| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
|
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 and here's a reason...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:22:50 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: Oh, I doubt she would or could influence the election very much if at all, but other more visible and "mainstream" celebs can and will. ... You repeat the same silly piffle here over and over in a variety of different ways but it all comes down to the same thing, "American voters are stupid but if you guys actually call them stupid they're gonna vote GOP, so take *that*, neener, neener, neener." The GOP has put up a crazy old warmonger who chose a category five moron from the snake-handling wing of the Republican party as his running mate and all you want to do is gloat because the American voter is so goddamn stupid they'll probably get elected. Why do you hate America so much ? To generally quote a little-known white Mississippi Dem, Gene Taylor, we have some 225 million adults in the US, a goodly percentage of which are eligible for the office, and these 4 are the best we could come up with...? (And yep, he did say specifically and emphatically "4") Again, it's not a matter of picking the best person for the job, it's a matter of picking from the four ya got. It has been apparent for some time that Obama ain't nothing special - just another pol trying to get to the show any way he can. Trust me or don't, should the "real thing" ever come along, they'll need to be begged and pleaded with to get within 100 miles of a modern campaign, and in the end, will probably wind up saying, ala Bradley, Romney, etc., "oh, just **** it..." TC, R |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 and here's a reason...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:22:03 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: snip the usual piffle I have no idea if Google leans right or left. I'm not sure what you mean by that. It means that you can safely assume that Budweiser still sucks... HTH, R |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 and here's a reason...
|
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
|
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: snip the usual piffle I have no idea if Google leans right or left. I'm not sure what you mean by that. It means that you can safely assume that Budweiser still sucks... Well, I don't want to assume anything until I ask you, straight up, what did you mean by that ? you know...that was exceptionally well done. jeff |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
|
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
On Sep 24, 2:41*am, wrote:
I deal with children all day, I don't need to do it here, too. Oh sure you do. And there ya have it. --riverman |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 and here's a reason...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:56:47 -0400, jeff miller
wrote: wrote: On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:22:07 -0400, Jeff wrote: wrote: On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:20:30 -0400, jeff miller wrote: wrote: On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:12:37 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote: She's a comedian, with a propensity for shock humor. I wouldn't call what she says 'racism' (or in this case, sexism or pro-semitism), I'd just call it bad humor. Hmmm...I'd call suggesting that "black men" would be interested in, much less predisposed to, gang-raping someone pretty racist, but hey, YMMV...IAC, what's that when compared to someone merely mentioning the title of a record by a black man, right? And there ya are, R i wasn't offended or bothered by your relatively lame attempt at irony or satire (or whatever it was), anymore than i was at sandra b's brand of outrageous humor. an apparent right-wing provocateur, poking at us liberals and obama supporters by using a quotation containing the n-word isn't necessarily or always racist. ...and richard pryor ... well, of course, neither you nor sandra is richard pryor. but then, i'm not the most sophisticated, intuitive, or informed audience for such attempts by the not-richard-pryors either. What makes you so sure I'm "right-wing?" And that's a hint...you're a lawyer, and you should have learned about it first-year... TC, R jeff i admit i have no idea whether you are in fact right-wing. all i really know about you is what i perceive, rightly or wrongly, from your writings here...and, i have confessed to being less than an astute or intelligent audience. however, i trust you did not overlook my intentional use of the word "apparent". i doubt i'm alone among most here in perceiving the majority of your political and economic statements as having a "right-wing" tilt...anymore than i doubt you are alone in your belief that i should have learned more in my first year of law school...or life. Oh, geezus. I didn't say you SHOULD have learned more in your first year of law school. I said you DID learn about what I was hinting at: ask questions at the appropriate time - you know, like before you assume your client wasn't found standing over the body with a smoking .38 screaming "HOW DID YOU LIKE THAT, MOFO?!?!" and you find out he was when the prosecutor asks him about it in front of the jury. I find it startling that most folks around here never say, "I'm not sure what you mean by that, so rather than ask, I'll just assume..." Is that enough of a ****ing hint? Oh, OK, for the terminally-serious - G... look at the web site you posted for the sandra b. thing. even you ought to agree it is a "right-wing" site No, I ought not agree with that...well, maybe I ought to, but I won't because I cannot...because until I heard about what she said and Googled it, with that being the first hit, I had never heard of the site and know nothing about it. I read that one story, moved on to a couple of other hits, and haven't been back to it. But if you and Dave S. say it is, I'll take your word for it. IAC, I don't see what the political leaning of the site, if any, would have to do with the things she said and whoever/whatever quoted as saying. Heck, it had a link to a YouTube video, so I doubt there was much room to twist her words one way or the other. ...and probably far on the right. you seem to enjoy using articles and statements gleaned from such places...so, you have an appearance of a certain characteristic. contrary to some others, i did not mean it as a slander...some of my best friends are right-wing republicans. G I'd offer that more of the things I post come from the "major news outlets" (CNN, networks, AP, Reuters, etc.) than any other source. I'd not call any of those "far on the right," but YMMV. If I post something from a source such as whatever site the Sandra Bernhard piece was from, chances are it was among the first Google hits on something I heard about. I have no idea if Google leans right or left. TC, R jeff you said: "...and you **should** have learned about it first-year.." i said: "...i doubt you are alone in your belief that i should have learned more in my first year." then, you said: "Oh, geezus. I didn't say you SHOULD have learned more in your first year of law school." Non sequitur - I didn't say you should have learned _more_, I said you should have learned _it_. You may or may not have learned a damned thing, but you should have learned _it_...even if by osmosis, if you weren't paying attention. And I would guess, but do not assume, that you were doing so, at least insofar as that little topic was concerned, but either way, I'd guess you now know to what I was referring. be patient, i'll try to do better in gleaning your intended meaning...g Please do...it'll be ever so helpful. i thought ken and myron overly sensitive and critical in their suggestions about the implication of your post, though i also recognized the linking of the pryor title with an obama reference as opening you to such criticism. Hmm, well, I've spent little time worrying about what other people link in their minds to what, but admittedly, I figured a few of our more, er, "liberal" folk would link and criticize away...in fact, that was the point... you provided the link to that site. it's not a stretch to think a writer has examined his own citations, is it? Absolutely, but only as far as needed - it provided quotes and video, so there's not a lot to examine. Do you delve into the entire history of the lawyers, clerks, judges, and opponents on every case you site? as far as asking you what you mean in your posts, hell...i'm a fan of the great mystery. tell me when i make a mistake, and i'll try to learn. still...i didn't make a mistake in not voting for bush, and i'll not be making a mistake when i vote for obama. obama may not win the election...but, imo, it won't be because a better individual beat him. Sure it will, but hey, that's why there's chocolate and vanilla...OTOH, same thing if Obama wins... HTH, R jeff |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
|
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
On Sep 23, 3:52*am, wrote:
We all see the problem differently. You blame the middle class, not a failed ideology, not the cleptocracy, not Wall Street crooks. I blame woodenheads, who hopefully are waking up now after 2 huge presidential mistakes, and starting to smell the coffee. Well of course you avoided the question. But I'll play along, for the sake of others who may wonder what the hell I am referring to. Actually one fresh new published source on just how far the rot has spread in the GOP is a new book by a Republican dirty tricks operative, convicted, time served and now the author of . . . "How to Rig an Election, Confessions of a Republican Operative" (Allan Raymond,) Raymond describes his work over the last 8 years or so, and the systematic illegal efforts of the RNC to undermine US democracy's election systems. For example, deceptive robocalls to Democrats using a scary sounding black male voice, and another operation that targeted Democratic union men, with calls from actors using heavy Spanish accents, threatening to take their jobs. The race themes play heavy in many of these operations. Some of the crap you posted sounded like it came from one of these operations targeting Black ministers supporting Obama. Part of the operation used bogus threats of IRS subpoenas to Iowa Ministers. Raymond tells what he did, who paid him, who also was involved. You might also look at the career of James Tobin (Former RNC Party Boss/ chieftain for New England) who the RNC has spent $6 million defending for his role in various illegal activities for the RNC. Dave I bet this book is even available to Massachusetts readers |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 and here's a reason...
|
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 and here's a reason...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:17:40 -0400, daytripper
wrote: On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:33:52 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:22:50 -0500, Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: Oh, I doubt she would or could influence the election very much if at all, but other more visible and "mainstream" celebs can and will. ... You repeat the same silly piffle here over and over in a variety of different ways but it all comes down to the same thing, "American voters are stupid but if you guys actually call them stupid they're gonna vote GOP, so take *that*, neener, neener, neener." The GOP has put up a crazy old warmonger who chose a category five moron from the snake-handling wing of the Republican party as his running mate and all you want to do is gloat because the American voter is so goddamn stupid they'll probably get elected. Why do you hate America so much ? To generally quote a little-known white Mississippi Dem, Gene Taylor, we have some 225 million adults in the US, a goodly percentage of which are eligible for the office, and these 4 are the best we could come up with...? (And yep, he did say specifically and emphatically "4") Again, it's not a matter of picking the best person for the job, it's a matter of picking from the four ya got. It has been apparent for some time that Obama ain't nothing special - just another pol trying to get to the show any way he can. Trust me or don't, should the "real thing" ever come along, they'll need to be begged and pleaded with to get within 100 miles of a modern campaign, and in the end, will probably wind up saying, ala Bradley, Romney, etc., "oh, just **** it..." TC, R You put "real thing" in the same sentence with "Romney"?!? /daytripper (ahahahahahahahahahaha!) Yes, I did, although I didn't call him (or Bradley) that. I simply used them as references of seemingly good, qualified people who have largely walked away from politics. Bradley was probably closer to "the real thing," and I'm not convinced Romney is _gone_, but ??? IMO, of the major party candidates that had a reasonable shot, Romney appeared to be the best of the pack on the economy and world affairs. I don't know enough about him to make a comment about his being the "real thing" or not, but I'd say he was probably a better choice than any of the current four. TC, R |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
On Sep 23, 7:17 pm, daytripper wrote:
You put "real thing" in the same sentence with "Romney"?!? /daytripper (ahahahahahahahahahaha!) Maybe he was talking about *George*. Chuck Vance |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
On Sep 23, 3:22 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: American voter is so g**d*** stupid they'll probably get elected. And jeff wrote: I'm with Maher on this one - our voters are a scary crowd of folks in their decision-making process. I've said this before, but it's worth saying again. If this is the typical Dem's view of the average American public, then they deserve not to get elected. It's been this exact attitude that's lost them the last two elections, which they should have both easily won, and if they make it three in a row, maybe they'll finally do some navel gazing. But if they persist in blaming the American voter as being to stupid to vote for them, they deserve what they get. Take care, Jon. |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
|
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 and here's a reason...
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: American voter is so g**d*** stupid they'll probably get elected. And jeff wrote: I'm with Maher on this one - our voters are a scary crowd of folks in their decision-making process. I've said this before, but it's worth saying again. Say it all you want but it wasn't worth saying before and it's still not. If this is the typical Dem's view of the average American public, then they deserve not to get elected. It's been this exact attitude that's lost them the last two elections, which they should have both easily won, and if they make it three in a row, maybe they'll finally do some navel gazing. But if they persist in blaming the American voter as being to stupid to vote for them, they deserve what they get. Most Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. Most Americans believe that god created humans in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. Most Americans cannot name *ANY* current US Supreme Court justices. Most Americans cannot name the three branches of government and more than one in three believes that the three branches of government are Republican, Democrat and Independent. The American voter is stupid alright, dumber than a box of rocks. And the Republicans, starting with Nixon's "southern strategy", have perfected the fine art of exploiting the stupid. But you're right about one thing, the American voter gets the government they deserve. What could possibly be more heart-warming and enlightening than the American electorate calling itself stupid and then proceeding to prove it, rebutted by the American electorate calling itself stupid and then proceeding to prove it, iterate, iterate, iterate........ People everywhere deserve good government. Perhaps if more people gave at least a perfunctory nod to the notion of thinking about what constitutes good government and how to achieve it, we wouldn't be blessed with endless (and endlessly entertaining) repetitions of the American electorate calling itself stupid and then proceeding to prove it, rebutted by the American electorate calling itself stupid and then proceeding to prove it, iterate, iterate, iterate........ Probably not......but what have we got to lose by trying? Meanwhile, what could possibly be more hilarious than the kennies, davies, stevies, predators, etc......and dicklet.....seeing themselves as rising above the intellectual and moral level of the general run of the American electorate? Wolfgang |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
On Sep 24, 8:04*am, wrote:
I've said this before, but it's worth saying again. If this is the typical Dem's view of the average American public, then they deserve not to get elected. It's been this exact attitude that's lost them the last two elections, which they should have both easily won, and if they make it three in a row, maybe they'll finally do some navel gazing. But if they persist in blaming the American voter as being to stupid to vote for them, they deserve what they get. Take care, Jon. Jon, so let me understand this. Are you saying that the Ds lost the last 2 elections because some "typical Dem's" said that the average voter is not fully informed? I thought it had something to do with the fact that a large percent of the voters said the believed that Iraq was behind 9/11 or maybe Iran, that fundamentalist voters believed that God wanted Shrub to lead America as their pastors told them, that Kerry was swishy, that global warming was a Gore fantasy, that Wall Street was safer than Social Security as their President told them, that stem cell research somehow was related to murder, and that the "hydrogen economy" was the answer to peak oil, just like their President told them. But I could be wrong. How does your analysis account for the fact that the a large proportion of the average voters . . . do not even vote in most elections? Are the "typical Dems" also responsible? Why did you vote for Shrub? Because some "typical Dem" spoke in an irritating way? Will you use the same decision criteria a third time? ;-)) Dave |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
|
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
|
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
|
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
Russell D. wrote:
wrote: Oh, ok, I hate it when you're right... http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...re-idiots.html Jon. Well, I suppose that makes me one because I clicked on it more that twice expecting something to show up. :-( Russell Or insane I guess. Whew, never mind--my browser was wigged out. Restart fixed it. Russell |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
|
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
On Sep 24, 11:43 am, wrote:
Jon, so let me understand this. Are you saying that the Ds lost the last 2 elections because some "typical Dem's" said that the average voter is not fully informed? No, I'm saying that their disdain for the average American shows through at stump time, and the average American doesn't like being talked down to that way. E.g, the bitter clinging to God and guns comment. Things might be bad enough this time around that they win, but that it's even a race ought to be telling to the Democratic party... Why did you vote for Shrub? Didn't know you could hack in to election records. I've voted split ticket at the _federal_ level for as many elections as I can remember, and IIRC I've never told anyone but family who I've voted for...I'm not about to start affirming or denying now...either party is welcome to blame the mess on me! :-) Jon. PS: And in most elections I'd much rather just vote none of the above, as I feel I'm really just trying to pick the lesser of two evils. |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
|
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 and here's a reason...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:35:12 -0400, Jeff wrote:
wrote: On Sep 23, 3:22 pm, Ken Fortenberry wrote: American voter is so g**d*** stupid they'll probably get elected. And jeff wrote: I'm with Maher on this one - our voters are a scary crowd of folks in their decision-making process. I've said this before, but it's worth saying again. If this is the typical Dem's view of the average American public, then they deserve not to get elected. It's been this exact attitude that's lost them the last two elections, which they should have both easily won, and if they make it three in a row, maybe they'll finally do some navel gazing. But if they persist in blaming the American voter as being to stupid to vote for them, they deserve what they get. Take care, Jon. Have you spent much time talking with folks of diverse backgrounds and socioeconomic levels about their choices and the reasons for their choices? Unlike Ken's comment, though I agree we have a terribly uninformed electorate who seem to make decisions on the most superficial level and often on single issues or even mistaken beliefs, my comment was less direct and simply referenced how scary the decision-making process has become. ...and it applies to voters of both major parties. Look at the negative, superficial nature of the political campaigns. It's all directed at sound-bite impulse buying. Why is that? Do you think it's because either party regards voters as intelligent consumers of such dogma? McCain and Palin have made numerous demonstrably false statements in their public statements about their positions and about Obama's. I am amazed at the number of people I talk with who believe those statements are true...they recite them drone-like. And Obama has done the exact same thing, with folks reciting drone-like... A significant number think offshore drilling is going to have an immediate beneficial impact on their gas prices. Because they will and did. Keep in mind how oil and gasoline prices are set. The mere threat that offshore drilling would be opened up caused a downward price move. What it will not do is have an immediate impact on supply, but again, oil prices aren't set by supply and demand. Recall the number of voters who believed Iraq had responsibility for 9/11. Why is that? I'm not so sure that the number of people who actually thought that is the same as the number certain surveys claimed. I doubt I'm the typical Dem. I'm pretty sure Ken isn't. Please. You wanted Edwards, and then Obama. He wanted Obama. Hell, even his own running mate said McCain would make a good Prez and Obama wasn't qualified...well, until he got his dick slammed in the door, but wound up on the ticket, and now, suddenly, Obama is Jesus on a donkey and McCain isn't fit to shovel ****. HTH, R jeff |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 and here's a reason...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:09:52 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: On Sep 24, 11:43 am, wrote: Jon, so let me understand this. Are you saying that the Ds lost the last 2 elections because some "typical Dem's" said that the average voter is not fully informed? No, I'm saying that their disdain for the average American shows through at stump time, and the average American doesn't like being talked down to that way. E.g, the bitter clinging to God and guns comment. Amongst the elitist, disdainful Americans I know who actually have family/friends of the god and guns variety the typical first reaction was "Oh my gawd, that is *so* spot on" Er, yeah...among the God and guns crowd, the use of the phrase "that is *so* spot on..." is only exceeded by the use of the phrase, "Good lord, Liz, I should expect that the Queen of England would not be so gauche as to pass the port to starboard...Phil, would you mind awfully backhanding yo bitch..." HTH, R |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: ... E.g, the bitter clinging to God and guns comment. Amongst the elitist, disdainful Americans I know who actually have family/friends of the god and guns variety the typical first reaction was "Oh my gawd, that is *so* spot on" Er, yeah...among the God and guns crowd, the use of the phrase "that is *so* spot on..." is only exceeded by the use of the phrase, "Good lord, Liz, I should expect that the Queen of England would not be so gauche as to pass the port to starboard...Phil, would you mind awfully backhanding yo bitch..." What exactly did you mean by that ? -- Ken Fortenberry |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 andhere's a reason...
|
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 and here's a reason...
wrote in message ... On Sep 24, 11:43 am, wrote: Jon, so let me understand this. Are you saying that the Ds lost the last 2 elections because some "typical Dem's" said that the average voter is not fully informed? No, I'm saying that their disdain for the average American shows through at stump time, and the average American doesn't like being talked down to that way. E.g, the bitter clinging to God and guns comment. No, what you said was that those who didn't vote for Bush deserve him and those who did don't. Things might be bad enough this time around that they win, but that it's even a race ought to be telling to the Democratic party... It's always a race, moron. Why did you vote for Shrub? Didn't know you could hack in to election records. I've voted split ticket at the _federal_ level for as many elections as I can remember, and IIRC I've never told anyone but family who I've voted for...I'm not about to start affirming or denying now...either party is welcome to blame the mess on me! :-) Ah, the courage of one's convictions! How refreshing. Jon. PS: And in most elections I'd much rather just vote none of the above, as I feel I'm really just trying to pick the lesser of two evils. And you're not about to give anyone the benefit of your insight into which that would be......right? Wouldn't want to exert undue influence on the what is supposed to be a free electorate, huh? Wolfgang who sometimes wonders what life might be like in a place where the populace sees a real and useful distinction between an election and a high school football game......rah!.....rah!.....rah!......go team! |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 and here's a reason...
"jeff miller" wrote in message . .. mccain isn't fit to shovel ****...but palin seems qualified. Whatever her technical skills, it seems to me she lacks the requisite herculean physique. Wolfgang and then there's the whole issue of which way to shovel in the interest of stable government. |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 and here's a reason...
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... Whatever her technical skills, it seems to me she lacks the requisite herculean physique. Wolfgang and then there's the whole issue of which way to shovel in the interest of stable government. Having known and seen many a woman very capable of mucking stalls, I think she is perfectly qualified to shovel ****. It may even be a preferable job option for her, over being VP, given the current complexities...... Tom |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 and here's a reason...
"Tom Littleton" wrote in message ... "Wolfgang" wrote in message ... Whatever her technical skills, it seems to me she lacks the requisite herculean physique. Wolfgang and then there's the whole issue of which way to shovel in the interest of stable government. Having known and seen many a woman very capable of mucking stalls, I think she is perfectly qualified to shovel ****. It may even be a preferable job option for her, over being VP, given the current complexities...... Tom Hm........28 hours. Oh well.... About 17 years ago (my how time flies!) I spent a year working at a "youth ranch" in southeastern Missouri. The central tenet governing the organization that ran this bizarre enterprise was some sort of garbled half-notion that at risk youngsters could somehow be taught how to function properly within a modern post-industrial society by constant and intense exposure to horses and the pitifully self-deluded latter day "cowboy" misfits who mistakenly thought they were smarter than their charges......whether bi- or quadru- pedal. My affiliation with this outfit necessarily resulted in a great deal of personal experience in shoveling manure out of a horse barn, as well as witnessing others of all ages and both sexes engaged in the same exercise. I guess I know about as much as most folks, and more than most folks really need to, about the job requirements and who (generally speaking) might be qualified. Meanwhile....... The adjective "herculean" is usually found affixed to the noun "task" or some synonym therefor. It derives (indirectly) from the Romanized name of a hero of Greek mythology, Hercules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules who is famous for (among other things which need not concern us here) having completed a series of monumental assignments......or tasks.....deemed to be beyond the means of ordinary mortals. Thus, a "herculean" undertaking is one of stupendous proportions, and a "herculean" physique is, by extension, one which would allow its bearer to do things that most others would find impossible. One of the tasks assigned to Hercules was the cleaning of the Augean stables in a single day. Details are sketchy but it is safe to presume that the job was of suitably herculean magnitude. All of this, of course, is mythology and can thus be considered as extended metaphor, allegory, trope or what have you. Not surprisingly, the metaphor is frequently applied, whether directly or more obliquely, to many situations to this day. That's what I did, above. I had thought the mere use of "herculean" in a response to references to shoveling **** would make it clear that Ms. Palin's literal qualifications for this particular activity were not seriously in question and that something else was being not so subtly suggested. I had further thought that the reference to "which way to shovel in the interest of *stable* government" would clinch the matter for those who still had doubts. To further clarify, for those who STILL don't get it... ALL natural human languages suffer to one degree or another from inherent ambiguity. Ask any linguist......or any mathematician. However, this is not necessarily ALWAYS bad news. Sometimes, very often in fact, ambiguity is extremely useful. It makes possible a whole host of constructions which would otherwise be either absolutely impossible or at least greatly diminished. Poetry comes readily to mind. So does metaphor. Thus, "stable government" might in some circumstances be taken as a reference to the sort of government one might expect to emanate from a place inhabited for decades by a succession of groups of horses' asses, a byproduct of which might require periodic removal by one means or another. Naturally, simple hygiene (as well as other beneficial outcomes) would require the services of someone who was not only up to the "herculean" physical demands of the job at the locale in question, which while not explicitly named here should be clear enough, but also capable of remembering that efficiency (let alone other considerations) requires shoveling the already present offending matter out........and not adding more to it. Wolfgang |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 and here's a reason...
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... No, what you said was that those who didn't vote for Bush deserve him and those who did don't. this thing is getting insane. It's up to 3 judges now isn't it. That makes no sense Things might be bad enough this time around that they win, but that it's even a race ought to be telling to the Democratic party... It's always a race, moron. This thing is gonna blow up - epic proportions I think ----- Original Message ----- From: "marika" Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.taoism,alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 8:01 PM Subject: taoism and gnostic exegetical acrobatics "wanderriver" wrote in message ... Praise the egg maker! Here COME the JUDGE! You can't keep dipping into savings - that kills you fast The right person wouldn't be bad, but that is hard to come by too.\ He gets a free fur coat Sounds like a great job, but its terrible that the cost of living is so high. maybe a different place with a roommate?? Keep your eyes open for that job close to your parents. mk5000 "Jesus Wants Me For A Sunbeam Jesus don't want me for a sunbeam Sunbeams are not made like me Don't expect me to cry For all the reasons you had to die Don't ever ask your love of me"--Nirvana |
It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 and here's a reason...
"jeff miller" wrote in message . .. mccain isn't fit to shovel ****...but palin seems qualified. think about it... i've never liked their product so have never used it has there ever been a Hurricane Sara or a Hurricane Barrack? mk5000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "marika" Newsgroups: alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 9:16 AM Subject: the woman or the man Maybe not with Gustav on the way "Hurricane expert says Rita will be second worst storm behind Katrina" (Source: CBS News, 9/21/05) Fort Collins, Colorado - His name is Dr. William Gray and he is considered one of the world foremost experts on hurricanes and he warns that "Rita" is going to be a mother of a storm. Dr. Gray is at Colorado State University. He is considered a world- wide authority on hurricanes and he says Hurricane Rita will be the second worst storm he's seen in his lifetime, with Hurricane Katrina being the first. Dr. Gray predicted months ago that this hurricane season would be a bad one and he predicts that we'll likely see one or two more major storms before this season ends. Dr. Gray says if Rita stays on its current path, it's likely the storm will reach Category 4 strength with massive damage to oil production, resulting in higher gas prices and potentially doing about 100-billion dollars in damage. Dr. Gray says he disagrees with other experts who say the power of these storms is related to global warming. Dr. Gray says there is simply no proof of that. He says 1933 was a very active season, similar to this one. Dr. Gray says 1933 was a year with 21-named storms. Officials say there have been so many named storms this year; there is a chance we could run out of designated names this year. It's reported that has never happened before. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:56 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter