See, I'm so much smarter than him

I'm orange. I have hair plugs to cover up my baldness. I have a neck wattle constraining system. And gosh darn it, people love me! How does that not make me smarter than Rex?

This is nothing to joke about. It’s pathetic. It batshit crazy. It’s horrifying.
This guy is completely insane and has the power to destroy the entire world by uttering a couple of words. He doesn’t have to ask permission or tell anyone before he does it.

Just because he told them, no reason has to be given, on his command, the military will launch every nuclear missile we have and destroy the Earth.

Keep that in mind as you continue to make jokes.

Even if the jokes weren't satire and serving a political purpose (and the best one I can contribute to: humor, revealing the stupidity and emptiness of these jokers), I'd still tell you, respectfully of course, that I'll do as I will.

And I might add that I've been to jail twice for my political convictions (once in Chicago in August 1968, if you have any idea what that might mean), and had sparred with Kenneth Starr over the Talking Points that he used to investigate the Lewinsky affair in 1998 (getting permission from Justice on the basis of that three-page document), likely slowing down the impeachment proceedings against Clinton in a rush to throw him out of office:

http://www.journalism.org/1998/10/20/the-talking-points/

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/30/us/testing-of-a-president-the-document-resolving-the-talking-points-mystery.html

http://observer.com/1998/07/press-just-doesnt-get-the-talking-points/

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/clinto18.html

Etc.

Of course you, given your stance (like a stern schoolmaster speaking to a child: "Keep that in mind as you continue to make jokes" have clearly done as much in support of your political beliefs) deserve the right to scold people who you know nothing about. Have at it.

I’m nobody. Clearly no one gives a shit what I have to say.
On my own I wouldn’t be able to draw enough people to field a soccer team (11 if you were wondering).

I’m done, everyone seems to be good with the status quo, who am I to rock the boat.

Telling people how to feel and how to act, of course, makes you anti-status quo. Makes perfect sense. Far from the strict schoolmaster, such statements and attitudes indicate that you're (note the correct form) the outsider victim. A true rebel.

You taught me a lesson grammar guru.

It had nothing to do with the fact that I’m typing on a phone, while at work and made a very common grammar mistake. I’m surprised I don’t mistype and misspell more given my divided attention.

You can berate me in this passive-aggressive tone all you want. I have no feelings to hurt as I have no emotional investment in a anonymous user on a message board.

Obviously I hit a nerve but my comments were not personal nor directed at you as a person but your response is definitely directed at me specifically as a person and intended to attack me on a intellectual and emotional level. No, I did not report on the post nor would I.
We can disagree without being disagreeable.

I enjoy different opinions. It isn’t lost on me that I could have considered a different approach to express myself but since I’m only expressing my opinion and I have no ability to tell anyone what to do and the OP is rhetorical in nature and is not actually commanding anybody to do anything, I didn’t consider it a significant concern.

you have shown me you deserve.

While Slate draws no conclusions, two academics -- English professor Skip Fox and his assistant John Gillis of the University of Southwestern Louisiana -- have applied literary forensics to the talking points documents to point their fingers squarely at Tripp and her cohorts.
Report Ad

First of all, they note, there appear to be several versions of the talking points document, indicating multiple authors. Secondly, they say, the content of these various versions does not suggest that Lewinsky was trying to get Tripp to lie about the Willey incident, but only to speak up about doubts that Tripp herself had expressed publicly about Willey's account.

Then, these literary sleuths note, there's the fact that the talking points contain information that Lewinsky and the White House could not have known at the time -- namely that Tripp had been secretly talking to Jones' lawyers from the time she received her subpoena for that case on November 24. To bolster their contention, Fox and Gillis point to what they call a "telling paragraph" in the document in which the anonymous writer says: "By the way, remember how I said there was someone else that I knew about. Well, she turned out to be a huge liar. I found out that she left the WH (White House) because she was stalking the P (president) or something like that. Well, at least that gets me out of another scandal I know about."

Fox and Gillis note that for Lewinsky to have written this, she would have to have known that Tripp was already in contact with Jones' lawyers, for which there is no evidence. Moreover, they note that the word "huge" (as in "she turned out to be a huge liar" ) is a favorite adjective of Tripp, who employs it three times in approximately 550 words of transcribed tapes that appeared in Newsweek on Feb. 2. It is also highly doubtful, they say, that Lewinsky would have characterized herself as "stalking the P."
Report Ad

"And it is hard to conceive that the last sentence of this paragraph, 'Well, at least that gets me out of another scandal that I know about,' was written by anyone other than Tripp herself," Fox and Gillis write. "The context strongly suggests that the previous sentences of this paragraph were written by the same author, most likely Linda Tripp."