HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Warren DeMontague » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Warren DeMontague

Profile Information

Name: Rumdrinkin DeMonattea
Gender: Male
Hometown: This un
Member since: Thu May 20, 2004, 05:02 AM
Number of posts: 56,761

About Me

What do you call a man with 10 rabbits in his ***?

Journal Archives

I do find it fascinating that now that the top marginal rate is likely to go back to 39%

all sorts of people are desperately pulling all sorts of creative "alternatives" out of their rears.

Robert Samuelson's idea of a "good deal" on taxes sounds oddly like something coming from someone who thinks Romney won the race:


Republicans accept immediate higher taxes on the “wealthy” — couples with more than $250,000 of income and singles with more than $200,000. Obama won the election, and that’s his minimum demand. However, it doesn’t require permanently increasing today’s top 35 percent tax rate to 39.6 percent. Instead, Obama accepts a one-year surtax or limit on deductions. During that time, Congress and the administration pledge to pursue a tax overhaul that would cut the top individual and corporate income tax rates to 30 percent.

Yes, how reasonable, Bob- let the top rate go back to pre-Bush levels for one whole year (!!!) after which, of course, we HAVE to find a way to get the rates for the poor oppressed top bracket (the so-called "wealthy" harumph harumph because no one can afford that 2nd house in the Hamptons on a measly impoverished 250K a yr harumph harumph) back down lower than they already are- say, 30%, slobber slobber drool drool.

How about this: We have an income tax in place. Large transfers of money (as opposed to assets) are ALREADY reported to the IRS. Raising the top marginal rate is a fairly simple matter, and wouldn't require any fancy new reporting or ideas.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:40 AM (1 replies)

I'm putting off the colonoscopy as long as possible

so discovering my inner remdi95 will have to wait.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:27 PM (1 replies)

I did a Mea culpa? Where? No I didn't.

I said I agreed with yardwork that in this context "p*ssy" is offensive and a broad slur. I also explained my reasoning. That's not a "mea culpa", in fact, I've never expressed a different opinion about "p*ssy" in this context NOR did I weigh in on the original thread.

But, see, that's because I'm interested in the actual underlying meanings of the words and engaging in a rational discussion of them, not focusing endlessly on whether something constitutes a "win" or a"point" or "my team".

Also, it's meta. There is a well established tradition of using the popcorn smiley in reaction to an expected flame fest. that you immediately decided to get outraged about THAT, I think, says an awful lot about ... shit, something.

Let me break it down for you: "p*ssy"? In the context of the linked OP? Offensive. Popcorn in the context of the post YOU are now fulminating bout? Not so much.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:40 PM (2 replies)

I suppose. Were you at the March for Choice in DC in April of 2004? If you were,

you could have taken that opportunity, as she hauled her arthritic knees through DC holding a big-ass Planned Parenthood sign, to lecture her on her shortcomings as a Feminist because of her word choices.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat Nov 3, 2012, 04:35 PM (1 replies)

Fuck a duck. When I'm proven wrong, i say "i was wrong". How hard is that?

I blame Bush, speaking of "how the culture has changed for the worse" . He was constitutionally incapable of acknowledging his fuckups.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat Oct 27, 2012, 08:31 PM (1 replies)

"there weren't people fighting over being able to use words" ..No, heavens, of course there weren't.

(Warning: These are links to DU posts still openly available and not hidden in the archives, however, some of the threads may contain words or language readers may find offensive. Again, these are only links to posts and threads, written by DU members years ago, which are readily and publicly available to anyone who searches the archives of DU2.)



Skinner: "this is thread #8 on the subject" - April 6, 2004.








No offensive google ads to complain about, either, in the good old -sigh- days...

oh wait



Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat Oct 27, 2012, 07:07 AM (2 replies)

you've heard of a "shit-eating grin"?

That's more like a "shit-taking grimace"

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Fri Oct 26, 2012, 04:25 AM (0 replies)

Damn Youuuuuuu!!!

It's because of people like you, I get no sleep!~

Anyway, rush job, I'm sure someone could do a better one.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Wed Oct 24, 2012, 04:32 AM (2 replies)

Ladies and Gentlemen, for one night only...

The Repeatedly Band!

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Fri Oct 19, 2012, 01:34 AM (0 replies)

You have a point. And it is good that we are examing the SPECIFIC underlying mechanism & impact

of SPECIFIC words and terms.

Granted, by an objective analysis- say, from an Alien who just got to Earth and was running the English language through the computer- there would be little to obejctively differentiate the words "c**t" and "dick". Both are insults which insult a member of a particular gender by calling them a slang term for their respective genitalia.

The fact is, though, it's not only the objective meaning of the words, but also the cultural impact or import. Like I said, most people on DU get that "c**t" is not acceptable.

But what we have here (again) is some people arguing against a strawperson that doesn't- for the most part- exist; those people who supposedly "demand" to use all terms, under all circumstances, regardless of context or feeling attached. The dreaded individualists with pesky free speech arguments.

As rrneck notes upthread, there is already widespread agreement on DU about the c word, for instance. As you've seen, even an OP criticizing the use of the word receives approbation for using it. The idea that there is some groundswell demanding that the "C" word be given more free use, or not understanding why it is deemed offensive, is fallacious.

Likewise, "Pansy". Most of DU, I believe, understands why that word is offensive- because in the context which it was objectionally used, it implies not just homosexuality, but that homosexuality is bad. It is a homophobic, bigoted term and does not belong on DU. I also feel that the discussions around the "Romney and Ryan are gay huh huh" photoshops were helpful and educational, in terms of why they were, also, clearly offensive and out of line.

Now, let's move on to the word "b**ch". I believe that, actually, this word in terms of a weighted combination of what it actually means (a female dog) and the cultural linguistic impact, that word is roughly equivalent to "dick"- in that, again, it is a targeted insult (as in, an insult targeted at the person it is directed at, not a group) with a gender-specific component. Same as, generally, we call men "dicks", etc. Language is, more or less, often gendered. ("Asshole" works for both, beautifully, doesn't it?)

In the case of "b**ch", though, you have people (time honored meta tradition!) conflating a gender-specific insult with a slam or slur on the entire gender. They are not one and the same.

So the real question is, are there any gender-specific yet targeted only at individual insults which would be acceptable, in the case of women? Dick is acceptable for men. Are there any comparable words for women which would not be taken, by some, as offensive and as such an attack on ALL women and not just the woman in question (i.e. Ann Coulter, or whoever)

I think, since we are delving into the specific language and culture-based machinations here, this is a reasonable question.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Thu Oct 18, 2012, 03:06 PM (2 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »