Something you may never hear about from Faux Noise.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2011-05-05-tax-cut-record-low_n.htm

And we all owe it to a socialist. Go figure.

A socialist who was smart enough to continue his predecessors economic policy on tax cuts. Obama is just too lazy to come up with any plan on his own.

Like, yeah, right, whatever.

Like, Obama is totally lame and, like, republicans are, like, totally cool. Right. Sure. Yeah. Farm out. Right arm.

Like, that Bill Clinton douche, like he totally had a higher tax rate for rich people and like, the economy was fucking booming, man. Like probably a coinkedink. Then bush, jr. lowered taxes on the rich and like, the economy went staight to hell, dude.

But those are FACTS, man, and, like facts are so totally BORING. Facts are, like, the problem, man.

republicans hate facts, man, because they are such DOWNERS, man.

right, Kemosabe? Dude?

Whatcha smoking, man - can I have some? No, seriously, man. I don't feel wasted enough, man. Man, you de man, man.

You do remember that the economy was in free fall as Clinton left office? I think the smoke is on your side.

BTW: I know it is bit of a technicality, but Bush 41 and Bush 43 actually have slightly different names so the younger Bush is not a "Jr". Not that facts invade your reality.

Bush, Jr.'s nickname was "Junior" until he was about forty years old - man. So much for your technicalities, dude.

The fucking of the economy started with ronald raygun - man. That when the controls were, like, totally taken off the capitalists, man, and started the big slide into massive debt - man.

Anyways, Ron Paul is going to be elected pres in 2012 and legalize heroin. Good news for YOU, dude - no more socialism, man. Free market drugs, man - I'm sure you can dig it.

Is this 'talk like a hippie' day?

To be a Jr. one must have the exact same name. "Junior " as a nickname is different as nicknames do not have to be even remotely similar to the real name. I am still right.

Have you heard of a guy named Carter and his amazing 'misery index'? There was a reason Reagan won two land slide elections. 44 states with 489 EC votes in '80 and 49 states with 525 EC votes in '84 (Beat that Obama!)

Clinton started ok with the economy when the Repubs held the Senate and House but as the Dems slowly took over congress the economy went south. When the conservatives won back the houses under Bush we started to recover again. Then Pelosi and Co, took over and the economy went to shit almost over night.

Oh well, I could go on but trying to reason with you is pointless. Look, I'm sorry that your president sucks. Don't worry, his reign of error will be over in a couple of years. Long live the GOP!!

>#6 you do realize that a philosophy of "everything republicans do is good and everything democrats do is bad" is guaranteed to be in error... about 50% of the time? You ok with that?

#7 I agree, Republicans in many cases are just as bad as the Dems. I was tweaking my buddy J. You see the dirty little secret is that Democratic and Republican politicians are the same people. The only substantive difference is that the Republicans tend to be better dressed.

"The only substantive difference is that the Republicans tend to be better dressed."

Only the rich ones. The majority of them, those beer guzzling 'heartland' republicans, look like this:



(Edited for typo.)

#9 You really want to go down this road? OK here is a typical Lib. Isn't stereotyping fun?

Moderate!

#10 - Wow, are you trapped in a 70s time-warp, or what?

#13 Just calling them as I see them. That dude simply represents modern liberal thought.

#14 - He does? He might have 40 years ago. Are you living in America's own Brigadoon or what?

6>

The reason Reagan won a landslide the second time is because he pleased the voters with tax cuts by borrowing money from the future, He figured "Who CARES about the damn future--I need to please the people voting right NOW." It's why he was loved so much then yet his legacy now is just okay at best.

What I think is funny is just what JGL53 inferred in #1-- that in spite of the fact that taxes are low (which Republicans want) and in spite of the fact that the rich aren't paying enough (which Republicans want) and in spite of the fact that he got bin Laden (which Republicans absolutely wanted) the GOP still hates Obama.

Gee, could it be racism maybe? What other explanation could there be?

#16 - They also hate his funny foreign sounding name.

Let's face it, they hated Clinton just as much, and spent a ton of resources trying to find something/anything to pin on him. The best they could do was get him for lying about sex. Even that barely dented his popularity.

17>

A guy I play hockey with said to me on Friday that Obama is the biggest racist in America. I didn't quite know what to make of that. I wanted to argue but how do you even approach a comment like that? You know there's no moving people who feel that extreme about anything.

I know quite a few people like that, who feel that extreme. I've had people tell me they'd vote for Palin over Obama "in a heartbeat." Dan Quayle too. Every once in a while someone will give me a "I probably wouldn't vote" response, but that's as close as some will go. It's sad.

And getting bin Laden is proof, because if that doesn't sway you even somewhat, nothing ever ever will. Period.

> 6

"...To be a Jr. one must have the exact same name. "Junior " as a nickname is different as nicknames do not have to be even remotely similar to the real name. I am still right..."
-------------------------------------------
No, you are still wrong - and, apparently, still a narcissist.

AND you now qualify as someone who I have zero interest in as a potential "worthy opponent" - which you are SO clearly not.

Welcome to my ignore list.

> 18

Calling republicans racist is now equivalent to alluding to water as wet, i.e., why even bother to point out the obvious?

Republicans - the party with the fringe on top.

#11 - You know, I never noticed how much he looks like the late Frank Perdue before...

#20 - Republicans - the party with the fringe on top.

I love that. Might I add 'That fringe isn't just on Trump's head.'

#19 Farewell JGL53, I consider this a victory. Too bad you are ignoring me, you might have learned something.

BTW: From the source of all knowledge and wisdom - wikipedia

Generational suffixes are used to distinguish persons who would otherwise share the same name within a family. A generational suffix can be used informally (for disambiguation purposes, or as nicknames) and is often incorporated in legal documents.

The most common name suffixes are senior and junior, limited chiefly to American usage, which is written with a capital first letter (Jr.) with or without an interceding comma. The term 'junior' is correctly used only if a child is given exactly the same name as his or her parent. When the suffixes are spelled out in full, they are always written with the first letter in lower case. Social name suffixes are far more frequently applied to men than to women. In French, the designations for a father and son with the same name are père ('father') and fils (‘son’). In Portuguese, common designations are Júnior (junior), Filho (son), Neto (grandson), and Sobrinho (nephew). In many other nations, it is considered highly unusual or even inauspicious to give a son the same first name(s) as his father, removing the need for such suffixes. Sons with a different middle name or initial may also be called Junior as a nickname, but unless the names are identical, the Jr suffix is never used.

I doesn't matter that it's not correct when that is exactly what Babs, George H. W. & the clan called him for 40 years, does it? To his credit apparently 'W' hated being called junior.

> 23

Nice try, but I don't think your reality drill will ever break through the pedantic concrete. LOL.

#23 The whole 'Jr.' thing is quite trivial me. I was just pointing out that calling W. 'Bush Jr.' was not correct. JGL seemed to take it personally for some reason. While I can admit to being wrong, he can't. Actually ignoring me is an improvement as in the past his replying post would be flagged into oblivion for TOS violations.

"I was just pointing out that calling W. 'Bush Jr.' was not correct."

Well, it IS correct if that's what he was called by his family for the first 40+ years of his life, even if wikipedia says that it's not the social norm. And if it's trivial to you why did you devote so may posts to it?

#26 It would have just been one post if JGL did not have a cow over it.

You gave birth to a calf about the same size as the one he did, OH.

No, not really. He started calling me names and put me on the ignore list. I simply pointed out the technicality that he was wrong. Of course if the subject is so silly, why do you keep posting about it? Altogether we three could start a farm.

He pointed out the same thing in #5 that clam did in #23; why was it wrong 20 hours ago but trivial now?

Anyway, whether that usage is technically wrong depends upon whether it was being used for the technical value, which clearly it never was. In grad school I had two fellow students with the same uncommon first name; the one who had entered the program second was called "Junior" by everyone,* simply to distinguish her from the first, until the first graduated. Then "Junior" got her name back.

ETA *Well, not everyone-everyone: everyone who was already there and had known the first one first. "Junior"'s cohort and those that followed called her by her real name.

>30 drbubbles: #5 & 23 were both wrong on a trivial matter.

Granted that it's trivial, but you are nonetheless mistaken in your insistence that the word "junior" is, in that application, definitionally limited to your technicality. I refer you to pretty much any dictionary of the English language.

OK, I looked it up in couple of dictionaries and they say pretty much the same thing.

jun·ior
   joon-yer
–adjective
1.
younger (usually designating the younger of two men bearing the same full name, as a son named after his father; often written as Jr. or jr. following the name): May I speak with the junior Mr. Hansen? Mr. Edward Andrew Hansen, Jr. Compare senior ( def. 1 ) .
2.
of more recent appointment or admission, as to an office or status; of lower rank or standing: a junior partner.
3.
(in American universities, colleges, and schools) noting or pertaining to the class or year next below that of the senior.

Your calf can go to the left side of the pasture.

33: I point you to the "usually" part of the definition you quoted. As in "not always". In other words, your claim that calling George W. Bush "junior" was categorically incorrect is, in fact, incorrect. In short, you were wrong where you have insisted over and over again that you were right.

And as a functional matterm "claiming victory" on the internet means that you lost.

> 32

You seem like a sane person, drbubbles. I like you.

You know, if I had used the phrase "Bush the Junior (Bush)" - analogous to Pliny the Younger - which is what I meant to imply, then even the least of us could have followed my drift.

What do you think?

BTW, getting back to the actual subject of the OP, I just checked on line again and Obama has STILL not raised my taxes. And lying republican candidates for the fringe party's Presidential nomination are still acting like a bunch of damned perverted thumb-swapping thumb-swappers who are constantly swapping thumbs.

#35 Never said categorically incorrect. Just technically. drbubbles wanted me to consult a dictionary and I did. I am still right. JGL lost because he got his panties in a wad and ignored me in a snit.

BTW: Your calf can sit next to JGL53's.

As a final note. JGL's post #35 shows the better usage with "Bush the Junior."

The rest of it is pure nonsense.

Well, the dead horse has been beaten enough and I am riding my cow out of town.

36: So you consulted a dictionary, it gave a definition that proved that JGL's use of the word which you took exception with was actually perfectly acceptable, and you are still right?

Being immune to evidence doesn't make your arguments convincing. It makes you look asinine. Give it up: on this point you made a big deal out of it, and you're simply wrong.

I really wanted to walk away from this topic, but StormRaven wanted to continue. (Blame him for this post)

JGL53 is wrong. Here is why:

1.)George W. Bush does not go by the name of "George W. Bush Jr."
2.)Jr, is not on his birth certificate.
3.)He does not share the same name as his farther and thus does not need to have the suffix to differentiate him from his father.
4.)Family nicknames are not legally binding.
5.)Just because others choose not to follow custom does not require Bush to.

I still say that this matter is silly. I do not care what Bush calls himself.
But no less than four people had to jump in crying like the world would end if they could not prove OH wrong.

39> Make that 5 people think you're wrong, OH. Not that it matters but you might reconsider your position if you cannot get a single person to agree with you.

My original post on the subject was "I know it is bit of a technicality, but Bush 41 and Bush 43 actually have slightly different names so the younger Bush is not a "Jr"

Exactly how am I wrong? His name is not "George W. Bush Jr." or "George H. W. Bush Jr." He does not himself go by "Junior". So please explain exactly how I am wrong.

Why should I change my position because I came across five people who happen to be wrong?

Well, OH, you have my vote. You have a convincing argument, and I hate it when people pile on in a thread.

BTW, here in China 'W' is often referred to as 'Little Bush'.

That would be Shrub, according to the wonderful Molly Ivins.

41: Because it is a technicality that is not in fact a technicality. Because it is wrong. There is nothing magical about "junior" that makes "legally binding" matter at all. Junior is as much a matter of usage as it is a matter of law, and therefore there are no technicalities to be had.

Furthermore, as was pointed out, when you consulted a dictionary, it turned out that your assertions were not supported by the definition you produced, and yet you still persisted in declaring yourself "correct". You were not then, and are not now.

As a matter of usage, George W. Bush is "junior". And yes, it matters that his family used the nickname, because that's how usage is defined. I'll also point out that there is no legal requirement that someone have the "exact same name" before they can legally have the name "junior" applied to them. At least in the United States there are no laws concerning how names are formulated (which makes your "technicality" argument completely worthless).

Sorry Storm, not buying it. The reason for the 'jr' suffix is to differentiate people with the exact same name. There are other dictionaries that are more specific but I am not going to copy them because you will just think I doctored them. You are only right in the sense that the son can be called 'junior' regardless of the name, for instance Peter Wallbanger is 'junior' to his father Harvey Wallbanger. I think you just want to be right and your pride just won't let it go.

I have approached this whole matter with a bit of humor, but you are just taking this way too personally. Get a life man!!!

#45 - "I think you just want to be right and your pride just won't let it go."

OH, you're projecting. :oD

Exactly.

JGL was using junior in a colloquial fashion, like a nickname, and therefore you can't apply a technical difference to it. In the same sense, someone who referred to Clinton as Bubba would be technically wrong because that's not his name, but who cares.

> 49

Exactly. It's like IF I were to call someone an "ass" and this person THEN goes to the dictionary, gives us the definition of "human being" and the first listed definition of "ass" and then says, technically, they cannot be the same thing, so I am therefore "wrong" and they are therefore "right".

Jesus Hussein Christ on a fucking crutch with NPD!

Also, as to the nickname "Bubba", technically that is a redneck's nickname, yet I know of an observing Jew who lives in Greenville, MS who is nicknamed "Bubba". That is just not right but, then again, it isn't wrong either, technically, just very, very wrong culturally.

since this is such an important issue I hope you have taken the time to write to G.W.Bush's family to tell them how wrong they were to call him Junior?

I know that JGL is ignoring me, but I said that nicknames such as 'Junior' are allowable in post #6. So JGL is actually agreeing with me on that point. And since this is the comment that JGL based his decision to ignore me for, should he not ignore himself for now on for saying the same thing?

Also I wish to thank StormRaven for insisting on better sources for my stand on the great "Jr' controversy. Since I concede that I am not an expert on the matter (and neither is anyone else who has chimed in on this issue) I decided to dump Wiki and on-line dictionaries and see what a real expert says on the issue. So I went to the library and found a real book on the subject. What's in a Name by Leonard Ashley PHD (Princeton)



JGL is right as far as nicknames is concerned, Storm and the rest are wrong in their understanding of the proper usage of "Jr."

I enjoyed this subject. Bye!!

ETA: Sorry about the blurry picture, but scanning in a book page was trickier than I thought.

>35 JGL53:, 36

Since you asked...I share SR's opinion in ##34 and 44. The 5 dictionaries I checked last night before posting all include a caveat like "usually" or "chiefly" (as does the one you quoted), obviating the strict application of a technical definition.

>39 OccamsHammer:

Historically, "Jr." never went on anybody's birth certificate (or in the church register before there were birth certificates). When Dad Name named his son Dad Name, dad became Dad Name, Sr., and son Dad Name, Jr. Upon dad's demise, son became plain ol' Dad Name, or, if he'd had his own son named Dad Name, the middle D.N. was promoted to D.N., Sr., and the newest to D.N., Jr. (Not sure what D.N. the grandson got; all these IIIs and IVs and so on began as a 19th c. affectation mimicking regnal practice but ignoring the fact that a regnal name is not a personal name: e.g., Prince Charles's name is not Charles III, and won't be until (1) he ascends the throne and (2) takes Charles as his regnal name, which he is under no obligation to do.) That is, Sr./Jr. were historically not part of an official name but rather an annotation governed by etiquette.

The only way "Jr." has any legal standing is if the legal name includes "Jr." But there is no requirement a son with the exact same name as his father have "Jr." as part of his legal name.

>41 OccamsHammer:

So you are wrong because (1) there is no technical definition such as you have been invoking, and in any event (2) nobody thought it meant GWB was named GHWB anyway, and (3) other perfectly valid definitions of "Junior" (even aside from the one with the caveats) make explicit the usage about which you are complaining.

FWIW, English junior is descended from Latin juvenis and its earliest usage was, in fact, to mean "the Younger" (not just "Younger"), so that saying "Somebody the Junior" would be like saying "Somebody the the Junior".

ETA

While I appreciate your intention, posting a scanned page like that is probably a violation of the LT ToS.

Anyway, I don't know who Leonard Ashley is, so I don't know why I should take his writing as authoritative; and in any case he doesn't cite any sources whatsoever for his comment about Jr., thus making it a mere assertion. A quick review of the fattest etiquette books in my collection (those of Misses Baldridge, Manners, Post (younger and elder), and Vanderbilt) reveals that the technical definition you're defending really is a question of etiquette rather than legality: according to some, your usage is the only socially correct one, but not according to others. However, except for the younger Post, they all agree that there is no such person as Mrs. Jane Doe, socially speaking, because a woman's social identity is that of her husband's: the socially correct form is Mrs. John Doe. Pretty clearly, though, that has no legal standing.

I never said they had legal standing. Show me where I said that it did. My only reference was that there was no legal reason to name Bush 'Jr'. There is customary reasons to why Jr & Sr. are used and you guys are simply wrong as to how it is applied.

ETA: Never said birth certificates used them either. I only meant that Jr was not part of his legal name.

You imply it in #39, Item 4: Family nicknames are not legally binding.

ETA

>29 OccamsHammer: I simply pointed out the technicality that he was wrong.
>55 OccamsHammer: customary reasons to why Jr & Sr. are used and you guys are simply wrong

Around here, that's called 'moving the goalposts'. (But feel free to suggest that custom and technicality are the same.)

Red and round can both be used to describe a ball, but they do not mean the same thing. One can be both customary and technically wrong.

#54 on the scanned page, I read over the TOS and there is no special mention of that type of media. (I will defer to Tim or other Mods if they object to it) However the TOS says that any image or work that the user does not have rights to may be in violation. Does Tim own the copyright to the photo of Perot on post #11?

>57 OccamsHammer:

True enough, but irrelevant to this particular case. You're making a claim that allows no exceptions. You have provided one example, but you have also been provided with abundant counterexamples. And by the rules of logic, one counterexample was sufficient to reject the claim.

"Does Tim own the copyright to the photo of Perot on post #11?"

Oh, sweet cheeses...

#60 If the rule applies to one, it applies to all...also not sure what your picture is meant to be.

#59 I said in post #6 that nicknames were an exception. I can call you 'Junior' or 'Steve' or "Hotel'. No problem. The original purpose of the Jr designation was to remove confusion between unimaginative dads and their sons.

I used the term 'technical' not in a legal sense, but as a procedure or method. Too many lawyers on this site. They think only in legal terms. I am a tradesman and thus use the word to mean "how it works" rather than as a law term. Is that where everybody is missing my meaning? And I use custom as meaning 'traditional method of use'.

I hope that clears things up. (I know it won't)

The fact that Bush might have gone by the Jr. moniker, even though he is technically not a junior just shows how dim the bulbs burn in his family.

By the way, I am a III, so I have take offense at the unimaginative part. My son is a IV.

It is my day to offend. Offering group rates for a limited time!!

>61 OccamsHammer:

Fair enough. I would suggest, though, that "how it works" means, in cases like this, "how people use it", and people use it more broadly than the restricted sense.

This thread is hilarious.

>64 drbubbles: I am glad our disagreements are getting smaller. I know people use the term 'Jr' freely. Does not make it correct. I think of it more as bad grammar than anything else.

In truth this whole debate is my evil plan to hijack this thread from JGL53. You may ignore me "J" but I made everybody else ignore you!!!! HAHAHAHA!!

Why do you insist upon there being a correct usage, anyway?

#68 Because there is. I know the rules and structure and reasons for this method of labeling people is old fashioned and being forgotten. But the way it worked was intentional. It's meaning has diminished. Perhaps it is just an artifact that has been passed by as our language evolves. Does it matter? Possibly not.

Because there is.

And your basis for asserting this is...?

the way it worked was intentional. It's meaning has diminished.

You have it backward. It began as a way of distinguishing between two related people with apparently identical names who were confusable for other reasons as well, and over time, among a certain segment of society, came to be applied to more restrictively. But it never lost its original, broader meaning.

The Welsh had the problem in spades, but didn't invent a parallel solution (although that's probably because it wouldn't have helped all that much).

70>
The Welsh solution -

http://chtg.gwis.co.uk/journal1.htm

we might all try it. Hmmm, come to think of it, we do it for ourselves here with our self-naming protocol.

shrug Its dying out but even so I could not tell you Dai Coffi, or Joe Bachus's real names. ( Dai Coffi's family one owned a Coffee House I remember my father telling me) and the name had stuck foe three generations.

places in names are commoner than that article indicates, Iolo Morganwg,

Or Dic Penderyn, are well known examples, but they occur every where Say John Bottom House or Will Tonyrefail