Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Maybe others (those "complaining") aren't looking at just the number... but the context of what we do with our money.

    Yeah, it is a big number. (to me and you)

    It is also 42 hours of spending for the Iraq war.

    Of course, in the real world... when you spend money once it is gone. So, realistically, something should be cut if they spend the money for Tsunami relief.

    That's easy.

    Bush proposed spending $270M [washingtonpost.com] on lying to kids about sex next year. (abstinence)

    They want to spend $100M [news-leader.com] lying about Social Security
    • It is also 42 hours of spending for the Iraq war.

      You think that's interesting? It isn't. Comparing apples and oranges never is.

      Bush proposed spending $270M on lying to kids about sex next year.

      False. Even if there is some false information in there that could possibly rise to the level of a lie, most of it is accurate, whether you agree with its aims or not.

      They want to spend $100M lying about Social Security.

      False. Social security is scheduled for failure, and it begins to lose money starting
      • but to call it a lie is ridiculous nonsense.

        Ouch... I think I hit a soft spot.

        ;-)

        That's what I get for trying to stay on topic [google.com]. (Yeah, I was exagerating. I don't think Bush is lieing. That requires he know the statements to be false. I'm not convinced he knows much at all. A lot like Ronnie... He is simply repeating what he is told to say. (Same players even.) OTOH, they say that ignorance is no excuse... and even Bush has tried to kill retards.)

        However.

        I find it hard to care that you think Bush has
        • That you think either Bush is or Reagan was unintelligent just makes you look unintelligent. Read some of Reagan's own writing, and you would be unable to assert that.

          I'm absolutely certain that for every "fact" you can present, I can find one that counters it. And mine will be as credible to me as yours are to you.

          You actually gave what you said was evidence that Bush was lying that turned out not to be that. Maybe you have better facts, but you already lied (or maybe you were just ignorant).

          Compar
          • That you think either Bush is or Reagan was unintelligent just makes you look unintelligent.

            I did not say they were unintelligent. I said he doesn't know much. There is a difference. I believe Bush has a poor command of the facts. I believe that his "belief system" makes him think he doesn't even need facts.

            I think he is smart... in that Ted Bundy kind of way.

            I also didn't say Ronnie was stupid. I said that Bush did like Ronnie. He says what people tell him to say.

            Like a puppet. (or, in Ronnie's case... an actor)

            Read some of Reagan's own writing, and you would be unable to assert that.

            Do you have a link for anything he wrote while in office? (All I care about is whether he was fit for the job) All I could find was stuff writen before he became president and turned into a vegetable. It is interesting that all of the physicals he had as president never turned up anything to do with the alzheimers.

            Boy, we sure are lucky that the timing of that desease waited till he was out of office!

            You actually gave what you said was evidence that Bush was lying that turned out not to be that.

            Your title was "Superlatives". I used superlatives. I exagerated. In all the cases I gave the administration has misinformed. I exagerated that (because the topic was "Superlatives") to lying.

            None of that was meant to be given as evidence of lying. Get over that. It was AN EXAGERATION. Get it?

            If I wanted to prove that Bush was a liar then I would just mention this briefing [whitehouse.gov] where Bush claims to have gotten to know Ken Lay a little bit later in time than Ken seems to recall [pbs.org].

            But, trying to prove Bush is a liar would be... what is the word... oh yeah. Boring. (Unfortunately, having a liar in the White House seems to be status quo these days.)

            All you're doing is redefining things to suit your purposes, which is boring.

            Actually, what I'm doing is defining the comparisons *I* was making from the beginning. All our tsunami aid equates to 42 hours of Iraqi "aid". I compared the cost of Tsunami help with the cost of "freedom" help (or whatever it is they are calling it these days). There is no re-definition. (Unlike the administration, which has constantly re-defined why we are in Iraq.)

            Your use of "boring" is ... well... boring. It certainly doesn't convey much fact, or reasoning.

            Maybe you have better facts, but you already lied (or maybe you were just ignorant).

            Thanks, I appreciate that. I give a link of definitions, including:
            the degree of grammatical comparison that denotes an extreme or unsurpassed level or extent.
            And this is your conclusion. I'll admit I'm not that great of a writer, and I may not have hit the mark with the first post... but the second should have been close enough.

            I'm going to have to take a double look at your reasoning in the future because...

            Yawn

            You do that a lot, but provide little to back it up yourself.

            and as I noted -- and you did not address -- we are already giving as much as we think is necessary right now, with the promise to give more as the need grows.

            You can turn on the TV and see the need. It is that simple. Sound huffy (I thought that was the point of the post) all you want. Just don't say that you are doing "enough". It isn't "enough", it is as much as you want. HUGE difference.

            Every single person that loses a family member because there weren't relief supplies available will know that it wasn't enough.

            No mater how much you gave.

            The reality is that it simply is not a priority.

            Until then, I just don't care.

            I'm not terribly suprised.

            Is it red or blue in your part of Washington? I ask because I'm in Idaho which is like 90 percent red.

            Maybe we should swap...

            ;-)
            ^
            |_____
            • Ronald Reagan's Presidential papers [utexas.edu]. I am certain you can find plenty in there to make him look intelligent, as well as things that make him look unintelligent (a.k.a., "disagrees with your world view on some or many items")

              --
              J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
              • Thank you.

                as well as things that make him look unintelligent (a.k.a., "disagrees with your world view on some or many items")


                I don't guage intelligence by opinion. I do guage intelligence by whether opinions are well reasoned. (Even if based on flawed data. You work with what you have. However, ignoring relevant data gets you dinged big time.)
            • I believe Bush has a poor command of the facts.

              I believe that his "belief system" makes him think he doesn't even need facts.

              I think he is smart... in that Ted Bundy kind of way.

              It is interesting that all of the physicals he had as president never turned up anything to do with the alzheimers.

              You can turn on the TV and see the need.


              Another post filled with ridiculous, unintelligent, ignorant, bullshit. I won't be replying to you anymore.
              • see the apogee
                of pudge-argumentation
                in one sorry line

                When the interlocutor finds himself caught between "I can outlast you in a nit-picking demeaning bastard contest" and "I'm taking my toys and going home," what is he to do?