The 3am Phone Call Went to … Bill Clinton

During the 2008 Democratic primary race, Hillary Clinton famously asked who we wanted answering that phone at 3 in the morning when some crisis was in progress.

Saturday Night Live took it a step further and suggested that should Barack Obama get elected, he would be making a 3am phone call to “Senator Clinton” (who knew she’d wind up Secretary of  State?) to bail him out of a jam.

Vodpod videos no longer available.
NEW YORK - MARCH 17: Actor Martin Sheen attends the Stella Adler Studio fourth annual Stella by Starlight benefit gala at Cipriani 23rd Street on March 17, 2008 in New York City.  (Photo by Amy Sussman/Getty Images)

I’m sure if Aaron Sorkin had the chance, he would have further twisted the scenario into some sort of “West Wing” TV movie sequel. Here the scene is that Bobby Jones, the first black President has just struck a deal with the opposition party that has everyone popping blood vessels. Bobby’s own party hates him. The opposition realizes how much they gave away and they hate him … heck they hate him anyway. So during a press briefing, Bobby shows up with former President Josiah Bartlett, played by Martin Sheen. Bartlett brings order to chaos and a trembling nation is put at ease. This kind of preposterous plot twist of a sitting President bringing a former President into the press room and then leaving him there to take questions could only happen in a sensationalized fictional story. Right?

Wrong. I’m sad to say, wrong. This Friday, President Barack Obama walked into the White House press briefing room with former President Bill Clinton by his side. After some brief banter, Obama announced he could no longer keep the First Lady waiting (at a staff holiday gathering) and he left the room. Clinton followed him out the door …. eh, no. Clinton stayed behind and talked to the press. Junior left Big Daddy to take care of things.

U.S. President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton meet reporters in the White House Press Room in Washington, DC on December 10, 2010.  Clinton supported the present tax bill compromise.  UPI/Bill Auth/Pool Photo via Newscom

Watching Obama stand there while Clinton pontificated was embarrassing enough. Seeing him leave the press in Clinton’s hands just made matters ten times worse. If one had awakened from a nine year coma just after Obama left the room, one would have thought it was just another presser with President Clinton. Imagine the surprise of the just-out-of-coma patient when you tell him, no actually it’s been nine years, Clinton is no longer President but the current President feels so ill equipped to handle the current political backlash that he has called in Clinton as reinforcement. It’s enough to send a man back into a coma.

Sorry my friends but it’s time to play the race card. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. What doubly burns me up about this is the racial message this sends to those with messed up antennae. Here is a black man being bailed out by the competent white man. The black apprentice, not really ready for the job, watching with admiration as his white superior takes over. I know Obama believes he and the country are beyond race but that is pure bull crap. The optics of this racially were deadly. The optics of this outside of race were equally deadly. Who is leading the frigging country?

This has been a horrible week for Barack Obama. He struck what was probably the best deal he could strike with the Republicans. Then, allowing his ego to take over, he lashed out at his own party and then likened the opposition party to hostage-takers. He has lost control of the narrative. He is just another participant in the political circus.

Back in 2008 I had a good laugh at the SNL skit. Although I was a staunch Obama supporter, I had to acknowledge the ad was clever, capturing both Obama’s rock star image and Hillary’s over confident self assessment. I would never have believed that if we fast forwarded two years that Obama would indeed be calling in help from a Clinton in such an obvious and embarrassing way.

This time, it wasn’t Hillary. It was Bubba.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

436 thoughts on “The 3am Phone Call Went to … Bill Clinton

  1. HELP ME Bubba-Wan! You’re my only hope!

    I don’t understand your own message of the race card issue…

    If you’re bringing up race this early, what is it going to be like in the black community when many of its members will not be able to bring themselves to admit, or refuse to admit Obama simply wasn’t capable and that is why he was a failure, assuming things don’t turn around?

    You sure you want to go down this road? You’re taking us on a dangerous path – especially for liberal blacks.

  2. Rutherford, I’m seriously thinking you’re racist towards blacks. You show your hand. And its an insecure deep rooted fear that goes something like this:

    You’re on constant pins and needles over Obama displaying a negative stereotype because you secretly believe the stereotypes to be true.

    I can’t prove it. But I know that you know that I know…

    At every challenging turn you have obsessed about Obama’s race and how he may be perceived by white racists.

    You see a N up there.

    Your so 2008, man. Nobody gives a shit about Obama’s slightly off white skin tone anymore. Quit flattering yourself.

    On the one hand you claim the first term senator with no executive experience was not elected because he was black. Yet, your convinced race plays a roll in every other judgment call from election night on.

    Which is it? Did America elect a President who happens to be black or a black who happens to be President?

  3. Tex and Rabbit both said what I was thinking by the end of your post. It seems that the degree of dissappointment is because you pinned too much on Obama because of his race in deciding he was most qualified for the job.

    We of course never expected anything out him anyway (as you acknowledge). Obama was elected because of his race, not in spite of it. Although guys like you and G-chin wagged your fingers and accused us of racism, I am sorry to inform you, Rutherford, Obama was judged for his experience and qualifications more fairly by the right than the left.

    Have you located any overtly racist comments in response to this presser? I haven’t seen or heard one at all.

  4. Well, in honesty I hesitated to go there and maybe my radar is way off on this one but I do see as one side effect the bad optics of the first black President ceding the stage to his party’s white predecessor.

    I know you guys think I see race in everything but it’s more a matter that I know there are those who DO see race in everything. Why do you think Obama has had to walk a fine line in how he reacts so he isn’t viewed as the “angry black man”? Sadly, race enters into perception in this country.

    The post could easily have gone without that observation because even if Obama had been white, this would have been incredibly embarrassing.

    I’m not going to spend this thread debating the racial part. It was really a side observation which I did not intend to overshadow the entire post.

  5. ” It was really a side observation which I did not intend to overshadow the entire post.”-R

    Lol. Dude, a side note? You drop bombs like that and run?

    And that, folks, is my point. Rabbit always got a long with the Nation of Islam or Skinhead types. (Although one of my brothers and I did beat the shit out of two skinheads once to the point of maiming them. When the cops came they picked up where we left off…but that’s a long and ancient story.) It’s these cowardly racists like Rutherford who disgust me.

    Sanctimonious shit mixed up with more racially motivated stereotypes then the best therapist money can buy could handle.

  6. I can understand the opinion that Obama diminishes himself by letting Bill Clinton argue his case. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it.

    I do NOT get the racial angle here, and I’m glad that you are (sort of) backing away from it.

    Rather than diminishing Obama, I think that it shows strength of character for Obama to allow Bill Clinton to upstage him. An insecure person wouldn’t let a rock star like Clinton stand anywhere near him, lest the rock star outshine the guy “with, you know, actual responsibility.”

    Obama obviously believes that his tax “compromise” is in America’s best interests. So what should be his higher priority – selling the deal to reluctant Democrats, or proving something about who is in charge?

    And who better to do that sales job than… Bill Clinton.

  7. The more I learn about the “compromise” package with Republicans, the more I think that I was wrong in my initial reaction.

    Republicans were willing to sell their very souls in exchange for continued low tax rates for the wealthiest Americans, sweetened by the lowest estate tax rates ever. Obama gave in on what the Republicans wanted most. All their other alleged priorities (like budget deficits) were a distant second.

    To me, those absurdly low taxes for gazillionaires are a symbol of our bass-ackwards national priorities. I want them raised, but I realize that what we are getting in return (a much-needed MegaStimulus) is a lot more important. We may get even more good things as Democrats hang a few more ornaments on the tree to bring the laggards on board.

    Will Democrats go too far – pushing Republicans out of their comfort zone? Impossible – as long as those low taxes for gazillionaires are in there.

  8. Brother “R”,

    You do seem to be terribly insecure about the racial aspects of politics. I can kind of understand it because you were raised under the perception of mistrust. It’s as if you feel the Barack’s failure is an affront to all black people. It’s not.

    This is failure of political philosophy, not a specific race or creed. Obama inherited a broken system and was arrogant (and stupid) enough to think his charisma alone could pull America up by its boot straps. Obama has taken a bad situation and made it worse. He badly misjudged his abilities. It happens when you’ve been stroked your entire life, and people are not honest enough with you about your own shortcomings. When the facade is removed, there’s not much to Obama.

    But the man gave it his best shot. He’s a dynamic speaker of others material with a big dose of charisma for large swaths of the American demographic. Obama is pretty to took look, a capable leader in certain capacities in his community but not the country. In most every aspect Obama looked and sounded the Presidential part. You got caught up in the personality and were biased in your own judgment because you weren’t thinking rationally. You got caught up in the history of the moment and momentarily lost your marbles.

    One thing I have sometimes, but not consistently, admired about you that would suit you well to practice more often is to drop the pretense and defense and just be you. Barack Obama is not a reflection on you. When you’re practical, you’re pretty damn sharp and a formidable author and debater.

    Let’s face it “R”. Politics has become somewhat like rooting for you favorite football team. Like Mitch McConnell ain’t the man to lead us to greener pastures, Barack Obama isn’ t either.

    They are both poor stewards of our money, shallow and self-absorbed, both with illusions of grandeur.

    Why don’t we both admit the problem with America is twofold: (1) A dearth of capable leadership; (2) a dependent, decadent and spoiled constituency.

    Until the American people change, the candidates will remain incapable too. Where you and I disagree is how to resolve the problem.

  9. Graychin, to deny that Obama’s race had nothing to do with his initial popularity is about as intellectually dishonest as you can get. And that covers a multitude of dishonest traits.

    Me, Obama’s biggest critic, was happy in one aspect of Obama winning. The night he won, I was happy for the Rutherford’s of the world who danced in the streets and finally recognized they had made it.

    Where Rutherford was wrong was that fact happened long before Obama was elected. Rutherford need not have traveled to the voting booth to learn that – he could have looked in the mirror and realized it.

  10. Geez…

    I, Obama’s biggest critic…

    My mother tried for years to educate “me” on the fundamentals of grammar. It wasn’t for her lack of effort, I assure you.

  11. Tex, that was very well said. And Greychin, I, too, am starting to wonder about the Tax Cut/Spending Bill.

    Hand cuffing more big government to tax cuts is insane.

    I’m convinced these Lois Bourbon Marie Antoinette politicians will only understand the pitchfork.

  12. G-chin, you’re are the biggest racist I have ever encountered. And I mean that in all sincereity. The world would be a better place without people like you. The damage caused by race-baiting sanctimonious douche bags like yourself is the most damaging thing possible to race relations — and I know you don’t care because you’re too fucking dumb to recognize it.

  13. “I can understand the opinion that Obama diminishes himself by letting Bill Clinton argue his case. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it.”-greychin

    I don’t understand this comment. Obama DID diminish himself! Just turn on the TV. The left is embarrassed and the right is laughing.

    Who cares if you think it was some sort of brilliant move to hand the podium to a former president and then run.

    If he looks like a wimp, he looks like a wimp.

    What I think you should be saying is it was incredibly stupid. Its time the Greychins of the world put ideology and hero worship to the side and start having an honest conversation about leadership.

    Obama has been a terrible leader.

  14. Greychin doesn’t care because he goes entire months without even seeing black people. He chose to live his life that way.

  15. My circle of friends who voted for Obama may not be representative of all of the American voters who voted for him, but not one of us voted for Obama him because of his race. Not one. We voted for him because we thought he was the best candidate.

    Even better than John McCain. 😀

    I think that those of you who hate Obama just can’t imagine anyone voting for him because they actually thought he would make a good president – as I did. So it’s gotta be an affirmative-action thing. Right? Nothing else fits into your world view.

  16. In that small glee I find in telling men like Rutherford and Graychin “I told you so”, it becomes very fleeting when I realize Barack Obama and the political hacks that have spent their states and our country into oblivion are not the real problem.

    It’s the people that assisted and voted men like Obama to be elected in the first place. And the Republican party of the last ten years shares a large part of the blame. They too have been weak and ineffective in many aspects – especially spending.

    Replacing the man will not solve our problems.

    Equally disconcerting is the fact Bill Clinton is now being dredged up to be savior. Clinton is Obama without the looks and even more dangerous because people still believe his baloney. He is one step above awful.

    Clinton’s one claim to fame, the ‘roaring economy’ of the late 90s, was less than one year out of office proven a facade. Clinton was benefactor of the strength of an economy started years before his arrival on the scene. Clinton happened to be there at the climax.

  17. I think we are saying Obama would have never been a candidate in the first place had he not been black.

    It was a massive advantage for Obama. The majority of America felt progressive voting for a black guy. While I feel America screwed up with their choice, I think their hearts were in the right place. What’s so bad about that, greychin?

  18. Graychin,

    I don’t personally hold you accountable because you thought Obama more qualified. John McCain was a pathetic choice for candidate, but even if there had been a reasonably strong candidate for Republican, I am not sure they would have won. When the economy tanked, that was all she wrote concerning the election.

    What I do hold you accountable for is your blatant dishonesty and rank propaganda in your continual defense of a pathetic leader, and an even worse majority Democratic Congress.

    They are an abject failure by every measure, and yet you are not truthful enough to admit it.

    Therefore, being somewhat of a spokesman in a small circle of influence, you become a far larger part of the problem.

  19. Tex and rabbit, I have to say I find myself in agreement with most of what you have to say today. 😯 And don’t fret too much about the grammar part, Tex. Sometimes I reread my posts and just cringe. But I write like I talk, and much is due to the influence of living where I have over the years. My wife is Texan throughout and they have a whole language all of their own.

    Where I have to disagree is in your assessment of the character of Obama. He has the intelligence and knowledge to know what is right and best for the nation, but he is too concerned with trying to appease all sides. He is too much of a peacemaker for the job he is charged with. In that way I think he is ineffectual. Arrogance comes with the territory. It takes a mega ego to even consider the position, IMO.

    As far as race is concerned, I think it did and still does play a role. Blacks felt vindicated when a man of color got the nod, I’m certain. Many will never accept Obama as a leader because of their racial bias. But I do not think that reasoning can be applied across the board. For myself it was the refreshing voice of reason and compassion that was so missing from all the other players. It was the hope that a sane and reasoning person could really turn this nation around and fix the problems that we all recognize are part and parcel of this unholy government. Delusions of grandeur, I suppose. Reality of what the bog that is DC does to the spokes of even the most noble of chariots.

    I think he is very tired of the fray. Clinton loves the fray and has plenty experience navigating it. He was too willing to give him the floor and is going to suffer politically for it.

  20. I’m in to the mood to be fair today, though Rutherford will take this as a slap at Obama.

    Sarah Palin is to Conservatives as Barack Obama is to Progressives. Palin holds the ideals that citizens of her political persuasion, my personal persuasion, hold most dear. But Palin is not nearly qualified to carry out those ideals.

    And if the Republican party, the Conservative party can not be honest enough to admit the obvious, then they risk making the same mistake of nominating a personality and not a true leader.

    The last six months have convinced me Sarah Palin a real asset to the cause – but only in carrying the message; not executing it.

  21. The democratic victory was theirs to be had. The only question was who their candidate would be.

    R, there has got be something said for the fact that Obama’s being judged (to my knowledge) in the same way he would if he were right. I truly believe that America is not as racist as you seem to think. Which is why I am truly disturbed when I see the efforts of the G-chins of your party to create it where it doesn’t exist.

    I believe the left has learned that labeling someone a racists is a quite a weapon. When will it learn that it is only effective on those who are not?

  22. Poolman, 😆

    My wife is Texan throughout and they have a whole language all of their own.

    Sorry, I found that funny because I was thinking, if you only knew. Hanging around my house, somebody proper like Rutherford would think he had moved in with the Tulsa hillbillies. From a previous story which only Rutherford would remember, Rutherford’s own Father would have heard our language and told his young son, “These people are profoundly ignorant. Avoid them.” 🙂 Right Rutherford?

    My wife is incredibly bright, but you would never know it in conversation. She sounds like some hay seed in normal conversation – and she’s the smart one in the family.

    You’ve got Texas? We’ve got Texas, Oklahoma and the South.

  23. Tigre,

    Tex, I think your Obama/Palin comparisonis a fair one.

    As was your comment on racism.

    I am going to hang here long enough to convince my pal Rutherford that the most virulent racists in the country are the pandering white politicians, most but not all, in the Democratic party, and race hustlers in the black community that use race as ammunition to enrich themselves.

    Because I think Rutherford is the one most capable I’ve “met” of doing something about it.

    Racism will always exist to a degree because all of us innately are programmed to feel most comfortable amongst those that most resemble us, from infancy. I can’t fully explain it, but it is true. One looks at their own mother and something switches on in the genome. I’m convinced of that.

    It’s only recently that I’ve begin discovering the beauty of females from all colors. It used to be, “Is she blond. brunette, or red head?” Then I started seeing some of these Hispanic beauties, Persian beauties, Eastern bloc beauties and realized that damn, I was blind, deaf and dumb when I was younger.

  24. While you were sleeping
    They came and took it all away
    The lanes and the meadows
    The places where you used to play
    It was an inside job
    By the well-connected
    Your little protest
    Summarily rejected
    It was an inside job
    Like it always is
    Chalk it up to business as usual

    While we are dreaming
    This little island disappears
    While you are looking the other way
    They’ll take your right to own your own ideas
    And it’s an inside job
    Favors collected
    Your trusted servants
    Have left you unprotected
    It was an inside job
    Like it always is
    Just chalk it up
    To business as usual
    You think that you’re so smart
    But you don’t have a fucking clue
    What those men up in the towers
    Are doing to me and you
    And they’ll keep doin’ it and doin’ it
    And doin’ it and doin’ it
    And doin’ it and doin’ it
    And doin’ it and doin’ it
    Until we all wake up
    Wake up, wake up, wake up, wake up

    I know what I’ve done wrong
    I am acquainted with the night
    I know how hard it is
    To always walk out in the light
    And it’s an inside job
    To learn about forgiving
    It’s an inside job
    To hang on to the joy of living

    They know the road by which you came
    They know your mother’s maiden name
    And what you had for breakfast
    And what you’ve hidden in the mattress
    Insect politics
    Indifferent universe
    Bang your head against the wall
    But apathy is worse
    It’s an inside job
    It’s an inside job
    It’s an inside job
    Yeh, yeah
    It’s an inside job
    It’s an inside job
    It’s an inside job
    It’s an inside job
    It’s an inside job
    It’s an inside job

  25. I think we are saying Obama would have never been a candidate in the first place had he not been black.

    And Hillary would not have been a candidate if she hadn’t been a woman?

    There have been black presidential candidates before who got little or no traction (thank God) – Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Shirley Chisolm come to mind. (So does Alan Keyes!)

    But all that “messiah” treatment that Obama got was just because he was black? (Or “half-black” as some “conservative” commenters insist on pointing out?

    Right.

    And his middle name, his alleged Muslim ties, and his association with Rev. Wright’s church were all assets to his campaign. More than half of America was just determined to vote for some random black person for president, regardless of those associations.

    Got it!

  26. Tex, I am not certain that we are necessarily hardwired to feel most comfortable amongst those that most resemble us. It’s not just a cliche that children are color blind. Both of my children are in the minority in their schools. In fact, my daughter, 5, is one of only two whites in her entire school (pre-k through 9th). When they took a class picture, I sent to my family with the note “where’s Waldo?” My son, 8, is a little more diverse, probabaly 1/3 white.

    In any event, most of their bests friends and teachers are black. Nothing I have ever seen suggests that they even notice. The problems always arise when they are told things by adults that cause them to question their inability to see a difference. Always. That’s why I despise guys like Greychin that selfishly promote white guilt to further their own agendas.

    The worst was when my son was in first grade at age 6 and was taught about lynchings and slavery during black history month. He was really, really upset by this. As I was giving him a bath, he was almost in tears owndering why “we” wanted to kill his [best friend] and all the blacks. He was 6 years old for God’s sake. I was pissed beyond words. You can imagine how difficult that was for me to work through. The lesson of course is driven by the PC culture of the school (extemely liberal — I can’t wait to tell you about the surreal “winter festival” for the kids the other night) that recklessly applies it to all ages.

    Anyway, perhaps things change as we age. But my 5 and 8 year old are utterly incapable of forming value judgments based on race and have shown prefernece whatsoever in terms of whom they choose to surround themselves by.

  27. Tigre,

    You might be partially right, and that may change to a greater degree as we have more interracial marriages, but I still contend that for most of us, the ones that we appear to be most attracted to, are those that most resemble ourselves. I don’t think children are completely color blind.

    At least that has been my observation.

    I’ll never forget holding my small daughter when she was first introduced to this young black couple that attended our same church. They brought their child in to the nursery and the mother was holding their child in her arms.

    Each baby looked at eat other, both wide eyed like they had seen a ghost. It was one of the funniest reactions I had ever seen, perfectly innocent, and each of the parents got a big hoot out of the ordeal.

    You could almost look in their eyes imaging what each baby was thinking. “What is that?”

    Of course, after the surprise wore off, a couple of minutes later they were sharing pacifiers.

  28. I was brought up moving from place to place, as most military families can attest. I always was among many races and nationalities. No appreciable predjudices were voiced in my household, so I feel I was raised quite racially free. My friends came from a wide variety of nationalities and cultures.

    I have always been attracted to the vast variety of physical types in the human race. My primary focus from the earliest time I can remember has been the female sex. Though my wife of 33 years is a natural blond, I have never limited myself to one “look”. There was a time in life I wished I could have a harem consisting of girls from all races. Many of the most beautiful women in the world were of mixed races, IMO.

    Of course, I think every red-blooded heterosexual boy has those same fantasies. At some point I could look beyond the cover and through to the content. Truth is, I still enjoy the packaging but I generally don’t spend any time fantasizing beyond that. Character has a greater place in my worldview now. Thank God. Everything else is just a diversion.

  29. Dang (as we say in the South) Rutherford. There is a sort of bitterness here. I only read the first few comments, and I’ll read them all when I’m through commenting myself, but there does seem to be a theme of expectations not being met. Personally, the hopey-changey thing is still workin’ for me.
    As for the Bill Clinton scenario, I am reminded of when I was a young manager, eager to prove myself, and I was…harsh? My supervisor said, You don’t have to beat them over the head with it. They know what your position is. Try a little humility.
    So,…everyone knows that Bill is not the President. And furthermore, he’s a blowhard. And everyone knows that too. But the fact is…Obama is the President. If he uses Clinton, I don’t view that as weakness, I view it as using everything at his disposal. How, exactly, is that a dumb move? I think it was savvy.

  30. Okay. Now I’ve read all the previous comments, and there is so much I could say. But I will home in on Comment #28, El Tigre. I’m sorry that your 6 year-old son was upset, but not much. Are you suggesting that he should not have been exposed to that information…which is true? As a child, I read Call of the Wild and White Fang and was upset beyond belief, cried my eyes out and had to be consoled. Would I have been better off not to read it? Nope. We grow up. You can’t protect your kids from real life, and surely you would not want to.

  31. Fake, I hope you’re not a parent.

    Your version of innocent lost is certainly misplaced. Tigre’s child was six years old. There is a time and season for everything.

    The Holocaust is true too. Should we be teaching the 1st graders at his school how Jewish 1st graders were loaded into gas ovens by the thousands and burned to ashes? Or how thousands of young were slaughtered by Tutsis?

    Or should we be teaching them how to read and write first?

    As far as Obama being savvy? I would say a far and more historically accurate analogy to the press meeting is that Obama was “Present”, but only for a brief time this time.

  32. “And his middle name, his alleged Muslim ties, and his association with Rev. Wright’s church were all assets to his campaign.”

    Who has said that?

    Is this some more of your phantom sayings, like the stuff that gets said in churches that you didn’t see fit to answer when I asked you about it?

    To think you’re the guy who is constantly whining about people arguing against things you haven’t said.

    And the hypocrisy continues……

  33. I’m setting here listening to two knuckleheads, one left – one right, one spinning Obama’s miserably lame performance positively with baloney; the other trying to excuse Sarah Palin losing the hypothetical match up with Barack Obama and singing her graces, and wondering where the hell I stand anymore in relation to the rest of America.

    The Democratic party is defeatist and immoral; the Republican party is self-immolating. Democrats will just destroy the country faster.

    Gee, which of these two will I pick in 2012? And Mitt Romney? He beat Obama to Obamacare. I wouldn’t give a plug nickel for Mitt Romney.

    I’ll bet a thousand bucks some average schmuck sitting here in the Heartland because it is too frickin’ cold to go outside and do anything worth while, would clean up the both Palin and Obama in a debate of any substance. And I could do it without much preparation. Memorize a few foreign dignitary names, some stats and the policy numbers. I’d have to watch my mouth and not cuss, or learn not to roll my eyes. That would be difficult.

    😐

    Rutherford, can you pull the strings and arrange a debate with these two so I can prove just how perfectly lame our political leadership is? During the McCain/Obama debate I cussed – mixed in with SAY IT MCCAIN! SAY IT! ##%%$#%#% YOU IDIOT!

    😐

    We are in serious trouble.

  34. Tex, I reluctantly acknowlege your existence, and will start with this comment: Did you mean to say “innocence” lost, rather than “innocent”? And did you mean “fair” as opposed to “far”? I mention this only because you recently set yourself up as the expert on grammar and spelling. I refer you to Graychin’s blog.
    I think it’s regrettable that a six year-old was exposed to that information, but that’s not under your control. I watched horror movies as a kid (secretly, because I was prohibited), but my point is that you cannot protect kids from bad stuff. Sometimes it happens sooner than you might like. Your job as a parent is to soothe; to say “That will never happen to you; I’m here”.

  35. “I think it’s regrettable that a six year-old was exposed to that information.”

    Not in your first comment. 6 Years old. Do you have kids? Really. I want to know. I don’t get your comment about under his control. This was a first grade class.

  36. Tex, I reluctantly acknowlege your existence, and will start with this comment: Did you mean to say “innocence” lost, rather than “innocent”? And did you mean “fair” as opposed to “far”? I mention this only because you recently set yourself up as the expert on grammar and spelling. I refer you to Graychin’s blog.

    I did? When? Yes, those were typos, but two can play that game as I will now practice with you. And you wonder why I’m hateful to you with your arrogance, disrespect and stupidity?

    You’re as smug and pompous as Graychin, but only about a 1/10th as bright, and that’s not saying as much. Reading through your feckless blog, I can see there’s not a whole lot to fall back through accomplishment.

    Obviously, you’re not a parent. Therefore, you have no experience to formulate an opinion, because that one you just attempted was about as dumb I’ve read. And that’s a good thing, because that would be one fucked up kid with an overbearing bitch like you for mother. So I’ll try to keep this simple, because depth doesn’t seem to be your talent.

    Watching a horror movie as a small child is not analogous to teaching a six year old the horrors of real history, especially in Tigre’s case. I can’t hardly believe you could be that stupid to make comparison.

    Perhaps that explains why you’re a spinster.

  37. TIgre,

    I don’t get your comment about under his control. This was a first grade class.

    Flake is the end result of the original liberated feminist, who didn’t have the talent.. Miserable, lonely and shallow whatever she had, must have got up and went. Reading through her blog one night after her first insult to load up for game, for a split second, I actually had a degree of sympathy.

    Then she starts practicing her typical smugness, and I get a reminder why I can’ t simply disagree with her, or carry on a conversation.

    She’s a nasty, old clam of the first order and should be treated as such.

  38. 6 years old and they feel the need to teach the details of slavery? Sick.

    And then we get trite and shallow people comparing the poor 6 year old’s inability to not only synthesize the lesson in any meaningful way but actually suffer anxiety over his relationship with his buddies to…a horror movie???

    Really? The real life horrors of slavery and a scary movie?

  39. Really? The real life horrors of slavery and a scary movie?

    Yep. She’s that crazy and another indicator that Rutherford quite the rarity – a liberal with both a brain and sense of humor.

    This time, I have no idea what I did to insult and earn that response. I reread my first answer and it’s without insult or injury.

    So from here on out Rutherford, when I treat this petty penis-envy flunky like a a piece of trash to be disposed of, you can refrain from the B.S. about how vicious I am.

  40. Tex…you are too easy. I figured I would ring your bell, and look what happened. Complete with a manufactured history of me and my life. It doesn’t take much for your hatred and disrespect of women to rear its ugly head. And look: you have buddies. I’m so pleased for you.
    Rabbit: the horrors of slavery and scary movies are pretty much indistinguishable in the mind of a six year-old. You make a mockery of what I was saying. If you weren’t, like Tex, so focused on me personally, you might make an argument. Weak one, but still…
    Back to you Tex: I consider your comparison of me to Graychin a compliment.

  41. “Rabbit: the horrors of slavery and scary movies are pretty much indistinguishable in the mind of a six year-old.”

    Would it be too much to ask about the methodology you have used to reach this conclusion?

  42. Well, why don’t you ring my bell and tell me what I did at Graychin’s again?

    It’s funny you should mention my problem with women which you frequently do as it seems to be your only means of debate, when I’ve been married exactly once to the same accomplished and beautiful woman for going on 24 years; I have two beautiful daughters whom I love and was rooting for as I preferred girls over boys. I have both a warm and close relationship with both mom and sister who I was with as recently as yesterday.

    This Wednesday, I’ll be meeting my old “girl friend” (strictly platonic) for lunch when you comes into town from Australia, so you’re narrative doesn’t seem to meet the facts; kind of like your politics.

    In fact, since you apparently are lonely without close romantic relationship documented on your own board, it would follow that the only one who has the problem here with the opposite sex is you. If I am wrong and/or you have children, simply say as much as you can disarm me.

    I think my problem with you Flake is that I’m not accustomed to debating with someone both overbearing and still cowardly. So I willingly admit that you throw me to a degree with your tripe. But if you want to add material to the burgeoning list, add this: the first word that comes to my mind when I read you is Cunt, with a capital ‘C”, making you the perfect mate for Graychin.

    xxox

  43. Huck..my methodology is very simple. It comes from having once been a kid personally, and not being able to tell the difference between reality and cartoons.
    Tex, you should watch yourself. As I said, you are obsessed with making up a persona for me. And in real life, there are any number of male friends I have who would be willing to relieve you of your teeth for calling me a cunt. Seriously. How dare you? And how does that advance your argument? I win. I get to make you show your true colors.

  44. It comes from having once been a kid personally, and not being able to tell the difference between reality and cartoons

    I now better understand the lifelong problem She’s still stuck being Elmer Fudd at 60.

    And in real life, there are any number of male friends I have who would be willing to relieve you of your teeth for calling me a cunt.

    You forgot to the capital ‘C’. 😉

    Tell your boyfriends I forgot to add yeast infested, ammonia laden, frequently gangbanged in a less malodorous day. Now you win.

    Just make sure you show up too so you can witness the beating. Because I intend for it to come back to just you and me.

  45. fakename…..you can’t see the difference between a little kid being terrified from a scary movie and a little kid being taught a lesson that, without a certain amount of maturity, actually serves as a major source of anxiety when it comes to the little guy’s relationship with his community, a community he is just getting adjusted to in the first place?

    There are many adults who can’t understand that whites today had nothing to do with slavery. Asking a 6 year old to get this is sick.

    Lastly, its a fricking first grade classroom. It should feel like the 2nd safest place in a child’s life.

  46. Rabbit…please. You are twisting what I said. And really, there is no difference. The differnce is only in your head. Not in the head of the kid.
    Tex: You keep talking. I keep winning.

  47. Rabbit, there are times I wonder why we waste the time to keep trying to rationally debate with someone as dimwitted as this total mess. She’s proud to be 1/10 as smart as Graychin. (see above). Dividing room temperature by ten, that IQ of 7 is hardly enough to generate motion, much less cerebral thought.

    Gangbanged is obviously not fit to be a parent, has never been a parent, and never had any business being a parent. She is not going to understand. She speaks as a child, thinks as a child, is a child and is a shining example of what I said earlier.

    Like I said earlier today, getting rid of Obama is not the problem. He’s a symptom of the problem. You’re reasoning with the problem.

  48. How have I remotely twisted what you said? I have done nothing but address exactly what you said. I reject your premise that the history of slavery in the first grade is akin to a scary movie. Now, I suppose you could be correct, and the difference is, in my head.

    But, that still doesn’t mean I’ve twisted a damn thing. Are you ever NOT a victim?

    Lastly, lets pretend you are right. 6 year olds only feel a generic fear and not one attributable to anything specific. You still don’t make a sound argument why this fear should come out of Mrs. Crabtree’s first grade class.

  49. Back on point…

    I saw a short clip of the news conference and read comments, making my judgments from that. Most are claiming it is a sign of weakness, by Obama. It even seemed that way to me from the clip. Before watching it I was convinced by other’s opinions that it was a faux pas by Obama. Now I don’t think so. I just watched the whole thing and I think it was no big deal. Delegating is a sign of strength in a leader. I mean, how many times does Obama have to answer the same questions? It is kind of nice to get Clinton’s perspective anyway. And he did say the “bullets” were not aimed toward him. Stepping up to speak in place of the POTUS as a former one helps to reinforce the administration’s message, giving it broader credibility. I must change my mind and state that I do not think this will hurt him politically.

  50. Gangbang,

    The differnce is only in your head

    Did you mean to write difference? Just wondering. Gives me something to do while I wait for “ALL” of your male friends to relieve me of my teeth.

  51. For the record, Tigre, first graders have NO BUSINESS being taught about race. Your comment about your boy literally brought tears to my eyes. I don’t let my 6 year old hear me talk about black/white issues. The longer she goes without even identfying herself as “black” the better I feel.

    It will be a challenge though. A third grader on the bus told her “what you lookin’ at black girl?” She told her teacher about it and the kid was reprimanded. My wife and I got a call from the principal partly because of their bullying paranoia. I was half pleased that the school handled it seriously and half pissed that my 6 year old is already hearing this sh*t.

    It sounds like you have a sweet boy. You tell him this sh*t is NOT his problem.

  52. Poolman, your making the same mistake greychin did. Obama made himself look weak. That’s just as bad as weakness itself when you lead. It was at the very least, a dumb headed thing to do. The proof is in the pudding. Talk to the people.

    I don’t even get why you give a fuck. Your charges of murder and treason by factions within our own government so extreme, you should at the least be apolitical.

    Cracked me up when you said you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water after blaming America for attacking us on 9/11. The disconnect with you is hilarious. Would love to know why greychin and rutherford don’t call you out.

  53. Fakename, I sure hope you never have anything to do with kids. What you just said is literally 1/10th of a Greychin comment — and I didn’t think fractions of such little intellect existed.

    “Like I said earlier today, getting rid of Obama is not the problem. He’s a symptom of the problem. You’re reasoning with the problem.”

    Amen.

  54. Man Rutherford, just when I think I have you figured out, you throw a curve ball. You might be wrong a lot, but your an interesting cat.

  55. I think Rutherford is the one lib on this blog that has the capacity for great honesty when he drops the game and starts talking reality. That is when he is at his best.

  56. Poolman, your making the same mistake greychin did. Obama made himself look weak.

    Opinion only. Time will be the true determiner. Did Bush holding Cheney’s hand when they went before the nine eleven commission make him look weak? Yes.

    In this case, this was the pre-planned agenda for the press conference. Obama clearly stated thus at the onset. He’s already answered all the same press questions. No reason for the CIC to subject himself to the rhetoric. Pass the ball. Play like a team. Delegate.

    Your charges of murder and treason by factions within our own government so extreme, you should at the least be apolitical.

    I can see you didn’t bother to read any links I provided. Afraid they may sway your already preconceived notions? Pathetic. Those are not MY accusations. Those are observations of what other experts and those in positions of knowledge have concluded. Big difference. Everyone who stands up on this puts their own reputation and livelihood on the line. Many have even paid with their life. You treat it like it’s an abortion issue. Stick with second grade. You probably ARE qualified for that.

  57. This one is addressed to Gray, Poolman, and FN2: To some extent, during the campaign, Obama was a blank slate upon whom progressives projected their aspirations. His rhetoric was in broad enough strokes that we could make him what we wanted. Even when he said he would escalate in Afghanistan and that he opposed gay marriage, we managed to shut that out. Now that he has done virtually nothing on DADT and has doubled down in Afghanistan, we’re outraged and surprised.

    I see more projection going on. “Having Bill Clinton in the White House press room shows how secure Obama is in his own skin.” Baloney. This is not a campaign stump. This is the room where Robert Gibbs fills in the press on what is going on and occasionally Obama shows up for an impromptu. But pulling an ex-President in is unprecedented. What’s more Clinton was brought in to give legitimacy to Obama’s decisions. Obama is THE PRESIDENT. Why does he need reinforcement? Clinton sucks the air out of every room he enters. Clinton looked like the President and Obama looked like his sidekick.

    Sometimes being too cool for school make you look like a fool. If Obama is so secure in his being that he felt he could bring Bubba in, then Obama’s ego has gotten the best of him. Critical viewers saw this and were profoundly embarrassed. In fact seconds after I tweeted my disgust at this spectacle, I got an immediate amen from a fellow Twitizen, and silence from the rest who didn’t want to dis Obama in public.

    From calling the GOP terrorists (hostage takers) to calling Dems sanctimonious, to bringing in Bubba and leaving him there to play President-for-a-day, Obama hit a lot of wrong notes last week. It proves that he must plan stuff in advance and stay on message. When he goes extemporaneous or spontaneous (the Clinton press visit was not planned, it was an impulse decision) he tends to mess it up.

  58. Where I have to disagree is in your assessment of the character of Obama. He has the intelligence and knowledge to know what is right and best for the nation, but he is too concerned with trying to appease all sides. He is too much of a peacemaker for the job he is charged with. In that way I think he is ineffectual. Arrogance comes with the territory. It takes a mega ego to even consider the position, IMO.

    He might be intelligent, but he has displayed time and again a failure to grasp the fundamental principles on which this nation was based. (The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties…a view that only be true if you are concerned with what freedoms government has.)

    His character is that of someone deeply in love with himself, as only one who has had every door opened to him can possess. (“The difference between then and now is that you have ME.”) He has proven himself to be shallow, petty, thin-skinned, and remarkably, even offensively arrogant. (“I won.”) These aren’t qualities of leadership, and frankly, it speaks poorly of us that we elected him.

    He had a paper thin resume, has really only taken a stand once in his legislative career, holding fast on a policy that is remarkably lacking in compassion and that many people find reprehensible (denying compassionate care for babies with the temerity to survive their mother’s attempts to kill them), and aside from having a now worthless Nobel Peace Prize, earned by…well, yeah, that’s the real question, isn’t it?

    He’s ineffectual because he has no real ability to interact with the world that exists beyond the tip of his nose.

  59. Pass the ball. Play like a team. Delegate.

    Sorry, I can’t agree with this one. Bill Clinton is not a member of the team. There is no “delegating” to an ex-President in the day to day running of the government … and press communication falls under the category of the day to day running of the government. Again, this is not akin to getting Bill out on the campaign trail.

    Think about this. Considering that this compromise kept in place much of the George Bush status-quo, why didn’t Obama have old George in the press room? What would have been your reaction to that? Progressives would have crapped their pants. Obama could have said “look, George took a “thumpin'” back in 2006 so I wanted his advice plus he put in place these tax cuts in the first place so who better to give me cover?” LOL Ed Schulz’ head would literally have exploded live on TV.

    Of course, my Internet radio co-host Sandi Behrns also said I over-reacted. She was more forgiving about being called sanctimonious than a lot of other hard-core progressives were. 🙂

  60. BiW (and others) take a moment to watch this interesting interview with Justice Stephen Breyer on Fox News Sunday. Since you are a big proponent of the the framers original intent, what say you about Breyer’s assertion that the states were concerned that their individual militias would be nationalized and Madison advocated the 2nd amendment to answer that fear? The 2nd amendment, according to Breyer, was not about individual’s right to bear arms however they pleased. (Of course, it is noted his opinion was the losing dissenting opinion on this but he sticks to his guns (pardon the pun) and says historians are on his side.)

    I very much liked Breyer’s approach to the Constitution as a document of constant values that must be applied to a non-constant world.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/4456313/justice-stephen-breyer-on-fns/

    P.S. Yes I know this is off topic.

  61. I very much liked Breyer’s approach to the Constitution as a document of constant values that must be applied to a non-constant world.

    This from the same person who expresses outrage at every suggestion that the Constitution be amended rather than going to the courts and having them make things up for them whenever they want to do something that colors way outside of the lines of Article I, Sect 8?

  62. BiW I don’t know whether that comment was about me or Breyer. I just think if we needed an amendment for everything you say is not authorized by the Constitution, we’d have three times as many amendments as we currently do.

  63. As blog owner, let me go on record to say calling anyone a c*nt is beyond the pale. All those present should already know this is my position but since silence is often interpreted as tacit approval, I’m just tossing in my two cents.

    P.S. Tex thank goodness for Internet anonymity ‘cos you do run a risky game with some of the name-calling. If your wife was a blogger or commenter and someone got that low with her, I’m sure you’d be looking to knock out a few teeth … and I’m damn sure Rabbit would be ready to do even worse damage.

  64. BiW I don’t know whether that comment was about me or Breyer. I just think if we needed an amendment for everything you say is not authorized by the Constitution, we’d have three times as many amendments as we currently do.

    Rutherford, it was meant for you.

    I know that you think that the legislative branch should be able to do whatever it feels is “necessary”, regardless of whether it has the authority to do so, but the fact is that if it is necessary for government to have that authority, then it should be necessary for government to convince us to give it that authority, rather than for it to simply usurp it. Once we start down that road, usurping gets taken for granted, and then eventually, the restrictions have no meaning.

    I know you have strong feelings on this R, but having spent the better part of my adult life learning the history, the law, and the philosophy of law, I have actual convictions about it.

  65. BiW, be that as it may, I would still be very interested in your thoughts on Breyer’s philosophy and in particular his comments about Madison vis-a-vis the 2nd amendment.

  66. R, knowing that Obama also suckered you in, I can see where you might have been impressed by that bit of sophistry from Justice Breyer. It was no more compelling than when I read Heller and McDonald, and when he kept talking about liberty and “the things the Founders could not have foreseen”, my thoughts first went to Billy Jeff and the whole what is the definition of “Is” nonsense, and then to this quote from the apprentice President’s favorite President:

    We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name-liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible things-liberty and tyranny.

    As I listened to his examples…television, the internet, and having read his decisions and his musings out loud, I know that while he talks about trying to understand the history, and the intent, he has no intention of honestly doing it, and whenever he is presented with a situtation upon which he can present doubt, he will find against trusting the people with the liberty that so clearly undergirded the thinking that connected the bylaws to the charter.

  67. I think that it is a patently dishonest view, R.

    Think back to one of your own examples you tried to use to justify the Health Care Manure…the Militia Act of 1792.

    George Washington signed an act of Congress (filled with many people who were delegates to the Constitutional Convention) that specifically allowed the President to call forth a state’s militia to deal specifically with obstruction of the laws of the United States of America that were too difficult for the courts to deal with.

    It essentially conscripted every male age 18 to 45, and as you pointed out, required them to maintain a minimum level of armament. They maintained this themselves, not at a central armory that dispensed it only to those government felt it could trust with those things, and it did so at a time when most households contained at least one firearm anyway.

    This was done in order to be able to employ the state militias under Federal direction, and were in fact accorded the same pay and benefits as Federal Troops.

    If Breyer was right, it failed miserably in its purpose. But of course it did not, because it ensured that in a period when a standing army might be close to non-existent, there would be an armed force to dispatch to defend from invasion and quell insurrection.

    And at that time, there was no 17th Amendment, so the states still had their own representation in the Congress, and could have stopped this from becoming law had it been contrary to the concepts upon which the 2nd Amendment had been ratified. That didn’t happen, and it didn’t happen because that wasn’t the reason for the 2nd Amendment.

    A few years back, a professor from back east published a paper insisting that firearm ownership wasn’t as widespread during that time as typically believed. He based this on a study of wills from that time period, and noted a marked lack of reference to firearms being devised to descendants through these wills. The usual suspects took up the study and championed it as a victory until several competing scholars pointed out that being personal property, such items typically passed (and pass) by means of reisduary clauses, which do not specifically name individual items of personal property. That criticism, along with proof that the professor didn’t quite do as extensive a study as he initially claimed, and the fact that he deliberately left out data which didn’t conform to the result he was seeking put both he and is study into disgrace.

  68. Rutherford,

    P.S. Tex thank goodness for Internet anonymity ‘cos you do run a risky game with some of the name-calling. If your wife was a blogger or commenter and someone got that low with her, I’m sure you’d be looking to knock out a few teeth … and I’m damn sure Rabbit would be ready to do even worse damage

    More beyond the pale than physically threatening someone?

    Sometimes, you’re a bigger horse’s ass than that idiot mouth you’re defending, and a politically correct coward hiding behind your own anonymity.

    Let me give you a message in return scold.

    If you knew me in real life, you’d know I’m a decent guy, contrary to what little Ms. Nastiness or you might think. I don’t go looking for trouble. Read the thread closely Rutherford and you’d see who started that shit today. Half of her accusation, I never understood. So you go ahead playing blog bully if it makes you feel magnanimous. If you’re half as smart as I think you are, you’d stay out of it.

    But you also know just how seriously I take defending myself and my family from these little internet pranks hiding behind their keyboards with their ancillary threats.

    So this goes for that sniveling little brat Flake and her knights in shining armor, or anybody else that has a problem with rough language. It’s one thing to insult – quite another to physically threaten. You come seeking me out, you better to be ready to escalate it way beyond a punch to the mouth.

    Because I take that as a threat to my entire family and that I won’t forgive.

  69. “I’m a decent guy…I don’t go looking for trouble.”

    Really? How about showing up at what you call “Fat Granny’s” blog by announcing “I have a few questions…Why are liberal women consistently ugly? And why is it the older they get the uglier they get?”

    When asked why you insult people, your response was “Every once in a while I get bored and go seeking a new monkey cage to rattle and then watch…” Asked again by someone you acknowledged was being polite why you were doing it, you said “To push some of those sorry sacks of …to a CVA or MI, thereby rendering the world a much better place.”

    Before you were banned, you called the posters “shrews,” “Hags,” “loons,” “silverback females,” and a whole plethora of variations on ugly and stupid. You told one woman that Rutherford had given you her IP address and that she “wasn’t as anonymous” as she thought. Even after the hosts banned you, you came back on as “Keyboard Cowboy,” were banned again, and now you brag here that you managed to get back on.

    It would be one thing if you just spent all day on this and other blogs–that just means you don’t have anything else to do. But you go out of your way to try to upset and hurt people because you like to do it. You carry on about how wonderful a person your wife is. How would she feel seeing your posts and knowing what kind of person you really are? Would she and your daughters like knowing you call people “Gangbanged” and “C–t,” and the other things you like to say?

  70. BiW, damn you’re a good attorney. I have yet to read your link but that Washington militia thing was an excellent counter-punch. Friends and family always told me I should have gone to law school. Then I’d be a more capable combatant perhaps. 😉

  71. Meribeth, welcome to the blog, albeit under less than optimal circumstances.

    Just so you know, I’ve never given anyone’s ip address to anyone. Tex, you didn’t really tell anyone that did you? C’mon man!

  72. Tex, the melodrama is a bit much. If I were to judge this thread alone, I’d say FN2 “started it” (to use schoolyard jargon) but don’t you think there are some words that you NEVER call someone. I can think of a lot of words I might say in anger to a woman but c*nt simply goes over the line.

    Hell, to each his own. As you say, I’m in no position to judge anyone but I can express my opinion. If I wanted to “judge” you, I’d ban you. I’m simply telling you, as someone who does believe you are a decent guy, that you need to put some limit on what you commit to cyber-paper.

  73. LOL Huck …. nah as of yesterday I think that was still going on at the prior thread.

    Gorilla suggested I open a new permanent thread called “The Cage” where folks could debate off topic items ad nauseum. I’m thinking more along the lines of “The Chapel”. 🙂

  74. Jim Dougan’s blog provides record that you have lied here about what escalated our “wonderful relationship” Phyl, which you have recently commented here. When I called you on it, you disappeared for a few weeks.

    So you can knock off the Little Miss Victim routine. You’ve contacted Rutherford to try and have me banned here. You neither intelligent enough, educated enough, or tough enough to actually debate with me, so you have attempted to silence me at this blog. That is not your call or concern. Rutherford should have told you as much.

    You’re treated disrespectfully by me and some others here, because unfortunately, there’s not a male on this board that hasn’t had to deal with scorned women like you in the corporate world one time or another. Your ilk is the absolute worst the world has to offer. And don’t try to pretend your life whole – like me, you spend hours on the internet. Your life is as empty as mine is when my wife and kids are away.

    You want the truth? My wife despises weak women like you and would find you pathetic. No, she would not approve of that kind of language and generally I don’t use it either, but you’re a unique case – part bully, part coward, part fascist. There’s a few women that deserve to be referred to that way – you’re one. Consider that payback for attempting to silence me here.

    Like I said, you keep talking about my “troubles” with women, but my own personal life would say otherwise. Only a moron would throw that in my face and not recognize the disconnect, when her own life is such a mess.

    So, to end my conversation with you, hopefully for good:

    I don’t come here for you, as you have nothing to offer. I come here to converse occasionally with Rutherford, BIC, Rabbit, Huck, Alfie, even Jim Dougan when he was alive… because I find something about them interesting, even when we disagree.

    Yesterday, you made one of the dumbest comments on record about children of which you had no clue, and insulted me again. I was professional in my initial response in which you were addressed and you were still a horse’s ass.

    Now I’ll make you a deal before this gets too out of hand because I meant what I said last night: You ignore me, and I’ll ignore you – and we will stop this charade.

  75. Meribeth,

    Yeah, I did do that at Fat Granny’s out of boredom one night – the exact same night Fake begin to make it personal and I read Fake’s blog to find out exactly who I was dealing. You bleating sheep at Fat Grannies can thank her for the link.

    So I’ll retract that comment and admit I was wrong. I did go looking for trouble – but not here.

    I am fed up with the lying propagandists like you, and the attacks on Conservative public women and their children by insanely jealous nags from the Left. I intended to offend. I just personalized it like I have you and gave you a taste of your own medicine hypocrite.

    You all don’t seem to deal well with it – perhaps you shouldn’t practice it.

    What I do think it is humorous that you think it would tarnish my reputation or bother me to be banned from some profoundly ignorant shit hole with two hateful, old women and a gaggle of loud mouth lemmings. I mistakenly assume most of you are smart enough to recognize that is exactly what I intended to happen.

    And I was going to rip as many of you as I could before booted. I knew you talked a big game, but when the megaphone was turned toward you and you were treated likewise, all of you would fold like a card table. You didn’t disappoint jackboot.

  76. You misunderstand me. I don’t believe it tarnishes your reputation to be banned from a blog and didn’t say it did. What I said is that you are a deliberately vicious person who claims at the same time to be governed by your Christian faith and to have a lovely and good wife and daughters.

    Christians who live their faith do not “intend to offend” or “rip as many of you as I could.” Please look in the mirror before calling anyone a hypocrite. Thank God that you aren’t an example of Christianity since you’d drive people away from the church in droves.

    If your wife and daughters are good people, and there is no reason not to believe that they are, they would be ashamed of you and the way you act when you don’t have any repercussions.

    Nobody “folded” when confronted by you. People were making fun of you. Somebody compared you to that preacher who pickets at funerals and they were right. Just an angry person who lashes out because it makes you feel better. Too bad–you might actually have something to say.

  77. “R”,

    I didn’t get the IP address from you. I got outside of WordPress and will be glad to share how I did so off line – maybe. I’m not entirely sure I trust you anymore either Rutherford, and now regret sharing any personal information with you. That was my real mistake.

    I told the loon above and her pal Donna that you and Hippie had already told me that a “Google Search” for Tex Taylor had been conducted. That’s all I needed to know to do my little trick. And you should remember telling me that.

    I knew who had done it, as contrary to Meribeth’s belief, I don’t go looking for trouble or peruse that many blogs. And the idiots didn’t even get the right Tex Taylor in most of their accusations. I didn’t even go by that name until Chen’s blog.

    So I’m not as unique as I had hoped. 🙂

  78. Oh Meribeth, ** PUKE **

    What I said is that you are a deliberately vicious person who claims at the same time to be governed by your Christian faith

    And how would that be any different from your false piety you practice at Fat Grannies buttercup? So in the worst case, we are peas in a pod, hey?

    Christians who live their faith do not “intend to offend” or “rip as many of you as I could.” Please look in the mirror before calling anyone a hypocrite. Thank God that you aren’t an example of Christianity since you’d drive people away from the church in droves.

    You bet I’m vicious with the little Pharisees you run, you included Jezebel.

    Fortunately, you’re not my judge and sitting in a church pew doesn’t equate to salvation. Neither does keeping them in the pews. I think you missed the message.

  79. Nobody “folded” when confronted by you. People were making fun of you.

    If so, they weren’t very effective. You did note when I took all of you lemmings on, the final result was banishment. You took your ball and went home when you couldn’t compete. I hardly fnd that brave Meri…

    Somebody compared you to that preacher who pickets at funerals and they were right.

    I guess you Palin haters aren’t aware that Fred Phelps is a member of your find upstanding Dimocratic party and former Dim candidate? So that would make him your daddy and by age, Fat Grannies brother.

  80. find/fine 😳

    Rutherford, I was going to leave you alone today in your liberal heaven to mourn this post (an honest one), but you’ll forgive me for dragging these goats over from Fat Grannies. I knew you would scold me, but you should know I meant what I said about being threatened.

    I never thought these holier-than-thou Palin haters would follow me over to home base, mea culpa, so you should feel right at home. Look at it as additional hits and support (snicker). You said you wanted more liberals…well? What do you think?

    Damn grateful Gorilla isn’t here this morning, or he’d go ballistic. Huck is one step more tolerant, but it may be weeks before he shows up again too if this continues. 😛

  81. BiW: If you happen to lay your hands on Judge Hudson’s decision in the Virginia health care challenge, please post it. I know you’ll be looking for it. It should be available on Pacer, but that won’t accessible for the non-subscribers here. Given Rutherford’s interest in the Second Amendment issue, I suspect it will be worthwhile reading for him.

  82. Tigre and Bic, (back on topic, I promise),

    I saw that Justice Breyer’s interview with Chris Wallace yesterday. I came away with an awful taste in my mouth thinking this represents one of the supposed great minds of jurisprudence.

    But two comments Breyer he made stood out above all others. Breyer called himself a practical Constitutionalist. Baloney…

    I would have hoped Wallace would have asked Breyer where he found the right to an abortion in the Constitution, and since none of capable of determining when exactly life begins, how Breyer the pragmatist had deemed a fetus not living.

    Second, I would have liked to ask Breyer why it necessary for Washington D.C. residences to travel to Maryland to conduct target practice, when I read nothing in the 2nd Amendment concerning location or proximity.

    Breyer is an activist and nothing more. Not really even clever in his arguments IMO.

  83. Nobody compares you to Fred Phelps based on your political affiliation. The comparison is because you, like he, spends your time attacking other people in ugly ways and then claims to be a good Christian.

    No, sitting in church doesn’t make you a Christian anymore than sitting in a car makes you a garage (I have no idea who first said that). But your actions are so contrary to any Christian teachings that it doesn’t matter how much you do or don’t go to church–you are an embarassment to the faith.

    As for “banishing you” not being brave, I’m not sure why anyone would permit someone to post the gratuitious ugly insults you post. Having standards is not cowardice. And we are most definitely not “peas in a pod.” I don’t tell people they are ugly or stupid or use the slurs you used here about women. And I don’t go out to websites to insult people when I get “bored”–I go do something constructive.

  84. By the way, Rutherford–I really like your writing and, apart from letting one or two people just get completely out of control ugly, it’s a very good and interesting blog.

  85. Tex,

    “The Minimum Essential Coverage Provision is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution,” Hudson wrote in a 42-page decision. However, he declined to invalidate the entire healthcare law, a small victory for Obama.

    Hudson said that neither the Supreme Court nor the various appeals courts had ever extended the “Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”

    “This dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance — or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage — it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate,” Hudson wrote.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/40642816

  86. Nobody compares you to Fred Phelps based on your political affiliation.

    Oh? Nobody but you on this site. Make up your mind. You’re nothing so far but a series of contradictions so far.

    But your actions are so contrary to any Christian teachings that it doesn’t matter how much you do or don’t go to church–you are an embarassment to the faith.

    What qualifies you to uniquely know what God thinks? It certainly isn’t your intellect. How do you know I go to church? That’s your unfounded opinion and nothing more. In fact, if you happen to find me Christ like, then I will begin to question my own faith because I find nothing edifying about you.

    May I remind you Mother Maribeth, you are part and parcel to a site that makes sport of targeting a politician’s kids? So I wonder what God will just more harshly? Goats who target children, or me that targets the goats?

    Having standards is not cowardice.

    Having standards targeting Bristol Palin? You call Fat Grannies high standards? That’s parody, right?

    And we are most definitely not “peas in a pod.”

    You got that right. I don’t claim to be righteous or holy. I said that was the worst case scenario for me.

    I don’t tell people they are ugly or stupid or use the slurs you used here about women, except Sarah Palin and her daughter when I participate at Margaret and Helens. And I don’t go out to websites to insult people when I get “bored”–I go do something constructive.

    You don’t go to websites to insult – doing something constructive? Like now?

    Look Meribeth, and I dare you to Google this too. What I said yesterday was beyond the pale and I’ve never used that word on a blog before. And I knew exactly what I was doing. You feckless broads that trash people’s family deserve to be called out, humiliated, mortified. You’re classless and nothing but a bunch of cowards hiding behind your gender.

    But as I am sure men here would be happy to witness, I don’t differentiate between sorry men and sorry women in my methods. I have little confidence anymore in Rutherford’s friendship, but I am absolutely certain he can personally testify that men who bring Palin’s kids into the conversation are treated equally harshly.

  87. BIC and Tigre,

    I would be interested in your opinion if you have one. Who would you guys consider your favorite SCOTUS. And if so, why?

  88. In honor of Leslie Nielsen who passed recently I offer up the following dialog:

    Tex: I’m not entirely sure I trust you anymore either Rutherford, and now regret sharing any personal information with you.

    Rutherford: Surely, you jest?

    Tex: I don’t jest, and don’t call me Shirley!

    🙂

  89. To all the HCR opponents let me give you a round of applause. I have to wonder how much BiW paid Hudson to write that or do great minds just think alike.

    Well, in all seriousness, Hudson hit the very argument some of you have been making, namely that one should not be compelled to purchase a product.

    I’d still like to challenge Hudson on why conditional mandatory purchases are constitutional. In other words, I choose to drive (the condition) therefore I have to purchase auto insurance. It’s still a government forced purchase. I bet that will be the first line of attack on appeal.

  90. Rutherford,

    I watched Airplane in Mr. Nielson’s honor the night he died. And he was indeed a funny man. The movie was do dumb, I couldn’t help but laugh out loud. Kirk Douglas was equally as funny in that particular movie.

    I wonder how long I will let our ‘supposed friendship’ cloud my good judgment about you? I’m such a bleeding heart. 😉

    I really must remind myself who would stick the knife in my right kidney and twist given the opportunity. You never disappoint and I need to improve on remembering all those little vicious tweets and discussion with Sandi, revealing a more true nature.

  91. Rutherford, old pal. I’m being more careless than normal today.

    Could you do your old “friend” a favor and fix my flub in #99 so that it is readable for Sister Maribeth?

    HTML is great when the author is a capable typist.

  92. Rutherford, I think Gorilla and Huck are right. I’ve been guilty of polluting your board and should take these petty arguments off-line. However, these skunks would nullify, edit, delete, or banish on a site not neutral like Graychin – horse’s asses of a different color.

    Have you ever thought of “chatroom”, or is there something in WordPress where I can line up my ducks like Mother Meribeth in a forum outside the scope of their magic wand?

  93. I must support Tex on two items:

    1. He definitely went ballistic when I “attacked” Trig Palin (I did no such thing but that’s beside the point). In fact, Tex held me while Rabbit pummeled me. It’s amazing I survived the assault.

    2. It is clear that we have some ignorant so-called Christians on this board. How could any of you have overlooked the passage in Genesis where God says to Eve, “I told you not to bite that apple, you little c*nt.” One should study one’s Bible before calling Tex out on his Christianity. 🙂

  94. I’d still like to challenge Hudson on why conditional mandatory purchases are constitutional. In other words, I choose to drive (the condition) therefore I have to purchase auto insurance. It’s still a government forced purchase. I bet that will be the first line of attack on appeal.

    You’d lose that argument, because not even someone from Holder’s Justice Dept. is dumb enough to make that argument.

    The Commerce Clause is a power derived from the Federal Constitution. The Federal Government does not control the laws by which your state issues individual licenses to drive…at least not directly (what they attempt through the back door may be a different matter alltogether.)

    Secondly, insurance is not a requirment in most states in order for the state to authorize you to legally operate a motor vehicle. If it were, then teenaged boys across the counrty would be screwed, as they would have to have their own insurance to cruise in the family grocery getter.

    Most states make insurance a condition to register a motor vehicle so that it may legally be operated on the roads within their jusrisdiction. There is nothing unusual or untoward about this practice, as it is meant to provide the public at large with a means of recourse against the owner of the vehicle for the damage that might be done with it, much they might lawfuly require some business entities, such as Professional Limited Liability Companies here in Washington, to carry a minimum amount of professional liability insurance, for the same purpose, to provide protection to the public at large for the acts committed with the thing to be licenced. The Commerce Clause, despite its ever-morphing scope according to some misguided jurists, has absolutely nothing to do with either transaction as both fall squarely into the jurisdiction of the individual states.

    Secondly, car insurance is mandated by the state as part of obtaining its permission to do something, i.e., legally operate the vehicle. The individual mandate is not similarly conditioned, but is instead requires the citizen to purchase something merely because they exist.

    Not the same thing…at all.

  95. “I choose to drive (the condition) therefore I have to purchase auto insurance.”

    How many times do we have to go over this for you?

    You only have to have auto insurance if you drive. If you don’t drive, you can opt out of buying auto insurance.

    What provision allows one to opt out of ObamaCare? Death.

    Also, the mandated auto insurance is liability only You only need to be insured against the damage and injury you cause to others.

    Does the ObamaCare mandate only require one to have insurance that covers other people one might get sick or cause injury to? No.

    Rutherford, that has to be at least the 10th time I personally have had to tell you those things. And I know I am not the only one who’s done it. Are you ignoring the clear logic, or are you just not bothering to read the comments?

    I’m serious…..

  96. BIC and Tigre,

    I found this comment concerning Breyer’s “opinions.” I thought you two might find this interesting:

    ———–

    Breyer’s rationale is this. Because ratification of the constitution was a priority, Madison made it abundantly clear that the federal government had no business in the affairs of states regarding the bearing of arms. The amendment was ratified, solidifying for all time this watershed statement of limits of control by the federal government.

    Next step. Because Madison made this deal, contrary to his intent (which Breyer implies but presupposes rather than proves), one may infer from this very amendment the right for states to regulate firearms, up to banning them outright. But notice the sleight of hand. Breyer has turned something dispositive and affirming concerning our rights (see the language in the Second Amendment) and flipped it on its head to mean that its merely the federal government that doesn’t have the right to remove our firearms. Someone else does.

    He further muddles his logic by referring to deals made in order to get necessary votes in place. As one commenter notes, “Others have picked up on this point, but whether James Madison liked the idea or not, the states voted to ratify the Constitution because the Bill of Rights contained the Second Amendment. So the best that could be said, accurately, is that “a” founding father might have favored restricting weapons, but he obviously did not reflect the majority view.”

    And one more commenter observes concerning Breyer’s logic, “So then by this logic, a single payer health system could be adopted through the Supreme Court since the “intent” of the law was to have a single payer system, but since the liberals just wanted to get it passed, they stripped out that part.

  97. Comment of the day:

    What did we get with Obama? Graduate students running the campus and instead of offshore drilling, we got properly inflated tires. ~ VDH

    Sometimes true genius is best in its simplest form. 😈

  98. There is nothing unusual or untoward about this practice, as it is meant to provide the public at large with a means of recourse against the owner of the vehicle for the damage that might be done with it

    And mandatory HCR is meant to provide the public at large with a means of recourse against people who use the emergency room as their primary care because they carry no health insurance and therefore cost the rest of us money.

    But I will accept the dunce-cap award today because I did forget that auto insurance is not federal but state mandated. 😳

  99. And mandatory HCR is meant to provide the public at large with a means of recourse against people who use the emergency room as their primary care because they carry no health insurance and therefore cost the rest of us money.

    Errr, no.

    And the reason is two-fold.

    1.) If you were really concerned about dealing with the cost “to the rest of us”, then you could advocate for a change to the law that requires ERs to treat all comers, and allow them to operate that part of their business like a business and not a welfare center.

    2.) Secondly, insurance does pay a higher cost to offset those who use ERs like free clinics, but that is largely because despite the bitching, insurance companies will usually pay the inflated charges. An awful lot of health care becomes a lot cheaper when you have cash in your hand, due in large part to much lower costs from not having to deal with insurance companies and claims processing. However, many states themselves will interfere with health care providers to deal with patients on a cash only basis and charging flat fees for services, or enrolliing with the physician, and paying a flat monthly fee for as many services as are necessary.

    Either way, the point is that if this were the reason for the Great Health Care Takeover of 2010™, there were other means of addressing it that did not require extra-constututional usurpation of power. And it wasn’t the reason it happened, but merely a justification for the greatest consolidation of infromation and control undertaken by Congress since the New Deal.

  100. And mandatory HCR is meant to provide the public at large with a means of recourse against people who use the emergency room as their primary care because they carry no health insurance and therefore cost the rest of us money.

    If you’re healthy, you have no recourse but to understand that any method of health care cost the rest of us money. That’s the idea of a shared pool of resources.

    And since we already have a shortage of primary care givers, how do you propose to provide more PCPs when there is also a shortage of residencies? Because according to the AMA, 40% of PCPs are threatening to switch to another specialty or quit. You can substitute PAs and NPs, but they are already substituting now as primary care substitutes for the insured, so again you’re faced with penalizing the insured at the expense of the uninsured.

    What you will guarantee with mandatory health insurance is a further erosion of primary quality care for the 80% of people who have insurance.

    The way I see it, your Obama proposal is not much different than public schools believing taking inferior students and blending them with superior students would achieve better cumulative results. It did just the opposite.

    Tyranny by minority – the everlasting liberal trait.

    Whatever you do, the uninsured should be required to have skin in the game – even if it means to barter. It is the only thing that would guarantee personal responsibility.

  101. Gad, my brain is somewhere out in center field today. I always notice it 15 minutes after the fact too.

    so again you’re faced with penalizing the insured at the expense to the benefit of the uninsured.

  102. Tex,

    The answer to that is that much like it is our patriotic duty to pay taxes, without any bitching about the votes the political class buys with it the entitlements that continue to mushroom and grow, it will also be the patriotic duty of physicans to continue to offer care however the government mandates to them.

    No worries…it will all be set forth in clear, unequivocal terms as part of the first five year plan, commerade.

  103. BIC,

    You can begin to understand why in late 2009, Mr. Tex had second thoughts about starting a practice at 56, a couple of hundred thousand dollars out of pocket and working for about $25.00 an hour with permission Joe Bureaucrat?

    But the real reason I quit was my enduring love for the Rutherford Lawson blog. The withdrawal was more than I could bear. 🙂

    I’m still standing, yeah, yeah, yeah…

  104. Tex you actually make an interesting point. Medicine is an odd choice for a second career in mid-life when you consider the expense weighed against the reward that would be many years out, possibly after you’re too old to enjoy it. Sounds like the choice would have to be made for pure altruism and preferably by someone with a very healthy bank account.

  105. The very healthy bank account? A lot less healthy then when I had my brainstorm. I simply didn’t owe anybody anything and the house practically paid for.

    Actually Rutherford, you have to remember when I started this, I was 43, with plans to take three years to get there, making me 53 when starting a practice – doable.

    My wife getting transferred changed everything. It went from three years to four years, got put on the waiting list the first time (it’s very difficult to get accepted as a non-traditional student and I was lucky), then six when my mom got sick and I took leave. Looking back, I accumulated a vast amount of knowledge and spent over $150K for nothing more than debating on the Rutherford Lawson blog. That makes me perhaps the most over educated, ignorant man on earth. 😐

    Altruistic? At first – but after making it into the profession but never completing the profession, I can tell you it was not what I thought it was going to be. Medicine is for the young and I was getting very tired of being treated like I was 22 again by doctors not much older than my own children. I thought they would be able to differentiate me from a new grad – they didn’t.

    Stupid – absolutely stupid and I take full responsibility for it.

  106. I’d still like to challenge Hudson on why conditional mandatory purchases are constitutional. In other words, I choose to drive (the condition) therefore I have to purchase auto insurance. It’s still a government forced purchase. I bet that will be the first line of attack on appeal.” – R

    The difference is obligation versus regulation.

  107. CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

    Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

    CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

  108. It was a nice quiet weekend.

    Amazing the entire Clinton episode on Friday. I’ve pondered writing on this myself, but really, all that is needed is one word:

    PATHETIC

    But R still doesn’t take it to the propper level. It is one thing to say that Obama wasn’t articulate enough to explain the Compromise. But Obama didn’t mention that he was looking for the thoughts and musings of a fellow President, he had him there so he could go to a party. Couple this with the grossly under-reported record number of golf trips and the plethora of vactions that the Obama’s have gone on. Don’t forget the weekly parties going on at the White House with Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder, etc, etc, etc coming over to play tunes.

    At some point, the epiphany is going to hit the American people upside the head like a ton of brick- this guy has no idea what he is doing, and really doesn’t seem to care.

  109. So much truth in this…

    A cowboy named Bud was overseeing his herd in a remote mountainous pasture in California when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced toward him out of a cloud of dust.

    The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray-Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leaned out the window and asked the cowboy, “If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, Will you give me a calf?”

    Bud looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, “Sure, Why not?”

    The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.

    The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photo Shop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany.

    Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses an MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.

    Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer, turns to the cowboy and says, “You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves.”

    “That’s right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves,” says Bud.

    He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on with amusement as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

    Then Bud says to the young man, “Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?”

    The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, “Okay, why not?”

    “You’re a Congressman for the U.S. Government”, says Bud.

    “Wow! That’s correct,” says the yuppie, “but how did you guess that?”

    “No guessing required.” answered the cowboy. “You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You used millions of dollars worth of equipment trying to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don’t know a thing about how working people make a living—or about cows, for that matter. This is a herd of sheep…”

    “…Now give me back my dog.”

  110. Gorilla, 😆

    Bleating sheep…liberal bleating sheep – but if it had been the Yeller Dawg, he was already tagged as government and the farmer would have begged the Congressman to keep him.

  111. I said this to Rutherford a year and a half ago, and I’ll say it again.

    It will not shock me in the least in the spring of 2012, we hear something along these words:

    Believing this as I do, I have concluded that I should not permit the Presidency to become involved in the partisan divisions that are developing in this political year.

    With America’s sons in the fields far away, with America’s future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world’s hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office–the Presidency of your country.

    Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.

    Hillary Rotten Clinton will make a concerted run at the Presidency, contrary to what she says.

  112. Had it been the bitch, the dog would have chased him off before he could have done anything…

    That, or the cowboy would have simply shot him.

  113. “But Obama didn’t mention that he was looking for the thoughts and musings of a fellow President, he had him there so he could go to a party. Couple this with the grossly under-reported record number of golf trips and the plethora of vactions that the Obama’s have gone on. Don’t forget the weekly parties going on at the White House with Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder, etc, etc, etc coming over to play tunes.”

    And now that you mention it, we’ve seen this before. How many days did it take him to comment on the Christmas bombing attempt while he was away on vacation? Three, wasn’t it? I guess Billy Jeff was unavailable.

    And lets not forget the multiple times he has snuck off to enjoy ice cream or burgers.

    Months ago when we were going after him for those things, as well as the vacations and golf, we were told he was able to do those things and still be president.

    Now a-days, when it’s party time, Barry can’t be bothered. And what’s worse…he blames it on his wife! What a guy.

    He isn’t even voting “present” anymore…..

  114. He isn’t even voting “present” anymore….

    Come on Huck. Be fair.

    Senator Obama didn’t have a serial philanderer for Sr. stand in when he was playing Chicago. Being part-time President has its advantages…

  115. Hello Meribeth! Fancy “seeing” you over here. I won’t jump in the fray, I see you can hold your own. This is a nice place for the most part. Rutherford is a good host and doesn’t mind much when we get off topic.

    Man gorilla, that video is pretty bad. That Sharia law sucks, especially if you are female. Saudi Arabia has the same crap, of course we generally don’t hear much negative about them. That’s exactly what happens when religion runs the government. So glad our founders realized that and hopefully we can keep it separate.

    Loved the cowboy story, too. Very true to life. Probably similar to how the average Afghani feels about us.

  116. Leave it to Gorilla and Huck to be a couple of knuckleheads (or is that huckleheads) and take a perfectly legit criticism of the Bubba presser and add a level of stupidity to it.

    Obama had absolutely no plans to address the press that Friday. The meeting with Clinton was arranged soon after the November 2 disaster. But again, no plan to talk to the press on Friday. Since he had no plan to do so, with or without Clinton, his motive was not to substitute Clinton for himself while he went partying.

    The two of them, like prankish frat boys, dreamed up this surprise visit to the press room basically impromptu. In fact, so impromptu they couldn’t even get into the room without help from Gibbs who had the key.

    Now, I will be the first to admit, as I said in the article itself, Clinton should have left when Obama did. The fact that Obama let Clinton stay and basically resume the presidency (this is a man dying for a third term) is beyond me … an embarrassment to end all embarrassments. But to say Obama’s primary motive was to have someone cover for him while he partied … the analysis doesn’t get more doltish than that.

    P.S. We had eight years of a President who couldn’t find his ass with both hands. I know you guys desperately need to paint Obama as equally lazy and clueless. I don’t buy it and all your protests to the contrary ain’t gonna make it so.

    If you want a boring President with no social life, then you should embrace the guy I know is your hero …. Jimmy Carter. 😀

  117. Tex, believe it or not, I’m not totally dismissing your one-term theory. I think we are discovering that being President really is more than Obama bargained for.

    Sometimes I get pissed because Obama doesn’t play hardball a la Lyndon Johnson. But then I forget, Johnson had years and years of legislative experience and loads of favors he could call in. Obama was not even a one term Senator. While I will never agree to the ridiculous equivalency you guys try to make between Obama and Palin, I am beginning to think Obama moved too early.

    I can envision a scenario where Obama says “f*ck it, I’ll just cut my losses. I’ll be ex-President for the rest of my long life and that’s not too shabby.” Or who knows, maybe he pulls a Grover Cleveland and serves two non-consecutive terms. He’s a reasonably young man after all.

    As for Hillary …. I am really torn on this. There was a time when I felt the way to see if Hillary was lying was to check if her lips were moving. But I’m beginning to think Hillary feels she had her shot and now it’s over.

  118. Rutherford, sometimes, you make absolutely no sense.

    What’s the new rule? You can criticize Obama because he’s your guy, but Gorilla and Huck point to the same obvious shortcomings and it’s taboo because he is still your guy?

  119. ROTFL … Poolman, you are truly the man. In “agreeing” with Gorilla I think you brought up a couple of points that don’t quite fit his ideology. 😀 (Then again …. unlike BiW, G has never really advocated a Christian theocracy here in the States 😉 )

  120. Hey Huck. G W Bush took six days to respond to the shoe bomber threat. Twice as long. And spend way more time on vacation, per factcheck.org. Of course Cheney was running the show anyway, so you could say the man in charge WAS on the job.

  121. Gorilla, you know what I found most disconcerting about that lashing video? The poor woman is getting lashed with a Toyota pickup truck in the background. This almost surreal mashup of modern society and pre-historic behavior.

    When you blame Islam for the actions in the video, you don’t allow for human accountability. The guy swinging the lash is a f*cking prick. His religion is irrelevant. No religion makes a “nice” man beat a woman. When you blame the religion, you let the man off the hook.

    And for that matter, can we not assume the woman is Muslim? What does it say about her that she would follow a religion that condones her own subservience?

    We are not talking about religion … we are talking about f*cked up culture.

  122. I didn’t say Obama’s motive was to have Clinton cover for him. I said that he has completely failed in properly addressing his PRIORITIES.

    Rome is burning and he is golfing.

    That is the point, that is what you have to contend with. Do you really think a staff holiday party can’t function without him? And if it can’t, they can’t wait for the President of the United States to show? Is our governance now at the whims and mercy of Michell Antoinette?

  123. Poolman, I hope Sister Maribeth follows the yellow brick road again, because she didn’t answer my questions about Fat Grannies and the “high standards” they hold – especially those noble discussions of Bristol Palin’s weight, the ridicule of Ms. Palin’s other children, and constantly calling Sarah Palin a bitch.

    Invite Sister Meribeth back, will you? She ducked out at the most opportune time. I’d be curious to see what she’s made of, and I think it overdue she begin to answer a few questions with something other than her sanctimony.

  124. Gentlemen, there is a reason I watch MSNBC. The judge and district attorney involved in the Virginia HCR court ruling are both in the pocket of the health care industry.

    You won’t find that little tid-bit on Fox News.

  125. What’s the new rule?

    The rule ain’t new. There is a huge difference between saying Obama’s behavior was a sign of weakness and an embarrassment and saying that his main motivation was he wanted to party.

    Tex, I might see your point if G and Huck agreed with me and then I changed my mind. My only problem is they agreed with me and then added an element I found patently absurd.

  126. Rutherford,

    Poolman, you are truly the man.

    Is it the 9/11 Troofer Conspiracy theories, or the fact that Poolman thinks Afghanis well coordinated like the cowboy that gave you the confidence?

    Have I mentioned that in congratulating anyone siding with you, you often appear as lame?

  127. Heh Poolman, doesn’t God work in mysterious ways? Dick Cheney is as close to death as humanly possible but the docs are able to outfit him with an external heart pump that keeps him going yet Richard Holbrook dies of a torn aorta. WTF????

  128. Tex, I’ll pass it on. Likely though she’ll stop back by on her own. Helen doesn’t post very often and sometimes the threads get pretty long between posts. Of course a lot of those folks have fulltime jobs. I have picked up some repair work here and there, so my days are not as free anymore. Thank God!

  129. G, every President (even our former oaf-in-chief Bush) deserves off time. The job is stressful as a motherf*cker so I don’t begrudge these guys time away to refresh the circuits.

    If you want to talk about messed up priorities, let’s talk HCR wrangling with almost 10% unemployment. THAT messed up priority is one I’ve finally come to accept and you’ll no longer get an argument from me there.

  130. Tex, if I were a betting man, I’d wager that if the RL blog existed back in the 70’s or the 90’s, you’d have been cracking wise about how butt-ugly Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton were. Damn shame there’s no way to collect on that bet. 😉

  131. We’ll never know, will we? But we have bullet proof that you would be a good standing member of the rake Sarah’s Palin’s kid and their “high standards” at Fat Grannies. 😉

  132. Bush, who you love to bemoan, quit golf as long as we had troops in combat. Unemployment was 3.5%.

    Still have troops in combat and unemployment is at 9.8% and climbing.

    Think he can spare a round or two?

  133. Of course a lot of those folks have fulltime jobs.

    Judging by the quality of the commentary I read there, I imagine many of the folks have three or four jobs. But there’s always time to get together and blast Palin! 🙂

  134. G, while it wasn’t one of your more charitable statements, I do seem to recall that Holbrooke was at times anything but diplomatic. I seem to remember reading that he was a part of the entire state department — military disconnect that came to light with the Rolling Stone interview that sunk McChrystal.

  135. My short term memory sucks, having just heard this story about 3 hours ago but from what I understand, both Judge Hudson and the DA who brought the case before him, are connected with a group (possibly a lobbying group, not sure) that opposed the HCR legislation. Let me see if I can dig up a link.

  136. I don’t ever complain about Obama and him taking his vacations. Anything that removes him from the White House is a good thing. Hopefully, he’ll take a permanent one soon. That should be priority number one, but not until Jan 2013.

    Otherwise, Jolting Joe Biden becomes President. (Tex shudders at the thought).

    “R”, from the looks of whiffing the golf ball and the rubber band throws to the plate, I feel reasonably confident that Obama would look much the same performing jumping jacks. Like he was standing on stilts.

    That may have been him on the end there.

  137. Amazing jumping jacks! 😆 Do you think it is our inability to teach or a lack of coordination on the part of the students? Do you know if this was the very first lesson? Funny stuff. That second link looks like it’s in the concentration camps in Iraq.

  138. There was a huge internal fight between Holbrooke factions and and Clinton factions at State.

    Holbrooke is/was an ass, an ego maniac and a total narsacist, which explains why he and Obama got along so well… and they don’t get along with everyone else…

  139. Gentlemen, there is a reason I watch MSNBC.

    Yes. We know. Its because it tells you what to think.

    I did post a link to the decision.

    It cites the cases, and explains the law.

    But in RutherfordWorld, it has to be because the adverse party and the judge were in someone’s pocket.

    What the hell. I guess its easier than thinking.

    I’m sooooo sorry those corporate stooges keep making it hard for you to enjoy the fruits of my labor, R. How terribly thoughtless of them.

  140. Bush, who you love to bemoan, quit golf as long as we had troops in combat.

    An urban legend. A myth. He gave up golf while the troops were getting killed because he didn’t like the political look of it. He didn’t give up golf on the day he committed troops to Iraq. Only after Michael Moore made him look like a fool.

  141. Great victory today concerning ObamaCare.

    Time to turn it over to the SCOTUS – 5 to 4. And another monumental loss for President Jumping Jack, followed by the predictable wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas
    Ev’rywhere you go;
    Take a look at Obama’s men
    shitting their pants again
    With all the lies and temper tantrums they throw

    It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas
    Slick Willy ever more the boor
    But the prettiest sight to see
    The great glory is shall be
    To see all the Libs throw out the back door!

  142. G, interesting observation …. from what I understand Holbrooke collapsed during a meeting with Clinton. Ya think she aimed dagger eyes at his aorta?

    P.S, Not like me to engage in gallows humor on the day of passing …. sympathy goes out to Holbrooke family. Even narcissists have people who love them besides themselves. 🙂

  143. Are you going to tell us that his golf trips and vacations have no bearing on his ability to govern?

    Absolutely …. they clear his mind and help him make sound decisions.

    I do my best thinking on the toilet. Would you demand if I were President that I not take a sh*t the entire time there are troops deployed?

  144. Not Johnny Mathis? And I thought there might be a little opportunity there. Oh well.

    Obama The Showman

    Obama the showman was a narcissistic soul,
    With his snowjob tripe as Americans are hosed
    As his wife spends all their dough.

    Obama the showman is a failed sale, they say,
    He steals their their soul as Americans now know
    As Obama screws them day after day.

    There must have been some magic in that
    clean light skinned Kenyan that they found.
    For when he spent America to death
    It was a Muslim they all danced around.

    O, Obama the showman
    Was a big farce as he could be,
    And the citizens say he was just daft
    With the teleprompter it had to be.
    Thumpetty thump thump,
    Thumpety thump thump,
    Look at Obama go.
    Thumpetty thump thump,
    Thumpety thump thump,
    As he makes another lame throw

    Obama the showman knew
    The election was not his day day,
    So he said, “Let’s punt and
    We’ll have some fun
    Is the cart path still in play?”

  145. BiW you of all people should demand that a judge recuse himself when there might be the slightest whiff of a conflict of interest.

    I don’t know enough about the investment to know if it meets the standard by which a judge’s impartiality might be reasonably questioned. (ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct 3E1.

    Federal Judges, like other federal officals, have many passive investments. Some have them in blind trusts, others are allowed to retain direct ownership.

    Now if it were proven that he had detailed knowledge of what the firm was doing, and the client list, you might have a wisp of an argument.

    However, when we can appoint a wise latina woman to the nation’s highest bench when there is no question that she has repeatedly, and clearly violated judical cannons regarding impartiality, and in so doing, proven her unfitness for the bench, and you’re perfectly fine with it, I might make unflattering suggestions about your double standards.

  146. I’m back–and Poolman is correct: I do work and spend time with my family so limit any time on the internet.

    I don’t personally criticize Palin’s children. They aren’t the issue for me. When they are raised at Margaret & Helen’s it is typically in the context of the disconnect between the image Palin wants to present of her family and the reality. Therefore it is more about Palin than the kids.

    For the most part, I have seen the focus on that disconnect rather than anything else and it has been a source of satire and some humor. Again, I don’t share in it and Poolman can confirm that if it goes beyond humor, I’ve asked the writer to knock it off.

  147. Oh–I missed one of your points: calling Sarah Palin a b–ch. Not a term I use, but I do believe that she is a nasty, sarcastic person who appeals to the worst in people. She has a platform from which she could inspire and do a great deal of good, but doesn’t use it for that. And, of course, there are examples such as the radio show in which she laughed when the hosts spoke of a cancer survivor as “a cancer.” That had been one of the things that really turned me off when I heard it, just as I was turned off by the video of GW Bush making fun of the woman on death row (“pwease don’t kill me…”).

    Off to work.

  148. “I do my best thinking on the toilet. Would you demand if I were President that I not take a sh*t the entire time there are troops deployed?”

    That’s a good one. Soemone’s gonna hear version of it work — and I ain’t giving credit.

    R, you’re too quick on the recusal analysis. A “whiff” of a connection doesn’t disqualify. Had he held $25k in Pfizer stock or a healthcare mututal fund do you think that wouold mandate recusal? Obviously not.

    If it were only a “whiff” there wouldn’t be judges to hear anything. I’m not saying there isn’t room for crticism at all — but I do know that you don’t know and that article doesn’t link it up sufficiently. And before championing bias as the reason, you’ll be required to comment on subjective components of the analysis. Get work on that! I haven’t had a chance to look at it yet, so you’ll have a head start.

    Tex, as for your question about my favorite justice, that is entirely too difficult question to respond to. I admire MArshall for defining the role of the Court. But to have a meaningful opinion, a lawyer would have to more of a historian than practioner with a shit ot of time on their hands to study the judicial philosphies revealed in the opinions. I ain’t that guy. So anything I threw out there would be based entirely on my approval of the outcome — which don’t count for much in the context of your question.

    Having argued before our state Supreme Court on dozens of occcasions, I could certainly comment on its make up. Not only would no one here give a shit, but without a 100% degree of confidence that my anonymity would be maintained, I would never do that. BiW knows why that is.

    Sorry to dissapoint. Given his study of judicial history and philosophy, the question might be a fair one for BiW though.

  149. Saint Meribeth,

    Like so man “Christians” I find today from the Left, with their real religion being lefty politics mixed in with a few scriptures always from the gospel because it is all they know, next time when you scold me as embarrassment to the faith (and with you as the source, I was actually complimented), try and remember that Christianity is first established on TRUTH; something you apparently either have the trouble telling or have the trouble discerning.

    Because I would again remind you that whether you use the word bitch or not, and you should simply type it rather than fudge it as it adds nothing to your faux pious act, you are still party to the pack of wolves at Nasty, Fat Grannies – the site that makes sport with Palin’s children and makes frequent use of calling Palin a bitch amongst other pejoratives – in fact, savages the woman daily. The recent article talks about how Palin’s girls dress cheaply. I’m sorry if I can’t tie your excuses together with your self-declared piety.

    For example, you tell me this:

    but I do believe that she is a nasty, sarcastic person who appeals to the worst in people.

    Well then, pray tell what would call Helen and Margaret, as they do label Palin a bitch? And have you noticed that the descriptor bitch is not just limited to Sarah Palin, but all Conservative women in politics? We’ve got Michelle Bachman and others, but Nancy Pelosi is listed as lovely. How quaint.

    So next time you scold me about how I’m embarrassment to my cause, always prefaced with the hint to your own wonderful righteousness, why don’t you stop for a minute at give a moment’s thought to party you call yourself home? Because one’s ‘friends’ give a real good indicator to one’s own ‘heart.’

  150. You asked, I answered. There’s a difference between satire and ugliness and if you don’t perceive it, you don’t.

    I’ve noticed that you justify your own behavior by attacking other people’s. Too bad that’s how you choose to conduct yourself. Again, I do wonder how your wife and daughters would feel if they could see just how you express yourself. From what you say, they might agree with you politically but would manage to express themselves in a more constructive manner.

  151. Below is a comment by Saint Meribeth from November 2008, demonstrating just how objective and sweet my detractor is. But first, one needs to know a little of that article that Sister Meribeth gushes…

    Source: http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/bitch-there-i-said-it/

    I’ll spare the sane the trouble and nausea.

    Governor Palin is a stupid, conniving bitch.

    Fact: Sarah Palin is stupid.

    Your next oldest is pregnant with plans to be married to some hockey jock at age 17. Seems to me you’ve got lots of time before you have to worry about college tuition especially being college doesn’t seem to be a priority in your family.

    Sarah Palin is an ignorant, ranting, whining bitch. There I said it. But lots more are thinking it.

    Please take your ridiculous hair, your over lipstick-smacking mouth, your Lenscrafter look smarter glasses and your poorly fitted designer jackets back to Alaska. And when you get there, shove a piece of the pipeline up your considerable ass. I’ll be damned if we’ll put our children’s future in your hands. And the same thing goes for McCain – the ass wipe who gave her this national platform effectively pushing the woman’s movement back into the dark ages – knowing McCain that might have been his plan all along.

    And Meribeth’s response to the vitriol and she prances across the Rutherford Lawson blog with self-declared righteousness and witness?

    Thank you for this entry, Helen. I couldn’t agree more. You have an enviable way with words–thank you for using that talent to say what so many of us are thinking.

    You’re awesome. ~ Meribeth

  152. There’s a difference between satire and ugliness and if you don’t perceive it, you don’t.

    What was that about satire and ugliness again and how I don’t perceive it Meribeth?

    Is the word hypocrite in your personal lexicon Most Revered Mother Meribeth? How about liar? Or deceived? Ever heard of false witness? Or Pharisee?

    I guess my pat answer to you will now be, “I was just simply being satirical from above MeriBeth…”

  153. The next time any Democrat croaks about Republican’s lack of bipartisan support, their “meanness”, any hint at how “they are unfair to Obama”, never gave him a chance, unreasonable, or the multitude of excuses about how the Rethuglicans are wing-nuts and jackboots…

    Send them this YouTube video:

  154. I am laughing because I had not heard of Margaret & Helen’s before last year! While Meribeth is not the most common name, you are quoting someone other than myself. (and, to my knowledge, the word “awesome” has never been one that I’ve used other than with respect to the Grand Canyon.)

    Hey–you have made clear that you don’t care about my opinions. No skin off my nose. I am sorry that you don’t have much to do other than hang around blogs and hope you find something more meaningful to do with your time. For me, I’m getting back to work.

  155. oh–I see you have again resorted to “I can say anything I want to say and don’t criticize me because other people said stuff about Bush.” Again, you really don’t seem to have personal standards other than that you can feel free to act as poorly as anyone you can find. Your wife and daughters would be so proud.

  156. Sure Tigre, it’s satire. Like the video from above was just satire.

    Just ask Maribeth to help you differentiate, as she is uniquely capable of defining for us exactly what satire vis-a-vis is.

    But I don’t recall any Republicans pelting the Obama motorcade with projectiles in protest of his inauguration. Do you?

    With MeriBeth’s mindset, guess it follows Republicans can only be good Republicans if they start acting like Democrats, and ugliness can only be attributed to Conservatives.

  157. I am laughing because I had not heard of Margaret & Helen’s before last year! While Meribeth is not the most common name, you are quoting someone other than myself. (and, to my knowledge, the word “awesome” has never been one that I’ve used other than with respect to the Grand Canyon.)

    Oh, I’m sure that’s the situation Saint Meribeth. 😉 Just a mixup.

  158. It’s a real “BITCH” when you get busted with your own brand of sanctimony honey. I coined that from your hero Helen and that awesome blog commentary.

    And it’s just satire…

  159. oh my–can’t get away quite yet, can I? Let me see if I can clearly state my opinion, since you seem so determined to distort it.

    Bad behavior is bad behavior, regardless of who engages in it. I am as critical of people who claim that Sarah Palin did not give birth to her child as I am of people who claim the President is Muslim. I don’t care what Bristol Palin weighs, whether she is a good dancer, or anything of the sort. I do care when people make fun of Michelle Obama’s looks. I do care when people attack the Palin children. Part and parcel of the same thing and no more acceptable because of the identity of the target.

    I have no idea who the “Meribeth” you claim to quote is but I know she is not I. But it appears that you want to insist on that as a way to discredit what I’m saying. Just like you want to do the “Saint” Meribeth routine to avoid the fact that you regularly abuse other people and don’t seem to have much else to occupy your time. How unfortunate for you.

  160. MariBeth, you’re now making a spectacle and only further demonstrating you’re a rank liar, hypocrite and loon. It’s unbecoming, even for a Lib. Don’t worry – Poolman still thinks you’re it!

    Let me add you to “my friends” list and memory, so that you can get back to work.

    But before you leave, here’s another author you can add to your “satire” list from PuffHO that seems obsessed with Sarah Palin – this time criticizing Palin’s trip with Rutherford’s favorite chap to assist the people of Haiti.

    Why, I can’t imagine anything more egregious than that! Can you Saint Meri? How did you put it this morning?

    She (Sarah Palin) has a platform from which she could inspire and do a great deal of good, but doesn’t use it for that.

    http://bigjournalism.com/lziganto/2010/12/14/to-sexist-ap-huffpo-inanely-bashing-palin-is-more-important-than-helping-haiti/

    I assume you’ll be passing the word to all of your pals at Helen’s for retraction? NO?

    You MeriBeth not MeriBeth may be the most easily discredited in a long list of wolves in sheep’s clothing that have walked into the fray at Rutherford’s. I do hope you stick around for the time, groveling for excuse.

  161. Tex, as for your question about my favorite justice, that is entirely too difficult question to respond to. I admire MArshall for defining the role of the Court.

    You know, the more I’ve studied the history of the court, the more I find that the ruling in Marbury makes me…uncomfortable. Largely because it set the stage for the Court becoming the political football that it is, and because it allowed for the judicial overreach that afflicts our current political climate.

    I guess I was reading Tex’s question incorrectly, because I thought he meant from the current court, and I don’t really know how to answer it, because I still don’t know a lot about Alito or Roberts, and the more I read, the more I learn…its a process that has actually given me a lot more appreciation for Rehnquist, who never really sparked my interest before.

    I could offer some suggestions for those throughout the years who I think were either unfit or just completely screwed the pooch. If Rutherford wants to learn about conflicts of interest, I could tell him to read up on Abe Fortas, but I suspect that his current OUTRAGE!!!11!!! has more to do with following in Ear Leader’s footsteps and casting about for someone to blame for it having been done wrong.

    Not only would no one here give a shit, but without a 100% degree of confidence that my anonymity would be maintained, I would never do that. BiW knows why that is.

    I hear you brother, although as I have criticized my activist state bar before using my real name, I’m confident that I am already on a “list” somewhere.

  162. That article I just posted from Andrew Breitbart, and they can diss the source all they want but they can not refute the truth, more accurately assesses the Liberals here and elsewhere than any article I have read in the past fifteen years. And Rutherford, this one puts you right on trial sport.

    The absolute depravity of the Democratic party is covered in one article, from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama.

    I highly, highly recommend it.

  163. Tigre and BIC,

    I did mean the current makeup of the SCOTUS, and I was not clear about the question.

    Antonin Scalia has always been what I thought most accurately represented the original intent – but that is based on a rank amateur’s opinions and what little I know. I find the man brilliant.

    But I don’t have the expertise nor history of law you two do, and was curious to which SCOTUS you agreed with most, if you have a favorite.

    For whatever reason, the practice of law never interested me, unless it would have been trial law, which I think would have been most challenging.

    My uncle the lawyer swears the last place most lawyers want to be is in the court. But I think the debate and matching of wits would be most appealing. Probably too much TV on my behalf.

  164. My uncle the lawyer swears the last place most lawyers want to be is in the court. But I think the debate and matching of wits would be most appealing. Probably too much TV on my behalf.

    I can’t speak for Tigre, but I will tell you the same thing I tell my clients.

    1. If there is a way to avoid court with a minor expense, it is preferrable, because going to court is gambling with your money. I have won cases I should have lost, I have lost cases I should have won. While you ALWAYS prepare, the truth is if the Judge doesn’t want to rule in our favor, he or she won’t.

    2. If you are going to make it about the principle of the thing, get your checkbook out, write a check to me, and leave the amount blank.

    3. Its nice to get misty about debates, and matching wits, and little coups here and there, but the sad fact is that the intellectual gunfights have been pretty much muted by a plethora of rules. Local court rules. State court rules. Evidence rules. Rules imposed by case scheduling orders. The fact is, if there is a Perry Mason moment, it means that someone didn’t do their job.

    ———

    As for SCOTUS, the few times I’ve seen bits and pieces of Scalia lectures, I really have been impressed with his wit, and I took his advice to heart, as my dogeared and weathered copy of The Federalist Papers will attest. However, he made some remarks in Heller and McDonald which bothered me. It is my understanding that he and Justice Ginsberg are friends, and dine togther and go to the Opera together several times a year, which doesn’t mean anything, but I did find it interesting.

  165. They are and they do. I too found that interesting about Scalia…

    I went to a lecture several years ago given by Clarence Thomas sponsored by the MBA program I had attended. It was perhaps the most interesting speech I have ever heard, even more so than Margaret Thatcher’s speech.

    What was most interesting to me is why this man would be an anathema to the black community. Raised by his poor grandparents, this is the definition of self-made man who overcame the most insidious forms of hatred by the will of his own mind. Real racism.

    But because Thomas refuses to follow the liberal narrative, he is perhaps more savaged than even Sarah Palin – mostly by the black activists.

    I’ve heard it said that Clarence Thomas is “stupid.” Stupid men don’t give dynamite speeches like this one. And he did it without much reference, cue cards and there was no sign of teleprompter. Imagine that.

  166. The leaders of our puppet governments say the damndest things….

    “Sitting at the head of a glass-topped, U-shaped table in his conference room, Karzai refused to budge, according to two people with direct knowledge of the late October meeting. He insisted that Afghan police and soldiers could protect the reconstruction workers, and he dismissed pleas for a delay.

    As he spoke, he grew agitated, then enraged. He told them that he now has three “main enemies” – the Taliban, the United States and the international community.

    “If I had to choose sides today, I’d choose the Taliban,” he fumed.

    After a few more parting shots, he got up and walked out of the wood-paneled room.”

  167. Very frustrating Huck…very frustrating. I think all Americans could share that point. I can not imagine what it must be like to be an American soldier and be stationed at that rock.

    Concerning this, Rutherford and I agree. Karzai is not to be trusted.

    I’d be curious to Gorilla’s take on that article because I am becoming less supportive of this Afghani War with passing each day. Not because I am anti-American or anti-military in any capacity.

    I’m not sure I think Afghanistan worth one drop of American blood or resources. I’m quite sure Gorilla has insight that I don’t.

    And it is the Afghan people once again who have failed themselves, just like the Palestinians; not America.

  168. Tex, the striped robe alone makes Rehnquist worthy of admiration. But since he’s no longer around, I can’t say that I have a preference for any in particular on the current bench for the same reasons stated by BiW. However, Thomas is no near as “stupid” as he accused of being. And although I disagreed with her hugely, I had an opportunity several years ago to chat with O’Connor (Sandy). She’s no dumb shit, I’ll tell you that.

    If I couldn’t be a trial lawyer, I wouldn’t practice law. There’s no fun in anything else. But I am not as pessimistic about the rules of procedure when it comes to a good showdown. There may be no Perry Mason moments, but a good cross examination is like good sex.

  169. Here you go, all you Rosie O”Donnell, Kathy Griffin, Flake, Yeller Dawg, and Graychin twits who like to compare Islam with Christianity. Voodoo is what I think Flake called Christianity; Graychin a myth and fables; Yeller Dawg a vast array on pejoratives, most misspelled.

    This is who you like to appease Rutherford . Want to rethink all religions are basically the same, or would you like to see more from atheist China too? Think about that next time you make the statements about Christianity oppressing women.

  170. There may be no Perry Mason moments, but a good cross examination is like good sex.

    Ok. I’ll second that.

    I had a case two years ago where after 4 days of trial, we started the cross of the Plaintiff…several things that were quite a surprise to Plaintiff’s counsel. They discovered that they wanted to settle.

    I still had a loser, but instead of it costing my client everything, it only cost them 20K, which in the scheme of things was a huge victory in their eyes.

  171. And although I disagreed with her hugely, I had an opportunity several years ago to chat with O’Connor (Sandy). She’s no dumb shit, I’ll tell you that.

    Oh, I’m quite sure they are all intellectual in their capacity. Breyer was very clever in his perversion Sunday, which is why I provided that commentary yesterday pointing out just how clever – and just how wrong.

    The problem with intellect is that it can be used for both good and evil. That’s why it necessary to be wise to be truly just. Wisdom is not guided by politic.

    Many of these forked tongued devils, sitting in their robes on high making law and perverting law to suit their preference, have a great capacity for intellect, but a dearth of wisdom.

  172. Of course, there are a lot more Muslim societies that don’t flog women than do, but I guess recognizing that fact doesn’t do much for phobic shock value, does it?

  173. This video is dedicated to all the feminists here in America who are completely silent on Islamic culture. Which is 98% of them.

  174. Huck,

    Maybe we can settle this argument once and for all.

    Can you find me one instance conducted under the law of Christianity remotely comparable to this brutality of a woman for not wearing the right attire, in this case for wearing pants?

    Can you show me where I can find a graveyard of Islamic heroes buried under the sign of the Red Crescent, that have freed other nations from tyranny, many practicing a faith not their own that would resemble this?

    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/George_W._Bush_in_the_Normandy_American_Cemetery_and_Memorial.jpg&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:George_W._Bush_in_the_Normandy_American_Cemetery_and_Memorial.jpg&h=358&w=514&sz=64&tbnid=eyKA4ktPZY3UAM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnormandy%2Bamerican%2Bcemetery&zoom=1&q=normandy+american+cemetery&usg=__xNKvwrGAsGKzrOQpxoyeyDsQOxc=&sa=X&ei=HN0HTaKMKofGsAPCtOj1DQ&ved=0CCoQ9QEwBA

    Just one?

  175. Rabbit,

    Gorilla posted that video back in #126 and I just recognized it. Oops…

    I must have been having my heated discussions with Flake and missed it.

    Maybe it’s the three stooges who think alike. Whatever, Gorilla was ahead of the curve.

  176. BIC,

    Good article. But I still think the most logical, simplest and most convincing argument I’ve read is what I posted yesterday, summarized below.

    I would like to ask Stephen Breyer, why the need to raise the nebulous and always popular lib ploy “historian”, or with respect to religion “scholar”, when the evidence is in the law itself? There is no need for the historian when we can read the conclusion of the authors.

    ———-

    Breyer further muddles his logic by referring to deals made in order to get necessary votes in place. As one commenter notes, “Others have picked up on this point, but whether James Madison liked the idea or not, the states voted to ratify the Constitution because the Bill of Rights contained the Second Amendment. So the best that could be said, accurately, is that “a” founding father might have favored restricting weapons, but he obviously did not reflect the majority view.”

    That’s really the only argument one needs to state emphatically that Justice Stephen Breyer is full of it.

    I hate to say this being I like both you and Tigre. Don’t either of you take this personally, because you guys and your chosen profession a noble cause.

    But I have little or no faith in our justice system anymore due to what I perceive as a million Stephen Breyers, at various levels, simply making up law to fit their whims. And this liberal activist judge, who struck down two Oklahoma votes that won by more than 70% of the vote, are but the most recent examples of judicial activism run amuck.

    I hope libs understand why there is an air of real revolt. It’s palpable guys and the time draws short for torches and pitchforks at the courthouse.

    You can not continue to thumb the nose of the super majority of the country, nullify their lega vote, and not eventually expect blowback. And when it happens, I’m afraid it will get very ugly.

  177. Because one’s ‘friends’ give a real good indicator to one’s own ‘heart.’

    Good lord, not in cyberspace!!!! Heck if I were judged by my friends here on the blog, I’d be labeled a constitution/bible literalist with a far right ideology just posing as a liberal. 😯

  178. If you guys know and anything of the 20th century, and you want to see a demonstration of exactly how stupid the audience and the commentary of MSNBC, you must definitely take a trip to BIC’s blog.

    So let me selfishly promote a jaunt to BIC’s blog for one moment.

    http://threesurethingsoflife.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/this-is-why-i-dont-watch-msnbc/

    Because what I just saw represents the absolute, most complete, and best example of just how positively stupid your opponents really are.

    I hope you that watch MSNBC like I do, do so for the comedic effect and no more.

  179. this time criticizing Palin’s trip with Rutherford’s favorite chap to assist the people of Haiti.

    I didn’t read the entire article … waste of my time. But the photo of Sarah getting her hair adjusted by Bristol is no worse than the viral video mocking John Edwards and his hair fetish.

    For the record, Edwards and Palin are both pond scum. Different types of pond scum, but still floating on the same stale lake.

  180. I’d be labeled a constitution/bible literalist with a far right ideology just posing as a liberal.

    Not after claiming to be a fan of MSNBC you wouldn’t be mistaken or labeled. You’ll understand very well at taking a trip to BIC’s blog. But then again, knowing your mindset, maybe you won’t get it. 😛

  181. But the photo of Sarah getting her hair adjusted by Bristol is no worse than the viral video mocking John Edwards and his hair fetish.

    Bullshit. You’re not even making an attempt at honesty anymore. As usual, you didn’t read the article because you refuse to face the truth of just how dishonest you and your lackeys really are. Dancing Jews in Auschwitz.

    Talk about blowing up all of your fallacious charges in your face in one swoop. That article did just that misfit. Read it and weep at your nonsense.

  182. In response to the question about any possible example of Christian brutality, the Crusades and forced conversions do come to mind.

    Ditto persecution of Goa natives by the Portuguese, including torture and murder for failure to convert.

    Ditto things like the Salem witch trials.

    Ditto the pogroms in Russia, which continued into the 20th Century.

    The fact is that, as far back as a few hundred years A.D., Christians were forcing Christianity on non-Christians and punishing, taking property from, torturing, or killing those who resisted.

  183. Ditto all creeds back in the day.

    We’re talking 2010. Well, some of us are. Others, particularly leftist females, don’t really talk much about their sisters in places like Sudan. I guess that would entail coming to terms with a reality that wasn’t the company line at the last corporate diversity workshop.

  184. Rutherford, it disgusts me that you equate Palin with Edwards. Your better then that.

    I can’t stand Pelosi. But I don’t compare her to Edwards.

    What the hell has Palin ever done that compares to the sick shit Edwards tried to pull off?

    The answer is nothing. This makes you a bigot. Get over your hate. Its irrational.

  185. Clarence Thomas is known as one of the only justices who never asks attorneys questions when cases are presented. If it weren’t for that, I would not doubt his smarts.

    My real problem with Thomas is how angry he is. The man hides his Yale diploma because he got treated like an affirmative action candidate upon graduation. Funny thing is if he were liberal you’d all assume he was affirmative action. 🙂

    Truth be told he was a token replacement for Thurgood Marshall who also wasn’t the greatest justice. Thurgood’s pinnacle was as a lawyer advocating Brown v BOE Topeka.

  186. Why is it that you assume that I, a “leftish female,” isn’t horrified at the conditions of women in certain segments of Muslim society? A question was posed and I responded to it.

  187. Nice misdirection by our resident liberal theologian if you are addressing my question. Where did you cut and paste that from, because it always the standard historical pap and pseudo nihilism the left, feigning some pseudo form of Christianity, preaches to equate all religions.

    Let me guess – we were persecuting Iraqis recently? Right?
    You should have added King George for the list to be complete.

    The question was not historical sins of Christian brutality but systematic current persecution by a Christian nation by Christian Law oppressing women. You won’t name one, because you can’t name one.

    And I hope you’ll note if your answer the pograms of Russia, that you’ll be glad to add it has been a joint venture by the evil Evangelical and rotten Judeo partnership that has been removing persecuted Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe, moving them to both America and later Israel away from Lenin, Stalin and Hitler tyranny for most of the 20th century, contrary to you literature.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Texas

    The fact is that, as far back as a few hundred years A.D., Christians were forcing Christianity on non-Christians and punishing, taking property from, torturing, or killing those who resisted.

    What no reference to CE? Surely not the dreaded Anno Domini…

    So I can assume by your commentary and criticism, you’re willing to equate the works of Christianity and Islam? Please tell me you do so I wrap the night up with you still babbling.

    ——-

    I bought a gift today for MeriBeth not MeriBeth. A whole truck load of them matter of fact for you Christian hating, military loathing, abortion on demand, and infanticide proponents from the Fat Grannies blog.

    http://evolvefish.com/fish/product1996.html

    Where would you “ladies” like them delivered? I bought an abundant supply of XXX large.

    Allahu Akbar. 😉

  188. Rutherford conveniently ignored the real brouhaha about the Sarah Palin story. The lefty AP posed the picture as Ms. Palin having her done for “photo op”, never making mention it was Bristol Palin who pinning her mom’s hair back to visit the cholera center constructed by by by OH NO! Franklin Graham Rutherford! AAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY!

    If Rutherford is trying to equate that with the Silk Pony fixing his hair after the $400 haircut before his debate, he is even not just dishonest, but deluded.

  189. Now that we have three of the same video of a woman being abused under sharia law, I have to wonder who took the video and were they okay with her punishment? If so, how did it get into OUR hands? We know this takes place openly in Saudi Arabia, too. Iran is less severe, except for certain radical families and sects. It all sucks, and usually moreso for the women. Radicalized religion in any form sucks.

    Any of mankind’s religious-based government would abuse at least one of the factions within it. Jewish women and gentiles were treated much the same in the Old Testament for going against the written laws or the accepted interpretation by men thereof. How many nations and armies were slaughtered due to religion? How many witches and heretics did early Christian’s burn? The well known Crusades brought us stories of “non-believers” run through with a sword and ghastly sorted ways that torture and death were disseminated. How many Native American “savages” were slaughtered in the name of God?

    All religious texts can be misinterpreted and abused. Men have controlled the texts and held the positions of authority for as far back as time is recorded. There is plenty of abuse that has happened in modern “Christian” homes. Just because it isn’t the law of the land doesn’t mean it isn’t practiced in homes and communities.

    “The children were woken at 5am every day, made to say prayers and read scripture, before doing hours of housework. If they did not do their chores quickly enough and to a high standard, they were punished.”

    “Christian women often stay in abusive situations several years longer than secular abused women.”

    And we all are aware of the abuses of the Catholic Church and it rules Vatican City, along with parishes, schools, and monasteries around the world. What I see is people using the shield of “god’s word” to justify abuse that God Himself condemns.

    The radical way Jesus treated women was proof in itself how wrong the culture under the law did. He reinforced the golden rule, a common theme found in Abramaic faiths, and the one true tenet found in most all faiths providing the goal to strive for. The golden rule is gender neutral and applies just as well to today’s modern world. Simple, yet accurate.

  190. Tex I know this is simplistic but could the relative pacifism of modern day Chistianity have anything to do with their huge majority? Why exactly should they feel the need to “conquer” right now? Christians are happy as a clam.

  191. Rabbit I suppose the Palin/Edwards equivalency is a false one. Edwards is very special breed of scumbag. Now that Elizabeth is gone, we shan’t hear his name again. He’s a footnote.

    With Palin we don’t even get the illusion of someone worth a damn. Guess I should admire her for being an unabashed mean girl. Edwards let so many down. Sarah’s fans LIKE that she’s a total waste. 🙂

  192. Tex I know this is simplistic but could the relative pacifism of modern day Chistianity have anything to do with their huge majority?

    You mean like the pacifism of the Normandy Cemetery? Where they left their life pacifism?

    Why exactly should they feel the need to “conquer” right now?

    You mean like the U.S. Imperialism?

    Christians are happy as a clam.

    True Christianity has that effect. 🙂

  193. Guess I should admire her for being an unabashed mean girl.

    That’s why Palin visits cholera centers in Haiti in the GASP!!!! hospital Franklin Graham helped build.

    Where’s Michelle Obama in Spain, I mean Haiti? Latte and crepes? Or is it defending national security from fat American kids take precedence?

  194. nice try–but that was not the question you asked. And you don’t have a clue as to my views on the military, abortion, or much else.

    What you’ve demonstrated is that you will do pretty much anything to insult another person. It doesn’t matter that I am not the “Meribeth” you want to quote–you’ll insist that I am. Of course, you have zero proof of that and it’s not a particularly uncommon name.

    What’s unavoidable is that you spend pretty much all day, every day on this and a few other blogs–which is shown by your constant posts. And you seem to want to insult and belittle people, rather than to engage in any sort of dialogue. Sorry that you apparently have nothing else to do. Sorry that you are so miserable that anyone who disagrees is a “moron” or “dishonest” or a “hypocrite.” Must be hard to live with all that bile.

  195. I believe that Meribeth was orignially trying to say, condensed: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire. Speaking of disconnects and sanctimony, are we supposed to take seriously criticisms of women, by women, from a man who is personally willing to call a woman a cunt? And sorry, R, I will not dress it up with an asterisk, because that’s not how it was presented.
    Tex is an Internet stalker. Plus he’s a crybaby. Call him out on anything and he can’t let it go until he exhausts Roget’s looking for synonyms for “bitch”. I sort of get the feeling that you all enjoy it…like you wouldn’t do it, but there is a little giggle in the background.
    And I hope no one has the nerve to say this is off-topic. Otherwise, I’m going to have to ask how a post about Bill Clinton in the press room has anything to do with HCR, SCOTUS, and Sharia 🙂
    I apologize in advance, because now we’re going to have to see at least 15 posts from Tex in response.

  196. Jewish women and gentiles were treated much the same in the Old Testament for going against the written laws or the accepted interpretation by men thereof.

    Really? Perhaps you can help to explain the reverence and leadership positions of antiquity by Jews, through Jews, then Christians.

    Eve, Sarai, Miriam, Deborah, Rahab a prostitute, Ruth, Esther, etc…etc…etc…

    Can you name me a nation of antiquity where women were in the top position of leadership like the Jews of Joshua and Judges?

  197. from a man who is personally willing to call a woman a cunt?

    You forgot the capital ‘C’, followed by yeast infested, ammonia laden, engorged, or something along those lines. I’m too lazy to look.

    Don’t need 15 posts – only one.

    You’re no woman – I called you what you are and there’s no need for me to repeat it again. One was sufficient. After 48 hours, it is still the word that comes to my mind when I read your name and always will be.

  198. nice try–but that was not the question you asked.

    Not even a good try, but here is exactly what I asked:

    Can you find me one instance conducted under the law of Christianity remotely comparable to this brutality of a woman for not wearing the right attire, in this case for wearing pants?

    And the man I referred the question, though I believe a Muslim appeaser and self-professed atheist doesn’t need me to add the word current, because he is infinitely wiser than you and ‘C’ and would have understood the question.

  199. Poolman–thank you for your post. It’s historically accurate and sane. In contrast, Tex obviously knows nothing about Orthodox Jewish women’s treatment, even today, with respect to their inability to protect property rights, divorce abusive husbands, and retain custody of their children. If Tex were remotely interested in accuracy (which he does not appear to be), he could look up what is meant by the term “agunot.” He might be interested in the Orthodox women dying of breast cancer because their husbands don’t permit them to have mammograms. Or in the sects that require arranged marriages.

    Or is it just easier to look at (a) modern cultures which supposedly validate Tex’s pronouncements unless (b) those pronouncements are better validated by citing to biblical figures?

  200. Rutherford: This is a serious question and I ask it sincerely. Why do you permit Tex to continue to use your blog to insult and demean people? He clearly has no interest in any sort of dialog and you are just providing a forum for a truly miserable human being to abuse other people?

    You have alot of interesting things to say. Some of the other posters are very interesting–especially the lawyer. But what in the name of God does this completely disaster of a person add?

  201. MeriBeth no MeriBeth,

    Jewish women in Israel have the same basic rights under their own form of secular law as you do. You’re about one step below ‘C’ in your debating skills.

    Note how you couldn’t refute my comment, but passed of the nebulous “YOU”RE RIGHT!” to Poolman. Can’t you address my questions?

    The correct spelling of the word is agunah.

    So would prefer to hear it from a Jewish woman rather than me? Will that pass your high standards?

    How about we place a bet through Rutherford for say $1,000.00 and I’ll split the proceeds between my friend, Rutherford, and an offset to the burka I bought you if I win?

    Do we have a bet?

  202. You have alot of interesting things to say. Some of the other posters are very interesting–especially the lawyer. But what in the name of God does this completely disaster of a person add?

    Yeah Rutherford?

    Note how it took me exactly 24 hours “R” for the tone to change from Mother Mary to Madalyn Murray O’Hair?

    I guess I’ll never get you to say, “I told you so…” 🙂

  203. For the sake of the “ladies” and ‘C’ who frequent here only on occasion when they’ve crawled out the slime at Fat Grannie’s, yesterday I had minor surgery on my tibio-fibular ligament, so you’ll get to live with me for the rest of this week as I was ordered to stay off my ankle. 😈 Sucks to be you, hey when I’m stuck in front of the TV?

    Next week, I’ll give you and entire week to bad mouth me without fear of retribution, as I will be here very infrequently.

    Until then, learn to grin and bear it.

  204. Actually, both spellings are correct because one is plural. You really don’t do well substituting bombast and insults for facts.

    But I come back to the same point. You really do enjoy being nasty to people. You really do relish being ugly and feeling like you upset and hurt people–you’ve bragged here about doing exactly that.

    So I repeat my question: why does Rutherford permit it? Why does he make a forum available to someone who not only has no interest in other points of view, he actively rejects them and anyone who disagrees with them.

  205. All three of us posted that video because its horrifying and happens all time.

    All you liberals try to do is either candy coat the reality of Islamic society or try to find parallels in Western culture, even if you have to span centuries to do so.

    Instead we’re told about some orthodox Christians, probably heavily influenced by Islam itself, who do not allow mamagrams.

    Ok, that’s pretty bad. But what does that have to do with the millions of violently oppressed women in the Islamic world?

    Poolman takes a different track. Islamic radicalism should be down played because its exaggerated by right wing weirdos. Its not that bad, were told.

    If the oppression in Saudi Arabia was race based instead of gender, poolman would have bumper stickers all over the back of his car.

    Hey, its not that bad there. Women make shitty drivers anyways, right?

    You got to love today’s feminist. Show a video of a woman getting brutally lashed for wearing pants and the response is this cold, academic attempt at cultural relativity.

    I swear, its surreal.

  206. I ask the same question I did before: what on earth makes you think that I, at least, am not appalled at the treatment of women in certain segments of Islamic society?

    I do consider myself a feminist and my response, whether it’s to Islamic radicalism or genital mutilation or any other mistreatment of women, is to be horrified and sickened.

  207. Rabbit, what in the hell are you talking about? There is some reason why you think women in the U.S. don’t care about the treatment of women in other countries? Where did that come from?
    Meribeth…I asked that same question already. Did not exactly get a satisfactory answer. So what I came up with on my own is that R values freedom of speech more than he values civility. (Correct me if I’m wrong, R.) Which is his right. It is his blog.

  208. Actually, both spellings are correct because one is plural. You really don’t do well substituting bombast and insults for facts.

    Yet, you didn’t take my bet Mother MeriBeth.

    Your statement of “fact” would be the equivalent of referring to all Christians as 7th Day Adventists allowing their child to die because they chose to pray and not seek medical attention.

    Agunah is applicable to very, very small segment of Jewish women and has been invalidated by Jewish Courts time and again. It is hardly the norm as you would like us to believe, as most Rabbis teach the practice as heresy. Jewish women are some of the most liberated and free women in the world, and I can easily prove that.

    Golda Meir ring any bells, or was she also delegated to 2nd class?

    Which logical fallacy that you Libs like to invoke to look intellectual after one course of philosophy should I attach to your argument this time?

    Confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, or more specifically the big bright red herring?

    —–

    Here is why I treat most but not all of you feckless Libs like pond scum. You’re dishonest intellectual hacks specializing in rank propaganda, casting your own dispersions yet incapable of receiving them in return.

    For 10 long years, as I proved today from the video from above starting at George Bush’s inauguration, you treated both our President, our Congress, our military, our Conservative religious organizations like the enemy. You savage Conservative women with the most vile insults ala Fat Grannies, don’t even have the decency to leave their kids alone, then cowardly hide behind your gender when punched back.

    I think many of you, including your entire pathetic forum at Fat Grannies the most repugnant people on earth. I’d as soon break bread with a jihadist as I would you.

    So whether you get your wish and Rutherford chooses to ban me or not, I’ll just move to one of hundreds of forums. I doubt you carry the clout to have me totally removed, but by all means keep trying.

    P.S. ‘C’ wouldn’t know civility if it punched her teeth to the back of her throat.

  209. Question for McBeth: do you expect men to hold the door for you? Pull out your chair? Cover your shoulders with their jacket when you’re cold?

    Curious…

  210. Can you guys imagine the global outrage if there existed a country that did not let black people drive cars?????

    Let’s call the country Klanistan.

    There would be Free Klanistan movements on every single college campus.

    High school teachers would share massive wiki sites with lesson plans documenting the driving laws in Klanistan.

    Huge Rock and Rap acts would headline the summer music festival tour, where free literature would be passed out about Klanistan’s racially motivated driving policy.

    All of this over only the driving law in Klanistan.

  211. Brother Rabbit,

    You got it exactly right.

    What you are witnessing in the ultimate in moral relativism. It’s the heart of liberal women. They’re insanely jealous of other successful women that don’t fit the liberal narrative. It’s similar to blacks savaging Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell. There is no logical rhyme or reason.

    If these “ladies” are so concerned about other women, who do you hear them reference more often? The treatment of Afghan women by the Taliban, or Sarah Palin. They don’t give a damn about anyone but themselves.

    Fake is the most appropriately named poster I have ever had the displeasure of debating with – because you couldn’t add a more accurate description. She hasn’t been the same since the house fell on her sister.

  212. “There is some reason why you think women in the U.S. don’t care about the treatment of women in other countries? Where did that come from?” Fakename

    Absolutely I do. The reluctance of feminist groups and the left in general to speak out against gender based oppression in the Islamic world is a travesty and an obvious one.

  213. Gorilla: Actually, I don’t expect those things. If a man does them, I thank him in the same way I’d thank anyone for being kind. But it’s a very appropriate question.

    Rutherford: Do you care to answer? Do you have standards for what is posted here and do you countenance someone who uses your blog as a way to try to hurt other people?

  214. Comment of the Day: (paraphrased with respect to yesterday’s legal decision concerning Obamacare)

    We have innumerable taxes in this country, but never yet have we had a tax premised on inaction.

    A tax levied against an individual simply because he has the temerity to draw breath within the borders of the United States is a price for Washington’s permission to exist.

    That by itself is enough to raise the Founding Father’s from their graves. ~ Francis Peretto

  215. McBeth, thanks for the answer. I do hate those feminists who love double standards.

    Another question though, based on this: “Rutherford: Do you care to answer? Do you have standards for what is posted here and do you countenance someone who uses your blog as a way to try to hurt other people?

    The question: do you support the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality?

  216. I repeat, where did that come from? You are all kinds of worried about the treatment of women in, let’s say, Saudi Arabia where women are not permitted to drive cars, but you say not one word when someone calls a woman a cunt in your own country. What is your distinction? I guess I should be grateful I’m not being lashed, Would you step up to the plate then? The hyocrisy astounds me.
    Tex/…I don’t think you have anything to worry about. I don’t think you will be banned, ever. Probably you will just sefl-destruct.

  217. Clarence Thomas is known as one of the only justices who never asks attorneys questions when cases are presented. If it weren’t for that, I would not doubt his smarts.

    I see. So because he doesn’t pepper counsel and waste their precious minutes by asking extended hypotheticals and instead considers the cases on their merits and the briefs, memoranda, and evidence presented, you have call to question his “smarts”. Got it.

    My real problem with Thomas is how angry he is. The man hides his Yale diploma because he got treated like an affirmative action candidate upon graduation. Funny thing is if he were liberal you’d all assume he was affirmative action.

    If he were a liberal, he wouldn’t be Clarance Thomas, and Anita Hill wouldn’t have been allowed to assail his character without proof before the members of the esteemed Senate. (Just look to all the courtesy The Swimmer was afforded during his illustrious career.)

    Truth be told he was a token replacement for Thurgood Marshall who also wasn’t the greatest justice. Thurgood’s pinnacle was as a lawyer advocating Brown v BOE Topeka.

    Now that is an unexpected admission from you, R. (Marshall, not Thomas…that I expected.

  218. The Rabbit’s been posting here for a couple years. So, of course he has no standards.

    Will you quit with all this whining? I assume you are an adult. I can’t believe you wasted several paragraphs over some dude on the net being a big meanie pants.

  219. Okay. Now I’m conflicted. You joked that BiW blew you delusions of possible grandeur by pointing out that Perry Mason moments don’t exist. My internal response (and I mean this) is that you’d make a lousy advocate, but probably an excellent jurist.

    Then I read this:

    “Clarence Thomas is known as one of the only justices who never asks attorneys questions when cases are presented. If it weren’t for that, I would not doubt his smarts.”

    Unfortunately, if you evaluate the quality of a judge based on questions asked by him at oral argument, you truly do not understand the process.

    I assure you, the number questions are no measure. In fact, questions rarely reveal the justice’s smarts, but they do frequently demonstrate a lack of understanding. Remember, for the most part, the arguments maticulously and thoroughly briefed and their logical limitations can be divined by reasoning through the legal arguments presented. Oral arguments rarely aid in the decision making process.

    In any event, the quality of the questions (and the need for them to illuminate) is what counts. Strike that. The quality of the opinion is what counts.

    Where did you get the idea that Thomas’ failure to ask questions evidences a lack of intelligence?

  220. Gorilla: I am not a lawyer so this is based on my understanding of the issues. As I understand the Fairness Doctrine, it provided that coverage on particular media had to be “balanced.” No–I do not support that. I think it’s contrary to the First Amendment.

    I apologize but I do not know enough about Net Neutrality to offer an opinion but would be interested in your explanation. To the extent it seeks to regulate content, I believe that certain restrictions are appropriate regardless of the medium (e.g., child pornography, inciting actual violence, etc.) but that those restrictions should be as narrow as possible.

    Since your question arises from the one I posed to Rutherford, and based on my understanding of the Fairness Doctrine and (very limited) understanding of Net Neutrality, I’d say he has the absolute right to permit Tex to vomit all over his blog or to let anyone else make distasteful comments. Does that mean Tex has the right to, for lack of a better expression, take a dump here every few minutes? No, because it is not Tex’s blog. Certainly, if Tex wants to start a blog called “Tex’s Histrionic Rantings, Insults, and Mindless Repetition of Gynecological Insults” Tex would be free to do so.

    But, in the same way the Rutherford has the right to permit Tex to engage in the blog equivalent of fecal smearing, Rutherford has the right to say “nah–this really isn’t what I had in mind and if you continue to do it you’ll need to go somewhere else.”

    Did I answer your question?

    Regards, McBeth

  221. MeriBeth, you are a pathetic excuses for humanity and embarrassment to womanhood. Before I ever addressed a word to either you or your pal Flake, you both slammed me. Toughen up little sugar – instead of preaching about your piety, you should have been a little sweeter.

    Do you have standards for what is posted here and do you countenance someone who uses your blog as a way to try to hurt other people?

    Has somebody dragged you over here? Are you chained to this blog? Do you have a vested personal investment here? Is my word so powerful, that it caused you great harm?

    Why don’t you admit your real problem to Rutherford, Mother MeriBeth? A bruised ego. You’ve learned a good lesson in an anonymous forum. You’re not that smart. Nobody will ever know.

    You got busted big time earlier today, exposed as garden variety blowhard and liar, can’t beat me in a debate of wits, fact, knowledge, or ad hominem. You don’t have what it takes. It happens.

    And you’re only hope of winning is to have me banned.

    Don’t beat around the bush. Just ask Rutherford to do as much and quit being so cowardly. He won’t be here until later this evening. Say you piece and skedaddle till he gets here if it bothers you.

    Then maybe you’ll get lucky and get your wish.

  222. Fakename,

    This may come as a big surprise to you, but yeah, I think the brutal oppression in Islamic society is a little bit more heavy then you being called a name on an anonymous internet forum. Shocking, I know.

    You know that 85 percent of all your postings here have been about how offended you are? Aren’t you in your mid 40s?

    Seriously, do you walk out of bathroom stalls devastated by gender specific graffiti?

    By the way, I love cunts, I think they taste great. 🙂

  223. Sorry, Tex–you aren’t that bright or informed or interesting. The last thing you did was bruise my ego. In fact, anyone who is so emotionally out of control that he announces that posters at Margaret & Helen’s are “the most repugnant people on earth” is laughable. Yeah–a group of women who spend much of their time swapping recipes are right down there with Al Quaeda. You have no credibility–you’re just a hysteric who feels free to give voice to your utter looniness on what you correctly term anonymous blogs. Whoopee.

    I posed the question to Rutherford because I’ve read what he writes and it’s pretty interesting. I’m just not sure why he allows your craziness and will be interested in his response.

  224. Aren’t you in your mid 40s?

    It’s worse than you think. She’s 60, lonely and still pitiful. And she’s going to blow a gasket when she reads that last sentence.

    😆

    How about Rutherford? Have you been looking for an all female lib blog, with a little bit of Graychin the Wiener and Yeller Dawg thrown in for good measure for “balance?”

    You want to become a carbon copy of Fat Granny’s and full time moderator of cat fights and pulling hair? Some really intense debates every 28 days when the dormitory effect kicks in, and you receive hundreds of personal, whining emails about meanness?

    Here’s your time to shine old pal!

  225. Meribeth…I asked that same question already. Did not exactly get a satisfactory answer. So what I came up with on my own is that R values freedom of speech more than he values civility. (Correct me if I’m wrong, R.) Which is his right. It is his blog.

    ——–

    “Rutherford: Do you care to answer? Do you have standards for what is posted here and do you countenance someone who uses your blog as a way to try to hurt other people?”

    What if R does value free speech more than he values civility? Last I looked, he wasn’t the government, which means that he owes pretty much nothing. However, if free speech is to mean anything, it does mean offensive speech as well. If it doesn’t, then we can only expect more things, not fewer to become “offensive”…a lesson learned all too well by the worshippers and high priests of political correctness, who have succeeded in convincing too many already that there is a right not to be offended. The victims dictate the language and nothing ever gets discussed.

    And as long as we’re talking about being offended, I’m offended at the implication that being called a name is on par with living in a society where one sex is treated as chattel, and little else. Do you have any idea how self-centered and lacking in perspective this makes you?

    I am almost as offended by the lack of contribution from the both of you as you engage in almost constant whining about Tex being mean to you, and complaining to the host about it. Grow up, fer chrissakes.

    Listen, I’m not pleased when Tex starts being unpleasant for the sake of being unpleasant alone. I find it unproductive, and unhelpful, but he got his adult card before I did, and if he chooses to pick his nose and eat his boogers with it, that choice is his to make, regardless of how pointlessly crude he chooses to be.

    However, when 95% of FN2’s comments are bitching and moaning about Tex said this or Tex said that, and then she is joined by another commenter in what appears to be an attempt to have him banned because he’s a big meanie, I get offended, and I suspect I’m not the only one.

    If you have a seat at the bar, the barbs come with the drinks, ladies. If the rhetoric gets ramped up, you might consider your contribution to it before resorting to the “I’m offended.” card. If you really wanted to get Tex’s goat, you could always try ignoring him, and actually contributing something meaningful to the conversation. I suspect that we won’t agree much of the time, but everyone gets practice presenting and defending their views, and that is never time wasted. Seeking banning or moderation is cowardly, and indicates a lack of confidence in your own abilities.

  226. Sorry, Tex–you aren’t that bright or informed or interesting.

    Probably true – but you’re here on my account and I can still beat you in every measure.

    The last thing you did was bruise my ego

    Strange – I did notice you’ve put up the white flag since last night Mother MeriBeth, don’t seem to be quite sure of your previous fluff, and now most definitely called out the cavalry.

  227. I’m seriously not angry at all.

    Women (now a woman) rule my world.

    I’m like a big ass Polock version of Prince, baby.

  228. Blackiswhite–interesting observations. Thank you.

    Actually, I didn’t (and don’t) suggest that the slur in question or any other one is remotely equivalent to the mistreatment of women in other cultures. That’s not my issue, so to the extent that I’m self-centered and lacking in perspective, it’s for other reasons.

    My question to Rutherford really was out of interest–I was curious as to whether this was ok with him. You are 100% right–his blog, his choice. I didn’t suggest that he ban Tex, although I’ve seen nothing but booger eating from him. To the extent it appeared that way, I apologize–it wasn’t my intention.

    And I suppose that ignoring Tex is probably the best thing to do. He is eminently ignorable.

  229. You guys are amazing at how much you hate women

    Still hasn’t recovered from the house dropped on her sister.

    And spoken from the spinster to two married men. I would diagnose it as an acute case of 1st stage beaten women syndrome.

  230. And I suppose that ignoring Tex is probably the best thing to do. He is eminently ignorable.

    Flake went through this phase. Insult and be insulted first 3rd party, then directly, but still here and still whining. I think she secretly has a crush on Prince and me. 🙂 (shudder….)

    Maybe you’ve progressed to Stage 2 Mother Meri.

    But I think you’re right. Ignore me like I asked Phyl to do. She didn’t take your good advice, and you didn’t take my bet Golda.

    I guess you can table that debate for a more awesome and convenient time.

  231. although I’ve seen nothing but booger eating from him.

    I misread that for a split second, had a peeping Meri roaming the neighborhood, and forgotten about all the good times.

  232. Thanks McBeth.

    Freedom of speech is there to protect that speech which is unpopular. I’d echo BiW, Tex put on pull ups long before I did, so I’m in no position to question his right to do much of anything.

    Besides, life has taught me that if you aren’t shooting at me, which I’m somewhat sensitive too, then the hyperbole doesn’t matter much. Have you given thought to the fact that the more you cry, the more he lays it on- and I’ll not really condemn it either.

    This- and R deserves credit for it- is the arena of ideas, and sometimes there’s blood…

  233. Actually, I didn’t (and don’t) suggest that the slur in question or any other one is remotely equivalent to the mistreatment of women in other cultures.

    I wasn’t referring to you. I was referring to the mouse. I’m sorry I wasn’t more specific.

    Keep going, Rabbit. You guys just astonish me. Why are you so angry? At the wrong people? You guys are amazing at how much you hate women. Just amazing.

    I don’t hate women.

    I co-blog with several…Nice Deb for one, and all the female Hostages, who in addition to being gorgeous, and intelligent, (two of them are bona fide rocket scientists) they are also each more of a man than many men I have encountered on the internets.

    What I hate are people who come into an ongoing forum and then expect to change how it operates based on their own sensibilities. The world won’t do that, and I find your expectations that the rest of us should, based on nothing more than the idea that you are the fairer sex, ridiculous.

  234. Or is it defending national security from fat American kids take precedence?

    Hate to sound cold my brother but there isn’t much we can do for Haiti which is broken to its core (not unlike Afghanistan). But we CAN do something about fat kids in the US of A. I have no problem with Michelle’s choices.

  235. Perhaps you can help to explain the reverence and leadership positions of antiquity by Jews

    Eve???? WTF? You really lost me on that one Tex. I thought Eve was the reason mankind is totally f*cked. You notice how the story has to blame the woman. Wasn’t it Eve’s fault that we all had to suddenly wear clothes? Didn’t Eve make sex a sin?

    Help me please.

    Dress it up whatever way you like, our “Christian nation” didn’t give women the right to vote until the 1920’s. Puhleeeze.

  236. BIC,

    I appreciate you taking the time to explain to our nascent speech police why Rutherford tolerates harsh language, even if offensive. It will save him from having to repeat himself.

    One small correction to your post which I won’t disagree further.

    If you happened to read through this entire thread, and I’ve been here practically all day on and off staying off the ankle so you don’t waste your time on the blather, you would have noted that there are a few attempts of mine at a series of discussions concerning something of substance more serious than my ill repute.

    MeriBeth has taken the strategy of disagreeing with a statement I make and either misquoting, misunderstanding the context, or misconstruing. Then when challenged somewhere around the second exchange, she punts; the M.O. changing the subject back to my bad behavior, excusing her own cowardice and mistakes. She then further attempts to butter up to someone she hasn’t yet personally offended to gain favor, hoping like hell one of you will call me out and bail her out.

    Now I will admit taking a few liberties at Sister MariBeth’s expense for her sanctimony and gross exaggerations. But this little, prissy pussy “booger” walked in her with a chip on her shoulder when her dingbat bunk mate went crying home. So be it..

    MariBeth’s first statement was correct and I admitted to the misstatement I made. I did go in full guns blazing one night to these overbearing, pompous, hate mongering blogs of which The Most Reverend Mother MeriBeth is upstanding member.

    They do a lot more than exchange recipes at Fat Grannies, contrary to what this blowhard says – and hopefully I proved that earlier today which is what pissed Ms.Priss off to begin with. Moreso, three times she lamely attempted to CYA while making excuse “but but but that’s not me”, further demonstrating her dishonesty. I used her own complimentary words to one Helen Philpot, replete with vile quotes from Fat Grannies, hence the outrage by being busted.

    So I will take every liberty to treat this hack every bit as uncivilly as she treats me, even raising the bar where she can’t reach if called for. That’s not being unpleasant for the sake of being unpleasant – that’s simply how the game is played here, and it is practiced by both sides. I’m exactly one half of the equation.

    If MariBeth wants to actually debate and show her mettle, then by all means she should proceed and put her claims into practice.

    This MeriBeth is a poseur extraordinaire.

  237. Why do you permit Tex to continue to use your blog to insult and demean people?

    Meribeth, though I am sure Tex would deny this, I think he is having a particularly bad week. I don’t know what is going on but as nasty as he has been in the past to liberal women, in particular, this week he’s kinda up’ed the ante.

    Someone who follows me on Twitter and has never commented here, “alerted” me today that the blog seemed out of control. All I could tell him was it takes a lot to get banned here …. in fact the only person I ever banned, I reinstated but he never returned … and honestly I banned him more out of ego than anything else.

    It’s probably one of the reasons I don’t ban as a rule, because I suspect most bans are done out of ego and less out of any true altruistic reason. As you’ve seen, Tex sees it as a sign of disloyalty when I call him on his bad behavior. He will find this comment disloyal.

    I think I am going to follow the advice (I think it first came from Gorilla) and create a special page on this site for scream therapy. Anyone who goes in there has to deal with whatever goes down. But these threads will be monitored a bit more carefully for off the hook abuse.

    Tex, before you get started …. Fakename2 did throw down the gauntlet in this thread albeit in a pretty minor way (comment #39) but as we’ve covered already, it didn’t justify the c word, nor any of the other vile adjectives that followed. For someone who finds my distaste for Palin irrational, your distaste for FN2 and other liberal women puts you in a whole different category.

    But as I said at the outset, I think Tex is just having a particularly bad week. Tex has been kind to me on this forum on occasion and kind to me in private at all times. Our politics are worlds apart but we do have some common ground. I do draw the line at calling any woman the c-word.

    Meribeth, as I’ve said to FN2 before, Tex is no dummy. He contributes comments worth debating. I killed Elric66 with absolutely no degradation to this blog. He was truly just white noise. Tex is a different story.

    My advice (kinda like what you were told in elementary school about bullies) just ignore him.

  238. I don’t usually repost comments but since the first one got either overlooked or ignored, I’ll try again regarding the woman getting lashed:

    ———————————————————–

    Gorilla, you know what I found most disconcerting about that lashing video? The poor woman is getting lashed with a Toyota pickup truck in the background. This almost surreal mashup of modern society and pre-historic behavior.

    When you blame Islam for the actions in the video, you don’t allow for human accountability. The guy swinging the lash is a f*cking prick. His religion is irrelevant. No religion makes a “nice” man beat a woman. When you blame the religion, you let the man off the hook.

    And for that matter, can we not assume the woman is Muslim? What does it say about her that she would follow a religion that condones her own subservience?

    We are not talking about religion … we are talking about f*cked up culture.

  239. Tex/…I don’t think you have anything to worry about. I don’t think you will be banned, ever. Probably you will just sefl-destruct.

    FN thanks for saying that because you reminded me of something I left out of an earlier comment (it’s been a tough week biz wise and I’m dead tired).

    One other reason why I don’t ban and I don’t delete comments (other than obvious spam) is I truly believe people live or die on the strength of their arguments. There are days when Tex actually debates like the intelligent human he is. There are other days when he goes off the reservation. But guess what? When he does so, the argument falls flat. He loses the debate by default. And to whatever extent his political leanings influence his dysfunction, to that extent we can discount his political leanings.

    It’s not that I don’t care about civility. It’s more like I don’t have to do heavy lifting when my opponent shoots himself in the head. 😉

  240. BiW, regarding Thomas …. I’m just saying a justice who never probes counsel might be somewhat incurious. It is the same trait that makes me doubt Bush 43’s intelligence.

    You are right, if I were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I could assume he gets all he needs from listening to the testimony and reading the briefs.

  241. The Rabbit’s been posting here for a couple years. So, of course he has no standards.

    Will you quit with all this whining? I assume you are an adult. I can’t believe you wasted several paragraphs over some dude on the net being a big meanie pants.

    This in a nutshell is why I love the Rabbit …. in a manly way of course. 🙂

  242. “R”, some of your posters need to skip this Bible lesson.

    Of all the characters in the Bible, the two people I always felt overburdened with man’s own weaknesses were Adam and Eve. Contrary to many a belief, I’ve never felt Adam or Eve should be held in contempt – and yes, I mentioned Eve because she plays a significant role in biblical history equivalent to Adam.

    I’ve given a lot of thought to the story and often wondered, which one of us wouldn’t have take a bite sooner or later? Whether that is metaphor or not, the message is one of being deceived and believing ourselves capable of being equivalent to God. That was the promise given to Eve. How many of us haven’t been deceived? How many of us are not most motivated by our selfish wants one time or another?

    Though I can’t document this as fact and this is sheer speculation, if not Eve, one of us would have slipped up someplace. One of Eve’s own sons killed another son, then first tried to deny the action, then to excuse his actions. Ironically, that story is the first that centers around the requirement of a blood sacrifice. Don’t ask me…there isn’t a theologian alive who can fully explain it.

    Isn’t that your nature? Isn’t it mine? Excusing our own weaknesses, believing how dare God not invoke his power for our own benefit? You’re the one always questioning why bad things happen to good people. There’s your answer, though you don’t recognize it.

    Again, this is Tex’s sheer speculation and probably not worth a nickel, but I have always envisioned a battle being waged with man only the final climatic chapter of a very ancient war – a war planned with a known conclusion that we can’t possibly understand the consequences, no more than we can comprehend no beginning. I know you doubt and I am sure that sounds like fiction to you, or a good myth. It did to me once too.

    But if you don’t recognize a battle of good and evil in everything, then you haven’t been paying attention. Our own nature is based on that fact, as each of us struggles between good and evil every day. My own personal testament on this very blog is a testament to that and I think there’s a huge risk in someone believing themselves “good.”

    I believe the real moral of the story of Adam and Eve is the fallen nature of man – all men. It first is used to demonstrate both the love of God and the justice of God. Not only why we need God, but must recognize by definition, God needs nothing. He asks for our obedience – but we have free will.

    I also understand the Bible seems incredibly harsh to you. The Book of Job alone is enough make me tremble and make me question. But if you were to read the last five Chapters of the book, you would get an understand there some things man is not capable of comprehending. To me, it is the most beautiful, most poetic part of the entire Old Testament – but only after a story that to us seems incomprehensibly evil from a loving God.

    Rutherford, it is an arrogance on our behalf to believe we are capable of all comprehension, all understanding. If you were a student of the Bible, you would begin to recognize that not only is God is perfectly just, but brokenness is required for redemption. And you would further recognize that God always ends with a message of hope.

    I’ve heard more times than I can count, I sure hope God grants me mercy. They better pray they receive something greater than mercy. Grace is not mercy. It is a gift that is far, far surpasses mercy.

    And that is the message of the Bible – and it started with Eve. So yeah, she deserves mentioning.

  243. Rutherford, I disagree with #289 because it is simply not true. I’m neither having a bad week nor good week – more good than bad because of the anticipation of my returning family. If my ankle wasn’t sore, it would be a great week.

    How can that be so bad? You need not excuse my mouth.

    Your comment is both vapid and shallow. It’s speculation with an application of the usual double standard in judgment. For example, it’s your pal Fake that again mentioned the word that seems to bother you – not me. Once was enough. Surely, you don’t expect to play doormat with an airhead like MeriBeth?

    It doesn’t really matter to me what you think of my talent, nor my style. Really. Maybe it’s a conceit, but I feel most comfortable either discussing or debating here on a variety of subjects.

    I debate on other blogs, though most time is spent here out of habit, that are intellectually far deeper than this one. Of course, I will admit I’m on better behavior there. 🙂 This is the after hours bar. If I really thought you capable of taking subjects that interested me to a higher level, more than defending Sarah Palin or something else so trite, I’m perfectly capable of doing so and would be more than happy to demonstrate as much.

    But you won’t find it nearly as entertaining. At least, I don’t think as neither of us takes this too terribly seriously.

    Perhaps it is time you told me exactly what style you prefer, so that I an structure my argument more to you liking? Because until you explain or lay out some rules, I’m going to continue treating these useful idiots like I believe they deserve to be treated – like dirt.

  244. You are right, if I were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I could assume he gets all he needs from listening to the testimony and reading the briefs.

    Its not about “getting all he needs from the testimony and reading the briefs”. While I’m sure that some members of the Court would tell you that they ask questions to develop the arguments and theories of counsel, I find that just as often, they ask questions based on facts and circumstances that are not before the court. One of the basic cannons of jurisprudence is that the courts do not exist to give advisory opinions, and are instead to address questions that are ripe and not moot, and that are actual controversies. When they start asking about “But what if…?” and “But how about when…?” it might trick counsel into admitting an inconsistency or cause them to articulate a particularly tortured position, but it frequently is not about the issue that is directly before the court. By not asking such questions by not asking any questions, Justice Thomas displays a greater degree of prudence and restraint than his fellow bretheren on the bench.

    It is actually very unusual to have judges ask questions, although it is a trend I am observing more and more frequently in bench trials. I have misgivings about it because it changes the role of the judge from the finder of fact based on the evidence presented to an investigator seeking to determine “the truth”, which as appealing and right as it may sound to a layman, is not their actual role. It also places me as counsel in a position where I have no authority to appeal to if the judge asks a question that I might otherwise (rightfully) object to if it was asked by opposing counsel, and while it hasn’t happened yet, that can lead to a situation where I cannot adequately represent my clients because I cannot object to questions asked, the manner in which they are asked, or the answers themselves because of who asked the question.

    I starting to come to the conclusion that judges should actually have to take an honest-to-goodness course in how to be a judge.

  245. Poolman takes a different track. Islamic radicalism should be down played because its exaggerated by right wing weirdos. Its not that bad, were told.

    Read my comments @ 134 and 237. You must have been doing your contortionist fart act to pull that translation. 🙄

    If the oppression in Saudi Arabia was race based instead of gender, poolman would have bumper stickers all over the back of his car.

    Not! poolman and mrs. poolman don’t do bumper stickers.
    But what, pray tell, makes Saudi Arabia exempt from your anger and disgust of sharia law? Is it the wealth, the nationality of most of the alleged hijackers, or that they are such great buds with the Bushes?

    Or did you just prefer changing the subject and injecting race into the debate because you had nothing else?

  246. This site lists over 250 women leaders:

    Is that some kind of propagandist joke Poolman you gleaned from your CAIR websites? Did you happen to read the positions before you posted that?

    You know, I was looking for something more than “led the fight against the Crusaders?” or my favorite “was the most loyal aide and the closest and most influential advisor of her husband”, or married with Queen Title? Did you want me to include Jezebel in my questioning earlier?

    Here’s the only one off the top of my head worth mentioning, one Benazir Bhutto, .the first woman elected to lead a Muslim state

    Do you remember what happened to her Ms. Bhutto? If not, I’ll give you a hint. It starts with a ‘A’. 😉

    Deborah and Jael were but two of judges of the entire nation Poolman. How about a President or Prime Minister

    Troofer, 9/11 conspiracy material, who killed the Kennedys?

    I’ll give you one thing Poolman. You are the most bizarre poster I’ve read at the Rutherford Lawson blog and you are entertaining. You are the only one here I’ve ever read the response with puzzlement, scratching my head at its intent.

  247. Deborah and Jael were but two of judges of the entire nation Poolman.

    Jael was not a judge. She was a tent dweller and wife of a Kenite. Her family were tinsmiths that made weapons and farm implements.

    How about a President or Prime Minister

    As opposed to leaders as you first requested?

    Indiri Gandhi was prime minister of India.

  248. Of all the characters in the Bible, the two people I always felt overburdened with man’s own weaknesses were Adam and Eve. Contrary to many a belief, I’ve never felt Adam or Eve should be held in contempt.

    If you have an opportunity, read the “book of the generations of Adam”. That and “Cave of Treasures” along with a few others I have read go into detail of how things transpired after the fall. Very insightful and they are ancient texts.

  249. Indira Gandhi was Muslim? I think you would find she was Hindu married to a Pharsi, if memory serves. They assassinated her too. Go pass the conspiracy word in Calcutta. I’m too lazy to look if I distinguished other religions besides Jew and Muslim. Did I?

    That’s all you’ve got to say about Jael? Tent dweller; maker of weapons? I think you forget (or never knew to begin when you Googled) that Jael was a little more than a tent dweller, as they were all “tent dwellers”.

    Ever heard of Christian ministry? Well Jael was nominated leader by Deborah of something comparable, making Jael unique in a patriarchal society of Judaism. I suppose technically that didn’t make her judge in the way I framed the question. You win with Jael. Besides, Rutherford would accuse me of “falling off the reservation” or something of that accord.

    I’m with BIC. I think believe your a moral relevancy type and Lib. You’ve still not convinced me you “independent” as you’ve proposed.

  250. Poolman, that was an absolutely “wonderful” reference there in #302? Do you also catalog of the She Woman’s Man Hater’s Club of Domestic Abuse and Violence?

    I don’t suppose you ever read closely enough to the reference material do you with which you base your astute “findings”?

    See also: Rev. Dr. Marie Fortune (1983) Sexual Violence: The Unmentionable Sin ; Julie Spitzer (1985) Spousal Abuse in Rabbinic and Contemporary Judaism ; James Poling (1991) The Abuse of Power; Carol Adams (1994) Woman-Battering; Carol Adams & Marie Fortune (1995) Violence Against Women: A Christian Theological Sourcebook; Pamela Cooper-White (1995) The Cry of Tamar; Nancy Nason-Clark (1997) The Battered Wife; Toinette M. Eugene & James Poling (1998) Balm for Gilead; Naomi Graetz (1998) Silence is Deadly: Judaism Confronts Wifebeating; Abraham Twersky (1996) The Shame Born In Silence: Spouse Abuse in the Jewish Community; Marie Fortune (1995) Love Does No Harm; John McClure & Nancy Ramsey (1998) Telling the Truth: Preaching About Sexual and Domestic Violence.

    Where did you did this one up? Straight out your Unitarian Church Material? 🙂

  251. It covers all Abramaic faiths. Violence against women is not unique to the Muslim faith. Like I had mentioned earlier @ 237, all three are supposed to follow the golden rule. Most do not succeed in practice.

    So I assume like Huck, you find all equivalent in practice and method? (hrmph, hrmph)

    You guys must have to be willingly blind to come to some of these conclusions you reach. It’s probably Faux News covering for Pat Robertson. Allah and God are the same, Aisha was old enough at nine and favored over the other eight, kind of female Jacob…and then the Salem Witch Trials equivalency stuff.

    Undoubtedly, these burkas but a ruse…

    See if you can guess which one is Mahmoud’s wife and 1st Lady? 🙂

    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-10-14-ahmadinejadswife.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shirin-sadeghi/look-at-ahmadinejads-wife_b_763297.html&usg=__DomOdq68Kp_gcFKsEp5QeWqnlKI=&h=477&w=910&sz=277&hl=en&start=40&zoom=1&tbnid=TUZYvM-MRbGexM:&tbnh=132&tbnw=252&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpicture%2Bof%2Bmahmoud%2Bahmadinejad%2Bwife%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D630%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C1486&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=673&vpy=193&dur=723&hovh=162&hovw=310&tx=168&ty=110&ei=M3UITY7uFYLWtQPk0K25Dg&oei=InUITaypL4fQsAPf9K2YDg&esq=4&page=4&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:40&biw=1024&bih=630

  252. Indira Gandhi was Muslim? I think you would find she was Hindu

    If anything, yes, Hindu. The 250 list were Muslims, but that wasn’t your question. I believe your question was:

    Can you name me a nation of antiquity where women were in the top position of leadership like the Jews of Joshua and Judges?

    We could go with Cleopatra or Hatshepsut for Egypt. Even Japan had a period of time where women ruled. And China had a female emperor. Those last seem odd given their treatment of women.

    This thing about Islam and fear of jihad is troubling. We keep this dissention all stirred up in this country and the western world. We suspect every one of them are just terrorists waiting to happen. They pray to the same God as the Jews and technically the Christians for that matter, yet anything the Jews or Christians do is OK in your book.

    If Muslims are our enemy, tell me why we invaded Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, or Egypt. 15 of the suspected 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. They even have Sharia law and the greatest gap between the wealthy royals and the people. How many Afghanis were named suspects?
    0. Nada. zilch. keinen. none.

  253. So I assume like Huck, you find all equivalent in practice and method? (hrmph, hrmph)

    You like to assume, don’t you? Do you deny the God of Abraham is not whom they all claim as God? Ishmael and Isaac are sons of the same father.

    I say all three boil down to pure simplicity. Love God with all your being and love your neighbor as yourself. Follow those two things and you fulfill the scriptures. Can you dispute that?

  254. Where was bin Laden? Who provided safe haven? Who still works with them?

    Listen, while the historian in me loves to ponder the intricacies of matriarchial rule in antiquity, I think the more pressing issue of concern should be the standing of women in TODAY’s societies.

  255. Do you think more harm is done by women wearing burkas or string bikinis? Now I prefer the latter, no doubt. But which one is more detrimental to the morals of a society, if that is your objection to the burkas? If you are so anti-burka, what do you think should be done with nuns and mennonite women? Don’t you think it wiser to let other religions work out their own “kinks”, if you will? Some women actually have no problems with burkas. Is someone you know being forced to wear one?

  256. While western women generally have more freedoms than women in other societies–including Islamic societies–there are Muslim countries that have had women presidents. At least one of them was on that list poolman linked. But since she isn’t famous I guess that doesn’t matter.

    Facts like that get ignored when people generalize.

    And I just love how far the goalposts have been moved since I lit the fire. Oppression of women has gone from beating them in the street to not letting them run the country.

  257. Do you deny the God of Abraham is not whom they all claim as God? Ishmael and Isaac are sons of the same father.

    Allah and Elohim are not one and the same Poolman. Not even remotely close and this certainly not what Christian nor Jew believe.

    And with that statement, the moral equivalent I always suspected. No wonder your thought process concerning anything of Christian doctrine woefully confused. I now understand how you can quote scripture, but not discern truth.

    Irrespective that Isaac and Ishmael are brothers, that fact is irrelevant to who is God – you’ve got the relationship backward and your scriptural interpretation straight out of the Quran Sura 29:46. That is what men like Huck and Muslims want you to believe, for different reasons of course – one atheistic, insecure, with a hatred of Christianity; the other demonic and perverted.

    Ishmael predates Muhammad by almost 3,000 years and if you can point me to the names of God listed in the Bible with one name mentioned as Allah, I will happily leave this board to you and you friends from Fat Grannies. My Jewish friends would croak at your statement of fact.

    ————–

    Allah is presented in the Koran as an autocratic ruler who is aloof and arbitrary. Allah is unknowable whereas the God of the Bible is knowable (2 Timothy 1:12). Allah is impersonal, unlike the personal God the Scriptures reveal (1 Peter 5:6-7). Allah is unitarian (Sura 4:48), whereas the God of the Bible is trinitarian (2 Corinthians 13:14).

    Sura 4:17 “Believe in Allah and say not ‘Trinity.’ Cease! It is better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from his transcendent majesty that he should have a son.”

    Sound like your biblical doctrine you profess?

    Allah is capricious (Sura 2:284) but my God is trustworthy. And Allah is never anywhere presented as a god of love — which is the essence of the nature of the One True God (1 John 4:7-16).

    ———

    Here is the history of the word Allah; that is, unless you think Yahweh equivalent to Baal? Because the Jews most certainly don’t.

    Allah corresponded to the Babylonian god Baal, and Arabs knew of him long before Mohammed worshiped him as the supreme God. Before Islam the Arabs recognized many gods and goddesses, each tribe had their own deity. There were also nature deities. Allah was the god of the local Quarish tribe, which was Mohammed’s tribe before he invented Islam to lead his people out of their polytheism. Allah was then known as the Moon God, who had 3 daughters who were viewed as intercessors for the people into Allah. Their names were Al-at, Al-uzza, and Al-Manat, which were three goddesses; the first two daughters of Allah had names which were feminine forms of Allah. Hubal was the chief God of the Kaaba among the other 360 deities. Hubal was the chief God of the Kaaba among the other 360 deities. Hubal was a statue likeness of a man whose body was made of red precious stones whose arms were made of gold. (Reference Islam George Braswell Jr.)

    “Historians like Vaqqidi have said Allah was actually the chief of the 360 gods being worshipped in Arabia at the time Mohammed rose to prominence. Ibn Al-Kalbi gave 27 names of pre-Islamic deities…Interestingly, not many Muslims want to accept that Allah was already being worshipped at the Ka’ba in Mecca by Arab pagans before Mohammed came. Some Muslims become angry when they are confronted with this fact. But history is not on their side. Pre-Islamic literature has proved this.” (G. J. O. Moshay, Who Is This Allah? (Dorchester House, Bucks, UK, 1994), pg. 138).

    * History has shown Mecca and the holy stone al-Kaaba were holy sites for pre-Islamic pagan Arabs. The Kaaba in Mecca was formerly named Beit-Allah meaning House of Allah. We are told it was first built in heaven. This is in contradistinction to what Moses was instructed to build, something overlooked by the Muslims in their reading of the Bible.

    Surely an Old Testament scholar like you would remember these verses.

    11 The angel of the LORD also said to Haggar:

    “You are now pregnant
    and you will give birth to a son.
    You shall name him Ishmael,
    for the LORD has heard of your misery.

    12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
    his hand will be against everyone
    and everyone’s hand against him,
    and he will live in hostility
    toward all his brothers.”

    So that is certainly not what true Christians think of when we think of the Jews. I believe the verse paraphrased to Abram “and thru your seed, all of the earth will be blessed.” ❓ Hmmm…

    * Source: Encyclopedia of Religion

  258. And I just love how far the goalposts have been moved since I lit the fire. Oppression of women has gone from beating them in the street to not letting them run the country.

    Lit the fire? 🙄 Don’t flatter yourself. But it might appear that way to the lover of Baal and the flatterer of self.

    Here’s the one fact that can’t be denied. Concerning the war of East and West, you’re the biggest useful idiot on this board – the appeaser of Allah and the apologist to sheer evil.

    You will make a fine Dhimmi one day Huck – generalities or not.

  259. R, the Supreme Court generally does not hear testimony. It hears legal argument (with very few exceptions, it’s an appellate court). Trial courts hear testimony. Again since you didn’t seem to know how things work in our highest court, where did you get the idea that Thomas stupid?

  260. Biw says “I’m starting to come to the conclusion that judges should actually have to take an honest-to-goodness course in how to be a judge.”

    That’s the damn truth. At the trial and appellate level, the quality of our jurists has gone down considerably over the years I have practiced. Frankly, I think that’s a function of the prestige and pay connected with the job — not to mention the sheer tedium and incredible lack of competent advocacy offered on a day to day basis (particularly in petty criminal matters). No way, no how would I be a judge.

    In a bench trial, I usually have no problem with the judge asking questions of the witness because it’s usually done to satisfy themselves as to the veracity of something they deem important. In a jury trial, I seethe when they do it — and given the content of the questions, it can easily cross the line into commenting on the evidence in the presence of the jury which consituties reversible error. So, even when it’s helpful to my side, when judge oversteps, he then builds error into the case that calls into question the verdict — and of course they never see it so mistrial is never granted when you object (all the while pissing off the judge and giving the appearance of hiding something in from of the jury).

    BiW, I have yet to complete oral arguments at the Supreme Court level without questions.

  261. Allah and Elohim are not one and the same Poolman. Not even remotely close and this certainly not what Christian nor Jew believe

    The first is singular and the second plural, for one. It is known that the Jews did not speak the name of God and lost the pronounciation over time. It is also fact that God has many names that appear in the Bible and have been translated in different languages over millinea. Some used for God and some also used for gods, and a few of those interchangable.

    How does your theology deal with the wise men that came to pay tribute to Jesus and their faith?

    As far as the Trinity goes…

    “Despite its widespread acceptance among Christians, the doctrine of the Trinity has been a stumbling block to many non-Christians throughout its history. The fiercely monotheistic Jews rejected the idea of the Trinity since it first arose, it has been similarly rejected by Islam since that religion was founded, and many other men and women of all backgrounds have found the concept difficult to understand or accept.”

    http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm

    So really all you have is men’s interpretation of God and who He is. The Jews and Muslims wrote their own history in their favor. And though the spiritual blessing came through Abraham (who was not a Jew) and fell to Isaac and then deceivingly to Jacob and eventually to Joseph and Mary, it was the Messiah, the seed that came and blessed all peoples and nations. It does not deny the decendants of Ishmael a place at the table as you believe. God even protected Hagar and Ishmael when they were sent into the wilderness at the request of Sarah. Ishmael even came back to help bury Abraham when he died.

    Even John 10:16 could refer to Muslims, though most interpret it to mean gentiles. Who knows who else it could be referring? One day we all will. Meanwhile, choose your enemies wisely. ALL spilt blood will be avenged.

  262. Some thoughtful articles today from G and BiW. I recommend y’all hop over to the respective sites, each linkable from my sidebar and have a gander.

    Note to G — you got some major hyperlink issues. HuffPo was forgiving, the others not so much. (Hint: trailing ” on URL’s plus your own URL prefixing mine.) Oh, also, I know you’re not a fan of the dude, but could you spell the President’s name right? 🙂

  263. BiW, I have yet to complete oral arguments at the Supreme Court level without questions.

    I’ve never even argued to an appellate court, but I understand that it is generally part and parcel of the process there. I did have a case last year that hed the potential to go all the way there, but a combination of the judge seeing it my way on my motion for reconsideration and the other side running out of money made it unnecessary. Which was disaapointing. I wanted to argue that one.

    And while I haven’t had a Judge screw up a matter by asking questions, in my first year of practice, I was torpedoed by a commissioner pro tem that started to question the admissability of my evidence after I already had the other side beat and on the ropes…and of course, you can’t object when it is the bench making the other side’s objection for them…

  264. The first is singular and the second plural, for one. It is known that the Jews did not speak the name of God and lost the pronounciation over time.

    Correct.

    And that tells you without the real need for further debate, about all you need to know that the Jews do not consider allah and Elohim one and the same (Genesis 1:26), nor do Christians, who believe word allah just another name for Baal, or pagan worship.

    That took exactly the first book of the first chapter of the Bible to demonstrate as much.

    But that is just a simple example. It’s a silly debate really, and one that many Muslims want you to believe because they hope it makes Islam more palatable to the infidel.

    Refer to allah as I AM or Father, El Elyon, El Roi, Jehovah Raah, El Shaddai, El Olam, Jehovah Melek, Jehovah Sabaoth, or El Gibbor, to a practicing Muslim and see the response you get.

    Then say those to a practicing Jew. Their reaction will make it most obvious allah and “God” as different as night and day.

    You might as well say Jesus and buddha one and the same. You’d be just as accurate.

  265. “Can you find me one instance conducted under the law of Christianity remotely comparable to this brutality of a woman for not wearing the right attire, in this case for wearing pants?”

    What does that matter? Where did I say anything about Christians in my comment? I said there are Muslim societies who don’t treat women like that. Would you like to address that?

    “Lit the fire? Don’t flatter yourself.”

    That’s why there are around 100 comments about it after I made it almost 20 hours ago, and why you’re still talking about it today?

    “* Source: Encyclopedia of Religion”

    Are you kidding me? You bring an online reference book to a discussion on religion? What’s next—Wikipedia? Oh my bad, of course you wouldn’t use Wikipedia. Because it supports what I say.

    Let me know when you are ready to have a scholarly discussion on the topic of what Muslims believe. Because as I have told you countless times now, it doesn’t matter at all what Jews or Christians think about who Muslims pray to. Muslims believe it is the same god. And you have yet to ever refute that, and have even admitted it.

    “Concerning the war of East and West, ”

    There is no war between East and West, much to the displeasure of people like you and Sam Huntington.

    The fact is that you have yet again lost this debate you continue to want to have. You again fail to recognize that Muslims believe they pray to the same god you pray to, just as you failed to realize that women in some Muslim societies have risen higher than they have even in ours. Do yourself a favor and continue discussing your favorite Supreme Court justices.

  266. The more you watch, the less you know!

    Correlating well with the rule of thumb, the more rigged polls you believe from progressive media, the dumber you become…

    Results brought to you by AlterNet, a project of the non-profit Independent Media Institute, a progressive/liberal activist news service with the editorial staff is headed by founder and executive editor Don Hazen, a former publisher of Mother Jones.

    A quick perusal around that “outstanding” site leaves you this message:

    Season Greetings,

    I’m sorry for the interruption, but it is that time of the year, when we appeal to you, our readers, for some financial backing, to get us off to a strong start in 2011.

    AlterNet needs your help to succeed. If you make a contribution to us right now, you will not be interrupted again until next year.

    The internet version of Air America! 😆

    —-

    Poolman, the American populace summarily rejected the lies, propaganda, spin, an untruths of your little world Nov. 2nd, 2010, with a final tally of 69 Congressional seats and 682 state house seats switching hands from ‘D’ to ‘R’; the latter being the largest margin of victory in historical record. At least twelve more state congressman from various states have switched from ‘D’ to ‘R’ of their own accord after Nov. 2.

    To coin a phrase from one of my Old Testament Chapters, “you have been weighed in the scales and found wanting.”

    Read ‘um and weep.

  267. “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

    Go say those words to a Jew, Tex. See what his reaction is.

    Go try and talk to a Jew about your polytheistic/trinitarian religion. He is going to tell you that his god doesn’t include the essence of Jesus.

    So I guess Jews and Christians don’t pray to the same god, either, right Tex?

  268. Muslims believe it is the same god. And you have yet to ever refute that, and have even admitted it.

    From #323 and Tex Taylor

    And that tells you without the real need for further debate, about all you need to know that the Jews do not consider allah and Elohim one and the same (Genesis 1:26), nor do Christians, who believe word allah just another name for Baal, or pagan worship.

    That took exactly the first book of the first chapter of the Bible to demonstrate as much.

    But that is just a simple example. It’s a silly debate really, and one that many Muslims want you to believe because they hope it makes Islam more palatable to the infidel.

    Never admitted? That makes at least five times here and at Alfie’s I’ve admitted that is exactly what Muslims want you to believe, including you, including now. You are but one of many fools who chose to believe as much too. Did I add that?

    You can see why I’ve nominated you most likely to succeed in the name Allah….hurry, or you’ll miss the Hajj Huck.

    A useful idiot by any other name.

  269. So I guess Jews and Christians don’t pray to the same god, either, right Tex?

    I never found math your forte Hajj, so I’ll try to make this simple for the incomparable Master of ‘Religious Studies’, ranking somewhere between Phys Ed and the ‘Undergraduate Studies’.

    The answer would be “exactly 1/3 of the same God.” 😉

  270. I’m sorry Huck – I owe you an apology. You are saying I did admit it? Your posts are so convoluted with no attempt at readability, more than 4-5 sentences, I am forced to tune you out.

    Now that we have that straight which is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand of what Muslims think, because the discussion you interrupted was between what two professed Christians believed and disagreed, and personally, I don’t give a damn what “Muslims think”…

    …can I get you to admit that while taking Professor Ali Hajji Shiek’s 5013 Comparative Religion class with Dean Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman and Professor Emeritus Mullah Omar as Chairman of the Dept., to admit you’ve got a real hard on for Israeli Jews and Christianity, and further believe all religion completely bogus?

    Which leads to my final question. If this is all a bunch of malarkey, why the hell are you making a lifetime study of it to teach it? Aren’t you Bill Maher by another name? 😈

    You do a fine job as Muslim apologist, and if I were an executive with CAIR, I’d hire you on the spot, though.

  271. Poolman,

    You owe me about six minutes of my life back.

    But it’s been awhile send I read the fluff. I find your sources of information so perfectly insane and comical, that I’ve now read two. I’ll leave it that from here on out, as they all appear boilerplated liberal talking points, with a heaping portion of the typical leftist rants of Sarah Palin, irreligious, uneducated Reputhugs, and always stealing by the rich to starve the poor.

    I don’t know how stupid, uneducated and religious riding dinosaurs in Eden, followed by too rich and punishing the little man go together, but then I never understood a thing about the progressives – there own personal lives generally like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

    However, one final thought I might share with you. Just a suggestion as I have decided I like you – completely bat shit crazy. Troofer, global warming advocate and pool builder (pretty good business strategy), part holy roller, part Islam appeaser wrapped into one.

    So take this from a friend.

    I’m not sure I’d trust your scholarly sources you post here as they apply all the stereotypical insults and take Conservatives to task for stupidity, when the author spells the prize NOBLE. 😉

    Have a good day…perhaps you’ll let me swim in a few of those pools of yours someday.

  272. I haven’t gotten through the entire thread but Tex, did you make a comment asking for a President or Prime Minister and then in the same comment call Benazir Bhutto “a leader”? She was Prime Minister of Pakistan.

    So there you have it, those ass-backward Muslims managed to put a woman at the head of the table while in America, we hear
    .
    .
    .
    crickets.

  273. R, the Supreme Court generally does not hear testimony.

    Tigre, to you and BiW I bow my head in humility. Seriously, I thought attorneys “argued” before the court and were therefore expected to be interrogated by them since the SCOTUS has no jury or means of cross-examination or witnesses for that matter.

    My bad. You are right, I obviously had a misconception about how the court proceedings worked. I guess I am then confused what value arises from oral arguments if no interrogation is expected or required.

  274. “I thought attorneys “argued” before the court and were therefore expected to be interrogated by them since the SCOTUS has no jury or means of cross-examination or witnesses for that matter.”

    Boy did know this one up. What you said is true. A lawyer presenting legal arguments better be expected to be questioned (interrogated) by the justices.

    However, “testimony” is from witnesses who are under oath. Testimony is evidence. Evidence is presented to a trial court — (unless there is a plain legal basis for a ruling regardless of the evidence). While an appellate court like the SCOTUS will review evidence if needed to reach a decision, it does not adduce evidence (make findings of facts).

    The arguments for an appellate court are legal. The lawyers have thoroughly briefed the legal issues (and facts). They are then given an opportunity to argue their case orally. Lawyers are given very little time to do so — regardless of the complexity — they will be cut off when the light turns red (30 minutes per side — I think). The justices may or may not ask any questions, but almost universally do to test the lawyers’ analysis or conclusions.

    The value of the questions depends. The briefing is the most important aspect.

    Incidentally, almost all cases are heard at the pleasure of the the SCOTUS through issuance of a writ of certiorari to the lower court. In other words, in most every instance, the SCOTUS only hears cases it wants to.

    Also, the significance of the law clerks in the formulation of the final opinions can not be understated.

    Does that clear anything up? If not, you may presume whatever I say is right.

  275. Hey Rutherford, pull you head out of the sand pal. You’re having to resort to making things up anymore just to criticize. I need to make that a New Year’s Day resolution to dump you, because you’ve become a boring date. I think you’ve let this traffic go to your head.

    Here’s the only one off the top of my head worth mentioning, one Benazir Bhutto, .the first woman elected to lead a Muslim state

    That’s what I said – elected leader of the state. Do I need to call her Prime Minister, or are you not smart enough to figure that out?

    And while you’re casting your ignorant insults and you’re listening for crickets, why don’t you listen for gun fire too? Or have you forgotten what happened to Bhutto from the people you always excuse? You too will make a perfect candidate for Dhimmitude.

    Last night, I wrote you an answer explaining in some detail your question to me personally. It doesn’t even rate a response from you? But something silly does?

    So don’t criticize me next time for making a mockery of your blog, because frankly that’s about all this one rates anymore between those harridans that visit on occasion, Troofers, and the rest of your Muslim appeasing, Jew haters you happily support in the name of political correctness. It’s you. 😉

  276. It cracks me up that guys like Rutherford feel they have some legitimacy when talking about the Islamic world. Motherfucker didn’t even know Libya was an Islamic country. This isn’t a mistake on meaningless trivia. This exposes utter ignorance. He doesn’t know shit about shit when it comes to Islam. He just retweets little PC friendly comments.

    Hucking, on the other hand, thinks he is Lawrence of Arabia. An ambassador to the Orient, he illuminates us with his vast knowledge on the Islamic world. Yet, while he could probably tell you why the President of Syria is an Ishmaeli (spelled wrong) heretic and point out that many Lebanese chicks wear mini-skirts, here is what he can’t do:

    He can’t find any global movement that compares to Wahabyism (spelled wrong) in scope and barbarism.

    He can’t explain away the dangers of a movement that is essentially pan-national.

    He can’t explain the silent millions that de facto support many tenants of radical Islam’s goals.

    He can’t explain away the inherent danger of a religion that explicitly deems itself a political system.

    He can’t explain why Wahabyism attracts successful people from a moderate life of leisure.

    Can’t you just picture Hucking in 1934? Stroking his campus beard as he points out the diversity within Germany. How dare we constantly bitch about Hitler, those Prussians surely aren’t Fascists, they still love the Kaiser. Or those Bavarians are just old world Catholics. How dare we non-educated types make judgments about Germans.

  277. Fox News kills me sometimes. Take some severely fucked up violence caught on tape, loop it and then ask if the media should be showing this kind of stuff.

    Bill O is the worst when it comes to that.

    Let’s show Paris Hilton’s camel toe as she washes a car while eating a big hamburger 5 times in a row to spark off a debate if the add was inappropriate.

  278. During the celebrations for the bomber, you admitted you had no clue Libya was Muslim.

    I just saw your example of moderation, Pakistan, has a law on its books that calls for the death penalty for blasphemy. A young woman is facing DEATH for questioning Muhammad.

  279. DR, dead on, but I would substitute Wahabism with Salafism, of which Wahabism is a part of. Its the whole dogs and poodles thing…

  280. I’ve never heard of Salafism before. I take it represents radicalism in both Shitte and Sunni Islam?

    I will google. – DR

    For you reading enjoyment…

    Salafi (Arabic: سلفي‎) is a word denoting one who ascribes her/himself to the Salaf of Islam, based on its meaning in the Arabic language. Amongst contemporary historians, it denotes a follower of an Islamic movement that takes the pious predecessors, the Salaf of the patristic period of early Islam, as exemplary models.[1] The word Salaf is an Arabic noun which translates to “predecessor”, or “forefather” and who are collectively referred to as the “Salaf as-Saaleh”, or Pious Predecessors, namely the first three Muslim generations.[2] In Islamic terminology, it is generally used to refer to the first three generations of Muslims: the Sahabah (“Companions”), the Tabi‘un (“Followers”) and the Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in (“Those after the Followers”). These three generations and their understanding of the texts and tenets of Islam are looked upon as the Islamic orthodoxy, and a model for how Islam should be practiced. Salafism is not considered a sect foreign to orthodox Islam, rather a term usually used by Sunni theologians since the fifth Muslim generation or earlier to differentiate the creed of the first three generations from subsequent variations in creed and methodology.[3][4] Landmarks in the history of Salafi revival are the three scholars commonly titled with the honorary “Sheikh ul-Islam”, namely, Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d.855), Taqi ad-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah (d.1328), and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (d.1792), all considered to be reviver’s of the Sunnah and of the Salafi creed and methodology in their respective generations.

  281. I actually assumed al Wahhab lived in the 19th century, his whole shtick being a perverted response to Imperialism. I always forget how much the Arabs hated the Turks. I’m sure the British and French made al Wahhab a much more popular guy after his death. That being said, I had no idea the push for so called “orthodoxy” started so early in Islamic history.

    I need to read up on my history. These PC high school text books are starting to drain me brain.

  282. al-Wahab garnered most of its power and influence by legitimizing al-Saud rule. This dance between the two has been going on now for close to a hundred years.

    The problem for the Saudi regime is that they have a desire to modernize and advance, but have this Wahabist movement preventing modernization. If they attempt to dump the movement, then they lose critical religious credentials in a state that has made its bones on its religious credentials.

    They’ve had to foster this movement to keep the peeps in line, but now its backfiring.

    People in America have no idea how complicated the states in the Middle East are.

  283. Gorilla, (snicker)

    It’s a tragic day when China gets America better than Americans get America. China most certainly does concerning fiduciary responsibility. How did their President say it to Geitner? “You have not been good stewards with our money.”

  284. Huck,

    Let me cut the game playing for a minute in the game of “oneupsmanship.” You are to be commended for furthering your education, and I am the last person on this board that should be criticizing you for your for accomplishment. Professional teaching a noble cause. I should be grateful that higher education is getting someone like you to teach.

    I tell you this in all sincerity – best wishes in the endeavor.

    Let me try to explain something reasonably, without us being at each others throat because unlike some here on this board, it is not my intent to make enemy with you.

    I am glad that we agree most of the time and you are an asset to my own causes.

    However, when you start your cheer leading, appeasing, and excuse making for an evil and bankrupt religion that causes most of the world’s problems, political and otherwise, I read in amazement to think how can an otherwise sane and practical man could ever be this blinded.

    Your utter disconnect from reality concerning Islam, in an otherwise cynically tuned, fine mind puzzles me to no end. If your intent is to change Islam, I welcome it. If your attempt is to excuse Islam, making comparison to the rest of the world’s great religions, then you are terribly mistaken.

    If it weren’t for the largest pool of 300MM year old fossil fuel that just happened to be sitting under Islamic feet, the world’s Muslim population would be living in the stone age as they were no less than 60 years ago, backwards and completely ignored by civilization unless making war. It is what Islam brings as there is no peace with Islam. History will prove me right.

    I am not saying that applies to every Muslim on earth. Many are likable and bright – most of those are secular. But Islam carries with it misery – 1,300 years ago, or now makes no difference.

  285. Tex, the following quote from you is why I found your Bhutto answer confusing:

    Here’s the only one off the top of my head worth mentioning, one Benazir Bhutto, .the first woman elected to lead a Muslim state

    Do you remember what happened to her Ms. Bhutto? If not, I’ll give you a hint. It starts with a ‘A’. 😉

    Deborah and Jael were but two of judges of the entire nation Poolman. How about a President or Prime Minister

    You identify Bhutto as a leader of a Muslim state but then go on to ask “How about a President or Prime Minister” That makes no sense. You’ve already provided an example of a Prime Minister, namely Bhutto. You wanted another one?

    You also go out of your way to note that some of these women were assassinated. I’m not sure what that proves. John Kennedy was assassinated. Does that say anything about American attitudes toward Catholicism? Bhutto and Gandhi were not assassinated for being women. They were political assassinations.

    So it still stands that a Hindu country, a Muslim country and a Jewish country (Israel — Meir) all elected female heads of state and the good old Christian US of A hasn’t done squat. Heck, we can’t even get a female VP elected.

    So, YOUR point is?

  286. So it still stands that a Hindu country, a Muslim country and a Jewish country (Israel — Meir) all elected female heads of state and the good old Christian US of A hasn’t done squat. Heck, we can’t even get a female VP elected. – R

    Were these women selected leaders because they were women or because they were the best candidates? Your implication is that they did it because they were women, when in all actuality, it was a mere coincidence.

    We elected a black man because he was black, and you can see where THAT’s getting us. Qualifications are so underrated…

  287. Rabbit, I don’t have the patience to go hunting …. could you point me to the comment (obviously made ages ago … you have the f*cking memory of an elephant) where I said I didn’t know Libya was Muslim? Heck, I wouldn’t really put it past me not to know but I’d love to know in what context I’d make such an admission.

    As I recall, the crux of the argument surrounding the Lockerbie bomber was the usual suspects blaming Obama for his release. I, no doubt, took opposition to that position (that Obama was somehow to blame). Am I recalling the right dispute?

  288. LOL G, you’re too much. How do you infer that I said they were elected BECAUSE they were women? Being women didn’t prevent them from getting elected. I suspect being a woman in this country, has up until very recently, prevented women from getting elected President. Hillary came close enough that I think we will see it soon.

    But again, these countries dominated by supposedly barbaric religions that call for misogyny managed to elect women while we have not. So the cries that every non-Christian religion subjugates women seems to me poppy-cock.

    BTW, you know damn well we elected Obama for any number of reasons besides his blackness. Number 1 among them was the contrast of him against the disaster we had the prior eight years. 😉

  289. Yup. I will find it tomorrow. I’m Exhausted. I play basketball in the mornings 4 days a week at 530 am. Shit is killing me. Between that, the baby, lifting weights and having 5,000 mini conversations a day with teenagers crowding my desk that range from dealing with the death of a parent to turning homework in on time, I’m about to put my blackberry down and instantly go into a slumber.

    Its an easy job. But I don’t know if normal working stiffs get how tiring it can be.

  290. BTW, you know damn well we elected Obama for any number of reasons besides his blackness. Number 1 among them was the contrast of him against the disaster we had the prior eight years. – R

    Like? It sure as shit wasn’t his expansive resume of experience.

    Certainly wasn’t his hefty list of legislative accomplishment.

    Nor was it his grand repertoire of ideas. And no, “Yes We Can” is not an idea…

    So, why did we elect him again? Could it possibly be that any criticism of him has been labeled racist for how long now? Have you completely forgotten 2008?

  291. Could it be that we look a little further than identity politics? Wait, sorry, that would be us conservatives. The Left wouldn’t have any ideas if it wasn’t for identity politics…

  292. Hope and Change…

    Kids write Santa this year for basic needs instead of toys

    Santa Claus and his elves are seeing more heartbreaking letters this year as children cite their parents’ economic troubles in their wish lists.

    U.S. Postal Service workers who handle letters addressed to Santa at the North Pole say more letters ask for basics — coats, socks and shoes — rather than Barbie dolls, video games and computers.

    At New York City’s main post office, Head Elf Pete Fontana and 22 staff elves will sort 2 million letters in Operation Santa, which connects needy children with “Secret Santas” who answer their wishes.

    Fontana, a customer relations coordinator for the Postal Service, has been head elf for 15 years.

    “The need is greater this year than I’ve ever seen it,” he says. “One little girl didn’t want anything for herself. She wanted a winter coat for her mother.”

    At more than 20 post offices, workers log every letter, black out identifying information except first name and age, and ask the public to respond. Lobby displays promote the program. People return with gifts and letters, which carriers deliver.

    Cesar, 7, wrote for himself and his baby sister.

    This year my moom don’t have much money to spend on Christmas gifts so I’m writing to you,” Cesar told Santa. “It would make us very happy if you and your elves would bring us toys and clothes.

    There are more letters from unemployed parents asking for kids’ gifts they can’t afford, says Darlene Reid of New York City’s main post office.

    One mom sent a turn-off notice from the electric company, Fontana says. A single mother of a girl, 8, and a boy, 2, wrote that she recently lost her job. “I am unable to buy my children toys and clothes,” she said. “Santa may you help me with my family?”

    Tough times are shrinking the number of Secret Santas, Fontana says. Meanwhile, “the percentage of people who need help has increased,” says Mark Reynolds at the Postal Service’s Chicago district, and about half the letters won’t get answered.

    Melanney, 9, asked Santa for a coat and boots. “I have been a very good girl this year,” she wrote.

  293. Yay! Science gets to be real again!

    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/scientificIntegrityInWashington.php

    “Under George W Bush, science was seen not as a source of evidence to be used in decision making but as support for decisions already taken. If the conclusions of research did not support the government’s position, then they had to be altered so that they did.”

    Yeehaw, cowboy up, boys and girls. Let’s make all things conform to our religion.

  294. “…here is what he can’t do:”

    Nor have I made an attempt to do any of those things.

    It’s a real shame that you guys think pointing out the (usually many) exceptions to your generalizations is an excuse for things. But I am not going to jump on to your bandwagon any faster than I am going to ignore when I think you’re wrong about something.

  295. Rutherford, this duality you carry is grotesque. How hard is it to continue to lie to oneself? Since I know you not stupid, I can only guess that you spend a considerable amount of effort being obtuse.

    This is an overwhelmingly Christian country, with approximately 80% of themselves calling themselves Christian. I assume you agree.

    We currently have 17 female women Senators. There are currently 13 Jews serving in the Senate; One female House Majority Leader, with two Muslim Congressmen. 6 admitted LGBT members house, 42 black members in the House and 8 members of Asian descent.

    In total there are 96 female representatives, with our current Congress. There is also a Sec. of State Female.

    We have or have had thirty-one women serving as governor in 23 states.

    Now I personally challenge you find something comparable to this makeup of race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation, etc..in the Muslim world.

    THAT IS MY POINT….

    Just when I think I see a glimmer of hope that you might drop the pretense of political partisan, progressive propagandist and liberal hack, you again disappoint.

  296. Poolman,

    No comment on your link.

    Only three items concerning the “political state” of science and truth under Mullah Obama

    (1) Climategate, RainForest Gate, HimalayaGate; (2) embryonic stem cell research; (3) Arsenic bonded DNA

    Next Question? Congratulations on bad science. Perhaps Obama can win the Nobel Science Award next year…

  297. This is an overwhelmingly Christian country, with approximately 80% of themselves calling themselves Christian.

    Actually the number is a little less than that. 76 percent and declining. But look how many sects and cults that entails. There are huge ,/strong> divisions in the faith. A huge chunk of them are Mormon. We had/have some serious issues in our state recently with Jeffs and his whole band. They have a different perspective of who God is and how you get to the hereafter.

    Then of course, all the Catholics, Pentecostals, Episcopalians, First Baptists, Second Baptists, Primitive and Southern Baptists, Church of Christ, Church of God, blah, blah, blah,…

    Every flavor imaginable. Even white supremist David Duke and Koran burning Pastor Terry Jones, Limbaugh’s college buddy, claim the faith. We even got our own Pastor Steven Anderson here in AZ, along with Wiley Drake, pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, CA, praying for Obama to die. How about the Branch Dividians?

    We won’t even go into the Bachmanns and Pat Robinsons of the world. I am not a witch!

    Anyway, if you are trying to set us up as some kind of “beaming example” of what a “Christian” nation is, you’re really scaring the shit out of me.

    Rule # 1. Call it whatever you want. If it doesn’t look like Jesus- It ain’t His!

    Rule # 2. If in doubt, refer to rule # 1

  298. Ooops, I must have deleted my little < thingie. Oh well. Maybe the blog gods can help.

    Tex, you can be awful ignorant at times. Is that intentioned, or does it come on involuntary?

  299. It was High School and Rush didn’t even know the guy beyond his pressence on the baseball team.

    Your implications are awfully ignorant, is that intentional?

  300. It was High School and Rush didn’t even know the guy beyond his pressence on the baseball team.

    Your implications are awfully ignorant, is that intentional?

    Yeah, you’re right. Same high school, and not buds. I’d forgotten that Rush dropped out of college. And yes, It was intentional. I wanted to see whose emotions would surface. As with anything Palin, some always defend the prophet Limbaugh.

  301. Hey Poolman,

    Tex, you can be awful ignorant at times. Is that intentioned, or does it come on involuntary?

    That’s why we set you up arbiter of intelligent and ignorant conversation here, deemed by your aptitude and research of Troofer theories, scientific know how like ‘Climate Change’, and business acumen of building luxury items in a recession. 😉

    Isn’t it about time to grab another link from Media Matters to demonstrate to all of how intellectual you are? It’s been at least 24 hours.

    You know what I like best about you Poolman, besides you’re batshit crazy and a raving blowhard? It’s your claim to being Christian, never missing a beat to slam Christianity in any and all capacities. 80%…NO NO NO 76% and slipping. HAW HAW HAW.

    Spock, did it ever dawn on you that all the Catholics, Pentecostals, Episcopalians, First Baptists, Second Baptists, Primitive and Southern Baptists, Church of Christ, Church of God, blah, blah, blah,…all pretty much predate this country? If not them, a hundred other Christian denominations that have come and gone.

    What we didn’t have during the infancy of America were Muslims – you missed the entire premise of this entire argument.

  302. What we didn’t have during the infancy of America were Muslims – you missed the entire premise of this entire argument.

    Can you back that up, sport? It probably revolves around the definition of “infancy”. My morning’s tied up but this PM I’ll go digging around to see what is the first documented instance of Muslims coming to the United States. My guess is it’s a lot earlier in our history than you would like to think.

  303. Morning Tex. I see you got your groove on today. Good for you.

    I watched a good series on line that was about six hours long. It was called “God in America” and it was very informative and from what I could tell very non biased. It shows how much religion, especially Christianity played in shaping the nation. I recommend it. Here’s the link:

    http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/view/

    The decline in Christianity in our country is due to the failure of the church to stick to its prime directive, if you will. We have lost our first love. And yes, that is my opinion. Money has corrupted many organizations and the whole television evangelist thing has left many with a bad taste of the faith. Watered down teaching and inclusive policies have also contributed. Most are walking by sight and not by faith. The abortion issue is the new circumcision debate of the early church. Hate, hellfire, and damnation is preached to scare people into believing in God. Bible verses on gunsights and the crusade mentality in our armed forces has corrupted the very words that we hold as sacred.

    This is not a Muslim v Christian thing, despite how many want to define it as such. It is always good v evil. Both are so woven in the fabric of our lives that it is very hard to distinguish one from the other.

  304. Hey Harvard,

    Didn’t they teach you anything about the Barbary Wars on Long Island, or was Malcolm X principal then too?

    That is, unless you good American hating, Global Warming, Media Matters types were supporting pirates attacking American ships and rooting for the killers even then?

    Kind of Benedict Arnold Progressive movement?

    Why don’t you dig up those Muslim founders and get back with me so I can apologize?

  305. Two questions Poolman, as you play judge for all of Christiandom, though I have yet to determine what uniquely qualifies you.

    Did Jesus talk more of hell or heaven?

    The abortion issue is the new circumcision debate of the early church.

    Since when did circumcision kill 50,000,000 innocents, all under the precept of legal reproductive rights? And for that matter, since when did God declare homosexual marriage an alternative life style?

    That is the party you are part of Poolman. Perhaps a little personal reflection is in order while you call yourself ‘independent’ but mouth every platitude of America’s liberal party.

    Here is the problem in a nutshell, as men like you call allah God by just another name…

    I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

    But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.

  306. You know what I like best about you Poolman, besides you’re batshit crazy and a raving blowhard? It’s your claim to being Christian, never missing a beat to slam Christianity in any and all capacities.

    Awww shucks, Tex. Now I’m all teary-eyed. 😥

    The things I love I will be very critical of. I will not settle for mediocre. Both America and Christianity have been hijacked. I will fight to get both back on track for the rest of my days here on the planet. Count on it.

    Like my two daughters whom my wife and I raised that have become very beautiful and accomplished women, I will not skimp on discipline, effort, or determination.

  307. The things I love I will be very critical of. I will not settle for mediocre. Both America and Christianity have been hijacked.

    Then we have something in common – two beautiful and accomplished daughters.

    But if my wife and I had done nothing but discipline and criticize their shortcomings, always determined to point to their errors in judgment but never making mention of their abundant love, truth and beauty, they may not have turned out that way, would they?

    Get my drift? 😉

  308. Since when did circumcision kill 50,000,000 innocents, all under the precept of legal reproductive rights?

    The comparison was not regarding mortality. But I can see from your reaction that it IS the same hot button issue. The other seems to be your accompaning statement:

    And for that matter, since when did God declare homosexual marriage an alternative life style?

    They seem to run in tandem. These are NOT the defining criteria for faith in God. Yet they seem to be the two issues the modern church is so passionate about. It doesn’t matter that our leaders are immoral and annihilating cultures while invading nations seems to be our national pasttime. It is more important to lord over women and gays. Just where in the NT does it say we should make that our focus, so much so that we should enact legislation to “prohibit” such behavior?

  309. That is the party you are part of Poolman. Perhaps a little personal reflection is in order while you call yourself ‘independent’ but mouth every platitude of America’s liberal party.

    I have noticed if it doesn’t line up with your philosophy it gets labeled liberal. In reality, people share many of the same ideals and there is no clear conservative or liberal stand on all issues or aspects in one’s life. We are not that simplistic. At least most of us are not. In some ways I am very conservative and in others very liberal. I am flexible enough to adjust my perspective as learning and vision influences my life and circumstance. My roots are firmly established. I can bend when the wind blows and grow toward the light.

  310. Here is the problem in a nutshell, as men like you call allah God by just another name…

    I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

    But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.

    Old Testament is just that. The “old” covenant. We are no longer under the law. And obviously the Jews disobeyed their “husband” (God). That is why Jeremiah prophesies about the New Testament, or “new” covenant as he says in chapter 31:

    “It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, ” declares the LORD. “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

  311. I can bend when the wind blows and grow toward the light.

    But only when you’re rooted in the light. Your style of faith with respect to parable in my opinion, would better be described as mushroom.

    I find it troubling that you minimize great abomination when it suits your need, then justify its horror and tragedy under the guise of flexibility and perspective.

    Truth does not bend Poolman, nor does it waver.

  312. Poolman, I am afraid you have exposed just how full of shit you really are.

    First, you claim to have forgotten that Rush dropped out of college.

    Then you turn immediately around and claim your ignorance was intentional, so that you could sniff out the Rush fans.

    I think I am going to try and use that on my next exam. When I get an answer wrong, I will simply tell the instructor that it was my intention to forget the answer so that I could judge his orientation on the topic when he corrected me.

  313. I would remind you Poolman Christ did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill.

    Do not mistakenly think that the Old Testament is now null and void. It is not. I would remind you that the Old Testament are the exact books that Christ himself taught from when called Rabbi.

    Add to the fact, the New Testament only reinforces the very definitions of right and wrong, good and evil, and usually makes reference to the Old Testament methodology as justification.

    Sin is sin, whether judged by Old Testament, or New. If you simply lend your countenance to Christianity while excusing evil, then what salt do you provide?

    You can fairly criticize my methods Poolman. My purpose is not to witness here, but to exchange ideas furthering my own knowledge.

    Feel free to criticize the style, even taking me to task for my abuses. I never claimed without sin, and I’m a far cry from perfect – even wicked sometimes. It’s a fair and honest conclusion.

    No doubt, I”m sure it interferes with the message.

    But the message is true still the same.

  314. Yeah Tigre, I agree.

    I have this proclivity to not only go off topic quickly because Rutherford’s subject matter bores easily, but to defend my faith from liberal theology.

    Rutherford would do us all a favor by creating a room.

    I’m sure with his irreligious nature, he would call it something along the lines of “The Chapel”, failing to recognize he could do better calling his place an exorcism. 😉

  315. “Can you back that up, sport?”

    There are records of colonial-era slaves taking part in Muslim practices.

  316. “New thread.”

    Perhaps we can get Rutherford to write about how hypocritical Democrats are now the obstructionist party of no that seem to have no problems with middle-class taxes being raised or unemployment benefits being cut off in the middle of winter.

    It was just a couple weeks ago we were being told by America’s leading economists, like Yellowdog, that those issue were critical to the revival of the American economy, and needed to be addressed immediately. Now, Democrats can’t even agree to the rules to begin debate on them.

    There’s your next article, Rutherford….

  317. Poolman, I am afraid you have exposed just how full of shit you really are.

    First, you claim to have forgotten that Rush dropped out of college.

    Then you turn immediately around and claim your ignorance was intentional, so that you could sniff out the Rush fans.

    Ahhh the amazing google. Refreshes old memories and leads to many new revelations. My intent by mentioning the name of the prophet was to get a reaction. My memory regarding his accomplishments and lack thereof needed polishing, though. As far as the full of shit part, my dad used to tell me since my eyes were brown I was full of it to my brow. So I have heard that before. It has been my experience however, that those who are truly full of it can’t help spewing it everywhere they go. Out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks, it is written. I just step in it on occasion.

    Good luck on the exam.

    I would remind you Poolman Christ did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill.

    And he did just that. Remember His words on the cross? “It is finished.” Fulfilled enough?

  318. Rutherford,

    I concur with Huck that just a few weeks ago that we were told by the economic giants like Nancy Pelosi and the incomparable Yeller Dawg, that unemployment benefits were the fastest way to ‘stimulate’ the recovery.

    One of the things I learned much too late in life, is given a hypothesis, measure its worth by taking things to the extreme and see how the hypothesis holds.

    I suggest you Democrats push for everyone receiving unemployment, except the evil rich of course, and we will all just quit working. Extrapolating out, in no time we should have infinite net worth and economic prosperity for all. 😉

  319. And he did just that. Remember His words on the cross? “It is finished.” Fulfilled enough?

    Absolutely – by His standards.

    That wasn’t instruction for everyone to do as they wished, unless you propose grace is just another name for relativism?

  320. New rules:

    The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Galations 5:14)

    Look like the golden rule to you? Yep. Simple. It’s all about relationships. And a faith like that of a child. Innocent. Trusting God. Believing. We’re the ones that complicate it.

    I think we are just going in circles here. Everyone else doesn’t want this much thread devoted to discussion about God bandied about.

    New thread…

  321. Huck,

    So, explain the point of your “exceptions”?

    You are fully aware of scope and dangers of radical Islam. Yet, you spend more time intellectually beating your chest in front of a bunch of liberals who take your exceptions as proof that we don’t have the moral standing or the cultural grasp to call the Islamic world out.

    You are showing off, dude. And that’s not cool when you are providing ammo to people who are trying with all their hearts to downplay one of the most barbaric movements since WW2, a movement hell bent on nuking America.

  322. This Andrew Klavan curdles the blood of liberals, therefore making him a personal hero and national treasure. Spend four minutes getting a laugh at the hysteria, duplicity, hypocrisy, stupidity and harridans like MeriBeth, Flake, and Graychin. 🙂

  323. Yeah, you’re right. Same high school, and not buds. I’d forgotten that Rush dropped out of college. And yes, It was intentional. I wanted to see whose emotions would surface. As with anything Palin, some always defend the prophet Limbaugh.” – Shallow end of the Pool-man

    That’s fucking weak. Your facts were wrong and your intentions were to distort fact and imply a relationship that never existed so as to cast disparages.

    Then, after being exposed and called out, you cry some alternative purpose to justify your wrong doing- the ends justify the means…

    Yeah, as with anything Palin- and apparently Rush- some (the Left) always defend vilify

    Your man card just got pulled assclown…

  324. To our resident racial expert, one question:

    WTF?

    Meeks says minority contracts should only go to blacks

    (Chicago Sun Times)Mayoral challenger James Meeks scrambled Thursday to put out a political fire touched off by his suggestion that only African-Americans should be eligible for city contracts set aside for minorities and women.

    Meeks made the statement on Wednesday during an interview on WVON-AM (1690). It happened during a discussion of why African-American businesses got a 7 percent sliver of Chicago’s $1 billion spending pie through Aug. 31, down from 8 percent a year ago.

    “The word ‘minority’ from our standpoint should mean African-American. I don’t think women, Asians and Hispanics should be able to use that title,” he said.

    “That’s why our numbers cannot improve — because we use women, Asians and Hispanics who are not people of color, who are not people who have been discriminated against.”

  325. If I was Irish, Polish, Jewish, Romanian-Gypsy, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc, etc, etc, I’d basically kick his ass.

    Clearly, lots of introspection going on in the “black” community…

  326. Huck we may not agree on much politically but when it comes to religion I can always depend on you to shed some much needed objective academic light carry on my irreligious nature. Many thanks!

    Fixed it for you.

    Rutherford, you’re as transparent as Scotch Tape. You hate Christianity because it’s the predominate religion of your political opponents, period. You don’t give a damn about Muslims. If Huck ever comes in here with some little known fact defending Christianity, you’ll be all over him for bias and ignorance.

    That was a Graychin quality statement. ** BARF ** Which by the way, the legend in his own mind and supposed war hero called me a sociopath the other day. 🙂 🙂

    I haven’ t been that happy to read anything since Al Gore conceded victory to George Bush.

  327. Damn damn damn…

    That was supposed to be predominant, which by the way I almost witnessed a fight tonight between two grown women at the mall – probably Obama voters; they had the look.

    Peace on earth… 😐

  328. If there is anything more putrid and PC that gets dumped this year, I hope it’s the fact that we have to refer to blacks as….yuck

    AFRICAN-AMERICANS.

    What a crock of shit.

  329. Rutherford, you’re as transparent as Scotch Tape. You hate Christianity because it’s the predominate religion of your political opponents, period. You don’t give a damn about Muslims. If Huck ever comes in here with some little known fact defending Christianity, you’ll be all over him for bias and ignorance.” – Tex

    I’ve had this conversation before…

  330. I don’t think I “hate” Christianity. I find the followers of all organized religions a bit wacky, including most definitely Muslims. I would submit you disdain liberal Christians and you question their faith. No cooler approach than mine.

  331. I would submit you disdain liberal Christians…

    Can’t accuse me of being in a bad mood now – Mom’s Home! She told me to buzz off so she could watch her show and come back in 45 minutes. 😡 I’ll show her who rules the roost. I’ll pick on Rutherford!

    I always liberal Christian an oxymoron. I don’t see how a grounded Christian could come to the conclusions of abortion, gay marriage, moral relevance, all opinions equal..

    Now if they said they like Easter Eggs or Big Chocolate Rabbits, something like that, then I would believe them.

  332. Gorilla, I’m sorry I either missed or had forgotten that article. That was pretty darn good commentary – PJM worthy. Rutherford would deny the truth of it, of course, because he’s still burnt that Obama is falling apart and looking for something or someone to blame.

    I’ve been trying to decide who Graychin really reminds me of – and you just jogged my memory – Ward Churchill.

    I can see Graychin, not here of course because he’s not dumb enough to do it, but with Mrs.at Aryan Fortress saying:

    If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.

    Or something along the lines of we need a million Mogadishus.

    Really, I think these old farts are so eaten up with American hate and ideology, that they root for our defeat, hoping they can personally capitalize with the enemy.

    They certainly aren’t privy to getting their heads lopped off, because I think they really believe it could not happen here. Do you know how quickly jihadists would go through these “progressive” goons?

  333. That’s fucking weak. Your facts were wrong and your intentions were to distort fact and imply a relationship that never existed so as to cast disparages.

    My recollection was wrong, which I admitted. The intent was to provoke a rise – which it did – twice now. I’ve already seen how much facts matter here.

    Your man card just got pulled assclown…

    Nice try. I have a full deck of those I’ve earned over the years. If posting one baseless comment revokes one’s man card, then everyone on here’s a pussy.

  334. I am…amused…by the fact that some people can’t let anything go. So if you create a Chapel, R, who do you think would be likely to go there? Not your regulars, who consider themselves too intellectual and mainlined into the “truth”to be relegated to the secondary page. I just don’t think it will work. Interesting idea though…that you’ve been hijacked into.

  335. Lol… Yeah guy, you were purposely wrong to be a gadfly. You really are the sufi shaman. You are not bound by things like facts, those are for squares, maaan.

    To lay down some distorted shit and then claim some kind of moral victory because somebody vigorously calls you out on said distorted shit, has to be the most dishonest debate I’ve ever, ever seen on the Rutherford Lawson Blog.

  336. Fakename, what’s up? Haven’t talked to you since you compared your experience at the Rutherford Lawson blog to a woman being tortured in public with massive whips for wearing pants.

  337. Yeah, its not like you never phoned it in before.

    You know, BiW, contrary to popular belief, I don’t aspire to mediocrity. 🙂

    There’s a new post AND a new page. Enjoy both or neither. 🙂

    P.S. Yup, I’ve got a Palin post percolating too. Maybe tomorrow. 😉

  338. “So, explain the point of your “exceptions”?”

    I get tired of seeing an entire group of people being judged based on gross generalities brought on by the actions of a very small minority. It does nobody, including us, any good. I think it makes us look ignorant. So I try and combat that ignorance by pointing out the exceptions.

    I am sorry that you feel my taking the time to learn about other people, and sharing what I learn with others is showing off. I suspect you don’t feel that you are showing off in front of your class full of students every day.

    And Poolman, finals week was last week. 😉

  339. Fake, can you imagine just the two of us in “The Chapel?” I mean, could life get any better than that for you?

    What are you doing here with all those passive aggressive types like me, the Marlboro Man? Don’t you know who I was doll? 😡

    I’m a sociopath…I’m a joker. I’m a smoker. I’m a midnight toker. I sure don’t want to hurt no one.

    Like Patton said to Rommel, “YOU magnificent b!tch! I read your blog!!!!” All kinds of time to waste this week. Make that every week.

    Watch her Rabbit. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and I think this one has a crush on you after talking dirty to her.

  340. Huck,

    based on gross generalities brought on by the actions of a very small minority.

    That’s the problem. It’s not a “very small” minority. It’s tens of millions of them.

  341. Tex, I believe that is terribly inflated.

    Being as I said the actions, what actions have we seen to suggest there are tens of millions of Muslim terrorists out there?

    I think if someone did the math, we wouldn’t find the number to be anywhere near 1 million.

    And even if we took that as accurate, tens of millions out of a population of 1.5 billion is a very small minority.

  342. So in reading over my above comment I admit I had a case of tunnel vision and limited my response to terrorism when that was probably not what Tex was limiting his to.

    With that said, I still don’t think we have seen tens of millions of Muslims participate in the actions that end up getting them labelled, be they terrorism, or beating a woman in the street, or whatever. Do they silently accept it–certainly. And I won’t try and answer why.

  343. But Huck, we’ve got tens of thousands marching in the streets of Iran chanting “Death to America.”

    If Iraq proved anything, it was that there are plenty of willing jihadists to die for the cause. They weren’t recruited – they volunteered.

    Here’s my point. Survey after survey has indicated anywhere between 10 – 70% of Islamists, depending upon nation surveyed, believe that suicide bombing acceptable for a multitude of sins, including blasphemy of Mohammad.

    Millions more believe in the principle of Al-Takeyya, or deceit. It’s not only tolerated, but encouraged.

    Neither of us know the true number of potential terrorists, here or abroad, but it definitely more than just a few. Even if it is a 5% potential of the Islamic population, and I don’t think that is overestimated by any measure, that’s the potential for 75MM jihadists.

  344. “But Huck, we’ve got tens of thousands marching in the streets of Iran chanting “Death to America.”

    That is Iranian nationalism and doesn’t have anything to do with Islam.

    “If Iraq proved anything…”

    The insurgency in Iraq was a complicated issue that included, but was in no way exclusively, Muslim jihad. There was nationalism involved, tribal stuff, outside actors stoking the violence for their own agenda. They killed alot more of their own than they did of ours.

    “Survey after survey has indicated anywhere between 10 – 70% of Islamists…”

    Not all Muslims are Islamists.

    And that polls range from 10 – 70% shows the diversity in thought that I am talking about, even among Islamists.

    “Millions more believe in the principle of Al-Takeyya, or deceit. It’s not only tolerated, but encouraged.”

    I don’t believe it is that simple. Alot of Muslims don’t display the beliefs Muslims are accused of. I don’t believe they are all liars any more than I believe they are all bad Muslims.

    People are different. And I believe we need to remember that. When we don’t, and we start vilifying entire groups of people, bad things can happen. Real bad.

  345. There are two debates happening here, and both are talking past one another.

    Huck keeps talking about Muslims, while Tex is talking about Islam. You’re both right.

    Islam as a monolithic socio-political ideology has some significant issues of tolerance, equality and justice.

    Muslims, as a divergent, heterongenous community heavily impacted by competing socio-political ideologies- like totalitarianism to monarchy to democracy- have some extremely complicated cross wiring going on. How do you stay true to your faith when it conflicts with your system of government? Which takes priority, and what do you do when those conflicts collide? Muslims haven’t learned how to answer this yet, or at least, not very well.

  346. If you can’t see there is something twisted with a message of supposed submission and “religion of peace” that executes the list below, in the name of their god across the spectrum of more than 60 countries, I’m not sure what more I could do to convince you there is something desperately wrong with the message itself.

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

  347. As I have alluded to in the past, if it is as simple as the message, then why aren’t they all doing it?

    (I don’t have the answer to that. Why some do and some don’t is the basis of my research.)

    G, I appreciate that analysis and I will reflect on it for a while. Thanks.

  348. As I have alluded to in the past, if it is as simple as the message, then why aren’t they all doing it?

    For the same reasons the National Socialist Workers’ Party (a religion by another name) never received more than a 1/3 of the vote – most either refuse to believe the message but are too afraid to say otherwise, didn’t have the fortitude to carry out the real message, or choose to focus only on the positive aspects of the message, ignoring the premise of submission by all.

    Same for the Shinto religion of Japan in WWII.

    But the end result was two decimated countries and millions of innocents dead across the globe.

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