Woman to Woman

By sadiuy

October 23, 2006 02:08 AM | Link to this

http://www.digitaldivide.net/blog/pharm/ Tramadol [url=http://www.digitaldivide.net/blog/pharm/]Tramadol[/url]

By business

October 23, 2006 06:50 AM | Link to this

Hello, Admin! You are the best!!! Congratulations. Best regards from regular visitor of your site. ;)

By candide

October 23, 2006 07:51 AM | Link to this

You naive jerks will learn one day to your sorrow that religion is a very dangerous thing. It needs to be curtailed. Religious freedom is too dangerous for freedom.

By 2D

October 23, 2006 08:08 AM | Link to this

Candide… Who are the naive jerks you are referring to???

You should be very careful about the “freedoms” you wish to curtail. Once any particular form of expression becomes controlled by the state, a precedent is set and suddenly other freedoms become subject to state control as well.

By Brian Curtis

October 23, 2006 08:12 AM | Link to this

So Shaunti and Diane are in agreement this time, albeit for different reasons.

And I agree; Islam (and Christianity) are both misogynistic systems of faith, but in this country believers of any stripe are free to express that faith however they choose… through their own actions, of course, and no one else’s. (That’s the part that really ticks off the zealots.)

As usual, Shaunti confuses the issue by complaining about the lack of state-sponsored religion in schools, as though that were part and parcel with freedom of religious expression. Obviously, it’s not; state sponsorship, endorsement, or restriction of religious practices is the antithesis of religious freedom, not its expression.

As an intelligent woman, Shaunti no doubt recognizes that her wish for schools to publicly endorse, sponsor, and teach Christianity is different from, and indeed opposed to, an individual’s First Amendment rights. But as a good right-wing zealot, she simply doesn’t care… or rather, she’s more concerned with promoting a “Christian state” than in protecting the Constitution. Fortunately, wiser heads prevail—for now.

By 2D

October 23, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

Brian… Where in Shaunti’s reponse was there any reference to schools endorsing or sponsoring Christianity? I can only assume you are pulling that reference from a previous column/response she has written.

The closest thing she did in this response was correctly point out the increasing discomfort that the secular Western world has with any outward display of any religious or other personal belief system. In her example of the Christmas tree, I can see both sides of the issue. However, the banning of personal clothing, jewelry, etc. is something that should not be tolerated. I would hope you could agree with that.

By Mara

October 23, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

Well said, Brian. Shaunti does tend to confuse government support for christianity with “freedom of religion”.

and it seems like it’s that time of year…again! O’Reilly’s already begun winding up into high dudgeon regarding it and now Shaunti tosses in her two bits of mis-information…”They can call it a community tree, but it is still a Christmas tree” Actually, Shaunti, it’s a Yule tree. By now EVERYONE knows that most christmas trappings have been stolen from the pagans. From the familiar red and green, to the Yule tree, the decorations ON the yule tree, end even the very date (which falls so providentially near to the Winter Solstice…LOL!) Candles, holly, misteltoe, and on and on and on…It’s amusing that Christians are so possessive about the symbols they’ve stolen from other religions and perverted for their own use.

By Troglodyke

October 23, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

*O’Reilly’s already begun winding up into high dudgeon regarding it and now Shaunti tosses in her two bits of mis-information…�They can call it a community tree, but it is still a Christmas tree� *

Just yet another reason to dread the upcoming holiday season…having to listen to O’Reilly and company and assorted apaoplectic Xtianists spouting their BS about atheists and secularists “stealing” the Christmas season. How ridiculous.

Atheists are a huge minority in this country. We haven’t “stolen” anything. The Christmas season is a vast ripoff of pagan rituals anyway, but if Xtianists want to blame someone for the demise of the true meaning of Christmas, they need look no farther than themselves.

Retail sales during this time of year are in the billions as millions of Americans scramble to buy, buy, buy. Since the majority of Americans consider themselves Xtian, then the majority of these millions of shoppers are Xtian.

In their quest to spend more money than they have, partly to indulge their already spoiled children, they have taken their savior’s birthday and turned it into a commercial mud-wrestling match. I actually find myself entertained by their sermons about the “evils of the faithless” as they worship at the altar of materialism.

Atheists haven’t ruined Christmas, folks. We don’t have that kind of power. Not only that, I don’t give a crap if you say “Merry Christmas” to me. The holiday is pretty much devoid of religion now, so it doesn’t offend me in the least.

(Actually, it never did. But Xtianists love to think it’s us “offended atheists” that cause all the bad things to happen in the world. Horsehockey!)

By The72John

October 23, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

Brian… Where in Shaunti’s reponse was there any reference to schools endorsing or sponsoring Christianity? I can only assume you are pulling that reference from a previous column/response she has written

Shaunti’s “opinion” about this subject is well-established. It does not require a great leap of logic to infer that a paragraph or two that makes oblique reference to this subject is yet another attempt on her rather one-note part to prattle on about her favorite pet peeve.

As for the topic, I think the 1st Ammendment makes this a no-brainer.

By 2D

October 23, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

Troglogyke… Well said. Christmas has been picked clean of it’s religious meaning by the very people who make claims of wanting to “protect” it.

By Nancy B.

October 23, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

Diane: For generations women in menonite/amish and orthodox communities have worn traditional coverings in the USA and no one decried their clothing as: sexist or had any problem with its women adhering to religious social code of dressing that does not conform to society fashions. Now your opinion is that Muslim women are somehow wrong about their wanting to dress non-western and not wanting western lifestyles. Why is it that a problem? It seems your idea of equality is to amalgamate the world to western ways picking and choosing from other nations’ culture what you will and will not respect, wear not wear, adopt and consume. Your demands include degradation of the individual or their religion for the comfort of your lifestyle choice. So, why have you never called the amish men sexist and controlling or their women enslaved puppets? You attack veiling because you do not understand Muslim culture/faith/traditions and because you do not understand you condemn and fear it….you see no value thus it is evil. You make a good Crusader marching beside your pal Shaunti who wants a one-size-fits-all Christian world for the good of the world.

By Renee

October 23, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

The holiday is pretty much devoid of religion now, so it doesn’t offend me in the least

Well said!!!

I didn’t know how to comment on this subject since I’m trying very hard to not use my brain this morning. I guess my opinion simply put goes as follows…I don’t think religious freedom should ever be restricted as long as it doesn’t infringe on another’s life, liberty or personal property.

This morning I got one of many emails that was forwarded to me by one of my friends. The jist of the email was since the “government” wants to take away the use of “under God” and the use of “God” in the pledge of allegiance, and other such uses of God, then the government should work on Sunday, and all holidays since it is just another day, and holds no holy recognition.

The body of the email just got under my skin. So the only reason we have Sunday off is to recognize a day of Sabbath???? Because I have Christmas off, then I must recognize it as a Christian holiday. Can I not have Sunday off, because, well, I deserve a day off. Or Christmas becaue I consider it a family holiday or whatever…

By The72John

October 23, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

Nancy B., Diane says:

Let Muslim women wear veils in Western countries if they want. Some women will fight against what they perceive as oppressive and brave out the inevitable social censure. Others won’t. But feminism is about choice, and women have to choose what freedom means to them, not have it chosen for them.

Her point is that the aspect of choice is often lacking in those nations with non-secular Shari’a-based laws. For a woman in this country to wear the hijab is a willing act of piety…for a woman in Saudi Arabia not to wear the hijab is an arrest warrant.

In no way did Diane attack Muslim culture - she condemns the lack of freedom that some Muslims have to CHOOSE to be devout rather than having it forced upon them by brutal governments.

By Monica

October 23, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Renee, I know how you feel. You know that I am a Christian, and those types of e-mails get under my skin! I have seen the one about Madeline Murray O’Hare taking television shows that mention Christ off the air for about four years now. The worst are the “Christian” chain e-mails that actually have the gall to tell me I won’t be blessed by God unless I send this prayer to eight people right now. I didn’t know that God worked that way!

As for the topic at hand, I think it’s very dangerous to suggest that the government legislate what people can and can’t wear. I also can’t believe that Diane and Shaunti seem to be in agreement. :) Have a great day, all!

By Jack

October 23, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

Hi All. We should restrict religoius freedom everywhere. What we say goes. The Hell with the fore-fathers.

By Renee

October 23, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Jack…you have to expand! I detect a hint of sarcasm (I think), but I’m not sure what you are saying…

By Jack

October 23, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Yes I was being sarcastic.

By The72John

October 23, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

Jack may be fishing, but I’ll bite…

Jack, in the past you’ve indicated a perfect willingness to say “to Hell with the forefathers” by your support of the variety of unconstitutional actions taken by our less-than-illustrious President. Why so vehement now? You’re fine with violations of the 4th amendment, so heck…let’s rape the 1st, too.

By Lily Toad

October 23, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

I don’t see any reason why anyone would object to a woman or girl wearing a hajib. Although it is a symbol of religous faith, to ask her to remove it is violating her privacy. Some Islamic women do like the modesty provided by hajib or chador, although I haven’t heard anyone extolling the virtues of the burka which, to me, is like a prison wrapped around one’s body.

I like Diane’s examples of the absurd lengths American women will go to for some warped sense of beauty and sexiness. In such a society, how can we complain if someone wants to cover herself up?

By NetBanker

October 23, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

Take away a Muslim woman’s right to dress according to her beliefs, and suddenly devout Jews are no longer assured of the right to wear a Yarmulke…

I just needed to poke Shaunti on her shifting context. She starts with Muslim women and then makes a comparison to the Jewish Yarmulke. That is a MAN’s head covering. A Muslim woman’s head covering is no different than an Orthodox Jewish woman’s hat, tichel, or sheitel. This makes me wonder why the focus on the muslim head coverings without discussing the practice of orthodox, married, Jewish women being required to cover their hair according to religious law? How would the discussion change if the topic were “Should Western countries restrict the religious freedom of Jews by banning the use of hair coverings?

By lozen

October 23, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

How did I miss employers wanting to ban employees from wearing their crosses? I guess I got some tv watchin’ to do! O’Reilly is it? Thanks Mara and Trog for pointing out all the rites and symbols of christianity were taken from pagan religions. I have my Yule tree, my Yule log, etc.

By Lily Toad

October 23, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

I never watch Fox News since I don’t have cable but last week I was staying in a hotel and I turned on Fox News just to experience it. Britt Hume was reporting on someone fired or reprimanded or something for wearing a crucifix. The employer had a rule against wearing jewelry. Then Hume said “they don’t have a rule against Muslims wearing head scarves.” And what does a scarf have to do with a prohibition against wearing jewelry???

By The72John

October 23, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

Britt Hume was reporting on someone fired or reprimanded or something for wearing a crucifix. The employer had a rule against wearing jewelry. Then Hume said “they don’t have a rule against Muslims wearing head scarves.� And what does a scarf have to do with a prohibition against wearing jewelry???

Nothing if you are rational, everything if you are catering to the hysterical “ZOMG Y R U PERSECUTING ME” crowd.

Now, while I think that a prohibition against wearing jewelry is a little silly, unless, of course, the person is working in an environment where trailing objects like jewelry might increase the risk of work-place accidents.

However, it’s interesting to note that people who claim that they should have the right to discriminate in hiring based on religious beliefs DON’T conversely allow that a non-religious employer has the right to institute policies that discriminate based on THEIR religious beliefs.

People who say “I am Christian, so I shouldn’t have to hire a Jew” get outraged at someone who says “I prefer not to have religious symbology displayed in my business”. I don’t get it…

Actually, I DO get it. It’s just another symptom of religious extremism that believes that freedom of religion is equivalent to the ability to exert one’s own religion over others.

By Lily Toad

October 23, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

I found out more info — The woman with the crucifix was suspended from British Airways because they have a rule against jewelry — I suppose that’s because of the uniforms. BA did tell her she could put it inside her cravat.

By Pitbull

October 23, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

Should Western countries restrict the religious freedom of Mormons by banning marriage to multiple partners?

Should we restrict the practice of ancient religious freedom that allowed sacrificing children’s lives on an alter?

Sould we do a better job of coming up with a subject to discuss in the Woman to Woman column?

Inquiring minds want to know.

By Lily Toad

October 23, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

72John,

Interesting that the same people who accuse others of claiming to be victims (women, gays, people of color) are quick to claim victimhood for themselves as Christians.

By Lily Toad

October 23, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Should Western countries restrict the religious freedom of Mormons by banning marriage to multiple partners? No, not if all parties are in agreement.

Should we restrict the practice of ancient religious freedom that allowed sacrificing children’s lives on an alter? Yes, because this harms children.

Should we do a better job of coming up with a subject to discuss in the Woman to Woman column? We need a better representative of left-leaning feminist. Lozen, Renee, Lyrazel, Mara, Troglodyke, and other bloggers can take turns.

By Jack

October 23, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

The subjects on this blog are so lame I would think this was a daytime talk show.

By The72John

October 23, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Should Western countries restrict the religious freedom of Mormons by banning marriage to multiple partners?

Great question - I see no reason why we shouldn’t allow Mormons (or anyone else, for that matter) to enter into a multiple-spousal arrangement if, as Lily said, all parties are willing. All too often we hear horror stories about barely-pubescent girls being forced to marry men old enough to be their grandfathers, but there is also a whole culture (albeit a small one) of people involved in multiple-marriages much like the one pictured on Showtime’s Big Love. There is no real valid reason for forbiding this.

Should we restrict the practice of ancient religious freedom that allowed sacrificing children’s lives on an alter?

Do people realize how silly questions like this are? It’s like the “Gay marriage will lead to people marrying their goats” argument.

By Mara

October 23, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad, my pretty little flower. I would disagree with you on the polygamy-polyandry issue. Given that all the wives/husbands would be equal spouses, who would get to make decisions in an emergency situation? At this time the spouse is assumed to be the next-of-kin, empowered by law to make certain life decisions for minor children or an incapacitated spouse. In a plural marriage, with multiple “next of kin” candidates, who’s will would prevail? Since all spouses would have to be legally equal, who would mediate on divisive issues? How would the property be divided? Would additional marriages be dependant on the agreement of previous spouses? Could the any of the multiple-spouses demand that their singular spouse divorce one of them if the commity of the marriage is affected by the behaviour of one? Considering that children from the home would be raised with many mothers or many fathers, if the singular “Spouse” (male or female) decides to divorce one of the multiple Spouses, the offspring of that particular relationship will then be severed not only from their “blood” parent, which is traumatic enough, but also from their “parent by marriage” (i.e. the other multiple spouses) as well as all their “siblings”. How much worse would that be?

At this time our laws are geared toward the singular marriage model. Unless we want to overhaul whole feild of family law, well, I don’t see how plural marriage could be viable in our society. (Not to mention that most of us women prefer, most emphatically, not to share our spouses) LOL!

Just my opinion, though.

By kimberly

October 23, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

What business does the government have telling people what to wear? I mean, WHA…?

Sometimes on a bad hair day, I want to wear a scarf and dark glasses, ala Jackie Onassis, or the glamor queens of decades gone by. But I don’t dare, as the bigotry in my own society is so prevalent, that I’d fear being detained under one of Bush’s new “no due process necessary” laws for being “one of them.”

So, even on a bad hair day, or should my copper tresses thin to an embarrassing level, I must show my scalp and prove what a good “one of us” I am, lest my name be placed on another “list.”

By Lily Toad

October 23, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

most of us women prefer, most emphatically, not to share our spouses But think about sharing child care and housework!

But seriously, Mara, you raise a lot of interesting questions. Most polygamous societies give so much control to the man that these issues don’t arise, especially when divorce is not even an option. I’m thinking not only of Mormons, but also the Chinese and Africans who practice poly. In the Chinese movies I’ve seen there is a ranking of number one wife, number two wife, etc. with power descending with each subsequent marriage. “Raise the Red Lantern” was an interesting portrayal. # 1 wife couldn’t have a child so she claimed one of the other’s sons as her own.

In one African society that permitted multiple wives — each wife had her own hut and own business and the husband would visit each one in her hut as the spirit moved him.

Anyway, you are right, if poly marriages were allowed in our society the lawyers and legislators would be kept busy figuring all this out.

By Renee

October 23, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

I’m all for polygamy/polyandry, although Mara, you do bring up a valid point as far as how to mediate etc… I’m sure it can be done, and I’m wondering if one of the reasons it hasn’t been pushed as an issue by the polygamist side, is nobody really wants to sit down and do the “dirty” work as far as figuring all that out. I think on one element, it would pretty much run as a normal marriage. I mean nobody would be fighting about cheating etc, because sex with additional people is expected to some degree, and they pretty much set their own boundaries, or lack thereof.

By 2D

October 23, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad… Did you happen to see if the British Airways policy against jewelry also included requiring married people to not wear a wedding ring?

By Jack

October 23, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Hi Hon. :)

By The72John

October 23, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

I know I mentioned Big Love before, but it’s worth mentioning again. The creators of that show did a lot of research before writing it, and NPR did a special segment the day of the premiere. They watched it with a real plural-marriage family who agreed that (apart from the cable-predictable emphasis on sex) it was pretty accurate.

By Lily Toad

October 23, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

2D — I couldn’t find any hard facts on the BA policy, just news reports and wedding rings weren’t mentioned. Most of the results of my searches were from biased blogs and news reports. Even Yahoo news stated that head scarves were not prohibited. I wanted to find something on the internet that reported the actual policy of BA.

By Jack

October 23, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

Anyone who is willing to share their spouse should not have one.

By Hostel

October 23, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

Cool Site.

By Betty

October 23, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

The only place that it would be necessary to not allow a veil is for things like a drivers license and passport where identity needs to be verified until the time comes when we can be identified by fingerprints or iris scans alone.

By The72John

October 23, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad… Did you happen to see if the British Airways policy against jewelry also included requiring married people to not wear a wedding ring?

And if it did? Or even if it didn’t? What insidious plot do you see lurking behind either decision?

If the purpose of the rule is to present a uniform (in both senses of the word) look to the public, which apparently it is, then where, exactly, is your complaint?

5 pages in Google of people saying the same thing - “OMG, they banned a cross but they didn’t ban a hijab! Christians are being persecuted again!” 5 pages of reactionary and utterly foolish high-heat rhetoric that reinforces the simple fact that most people are stupid, and religion + stupid = bad.

By kimberly

October 23, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

Hi Hon! Missed you last week.

John, I LOVE that show! I think the feelings and situations have some parallels to other types of “different” families, too. The season ender was heart-wrenching. My problem with plural marriage is not what consenting adults do — GO for it, if that’s what you want! It’s what they do to the children in those cults — marrying little girls and tossing boys & young men out, and “giving” one man’s family to another if he steps out of line. That’s not freedom, that’s WHACK! Gotta protect the children, IMO.

By Renee

October 23, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

Why is that Jack? People have different “definitions” of what marriage actually entails, based upon religious and/or cultural beliefs. The Christian, Western World way is widely practiced, but that does not make it the “right” way.

By The72John

October 23, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

Anyone who is willing to share their spouse should not have one.

Except that this is YOUR perception. How dare you presume to judge the relationships of other people?

By Mara

October 23, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Renee, Lily Toad - Another aspect of plural marriage that perhaps hasn’t been considered would be the almost inevitability of marriage “webs” eventually encompassing entire small communities. Let’s begin our exercise by looking at a man with 4 wives. Two of those wives wish to also be married to 2 other men who have plural wives who may also be married to other men. And if the “First” husband fell in love and wanted to marry the wife of one of his wifes husband…boy, it could really get convoluted really quickly. In a small town, eventually you’d run out of people you weren’t related to, by marriage if by nothing else. Heck, depending on how easily one falls in love, it might not even have to be a particularly small town.

Unless the number of spouses is regulated, (hypocrisy in a poly-marriage society), then it wouldn’t be far-fetched to assume that sooner or later all families would devolve into “communes” or family compounds large enough for all the wives, all their husbands and their wives and husbands…etc etc etc. And how long would it be before the only choices for mates would be either cousins or your “brothers”, your “sisters” or your parents? UGH!!!! I know it’s probably a bit silly to go quite that far, but surely the idea isn’t out of the realms of possibility.

Besides that, if one can be married to as many people as one likes, and they can be married to as many people as they like, what’s the point of anyone being married at all? Seriously, what would the point of marriage be?

By Jack

October 23, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

Ok. John. Suppose YOUR significant other suggests to you that he wants to share his home and bed with you and another. Would that be OK with you?

By 2D

October 23, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

John… So what if I am curious. It was simple question surrounding the extent of the policy. It was apparent that Lily Toad did some research so I wondered if it covered wedding rings, earrings, other body piercings, jewelry that would be worn under clothing?

Personally, it doesn’t make any difference to me. I only wear one piece of jewelry and unless I am buck nake, no one would know that I had it on.

By Renee

October 23, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

I know you didn’t ask me, Jack, but I’ll answer it.

If my partneer came home and even fixed her mouth to say that to me, well, let’s just say things would get UGLY.

On the other hand, whose to say my friend, my neighbor, or just another person in the community wants to share their spouse, and ALL parties are willing. Why can’t they do this??? What harm comes to you, or how would this affect you at all?

Mara - you have brought up some very good points!! If you recall, my first post of the day mentioned that I am trying not to think, subsequently, I’m not sure how to respond to you yet. But, once I am able to think, I’m sure I will have a reponse to you either in partial agreemnet, or bringing up other points. (I’m a semi vegetable today). I’m hoping John or maybe Toad will think for me, and come up with responses LOL.

By Zack

October 23, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

Lozen—A while back, you told me I needed to grow a uterus and get pregnant before making any comments against abortion. I’m sorry that I haven’t set you straight sooner, but I will now.

Your making this ridiculous comment is the same as saying that only a white man has the right to oppose slavery or that only a German can oppose the Holocaust.

As I said, which you can’t refute, no evidence supports the theory that abortion is NOT murder, so think before you speak and maybe, just maybe, you won’t be making any more stupid, stupid comments.

By Jack

October 23, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

“Besides that, if one can be married to as many people as one likes, and they can be married to as many people as they like, what’s the point of anyone being married at all? Seriously, what would the point of marriage be?”

xactly Mara. But who are we to judge? :)

By The72John

October 23, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Ok. John. Suppose YOUR significant other suggests to you that he wants to share his home and bed with you and another. Would that be OK with you?

Jack, you’re still looking at things through the lens of YOUR culture and YOUR belief system. Or MY culture and MY belief system, for that matter. You and I have both grown up in cultures that emphasize the idea of a two-person monogamous relationship.

What about people who grow up with the expectation that they will be part of a multiple-spouse marriage, or people who believe that plural marriage rather than two-partner marraige is what their faith requires of them? Why would you think less of those people for entering into a relationship that they have been raised to believe is perfectly naturaly, and even obligatory?

We aren’t talking about your wife coming to you one day and saying “Honey, I’ve met another man, and I’d love for the three of us to enter into a commited relationship together”. We’re talking about people who have grown up with the expectation of this kind of relationship being as certain and as inevitable as the two-partner relationship is for the average Westerner.

The better part of tolerance is understanding that people are different and not requiring them to conform to your life. No, to answer your question, I would not be happy with the situation you describe. But someone else may very well be…someone else and someone else’s partner may WANT that kind of relationship - it isn’t unheard of, even outside of traditionally polygamist cultures.

By Monica

October 23, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

Hey Mara! Correct me if I’m wrong, but most polygamy based cultures don’t allow that same option to the women; they are still the wife of one husband, thereby deleting the possiblity of the tangled web you mentioned.

In the novel Things Fall Apart, which highlights a Nigerian tribe in the late 19th Century (fiction BTW), the men have many wives who each have their own hut. If the wives angered their husbands, they were beaten. Even so, this society valued their women and treated them with more honor than many European wives had at that same time in history.

By The72John

October 23, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

John… So what if I am curious. It was simple question surrounding the extent of the policy. It was apparent that Lily Toad did some research so I wondered if it covered wedding rings, earrings, other body piercings, jewelry that would be worn under clothing?

Generally people have a reason to ask leading questions, like yours appeared to be to me. My apologies - it seemed as if you were preparing to make some religion-based feint in the wedding ring direction.

By Lily Toad

October 23, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

If the wives angered their husbands, they were beaten. Even so, this society valued their women and treated them with more honor than many European wives had at that same time in history.

I’m having a hard time with this statement — they were beaten, but were honored?? Sounds contradictory to me.

By The72John

October 23, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

Besides that, if one can be married to as many people as one likes, and they can be married to as many people as they like, what’s the point of anyone being married at all? Seriously, what would the point of marriage be?

I hope you’re being at least slightly tongue-in-cheek with this, Mara :-). What you describe sounds like something out of a British farce rather than a reasonable description of what we might expect from plural marriages.

After all, it’s not as if we’re talking about a fictional or fantastic constructs - these kinds of relationships do exist, legitimately in some parts of the world if not in our own. We’re really just talking about the theoretical manner in which these kinds of relationships can be legitimized legally.

Sure, the kind of crazy everyone-married-to-everyone scenario that you describe makes us chuckle, and makes us say “Wow, what were we THINKING!” but the truth is that the details of everyday life in plural marriages are already established by the people currently living them. We aren’t inventing from whole-cloth, we’re just akcnowledging that the cloth that we pretend doesn’t exist is, in fact, real.

One last thought: You say In a small town, eventually you’d run out of people you weren’t related to, by marriage if by nothing else.

I just have to wonder - when was the last time you were in a regular small town…people ALREADY run out of people they aren’t related to, by marriage if nothing else.

By Jack

October 23, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

I didn’t say I think less of them. I gave my opinion. If someone wants to share their spouse with 100 others every night of the week, good for them. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.

How about cultures that believe death to all homosexuals? How do you feel about that? We should agree with them according to your parameters.

By Renee

October 23, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

How about cultures that believe death to all homosexuals? How do you feel about that? We should agree with them according to your parameters.

You can’t even legitimately compare the two, Jack. Three (or more) consenting adults having a relationship which affects absolutely no one, whereas, KILLING a group of people of which you disagree with, affects everyone, especially the group of people that the killing is aimed at.

I didn’t say I think less of them. I gave my opinion. If someone wants to share their spouse with 100 others every night of the week, good for them. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.

Disagreeing, you are absolutely able to do. But your initial statement was a little more drastic than a simple disagreement. You said anyone who would be willing to share a spouse, should not have a spouse. That is moreso saying that you feel that because one differs from your opinion, it should be outlawed.

By The72John

October 23, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

How about cultures that believe death to all homosexuals? How do you feel about that? We should agree with them according to your parameters.

Jack, this is the same error I referred to earlier…why do people, when asked to understand that some cultures are different than others, automatically leap to “What about cultures that kill <>?!”

Obviously there is a substantive difference between accepting a culture that commits gross violations of basic human rights and a culture that simply views marriage differently than we do.

I didn’t say I think less of them. I gave my opinion. If someone wants to share their spouse with 100 others every night of the week, good for them. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.

No, it doesn’t. But you didn’t say “I personally don’t agree with that” you said “Anyone who wants to share their spouse doesn’t deserve one”. That’s a value judgement you’re heaping on someone else, not a statement of where you personally fall into the singular-multiple partner scale.

By Mara

October 23, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

Monica - It’s true that polygamy is more prevalent than polyandry, but if we are going to continue being a nation where, supposedly, “all people are equal under the law”, then how could we possibly say that men can marry as many as they want, but women can only marry one guy? What’s good for the gander and all that…

this is one of those issues that I feel ambivilent about. I believe that there will be serious problems with implimenting such a change, but I’m trying to decide if those concerns are anything more than a rationalization of my knee-jerk repulsion of the idea.

Sorry, Renee. Didn’t mean to make ya work on a Monday :^P

By Brian Curtis

October 23, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

Zack:

First, no evidence supports the theory that abortion IS murder, so think before your speak. Then maybe you won’t keep making stupid, stupid comments like that.

Second, the topic this week is NOT abortion, no matter how much it preys on your mind and fills your every waking moment.

Try reading before you start screeching.

By Brian Curtis

October 23, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

As a helpful example, here’s a non-judgmental opinion on multi-person marriage: “It’s not for me, and I don’t think I’d be comfortable living like that. But they can do what they like—no skin off my nose.”

By Monica

October 23, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

I just have to wonder - when was the last time you were in a regular small town…people ALREADY run out of people they aren’t related to, by marriage if nothing else.

John, As my students would say, “True that!” We moved to a somewhat small town last year. I don’t dare say something bad about someone because I might be talking to that person’s brother, sister, cousin, aunt, etc.

Lily Toad, First, I definitely don’t believe in spousal abuse or anything like that. Read the book - it’s pretty good actually. Even though Western men of the 19th (and even 20th century) didn’t beat their wives publicly, they definitely didn’t hold them in high esteem. Emotional abuse is just as brutal.

By Jack

October 23, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

I can compare whatever I want. John said I should not judge other culture’s beliefs. Why is it ok for others to hypothesize to gain advantage in an arguement and I not? if John chooses to share his spouse with 100’s of others do I need to agree? My opinion stands. If one wishes to share their spouse, they shouldn’t have one. Nor do they deserve one. How bout it Renee’? Would you share yours? Is the other better than you? Does your spouse enjoy them better than you?

By SusieHomeMaker

October 23, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

As I said, which you can’t refute, no evidence supports the theory that abortion is NOT murder…

I know I’m wading into shark infested waters but I had to look up the legal definition of murder. Here goes…..

murder n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way), and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder……Death of an unborn child who is “quick” (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice, and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. (Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus).

By Zack

October 23, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

Brian—First of all, you’ve got it reversed: Evidence proves that abortion is murder. No evidence—-just sensationalism—-supports your comments.

(I love how you and Lozen immitate my writing style.)

As for this week’s topic, please study history. I have freedom of speech and don’t have to stay on the topic at hand, especially with the off-topic remarks you and your friends always are making.

You and Lozen and those like you can return and gripe in your adolescent-at-best style, but you’re free to speak in a mature manner and to promote an opinion using evidence, not sensationalism and whims, a better exercise of the aforementioned freedom of speech.

By The72John

October 23, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

Monica - It’s true that polygamy is more prevalent than polyandry, but if we are going to continue being a nation where, supposedly, “all people are equal under the law�, then how could we possibly say that men can marry as many as they want, but women can only marry one guy? What’s good for the gander and all that…

To continue with my “We aren’t creating something new, only acknowledging that which already exists” argument, one has to assume that polygamous cultures developed as a way to maximize population growth, or out of an imbalance in gender distribution. One man could impregnate five women and increase the available workforce (often a motivation in agrarian cultures) but five men and one woman are only going to produce one child.

Maybe rural China will embrace polyandry as a solution to its current gender-imbalance crisis.

By The72John

October 23, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

How bout it Renee’? Would you share yours? Is the other better than you? Does your spouse enjoy them better than you?

Forget it, Renee - Jack is incapable of taking the proverbial walk in someone else’s shoes.

By Brian Curtis

October 23, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Zack: Or we can ignore your rambling insanity as usual, and move on with a more interesting topic. No one has to play your silly little game.

By Mara

October 23, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

John - these kinds of relationships do exist, legitimately in some parts of the world if not in our own

well yes. But the cultures where polygamy prevails tend to be generally misogynistic with the men being the ones who have multiple wives, not an open society where women, as well as men, can and do initiate and consumate relationships. Whether polygamist/polyadrist marriages would work in our type of society simply can’t be extrapolated from the history of other groups. Western societies, with their general acceptance of womens rights, would of a necessity have to agree that the women could also choose to marry more than once. Would it then be so terribly far-fetched to think, if there really is only 6 degrees of seperation between us, that it wouldn’t be long before you and chuck are somehow related?

LOL! anyway, my darlings, it’s that time of day again. So tootles for now and i’ll see y’all tomorrow

By Lily Toad

October 23, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

Whether one wants to share his/her spouse has nothing to do with their view of poly relationships. In most relationships the partners talk about what they want — do they want to have an exclusive relationship or do they want to have an open relationship. I personally prefer a monogamous relationship but I have friends who are non-monogamous and have more than one lover or are in threesomes. I don’t impose my values on them. I think it must be harder to maintain a nonmonogamous relationship but I figure that is their business.

By GOB

October 23, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

My opinion stands. If one wishes to share their spouse, they shouldn’t have one. Nor do they deserve one. How bout it Renee’? Would you share yours? Is the other better than you? Does your spouse enjoy them better than you?

So your fervent disagreement comes from an inferiority complex??

By Renee

October 23, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

I can compare whatever I want. John said I should not judge other culture’s beliefs. Why is it ok for others to hypothesize to gain advantage in an arguement and I not? if John chooses to share his spouse with 100’s of others do I need to agree? My opinion stands. If one wishes to share their spouse, they shouldn’t have one. Nor do they deserve one. How bout it Renee’? Would you share yours? Is the other better than you? Does your spouse enjoy them better than you?

Jack, yes you can compare what you like, but generally you compare things of like character, not apples to oranges. Killing homosexuals and three people marrying each other is on two totally different ends of the spectrum and cannot be legitimately compared.

I did say Jack, that I personally would not go for my partner bringing yet another female into our union, but I would not say that another another couple cannot. And while it is certainly your right to say that someone who is willing to share their spouse should not have a spouse, it is certainly within my right to ask you to explain your opinion, and then have an opinion on your opinion. Your opinion, is the opinion that a large portion of America has. Wanting to base what they believe in on what everyone should do. It’s quite an arrogant attitude for an individual to have, to want to inflict their own personal beliefs to be the law of the land.

Of course all of this is only my personal opinion.

By john

October 23, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

Diane says the West is no better because women are trying to keep their waif-like figures, etc. Sorry, bad comparison . A woman has a CHOICE here if she wants to stay skinny or let herself go. Its HER chioce. In the muslim country the woman has no such freedoms. She WILL wear the veil—OR ELSE!

By 3wives

October 23, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Two outta my three wives agree with Renee. She wins.

By Brian Curtis

October 23, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

The firm conviction that one’s own preferences indicate what everyone else should do, is the biggest obstacle to successful democracy.

By Monica

October 23, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

GOB, I have been out the the blog loop lately. How are you? Are you teaching anywhere? How’s it going? :)

By kimberly

October 23, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

I think what Jack is saying is that by definition, (for many people at least) “spouse” means, “MINE: not to be shared.” Hence, if you’re going to share, the term “spouse” is null, or moot — again, by the mostly-widely understood definition of “spouse” in western culture. Besides, Jack and Mrs. Jack are in love. Let them be.

In Kurt Vonnegut’s literary religion, Bokononism, this is knowns as a Duprass: “A karass made of two persons. A true duprass can’t be invaded, not even by children born of such a union.” Members of a duprass die within one week of the other, as shown in the book “Cats Cradle”

By Lily Toad

October 23, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

In the muslim country the woman has no such freedoms. She WILL wear the veil—OR ELSE!

This is a generalization. All Muslim countries do not have the same laws and mores. For example, Iraq is a Muslim country, but under Saddam, women were not required to wear chador, veil, or hajib, although some sects may require it but not all. Afghanistan under the Taliban did force women to wear the burka among other abuses. Some Muslim countries use Sharia laws, others have secular laws, but sects require different dress for their members. And some places and sects are more open about what women wear.

By 3wives

October 23, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis, that’s one of the most dead-on comments I’ve ever read.

And I’m willing to leave Jack and Mrs. Jack alone…if they leave me and the harum alone. Which he obviously isn’t.

By The72John

October 23, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Besides, Jack and Mrs. Jack are in love. Let them be.

The actual point here is that the discussion of plural marriage has absolutely nothing to do with Jack OR Mrs. Jack. Jack’s MAKING it be about them by projecting his own personal problems on other people.

Brian is spot-on with his quote. Jack didn’t say “I don’t want to be involved in a plural marriage” he suggested that people involved in a plural marriage had something fundamentally wrong with them. Assuming that someone is fundamentally damaged because they are different from you is what causes most of the world’s problems.

By Jack

October 23, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Thanks Hon. :)

We don’t live in a democracy.

You can do whatever you wish with your harum.

John you are so full of B.S. You may read whatever you wish in my posts if that floats your boat.

By kimberly

October 23, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

John, I was only trying to factor in perspective. Unlike Jack, and like many others here, I think the idea of marriage is absurd, since you promise to love one person forever, and what you really mean is not “forever,” but “until I get tired of you, or your income changes, or I meet someone I like better, or you start asking more of me than I want to do, or you get way fatter than what I want to have sex with, or if you make me put down the X-box and look for a job.” In Jack’s generation, more people made a go of it. In my generation, a wedding is just a setup for a divorce lawyer’s future major purchase. Pointless.

By 2D

October 23, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this

Brian… Doesn’t democracy require that a majority of people impose their will on a minority of people? When if ever does anything happen in a democracy where consent is universal down to each individual?

By The72John

October 23, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

John you are so full of B.S. You may read whatever you wish in my posts if that floats your boat.

Call me BS if it float’s YOUR boat, Jack - I’m not the one spouting out the macho crap.

By Jack

October 23, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

Sweetness, your last post makes me sad. :(

By The72John

October 23, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

Brian… Doesn’t democracy require that a majority of people impose their will on a minority of people? When if ever does anything happen in a democracy where consent is universal down to each individual?

Here we go with the Tyranny of the Majority crap again…no, 2D, in an ideal democracy the will of the majority is not IMPOSED on anyone. Hello, Nazi Germany…Hello, Slavery. Just because a lot of people think a thing is OK does not make it so.

And ideal democracy allows for the majority to shape policy while protecting the minority from the inevitably abusive power of the majority.

By kimberly

October 23, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

And ideal democracy allows for the majority to shape policy while protecting the minority from the inevitably abusive power of the majority.

Yes, and not just a ideal. I believe our Constitution was based on this as well. It was called the Bill of Rights. It once meant something, back in the old days, you know, BW (before dubya). In a couple of generations, it will be wiped from the history books too, just like in Orwell’s book.

By NetBanker

October 23, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

I think it must be harder to maintain a nonmonogamous relationship but I figure that is their business. How true! My partner is high maintenance enough that I couldn’t handle another person. And I know he doesn’t want a third person in our relationship either because he told me that he’d be worried that the 2 of us would gang up on him. Former neighbors were/are in a 3-way relationship, but they didn’t all live together in the same household. I never really felt comfortable enough to ask them a lot of questions about their relationship…which probably says more about me than it did about them.

By 2D

October 24, 2006 07:21 AM | Link to this

John… I don’t see where you are going, in nearly everything you say I can see your logic, even if there are times I do not agree. So, I need you to explain how in a democracy, the majority shapes policy while protecting the minority?

By The72John

October 24, 2006 08:17 AM | Link to this

2D - I guess you’ve never read DeTocqueville or John Stuart Mill, just to name a couple? The concept of the Tyranny of the Majority is not mine - it’s well-established.

The idea of “Majority Rules” in every circumstance is a gross oversimplification of our system, and a dangerous one at that. The two extreme examples I mentioned are perfect examples of historical abominations that occured because enough people decided that a particular group deserved to either be exterminated or forced into servitude.

There are basic rights that should be accorded to all groups, not just groups that are popular, or groups that have the numbers to enforce their will through the power of the vote. Everything else is fair game for the democractic process, but just because a lot of people think someone else is living their life “against God” or “against nature” or against whatever other justification people come up with to support the knee-jerk aversion that Mara mentioned earlier does not mean those people have the right to prevent that minority from living as it does.

Do you know anything about the Mormon massacres that took place during the Western Expansion? A lot of people were murdered simply because the majority disagreed with their religious beliefs. No matter how much we may get tired of young men in starched white shirts knocking on our doors and hocking pamphlets, they should still have the right to politely do so.

And no, before you ask, this does not extend to those practices which violate the “If it harms none, do as you will” ideal.

By 3wives

October 24, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this

2D, In an absolute democracy, yes, whatever the crowd says goes, on any subject.

The difference is that our country has a concept of certain (“unaliable”) rights that no person can take away (“endowed by their creator”.)

Yes, in a democracy, we have to decide things like what color on a traffic light means stop, and which means go. But that’s a choice that’s fairly neutral as far as your personal life, unless you are opposed to the colors green or red on religious or moral grounds.

Now the concept of “don’t run a red light” isn’t value-neutral, because it can lead to harm to others.

The idea that you have a right to lead your life as you wish, as long as you aren’t harming anyone else is pretty simple in concept.

The problem is when folks like Jack take a judgement that applies to their life (anyone who wants a second spouse doesn’t deserve the first one) and tries to force others, by applying the force of law, to comply with their ideas.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this

I’ll even put this in the context of the topic: Wearing a headscarf, for religious purposes or otherwise, is a freedom that anyone should have. However, there are times when it may be necessary to remove the scarf in order to serve the common good - like getting a driver’s license picture, or when passing through security checkpoints. The requirement to remove the scarf is not motivated by religious discrimination, but by basic safety. Freedom balanced with pragmatism.

By Renee

October 24, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

I think what Jack is saying is that by definition, (for many people at least) “spouse� means, “MINE: not to be shared.� Hence, if you’re going to share, the term “spouse� is null, or moot — again, by the mostly-widely understood definition of “spouse� in western culture. Besides, Jack and Mrs. Jack are in love. Let them be.

Kimberly, I wasn’t attacking Jack or Mrs. Jack. I am merely responding to what he said. And I think he was quite clear on what his point actually is. I didn’t agree with his statement or his opinion, and subsequently spoke on that. You saying “let them be” I’m confused about, because I was neither attacking him or speaking on his marriage or his spouse.

By fcsanders

October 24, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

What do you mean Chrisitians won’t be allowed to wear a cross around their necks? That is already policy at most public schools. They do not wish to offend people with other religious beliefs.Christians are harassed everyday in the work place for their beliefs and style of living.All other belief systems are accepted and even promoted but not Christianity.

We have become a nation of pagans believing all religious beliefs are equal in value…..guess what? They are not.

By fcsanders

October 24, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

What do you mean Chrisitians won’t be allowed to wear a cross around their necks? That is already policy at most public schools. They do not wish to offend people with other religious beliefs.Christians are harassed everyday in the work place for their beliefs and style of living.All other belief systems are accepted and even promoted but not Christianity.

We have become a nation of pagans believing all religious beliefs are equal in value…..guess what? They are not.

By 3wives

October 24, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

fcsanders, you only need to hit the “post” button once, just give it a minute. The server goes wacky and double-posts enough on its own.

Where are all these harrassed christians at work and school? If you can find an example of a student being sent home for wearing a cross that wasn’t made of plastic explosives or something, then I would surely like to see it. Sounds clearly unconstitutional.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

What do you mean Chrisitians won’t be allowed to wear a cross around their necks? That is already policy at most public schools.

Really? Can you name a few?

Christians are harassed everyday in the work place for their beliefs and style of living.All other belief systems are accepted and even promoted but not Christianity.

So…the 80-some-odd percent of this country that claims Christianity as its religion is harassed by the small minority left who isn’t Christian? That’s…interesting. Really.

We have become a nation of pagans believing all religious beliefs are equal in value…..guess what? They are not.

Well, first, Pagan, derived from the Latin paganus, meaning “country dweller”, refers correctly to a very small group of religious traditions - typically those outside the trio that draws its earliest traditions from Abraham (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or the Dharmic traditions of Buddhism and Hinduism. The term has been adopted by the new age re-inventings of the old nature religions, so unless we’ve become a nation of Druids and Shamans, I’m going to have to say “you’re wrong”.

As to your other comment, well…I guess that’s a matter of opinion, isn’t it? To someone of another faith, Christianity is equally as irrelevant as you no doubt deem all other religions.

Your central premise seems to be that Christians are persectued - a very common saw from the fundamentalist movement today. Basically, what you mean when you say that is “I can’t make everyone else believe and behave the way I want them to and that makes me mad”.

Good little fundie…fetch…fetch!

By Mara

October 24, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

John - you are way too funny for this early in the week…”fetch”?! LOL!!

on topic though, Anne Applebaum has a great article in the WaPo today that directly addresses this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102300976.html

Little excerpt with what I think is a pertinent point -

“Critics call the veil a symbol of female oppression or rejection of Western values. Defenders say that it is a symbol of religious faith and that it allows women to be “free” in a different sense — free from cosmetics, from fashion and from unwanted male attention. Debate about the veil inevitably leads to discussions of female emancipation, religious freedom and the assimilation, or lack thereof, of Muslim communities in the West”

And yet, at a much simpler level, surely it is also true that the full-faced veil — the niqab, burqa or chador — causes such deep reactions in the West not so much because of its political or religious symbolism but because it is extremely impolite. Just as it is considered rude to enter a Balinese temple wearing shorts, so, too, is it considered rude, in a Western country, to hide one’s face. We wear masks when we want to frighten, when we are in mourning or when we want to conceal our identities. To a Western child — or even an adult — a woman clad from head to toe in black looks like a ghost. Thieves and actors hide their faces in the West; honest people look you straight in the eye

Given that polite behavior is required in other facets of their jobs, it doesn’t seem to me in the least offensive to require schoolteachers or civil servants to show their faces when dealing with children or the public. If Western tourists can wear sarongs in Balinese temples to show respect for the locals, so too can religious Muslim women show respect for the children they teach and the customers they serve by leaving their head scarves on, but removing their full-faced veils

[end excerpt]

By kimberly

October 24, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

fcsanders, you are full of baloney. At both the middle and high schools in my neighborhood, there’s a little club known as FCA: Fellowship of Christian Athletes. And the club is not so little. They meet every Friday morning, ON CAMPUS, before school, with a faculty advisor present. And on orientation day, they recruited HEAVILY in full view of all the staff, parents, and students. No one tried to stop them. No one complained. They sing, pray, and talk about Jesus in their lives. They exercise their freedom of religion at school EVERY DAY.

Call your local public school and ask. You are either grossly misinformed, or you are LYING to the readers of this blog. I hope it’s the former. Now you know.

By Brian Curtis

October 24, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

And knowing is half the battle.

“G.I. Jooooooeee!”

By lozen

October 24, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Of don’t burst fcsanders’ bubble. Them Xtians love being persecuted - always have!

By The72John

October 24, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

“G.I. Jooooooeee!�

Stormshadow and Snake Eyes were the best villain/hero pair.

Thoughts?

By Lily Toad

October 24, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

fcsanders didn’t know he was throwing himself into the lion’s den. Or maybe he did.

By kimberly

October 24, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

Truth is not a lion’s den…. THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE! {;->

By Lily Toad

October 24, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

Best villainous pair — Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale.

By Jack

October 24, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

“Call me BS if it float’s YOUR boat, Jack - I’m not the one spouting out the macho crap.”

Silly Boy. Please explain how my posts of yesterday were “macho”. I would think that most married females and a great many unmarried ones share my opinion on sharing spouses. And you are not B.S., just many of your posts.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Truth is not a lion’s den…. THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE! {;->

Bah - the truth just leads to unecessary complications and inconvenient realities that need to be quashed by a judicious application of double-speak, obfuscation and chicanery, liberally sprinkled with heavy doses of outright mendacity.

Fiction and fantasy are far more comforting than the truth.

By Champagne Tastes

October 24, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

“Oh Lord, I’ve struggled so long I must be free, I must be free.”

By The72John

October 24, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Silly Boy. Please explain how my posts of yesterday were “macho�. I would think that most married females and a great many unmarried ones share my opinion on sharing spouses. And you are not B.S., just many of your posts.

Ah, now you resort to calling me “Boy” as a way to belittle me. I suppose I’ll return the favor in kind, hide-bound old man.

Your crap was macho crap, Jack, because it was rooted in some kind of “Only I can satisfy my woman” kind of philosophy. What you still fail to grasp is that the people we were talking about simply don’t adhere to that particular philosophy.

Your biggest problem, Jack, is that you are so caught up in the traditional ideals of the 50s that you are unable to imagine that anyone else could possibly function any differently. Apart from that you’re a pretty nice guy.

Try to wrap your mind around the concept that just because you and your wife, or Renee and her partner, or me, or Brian Curtis, or whoever isn’t comfortable with the idea of multiple spouses, that there are some people - many people if you expand into the big wide world - who are. And being different does not make them undeserving of marriage. It just makes them different.

You’d be a real stand-up fella if you’d been born 20 years later.

By Jack

October 24, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

God you are so full of it. You have plenty of book smarts John but you have a whole lot to learn. You just don’t like it when someone, anyone, supports good values. Poor ignorant boy.

By Mara

October 24, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

all y’all naming off villains got me digging into my archives for my copy of Peter’s Evil Overlord List. Since it is copyrighted here’s the link: http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

and here’s some of my fave rules -

actually the entire list is too funny for words. Should have saved it for Joke Friday. Just click the link and enjoy. Try not to laugh too loudly…the boss hates that

:^)

By lozen

October 24, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

It has little to do with his age 72John, please! I am the generation (or two) before Jack. It has to do with whether your mind is like a parachute or not ;-)!!! In the 60’s I was fascinated with the idea of plural marriage/relationships. I wish I could remember the name of a novel I read about a college where students were experimenting with plural relationships and all the problems that entailed. In their classes they dealt with possessiveness and jealousy as something we’ve been taught (rather than “normal”). Jack was there in the 60’s too, but apparently wasn’t too open to new ideas, huh Jack!

By k

October 24, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

All this testosterone is making me hot. {;->

By The72John

October 24, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

God you are so full of it. You have plenty of book smarts John but you have a whole lot to learn. You just don’t like it when someone, anyone, supports good values. Poor ignorant boy.

You’re the ignorant one, Jack. Do a little research on plural marriage throughout history and around the world. “Good values” is a croc of BS that hide-bound fools use to justify their trying to force everyone to live by their standard.

You have absolutely no foot to stand on when you say that polygamists have no “values”, other than the one that says that YOUR way is the only way.

If anyone has a lot to learn, Jack…it’s you. Pull your head out of your provincial, arrogant, middle-American foolish a$$ and learn about the rest of the world.

By Renee

October 24, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry but I found the term “hide-bound old man” to be really funny. No disrespect Jack, it’s the term, not you. I know some people, however, who fit that terminology exactly.

Also, I would say the term “good values” is relative to the person. My “good values” may or may not be “your good values”.

By chuck

October 24, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

Interesting discussion. A few quick points:

1) The discussion yesterday of the British Airways flight attendant. She was interviewed on O’Reilly last night. She had worn the cross without incedent for 7 years. It was not until she went to the training class on “sensitivity” that she was told she could not wear it. In the context of the order, it was clearly not a “jewelry” issue but a religious practice issue. In that context, allowing the other attendants their expressions of religion without allowing hers is persecution in my book. Not “Lion’s Den” persecution, but a different treatment of a Christian compared to other religions.

2) Which of the “Bill of Rights” amendments confers a right for plural marriage. I pulled the Constitution out this morning and could not find that anywhere in there. It must be listed in the same section as homosexual rights…which isn’t in there either.

3) As for the topic at hand, certainly Muslim women should be allowed to wear the veils according to their own religious practices. There probably should be a couple of exceptions to that. Anytime identification is an issue for instance, such as on a driver’s license comes to mind. The teacher scenario mentioned in the Washington Post is another. It is much better to err on the side of religious PRACTICES rather than on RESTRICTIONS of those practices. This should be the case when it comes to public displays for Religious Holidays such as Christmas, Thanksgiving, Ramadan Yom Kippur, etc. If a private group wants to do a display on public property, as long as equal access is given, none of us should have a problem with that.

By Lily Toad

October 24, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Let’s try to not use ageist insults, okay?

By The72John

October 24, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

Oh gosh, she was interviewed on O’REILY. Sure, that’s a completely non-biased source.

2) Which of the “Bill of Rights� amendments confers a right for plural marriage. I pulled the Constitution out this morning and could not find that anywhere in there. It must be listed in the same section as homosexual rights…which isn’t in there either.

Oh look…Chuck’s starting in on his pet topic again…And just for the record, you piece of filth, no one ever said that there was a Constitutional mention of plural marriage. We were discussing the concept, you dumb bigot.

By Archie

October 24, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

My response to the topic is no. If freedom is what America is about then let America live up to that ideal as best it can. Shanti tries to divert the topic to a phobia about religion but really the answer to the topic question should be no.

As for discussion about multiple wives, I would say that most people that have been married would not want multiple wives. My goodness, I used to want the availability of polygamy but now I think it’s best for order’s sake that monogamy is enforced. Let’s face it that’s the reason we have monogamy is because the government could not keep up with who was related to whom and who was responsible for what family and property issues when women were put away,etc. In other words polygamy didn’t work and some of the reasons for monogamy are the reasons that homosexuals want to marry. I need to get some help from Netbanker or 72John on that issue. I do understand why Jack feels the way he does because if you put in 25 years or more of your life with someone you really don’t want to imagine sharing them with someone else. I can understand why Jack would say there’s something wrong with someone that wants a polygamist relationship. Relationships are tough and as time goes on you do lose some physical attractiveness,get sick,get layed off,etc. Even swingers get divorced so there’s no perfect relationship as that subject is discussed monthly on the Mike Baisden radio show.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

By the way, Chuck, you ignorant twit, marriage is not mentioned PERIOD in the Constitution, unless you and your would-be-nazi pals get your way.

By Lily Toad

October 24, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

Oh, I get it — pursuit of happiness only applies to hetrosexual monogamists who are lucky enough to find someone compatible who wants to commit.

By Kevin

October 24, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

72John you said: You’re the ignorant one, Jack. Do a little research on plural marriage throughout history and around the world. “Good values� is a croc of BS that hide-bound fools use to justify their trying to force everyone to live by their standard.

Maybe you are correct, but all societies must have standards in order to function. Those standards will never be agreed to by all. Despite your protests to the contrary, standards are forced on those who disagree. If Jack (a US citizen I presume) shouldn’t have some say so in the setting of these standards, then who should?

Jack may or may not be wrong on this issue, but the debate on this issue is good. Whether or not a society should allow plural marriages should be weighed carefully by all members of that society. The morality of the issue is but one part of the debate, but it must be considered. We cannot continue to try and limit debate on critical issues under the notion that we are trying to “force our standards on someone else”.

By NetBanker

October 24, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

Hey kids…I’m going totally off topic based on a couple of items I just saw while skimming the newspaper. The first is the question (it’s for a blog) “Do cell phones hurt sperm count?� Well of course they do, but only when you hold the phone with your balls.

Headline: “3 banks robbed in 2 counties� My partner commented to me that it seems like there are a lot more bank robberies lately. I haven’t done any research to see if there has been an actual increase, but my observations on the numbers reported would seem to indicate that this is the case. In any event, I point out this headline because the number of bank robberies tends to be a very good indicator of the economy for the average citizen. No matter what the news or politicians are telling you about a good economy (which it IS from a corporate perspective) that good economy is NOT trickling down to the average worker. It has been proved that there is an inverse relationship between the actual health of the economy and bank robberies. I’ll try to find that research.

Thanks for the break. I’m returning to my regularly scheduled office hell.

By 2D

October 24, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

Chuck… The Bill of Rights would not confer anything specifically about plural marriage, gay marriage or anything of the sort. The writers of the Constitution were much too bright to box in their goverment.

The rights people refer to and you are denigrating are related to the personal “privacy” guaranteed in the Constitution. Now, privacy also does not appear in the Bill of Rights but is an interpretation of of, I believe the First (freedom of speech/religion) and Fourth (secure in the person, houses, papers and effects) Ammendments. If there is a lawyer in the house, please help me out.

Basically, the Untied States is not a theocracy or even a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic (some say a Consitutional Democracy) that protects all people so long that what those people do doesn’t bring harm to others. So, if folks want three wives, three husbands, same sex spouses, then the Constitution does not forbid it, and does not, at least so far as the Courts have determined, give any legislature the right to forbid it. I make the same plea for help from a lawyer in the house.

I have this question Chuck… Why do you care if people are in gay marriages, polygamous marriages, fornicating relationships and the like? They are not directly hurting your ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

I do agree with you that NOONE should force Muslim women to remove their veils, the same way that Nuns are not forced to remove their habits. John brings up a good point as for identification purposes, and so long as the law is written properly, I make one last plea to the lawyers in the crowd, there should be no legal basis for anyone to complain about ebing turned away for say a driver’s license.

By Lily Toad

October 24, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

It’s really sad that constitutional amendments had to be passed before black men and all women were allowed to vote.

By Just Curious

October 24, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Do any of you here feel that 72John’s comments reflect any actual intelligence? I’ve met three year olds who had more insight and maturity than he apparently does. From my viewpoint, his response to every poster with whom he disagrees is to start calling that person names without actually rebutting the content of their comments.

By Mara

October 24, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

First of all, the flight attendant was NOT told to take off her cross nor was she banned from wearing it. British Airways dress code says that jewelry should be worn under the uniform. And since there is not religious directive in Christianity requiring the wearing of the cross for the devout, well, chucks statement that it’s a religious issue and not a dress-code issue is, as usual, wrong. He also tries to muddy the issue by claiming that since the woman doesn’t get to flaunt her cross, but Muslim attendants get to wear the hijab and Sihk attendants the turban, then obviously it’s an issue of discrimination. What he ignores is that those other religions direct their adherents to wear the turban or the scarf. Their attire is an integral part of their belief. But I have never, ever seen the part of the Bible where Christians are directed to wear the cross. Heck, I don’t even recall the part where christians are even directed to venerate it, let alone kneel before it and worship it. Either way, from what I understand the woman was only asked to conceal her jewelry like everyone else and not banned from wearing it at all despite the rumors to the contrary.

By Just Curious

October 24, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

Also, do any of you believe in human nature? While there are always certainly exceptions, experience shows that the best environment to raise children is in a stable, heterosexual household with one woman and one man in the home.

By 2D

October 24, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad… It is sad, but at least the process was available to make the ammendment. The slavery issue may have required a war, but nothing else took more than perseverance and time. People can say what they want about the Founding Fathers, but they knew a thing or two about a thing or two.

By Econ 101

October 24, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

NetBanker—Do you see any relationship between our sagging economy and all of the illegal immigrants who have flooded the job market? The unemployment rate is incredibly low right now, so unemployment is apparently not the problem.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Maybe you are correct, but all societies must have standards in order to function. Those standards will never be agreed to by all. Despite your protests to the contrary, standards are forced on those who disagree. If Jack (a US citizen I presume) shouldn’t have some say so in the setting of these standards, then who should

We’ve actually covered this - yes, society has standards by which it functions, but society should ideally be as accomodating as possible so that the diversity that is mankind can live freely and happily.

Using the plural marriage example - who is injured by plural marriage? No one if it is entered into by consenting adults. Therefore we have no rational reason to fobid its practice, and are left with “But it isn’t right” as the only excuse.

Those standards you mention ARE necessary for a society to function, but should be focused on protecting the common good, not limiting the rights of the free men and women who live in that society. Standards should promote safety and security and the general welfare - they shouldn’t intrude on people’s personal lives unless those personal lives intrude on them first.

I have this question Chuck… Why do you care if people are in gay marriages, polygamous marriages, fornicating relationships and the like? They are not directly hurting your ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

This is the danger of zealots. He believes without question that these things are against God’s Law, and so he believes that it is his duty to see them ended. Even more, he believes that God will punish him and the nation if these things are not forbidden. He may also even believe that the presence of these things prevents The Second Coming.

Deep in his twisted black soul he probably believes he is a good person, who is trying to do the right thing. I’m sure his shrivelled heart is in what he thinks is “the right place”.

He has no idea that he is just a slightly different version of the guy with the beard and the robes, currently hiding in a cave somewhere.

By NetBanker

October 24, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

some of the reasons for monogamy are the reasons that homosexuals want to marry Archie, I’m not sure I entirely agree with this statement. Why homosexuals want to marry has nothing to do with monogamy and everything to do with the rights/responsibilities/privileges that marriage laws confer. I want the right to be able to make emergency medical decisions for my partner and have access to him in the hospital without having to produce a Medical Power of Attorney. I deserve the right not to be able to not be forced to testify in court against my partner. We deserve to be able to inherit property from each other without the penalties just like heterosexuals. We deserve to have survivorship rights to social security and pensions. We deserve to be able to title the damn car in BOTH names without both of us having to be present like married people. There are 1100 rights/responsibilities conferred at the Federal level by marriage and for the most part they have naught to do with the emotional relationship between two people, but really come down to property rights. All people deserve the same property rights regardless of whether their relationship is monogamous.

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

The Christian faith certainly has its dark side, but the last time I checked, there are no organized Christian terror groups in the world right now. While some of the Libs here who live in a fantasy world like to equivocate small transgressions by Christians with the huge, organized transgressions of political Islam, the scope and magnitude of Muslim crimes against humanity dwarfs anything the Christians have perpetrated in the last 100 or so years.

By Slavery 101

October 24, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad, I like your new, modified name—it is much more feminine. My question for you is this: If you abhor slavery, why do you focus on slavery in America which ended over 140 years ago when many Arab nations sanction and promote slavery in 2006?

By The72John

October 24, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Go away, Dog. No one wants you here.

By chuck

October 24, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

Once again your inability to discuss the topic logically and without vitriole keeps you from seeing the obvious john. It does not matter WHO interviewed her. It was the ACTUAL person who was told not to wear the cross who was BEING INTERVIEWED. THAT is called a PRIMARY source.

The Constitution point was in response to Kimberly who said:

I believe our Constitution was based on this as well. It was called the Bill of Rights. It once meant something, back in the old days, you know, BW (before dubya).

Get over yourself.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

72John, I understand your disagreement with chuck due to his literal interpretation of the Bible. However, by reading the Bible allegorically, the same moral truths shine through without any appeal to literality. I noticed that you were unable to debate DOG a few weeks back, and kept running like a scared little girl. What’s the reason? If you want to start a new war of insults with DOG, I’m sure he can come out of the woodwork and lay some big hits on you, you blowhard sissy.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

And before the Libs start accusing me of sanctioning laws to limit free expression, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Being against something on moral grounds is different from passing laws.

By chuck

October 24, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

UHHHH, Lillytoad, the “pursuit of happiness” is not in the Constitution either.

By Renee

October 24, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

Also, do any of you believe in human nature? While there are always certainly exceptions, experience shows that the best environment to raise children is in a stable, heterosexual household with one woman and one man in the home

What experience shows that? What proof exists of this statement?

Waiting…….

By Compassion 101

October 24, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

Don’ be too hard on kimberly, chuck. She is still bitter about her deadbeat husband leaving her because she let herself get fat. One day she will realize that his departure was likely the best thing that ever happened to her. Remember, buddy, Christ’s commandment is to love people who are troubled, not to condemn them.

By kimberly

October 24, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

Context, Chuckie. The Bill of Rights reference was made to support the comment that in OUR “Democracy,” the majority shapes policy, but the Constitution protects the minority FROM the majority with regard to their inalienable, individual rights.

Nine out of ten Southerners are horrified that Yankees wear socks with sandals. We’d rather they didn’t. But the Bill of Rights, in essence, preserves their right to do so. As their fashion fauz pas does not directly affect the feet of others, we have no right to force them to comply, even though we are the majority.

By Kevin

October 24, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

72John you said:

Using the plural marriage example - who is injured by plural marriage? No one if it is entered into by consenting adults. Therefore we have no rational reason to fobid its practice, and are left with “But it isn’t right� as the only excuse.

I disagree. If plural marriages were simply limited to several consenting adults - then great, go for it. I would have no qualms plural marriages. However, what about the children? Can you say with absolute confidence that this type of lifestyle is good for them? I do not know - and neither do most people. If it isn’t healthy for children (and I am not saying it isn’t), then society will be adversly affected by the children raised in that environment. Again, the debate must not be squashed by my world view - or yours!

By The72John

October 24, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

*Once again your inability to discuss the topic logically and without vitriole keeps you from seeing the obvious john. It does not matter WHO interviewed her. It was the ACTUAL person who was told not to wear the cross who was BEING INTERVIEWED. THAT is called a PRIMARY source. *

O’Reily is notorious for making his guests say what he wants them to say. On top of that, just because your “Original Source” says that she was made to take off her jewelry because it was a cross does not, in fact, make that true. People will believe what they want to believe. Ask someone who was fired from a job why she was fired, and nine times out of ten she will find some way to blame it on the company who fired her. People, especially histrionic Christians with persecution complexes, see what they want to see. As you should well know, Chuck.

72John, I understand your disagreement with chuck due to his literal interpretation of the Bible. However, by reading the Bible allegorically, the same moral truths shine through without any appeal to literality. I noticed that you were unable to debate DOG a few weeks back, and kept running like a scared little girl. What’s the reason? If you want to start a new war of insults with DOG, I’m sure he can come out of the woodwork and lay some big hits on you, you blowhard sissy.

You are calling someone else a blowhard? Do you REALLY think that referring to your various delusional handles in the 3rd person is clever? God help us if you think you are actually fooling anyone with such a pitiful attempt at deception.

As for why I choose not to engage with you any more than necessary, it’s because there is no purpose in it. People like you are unassailable, because you simply INVENT a philosophy to answer any question thrown at you. You claim expertise in ALL fields and intimate knowledge of ALL disciplines. You’re a fraud, Dog. We all know it. And a dangerously unstable one, at that.

Pick at me all you will - your obsession with attacking my posts is quite charming, really. Maybe you actually DO want to date, your protestations of being a “Ladies Man” aside - you know that there is not a single person who frequents this blog who wants you here. Not one.

By Compassion 101

October 24, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

Renee, many sociological studies show that the most well-adjusted children grow up in heterosexual, two-parent homes in which the parents are loving. Unfortunately, not every heterosexual home is loving, as I can testify to personally. In cases where abuse occurs, a stable, homosexual household is certainly preferable.

And, as I stated, there are always exceptions to every rule. Many children grow up well-adjusted in homosexual homes. Most of the problems which occur in those cases is due to the expected peer rejection.

By Compassion 101

October 24, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

When you are ready to heal one day, kimberly, look to the Amish. Their policy is to forive killers and bulldoze the scene of the crime.

By Compassion 101

October 24, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

If I did decide to go gay, John, you’d likely be at the bottom of my list of who I wanted to date. Plus, I am very happy as a heterosexual. I’m still hoping for a date with SusieHomemaker—she’s one righteous woman.

By kimberly

October 24, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Mongrel, not interested in your third-rate analysis. Thanks ever so much anyway.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

If I did decide to go gay, John, you’d likely be at the bottom of my list of who I wanted to date.

Gosh…that’s ok with me. I prefer to date people who are A) Sane B) Honest C) Non-sociopaths.

That rules you out.

By Mara

October 24, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

there are no organized Christian terror groups in the world right now.

known Christian terrorist groups -

Army of God -

Freedomites -

God’s Army -

Ku Klux Klan -

Lord’s Resistance Army -

Nagaland Rebels -

National Liberation Front of Tripura -

Christian Identity -

and I didn’t even have to dig for these…

By Compassion 101

October 24, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, you don’t have to like me or agree with my third-rate analysis. But, seriously, we don’t have much time here on Earth. Why waste it being bitter? 90% of people in the world have likely faced troubles greater than yours. I say that not to minimize your troubled past, but to help you put things into a better perspective.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

Mara, any objective comparison of daily Muslim crimes with even the KKK will show that you are brain-dead in your belief that we have more to fear from Christians than Muslims. Remember, I am not a Christian, so my analysis is based on fact, not due to some blind allegiance like chuck’s, Zack’s, or Randy’s.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

But, seriously, we don’t have much time here on Earth. Why waste it being bitter

Well, you waste it attacking a bunch of people who want nothing to do with you; “bitter” seems just as valid a choice as “a*******hole”.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

I hope you remember that one day when you are forced to wear a burkha, Mara. If your candidate, Hillary “Skank” Clinton wins the Democratic primary, we’re all sunk. I’d vote for Obama Baraka (sp?) before voting for that other piece of skank.

By Renee

October 24, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

Sociological studies by whom and what year were these supposed to have been done? What homosexual households were viewed in this study. Since the majority of admitted homosexual houses are not equal to the heterosexual homes, isn’t there a bias? What are the studies being compared against? I am raising two well-adjusted children in a homosexual home. Oh yeah, but I’m not the norm. And my daughter has received NO peer rejection in Georgia or here in Vermont, at least not due to my lifestyle choice.

One thing I love about the state I moved to is that homosexual adoption is not only not shunned, it is promoted. The evening news showed on a couple of occasions, homosexual couples adopting children (from heterosexual homes, that weren’t well adjusted) and giving them wonderful homes. In the good ol’ state of Gawja, this would have not been displayed in such a positive manner.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

Plus, Mara, none of the “Christian” terror organizations you named recieve funding on any scale as do Hezbollah and Hamas. The Muslim terror groups are funded directly by Iran, Syria, etc, as well as by millions upon millions of average Muslim citizens.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

So, John, do you think the people who you attack welcome your presence? I have seen little of any real value ever come from your keyboard. You are such a low-life that you even criticized W2W fan who was raped. Look in the mirror, John, before you point your bitter fingers at me.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

I hope you remember that one day when you are forced to wear a burkha, Mara. If your candidate, Hillary “Skank� Clinton wins the Democratic primary, we’re all sunk. I’d vote for Obama Baraka (sp?) before voting for that other piece of skank.

It’s interesting how the veneer of sophistication with which you strive to coat your posts starts to flake off when you start frothing at the mouth like a typical right-winger. Skank - hardly the word that an educated man would use.

An educated man wouldn’t succumb to the ludicrous and indefensible “If you vote for the Democrats we’ll all be Muslims soon” line, either.

But then, we’ve established that your credentials stem from…what was it…back adjustments?

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

BTW, is anyone else laughing at France now that they are taking daily hits from their own Muslim population? It’s seems their raison d’etre is to try to show up the US. They are just jealous because they are a second-tier power on the world stage right now.

By Archie

October 24, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

Netbanker,thanks for responding but some of the reasons you listed are a part of why monogamy came into law. We deserve to be able to inherit property from each other without the penalties just like heterosexuals. We deserve to have survivorship rights to social security and pensions. We deserve to be able to title the damn car in BOTH names without both of us having to be present like married people. I agree with that paragraph, but just for humor’s sake imagine Lozen and Renee and myself married, and Lozen has put in the most time so she feels like she deserves the most property or all the property… Polygamy didn’t work so the folk in charge put in laws, scriptures to get people ready for the change.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

John, I’ve already given you my academic credentials—Harvey Mudd College, 3.8 GPA, the highest in my class. If you will go to their website, www.hmc.edu, you can get the scoop. You would never be admitted there in a million years despite all your worthless degrees, because to get through Mudd, you actually have to THINK.

AND, if you define name-calling as being a sign of lack of intelligence, you might want to reread your own posts one day.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

So, John, do you think the people who you attack welcome your presence? I have seen little of any real value ever come from your keyboard. You are such a low-life that you even criticized W2W fan who was raped. Look in the mirror, John, before you point your bitter fingers at me.

You’re big on bitterness today, aren’t you Cur? And name-calling…lots of name calling. Let’s talk about “attacks”, shall we, Runt of the Liter? Truthfully, you’ve “attacked” any number of people yourself today, far more than I have and for far less reason. I don’t think there is a person on this blog that you haven’t “attacked” at least once since you slithered in, and most have been attacked by you more than once.

You’ve made sexual references to women, telling them what you’d do to them, so I hardly think your compassion for your supposed rape vicitim is genuine. You’ve routinely made disparaging remarks about just about everyone, when you weren’t too busy preening in self-satisfaction over yet another of your concoted phrases or philosophies. You’ve called names, insulted peoples intelligence, berated them…

So please, Flea’s Feast, how in the world do you keep a straight face when you take me to task for attacking…hmm..Chuck…someone who has indicated more than once that I and anyone like me has no right to exist and whom I have every reason to hate. There isn’t a single person on this blog who attacked you without you attacking first.

In fact, all you’ve DONE since coming here is attack. Over and over and over. Whether you are hiding your snarkiness behind a velvet glove of “sharing your immense knowledge and understanding” or just being outright vicious, you have done nothing but make this blog a less enjoyable place for the people who frequent it.

Truthfully, Leg Humper, your opinion of the merit of my contribution is rather meaningless. I’ve received more than enough positive feedback, and the day the opinion of a deluded, self-important jackanape means anything to me is…

Well. I’m sure you can figure out the rest.

You are such a low-life that you even criticized W2W fan who was raped

By the way - pure Strawman. Congratulations, you really ARE a conservative. The person to whom you refer has said time and time again that she was never raped or assaulted in any way, so the basic argument is flawed. Nice try though. Perhaps if you were ever able to muster up the slightest bit of GENUINE feeling of any kind, other than your own self-satisfaction, your pretensions to compassion MIGHT have SOME validity.

By Monica

October 24, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

Nine out of ten Southerners are horrified that Yankees wear socks with sandals. We’d rather they didn’t.

I’m gonna disagree, Kimberly and say that ten out of ten Southerners are horrified that Yankees wear socks with sandals. Hilarious!! I think your comment was wasted as someone has let the dog out again, and no one noticed your joke.

Hey Net B, I am a conspiracy theory fan, and haved noticed the rash of bank robberies, particularly Bank of America. What are the chances it’s an inside job by a disgruntled BOA employee? Makes for a good movie, huh? :)

By NetBanker

October 24, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

what about the children?

Sweet Jesus I am just SICK to damn death of this question!! Everyone is always worrying about the freaking children, but just look at them today! For the most part they are overweight, television-addicted, video game playing, under-educated, rude, over self-esteemed brats! We treat children like they’re more breakable than the finest porcelain doll. If everything that we hear about that is “For the children� was never done the little buggers would still survive because they do in 2nd and 3rd world countries all the way to adulthood without most immunizations, while going to one-room-dirt-floor-used book-schools (if they’re even lucky enough to go to school), without electricity and clean water, without video games, without helmets and pads for every outside activity, and lives far tougher than most of us have ever had. I’m really not anti-child, but damn people everything can’t be decided based on ‘what about the children?’ Its a smoke-screen question intended to get an emotional reaction. Guess what, the children will get over it!! It seems to me that children were a heck of a lot better off before we started asking that stupid question all the time.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

John, I’ve already given you my academic credentials—Harvey Mudd College, 3.8 GPA, the highest in my class. If you will go to their website, www.hmc.edu, you can get the scoop. You would never be admitted there in a million years despite all your worthless degrees, because to get through Mudd, you actually have to THINK.

Yes, I believe everything I read posted on blogs, don’t you?

Tell me, Needs to Be Bathed and Dipped, while you were doing all of that thinking, did you study critical thinking, or was derranged rambling the order of the day? Because you’ve got another pesky strawman here…

AND, if you define name-calling as being a sign of lack of intelligence, you might want to reread your own posts one day.

Now, my actual reference was not to name-calling OR intelligence, but to the lack of sophistication evidenced by use of the word “Skank”. I suppose you just got confused, or didn’t read properly. Undoubtedly, you’re doing too much “thinking” to be bothered with petty details like…oh…accuracy.

By Mara

October 24, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

did anyone but the dumbass see the post where I said we had more to fear from Christian terrorists than Muslim terrorists? Seems to me that I was merely listing a few Christian terrorist groups who, someone said, don’t exist! Did anyone except the dumbass see the post where I said these groups were as wealthy as other terrorist groups? Or the post where I said that they were state sponsored? Of course no one did because I never said it.

Perhaps in the past, in other context, I may have implied that christian terrorists are as bad as any other terrorist group, (which they are) but that doesn’t mean a hill o’ beans in this discussion. And frankly, dumbass, I don’t care enough about you or any of your other personalities to bother remembering anything except your extreme unpleasantness and your self-congradulatory egotism.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

Ok, John, you win. Your W2W blog approval rating is higher than mine. I likely won’t be able to sleep for days now.

If you go back to my first day on the blog, Aug 21, you will see tht I started off rather politely until you cranked up the vitriol. And when I’m not around, you keep singing the same insults at chuck, etc. that you slung at me. You’re not even creative, John.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

That would be self-congratulatory, Mara, with a “t”. I always laugh at all the graduation signs in my area every spring in which the word “congratulations” is misspelled as “congradulations”.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

But, I forgot, John and Mara, name-calling and insulting are A-OK when you two do it, but wrong if it is thrown right back in your faces by someone far more intelligent than the two of you put together.

By 3wives

October 24, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

My goodness…have I stumbled into the Wooten blog by accident?

Everyone was doing so well when I left this morning.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Mara, the KKK and the other organizations you named may identify themselves as being Christian, but they are rejected by every legitimate Christian organization in the world. On the other hand, Hezbollah and Hamas are praised and supported by a vast majority of Muslims.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

And frankly, I wouldn’t give a rat’s arse about your misguided political opinions except for the fact the World War III has been under way for over 30 years now, and your party keeps trying to stick its head in the sand and pretend it’s not happening. If you recall, there used to be two nice buildings in NYC called the World Trade Center. If you remember, the first attempt to bring it down occurred in 1993 when your BJ prez was in charge.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

And John, I’ve proven my knowledge of Physics via on-board discussions which your resident “genius”, BC couldn’t even begin to rebut. I ultimately exposed his evil motivations as well, although he was never man enough to admit he was out-classed. Maybe that has something to do with his voluntary sterilization. Is your voice kind of high and sqeaky now, BC?

By chuck

October 24, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

He believes without question that these things are against God’s Law, and so he believes that it is his duty to see them ended. Even more, he believes that God will punish him and the nation if these things are not forbidden. He may also even believe that the presence of these things prevents The Second Coming.

Yes john, I do believe all of those things except for the second coming part. Don’t know where that came from. The others I have clearly stated in the past and have never tried to hide the fact that I believe them. As a nation we are already seeing the results of the “anything goes” moral climate in which we find ourselves at this moment. These are just some of the problems:

Increased drug and alcohol abuse by every segment of the population.

Politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle caught in corruption with increasing regularity.

Increase in sexual predators.

Increased homosexual activity.

Increase in embezzlement, dishonesty, cheating (both the adultery type AND the student type).

A decrease in civility and common courtesy.

The pendulum has swung too far in the direction of promiscuity, moral relativism and depravity. What you are seeing now from these things is a correction. A move to right a listing ship. Unlike you, I understand the concept of FREEDOM. Freedom is not about being able to do whatever you want to do. It has NEVER been about that and to say otherwise is a fraud.

One writer put it this way:

A productive, healthy society of freedom-and liberty-minded individuals is not to be confused with a libertine one. The conditions of liberty and freedom, above all, require individual responsibility in every phase of life. Each of us must take the consequences of our actions, good and bad.

Since you always want to bring it back to your lifestyle choice john, let’s discuss it in that context. You have the choice to be a homosexual and to boff anybody that you want to. You ALREADY have that “freedom”. What you WANT is for the rest of society to affirm your choice. You want to feel good about it. You want legal benefits from it. That is not about freedom, it’s about YOU and what YOU want. Not what society wants or needs but what YOU want and need. Nobody cared about this issue one way or another until homosexual ACTIVISTS decided to bring it out of the closet. It’s not enough for us to be indifferent to your lifestyle choice, we also have to ACCEPT it as NORMAL AND pay for it. You in fact are a SLAVE to your sexuality. Your bondage comes from your lifestyle not from societally imposed restraints.

The funny thing is that even the liberals who “support” the so-called homosexual rights movement are repelled by it. I can gaurantee you that at least 95% of the straight guys out there feel like puking when they see 2 guys making out. If you were honest, you would agree with that statement not that you care or should care. It’s just the truth.

In order to gain these things, you have to win the heart and mind of society. As Christians, to prevent that from happening, we have to speak out in forums like this AND more importantly, at the ballot box. That is how FREEDOM works.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

If you go back to my first day on the blog, Aug 21, you will see tht I started off rather politely until you cranked up the vitriol. And when I’m not around, you keep singing the same insults at chuck, etc. that you slung at me. You’re not even creative, John.

Here’s my interpretation of your opening post, so aptly posted under the brutish moniker Bruno: “Ah, you stupid liberals…maybe one day I will share my wisdom with you…until then, you will continue to wallow in the ignorance that is the absence of ME!”

I can see how, in that cotton fog of pills and animal tranquillizers through which you drift, that you would think that this constitutes a gentle and polite opening salvo. To those of us who don’t require a cocktail of thorazine, ketamine and fruit loops to shoulder our way through clamoring crowds of multiple personalities sufficiently enough to interact with the real world with something approximating normalcy, it’s rude and insulting.

As to my creativity, well - ‘tis true that I haven’t stretched my wings much with Chuck lately. He is what he is - limited, narrow, with a brain too corroded by fanaticism and dogma to appreciate much of anything. I have let my personal feelings of hatred towards him taint my responses to him, and frankly, he isn’t particularly worth the effort of more creative insults.

At least, despite your many flaws, you provide better material.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

Gotta run… If you recheck, John and Mara, I’ve never insulted Renee, SusieHomemaker, 2D, or Kevin, even though none of them agree with me on many topics. I even have a fair amount of respect for chuck, although I feel he misapplies biblical principles.

By Jack

October 24, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

I sure missed a lot. Too bad I have to work for a living. Net, that didn’t sound like your usual “level-headed” self. John. No hope for you.Do you speak to people in person the same as you do on the blog? I would think not unless you’re much tougher than you sound. Spout what you want about me, it just makes you seem as you are.

Kim, :):):)!!

By Zack

October 24, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

idiocy101—Your screen name truly is supported by your comments. You, Lozen, and Brian Curtis fit in well together. I’m not saying any of you are dumb, but you forfeit seeking the truth and embrace the grasping of ear-pleasing ignorance.

By Renee

October 24, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

Mara - rip off the tiara and hand it immediately to NetBanker for his 2:31 post.

Although, I loved your “dumbass” references ;-)

By kimberly

October 24, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

The funny thing is that even the liberals who “support� the so-called homosexual rights movement are repelled by it.

I’m gonna go on record as disagreeing with Chuckie on this one. I had a boyfriend last year who was a clean-cut Republican whose faith was “very important” to him. And I can guarantee you that what John and his buddies do in private (which is none of our business by the way) are no more disgusting than what this “good Christian man” wanted me to do. Seriously. The biggest freaks are the buttoned-up repressed ones. Truth.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

That would be self-congratulatory, Mara, with a “t�. I always laugh at all the graduation signs in my area every spring in which the word “congratulations� is misspelled as “congradulations�.

Much like equivocate small transgressions should actually have read ?equate small transgressions”?

Gosh, you certainly seem to have trouble recognizing flaws in yourself that you continue to attack in others.

And John, I’ve proven my knowledge of Physics via on-board discussions which your resident “genius�, BC couldn’t even begin to rebut.

Could someone point out where I said anything about Physics? Or is Next on the Snipping Table here just floundering trying to re-establish his crumbling superiority.

And frankly, I wouldn’t give a rat’s arse about your misguided political opinions except for the fact the World War III has been under way for over 30 years now, and your party keeps trying to stick its head in the sand and pretend it’s not happening.

Oh please, please - let the next thing out of your mouth be “I’m taking my ball and going home.” Because that’s about on the same maturity level as this little temper-tantrum.

But, I forgot, John and Mara, name-calling and insulting are A-OK when you two do it, but wrong if it is thrown right back in your faces by someone far more intelligent than the two of you put together.

Oh, I feel so ashamed…I feel SO inferior. Or no..wait…actually I think that’s nausea. Or constipation. Possibly both.

Blech, Homeless Puppy…now you’re just degenerating into “I’m smarter than you! I’m smarter than you!”. How childish of you, pumpkin.

3wives, I do apologize. This troll has been polluting the blog for weeks now. We had a most welcome respite from his nonsense, but he’s returned, and unfortunately his personality button has been set to “Evil”.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Howdy, Jack. My salute to you, a true American!!!!

By Jack

October 24, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Lay off Lozen Zack. She has more brains in her pinky than you do in your entire body.

By chuck

October 24, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

The biggest difference in this country that will have to settled one way or another is between those like me who believe there are moral imperatives or moral absolutes, and those who believe in moral relativism. That will determine in large part what kind of country we will become.

I don’t think we are talking about any kind of “holy war” in terms of a shooting conflict, but we are at a crossroads in our history.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

I sure missed a lot. Too bad I have to work for a living. Net, that didn’t sound like your usual “level-headed� self. John. No hope for you.Do you speak to people in person the same as you do on the blog? I would think not unless you’re much tougher than you sound. Spout what you want about me, it just makes you seem as you are.

Don’t play innocent, Jack? Do you call people “Silly Boy” and tell them how ignorant they are in person? Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it, Jack.

By chuck

October 24, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

I didn’t say anything about what they do in private. What I said was “when they see”. That would imply them being in public would it not? Nobody really cares what they do in private. What I care about is the PUBLIC policy changes they want to make.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

I am often called a conservative, kimberly. Does that make me sexually repressed? I can give you the names of a few hundred ladies who might disagree with you. I’m a strong lover, but don’t try to choke my partners or insist they bring home their girlfriends for my pleasure.

By Jack

October 24, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Oh I can take it. Way more than thou. Bet I can dish it out better too. I won’t lower myself by calling you names anymore. You don’t deserve the effort.

Hey Dog.

By Renee

October 24, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

Okay, John, you are making my laughter for the afternoon.

I can see how, in that cotton fog of pills and animal tranquillizers through which you drift, that you would think that this constitutes a gentle and polite opening salvo. ROTFLMAO!!!!! (that’s only one of many that have made me laugh)

Since you always want to bring it back to your lifestyle choice john, let’s discuss it in that context. You have the choice to be a homosexual and to boff anybody that you want to. You ALREADY have that “freedom�. What you WANT is for the rest of society to affirm your choice. You want to feel good about it. You want legal benefits from it. That is not about freedom, it’s about YOU and what YOU want. Not what society wants or needs but what YOU want and need. Nobody cared about this issue one way or another until homosexual ACTIVISTS decided to bring it out of the closet. It’s not enough for us to be indifferent to your lifestyle choice, we also have to ACCEPT it as NORMAL AND pay for it. You in fact are a SLAVE to your sexuality. Your bondage comes from your lifestyle not from societally imposed restraints.

chuck, you are an amazing piece of work!!! A slave to his sexuality???? What the hell are you talking about. Do you even know. You speak on subjects that you know NOTHING about. You spout more manure than humanly (or cowly) possible. This is why nobody can have a respectable conversation with you.

By Jack

October 24, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

“polluting the blog for weeks now”

He who lives in glass houses.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

John, it is you who keeps questioning my credentials rather than responding to my thoughts for their own merit. Maybe it’s because your rich daddy paid for all those useless degrees you have, but you can only manage a job at Orbitz.com while I have already retired (at age 45).

But I do appreciate you calling me “pumpkin”. Maybe I will consider going gay after all. So, are you normally the “hot dog” or the “bun”?

By Archie

October 24, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

I will admit I don’t like the same-sex making out in public but then I don’t care too much for heterosexuals making out in public. I don’t that’s necessary but it’s merely my personal preference. I disagree with everything Chuck said in his 2:55 pm post because I believe homosexuality,embezzlement,lying,cheating,stealing have always been around. It’s hard to admit that your traditional ideas are really just based on tradition but once a person starts accepting the fact that people really are different then it becomes easier to accept other ideas. Some people you just like them straight or gay and although I go to church 3 or 4 times a month I just don’t agree with Chuck’s views. A lot of people do in fact agree with Chuck whether they post here or not but as I get older I am less and less conservative but more about life experience, and that’s why I understand how Jack feels about polygamy…

By NetBanker

October 24, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

Jack…we all need to ‘lose’ it sometimes. And truth of the matter is I am sick of the ‘what about the children?� contingency. This is primarily because they seem mostly to be conservatives and we know from their votes how they really feel about the children. They throw that emotional plea out there, but their actions basically say their response is “Screw the children!�

Chuck…do you really believe God will ‘punish’ the United States? Uhhhh…wouldn’t that already have happened by now given the horrific state of the nation according to you and those even more religiously fanatic than you?! If God actually favored the U.S. as much as you seem to believe wouldn’t we have already won in Iraq and in the war on terror? I hate to break it to you, but God has an entire universe to run so he’s not really so much interested in our little ol’ war and especially not in who wins the football game. I won’t even begin to address your closed-mind on marriage because you’re not willing to discuss the issue from anything but a religious point of view. That means you can hide behind your faith instead of debate with your mind.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

If you agree to be the “bun”, maybe I can be the HOT DOG!

By Jack

October 24, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

BTW. Good to hear from you Chuck. The mix isn’t as good when you aren’t around to add to it.

By Pitbull

October 24, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

Now I have known a few women who should have been required by law to wear a veil. So, technically I guess it could work both ways.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

In case some of you didn’t notice, your insults mean dog squat to me. So insult away, I only laugh harder here at my computer keyboard.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

He who lives in glass houses.

Awww, Jack did you get your feelings hurt? Poor baby.

By Renee

October 24, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

Okay, John, you are making my laughter for the afternoon.

I can see how, in that cotton fog of pills and animal tranquillizers through which you drift, that you would think that this constitutes a gentle and polite opening salvo. ROTFLMAO!!!!! (that’s only one of many that have made me laugh)

Since you always want to bring it back to your lifestyle choice john, let’s discuss it in that context. You have the choice to be a homosexual and to boff anybody that you want to. You ALREADY have that “freedom�. What you WANT is for the rest of society to affirm your choice. You want to feel good about it. You want legal benefits from it. That is not about freedom, it’s about YOU and what YOU want. Not what society wants or needs but what YOU want and need. Nobody cared about this issue one way or another until homosexual ACTIVISTS decided to bring it out of the closet. It’s not enough for us to be indifferent to your lifestyle choice, we also have to ACCEPT it as NORMAL AND pay for it. You in fact are a SLAVE to your sexuality. Your bondage comes from your lifestyle not from societally imposed restraints.

chuck, you are an amazing piece of work!!! A slave to his sexuality???? What the hell are you talking about. Do you even know. You speak on subjects that you know NOTHING about. You spout more manure than humanly (or cowly) possible. This is why nobody can have a respectable conversation with you.

By Idiocy 101

October 24, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

NetB: Once again, do you see any connection between all the illegal immigrants and our depressed economy? Unemployment is very low now, but we are in a near recession. Could the lower wages have anything to do with that? Could the lack of tax collection from the illegals have anything to do with it? Could all the money being sent back to Mexico cause a strain on our local economies?

By Jack

October 24, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

He’s gotta be the “bun”! Hahahahahaha!!!

By The72John

October 24, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this

John, it is you who keeps questioning my credentials rather than responding to my thoughts for their own merit. Maybe it’s because your rich daddy paid for all those useless degrees you have, but you can only manage a job at Orbitz.com while I have already retired (at age 45).

I think I made a snide remark about your credentials once, but obviously you treasure them so you keep harping on them.

Please, let me know when you HAVE some meritorious thoughts to respond to. I’ll be happy to.

By the way, no one paid for my “useless” degrees, except the endownments of the institutions I attended.

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

And NetB: If you reinterpret GOD to mean Immanuel (GOD WITHIN), you will better understand the meaning of the word “punishment”. Punishment for wrong actions does not mean external punishment from a “man in space”. It means the same thing as “karma”—If you do bad things, bad results occur, naturally, without the need for an indefensible external GOD.

By 2D

October 24, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

NetB… Is it possible that, based on your very entertaining rant about the children, that we are already being punished or at the very least will be once those that generation of children make to positions of influence?

Quite frankly, I hope that GenX lives long to save this nation from itself. Although I’m sure the worthless boomers will find a way to ruin.

By Jack

October 24, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

As you sow, so shall you reap.

By Renee

October 24, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

you all take name calling and being ugly to a whole new level.

I know John might fly off the handle and be a bit abrasive sometimes, but there is absolutely no need and no reason for the hotdog/bun comments. That has nothing to do with his personality or his debates on here. Additionally he is NOT the only gay man on here, nor is he the only gay person on here. It’s really rude and disrespectful….not that you all care what the hell I think.

By Poolboy

October 24, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Diane states that she thought this topic would be a no-brainer but this issue is too complex for an off-the-rack feminist.

Actually, Diane seems to excell at the no brainers, and I wonder why, although she does appear to have a nice rack.

Too bad she is a feminist.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

It means the same thing as “karma�—If you do bad things, bad results occur, naturally, without the need for an indefensible external GOD

Yet another error from the erudite…Karma means nothing of the sort, except in pop-culture and shows like “My Name is Earl”.

Karma is the measure of how well one adheres to Dharma in this life and determines one’s place in the next. Karma does not impact one’s current life. Bad things don’t happen to bad people under Karmic law…at least until they are reborn as a bug in the next life.

Which virus do you suppose YOU’LL reincarnate as, Mangy Mutt?

By Jack

October 24, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

He started it Renee’. He states he can take it. Let him.

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

2D—my experience with GenXers suggest to me that the punishment has already begun. Through karma, that is, not by external punishment.

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

Karma, John, has more than one definition. In formal Buddhism, it does refer to another lifetime. But John Lennon helped to redefine that with his excellent song “Instant Karma”.

So, should I bring some ketchup and mustard for our “cookout”?

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

But do me one favor, John. Make sure you remove all gerbils from your butt first. I don’t want any bite marks on my peter.

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

Renee, my best friend is gay, and he would agree with every insult I’ve thrown at John.

By Kevin

October 24, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

NetB,

It wasn’t a smoke-screen question. We should never get tired of the “what about the children debate”.

If you re-read my post, I took the debate out of its religious context, even though I am a conservative Christian. I believe we need to look at issues from the viewpoint of their impact on society. I said the issue is not settled. There have been no studies to my knowledge as to the impact of plural marriages on children. I said if it is harmful, society as a whole would be negatively affected and ALL of us will suffer the consequences.

BTW - Even James Carville agrees with my position on this issue.

I do agree with you that our children are coddled too much.

By lozen

October 24, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Men like Chuck who are disgusted by their imaginings of what homosexuals do in bed are the prototypical closet cases of this world. Why in the hell would they care what men do in bed? Why would they be thinking about it? Because they can’t get it up with women? Because they can’t find women who will go to bed with them? If they were busy taking care of their opposite sex bed partners they wouldn’t have time to be thinking about what men do in bed, now would ya Chuck?

By Jack

October 24, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

Renee’. Is it not disrespectful for him to rip my machoism? o he can say anything he wants to me but since he is gay I cannot return the favor? Now isn’t that fair!

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

So maybe you can learn to stop the insults, John, at least when I’m around. Because I haven’t even started on my best material yet. Do you understand me?

By 3wives

October 24, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

Hey, GenX’ers are the ones charged with cleaning up the self-focused boomer’s messes. Give us a break.

And I thought the hotdog/bun thing was kinda funny. The gerbil comment may have been over the line, we’re talking about innocent little creatures here, yes?

By The72John

October 24, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Somehow I doubt you have any actual friends, Balls Licker. No one could hope to live up to your standard of intellectual superiority. At best, you’ve taken up with some weak-minded fool who will repeat everything you say and nod and scrape before you.

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

Kevin, good to hear from you. Have you given any thought to the concept of Immanuel? IMO, it resolves most of the logical difficulties created by referring to a GOD which is outside of the Universe. Of course, it will also eventually alter our view of Physics, but I feel confident that my “Mobius strip” interpretation of space-time will one day be proven by observation and experiment. That will also place the Earth right back in the center of the Universe, which is what Einstein’s observations have already confirmed.

By Poolboy

October 24, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

So, did you hear what John Lennon is doing now? Decomposing.

It is a shame that he never got to record and release his last song: All You Need Is Gerbils Da Da Da DaDa.

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Sorry, my friend Chris owns his own software development company, he doesn’t work for Orbitz.com like you. He also is a staunch Republican.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

So maybe you can learn to stop the insults, John, at least when I’m around. Because I haven’t even started on my best material yet. Do you understand me?

Let’s review, shall we?

A) You insult people as much as anyone else, if not more. So, for the last time, get off this particular high horse.

B) Do you…think you’ve had GOOD material so far? I mean, is this your “B” stuff? What’s your “A” stuff - “I’m rubber and you’re glue” or “I know you are but what am I - INFINITY!”

Please, your “best” material so far has been more “I am so smart - Come worship at the rose-smelly altar of my smartness!” and crude gerbil and hot dog jokes that a seventh grader would probably be embarassed to repeat.

Your jokes have been pathetic, your ripostes flaccid and your repartee has been decidedly un-rapier-like. And “Do you understand me?” BAHAHAHAHAH.

Yes, lord Vader…snicker…wow…you are really really FULL of yourself aren’t ya.

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

Out of curiosity, John, all insults aside (I actually do like you, believe it or not), what does the “72” part of your name mean? Is that the year you were born?

If it comforts you, I am pro-gay, but like the others here, I see no need for gay people to flaunt their lifestyle and demand special priveleges.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Sorry, my friend Chris owns his own software development company, he doesn’t work for Orbitz.com like you. He also is a staunch Republican.

Oh…is the Orbitz.com thing your “A” material? Wow.

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

Also, the only guy I would consider licking balls for would be Jack. Not because I would enjoy it, but because I owe him a debt of gratitude for risking his life years ago in the military so that I can live a comfortable life now.

By chuck

October 24, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

Hey Jack. Thanks for the comment.

I usually don’t respond to DOG, but I have to ask,

“What planet have you been living on?”

Do you really think we are in a near recession???!!!?!?!?

A recession is 2 quarters of “negative growth” A term I really hate. The economy has grown more quickly over the past 2 quarters than in any time since the Reagan tax cuts. Nearly 6% overall growth in the past 2 quarters. So much so in fact that the fed has been raising interest rates to slow it down. They are threatening to do so again.

Harvey Mudd have a class in economics?

By 2D

October 24, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Amen 3Wives… We’re the smallest generation and we’re the ones who’ll be sucked dry taking care of cleaning up after the self-indulgent boomers.

By Jack

October 24, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

The gerbil comment was a bit over the line Dog.

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

That’s right, Poolboy. Lennon is decomposing as we all will one day. If you read the Bible in the original Hebrew, it states that our destiny is “sheol” or the grave. An afterlife is never mentioned in the Bible, that is a poor interpretation. Heaven and Hell are states of being, not places we go after death.

By The72John

October 24, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

Also, the only guy I would consider licking balls for would be Jack. Not because I would enjoy it, but because I owe him a debt of gratitude for risking his life years ago in the military so that I can live a comfortable life now.

Yep, because the Viet Cong would now be in control of the country if we hadn’t gone over there. We’d all be speaking Vietnamese. Right.

And do I REALLY need to explain that Ball Licker was just another less-than-flattering version of DOG? Another in a long line of them? Maybe you aren’t swuft enough to appreciate humor that doesn’t involve gerbils.

By lozen

October 24, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

72John, give up with the ignoramuses. Obviously none of these people ever took an Anthropology course in college. “The way we say we should do it is the only right way to do it!” No there haven’t been any studies showing how plural marriages effect children. We can see how monogamous marriage effects children in this country, right? It teaches boys and girls to fulfill their god- ordained roles in life. Top dog for him and under dog for her!

By chuck

October 24, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this

Lozen, you ever get tired of beating that dead horse? What is that…the 20th time you’ve tried that insult. Hey her’s an idea…try finding an original thought somewhere?

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I’m not talking about growth on paper, I am referring to the common experiences of common people when I speak of a near recession. Every working stiff I know is earning less now in terms of real wages that is reflected by buying power. We have “paper growth” right now, but it is offset by inflation for most people. Can you deny that many people are living closer to the belt now? Just wait until all the plastic debts become due one day. I read recently that the average credit card debt now exceeds $10,000 per person. We can’t borrow our way into prosperity forever. The trade deficit must reverse at some point if we are going to maintain our status as the economic engine which drives the world.

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

FYI, I never took any econ classes while at HMC, but I did take both micro and macro economics at Georgia State back in the early 1990s.

By Jack

October 24, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

No tea bag for Dog thank you very much.

By Jill

October 24, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

I didn’t realize the AJC ran a porn blog! WOW! Do you realize not everyone may be over 21 who reads this?

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

And, chuck, have you given any thought to Immanuel? It solves many logical problems that can’t be explained away any other way. Please watch Elmer Gantry ASAP. It is a very enlightening movie about the true nature of GOD. Elmer Gantry closes the movie by quoting from the Bible: When I was a child, I spake as a child…. Now that I am grown, I have put aside childish ways.

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

But, glad to know someone here gets some value from my ideas. John is too stupid to even understand what I’m actually talking about most of the time. I do have a lot of respect for you, chuck, just wish you wouldn’t be so hard on kimberly.

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

Ok, I apologize to John for the gerbil comment. Too bad I’m not allowed to zing my best gay insults here. But, the truth is I am pro-gay. I’m just anti-A’ho.

By BBQ BOY

October 24, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

Lets get this party started, I’ve got the gas grilled started. I wanna see your weenie shrivel I wanna see your burgers burnt . I wanna see you toast your buns, toast your buns on my deck tonight. I’ve got the gas grilled started so lets get this party started.

Pump up the gas grill pump it up, while the flame is jumping. Pump up the gas grill pump it up, BLUE FLAME.

Outside in the backyard, underneath the trees, We’re gonna grill it up cuz we’ve got burgers we’ve got weenies. We got the Aunt May and the Uncle Bob we’ve got the green peas and the corn on the cob, yes the line, the line, the line is very long and my brother, my brother he’s a slob.

The food is piping hot, the beer is icy cold, the coleslaw¡¯s from the deli and the Jell-O¡¯s in the mold Dip your chip in my dip, dip Dip your chip in my dip, Dip your chip in my Dip your chip in my Dip your chip in my dip, dip

Pump up the gas grill, get it going ya, gotta get the propane full the coals are hot the mother f*** grills so pump up the gas grill, get it goin

The citronellas burning, the refrigerators stocked and the bug zapper is zapping So this BBQ will ROCK

all in line for the beanies and the weenies yes the line is long but the portions ain’t teeny all in line for the beanies and the weenies yes the line is long but the portions ain’t teeny

Come on, kick it, grill it, I don’t care if you spill it cuz we’re outside, we’re outside, we’re OUTSIDE!

Got the rip ripple chips, and onion dip Got the rip ripple chips, and onion dip Got the rip ripple chips, and onion dip Got the rip ripple chips, and onion dip Pump up the gas grill pump up the gas grill Toast your buns on my deck tonight Toast your buns on my deck tonight Toast your buns on my Toast your buns on my Toast your buns on my deck tonight

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

Rock on BBQ BOY! Are those lyrics from a rap song? If so, I like rap even better!

By Poolboy

October 24, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

So Religion 101 has a hotline to God and can say with total assurance that our destiny is only the grave and there is no afterlife, as Heaven and Hell are states of being and not places we go after death.

Gee, if there is even a micropossibility that you are misinformed due to some extraneous piece of information that you might have just overlooked, you may have to pay a very heavy and extremely long - say eternal - price for your error.

I do not think I would bet the bank on this one.

By Kevin

October 24, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

Thanks for the ignoramus comment! No, I never took an Anthropology course in college. I was too busy with my engineering course load to take a class as easy as that.

By Religion 101

October 24, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

You’ve inspired me BBQ BOY. I had to throw down with some Sir Mix-A-Lot to counter your lyrics: Cause I’m strong, and I’m long, let’s get the friction on!

By Brian Curtis

October 25, 2006 08:12 AM | Link to this

Kevin: I’m not clear on what you’re suggesting. You say plural marriages may be bad, because one proven model for raising kids is the mother/father environment.

That assumes 1. That other models have been tested (such as plural marriage, which hasn’t),

and

I have my doubts about #1, but I really disagree with #2. Since when has ‘the welfare of kids’ been the determining factor for what’s permissible and forbidden about legal marriages?

After all, plenty of folks get married without having kids, and with no intention of ever having kids. That’s legal. Gay marriage would overwhelmingly not involve kids at all. And divorce—which has proven to have a HUGELY negative impact on the lives of children affected—is legal, too.

By Mara

October 25, 2006 08:17 AM | Link to this

Net - per Renee’s nomination yesterday, the tiara is all yours. Thanks for writing what I’ve been thinking for a while now. I have a tough time not breaking out in giggles every time I hear someone use that “What about the CHILDREN!!!” line. I can’t even say the line without sounding like Chef (aka Isaac Hayes). Cracks me up every time. Like the little urchins are going to curl up and die at the least hint of stress. It’s crazy!

anyway, the tiara is yours but I’m keeping the Choo slingbacks and my faux ermine :^)

By Kevin

October 25, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this

Brian,

Again, I am saying we don’t know what the impact will be, therefore we should proceed with caution and debate the issue before we make it legal. I believe there is enough data to support your claim (and my belief) that divorce has a huge negative impact on children. What if plural marriages are indeed MUCH worse on children than divorce? Maybe children raised in these environments are more well-adjusted - we simply don’t know.

While I disagree with some of the things in your post, I appreciate your ability to discuss this rationally without resorting to name-calling as others have.

By Renee

October 25, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

Mara - you always crack me up. It’s much needed on this sometimes BLOG OF GLOOM….lol.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

It’s incredible to me how selfish some of you are on this blog. Childhood years are critical in the development of every person. Common sense and experience alone will tell you that a loving, two parent, heterosexual home is ideal for raising children. Those of you who choose a different lifestyle for yourselves have the right to live as you wish, but it is immoral to bring chidren into your crazy world. All of you who are gay have no business having children in the first place, simply due to the fact that you aren’t being true to yourselves.

By Renee

October 25, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

It’s incredible to me how selfish some of you are on this blog. Childhood years are critical in the development of every person. Common sense and experience alone will tell you that a loving, two parent, heterosexual home is ideal for raising children. Those of you who choose a different lifestyle for yourselves have the right to live as you wish, but it is immoral to bring chidren into your crazy world. All of you who are gay have no business having children in the first place, simply due to the fact that you aren’t being true to yourselves.

Don’t bite, Renee, don’t bite!!!

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

I love gay people, my best friend is gay, one of my sisters is gay. I am not homophobic in any way. I hang around gay people on a daily basis.

To form a baby takes a male and a female. As such, gay couples cannot truly be “parents”. I know many people who were adopted, and the vast majority of them have permanent emotional scars due to the chaos perpetrated on them in their early years by the idiots who brought them into this world without being prepared to be responsible parents.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

To show you that I put my money where my mouth is, I chose not to have children simply because I wasn’t sure if i would be a good parent. At some point in life we have to put our own selfish desires aside and consider the fate of others.

So, sorry, NetB, I’m going to ask you the same question you keep trying to dismiss: What about the children??

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this

So, my suggestion is to get a pet if you want to fulfill your parental desires, but aren’t prepared to provide a normal, stable, loving home for your child. Bunny rabbits make nice pets.

By Lily Toad

October 25, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

I know many people who were adopted, and the vast majority of them have permanent emotional scars due to the chaos perpetrated on them in their early years by the idiots who brought them into this world without being prepared to be responsible parents.

And your point is? These kids are messed up so a loving couple shouldn’t adopt them?

Many gay people have children from heterosexual marriages before they “came out.”

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

Renee, will you admit one thing for me: I can get a good conversation going with my spiciness, no?

By Renee

October 25, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

I love gay people, my best friend is gay, one of my sisters is gay. I am not homophobic in any way. I hang around gay people on a daily basis.

Oh, well then you are DEFINITELY an expert on the topic. My apologies….

I think you come on here just spouting rhetoric to get people riled up. But we can only blame you if WE don’t fall for it.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

And to head off any invalid comparisons, I will agree that a loving homosexual household is preferable to an unloving heterosexual household. The answer, however, is to try to improve the heterosexual households, not to promote homosexual households.

By Randy

October 25, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

I agree with Ridiculous on the 8:59 statement. Childhood is so influential in a persons development. There are many formulas(how they are raised) that can “fracture” ones spirit, character, soul, happiness and being raised by two homosexual parents would be included in those disfunctional formulas. People who are already fractured should be loved and helped, but their lifestyle should not be promoted, or considered “normal”.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry that many people like you, Lily Toad and Renee, didn’t feel comfortable to be true to yourselves and declare your homosexuality before you married someone you didn’t really love and started pumping out the rugrats.

By 2D

October 25, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

To the individual posting under all of the aliases… Aren’t there issues more pressing in this country than gay marriage? Regardless of your views, we have far more pressing items than to debate whether or not a vast (and I mean very vast) minority of our population has the right/opportunity/choice to get married or legally bound together or whatever it would/should be called.

Yes, I understand the various arguments of where society could head or what might happen when this is eventually allowed. Who cares? Again, these people are a vast minority and even if the worst of your fears did occur, what relative impact would it have to our already amoral, disgusting society? The boomers have already destroyed every piece of social fabric/responsibility we ever had, so what’s another brick or two being torn away?

Noone ever said you or anyone else had to like it, agree with it, condone it or anything of the sort. There are all sorts of things that are legal in this country that I don’t like or agree with and believe is destroying/has destroyed our society, but I wouldn’t put forth a crusade to have it abolished (i.e. divorce, abortion, smoking, excessive drinking, just to name a few). Why? Because this country is about choice and I can’t honestly say that I want government out of certain parts of my life and involved in others.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

Renee, from my heart I am here to speak the truth. Unfortunately with the total acceptance of moral relativism in our society, i.e. political correctness, people are being ostracized now for speaking simple truths or by using certain words. A few years ago a public official was fired for using the word “niggardly”, which is a legitimate word in the dictionary which refers to stinginess.

By Renee

October 25, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

Have you heard of positive debate. You come on here with this air of superiority and then play the victim role. You have to stick with one or the other, either you are superior, or you are the mere victim on here, that everytime you give your opinion you are shot down, but you can’t have both.

You clearly get a kick out of angering people instead of debating them. You obviously think you know EVERYTHING, everyone here cannot possibly debate one as great as you….so why would you continue to bask among such inferiority?

By The72John

October 25, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

All of you who are gay have no business having children in the first place, simply due to the fact that you aren’t being true to yourselves

Bite, but bite gently.

Ridiculous, I believe you’ll find that exactly the opposite is true. It’s the “happily” married men who troll the internet and truck-stop parking lots looking for a b***** that aren’t being true to themselves, and it is they who should be ashamed of themselves for bringing children into a world built on deception.

Kevin:

I think the point that you’re missing is that the impact on children shouldn’t be the deciding factor in what forms of marriage are allowed and what forms aren’t.

There are many societies, both modern and historical, which have raised children in a communal fashion, with many adults acting as parents, and many other children basically acting as siblings. Those children grow up happy and loved with the same, if not greater, frequency as Western two-parent heterosexual households.

The problem seems to be that we have an obsession with min/maxing everything. It’s got to be the BEST. What’s wrong with just…good? I doubt many people had the BEST upbringing possible.

By The72John

October 25, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry that many people like you, Lily Toad and Renee, didn’t feel comfortable to be true to yourselves and declare your homosexuality before you married someone you didn’t really love and started pumping out the rugrats.

You know, I may get riled up and throw out insults sometimes, but you are a truly nasty, vicious individual. Does it make you feel good to be so wilfully cruel to people? Do you get off on it?

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

Even my undergrad college, Harvey Mudd College, has fallen for that PC crap to my great dismay. On their website they now speak of “diversity’ as being a recruiting goal.

The opposite of diversity is unity. Personally, I think unity is a better goal than diversity in most work environments. Unity doesn’t mean everyone has to have the same skin color or vote for the same political party. It simply means people putting aside their individual differences for a common goal.

By Renee

October 25, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry that many people like you, Lily Toad and Renee, didn’t feel comfortable to be true to yourselves and declare your homosexuality before you married someone you didn’t really love and started pumping out the rugrats.

My apologies, I didn’t realize you knew me personally to make this statement. Not only do you know me, but you know LilyToad as well, and her and I don’t even know each other (which could be possible). You have to let me know these things so I don’t continuously respond like a jackass.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

2D, I have no qualms about two people of any type living together, sharing assets, etc. I draw the line, however, when freaks want to have children they are not prepared to raise in a normal, stable environment.

By Lily Toad

October 25, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

No rugrats pumped out of my vagina. I always knew I didn’t want to have children, but when I lived with a woman I helped raise her kids.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

2D, I’m not on any “crusade” to stop consenting adults from doing as they wish. However, only a male and a female can have a child using natural methods. Does that make any sense to you scientifically, or has your mind been corrupted by political correctness as well?

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

My respect to you, Lily Toad, if you were responsible enough to know that you might not be a good parent. When you helped raise another’s child, however, did you lie to that child and try to claim to be that child’s parent? Or were you honest?

It’s funny how so many of you here can’t handle the truth and try to make me out to be some horrible person for being concerned for the welfare of future children.

By Jack

October 25, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

Hi All. Busy today. I apologize for the tea-bag remark yesterday. Later tater.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

And John’s protestations aside, my philosophy of life is far more consistent and defensible than any of you here. I openly admit my faults and weaknesses, whereas most of you here don’t. I am secure in myself, however crazy that self may be. However, differently from most of you, I recognize my idiosyncracies for what they are, and don’t try to claim that wrong things are somehow right.

By Renee

October 25, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

You know, I may get riled up and throw out insults sometimes, but you are a truly nasty, vicious individual. Does it make you feel good to be so wilfully cruel to people? Do you get off on it?

John, I think we both know the answer to that, but he is crazy enough he won’t admit it, because in his convoluted world, he doesn’t see any problem with anything and he is “GOD”, hence the sign on name. People like him are best ignored, and maybe Chuck will continually pray for him and he will change. That way we can see if prayer really works.

Either way, he’s very insignificant (double negative) in my life, and I will NOT respond to any more comments by him on this blog…..oh except for this last one.

2D, I have no qualms about two people of any type living together, sharing assets, etc. I draw the line, however, when freaks want to have children they are not prepared to raise in a normal, stable environment.

This PROVES you LOVE gay people, including your best friend and sister (whom I am sure really exist) since they are freaks as you so eloquently referred.

By Lily Toad

October 25, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

When you helped raise another’s child, however, did you lie to that child and try to claim to be that child’s parent?

No, they knew I wasn’t their parent, but a step-parent and they have a lot of respect for me. Even though their mother and I separated I still have a close relationship with them (they are both married and have children).

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

And John’s protestations aside, my philosophy of life is far more consistent and defensible than that of most of you here. That doesn’t make me superior, just more consistent and defensible.

I freely admit my weaknesses and faults in life, which most of you don’t. I have many idiosyncracies, but accept myself for who I am, and don’t try to claim that wrong is right.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

No problem with me regarding teabags, Jack. I’m not a whiner like lozen who keeps complaining to the AJC Customer Service whenever someone puts a good one on me.

I have apologized to lozen, John, Mara, and kimberly for my rude remarks, but none of them have been man enough to accept my apologies. ; > ]

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

Renee, I am a freak as well, in case you haven’t noticed. I don’t hang around with yuppies and silver spooners. If I point a finger at you, there are three pointing right back at me. I know that well. Sorry if I haven’t emphasized that more to you.

By Lily Toad

October 25, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

Did anyone read the editorial yesterday about the British journalist who converted to Islam after being kidnapped? She was talking about how the Koran promoted equality between the sexes. She also defended the use of head scarves. Once she started wearing them she got a lot of insults.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

The only difference is that I don’t defend my freakiness as being normal or right. I’m happy to go to my grave without producing freaky children.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

And please show me where I have ever claimed to be a victim of any type. Bad things happened to me as a child, but I am not a victim, and don’t aspire to be one as many of you here try to do. Remember, forgive the killers, then bulldoze the scene of the crime to wipe it from your memory banks.

By Chilao

October 25, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

wow, gone ten days and seems ain’t nothing changed LOL

Women/girls should be allowed to wear the hajib if that is their choice. Now burkas would be like wearing a ski mask, so….LOL

Playboy this month has an article about a journalist who went to secular Jordan, the government tries to keep religion out of the public sector. So he travels with two westernized college women, one from Syria, the other from Lebanon, who are wearing jeans and western tops-style clothes. And on the Islamic-Studies area of the university in Amman, they are spit upon as ‘whores’ by the students there since they are less than modest(by Islamic standards) and smoke cigarettes as well. (Is Harvey Mudd in Amman?, couldn’t resist)

By Mara

October 25, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Renee - Kudos on the 9:29. My turn to chuckle. As for taking the bait…the trick is to completely disregard that particular poster. If nobody engages him eventually he’ll be reduced to talking to himself using his various psuedonyms. Remember a couple weeks ago when he’d post a question and his alter egos would then “debate” it? LOL!! He finally shut up for a while and we had quite a nice couple of days with reasonably respectful and friendly dialog. So, no matter the outrageous hyperbole, it’s better to ignore the baiting.

Okay now. Let me brace for the poisonous vitriol which I will now be subjected.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

Renee, GOD is the TOTALITY OF ALL REAL THINGS. As such, I am not GOD, have never claimed to be GOD, or even speak for GOD. You are confusing me with chuck.

I do share many views with chuck on the surface, but he and I are coming from very different places in life, in case you haven’t noticed. Or oare you a stereotyper like John? You seem to admire him for some strange reason.

By Mara

October 25, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

Hey Chilao!

By Renee

October 25, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

Hi Chilao! I was going to put an APB out if you didn’t surface soon.

By Chilao

October 25, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

Hi Mara and Renee, Nice to be back, even if….LMAO Renee, I emailed you.

By chuck

October 25, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Renee, You said:

chuck, you are an amazing piece of work!!! A slave to his sexuality???? What the hell are you talking about. Do you even know. You speak on subjects that you know NOTHING about. You spout more manure than humanly (or cowly) possible. This is why nobody can have a respectable conversation with you.

What I would like to know is:

1) What part of that post do you believe to be UNTRUE and WHY?

2) Do you control your sexuality or does it control you?

I made a very simple statement. What I have seen to be true is that except in the case of rape, PEOPLE CONTROL WHO THEY HAVE SEX WITH. If that is beyond your control, it controls you which makes you a slave to it. Heterosexual people make the same choices. Some choose to mate with one person for life in a monogomous, faithful relationship. Some choose to mate with anything that moves. Some choose to be celebate. Some choose to have sex with people of the same gender. People who “can’t” control their sexuality are usually sexual predators. I don’t know why that would be hard to understand.

What about the question of “FREEDOM”? Are you not free to do as you wish with regards to your sexual preference? What is your response to the OTHER part of that post:

What you WANT is for the rest of society to affirm your choice. You want to feel good about it. You want legal benefits from it. That is not about freedom, it’s about YOU and what YOU want. Not what society wants or needs but what YOU want and need. Nobody cared about this issue one way or another until homosexual ACTIVISTS decided to bring it out of the closet. It’s not enough for us to be indifferent to your lifestyle choice, we also have to ACCEPT it as NORMAL AND pay for it.

By Renee

October 25, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

chuck - I would respond, but to be honest with you, I don’t have the energy. I know you don’t like the gays, and then there’s the whole heaven/hell, God/morality, religious extremist issue with you. You got me riled up yesterday, today I don’t care. I think it’s safe to say when it comes to me and you, that we will never see eye to eye, much less agree on anything. The difference is, that I feel I am more respectful of your opinion than you are of mine, but that’s neither here nor there.

I got it, gay=bad, slave to sexuality, whatever….

I’m going to choose to live my life, openly and proudly, with my children, and whoever doesn’t like it, whatever….That’s their problem.

By Brian Curtis

October 25, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

Yes, the concept of treating people as normal human beings, despite their sexuality, is just terrible and could easily lead to the end of the world. (rolling eyes)

I can’t speak for John, chuck, but I don’t think gays are looking to be welcome with open arms by fundies and similar loons… just being left alone would be enough.

By Jack

October 25, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Chilao. Glad you’re back. Had fun yesterday but it did get a little out of hand. John needs to re-read his posts from the last 6 months from an outsider’s point of view and ask himself if they read as if a 33-34 year old had written them.

By Lily Toad

October 25, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

I haven’t seen anything by John that indicates he is not making choices about who he has sex with, or that he or any other gay person is unable to choose to mate with whatever moves, or to be celibate, or to be in a long term monogamous relationship. Gays and straights make these choices. Why is this different for hets than homosexuals? Why do you couch what gays want as being about what you want and not freedom? Isn’t it the freedom to marry? The freedom to make a legal commitment?

By Mara

October 25, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

chuck - how exactly do we heterosexuals “pay” for homosexuality? Haven’t seen any of the gays pounding on my door looking for handouts. And states that are more tolerant of homosexuals tend to be the same states that pay more taxes than they recieve in federal money…so…how am I “paying” for homosexuals?

And who are you to decide what “normal” is? Many things considered “normal” by some group or another aren’t necessarily “normal” to other groups. In rural Sudan it’s normal for men to give their girl children away to other men to pay a debt. Normal for them, NOT normal to me. In Eastern Europe it’s still considered NOT normal to marry outside ones ethnic group. Do you think that inter-racial marriages are abnormal, too? Shall I keep on listing things that others may consider “normal” but are shunned by others? And who gets to decide? You?

According to your post, before the so-called “Homosexual Activists” started dictating to the rest of society, nobody cared one way or another about the issue. Gee…is that why they were so far back in the closet? Because nobody cared about it? Does that make any sense, even to you?

By The72John

October 25, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

PEOPLE CONTROL WHO THEY HAVE SEX WITH. If that is beyond your control, it controls you which makes you a slave to it. Heterosexual people make the same choices. Some choose to mate with one person for life in a monogomous, faithful relationship. Some choose to mate with anything that moves. Some choose to be celebate. Some choose to have sex with people of the same gender.

As usual, Chuck spouts nonsense. Yes, Chuck, people can CHOOSE to be abstinent, or to not be abstinent. That is correct. However, neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals CHOOSE the people they are attracted to, whether they make the abstinence choice or not.

The basic flaw in your reasoning comes, as always, from your religious indoctrination and your inability to see beyond it. You believe that heterosexuals should be abstinent outside of marriage, and that homosexuals should always be abstinent. You are as much a slave to your own sexual impulses as any other adult who chooses to engage in sexual activity. However, you justify it to yourself because you think you are doing “the right thing”.

The flaw in your argument is and always will be your “belief” that gay people choose to be attracted to members of the same sex. It lets you villify them and condemn them in a way you otherwise couldn’t if you allowed yourself to accept that sexual attraction is not wihin someone’s conscious control.

Someone tell me why I bother trying to reason with the unreasonable?

I’ll respond to a couple of these:

What you WANT is for the rest of society to affirm your choice.

No, we want society to mind their own business. I don’t particularly affirm your choice to procreate and spread your brand of religious hatred to the next generation, but I acknowledge that you have the right to do so.

You want to feel good about it

This is your issue, not ours. We feel fine about ourselves. Our objections do not derive, as you try to convince yourself, from feelings of self-loathing, but from anger at the way people like you treat us.

You want legal benefits from it. That is not about freedom, it’s about YOU and what YOU want. Not what society wants or needs but what YOU want and need.

Yes, but whether society needs it is a different question. Excellent article in The Economist a few weeks ago about why instituting gay marriage is a society no-brainer. It’s a traditionally conservative magazine, Chuck. You should read it.

Nobody cared about this issue one way or another until homosexual ACTIVISTS decided to bring it out of the closet.

I daresay all the gay men and women throughout the years who were imprisoned or beaten or fired or kicked out of their homes were certainly concerned about it. What you’re really saying is that people didn’t talk about it until the group who was being kicked around decided it wasn’t going to take it anymore. I suppose “nobody cared” about civil rights until those uppity n**** started making a fuss, either?

It’s not enough for us to be indifferent to your lifestyle choice, we also have to ACCEPT it as NORMAL AND pay for it.

Well, again there’s the “choice” problem that you have. I know, I know - you’ll ALWAYS cling to the fantasy that gay people one day wake up and say HEY I WANT TO BE GAY! However, as to the payment issue - red herring, Chuck. Red herring. Gay people pay all the same taxes and participate in all the insurance plans and figure into all the calculations that straight people do. We are paying for ourselves, Chuck. If anything, we’ve been helping cover YOUR costs for all the years we haven’t been able to take advantage of marriage-type benefits.

You seem to have a hard time realizing that gay men and women are a part of society - a contributing part. You would rather demonize us and imagine us as some group apart, because it helps you hate. But we are, Chuck. We always have, and despite the efforts of you and your fellow hate-mongers, we always will be. We’ll always be here, and every year that goes by it’s going to be harder and harder for you to dismiss us.

I realize that nothing I say will ever crack that self-constructed shell of hatred and dogma that you surround yourself with, Chuck. I don’t know why I bother trying. But I do comfort myself with the knowledge that our presence and our continued refusal to stay in the closet where you want us is going to stick in your craw. I just hope you choke on it. And the sooner the better, Chuck, for everyone in this world who despises you and the blind hatred that you stand for.

By The72John

October 25, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

John needs to re-read his posts from the last 6 months from an outsider’s point of view and ask himself if they read as if a 33-34 year old had written them.

I don’t particularly need to be lectured by someone who sounds like a dirty old man and rarely has anything to say other than “Hey sweetie”.

By Blog Dawg

October 25, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

Ban the use of veils? No. We should let the muslim women express themselves. We should, however, encourage Wasp Women in this country to wear girdles. New Rule: if a woman finds that she is no longer in the coveted 18-49 year old age demographic, she must stop wearing spandex.

Burqas: no problem. Chicken legged soccor moms: lets get a harness on them now.

The devil wears prada. My wife wears Darth Vader. I need someone to step forward and save me from my life please.

By The72John

October 25, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

Nor, Jack, does anyone who refers to the people who have ruffled his feathers for weeks as “needledick” have any business throwing maturity stones. Which one was it, Jack? Billy or GOB? I can’t remember.

By Renee

October 25, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

ummm…Mara, John

I have to say very well put. I didn’t have the energy to type responses, much less RESPOND. John, I know you don’t do the whole tiara thing, and Mara JUST gave it to Net, but I have to find something that will equate as a reward….I’ll get back to you on that..

By Chilao

October 25, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Hi Jack. Have a good week off? I did not really want to come back, especially since someone dreamed up Projects for me while gone. LOL. Stack of system-requests on my desk now.

It was Billy, on the needle thing. don’t ask me why I remember exactly WHO. LOL. The things I have a hard time remembering and can remember that one. go figure.. whatever happened to Billy, anyway. A dawg got him?

By Mara

October 25, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

on topic - http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-malik25oct25,0,82793.story?coll=la-opinion-center

By Jack

October 25, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

I have no feathers. Re-read your posts Mr. Mature.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

So what does drive your anger, John? From an “outsider’s” viewpoint, you appear to be an extremely bitter person. If it is in response to being “picked-on” in life, you might consider that many have had things far worse than you. But as I have noted, I have seen no compassion coming from you toward anyone but yourself in my 2 months here.

Renee, I had a lot of respect for you at one time, but am now seeing that you believe what you wish, divorced from reality.

By The72John

October 25, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

I have no feathers. Re-read your posts Mr. Mature.

Follow your own advice, Jack.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

Jack might back me up on this point: Anyone who grew up in Philly or near Camden doesn’t get their feelings hurt by a few insults. A beer bottle to the head might hurt a little, but not words. That’s why I don’t sympathize with your constant whining about being ostracized by fundamentalist whackos, John. If you are only 33, I doubt you have suffered any real discrimination in life other than having your little feelings hurt on occasion.

By Jack

October 25, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Those N.D. comments got to you huh? If the shoe fits. LOL

I forgot something….

Hi Sweet Thing! :)

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

I do take exception if you called me a dirty old man, however. Most people think I look rather young… ; > ]

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

But I will back your assertion, John, that gay people are attracted to the same sex through biology, not by choice. Every gay person I’ve known, including my sister who is a real person who lives in San Francisco with her long-term girlfriend, exhibited behavior suggesting they were gay from birth.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

P.S. to Jack—After I showed up to jury duty last week with a crew cut and my Bible displayed prominently, not only was I not selected to sit on a jury, both defendants settled their cases pre-trial after they heard that DOG was there to lay judgment on them!

By Chilao

October 25, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Mara - read the LA Times article and got some great costume ideas for a girlfriend. LOL

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

And say what you will about Jack, John, but he’s a real man and a hero for risking his life so that you and I can live a good life. What have you ever done that could be considered heroic?

By GOB

October 25, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Monica - I am teaching now. Doing special ed in a HS and coaching football and soccer. I love it so far. I have probably posted less than 5 times since school started back. It is certainly keeping me busy.

John - You are wasting your time with Jack. Don’t you know he is the ultimate male?? If he says something is wrong, then you should just say “thank you” and move on…

By lozen

October 25, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

2D, exactly what is it that the people born between 1946 and 1964 did that you think is so terrible? Yes, there are a lot of them and that causes a problem but you can’t really blame them for being born can you? Since baby boomers make up such a sizable portion of the consuming public, their spending habits and lifestyles have a powerful influence on the economy. Perhaps this is what you referred to?

By The72John

October 25, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

Those N.D. comments got to you huh? If the shoe fits. LOL

Not really, Jack…I was pointing out to you your own childish immaturity.

By lozen

October 25, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

Chilao, missed you last week, glad you’re back.

What is the “ultimate male”? 1. He has been in the military. 2. He loves the women! 3. He would kill anybody that tried to take “his woman”. 4. He thinks every problem can be solved by beating somebody up or dropping bombs on some country. Anybody have any more definitions for the “ultimate male”?

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Don’t get me started on how teachers are grossly overpaid GOB. You guys only work 190 days per year, and whine that your $40,000 to $60,000 per year salaries just aren’t enough for what amounts to glorified babysitting. I happen to know a little about handicapped care as well since my last long-term girlfriend had a little girl who has leukodystrophy, a devestating neurological condition. Even though this little girl couldn’t move a muscle in her body, her special ed teachers would send home daily “progress” reports. What a bunch of crap. The teachers aren’t even allowed to say the word “handicapped” any more—now it is “special needs”.

By Chilao

October 25, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

HI, Lozen, missed you too. LOL

ultimate males do not ‘kiss’ and tell.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

lozen, you have surprised me with your complimentary definiton for Jack. Maybe there is hope for you after all.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

Chilao, I thought you were a cattleman? Are you a systems analyst as well? AND, I might actually make good on my promise to leave if you will tell me what the moniker “Chilao” signifies. It’s been driving me crazy since I got here.

By 2D

October 25, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

Lozen… I grew up with two for parents, multiple others for aunts and uncles and met hundreds, more as friends of the family. Combine that with those I’ve met through numerous relationships I’ve had in the various parts of the county (I’ve lived or worked all over this greatest nation on God’s green Earth) and come to a sweeping conclusion (gross generalization of course so exceptions do exist)…

Baby boomers are nothing more than a bunch of spoiled, self-centered, narcisists who wouldn’t make a personal sacrifice unless their very life depended on it. They have spent their lives ruining this country through their lack of morals and massive consumption and will now, in the very near future, bleed us all dry through the worst entitlement program ever assembled, social security.

By Mara

October 25, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

Wow. GOB AND Chilao check in. We’re only missing Bla to score the trifecta :^)

Chilao - which costumes were your faves? Have you seen any of the super cute pet costumes? My honey wants to get matching 3 Musketeers costumes for the furry chil’dens.

By kimberly

October 25, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Lozen, hee hee…. Yes, but I dare not post them here! {;->

By Kevin

October 25, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

The ultimate married male with children:

Bruno - teachers are underpaid. Teaching is not glorified babysitting. I don’t complain about my salary because I left a good paying, highly respected job to become a teacher. I knew what the salary cut would be before I took the job. Since both of my parents were teachers, I knew many of the headaches associated with teaching. Call me crazy, but I wanted to be a teacher and I still enjoy it!

By Mara

October 25, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

lozen - Anybody have any more definitions for the “ultimate male�?

by his own admission he’d let a floundering male drown so he can “rescue” a female who isn’t in any immediate danger of drowning.

By Lily Toad

October 25, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

OK, 2D, now that you’ve given us your impression of boomers, how do you characterize Gen X?

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

God bless you teachers, I probably would go nuts putting up with the kids all day.

By Jack

October 25, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

I don’t agree with #1 or #4.

Dog, thanks for the compliments but I am doing my best to forget those times. Besides, the real heros fought in WWII.

Hey Lozen, 60 is the new 40 so we’re not doing too bad still in our thirties and all. LOL

By Lily Toad

October 25, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

in the very near future, bleed us all dry through the worst entitlement program ever assembled, social security. I know we’re old but we didn’t invent social security. What do you expect us to do — refuse our ss payments after we’ve paid into the system for 30 years?

By Rebecca

October 25, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

2D, I have to put in my two cents here. First of all, I have to say that your “sweeping conclusion” about boomers is one that I find offensive. I am not easily offended, but I watched my mother sacrifice daily to provide for her children, my father sacrificed his life in a pointless and unwinnable war, and that is a story that is not uncommon among the boomers that I know. Perhaps your view is colored by your socio-economic background or by some undisclosed anger toward a specific set of boomers, but to say that most of them fit into that category is just plain wrong. And as far as SSI being an entitlement program, the last time I checked, we are all required BY LAW to pay into SSI with the specific goal of drawing said money in the event that we are no longer able to work due to age or infirmity of some kind. Considering the large chunk that is taken from every paycheck that I EARN, I fully expect that that money will be given back, if not to me then to someone else who needs it. I have no illusions that it will still be around when I turn 67, but that doesn’t negate the fact that any money I would have drawn was mine in the first place. It was taken from me by the same government that is now trying to have it labeled as a handout. Do you consider reombursement from car insurance to be a handout if you have paid the premiums? What is the difference?

By GOB

October 25, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

Thunderlips from Rocky 3 was the Ultimate Male…

By Chilao

October 25, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

does belonging to the Snow Leopard Trust make me a snow leopard?

Does belonging to National Geographic Society make me a geographer?

does belonging to The Smithsonian make me a Smithsonian or a museum relic? Okay, don’t answer that one. LMAO

By NetBanker

October 25, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

I draw the line, however, when freaks want to have children they are not prepared to raise in a normal, stable environment.

This also applies to heterosexual freaks who ‘pump out kids’ when they are not prepared? I’m going to guess not since you’re only railing on the gay folks and not dishing it out to the non-gays. And who decides what is ‘normal’? Would you forbid the Amish from having children because in America today not using electricity or having indoor plumbing is not normal.

By Monica

October 25, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

GOB, That’s why I didn’t post at all for a while. I’m now getting to a point in the semester when I can sit down for a few minutes! I’m glad you got into teaching. I love it in spite of the paperwork and NCLB.

Mara, My sister-in-law sent me an email of various dogs in Halloween costumes. It was great! One of them was Cerebus, the three-headed dog at the gates of Hades. Good luck with your 3 Muskateers! :)

By 2D

October 25, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad… No I don’t expect you to refuse your social security, because I sure won’t considering the amount of $$$ I (and my employers through their matching contributions) will have paid in. I also know you didn’t create the system, but your generation has had great influence into expanding it from the original concept under FDR into the massive entitlement program today.

At the present time, I would be happy if you (since your generation is in most positions of political power) ceased to continue raising my full retirement age and the ceiling to pay into social security all so you can enjoy more retirement years without reduced income. Or better yet, let me take my $$$ now and never have to pay in again. I’d make that deal in a heartbeat.

For example… My first year in the workforce (full time) the ceiling was a shade over $60K. Just twelve years later, the ceiling is over $90K. That is a %50 increase. Are you kidding me?

Another example… I apologize that can’t remember what my “full retirement” age was twelve years ago, but I believe based on my most recent “statement” it is currently 68 or 69. Are you kidding me? At this rate of increase, I’ll end up dead before I can retire!

By Jack

October 25, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

I never claimed the title of the “ultimate man” but thank you all for putting me in the running. Look it up Mara. You said weakened female treading water. Either way if you were in the water drowning and a man was treading water but weakened, I’ll do you a favor and rescue the man. Your husband would appreciate that.

Ditto on Kevin’s post.

By GOB

October 25, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

Jack - For someone who claims to have no feathers to be ruffled, you sure do react strongly when someone calls you out…

By Renee

October 25, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Net, sweetie…..why did you even respond????

Chilao - subscribing to National Geographic absolutely makes you a geographer.

Mara - we’re also missing RF!!

By Chilao

October 25, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

Mara - I was thinking in the costume department more along the lines of, well, not the kind of costume you go trick-or-treating in. (wink, wink)…LOL

Renee - So I guess I am a cattleman, without any cattle. LOL

By NetBanker

October 25, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

Once again, do you see any connection between all the illegal immigrants and our depressed economy? Unemployment is very low now, but we are in a near recession. Could the lower wages have anything to do with that? Could the lack of tax collection from the illegals have anything to do with it? Could all the money being sent back to Mexico cause a strain on our local economies? Easy there! I needed some time to think and write…which is a real challenge given my current work load.

I think the connection is between illegal immigrants and the state of the economy is pretty complex. I don’t really think that the connection between illegals and low wages goes beyond the jobs that illegal immigrants tend to fill nor do I think that the funds being sent back to Mexico strain local economies. The local economy is driven by the needs of the people living in the area regardless of where they send excess funds or their citizenship status. So legal or illegal one still needs a place to live, food to eat, basic services that need to be filled and which generally are filled by local businesses.

I think that the depressed economy (for the purposes of this discussing I am referring to real wages either staying even with or falling below the rate of inflation) has more to do with corporate profits being paid to executives and as dividends rather than paid to the workers who made that profit possible. The typical raise for employees has hovered in the 4% range for several years. This is basically the rate of inflation so real wages are not growing at all. Throw in pharmaceutical and fuel prices rising faster than the rate of inflation and the average worker is losing economic ground. I also think that we’re heading for a potential downward spiral into recession as interest rates on credit cards and adjustable rate mortgages climb significantly. This means that a greater portion of household income will be going to servicing debt rather than purchasing. Adding more evidence of an impending slow down is in today’s newspaper…the story about home sales declining for the 6th straight month in a row. Housing sales are another good indicator of the health of the economy since housing sales tend to have a direct link to the sales of hard goods as people furnish/refurnish/remodel their newly purchased home.

Unemployment is low, but it only counts people who are actively looking for a job. So when people pass the limits of their unemployment payments they are no longer counted. I think that the number of people who want to be employed, but who are not is higher than reported. Under-employment probably has a greater impact on the economy. As manufacturing jobs are outsourced and more white collar jobs are outsourced there is downward pressure on salaries for those positions. How many of us didn’t know someone whose job disappeared with the dot com burst of the late 90’s? And how many of those people ended up finding a job that paid less than they were making? This story is repeating itself for many people. Yes, job creation has been pretty good, but we don’t tend to measure the quality of the jobs or how much they pay. A hotel housekeeping job is counted the same as a CPA even though the pay scale is significantly different. Any research I’ve done into the types of jobs being created all seem to point toward most new jobs being on the housekeeping end of the scale.

The tax burden you mention comes into play too. We miss out on the income taxes from illegals even as their presence places a greater burden on the public sector (health care and education specifically). While there was a reduction in the Federal Tax rate that also meant that States received fewer federal dollars. In order to fund the State budgets state income and property taxes have risen. Add in those sales tax increases and special purpose taxes and the overall tax burden on citizens is increasing…which pulls more dollars out of the economy.

By Chilao

October 25, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

Did Blah’s twin just join us? A Financial Services service worker in need of commissions?

By Mr. T

October 25, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

GOB

Everyone knows that Hulk Hogan isn’t the ultimate male - I am. I pity the fool that disagrees with me!

By Archie

October 25, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

Bruno - teachers are underpaid. Teaching is not glorified babysitting. I don’t complain about my salary because I left a good paying, highly respected job to become a teacher.

I agree with the first two sentences because as I have said many times my spouse is a teacher and she works on lessons during the summer months and you must count the work done after the school day has ended. I kinda thought the generation xers were selfish but since I am a baby boomer I look more favorably upon my group. It does seem as if those of us under 50 are more selfish and yes I realize that’s a generalization and I can’t speak for millions of people,just the ones I encountered.

By Brian Curtis

October 25, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

Don’t let Chuck Norris hear you say that.

Remember: The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.

By Archie

October 25, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Good post at 2:19 pm Netbanker. There are things I would ask but I will just wait to see what you post.

By Ric Flair

October 25, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

Just remember - In order to BE the man, you have to BEAT the man. Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

By Kevin

October 25, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

OK - I am Mr. T and Ric Flair. The blog has been waaaay too serious today and I am trying to lighten it up some (getting a head start on joke Friday). Great post Brian Curtis @ 2:48. Surely others can play along!

By chuck

October 25, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

I agree to an extent with your tirade on soc. Sec. 2d. It never should have been instituted in the first place. The problem now is that BECAUSE we have it, people have factored it in to their retirement plan and are depending on it because that 15% went into it every paycheck. (7.5 of that from the employer). I would much rather have been given the right to OPT OUT of the program and invest that 15% for myself.

The biggest drain on Social Security now is from those who collect checks for “disabled” children. We are not talking about wheelchair bound kids here. I’m talking about kids who intentionally misbehave so they can get a diagnosis of ADHD so their Mom can get a check every month. Social security was never intended for that. They added benefits without changing the amounts paid in. Then they reduced the retirement age to 62 for a couple of decades and that further eroded the trust fund. Social Security was supposed to be a retirement plan for those who got too old to work. When it was written, life expectancy was about 66 years old and the SS retirement age was 65. Spouses received benefits because most women did not work outside the home and were dependent upon the income of the husband.

2 things could be done to extend the life of SS. Remove disability payments for those under 21 and raise the age for receiving benefits.

By Monica

October 25, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Kevin,

If you have been blogging on here for long, you know that Jack Bauer is the ultimate man!! Can I get an amen from fellow 24 lovers?

By Lily Toad

October 25, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

2D, you’re giving me way too much power. I’m not in Congress so I can’t affect SS age of retirement, ceiling or anything else. I have the same power as you do in giving your representative your opinion, so don’t blame baby boomers who are receiving benefits we paid for. Also, social security does not keep anyone at the same salary as when they are working. My projected check at 66 would be about 1/2 my salary after taxes, savings, and 401K are taken out — my take home pay. That’s why I’m socking away as much as I can in a 401K and Roth IRA.

I agree - retiring at 69 is way too old!

By Julia

October 25, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

Jack is the ultimate man-in my opinion. He’s willing to fight for the freedom of his country. He’s willing to stand up for his wife and protect her. He has a great sense of humor… and I’ll bet he’s a hottie!

And, I’ll bet he could kick 72’s rear with both arms tied behind his back.

All the REAL women love you Jack!!! (Talkin’ about the ones who actually like MEN.)

By David Lee Roth

October 25, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

Hey, hey…nothin’ wrong with lovin’ the ladies. Hats off to Jack for being a real man. You should’ve come on tour with me and the boys…talk about lovely ladies! Yowsah!!!

By 3wives

October 25, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

Hey, Boomer bashing! Let me elbow in!

Can’t say I agree with Chuck much, but he’s got a good insight on the original retirement age of social security being a year longer than the normal life expectancy.

And I’ll confess to not knowing/being too lazy to look up how much of SS goes to disabled kids. Or adults, for that matter.

Boomers= Overconfident moralists. X’ers= On the amoral side.

For a comparison, Boomers put women in Burkas, X’ers run naked.

I’m an X’er, BTW. Thus the 3 wives.

By Olivia

October 25, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

I have to agree that Jack does sound rather foxy!!! A man who loves women and sounds like a decent and loving guy…definitely a turn on.

The72john does sound a little immature. Are you sure he’s as old as he says? Maybe he’s really still in high school and doesn’t want us to know his REAL age???

By Jack

October 25, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

GOB. I’m like that.

Rebecca. Great post.

What about the guy in trouble for performing a circumcision on his 2 year old with a pair of scissors? His beliefs say it’s ok. How do the women on the blog feel about that? Remember that it is normal where he comes from.

By Lily Toad

October 25, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

Don’t forget Jack Bauer cheated on his wife prior to the beginning of the first season. It was his first day back after he left her for Nina then came back.

By The72John

October 25, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

Whatever you say “Olivia”. Perhaps you could provide specific examples? You…don’t find people making gerbil jokes to be the slightest bit immature? But then, it would be hard for you to call yourself immature, wouldn’t it Puppy.

Julia - Nice to know your estimation of someone is based on who they are willing to kill and who you think they can beat up.

By Lily Toad

October 25, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

Female circumcision is bad in my opinion however, there are cultural implications in Westerners telling Africans it is not right. However, Georgia does have a law against genital mutilation and since he lives here he has to obey the law. Sounds awful dangerous — scissors — I had to cross my legs just typing about it!

By 2D

October 25, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad… You and I individually have the same power with one vote per one person, but your GENERATION has much more than mine through the enormous volume. Your collective voice will drown out others and provide far more influence.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

NetB: My concerns about freaky parents is not a gay/straight issue.. I reference children of gay unions only because the two gay “parents” are not really the biological parents.

And while I am not an economist, the presence of the illegals has a ripple effect on the economy in many ways, mainly by supporting low-wage, low-quality retail stores in place of legitimate businesses. The lack of tax collection cannot be denied, which shifts the burden unfairly to the honest people. As for illegals supposedly doing jobs legal citizens refuse to do, that is pure crap. In my home town as a kid, white people did all the dirty jobs which they supposedly won’t do now. The only reason whites won’t do these jobs is that the offered wages are proportionally much lower now.

By The72John

October 25, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

Female circumcision is bad in my opinion however, there are cultural implications in Westerners telling Africans it is not right.

I disagree - female circumcision is not a manner of a consenting adult living his or her life as he chooses. It’s a matter of an adult mutilating a child so that she can never in her life have sexual release of any kind.

We can certainly forbid it in this country, and we can certainly campaign and do everything in our power to convince other countries to outlaw it as well.

By Ridiculous

October 25, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

Last parting shot for Mara: You believe the blog is more pleasant without me only because you and John can insult away with impunity when I’m not here. In fact, you probably don’t even recognize yours and John’s comments for what they are—the inane brayings of bitter, intellectually-challenged Libs.

By party poker

October 26, 2006 05:22 AM | Link to this

Hello, Admin! You are the best!!! Congratulations. Best regards from regular visitor of your site. ;)

By casinos - 1054248

October 26, 2006 06:11 AM | Link to this

Unless you become as little Children, you can’t see casinos. All you need is faith and trust… and a little bit of casinos. casinos http://online-craps.online62.com [URL=http://online-craps.online62.com]casinos[/URL]

By Blog Dawg

October 26, 2006 07:46 AM | Link to this

Every single blog gets turned into a chatroom for teens, or adults who are still teens. Americans get what they deserve: a boy president who played with matches in a room filled with gasoline. Boom. Surprise, we’re in a 30 years war!!!!

“STAY THE COURSE” is a nautical term. W is changing it to, “Women and Children First!”

Cheney said yesterday that the Dixie Chick’s Career was in it’s last throes.

Progress in the War on Terror can be measured in terms of Dixie Chick CD sales?

Americans get what they deserve.

By TramadoL21245

October 26, 2006 07:47 AM | Link to this

I haven’t gotten anything done recently. I’ve just been hanging out doing nothing. I haven’t been up to anything these days, but it’s not important. Today was a total loss.

By Jim Cole

October 26, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this

This is a question of assimilation. Europe has been trying to allow people to come and not be assimilated. They(French, Germans, Itatians,Spanish, etc.) are finally undestanding that this is very serious. HOw intelligent women can look at Europe’s experience and not undestand? Is it a religious issue to subjugate women and limit their rights? If you join our society, you have to abide by our laws. If we stay on this course, we will have a civil war here.

Jim cole

By Brian Curtis

October 26, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this

Jim: True, they have to obey our laws. But do we have a law against wearing veils? Or would it be against our laws to try to impose such a rule (that pesky ol’ religious freedom thing again).

Assimilation into the culture you’ve joined is fine, but it’s also a gradual process. And its exact nature and degree is voluntary, and different for each person. You can’t insist on conformity (like in the halcyon days of the 1950s, when everything was Just Perfect!). This is America.

By Monica

October 26, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

Don’t forget Jack Bauer cheated on his wife prior to the beginning of the first season. It was his first day back after he left her for Nina then came back.

Oops, my bad. I have only watched the last two seasons.

Hi Julia! How are you? :)

By TramadoL25241

October 26, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this

I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but such is life. I don’t care. So it goes. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. I’ve just been hanging out waiting for something to happen, but that’s how it is.

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

Jim Cole, If you are looking for intelligent commentary on your point about assimilation, don’t look to Brian Curtis. He lives in a fantasy world in which theory trumps reality. All the neighborhoods near me in Lilburn are now barrios, with 20 cars in each driveway and accordian music blaring at all hours of the day and night. The funniest part is that I live right door to the WIC facility, so I get to see these wetbacks pulling in in their Mercedes and Lexuses to pick up their free grocery coupons every day.

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

Personally, I’m trying to sell my properties as quickly as possible and get the heck out of Gwinnett County before the property values erode any further.

By 2D

October 26, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

Brian… When people speak of “assimilation” why do so many folks on the BLOG immediately take pot shots at the 1950s? We’ve covered and uncovered the myth that was the fifties, so let’s not keep going back there, especially when, to the best of knowledge, Mr. Cole’s post mentioned nothing of the sort.

His question was of assimilation. While it may be gradual, I’m not so sure I agree with the “voluntary” nature you mention. Perhaps I simply do not understand what you are referring to.

If you mean a person can choose to not learn English, then I may agree. However, if a person chooses to not learn our language should they expect the government to provide translators that speak in their native tongue?

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

Mark my words, however, the end to this problem is now in sight that new politicians are running for office who are responding to the commoners complaints. Polls show that more than 80% of all citizens oppose illegal immigration. Although it is impossible to enforce laws on the illegal immigrants themselves, a few $10,000 fines to the employers who hire them will end the problem quickly, IMO.

By Chilao

October 26, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

Are there rules being established, both in the USA and in Europe, that means those Mennonite women I see in WalMart will no longer be able to wear those little hats they wear?

Or rules against Jewish people wearing those yamakas, that I always envision with a rubber-band propeller on the top, just waiting to join Ezekiel’s chariot, after Elijah returns to foretell the coming of the Messiah, of course.

I finished the Playboy article about not only the Jordanian government’s attempt to define modern Islam, the attempts by many other countries, including Indonesia, to modernize Islam, and be more accepting of other people’s faiths. Very interesting it was, read it if you can.

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

But before the Libs start screaming at me again, please note that I oppose ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, not LEGAL IMMIGRATION.

By Renee

October 26, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

I see ignorance is abound on the blog today….hopefully intelligence and good will prevail.

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

2D, what do you think of the policy adopted by police forces across Georgia which prohibits the officers from even asking if the folks they arrest are here legally or not? Sounds like a bunch of crap to me.

By Jack

October 26, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

Hey Julia. Thanks! :):) Stop in more often, miss ya lots.

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Quick shout to kimberly: Where do you get the idea that Yankees wear socks with their sandals??? I grew up in Jersey, and don’t recall that fashion faux pas (p.s. faux is spelled with an x, not a z dear).

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this

Chilao, quick question for you this AM—do you read any magazines other than Playboy?? You seem to reference the “articles” in there an awful lot. ; > }

I’m no stranger to Playboy magazine, but have never gotten as far as actually reading the “articles”.

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

And FYI, Chilao, I’m now going to blame you for my continued presence here since you won’t come clean on the origin of your moniker. It’s Chilao’s fault from here on out, W2W bloggers! ; > }

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

So, kimmy, if you want a date with me, you better speak up quickly. I’m not that interested in your zoom-zoom, but would love for you to date DOG so that you can come back on W2W and verify whether I have been telling the truth about myself or not.

I’ll tell you what, one of my good friends is a well-known record producer here in Atlanta. He’s so successful that he built his own recording studio in his house so that he no longer has to pay studio fees. Would you like to go to Rick’s house and hang around while he’s cutting his latest record? I’m not sure who he’s working with this week, but he has produced many new and famous artists, including Trey Anastasio (sp), the former lead singer and creative force behind Phish. He’s produced the soundtracks for several movies including American Pie 2 and Elizabethtown. He also produced albums for Michelle Malone locally, and even one for Carly Simon and James Taylor’s son. I’m likely one of the few people who has his cell phone number.

By Chilao

October 26, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

Since you have absolutely NO CREDIBILITY in your “iza gonna leave, IF…” BS, there is nothing to be gained by me to discuss that. Besides, it has been discussed and I HATE repeating myself.

Of course I only read Playboy, any other magazines, some mentioned yesterday, are merely to place on my coffee table so visitors will think I am ‘intawestin’. LMAO (like they would not have known that BEFORE I invited them over).

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

So what do you say, kimmy? How would you like to be on a record album? You can be a back up singer, I’m sure Rick can blend your voice into the mix electronically. If you think I am BSing you, just take up my challenge, then come back on W2W and report your experience. You can bring the 72John along for safety, as long as you don’t mind competing with him for my affection.

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

What date did the discussion of your name take place, Chilao? I truly am interested.

Also, kimmy, I did think of you last night when I was rewatching Woodstock ‘94 on videotape and NIN performed. They were pretty good, although I think Porno For Pyros blew them off the stage. If you’re not familiar with them, they were a reincarnation of Jane’s Addiction.

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

Chilao, I hope that you realized that my PROMISES to leave were all just jokes. I think a lot of these ladies didn’t catch what Eric Clapton meant by his great song “Promises”. I quote again: “We made a vow we’d always be friends, how could we know that PROMISES end?”

By Chilao

October 26, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

actually The Smithsonian I get I read and pass on to a family with home-schooled kids, so that what not be noticed in the disorganized stack of reading material on the coffee table. But as Kramer thought of a book that functioned as coffee table, I have thought of a coffee-table book that contained two pages of other coffee-table books, pic of cover and brief synopsis describing the photos in the other books. LOL

Do you think there could be a market for a coffee-table book of OTHER coffee-table books?

By Chilao

October 26, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

Actually, as I said before, you being a Claremont Boy, should be able to QUICKLY figure that out. If only you had spent more time in the SanGabriels, smelling the roses.

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Chilao, did you catch the interview with the actor who protrayed Kramer? He was so good in his acting, that no one will call him by his given name anymore, so he has to go by Kramer. He told a funny story about not being able to flag down a taxicab once in NYC, so a carload of guys picked him up and took him to his destination. All the while they called all their friends and transmitted cell phone images to prove that Kramer was actually in their car. To his credit, Kramer went along, likely giving them the thrill of a lifetime.

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

No roses in Claremont, Chilao, but lots of pretty desert flowers. BTW, what brought you out to Claremont anyway? I’ve been thinking strongly about returning to HMC next September to complete an engineering degree in preparation for becoming a patent attorney. Might be kind of wierd to be nearly 30 years older than the other students, though. Plus, I may have to put some of those young whippersnapper professors in their place, ala Rodney Dangerfield in “Back To School”. I sure do miss ol’ Rodney.

By Chilao

October 26, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

seems non-hajib-wearing women are directly responsible for their own gang-rapes. I had no idea the W2W Dawg was a Muslim cleric in Australia. Man of many aliases for sure.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?inarticleid=412697&inpageid=1770

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

So,kimmy, if you turn me down on my record offer, just remember you had your chance. I actually was on TV once, on a show called “Real People” back in 1980. They came to HMC to film the tiddlywinks championship of the world by pitting an MIT guy against a Mudder. It was crap, because the actual Mudd tiddleywinks champion was passed over in favor of another guy who was more photogenic. I was in the audience wearing a “droogie” outfit including bowler hat. The producer loved me, so I ended up being on longer than the actual contestants. Anyone remember “Real People”?

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

My only real regret from being on W2W is that Diane Glass never gave me a shout. I still believe that after one night with me, she will see GOD and go straight. What do you say, Diane?

By Jack

October 26, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Diane is not straight?

By Chilao

October 26, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Diane is straight, she had that stalker ex-boyfriend she wrote a book about. well, the experience and how to counter cyber-stalkers. per reviews, I have not read it.

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

What would be your guess as to Dianes’s sexuality, Jack? She sure comes across as a man-hating feminist. (I almost said Feminazi, but then would be accused of being a “dittohead”).

By Chilao

October 26, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

not that there is anything wrong with that(being straight). LOL. A little play on that Seinfeld, when referencing a gay person as gay, “Not that there is anything wrong with that*.

By Chilao

October 26, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

Jack - I think the reference was to becoming extremely pyschotic. LOL

ya know, everybody’s out of step but Johnny.

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

WOW—I just googled tiddlywinks championship and Real People, and there is actually a link!!! I’m liking this internet more and more!!! Here’s the link:

http://www.tiddlywinks.org/pubs/bibliography/av/

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

So, Chilao, do I at least get some credit in your book for being “intawesting” also? I mean, who else is a chiropractor, an actuary, a Ukrainian dancer, a holdem player, and was on Real People at the tiddlywinks championship? Kimmy might be interested to know that I am a hell of a disco dancer as well. I can really wow them when I do the pulsinook out on the floor. BTW, there was some great Ukrainian dancing in the movie “Fiddler On the Roof” starring Zero Mostel years ago. Poor old Zero was also one of the actors shaken down by the House UnAmerican Activities Committee chaired by Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon in the 1950s.

Oh, and don’t forget that I’m a rocker as well, and can even rap a little.

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

One of my sisters had a guy who tried to stalk her years ago as well. She bought a gun and put an end to that real quick.

By Lily Toad

October 26, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

72John, I would have agreed with you about campaigning for the end of female circumcision in other countries until I heard about Alice Walker’s experiences in Africa. She and some of her co-horts went to a women’s conference and were not permitted to speak until the very end and then most of the African women got up and left. They were treated very rudely. The problem with Americans going into other countries and telling them their practices are wrong is that it can be perceived as cultural imperialism. I think a lot of it has to do with American dominance. Many of those Africans may have been against female circumision, but they didn’t need Americans coming in and telling them.

By kimberly

October 26, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Mongrel, your offers are amazingly kind and generous considering the ugly, nasty, hateful stuff you’ve said to and about me before. Certainly, you deserve a much finer woman than what you claim to know of me. You’d hate to belong to someone else when the right one comes along, afterall! Hence, I will stop thinking of my own potential great fortune today, and think of YOU instead. No, no…. don’t try to talk me out of it! Go find your soulmate and STF-, I mean, er… be happy! Godspeed.

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

You’re really intelligent, LilyToad, if you support female “circumcision”. It is a horrid procedure which condemns the woman to a lifetime of constant urinary tract infections among other complications. It has nothing to do with Islam in the least, BTW. Little girls are held down while relatives mutilate them. Yeah, you’re really a supporter of women’s rights, you stinking Lily. Maybe you should go back to just Toad.

By Mara

October 26, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

Chilao - you forgot to add “Some of my best friends are straight!” LOL!!

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

And speaking of dancing, did anyone catch Emmitt Smith Tuesday night on “Dancing With the Stars”? He was doing the cha-cha with his partner, and started shimmying like I’ve never seen before. Awesome!! Monica was good as well in her routines. Jerry Springer didn’t have the talent and agility of the other stars, but seemed very poised. I had never watched that show before, but was very impressed by the skill level.

Of course, last night, I had to watch Mr. T—Pity the fool who didn’t watch!

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

Well, if Diane is straight, I might just have to take her out after all. That is if she doesn’t mind losing all the arguments about politics. I wonder how old she is.

By Chilao

October 26, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

LOL @ Mara - yeah, a good one.

now where is John with his psuedo-snide “dang straight people”. LMAO

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

kimberly, i hope you know I was just “humping your leg” with all the jokes. I love all women very much. I have great respect for you as a single mom. Don’t you remember me calling you a saint the other day and trying to get chuckie to back off on criticizing you? We don’t have to have a romantic date, just a fun one. I never have sex on the first few dates anyway, so no pressure. I like kissing a lot first to gauge the compatibility.

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

So, if you’re not dating anyone right now, kimberly, I would love to take you out and show you how a real man treats a lady. I know that I’m not in Jack’s league, but I might be a good second best for you. If you don’t believe me about the record thing, I will try to see if there are any links for Rick on the internet. No jokes about that.

By Totally Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

Here’s the link:

http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/music/artist/appears/0,,402281,00.html#more

BTW, my favorite food is sushi, but I can go for a nice steak and lobster dinner as well. What part of town are you in?

By Totally. Completely Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

And, really, sorry to all for my over-the-top posts. I’m just getting bored waiting for my properties to sell so I can get away from this rat race called Atlanta that used to be a nice town. I mean, rereading Einstein can only generate so much excitement.

By Totally, Completely Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

From my heart, you seem to be extremely intelligent yourself, kimberly, way smarter than the other women here. Except for maybe in regards to your choice of men to date. Mara sounds like she’s got a good guy.

BTW, you’ve mentioned that you have red hair—do you have a red neck as well? Your Yankee comments make me suspicious. I am from the North, but Southerners think I am a native based upon my light Southern drawl.

By Totally, Completely Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

So, if you want to start your recording career, let me know, kimberly. If I am BSing you, you can come back onto W2W and tell everyone I am a complete fraud, which I’m sure would give Renee great satisfaction. Can you sing well, or play any instruments?

By Don't ignore it

October 26, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

An immigrant from Africa has gone on trial on charges alleging he circumcised his 2-year-old daughter with a pair of scissors to avoid bringing shame on his family.

Circumcision is just a nice way of saying mutilation. Mutilation of a child. The father said he wanted (the girl) to have it done so that she will not be promiscuous. So female sexuality in any form is shameful?
Why aren’t the heads of male children’s penizez sliced off “to avoid promiscuous behavior”? Why is it OK ANYWHERE in the world to do this?

Is this just another sick way to oppress women in the name of religion?

By Jack

October 26, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

“Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble…..”

By Jack

October 26, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Is this just another sick way to oppress women in the name of religion?

Sounds that way to me. The man needs to have a clip job just like his daughter.

By Totally, Completely Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

So let me know where you want me to take you for dinner, kimberly. I haven’t tried Joel’s yet, but I hear it’s good (French food). South of France is excellent, but the Chesire Bridge neighborhood it’s in is a little rough. My personal favorite is the Atlanta Fish Market in Buckhead. It beats the pants off of Panos and Paul’s and 103 West in my book (both defunct now, I believe) We could go dancing afterwards if you like. If you want to stay closer to home, we could go to Jeff Foxworthy’s favorite hangout, Stoney River Steakhouse on State Bridge Road. My local favorite is a little sushi restaurant on Pleasant Hill Road, if you like sushi. They know me so well there, I don’t even have to order, they just start serving me when I walk in.

By kimberly

October 26, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

Mongrel, while I am clearly not as intelligent or spiritually enlightened (or musically talented) as YOU are, I am, in my own little southern way, educable. As such, I’ve learned to recognize the screaming red flags a man holds up, whether intended or not, that indicate, with no doubt or question whatsoever, that I must never, ever, get close enough for him to apply duct tape to my person, slip me a rufie, or manipulate my feelings. Not only do I now recognize these flags, but I’ve also learned to heed them. Thank you so much.

By Totally, Completely Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

So, I’ll make all of you a deal, no BS. if kimberly will meet me for dinner, I will get off your blog forever. I think it would be a blast I haven’t had a blind date in years.

So, Jack, is kimberly pretty? I understand she likes to email you pictures of herself (clothed, I hope). Of course, if she and I become an item, that will have to stop. I don’t share my women, sorry.

By Totally, Completely Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

Only one condition, kimberly—NO DISEASES. I’m not judgmental about it, just want to keep my perfect record intact. I’ll even overlook some minor alcoholism, even though I don’t drink personally.

By Chilao

October 26, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

LOL @ Kimberly’s FLAGS. Good one. yep, we all got them, well the more experienced of us.

By Chilao

October 26, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Is the ajc so politically correct they cannot even identify where the circumsizing Dad is from? I am betting Somalia, but…

By Totally, Completely Ridiculous

October 26, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Well, I won’t disrespect the fact that you get the wrong vibes from me, kimberly. However, I do take insult to the duct tape and rufie comment. I admit I’ve pushed a lot of people’s buttons here, but it was all a joke. I’ve never drugged a woman or even taken advantage of a drunk woman, that doesn’t turn me on in the least. I’m a strong lover, but very respectful. I’m not into pain at all. Heck, my last long-term girlfriend just emailed me yesterday wondering how I was doing. She is a redhead, and hot as a firecracker. She always told me how much she cared for me based on my loving acceptance of her totally handicapped daughter. We met through her dad, who tried to get me to take her out for more than a year before I finally agreed. Now how many dads do that????

By Jack

October 26, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

So dogs also have the human trait of wanting what you cannot have. You may have insulted Kim with the disease remark. I’ve never had the pleasure of seeing her but I’m sure she is lovely.

By NetBanker

October 26, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

I reference children of gay unions only because the two gay “parents� are not really the biological parents.

This would be where we differ. I don’t define a parent as a contributor of biological material regardless of sexual orientation. Based on your statement children adopted by heterosexuals would fall into the same category.

Renee…me thinks you wish for too much today!

By Mara

October 26, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

Net - I don’t define a parent as a contributor of biological material regardless of sexual orientation

Exactly! And who says that gay people can’t be the biological parents of children? I remember the story about a lesbian couple that got pregnant using the egg from one, artificially inseminated and implanted into the womb of her partner. I don’t see how anyone could say that neither the egg donor or the birth mother were that kids biological parent. I don’t see how anyone could even say that both of them weren’t.

Then there’re all those gays who had children while in hetero relationships. There’re literally millions of children in the U.S. living with a gay biological parent. So even though I agree that donating genetic material doesn’t a parent make, it doesn’t mean that the two gay “parentsâ€? are not really the biological parents either. Whoever posted that bit of rediculousness should make note.

kimberly - LOL @ your 11:15

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

I will stand by comments about biological parents vs. adoptive parents of all types. It’s no insult to gays, or any other type of adoptive parents, just the truth. There is something about your own flesh and blood that can never be replaced.

By Renee

October 26, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

Renee…me thinks you wish for too much today!

Net, obviously!!! Hence my limited presence.

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

Also, Jack, I hope kimberly didn’t take my disease comment as an accusation. I certainly hope she is in good health, and am unaware if she mentioned anything here in the past about not being so. All the STDs scare the DOG crap out of me, expecially herpes, chlamydia, and venereal warts. As a result, I don’t sleep with girls I don’t know well.

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

And, I am surprised at you NetB for your lack of understanding how all the money sent back to Mexico harms local economies. That money is lost from the economy, not reinvested. My “excess funds” go into local investments via my bank account and stock portfolio, which in turn helps to drive the American economy through the reinvestments my bank and companies in which I have stock choose make in other Americans.

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

Speaking of stocks, I made a real boneheaded decision a few months back when I dumped one of my tech stocks which I had bought on the cheap a few years back, ININ. When it hit $7 per share about 5 months ago, I bailed out of it. I looked yesterday, and it has climbed all the way to more than $18 per share. So, I’m not always so smart. I lost $11 per share times 1000 shares with my haste to dump it. Now if only Delta will come back to $2 per share, I will be a happy man.

By Monica

October 26, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

Just thinking of semantics today…

I thought that the opposite of straight was crooked, and that the opposite of gay is sad. Does that mean that straight people are sad and that gay people are crooked?

I’m sorry; juvenile, I know. :)

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

So, kimberly, whoever you are, I apologize if I creeped you out. A lot of it was intentional, to confirm your intuition that there are many guys who are bad folks out there in the big, bad world. I hope that lesson for you wasn’t learned at too great of a cost. You likely don’t believe a word I say, but I have been on the receiving end of abuse for the most part in life, but have never had the heart to dish it back. I just walk away when things go sour for me in relationships.

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

Speaking of the old days, did yuo ever go to the Liberty Bell Lounge out on Delsea Drive when growing up. Like the Oasis, it had a motel attached for the “lucky” guys who met a girl. They used to play the Devo song “Whip It Good” every night as their theme song. That one got everyone onto the dance floor.

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

If any of you want to my secret for early retirement, it was simple. I followed the strategy of Warren Buffet—look for good companies that are undervalued, then buy the stocks on the cheap. It takes courage to do that, however, since it is counterintuitive to buy stocks as they are falling. Most folks do the opposite and buy stocks which are on the way back up. By then, it’s too late. Of course, I believe Warren has enough clout that he can actually manipulate the price of stocks by merely mentioning it in the right circles, which generates an enthusiasm to buy, buy, buy. The other trick is to buy real estate, all you can afford. The worst way to “invest” your money is in an expensive car. After 10 years, it’s worth nothing.

By Chilao

October 26, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

opposite of straight is CURVY. LOL

some might say Rubenesque. I actually saw some Pan and Nymphos painting once, and went “Ah, so that is Rubenesque”

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

And I hope at least one or two of you might realize that I am giving you hell in the hope that you will become better people, better than me at least. The biggest error I see in many of you lies in how you define words. Words are merely symbols which refer to real things. Beginning with the Sophists in ancient Greece, many folks try to give words a life of their own which doesn’t exist. Here, for example, the word “parent” is supposed to mean the man and woman whose sperm and egg met together to form a child. No amount of egg transfers or mixing sperm sources together in the case of gay men couples can change the biological fact that, in the end, it is one egg and one sperm which unite. It can even be verified through genetic testing.

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

So NetB and Mara, I will thus accuse both of you of sophistry for your attempted redefinitions of words that cannot be rightly redefined.

Congrats to Chilao once again for his destruction of the false dichotomy attempted by Monica in defining straight as being “un-gay”.

By Howboutthis

October 26, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

How bout this? Its none of our friggin business what goes on in other countries, their problems are their’s, their issues are their’s and unless it starts to approach our borders we need to stay the F out of it. That is why we are in the situation we are in…The liberals in this country think it is our global duty to go care for others…well that is sweet but drop a bag of rice but leave your ideals, political ideas, and relition on the friggin plane…

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Speaking of banking, I gotta run to the bank because I just received my $60 check from Gwinnett County for two days of jury duty. I think they owe me more based on the fact that two different crimnals settled their cases pre-trial once they heard I was on their jury panels. They knew DOG would see through their crap on the witness stand, as well as their lawyer’s sophistry.

And, Jack, you are right. DOGs always are more attracted to the things they can’t have. Aren’t we all???

By Jack

October 26, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

Yes we do. $60.00 for 2 days? Much more than the $15.00 I got for sitting for 12 hours hoping to be picked for a murder trial in Dekalb Co. They never want my white a$$.

By Monica

October 26, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

Yeah, Chilao, curvy is much better than crooked! LOL Crooked can also imply “not honest,” which was not my intent.

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

Howabouthis—You are brain damaged if you really belive your statements about not interfering with other countries. Your language suggests to me that it is kimberly saying this. The days of isolationism are over. Plus, don’t you realize that those other countries try to interfere with us every day??? Read up some more on how Clinton took money from the Chinese before you start venting. Locally, Cynthia McKinney took a lot of money from the Arabs as well. Learn the facts next time before you embarass yourself even more.

By Mara

October 26, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

stoopid, STOOPID Mara! She should’ve checked the definition of “parent” before tossing in her .02…oh, wait…I did check the definition.

Guess what? NONE of the definitions are as narrow and crabbed as Mutts. ‘Magin that….but then he never said that his statement was the definition, only that it was supposed to be the definintion.

Wow. Glad I’m not as smart as Mutt.

By FedUp

October 26, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

For the love of God, SHUT UP!

No one cares! If you are such a fascinating person with so many fascinating friends and such a giant bank account, then WTF are you doing spending all day rambling to people who don’t seem to give a flying f***!

Damn, you must be the most insecure and disturbed son of a b*** to ever jack in to the internet. Use some of that money of yours to get help. You seriously need it, dude.

By Howboutthis

October 26, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

Making more sense now, you are a moron with a tiny IQ and even smaller idea what the HE** you are talking about. I am sorry for your extremely small penis complex…grow up

By casinos - 1146214

October 26, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

casinos is the premiere resource for Personal and Corporate casinos and casinos. casinos http://slot-online.online62.com [URL=http://slot-online.online62.com]casinos[/URL]

By Zack

October 26, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

Lozen—Do think about my previous posts, please. You hurt yourself by just clinging to what sounds good as opposed to seeking the truth.

By Zack

October 26, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

FedUp—Watch how you talk.

By ZackisRETARDED

October 26, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

Zack you are a retarded blog baiter…you serve no puprpose, add nothing to the topic at hand, you merely lay in wait to bait folks into engaging you so that you do not feel so alone in your sad pathetic world. You are either a dude with a tiny jimmy or a fat chick…either way you are pathetic and need to seek professional help. Your homeristic ideals are weak and fake and only held onto to insight a response so that you feel like another human is actually talking to you….Sad…VERY VERY sad

By Chilao

October 26, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

Monica - was not attempting to OneUp you at all. Not my insecurity to WIN/WIN/WIN. And I don’t even need meds. LMAO

And I think I have that print at home, in my study. I will have to check who did it, it is Pan frolicking(shall we say) with three maidens.

A sister told me I should get rid of it, what would women think? I replied “If a woman has a problem with that picture, she should probably not be here”.

By lozen

October 26, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

By Jack October 26, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this Yes we do. $60.00 for 2 days? Much more than the $15.00 I got for sitting for 12 hours hoping to be picked for a murder trial in Dekalb Co. They never want my white a$$.

Jack, can’t let this one pass by. Why are you playing the race card?

By FedUp

October 26, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

FedUp—Watch how you talk.

Who the hell are you, prissy-boy? If you don’t want to hear big-boy language, then keep your head buried in mama’s skirts. Don’t tell grown-ups how to talk.

By lozen

October 26, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Here ya go Zack: Why should I think about the retarded stuff you post? You have nothing to say worth thinking about!

And I second the post by FedUp too. By FedUp October 26, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this For the love of God, SHUT UP! No one cares! If you are such a fascinating person with so many fascinating friends and such a giant bank account, then WTF are you doing spending all day rambling to people who don’t seem to give a flying f! Damn, you must be the most insecure and disturbed son of a b to ever jack in to the internet. Use some of that money of yours to get help. You seriously need it, dude.

By lozen

October 26, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

What-ever-its-name-is this half hour is the person you remember from high school. You know the nerdy guy that generated disgusting vibes because he was so desperate for attention? Remember he hung around the fringe of the group gazing at you with those yearning eyes and then at every lull in the conversation he’d say things about how much money his dad had and how many rooms their house had and all the prizes he’s won and how pretty his mom was and all the time you knew none of it was true? Which made you hate him and pity him all at the same time. So everybody picked on him and laughed at him and then felt kind of guilty about doing it.

By Chilao

October 26, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

Lozen - that probably was not Jack.

By Chilao

October 26, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

Speaking of BarbieDolls(Shaunti) anybody see the news item where HillaryDuff is coming out with some BarbieDoll clothing line, to make them more realistic with slacker/goth clothing?

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

Keep insulting away, you guys are only making bigger fools of yourselves. Oh, you didn’t know about that Chinese money Clinton lined his pockets with?? How about Cynthia McKinney and the Arab money?? Please, take your heads out of your butts and check reality once in a while, please.

And as I’ve stated many times, I don’t give a rat’s arse about Liberal Ideology (or is that Liberal Idiocy) other than the fact that WWIII has been going on for more than thirty years, and you idiots think it’s Bush’s fault for not playing nice. GROW UP!!

By velvel of atlanta

October 26, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

What difference do you see here?

Appeals court allows N.Y. anti-mask law KKK’s free-speech rights are not violated, court rules Wednesday, January 21, 2004 Posted: 10:04 AM EST (1504 GMT) NEW YORK (Reuters) — A federal appeals court Tuesday ruled that a New York state law barring public demonstrators from wearing masks is valid under the U.S. Constitution and does not violate Ku Klux Klan members’ free speech rights. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling reverses a trial court’s finding that the state law violated the First Amendment. The three-judge panel said the mask was not protected by the free-speech provision because it does not convey a message independently of the robe and hood.

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

Any of you youngsters remember the ‘72 Olympics, when the low-life towel heads kidnapped the Israeli Olympic team and massacred several of them. Maybe some of you need to shut the F up, because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

By FedUp

October 26, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

GROW UP!!

O_o

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

And don’t forget how Yassar Arafat, Jimmy Carter’s best buddy, stole more than 1/3 of the aid money rolling in to the Palestinians so that his young wife could live a life of luxury in Paris. You guys are total morons here, with the exception of Jack and perhaps chuck.

By Chilao

October 26, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

that got covered well via the recent movie, MUNICH.

By FedUp

October 26, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

Maybe some of you need to shut the F up, because you don’t know what you’re talking about

Looks like the anti-psychotics are wearing off, yo!

By Jack

October 26, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

Lozen. I love you too. :)

Chilao. It was me but I don’t have a race card to play. Just made an off-hand remark.

Still love you though Lozen Dear. SMOOCH!

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

Or maybe some of you white-bashers and supposed champions of women’s rights will bother to check the rape statistics coming out of South Africa now that apartheid has ended. I’ve heard all the whining from you idiot Libs before, and it doesn’t amount to a hill of refried beans in my book.

By Howboutthis

October 26, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

You are a sad, sad, poor, little man…I pity you and your ignorance

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

Yep, it’s all whitey’s fault, all of it.

I actually support slavery reparations, and am waiting for my check from all the American blacks to compensate me as a white man for the benefits they enjoy here in America vs. the horrible life the ones who weren’t sold into slavery by their fellow Africans are living right now back in the “Mother Country”.

Sorry to Archie in advance—I’m not racist, brother, just tired of all the crap that passes for truth these days.

By Making More Sense Now

October 26, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

So keep believing that the rest of the folks around the world are all victims, all under the thumb of whitey. Don’t ever consider how corrupt these peoples are in places like Central and South America and all throughout Africa. Don’t ever realize that they refuse to help themselves, and that they have had every opportunity to have just a good of a life as we enjoy here in America.

In fact, before 1900, the US was one of the poorer places in the world. Argentina was the wealthiest country in the world back then, but they wouldn’t pass inheritance tax laws so that the wealth became concentrated in the hands of just a few families which continually intermarried.

Remember, Libs, you can’t F with a DOG, especially one way smarter than any of you here.

By Analogy

October 26, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

Just got the perfect analogy for DOG: he’s like:

Taking a Fart in an Elevator

By Jack

October 26, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

The elevator is the best place. :(

By TramadoL12963

October 26, 2006 11:36 PM | Link to this

Not much on my mind lately. My life’s been completely boring these days. I’ve just been hanging out not getting anything done. So it goes.

By TramadoL34752

October 27, 2006 01:01 AM | Link to this

I feel like an empty room, but eh. Nothing seems worth doing. I haven’t gotten much done today.

By halloween costumes

October 27, 2006 05:42 AM | Link to this

http://www.soduko.org/weblogs/?u=halloweencostumes halloween costumes halloween costumes

By halloween costumes

October 27, 2006 05:43 AM | Link to this

http://www.soduko.org/weblogs/?u=halloweencostumes halloween costumes halloween costumes

By halloween costumes

October 27, 2006 05:43 AM | Link to this

http://www.soduko.org/weblogs/?u=halloweencostumes halloween costumes halloween costumes

By Total Crap

October 27, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this

Jack, since you’re from Philly, I was wondering if you were around when the infamous “Mumia Abu-Jamal” trial went down? Incredibly to me, the Libs have championed this total piece of crap and have spit on the memory of the police officer who “Mumia” killed in cold blood. I threw up for years at all the “Free Mumia” movements around the country when the facts could not be any clearer. Here’s a link for any of you youngsters who don’t recall this case:

http://www.danielfaulkner.com/mythsdir.html

By Total Crap

October 27, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

The funniest part of this whole affair was when “Mumia” retained “John Africa” as his lead council. If you don’t remember, “John Africa” was one of the leaders of a bizzare cult in Philly called MOVE. I encourage all of you here to research Mumia and MOVE to locate the source of some of my anger in life. All total crap.

By Total Crap

October 27, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this

And speaking of total crap, isn’t it amazing how your resident “genius banker”, NetB, doesn’t even grasp simple economic issues such as how the exportation of our money to Mexico harms local economies. Real genius, that NetBanker. If I recall, he was crowing in an earlier post about how Bush “stole” the 2000 election from Gore based upon “activist” Supreme Court judges who simply recognized Gore’s legal challenges for what they were: Total crap.

By Total Crap

October 27, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

And what do you all think of your “Material Girl”, Madonna, when it was recently revealed that she bought herself an African “orphan” to add to her collection of toys. The only problem is that the young boy actually has a father and a grandmother. I guess whatever Madonna wants, she can have by spreading a few million bucks around to the right people. Total crap.

By casino - 1358629

October 27, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this

casino welcome you with clean, comfortable, affordable accommodations for business or leisure casino Site features are casino , enrollment in discount programs, and loyalty clubs. casino http://online-video-poker.online62.com [URL=http://online-video-poker.online62.com]casino[/URL]

By Total Crap

October 27, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this

Let me lay some more truth on you brain-dead Libs here: Before I retired, one of my clients was a Fulton COunty prosecutor. He told me that whenever a white woman was raped by a black man in Fulton County throughout the past few decades, the prosecuter’s office was forced to accept plea bargains of 2-3 years jail time for these animals simply because they knew that the all-black juries Jack referenced would never convict them, no matter how strong the evidence was. Combine that with the early release system, and these guys were usually walking the streets in less than one year, free to rape again.

By Total Crap

October 27, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

For a more recent travesty of justice based strictly on skin color, look no further than the Curtis Rower trial a few years back. Curtis, for you youngsters, was the triggerman who killed Sara Tokars in front of her children at the request of her husband, Fred Tokars. Even though Rower freely admitted killing her on the witness stand, and despite mounds of forensic evidence, the jury was unable to convict him on first-degree murder charges because one black juror refused to hear the evidence and kept voting not guilty. Later, he was interviewed and said “I just can’t convict another black man”.

By Total Crap

October 27, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

And don’t even get me started on all the bogus EEOC lawsuits filed every year in Atlanta in which millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars are handed out to malcontents who scream “racism” every time they don’t get their way in the workplace. Again, total crap.

By online casinos - 1588564

October 27, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

Don?t live with insecurity, negative thoughts and irrational behavior. Use online casinos and get rid of your reactive mind. online casinos http://las-vegas-casino.online62.com [URL=http://las-vegas-casino.online62.com]online casinos[/URL]

By Total Crap

October 27, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

And before the cries start welling up that I am a racist, once again you’re barking up the wrong tree. I have several close friends who are black, although very few of them are American blacks, they are all from Africa and island nations like Trinidad. Big world of diffence in attitude between the “professional victim” American blacks and these folks who know what hardship really is and who are grateful to live in a country with real opportunity.

By Total Crap

October 27, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

To clear the air, I will be the first to admit that blacks weren’t given a fair shake in this country for a long time. However, a very good argument could be constructed that the pendulum has swung the other direction now. Forgive me if I don’t believe half of these “Denny’s lawsuits” about people being refused service in restaurants based on skin color. In fact, at the local McDonald’s on Jimmy Carter Blvd., I have been skipped over more than once as a white man while standing in line while the all-black staff took black customers ahead of me.

By Total Crap

October 27, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

More total crap is the claim that blacks suffered 400 years of oppression in the United States, and that the wealth of our nation was created by the free labor of slaves. First of all, the US wasn’t even formed until the late 1700s, and slavery was repealed in the mid 1800s. The math isn’t adding up in my mind. And as for this great “wealth” supposedly built on slavery, that is more total crap. Prior to 1900, the US was not consedered wealthy on the international scene. Our prosperity began primarily following WWII, and had nothing to do with slavery.

By Total Crap

October 27, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

The bottom line is that the “reparations movement” is total crap—just one more way for lazy blacks to shake down the man. If any of you really want to be enlightened, read anything written by Thomas Sowell. He makes more sense than most white people regarding racial relations in this country. Of course, he is regularly branded as an “Uncle Tom” by idiots like Cynthia McKinney. Funny how quickly Cynthia and her Dad have been to criticize Jews when the elections didn’t go their way.

By online casino - 1817217

October 27, 2006 09:42 AM | Link to this

online casino, specializes in database software and online casino applications. online casino http://las-vegas-casino.online62.com [URL=http://las-vegas-casino.online62.com]online casino[/URL]

By Renee

October 27, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

blah, blah, blah…I AM GREAT…blah, blah, bhal…NOBODY BUT ME KNOWS ANYTHING….blah, blah, blah….WOE IS ME…..I’m a victim of society, not the freaky gays and the blacks….blah, blah, blah….money to Mexico, hurts the economy…blah, blah, blah….THIS IS MY LAST VISIT TO THE BLOG…

(did I forget anything?)

By Renee

October 27, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

MY BEST FRIENDS ARE BLACK….bla blah bla….MY BEST FRIENDS ARE GAY….bla blah blah….LIFE IS FAIR FOR EVERYONE BUT ME….blah blah blah….ONLY I KNOW THE REAL DEAL GOING ON WITH THE COUNTRY….blah blah blah….I WORKED PROSECUTERS….blah blah blah….I AM A GREAT ATTORNEY, SCIENTIST, POLITICAL ACTIVIST….

By Archie

October 27, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

Renee, I agree with your 9:44 am post. The blog was really good at one point even when you disagree with someone.

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

Renee - yes, in fact you did. The part about this blog being more exciting than reading Einstein. LMAO

My coworker this morning printed a great Dilbert, I happened to see it when I picked up some of my print.

Shows a woman at the monitor, stating “I would like to debate on the web but I doubt I am smart enough”. She reads for a few minutes and then starts keying, saying to herself “I’m in”.

I turned to him when I handed it to him, laughing, with a “aint that the truth”.

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

this is the print I was talking about yesterday. Nymphs and Satyr by William Adolphe Bougouereau(probably a famous Ahtist if you were in the know. Where’s that ex-g/f with the Art History degree when you need her?..LOL) Not Pan, but if you have read any Knut Hamsum, I had to think Pan, Pan being a Satyr.

http://www.clarkart.edu/museum_programs/featuredObjectDetail.cfm?ID=15&nav=3

By lozen

October 27, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

Hello Renee, Chilao, Archie and whoever is reading and sighing and going away… Have a great weekend and shall we all light a candle, pray, meditate or whatever floats our individual boat that whatever-its-name-is-this-minute is committed or run over by a truck over the weekend!

By 2D

October 27, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

I think the Harvey Mudd grad posing under all of the aliases is actually a closet lib.

You see, he’s doing exactly what any card-carrying, left-leaning, intellectual does… Spout off how much smarter they are than everyone else, provide no solutions to any of the problems they find and then try to convince you that since they are intellectually superior you should listen to them despite the fact they are completely devoid of any real vision.

By Total Crap

October 27, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

BTW, Jack, where in Dekalb County are you located? My office was located right on Lawrenceville Highway in Tucker before I retired last year. I’m renting my building to some hairdressers right now who happen to be from Congo. They are backing Kabila in the upcoming runoff election being held in Congo.

Also, if any of you will ever bother to check the facts, all the cries of imperialism and colonialism in Africa are basically bunk. Colonization didn’t occur until the late 1800s, and was over by the mid to late 1900s. So out of millions of years of history, Africans were under whitey’s rule less than 100 years. A great argument can be made that, in fact, Africa is better off due to that colonization. Look at South Africa for confimation. You wouldn’t know that from reading the AJC.

By Merriam-Webster

October 27, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Main Entry: nar·cis·sism Pronunciation: ‘när-s&-“si-z&m Function: noun Etymology: German Narzissismus, from Narziss Narcissus, from Latin Narcissus 1 : EGOISM, EGOCENTRISM 2 : love of or sexual desire for one’s own body - nar·cis·sist /’när-s&-sist/ noun or adjective - nar·cis·sis·tic /”när-s&-‘sis-tik/ adjective

Main Entry: ego·ism Pronunciation: ‘E-g&-“wi-z&m, -gO-“i- also ‘e- Function: noun 1 a : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action b : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the valid end of all actions 2 : excessive concern for oneself with or without exaggerated feelings of self-importance — compare EGOTISM 2

Main Entry: meg·a·lo·ma·nia Pronunciation: “me-g&-lO-‘mA-nE-&, -ny& Function: noun Etymology: New Latin 1 : a mania for great or grandiose performance 2 : a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur - meg·a·lo·ma·ni·ac /-‘mA-nE-“ak/ adjective or noun - meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a·cal /-m&-‘nI-&-k&l/ also meg·a·lo·man·ic /-‘ma-nik/ adjective - meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a·cal·ly /-m&-‘nI-&-k(&-)lE/ adverb

By Total Crap

October 27, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Like I said, Renee, I actually had some respect for you at one point, but I have since found out that you prefer lies to the truth.

By Jack

October 27, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

Lived off Chamblee-Tucker Rd. Moved North-Metro last year cause the area has changed so much for the worse.

By Total Crap

October 27, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

So, I’ll make you Libs life easier—I’ll give you one last big F-you and kiss my a$$. Just remember to thank Jack and me when we defend your sorry butts from the Arabs in a few years. I’m betting that he and I standing back to back could probably take out 100 or so of those sand nigs before they take us out and start raping the women.

By F you

October 27, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

So F every last one of you sorry lowlifes here (except Jack). I’m not going to waste any more time trying to educate you pieces of $hit any longer. As I said in my initial post 2 months ago, truth means nothing to you jackasses as you ride down the street in your SUVs admiring yourselves in the mirror.

By Renee

October 27, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

blah, blah, blah….CONGO….blah, blah, blah…LIBERAL….blah, blah, blah…..NO RESPECT FOR RENEE….blah,blah, blah…HAIRDRESSERS

racing, nonformed thoughts certainly show a medicated mind

By Jack

October 27, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

What about H. Rap Brown? Our taxes are paying to feed that piece of scum. I was stunned when Andrew Young went to court begging for mercy for him. Wonder if Andrew would have done that had one of the sheriffs Amin shot was his son or daughter.

BTW. Gave some thought about the ultimate man for a woman. Sheriff Andy Taylor of Mayberry gets my vote. (go ahead and laugh, he may not be naughty enough but we don’t really know)

By Mara

October 27, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

Renee - your 9:44 in conjunction with your 9:55 are the best Joke Friday contributions in weeks and weeks. LOL! Thanks for the laughs…

2D - this “card-carrying, left-leaning intellectual” certainly disagrees with your description of her. You may not agree with me but I have never claimed to be “smarter than everyone else”. (smarter than some? Sure, most people are smarter than someone they know. But smarter than everyone? Nope, not EVER) You may disagree with my views and what I think should be done about problems facing the nation but that doesn’t mean I, and others who share (most of) my opinions, have no solutions or ideas. Just none that you agree with.

As for the troll, I disagree with that also. He is obviously one of those throwback wing-nut conservatives who use their right to free speech as a tool to harrass women with creepy innuendo, insult minorities while pretending to “understand how they feel”, and bash anyone they don’t agree with as immoral, unpatriotic, and idiotic.

I guarentee…he ain’t one of ours!!

By casino - 1298248

October 27, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

casino is a comprehensive digital archive for information seekers of all ages. casino http://casino-craps.online62.com [URL=http://casino-craps.online62.com]casino[/URL]

By 2D

October 27, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Mara… My deepest apologies. I should have said “most”, or “vast majority”, or some other qualifier that does not imply each and every one. Perhaps I could have specifically references the self-professed liberal politicians who provide few if any ideas about our countries current issues.

So, if I may be so bold, what course would you suggest our country do about the two or three most pressing issues it faces? I’m also curious as to what you find as the most pressing issues.

By The72John

October 27, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

Ah, I see that out resident troll has descended deeper into madness…I imagine his monitor is covered in spittle by now.

My deepest apologies. I should have said “most�, or “vast majority�, or some other qualifier that does not imply each and every one.

2D - when we “left-leaning intellectuals” pigeon-hole you “gun-toting right-wingers” you become indignant, and accuse us of stereotyping, refusing to look at the person and not the label, etc.

So…what exactly are YOU doing? Seems like hypocrisy runs rampant.

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

a brief history of the actual slave trade, robbing Africa of some of their best, might be educational for some, seems the time frame was abit longer than the 100 years of direct colonialization. SNORT

http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm

By Monica

October 27, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

When the trolls have raised your blood pressure, try these techniques to help you laugh:

20 Ways to Maintain A Healthy Level Of Insanity

It is joke Friday, right?

By casino - 1315606

October 27, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

casino is a comprehensive digital archive for information seekers of all ages. casino http://online-roulette.online62.com [URL=http://online-roulette.online62.com]casino[/URL]

By Jack

October 27, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

A City cop was on his horse waiting to cross the street when a little girl on her new shiny bike stopped beside him. “Nice bike”, the cop said “did Santa bring it to you?” “Yep”, the little girl said, “he sure did!” The cop looked the bike over and handed the girl a $5 ticket for a safety violation. The cop said, “Next year tell Santa to put a reflector light on the back of it.” The young girl looked up at the cop and said, “Nice horse you got there sir, did Santa bring it to you?” “Yes, he sure did,” chuckled the cop. The little girl looked up at the cop and said, “Next year tell Santa the dick goes underneath the horse, not on top.

By Jack

October 27, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

A Doctor was addressing a large audience in Tampa:

“The material we put into our stomachs is enough to have killed most of us sitting here, years ago. Red meat is awful. Soft drinks corrode your stomach lining. Chinese food is loaded with MSG. High fat diets can be disastrous, and none of us realizes the long-term harm caused by the germs in our drinking water. But there is one thing that is the most dangerous of all and we all have, or will, eat it. Can anyone here tell me what food it is that causes the most grief and suffering for years after eating it?”

After several seconds of quiet, a 75-year-old man in the front row raised his hand, and softly said, “Wedding Cake”

By Jack

October 27, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Due to the climate of political correctness now pervading in America,

Kentuckians, Tennesseans and West Virginians will no longer be

referred to as “HILLBILLIES.”

You must now refer to them as: APPALACHIAN-AMERICANS.

And furthermore..

HOW TO SPEAK ABOUT WOMEN AND BE POLITICALLY CORRECT:

By F you

October 27, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

Hey Chilao, I went to your link—unfortunately it didn’t agree with you. Here’s straight from the site:

Between 1450 and the end of the nineteenth century, slaves were obtained from along the west coast of Africa with the full and active co-operation of African kings and merchants. (There were occasional military campaigns organised by Europeans to capture slaves, especially by the Portuguese in what is now Angola, but this accounts for only a small percentage of the total.) In return, the African kings and merchants received various trade goods including beads, cowrie shells (used as money), textiles, brandy, horses, and perhaps most importantly, guns. The guns were used to help expand empires and obtain more slaves, until they were finally used against the European colonisers. The export of trade goods from Europe to Africa forms the first side of the triangular trade

By 2D

October 27, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

John… I figured you’d chime in.

First of all… I’m not a gun toter. I’ve never owned a gun, and only ever fired a gun once. That was at sixth grade camp and the weapon was a vintage Revolutionary War musket. They let me load it and everything. Heavy little SOB. I actually needed a tripod to hold it steady. I got one shot and didn’t come close to the target.

Second of all… I’ve never called myself a right-winger and never called anyone here a left-wing intellectual, not even you. The only person I referred to was the individual who changed their posting, and that was done politely, rather than through name calling.

Third of all… Not sure how I am being hypocritical. I don’t believe I have ever been inconsistent. In fact, I am unbelievably consistent in the fact that don’t agree with Chuck on virtually anything and want the least intrusive government as humanly possible.

Fourth of all… I don’t think I have ever been indignant through calling people names. I may come down harsh on the baby boomers, but all I ever called them was selfish and narcisistic.

So… Other than the fact that you and I disagree on a variety of things, I’m not sure why you hate me so much. Perhaps it’s because you can’t box me into a stereotype and that frustrates you. Not really sure, but I would be curious to know.

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

Grandma’s trip to Victoria’s Secret

Grandma went into Victoria ‘s Secret and wanted to buy some fancy new panties. The sales lady talked her into buying some real nice bright red crotchless panties. Grandma put them on and waited for grandpa to come home. When grandpa came home, grandma was all laid out upon the bed and pointed down to the new crotchless panties she had on. She said: “Come on grandpa, you want some of this?” Grandpa said “H3ll no, it done ate a hole in your drawers!

By Lily Toad

October 27, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

I don’t have a joke, but how about a round of Stripper-Name? Take the name of your first pet (first name) and the name of the street where you grew up (last name) for your stripper name. I would be Sugar Nighthawk.

By F you

October 27, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

Hear me, Chilao, you F-ing Liar? There is not one word at that link about COLONIZATION. So go F yourself also, you F-ing Liar. And as for your assessment that whitey stole “the best and brightest”, get your F-ing head out of your a$$ sometime. The slaves which were provided to the Portugese were ALREADY SLAVES IN AFRICA AS A RESULT OF TRIBAL WARFARE. Funny how the truth doesn’t match your Lib fantasies. In fact, slavery still exists today in the Sudan and parts of the Middle East. But NOOOOO, that’s not important. Only what happened more than 140 years ago is important.

By F you

October 27, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

The plain truth is that American blacks are their own worst enemy. Ever check out the illegitamacy rate for black babies? Last time I checked it was more than 80%. Tell me again how that is whitey’s fault?

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

LMAO at the POS!

did I even say it mentioned colonialization?

moron!

By F you

October 27, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

And explain to me again how black males, who form less than 7% of the total population of the US, are responsible for around 50% of the murders in which the murderer is identified? Oh, I’m sure that that is whitey’s fault as well.

Jack, next time you’re in Tucker, look for Nyota Beauty Shop next to El Tapatio Mexican Restaurant. Go inside and ask them who the landlord is and what country they are from and which political candidate they support in the Congo runoff elections. Renee doesn’t seem to believe anything I say. I think she’s too busy admiring herself in the mirror as well in her car while she talks on her cell phone to be bothered with facts.

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

is someone off of their meds

AGAIN?

By online casino - 1229360

October 27, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Our subscription casinos provide you with information on casinos from many of the leading experts. online casino http://casino-roulette.online62.com [URL=http://casino-roulette.online62.com]online casino[/URL]

By F you

October 27, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Ever watch the movie “Hotel Rwanda”, Chilao? You seem to get your facts from movies, as in your “Munich” reference yesterday. I get mine from factual sources, unlike you. I remember clearly how the Hutus murdered, raped and mutilated nearly 1,000,000 Tutsis while Clinton didn’t lift a finger. I guess his BJ was more important than saving lives.

By Jack

October 27, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

You’re OK in my book 2D.

Lily. My name would be Skipper Roosevelt Dr.

Chilao is a friend of mine and didn’t deserve that.

By F you

October 27, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

So hear me Libs, go F yourselves, you F-ing brain-dead liars. I never said I was the smartest person on the planet, just way smarter than any of you. Yet somehow you all think you are both morally and intellectually superior to conservatives. If you all recall, John even admitted that in my initial interaction with him.

By F you

October 27, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Well, since your memory apparently doesn’t extend past the last 3 seconds, here is your post agian, Chilao:

*By Chilao

October 27, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

a brief history of the actual slave trade, robbing Africa of some of their best, might be educational for some, seems the time frame was abit longer than the 100 years of direct colonialization. SNORT

http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm*

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

the point about Hotel Rwanda?

you know Americans don’t give a rat’s arse about a bunch of Africans killing each other, look at Darfur today…. Bush in there? (LMAO over the Clinton putdown)

What WAS funny about Rwanda was when the tides were turned, the Hutus ran their a-s-s-e-s to the border, causing a refugee crisis. chickensh!ts is what I thought then. can dish it out and then run away when the people they were killing(Tutsis) got the upper hand.

I actually get my facts from many magazine sources I have had for years. I mentioned the movie Munich as it relates to the 1972 Munich Games, which you brought up. And I remember news coverage in 1972.

POS!

you have been dog feces in my mind for months, so your point exactly?

By F you

October 27, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

You can’t even keep your Seinfeld quotes straight, Chilao. You applied the same Seinfeld quote to me regarding your mistaken view that I was a vegetarian a few weeks ago that you claimed yesterday was applied to being gay on Seinfeld. “Not that there is anything wrong with that”.

Sorry to bring facts to the discussion, I know how they often ruin a good story.

By F you

October 27, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

So tell me again who the F-ing Liars are here. Go F yourselves, every last one of you (except Jack).

By The72John

October 27, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

• I’m not sure why you hate me so much. Perhaps it’s because you can’t box me into a stereotype and that frustrates you. Not really sure, but I would be curious to know*

2D, I don’t know where you get the idea that I hate you, but I want to point out, yet again, that your post was “boxing people into a stereotype”. All liberals are intellectual snobs who don’t actually have any ideas and just proclaim their own intelligence as being justification for their positions - wasn’t that about it?

If that isn’t blatant stereotyping, I don’t know what is.

And the gun-toting was in quotes - I assumed that that made it clear that I was intentionally stereotyping myself.

By Jack

October 27, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Breath Dog, breath.

By Jack

October 27, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

Is that near Kroger or Ingles? Or on the other side near Flanagans?

By lozen

October 27, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

Mara and Renee, thanks for the laughs! Chileo, Bouguereau is one of my favorite painters. He’s best known for the angels but I hate the angels - they’ve just been so overdone. I love his paintings of real people, esp. “Women With Children” which hangs on my wall - the most traditional piece of art in my house.

By Mara

October 27, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

2D - As a matter of fact, I agree that do-nothing, complacent politicians are a scourge we could well do without. But they DO come in both species you know, conservative and liberal. And I hope both sides vote out the useless dreck come election day.

As I see it the most pressing issues confronting the country today are the War on Terrorism, the Iraq War, and Immigration reform.

The War on Terrorism is indeed vitally important to the well-being of the world. But if we sacrifice the very things that make America THE bastion of freedom and human rights, well, we might as well pack it up and declare defeat. We managed to defeat fascism, communism, and authoritarian socialism without becoming our enemy. Yet today, too many believe that we must be as harsh and barbaric as the terrorists in order to prevail. I think we must guard diligently while searching for the best way, within each culture, to empower those who seek to build, to improve, and to advance their societies. We must protect those who wish to move forward and provide an admirable example of the possiblities for all peoples.

The Iraq War is simply a distraction from the WoT. It has created more trouble than it was worth in terms of credibility, resources, and good-will. The Iraq War makes the WoT just that much harder to wage. We no longer have the resources to persue our foes anywhere in the world. Our man-power has been over-used and exhausted. Our treasure is being wasted and our souls are being stained. Where is the honor in Iraq? Where is the honesty of the “clean fight”? This action was, and is, wrong and a waste. A waste of friends, a waste of our children, a waste of treasure, and a waste of credibility. Can anything be done now, when we’re buried so far into mire that leaving is as bad as staying? I don’t know if there is any way for us to extracate ourselves with anything resembling honor. I really don’t.

As for immigration reform…personally I’d like to see every singly illegal immigrant deported forthwith. If they have American born children, they would have the option of designating a citizen as guardian, giving the kid up for adoption, or taking them along with them. Of course I know that this is never going to happen. Just as I know that the businesses who hire illegals will never be punished with fines and jail-time for the responsible parties. There’s not enough spine in the entire government to do such a thing. So we’ll continue to look the other way while 2nd world countries encourage poor, their uneducated, and their desperate to continue breaking our laws and spitting on our sovereignity. And we’ll continue to see those same scofflaws demanding that America conform to them, cater to them, and give them the rights that use to be the privelege of the American citizens.

So 2D, those are the issues that I see most pressing. Though that doesn’t mean that these issues are the ones near and dear to my heart. The environment. Public lands. Alternative energy. Freedom of, and from, religion. Ethics in government and business. Civil rights, abortion rights, and privacy rights. Equal rights for all. Etc etc etc….the same old “liberal” litany :^)

By Renee

October 27, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

*is someone off of their meds

AGAIN?*

Clearly, Chilao, clearly….

Renee doesn’t seem to believe anything I say. I think she’s too busy admiring herself in the mirror as well in her car while she talks on her cell phone to be bothered with facts.

It’s not that, it’s just that I truly don’t care, about any of your supposed “facts” ~ahem~.

My mother taught me a long time ago, always ignore CRAZY people, and NEVER make them mad…why, you might ask? Because they are CRAZY!!!

You are obviously CRAZY….a definite loon. It’s not your fault, and I don’t expect you to agree. Most CRAZY people, don’t think they are CRAZY. They will argue you down about how SANE and INTELLIGENT (even SUPERIOR) they are in comparison to others. Sound familiar.

Keep your ranting and raving about these world facts you know SO much about, the government, right wing information, whatever….talk to yourself…And as usual after your rants, you will say you are sorry, it’s all jokes, or something similar, you just come on “to stir things up” or an equally crazy statement.

~turning the blog back over to the loon~

By online casinos - 1684641

October 27, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Our award-winning online casinos just got better with support for the Firefox browser! online casinos http://online-video-poker.online62.com [URL=http://online-video-poker.online62.com]online casinos[/URL]

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

someone has completely LOST it.

the Seinfeld guote was about Diane being Straight. (Missing the vegetarian part..huh?) the colonial remark was a direct comment on your ‘only 100 years’ weirdo, go ahead, loose it AGAIN!

hahahahahahahah

POS!(need a translation, Claremont Boy?)

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

and “not that there is anything wrong with that” from Seinfeld, can be humourously applied to many many scenarios. DUH!

wow, (alledgedly) Bright does not translate to common sense, does it?

By Mara

October 27, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Somehow I prefer my former stripper name, Sugar Glitterhorn, to the new one, Buster North K. Street :^P

LOL @ chilao laughing at the POS

By NetBanker

October 27, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Hey kids!

A cabbie picks up a nun. She gets into the cab, and notices that the VERY handsome cab driver won’t stop staring at her. She asks him why he is staring. He replies: “I have a question to ask, but I don’t want to offend you.” She answers, ” My son, you cannot offend me. When you’re as old as I am and have been a nun as long as I have, you get a chance to see and hear just about everything. I’m sure that there’s nothing you could say or ask that I would find offensive.” “Well, I’ve always had a fantasy to have a nun kiss me.” She responds, “Well, let’s see what we can do about that… 1) you have to be single and 2) you must be Catholic.”

The cab driver is very excited and says, “Yes, I’m single and Catholic!” “OK” the nun says. “Pull into the next alley.” The nun fulfills his fantasy with a kiss that would make a hooker blush. But when they get back on the road, the cab driver starts crying. “My dear child,” said the nun, why are you crying?” “Forgive me but I’ve sinned. I lied and I must confess, I’m married and I’m Jewish.”

The nun says, “That’s OK. My name is Kevin and I’m going to a Halloween party!”

I see someone has forgotten to take their meds today because I’ve never, EVER claimed that W stole the election. I see our resident genius non-banker hasn’t considered the global impact of funds being sent to Mexico that keeps large numbers of Mexicans at home as well as allows Mexicans to purchase U.S. goods which in turn keeps American employed. He also gives far too much weight to the idea that these low wage earners would actually provide sufficient depository balances to fund the bank’s lending business especially after the bank expense to maintain these accounts is taken into consideration.

By Jack

October 27, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

“I don’t know where you get the idea that I hate you,”

Could it be the condesending tone of your posts? Before you tell me that I am condesending in my posts, yes I am in some of my posts. I’m not pure as the driven snow. You do rub some folks the wrong way. I picked on you earlier this week because of this. I don’t hate you either. Mara hates me now but oh well. I’ll have to try to sell my special stew by myself.

By Jack

October 27, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

“our special stew” Sorry.

By Mara

October 27, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

Now Jack. As I’ve said before, I don’t hate you. Just because we disagree, or some of our values don’t match, that doesn’t mean I hate you. As a matter of fact, I think you are a perfectly delightful man with whom I often, but not always, disagree. So buck up and pass me one of those soup bowls…

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

Stew? that’s my lunch. Progresso steak/vegetable I added a baked potato to.

Jack - thanks, don’t worry about Dog, I really would like to be able to help in his obviously low-self-esteem issues and continue to have him foam at the mouth about his superiority. If it is directed my way, that’s fine. after all, who exactly is he to me anyway? LOL

You don’t successfully bring complex systems up in rough-and-tumble manufacturing environments(twice) if you have to care about what people think/say about you…

By NetBanker

October 27, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

Renee…thanks for the giggles! You wrote what I was thinking except that in my head it’s more along the lines of when Charlie Brown’s teacher is speaking.

Mara…we can’t deport illegals who had children while in the country…what about the chiiiiillldren? ~grin~ I was thinking about that question last night and about our resident raver’s comments while watching the news. Great stories about all the non-freaky children out there in the world such as the 16yo girl who killed a mother with her car while attempting suicide, or the 17yo from Decatur who has robbed stores and car-jacked a few folks, and then on the radio this morning was the story about how grief counselors will be present at some North-side high school because 3 classmates were killed in a car accident. No offense to the memories of those killed, but do the students really need a grief counselor? Why can’t they talk to their parents? Why can’t the school set aside a period to allow individual classes talk aout it? I went through that experience during my high school years (as well as having my swim team coach killed and another teacher die from cancer) and amazingly even those of us close to them managed to survive without grief counseling sessions. Generations of Americans made it through high school without grief counselors when a classmate died. I suppose back then in the dark ages we weren’t asking ‘what about the children?!’

By 2D

October 27, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

Mara… The same old “liberal litany” you refer to is actually the same things that many people, including myself find to be the most important. I simply don’t identify with liberal, conservative, etc. My POV on too many issues prevents me from making that distinction.

I TOTALLY agree with you on the immigration issue. Deport them all, fine their employers heavily and keep them out. I’m not even so sure I would be as lenient with their children born here in the U.S. I know that anyone born here is automatically a citizen, but I can’t but imagine that something should be done about children of parents knowingly here illegally.

I would also agree with you in certain aspects about Iraq. While I don’t completely condemn the entire action, I do believe that it has been bungled poorly. Unfortunately, we usually don’t know how badly things are bungled until we see the outcome. While I don’t believe the grand conspiracies about how the war started for nothing more than personal vendetta or profiteering, I also don’t believe that everything was on the up and up.

You are also correct about do nothing politicians all over the place. Unfortunately, I read an article in Time about Nancy Pelosi and part of her strategy for retaking control of the Congress was to not agree/comprimise with the Reps on any issue and to not propose any alternative ideas. The strategy being if the Dems have no position, our enemies have no position to attack. That is a paraphrase, but that is what she said in the article. Correc tor not, that set my POV of the extreme left in our country.

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

and it probably is really NONE of Dog’s business that I actually was AT the Munich Olympic Village a few years after that event in 1972.

SNORT.

yep, learned it all in a recent movie. moron.

actually did my first ever Oktoberfest in Munich as well. now that was a good time. learned to actually LIKE beer.

By Jack

October 27, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Hey Chilao. Bet your stew isn’t as good as “Jack & Mara’s Famous” stew. LOL

By NetBanker

October 27, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

Mara…I like your previous name too. Besides, as my dance partner Glitterhorn just goes too well with Glitzhooter. Which makes me think of RF. I guess school has him too sucked in this year to chat with us. Hope he and his boys are doing well.

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

Hey Chilao. Bet your stew isn’t as good as “Jack & Mara’s Famous� stew. LOL

not at all. but cold day, and needed to cycle my foodsupplies so stew it was…LOL

Beer tastes ALOT better when it is: 1. German 2. Served on draft, cold and the clincher: 3. served in a one-liter mug. LOL

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

since it is joke day, saw a great cartoon recently.

Little girl while having bedtime reading with her mom, asks “Mommy, do all fairy tales start with ‘Once upon a time’?”.

Mom replies “No, in fact some start with ‘If elected, I promise…’”.

By The72John

October 27, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

*Like DeLay, who was also known for bruising rivalries within his party, Pelosi has embraced hard-knuckle partisanship, even if it means standing still. When Bush announced his Social Security plan last year, Pelosi told House Democrats they could never beat him in a straight-ahead, policy-against-policy debate because he had the megaphone of the presidency and was just coming off re-election. So the Democrats would thunderously attack Bush and argue there was no Social Security crisis and therefore no need for them to put out their own proposal. Some members were leery, concerned that Pelosi would make the Democrats look like the Party of No. As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan. “Never. Is never good enough for you?” *

I suspect this is the passage to which 2D refers. The only actual quote is the “Never. Is never good enough for you?”

While I may not necessarily agree with Ms. Pelosi’s strategy, I do understand it. Any Democrat who proposes solutions to…well…anything rarely finds his or her proposal making it out of committee. Pelosi seems to think that strategically the best way to regain control of Congress is to let the President and all his horses and men hang themselves. They seem to be following along with her.

However, to base your opinion of an entire political philosophy on the strategic decisions made by a party leader whos primary responsibility is to get people elected by whatever (hopefully ethical) method they can doesn’t seem to be the best course.

Pelosi’s method is certainly less confrontational than DeLay’s, who famously seized a housefly out of mid-air one day in a committee meeting and, after hurling it into a burning fireplace, said: “That’s what we’re going to do to the Democrats”.

Are you similarly scornful of the far right, or do you reserve that scorn for the left, only?

By Jack

October 27, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

…and some start, “I’ll just put the head in”

By Mara

October 27, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

2D - I could rightly be called a “left-leaning Libertarian intellectual” :^) as for Pelosi, I have to say that I don’t blame her a bit. If you recall, in the early days of Republican power several Democrats extended a bipartisan hand…making deals, offering suggestions, providing info. But the Republicans reneged on agreements, shut them out of committee meetings, refused to allow any of their amendments, and on and on. I certainly prefered her unhelpfulness more than I did her useless attempts to work with the Republicans. They made promises, they broke promises. They vilified. They insulted. And they tried to change the rules if it looked like the rules would impede their agenda. I wouldn’t have given them the time of day either. If you can’t trust your opposite to negotiate in good faith, why negotiate at all?

Jack - there’s no way that Chilao’s is as good as ours, after all, we have that “secret ingredient” LOL!

Net - Glitzhooter and Glitterhorn? ROTFLMAO!! And I think about RF, too.

By Jack

October 27, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

That was very bad but I couldn’t resist. If offended anyone, sorry!

By I'm Sorry

October 27, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

Ok, guys, I’m sorry for blowing my top. Chilao, I apologize for my remarks to you. You are a cool dude, sorry to vent on you. I just got scammed out of a large sum of money, still licking my wounds.

Jack, you’ve seen my old office if you know where Flanigan’s is.

By I'm Sorry

October 27, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

However, I still stand by my comments that the Libs here are brain-dead. Too many SUV drivers here with their mirror turned toward themselves.

By Jack

October 27, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Good post John.

By I'm Sorry

October 27, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

My anger is from the fact that the American dream is almost gone…. You can work hard 7 days a week for 20+ years as I did with no vacations, pay every type of tax coming and going, then watch it all disappear overnight due to the scammers. But, I’m going to remain honest myself, despite my bitterness.

BTW, Renee—my jokes were only in yanking your chain, which frankly isn’t that hard to do. Every historical fact I’ve quoted is true, not that you would ever bother to check.

By 2D

October 27, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

John… I believe this government was designed to base it’s decision on compromise positions between various individuals. Shoot, the entire Consitution was just that between the various regions/factions of people making up the convention.

I am scornful of anyone or any party who wilfully removes itself from the business of debate and comprimise for the sole purpose of gaining power so they don’t have to comprimise. DeLay got what he deserved.

However, I would question your statement about the role of the party leader. It should be much more than to help people get elected. It should be to provide a face for the party, to set agenda in addition to getting people elected. Right now, her agenda is no agenda and she is hoping that her party gets elected through sheer disgust with the other. That strategy may work. It may not work. We’ll know come election day. If it doesn’t, I wonder if she’ll get canned.

I live in the 4th district so I don’t have any real choice. It’s either Hank Johnson or a write-in vote for myself. However, if I did, I would feel more inclined to vote Republican than Democrat because I am of the feeling that I prefer the devil I know versus the one dI on’t.

By I'm Sorry

October 27, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

Mara, if you have been in Georgia for any length of time, your comments about the unfairness of the Republicans are laughable. Apparently you forgot about the last redistricting map created by the Dems on their way out the door. Of course, I understand. Someone with your obvious intellectual deficiencies can’t be expected to look for the whole truth. You look just for the parts that support your prejudices, ala chuck.

By I'm Sorry

October 27, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

And call me what you want, Chilao. I’ll stack my record of charitable donations against any three or four of you here. I put my money where my mouth is, while you’re sitting over on the sidelines enjoying the good life. I’m guessing you had a rich daddy too based upon your world travels at a young age.

By I'm Sorry

October 27, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

BTW, Jack, if you want some awesome Mexican food, go to Los Hermanos next to the Publix. Their pescado is great (fish dinner).

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

yep Dog, what a jerk you are. my parents were fundamenalist missionaries(don’t think that really ever paid much, especially with a whole bunch of kids, and explains some of my younger travels) and I saved my money for two years from MY work for a europe/etc trip as a young adult.

so scr3w you!

By Renee

October 27, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

okay, I hate to tell you I told you all so, Mara, Net, John, Chilao, and anyone else who is interested…refer to my final paragraph at 12:28 and either I’m psychic or….well….

By Mara

October 27, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

As Renee would say “blah, blah, blah,..SORRY…blah, blah, blah,…ANGER…BITTERNESS…blah, blah, blah…INTELLECTUAL DEFICIENCIES…blah,blah, blah…MY MONEY…blah, blah, blah,…MOUTH….blah, blah

only she says it better than I ever could!

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

Renee - I think the meds are kickin’ in. LOL

Man I ain’t never been scammed out of any money, and I am a slow-brainer(alledged). LMAO

wait, there was that dollar I loaned someone once.

Reminds me of Taboga though, If you have to brag about your charitable activities, it can hardly be considered charity. Isn’t that what he used to say? Right after Katrina?

By The72John

October 27, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

However, I would question your statement about the role of the party leader. It should be much more than to help people get elected. It should be to provide a face for the party, to set agenda in addition to getting people elected. Right now, her agenda is no agenda and she is hoping that her party gets elected through sheer disgust with the other. That strategy may work. It may not work. We’ll know come election day. If it doesn’t, I wonder if she’ll get canned.

Mostly, I agree with you. “Should” is the operative word, though. In the current environment, where campaigning for the next election starts almost before the current election ends, House leaders in particular have little time to do anything BUT stump, or risk falling behind their opposite.

Frankly, I think the entire system is broken. There is no incentive to compromise when it’s possible for one group to dominate agendas - and I apply that equally to both sides of the aisle. I’d almost prefer to see a Parlimentary system, since that would force co-operation between otherwise intractable groups. I realize that isn’t within the realm of possibility, but it would be nice.

I’d like to see campaigns that last a month or two, rather than a year or two. It’s ridiculous that half of our elected officials seem to spend more time campaigning for the next election than they do working on the business of government. It’s ridiculous that the two parties have started treating others as enemies rather than as amiable adversaries. It’s ridiculous that we are forced to watch weeks and weeks of mud-slinging, name-calling and back-stabbing every election cycle.

Unfortunately, I don’t see a solution. The days of substance and vision mattering more than on-camera charisma and the size of one’s…wallet…are gone. The MySpace generation is about to inherit the political system.

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

The first bicycle I ever had was a result of ME selling 70 boxes of Christmas cards door-to-door. at age 11.

so double that.

By Renee

October 27, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

Chilao - that was exactly what Taboga said.

Why thank you Mara!! :)

By NetBanker

October 27, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

I still stand by my comments that the Libs here are brain-dead. Too many SUV drivers here with their mirror turned toward themselves. Interesting. Based on the numbers of W supporting bumper stickers I see on SUVs observation tells me that more of them are driven by Conservatives than Libs.

Mara…I can’t believe you’ve forgotten our Dance Off challenge against RF and Renee who were “The Bambis.” I do think Renee has you beat for the blah, blah, blah paraphrasing thing, but you do still have the best eeeevil laugh on the web. Give us one for old times sake, huh?

Renee…go ahead give us your best “I told you soâ€? dance.

So is it just me or do the names change when a new personality takes control?

By Mara

October 27, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

Chilao - I’d almost managed to forget about that effluence that is T-bagger. Gee, THANKS for reminding me ~grin~

Renee - ohhhhh. You are psychic, you are!!! LOL!

quittin’ time, my pretties. Everybody be careful out there this weekend and we’ll catch you all back here on the Monday. Air kisses all…

By Don't ignore it

October 27, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

There a good reason to stand against the use of the veil, the hijab, niqab, & the burka. Let’s not sugar-coat the level of oppression faced by women in Islamic cultures. The veil is but a method of control, a method to remove freedom and liberty from Muslim women. The various coverings forced upon women is part and parcel to a system of forcing them into a subservient, hidden role, a role as second-class citizens to Muslim males WHO HAVE NO SUCH RESTRICTIONS !

The veil teaches women that they should be ashamed of themselves, that they must remain unseen, unheard. Such coverings teaches women to be ashamed of their sexual feelings, even though such feelings were given to us by God, our maker. Additionally, it shows them that they should be faceless, shadowy entities without an identity or individuality.

In fact, sex itself is an imagined evil by Islam, especially the feminine half. Don’t take my word for it. The “Grand Mufti” of Australia, Sydney-based Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, recently blamed Australia’s women and their supposedly suggestive dress as the cause of a notorious gang rape perpetrated by a gang of Muslims there.

The sheik then said: “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.” He said women were “weapons” used by “Satan” to control men.

“It is said in the state of zina (adultery), the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement (igraa).”

Of course, the veil is but one aspect of how women are oppressed by Islam. Along with coverings with the supposed purpose of guarding a woman¹s “modesty”, women are not allowed freedom of movement, freedom to travel, to hold jobs, or to educate themselves. These along with so many other restrictions, the purpose of which is to keep Muslim women in subservient roles, forms the basis of how Muslim women are treated by the religion and men.

Such oppressive notions are entirely against the western ideals of liberty and freedom, the ideals upon which we have built our entire ideology. The west has evolved away from such restrictive ways of treating our women and there is no reason to allow a minority to violate those principles under the precept of freedom of religion. It is a violation of our very base ideals to allow a religious minority to oppress their women so in western societies.

Of course, freedom of religion is also a bedrock western principle, but freedom of religion cannot supersede basic liberties for all citizens. After all, we could not allow slavery merely because it might be a religious tenet. And, forcing women to wear restrictive coverings is just as immoral as forcing them to endure female circumcisions, beatings, or other oppressive cultural “traditions”.

If adhering to such a dress code was so voluntary, Muslim cultures would have no need of these violent, roving gangs of terror inducing hooligans to enforce the rules.

It’s just that simple. Oppressing females should not be tolerated.

By The72John

October 27, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

So is it just me or do the names change when a new personality takes control?

I don’t think there are that many names…

By Kevin

October 27, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

72John,

You and I don’t agree too often, but you are ROTM with your 3:25 post. Unfortunately, I don’t have any ideas on how to fix the problem.

NetB, I am not sure if your nun joke was a backhanded slap at me by using my name, or if that just “happened” to be the name in the joke. If it was an attempt to poke fun at me, it wasn’t funny. I have made no bones about the fact I am a conservative Christian - yet I have not made any inappropriate remarks about anyone, nor do I intend to.

As far as the “what about the children” comments - let’s just say we agree to disagree and move on. I understand your position, despite Lozen’s belief that I am too ignorant to do so.

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

Thanks for pointing that out, NetB, I see those stickers mostly on Kill-Another-Arab-For-Oil gas-guzzlings SUVs as well. LOL

I have gotten at least 30mpg highway since the oil embargo of 1973, and to think I did it all just so conservatives could run their gas-guzzlers.

Dang, dang.

and no thanks for it, either. LMAO

But us “liberals” always get the last laugh, since the world progresses as the conservatives die off…

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

Kevin - that joke has made it around the web for several years as/with KEVIN in the back of the cab.

or do you have a secret passion? LOL (j/k)

By Jack

October 27, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

I’ll have to try it.

By Renee

October 27, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

TOLD YA SO, TOLD YA SO, TOLD YA, TOLD YA, TOLD YA SO!!!!

~doing Grace’s dance~

By Kevin

October 27, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Thanks for clearing that up Chilao. Out of the thousands of internet jokes I have seen over the years, I have never read that one before now.

And I have no secret passions either. But even if I did, with a wife and three small children keeping me busy I have neither the time nor the energy!

NetB, my apologies for questioning your motives.

By Jack

October 27, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Gotta go to a meeting. Lovely for late Friday. Everyone have a great weekend.

Big cyber kiss to Kim.:) SMOOCH!

One for Julia too. SMOOCH!

By Brain Stroke

October 27, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

In case you guys haven’t figured it out yet, DOG is not an actual conservative. I would like to say I’m Libertarian, but realize that we need a safety net for the ne’er-do-wells, so I have to support socialism to a small degree. Like in Rome, you have to give the populace bread and circus to keep them occupied. ; > }

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this

Kevin -thanks for clearing that up, I was beginning to wonder who might SOMETIMES wear the pants in the family, from time-to-time, behind closed doors and all. (wink wink).

just joking. LOL

that joke always reminds me of that HBO show, TaxiCab Confessions.

By Brain Stroke

October 27, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

BTW, I drive a Toyota Paseo—go ahead and snicker—that still gets close to 40 mph. That is unless my date is overweight, then it drops down to 30 mph.

By Chilao

October 27, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

forgive my “outrageous” thoughts/post. LOL

By Brain Stroke

October 27, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

Hey, Chilao, I started working a paper route at 8 years old, then moved up to farm work by 11, then a Chinese restaurant at 12, a motel at 14 (X-rated at that, with mirrors on the ceiling—lots of stories there), then an all night short order cook job at 16. I basically dropped out of H.S in my senior year in order to work more, but they graduated me anyway. I then lied about my age and landed a job at J.C Penney in their credit regional office in Voorhees, NJ, at the Deptford Mall. Then the Hess Gas Station, then 10 years at Domino’s Pizza while I became established as a chiropractor.

No sobbing here, I love to work and earn money. It just hurts a little when someone who owes you money gets creative and not only beats you out of it, but costs you nearly $10,000 in legal fees to boot. Sorry for my recent bitterness.

By Brain Stroke

October 27, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

But I respect yuor hard work as well, Chilao, not trying to outdo you. I just have a small problem with the silver spooners I come in contact with frequently.

So to say I’m sorry, I will treat everyone to dinner at Los Hermanos in Tucker next week. Jack, have you tried it yet? Delicious!! Let me know what night is good for you and the Mrs. It might really be funny if kimberly showed up as well ; > ]. We could have fun playing dumb all night, especially when the Margaritas start kicking in. Of course, Mara’s husband might try to deck me for smarting off to her. And who knows what John will try. I think it would be a blast! What do you all say???? Los Hermanos on Hugh Howell Road in Tucker, next Friday night !!! DOG is treating, no BS!!!

By Brain Stroke

October 27, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

One last enticement to get rid of DOG—Please buy my properties!!! I’m holding a fire sale now, make an offer. My building across the street from Flanigans is nice, I have a year’s lease with my tenants. Plus, I can explain to you later how to avoid capital gains taxes later on when you sell it by using a 1031 exchange. NetB might know something about that.

By casinos en ligne - 1809260

October 27, 2006 05:26 PM | Link to this

casinos en ligne goal is to provide and encourage a creative environment and support system for current and aspiring casinos en ligne team. casinos en ligne

By casino - 1440150

October 27, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this

casino is the world’s leading diversified manufacturer of casino and control technologies systems. casino

By casinos - 1074049

October 29, 2006 03:00 AM | Link to this

Unless you become as little Children, you can’t see casinos. All you need is faith and trust… and a little bit of casinos. casinos http://credit-card-casinos.online62.com [URL=http://credit-card-casinos.online62.com]casinos[/URL]

By online casino - 1771132

October 29, 2006 03:17 AM | Link to this

Merci de votre int?r?t pour le online casino. Pour vous servir de la meilleure fa?on, veuillez s’il vous plait remplir les informations suivantes. Un repr?sentant va vous contacter tr?s prochainement. online casino http://casino-slots.cfr8.com [URL=http://casino-slots.cfr8.com]online casino[/URL]

By casino - 1417471

October 29, 2006 04:53 AM | Link to this

We understand that this approach might be considered unfashionable. But if it means helping our clients achieve their goals, whether for casino or just financial security, it’s an approach we plan to stick to. casino http://vegas-casino.online62.com [URL=http://vegas-casino.online62.com]casino[/URL]

By online casinos - 1708345

October 29, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Merci de votre int?r?t pour le online casinos. Nous sommes une soci?t? de online casinos qui fournit des op?rations de online casinos. online casinos http://casino-roulette.cfr8.com [URL=http://casino-roulette.cfr8.com]online casinos[/URL]

By casino - 1030268

October 29, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

For decades, we’ve believed in building relationships through face-to-face interaction, and adhering to a strategy of recommending quality casino investments that have proven themselves over time. casino http://credit-card-casinos.online62.com [URL=http://credit-card-casinos.online62.com]casino[/URL]

By casinos - 1098499

October 29, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Hello, and welcome to casinos. I’ve created this site to share a little about myself with friends, both old and new. I must confess at the outset that this certainly qualifies as a “vanity page”, and is full of graphics and text casinos. casinos http://neteller-casinos.online62.com [URL=http://neteller-casinos.online62.com]casinos[/URL]

By online casinos - 1522115

October 29, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

online casinos gets rid of the reactive mind. It?s the only thing that does. online casinos http://casino-poker.online62.com [URL=http://casino-poker.online62.com]online casinos[/URL]

By online casinos - 1571434

October 29, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

Notre t?l?chargement gratuit de online casinos comporte des versions compl?tes et totalement fonctionnelles du logiciel de online casinos afin de conna?tre les nouvelles caract?ristiques du r?el produit pendant 30 jours. online casinos http://jeu-casino-gratuit.cfr8.com [URL=http://jeu-casino-gratuit.cfr8.com]online casinos[/URL]

By casino - 1387568

October 29, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

For decades, we’ve believed in building relationships through face-to-face interaction, and adhering to a strategy of recommending quality casino investments that have proven themselves over time. casino http://online-black-jack.online62.com [URL=http://online-black-jack.online62.com]casino[/URL]

By online casino - 1897946

October 29, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

Let us know about your online casino website and network online casino needs. online casino http://firepay-casinos.online62.com [URL=http://firepay-casinos.online62.com]online casino[/URL]

By online casinos - 1743590

October 29, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

Express is the natural choice of online casinos interested in the staffing services industry. online casinos http://casino-payouts.online62.com [URL=http://casino-payouts.online62.com]online casinos[/URL]

By online casino - 1918605

October 29, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

Merci de votre int?r?t pour le online casino. Nous serions int?ress? d’avoir de vos nouvelles. Vous pouvez nous contacter a online casino. online casino http://roulette-en-ligne.cfr8.com [URL=http://roulette-en-ligne.cfr8.com]online casino[/URL]

By casinos - 1209352

October 30, 2006 02:37 AM | Link to this

Look for this symbol of casinos resources. It signifies that the Web site you are visiting was reviewed by casinos and accepted into its directory of select web sites. casinos http://gaming.online62.com [URL=http://gaming.online62.com]casinos[/URL]

By casino - 1491120

October 30, 2006 02:45 AM | Link to this

Le casino est un site Internet de service casino avance qui garanti la r?putation et la dur?e de fonctionnement de votre business ?lectronique. casino http://jeu-casino-gratuit.cfr8.com [URL=http://jeu-casino-gratuit.cfr8.com]casino[/URL]

By casino - 1269286

October 30, 2006 03:05 AM | Link to this

The casino Directory consists of 41 categories and 1,400 subcategories specific to casino. casino http://vegas-casino.online62.com [URL=http://vegas-casino.online62.com]casino[/URL]

By online casinos - 1545703

October 30, 2006 03:46 AM | Link to this

With over 20,000,000 copies in dozens of languages, online casinos has remained a bestseller for more than fifty years. online casinos http://gaming.online62.com [URL=http://gaming.online62.com]online casinos[/URL]

By online casino - 1994498

October 30, 2006 03:58 AM | Link to this

News stories about online casino bring credibility that advertising cannot give. online casino http://casino-bonus.online62.com [URL=http://casino-bonus.online62.com]online casino[/URL]

By GOB

October 30, 2006 08:01 AM | Link to this

DOG - Sorry to hear about your recent trouble with scammers. Luckily for you, I may be able to help. You see, I am actually an exiled Nigerian Prince…

By casinos - 1082353

October 30, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this

casinos est la premi?re ressource de casinos priv? et associatif et de casinos. casinos http://meilleurs-casinos.cfr8.com [URL=http://meilleurs-casinos.cfr8.com]casinos[/URL]

By online casino - 1960915

October 30, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

Cette information va ?tre pass?e en revue et il sera d?terminer si elle est accepte en fonction de l’information de online casino. Si cette acceptation est accord?e, vous recevrez les papiers n?cessaires pour votre inscription online casino. online casino http://gambling-online.cfr8.com [URL=http://gambling-online.cfr8.com]online casino[/URL]

By Mara

October 30, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

GOB - LOL @ “Nigerian Prince”

2D - interesting article in the WaPo Politics section on Pelosi’s actual agenda if Dems win this election. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/29/AR2006102900628_2.html

There’s more but Jeff Birnbaum (the article’s author) writes better and has more info.

By Chilao

October 30, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

I should probably apologize for my rude behaviour on the blog last Friday.

Not to be misconstrued to be any kind of apology for any specific individual. LOL

and on those one-liter mugs I mentioned, I think they were TWO-liter mugs, one-liter is not exactly alot and have a couple in my freezer and those are smaller than the heavy ones we used.

By Renee

October 30, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

GOB - hilarious!!!

Chilao - YOU of all people, do not need to offer any apologies

By lozen

October 30, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

Chilao, you actually remember last Friday ;-)? A lot happened over the weekend and I couldn’t have told you even what the question was for last week! I guess we’ll have to make up our own topic for this week. Mara, Renee, Chilao what ya want to talk about?

By Jack

October 30, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Yes you should be ashamed of that behavior. No soup for you!

By Chilao

October 30, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Stew, Jack, Stew. LOL reminds me of going camping and our Dad making what he called “Mulligan’s Stew”.

By 2D

October 30, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Mara… Good article. Thanks for the post. I consider it very encouraging to see something like that on her agenda.

I wish things like that would be more readily available and advertised. Making things like that more public would be very beneficial in getting the moderate folks to vote Dem versus Rep in the national elections.

By NetBanker

October 30, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

Chilao…I have one of those Oktoberfest mugs from Hofbrau Haus (the clear glass ones they serve the beer in not one for sale) so I’ll see what it holds. I think it is a 1 litre or maybe 1.5, but it definitely is not as large as a 2 litre soda bottle.

Mara…nice find on the Pelosi bill. Geez…I’m not sure we’re ready for those type of “San Francisco values!� What is she thinking actually trying to cut the influence of lobbyists, make sure it’s a law that you can’t increase deficit spending, AND no more slipping in ear-marks after committee and before a vote?!!! Good thing the LIBRUL media isn’t covering her policy suggestions because it might just bring those values voters out on Nov. 7th to make sure we keep a Republican majority so those ideas can be killed off quick!! Baaaaaaaaaad values that Pelosi far-left librul has!

By chuck

October 30, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

I read the article also Mara. I personally hate corrupt politicians. They prey on the system and pass legislation that hurts America. HOWEVER, I have to cringe at the idea of limiting free speech when it comes to legislation. I agree wholeheartedly with the restrictions on gifts and travel. I think those should be absolutely prohibited and always should have been. I think the ability to have personal contact with legislators should be not be determined by the number and value of gifts or campaign contributions. These appointments should be made on a first come first serve basis, but I also believe that people should not be limited in the amount of money they can give to the campaigns of candidates they decide to support. I prefer a full disclosure approach. If the dems get more money from the trial attorneys, that’s fine as long as we KNOW that through disclosure forms. Then we can make up our own minds. If the Republicans get more money from corporate entities, then so be it. As long as we know where they are coming from, we can make up our own minds about how to vote.

By Chilao

October 30, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

NetB - per web research, apparently they ARE one-liter mugs. just seemed like alot(heavy) at the time.

I was coming from a canned Bud down along the river culture, so no surprise I did not drink any beer. (LMAO) Appreciation actually started in Barcelona. 9a.m, 95F, you walk into a bar and can get an expresso for 30 cents, a soda for 30 cents, or a cold bottled SanMiguel for 35 cents. Kinda a no-brainer after the expresso, ya think?. LOL