Thinking Right

By Redneck Convert

February 14, 2009 8:22 AM | Link to this

Well, us rednecks are having a awful time. Right about the time we want women to have every baby, some woman comes along and has too many of them, and the wrong way, too. No husband and she didn’t even do You Know What to get them. So we’re stuck with paying welfare to support them.

I’m awful glad Wooten brought up how many women are having babys without husbands. It’s only the 15th time, and if we keep this quiet about the problem pretty soon we’ll be stuck with millions of welfare babys to support.

So I’ll repeat again my fix for the problem. We put the Dr. that helped make the babys on the chain gang. We make the guy that donated the sperm join him. We snip them both. And we cut out all welfare for this woman’s babys. She made a Bad Choice and needs to take Personal Responsibility. After she watches her babys starve to death she won’t have more of them. Whatever happens, we need to make sure there’s no abortions.

Well, it looks like rain so golf down at Countryland Golf Club is probly out for today. I guess I’ll have to settle for watching bowling on TV. Have a good Valentine’s Day everybody. I hope every woman on this blog finds some man to be good to her. Even Sister Dusty. Some men are so desperate they’ll try to sweeten up just about any woman.

By GayGrayGeek

February 14, 2009 8:30 AM | Link to this

Jim, the problem is with you Wingnuts and your

LOVE THE FOETUS, HATE THE CHILD

attitude - that a “child’s life is precious”, as long as it’s still in the womb. As soon as it’s outside its mother’s body, however, according to you Wingnuts any misfortune is completely the child’s fault for being born to the wrong parent(s).

By catlady

February 14, 2009 8:45 AM | Link to this

I agree with your observations that we lack committment to protecting our children. I see it every day, as a teacher. I would put our unwanted population at our school at 20%, at least, and our neglected population at 50%, at least. Pretty sad for a country that “loves children”, huh?

It can be pretty subtle: a third grade girl whose clothes purchased by her parents, whose makeup and jewelry purchased by her parents make her look like a streetwalker. Kids who never go outside, parked in front of the Nintendo/Tv.

It can be more obvious: the number of children being raised by someone other than at least ONE parent. A parent who REFUSES to sign a child’s agenda indicating that she has looked over what he has been studying. A parent who quits/forgets/”cannot afford” to give a child needed medication (but still buys ciggarretts). Kids who come to school stinking of marijuana their parents have smoked in the car.

Kids who tell of their mother letting a man sleep at their house in exchange for food, after mama got tired of waiting for free food at the food bank.

I don’t think the general public has ANY IDEA. And DFCS only intervenes in the most egrigious cases—certainly none of the above.

We have to design policies that reinforce responsibility and fail to reward irresponsibility. That grab the parent by the neck (or lower) without further hurting the children. A lot of things I can think of would require the parent to think before the child is conceived, such as: a limit on all citizens of tax deduction for no more than 2 kids, food stamps/welfare/ housing for no more than 2 kids, no free lunch for more than 2 kids, no medicaid or peachcare for more than 2 kids (and pay Peachcare starting at birth, instead of the current age 6. Limit benefits to both to comparable to state workers benefits, and require a minimal copay). Before ANY benefits are paid the father has to be named and located. Medicaid births have to be repaid ($2 per week if necessary). Although I am pretty liberal, I would advocate for sterilizing women after the second Medicaid birth. Jailing of parents for child neglect and endangerment. Sometimes you have to make it worth their while for people to do the decent thing. We used to have family and neighborhood structures that did that, but we have had too many generations that have relied on the taxpayer.

Right now, there is a pervasive culture that the government will bail us out if we get in over our heads. We see it at every level, not just the poor.

The Welfare Responsibility Act was a step in the right direction, in that it failed to reward continued irresponsibility. Taking care of your children is a responsibility, not a luxury. We have to come up with ideas that reinforce that, and some of the programs may cost money to put in place. Are you comfortable with that?

By catlady

February 14, 2009 8:56 AM | Link to this

I would also posit that the doctor committed medical malpractice, and his malpractice insurance and all his possessions and property should be confiscated. NOT for the children, for whom the government will provide, but on behalf of the taxpayers, who will be providing the MILLIONS of dollars needed for these childen. I also think the mother’s parental rights should be terminated, and mentally healthy, financially stable homes found for the children. Finally, if the husband or friend was a willing sperm donor, he should be required to pay support to the adopting families.

It should be abundantly clear to doctors who do similar procedures that they will be financially liable to the state if the children born end up being supported by the state.

Children (now and in the future) deserve better than this unholy debacle.

Anyone who donates to this mother should have their head examined. Any business should be publicly shamed. She obviously cannot be trusted to use resources wisely. Pity the children? Yes—get them out of there!

By Goober

February 14, 2009 9:15 AM | Link to this

Policies and programs seldom help after the child is born. They are a feel-good way to think we are righting a wrong, but most of the children will still be stuck in their situation with little oversight, waiting to become a statistic. We blame parents, education, poverty mental illness, drugs and assisting doctors after the fact, but have no control before it. So much is controlled by permits and licenses to make us play by the rules, I wonder if that’s the solution we come up with. Catlady has some good ideas too.

By P. Vintzgau

February 14, 2009 9:26 AM | Link to this

HOW can a sperm donor KNOW the children he assists in being conceived will SUFFER… ?? If the STATE has condoned the conditions (fair play) and rules of the CONCEPTION games.
The STATE has sanctioned this behavior by giving women all the choices after the sex act, or by clinically circumventing the man’s rights by using a “doctor”, who profits from the transaction… just like a sperm bank profits. These intermediaries don’t care about the child , only it’s “client” who is usually a woman. Even FROM the moment of having the right to choose to have casual sex, she is in control. Even if a man used a condom, she can retrieve the condom and with “help” get pregnant. And as DNA rules, with not intent, but method of conception trumping legal arguments. All a man can do is say NO. But that ‘s not the nature of that beast generally…….and women know it and so play the game of no strings attached to lure in the unknowing victim. If a woman chooses to carry a child to term , it should be her primary responsibility and the STATE should only sanction “minimum child support ” by an unwilling father. If cutting off the financial gains of flagrant irresponsibility were in effect…think of how many women would think twice about being so casual with their bodies…if there was NO real payoff from the choice to be promiscuous. Maybe these women might START to respect THEMSELVES and make a man marry them. If child support awards were based on marital status…….maybe more women would get married first. Think about IT.

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 9:34 AM | Link to this

You know, a lot of whiz-biz people voted for Obama and the Pelosipotuses. When you read stories like this, it just kinda makes you wonder if said business people regret what they did - putting a bunch of neo-communists in power…………

Congress trumps Obama, cuffs CEO bonuses Stimulus restricts compensation, erases massive Wall Street pay packages

By Tomoeh Murakami Tse updated 3:42 a.m. ET, Sat., Feb. 14, 2009 The Washington Post

WASHINGTON - The stimulus package Congress passed last night imposes new limits on executive compensation that could significantly curb multimillion dollar pay packages on Wall Street and goes much further than restrictions proposed by the Obama administration last week.

The bill, which President Obama is expected to sign into law next week, limits bonuses for executives at all financial institutions receiving government funds to no more than a third of their annual compensation. The bonuses must be paid in company stock that can be redeemed only when the government investment has been repaid. With the measure, lawmakers seek to address public outrage over extravagant Wall Street paydays even as taxpayers bail out the industry.

By version

February 14, 2009 9:35 AM | Link to this

I’m sure you felt it was too obvious to mention, but these arguments of course are part of the reason that equal marriage rights should be extended to same-sex couples. There are few things better for a child than two loving parents. Thank you.

By Chris Broe

February 14, 2009 9:42 AM | Link to this

The only octuplet who gave Wooten’s essay higher than a C+ was the third one from the left on their medical charts.

To open, Wooten failed to expand the context about population growth data which would have confirmed his plugged-in conclusion about that entirely different set of underwritten liabilities (in the form of fertility clinics and sperm donors). Wooten’s well-presented opening promised historical data about the #’s of b******* children over the generations since the Suffragettes. He disappoints the reader unless the aim was to know how government cheese should smell.

One out of three women get molested. There is a nuance of jurisprudence here. Is it sexual mores, or correctional underfunding that accompanies a rise in b******* children? Who pays for these children if they’re the living consequence of a felony that happened before they were born?

Wooten opens up too many arenas of implied liability whenever he writes. This piece is lame because he’s only good when he’s using hate and fear. He can only hack rushannity, no matter how he tries to modulate his voice.

Imagine the research it would take to connect this thread about single moms, rape victims and the spectrum of paternal profiles out there!

What is the historical data about a mother having 14 children?

And now, a moment with Andy Rooney: ” Why is it that babies come in packs of eight, and the buns-in-the-oven only have room for one or two? I always end up throwing out a couple of perfectly good babies. I waste a lot of bathwater that way, too, and that’s a crime during this drought….”

That’s it from sixty minutes see you next week.

Jklol

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 9:43 AM | Link to this

Yeah. Conservatives actually wanting people to be accountable for their actions, like this moron woman in LA, is just so mean spirited, isn’t it? Liberals are great at telling - no, FORCING - others what they should do with their money aren’t they. It’s like feeding a feral feline: the problem won’t go away by giving more of your property.

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman’s 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California’s taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a state already billions of dollars in the red.

Even before the 33-year-old single, unemployed mother gave birth to octuplets last month, she had been caring for her six other children with the help of $490 a month in food stamps, plus Social Security disability payments for three of the youngsters. The public aid will almost certainly be increased with the new additions to her family.

By Chris Broe

February 14, 2009 9:48 AM | Link to this

The only octuplet who gave Wooten’s essay higher than a C+ was the third one from the left on their medical charts.

To open, Wooten failed to expand the context about population growth data which would have confirmed his plugged-in conclusion about that entirely different set of underwritten liabilities (in the form of fertility clinics and sperm donors). Wooten’s well-presented opening promised historical data about the #’s of family-challenged children over the generations since the Suffragettes. He disappoints the reader unless the aim was to know how government cheese should smell.

One out of three women get molested. There is a nuance of jurisprudence here. Is it sexual mores, or correctional underfunding that accompanies a rise in un-familial children? Who pays for these children if they’re the living consequence of a felony that happened before they were born?

Wooten opens up too many arenas of implied liability whenever he writes. This piece is lame because he’s only good when he’s using hate and fear. He can only hack rushannity, no matter how he tries to modulate his voice.

Imagine the research it would take to connect this thread about single moms, rape victims and the spectrum of paternal profiles out there!

What is the historical data about a mother having 14 children?

And now, a moment with Andy Rooney: ” Why is it that babies come in packs of eight, and the buns-in-the-oven only have room for one or two? I always end up throwing out a couple of perfectly good babies. I waste a lot of bathwater that way, too, and that’s a crime during this drought….”

That’s it from sixty minutes see you next week.

Jklol

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 9:51 AM | Link to this

Anybody ever seen “The Root” link from the libs at PMSNBC? Sometimes there is good reading. Other times, there is material that you just can’t fathom being printed, let alone someone actually believing what they wrote. In the case of the latter, we have this gem from its editor at large, Henry Louis Gates Jr.

I mean, come ON now. Is this just another example of liberal revisionist history? I find this timely because next Monday is President’s Day. You have to Google the article because we can’t post links here (let me guess - some moonbat liberal POS abused this web blog).

Was Lincoln a Racist? The Great Emancipator was far more complicated than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

By: Henry Louis Gates Jr. | Posted: February 12, 2009 at 9:57 AM

One rainy Sunday afternoon in 1960, when I was 10 years old, I picked up a copy of our latest Reader’s Digest Condensed Books, and, thumbing through, stumbled upon Jim Bishop’s The Day Lincoln Was Shot, which had been published in 1955 and immediately became a runaway bestseller. It is an hour-by-hour chronicle of the last day of Lincoln’s life. I couldn’t help crying by the end.

But my engagement with the great leader turned to confusion when I was a senior in high school. I stumbled upon an essay that Lerone Bennett Jr. published in Ebony magazine entitled “Was Abe Lincoln a White Supremacist?” A year later, as an undergraduate at Yale, I read an even more troubling essay that W.E.B. Du Bois had published in The Crisis magazine in May 1922. Du Bois wrote that Lincoln was one huge jumble of contradictions: “he was big enough to be inconsistent—cruel, merciful; peace-loving, a fighter; despising Negroes and letting them fight and vote; protecting slavery and freeing slaves. He was a man—a big, inconsistent, brave man.”

By jm

February 14, 2009 9:59 AM | Link to this

Wow. At the end of the column I almost expected to find Mr. Wooten recommending that the US adopt China’s “one child” policy.

By Chris Broe

February 14, 2009 10:00 AM | Link to this

Why is it that babies come in packs of eight, when there’s really only room for one or two buns-in-the-oven? I always end up throwing away a couple of perfectly good babies. I waste more bathwater that way, and that’s a shame during this drought……

By Road Scholar

February 14, 2009 10:01 AM | Link to this

Jim, since you are so concerned, why don’t we just assign the children to your responsibility? Oh, on second thought, we may be charged with cruelity, since you will warp their sense of decision making.

As for those who want a test for parents before they are allowed to have children, that would eliminate many, if not most, of the people trying to have children. This may have also eliminated Wooten’s parents from having him, if we could look into the future before they were allowed to conceive.

The welfare of the children should be considered prior to conception, but rarely is. Just look at the teen pregnancy rates. But when people resort to artificial insemination, the doctor should provide conceling as to why, how many, and the parents ability to handle the resulting situation. Even in this case he planted 6 embryos and eight were born.

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 10:02 AM | Link to this

Yeah let’s give it up for Obama and the Pelisipotuses - thanks for that extra $13 a week that I’ll be getting. MAN. Let’s see, what can I do with an extra $56 a month. Uhm, go to Disney World? Buy a new Sony XBR8 46” LED LCD HDTV from Best Buy? Put a down payment on a new car? Pay off a credit card balance? Invest in gold? Buy some bonds? Open a Roth IRA? Buy a mutual fund? Put four new tires on my car? Upgrade my appliances? Gee - the possibilities for this economy.

NOT.

By Chris Broe

February 14, 2009 10:06 AM | Link to this

Good one jm! But can we trust that the one chinese baby is the one doing the crying? (or the pooping in the poo poo didies)?

Jklol

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 10:07 AM | Link to this

By jm February 14, 2009 9:59 AM “Wow. At the end of the column I almost expected to find Mr. Wooten recommending that the US adopt China’s “one child” policy.”

Hey bm - maybe you haven’t been keeping up with current events, but your hero, Pelosipotus, was about to implement birth control as part of our “stimulus” package because it would reduce the burden on the government. Those are her words, lib.

By Chris Broe

February 14, 2009 10:11 AM | Link to this

I just cant comment over at Bookman’s. I’m afraid of emoticons. Really! I’m frightened to death of them. Especially this one emoticon that looks like the face of a guy pretending that he’s not picking his butt. I cant take it. Bookman’s blog is filled with emoticons. You never know when the bad one will ambush you. Why doesn’t somebody do something?

I’ll never comment over at Bookmans. I want to, I’m just too afraid. Oh, if my fingers could type!!!

By Road Scholar

February 14, 2009 10:20 AM | Link to this

Vetted and the Republican Party: If you are so upset about the “meager” tax refunds, and not limiting the stimulus to tax cuts, then why don’t you just return the benefits to the Fed to put towards deficit reduction? As for the Repubs, just return the highway and state and local operating funds back to the same cause. You rail against them, but can’t wait to get their hands on them!

It is amazing that the repubs do not realize they are not the supreme beings in charge, that some peoples’ ability to fend for their families may be dependant on the reduced tax/increased take home pay,or that there is a problem that THEY created.

By Father Chris

February 14, 2009 10:32 AM | Link to this

Today’s sermon:

Was Christ the Jewish 911? Was the whip-wielding, property-destroying Son of Man a terrorist? Conservatism meant sacrificing commodities in 33 AD. Mostly cattle and produce, precious metals and currency. How much do we have to give to Caesar today, David? . What R orange juice futures today, Saul? What R pork futures? (But then I kid the holy of holies.) Jerusalem relied on Kosher Tourism and the currency tourists brought. The temple had evolved into a Piltdown Wallstreet, and currency brokers could make a Ponzi Pile of money out of all the Potsy’s and Gomer Pyles. Christ saw this and attacked. How did Christ get passed security with a whip? Forget box cutters, he used the eye of the needle. (Sorry) camera to fat old lady harrumphing. I panic and go full fire and brimstone…….

Is Christ the perennial conservative? W was the last conservative, because he was only conservative to the extent that he was born-again. The only audience W’s has now is with the burning brush, so conservatism can no longer rely on Christ.

Conservatism fell out of favor with the voters because none of them understood the secular aspects of conservatism: low taxes. strong defense, and clever inventions like the phrase, “death tax”. Voters only knew they were mad at the God who spoke to W.

Conservatism is wide open. Voters now must undertake a massive effort to understand why there could be an ideology and a matching party. Why only two, then? Why only liberal and conservative? Why isn’t there also a whining party and a groping party? “The Whining Democrats passed the stimulus bill after an across-the-aisle, reach-around compromise with the groping Republicans.”

Jklol

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 10:41 AM | Link to this

“Vetted and the Republican Party: If you are so upset about the “meager” tax refunds, and not limiting the stimulus to tax cuts, then why don’t you just return the benefits to the Fed to put towards deficit reduction?”

Hey Road (non)Scholar: you do realize that I’m just returning the mindlessness that you moonbat liberal socialist dirtballs dished during no less than THREE tax cuts during the last 8 years under Bush, don’t you? Then again, you are an obvious liberal, so sometimes things need to be explained.

“It is amazing that the repubs do not realize they are not the supreme beings in charge,”

Huh? That’s the way you assclown liberal dhimmicrats acted when you WEREN’T even in charge during the Bush years - and that includes being the minority party in congress too. Short memory, eh pink skirt?

“that some peoples’ ability to fend for their families may be dependant on the reduced tax/increased take home pay,or that there is a problem that THEY created.”

Uhm, yeah like you liberal dhimmicrats pushing for and supporting “fair housing” and advising banks to loan to losers, deadbeats, liars, and cheats (your Grade A liberal dhimmicrat voter constituent).

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 10:47 AM | Link to this

By the way, Road (non)Scholar:

It doesn’t take an economic genius to understand that $500 or $1,000 (or more) UP FRONT in taxpayer’s pockets (note: tax PAYERS - not deadbeats living off the gubment) would go a HELL of a lot farther in stimulating the economy than money spent on such wastoids as park upgrades, 10 years to widen a highway, 5 years to paint a bridge, and 2 years to put some insulation into a government housing or low income neighborhood.

Remember, we are talking TRILLIONS here of mindless, useless spending that will take a LEAST a generation to pay back. What happened to you liberal dhimmicrats and whining about deficit spending anyway?

By Chris Broe

February 14, 2009 10:49 AM | Link to this

Lincoln only vogued racist for his constituency. His racism was merely an admission that racism existed and that freed slaves could not sit down at a white tie dinner party and thus enjoy the underwriting that the white elite class enjoyed.

The great thinkers of the time would couldn’t envision an integrated society because there were too many internalized psycho-sexual barriers. Our collective ID simply wouldn’t allow it.

Lincoln spoke about a D-day flotilla to land all the freed slaves on the shores of Haiti. His objection to slavery was not that a black man was foiled, but that a black man’s labor was foiled. Labor was owned by the laborer. It was a very insightful policy that formed the basis of our economic machine today.

But Lincoln also knew his fellow man very well. He knew they would not accept freed slaves into their swimming pools, which is the litmus test for a integrated society.

We were so mature after the civil war that cooties still mattered.

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 10:55 AM | Link to this

Surprise? This should come as no surprise. Dhimmicrats breaking a promise? NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhhh. Let’s see, first it was Iraq may not need such an immediate withdrawal after Obama got elected, then it was the economy might not be such an overnight fix after Obama got elected, then it was…………..

SURPRISE! Democrats Break Promise: Stimulus Bill to Floor Friday by Connie Hair 02/12/2009

In a press conference Thursday, the House Republican leadership spoke candidly about being kept out of the House-Senate conference on the Obama-Pelosi-Reid so-called “economic stimulus” bill. They confirmed they had not yet seen the text of the bill as of 4 p.m.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was unsure how many Democrats would vote with Republicans again on this bill but that he thought Republicans “may get a few” Democrats to side with them. The fact that the Democrats have now broken their promise to have the public able to see the bill for 48 hours may drive more Democrats into the Republican camp.

“I don’t know, because they haven’t seen the bill either,” Boehner said. “The American people have a right to know what’s in this bill,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind).

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 11:15 AM | Link to this

In case the point hasn’t sunk in yet for the slow wits:

All you Obamabots get out there and spend that extra $1.85 a day you’ll be getting to get our economy moving again, you hear?

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 11:27 AM | Link to this

OH I know! I’ll spend most of that $1.85 a day for a $1.25 Coke in the vending machine… yeah that’s IT! I’m a genius!

Okay I’m done on that topic. Really.

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 11:37 AM | Link to this

$1.85 a day - now that’s change I can believe in!

No seriously. This is the last comment on that.

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 11:58 AM | Link to this

Okay okay, I can’t stand it any more. Will some mindless moonbat liberal lights-on-cockroach reactionary please tell me that I’m only regurgitating what Rushannity said?

PLEASE???

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 12:18 PM | Link to this

Using our tax dollars in the “stimulus” package to save a field mouse in Pelosiputus’ district? WHAT??? Where the hell is CNN and Lou Dobbs? PMSNBC and Rachel Maddow or that freak Keith Olberman? Or the New York Times? Or the AJC editorial page on this? No wonder the thing is so damn long nobody has read it all. Yeah I know, it’s too late as it has passed, but it’s the point that matters.

Stimulus has $30M to save Pelosi’s harvest mouse S.A. Miller (Contact) Wednesday, February 11, 2009

House Republicans are challenging Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s claim that the massive stimulus spending bill contains no pet projects after uncovering in the bill more than $30 million for wetlands conservation in her San Francisco Bay area district, including work she previously championed to protect the salt marsh harvest mouse.

“This sounds like spending projects that have been supported by a certain powerful Democrat in the past,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

“It certainly doesn’t sound like it will create or save American jobs,” he said. “So can Speaker Pelosi explain exactly how we will improve the American economy by helping the adorable little” critter?

A spokesman for Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, said the claim was “fabricated” by Republicans.

LIAR LIAR PANTSUIT ON FIRE.

By Chris Broe

February 14, 2009 12:38 PM | Link to this

Why is it that babies come in packs of eight, when there’s only womb for one or two buns-in-the-oven? I always end up throwing out a couple of perfectly good babies. I waste more bathwater that way too, which is a shame in a drought like this………….

Why is it the stimulus package is being presented like a game show. Deal or no deal? Now, the banker has offered us 37 cents a day, (in 1970 money). That’s a lot of money, but we still have Justice, Liberty, and Socialism on the board. The GOP has already picked our Constitution, so we cant have that in our pipe and smoke it too, but remember, if we turn down the 37 cents and say no deal, then we only have to pick two cases: RoeVsWade, and BrownVsTheBoardofEducation. So i ask the voters, Deal or no deal……and you’ll give your answer……right after this word from Rushannity…..

Good afternoon, and what a day for socialism we have here in washington dc ladies and gentlemen I tell you monumental change is happening and Karl Marx, Kruschev and Kronyism are the New KKK, but folks, first, I gotta tell you about how Pelussy is purr-loining the public purse. They are stealing from you and me, people. They are performing acts which amount to a Kunta Kinte Junta Coup in the halls of our congress people, and Let me sound the alarm!

but first a word from….”Hello, I’m Rush limbaugh and where do you invest your money, you know, I’ve been banking with bank of america for years now and let me tell you……..”

Rush is Peculiarly American.

Jklol

By Chris Broe

February 14, 2009 1:14 PM | Link to this

Get a load of this Wootenism: “Those who believe that public policy should be centered on the best interest of the child starting at the moment of conception until the created human child is delivered whole into adulthood should be horrified by the cruelty heaped on 14 children.”

There cant be a god. There just cant be.

By Chris Broe

February 14, 2009 1:26 PM | Link to this

Bookman’s trolls are deciding who’s the biggest moral monster, for sheer evil, of course it’s hard to beat John Wayne Gacy…(who writes like that other than a hack?) “for sheer evil”…….this man Bookman doesn’t understand out culture at all. He writes at an eighth grade level of socio-cultural presumption

Anyway, I wonder if Bookman will ban the biggest moral monster from his blog? “You cant comment on my blog, Mr. John Wayne Gacy, you mutilated and tortured young children.”

You know somehting? After reading the allowed comments today over at Bookman, it seems Jay prefers the John Wayne Bobbits. (Oh dont reach for THAT one, Andy, it’s out of your hands.)

Jklol

Hey Bookman, lose the emoticons and maybe I visit. But you have to make a choice: me or the emoticons.

Jklol

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 2:16 PM | Link to this

The GOP has already picked our Constitution, so we cant have that in our pipe and smoke it too

Uhm, PoFo, you mean like the Obama White House taking over the Census?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Freak.

By hryder

February 14, 2009 2:17 PM | Link to this

It should seem obvious to anyone who has the ability to think logically that the mother of the octuplets and C. Tucker, editor, have much in common. Neither understands that their actions and their expressed ideas on actions to be taken have monetary costs to be considered. If they have the funds in hand to pay for all the costs of their actions and/or ideas and its legal, fine, do it. But do not saddle me and mine with bills from one of your lame brain actions or ideas. Also, do not ignore history. The baby machine is all ready being given money to raise children born prior to the additional eight, and the Democrats kicked Bush in the teeth when he reached acrossed the aisle.

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 2:20 PM | Link to this

“and the Democrats kicked Bush in the teeth when he reached acrossed the aisle.”

EXACTLY! Thank you hryder. These mindless moonbat liberal dhimmicrats talk about wanting partisanship until the cows puke. Screw them all before they screw us: vote them the hell out in 2010 and send Obama packing in 2012.

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 2:22 PM | Link to this

Oh wait. I guess it’s a little late: we’re already screwed with this “stimulus” package.

By Chris Broe

February 14, 2009 2:36 PM | Link to this

zzzzz

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 2:51 PM | Link to this

Where are all those froth mouthed liberal demwit bloggers anyway? Did Obama have a press conference with selected moonbats again or something? Man. We need some spice around here.

Okay. Happy to oblige.

Now for years we’ve all heard the toilet screed from liberalism and the moonbat left how right wing talk radio is nothing but “hate speech.”

Okay, fine. However, I do not ever recall Rushannity making a comment about the mindless hysterics on the left needing to be exterminated not unlike a reference to Jews in a Nazi camp.

Read on for an eye opener on how these people think about their political opposition:

On his February 10 show, left-wing radio host Mike Malloy ranted about Republicans who voted against the Obama stimulus package, going so far as to label them as “domestic terrorists” who “want the country to fail.” Malloy also attacked Rush Limbaugh in his comments and charged that Limbaugh “is a bigger threat to this country than Osama bin Laden,” practically calling for his arrest.

“They’re worse than useless. These are terrorists. These are domestic terrorists. They want the country to fail, for God’s sake. They want exactly what anyone who attacked this country on September 11, 2001 wanted. The real internal terrorists are the Republicans, I mean, isn’t that clear? Rush Limbaugh is a bigger threat to this country than Osama bin Laden. He’s a bigger threat than anybody that the CIA can invent. He’s a bigger threat than any terrorist that ever leveled its sights against the United States, Limbaugh is, so why isn’t he arrested and sentenced for treason?”

(Never mind the fact that Rush merely said he wants SOCIALISM TO FAIL, not Obama per say).

Nice.

Real nice.

Great reflection on the mentality of the modern left, wouldn’t ya think?

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 2:56 PM | Link to this

Yeah that’s right PoFo, go take another Phelps bong hit and go back to bed. Useless moron.

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 3:02 PM | Link to this

By the way, I thought the mindless hysterics on the moonbat liberal dhimmicrat left told us that Rush was now irrelevant??? Did we miss something? What in the hell are they still wetting their beds over Rush for AND continuing to bring him up if he’s now irrelevant?

Stupid, stupid, STUPID absolute unapologetic mindlessness of liberalism.

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 3:12 PM | Link to this

Oh yes. We see how the childish liberals in the DNC liberal mainstream media operate: a Republican appointee bows out of being Obama’s pick for Commerce Secretary, and what do the little children of the left do? Debunk the position as irrelevant! I mean, you really can’t make up stuff that comes out of the alleged brains of these stupid, mindless left wing liberals. I’ll bet if JOHN EDWARDS was appointed as Commerce Secretary post this AP asshat would be singing a different tune:

Analysis: Obscure post gives Obama big headache

By CHARLES BABINGTON – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Quick, who headed the Commerce Department under President George W. Bush?

No disrespect to Carlos M. Gutierrez, but commerce secretary is not one of Washington’s more glamorous jobs. It’s overshadowed by first-tier Cabinet posts at Justice, State, Defense and Treasury. Scores of senators, House members, Supreme Court justices and White House aides would draw more attention at a Georgetown cocktail party or Dupont Circle restaurant.

But the job is giving a disproportionately big headache to President Barack Obama, who now must try a third time to fill it. Don’t be surprised if he picks a lower-profile nominee, because his two rather ambitious choices have backfired.

Obama first tapped New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat who gained national attention with his 2008 presidential bid. Richardson withdrew amid a federal investigation of state contracts won by a politically connected company.

Then Obama turned to Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. Though not a national figure, the taciturn Yankee is a player in the Senate. A former Budget Committee chairman, he is liked by colleagues and known for unemotional, no-nonsense analyses of fiscal matters.

Gregg stunned colleagues late Thursday when he withdrew his name, citing “irresolvable conflicts” with Obama’s handling of the economic stimulus and 2010 census.

By jesuschristsuperstar

February 14, 2009 3:53 PM | Link to this

If the US really cared about children, we would make prenatal and postnatal care completely free to all women. Problems could be dealt with early on and that would lead to less complications overall. We would provide free counseling and cover a certain amount of fertility treatments for infertile couples. That would help prevent women who are paying out of pocket for IVF from pressuring their doctors to implant multiple embryos, which in turn is better for the mothers and children. And counseling might prevent the irrational behavior from the very few individuals, such as Ms. Suleman, who end up making such poor choices regarding family planning.

Instead, we rely on the huge scam called health insurance, in which women pay more but get less than men, simply because women are the ones who have the kids. Even though having healthy future generations is vital for the continuation of our society. And then we wonder why our infant mortality rate is double that of other industrialized countries.

But nooo, you conservative whack-jobs can’t have our taxes dollars pay for something like that…because that’s socialized medicine…

By mike

February 14, 2009 4:18 PM | Link to this

Well maybe if we get back all the money that has been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan and the other monies given to Isreal we might have enough to give that lady with all the babies. We are so concerned about folks having babies in this country but no concern about the vast amount of monies sent out this country and the billions of dollars in contract fraud committed by US companies with contracts with our own government. Hell Fire on the single mother.

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 4:22 PM | Link to this

PoFo, you are SUCH a class idiot of liberalism:

“Instead, we rely on the huge scam called health insurance, in which women pay more but get less than men, simply because women are the ones who have the kids.”

MEN pay more for LIFE insurance (that most WOMEN ge) due to MEN’S SHORTER LIFE SPAN) and MEN pay more in CAR insurance. I’d say that’s a PRETTY GOOD TRADE OFF.

“And then we wonder why our infant mortality rate is double that of other industrialized countries.”

The US also has the highest rate of super twins, mostly through fertility assistance. The US also has a high rate of premie births who don’t survive and women who wait longer to have a child which adds to birth complications. But don’t let those little details get in the way of a good liberal socialist stigma, right moron?

“But nooo, you conservative whack-jobs can’t have our taxes dollars pay for something like that…because that’s socialized medicine…”

Actually you quasi-communist moron, the BIG DEAL is the incompetence of GOVERNMENT handling our health care. Not to mention the fact of having to wait in line behind some no-life loser who feels the need for a doctor visit for a headache, sniffle, or ingrown toenail. Moron.

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 4:29 PM | Link to this

Geeze. Another liberal idiot. Where are these cockroaches coming from?

“Well maybe if we get back all the money that has been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan and the other monies given to Isreal we might have enough to give that lady with all the babies”.

Hey mikey the lib, maybe you need to read up on where military/defense/war funding is separate from domestic spending and fund allocation. You must be one of those Obama voters that thought Republicans ruled congress in 2008.

By Chris Broe

February 14, 2009 4:53 PM | Link to this

Why is it that babies come in packs of eight, but there’s only womb for one or two buns in the oven? I always end up throwing away a couple of perfectly good babies. I waste a lot of bath water that way, too, which is a shame during this drought………

You hear a lot about the Zeitgeist these days. (esp. at Huffington’s. Ariana loves that word). Most people doubt there’s any such thing as a collective consciousness, but perhaps it’s more accurate to say that the Zeitgeist is that little voice in your head. Listen to that voice, because it will never steer you wrong. 6 billion heads are better than one. Here’s proof of the Zeitgeist: Listen. Pick your nose. Hear that? That’s me and 10 million others telling you how disgusting that is. Listen again. Pick your butt. Hear that? That’s all 6 billion of us.

The Zeitgeist is real my friends. Listen.

By Vetted

February 14, 2009 5:16 PM | Link to this

I can hear you little mindless liberal left wingnut mollusks out there. What’s the matter? Why are you all clammed up? Was it something I said?

Q: When do US air strikes in Pakistan actually kill Al Qaeda and Taliban “fighters,” and not “innocent women and children?”

A: When they’re ordered by Barack Obama.

“ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Two missiles fired from American drone aircraft killed more than 30 people, including Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters, near the Pakistani border with Afghanistan Saturday , according to a Pakistani intelligence official and local residents.”

It’s rather amazing how the liberals in the DNC media re-word stories when their superhero (ie: ANY Democrat) is in office, isn’t it?

By Geisha

February 14, 2009 6:07 PM | Link to this

Hey PoFo!

Jim’s site is going to get a spiffing up too. Hopefully he’ll allow the use of emoticons, then we’ll be rid of you altogether. Here, there and everywhere.

Sayonara sicko!

By Rag Head

February 15, 2009 8:11 AM | Link to this

A man seeking to join an East Texas Sheriff’s Department is being interviewed. The Deputy doing the interview says: “Your qualifications all look good, but there is an attitude suitability test that you must take before you can be accepted.” Then, sliding a service pistol across the desk, he says: “Take this pistol and go out and shoot six illegal aliens, six meth dealers, six Muslim extremists, and a rabbit.” “Why the rabbit?” “Great attitude,” says the Sergeant. “When can you start?”

By Bill Shipp

February 15, 2009 8:14 AM | Link to this

One sure sign we are facing hard times: The usually suave and gentle corporate lobbyists are beginning to show their fangs.

The lobby for Georgia Power, once known as “A Citizen Wherever It Serves,” is demanding legislative approval for a measure that would make its customers pay for a new nuclear plant - six or seven years before the plant generates one spark of consumer power.

For Georgia folks trapped in Georgia Power’s monopoly service area, that amounts to a monthly tax increase.

Seems to me the old rule used to be, “Never increase taxes during a recession.”

The rule has been changed slightly: “Never increase taxes during a recession, except when Georgia Power wants to be paid far in advance for the service it one day will provide.”

By the way, some of that juice from the layaway power plant is expected to be sold in Florida and other states.

If you think Georgia Power is not living up to its promise of good citizenship, check out some of our banks.

Remember how President Ronald Reagan used to rail against welfare queens living off government entitlements and screaming to high heaven if their welfare checks didn’t arrive on time?

Well, the welfare queens are back, except this time they’re dressed out in pinstripes. And they look and act like some Georgia bankers we know.

Joe Brannen, president of the Georgia Bankers Association, is outraged at the government’s foot-dragging on parceling out doles to smaller banks.

After all, Congress approved the banks’ aid program weeks ago - when W. still was president.

“It is unacceptable that only two community banks in Georgia have had their applications acted on by Treasury,” Brannen said the other day. “We would like those applications that are pending to receive a yes-or-no answer so these banks will know.”

Did you ever think you’d see the day when your community banker - a bulwark against government interference - would be demanding his government entitlement checks before the ink was dry on their multibillion-dollar bailout bill?

Seems like only yesterday that Brannen went to bat with Gov. Sonny Perdue to make certain Georgia’s predatory lending bill was written correctly.

“Bottom line, if we cannot sell these loans in the secondary market, we cannot make the loans,” Brannen said in 2003.

Brannen won his way. The predatory loan bill was cleaned up and passed. The banks sold their spotty loans to the secondary market, and now they’re begging - no, demanding - a federal rescue from a set of really bad business decisions, like trying to palm off bundles of delinquent loans.

Of course, Brannen hasn’t spent all his time pressuring the federal boys to start printing those welfare checks.

In mid-January, the Georgia Bankers Association spent $17,605.50 on a reception for Georgia legislators. In 2008, the bankers spent a paltry $13,700 on hosting a legislative reception.

Last year, the bankers shelled out $1,100 to pay Rep. Larry O’Neal’s way to their convention.

They also covered the expenses for Speaker Pro Tem Mark Burkhalter and Reps. Jan Jones and James Mills.

The lawmakers had a heck of a time consorting with the bankers, our society reporter tells us.

This is microscopic chicken feed compared to the $1,400 trash can and the $35,000 commode purchased on the dole by the Wall Street big shots.

But the principle is the same: Welfare queens can’t buy liquor with food stamps. Why should bankers be permitted to secure luxuries and host parties with their portion of the government dole?

The answer: Welfare queens don’t have as much muscle in the General Assembly as the striped-suit bankers and the hard-hat power company guys.

One other thing: Remember how presidential candidate Barack Obama told us we had to do something with the growing entitlement programs? He has kept his word. He is giving entitlements to the poor bankers and, don’t forget, to bighearted automobile companies, too.

By Dusty's Husband

February 15, 2009 8:38 AM | Link to this

A woman is standing nude, looking in the bedroom mirror. She is not happy with what she sees and says to her husband, ‘I feel horrible; I look old, fat and ugly. I really need you to pay me a compliment.’ The husband replies, ‘Your eyesight’s damn near perfect.’ And that’s how the fight started…..

By REPUBLICANS EVIL TIME IS UP

February 15, 2009 9:03 AM | Link to this

AINT NOTHING LIKE KARMA COMING BACK AT WARPED SPEED,BECAUSE WITH THE STIMULUS PACKAGE BEING FORCE DOWN THE THROATS OF THE GOP,THEY FINALLY SEE HOW IT FEELS TO HAVE NO SAY SO ABOUT WHAT LAWS WILL BE PASSED,IM GLAD THAT THE EVIL GOP DOESNT HAVE ANY SAY SO IN WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN AMERICAN POLITICS.

ALL THESE STUPID REDNECKS HERE WHO ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE BABIES WHILE THEY ARE STILL IN THE STOMACH,BUT ONCE THE BABIES GET HERE STARVE THEY A$$ TO DEATH,DONT GIVE THEM FOODSTAMPS,DONT GIVE THEM MEDICAL ATTENTION,BUT THE FACT IS THAT IT IS MORE REDNECK WOMEN ON WELFARE THAN ANY OTHER PEOPLE, LOOK IN HICK STATES LIKE KENTUCKY, WEST VIRGINIA,TENN,GEORGIA,ALABAMA,MISSISSIPPI,S.CAROLINA,N.CAROLINA,FLORIDA,BUT YOU WILL NEVER HEAR THESE NAZI HICKS POINT THAT OUT,ITS MORE POOR WHITE TRASH THAN ANYBODY ON WELFARE!

By Glenn

February 15, 2009 10:15 AM | Link to this

Jesus, Jim. When you write you really write.

By @@

February 15, 2009 10:35 AM | Link to this

Geez, Jim…the circumstances by which these children were conceived causes me to violate my principles, which is why I’ve hesitated to comment but here goes…

I’m reluctant to tell people how many children they can have. I’m opposed to “selective” abortion, something that Planned Parenthood knows all too much about. Government creep into the realm of reproductive rights has and will result in unintended circumstances.

Having said that, limitations on government assistance would hopefully discourage irresponsible behavior but it’s difficult to say “NO” once the children have been offered up as needy. ‘Tis a tangled web when the black (not a racial reference) widow, by choice or design, weaves. Not unlike the way children are used to gain advantage in divorce.

Psych-evals are done on people who seek cosmetic surgery, gastric bypass — why not procedures that address infertility?

It’s become painfully obvious that Ms. Suleiman went about this with the intention of exploiting the children. The ethically challenged, Dr. Kamrava is guilty of aiding and abetting. So yeah…..he deserves to suffer along with the babies.

No question! The mother AND the doctor are guilty of child neglect.

Heck! I suspect the entertainment industry is guilty of encouraging Ms. Suleiman’s behavior. “John and Kate Plus 8”, “The Duggar Family - 18? 20? and Counting”, “Big Love”, “Extreme Makeover”?

Exploiting families for entertainment is a lucrative business.

Money talks, so yeah…….make ‘em pay.

By Reality

February 15, 2009 10:55 AM | Link to this

What is so difficult with the concept and reality that if you’re a generational government dependent (lower SES), lower end of the gene pool, entitlement seeking, not educated, continual poor life and financial decision-making, and single that (1) you make no contribution to society, (2) you are a burden on society; and (3) you should not reproduce!!!

Oh wait, sorry, we’re supposed to be fair, patriotic, and distribute our wealth, i.e., we’re penalized for our success and the above segment of society are rewarded for their failure…. Yeah, Right!!!!

By Glenn

February 15, 2009 11:10 AM | Link to this

@@:

I’ve probably insulted you too many times by playing the lovelorn sick-pup. Fact is, you are intensely cogent, almost — almost — as though you can’t he’p it.

But you can he’p it, @@, and yet you continue to be intelligent. I suspect you do it deliberately.

Why you do?

By Chris Broe

February 15, 2009 11:55 AM | Link to this

I have to second bill shipp’s comment: let’s underfund a nuclear power plant just to see what happens. I’m guessing they wont be able to call it a red state anymore after all those gamma rays make it glow florescent blue. Once Georgia is blue, then the senate will be filibuster proof!

China called. They want their syndrome back.

Now, over at the political insider blog, I wrote this same comment only to have someone accuse me of not understanding the debate. Now this is very important, lurkers. This objection was based on the timing of the funding, that is, should a bond be paid for by current ratepayers or future ratepayers? Without research, I can safely declare that every single nuclear power plant ever built cost more than the projections. Unless we start to fund this new plant now, we’ll be making grievous financial sacrifices to complete the funding later, because it’s going to cost much, much more than the politically expedient estimates today.

By all means, raise the rates today to ensure that the plant is properly funded, or we all end up looking like central casting’s idea of extras for the next smurf movie.

By @@

February 15, 2009 1:40 PM | Link to this

Glenn:

Love never offends unless it’s the self-serving kind, of course.

You know how it goes……the kind that makes the giver feel good but does nothing for the recipient.

I’m feelin’ just fine today as always. Our minister, today, gave a motivational sermon on leprosy. His question…..”Do you perceive that others have, or are you, yourself afflicted?”

Reach out and touch someone in the right place — their soul…..their conscious being

AND doing.

(ISH)

By Jackie

February 15, 2009 2:27 PM | Link to this

@ Reality

“February 15, 2009 10:55 AM | Link to this

What is so difficult with the concept and reality that if you’re a generational government dependent (lower SES), lower end of the gene pool, entitlement seeking, not educated, continual poor life and financial decision-making, and single that (1) you make no contribution to society, (2) you are a burden on society; and (3) you should not reproduce!!!

Oh wait, sorry, we’re supposed to be fair, patriotic, and distribute our wealth, i.e., we’re penalized for our success and the above segment of society are rewarded for their failure…. Yeah, Right!!!!”

What is your solution when someone who has met your qualifications of being educated, making a significant contribution to society, etc. and is without significant employment, should those individuals abstain from reproductive activities?

By Algonquin J. Calhoun

February 15, 2009 3:14 PM | Link to this

Jim, let me see if I have this right. The Suleman children may have a legal right to sue the doctor for bringing them into this world? Hey, they’ve gone beyond the fetus stage. They are born and are now considered people. If not for the doctor, suleman might have stopped at one and then seven would have remained little angels in heaven. Had she aborted, you’d be raising un-holy hell about that. I don’t like what she did but these octuplets are now human beings with rights and needs. They are citizens of the United States and they deserve to be treated accordingly. The devotion to these people does not end when they exit the womb. That’s when it begins!

By @@

February 15, 2009 3:34 PM | Link to this

Oh! Jim, something I forgot to mention regarding financial liability to those who would knowingly choose to “damage” the lives of children through greed, neglect or abuse. In his one and only article, written in “The Harvard Law Review”, Barack Obama was asked to address the question of CHILDREN’S rights.

QUESTION: “Do unborn children have a legal right to sue their mothers for damage sustained during pregnancy, from such things as alcohol or illegal drugs?”

Obama’s answer was “NO!” and then writes supportively of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case and another from the Illinois Supreme Court saying no such right exists. He goes further with:

“[T]he case raises the broader policy and constitutional considerations that argue against using civil liability to control the behavior or pregnant women.”

He also decried any limits on abortion, saying the government has an interest in “preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in to lives of pain and despair.” (Sounds rather Pelosi-ish, don’t it? Limited government resources — a burden on the federal budget.

So Obama believes that children have no rights….reproduce at will. The government will make sure women are armed with the “opportunity” to relieve them of all guilt and responsibility.

Murder in the first degree.

All in the interest of the government’s bottom line.

And if perchance, a child is born damaged due to a government-sponsored abortion (botched though it may be) I’m assuming the government is absolved of all financial liability.

Heck! Nobody loses unless you wanna count the child, which I do.

By Dusty

February 15, 2009 4:15 PM | Link to this

Dear @@ 1:40

You must have had the same Bible readings at your church as we did at ours. First we had the story from 2 KIngs about Naaman, a Syrian general, who went to Elisha, the prophet, for a cure from leprosy. Then he did not want to follow the simple orders. But finally he did and was cured. Good story! God’s power.

Then the Gospel reading was taken from Mark 1 about Jesus curing the leper. The compassionate Jesus.

One thing I learned that I had not heard before was the fact that leprosy in early writings not only included “real” leprosy but also various skin disorders. That is what our substitute minister mentioned. The things they learn at seminary!!

As to the eight babies at once, I agree that these innocents were “ruined” by their mother, the fertility “quack” and that “ruin” will continue througout their lifetime.(Ex.the Dionnes) Exploitation is inevitable and seemingly planned. Taxpayers will be the paying patrons for these victims as we do not knowingly let children suffer.

Oh, if only Solomon were here. He could line up eight wannabe moms and distribute the babies with care. He threatened to divide one baby into two to settle a case. Maybe we should try his approach with a little different mathematics.(8 babes=8..not 1 babe=2 !)

By Chris Broe

February 15, 2009 4:36 PM | Link to this

How about those octuplets! Why is it that babies come in packs of eight when there’s only room for one or two buns in the oven? I always end up throwing out a couple of perfectly good babies!

I’m amazed at how user friendly the internet has become. Everybody is so tech-savvy! That’s why I’m really being left behind. You see, I’m afraid of those emoticons. Everybody uses them now. Emoticons are so ubiquitous that I cant even read my email any more. I’m frightened to death! There’s this one emoticon that really get me, you know the one that looks like the face of a guy pretending not to be picking his butt. I have nightmares about it. That’s why I cant blog over at Bookman’s. it’s not just caused I’ve been banned for life, (like at Huffington’s) but mostly it’s because I’m scared of the emoticons. I never know when one is going to pop up and ambush me. Why doesn’t somebody do something?

Have you visited the Huffington website? Ariana Huffington cant write a blog without mentioning the Zeiteist. The Zeitgeist! Now most people dont believe that the zeitgeist is real. But I’m sure it is real. The Zeitgeist is the collective consciousness of all 6 billion people on the planet. Some folks believe that the zeitgeist also includes the thoughts of everybody who ever lived, which some estimate to be about 100 billion people. I think I can prove the zeitgeist exists. Here’s an exercise to help you hear the zeitgeist: Listen. Pick your nose. Hear that? That’s me and ten million people telling you how disgusting that is. Okay, listen again. Now, scratch your balls. Hear that? That’s all 100 billion of us, okay?

I read where a teacher was arrested after he was caught sending nude photos to a student on the internet. That really P’s me off. When I was in school, I couldn’t get my teachers to sign a hall pass.’

(that’s about five minutes. I’m breaking in some material at an open mic on monday night. Any constructive criticism?)

By @@

February 15, 2009 4:43 PM | Link to this

Well whaddya know, Dusty — the same EXACTLY! It was my turn to do the scripture reading. I think they call that responsibility “a liturgist”. The minister loves the emphasis I place on certain text. Example:

“When the king of Israel read the letter, HE TORE HIS CLOTHES AND SAID. ‘AM I GOD, TO GIVE DEATH OR LIFE, THAT THIS MAN SENDS WORD TO ME TO CURE A MAN OF HIS LEPROSY? JUST LOOK AND SEE HOW HE IS TRYING TO PICK A QUARREL WITH ME.’” to which Elisha reacts:

“Why have you torn your clothes? Let him come to me, that he may learn that there is a prophet in Israel.”

When talking about the affliction of leprosy, our minister told the youth: “Pimples……zits? You’re outta here!!!!”

About Solomon! You would think that Suleiman, having experienced the heartbreak of infertility, would be eager to reward others who share, with the gift of life that have been bestowed upon her.

Too many alternatives out there to opt out — surrogates, adoption.

All positive in the aspect of giving and receiving.

By kris

February 15, 2009 5:11 PM | Link to this

Every child that is born is a gift from God, no matter how it was conceived. If God does not want the child on earth it WILL NOT BE HERE! End of story.

By Chris Broe

February 15, 2009 5:16 PM | Link to this

I’m from a family of nine siblings and two catholic parents. My childhood was wonderful; the highlight of my life, no question. I believed in santa clause till well into elementary school. I was an altar boy in Waco Texas and didn’t get molested, even though the only thing in Texas is steers and queers, man. I was virtually raised by nuns. When I graduated from high school, the doctors told me it would be safer to leave the rulers where the nuns had put them. I walk funny now. I sit funny too. But I know the exact distance between my nuts.

I am a catholic. The nuns managed to make me believe every single tenet of the church. The virgin birth. Why not. My sister at age 8 kept repeating over and over about how when she grew up, she wanted to be a virgin. I said what’s a virgin. She said, you know, a virgin. What’s that? A virgin, stupid. a virgin. But what does a virgin do? I dont know, she just is a virgin, that’s all, and she never has to have a baby. I said, why not have a baby? Because God only gives babies to married women. How does God know if a woman is married or not? How does that work? I don’t know. MOM? How does God know who to give the babies to? I mean, how does God know that a woman is a virgin or married? What possible mechanism could there be so that no mistakes are made? “He just does, I don’t know..talk about something else, you two.” (this was an Actual conversation that every baby boomer sibling had. in the fifties until the country grew up after JFK, the Beatles, Vietnam and pot)

Did Lee Harvey Oswald ruin the country or did Vietnam? Did the Beatles ruin our culture or did pot?

I always said I wish Lee Harvey Oswald’s mom was my mom. Did you get a load of how she stood up for him in the face of the entire world’s scorn? She is the mother of all mothers, second only to whistler’s mother, who posed for scale, and the piece is now worth millions on Ebay.

I know it’s Sunday, and i hate to keep criticizing a man I love, but Jim Wooten did write this: “Men, even sperm donors, should be liable, too, if they knew, or should have known children would suffer as a result of their act.”

What are you saying, Jim, that you should have to be a geneticist to work for H+R Block?

That just gave me an idea for a joke: My wife cant get pregnant because the government keeps bailing out our sperm bank .

I’ll open with that on Monday night.

By Dusty

February 15, 2009 5:32 PM | Link to this

Dear @@,

I can hear you now giving emphasis with a mighty meaning. No sleeping in the congregation!! I like a liturgist with a clear voice. Our church was built with the roof in the clouds and no sound system seems to offset that. But… our pipe organ can rattle the rafters. Altogether, it is a lovely place of good news and inspiration.

And…we have a parish nurse who is wonderful. She has been a big help to many members and keeps reminding all of us about the ways to stay healthy, the blood drives, flu shots, heart and cancer drives, health fairs and getting help. No question is too small for her to answer. She likes to help. So I put in a plug here for dedicated parish nurses. They minister in the finest of ways.

By Chris Broe

February 16, 2009 8:33 AM | Link to this

CNN just reported that The Octuplets all have separate attorneys now. They’re suing each other. One thinks his mother likes the other 7 best. One thinks the other 7 are hoarding Huggies.

This one baby claims that his siblings stole his copyrighted burp cellphone ring. One baby thinks that adding one more baby would have made a baseball team, so why stop with eight.

One baby keeps talking about being born with a one way ticket to Palookaville. That he coulda had class. One baby is suing the Etrade baby. He claims that the Etrade baby is a phony Ponzi scheme grifter.

Jim Wooten is right. The techno-eight are going to be nothing but trouble.

By Redneck Convert

February 16, 2009 9:38 AM | Link to this

Well, I’m awful glad to hear that @@ and Sister Dusty are church-going women.

But they’re wasting their time. They are worshipping a false religion.

Mine’s the only true religion. If you don’t go to the Church of Holiness you are going to wind up in a hot place just like the Catholics and the Jews and the towel-heads. But if they won’t convert and it makes them feel better, I guess some church is better than none. Have a good day everybody.

By deegee

February 16, 2009 10:03 AM | Link to this

It doesn’t take an economic genius to understand that a $500 - $1000 tax break up front would amount to $9.60 - $19.20 per week in your paycheck. That’s assuming that you are drawing a paycheck.

It doesn’t take an economic genius to understand that when the government has to step in because the banks are insolvent, it’s not the best time to cut the government’s revenue stream by cutting taxes.

By Dusty

February 16, 2009 10:04 AM | Link to this

Dear RedNeck Convert, 9:38

Good to hear from you when we can’t find anybody else. I understand about your “Holiness” church. Actually it is the golf course where you say “Holy Moly” every time you make a drive into the woods (which is often). That is also where you find the snakes who deliver you from the bad place of hidden golf balls.

But maybe you better stay out of the woods. You might also find your former preacher, the one you mention so often. You might even get poison ivy and get banished for having “leprosy”. @@ and I got that all straightened out. Just wanted to let you know not to show up at church scatching and itching.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

February 16, 2009 11:36 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. I cannot improve on Jim Wooten’s arguments. I saw two other relevant arguments:

“It may seem reasonable to argue that women are not designed to bear litters. Or that society should not have to absorb the costs of indulging an unemployed woman’s obsession for a ‘huge’ family. Or that it is wrong to purposely bring 14 fatherless children into the world. Those are all sensible opinions, and a sensible public policy would reflect them.

“But in the name of autonomy, privacy, and adult self-esteem, our public policies regarding families and reproduction have grown increasingly unmoored from good sense. From the campaign for homosexual marriage to the routine insemination of single women to the legality of abortion on demand, notions that would once have been thought outlandish have steadily been normalized. Would that further industrial-scale pregnancies like [Nadya] Suleman’s could be headed off with a new law or stepped-up regulation. But can law and regulation fill the void left when longstanding taboos and morals are cast aside? When society decides that families and child-rearing can be improvised at will, who gets to say what’s ‘freakish’?” —columnist Jeff Jacoby

“Six years ago I wrote a book called ‘Uncle Sam’s Plantation.’ I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it. I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas. A poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism. … A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from ‘How do I take care of myself?’ to ‘What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?’

“Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems. The kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others. The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

“Through God’s grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is. I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by a Democrat president. A few years after enactment, welfare roles were down fifty percent. I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth producing American capitalism. But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction. Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.” —columnist Star Parker

By deegee

February 16, 2009 12:40 PM | Link to this

“Men, even sperm donors, should be liable, too, if they knew or should have known children would suffer from their act.”

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Really, your honor. She said she was a millionaire. How did I know she was on disability? She looked like a million bucks, and she damn near disabled me.

By Chris Broe

February 16, 2009 12:58 PM | Link to this

Hello Ragnar. I love the end of Star Parker’s comment. Rich American on Capitalism. Poor America on Socialism. Affluent America on Hedonism. Wet America on Viagra. We’re all wet these days, have you noticed?

Justice is a construct, that is, it doesn’t really exist in the universe. A star explodes whether it’s the right thing to do or not. They say monkeys behave with Justice in mind. Experiments can prove that monkeys have equivalent DNA to man, give or take. A woman can have 14 children by wishing them into being. A woman can have 14 children by loving them into being. Which woman is the wettest? Find the Socialist in that jumble of babies and moms. America needed a scape goat, the conservatives needed a miracle, and they got not one, but 8 Immaculate Conceptions! For your penance, America, say one Hail Mary, and one Coward Father and go and socialize no more.

This woman is guilty only of botox abuse. We may not interfere with procreation. If you want to create a hell on earth, let Cheney in your bedroom.

It’s easy to expound about the evils of Obama’s economic plan with a soccer mom wannabe like Octo-hobo-ho.

Octohoboho She’s a welfare queen from hell. She doesn’t work. She has 8 babies. Ocuptlets, even. Like a tramp or a hobo. or a ho.

She’s the Octohoboho.

Jklo

By deegee

February 16, 2009 1:45 PM | Link to this

Everybody loves talking about the Nadya freak show. Did anyone see that baby badonkadonk bump she revealed to the world? She’s a marketing maven. In five years she and her kids will be making the rounds on Oprah, Tyra and Ellen. Everyone watching will sigh and regret that they judged so harshly this woman and her decision to give birth to such cute little kiddies. It’s just like when you pop the news to your husband that your teenage daughter is preggers and it’s too late to abort. It’s all doom and gloom and then the kid smiles for the first time and everything is okay after that.

By Chris Broe

February 16, 2009 1:46 PM | Link to this

Bookman just commented on an article in The Atlantic, and the parts he quoted (and praised) are someone’s idea of being the first one to write Post-crisis and exude some phony air of survivor’s glory. (Author uses an apocalyptic tone in the wake of his labeling the crisis as only a recession).

Then Bookman doesn’t know what to say about it. This entry, which he made around 12:30 today, is prima facie evidence of not just how hollow and blog-simple Bookman’s journalism is, but also of his inability to spot double talk, prattle, and nonsense in the work of others.

The discussion seldom get advance at Bookman’sBlog because the issues are usually poorly framed.

.

By Algonquin J. Calhoun

February 16, 2009 2:06 PM | Link to this

Wrong! She has fourteen children. Are you arguing that the state has the right and the power to decide the number of children an individual should be allowed to bring into the world? Are you suggesting the state has the right to terminate pregnancies? Are you arguing that the state should have that right? This is not China where the government determines reproductive allowability. You Republicans should love Suleman! She never considered abortion and she, obviously, eschewed family-planning of any kind. These children are here now and they are a family. Republicans need to shut up and support family values!

By Dusty

February 16, 2009 2:23 PM | Link to this

Dear Ragnar,

Often there are conflicts between moral and mindful decisions. As a Christian, I believe that every living person is valuable in the sight of God. Therefore every human life should be treasured.

But the process of being “treasured” sometimes brings on an unhealthy dependency, one that robs the dependent’s ability to value freedom. They trade personal liberties and decisions to those who will continue to support them.

As liberals often suggest, we should be “taking care” of all who are diminished in any way. Conservatives believe that freedom means independence for every citizen with citizens contributing to the government, not government providing over all care beyond protection.

I do not want the government as baby sitter, food and home provider and money manager. On the other hand, I do not wish that any child or adult should suffer. Thus comes the conflict. How can you balance these values?

Right now, I think the government is fast becoming dominant in all aspects of our citizenry. In other words, we are losing our freedom and that helps no one.

Thus we come to such farcical fracture of intelligent human behavior in the mother of the eight babies, a mother who expects to be dependent. It brings up the question always, “Wherefore go thou America?” Do we go for dependency or freedom?

By Jackie

February 16, 2009 2:37 PM | Link to this

@Ragnar

I would have hoped you would have done further research to present facts about race and poverty.

You do realize that there are more poor members of the majority community than there are poor members of the minority community.

There are more members of the majority community on welfare, greater number of divorces, greater percentage of drug users.

It certainly appears that the minority community is the bane of all existence when one looks at the number of people in jail. However, a closer review of the numbers reveals that minorities comprise roughly 15% of the population and 16% of the drug users, yet, 64% of minorities go to prison for drug use while those members of the majority community with drug-use problems go to rehab.

By Hillbilly Deluxe

February 16, 2009 2:39 PM | Link to this

I would agree that children in most cases are better growing up in a two parent household. The woman who had all these babies obviously has some issues and could use some help (non-financial) herself. The doctor should at the least have his liscense pulled and really oughta have to pay support. Did the donor know the situation or did he think he was donating to someone wanting to have one child? If he knew he should pay support too. If not maybe it’s another story and maybe not.

In spite of all that, these children didn’t ask to be brought into this world. They obviously can’t take care of themselves at this point (including the previous 6). You can’t really throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

By Algonquin J. Calhoun

February 16, 2009 3:28 PM | Link to this

Both men should have assessed the mental condition of the woman, along with her inability to support the needs of the first six, and realized that aiding and abetting in the casual creation of life would be contrary to the “best interests of the child.”

You are in favor of investigating mental health before a person can be deemed worthy of parenthood but you’re opposed to any investigation prior to the purchase of a firearm. Should Ms. Suleman, and her doctors, be charged with the reckless giving of life? You’re party is the one in favor of a mother carrying a pregnancy to term. she did that. You’re party is opposed to any sort of reasonable family planning. She didn’t do that. your party is the one that proclaims itself pro-life. The children are living. You can’t have it both ways. You may not approve but that’s too bad. These children are citizens of the United States. To suggest they sue the fertility doctors is ludicrous in the extreme. The Suleman children are here and, despite what you may think of their mother, the doctors or anyone else connected with them, it is our responsibility to see that no child is left behind. That means every child!

By Chris Broe

February 16, 2009 3:34 PM | Link to this

Another soulful insight into Jim Wooten’s inner child is gleaned by reading this line: “It’s clear, too, from others who witness the effect on children first hand, that those born to adults who don’t bother to marry…..”

How jumbled in logic, phrasing, and even narration is that collection of thoughts? “….Don’t bother to marry…..”. Who thinks like that besides Aunt Bea? Wooten is mired in Antebellum Lore and Lost Causes, like Conservatism, which can be framed any way one views the past. Yet, still, he’s not so much Gone With the Wind as Break Wind. Not so much Dances With Wolves and Drops With Wolves.

I accuse Jim Wooten of owning an unbelievably lazy mind and possessing virtually no journalistic skill. I accuse him of torturing justice with unmindful broadsides of partisan patois.

Jklol Great piece.

By Dusty

February 16, 2009 3:42 PM | Link to this

I think Dickens described our times quite well in the first paragraph of his A TALE OF TWO CITIES: He wrote: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of camparison only.

The times don’t seem to change much.

By Chris Broe

February 16, 2009 3:57 PM | Link to this

I was thinking about the Fairness Doctrine. Americans still overwhelmingly support free speech, (the 2nd amendment), in spite of a Rushannity Monopoly on talk radio. That makes me love liberty even more.

By Dusty

February 16, 2009 4:04 PM | Link to this

Chris Broe,

Why do you think Rush has a monopoly on talk radio?

Just another PoFo perspective?

By MrLiberty

February 16, 2009 4:32 PM | Link to this

As a conservative I would have thought that you would correctly have acknowledged that it is NOT government’s job to put anyone first accept the individual.

When we subsidize anything, we distort the market and must face unintended consequences. Just look at the woman in California with her litter of 8. A prime example of subsidizing children.

Everyone should decide for themselves about children, etc. and the state should not become enablers at the expense of others. Our socialistic school system, tax breaks for kids and the like all take from others to provide for children. It is wrong, it is unamerican, and it certainly isn’t conservative.

This country should restore freedom for everyone, stop exterminating little brown kids and their moms and dads all over the middle east, and just let the marketplace and other freedom mechanisms dictate how each individual will live their lives.

It is the only right policy to endorce.

By Dusty

February 16, 2009 5:06 PM | Link to this

Mr. Libery aka Mr. Liberal AntiWar,

We have freed millions of “little brown kids and their moms and dads” all over the Middle East. I suppose you think they were having a big ol’ time under Saddam Hussein, a murderous distator.

I suppose you also like the Taliban and their dictatorial men, their women in burkas, their little girls with no education and no freedom for anyone except the TALIBAN.

You liked that policy so well you did not like us changing it.

You are Mr. Liberty alright. Free to run your mouth against the greatest free country in the world because it freed others.

You are a selfish disgrace to those of us who love liberty.

By Afternoon Delight

February 16, 2009 5:26 PM | Link to this

Excellent point, Mrliberty. You are persuasive.

I just did some blog research about this blog. The second amendment is about free speech? Nobody noticed.

Nobody is reading this blog. Might be time for that novel. Working title: “The diacritical approval: the Sequel to Goodbye, Mr. Chips.

Chapter One:

One student is all it takes for a successful teaching career. But he had a dozen! Plato conspired against him. So did Mao. Yet he found the twelve. The second coming of Mr Chips was upon them. He was lecturing today, but he suddenly paused, and considered the time and whether or not he could finish a new topic, The Rosetta Stone, in only fourteen seconds till the lunch bell rang and the students darted for the commons. He felt confident enough to say, “The Rosetta stone has 137 ways to translate the word “moron” from the Latin into the Greek and back into the Egyptian Hieroglyphics which grace every blank piece of stone that housed the Pharaohs. It appears that for the first 100 thousand years of man’s existence, mankind participated in some sort of traveling vaudeville act. It seems that everybody, and I mean everybody could do Neanderthal and act and sound just like him. Curly is the new Eve. ”

The bell rang. Nobody budged. A strange uneasy silence fell over the whole class, like a breakthrough had been made. Then, as everyone remembered the creme pie listed on the tuesday menu for lunch …………

By @@

February 16, 2009 5:53 PM | Link to this

Jim:

Are you back there gettin’ all spiffed up?

By Dusty

February 16, 2009 6:10 PM | Link to this

Goodbye Mr. Chips?? If only we could say “Goodbye, Mr. PoFo” without a sequel. The world awaits such a moment! Free! Free! Free from the trivialities of tripe and twilight! Free from the ID epidemic! Free from porcine pies of moonbat baloney! Yes, and then tomorrow…another day….as hope rises eternally…