metaphors to get ones point across.
Also, I know you find it hard to believe that I could call Brad’s response “refreshingly intelligent” without a condescending motive, but I honestly think he’s more intelligent than many and I honestly find that refreshing.
The point is, neoconartist, that your posts don’t demonstrate the intelligence necessary to recognize it in others. Now, about that evidence Brad furnishes to support his claim. When will you respond to it?
John, I’m picking up on two conflicting messages here. First, you say my posts don’t demonstrate the intelligence necessary to recognize it in others, and then you ask me to post a response to Brad’s claims about the Bush administration. If you, with your smarter-than-thou attitude, don’t value my opinion, why do you then turn around and ask for my opinion?
I get the feeling you’re simply trying to drag me into an intellectual pissing contest. Well, John, my cognitive bladder is about ready to burst and I’m afraid you would drown if I relieved it in your presence.
Well, neoconartist, it seems you have confirmed for all of us what I intimated above: you have an inferiority complex that you try to relieve by pontificating about things you in fact know very little about. Otherwise, why would you compare your cognitive function to urination? It was your metaphor, after all. Unless you’re cleverly trying to put yourself in the position of the Prince of Wales in the immortal Monty Python skit:
Whistler: “Your Majesty is like a stream of bat’s piss.”
HRH: “What? Who said that?”
Whistler: “It was Shaw.”
HRH: “Well, Shaw, what did you mean by that?”
Shaw (in exaggerated Irish brogue): “It means Your Majesty is like a shaft of gold, when all around is darkness.”
All: “Very good, Shaw, very good!”
Now you’re really beginning to piss me off, John!
Alright, I’ll admit it.
That last one wasn’t too bad. Now, about Brad’s evidence …
First say uncle, and tell me that I’m smart.
Well, at the very least, one must acknowledge that they’ve done at least two things right: Robertson, and Alito. The Bush administration has also made it harder for women to discriminate against tiny little people for being developmentally premature: a phenomenon I refer to as a lethal form of developmental discrimination or ageism.
–Neoconartist
I believe you are putting words in my mouth, Dorothy, and you are not even my ventriloquist. You assumed that my reasons for liking Roberts and Alito were because they each seem to be pro-life on the issue of abortion.
–Neoconartist
Can’t even keep your own comments straight. Must be hard pretending to be two people, hard to remember which mouth spewed which bullshit.
I think Roberts and Alito are a good thing because I think they each have histories that demonstrate a fair, intelligent and honest approach to the law. The reason the filibuster didn’t take hold is because certain democrats were painfully aware that Alito had a stellar record and to go against him strictly on the basis of a political litmus test, rather than an honest appraisal of their respective abilities would have represented the most abysmal form of opportunism and
intellectual dishonesty.
1. I said nothing about Roberts.
2. So you do think that those examples of Alito’s “rights? we don’t need no stinkin’ rights!” are “a fair, intelligent and honest approach to the law”, even though he’s been overturned or in the minority most of the time.
Thanks. That answers my question. I honestly hope you are never wrongly convicted of murder and then later cleared by new evidence. Because Alito said during his confirmation hearing that he would be willing to let that innocent man die.
And don’t take that as something “nice” I’ve said about you. Even assholes should be afforded their full rights under the law. Gods bless America!
Tell you that you’re smart? Why don’t you list your qualifications again? Because that’s always so classy.
And what was that you said about Brad’s evidence?
I didn’t say I was classy, John. And I didn’t ask you to call me “classy.” Believe me, I’m as revolted as you seem to be about my penchant for braggadocio. Since so many bad, mean things are said about me, sometimes I feel the need to balance the scales, and, in the process, I may sound arrogant. If you met me in person, it wouldn’t take long to realize I am one of the most humble people you will ever meet.
Speaking of humility, I know it’s hard for you to swallow your pride, and to follow my request. I’ll make it a bit easier on your pride. Just say, “Uncle!” and then take back the remark about me not being intelligent enough to gauge intelligence in others. (That’s also an insult to Brad, BTW).
Then I promise I will address the issue of Brad’s “evidence.”
Is your ego smartin’, doc? Sure looks like it.
Just a little, Random Guy, but I’m not going to blame it on the “liberally” applied abuse that has obviously caused it. That will only bring on more abuse, and then you won’t be able to distinguish my ego from those splattered bugs on your car windshield.
Bruce, you seem confused. Addressing Brad’s evidence is the way you prove your intelligence. You don’t get me to acknowledge it by just asking, and you sure don’t get it by a pathetic listing of accomplishments, no matter how hurt your feelings are. Show me it by addressing Brad’s evidence without any sophomoric mistakes and I’ll acknowledge it. Your previous attempts failed miserably, and when I point that out, you sulk. Sorry, no handouts.
Brad hasn’t asked me to address anything. Maybe he’s satisfied with my original answer, or maybe he’s busy.
For some reason I feel no need to prove anything to you, John. In fact, though I joked about insisting that you say “uncle” and call me smart, I would be perfectly content if you believed I was the dumbest individual on the planet , and if you devoted your entire life to proclaiming it to the whole world.
I’m not sulking, John. But perhaps you are sulking over the fact that I’m denying your request, and if kleenex could dispensed over the internet, I would offer you one. No matter how many tear drops you cry over not getting the opinion you value so dearly, it doesn’t compare to drowning in the results of the intellectual pissing contest that I also turned down as an act of mercy.
In the immortal words of Alysson Hannigan, playing Willow on Buffy: “Bored now.”
And, in the immortal words of Meat Loaf, playing himself, “You took the words right out of my mouth.”
Cheap Plane Tickets
New Jersey Insurance
Lesbian Orgy
New York Personal Injury Lawyer