Gun duly jumped
On this thread from February, the following exchange occurred:
Tatyana: Oh, now I see why you are a Democrat.
Me: You don’t see me demanding that the government issue me a girlfriend, do you?
And ten months later, now you do. I tell you, consistency isn’t the hobgoblin of this mind.
fillyjonk »
12 December 2008 · 12:25 pm
Considering the attitude of the IRS, the speed of the post office, and some of the other governmental bureaucracies out there, would you really WANT a government-issued girlfriend? I’m sure there’s a whole monologue in what just might go wrong with such a situation (“She’s as high maintenance as the IRS….her whims are as subject to change as what the TSA allows in carry ons…”)
I guess I prefer free-market spinsterhood to a government-issued dysfunctional relationship. (Because with my luck, I’d be picked to be part of the Rod Blagojevich Rehabilitation Plan or somesuch.)
CGHill »
12 December 2008 · 1:01 pm
If it comes down to either Federal Girlfriend Stamps or fembots, I may as well just give it up.
Kirk »
12 December 2008 · 1:16 pm
Mr. Hill:
Before we can responsibly provide you with a girlfriend, we need to see a plan outlining how you intend to restructure to ensure long-term viability of your relationship. Otherwise, you’d just be back at the GF trough, expecting the taxpayers to foot the bill for your failed romantic overtures yet again in the near future.
Pompously,
Her Pelosiness
Tatyana »
12 December 2008 · 1:25 pm
“I am no more than 50 percent white and am not a Republican.
These credentials should speak for themselves.
Are you saying tthe Government providing services based on discrimination on racial/political/ethnic grounds?
Time for a revolution. Or a class action suit, whichever constitute less burden on a taxpayer.
[glad seeing you taking decisive action. No more self-loathing, just sense of victimhood and entitlement. Oh, wait...you're still a Democrat.]
CGHill »
12 December 2008 · 1:31 pm
I figure if I have to suck up to the likes of Pelosi, I have to speak a language she understands.
Tatyana »
12 December 2008 · 1:45 pm
Stop making faces, you gonna freeze like that!
Charles Pergiel »
13 December 2008 · 1:20 am
The original quote about consistancy and hobgoblins always bothered me. Just what is it supposed to mean? Consistancy upsets people with small minds? Small minds are consistant? Inconsistant? Or am missing something in the translation?
fillyjonk »
13 December 2008 · 6:58 am
I always figured it was a remark indicating that only small-minded people insisted on consistency. In other words, you can say it while being wildly INconsistent and enjoy the smugness of not just knowing you have irritated some people around you, but that you also are “better” than they are, by virtue of not having a small mind.
I admit some irritation at the comment because I do like consistency (one of my common complaints about people is that they do not act in predictable ways) but I would hardly believe that I have a “small” mind.
CGHill »
13 December 2008 · 9:19 am
What Emerson actually said (in Self-Reliance) was foolish consistency being the hobgoblin: sticking to something despite the presentation of evidence to the contrary.
Then again, he really didn’t spell out what a wiser consistency would entail.