skvorecky
Streetcorner Musician
Now I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds.
Posts: 32
|
Post by skvorecky on Mar 7, 2011 14:57:25 GMT -5
interesting vernacular for the college-educated too. and i honestly don't go for casual (and it's usually pre-adolescent) use of the word 'retard' at all anymore. where you're from it's all like totally ok? especially for a 30 something grown man? here, there's a too many unfortunates labelled that. i've got friends having kids with those sorts of problems. my parents had kids who were 'not normal'; i grew up with them as friends. made obvious to me how lucky i was. i do not EVER want my kid repeating it as a hurtful slur to someone who never asked for that shit. ...you can see that it's just like the 'n-word' or 'oh that's so gay', can ya? You don't get to lecture about political correctness, dude. Not at all. That's like Ahmadenijad lecturing Gaddafi on the treatment of citizens in your country. |
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 8, 2011 13:18:26 GMT -5
that's rational.
oh, i'm ahmadenijad now.
my, my, my, how you pump up my legend when you're obviously not here to talk, but to stupidly needle me and use your 'aw-shucks texas-isms' (apparently, this is normal for a 30yo down there) to give yourself a 'oo, i GOt him!'-guffaw..
naw and NEITHER should i speak my heart when some asshole pining for his lost youth, devolves to a fucking pimply adolescent, repeatedly using words like 'retard'...and other apparently 'with it' bOOlsheet like 'derp'.
oh.
kay.
and so, next i'll be what? hitler? stalin?
it's not in the least about PC; it's that very simply - it makes you SOUND stupid.
tho i sure hope some 'retard's' dad hears you cavalierly use that on the street and he beats the ever-livin' shit outta ya.
|
|
skvorecky
Streetcorner Musician
Now I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds.
Posts: 32
|
Post by skvorecky on Mar 8, 2011 13:38:51 GMT -5
Did I say you were Ahmadenijad? No. Did I make an analogy, a metaphor to get my point across? Yes.
'Metaphor is the concept of understanding one thing in terms of another. A metaphor is a figure of speech that constructs an analogy between two things or ideas; the analogy is conveyed by the use of a metaphorical word in place of some other word. For example: "Her eyes were glistening jewels".'
You know what I meant, dude. I can't tell if you're playing dumb or if you really are dumb. It's simple. You lecturing me on the ins and outs on the offensiveness of a term is like Ahmadenijad lecturing Gaddafi on the treatment of Libyan citizens. Did I compare your life directly to Ahmadenijad saying that you exhibit the same behavior? No. I was pointing out the absurdity of you lecturing anyone on anything.
You just generalized people from Texas and then you just advocated violence against me hoping that I get my ass kicked. I bet you'd even advocate my death. How exactly is it I should fucking take you seriously? I'd expect nothing less from someone as "classy" as yourself who advocates child slavery. I don't understand how anyone takes you fucking seriously at all. Frankly, you continue to amaze me in one way: you're pathological desire to be the biggest asshole on the internet I have ever met.
|
|
skvorecky
Streetcorner Musician
Now I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds.
Posts: 32
|
Post by skvorecky on Mar 8, 2011 13:52:01 GMT -5
is derp another one of those illiterate shitheaded words like 'shizzle' and 'dope' which an entire self-anointed subculture thinks they've so cleverly subverted to their (sssssh!) 'secret language'? 'oooh look! we'll make it mean the OPPOSITE of what the straights use it for.'you're cool already skv. don't stoop to that. This actually goes back a long time. There's this thing called the internet: lmgtfy.com/?q=derp |
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 9, 2011 1:04:36 GMT -5
all figured out, good.
mccain impaled his chances at mopping up obama's ass, by putting palin on the national stage.
you would LIKE for me to be a palin supporter, making you an even less impressive individual than i already believed.
"that we'd help them to continue the shit which ***** and ****** began with lies, repression, subterfuge and mass murder?" - RocDoc
Were you talking about the government of the United States during the Reagan and Bush administrations?
this makes your self-promoted 'worthiness' even less.
facking bloated maroon.
|
|
skvorecky
Streetcorner Musician
Now I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds.
Posts: 32
|
Post by skvorecky on Mar 9, 2011 9:35:21 GMT -5
It was a good question. The only one that is slipping into a retardation coma is you, dude. Name calling is all you got and nothing else. Oh and spitting at the computer screen like Yosemite Sam and screaming "the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming".
And frankly it doesn't matter what we like, we know that you would vote for Sarah Palin before you would vote for a re-election of Obama.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 10, 2011 15:14:28 GMT -5
It was a good question. ... that it was a sentence followed by a question mark doesn't make it a question in this case. try 'an extremely broad and biased editorial comment' and i'd believe you. The only one that is slipping into a retardation coma is you, dude. Name calling is all you got and nothing else. ... wow, and you never did notice that you yourself went truly apoplectic, using pretty much kindasorta the same baiting and insulting, beginning this whole thread in fact. or was it matt? no matter, birds of a feather. so skv, the subject of name-calling? who was using the 'device' and who wasn't? shee-IT, pay attenTION! ... And frankly it doesn't matter what we like, we know that you would vote for Sarah Palin before you would vote for a re-election of Obama. more insipidness blown up my ass while i've made CLEAR that palin's definitely NOT someone who should be walking in the white house unless she's a part of the 2PM tourist group. but there you go. just another sledgehammer form of name-calling gone UNrecognized by you, sylvester cat. thufferin' thuccotash! |
|
skvorecky
Streetcorner Musician
Now I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds.
Posts: 32
|
Post by skvorecky on Mar 10, 2011 16:05:22 GMT -5
hat it was a sentence followed by a question mark doesn't make it a question in this case.
try 'an extremely broad and biased editorial comment' and i'd believe you.
I'd say that's up for debate and I side with Matheus on this one. The question was, do you support the fake conservative candidates like Huckabee and Palin? Do you? I see it took you several tries to answer the question before you devolved into spewing out your typical rhetoric and making a few passes at the swear jar.
wow, and you never did notice that you yourself went truly apoplectic, using pretty much kindasorta the same baiting and insulting, beginning this whole thread in fact.
or was it matt? no matter, birds of a feather.
You're sweeping generalizations just won't cover up for you anymore. You're one of those guys that would rather shout "fuck" at someone like Bill O'Reilly than have a reasonable discussion. I think the only person who is having a hard time paying attention is you. You've going full Sheen on everyone for a long time. Everyone's wrong around here but you. Why? Because you're a Dr.? Does being a Dr. make you better than everyone? So if someone has a doctorate in music that suddenly makes them an authority on everything? No, so what's your deal?
Thank you for finally having a concrete opinion on the candidacy of Sarah Palin. Would it have been so hard dropping the rest of the baggage and just say "The only way Sarah Palin is getting into the White House is via a tourism pass" in response to Matheus' question? No? I think it's interesting that you're the only guy that has consistently pissed off 99% of the people who have ever posted here. You're the one that is the fastest to have the conversation devolve into the personal stereotypes and fuck words. Why? I have a theory. I think you hide the fact that you're a neo-con and you're haven't reached beyond the pages of National Review to come up with your world view. Sometimes just saying the following, "you know, hey I don't have an opinion about that but it seems like you're looking at it the wrong way" works pretty well. It sets up for you saying why you feel one way and then the person can retort. You know, one of those things called a reasonable conversation. People would probably take you more seriously if ever dawned on you to be the sensible one in your response.
But just for you and old time's sake, we'll just kick it old school.
Fuck you, I think you're stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 11, 2011 11:39:04 GMT -5
this is idiotic. ... You're sweeping generalizations just won't cover up for you anymore. You're one of those guys that would rather shout "fuck" at someone like Bill O'Reilly than have a reasonable discussion. I think the only person who is having a hard time paying attention is you. ... My 'sweeping generalizations' when YOU throw out (just your mosr recent one) THIS?=> "In all seriousness, the thing about Ronald Reagan that gets me more than any other is that even on the most superficial level Reagan's entire ideology/schtick was and is complete nonsense." attenzione! attenzione, fuckhead. you and matt BEGAN this thing ONLY with the most sweeping of generalizations, moron. and you say i am 'HIDING' behind mine? to do what? you say this is a far-reaching ruse to fool you and matt into believing i'm not the true neocon which every fiber of your amazing lie detection system screams that i should be? good lord, i've been found out! quick the cyanide pill!!! idiot. just plain stupid and sad, skvor, that's what this line you're obviously PLAYING at, is. i do NOT care if you 'respect' me in the least, but the joking incivility, the disrespect for another human (which IS different than me personally currying your 'respect') is fucking bullshit. you're saying nothing here; DO having 'fun' spinning your wheels with this nonsense. basically it's shin's tactic wholesale; of just poking the dog with a stick. ~ spring your blanket hatred/intolerance on this ideologies your books insist on, matt. absolutely. have no sense for time or place, everything judged in the here and now. gives you a nice remove to drily disect the events of the world across all eras. that's great. keep it simple. you're a vital cog in the complex. |
|
skvorecky
Streetcorner Musician
Now I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds.
Posts: 32
|
Post by skvorecky on Mar 11, 2011 11:53:28 GMT -5
Bravo. Way to play up and reinforce the stereotype and generalizations, Doc. Kudos to you for devolving into the same old "you're an idiot", or "you're a fuckhead, moron" blah blah blah. You don't really have anything to say do you? You'll respond to this and I'm not even baiting you. You'll make it personal. You'll talk about how awful and hateful we are and then advocate our violence and death. All I can do is just heave a sigh and hope that one day, you'll change direction.
Matt's article was some what generalizing which is why I posted a more specific article with non-generalizing information concerning the issues he raised, all of which you admittedly didn't bother to read since you don't like to read anything outside of the "Russia must die" scenario. I don't hate Reagan. I don't hate Palin or Gingrich. Would I be friends with these people? Hell no. What I can't behind are their ideas for leading the country. Ideals that have led us down dark rabbit holes time and time again.
Also the thing that you put in bold was Matheus, not me. We're not mutually exclusive here. Get your audience right if you're going to go off on a flame war.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 12, 2011 13:09:15 GMT -5
the one piloting this supposed flame war is you. i posted an article about gorbachev outing putin for the pos he is...and then had the temerity to ASK that gorby AND ronald reagan be given a little bit of credit for the SSRs going down. that's ALL. no sainthood, no hosannas. not pronouncing hall of fame, world's greatest titles AT ALL.kept it simple. i responded to boiler-plate GENERALIZED thoroughly antiantiANTI-Reagan vitriol from the now thoroughly erudite matt and yourself, with this: it wasn't my intention to goad anyone into the contemplation of reagan's decisions' impact 40 fucking years down the line into this veryvery simplistic post-mortem of, 'of COURSE he knew this is where his decisions would lead!!!' ...small businesses, the fountainhead of what was once our middle-class affluence.the 'fountainhead'? no not hardly because their time inevitably was fading, especially if they were dealing in/selling/manufacturing GOODs. the megabox stores were starting and the stuff they brought in was cheap and guess why? mass produced in foreign countries. from shoes to fucking hardware. which then takes you into the next subject=> 'protectionism' in ANY degree is bad on every level? even while the rust belt jobs fled to the american south (starting in the 60s), then to the mexican north....and then fleeing to china thanks to the unions pricing their highly qualified master craftsmen out of their markets. of COURSE everyone in reagan's time were bitching to high heaven of this irreversible mass exodus, the likes of which had NEVER been seen before. 'what to do? what to DO?!"...and which we know NOW was never going to be somehow miraculously reversed. what WAS he supposed to do? sit on his fucking hands? or just wave bye-bye? and deregulation broke up huge state-sanctioned monopolies just to then have them (years later) REPLACED with OTHER huge monopolies? horrors! their efficiency of course suffered because many companies (air travel in particular) were being run on the fly (ahem) by people suddenly turned loose in a free market. kinda like obama's stimulus money for start-up businesses being bandied about to stone neophytes 'with a dream'. bottom line, it's bad that they came under the control and are now run by the really rich, eh? whose fault is it that 'hey you do it right, you're going to get market share and market share means profit'.... i thought philosophically and ethically ANY sort of monopoly is/was suppose to be 'wrong'. no? that you would have liked for reagan to have been totally hands off for his years due to conflicts with your own ethics seen through the prism of 40 years having passed, a time you likely didn't live in and now show an obvious ineptitude in trying to understand. nothing was perfect, new things WERE being tried. better still you RATHER not try to understand the times at all because then you can pass judgement far more easily with our NOW convenient hindsight. measured if slightly irritated but completely without ONE bit of the 'personal' you're here raving and drooling and all but prepared about to choke yourself on. then, next up at bat, next post here's you, projecting YOUR mind's-eye representation of whole goddamned republican party on me: Yeah, man, that's it. YEAAAAHHHH, man, I just don't UNDERSTAND. I didn't LIVE it, man. To that I say this: whatever. And to blame the Unions for companies going over to China and employing child slaves is just about the most ridiculous thing I've heard of. It wasn't Unions but corporate profits that brought about the move for labor in China. To say that you believe in a democratic republic, like the fucking dip shit smaller government republicans do, and then buy into the human rights violations of China to reap the rewards and only get charged 2% in taxes is bullshit. I love Republicans, thank you doc for pointing the sheer lunacy and hypocrisy of their belief system. Limited government and small government. Right. Except when it comes to the following: Gays marrying. Espousing free market values and then giving out Corporate Welfare. Anything that might get in the way of "God". Abortions. Polygamy. The Patriot Act and on, and on, and on. Keep on listening to the Glenn Beck whistle on his train of fucking lunacy. California Uber Alles. Awesome, Doc. I'm sure you don't care because you're one of those Brezenski stooges that was just happy that Russia fell at any cost and damn the consequences. I'd ask you how you sleep at night but I know the answer: Well. Because you don't care about shit. You're one of the great many Republican worshipping Yuppie pricks who has a sense of entitlement about everything as long as it's line with what you believe and doesn't deviate. Good for you. I wish I could live in a world that black and white. At least you feel good about yourself. Awesome. what a fucking cocksucker. if you say that this is nothing but a personal insult flame war and that it's all on me, it's mine and mine only, you are one seriously lying piece of shit playing to some unseen audience of morons somewhere, laughing at your complete lack of effort. NOR did you post any ' a more specific article with non-generalizing information concerning the issues' anywhere. IF that laundry list of bullet points right THERE^ is what you felt was 'specific', those are ALL huge complex subjects going across multiple eras of presidential tenure. 'generalized' as defined in websters. and it's a 'post' not an 'article' and WOW that i'd attribute a quote from matt as yours! geez, sorry. like i said, even at a 10-15 year age difference between ya's, you're birds of a feather. hip, book-larned to a point that if AIN't in them thar books, well, it jes plain din't happen! and don't let NObody tell ya differnt. perfesser says so! |
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 12, 2011 13:36:52 GMT -5
And to blame the Unions for companies going over to China and employing child slaves is just about the most ridiculous thing I've heard of. It wasn't Unions but corporate profits that brought about the move for labor in China. To say that you believe in a democratic republic, like the fucking dip shit smaller government republicans do, and then buy into the human rights violations of China to reap the rewards and only get charged 2% in taxes is bullshit.
direct blame on our unions for the ginormous chinese behemoth? fuck no. but IF you understand that 'business' is NOT a social service agency but is an entity beholden to make fucking money, NOT just support itself but often to attract people with a spare shekel to invest....but just as the rust belt infrastructure got too rusty to repair in an environment where EXPENSIVELY fixing and re-tooling infrastructure was then ADDED to cost-of-living (PLUS benefits for aging workers and their fams) raises to increasingly very well looked-after union members whose demands became well, expensive to the bottom line. the bean-counters, thinking ahead thought to just dump it all up here, lock stack and barrel....and to go where workers were younger and with no seniority complexities to worry about. mississippi, alabama were where ALL the factories that my dad would work at, went. you SHOULD have seen the impact first hand like i did. so whadda ya think? once the corporate bosses saw 'HEY! we can do this!', cutting costs were all the rage...and that IS sound business practice. Q.E.D. on to mexico....then onto to asia where a native-speaker could middleman an entire village into a corporate tentacle, a money-making one because the folks there, guess what? they didn't make shit. in terms of money. COULD money buy them things? why yes it could. didn't take much to make them happy. their 'agents' however became the big shot and often siphoned every last dime they could...dimes meant for perhaps, employees safety, comfort, ergonomics. china then just looked at their neighbors, figured out how to do it THEIR way, and off they went. there's a few dots to connect and the unions ARE waytf down the line, but here it began. and i wouldn't call it 'blame' but like the SSR's being 'bound to fall', outliving their usefulness, so became THOSE unions. and i saw it happen. and you THINK you understand it all, but i was there. I understand that this response says two things to me: That you fully endorse child and slave labor. That you fully endorse regulatory practices that benefit corporations. ~ Did I say you were Ahmadenijad? No. Did I make an analogy, a metaphor to get my point across? Yes. 'Metaphor is the concept of understanding one thing in terms of another. A metaphor is a figure of speech that constructs an analogy between two things or ideas; the analogy is conveyed by the use of a metaphorical word in place of some other word. For example: "Her eyes were glistening jewels".' You know what I meant, dude. I can't tell if you're playing dumb or if you really are dumb. It's simple. You lecturing me on the ins and outs on the offensiveness of a term is like Ahmadenijad lecturing Gaddafi on the treatment of Libyan citizens. Did I compare your life directly to Ahmadenijad saying that you exhibit the same behavior? No. I was pointing out the absurdity of you lecturing anyone on anything. You just generalized people from Texas and then you just advocated violence against me hoping that I get my ass kicked. I bet you'd even advocate my death. How exactly is it I should fucking take you seriously? I'd expect nothing less from someone as "classy" as yourself who advocates child slavery. I don't understand how anyone takes you fucking seriously at all. Frankly, you continue to amaze me in one way: you're pathological desire to be the biggest asshole on the internet I have ever met. 2 more utterly bullshit interpretations, taking rational comments which i made to ridiculously generalized conclusions. THIS one i didn't even wish to touch it was just SO fucking idiotic but - i'd wish you DEAD skvorecky?? man! and you tell me i've always taken things too personally? YES, after your self-righteous outburst of 'don't you fucking preach ANY PC to me, you monster!' sure absolutely, i would LOVE for you (or matt, also loving the term 'retard') to say it at the wrong time and place and learn a fucking hard lesson after stupidly just dismissing my heartfelt comment. death will come at its own pace. but spittin' chiclets at the hands of an outraged father struggling with a 'challenged' child could be simply a good start to knowing when to just shut the fuck up about subjects on which you know next to nothing. especially when you sure as fuck canNOT know who's listening. ~ i support child labor, slavery and balls-out breaks to multimillion dollar corporations? broad and GENERALIZED much? i mean c'mon wtf? though your gallery is laughing, i'm sure. |
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 13, 2011 11:20:57 GMT -5
I'll use your tactics to make my point, Doc. ... and you totally have missed that i have no tactic i'm playing here, i have no point OTHER THAN to have said, in a small, very meek way on a fucking deserted message board, he certainly deserves credit for several things, not this capital-case BLAME you're gagging and wretching over whenever he's mentioned in passing. well-rehearsed reflex btw. again...i give a fuck what your liberal establishment hindsighted boilerplate compels you to regurgitate, ok? he most certainly WAS a product of the times and for THOSE times, his actions were not viewed with this NOW convenient 'WE-e-e-ELL? look! see what happened?'-form of self-righteous indignation. MOST of what he did, in context, was well received. the president coming after jimmy fucking carter, what sort of a president would you have expected him to be?! oh wait (as much as it pains skv to hear this), you weren't born yet. your view is purely from books and academia. and that last STUPID fucking poster of yours could also be a quote from your beloved bill ayers made on september 12th 2001. of COURSE there's an irony that reagan said that while working firmly within the rigors of the islamic proverb, 'the enemy of MY enemy is my friend'....the other irony is the VAST number of 'you' (the liberal illuminati, ha.) would say the same thing about fucking al-q'aeda and the talibanistas after damning the usa for it's 'past offenses' creating this uprising against us NECESSITATING the need that one of our 'aggrieved' should bring us to our knees... throwing off their yoke. never mind that it is the WHOLE of the west that the talibanistas/al q'aeda find abhorrent to their pathological NEED to live a koranically 'chaste' 16th century life. but symbollically fucking the U.S. up it's ass on 9 / 11 served a purpose of 'patriotism' and was not terror. this you WOULD say, of course. 9 / 11 was simply their 'just war', wasn't it? forefathers, all of them. same way reagan meant it. rrr-rrrright. WHICH 'tactic' were you using by posting that? |
|
skvorecky
Streetcorner Musician
Now I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds.
Posts: 32
|
Post by skvorecky on Mar 13, 2011 21:08:30 GMT -5
Don't worry about it there Doc. You're just digging the hole deeper and it's just really sad. I hope one day you learn to grow up and find some happiness in your life.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Mar 14, 2011 8:30:31 GMT -5
... I believe in the lowest possible taxes and military spending is where I would cut first. That's conservative. ... aaah, so you'll be a literalist, 'conserving' stuff, (dedicated to conservation of peoples' income) and thinking that the military at this moment in time, should be a luxury? making you a true 'conservative', following the meaning of the word, the adjectival usage. interesting. Doc, I'm far more conservative than you. You, sir, are a neocon. There. Is. A. Difference. ... there ya go, just like you've been told, put a label on someone to distill what the person really IS down to a simple essence, circumscribed by YOU.. character, complexities then are just an image in your rearview mirror as you drive away at 75 mph, so satisfied that you can chuckle 'yeehaw problem solved'. you can pay FAR less attention then to what the person is actually saying then. this seems to suit you so far here. but me, i'm a neocon, eh? i don't buy it for a second especially if you stand by this exTREMEly fanciful (if very convenient and customarily broader-than-fuck) description: Go blow shit up "cuz it feels good to get revenge" even though it serves little purpose except making money for companies (And I still find it to be a knee slapper that the people with the biggest mouths on this one are those evangelical CHRISTian Republicans who are always prattling on about freedom but want to take away the rights of others. They should probably be born again and follow the namesake of their faith).
by THIS definition definitely not. sorry, i don't consider myself a neocon even by a more conventional description without all the spitting and hand gestures. ~ If we're worried about terrorism, we are going to take steps to protect the country and we are not going to have this massive militarization and start conflicts IN OTHER COUNTRIES when the supposed threat is here at home.and you were going to sniff out and throttle this 'threat at home' how? ~ and fwiw, your 'on reagan' post actually TRIED to contain the wee bit of balance your every word on him (til then) had lacked. I dispise that manipulative worldview and it makes him our worst President in my eyes.everyone 'manipulated' because they thought they still could. they (the us, the brits, most other colonialist european nations)didn't see the world was changing, swelling before they're eyes with far too many people than they could forcibly squeeze into some useful little 'box'. the times, the times, the times....and the circumstances. |
|
