I propose that any post that contains the word "bloviate" or any of its derivatives be immediately sent to the trash can. Also "ditto". Just my $.03 worth. You can do better than that.
“The length is what's wrong. I don't think I've ever seen you make a point cogently and quickly; like any lawyer the instant your viewpoint is challenged you attempt to bury the challenger in a torrent of propaganda.”
Is that what you call substantive factual reference? Answer the facts and don’t initiate rhetoric. Go back and challenge some of the assertions I’ve made about this thread and the Great Depression or other relevant points.
“You are totally incorrect in your views of conservatism. You are so incredibly wrong that I don't see the point in trying to explain to you WHY you are wrong; you will not believe me. What you call "inflexibility" and "intolerance" are merely the typical liberal Democrat party-line definitions of conservatism. I could probably write a post long enough to have come from you on the subject of why conservatism is NOT inflexible and intolerant, but again, you would dismiss it...so why should I bother?”
You have demonstrated you cannot retort with anything but Jesus-loving garbage, so yea, why try? I would love to see something relevant to the facts so I could weigh and agree/reject those assertions/contentions.
“You state that Clinton "inherited a waste economy and repaired it within 2 years". Not true. The recession of 1991 was over before the 1992 elections.”
OK, this is what I want, now provide a theory and some internet or textual (easily accessible) reference.
“The economy in 1999-2000 was showing much more than "signs of slight downturn" as you assert--the Dot-Com bust was in full swing during that time, and in the winter of 2000 there was a serious shortage of natural gas--not Clinton's fault, but it contributed to a seriously waning economy.”
Ok, so research and post Dow Jones numbers in January 1993 and January 2001. If you wish to show a trend, then show other dates and numbers that support that. This is the process in which theories are empirically tested.
“EDIT: The Dow-Jones average had already fallen a fair piece from its record high of 13,000-odd long before Bush was even certified as the winner of the election. IIRC even before the election was held. /EDIT”
Ok, a little more than that.
“Greenspan lowered interest rates throughout all the years of the Clinton presidency.”
Remember, the real estate rate was about 9%, so although that’s true, the rate could only go down, so that’s not indicative as to Clinton’s job performance.
“He did that to keep the economy from stagnating. Lower interest rates=cheap money=more money available for capital investment. Higher interest rates=more expensive money=less money available for capital investments. It is no accident that the economy (AFTER the Bush tax cuts by the way) is now booming, and that Greenspan is now contemplating hiking the Fed rate (if he hasn't done so already).”
What part of the economy is booming? If we have a good week, that doesn’t mean the whole thing is turned around. Just today, I saw that the job growth for June was sluggish.
“As I said, your posts are 90% wrong, and TEDIOUS in their incorrectness. You posted THREE PAGES of JUNK for crying out loud.”
Ok, you were doing well until this Ad Hominem; back on track. You have failed to objectively reject anything, but take your previous strategy and expound and you may.
Is this about me, or about the issue and the economy? See, Ed, an Ad Hominem is an argument strategy where you impeach the credibility of the opposing author instead of the actual issue. This is done when the person replying to the other person has no argument. BTW, this site didn’t come up, just the general townhall. Not that it matters, as it’s not substantive.
...and your days of bloviation (however fruitful) are numbered.
Another Ad Hominem. Ed, there are all kinds of angle you can argue this issue from, why not attack one of those instead of fruitlessly throwing hate at me? Again, nothing comes up here but a main page.
I happened to stumble across Dateline last night, or one of those "news" shows.
They were having reaction to Clinton's book from the "women" in his life.
Kathleen Willey was particularly scathing of Clinton because Clinton called her a liar. Actually, he called them all liars. But Paula Jones just laughingly scoffed at him, and Flowers just kind of eye rolled, like yeah, he is believable.
Hey, this should tell you something about Clinton's legacy:
a woman like Paula Jones has more credibility and is less likely to be lying than a former president of the United States.
THAT is a pretty impressive feat, Bill.
To question whether Clinton is a womanizer is about as moot as wondering whether OJ is a murderer. As for a president that invoked policies that helped poor/middle class, well, of course he did.
For anyone, but especially the conservs to focus on his being a womanizer is as laughable as the same comparing military records between Bush jr and Kerry.
Originally posted by Uaana: Ditto! Time for this thread to die anyways..
Excuse me, but I happen to be enjoying this thread.
Please follow the step by step instructions and utilize this handy idea in the future.
1) Locate and open Wordpad
2) Type the following words across the top center of your page.
TRASH
3) Click on File then Print.
4) Place the printed document in front of your monitor with "TRASH" facing you and affix with tape or any suitable adheasive.
Disclaimer: This will not work on wives, kids, dogs or bosses. However, If the need to dump the aforementioned in the "trash" does arise, it would be advisable to affix the aforementioned document to your forehead so that it reads HSART and sit silently for a while.
Dont be alarmed if you are picked up or swept away, this is a normal process.
According to "Dictionary.com": Word of the Day for Friday June 22, 2001
bloviate \BLOH-vee-ayt\, intransitive verb: To speak or write at length in a pompous or boastful manner. [emphasis mine]
Anyone who has ever spent an idle morning watching the Washington talk shows has probably wondered: how did these people become entitled to earn six-figure salaries bloviating about the week's headlines? --Robert Worth, "Quick! The Index!" New York Times, June 3, 2001
After five years as president and thirty years as a political figure, this colossal oaf is still unable to discipline his urge to . . . bloviate. --R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., American Spectator, December 19, 1997 [REFERRING TO CLINTON]
[W]e follow him minute by minute through a day in his office -- bloviating amiably with colleagues on the telephone, letting his secretary rewrite his clumsy letters and worrying about the possible hatred of his subordinates. --John Brooks, "Fiction of the Managerial Class," New York Times, April 8, 1984
Bloviate is from blow + a mock-Latinate suffix -viate. Compare blowhard, "a boaster or braggart." Bloviation is the noun form; a bloviator is one who bloviates.
Trivia: Bloviate is most closely associated with U.S. President Warren G. Harding, who used it frequently and who was known for long, windy speeches. H.L. Mencken said of him, "He writes the worst English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of a string of wet sponges; it reminds me of tattered washing on the line; it reminds me of stale bean soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash."
My original post in this thread was primarily aimed at the incredible torrent of words you always emit, and you use a total of ONE quote tag per message, making your BLOVIATION both dense and time-consuming to read. Ironically H.L. Menken's quote regarding Harding also applies to YOU, especially with cracks such as:
quote
Originally posted by I'm Back: You have demonstrated you cannot retort with anything but Jesus-loving garbage, so yea, why try?
In any event, your constant calls for proof are hypocritical. You posted a long message in this thread accusing President Bush of all sorts of perfidy WITHOUT ONE SCRAP OF PROOF WHATSOEVER. When you post proof that those accusations are true, in a properly quoted and readable post, THEN I will answer the points you made in your subsequent BLOVIATIONS.
I posted plenty of substantive factual evidence that you are far, far too long-winded. This last post of yours is two pages' worth of text, although your word count is vastly improving at 694 words.
What part of the economy is booming? EVERY PART. The Missouri-Pacific line that runs through my town has upwards of 5, 6, 7 trains per day, a level of activity I haven't seen since Ronald Reagan was in office. The newspapers are full of want ads crying for truck drivers. The transportation industry is going great guns, and why? BECAUSE MONEY IS BEING SPENT.
In one sentence you sneeringly admonish me with "If we have a good week, that doesn't mean the whole thing is turned around." In the next sentence, you tell me that "Just today, I saw that the job growth for June was sluggish." How was the job growth for the prior five months? If we have a month which experiences a lower job growth rate than prior months where the job growth rate was considered high, that is not an indication that the economy universally sucks!
quote
Originally posted by I'm Back: Another Ad Hominem. Ed, there are all kinds of angle you can argue this issue from, why not attack one of those instead of fruitlessly throwing hate at me?
quote
Originally posted by I'm Back: You have demonstrated you cannot retort with anything but Jesus-loving garbage, so yea, why try?
To me, phrases like "Jesus-loving garbage" is "throwing hate".
* * *
I wonder what your real personality is like. I wonder if you come across as a sneering smart-ass in a face-to-face conversation? Because that's how you come across in these threads--a know-it-all who looks down his nose at others as being less intelligent than you. You never answer anyone else's points; you merely make fun of them. You redirect the debate into other areas, such as proper methods of quotation. You make assertions and provide no evidence to support them; then when others say anything negative about your posts, you demand an extensive bibliography.
The simple fact is, none of my posts have been aimed at proving you wrong. I know that even if I was able to provide videotaped evidence of some kind of Clinton perfidy you'd find a way to excuse it. Even if I could provide a videotape showing that Bush didn't do one of the things on your silly little list of "crimes", you would reject it. I'm not trying to prove you wrong at all.
No. What I was trying to do was to get YOU to show everyone what a pompous, bloviating blowhard you are--and you've managed to do that very, very well.
Ed
PS Your reply to Frontal Lobe is typical of you. He made a comment about Clinton's credibility; you replied with a comment about whether Clinton was a womanizer or not. TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the point Frontal Lobe made. At least it was SHORT for once.
Originally posted by edhering: PS Your reply to Frontal Lobe is typical of you. He made a comment about Clinton's credibility; you replied with a comment about whether Clinton was a womanizer or not. TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the point Frontal Lobe made. At least it was SHORT for once.
I could be WAY off on my assesment but the way I read Ed's post I could see a very clear indication that he was agreeing with Mr. Lobe. However, Mr. Lobes point was mute because we all know where Mr. Clintons moral values lie. I agree with Ed that Mr. Lobes point was mute in light of Mr Clintons track record that is all too obvious.
Please expound on Mr. Lobes post if you feel otherwise. I would like to explore the irrelavancy of Eds post with that of yours or would the point of it be mute? Either way does not bother me but I do see a pattern developing.
With you the tires are squeeling under the force of thousands of horsepower but nothing is moving.. All I see is alot of smoke coming from you.
However, Ed has displayed acquiescence by the truckload.
I duno, maybe I'm just loosing it or maybe Commrad Ed missed my post with the light bulb. :shruggs:
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 07-03-2004).]
This debating technique is known as whipsawing, and only serves to hide the issues and cloud the facts.
Whipsawing? Facsinating! Now answer the question. How is a surplus a positive thing when all it means is that the government got it SO wrong that it overtaxed everybody
quote
The economy is driven by consumer spending. If you concentrate enough of the wealth in few enough people there's not much left for consumer spending, then you have economic collapse. Welfare, keeping families and children from starving, puts more money back into the economy at the bottom where it really matters, not at the top where it just disappears into tax shelter and illegal offshore accounts.
Ahh, the Hillary argument! I keep forgetting since my own father is a Venture capitalist that rich people don't take their money and build businesses with it, hence creating jobs, and lower cost products which allows the common consumer to own things like Cars, Computers, and TVs which USED to be affordable to only the privilaged few. It is a FAR better idea to let RICH government people, who never CREATED wealth in their lives but inherited it like Kennedy, Kerry, etc., decide how the money gets distibuted. Yeah, that is teh ticket. And when the incentive is gone for those creative geniouses among us to give up trying to create and invent THEN we'll be really doing well as a society won't we? Yeah, those rich people are pretty dumb just squirelling away their wealth in the Cayman Islands, instead of re-investing it, until America Collapses so they can come in and take over...Oh wait, if America collapses then their millions would be as worthless as a Saddam Dinar. Hmmm, I guess I'd better re-think that whole 'Rich people are the enemy' thing, shouldn't I?!?
quote
No, the Soviet system had extreme polarization of wealth at the top of the government, leaving the vast majority of people in the USSR living in abject poverty. The degree of polarization was only slightly worse than it is here, now, in the US.
OK, I'm going to do you a HUGE favor and assume you are joking because NOBODY can be that dumb.
Ha Ha Ha, good one!
quote
Please back up your assertation that the cites were from communist economics students.
uhh, read them...maybe. Think that would work? note the names; Chinese authors.
quote
Although despots through history, including Adolph Hitler, proved that if you say a lie often enough it becomes the truth, I would hope that we are now smart enough to stop that in its tracks.
Once again you don't get it. When a despot repeats a lie over and over again...it DOES NOT become the truth. The Soviet Union fell because no matter how much they blamed the west, the people are SMARTER than the liberal left gave them credit for. The same went for China, Iraq, and soon to be North Korea.
Funny, I have NEVER seen video tape of people risking their lives under a hail of bullets to get INTO East Berlin. Hmmm, guess that whole sharing of the wealth idea didn't work-out so well after all.
Bloviate sounds more like slang than anything. In my American heritage dictionary 3rd edition) comprised of 2134 pages it can’t be found. It isn’t considered a valid word in WORD spellcheck either. Furthermore, after a little research, I found it be somewhat of a slang word.
“This word is almost entirely restricted to the United States; it doesn’t appear in any of my British English dictionaries, not even the big Oxford English Dictionary or the very recent New Oxford Dictionary of English. Yet it has a long history.”
And after I find it originated with a Repugnican President, it makes sense.
“It’s most closely associated with U S President Warren Gamaliel Harding, who used it a lot and who was by all accounts the classic example of somebody who orates verbosely and windily.”
Kind of ironic how the perpetuator of a word is also the best example of that word; history repeats itself, edhering.
INTRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: blo·vi·at·ed, blo·vi·at·ing, blo·vi·atesSlang To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner: “the rural Babbitt who bloviates about ‘progress’ and ‘growth’” (George Rebeck, Utne Reader November/December 1991).
As I thought, it is slang. Hillbilly Republican slang; no wonder I had no knowledge of it.
“My original post in this thread was primarily aimed at the incredible torrent of words you always emit, and you use a total of ONE quote tag per message, making your BLOVIATION both dense and time-consuming to read. Ironically H.L. Menken's quote regarding Harding also applies to YOU, especially with cracks such as:”
Length: look at your post……. One quote tag per post: look at your misquoting of other people – and – please avoid them if you don’t like it.
“You have demonstrated you cannot retort with anything but Jesus-loving garbage, so yea, why try?”
“In any event, your constant calls for proof are hypocritical.”
My genius edhering, I don’t call for proof, I call for supporting evidence as opposed to opinion. I already know your opinion: Jebus is great and Repugnicans are wonderful. Proof is reserved for self-righteous conservatives that believe things are always black and white, whereas supporting evidence is utilized for people that debate the merits of an issue. Please find where I’ve solely asked for proof and not supporting evidence.
“You posted a long message in this thread accusing President Bush of all sorts of perfidy WITHOUT ONE SCRAP OF PROOF WHATSOEVER.”
I previously wrote the titles, and now expounded on them:
1.The Overtime Bill - http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/overtimepay/ns01222004.cfm?RenderForPrint=1 - The omnibus appropriations bill is a factual reference that includes the Overtime Bill. The Overtime Bill is designed to unilaterally allow employers to relegate employees to salary status, require unlimited working hours without having to pay overtime wages. 2.A worthless/fruitless war that will net over 1k American deaths before the elction - This is opinion. Some people still have the opinion that Viet Nam was a positive action too, so that relegates this issue to opinion. As for the 1k deaths, I think that is believable, although speculation. At approximately 850 deaths, 1k is believable. 3. Record job losses - To support this broad allegation, I will establish that Bush’s trade policies have been primarily responsible for the losses of millions of jobs. - Steel tariffs http://global-trade-law.com/Article.Bush%20Trade%20Policy%20(WSJ%20Editorial%205.10.02).htm - “When the Bush administration imposed steep tariffs on imported steel, it became clear that this is no longer true. In sheer economic terms, the steel tariff is not that big a deal. But it demonstrates an unprecedented contempt for international rules.” - “The immediate threat is that other nations will strike back; the European Union has threatened retaliatory tariffs, and earlier this week Japan, Brazil, South Korea and China said they would follow suit. (Mr. Bush really has unified the world, at least on this issue.) But as a wise trade expert once told me, the big danger when the U.S. flouts the rules isn't retaliation, it's emulation: if we don't honor trade agreements, who will?” - http://global-trade-law.com/Article.Farm%20Bill%20(NYT%206.15.02).htm - “Javier Solana, Europe's foreign policy chief, declared in Madrid this week that the new American agriculture policy has created the "most profound" division between Europe and the United States, worse than disputes over steel tariffs, the Kyoto environmental treaty or the international criminal court.” - I could go on, but you’ve already complained about length. 4.Record deficits - http://ko.offroadpakistan.com/imgs/deficit_estimate_july03_gra.jpg - And these don’t even include the war costs 5.Record stock market drops (although it appears they may recover enough for him to lose that title before the election) - http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^DJI&t=5y - Are you going to blame 9/11? The market hit it’s largest low 1 year after 9/11. Has any president left the market lower than when he entered office? Maybe Hoover. It seems Hoover has become more and more of an issue lately now that Bush is meeting/exceeding his great measures. 6. Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water. - “Bush withdraws new arsenic-in-drinking-water standard March 20, 2001: The Bush administration announced it would withdraw a new standard for arsenic in drinking water, choosing the interests of the mining industry and some small water suppliers over protecting the health of millions of Americans. EPA's final arsenic standard of 10 parts per billion (ppb) would have lowered allowable levels of arsenic in tap water from the current standard of 50 ppb, an outdated standard established in 1942. The 10 ppb standard was the result of more than a decade of public hearings, scientific reviews, and planning with health experts and industry representatives. A few years ago, the World Health Organization and the European Union implemented a 10 ppb standard. It would cost 90 percent of Americans living in areas with high levels of arsenic less than $3 per month to clean up the contaminant in their water supplies.” - http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/water_drinking.asp 7.Killed the Ergonomics Bill - http://www.cfo.com:8080/article/1,5309,2212,00.html - The Senate passed the killing of it and the Bushy gladly signed it instead of vetoing it. 8. Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million.
“When you post proof that those accusations are true, in a properly quoted and readable post, THEN I will answer the points you made in your subsequent BLOVIATIONS.”
I’m not going to format it the way you want instead I’ll use common English. If you want to continue to be a coward and avoid because of formatting, I won’t be surprised.
“I posted plenty of substantive factual evidence that you are far, far too long-winded.”
This furthers your cowardly protocol of avoiding issues and focusing on things like length, comprehensive nature versus brevity, and personal attacks and does nothing to address the issues that the thread are about or the supporting evidence I introduce to support my position.
“This last post of yours is two pages' worth of text, although your word count is vastly improving at 694 words.”
When it comes to tracking the word count, you shine. Unfortunatley when it comes to addressing the issues I’ve provided and my supporting data, you suck.
“What part of the economy is booming? EVERY PART. The Missouri-Pacific line that runs through my town has upwards of 5, 6, 7 trains per day, a level of activity I haven't seen since Ronald Reagan was in office.”
Well, let’s look at your part of the world as an indicator for the global economy. Much broader data is important than, ‘the train be runnin all da time.’
“The newspapers are full of want ads crying for truck drivers. The transportation industry is going great guns, and why? BECAUSE MONEY IS BEING SPENT.”
Whether true or not, this kind of data isn’t relevant to the US economy.
“In one sentence you sneeringly admonish me with "If we have a good week, that doesn't mean the whole thing is turned around." In the next sentence, you tell me that "Just today, I saw that the job growth for June was sluggish." How was the job growth for the prior five months? If we have a month which experiences a lower job growth rate than prior months where the job growth rate was considered high, that is not an indication that the economy universally sucks!”
Let’s look at the big picture. Job growth has been negative for most of the Bush presidency. As of late, it has turned around a little, but has now begun to sink again. I don’t think we can call the recent spurt of positive change as a whole new turn-around, just as the last month being poor for growth an absolute indicator that all is sunk. I do, however, think that the economy has sucked for virtually the entire Bush presidency, and I do attribute that to Bush’s trade policies as well as his tax cuts/breaks for the rich.
“To me, phrases like "Jesus-loving garbage" is "throwing hate".”
Where’s the love?
“I wonder what your real personality is like. I wonder if you come across as a sneering smart-ass in a face-to-face conversation? Because that's how you come across in these threads--a know-it-all who looks down his nose at others as being less intelligent than you. You never answer anyone else's points; you merely make fun of them.”
I wonder if you can keep the topic off of me and back onto the course for which it was established? This is an Ad Hominem. Who cares about me, focus on the topic ADD man.
“You redirect the debate into other areas, such as proper methods of quotation.”
PARDON ME? I don’t have a problem with quote boxes, you and a couple others seem to have an issue with me not using one and you initiate the quote box issue. Unless you’re talking about a person intentionally misquoting the statements of another, for which I do object.
“You make assertions and provide no evidence to support them; then when others say anything negative about your posts, you demand an extensive bibliography.”
Where do I require a so-called, “bibliography?” I have provided web site info in this very thread; WTF are you talking about. I tried to click on your without success.
“The simple fact is, none of my posts have been aimed at proving you wrong. I know that even if I was able to provide videotaped evidence of some kind of Clinton perfidy you'd find a way to excuse it.”
Right, you don’t prove me wrong; you focus on Ad Hominem to attempt to personally discredit me – that we agree on. As for Clinton, I didn’t vote for him either time. I do retrospectively appreciate much of what he stood for and accomplished to help poor Americans. So to slander Clinton by you is fine with me, but you still haven’t supported Bush by doing that…… misdirection.
“Even if I could provide a videotape showing that Bush didn't do one of the things on your silly little list of "crimes", you would reject it. I'm not trying to prove you wrong at all.”
Don’t prove me wrong, attempt to disprove the elements of my argument wrong. A videotape is not necessary, as the evidence lies within the written documents.
“No. What I was trying to do was to get YOU to show everyone what a pompous, bloviating blowhard you are--and you've managed to do that very, very well.”
Exactly, you were following your normal course of Ad Hominem.
“PS Your reply to Frontal Lobe is typical of you. He made a comment about Clinton's credibility; you replied with a comment about whether Clinton was a womanizer or not. TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the point Frontal Lobe made. At least it was SHORT for once.”
Exactly, but FL, as you, remarked about Clinton in Ad Hominem form; Clinton’s a womanizer, therefore he can’t make a good president. That’s an Ad Hominem. Can you find flaws in Clinton’s policy? I can find a couple, but many, many more with our current president.
Actually try to impeach my statements/assertions relating to the topic.
I could be WAY off on my assesment but the way I read Ed's post I could see a very clear indication that he was agreeing with Mr. Lobe. However, Mr. Lobes point was mute because we all know where Mr. Clintons moral values lie. I agree with Ed that Mr. Lobes point was mute in light of Mr Clintons track record that is all too obvious.
Please expound on Mr. Lobes post if you feel otherwise. I would like to explore the irrelavancy of Eds post with that of yours or would the point of it be mute? Either way does not bother me but I do see a pattern developing.
With you the tires are squeeling under the force of thousands of horsepower but nothing is moving.. All I see is alot of smoke coming from you.
However, Ed has displayed acquiescence by the truckload.
I duno, maybe I'm just loosing it or maybe Commrad Ed missed my post with the light bulb. :shruggs:
"With you the tires are squeeling under the force of thousands of horsepower but nothing is moving.. All I see is alot of smoke coming from you."
No, the Soviet system had extreme polarization of wealth at the top of the government, leaving the vast majority of people in the USSR living in abject poverty. The degree of polarization was only slightly worse than it is here, now, in the US.
quote
Originally posted by Toddster: OK, I'm going to do you a HUGE favor and assume you are joking because NOBODY can be that dumb. Ha Ha Ha, good one!
I'm not quite sure how to say this in a way you would understand so I have decided to make is simple as possible.
Uhhh... DUH??
I happen to agree with Jazzman on this one and see your Ad Hominem.
Care to up the stakes or just fold like a house of cards?
Now please, acquiesce.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 07-03-2004).]
Calling edhering...... hey man, I spent 2 hours compiling that previous post, as you demanded I provide evidence, prrof, etc..., so I did. I wrote that right before I went to Vegas, came back and see the topic ignored. OK, if you're busy that's fine, but if you require evidence and I provide it then at least answer it or acquiesce.
Calling edhering...... hey man, I spent 2 hours compiling that previous post,
"07-03-2004 03:28 PM"
You spent two hours in the middle of the day from 1:28 pm to 3:28 pm on a beautiful Saturday, one day before a National Holiday, typing a ranting post on a chat site?
Did it occur to you that Ed has a life and might have been celebrating America's birthday with friends and family this weekend?
What the hell is it with people using this "get a life" trash.
I mean, does it ever occure to anyone using this lame ASSesment that they are not the only people on theis planet with "a life". Just because you don't agree with someone, it just seems to be an easy way to cop out.
It is probably one of the lamest most arrogant statements anyone could make, as if the one you disagree with should not even be breating YOUR "rare air."
Guess what? The "get a life" comment is actually 180 degrees from the true reality and it is the arrogant, nazi like user that needs to get a life. Not everyone shares the same values in life and quite franky they have no desire to be as arrogant as the user of that statemet.
Ya made me laugh Todd but this "get a life" comment disapoints me.
Oh well.... people suck and mean people suck even more.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 07-05-2004).]
What the hell is it with people using this "get a life" trash.
I mean, does it ever occure to anyone using this lame ASSesment that they are not the only people on theis planet with "a life". Just because you don't agree with someone, it just seems to be an easy way to cop out.
It is probably one of the lamest most arrogant statements anyone could make, as if the one you disagree with should not even be breating YOUR "rare air."
Guess what? The "get a life" comment is actually 180 degrees from the true reality and it is the arrogant, nazi like user that needs to get a life. Not everyone shares the same values in life and quite franky they have no desire to be as arrogant as the user of that statemet.
Ya made me laugh Todd but this "get a life" comment disapoints me.
Oh well.... people suck and mean people suck even more.
I did, I still am left with the question. Whats your point?
Ed(I'm Back) is berating Ed(Hering) for not replying to his post immediately as if THAT should be some sort of priority in his life despite the fact that he is probably enjoying his vacation and not hanging around his computer. It's easy for small minded people with nothing better to do to belittle and berate someone behind their back...cowardly too.
I am reminded of the scene in "Catch me if you can" when Tom Hanks says to Leonardo DiCaprio, "The reason your calling me on Christmas is that you have no one else to call"!
I merely point it out.
And now, YOU have pointed out your opinion too. Anything more to say?
Originally posted by 84Bill: Guess what? The "get a life" comment is actually 180 degrees from the true reality and it is the arrogant, nazi like user that needs to get a life.
Calling edhering...... hey man, I spent 2 hours compiling that previous post, as you demanded I provide evidence, prrof, etc..., so I did. I wrote that right before I went to Vegas, came back and see the topic ignored. OK, if you're busy that's fine, but if you require evidence and I provide it then at least answer it or acquiesce.
quote
Originally posted by I'm Back:
...after I find it originated with a Repugnican President, it makes sense.
As I thought, it is slang. Hillbilly Republican slang; no wonder I had no knowledge of it.
Jebus is great and Repugnicans are wonderful. Proof is reserved for self-righteous conservatives....
I’m not going to format it the way you want instead I’ll use common English. If you want to continue to be a coward and avoid because of formatting....
...your cowardly protocol...
...you suck.
...focus on the topic ADD man.
I spent 2 hours compiling that previous post...
...you focus on Ad Hominem...
So you spent two hours compiling another hugely long post. You totally ignored what I said near the end of my previous post, regarding what I was actually trying to accomplish, and you littered your two-hour bloviation with personal insults. What was that term you liked to apply...? Oh, yes, AD HOMINEM . Hmm. So: you accuse me of trying to use the fallacy of ad hominem, yet you litter your posts with insults. Why are you not trying to impeach my assertion that your posts are way, way too long, and that you really ought to learn how to use the quote boxes? Eh? I realize that with all that now-useless legal stuff cluttering up your massive brain, learning how to add {quote} and {/quote} before and after your quoted material is probably beyond you, but I'm sure you can master it if you try. (Obviously you must substitute [ for { and ] for }.)
Let's see how long that one was, shall we?
HOLY CRAP that was the longest one yet! Five pages, 2010 words!
quote
Originally posted by I'm Back: I don’t call for proof, I call for supporting evidence as opposed to opinion.
TOE-MAY-TOE, TOE-MAH-TOE. You're just bandying semantics.
quote
Originally posted by I'm Back: Javier Solana, Europe's foreign policy chief, declared in Madrid this week that the new American agriculture policy has created the "most profound" division between Europe and the United States, worse than disputes over steel tariffs, the Kyoto environmental treaty or the international criminal court.
Citing European leaders as "proof" that Bush is a skunk is not convincing. I couldn't care less if the Europeans like us.
quote
Originally posted by I'm Back: 2.A worthless/fruitless war that will net over 1k American deaths before the elction - This is opinion. Some people still have the opinion that Viet Nam was a positive action too, so that relegates this issue to opinion. As for the 1k deaths, I think that is believable, although speculation. At approximately 850 deaths, 1k is believable.
As you said above, you wanted me to provide evidence, not opinion, yet you offer opinion as "evidence"--and only later acknowledge it as opinion.
* * *
In any event, I want to see your "evidence" for THESE charges:
quote
Originally posted by I'm Back: 1. Attacked and took over two countries. 2. Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury. 3. Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history. 4. Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period. 5. Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market. 6. First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record. 7. First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history. (like that's a bad thing with our criminal president) 8. Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history. 9. Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans. 10. My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history. 11. First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission. 12. Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history. 13. In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war. 14. Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
* * *
Here's my first post in this thread:
quote
Originally posted by edhering:
...I didn't even bother to read it. 90% of the time it's either wrong, half-true, or irrelevant. The 10% of the time that it's actually RIGHT is not worth sifting through all the rest of it.
Ed
...
You reacted quite negatively to an OPINION, didn't you? My original post spoke directly to the point that a) you write with excessive verbosity, and b) that you don't bother to use quote tags. Nearly every time you've responded to any of my posts--save your first response--you've written multiple-page posts consisting of thousands of words, and by your own admission your last 5-page bloviation took you two hours to compile. THE LENGTH OF YOUR POSTS WAS THE POINT I WAS SPEAKING TO.
The fact that I believe your posts to be 90% wrong, half-true, or irrelevant is my opinion; and because of the inconsiderate way you format your dissertations, I see no point to reading them. If I wanted to read 5 pages of boring crap I'd go to the library and check out a book on the US tax code.
* * *
But, here is a test for you. Let's see how you respond to this sample of positive economic data:
"Payroll employment increased by 112,000 in June, following larger gains in the prior 3 months."
Okay? This comes right from the Bureau of Labor Statistics--the US Federal Government--citing four months of job growth, right there. You cited June's lower job growth as evidence that the economy was bad. In fact, however, fluctuations in job growth are to be expected, no matter what the overall trend is; and in this case, the overall trend is GROWTH not DECLINE. Employment is INCREASING, not DECREASING.
Within the service-providing sector, health care and social assistance continued to grow, adding 30,000 jobs over the month. Employment in this industry has increased by 279,000 over the year. [snip]
Transportation and warehousing added 19,000 jobs in June. Since August 2003, employment in the industry has grown by 83,000. In June, employment in truck transportation edged up, and the courier and messenger industry added 6,000 jobs.
WHAT IS THE BLOODY DEAL IF ED DOESN'T USE THE FREAKIN' QUOTE TAG?!!?!?
Sorry, got a bit carried away there. The use of the " (quotation mark) is certainly an acceptable way to quote someone. It is really getting annoying when every post berates Ed for not using the quote tag. It is as bad as when the whole crux of someone's counter argument is that they misspelled "ecomonic". Since he uses the quote tag to begin his counter argument, I think he knows how to use it. If you can't be bothered to look for the " mark, I wonder how you can stand to read a newspaper or an online article. I've never seen the newspaper use a quote block and I don't think I've ever seen an online article use it either.
Ed(I'm Back) is berating Ed(Hering) for not replying to his post immediately as if THAT should be some sort of priority in his life despite the fact that he is probably enjoying his vacation and not hanging around his computer. It's easy for small minded people with nothing better to do to belittle and berate someone behind their back...cowardly too.
I am reminded of the scene in "Catch me if you can" when Tom Hanks says to Leonardo DiCaprio, "The reason your calling me on Christmas is that you have no one else to call"!
I merely point it out.
And now, YOU have pointed out your opinion too. Anything more to say?
My opinion entirely surrounds the use of "get a life" in context with the message. It would appear that you disregarded the time an effort I'm Back put into the reply to Ed(hering) and indicated that I'm Back was wasting his time. Now I wont agrue about I'm Back attempting to lead a horse to water and the horse refusing to drink, that's all to obvious. But to say that I'm Back needs to "get a life" when taking into consideration your post as a whole was very derogatory, smacks of an arrogance I have not seen before.... Maybe I was wrong about you or just never noticed it before, but thats cool it happens.
I just figured you could have used a little more tac and alot less arrogance, I disagree with the use of "get a life" because Ed (I'm Back) has one and I like what he has to share and I feel his LIFE experiences play a very big part of it. I don't always agree with him but he is one if not the best debater on this forum. He has a very unique style that is uncommon...
Perfect example of a similar situation involving ME questioning Ed's wherebouts.
You may notice the 180 turn I have made since this thread.. Things change and I change with them, right now I'm Back makes alot of sense to me BUT that may not always be the case in the future. Irregardless of my position, I still demonstrate a level of respect and always pay my dues. How about you?
Looks like my fight for cheaper fuel was a futile effort....
"You spent two hours in the middle of the day from 1:28 pm to 3:28 pm on a beautiful Saturday, one day before a National Holiday, typing a ranting post on a chat site? "
First of all, it was immediately before I left for Vegas, so that time was largely boxed in if you know what I mean. Secondly, what's wrong with spending time the way I want? Maybe I'm nocturnal . Why focus your response on the my use of time rather than for substantive counter-arguments? Although your guess was right that I spent 2 hours right before my flight left, I could have typed it in the middle of the night and finished it at noon. Lastly, you are wrong, my flight left at 2:00, so I was out the door by 1:00, which means I spent from about 11:00 am to 1:00 pm.
"Did it occur to you that Ed has a life and might have been celebrating America's birthday with friends and family this weekend?"
I was celebrating the 4th of July with family; I was in Vegas with my GF. As for America's birthday, America, both North America and South America have been here for longer than July 4, 1776, so I dismiss that remark based upon blind patriotism. Is the birthday of the United States really July 4, 1776? We were still colonial then, so how could it be? It's a little semantic to refer to the birth of an ideology based upon the act of stealing a chunk of land and earmarking it with a day of celebration as a birthday.
Why are you so concerned with the way I spend my days off? Or for that matter, if I spend them typing, reading or vacationing? Does that somehow support your Ad Hominem? Or is that the entirety of your Ad Hominem?
"Get a life."
I have a very (too) full life. I went to Vegas and had fun. I won't lie as you did and claim I won 33k dollars, but I had fun. I went light and bet about 10 baseball games each day, played some craps and blackjack and had fun; how is that not having a life?
Whereas you're angrily typing away at your computer inquiring as to why I don't have a life when I'm in Vegas; are you for real?
I am reminded of the scene in "Catch me if you can" when Tom Hanks says to Leonardo DiCaprio, "The reason your calling me on Christmas is that you have no one else to call"!
I merely point it out.
And now, YOU have pointed out your opinion too. Anything more to say?
"Ed(I'm Back) is berating Ed(Hering) for not replying to his post immediately as if THAT should be some sort of priority in his life despite the fact that he is probably enjoying his vacation and not hanging around his computer. It's easy for small minded people with nothing better to do to belittle and berate someone behind their back...cowardly too."
Behind their back? This is a public board..... ?
Edhering demanded I post all kinds of sources to reinforce my argument, I did and he ignored it for 2 days. I stated that if he is busy that's fine, but when you call someone out and they don't respond then that is worse than acquiescence. I recall a time where you called me out and I responded with a lot of research - you refused to respond.
“In any event, I want to see your "evidence" for THESE charges:”
No, no, you make reasonable replies to the list you demand I spend 2 hours researching and then I will expound on that list. Edhering, it was you or pat’s dad that told me not to let the door hit me where the good lord split me, in reference to leaving the country; this, ‘love America or leave it’, or, ‘God said it – I believe it – and that settles it’ mentality aren’t arguments but irrational and emotional rhetoric to place your stance but not support it. Ok, ok, get past the rhetoric that defines your position; we all know it, start actually supporting it with references that are objective or at least believable.
You called me out, show the consideration to reasonably answer my, not proof (proof is generally for red neck absolutists) but support for my assertions. Agree in part, disagree in whole, but using God as reference or your opinion as a reference, or especially citing the fact that you don’t care if another country doesn’t like the US is not an intelligent answer; it’s emotion rhetoric. Answer mine and I will go on to yours.
1.The Overtime Bill - http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/overtimepay/ns01222004.cfm?RenderForPrint=1 - The omnibus appropriations bill is a factual reference that includes the Overtime Bill. The Overtime Bill is designed to unilaterally allow employers to relegate employees to salary status, require unlimited working hours without having to pay overtime wages. 2.A worthless/fruitless war that will net over 1k American deaths before the elction - This is opinion. Some people still have the opinion that Viet Nam was a positive action too, so that relegates this issue to opinion. As for the 1k deaths, I think that is believable, although speculation. At approximately 850 deaths, 1k is believable. 3. Record job losses - To support this broad allegation, I will establish that Bush’s trade policies have been primarily responsible for the losses of millions of jobs. - Steel tariffs http://global-trade-law.com/Article.Bush%20Trade%20Policy%20(WSJ%20Editorial%205.10.02).htm - “When the Bush administration imposed steep tariffs on imported steel, it became clear that this is no longer true. In sheer economic terms, the steel tariff is not that big a deal. But it demonstrates an unprecedented contempt for international rules.” - “The immediate threat is that other nations will strike back; the European Union has threatened retaliatory tariffs, and earlier this week Japan, Brazil, South Korea and China said they would follow suit. (Mr. Bush really has unified the world, at least on this issue.) But as a wise trade expert once told me, the big danger when the U.S. flouts the rules isn't retaliation, it's emulation: if we don't honor trade agreements, who will?” - http://global-trade-law.com/Article.Farm%20Bill%20(NYT%206.15.02).htm - “Javier Solana, Europe's foreign policy chief, declared in Madrid this week that the new American agriculture policy has created the "most profound" division between Europe and the United States, worse than disputes over steel tariffs, the Kyoto environmental treaty or the international criminal court.” - I could go on, but you’ve already complained about length. 4.Record deficits - http://ko.offroadpakistan.com/imgs/deficit_estimate_july03_gra.jpg - And these don’t even include the war costs 5.Record stock market drops (although it appears they may recover enough for him to lose that title before the election) - http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^DJI&t=5y - Are you going to blame 9/11? The market hit it’s largest low 1 year after 9/11. Has any president left the market lower than when he entered office? Maybe Hoover. It seems Hoover has become more and more of an issue lately now that Bush is meeting/exceeding his great measures. 6. Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water. - “Bush withdraws new arsenic-in-drinking-water standard March 20, 2001: The Bush administration announced it would withdraw a new standard for arsenic in drinking water, choosing the interests of the mining industry and some small water suppliers over protecting the health of millions of Americans. EPA's final arsenic standard of 10 parts per billion (ppb) would have lowered allowable levels of arsenic in tap water from the current standard of 50 ppb, an outdated standard established in 1942. The 10 ppb standard was the result of more than a decade of public hearings, scientific reviews, and planning with health experts and industry representatives. A few years ago, the World Health Organization and the European Union implemented a 10 ppb standard. It would cost 90 percent of Americans living in areas with high levels of arsenic less than $3 per month to clean up the contaminant in their water supplies.” - http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/water_drinking.asp 7.Killed the Ergonomics Bill - http://www.cfo.com:8080/article/1,5309,2212,00.html - The Senate passed the killing of it and the Bushy gladly signed it instead of vetoing it. 8. Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million.
WHAT IS THE BLOODY DEAL IF ED DOESN'T USE THE FREAKIN' QUOTE TAG?!!?!?
Sorry, got a bit carried away there. The use of the " (quotation mark) is certainly an acceptable way to quote someone. It is really getting annoying when every post berates Ed for not using the quote tag. It is as bad as when the whole crux of someone's counter argument is that they misspelled "ecomonic". Since he uses the quote tag to begin his counter argument, I think he knows how to use it. If you can't be bothered to look for the " mark, I wonder how you can stand to read a newspaper or an online article. I've never seen the newspaper use a quote block and I don't think I've ever seen an online article use it either.
I guess it's so much easier than actually addressing the point. Oh well, thx for noticing...
My opinion entirely surrounds the use of "get a life" in context with the message. It would appear that you disregarded the time an effort I'm Back put into the reply to Ed(hering) and indicated that I'm Back was wasting his time. Now I wont agrue about I'm Back attempting to lead a horse to water and the horse refusing to drink, that's all to obvious. But to say that I'm Back needs to "get a life" when taking into consideration your post as a whole was very derogatory, smacks of an arrogance I have not seen before.... Maybe I was wrong about you or just never noticed it before, but thats cool it happens.
I just figured you could have used a little more tac and alot less arrogance, I disagree with the use of "get a life" because Ed (I'm Back) has one and I like what he has to share and I feel his LIFE experiences play a very big part of it. I don't always agree with him but he is one if not the best debater on this forum. He has a very unique style that is uncommon...
Perfect example of a similar situation involving ME questioning Ed's wherebouts.
Looks like my fight for cheaper fuel was a futile effort....
"You may notice the 180 turn I have made since this thread.. Things change and I change with them, right now I'm Back makes alot of sense to me BUT that may not always be the case in the future. Irregardless of my position, I still demonstrate a level of respect and always pay my dues. How about you?"
Seriously! We used to abuse each other....glad we can understand each other now. You have definately had the largest paradigm shift of anyone on the forum. Not to say that's right or wrong with your direction, just that you are able to shift with your personal position/politics rather than find a party to follow and agree with everything they've done. Of course my opinion is that I like your politics now, but as you say you are subject to change. Funny thing is that most people are susceptible to change, most don't admit it.
When people refer to Kerry as a waffler I must laugh. All people must be able to modify their position as life changes, which is a very Darwinian approach.
When people refer to Kerry as a waffler I must laugh. All people must be able to modify their position as life changes, which is a very Darwinian approach.
I agree.. BUT I'm still voting independant. Probably why I will never again use the comparison between deaths of soldiers in Iraq to the deaths on US highways.
"You spent two hours in the middle of the day from 1:28 pm to 3:28 pm on a beautiful Saturday, one day before a National Holiday, typing a ranting post on a chat site? "
First of all, it was immediately before I left for Vegas, so that time was largely boxed in if you know what I mean. Secondly, what's wrong with spending time the way I want? Maybe I'm nocturnal . Why focus your response on the my use of time rather than for substantive counter-arguments? Although your guess was right that I spent 2 hours right before my flight left, I could have typed it in the middle of the night and finished it at noon. Lastly, you are wrong, my flight left at 2:00, so I was out the door by 1:00, which means I spent from about 11:00 am to 1:00 pm.
"Did it occur to you that Ed has a life and might have been celebrating America's birthday with friends and family this weekend?"
I was celebrating the 4th of July with family; I was in Vegas with my GF. As for America's birthday, America, both North America and South America have been here for longer than July 4, 1776, so I dismiss that remark based upon blind patriotism. Is the birthday of the United States really July 4, 1776? We were still colonial then, so how could it be? It's a little semantic to refer to the birth of an ideology based upon the act of stealing a chunk of land and earmarking it with a day of celebration as a birthday.
Why are you so concerned with the way I spend my days off? Or for that matter, if I spend them typing, reading or vacationing? Does that somehow support your Ad Hominem? Or is that the entirety of your Ad Hominem?
"Get a life."
I have a very (too) full life. I went to Vegas and had fun. I won't lie as you did and claim I won 33k dollars, but I had fun. I went light and bet about 10 baseball games each day, played some craps and blackjack and had fun; how is that not having a life?
Whereas you're angrily typing away at your computer inquiring as to why I don't have a life when I'm in Vegas; are you for real?
A sincere man wouldn't have felt the need to write War and Peace in reply to this. He'd have let it go.
WHAT IS THE BLOODY DEAL IF ED DOESN'T USE THE FREAKIN' QUOTE TAG?!!?!?
Have no idea why an obvious answer to a rhetorical question needs an answer but OK.
Can you read Ed's posts?
I mean in a literal sense, not philisophical (we can save that rant for another time).
I can't! I can't tell when he is quoting someone and when he is ranting. He misplaces the quote marks 50% of the time and even when he DOES place them in the correct place he doesn't use bold lettering or italics to distinguish his rantings from the quote.
At first I though he did this on purpose as a childish means of annoying the readers do I ASKED him to stop. When he kept doing it I assumed I was being ignored and then TOLD him it wasn't appreciated and to please post properly so as to make his post readable. Ignored again. Well, as the months went by I noticed some HALF/HALF posts where he would have one quote in the box and other quotes in quotation marks making reading even twice as hard.
That is when I realized that the guy simply didn't know HOW to use the quote function. But the arrogant know-it-all couldn't bother to ask anyone how to do it (that certainly explains his ignorance on just about everything from Law to Economics). Since one never learns by walking around as the authority on everything but learns by asking sh*tloads of questions I put it to him directly...why don't you just ask how to do it. He replied with some bizarre complicated process of opening other windows and copy/paste etc. which confirmed my hypothesis. The guy doesn't know how to do it but MORE importantly ios too proud to ask for help.
THAT is why we all rag on him about it.
ASK FOR HELP or remain ignorant. That is not just a PFF observation, it is a life lesson.
"He misplaces the quote marks 50% of the time and even when he DOES place them in the correct place he doesn't use bold lettering or italics to distinguish his rantings from the quote."
Can you provide proof of me misplacing quotation marks? When you write your papers, or fingerpaint at school as the case may be, do you use bold lettering to establish a quoted statement?
"That is when I realized that the guy simply didn't know HOW to use the quote function."
Not at all, I well know how to use either format. I choose to use the format I do because it is easier to transcribe a complete thought down and throw quotes on it. I often use WORD to compose my posts and the quotebox function makes it a pain.
"But the arrogant know-it-all couldn't bother to ask anyone how to do it (that certainly explains his ignorance on just about everything from Law to Economics). Since one never learns by walking around as the authority on everything but learns by asking sh*tloads of questions I put it to him directly...why don't you just ask how to do it. He replied with some bizarre complicated process of opening other windows and copy/paste etc. which confirmed my hypothesis. The guy doesn't know how to do it but MORE importantly ios too proud to ask for help."
First, the arrogant remark. I won't put it to a vote as you would, but I think that is your trademark even by, "your own." I think most people feel it is due to your self-inadaquate opinion. To support this I would assert you often trying to press yourself off as someone older than you actually are. Also, this academic elitist policy you attempt to invoke. A BS in some 'whatever' economics degree from some obscure college is nothing. Hell, even a BA/BS from UCLA, ASU, etc. is still an undergradute degree - big friken deal. Guys like Frontal Lobe likely look at guys like you attempting to make volumes out of your puny little undergraduate degree as wanna-bees. Todd, pinch yourself; when a person finds themself trying to overestimate their own intelligence they have a low self-image.
"THAT is why we all rag on him about it."
No, it is a diversion from the issue.
"That is not just a PFF observation, it is a life lesson."
Thanks, but I'm going to look quite a bit older and volumes wiser if I want life lessons.
A sincere man wouldn't have felt the need to write War and Peace in reply to this. He'd have let it go.
Another coward dodging the issues with rhetoric. Todd, even guys in your own corner watch you selectively answer posts. You write some garble if you find yourself unable to answer.
A sincere man wouldn't have felt the need to write War and Peace in reply to this. He'd have let it go.
Jesus....
A sincere man would stand by his convictions and NEVER let them go.. To me that is the measure of a mans soul and Ed (I'm Back) has alot of it. He is not one to give up when it all seems hopeless, he argues his case with dedication to his own cause, he fights for a cause that has not only his own good in mind but the good of all. I'm not sure if I'm Back served in the armed forces but his sacrefices on the field of political battle are truley honorable and commendable in that respect. Pay him this due at the very least, he earns it.
You still have a positive in my book (not that it matters) because you compell me to write of men and character. So even your derogatory rhetoric regarding I'm Back's methods and unseen motivations. I can see a man of character from 1000 yards and I can pick him off with a single shot. You may thing I'm shooting at you but I'm not.... just yet, I'm giving Ed (I'm Back) more ammunition to fight with because I understand him and his aim seems to be better than mine and I trust his judgement... to a larger degree.
Damn war mongers... I freakin hate them, they fight wars over stipid **** , for the stupidest reasons and destroy people for the sheer pleasure of watching them die.. It's truley disgusting and IMHO very un-American.
Keep it up Toddster, you're pounding sand like a storm trooper with bad aim.
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:
Have no idea why an obvious answer to a rhetorical question needs an answer but OK.
Can you read Ed's posts?
I mean in a literal sense, not philisophical (we can save that rant for another time).
I can't! I can't tell when he is quoting someone and when he is ranting. He misplaces the quote marks 50% of the time and even when he DOES place them in the correct place he doesn't use bold lettering or italics to distinguish his rantings from the quote.
At first I though he did this on purpose as a childish means of annoying the readers do I ASKED him to stop. When he kept doing it I assumed I was being ignored and then TOLD him it wasn't appreciated and to please post properly so as to make his post readable. Ignored again. Well, as the months went by I noticed some HALF/HALF posts where he would have one quote in the box and other quotes in quotation marks making reading even twice as hard.
That is when I realized that the guy simply didn't know HOW to use the quote function. But the arrogant know-it-all couldn't bother to ask anyone how to do it (that certainly explains his ignorance on just about everything from Law to Economics). Since one never learns by walking around as the authority on everything but learns by asking sh*tloads of questions I put it to him directly...why don't you just ask how to do it. He replied with some bizarre complicated process of opening other windows and copy/paste etc. which confirmed my hypothesis. The guy doesn't know how to do it but MORE importantly ios too proud to ask for help.
THAT is why we all rag on him about it.
ASK FOR HELP or remain ignorant. That is not just a PFF observation, it is a life lesson.
Cry me a river.
More sandbagging may help... keep pounding away.
The river you were initially forging is over there and now you are pounding sand in two different directions.. LOL
Edhering, let me show you an example of how people intelligently refute claims. I will take #1 of my above post as an example.
I wrote:
"1.The Overtime Bill - http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/overtimepay/ns01222004.cfm?RenderForPrint=1 - The omnibus appropriations bill is a factual reference that includes the Overtime Bill. The Overtime Bill is designed to unilaterally allow employers to relegate employees to salary status, require unlimited working hours without having to pay overtime wages."
OK, to make an intelligent refutation to this argument, you would have to make any or all of the following types of counter arguments:
A. establish there is no such thing as the Overtime Bill. B. establish it has not yet passed C. argue they won't implement it D. argue the law will have no teeth and be unenforceable E. somehow argue government regulation of this kind of thing is a positive thing F. take a position that workers like RN's, cops, firefighters make too much money anyway and their occupations need regulating
And when you establish these arguments, you should do so with some kind of evidence that is considered factual or reasonable. Arguments like: "my daddy said that's all I need in life, so that good enough for me and Jesus" simply aren't arguments that should be heard by anyone outside a person's own mind. I'm not projecting that argument to you, but if you want to argue in forums with a variety of personalities, that's how it's done. If you are at a church with an assimilated group of people, arguments like that work well, as they aren't contradicting dissent, but enforcing an already believed ideology. It's easy to argue with people that have the same ideologies as the arguer does, as there is no dissent, or should be no dissent.
HOLY CRAP 
. Why focus your response on the my use of time rather than for substantive counter-arguments? Although your guess was right that I spent 2 hours right before my flight left, I could have typed it in the middle of the night and finished it at noon. Lastly, you are wrong, my flight left at 2:00, so I was out the door by 1:00, which means I spent from about 11:00 am to 1:00 pm.
.
