Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
I believe Cheney. Mainly because it does not fit his personality. The Supply Siders constantly argued during Reagan's administration that deficits do not matter. Cheney was never a big supply sider. And in any case he is way to careful to say something so irresponsible - especially during an interview.

Especially when it wasn't an interview.

My Lord, for someone who becomes insufferably didactic when discussing economic issues, it's astonishing to see complete ignorance of the identity of Bush's Treasury Secretary.

Sure, I understand that you're persona non grata with the Bushies, you'd wish you were dead, but I didn't know that you were literally nonexistent.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Oh, for God's sake.

I prefer to use "For the love of God". Somehow it displays your incredulity much better. "Oh, for God's sake" also sound like something Joan Cleaver would say.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Especially when it wasn't an interview.

My Lord, for someone who becomes insufferably didactic when discussing economic issues, it's astonishing to see complete ignorance of the identity of Bush's Treasury Secretary.

Sure, I understand that you're persona non grata with the Bushies, you'd wish you were dead, but I didn't know that you were literally nonexistent.

Explain away O'Neill's conflict of interest re: his book sales? BTW, did anyone buy his whiny Piece of Shite, other maybe as a toilet paper substitute while their korans were on bulk order?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I prefer to use "For the love of God". Somehow it displays your incredulity much better. "Oh, for God's sake" also sound like something Joan Cleaver would say.

It's amazing that the Dems would even invoke God's name as they seek so diligently to wipe any reference to him out of our society.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Spanky
I prefer to use "For the love of God". Somehow it displays your incredulity much better. "Oh, for God's sake" also sound like something Joan Cleaver would say.

June Cleaver would never say God like that. "Oh, for goodness' sake, " perhaps. Maybe even "for heaven's sake," on a bad day.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Explain away O'Neill's conflict of interest re: his book sales?

IIRC, Ty addressed this way back when O'Neill's book was released. See, if you learn to live outside the restrictions of your 2 hour rule, you don't have to keep reinventing the wheel.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
I prefer to use "For the love of God". Somehow it displays your incredulity much better. "Oh, for God's sake" also sound like something Joan Cleaver would say.

Someone with an avatar like this:



should not be the one to complain about an expression sounding too 1950s.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Especially when it wasn't an interview.

My Lord, for someone who becomes insufferably didactic when discussing economic issues, it's astonishing to see complete ignorance of the identity of Bush's Treasury Secretary.

Sure, I understand that you're persona non grata with the Bushies, you'd wish you were dead, but I didn't know that you were literally nonexistent.

I still don't think Cheney said it.

I knew that name was familiar.

Am I didactic or do I have little patience for those that repeat empty talking points instead of actually using pertinent facts?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by nononono
June Cleaver would never say God like that. "Oh, for goodness' sake, " perhaps. Maybe even "for heaven's sake," on a bad day.

You are probably right. But still - For the Love of God is better. It ads more humor and condescending irony.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
IIRC, Ty addressed this way back when O'Neill's book was released. See, if you learn to live outside the restrictions of your 2 hour rule, you don't have to keep reinventing the wheel.

Let me guess, he quoted a liberal blog saying that O'Neill is now free to speak his mind and thus he has no self-interest but the truth? Hank has fully discredited Ty's approach in this regard. PLus anyone who knows anything about publishing knows that advances are not given for non-self-interested truth.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are probably right. But still - For the Love of God is better. It ads more humor and condescending irony.

Good point. I'm always on the lookout for suggestions from those who know how to employ a subtle turn of phrase. Gracias.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are probably right. But still - For the Love of God is better. It ads more humor and condescending irony.

Yes, "Oh, for God's sake" sounds more peevish, less amusing. "For the love of God" needs to be followed with ", man!" and a slap to the cheek.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Let me guess, he quoted a liberal blog saying that O'Neill is now free to speak his mind and thus he has no self-interest but the truth? Hank has fully discredited Ty's approach in this regard. PLus anyone who knows anything about publishing knows that advances are not given for non-self-interested truth.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Good point. I'm always on the lookout for suggestions from those who know how to employ a subtle turn of phrase. Gracias.

One of my employees used it all the time on the other employees and it seems pretty effective.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are probably right. But still - For the Love of God is better. It ads more humor and condescending irony.

When respondng to a PC infused liberal, how about "for the love of Allah" instead? I think that ups the condescending irony quotient.