Ricardo: 2009/11/20 Ricardo Aráoz <[email protected]>: > Publius Maximus wrote: >> I'm far more discriminating in what I share than you give me credit. >> Talk about knee-jerks, this one has nothing whatever to do with Obama, >> and still I get accused of "senseless bashing" of el Presidente. >> > You, being a scholar and a linguist, should understand this : "Hazte > fama y echate a dormir"
That saying makes me sleepy. But it makes Jean's yawning all the more mysterious. I much prefer the sentiment expressed in Dylan Thomas' famous admonition... "Do Go Gently Into That Good Night".... > >> For the record, my bashing of el Presidente makes perfect sense, if >> you value republican constitutional government, federalism, the >> importance of avoiding dangerous demagogues for presidents, the >> delegation style of governance, and the science of economics. >> Otherwise, you're not likely to grasp my objections, far less my >> humor. >> > Let's try to grasp this looong sentence. > You speak about valuing "republican constitutional government", that's > plain stupid. Which constitution? Which government? Or do you think > (like most yanks do) that your constitution and your govt are the only > ones? Not at all. But it is the one about which I am opining. > There are many republican govts under different constitutions, and > in your country you've had many republican govts under the same > constitution. Thanks for the civics lesson. Perhaps one day I shall reciprocate, and explain what you don't understand about women. > Next you ask if I value govenment. That makes not sense at all! WHICH > government? Or do you mean to ask if I value to be governed by other people? > Then you ask if I value "federalism". Another stupid question. WHICH > federalism? The US federalism, Argentine federalism (yes, we are a > constitutional, republican, and federalist country)? They are very > different and yet they are both federalisms. You are easily ignited by differences of degree; I can only imagine the crater between your ears when you consider things that differ by kind. Poof. > Then you ask if I value the "importance of avoiding dangerous demagogues > for presidents". Importance to whom and in what sense? What is your > definition of "demagogue" and who gets to judge? What is your definition > of "dangerous" (and dangerous to whom) and who gets to judge this? And > you finally imply demagogic president is inherently dangerous, you have > to prove this affirmation is ALWAYS true. I have to prove no such thing. I suggest you immediately immigrate to Venezuela, and in four years you'll be telling me I'm too soft on demagogues. > You speak of valuing "the delegation style of governance ". Another > pointless question. WHOSE delegation style? Switzerland's, Argentina's, > Sweden's? Any country that has authorities "delegates governance" to them. I know, I know, it's all so confounding! Why don't you crack open a cold brew, and chill tonight. Keep a safe distance from the television set, though. > You finally talk about valuing the "science of economics". How dumb can > you be? First prove me economics is a science. Can you check theories? > Can you repeat your results? I suppose someone as ignorant of history as yourself would find it rather difficult to find a frame of reference for solving these undergraduate epistemological problems. > Is there a way to absolutely prove that an > economic theory is wrong? And what the hell does valuing the "science of > economics" has to do with your traitorous bashing of your own president? My president believes in command-and-control economic doctrines that have murdered hundreds of millions of people in the last century alone. I'd say that's a clue. > Yes, traitorous, you are at war and you are going against your govt like > the 5th columnist you are. And that, according to the Republican > Party's point of view, is being a traitor. LOL! Now, you know nobody can take that seriously, not even Geoff. Well, OK, maybe only Geoff. > >> Not YOU, per se, Ricardo, of course, being, such as you are, of such >> refined wit and inquisitive character; nevertheless, you know what I'm >> saying. >> > Yep, political stupidity. Campaign talk that won't resist analysis. >> Most of my objections, spelled out here for over a > and blah blah blah bashing his poor country's govt. And then he asks why > is he accused of senselessly bashing his own president. > Please grow up "Minimus Dickus" OH, now I understand your strident mood. We'll talk next week when you're, uh, fully recovered from this little bout of dysmenorrhea. :) - Publius > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
