Re: Two Democrats on an escalator <g>

[Truthseeker]

On 5/21/12 11:36 AM, Vince wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWttKddn_Hw

Now THAT's funny! Thanks.


--
Truthseeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 17:36:35 +0000 (UTC), Vince <vi...@hush.ai> wrote:

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWttKddn_Hw

I didn't realize that the investment banks were all a bunch of
Democrats. Thanks for the lesson.

[Von Fourche]

"Truthseeker" <truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:YbqdncY5QOkrGCfS...@giganews.com...

Lame joke for lame brain conservatives.

[FL Turbo]

Why shouldn't they be Demos?
The Demos routinely hand out favors to their contributors.

Maybe you are still under the misapprehension that Big Banking
companies are all Repos?

I can't blame you: It's the standard Meme.

[TruthSeeker]

On 5/21/12 6:10 PM, Von Fourche wrote:
> "Truthseeker" <truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
> news:YbqdncY5QOkrGCfS...@giganews.com...
>> On 5/21/12 11:36 AM, Vince wrote:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWttKddn_Hw
>>
>> Now THAT's funny! Thanks.

> Lame joke for lame brain conservatives.

Typical reaction of the Left. The humor makes a point that's
uncomfortable for you, so you say it's lame. LOL.



--
TruthSeeker

[Dutch]

TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 5/21/12 6:10 PM, Von Fourche wrote:
>> "Truthseeker"<truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
>> news:YbqdncY5QOkrGCfS...@giganews.com...
>>> On 5/21/12 11:36 AM, Vince wrote:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWttKddn_Hw
>>>
>>> Now THAT's funny! Thanks.
>
>> Lame joke for lame brain conservatives.
>
> Typical reaction of the Left. The humor makes a point that's
> uncomfortable for you, so you say it's lame. LOL.

I think it's pretty funny, but as one commentator said, the butt of the
joke could be anyone.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:27:42 -0500, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>

wrote:

>On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:52:35 -0700, Pepe Papon
><hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 May 2012 17:36:35 +0000 (UTC), Vince <vi...@hush.ai> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWttKddn_Hw
>>
>>I didn't realize that the investment banks were all a bunch of
>>Democrats. Thanks for the lesson.
>
>Why shouldn't they be Demos?

I never said anything about what they should or shouldn't be.

>The Demos routinely hand out favors to their contributors.
>
>Maybe you are still under the misapprehension that Big Banking
>companies are all Repos?

Where did you ever get that silly idea?

>I can't blame you: It's the standard Meme.

The standard meme is in the video. I've merely pointed out that the
meme is wrong.

[Truthseeker]

On 5/22/12 1:26 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> The standard meme is in the video. I've merely pointed out that the
> meme is wrong.

What???? The meme is that Democrats want the government to take care of
everyone and solve our problems. The don't believe in people taking
responsibility for their own lives and their own actions. Sure even
left-loons are not so far gone as to wait for someone to come and help
them on a stalled escalator, but such exaggeration is what makes humor.



--
Truthseeker

[Truthseeker]

On 5/21/12 9:37 PM, Vince wrote:
> Dutch<n...@email.com> wrote in
> news:_CDur.37416$On2....@newsfe16.iad:

>
>> TruthSeeker wrote:

>>> Typical reaction of the Left. The humor makes a point that's
>>> uncomfortable for you, so you say it's lame. LOL.

>> I think it's pretty funny, but as one commentator said, the
>> butt of the joke could be anyone.

> I think you 'ave it Ollie. I should have renamed it Two
> Republicrats. Two sides of the same coin.
> I pity the poor thin skinned, brainwashed fool, that can't get a
> smile from that Joke.

There are plenty of jokes that can be made at Republicans' expense. But
this one would not work with "Two Republicans." Because what makes it
work isn't stupidity (of which both parties have plenty) but the
attitude that if I get into trouble I need someone else come to help me,
I can't help myself.



--
Truthseeker

[Dutch]

Two right wingers could be dreaming that unregulated business will solve
their problems.

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:58:34 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/22/12 1:26 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> The standard meme is in the video. I've merely pointed out that the
>> meme is wrong.
>
>What???? The meme is that Democrats want the government to take care of
>everyone and solve our problems. The don't believe in people taking
>responsibility for their own lives and their own actions. Sure even
>left-loons are not so far gone as to wait for someone to come and help
>them on a stalled escalator, but such exaggeration is what makes humor.

The biggest and best example of any kind of bailout in recent memory
is the Wall Street bank bailout. Have you forgotten already? Wall
Street can hardly be considered a bastion of liberalism or a
Democratic stronghold.

[Mossingen]

I must admit, it was a pretty good one. I've been trying to think of a way
to change the scenario in a way that would lampoon conservatives, but can't
think of any.

[Truthseeker]

On 5/23/12 2:02 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> The biggest and best example of any kind of bailout in recent memory
> is the Wall Street bank bailout. Have you forgotten already? Wall
> Street can hardly be considered a bastion of liberalism or a
> Democratic stronghold.

Really? They are among the biggest contributors to Obama and other
Democrats.

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 07:15:05 -0500, "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net>
wrote:

You could have two people trapped in an elevator while the
conservatives outside leave them to take personal responsibility for
their situation and work their way out of it.

[Clave]

"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a5fqr7hr2mcoh9kbs...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 23 May 2012 07:15:05 -0500, "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net>
> wrote:

<...>

>>I must admit, it was a pretty good one. I've been trying to think of a
>>way
>>to change the scenario in a way that would lampoon conservatives, but
>>can't
>>think of any.
>
> You could have two people trapped in an elevator while the
> conservatives outside leave them to take personal responsibility for
> their situation and work their way out of it.

There's a "waiting for an invisible hand" joke in there too, but I'm too
lazy today to put a lot of effort into it.

Jim

[Truthseeker]

Here's a question for you, Pepe: You are in an elevator when it stops
between floors, and shows no sign of restarting. Pushing the buttons
does nothing. Do you:

1. Press the emergency call button.

2. Use the phone to call for help (elevator phone if there is a working
one, cellphone otherwise).

3. Yell for help.

4. Look for a way to get out safely by yourself.


I'm an "all of the above" guy myself.

[Dutch]

Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 07:15:05 -0500, "Mossingen"<jhan...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Truthseeker wrote:
>>> On 5/21/12 9:37 PM, Vince wrote:
>>>> Dutch<n...@email.com> wrote in
>>>> news:_CDur.37416$On2....@newsfe16.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> TruthSeeker wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Typical reaction of the Left. The humor makes a point that's
>>>>>> uncomfortable for you, so you say it's lame. LOL.
>>>
>>>>> I think it's pretty funny, but as one commentator said, the
>>>>> butt of the joke could be anyone.
>>>
>>>> I think you 'ave it Ollie. I should have renamed it Two
>>>> Republicrats. Two sides of the same coin.
>>>> I pity the poor thin skinned, brainwashed fool, that can't get a
>>>> smile from that Joke.
>>>
>>> There are plenty of jokes that can be made at Republicans' expense. But
>>> this one would not work with "Two Republicans." Because what makes it
>>> work isn't stupidity (of which both parties have plenty) but the
>>> attitude that if I get into trouble I need someone else come to help me,
>>> I can't help myself.
>>
>>
>>
>> I must admit, it was a pretty good one. I've been trying to think of a way
>> to change the scenario in a way that would lampoon conservatives, but can't
>> think of any.

The joke could show two Republicans waiting for "free enterprise" to
rescue them instead of government.

> You could have two people trapped in an elevator while the
> conservatives outside leave them to take personal responsibility for
> their situation and work their way out of it.

That's funny.

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 12:10:53 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/23/12 2:02 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> The biggest and best example of any kind of bailout in recent memory
>> is the Wall Street bank bailout. Have you forgotten already? Wall
>> Street can hardly be considered a bastion of liberalism or a
>> Democratic stronghold.
>
>Really? They are among the biggest contributors to Obama and other
>Democrats.

Really? They are *the* biggest contributors to Republicans.

[Pepe Papon]

But, in the scenario, the conservatives would refuse all calls for
help. It's not their problem, and the people in the elevator need to
stop being lazy and help themselves.

[Clave]

"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

news:7rorr7pg7i3l24vbd...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:59:57 -0600, Truthseeker
> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

<...>

>>1. Press the emergency call button.
>>
>>2. Use the phone to call for help (elevator phone if there is a working
>>one, cellphone otherwise).
>>
>>3. Yell for help.
>>
>>4. Look for a way to get out safely by yourself.
>>
>>I'm an "all of the above" guy myself.
>
> But, in the scenario, the conservatives would refuse all calls for
> help. It's not their problem, and the people in the elevator need to
> stop being lazy and help themselves.

And then the whining, ungrateful dogs can go build their own elevators.

Jim

[da pickle]

On 5/24/2012 2:30 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>> Here's a question for you, Pepe: You are in an elevator when it stops
>> between floors, and shows no sign of restarting. Pushing the buttons
>> does nothing. Do you:
>>
>> 1. Press the emergency call button.
>>
>> 2. Use the phone to call for help (elevator phone if there is a working
>> one, cellphone otherwise).
>>
>> 3. Yell for help.
>>
>> 4. Look for a way to get out safely by yourself.
>>
>>
>> I'm an "all of the above" guy myself.
>
> But, in the scenario, the conservatives would refuse all calls for
> help. It's not their problem, and the people in the elevator need to
> stop being lazy and help themselves.

The building is owned and operated by a private enterprise. There is
someone paid to fix these things and he/she answered both the emergency
call button and the phone call immediately and corrected the problem
without help from any federal, state, county or city public servant.

[TruthSeeker]

Sure, they know how to be sure they've bought influence no matter who
wins the election.

Tell me, why do you think that their donations to Republicans bad while
their donations to Obama are good? And if that's "making up a postition
for you," show me by condemning the Obama donations as much as you
condemn those to Romney.



--
TruthSeeker

[TruthSeeker]

Only in your fevered dreams, Pepe.

You need to learn the difference between people wanting to help and
people wanting someone else (the government) to help.



--
TruthSeeker

[Pepe Papon]

Brilliant. And by the same token, you think the original video is
somehow realistic.

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:02:59 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/23/12 11:47 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 May 2012 12:10:53 -0600, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/23/12 2:02 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>
>>>> The biggest and best example of any kind of bailout in recent memory
>>>> is the Wall Street bank bailout. Have you forgotten already? Wall
>>>> Street can hardly be considered a bastion of liberalism or a
>>>> Democratic stronghold.
>>>
>>> Really? They are among the biggest contributors to Obama and other
>>> Democrats.
>>
>> Really? They are *the* biggest contributors to Republicans.
>
>Sure, they know how to be sure they've bought influence no matter who
>wins the election.

Then you agree, after all, that they're not a bastion of liberalism or
a Democratic stronghold. One can only wonder why you bothered to
argue the point in the first place.

>Tell me, why do you think that their donations to Republicans bad while
>their donations to Obama are good? And if that's "making up a postition
>for you," show me by condemning the Obama donations as much as you
>condemn those to Romney.

Is that what I said? Or have you - yet again - missed the point?

[da pickle]

On 5/25/2012 2:01 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>> You need to learn the difference between people wanting to help and
>> people wanting someone else (the government) to help.
>
> Brilliant. And by the same token, you think the original video is
> somehow realistic.

LOL @ realistic

[popinjay999]

LOL @ how fucking stupid Pepe is. Seriously.

[Truthseeker]

You're getting more desperate, Pepe. No one suggested the scenario is
realistic. It's humor, by exaggeration. Been used for centuries.

Such satire works only when there is some kernel of truth as the basis
of the exaggeration.



--
Truthseeker

[Truthseeker]

I knew you wouldn't do it. The only question was how you'd dodge it.


--
Truthseeker

[Pepe Papon]

It was certainly stupid to use an imprecise word and trust that you'd
understand the gist of the comment. You'd rather assume that the
comment made no sense. That's what stupid people do.

[Pepe Papon]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 14:14:22 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/25/12 1:01 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:07:31 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/24/12 1:30 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>>>> But, in the scenario, the conservatives would refuse all calls for
>>>> help. It's not their problem, and the people in the elevator need to
>>>> stop being lazy and help themselves.
>
>>> Only in your fevered dreams, Pepe.
>
>>> You need to learn the difference between people wanting to help and
>>> people wanting someone else (the government) to help.
>
>> Brilliant. And by the same token, you think the original video is
>> somehow realistic.
>
>You're getting more desperate, Pepe. No one suggested the scenario is
>realistic. It's humor, by exaggeration. Been used for centuries.

"Realistic" was obviously the wrong word. Pardon me for assuming
you'd figure out what I mean. I keep giving you too much credit. My
bad.

[Pepe Papon]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 14:17:29 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/25/12 1:03 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:02:59 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>> Tell me, why do you think that their donations to Republicans bad while
>>> their donations to Obama are good? And if that's "making up a postition
>>> for you," show me by condemning the Obama donations as much as you
>>> condemn those to Romney.
>>
>> Is that what I said? Or have you - yet again - missed the point?
>
>I knew you wouldn't do it. The only question was how you'd dodge it.

You are truly a fucking idiot. Seriously. You put words in my mouth
that I didn't say, and then you accuse me of dodging when I don't go
along with your silly game.

Tell me, why do think that Romney has super powers and that Obama is
the devil incarnate?

[fffurken]

On May 25, 10:19 pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> >> > Brilliant.  And by the same token, you think the original video is
> >> > somehow realistic.
>
> >> LOL @ realistic
>
> >LOL @ how fucking stupid Pepe is.  Seriously.
>
> It was certainly stupid to use an imprecise word and trust that you'd
> understand the gist of the comment.   You'd rather assume that the
> comment made no sense.  That's what stupid people do.

Paul, after I fired Maggot, if you had of accepted my offer to become
the A-Team with me, and you were assigned Clave and I was assigned
Pepe, boy, would you have got the short end of the stick! lol Pepe is
so fucking stupid, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[popinjay999]

LOL @ "had of"

[Pepe Papon]

Hey, dumshit - NOBODY wants to be on any kind of team with you. Nobody
likes you. Don't you get it yet?

[fffurken]

> likes you.  Don't you get it yet?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're just smarting because you are the only person on RGP who isn't
even eligible to be an A-Teamer.

[fffurken]

> LOL @ "had of"- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

An 8th grader with such sensitive grammatical sensibilities? I Googled
that by the way and the first result was something about "Leave it to
Beaver". Makes sense I guess. TV shows must have replaced school at a
very early age.

[da pickle]

On 5/25/2012 4:21 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>>> Brilliant. And by the same token, you think the original video is
>>> somehow realistic.
>>
>> You're getting more desperate, Pepe. No one suggested the scenario is
>> realistic. It's humor, by exaggeration. Been used for centuries.
>
> "Realistic" was obviously the wrong word. Pardon me for assuming
> you'd figure out what I mean. I keep giving you too much credit. My
> bad.

You might have skipped "the last word" on this one, Pepe.

The "what I mean" just cannot work at all, can it?

" ... you think the original video is somehow ______ ?"

What could you "mean?"

Fill in the blank ... "funny" ... is that what you meant?

If not that, what? I suggest you skip the last word.

[TruthSeeker]

Classic. You misspeak (or so you say) and then try to blame the readers
for not knowing what you really meant.


--
TruthSeeker

[TruthSeeker]

On 5/26/12 12:20 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> Hey, dumshit - NOBODY wants to be on any kind of team with you. Nobody
> likes you. Don't you get it yet?

Says one of the biggest stuffed shirts on RGP now that BillB is gone.

[Pepe Papon]

I'm in the 100% of RGPers who have no interest in teaming up with you.

[Pepe Papon]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:34:04 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/26/12 12:20 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> Hey, dumshit - NOBODY wants to be on any kind of team with you. Nobody
>> likes you. Don't you get it yet?
>
>Says one of the biggest stuffed shirts on RGP now that BillB is gone.

Shut up, douchebag.

[Pepe Papon]

Are you saying that you believe that I thought the original video was
realistic? Do you also believe that Obama thinks there are 57
states?

[Pepe Papon]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:33:11 -0600, TruthSeeker

<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/25/12 3:21 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 14:14:22 -0600, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/25/12 1:01 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:07:31 -0600, TruthSeeker
>>>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/24/12 1:30 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> But, in the scenario, the conservatives would refuse all calls for
>>>>>> help. It's not their problem, and the people in the elevator need to
>>>>>> stop being lazy and help themselves.
>>>
>>>>> Only in your fevered dreams, Pepe.
>>>
>>>>> You need to learn the difference between people wanting to help and
>>>>> people wanting someone else (the government) to help.
>>>
>>>> Brilliant. And by the same token, you think the original video is
>>>> somehow realistic.
>>>
>>> You're getting more desperate, Pepe. No one suggested the scenario is
>>> realistic. It's humor, by exaggeration. Been used for centuries.
>>
>> "Realistic" was obviously the wrong word. Pardon me for assuming
>> you'd figure out what I mean. I keep giving you too much credit. My
>> bad.
>
>Classic. You misspeak (or so you say) and then try to blame the readers
>for not knowing what you really meant.

That's not what I said, but it's typical of your disingenuousness to
interpret it that way.

[da pickle]

I am trying to discover the word that makes your sentence read as what
you mean rather than something that you did not mean.

Please complete your sentence with a word (or words) that means what you
mean:

" ... you think the original video is somehow ____________ ?

[You may skip the last word.]

[da pickle]

On 5/27/2012 2:17 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>>>>> Brilliant. And by the same token, you think the original video is
>>>>> somehow realistic.
>>>>
>>>> You're getting more desperate, Pepe. No one suggested the scenario is
>>>> realistic. It's humor, by exaggeration. Been used for centuries.
>>>
>>> "Realistic" was obviously the wrong word. Pardon me for assuming
>>> you'd figure out what I mean. I keep giving you too much credit. My
>>> bad.
>>
>> Classic. You misspeak (or so you say) and then try to blame the readers
>> for not knowing what you really meant.
>
> That's not what I said, but it's typical of your disingenuousness to
> interpret it that way.

But what word should be substituted for [realistic] that would allow
someone to "figure out what *you* mean?"

"Brilliant. And by the same token, you think the original video is

somehow [realistic]."

[Feel free to not have the last word.]

[fffurken]

> I'm in the 100% of RGPers who have no interest in teaming up with you.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You'd love to! You lying douchebag.

Too bad for you that you are the only person excluded from even
applying for A-Team membership.

[VegasJerry]

I've got to go with Pepe, here.

>
> Too bad for you that you are the only person excluded from even
> applying for A-Team membership.

Exclude me too, you're as worthless as they've all been saying.

Jerry

[Randy Hudson]

In article <KsidnevMk6N...@giganews.com>,
da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

> The building is owned and operated by a private enterprise. There is
> someone paid to fix these things and he/she answered both the emergency
> call button and the phone call immediately and corrected the problem
> without help from any federal, state, county or city public servant.

Why? What motive does private enterprise give the owners to get that
corrected immediately? Are the rescued people going to pay for that?

Is it because if those people aren't rescued, they will sue? Suit is a
means for private citizens to invoke the power of The State to enforce what
is Right (according to the state). The ability to sue, then, constitutes
help from the government.

Is it because if those people aren't rescued, their relatives will engage in
vendetta against those they blame for the harm caused? This was the form
that justice took before the Rule of Law was widely accepted as a better
solution.

Is it because rescuing them is moral? Morality is held by individuals;
groups (including corporations, and also including government) have no
inherent morality, but act according to the dictates of their consituents.
Individuals may feel morally bound to rescue the persons trapped on the
elevator, but is a corporation owning the business, or a government
regulating the business, more likely to convert that moral belief into
action? And, if the individuals' moral belief requires resources from
others to put into action, who should provide those resources? Only those
sharing that belief?

[TruthSeeker]

On 5/27/12 1:50 PM, Randy Hudson wrote:
> In article <KsidnevMk6N...@giganews.com>,
> da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The building is owned and operated by a private enterprise. There is
>> someone paid to fix these things and he/she answered both the emergency
>> call button and the phone call immediately and corrected the problem
>> without help from any federal, state, county or city public servant.
>
> Why? What motive does private enterprise give the owners to get that
> corrected immediately? Are the rescued people going to pay for that?

Enlightened self-interest. Commercial real estate is a competitive
business. If a building management doesn't do things like this
correctly they lose tenants, and have a harder time getting new ones.
That free-market thingy, you know.

Now, to turn the question back to you, what motive does some bureaucrat
have to get this corrected immediately? He won't be fired and his pay
goes up by time on the job whether he gives a damn and does a good job
or not. So if he finally wakes up from his nap and dispatches some
union guy to go and fix the elevator, the trapped people might get out
by next Tuesday.

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 19:50:40 +0000 (UTC), i...@panix.com (Randy Hudson)
wrote:

>Is it because rescuing them is moral? Morality is held by individuals;
>groups (including corporations, and also including government) have no
>inherent morality, but act according to the dictates of their consituents.
>Individuals may feel morally bound to rescue the persons trapped on the
>elevator, but is a corporation owning the business, or a government
>regulating the business, more likely to convert that moral belief into
>action? And, if the individuals' moral belief requires resources from
>others to put into action, who should provide those resources? Only those
>sharing that belief?

Moral belief? These are conservatives we're talking about. Just as
the liberals in the video won't act without help, the conservatives in
this scenario only act if it's profitable.

[Pepe Papon]

So, you're positing that government agencies have no motivation to
respond in a timely manner, and therefore won't. Which means that,
if your house is ever on fire, it'll be long burned down before the
fireman get around to moseying on over for a look-see. And forget
about calling 911 for any sort of life-threatening emergency. By the
time the police or the ambulance shows up, you'll already be 6 feet
under.

[Pepe Papon]

You're just about dumb enough to believe that.

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 08:23:51 -0500, da pickle

You failed to answer my question.

[fffurken]

> You're just about dumb enough to believe that.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Can't you stop barking?

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 08:27:56 -0500, da pickle
<jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/27/2012 2:17 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>>>>>> Brilliant. And by the same token, you think the original video is
>>>>>> somehow realistic.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're getting more desperate, Pepe. No one suggested the scenario is
>>>>> realistic. It's humor, by exaggeration. Been used for centuries.
>>>>
>>>> "Realistic" was obviously the wrong word. Pardon me for assuming
>>>> you'd figure out what I mean. I keep giving you too much credit. My
>>>> bad.
>>>
>>> Classic. You misspeak (or so you say) and then try to blame the readers
>>> for not knowing what you really meant.
>>
>> That's not what I said, but it's typical of your disingenuousness to
>> interpret it that way.
>
>But what word should be substituted for [realistic] that would allow
>someone to "figure out what *you* mean?"

What are you getting at? Are you suggesting that, if I can't think of
a better word, then I must have actually meant "realistic"? Because
whether or not my precise meaning was clear, the point is that he (and
Popinjay) unquestioningly assumed that I meant and believed the
stupidest possible thing.

That's what happens in these Usenet arguments. People would rather
score points and "prove" their opponents stupid than have a meaningful
discussion.

[TruthSeeker]

I knew I could count on you, Pepe. I even wrote "For Pepe: it's humor,
exaggeration to make a point." But then I deleted it, knowing you'd
respond like this. LOL.

Hint: we're talking bout building maintenance people, not first-responders.

[TruthSeeker]

Right on cue, a typical mindless left-loon caricature. You guys really
think that Liberals and Progressives are more moral than conservatives,
and that governments are more moral (or compassionate or empathetic)
than private enterprises. What a hoot.

Before you start with "you missed the point" I know that you wrote "in
this scenario." I'm broadening it.

[TruthSeeker]

On 5/27/12 5:31 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 08:27:56 -0500, da pickle
> <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>> But what word should be substituted for [realistic] that would allow
>> someone to "figure out what *you* mean?"

> What are you getting at? Are you suggesting that, if I can't think of
> a better word, then I must have actually meant "realistic"? Because
> whether or not my precise meaning was clear, the point is that he (and
> Popinjay) unquestioningly assumed that I meant and believed the
> stupidest possible thing.

Of course I did. That's something you would do. You're too blinded by
your partisan extremism.

> That's what happens in these Usenet arguments. People would rather
> score points and "prove" their opponents stupid than have a meaningful
> discussion.

As you would rather try to score points here rather than admit your
error and clarify what you (supposedly) really meant.

[da pickle]

LOL

[I was responding to your first question.]

[As you you second and third questions, the answers are "NO" and "NO".]

Can you fill in the blank?

[You may eschew the last word.]

[da pickle]

On 5/27/2012 8:47 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:

> As you would rather try to score points here rather than admit your
> error and clarify what you (supposedly) really meant.

I wonder what he meant ... I wonder why he cannot say what he meant. I
admit I do not know what he meant. I do know what he actually posted.
It does not make any sense. Perhaps he will explain. Perhaps not.

[Truthseeker]

My bet is "not." He never does when he's caught on something. He just
tries to misdirect and deflect blame onto those who caught him with
rhetorical dodges. He must have a very fragile ego.

Although he always has to have the last word.



--
Truthseeker

[Truthseeker]

On 5/25/12 3:25 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 14:17:29 -0600, Truthseeker
> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>>>> Tell me, why do you think that their donations to Republicans bad while
>>>> their donations to Obama are good? And if that's "making up a postition
>>>> for you," show me by condemning the Obama donations as much as you
>>>> condemn those to Romney.

>>> Is that what I said? Or have you - yet again - missed the point?

>> I knew you wouldn't do it. The only question was how you'd dodge it.

> You are truly a fucking idiot. Seriously. You put words in my mouth
> that I didn't say, and then you accuse me of dodging when I don't go
> along with your silly game.

Which is just one of the ways that you dodge, calling it a "silly game."
I even provided you with an easy way to show me that my "why do you
think ..." is not true, but you couldn't do it. You just used your
usual method of avoiding unpleasant questions by attacking the questioner.

Let me rephrase: Do you think that business donations to Republicans
are bad but are OK with similar donations to Democrats? If so, please
explain why.

> Tell me, why do think that Romney has super powers and that Obama is
> the devil incarnate?

OK, Pepe, I'll give you a lesson on how to deal with such nonsense.

I do not claim that Romney has super powers, nor do I claim that Obama
is the devil incarnate. Now, do you have a meaningful question you
would like to ask?

[popinjay999]

On May 28, 11:45 am, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:

>
> I do not claim that Romney has super powers, nor do I claim that Obama
> is the devil incarnate.
>

But Obama is the devil incarnate. First of all, there is no way that
a man could be thrust into the president's office if he were really
this "naive". He is not naive, and neither are the people who put him
into office. There is only one logical conclusion for anyone with a
clue, and that is that he is deliberately sabotaging this country and
has a sinister agenda. A conscious, deliberate, agenda. And I would
say that that qualifies him as the devil incarnate. He, or they, want
to destroy everything that is good about this wonderful country. What
else should it be called, Joe, but evil?

[Pepe Papon]

The original video was a mindless right-loon caricature, you fucking
moron! You're responding to the corresponding elevator scenario as
if it were supposed to be - dare I say it? - realistic. <chortle>

[Pepe Papon]

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 19:47:32 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/27/12 5:31 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 08:27:56 -0500, da pickle
>> <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> But what word should be substituted for [realistic] that would allow
>>> someone to "figure out what *you* mean?"
>
>> What are you getting at? Are you suggesting that, if I can't think of
>> a better word, then I must have actually meant "realistic"? Because
>> whether or not my precise meaning was clear, the point is that he (and
>> Popinjay) unquestioningly assumed that I meant and believed the
>> stupidest possible thing.
>
>Of course I did. That's something you would do. You're too blinded by
>your partisan extremism.

Ah, the old "you would have done it" ploy for avoiding responsibility
for your behavior. Typical Truthseeker <chortle>.

>> That's what happens in these Usenet arguments. People would rather
>> score points and "prove" their opponents stupid than have a meaningful
>> discussion.
>
>As you would rather try to score points here rather than admit your
>error and clarify what you (supposedly) really meant.

I already admitted my error, you dumb motherfucker.

[Pepe Papon]

It hardly matters what I meant. This little exchange hasn't been
about what I meant. It's about what I obviously didn't mean and Joe
Long's and Paul Popinjay's rush to interpret my comment in the most
nonsensical possible way.

[Pepe Papon]

[Pepe Papon]

He was obviously installed by the CFR to further the NWO agenda. Then
again, since the CFR controls the elections, if Obama is defeated in
Novemberr, it'll be Romney who's installed by the CFR to further the
NWO agenda. Then, Romney will be the devil incarnate. Six of one,
half dozen on another.

[popinjay999]

On May 28, 11:22 pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>  It's about what I obviously didn't mean and Joe
> Long's and Paul Popinjay's rush to interpret my comment in the most
> nonsensical possible way.

Why is my name in this? I'll be waiting for an apology, fuckface.

[popinjay999]

On May 28, 11:26 pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
> He was obviously installed by the CFR to further the NWO agenda.  Then
> again, since the CFR controls the elections, if Obama is defeated in
> Novemberr, it'll be Romney who's installed by the CFR to further the
> NWO agenda.   Then, Romney will be the devil incarnate.   Six of one,
> half dozen on another.

You might be right, even though you are being sarcastic. The Master
Conspirators did groom and train Obama, but they do not control
elections, they control some candidates. I do not know much about
Romney, but I will not hold my breath. The Bush's support for him
cannot be a good thing. But you're just talking shit, you think this
is a game.

[da pickle]

This little exchange is ALL ABOUT what you meant! You said something
that you say you did not mean and we are fools for not understanding
what you meant and we have been asking what DID you mean because we do
not know what you meant ... no one knows what you meant ... we only know
what you posted. Do you not know what you meant?

Try again ... or don't:

> But what word should be substituted for [realistic] that would allow someone to "figure out what *you* mean?"
>

> "Brilliant. And by the same token, you think the original video is somehow [realistic]."
>
> [Feel free to not have the last word.]

[da pickle]

"Pepe Papon"

>>As you would rather try to score points here rather than admit your
>>error and clarify what you (supposedly) really meant.
>
> I already admitted my error, you dumb motherfucker.

You have admitted you did not say what you meant.
You have not yet said what you meant.

[Truthseeker]

On 5/29/12 12:19 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 19:47:32 -0600, TruthSeeker
> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>> On 5/27/12 5:31 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>>> What are you getting at? Are you suggesting that, if I can't think of
>>> a better word, then I must have actually meant "realistic"? Because
>>> whether or not my precise meaning was clear, the point is that he (and
>>> Popinjay) unquestioningly assumed that I meant and believed the
>>> stupidest possible thing.

>> Of course I did. That's something you would do. You're too blinded by
>> your partisan extremism.

> Ah, the old "you would have done it" ploy for avoiding responsibility
> for your behavior. Typical Truthseeker<chortle>.

It is your behavior that is the issue here. All you need to do is
clarify what you (supposedly) intended.

>>> That's what happens in these Usenet arguments. People would rather
>>> score points and "prove" their opponents stupid than have a meaningful
>>> discussion.

>> As you would rather try to score points here rather than admit your
>> error and clarify what you (supposedly) really meant.

> I already admitted my error, you dumb motherfucker.

So then why do you not clarify your meaning? If you did not mean
"realistic" then you must have meant something. Why will you not say
what that is?

Since you will not, the rational assumption is that you actually did
mean literally "realistic" and can't come up with a plausible
alternative. Too bad if you're embarrassed by that.


--
Truthseeker

[Truthseeker]

On 5/29/12 12:22 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 09:55:37 -0500, da pickle
> <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/27/2012 8:47 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>>
>>> As you would rather try to score points here rather than admit your
>>> error and clarify what you (supposedly) really meant.
>>
>> I wonder what he meant ... I wonder why he cannot say what he meant. I
>> admit I do not know what he meant. I do know what he actually posted.
>> It does not make any sense. Perhaps he will explain. Perhaps not.
>
> It hardly matters what I meant.

Another dodge, running from the issue. Why?

> This little exchange hasn't been about what I meant.

You don't get to define what it's about. You can resolve it by simply
clarifying what you meant. Yet you do not.

> It's about what I obviously didn't mean and Joe
> Long's and Paul Popinjay's rush to interpret my comment in the most
> nonsensical possible way.

I took it as written. That kind of "nonsensical possible way" is not
atypical of you. If you want to be understood, write more clearly,
don't blame the reader for your failure to communicate.


--
Truthseeker

[Truthseeker]

Your word, not mine. My word was "caricature."


--
Truthseeker

[Pepe Papon]

You'll be waiting a long time unless you can somehow prove that it was

a different Paul Popinjay who said:

> LOL @ how fucking stupid Pepe is. Seriously.

--

Pepe "The Revelation" Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:13:07 -0500, da pickle
<jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>> It hardly matters what I meant. This little exchange hasn't been
>> about what I meant. It's about what I obviously didn't mean and Joe
>> Long's and Paul Popinjay's rush to interpret my comment in the most
>> nonsensical possible way.
>
>This little exchange is ALL ABOUT what you meant! You said something
>that you say you did not mean and we are fools for not understanding
>what you meant and we have been asking what DID you mean because we do
>not know what you meant ... no one knows what you meant ... we only know
>what you posted. Do you not know what you meant?

No. This exchange is about people responding to what I said with LOLs
and comments like:

> LOL @ how fucking stupid Pepe is. Seriously.

Next time you decide to chime in, please know WTF you're talking
about. Thank you!

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:26:45 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/29/12 12:22 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 May 2012 09:55:37 -0500, da pickle
>> <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/27/2012 8:47 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>>>
>>>> As you would rather try to score points here rather than admit your
>>>> error and clarify what you (supposedly) really meant.
>>>
>>> I wonder what he meant ... I wonder why he cannot say what he meant. I
>>> admit I do not know what he meant. I do know what he actually posted.
>>> It does not make any sense. Perhaps he will explain. Perhaps not.
>>
>> It hardly matters what I meant.
>
>Another dodge, running from the issue. Why?

Your failure to get the point does not constitute a dodge on my part.
Sorry.

>> This little exchange hasn't been about what I meant.
>
>You don't get to define what it's about.

Oh, but you do? Typical Truthseeker <chortle>.

[Pepe Papon]

So what? How would that change anything? These two idiots, Popinjay
and Truthseeker, ridiculed what I said, interpreting it in the most
nonsensical possible way. They want to think I believe that the
video was realistic. Do you think I believe that? Do I need to
explain what I actually meant in order to prove I didn't mean that?

Of course not. It's just a diversion. Do you (and they) seriously
believe that I consider that video to be realistic? Yes or no.

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:22:20 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/29/12 12:19 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 19:47:32 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>> On 5/27/12 5:31 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>>>> What are you getting at? Are you suggesting that, if I can't think of
>>>> a better word, then I must have actually meant "realistic"? Because
>>>> whether or not my precise meaning was clear, the point is that he (and
>>>> Popinjay) unquestioningly assumed that I meant and believed the
>>>> stupidest possible thing.
>
>>> Of course I did. That's something you would do. You're too blinded by
>>> your partisan extremism.
>
>> Ah, the old "you would have done it" ploy for avoiding responsibility
>> for your behavior. Typical Truthseeker<chortle>.
>
>It is your behavior that is the issue here. All you need to do is
>clarify what you (supposedly) intended.

No, it's not, you dumb, dishonest fuck. It's your rush to ridicule me
and assume I meant the most nonsensical possible thing. The only
thing that matters is whether or not I consider that video to be
realistic, and if it was reasonable of you to think I did. Your
attempts at diversion and blame-shifting aren't going to work.

[Pepe Papon]

You haven't previously stated categorically that the NWO crowd
controls elections? It seems to me that you've been quite adamant
about this.

I suppose it's possible I could be confusing you with some other
RGPer. All the posts start to become a big blur over the years.

[popinjay999]

On May 30, 12:31 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 23:46:56 -0700 (PDT), popinjay999
>

> <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >On May 28, 11:22 pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >>  It's about what I obviously didn't mean and Joe
> >> Long's and Paul Popinjay's rush to interpret my comment in the most
> >> nonsensical possible way.
>
> >Why is my name in this?  I'll be waiting for an apology, fuckface.
>
> You'll be waiting a long time unless you can somehow prove that it was
> a different Paul Popinjay who said:
>
> > LOL @ how fucking stupid Pepe is.  Seriously.
>

Unless you can somehow prove that you are not so fucking stupid, then
I was just making a general statement and it had nothing to do with
this thread.

[popinjay999]

On May 30, 12:46 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
> You haven't previously stated categorically that the NWO crowd
> controls elections?   It seems to me that you've been quite adamant
> about this.
>
> I suppose it's possible I could be confusing you with some other
> RGPer.   All the posts start to become a big blur over the years.
>

The NWO crowd does not follow me into the voting booth and physically
take my hand and make me vote for what they want me to. However, if
in like 1980 4 out of 6 of the three major presidential and vice-
presidential candidates were members of the 100-member Trilateral
Commission I guess you might call that "controlling the election" by
stacking the deck. To wit, those TC members were Carter, Mondale,
Bush, and John Anderson. Of course, I voted for neither. I voted for
John Rarick.

[da pickle]

On 5/30/2012 2:34 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:13:07 -0500, da pickle
> <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> It hardly matters what I meant. This little exchange hasn't been
>>> about what I meant. It's about what I obviously didn't mean and Joe
>>> Long's and Paul Popinjay's rush to interpret my comment in the most
>>> nonsensical possible way.
>>
>> This little exchange is ALL ABOUT what you meant! You said something
>> that you say you did not mean and we are fools for not understanding
>> what you meant and we have been asking what DID you mean because we do
>> not know what you meant ... no one knows what you meant ... we only know
>> what you posted. Do you not know what you meant?
>
> No. This exchange is about people responding to what I said with LOLs
> and comments like:

No it is not. It is about what you "mean" when you post something that
you later say is not what you mean. We await your clarification of what
you mean when you post what you do not mean.

>> LOL @ how fucking stupid Pepe is. Seriously.
>
> Next time you decide to chime in, please know WTF you're talking
> about. Thank you!

Change the subject again, pepe.

[da pickle]

No. [No one thinks that YOU consider the video to be realistic. YOUR
comment (stated as fact) was YOU thought that Truthseeker thought the
original video was realistic ... until YOU decided that what YOU posted
was not what YOU meant and WE (the readers) were too stupid to
understand what YOU really meant ... except YOU apparently do not know
what YOU actually meant. It should not be so hard to post what YOU mean
rather than what YOU did not mean.]

Now, please clarify what YOU "mean" to mean when you post:

"Brilliant. And by the same token, you think the original video is

somehow realistic."

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:09:03 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
> On 5/30/2012 2:39 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 May 2012 11:06:13 -0500, "da pickle"<jcpickels@(no
> > apam)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Pepe Papon"
> >>
> >>>> As you would rather try to score points here rather than admit your
> >>>> error and clarify what you (supposedly) really meant.
> >>>
> >>> I already admitted my error, you dumb motherfucker.
> >>
> >> You have admitted you did not say what you meant.
> >> You have not yet said what you meant.

> > So what? How would that change anything? These two idiots, Popinjay
> > and Truthseeker, ridiculed what I said, interpreting it in the most
> > nonsensical possible way. They want to think I believe that the
> > video was realistic. Do you think I believe that? Do I need to
> > explain what I actually meant in order to prove I didn't mean that?

Huh? On second thought, DON'T try clarifying anything....


Jerry (clairified) 'n Vega

[VegasJerry]

On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:59:11 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
> On 5/30/2012 2:34 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> No it is not. It is about what you "mean" when you post something that
> you later say is not what you mean. We await your clarification of what
> you mean when you post what you do not mean.

Well I'm not involved in whatever all this is about, but I would like your "clarification of what the hell you meant" when you wrote that above paragraph. Seems Pepe has you two runing around in circles, bumping into each other. (I hope this doesn't need clarification....)


Jerry (heh) 'n Vegas

[Truthseeker]

Whine, whine, whine. You can end it any time by either of two ways:

1. Stop responding.

2. State what you really meant.

[Truthseeker]

Man, you are so damned thin-skinned. You're happy to dish it out but
you sure can't take it. And what's funny is, you keep this thread going
on and on when you could have ended it at any time by just clarifying
what you "really meant." If you could.

[Truthseeker]

Pepe's the one chasing his tail. He writes something stupid (not
unusual on RGP) and can't just face up to it, he has to keep trying to
blame others. I'm having a great deal of fun out of this, and I suspect
Pickels is too.

[Truthseeker]

On 5/30/12 1:35 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:26:45 -0600, Truthseeker
> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>> On 5/29/12 12:22 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>>> It hardly matters what I meant.

>> Another dodge, running from the issue. Why?

> Your failure to get the point does not constitute a dodge on my part.
> Sorry.

LOL!!!! Not the old "you don't get the point" again! You use that
dodge so often you must have it on a macro. You trot it out every time
you don't have an answer.

>>> This little exchange hasn't been about what I meant.

>> You don't get to define what it's about.

> Oh, but you do? Typical Truthseeker<chortle>.

The point is what it is.

[da pickle]

Number 1 is not in his nature.

This has been a most interesting exercise.

I really like Pepe, but this exchange is really strange.

[VegasJerry]

It was that; but you and truthseaker were the strange ones...

[Randy Hudson]

In article <iqednVuMgKcJFF_S...@giganews.com>,
TruthSeeker <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

> On 5/27/12 1:50 PM, Randy Hudson wrote:
>>
>> Why? What motive does private enterprise give the owners to get that
>> corrected immediately? Are the rescued people going to pay for that?
>
> Enlightened self-interest. Commercial real estate is a competitive
> business. If a building management doesn't do things like this
> correctly they lose tenants, and have a harder time getting new ones.
> That free-market thingy, you know.

That is an weak feedback loop at best. The news would have to reach future
decision-makers, and the weight they would put on a single reported incident
is probably very low.

And in a world without government-enforced disclosure requirements, it would
be impossible to identify the responsible parties, so as to avoid leasing
from them in the future, or even adjust the bids made on possible future
leases and/or management contracts.