The photo and caption were truly funny. One didn't have to agree with the point to be amused. There was no pretence of analysis (or "trenchant grasp" either), and it is absurd to criticize it for failing at something that obviously wasn't either attempted or claimed.
How can one rationalize an angry response to it?? Did the point hit home?
set
I did misunderstand the height of the hurdle.
And the height of said hurdle is reassuring, n'est-ce pas?
It is. Yet, even last evening on PBS, when David Brooks and Mark Shields were on with Lehrer, Brooks figured it not out of reach (Shields thought it laughable..."What? Every guy is going to come along and change the constitution because it helps him?")
dlowan wrote: I see - you think insulting the "manliness" of folk who disagree with you is good debate, do you?
lol, I didn't say that at all, you wolfly bunny.
I didn't mean to come off hyper-critically, either. The level of your own discourse is generally head and shoulders above the faggy little girlymen you conquer with them. Attacking someone (anyone), for posting a joke, just doesn't seem in keeping with your
manhandling skills.
I won't be making a list of your few shotty arguments because I'd have to sort through a mountain of good ones to find them. You know how much I love ya darlin. I wasn't defending Swolf's post. I was defending attempts at humor in general (no matter the poster or the target).
dlowan wrote:Well, then, we shall agree to disagree.
Deal! :wink:
Nah, george, the caption wasn't funny. It was predictable in all characteristics, the same joke told a million times before, by the same sort of person. At the sad bottom of it, the inferior and demeanable pussy. If you won't kill, you are a woman.
Is there some reason to keep lifting my fingers to this ******* keyboard.
hmmmm.
i don't have a huge problem with ahnoldt. yet. but if i did;
i would find it ironic that a man who made his first big splash by slathering himself in johnson's & johnson's and parading around in a g string called anyone else a "girlie man".
i would find it ironic that he made his first big splash in national politics by doing a self parody of a parody of himself. why didn't he just cut to the chase and do "shprockets"? "und nowww vee dahnze"
i would find it ironic that he would idolize the people who would have loved to put him in jail for smoking weed and "getting it on" in a casual way back in the day. really? "pumping iron", huh? sadly we can't blame disco for every bad thing that happened in the '70s. some responsibility must go to the captain and tenille along with doctor hook. but i digress...
i would find it ironic that the same people who march around wrapped in the flag voicing righteous indignation about preserving " 'merican valyahs" are the same people that want to rip the constitution (again) to allow a foreign born "hollywood" type to occupy the oval office.
i would find it ironic that a zillionaire who hasn't known a hungry day in decades finds the economy to be tip top. and tells a guy that is one of the top wealthiest men in the world that he doesn't know what he's talking about. noooo, vahr-en. yu arr zo gurr-leee.
oh welll....
blatham wrote:Nah, george, the caption wasn't funny. It was predictable in all characteristics, the same joke told a million times before, by the same sort of person. At the sad bottom of it, the inferior and demeanable pussy. If you won't kill, you are a woman.
Is there some reason to keep lifting my fingers to this **** keyboard.
It, like most jokes, was hardly orginal and did indeed involve characiture. However it was funny. One does not have to agre with the point to be amused. If the breech of PC in it took alll the joy away from you, then perhaps you have a different problem. Lighten up my friend.
Arnold, you were pretty neat in "Jingle all the Way"!
blatham wrote:Nah, george, the caption wasn't funny. It was predictable in all characteristics, the same joke told a million times before, by the same sort of person. At the sad bottom of it, the inferior and demeanable pussy. If you won't kill, you are a woman.
Yes & it gets very tiring, this argument, this joke .....
But I guess we could take the "if you won't kill, you are a woman" argument as an unintended, back-handed sort of a compliment toward women?
There is no complement in being weak.
blatham wrote:
Nah, george, the caption wasn't funny. It was predictable in all characteristics, the same joke told a million times before, by the same sort of person. At the sad bottom of it, the inferior and demeanable pussy. If you won't kill, you are a woman.
Yes & it gets very tiring, this argument, this joke .....
But I guess we could take the "if you won't kill, you are a woman" argument as an unintended, back-handed sort of a compliment toward women?
Hmmm - there IS that - heehee...
But - underlying all is the usual crap about women being weak - and being happy to kill, of all things, demonstrating strength.
Evolve, people....
Believing that killing is a solution to conflict is not necessarily a great position, either.
Its a lot better than being killed by the other guy cause you was too busy being a girly man!
1q2w3e wrote:There is no complement in being weak.
Nor is there much of compliment to be found in being naive, trusting, macho and dead.
only the dead part.
But girly men are incapible of understand what being a man means, this is why they are so confused on this issue.
blatham wrote:1q2w3e wrote:There is no complement in being weak.
Nor is there much of compliment to be found in being naive, trusting, macho and dead.
Don't waste your time, Mr. Mountie. If you saw the sort of horseshit this member is posting elsewhere in these fora, you would understand that what we have here is a childish attempt to get attention by saying things he/she/it hopes will upset people.
Very funny!
