Why yes Binarydrone, send me $1,000.00 and all the secrets will be revealed. My course covers such topics as:
[ul]How to Hijack for fun and profit.[/ul]
[ul]Choo-choo !! Thread-derailing made E-Z. [/ul]
[ul]Booties-call. (Get it? Booties are like little SOCKS but you’re not supposed to say **SOCKS **so don’t use the word **SOCKS **okay?)[/ul]
Disclaimer: I am not accusing anyone of anything. This post is for comedic purposes only. Do not drive or use heavy machinery immediately after viewing this post.
I tend to agree. I didn’t want to see Reeder banned, or Collounsbury, or december, or even milroyj. I realise that i’m in a pretty small minority, though.
I am with you. With the exception of blatant trolls I would keep them all. Kooks and idiots keep things interesting. Given the way the board is moderated however, I find the latitude that Lib is given is just absurd.
I’m with you mhendo (and fuitbat). Free the Shithead Four!
I actually am in favour of relaxing the “troll” rules. But this thread is about why Liberal gets a pass on current guidelines that, ISTM, got december and Reeder banned.
FWIW, cosmosdan, and not that I have any moral prerogative to say this, but I think it’d be worthwhile not to let Lib continue to make the thread be about his perception of “communal leftwing peacocking,” and let his posts on that topic sink without response; I find discussion of the show more interesting to read.
Sorry, missed this in passing :). Yeah, it’s the first time I’d heard Obama extemporize, and I was surprised and delighted: normally politicians on shows are extremely lame when it comes to their attempts at humor (what was it Stewart said to a political guest once? Something like, “Comedy is extremely difficult. Don’t try it.”) Obama, man, he was all over teh funny, giving better than he got to the host. His only misstep was his answer to the, “You running for president?” question, and even then, it was less of a misstep than most ambitious politicians give to the question.
Based solely on that show, if you want a guy who can project A Great Guy to Grab a Beer With, Obama’s the guy.
Well, to be fair, after I saw that interview I was amazed. An author goes on interviews to promote his book sales and it’s considered bad manners for the host to trash his book in public while interviewing him. Jon was right and funny but still…you wouldn’t expect Bernie to be to pleased.
They fooled around about how, if he was going to run for President, there could be no better platform from which to launch his candidacy than a third-rate NPR quiz show, and asked him (from memory), “So, tell us your intentions.”
He immediately responded, “My intentions are to go home and wash the dishes, like my wife told me to.”
A non-answer, but at least he didn’t say, “I have no intention of running for president,” like too many politicians lie, or say something equally obfuscatory. His answer was clearly saying, “Fuck off, none of your business,” only nicer.
It’s a small one to me, but I would have preferred a straightforward answer like, “Yeah, I’m considering a run, but I’ve damn sure not decided yet.”
It’s just a pet peeve of mine when politicians (or anyone, for that matter) refuses to answer a question directly. You could easily infer his meaning, but given that his meaning was plain, why not just say it plainly?
BTW, Usually, I just can’t resist a good straight line. I’m afraid I’m guilty of a few drive by jokes in otherwise serious threads. Liberal doesn’t get under my skin the way he seems to for some. When he has something interesting to say I respond. When he doesn’t I don’t. There seem to be other posters who are far more insulting and useless as they hang around the pit cussing people out at every opportunity. If their actions are tolerated then certainly Liberal can be.
Fair enough. I do the drive-by jokes sometimes, too; what I try not to do is the drive-by venomous attacks. THOSE are what get under my skin. When he’s joking around, he can be pretty funny (although even then, his jokes are often pretty venomous).
But if you’re responding because that’s where you’d like the thread to go, then of course that’s your prerogative.
Hmmmm interesting. I prefer his answer. I don’t think it would be smart to acknowledge presidential dreams this early in his career. His answer had a certain down home quality while making it clear that he doesn’t want to discuss it now. He might have said he wanted to learn to be an effective Senator before he considered any thing else. There’s so much baltant dishonesty in politics that I have more respect for anyone who manages to deal with all the rhetoric and interviews and still remain primarily honest and truthful. I don’t believe a direct question always requires a direct answer in the sense that you address the subject of the question. I choose not to discuss that right now is direct and honest, and more importently, a nessecary tool for politicians. If you can say it with flair, all the better.
Fair enough; maybe it wasn’t a misstep after all, given that it may just be my own pet peeve, and the man’s got my vote in any election in which he runs unless I find out
a) he’s secretly Karl Rove’s next protege, or
b) he’s running opposite Ursula K. Le Guin.
I agree with you on the drive by venom. I’ve been in a couple of threads where I’ve been accused of being a idiot, and a bigot, among other things just because I didn’t agree with someone. I try to refrain form those kinds of insults. I do enjoy a little well placed sarcasm though.
Funny. I wasn’t familar with Ursula so I looked her up. Imagine my surprise. I was expecting some political figure I wasn’t aware of. I enjoyed her a Message on Messages.
