Can I Have Spam With That?

December 31, 2010 at 1:42 am 374 comments

American author Ernest Hemingway (1899 - 1961) in Havana, Cuba, late 1950s. (Photo by Pictorial Parade/Getty Images)

In the world of internet marketing, search engine optimization (SEO) is a big deal. It’s the way we get search engines like Google to list our sites near the top of search results. One of the results of this SEO craze is SPAM, comments posted to a blog with one and only one purpose, to plant a backlink to a particular web site. The idea is that the more sites that link to your site, the better your SEO standing.

I’ve noticed an uptick in SPAM lately and while most of it is simply a list of links, some of it is quite amusing. So what better way to end 2010 than on a totally absurd note. When the world makes no sense, let’s look to SPAM to find some meaning. The following gems are actual unedited morsels for your entertainment.

Self confessional SPAM — don’t SPAM while drunk.
Submitted on 2010/11/25 at 10:38 pm

I’m admiring the webmaster, nice job on the design. Looks like your site can handle heavy traffic.
I’m only a little bit drunk, I’m sorry. Please don’t judge.
I’m not happy about my life, what can I do to be happy?
I’m a little bit eccentric, and sometimes my comments get removed. I just want to add some spark.

I.R.S.: We’ve got what it takes to take what you’ve got!

I’m sure lots of writing gets done at this dude’s site:
Submitted on 2010/11/30 at 7:30 pm

Great writeup. Do you accept fan articles from other writers ? Contact me. Cheers. mydirtyhobby livecams

Pride in technology:
Submitted on 2010/11/30 at 6:01 pm

Sick! Just got a brand-new Pearl and I can now read your weblog on my phone’s browser, it didn’t operate on my previous 1.

I exploded this SPAMMER’s intellect so successfully that his comment made my mind implode. Can you translate this one?
Submitted on 2010/12/03 at 9:48 am

First of all, allow my family recognize a person’s command during this matter. Even though this is certainly brand new , nevertheless soon after registering your site, this intellect has exploded extensively. Allow all of us to take hold of one’s rss to help keep in touch with at all probable messages Sincere understand but will pass it on to help admirers and my private are living members

Don’t quote Hemingway while drunk:
Submitted on 2010/12/05 at 4:02 am

Ernest Hemingway~ Theres nothing noble in becoming superior for your fellow males. Accurate the aristocracy is becoming superior to your former self.

The actual quote is: “There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.”

SPAM with minimal time wasted:
Submitted on 2010/12/06 at 4:39 pm

Hello. And Bye.

Is this SPAMMER describing the typical liberal?
Submitted on 2010/12/06 at 4:37 am

People who are more prone to high levels of empathy-based guilt may be likely to suffer from anxiety and depression; however, they are also more likely to cooperate and behave altruistically

SPAM clearly from a good judge of writing (I write soooo good):
Submitted on 2010/12/07 at 7:16 pm

Something I have seen in all your blog posts and I wanted to compliment you on is how good your writing and spelling are. How did you learn to write so good? It looks like you have a degree in writing from a College.

Finally, an honest assessment — heck he sounds like most of the conservatives who comment here. Mmmmm maybe this wasn’t SPAM at all?
Submitted on 2010/12/27 at 4:43 am

How is it that just anybody can write a weblog and get as popular as this? Its not like youve said something extremely impressive –more like youve painted a pretty picture about an issue that you know nothing about! I dont want to sound mean, right here. But do you truly think that you can get away with adding some pretty pictures and not genuinely say something?

Happy New Year to all friends and loyal readers!

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

About these ads

Entry filed under: Social commentary, Utter Nonsense, Wordpress Political Blogs. Tags: , .

Time to Fish or Cut Bait Mourning in America

374 Comments Add your own

  • 1. dead rabbit  |  December 31, 2010 at 1:54 am

    Why are the comments written so oddly? Weird.

  • 2. Westies Rule  |  December 31, 2010 at 11:12 am

    I hate Spam! Most of the Spam on the thread today are done none other than the webmasters themselves.. bah.. advertisers and readers hate as well. Still they want the numbers! Here they hire these stupid sock puppets just to SPAM. The Tulsa World is the worst for SPAM. The report tab is all for naught.

    rutherford since put on Hemingway.. I will put on my guy!

  • 3. Rutherford  |  December 31, 2010 at 11:51 am

    Westies, that was fantastic! I think that describes what is going on with a good number of the tough guys that comment here. They keep the bluebird caged up. Hell, I think most men, at least American men are forced to do that. Hemingway probably did that, which is why he ended up blowing his brains out.

    P.S. Welcome to the blog, thanks for visiting!

  • 4. Rutherford  |  December 31, 2010 at 11:58 am

    Rabbit, the point of spam is to pimp your web site link. The actual content of the comment is completely irrelevant. I’ve had maybe one case in the past three years where the comment seemed close enough to actually saying something about my article, that I approved it, even though I suspected it was just spam.

    Some spam comments are written by illiterates. Some are written by foreigners (lots from Russia) and some are computer generated.

    Unfortunately I do have to at least scan all of the them to make sure my SPAM filter didn’t trigger a false positive. Even some of you regulars have landed in the SPAM filter on occasion for no known godly reason.

    I just chose to publish these cos I thought they were funny. I think my fav is the guy who compliments me on my writing by saying I “write good”. LOL A real expert, there!

  • 5. poolman  |  December 31, 2010 at 12:09 pm


    F*****g Spam!

  • 6. graychin  |  December 31, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    I get funny spam messages on my blog too. They usually sound similar to the ones that you quoted. I think that the comedy comes from them being written by someone from Russia or some other place where the guy knows just enough English to be subject to malapropisms.

    I’ve seen that “bluebird” poem before, but not for a long time. I love it. Thanks for posting it, WR.

    Rutherford, there may be one or two of your regular “conservative” commenters who have a bluebird inside, but the majority let their reptile brains swallow him years ago.

    I think that the Rabbit is the best candidate for a bluebird. Occasionally, I think I hear him chirping.

  • 7. graychin  |  December 31, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    Poolman – good one!

  • 8. fakename2  |  December 31, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    R–the word salad is usually a hint either of Spam or shcizophrenia:) On my blog I do a semi-regular post about animals, and one I did was about the nutria. So did someone from Hungary. WordPress linked them, and so forever I was getting Spam in Hungarian. I think they’ve given up on me now, but if I get another one, I’ll copy and paste it for your viewing pleasure.

  • 9. Tex Taylor  |  December 31, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    You right really good. You know, if thier is a chanse that you could right sum comments at my site, thier probobably would be sum regressives that would not agree with thier opinions.

    Contact me. Cheers and Felicitations

    dawgdirtywebcam.com

  • 10. dead rabbit  |  December 31, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    I can’t believe sensico was a Russian spammer this whole time

  • 11. fakename2  |  December 31, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    I’m also reminded of one of the best (and timeliest) TV commercials ever. It’s the one for Discover Card, where a customer calls and the phone is answered by a guy with a heavy beard, sitting in a hut on the frozen tundra. He says, “Thank you for calling USA Credit, my name is Peggy”. I mean, how many times has this happened to you?

  • 12. Westies Rule  |  December 31, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    Thanks Ruther… long ago many tried to ‘kill’ the bluebird. Punted the Bluebird many times. All the Bluebird wanted was to post a humble opinion is all. She created many groups along the way. Crazy people on the net these days.. as there are in real life. Evil has a way of trying to killing out the fun with jealousy and envy. It wanted to KILL the Bluebird in everyone.

    In the end, EVIL got TOASTED.. Big TIME..

    http://www.tulsaworld.com/profile/tabs/aboutme.aspx?id=128170

    http://www.tulsaworld.com/profile/tabs/aboutme.aspx?id=155562

  • 13. El Tigre  |  December 31, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    “I think that describes what is going on with a good number of the tough guys that comment here. They keep the bluebird caged up.”

    Rutherford, I knew you would say something along those lines the minute I saw the link, although directed it at you “conservatives” commentators.

    The bluebird ate your brain.

    Perhaps you should take a look at Bukowski’s “The Genius of the Crowd” and see if it might not speak to the one that points the finger.

    (Frankly, Bukowski would have a field day with you and guys like G-chin).

  • 14. Westies Rule  |  December 31, 2010 at 6:13 pm

    The bluebird ate your brain.

    Perhaps you should take a look at Bukowski’s “The Genius of the Crowd” and see if it might not speak to the one that points the finger.
    ===
    Nah.. Bluebirds don’t like Brains..

    Bukowski would love the blog.. He hated people.. here in cyberspace you don’t have interpersonal communication.. Listen:

    It’s all Bull Shit.. really.. buried in Spam..

  • 15. an800lbgorilla  |  December 31, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    Since it was mentioned…

  • 16. an800lbgorilla  |  December 31, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    Chin’s theme song…

  • 17. Rutherford  |  December 31, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    I can’t believe sensico was a Russian spammer this whole time

    LOL I love Sensico like the teenage daughter I will have some day, but I have to admit, that comment cracked me up. :lol:

  • 18. graychin  |  December 31, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    Ape – don’t you know that if you don’t still have growing up to do, that you’re already dead? The child in you is the part that hopes, dreams and imagines. None of that for you.

    If it means being a hostile prig like you, I DO hope I never grow up.

  • 19. graychin  |  December 31, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    The child that remains in this old body is hopeful and optimistic about the coming year.

    Happy 2011, America. I wish every success to you in the coming year – including the rollout of Obamacare, the implementation of DADT, getting out of GM and AIG with a profit to taxpayers, and especially the creation of more private-sector jobs (as public-sector jobs continue to shrink), to name a few.

    If you don’t share those hopes and wishes, if your ideology requires that you hope for America to fail, then my wish for you is your most miserable year ever.

  • 20. Rutherford  |  December 31, 2010 at 7:59 pm

    Well this sorta brings us back to the whole issue of whether “Imagine” is a worthwhile song or not. I think mocking hope is as terrible or worse than Tex thinks mocking Jesus is.

    On my bad days, and I have more than I care to admit, I am pretty hopeless. I heard one of those commercials the other day for “donate $10.00 and feed a child for a year” and I thought, bullsh*t, a drop in the f*cking ocean. World hunger is rampant, hasn’t been solved, won’t be solved.

    But I also have my days when there is still a glimmer of hope in my heart that we can solve the big problems. On those days, I admire those who are trying, instead of dismissing them as Don Quixote’s.

    Even if the bluebird only gets just enough air and seed to stay barely alive, it’s better than letting it die altogether. The Bluebird in My Heart poem seems odd when compared to some of Bukowski’s other stuff that you folks have introduced me to. He didn’t like people and did indeed seem pretty hopeless. But the Bluebird poem shows a lot of of his cynicism may have been his shtick .

  • 21. Rutherford  |  December 31, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    Oh, by the way, I’m about halfway through the last interview Rolling Stone ever did with John Lennon and he directly answers the charge of hypocrite that some of you here and at BiW’s have leveled at him.

    LOL He basically says f*ck you. He says that those who get angry with him for living comfortably are projecting on him some saintly image he never asked for in the first place. I also got the impression that he doesn’t feel living well contradicts wanting world peace. I agree with him on that.

  • 22. graychin  |  December 31, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    You’re right, Rutherford. It’s the same old dispute – whether fear should guide us, or hopes and dreams. It’s what I observe to be the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives.

    “If one candidate is appealing to your fears, and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you’d better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope!” – Bill Clinton

    You may say I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one.

  • 23. graychin  |  December 31, 2010 at 8:11 pm

    All Lennon was saying was give peace a chance. It really was as simple as that. We too often tend to smother it in its crib.

    Or let our reptile swallow our bluebird.

  • 24. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  December 31, 2010 at 8:43 pm

    I think mocking hope is as terrible or worse than Tex thinks mocking Jesus is.

    I don’t mock hope. I mock where many Lefties place theirs….and it is a mocking they richly deserve.

    “If one candidate is appealing to your fears, and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you’d better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope!” – Bill Clinton

    When your “thinking” dwells too much on what your neighbor earns and not enough on doing the same for yourself, and your hope rests in empowering government to the point where it takes away what your neighbor earned and gives it to someone who didn’t while insulating you from the consequences of and the ability to take risks, then you’re doing it wrong.

  • 25. El Tigre  |  December 31, 2010 at 8:48 pm

    Interesting that logic as a guide was not mentioned by R or G-chin. :roll:

    Keep stroking yourselves. I prefer that politics remain politics and art remain art (or in your cases, pop culture) — and I remain optimistic and idealistic about that so it is unassailable. I think Alice Cooper would agree.

    (you two really do sound like two teenage school girls having a sleepover sometimes — pillow fight!!)

    And Rutherford, all music is “worthwhile” until it crosses over into false political commentary. At that point, it has mutated into something other than individual expression. Right or wrong, Lennon was a remarkable musician. I hate that he decalred himself a spokesman on other fronts. But I guess it’s hard to resist when you have the microphone and the spotlight. A dab of self-righteousness, and voila! The Hollywood lefty is born. And that’s how we wind up with folks like Janeane Garafalo.

    G-chin, it is fear, particularly of the right, that guides the left and virtually everything you’ve ever said on this blog. There’s not one scintilla of “hopes and dreams” in any of it. The Genius of the Crowd is about YOU. It’s my hope and dream that you come to realize that so we can all live in a more perfect world.

  • 26. fakename2  |  December 31, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    Um. Isn’t it time some of this was moved to the Coliseum?

  • 27. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  December 31, 2010 at 9:09 pm

    And as long as we are doing poetry references, I’ll suggest that some of my lefty acquaintances here read Robert Frost’s “The Code”, and then think about the world that they keep trying to create for the rest of us.

  • 28. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  December 31, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    Um. Isn’t it time some of this was moved to the Coliseum?

    Thank you. I wondered who our designated speech cop was today. I wonder no more.

  • 29. graychin  |  December 31, 2010 at 9:20 pm

    Black = White: ever the pompous ass.

    Tiger – that’s quite a comment!

    Logic is worthless when it’s based on false assumptions or on ideology unchecked by reality. As is your “logic,” every day in every way.

    What do you consider to be the difference between “true” political commentary and “false” political commentary? Is it about what you agree with? I think it’s just that you don’t like what Lennon’s songs said, or don’t like the whole “counterculture” thing, or something. Simple as that.

    Too bad there aren’t any “conservative” folk singers. The concept itself is so ridiculous that it makes me laugh. (Barry McGuire came close with his “Eve of Destruction.” Of course he’s preaching for Jesus now. And we’re all still here.)

    As Rutherford pointed out, it’s just wrong to call Lennon self-righteous. He never claimed to be anyone’s role model. All he was saying, was give peace a chance. Really. Is that so hard to understand?

    Yes, I rag on the Right a lot, probably too much. But fear of the right doesn’t guide the left. Hopes and dreams guide the left, and lefties like me do fear the deliberate, purposeful destruction or obstruction of the American Dream in which the Right is engaged, every day in its every action. “Hell no, you can’t!” is their mantra, as articulated by none other than the incoming Speaker. The Bush II Administration was a huge setback, but as the cliché goes: the arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice. Too bad for you.

    Courage in battle – not fear of the opponent. Don’t you get that either?

  • 30. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  December 31, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    Black = White: ever the pompous ass.

    You lecture from afar and constantly intone a narrative not of what is, but what you imagine to be true so as to pat yourself on the back and mutter about what a noble and righteous individual you are, and I’m the pompous ass?

    You are much like the incompetent boob vacationing in Hawaii…you speak in glittering generalities and when you cite an idiotic “scientific study” to support the elaborate fiction you cast yourself in, I cite actual facts that burst that feverishly blown bubble, and you go silent.

    But please…continue with that whole “liberals r smart and hopeful and conservatives are dumb and fearful” nonsense. My children will benefit from the real life object lession in braying delusional asses that you so eagerly provide.

  • 31. dead rabbit  |  December 31, 2010 at 9:50 pm

    “Um. Isn’t it time some of this was moved to the Coliseum?”-fakename

    lol……….uh…come on guys…..the rules…

    It cracks me up that people like you even exist online. And I’m not trying to be insulting. I’m truly fascinated.

    I remember when you would always tell Mr. Norberto on me in 6th grade. You sat right behind me. It’s got to be you.

    In all seriousness, I hate that Coliseum idea…. If my banal musings aren’t good enough for this place, as low brow, mean spirited and off topic they sometimes are, let Rutherford ban me.

    If anything, we should have a place called the Church, where you go only to be nice.

  • 32. El Tigre  |  December 31, 2010 at 10:59 pm

    G-chin, I like Lennon and his message in its proper context you narcissistic dumbass. The rest of what you said, as always, makes my point. The fact that you don’t recognize it brings me endless amusement. Keep sucking your own dick G-chin — assuming you have one.

  • 33. dead rabbit  |  December 31, 2010 at 11:42 pm

    My boy Bronson constantly rough houses all day, every day. That’s all we do is wrestle. He will be 16 months already. He responds to me with this throaty growl, Daaa!

    It’s strange watching his personality emerge. Very tenacious with a bad temper. Either laughing or screaming. I hope I can funnel these attributes in a positive direction.

    We went out for breakfast the other day, just me and him. How crazy, sitting eating a Lumberjack breakfast, sharing it with my son. I still get flashes in which I’m amazed this person in front of me is my son.

    I don’t know how the Atheists do it. You got to have somebody to thank.

  • 34. dead rabbit  |  January 1, 2011 at 12:11 am

    Happy New Year everyone. It’s amateur night out there.

  • 35. poolman  |  January 1, 2011 at 12:20 am


    Military’s new cadence…
    :lol:

  • 36. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 12:30 am

    Rutherford and Graychin in a pillow fight. :lol: I do rather see them curling each other’s hair. Rutherford, your sycophantic act is atrocious. Put a sock in it in 2011.

    Lennon was a fool, and uneducated and shallow moron. Besides that, he was a despicable human as he abandoned his first child, not only failure as father but husband, and other than music, a weirdo and buffoon. McCartney has cast himself as equally inept as he has grown older and more irrelevant – detailed with his library comment about Bush earlier this year while sucking Edsel’s balls on stage; Bush being married to a librarian dumbass.

    If that had been someone making a similar comment about Edsel, they’d have been annihilated by the media like Dan Quayle.

    ——–

    Now, on to more important things.

    The new True Grit gets 2 1/2 stars – the original is much better. Bridges and the girl are excellent; Barry Pepper as Ned Pepper is very good too but the role is limited. Josh Brolin was wooden, Matt Damon would have been better cast as a horse’s ass, and the Coen brothers changed much of the original story and not for the better.

    Save your money for DVD and go see the King’s Speech on the big screen. Well worth it. Take your wife to the matinee Rutherford and sneak in your Slurpees like the wife and I do. You and the Mrs. would enjoy it.

  • 37. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 1:01 am

    I had heard Maria Cantwell (D, WA) was the dumbest Senator going. Hard to believe anybody could be dumber than John Kerry, but I think I believe it now.

    http://blog.thenewstribune.com/military

  • 38. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 1:13 am

    Oh, and of course our asshole for Commander in Chief was his usual self concerning his profound concern for the fallen soldier. :evil:

    But Michael Vick? He’s an American Hero who deserves a second chance. I’m sure the visibility and color had nothing to do with the pandering.

  • 39. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 1:23 am

    Here Rutherford. Here’ a couple of real geniuses you Lefties like to keep company with – in fact, they sound a lot like Graychin to me and I believe are spokespersons for the liberal cause. Wasn’t it you yuck yucking it up about how Katie humiliated Sarah Palin Big “R”?

    Well, I can’t vouch for Sarah Palin, but I can tell you that Perky Katie Couric is an imbecile.

    Want to hear a couple of real dumbasses in action?

    Katie Couric & Mo Rocca; The Muslims Need a Cosby Show

    Isn’ t this Mo Rocca dipshit a Jon Stewart hack? 99% of Liberals are profoundly stupid. Let’s give them health care to run.

  • 40. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 1:34 am

    Here you go BIC and El Tigre, assuming you haven’ t already seen it. I hope someone at the law office told you the Constitution isn’t relevant anymore.

    If this doesn’t top it all, I don’t know what does. Here’s your Journolist Mass Media propeller head in action.

    http://www.breitbart.tv/liberal-star-blogger-ezra-klein-constitution-has-no-binding-power-on-anything-confusing-because-its-over-100-years-old/

    Let’s give them health care to run!

  • 41. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 1:42 am

    Toys for Tots….with a little truth thrown in for effect. And the crowd goes wild! :lol: :lol:

    http://www.breitbart.tv/full-metal-jackets-r-lee-ermey-rips-into-obama-administration/

  • 42. Rutherford  |  January 1, 2011 at 2:19 am

    You got to have somebody to thank.

    Rabbit, start by thanking your wife.

  • 43. Rutherford  |  January 1, 2011 at 2:23 am

    Nothing like Breitbart links to kick off the New Year!! :-D

  • 44. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 2:27 am

    I wanted to end on a good note “R”! :smile:

    My New Year was an early movie and eating pie with my Mrs. with a notebook in my lap at midnight. How’s that for a bore?

    I’m going to miss everybody when they leave this weekend. :sad:

    And may I add that I feel I’m unusual in welcoming in the New Year. I find something terribly sad about another year passing.

  • 45. Rutherford  |  January 1, 2011 at 2:27 am

    LOL Poolman, wouldn’t this Monty Python video have been more on topic?

  • 46. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 2:33 am

    Predictions for 2011, First Quarter (not mine – Frank Fleming)

    January:

    Undeterred by losing her speakership, Nancy Pelosi will continue to take unpopular positions, make severely out-of-touch pronouncements, and even invade homes and kill pets until she dissuades her last few supporters and secures her position in the history books as the first politician with a 0% approval rating.

    February:

    It will be a record warm February — further proof of global warming. Or it will be a record cold February — also proof of global warming. Or it will be the most average February temperatures on record — which would be the greatest proof of global warming of all.

    March:

    No longer able to ram unpopular, costly legislation through Congress, Barack Obama will begin to lose interest in the presidency. He’ll miss meetings and even disappear for hours at a time. Eventually, his staff will find him at a nearby church pursuing what he now considers his true calling: becoming a crazed, racist preacher.

  • 47. Rutherford  |  January 1, 2011 at 2:43 am

    We spent the last day of the year at the mall buying the kid a couple of Webkinz (stuffed animals) with money given to her by Granddad (from my side) and Grandma (from wife’s side). Then my better half and I used a gift certificate to watch an Amazon On-Demand movie … “Inception”. A real mind-blower!

    Now it’s off to bed. I’ll leave you with a final thought …

    How did a schmuck who was a lousy co-host of the first season of American Idol, wind up inheriting the mantle of not only Casey Kasem but Dick Clark? I am referring of course to Ryan Seacrest. Ryan’s rise from nobody to power broker-multi-millionaire makes my own meager situation all the more embarrassing.

    In 2011, I need to do what everyone else has done to create a second act for themselves …. I need a f*cking reality show! :evil:

  • 48. fakename2  |  January 1, 2011 at 11:20 am

    Rabbit (re#31), it amazes you? I’m not trying to be insulting either, but you must not get out much.
    I see some things will never change in 2011. It will always come back to Obama, yada yada yada, Liberals, yada yada yada, etc. R, you could write a post about fuzzy little kittens and someone would be reminded of the Patriot Act. You’re doomed :)

  • 49. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 11:39 am

    Flake,

    What you and your blowhard pal Graychin apparently fail to understand, and I say this with all honesty, the problem with America is not really Obama, as he is simply the figurehead and puppet of a failed ideology. Therefore, Obama becomes the topic of discussion frequently.

    In 2011 on the Rutherford Lawson blog, I will attempt to be more specific, more honest in my assessment of America’s current situation/dilemma.

    The biggest problem with America is you and people like you, who because of their amorality, duplicity, undeserving arrogance, political correctness, self-absorption, wrong-headed thinking, and nihilistic nature, are a far greater threat to our children that radical Islam will ever be.

    It is my opinion, you represent the very worst generation in America history. Frankly, you and many of your pathetic ilk of the Woodstock generation are the enemy of light and goodness, and should be treated as such. You taint the great American legacy, as you will be the first generation in its history to leave their children worse off.

    Happy New Year.

  • 50. graychin  |  January 1, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Tiger:

    Aren’t you going to clarify your comment at #25 about what constitutes “false” political commentary? How does one distinguish it from “true” political commentary?

    Surely you mean something more substantive by “false” commentary than commentary you don’t like.

  • 51. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    Graychin, your form of political commentary is like porn.

    It’s hard to exactly define, but the typical commenter knows rank propaganda when he reads it. And your form is the most exploitative, dishonest and self-serving. There’s little of truth in you,

    You mock TV evangelists, but you are the internet form of one – hypocritical blow hard extraordinaire. Tigre is right to call you out. There’s not a more hollow and smug commenter on any blog I’ve read, and you deserve to be mocked.

    The only admiration you seek and receive are from empty headed bimbos and illiterate morons.

    Happy New Year.

  • 52. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 1, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    Finally….

    Israel can pay it’s own damn way in the world.

  • 53. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    I had heard Maria Cantwell (D, WA) was the dumbest Senator going. Hard to believe anybody could be dumber than John Kerry, but I think I believe it now.

    Tex, while I will soon enjoy casting my vote for anyone but Cantvotewell in the next Senatorial election, the sad fact is that the combined numbers of dead, convicts, and homeless “Getting out the vote” for the usual suspects in King County will likely give her all she needs to get sent back to the feverswamp on the Potomac.

  • 54. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    Now it’s off to bed. I’ll leave you with a final thought …

    How did a schmuck who was a lousy co-host of the first season of American Idol, wind up inheriting the mantle of not only Casey Kasem but Dick Clark? I am referring of course to Ryan Seacrest. Ryan’s rise from nobody to power broker-multi-millionaire makes my own meager situation all the more embarrassing.

    You were watching the wrong celebration.

    I wasn’t about to let the boys stay up until midnight, but they could watch NY’s celebration and still be in bed by 9:15.

    I turned on the Fox News Channel coverage @ 8, and we watched Megyn Kelly (let’s face it, PMSNBC has no comparable commentator in the looks or intellect department) Greg Gutfeld, and the Gin Blossoms (cause everyone deserves a chance to play live songs I hated when they were new ten years ago) and Rick Springfield (who looked well-preseved for being 60 freaking years old).

    No Ryan Secrest, and some funny stuff with Gutfeld.

  • 55. poolman  |  January 1, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    Rutherford, I was going to post the Monty Python Spam clip. That was the first that came to mind after reading the topic. I thought it was too obvious and figured someone else would, so thanks for it. I actually found that other one after viewing the Spam one. I love Monty Python and I think I’ve seen all their stuff so many times that they have shaped my thought processes. Classic stuff.

    Tex, afa Breitbart is concerned. He lost his credibility (if he ever had any) long ago. The fake ACORN video and his outright lies and distortion of fact should have cost him any relevance in any public platform. Of course this is modern day America we are talking about. We promote idiots and crooks. Whoever screams the loudest gets the platform and most of the airtime. Pathetic. He remains a dishonest bigot who will do anything to discredit opponents of his ideology.

    Even the last MSNBC clip you posted from his site with Ezra Klein serves as an example of his distortion of truth. If allowed to go further into the interview, Ezra clarifies his statement and even shows how Boehner quotes the Declaration of Independence claiming it as the Constitution. Quite a dishonest accounting really, but typical Breitbart.

  • 56. Rutherford  |  January 1, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    I love how whenever a Dem wins you guys cry voter fraud. And you call me a wimp?

    BiW I’m surprised I didn’t read in the papers about your giving pro bono counsel to Joe Miller as he whined about Murkowsky’s win. Then again she was a GOPher so no voter fraud there, right? (Personally I’m delighted Murkowsky won. Any enemy of Sarah Palin is a friend of mine.)

  • 57. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    I didn’t see the clip on Breitbart.

    I did see it elsewhere, and after reading poolman’s account, I have a question for R or the Chin.

    If these Lefty pundits and commentators are so brilliant, why do they say things that they have to “clarify”? It isn’t like they don’t know beforehand what they are being called on to talk about, and it isn’t like they are a politician who will be speaking about one thing while thinking about three others.

  • 58. Rutherford  |  January 1, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    I actually like Megyn Kelly. I can’t put my finger on why.

  • 59. Rutherford  |  January 1, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    Breitbart in short is a punk.

  • 60. Rutherford  |  January 1, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    Rabbit, regarding the Coliseum, I can’t please all the people all the time. There were requests and I aim to keep the audience reasonably happy.

    Feel free to go to the Coliseum and say “nice things”. Might be refreshing. Heck, Tex is more polite in there than elsewhere. :-)

  • 61. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    I love how whenever a Dem wins you guys cry voter fraud. And you call me a wimp?

    Rutherford, King County has deliberately not gone through and revised its voter rolls to remove those who have died in almost 10 years. Add to it the shift to mail-in ballots only for much of the state, including KC, and “provisional” ballots that can be cast, and you have a recipe for fraud. Something borne out by the first election of Queen Christine, where on the second recount, the KC elections supervisor just happened to “find” a whole bunch of ballots that weren’t counted the first two times.

    BiW I’m surprised I didn’t read in the papers about your giving pro bono counsel to Joe Miller as he whined about Murkowsky’s win. Then again she was a GOPher so no voter fraud there, right? (Personally I’m delighted Murkowsky won. Any enemy of Sarah Palin is a friend of mine.)

    My pro bono counsel is limited, and wouldn’t extend to Alaska. And while I am disappointed that he couldn’t accept what appeared to be the will of the voters, I could say the same for Moocowski for not folding her tent after the primary.

    Thanks for the obigatory PDS manifestation bright and early on Jan 1, 2011. I think that means I win the pool. Pay up, guys.

  • 62. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    I actually like Megyn Kelly. I can’t put my finger on why.

    My choices for New Years’ Eve programming that early in the evening here were her or Anderson Cooper on CNN. It really wasn’t a difficult choice.

  • 63. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    Breitbart in short is a punk.

    But Chrissy “Tingles” Matthews is a paragon of journistic integrity.

  • 64. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    “journalistic”

  • 65. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    Poolman,

    Even the last MSNBC clip you posted from his site with Ezra Klein serves as an example of his distortion of truth. If allowed to go further into the interview, Ezra clarifies his statement and even shows how Boehner quotes the Declaration of Independence claiming it as the Constitution. Quite a dishonest accounting really, but typical Breitbart.

    Baloney – Ezra is you. Rank propagandist, dishonest shill, leftist hack, masquerading as flag waver of truth. Journolist and busted last year – that is called zero credibility.

    Happy New Year.

  • 66. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Poolman, how’d you like that Mo Rocca comment about “being pretty smart” and not knowing five things about Islam. Illegal immigrants who can’t speak English no more than ‘five’ things about Islam.

    I suppose that was twisted too, hey? :twisted:

    Happy New Year.

  • 67. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    damn no/know…

  • 68. Rutherford  |  January 1, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    damn no/know … Happy New Year

    I finished it for you. :-)

  • 69. graychin  |  January 1, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    Black = White @ 57:

    Repetition will probably do no more good with you than it has before, but I’ll try one more time.

    I don’t speak for, explain, or stand behind “these Lefty pundits and commentators,” not even when I have some idea who, or what, you are talking about. I’m even less likely to back them up in a case like this, when I have NO idea what you are talking about.

    The only opinions or comments that I stand behind are my own.

    Since your memory is so poor, how about writing that on your palm for future reference? It works for Sarah Palin. :D

  • 70. graychin  |  January 1, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    I actually like Megyn Kelly. I can’t put my finger on why.

    Rutherford, you’re just a sucker for a pretty face. Recently you have confessed to having a thing for the Russian spy girl, and for Christine “you can’t masturbate without luhh-ust” O’Donnell.

    Kelly IS pretty, in spite of being as mean as a snake. Maybe it’s the danger factor for you.

    But when you start lusting after Ann Coulter, I’m going to start worrying about you.

  • 71. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    Everybody is either psychopathic, sociopathic or mean as a snake if they don’t defer to Rambo’s opinions. Weak.

    Happy New Year Rutherford.

  • 72. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 4:03 pm

    Repetition will probably do no more good with you than it has before, but I’ll try one more time.

    I know you believe that repeating something enough times will transmute it into truth, but that kind of linguistic alchemy only works in the minds of lefties and the legacy media…but I repeat myself.

  • 73. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    The only opinions or comments that I stand behind are my own.

    And yet you never did explain how that liberal brain that is “hardwired for optimism” brought us Carter malaise…from his own mouth (!), and that conservative brain hardwired for negativity and fear brought us morning again in America.

    So when an opinion presented as a scientific fact is so easily dismissed, do you “Stand by it”, or merely repeat it later and hope no one was paying attention earlier when it was revealed to be as factual as a campaign promise?

    Nevermind. I already know the answer.

  • 74. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    Kelly IS pretty, in spite of being as mean as a snake.

    Another statement of fact from that well-known media socialite, the Chin?

  • 75. Westies Rule  |  January 1, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    Poolman understands the Bluebird..
    mista I will be on your flank any time.. just holler. Too many Barbarians in cyberspace today.. bahahha!

  • 76. fakename2  |  January 1, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    Uh, Rabbit, I don’t think it was me. Were you the obese guy in the fifth grade who was the son of the principal, who pulled my hair every time the teacher wasn’t looking? If so, I’m the girl who met you when I got off the school bus with a broken Coke bottle. I tried reporting you first, but that didn’t work :)
    GC…give it up. I’ve now heard three people say the reason they are here is because they enjoy the “debate”. This is not a debate. This is a Monster Truck Pull/Jump/Smash…whatever they call those events. I ought to know, but oddly, I forget.

  • 77. Westies Rule  |  January 1, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    But Michael Vick? He’s an American Hero who deserves a second chance. I’m sure the visibility and color had nothing to do with the pandering.
    ========
    Michael Vick should be publically STONED. He has fell on his head too many times..

  • 78. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    This is not a debate. This is a Monster Truck Pull/Jump/Smash…whatever they call those events. I ought to know, but oddly, I forget.

    Hayzeus Chreestay on a freaking pogostick!

    Politics is messy, and no-holds barred, as anyone who has ever stepped into the fishbowl that is candidacy can tell you. Ambrose Bierce once likened the process to sausage making.

    I woudn’t waste my time even answering it, but I’m willing to bet that if we went and examined each FN2 comment at the RL Blog, at least 85% of your comments are complaining about someone being “mean” or “off-topic” rather than simply particpating in the conversation. Your thought police routine is very, very tired.

  • 79. fakename2  |  January 1, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Good Monster Truck jumping off point, BiW. I think you’re probably right…at least 85% of my comments are about the process. Because if I post anything of substance, I’m inundated with partisan links, Why bother?
    What is it with you? You’re an attorney, so your standard MO is to have to bow and scrape to judges. Is this where you get your revenge?
    Off-topic is a legitimate issue. It isn’t like it’s a written rule, but you act like pointing it out is an infringement of your First Amendment rights. I t amuses me that being polite is equated with being a sissy.

  • 80. dead rabbit  |  January 1, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    Well, at least fakename is now making comments about making comments about the process. I deem that an improvement.

    Fakename, I don’t remember you hitting anyone with the bottle but you did spin it a lot.

    Heyoooo!

  • 81. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    Because if I post anything of substance, I’m inundated with partisan links

    Strange, I recall 87% of your uber whining comments calling me sociopath and begging for Rutherford to ban me, 10% of the comments condemning Rabbit for his language, 2% of your comments of the misandrist type, and 1% general weirdness but valid.

    I can think of maybe three comments of substance where one of us either answered your feckless charges, or on the rare occasion agreed with your conclusion.

    Ride them Hot Momma!

    Happy New Year.

  • 82. fakename2  |  January 1, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    You know, I have to ask myself if all you guys are married to runway models? I only ask because Tex seems to think that all liberal women are ugly.
    Tex, you gotta pay attention. It is not I who called you a sociopath. What I called you was a stalker, which you are. And damn. could you make a New Year’s resolution to lose the word “feckless”? I am so bored.

  • 83. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    Feckless is such an apropos word to describe you. So’s stalker – you’ve followed me to two different blogs bimbo and I’ll bet if I showed up at another, you would soon follow. I think you’re one of those women who likes a little beat down between lying in the supine position with your toes pointed toward the ceiling.

    I have a great feeling my wife would make you look like a old toad. But more than that, I definitely know her virtuous compared to the traveling blog bimbo.

    Happy New Year Flake.

  • 84. graychin  |  January 1, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Black = White:

    Are you still hung over? Or are you just being your usual asshole self? The only “truth” I claim today, and which I repeat (futilely) for your benefit is that I will only stand behind my own opinions, and will not attempt to justify or explain anyone else’s. That is what I am trying to repeat, and that is what you don’t seem to be able to understand or retain.

    Can you hear me now?

    That includes Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” speech. (In which he never used the word “malaise” – look it up.)

    Did Reagan come up with “Morning in America”? I assumed it was some PR hack.

    I posted a link the other day to the study confirming larger amygdalas in “conservatives.” It speaks for itself. I’m certain that there are counterexamples, just as there are blizzards in the midst of global warming. (You DO have some vague understanding of statistics, don’t you?)

    You might as well have ignored my comment about Megyn Kelly instead of butting in and taking snooty umbrage over it. I was talking to Rutherford, who will be capable of sensing “conservative” meanness which is well outside your visible spectrum.

    What a pompous ass you are.

  • 85. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 1, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    Michael Vick has paid his debt to society. Get over it.

  • 86. Westies Rule  |  January 1, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    Good God.. that ain’t Chin’s tooney..

    This is Chin’s tooney..

  • 87. Westies Rule  |  January 1, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    BIG YELLOW DOG’s tooney is this:

  • 88. Westies Rule  |  January 1, 2011 at 7:09 pm

    Ruther’s tuney is: cause he is too heavy sometimes! ha ha

  • 89. Westies Rule  |  January 1, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    85. Hucking Fypocrites | January 1, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    Michael Vick has paid his debt to society. Get over it
    ===
    I still say STONE HIM!

  • 90. poolman  |  January 1, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    Baloney – Ezra is you. Rank propagandist, dishonest shill, leftist hack, masquerading as flag waver of truth. Journolist and busted last year – that is called zero credibility.

    Ezra is me? WTF? You are proving yourself time and again to be a very poor judge of character. I wasn’t defending Ezra Klein, though he is much more credible than Breitbart, IMHO. For a man the same age as my youngest daughter, he has done quite well for himself. I don’t know too many folks who could still be considered journalists in today’s media. He comes quite close. He definitely is a progressive democrat and doesn’t deny it.

    AFA any other pundits are concerned, I am not very fond of most. I’ve listened to all the popular ones, but not on a regular basis. I can’t stand Glenn Beck or Chris Matthews and a few others. Their on air personalities rub me the wrong way. I can tolerate some of the others, but I surely don’t take what they spew as gospel. I know most are entertainers first. The attractive ones are easier on the eyes like Megyn is, but the message could still be just as exaggerated, ugly, or biased.

    Just as Gretchen Carlson, who is actually quite intelligent, they all have to put on an act for the camera. She comes off as a ditsy blonde mostly because her primary audience doesn’t accept superior intellect from its women.

  • 91. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    You’re an attorney, so your standard MO is to have to bow and scrape to judges.

    No. My MO is to maintain a minimal amount of decorum, and always address myself to the Court, and not to the hopeless jackass representing the opposing party. I bow and scrape to no one, especially judges.

  • 92. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    You might as well have ignored my comment about Megyn Kelly instead of butting in and taking snooty umbrage over it. I was talking to Rutherford, who will be capable of sensing “conservative” meanness which is well outside your visible spectrum.

    I could ignore it if the “World According the Greychin” wasn’t populated by skittle-shitting unicorns and “meanness” that only the self-appointed enlightened ones could see…much like the penumbras and eminations they support when they justify policies they want.

  • 93. El Tigre  |  January 1, 2011 at 8:18 pm

    G-chin says, “Surely you mean something more substantive by “false” commentary than commentary you don’t like.”

    Yes. I meant what I said. False commentary, as in the type that serves no purpose other than to feed the celebrity ego (sense of superiority) and base.

    Do you even remember the context of comment, or do you think you’re scoring some point? Damn, you probably consider Kanye West and Sean Penn legit becuase they say things you like to hear, don’t you G-chin? You know, the ones that are guided by their hopes and dreamers, rather than anger, just like you.

  • 94. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    That includes Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” speech. (In which he never used the word “malaise” – look it up.)

    True. Instead he talked about a “crisis of confidence”, and then categorized all the various items that that he felt constituted that crisis…a laundry list that he wore like a milstone throughout his Presidency, which highlighted the impotentcy that characterized his four years in the oval office.

  • 95. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    Damn, you probably consider Kanye West and Sean Penn legit becuase they say things you like to hear, don’t you G-chin? You know, the ones that are guided by their hopes and dreamers, rather than anger, just like you.

    You mean W. doesn’t hate black people? But a celebrity said it! It must be true.

  • 96. El Tigre  |  January 1, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    “You’re an attorney, so your standard MO is to have to bow and scrape to judges.”

    What an amazingly ignorant comment.

    BiW, your response is not too far off from what I would’ve said. A lawyer bows and scrapes to a judge no more than an athelete bows and scrapes to a referee.

  • 97. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    Oh, and Chin…this doesn’t rely on fear, it isn’t dumb, or narrow minded, and it shows more confidence in the American people and their ability and opportunity under the the system we have without a need for “fundamental transformation.”

    Kiss my ass, you self-important and delusional windbag.

  • 98. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 8:30 pm

    What an amazingly ignorant comment.

    There is no shortage of them here.

    But then for adherents to a philosophy so reliant on “nuance”, they get remarkably ham-fisted in their projections on others.

  • 99. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    (You DO have some vague understanding of statistics, don’t you?)

    Yes, I do, which is why I would never pin the veracity of such a transparently false assertion on the reliability of one scientific study, especially without having some means of reviewing the data, and knowing something about the researcher as well, because as Twain once said, “Figures don’t lie…but liars can figure!”

  • 100. Rutherford  |  January 1, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    Gray, odds are Peggy Noonan came up with “morning in America”. She wrote a lot of Reagan’s speeches. Let’s not forget, he was an actor, not a writer. ;-)

  • 101. Rutherford  |  January 1, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    I’m a bit surprised by Huck’s reaction to Vick and I’m wondering if sarcasm is intended. If not, I have to agree with him. There’s some football player with multiple accusations of rape walking the streets and folks panties are in a knot over Vick. Puhleeze. Maybe he’d be judged less harshly if he’d raped a few dogs?

  • 102. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 1, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    “You mean W. doesn’t hate black people? But a celebrity said it! It must be true.”

    Kanye sings a different tune, these days.

    “I definitely can understand the way he feels, to be accused of being a racist in any way, because the same thing happened to me, where I got accused of being a racist,” West replied, referring to the aftermath of his run-in with Taylor Swift last fall. “For both situations, it was basically a lack of compassion that America felt in that situation. With him, it was a lack of compassion of him not rushing, him not taking the time to rush down to New Orleans. For me, it was a lack of compassion of cutting someone off in their moment. But nonetheless, I think we’re all quick to pull a race card in America. And now I’m more open, and the poetic justice that I feel, to have went through the same thing that he went [through] — and now I really more connect with him on just a humanitarian level.”

  • 103. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    The only things that bother me about Michael Vick are

    a) he got a longer sentance than some child molesters get;

    and

    b) he is still the focus, even with all the other bullshit and baggage in the National Felons League in general.

    Does it bother me that as a pro athelete, he might be regarded as a role model by children? Yes, but as with many such concerns, I blame the parents who let it happen.

  • 104. Rutherford  |  January 1, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    I’ve said this before but Poolman’s comment re Carlson is on the money. My wife has actually read that the Gretchen we see on Fox is an act. She’s “dumbing it up” all the way to the bank.

  • 105. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    But nonetheless, I think we’re all quick to pull a race card in America.

    No, we’re not. It is the allegedly aggreived or those who have appointed themselves their spokespersons who are quick to play the race card. That’s why opposing Obama was classified as “Racist”. That’s why his AG could deliver a speech accusing the nation of being a bunch of cowards on the topic. Its why it gets played whenever anyone is trying to say something that strays from the politically approved script, or have an uncomfortable conversation.

  • 106. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 1, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    “I’m a bit surprised by Huck’s reaction to Vick and I’m wondering if sarcasm is intended. If not, I have to agree with him. There’s some football player with multiple accusations of rape walking the streets and folks panties are in a knot over Vick. Puhleeze. Maybe he’d be judged less harshly if he’d raped a few dogs?”

    Not 1 bit of sarcasm in what I said. The guy screwed up, got caught, did his time, and got out. It’s seriously time to move on.

    I’m not saying he’s a hero, or anything. But he isn’t a demon, either.

    But I do love how you are shitting on the other guy who has unproven allegations of rape, as if there was never a woman who lied about such a thing. You must be a part of the NFL Commissioner’s Office, who also saw fit to punish him for an act that has never been proven.

    If only he had emailed pictures of his junk and then not been helpful in the investigation, like the guy who just got his wrist slapped.

  • 107. Rutherford  |  January 1, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    Just a friendly admin reminder: if you make your YouTube link the last line of your comment, 90% of the time it will appear inline in the thread. I’ve corrected this on a few comments lately.

    I realize in some cases that style may interfere with your rhetorical flourishes so proceed as best suits you.

  • 108. Rutherford  |  January 1, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    BiW, no one has mastered the art of pushing the buttons of the aggrieved as well as Sarah Palin. Give me a break.

  • 109. Rutherford  |  January 1, 2011 at 9:15 pm

    Well Huck I will admit that a woman can lie about being raped but a dead dog tells no tales.

  • 110. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    You are proving yourself time and again to be a very poor judge of character.

    Well that’s a real insult to all the Conservative commentators here now, isn’t it Poolman?

    Nonetheless, coming from a man who is convinced our gossips for politicians could keep such a secret as imploding the Twin Towers, I guess I’m not terribly concerned about my judge of poor character… :wink:

    P.S. – another Obama karma factor hits the football field too. Ultra Libbie Madison, WI, where Edsel just tried to recapture some of the old magic right before the shellacking, just got beat by a nice private Christiian University from, from, from Texas. ** GUFFAW **

    We rule the world!!! Obama is now paying for his deal with the Devil Soros… :smile:

  • 111. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 9:28 pm

    “R”,

    Gray, odds are Peggy Noonan came up with “morning in America”. She wrote a lot of Reagan’s speeches. Let’s not forget, he was an actor, not a writer.

    What’s Pres. Edsel Obama? Used car salesman?

  • 112. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 1, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    I see you have again ventured into a topic of which you know absolutely nothing.

    “There’s some football player with multiple accusations of rape walking the streets…”

    The key word there is “accusations.” The missing word that should accompany it is “unproven.”

    Of course, like you, the NFL has already condemned him for his unproven crime. He was given a 4-game suspension at the beginning of this year for the crime of being accused of rape

    So in a sense, he has already paid his debt, too…get over it.

    (Meanwhile, Brett Favre emails pictures of his hardon to women, and is not forthcoming with information during the investigation, and he gets a fine that he could pay off with his pocket change. But that’s another story…)

  • 113. dead rabbit  |  January 1, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    I’m with Huck on Vick. He paid his debt. I can get over it.

    Sick bastard for sure, but he never raped or murdered. He probably grew up around dog fighting from day one. He was just taking part in the Ghetto Olympics.

  • 114. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 1, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    BiW, no one has mastered the art of pushing the buttons of the aggrieved as well as Sarah Palin. Give me a break.

    Was that before or after the Press, led by St. Andi of the Wringing Hands, started spelunking in her uterus thirty-five seconds after her name was announced on the ticket, or after Dave Letterman made unfunny jokes about her kids that most parents would take exception to?

  • 115. dead rabbit  |  January 1, 2011 at 10:43 pm

    Rutherford’s Palin hate is merely the antithesis to Rutherford’s demagogue love for Berry.

    Outside of the sycophants, I wonder if Washington DC will get the message how sick we are of the government’s heavy, stinky breath.

    These new Republicans better not forget who put them in. We better get the budget we expect.

  • 116. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 11:19 pm

    Read today the TSA has an army of 67,000 employees. How many terrorists have they stopped again? Rutherford probably thinks their excellent.

    Let’s give them Health Care!

    Happy New Year Rutherford.

  • 117. Tex Taylor  |  January 1, 2011 at 11:19 pm

    shitte… their/they’re – Dawg thier.

  • 118. Rutherford  |  January 2, 2011 at 12:07 am

    Huck you seem to be repeating yourself albeit with more detail. Bottom line I agree with you about Vick and since I only heard about the football rape thing in passing (pardon the pun) I’ll concede on that one as well.

  • 119. Rutherford  |  January 2, 2011 at 12:10 am

    Mmmm, so it’s BiW’s contention that if only Andrew Sullivan had been nicer, we would never have heard the phrase “lame stream media” from Palin’s lips. I get it now.

  • 120. poolman  |  January 2, 2011 at 12:19 am

    Read today the TSA has an army of 67,000 employees. How many terrorists have they stopped again?

    Tex is that real terrorists or just the FBI coerced ones? Even the Pentagon doesn’t use those new cancer causing worthless scanners. Even the nation of Israel won’t use them. What a waste of money. And they were in production way before the underwear bomber. TSA is a bad joke on all of us. This terrorist crap controls our lives and strains our finacial resources today. What a joke. You think these TSA employees don’t get health care? Yeah, right.

  • 121. Rutherford  |  January 2, 2011 at 12:39 am

    Regarding 115, Rabbit where in the world do you find this stuff? Damn I wish I knew you when I was a teenager cos your musical breadth blows me the f*ck away. Then again, when I was a teenager, you were like eight years old. :-)

  • 122. Rutherford  |  January 2, 2011 at 12:54 am

    These new Republicans better not forget who put them in. We better get the budget we expect.

    On to the substance of Rabbit’s comment. As I remarked over at Gorilla’s place, the GOP is going to disappoint you terribly. Here’s the deal.

    The GOP of the Bush era (the first six years) is the real GOP. You see there is no such thing as conservative fiscal policy anymore. We have a credit society … a debt driven society … a short term satisfaction society. There are no grown ups anymore. This is not liberal; this is not conservative; this is a state of the current human condition.

    A bunch of Tea Party folks will come into Congress on Monday and after a short honeymoon, the old-timers will tell the new guys to STFU and play the game the way it’s always been played, pork barrel spending and caving to lobbyists. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio will have their hands tied (assuming they were the real deal to begin with). John Boehner is old school. There will be no revolution under him and THAT my friends is what is needed right now. A legislative revolution on a par with what is going on in Great Britain.

    Our fat spoiled society underemployed by greedy bastard international conglomerates will go on just as they have for the past decade. The poor will stay poor, the middle class will become poor and the rich won’t know the difference and won’t give a damn. And all you suckers will identify with the have’s when you’re all a bunch of have-nots. To follow on a suggestion planted by Tex in a prior thread:

    We’ll all be together one day in a trailer park in Gary, Indiana where you can tell me face to face how effective your grand old party is. :evil:

  • 123. Rutherford  |  January 2, 2011 at 12:57 am

    Happy New Year

  • 124. dead rabbit  |  January 2, 2011 at 1:11 am

    R, you wouldn’t believe the size of my mp3 collection. I’ve always thought it be fun to do a half hour a week eclectic music podcast.

  • 125. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 1:32 am

    We’ll all be together one day in a trailer park in Gary, Indiana where you can tell me face to face how effective your grand old party is.

    I think you’re wrong this time, but if by chance you’re right, I’ll off myself before I meet up with you in Gary, IN. :wink:

    Happy New Year! Too much football. By the way “R”, not that you’re a football fan, but my state just beat the hell out of your state.

  • 126. dead rabbit  |  January 2, 2011 at 1:38 am

    “I think you’re wrong this time, but if by chance you’re right, I’ll off myself before I meet up with you in Gary, IN.”

    That made me laugh out loud

  • 127. poolman  |  January 2, 2011 at 2:15 am

    Rabbit, everyone’s is bigger in cyber-space. Here’s your new year’s Simpson’s fix. Enjoy. :wink:

  • 128. graychin  |  January 2, 2011 at 2:17 am

    And yet you never did explain how that liberal brain that is “hardwired for optimism” brought us Carter malaise…from his own mouth (!), and that conservative brain hardwired for negativity and fear brought us morning again in America.

    I’ve been thinking about this comment all evening.

    First, the study didn’t imply “hardwired for optimism,” you fucking dummy. It’s a generalization. Counterexamples don’t disprove a generalization. Only statistics can do that.

    I’m the first to admit that Carter did not exactly exude optimism. Far from it. That’s probably why so many left-leaning types deserted him when he ran for re-election in 1980. I was one of those deserters. It’s the only time in my life that I didn’t vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. (But I didn’t vote for Reagan either. I threw my vote away on a third party candidate, knowing that Oklahoma’s electoral votes weren’t in play anyway.)

    Reagan always DID exude optimism, with his glittering generalities like “morning in America” and “shining city on a hill.” I suspect that is why he attracted so many “Reagan Democrats.” Are we seeing a pattern here?

    But after all this time, I still can’t figure out what Reagan actually stood for – what his dreams and hopes for America were. (And we were discussing dreams and hopes, weren’t we – not just a sunny demeanor while things collapse around you.)

    Did Reagan dream of lower taxes? Sure – done, and done. Cut spending and balance the budget? Tons of lip service with negative results. Social issues? The “moral majority” types considered him to be a major disappointment, with no results in sight.

    So I think the “amygdala” thesis still holds, and is even supported by the Carter and Reagan examples.

    Does anyone care to chime in and list Reagan’s signature accomplishments in his eight years – besides lowering taxes? (Hint – Afghanistan did more to undermine the Soviets than Star Wars. Much more.)

  • 129. graychin  |  January 2, 2011 at 2:19 am

    A giant AMEN to #122.

  • 130. dead rabbit  |  January 2, 2011 at 2:53 am

    So you’re cool with the massive reduction in government that Rutherford almost seems to be pleading for?

    If the Tea Party stands fast, will you superficially attack them or proclaim them to be principled?

    Pick your favorite pumpkins and be prepared to give us some good reasons why we should not carve the fuck out of them.

    I say we be patriots and personally slash the jacko-lantern closest to us. I shall put a Joker Face on the DOE. Even if it costs me my job.

    Greychin, what’s dearest to you?

    Let’s carve it and go with out.

    Let’s earn those Bronze Stars again and carve a world for the kids so they not be enslaved by a yoke of debt or worse.

    Let’s feel the pain, baby.

    I see waste by the millions every day. Its everywhere. Lead us old heroic Greychin! One more time, for old time’s sake! Aaaaaaaaaargh!

  • 131. an800lbgorilla  |  January 2, 2011 at 11:31 am

    So, I see this:

    And yet you never did explain how that liberal brain that is “hardwired for optimism” brought us Carter malaise…from his own mouth (!), and that conservative brain hardwired for negativity and fear brought us morning again in America.

    And think to my self, let’s has a look see above for the context of the statement. Remembering the ludicrous post at Chin’s and seeing this comment:

    Hopes and dreams guide the left, and lefties like me do fear the deliberate, purposeful destruction or obstruction of the American Dream in which the Right is engaged, every day in its every action.

    Well, coffee almost came out my nose.

    It is absurd on its face and Chin knows it. Who’s restricting free speech? Who wants to restrict the expression of religion? Who wants to pull back on rights to self defense? Exactly, the Left.

    But there is a deeper more philosophical difference. The left focuses on bring everyone down to the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. That is what class warfare is= you’re successful, well, you’ll pay for that.

    Conservatives on the hand focus on the HIGHEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. We don’t begrudge the millionaires for being who they are, we look to them as a source of emulation- if he can do, so can I.

    The left operates on emotion, which is why you idiots bought- hook line and sinker- Hope and Change. Well, that’s worked out just peachy hasn’t it…

    As for educated, or maybe a better word would be informed, I’m reminded of a Pew study that found the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity had the best informed audiences.

    I’d hold onto you stones genius…

  • 132. graychin  |  January 2, 2011 at 11:57 am

    rabbit: are you OK? Your rant doesn’t make any sense at all.

    Sacrifice? “Feel the pain”? I’m ready. Let’s start by committing to paying for all the spending that both parties want – and consistently vote for. Especially for the wars of the past decade, which asked for NO sacrifice from anyone except the military and their families.

    Or did you have something else in mind?

  • 133. graychin  |  January 2, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Who’s restricting free speech? Who wants to restrict the expression of religion? Who wants to pull back on rights to self defense? Exactly, the Left.

    This “lefty” wants to do none of those things. What the hell are you talking about?

    The left focuses on bring everyone down to the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR.

    Again, that doesn’t describe me. I worked my whole life to be above average in economic terms. I even had some success at it. But I do believe that extreme and increasing concentrations of wealth weaken the American economy, the American tax base, the American educational system and educational achievement, and weaken American participatory democracy by making Congress available for sale to the political philosophy of the people willing to spend the most money buying politicians. Other than that, it’s just peachy to have a few wealthy people running everything.

    What the hell is a “highest common denominator”? :D I learned about the lowest one in grade school, but somehow missed out on that other one!

    Honestly, if you guys could stop thinking in stereotypes and address the real arguments of people you don’t like (me, for example), it would be a lot more enjoyable to discuss things here. As it is, I’m constantly being asked to defend what someone else said, or what “the Left” supposedly thinks.

    But Black = White understands this, now that I have repeated it for him for the umpteenth time. I’m sure he will fill you in.

  • 134. El Tigre  |  January 2, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    Gorilla, don’t bother. G-chin will spend the rest of the thread trying to justify his patently stupid comment through every rhetorical and ligical contortion imaginable. He has all of the self awareness of a frist run American Idol reject. Why should anyone lend credence to his self-assesement which is universally delusional or downright dishonest?

    I was watching Olbermann thinking of G-chin’s hopes and dreams. . . laughing myself to sleep.

  • 135. El Tigre  |  January 2, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    But if only we “could stop thinking in stereotypes and address the real arguments. . .”

    Bwahahahahahah!

  • 136. El Tigre  |  January 2, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    From this:

    “Hopes and dreams guide the left, and lefties like me do fear the deliberate, purposeful destruction or obstruction of the American Dream in which the Right is engaged, every day in its every action.”

    To this:

    “Honestly, if you guys could stop thinking in stereotypes and address the real arguments of people you don’t like (me, for example), it would be a lot more enjoyable to discuss things here. As it is, I’m constantly being asked to defend what someone else said, or what “the Left” supposedly thinks.”

    Priceless!

  • 137. El Tigre  |  January 2, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    For, the love of God, don’t address G-chin’s stereotypes with stereotypes. It’s just not fair.

  • 138. fakename2  |  January 2, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    Joining in with the off-topic crowd (what can you do?) BiW re: #105. I thought you said politics was messy. Apparently your rules specify that the opposing side is only permitted to bring a knife to a gunfight. I particularly like your comment regarding “minimal decorum”. That seems to me like a bit of unintended truth-telling. Apparently decorum is a four-letter word, which is why some of you take such pleasure in referring to me as a member of the language/thought police.
    The very idea that liberals appeal to emotion whereas the right does not is just ludicrous.
    “Deficit” is a word without meaning to most Americans. So you have to dress it up by saying our children and grandchilren…fill in the blanks. I didn’t notice Reagan and Bush worrying about me, my children, or my grandchildren, nor did I notice anyone saying a damn word about it. “Deficit” is a code word, like “freedom”.
    Finally…re: Michael Vick. I tend to agree with the Get Over It point of view. On one hand, animal abuse is indisputably tied to a lack of respect for human life as well. On the other hand, I think Vick was trapped by his…culture. Programmed, so to speak. I saw an interview with him shortly after he was released from prison, in which he expressed remorse. Whether that was real or not, I don’t know. But I can’t get inside his head, so I feel bound to accept him at his word until proven otherwise. I beliieve in redemption in THIS life, not in some mythical future one.

  • 139. El Tigre  |  January 2, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    “I particularly like your comment regarding “minimal decorum”. That seems to me like a bit of unintended truth-telling.”

    Although I don’t want to speak for BiW, as an attorney there’s nothing in the statement that appears “unintended.” It is the role of an advocate to advance his client’s interests. In your zeal to personally attack BiW’s motives, you confuse effective advocacy with “bowing and scarping” to the judge (which it is not), with proper (effective) adherence to decorum. Those are not, and never have been, the same thing. I wonder where you got the idea that they were. I also wonder where you got the idea that there is any equivalency in the decorum of a courtroom and this blog.

  • 140. graychin  |  January 2, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    Re: Michael Vick

    Great football player. Horrible human being. But now that he has settled his account with the legal system, he shouldn’t be deprived of his right to earn a fabulous living exercising his considerable skills.

    For those of you who enjoy re-arguing the debates of the 1960s – neither should Muhammad Ali have been deprived of his right to earn a living with HIS considerable skills, without being convicted of any crime and, ultimately being found “not guilty” of any crime.

    I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the “trapped by his culture and programmed” excuse for Vick. Only a minority of people raised in abominable homes and/or neighborhoods grow up (if that’s the word for it) to become purposeful abusers of animals. What Vick did to those dogs is 100% his own fault. And I can think of multiple million$ of reason$ why he might be showing remor$e post-prison.

    I’m a bit disappointed that the boo-birds in Philly don’t boo Vick with more enthusiasm. I haven’t even heard much on-the-road booing of Vick. I guess everyone loves a winner, no matter what a slimeball he is off the field.

    Take Brett “wanna see my junk?” Favre. Please!

  • 141. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Does anyone care to chime in and list Reagan’s signature accomplishments in his eight years – besides lowering taxes?

    This is too easy.

    It is true the deficit increased 1.6 Trillion dollars (about 1/2 of what Obama managed to increase the deficit in a short 16 months) as libs like you Graychin like to remind, what you forever fail to mention is during the period of 1981-1989, the American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth.

    From Wiki:During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars), which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6pp, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988, but with peaks of around 9.5% in 1982 and 1983. A net job increase of about 16 million also occurred (about the rate of population growth). The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988.

    We won’t even talk about the fall of communism, the Berlin Wall, hostages being released, or the Gulf War of which all that miraculous warfare was produced during Reagan’s Presidency.

    And before you give me your baloney about Cato, or Heritage, or any other “Rethug” organization slanting the results, let me remind you that no matter what you say, the America public overwhelmingly agreed.

    Reagan came within 3,000 votes of sweeping all 50 states in the 1984 Presidential election.

    Should we lay a few odds on President Edsel’s chance of repeating Reagan’s feat? I’ll give you say a hundred to one? :wink:

  • 142. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 2, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    “I guess everyone loves a winner, no matter what a slimeball he is was off the field.”

  • 143. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    The shortsightedness and lack of basic critical thinking and mathematical skills continues to boggle the mind.

    I didn’t notice Reagan and Bush worrying about me, my children, or my grandchildren, nor did I notice anyone saying a damn word about it.

    I did notice you didn’t notice that already El Bongo has increased the deficit over twice what Reagan did, that he accomplished that in less than 18 months, and that wealth actually contracted during this period.

    Had Bongo been able to increase the national wealth $30Trillion dollars while doubling Reagan’s deficiit, I doubt any of us would be complaining and would gladly be voting for the false messiah. What we did see is another 3.3MM people become unemployed while wasting $862Billion dollars that added nothing to the value of the economy.

    Epic failure.

  • 144. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    I believe the real Patton did say something along the lines of “Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a loser…”

    Patton never lived during the Obama Administration.

    But if Tiger Woods wins a major next year, guaranteed all will be forgiven…

  • 145. fakename2  |  January 2, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    Tigre, re #139, It isn’t my intent to denigrate your profession…far from it. If I were accused of a crime, I’m pretty sure I’d like to have a pit bull like you or BiW on my side. My experience in a courtroom is (thankfully!) limited, but my experience with attorneys is extensive.
    What I am saying is that you and BiW don’t know when to take off the combatiive hat and put on the Real Person hat.
    If you aren’t bowing and scraping to a judge, then you are only doing half your job. One half is arguing well and knowing the law. The other half is making an impression on the judge or the jury (don’t get me started on juries…) But you know this.
    Going far afield, we are about to have a trial here for a serial killer. Um alleged serial killer. I’m like please, please don’t call me for jury duty. I don’t know why I’m worried…I’ll never be picked. First of all, I already think he’s guilty, second I can’t vote for the death penatly in spite of it.

  • 146. Rutherford  |  January 2, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    Tex sorry dude, I think it was far more the work of Gorbachev that killed the USSR and brought down the wall. Reagan was to some extent lucky to be there.

    Reagan did not get the hostages released. The hostages were ready for release and the release was delayed to spit in Carter’s face.

  • 147. Rutherford  |  January 2, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    I hate to disappoint some of you but pro sports is not some virtuous lifestyle choice. It is entertainment plain and simple. Like rock stars, most athletes misbehave to the extent that it does not hurt their “art”.

    Many were pissed at Tiger because he brought to light the groupie lifestyle that many athletes “enjoy”.

    From what I’ve read, Babe Ruth was a talented scumbag.

  • 148. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    Right Rutherford, and Obama’s an economic winner too. You can lie all you want Rutherford, you can propagandize your spew, you can sell your snake oil, you can attempt futilely to rewrite history, and you can flap your wings like a hummingbird, but you can’t change the truth.

    Reagan, Lech Walesa, Margaret Thatcher, and John Paul all played a huge part in speeding up the process of the fall of communism.

    Like I said, say all you want negatively about Reagan. Don’t matter to me. Can’t change that he won his reelection in such a rout, that it is now the standard of Presidential ass kickings – 3,000 votes or Mondale loses every state. :lol: :lol:

    Here, you, Flake and Graychin need to learn something about economics so you can adequately prepare for your imminent fall from grace. Not dynamic speaking with assistance of teleprompter, but very good advice.

  • 149. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 2, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    And who did Reagan beat in the election? Jimmy Carter.

    Had Carter won the election, the hostages would not have been released when they were.

    So….Reagan got the hostages released.

    Thanks for playing.

  • 150. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 2, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    “…most athletes misbehave to the extent that it does not hurt their “art”.”

    Gee Rutherford, maybe if they were Muslims you’d be a little more objective.

  • 151. fakename2  |  January 2, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    Okay R? Totally true. When I was in college, one of my history professors said, history is not written entirely by the victors. It’s written by the interpreters. To really know and understand what happened, you’d have to be there, living it day by day. So you have to condense. And when you condense,,,you condense out the unfavorable stuff from your point of view. A lot of that going around here.

  • 152. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    Babe Ruth never marketed himself as “family man”…

    Babe Ruth, Joe Dimaggio and Mickey Mantle were more Hugh Hefner than Tiger Wood. They never marketed themselves as clean cut family men.

    Of course, they weren’t vicious criminals who electrocuted and beat dogs to death like Michael Vick either. We used to call those kind of people sociopaths.

    Now I’m considered that by Graychin deemed from blogging comments. :smile:

  • 153. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    To really know and understand what happened, you’d have to be there, living it day by day.

    We did. And you’ll still attempting to rewrite history. Lord only knows what you’re capable when we weren’t there, which is another lib ploy. But thanks to Obama, the break up of the dissemination of media, the internet, times about up for those games. :wink:

  • 154. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    Not you’ll you’re

  • 155. fakename2  |  January 2, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    It’s a little jarring to be fed unemployment statistics by a person who is unemployed by choice. Make sure to blame it on Obama, and not on Wall Street.

  • 156. El Tigre  |  January 2, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    “Gee Rutherford, maybe if they were Muslims you’d be a little more objective.” LMFAO. Ain’t that the triple-truth, Ruth!

  • 157. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    It’s a little jarring to be fed unemployment statistics by a person who is unemployed by choice. Make sure to blame it on Obama, and not on Wall Street.

    If that was for me, you’re now wrong three times in a row. I’m not considered unemployed. Better be glad I’m either considered retired or dead that I’ve been out of the market so long. Start adding guys like me to the list, and El Bongo’s economy really is in the midst of a depression.

    Besides, I can’t live off the fruits of my 20′s and 30s forever – though I might try for a while longer to see if I can outlast you on this blog, stalker.

  • 158. El Tigre  |  January 2, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    Since we’re whoopin’ dead horses:

    “The other half is making an impression on the judge or the jury (don’t get me started on juries…) But you know this.”

    True. But that’s about commanding your environment, not “bowing and scraping.” Bowing and scraping to the jurist (judge or jury) is to hand over too much (perceived) command of the forum. Disrespect, and telling them what to think, of course, are something entirely different. Watch for it next time you observe “good” trial counsel (there’s certainly plenty of bad).

    Since the rigor has set in, RIP horse.

  • 159. dead rabbit  |  January 2, 2011 at 3:51 pm

    Greychin, dog fighting is much bigger then you think. Wrong is wrong, but, depending on the region, dog fighting is an institution. I know this scumbag who feeds his dogs gun powder to put the dogs in a bad mood and more ferocious.

  • 160. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    If Michael Vick were conservative, white and wore a crew cut, do you think for one nanosecond, Rutherford would make mention of second chance? ** GUFFAW **

    Hell, Flake pees in her pants sea horses and nutria. There would be no punishment severe enough for a dog killer if this were some piece of white trash.

    I’ll admit, I don’t much care for any SOB that hurts defenseless dogs in the cruelest of ways. I wouldn’t mind seeing Vick maimed, say some defensive end ripping his head from his torso. Might even bring me back to the NFL.

  • 161. poolman  |  January 2, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Reagan did not get the hostages released. The hostages were ready for release and the release was delayed to spit in Carter’s face.

    Not quite. There was a little conspiracy called “October Surprise” that involved Israel, Iran, and the CIA. Although the Senate Investigation could not find enough credible evidence to draw a conclusion, there has been plenty of evidence and testimony since substantiating the claims. Most of us remember the scapegoating of Oliver North. Less remember an investigative reporter, one Danny Casolaro, was on the trail until his untimely “suicide” kept him from exposing any criminal activity.

  • 162. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    Another conspiracy… :lol:

  • 163. poolman  |  January 2, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    So….Reagan got the hostages released.

    You make it sound so simplistic and all above board. But yes, a few minutes after the inaguration of Reagan, the remaining hostages were released. Iran got what they wanted and the hostages were released. Reagan gave away a hint of the scheme to PBS while playing golf with Bush 41 in 1990.

  • 164. poolman  |  January 2, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    Tex, haven’t you figured it out yet. When men of power and influence get together, conspiracies happen. But I don’t want to spoil your fantasy. Just believe all the conspiracies involve libs.

  • 165. dead rabbit  |  January 2, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    One of the biggest cultural differences between blacks and whites is the value put on the dog. While most blacks are obviously not cruel, the love for dogs by whites is a running joke amongst blacks. They can’t believe we let them lick our faces and even sleep in bed with us.

  • 166. graychin  |  January 2, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    # 152: Tiger “Wood”? That’s kinda funny.

    #157: Tex is actually right. He isn’t technically “unemployed,” and neither am I. Neither of us has any intention of looking for work.

    #159: Dogfighting is an “institution”? Hell – in northeast Oklahoma, cooking meth is an “institution.” Calling something an “institution” doesn’t really say much, does it?

  • 167. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    Poolman, your crack journalist was sponsored by Lyndon LaRouche.

    What more do I need to say? Ever read anything about this buffoon? A complete crackpot – probably clinically insane.

    Come on man – I know you’re over 50. It’s time to get your head into reality and out of the comic books. I liked the X-Files too, but I didn’t put a lot of stock in the their truth.

    Are you a Mayan calendar fan? Will the earth end on December 22, 2012? Is that a cover up?

  • 168. dead rabbit  |  January 2, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    No, it doesn’t say much at all.

  • 169. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    Rabbit, at the risk of catching Brother Rutherford’s wrath:

    They can’t believe we let them lick our faces and even sleep in bed with us.

    After seeing some of them sistas with five or six ‘youngins’, knowing somewhere out there is the willing sperm donor, I’ll happily sleep with the dogs and believe I’m coming out way ahead, with a hell of a lot less pain – healthier too. :smile:

  • 170. graychin  |  January 2, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    Finally, someone had the balls to accept my challenge.: Tex @ 141. I was hoping for a lot more in the “hopes and dreams” department from all of Reagan’s sunny optimism, but I guess I’ll have to take what I can get.

    If one of Reagan’s greatest achievements was to improve the economy that he inherited from Carter, then Obama is well on the way to surpassing Lincoln as the greatest president ever! I think that at the end of Obama’s term in two (or six) years, his results are going to be spectacular, given what he inherited from Bush Jr.

    There’s an awful lot of verbiage in your response about economics and money. Do “conservatives” ever hope or dream about anything but money?

    Reagan’s record of improving the economy through deficit spending kind of makes him a classic Keynesian, doesn’t it?

    We won’t even talk about the fall of communism, the Berlin Wall, hostages being released, or the Gulf War of which all that miraculous warfare was produced during Reagan’s Presidency.

    You won’t talk about those things for good reason. You do know that Reagan left office on January 20, 1989. Don’t you?

    The Berlin Wall fell in late 1989, so if Reagan was responsible for that I suppose that Carter was responsible for getting the hostages released. Right?

    Desert Storm started in early 1991, after Saddam invaded Kuwait in early 1991. When did Reagan leave office?

    The most impressive thing about Desert Storm was the international coalition to repel Saddam that was put together by George H.W. Bush and James Baker. (The second-most impressive thing about it was that they had the good sense not to follow Saddam to Baghdad. Too bad Junior didn’t watch and listen.) Defeating Saddam’s piss-ant army was never in doubt. Even Saddam knew that. He was betting on no one doing anything about it.

    Didn’t Bill Clinton’s army do a heck of a job in 2001-2002 in Afghanistan?

    The USSR collapsed in late 1991, almost three years after Reagan left office. Opinions vary, but I think that Afghanistan and Gorbachev had more to do with it than a three-years past US president.

    Reagan came within 3,000 votes of sweeping all 50 states in the 1984 Presidential election.

    Getting re-elected IS an accomplishment, but how come you have to put it in Reagan’s top five? if that’s one of Reagan’s signature accomplishments in his presidency then his record is very thin indeed. I have criticized your sense of values before on this point. What is popular isn’t necessarily what’s good. Doesn’t it say that in the Bible somewhere?

  • 171. graychin  |  January 2, 2011 at 5:51 pm

    Tex – anyone who posts links to Brietbart shouldn’t be making fun of people sponsored by Lyndon LaRouche.

  • 172. poolman  |  January 2, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    Poolman, your crack journalist was sponsored by Lyndon LaRouche.

    Not. Casolaro was investigating other elements that included the October Surprise Conspiracy. Promis software, and the “Octopus”.

    LaRouche did however have his hand in the October Surprise investigation. Just not as a sponsor of Casolaro. Casolaro interviewed a reporter that was on LaRouche’s payroll. That is the only connection I can find documented.

  • 173. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    Tex – anyone who posts links to Brietbart shouldn’t be making fun of people sponsored by Lyndon LaRouche.

    Coming from the George Soros sponsored Media Matters, Ford Foundation cheerleader, and the coup de grace of sharing a blog with the insufferably dumb Yeller Dawg shouldn’t be commenting anywhere else but the Two Useful Idiot’s Blog.

    Are you proud to share your blog with the Faux PHD? When is Dawg going to answer our academia questions?

  • 174. poolman  |  January 2, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    One of the biggest cultural differences between blacks and whites is the value put on the dog.

    I actually know plenty of dog people. Some are black. One of the things about building pools is that you are in the backyards of America. Some of your yards are not too pretty. If you have dogs, sometimes that means it’s a landmine zone. I hate sending my crews out to a workspace like that. It does affect attitude and I prefer these guys to be happy. It’s tough working in a hole with your face around ground level to always ignore the worst part of dog ownership. But some folks are diligent about cleaning after their pets. Kudos to them. Some yards I work in are immaculate. Some dogs make bigger messes too.
    I have even built pools for peoples dogs. Plenty treat these pets better than other humans.

    What bugs me is the dogs that nobody cares for. That is the abuse. Those are just there, and nobody pays them attention. What’s the point?

    And give those things a bath. They stink and you can’t get that smell off. I come over to your house, I don’t need that dog jumping up on me or nosing my crotch. Now I smell like dog. What’s with that? Always going for the crotch-nose move or jumping up and licking the face. I prefer behaved and clean dogs. Unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be a commonality among all people.

    Aside from that, dogs are awesome. I have had danes, shepherds, and a doberman in the past. Now I just have indoor/outdoor cats. They require less attention.

  • 175. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 7:03 pm

    Hard to believe, I actually thought you Graychin at one time one of more capable T-World lefties. Obviously, I overestimated your abilities. That last response was Dawg worthy.

    Reagan’s record of improving the economy through deficit spending kind of makes him a classic Keynesian, doesn’t it?

    Well, if cutting taxes, calling big government the problem, and firing union members is now your definition of Keynesian, hey I’m board. Convince Obama to follow that path, will you?

    greatest president ever! I think that at the end of Obama’s term in two (or six) years, his results are going to be spectacular, given what he inherited from Bush Jr.

    I think so too. Obama was so good and so bipartisan his first 22 months, he was able to gain employment for an additional 69 Republican congressman in the first election after the coronation of Honest Obe. At that rate, I figure Pres. Edsel Obama will have accomplished my number one goal. The complete and entire elimination of left-wing Democratic party relevance.

    Gray, I know your field of expertise, whatever that may be, wasn’t mechanical or aeronautical engineering, physics, chemistry, or anything beyond basic math, though you were a Vietnam war hero (cough, cough), but it actually takes more than a couple of years to design, manufacturer, test, and then facilitate into the battlefield Harpoon Cruise missiles and Patriot Missile Defense Systems. Just a head’s up to help alleviate your confusion.

    And it took us four years to win WWII, so if you’re unwilling to give Reagan credit for the fall of communism, then I’m unwilling to acknowledge your patron saint FDR had anything to do with the victory over Japan in WWII. Seems reasonable.

    What is popular isn’t necessarily what’s good. Doesn’t it say that in the Bible somewhere?

    Unlike Dimocratic patron saint and serial rapist Slick Willy Clinton, Ronald Reagan was actually so well respected and well liked (you shall know them by their fruits), that his V.P. won a far more decisive victory following in Reagan’s footsteps than Obama’s last “overwhelming” win. In deference to Global Warming, I won’t mention the Al Gore result.

    I know it pains you to admit Reagan changed this country so much for the better, but at least on this one subject, it’s going to be really difficult for you to lie as usual, because many of us where there and voting during Jimmah Carter.

  • 176. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    Poolman,

    I actually have a pool construction question, being my neighbor is having one dug as we speak and I was fascinated watching the backhoe operator.

    When you dig the hole, do you dig deeper than the design of the pool and fill to exactness before pouring, or does that hole closely approximate the pool itself.

    I guess in English and as simplified as I can make it, how exact is that initial dirt hole?

  • 177. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    on board, and were there. That’s for the ‘feckless’ Flake. :wink:

  • 178. graychin  |  January 2, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    I know it pains you to admit Reagan changed this country so much for the better…

    So you say. But can anyone articulate HOW Reagan changed the country for the better?

    Anyone?

  • 179. poolman  |  January 2, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    When you dig the hole, do you dig deeper than the design of the pool and fill to exactness before pouring, or does that hole closely approximate the pool itself.

    For a simple inground shotcrete pool, ideally it is 6 inches bigger all around with a 12″ wide “top lip” Finished water level is 3 inches below “bondbeam” and therefore for an 8 1/2 foot deep pool, the hole is dug 9 ft 3 inches deep. Depending on soil conditions and expertise of the excavator, the hole may need a lot of extra concrete (known as overbreak) to get back to the initial design. Steps and benches are usually indicated but are primarily made with concrete.

  • 180. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 8:31 pm

    $17Trillion better…

    Recall that it took an Olympic hockey game to raise our spirits with Carter – the worst President in American history (until Obama). Gas rationing and long lines, 16% prime, lustful Playboy interviews, hostages, failed rescue attempts, general malaise speeches, and Billy Beer.

    Pretty easier to feel better about ourselves after eight years of Reagan. And if you don’t believe the record, fine. But you’re going to have a very difficult time explaining the Presidential elections in ’84 and ’88.

    It remains to be seen if Obama can follow Carter as the worst Ex-President. I’m betting on a bitter, bitter spoiled child act.

  • 181. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    Thanks Poolman. I walked around the hole and was pretty impressed at just how exact the hole looked like a finished pool, minus the concrete.

    If I had a hundred years with a shovel, I couldn’t have made the hole look that good. :smile:

  • 182. Rutherford  |  January 2, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    Huck comes up with two unusually inane comments tonight.

    Reagan getting elected does not connect anything he actually DID with getting the hostages released.

    If you agree that rock stars for the most part misbehave then it’s not a stretch to say athletes do too. Adoring fans + lots of hotels leads to misbehavior. Rock stars and athletes have both.

    Thanks for playing.

  • 183. Rutherford  |  January 2, 2011 at 11:30 pm

    If we’re going to start ridiculous racial generalizations, how ’bout this for one reason blacks might not like dogs as much as whites? Could it be too many blacks have seen videos of too many whites siccing their dogs on blacks?

    Might explain the aversion to water sports as well vis-a-vis southern cracker water hoses. ;-)

  • 184. Tex Taylor  |  January 2, 2011 at 11:44 pm

    Might explain the aversion to water sports as well vis-a-vis soutern cracker water hoses.

    I think it is more that they sink like rocks… :smile:

  • 185. Rutherford  |  January 3, 2011 at 12:53 am

    Rabbit, regarding your MP3 collection … I wish BlogTalkRadio was not so anal about copyrights and royalties. I’d love to host a music show but they don’t allow any commercial music to be played without proven permission to play it. The music that I use on The Rutherford Lawson Show is called ‘podsafe” meaning there are no rights of ownership attached to it.

    I’ve heard BTR hosts violate this restriction all the time but usually only for intro or outro music. I haven’t seen anyone with the balls to host a full show of commercial stuff.

    I wish it was otherwise …. I’d gladly be your radio producer!

  • 186. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 3, 2011 at 4:30 am

    Fight the man, Rutherford!

    “If you agree that rock stars for the most part misbehave then it’s not a stretch to say athletes do too. ”

    This comparison sucks.

    For starters, not everyone who plays rock music is a rock star. However, anyone trained in a sport is an athlete.

    Wanna try again?

  • 187. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 3, 2011 at 4:36 am

    “Desert Storm started in early 1991, after Saddam invaded Kuwait in early 1991. When did Reagan leave office?”

    “…the Gulf War of which all that miraculous warfare was produced during Reagan’s Presidency.”

  • 188. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 3, 2011 at 4:45 am

    “Getting re-elected IS an accomplishment, but how come you have to put it in Reagan’s top five? if that’s one of Reagan’s signature accomplishments in his presidency then his record is very thin indeed.”

    “What is popular isn’t necessarily what’s good.”

    Says the Obama supporter.

    That’s funny…..

  • 189. El Tigre  |  January 3, 2011 at 10:46 am

    Poolman, any explanations for the dead fish and birds in Arkansas? Suicide pact? Clinton witness protection program? Obamacare test subjects?

  • 190. graychin  |  January 3, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Rather than post that long list of indicted and convicted Reagan officials, or the list of Reagan Administration scandals, I think that I’ll sign off now until the next thread, leaving you with this nice summary:

    http://www.zcommunications.org/remembering-reagan-by-kirk-anderson

    What were those “conservative” hopes and dreams again? No one ever actually mentioned anything, except money….

  • 191. Tex Taylor  |  January 3, 2011 at 11:02 am

    What were those “conservative” hopes and dreams again? No one ever actually mentioned anything, except money….

    Why don’t you ask Obama? You seem to be the only one “NOT” getting it genius.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-03/obama-looks-to-reagan-legacy-as-way-to-get-agenda-through-hostile-congress.html

  • 192. Tex Taylor  |  January 3, 2011 at 11:22 am

    P.S. Graychin, man that cartoon was lame. Real lame. Pravda or Two Useful Idiot’s blog quality. :smile:

    That’s the best criticisms your cartoonist could come up with in eight years of the Reagan Administration? :lol:

    Nine wet dream wishful lies/distortions of the leftist pinkos you represent? Iran Contra was so awful, not even the lame stream media could convince Americans who yawned.

    I guess you don’t realize most Americans supported the Air Traffic controllers being shit canned, applauded Ollie North, found “Star Wars” anything but a failure as they watched new technology in amazement, don’t agree with libbies assessment of the 80s version of Hugo Chavez wannabees, etc. etc. etc.

    I actually feel a little bad for you Gray – about a thimble full. You’ve got so much of your own meaningless life invested in Pres. Edsel’s success, to watch him struggle and perform this poorly must be killing you. Same for Rutherford, but he’s not quite the pompous ass you are so I don’t ride him as badly.

    You’re actually a joy to mock Gray, where with Rutherford it’s a necessity but not necessarily enjoyable because occasionally, Rutherford is likable. You’re not.

  • 193. an800lbgorilla  |  January 3, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Who’s restricting free speech? Who wants to restrict the expression of religion? Who wants to pull back on rights to self defense? Exactly, the Left.

    “This “lefty” wants to do none of those things. What the hell are you talking about?”

    And you’ve condemned this Administration exactly ZERO times. Tis administration, and the left in general, are the ones pushing net neutrality, which is internet censorship, and the long time issue of the fairness doctrine, which is radio censorship. Don’t like it, don’t listen, but censorship is ALWAYS wrong; or at least that is what my pocket Constitution told me…

    The left focuses on bring everyone down to the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR.

    “Again, that doesn’t describe me. I worked my whole life to be above average in economic terms. I even had some success at it. But I do believe that extreme and increasing concentrations of wealth weaken the American economy, the American tax base, the American educational system and educational achievement, and weaken American participatory democracy by making Congress available for sale to the political philosophy of the people willing to spend the most money buying politicians. Other than that, it’s just peachy to have a few wealthy people running everything. “

    For a tax guy, you’re awfully dumb. Who pay’s the most taxes? The top 5% of earners in this country pay some 70% of all taxes. At least half of this country pays ZERO taxes. If you want to strengthen the American tax base, make EVERYONE pay taxes, then, they’ll all have some skin in the game instead of this non-sense about wealth redistribution, AKA stealing.

    “Honestly, if you guys could stop thinking in stereotypes and address the real arguments of people you don’t like (me, for example), it would be a lot more enjoyable to discuss things here. As it is, I’m constantly being asked to defend what someone else said, or what “the Left” supposedly thinks.
    But Black = White understands this, now that I have repeated it for him for the umpteenth time. I’m sure he will fill you in.”

    I find it funny, that you constantly fully accept the mantra and label of Liberal, almost with a zeal, yet, when you get called onto the carpet for the things that define a liberal, suddenly it is oh that’s not me at all!!! Bullshit. You’re a commie pinko-bastard and you know it. Accept it, and move the fuck along…

    Editor’s note: fixed embedded blockquotes and a typo while I was at it. :-)

  • 194. an800lbgorilla  |  January 3, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    Well, that’s what happens when you forget that little / character…

    It’s a tornado!!! No place like home, no place like home…

  • 195. poolman  |  January 3, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    Poolman, any explanations for the dead fish and birds in Arkansas? Suicide pact? Clinton witness protection program? Obamacare test subjects?

    Funny guy. No explanation for the birds yet. Keep yourself informed of disasters and updates here:

    http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php

    AFA the fish, corexit and depleted oxygen in the water are the primary causes being blamed for that. It isn’t just Arkansas either. The corexit is also being blamed for fish kills, crop damage, and skin conditions across the nation. Apparently it gets easily airborne and rains down on us. Studies show the more diluted it is the more deadly it is to life forms. We are just seeing the beginning of what these dispersants will do for us longterm.

  • 196. Rutherford  |  January 3, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    Are you a Mayan calendar fan? Will the earth end on December 22, 2012? Is that a cover up?

    For someone who believes in the end of days, you, Tex should be the last person to be mocking Mayan calendar prophecies.

    Or maybe you’ve accidentally shown your true colors and really believe all the supernatural aspects of Christianity to be pure hokum … you’re just afraid to have God see you type it on a blog comment. ;-)

  • 197. poolman  |  January 3, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    Biblical scholar says rapture will happen May 21st, 2011

    Well, I won’t hold my breath on this. If true, the Mayans could be on to something. According to some believers there will be a rapture of the church before the “end” of the world. Of course the Bible also tells of the “New Jerusalem” and again the new heavens and new earth. I’ll just keep my heart right and continue to follow where led. If I get any revelations, I’ll be sure to pass them on…

  • 198. Tex Taylor  |  January 3, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    I see both Graychin and Rutherford doubling down on stupid today.

    For someone who believes in the end of days, you, Tex should be the last person to be mocking Mayan calendar prophecies.

    Afraid I don’t find Mayan witch doctors and Jesus one and the same. Doesn’t surprise me you do.

  • 199. Tex Taylor  |  January 3, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    One day I can guarantee you it won’t happen is May 21, 2011. :wink:

    No man no the day or the hour – and it will take everyone by surprise, Rutherford most of all.

  • 200. Tex Taylor  |  January 3, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    Dang no/know,..

  • 201. El Tigre  |  January 3, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    Poolman, I trust you meant funny “ha ha” funny.

    That link to the interactive hazards map is really cool. Thanks for posting it.

  • 202. poolman  |  January 3, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    Yes, Tigre, funny “ha ha”, not funny “strange”. Glad you enjoyed the link.

  • 203. Tex Taylor  |  January 3, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    The greatest President there ever was, President Edsel, strikes again. Thank about this next time you are paying $4.00 for gas. :wink:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204204004576050451696859780.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

  • 204. Rutherford  |  January 3, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    Dude who served under Reagan/Bush found murdered in dumpster today. Mmmmm kind of interesting that this happens while we’re discussing the great Reagan years.

    Stay tuned … this could be interesting. ;-)

  • 205. Tex Taylor  |  January 3, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    Probably a disgruntled Edsel supporter, still miffed at the big military win in Iraq and Edsel’s 2010 shellacking.

  • 206. poolman  |  January 3, 2011 at 7:55 pm

    The biggest scaremongers regarding the threat from terrorism are themselves promoting terrorism.

    Rutherford, interesting about John Parsons Wheeler III. This will go likely unsolved, my guess. Just another conspiracy to Tex. Probably eventually rulled a suicide or natural death or just plain classified.

    Wheeler directed the organization that built the controversial Vietnam Veterans Wall, was the first CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and was a senior Securities Exchange Commission lawyer involved in insider trading investigations.

    From 2005 to 2008, Wheeler was a senior Air Force aide who worked to help create of the Air Force Cyber Command. A graduate of West Point, Harvard Business School and Yale Law School, Wheeler created a Vietnam veterans job program for President Ronald Reagan, and the Earth Conservation Corps for at-risk youth for President George H.W. Bush.

  • 207. Tex Taylor  |  January 3, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    Speaking of disgruntled, Rutherford had to have absolutely loved this guy – the David Frum of Congress.

    Another RINO becomes extinct. And all of us conservatives just didn’t appreciate the man’s greatness, you utter morons!!! :twisted:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/135531-outgoing-gop-congressman-credible-conservative-movement-shouldnt-focus-on-obama-hatred

  • 208. Tex Taylor  |  January 3, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    Poolman,

    The difference between you and me, is that you immediately assume it was either Bush jackboots trying to shut his mouth of misappropriations, hushed Iran Contra secrets, 9/11 building implosions cabals, or little green men with machetes.

    Me? Oh, I think the chances much better a scorned ex with a contract, a miffed neighbor being sued by the man, or simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    So cast your bets…

  • 209. dead rabbit  |  January 3, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    I bet poolman listens to that Coast to Coast radio show.

  • 210. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 3, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    Stay tuned … this could be interesting.

    Vince Foster interesting, or Ron Brown interesting?

  • 211. poolman  |  January 3, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    I bet poolman listens to that Coast to Coast radio show.

    No, actually I have only listened to one of their broadcasts regarding the “miracle of water” and that I enjoyed very much. But my SIL IS an avid listener.

  • 213. Rutherford  |  January 3, 2011 at 9:39 pm

    BiW, at the risk of giving you the answer you’re looking for …

    Vince Foster interesting. :-)

    Poolman, thanks for the added details. When your body is found in the dump, it ain’t a suicide, that’s for damn sure.

  • 214. fakename2  |  January 3, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    I hate to point this out, but since “no man knows the day and hour”, then you can’t say The Rapture WON’T occur on May 21st. Of course the guy predicting this has a little credibility problem (don’t they always?) since he already predicted it would be Sep. 6, 1994. Now claims he made a “mathematical error”—oops.
    Speaking of The Rapture there is an old movie (1980) called Resurection, starring Ellen Burstyn and Sam Shepard. One of the scariest movies I’ve ever seen. Didn’t endear me much to Christianity, not that I needed any help being unendeared by that time.

  • 215. Tex Taylor  |  January 3, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    I hate to point this out, but since “no man knows the day and hour”, then you can’t say The Rapture WON’T occur on May 21st.

    I hate to say this but reading and critical thinking aren’t your bag. When I said no man knows the hour, I also stated everyone will be taken by surprise. Can you hear me now?

  • 216. Tex Taylor  |  January 3, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    P.S. – it’s spelled Resurrection, and I only correct you because of your pedantic act with everyone else here, including me.

    And you never did tell me what I did at Graychin’s “FECKLESS” blog. :wink:

  • 217. Tex Taylor  |  January 3, 2011 at 11:00 pm

    P.S.S. – you also spelled schizophrenia incorrectly above Ms. Thought (blog, spelling, grammar, and content) Police.

    Have you begged Rutherford to bag me yet in 2011?

  • 218. poolman  |  January 3, 2011 at 11:01 pm

    You can’t rule out any future date. A parable told from Luke hints that some will be better prepared than others…

    Wherever your treasure is, there your heart and thoughts will also be. “Be dressed for service and well prepared, as though you were waiting for your master to return from the wedding feast. Then you will be ready to open the door and let him in the moment he arrives and knocks. There will be special favor for those who are ready and waiting for his return. I tell you, he himself will seat them, put on an apron, and serve them as they sit and eat! He may come in the middle of the night or just before dawn. But whenever he comes, there will be special favor for his servants who are ready! “Know this: A homeowner who knew exactly when a burglar was coming would not permit the house to be broken into. You must be ready all the time, for the Son of Man will come when least expected.” Peter asked, “Lord, is this illustration just for us or for everyone?” And the Lord replied, “I’m talking to any faithful, sensible servant to whom the master gives the responsibility of managing his household and feeding his family. If the master returns and finds that the servant has done a good job, there will be a reward. I assure you, the master will put that servant in charge of all he owns.

    The stories in the Bible do not lack gore and perversion, for sure. It was meant as an accurate accounting of events as well as written language could express them at the time. These stories or books and letters were compiled into Old Testament and then the New Testament. There are many other writings that were not included.

    The NT supercedes the OT in that it is focused on the person (God as Man) Jesus and the new covenant with mankind. To Christians, all prophecy in the OT has been fulfilled in the NT regarding the Messiah being the person of Jesus. All non Christians do not see Jesus as God, or the Son of God, or the Messiah as prophesied from the earliest writings.

    But that is the head belief. So many are stuck cruising those alleyways while the tank is getting low and the sun is going down. We play so many head games with others and ourselves. The heart is the treasure chest. If one has a good heart, one would not reject the true Spirit of God.

  • 219. fakename2  |  January 3, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    Or,Poolman, you could reject is as mythology and wishful thinking.

  • 220. Tex Taylor  |  January 3, 2011 at 11:32 pm

    Or,Poolman, you could reject is as mythology and wishful thinking.

    Many do. And Christ called them fools…

    I always found it most confusing that somebody could look at a finite universe, its infinite complexity, and not understand that by definition something or someone had to create it.

    Occam’s Razor is always your best bet.

    Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. ~ Romans 1:19-20

  • 221. poolman  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:11 am

    You could reject it as mythology and wishful thinking. That is certainly an option with freewill. Most who have done any investigation would not discount the fact that the person of Jesus actually walked the earth. You pretty much affirm that everytime you write out the date. The question then becomes who and what was He and how will you deal with Him? Is He who He claimed He was? Don’t make the mistake of looking at His followers for perfection, you’ll be disappointed everytime. Some are there only to deceive. Humanity begets humanity. Copies are never quite as good as the original.

  • 222. Rutherford  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:38 am

    Tex, I know it burns your undies but FN2 caught you in a logical trap (and beat me to it by the way).

    Since we all will be surprised when the rapture comes, it could indeed happen on May 21, 2012. Take it from me, if it happens that day, I will indeed be one surprised mofo. :-)

    Tex, please remind me … have you gone on record as saying the ark story with Noah really happened? I know you classify some of the Bible as allegory but I don’t remember what you said on that one.

    I ask because in his latest HBO special Ricky Gervais puts a hole through the ark story so big and wide, only a 3 year old could possibly believe it.

  • 223. poolman  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:53 am

    Rutherford, I ran across this article and thought you might enjoy it. It is written by Christopher’s brother Peter. Hitchens vs Hitchens is Peter’s response to his brother’s book and basic theology.

    Family differences: Christopher Hitchens and Peter have disagreed about politics and about the invasion of Iraq – now they are arguing about God. We disagreed about the Iraq War – he was for it, I was against it. Despite the occasional temptation, I have never reviewed any of his books until today.

  • 224. Graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:22 am

    Rutherford – Tex never would commit one way or the other on the Ark story. I tried to pin him down on it, but he kept ducking.

    Good luck this time. I’m not optimistic.

    While you’re at it, why not ask him what was going on in the first four verses of Genesis 6? And how an all-knowing God could regret his own actions? (Genesis 6:7)

  • 225. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:30 am

    Rutherford,

    I know your ego is bruised since you’ve been busted so many times the last two years we Conservatives have lost count, that the election has blown up in your face, that you’re already having a bad year if your demeanor is any indicator, that somewhere you’ve decided you don’t like me anymore probably because I’ve worn out my welcome mocking you so many times. I get it.

    Having said all that, I am having doubts about just how smart you really are, and now wish for the record to retract any hint I may have made here on this blog to my initial misperception, before growing completely bored with it. I literally don’t even give much thought to writing responses anymore directed to many of you (Graychin was the exception yesterday), as I’ve decided most of you are deluded.

    But since two of you “progressives” from the Left believe you’ve ‘got me’, let me explain one more time to you two as simply as possible, because this can’t be made much more simple than reading and comparing two sentences.

    Since no man knows the hour or the day (got that?) and since whatever the fools name Flake listed from above has now predicted that it will happen on a specific day (got that?), and I assume will be looking to the heavens (got that?) expecting the rapture during that day (got that?), it will not happen that day. Because no one knows the hour (got that?) and EVERYONE will be surprised (got that?). This is not difficult.

    It’s really hard for me to believe how simplistic most of you people from the Left really are. Really.

    ————-

    Where’s your HBO Special ( :lol: ) which is itself humorous blowing the hole in the story of Noah’s Ark? If it were anybody but you, I could consider that comedy. An HBO Special? That’s what you use now for science, fact and theology? Is HBO still in business? And since I’ve answered you three times already (something is truthfully screwed up with your short-term memory) concerning my beliefs, I’m not going to bother answering you again. But direct me to it, and I’ll watch for my “own” benefit and leave some witty retort. :roll:

    ————

    I just kick myself now for riding you so hard when Obama failed. I should have left it at “I told you so.” I honestly think the last twelve months, you’ve taken a turn and not for the better. I belief this last election was the final straw for you, that you’ve taken it personally, and that now you’re so frustrated, you’re lashing out without thinking things through.

    Maybe you should pull a Chen for awhile and take a break. You’re going to need the energy next year.

  • 226. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:57 am

    Well, now that Bomar from Eucha has added his spew to the mix, there seems to be a great deal of confusion. I’ve been very clear before. Make that three that have problems with memory.

    Yes, I believe the story of Noah’s Ark, and I state that without embarrassment, without pause. I believe it because Christ taught it, no matter how nutty that may sound to modern day man. Every civilization that I’m aware has a story of a great flood. They laughed at Noah, you can laugh at me. I assume there was a great regional flood that destroyed all of mankind with eight exceptions. I can not tell you with precision when it happened – just with confidence it did happen.

    To answer Graychin’s other question as to why an all knowing God regretted destroying the earth – I interpret that very differently than Graychin would. I read that “regret” of the pain it caused God to destroy his earthly creation – just as God regretted the fall of man. That is no different than Christ with Lazarus. Graychin always reads the Bible as man centered; I read it as God centered. None of this is a surprise to God, as God not limited by time or space like we are. If God created the finely tuned universe as I believe, why do each of you two/three feel it such a stretch for me to believe a flood, a talking donkey, a virgin birth, a Revelation?

    About the first four verses of Genesis 6? I’ve read many interpretations of the first four verses. Great warriors would be one, fallen would be another. Those verses remain a mystery to me. I can not answer that question truthfully. And I don’t struggle with that, because Job got no answers either when posed and was satisfied. If a righteous man like Job satisfied, I have absolutely no struggle with me receiving no answer to my many questions. I assume either I am not capable of understanding, my understanding not necessary for salvation, and/or I am not meant to understand at this time.

    Graychin, your mocking bothers me not. It fact, men like you only reinforce what I already believe. You provide a prime example, more so than perhaps any other person I’ve ever read, of how not to be. And that is the truth. Those scoffers I read of old, as man’s heart has not changed? If you had any sense, you’d reevaluate your place. Because chances good, your years grow short and something you can’t possibly comprehend is riding on the outcome.

  • 227. poolman  |  January 4, 2011 at 2:23 am

    I googled and watched the Gervais Noah’s ark bit and found it quite humorous. He is telling the story based on a kid’s book he got when he was in Sunday school. The story is a little simplified and the illustrations are silly and Ricky makes a mockery of them. It doesn’t follow the Biblical account very closely and Ricky adlibs and embellishes much of it. It is funny and sad at the same time. I can sense he has distaste for being forced to attend church when young. If he is gay, and I don’t know whether he is or not, that would also contribute to much of the mockery made. The actual ark was supposedly around 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet tall, so the giraffe comparison is not close to accurate. It also could have taken Noah as long as a hundred years to construct.

  • 228. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 2:53 am

    Poolman,

    I watched Rutherford’s expert in biology from HBO replete with f bombs, who can’ t even pronounce Zoology correctly :lol:, and decided why argue with Rutherford on this one? I mean this Ricky is wretched individual if you believe Wiki:

    “there’s no point in us having an actual ceremony before the eyes of God because there is no God” or have children because they “didn’t fancy dedicating 16 years of our lives. And there are too many children, of course”.

    Sounds just like the people Rutherford would hang and admire. Irreligious comedians stepping outside their bounds of know how. This Ricky’s understand of biblical literature was on par with his biological instincts.

  • 229. poolman  |  January 4, 2011 at 3:05 am

    While you’re at it, why not ask him what was going on in the first four verses of Genesis 6

    Those verses are as follows (NIV version):

    When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days–and also afterward–when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

    There are different schools of thought here. I believe the Angels (sons of God) were the ones that saw how beautiful human women were and took them for wives and their offspring were giants and other semi supernatural and strange beings, some of which are described in mythology and deemed gods. We have discovered skeletal remains of giants, although much of that has been suppressed. Other books of old talk about giants. Even St Christopher of Catholic fame was described as a giant. Discovery Channel did a series on giants that can still be found on line. Interesting stuff.

    Essentially God’s experiment went awry, but yes he knew it would. He was going to wipe it all, but Noah found favor with God and therefore God had decided to continue the human lineage through him, his wife, and his 3 sons and their 3 wives. Also he would preserve mammals by sending 2 of every breed to Noah at the given time.

    One of the biggest problems folks have with all this is they question why a God would allow all this if he knew it happen and result in failure and disappointment. The simple answer is because if he didn’t, all the beauty and wonder would not have been able to be experienced by so many over such a long period, enabling plenty of goodness to multiply without coercion. The other is to prove to evil or His other creation (satan) and his minions that love does prevails. Good does triumph over evil. And that out of all suffering can come great love and compassion. Anyway, that’s my take…

  • 230. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 4, 2011 at 3:34 am

    I’m watching that Ricky Gervais video now. Good stuff.

    I’m not big on Brit humor, at all. But this guy cracks me up on most anything I have seen.

  • 231. Rutherford  |  January 4, 2011 at 9:54 am

    I’m surprised the Gervais special is online already, if I’d thought that, I would have posted a link myself.

    Tex, sorry if I mislead you … Gervais, as you discovered was not testifying on some documentary, it was a stand-up routine. But to both you and Poolman I have to say, regardless of the liberties he took with the story, his basic physical facts were dead-on. There is simply no way an ark could have been built big enough (even with the dimensions described by Poolman) for two of every species to board it. When we then factor in the fact that some of those species considered others species their food, the story becomes all the more absurd. And Poolman, since no one in that day and age lived to see 100, telling me it took Noah 100 years to build it, doesn’t help the case any.

    As for my defense of FN2, Tex you can spin it any way you like, she did indeed GET you. There are more than a billion people on the planet. I assure you, there are enough lunatics among us that on any given day somebody is expecting the world to end. So when the rapture comes, at least one nutjob will say I TOLD YOU SO!!! So May 21, 2012 is as good a day as any other. And sadly, because you are exclusively devoted to the version of history and prophecy found in one book, if that one book said May 21, 2012 was the day, you’d believe it hook line and sinker.

    P.S. I saw a great short video on Big Think with magician Penn Jillette where he says the best way to become an atheist is to read the Bible cover to cover. You should watch it Tex … by the way, he also mistrusts government … which you do too. :-) (You can watch his specific points without watching the entire 60 minutes.)

  • 232. Rutherford  |  January 4, 2011 at 9:55 am

    Oh BTW, Gervais went somewhere I would never have thought on my own: God is gay. ;-)

  • 233. Graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 10:19 am

    If we could only pin down our Imperial Consig on whether or not the FDA is unconstitutional (based as it is on an abuse of the Commerce Clause), we’d really be making progress.

    The Noah story in the same discussion with Occam’s Razor?

    God didn’t regret destroying his creation in the flood. He regretted making it in the first place. That sounds like a very fallible and human (anthropomorphic) god.

  • 234. Graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 10:27 am

    If, one by one, we could be certain of days and hours when the end would NOT come (as Tex is), that would seem to violate the spirit of “knowing not.”

    Only FN and Rutherford, pool man and I, will call out Tex when he’s outrageously wrong. Thats a problem around here.

  • 235. Rutherford  |  January 4, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Gray, beautifully put, you turned the logic on its head to prove Tex’s illogic in another way, Being certain of when the end will NOT come seems to refute Tex’s claim that we can have no certainty of when the end will come. Nice job.

    As for only a few calling out Tex … I don’t view that as a problem. Religion is, after all, a mass-induced leap of faith and it is no surprise that so many take that leap with Tex.

    What is fascinating about religion is that so many people buy into it that it makes non-believers who in any other context would sound rational, come up sounding like the nutjobs. I mean, seriously, we are really having a discussion about whether a man built a big enough boat to house two of every species on the planet. In any other context, this conversation would be engaged in by five year olds but here we have grown men and women debating this. For that we must give religion its due. It has the power to make grown-ups have discussions that boggle the mind,

  • 237. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    Rutherford, I’m simply amazed at how simplistic you are. Really – I’m not teasing this time.

    I’m of the conclusion your life is falling apart in the background, that you’re having some intense personal struggles and perhaps issues, and now you’re not nearly as patient as you used to be in discussion. No matter how I answer, your responses the last several months carry the same message. You must be sorely disappointed with the way things have turned out. That’s what happens when you put your faith in man.

    So, let me see if I get this straight. I put my trust in the historic Christ and a book of history that has withstood 2,000 years of people desperately proving it wrong. That makes me a nut job. Rutherford, you put your trust in a tool like Graychin, a comedian on HBO, and Obama?

    That mistake exceeds putting your trust in government by about a magnitude of 1,000,000,000. I would have thought if the last two years have proved anything to you, that perhaps your mindset is desperately wrong headed and irrational. I’d put a smiley face on that, but the end result is so tragic, even I can’t bring myself to insert one. I mean this like know other – I feel intensely sorry for you. You’ve been cheated.

    I’d discuss how I think the great stories of Genesis really happened if you want the science and the logistics, but it would be a matter of speculation. How there would have been no need for every type of insect or every animal on earth two by two, etc… That there was a great flood, I have absolutely no doubt. When, I’m not sure. The end result, I choose to believe – the methodology and facilitation I simply accept.

    One last thing and I’ll call it quits about the first chapters of Genesis. I’ve found people like Gillette and your comedy pal up there, critics of the Bible, have never really read the Bible. They do their comedy routines from hearsay and what they think the Bible says. That comedian last night was so twisted, it was he that was reading from a book written for five year olds. But I would remind you, the “expert” couldn’t even pronounce Zoology correctly.

    Only FN and Rutherford, pool man and I, will call out Tex when he’s outrageously wrong. Thats a problem around here.

    The problem is, excluding Poolman for the minute because he is TBD, the three of you are cut from the same cloth. I don’t think it’s a matter of calling me out. I think it’s a matter of the fact each of you pantheists, nihilists, agnostics, or in Rutherford’s case a humanist, who in my opinion are simply naive fools believing themselves wise that don’t have the “tools” to understand.

    I see the world from the Christian’s point of view. You three see the world from the humanistic point of view. That not only makes us political opponents, but spiritual enemies. I’ve known that from the start here.

    However, unlike our political discussions, this is one time I can’t prove this particular subject to you. It is a matter of faith. But you three definitely have more “faith” than I do in your fellow man to solve the world’s ills. I’ve seen enough of your evidence and your results to know the three of you on the wrong path.

    Guess it just depends on who or what you want to believe, and who you put your trust in. Because everyone has trust in something…

  • 238. poolman  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    And Poolman, since no one in that day and age lived to see 100, telling me it took Noah 100 years to build it, doesn’t help the case any.

    Actually according to the Bible, Noah was 600 years old when the flood started and he lived to be 950 years old. Methuselah, his grandfather lived to be 969 years, the oldest person recorded. It wasn’t until after the flood when men’s lives were shortened to 120 years max. The original design was much more durable. :wink:

    One guy did calculate the space needed for all the animal species and even included insects and dinosaurs. :shock: I don’t think the dinosaurs were on that trip, but what do I know. People have devoted plenty of time to this. This person devoted seven years. To me, even if the biblical account is not 100 percent accurate in its modern translations, I don’t need to know ALL the facts to believe it. All other ancient civilizations have recorded a great flood and the geological data supports it. Even if the ark was found, as some claim it has in Turkey, there are always going to be people suppressing the truth. Afterall, such a discovery would be tough to refute. It’s better to keep these things, as with evidence of giants, under wraps.

  • 239. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Damn….

    I really am struggling with know/no these days. Oh well, you’ll figure it out from above.

  • 240. an800lbgorilla  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    A very interesting read, though I find the tone rather condescending…

    …To wit, Zora Neale Hurston was a thoroughly black waw-man who would gladly have peddled her wares on Fox News today. As we accept political diversity among black people, we need to keep this part of Hurston in mind in addition to the rest of her.

    For example, one thing that will put black conservatives in our faces even more is that there are now two of them in Congress. Allen West of Florida, asked in the New York Times this weekend whether he felt proud when Obama was elected, coolly said, “I don’t look to a man to get pride in myself.”

    Hurston would have understood that sense that black people are, in the end, individuals rather than the sum of an abstract “blackness,” as she indicates here: “Suppose a Negro does something really magnificent, and I glory, not in the benefit to mankind, but in the fact that the doer was a Negro. Must I not also go hang my head in shame when a member of my race does something execrable? The white race did not go into a laboratory and invent incandescent light. That was Edison. If you are under the impression that every white man is an Edison, just look around a bit.” …
    http://www.theroot.com/views/why-zora-neale-hurston-was-conservative

  • 241. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    Poolman,

    Personally, I think the search for the Ark a neat story and complete waste of time. Again sheer speculation, but I’ll bet it was burned for firewood thousands of years ago, and I wish that the pursuit would end, as it provides fuel to the fire.

    Most people today seem to fall into three categories concerning the stories of Genesis. Rutherford, Graychin, and Fake are the supposedly enlightened “rational skeptics”, believing any form of religion unnecessary. I find them wooden and uninteresting, because I already know their faith inherently wrong. I witness that in my own life.

    The second category are people desperately trying to find some physical evidence to justify their weak faith. They’ll spend much time trying to disprove the skeptics with physical evidence, but IMO their faith is not much greater than the skeptics. If they need more physical evidence than the universe, they are at best milquetoast. I’m not talking about a defense of the faith in correction or instruction, as we are instructed to do that. I’m talking about attempting to find treasure, look for supernatural or physical signs, etc…

    The third category is what I strive to be and would like to be, but I haven’t gotten there yet. Those people whose faith is so great, they don’t question and have no doubts. Those are the people I find incredibly interesting, incredibly strong, and worthy to be followed.

    There is only one treasure of biblical antiquity that I believe will be found, and it will sit in a newly resurrected temple after you and I are gone. Because it won’t be found until the end of the age of grace – that is the Ark of the Covenant.

  • 242. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    By the way Rutherford, I will happily move this discussion to the “Coliseum.” But since you are the blog owner and you brought up the subject in this thread, I have answered you here.

    I’m well aware this does not interest all parties.

  • 243. an800lbgorilla  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:28 pm

  • 244. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    By the way Graychin, on another subject you and I disagree.

    You seem to be cocksure that the economy is coming back – your “faith” is much greater than mine.

    Until real measures are put in place and the deficit addressed in its proper perspective, I think we are in the eye of the hurricane, that the recovery a facade, and that the real pain is yet to come, masked by a kaleidoscopic of economic tricks and fudged accounting methods.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576060181631140482.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

  • 245. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Gorilla,

    This is a common occurrence in the Muslim world that Rutherford wishes to deny. Whether a ripoff of Mickey and Minnie Mouse, or a school teacher, the message is the same.

    I heard an interesting stat last night on FOX. Last year in the NYC area, a city where Muslims are supposedly persecuted and hated, there were exactly eleven (11) Muslim hate crimes reported.

    There were two-hundred and fifty-two (252) Jewish hate crimes reported during the same period.

    And across the entire United States, the ratio of reported “hate crimes” against Jews outnumbers Muslims over 10 to 1.

  • 246. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Graychin’s Economic Recovery…

    Here’s what One Second of National Debt Looks Like

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/01/national-debt-2010.html

  • 247. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    And another Recovery…

    Think Again: American Decline

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/think_again_american_decline?page=full

  • 248. an800lbgorilla  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:44 pm

  • 249. an800lbgorilla  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    The hate-crime wave that wasn’t

    Did you hear about the surge in hate crimes in New York? Bias against Muslims is the driving force, proving what a horribly victimized minority they are.

    Just kidding.

    Hate crimes are up 14 percent across the state, but those against Muslims are a tiny fraction. Of the 683 reported to police in 2009, only 11 targeted Muslims. Yes, 11. In 2008, there were eight.

    Compare that with the 251 against Jews, or 37 percent of the total. Anti-black crimes were down slightly, to 144, or 21 percent of the total.

    The biggest rise was in crimes against gays, from 70 to 107.

    Remember those numbers the next time someone, maybe someone in City Hall or the White House, warns against a rising tide of Islamophobia. Use the facts to shut them up.

    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/emperor_mike_snow_blindness_vfNwvyGxjmsQXkyHW8A7MI#ixzz1A5O3wYWT

  • 250. graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    Even St Christopher of Catholic fame was described as a giant. Discovery Channel did a series on giants that can still be found on line. Interesting stuff.

    Pope Paul VI removed Christopher from the Catholic calendar of saints in 1969. Even the Catholic Church now considers Christopher to be… a bit far-fetched? But it hasn’t changed the popularity of St. Christopher medals.

    Poolman, I wouldn’t take the Discovery Channel very seriously on Biblical history if I were you. Keep in mind all the shows they run about the End of the World predicted for two years from now by the Mayan Calendar, and about Mary Magdalene being Jesus’ wife. Discovery is the TV version of Art Bell. (I used to love to listen to Art Bell . He was highly entertaining, but not to be taken seriously.)

  • 251. graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    Rutherford, Graychin, and Fake are the supposedly enlightened “rational skeptics”, believing any form of religion unnecessary.

    Speaking only for myself – that isn’t my belief at all.

    Just another day at the RL blog, watching arrows being shot at straw men.

    As for only a few calling out Tex … I don’t view that as a problem. Religion is, after all, a mass-induced leap of faith and it is no surprise that so many take that leap with Tex.

    They don’t call him out on politics either. It’s an “I’ve got your back, even when you’re wrong” mentality among the “conservative” club. Kind of like they do in Congress.

  • 252. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 4, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    “Only FN and Rutherford, pool man and I, will call out Tex when he’s outrageously wrong. Thats a problem around here.”

    Well that is just a big bunch of bullshit, and you know it.

  • 253. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    Graychin, when have you ever called out Yellowdog?

    Or Rutherford?

  • 254. graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    Tex, you once said that you disagreed with “young earth” creationists – the ones who believe that God created the earth in six days in 4004 B.C.

    So since you are so forthcoming today, how old do you believe the Earth is? The universe? Why not approximately 4,000 years, since that is the clear calculus from the “begats”?

    Based on your study of both the Bible and of medical science, is there any point at which medical science can’t be trusted because it contradicts something in the Bible? (Personally, I wouldn’t want to be treated by a doctor who put the Bible ahead of science. I have met some who do, and I think that full disclosure to their patients should be a requirement for them.

  • 255. graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    I have expressed my disagreement with several of the Dog’s positions over on our blog. You are welcome to sift through all the old comments to prove it to yourself, but I know that you won’t.

    I have expressed my disagreement with Rutherford right here any number of times. I’m sure he has a better memory of such than you do, since I usually agree with him.

    When have you ever expressed disagreement with Tex?

  • 256. an800lbgorilla  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    Chin, you’re barking up the wrong tree…

  • 257. graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    Would anyone support barring Christians from serving as airline pilots without a non-Christian co-pilot? When the “rapture” happens, I wouldn’t want to be flying on a plane in which the entire flight crew vanished at the same time.

    I don’t know what to suggest about Christians who drive cars.

  • 258. an800lbgorilla  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    How about Muslims who fly planes?

  • 259. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    “When have you ever expressed disagreement with Tex?”

    Are you kidding?

    Have you not read the multiple heated arguments he and I have had regarding Islam and Arabs? How about the UN? Or how about when we insult each others education?

    Shit, it was just a couple threads ago I tried to bait him by calling Christians polytheists.

    You seriously have missed all of that? Maybe you were too busy disagreeing with Rutherford to notice….

    “I have expressed my disagreement with several of the Dog’s positions over on our blog. You are welcome to sift through all the old comments to prove it to yourself, but I know that you won’t.”

    You many not remember stating that I am not welcome there, but I have not.

  • 260. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    As long as Mayans are not flying planes, I am alright…..

  • 261. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    And actually, I am not the only one. DR disagrees with Tex and comes to your fucking defense regarding your military service.

    You obviously have a habit of seeing only what you want to see and filtering out everything else.

  • 262. Hucking Fypocrites  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    Gorilla recently told Tex and I that we were both right about an issue we were debating.

    I recall a recent post where Tiger felt Tex had crossed the line and said so.

    You really need to pay better attention, dude. Tex does get called out. Likewise, he calls us out when he thinks we’re wrong. And I can guarantee you there are many more instances of it than you stating disagreement with anyone from “your side” around here.

    Any time you want to put that claim to the test, you let me know.

  • 263. graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    Tiger – touché.

    I wouldn’t delete you, but I really don’t like trolls over there.

    But you’re welcome to read.

  • 264. graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    Oops – sorry Tiger. I should have addressed that to Huck.

    All you “conservatives” seem so much alike….. :D

  • 265. poolman  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    Poolman, I wouldn’t take the Discovery Channel very seriously on Biblical history if I were you.

    Trust me, I don’t take anyone’s biblical history too seriously. I just found the subject of giants interesting. There has been an all out effort to discredit and suppress that information. So much so that most people don’t believe that giants truly existed. Even UFOs are described in scripture, yet they are also treated like fantasy in today’s modern society. And that even despite all the astronaut and pilot accounts documenting them. If you look at all the early illustrations of biblical accounts and the art from other ancient cultures, UFOs are a part of the scene. We have been programmed to think these things are only delusional concepts of mankind.

  • 266. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    So since you are so forthcoming today, how old do you believe the Earth is? The universe? Why not approximately 4,000 years, since that is the clear calculus from the “begats”?

    (1) 4.6 billion years; (2) 13.7 billion years.

    Six days, six ages (the more accurate Aramaic descriptor), six steps. You missed the point of the entire message. A day of rest on the Sabbath.

    Like I said, you read the Bible as man centered. I read it as Gdd centered.

  • 267. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    That would be God, not Gdd…gawd.

    Okay Graychin, I’ve been forthcoming. Now how about you answer a few questions about my supposed straw man.

    Did Christ die on the cross for man’s sins?
    Who was Christ’s father?
    What is the price for salvation?

    Let’s see if you can buck up for once and demonstrate a little honesty. Fill in the blanks, will you so that we can pinpoint your ever changing positions?

    P.S. – the fact that you lend your blog to sharing with someone of the Dawg’s caliber tells most of what we need to know about your own quality and character. If that isn’t a pathological liar and borderline moron, I don’t know who or what is.

    And there is not one person on this board who posts frequently I haven’t disagreed with, speaking of straw men. For a little bet, I can easily prove that and never leave the comfort of this board.

  • 268. an800lbgorilla  |  January 4, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    “Kenneth Artz of the Heartland Institute explains, “Section 6001 of the health care law effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals (POHs) from starting up, and it keeps existing ones from expanding.” Politico adds, “Friday [New Year's Eve] marked the last day physician-owned hospitals could get Medicare certification covering their new or expanded hospitals, one of the latest provisions of the reform law to go into effect.”
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-ends-construction-doctor-owned-hospitals_525950.html

  • 269. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    Huck,

    I wouldn’t delete you, but I really don’t like trolls over there.

    You’re in company. Troll is exactly what Flake calls me. I think the new definition of “troll” is one who doesn’t agree with a liberal’s opinion and dares voicing it. I understand the initial confusion, as it would help if your accuser didn’t falsely advertise this:

    Comments are open to all!

    The blog authors are unapologetic progressives, but we welcome participation from intelligent, conservative commenters who are able – and willing – to make cogent arguments for conservative principles without resorting to outrageous lies, racist nonsense, ad hominem irrelevancies, or childish gay-bashing.

    We’re serious! Are you out there? Do you even exist? Please come on in and show us! We enjoy the sound of clashing opinions (cough cough) – without all the lying and shouting that too often accompanies political discussion.

    ** GUFFAW **, Sorry, I can’t resist when I read that.

    If you would just show deference to Graychin, Huck do you not recognize how much smarter and legitimate you would be?

  • 270. Rutherford  |  January 4, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Not to pile on but as blog owner I do keep track of such things: Huck and Tex have had violent disagreements

    and

    Gray has disagreed with me, typically when I’m not sufficiently liberal ;-)

  • 271. Rutherford  |  January 4, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    Did Christ die on the cross for man’s sins?
    Who was Christ’s father?
    What is the price for salvation?

    Dollars to donuts, Gray would disagree with my answers to all three of these.

    A1. No. Christ probably died because he was a radical who pissed off the establishment of his time.

    A2. Joseph

    A3. The only sort of verifiable salvation can be found in living by the Golden Rule. The price for that salvation is the daily hard work that goes into it. Most of us are unwilling to pay daily.

  • 272. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    #271 – Yes Rutherford; unlike your conniving and falsely advertising old blog pal, we know exactly where you stand. You’re as cold as it gets – liquid nitrogen cold. But that question was intended solely for our Dear Graychin. Your response was not only predictable, but unnecessary. :wink:

    There will come a time soon when time will no longer be a laughing matter to you, the mocking show of bravery a thing of the past, and death awaits us all.

    Perhaps by then, you will have given a little more thought to your flippancy about the only lasting decision that really mattered besides…

    …You can take some comfort that if you were a parent, then your life never completely irrelevant no matter the struggle, place or tribulations.

  • 273. El Tigre  |  January 4, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    Pillow Fight!!!!!!!

  • 274. graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    Did Christ die on the cross for man’s sins? What is the price for salvation?

    These questions both assume the doctrine of “original sin” – the whole business of Adam and Eve, the talking snake, the special Tree from which humans must not eat (the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?) I don’t believe the literal truth of that story. I consider it to be allegory. I’m sure that even you can see that your questions wouldn’t make sense in the absence of your assumptions. Without that assumption, you even have to re-define what you mean by “salvation” and its “price.”

    Who was Jesus’ father?

    It’s fairly clear that he wasn’t Joseph. Using the razor of our old friend Occam, Jesus father probably was another human being, whose identity is unknown to history, along with the circumstances concerning Jesus’ conception. Fundamentalists get upset if anyone suggests that Jesus had a human father, but when I look around I see God working through nature and never supernaturally. Why does it matter who contributed the male half of Jesus’ DNA? How would that make Jesus less the “Son of God” when God is a spiritual being in the first place?

    I haven’t changed those opinions for at least 30 years. When did I ever say anything different?

    Rutherford, you owe me a dozen donuts. Your A1 is 100% correct – the gospels make that clear. But I disagree with your A2, as I have discussed.

    I like what you said in A3, but the question of salvation has many facets. No description of “salvation” (whatever that means) is ever likely to be complete. Even people who are much more conventionally “religious” than I am argue about its meaning. There is even a great divide between the Eastern Orthodox theology and Western Catholic / Protestant theology on this subject. (The Orthodox are closer to to the truth, I think.)

  • 275. graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    I think it’s a GOOD thing that physician-owned hospitals are going away. It has always been illegal for physicians to accept payment for referrals to hospitals, although many back-door schemes have been tried. This just closes a loophole.

    Not all physicians would succumb to temptation to abuse their positions of trust through over-referring their patients to their own hospitals. But the financial incentives to do so are perverse.

  • 276. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    Avoidance and misdirection Graychin. As usual, you can’t answer a simple and direct question that would expose you’re as fraudulent in your piety as the advertisement on your blog. This is no simple disagreement in interpretation or a matter of discussion, for the whole of Christianity hangs in the balance of that question.

    Here’s a reminder or two for you that undoubted you rejected in your youth, probably because of the imperfections and shortcomings of those who tried to give you the good advice.

    “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28).

    “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:28)

    So I think it safe to assume that you Graychin believe Jesus was a liar, the Bible a myth with some good advice, the disciples deceivers, and salvation either unattainable, irrelevant, or the same for all of us.

    And Graychin, hopefully you will now realize that my disagreements of anything of substance are based on this one immutable fact – you and I disagree about who Jesus Christ was and is.

    believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. ~ C. S. Lewis

  • 277. graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    No avoidance or misdirection there, Tex. Those are my honest opinions, expressed as clearly as I can. If you can’t understand them, then it’s due to your own narrow-mindedness and intolerance of opinions different from your own.

    I do NOT believe that “Jesus was a liar, the Bible a myth with some good advice, the disciples deceivers, and salvation either unattainable, irrelevant, or the same for all of us.” Again, you have chosen to argue with what I did not say and do not believe. It’s easier than dealing with reality, isn’t it?

    I DO believe that Jesus’ teachings are distorted in what was written down decades after his departure and edited through the centuries, but they are still there and understandable if you read with some discernment.

    By the way – an honest question: What is the difference between the “Son of Man” and the “Son of God”?

  • 278. graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    “…my disagreements of anything of substance are based on this one immutable fact – you and I disagree about who Jesus Christ was and is.”

    Does that include politics, or just religion? Can you agree with ANYONE about ANYTHING if they don’t share your dogmatic viewS of Jesus? And why would we need to agree about the nature of Jesus in order to agree about anything else?

    I hope you realize that there are a lot of mainstream Christians who would consider your views to be… strange. Can you have nothing in common with them eithe?. Of course Jews are always on the outside, aren’t they?

    I won’t even get into Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, or…. MUSLIMS!

  • 279. poolman  |  January 4, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    How would that make Jesus less the “Son of God” when God is a spiritual being in the first place?

    True that. God is spirit. The Word even says that. It even notes that we are also spirit. The issue at hand then is whether the person of Jesus ever possessed the DNA of Joseph and/or Mary, or any pre-existing human being. If you understand the miracle of the virgin birth, it is more like a surrogate setup. God provided the zygote.

    The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. The Word holds all things together. God’s Word is His Son and came from God. The Word is alive and active. Notations on a page hardly give justice to the true Spirit of His Word. Really a simple idea. In the same way and with enough faith, we gods can speak “things” into being.

    The reason He had to do this was to redeem us from the strain of evil that got into our DNA since the first man decided through persuasion he would be equal to his Creator. This is apparently a continual theme with createds. God cannot tolerate evil, just as darkness cannot exist in light. We have been given time and life to purify the process and separate the two opposites, a virtual sifting the spirits. I have no idea how many cycles this washing machine has, nor do I know exactly where all the grime goes. Theories abound but the real dirt seems to slip through our hands.

    The Word says we were born with the spirit of darkness and require a spiritual rebirth to get in line with the spirit of light. The Word makes it clear the path is narrow. Chances are you will need good light and constant directions to stay on it.

  • 280. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    Can you agree with ANYONE about ANYTHING if they don’t share your dogmatic viewS of Jesus? And why would we need to agree about the nature of Jesus in order to agree about anything else?

    My “dogmatic” views came from Jesus Himself. Somehow, I don’t trust your discernment more than I trust Matthew for instance. Something tells me Matthew had a little better handle on the nature of Christ than you do. If you don’t understand why we wouldn’t see the nature of everything differently without knowing the real nature of Jesus, I can’t help you.

    One other question Graychin. See if you can answer this one simply yes or no, because that is all that is required.

    Did Christ once crucified rise from the dead?

  • 281. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    I hope you realize that there are a lot of mainstream Christians who would consider your views to be… strange. Can you have nothing in common with them eithe?. Of course Jews are always on the outside, aren’t they?

    You mean mainstream like you? Like Russell Bennett? Like the interfaith alliances? Like Jeremiah Wright? Mainstream organizations that deny the divinity of Christ, but call themselves Christian?

    Yeah, they would see my views as “strange” being I think Christ born of a virgin birth, was God, is God, and will be God, was crucified and raised from the dead by His Own accord, saved us of our sins, the Bible accurate in its entire testimony, that Christ will come again to reign, and that grace only arrived through Christ’s death. All of those would be strange to you, who told me Paul and how did you put it, “a frustrated homosexual?”

  • 282. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 6:02 pm

    Can you agree with ANYONE about ANYTHING if they don’t share your dogmatic viewS of Jesus?

    Worldly flesh, yes. Spiritual embodiment, no. You prove that.

    We agree about the TSA don’t we? But off hand, I can’t think of anybody or anyone I disagree more about eternal things than you. Rutherford is simply uninformed and lost. You make sport of perverting anything and everything to suit your earthly fancy – you’re granted an allotment of time.

    But as far as your discernment? I think you’re a sick joke from the concerns about your grandchildren, to your ideas of modeling government, to your man-made religion.

    Frankly, if I could think of only one word to describe you, it would be pharisee as sanctimonious, self-serving, pompous blowhard doesn’t fit in a simple word; running a distant second would be wretched.

  • 283. graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    I never called Paul “a frustrated homosexual.” I probably did say that his disinterest in the normal life of having a “traditional,” “Christian” family has caused some to speculate that he may have been homosexual in orientation, as are many devout and celibate members of the Catholic clergy.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that. :D And what would it matter anyway?

    Did Christ once crucified rise from the dead?

    I can’t answer “yes” or “no” because I don’t know. There is a tradition that Jesus was up and walking around after the crucifixion, although there is no eye-witness testimony. Some say that Jesus didn’t DIE on the cross, since he was up there for such a short time (3 hours). But Christians need their miraculous demi-god to rise from the dead, or their faith in God means nothing. Is that the kind of faith that you have?

    Like the source of his DNA, I don’t think that Jesus’ “resurrection” has much bearing on the value of his teachings. I know that puts me in opposition to much of “traditional” Christianity. And opens me up to your hateful mockery.

    Have at it. Jesus will love you all the more for your hatefulness.

  • 284. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    I guess I missed your last question:

    Son of God – self explanatory
    Son of Man – refer to the Book of Daniel, Chapter 7; the point of emphasis being Christ is the prophesied one.

    I’ll save you the trouble…these verses ought to set the Rutherford tail on fire. :smile:

    9 “As I looked,
    “thrones were set in place,
    and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
    His clothing was as white as snow;
    the hair of his head was white like wool.
    His throne was flaming with fire,
    and its wheels were all ablaze.
    10 A river of fire was flowing,
    coming out from before him.
    Thousands upon thousands attended him;
    ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
    The court was seated,
    and the books were opened.

    11 “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.

    13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.
    14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed

  • 285. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 6:30 pm

    Christ was on the cross six hours. Battered and beaten to a pulp, undoubtedly weakened by great blood loss, practically flogged to death, the fact that respiration would have stopped that quickly is more than believable. Generally oxygen deprivation is what leads to death during crucifixion.

    And opens me up to your hateful mockery. Have at it. Jesus will love you all the more for your hatefulness.

    That may be my usual purpose as I personally disdain you, but not this time.

    I was simply demonstrating that you can call yourself anything you wish, but to deny these things only proves your are anything but a Christian. You might as well call yourself Islam, because you’re much closer to their belief than traditional Christian belief. Kind of a blend of New Age religion and Obama.

    If I am wrong, at least I followed the script. You seem to make up your own rules as you go, I guess believing yourself worthy to determine for the rest of us the historical record.

    One last question (I hope). If Christ truly just human, how could you possibly say that it may have been possible to rise from the dead?

  • 286. graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 7:22 pm

    One last question (I hope). If Christ truly just human, how could you possibly say that it may have been possible to rise from the dead?

    With God, all things are possible. Didn’t you know that?

    If I am wrong, at least I followed the script.

    Do you think that this conscience and this facility of reason that God gave us (some of us, anyway) are nothing but annoyances? Just follow the “script” that not even all Christians can agree on?

    Somewhere along the way, I learned that you can only “follow the script” up to a point. The “script” is a guide. The excuse of “I was only following orders” doesn’t carry as much moral weight as it once did, and that’s a good thing.

    I was taught that conscience is primary, that everything else is secondary. Of course that presupposes the presence of a conscience (which some people called sociopaths lack) and an intent to live morally. It isn’t an “anything goes” or “if it feels good, do it” morality.

    I don’t expect you to understand this with your cookbook, formulaic approach to religion. If only if it were really that simple.

  • 287. graychin  |  January 4, 2011 at 8:09 pm

    A clarification: you attribute to me the statement that Jesus is “just human.” I didn’t say that.

    (Would you at least TRY not to argue with stuff I didn’t say and don’t believe? Naaa – that would require thought. I’ve never met a person more mentally lazy.)

    What did say, and do believe, is that even if Jesus’ physical origin was the same as the rest of us, that does not preclude his soul from having been different from the rest of us. If his soul, the part of a human being that actually matters, was the Son of God, then how does that change anything? Why is a Greek-style half-god half-human so essential for you?

  • 288. fakename2  |  January 4, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    Just out of wild curiosity, I’m wondering what the relative population numbers are for Muslims vs. Jews in New York City.

  • 289. Rutherford  |  January 4, 2011 at 9:24 pm

    Tigre, pillow fight indeed!

  • 290. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    I don’t know why it is so far for you to admit that the immediate followers of Jesus were liars and deluded – the authors themselves. What is humorous is to watch you and your insufferably dumb blog partner twist yourself in knots trying to sound righteous and moral.

    I was taught that conscience is primary, that everything else is secondary. Of course that presupposes the presence of a conscience (which some people called sociopaths lack) and an intent to live morally. It isn’t an “anything goes” or “if it feels good, do it” morality.

    As far as your conscience – that presupposes that you are qualifed to define morality. And I haven’t found you remotely qualified and in fact, I’ve found you wanting in about every capacity. And that is exactly the problem in America thanks to your irreligious ilk when everybody wants to decide their own set of rules. It leads to 50MM slaughtered children in the name of “reproductive rights”, elderly euthanasia, white collar theft just for starters.

    Why is a Greek-style half-god half-human so essential for you?

    If Christ was fully human without intervention of divinity as prophesied, there was absolutely nothing special about His sacrifice and nothing special about him. I realize you think you’re godlike Graychin – you are the most arrogant man I’ve ever read, which masks your insecurity as one generation from white trash. But as you insult Jesus (and you’ll get your chance to call Him demigod), I was hoping you might realize Hercules was a myth.

  • 291. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    Far? :smile:

    Hard. I will make it a resolution to proofread before posting.

  • 292. Tex Taylor  |  January 4, 2011 at 9:38 pm

    What did say, and do believe, is that even if Jesus’ physical origin was the same as the rest of us, that does not preclude his soul from having been different from the rest of us. If his soul, the part of a human being that actually matters, was the Son of God, then how does that change anything? Why is a Greek-style half-god half-human so essential for you?

    I hope you understand your apparent disconnect in conclusions hot shot? You hint at believing something was special about Christ’s soul and I’ll assume believe that heartfelt, but deny the physical aspects of Christ’s life?

    So the man who invariably denies the supernatural of the historical story, now professes to believe the supernatural of his own theory?

    By the way, I hope you are aware that if Christ was simply incapacitated for a few hours, then got up and walked away, the punishment for the Roman guards responsible would be death? The only swoon theory, hey? Comic gold. And I suppose that is “mainstream” Christianity too?

  • 293. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 4, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    Tiger – touché.

    I wouldn’t delete you, but I really don’t like trolls over there.

    But you’re welcome to read.

    ><
    Comments are open to all!

    The blog authors are unapologetic progressives, but we welcome participation from intelligent, conservative commenters who are able – and willing – to make cogent arguments for conservative principles without resorting to outrageous lies, racist nonsense, ad hominem irrelevancies, or childish gay-bashing.

    We’re serious! Are you out there? Do you even exist? Please come on in and show us! We enjoy the sound of clashing opinions (cough cough) – without all the lying and shouting that too often accompanies political discussion.

    How brave. How noble. How inclusive.

    And when the rubber actually meets the road…How telling.

    All poltical debate is welcome…except for that which we don’t like. Those folks would be “trolls” and subject to moderation.

    This is why Rutherford has attained a certain degree of respect that you never will.

  • 294. El Tigre  |  January 4, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    “I wouldn’t delete you, but I really don’t like trolls over there.”

    That must be why Yellowdog heads off to other blogs to spread his wisdom.

  • 295. El Tigre  |  January 4, 2011 at 10:30 pm

    “But you’re welcome to read.”

    No need. I could go to the sources you lift your posts from to see them.

  • 296. dead rabbit  |  January 4, 2011 at 11:01 pm

    Greychin, you keep mentioning “the Greeks”. I assume you mean the Eastern Orthodox Church. Are you sure you aren’t confusing the Coptic or Ethiopian Church with the Greek Orthodox? I know the Orthodox have a different view on Mary and purgatory then Catholics, but I thought that their theology on the Holy Trinity was the same as Catholics and mainstream Protestants. I tried to google it but don’t have the energy to see it through.

  • 297. dead rabbit  |  January 4, 2011 at 11:04 pm

    Never mind, I miss read you.

  • 298. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:08 am

    The New Liberal Age

    By January 2009, I was reading brilliant new books promising an end to conservatism, a new 50-year-old liberal ascendancy, the final triumph of John Maynard Keynes, and of course the apotheosis of the omnipresent “god” Barack Obama. By May 2009 we were lectured that the nascent tea party was an Astroturf fake movement, then a racist dangerous movement with Nazi undertones, and then a splinter nihilist know-nothing movement without political consequences.

    By November 2010, all the above vanished in a blink. Furor followed from the Left that Obama was not a Great Stone Face savior, that the tea party was all too real, that the conservatives were back, and that liberalism had suffered its worst electoral defeat since 1938. How can all this be? Whom to blame? ~ VDH

    Read this blog Dr. Hanson and you would be led to believe it is latent and ubiquitous racism.

    Read the the Two Useful Idiot’s Blog and its the Fundies and not enough ‘progressive’ policy. We need to be more like Greece.

    Buwahahahahahaha!

  • 299. graychin  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:43 am

    I hope you understand your apparent disconnect in conclusions hot shot? You hint at believing something was special about Christ’s soul and I’ll assume believe that heartfelt, but deny the physical aspects of Christ’s life?

    Where is the disconnect? I don’t deny the physical aspects of Jesus’ life. He was a man, he lived. I merely believe that the source of the DNA that made up Jesus’ physical body is irrelevant. But for some reason that I can’t understand, it is crucial to the faith of many Christians, including you, that Jesus’ mother was impregnated magically by the Holy Ghost and not in the usual way. Greek culture of the time was accustomed to everyday demigods (not talking about the Greek Orthodox church here, Rabbit). Achilles, Aeneas, Helen of Troy… It just wouldn’t do for Jesus to be less than them, especially after a hundred years or so had gone by and the stories had been passed along, over and over……

    I don’t know why it is so far for you to admit that the immediate followers of Jesus were liars and deluded…

    You’re getting really desperate now. If they were liars, they weren’t deluded. If they were deluded, they weren’t liars.

    I believe that they were neither. But I do think that the early church went way off the track.

    Read “When Jesus Became God” by Bernard Rubenstein – if you think you can handle it. The title is deliberately provocative, but the history is excellent. And it’s the sort of thing you won’t find in an apologetics text, because it doesn’t try to slant the facts to fit your pre-determined conclusions.

  • 300. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:54 am

    “I wouldn’t delete you, but I really don’t like trolls over there.”

    That must be why Yellowdog heads off to other blogs to spread his wisdom.

    Yeah. He smart like bull.

  • 301. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:58 am

    “When Jesus Became God” by Bernard Rubenstein – if you think you can handle it.

    Handle it? I’m laughing at it. You sure you don’ t mean Richard Rubenstein? :lol:

    A Jewish progressive author reviewed by the “Center for Progressive Christianity” writing about a history of 2,000 years ago, as if he had uncovered some mystery. That Nicene Council fable, which I’ve more than refuted countless times here alone is the biggest lie of them all Graychin. You’re at least 20 years behind the times in your argument. What do you think 1st and 2nd Century Christians used for a Bible?

    And you call me desperate?

    I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t you read Isaiah 51 and Psalms 22 written 700 and 1000 years respectively before Christ was born and tell me when Christ became God. Or maybe you prefer the term Immanuel, born to a virgin? If you’re more comfortable, read Hebrews 1:8 – even you can’t screw that one up, and that predates your Council by approximately 300 years.

    Not only are you woefully biased, but you’re even more woefully uninformed. Go search for some more “progressive Christian” books and get back with me. Start with the Dan Brown series. :lol:

    And I hope you were satisfied with your Son of Man question. You didn’t respond back, so I’ll assume you now understand your mistake when trying a few more of your ignorant “gotcha” questions.

  • 302. Rutherford  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:59 am

    If Christ was fully human without intervention of divinity as prophesied, there was absolutely nothing special about His sacrifice and nothing special about him.

    See Tex, this is one of the junctures at which you lose me.

    Now, I know you don’t like the comparison but bear with me a second. Without any divinity, can we not say that Martin Luther King Jr sacrificed his life for his cause and that his sacrifice was special and so was his life? Why is divinity necessary? Why can I not respect the notion of Jesus the peacemaker and political radical who died for his beliefs? Why does that suddenly reduce him to worthlessness?

    I actually find it disrespectful to the life of Jesus and his sacrifice to say that it is based entirely on divinity. AND by the way, if he was divine, as I think I’ve said before, then there was no sacrifice since his time on Earth must have been a living hell compared to what awaited him when he reunited with his Father in Heaven (leaving aside for the moment that he was his Father).

  • 303. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 1:01 am

    Correction: Make it Isaiah 53. I can’t wait for your explanation of that one…

  • 304. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 1:10 am

    “R”,

    You and your buddy Graychin’s question and comments are more uncommonly lame tonight than usual.

    Now, I know you don’t like the comparison but bear with me a second. Without any divinity, can we not say that Martin Luther King Jr sacrificed his life for his cause and that his sacrifice was special and so was his life?

    Let me answer your question with a question about MLK, the Baptist Preacher. What material did King borrow his most famous speeches, and when he preached, who did MLK call his savior? Who was it that King worshiped?

    Why can I not respect the notion of Jesus the peacemaker and political radical who died for his beliefs? Why does that suddenly reduce him to worthlessness?

    If you’re dumb enough to put King and Jesus in the same category, who am I to say you can’t? But King certainly wouldn’t have said that about himself or even dared compared himself to God. Besides, Christ could have saved Himself at any time and chose not to. He voluntarily went to the cross for all of us, and he also lived a sinless life.

    Was King sinless? Though I admire the man’s stances and oratory skills, I also understand he liked a little strange on the side.

  • 305. Graychin  |  January 5, 2011 at 1:20 am

    RICHARD Rubenstein. Correct.

    I’m disappointed to learn I’m 20 years behind the times, although you have never referred me to any source more recent than the first century A.D.

    My “son of man” question was serious, not a gotcha. You don’t have to be such an asshole to demonstrate what a fine Christian gentleman you are. I’m going to have to think about that one some more.

  • 306. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 5, 2011 at 1:23 am

    Why is divinity necessary?

    Divinity is necessary to provide salvation for all mankind. If he doesn’t become man, and die, then he cannot conquer death, and provide the cover for man’s inevitable sin that man cannot provide for himself. When you see the various foreshadowing of Christ the Messiah in the Old Testament, 1000 years before Christ, 800 years before Christ, and 600 years before Christ, 400 years before Christ, you see that it was all part of a plan. This foreshadowing wasn’t just saying “A messiah will come.” but was instead describing his life and his death, sometimes in great detail.

    Why can I not respect the notion of Jesus the peacemaker and political radical who died for his beliefs?

    You can, although given the history of his actual ministry, I might argue that his legacy was one of peace, but his life was not. However, if this were all you decided to dwell on, you would be missing the more important message.

    Why does that suddenly reduce him to worthlessness?

    It doesn’t reduce him to worthlessness, but it does strip him of his glory, R. A king who would step from his throne and freely give his life for you so you could have life everlasting isn’t the same if he was only ever “just a man”.

    I actually find it disrespectful to the life of Jesus and his sacrifice to say that it is based entirely on divinity.

    That is your privilege, but the fact is that the redemption of man could not come through man’s own sacrifice. That is the whole point. Man’s sacrifice for man, no matter how noble could never buy that, and in fact, if you take away his divinity, then the whole thing seems rather pointless. Not only could he not die for all of mankind’s sins, but he also didn’t manage to save anyone else’s life. The apolstles weren’t able to make a getaway because he decided to cover their retreat. He didn’t step forward and say “I am Spartacus.” with countless others. He died in misery, wieghed down with a burden no man could bear, abandoned by just about all who knew him, with the exception of his mother, John, and Mary Magdaline. Without the divinity and the divine plan, his death was for nothing.

    AND by the way, if he was divine, as I think I’ve said before, then there was no sacrifice since his time on Earth must have been a living hell compared to what awaited him when he reunited with his Father in Heaven (leaving aside for the moment that he was his Father).

    You almost got this right. The point is rather that he didn’t have to do any of it. Satan knew this, which is why he tried to tempt Christ, who was having none of it, and stuck to a plan that subjected him to more than I think any one of us could possibly bear, in order to bring salvation to all mankind.

  • 307. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 1:29 am

    You don’t need to think. You need to read something besides ancillary material to justify your confirmation bias. I’d tell you to start with the Bible itself, but it might burn your hands.

    Why would I need to give you a source more recent than the 1st century? It is you that has tried in the past to discount the accuracy of The Word because it’s too far removed from Christ.

    Like this…

    But I do think that the early church went way off the track.

    :lol: :lol:

    How in the world would you determine that from a 20th century “progressive Christian” book? (is that some kind of joke?)

    Really Graychin, you call me desperate? I love to debate this topic with you. You’re so twisted in your hatred of pure Christianity because of your real religion called “progressive politics”, and it not fitting your message of intolerance politically correct tolerance, you almost spin yourself into the muck.

  • 308. poolman  |  January 5, 2011 at 1:58 am

    Great comment @ 306 BiW.

    This is long and ugly, but must be daylighted, imho.

    The sins of our fathers :evil:

  • 309. an800lbgorilla  |  January 5, 2011 at 7:17 am

    Gladiators, man up… somewhere else…

  • 310. an800lbgorilla  |  January 5, 2011 at 9:04 am

    Curious fact, unearthed by Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal. The average age of Republican House members in the new Congress convening today is 54.9, younger than the Republicans’ average age in the previous Congress, 56.5. But the average age of House Democrats has risen, from 58 to 60.2. That can be explained partly by the high turnover in the 2010 election. Many younger Democrats, first elected in 2006 or 2008, fell by the wayside. The old bulls from 65 percent-plus Democratic districts survived. Meanwhile, many young Republican challengers won.
    But the results are historically anomalous. Going back to the Congress elected in 1950, there has never been more than a 2.8-year difference in the average age of House Republicans and House Democrats. The difference in this Congress is 5.3 years, almost double that.

    The picture is similar on the Senate side of the Capitol, where the average age of Republicans is 61.4 and the average age of Democrats is 63.1. That’s as wide a margin as in any Senate since the one produced by the election of 1982.

    Democrats like to think of themselves as the young party, the party of new ideas. And in 2010 they remained the choice of the youngest voters, though by only half the margin in 2008.

    But when you look at the top Democrats in the House, you don’t see young faces. The ages of the ranking Democrats on the Appropriations, Ways and Means, Education, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary committees are 70, 79, 65, 71, 70, 69 and 81. The three party leaders are 70, 71 and 70…

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/01/wily-old-dems-take-whippersnapper-republicans#ixzz1AAKekHvV

  • 311. Meribeth  |  January 5, 2011 at 9:37 am

    anyone interested in giving their thoughts about the admiral (?) who was relieved of duties because of the videos? Or Justice Scalia’s comments about women and the 14th amendment?

  • 312. an800lbgorilla  |  January 5, 2011 at 10:25 am

    Not aware of Scalia’s comments.

    Question on the Navy video: why now? This happened four years ago, why is it suddenly important?

  • 313. an800lbgorilla  |  January 5, 2011 at 10:29 am

    Feel good pic of the day:

    Pelosi out

  • 314. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    anyone interested in giving their thoughts about the admiral (?) who was relieved of duties because of the videos? Or Justice Scalia’s comments about women and the 14th amendment?

    You mean Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the finest SCOTUS ever? No.

    I’d rather talk about an excellent sportscaster Ron Franklin being fired by ESPN – for daring to refer to one of those useless women, who roam the sidelines for unknown purpose that no one likes, as ‘sweet baby’ after she insulted Franklin about his wife – more feminazi PC crap facilitated by sissified and browbeaten executives and big mouth misandrists who should be burned at the stake. The smallest verbal slight to sideline roaming shrews, and off with his head. But yelling “Fuck Jesus” in a televised roast while in drunken stupor by female ESPN anchor Dana Jacobson deserves only a temporary suspension of one week.

    http://deadspin.com/347880/espn-sends-dana-jacobson-away-for-a-week

    Or maybe we can talk about Title IX damaging mens sports programs in the name of “fairness”, though the women’s college sports programs are funded almost in entirety by mens athletic events.

    Or maybe we can talk about young males are being shortchanged in K-12 education in the name of ‘fairness’:

    http://educationnext.org/new-education-next-forum-are-boys-being-shortchanged-in-k-12-schooling/

    I think what we need to address this year more than anything MeriBeth is the glaring double standards and inconsistency in judgment with respect to race, religion and gender, don’t you?

  • 315. Rutherford  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    Tex, don’t be an ass …. Scalia’s statements are worth discussing. Meribeth, another reader actually asked the same question and for reasons I don’t understand, asked that her comment be removed from the blog so I obliged. Anyway, here is the story:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html

  • 316. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    “We try not to refer to it as the “S” or “C” word – today, it’s generally called “left” or “progressive”.

  • 317. Rutherford  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    BTW, Scalia’s view makes no sense. He basically says rights not explicitly granted by the Constitution are up to legislatures. But that raises the question, if a legislature strips a group (i.e. women) of their rights, where is the judicial recourse eventually leading to the Supreme Court?

  • 318. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    The Rutherford Lawson Blog (disclaimer)

    The politically correct site of the internet. Too gutless, cowardly, beta, and politically correct to be honest.

    All socialist and communists leftist and progressives are welcome. Are you out there? Come, sit, and drink green tea with your host.

    ———–

    Can you imagine the chutzpah and stupidity it takes to condemn Breitbart, Newsbusters, CBN, FOX, Townhall, etc…

    But call and quote the Huffington Post as superior journalism? :twisted:

  • 319. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. … It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies.

    ~ Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaking on the Senate floor in 2006 just before he voted against raising the debt ceiling.

    ** GUFFAW ** Burn baby, burn! :shock:

  • 320. Meribeth  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    I’d be interested in the lawyers’ thoughts about the Scalia remarks. My question wasn’t calling his ability into question, Tex–I am asking about the substance.

    I think it’s pretty easy to point out inconsistencies in the way people are treated. But just doing that doesn’t really accomplish anything, in my opinion. And I am interested in the constitutional issue.

  • 321. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    More Empowering of Women!

    I am Woman, Hear Me Roar!
    We’re going to now even the Score!
    I’ll rip your balls off and cut you at the Knees!

    I am woman, hear me roar
    In numbers too big to ignore
    And I know too much to go back an’ pretend
    ‘Cause I’ve heard it all before
    And I’ve been down there on the floor
    No one’s ever gonna keep me down again

    What? Where did burn the bra go Gloria Steinem?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12112283

  • 322. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    Oh MeriBeth, I’m just giving the beta males that quote here a hard time.

    Rutherford always thinks I”m out for blood, and I was just giving a little demonstration of the Left’s rank hypocrisy, and the appeasing cowards hoping to gain favor like Rutherford a demonstration of the end result.

    I’m not even sure I would put you in the group of She Woman Man Haters Club like the Margaret & Helen hags. :wink:

  • 323. an800lbgorilla  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    ABC News: Michele Bachmann considering presidential bid

    R’s head explodes in 3…2…1…

  • 324. an800lbgorilla  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    I talked about that Tex… http://an800lbgorilla.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/the-buck-stops-where/

  • 325. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    Gorilla, I misread that for a split second and thought it said Michelle Obama considering Presidential bid. :lol:

  • 326. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    Gorilla, I’ve got to start visiting your blog again. I forget to, because you dropped out of site for a time and I got out of the habit.

    Great post!

  • 327. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 5, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    BTW, Scalia’s view makes no sense. He basically says rights not explicitly granted by the Constitution are up to legislatures. But that raises the question, if a legislature strips a group (i.e. women) of their rights, where is the judicial recourse eventually leading to the Supreme Court?

    R, the Nat’l Women’s Law Center spokesperson quoted at the HUff Poo piece is being VERY intellectually dishonest with her breathless assertion that there is no judicial recourse.

    First of all, I don’t see where Scalia’s analysis is wrong.

    When the 14th Amendment passed, equal rights based on sex/sexual orientation were not contemplated. How do I know this? Because women were not given the right to vote until the passage of the 19th Amendment, and the Equal Rights Amendment wasn’t introduced until 1923. It finally passed Congress in 1972, and to this day, has been ratiufied by 35 states. As foir the sexual orientation take, sodomy was very much still a crime when the 14th Amendment was passed.

    However, much like Scalia points out, state legislatures have stepped up to legislate equality. For example, Washington’s law on the matter is fairly comprehensive:

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.60.030, and at the end, you will find reference to Federal legislation which enforces equality on certain specific areas of law.

    There is judicial recourse. You can stop hyperventilating, Nancy.

  • 328. poolman  |  January 5, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    Tex, interesting video at 316. Wonder why the “liberal” media doesn’t carry that report? Oh yeah, It isn’t a liberal media anymore.

    Gorilla, if the comment at 312 regarding the “Navy” video is directed at me, though I don’t know if it was a “Navy” video or not, I felt the abuses need to be daylighted. Not everyone is aware of this as the MSM doesn’t generally go there. We prefer to bury the knowledge. Everyone always says “support the troops” when it has been proved over and again that we treat them as guinea pigs and that we exhibit no respect for environment or humanity in the countries we invade.

  • 329. poolman  |  January 5, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    Tex, As far as deficits and money is concerned, start with the basics…

  • 330. El Tigre  |  January 5, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    Rutherford, I couldn;t read your HuffPo article all the way through. It was atrocious in its application of what was actually said with how it was being interpreted the dim wit for the Women’s Law Center. I stopped at was referred to as the “Scalia doctrine.” The intellectual dishonesty was too great.

    Scalia’s comments are heavily contextual and, at the point I quit reading the blather, criticized but not tangibly refuted.

    With that said, I agree with BiW from what I know of the issue (who’s still probably forgotten more con law than I’ve ever known). Sorry I couldn’t add anything more to the analysis, but it should come as no surprise that Scalia’s assessment of the scope of the 14th is not the end of the world for the penis impaired. Unless the 14th is the only law and the SCOTUS the only Court, the claim that there’s no judicial recourse is meaningless hyperbole.

  • 331. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 5, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    Wow.

    Have a little hate with your coffee, poolman.

  • 332. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 5, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    not the end of the world for the penis impaired.

    Dammit.

    I hate it when I blow coffee out of my nose.

  • 333. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    After just listening to FORMER Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, I just realized how lucky we were that nothing had happened to Barack Obama the last two years. A terrifying thought to think America was one heart beat away from having Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi as leaders of the free world. SHUDDER! As big an epic failure as Obama has proven to be, Obama is vastly superior in every facet.

    Nancy Pelosi is the most brain dead, dishonesty, inane politician I have ever had the displeasure of listening to, and I mean that. The woman is simply stupid, a liar and a disgrace.

    I hope that John Boehner doesn’t lose site of the clear and unmistakable message that America sent last Nov. 2nd. If so, he needs to be voted out of power and off the Speaker’s podium.

    If I could choose one focus to be immediately invoked as of today, it would be that the every federal employee not elected, have to justify their position; every department audited by a 3rd party representing the America taxypayer, answering only to the American taxpayer. There would be no review by Congress until every American citizen was provided with an accurate assessment and unbiased opinion contained in an executive summary.

    The audit would include both the military, defense contractors, and all entitlement programs.

    It is time to make the Federal government accountable.

  • 334. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    I remind you Poolman, the banking and much of the financial industry is part and parcel of the Dimocratic party, no matter the race, creed or color of the participants.

    Let’s remember a few names, shall we? What do these people have in common? Bernie Madoff, Franklin Raines, Michael Milkin. Robert Rubin?

    Could throw in a few more honest Dimocrats for grins: Martha Stewart, and Leona Helmsley.

    It reminds me of the incomparably brilliant and arch enemy of liberals, and why I admire her so:

    I believe this point was subtly highlighted when Willie Horton told the press in 1988 that of course he supported Michael Dukakis for president. “According to academic studies,” Lott says, “from 1972 to 1996, on average, 80 percent of felons would have voted Democratic. An overwhelming 93 percent ostensibly would have voted for Bill Clinton in 1996.”

    This is not because, as you might imagine, blacks have high crime rates and also happen to be overwhelmingly Democratic. Lott compares the voting patterns of felons and nonfelons, controlling for race, age, education level, religious habits, employment, age and country of residence. Wholly apart from all these factors, felons were still more likely to vote Democratic. Indeed, in the 2004 election, Lott says, felons in Washington state “voted exclusively for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.”

    With so many felons being Democrats, the party might want to think about changing its mascot from a donkey to a jailbird.

    Needless to say, Democrats are neurotically obsessed with restoring the right to vote to felons. But the ex-cons themselves rarely express any interest in regaining this particular right. What ex-cons want is the right to own a gun. “Felons,” Lott says, “who frequently live in poor, high-crime neighborhoods, want to be able to defend themselves.”

    So the evidence is in on that one, too: Preferring the right to bear arms to the right to vote (for choice), convicted felons have a superior value system to liberals.

  • 335. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    Worth a moment of reflection

    During Nancy Pelosi’s four year reign as Speaker of the House of Representatives, the national debt increased from approximately 8.5Trillion to over 14Trillion.

    Congratulations Speaker Pelosi on overseeing more than a 60% increase in the federal deficit during your reign.

    Great Job Pelosi….the Finest American Lib! :wink:

  • 336. Rutherford  |  January 5, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Tex, I believe your civics knowledge is flawed. Had we lost Obama, Pelosi would have remained Speaker and Biden would have appointed a new VP for Congressional confirmation. I believe Nelson Rockefeller is the case to look at.

    When JFK died I don’t think LBJ had a VP for the remainder of that term. Perhaps in that case, the Speaker was next up. I don’t know why LBJ did not appoint a VP.

    As I tweeted earlier this afternoon “The Secret Service MUST not let Obama and Biden be in the same room for the next two years!”

  • 337. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    Maybe so, as I was thinking about Carl Albert in 1973, but I had forgotten The V.P. slot was vacant.

    I believe you may be right. I stand corrected Professor Rutherford.

  • 338. poolman  |  January 5, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    Have a little hate with your coffee, poolman.

    Don’t you think it astonishing that any criticism of anything Israel or Jewish in the world is automatically considered hate or anti-semitic? Who is in charge of the Fed? It is proven fact that a great number of the anti-Jewish graffiti and supposed “hate” crimes against Jews or Judaism is perpetrated by Jews themselves to illicit public sympathy. Even a great deal of the “Islamic extremists” that speak against Israel have been found to be Jews pretending to be Muslims. They have to keep the myth alive to continue to garner world sympathy and play the victim card.

    Truth be known, they are probably the greatest perpetrators of deception and terrorism in the world today. They certainly have the best intelligence. But since they own the Congress and the media, you won’t ever get that picture. I am not saying that there are not hate crimes against Jews or real threats to Israel, however the myth is much greater than reality.

    It is too bad you don’t understand zionism, its goals, or where it came from. A little Bible story documenting the origin of the deceptions is found in Genesis about mid chapter 25 and carries on for several chapters. You may be familiar with the stories, but not necessarily their implications for today. You’d probably be just as surprised to know that Jews helped Nazis and contributed to the holocaust.

    Maybe you missed the Dr. Alan Sobrosky video I posted claiming Mossad did 9/11. Presently, he has a lot of company in that court, and many are from the very military and intelligence community that would know firsthand.

  • 339. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    Robert Gibbs crows about power of big government, gets facts completely wrong :lol:

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/05/thedc-morning-robert-gibbs-crows-about-power-of-big-government-gets-facts-completely-wrong/

    Guaranteed Bomba is glad this schmuck is gone. He couldn’t pick much worse. I recommend Obama make an offer to Scott McClellan.

  • 340. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 5, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    I don’t know why LBJ did not appoint a VP.

    Because he did not have the authority to do so. The 25th Amendment was not ratified until 1967, and it doesn’t allow the President to “appoiont” one. The Presdident nominates one who then must be confirmed by a majority vote by both houses of Congress.

  • 341. poolman  |  January 5, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    We have had videos of extremist Muslims saying it okay to kill all other “heathen” to promote their cause. I think it fair to show the other side of the coin, as this video points out:

  • 342. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    You’d probably be just as surprised to know that Jews helped Nazis and contributed to the holocaust.

    Like George Soros. :wink:

    Of course, you never make mention of those wonderful Jew hating Palestinians like Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who helped create the final solution for European Jews and advised Eichmann on the best ways to persecute Jews.

    Al-Husseini practiced what he preached. During the Nuremberg Trials in July 1946, Eichmann’s assistant, Dieter Wisliczeny, testified that Mufti was a central figure in the planning of the genocide of the Jews:

    The Grand Mufti has repeatedly suggested to the Nazi authorities – including Hitler, von Ribbentrop and Himmler – the extermination of European Jewry. … The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan… He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

    Wisliczeny also testified that al-Husseini asked Heinrich Himmler to send one of Eichmann’s assistants to Jerusalem once the war was over, to aid the Mufti in “solving the Jewish question in the Middle East.”

  • 343. dead rabbit  |  January 5, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    Lol…yeah dude, Jew hating Muslims are secret Jews. If it wasn’t for you, I could hardly hang here these days, as half of what is discussed is over my head.

    Have you any experience in a Muslim community? Jew hating is as culturally common in Arab neighborhoods as kabobs. To make the claim that Jew hating by Muslims is often the result of Jew trickery is Mein Kamph as hell, man.

    Luckily, your asinine softballs are easy pickings.

    It amazes me your fellow libs don’t call you out more.

  • 344. Tex Taylor  |  January 5, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    Poolman, it amazes me you aren’t a huge fan of Jews, minus the rancid Jew hating you demonstrate on occasion.

    We have thirteen Jewish Senators, and every one of them to a ‘T’ except Liberman are hardcore Libs.

    Levin, Lautenberg, Kohl, Feinstein, Boxer, Wyden, Schumer, Cardin, Sanders, Bennett, Franken, Blumenthal.

    A smorgasbord of horrific, corrupt and incompetent Libs – but they are you.

    Besides, the most prominent members of President Edsel’s first cabinet are almost all Jewish. Axelrod, Emmanuel, Summer, Orszag, etc…

    Throw in the Commies and Socialists on the cabinet,/czar positions, and it is a liberal’s wet dream.

    You ought to be in love…

  • 345. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 5, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    It is proven fact that a great number of the anti-Jewish graffiti and supposed “hate” crimes against Jews or Judaism is perpetrated by Jews themselves to illicit public sympathy. Even a great deal of the “Islamic extremists” that speak against Israel have been found to be Jews pretending to be Muslims.

    Thank you Howard W. Campbell, the last free American.

    Do me a favor. When the Blue Fairy Godmother comes to visit you, and tells you that he is willing to betray every oath he ever took and testify on your behalf, keep in mind that typewriter ribbons aren’t just for typing with.

  • 346. dead rabbit  |  January 5, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    Do you guys actually think Poolman believes the shit he says, or is it just a weird version of Dungeon and Dragons, an X files role playing game.

    I mean, does a grown man really believe the world is ordered in such a way that it’s even possible for Jew tricksters to orchestrate such a thing?

    Poolman, I am an agent that has tracked you for 3 years on the internet. Sometimes I try to communicate with you from the static on your AM radio. You’ve heard my message several times amongst the lonely white noise: ” you are a butt dart, you are a butt dart, you are a butt dart.”

  • 347. dead rabbit  |  January 5, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    Hey Greychin, Rutherford. Are many of the outspoken Muslim extremists actually secret Jews?

    Man, we need to teach those Jews a lesson. They are so sneaky!

  • 348. poolman  |  January 5, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    I repeat, since it didn’t take the first few times. I can criticize America, the military, the Christians, the Jews, the Muslims, the blacks, the whites, the liberals, the conservatives, the republicans, the democrats, and on down the line. It is called freedom of speech. And it is based of research, not anything I am making up in my own head. If these are fabricated, they would not be provable from multiple sources. I just point it out. You are the ones labeling me a hater. I am a hater of evil only. I am not a hater of persons. Evil does not belong to only one group, despite what you espouse. Calling me a hater only shows your ignorance. Just like calling anyone who criticizes Obama racist, you are jumping on the very same band wagon.

    Tex, it was you who labeled me a dimocrat and lib. I have voted for more republicans in my lifetime than republicans. Being as I am probably 10 years older than you it is likely that I have voted republican more times than you have. Granted, the last 6 years I have voted more for democrats than republicans, but even in the last election 2 months ago, I voted for a few moderate republicans in local elections. The fact that you point out how many Jews are in politics actually supports my point. How many other countries do we give over 3 billion to annually?

    The point is: 2 party politics is a ruse to get us fighting among ourselves and politicians as a whole have little bearing on the direction and outcome of this nation. Especially regarding the MIC. That is where the bulk of the excess is. That is what we should be cutting back. That is where we “dare not tread” politically, right or left. It’s a royal scam.

    And since you have brought up the 14th Amendment, BiW, can you think of any other greater legislation that has usurped citizens’ representation over business (monied) interests in our government? Looking back, it was the beginning of our undoing, imho.

    AFA your fantasies are concerned. Typewriter ribbon has been replaced with print cartridges. Welcome to the modern world. Google Adam Perlman aka Adam Yahiye Gadahn, aka Azzam the American for starters. If I thought you would actually read them I could provide numerous links.

  • 349. El Tigre  |  January 5, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    I just read Rutherford’s tweets. The real question is does Rutherford belive the shit he says.

    “@nancypelosi You did a good job. You should be very proud.”

    Even Pelosi’s mama wouldn’t say that!

  • 350. poolman  |  January 5, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    *than democrats*

  • 351. poolman  |  January 5, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    Poolman, I am an agent that has tracked you for 3 years on the internet. Sometimes I try to communicate with you from the static on your AM radio. You’ve heard my message several times amongst the lonely white noise: ” you are a butt dart, you are a butt dart, you are a butt dart.”

    Damn AM reception anyway. I was getting “bogart” and kept passing the frikkin’ doobie without even hitting it. Sheesh!

  • 352. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 5, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    And since you have brought up the 14th Amendment, BiW, can you think of any other greater legislation that has usurped citizens’ representation over business (monied) interests in our government? Looking back, it was the beginning of our undoing, imho.

    For me to even hope to answer that, I’ll have to ask you to expand on that remark just so I’m sure I’m answering the question you think you’re asking me.

    AFA your fantasies are concerned. Typewriter ribbon has been replaced with print cartridges. Welcome to the modern world.

    My fantasies. HHmmmm. Did you even type “Howard W. Campbell, Jr.” into a search engine? I realize that people don’t spend a lot of time with literature anymore, but it is a reference to what is probably the single greatest moral tale of the 20th Century.

  • 353. poolman  |  January 5, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    BiW, I read Slaughterhouse 5 in HS. I also was familiar with Vonnegut’s later writings and protests opposing Bush and the war in Iraq. I remember him comparing Bush to Hitler.

    AFA the 14th amendment, I have been reading a lot lately of a movement to abolish it. I am still trying to grasp how the different clauses in it have been used in rulings over the years. I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to grasp all the nuances in the written amendment. The most disturbing (to me)seems to be its establishment of corporate personhood under the due process clause (?). I must admit I need more study here. But any law that gives corporations equal standing with citizens is against the original intent of the founders, I believe.

  • 354. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 5, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    BiW, I read Slaughterhouse 5 in HS. I also was familiar with Vonnegut’s later writings

    If you were as familiar as you think, then you should have known I was referring to “Mother Night”, and NOT Slaughterhouse 5. I’d never refer to the latter as a moral tale.

    The most disturbing (to me)seems to be its establishment of corporate personhood under the due process clause (?).

    I think you are mistaken as to how corporations have been considered over time, but first, I’d suggest that you try to be more precise when identifying whose opinions you think you understand. The Founders would be those who were involved in either the Revolutionary War, or the Declaration of Independence. As far as I am aware, none of them would be on record as to conferring the status of an artifical person on a corporation.

    The Framers would be those who debated and helped draft the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Again, I am not aware of any quotation by any of them regarding corporations and their status as persons either.

    However, it is not the 14th Amendment that allows corporations this priviledge. The status is much, much older than that. Corporations are part of the much older commonlaw that we share with our British cousins. Both the founders and framers who practiced law would have been aware of corporation and their status as persons, as THE legal treatise on the commonlaw that was in use in the colonies before the war, and influenced much of our law after was Lord Blackstone’s “Commentaries”. He wrote about this status in Book I, The Rights of Persons, Of Corporations:

    WE have hitherto confidered perfons in their natural capacities, and have treated of their rights and duties. But, as all perfonal rights die with the perfon ; and, as the neceffary forms of invefting a feries of individuals, one after another, with the fame identical rights, would be very inconvenient, if not impracticable ; it has been found neceffary, when it is for the advantage of the public to have any particular rights kept on foot and continued, to conftitute artificial perfons, who may maintain a perpetual fucceffion, and enjoy a kind of legal immortality.

    THESE artificial perfons are called bodies politic, bodies corporate, (corpora corporata) or corporations : of which there is a great variety fubfifting, for the advancement of religion, of learning, and of commerce ; in order to preferve entire and for ever thofe rights and immunities, which, if they were grated only to thofe individuals of which the body corporate is compofed, would upon their death be utterly loft and extinct. To fhew the advantages of thefe incorporations, let us confider the café of a college in either of our univerfities, founded ad ftudcndum et or andum, for the encouragement and fupport of religion and learning. If this was a mere voluntary affembly, the individuals which compofe it might indeed read, pray, ftudy, and perform fcholaftic exercifes together, fo long as they could agree to do fo : but they could neither frame, nor receive, any laws or rules of their conduct ; none at leaft, which would have any binding force, for want of a coercive power to create a fufficient obligation. Neither could they be capable fo retaining any privileges or immunities : for, if fuch privileges be attacked, which of all this unconnected affembly has the right, or ability, to defend them ? And, when they are difperfed by death or otherwife, how fhall they transfer thefe advantages to another fet of ftudents, equally unconnected as themfelves ? So alfo, with regard to holding eftates of other property, if land be granted for the purpofes of religion or learning to twenty individuals not incorporated, there is no legal way of continuing the property to any other perfons for the fame purpofes, but by endlefs conveyances from one to the other, as often as the hands are changed. But, when they are confolidated and united into a corporation, they and their fucceffors are then confidered as one perfon in law : as one perfon, they have one will, which is collected from the fenfe of the majority of the individuals : this one will may eftablifh rules and orders for the regulation of the whole, which are a fort of municipal laws of this little republic ; or rules and ftatutes may be prefcribed to it at it’s creation, which are then in the place of natural laws : the privileges and immunities, the eftates and poffeffions, of the corporation, when once vefted in them, will be for ever vefted, without any new conveyance to new fucceffions ; for all the individual members that have exifted from the foundation to he prefent time, or that fhall ever hereafter exift, are but one perfon in law, a perfon that never dies : in like manner as the river Thames is ftill the fame river, though the parts which compofe it are changing every inftant.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch18.asp

    But another reason why I don’t agree with your opinion on this matter is because corporations post-revolution were always a STATE matter, and have always been creatures of STATE law, and the Framers, careful to preserve the idea of federalism and the sovereignty of the individual states, would have considered it outside of the jurisdiction of the Federal government, and a matter purely for the states to determine.

  • 355. dead rabbit  |  January 5, 2011 at 10:38 pm

    Poolman, I don’t care how you exercise your 1st amendment rights.

    Your research is bunk. Your sources laughable.

    You want to blame Jew trickery for the orchestration of an elaborate world conspiracy, more power to you.

    Like I said, I appreciate the softballs.

  • 356. dead rabbit  |  January 5, 2011 at 10:47 pm

    I don’t care what your take on the “death panels/counseling is.

    Sneaking shit behind the American back isn’t cool.

    When will Washington understand!

    Nice transparency, Obama.

    Well, you got foiled again.

    60 percent want shitty Obama-care repealed. That is epic, even if its off by a few points.

  • 357. poolman  |  January 5, 2011 at 11:05 pm

    On the 14th, thanks for the clarification, I think. Even though it is still a bit muddy. I’ll keep studying.

    On the other, I have never read “Mother Night”, but I will have to put it on my list. I respected a lot of what Vonnegut had to say and his outspoked straight forwardness. If you claim it is “probably the single greatest moral tale of the 20th Century”, it sounds like one I should check out. So it goes…

  • 358. poolman  |  January 5, 2011 at 11:33 pm

    Your research is bunk. Your sources laughable.

    You want to blame Jew trickery for the orchestration of an elaborate world conspiracy, more power to you.

    Rabbit, and you are a teacher? Oh right, American school system. Never mind. My research is bunk, eh? My sources are laughable, too? I want to blame Jew trickery?

    Obviously you did not check them out or do any research on your own. You sound like every other American citizen, caught up in the illusion of happily ever after.

    Here is a small sampling of my sources (20 out of 3170 persons):

    Alan N. Sabrosky, PhD
    General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret)
    Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret)
    Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret)
    Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)
    Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS Aeronautical Science, U.S. Air Force(ret)
    Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret)
    Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret)
    Maj. Brian Power-Waters, U.S. Air Force (ret)
    Maj. Charles E. Dills, PhD, U.S. Air Force Reserves (ret)
    Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army
    Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army (ret)
    Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army
    Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret)
    Commander James R. Compton, III, U.S. Navy (ret)
    Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve (ret)
    Major Erik Kleinsmith, U.S. Army
    Col. David Hunt, MA, U.S. Army (ret)
    Maj. George M. Kesselring, U.S. Air Force (ret)
    Michael Scheuer, PhD

    Are any of these laughable? If so which ones?

  • 359. poolman  |  January 5, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    outspoked = outspoken :oops:

  • 360. dead rabbit  |  January 5, 2011 at 11:55 pm

    I’ve noticed you love to name drop military people quite a bit. One site you linked to a couple days ago is utterly fraudulent and spreads bald face lies about the American Legion.

    So a list of military guys, including the ambitious blow hard Clark, think Jew tricksters are behind Islamic radicalism, even (insert laugh track) publicly posing as Islamic militants?

    Is this like a card game? If I list a bunch of military dudes who don’t believe your dumb fuck conspiracies are we even?

    Its pointless having a conversation with you. You control the deck of cards. Any time I appeal to authority, like you do, my dudes are automatically part of the conspiracy or blinded by the blue pill.

    Go back to empowering the very organization you deem so dastardly you pathetic Alex Jones wannabe.

    You build a giant phallic structure (the conspiracy) and then sit on it (your big government politics).

  • 361. dead rabbit  |  January 6, 2011 at 12:23 am

    I was way too hard on Alex Jones. At least he is consistent. He might think 9/11 was an inside job, but the dude also hates big government.

  • 362. dead rabbit  |  January 6, 2011 at 12:28 am

    By the way, I find it ironic that its the liberals here always throwing my job in my face.

    Guess what poolman, when kids start talking about 9/11 as an inside job I tell them they are nuts. I also force them to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag everyday, too.

    Oh…the horrors.

  • 363. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 6, 2011 at 12:50 am

    On the 14th, thanks for the clarification, I think. Even though it is still a bit muddy.

    What is it that you find so muddy? The Due Process Clause does nothing to establish corporations’ status as persons. It has had the operation of extending the Bill of Rights to the persons residing in states, including corporations. While the word “person” is unfortunate, as it has been read by the courts in recent decades to extend to non-citizens, a reading for which a much stronger case for an unintended result can be made {and which I have argued ad nauseum with that noted keen legal intellect, Professor Greychin}, especially with regard to cases regarding non-citizens relying on the Due Process Clause were decided from after its passage until the 1970s, but then I could also make a much stronger case that the Framers never intended for the result of the Due Process Clause anyway, as they intended for the states to remain co-equal sovereigns, and continued to run the states in ways contrary to the Bill of Rights, such as having officially state sponsored sects of Christianity well after the ratification and passage of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

  • 364. poolman  |  January 6, 2011 at 12:54 am

    One site you linked to a couple days ago is utterly fraudulent and spreads bald face lies about the American Legion.

    I’ll admit it if it is proved true. Comment number and thread?

    If I list a bunch of military dudes who don’t believe your dumb fuck conspiracies are we even?

    Go for it. FYI, I know several still in that would not admit to these things in public because of fear of retribution. Most coming out publicly are retired.

    Guess what poolman, when kids start talking about 9/11 as an inside job I tell them they are nuts. I also force them to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag everyday, too.

    Good. I’m encouraged that you have kids talking about it. You’re the teacher. It is your burden to impart knowledge and truth to them. It is quite an honor and puts you in a position of great responsibility. You are not only accountable for just yourself, but for all those counting on you. I hope you act with wisdom. I really do.

  • 365. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 6, 2011 at 12:55 am

    On the other, I have never read “Mother Night”, but I will have to put it on my list. I respected a lot of what Vonnegut had to say and his outspoked straight forwardness. If you claim it is “probably the single greatest moral tale of the 20th Century”, it sounds like one I should check out. So it goes…

    Hmmm. I would say that the only novel of his that I’ve read that came close to being “straightforward” was Mother Night. Slaughterhouse 5 was damn near unreadable. The Sirens of Titan was frustrating. I lost interest in Cat’s Cradle and Breakfast of Champions, and Galapagos was weird, even for him, but I rode that train all the way to the end of the book.

  • 366. Tex Taylor  |  January 6, 2011 at 1:30 am

    Guess what poolman, when kids start talking about 9/11 as an inside job I tell them they are nuts. I also force them to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag everyday, too.

    Oh…the horrors.

    Good for you! But I’m shocked you haven’t been sued by some “progressive” parent. If you were in California, they probably would have terminated you for hatred against Mexico. :smile:

    And admission like that would get you banned on the Two Useful Idiot’s Blog, or the Feckless Flake Blog.

    Oh wait! A comment like “surge worked!!!” will get you banned there too. Never mind.

  • 367. dead rabbit  |  January 6, 2011 at 1:31 am

    ” FYI, I know several still in that would not admit to these things in public because of fear of retribution.”-Poolman

    Lol. See what I mean. Its your Choose Your Own Adventure book, I’m just the reader. You’re impossible to refute. Your deck of 52.

    Ok, I’m done with your silly stories about the government and Jews. You go back to defending why we should continue to bloat your omnipotent, but evil, beast.

    Simpson cartoons. Jews pretending to be Islamic radicals. America attacked us on 9/11. And then I get the sappy wisdom speech…from you!

  • 368. poolman  |  January 6, 2011 at 1:39 am

    By the way, I find it ironic that its the liberals here always throwing my job in my face.

    Like you didn’t mock my job. Can you hear a little violin? ♫ ♪

  • 369. poolman  |  January 6, 2011 at 1:41 am

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-13-2005/kurt-vonnegut

  • 370. dead rabbit  |  January 6, 2011 at 2:06 am

    Mock your job? You mocked your job. Hell, I defended your job.

  • 371. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere  |  January 6, 2011 at 2:08 am

    There no words to accurately convey how sad that was.

    Frail, clearly struggling for breath, and very much fallen from the top of his game mentally.

  • 372. poolman  |  January 6, 2011 at 2:30 am

    What is it that you find so muddy?

    I guess the language slows the comprehension. I have to read and reread to follow the logic. I would prefer straight forward and simpler language. It flows in a direction. With the way these laws are written, I have to go upstream, then downstream, then across. It tends to muddy the concept rather than solidify it, if that makes sense. It’s “legaleze”.

    You speak the language of law. It isn’t written for the common man in most cases. You are in the position of interpretation and therefore hold the written statues in high esteem. Language is your tool or weapon, so to speak.

    A lot of words can cover a lot of crimes. Those who know the law very well can generally stay ahead of it. The more complicated it is, the greater chance for corruption. I know we have plenty that uphold the laws and follow them to a T. Kudos to them.

    I do support states over federal government, but we are so far beyond that as this “imperialist global nation.” I think if a few states started to really try to secede, it might shake DC down a notch or two.

  • 373. an800lbgorilla  |  January 6, 2011 at 7:21 am

    Curious, do Jew conspiracies make the person propagating them anti-Semitic? Racist even?

    I’m just curious, because I got a stack of shit documenting Muslims killing people to establish an Islamic Caliphate, and I get called an Islamophobe. Yet, others have rumors about grand Jewish New World Order conspiracies and… I hear crickets.

    And I’m not the one using White Power websites…

  • 374. poolman  |  January 6, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Labels are just that. I got a stack of stuff showing Jews vs zionists. Religious Jewry vs secular zionism. What would you call that?

    The point, which seems to be elusive, is ALL groups have radical factions. Americans want the “illegals” out of their country. Muslims want the “illegals” out of their countries. Jews want the “illegals” out of their country. They each define the “illegals” as they see them. If you paint the evil face on Muslims only, you are being disingenuous. I will agree our occupation and aggression in their lands has been a great recruitment tool for the radical factions. Whoever controls the media gets their message out. How many Islamic owned news media outlets are you seeing out there?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


December 2010
M T W T F S S
« Nov   Jan »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Bookmark and Share

Categories

Rutherford on Twitter

The Rutherford Lawson Blog is a member of

WordPress Political Blogger

My Sister Site

Town Called Dobson Daily Preview
AddThis Feed Button
http://www.blog4mobile.com/

Recent BlogCatalog Readers

View My Profile View My Profile View My Profile

Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 711 other followers

%d bloggers like this: