AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2007 > August > 25 > Entry
Will reports of a stronger Al-Qaida bring “security moms” back into the GOP camp?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
We now eagerly await Election Year 2008 and birth announcements from the pundits welcoming Google Moms and iPod Dads (you heard it here first, Folks). As exciting as that time will be, who isn’t just a bit nostalgic for the Security Moms of 2004?
Ah, Security Moms. How the Republicans have missed them. It’s been a whole year now since a Pew Research Center poll showed that married female voters are “more inclined to vote Democratic than at any point since Sept. 11, 2001” — this before Bush’s popularity sank to the low double digits he wades in these days.
Where did it all go horribly wrong for that ladies man, George Bush? He had some smooth moves, alright. You’d be watching the news, fuming about the environment or our health care crisis. Suddenly a graphic would pop up, showing Code Orange leaning red. A shiver would overtake your body as you’d find yourself wondering if the kids are really okay at school. This “dial up the fear” approach worked at least somewhat on the Security Mom in each of us, truth be told.
Well, we’re still afraid, but we’re also distracted. Distracted by pictures of Abu Ghraib, rising body counts, a Supreme Court that threatens to base its rulings on whatever flew in 1789, an Attorney General who contradicts himself more than your sixteen-year-old with a case of beer in the trunk. Sure, we’ve managed to avoid another 9/11 on our shores, and that’s not a small accomplishment. Yet a firestorm is brewing around the globe and any Mom can tell that it’s exacerbated by our arrogant Father Knows Best approach to foreign and domestic policy.
No, come the election, the Insecurity Moms of 2008 are going to rise up and angrily vote out the party of bullying, lying and “protection” without representation. Al Qaeda is scary, to be sure, but also frightening is the look on Mom’s face when you’ve been caught pulling the wool over her eyes. In fact, with the look she’s giving George these days, his whole gang just might find themselves grounded for good.
Rebuttal
There’s a reason security moms voted for Father Knows Best in 2004. It’s called “homeland security,” and a June Gallup Poll shows Democrats have since become complacent about how necessary it is. Only one percent of Democratic voters think homeland security is the most important issue for the 2008 election. Yet half think Iraq is. Is that backwards, or what?
Our Iraq efforts deserve attention, but many distracted security moms (okay, and iPod Dads) have forgotten that Iraq is only part of a much bigger picture. And those distractions are less about Abu Ghraib than about the unending media attention to Obama vs. Clinton’s war chests, the real estate crash, or which young actress was arrested for DUI this week.
As 9/11 becomes more entrenched in our history textbooks than our emotional memories, we no longer realize just how precarious and important our security really is. Our real estate difficulties are notable - but insignificant compared to the economic crash that would follow a suitcase nuke detonating in Seattle, or a rash of airplanes exploding over the Atlantic. In a recent ABC News interview, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff discussed just how close we came to the latter scenario last year, saying, “In terms of its intent, [the liquid bomb plot] was looking at devastation on a scale that would have rivaled 9/11.”
A recent non-partisan survey by the Center for American Progress (CAP) showed that unlike average Americans, eight of ten experts “expect a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade.” P.J. Crowley, CAP’s Director of Homeland Security, suggested in an interview that Americans who aren’t as concerned, “probably don’t believe there is going to be another attack. But we have to figure out how to have terrorism in our psyche. We cannot become complacent. We are vulnerable.”
It is primarily because this Administration has thus far kept us safe that security moms have been able to get distracted enough to nitpick about its methods. Bush may be branded as “arrogant,” but he sure knows more about the threat than most Americans. I mean, really: with your life at stake, would you rather have Father Knows Best or Homer Simpson for a father?
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By .
August 26, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this
Are we kidding here? I don’t want a freakin FATHER figure for president. I want a world leader…a pragmatist and a realist.
Attack on US soil? Sure. They seem to happen every 10 years or so. Sometimes the attacker is foreign, sometimes domestic (McVeigh, anyone). I certainly don’t think The Decider is the one who has kept us safe. It’s us and our awareness level that has kept us safe. Until we become complacent and stop reporting things again…
As for The Decider being more knowlegable about terrorists than the rest of us? Only natural from a Dictator who has created an administration of Secrecy and Deceit.
By Anonymous
August 26, 2007 7:10 PM | Link to this
It’s nice to the see the GOP openly admitting that they rely on Americans staying fearful so we make bad decisions.
Funny, isn’t that the exact same purpose terrorists have for THEIR activities?
By SusieHomeMaker
August 27, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this
Bush may be branded as “arrogant,” but he sure knows more about the threat than most Americans. I mean, really: with your life at stake, would you rather have Father Knows Best or Homer Simpson for a father?
I’m surprised that Shaunti had to stoop to this level in order to prop up Bush’s ego and failed presidency. If Bush really “knew best”, he would’ve stopped 9/11 before it happened by listening to the outgoing CIA advisors and what they had to say. Instead, he decided to take a vacation. But that’s history now, Al Queada is not the only group gunning for the US since our “commander in Jack” (daniels); has taken over. He and his group have managed to alienate, Russia, Iran and N. Korea. He’s managed to put the US in billions of dollars of debt to China; he’s singlehandedly help the resurge of recruits for AlQueada and he’s somehow lost track of Bin Laden (remember him?).
This type of “father” in charge seems more like Homer Simpson than Homer Simpson.
By chuck
August 27, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this
When it comes down to it the difference between the parties is this:
Republicans are the party of National Security.
Democrats are the party of APPEASEMENT.
The big question in my mind is whether or not the Republicans have learned their lesson after losing in “06. They did not lose because of the Iraq War as the Dems would like you to believe. They lost because they turned into DEMOCRATS when it came to spending money. They forgot that we put them there to CUT spending not increase it. The base was not exactly excited about this change in philosophy. The BIGGEST issue in ‘08 will be Illegal Immigration and what candidates plan to do about it.
Term limits anyone?
By Lyrazel
August 27, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this
With Gonzales now gone the refrain: “Another One Bites the Dust” starts describing the Bush Administration implode. I guess the War on Republican Party Member’s is happening and watching them all shoot themselves in the foot is kind of fun…
P.J. Crowley, CAP’s Director of Homeland Security, suggestion that Americans have to have terrorism in our psyche. To me that is terrible! I certainly do not want that sort of see a terrorist on every street corner junta mind-set in this country nor do I feel I have been made safer in the 8 years this administration’s Homeland Security experts have been at the helm. By justifying wire-tapping, racial profiling, illegal imprisonment done in the name of war on terrorism American’s have lost more freedom and respect internationally than we have gained in security.
..and another one’s down…and another one bites the dust... Is Cheney next?
By kimberly
August 27, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this
Frankly, I’m offended when people try to tell me how I feel, or should feel, about what happened on 9-11-01. As IF I would ever forget that day. No, I didn’t lose anyone dear to me, but that happened to people JUST LIKE ME. Moms, dads, lovers, office workers, hourly workers who, just like me were getting our work day started. The early birds already at their desks, just like the ones around me, who never knew what hit them… The late ones, just like me, running for the elevator… The low-level manager whose job it is to stay with the disabled guy during the fire drills… The people getting their egg sandwiches, the people making and serving the coffee, the people on the trains, buses, cars, and those who boarded early morning flights into the bright blue September sky….
Could I ever forget sitting in the parking garage, listening on the car radio, praying for the people in those buildings to get down the stairwells safely? Praying that the angels would give them strength in the face of the fear? Not even knowing then the extent of the horror, but knowing there were people JUST LIKE ME scared and in danger in those moments.. Walking through the huge, marble-laden lobby of my own office building, past the security desk, a lobby I would never walk through again without images of the slabs and pillars coming down on top of us all… the look in the eyes of all the others, JUST LIKE ME, for weeks and months of shock, grief, sleeplessness, and jumping out of our skins at the slightest unexpected noise…
The government and the military folks try to make it all about them, and how DARE they manipulate and USE my feeings, and those of people JUST LIKE ME to work their agendas? The government exists to protect and serve people JUST LIKE ME. The military exists to defend ME. Along with those JUST LIKE ME, I am the one who bears the next generation, feeds and clothes them, teaches them to read, drives them around, works my tail off in order to buy a houseful of useless crap that no one needs, but this is America so we buy the crap that supports the advertisers and importers and mega-marts, and the economy, sacrificing time with our families, our dreams, and the substance of what could have been our lives, to keep this country going!
The bas-tards who pulled our troops out of Afghanistan, off the trail of Bin Laden in order to secure Sadam’s unmetered oil fields and empty the treasury out into the pockets of unaudited defense contractors in pursuit of a decades-long occupation, while holding hands with Saudi princes, and their partisan HACKS try to tell ME who is patriotic and who is not, and use their LIES to justify telling me, yet again, (1) how to feel, (2) whom to hate, and (3) which rights I should give up if I love my country?
Call me a “Security Mom” if you want, but I feel LESS SAFE NOW than ever in my life! The source of MY fear and loathing: this lying, power-abusing administration, the hate they’ve created for us around the world, and all their enablers. Yes, the “journalists” who, without shame or compunction, spout the party line and perpetuate lies are their biggest enablers of all. Don’t you DARE tell me how to feel about 9-11 or how “SAFE” I am!
By Carbon Footprint
August 27, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this
America: Trust your GOPpler GAYdar. (McRove is gay, sorry)
Clue-less and Mule-less is no way to go through life.
By Chilao
August 27, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
President Bush this past week for the first time made comparisons between our current quagmire in Iraq and the Vietnam War. And he would have gladly gone to both, if he had not been too busy clearing brush in Crawford, Texas.
Compliments of a quick air promo for NPR’s Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me. LOL
I just finished reading Rory Stewart’s Prince of the Marshes, which detailed his role as the interim governor of a Marsh Arab province, Maysan, above Basra, against the Iran border, right after the fall of Saddam. (He a British Foreign Service type). Now I realize Democracy at the Point of a Gun, to a culture incapable of a Western-style democracy, might be a fantasy of our Fearless Leader, but in the RealWorld, most know that to be impossible.
Okay, let’s get on topic: Hopefully, the 2008 election will negate both a Bush-itte as President, and all of his rubber-stamp supporters in the Congress. But then many of us had high-hopes in the 2006 election and look where that has gotten us.
By Smile Break
August 27, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this
The late ones, just like me, running for the elevator…
I’ll have to try that excuse next time I’m running late: “BossMan, I was only trying to avoid a terror attack!”.
Hope everyone has a beautiful week.
By lozen
August 27, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, you go girl! You say it with such brilliance.
The BIGGEST issue in ‘08 will be Illegal Immigration and what candidates plan to do about it. Yeah, for those too dense to see that is what has been turned into the big, scary “issue”! What was it last time? Gay marriage? These certainly are our biggest new problems! Give me a break. Illegals have been here for how many years now? My job is endangered by illegals? Jeez. Our way of life is in danger because they won’t learn english? Pleeeze! We would have better services and health care in this country if they’d just leave? Yeah, right!
Our lives are in danger and our way of life is in danger due to men who want to 1. control this country and the world (Today Iraq, tomorrow the World!) 2. scare us into giving up our constitutional rights 3. make more and more money for themselves and their cronies, 4. take over more and more power.
By Anonymous
August 27, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this
Well, if Chuck says it, you know it’s wrong.
The “party of appeasement” was arguing for a smarter way to address the actual threat of terrorism, rather than the phantom threat of Saddam. Bush’s neocon policies have made us less safe, not safer—nice work for the “National Security” party.
And the GOP were routed in ‘06 not because they were too darn liberal—(I mean, think about that one!), but because Americans were fed up with the lies and hypocrisy and the phony war. They still are, which is why both Bush AND Congress have low approval ratings today.
By Another Gem from NPR
August 27, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this
I know that the media is indeed not liberal. It must be true because the liberals on this blog have promised me it isn’t. So when I was listening to Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me this weekend I must have been hearing things. They were playing a game in which the contestant had to chose between a set of responses written by soldiers about MRE’s (meals ready to eat). Two of the responses were fake, and one was an actually comment written by a soldier.
In one of the reponses, a soldier wrote a glowing recommendation for a blueberry treat. After reading the response the host replied (paraphrase) “Wow, an unusally literate soldier.”
Now come on all of you “I support the troops - really, I do” crowd. Please tell me you weren’t thinking the same thing as the host. This is why the military still supports our President despite his NUMEROUS mistakes in the war in Iraq. The troops know how you REALLY feel about them.
I am sure the fairness doctrine wouldn’t force wonderful shows like this to give opposing viewpoints - only Hannity and BOR would be subjected to such treatment.
By Another fake Gem from a GOP apologist
August 27, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this
This is why the military still supports our President despite his NUMEROUS mistakes in the war in Iraq. The troops know how you REALLY feel about them.
Your statements assume that all the troops know the same things and have the same opinions, and that you magically know what they are. They also assume that all who don’t worship this miserable disaster known as the Bush Presidency feel the same way about everything. Your statements show everyone that YOU are indeed the moron!
By Another Gem from NPR
August 27, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this
Your statements assume that all the troops know the same things and have the same opinions, and that you magically know what they are. They also assume that all who don’t worship this miserable disaster known as the Bush Presidency feel the same way about everything. Your statements show everyone that YOU are indeed the moron!
I wondered how long it would be before one of my liberal “betters” showed up to spew venom. Honestly, that is how you view yourself isn’t it? Anyone with a conservative leaning cannot possibly be as informed as you. I don’t know what the troops think or feel - but apparently you do. Becasue, after all, only liberals know what is best for America. Please forgive me for having an opinion - I continue to forget that in the coming socialist revolution in America, people will not be allowed to have opinions.
Now be honest - don’t you believe that the majority of our troops are uneducated hillbillies that are too ignorant not to support our President? Get some spine and admit it! The radio host on NPR simply stated what you feel. Your mad becasue your hypocricy of “supporting the troops” has been exposed. Your own statments (especially the first line about what the troops “know”) shows your true prejudice.
Don’t hide your true feelings - let go of your anger and join the dark side of liberalism! Hillary and Obama will soon rule the known universe. You must embrace your hatred of the military now to prove your loyalty to them!
By problems meridia
August 27, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this
meridia problems http://meridiaproblem.forum24.se > problems meridia
By Another fake Gem from a GOP apologist
August 27, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this
Now be honest - don’t you believe that the majority of our troops are uneducated hillbillies that are too ignorant not to support our President?
No. Those were YOUR words, not mine, nor anyone else’s on this blog. You attribute opinions to people you don’t know. Who exactly said “only liberals know what’s best for America?” You falsely attributed that to millions of people you’ve never met, and then inserted some rambling nonsense about socialism, Hillary, and Obama. Hello? Non-sequitur. “Be afraid!” Who exactly is curtailing freedom of opinion? Who exactly has been photographing and arresting war protesters, and people wearing anti-establishment T-shirts to Republican fundraisers? POP QUIZ: Which one of the following was arrested: (a) Ted Nugent for saying, in front of thousands, that Hillary and Obama should suck on his machine gun, or (b) the hurricane victim, in his own devastated neighborhood in Mississippi, who quoted Cheney’s own words back to him? Theme from jeopardy playing…
Go back to watching “Big Comfy Couch” little one. It’s almost time for your juice and a nap.
By chuck
August 27, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this
Kimmie, You say it with such brilliance…except once again you are wrong. Being well-spoken usually works with democrats. They are much more concerned with HOW well you speak, rather than what you actually say. I’m tired of the trite and wrong-headed assertion that somehow we pulled the troops out of Afghanistan just moments before capturing Bin Laden. That is a load of hooey.
In fact, if you had done a little research Kim, you would have discovered that we actually had more troops in Afghanistan in 2004 than we did in 2003, the year we defended our nation by putting Hussein out of commission. Secondly, even though we have drawn down the troop count SLIGHTLY in the past 2 years, those troops have all been replaced by soldiers from other countries, including the recent increase of British troops from 5,000 to 7,700. Bin Laden could be anywhere by now. There is no evidence that he is even still in the region much less the specific country of Afghanistan. Certainly, he could be in Pakistan, but I don’t think you would advocate invading an allied country to look for him. Another possibility is that he is not even alive. NOBODY KNOWS.
As for this comment:
…but I feel LESS SAFE NOW than ever in my life!
Why do you really think that is? I have NEVER been afraid of terrorists in America. Before OR AFTER 9-11. We have stopped NUMEROUS terrorist plots since 9-11. Even if one is carried out, the chances of it affecting me personally are not very high, and there’s nothing I can do about it anyway, so why worry? I certaqinly disagree that we should have terrism in “Our Psyche”. Instead, I just trust those in charge of protecting us to do the best job they can do and I don’t worry about it.
I can’t imagine that a strong independent woman as yourself, sits around worrying about this stuff.
By lozen
August 27, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this
I wondered how long it would be before one of my liberal “betters” showed up to spew venom. How about right after you spew your venom at them? Is that soon enough for you?
By B
August 27, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this
The roots of Arab discontent/nationalism/terrorism extend well beyond the Bush Presidency, at least as far back as Nasser in Egypt in the 1950s. While I think it’s reasonable to question Bush’s response to said terrorism, I don’t think it’s reasonable to claim that he is somehow the cause of it. The goal of Islamic fundamentalist is not peaceful co-existence, unfortunately, so I don’t think diplomacy alone is the answer.
By B
August 27, 2007 3:18 PM | Link to this
Instead, I just trust those in charge of protecting us to do the best job they can do and I don’t worry about it.
I think the reality is that none of us “civvies” knows even 1% of what’s really going on in the military. The few militarily connected people I’ve chatted with indicate that 1000s of terror plots have been foiled since 9/11 that the public will never know about.
I guess in the end it’s a personal choice whether to be consumed with worry or to accept that we ultimately DO have to rely upon the military for our basic security. From an objective standpoint, outside of the 9/11 attack, I don’t think that life for the average citizen in this country is any different under Bush than under Clinton, other than the media doing their best to convince us that we’re going to heck in a handbasket every day.
By chuck
August 27, 2007 3:18 PM | Link to this
It’s probably best that you remain “anonymous” if you’re going to keep making stupid statements like this one:
The “party of appeasement” was arguing for a smarter way to address the actual threat of terrorism, rather than the phantom threat of Saddam. Bush’s neocon policies have made us less safe, not safer—nice work for the “National Security” party.
What have the dems done since they took over congress? The only “smarter” idea they have come up with is that if we leave Iraq, we’ll be safer. That’s asinine. The only thing that will happen if we withdraw from Iraq is absolute CHAOS in the Middle East. I hate it when soldiers die, but I hate it even worse when you liberals cheapen their “Final Full Measure of Devotion” by saying we shouldn’t have been there in the first place, that we have LOST there and that we should run home with our tails between our legs. That’s not a smarter way to handle anything. It’s nothing more than appeasement, which by the way is defined as:
to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
So please feel free to go back to your anonymity and let the THINKING people of the world run things.
By B
August 27, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this
In fact, the biggest problem I see facing the country is the impending credit bust due to the “liberal” lending policies of the mortgage companies and credit card companies the last 5-6 years. Many people bought homes they couldn’t truly afford using ARMs, never thinking ahead a few years when the rates readjusted to an unaffordable level. That’s why I’m puzzled when Democrats sometimes choose “predatory lending” as an issue, i.e. high-risk loans to folks with poor credit histories. IMO, we need tighter lending policies, not more liberal ones.
By NetBanker
August 27, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this
Iif Al-Qaida has regenerated while we’ve had a GOP administration in charge of the fight against them why would a ‘security mom’ support the GOP when they apparently haven’t been very effective?
This type of “father” in charge seems more like Homer Simpson than Homer Simpson. LOL, Susie! When put into context the way you did, George does seem pretty Homer.
Chuck…the party of national security?! Where is the increased border security? Port Security? National Guard troops in sufficient numbers in country to actually respond to an attack or natural disaster? They may claim to be so, but has there really been any serious movement on securing our nation?
Slightly off topic, but I just have to get it off my chest that I completely abhore the term “homeland security” and that we have a federal department with those words in it’s title. The term just brings Nazi Germany and nationalist movements to mind. I know that ‘national security’ doesn’t have the emotional appeal that calling America ‘the homeland’ does, but somehow given that 99.99% of the population has immigrant roots and diverse cultural backgrounds we just don’t seem like a ‘homeland’ kind of country. DISCLAIMER: I am in no way making any comparison of the current administration, GOP, or actual federal department to Nazis or Nazi Germany.
By By Another Gem from NPR
August 27, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this
Go back to watching “Big Comfy Couch” little one. It’s almost time for your juice and a nap.
I do love how you throw around big words like non-sequitur in the midst of your mindless rant. The Hillary and Obama comments were a joke (did you even catch the Star Wars reference?). I will admit that the socialist comments were over the top and were meant to goad you into a hissy fit (it worked!). However, the saying “a hit dog always hollers” comes to mind when reading your response.
Unfortunately, my kids are all in school now, so I am not familiar with the “Big Comfy Couch” show. However, since I have children, I always knew when it was their nap time. Whenever they would throw a temper tantrum (much like you have done here) I would immediately put them to bed. So my friend, I’ll bring an extra juice and a rubby blanket with your initials.
Have a great day!
By B
August 27, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this
However, the saying “a hit dog always hollers” comes to mind when reading your response.
Hey, watch what you say about dogs, will you?
By NetBanker
August 27, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this
Chuck will you always do the partisan attack thing, sticking to rhetoric which immediately alienates the other side and makes you appear completely unable to LISTEN or accept a contrary position or might you actually attempt some type of real discussion that may result in mutual agreement or understanding? In any event, what exactly is the definition of WIN in Iraq and the definition of LOSE from a conservative perspective because I’ve not heard one? How do we, as a nation, focus on achieving a goal that hasn’t been defined? What about our GOP loyal military leaders advising that there is no purely military solution possible in Iraq? How does that influence the definition of win/lose and the tactics to win? Where does the claim that the Democrats have said we’ll be safer if we leave Iraq come from as I haven’t seen that statement and would like to understand who is claiming that stretch of a statement?
By Another Gem from NPR
August 27, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this
Ted Nugent for saying, in front of thousands, that Hillary and Obama should suck on his machine gun
We can agree on one thing - Ted Nugent’s actions were at best borderline criminal. I am not going to defend his actions, but YOU should. If you are a liberal you should believe in the principals of freedom of speech and expression no matter how distasteful that expression may be. Or could it be that you truly to believe in curtailing certain kinds of speech - perhaps those you don’t agree with?
By B
August 27, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this
Challenge to the Bush-haters: Please tell me how your own lives are worse now than under Clinton, and if so, how is Bush responsible? Please tell me one right under the law that you have personally lost?
By NetBanker
August 27, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this
B…we are in for a potential world of hurt from the credit woes of an inflated housing market and poor lending decisions. Housing prices are now dropping nation-wide so all that equity is drying up also. On the defense side for lenders, there is a presumption in the review process on the part of the lender (and borrower) that the borrower’s income will increase over time which should help mitigate the effects of possible rate increases. My personal reality, as well as that of far too many people, is that ‘raises’ the past few years have been little more than cost of living increases that management claims you’re lucky to have received even as profits are up over last year’s figures. Real incomes aren’t tending to rise and the presumption built into the process hasn’t been corrected to account for this.
By NetBanker
August 27, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this
I am not going to defend his actions, but YOU should. If you are a liberal you should believe in the principals of freedom of speech and expression no matter how distasteful that expression may be. Believing in the freedom of speech doesn’t mean that anyone has to or should defend Ted Nugent’s actions or statements regardless of their political leanings.
By B
August 27, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this
Housing prices are now dropping nation-wide so all that equity is drying up also.
I appreciate your input, NetB. You always offer some substance with your posts. My biggest concern right now is that the rabid anti-immigrant crowd may force a radical solution leading to a mass exodus of the illegals overnight. In the short run, the housing market would collapse, with several million homes vacant overnight and no one to sell them too. I’m trying to get out from under my properties as fast as I can.
By B
August 27, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this
I guess you could say that I’m pro-education, considering that I pay school taxes in three counties and don’t have any kids.
By Another Gem from NPR
August 27, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this
Hey B - sorry about the dog comments. In the spirit of the “fairness doctrine” I will play devils advocate (despite the fact that I am one of the so-called “neo-cons”).
All of you Clinton haters - please tell me how your lives were worse under Clinton than it was under the George Bush. Give specifics please. Please tell me one right under the law you lost under his watch.
By B
August 27, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this
I just realized something, NetB—You’re the only person on the blog that everyone likes. What’s your secret?
By Another fake Gem from a GOP apologist
August 27, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this
If you are a liberal you should believe in the principals of freedom of speech and expression no matter how distasteful that expression may be.
You are correct! I should and I do. I was merely pointing out the double standard so prevalent today. I think my conservative friends (real conservatives, not modern neo-fascists who call themselves such) would take issue with your categorization of this as a “liberal” principle, though. I was raised to believe it’s an American principle. But if you’d rather be devisive, go ahead. I’ll defend your right to spew.
By B
August 27, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this
All of you Clinton haters - please tell me how your lives were worse under Clinton than it was under the George Bush. Give specifics please. Please tell me one right under the law you lost under his watch.
Life was good overall for me during the Clinton years. I used to spout about Clinton, but, with time, have forgiven and forgotten his personal transgressions which I thought were an embarrassment to the country at the time. Truthfully, he did a fantastic job of verbally appeasing the liberals while agreeing with a lot of conservative legislation which came out of the Newt Gingrich Congress.
Again, I hold the media responsible for a lot of the sombre mood which seems to affect people these days.
By JokesOn
August 27, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this
B,
Please tell me how your own lives are worse now than under Clinton, and if so, how is Bush responsible?
I have heritage from to different countries. I used to visit each them once a year, twice if lucky. After Bush was in office I visited as usual and the attitude/tone towards Americans was a 180 degree flip. I no longer was accepted because of my deep heritage, but treated coldly because of my idiot leader’s forign relations.
Please tell me one right under the law that you have personally lost? Privacy in phone calls to my relitaves. I am sure not to talk politics with them and speak my mind becuase I really do not trust I have that right any longer.
You or I could have our house raided, personnally detained without explaination and for an unlimited amount of time.
By Another Gem from NPR
August 27, 2007 4:38 PM | Link to this
Believing in the freedom of speech doesn’t mean that anyone has to or should defend Ted Nugent’s actions or statements regardless of their political leanings.
On that we can agree NetB. My point was that I shouldn’t be expected to defend the rights of people wearing anti-establishment T-shirts to Republican fundraisers if none of my left-leaning brethren will defend the rights of the motor city madman. Certainly the right can be accused of trying to limit free speech - but for far too long we have allowed the left to frame that argument. I am trying to bring a little more awarness to the fact that average liberals care no more or no less about free speech than do average conservatives.
By B
August 27, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this
After Bush was in office I visited as usual and the attitude/tone towards Americans was a 180 degree flip. I no longer was accepted because of my deep heritage, but treated coldly because of my idiot leader’s forign relations.
Sadly, I heard similar comments from some of my Greek clients. I’m not so much of a Bush defender as I used to be, but I do think some of his critics are not reasonable. Where I think he may have failed is in the “Walk softly” part of the famous commandment from T. Roosevelt.
JokesOn, since you’re an avowed Bush-hater, do you think that will end some of the speculation that you and I are the same person?
By Archie
August 27, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this
Without enough to expound I will just say I agree with Andrea and SusieH. No need for security moms to believe in Bush.
By JokesOn
August 27, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this
Another Gem from NPR,
My point was that I shouldn’t be expected to defend the rights of people wearing anti-establishment T-shirts to Republican fundraisers if none of my left-leaning brethren will defend the rights of the motor city madman.
That is one of the most idiotic statements in a while. Right there with “your with us or against us!” The US is based on meeting that grey, in between, area.
Seems you are reading the statements how you would like and not how they were meant:
Believing in the freedom of speech doesn’t mean that anyone has to or should defend Ted Nugent’s actions or statements regardless of their political leanings.
There is a difference being defined here: Defending the Right and defending the actual POV.
Smart liberals or conservitives will defend the Right in nearly all circumstances and be VERY wary of trampling that Right.
By B
August 27, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this
I think I may have found the solution to relationship issues, JokesOn, at least for me. In the past, I’ve always felt responsible for my partner’s happiness, for whatever reason. Maybe that’s why I’ve gravitated to the “Rescue Me” girls. From here on out, I’m going to focus more on being a true friend to women. Hopefully that will work better.
By Another Gem from NPR
August 27, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this
OK jokes on, you are afraid to talk politics with your relatives over the phone, but you are not afraid to accuse our government of Nazi tactics nor are you afraid to call the President an idiot on this blog. Please try again.
Another fake Gem from a GOP apologist: that is an example of a non-sequitur. Oh - I take back my implication that you are a hypocrite. If you truly support Ted’s foolish display, then you live what you believe and you have my respect. My apologies.
By JokeOns
August 27, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this
JokesOn, since you’re an avowed Bush-hater, do you think that will end some of the speculation that you and I are the same person?
Once again you are imagining those people using logic and reason. No chance they will see us as different. They, like what I dislike about Bush, are stubborn to the point that they will sabotage their own position instead of acknowledging what they now think of as the enemy.
but I do think some of his critics are not reasonable. With statements like “with OR against us,” you tend to alienate a lot of people. And if those people were on the fence deciding, those statements will tend to tip them away from you. That alone shows me he is not too bright.
By kimberly
August 28, 2007 8:47 AM | Link to this
What a 40-yr-old American mom REALLY has to fear:
The metaplasia lining her insides will turn cancerous about the time the kids go off to college and the child support checks stop. Because she’s been busy trying to balance work and committed motherhood, she hasn’t scrapped her way up the corporate ladder, and her mid-level job with “experienced” salary will be downsized and given to a recent grad who’ll do it for much less. Then she’ll get a letter from the insurance company that starts a long futile process of writing letters and making phone calls to no avail while coverage is denied, denied, denied! Meanwhile, her modest 401K will slide down the drain of medical costs and toxic drugs that will not save her anyway. The bank will take her house, the dog will die of old age, and that’s a wrap, folks! Someone else will watch her beautiful daughter walk down the aisle, though she’ll remark that she does miss her mom.
Now tell us again, Shaunti, of whom we’re supposed to be afraid?
By SusieHomeMaker
August 28, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this
b: The few militarily connected people I’ve chatted with indicate that 1000s of terror plots have been foiled since 9/11 that the public will never know about.
That statement in itself makes me wonder about your sincerity. Few troops, and I’m talking about few outside of the Crystal Palace and the Pentagon, have that type of knowledge or the security clearance needed to even process that type of info. Only a limited amount of people in the military and/or department of defense actually know what’s going on, the others, just follow orders.
b: In fact, the biggest problem I see facing the country is the impending credit bust due to the “liberal” lending policies of the mortgage companies and credit card companies the last 5-6 years.
You’re kidding right? The amount is insignificant to the billions of dollars that we owe to a Communist country, (china), nor does it compare with the billions of dollars that we are over budget. I’m amazed how you can make a statement like that one ^^ with a straight face!
By SusieHomeMaker
August 28, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this
b: The roots of Arab discontent/nationalism/terrorism extend well beyond the Bush Presidency, at least as far back as Nasser in Egypt in the 1950s. While I think it’s reasonable to question Bush’s response to said terrorism, I don’t think it’s reasonable to claim that he is somehow the cause of it.
He is the cause of the resurgence of Al Queada. After 9/11 the US had the complete support of lots of Arab countries when we invaded Afghanistan — they understood the reasoning behind it and supported it. But with the invasion of Iraq, the US lost their support, incurred their wrath, and sparked an unprecedented rise in membership of the Anti-American regimes like Al Queada bent on our total annhiliation.
By SusieHomeMaker
August 28, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this
We can agree on one thing - Ted Nugent’s actions were at best borderline criminal. I am not going to defend his actions, but YOU should. If you are a liberal you should believe in the principals of freedom of speech and expression no matter how distasteful that expression may be. Or could it be that you truly to believe in curtailing certain kinds of speech - perhaps those you don’t agree with?
Bravo!! Bravo!! That was a brilliant strategy and totally worthy of your friend Karl Rove!! Basically what you did was totally ignore her salient points and then redirected the conversation around to make HER look bad!! I haven’t seen trickery as clever as this since Rove/Bush and friends attacked Anne Richards by putting out rumors that she was a closet lesbian!! Bravo sir and well done!!!
By Question
August 28, 2007 9:21 AM | Link to this
Did Another Gem from NPR work on the Georgia Aquarium’s tank substrate/reefs, by way of, coincidentally, Michigan?
By Mara
August 28, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this
Darn! I was too busy yesterday to post and I missed out on some great (and not-so-great) discussion points. Just to play catch-up, and because his post was so stereo-typically ideological, I’ll start with chuck’s post.
When it comes down to it the difference between the parties is this:
Republicans are the party of National Security.
Democrats are the party of APPEASEMENT.
which is absolutely fallacious. The difference between the parties is:
Republicans believe that business should be free to do as they please but personal behavior should be controlled by the government.
Democrats believe that people should be free to do as they like but business should be regulated by the government.
Republicans believe that beating people up, bullying them, and insulting their ideals is “diplomacy” while actually talking to people, finding out what they think (even if you disagree) and looking at ways to alleviate the root of international hatred is “appeasment”.
But really, chuck has a habit of demonizing of liberals as evil incarnate whose sole agenda is destroying the strong, free, democratic, Christian America and turning it into a weak, subjegated communist nation filled with gays, loose women, and atheists.
What is really silly is that Republicans, for the most part, seem to not be able to seperate policy from personality. If one disagrees with a particular issue, like “extraordinary rendition” for example, Republicans tend to blame in on a personal hatred of ol’ Dubya or a love of Bin Laden instead of a reverence for the rule of law and the ideals in the Constitution. If one opposes torture, one is accused of wanting to see another 9/11. If one is dismayed by un-warranted surveillance, the dissolution of the writ of habeus corpus, Miranda rights, and the 4th amendment protections, one is accused of being weak on security. If there are bounds that one believes should not be passed, that there are certain limits to what the government should be allowed to do, then you “want the terrorists to win”. Which brings me to the topic of the week. I think that the Bush administration, and its fanatical supporters (all 29% of them), has been so incompetent, so inflamatory in rhetoric, and so untrustworthy in its assessment of any given situation, that the American public, including the so-called “security moms”, have long since ceased to put much trust in anything they say.
Most polls show that the Democrats now have a significant lead over Republicans on which group most Americans trust on national security. Not surprising considering the incompetence and cronyism that the GOP has supported throughout this administration.
By JokesOn
August 28, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this
OK jokes on, you are afraid to talk politics with your relatives over the phone, but you are not afraid to accuse our government of Nazi tactics nor are you afraid to call the President an idiot on this blog. Please try again.
Overall: Same response that susie is warranted here.
A) I have a right to privacy on the phone, yet do not expect it on a public blog.
B) Show me where I referred to nazi tactics ANYWHERE.
Please try again???!!!?? Dolt - you cannot even read.
By Chilao
August 28, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this
on that thought, Mara, I scanned this from this month’s Playboy over the weekend to send to friends:
http://media.pixpond.com/4rx7j8.jpg
for those unable to see, it displays a man leaving church, shaking the minister’s hand in the doorway, as the man remarks “I’ve always suspected that stem cell research, abortion, and gay marriage were responsible for global warming”.
or should I just post the latest from the Family Values Party, the guilty plea from Senator Craig of Idaho? LOL
By Mara
August 28, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this
Susie - LOL @ your 9:05!
What he doesn’t acknowlege is that we DO regulate speech in many instances. From the proverbial “yelling FIRE in a crowded theater” to the issuance of terroristic threats, speech that elicits panic or fear of bodily injury is often deemed to be illegal. While I didn’t bother to look at the video or memorize the transcript, the only beef I might have with Nugent’s speech is whether it would constitute a threat toward certain members of government with whom he disagrees politically. Inviting an ex-first lady and a host of sitting senators to “suck on his machine gun” would, I think, fall in the catagory of “possible threat”.
Political intimidation through threats of violence is how politics in the third world works, not politics in the U.S. I would think the GOP would be backing away from this type of….oh…yeah, the GOP. Sorry, I forgot who we were talking about! :^)
By Mara
August 28, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this
Chilao - HAHAHAHA!!! You know that’s the kind of stuff that causes hurricans, bridge collapses, and tornados also! LOL!
By Mara
August 28, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this
Chilao - one of my friends just mailed me this about Larry Craig and Bob Allen.
most amusing quote -“…You see he wasn’t really interested in giving h—d, he was just trying to save his neck. Apparently, the cop was “a pretty stocky black guy” and “there were nothing but other black guys around in the park.” Fearing he was “about to become a statistic,” (Rep. Bob Allen) did what any other, rational, straight (straight!), white man would do if he just so happened to find himself cruising a public restroom full of black men: fork over a Jackson and drop to your knees.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070828/cmthenation/15227318;ylt=AkmRFm0oabFT0Ky6q4ecToG7e8UF
By JokesOn
August 28, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this
I think I may have found the solution to relationship issues, JokesOn, at least for me. In the past, I’ve always felt responsible for my partner’s happiness, for whatever reason. Maybe that’s why I’ve gravitated to the “Rescue Me” girls. From here on out, I’m going to focus more on being a true friend to women. Hopefully that will work better.
My opinion is that, like most situations, the answer is in the grey area between fixing someone and expecting someone to fix themselves without assistance. The grey area always takes lots of love and more-over patience.
A great speaker once said it like this: You should not be totally complacent with what you have in life, and also should not always want more to be happy either. You should be content, yet want more at the same time.
Whether you are with the rescue me type, or totally independent, the work to be done is (nearly) always as difficult. So, it comes down more to an existentialist POV - which type are you healthier with and able to contribute more to? I would suspect that you can contribute more to the rescue types, but not necessarily healthily; and conversely you are healthier with independent types but can offer less. That is my story anyways.
So it is back to the question of which do you want to work on: being healthy with a person in need or to contribute more with an independant?
By Chilao
August 28, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this
Mara - apparently it(Sen. Craig - nice play on craigslist there) is being called Toiletgate on another forum. too funny.
While I find the public aspect repulsive, I personally don’t have a problem with it, EXCEPT when it is from the FamilyValuesBedroomRegulation party. LOL
And actually a good fundie could probably argue that global warming is a direct result of mankind’s disrespect for God’s laws. I have not HEARD that argument yet, but would not be surprised. You know, God giving us a head’s up/warning on the extreme heat related to H3LL. Like all the Repent, Sinner signs I see posted on trees in the rural South.
By NetBanker
August 28, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this
I shouldn’t be expected to defend the rights of people wearing anti-establishment T-shirts to Republican fundraisers if none of my left-leaning brethren will defend the rights of the motor city madman. I completely agree and am curious as to your thoughts on the current administration being one the first (to my awareness) to physically remove people from Presidential routes to areas that were out of view of the motorcade and media on the route or to define in advance those areas where protestors were ‘allowed’ to stand with signs. Personally, I find this to be a complete violation of the 1st amendment and possibly the 4th (I’m guessing on that number) to peaceful assembly.
Just to illuminate another round of political hypocrisy, did anyone hear Tony Snow on Neal Boortz this morning? He was saying that the investigations surround Gonzales should stop because they haven’t found any illegal activity to date and should stop “wasting tax payer dollars”. It just made me think about the Ken Star $40MM investigation of the Clintons. While that did produce ‘results’ late in the investigation reagarding lying about a BJ, using the current GOP logic the Whitewater case should have been halted far more quickly.
By Mara
August 28, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this
Chilao - it seems like all one has to do to find someone with a weird or socially unacceptable fetish is look to see who is most rabidly “pro-family”. The same seems to apply to closeted gays, too. Find the ones most adamantly against equality for gays and you’ll most likely find someone with a little secret. Like you, I’m sort of ambivalent about outting the closeted gay…until they try to pass legislation that harms or shames those whose proclivities they share. Very little angers me more than hypocrisy.
By Chilao
August 28, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
Lozen - sorry, but after trying various ways, I cannot get the pic/cartoon/.gif to work. Want to describe it?
By Lily Toad
August 28, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this
I shouldn’t be expected to defend the rights of people wearing anti-establishment T-shirts to Republican fundraisers if none of my left-leaning brethren will defend the rights of the motor city madman. You shouldn’t be expected to defend their rights because I don’t expect anyone to defend anything, but don’t you think this is an unfair comparison? Just wearing a tee-shirt does not compare to obscene/violent language, don’t you think?
By NetBanker
August 28, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this
until they try to pass legislation that harms or shames those whose proclivities they share This selling your sould to the devil in my opinion. As a gay person I hate these bathroom cruising stories because they give gay people a bad name. It’s not the living openly as a gay person folks who do these types of things for the most part. It’s those who are gay or bi living as strict heteros.
By lozen
August 28, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this
Chilao, Calvin and Hobbes. First frame: Dad is reading newspaper and son says, “Dad, how do soldiers killing each other solve the world’s problems?” Next: Dad looks bug-eyed at the viewer. Next frame: dad is reading the paper again. Last frame, kid walks away saying, “I think grown-ups just ACT like they know what they’re doing.”
By B
August 28, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this
So it is back to the question of which do you want to work on: being healthy with a person in need or to contribute more with an independant?
I guess that has been my experience as well, JokesOn, that there is always a sort of yin-yang quality to relationships. One of the partners is usually in the “one-up” position forcing the other to operate from the “one-down” postition. Using your terminology, one partner will be the “healthy one” while the other becomes the “needy one”. The odd part is that I’ve found myself on both sides of the relationship fence, although I have discovered that I strongly prefer the “one-up” position.
By Chilao
August 28, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this
Lozen - thanks, good one. LOL
By B
August 28, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this
*
That statement in itself makes me wonder about your sincerity. Few troops, and I’m talking about few outside of the Crystal Palace and the Pentagon, have that type of knowledge or the security clearance needed to even process that type of info. Only a limited amount of people in the military and/or department of defense actually know what’s going on, the others, just follow orders.
In my work, I had clients from all walks of life, including several career military men. I don’t know how high up the command chain they were, but believe them when they say that terror plots are foiled everyday that are never reported to the media. My point is that the average civilian will never know all the facts about national security, and as such, really can’t form an intelligent opinion about the effectiveness of our security other than noting the absence of another major attack. Why my outlook causes you to doubt my sincerity, I don’t know. In fact, a good case could be made that you are being insincere in regards to this issue by forming a strong opinion based on incomplete information.
By Not fooled
August 28, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this
Still not fooled.
By B
August 28, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this
You’re kidding right? The amount is insignificant to the billions of dollars that we owe to a Communist country, (china), nor does it compare with the billions of dollars that we are over budget. I’m amazed how you can make a statement like that one ^^ with a straight face!
Susie—my point here is that the personal credit bubble is going to bust long before our “national debt” and indebtedness to China will harm us. If my memory is correct, I believe there are more than 1 million foreclosed homes sitting vacant right now. If you figure the average home value is around $100,000, that works out to be 100 billion dollars right there. I’m sure the figure is higher.
Thank GOD I got a contract on one of my properties last night. The buyers can afford to pay cash, so we should close in less than 1 week.
By Mara
August 28, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this
I shouldn’t be expected to defend the rights of people wearing anti-establishment T-shirts to Republican fundraisers if none of my left-leaning brethren will defend the rights of the motor city madman…I completely agree
Net - I also agree if it is, in actuality, a Republican fundraiser. I, too, think that a private entity like RNC has every right to dictate who gets to attend their event. What isn’t said is that many of the functions that people were tossed out of were tax-payer funded events.
It’s when an ostensibly public discussion is monitored for the “correct” ideology that the issue becomes the abuse of government power. Within the constraints of occupancy capacity at a venue, every American, regardless of ideology, should be welcome at a publically funded event.
By B
August 28, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this
The metaplasia lining her insides will turn cancerous about the time the kids go off to college and the child support checks stop.
Technically speaking, kimberly, the cells which line the various organs of our bodies are known as epithelial cells. The process by which normal epithelial cells(or any other type of cells) turn into a different type of cell (cancer) is known as metaplasia. If you’re going to worry yourself to death, at least now you can worry more accurately. ; > }
By SusieHomeMaker
August 28, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this
I don’t know how high up the command chain they were, but believe them when they say that terror plots are foiled everyday that are never reported to the media. My point is that the average civilian will never know all the facts about national security, and as such, really can’t form an intelligent opinion about the effectiveness of our security other than noting the absence of another major attack
My point is that neither does the average soldier. Suffice to say; I know about security clearances and NEED TO KNOW information; not every soldier has the clearance nor the need to know regarding security. Only 15% of the military, and these are in high level jobs, has the level of security clearance needed in order to know information on that level and would have the first hand knowledge of the frequency of US stopped attacks. And if they did, they couldn’t talk about it in the first place.
Certain levels of the CIA, would know that info, before a common Servicemember would; and it has nothing to do with rank or position but security clearances and again the need to know.
Servicemembers are chattel for the government; their jobs, in most instances, does not need for them to know why they’re going or doing something; just when and where. A General may have orders to command an attack at a certain point on a map and told to report any findings; but have no idea why the attack was staged in the first place. She may incur from her own observations what she thinks is the reason; but without the info from Optel; she can only make educated guesses.
By SusieHomeMaker
August 28, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this
The same seems to apply to closeted gays, too. Find the ones most adamantly against equality for gays and you’ll most likely find someone with a little secret. Like you, I’m sort of ambivalent about outting the closeted gay…until they try to pass legislation that harms or shames those whose proclivities they share. Very little angers me more than hypocrisy.
There was a program on Discovery about transsexuals a few weeks back. The majority of transssexuals who were once males and were transistioning into females stated that as a male, they were always the super macho types. They stated that they felt they had to be that way in order to hide the fact that they were women trapped in a male’s body.
Although I know that transexuals and homosexuals are too different types of people; your comment brought back that memory of the program and kinda makes me think if there is any correalation between the two.
By B
August 28, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this
My point is that neither does the average soldier.
I beieve you, Susie, which supports my point even more. I know a few guys who made the rank of colonel in the army. I’m not sure how high up the information chain that puts them, but I trust their opinions that the military is doing a good job more than I trust the opinions of politically-motivated non-military folks.
By B
August 28, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this
Side note: When y’all get a chance, come on out to see the new Hindu temple in Lilburn which just opened this weekend. It is reported that it is the largest Hindu temple outside of India. It’s beautiful in both the day and night-time. At night, they project blue and purple lights onto the towers. Very psychedelic.
By SusieHomeMaker
August 28, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this
The average house in atlanta may cost 100K but maybe not in Mississippi or Oregon. However I still think you’re off on your stated point. Our gross national debt far outweighs any defaulted home loans and with this war, is steadily growing.
By B
August 28, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this
Quick story, then gotta run. I have read that when the first Christian missionaries came to India, they were ecstatic at how receptive the Indian people were to accepting the Christ. Their jubilation was greatly tempered, however, when they couldn’t get the Indians to accept Jesus as being the only Saviour. It seems they were happy to accept Jesus, but in a way that simply incorporated his teachings into their pre-existing poly-theistic beliefs. Frustrated the heck out of the missionaries.
By B
August 28, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this
Our gross national debt far outweighs any defaulted home loans and with this war, is steadily growing.
Susie, I’m not an economist, but the way in which national debt/foreign debt effects an economy isn’t a simple matter from my understanding. E.g., China sends us their products, and we send them paper promises to pay later in return. A case could be made that China is far more imperiled by this arrangement than we are. At the minimum, the later payments are made with inflated dollars which aren’t worth as much as when the debt was incurred. I’m not happy to know that we are indebted to China, but I don’t believe individual US citizens will ever be affected by this situation. In contrast, if you own a house right now that you can’t rent or sell, your personal economic situation is in grave immediate danger. Sorry to be so selfish, but my own personal economic situation is of greater interest to me than the nuances of international financing and debt.
By AGFNPR
August 28, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this
NetB - I agree with most of what you said @11:46. I believe removing the people from the parade route is a violation of their rights (see - neocons can be reasonable). My issue occurs with statements like this Smart liberals or conservatives will defend the Right in nearly all circumstances and be VERY wary of trampling that Right. Ditto for the comments made by Mara earlier today.
Indeed there are valid reasons why some speech should be limited. My question is - who gets to decide what those issues are? When I made comments yesterday like “only Liberals know what is best for America” what I really meant was that I feel liberals don’t won’t me and “my ilk” to have a voice.
NetB - you are a reasonable individual. You took my arguments seriously and disagreed without personally attacking me. All of us on this blog should follow your approach.
By Mara
August 28, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this
B - would you consider the collapse of the dollar to be something that might affect the individual US citizen? How about economic blackmail designed to force us to cede trade benefits to China? Think that might affect you? Just wondering, since they have already threatened to liquidate a majority of their stockpiled US Treasury bonds. To believe that national debt and trade imbalances don’t affect the individual American is, IMHO, imprudent.
from Forbes Magazine -
excerpt - “The Chinese government has hinted that it may liquidate its vast holding of US Treasury bonds, potentially triggering a crash in the dollar, if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation…He Fan, an official at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, went further yesterday, indicating that China had the power to set off a dollar collapse, if it chose to do so”
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/08/08/afx3997945.html
By Lily Toad
August 28, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this
Susie, interesting comments about transgendered women (transsexuals is not the preferred term these days). I know a few transgendered women who were in the military as men, so looks like they were hyper-masculinizing. But transmen (born female) seem to have performed as boys, rather than trying to be hyper-feminine.
By B
August 28, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this
“The Chinese government has hinted that it may liquidate its vast holding of US Treasury bonds, potentially triggering a crash in the dollar, if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation…He Fan, an official at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, went further yesterday, indicating that China had the power to set off a dollar collapse, if it chose to do so”
Mara—There always exists a special relationship between lenders and borrowers. It is never in the lender’s best interest to create conditions which lead to a default of the loan by the borrower. As such, the true leverage often exists on the side of the borrower, at least for the “higher level” borrowers. Case in point is Donald Trump. Trump was notorious in the 1980s and 1990s for getting a big loan from a bank with agreed upon terms, only to return to the bank a few years later to “renegotiate” the loans in his favor, often getting the bank to accept pennies on the dollar. His strategy is basd on the fact that the lender prefers to get something, rather than nothing. If China took steps to cripple the US dollar, how is that in their best interest?
By NetBanker
August 28, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this
I feel liberals don’t won’t me and “my ilk” to have a voice….disagreed without personally attacking me AGFNPR, I think you’ve answered your own question and one many people have about why conservatives/liberals, GOP/DEM, etc can’t seem to get along let alone actually work together. I learned a long time ago on my high school debate team (yes, I was an uber-geek and band fa g kid)that debates are about the issues or problems at hand and NOT about personal attacks. In fact, you could have points deducted for attacking your opponent rather than attacking their arguments. I saw a contestant lose a debate that he had won hands down based on the arguments presented because he derided his opponent and made personal attacks. My point here is that we can’t take these things personally.
At the same time, it is my impression as an observer of politics for some time that while both sides are taking the low road of personal derision, it was during the Clinton years and especially during the Bush 43 years that the GOP ratcheted up the use of personal attacks on opponents both within and outside the party. If one considers the last election the appearance was that the Dems tried to take the high road, but eventually ended up fighting fire with fire or more accurately mud with mud. An example of this would be the initial reaction (or non-reaction) of John Kerry to the Swift Boat Veterans and then his later fighting back. I think it is human nature to drop to the lowest common denominator and at this point the extremes of both sides would appear to be racing each other to the bottom of the decency barrel. Unfortunately since this is part of human nature we love to observe these fights and the side/person attempting to take the high road is viewed as weak. We want them to fight back in just as nasty a way as the original attack if only for the entertainment value. What we forget is that politics and leadership of the country shouldn’t be about entertainment, but about doing what is best for the country and it’s population regardless of how popular the decision or action. Today’s politics seem to run on popularity rather than true leadership.
By NetBanker
August 28, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this
I feel liberals don’t won’t me and “my ilk” to have a voice….disagreed without personally attacking me AGFNPR, I think you’ve answered your own question and one many people have about why conservatives/liberals, GOP/DEM, etc can’t seem to get along let alone actually work together. I learned a long time ago on my high school debate team (yes, I was an uber-geek and band fa g kid)that debates are about the issues or problems at hand and NOT about personal attacks. In fact, you could have points deducted for attacking your opponent rather than attacking their arguments. I saw a contestant lose a debate that he had won hands down based on the arguments presented because he derided his opponent and made personal attacks. My point here is that we can’t take these things personally.
At the same time, it is my impression as an observer of politics for some time that while both sides are taking the low road of personal derision, it was during the Clinton years and especially during the Bush 43 years that the GOP ratcheted up the use of personal attacks on opponents both within and outside the party. If one considers the last election the appearance was that the Dems tried to take the high road, but eventually ended up fighting fire with fire or more accurately mud with mud. An example of this would be the initial reaction (or non-reaction) of John Kerry to the Swift Boat Veterans and then his later fighting back. I think it is human nature to drop to the lowest common denominator and at this point the extremes of both sides would appear to be racing each other to the bottom of the decency barrel. Unfortunately since this is part of human nature we love to observe these fights and the side/person attempting to take the high road is viewed as weak. We want them to fight back in just as nasty a way as the original attack if only for the entertainment value. What we forget is that politics and leadership of the country shouldn’t be about entertainment, but about doing what is best for the country and it’s population regardless of how popular the decision or action. Today’s politics seem to run on popularity rather than true leadership.
By Chilao
August 28, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this
China is where we were in 1929, everyone there is playing the stock market on inadequate reserves(down payment, getting stocks on credit). China might threaten a US Treasury Bond dump but it hurts them just as much as it would hurt us. And throwing the world into a major recession/depression is not in anybody’s interest. Well, except for the military-industrial complex. since we all know the best way OUT of a recession. KaBOOM. historically at least. LOL
interesting article on the yuan valuation:
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9184053
But China further has the problem of being a highly-polluted country, similiar to where we were in also, say 1929 or so, in our urban areas at least. Except their pollution is more wide-spread than ours was then.
I got the end of the world speech from a coworker DoomsDayer when the Asian stock market crashed in 1997 but quite frankly, I did not feel a thing.
China’s current stock market, a-la U.S. 1929, is what I most worry about. If I were to “worry”, which I do not.
By NetBanker
August 28, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this
While we are rather at the mercy of the Chinese due to trade imbalances and their holding far too much of our paper debt for them to trigger a devaluation of the dollar would likely result in a world-wide recession (the dollar is the primary currency of trade) that would hit China extremely hard. If your primary trade partner and many other countries who trade based on the dollar suddenly have their trade currency devalued significantly your sales and exports drop will plummet resulting in a recession. The emergence of a world economy means that what affects those who buy your good ultimately comes home to roost.
By B
August 28, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this
At the same time, it is my impression as an observer of politics for some time that while both sides are taking the low road of personal derision, it was during the Clinton years and especially during the Bush 43 years that the GOP ratcheted up the use of personal attacks on opponents both within and outside the party
Hey, Net, have you ever read some of the stump speeches during the Lincoln-Douglass election? They make Ted Nugent look like a pansy. What would be your opinion of the Southern Senator who severely beat a Republican opponent with a cane right on the Senate floor in the years leading up to the Civil War? I forgot the Senators’ names, but some feel the event helped trigger the “Civil War”.
By Mara
August 28, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this
AGFNPR - When I made comments yesterday like “only Liberals know what is best for America” what I really meant was that I feel liberals don’t want me and “my ilk” to have a voice
Not to invalidate how you feel, but we liberals have been dealing with the same issue from conservatives for a much longer time.
Pro-choice? You’re a murderer. Pro-gay marriage? You want to destroy “traditional” families. Pro-“church/state seperation”? You’re trying destroy Christianity. Anti-Iraq War? Why do you hate America, you commie wimp. Pro-diplomacy? You’re an “appeaser”. Pro-Iraq withdrawl? You hate our soldiers, don’t you?!
Any and all criticism of American foreign policy, of the domestic agenda, or the questioning of implementation brings the charge that liberals “Blame America first” or that we “want the terrorists to win”. That or the old canard about “My country right or wrong” and “love it or leave it”.
We won’t even discuss the use of government power to shut down political speech, curb the free flow of information, intimidate your ideological opposites and promote a single religious view of what is moral.
as I said, welcome to how the liberal feels…but what did you expect when the political ideals of “united we stand” and “e pluribus unum” was cynically abandoned in favor of “divide and conquer” so that one political party could garner a whopping 51 percent of the vote, just enough to gain or maintain power. When all you want is one percent over what you need…who needs compromise or respect?
By B
August 28, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this
We want them to fight back in just as nasty a way as the original attack if only for the entertainment value. What we forget is that politics and leadership of the country shouldn’t be about entertainment, but about doing what is best for the country and it’s population regardless of how popular the decision or action. Today’s politics seem to run on popularity rather than true leadership.
You have to give Ronald Reagan a lot of credit for how smoothly he handled his critics. Bill Clinton did a pretty good job of defusing his critics until that nasty “albumin” stain appeared on Monica’s dress.
By NetBanker
August 28, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this
Very good points, Chilao and B!
By B
August 28, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this
Here’s an excerpt regarding the caning of Charles Sumner in 1856:
Representative Preston Brooks was Butler’s South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his “Crime Against Kansas” speech.
Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner’s head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.
Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.
By B
August 28, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this
as I said, welcome to how the liberal feels…but what did you expect when the political ideals of “united we stand” and “e pluribus unum” was cynically abandoned in favor of “divide and conquer” so that one political party could garner a whopping 51 percent of the vote, just enough to gain or maintain power. When all you want is one percent over what you need…who needs compromise or respect?
Mara, would it surprise you to know that that’s exactly how most conservatives feel toward liberals?
I learned a great lesson while working for JC Penney many years ago. The first year, I worked the dayshift, in which a common topic of conversation was just how sorry the night shift workers were. The following year, I worked the night shift, and guess what a frequent topic of conversation was?
The reality is that there are both good and bad people within each party.
By kimberly
August 28, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this
Condescension is such a turn off, isn’t it? When someone tells me what to feel, or that my expressed feelings are absurd, stupid, or invalid, or when someone steps into a moment and thinks he knows all about something he knows NOTHING about, I pretty much just tune out and turn off to anything that person has to say from that day forward. Yawn! Just my two cents.
By B
August 28, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this
When someone tells me what to feel, or that my expressed feelings are absurd, stupid, or invalid, or when someone steps into a moment and thinks he knows all about something he knows NOTHING about, I pretty much just tune out and turn off to anything that person has to say from that day forward.
kimberly, your complaint would ring truer if you weren’t guilty of doing the same exact thing yourself to those you disagree with.
By AGFNPR
August 28, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this
At the same time, it is my impression as an observer of politics for some time that while both sides are taking the low road of personal derision, it was during the Clinton years and especially during the Bush 43 years that the GOP ratcheted up the use of personal attacks on opponents both within and outside the party
That’s not an impression - it is fact. There is no excuse for the actions of men like Lee Atwater, but there was a reason for it. Just as liberals feel they have had no voice in government for the last 8 years; imagine how Republicans felt from 1962 until 1994. The frustration of not having an outlet with which to voice your opinion led to the smash mouth politics of the 1st Bush administration. In my opinion the tactics were unforgivable, but they were believed to be necessary by those in power in the Republican party. The Democrats, it seems, have learned well from the example set by those right of center.
So how do we fix this mess? I don’t know. Until individual Republicans and Democrats can turn away from party allegiances and do what is necessary and right, we will continue to be a divided country. However, we must realize that WE are part of the problem. Let one Republican turn away from the party line and see if his constituents don’t crucify him. Ditto for the Democrats. I am afraid that our elected officials are simply a reflection of us. They are petty, childish, selfish, and uncompromising because they are just like us.
By Mara
August 28, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this
B - I’d be shocked to find out otherwise. The thing is that neither side is willing to give the other the benefit of a doubt.
Take national security for example. Do you really think that the millions of liberals in this country want to see another 9/11 or secretly hope that we lose the Iraq war just to embarrass George Bush? Do conservatives really think that the millions of liberals in this country, those in the armed services and those with friends and family in the armed services, really hate the military? Do they truly think that most women who get abortions do so simply as a means of birth control?
On my side I’m willing to admit that I do think that most conservatives would see nothing wrong with mandating christian morality through legislation. I really do think that they don’t respect the decision-making capabilities of most women. And I do believe that they value control more than freedom.
Now…why would I be wrong?
By B
August 28, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this
On my side I’m willing to admit that I do think that most conservatives would see nothing wrong with mandating christian morality through legislation. I really do think that they don’t respect the decision-making capabilities of most women. And I do believe that they value control more than freedom.
Personally, I see no connection between Biblical morality and political conservatism. Unfortunately, the Republicans sold out in the 1980s-1990s-2000s to the fundamentalists in order to win political seats. Would it be a comfort to you to know that true conservatives fear the fundamentalists and don’t identify with their POV at all?
As for your perception that a majority of conservatives are religious nuts, I thik it may be a case that the nuts get all the press coverage, thus skewing public opinion.
By yupiter6
August 28, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this
if you don’t want resive this message plz mail me stopspammysite[…]gmail.com http://armada2010.tripod.com/page60.html >your ringtone make
http://marishka81.tripod.com/page82.html >free ringtone
By B
August 28, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this
They are petty, childish, selfish, and uncompromising because they are just like us.
You know, AGFNPR, one of the greatest lessons I’ve also learned is that, for the most part, life is like a mirror—we see and react to things that remind of us ourselves. A big clue about how people feel about themselves is by observing that which they criticize. 99% of the time, it is a quality they don’t like in themselves.
By Archie
August 28, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this
The headline in the San Francisco Chronicle says 1 in 5 people in California have no health insurance. Before anyone says it’s not true I am looking at it right now in another window and one pending before their legislature is a single payer managed by the state and paid for with taxes. This problem is not going away people and for some reason people feel more comfortable doing something about it at the state level but they get crazy when a presidential candidate mentions this same idea. I only brought this subject up because the discussion between Mara and B about liberals and conservatives. There are some things that are true and they keep coming up because you can only spin the truth so long. Americans, 47 million americans are without health insurance and either you care or you don’t.
By B
August 28, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this
The headline in the San Francisco Chronicle says 1 in 5 people in California have no health insurance.
You know, Archie, before the age of high-tech medicine, very few people had health insurance. Somehow, folks were able to pay for the services they needed without involving massive pools of collected monies administered by third parties. Through clever business/marketing plans, the MDs have now created a system in which basic medical care is very expensive, if not outright unaffordable. IMO, the only way to restore some consumerism to the system is to shift to a system in which insurance was purchased only for catastrophic illnesses. It makes no sense economically to involve third-party payments for routine services.
By NetBanker
August 28, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this
The frustration of not having an outlet with which to voice your opinion led to the smash mouth politics of the 1st Bush administration. What you said makes a lot of sense and I can certainly understand how it started, but what is hard to understand is why they kept up with that tactic once they did gain power. What seems most unforgiveable is turning those same tactics on opponents within their own party.
I’m not sure how to fix the mess either other than for the 2 party system to break up or break down into a multi-party system. Realistically speaking the far right and far left should be ejected from their respective parties since it seems as if the members of these factions are the ones more focused on defeating the other side than working to find a middle ground. The other thing that may save us would be for more people to quit the GOP and Dems in favor of the Libertarian party. It wouldn’t hurt the Libertarians to be able field a viable candidate for President either.
The thing is that neither side is willing to give the other the benefit of a doubt. Kimberly I think it goes beyond that. In these time of uncertainty and with the speed of change increasing as well as the speed of information/misinformation there is a comfort in finding a common ‘enemy.’ It is far easier to buy into the schlock that passes for political commentary and which makes false statements and mischaracterizes of the other side’s positions than it is to think critically. Additionally, with the rise of the internet it is far easier to find that anonymous community of like-minded thinkers than in the past. I think that people believe in the disinformation because they WANT to believe it. One other phenomenon that I think occurs is that many people are more bold hiding in the anonymity of the web than they would be in person. I have this experience with a client who can be a complete psychotic nightmare on the phone, but is rather reasonable and mild in person. I believe she feels more empowered when she doesn’t have to look you in the eye.
By Lily Toad
August 28, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this
But routine services have become expensive. Who can pay outright for a colonoscopy or an MRI? A single payer system is the only way to go, whether at the state or national level.
By Blah Blah megalomania Blah
August 28, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this
I’m so smart! I’m so important! I can a make medical diagnosis without even looking at you, that’s how smart I am. Then I’ll correct your grammar, your mathematical calculations, and your table manners too. Once you really trust how smart I am, you can lie on my couch where you’ll tell me all your deep dark secrets. I’ll pretend to care, then I’ll use them against you to show everyone how smart I am! Are you lucky I’m here? You can thank me later, I’m busy yammering right now.
By lozen
August 28, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this
Kimberly has never in my memory, been condescending toward anyone on the blog. I’ve never heard her tell anyone what to feel or that their feelings are absurd, stupid or invalid. And Kimberly, I’ve tuned out and turned off also no matter how he may be making nice right now!
By B
August 28, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this
But routine services have become expensive. Who can pay outright for a colonoscopy or an MRI? A single payer system is the only way to go, whether at the state or national level.
The reason routine care is unaffordable is primarily through the silent collusion known as “usual and customary fees”. Dr. Dalton in Tucker charged $37 for an office visit until he retired a few years ago. The other factor that drives up the price of a visit is all the paperwork required to get paid by the insurance companies. Too much unnecesary overhead.
By Archie
August 28, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this
But routine services have become expensive. Who can pay outright for a colonoscopy or an MRI? A single payer system is the only way to go, whether at the state or national level.
Lily I agree with you but the Republicans have scared the snot out of most americans on that idea at the national level anyway. The national republican strategists have been outstanding in that they have most broke-as americans thinking that someone usually a minority is going to take all of the their money. I mean I know a republican male who is one of the 47 million without health insurance and he doesn’t see how one bad accident could hurt his family. I have pennies accumulating at home and my point is I am not going to sabotage myself to keep someone from getting my pennies because layoffs or reduction in force things occur all the time. That’s why I like the single payer plan not because I want to give away my money. I would love for more consumerism to comeback as far as healthcare but who’s going to give up the money they have coming in? I used to pay 28 dollars/month for major medical and I don’t think those days are coming back unless you have a foreign company like say a toyota,hyundia,nissan, offering to cover americans real cheap. In other words unless you get a different kind of competition in the healthcare market you won’t get back to that ownership thing you had 20 years ago.
By B
August 28, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this
I’m so smart! I’m so important! I can a make medical diagnosis without even looking at you, that’s how smart I am. Then I’ll correct your grammar, your mathematical calculations, and your table manners too. Once you really trust how smart I am, you can lie on my couch where you’ll tell me all your deep dark secrets. I’ll pretend to care, then I’ll use them against you to show everyone how smart I am! Are you lucky I’m here? You can thank me later, I’m busy yammering right now.
Keep remembering, kimberly, life is a mirror. You were unhappy long before you ever came across me on this blog.
BTW, I take very seriously what you say. Unfortunately, I can’t undo the past, can only hope to do better in the future.
By candide
August 29, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this
Any security mom who votes Republican deserves to have her son/daughter sent to death in Iraq.
By JokesOn
August 29, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this
Any security mom who votes Republican deserves to have her son/daughter sent to death in Iraq.
I think we have a clear winner of the Anti-Tiara.
By Mara
August 29, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this
AGFNPR said “imagine how Republicans felt from 1962 until 1994. The frustration of not having an outlet with which to voice your opinion led to the smash mouth politics of the 1st Bush administration”
Not having an outlet to voice your opinion?!!! Republicans held the presidency for all except 12 of those 32 years and they controlled at least one house for almost half of those congresses! What do you mean you had no voice?! Even Bill Clinton took advice from the Republican senate leadership and he even implemented many of the programs they proposed…no voice indeed!
will you people not be happy until everything belongs to you and nobody speaks against your policies?
By DebbieDoRight
August 29, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this
Mara: Republicans like to rewrite history. I can’t wait to see how they’re gonna doctor up the Bush II presidency in the history books!
By lozen
August 29, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight, I know that’s the truth! I can’t wait to see that either.
Mara thanks for putting on that info! It is true will you people not be happy until everything belongs to you and nobody speaks against your policies?
By Chilao
August 29, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this
Yep, Good Ole Newt’s Contract with America was a Democratic Party action shoved down America’s throat. Yep-er-ree.
And I remember Bill Clinton getting slammed for NAFTA, something that was 99 percent completed under Bush SR, and had the veto-overturn votes had he vetoed it.
Yep, those poor conservatives have had so little of a voice in running American, yep-er-ree.
on a more humourous note, is it about time Sen. Craig Found Jesus and went to rehab to watch lesbian porn and get certified as non-gay. Watcha think? (rhetorical).
By Chilao
August 29, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this
I remember driving I-95 from Boston to Miami, back before the movie Deliverance came out, and reaching the Old Dominion Commonwealth of Virginia, and learning the men’s restrooms at the rest areas had 1/2 doors or no doors on the stalls, with pronounced signs stating that it was illegal to engage in sexual activity in the public restrooms.
and I had to think So this is what they do for entertain around these parts.
By Lily Toad
August 29, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this
Like Michael, first Craig will deny it, then he’ll admit to it, then he’ll apologize and find Jesus. And I agree with Craig, he’s not gay, he’s suffering from homosexual desires. Being gay means you accept who you are and how you live your life.
By Lily Toad
August 29, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this
Then Sen. Craig and Rev. Ted Haggard will have a closed door prayer meeting to pray away their orientations.
By NetBanker
August 29, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this
Then Sen. Craig and Rev. Ted Haggard will have a closed door prayer meeting to pray away their orientations. LMAO!! Where is Focus on the Family and all those ex-gay reparative therapy yahoos to help the poor senator from Idaho?
Y’all do know that I-da-ho is shorthand for “I’m the homosexual”, right?
I know it’s not Joke Friday, but it is hump day and this was too humorous not to share…
Before the 2001 inauguration of George Bush, he was invited to a get-acquainted tour of the White House.
After drinking several glasses of iced tea, he asked Bill Clinton if he could use his personal bathroom.
When he entered Clinton’s private toilet, he was astonished to see that President Clinton had a solid gold urinal.
That afternoon, George told his wife, Laura, about the urinal. “Just think,” he said, “When I am president, I could have a gold urinal, too. But I wouldn’t do something that s elf-in dulgent. “
Later, when Laura had lunch with Hillary at her tour of the White House, she told Hillary how impressed George had been at his discovery of the fact that, in the President’s private bathroom, the President had a gold urinal.
That evening, when Bill and Hillary were getting ready for bed, Hillary smiled, and said to Bill,… “I found out who peed in your saxophone.”
By Archie
August 29, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
Hey Lily, I will vote for gay marriage and I have never had any homosexual desires but it is strange that all these family-values politicians and preachers are doing everything from giving beatdowns to getting their groove on with another man or woman that’s not their spouse. There was a republican politician that denied anything sexual although his name and number were present on a call-girl-boss-lady’s records. We all do make mistakes but these guys seem to be so phony with their pronouncements of piety.
Our young men and women need serious counselling I mean Henry,Michael V,DMX,Foxy Brown,Lindsey Lohan,Nicole Richie and you can add some unknowns. Then you have educated politicians still doing the same thing as people with little education except the politicians manage their money better. We had a state treasurer with a drug problem but he is filthy rich. That’s one reason why I think Vick deserves a second chance because everybody else seems to get 5,6,7 chances to straighten up. The church folk in Weeks church say wait until all the facts come out. I hope that his wife,Juanita, heals up. Venting over…
By Mara
August 29, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this
Archie - I think Vick deserves a second chance because everybody else seems to get 5,6,7 chances to straighten up
5,6,7 chances to “straighten up” from finding pleasure in the abuse, torture, and slaughter of helpless animals? DMX might end up being as low down as Vick (still don’t know all the details on that one) but the others have been caught out in personally destructive behavior, not violence against a voiceless, powerless victim.
My own opinion is that one can apologize and atone for a personal foible like drug addiction, soliciting a sex act, or intoxication, but taking pleasure in the torture of another living creature? Enjoying the pain, the violence, and the fear visited on these animals? If you can’t see the difference between Linsey Lohan being a drunken idiot and Michael Vick torturing animals…well, I don’t know what to say ‘bout that.
By AGFNPR
August 29, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this
Mara,
I see you have purposely left out the most glaring display of Democratic domination in that time frame. We never controlled the courts. During that time period there were several years where Democrats controlled the Executive branch, and least one if not both houses of Congress, and the Judicial branch. They had total power over the government and a majority of the time a compliant media (with the exception of the Clinton scandal).
The Republicans enjoyed that level of power for what – a year maybe? So yes, when the Republicans have that same level of control over the government and the media for the same time period I will be happy.
Do you seriously believe that the Republican party had a national outlet to promote their policies prior to the 1994 mid-term elections? Please tell me what media outlets prior to the rise of talk radio were spreading the “conservative message”? (OK - maybe the Sunday morning talk shows).
Chilao - notice I said before 1994. The contract with America was the platform of the Republican for the 1994 elections. There was always some dissent within the Republican party with NAFTA, so I am not sure what you mean.
By Archie
August 29, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this
Mara, everyone makes mistakes and it doesn’t matter what difference I see or don’t see. I do think Vick deserves another chance and for the record there are several people that have been let go as first offenders where they beat the snot out of human beings!!! Also some of that personally destructive behavior could cause injury or death to other people. I am sure MADD could vouch for that and some sex sins result in another person catching a deadly disease!!! I have said more than once I don’t believe in locking people up for having sex but that doesn’t mean you can be irresponsible. I believe in forgiveness and I don’t know what other folk believe in and I definitely don’t understand the foolishness of giving 12 million dollars to a dog. Frankly I think Peta is a bit kooky but in their defense they are not alone.
By Scalia
August 29, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this
Research shows that most serial killers begin torching and killing animals. What does that say about Vick?
By Mara
August 29, 2007 2:46 PM | Link to this
Archie - Wow, you were all over the place in that post weren’t you!? (How’d Leonna Helmsley’s will get dragged into this?)
as for manslaughter, venereal desease, and assault…all issues that happen to people…people who can ask for help, complain, sue, press charges, and demand punishment/reparations from whoever is responsible.
A “mistake” is a misunderstanding, a misconception. Despite you wanting to portray the issue as a simple “mistake”, Vick didn’t “misunderstand” what he was doing. He didn’t misconstrue the results of what he was participating in. It seems to me that being able to enjoy watching animals rip each other to shreds, and taking pleasure in forcing them to do so, isn’t what most people would call “a mistake”. It is, IMO, a deficiency of humanity.
Scalia - indeed.
By Chilao
August 29, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this
AGFNPR - gotcha, sorry, on the 1994.
I realize a stacked conservative court, taking this country back to 1789, can only be considered a GoodThing. LOL (We sure could use another bloody CivilWar)
By Archie
August 29, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this
as for manslaughter, venereal desease, and assault…all issues that happen to people…people who can ask for help, complain, sue, press charges, and demand punishment/reparations from whoever is responsible. Woman,please… if manslaughter occurs the victim is dead!!!It is sick to drown a dog. It is sick to drown a dog but it is also sick to leave 12 million dollars to a dog and it is also sick to get Dui’s over and over again. Some venereal diseases result in death of a human being!!! and if you can’t see that difference then I don’t know what to say. It’s not a defiency of humanity to shoot someone in the back and then let them bleed to death? I get it since your feelings were hurt you get off with 210 days in jail. Also,how does one know what most people call a mistake? Mara, you’re entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. I just don’t think the argument that people can speak is very good at all because there was a time even though people could speak they still were tortured and killed. Ask Jews or someone like me.
By Mara
August 29, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this
AGFNPR - Please tell me what media outlets prior to the rise of talk radio were spreading the “conservative message”?
er…how about the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Chicago Tribune? Then there’re the “white papers” from think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institute. I suppose, depending on what part of the “conservative message* you’re trying to spread one could include publications by churches and fraternal organizations also. The ones I named were publications I’m fairly familiar with. I’m sure there’re a bunch I’ve never heard of from cities and towns all accross America. But I guess those wouldn’t count…not important enough, I suppose.
We never controlled the courts.
snicker…Republican presidents nominated and got confirmed most of the Supremes, even before Alito and Roberts. Republican presidents were the ones who nominated the judiciary for two decades. Does that mean Republicans were nominating those contemptable liberals for the bench? No, it doesn’t. What it means is that conservatives kept losing cases. Instead of admitting that their legal arguments might be weak, or that the law as it’s written doesn’t support that argument, y’all decided that it must be because those nasty liberal judges (which were most likely nominated by conservative presidents) were using ideology and not legal doctrine or constitutional understanding as the basis for their decisions. Because judges are human too, I will admit that perhaps a few might have overstepped their bounds, but I really, really don’t see the overwhelming tidal-wave of “activism” that conservatives are so fond of citing when talking about losing judicial arguments.
By Chilao
August 29, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this
I was getting a Flush Rush newsletter way back in the late 1980s. I won’t bother to describe the cover. (This is before da inanet). It basically corrected all of his gross misinformations, when it was feeling charitable. I remember when he had a TV show, and the timing was perfect for me, it was at 6 a.m. and I had heard all the hype from coworkers. After three views, I consider the time a waste. (What a buffoon)
But I did consider him a Master of Misinformation.
By JokesOn
August 29, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this
Archie,
You are sounding pretty frazzled today and I mean that in a non-insulting kind of way.
By Mara
August 29, 2007 4:05 PM | Link to this
Archie - I didn’t realize that there were so many people who shoot others in the back and watch them bleed to death that are getting 5,6,7 chances to straighten up. Nor did I realize the same considerations were given to those who commit genocide! And how many Americans, really, die from VD? Your arguments are specious, Archie.
Sure, you can have your opinion that enjoying the torture and abuse of animals is some kind of “oopsie-daisy, made a mistake” and not at all inhuman. I’ll keep my opinion that anyone who can enjoy such a spectacle is seriously deficient in the decency department.
still don’t know how Leonna Helmsley’s will got dragged into it. Later, y’all
By Archie
August 29, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this
Hello JokesOn, Man you are right and I am frazzled and I am trying not to insult but I am bothered that guys can be judged so harshly with no forgiveness but yet you can give 12 million dollars to a dog. I mean even if you acknowledge you did terrible wrong people still don’t want you to get another chance but yet you can shoot your husband,your husband in the back and get 210 days in jail and there’s no real outrage because he hurt your feelings. There were no police reports that I have read about or heard about but that Winkler woman was somehow able to convince a jury that she was abused and she got less time for killing a human than a man may get for killing dogs and you had the same kind of proof word of mouth. I appreciate you JokesOn for figuring me out and I will try to change the topic. My new question why has no one asked about Juanita Bynum on a woman to woman blog? I mean there seems to be a clear opportunity to bash a man and a church with good reason and Lord knows on this blog it doesn’t take much to bash either of those things. Yet no one has done this yet.
By AGFNPR
August 29, 2007 4:25 PM | Link to this
Mara @3:32
Yessir! We have four major conservative newspapers located in liberal cities with competing liberal rags. Gosh aren’t we lucky? Oh wait - we have think tanks! LOL!
I noticed that you included the word snicker in your post. Do you really believe what you just typed, or are you just kiddin’ me? Sandra Day O’Conner was a moderate. Judge Bork was a conservative. The Democratic controlled congress surely influenced the selection of judges by Republican presidents.
By Archie
August 29, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this
And how many Americans, really, die from VD? I didn’t know I had to supply a number. I somehow think the millions that have died from AIDS over the years make my point. Also when you can’t win a point you distort it the same thing you accuse Chuck of doing. Your logic is extremely weak and kooky. Nowhere did I say it was oopsie-daisy to torture an animal but when your logic is weak you resort to attacks. The Helmsley lady got brought into it because I felt like bringing her name up. What kind of decent human being leaves that much money to a dog and purposely doesn’t leave a thing to two of her grandchildren. You do have people walking the streets that have killed more than once and such a person has given lectures around the country but then when you can’t argue from a logical point of view you can’t supply anything to support what you say,just an opinion.
By JokesOn
August 29, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this
Archie,
I can appreciate you attempting to weigh so many subjects relative to each other. The problem you will find here is that even if you eliminate any bias you may have, others most likely will not do the same.
One subject to them will always be justly defended by yelling “but it is different!” Asking HOW it is so different, even for curiosity’s sake, will get you stoned (and not in the good way).
Like the strict religious folk, asking why when pertaining to the subject they are passionate about is NOT ALLOWED.
By Mara
August 30, 2007 8:10 AM | Link to this
Archie - Funny, you start out using examples like Linsey Lohan, Nicole Richie and Foxy Brown to illustrate folks who’re given multiple chances to “straighten up”, morph them into genocidal maniacs, murderers, and spreaders of AIDS, then have the gall to accuse ME of distortion and weak logic?! YOU characterized Mr. Vick’s enjoyment of animal torture as a “mistake” (an “oopsie-daisy” in my words) and then denied you said it.
And you call me names and compare me to chuck?! You insult me personally because you don’t like my argument? I re-read my previous posts and though you accuse me of an “attack” on you, I didn’t see anything that in any way could be construed as an “attack” on anyone or anything except your argument that Vick’s delight in the spectacle of dogs ripping each other to shreds is not so much a character flaw than a lapse in judgement. Believe what you want. All I was doing was explaining why I don’t agree.
And did you ever think that maybe the dog loved Helmsley more than those two grandkids did? Maybe Trouble was nicer to her than they were? Maybe the grandkids were smart, talented and able to support themselves…unlike the dog. Maybe they were just disrespectful butt-heads and she just didn’t like them. The woman made the money and has no obligation to give it to anybody. As it is, she left substantial sums to her brother, her other two grandchildren, and her chauffer so it’s not like she left everything to the dog. Though if she did, she had that right.
JokesOn - One subject to them will always be justly defended by yelling “but it is different!” Asking HOW it is so different, even for curiosity’s sake, will get you stoned (and not in the good way)
Maybe I’ve been overestimating some people’s ability to see the point of a statement without having it put in simple terms…so I’ll try.
Mike Vick enjoys dogfighting. He enjoys the abuse, the pain, the blood and the violence of dog fighting. He enjoys training these animals to be vicious, to attack and cause pain. That enjoyment is not a “mistake”. One could say that getting involved in the industry was a mistake, a lapse in judgement. Sure, I could even agree with that, sort of. But being able to take pleasure in such an enterprise is NOT an error in judgement, it is part of who he is. THAT’S the difference.
AGFNPR - We have four major conservative newspapers located in liberal cities with competing liberal rags. Gosh aren’t we lucky? Oh wait - we have think tanks!
those were the ones I could name off the top of my head that I was sure were in publication during the time you specified. I’m positive there are more, I just didn’t feel like researching a comprehensive list. Nor did you specify that you were looking for mass market publications from conservative locations with no liberal competetion. All you asked was “Do you seriously believe that the Republican party had a national outlet to promote their policies?” I named four, plus auxiliary groups that ALSO had publications that promoted a conservative agenda.
Regarding Democratic “domination” of the courts, I admit that I did not understand that by “judiciary” you meant only the Supreme Court. Silly me for including other courts like circuit courts, appelate courts, state courts, State Supereme Courts, District courts, etc etc etc.
anyhoo…I’ll be in meetings for most of the day and won’t be able to post, but y’all have fun…and play nice y’hear?!
:^)
By JokesOn
August 30, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this
Mara,
I do not want to sound like a Vick defender, so I am hesitant in replying.
But being able to take pleasure in such an enterprise is NOT an error in judgment, it is part of who he is. THAT’S the difference.
IF that is who he is, we can simply agree. But people, all people, will tend to continue their errs if not called out. We tend to rationalize and compartmentalize our behavior until bought into the light. Think of AA interventions: the person does not see the wrongs of their actions because they do not incorporate those actions with the rest of their reality and might be what we have here.
Have you never realized a behavioral pattern/theme you possess was harmful during a moment of communing with a person that was affected by it, and then cannot understand WHY you could not see it for what it was before hand?
By Archie
August 30, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this
First of all I still say what Vick did was a mistake,my exact words. I did not morph the people you mentioned into genocidal maniacs you did that because you could not argue your points straightforward, as usual. You should be compared to Chuck because you bash him at every opportunity. Also keep in mind that Winkler(the minister that was shot and killed),well, his family has already forgiven Mary Winkler the woman that killed him!!! In my original I also said our young men and women need counselliing. All you took from it was commentary about some d..n dogs. As for Helmsley you don’t have to look far to find people to find this lady mean and strange. Maybe Trouble was nicer to her than they were? Maybe the grandkids were smart, talented and able to support themselves…unlike the dog. Maybe they were just disrespectful butt-heads and she just didn’t like them. Do you really know how nonsensical those statements sound. Those statements sound kooky but you are right about one thing she had no obligation to give her money to anyone because it was hers. If my original post weren’t easily viewable you could get away with distortion but like a lot of people when you can’t win an argument logically you distort just like you accuse Rove,Chuck, and others of doing. The people I mentioned in my original post are repeat offenders and you have to consider that they have defiencies in their humanity as some of them have left rehab and drove around high and drunk endangering human beings but they keep getting out of jail and glamorized. Mara you have a history of purposely distorting posts when you can’t get your way and I am not the first or second person to mention that. Finally I did say Vick was sick but you didn’t acknowledge that because then you wouldn’t be able to justify that weak logic you use often times.
By Archie
August 30, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this
IF that is who he is, we can simply agree. But people, all people, will tend to continue their errs if not called out. We tend to rationalize and compartmentalize our behavior until bought into the light. Think of AA interventions: the person does not see the wrongs of their actions because they do not incorporate those actions with the rest of their reality and might be what we have here.
JokesON, you make too much sense with those statements. I don’t think a lot of people in our society get that, I really don’t. JokesOn so many of us do things that are just plain crazy but on this blog many don’t acknowledge any shortcomings especially if it involves criticizing a woman. Church folk are slow to condemn a preacher that beat his wife but if it had been me or you we would have already been verbally condemned beyond the universe. There have been numerous stories about folk convicted multiple times of Dui and finally, those same folk end up killing a human being but they had the chance to straighten up. An animal is not more important than a human being to me,bottom line. You make a lot of sense JokesOn but that may not be what this blog is about especially the last two weeks.
By JokesOn
August 30, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this
Thanks for the complements;)
An animal is not more important than a human being to me,bottom line. You make a lot of sense JokesOn but that may not be what this blog is about especially the last two weeks.
There have been VERY few times on this blog where a subject was discussed to actually learn more about it. Those time all have one thing in common; no one was actually passionate about it. Everyone’s point when concerning all the other subjects that have come up is to defend their position to the point of name calling if need be.
My point on here almost every time is to look at a subject from all angles, no matter how inconvenient or uncomfortable some of those angles are. When I get berated for this analysing, I tend to dismiss that person and therefore get called arrogant.
Have a good day….going fishing with my dog;)
By master
August 30, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
To B and Lozen you Whimps and losers along with the Repulican party.While my oldest sister a Platoon Sargent in Iraq say shes feels we are wasting thier time and the american’s tax dollars.You still want to be a war hog but you will never sign up for the military. Did you have your books upsided down like President Bush on 911.
By Matt Jennings
August 30, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this
Considering 9/11 happened on a Republican’s watch and the reforming of al Qaeda happened after Bush took the fight off of bin Laden and onto a side mission in Iraq, I would doubt security moms would be that gullible.
By Robert
August 30, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
Just looking at both of ya’ll is disgusting the first thing ya’ll should be debating is women fighting in combat its ashame that men are always giving their lives for this country while women give nothing but always want to comment on something thats why Hillary Clinton should never be President unless she’s willing to put women in combat its time they earn their women rights in this country these people who always wants to be President are always the ones who has never served in the military and whats so bad is they won’t even let their children serve when ever America needed support they would enlist celebraties Joe Louis,Elvis Presley and so onlets send Paris Hilton,Nicole Richie,Britney Spears,George Bush’s daughter’s,Bill Clinton’s daughtereven Oprah she’s has never served her country no kind of way lets see how Woman to W oman feel about that you’ll probably feel different once you start stepping on land mines coming home without arms or legs.
By NetBanker
August 30, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this
Maybe Trouble was nicer to her than they were? Maybe the grandkids were smart, talented and able to support themselves…unlike the dog. Maybe they were just disrespectful butt-heads and she just didn’t like them. Do you really know how nonsensical those statements sound. Archie, I’m pretty reasonable and Mara’s statements don’t sound nonsensical to me at all. As the owner of several dogs over my lifetime, I’d have to say that they have all been more loyal, nonjudgemental, and loving than many people I’ve known. They were at my side through every illness, bad day at work, argument with my spouse, or any other drama you can think of. You’d also need to know my father’s mother to understand that one is never off the woman’s sh it list. You’re all simply jockeying for the lowest possible position on the list.
Robert…you need to learn to breathe when you’re blogging…and a little coherence wouldn’t hurt none either.
By Archie
August 30, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this
I’d have to say that they have all been more loyal, nonjudgemental, and loving than many people I’ve known. They were at my side through every illness, bad day at work, argument with my spouse, or any other drama you can think of
C’mon NetBanker it’s a dog, where else could the dog go. You feed your dog well and treat him well so what else is the dog going to do but be by your side and it’s not like the dog can drive away in a car. Hell, the dog couldn’t tell you to shut up about your day. Netbanker, I had a dog I loved because he would sit on the back porch with me and listen to music and he would lick on me no matter what and he barked at his reflection and if he heard a bad note he would howl. I was really sad when he died. He was a dog and I just can’t see the logic of leaving money to a dog and it’s really kooky to do that. Hey man, I know you want to defend Mara but sometimes she is kooky but not evil. On another day I will defend Mara in fact most people agree with her on M.V. but most of those,I hate to say it, are white. This newspaper has published some great commentaries on this issue starting with Jay Bookman’s column.
By RASTAMON
August 30, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this
Get off your hookahs and realize we must defeat ‘dem muslims. They all need to be dead, mon. We must stop ‘dem now. Nuke them. ‘dats what we need to do. Radioactive cloud over Bagdad and Tehran. Don’t forget to take out ‘dem Saudis too!
By Scalia
August 30, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this
Archie, that is not true. I am black, and several black people I know agree that it was sick and just plain wrong. Torturing a dog and watching it get maimed and killed is gross. And killing the dog that loses is messed up.
And nobody is equating the life of the dogs to Michael Vick’s life. Nobody (well almost nobody) wants Michael Vick to be tortured and drowned or electrocuted or beaten to death.
By NetBanker
August 30, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this
He was a dog and I just can’t see the logic of leaving money to a dog and it’s really kooky to do that. Leona did NOT leave money to the dog! It’s not legally possible to give money to an animal. She created a trust fund (granted a really HUGE one) to ensure her dog is cared for until it dies. None of us is privy to the details of the will to know what happens to the trust once Trouble is back at Leona’s side in the mausoleum. For all we know that money will also go into the Helmsley charitable trust.
What would you have a person do who is elderly and knows that they will not outlive their pet? Have the animal put down or turned loose or put into a shelter just because the owner kicked the bucket first? Or does a responsible person take steps to ensure that their pet is cared for and won’t be a financial burden on whomever cares for the animal after the owner’s death?
it’s not like the dog can drive away in a car This is why I will only have pets without opposable thumbs! Every dog I’ve ever had (including the current one) love the car and WOULD go out driving on their own if they could. I just don’t trust that they wouldn’t be distracted by the wind in their faces and then end up lost and unable to get home.
Archie…do you believe that the MV situation is really racially based? Shouldn’t it be based on knowing the law and the rules of your chosen profession and being punished if you break them regardless of race? Even without the dog fighting thing I wouldn’t exactly have called MV a role model for children based on his past documented behavior. To go beyond that, I don’t think that sports figures, in general, should be elevated as role models for children. You want a role model for your child then pick a family member, fellow church member, someone who makes a difference in people’s lives in a meaningful way that doesn’t involve TV coverage and product endorsements, but not a sports star.
By chuck
August 30, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this
I felt my name being taken in vain and had to drop in today.
NetB, I have to wonder what you were talking about when you accused me of:
the partisan attack thing, sticking to rhetoric which immediately alienates the other side and makes you appear completely unable to LISTEN or accept a contrary position or might you actually attempt some type of real discussion that may result in mutual agreement or understanding?
My only rhetoric to that point was accusing the democrats of being the party of no ideas. Can you tell me how “talking to Syria and Iran” is going to solve the problem in Iraq? Can you honestly think that just leaving Iraq is a good idea right now?
Secondly, while I did criticize the democrats for those reasons, I also criticized the Republicans and called for TERM LIMITS which would apply to BOTH parties. I’m not particularly happy with Washington on either side of the aisle. However, when it comes to national security, I’ll take a cowboy like Bush over an appeaser like Kerry ANY DAY of the week and twice on Sunday.
Many people don’t know this, but the South considered a drastic option just prior to the Civil War. They brought up the idea of ABOLISHING SLAVERY BEFORE secession. The idea was that if they abolished slavery there would not be enough support in the North to go to war over preserving the union. You may ask, “What in the world does this have to do with the topic?” I’ll tell you. The point of that idea was to make it clear what secession was about. They wanted to make the point that the Federal government had run amuck. It had concentrated too much power into the hands of too few people and was becoming too controlling. It really was (of course not minimizing the role of slavery as a cause) about STATE’S RIGHTS to a large degree. We are seein the results of that failure now.
There are very few men and women of conscience left in politics now… IN EITHER PARTY. I support the Republican Party to a large extent because at least they PRETEND to care about my push-button issues and tend to vote the way that I want them to. I am under no delusion that any political party has all of the answers to what ails America.
In fact I am virtually certain that neither party has the nads to do what is necessary to fix Iraq. We all know what should happen over there.
By Archie
August 30, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this
Archie, that is not true. I am black, and several black people I know agree that it was sick and just plain wrong. Torturing a dog and watching it get maimed and killed is gross. And killing the dog that loses is messed up.
Scalia please read!!! and read again!!! I have already said twice that Vick was sick. C’mon brother read!!!what I have said. Most of the people being 58% don’t want Vick back in the NFL that’s why I said most people agree with Mara and the animal rights movement is predominantly white. Please note the word predominant does not mean all. Archie…do you believe that the MV situation is really racially based? No, Netbanker I don’t think the MV situation is racially based in that he did the crime so he should do the time. I do think the outrage is somewhat racially based and this newspaper has published a good commentary that lays out that idea. To go beyond that, I don’t think that sports figures, in general, should be elevated as role models for children. You want a role model for your child then pick a family member, fellow church member, someone who makes a difference in people’s lives in a meaningful way that doesn’t involve TV coverage and product endorsements, but not a sports star.
I agree with that paragraph. There is no way y’all can be as old as you claim and reading and comprehension is off just a bit. I said people have had multiple chances to straigthen up and I said MV should get another chance. I stand by that. I also said our young men and women need counselling and I mentioned a bunch of names and I stand by that statement. Also even the people that are so supposed to be so pro-animal have been scrutinized and taken to court for killing animals,in other words,PETA. Read Scalia,most does not mean all. Read a commentary written by Kathy Rudy in THIS newspaper and then you should get a real good understanding of where I am coming from.
By Clueless
August 30, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this
In fact I am virtually certain that neither party has the nads to do what is necessary to fix Iraq. We all know what should happen over there.
And what would that be?
By lozen
August 30, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this
By master August 30, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this To B and Lozen you Whimps and losers along with the Repulican party.While my oldest sister a Platoon Sargent in Iraq say shes feels we are wasting thier time and the american’s tax dollars.You still want to be a war hog but you will never sign up for the military. Did you have your books upsided down like President Bush on 911.
Say what?
By lozen
August 30, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this
Mara doesn’t seem unreasonable to me either Net. And she’s very clear and concise about what she means. If it had been a woman of any color who did what Vick did, it would still NOT be merely a mistake. As someone pointed out, there have been many studies that show that animal abusers are on their way to becoming human abusers. There is no excuse, not one, for anyone who enjoys the torture of helpless animals or humans. And the “I found Jesus” ploy is sickening too. Archie please remember that “most does not mean all” the next time we’re talking about men beating and killing women.
I am virtually certain that neither party has the nads to do what is necessary to fix Iraq. We all know what should happen over there. I wonder what chuck means? Do you think he means we should pull out?
By lozen
August 30, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this
Robert, I don’t want anybody, male or female coming home without arms and legs esp. when the gov’t that sends them does not take care of them when they come back to this country. You do know that women are dying in Iraq too? Women died in all the wars whether they were serving as nurses, pilots, or they were civilians in the theater! War effects everyone and not just men! You don’t think mothers and wives and daughters who lose their men have a right to say anything about war? Jeez.
By NetBanker
August 30, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this
Can you tell me how “talking to Syria and Iran” is going to solve the problem in Iraq? That is an example of a question phrased to an extreme. First of all ‘the problem’ assumes one issue when there are myriad problems to be solved with some being interconnected and others not. Additionally talking doesn’t tend to solve problems, but talking is required to reach agreement on resposibilities and actions to solve problems. Syria and Iran have a very vested interest in what happens in Iraq due to instability that can easily spill over into their countries as well as an overwhelming flood of refugees. Syria and Iran actually are not on the same side and are somewhat fighting a proxy war with each other in Iraq for which Shiite faction will have the most power. If Iraq goes down the drain it could result in major dstabilization of the region and their existing government.
We all know what should happen over there. What should, happen? Nukes?
By lozen
August 30, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, didn’t mean to ignore your joke. It was a good one! I’m sure George wasn’t drinking; so that couldn’t be the reason why he thought a sax was a urinal! ;->
By Archie
August 30, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this
Lozen, I do appreciate you calling me a gentleman last week. However,you can’t take criticism of women very well and you are selective about what you interpret. No one has said there is an excuse for torture of anyone so why was the statement made. If it had been a woman of any color who did what Vick did, it would still NOT be merely a mistake What’s the purpose of this statement? Are you suggesting I would have a different opinion if a woman did this crazy thing? How would you know that? In fact I would be willing to bet there are some women,somewhere that engage in torturing behavior but since they are not the subject I don’t understand the necessity for the comment. Some of you have to understand people will disagree with you and not take it so personal. Make your points from logic and don’t distort what’s been written because you don’t like it. It is what is. If you have the guts read Kathy Rudy and don’t distort what she wrote,I issue that challenge to anyone reading this blog.
By Sandra-qq
August 31, 2007 8:35 AM | Link to this
By Sandra-qq
August 31, 2007 8:36 AM | Link to this
By Sandra-qq
August 31, 2007 8:36 AM | Link to this
By Mara
August 31, 2007 9:04 AM | Link to this
well, Archie…I guess there’re a lot of “kooks” out there.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-15-pettrust_x.htm
“Over the past 10 years, 16 states from New York to Alaska have passed laws that allow pet owners to set up trust funds to take care of Rex or Fluffy after the owner has died, just as if the animals were minor children…Americans own a huge number of pets, including about 68 million dogs and 73 million cats, according to a 2000 estimate by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association. The impulse to protect them after one’s demise has always been strong and, for some, overwhelming…”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292390,00.html
“As many as 25 percent of families with a pet have provided for their animals through wills or trusts, said Sara Amundson, executive director with the Humane Society Legislative Fund. “People really consider pets as members of their family,” she said.”
“Each year two million to four million pets are euthanized, some because they lost their home when their guardian died. Pet owners have a responsibility to make sure that their furry friends don’t end up in a shelter and become “a burden on the municipality,” Amundson said.”
By Chilao
August 31, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this
Archie,
Without attempting to distort Kathy Rudy’s Opinion Piece, she neglected to mention several things:
We have many other laws that can only be considered to be related to Social Evolution. Outlawing slavery, child labor, the Public Health regulations of our food supply, and the safety considerations for products, especially vehicles, are just some examples.
The general role of dogs in our society, as they GENERALLY are now considered pets and family members. We no longer really NEED to selective breed an even more mean Fighting Dog as that type of dog really has no function GENERALLY in our American society.
While I am not an expert of knowing WHEN laws outlawing dogfighting and cockfighting were enacted in MOST states, I am willing to bet MOST(with the exception of MAYBE some more primitive southern states) were enacted LONG BEFORE the term or even concept of hip-hop came about. On that southern state comment, I believe it was actually New Mexico that outlawed it last.
I was glad to see that she did include “poor whites” in her comments, as my closest experience with dog-fighting was hearing rednecks in NC and TN bragging about how mean their dog was. In fact I saw one, near my brother’s NC carpentry shop, that was apparently the champion for the area, and the dog looked it, being quite VISIBLY scarred.
By Chilao
August 31, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this
Net - I finally did the Chincoteague Pony Swim this year, spent 7 hours in that marsh at the end of PonySwimLane and was 10 feet back from the temporary corral where they come ashore. It overall was GREAT, even if I had to take vacation time mid-summer, something I rarely ever do. But since I could not control THEIR schedule, I had to be flexible. LOL
By Chilao
August 31, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this
and since it is Joke Friday, I have to ask.
I have always considered this blog, with one or two major exceptions, a pretty classy place. However I would like to know right now, is there ANYONE, anyone at all, here, that would, in a PUBLIC restroom, reach down to pick up any kleenex or toilet paper laying on the floor? Anyone?
If there IS someone here, you MAY qualify to be a U.S. Senator.
By Mara
August 31, 2007 9:47 AM | Link to this
Chilao - LOL! Ewwwwwwwww…:^D
and speaking of Joke Friday -
did y’all hear that the University of Georgia has given notice to their head coach that they will not be renewing his contract? They’re gonna try to get Mike Vick to sign on. They’re hoping he can put some fight in those dawgs!
(yes, it’s a bad joke and it is in poor taste…but did it make you smile?)
By Jack
August 31, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this
Why do married men die before single men?
They want to.
Hi All. Can only stop by every now and then. Hope all is well.
By NetBanker
August 31, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this
Chilao…glad you got to see the pony swim. It’s pretty amazing sight isn’t it? I haven’t seen that since I was a pre-teen living in Maryland and shortly after reading the Misty of Chincoteague books.
A little humor from today’s Vent:
You have to feel sorry for Senator Craig, who pleaded guilty to disorderly misconduct for apparent sexual advances to the person in the next stall in a public bathroom. He was probably just trying to borrow some toilet paper.
Morning Mara! This Leona Helmsley situation has really made me think about becoming a greater kook than I already am. I agree with the director of the Humane Society that people have a responsibility to the pets. We shoose to bring them into our home and should take the necessary steps to ensure they are cared for in the event of our death. Provided my parents are alive and capable at the time of my death I know that they’d take the dog (or Granddog as they call her), but if they’re gone or living in a nursing home then I don’t have a backup plan.
By Chilao
August 31, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this
Hi JACK!
They’re hoping he can put some fight in those dawgs!
If he threatens a rape-stand, they might end up National Champions. LOL
By Mara
August 31, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this
Hi ya Jack! We miss ya!
Morning, Net. I probably should have a better plan in place for my sweeties,too. I know my honey will take care of them if I die before he does. If we go at the same time, my best friend has promised to give them a home. That’s what is supposed to happen. But as they say, there’s many a slip ‘twixt cup and lip. I’ll have to look into a trust, just to be on the safe side.
dang responsibilities!
By lozen
August 31, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this
Oh Archie, …you can’t take criticism of women very well… and you can’t take criticism of men very well. you are selective about what you interpret. You don’t think you do this, Archie? It sounded to me (and apparently Mara) as if you were saying what Vick did isn’t that bad and he deserves another chance. I don’t believe he deserves another chance. What he did was inhumane, and does not deserve to be forgiven. I said “If it had been a woman of any color who did what Vick did, it would still NOT be merely a mistake” because it seemed to me you were saying Vick is being criticized because he’s a black man. Rudy states a much more reasoned case for that than you did but I disagree with you and her. So I was saying anyone, ANYONE should be criticized and punished to the full extent of the law when they participate in the cruelty Vick was involved in. Some of you have to understand people will disagree with you and not take it so personal. This is what Mara did that upset you so much. She disagreed with you. And you took it very personally! You said, “Make your points from logic” Very good advice. I hope you heard it.
By NetBanker
August 31, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this
Off topic question for everyone…Do you think the GOP would be pushing Larry Craig to resign if homosexuality wasn’t involved in the allegations?
By Jack
August 31, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this
Hi Chilao. Was the kleenex or toilet paper on the floor used? Could be used for a napkin.
By Sandra-ye
August 31, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this
By Sandra-ye
August 31, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this
By Sandra-ye
August 31, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this
By Chilao
August 31, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this
Was the kleenex or toilet paper on the floor used? Could be used for a napkin
I’m sure glad it’s not around lunchtime. LMAO
By Chilao
August 31, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
Do you think the GOP would be pushing Larry Craig to resign if homosexuality wasn’t involved in the allegations?
well, they are all carefully making sure they are calling for him to resign because he actually pled guilty to a crime, so who knows.
I personally would not want a representative who was so primitive he did not understand the distinction between sexual activity and being gay, but that’s just me.
By Archie
August 31, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this
Mara you are right!!!well, Archie…I guess there’re a lot of “kooks” out there I just read the article in the Usa Today from the link you provided.
Lozen you don’t read very well. Mara has a history of distorting posts when she can’t win with logic. Mara also though has done a good job with supplying links,etc. to back up her points in the past but I disagree with her this time and when I tried to write why she started with the distortions as usual. Lozen your feelings are still hurt from last week and get over this thing that women can’t be criticized, it’s going to happen. I disagreed with men numerous times on this blog ask Chuck,Ken,JokesOn,Justin,72John,etc. but they don’t carry attitudes over into another subject they simply move on and you have been told several times before that you don’t handle criticism of women very well.
Off topic question for everyone…Do you think the GOP would be pushing Larry Craig to resign if homosexuality wasn’t involved in the allegations? That’s a I don’t know from me Netbanker because that other guy with connections to the DC prostitution ring pulled a Jimmy Swaggart and kept his office. If I had to pick an answer I would have to say no.
By lozen
August 31, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this
Jack, hey. Glad to see ya here again. Actually, married men live longer than single men. Chilao, I don’t get the joke: If he threatens a rape-stand, they might end up National Champions. LOL What is a rape-stand? Is that some athletic term? Net, since I’m not keeping up with the Craig thing I don’t think I understand your question. What exactly has he been charged with? Hey Mara, you illogical woman you! ;->
By NetBanker
August 31, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this
Just in case anyone missed this interesting tidbit…
The economic party is winding down and most working Americans never even got near the punch bowl.
The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that median household income rose 0.7 percent last year —- its second annual increase in a row—- to $48,201. This seems like welcome news, but the median household income last year was still about $1,000 less than in 2000, before the onset of the last recession. And what is perhaps most disturbing is that it appears this is as good as it’s going to get.
Sputtering under the weight of the credit crisis and the associated drop in the housing market, the economic expansion that started in 2001 looks like it might enter history books with the dubious distinction of being the only sustained expansion on record in which the incomes of typical American households never reached the peak of the previous cycle.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/printedition/2007/08/31/voicesed0831.html
While this may not counter the claims that the economy is strong or fine or whatever else politicians are saying, it does appear to support my ascertion that the average American worker hasn’t been getting their fair share of the economic pie baked by their hard work.
By Archie
August 31, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this
Chilao, I did respond to your post but it didn’t go through so I will just say at least you read the article. My short response to you is Rudy did not need to mention the things you outlined because she had limited space and those things you listed with your 3 dot outlines are known to everyone except a few and as you pointed out in your post you know who they are.
By Chilao
August 31, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this
Lozen - there was a rape-stand as part of the kennel operation in VA, in order to breed a female dog that was not cooperative, part of the selective-breeding to breed a meaner dog that was part of the operation.
Now how that might apply to a coach of a football team, I will leave to your imagination. LOL
By JokesOn
August 31, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
Archie,
For the record I did not think your post was concerning “how bad or not so bad” MV’s actions were. You were simply weighing the outcomes of different offences against each other and stating that you could not see a coherent theme. Some people get (multiple) second chances for awful behavior and others get their life ruined after their first offence. Couple that with a dog getting a trust fund and one SHOULD be confused.
Others wanted to make a fight out of that confusion. Am I reading you right?
I think that a solution to this is for everyone to realize if they are talking in “general rule” speak or in a manner of “this instance.” Two people who have the same mindset can be talking the same subject and butt heads all day becuase they are speaking from different areas: function vs instance. Compromising the general rule vs instance is where, IMO, the difficulty is, be it religion, law or politics, but expands the mind.
By Mara
August 31, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this
Hey lozen. Actually, married men don’t live longer than the single ones, it just seems longer! LOL!
Net - Do you think the GOP would be pushing Larry Craig to resign if homosexuality wasn’t involved in the allegations?
I think yes, he’d still be out. If it had been a gay fling with a single guy in the privacy of a hotel suite or some such, he’d probably be able to get away with apologizing (to his family, the senate, his state etc). Then, after piously stating that he was seeking forgiveness from God and finding strength from his newly restored faith in Jesus Christ, he’d lay low for a while and soon everything would go back to inside-the-beltway normal.
IMO it’s more about the sleazy, nasty picture of this guy peering through the cracks of a public bathroom stall and soliciting sex. It was the furtive, “dirty” way he conducted that solicitation. It seems like it was the setting that made it so sleazy, not the solicitation, and not the gender of the “prostitute”.
After all, they still like Jeff Gannon (aka HotMilitaryStud), David Dreire, and Bob Allen.
By NetBanker
August 31, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this
Lozen…here’s the skinny as a cut n paste from a news article…
He was arrested on June 11 by an undercover police officer in a Minneapolis airport men’s room who said the senator had engaged in conduct “often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct.”
Minutes after he was arrested for lewd conduct, Craig denied soliciting for sex, saying “I’m not gay. I don’t do these kinds of things,” according to an audio tape released by police on Thursday.
He denied that he had used foot and hand gestures to signal interest in a sexual encounter. The officer, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, accused the three-term senator of lying and grew exasperated with his denials.
“Embarrassing, embarrassing. No wonder why we’re going down the tubes,” Karsnia said.
In the police interview, Craig, 62, never admitted doing anything wrong and said his actions had been misinterpreted. However, Karsnia wrote in his report that the gestures were consistent with efforts to find a sexual partner in the men’s room.
Craig later pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct, which he now calls a mistake.
By lozen
August 31, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this
Net, in my particular job in academia our small department staff takes on more and more work (more and more admins who have to justify their jobs by coming up with more and more work for us to do) but we’re not given the money to hire more people to do the work, of course. I’m having to do things I don’t have the training to do, such as graphic design, (those people who do graphic design charge $60 an hour!) and believe my, salary is nowhere near that :^( ! My raise this year was less than $1,000. Some people here got only 1%. The school receives million dollar gifts, and there are four or five new buildings going up. The parking fees for employees increased this year by 50%, our insurance is going up again in January. The only thing that doesn’t increase a lot is salaries. The middle class is being squeezed out on both sides by the very poor and the very wealthy; both those groups seem to keep growing by leaps and bounds. People are driving hone from work and die when a bridge collapses because it hasn’t been maintained as it should. Thousands of people have their homes washed away when a levee breaks that hasn’t been maintained as it should. It’s sad. It’s criminal. And I don’t see how it will ever change.
By Archie
August 31, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this
JokesON you are correct in your first paragraph at 11:53 am post but people are entitled to disagree and I do believe I laid out my reasons for my post pretty well but dude since you are the Jokes man bring on the Jokes.
On that politician topic men and women do wild and dirty things all the time when it comes to sex as the mayor of Detroit has been sued and his sexual activities have come under scrutiny. If politicians would just stick to the issues and stop presenting such a phony image…
By Jack
August 31, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this
“Two people who have the same mindset can be talking the same subject and butt heads all day becuase they are speaking from different areas”
Happens to the Mrs. & me too often. It ends when one of us says,”Oh that’s what you’re saying”
By Mara
August 31, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this
Jokes - the fact is that offenses against those that are perceived as “helpless” like children, the elderly, the disabled, the mentally challenged, and animals are almost always judged more harshly than offenses against those who society thinks should be able to defend themselves. That’s why the murder of a child always elicits more outrage than the murder of a parent, and the torture of an animal is deemed by many in society to be more offensive than most domestic assaults. All are horrible crimes but some are deemed more outrageous than others because of the victim’s ability to reach out to the community for help.
And that pretty much wraps up my “kooky” commentary on the whole mess.
By FCM
August 31, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this
As long as it is NOT Hilary Clinton I don’t really care who gets elected…that would include swearing in Mickey Mouse!
By NetBanker
August 31, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this
Lozen…I’m right there with you sister even if I don’t work in academia. I lost 50% of my staff this year with the remaining folks expected to pick up their work. What management isn’t understanding is that the 2 people who were fired were technical writers and the 2 remaining folks are analysts. They had completely separate jobs, job descriptions, job duties, and use different software packages to do their work. I can’t even get a budget approval for money to train my analysts on the very specific software the writers used. At this point there isn’t a single person in the entire company who knows how to use the software, but we’re expected to fix problems and produce documentation with it nonetheless for our upcoming release. The really sad thing is that all 4 people had specific tasks assigned that had them scheduled at 100-120% capacity through early November. None of the super smart manager types can seem to provide me with any guidance on how to actually get the work done, but by God we need to meet the committed dates for the assignments.
This year I got a glowing performance appraisal and $0 for a raise because after 7 years of slogging my way up the salary chain I “make too much money compared to peers in similar positions elsewhere in the company.” This in spite of a big joint announcement from the CEO and head of HR that there are no longer salary ranges for jobs because the company was losing too many strong performers due to artificial salary caps that worked against the Pay for Performance plan. Yeah, right! I performed, but I’m not getting paid for it…and so another strong performer is looking to leave the company.
By Mara
August 31, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this
Looks like Tony Snow is the next Bush operative whose decided he needs to “spend more time with his family”. Last day will be September 14. As the third Bush spokesperson in six years, Mr. Snow has entertained without informing, has obfuscated without apology, and has upheld the Bush Media Doctrine with fierce determination.
(Bush Doctrine = WE decide what the people need to know, NOT the people)
Despite his loyalty to Dear Leader, he must, alas, leave for greener pastures (and a greener bank account). His truly unfortunate fight with cancer has drained the bank and taken a toll on his stamina. So he’s off for a little “Tony time” with his family.
Good luck, Mr. Snow, and good-bye.
By Jack
August 31, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this
Lozen. It is criminal. Both state and federal politicians should be changed regularly as a diaper….for the same reason.
By lozen
August 31, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this
Mara, good summing up of something that showed another big divide between the good people here on the blog. Accusing others of not being able to read instead of stopping to think maybe they didn’t write too clearly or were a little “illogical” in their expression! Or, gawd forbid, that they actually said what someone thought they said. Of course, accusing women of being illogical is supposed to end it, because how can you have a discussion with women (or listen to anything they say) when they’re so emotional. That’s been used to end discussions for so long it’s really tired. I took the comments the same way you did.
Netbanker, I’m thinking of taking early retirement myself although I can’t stop working for a while before I can get my retirement and SS. It’s amazing isn’t it? Although I have never done graphic design, and don’t have a good program to do it, I’m expected to come up with a product that looks like the ones done by experienced designers using Adobe! This just may be my last nerve they’re messin’ with here. Good luck to you (and me). Enjoy you’re weekend dahlings.
By JokesOn
August 31, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this
Mara,
I agree with your assessment. It is a dangerous practice though. A man just was found innocent by use of DNA after spending 18 years in prison for child molestation.
I am sure justice was not considered as much as other cases given the subject matter and that the child picked him from a line-up.
If someone so much as hinted at making SURE he was guilty before presuming so on this blog, they would have been tounge-lashed (not in the good way;) by the usual suspects. The rest of you all would have backed the bloggers that were berating him/her or silent. Jack would have had the guy castrated with a rusty-saw by now…etc
Just looking at the big picture here is all, as Archie was earlier.
By Mara
August 31, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this
A puppet/musical take on the Sen. Craig situation. It should make you smile. Cutting together Craig’s statement with music and lyrics from the musical “Avenue Q”, the video throws a little furry sympathy the senator’s way via the show’s topical number “If You Were Gay.”
“If you were gay, that’d be ok,” a puppet sings “If you were gay, I’d shout hooray.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHCrOtSzIBg
a riot! LOL.
By Sandra-hi
August 31, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this
By Sandra-hi
August 31, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this
By Jack
August 31, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this
You’re right JokesOn but I would only use the hacksaw if guilt was certain. DNA doesn’t lie. Nowadays it should always be used when practical. Wonder where Dog is today?
By JokesOn
August 31, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this
You’re right JokesOn but I would only use the hacksaw if guilt was certain.
If there was a way of being 100% without a doubt certain, I would provide the saw. It does scare me though because there are few situations where that is the case.
By Mara
August 31, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this
lozen - As you say, his post wasn’t the most coherent or clearly written. I really didn’t understand what he was trying to say and in trying to interpret his meaning, I somehow p!ssed him off. On the other hand, it seems as though HE doesn’t understand how strong an attachment many pet owners have for their furry little chil’dens. I don’t know as gender had much to do with it. Archie seems like a pretty decent guy and though I disagree with him on most things, I don’t get the impression that he holds the same contempt for women that someone like Justin did. He just doesn’t seem to meet very many of us sane ones.
By Archie
August 31, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this
There are people who don’t read and comprehend well and some are here on this blog and there are others on other blogs. I do thank you JokesOn for coming to my defense but it’s not necessary. I have the seen the same criticism go to the same people on this blog, I mean how many times have you criticized women and then turnaround and have to tell certain folk to get over it. JokesON, someone wrote on this blog they know black people that think Vick is sick, well guess what I know at least one black person that posted that twice on this blog so when someone comes right behind you as if you had not posted a thing of course you question if they can read. When I made the statement that most people agreed with Mara,well,I already had the foundation for that statement and since this newspaper does more than just woman-to-woman I figured that a person could read the article on the front about the NFL and the commentary by Kathy Rudy. People on blogs don’t want to read they just want to emote. I do know of at least two conservative columnists that agree with me and they used the same examples that I used but then they are both black. The fact is Mara and I argued seem like for almost a day before anyone got in it and they got in it to defend her and some folk(Lozen) because their feelings were hurt from last week. I also pointed out that the Minister Winkler’s family had already forgiven Mary Winkler, once again demonstrating the idea of forgiveness. Certain folk could not address that because that was as plain as day in support of what I said before. Disagreement is fine but the distortion that’s the problem and the non-reading and the same folk are so judgemental of Chuck.
By JokesOn
August 31, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this
Of course, accusing women of being illogical is supposed to end it, because how can you have a discussion with women (or listen to anything they say) when they’re so emotional.
If I am not mistaken everyone here, with the exception of NetB I think, has been called illogical at some point. Yet, it is only left handed when used against a woman? Can you say “knee-jerk?”
By Archie
August 31, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this
Mara He just doesn’t seem to meet very many of us sane ones. That is funny!!! I am laughing my butt off!!! That is the funniest thing you have said today. Mara, you are correct I don’t hold contempt for women that’s why I defended Britney Spears.it seems as though HE doesn’t understand how strong an attachment many pet owners have for their furry That is a another true statement but I did love my dog just not to the point of leaving money for it. If you didn’t understand just ask. Also I don’t have a problem with anyone disagreeing with me. I am still laughing at your last comment and I have a story to tell but I will hold it(laughing)!!!
By Chilao
August 31, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this
speaking of Mary Winkler, and it being JokeDay, any wagers on what kinds of things her potential new beau will NOT be asking of her?
certainly NOT *Heh, honey, could you wear those stilettos?”
LOL
By JokesOn
August 31, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this
Archie,
I agree with you and know you do not need me to back you. I have backed just about everyone on here at one time or another, even chuck, because “right” is not dependant on where it comes from.
Seeing the fraternity-like alliances appear is annoying to me. Especially when all they have to contribute is playing cheerleader and infusing left-handed remarks to heat the situation up.
By Chilao
August 31, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this
from Jay Leno last night:
They finally found the WMDs. They were at the UN all along
By Archie
August 31, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this
Thanks JokesON again. Mara you have given me my good laugh for the day and I need it because of stuff going on outside this blog but I will get over that. Mara, did I tell you about the lady with an umbrella opened inside the building over her cube? JBM was my favorite blogger because she detailed her faults and she knew she wasn’t perfect. I really like SusieH’s history comments and I criticized her. I would rather talk to a woman about personal issues any day because a man will tell another man “just get another woman”. As if all problems are solved that way.