Artful Dodger: I tried to find the exact meaning of the expression "bite me", but all I've been able to come away with is the understanding that it's not meant to be a compliment... big deal, I knew that before I began my time consuming in-depth two minute research project.

Artful Dodger: [ Maybe they think he's hungry? ]


Naaa, I don't think their first instinct would be to say, "Hey, if you're hungry just take a bite out of me. That should hold you until dinner... or until the next woman walks by."

Women should carry treats with them in case they ever run across a hungry looking man. Seriously, there are hungry men everywhere you go, so why wouldn't they? If they are going to take precautions against getting pregnant then it only makes sense they should also take precautions against getting chewed on.

Iamon lyme: My wife carries a leather strap. If I'm good she lets me chew on it. If I'm bad she whacks me with it.

Iamon lyme: Idiomatic expression of discontent

Iamon lyme: Seems as though it was a silly attempt to make you seem less than masculine. Sort of a teenager-ish tactic. But a silly one, personally I've heard it said equally from men or women.

rod03801: He directed that comment to AD, but I hear what you're saying about the level of maturity. Actually, the comment he made sounded a bit catty so it all evens out. *</:oP

Artful Dodger: [ My wife carries a leather strap. ]

Well there ya go! And for all of you young people out there who might have been wondering about this, romance ISN'T dead! It's just taken a slight turn is all... and gone off in a strange direction. But it's still alive, and that is what is important! Yes.




ohhhh man, what have I gotten myself into here?

Keep in mind that:

still

The Col: It dates back older in various forms... Yet the phrase as I know it (and you know it) it dates back to a time of open fires..

As generally understood, the person accusing (the "pot") is understood to share some quality with the target of their accusation (the "kettle"). The pot is mocking the kettle for a little soot when the pot itself is thoroughly covered in the same. An alternative interpretation, recognised by some,[1][2] but not all,[3] sources is that the pot is sooty (being placed on a fire), while the kettle is clean and shiny (being placed on coals only), and hence when the pot accuses the kettle of being black, it is the pot’s own sooty reflection that it sees: the pot accuses the kettle of a fault that only the pot has, rather than one that they share.

The following poem is found in the school book "Maxwell's Elementary Grammar", copyright 1904.

"Oho!" said the pot to the kettle;
"You are dirty and ugly and black!
Sure no one would think you were metal,
Except when you're given a crack."

"Not so! not so!" kettle said to the pot;
"'Tis your own dirty image you see;
For I am so clean – without blemish or blot –
That your blackness is mirrored in me."


>>>>>>>>>> I think it's just where lamon was raised, it got made racist by the old timers he refers to from his 'childhood'.

Artful Dodger: She's taken your bit away again... I'd speak to your union on that one, it's just totally morally unfair!!

(V): No worries. I kinda like the leather look. 

Artful Dodger: No no no no no no noooooo... you gotta stand up for your rights to be dominated properly. That bit allowance dates back generations.

..... It's traditional.

(V): [ I think it's just where lamon was raised, it got made racist by the old timers he refers to from his 'childhood'. ]

Bingo, you figured it out! I'm impressed.

Language is always changing... new words are always being coined and old words gain different shades of meaning, as do phrases. When I said the old timers were transplants, I meant that literally. Many were old south racists who were influenced from their youth by the clan, and some were probably former clan members. I didn't understand why they held such deep hatred and resentments, but as a kid living in the time and area I lived in you were expected to respect your elders no matter what.

To this day I still don't know what prejudices my parents may have had, because they were smart enough not to poison their own children with that kind of thinking. My dad was a fiscal Republican, and was a law and order kind of guy. Other than that his personal views leaned more toward the liberal side. My mother was the go along to get along type, a Democrat who never questioned what her party did. She would complain about high taxes, but never made the connection between that and the fact it was her party who was mostly responsible for the high tax rate. And I'm talking about the tax rate back then... If she was still alive and working, she would be furious about todays taxation, but I suspect she would still be a party loyalist.

Iamon lyme: V): [ ...he refers to from his 'childhood'. ]

What's up with the parenthetical reference to my 'childhood'?

Are you suggesting I might be lying? Granted it was a long time ago, but I do have papers showing where and when I was born. And just to be clear, my birth record and SS# are perfectly valid. In fact, I have more of a right to occupy the White house as the executive leader of my country than our current president does... I don't need to conjure up poorly faked documents because I really WAS born in this country.

(V):

(V): So many phrases, so little time

rod03801: Yeah, hardly up to the high standards of this board ,and clearly worth making one of your rare appearances

The Col: Your continued rudeness will not be tolerated. I will thank you ahead of time to rein it in.

Iamon lyme:

I was away a couple of days. I can finally sit down and reply.

> So here's an interesting question... In light of those stats (I believe they are
> accurate) how popular do you believe Reagan would be today compared to how
> popular he was with voters during his tenure? It seems to me he would have
> been no more popular among voters today than Romney was.


This is a very interesting question. Reagan's era was very different. Reagan first attempted to be president in 1976. He lost the Republican primaries to Gerald Ford, but 1976 set him up to become the main Republican candidate in 1980.

In 1980 he won with 51% of the vote compares to Jimmy Carter's 41%. Voter turnout was really low that year, only 53% of the electorate voted. Reagan was helped by the Iran hostage crisis, rising interest rates that were crippling the economy, and the perception that he could be a Republican capable of mending the rift caused by the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. During his tenure Reagan became very popular with both Republicans and Democrats. In 1984 Reagan was reelected with 58.8 % of the vote copared to Walter Mondale's 40.6% (voter turnout was again only 53%). This clearly shows Reagan's appeal across the aisle and across party lines.

In our modern era Reagan probably would not have suceeded during the primaries. Reagan has the distinction of being the only American president to be divorced. In 1948 his first wife, Jane Wyman, divorced him. Four years later he married actress Nancy Davis (born Anne Frances Robbins), who became the first lady. There was nothing inappropriate about his divorce and second marriage, but in our present era it is quite possible that he would have been taken apart and his private life would have been used to sink him. Such is the nasty nature of politics in the mass media era. I don't think that religion would have affected his chances. He was raised a Catholic, but was baptized into the Disciples of Christ (a protestant church with a Congregational and Presbyterian polity).

We must also look at the nature of the modern electorate. These days minorites have gained a lot of political clout, as have women. The general perception is that Reagan used veiled allusion to race and state's rights as a way to court the seggregationist vote in the South (the so-called Dixiecrats). Reagan also attempted to dismantle government programs aimed at ensuring civil rights and welfare for the poor. Reagan was accused of policies that contributed to racism and increasing racial tensions. Whether those accusation are warranted is a matter of debate, but in our modern era Reagan would have been taken apart on racial issues and that 28% of the vote represented by minorities would not have gone his way. Regan has also been the called the "most anti-women president of the 20th century". I saw a claim that said that sexual discrimination claims increased 25% in the 1980s. I think Reagan would have failed to garner the female vote.

All in all I think that his great appeal and political qualities would have made him as popular as Romney, but he would have lost the election too because the demographics of the vote have changed so much.

Artful Dodger:

For 100 % you are: Liberal!
44.2173 % of 1712 Quiz participants had this profile!

That really comes as news to me!

JerNYC:

> A very clear message was sent to the Republicans in this election if they are
> smart enough to take their hands off their ears. "Get the crazies out of your
> party"

> This message didn't come from the liberal establishment in the Northeast. It
> came right out of the heartland.

> Just like Obama was smart enough to never associate himself with the lunatics
> of OWS, so should the Republicans turn their backs on their own lunatics.

To me it was very telling the situation in Colorado. Colorado traditionally voted Republican. Yet it this election (as in 2008) Colorado went Democrat. On TV I hear that the "Latino" vote did it.

The real problem with the Tea Party is that so far it has failed to appeal to the imagination of minorities. Many Hispanics are actually quite conservative people. Traditionally people in Latin America have favored conservative government policies and values deeply influenced by their Catholic thinking.

I found this in one of the Tea Party websites:

"Many people believe that because the Tea Party is a conservative movement, Hispanics do not have a role or interest in it, however this is not true. Hispanics not only are involved, there is a strong effort to reach out, and inform and educate them about conservative issues. The goal of the Tea Party in Texas is to create a strong conservative bloc of voters in the Texas Hispanic communities through out the state.

Hispanics have conservative cultural values which include family and religion. However, liberal Democrats have blinded them with fears and racism. Liberal Democrats have made many of them dependent on the government, while establishing political bosses to control them politically and economically. The political history of south Texas is full of political bosses like George and Archie Parr of Duval County who controlled Hispanics by keeping them dependent on the government. The old Anglo political bosses may be gone, but they have been replaced by Hispanic bosses who are supported by liberal Democrats in Washington DC."

Obviously the Tea party is aware that they need to appeal to minorities if they are to change the course of politics in the USA. However, I am yet to see any prominent Hispanics or African Americans who support the Tea Party. This is made worse by the Arizona immigration legislation that was pushed forth and supported by some members of the Tea Party. The idea that Hispanics have been made dependant on the government by "liberals" is not going to help Tea Party hopes in Texas (or anywhere else).

If Republicans are to rebuild their voter base, they must balance the values of fiscal conservatism, religious conservatism, and the appeal to minorities and women. This is not easy to do because the religious views of Tea Party members are more in line with the 10% of the Hispanic population that believe in protestantism and evangelism. Some of the values of the Tea Party can appeal only to a small segment of the minority population. It will be interesting to see how Republicans balance that approach. I am not sure if there will be a backlash against the Tea Party or some of its values. I think we are more likely to see a further radicalization in their direction. I think Republicans will not take a har look at their values until they receive a real beating at the polls.

Übergeek 바둑이:  It comes as news to me too but I never score 100% conservative on any of those tests.  I'm definitely in the camp of those on the Right, but not the far right.  I lean left on a few issues but not too far left.  Maybe I just end up closer to the center on some views. 

Iamon lyme: Ages ago..

"What's up with the parenthetical reference to my 'childhood'?"

Nothing...

"I have more of a right to occupy the White house as the executive leader of my country than our current president does.I don't need to conjure up poorly faked documents because I really WAS born in this country.

No you don't. He was born in America, just for some reason you hate liberals.. or at least your definition of what they are.

"If she was still alive and working, she would be furious about todays taxation"

If everyone in the US .. ok, the 99% got together and closed all the tax loopholes.. I think it'd be quite feasible to permanently lower tax rates for the rich.

The Col: Interesting to see how many modern phrases date back in some form thousands of years.

(V): I ve seen people called "idiots" amongst other such names, and nary a disenting word, oh well.What I find interesting is Obama won the election and the popular vote , but the only ones supporting him on this board are from the UK and Canada

The Col:even you and Jules have used the word idiot.  I am the undisputed Champ though.  

The Col: This is... a conservative 'state'.

Artful Dodger: Champ.. Champ..

(V):

(V): I think the liberal Americans are probably smart enough not to bother cuz I have had a number of pm's from some who have never posted here

The Col: It's interesting when you learn things after the fact. But so called liberals in the US need to learn from Jon Stewart...

.. In the recent mock debate between him and Bill, he did bring up the matter of contraception... and that Viagra is coverable. N' many have commentated that democrats need to rediscover their cojones.

Übergeek 바둑이: I can agree with much of what you say about Reagan except for the parts you rightly describe as "perceptions". You don't say who had these perceptions, but I think it's clear who they were. There were supporters and detractors (as there always are) on both sides would likely try shoring up their own perceptions with some obvious misperceptions. And one of those obvious misperceptions is when you imply cases of sexual discrimination had risen as a result of Reagans presidency.

"I saw a claim that said that sexual discrimination claims increased 25% in the 1980s."

This is probably true, but had nothing to do with Reagan. It's the same as if you implied feminist influence didn't begin until 1980 and then quickly peaked during the Reagan administration. If (reported) discrimination cases rose to that level during that time, it would be incidental to Reagans tenure. Feminist influence had been steadily growing for at least two decades prior to the 80's.

I personally got a taste of that influence during the 80's when I applied for a job, and was immediately grilled about my personal life. It was obvious I was not going to get the job and why. But even if I did get the job, I could see what lay in store for me working for those people. The problem with the interview began when it came out that I was a married man who had three children... when that little secret(?) came out I could see a definite shift in attitude in the woman who was doing the interview. After a few more minutes of listening to insulting questions and comments I decided not to sit through any more of it, and excused myself from the meeting. It was funny in a way, because when I got up to leave her attitude shifted to one of surprise, and she told me the interview was not over yet. So I said "It is for me. You can continue with the next guy who walks in, but as far as I'm concerned we are done here."

By the way, the feminist movement took a big hit, one I believe they've never recovered from, when after Reagan they stood by and supported the next (Democrat) president. And they were suspiciously quiet over his adulteries and misogynist behavior... I don't need to comment on that. It speaks for itself.

Übergeek 바둑이: Reagans first election was definitely a response to Carters failed policies. It was said of Carter that he couldn't say no to anyone, and as a result the poor fool was besieged by lobbyists on all sides... they were all over him like flies on [fecal matter]. But you failed to mention that Reagan had already proven he was able to turn the nations economy around. And he did, which accounts for why he won by an even bigger margin for his second term. During his tenure as governor of California, he not only turned the economy around by encouraging (instead of discouraging) business, but the resulting increase in tax revenue (more jobs, more tax money) allowed more money (not less) to be funneled into social services... Big Bird wasn't a bit worried about job security at that time. If he cut any social services it's because they didn't really function as a safety net. Many so called "social services" do nothing to help people with real needs, but rather exist as incentives (give aways) to encourage voter loyalty.

(V): [ "I have more of a right to occupy the White house as the executive leader of my country than our current president does. I don't need to conjure up poorly faked documents because I really WAS born in this country." ] ~ [ "No you don't. He was born in America, just for some reason you hate liberals.. or at least your definition of what they are." ]

And you know he was born on US soil because he showed faked documents to prove it? Come on V, you can do better than that.


By the way, I WAS careless and did use the wrong word when talking about older subtexts to an original saying... I didn't mean to give the impression those subtexts started with the original saying, but apparently I did. And you were not lax in jumping on that mistake.

One of the things I like about this site is people will point out mistakes in meaning, but I've never been jumped on for making a spelling mistake. A few years ago I was at different site and it was like talking to third graders... it was more important to the people there to catch spelling mistakes than to make any attempt at dealing with issues. As crazy as it can get here I have say it's a step up from some of the crazier craziness I've seen. And the moderation here isn't bad either, but I confess to occasionallyl trying to slip by the censors by burying my insults in a lot of innocuous sounding words...



(((aww crap, I did it again... why do I always tell on myself like that?)))

(V): [ If everyone in the US .. ok, the 99% got together and closed all the tax loopholes.. I think it'd be quite feasible to permanently lower tax rates for the rich. ]

If the tax code had been simplified and constructed to be truly "fair" a long time ago, there would have been no need for tax loopholes to come afterward. After excessively taxing the wealthiest, legislators needed to go back and create ways for them to be able to keep more of their money... why? So they might have something left over to invest in growth, that's why. If this sounds crazy it's because it IS crazy... take it away with one hand and give it back with the other. Sound familiar?

Investment means growth of business (that means more jobs) and fewer people out of work, and that means more taxable income is being generated for the government!!! So why does government invariably try to discourage the goose that lays the golden eggs from laying the golden eggs? The government doesn't benefit from a distressed economy, so what are they trying to do?

If potentional investors are discouraged from investing it doesn't mean they are shoving their money into off shore accounts. It means they are shy about investing their money. So it's really not my business or yours what they do with that money, because it belongs to them. And if they decide NOT to invest, because of governmental rules and restrictions and charging fees for doing this than and the other (taxable) thing, what can the government do about that? Make it illegal to NOT make investments? Okay, maybe (I wouldn't put it passed them) but until that happens there's nothing to stop potential investors from pulling out of doing any future business and simply retire on what they have.

Because of how poorly the economy is doing and because of what Obamacare will do to business starting in 2014, we will continue to see more and more people retire before they had planned to... that's already happening, people are already starting to jump ship, and why not? The damn thing is sinking fast, and Obama is up there on the deck drilling more holes in it so the water will (hopefully) drain out. Well, good luck with that Mr President... you insufferable moron!!

Iamon lyme: Seriously.. stop thinking for a second and empty your mind...

.... Do you really think that the entire establishment (as we are talking about both parties here as well as 'civil servants' could hide such a fraud? ...

"prove it?"

You don't think it's a fake 100% then!!

"And you were not lax in jumping on that mistake."

Not that it was a mistake, but I can see obviously that different areas will have learnt things differently. The old timers you grew up with, would by nature of the own thinking re-invented certain terms to fit their needs.

"but I confess to occasionallyl trying to slip by the censors by burying my insults in a lot of innocuous sounding words"

.... Yeah well... remember this is a PG site.

"If the tax code had been simplified and constructed to be truly "fair" a long time ago, there would have been no need for tax loopholes to come afterward. After excessively taxing the wealthiest, legislators needed to go back and create ways for them to be able to keep more of their money... why? So they might have something left over to invest in growth, that's why. If this sounds crazy it's because it IS crazy... take it away with one hand and give it back with the other. Sound familiar?"

I agree, it is crazy.. and it's being abused. A simplification and recognition that multi-nationals can hide money thanks to that complexity needs to be worked on.

"why?" I think basically to keep the stock markets buoyant. Much of the money in there is 'imaginary'.

abandon ship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Iamon lyme:

Oh, I agree with you. The reason why I wrote "I saw a claim" is because seeing a claim and proving it are entirely different matters.

What I am getting at is perception in the public. In our present era a candidate's true record is not reflected in how the media spins that record. Current campaigns are huge advertising campaigns rather than campaigns aimed at discussing real issues or portraying the truth. A candidate made a stupid comment 20 years ago, and his opponent will exploit that as much as he can. Let alone problems in a candidates personal life. Reagan's initial divorce would probably have been used against him, as might have been comments he might have made when he disagreed with left-wing views or some government policies.

We can compare this to Romney's "shipping jobs overseas". That became a weakness in his campaign, regardless of how true or how accurate the situation was, or the fact that Democrat businessmen do the same thing.

Modern democracy is a game of perception. It is popularity contest. It is not about chosing the most capable man for the job, but the most popular man for the job.

With regards to feminism, one must remember that "feminism" as movement was something that never quite captured the public's imagination. Otherwise every woman would be a feminist, and that is not true. Feminism has an important place in history as a reflection of women struggling to gain acceptance and respect as men's equals. We remember that feminists are human beings too and as such they are bound to have biases and prejudices like we all do. If claims of gender discrimination raised during the Reagan administration, it was because more women felt the courage to come forward and lodge complaints. I doubt the Reagan era was any worse for women than any era in the past, or sadly, our modern era. However, these days candidates are judged based on their record with women's issues. In that sense candidates can spin their opponents record to court women voters.

Übergeek 바둑이: [ Modern democracy is a game of perception. It is popularity contest. It is not about chosing the most capable man for the job, but the most popular man for the job. ]

It has been moving in that direction for a long time. When I think about how Reagan talked to people, one thing that stands out (for me it did) is that he didn't play the popularity game. Which is kind of ironic... by NOT playing that game, he ended up being more popular than if he had tried juggling various (and conflicting) positions in an attempt to please the most number of people. But it's not the politicians who started this weird move toward winning popularity contests. They are simply responding to what they've learned will convince the most number of people to vote for them.

Politics today looks like a day time "reality" gotcha type of show. I can't stomach watching Jerry Springer or Maury, but that type of format is being imitated and appears to be permanently incorporated into modern American politics. And to make matters worse, we are being instructed in politics and foreign policy by movie stars and tv personalities. These folks have become experts by virtue of their images appearing on television and in movies. Isn't it comforting to know the most qualified people are in a position to shape public perceptions and influence policy?

Eons ago a social studies teacher in my high school told us that in a democracy anything can happen... and he said it's possible to vote freedoms away to the point where you can never get them back again.

(V): [ Seriously.. stop thinking for a second and empty your mind... .... Do you really think that the entire establishment (as we are talking about both parties here as well as 'civil servants' could hide such a fraud? ... ]


Seriously, START thinking (for more than a second) and ask yourself this question... if it ISN'T a fraud, then why did the president show FRAUDULENT papers in an attempt to settle the question? He could have settled the question once and for all by simply showing true documentation.

I am older than Obama, and record keeping has improved since I was born... I can get replacement papers at any time, so no one can convince me that anyone born in the US is somehow unable to get his hands on true documentation.

Showing faked documentation to prove legitimacy is worse than showing nothing at all... so why would he do that?

You don't need phony ID to buy beer if you are old enough to buy beer. Does it make sense for someone who is old enough to buy liquor to get phony ID to prove they are old enough?

No, it makes no sense at all. You could be turned away for using phony ID, when all you had to do was to show your true ID.



Okay, I've made my point now so you can turn your brain off... sorry for the inconvenience.

ketchuplover: [ Subject: All hands...
abandon ship!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ]

I decided to wait until after the election before designating myself as either "retired" or "unemployed". It's official now... I'm calling meself retired. So I'll be nothin' but a bow-leggedly corn cob pipe chewin' land-lubber from here on out.

Maybe I can do some occasional day labor... or maybe work from home? Posting messages at this board seems to be the only real job I have at the moment, and I'm working for less than peanuts....

.... ( ? )

.... ( ! )

Eureka, that's it! I know what to do now! I'll get a job working for peanuts... dry roasted peanuts.

Iamon lyme: ???? You gonna join the circus and be an elephant?