Dennis Miller on Politics

For Wes

Sorry, Wes, but the conceptual associations underlying your reading comprehension are so foreign to me that I have no idea what you're referring to.

As I have no idea what you're referring to, please consider whether or not you really want an answer. If so, take a deep breath and try again.

I'm just not going to waste either of our time answering your vagaries and leaving you unsatisfied because I somehow failed to address vital points that you didn't choose to include in your vagaries.

As I'm not clairvoyant, I would have to presume what you mean--in essence, I would have to think for you in order to understand the dimensions of the issues you raise. It seems altogether more useful for both of us if you simply state your case clearly for once.

Or I could just note your response to Spookz's post and take the superficial route and ask you what's up with the rude and obvious hypocrisy ....

But that's actually beside the point. Rather, I'm making it so in order to not confuse you further.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: wes

you win spooky. i can troll you no more for now. i simply can't match your level of bullshit. i try, but valid criticisms keep coming out instead. i now leave you to your humongous pile of shit. i hope you enjoy wallowing in it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait

So is Dennis Miller funny or not?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes

Yes. I think he's in a serious decline, though. O'Rourke stayed funny for years despite being a conservative. Modern Manners is a work of genius. Miller still has some good lines, and the transcript of his last appearance on Real Time makes much better reading than his performance does viewing. The jokes are still there, but his average is dropping and he's looking and behaving more and more fried-out as time goes by. I find the political shift interesting, but there is a strange nexus of factors afoot. While I do consider conservative humor more vicious and less humorous, there is also the drug use, and the fact that his ratings plummeted on that MNF gig; it still bothers me that a good homeless joke and a bit about Microsoft that had some bite to it didn't play as well at the Paramount as the bit about seventy virgins and a finger up the ass. It could be that in the wake of his 10-10-220 gig--the common joke in Seattle taverns was that he needed coke money--he's following the ratings.

You know it could be that he's quit the speedy stuff and this is the natural result.

It could be any number of things.

But a master tactician of political comedy got space in Time, picked his battle, and presented us with the Maginot Line, at best. That one was sad more than anything else. He may sincerely wish to be taken more seriously, but that means he won't be able to rely on the same sense of vague offense that marks his better days.

I say yeah, he's still funny, but he's losing his edge. Whether he's beating his rapier wit into a share of the profits, grinding his razor's edge against a glass tabletop, trying some backward ruse to spike his Q-rating, or simply seeing his sharper brain cells rust with age, something's up. Or, rather, down.

When he did that bit in "Pursuit of Happiness" about comparing his life against the lives of former SNL cast members and feeling good about himself, there was a sense that he was ridiculing that kind of superficial, distracting concern. That sense of ridicule may well have been a vapid presumption on the part of thousands or even millions, but it's missing from his current persona. He's not nearly as funny; he's just mean. He's not putting the effort into it he used to. He can still do the material less relevant to this particular discussion--e.g. skipping the meanpolitik and bringing on the genuinely funny--and he should.

It's always been somewhat cruel humor, but he used to put better effort into it, and people used to sympathize because he came across as sincere according to certain standards. Now he just ... well, he just sounds a bit like a whore.

Excuse me, a pundit. Sorry, I get those two words mixed up sometimes.

 

SPOOKZ WRITES: "there are many facets to an individual. there are a myriad of differing situations that occur in a society."

You are right, of course.

Quote: "the dice will fall where they may. thru it all, my core values remain."

The first part of that sentence is nonsensical ambiguity, but then I am sure that you wasted little time on constructing it, huh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You say that your core values remain. Is that good? Just asking, not judging. As for being overly concerned. I am concerned for all humankind including myself, but concerned only insomuch as I care about where we are all going with our ideas, ideals, and behavior, like how well are we advancing in this society. But this has little to do with my statement to you. It is just that you were are so mean sometimes and it kind of makes me sad. ...I know! Stop reading it, right? But, it would still be there, and you give a very dim view of Democrats; did you know that?

This in no means that I have anything against you. You gotta be you! I gotta be me!

It was good of you to answer.

You said: *how's that for pomposity?

It is just fine, but more like hiding you softer side. I used to afraid of mine too.

Best wishes. PMT

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: wes

liar. you merely assert that since you do not know, no one can!
arrogant little worm!

 

/Sorry, Wes, but the conceptual associations underlying your reading comprehension are so foreign to me that I have no idea what you're referring to.

Indeed, we apparently share this problem.

/As I have no idea what you're referring to, please consider whether or not you really want an answer.

This is perplexing to me, as it's a pretty straightforward, extremely simple question. I could not word it any more clearly. I would ask that you note that I'm not implying "you suck", I'm trying to understand you. Sometimes people use methods of teaching/learning/whatever that are wholly foreign to me. Maybe you've discovered that lying can be an effective means to get a point across. I don't know. I'm not judging you by asking, but I may by your response. I don't know until I get it. You see, that is exactly what offends me about your condemnation of Gregg to begin with, it's that from my perspective, you'd locked him up and threw away the key, cursed his family and written him off as a shallow piece of shit before you could possibly be sure of what he meant. It seems like a pattern of behavior I've noticed you and your tiassa wannabe exhibit. I don't like it. I want you to explain it in a manner that allows me to see it as other than cruel, because as long as it seems that way, this kind of BS is gonna keep coming up, or we're gonna have to avoid each other. I'd rather get along.

/I'm just not going to waste either of our time answering your vagaries and leaving you unsatisfied because I somehow failed to address vital points that you didn't choose to include in your vagaries.

You accuse me of "vagueries" when I ask you a direct question. How is a direct question vague? Perhaps we have different ideas as to what "lies" are? Seems pretty straightforward to me. DID YOU INTENTIONALLY LIE IN YOUR POST OR NOT? Could I be more clear than that?

/As I'm not clairvoyant

That is quite easy to see. Why do you keep bringing it up?

/I would have to presume what you mean.

So you can't fathom a simple question? I though you were "the smartest person you know". Surely a simple little quesiton like "did you lie?" is within the scope of your intellect to answer.

/--in essence, I would have to think for you in order to understand the dimensions of the issues you raise.

Have I not asked that you please refrain? Sorry: Please refrain for thinking for me and think for yourself. Answer a simple question: Did you intentionally lie more than once in the previously referenced post?

It's easy: Yes, or no. THen a brief explanation.

You see if you could just be honest, and answer the question, I might get a glimpse as to your thought process and begin to understand where you're coming from. I don't want you to think for me, I want to observe your thought process such that I can gauge your intentions more clearly. Don't want to tip your hand is that it? Is it a game? Are you afraid of exposing something? Hell that doesn't seem right so instead of 200 questions, just answer a simple question as previously presented.

/It seems altogether more useful for both of us if you simply state your case clearly for once.

LOL. I've been as clear as I am able. If you could avoid your pompous crock of shit for a second, and remember your first line "the conceptual associations underlying your reading comprehension are so foreign to me that I have no idea what you're referring to." we would have far less of a problem... you see T, that was respectful. that was an admission as to your ignorance. I admit my ignorance to you as well with my question: "did you intentionally lie?". While we do this, we can learn from each other... but when we pretend we already know all the answers, we get to acting like pompous assholes - a role with which you seem quite comfortable. Maybe you can convince me otherwise.

/Or I could just note your response to Spookz's post and take the superficial route and ask you what's up with the rude and obvious hypocrisy ....

spooky has sicked his troll on me. i'm not scared of it and use similar methods to retaliate.

/But that's actually beside the point. Rather, I'm making it so in order to not confuse you further.

oh how kind. how about you don't worry about me. how about you just answer a simple question? it's taken THREE posts now to ask ONE question to which you have done nothign but avoid. real simpe t, same question: lie? not? which is it?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

this fucker has no idea what trolling really means

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: wes

you misunderstand me troll, but apparently, you have little choice. if you are actually interested in understanding, I'll gladly discuss whatever you'd like. until then, i'm through with you.

 

Is sarcasm lying? If so then I suppose I've lied more than I previously mentioned and would like to add this to the pile:

I greatly appreciate your attempts to define it clearly for me.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: wes

you have nothing to discuss, you whacked out idiot! you claim intent is unknown and say nothing more

spin the shit for me moron. dissect the relevant portions line by line. demonstate your stupidity

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: wes

somebody needs a hug!

 

I wouldn't hold your breathe Wes

Between the intentionally obtuse and the infantile egomaniac you are asking for the impossible if you seek honest, open discussion.

 

can you match descriptions fella?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't like it. I want you to explain it in a manner that allows me to see it as other than cruel, because as long as it seems that way, this kind of BS is gonna keep coming up, or we're gonna have to avoid each other. I'd rather get along. (wes)

solid! wes frikkin morris is the self appointed arbiter of all that is true. he is on a crusade to weed out cruelty. dumb shit. you think this is the disney boards? i see thru your facade. the holier than thou, the "earnestness", the self righteousness! bring it on peasant. i gauruntee a world of hurt

It's your interpretation, which of course you're entitled to, but you prolly owe the author at least a chance to explain himself. You are a child because you don't allow this because you have already decided how you see it, even though it has nothing to do with how it was intended. (wes)

let me drag shit from the belgian thread to demonstrate this fuckers fakery...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

now you hypocritical piece of shit. you do not allow him the luxury of clarification before writing it off as "confusion." you then threaten him with the charge.... "eronious" if he does not respond to your request.

tell me, you lying hypocritical retard. was that necessary?

you advise on allowing others the benefit of the doubt but here you slam before a response is made.

you troll indiscriminately wes. you lack judgement and a sense of fairness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to which he responds.....

heh, the old earnest wes "the fraud" morris. all bullshit is passed off as attempts at "earnestness"

*emphasis mine

 

I would like input from anyone who reads this: Do you think spookz is right? Please explain.

 

Questions, answers, and a flick of the wrist

I tend to think that your summary of the situation depends entirely too much on overlicked wounds.

In my post "Gatorbait", I concluded the first section by noting that, "I consider the bait neither rational nor reasonable."

Now then, a question to you, Wesmorris: Do you consider Gregoftheweb's post "reasonable" or "rational"?

As I pointed out in that post,

As I noted some time ago, in my initial response to Gregoftheweb, I consider that perspective narrow, spiteful, and downright bigoted.

In fact, why don't we take a look at that first section of my post, "GotW: Welcome to Sciforums ...."?

• I find your take narrow, spiteful, and downright bigoted. I think this speaks clearly for my position.

• What is it about you alleged "rational" conservatives that communication is an impossibility with you? What is it about superstition and presumptuous bullshit that is so much more attractive to you than substance or reality? Two generalizations that are, in their form, as "reasonable" as Gregoftheweb's general slam against liberals. Here again, Wes, we must revisit the question of whether or not we consider Gregoftheweb's post either rational or reasonable.

• Why is it that the conservative voice looks so strongly for the worst in people? An assertion I've tabled before in various forms. Conservative politics rely on something similar to the idea of Original Sin. A Second-Amendment Republican fears his or her neighbors, expects crime, sees things in terms of "us and them". An Christian-right Republican lives squarely in a delusion of Original Sin, and presumes the worst: birth control is viewed as a means to licensing "sin," for instance; art that deviates from Christian mores is assigned by necessity, apparently, the same degree of evangelical intent as Christian evangelism--King Diamond didn't convert the nation, 2 Live turns out to be a drop in the bucket, and Marilyn Manson only gains prestige from these sorts of presumptions. A capitalist-Republican is much influenced by money and who has it. Among conservatives, it seems there's always a reason to fight. Of the generalizations in that post, this is the one that has the most credibility.

•_What's the matter, Gregoftheweb, did you, in your rationality, forget to read the posts in this topic? If we pause to consider, Wes, a portion of one of my more recent posts in this discussion that you seem to have ignored, and which I have reiterated above for you ("A, B, C"), I don't think this question is too far off the mark.

• Your response is a lie, Greg. It indicates that you either have not read or have chosen to ignore my post, "What's up with the paranoia, people?" I do not consider that post by GotW either rational or reasonable, and if you see the prior note referring to the reiteration of the prior note you seem to have ignored ... I believe this point is made even more clear.

• If you're going to make irresponsible posts like you have, Gregoftheweb, well, I would simply say, Don't, it makes you look absolutely frigging stupid. Here I must pause to reconsider. Apparently ignoring general reality, the reality of the topic, and the common sense of what's newsworthy in order to make a bigoted swipe after the character of people whose perspectives disagree with one's own is a sign of genius.

• But that's your own choice, and about on par with the rationalism of conservatism around here. This line was delivered specifically in reference to Gregoftheweb's decision to be "a rational conservative voice," as well as being intended to continue the thematic degree of generalization that GotW finds so rational and reasonable.

And here we reach a very sticky point in this debate.

For, as you note, the accusation which 15ofthe19 put on the table, Gregoftheweb agreed with, and neither has been able to support.

The accusation, please!

This accusation is falsely founded and cannot be supported. Even Counsler Coffee couldn't do much better than, "Because I decide that it is," without really explaining the criteria of his assessment.

It's too bad that Gregoftheweb was not given an opportunity to answer the issues without 15ofthe19's riot act getting in the way.

As to the rest of that issue, I've done a lot of thinking for people in order to explain what I perceive to be the problem, but as you see nobody really can tell me exactly what it is, it's hard to find a response that satisfies the unexpressed issues. In other words, before I can answer the issues people wish to prosecute, I must apparently read their minds in order to find out what those issues are, because y'all just ain't being forthcoming.

Cursed his family? Wes, are you really just out looking for a fight again?

You are unable to support that assertion, "cursed his family." And yet you assert an unassailable, unquestionable character?

I knew you could get low, but that's one hell of a limbo, Wes.

Well, we can start with the notion that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

When you manage to beg, borrow, buy, or otherwise get a clue, Wesmorris, perhaps we can make some progress then.

Do me a favor, and imagine the following conversation:

"Wes, what's that on your face?"
- It's my nose.
"No, what's that on your face?"
- A piece of food? Where? Could you be more specific?
"How is a direct question vague?"

It may seem like a direct question to you, Wes, but it's quite obvious to me that I haven't lied, so if you have a specific question, perhaps you might choose to document the lie in question, as I have been courteous enough to do for others over time.

Because in order for me to know what it is you're bitching about, I'm apparently going to have to read your mind.

Well, I think the answer to the question is quite obviously no, I haven't lied, but you wrote:

The post to which you seem to be referring is a whole four sentences long. If you cannot be so courteous as to document your issues with those four sentences, I cannot even perceive what the hell your problem is, aside from your old grudge.

Now you're just being silly. First you ask me to think on your behalf by demanding answers to nonspecific questions, and then you write, Have I not asked that you please refrain?

That's a very anemic joke, Wes.

And this is where we run into serious difficulties, Wes. Without a better statement of the issue than a vague question, without some courtesy of documenting just what the hell your problem is, what "brief explanation" can there be?

In which case, I'll have to guess at what issues you wish for me to explain, once again "thinking for you," which you both ask me to do in practice and then specifically ask me not to.

Mud in any water.

Far more so than your current disrespect, Wes, and more than your sorry inquisition deserves.

I'm aware that life is performance art, Wes, but if you retreat to that position here, you'll only be demonstrating an ignorance that I'm quite sure you'd rather not reveal.

So ... why exactly did you come stomping into this topic thinking you had all the answers stuffed up your ass? It was undignified in its form, and furthermore I didn't expect you to further lower yourself with your blind adherence to malice and mischief.

Yeah, there are occasions that we become pompous assholes, but damn that's a short trip for you, Wes.

Which means that, by your standard, you owe Spookz an apology.

Try to at least make it seem sincere?

What the hell is your problem, Wes? I'm starting to doubt that it's your attitude and wonder if you really are that ... stupid! I mean, come on, man ... the answer I'm giving is the obvious, "No!" but you also want an explanation but flat refuse to provide a small but important detail: What do you want me to explain, boy?

Frankly I find your conduct demeaning to your own self. Man, I knew you had character issues, Wes, but I didn't realize how bloody deep they run.

Get some help, Wes. If it takes you three posts (and, apparently, more) to decide to make clear one of the most important details of your position--e.g. what you would like me to explain--perhaps you should continue if you're properly-equipped for the task you have set before yourself.

So, just to review, Wes:

• So, is it your intent to be obviously contradictory? If so, would you provide your reasoning for it?
• Did you intentionally lie more than once in that post? Please answer yes or no with some explanation as to your answer.
• Answer a simple question: Did you intentionally lie more than once in the previously referenced post? It's easy: Yes, or no. THen a brief explanation.

Do these words ring a bell, Wes?

The answer seems to be "No," but I have no clue what it is you would like explained since I must apparently read your mind to see where the conflict arises.

So why don't you get two cents' worth of courtesy out of that magic ass of yours so chock-full o' wise nuggets and figure out that you must communicate your needs before I can properly attempt to accommodate them.

Get over yourself, stop holding grudges, and move on with your goddamn life, Wes. You bet on the wrong horse this time. There are no refunds, there are no exchanges.

Either make a genuine attempt to communicate or else carry on and live with the bitter fruits of your endeavor.

 

I see.

Wow. That was one of of the most horrible things I've ever read. You are not worthy of my snot, yet I would offer it to you freely.

 

Re: Questions, answers, and a flick of the wrist

i say
"filled to the brim (greg)" is valid? " far left leaning (greg)" is not an attempt at painting liberals as extremists? (spookz)

wes replies
LOL, okay, cheezy choice of words, but no, when I read it I didn't see that. I can see it as a possible take on it, if one assumes that gregg is a jerk. Regardless, there is more than one way to take just about anything. I generally try to allow for that until I've known someone for a bit and can make what I feel are valid assumptoins about their character. To me it looks like, based on one post in which he professes a leaning to the right, you defame him mercilessly.(wes)

*minimizes faults. : "cheezy choice of words "
*confesses to flirtation with thread : "when I read it I didn't see that"
*admits validity : "I can see it as a possible take on it"
*ignores the slander against liberals : "professes a leaning to the right"
*introduces imaginary situations : more than one way to take just about anything"
*you defame him mercilessly : axe to grind.

 

I proved my point. And the evidence that I presented was solid as rock.

Tiassa, you’d make a great republican.