Okay, this is completely inappropriate, but my limited vocabulary restricts my response: Our President ROCKS!!!!!! That speech was incredible - a tightrope walk between crisis and opportunity, right and left, war and peace. If the squiggly lines at the bottom of MSNBC's screen were any indication, folks that voted for Obama and the ones the voted for McCain agreed - top of the chart for the entire speech.
Energy. Health Care. Education. You know what my pet cause is (to refresh your memories: I think education is good). I actually started crying when he said "And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country — and this country needs and values the talents of every American." From preschool to college, a commitment to educate our youth, the recognition that the only path to the return to greatness that this nation has experienced is through education. It is my personal belief that there can be no greater investment, no more worthy use of our tax dollars than the goal of preparing our children and grandchildren for the world at large, and the world to come. (Especially if we expect them to pay for this pork-filled spending bill. This message brought to you by Right-Wing Talking Points Generator.)
BTW - I'm watching MSNBC, and after the Republican response by Gov. Jindal of LA, Chris Mathews was talking about how they had to go outside of Congress to find someone who could talk about wasteful spending, etc. since the Republicans in Congress were all part of that past. Given Gov. Jindal's ethnicity, was it just my immaturity that thought that it was poor wording by Chris to say that the Republicans had "outsourced the response"?
I could go on, and on - I've never felt so good about the potential onset of a depression.
(xootie - our new President is a touchy-feely. I can relate.)
And now, because that's how things work around here, it's your turn... (In case you didn't catch it all: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_text)
270 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 270 of 270DSG = Superfly T.N.T.
The Oracle said...
Twin fan is such a sniveler.
Man is that the truth.
tf 15 4 816 l)0[_]([-]3
He can't be real. Please someone tell me I'm not that bad. Please. Now I'm begging, even though a princess shouldn't have to beg.
Oh, and congrats, JMF, on what I believe is your first comment section over 200 comments.
and Gina, you were never that bad.
WV: vingba (I just liked it)
I don't know about the rest of you, but that exchange seems pretty tame to me. I think even Ted would admit to a bit of prodding there, really. Like Noam Chomsky, hartal requires some space to make his point clear-- a practice that was (subtly) attacked by Ted (sorry Ted, you know I love ya) and which prompted the return fire about the reverse being true in Ted's case (in hartal's opinion-- that of lack of ability to form a coherent paragraph). Schoolyard stuff. And I can't say that I disagree with him conceptually here, either, but's that's beside the point.
were? No, I'm better, though, right? It hasn't all been in vain?
WV: oviti
MY BRAIN HURTS!
wv:luniat
In your dreams, bud.
WT, and the Guns of the Navarone!
WT, and what coincidence do you note that has also occurred with the 200 comment level?
wv: sonar (we're getting deep...)
I'm just disappoined that I rarely get a chance to see the comments that got Gina's posts deleted hundreds of times.
I deleted them . They had errors in them that I never catch until I see them in posted. That damn box is too small.
TS, I put up the link to the discussion because it was simply too long to go through the whole thing, but I will point out one thing: My primary point, which was slightly off topic because the blog post was about the census, was that we need comprehensive immigration reform. But some jackasses don't like inconvenient facts shoved under their noses.
wv: chearg (yikes)
Sorry FH, I can't respond to this on MSM.
>
Dear YogiB, I cannot share your take on hartal. What
you see as wit completely eludes me. Your comments
are witty and sometimes sublime so I will miss your
presence. Perhaps I am more thin skinned than you.
Never liked school bullies and I don't like Hartal. If one
has to lose the sarcastic needler's pal so be it. Adios
and also, adieu. It's a funny place, this cyber island.
Unique. Voted off the island and takes... well, not
hostages. Willing supporters. :(
Posted By: phylloflix | February 27 2009 at 01:01 PM
>
She has it ass backwards. All of the bullying was done by twindouche, Xootsuit, DSG. TedSpe etc. Hartal got jumped by a pack of vicious Clinton loving dogs. I've experienced this on the Splash myself. Twindouche fancies himself to be the the Anti-Noob. He is a needy loathesome bully.
DSG: Coincidences are Jane's dept. ;-)
I'll bow out, because I don't want to have to slog through that thread! :)
One other thought... there have been times where I've felt victorious on some SFGate threads after a long exchange with some nimrod, only to see the nimrod's posts deleted, thus also negating the impact of my "work" developing what I felt to be brutally humourous barbs resulting in an entertaining trip to the gallows for another right wing loonie. So many have missed out... (not really).
I hate Twindouche. That's all I'm saying.
wv:snetteds
Yogi, I think you have a blind spot on this issue, at least with regard to me. As I said repeatedly, I was not a fan of either Clinton or Obama during the primaries. Phyllo's specific criticism of hartal (bully) isn't quite right, but he was the driver of the conflict. His problem, as I've stated repeatedly, is his inability to differentiate between opinion and fact, and his resultant self-righteous condemnation and attacks on anyone who disagrees with him.
But you're not really saying I'm like that, though, right dsg?
A simple yes or no will do? Then I'll drop it. I promise.
Geez, last night she thought I was kinda cute...
I came across this poor fellow the other day. He was lying on the ground, blood came from his nose, one arm was twisted behind his back, he was disheveled and barely coherent. I asked him what in God's name had happened to him. He replied:
"I've routed those bastards"..
DSG, when one commenter is being attacked by multitudes he has to fight back. To your credit, you led the charge against Hartal. The others jumped in only after you brought him down.
The buddha says, 'The true actor devotes a lifetime to acting like a waiter.'
Just because you're knid of cute doesn't mena I can't hate you at the same time.
And if you knew some things about me, you'd understand why I'm freaking out.
YC. You and I agree on some things. Which is good. But reading Hartal is trying to see through a block of lead. And I've never engaged in any sort of conversation with him. It is not entertaining in the least. He takes up valuable blog space with his incessant blabbering and is inconsiderate of other people's time. And yet people are still tolerant of him. And he continues to keep being an inconsiderate ass, despite that. He's taking advantage of the generosity of the other poster's.
TF, sounds like the Black Night from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Yogi, when you say "my credit" are you really meaning "my shame"?
Thanks, DSG, for bringing the beast to ground, I owe you.
Gina, you're definitely different from hartal.
Oracle, your take on hartal is accurate, IMO.
PgDn. ScrollWheel. Scrollbar Click. Ignore... No wonder we can't manufacture anything in this country anymore.
oh, thank you. Now I can go in peace. Amen.
DSG, not at all. You took him on in a fair fight. The others, not so much.
ROD? Is that you?
I have no trouble with anyone reading the whole exchange between dsgonzale6 and me at the politics and MSM blogs on undocumented immigrants. And at least we agreed at some point in the exchange that what I quoted from him made him look bad, so the question is whether the quotes were taken out of context.
Hartal, dear. It doesn't matter. If enough people are saying the same thing about you--especially when it's coming from different directions other than a political one--there is a good possibility that there might be some truth to the claims.
Learn from it. No one will mind. We're all probably older than you and had to learn something similar ourselves. No go and do something productive and think about things instead of fighting a losing battle.
If you can find any post, ever, where I called you an "al Qaeda operative" or a "terrorist", I'd like to see it. You won't, because I never said it. What I did do is question the morals of a worm who would make a moral distinction between murder and summary excecution, where the executioner is the sole judge of the guilt of his victims. The parallel to 9/11 was your choosiness in defense of killers...
Anyway, I also posted that I would never think you a terrorist, because there would be no way that the weasel Hartal would belong to an organization willing to do battle and die for their cause. perhaps you didn't undserstands what I meant: I called you a coward.
Ack! I have a headache in my eye!!!
Look deranged twin fan Michael you keep on attributing a position to me on Che that I did not take. I have restated the position. Quote it, and then refute it. There were summary executions but that does not meat that innocents were murdered (your own example admitted, guilt--but you are just too obtuse to see this), and it does not mean that execution was the appropriate penalty--I said that it was not. And I say why I found condemnation only of the other side (Che, Cuba) causally and morally wrong headed--we can't ignore CIA activities in Latin America, especially the overthrow of Arbenz which set history on a genocidal course.
And you did refer to me as Al' Q. And you have said worse things than that about me. You are not in control.
hartal, your fellow bloggers don't want to wade through enless political posts. They want to wade through endless romantic ones.
Have you met the Oracle, aka Gina, probono, Jane, not J, not LaSalle himself, not amandapants, but possibly RudyODonnell? I understand she's looking to hook up and has a very nice boot collection. If you're into that.
I thought you said "vermin" was Ted's.
wv: wokillet (I swear I'm not making this stuff up)
And I didn't say you were making me look bad, I said you were trying to make me look bad; there is a difference:
hartal, once again you put statements out of context, cutting and pasting my words to try to make me look bad, but it won't work. My only error is spending any time arguing with a dishonest fool like you.
Posted By: dsgonzale6 | February 24 2009 at 04:18 PM
But you are saying the words only make you look bad because I took them out of context, by cutting and pasting them out of context. But I did not such thing. The point remains that we cannot count on self-deportation to solve the problem of undocumented immigrant unemployment for several reasons: first many have been here long to have set up roots here, may thus be cut off from networks home, are unlikely to go home due to the difficulties of getting back in, and have had children here (their self deportation would impose trauma on many of those children).
These workers also created the income for unemployment insurance to be paid in the past, have often paid payroll taxes and property taxes (directly or indirectly). Many have worked for five years, giving America the additional number of workers it needed to build new plant, have done work that others would not have done. But now many are likely to go cold and hungry, but unlike you, I do think they do have some claim on unemployment benefits and if that is politically impossible then we need to find ways to alleviate their suffering.
And check out the intolerant calls for the repatriation of all undocumented workers at the politics blog. See Tyche Hendriks blog on Napolitano. So why are floundering here rather than meeting them head on, dsgonzale6. After all, you say that you are an expert in transnational human migration.
hartal, give it a rest, you made your points, I made mine, you think you routed me, I think my points were all well-founded and reasonable, you're threatening to hijack yet another blog with your logorrhea.
Um, we're debating immigration now? Here's my theory, Hartal. You have Asperger's Syndrome. Why do I think that? Because I have it. One of the attributes is the ability to focus obsessively on a topic until we have learned everything there is to know about it. Another attribute is the ability to talk about it incessantly, which is what I see you doing. The one thing you are doing that isn't necessarily Aspie is your insistence on your POV. You seem to have a deep-seated need to talk intil every last human has finally seen things your way, almost as if your life depends on it. It doesn't. Get over it.
Wow. Didn't you just post a huge chunk of the old exchange here? Do you really not care how silly you are as long as Ted Spe and dtfm has your back?
Hartal, I hadn't seen that before, but I do have work to do. I've provided an appropriate response.
BTW, hartal, I've got your flounder right here. More of a sturgeon, actually.
wv: enited (I wish)
Joe Bernard,
Why didn't you say something when dsgonzale6 copied over 500 words (maybe 1000 words) about the debate on immigration hours ago? Do you people really not see yourselves for who you are? Are you really as bad as the people at a Palin rally? Is it this bad for you?
Joe, I don't even think agreeing will do it. You must prostrate yourself, as before the kings of old...
This is the only time I’m going to speak in my defense on this whole thing. So it will be verbose.
YC, you are characterizing me only in a half light. I don’t know if it’s because you don’t know, don’t remember or don’t care. But it’s like telling someone the story and plot of the movie TOMBSTONE but leaving out the first half and just showing Earp running around shooting people.
Normally, in recent months, I’ve gone many moons just ignoring hartal’s posts. But once in a while, I’d slip and read one and then step in. Mean? Yup. Rude? Yup. And in your eyes unfairly, it appears. But here’s why.
See many, many months ago, before Obama even won the primary, I was reading the political blog on SFGate. Hartal was arguing with someone about something. It was the first time I had been on the blog so I had no idea about anything about hartal. And, he was right about this particular subject that I can’t remember right now. In principal. But he was doing a terrible job of getting his point across due to his, by now obvious, tendency to just piss people off with either insults or 12 page cut and paste jobs from some article instead of using his own words. But again, I agreed with him in priniciple. So I posted saying something like “Actually, I agree with hartal. I just don’t think he’s getting his point across. I think what he’s saying is….” And I said my piece.
Hartal then posted something like “TedSpe. I don’t need you to defend me. Obviously you don’t know what you are talking about and have no true grasp on this subject” To which I replied something like “Well, geez. I was agreeing with you” And he came back with something like “Agreeing with me or no is not the point. When your knowledge and of the subject is so obviously miniscule, I would prefer you stay away”.
So I let it go. For quite a while. Then it happened again. Hartal took a side on a subject that I agreed with and again I chimed in. And again, he attacked. In that, odd, superior “I AM SUPERIOR” sort of way. And later he argued on something I didn’t agree with. And I remember the subject. It was on the average salary of CEO’s. His entire argument was based on one persons article that he liked. I can’t say he agreed with it because how could he? He didn’t know. So I posted. And he attacked. In the usual manner. And we went back and forth and finally he said something like “I’ll have to think about this”. And the whole thing was dropped. A while later hartal was arguing with someone else about something and I posted something like “hartal, can’t you ever admit you might be wrong? After all, you were wrong on the CEO thing” And he attacked. And attacked. And that was it for me.
It probably happened once or twice more but basically, I was so fed up that I decided I would ignore hartal. But if I were too stumble across hartal being incredibly rude to someone who posts here that I like, like ferrett or suza or xoot or dsg, I would go in and attack. In my own obnoxious, annoying way.
I know. It’s very childish of me. Very immature. But I so dislike hartal’s persona, that I choose to be generally rude, annoying and childish when I bother to address him at all. I'm sorry but it makes me feel better. And he deserves it for the way he treats people.
If you don’t believe any of this, you can check the archives. I’m not going to bother proving it. It’s all on SFGate if you want to prove me a liar. But consider this. If I’m such a jerk, why don’t I treat EVERYONE like I treat hartal?
Okay. I'm done
Oh, and before anyone asks "If you were ignoring his posts, how did you know he was arguing?" Well, obviosuly, to ignore a hartal post, I'd have to at least read the hartal name.But when I see something like
hartal:
dsgonzale6:
hartal:
dsgonzale6:
hartal:
dsgonzale6:
hartal:
dsgonzale6:
I know something weird is going on
;)
Hartal, the extended excerpt about immigration was reprinted to prove a point about bullying, not to resurrect a discussion ON ANOTHER BLOG about immigration. This is what I mean about you not letting a topic go. You may not have noticed, but, this comment section is linked to a post about Obama's speech. And no, I'm not as bad as most people at a Palin rally. I would just be there to see her legs.
Geez, looks like a hurricane hit this place.
wv -- sessesty
Maybe that's descriptive of what happened?
ENOUGH!!!!!
Ferrett: you've been Monty Woolleyed, dear.
wv -- ducks
no kidding.
ouch - comment moderation. how long is this going to last, FH?
Apologies, dear hostess, it seemed amusing at first.
I suppose this is a bad time to refill my glass... um... yeah... well... it's getting kind of late... um........ ok........ where'd I put my coat?
Okay, have we all taken a deep breath? You can come out of the corner now... I didn't enjoy that, and I really don't want to have to do it again. I just felt an aneurism coming on.
I'm all for Moderation...in moderation. ;-)
Ok, back to french fries...
FH -- This ain't The Splash or MSM, where the guy who starts a thread moves on and leaves it to, well, go to seed. This is very much your blog from start to finish of every thread. Your continual review of what's going on is one reason this is a good blog. Exercising control over it is fine. Don't worry. You won't over-react. My sense is you don't have an iota of fascism in your character.
Now, the rest of you god damned miscreants . . . Book em, Danno.
Ted Spe,
Why do you post on the topic of CEO's? It is part of common political discourse to dwell on the problem that their pay has gone to over 200, perhaps even 300x, the average worker's pay. You thought I was making this up. I am not. I was not relying on a single article This is a common statistic, constantly referred to by populists in the Democratic Party. You just haven't noticed. Look up the work of Jared Bernstein who I cited at the time (I also cited Robert Reich, former labor secty and Obama spokesperson). Bernstein is now Biden's chief economic advisor. My sources are well chosen. They are not chosen through a random google search.
The question that was raised--and I granted it was a good one--is how CEO defined. Well in the Mercer survey that the WSJ uses CEO seems to be defined as one who has a certain institutional relationship to a board of directors and runs a company with a market cap roughly in the Fortune 1000. This was all explained to you.
Now of course if we include the owner of any small business the differential won't be so great, but that's not the question, and due to your rather simpleminded approach to all questions, you haven't grasped that what people are debating is why CEO pay (assuming the Mercer definition of CEO) went from something 30x greater the average worker's pay to well over 200x that pay
in the last 40 years (and it may well have approached 350x) and whether there is a market or political justification for that widening disparity.
And why were you interested in such a question? You intervene when you understand little. But what I find disturbing is that you don't seem to care much about understanding things. I really do think you belong at a Palin rally.
Love that the most obnoxious Clinton supporter of all--politico--is now decrying my style.
Dead horse, meet hartal.
FINALLY - a topic upon which Gina and I agree!!! God sends us little miracles wrapped up in the oddest bits of twine and packaging tape.
Look Ted Spe is trying to tell you why he started calling me a subhuman, cretin, moron. He told you that it's because how I handled the CEO question. Now it's possible that he just did not have a reason to begin his abusive tirades. So that's what I tried to show. Ted Spe's message was quite long in its attack on me. I tried to show that he had no rational reason to be hating on me. And I hope that he can see this. I made a good faith effort to discuss this CEO thing.
How long did it take you to write up that message, Oracle? It seems a bit twisted--in the sense of The Shining-- to copy those lines so many times. But is your point that if a minority expresses a pretty common minority point of view on the issues of the day, that all you hear is blah, blah and you are willing to go totally nutso with your copy and paste function to shut it up.
I did not bully anyone. I give my reasons for my positing at great length. What is being counted as bullying here is my saying that a certain hard and fast position was cold-hearted, and to show why I said that I revisited the exchange of which 1000 words had already been reposted here.
On the other hand....
wv: joidspo :-X
Post a Comment