Jauronimo
-
Posts
13,824 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Jauronimo
-
-
The significant other and her sister just purchased !@#$ing March of the Mother!@#$ing Penguins
Is that special edition narrated by Samuel L Jackson? I heard its amazing.
-
They changed the name to "The Fighting Mexicans"
-
You can't block off 20 minutes?
20 minutes? You wish. Read the original recipe, Chef. It takes at least an hour.
You need to boil water, thats like 8 minutes, cook pasta, another 10 minutes, strain pasta, uhhh 1 minute to be thorough, toss pasta in a pan with egg, cheese and pickle juice, thats like 4 minutes. So 23 minutes, IF you get the perfect cheese to pickle ratio on the first try, which has never been done, mind you. 23 minutes, figure third times a charm, and voila, the perfect retatta in just over one hour.
Sure, you can try tossing easy mac with hard boiled egg and pickle relish, but its not the same thing. Retatta requires patience and whole lot of love.
-
Not even close
Anyone have some pickle juice and pasta? J8 needs a snack
You're making me hungy dev. I've been meaning to make a big batch of that for weeks, but I can never seem to find enough time for such an involved dish.
-
Are you a pleasure model?
-
In all fairness, there's something terribly unattractive about cancer.
Love,
John Edwards
But yeah, Newt is type of slimy scum bag that his name suggests.
-
No, I'm taking credit for creating the environment that encourages such meltdowns. I am the Sith Lord of childishness...
Would you characterize your motives for fostering such an environment as punitive in nature?
-
Oh how I remember how polite and eloquent Juror8 used to be...
Now look what we've done!
He was a true gentleman, until LA broke the unwritten rule. LA's transgression may never be known, but the boy who cried racism has now resorted to calling us all "homos" and "queers" and goading anyone who happens upon this cluster-f$%^ of a thread to insult him "with certitude." Well done, Juror 8, well done.
-
Just goes to show you how incestuous Washington, DC is.
I'd take that more as evidence of the blatant opportunism thats commonplace in the district, and the gullibility of the American people.
Appointing a former Bain exec should receive about as much press as Romney's role and record with Bain, and that is none (unless the topic is the record of success). Neither Romney or the Obama Admin should have to defend Bain's right to exist, as VC/PE should have never been maligned in the first place. Any attempt to whip the chuds into a frenzy simply cannot be passed up.
Why the Repubs initiated an attack on the financial sector is completely baffling. Kind of like steering the ship into an iceberg in hopes that the crew will lose confidence in the Captain.
-
1. I dont know where you're getting "klan rallies" from.
2. Yes, I mentioned the "Turner Diaries" with respect to LA. That is between him and me.
3. The conversation got off topic when people began referencing my personal politics. Go back and read the first 20 posts yourself and make your own assessment.
Did I have to dignify those posts with responses? No. Did my responses to their posts take the conversation further off-topic? Yes. But did I initiate those lines of discussions? No.
But keep denying the obvious and carrying LA's water. You play good B word too.
Out of the three points above, tell me exactly, with support, where I'm wrong. And don't forget the bolded point.
1. How should your remark directed at LA concerning
be construed other than a Klan rally? When followed up with a quip about the Turner Diaries, the innuendo was rather obvious."groups" that you frequent, at night, and illuminated by the moon2. Yes you did.
3. I'd say you initiated that topic of discussion in post #1, where you included your own, self-described complicated, political views, as if they were at all relevant to what you intended to discuss. Why bother qualifying your opinion with which way you vote?
And we are in total agreement that you continued to lead your own thread in the "wrong" direction by responding to comments regarding your politics with posts which would make Proust blush, before of course you accused me of hijacking your thread.
What exactly am I denying? Is Hooked on Phonics, a product for slow children, a racial epithet now? That was an insult I recall tossing around liberally in middle school. If it now has racial undertones then I've never seen it, and if thats not what you're referring to, then I have no idea.
-
Now you're just playing the race card; that's pathetic.
I've disagreed with just about everyone in here. I've had some decidedly uncivil debates with OCinBuffalo and others. Heck, I've even bullshitted and joked with you about racial stereotypes.
Where were the claims of bigotry?
Can anyone find any, ever? *Patiently Waiting*
Exactly. You can't, because I haven't.
You're playing the race card...unabashedly.
And in fact, I never called LABillzfan a "bigot." You can play around with the innuendo, but shouldn't that be equally applicable. Hmmmm..... Give it some thought, you'll get there.
At the end of the day though, LABillzfan is a despicable and reprehensible creature. He knows what he wrote. I know what he wrote. You must not have caught it. Ok, that's fine; but don't defend the indefensible on grounds that you're not fully cognizant of.
This is not about a simple disagreement or difference of opinion. I wish it were. If it were, I wouldn't feel compelled to spit in LABillzfan's face in the presence of his family. I wouldn't do that, of course, because I like to think that I have, at least, a modicum of class. However that represents my level of contempt for him. And trust me, it's very well founded.
Of course words on a forum can be edited, and meaning adjusted, but I read what I read. And we'll leave it that.
I just hope that you don't continue trying to carry his water.
The only thing I saw was your unabashed insinuation that he attends klan rallies and suggestion that LA read the Turner Diaries.
But again it was I who played the race card, just like I led the conversation off topic. And please continue on the distinction between suggesting a board member is a member of the KKK while not making any claims of bigotry. Its these types of minute distinctions which seem to be at the heart of most your arguments.
-
Yeah, you're a moderate conservative all right.
Not only are Obama's detractors racially motivated, but now disagreeing with J8 is pure bigotry. Notice how we came full circle?
-
I do this with OC all the time and now I'll extend the same coutesy to you.
1. You mentioned a bunch of points and in you second to last point mentioned the "Kanye issue." (Post#24)
2. I responded to your post in turn. (Post#26)
3. YOU ignored everything else that I said in post#26 and just responded to the "Kanye issue." (Post#27)
4. I responded to your comment that Jesse Jackson And Elijah Cummings said that Bush didn't care about black people (because my point was that it was national media and their pundits who were making those comments about Obama not unaffiliated politicians or activists):
youtube.com/watch?v=2K8R2PDmbmA
(Aside: If you didn't know before, there is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between Joe Blow making that comment and an affiliated media personality making the comment to a national audience - that you continue to try to distinguish that is unfortunate).
5. You made some idiotic comment about "list of approved political and media figures." (Post#33)
6. I mentioned to you that I never said anything about "political figures," yet those are the folks who you referenced (Post#35)
7. Then you said that " asked for examples of such criticisms of Bush," and elaborated on that point. (Post#37)
Your response in Post #37 completely ignores points 1-6. I didn't ask for those "examples of such criticisms of Bush" in that context. The origins of our conversation was your point in post #27 since you ignored everything else I mentioned in post #26. So we stuck with the Kanye point and elaborated on that.
Can't you follow a !@#$ing train of thought?
You've conflated points, posts, ideas, and assertions in a weird way that suggests that your mind doesn't allow for any organization of thought.
LA wanted to know why the topic has gone so much off course. Here is the answer. It's dolts like you who deviate a thought into the nethersphere and then try to bring it back abruptly as if one !@#$ing post 9 posts removed is in response to something that wasn't discussed in full bredth for the last 7 hours.
Can you !@#$ing follow that?
!@#$ing. Dolt.
So you derailed your own thread regarding the interpretation of economic metrics with your assertion that the "criticism toward Obama is way worse" (post #15) expanded on this claim (post #23), and concluded that my post (#24) was the one that led the discussion away from the original topic?
Fine work, gumshoe. I'd love to get into the total contradiction and hypocrisy which runs rampant through this post, but now you're just wasting my time.
-
As I am sure some of you are aware, the Coachella lineup was announced last week and tickets to the event, subsequently went on sale last Friday. Here is a comprehensive, interactive listing of the lineup, which allows you to view the artist's Facebook, Youtube page, etc: Coachella Lineup
Me and 3 other friends that I grew up with scored tickets, along with a 4 night car camping pass before the concert sold out. One of the primary reasons for me going is the reunion of At The Drive-In, who broke up back in 2001. There are a number of other artists that I am looking forward to seeing, so it should be a great festival.
Anyone else from TBD attending this year? If so, which weekend?
That is a pretty sweet lineup for sure. Good news for us on the East Coast is that the lineup for Lollapalooza is typically very similar to that of Coachella. Rather than make your way up to Indigo, which is kinda out of the way, catch many of these acts in downtown Chicago. I'm waiting for the lineup leaks which happen like clockwork every March before I make this Lolla #3.
-
I also mentioned the unfair criticism of Bush that were the product of "open opinions."
The email was only relevant insofar as it concerned (what I believe to be) racist carictures.
The point that we've been focusing our discussion on is individuals saying that "_______ doesn't care about _______ people."
You're conflating two things to make a single point.
So as I mentioned before: Are you so interested in leaving this debate uninjured that you'll just make any point irrespective of whether or not it is consistent with anything mentioned priorly?
Wrong. The point of the discussion was whether or not the nature and intensity of the criticism aimed at Obama was above and beyond that directed at his predecessors or other politicians. I provided examples as to Bush's character being questioned. An elected member of our government questioned in national media whether or not Bush was letting innocent Americans die due to his bigotry. You've dismissed this and I'm sure you'll now provide some loose explanation of how this can actually be considered political in nature. I've also given you examples of other politicians who were and are heavily scrutinized for their religious views.
How is questioning whether someone is a US citizen not an entirely political tactic? Those with presidential aspirations would certainly leverage that angle if it gave them a shot at the oval office. Romney's ties to Mexico are now being discussed and his citizenship has been questioned as well. So we are now left with the racial aspects of your original argument which really only prove that Obama is this nations first black president born of a Kenyan and that some Americans are racists. As far as bigoted cartoons and caricatures, ask Condoleeza Rice.
As you can see, it is my opinion that the criticisms of Obama are no different than those aimed at members of the Bush administration and many politicians before him. In order to continue this discussion you'll have to provide color to the nameless "they": the media personalities and outlets which have reported that Obama is anti-American, a terrorist, and a watermelon/chicken fiend, and include the context in which these allegations were reported.
-
What are you talking about? Are you so interested in leaving this debate uninjured that you'll just make any point irrespective of whether or not it is consistent with anything mentioned priorly?
I NEVER ASKED FOR POLITICAL FIGURES.
You just added that in to make your own point.
And who amongst Elijah Cummings and Jesse Jackson is a media or journalist figure?
You asked for examples of such criticism of Bush.
I provided two examples with ease.
You dismissed them based on your vague criteria.
In one post you cite personal emails being exchanged between congressman as evidence of unwarranted criticism of Obama and with the next dismiss the open opinions of a politician which were broadcast on major news outlets. Mainstream media outlets openly discussed the merits of said accusations and opinions, similar to your nameless "they" in the media who discussed whether or not Obama's past associations are a reflection on his judgement and ability to lead the nation. If we are to continue, you'll have to shed some light on who "they" are and the context in which "they" waged such an unprecedented campaign of criticism which cannot possibly be explained as political in nature. One would think that ability to lead is the essence of political when discussing whether or not a candidate is qualified for the most powerful position on the planet.
You've asserted that the criticism of Obama is unprecedented. In respect to the racial epithets, that is certain. As far as religion goes, see Romney, Bush, or even JFK. Every politicians' past is on full display and past associations or indiscretions have been fair game forever. "They" said Bush was a war monger and a criminal.
-
I hope that you read post #26. It addresses much of what you referenced in your post above and provides a glowing distinction.
This is not about picking the personal for one and policy for the other. It is about a square distinction that exists.
If you don't see it, or if you don't want to see it, we'll jsut have a difference of opinion. But I've made the point that I feel needed to be made.
I'm satisfied with that.
We haven't spent 2 trillion dollars on anything that relates to the healthcare legislation.
They're both progressive spend initiatives.
I accept your question and raise you a question:
Was all the money spent for the Iraq War "on-the-books," budgeted and allocated dollars?
You're better than this.
I ask you a question and this is how you respond....with a non-answer.
Stop wasting my time.
Politicians are not paid to communicate information to the masses. They're not tasked with objectivity. They're paid to legislate. They have opinions too and sometimes they feign a good thought. But just like Alan Grayson and Joe Wilson, they're opinions are mostly stupid. For the reasons contained herein:
I. Asked. For. Media. Moment.
You answered with Jesse Jackson.
Figures.
I guess you'll have to provide me your approved list of political and media figures if we are to continue debating your carefully qualified and arbitrary opinions.
-
My memory isn't "convenient." There is nothing that you've said that I didn't say in my post.
1. I mentioned that their were caricatures of Bush that were entirely inappropriate. Just none that implicated a protected classification and none that referenced cooly a long history of injustice.
Notice that I didn't mention the myriad pictures of Obama as a monkey. The one that goes over the top paints HIS PARENTS as monkeys and since he is the direct descendent of chimps that explains his birth certificate being "lost." And it was circulated amongst local Republican party officials:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/gop_official_wont_resign_over.html
Monkey generally suggests someone as doltish. That's fine and is an acceptable politcal point (for black, white, whomever) if made in the scope of political commentary (e.g., "this person is clueless, let's illustrate him as a monkey.")
This wasn't made as a political point. It came from an irascible and boarish place and relates to a intrinsic characteristic.
Different. If you can't see that, it's not because it's not there; it's because you don't want to see it.
2. The slogans were/are conspicuously political points - as they were during Vietnam (Johnson and Nixon) when similar slogans rang loud. They were fine then and they're fine now. Democrat and Republican - fine. The signs against Obama concerning Afghanistan - FINE. Whatever.
Secondly, I'm not talking about any Joe Blow who can make a noxious sign. I'm talking about commentary that is media-driven or that is of a conspicuously media disseminated moment.
Again, it's still fine, because it's within the context of political discourse. But there are distinctions.
And with respect to the "nightly news [that ran stories expressing] that Bush deliberately lied to the American people in order to wage an illegal war for no other purpose than to award lucrative contracts to Halliburton," I addressed that too. Again, conspicuously political point that draws inferences from data.
The inferences are incorrect. The inferences are specious. It is a truncated conclusion. But they're grounded in something that is uniquely political and with data that is verifiable (i.e., there was a war, Halliburton was there, some in the Administration worked for Halliburton at one time, the justification for war was dodgy and unsubstantiated).
Please read the above paragraph again. It's important and since I'm confident that you breezed through it, you've likely missed something that I won't be compelled to address again.
Truncated conclusion. Verifiable facts.
Now how does that relate to birth certificates, and watermelon, and terrorist, and Chirstianity, and non-citizen, and Manchurian Candidates, and blah...blah...blah.
I'll accept the truncated conclusion, just show me the verifiable facts.
What individual or outlet, of national media moment, articulated that Bush doesn't care for black folks?
Wanna try again?
Jesse Jackson flatly declared that the response to Katrina that he viewed to be insufficient was racially motivated, while Rep Elijah Cummings merely insinuated the same. Do I have to do the rest of your homework for you, or will that suffice?
-
It's very correct. Here is why:
Criticism of Bush, from media sources, was ideological and political. DCTom made a point about Farenheit 911. Michael Moore, who is hypocritical is so many ways, was making a connection between Bush's associations with the Saudis and Pakistanis and the events of 9/11. His point was attenuated and required a lot of reaching, but it was a decidedly POLITICAl point. Call Bush a communist and reference instances that (to Moore) supports that: political point. Say that Bush was derelict in his vetting of political partnerships (with respect to Musharraf): political point. Insinuate that Bush could have done more with respect to intelligence pre-9/11: political point. Insinuate that Bush pushed the war in Iraq andf that the war fueled business interests that peripherally benefitted people that he was close with: political point.
The majority of the indignation directed at Bush was with respect to the Iraq War. As it turns out, the justification was not substantiated with results. It just wasn't. Trillions in tax dollars were spent for a conflict that wasn't what it was claimed to be. Whether or not there were ancillary justifications that people *may have* been happy with if articulated preliminarily is really of no consequence. You can't prove a negative and all we know is that what was presented as the case for war wasn't substantiated in fact, FOR WHATEVER REASON.
I don't care to relitigate this issue. I'm making a salient point about whence the ire towards Bush comes. The dislike had predominately politcal origins.
There were, however, some personal things that were unfairly leveled at Bush. Media suggestions were that he was somewhat unexceptional and incurious. He did have a tendency to bumble his words and was plain-folkish. To some, that was endearing; to many, that made him seem disengaged (and I'm being all kinds of euphemistic).
Obama is a different story. They've called him anti-American. They've said that he hates white people (not from an entertainer either). They've said that he is literally, not an American. They've disrespected his religion. They've taken very old associations and suggested it had an affect on his capacity to be President. They've called him a Manchurian candidate. Two years were devoted to his birth certificate. He was, functionally, called a liar, a charlatan and a hoax. The New Yorker magazine had a cover that illustrated he and his family as black revolutionaries and his wife, an educated Harvard grad, as an afro-sporting black panther. He has been illustrated as a Kool Aid drinking, watermelon eating, chicken devouring fiend - a foul throwback to early 20th century bigotry. Republican Congresspersons were circulating pictures of Obama as the child of chimpanzees. His dad was disrespected posthumously; he was analogized to modern-day black dads who father tons of kids only to leave, have more and collect the corresponding welfare benefits.
There were caricatures of Bush, yes. The "Mad Magazine" face comes to mind. They were inappropriate and insensitive and don't have a place in any square political discourse. And there were anecdotes about Bush's past to. Whatever Bush did or didn't do in college didn't implicate his capcity to be president. The attacks weren't fair.
The difference is, though, that Bush generally seemed to be criticized for the squareness of his political decision-making. The dislike of him, the caricatures, the jokes, all came from a place of political disharmony. What is the political point being made by illustrating Obama with big lips eating chicken? What is the political point made by questioning his Christianity, his nationality, and his love of country? What is the political point made by illustrating his wife as a black "soul sister"? Whence does it come?
I stand by my point. The political virulence against Obama far exceed (at least in scope) that which was directed at Bush.
Do you remember the pulse of independents in late 04 towards the Iraq War? Do yourself a favor and check it out. The Iraq War was a calculation that far exceeded (financially and otherwise) the potential exposure of the new healthcare legislation.
Bush was still elected.
So again I say, there are a bunch of dolts out there thinking Obama is going to lose in 2012 on the strength of partisan criticism. This movie have been shown before. It's unfortunate.
I suppose you've never heard "Bush Lied, People Died!" or "No Blood for Oil," or any of the other popular slogans of the past decade? It was nightly news that Bush deliberately lied to the American people in order to wage an illegal war for no other purpose than to award lucrative contracts to Halliburton. Or perhaps you missed the characterization of the war on terror as a new Crusade based on GW's fundamental Christian beliefs? Post Katrina GW didn't care about black people (and that point wasn't just made by Kanye) or don't you recall that either? Ever see any of the myriad depictions of Bush as a confused monkey?
What a convenient memory you have.
-
Didn't the lefties hate president Regular Guy because of his regular grades and regular mispronunciations and tout his successor president Genius as the savior of all mankind?
-
Just watched it again on Netflix....because I literally have never seen the full version uncut/no commercials.
Capt. Willard....got me thinking. Romney's real name is Willard. So there we go, Willard is on a long journey to confront Colonel Obama.
(This idea is just starting so I don't really have it all done...that's why I posted it, because I figured PPP could find lots of way to make it funny)
Just like in the movie, you could play Obama's wingnut speeches from the campaign right up until recently, that "really put the hook" in Willard. Do the "recovery summer" thing, whatever, it's not like we're short of material here. Have Colin Powell be the general, and Rahm Emanuel be the CIA guy, who recruits Willard to get rid of Obama.
Then the boys somehow end up on the boat with Willard, and end up as the crew. Don't know if Chef can fit in there or not.
Meanwhile, based on the reports from the WH, Obama is in his private office in the residence, reading People magazine and surfing TMZ, and uttering Kurtz-like babble that scares and yet awes the staffers. "It smelled like slow death in there".
Have Valerie Jarret running around playing Dennis Hopper's character.Have Rush Limbaugh be the Air Cav guy leading around the social conservatives, with Perry, Santorum, etc. being the surfers. "You wanna work on the economy or surf those waves of irrelevance"? Keep having one beat the other, etc.
Have Ron Paul be the French Commando leader married with all the fatalism of that piece of the story. Have to put Sarah Palin in there somewhere maybe...or later...
I have more ideas...like having Gingrich be the Playboy guy who shows up for the USO show...and then whores out Sarah Palin for gas, or, having the OWS people be the Kurtz/Obama followers attack the boat/be surrounding the WH, Willard's ultimate destination, and have Cartman waste them all....because he hates hippies of course.
But, it's no fun if I do the whole thing.
However, Obama will have to sneak out of the WH and kill Kenny.....because Kenny is more en vogue...or something. That's got to be in there somehow.
Have at it. Who knows? Maybe we could submit it for fun? For me, this beats the hell out of explaining economics to the ignorant for the 55th time.
I don't know about this idea. It seems your methods have become...unsound.
-
It demeans us all when people feel the need to use that term. We should all have enough respect for our culture and heritage to not use derogatory terms to refer to ourselves. It may be our word, but we do not need to use it, we're more intelligent than that.
Caucasian, please!
-
Oh, I get it. Government spending in Bangladesh increases consumer demand domestically.
-
Yes! Crazy!!! "Borrowing" money to feed people! Nuts! Money that will end right back in our own economy, crazy! Carzy! Crazy! Who is the idiot that wrote this op-ed?
Is Bangladesh one of the 57 states?
Obama rainmakers enjoy White House invites, appointments and contracts
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I'll see your dead puppies and raise you...
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/17/peta-wishes-obama-hadnt-s_n_217162.html