Ladies and Girlie men

Yes, Bill - I added nuggets of humour to lighten up a serious discussion.

And - I think you are being both ignorant and differently buoyant again.

But, clearly we shall not agree on this.

As to California - they ELECTED the cretin, no? Things can't be that good.....that can't be good for ANYONE.. (more humour, Seinfeld)

I see this is not a happy thread. Therefore, I will just dip in, give my take and be out of here: When one is an entertainer, such statements can be taken as humor, given the proper context. Arnold is the governor of a state, not a cast member of SNL. Any statement he makes will be considered in the context of statesmanship. If this is a typical example of what we can expect from him he will never be a statesman and likely will not get any cooperation from the ones he insults.

That was not a long post. The only insult which is to be found there is implicit in pointing out that when you were under attack, i came to your defense. I'm sure you consider it insulting for me to point out that you have behaved as badly here as the Hobbit did in that example. That was not a tirade. You specifically stated: "I don't even know what the hell you are talking about." So in told you what i'm talking about. I did not manufacture anything. I made a silly comment about amending the constitution. It was never intended to be anything other than silly. Others commented, and they you manufactured a diatribe against "liberal democrats" and "staunch conservatives" as being ideologically hypocritical. I did not attack you, i attacked the ridiculous case you were trying to make, by first erecting strawmen about "liberal democrats" and "staunch conservatives," and then going on to contend that you were describing a case of "hyper-partisanship." You did not provide any support for the underlying contentions about "liberal democrats" and "staunch conservatives." Those terms are so sufficiently vague as to be meaningless, but believing that i understood what you meant, i pointed out that the thesis was specious. You have upped the ante ever since. You write: "However, My few sentence, single quote response bore no resemblance to hobit's shameless chopping of one of my posts into dozens of pieces in an attack that had no real reference to the point I was making."--keep this in mind, the part about no real reference to the point i was making, when you allege that having made a silly remark about amending the constitution, soley for the sake of wry humor, constitutes my having "manufactured" the topic. Your rant about ideological hypocricy has nothing to do with the silly remark i made.



I do not imagine that i am insulted as member of a group. I have repeatedly pointed out that you suppose that these vague groups you name as "liberal democrats" and "staunch consevatives" may or may not agree with you, but that you don't know. I have not stated my opinion on the topic of amending the constitution, either as a general principle, or as specifically related to Arnold, which others quickly pointed out is the only reason that the subject has been brought up--for the first time in the 217 year history of that document. In your silly rage, you employed the word "you" in reference to me, thus: YOU. For some reason, you felt the need to shout, when you lied outright about who introduced the topic of ideological hypocricy. I simply made a silly remark about amending the constitution; you decided that was grounds for make an extended and flawed contention about people hypocritically taking a stance opposite to their putative ideologies. I consider that you betrayed my trust in shouting at me (virtually) because i pointed out to you that you were employing strawmen in an attempt to support a weak thesis--which is exactly what i did when i dressed down the Hobbit in coming to your defense. Sauce for the goose makes sauce for the gander. Name the false accusations--do you deny you set up straw men? If so, where is your definition of liberal democrat and your evidence that they are ideologically bound to call for more rights for immigrants, except in the matter of who stands for the office of President. If so, what is your definition of staunch conservatives, and where is your evidence that they are ideologically bound to oppose more rights for immigrants, except in the matter of who stands for the office of President? Those were the ill-defined labels you used, and the unsupported contentions you made about them. I accused you of raising the stridency of the discussion, and you indeed introduced a term, "hyper-partisan," and began addressing me by using YOU. I stand by a description of that as partaking of hysterical accusation. I stand by a contention that such tricks are part and parcel of the rhetorical tactis of such members as Karzak and Infowarrior.

A fair-weather friend is someone who comes around for the good times, but abandons you in hard times. When you were having a hard time, despite the fact that i did not agree with you and stated as much, i came to your defense by accusing someone with whom i did agree, but whose behavior toward you i deplored. If that falls within your definition of a fair-weather friend, then i can only think that must describe every member of your acquaintance. Hypocricy? Why, because when i see you using specious arguments to make a ridiculous claim arising from a silly remark, i point that out? I am happy to be a hypocrit under such circumstances.

If there is partisanship in operation here, it is your, and it is completely presumptive. As i've noted repeatedly, you don't know what opinion others here have, apart from Phoenix, about amending the constitution to allow the foreign-born to stand for the office of President. This was what you were attempting to flog, in what you were pleased to describe as a principled stand. To this moment, you don't know my opinion on the matter, because i've never given it. You assume that a pair of vaguely defined groups hold ideological positions which they have tradduced in this matter. That rests upon an assumption that such groups exist, that you know who they are, that you know what their ideology is and that you know their position in regard to the matter of amending the constitution. I can think of no better nor simpler explanation for such a series of incredible and unsupported assumptions on your part than an excess of partisanship. I come to this conclusion on the basis of the very sound advice of William of Occam, entia non sunt multiplicanda.

You have no case.

Oh, and, I don't favor altering the Constitution just for Arnold. A case for allowing foreign-born presidents might reasonably be made, but I haven't seen any yet.

EB, my personal notion of the (let us hope only temporarily suspended) promise of American Democracy is that its purpose is constantly to seek the greatest equity for the greatest number, and never to lay down the tools which expand the reach of that equity. To that extent, i would support a constitutional amendment which sought to remove such a qualifier of the eligibility to stand for the offices of Vice President and President.

Set
I tend to agree with you. I would be in favor if it took effect after a period of, say, ten years. That way it would avoid the stigma of seeming created for a specific person.

Initially I found Arnold's comments a joke then I thought a little further.
No, in today's climate, forgeddaboudit, quit the sexist, opportunist jokes...

Yes, that would seem wise. Even a "rush job" of amending the constitution can take three or four years. I have little doubt that Governonr, the Barbarian will not fail to improve upon his performance by continuing to display his statesmanship. The amendment of the constitution has been very politically motivated and accomplished on several occasions in the past. The "Civil War Amendments" were the accomplishment of a Congress packed with radical republicans (heeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . . god, that fractures me !), and mirror-image statehouses. I doubt that anyone has any room for complaint with the XIIIth, XIVth and XVth amendments--for whatever cynicism i attached to the relative sincerity or democratic nature of the amending process which accomplished it. After the second world war, as is often the case, the party in opposition got control of the Congress, and Republicans grabbed the statehouse as well--after 13 years in the "wilderness." It was then that the term limit was imposed on the Presidency. Winston Churchill was turned out of office in London, and Truman only avoided the moving van because Dewey and the Republicans took a victory for grant, and ol' Harry did the hard work, stumping and whistlestopping right across "the heartland."

Repeal of the XXIInd amendment, or had it never been ratified or even proposed, might have meant three or even four terms for Reagan. I obviously would not have been sitting with the happy campers, but i believe that if one wishes to be principled, one has to accept the good times and the bad. I feel the same way, even were there an indecently hasty amendment of the constitution, and the Presinator took office, i would still stand by the principle which would lead me to support such a measure.

Eisenhower might have been a three or four termer also.

Dlowan, what's differently buoyant mean?

Setanta, you are still brilliant at delivering your message and your message is still wrong. Since there is nothing of substance in your last post that wasn't present in your previous posts, your answers can all be found in my previous posts. This has become too circular to continue and I'm sure you are as tired of it as I.

Sorry Kicky

Well this is not the only bad news for Ahnold. The grid in California during this heat wave came dangerously close to a black out. If he works as fast as he did in the last "Terminator" travesty, he can head it off at the pass and stick his finger in a live socket.

Speaking of hyper-partisan friends, what up LW?

Same to you, you goof-ball.

shepaints writes:


Why no sexist, opportunist jokes? Funny is funny and clever is clever when nobody gets hurt. If Arnold had targeted one person for a euphamistic reference, it would have been out of line. But you can't tell me that 'girlie men' in any way hurt a group of well educated, powerful, wealthy men and/or women who happened to be political wimps at the time.

I see myself as a reasonably well educated, reasonably successful woman with reasonable power. To me it is insulting to assume that a good natured sexist joke or reference will somehow wound my fragile psyche or standing. I am also quite capable of translating words like chairman and mankind into broader context as appropriate and do not need for vocabulary to be rewritten to protect my fragile status. While I do not tolerate intentional mean, hateful speech well, I do think people should lighten up when no malice is intended.

Actually, Fox, objecting to stupid stereotyping has nothing to do with fragility - it has to do with recognizing the reality behind such stereotyping and objecting to it.


However - I have finally got the SNL reference.

Are you people saying that you believe Arnie was lampooning himself?

Hmmm - IF he was, that IS funny.

I remain sceptical - but not entirely so.

Then again - perhaps he is really cunning - and was sneaking his sexist stereotyping in under cover of self-lampooning? Like a Trojan horse thingy?

Makes you think, doesn't it.....layers upon layers - like a Napoleon cake - or a banana caramel pie....Arnie - pie........hmmmmmmmm.....what fun a little throw could make....

See? You NEVER LISTEN to me any more, do you?

On the 40% of canadian teenagers think America is evil thread, you said:

"Well, guess what? I'm dense too. It is my firm belief that every single leader on planet earth thought Saddam had some WMD with the possible exception of Saddam Hussein. I couldn't possibly care less what anybody said, so don't even bother with your quotes... As if the word of a politician necessarily reflects his beliefs (please). Actions speak louder than words. I agree that many didn't think he was a threat, that many weren't sure, that the majority questioned our new intelligence, that many thought we were overstepping our boundaries, etc? but none the less, they all thought he had them." (Your contention is easily demonstrated to be false, by the way - I din't believe - therefore "everyone" is gone - poof - but I digress)


I responded:

"Ok Bill - it was brave of you to come out and say it - dense you are.

We'll still love you though."

And added - in a later post, responding to Set:


"Setanta wrote:
Howzabout we just say he's likeable . . ."


Oh - I'm in the thrall of politcal correctness, you know - we prefer to use the term "differently buoyant"."


I guess you missed that page of lightness in the heat?

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=28256&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=510

Anyhoo - as you say - I never joke....

Well, now I'm screwed. I'll either be accused of being insensitive or not having a sense of humor, depending on how I take what you just said. If I'm real careful, maybe an can accomplish both. :wink:


Nonsense. Last time you used it was the first time I'd heard it. Your meaning was clear there, but wasn't a perfect match for either the dictionary or the theasaurus' definition. Hence, when it came out again, I wanted to learn what your exact defininion would be... because I was not only LISTENING, but also because I care.

Sorry darlin; I said "every single world leader" and wasn't aware you qualified. (Btw, nowhere in what you quoted did I say "everyone" :wink: )


Now if the your whole post was designed to reduce the tension here and be comincal, and your definition of differently buoyant is "likable" than I've simply proven how dense I am, again, and I'm sorry. Otherwise, I'd still like an answer.

D writes:


Sorry, if it's funny I laugh. I LOVE blond jokes for instance so long as I get to retaliate with brunette jokes.

"Why no sexist, opportunist jokes? Funny is funny and clever is clever when nobody gets hurt."

Times and sensitivities change, what was funny
fifty years ago is not necessarily funny today.

I was listening to a tape of Abbot and Costello recently. The sponsors for the show were cigarette manufacturers who introduced the comedy duo with a plug for their company. They had polled the nation's doctors of whom 75% had chosen their particular brand of cigarette!....

Lol - BILL!!!!!!

This thread has really got you, eh?

I thought - and still think - (despite your correction of "everyone", which I acknowledge) - that you are being very dense about the WMD. But - as I said on that thread, and as I still say here, I still luvya, ok?

I agreed with your ironically intended self-estimate of yourself as dense also ironically. That is, I DID think you were being dense, but I also thought it very funny to pretend that you were being serious when you said so, ok? And Iwanted to say I disagreed with you - but hey - that disagreeing ain't so deadly serious, ok?

I know you were not seeing yourself thusly.

I also thought that the thread had become very nasty - and I was trying to introduce a little lightness into it - which was taken up by a few folk for a bit, then dropped.

When others took the silliness up - I decided to riff on the left/right stereotyping thing.

As you know, there is an ongoing debate here about political correctness. The right's new political correctness, in my view, is to condemn political correctness (which makes my ears spin becasue it is a paradox) and I love to laugh at this conundrum.

Given that I often defend PC - and am frequently accused of being PC, I thought it funny to take that on, and I was lampooning myself and the new PC police by pretending to act like their idea of a stereotypical PC person - you know, the person who allegedly insists on using phrases like "differently abled" instead of "disabled".

With me so far?

I therefore - AS A JOKE - largely against myself - said that "we" (the hyper PC folk) prefer to say "differently buoyant" rather than a mean word like "dense".

Differently buoyant is a phrase I made up as a joke - it means that something sinks - therefore it is dense. It riffs on the concept of such funny descriptors as "differently abled" for disabled people - or "vertically challenged" for short people or "horizontally challenged" for wide people.


Also - "You never listen to me any more" was ALSO a joke.

It was, given that we are discussing stereotypes of feminine behaviour, a riff on the stereotypical man/woman exchange of, well, I have said it, of "You never listen to me any more" - which is, I guess, in the stereotype, followed by the male complaint "We never have sex any more".

Bill - I joke all the time. I often express serious things through humour - and I guess sometimes people get sort of left behind.

We disagree on the seriousness of sexist stereotyping, and we will, it seems, continue to do so. Just as we disagree on Iraq, and a whole range of other things. I hope this doesn't mean we can't joke around.

Edit: Goddess, explaining jokes REALLY sucks.