Obama Video Address: February 14, 2009

How could anyone not be moved by Henrietta Hughes, a woman who came to President Barack Obama’s Fort Myers, Florida town hall meeting and begged for relief from her homelessness.

“I have an urgent need, unemployment and homelessness, a very small vehicle for my family and I to live in.” … “The housing authority has two years waiting lists, and we need something more than the vehicle and the parks to go to. We need our own kitchen and our own bathroom. Please help.”

via Homeless woman’s plea to Obama draws flood of support – CNN.com.

After she finished her tearful plea, the President walked into the audience and held her for a moment. He told her she was not alone in her suffering and he told her to talk to his staff after the town hall. She was rescued at least temporarily by  Florida state representative Nick Thompson, whose wife offered Hughes rent-free lodging in a vacant home she owned. The sight of Hughes breaking down in front of the President hammered home the terrible state of affairs we are in. Obama has seen many like her and for each one that met Obama over the past two years, there are 100 more. Whether you were for or against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, now that it has passed, we can only hope that it brings some small measure of  relief to a nation in crisis.

And now, the President of the United States of America:

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

55 thoughts on “Obama Video Address: February 14, 2009

  1. I think there is a good chance Henrietta Hughes is a welfare scam artist. But, that doesn’t mean there are “real” Henriettas out there….but I smell a rat with her. So does the local ministry that claims they offered a free place to stay for 3 months among other things.

  2. Let’s look at it this way. Despite the fact that Joe the Plumber was a complete fabrication, he still represented something to lots of Americans. So at the very worst, Henrietta is the Dem’s Joe the Plumber.

    Your bottom line is what is important, there are lots of real Henrietta’s out there.

  3. Where do we begin? His real first name was not Joe. He was not a plumber. If I’m not mistaken he had some back tax issues. He was not buying anybody’s business as he claimed he was. And best of all, when everything was said and done, he said McCain disgusted him. LOL It just doesn’t get much better than that.

  4. I don’t get really what your trying to say. His middle name is Joe. Who cares. He wasn’t licensed. But, I’m not sure I care about that either. He just ..well…unlicensed like a lot of dudes working a trade (myself included). Talking about buying the business…again, sounds like 90% of guys working the trades.

    Back taxes get a LOL from you a? I can’t believe we live in times when some jack ass plumber’s apprentice from Toledo gets vetted more the Treasury Secretary.

    The fucking Treasury Secretary didn’t pay his taxes. I typed that out for my own good. Its surreal.

    I think its possible Geithner might be a total fuck-tard. Obama tells us Geithner will be dotting i’s and crossing t’s and the next day the fool blabbers a bunch of total nonsense to Wall Street. Kerplunk!

    I guess I can see your point with Joe though. He never really “moved” me like some lazy, pathetic welfare leach did you.

    I swear the man bites dog element with Joe the Plumber wasn’t Joe the Plumber. It was the fact that someone actually confronted Obama to his face since, outside of O’Reilly, nobody ever did.

  5. WARNING: RAMBLE

    I just can’t see how our currency won’t be totally debased when the dust all settles. The spending spree had to stop. But its too late.

    I’m starting to believe the war in Iraq was a huge mistake for strictly financial reasons. We just couldn’t afford the motherfucker.

    The pork, the thievery, the pyramid scam that is social security…my god we were already busted.

    Then Bush does the unthinkable. Its just not that the bail out didn’t work, he had to know that he was setting precedent at the worst time imaginable.

    Bush gave a green light on the eve of what he had to know would already be a spending orgy.

    We’re so screwed. Will someone smarter then me please put my mind at ease?

    Am I being loon here? Can someone tell me how it’s possible that Obama won’t create a complete collapse? How is my future child going to pay for this? How are we not going to completely rot out?

    We need to stand down and pay debt. Stand down and come together like we did during World War II. Pay debt. But we are going in the opposite direction on a level that is even more insane then the German response to the Treaty of Versailles.

    Rutherford, I think your next blog should be on how we won’t collapse. I just don’t see it. Rutherford, you won’t survive in a Mad Max world, man.

    I apologize for the rant. Dead Rabbit has been hitting the sauce today.

  6. I think I’m starting to understand liberalism. As most aware here, I have always thought most liberals vacuous and void, but the concept of its appeal is starting to make a little more sense to me even if I think most of it hypocritical.

    I’ve noted that one of the differences in Conservatives and most Libertarians vs. Liberals is the degree of emotional attachment to their candidates. As a conservative, I have little emotional attachment to someone I support. But to a prototypical liberal, they seem to vacillate from vicious hatred (Bush) to fawning adulation (Obama). To watch some of these Obama rallies was comical to folks like me, but to folks like Rutherford, it was complete heartfelt emotion.

    And I think Henrietta Hughes makes a prime example of these differences. Where Rutherford is touched, I think Ms. Hughes is a disgrace. Where Rutherford sees an innocent victim, I see someone who apparently makes bad choices and practices incredible personal irresponsibility, and then seeks assistance (in this case Obama) to bail her out.

    But if liberals want to accuse me and others like me of being heartless, consider this fact. If you look at one survey after another, conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, are far more generous with both their time and own money.

    And that is one of the biggest problems I have with liberalism – their good words and heartfelt emotions seldom translate to good deeds – and if put into practice, then almost always accompanied by the government facilitating it from “public” funds.

    Liberals: if you’re really concerned with Henrietta Hughes, why don’t you do something about it personally, and without government intervention? Why don’t some of you take her in and feed her, clothe her, and support her?

  7. Quick responses cos I’ve already broken my pledge to be in bed by midnight every night this week.

    DR, I erred on the side of freedom of speech and kept your F-bombs in tact but yeah man … try to decrease the “F”requency.

    If I could blog about the magic bullet to pull us out of the financial toilet I wouldn’t be sitting here in CT underemployed. I’d be making big bucks with my “secret”. Quite frankly DR, I don’t know who to believe or to put it differently, I don’t think anyone has THE answer. Probably tomorrow I will blog on the sweet deal the Republicans bought themselves this week. (How’s that for a tease?)

    I partly agree with Tex’s assessment of Democrats as “feelers” and Republicans as more practical. I think we do get more emotional in a mushy sort of way. And yes there are a good number of liberal hypocrites who talk a good game. The fact that there are conservatives who give their time to the poor and yet have a public policy that seems to dismiss them is complex indeed.

    The sad truth is 99% of politics is posturing. Getting at the truth is damn hard.

    And with that, I’m going to bed! You may get a new post tomorrow.

  8. To watch some of these Obama rallies was comical to folks like me, but to folks like Rutherford, it was complete heartfelt emotion.

    Yeah, because not a single tear was shed by McCain supporters when he lost. Crowds of people weren’t sobbing and no one was boohooing in front of the cameras, “John McCain was the better man and people didn’t see it. I don’t understand”.

    The difference between you and me, I suppose, is that I didn’t find it comical. I truly felt for them because I know that they wanted their candidate to win as much I wanted mine to win.

    We liberals call that compassion and empathy. 😉

  9. The fucking Treasury Secretary didn’t pay his taxes. I typed that out for my own good. Its surreal.

    Shocking, isn’t it?

    Even more shocking, though, is having a President who admits making mistakes rather than making excuses and trying to cover them up. After the last eight years, I really had a hard time processing that, to be honest.

    I’m sure it’s going to take some getting used to for us all, but it’s an adjustment I’m willing to make. 😀

  10. Lottie,

    The difference between you and me, I suppose, is that I didn’t find it comical. I truly felt for them because I know that they wanted their candidate to win as much I wanted mine to win.

    Your display of compassion and empathy are shallow at best.

    And to all of those McCain supporters who cried upon defeat? You say, “I’m so sorry because I’m a gracious winner, although I was a sore loser in 2000 and 2004.”

    I would have said, “Get a frickin’ life – politics is not that important unless you’re a loon, worshiping at its altar like the underachievers on the left do.”

  11. Not even a good dodge, Tex, but I’ll play anyway:

    Your display of compassion and empathy are shallow at best.

    Really? How so? By what standard are you measuring my compassion and empathy?

    And to all of those McCain supporters who cried upon defeat? You say, “I’m so sorry because I’m a gracious winner, although I was a sore loser in 2000 and 2004.”

    Strawman. You have no idea how I responded to losing in 2000 and 2004. But I can almost guarantee that whatever you’re assuming is dead wrong.

    I would have said, “Get a frickin’ life – politics is not that important unless you’re a loon, worshiping at its altar like the underachievers on the left do.”

    I don’t doubt you at all on that one. 😉

    Now, how about addressing my original point instead of playing dodge ball. You stated that liberals have emotional attachments to their candidates and cited this as a difference between liberals and conservatives. Would you care to explain how crowds of sobbing McCain supporters doesn’t demonstrate an emotional attachment to their candidate?

  12. Lottie,

    You flatter yourself. I wasn’t even make the attempt to dodge.

    I’m keeping a list of philosophy 101 euphemisms that pseudo-philosophical libs have added to their lexicon to appear bright. So far, I encounter most often when they discuss ‘so-called’ logical fallacies::

    (1) Strawman
    (2) Red herring
    (3) Ad hominem

    Everyone once in a while, a brighter lib will throw out a:

    (4) Poisoning the well
    (5) Reductio Ad Absurdum

    Really? How so? By what standard are you measuring my compassion and empathy? Strawman.

    To answer your question and my straw man:

    Your empathy and compassion seldom lead to action more often than not. I’ll ask again. Why don’t you volunteer to take Henrietta Hughes in on your own dime?

    If I thought her a real victim, I would. 😛

  13. You think saying “strawman” is an attempt to look bright? You’re not saying much for your own intellect, there, Tex. 😆

    And they’re not “so-called” logical fallacies. They are logical fallacies, your lack of comprehension notwithstanding.

    Your empathy and compassion seldom lead to action more often than not.

    And you would know this about me, how, exactly? You wouldn’t, which makes it a strawman.

    I’ll ask again. Why don’t you volunteer to take Henrietta Hughes in on your own dime?

    First of all, one of the problems with these kinds of questions/comments is that they completely ignore the fact that liberals pay into the same social programs that they support. Taxes are not based on political affiliation or individual ideologies.

    Secondly, when you can find where I’ve said one damn thing about Henrietta Hughs and how her situation should be handled, let me know. Until then, you’re still arguing against strawmen.

    Now, go on and make fun; I’m not easily intimidated. I do grow quickly bored, though, with people who attempt to use intimidation in the absence of any substantial argument.

    Now, I know you said you were answering my question, but you didn’t (that lack of substance thing I just mentioned).

    You said that liberals have emotional attachments to their candidates, and used crowds at Obama rallies as an example of this. You also said that this is a difference between liberals and conservatives. Please explain how crowds of weeping McCain supporters is different, and why it doesn’t demonstrate an emotional attachment to their candidate.

    This is the last time I will ask, by the way. I’m getting the feeling that you’re not really interested in honest discussion, but rather in trying to rile people up for the sake of it. There’s a word for that on these here intertubes, Tex. 😉

  14. Lottie,

    I’ll take the easy one first since I’ve been pretty tame with your patronizing, pedantic approach. If you’re already riled, or you think you might get riled, I suggest you leave well enough alone because so far, I’ve been pretty light with you; mainly because you bore me and I think you the proverbial toady. 😈

    I read your blog. It reads something between NARAL, Ms. Misandrist, and an internet search site for available men. You sound like one of those sad sacks of unattached women I read of in the little periodicals you read while waiting to be seated: “deeply in love with an incredibly wonderful man ..” ** RETCH **

    I’m getting the feeling that you’re not really interested in honest discussion, but rather in trying to rile people up for the sake of it. There’s a word for that on these here intertubes, Tex

    I attempt to rile Rutherford because I enjoy his exchange and I find him interesting. I comment directly to him. If my I wanted your input or thought I could gain something from your proposed brilliance, I would have said “Lottie…blah blah blah”. As the exchange between Rutherford and yours truly has progressed, he’s quickly figured out that most of my insulting humor in jest and not personal. You aren’t interesting enough for me to rile until now, so I mealy-mouth some exchange to get rid of you.

    Please explain how crowds of weeping McCain supporters is different, and why it doesn’t demonstrate an emotional attachment to their candidate.

    Well Lottie. You must run with a lame pack of dogs then because I didn’t see these blubbering McCain supporters you speak of – not to say there not out there, of course, but I doubt in large numbers. I didn’t see anybody peeing in their pants at the McCain word, or fainting in the audience from the adoration derived from the nebulous, vacuous and inane message of “Hope and Change”. If so, I would call these blubbering McCain supporters deluded too. How’s that for empathy?

    You think saying “strawman” is an attempt to look bright? You’re not saying much for your own intellect, there, Tex.

    No. I’m saying all you liberal atheists sound like you were cut out of a cookie cutter to carry forth the lib meme. That’s the purpose of my list – to compose the standard, insipid responses of blowhard liberals when confronted. Your arguments sound the same. It’s as if somebody from PuffHo passed out the notes to read for the day and reading three paragraphs of Kant has qualified you the modern day Plato. But you do remind me of some empty-headed professors I heard on college campuses long ago. Verbose but void.

    Now, I know you said you were answering my question, but you didn’t (that lack of substance thing I just mentioned).

    Oh, I touched on it. I guess I already said what I wanted because I didn’t feel like repeating what I had said to Rutherford. (See above – reference survey statement).

  15. If you’re already riled […]

    Where did I say I was riled? I said that I think you try to rile people for the sake of it. The truth is that all your posturing as some internet tough guy makes me laugh.

    Amused? Slightly. Riled? Not in the least. You’re simply not that significant.

    You sound like one of those sad sacks of unattached women […]

    Nope, happily married, but thanks for caring. 😉

    (See above – reference survey statement)

    I saw that. Thanks for reminding me! I meant to ask for a link to the surveys you mentioned. I’d be interested in seeing those. Thanks!

    Oh, by the way, lack of comprehension on your part does not constitute pedantry on my part. 😉

  16. Um Lottie, just curious. Is that you in the “gravatar?” Have you ever heard of the famous missionary Lottie Moon? That was my first thought when I saw that pic.

    The truth is that all your posturing as some internet tough guy makes me laugh.

    Is that how I posit myself? Internet tough guy? 😆

    lack of comprehension on your part does not constitute pedantry on my part.

    If your comprehension so good, why did you ask twice for me to answer your question when I already had done so in the first post? Here’s my second answer. Google it. It’s common knowledge libs are notoriously cheap with their own personal funds – except for their messiah donations.

    Nope, happily married, but thanks for caring.

    I’ll think of him next time if I’m ever really blue, remembering there’s always somebody that has it worse than I do. 😉

  17. This gives me a good opportunity to differentiate myself from the General ChenZhen of The Chamber. You see, at times I consider Chen the Jerry Springer of the blogosphere. He puts the red meat out on the stage and then lets his commenters tear each other apart while he says nary a word. I find that approach disconcerting.

    Tex, you perhaps inadvertently complimented Lottie by comparing her to Lottie Moon. My research shows the woman had the best intentions in helping the Chinese. While Lottie of this blog does not share Ms. Moon’s religious convictions, she could definitely be compared to worse people. (Note to Lottie, you got off very easy with the Moon comparison. I’ve seen Tex be considerably less scrupulous with certain ladies in the Chamber.)

    Tex, your feelings that liberals talk a good game has not been (and really cannot be) empirically substantiated. The beautiful thing about extremist political views is that it makes hypocrites of us all.

    For example, you know what I feel in my gut? I’ve been tempted to blog on the case of Nadya Suleman, the woman who recently gave birth to octuplets. Frankly I’m a bit disgusted by all the hand wringing about this woman. She wanted lots of kids, she got them and it’s nobody’s damn business. But my gut tells me that at the head of the line of her critics are all the conservative pro-life bible thumpers. Life is sacred to these people until and unless it becomes inconvenient, embarrassing or heaven forbid, a tax burden. A bunch of hypocrites. Of course, I can’t substantiate this gut reaction any more than you can substantiate phony liberals.

    Lottie, I wouldn’t dismiss Tex too soon because behind the rhetoric is often some good nuggets for debate.

    Tex, similarly, Lottie has been a frequent visitor to my blog and she is a cogent, incisive debater. You’re not a bad match and if you can keep the arguments to the point, the comments section will be ten times more interesting than my original posts. 🙂

  18. You think my Lottie Moon a compliment, do you “R”? Religious differences diametrically opposed aside, I think you missed the gist of my message! 😆 You’re a piece of work Rutherford. And I was only nasty to one of the “female” persuasion in The Chamber. Not to all of them – at least not the personal slug I gave that moron. Ugly Kay had it coming. Consider it a matter of taste.

    But my gut tells me that at the head of the line of her critics are all the conservative pro-life bible thumpers. Life is sacred to these people until and unless it becomes inconvenient, embarrassing or heaven forbid, a tax burden. A bunch of hypocrites. Of course, I can’t substantiate this gut reaction any more than you can substantiate phony liberals.

    Why shouldn’t conservative Christians be outraged by this? Do you think we are completely impractical? First of all, what a tangled web we weave when we allow science to exceed our moral aptitude. Why is it hypocritical for us to believe an unmarried woman on welfare to bring eight more children into this world not an abomination? This is more like surrogate mommyhood, or something.

    Once she was pregnant “R”, the decision was made. You’ll hear no condemnation of her babies – but we have every right to be critical of her. My argument would be she should have never attempted this to begin with. Now you tell me how that is hypocritical? Sometimes your double standards blow me away.

    Tex, your feelings that liberals talk a good game has not been (and really cannot be) empirically substantiated. The beautiful thing about extremist political views is that it makes hypocrites of us all.

    Then let’s put it to the test. I’ll list my resources; you list yours that don’t receive assistant or facilitation from our federal government. Want to bet who wins? The Church against your’s?

  19. If your comprehension so good, why did you ask twice for me to answer your question when I already had done so in the first post?

    The fact that you think you answered the question just serves to confirm your lack of comprehension.

    Don’t even ask me to explain. I’m finished drawing pictures for you.

    Rutherford: Thanks, but I couldn’t feel insulted by this guy not matter what he said. His opinion would have to mean something to me first. Like I said before, he’s simply that significant.

    Lottie, I wouldn’t dismiss Tex too soon because behind, the rhetoric is often some good nuggets for debate.

    That may be true, only I’ve yet to see him engage in honest, intelligent debate, and I’m already bored with his adolescent tantrums.

    No worries, though, he doesn’t scare me one bit (like he seems to think he does). I’ll be sticking around. 😉

  20. If my I wanted your input or thought I could gain something from your proposed brilliance, I would have said “Lottie…blah blah blah”

    I could’ve sworn that was all you had said; your comments seem pretty content-free so far.

    You’re not very bright, Tex, and I suspect I’m not the first one to tell you that. You’ve shown pretty definitively that you pick out phrases here and there and use them to construct an elaborate fantasy which bears no relation to reality; in short, as Lottie said, you don’t read all the words. Not only that, even if you did read them all, you wouldn’t have the smarts to comprehend them.

    A case in point is your accusation that Lottie blogs about abortion or has said anything misandrist in tone; she doesn’t blog about abortion, and to accuse her of misandry is so far off base that I’m going to have to invent a new word to describe the inaccuracy: you’re so wrong that you’re nozgic.

    Another point is quoting a sentence fragment about her loving me and then calling her unattached, when the rest of the sentence is about our wedding.

    As a great Texan once said, there are plenty of wide-open spaces in Texas, especially between people’s ears, something you prove quite handily.

  21. Mike,

    In reading thru your blog, I find this monumental testament to your personal crowning achievement:

    I work in local government, which means I get to make ominous comments about “working for the government”. In reality, my job is administration, and I very rarely get to kill anyone or send for the black helicopters. I’m an Atheist. And militant. And, dare I say it, quite smart. This means I sometimes simultaneously annoy and unnerve religious people.

    Working for the government, atheist and militant, huh? Boy, that is tall cotton. I don’t know if I could reach such lofty standards. I had to stop at medical school.

    Unfortunately, you didn’t say much about how pretty and slim you were too.

  22. Another point is quoting a sentence fragment about her loving me and then calling her unattached, when the rest of the sentence is about our wedding.

    Blog Bride and Groom! 😆

    There’s another word down here Mike we have in Texas. It’s called YEEHAW!

  23. What did I tell you, Mike? Is he predictable or what?

    The (kind of) sad part is that he’s not even clever enough to know when he’s proving someone else’s point and embarrassing himself.

  24. Hey Lottie,

    This is my first time debating such a deep and everlasting love based on….on….on… blogging! I would have never guessed! 👿

    But I did promise my friend “R” that I would behave myself, decorum preventing me from how I’d really like to address this beauty.

    What a cute couple you make. And you’ve got so much in common! 😆

  25. See what I mean? 😆

    This is my first time debating such a deep and everlasting love based on….on….on… blogging!

    Now, this is a perfect example of what I said in my last comment. It’s also the kind of remark that proves you have no idea what you’re talking about and have the critical thinking skills of a toddler.

  26. Dear Mike,

    Oh yeah? And how much did they pay you for sweeping the floors?

    Ah, finally something we can debate where it not a matter of opinion, but based on very measurable fact or fiction.

    Here’s the bet. I will forgo my anonymity and bet you $10,000.00 dollars that I do indeed go to medical school as a second career, simply on leave of absence this semester. You in turn, have to do nothing but forgo your anonymity so that I know who I am betting. Do you trust Rutherford enough to act as middle man, judge and jury?

    We will let him decide if I am telling the truth. Winner takes all.

    If I win, I will give Rutherford $1,000 to process the transaction and he can wire me the remaining $9,000.00 from your account. You win, you can decide what Rutherford’s services worth.

    How about Mikey? Are you game for a match of something tangible besides your own lame brain blog machinations?

    Let me know. 😉

  27. LOL, well after 33 comments I think this thread has reached its logical absurd conclusion.

    BTW, Tex thanks for the attempt to float me $1,000.00. I need to put you to work full time on ways to make me some money. 😉

  28. Then let’s put it to the test. I’ll list my resources; you list yours that don’t receive assistant or facilitation from our federal government. Want to bet who wins? The Church against your’s?

    Dag, I was planning on letting this thread die a noble death but then I caught this nugget from you Tex.

    Do I understand you to be using the Church as the purveyor of assistance without help from the government? Ehhh, last time I looked, churches don’t have to pay taxes. That tax break is in and of itself assistance from the government.

  29. I have read on many occasions recently that people from your world have been pushing for churches to pay taxes, never mind that is a double taxation being that the church is made up of an association of people and not four walls.

    And being that we receive a 25¢ tax break approximately for each dollar we allocate, and being very confident good churches allocate a far greater percent of their general fund for Samaritan works, it will be those receiving charity that suffer most. I will come out ahead because I will pocket the remaining 75¢ on the dollar. And being the market dropped another 4.5% today after the signing of our newly minted porkulus package, I could use the money.

    So what I have been proposing but not getting very far yet with people from my world is to put that challenge to the test to teach a very difficult lesson. I’m telling church members let’s for six months say okay, “you want to tax our assocations, here’s what we propose in return. We will pay the minimum required to pay for the priest or preacher, the lights, and any associated costs to keep the building open and pay those taxes. But the days of doing any charitable work from meals on wheels, to crisis pregnancy centers, to caring for the physically challenged, to hospice, to caring from the unborn to toddlers, to feeding and clothing the poor at our missions are over with except for our members. Where would you like us to direct the previous benefactors?”

    And then we will direct the millions of people that are fed and clothed by the church every day as we lock the doors except for services to the government affiliated associations, and those liberal organizations you speak of.

    And Rutherford, being I can’t believe you terribly aware that in addition to the church work, millions of us have gone above and beyond and used money out of our own pocket without benefit of the tax break in the name of doing what our Master taught, we will indeed stop those as well.

    Of course, you bleeding hearts will have to watch as some of America’s most impoverished are punished on account of your arrogance as those associations and respective good works are so overrun they collapse within days. Because you fail to understand just how far those tentacles of the churches you wish to tax reach.

    For example, last month I was required to do some volunteer work at the college to meet medical school obligation at a poor school. We volunteered and assisted in minor medical work. The children were fed until full by pizza donated courtesy of a local church. Volunteerism and works like this will also need to stop immediately.

    But being I’ve grown weary of arguing this, why don’t you and I make a joint proposal to tax the churches and let the public decide which of us is right?

  30. Here’s a compromise. Can we at least tax the televangelists? Even you have to admit that at least half the money they get goes into their limos, private planes and mansions. 🙂

  31. “R”,

    Can we at least tax the televangelists?

    Nobody disdains the pandering phonies I frequently see on the tube using my faith for personal enrichment, including Pat Robertson, but if I ever gave into even one, I know exactly what would follow.

    Soon, it would be Billy Graham, or David Jeremiah, or Adrian Rogers, or the hundreds of other legitimate ones that would then be taxed.

    I know how the game works – the inch/mile thingy.

  32. Hey “R”,

    Give me and the Rabbit 2.0 one thing. It does drive your traffic up a degree. Can you imagine what would happen if we started calling you on your new radio program? WWIII for starters…

    Just think, we could raise so much hell and controversy with our bull****, that you might quickly become famous!

  33. “R”

    What about? Driving traffic or the bull****? Most likely both? Either is funny. 😆

    I’ll have to get the Rabbit to clean the language up while live, but he’s enough of a hoot that he could score you numerous signups just for the giggles.

    If you’re going to make it in radio, your going to have to be entertaining. And my friend Rabbit is entertaining. He’s always the first post(s) I read.

  34. Oh how I wish my fellow Texans were required to prove their intelligence before using the letters TEX in any part of their user name.

  35. Texas has had its fair share of moronic lefties like the hideous Molly Ivins and the drunkard Ann Richards, all thinking they are intelligent until they are finally proven rubes upon their death.

    Unfortunately, one hasn’t “drown” long enough for my tastes, not removing themselves from the gene pool yet. 😉

  36. Tex, this is totally off topic from your latest comment but I’d like to call your attention (and that of DR and the Rigorist) to this blog by someone who has fallen on hard times.

    Start with the reference I gave you and then read the next four blog entries. His plea for help, disguised as hopeless rage, makes our intellectual noodling look pretty trivial. Sadly, I don’t know him, I can’t “help” him and I’m not sure anyone else can. Still his most recent posts are a wake up call that we are a nation in crisis.

  37. “R”,

    Seriously angry and disturbed individual. I read your comment on his blog…and yes, I agree our intellectual masturbation is pretty irrelevant here and at “The Chamber”.

    But the man is sadly mistaken if he thinks he has nothing to live for – he has children, for crying out loud. There is far more to this story than he is sharing because I am guessing even when he was employed, he had some serious anger management issues. He lashes out at everybody!

    Is there anybody that he approves of beside himself?

  38. Tex, you know, I am conflicted about the role of the Internet in this guy’s life. On the one hand, perhaps his blog provides the catharsis for him to keep going or perhaps this is a cry for help that 10’s, 100’s or perhaps 1000’s (depending on what traffic he gets) of readers will simply ignore. I’ve read a lot of stuff on the net in my time but for some reason this one really got under my skin. Not entirely sure why. Maybe because I read in one of his posts that he is our age. Maybe we could all be him if the circumstances were just a bit different. I’d like to just write him off as a “nutjob” but I almost think he is too sane for his own good and all the world’s crap is just caving in on him and he can’t block any of it out. As I told him on the blog, I knew a guy like that, with whom I identified pretty strongly, and whom ironically I had to fire in my capacity as corporate asshole.

  39. Yeah, I noticed he was our age too. I’ve found the roaring 40s haven’t been so roaring at all. It’s been a decade of transition for me personally. And Don’t misinterpret my post from above which I didn’t make my feelings very clear because it’s just you and me ‘talking’ here.

    I can’t help but feel a degree of sympathy because I think this is a huge cry for help. How many of us at one time or another (if we were to admit the truth) haven’t felt like throwing in the towel when life begins to beat you down? You lose somebody or something – and in this case it sounds like for him most things – and you feel no joy anymore; feel like you have no purpose?

    But you know Rutherford? It’s been my experience that at those times, that is when you hold on for just a little bit longer because life has a way of turning around. I won’t get all philosophical or theological on you because you know what I think and it separates us to a large degree.

    I’ll only say that it has been my experience that God has always provided someone or something who or what is put in my path that always provides me hope for a better tomorrow.

    This guy needs somebody to love him, to show him some kindness beyond what an internet post can provide.

  40. it separates us to a large degree.

    I think it separates us less than you would guess. While I’m not a “believer”, empirical evidence shows me that one’s luck can change. The only way to ensure that things won’t get better is to off yourself. Where there’s life, there’s hope.

    Frighteningly, I’m not sure if this dude is more interested in dying or killing. I’m not sure at this point if he can tell the difference. By the way, I just got notified today that in response to one of my comments on his blog, he told me to f**k off. Should I be surprised? 🙂

  41. I think it separates us less than you would guess.

    Nah, I disagree my old friend. Your secularism colors your view of everything one way; my faith colors mine the other from politics to morals. I think short of our agreement about friends and family, it’s what makes both of us think so differently and be virtually polar opposites about anything of substance.

    No, I didn’t say anything about your comment, but I could have guessed what his response was going to be! 😆

    He is fond if the F Word, isn’t he?

  42. Tex, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the extent to which we disagree. 🙂

    As for the F bomb, it is THE choice word for expressing rage and this fellow at the Manifesto is a walking rage machine. Heck, he makes Dead Rabbit, Dead Rabbit 2.0 and Real Rabbit combined look like a choir boy. 👿

  43. Tex, oh, before I leave the religious topic, I thought I’d share this nugget with you.

    My wife and daughter spent this weekend in Illinois visiting her family. (I stayed home to save money and hassle even though I love my wife’s family very much.) Anyway, today my wife took the five year old to church, as is the custom in her family. My little girl fell asleep on the sermon (not unusual) and when she awoke, she promptly puked all over the place. My wife said to her brother, “her Dad would be so proud of her right now.”

    Without even an ounce of indoctrination from me, being in the presence of a higher power turned my poor girl’s stomach. As you say, we come at this from opposite ends. While I view this as a symbolic rejection of religion, I’m sure you would say the puking represented some sort of exorcism (ala Linda Blair perhaps?) Well, I’ll let you know upon her return home tomorrow if she is suddenly an angel or the same mischievous scamp she was when she left on Friday. LOL

  44. “R”,

    You want to know how different we are? You think the church four walls. I think the church the congregation of people sitting in attendance watching your daughter puke.

    Of course, I could be crass like you, noting there is a third alternative between angel and scamp. And if it were anybody but your own flesh and blood and you weren’t my third favorite lib, I would probably do so.

    Do I dare? 😉

  45. I’ve always liked to think of my friend Rabbit a dichotomy of sorts. In some ways, I think the same of you but you have one side with a bigger army than the other…

    On Rabbit’s right shoulder sits a pack of angels; on his left sits Satan’s little minions – and they fight the battle right between Rabbit’s ears.

    With you there are two tiny angels sitting on your right shoulder and an entire legion of very large devils sitting on your left, so much so that you tilt…and the battle never gets fought.

    But sometimes the angels whisper in your ear good thoughts because I’ve decided you’re not entirely a lost cause.

  46. At the risk of being insulted, I am intrigued since angel and scamp seem to cover the two extremes. Perhaps the devil incarnate herself? She’s way too young to be ho, so I know you’re not going there. Do tell.

    Oh, I confess I embellished a bit. She actually puked in the basement playroom, not in the actual service. But adding that detail took some of the fun out of it. 👿

What's on your mind?

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