Jauronimo
-
Posts
14,735 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Jauronimo
-
-
Hell, I consider staring at women's breasts to be a random act of kindness in and of itself.
You are wont to confuse kindness with lewdness. Like the time you pressed your genitals to the window outside of Curves because you wanted to "do something nice for the fatties."
-
Can't the poor just internalize all the costs associated with their misery and stop trying to drag the rest of us down with them? Is that asking too much?
-
isnt it Napolean?
Never heard of him.
-
I'm not saying that his policies were necessarily sustainable or promote steady growth. What I am saying is that if you are living in abject poverty then the latest growth figure is of somewhat abstract importance and your immediate living conditions are of somewhat greater concern.
Thats why the masses elect leaders who in theory are able to look at the situation broadly and balance short term needs with long term goals and establish a system that allocates resources as efficiently as possible within the confines of the system. When the masses embrace a system in which the future is of abstract importance, I have to question the wisdom of the masses.
-
The people themselves endorse it. Who am I to tell them that I know better than they do what they need?
Well if the people endorse it then it must be great, as majorities have consistently demonstrated superior ability to choose responsible systems of governance which are both long-term sustainable and promote steady growth.
-
Damn those stupid and ignorant poor for continuing to vote for him. They should realize that it is only economic growth that matters. So what if they continue to live in abject poverty with no access to education or healthcare while the rich get even richer. Eventually the trickle-down effect will mean that their descendants might enjoy a better standard of living.
If you cared so much about the poor why would you endorse a system that all but guarantees that these people remain poor albeit slightly more comfortably? Some humanitarian you are.
-
You are making a specious argument, by suggesting that who people vote for is proof positive of voting for their best self-interests. Lets not confuse populist rhetoric with tangible results. Which country do you think has one of the highest inflation rates in all of South America? Food prices have been soaring, leading to widespread shortages. When food prices rise, who do you think that hurts the most? The poor. Now magnify that times 1000 in a country like Venezuela. So when you have a charasmatic populist like Chavez, who amends the constitution to retain virtually permanent control, then takes over all the media outlets, he in fact does create state-run media, which of course suppresses his opponents rights to free speech and drives home his propaganda of fighting the imperialist Americans (which of course resonates with many uneducated South Americans), and the rich ruling class aristocrats who suck the country dry leaving the poor to fend for themselves.
So when you combine his amending of the countries constitution for his perverse intentions of control, nationalize all the major resource producers to control the purse strings, take over the media outlets for reasons of suppression and the spreading of propaganda, with his ability to connect to the people of Venezuela, it's quite normal to expect people to vote for him, despite what is best for their own self-interests.
Lets not also forget that since he has taken control, oil production has gone way down, that the most capable human capital that his country has to offer has left Venezuela, reducing their ability to succeed long-term, while amassing over 2 Billion dollars of wealth for his family, essentially robbing his country through corruption, while railing on his opponents for doing the same despite him being the largest culprit of them all.
You've missed the point. He built schools and soccer fields in impoverished neighborhoods. He had good intentions. It doesn't matter if your policies result in waste and don't really benefit the people you intended to help. Success is measured in how good it makes us feel that we built an escalator that runs to the top of the favela and gave the poor new soccer balls. Only the rich gain from a strengthening economy.
-
yes dear, you are correct. sorry for any confusion or aggravation I may have caused.
Thats ok, Pooj. I can't stay mad at you.
-
what are you insinuating???
Call me old fashioned, but I often interpret statements within the context in which they appear. Like when you respond twice to the following quote, can you see how someone might think you're also commenting on race?
I'm shocked that a young black comedian won't be popular here. Absolutely shocked!!!
-
I made no reference to anything to do with any race. I've seen reactions here to how hated the NBA has become and the all star celebrity game is honestly my only exposure to kevin hart..I found him hilarious in that setting. I think he even won MVP this year....
You didn't have to. It was already implied. What did you think C.Biscuit was insinuating?
-
Could you imagine the reaction if I admitted I enjoy kevin hart during the NBA all star festivities???
There would be a meltdown because we're all racists.
I'm shocked that a young black comedian won't be popular here. Absolutely shocked!!!
I'm equally shocked that you would bring race into this discussion. Shocked!
-
You forgot fat and bald, man!!!
And what about Fletch? Come on. That was hilarious.
Isn't that code for something?
-
Well, since you're on a one way train to my ignore list, I'll indulge you this one last time:
Comedy is completely different? Yes, commercial comedy--what we're !@#$ing talking about--is completely different, and to Poojer's point, delivery modalities are so diverse and numerous, the game (my word) is completely different as well. Humors have evolved, "taboos" have evolved...oh !@#$ it, if you think jokes and comedy are the same now as they were 40 years ago, there's no !@#$ing hope.
Please expand on that idea. In what ways has comedy changed? Would you like me to explain how every other facet of culture/technology/lifestyle has evolved in the last 40 years also?
Are things now funny that weren't funny before or vice versa? Yes, you're being a troll if you want to argue to the counter.
Or do you simply have no idea what you're talking about? I actually do know what I'm talking about, and have neither the inclination nor the obligation to substantiate that to you. Call me a liar, I don't give a !@#$.
Yes, I compared the early shows to the current shows--based, actually on writing, not cast, but it's really all the same. YOU--and I don't know what I have to explain this to you--said the early days were better because (and I"m copying/pasting here) "I have seen their best of many, many times and theres nothing from this current cast that compares." In other words, the Bills suck because they could never beat the All-90's teams you've watched on NFL Films.
You see how your comparison makes no !@#$ing sense? No? That's why we're done here. It's been real, homey. Buh bye.
You couldn't even identify one specific way in which the art of comedy has changed, just as I thought. You continue to cite changes in media and broadcasting, as if the medium has effectively changed what is funny or why we laugh. Thats a tremendous point, especially since we're discussing SNL, which has gone virtually unchanged in format. Apparently, there weren't taboos 40 years ago. Who knew? Topical humor has been updated, but has topical humor fundamentally changed? Does the transition from Watergate jokes to Lewinsky jokes, or AIDS jokes to Swine flu constitute a new form of comedy, or is it the same s@#$ for a new day? Why we laugh, the basic construct of jokes and the literal tools available to comedic writers is the same now as it was 30 years ago.
Way to move the goal posts at the end. The current cast of SNL sucks because they suck. Again, you introduced the original cast to the discussion and made a direct comparison. Using your example, the point you were supposed to come away with is "The 90s Bills are better than the current Bills, because they would beat the current Bills 99 out of 100 times." That should have been pretty obvious.
If you can't discuss a topic intelligently and maturely, feel free to ignore me. I expect nothing less from you.
-
Are you a !@#$ing troll, or are you just this !@#$ing stupid?
If I'm an idiot and a troll, then you should have no problem answering my questions and supporting your claims. Try not to contradict yourself.
-
Except you're measuring "funny individuals" by their "body of work," which is precisely what Poojer rightly refuted--how can you compare comedy players when the comedy game is COMPLETELY different now?
You also said the current cast is lousy because their work isn't as good as "best ofs" from long ago. On what planet is that a fair comparison?
Just because Samberg isn't Ackroyd doesn't mean he isn't funny. And by the way--which selections from Ackroyd's celebrated cannon are basing this on, anyways? Because for every "great" movie he's made, and yes, that list is very very short, he's made about a dozen stinkers.
And yes, I'm including Blues Brothers among said stinkers.
Comedy is completely different? Please expand on that idea. In what ways has comedy changed? Are things now funny that weren't funny before or vice versa? Or do you simply have no idea what you're talking about?
The current cast is lousy of their own accord. You were the one claiming they're as good or better than the original.
If you were to watch it now, in a vacuum, you'd be PRAYING for today's writing.Correct me if I'm wrong, but thats a @#$^ing comparison. So you begin with a comparison then claim the two aren't comparable. Same old Big Cat. Doesn't remember what he said 5 minutes ago, no idea how he got here.
You've already demonstrated that you're out of your element, no need to drag Blues Brothers into the conversation. What great movies has Samberg made again? A few is greater than zero last time I checked. Please say Hot Rod.
-
Also an absurd comparison...so many more avenues to display your goods these days as compared to the mid 70's...who's funny today doesn't have to be a mutually exclusive argument from who was funny 30 years ago...Andy samberg is every bit as funny as Dan ackroyd(I will put Belushi on a separate level)...only difference is in how we perceive what is funny...
Precisely.
That sentence makes no sense. Its no wonder Big Cat agrees. In fact, no part of your reply has any bearing on my opinion. More marketing channels has changed how I perceive humor?
I didn't say humor was mutually exclusive. That's ridiculous. Humor is comparative, though. Especially when one cast consisted of funny individuals and the current cast does not. Samberg doesn't belong in the same sentence with Akroyd. Take a look at their body of work.
There is no nostalgia at play here. I'm the same age as Big Cat, and wasn't alive for the original cast. I have seen their best of many, many times and theres nothing from this current cast that compares.
-
Somewhere Oliver Stone is inconsolable.
-
Also, everyone who says "it sucks now" ---I got news for ya --- the Old School episodes, with Chevy, Belushi, et al, that **** does NOT hold up. If you were to watch it now, in a vacuum, you'd be PRAYING for today's writing.
Sketch comedy by nature is more miss than hit, but comparing the current SNL cast and current writing to the days of Chevy, Belushi, Murray and Akroyd is absurd. Who from this current crop is worth a damn? What have they done that will be remembered a year from now, let alone 30 years from now?
-
A quick trip to your profile page shows me that you outgrew their target demo 12-19 years ago.
Who are they targeting with this garbage?
-
As I said before, Ralphy gone, new coaches in? C'mon. Nobody can walk away at a time like that!
You even suck at quitting. Your inadequacy knows no bounds.
-
Check out this minute-by-minute account:
http://viewfromll2.c...-martins-death/
It may be worth fact-checking to ensure accuracy, but it just appears to me, as if Martin was trying to flee Zimmerman and they circled back to one another inadvertently.
His girlfriend , on the ohone with him, and the only one who has any knowledge of Martin's state of mind during that interim period, has said that Tryavon was saying things like:
Approx. 7:12pm [+ or - 59 seconds off of 7:12pm, from the time as recorded by Zimmerman's call to police. Exact time unknown]: The original phone call that Trayvon made to Dee, which lasted 18 minutes, is disconnected. Almost immediately after that phone call ends, DeeDee calls Trayvon back. He answers, and DeeDee reports that he says to her, “I think this dude is following me.” She says that she tells him “Run!” and that Trayvon responded that he’s not going to run, he’s just going to walk fast.
Read that entire accounting. It just seems like there is more to this story than meets the eye.
I'm NOT saying you 3rd, but I think there are a few people here giving Zimmerman an odd benefit of the doubt that he doesn't deserve. I can't place my finger on why though I suspect what the issue is. But before I started asking questions in this thread, people were universally responding to me that Trayvon had attacked Zimmerman.
That's sad. And not a fact.
He fleed Zimmerman for a reason.
And when the stakes are this high, no one should be conferred that benefit. The process needs to play out fairly.
As I said, "blithley":
http://viewfromll2.c...-martins-death/
6:54pm: Trayvon makes a call to “DeeDee,” a minor female that has been reported as his girlfriend. He is using a headset, walking home on his way back from the store after grabbing a snack and a drink, and he has been on the phone with DeeDee since he left there. According to DeeDee, it begins to rain, and he takes shelter at one of the buildings in the townhouse complex, while the two continue to chat. The referenced building is possibly the awning marked in purple on the above image.
7:04pm: An unknown individual makes a call to Trayvon while Trayvon is still talking to DeeDee. Unlike both Trayvon and DeeDee, this individual is not using a phone on a T-Mobile phone plan. Trayvon apparently puts DeeDee on hold, and then answers the new call in order to speak briefly to the new caller. This conversation lasts anywhere between 1 second and 59 seconds. After, Trayvon switches his call back to DeeDee. This phone call between DeeDee and Trayvon is recorded as having a duration of 18 minutes — which means from connection to termination, it was somewhere between 17 min, 0 seconds and 17 min, 59 seconds. Although the T-Mobile call times are imprecise, it would appear the call is disconnected at around 7:12pm.
7:09:34 pm: Zimmerman, in his truck, spots Trayvon. He calls the non-emergency dispatch number for the police, and the call log records his call as connecting with dispatch at 7:09:34pm. [Note: Relevant log begins on page 46.] He reports a suspicious black male in neighborhood. An recording of Zimmerman’s police call
. Zimmerman states “The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.” Zimmerman meant to say 1111 Retreat View Circle. It appears that Trayvon is around the clubhouse when Zimmerman’s call to police begins, at the intersection of Retreat View and Twin Trees. This is consistent with DeeDee’s claims that Trayvon was hanging out under a complex building to take shelter from the rain.Its pretty easy to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Everything that we know about Zimmerman leading up to this incident suggests that hes a decent human being and thus far his story fits with what can be proven. Should anything new come to light I'm willing to revisit my opinion, but if I had to bet right now, I'm siding with Zimmerman. Guess that makes me a Mexican loving racist.
-
If you wait for permission you're not really storming the court. Storming the court is a farce now. Happens all the time and its clearly premeditated. Its not even close to being that once in a decade, spontaneous overflow of emotion where everyone suddenly decides to follow the lone nutjob that runs onto the playing surface.
-
[This is an automated response. Please use a more descriptive title as its common knowledge that everything will drive Tom crazy.
Thank You,
Jauronimo ]
-
No worries bro.
Just wanted to articulate, as artfully as possible, and in fairness to the anatomy of the gun firing process, what is happening so at least I know that disagreement with my point wouldn't owe to overly bland descriptions.
Mission accomplished. John Wu meets Bukkake Sluts 9. Theres an assistant producer credit in it for you if you know how to play your cards.
Close call on an African hunt
in Off the Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by Jauronimo
Don't play dumb with him. Answer the man's question!