The Central Scrutinizer said:
DON'T TALK TO ME!! You're the one who almost got me in trouble and now you're trying to get me angry so I'll blow a lid and get banned permanent.
So SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!
And get rid of that stupid swordfish. I HATE it.
DON'T TALK TO ME!! You're the one who almost got me in trouble and now you're trying to get me angry so I'll blow a lid and get banned permanent.
So SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!
And get rid of that stupid swordfish. I HATE it.
TillEulenspiegel
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 30, 2003
- Messages
- 2,302
Re Joko
Hmm my statment " Bush represents petrodollars"
Your weak rejoinder "Wow, I had no idea that only petroluem industry emplyees had the vote these days. Funny, but I coulda sworn everyone had the chance to vote."
My retort "Read the post again , Petrodollars has nothing to to with Tom Jode Jr. who drills in the sands of Texas for siht wages, rather it represents big business."
Your final world quaking foil "o ◊◊◊◊, really? So I guess businesses vote. The point is still either naive, or so hopelessly misstated that I can't come to any other conclusion than you believe corporations - er, strike that, EVIL corporations - vote, and in greater numbers than the citizenry.
I personally vote for your misunderstanding plain english and ex-post facto justifaction for a sophmophoric outlook.
Money is power. Do you think that such a small thing like the American people or the prospect of fair and unbiased elections could ever stand in the way of billions of dollars? Tsk, tsk..Now, Who's being naive?
You make a lot of assumptions about Gore's mad skillz. I've seen a fair amount to the contrary - so let me clarify that he's not my choice because not he's dull, simply that he doesn't reflect my priorities. That he's dull just makes it easier to make fun of him. [/QUOTE]
I make no assumptions. I mearly contrast the known demonstrated public behavior of two different people. I assign no attributes other then those displayed aka " A man is defined ny his deeds".
Hmm my statment " Bush represents petrodollars"
Your weak rejoinder "Wow, I had no idea that only petroluem industry emplyees had the vote these days. Funny, but I coulda sworn everyone had the chance to vote."
My retort "Read the post again , Petrodollars has nothing to to with Tom Jode Jr. who drills in the sands of Texas for siht wages, rather it represents big business."
Your final world quaking foil "o ◊◊◊◊, really? So I guess businesses vote. The point is still either naive, or so hopelessly misstated that I can't come to any other conclusion than you believe corporations - er, strike that, EVIL corporations - vote, and in greater numbers than the citizenry.
I personally vote for your misunderstanding plain english and ex-post facto justifaction for a sophmophoric outlook.
Money is power. Do you think that such a small thing like the American people or the prospect of fair and unbiased elections could ever stand in the way of billions of dollars? Tsk, tsk..Now, Who's being naive?
You make a lot of assumptions about Gore's mad skillz. I've seen a fair amount to the contrary - so let me clarify that he's not my choice because not he's dull, simply that he doesn't reflect my priorities. That he's dull just makes it easier to make fun of him. [/QUOTE]
I make no assumptions. I mearly contrast the known demonstrated public behavior of two different people. I assign no attributes other then those displayed aka " A man is defined ny his deeds".
My first thoughts about Edwards:
After Senator Kerry says that the most important issue facing the nation is foreign policy, he picks a running mate with zero experience in that area.
After making his millions suing medical insurance carriers, I will be interested to hear what Senator Edwards has to say about the rising costs of health coverage.
Despite his lack of experience and ambulance-chasing career, he still outshines Kerry.
After Senator Kerry says that the most important issue facing the nation is foreign policy, he picks a running mate with zero experience in that area.
After making his millions suing medical insurance carriers, I will be interested to hear what Senator Edwards has to say about the rising costs of health coverage.
Despite his lack of experience and ambulance-chasing career, he still outshines Kerry.
TillEulenspiegel said:
OK, let's take this slow for the special kids.
Your statement, in full, was:
Which means roughly 50% of American voters opted for this nebulous "pretrodollar agenda." That being obvious and errant nonsense, I thought about who WOULD vote in favor of a petrochemical platform. And like yourself, I could only arrive at one conclusion: the evil petrochemical companies. Care to explain how that's weak?
Which contradicts your initial post and does nothing to clarify, except to expand the conspiracy beyond petrochemicals to include all big business, which we all know is inherently evil.
Yeah, a few re-readings sure would have made THAT clear.
And I give you full marks for your apparent immunity to sarcasm. That, and completely missing the friggin' point.
Ah, NOW we get to the point you apparently were trying to make three exchanges ago. So money buys elections? Then tell me why we're not arguing about whether or not to put President Perot on the 10 dollar bill.
I think it's clear who's being naive here.
You make so many assumptions you can't even see them. While I certainly agree with the idea that a man is judged by his deeds, I think you're on a very thin branch playing your game of "judge a man based on conjecture of what his demonstrably flawed opponent might have done if he'd won the election, which he didn't."
If that's all you got, I'll just close the book on this one.
Gore good, Bush/business bad. Got it. For those of us who don't live in the world of might-have-been, however, it's not particularly satisfying.
TillEulenspiegel
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 30, 2003
- Messages
- 2,302
Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Re Joko
Hmm my statement " Bush represents petrodollars"
Your weak rejoinder "Wow, I had no idea that only petroleum industry employees had the vote these days. Funny, but I could sworn everyone had the chance to vote."
Jocko
"OK, let's take this slow for the special kids.
Your statement, in full, was:
quote:
Till :
That's pretty much what I said Tmy and besides Bush represented petrodollars not prudent political philosophy. "
Jocko:
"Which means roughly 50% of American voters opted for this nebulous "pretrodollar agenda." That being obvious and errant nonsense, I thought about who WOULD vote in favor of a petrochemical platform. And like yourself, I could only arrive at one conclusion: the evil petrochemical companies. Care to explain how that's weak?"
What "petrodollar agenda"? Who raised that? Me? ...No You have inferred something I never said nor did other posters. If I am mistaken please point out the relevant passages. I never raised the electorate You did. So your pace even though slow seems to have outrun your capacity to understand your own rhetoric.
Till quote:
My retort "Read the post again , Petrodollars has nothing to to with Tom Jode Jr. who drills in the sands of Texas for siht wages, rather it represents big business."
Jocko:
"Which contradicts your initial post and does nothing to clarify, except to expand the conspiracy beyond petrochemicals to include all big business, which we all know is inherently evil.
Yeah, a few re-readings sure would have made THAT clear."
You think business is evil? Really? Why? Explain please.
How does that contradict my original post ? What conspiracy ? Explain please.
My original post in toto :
I think by " a purely political decision" what was meant was a "topically political" choice, as in electability. The case as stated is that much of what passes for politics in America is a combination popularity/beauty contest. If the real position of the Veep is "one heartbeat" away from the presidency undoubtedly Gephardt has infinitely more gravitas the a 1 term senator.
SO the choice is a tip o' the hat to realpolitik. Chaney would make a better choice as the heartbeat position holder then Edwards if you enjoy Machiavelli, But this is not the first time reality has been sacrificed at the alter of political expediancy............Can you imagine Dan "potatoe head " Quayle as Pres? The man with the permanent 1000 yrd. stare < shudder>"
Your observation is a Non-Sequiter , I proposed no equivalency , again You did.The statement you make about "conspiracies" is also a fiction that I neither raised or argued.........You did. Show me the contradiction.
Till quote:
Your final world quaking foil "o ◊◊◊◊, really? So I guess businesses vote. The point is still either naive, or so hopelessly misstated that I can't come to any other conclusion than you believe corporations - er, strike that, EVIL corporations - vote, and in greater numbers than the citizenry.
I personally vote for your misunderstanding plain English and ex-post facto justification for a sophomoric outlook.
Jocko "And I give you full marks for your apparent immunity to sarcasm. That, and completely missing the friggin' point."
Once again we see a self reinforcing faux reality as many delusional personalities are wont to conceive, not a good sign. . Also I believe You take your avatar waaaay too seriously. You have not the wit nor the biting sarcasm that made Mr. Clemons a world figure, tho you do indeed write fictions.
Till quote:
Money is power. Do you think that such a small thing like the American people or the prospect of fair and unbiased elections could ever stand in the way of billions of dollars? Tsk, tsk..Now, Who's being naive?."
Jocko: "Ah, NOW we get to the point you apparently were trying to make three exchanges ago. So money buys elections? Then tell me why we're not arguing about whether or not to put President Perot on the 10 dollar bill."
OK I give up ...why?
Jocko: "I think it's clear who's being naive here."
I agree that the Naive here is most demonstrably you.
Till quote:
I make no assumptions. I mearly contrast the known demonstrated public behavior of two different people. I assign no attributes other then those displayed aka " A man is defined by his deeds".
Jocko "You make so many assumptions you can't even see them. While I certainly agree with the idea that a man is judged by his deeds, I think you're on a very thin branch playing your game of "judge a man based on conjecture of what his demonstrably flawed opponent might have done if he'd won the election, which he didn't."
This comment makes no sense.Once again you demonstrate your propensity for manufacturing a viewpoint that was neither implied or stated. I make no conjectures about Gore's handling of the Afghanistan/Iraqi debacle ( I assume thats what you are addressing , but only god and you know to a surety) that we currently enjoy courtesy of the Bush administration. I state that the histories, the facts dear friend, of Bush's demonstrated behavior , including the personal conduct prior to "public service", conduct of 2 wars and the deceit that he and his administration perform day after day and his historical behavior as Gov of Texas VS Gore's public Factual record are indicative of the mettle of both men.
Jocko "If that's all you got, I'll just close the book on this one.
Gore good, Bush/business bad. Got it. For those of us who don't live in the world of might-have-been, however, it's not particularly satisfying. "
Remarkable intellect . You make fictitious arguments and knock them down all by yourself. As an aside I would use the term Str.. ma., but I loathe it as much as I loathe the term "empowerment".
Well that's OK though , You surely won't dominate by skewed rhetoric nor fanciful conjured scenarios.
Re Joko
Hmm my statement " Bush represents petrodollars"
Your weak rejoinder "Wow, I had no idea that only petroleum industry employees had the vote these days. Funny, but I could sworn everyone had the chance to vote."
Jocko
"OK, let's take this slow for the special kids.
Your statement, in full, was:
quote:
Till :
That's pretty much what I said Tmy and besides Bush represented petrodollars not prudent political philosophy. "
Jocko:
"Which means roughly 50% of American voters opted for this nebulous "pretrodollar agenda." That being obvious and errant nonsense, I thought about who WOULD vote in favor of a petrochemical platform. And like yourself, I could only arrive at one conclusion: the evil petrochemical companies. Care to explain how that's weak?"
What "petrodollar agenda"? Who raised that? Me? ...No You have inferred something I never said nor did other posters. If I am mistaken please point out the relevant passages. I never raised the electorate You did. So your pace even though slow seems to have outrun your capacity to understand your own rhetoric.
Till quote:
My retort "Read the post again , Petrodollars has nothing to to with Tom Jode Jr. who drills in the sands of Texas for siht wages, rather it represents big business."
Jocko:
"Which contradicts your initial post and does nothing to clarify, except to expand the conspiracy beyond petrochemicals to include all big business, which we all know is inherently evil.
Yeah, a few re-readings sure would have made THAT clear."
You think business is evil? Really? Why? Explain please.
How does that contradict my original post ? What conspiracy ? Explain please.
My original post in toto :
I think by " a purely political decision" what was meant was a "topically political" choice, as in electability. The case as stated is that much of what passes for politics in America is a combination popularity/beauty contest. If the real position of the Veep is "one heartbeat" away from the presidency undoubtedly Gephardt has infinitely more gravitas the a 1 term senator.
SO the choice is a tip o' the hat to realpolitik. Chaney would make a better choice as the heartbeat position holder then Edwards if you enjoy Machiavelli, But this is not the first time reality has been sacrificed at the alter of political expediancy............Can you imagine Dan "potatoe head " Quayle as Pres? The man with the permanent 1000 yrd. stare < shudder>"
Your observation is a Non-Sequiter , I proposed no equivalency , again You did.The statement you make about "conspiracies" is also a fiction that I neither raised or argued.........You did. Show me the contradiction.
Till quote:
Your final world quaking foil "o ◊◊◊◊, really? So I guess businesses vote. The point is still either naive, or so hopelessly misstated that I can't come to any other conclusion than you believe corporations - er, strike that, EVIL corporations - vote, and in greater numbers than the citizenry.
I personally vote for your misunderstanding plain English and ex-post facto justification for a sophomoric outlook.
Jocko "And I give you full marks for your apparent immunity to sarcasm. That, and completely missing the friggin' point."
Once again we see a self reinforcing faux reality as many delusional personalities are wont to conceive, not a good sign. . Also I believe You take your avatar waaaay too seriously. You have not the wit nor the biting sarcasm that made Mr. Clemons a world figure, tho you do indeed write fictions.
Till quote:
Money is power. Do you think that such a small thing like the American people or the prospect of fair and unbiased elections could ever stand in the way of billions of dollars? Tsk, tsk..Now, Who's being naive?."
Jocko: "Ah, NOW we get to the point you apparently were trying to make three exchanges ago. So money buys elections? Then tell me why we're not arguing about whether or not to put President Perot on the 10 dollar bill."
OK I give up ...why?
Jocko: "I think it's clear who's being naive here."
I agree that the Naive here is most demonstrably you.
Till quote:
I make no assumptions. I mearly contrast the known demonstrated public behavior of two different people. I assign no attributes other then those displayed aka " A man is defined by his deeds".
Jocko "You make so many assumptions you can't even see them. While I certainly agree with the idea that a man is judged by his deeds, I think you're on a very thin branch playing your game of "judge a man based on conjecture of what his demonstrably flawed opponent might have done if he'd won the election, which he didn't."
This comment makes no sense.Once again you demonstrate your propensity for manufacturing a viewpoint that was neither implied or stated. I make no conjectures about Gore's handling of the Afghanistan/Iraqi debacle ( I assume thats what you are addressing , but only god and you know to a surety) that we currently enjoy courtesy of the Bush administration. I state that the histories, the facts dear friend, of Bush's demonstrated behavior , including the personal conduct prior to "public service", conduct of 2 wars and the deceit that he and his administration perform day after day and his historical behavior as Gov of Texas VS Gore's public Factual record are indicative of the mettle of both men.
Jocko "If that's all you got, I'll just close the book on this one.
Gore good, Bush/business bad. Got it. For those of us who don't live in the world of might-have-been, however, it's not particularly satisfying. "
Remarkable intellect . You make fictitious arguments and knock them down all by yourself. As an aside I would use the term Str.. ma., but I loathe it as much as I loathe the term "empowerment".
Well that's OK though , You surely won't dominate by skewed rhetoric nor fanciful conjured scenarios.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
While many politicians are lawyers, very few are trial lawyers. i.e. they never actually argued cases in front of juries.
I thought that picking a millionaire trial lawyer would be bad news for the Dems, and it might end up being that way. I thought the GOP could label him an ambulance-chaser. But I looked up his record, and he was not the run of the mill trial lawyer. He was very selective in his cases, going for big bucks, but always in cases where he believed the science was on his side. He didn't specialize in slip and fall cases.
But of course, a Presidential campaign is a grueling experience. If any of his trials at all are seen to be ammunition for the other side, you can bet we'll hear about it.
I thought that picking a millionaire trial lawyer would be bad news for the Dems, and it might end up being that way. I thought the GOP could label him an ambulance-chaser. But I looked up his record, and he was not the run of the mill trial lawyer. He was very selective in his cases, going for big bucks, but always in cases where he believed the science was on his side. He didn't specialize in slip and fall cases.
But of course, a Presidential campaign is a grueling experience. If any of his trials at all are seen to be ammunition for the other side, you can bet we'll hear about it.
Asked by a reporter how the 51-year-old senator would "stack up" against Vice President Dick Cheney, Bush replied: "Dick Cheney can be president. Next."
Kerry quipped back. "John Edwards has more experience than George Bush when he became president of the United States. But let me tell you what he was right about. Dick Cheney was ready to take over on Day One, and he did, and he has been ever since."
Source
Kerry quipped back. "John Edwards has more experience than George Bush when he became president of the United States. But let me tell you what he was right about. Dick Cheney was ready to take over on Day One, and he did, and he has been ever since."
Source
TillEulenspiegel
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 30, 2003
- Messages
- 2,302
For all of ill short (relatively ) term memory , remember in the Republican primaries and later inter party debates where Bush didn't know geography or the names of Allys and foes? Nuf' said.
I still maintain that between the two "heartbeat" place holders that Chaney has the greater understanding of international politic then Edwards, but I deem him a dangerous quantity and would rather see a veep doing OJT then a Dickens' villain have control of the strongest most vital country in the history of man.
I still maintain that between the two "heartbeat" place holders that Chaney has the greater understanding of international politic then Edwards, but I deem him a dangerous quantity and would rather see a veep doing OJT then a Dickens' villain have control of the strongest most vital country in the history of man.