| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 994
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Daily Beast wrote: | | Loughner’s rambling Internet missives, says Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, likely come from well known online sources of the radical right. Potok, who studies hate groups and hate speech, has combed Loughner’s sites and says his material on grammar, in particular, likely comes from the writings of the Milwaukee-based, far right activist David Wynn Miller. As Potok explains it, Miller “believes in a ‘truth language’ that can throw off the government. If you use the right combination of colons and hyphens you don’t have to pay taxes. Miller is virtually the only person who pushes these ideas on grammar, it’s a very unusual idea, even on the radical right.” |
| Matt Inman, The Oatmeal wrote: |
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe
How to Use an Apostrophe
Is it plural?
Plural means more than one.
I saw two kittens riding a goat. Goats are great for transportation.
DON'T use an apostrophe
Two Exceptions
Is it a single letter word? For example: There are two t's in "kittens." Then its ok, but you can also do this: There are two "t"s in "kittens."
Is it a number or abbreviation? For example: 90's fashion was a bit awkward. Just say no to hammer pants.
Then do this:
I attended college in the late '90s and early 2000s.
Is it indicating possession? USE an apostrophe
Possession means to own something.
For example: Bob's hat was made out of jelly beans.
But Watch Out
Is it plural and possessive? For Example: The soldiers' rifles were no match for Bob's amazing lightning pants.
Then put the apostrophe after the "s."
Unless it's a word that's already plural, such as "children," then you'd write "children's."
Is it a contraction? USE AN APOSTROPHE
A contraction is when you omit a few letters. For example:
I (cannot can't) believe you fit that entire watermelon in your mouth!
I (do not don't) like putting honeybees in my underpants.
I (would not wouldn't) recommend scuba diving inside a volcano.
IT'S
Are you trying to say "it is?" (or "it has") USE AN APOSTROPHE
For example:
It's (it is) unusual to put crickets in your coffee, but I do it anyway.
It's (it has) been a fun day. We should go to the velociraptor petting zoo more often!
its
[Dinosaur] If you're unsure, simply try replacing "it's" with "it is." If it sounds ok that way, use an apostrophe.
Are you indicating possession?
For Example:
The velociraptor is known for its cute, playful nature, but its inability to sing in key is unfortunate.
DON'T USE AN APOSTROPHE
Is it a possessive name ending in "s?"
For Example:
Charles's rocketship allowed him to have lunch on the moon.
Charles' cat is always terrified during liftoff.
BOTH ARE ACCEPTABLE. JUST BE CONSISTENT
It is a possessive and plural name? STICK IT AFTER THE "S"
For Example: The Johnsons' moonwich recipe was very famous.
In this case, you're referring to the entire Johnson family.
RECAP
Remember that most apostrophes are used for possessive nouns.
So if a noun owns something, use an apostrophe:
Bob's jellybean hat became sticky in the scorching sun.
Or use it for contractions:
Bob's going to the store to create a bacon hat instead.
And if it's plural, don't use an apostrophe:
Bacon hats do not melt and they smell wonderful.
LASTLY
When in doubt
DON'T
USE AN APOSTROPHE |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 994
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daily Beast wrote: | | Loughner’s rambling Internet missives, says Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, likely come from well known online sources of the radical right. Potok, who studies hate groups and hate speech, has combed Loughner’s sites and says his material on grammar, in particular, likely comes from the writings of the Milwaukee-based, far right activist David Wynn Miller. As Potok explains it, Miller “believes in a ‘truth language’ that can throw off the government. If you use the right combination of colons and hyphens you don’t have to pay taxes. Miller is virtually the only person who pushes these ideas on grammar, it’s a very unusual idea, even on the radical right.” |
| Matt Inman, The Oatmeal wrote: | GRAMMAR GUIDE
10 WORDS TO STOP MISSPELLING
by Matt Inman
POPULAR
1. Grammar Lesson #1 - Whether vs Weather:
2. Grammar Lesson #2 - Your vs You're:
3. Grammar Lesson #3 - There vs Their vs They're:
4. Grammar Lesson #4 - Loose vs Lose:
5. Grammar Lesson #5 - Weird:
6. Grammar Lesson #6 - Definitely:
7. Grammar Lesson #7 - It's vs Its:
8. Grammar Lesson #8 - Effect vs Affect:
9. Grammar Lesson #9 - A Lot:
10. Grammar Lesson #10 - Then vs Than: |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 994
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daily Beast wrote: |
Loughner’s rambling Internet missives, says Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, likely come from well known online sources of the radical right. Potok, who studies hate groups and hate speech, has combed Loughner’s sites and says his material on grammar, in particular, likely comes from the writings of the Milwaukee-based, far right activist David Wynn Miller. As Potok explains it, Miller “believes in a ‘truth language’ that can throw off the government. If you use the right combination of colons and hyphens you don’t have to pay taxes. Miller is virtually the only person who pushes these ideas on grammar, it’s a very unusual idea, even on the radical right.” |
| Matt Inman, The Oatmeal wrote: | 
Ten Words You Need to Stop MisspellingBy The Oatmeal
http:theoatmeal.com
Lose
Opposite of win
Loose
Not tight
Pretend the extra O is a hemmorrhoid on the word. Hemorrhoids are never tight.
Weird
e then i.
Remember it like this:
We ... ir ... d = We ... are (ir) ... dangerous (d) to those dumb, dirty dolphins.
Not wierd
Every time you spell it this way, a dolphin gets run over by a jet ski.
Their
Their is possessive, meaning it owns something.
[Man] I hate our new neighbors. Their cow keeps eating the leftover casserole.
In this case, their is referring to the neighbors who own a cow.
They're
They're is a contraction for "they are."
[Man] They're gonna get a shovel to the face unless they get that cow under control. No one eats my casserole.
In this case, they're means "they are."
There
There refers to a place or idea. Use this form if you're unsure.
[Man] Look over there! An alien just burst out of that cow's chest!
In this case, there is referring to a location.
It can also refer to something more abstract: There are many reasons to discipline a cow. For starters, a cow who eats rancid casserole will later become a host for alien parasites.
[Monster] Abstract usage! I love it!
Your -- You're
These both use the same rules as "their" and "they're."
Your is possessive. In other words, you own something.
Your new baby alien loves to cuddle, but he keeps crapping in your refrigerator at night.
This is referring to your alien and your refrigerator.
You're is a contract of "you are."
You're definitely cleaning out the fridge tomorrow morning, assuming that little beast can't keep his bowels in check.
This translates to "you are definitely cleaning ..."
It's
This is a contraction for it is or it has.
If you can replace it's with it is or it has, then use it's in your sentence.
For example:
It's not fair that Randy gets to ride a wolverine to school, but I have to ride this stupid manatee!
Its
This is indicating possession.
Use this when one thing owns another.
For example:
The wolverine knows only death, pain, and slaughter. Also, its thick, black fur is good for exfoliating the thighs during a long ride.
Using "it's" in this case would result in:
"Also, it is thick black fur is good for ..." which is wrong and anyone that does this deserves to be mauled by a wolverine.
Definitely
There is no A in "definitely."
To help you remember, use this:
If you put an A in "definitely," then you're definitely an A-hole.
Effect - Affect
Most of the time effect is a noun and affect is a verb.
If you're unsure, try substituting a different verb and see if it works.
As a child, he was affected by his parents. As a child, he was eaten by his parents.
A verb works here so you should use "affected."
[Man] C'mere, Randall I want to ingest you, just like I did your obnoxious parakeet.
[Man] You ate him?!! But he sang only of love and beauty! You're a monster, Dad!
Weather
Snow, rain, sunshine, typhoons. All that crap
I'm the sun, I make super happy sunshine!
Also, one day I'll explode and burn you all alive like the miserable little sausages that you are!
Whether
Whether is used in this way: Your correct usage of this word will determine whether or not I kick you in the hemorrhoids.
Nothing gets a point across like a solid kick to the hemmies.
A lot
Always leave a space here. Remember, there's a lot of space in outer space.
Alot is not a word.
You don't write alittle, abunch, acantaloupe, aporkchop. So don't write alot.
Then
is used for time.
First I stole a panda bear, then we drank malt liquor together.
The sequence of actions indicates time; first stealing the panda, and then drinking.
Than
is used for comparison.
I'm much better at holding my liquor than a panda bear.
This is comparing a panda's drinking ability with your own, so you should use "than."
The End
Written and Drawn by The Oatmeal
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 994
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Janet Novack, Forbes wrote: | Expert: Loughner Rants Sound Like Sovereign Citizen Beliefs
by Janet Novack, Forbes
1/12/11
In his YouTube videos and postings on MySpace, alleged Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner echoed the bizarre beliefs of the extreme anti-government Sovereign Citizen movement. At least that’s the conclusion of JJ MacNab, who for more than a decade has tracked (and infiltrated online) the world of tax protesters and anti-government extremists.
In a post Monday on the mental health treatment and gun control gaps the case highlights, I wrote, “It’s hard to decipher any coherent views from Loughner’s You Tube ramblings.” Hard for me, that is. But MacNab, who I’ve known and respected for years, says Loughner’s weird references to “literacy” and “grammar” which mystify me, are Sovereign markers to her. “Sovereigns have their own set of complex cultural references and vocabulary, which they think that outsiders are just too stupid to understand,’’ she explains on her web site.
If MacNab is correct about Loughner, there are three important implications. First, finger pointing between left and right is off the mark in this case. “The world of Sovereign extremism exists outside of our traditional political spectrum, so labeling someone like Loughner a left-wing extremist or right-wing Teapartier doesn’t make any sense,” she writes.
In an interview Tuesday, MacNab explained that while the Sovereign movement has both white supremacist and tax protester roots, as it has spread (in large part over the Internet) it has also morphed. Newer and younger Sovereigns aren’t primarily white racists; some of the fastest growing Sovereign groups are African American and some Sovereigns even have left wing views. But like their predecessors, current Sovereigns consider the government illegitimate and embrace various bizarre and elaborate conspiracy theories, including that the government was involved in 9/11. (Loughner was reportedly a 9/11 truther.)
So what makes someone a Sovereign? The vast government conspiracy part is key says MacNab, who is writing a book on tax protesters and the Sovereigns. On her web site she writes: “A Sovereign believes that every individual has more rights and power than any government agency or political body, but that sinister forces behind the government have systematically suppressed this secret knowledge in order to better enslave us all as `subjects.’ Depending on the sovereign group, the conspiracy behind the government is run by rich bankers, the Federal Reserve, Jews, Zionists, the Pope, the Queen of England, or in one extreme case, shape-shifting reptiles.” Moreover, she says, Sovereigns have a fixation with words that can expose this conspiracy, which they blame for their various problems—with taxes, debts, ex-spouses, child protective services, and so on.
MacNab notes that not all tax protesters are full-blown Sovereigns and not all Sovereigns have troubles with the IRS. Some Sovereigns have mental problems, some don’t. Overall, she estimates there are 300,000 Sovereigns in the U.S. and she believes that number is growing.
The second implication, if Loughner subscribed to Sovereign beliefs: He could have a tougher time proving he’s not mentally competent to stand trial, is not criminally responsible for his alleged acts, or should receive a lesser punishment (for example, not the death penalty) because of mental illness.
MacNab points, by way of example, to the January 2010 sentencing of Ed Brown, the Sovereign/tax protester who in 2007 holed up for months in his heavily armed rural New Hampshire home holding off U.S. Marshals who wanted to deliver him to prison to begin his sentence on tax charges. Before sentencing for the standoff, his lawyer requested a competency hearing for Brown. A Bureau of Prisons forensic psychologist explained to the judge (according to a transcript provided by MacNab and a report by MacNab who attended the hearing) that Wood’s beliefs, no matter how unusual, convoluted and false, weren’t delusional according to diagnostic standards, because they were also held by “a widespread subculture” — namely the Sovereign Citizen or Patriot movements. The judge found that Brown was competent (despite his belief that he was the target of a conspiracy and that others could hear his thoughts) and sentenced him to 444 months in prison, in addition to the 63 months he was already serving for his tax convictions.
The lesson, in layman’s terms, is that Loughner would be considered less crazy if he got his ideas from Sovereign sites on the Internet, as opposed to from voices only he could hear.
The third implication, if Loughner is a Sovereign: The public debate should be focusing on the ongoing threat to law enforcement officials and every day public servants, and not just threats to members of Congress and elected officials. Loughner allegedly killed six and wounded 14 others in what authorities believe was an assassination attempt against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who remains in critical condition with a head wound. But Sovereigns believe a vast army of government workers—not just elected officials—are in on the conspiracy. Loughner allegedly targeted Giffords. But police say he wrote both “Die, cops” and “Die, bitch” on a 2007 letter from Giffords found in his home.
In a long article on the Sovereigns MacNab wrote last year, she emphasized that most Sovereigns aren’t violent and promote their oddball views exclusively through paper–elaborate court filings, and letters to IRS and other government officials.
For example, actor Wesley Snipes, who began serving a three year sentence on tax charges last month, sent letters to the IRS advancing theories as to why the IRS was powerless to collect income taxes from him, including “that he was a `non-resident alien to the United States,’ that earned income must come from `sources wholly outside the United States,’ that a `taxpayer is defined by law as one who operates a distilled spirit Plant,’ and that the Internal Revenue Code’s taxing authority `is limited to the District of Columbia and insular possessions of the United States, exclusive of the 50 States of the Union,’’ according to a July appeals court decision. But there was never any suggestion in court that action hero Snipes, the vampire slayer of the Blade series, posed a danger to anyone outside the movies. Sometimes, when their arguments lose (as they almost always do), non-violent Sovereigns respond with still more paper–filing fake liens against judges’ real estate or phony 1099s designed to get their targets audited by the IRS.
But the Sovereigns who have become violent have acted out against all levels of government workers, not just elected office holders. In a report released last month, the Treasury’s Inspector General for Tax Administration concluded that security is now the most serious threat the IRS faces, as “attacks and threats against IRS employees and facilities have risen steadily in recent years.’’
In some cases, attacks linked to Sovereigns have been carefully planned out. “Sovereigns believe that they are part of some new American Revolution, and that violence is a necessary part of the revolutionary process,’’ MacNab wrote in her report last year. She noted that Oklahoma City federal building bomber Timothy McVeigh and tax protestor Joseph Stack, who flew his Piper plane into the IRS building in Austin last February, used such language.
In other cases, a routine confrontation with authority (say a traffic stop) has set off a violent outburst from a heavily armed Sovereign. MacNab points to what happened in West Memphis, Ark. last May, when Jerry Kane’s white mini-van was stopped. As he argued with police, his 16-year -old son, Joseph, emerged from the minivan with an AK-47 and killed the two outgunned police officers. The Kanes fled and died later in a shootout with police. In that case, the connections to the Sovereigns were clear: Jerry Kane was an active promoter of a Sovereign “redemption” scheme—a technique Sovereigns believe can free them from government controls. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 994
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Janet Novack, Forbes wrote: | | MacNab, who I’ve known and respected for years, says Loughner’s weird references to “literacy” and “grammar” which mystify me, are Sovereign markers to her. “Sovereigns have their own set of complex cultural references and vocabulary, which they think that outsiders are just too stupid to understand,’’ she explains on her web site. |
| Matt Inman, The Oatmeal wrote: |
When to use i.e. in a sentence
http://theoatmeal.com
Ever done this?
"When eating a squrrel taco, Bigfoot always adds extra condiments, i.e., ranch dressing."
This is wrong!
[Bigfoot] Oh drats! I've been using it wrong AND I'm out of ranch!
i.e. is an abbreviation for a latin phrase meaning "that is."
It's not used for listing examples; it's used for clarifying a statement.
Think of it as "in essence" or "in other words."
By using it above we're declaring that ranch dressing is the only condiment in existence, which is false.
[Bigfoot] Sure is! They forgot alligator dung and yak's blood!
In the previous example we should have used elg., which means "for example."
So when should I use i.e.?
Use i.e. when you want to explain what you just said in a different way. A definition, metaphor, or clarification can follow.
For example:
"The best way to take out a unicorn is with a Claymore, i.e., a directional mine which explodes shrapnel into a designated kill zone."
Ideal configuration for blasting a unicorn into unrecognizable bits.
Another example:
"Eating a squirrel taco without any ranch dressing is like playing leapfrog with a unicorn, i.e. a very bad idea."
[Man] Here I come, tee-hee! weeeee!
An example of e.g.
"I love eating meat whose ingredients are a mystery, e.g. bologna, hot dogs, and spam."
In this example we used e.g. because it is not a finite list; other mystery meats are out there.
[Man] Thank God for that! I couldn't imagine a world without mystery meats! It'd be like a world without shiny mustaches: sad, cruel, and empty.
Another example of e.g.
"Women love admiring furry objects (e.g. koalas, armpits, and unkempt back hair).
[Man] How serendipitous! It just so happens I've got all three!
Should I use parentheses or commas?
(e.g. stuff here)
(i.e. stuff here)
,e.g., stuff here
,i.e., stuff here
Both are acceptable.
Do I need a comma after the e.g. or i.e.?
Most style guides recommend that you use a comma.
[Man] "On Thursdays, I always wear my most expensive pair of pants, i.e., the ones made from rubies and panda bears."
In this example we use i.e. because it IS a finite list; the character only has one most expensive pair of pants.
In conclusion
e.g. = examples
(think "egg xamples")
i.e. - clarification
(think "in essence")
The End
Created by The Oatmeal |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 994
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Janet Novack, Forbes wrote: | | MacNab, who I’ve known and respected for years, says Loughner’s weird references to “literacy” and “grammar” which mystify me, are Sovereign markers to her. “Sovereigns have their own set of complex cultural references and vocabulary, which they think that outsiders are just too stupid to understand,’’ she explains on her web site. |
| Matt Inman, The Oatmeal wrote: | 
The Three Most Common Uses of Irony
Verbal & Dramatic Irony
Verbal irony is when a speaker says one thing but means another.
[Man] Sure, I'd love to go crawl inside that rotting goat carcass and find your missing wallet.
In this example, he's not particularly keen on crawling inside the dead goat.
According to some literary experts, sarcasm is a form of verbal irony. According to others, it's not. The definition and usage of verbal irony is not important to remember; what is important to remember is that while these people are arguing back and forth about it, the rest of us are doing more interesting things like eatin fried foods, stargazing, and riding jet-skis.
Dramatic irony is used in a narrative when an event occurs whose significance the audience understands but the characters do not. For example, in Romeo and Juliet when the characters think that Juliet is dead but the audience knows she's only been knocked out by a sleeping potion. Or this scene from my upcoming feature film, Mayonnaise Volcano Warriors. *
[Man 1] I dunno dood, that looks really hot.
[Man 2] It's not! It's just brightly lit mayonnaise mixed with orange food coloring! Don't be such a boob -- jump in and have some fun!
[Man 1] OH GOD I'M BURNING. OH GOD. OH GOD. OH GOD!!!
In this example, the audience would get big LOLs because they knew it was lava the whole time!
*Mayonnaise Volcano Warriors is not actually an upcoming feature film.
2. Situational Irony
Situational irony is when something happens and a reversal of expectations occurs. The key is the reveral. For example:
[Man] Every time there's a lightning storm, vicious sea-bears come in from the pacific ocean and launch an attack. Luckily during tonight's storm I'll be wearing this suit of armor as protection, AND I'll be standing on the roof so I can see them coming!
The reversal: the armor, which was intended for protection, is what ended up causing harm.
[Bear] Hey, that's not ironic! The Oatmeal is an idiot!
Think so? Keep reading.
Not Ironic:
"It's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife" -- Alanis Morissette's "Ironic"
Why isn't it ironic? It's just an unfortunate scenario; there's no reversal of expectations.
Although one could argue that by having so many spoons you'd expect there to be at least one knife lying around, which qualifies as a reversal of expectations. This obnoxious argument is the very essence of irony. Read on to see what I mean.
Ironic:
This was posted on my facebook wall.
Love your site! I am a stickler for grammar, punctuation, and spelling, not hard to understand yet some people still don't get it ... glad your educating the minions ...
Why is it ironic?
Right there is why.
Having read my grammar comics and being a self-proclaimed grammar stickler, you'd expect this person to know the proper usage of your.
[Man] Okay, that's DEFINITELY not ironic. Oatmeal, what kind of strawberry-scented crack are you smoking today?
Don't think the above situation qualifies as irony? This brings me to my next point ...
Last but not least,
The most common use of irony!
1. Inspiring annoying arguments!
If anyone refers to anything as being ironic, the hip thing to do right now is to call it out as not being ironic.
Most common uses of irony
Making a point by deliberately saying things that are incongruent with the truth. (i.e. sarcasm)
Making social commentary
Inspiring massive threads of raging idiots on the internet to debate whether something is ironic or not.
Situational irony is difficult to define and there's a lot of room for interpretation as to whether a particular situation qualifies as ironic or not. It's subjective, confusing, and it depends on the expectations of either the reader or the characters in the situation.
All the examples of irony I've used in this comic are debatable as being ironic, and conversely many situations which are not considered ironic, such as those found in Alanis Morisette's Ironic, could be considered ironical.
It all depends on the storyteller, the characters, and how obnoxious the listener feels like being that day.
[Man 1] So I heard about this guy who stepped out of the way to avoid getting burned by someone's cigarette only to get sucked into a jet engine and was blasted to smithereens! It was really ironic.
[Man 2] Uh, excuse me -- yeah so technically that's not ironic because the heat from the jet engine isn't what killed him, the blades did. It would only qualify as irony if he was burned by the engine. Just FYI.
[Man 3] So what's it like being a virgin at your age?
In other words,
don't debate irony.
If someone misuses it, you probably knew what they meant and you're just sharpshooting their example to make yourself look smart. Instead, shut your useless pie hole and go find something better to do.
[Mouse] Is your trucker hat ironic? Does a dolphin wearing a life jacket qualify as irony? What if a dolphin befriended a tunafish on facebook? Ironic, yes or no? Please explain!
[Man] Who gives a shit! NOW DROP ME A HIGH-FIVE MR. OVERSIZED CHINCHILLA!
THE END!
SLAP! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 994
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Janet Novack, Forbes wrote: | | MacNab, who I’ve known and respected for years, says Loughner’s weird references to “literacy” and “grammar” which mystify me, are Sovereign markers to her. “Sovereigns have their own set of complex cultural references and vocabulary, which they think that outsiders are just too stupid to understand,’’ she explains on her web site. |
| Matt Inman, The Oatmeal wrote: | Literally means actually or without exaggeration.
When you say "I literally ...," it means you're describing something exactly as it happened; you are being literal.
So, if you were to say:
[Man] Excellent joke! I LITERALLY pissed myself laughing!
This is what you are implying:
[Man] Excellent joke! A large urine stain has formed on my pants!
Or, if you said:
I LITERALLY got your back, bro.
This is what you are implying:
I possess your spine, bro.
The {thankfully} late Jerry Falwell provided this quotation before his death in 2007:
"If we do not act now, homosexuals will own America! If you and I do not speak up now, this homosexual steamroller will literally crush all decent men, women, and children who get in its way ... and our nation will pay a terrible price!"
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 994
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tyler TX Directory wrote: | 
Jared Loughner |
OMG! IS THATJARED LOUGHNER SITTING ACROSS THE DINNER TABLE FROM MATT INMAN'S MOM?
SINCE MATT HASN'T DENIED IT, WE HAVE TO ASSUME IT'S TRUE!
MATT INMAN IS EATING DINNER WITH GABRIELLE GIFFORDS' ASSASSIN!
(Mimicking post on TechDirt about Charles raping a little girl.)
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 994
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
David Wynn Miller is just another ridiculous version of Robert Anton Wilson: both couching their nihilist philosophy in terms of the relationship between nouns and verbs. Robert Anton Wilson "saw no nouns, only verbs," and David Wynn Miller "sees only verbs, not nouns." Since their ultimate purpose is nihilism, Robert Anton Wilson's game is much more "logical" than David Wynn Miller's. But in the end, they are the same: the rejection of identity. Yet, at the same time, in a marvelously absurd Rosicrucian reconciliation of opposites, they insist on freedoms and rights, the freedoms and rights of beasts, in the spirit of Edmund Burke.
| Wikipedia, David Wynn Miller wrote: | | In 2010, David Kevin Lindsay asked Mr Justice Frits Verhoeven of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, who was acting as a court of appeal, to quash a conviction resulting from Lindsay's failure to file income tax returns for 1996 and thereafter. Lindsay, who presented himself as David-Kevin: Lindsay, argued that he was not a "person" as defined by Canada's Income Tax Act. He said he had ceased to be a person in 1996. The judge refused to let Lindsay opt out of personhood. The judge said the sentence of a $5000 fine would remain but jail time would be reduced to 30 days from the original 150.[34][35] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 994
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Rights of Man, by Thomas Paine wrote: | http://www.naderlibrary.com/rights.man.htm
"America," says [Mr. Burke] (in his speech on the Canada Constitution bill), "never dreamed of such absurd doctrine as the Rights of Man."
Mr. Burke is such a bold presumer, and advances his assertions and his premises with such a deficiency of judgment, that, without troubling ourselves about principles of philosophy or politics, the mere logical conclusions they produce, are ridiculous. For instance,
If governments, as Mr. Burke asserts, are not founded on the Rights of MAN, and are founded on any rights at all, they consequently must be founded on the right of something that is not man. What then is that something?
Generally speaking, we know of no other creatures that inhabit the earth than man and beast; and in all cases, where only two things offer themselves, and one must be admitted, a negation proved on any one, amounts to an affirmative on the other; and therefore, Mr. Burke, by proving against the Rights of Man, proves in behalf of the beast; and consequently, proves that government is a beast; and as difficult things sometimes explain each other, we now see the origin of keeping wild beasts in the Tower; for they certainly can be of no other use than to show the origin of the government. They are in the place of a constitution. O John Bull, what honours thou hast lost by not being a wild beast. Thou mightest, on Mr. Burke's system, have been in the Tower for life. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Home
Search
Log in
naderlibrary.com
