NoBama - your mother should have taugh you better.

Not at all. It seems that you are old and so am I, but you are most definetly being either stubborn or foolish. Foolish doesn't fit what I know of you, so that leaves me with stubborn.

befuddled? moronic? disengenuous? Nope.

Edit:
At least I don't think it's personal any more, since you won't listen to PHP either.

 

for the people that might have forgotten
and i just remembered another goodie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r90z0PMnKwI

 

Well, I'm 48. Don't know where the math lies for you, but there are days I feel 80, and days I feel...50 (&^%$%^^&$% lumbar nerve roots!).

I'm aware you believe this, because you cannot conceive someone concludes differently from you - even though I have spent an extraordinary amount of time, showing why.

Give it time.

I'd say, given this thread, that leaves you stubborn, but that's just my opinion.

Hmm...

See this entire thread.

Really?

Now, I know you have called me any number of things, and so forth, and complained I haven't dealt with the issue, though I have, in abundance. I've asked several times:

Is answering with the same level of scrutiny of her RNC comments that terribly frightening, Jazz, or others?

Ugggggh. I'm plum popeyed on points under the penumbra, pig.

 

Good lord, saw your edit only after wasting my time to post. Really? PHP, care to comment?

Jazz, you've mirrored this notion before:

So I'll need to again disabuse you of a very basic misconception: to listen to, and understand an argument, isn't to necessarily agree with an argument. You've confused "consider, and disagree' with "not listening."

A problem, since I make it a point to listen, and, to be honest, given your obduracy, why this forum can be such a god-awful waste of time.

 

hehe, I better stay out of this one. It's getting ugly in hurry.

 

Not really, PHP, it's a pretty basic statement being made by Jazz.

Since Jazz seems to be making an assertion as to your point of view, quite simple, really - have I not listened and considered your point of view, or have I listened, and considered your point of view?

I know when this kind of thing comes up - as it does, at times - I don't like seeing it on the forum, and speak to it, regardless of the poster, or whether his or her point of view differs from mine.

I also don't like wasting my time, considering points of view, and posting a thoughtful reply, if this kind of crap is what we end up at the end of the day.

 

Well, I will say that I think you have responded to all of my posts respectfully. There were some questions I asked that I didn't expect you to answer but you did. I always enjoy our conversations because I know they won't get to the level that yours and jkjazz has already. However, jkjazz and I do see eye to eye on the vast majority of issues. It seems we're always sitting on the same side of the fence and it seems like we're (NPT and I) are always on the opposite sides. Aside from anything you would consider to be a personal attack, I generally agreed with most of what he said.

 

No issues there, PHP. Based on our exchanges, private and public, I think we both know that while we don't agree on many things, it's been an informative and substantive exchange.

Except that you're a dumb, stubborn, pinhead, doddering old man. Wait - sorry, that's been used before.

 

It was about McCain's policies.

If you want to assume that this line has any relation at all to Palin then she would be the "lipstick" and McCain would be the "pig".

 

I could just quote jkjazz's posts in retaliation, but I won't.

 

OK Northpoint,

You have quoted every bad word that I have ever said about you while painting yourself as the innocent victim of my evil onslaught. I honestly don't have the time to list the instances when you have insulted me in this thread. Feel free to do so, but I'm going to have to let it go.

I was pissed yesterday when I called you pinhead. Came back this morning and tried my very best to not piss you off, but still you somehow think that I have come to pick a fight.

And yes, I am absolutely dumbfounded as to why you cannot even consider it a blunder on Obama's part given the nature of "He Said, She Said" politics.

If there is any way that I have offended you with this post, please accept my most sincere apologies.

 

Jazz, I need to make it clear that you're not hurting my feelings, you're just supplanting substantive posts with these kinds of non-substantive statements and name-callings. As with your latter statement above, that "I'm simply not listening to PHP," well, as shown above, it's simply not true.

As to:

Hmm...we seem to have forgotten genesis, here. I'd refer you again to where we seem to have gone astray:

Which you seem to have forgotten, though I did earlier point it out.

At any rate, no, I'm not crushed. Just unconvinced, and in substantive disagreement. And, like you, I'm perfectly happy to leave a discussion of lipstick and pigs behind, to more important territory.

 

The best remark between the two of you was...
"I have dumbed it down as much as I can. Sorry you still couldn't see it."

That was side splitting funny and it rates up there with Grim's wife comment.

 

Uh, yeah - that one "were" side-splittingly, incisively funny, Biz. The sardonic knife really.

Just curious - get out much?

 

Really? You found that insulting? I better seek counseling I guess 'cause I don't see it.

It's OK. Let it go. We are wasting our time here.

 

I actually don't think he meant it as an insult. It's just a popular turn of phrase - and one that McCain himself has used a number of times in the past.

But, I can see how it could be misinterpreted

To be honest, when I heard the extract from his speech I thought it was hilarious:

 

Yes, I did, hence my reply, though I didn't need my mommy.

Reprinting the same thing implies the person missed it, if you say "I'll try again" with a straight face, and it implies the person was a moron, if said with a vein of sarcasm. Since it was a very obvious point you were trying to make, simply reprinting it, without adding anything else, and saying, "I'll try this again," well, how's this sound, Jazz?

In other words, I simply felt your statement was wrong, and showed why - I didn't miss it.

Saying:

Was insulting as well, and what I would call a very weak tactic, since I was not straying from the topic, though you wished to try to frame it so. I found the comment, like many others, a comment made in lieu of a substantive reply.

At any rate, can we have a pint, and move on to something a bit more important than lipstick, Jazz? Especially before you bring Homebiz to go catatonic with laughter over your sardonic repartee.

 

Well actually you did miss it and that is why I reposted it.

Was the entire post. You then quoted:

You then posted:

That is where you tried to change the subject, hence, "Try to stay on topic here".

Call it weak if you like. Tell me again how I am framing it, but there it is in black and white. Made in lieu of a substantive reply? Nope. Right on target.

There are many times that you just choose to ignore portions of a post. That happened again here, so I repost:

Why did I say "Let me try this again."? Because you did not respond the first time. This is what I would call a "weak tactic".

There was no reason for you to have been insulted either time.

Sounds like a good idea.

 

Same reason I majored in it and econ: There's too much at stake.

But what we call "politics" these days really isn't, its more like some kind of PR-based soap opera that costs trillions of dollars to run.

 

Jazz, I'd say the problem you're having is that I rejected your argument entirely, showed why, and moved on to what I think the reality is. Again, this was, I believe, my earliest statement on the thing in response to your apparent problem, replying to:

with:

You obviously didn't like my answer:

And this is the heart of your problem. I reject this assertion, and showed why, quite early on. The idea that this was a conscious choice, his speechwriter's volition - conscious, this is what you meant by:

right? - is something I rejected, and showed what I think the reality of the matter actually is. Several times. My excerpt of your argument:

IS your argument; it was a conscious choice, if not by Obama, then by his writer:

You didn't like my answer:

But the fact that I answered meant I believed I had responded in good faith. And so I again asked a question I've asked likely a dozen times - a question you've yet to answer:

I won't be replying anymore, Jazz, because we obviously are at an impasse as to what was said, what was replied to, etc. And I think I'm ahead by about 6 or so on that virtual pint we're supposed to be sharing, anyway.