BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

jps

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:01:47 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:40:46 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:02:11 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:52:22 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:34:03 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:08:26 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:57:37 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:21:32 -0400, H the K
wrote:

snipped for brevity

- - -

It's too bad that in January 2001, a simple-minded man took over the
U.S. presidency and later that year initiated a series of actions that
resulted in the unnecessary deaths of 4,000 Americans, tens of thousands
or even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis, and serious
injuries to hundreds of thousands more. If only Americans had been smart
enough to elect the brighter man running in 2000, eh?

What a horrendous mess Bush left behind for Obama.

Too bad those Georgians weren't assembling to protest Bush's idiotic,
misguided, and misdirected war. All they have to show for it now is yet
another dead American with a family.

If one were prone to issuing the hasty generalization, upon reading
the tripe above, one would suspect that liberals, progressives, and
Democrats were all dissembling, self-serving, revisionist,
intellectually dishonest, radical propadandists. Fortunately, for the
good of objective history, there are still some liberals,
progressives, and Democrats that won't descend to this level of inane
rhetoric.

If one were prone to issuing the hasty generalization, upon reading
the above tripe and numerous other posts by this author, one would
suspect that "conservatives" are at least disingenuous propagandists
and given to the worhip of sesquepedalianism.

Did you learn to write while living on the Ponderosa?

May the gentle reader note that the only contributor in these last few
notes to submit a word longer than 16 letters was our endearing JPS -
Just Propaganda, Son. Perhaps our endearing JPS was intimidated by
the two syllable word "inane"? Who's to say?

Try reading for content and note that my reflections are based on your
normally ponderous screeds. Say hi to Hoss for me.

If my modest notes are laborious, Sartre would leave you tied up in
knots. (BTW - Try looking up "sesquipedalianism." And you may want
to use my spelling of the word.)

Sartre is worth reading. You? Not so much.

Go ahead, carp on my spelling - lowest form of rebuke.

None of this changes that you're a ponderous read with little to say.

More than likely, I'm unwarrantably skeptical; but, I have my doubts
that you're versed in Sartre, existentially speaking. Now as to your
steady employ of red herring arguments, I have not doubts.

I prefer reading Kant to Satre or Camus.

Although I understand them, existentialists leave me cold for what may
be obvious reasons. Grok?