TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?!

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Don't be a fool, Okie. Seriously. I like having conversations with you but not if you're going to act like an idiot.
Cycloptichorn
I have lost patience with you to the point that yes, I admit to giving you flippant and simple answers that are attempting to illustrate your silliness. Do not make the mistake of ignoring the truth of what I say however. After all, man is part of nature, and the machines we use are just as much a part of nature as the teeth on a beaver as he gnaws the trees down. There is little doubt in my mind that if man had done what beavers do in some areas, there would be tree huggers like you making a public outcry about all the destruction and pollution by man in thousands of streams all over the world.

You think there's nothing wrong with pumping toxic chemicals into the ground? That there's no side-effects to that at all, and that it's comparable to a goddamn beaver?

I can't really do anything but point out how ignorant you are, Okie, with comments like that. It flies in the face of reality, but you just don't care.

I'll attempt to move forward by asking again: right now your party and you are claiming that, due to the recession, EVERYONE needs to make a sacrifice. And that's why we have to cut all these programs, even though there's tons of evidence that the things cut really do help people. But you don't think that we should cut out giveaways to oil companies? How can you possibly justify that?!!?! Please- I'm dying to hear a straight answer from you on this, not some flippant bullshit.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Are you really this ******* clueless? The minerals aren't the problem. The toxic chemicals used to leach the minerals from the ground are the problem. So is the hydraulic 'fracking' that they use to break the rock up underground.

Unbelievable stupidity in that comment above.Cycloptichorn

If man had created Yellowstone, the minerals would be termed "toxic chemicals" by you, cyclops, and you know it.

I used to work in the minerals industry, cyclops, and I could tell you a few stories. As part of our work to explore, we used to take water well samples, and some of the water being used had levels of minerals so much higher than the EPA regs would allow, that it was astounding. Such analysis was ahead of any drilling done by mining or oil companies. Nature put them there. I am also aware of rock formations that have naturally higher concentrations of various minerals. Nature put it there. Huge subdivisions have gone into some of those areas and people are probably totally unaware of it.

I confess to the fact that I observe some of these things because of my education and experience in the mineral industries. Do you get the picture?

Actually, nature is also responsible for more healthy conditions in some areas or regions. A dentist in the military looked in my mouth and said, let me guess you are from Oklahoma or Kansas, aren't you? I asked him how he knew, and he said all you guys drink that good water out there with abundance of minerals with calcium, etc.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

believe me, okie, if you go out and gnaw a tree down, I will not condemn you for it. Just be sure to post the video.

I haven't gnawed any down, MJ, but I do confess to cutting some down, even without a permit on my own property!!! Laughing

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

If man had created Yellowstone, the minerals would be termed "toxic chemicals" by you, cyclops, and you know it.

Tell ya what. Do you drink from a well, Okie? Let's do some hyrdo fracking right above your water table and see if you agree in a couple years. Whattya say?

Or is it just ******* up parts of nature that you don't have to live on, that you like?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
If man had created Yellowstone, the minerals would be termed "toxic chemicals" by you, cyclops, and you know it.

Tell ya what. Do you drink from a well, Okie? Let's do some hyrdo fracking right above your water table and see if you agree in a couple years. Whattya say?

Or is it just ******* up parts of nature that you don't have to live on, that you like?
Cycloptichorn

We need to have reasonable guidelines about what we do. We just probably differ in where we would draw those lines. I once knew of a case where the BLM argued with a company for months about what color to paint a small building out in the hills. I thought that was ridiculous.

Your example of fracking is a good one, but there may be some people that want to ban any type of fracking, even if it was thousands of feet below the water table. I favor reasonable regulation, and I don't think we have always had it.

0 Replies

I hear okie singing!

Brusha, Brusha, Brusha,
Here's the new Ipana,
With a brand new flavor!
It's dandy for your teeth!

0 Replies

The liberal progressive democrat left wing nuts are in rare form today.

It's OK to point and laugh at them, go for it.

0 Replies

Heard this "joke" today and it seemed like an appropriate place to post it:

Quote:

A public union employee, a tea party activist, and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it. The CEO takes 11 cookies, turns to the tea partier, and says, ‘Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie.’

1 Reply

@Green Witch,

My son told me that joke. I spread it around. Everyone who hears it comments on how true it is.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

My son told me that joke. I spread it around. Everyone who hears it comments on how true it is.

Greed (not stinginess) is the natural order of things.
IF he were not that smart n fast, then he 'd not have been a CEO.

I 'd give him a congratulatory thums up,
but a man like him needs no one's approval.

It makes me PROUD to be an American!

David

1 Reply

Quote:

It makes me PROUD to be an American!

What a loon.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

It makes me PROUD to be an American!

MontereyJack wrote:

What a loon.

Your mind is perverted.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

And you dare to call other people deviant. It is difficult to ascertain whether you are brilliant satirist whose posts here are a long, extended joke or simply a moron. I suspect the latter.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

I deviate from some things too,
e.g., my fonetic spelling.

David

0 Replies

OmSigDavid says:

Quote:

I deviate from some things too,
e.g., my fonetic spelling.

Ys, David, you certainly do deviate (are you now making an equivalence between perversion and deviation? I suggest you haul out your dictionary, if so).

The main thing your spelling deviates from is phonetics. It is not phonetic. It is completely idiosyncratic, and is no more systematic than regular English spelling, and since communication is by definition a shared system, and since no one shares your spelloing but you, it impedes communication, rather than enhances it. It is a supreme example of egocentricity.

To take just one example, "u" is PHONETICALLY pronounced like, say, the Spanish "puta". It is NOT pronounced like the LETTER "u" in English. to insis that "u" is instead what the rest of us spell "you" is phoneticall nonsense. Phonetically "you" is actually a better spelling for "you" than your proposed "u" is. Similarly, compare your revised version of "could" as "coud", with "loud, proud, pound, mound, ..."
Your "system" is riddled with inconsistency, which is unsystematic. Why on earth should we adopt something so flawed?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

David wrote:

I deviate from some things too,
e.g., my fonetic spelling.

MontereyJack wrote:

Ys, David, you certainly do deviate (are you now making an equivalence between perversion and deviation?

No; that was an aside to Plain, qua liberalism.

MontereyJack wrote:

I suggest you haul out your dictionary, if so).

The main thing your spelling deviates from is phonetics.

We disagree.

It seems pointless to to spell an F as "ph".
What good comes of perpetuating THAT???

MontereyJack wrote:

It is not phonetic.

It is closer to being correct than is the paradime.

MontereyJack wrote:

It is completely idiosyncratic, and is no more systematic than regular English spelling,

I have repeatedly pointed out that I will NOT
be the final authority in writing a fonetic dictionary.
Others will polish it to its fullest beauty.
I am trying to do the earlier demolition work.

MontereyJack wrote:

and since communication is by definition a shared system,
and since no one shares your spelloing but you, it impedes communication, rather than enhances it.

MontereyJack wrote:

It is a supreme example of egocentricity.

That might be true.

MontereyJack wrote:

To take just one example, "u" is PHONETICALLY pronounced like, say, the Spanish "puta".
It is NOT pronounced like the LETTER "u" in English. to insis that "u" is instead what the rest of us spell "you" is phoneticall nonsense.

Just pronounce it as a long U; easy (e z).

MontereyJack wrote:

Phonetically "you" is actually a better spelling for "you" than your proposed "u" is.
Similarly, compare your revised version of "could" as "coud", with "loud, proud, pound, mound, ..."
Your "system" is riddled with inconsistency, which is unsystematic.
Why on earth should we adopt something so flawed?

1 Reply

LOL!

Stupid liberals.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

fullest

So is this pronounced like "fuelist"?

How do you pronounce this word David?

Quote:

true

Shouldn't the ue be pronounced like "You eee"

Phonetics assigns the same sound to the same symbol at all times.
You can't change the way "u" is pronounced from one word to the next if you are using phonetics David.

If you wanted to use the correct phonetic spellings David (International phonetic symbols)
you would be "ju"
Full would be "fʊ l"
A real phonetic speller would never use the same vowel for those 2 words but you do it all the time which only proves you aren't writing phonetically or even making much of an attempt to do it.

Then there is this -

The real problem with phonetic spelling David is that different dialects say words differently..

Car for example
In Boston might be pronounced "k^a"
In other parts of American it might be pronounced "kar"
And in Britian it would probably be "ka"

2 Replies

@parados,

Several people have pointed out that different dialects would pronounce the same word in different ways. That small government person david would impose a pronunciation on the entire nation. Sounds as fascistic as the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan.

Here is a theme song that david, okie, georgeob, the Tea Totalitarians, the above mentioned governors and the rest of the fascists would adopt were they honest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYYTLJ8YHi4

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

I support laissez faire capitalism, as per Ludwig von Mises.
In your mind, that is the same as fascism ?

In your mind, Adam Smith is indistinguishable from Benito Mussolini ?

0 Replies

TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know