Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Am I really THAT fucking old?????


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/16/2007 9:03:24 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Do you have anything besides cheap personal attacks, or is that the most that can be expected of you


The problem I have is that you tend to make statements that my education and research completely disagree with.

I used to ask you nicely for sources, and you generally responded with name calling (damn Leftists), jingoism, insults, and a refusal to actually provide any sort of academic source material to support your opinion.

Over time it found it difficult to take much of anything you post seriously.

The most recent source you posted was julia's comment about "Camelot" and your interpretation showed a fundamental lack of any historical knowledge of that term. 

In the past when I have provided source materials to help educate you about something you appear to have a fundamental lack of understanding about, your approach is to attack me or the source (or both) for being Leftist, an Alien, Al Qaeda, or whatever.

The problem I have when faced with somebody who posts historically or factually incorrect nonsense, and when challenged tends to use emotional arguments to prove their point, tends to be to make fun of their position.  This is my own problem, and not one I expect you to solve.

Make you a deal.  You stop making personal attacks at me and I will stop attacking at you.

Peace out.

Sinergy

p.s.  Please let me know if asking you to qualify your statement with some relevant source materials is something you consider an attack, and I will refrain from asking you to source your opinion.  I really dont care whether or not your opinion has any factual basis, but I really am not interested in upsetting you by asking you to prove your statements.

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/16/2007 9:04:40 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
Kennedy said THIS.


IX. SPACE

Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. Since early in my term, our efforts in space have been under review. With the advice of the Vice President, who is Chairman of the National Space Council, we have examined where we are strong and where we are not, where we may succeed and where we may not. Now it is time to take longer strides--time for a great new American enterprise--time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth.

I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshalled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.

Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of leadtime, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last. We take an additional risk by making it in full view of the world, but as shown by the feat of astronaut Shepard, this very risk enhances our stature when we are successful. But this is not merely a race. Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.

I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals:

First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations--explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon--if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.

Secondly, an additional 23 million dollars, together with 7 million dollars already available, will accelerate development of the Rover nuclear rocket. This gives promise of some day providing a means for even more exciting and ambitious exploration of space, perhaps beyond the moon, perhaps to the very end of the solar system itself.

Third, an additional 50 million dollars will make the most of our present leadership, by accelerating the use of space satellites for world-wide communications.

Fourth, an additional 75 million dollars--of which 53 million dollars is for the Weather Bureau--will help give us at the earliest possible time a satellite system for world-wide weather observation.

Let it be clear--and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make--let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62--an estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all.

Now this is a choice which this country must make, and I am confident that under the leadership of the Space Committees of the Congress, and the Appropriating Committees, that you will consider the matter carefully.

It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. But all of you have lived through the last four years and have seen the significance of space and the adventures in space, and no one can predict with certainty what the ultimate meaning will be of mastery of space.

I believe we should go to the moon. But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful. If we are not, we should decide today and this year.

This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel.

New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further--unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to proudsub)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 1:48:50 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
I know what the CAMELOT reference meant 'cos I was there with "me" nose pressed up against the railings.

It was the glittery social whirl  that the Kennedys introduced to the White House in contrast to the previous administration.  Artists poets and degenerates of that ilk got invites.

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 5/17/2007 1:50:05 AM >

(in reply to proudsub)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 1:57:53 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
Whatever. Kennedy got us to the Moon. Nixon destroyed all the infrastructure Kennedy built.

I think that sums up, perhaps, Americas GREATEST and LOWEST moments.

Now we're all just stuck at the bottom of this gravity well, waiting for the next dinosaur-killer to fly on in.

We could have owned the universe. Now we just pretend we can, while trying to fly up to 500 miles...

Did you know that for the money Bush threw away on the Iraq war, we could have been free of our dependency on oil?

Maybe Bush is worse than Nixon. I dunno.

It's all fucked up.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 2:19:20 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
Cheer up Fargle, thers still a few tomorrows yet, even for me lol

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 3:06:15 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask it to get the fuck out the way so, we can get something done.

Yep, that's the extent of my ability to contribute to this thread.

(in reply to Griswold)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 4:09:48 AM   
losttreasure


Posts: 875
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Actually, Camelot referred to the political family of the Kennedys...


Actually, not.

"The evocation of Camelot by Jackie Kennedey [sic], seemed to be peferct [sic] description gave meaning, at least to the American people, of what had passed."

"On November 29, 1963, Jackie requested an interview with journalist and friend Theodore H. White and memorialized her husband while gilding his reputation with words from his favorite show tune, "Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that was known as Camelot." Mrs. Kennedy's recollections formed the basis of White's Life Magazine article titled "For President Kennedy: An Epilogue," which appeared on December 6, 1963."

"Jackie had an understanding of her husband and his ideals.Upon his death in her sole interview before leaving the White House, said her husband had always looked at history with an idealized view. "History was full of heroes" she said. Explaining the eternal flame, myth preserved the recurring will to struggle toward the ideal and that was the meaning of her husband's life. In this same interview, Jacqueline invoked the name of Camelot. Her husband's favorite broadway [sic]play. For there would be "great Presidents again" but never "another Camelot"."

"Linking JFK with Camelot, Jackie Kennedy remarked that 'There’ll be great presidents again… but there’ll never be another Camelot.'"

While "Camelot" has been used with regard to the political aspirations of other Kennedys since that time, it would appear it has been in an effort to evoke a sense of the original administration for which the reference was first made.

You are correct, however, in your point that whether the administration was Democrat or Republican is moot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

"Camelot"?

Who doesn't shudder when they hear you say that, and realize that the press back then was so thoroughly biased that it could routinely got away with things like calling a Democrat Presidency "Camelot"


While I might agree that bias in the press existed then (as it does now), I don't believe your understanding is correct, either.


_____________________________

Just because it isn't "all about me", doesn't make it "all about you".

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 5:21:42 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
The problem I have is that you tend to make statements that my education and research completely disagree with.

I used to ask you nicely for sources, and you generally responded with name calling (damn Leftists), jingoism, insults, and a refusal to actually provide any sort of academic source material to support your opinion.

Over time it found it difficult to take much of anything you post seriously.

The most recent source you posted was julia's comment about "Camelot" and your interpretation showed a fundamental lack of any historical knowledge of that term. 

In the past when I have provided source materials to help educate you about something you appear to have a fundamental lack of understanding about, your approach is to attack me or the source (or both) for being Leftist, an Alien, Al Qaeda, or whatever.

The problem I have when faced with somebody who posts historically or factually incorrect nonsense, and when challenged tends to use emotional arguments to prove their point, tends to be to make fun of their position.  This is my own problem, and not one I expect you to solve.

Make you a deal.  You stop making personal attacks at me and I will stop attacking at you.

Peace out.

Sinergy

p.s.  Please let me know if asking you to qualify your statement with some relevant source materials is something you consider an attack, and I will refrain from asking you to source your opinion.  I really dont care whether or not your opinion has any factual basis, but I really am not interested in upsetting you by asking you to prove your statements.


Bull shit. Doesn't fly. For one thing, Camelot itself was KING Arthur's Royal Court, complete with Damsels and Knights of the round table, so you're wrong as can be. It was everything about KING Arthur... and so you're talking out of your ass, and you know it.

Or you should.

And regardless of whether the 1960's media was calling the administration "Camelot" or the family "Camelot" it was still a heavy bias. JFK fucked around a lot and the media turned their collective head the other way because they had to keep the fairy tale alive. That, and he gave a certain member of his family a high administration appointment anyway, so the two were intermixed. Let's see a President try doing that today!

Nice try, but you need to do better. All you're really good at is the cheap insults that you keep falling back to because history, facts, and real ideas don't seem to be your strong suites.

< Message edited by Sanity -- 5/17/2007 5:44:51 AM >


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 5:35:08 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
Whether it was the administration or the family, that's really immaterial - an aside thrown out there as part of an attempt to derail the real point of my subject, which was media bias. On top of that, what comes to mind when thinking about the original "Camelot" - a Family, or a Royal Court? And so the argument about the meaning of the word is trivial, nothing of real substance, and meant only as grounds to hurl an insult at me in order to detract from the real argument (about media bias in the 1960's).

So, back to media bias for a minute (until the next insult is hurled by sinergy). Let's see a Republican first lady try to call her husbands' administration (or family, or whatever) anything like "Camelot". How do you suppose the traditional media would "report" on that?



< Message edited by Sanity -- 5/17/2007 5:40:36 AM >


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to losttreasure)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 5:40:58 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
I don't mean to rush you along brother, but do you got any funeral homes in mind, you ancient and could cakk at any instant?

Helpfully (hopefully),
Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Griswold)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 5:48:20 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
Dude ... everybody thinks the media has bias against their side. It's like a basketball game, where both sides always feel they got jobbed by the refs.
 
You can point out an incident of bias towards one side ... and someone else can point out two towards the other ... to which ou can point out three in response ... and on, and on, and on.
 
The only bias in the media, is the bias towards making a shitload of money.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 5:58:19 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Dude ... everybody thinks the media has bias against their side. It's like a basketball game, where both sides always feel they got jobbed by the refs.
 
You can point out an incident of bias towards one side ... and someone else can point out two towards the other ... to which ou can point out three in response ... and on, and on, and on.
 
The only bias in the media, is the bias towards making a shitload of money.


I think you're wrong, Dudette. The Left has been so cozy with the old traditional media for so long that when something more balanced (or that brings more balance) comes along they start wigging out about it, and they want to pass new laws to change it back or they want to protest or boycott or get prosecuters to shut it down based on technicalities, and get their monopoly back any way they possibly can...

< Message edited by Sanity -- 5/17/2007 6:01:35 AM >


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 6:20:14 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
Haven't you been wigging out for two pages about left wing bias?
 
Media outlets don't become left or right out of political awareness or civic duty. It's all an act ... they do it because they find a niche' that will listen to them, which allows them to get a big house, a Ferrari, and enough popularity to score a hot info babe.
 
No offense intended, and I certainly don't want to get on the "bash Sanity" bandwagon ... but I do feel you are possibly being a bit nieve in this instance. Have you noticed that "fair and balanced" became the fad, right about the same time being a Republican became more popular? Trust me ... if the country swings left, so will Fox.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 6:42:17 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
Haven't you been wigging out for two pages about left wing bias?
 
Media outlets don't become left or right out of political awareness or civic duty. It's all an act ... they do it because they find a niche' that will listen to them, which allows them to get a big house, a Ferrari, and enough popularity to score a hot info babe.
 
No offense intended, and I certainly don't want to get on the "bash Sanity" bandwagon ... but I do feel you are possibly being a bit nieve in this instance. Have you noticed that "fair and balanced" became the fad, right about the same time being a Republican became more popular? Trust me ... if the country swings left, so will Fox.


You're the one being "nieve" since you're unaware of media bias. It's a natural part of life. Reporters have to try hard to not inject their personal politics into any given story, and most fail at even trying. Had you ever been in the news you'd likely be very aware of that fact.

Reporters don't generally "drive Ferraris" - only those few who make it to the very top do. Generally, the pay for reporters isn't very good, comparittively. When asked as college students, journalism students say that they go into journalism to change the world - not to get rich. And what does that tell you? How could they possibly "change the world" if they're journalists.

< Message edited by Sanity -- 5/17/2007 7:03:58 AM >


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 8:17:38 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Haven't you been wigging out for two pages about left wing bias?
 
Media outlets don't become left or right out of political awareness or civic duty. It's all an act ... they do it because they find a niche' that will listen to them, which allows them to get a big house, a Ferrari, and enough popularity to score a hot info babe.
 
No offense intended, and I certainly don't want to get on the "bash Sanity" bandwagon ... but I do feel you are possibly being a bit nieve in this instance. Have you noticed that "fair and balanced" became the fad, right about the same time being a Republican became more popular? Trust me ... if the country swings left, so will Fox.


We tend to think of media as a product that we consume, but that is not really true.

We are the product, and the advertisers are the consumers. It is all about the advertisers. If they will not purchase the space to advertise, then the story does not get told.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 9:02:56 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

The Left has been so cozy with the old traditional media for so long that when something more balanced


IF your hypothesis is correct it can EXPLAIN Judy Miller, the New York Times and Aluminium Tubes.

But that hypotheses doesn't explain why Judy Miller and the New York TImes printed the Administration's propaganda without performing their duty to FACT CHECK.


The Hypothesis FAILS when tested.



< Message edited by farglebargle -- 5/17/2007 9:04:07 AM >


_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 9:41:39 AM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
Actually, Camelot referred to the political family of the Kennedys, not to any "Democrat" administration.

So apparently it is time for you to update your sources as the ones you are using are simply proving your ignorance of the topic being discussed.

Sinergy



quote:

David Maness, who died Thursday at 85, was a longtime editor at Time Inc. who inadvertently helped to foster the metaphor of Camelot in regard to the alleged glories of the Kennedy administration.
...Mrs. Kennedy was within earshot. She could hear his objections but remained adamant Camelot it must be. So, with White's help, Jacqueline Kennedy enshrined that wistful vision of her husband's presidency on the national consciousness."

http://www.nysun.com/article/41634


quote:

...It was also publicized, just after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, that the show's original cast recording had been favorite bedtime listening in the White House, and that Kennedy's favorite lines were in the final number (in which Arthur knights a young boy and tells him to pass on the story of Camelot to future generations):

Don't let it be forgot
That once there was a spot,
For one brief, shining moment
That was known as Camelot.

Since then, Camelot has been associated with the Kennedy administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelot_(musical)


quote:

Many felt that he would have gone on to achieve greatness as a President. Subsequent revelations, especially concerning his sexual activity, have somewhat dimmed his luster, but the sense that his administration was a youthful, idealistic “Camelot” remains powerful.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ke/KennedyJF.html


Ignorance is as ignorance does, I do believe...


(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 10:48:32 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

The only "source" I need is julia saying that the networks called a Democrat administration ":Camelot" back in the day



Actually, Camelot referred to the political family of the Kennedys, not to any "Democrat" administration.

So apparently it is time for you to update your sources as the ones you are using are simply proving your ignorance of the topic being discussed.

Sinergy



So then, I guess that would make Fat Ted the drunken court jester.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 11:01:12 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Friar Tuck, more likely.

Robin

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? - 5/17/2007 11:27:19 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
So then, I guess that would make Fat Ted the drunken court jester.


HEY - you can't talk about ROYALTY that way.

Damn it!!!

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Am I really THAT fucking old????? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109