AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > March > 15 > Entry
Should people invest time and money in local, organic food?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The organic-food industry reminds me of Starbucks coffee. It costs more, it doesn’t necessarily taste any better and yet somehow buying it makes people feel better. Organic foods have their place, but the moral-high-ground hype of the modern organic movement drives me crazy. Organics come with trade-offs they don’t seem to recognize.
In theory, always buying locally-grown organic food is a wonderful idea. My parents retired to the mountains, where they grow their vegetables, get eggs from the farm down the road, and know which farmers have the best hormone-free meat.
But modern suburbanites don’t know the local farmer. And once that local link is gone, it is very difficult to know what you’re getting for those higher-priced “organic” foods. Today, that label assures a higher price, but not that the product is more natural, healthier or even that it tastes better.
Not to mention that the research is mixed on which organic products and processes are actually healthier. British studies, for example, have found that organic milk contains more anti-oxidants, but lower levels of vitamins A and E.
Organic types condemn pesticides; but most studies sanction the miniscule amounts consumers ingest. More importantly, without pesticides to ward off insects and fungi, crop yields would plummet. And chemical fertilizers horrify organic types, but are one of the single most important advances in feeding hundreds of millions of people who would otherwise be starving.
With those trade-offs, I appreciate the common sense approach of Cindy Burke, author of To Buy or Not To Buy Organic. She started a book on going totally organic, but her research changed her mind. By phone, she explained that understanding where your food comes from is more important than, for example, paying a premium for supermarket organic milk, when those cows are probably stuck on a giant factory farm instead of grazing on grass. She said, “Organic started as a sustainable way of growing healthy food in a bio-diverse environment, but big business has turned it into a high end niche. That’s why I did all the research on when it matters to buy organic and when it doesn’t. It doesn’t make sense to buy everything organic, especially if it has a small exposure to pesticides; you can get better value and food almost as good.”
Rebuttal
My colleague Shaunti clearly appreciates the wholesome goodness of local organic food. Yet her affectionate description of the hormone and pesticide-free meals served up at her parent’s mountain home begs the question: Should putting fresh, healthy food in our bodies really be a vacation-only splurge?
We forget that until the 1940’s all agriculture was organic. Now, it’s another story. “If our food had to be labeled with the variety of pesticides and herbicides used, then you better believe organic would be more prevalent” declares Alice Rolls, Executive Director of Georgia Organics.
Rolls easily concedes that we needn’t go organic on everything. Yet when it comes to many foods it’s hard to buy that pesticides aren’t a problem. It doesn’t explain why some pesticide-using farmers maintain an alarming double-standard in their own lives: Rolls has heard plenty of accounts of “conventional farmers who won’t eat their own crop but have an organic garden by the house for personal consumption.”
Despite this troubling hypocrisy if “hundreds of millions of people would starve” without their pesticide-laden food, I’d spray the fields myself. Fortunately, that’s just not true. Researchers from the University of Michigan found that yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. Moreover, organic farming gives underdeveloped countries some unique survival advantages. Farmers in remote communities gain true self-sufficiency, rather than dependence on costly pesticides and the genetically modified seeds required to tolerate them.
Local and organically grown food is harder to find and often a bit more expensive than the piles of “big ag” bounty available at the local supermarket. Yet if you buy organic or local food where it counts, cutting out some of the other garbage you mindlessly throw in the cart, you’ll probably break even financially— and come out way ahead, health-wise.
So don’t think of frequent trips to your local farmer’s market as a chore. Think of it as giving yourself vacation food without the staggering hotel and airline bills.
Far from an organic purist, I’ve nonetheless found that I’m never sorry when I put a little time and effort into finding the freshest food my town has to offer. I figure that my hard-working body deserves it. Doesn’t yours?
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Truth
March 16, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
Liberals are such suckers. LOL!!
Andrea’s last line says it all: I figure that my hard-working body deserves it. Doesn’t yours?
“I buy the more expensive hair color because I’m worth it”
Put more value on yourself by spending more money on the same things. It is just like the lemmings that insist on buying name brand clothes. People who spend $7 on a cup of coffee in order to feel important are pathetic.
Improve what you DO, not how much money you spend on yourself. Improve your ACTIONS.
Several years ago DDT was outlawed internationally. National Geography recently had an article about malaria. It is believed that the vast majority of humans that have died since humans have existed have died of malaria. After decades of protecting the world from DDT, the world is again dieing of malaria like it hasn’t since the 1920s. Thanks, liberals. Your short sighted “make-yourself-feel-better” views are costing millions of lives, again.
Here is an interesting article about the real effects of trying to push our American “because I’m worth it” mentality onto the rest of the world:
The Malaria Clock:
A Green Eco-Imperialist Legacy of Death
http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html
I go to a local truck farmer to buy my vegetables, not because there are fewer insecticides, but because the Kroger’s management is so incredibly incompetent that I haven’t been able to buy veggies there for years that weren’t already rotted when I buy them. The health food stores are no better, in fact their veggies are even more rotted.
Attention All Liberals:
Sending me $100 will lower your carbon footprint substantially and MAKE YOURSELF FEEL GREAT. Please let me now if you want the address.
By Copyleft
March 17, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
And here we see the same “Attitude problem” that was so extensively discussed last week. Far-right nuts spewing hatred and contempt, and then acting surprised when no one wants to engage them in conversation.
By Copyright
March 17, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
In 1982, Prof. Mary Koss of Kent State University claimed that “rape represents an extreme behavior, but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture.” If this is true, you would think feminists would be demanding in their male leadership a man who does not practice the kind of behavior alleged by Broaddrick.
Those ’60s bra-burners got pretty exercised about rape. Catherine MacKinnon wrote in Professing Feminism: “In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.”
Robin Morgan, in her Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape, wrote: “I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”
Andrea Dworkin wrote, “Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s daughter is a victim, past, present and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.”
Substitute “Bill Clinton” for “patriarchy,” and you have a more contemporaneous assertion.
Richard Nixon was President when many of these thoughts were written and spoken. Under President Clinton, feminists have taken the outrageous advice of some rapists. They are relaxing and apparently enjoying it.
Apparently it was never about sex for feminism, only about policy. As long as you are “right” on the issues, a political leader can rape his brains out. Is that the message feminists and liberal Democrats want to send?
Clinton supporters are raising the usual defenses. “What took her so long to come forward?” is the one heard most often. But feminists told us, as Broaddrick did on NBC, that many women feel shame after being raped and go into periods of denial. She also said she feared for her safety.
Alleged remarks by Clarence Thomas to Anita Hill outraged feminists and brought us “The Year of the Woman.” Angry female members of Congress marched up the steps of the Senate and demanded that Thomas not be confirmed to the Supreme Court. But when Bill Clinton is accused of rape, there is silence.
Justice Thomas issued a categorical denial eight years ago. Bill Clinton refers us to his attorney.
Then, we were told that women don’t lie about rape. We’re waiting to hear what excuse feminists will make for Clinton this time.
First it was a bailout on sexual harassment laws in the Paula Jones case. Now it is inattention to a charge of rape against a man who is President of the United States. Why should feminists ever be listened to again? They have been accessories in Bill Clinton’s raping of America, its laws and its virtue.
By Truth
March 17, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
Copyleft
Far-right nuts spewing hatred and contempt
You are definitely seeing the problem. Liberals think that they are the only ones that can express their opinion. You had no problem at all with calling me names and staging a personal attack toward me for voicing my opinion in your very first post this morning. Last week there were posters who did nothing but stage personal attack after personal attack on other posters while whining about the decline of the forum.
I was talking about liberals in general. If it doesn’t apply to you, then ignore it. But you make it personal.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THIS BLOG.
Thanks for proving the point I was making last week.
By Copyright
March 17, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this
Controversial events within Clinton's administration as well as his own personal conduct would eventually provide opportunities for his opponents to damage him politically, and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as well. She had made it known from the beginning that she intended to step far beyond the traditional role of First Lady to directly involve herself in White House policy. She was appointed by the President to direct his task force on national health care reform. The first major Clinton scandal involved the White House travel office and came to be popularly known as "Travelgate." In May 1993, seven long-time employees in the office were abruptly fired and replaced with friends of the Clintons from Arkansas. The FBI then investigated the fired employees, leading to allegations the investigation was being conducted under pressure from the White House solely to justify the firings. Next, in July, a personal tragedy for the Clintons occurred as Vince Foster, Deputy White House Counsel, and life-long friend of the President, was found shot dead in a park just outside Washington from an apparent suicide. Huge controversy erupted five months later when it was revealed that federal investigators had been denied access to Foster's White House office, but that Clinton aides had entered the office within hours of Foster's death. Speculation arose in the media that documents related to the Whitewater Development Corporation might have been removed. A month before his death, Foster had filed three years of delinquent Whitewater corporate tax returns. The Whitewater controversy would eventually spark a federal investigation of President Clinton and the First Lady, that through a strange and remarkable series of political maneuverings and personal failings, would ultimately lead to the first-ever impeachment of an elected President. Whitewater began back in 1978 when Bill and Hillary Clinton along with two Arkansas acquaintances, James B. and Susan McDougal, borrowed $203,000 to purchase 220 acres of riverfront land in Arkansas' Ozark Mountains, then formed the Whitewater Development Corporation with the intention of building vacation homes. In 1982, James McDougal purchased a small savings and loan in Little Rock and named it the Madison Guaranty. By the mid-1980s, Madison Guaranty had aroused the attention of federal regulators who questioned its lending practices and financial stability. For example, in 1985, a fund-raising event was held at Madison Guaranty to help eliminate $50,000 of Governor Bill Clinton's campaign debt. Federal investigators later alleged that some of the funds had been improperly withdrawn from depositors' funds. A major link between the Clintons and Madison Guaranty had been forged after McDougal hired the Rose Law Firm, where Hillary Clinton was a partner, to help the ailing institution. But by 1989, following a number of failed loans, Madison Guaranty collapsed and was shut down by the federal government which then spent $60 million bailing it out. In 1992, the Federal Resolution Trust Corporation, during its investigation into the causes of its failure, named both Bill and Hillary Clinton as "potential beneficiaries" of alleged illegal activities at Madison Guaranty. A referral was then sent to the U.S. Justice Department. Following Vince Foster's death in 1993, political pressure mounted in Washington for an independent investigation into Whitewater-Madison. The Clinton administration then turned over documents to the Justice Department including the files found in Foster's office. In January 1994, in order to stave off ever-mounting criticism from his political foes, President Clinton reluctantly asked Attorney General Janet Reno to appoint a special counsel. Reno chose former U.S. Attorney Robert B. Fiske of New York, a moderate Republican. Two months later, further controversy arose with the sudden resignation of Associate Attorney General Webster L. Hubbell, after allegations were raised concerning his conduct while he was a member of the Rose Law Firm. Following his resignation, friends of President Clinton arranged about $700,000 in income for Hubbell just as he was coming under scrutiny by Whitewater investigators. The President's close friend, Vernon Jordan, an influential Washington lawyer, was among those aiding Hubbell. By the summer of 1994, the House and Senate Banking committees both began hearings concerning Whitewater and eventually called 29 Clinton administration officials to testify. In August, Robert Fiske's tenure as special Whitewater counsel came to an abrupt end amid charges from conservatives that he simply was not aggressive enough in investigating Bill and Hillary Clinton. On August 5, 1994, following the renewal of the independent counsel law, the three-judge panel responsible for appointing independent counsels replaced Fiske with staunch Republican Kenneth W. Starr, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, and federal appeals court judge and solicitor general in the Bush administration. Thus began the four-year-long Starr investigation of the Clintons. Through an extraordinary set of circumstances, Starr's investigation would eventually veer away from Whitewater and delve deeply into the personal conduct of President Clinton, ultimately leading to his impeachment for events totally unrelated to Whitewater. Amid all of the media attention paid to the Starr investigation and the House and Senate Whitewater hearings, allegations by a young woman from Arkansas went nearly unnoticed at first. In February 1994, Paula C. Jones appeared at a Washington gathering of conservative activists and alleged that, in 1991, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton had committed sexual harassment by dropping his trousers in a Little Rock hotel room and asking her to perform a sex act. Jones, who was an Arkansas state clerical worker at the time of the alleged incident, claimed Clinton's state police bodyguard had summoned her to the hotel room. The White House responded aggressively to Jones's charges and attempted to undermine her credibility through repeated denials on behalf of the President along with off-handed remarks from Clinton loyalists deriding her as "trailer park trash," all of which served to infuriate Ms. Jones. On May 6, 1994, she filed a civil lawsuit against the President in federal district court in Arkansas, seeking $700,000 in damages along with a personal apology from Clinton. The President's lawyers now engaged in a series of legal maneuvers seeking to put off the case until after Clinton concluded his term of office. However, the attempt failed when a federal appeals court ruled the lawsuit could proceed while Clinton was still in office. That ruling was unanimously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court which stated that the case was "highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount'' of the President's time. Thus, for the first time in U.S. history, a sitting President was subjected to a civil lawsuit for actions that occurred before he became President. The Jones case served to focus media attention on various old allegations of marital infidelity concerning Bill Clinton. Incredibly, it was at this time, in the midst of the Jones controversy, that President Clinton began an illicit sexual affair with a 22-year-old White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. Lewinsky had arrived at the White House in July of 1995 from Beverly Hills, California, to work as an unpaid intern in the office of Clinton's Chief of Staff Leon E. Panetta. By November, she accepted a low level paid job in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs. That month, however, a temporary shutdown of the U.S. government occurred when the Republican-controlled Congress refused to appropriate federal funds due to political squabbling over President Clinton's budget. Thus most paid White House staffers stayed home. Lewinsky, still an unpaid intern when the shutdown occurred, showed up for work in Panetta's West Wing office on November 15, 1995. On that day, President Clinton strolled into the office for an informal birthday gathering at which Lewinsky openly flirted with him. Clinton then invited Lewinsky back to his private study, located adjacent to the Oval Office. They kissed, and later that evening, they met again and had their first sexual encounter. The affair continued after Lewinsky became a paid White House employee and would last a total of 18 months. During their affair, the President and Ms. Lewinsky had ten sexual encounters in the Oval Office suite, including one instance in which the President, while engaged in sex, spoke to a Republican member of Congress on the telephone regarding sending U.S. troops to Bosnia. Nervous White House staffers kept a wary eye on the young woman spending an inordinate amount of time around the President. On April 5, 1996, Lewinsky was transferred against her will to a public affairs position at the Pentagon, thus removing her from close proximity to the President. At the Pentagon, an unhappy Lewinsky struck up a friendship with Linda Tripp, who had also been transferred out of the White House. Lewinsky proceeded to confide intimate details of her extraordinary relationship with the President, which was still ongoing. Tripp then began secretly tape-recording Lewinsky's often-emotional telephone conversations. For Bill Clinton, the unyielding momentum of the Starr investigation, the Paula Jones lawsuit, and the love-struck young Lewinsky, would all soon meld together and spell catastrophe for his presidency. As the Paula Jones case proceeded toward trial, her lawyers attempted to establish a pattern of sexual misconduct by the President by questioning other women who alleged they also had sexual encounters of one sort or another with Clinton. Jones's lawyers had by now received anonymous tips regarding the Clinton-Lewinsky affair and also subpoenaed Monica Lewinsky. Further problems ensued for the President via Independent Counsel Ken Starr. This occurred after Linda Tripp provided Starr's investigators with more than 20 hours of tape recordings of her telephone conversations with Lewinsky. Starr's investigators learned, among other things, that Clinton's close friend Vernon Jordan had provided assistance to Lewinsky, on the President's behalf, in seeking a private-sector job in New York after Lewinsky had been listed as a potential witness in the Jones case. Jordan also found her a lawyer to help swear out an affidavit in the Jones case in which she denied having a sexual relationship with the President. (Lewinsky Affidavit) Since Jordan had once aided Whitewater figure Webb Hubbell, Starr now asked for, and received, permission from the U.S. Justice Department to expand his Whitewater probe to investigate Jordan's involvement in aiding Lewinsky. The focus of Starr's investigation thus shifted into the personal conduct of the President, under the pretext of determining whether Jordan and Clinton had encouraged Lewinsky to lie. On Friday, January 16, 1998, Starr's investigators had Tripp lure Lewinsky to a Washington hotel where Lewinsky was intercepted by FBI agents, brought to a hotel room, and pressured for hours by Starr's deputies toward cooperating with their Clinton probe. Tripp then departed the hotel and went home where she secretly met with one of Jones's lawyers and briefed him on the entire Clinton-Lewinsky affair. The next morning, Saturday, January 17, President Clinton, in compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, arrived at his lawyer's office two blocks from the White House to give a pretrial deposition in the Jones case, with the procedure also videotaped. Sitting across the table from Paula Jones, the President was questioned for six hours by her lawyers and was quite surprised when they asked whether he ever had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky along with other detailed questions. Clinton, somber and hesitant, denied under oath having sexual relations with Lewinsky, according to the definition provided by Jones's lawyers. Clinton also said he could not recall ever being alone with her in the White House. The President's denials would later be used as the basis of an article of impeachment. (Deposition Excerpts) By Wednesday, January 21, a firestorm of media speculation regarding Clinton and Lewinsky swept the airwaves and the Internet. Cable news networks provided nearly round-the-clock coverage of every whisper from the White House. Commentators and political pundits even talked of possible resignation or impeachment if indeed there had been an affair and the President had encouraged Lewinsky to lie. Inside the White House, Clinton met with his top aides and denied having a sexual relationship. He told senior aide Sidney Blumenthal that Lewinsky "came on to me and made a sexual demand on me," and when he had rebuffed her, Clinton added, she had threatened to say they had an affair. Later that day, Clinton sat down for a previously scheduled interview with TV journalist Jim Lehrer and declared: "There is no improper relationship..." On Friday, Clinton met with his Cabinet and once again denied the allegations. After the meeting, several Cabinet members, including Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, emerged with statements of support. "I believe that the allegations are completely untrue," said Albright. Three days later, January 26, Clinton attempted to quell all of the speculation. Standing alongside First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vice President Al Gore in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Clinton waged his finger at news cameras and declared: "But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time -- never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people." (RealAudio :38) For the next seven months, Clinton's friends and top advisors, including the First Lady, made numerous TV appearances upholding the President's denial, even citing "a vast, right-wing conspiracy" against the President. Several aides were also called to testify regarding any communications they had with the President about Lewinsky and repeated Clinton's denials to all questioners, including to Ken Starr's federal grand jury. Amid the festering scandal, the President received a bit of good news. On April 1, 1998, in Little Rock, Arkansas, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit without a trial, stating that although Clinton's alleged behavior in the hotel room may have been "boorish and offensive," it did not meet the standard of sexual harassment under federal law. However, Ken Starr was undeterred by the Jones case dismissal. In July 1998, Starr granted full immunity to Monica Lewinsky in exchange for her cooperation. She then turned over a blue dress to Starr that contained a stain from a sexual encounter with the President. The FBI obtained a blood sample from the President and was able to match his DNA with the stain on the dress. Evidence of a sexual encounter was now undeniable. On August 6, Lewinsky made the first of her two appearances before Starr's federal grand jury. She was questioned extensively about her sexual relationship with the President and revealed shockingly intimate details. But she also told the grand jury that no one had instructed her to lie or had offered her a job to keep quiet about the affair. On Monday, August 17, President Clinton, ignoring his own lawyers' advice, appeared voluntarily before the same grand jury via a live closed-circuit television hookup from the White House, with his appearance also videotaped. Clinton thus became the first President ever to testify in a grand jury criminal investigation concerning his own actions. The President was questioned at length regarding the information Lewinsky had provided, but repeatedly declined to answer specific questions concerning sex. The President's testimony would later be used as the basis of an article of impeachment. (RealAudio Excerpts) That night, the President appeared on national TV to address the American public and now admitted: "Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible." The President also acknowledged he had been deceptive: "I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that." (RealAudio 4:08) The next month, September 1998, would be worse for Clinton. On September 9, Ken Starr delivered his 453-page report and 36 boxes of evidence to the House of Representatives, citing 11 impeachable offenses allegedly committed by the President. (Eleven Offenses) On September 11, the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee began releasing the Starr report to the public via the Internet. It contained near-pornographic descriptions of sexual encounters between Clinton and Lewinsky. Ten days later, the Judiciary Committee released the videotape of Clinton's August 17 testimony. The four-hour-long testimony was immediately broadcast in its entirety by American TV networks and globally via news satellites. The committee also released 3,183 pages of sexually explicit evidence, including Lewinsky's grand jury testimony, a photograph of her stained blue dress, and her "Dear Handsome" letters to Clinton. The prestige of the presidency and America's status worldwide appeared to suffer as a now-humiliated Clinton was endlessly mocked by everyone from late-night TV comedians to average people on the street. By now, 78 U.S. newspapers, including USA Today, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Des Moines Register, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, San Jose Mercury News, and Detroit Free Press, had called on Clinton to resign. Numerous other papers, including The New York Times and Washington Post, denounced his conduct in their editorial pages but stopped short of calling for his resignation or impeachment. International papers expressed deep concern over the turmoil in Washington and its possible impact on the stability of U.S. global leadership. Making matters worse for Clinton, the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee announced it would consider a resolution calling for a formal impeachment inquiry, the first step in the long process toward possible removal of Clinton from office. The super-charged partisan political atmosphere in Washington, combined with lingering anger over the President's deceit, and the allegations contained in the Starr report, all lent the necessary momentum. Thus the process moved forward and Clinton became only the third U.S. President to be seriously faced with the threat of impeachment. On October 8, the House of Representatives voted 258-176 to authorize an open-ended impeachment inquiry, with 31 Democrats joining the Republicans in voting for the investigation. The House Judiciary Committee, consisting of 21 Republicans and 16 Democrats, then began televised hearings. Witnesses appearing before the committee included Ken Starr himself, who accused Clinton of repeatedly engaging in conduct under oath that was deliberately deceptive in order to hide his affair with Lewinsky. The Democrats, in defense of Clinton, produced an array of scholars asserting that the charges against Clinton did not rise to the level of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" mentioned, but not specifically defined, in the U.S. Constitution as grounds for impeachment, and therefore did not warrant removal of the President from office. The President's own lawyers described Clinton's conduct as "morally reprehensible" but not impeachable. Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde also sent 81 written questions to the President asking Clinton to "admit or deny" various statements of fact contained in the Starr report. On November 27, the President responded in writing to the questions and forcefully denied having lied under oath. The President's responses to the 81 questions would later be used as the basis of an article of impeachment. (81 Questions/Responses) Republicans on the Judiciary Committee drafted a total of four articles of impeachment based on 60,000 pages of evidence provided by Ken Starr. The evidence included sworn testimony, grand jury transcripts, depositions, statements, affidavits, along with video and audio tapes, all concerning Clinton's attempts to conceal his extramarital affair with Lewinsky during the Paula Jones lawsuit and subsequent criminal investigation by Starr's office. On Friday, December 11, the Judiciary Committee voted mainly along party lines to approve the first three articles of impeachment, accusing Clinton of committing perjury before Starr's grand jury and in the Jones case, and with obstruction of justice in the Jones case. Only one Republican on the committee sided with Democrats by casting a no vote on Article 2 charging Clinton with perjury in the Jones case. On Saturday, the fourth article was approved, accusing Clinton of making false statements in his answers to the 81 written questions. The four articles were then forwarded to the full House of Representatives for consideration. Republicans controlled the House with 228 members compared to 206 Democrats and one Independent who normally sided with the Democrats. With polls indicating that Clinton's job approval rating was holding steady at 60 percent amid a booming economy, and with most Americans disapproving of impeachment, Democrats now began a major push for an alternative to impeachment. They hoped for a congressional censure of the President that would reprimand him but leave him in office. However, their efforts got nowhere amid the fiercely partisan impeachment atmosphere in Congress. Adding to the polarization, old rumors and allegations of marital infidelities came out of the woodwork against leading Republicans, including Speaker-designate Bob Livingston, who stunned his conservative colleagues when he admitted several marital indiscretions. The House of Representatives had been scheduled to convene on Thursday, December 17, to begin considering the four articles of impeachment. However, on Wednesday, President Clinton ordered a series of military air strikes against Iraq, following the failure of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. Clinton's timing drew an immediate chorus of criticism from Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott who stated: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time. Both the timing and the policy are subject to question." The President defended his timing when asked by a White House reporter if the attack was an attempt to avoid the impeachment vote in Congress. "I don't think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." (RealAudio :24) Democrats wanted to postpone the impeachment proceedings until after the conclusion of the joint U.S.-British military operation, claiming it would be improper to debate removing America's Commander in Chief while U.S. pilots were "in harm's way." Republicans, however, allowed only a 24-hour delay, noting that impeachment proceedings had been held against President Richard Nixon while U.S. troops were still in Vietnam. Thus, on Friday, December 18, 1998, the full House of Representatives gathered for the first time in 130 years to consider the impeachment of a President. Thirteen hours of fiery partisan oratory followed in which over 200 members of Congress arose to speak their minds, quoting everyone from Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King Jr. On Saturday, toward the end of deliberations, Speaker-designate Bob Livingston made a blockbuster surprise announcement on the House floor, saying he would quit Congress as a result of his now-admitted extramarital affairs, and also called on President Clinton to resign. "I must set the example that I hope President Clinton will follow," Livingston declared. (RealAudio 1:43) Meanwhile, televised news reports indicated the U.S. was in the midst of bombing Iraq again. House Democrats also staged a brief walkout to protest the Republican refusal to allow consideration of a censure resolution as an alternative to impeachment. Amid this extraordinary atmosphere, the House of Representatives voted on the four articles of impeachment, needing only a simple majority (218 votes) for approval of each article. Articles of Impeachment: RESOLVED that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. Article 1: Perjury before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury. In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that: On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action. In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. (Approved 21-16 by the House Judiciary Committee on Friday, December 11, 1998) (Passed 228-206 in the House of Representatives at 1:25 p.m. on Saturday, December 19, 1998) Article 2: Perjury in the Paula Jones civil case. In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that: (1) On December 23, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton, in sworn answers to written questions asked as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him, willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning conduct and proposed conduct with subordinate employees. (2) On January 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a deposition given as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee, his knowledge of that employee's involvement and participation in the civil rights action brought against him, and his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of that employee. In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. (Approved 20-17 by the House Judiciary Committee on Friday, December 11, 1998) (Failed 229-205 in the House of Representatives at 1:42 p.m. on Saturday, December 19, 1998) Article 3: Obstruction of Justice related to the Jones case. In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding. The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts: (1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading. (2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding. (3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him. (4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him. (5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge. (6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness. (7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information. In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. (Approved 21-16 by the House Judiciary Committee on Friday, December 11, 1998) (Passed 221-212 in the House of Representatives at 1:59 p.m. on Saturday, December 19, 1998) Article 4: Abuse of Power by making perjurious statements to Congress in his answers to the 81 questions posed by the Judiciary Committee. Using the powers and influence of the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth-seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding in that, as President, William Jefferson Clinton, refused and failed to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States. William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond, and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry. In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. (Approved 21-16 by the House Judiciary Committee on Saturday, December 12, 1998) (Failed 285-148 in the House of Representatives at 2:15 p.m. on Saturday, December 19, 1998) Consequences: With Articles 1 and 3, pertaining to perjury and obstruction of justice, having been approved by the House of Representatives, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott announced that President Clinton's impeachment trial would begin in the Senate on Thursday, January 7, 1999. The televised proceedings in the Senate chamber began with formalities required by the Constitution including a formal reading of the charges and the swearing-in of all 100 senators by William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, who would preside. Senators then proceeded one by one to the front of the chamber to sign an oath book pledging to do "impartial justice." Remarkably, the partisan rancor, which had been so evident during the House proceedings, appeared at first to be somewhat diminished in the Senate as the 55 Republican and 45 Democratic senators began their solemn duties, sitting in silent judgment of Clinton with the potential outcome being the first-ever removal of an elected President. Although this was the second impeachment trial in U.S. history, it marked the first time an elected President was faced with possible removal from office. Andrew Johnson had ascended to the presidency following the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln and thus was not elected. President Johnson was impeached by the House in 1868 but later acquitted by a single vote following a Senate trial. Now, in the Senate chamber, a team of 13 Republican managers (prosecutors) from the House of Representatives, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, faced off against seven defense lawyers representing President Clinton, led by main White House Counsel Charles Ruff. Opening statements by each side lasted three days, after which individual senators were allowed two days of questioning. The senators passed 150 written queries to Chief Justice Rehnquist who read them aloud to the House prosecutors and Clinton's lawyers. In making their case against the President, House prosecutors accused Clinton of "willful, premeditated, deliberate corruption of the nation's system of justice through perjury and obstruction of justice." Clinton's lawyers countered: "The House Republicans' case ends as it began, an unsubstantiated, circumstantial case that does not meet the constitutional standard to remove the President from office." With opinion polls showing that Clinton's job approval rating now surpassed 70 percent despite his impeachment, and with most Americans favoring a speedy conclusion of the Senate trial, Democratic senators proposed that the impeachment case against Clinton be dismissed outright for lack of merit. The senators were also aware, following informal head counts, that there would never be enough votes in the Senate to convict the President, with two-thirds of the Senate (67 votes) needed. To obtain the 67 votes, twelve Democratic senators would have to vote to convict the President in addition to all 55 Republicans, a highly unlikely prospect. Meanwhile, the already-shaky bipartisan pact of cooperation fell apart after House prosecutors, aided by Independent Counsel Ken Starr, met privately with Monica Lewinsky on January 24 to discuss her possible testimony in the trial. Three days later, the Senate voted along party lines and defeated the Democrats' motion to dismiss the charges against Clinton, then voted in favor of seeking videotaped depositions from Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, and Sidney Blumenthal. Democrats strongly objected to calling any witnesses, claiming they were not necessary, given the voluminous House record already available. Republicans, however, claimed the Democrats were trying to stop them from presenting a thorough case against Clinton. They originally wanted to call up to 15 witnesses. On February 1, Monica Lewinsky was questioned by House prosecutors behind closed doors for four hours, with the procedure videotaped. The President's lawyers asked her no questions and instead read her a brief statement of apology: "Ms. Lewinsky, on behalf of the President, we'd like to tell you how very sorry we all are for what you have had to go through." Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal were questioned by House prosecutors over the next two days. But it quickly became evident that the depositions were unlikely to change any votes in the Senate. There was no 'smoking gun' or any new revelation. On February 4, the Senate voted 70-30 against calling Lewinsky to testify in person. The vote came as a relief to many in Washington who dreaded the prospect of Lewinsky testifying in the historic Senate chamber about her sexual encounters with the President. Instead, videotaped excerpts of her February 1 deposition would be used. Thus, two days later, Americans, for the first time, saw and heard Lewinsky as 30 video excerpts were played on TV monitors in the Senate chamber during final presentations by House prosecutors and Clinton's lawyers. The video clips mostly concerned her New York job search, affidavit in the Jones case, and the hiding of small gifts Clinton had given her, all of which formed the basis for the obstruction of justice charge against the President. Video clips of the depositions given by Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal, along with earlier footage of President Clinton's August 17 grand jury testimony, his Jones case deposition, and his emphatic denial from January 1998, were also presented. In several instances, the same video was shown by House prosecutors and Clinton's lawyers, with entirely different meanings attached, according to whomever was giving the interpretation. On February 8, closing arguments were presented with each side allotted a three-hour time slot. On the President's behalf, White House Counsel Charles Ruff declared: "There is only one question before you, albeit a difficult one, one that is a question of fact and law and constitutional theory. Would it put at risk the liberties of the people to retain the President in office? Putting aside partisan animus, if you can honestly say that it would not, that those liberties are safe in his hands, then you must vote to acquit." Chief prosecutor Henry Hyde countered: "A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious...We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the President...And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done." With closing arguments completed, the Senate began three days of closed-door deliberations on the two articles of impeachment, with each senator limited to 15 minutes of speaking time. Senate Democrats had attempted, but failed, to open this process to the public via television. On Friday, February 12, television cameras were once again turned on inside the chamber and senators gathered in open session for the final roll call. With the whole world watching, senators stood up one by one to vote "guilty" or "not guilty." On Article 1, the charge of perjury, 55 senators, including 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats voted not guilty. On Article 3, obstruction of justice, the Senate split evenly, 50 for and 50 against the President. With the necessary two-thirds majority not having been achieved, the President was thus acquitted on both charges and would serve out the remainder of his term of office lasting through January 20, 2001. About two hours after his acquittal, President Clinton made a brief appearance in the White House Rose Garden and stated: ''Now that the Senate has fulfilled its constitutional responsibility, bringing this process to a conclusion, I want to say again to the American people how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and on the American people."By JokesOn
March 17, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
I was talking about liberals in general. If it doesn’t apply to you, then ignore it. But you make it personal.
Or the conscientious and intelligent thing to do that engages, instead of insults, others in a debate would be to simple not use “liberals in general” as an example if it is inaccurate.
Otherwise you are a troll (baiting) and do not be surprised when you are treated like one. Before you argue with me on this, approach your husband (or wife) with the same tone/words as you do here during your next disagreement and see what kind of response you receive.
By Truth
March 17, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this
JokesOn
Lets get this straight: On a political blog, you don’t want the term liberal to be used.
Are you telling me that you have never used the term Conservatives or neo-cons in a derogatory way.
Here’s an idea: Address what I said. Be an adult and keep personalities out of it. If you disagree with anything i said, address that point. Prove me wrong. Stage an intelligent debate. Show me I’m wrong. I get that you don’t like me.
Or you could do what you always do and declare anyone who doesn’t think like you, a troll and then whine and complain about your victim status all week.
By 9:39_NoNo
March 17, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
Who was it berating someone recently for posting a long post, and not even breaking it up for readibility?
no one here, certainly.
well, doesn’t matter, I am certainly not going to be wasting my time reading the 9:39.
By Truth
March 17, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
Nono
Now that’s a troll. Someone is just throwing a temper tantrum. No one would take the time to read that.
By Copyright
March 17, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt, they were the cause of corruption in others. Yet seldom in America have so many come to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as during the Clinton years. Here are some of the facts that have been buried.
RECORDS SET
First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.
Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in “Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: “By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever.”
STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION
CRIME STATS
SMALTZ INVESTIGATION
CAMPAIGN FINANCE INVESTIGATION
CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS WERE OBTAINED
Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA
Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.
ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER’S
Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn’t remember, didn’t know, or something similar.
Bill Kennedy 116 Harold Ickes 148 Ricki Seidman 160 Bruce Lindsey 161 Bill Burton 191 Mark Gearan 221 Mack McLarty 233 Neil Egglseston 250 Hillary Clinton 250 John Podesta 264 Jennifer O’Connor 343 Dwight Holton 348 Patsy Thomasson 420 Jeff Eller 697
FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton’s Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.
I don’t remember - 71 I don’t know - 62 I’m not sure - 17 I have no idea - 10 I don’t believe so - 9 I don’t recall - 8 I don’t think so - 8 I don’t have any specific recollection - 6 I have no recollection - 4 Not to my knowledge - 4 I just don’t remember - 4 I don’t believe - 4 I have no specific recollection - 3 I might have - 3 I don’t have any recollection of that - 2 I don’t have a specific memory - 2 I don’t have any memory of that - 2 I just can’t say - 2 I have no direct knowledge of that - 2 I don’t have any idea - 2 Not that I recall - 2 I don’t believe I did - 2 I can’t remember - 2 I can’t say - 2 I do not remember doing so - 2 Not that I remember - 2 I’m not aware - 1 I honestly don’t know - 1 I don’t believe that I did - 1 I’m fairly sure - 1 I have no other recollection - 1 I’m not positive - 1 I certainly don’t think so - 1 I don’t really remember - 1 I would have no way of remembering that - 1 That’s what I believe happened - 1 To my knowledge, no - 1 To the best of my knowledge - 1 To the best of my memory - 1 I honestly don’t recall - 1 I honestly don’t remember - 1 That’s all I know - 1 I don’t have an independent recollection of that - 1 I don’t actually have an independent memory of that - 1 As far as I know - 1 I don’t believe I ever did that - 1 That’s all I know about that - 1 I’m just not sure - 1 Nothing that I remember - 1 I simply don’t know - 1 I would have no idea - 1 I don’t know anything about that - 1 I don’t have any direct knowledge of that - 1 I just don’t know - 1 I really don’t know - 1 I can’t deny that, I just — I have no memory of that at all - 1
ARKANSAS SUDDEN DEATH SYNDROME
It is important in considering these fatal incidents to bear in mind the following:
* The fact that anomalies need to be investigated further carries no presumption of how a death actually occurred, only that there remain serious questions that require answers. * The possibility of foul play must be taken seriously in a major criminal conspiracy in which over two score individuals and firms have been convicted and over 100 witnesses have pled the Fifth Amendment or fled the country. * If foul play did occur in any of these cases, that fact by itself does not carry the presumption that the the Clinton machine was involved. Given the footprints of organized crime, drug trade, foreign espionage, and intelligence agencies on the trail of the Clinton story, such a assumption would not be warranted. It is also well to keep in mind the classic prohibition era movie in which the corrupt poitician's job was not to engage in illegal acts but to avoid noticing them.ARKANSAS MONEY MANAGEMENT
THE MEDIA
FRIENDS OF BILL
UNEXPLAINED PHENOMENA
THE HIDDEN ELECTION
USA Today calls it “the hidden election,” in which nearly 7,000 state legislative seats are decided with only minimal media and public attention. But there was an important national story here: evidence of the disaster that Bill Clinton was for the Democratic Party. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of 1998 that lead had shrunk to 288. That’s a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats controled only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.
Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After 1998, the Republicans controlled one more than the Democrats. Not only was this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).
Here’s what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest figures:
THE CLINTON LEGACY: LONELY VOICES
Here are some of the all too rare public officials, reporters, and others who spoke truth to the dismally corrupt power of Bill and Hill Clinton’s political machine — some at risk to their careers, others at risk to their lives. A few points to note:
Those corporatist media reporters who attempted to report the story often found themselves muzzled; some even lost their jobs. The only major dailies that consistently handled the story well were the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times.
Nobody on this list has gotten rich and many you may not have even heard of. Taking on the Clintons typically has not been a happy or rewarding experience. At least ten reporters were fired, transferred off their beats, resigned, or otherwise got into trouble because of their work on the scandals.
Contrary to the popular impression, the politics of those listed ranges from the left to the right, and from the ideological to the independent.
PUBLIC OFFICIALS
MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ was a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr. His attempts to uncover the truth in the Vincent Foster death case were repeatedly foiled and he was the subject of planted stories undermining his credibility and implying that he was unstable. Rodriguez eventually resigned.
JEAN DUFFEY: Head of a joint federal-county drug task force in Arkansas. Her first instructions from her boss: “Jean, you are not to use the drug task force to investigate any public official.” Duffey’s work, however, led deep into the heart of the Dixie Mafia, including members of the Clinton machine and the investigation of the so-called “train deaths.” Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports that when she produced a star witness who could testify to Clinton’s involvement with cocaine, the local prosecuting attorney, Dan Harmon issued a subpoena for all the task force records, including “the incriminating files on his own activities. If Duffey had complied it would have exposed 30 witnesses and her confidential informants to violent retributions. She refused.” Harmon issued a warrant for her arrest and friendly cops told her that there was a $50,000 price on her head. She eventually fled to Texas. The once-untouchable Harmon was later convicted of racketeering, extortion and drug dealing.
BILL DUNCAN: An IRS investigator in Arkansas who drafted some 30 federal indictments of Arkansas figures on money laundering and other charges. Clinton biographer Roger Morris quotes a source who reviewed the evidence: “Those indictments were a real slam dunk if there ever was one.” The cases were suppressed, many in the name of “national security.” Duncan was never called to testify. Other IRS agents and state police disavowed Duncan and turned on him. Said one source, “Somebody outside ordered it shut down and the walls went up.”
RUSSELL WELCH: An Arkansas state police detective working with Duncan. Welch developed a 35-volume, 3,000 page archive on drug and money laundering operations at Mena. His investigation was so compromised that a high state police official even let one of the targets of the probe look through the file. At one point, Welch was sprayed in the face with poison, later identified by the Center for Disease Control as anthrax. He would write in his diary, “I feel like I live in Russia, waiting for the secret police to pounce down. A government has gotten out of control. Men find themselves in positions of power and suddenly crimes become legal.” Welch is no longer with the state police.
DAN SMALTZ: Smaltz did an outstanding job investigating and prosecuting charges involving illegal payoffs to Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, yet was treated with disparaging and highly inaccurate reporting by the likes of the David Broder and the NY Times. Espy was acquitted under a law that made it necessary to not only prove that he accepted gratuities but that he did something specific in return. On the other hand, Tyson Foods copped a plea in the same case, paying $6 million in fines and serving four years’ probation. The charge: that Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. In the Espy investigation, Smaltz obtained 15 convictions and collected over $11 million in fines and civil penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained included false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal receipt of USDA subsidies. In addition, Janet Reno blocked Smaltz from pursuing leads aimed at allegations of major drug trafficking in Arkansas and payoffs to the then governor of the state, WJ Clinton. Espy had become Ag secretary only after being flown to Arkansas to get the approval of chicken king Don Tyson.
DAVID SCHIPPERS was House impeachment counsel and a Chicago Democrat. He did a highly creditable job but since he didn’t fit the right-wing conspiracy theory, the Clintonista media downplayed his work. Thus most Americans don’t know that he told Newsmax, “Let me tell you, if we had a chance to put on a case, I would have put live witnesses before the committee. But the House leadership, and I’m not talking about Henry Hyde, they just killed us as far as time was concerned. I begged them to let me take it into this year. Then I screamed for witnesses before the Senate. But there was nothing anybody could do to get those Senators to show any courage. They told us essentially, you’re not going to get 67 votes so why are you wasting our time.” Schippers also said that while a number of representatives had looked at additional evidence kept under seal in a nearby House building, not a single senator did.
JOHN CLARKE: When Patrick Knowlton stopped to relieve himself in Ft. Marcy Park 70 minutes before the discovery of Vince Foster’s body, he saw things that got him into deep trouble. His interview statements were falsified and prior to testifying he claims he was overtly harassed by more than a score of men in a classic witness intimidation technique. In some cases there were witnesses. John Clarke was his dogged lawyer in the witness intimidation case that was largely ignored by the media, even when the three-judge panel overseeing the Starr investigation permitted Knowlton to append a 20 page addendum to the Starr Report.
OTHER
THE ARKANSAS COMMITTEE: What would later be known as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy actually began on the left - as a group of progressive students at the University of Arkansas had formed the Arkansas Committee to look into Mena, drugs, money laundering, and Arkansas politics. This committee was the source of some of the important early Clinton stories including those published in the Progressive Review.
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS E-LIST: Moderated by Ray Heizer, this list was subject to all the idiosyncrasies of Internet bulletin boards, but nonetheless proved invaluable to researchers and journalists.
By JokesOn
March 17, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
Lets get this straight: On a political blog, you don’t want the term liberal to be used.
Show me where that has been said and we will continue. But, first things first…show me where anyone has said “liberal” is an insult in itself.
Or you could do what you always do and declare anyone who doesn’t think like you, a troll and then whine and complain about your victim status all week.
You just do not get it, and are unable to get it. Talk to anyone in the world how you do here and see what behavior you get. Also, I am not the one that was whining about the cruel injustices here or emailing the ajc (momma!) about it. Or the one who has stomped off half-a-dozen times now claiming that I am going into the world and making a difference and you all will be sooooo sorry that I left.
But of course in your mind you should be able to say any left-handed statement in your demeaning style without repercussions.
Like I said, try this at home for a week and let us know how it works for ya.
By Mara
March 17, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
if I’m not mistaken (and I’m not) YOU threw the first bomb when you insisted that I and USinUK and kimberly and lozen and every other feminist were ALL mannish women. Not some feminists…ALL feminists. And probably lesbians, too.
when I responded by saying that YOU sounded like a certain kind of person, it became an example of a “liberal” throwing out insults, completely unprovoked, at an polite and inoffensive conservative who was simply trying to engage in serious debate.
We see how you are, and frankly, we aren’t surprised.
‘nuff said.
By CHANGE we can believe in?
March 17, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
1994: “It’s all Clinton’s fault!” 1998: “It’s totally Clinton’s fault!” 2001: “It’s not Bush’s fault, it’s Clinton’s fault!” 2004: “It’s still Clinton’s fault!” 2008: “Can’t you see it’s all Clinton’s fault!”
What change?
By Newzwyre
March 17, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
FACTS?! We don’t need no stinkeen’ facts!
Political Junkie Redefined - Anna Fahey
“You might call yourself a political junkie, but are you truly an addict?”
“How is it that even smart people can ignore a pile of evidence that contradicts their deeply-held beliefs. Why is it I get a rush when I’m making fun of a politician I don’t agree with — even if it’s his flubs or quirks I’m mocking, not necessarily his ideas?”
“Apparently, there’s a chemical reason for this.”
“According to the research of Drew Western, political partisans — and especially the smart, well-informed ones — not only feel better when their brains downplay contradictory political information, they actually get a little emotional “high” when the brain (unconsciously) rejects evidence that contradicts their deeply held political beliefs. In a series of brain scans of political partisans asked to consider contradictory statements by the politicians they supported, Western found that the brain reverted to the comfort zone of its long-held biases — and doing so actually made people feel good.”
More on link –
http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2008/03/14/political-junkie-redefined
By Copyleft
March 17, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
That’s some mighty nice copy-paste work there and on a totally irrelevant topic. The 101st Fightin’ Keyboarders would be proud!
By f(x) = 36x^2
March 17, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this
I have to thank “The Truth” for exposing what is truly wrong in political discourse in America today.
First – the galvanization of debate into Liberal and Conservative camps.
I wasn’t aware that the organic and local food movements had political leanings. Last time I checked, these were socio-economic movements. Last time I checked, people interested in good food with the means to obtain said foods were the drivers of this movement. There’s a reason that the top restaurants in Georgia, the Southeast, and the rest of the United States have thrived on local produce and other local products – better taste.
The foodie movement is not political – it is economic. People with disposable income eat at restaurants that provide the best experience. People with disposable income buy their foodstuffs from chains that have the best food. Go to Harry’s or Whole Foods (yup, they are the same company now) or to Dekalb Farmer’s Market…they are packed to the gills every single day, every hour of the day, and I guarantee you – the political mix of those customers falls across the spectrum.
Second – simplistic thought.
Five minutes of research turns up article upon article from reputable scientific sources concerning the increase of malaria, and its relationship to DDT. “The Truth” would have us believe that a ban on DDT in the United States – a nation that doesn’t suffer from malarial problems – somehow affects malaria rates around the world.
Sorry, “Truth”, but the US banning DDT as an outdoor pesticide has nothing to do with malaria. The nations in which malaria is endemic don’t ban the use of said pesticide for the purposes of vector elimination. DDT is not “banned” internationally, and even if it were, one could not lay the blame of such a ban on US policy that has no weight on the rest of the world.
Instead of ranting ignorantly about “liberals”, you might read articles describing the increased resistance of malaria-carrying mosquitoes to DDT…you might read articles describing the effect of development on natural barriers to the mosquito vector…you might read articles detailing the resistance of malaria-threatened populations to the use of DDT as an interior pesticide, due to its smell and discoloration. In short, you might actually be exposed to scientific studies that deal with the COMPLEX issues surrounding the increase in malaria infections.
As a side note, my father went to Ecuador for a month this past year…he was given a simple and inexpensive prescription that would prevent malarial infection…wonder why the poor citizens of malarial-threatened nations are able to use this drug?
Of course, that would require that you actually THINK, rather than simply blame everything on “The Liberals”. And you and your right-wing radio compadres simply couldn’t handle that, could you?
Ah well…on to my original response.
Really?
I don’t get this week’s topic. Eating organic and local is a voluntary activity. It’s a choice. No one is being forced into eating organic or local foods. So…why is this an issue?
I split a “share” of a local co-op farm with my parents. For about six months, we get locally grown organic produce. We do it because we are so-called “foodies”; we love to cook and we love the superior flavor of the produce we receive. We also enjoy contributing to a local small business.
I’m not sure where Shaunti gets the idea that participating in this kind of operation is anonymous…the co-op sends out weekly emails about the produce of the week…it invites its members to come out to the farms where the food is grown for pot luck dinners…its owners are there handing out the food every week. It’s a very personal operation. Last year there was a barn raising that we were all invited to.
For our money, we get fresh greens like arugula, red-leaf lettuce, spinach…we get pounds upon pounds of heirloom tomatoes that make the insipid crap that comes from Wal-Mart or Kroger taste like cardboard…fresh-from the ground garlic, Swiss Chard, red and yellow peppers that ooze sweetness, jalapenos, heirloom golden, red, and Chioggia beets, melons of all kinds, onions that make Vidalias blush, Kale, crookneck squash, radishes, zucchini…
For people who enjoy food and enjoy fresh produce, the local produce movement is a Godsend. Alice Waters started the revolution years ago at Chez Panisse. It’s taken off at four-star restaurants around the country. Places like Bacchanalia and Watershed in Atlanta have embraced local produce and won award after award because of it.
If you aren’t interested, then…ok…but why make it into some kind of political issue? If you really want, you can still eat at Mikey D’s…right?
By JokesOn
March 17, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this
That’s some mighty nice copy-paste work there and on a totally irrelevant topic.
I agree. Both an impressive copy/paste job from some hatin’ site and completely irrelevant.
On-Topic: I like organic food and doubt that the “cons” amount to anything besides hysteria. Why would anyone think “organic” is something worth arguing against? It is purely the liberal (hippie) connection? Is Shaunti actually arguing for more chemicals in food?
By Doc
March 17, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
Good morning, bloggers. It looks like the pettiness is continuing from last week—I’ll see what I can do to add to it! (j/k)
On a serious note, did any of you catch the recent article regarding the amount of pharmaceutical drugs found in our drinking water?? Everything from anti-depressants, antibiotics, and hormones. Very disturbing to me. I truly hope one day that folks will realize that just because something is approved by the FDA doesn’t make it safe.
By Doc
March 17, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
As per the topic of the week, if any of you take the trouble to read the FDA’s definition of “organic”, it’s a joke. In it’s purest form, “organic” simply means “contains carbon”, a standard which includes everything from good food to rocks on the ground. The FDA definition isn’t much better insofar as foods grown using commercial fertilizers and sprayed with all types of pesticides still qualify as being “organic”. My biggest beef with the FDA is their ACTIVE PREVENTION of the fair labeling of genetically modified foods (Frankenfoods) and milk which contains BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone). According to the geniuses at the FDA, such truth-in-advertising labeling would only serve to “mislead the public”. Wow!
By JokesOn
March 17, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
On a serious note, did any of you catch the recent article regarding the amount of pharmaceutical drugs found in our drinking water?? Everything from anti-depressants, antibiotics, and hormones. Very disturbing to me. I truly hope one day that folks will realize that just because something is approved by the FDA doesn’t make it safe.
I worked on that study 2 years ago when it was in the making. Scotchguard/stainguard is another product that is showing up literally everywhere.
Did you read the article that explained how using a mass-spec we can now analyze the air (and toilet water) of a city and provide what percentage of that city uses: Pot, Coke, Meth…
By Doc
March 17, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Why would anyone think “organic” is something worth arguing against? It is purely the liberal (hippie) connection? Is Shaunti actually arguing for more chemicals in food?
Good to hear from you, JokesOn. Having spent most of my lifetime studying “hard sciences” like chemistry and physics, along with “soft sciences” like nutrition, all I can say is that the average “scientist” is a doofus. The bottom line is that God’s way is always superior in the long run. “Better living through chemistry” is a myth perpetrated by companies like Dow Chemicals (the makers of PCBs) and Merck (the makers of anti-depressants).
By Doc
March 17, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
Did you read the article that explained how using a mass-spec we can now analyze the air (and toilet water) of a city and provide what percentage of that city uses: Pot, Coke, Meth…
Cool!!! Are they able to determine the potency of said drugs per city?? I want to know where to move next….
Just kidding—I’m loving sobriety. After watching a few episodes of “Celebrity Rehab”, it bolstered my commitment to live the clean life.
By Truth
March 17, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
Exactly who are you talking to? I post on several forums on the ajc as Truth. Who do you think I am? I have posted here several times, but not on a regular basis.
By Truth
March 17, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this
mara
Definitely nuff said about whining about what was written and “nuff” personal attacks.
But apparently that’s all you are capable of doing here.
By f(x) = 36x^2
March 17, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this
I worked on that study 2 years ago when it was in the making. Scotchguard/stainguard is another product that is showing up literally everywhere.
So…what you’re saying is that we can now consume anything we want without fear because our internal organs and systems have been scotchguarded?
YES!
By Doc
March 17, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this
Or you could do what you always do and declare anyone who doesn’t think like you, a troll and then whine and complain about your victim status all week.
You know, Other Truth, if you were half as smart as you thought you were, you would heed the truth that JokesOn is telling you. I’m not moralizing on you, because I’ve likely p** off more people in my life than you have, but I see a good opportunity for growth for you. Rise above the one-sided political bickering, and you’ll be a better man. ; > }
By Truth
March 17, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this
f(x) = 36x^2
The last time I checked, the liberal, Andrea took a specific tack and the conservative, Shaunti took the other.
But it did give you a reason to rail for a while. And that’s what it is all about, right?
The US ban on DDT was not what I was talking about and the article I posted didn’t mention it, but again, you did get a good rail in.
By Truth
March 17, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
f(x) = 36x^2
So going to a truck stand and buying fresh veggies is now a movement. LOL!!
Again, that $100 will reduce your carbon footprint and make you feel great. Want the address?
By Doc
March 17, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
Either that, Other Truth, or find you a hot chiquita to hang with. I gar-on-tee your whole perspective on life will change!
By Truth
March 17, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this
Doc
Ahhh. Didn’t that make you feel sooooo good. Another insult, sir!! Please.
I started talking about no one in particular in my original post, but have been personally attacked by almost every poster on here. And you say that I need growth.
I think you and several others just need a good mirror.
By Monica
March 17, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
So…what you’re saying is that we can now consume anything we want without fear because our internal organs and systems have been scotchguarded?
Well, I don’t think we can eat without fear, but thank God that our stomachs, intestines, and colons won’t have those pesky stains. :)
By Truth
March 17, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this
Doc
I just express my opinion pal. But it is funny watching you guys over-react.
By Doc
March 17, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
I think you and several others just need a good mirror.
I’m looking right now, and DAMN I’m looking pretty good for an old guy. ; > }
By Truth
March 17, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
Monica
Unfortunately, if we are living anywhere near a city that was industrialized during the 19th or early part of the 20th century, we are probably living on top of a dangerous industrial waste dump. They dumped dangerous chemicals everywhere and the south is one of the worst areas because of the fact that most Southern Cities would do just about anything to get industries to build here.
The term “Organic” is so overused and is used to increase the costs of so many products that have been “organic” all along. They just figured out a term that will allow them to increase the price of their product.
It is great to support local truck farmers, but to buy any vegetable that is labeled organic and then read that it was actually produced across the country or halfway around the world is just dumb.
By Truth
March 17, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this
Doc
Well, maybe, just maybe you got my point.
By f(x) = 36x^2
March 17, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this
The US ban on DDT was not what I was talking about and the article I posted didn’t mention it, but again, you did get a good rail in.
If you imply that it’s “all the liberals fault”, then you are suggesting that someone US policies have some effect on the problem. However, I notice you are unable to respond to the various factors that actually come into play here.
The last time I checked, the liberal, Andrea took a specific tack and the conservative, Shaunti took the other.
If you’ve regularly read this blog, you’ll notice that often Andrea and Shaunti seem to agree on the substance of whatever they are discussing. You’ll also notice that all topics don’t fall into a “Conservative vs. Liberal” dichotomy.
Can you show that only liberals eat organic or locally grown food? Can you cite evidence as to why this is a political issue?
So going to a truck stand and buying fresh veggies is now a movement. LOL!!
Yes, actually. You will find that there are many books being written on the subject. There are magazine articles in most major food and cooking journals. Quality restaurants are trying to use locally-grown food and locally available ingredients more and more. People are trying to eat more locally grown food for a variety of reasons.
I’m curious - do you know the “Horse laugh” fallacy, also know as “appeal to ridicule”? It seems to be the basis of your posts today. Do you honestly think that throwing in silly insults followed by LOL constitutes reasoned, polite debate?
I honestly wonder at anyone who starts a discussion topic by making wide, sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people, insults them, ridicules them and implies that they are all stupid and then has the gall to accuse anyone else of “getting a rail on”.
By f(x) = 36x^2
March 17, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this
The US ban on DDT was not what I was talking about and the article I posted didn’t mention it, but again, you did get a good rail in.
Here are the first two paragraphs of the article you posted, by the way.
In April 1972, after seven months of testimony, EPA Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. … The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. … The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.”
Two months later, EPA head [and Environmental Defense Fund member/fundraiser] William Ruckelshaus - who had never attended a single day’s session in the seven months of EPA hearings, and who admittedly had not even read the transcript of the hearings - overturned Judge Sweeney’s decision. Ruckelshaus declared that DDT was a “potential human carcinogen” and banned it for virtually all uses.
Since Ruckelshaus arbitrarily and capriciously banned DDT, an estimated ### cases of malaria have caused immense suffering and poverty in the developing world.
Now…what was that about the article not mentioning the US ban?
By Doc
March 17, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
Hey Other Truth—I’m playing the Beatle’s “Golden Slumbers” in your honor right now:
Once there was a way to get back homeward
Once there was a way to get back home
Sleep pretty darling do not cry
And I will sing a lullabye
.
Golden slumbers fill your eyes
Smiles awake you when you rise
Sleep pretty darling do not cry
And I will sing a lullabye
By Truth
March 17, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
f(x) = 36x^2
Damn. You are right. They did mention it in their story about the WORLD WIDE BAN OF DDT
Now is there anything in the actual post or the actual article that you would like to discuss? How about the last line that YOU posted about poverty in the developing world.
By Doc
March 17, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
f(x): Does singing a song constitute the “Horse Laugh Fallacy”?? I hope it does….. ; > }
By Truth
March 17, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
Doc
Brilliant writing of a Beatles Song.
And I thought you were just another petty liberal who couldn’t stage a real debate.
By Doc
March 17, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
I’ll tell you what, Other Truth—When you can demonstrate to me that you even remotely are able to see the mote in your own eye, then you will have my respect. Until that time, I’m putting you in the same category as chuck, who apparently thinks he s** gold every morning.
By Doc
March 17, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this
And I thought you were just another petty liberal who couldn’t stage a real debate.
Actually, I’m an arch conservative who cringes every time you sit down at the keyboard. With “conservative supporters” like you and chuckles, it’s a miracle that the Democrats don’t win every election. You dig?
By JokesOn
March 17, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
I started talking about no one in particular in my original post, but have been personally attacked by almost every poster on here.
Could that be the theme that ties you to others? Making comments that are general, insulting, and argumentative.
For example, if I stated a true generalization (majority % of the whole group) about blacks, homosexuals, or women, do you think specific people that belong to those groups would rail against me?
Dog, I appreciate it, but cannot take any real credit towards any enlightenment you may have had - it follows our shared notion of “the whole being greater than the sum of parts” (emmanuelle sp?). The most important part of that process is the ability to talk with someone and not at them. This is not a capability of Truth or TOJ, if they are not the same.
By lozen
March 17, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
fx, I honestly wonder at anyone who starts a discussion topic by making wide, sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people, insults them, ridicules them and implies that they are all stupid and then has the gall to accuse anyone else of “getting a rail on”. You are so right. Oddly enough, Truth writes just like TheOtherJack too! But, it couldn’t be the same person. No way!
By Doc
March 17, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this
Dog, I appreciate it, but cannot take any real credit towards any enlightenment you may have had - it follows our shared notion of “the whole being greater than the sum of parts” (emmanuelle sp?). The most important part of that process is the ability to talk with someone and not at them. This is not a capability of Truth or TOJ, if they are not the same.
The fact that you don’t let your ego get in the way of telling the truth confirms once again that you “get it”, buddy. Real truth is such a mercury-like entity—once you think you’ve got it pinned down, it slips away on you.
By lozen
March 17, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this
fx, I honestly wonder at anyone who starts a discussion topic by making wide, sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people, insults them, ridicules them and implies that they are all stupid and then has the gall to accuse anyone else of “getting a rail on”. Then he has the gall to deny being TOJ! Yeah, right!
By JokesOn
March 17, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this
When you can demonstrate to me that you even remotely are able to see the mote in your own eye, then you will have my respect.
I agree. That is what I look for in a person. All people will have faults, and usually significant ones, but the ability to be humble is enough to keep trying for a healthier relationship with a lover/friend/debater.
By Doc
March 17, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this
Gotta run, guys and gals. More pettiness to follow soon…
By Archie
March 17, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this
I don’t get this week’s topic. Eating organic and local is a voluntary activity. It’s a choice. No one is being forced into eating organic or local foods. So…why is this an issue?
I agree with you fx. I side more with Andrea on this topic especially the last paragraph.
I am glad to see Lozen post and I would love to hear from SusieHomemaker because I something to ask her.
By f(x) = 36x^2
March 17, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this
Since Ruckelshaus arbitrarily and capriciously banned DDT
in the United States…which he then links directly to the deaths. I’m not sure how you manage to avoid the obvious connection he is making.
By JokesOn
March 17, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this
Oddly enough, Truth writes just like TheOtherJack too! But, it couldn’t be the same person. No way!
Yeah. I would put some money on them being one-in-the-same. The similarity in writing styles is uncanny.
By A Question of Balance
March 17, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this
Why do we never get an answer
When we’re knocking at the door?
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war.
.
It’s where we stop and look around us
There is nothing that we need.
In a world of persecution
That is burning in it’s greed.
.
Why do we never get an answer
When we’re knocking at the door?
Because the truth is hard to swallow
That’s what the wall of love is for.
By Truth
March 17, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
Doc
You are under the misconception that I would give a tinker’s damn for your respect.
You come on here, acting like a complete a* and then expect me to respect anything about you. Another liberal, completely out of touch with reality.
You gotta get that ego under control, Pal.
By Truth
March 17, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
Doc
So you are on a political blog for half a day before you say a word about politics. I’m sorry that subject got in the way of your consistent nagging.
By Truth
March 17, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this
jokesOn
You are hysterical. LOL11
You again, launch into another condescending sermon about gaining other’s respect. LOL!!
By Truth
March 17, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this
jokesOn
And that’s what is important here. Not issues, not discussions about the posted issues, it’s all about the personalities.
Shouldn’t you be watching Opra about now?
By Truth
March 17, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
f(x) = 36x^2
Would you like to discuss the article?
The article is saying that the banning of DDT has caused an upswing in the disease that has killed more humans than any other. Most of the world followed the US’ overreaction to some very bad research on DDT. Now developing countries are in serious trouble because there is little defense to the spread of the disease.
That over-reaction was what I was originally talking about before you and others reduced the forum to a nag farm.
By HeeHaw
March 17, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this
Oprah’s on now? Seems you know the schedule better than me, what’s up with that? Are you a closet(whatever a Oprah watcher is supposed to mean, whatever that is)
By Truth
March 17, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this
HeeHaw
I just know that petty people who like to set around and nag and complain usually like to watch shows like that.
So you are the one that keeps changing their names. And yet just last week you swore that you have never appeared as anyone but JokesOn.
Sounds like someone’s a Fibber McGee. Say it ain’t so.
By Copyleft
March 17, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
Gosh… you make a few harmless, sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people, and members of that group start “picking on you,” just because you’re wrong! That hardly seems fair!
Someone call the Waaaaaahhmbulance… Another stereotyper resents being called on his shallow thinking.
By Doc
March 17, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this
I’m in trouble, guys. I just got off the phone with my new lady friend. She said that she was on the way to her therapy session. I asked her what kind of therapy, and she responded “Shopping Therapy”. Can I get a loan from someone?
By JokesOn
March 17, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
First post on this topic:
Addressed to Liberals, so anyone that belongs to the group applies: Liberals are such suckers. LOL!!
Put more value on yourself by spending more money on the same things. It is just like the lemmings that insist on buying name brand clothes. People who spend $7 on a cup of coffee in order to feel important are pathetic.
Words/phrases used purely to offend: Put more value on yourself (insinuating liberals do not), lemmings, in order to feel important (as if that (importance) is the goal), are pathetic
Inherent value of paragraph? None. Purely insults and fabrications.
Improve what you DO, not how much money you spend on yourself. Improve your ACTIONS. Spending money is an action. What you spend it on does affect the others. More bs with the sole intent on insulting and arguing.
Several years ago DDT was outlawed internationally. National Geography recently had an article about malaria. It is believed that the vast majority of humans that have died since humans have existed have died of malaria. After decades of protecting the world from DDT, the world is again dieing of malaria like it hasn’t since the 1920s. Thanks, liberals. Your short sighted “make-yourself-feel-better” views are costing millions of lives, again.
Once again liberals in general is cited. Plus there are no numbers to compare the world is again dieing of malaria like it hasn’t since the 1920s and the number of people that would have died from DDT being used.
All liberals also abide by the “make-yourself-feel-better” slogan by your belief system too.
All I have to do is find one conservative that does any of the actions you described to debunk your application of this behavior to liberals. If you cannot see that this first post on the topic is not a personal attack on individual liberals, you have one major pole in your eye.
Besides the personal hatred you have for an entire group that you are in debt to for the bill of rights, etc (that was hardly a conservative act in the sense that “conservative” is used today) your post has no info in it worth discussing. Purely a vehicle to deliver your bigotry and hate.
I do feel stupid for even replying to you because it is a given that you are unable to understand your own intention of posting no matter how many times it is explained.
By JokesOn
March 17, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this
You again, launch into another condescending sermon about gaining other’s respect. LOL!!
Sermons TOJ? You obviously never been to church.
Sounds like someone’s a Fibber McGee. Say it ain’t so.
Jellyfish, I was posting while that was written. So, nope, it was not me….again. You keep making the same mistakes. Isn’t that the very definition of stupid?
By Doc
March 17, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this
I do feel stupid for even replying to you because it is a given that you are unable to understand your own intention of posting no matter how many times it is explained.
Being an eternal optimist, JokesOn, I hate to give up on people, but this guy is truly dense, or possibly on drugs. Which do you think it is?
By Truth
March 17, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this
Doc JokesOn (HeeHaw, whatever)
AHHH. So you are not only a pair of nags, you are a pair of gossiping nags.
It just keeps getting better and better.
By Truth
March 17, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
I have heard several sermons from self righteous liberals such as yourself.
Loved the dissection of the posts where you are shocked that I generalized the use of the word, liberal.
I am amazed. So you think it really should be about personal attacks and pointing out problems with strangers you meet on the web.
Damn, no wonder you have such problems.
I would point out that liberals do the same thing about conservatives, but it has been so long since any liberal actually wanted to discuss issues instead of nagging and gossiping that I can’t really say that.
Do what you do. Continue to whine and complain and be a victim. It suites you really well.
By Doc
March 17, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
Serious question, Other Truth: Just what IS your purpose for coming to an anonymous blog and tossing out insults all day? Anger management issues? I’m all ears—give it your best shot.
By Doc
March 17, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this
Since this topic was pretty much dead in the water by Sunday, can someone help me decide what type of digital camera to purchase? I heard that Canon makes good-quality, easy-to-use digital cameras. Any recommendations?
By Truth
March 17, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
Gosh… you make a few harmless, sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people, and members of that group start “picking on you,” just because you’re wrong! That hardly seems fair!
It would be nice to actually have people address the post and (better set down) actually into into a civil debate where they could actually prove a single point to be wrong, but I do understand your limitations.
But thanks for doing your very best. That’s all I can ask.
By Truth
March 17, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this
Doc
I thought it was a good topic.
I won’t ask you to look at your posts from the very top and see who has been tossing out insults, because I hate for you to spend the time to answer my logical, civil answer with another Beatles song.
BTW, Canons shoot a little Red. All other brands are made by the same company so they all look the same. Just don’t get suckered into buying one of the consumer line SLRs. They are expensive and other than interchangeable, very expensive substandard lenses, the small versions work just as well.
By Doc
March 17, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
It would be nice to actually have people address the post and (better set down) actually into into a civil debate where they could actually prove a single point to be wrong, but I do understand your limitations.
Once again, Other Truth, if you were even 1/4 as smart as you think you are, you would understand that all communication between humans, whether the electronic type or in person, consists of two components: (1) The FACTUAL part (2) The EMOTIONAL part. Every study I’ve seen regarding communication suggests that the emotional, non-verbal part of any communication ultimately comprises about 90% of the message gleaned by the listener. As such, how do you think you’re helping your cause by insulting everyone, including your fellow conservatives, with virtually every sentence?
By kistov
March 17, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
http://index15.aggop.com >illinois escorts anal http://index18.aggop.com >passports needed for mexico http://index10.aggop.com >sexual explicit free ecards http://index7.aggop.com >teachers sexual predators http://index9.aggop.com >christian nurses assciation http://index16.aggop.com >little nickel classifieds http://index20.aggop.com >non-nude teen cheerleaders http://index13.aggop.com >iron butterfly the band http://index1.aggop.com >movie about a mother and daughter at a diner http://index11.aggop.com >kickass paintball products
By kistov
March 17, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
http://index15.aggop.com >illinois escorts anal http://index18.aggop.com >passports needed for mexico http://index10.aggop.com >sexual explicit free ecards http://index7.aggop.com >teachers sexual predators http://index9.aggop.com >christian nurses assciation http://index16.aggop.com >little nickel classifieds http://index20.aggop.com >non-nude teen cheerleaders http://index13.aggop.com >iron butterfly the band http://index1.aggop.com >movie about a mother and daughter at a diner http://index11.aggop.com >kickass paintball products
By kistov
March 17, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
http://index15.aggop.com >illinois escorts anal http://index18.aggop.com >passports needed for mexico http://index10.aggop.com >sexual explicit free ecards http://index7.aggop.com >teachers sexual predators http://index9.aggop.com >christian nurses assciation http://index16.aggop.com >little nickel classifieds http://index20.aggop.com >non-nude teen cheerleaders http://index13.aggop.com >iron butterfly the band http://index1.aggop.com >movie about a mother and daughter at a diner http://index11.aggop.com >kickass paintball products
By kistov
March 17, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
http://index15.aggop.com >illinois escorts anal http://index18.aggop.com >passports needed for mexico http://index10.aggop.com >sexual explicit free ecards http://index7.aggop.com >teachers sexual predators http://index9.aggop.com >christian nurses assciation http://index16.aggop.com >little nickel classifieds http://index20.aggop.com >non-nude teen cheerleaders http://index13.aggop.com >iron butterfly the band http://index1.aggop.com >movie about a mother and daughter at a diner http://index11.aggop.com >kickass paintball products
By Doc
March 17, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
BTW, Canons shoot a little Red. All other brands are made by the same company so they all look the same. Just don’t get suckered into buying one of the consumer line SLRs. They are expensive and other than interchangeable, very expensive substandard lenses, the small versions work just as well.
Other Truth: Thank you for the info and civil reply.
By JokesOn
March 17, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this
Dog,
Definitely dense. Probably due to the suppression the church tends to enforce. He was brought up believing his parents dogma and is simply puking it back out now he is (presumably) “of age.”
can someone help me decide what type of digital camera to purchase? For what purpose? If you are not printing large format stuff (8x10+) I would not buy a high mega-pixel camera; it would just be more work resizing and HD space. Since they change so often, I would look at the top ten on pc magazine or such and get something that is big enough to minimize camera shake. I like my Fuji finepix and most of that family.
TOJ/TRUTH…etc,
It would be nice to actually have people address the post and (better set down) actually into into a civil debate where they could actually prove a single point to be wrong, but I do understand your limitations.
I did address the post and there is nothing, as I pointed out, in your post but hot air and insults.
Loved the dissection of the posts where you are shocked that I generalized the use of the word, liberal. I am sure you are in love with your own hateful prose. Who would have thought you would not? It is surely the only lovin’ you get. It is such a lonely love though…
By Doc
March 17, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this
Don’t get me wrong, OT. I’m rooting for you to find the source of your anger and start working on diminishing it. Sincerely. I’m not preaching to you from a pedestal, but speaking as someone who’s been there before, lots and lots of times. Hostile confrontations, broken relationships, I’ve done it all. And if you think about it enough, why do you think JokesOn keeps addressing you when most of the other bloggers have given up on you? A lot of people care about you and want to see you do better. You’re obviously a very bright, well-informed person. It’s a shame to offset all of that with a constant chip on your shoulder.
Best of luck, friend/fellow traveler on this Earth.
By Truth
March 17, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this
Doc
I insult people who insult me. it’s simple, Doc.
You come on here acting like a complete and total jerk and now you are insisting on playing the part of the wise old guy who knows all about me. Knock yourself out doc. You obviously need that sort of thing.
The problem with your post is that, yes, during a face to face communication, 90% of the conversation is nonverbal.
This medium requires 100% verbal communications. In spite of the fact that amateur Dr. Phils like yourself insist that they can read the post of other posters and produce and complete psychological profile of the person, we have only the words that others write. Non verbal communications require body language, voice inflection, etc. and we have none of that here.
I presented my view of the issues that was presented for the week. I don’t think you have even addressed the subject, but have insisted, all day on being a complete nag and trying to make yourself feel better by first attempting to insult me, then insisting on demanding reasons why I need to work to gain your respect and now trying to play Dr. Phil.
I think you need to see a professional. You may be OK. I’m not trained in that field so I can’t bring myself to make a fool of myself (unlike you) and try to analyze a stranger. But it seems like you have some real problems.
By Copyleft
March 17, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this
Post something on the topic other than simpleminded generalizations, TheLies, and you’ll see some genuine discussion in reply.
Announce your ignorance with dumb stereotypes, as you have already, and you’ll get the mockery you deserve.
Good luck! Maybe tomorrow you can try posting something of substance (on this admittedly dull topic).
By Doc
March 17, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this
For what purpose? If you are not printing large format stuff (8x10+) I would not buy a high mega-pixel camera; it would just be more work resizing and HD space. Since they change so often, I would look at the top ten on pc magazine or such and get something that is big enough to minimize camera shake. I like my Fuji finepix and most of that family.
I plan to primarily use it professionally. By taking digital still photos of a person standing up against a grid, it’s easy to document gross postural distortions. Then, by taking a short video of the person walking down the hall, lifting their shoulders up, etc., it’s easy to isolate the functional problems as well. I’ve never been much of a picture-taker in my private life. Kind of like the American Indian objection to “capturing the spirit” via film.
By Copyleft
March 17, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this
“I insult people who insult me.”
Then you shouldn’t be surprised when you get the same treatment in return. Or do you honestly not see how your original post was insulting in its ignorance?
By Doc
March 17, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this
For example, if you look closely at Andrea’s profile photo, you may notice that she exhibits an exaggerated lumbar curve (hyperlordosis) along with sticking her neck out too far. A very common pattern. She could likely benefit from doing pelvic tilts to reduce the lumbar curve along with neck retractions to help center her head back over her torso.
By Truth
March 17, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this
Doc
This is exactly what I am talking about:
Definitely dense. Probably due to the suppression the church tends to enforce. He was brought up believing his parents dogma and is simply puking it back out now he is (presumably) “of age.
This is a political forum and this idiot thinks he knows about my parents.
It is a natural progression. First the insults which are returned. Then the expected sermon, admonishing me for either generalizing or personalizing, whichever one fits the occasion. Then the Dr. Phil show. It happens every week.
This day I got news that is some of the best news I have ever gotten. I am not angry, I have been in a great mood all day. But when Copyleft, JokesOn and yourself insult me, I return the insults, and I must admit, i enjoy it. Smart-a*s know-it-alls who refuse to address the posts and attack me personally are fun fodder to slice apart. I would rather discuss issues, but this is fun, too.
It is no surprise that you didn’t like it. But if you had addressed the post instead of leveling your vile at me, we could have had a good discussion.
The camera recommendation is a perfect example. Don’t insult me personally and you won’t get insulted back. How hard is that?
By Truth
March 17, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
You just don’t get it. I said nothing personal about you or anyone else. If you are not one of the gullible who rush out to buy the latest craze, I wasn’t talking about you. If you are, I was.
You and just about every other liberal on this blog have said horrible things about conservatives and that’s expected, but you just can’t seem to understand that we can say what we want about liberals.
Lighten the f*ck up, man.
By Truth
March 17, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
By Copyleft
Post something on the topic other than simpleminded generalizations
OK Tomorrow, I’ll just come on and target you. I’ll pretend I can read your posts and then be able to tell you all about your life and your childhood like your little liberal buddies insist on doing. It will be hard, because I enjoy living in reality and no matter how intelligently I try to guess at what you are really like, I’m sure I will miss the mark.
I’ll give it a shot. For you.
By JokesOn
March 17, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
This is a political forum and this idiot thinks he knows about my parents.
Hook line and sinker.
I presented a post generalizing conservatives and you freaked out.
Now go and learn from it….PLEASE.
“I insult people who insult me.”
Then you shouldn’t be surprised when you get the same treatment in return. Or do you honestly not see how your original post was insulting in its ignorance? Nope. He really does not get it.
Truth,
Please look at your first post and get it or get gone. Your hatred for anything even remotely linked to liberals is 95% of every one of your posts. That is the sole message of them and in turn will be 95% of the responses you get.
By JokesOn
March 17, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this
You and just about every other liberal on this blog have said horrible things about conservatives and that’s expected, but you just can’t seem to understand that we can say what we want about liberals.
JC! He insults all liberals and we, as liberals, are not supposed to take issue with being called lemmings, etc. Conversely, he gets insulted by people (liberals and conservatives buddy) for generalizing and he applies it to all conservatives.
Lighten the fck up, man.*
There are but 3 people who only post with hate. You, chuck and TOJ (although “TOJ” is “Truth”). There was a female, whiley, that would do the same regarding gender issues and was insanely polarizing just like you.
Talk about lightening up? Read your first post. Fkin Hypocrites pi$$ me off. They eff up everything they touch and blame others. One more test in tolerance I guess. Good luck.
By sex flicks
March 18, 2008 3:28 AM | Link to this
I will not support Hillary Clinton for president [url=http://mohscorpion.aboutus.ms/adult/black-caramel.html]black caramel[/url] [url=http://tglhc005.aboutus.ms/adult/guys-tricked-into-gay-asian-sex.html]guys tricked into gay asian sex[/url]
By chuck
March 18, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
TOJ, the constant name changes are irritating. You seem to be travelling down the same road as Bruno when he first came here, and jokeson is a willing participant. The blog used to be fun to read in the evenings even when I didn’t have time to post during the day. Now it’s just gotten stupid. I’m still not sure that TOJ isn’t yet another personality of dog, the SYBIL of the blog. You may have noticed that he appeared about the time that dog was being ignored by everyone. Come to think of it, jokeson appeared about that same time also. Coincidence? You be the judge. If all of these characters ARE YOU Bruce, you are in the wrong business. You should be writing speeches for Hillary.
Jokeson, I find it extremely amusing that you think that I “post with hate”. First, I’ve got a neighbor that I know very well and intensely dislike, but I don’t hate him…and I’ve lived beside him for many years. There is not a soul in this world that I hate. I don’t know you well enough to even dislike you. Life is too short to be a hater. I guess some of the pathetic people on this blog worry about that kind of garbage, but if you do, you need help. THIS IS A BLOG. YOU DON’T KNOW THESE PEOPLE. WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT THEY THINK?
Second, posting ideas is the point of a blog. Just because you don’t agree with a particular post, does not make it hateful. You accuse conservatives of wanting to “control” other people. I would point out to you that liberals want that as well and further, society as a whole wants it. If you don’t believe me, call that guy on NBC who came up with that show called “Predator”. I’m sure he knows a lot of people who would travel hundreds of miles to have sex with your 13 year-old daughter or son. Do you want to control THEIR behavior? Certainly you do. We can disagree about the LEVEL of control we want in society, but make no mistake, EVERYBODY has certain behaviors they insist be controlled.
Finally, as for hateful posts, you certainly have your share of SARCASTIC posts, but I don’t see them as HATE. You are kind of 72john light… All of the sarcasm, but a third less wit and none of the intellect.
By Lyrazel
March 18, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
For example, if you look closely at Andrea’s profile photo, you may notice that she exhibits an exaggerated lumbar curve (hyperlordosis) along with sticking her neck out too far. A very common pattern. She could likely benefit from doing pelvic tilts to reduce the lumbar curve along with neck retractions to help center her head back over her torso Nay sir, tis not lumbar related but Oprah related. See the biddy got on her show and said, “Ladies if you stick your neck out your saggy baggy turkey neck will be lessened in photographs…” Now go look at all professional photographs of women & guys and my sisters. They all seem to be sticking their heads up and out farther and farther in this manner. Another truth exposed.
As for buying local & organic I would mention the cost of driving to a rural farm to buy eggs vs the short walk to the grocery as being a carbon footprint to measure. How many farms are inside 285? Now think if everyone in Atl. started doing it… pollution of driving to rural areas to pick up organic produce must factor in but rarely does. Solution: Dig up your lawns to grow 6 mo. of veggies and see just how difficult and costly organic growing is. Then yell at your neighbor’s cat for eating your chicks…and work on that permit for keeping a cow in your newly modified 3-car garage barn. Hopefully your mortgage will be foreclosed on before slaughtering the family pig commences. Fads crush themselves under weight of doing vs advocating. I remember a plethora of hippies who went back to the land…and of those the only ones who stayed on the land were the marijuana growers… the others went and bought SUVs and got spiritual jobs in the marketing industry.
By kimberly
March 18, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
I prefer eating fresh, natural, easy-on-the-chemicals food to the processed, commericalized crapola at Kroger. And I totally agree with f(x) = 36x^2: Why is this an issue, and why are some people politicizing it? Sounds like personal choice to me.
BUT, if you want to get into the political angle and have some finger-pointing debate, why not look at government food service contracts (and the garbage they serve in our schools), the “criteria” by which these chemical peddlers get our tax money, and the food manufacturing industry’s lobbyists and their influence on the FDA and food safety regulations? Specifically, (1) should food suppliers be allowed to slam our grocery shelves with garbage and chemicals and call it “food?” (2) if so, should we allow a government agency to tell us it’s “safe” when it’s really not? (3) for the libertarians: should the industry operate with no oversight whatsoever, and let the free market forces determine the most successful grocer based on how many people get sick or die? Just a few suggestions.
By JokesOn
March 18, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
chuck,
As if you know what you are talking about. You are the second most clueless person on here, and I use person loosely. You run on instinct and dogma.
By Truth
March 18, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Chuck
Joke openly admits that he takes anything said about liberals in general as personal insults. I think that is rather pathetic. He was here after the place closed last night, still ranting and preaching. There is no hope for the poor guy other than knowing that maybe, just maybe, the constant fury that he exhibits here could just be an outlet for him that saves the people that are close to him from that unending rage.
I understand that any conservative is a lightening rod. There is nothing we can do. If we just speak about liberals in a vast general sense, not saying anything about anyone specific, small minded people will take it personally. And this is the blog that is known for liberals that hold back nothing when talking about conservatives: and I am talking about personal, vile insults.
Yesterday, as many days here, reminded me of a home for old busy-bodies who just set around and argue and gossip. And Joke is the old crazy preacher that walks around pointing a judgmental finger at anyone who disagrees with him.
But the bottom line is: so far, I am the only person to write a post that addresses the actual topic this week. All day yesterday, I constantly asked that anyone address my original post or give their ideas about the subject, but you see what happened.
I must say that you have avoided behaving nearly as badly as most of the liberals here, but you see how you are still regarded. I’m not quite the diplomat that you are. I could see from the beginning from the way that you were being treated that there was no civility unless we tow the liberal line. I won’t do that. This is a political forum and I will speak my mind about politics. If they don’t like it, if they want to be idiots and take it personally, that’s their problem, not mine.
By Truth
March 18, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel
As for buying local & organic I would mention the cost of driving to a rural farm to buy eggs vs the short walk to the grocery as being a carbon footprint to measure. How many farms are inside 285?
There are “truck farmers” that set up shop at different locations inside the city. I use the one that sets up across from the Kroger just south of East Atlanta on Moreland. Yesterday I noticed that he wasn’t at his stand, but he is usually there on the weekends.
These guys are just Georgia Farmers and probably use whatever pesticides they need in order to protect their crop. But the veggies are fresh and Georgia grown and it takes money out of Kroger’s pockets and puts it in the pockets of hard working farmers. That’s a good thing.
By Doc
March 18, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
You may have noticed that he appeared about the time that dog was being ignored by everyone. Come to think of it, jokeson appeared about that same time also. Coincidence? You be the judge. If all of these characters ARE YOU Bruce, you are in the wrong business. You should be writing speeches for Hillary.
Once again, chuck, if you were only 1/20 as smart as you think you are, you might get somewhere in life. A substantial percentage of posts attributed to Dog/Bruno did not originate from my keyboard. But in your simplistic world, it’s easier to make assumptions, then defend those assumptions to the end regardless of hard evidence to the contrary, than to actually open your mind and think. E.G. Your belief that the story of Noah is somehow a factual account.
By Copyleft
March 18, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this
Conservatives are America-hating, cowardly idiots.
What? I’m just speaking generally, so that makes it okay, right? No reason for anyone to take offense.
By Doc
March 18, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
BUT, if you want to get into the political angle and have some finger-pointing debate, why not look at government food service contracts (and the garbage they serve in our schools), the “criteria” by which these chemical peddlers get our tax money, and the food manufacturing industry’s lobbyists and their influence on the FDA and food safety regulations? Specifically, (1) should food suppliers be allowed to slam our grocery shelves with garbage and chemicals and call it “food?” (2) if so, should we allow a government agency to tell us it’s “safe” when it’s really not? (3) for the libertarians: should the industry operate with no oversight whatsoever, and let the free market forces determine the most successful grocer based on how many people get sick or die? Just a few suggestions.
Perhaps in a perfect world, people in power would solely have the best interests of the consumer at heart. Unfortunately, we’re dealing with imperfect, greedy people at all levels of society. Ergo the expression “Caveat Emptor”—Buyer beware. Without the free market economy you decry, however, things would be much worse because choice would be taken away from us. Having said that, it does disgust me that there are soda machines and candy machines in school. Just what we need: more obese, unhealthy children.
By Truth
March 18, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
kimberly
I prefer eating fresh, natural, easy-on-the-chemicals food to the processed, commericalized crapola at Kroger. And I totally agree with f(x) = 36x^2: Why is this an issue, and why are some people politicizing it? Sounds like personal choice to me.
It is the topic this week. I think we all want more natural, less treated food. But there are so many food processors that immediately started repackaging their same old food to be called organic and many people are willing pay the extra money for nothing more than a new package.
I try to support local farmers. It is weird seeing a small package of perfect, ripe tomatos from Holland. How did they do that? Do they fly them over? How could they survive a two week freighter trip?
I love white shrimp. they are sweeter than most because the breed and mature in fresh water and then go out in salt water as adults. Brunswick, GA has a bumper crop of white shrimp every year, but the white shrimp in Kroger are from South America. That is what I have a problem with.
By JokesOn
March 18, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
This is a political forum and I will speak my mind about politics. If they don’t like it, if they want to be idiots and take it personally, that’s their problem, not mine.
Then do not b%&tch and whine about all the cruel liberals ganging up on you after a 3rd grade rant like you posted that has no substance.
You did not even realize you posted about DDT until called out, and then tried to dismiss it. The truly funny thing is if you dismiss that part, all you have left is slurs directed at all liberals.
Once again I challenge you to make the same general statements, with slurs, towards any other group that you family members belong to at dinner some night. Be sure to end your argument with “If they don’t like it, if they want to be idiots and take it personally, that’s their problem, not mine.” There is no grey area here, you know (somewhere in your pea-brain) that I am right. You will get land blasted and called the same names by your own friends/family as you do here. I feel for your family for having to deal with you.
By Truth
March 18, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
Copyleft
Conservatives are America-hating, cowardly idiots.
I think you are wrong and I’m pretty sure I could prove it.
What? I’m just speaking generally, so that makes it okay, right? No reason for anyone to take offense.
Why would I take offense? I certainly don’t hate my country, I am not a coward and I am not an idiot. See how simple that is?
By Doc
March 18, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
But the bottom line is: so far, I am the only person to write a post that addresses the actual topic this week. All day yesterday, I constantly asked that anyone address my original post or give their ideas about the subject, but you see what happened.
The bottom line, TOJ, is that you’re even worse than chuck with your accusations and assumptions. You stated that I didn’t address the topic yesterday, when in fact, my first 3-4 posts were all on-topic. Unfortunately, it’s a lame topic, because anyone who bothers to investigate the FDA standard for allowing a food to be labeled “organic” is a joke. Why is this so? Maybe it is due to the influence of lobbyist, as another poster suggested this AM, but I think it may be due to an even sadder reason—Most people who identify themselves as “Scientists” are typically extremely narrow-minded people who don’t grasp the idea that our ability to gather “big picture” facts is limited. Any decision based on limited data is almost always shown to be wrong in the end. E.g. The campaign many years ago by the margarine companies to convince the American public that natural butter is somehow bad for you.
In the end, due to our limited capacity to gather ALL the facts while simultaneously having difficulty predicting unintended consequences, we have to ultimately go on some type of instinct. In your case, your “instinct” appears to be an outdated collection of religious tomes that were declared to be holy by a small group of men thousands of years ago.
By Truth
March 18, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
Doc
Years ago, I had the idea of buying up old Coke machines and putting juices in them. This was before bottled water so it would have been just juices. After looking into it, I found that most people just didn’t want it.
Now, 25 years later, they do. But it is the big companies that are doing it. Fads or just about any kinds of change are controlled by big business. I don’t think that most people realize that.
Did you get a camera?
By Doc
March 18, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
Conservatives are America-hating, cowardly idiots.
What? I’m just speaking generally, so that makes it okay, right? No reason for anyone to take offense.
Copyleft—Your point is well-taken. At the same time, I’m racking my memory hard to remember when the last time you contributed an original thought to this forum. Seems to me you’re just one more sideline sniper. Can you prove me wrong?
By Truth
March 18, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this
JokesOn
I’m not dealing with you today, Pal. I knew the article was about DDT. I posted the article. I just don’t want to spend my time constantly correcting your misreadings.
If you insist on continuing to rage and preach, then expect to be ignored.
By HartsfieldPromo
March 18, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
How could they survive a two week freighter trip?
It is called AirFreight. Boeing 747s.
By Doc
March 18, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
Did you get a camera?
Thanks for your cordial inquiry, Other Truth. I’m a very, very wary ( i.e paranoid, suspicious) consumer, so I will likely continue to do research for a while. I appreciate your advice regarding the SLR cameras (Single Lens Reflex). On some of the consumer review websites, several professional photographers were raving about the Canon 3D model. It may be overkill for my purpose, so I have to decide if paying more than $1000 makes any sense for my applications. JokesOn’s point about the mega-mega pixel cameras makes a lot of sense: Unless you need to print large pictures, you end up spending a lot of time resizing the photos, which I’m too lazy to do.
Does anyone else have any pointers for me in my search for a good quality, easy-to-use digital camera?
By Truth
March 18, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
HartsfieldPromo
So how does that work? The dollar is in the worst shape against the Euro it has been since 1995 (The Clinton Administration) and yet it is still cheaper than buying from growers in Florida or even Mexico during the winter.
Holland is not a third world country and I’m sure labor costs there are very high. Doesn’t make sense.
By Doc
March 18, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
Years ago, I had the idea of buying up old Coke machines and putting juices in them. This was before bottled water so it would have been just juices. After looking into it, I found that most people just didn’t want it.
Too bad you didn’t follow through on that idea, buddy. Before I “retired”, I had an executive from Coca-Cola as a client. Her job was to create a market niche for the THREE (count ‘em, THREE) types of bottled water that Coke sells. I tried to ask with a straight face how these THREE different types of water were actually different from a chemistry standpoint, but couldn’t get a straight answer.
In a similar vein, try to ask all the vitamin salesmen from companies like HerbalLife some “hard science” questions about the efficacy of their products, and all you’re going to get is a bunch of MLM hype and mumbo-jumbo. Once again, Caveat Emptor. Like our beloved Jack (the ORIGINAL Jack) used to say, “If you don’t do your own homework, someone will do it for you”. Unfortunately, that other guy will never have your best interests at heart.
By JokesOn
March 18, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
I’m not dealing with you today, Pal. I knew the article was about DDT. I posted the article. I just don’t want to spend my time constantly correcting your misreadings.
What a lier:
The US ban on DDT was not what I was talking about and the article I posted didn’t mention it, but again, you did get a good rail in.
That proves you are in fact an idiot. Only two more to prove and I get a hat-trick;)
By Doc
March 18, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
As for buying local & organic I would mention the cost of driving to a rural farm to buy eggs vs the short walk to the grocery as being a carbon footprint to measure. How many farms are inside 285? Now think if everyone in Atl. started doing it… pollution of driving to rural areas to pick up organic produce must factor in but rarely does. Solution: Dig up your lawns to grow 6 mo. of veggies and see just how difficult and costly organic growing is. Then yell at your neighbor’s cat for eating your chicks…and work on that permit for keeping a cow in your newly modified 3-car garage barn. Hopefully your mortgage will be foreclosed on before slaughtering the family pig commences. Fads crush themselves under weight of doing vs advocating. I remember a plethora of hippies who went back to the land…and of those the only ones who stayed on the land were the marijuana growers… the others went and bought SUVs and got spiritual jobs in the marketing industry.
How do you know all my friends, Lyrazel? ; > }
By Truth
March 18, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
Doc
You can always set the larger format cameras to use a lower resolution. But it seems like you are wasting your money if you cancel out the reason for the more expensive camera. I think your biggest problem would be with lighting. Personally, if I had a grand to spend on what you are doing, I would spend $400 on a camera and $600 on lights. If you use the camera flash, your grid will not be as clear as you might need.
Go to Showcase on Cheshire Bridge and tell them what you want to do. They will fix you up. They have great lights and several options to fit your budget. I have bought a lot of stuff there and they will usually at least match the big discount warehouses like B&H. Good folks.
I have meetings all day, so you guys have fun.
By Truth
March 18, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
Joke
Congratulations. You continue to make yourself look like a fool.
The debate between myself and someone OTHER THAN YOU was about confusion between a US ban on DDT or a world ban on DDT. It was always about DDT.
This is what I am talking about. You don’t have the intelligence or the education to keep up so you continue to preach, rant and desperately try to prove anyone to be dumber than you. It’s not my fault that you are an ill-educated idiot.
By Doc
March 18, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
Go to Showcase on Cheshire Bridge and tell them what you want to do. They will fix you up. They have great lights and several options to fit your budget. I have bought a lot of stuff there and they will usually at least match the big discount warehouses like B&H. Good folks.
I have meetings all day, so you guys have fun.
Thanks, bud. I’ll take you up on your advice. I’ll try to think about you today in your meetings while I’m galavanting around. ; > }
By Truth
March 18, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this
Doc
One other thing. (I thought about this is the shower) As you know, presentation is everything. If you take your patients and stand them in front of a single camera, it will look “small time”. Get a couple of good tungsten (non-flash) production lights, about 300 watts each, and mount them permanently in front of your grid, it will give what you are doing much more credibility to the client (patient).
Just a thought.
By A Question of Balance
March 18, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
Because the truth is hard to swallow
That’s what the wall of love is for
By Doc
March 18, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
Quick point for my “liberal” friends: One of the most popular men in Africa right now is George Bush. Why?? Because he has done more to eradicate malaria than any other US Prez ever. Other Truth is totally right on the money that malaria has caused more deaths world-wide than any other illness, including AIDS or cancer.
Are any of you brave enough to give credit where credit is due?
By Doc
March 18, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
One other thing. (I thought about this is the shower) As you know, presentation is everything. If you take your patients and stand them in front of a single camera, it will look “small time”. Get a couple of good tungsten (non-flash) production lights, about 300 watts each, and mount them permanently in front of your grid, it will give what you are doing much more credibility to the client (patient).
Awesome, awesome ideas, Other Truth. As you are well aware, chiros suffer greatly in the credibility department. Sadly, usually for good reason….
One word: bodyzone.com
By JokesOn
March 18, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this
The EPA now regulates international policy/bans??? The US ban is the premise of your article, and as has pointed out, it and you….(break)
You know what? You are more stupid than I was calculating and to continue to try to shed light on your bs is a waste of time.
By Lyrazel
March 18, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
To Truth who bought Holland tomatoes: were they actually grown in the Netherlands or was the company based in the Netherlands and the produce actually from Mexico? One of the biggest problems we are having as food consumers is NOT knowing where the produce/foods originate from and when contamination occurs isn’t it odd finding out that the wheat gluten in dog food was come from China and dog food from Canada? So having a Gordon fisherman on the package makes you see some small New England fisherman whereas most shrimp consumed is mass produced in fish farms. Marketing for organics is the same. We can buy all organic celery but the fact it was grown in a chemical dump is somehow NOT reaching the consumer.
I bought a Kodak EZShare 4megapixal/10 optical zoom. (No interchangeable lenses) for 500.00 (including recharger/printer/case). Love the puppy because it takes great photos and zooms! Image is close enough for personal work plus it has movie mode for short bursts. If I shoot raw (instead of the regular jpg format) I can get a 300dpi 8x8 photograph. If you go with high optical zoom lenses make sure! MAKE SURE there is some kind of image stabilization with it (not in my kodak) otherwise you get blur shots when zooming in. Tripods can cure this so look at the cost of a tripod vs an image stabilization feature.
By A Question of Balance
March 18, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
You know what? You are more stupid than I was calculating and to continue to try to shed light on your bs is a waste of time.
That’s what the wall of love is for
Take it light, my friend. No need to stress about it.
By JokesOn
March 18, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
Are any of you brave enough to give credit where credit is due?
I do not argue that malaria has caused more deaths world-wide than any other illness, including AIDS or cancer.
Blaming all liberals for US policy, which was based on the best info we had at the time, and then linking that blame to a world wide choice (which was still based on the best info at the time) is grossly inflating the issue. The only reason to inflate it is to put all those deaths on liberals shoulders, all the while ignoring that the intention was not greed or malice but to assist.
By Doc
March 18, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
I bought a Kodak EZShare 4megapixal/10 optical zoom. (No interchangeable lenses) for 500.00 (including recharger/printer/case). Love the puppy because it takes great photos and zooms! Image is close enough for personal work plus it has movie mode for short bursts. If I shoot raw (instead of the regular jpg format) I can get a 300dpi 8x8 photograph. If you go with high optical zoom lenses make sure! MAKE SURE there is some kind of image stabilization with it (not in my kodak) otherwise you get blur shots when zooming in. Tripods can cure this so look at the cost of a tripod vs an image stabilization feature.
Thanks, Lyrazel. I’ll probably go with a tripod as you have suggested and utilize good lighting as Other Truth suggested to help create a “professional” look. While “cosmetics” are not typically important to me, a lot of folks do seem to judge a book by it’s cover, so it will likely behoove me to spend the money necessary to produce high-quality photos.
I’m sure you can relate to that being in the printing business as you are. ; > }
By Doc
March 18, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
Blaming all liberals for US policy, which was based on the best info we had at the time, and then linking that blame to a world wide choice (which was still based on the best info at the time) is grossly inflating the issue. The only reason to inflate it is to put all those deaths on liberals shoulders, all the while ignoring that the intention was not greed or malice but to assist.
I hear you, JokesOn, but I’m the one who asked if you can give ol’ GWB some credit for doing more to alleviate the suffering in Africa than any other US Prez, not Other Truth.
As I stated before, my head remains bowed to rapper Jay-Z for bringing clean drinking water to those who don’t have any access to it in Africa. I doubt that he and I agree on much else.
By Doc
March 18, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this
SO what happened to chuckles this AM?? Hopefully he’s researching the question as to whether the story of Noah is literally true and whether the Earth is truly only 5000 years old.
The craziest part of the 5000 year old Earth theory is that it is totally non-Biblical. It is a kooky idea cooked up several hundred years ago by a so-called Biblical “scholar” who mistakenly added together timespans relating to the genealogy of generations of Jewish kings extending back to the time of Adam and Eve. If chuck were truly the Bible scholar he thinks he is, he would reread Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth”. No specific time spans are mentioned. Of course, why let the facts get in the way of good dogma?
By Gandalf, the Grey
March 18, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this
ANDI! START A VEGTABLE GARDEN IN YOUR BACK YARD! YOU WILL HAVE TO BEND OVER AND WORK TO KEEP IT WEED FREE, YOUR BACKSIDE WILL SHRINK, YOU WILL ACTUALLY DO SOME WORK. AND YOU GET FRESH TOMATOES, PEPPERS, BEANS, PEAS,ETC. HMMMM, RAISE A FEW RABBITS AND YOU HAVE MEAT TOO. CHICKENS MAYBE?
By We're Not Gonna Take It
March 18, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this
…And here comes Uncle Ernie to guide you to your very own machine!
By Franklin's Tower
March 18, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
In another times forgotten space
Your eyes looked from your mother’s face
Wallflower seed on the sand and stone
May the four winds blow you safely home.
.
I’ll tell you where the four winds dwell
In Franklin’s tower there hangs a bell
It can ring, turn night to day
It can ring like fire when you loose your way.
.
God save the child that rings that bell
It may have one good ring, baby, you can’t tell
One watch by night, one watch by day
If you get confused listen to the music play.
By JokesOn
March 18, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this
I hear you, JokesOn, but I’m the one who asked if you can give ol’ GWB some credit for doing more to alleviate the suffering in Africa than any other US Prez, not Other Truth.
Absolutely. I do not think GWB is some kind of demon that has not done any good. That action is, in fact, quite noble.
By JokesOn
March 18, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
No specific time spans are mentioned. Of course, why let the facts get in the way of good dogma?
Must….be….binary….too…confusing….grey…area….is….melting…brain…
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
Right outside this lazy summer home you ain’t got time to call your soul a critic no. Right outside the lazy gate of winter’s summer home, wond’rin’ where the nut-thatch winters, wings a mile long just carried the bird away.
.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world, the heart has it’s beaches, it’s homeland and thoughts of it’s own. Wake now, discover that you are the song that the mornin’ brings, But the heart has it’s seasons, it’s evenings and songs of it’s own.
.
There comes a redeemer, and he slowly too fades away, And there follows his wagon behind him that’s loaded with clay. And the seeds that were silent all burst into bloom, and decay, and night comes so quiet, it’s close on the heels of the day.
By kistov
March 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
http://index7.redponyinc.com >movie theaters in ada ok http://index4.redponyinc.com >banana lickers http://index10.redponyinc.com >assemblymember fran pavley http://index9.redponyinc.com >free ged classes http://index5.redponyinc.com >female porn suckers http://index2.redponyinc.com >classic 1988 chevrolet pickup truck http://index8.redponyinc.com >skin care for teens http://index1.redponyinc.com >massivecocks pictures http://index3.redponyinc.com >my wifes wet p*** moblogs http://index6.redponyinc.com >sex offenders oxford ohio
By kistov
March 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
http://index7.redponyinc.com >movie theaters in ada ok http://index4.redponyinc.com >banana lickers http://index10.redponyinc.com >assemblymember fran pavley http://index9.redponyinc.com >free ged classes http://index5.redponyinc.com >female porn suckers http://index2.redponyinc.com >classic 1988 chevrolet pickup truck http://index8.redponyinc.com >skin care for teens http://index1.redponyinc.com >massivecocks pictures http://index3.redponyinc.com >my wifes wet p*** moblogs http://index6.redponyinc.com >sex offenders oxford ohio
By kistov
March 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
http://index7.redponyinc.com >movie theaters in ada ok http://index4.redponyinc.com >banana lickers http://index10.redponyinc.com >assemblymember fran pavley http://index9.redponyinc.com >free ged classes http://index5.redponyinc.com >female porn suckers http://index2.redponyinc.com >classic 1988 chevrolet pickup truck http://index8.redponyinc.com >skin care for teens http://index1.redponyinc.com >massivecocks pictures http://index3.redponyinc.com >my wifes wet p*** moblogs http://index6.redponyinc.com >sex offenders oxford ohio
By kistov
March 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
http://index7.redponyinc.com >movie theaters in ada ok http://index4.redponyinc.com >banana lickers http://index10.redponyinc.com >assemblymember fran pavley http://index9.redponyinc.com >free ged classes http://index5.redponyinc.com >female porn suckers http://index2.redponyinc.com >classic 1988 chevrolet pickup truck http://index8.redponyinc.com >skin care for teens http://index1.redponyinc.com >massivecocks pictures http://index3.redponyinc.com >my wifes wet p*** moblogs http://index6.redponyinc.com >sex offenders oxford ohio
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this
Must….be….binary….too…confusing….grey…area….is….melting…brain…
chuckles does seem to run and hide like the proverbial little gurlie when his BS is called onto the carpet, doesn’t he? I about choked a few months ago when he was mad at the public school system for daring to teach his brain-washed daughter that the Earth was quite a bit older than 5000 years and that the MYTH of Noah’s ark is just that—a myth.
Hope to see you down at the 5-spot sometime. I’m going back to work next week, and hopefully getting married later this year, so I won’t be able to chew the fat here on the blog much.
By Copyleft
March 18, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
Of course Bush has done a number of worthwhile things in his time in office. Only a monster of pure evil could have a record that’s 100% bad—and people like that don’t exist. Even Saddam and Osama doubtless have some (few) good qualities.
But Bush’s OVERALL effect on our society, and the world in general, has been inarguably disastrous. Attempting to focus on his few decent acts sounds a lot like trying to distract people from the much bigger problems he’s CAUSED, rather than cured.
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this
One last plug for posture-based chiropractic care: All of you guys and gals sitting in a chair all day with your arms extended to use your mouse and keyboard are literally killing yourselves. Ideally, you can find a good chiro who’s not just in it for the money, who understands the link between poor posture and poor health, and is familiar with the specific exercises needed to reverse the damage. (bodyzone.com)
At the minimum, treat yourselves to the only truly ergonomically built chair on the market, found at the Relax-the-back store. Even if y’all don’t think you’re worth the expenditure, I do.
Big group hug…. ; > }
By JokesOn
March 18, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this
Hope to see you down at the 5-spot sometime. I’m going back to work next week, and hopefully getting married later this year, so I won’t be able to chew the fat here on the blog much.
Man. I wish I had that kind of time, but nope. There are also other reasons that I cannot go into on the blog.
Mike Doughty is at the VPlayhouse soon and is a must see show. The guy is cool as get out too.
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
But Bush’s OVERALL effect on our society, and the world in general, has been inarguably disastrous. Attempting to focus on his few decent acts sounds a lot like trying to distract people from the much bigger problems he’s CAUSED, rather than cured.
Inarguably????? Well, I guess I can’t argue with a sideline sniper like you, CopyLeft. When you wake up and smell the coffee one day, you’ll realize that the vast, vast majority of governmental policies under Bush are exactly the same as they were under Clinton. The biggest difference, IM-not-so-humble-O is how the press reports things.
By Monica
March 18, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
Hey Doc,
I have a Kodak Z740 and love it - 5 megapixel, 10x optical zoom. I got it for the whopping price of $275 at (gasp) Sam’s Club. I was going to paste a link, but I just learned that it has been discontinued. I like it because it looks like a “real” camera, but it is fairly inexpensive. Takes great pictures. My only complaint is that it eats batteries - 2 double A’s (I didn’t get the printer dock/charger to accompany it), and if the battery is low, the camera doesn’t focus well. Otherwise, it’s a great camera.
By NetBanker
March 18, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this
Well kids it looks like Mr. Truth is just stirring things up for the hell of it.
This medium requires 100% verbal communications. I haven’t read further than this post, but I think you’re wrong Truth. This medium requires 100% written communications. One interesting thing about written communication is the tendency of the reader’s current mood to add an emotional flavor the statements. Of course this isn’t a one-way flavoring as the writer also tends to assume that his mood is being conveyed by his words which isn’t always the case. This medium is much more difficult to establish clear communication than verbally because one can’t hear the tone in the speaker’s voice. Couple that situation with our rather imprecise language and mis-communication is bound to occur frequently.
My basic observation is that Truth is here to poke and attack rather than actually debate based on hise imprecise use of language and generalizations. On the generalizations we are seemingly expected to know when Truth means ALL Liberals vs SOME Liberals with SOME being derived on a personal basis such as when said perjorative statement doesn’t apply to one personally.
Doc…have you looked at consumer reports? Their analysis tends to be pretty on target.
On the topic itself…if you feel better with local, organic have at it. It’s all a personal decision what to consume. IMO all farmed foods are technically organic, however the definition of organic is so loose it can mean darn near anything. Even food that is grown without spraying them with pesticides or encouraging growth with fertilizers doesn’t necessarily guaranatee healthier foods due to possible contaminents in the soil that are absorbed by the plant. Would most organic food advocates really trust in the health benefits of no fertilizer, no pesticide produce grown next to Chernobyl simply because they’re “organic”?
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this
Prime example, CopyLeft, is the furor over waterboarding, torture, and the farming out of prisoners for dubious interrogation tactics. The policy by which such egregious actions are permitted is a policy which originated during the Clinton years. If you bother to check the facts, you will find that His Highness, Bill, actually used the policy far more times than the Bush team did. Where was the outcry then??
Again, I don’t want to let any facts get in the way of your pre-determined dogma. Sorry about that.
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this
And as for the recent economic downturn, it is in essence no different from the economic downturn we experienced in 1999-2001. In both cases, the root problem was something called “market over-exuberance”. Back in 1999, the vehicle for the over-exuberance was the dot.com boom/bust. Now, the vehicle for the economic over-exuberance is the housing market, in which foolish investors who bought properties for the purpose of “flipping” them are getting burned. Of course, the press wants everyone to believe that poor widows are being thrown out on the street because Bush wants them to suffer, when the truth is that greedy, unrealistic investors pushed the prices of homes to an untenable level.
If you have a good memory, I did my best to warn everyone here on the blog last year to sell off their excess real estate and stocks before the impending crash. Of course, geniuses like Mara kept telling me that our indebtedness to China was far more important.
One last piece of investment advice for the unknowledgeable: Buy gold and precious metals, all that you can afford, before the market peaks out, which it will within the next few months. With the value of the American dollar sinking fast, it’s your only hedge right now.
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this
I have a Kodak Z740 and love it - 5 megapixel, 10x optical zoom. I got it for the whopping price of $275 at (gasp) Sam’s Club. I was going to paste a link, but I just learned that it has been discontinued. I like it because it looks like a “real” camera, but it is fairly inexpensive. Takes great pictures. My only complaint is that it eats batteries - 2 double A’s (I didn’t get the printer dock/charger to accompany it), and if the battery is low, the camera doesn’t focus well. Otherwise, it’s a great camera.
Doc…have you looked at consumer reports? Their analysis tends to be pretty on target.
Hey Monica and NetB—Thanks for the advice.
Net—Did you load up on gold, silver, and precious metals recently?? If I recall correctly, I believe you stated that your strategy will e to lay low for 3 or more years until the market “corrects” itself again. IM-not-so-humble-O, that is a valid investment strategy as well. With the declining dollar, American products will once again be affordable for the rest of the world, which will hopefully bolster our manufacturing base.
In cannabis veritas!
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
Net—Wish I could share with you a hilarious picture my lady friend took of me with a 6’ 8” transvestite down in Key West last week. Of course, I had to get the guy all worked up by telling him how much I liked his perfume. He tried to follow us around for a while after that. ; > }
By chuck
March 18, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this
Once again, chuck, if you were only 1/20 as smart as you think you are, you might get somewhere in life. A substantial percentage of posts attributed to Dog/Bruno did not originate from my keyboard. But in your simplistic world, it’s easier to make assumptions, then defend those assumptions to the end regardless of hard evidence to the contrary, than to actually open your mind and think. E.G. Your belief that the story of Noah is somehow a factual account.
Ol’ Brudog, saying that truth toj obama was you was a joke dude, get a life. As for the “5000 year-old earth, it’s actually more like 10-12000 not 5. As for your lame little attempt to bring up my post on Noah’s Ark, you claim to be a great mathematician. Go to the site and look at the math and you tell me if it was possible to fit all of the animals in the ark. Since you weren’t even on the blog at the time of that post, you have no idea what it was about, so go educate yourself then we’ll talk.
It’s actually starting to get a little creepy the way you obsess over me. Abandon this little “man crush” and get on with your life dude.
All joking aside, was ANYBODY surprised that Kimmie blamed those big nasty corporations for “poisoning” us through our food? Who cares if you eat somebody’s marketing tool”organic” food, or whether you get it out of the produce aisle or out of a can? The only thing that matters is do these foods have nutritional value and taste good. I noticed the other day that the average age in the U.S. INCREASED again. I guess that “poison” food must be doing us some good after all.
TOJ, what I was really getting at is that you and the joker need to just ignore each other. It would seriously make everybody on the blog happier. Jokeson is a lightweight pseudointellectual at best. He likes to occasionally try to sound smart by parroting something that he’s heard on the blog like “binary thinking”, but he really doesn’t have much going on upstairs. Just ignore him and we will all be better off. Copyleft is another who just comes by occasionally to throw out an insult. Kimberly and NetB and sometimes Mara and USinUK are about the only ones on the left who post anything of substance. We just don’t have good discussions here any more and I miss that.
By JokesOn
March 18, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this
The policy by which such egregious actions are permitted is a policy which originated during the Clinton years. If you bother to check the facts, you will find that His Highness, Bill, actually used the policy far more times than the Bush team did. Where was the outcry then??
Have to disagree with you there. It is bad enough to have these camps, but to circumvent rights in order to legally hold someone, including americans, indefinitely with no reason/proof provided to some court is sickness. The power of the exec branch has inarguably been over-inflated. There was a balance of powers for a reason, but GWB has enough ego to think he knows better than the decades of precedence including our fore-fathers.
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
It’s actually starting to get a little creepy the way you obsess over me. Abandon this little “man crush” and get on with your life dude.
If I actually had a “man-crush”, it wouldn’t be for you, fat-boy. Now, NetB, I might consider…..
By Other Economic Tips
March 18, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this
Find some guy who brags about all his money, and pretend to like him. Even if he annoys and criticizes you lies to you, tell him he’s the biggest handsomest thing you’ve ever seen. Get him to pay your bills and buy you material things. Tell him he’s wonderful. Hold out until you get lots of material gifts and a trip or two. Then, before you give it up, play the jealousy card. (They love that!) Say that if you give it to him, it’s real and forever, and if he even looks at another woman you will cut his nuts off.
Laugh at your friends who hold out for love, trust, emotional understanding, shared goals, and true compatibility. In front of your new meal ticket, demean your friends who do not hold out for material affection. Call them cheap tramps. Get lots of manicures and pedicures, and a little bo-tox or a boob job if you need it. Don’t worry he will pay. Happy, well-kept gals know how to work it and fake it. Demand what you are worth! Honesty is for suckers.
By NetBanker
March 18, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
me with a 6’ 8” transvestite down in Key West last week Is said transvestite a resident of the island and what’s her name? Just curious because I may just know her via 1/2 dozen friends who are residents of Key West.
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
As for the “5000 year-old earth, it’s actually more like 10-12000 not 5. As for your lame little attempt to bring up my post on Noah’s Ark, you claim to be a great mathematician. Go to the site and look at the math and you tell me if it was possible to fit all of the animals in the ark. Since you weren’t even on the blog at the time of that post, you have no idea what it was about, so go educate yourself then we’ll talk.
Like I said, chuck, try to start an honest debate with you, and you run like a little gurly and try to hide behind some crackpot website which you won’t even reference here. Get back to me when you grow a set of balls, will you?
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
Have to disagree with you there. It is bad enough to have these camps, but to circumvent rights in order to legally hold someone, including americans, indefinitely with no reason/proof provided to some court is sickness. The power of the exec branch has inarguably been over-inflated. There was a balance of powers for a reason, but GWB has enough ego to think he knows better than the decades of precedence including our fore-fathers.
I’m with you on the illegal detentions, JokesOn. Pretty scary stuff.
By JokesOn
March 18, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this
All joking aside, was ANYBODY surprised that Kimmie blamed those big nasty corporations for “poisoning” us through our food?
Was anyone surprised that TOJ blamed those big nasty corporations for creating organic food?
Jokeson is a lightweight pseudointellectual at best. Yeah. You still ran away at a simple quiz for your big brain. You have yet to have one supporter of your intellect besides TOJ. I have but a few people (I must clue you in that you are one of them) on here that claim I am dumb, and they cannot hold a straight debate that follows any logical path.
If you are so smart, explain why the answer to the riddle is 2/3 chance if you switch? (although you will Google it and cut/paste)
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this
Laugh at your friends who hold out for love, trust, emotional understanding, shared goals, and true compatibility. In front of your new meal ticket, demean your friends who do not hold out for material affection. Call them cheap tramps. Get lots of manicures and pedicures, and a little bo-tox or a boob job if you need it. Don’t worry he will pay. Happy, well-kept gals know how to work it and fake it. Demand what you are worth! Honesty is for suckers.
You know, ET, you’re not the only one who yearns for real love. This time I think I’ve found it, but who really knows?
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
From my heart, ET, you are a good person. Though, in my own pathetic way, I was only able to thank you with anger, you helped me to become a better man.
By chuck
March 18, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this
OOOps.Sorry about that doctor frankenstein. I forgoth the link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this
The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles.
Well, chuckles, it only took me two sentences into your crackpot website before I split a gut laughing. Very convenient redefinition of the term “creping things”, don’t you think??
Do you even understand the fallacy contained within, redefining words and phrases post-story so that everything works out nicely. Do you have any idea how many species of insects there are on Earth? You ain’t fitting them all onto one boat, no matter how hard you try.
Better luck next time….
By chuck
March 18, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this
OOOps.Sorry about that doctor frankenstein. I forgoth the link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this
To be fair, I perused the entire article you presented chuck. It seems the most oft-used word there is probably. Pretty lame, bro. And you accept this as some kind of factual explanation??
Talk things over with your wife, the math teacher tonight, and ask her what happens when you multiply probalities together. Even if each isolated “probably” represented a 99% chance, by the time you multiply all of them together, you’re in trouble. In a similar way, “evolution” which depends on probabilistic explanations becomes mathematically untenable once you start compounding the factors. You and the other ball-less wonder, Brian Curtis, should get along well.
By Copyleft
March 18, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
“Where was the outcry then??” Exactly where it is today: coming from me.
I don’t care who’s in office, waterboarding is still wrong. Torture and rendition to secret CIA prisons is still wrong. (And no, Bill Clinton is and was not “my hero.”) ANY president who condones such things is despicable.
Bush is the one who’s currently in office, CURRENTLY doing the damage… so why are you going on and on about Clinton?
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this
But Bush’s OVERALL effect on our society, and the world in general, has been inarguably disastrous.
Bush is the one who’s currently in office, CURRENTLY doing the damage… so why are you going on and on about Clinton?
You’re about as bright as chuck, CopyLeft, if you accuse Bush of ruining the world single-handedly, when he is merely following protocols established by his immediate predecessors.
By ButClintonDidIt
March 18, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it
By Eyes of the World
March 18, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this
Gotta run for the day, but I’m hoping chuckles will enlighten me further about the meaning of the word “hate”. He stated earlier today that he intensely disliked his neighbor, but did not hate him. He has stated before that he “hates the sin”, but not the “sinner”. That’s one of the biggest reasons I call you a ball-less wonder, chuck. You aren’t even man enough to admit your own prejudices. My advice: Start stocking up on burn cream as quickly as you can.
By NetBanker
March 18, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this
to circumvent rights in order to legally hold someone, including americans, indefinitely with no reason/proof provided to some court is sickness. Has anyone seen the movie Rendition? We rented it over the weekend and it’s very scary how this innocent guy is whisked off to another country and tortured while an American CIA officer watches and the government refuses to respond to the wife’s inquiries about him.
Do you have any idea how many species of insects there are on Earth? You ain’t fitting them all onto one boat, no matter how hard you try. What I never understood about the Ark is how Noah would have collected species that are indigineous to other continents.
By sicktodeath
March 18, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this
Sorry folks. Give it up now. Your blog has been taken over by a few males who really just want to anonymously beat their chests at each other and carry on their p** contest. “I’m smarter than you! You are not!” “You’re stupid! I am not - you’re stupid!” “My daddy can beat up your daddy! No he cannot. My daddy can beat up your daddy.” They are all probably 5’6”, 145 lb. weaklings who can only act like apes anonymously. They have found their cowardly outlet. There is no hope for the blog world or the human race as long as males are allowed to survive.
By NetBanker
March 18, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this
I’m beginning to think that most of us on here need a reading comprehension class especially when “Bush’s OVERALL effect on our society, and the world in general, has been inarguably disastrous” is translated into a supposed accusation that Bush is “ruining the world single-handedly.” HUGE difference between the two statements and the impact of Mr. Bush on the world.
“Where was the outcry then??” Well let’s think about this for just a second…the outcry against torture is seemingly coming from Democrats in Congress, but not so much from Republicans. And didn’t Republicans control Congress during the Clinton years? So it would seem that the lack of outcry then and the lack of outcry now are from the same group. The difference being their move from majority to minority.
By NetBanker
March 18, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this
chuck…what are your thoughts and opinion as a Christian on rendition and waterboarding or any other method of distressing someone in order to extract information?
By NetBanker
March 18, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this
Just to answer the question myself (also because I hit the post button prematurely)…I don’t agree with either activity i asked Chuck about. As an American who strongly believes in our Justice System I just can’t condone secreting people off to another country so that the rights provided in the Constitution can be ignored as well as those of the Geneva Conventions.
When it comes to waterboarding or any similar activity there are studies that strongly suggest that the information extracted through such activities often proves to be false or inaccurate with the ‘victim’ stating whatever they think the inquisitor wants to hear just to stop what is being done to them. We even have cases of false confessions and testimony given to police after questioning people for hours on end and the methods used in those interogations is nowhere near waterboarding. I’ve yet to find a study that suggests good information can be consistently extracted from people through the use of means that pushes or crosses the boundaries of torture.
I’m not so naive as to recognize that things change in war including people’s willingness to accept certain behaviors they would not in times of peace. Even so, I question how we can believably hold ourselves up as an example of democracy, law, freedom when rendition and torture spit upon those very ideas and our government has been shown to practice them. Claiming a moral pass using war as a justification is not acceptable to me because I do believe that it is in times of duress that we see one’s true character shine through. If terrorism and this war is illuminating a national character that accepts, condones, and/or practices rendition and torture then don’t our Constitution, our Government, and our American Ideals ring hollow or at least carry the stench of hypocracy?
By kistov
March 18, 2008 7:56 PM | Link to this
http://index9.superponyride.com >liquid latex body paint http://index10.superponyride.com >erotic stories about boys stiff pricks http://index2.superponyride.com >adult picture gallery free http://index6.superponyride.com >over the counter bifocal sunglasses http://index1.superponyride.com >latinaass com http://index7.superponyride.com >adult fontenelles http://index4.superponyride.com >working class hero 1970 http://index3.superponyride.com >the cube lady http://index5.superponyride.com >anorexic girls http://index8.superponyride.com >austin catholic prep school alumni association
By kistov
March 18, 2008 7:56 PM | Link to this
http://index9.superponyride.com >liquid latex body paint http://index10.superponyride.com >erotic stories about boys stiff pricks http://index2.superponyride.com >adult picture gallery free http://index6.superponyride.com >over the counter bifocal sunglasses http://index1.superponyride.com >latinaass com http://index7.superponyride.com >adult fontenelles http://index4.superponyride.com >working class hero 1970 http://index3.superponyride.com >the cube lady http://index5.superponyride.com >anorexic girls http://index8.superponyride.com >austin catholic prep school alumni association
By kistov
March 18, 2008 7:56 PM | Link to this
http://index9.superponyride.com >liquid latex body paint http://index10.superponyride.com >erotic stories about boys stiff pricks http://index2.superponyride.com >adult picture gallery free http://index6.superponyride.com >over the counter bifocal sunglasses http://index1.superponyride.com >latinaass com http://index7.superponyride.com >adult fontenelles http://index4.superponyride.com >working class hero 1970 http://index3.superponyride.com >the cube lady http://index5.superponyride.com >anorexic girls http://index8.superponyride.com >austin catholic prep school alumni association
By kistov
March 18, 2008 7:57 PM | Link to this
http://index9.superponyride.com >liquid latex body paint http://index10.superponyride.com >erotic stories about boys stiff pricks http://index2.superponyride.com >adult picture gallery free http://index6.superponyride.com >over the counter bifocal sunglasses http://index1.superponyride.com >latinaass com http://index7.superponyride.com >adult fontenelles http://index4.superponyride.com >working class hero 1970 http://index3.superponyride.com >the cube lady http://index5.superponyride.com >anorexic girls http://index8.superponyride.com >austin catholic prep school alumni association
By kistov
March 18, 2008 7:57 PM | Link to this
http://index9.superponyride.com >liquid latex body paint http://index10.superponyride.com >erotic stories about boys stiff pricks http://index2.superponyride.com >adult picture gallery free http://index6.superponyride.com >over the counter bifocal sunglasses http://index1.superponyride.com >latinaass com http://index7.superponyride.com >adult fontenelles http://index4.superponyride.com >working class hero 1970 http://index3.superponyride.com >the cube lady http://index5.superponyride.com >anorexic girls http://index8.superponyride.com >austin catholic prep school alumni association
By kistov
March 19, 2008 2:07 AM | Link to this
http://index5.redponypro.com >mgm movies classic http://index9.redponypro.com >put this message in your profile if you know that life is not all about butthole pleasures —< b&am http://index2.redponypro.com >sweddishpenispumps http://index4.redponypro.com >ro gallery http://index1.redponypro.com >aides and homosexuals http://index8.redponypro.com >pulaski county assessment http://index7.redponypro.com >vintage anal sex http://index6.redponypro.com >scary movie 4 revews http://index3.redponypro.com >parenting adult children http://index10.redponypro.com >copperas cove hight school class reuion for 1996
By kistov
March 19, 2008 2:07 AM | Link to this
http://index5.redponypro.com >mgm movies classic http://index9.redponypro.com >put this message in your profile if you know that life is not all about butthole pleasures —< b&am http://index2.redponypro.com >sweddishpenispumps http://index4.redponypro.com >ro gallery http://index1.redponypro.com >aides and homosexuals http://index8.redponypro.com >pulaski county assessment http://index7.redponypro.com >vintage anal sex http://index6.redponypro.com >scary movie 4 revews http://index3.redponypro.com >parenting adult children http://index10.redponypro.com >copperas cove hight school class reuion for 1996
By kistov
March 19, 2008 2:07 AM | Link to this
http://index5.redponypro.com >mgm movies classic http://index9.redponypro.com >put this message in your profile if you know that life is not all about butthole pleasures —< b&am http://index2.redponypro.com >sweddishpenispumps http://index4.redponypro.com >ro gallery http://index1.redponypro.com >aides and homosexuals http://index8.redponypro.com >pulaski county assessment http://index7.redponypro.com >vintage anal sex http://index6.redponypro.com >scary movie 4 revews http://index3.redponypro.com >parenting adult children http://index10.redponypro.com >copperas cove hight school class reuion for 1996
By kistov
March 19, 2008 2:07 AM | Link to this
http://index5.redponypro.com >mgm movies classic http://index9.redponypro.com >put this message in your profile if you know that life is not all about butthole pleasures —< b&am http://index2.redponypro.com >sweddishpenispumps http://index4.redponypro.com >ro gallery http://index1.redponypro.com >aides and homosexuals http://index8.redponypro.com >pulaski county assessment http://index7.redponypro.com >vintage anal sex http://index6.redponypro.com >scary movie 4 revews http://index3.redponypro.com >parenting adult children http://index10.redponypro.com >copperas cove hight school class reuion for 1996
By kistov
March 19, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
http://index12.fdzag.com >largest dog penis http://index8.fdzag.com >mature porn hardcore http://index16.fdzag.com >king diamond video http://index15.fdzag.com >bernard passman st thomas usvi http://index20.fdzag.com >girl scout patch ceramoney http://index6.fdzag.com >cool pics http://index11.fdzag.com >listjust the names of breast enlarging cream http://index18.fdzag.com >gangbang in public http://index10.fdzag.com >nude women google http://index5.fdzag.com >free sexpics
By kistov
March 19, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
http://index12.fdzag.com >largest dog penis http://index8.fdzag.com >mature porn hardcore http://index16.fdzag.com >king diamond video http://index15.fdzag.com >bernard passman st thomas usvi http://index20.fdzag.com >girl scout patch ceramoney http://index6.fdzag.com >cool pics http://index11.fdzag.com >listjust the names of breast enlarging cream http://index18.fdzag.com >gangbang in public http://index10.fdzag.com >nude women google http://index5.fdzag.com >free sexpics
By kistov
March 19, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
http://index12.fdzag.com >largest dog penis http://index8.fdzag.com >mature porn hardcore http://index16.fdzag.com >king diamond video http://index15.fdzag.com >bernard passman st thomas usvi http://index20.fdzag.com >girl scout patch ceramoney http://index6.fdzag.com >cool pics http://index11.fdzag.com >listjust the names of breast enlarging cream http://index18.fdzag.com >gangbang in public http://index10.fdzag.com >nude women google http://index5.fdzag.com >free sexpics
By kistov
March 19, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
http://index12.fdzag.com >largest dog penis http://index8.fdzag.com >mature porn hardcore http://index16.fdzag.com >king diamond video http://index15.fdzag.com >bernard passman st thomas usvi http://index20.fdzag.com >girl scout patch ceramoney http://index6.fdzag.com >cool pics http://index11.fdzag.com >listjust the names of breast enlarging cream http://index18.fdzag.com >gangbang in public http://index10.fdzag.com >nude women google http://index5.fdzag.com >free sexpics
By kistov
March 19, 2008 8:26 AM | Link to this
http://index12.fdzag.com >largest dog penis http://index8.fdzag.com >mature porn hardcore http://index16.fdzag.com >king diamond video http://index15.fdzag.com >bernard passman st thomas usvi http://index20.fdzag.com >girl scout patch ceramoney http://index6.fdzag.com >cool pics http://index11.fdzag.com >listjust the names of breast enlarging cream http://index18.fdzag.com >gangbang in public http://index10.fdzag.com >nude women google http://index5.fdzag.com >free sexpics
By Doc
March 19, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this
I’m beginning to think that most of us on here need a reading comprehension class especially when “Bush’s OVERALL effect on our society, and the world in general, has been inarguably disastrous” is translated into a supposed accusation that Bush is “ruining the world single-handedly.” HUGE difference between the two statements and the impact of Mr. Bush on the world.
“Where was the outcry then??” Well let’s think about this for just a second…the outcry against torture is seemingly coming from Democrats in Congress, but not so much from Republicans. And didn’t Republicans control Congress during the Clinton years? So it would seem that the lack of outcry then and the lack of outcry now are from the same group. The difference being their move from majority to minority.
NetB—I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with you regarding my reading comprehension skills. The speaker in question (CopyLeft) has consistently slammed Bush, Republicans, and every conservative poster who dares give Bush credit for the good that he has done. For example, when I asked you and the rest of the “liberals” on board to comment on Bush’s efforts in Africa, all CopyLeft could come up with was “Only a monster of pure evil could have a record that’s 100% bad—and people like that don’t exist. Even Saddam and Osama doubtless have some (few) good qualities”. Hardly a fair assessment, would you say? IMO, CONTEXT constitutes a large part of reading comprehension, no?
As for your analysis that the lack of outcry regarding the so-called “Rendition Program” during the Clinton administration was simply due a minority of Democrats in Congress, again I have to respectfully disagree. The ONLY criticism at that time came from a tiny group of Republicans, with nary a peep coming from even one Democrat. Hmmm… AND, if you bother to check the Congressional record, Nancy Pelosi, et.al. were very happy to go along with Bush’s plans to use waterboarding out back in 2002 when Congress approved such tactics. It wasn’t until c. 2005 that the cry was started, i.e. when it became politically convenient to do so. As such, I don’t see any real nobility on the part of the Democrats regarding these heinous practices. IMO, Net, “the stench of hypocrisy” is shared by all, not just the Republicans.
The biggest point I keep trying to make here is that there is a world of difference between the TRUTH and the WHOLE TRUTH. Do you personally understand the difference between the two??
By Copyleft
March 19, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this
You’re ducking the question, Eyes… I thought you were “above” that sort of thing.
I didn’t claim Bush is single-handedly destroying the world, as you exaggerate. I didn’t say he’s doing something unique that his predecessors did not.
I said Bush is doing it RIGHT NOW, and that deserves our attention RIGHT NOW. Do you have an intelligent defense of his actions—other than “But Clinton did it toooooo!”?
By Doc
March 19, 2008 8:48 AM | Link to this
chuck…what are your thoughts and opinion as a Christian on rendition and waterboarding or any other method of distressing someone in order to extract information?
Sorry to intervene into your question directed at chuckles, but wouldn’t your query carry more meaning if chuck, in fact, actually WAS a Christian??? The man has demonstrated time and again that he has almost NO CLUE what the Bible actually says. His dogma comes straight from the “modern Christian movement” which has b******* the message that Christ left with us.
And before you assume that all conservatives, whether self-professed Christians or not, support waterboarding, you might want to check the record more closely. Unlike Nancy Pelosi, John McCain has opposed waterboarding from the very beginning, as have I. Any particular reason you’re trying to politicize this issue?? Hopefully you’re not falling into the liberal fallacy of believing that only Democrats are good, decent people.
By Doc
March 19, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this
Sorry folks. Give it up now. Your blog has been taken over by a few males who really just want to anonymously beat their chests at each other and carry on their p* contest. “I’m smarter than you! You are not!” “You’re stupid! I am not - you’re stupid!” “My daddy can beat up your daddy! No he cannot. My daddy can beat up your daddy.” They are all probably 5’6”, 145 lb. weaklings who can only act like apes anonymously. They have found their cowardly outlet. There is no hope for the blog world or the human race as long as males are allowed to survive*.
Hey, sick to death: I sincerely hope that you and your other fellow man-hating, bitter “feminists” will grow up one day and stop blaming everyone but yourselves for the personal unhappiness you feel in your own lives. I believe the term from psychology is “external focus”. If you want to make W2W a better place, then start posting something of substance other than your bitter whining about how men have ruined the world.
By Copyleft
March 19, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
Speaking of hypocrisy… “Any reason you’re trying to politicize this, as liberals always do”?
Funny stuff!
By Doc
March 19, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
I didn’t claim Bush is single-handedly destroying the world, as you exaggerate. I didn’t say he’s doing something unique that his predecessors did not.
I said Bush is doing it RIGHT NOW, and that deserves our attention RIGHT NOW. Do you have an intelligent defense of his actions—other than “But Clinton did it toooooo!”?
CopyLeft—I have never defended the mistreatment of prisoners, ever, regardless of which President used the tactic. I do however, think that the fact that you continue to tell the TRUTH, while completely ignoring the WHOLE TRUTH, strikes directly at your credibility as a commentator. You made a broad, sweeping statement yesterday “But Bush’s OVERALL effect on our society, and the world in general, has been inarguably disastrous”. How so?? Many, many people, including myself, are of the opinion that Bush’s efforts to effect real change in the Middle East will have a long-term beneficial effect, regardless of the short-term pain that it is causing. Unfortunately, you closed the door to any meaningful discussion of said policies with your choice of terminology “inarguably”. Kind of tough to debate someone who’s mind is already made up, isn’t it??
Once again, CopyLeft, I challenge you to add an original thought to this forum. Your first attempt to do anything other than snipe from the sidelines isn’t spawning any real discussion.
By Doc
March 19, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this
Speaking of hypocrisy… “Any reason you’re trying to politicize this, as liberals always do”?
Funny stuff!
Well, it appears to me that you have apparently chosen a life of sideline sniping, CopyLeft. Out of curiosity, do you regularly display passive-aggressive behaviors in your personal life as well?? Are you the type to secretly sabotage the company you work for when you don’t feel that you’re being treated fairly?? Or, are you man or woman enough to address what is bothering you in an honest, forthright manner. I challenged you yesterday to prove me wrong. I’m still waiting……
By Doc
March 19, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
Thanks again for all the helpful advice from everyone yesterday regarding digital cameras, especially Other Truth, who was the only one to consider the lighting, etc. To me, that is a great example of “big-picture thinking”—i.e. the Whole Truth, and not merely the TRUTH.
By Doc
March 19, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this
Gotta get ready for my trip to Miami tomorrow, so I’ll check back later to see if the 149 IQ genius chuckles consulted his wife regarding how to calculate probabilities last night in regard to the website he referenced which supposedly proved that the MYTH of Noah’s ark is anything more than just that—a MYTH.
I’m still in amazement that he still clings to the belief that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, whether 5000 or even 10,000 y.o. I’ve got a few books about Geology in my bookcase that you may want to consult one day, buddy. Simple question for you: How long did it take for the Grand Canyon to form?? Using any reasonable estimate of erosion rates of rocks, it would take millions of years for that much erosion to take place. What say you, Mr. Genius??
By sicktodeath
March 19, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
“Hey, sick to death: I sincerely hope that you and your other fellow man-hating, bitter “feminists” will grow up one day and stop blaming everyone but yourselves for the personal unhappiness you feel in your own lives. I believe the term from psychology is “external focus”.” So add “Shrink” to the long, long list of aliases used by this jerk. Eat s-it and die, jerk. This blog, and I’m sure the world, would be better!
By Copyleft
March 19, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
Sorry I’m not meeting your oh-so-enlightened standards, Doc—or is it “Eyes” Or maybe “Dog” this week? I have contributed ideas. And I’ve contributed quite a bit of well-earned criticism, too.
The fact that you can’t recognize them due to your own personal blinders—well, how is that MY problem? You persist in the delusion that you are somehow “wiser” than everyone else and that everyone’s hanging on your every divine revelation.
The truth is, you’re a pompous windbag that everyone alternates between ignoring and deflating as the whim strikes us. You simply don’t warrant any greater effort or attention than that.
Now, can you defend Bush’s actions or not? If not, why do you continually whine about how “Clinton did it toooo!” and that people need to see the Big Picture (for example, compared to ebola, Bush has personally killed a lot fewer people)?
By Doc
March 19, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
Eat s-it and die, jerk. This blog, and I’m sure the world, would be better!
Is that the best you can come up with?
By JokesOn
March 19, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
Eat s-it and die, jerk. This blog, and I’m sure the world, would be better!
Gotta love the hypocrisy. In your complaining about the lows people sank to on the blog you inadvertently created a new low yourself. Add your name to the list.
By Doc
March 19, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this
The truth is, you’re a pompous windbag that everyone alternates between ignoring and deflating as the whim strikes us. You simply don’t warrant any greater effort or attention than that.
Is that the best YOU can come up with?
Now, can you defend Bush’s actions or not?
If you read my post above, I don’t defend the mistreatment of prisoners. However, that only comprises a small portion of the Bush legacy. It was YOU who made the broad, sweeping statement that Bush has been in “inarguable” disaster for America and the world, yet you haven’t provided even ONE specific example of what you’re annoyed with. I’ll be happy to offer my opinion regarding any specific policy if you would be so kind as to provide one.
By Doc
March 19, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
Hey JokesOn—Why is it that you and I, who have very different political orientations, are able to discuss issues in a reasonable way, give credit where credit is due, etc. while these lamers here can only insult?
Frankly, I feel that you, NetB, and myself are the only ones who ever have anything of substance to say on this blog.
By TruthTruth
March 19, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
The truth is, you’re a pompous windbag that everyone alternates between ignoring and deflating as the whim strikes us. You simply don’t warrant any greater effort or attention than that.
By sicktodeath
March 19, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
The truth is, you’re a pompous windbag that everyone alternates between ignoring and deflating as the whim strikes us. You simply don’t warrant any greater effort or attention than that. So true. So true. Jokeson, you too, you 5’7”, 145 lb. weakling. It’s easy to be the “big guy” on an anonymous blog isn’t it? I bet you’d run as fast as possible if you actually met TOJ or Chuck or even weak in the head Doc (today). You can E.S. and die too, you tu-d.
By Doc
March 19, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this
So true. So true. Jokeson, you too, you 5’7”, 145 lb. weakling.
It just keeps getting better, JokesOn. Apparently sicktodeath, aka lozen, hasn’t been paying any attention to the fact that you are a 6’5” 275+ lb. guy who could whip chuck’s and TOJ’s a* with your eyes closed. I’m more in the range of 5’10”, 160 lbs, but I can hold my own against a lot of folks. I’ve invited chuck and Chilao to come to my house many times, but they would rather hide behind their mother’s skirts than to stop by.
By Truth
March 19, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
Doc
Thanks for the “Whole truth” complement. This is what I do for a living, so it wasn’t a great truth or anything.
The lights should give you a better picture. With two lights, you will need to watch out for duel shadows so you will need to soften the lights to avoid all shadows. The guys at showcase will show you what to do to soften the lights. It usually just involves a piece of fire proof scrim paper to be clipped in front of the light.
By Doc
March 19, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
Thanks for the “Whole truth” complement. This is what I do for a living, so it wasn’t a great truth or anything.
The lights should give you a better picture. With two lights, you will need to watch out for duel shadows so you will need to soften the lights to avoid all shadows. The guys at showcase will show you what to do to soften the lights. It usually just involves a piece of fire proof scrim paper to be clipped in front of the light.
Don’t sell yourself short, Other Truth. All of us take pictures, whether professionally or not, but you were the only one to consider what is likely the MOST IMPORTANT factor, the lighting.
And please don’t be insulted that I said JokesOn could whip your a*. He and I travel in the same circles, and he’s not a person I would want to meet in a dark alley.
By Truth
March 19, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
After Abu Grabe, (I don’t know it that is spelled right) I started reading about US policies toward torture. Most of the things that were done at that Iraqi prison were less than some college frats require of new pledges.
Apparently the biggest item of “torture” was when the dogs were used to intimidate the prisoners. I saw the pictures taken at the prison of the dogs while I was watching Court TV. During that particular show, police attack dogs were not only used to intimidate people that were fleeing from the police, but they were also used to actually attack and injure the alleged perpetrators. But I guess that having a tail light out is a much worse offense than insurgents that were killing civilians by the score.
By JokesOn
March 19, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
Hey JokesOn—Why is it that you and I, who have very different political orientations, are able to discuss issues in a reasonable way, give credit where credit is due, etc. while these lamers here can only insult?
Ever watch Dogma? I think the reason lies in the statement “you can change an idea much easier than a belief.” Many people never realize that there is no reason (and many reasons to remove) emotional attachment to a notion. That sabotages the learning process and they spend all their time trying to disprove being wrong.
ego+emotional attachment = inability to learn.
Frankly, I feel that you, NetB, and myself are the only ones who ever have anything of substance to say on this blog.
Well, I think that is exaggerated, but I know where you are coming from (this is an example one of those statements some of can make to each other without worry of a freak-out session following - which comes down to I trust you will not freak out, and you trust me not saying such with the sole purpose of land-blasting you).
By Truth
March 19, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
Doc
I grew up playing music in bars, so I have been in lots of fights. I have won some and I have lost some. Big doesn’t scare me. Crazy scares me. I don’t think JokesOn is crazy but I do think he is just very frustrated. The really scary people are the little, skinny crazy MFs. They seem to believe that they have something to prove.
I am bed ridden today so the little girl scout that delivered my cookies last evening could whip me today. I adopted a kitten a few weeks ago and every morning it wakes me up by bumping his head against my face. Seems cats have some very serious bacteria. My left eye is almost swollen shut. The doctor gave me a bunch of pills and two shots and I am miserable.
So basically, I was put on my butt by a kitten.
By JokesOn
March 19, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
Apparently sicktodeath, aka lozen, hasn’t been paying any attention to the fact that you are a 6’5” 275+ lb. guy
I am not really that worried;) I pegged sicktodeath as whiley. She was be the one that said crap like all guys should be put in prison at birth and such. Lozen would just cheer her on.
By Doc
March 19, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
Well, I think that is exaggerated, but I know where you are coming from (this is an example one of those statements some of can make to each other without worry of a freak-out session following - which comes down to I trust you will not freak out, and you trust me not saying such with the sole purpose of land-blasting you).
You’re right, friend. I guess I just don’t understand where people like lozen are coming from with their constant whining, with no evidence of trying to improve as people. For all his bomb-throwing, I do see the desire in TOJ to be a positive force in the world, and not strictly a whiner.
By HUH?
March 19, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
Truth, WTF are you talking about at 11:34? If you had a point in there, you didn’t make it. Would you like to try again?
By Doc
March 19, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this
I am not really that worried;) I pegged sicktodeath as whiley. She was be the one that said crap like all guys should be put in prison at birth and such. Lozen would just cheer her on.
True, but whiley doesn’t come by enough to have an emotional investment in this blog the way that lozen does. Also, lozen has made similar statements in the past regarding the height and weight of (unknown) males which she is unable to debate. The all-encompassing male-hatred by lozen is a new twist, but the rest of the post is pure lozen IMO.
By Doc
March 19, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this
So basically, I was put on my butt by a kitten.
No problem, OT. I regularly get my a* kicked by gatita. But , oh, what a “Sweet Surrender”. That’s why I think I might have a chance with my new lady friend to make a life together. She doesn’t take any crap from me at all, and has no problem putting me in my place.
I’d really love to hear more about your experiences as a musician some day. Music is a huge part of my life. I’m looking forward to turning my new lady friend on to some live Grateful Dead recordings (what an oxymoron, no?), along with some great Traffic albums like “John Barleycorn Must Die”. She says she’s ready.
By Doc
March 19, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
Well, it looks like CopyLeft ran like a scared gurly when I challenged him (her?) to come up with some specific policies, put into a reasonable historical context, that she doesn’t like about Bush.
Ditto for big-mouth chuck, whose 149 IQ keeps failing him in any real debate.
Catch you all on the rebound.
By Truth
March 19, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this
HUH
Basically, I think all this torture crap is just another attack front on this administration. They certainly didn’t invent our policies toward torture, but they are blamed for all of it. And it wasn’t just Clinton. It has been our policy since well before WWll.
Viet Nam saw Americans pushing the first prisoner out of a helicopter before starting to ask questions of the other prisoners. I was all up in arms about that until my dad explained what happened in WWll.
It is easy to set in our comfortable chairs and make policies that people who’s lives are in daily danger will need to follow.
I have a feeling that most on here that are so against waterboarding would have a different perspective if they were looking at someone who’s information could save the lives of friends and fellow soldiers.
By Monica
March 19, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this
True, but whiley doesn’t come by enough to have an emotional investment in this blog the way that lozen does. Also, lozen has made similar statements in the past regarding the height and weight of (unknown) males which she is unable to debate. The all-encompassing male-hatred by lozen is a new twist, but the rest of the post is pure lozen IMO.
Whiley has an emotional investment in man-bashing at every opportunity. sicktodeath is not lozen’s style, but it is Whiley’s.
BTW, Truth, I agree with you - the little quiet guys in high school are the victors in the cafeteria/hallway brawls. The big guys are too engrossed with showing their flexed muscles to know how to use them.
Doc/Eyes/Dog, with regard to the age of the Earth, here is a thought: God created Adam and Eve as adults, not as infants. It stands to reason that He would create the Earth in a mature stage (with the canyons already carved) as well, thereby making a 6,000 year old planet appear to be much older. Just a thought.
By Truth
March 19, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this
Doc
I was on the road for a few years during the 70s and had a hell of a time. Deep into the sexual revolution and before AIDS. It was the perfect storm.
As far as the music end of it, there is nothing that will ruin a good song than to learn to play it in front of people.
By HUH?
March 19, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
Truth, thanks for your clarification. I understand now what you’re trying to say, and it makes sense. However, I’ve read that many military experts (like John McCain for example) say that torture simply doesn’t work. The person being tortured will say ANYTHING, whatever they think you want to hear, to get it to stop. And what if that person doesn’t know what you think they know? Now you have false information to act upon. So aside from the “ends justify the means” and “they’ve always done it” positions you appear to be taking on why it’s okay to commit such horrific sins against fellow humans, the “end” is neither reliable nor effective with regard to information gathering. Further, it negates our ability as a nation and a people to take the high road and insist that others follow, with regard to their treatment of our captured soldiers and citizens. As such, I’m going to strongly disagree with your position on torture.
By Gandalf, the Grey
March 19, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
“and I SAY G@@ DAMN the USA, THE KKKA, G@# Damn The KKKA”….AND his dad and brother are followers of the that religion of peace and understanding….? HMMMM, anyone seen the Mancurian Canidate lately? HMMMMM….Just my thoughts for the day…oh and make a garden in your back yard to stop global Warning…
By Doc
March 19, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this
Doc/Eyes/Dog, with regard to the age of the Earth, here is a thought: God created Adam and Eve as adults, not as infants. It stands to reason that He would create the Earth in a mature stage (with the canyons already carved) as well, thereby making a 6,000 year old planet appear to be much older. Just a thought.
Thanks for the input, Monica. When a person starts with the assumption that “God” is an anthropomorphic being who transcends the Laws of Physics, then anything is possible, I guess. For me, as a Scientist, such a model is unworkable, however, because we are unable to make any type of predictions regarding natural phenomena using the anything-goes model. I’m not saying you’re wrong and I’m right because of this, of course, because the greatest truth is that we just don’t know.
For me, God IS Physics, which involves processes which we dumb humans can observe and speculate about. I.e. Immanuel, “God Within” or “God With Us”. Maybe you’ve had more experience in praying for miracles than I have and have insights I don’t. I keep that possibility open.
By peter
March 19, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this
Hey Monica, what is your religious background? What church did you attend? Are you still a member of that church? Did you grow up in the south? You’re a teacher, right? What do you teach?
By LaughoftheWeek
March 19, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
Obama = Manchurian Candidate.
By Truth
March 19, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this
Monica
Interesting thoughts about creation. I spent my childhood reading the bible in church. I didn’t have the least bit interest in what the preacher was saying, but the Bible is a very interesting book.
I still read it, especially the old testament. In verse 27 of Genesis, it says: God created man in his own image. In the image of God he created him. Then it goes on and on saying how God wanted man to inhabit the entire earth and have dominion over all otyher plants and animals, etc. etc.
Then it goes on to tell about man’s dominion of the earth. That was the sixth day of creation and God rested on the seventh. So at that point, mankind has already populated the earth.
THEN we learn about Adam and Eve. It’s like the first and second chapter of Genesis contradicts each other. THEN we learn that after Cain killed Able, he was banished from the garden of Eden and sent to the land of Nod, where he took a wife. Where did she come from?
It is all thought provoking, not so much that the Bible contradicts itself, but that some people believe that Adam ands Eve were the first people.
I believe that first chapter is a parable telling how the earth was created. It is a very simplistic view of creation, but is actually pretty accurate and does take in the ideas of evolution.
Adam and Eve was then a parable about good vs. evil. I don’t think that parable was related to creation.
Just a thought from a fairly un-religous guy who just likes to read a very interesting book.
By Monica
March 19, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this
Peter,
I am a high school English teaching Christian who has always lived in Georgia and who has always attended the Christian Church, with the exception of the the first four years of my life when my parents were Catholic. :)
By Doc
March 19, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this
Adam and Eve was then a parable about good vs. evil. I don’t think that parable was related to creation.
One small point about the second Creation story found in the Bible, OT. The actual passage regarding good/evil NEVER says good Versus evil. The Tree described in the Garden of Eden is the Tree of Good AND Evil. Very reminiscent of Buddhism, which states that “good” and “evil” are merely two sides of the same coin.
Just some food for thought.
By Doc
March 19, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this
Oops—Correction—I meant to say “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”. The ultimate meaning I take away from this second Creation story is more in regard to the development of the ability within humans to make moral decisions, something which appears to separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom.
By Truth
March 19, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this
HUH?
I understand your position, but I just don’t think it is torture. I have also read about the wrong information that is often gathered. It’s not my field, so I can’t explain why it does or doesn’t work.
I have been trying to find an article written by a US interrogator on the real damage these press stories have done. Before all the stories were released, our enemies had very little idea about what we would actually do to prisoners. The appearance of an attack dog would usually scare them into giving us information. Unlike our police who use the dogs for full fledged attacks on individual US citizens.
But these prisoners did not know that it was against US policy to actually sic the dogs on the prisoners. But now they do so there is almost nothing that works.
Waterboarding is the same thing. It makes them THINK they are drowning. Not now. They know it thay can just make it a few more minutes, there is nothing more the interrogator can do.
Torture? I consider doing what any K-9 officer would do to a US citizen at the drop of a hat, not torture. Waterboarding? Charlie, the local bully used to dunk all of us. We all though we were going to drown.
Take the word “torture” out of the mix and it is a different story, especially now that rags like the NYTimes have told the world that we can’t really hurt them.
By Sweet Surrender
March 19, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this
Cuz’ I’m tasting defeat, oh what a Sweet Surrender.
By Truth
March 19, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this
Doc
I didn’t get vs from the Bible. That was me.
It is a very deep book or it is a very simplistic book, depending on the reader. It does seem to parallel many other religous books.
I don’t know if any of it is true. I just know that one minute after we die, we will all know the truth.
By peter
March 19, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this
Monica, may I ask which Christian Church?
By JokesOn
March 19, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this
Dog,
My problem with that this administration has a default reaction of defending their position when questioned about torture and off-site camps.
I distrust anyone that always goes into excuse/defensive mode when questioned about a situation. To further that mistrust, I have yet to hear any statements regarding bad planning/choices by the administration after the facts are out like global warming. It fights every issue: global warming, the wars planning, that the economic down turn is happening.
Couple this stuff with with what people that have left this administration keep saying (GWB has a belief and does not want to hear anything that counters it) and I stop listening/looking for good things to come out of it. Once I loose trust in someone, as I did GWB, I am pretty binary about them.
I know this binary behavior is a negative trait, but also know that even low-level public relations offices know this usually is the case with people and try to recover (perception, even if inaccurate does matter in reality); but the administration seems to care less. That puts me off.
It also resembles the question/issue about bloggers you presented earlier.
By Dirty Joke of the Day
March 19, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
Four nuns are killed in a car accident and present themselves to St. Peter for admission to heaven. Peter says “You’ve all lived exemplary lives, so I’m sure you’re in, but The Big Guy wants me to ask you if you have any last minute sins to confess”.
The first nun in line says “Pete, I’m ashamed to tell you, but one time I touched a man’s private parts with my finger.” Pete replied “That’s ok, just wash your finger in this holy water and all will be forgiven.”
The second nun stepped forward and said “Pete, I’m ashamed to tell you, but one time I touched a man’s private parts with my whole hand.” Pete shook his head and replied “That’s ok, just wash your hand in this holy water here and all will be forgiven.”
Right then the fourth nun pushed her way past the third nun and said “Pete, would you mind if I washed my mouth out with the holy water before she sits in it?”
By AGFNPR
March 19, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
Monica,
Once again you impress me with your ability to stand firm on your beliefs without being overtly offensive. I appreciate your contributions.
And sicktodeath has it wrong on almost all accounts. I was smallish in high school, but I grew almost eight inches from my sophomore year in high school till my junior year in college. So, like JokesOn, I am a very big guy. I haven’t been in a fight since I was a teenager, and I don’t plan on getting in one any time soon.
It is true that the men on the blog (myself included) are far too argumentative, but I do not believe we are responsible for the low participation. Lame topics and constant spam have contributed far more to the mess this blog has become.
My spin on the age of the earth - I don’t know. The bible does not tell us the age of the earth. I believe the earth could be young, but I am not dogmatic on the issue. I do know of at least one very conservative Southern Baptist (J. Vernon McGhee, who passed away in 1988) who believed the earth was very old. He did not believe in evolution, he simply believed in an old earth.
By HUH?
March 19, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
Once I lose trust in someone, as I did GWB, I am pretty binary about them. I know this binary behavior is a negative trait…
Tall Drink, why is it a negative trait that you’re smart enough to learn?
By peter
March 19, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this
I believe it’s true this blog has sunk to a very low point. Yes, there is spam. Yes, the topics are inane but you didn’t waste time on the topics for more than a day or two. I enjoyed the perspective of the women on here. Now, all the women are gone. I believe we men have a great deal to learn from women. USinUK was a very smart woman with good knowledge to share about finances and government. Kimberly was sharp, had a good sense of humor, and yes, had resentment toward men which I can understand. Lozen is an older woman who is well spoken and very much an individual. I even enjoyed Whily because she had a different perspective and was courageous enough to say what she thought. Netbanker had a lot of good things to say. BrianCurtis, RF, John72 for example. There are also many sharp men who have stopped posting. I do not get anything from the few men who now dominate and argue and insult each other about the same things over and over. I don’t say much but I used to learn a lot. Not any more.
By Monica
March 19, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this
Peter, My church is an autonomous church, as are most Christian churches. We don’t participate in a convention, nor do we have a governing authority other than our elders. We follow the model of the church in the New Testament. Did you have any specific questions with regard to my church’s doctrine?
By JokesOn
March 19, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this
It is true that the men on the blog (myself included) are far too argumentative, but I do not believe we are responsible for the low participation.
I cannot agree with that statement. That is not to say that the men, in general, are not argumentative. Just that the same percentage the women on the blog are argumentative.
What gets me is the double-standards regarding men using sexual slurs; where the first insults we hear as men on here are ones like “pi$$ing contest, little weenie…” specifically by people like whiley. Anyways, I have long ago given up on finding resolution to this issue on here.
By chuck
March 19, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
NetB, to answer your question, I am unequivocally against torture. I think it is wrong headed and immoral. That said, even under the Geneva Convention, Our soldiers were tortured by the Germans and the Japanese in WWII, by the North Koreans in that conflict, by the Vietnamese, the Iranians during the hostage conflict AND by the Iraqis. In spite of the attrocities committed against our soldiers, I am still not in favor of torture, but I don’t hold warm fuzzies for those that we have captured either. I think terrorists should be tried (probably in a military tribunal, which is probably a much fairer trial than our current jury system) and if convicted, they should be EXECUTED not tortured.
As far as “waterboarding” goes, I am not sure that it rises to the level of torture. It MAY, but I’m not convinced that it does. Torture is defined as:
the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
I watched a program not long ago where a former CIA agent demonstrated waterboarding. Last night, I tried it (not exactly, mind you) on myself to see what it felt like to the extent that I could. While it was VERY unpleasant I can’t say that it caused “excruciating pain”. Of course I also knew that I controlled the water.I have not seen the movie “Rendition”, but I watched American Soldier the other day. What occurred in THAT movie is what I think of when I hear the word “torture”.
As for the concept of “renditions”, again, it depends. The guidelines for a rendition include getting an assurance from the receiving country that no torture will take place. If that is the case, I think it is actually a useful tool. For instance, in one terrorist act the offenders and those that helped them plan it were mostly Egyptian. By turning those terrorists over to the Egyptian government we avoided the appearance of torture coming from us AND ingratiated ourselves to the Egyptian government which wanted these terrorists back because of acts they had committed in Egypt. I see this as a win win situation. I have no idea what the Egyptians did with them, but I am guessing that they won’t be committing acts of terror anymore.
I guess when it comes to these issues, I am a pragmatist. I don’t think we ought to be using bamboo under the fingernails or beating prisoners until they talk, but I do believe that we ought to aggressively work to extract information from these scumbags while we can. As I said, I’m not sure about waterboarding, but things like loud music, sleep deprivation and those kinds of things I have no problem with.
By Monica
March 19, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this
For those of you who, like me, cannot endure even the thought of torture, how about a change of subject? If you’re looking to buy a house in this unpredictable ocean of a mortgage market, http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2008/03/19/mansion0320.html?cxntlid=homepagetab_newstab! A steal at 45 mil!
By chuck
March 19, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this
Hey Monica, good to hear from you and I appreciated your “mature earth” idea. In answer to the inane babbling of puppy concerning the Grand Canyon…I’ve been there a couple of times now and it is an absolutely awsome creation.
The “theory” is that it was created by a little water over a looooooong time. Think about this though. What if the opposite occurred, i.e. a loooooooootttt of water over a SHORT time? Wouldn’t the results be essentially the same?
Here’s an experiment for you. Go out into your back yard and take your garden hose and put it on a little clay/sandstone slope and turn it on to just a trickle. Leave it for three - four days and measure the depth and length of the area of displaced materials. Then take the same hose and turn it on FULL BLAST on an adjacent area and measure the results for even a couple of minutes. I think you will see the possibilities.
BTW, my wife’s minor is actually in GEOLOGY. She believes the Bible.
By chuck
March 19, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this
BTW Monica. I don’t know who “peter” is, but he seems to be fishing for the NAME of the church you attend. I know you know better, but just to make sure, don’t give out that kind of personally identifying information. To many whackos out there. No offense peter.
By Monica
March 19, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
Thanks for the advice, Chuck. I am actually looking for another church website of the same denomination.
Okay, that last link didn’t work! Just go to AJC Homepage and see the 47,000 square foot mansion for sale. Geesh!
By JokesOn
March 19, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this
I think you will see the possibilities.
As well as the huge differences. For example it has already been proven that a fast current would not leave the geologic stones (boulders) of the area - they should have wash down stream. There is too much indigenous debris and geologic evidence to back up a fast current theory like you are talking.
Plus the width…etc. You should see all this in your mini-experiment.
By chuck
March 19, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this
Except you left out the possibility that those boulders fell into the canyon in the several thousand years that have passed SINCE the flood.
By JokesOn
March 19, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
Tall Drink, why is it a negative trait that you’re smart enough to learn?
Can you rephrase please?
By Dogmatic
March 19, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this
BTW, my wife’s minor is actually in GEOLOGY. She believes the Bible.
And since the Bible itself provides no time frames for the described events, exactly what does she believe? All the erroneous, post-Biblical “analysis” made by arrogant fools like yourself?
By Dogmatic
March 19, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
BTW Monica. I don’t know who “peter” is, but he seems to be fishing for the NAME of the church you attend. I know you know better, but just to make sure, don’t give out that kind of personally identifying information. To many whackos out there. No offense peter.
To my recollection, there have been only two pieces of sh-it here on the blog who have ever published personal info about another blogger—you and Chilao. So who are you talking about, chuck?
By chuck
March 19, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this
Hey that last post got me rolling on the floor. YOU calling someone arrogant. What a maroon.
By Dogmatic
March 19, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this
Hey that last post got me rolling on the floor. YOU calling someone arrogant. What a maroon.
As always, you seem to have difficulty answering questions about your stupid beliefs, chuck. Why is that?
By JokesOn
March 19, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
Except you left out the possibility that those boulders fell into the canyon in the several thousand years that have passed SINCE the flood.
This has been proven. Look it up. The boulders would have different amounts water-erosion.
By Dogmatic
March 19, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this
This has been proven. Look it up. The boulders would have different amounts water-erosion.
Careful, JokesOn, don’t confuse the man with facts. The most accurate statement anyone can make regarding cosmology is that we simply don’t know how the Universe began. For me, that is the starting point. I’ve done my best to develop explanations that are, at the minimum, consistent with observed Scientific facts. On the other hand, you have folks like chuck who would rather wiggle and squirm around observed facts in an attempt to bolster a bunch of non-Biblical nonsense that some self-righteous preacher told him to believe. I guess it goes back to your earlier statement about some people having the inability to modify their positions over time due to unnecessary emotional investment in gobble-de-goop. In chucks’ case, I’m fairly certain what that emotional investment is: He can’t face the fear of death and the unknown, and yearns for some eternal guarantee of a heavenly afterlife which doesn’t exist.
By Dogmatic
March 19, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
Personally, I wouldn’t care what idiotic, unreasonable things folks like chuck want to believe about some undefined afterlife, but he and his fellow “Christian” brethren never seem satisfied to keep their eye on said afterlife. They consistently use the Bible to support institutionalized racism, institutionalized oppression of women, etc., to create a living hell for anyone who doesn’t toe the “Christian” line.
By JokesOn
March 19, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this
BTW, my wife’s minor is actually in GEOLOGY. She believes the Bible.
This is when I begin to loose my patience in trying to have a conversation with chuck. I believe chuck lies constantly on here. There is too much conflicting info. He states he has IQ of 149 or so, a history teacher, married to a geology minor, and has yet to show that he actually can talk about the subjects those disciplines would entail. The closest he can come is to cut/paste from some pseudio-science site.
This post has nothing to do with wanting to discredit him. I would like nothing more than to be able to have a conversation/debate with someone from the literalist group. I truly think he simply lies whenever he does not know how (I am stating that his ideas are not definitely wrong) to make his opinions match up with reality.
By JokesOn
March 19, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this
The arguement I have heard, from deeply religous people not secular, regarding god creating everything to look X number of years old is it is deceiving, and why would a (conscious) god do that? What sweat off his back would it be to create a universe that does evolve? He is outside of time anyways, so it is not like he would have to wait! Plus, as his humans realized the disconnect it would jeopardize their faith which is not smart for an omniscient god.
This could easily apply to the hated idea of evolving from common ancestor as apes. He simply waited for the organisms on earth to have the capacity for a soul.
By Truth
March 19, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this
Chuck has offered nothing but civil debate, but Dogmatic comes on with attack after attack. Then jokesOn who has actually been civil and logical cries out: “TO THE BANDWAGON!” and jumps at the chance to insult and attack.
Peter posted all about the good old days on here when people were kind and obedient to the women that dominated the forum. is this what you meant, peter? When conservatives were just simply attacked for their beliefs, no matter how civil they were?
I don’t believe what Chuck believes, but I do believe that he has the right to express his views without these stupid adolescent attacks.
Chuck is not relying on anything his wife said. It was just a benign side-point, but because he said that, it is now a reason for JokesOn to start the attacks and terminate the discussion.
And people say that conservatives are the problem with this forum. LOL.
By Truth
March 19, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this
Dogmatic
They consistently use the Bible to support institutionalized racism, institutionalized oppression of women, etc., to create a living hell for anyone who doesn’t toe the “Christian” line.
So you consider civil debate a living hell. I see why you would believe that.
If that wasn’t the living hell you are talking out, please enlighten us all how a stranger on a blog can make your life a living hell.
By JokesOn
March 19, 2008 5:08 PM | Link to this
Then jokesOn who has actually been civil and logical cries out: “TO THE BANDWAGON!” and jumps at the chance to insult and attack.
If you read the post I was actually polite. You view of “attack” is unbelievably broad.
but I do believe that he has the right to express his views without these stupid adolescent attacks.
That is where you are wrong. Anyone can express their view, but you better also be ready to back it up if you put it out there.
What you are saying is that certain people can express their beliefs but others cannot.
By JokesOn
March 19, 2008 5:12 PM | Link to this
If that wasn’t the living hell you are talking out, please enlighten us all how a stranger on a blog can make your life a living hell.
They (not chuck on the blog) consistently use the Bible to support institutionalized racism (kinda hellish, no?), institutionalized oppression of women (kinda hellish, no?), etc., to create a living hell for anyone who doesn’t toe the “Christian” line.
It is called reading, there were not any spelling errors to blame.
By Truth
March 19, 2008 5:43 PM | Link to this
jokesOn
No. You weren’t even addressing his beliefs. You were attacking him for saying that his wife was a Christian and a Geology minor. You wrote this:
This is when I begin to loose my patience in trying to have a conversation with chuck. I believe chuck lies constantly on here. There is too much conflicting info. He states he has IQ of 149 or so, a history teacher, married to a geology minor, and has yet to show that he actually can talk about the subjects those disciplines would entail
I really hope you are not saying that anyone knowing anything about geology could not possibly be a Christian. And he wasn’t even discussing formal history. He was just discussing a simple experiment. I thought you gave him a good answer, which I agree with. I thought you were staging a good argument until Dogmatic just had to keep calling him names.
I think Dogmatic is one of those sacred women that everyone seems to miss.
By chuck
March 20, 2008 8:05 AM | Link to this
Just so you know Jokeson. I’ve been participating in this blog for over 4 years. This is not the first time this topic has been brought up. I have pretty much written a treatise on it through the years. If you would like to read those posts, there are probably 40 or more detailed explanations of all of these issues that I have written in the past 4 years. I have sparred over these issues with people who actually HAVE A CLUE what they are talking about. I don’t have the time or the energy to waste going back through and rehashing these ideas with someone who thinks that something that happened thousands (or in your opinion, millions) of years ago can be “PROVEN” by science. Go back and actually learn about the scientific method and THEN talk to me. When you learn the difference between “LOOSE” and “LOSE”, THEN come talk to me. I don’t mean to demean you, in spite of the fact that you have called me a liar and numerous other names, but when it comes to REAL debate of these issues you need to go down and face some high school pitching before you make it up here to the big leagues.
By JokesOn
March 20, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
You were attacking him for saying that his wife was a Christian and a Geology minor.
Nope. His wife being a “Geology minor” was one item in a list of things that does not match up with the basic info we were hashing out. The word “christian” is not even in my post, so how you made that connection confuses me.
I really hope you are not saying that anyone knowing anything about geology could not possibly be a Christian.
See above and my post. No mention of this is made nor implied.
By GoodOne
March 20, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
I think Dogmatic is one of those sacred women that everyone seems to miss
Dogmatic, oh thou Sacred Woman, we miss you!
By Dogmatic
March 20, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
I don’t have the time or the energy to waste going back through and rehashing these ideas with someone who thinks that something that happened thousands (or in your opinion, millions) of years ago can be “PROVEN” by science. Go back and actually learn about the scientific method and THEN talk to me. When you learn the difference between “LOOSE” and “LOSE”, THEN come talk to me. I don’t mean to demean you, in spite of the fact that you have called me a liar and numerous other names, but when it comes to REAL debate of these issues you need to go down and face some high school pitching before you make it up here to the big leagues.
You know what’s so funny, JokesOn—Every time I’ve tried to get Mr Genius chuckles to defend his stupid, malevolent ideas, he keeps falling back on “I’ve already explained myself 4 years ago, so I’m not going to repeat myself.” F U D-wad.
Tell us again what a great Christian you are. You couldn’t handle a debate with me, so you published my home address.
By JokesOn
March 20, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this
Just so you know Jokeson. I’ve been participating in this blog for over 4 years.
I know from personal experience.
I have pretty much written a treatise on it through the years.
See. More lying. You had cut/pasted text over the years. I read them.
I have sparred over these issues with people who actually HAVE A CLUE what they are talking about.
Yet you are unable to see that your simple experiment actually proves you wrong. It did not take me but 10 seconds to think of all the huge differences in the outcomes of your model, like the turns would be significantly different especially when the water hit the sand bed and made a 90 degree right turn. The momentum of your model would have flooded that whole region.
When you learn the difference between “LOOSE” and “LOSE”, THEN come talk to me. I don’t mean to demean you, in spite of the fact that you have called me a liar and numerous other names, but when it comes to REAL debate of these issues you need to go down and face some high school pitching before you make it up here to the big leagues.
Back to the typos: the last defense of someone that has no valid point. Again, your assertions are easily dismissed with very little thought, not really the brain power of a 149 iq guy I would expect.
TOJ, I thought you were staging a good argument until Dogmatic just had to keep calling him names.
Your statement makes my argument hinge on another persons post….not really relevant, no?
By JokesOn
March 20, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
Dog,
“I’ve already explained myself 4 years ago, so I’m not going to repeat myself.”
I was actually here then and they were cut/paste jobs that everyone called him on for plagiarizing.
I think Dogmatic is one of those sacred women that everyone seems to miss.
Do you understand this the same as I? TOJ believes you are a woman that people liked on here? I thought it was just a quick sentence that should have read: I think Dogmatic is (the) one (who) scared women that everyone seems to miss.
By Dogmatic
March 20, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
For me, in addition to coming to W2W to blow off steam, I honestly hoped to learn more about the point of view of some of the folks who I found myself disliking over the years: specifically far-left political wackos and far-right religious wackos. In the end, I’ve found that my intuition over the years was correct: both groups consist of losers who can’t defend their POVs. chuck, for example, claims that the Bible is his guide to life. Time and time again, however, he’s proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has no idea what the document says regarding everything from false celebrations of Easter, Christmas, Sunday worship, the proper use of prayer, and even more sinister, the ability to understand the proper place of MYTH in our understanding of the world. Rather than trying to integrate his mythological beliefs with the real world, chuckles consistently does the opposite: he tries to distort FACTS so that they match up with his pre-determined fantasies. I’m not sure what term from psychology applies here, but my gut feeling is anyone who ignores FACTS over FANTASY has some serious problems. Jerk-offs like him have no problem at all rationalizing their own evil behaviors, because, after all, God is on “Their Side”. That’s the same rationale the Muslim extremists are using today, and has been the same excuse that all the pieces of sh-it who have persecuted women and minorities over the years fall back on.
By Dogmatic
March 20, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this
Now, as far as the far-left wackos like lozen, I’m not going to be as harsh. You guys are definitely cry-babies who run at the first sign of trouble, but at least you don’t have the self-righteous malevolence that pieces of sh-it like chuckles have. Sure, you talk a mean game about eating sh-it and dying, but, in the end you’re to cowardly to do anything about it other than constantly complain to the ajc about all the mean bloggers who hurt your feelings.
Possible exception to this assessment is that poster “peter” who tried unsuccessfully yesterday to get Monica to reveal the name of her church for who knows what purpose. Care to explain yourself, peter, you F-ing crybaby/weirdo?
By Truth
March 20, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
JokesOn & Dogmatic
They (not chuck on the blog) consistently use the Bible to support institutionalized racism (kinda hellish, no?), institutionalized oppression of women (kinda hellish, no?), etc., to create a living hell for anyone who doesn’t toe the “Christian” line.
Normally I would demand that you tell me which Christian Church promotes institutionalized raccsim and sexism, but I have to agree with you. There are churches who definitely promote racsim and sexism.
But the question is: Are you ready to stand side by side with Republicans and reject the presidential candidate who has exposed his small children and attended such a racist and sexist church for over 20 years?
Are you ready to vote AGAINST Barrack Obama?
Or are the two of you just spouting off again? Put your money where your mouth is, put aside that hypocrisy and do something about such a church. REJECT THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THAT SUPPORTS SUCH A RACIST AND SEXIST CHURCH.
By Dogmatic
March 20, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
Do you understand this the same as I? TOJ believes you are a woman that people liked on here?
JokesOn—It’s obvious that TOJ is, shall we say, a tad out of touch with reality, who has a permanent chip on his shoulder toward anyone who he thinks is “liberal”. Why he assumes that anyone who opposes that cancerous malignancy known as chuck is automatically a liberal woman is beyond me, of course. Personally, I put him more in the category of the far-left ravers on here that he likes to mouth off about: loud and proud, but ultimately harmless. I hope for his sake he learns a little more about self-assessment. Like chuckles, his stories about his qualifications seem inconsistent to me.
By Hypocrasy Test
March 20, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this
All these attacks against Christian Churches for all these months. No one has ever been able to point out the kind of church that liberals always whine about.
WELL, WE FOUND ONE!!!!
So will the big mouthed liberals actually denounce Obama or will they prove what incredible HYPOCRITES they are?
By JokesOn
March 20, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
Are you ready to vote AGAINST Barrack Obama?
I am actually not totally set on him and do consider macain. IF there is a means to know that what he experienced is actually a racist and sexist church in its general message, and he adheres to those beliefs I would dismiss him. Once again, you clump all “liberals” together. I am currently a liberal because I do not agree with the polarization the GOP currently (but is now coming to a halt).
The same goes for Christianity. I actually attend a non-denominational church about 2-3 time a month and find the bible enlightening as well as open minded debate. I simply will not, with all things, put myself in some absolute box that defines me. I am more complex than that, as I think all people are. Some people are too uncomfortable having too many choices and hide in their chosen box.
By Hypocrasy Test
March 20, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
Dogmatic
How about it, big mouth? Ready to reject Obama and his racist and sexist church or will you prove what a hypocrite you are.
For once in your pathetic life, take a real stand against what you love to preach against.
By Dogmatic
March 20, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
Well, bloggers, I don’t have much more time to waste here, so please line up your best shots against me. I’m ready to duke it out this AM before I have to go back to being a “nice guy” tomorrow. Any takers??
By Truth
March 20, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
JokesOn
Totally set on him? No way, pal. All this preaching from all these weeks and you can’t take the kind of definite stand that you were sure ready to take against Christians like you took yesterday. But now that a Democrat attends such a racist and sexist church, you are not “totally set on him.”
Just what I expected. YOU are a hypocrite.
Prove me wrong. Denounce Barrack Obama and anyone who would support him.
You can try to rationalize all you want but this is the cross roads. You can continue to just wag your finger and preach at other people or you can actually stand behind what you have preached for months.
Your choice: hypocrite or not.
By Dogmatic
March 20, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
How about it, big mouth? Ready to reject Obama and his racist and sexist church or will you prove what a hypocrite you are.
Hey, Other Hypocrisy Test: I’m the most conservative poster on the board here and the first one to denounce Obama as a racist a few weeks ago. Can you prove to me that you don’t have such a chip on your shoulders against “liberals” that you can’t even recognize a true conservative when you meet one? I think your error, once again, is assuming that anyone who speaks out against the cancerous malignancy known as chuck MUST be a liberal woman. Hint: I thanked you profusely for your photo advice yesterday.
The greatest measure of intelligence, Other Hypocrisy Test (check out the proper spelling), lies in the ability to examine our core assumptions, and modify when necessary. Are you able to do that?
By Truth
March 20, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
Dogmatic
Well, bloggers, I don’t have much more time to waste here, so please line up your best shots against me.
Ha, ha, ha, ha.
Run away you small minded hypocrite. Better stay away until November.
Joke, I guess you are on your own. LOL
By Dogmatic
March 20, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
Time is short, so one last call to the sideline snipers to come out and “play” this AM: Bring on your best shots, will ya’?
By JokesOn
March 20, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
I’m ready to duke it out this AM before I have to go back to being a “nice guy” tomorrow. Any takers??
Hehe. A little fiery today?
By Truth
March 20, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
jokesON
IF there is a means to know that what he experienced is actually a racist and sexist church in its general message,
A little group of facts for you pal:
FOX News broke the general story against Rev. Wright over a year ago, but no one in the main stream would touch it. A reporter for ABC ordered a group of DVDs from Wright’s church. It was those DVDs that had the commenst about God damn America and the US KKK of A.
The church includes that kind of racism in the material it sends out as PART OF IT”S MESSAGE. There is no denying that the church is exactly what FOX said it was: a racist church that supports Islam and Islam’s treatment of women.
Wiggle all you want. You do have a choice.
By Truth
March 20, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
Dogmatic
Sure you are. LOL!!!
I could tell how conservative you are by the way you attack conservatives.
LOL!! What an idiot.
They scatter like c** roaches.
By sound of silence
March 20, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this
<crickets chirping>
By Truth
March 20, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
Dogmatic
Yes, I thought you were a nagging old woman.
I wonder why?
LOL!!!
By Dogmatic
March 20, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
Hehe. A little fiery today?
Hehe. Too bad you’re not a good-looking woman, JokesOn. ; > }
By The Sound of Hypocrasy
March 20, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
And they all run away.
LOL!!!
By Dogmatic
March 20, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
I could tell how conservative you are by the way you attack conservatives.
Exactly which conservative have I attacked? If you think chukles is a conservative, think again. There;s a big difference between conservatives and fascists.
Great! I see the first sideline sniper has come out of the woodwork. Is that your best shot?
By JokesOn
March 20, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this
Totally set on him? No way, pal. All this preaching from all these weeks and you can’t take the kind of definite stand that you were sure ready to take against Christians like you took yesterday. But now that a Democrat attends such a racist and sexist church, you are not “totally set on him.”
As I stated, unlike you I do not adhere to knee jerk reactions. I have read very little and been busy as heck for 2 months now on a major project. When I read up on it I will make a decision based on real info and not a single bloggers post. Your position is (wrongly) derived from black/white thinking.
definite stand that you were sure ready to take against Christians
More black/white bs - I have and took no “definite all inclusive stand” like you do. But yours is the way of s simpleton, no? To color everyones perspective by the absolute tint of your looking glass. Projection at its finest.
Just what I expected. YOU are a hypocrite. And more black/white bs based on not liking the fact that I have not totally decided. Gray area really scares the heck out of you.
Prove me wrong. Denounce Barrack Obama and anyone who would support him.
How about this: After I read up and make a decision I will gladly prove you wrong by either showing he does not adhere to those ideologies or will denounce him because he does, m’kay?
You can try to rationalize all you want but this is the cross roads. You can continue to just wag your finger and preach at other people or you can actually stand behind what you have preached for months. Different subjects that are not contingent on each other. I will stand and consider the crossroads while you and chuck speed on through abiding to dogma without considering the crossroads.
Your choice: hypocrite or not.Back to more b/w bs that exists only in your head.
By Dogmatic
March 20, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
Gotta run for a while, but I’m really hoping to hear from more of the sideline snipers today like “the sound of silence” and CopyLeft. And where is that cockroach named “peter” who tried to dupe Monica. Show your face, you F-ing piece of sh-it.
By JokesOn
March 20, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
Yes, I thought you were a nagging old woman. I wonder why?
Maybe because you have very limited skill in reasoning? You have made multiple errors in who posted what and who is who over your time posting here. There were times that I would have put money on it that you were on crack or suffering from delusions.
By The Sound of Hypocrasy
March 20, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
JokesOn
Nice try, hypocrite.
Take a stand.
Be a man.
By JokesOn
March 20, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
I could tell how conservative you are by the way you attack conservatives.
If you want to fall under our label you must be compliant in backing up all members of that group! More militant binary bs.
You are for us or against us!
You have no idea how narrow minded you sound, do you?
By The Sound of Hypocrasy
March 20, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
Dogmatic
I thought you were running away.
You still here?
By JokesOn
March 20, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
Be a man.
I am not the one jumping behind various fake names because of being discredited so often…
By Life Is Good
March 20, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
All those liberals that have whined about the sins of the Christian Church are now in the cross hairs. Will they support a man who has exposed his own children to to a racist preacher who would make David Duke seem timid. A man who has supported and attended a church who actually sells some of the most racist and anti-American garbage as part of their message?
Maybe that is where all the liberals have gone. They know that they can’t whine about Christians any more so they just stay away.
it looks like …
The Chickens …
Have come home …
To roost!
Have a good day, hypocrites.
By CanYouHearMeNow?
March 20, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
NOPE
By peter
March 20, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
Monica, please let me assure you I wasn’t trying to find out the name of your church. I was interested in whether you are Southern Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah’s Witness, or some other christian sect. There’s a great deal of difference between the sects in the way they view the Bible and interpret the Bible. There is no possibility of real communication anymore on this site. It has become a microcosm of the polarization in the US today with simplistic stereotyping of anyone who disagrees with these simple minded folks. This is a great detriment to our country, to all of us who live here, and to any hope of understanding and working with each other to correct our problems. How can we expect anything better from Washington than what we do? I truly fear for the future of the USA.
By Gandalf, the Grey
March 20, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
“G#@ DAMN the KKK of A!” what a moron! And if my preacher started talking racist drivel like this, I would first stand up and ask him “WTF are you talking about?” then walk out the door.
NO MORALE COURAGE…No hand over heart when the Pledge is being recited, no lapel pin. If I hated my country I would do those things.. You people get what/who you deserve… OBAMA is so different…that’s what the said about HITLER too…
OMG that Michelle is a piece of work too, God Help us all.
By Lyrazel
March 20, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
All those liberals that have whined about the sins of the Christian Church are now in the cross hairs. Will they support a man who has exposed his own children to to a racist preacher Actually exposing children to religious racist preachers is an American tradition. One only needs to look back to pulpit sermons say 3 years ago to find a plethora of hate being broadcast. Or perhaps go back 50 years…or 200 years and the hate continues unchecked. Indeed one only needs to read the sermons of Cotton Mather one of our Puritan American preachers to find out how racist America has always been. Same as it ever was.
By Dogmatic
March 20, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
Indeed one only needs to read the sermons of Cotton Mather one of our Puritan American preachers to find out how racist America has always been. Same as it ever was.
Right on the money again, Lyrazel.
Good luck to all, except for chuck, the fascist.
By chuck
March 20, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this
doggiebag, you should really start taking your meds again. I gotta say though Bruce Myers, you are much funnier when you are off of them.
By Scalia
March 20, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this
It is funny that the person that is calling somebody racist is the same one that always talks about black people on this blog. And then he claims he wants to be educated on black people.
And nobody ever says anything when a preacher says that homosexuals will burn in a pool of fire. That’s okay.
By Wendy Weinbaum
March 20, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this
As a Jewess in the US, may I remind everyone that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk? And that America wasn’t won with a registered gun? That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!
By Ain'tDatTheTruth
March 20, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this
Preach, Wendy, Preach. (or whatever they do in synagogue)
That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!
By Snidely Buttright
March 20, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this
may I remind everyone that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS
as are curious 5-yr-olds
— all REAL Americans
“REAL” as defined by YOU, Wendy? A woman who claims her religious identity BEFORE her American identity? I think it’s really odd that YOU know more about what it means to be a “REAL” American than did the men who founded this nation; you know, the ones who actually wrote the “right to bear arms” as the SECOND amendment?
By Gandalf, the Grey
March 20, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this
REAL as in those that believe in the Constitution and that included snippet called the Bill of Rights..any others need not consider themselves REAL.
P.S. Keep your 5 year olds away from firearms, JACK@SS!
By Snidely Buttright
March 20, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this
Oh, Gandalf — it’s you! I didn’t know you’d changed your name (again).
Or maybe you’re like “Crescan the Magnificent”, what with your amazing ability to read Wendy’s mind.
REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!
You do realize that no matter how pi$$y you get, the SECOND amendment will never ever come before the FIRST Amendment, right jerkwad?
REAL as in those that believe in the Constitution and that included snippet called the Bill of Rights…any others need not consider themselves REAL.
If that’s true, how was it legal for Dubya to run for President? HE obviously doesn’t believe in the Bill of Rights (or at least not in the First or Fourth Amendments).
By HeeHaw
March 20, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this
Gandalf ran away and hide from Snidely’s Superior Logic?
You WON, you WON, Snidely.
By Time For REAL Change
March 20, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this
Wow. So all you conservatives do is complain about a guy who was president 8 years ago? What a joke. You people don’t even have a leg to stand on. Look what a Republican President and Congress have done to the wealth and health of this country. You should be ashamed.
And as for locally grown produce… if gas prices continue to climb like they are (thanks to our president and his love for big oil companies making record profits yet still keeping a place on the corporate welfare rolls) we will all be buying local produce because the cost of shipping it to us from corporate farms will get too much for most middle class and lower income families.
By Truth S*CKS
March 20, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
Hey TRUTH!!! You are such an idiot… you think FOX News is NOT part of the mainstream media? You’ll believe anythign the far right tells you because you are too stupid to think for yourself. Bush lies adn you buy.
What a loser!
By Gandalf, the Grey
March 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this
Same Handle, same sunny disposition!!
“You do realize that no matter how pi$$y you get, the SECOND amendment will never ever come before the FIRST Amendment, right jerkwad?”
Never knew there was an order of precedence when it came to rights, as far as I can tell, the only way to ensure the rights guarnteed First Amendment is to back it with the ability to revolt with firearms. I truly believe that you should be able to have an M1A2 Heavy Abrams Main Battle Tank in your driveway, if you are able to maintain it.
“If that’s true, how was it legal for Dubya to run for President? HE obviously doesn’t believe in the Bill of Rights (or at least not in the First or Fourth Amendments).”
Nothing in the prerequisites to hold the office does it say you have to be a REAL American let me quote the prerequisites for you as you may not have a copy of the Constitution of these United States handy “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ” It will be up to history to decide whether or no he committed any of you so called violations of the 1st and 4th amendment, not you or I.
HEE HAW…First, learn to spell, Second, STFU!
By NetBanker
March 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this
Waaaay over my head with work this week for a client getting ready to upgrade a system, but I wanted to respond to this question from Doc…”Any particular reason you’re trying to politicize this issue??” What about my posing a question asking for someone’s opinion as a religious person (self-proclaimed christian in this case) politicizes the issue? Yes, I know that Chuck is conservative so I can guess at his position from that perspective based on his other comments in support of war activities. My inquiry was to see how chuck may or may not reconcile activities that, IMO, would be in opposition to the teachings of Jesus. Doc, you should know me well enough to know that I wouldn’t simply digest and accept the liberal/conservative crap that each side pumps out.
It stands to reason that He would create the Earth in a mature stage (with the canyons already carved) as well, thereby making a 6,000 year old planet appear to be much older. ~waving~ Hey Monica! Just like in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy where they visit the planet factory.
Chuck…thanks for the honest response. Regarding your theory of a lot of water over a short period of time…chat with your wife. If I recall from my college geology class there are distinct differences in the effects that one would see from slow erosion vs a high-volume water event. I can’t recall any specifics. And a small reminder that the canyon was form by an earthquake with erosion occuring after formation so it’s not quite like waiting for a stream to carve away at a flat plain until one has a canyon system like The Grand Canyon.
OK…back to my next conference call!! Happy Day to all!
By NetBanker
March 20, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this
Okay, that last link didn’t work! Just go to AJC Homepage and see the 47,000 square foot mansion for sale. Geesh! Monica…maybe God is trying to tell you to start a church in the 47,000 sq ft. mansion. LOL! Who on God’s green earth needs that much space on a regular basis?
By HsvsRsvsesv
March 20, 2008 7:13 PM | Link to this
[URL=http://groups.google.com/group/buy-rx-viagra-online]viagra[/URL]
By lozen
March 21, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
Ten thoughts for 2008
Number 10 Life is sexually transmitted.
Number 9 Good health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.
Number 8 Men have two emotions: Hungry and Horny. If you see him without an erection, make him a sandwich.
Number 7 Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and they won’t bother you for weeks.
Number 6 Some people are like a Slinky … not really good for anything, but you still can’t help but smile when you shove them down the stairs.
Number 5 Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals, dying of nothing.
Number 4 All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.
Number 3 Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200.00 and a substantial tax cut saves you $0.30?
Number 2 In the ‘60’s, people took acid to make the world weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.
AND THE NUMBER 1 THOUGHT FOR 2008: We know exactly where one cow with Mad-cow-disease is located among the millions and millions of cows in America , but we haven’t got a clue as to where thousands of illegal immigrants and terrorists are located. Maybe we should put the Department of Agriculture in charge of immigration.
And the BONUS thought for today “Life is like a jar of jalapeños .. What you do today might burn your a* tomorrow”.
By steve
March 21, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this
The environment is the real beneficiary of organic farming practices. While we ingest trace amounts of fertilizers and persicedes, large quantities are dumped in our rivers and lakes. They have completely destroyed some auquatic ecosystems and have affected animals that use the waterways for food and drink. Contrary to the Kool-Aid Shaunti has been drinking, organic farming practices, fertilizers and pesticides are just as effective as the ones made by the chemical companies. The problem is that the chemical companies don’t profit from them so politics come into play. although it pollutes in a different way, agribusiness is one of the top sources of pollution in the US along with cars and power plants.
By Truth
March 21, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel
Actually exposing children to religious racist preachers is an American tradition.
Hey. Find a calender. Check the year. Wake up.
One only needs to look back to pulpit sermons say 3 years ago to find a plethora of hate being broadcast.
Hey. Find a calender. Check the year. Wake up.
Or perhaps go back 50 years…or 200 years and the hate continues unchecked.
Hey. Find a calender. Check the year. Wake up.
Indeed one only needs to read the sermons of Cotton Mather one of our Puritan American preachers to find out how racist America has always been. Same as it ever was.
Hey. Cotten’s dead. So is your logic.
The KKK is still active. But if McCain exposed his children to the teachings of the KKK, he would never have a prayer to become president. Why should Obama be given a break for exposing his children to a racist pastor for their entire life?
Now what I expect is a lot of personal insults and I certainly don’t expect to be presented any kind of logical argument.
Can anyone prove me wrong?
By Truth
March 21, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
steve
Contrary to the Kool-Aid Shaunti has been drinking, organic farming practices, fertilizers and pesticides are just as effective as the ones made by the chemical companies.
And you know this because:
A. You are a farmer.
B. You are a county extension agent
C. It was right there on the Al Gore web site.
By JokesOn
March 21, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
Truth,
Can you point me to the proof behind this statement? “Will they support a man who has exposed his own children to to a racist preacher who would make David Duke seem timid. A man who has supported and attended a church who actually sells some of the most racist and anti-American garbage as part of their message?”
I cannot view video at work, so will have to check that out tonight.
As for the web, all I am finding is how FOX News lied about the fliers being from the church: During the March 17 edition of Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama’s church “deleted the Black Value System from [its] website,”
And: As Media Matters for America has noted, Hannity has in the past falsely asserted that Trinity is “segregated”; in fact, the church is attended by people of other races, and visitors attest to having been warmly welcomed.
And: HANNITY: And by the way, I want to make — I want to make one — this was handed out, and our producers got it ‘cause they were on the scene this weekend. I’m not sure if it was associated with the church
Trying to keep an open mind here, but it looking like your Fox “news” program has no problem with lying. Could that be the problem?
Any links to clear this up are welcome.
By Truth
March 21, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
So you think that Hannity and Combs is a news program? It is a political opinion show. You seem very quick to want to call conservatives liars. I wouldn’t believe Media matters if they said the sky was blue.
If you can present proof FOX News intentionally lied that is NOT from just another slobbering liberal site, I will consider it.
But none of this diminishes the dishonesty of Barack Obama. He is very slick. This is an example. At one point Obama said that in conversations with Wright, he had never heard Wright say anything derogatory about any minority and always addresses White people with respect. The non-political correct translation of that statement is: he is constantly saying derogatory things about white people.
Rev. Wright spoke at a recent event at Morehouse. I heard him speak. His speech was the last in a three day series of speeches which honored a brilliant Egyptologist who had recently passed away. For two and a half days, I heard speaker after speaker honoring the educator, honoring his work and honoring the advances he had made.
Then Wright got up. By the time he had gotten 10 minutes into his speech, most of the attendees, both Black and White were walking out. it was a constant diatribe about evil white people. I didn’t even know who the bigot was until the guy I had attended the meetings with called yesterday and told me.
If Barrack Obama has an ounce of respect for this bigot, he should be soundly defeated sending a message that racist and bigots are not welcome here, and the people who support them will not be excused for any reason.
By Truth
March 21, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
And no. I will not try to prove to you that a man that attended a church for 20 years exposed his children to the teachings of that church. If that needs to be proven to you, after Obama himself said that his children were actually baptized by that bigot, there is no proof that you will accept.
By JokesOn
March 21, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
And no. I will not try to prove to you that a man that attended a church for 20 years exposed his children to the teachings of that church.
You have issues with reading? I did not ask for proof that he attended. I politely asked if you could point to any source that documents your claim of it being a racist church that is “worse than david duke.”
You do not get it. I am asking for info and that in itself gets you defensive. You should work on not freaking out.
If you have any links to how this church has operated to the degree that your state, send them on, otherwise you are just spreading more bs lies. But I guess if no one can prove you lied intentionaly, it is ok.
And seeing as you get your “news” (I know it is not a real news program, but a propaganda show, hence why it is in quotes;) from an opinion show, i doubt you have anything to offer.
By Truth
March 21, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
Have a good weekend. I pulled an all nighter last night and just wanted to stay up long enough to watch the Tennessee game.
I’m hitting the sack. I’ll check the sight tonight if you want to answer my post.
Maybe next week they will give us a good topic.
And pal, let’s be the example next week. No attacks, just politics. Deal?
By JokesOn
March 21, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this
And pal, let’s be the example next week. No attacks, just politics. Deal?
Absolutely. Open minds across the board too?
I think that if we separate the “I do not like…” from the “this is unarguably wrong” (feelings & facts) while respecting that both are valid, just in different ways, it will clear itself up.
Take it easy.
By lozen
March 21, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this
Hey truth, exactly when was that conference? Egyptology is a real avocation of mine and I didn’t hear anything about it. I can’t find anything about it on the Morehouse site either.
By Eugene
March 21, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this
What does this mean? http://overflowarea.com/TheVision.pdf
By Gandalf, the Grey
March 21, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
I will not attack until next week. Happy post Vernal equinox weekend to all, (damn, I can’t not attack! Sorry!) except all you Islamofacists, scientologists and Mormons. To this group I hope you have a weekend filled with the Karma you sow being returned 4 foal, actually I wish that on all of you. Peace out, Jesus Rules BABY!
By JokesOn
March 21, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this
Gandalf, the Grey
damn, I can’t not attack! Sorry!
We know. Just talking about the adults here, not the fantasy characters that cannot evolve past the first novel.
By becky
March 21, 2008 11:16 PM | Link to this
http://basevirus.com/deas/6/
By leona
March 22, 2008 12:38 AM | Link to this
http://basevirus.com/deas/6/