American People wake up!

When mr/ms/mrs/ cobbler started with pulling troups out of Afghanistan, it showed a total disconnect from reality, as we still have soldiers there.

The alternate reality gets wilder from that point on, hitting on almost every twisted lie you would find at moveon.org or some other nutjob site like that.

Just too many wacked out claims with no supporting information to back anything up to make it worth even trying to do a point-by-point.

But that is ok, I am sure you will find four or five others with a similar disconnect from reality and also find facts irrelevent that will join you in your tantrum.

The only point that I WILL make right now is about spies. You don't hear about it because if they are stupid enough to tell YOU, then the people that sent the spies would know it all too. Think. For a change.

by Member 25348569 May 15, 2006

A particularly egregious example of semantic elitism.

http://tinyurl.com/jbyfc

by itgirli May 15, 2006

Same word over and over. That right there shows lack of imagination or even rudimentary thought. Looks like someone found a thesaurus, found a word they thought looked cool, and decided to show what they learned today. It pulled focus away from the absurdity of their ramblings. I found three sentences that were so jumbled together that they no longer made any sense. Nor did I even see so much as one supported fact in any of that unintelligible rant. At least it was amusing.

I know techs that do this. Use jargon to cover the fact that they have nothing valid to say.

[i]
"I see stupid people"

by jardinier May 15, 2006

I've learnt a new word -- egregious.

Now I have to think of someone bad enough to apply it to.

Incidentally on the topic of extended vocabularly, for a time I carried a pocket dictionary with me all the time and noted new words. However I soon found that the majority of even educated people were unfamiliar with many of my new discoveries. Only people who dealt in words for a living -- writers, journos, politicians, lawyers and a few others -- had access to this extended vocabulary.

I found a good guideline was the American "Today Show." If Bryant Gumbel or Jane Pauley noted that a particular word was uncommon, then a majority of the population would not know it either.

How many Men do You know Named Peachcobbler, now that is A particularly egregious example of semantic elitism. Not one word in my article was political theory, but you're right to say that it consisted of and/or relating to the study of meaning and changes of meaning by the Bush administration not for the betterment of the American people!

by oz_media May 17, 2006

It is such an old post, nothing new, except egregious repeated over and over again.

Reading the post was interesting, while he had some outline of validity, it was presented poorly. One would say it was quite bad to the point of becoming offensive to some, or in a nutshell it was quite egregious.

And no, I amo not in favour of Bush you ALL know that. But it's the half wits that make the opposition seem to unbelievable, almost to the point of being as unelievable as the current US adminiatration itself.

Obviously, you are living in the "Land Of Confusion" because nothing you have said makes any sense. The spies I referred to in my article are Americans and they did indeed infiltrate our government; existing right in our own White House, working within GWB? s administration.

Where have you been for the last three or so years, in a coma? As for Afghanistan, correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe that Mr. Bush took a flight on a bomber Jet and landed on a fighter ship to announce a premature victory to the soldiers aboard it, shortly after the war in Afghanistan started. You don?t remember that?

Exactly what is it in my post that you consider to be a lie, seem as though someone need to do a little research before you go on a ranting rage of none comprehension of the article you read. Not one egregious point was made in that article. Now who's throwing the tantrum it seems.

My title showed surprise that you WEREN'T a new member, rather than state that you ARE a new member.

My point, which again, you would have had to do that "reading" thing, stated that only a complete moron would expect the government to give details about spying to the press. Kind of interferes with spy/counterspy if your stupid enough to anounce it to the world.

As of the ---hm--- got pulled away and derailed my train of thought! At least the page doesn't time out! Now, where was I?

Ah yes, I did notice you provided nothing to support any of your points. Why is that?

Also, when you are unable to present an idea objectively and without emotion, it takes a lot of credibility away from your post.

Moveon.org is a corrupt organization, with a corrupt agenda. Seems like your in lock-step with them?

Will you next tell me that the United Nations is doing a good job of anything, anywhere in the world?

Last note, you seem to really like that word. :D

by jamesrl May 15, 2006

You stated...."correct me if I am wrong"

Mr Bush landed a jet on an aircraft carrier.
It wasn't a Bomber, but an S3 Viking, a plane originally designed for anti-submarine warfare but now also used in a number of functions, mostly maritime surveillance and as a tanker aircraft. He landed on an aircraft carrier - no such thing as a fighter ship. And the war he announced was over was not in Afghanistan, it was Iraq.

Added by edit: I know tsjanko would jump on this right away, the men with guns on a ship are not soldiers, they are marines. While it may seem a small distinction to us, they take it very personally.

You know, I would ignore the lack of military knowledge, but it would be very helpful to your argument to get your wars correct. Afghanistan started before Iraq.

James

He staget that after the 'invation' of 'Iraq' and it had nothing to do with the 'gahnies'

by oz_media May 17, 2006

It's just full of half-truths.

Yes, Bush declared victory (of a specific task)prematurely declaring the end of major conflict.

No teh soldiers weren't ALl pulled from Iraq. A good deal of them were, and now other countries are fillign their shoes much to their citizen's dismay. But if WE leave too, then what is already becoming teh same old repressive Afghanistan, will do so in a very rapid fashion.

As for people here researching, you will find the regulars in the political posts have done MANY MANY HOURS of reearch as we have debated this conflict since the dawn of time it seems. EVERY possible angle has been torn apart and rebuilt piece by piece fact by fact.

Some people choose to ignore the facts, some believe them verbatim but most only selectively choose what supports their existing belief or politicl affiliation.

by jamesrl May 15, 2006

The US did reduce its force in Afghanistan during the Iraq war, but the number of NATO troops in Afghanistan didn't change. As US troops left, troops from Canada, France Germany and other NATO countries came in. Note I said reduce, not eliminate. Canadians are grateful for the medical care the US army provides in Khandahar.

James

Realy? I'll pass that on.....

by mr.wiz May 15, 2006

Nuff said.

What an efficient use of bits! :D

But then maybe if we wouldn't have seen so many rants instead of discussions recently I would be amused. He/she is just one more nut.

I DID like near the end of the post that Neil linked to [i]"need to be healed accountable"[/i]

yes, we need to [b]healed[/b] people accountable for things they are [b]held[/b] accountable for. :D

"But then maybe if we wouldn't have seen so many rants instead of discussions recently I would be amused. He/she is just one more nut".

Mr. Ph.D., did you bother to read your post, are all of your T's crossed and I?s dotted? If your avatar didn?t amuse you then you can't be amused. I forgive you! It's not nice to call people names; obviously, you didn't take your medication today, Please go and do so now!

So lets try this again.

First, I did nothing to attack your spelling, or layout of the post. (is it really possible to not dot an "i" on a computer? ?:| )

Was this started as a discussion, where you were expecting people to openly discuss the merits of your points or was this a proclamation from on high on your part?

You also set the tone of the post, laced with hate and contempt. Not exactly a foundation to build a meaningful exchange of ideas, now is it?

My avitar amuses me greatly, thank you very much.

Stating that your a "nut" has hurt your feelings? Talk about thin skin. But taken for the way it was intended, it is on even par with your comment about me needing meds as it is nutcases that NEED meds.

Maybe we are both right, and thus, both nuts? :D Of course, this means that your just as "not nice" as I am. ;\

by maxwell edison May 15, 2006

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

covers all the points!

by m_a_r_k May 15, 2006

Mr. peachcobbler, you just cobbled together the same old stuff that people have been complaining about for the last three or four years. There's nothing new in what you're saying.

by onbliss May 15, 2006

Children's dictionary.

by jardinier May 16, 2006

sounding pompous.

I prefer to be lucid. I also try very hard to avoid ambiguity (something that was impressed upon me as a young journalist).

by onbliss May 16, 2006

I typed the word "pompous" yesterday in my reply, then thought I will just be brief and typed just those two words :-)

I read that using strong verbs is better than weak and lengthy prose to convey the same meaning.

I have ways to go in improving my language and writing.

by jardinier May 17, 2006

is the order of the day. I guess I must have been born with journalist blood in my veins, because I used to get into trouble at school because my essays were too concise, and I was required to make them "flowery."

While I fell into journalism by default, because I could not decide what career to take, I later looked back and found that everything about me could be attributed to heredity.

My two vocations have been journalism and gardening. My maternal grandfather was an agriculural journalist. One of my uncles was a journalist turned farmer. So I guess I really had no say in the matter.

But what is even more interesting and surprising is that I recently realized that my writing style had been inherited directly from my father.

He started writing his autobiography titled: "Mein Kampf" (with no apologies to the late Corporal Hitler).

I had never looked at the document until a couple of years ago and I found that my current style of writing, which had evolved only in recent years, was identical to that of my father.

My posts at TR do not represent my normal (expressive) writing style because I don't bother to include the irony and humour.

[Although some people find my actual opinions a great source of humour -- which fact of course provides me with a source of humour -- etc ..... ] :D

" That right there shows lack of imagination or even rudimentary thought". And you only found three sentences that were so jumbled together that they no longer made any sense. "Cool" :-)

"I've learnt a new word -- egregious". jardinier.

Good, now use it in a sentence. "Wheeeeee !!!"

I can't believe that a word, not at all a new one could cause so much commotion among grown men! You are grown men aren't you? If you don't use it you lose it! Seem as though the Boys need to catch up on Etymology!

over the Paradigmatic myself. It certainly helps in the communincative arena in which we dwell. Of course if one where to perform a cloze test, with verifiable results, I could be persuaded.
Soooooooooooooooo, don't start.!. -d

"My point, which again, you would have had to do that "reading" thing, stated that only a complete moron would expect the government to give details about spying to the press. Kind of interferes with spy/counterspy if your stupid enough to anounce it to the world".

You still don't get it do you. The spies are American and they were spying on America and selling information to foreign countries for profit. My statement that there has been no word on their trials and convictions, meaning that they were caught by the U.S. Government and arrested for their deeds of treason against the United States of America. These men were employed by the Federal Government and caught stealing information from us and selling it to other Governments!

All of my points that I made are things that has been in the media for the past four or five years. Nothing that I stated except for the domestic spying is new information to any one else except you it seems.

"Last note, you seem to really like that word".

I do, its quite appropriate for many instances and situations.

ADJECTIVE: Egregious;
Conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible. (i.e. "an egregious lie")

I find words infatuating,fascinating, a breath of fresh air!

by jamesrl May 15, 2006

The word was most often used in terms of a gentleman's personal honour - if one was egrigiously insulted, it would be cause for a duel. But duelling went out quite some time ago.

What is most appropriate is that you use words that help clarify your meaning.

Words alone do not an argument make. You must combine words with logic and rhetoric and sense to form an argument.

James

Egregious is Multifaceted in it's meanings! You stated that the word was most often used, the word didn't go any where and is still used by many but not by most. Many people prefer to use the word Reprehensible, flagrant, gross, glaring etc. The word is still around and I like the sound of it. I also use other variations of the word when I so choose to do so.

silly people, more like the wiff of fresh manure recently spread carefully in the fields of no-where-land.

by bfilmfan May 15, 2006

Your statement questioning the number of men being known as Peachcobbler is a clear case of gender bias.

A shoe designer from the state of Georgia might well be known as a "Peach Cobbler," regardless of their gender.

failure to communicate".

Comes from someone with an attitude talking TO people instead of WITH people.

That same attitude is what will keep this lover of words instead of ideas, from having a meaningful discussion with anyone.

You are "Absolutely Hilarious"! I really needed that, Thanks!

geeeze, I thought it was just old guys and young nuts ;-) I didn't know an 'I' couldn't be dotted with a computer, I tout everythang cud be dun wit 1 (he-he)
.
|
now isn't that close enuf?

by x-marcap May 15, 2006

You will eventually.

by jardinier May 16, 2006

You have been agreeing with me too much lately. :^0

You have also lost the ability to get under my skin. If I don't like what you say, I just ignore you. ]:)

Julian,

You may have some very valid things to say. That being said, some of us may look at the same information you do and come to a vastly different conclusion. In my understanding, my opinion is correct. Since some of us have different experiences, we reach different ends.

I think yours are wrong. You seem to merely despise me. We're even. I would rather have a faithful enemy than a disloyal friend. Your feral dislike of Bush is rather silly. Your hatred of his foreign policy is irrelevant, and actually funny.

If you stop chucking verbal grenades at me, I'll stop pulling the pins and throwing them back. And vice versa. You have gotten me angry enough to cause me to use inappropriate verbiage.

At times you seem to have it together, and then you go way the heck the wrong way, IMHO. Your biggest grief seems to be with what you call ignorant fundamentalist Christians. They should be the easiest to reach, if you will make the effort, they tend to be willing to think the best about people...

You, on the other hand, will only shun them when they disagree with you...

I can understand it. Cain Killed Able. The ones you should be closest to, are really the ones who can irritate you the most... They are the only ones who can rile you. Ones who you don't care about, you toss off a snide remark and forget.

I have found that if I ignore you until I can get my sense of humor back, rather than burn you at the stake, verbally, I don't feel the need for character assasination. Just enjoy the fact that you have provided me a few hearty laughs at your mental gymnastics.

Although, at times Max and I have disagreements, most often I agree with him, but we remain civil. Although I most often disagree with Deepsand, we are civil. You seem to bring out the incivility within me.

You call me a liar, and then try other character assasinations. For that I had to start laughing at you. Rather than respond in the past, I have merely laughed at your ignorance.

From emails, Sandy's statements and location, and other things I have traced down more or less who Sandy is.

Sandy and I often strongly disagree, but we don't attack each other in the personal manner that you have gone after me. Sometimes, I think you are just too self-centered to believe other people can disagree with you.

At times, lately, I have found myself agreeing with you... That surprised me. I did the Goofus MacDuff test. Had I analysed all the data and come out 180 degrees wrong? Fortunately not, my sense of humor is back, My vacation helped.

Take it easy, Julian, and remember to take it all with a grain of salt. You won't get out of life alive, so don't take it so seriously.

by jardinier May 17, 2006

I stopped taking YOU seriously long ago.

But here, you use a friendly, light-hearted post by myself, as an excuse to launch a great rant, criticising everything about me that comes to your mind at this time.

But then, you are an American right-wing Christian, so you are merely playing out your role as might be expected.

For the most part I don't bother reading your posts any more because, like I said, I no longer take you seriously.

by x-marcap May 15, 2006

Now, it usually carries mail and other cargo...

Yes they are Marines.

Halt, Who Goes there!!! Another flashback, sorry...

He also wasn't announcing the end to hostilities but the reign of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that first ship coming off station...

Not that the lefties will give a Rat's rear end....

My skin is anything but thin, and I'm glad that you caught on with the nut case and Meds. :- )
The post was to arouse the American people and get them stirred up about what is happening within our government. It's not good at this point and it's getting worse. I don't understand how Americans can just sit and do nothing about what has happened as far as the wars, lies being told and elected officials expecting us to believe them verbatim, without question. We are a great nation but we are not invincible

The President of a country cannot fabricate pertinent information and then when found out just sweep it under the rug as if nothing has happened. I just don't get the feeling that GWB has any feelings about our troops being in Iraq fighting for the wrong reasons because they put their trust in a man who has no conscious. As far as I know there are only two congressmen who have family fighting in Iraq, I don't believe that is by chance but by design.

Do you think that is fare, I don't think so. I'm very out spoken on issues that I believe in. America can't take on the world and win, anyone who believes that is "Certifiably Crazy". Our Military right now is spread very thinly patrolling other countries borders while ours go un-attended!

by jmgarvin May 15, 2006

This is has been posted (in its various forms) about 50 times now.

While I don't care for the current administration (my main beef is with their spending money on everything, like it's going out of style) Much of what you said is either bunk or a strange leap in logic.

Personally:
STOP FRIGGIN' SPENDING SO MUCH DAMN MONEY. Privatize SS. Create an economy that is built on something. Legalize gay marriage. STAY OUT OF MY damn car, bathroom, kitchen, phone, etc. Oh, the NSA is not there to search every American's phone records...just a FYI.

I'll refer you back to:
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194715&messageID=2010827
and:
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194614&messageID=2010393
just to refresh your memory.-d

calm down now, and take your meds (again) ;-)

oops, forgot! Not suppose to chew them! Ewwww! :p

Time for some meds out of a bottle so I can go mow my lawn! ;\ :D

[i]some people just take themselves way too seriously. I am not one of those people. B-)

by Member 25348569 May 16, 2006

semantic elitism.

I take your point that it was an example of me being a bit dumb in not actually taking any note of your username but I can live with my shame. I just saw the word "egregious" and thought "a bit pompous" and proceeded from there.

If you are attempting to communicate a serious point then forcing half (I'm being generous, here) to reach for the dictionary in your opening sentence is not going to work out very well.

I post here a lot. Should I lapse into euphuism? Sometimes I do. Should I refer to Maxwells eleutheromania? I could expiscate other semantemes, but I won't.

Neil :p

by gadgetgirl May 16, 2006

:^0

by Member 25348569 May 16, 2006

did you look any of them up? I lucked in on "eleutheromania", which means "a strong desire for freedom" and I reckon it just fits our Max down to his liberal-trampling boots.

I'd post the link to the site where I found the words but I've decided to keep it secret as semantic snobbery and the relevance of homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, polysemy, paronyms, hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy, holonymy, exocentrics, and endocentrics is right up my street!

NITS rules! And don't you forget it!

:p :D

by jardinier May 16, 2006

Some of them are not in my large Collins Dictionary -- a dictionary I chose very carefully after comparing definitions of certain key words in various dictionaries. :_|

by jamesrl May 16, 2006

Of course there are Canadians who wish we weren't in Afghanistan in the first place, and they tend to be louder than the others. And there are those who have soured on the mission now that we are taking regular casualties.

But there are still a great many Canadians who support the mission, myself included. And everytime there is a casualty, we are very happy to have the first class medical services of the US army there to help. Not only in Afghanistan but in Landstuhl Germany as well.

James

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=45c1631a-4d5f-49db-8bfd-e5963d0a44ec

But it came off as just as sutpid as John Edwards did in the debate with Dick Chaney...

by jamesrl May 16, 2006

Just heard this morning that a roadside bomb blew up right underneath one of these (Canadian in Afghanistan) and just a few bruises.

James

But, I do aim pretty well. 280 with a .45 yeserday.

by dawgit May 16, 2006

and as I've been in the 2nd gen Hosp at Landstuhl Germany. I can tell you first hand, it's a great bunch of people. (I do believe that I've mentioned that I'm in Germany) and I've also been in the Army Hosp. in N?rnburg, and was one of the last flown out of the 5th Gen in Stuttgart. No, I know some of those people, who save lives, and the next chance I get to see them, I will pass on that at least 1 Canadian appreiciates them.

by jamesrl May 16, 2006

I didn't serve is that I have a minor disability. I did actually try to get in the militia but they wouldnt have me.

My father in law was a colonel with CAF, he was with an armoured recce unit and then was a liason officer in Germany. He met Rumsfeld and Haig in the 70s. He speaks impeccable German and got to know many German officers quite well, including some who served in WWII tank corps.

One of my staff members is formerly of the Canadian Airborne.

My uncle was a Herc mechanic for the CAF and was also stationed in Germany. When the RCAF became the CAF (Canadian Armed Forces) he kept all his old badges and I inherited them.

James

Now I gotta dig it out...

Webster on line is no good, I have to go to the Randomhouse unabridged dictionary, and it's at home...

Dang, what is holonymy, or paronyms?

I'll be in suspense all day long...

Darn...

by Member 25348569 May 16, 2006

Holonymy defines the relationship between a term denoting the whole and a term denoting a part of, or a member of, the whole such as "hand" is a holonym of finger, thumb, palm, etc

Paronyms are one of my favourites. They are almost homonyms but not quite and very prone to mixups. They are usually words that look and mean "nearly" the same - continuous and contiguous.

OneAmazingPedanticGit

It was a made into a big deal. That ship was done with its longest cruise ever... Remember how short the initial stage of Iraq was. The ship was there to support the Whole mission for a long time.

The fact is, President Bush is a pilot. He can and does fly other things. Personally, I think the best thing for him, and his daddy, was to get their hands on some nifty flying machines...

He was/is a pilot, a Air Force reserve, Tex Nat. Guard fighter pilot. There isn't a more agressive, egotistical group out there, than pilots, except maybe Marines who do the same kind of job.

Do you remember how the left in the past, used to want the leaders of the countries to try to fight the wars themselves? "Then it would never happen" was their mantra. Put Bush in a fighter and he'd take all comers. Heck, he'd have a Bugs-in-the-teeth smile. He loves to Fly.

It wasn't staged, but it was stupid. The banner wasn't even his. He was dumb enough to be photographed in front of it. He was still stinking from a multi-hour flight in a Viking...
Walking with the old Fighter pilot (I've had my privates squished against my legs for the last two hours) strut-waddle. It is supposed to be a strut, but after a long flight where you are strapped in, you can't strut. He should have been running for the relief facilities, but he was caught by the moment.

Don't misconstue, that is one of the left wing media's greatest successes. They have turned a end of cruise celebration into a social gaffe for a sitting President. By the way, Clinton did a similar thing with the Eisenhower when it came off station from supporting the Bosnia effort. We are still in Bosnia, too. The difference is the liberal media hates Bush and deliberately has misrepresented this situation. And, the much of the public bought it...

Very sincerely. That kind of stuff drive me nuts.

by maxwell edison May 16, 2006

Mistake number one:

You said, [i]"How can anyone still back this obviously..."[/i].

Nothing that is a matter of one's own opinion is automatically "obvious" to everyone else, or anyone else, for that matter.

Mistake number two:

You said, [i]"....delusional man....".[/i]

Unless you can provide medical proof that he is, in fact, delusional, then that is no more than an unqualified opinion of an unqualified person who has never even met the man. (Please feel free to correct me if my assumptions about your qualifications and/or your personal contact history are incorrect.) Perhaps it is YOU who is delusional.

Mistake number three:

You said, [i]"...who?s parading around as the 'President Of The United States'...".[/i]

There's no "parading around" about it. You may not like it, but that's just what he is.

Mistake number four:

You said, [i]"His very first mistake was to withdraw troops from Afghanistan before Usama Bin Laden was captured or killed, in order to invade Iraq."[/i]

No, he did not withdraw troops from Afghanistan in order to invade Iraq. Read what General Tommy Franks, the military mind behind the two-front effort, has to say about that false claim.

Mistake number five:

You asked, [i]"What American believes that Saddam Hussein presented more of a threat to America than does Usama Bin Laden?"[/i]

The question is based on a false premise, as it presumes to suggest that someone made that claim, which no one has.

Mistake number six:

You said, [i]"Saddam Hussein has been in the same place as The United States left him from the last declared war on Iraq."[/i]

No, he was in the same place the United NATIONS left him. It was a UN decision to let him remain in power, not a US decision.

Mistake number seven:

You said, [i]"I still haven?t been able to find not one Iraqi name on the list of Terrorist that attacked us on 9/11..."[/i]

This (double negative) question is also based on a false premise, as it presumes to suggest that someone made that claim, which no one has.

By the way, answer this question. What Iraqi-connected terrorist WAS involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center? (Yes, there is an answer.)

Mistake number eight:

I read the first paragraph -- what a mistake! (Not to mention all the grammar mistakes I had to sift through in order to understand your intent.)

Do I want to go to the trouble and dissect the remaining seven paragraphs, and point out even MORE of your mistakes and mistaken notions? Let me think about it.

by jdclyde May 16, 2006

This intentionally disingenuous statement makes it sound like the US just out of the blue attacked poor Iraq?