"When you climb in bed with government, don't be surprised if you get more than a good night's sleep" -- Ronald Reagan
Ever had a crazy girlfriend? I did. A couple of them. The hell of it is, you don’t know she’s crazy when you first meet her. If things are really going good, you overlook her mental derangement at first, or maybe you’re even turned on by it and enjoy going crazy with her. But in the end, it’s nothing but ugly.
Catholic bishops crawled in bed with Uncle Sam years ago, happy to urge us to outsource Jesus’s works of charity to the all-powerful, all-benevolent Federal Government. Nothing says “Love your neighbor as yourself” like turning over your wages to a faceless federal bureaucracy and voting Democrat.
All was sweetness and light until the Democrats began urging the killing of babies in the womb. Uh oh. But it was Uncle Sam’s final act of political sodomy that despoiled this cozy bed: Demanding that Catholics, and even the Catholic Church provide birth control and abortifacients to its employees. That had the perverse effect of driving the bishops into the arms of a Mormon.
Life turns strange when you mix your religion with politics. Kinda like that crazy girlfriend…
72 comments:
You raise a contentious issue to be sure, but an issue I believe warrants serious policy debate.
As it stands, the segments of the ACA which are touted as an infringement on the 1st Amendment, are applied only towards those religiously affiliated business enterprises [not churches themselves] which both serve the general public and employ the general public. The injury here is directly emotional, and indirectly financial, but enables no direct or physical deprivation of liberty, as no citizen is required to partake of procedures or medications against their will.
Now, the SCOTUS has ruled on this premise before, in 'Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith'. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from compelling certain religious beliefs or forbidding them, but in the case above, the court's majority opinion [Scalia] declared that "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
In other words, the basis of religion does not allow a person or persons to use religious motivation as a basis to disobey generally applicable laws.
It seems quite a tall order to defend preferential treatment by government when one receives tax exempt status - and - is allowed to disregard laws of general applicability.
For full disclosure, I don't support the position of elective medications or procedures being subsidized by tax dollars. Not one bit.
But I also do not see a case for infringement of religious liberty.
I would think the more recent Hosanna -Tabor ruling would control the argument since it seems far more germane.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf
As for the tune, we've come a long way from tea and oranges.
Welcome to 2023 and 9 percent unemployment.
And you can't blame Bush for the"previous " administration ..
IDK why I spent the money on Skyrim. It's much more fun killing trolls here!
Well, this site does have NPCs who mutter the same garbage every time they talk. Case in point, the above deleted comments.
But Skyrim has Dragons!
Barack Obama is my crazy girlfriend's more dependeable baby daddy.
Good morning. All those and 6 more. Blogger needs an ignore function.
"All was sweetness and light until the Democrats began urging the killing of babies in the womb."
....
You are seriouly stupid.
Charity is still alive and well in America, Silverfiddle.
However, if you check out the history of the great depression you'll learn that Hoover expected private charity to dig he country out of it.
Didn't happen.
But it will never be as strange as the crazy girlfriend again. I learned from a friend that she died of cancer recently.
I remember the time she got a little angry and took the car and drove to Vegas without telling me ... I still miss her.
...and I thought that it was Stevies spit...
"All was sweetness and light until the Democrats began urging the killing of babies in the womb."
So you believe ONLY Democrats support a woman's right to choose?
Libertarians support a woman's right to choose as well.
Your attempt to paint Americans who wish to retain sovereignty over their bodies for whatever reason they and their doctors decide is childish and incendiary. And that is evident in your flame-throwing use of the phrase "baby killers."
The GOP lost on this issue a long time ago. Tuesday's election is just another manifestation of that fact.
>the perverse effect of driving the bishops into the arms of a Mormon.
Hey now! We helped the Catholic Church purchase land and build the first Catholic cathedral in Utah 150 years ago, and even helped pay for the renovation and reconstruction of the Cathedral of Madeleine in 1993! Although there have been a few sore spots on both sides along the way, there's a century and a half of cooperation and mutual aid between Mormons and Catholics.
I think that earns us a more generous expression than "perverse effect." Something like "strange and oddly amusing effect." :)
>a woman's right to choose?
I think you left part of the sentence off. That should read "a woman's right to choose whether her child gets to live or not." (Although, in the interest of accuracy, I would rephrase the first part to read "a woman's so-called 'right' to...")
Personally, I would never use the expression "baby killer" to describe describe pro-abortionists. It just seems wrong to me. I would use the more descriptive expression "baby butcher."
But then, I'm rather old fashioned, so I don't always go for the hip new lingo.
But then, I'm rather old fashioned, so I don't always go for the hip new lingo.
I wouldn't say your old fashioned, just another person on the right who believes in state-enforced pregnancies for girls and women.
Your use of incendiary language is in service to that goal.
Orwell would be impressed.
＞state-enforced pregnancies for girls and women
Whoa...The government is now forcing girls and women to have unprotected sex? I definitely do not support that! (I'm a minarchist, you know, so I want the government limited to protection of each living human's right to his or her life, liberty, and property.)
Wow. I am in ab-so-lute shock. State-enforced sex! Who could even have imagined it. That's even more depraved than girls and women who get pregnant because they're sluts, then want to magically avoid the consequences of their own choices!
I wasn't aware of the implementation of the policy of state-enforced sex, but I assure you that I will be contacting my senators TODAY, and demand that this abominable policy be eliminated.
What is this world coming to?
Wow. The Democrats can really scare little girls into voting for them, can't they?
The Republicans will keep you barefoot and pregnant, but we'll give you FREE abortions and birth control pills.
It's ALMOST a scary to little girls as a re-run of Dr. Tongues Evil House of Pancakes.
"and now here's your host, Count Barack..."
The Fabians and other socialist/Marxist groups set out to destroy our culture decades ago. To do that, they knew they had to destroy the Christais-Judeo glue that bound our culture together. They have been remarkably successful.
"The government is now forcing girls and women to have unprotected sex? I definitely do not support that!"
"The Republicans will keep you barefoot and pregnant, but we'll give you FREE abortions and birth control pills."
This sort of specious argument is why the GOP lost.
Give it up. Legal abortion has been settled. But you are free to tell or force your girls and women never to have one, no matter what happens to them or their health.
Scarey stuff!
The Republicans want to lock up your vaginas, girls!
Save it for 2014, pShaw.
... force your girls and women never to have one, no matter what happens to them or their health.
...and btw, you'll DIE if the Republicans get elected...
BOO! Happy Halloween, voters. :)
As usual, Shaw avoids responding directly to what was stated, but goes off with an attempt at diversion, jumping to unwarranted conclusions, and setting up a flimsy straw man.
Since Shaw's empty blathering isn't really worthy of addressing at length, I'll just go with this one.
>no matter what happens to them or their health
In general, people who are against the killing of unborn humans are willing to make exceptions, such as when pregnancy and/or birth would put the mother's life in an abnormally high amount of danger, or in the case of rape. Those are cases that first of all are so rare as to be statistically insignificant, and second, can be made legal and left up to the judgment of the parents (who may wish to counsel with physicians, members of the clergy, etc.).
Naturally, there are those who are against it regardless of the cause or consequences, but they are a tiny minority of the whole of the pro-life population.
Regardless of those well-documented facts, and regardless of the fact that I neither stated explicitly nor implied in any manner whatsoever that I would even attempt to force a woman to give birth when her health and life would be put in serious danger.
Of course, I have significantly less inclination to support the choice to end the life of a baby in the case of a girl or woman who chose to have unprotected sex outside the bonds of marriage, and "accidentally" got pregnant, but even in such cases I would allow for that legal option if a competent physician verified that there was clearly a serious and immediate threat to the mother's life.
However, abortions of convenience (not ready to have a baby, not ready to be an adult, not ready financially, not knowing who the father is, not wanting to lose your looks, etc.) are nothing less than the cold-blooded killing of a defenseless child.
Shaw, based on your comments, I'm sure that you don't maintain moral and ethical standards that would motivate you to agree with that view, but I hope that I have at least made it clear that my position is not what you attempted to define it as, whether you did so intentionally or unintentionally. (It's sometimes difficult to tell if a person is being malicious or merely intellectually slothful. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and try to assume that it was the latter.)
Natsuo, I don't engage with people who insult me.
You're not worth it.
Ducky: The history of the crash and the depression runs a little deeper than that.
And in case you haven't noticed, we're losing the war on poverty.
Shaw: Part of dressing up gory and inhumane practices involves giving them innocuous names, like "choice."
This is a slightly tongue-in-cheek piece, so I called something what it really is. What else do you call shredding a human being with a beating heart?
It is amazing how leftists who congratulate themselves on how witty and sophisticated they are go all stodgy and plonkish when confronted with anything this side of New Yorker Magazine.
Ducky: I do give you partial credit for picking up on the 'crazy girlfriend' meme and going with it, but you killed the buzz by plodding back into history.
It's Friday, lighten up.
Shaw: As you stomp off in a huff (again) because you can't defend your positions, please contemplate that sovereignty you invoked. It goes a lot further than choosing to suck an unwanted baby from your womb.
This is how twisted progressive thinking is. Taking a human life is OK. Sovereign she calls it!
Yet you cheer as herds of feral federal swine trample every last corner of our lives, because progressives have carved out their own special amnesty zones.
Your position is logically inconsistent. And craven. But then I've just described modern-day liberalism.
>no matter what happens to them or their health
This may not reflect Natsuo's opinion (although, if he really does consider abortion to be "baby butcher[y]" it's hard to see how he could consistently countenance any exceptions) but unfortunately some Republicans really did stand on a platform of at least equivalent extremeness, so this is, sadly, not a straw man.
Well, Reagan, as was so often the case had it just about right.
The only thing he didn't explicitly say was that the people have been in bed with government and getting screwed for a very long time.
I wonder just what would happen if all of sudden the government reversed course and returned to a time of greater individual liberty and self reliance.
Methinks the rEpublicans would be squealing as loud as the dEmocrats.
As Ron Paul said recently, the nation is too far gone to find the strength to make the turn back, or the fortitude to sustain the grueling journey even if they found enough strength to make the initial turn.
It's 2012 folks and sad as it may be for many it is what it is. We can continue the fight, and it may slow down the process, but the reality is we are becoming the New Europe built on the Old Europe's principles.
Romney, as McCain, turned out to be a mistake. The real problem is the party and its unwillingness to grasp a changing demographics and a social as well as cultural shift. The answer is education.
It is likely going to be a very long night... Until the people demand the politicians work to solve the nations crushing debt and deficit problems. It will require give and take. I doubt the ironclad partisans on either side are willing to take that step.
Look, SF, I didn't go off on a huff. I refused to engage with a commenter who needs to use insulting language to answer me
I've had enough of that with other commenters of yours, and I don't feel like wasting my time with people who need to score points by telling me that I have no moral standards.
I've learned you don't get anywhere engaging with ignorant, angry bullies and that people who engage in that sort of trash talk have nothing of value to say to me.
And it's amazing to me that conservatives who like to congratulate themselves on how oh so rational they are and how they are the receptacles of the only received truth stoop to using bullying tactics and incendiary language to beat down anyone who disagrees with them.
Continue to live in your angry, insular little world. That's what delivered Tuesday to you.
> I don't engage with people who insult me.
That's an odd comment. I read through my posts, and I can't find anything directed toward you that is anything other than an objective observation. In fact, I even said that I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. That's hardly an insult.
Shaw: No one here got angry, and Natsuo is being quite rational and he is not bullying.
This was a lighthearted, fun Friday post until the stodgy, humorless leftwing prigs moved in and killed the buzz...
And in case you haven't noticed, we're losing the war on poverty.
-------
The rejoinder is obvious.
I haven't got the strength.
I'm just going to stream WBGO and crack a Left Hand Nitro milk stout.
"And in case you haven't noticed, we're losing the war on poverty."
SF
Disagree with you on this one. We actually are winning because look at the huge increase in families in poverty over the last four years. The trickle up poverty policy is working.
"I don't feel like wasting my time with people who need to score points by telling me that I have no moral standards."
Shaw,
I didn't see anyone say you didn't have moral standards. Like class, there are different degrees but everyone has them.
I don't have the right to tell a women what she should do and if she chooses abortion, she is the one who has to live with the consequences. I do however find it conflicted that the same liberals who will protest against the execution of a murderer will condone sucking a living being down a tube.
Shouldn't have watched the video. Thanks Silver, I'll be in the corner shining lasers in my eyes now.
...bad man called me names.
Only I am allowed to do that!
*stomps off*
>telling me that I have no moral standards
Shaw, I don't know if you're simply not reading carefully or something in your subconscious is twisting your understanding.
I wrote (and you can scroll up to make sure I didn't alter anything when I copied and pasted here):
"I'm sure that you don't maintain moral and ethical standards that would motivate you to agree with that view"
Where in there did I say that you had "no moral standards"? I'll answer that for you. Nowhere. If you actually read the words--all the words--you should be able to see that I said that you don't have moral and ethical standards that would motivate you to agree with that view. I'm not saying that you have no moral or ethical standards. I'm saying that, based on your statements over an extended period of time, it seems perfectly clear that you don't have a certain type of moral or ethical standards.
In short, I'm saying that you and I have different moral and ethical standards, which differ to such an extent that it's unlikely that you would agree with my views on the relevant topics.
If I want to say that you have no moral standards, I'll write "You have no moral standards." I always do my best to say what I mean, and mean what I say.
In case that's not clear enough, here's a real-life example. A reading of your posts over an extended period of time has provided abundant evidence that you tend to avoid responding directly to what was written and asserted, but instead have a hissy fit and write a retort empty both of meaningful content and entertaining wit. Accordingly, I will say this to you:
Shaw, you seem to have a tendency to get emotional when you have no rational argument against something that has been said, and to therefore attempt to divert attention away from your inability to rebut anything, by using
a) straw man arguments,
b) playing the martyr, and
c) a facade of righteous indignation
as your main tools of diversion. You complain about what you have (usually mis)interpreted as an insult, by using insults, then play the martyr again when you get the same thing tossed back at you, almost always with much more skill, and certainly always with much more wit than you have displayed.
There. I have stated my view of a certain aspect of your behavior, directly, and I hope with sufficient clarity. I wrote what I mean, and I mean what I wrote. I hope that helps you to be able to know the difference in the future.
Obviously it's your choice, but I would suggest that when you read a comment, you read all of the words, calmly, carefully, and rationally, then respond calmly, rationally, and directly to what is actually being said. If you are unable to do so, I would suggest that you refrain from any attempt to strike, since it never, ever works out well for you. You need to know your limitations, and choose your actions accordingly.
Remember: Your emotions are not tools of cognition. When emotions turn on, reason turns off.
>need to score points
P.S. It's easy enough to "score points" against your comments that I don't need to assert that you had no morals, even if I believed that it was true.
You might want to switch assignments in man-to-man coverage. I'll make the catch and jog in for six every time if I'm covered by someone without sufficient height and speed. It would be especially helpful if you utilized a veteran defensive back, so there would at least be a slight chance of breaking up the play. Well, that's not going to happen, but maybe I'll have to run a bit faster after the easy catch.
It's none of my business how you run your defense, really, but it is a bit more entertaining if there's at least some challenge to it, so I thought I would generously offer some tips.
Let's start cleaning house
Une affaire. Oui, l'affaire Benghazi.
@skudrunner --- I didn't see anyone say you didn't have moral standards. Like class, there are different degrees but everyone has them.
----
But yours, since you're an evangelical, are the very highest. Isn't that how it goes?
Well thank you Mr. Thumper.
And thanks to Natsuo for this one --- Remember: Your emotions are not tools of cognition. When emotions turn on, reason turns off.
Wow, is that freaking profound or what. This fringe right maroon has found a perfect separation of emotion and reason. You should publish, Budgie Boy.
"You need to know your limitations, and choose your actions accordingly.
Remember: Your emotions are not tools of cognition. When emotions turn on, reason turns off."--Natsuo
"The truest characters of ignorance are vanity and pride and arrogance."
>is that freaking profound or what.
No, but unfortunately common sense needs to be repeated to people for which common sense is not so common.
>This fringe right maroon
Good job! You positioned me appropriately (outside the mainstream, of which I've never claimed to be a part). You recognized that I'm right (and I'm always right, which tends to annoy people), and you referenced Bugs Bunny. Sonny, you scored a hat trick!
>a perfect separation of emotion and reason.
No, not perfect. On occasion I get worked up a bit when I buy a box of fresh cinnamon crumb doughnuts, and against my better judgment eat too many of them. So, not perfect. Yet.
>You should publish
Again already? You're an absolute slave driver! A tyrant! A human thumbscrew!
I mean, I know that the rule is "publish or perish" (even when you've made tenure; at least until you get really old, anyway), but how many journals do you think are even out there in my field?
Geesh! I at least need time to grade papers, and there's a shortage of TAs.
>Budgie Boy
Whoa, dude, Ducky. You are seriously on a major roll here. How in the world did you know that I was a big fan of Budgie? Hardly anybody even knows them anymore, especially younger generations.
As a reward for you excellent performance, here's a live performance by the original lineup of Budgie, doing their classic tune "Breadfan."
Play loud. lml
>"The truest characters of ignorance are vanity and pride and arrogance."
>ignorance
Well, me n' m'kin ain't much fer fancy book lernin', but we sure cain tell tuh differnce 'tween a lady--so to speak--whooz got 'er wits about 'er, and one 'ats havin' a bout 'o the vapors. So, miss, you go 'head 'n lah down raht there, an' let Jed go out ta the wail and bring you in a nahs cuppa ahs cole watair.
>vanity
I am not now, and never have been, a piece of furniture. Especially one with a mirror. I don't even own a vanity. It's bad enough that I've got to look at my ugly mug when I brush my teeth (and that's three freaking times a day!). Why would I intentionally put more around?
Plus, thayz fer lady-folk, and Ma, well, she's been hankerin' fer one since we got ourselves heeatched all them years ago, but firs' it wuz billin' a hay-owse, then the chillen', well, thay jus kep' a'comin, then the still done gone an' busted day-own, an copper tubin' bein' so 'spensive an' owl, we jus' never had t'wherewith-owl to get no hah-falootin' furnishins, lahk owl thay-um fancy pee-pole in sofistimicayted places lahk New Yawk 'n such. (Tho' I do feel t'need to say 'at Soddy Day-zee--thas jus' down-uh raohd a bee-it, pass ole Mose Hamituhn's t'backuh shayd--has got a raht nahs generl sto-uh, with lickrish ropes impohted die-reckly frum Memfee-us.) This yee-uh, lawdy, theyuh ben hawly nuff possum to keep food ah-own t'table. So, we ain't gohn be see-un no vanty antime soon, but thankee kahnly may-um fer askin'. Whassat? No, thaut they-er ain't no possum, may-um. Thayts a skuunk. You nevah seen one 'fore? Theyz raht frenly lessun you gets 'em rawled up. Then--WHOOEE!--they sprayz ya with a stink 'at'd make Ole Scray-uch fall 'tiz neez un ask t'Almahty fo uh meerkuhl clenzin'. So...wait, may-um? Where you runnin' off to lahk a rabbit s'ben spooked bah uh nastah shawp-tooft crittah?
Lawdy, city folk. They shaw do get worked up inna tizzy right fas now. They muss be drinkin' some bad 'shine. Mah cuzzin Lem-yule, he gah-ote impayshun and drank hissef a hoe jugga 'shine at hant bin prahply 'stilled. Evah say-unce, that boah jus' ain't raht. Then theyz ole Mose's mama, one day she went downta rivah an...
>pride
Oh, that's not usually a problem. When it starts to creep in, it's HAMARTIA TIME!!! (Can't touch that!)
>arrogance
I'm not arrogant. I really am better than you.
Unfortunately Shaw, that is not the Libertarian Party website. This is the Libertarian Party stance on abortion, and directly contradicts your websites statement that "We do not promote a specific argument or ideology to support the view that government should stay out of the abortion issue."
1.4 Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
The key words in that statement are "government should be kept out of the matter".
http://www.lp.org/platform
But I'm willing to compromise... let the state pay for the abortion of every woman the state gets pregnant.
If you get pregnant on your own, the bills yours.
HOW ABOUT SOME PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?
@Your attempt to paint Americans who wish to retain sovereignty over their bodies for whatever reason they and their doctors decide is childish and incendiary.
Ah, so we are in agreement then!
You have sovereignty over your body, as I have sovereignty over mine.
As I have sovereignty over my body, I also have sovereignty over the labor that body produces.
So how can you ask me to work (slave?) to pay for your abortion?
But I'm a magnaminous sort, so if you are in imminent danger of death as a result of pregnancy, I think I'd be willing to chip in.
But if you had too much to drink at the office party and landed on your ass with your legs apart.. well then Sister, you're on your own.
Cause meet effect, effect... cause.
Natsuo: No knock intended against the LDS Church. I am a big fan. I wish the Catholic Church would follow their lead and disentagle itself from its sweaty government embrace.
But I'm willing to compromise... let the state pay for the abortion of every woman the state gets pregnant...
Classic Finntann!
Fair amount of merit here
Ducky:
Taibbi is a good and interesting writer. He evokes emotional responses from all sides, and I admire that.
Please don't tell anybody else I said that, just between you and me.
I've had a few tumblers of Talisker and I'm feeling warm and friendly as I caress my six-string like a lover.
Ah Uisce Beatha, the water of life, a drop of the craythur.
If you like Talisker, have you tried Laguvulin or Laphroaig? Bit peatier.
Dammit, I'm out of Scotch! Stuck here nursing a Makers 46.
Interesting video. Feels unfinished though.
Slainte
You won't get a good nights sleep after this turn. You can't get it, it's like throwing a stone into the air and expecting gravity to leave it there.
Within a year or two your real masters will come banging on the door and when you go to answer, you won't find obama standing there with you.
Your masters may not understand your curious experiment with freedom and liberty, but they know how to get their money back.
We're on their list too, and we won't learn from you, we'll vote in the equivalent of obama for another term as well, vote ourselves bread and circuses and confirm their suspicions. And they'll come to make us their bitch too.
How in the hell did the English speaking world end up sliding towards oblivion?
Finn: I have indeed had the pleasure of trying those. I had a Scotch party late summer and a fried of a friend, a retired Sergeant Major, happened to be a single malt aficionado, and he brought something like twenty bottles. His collection was amazing, and he could talk about each one. I was taking notes, and the Talisker was my first purchase after that.
I currently have in my hand-carved German cabinet a Talisker, a Glenmorangie (me old standby. God bless the 16 men of Tain!), and a 12 Year Old Highland park, which is overwhelmingly smoky and peaty, a sensation I thoroughly love.
The video is totally twisted, but I've always loved that song, especially the chord progression, c/f/g
SF:
>No knock intended against the LDS Church.
No need to worry. I didn't take it as a knock, and I wasn't offended or indignant or anything like that in the least. (Sorry for giving that impression!) I just thought I would poke you a little bit about your word choice. Not that there was anything inappropriate about it, of course. It was just an opening for me to be silly.
I...have a hard time resisting those openings, hahaha...
I fancy a dram of Oban with a touch of water to release the beast.
Thanks Natsuo. I have LDS coworkers and neighbors. Good folk.
Oban, a fair compromise between the islands and the highlands.
I hold before you a solution to the agonizing issue of how to deal with unwanted pregnancies.
Like most "ideal solutions" it requires a certain degree of compromise, but I highly recommend it, even though someone is bound to take offense at it simply because we live in a society addicted to dispute for dispute's sake.
So here it is, ladies and gentlemen, you're way out:
You may avoid pregnancy while still enjoying the pleasure of sexual gratification by simply refraining from traditional sexual intercourse in favor of tactile stimulation and genital osculation.
There! Now wasn't that easy?
;-)
Better LDS than LGBT, eh, SilverFiddle?
@ Liberalmann: "I fancy a dram of Oban with a touch of water to release the beast."
Finally, you say something I can agree with!
FT: You statement about avoiding pregnancy is not clear... *Just joking!*
but you bring up a valid issue. With the proliferation of birth control, why are there so many abortions and unwanted pregnancies?
And I would not cast aspersions on the LGBT community, but yes, I'd rather hang out with the Mormons any day.
You mean you don't want to sit with the nudists on Castro Street?
bigot.
ain't Frisco grand?
"I'm not arrogant. I really am better than you."
Yes. Yes. Of course you are. Keep telling us and yourself that.
>Yes. Yes. Of course you are.
FINALLY you get it.
>Keep telling us and yourself that.
I don't tell myself that. I just am that. If you'd like to continue telling me that I am, you're free to do so, but you might look a bit silly just stating the obvious.
Hang in there! Not that you'll ever be able keep up, but you don't need to compare yourself to others. Your own growth, however slow and small, is wondrous and beautiful, in and of itself. Spread your wings and fly, little bird! Fly!
You're excellent at being condescending and self-flattering.
Two very important talents for writing comments in a little blog somewhere on the internet, surrounded by people who think just like you.
Brilliant. And exceptionally courageous!
Have you advertised your skills in the local penny saver?
Facts are facts. Some have brilliance, others... not so much.
You da man, Matsuo! :)
Thank you, Joe!
>You're excellent at being condescending
Why thank you! Although, in some cases it's a bit difficult, since I'm getting on in years and I'm not as limber as when I was a young'un, so I have a harder time in situations in which I have to condescend really far. The workout is good for my tired old bones, though, so thank you!
>self-flattering
Oh, I don't need to flatter myself, you goofy gal! My innate talent, wisdom, physical attractiveness, and overall awesomeness have people flocking to me from the four corners of the earth to throw rose petals in my path and bow down, continually shouting out words of praise as I pass, stopping occasionally to bestow a blessing on the multitude. I have tried to convince them that I'm a mere mortal, but they refuse to believe me. It really is somewhat distressing.
>Two very important talents for writing comments in a little blog
Oh, I don't know about that. You have continued to write lots and lots of comments without any skill or talent at all! Writing comments isn't really that difficult.
On the other hand, to make them interesting and/or amusing, now, that takes a little more work.
Although, sometimes the individual that you are toying with...um, I mean "responding to," makes it very, very easy by setting himself/herself up with almost every word he/she writes. I can't really take a lot of credit in those cases. I mean, seriously, would I brag about hitting a pitch 450 feet if the pitch was thrown by a sixth grader? Obviously not. You only brag if the pitcher's throwing the ball in the upper 90s with some nice movement on it. (Or those 90-mile-an-hour curveballs that Nolan Ryan used to throw. How can any human hit something like that?)
>somewhere on the internet
Well, yes. If it weren't on the Internet, it wouldn't be a blog. (Remember: web + log = weblog = blog.)
>surrounded by people who think just like you
Oh, there's nobody who thinks just like me, you silly! I don't even think just like me! And how would I be able to surround myself anyway even if I did think just like myself. I mean, that's just...Oh, I get it now. You're just messing with me! You're such a silly!
>Brilliant
You forgot to throw rose petals in my path first, but I thank you for your devotion nonetheless.
>And exceptionally courageous!
Oh, no. It is you, miss, that is exceptionally courageous. To continue coming back for more and humiliating yourself like that takes exceptional, nay, super-exceptional courage! Obsessively posting empty and wholly un-amusing retorts when it's obvious that I don't take any of it seriously in the least and that I'm just hitting the softballs you keep tossing up...Wow, the courage that would take is clearly beyond my capabilities. I would have slunk away and just ignored me instead of continuing to hand me buckets of ammo. Especially if I had already said that I "refused to engage" with me. I mean, how embarrassing would that be!
>Have you advertised your skills in the local penny saver?
No, word-of-mouth and commercials during the Super Bowl seem to be more than enough. The members of my staff do their best to help me keep up with the demand, but I've still got an 8-month waiting list. I'd like to hire more, but the whole Obamacare thing and other tax hikes make it hard to add very many new employees. (You might not believe it, but the pay for this is not nearly as high as most people think. Sometimes I feel like I'm just a volunteer.)
I am looking for a couple of interns, though. The pay's not that great, but it'll definitely be something that pops out on your resume. So, if you're interested, let me know and I'll send you an ID-10-t form to fill out. We're planning to start preliminary interviews at the beginning of December.
Well, Shaw old gal, this banter has gone on for quite a while now, and I hope that you're having at least half as much fun as I am and getting a good chuckle out of it (the release of endorphins is good for you), but all joking aside, do you really think that I should advertise in Penny Saver?
No. I rather think the news of your immense talents precedes you, wherever you travel.
I am in awe.
Post a Comment