Friday, January 27, 2012

The Lucky Negro

Just a short post this time.

This situation with Gignritch and Romney is very interesting. It seems to me that they are almost unbelievaly starting to destroy the eventual primamry winner's chances in the general election. All the while, Obama is starting to rise, or perhaps I should say, rise faster since he has been rising a bit in recent weeks...

What I particularily like is how the two of them, Fatso and Ken, are making each other look so amazingly incompetent. Moon bases and an eventual Lunar State, claiming the moon basically for the US? All that is going to do with your base of bottom-feeding vindictive ignoramuses is infuriate them! They HATE science! And now they think that you're a total flake! Which, hey, you are!
Or would you prefer the Incredile Plastic Man with the ever-shifting stance on every issue that exists, who couldn't personify the uncaring rich more if he wore a monacle and a top hat? His version of 'I feel your pain' is 'I feel the pain of all those poor corporate people, who are more people than real people are, making their pain so much worse!'

Plus, both of them are lying and getting caught in lies here, each and every day, which eventually even percolates down through a christian mind shield if it's apparent and obvious enough. Which these are. Right now, the two of them both look like screaming liars and utter hypocrites. More so than usual even, I mean.

Plus plus, and to me this is the sweetest part, the economy is improving in spite of all the best (worst) efforts of the republicans to keep it in a stinking mess!

And if that is happening, noody's going to come close to Obama in the general. They'll have no chance.

How did Barack Hussein Obama ever get so lucky?

Anyhow, assuming that Obama wins again, can you even *imagine* the rage and frustration on the religious right? They'll be gnawing off their own feet! The whole tea party will dissolve down into a pool of it's own rancid venom...

I can't wait!

242 comments:

  1. Well, I think that there's a reason for it, the infighting thing.

    It's to water down any revelation that the dems have against either Mitt or Newt.

    "Haven't we gone over and over that, 'Mitt's stinkin' rich and he pays less than most folk', thing a million times already?"

    or..

    "Haven't we gone over the old, "Newt's practically insane!", thing, really?

    One thing for sure, the dems better not be thinking of relying on some kind of 'shock and awe' with either Mr. Insane or Mr. Even-more-insane, if they should choose that route.

    No word from MI and Mike yet? Guess they can't decide which one is WORSE!? lol

    ReplyDelete
  2. I see your point, but aren't you (hopefully) forgetting that in the general they'll be in front of the whole nation and not just in front of republiscum?

    What I'm thinking is that even the (moderate/independant/democrat) people that are paying attention now, won't forget this shit in November. And those that aren't, will see all those revelations as just that. New, and horrifying.

    Plus, just look at the contrast. Obama is the adult, but the repulicans aren't even nice children! It's a *reasonable, intelligent* adult, contrasted against a bunch of sub-par little jerks. They're terrible children.

    ReplyDelete
  3. LMAO.. yea Brian, but they picked 'the Decider'!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. What's up with Obama having to go to court (in Georgia)?!?

    And I also heard that Hillary Clinton's going to run as Obama's VP or something??

    ReplyDelete
  5. Obama will most likely win, but calling him "the lucky negro" sounds demeaning and sort of racist...

    I mean, I get what you're saying, however; I think you should change your title, but, that's just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Obama will most likely win, but calling him "the lucky negro" sounds demeaning and sort of racist...
    ------------
    ... thank you. Of course you know that my entire purpose in calling this post what I did was to UNDERLINE how your side sees him. You people have bible code, we have IRONY, which is much harder for your side to understand than bible code is for our side. You don't *get* complex things.

    To simplify, I made fun of how you think of Obama, and you heard it and didn't realize that I was talking aout you and thought it was *my* opinion and told me that I was racist for my impression of *you!*

    Which is what I was expecting you to do.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can't you see that you are wrong about everything, just like you were wrong about how I meant my title?

    You just miss stuff. I can say it, but you can't hear it. So I can see that, but of course, you can't. So you can't see things well enough to know that you're not *right.*

    So if you were me, how would you *tell* you that in a way that you would finally *get* it?

    I'm trying here!!!

    I bet everyone else understood how I meant the title but you. Wouldn't you want to learn, to LEARN, how to see reality in more *detail!?


    C'MON!

    ReplyDelete
  8. The revolting pubs are almost completely detached from every type of American except the Amahrkin and the pseudo-intellectual dollar pig. But Obama wiped his ass with our Bill of Rights and I wouldn't dream of voting for him.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You won't vote for Obama so you what, let the republican win by default? Listen, I agree about what Obama did, but we still need to vote for him here, and if you can't see that you're crazy. The mere *chance* that one of those absolute idiots gets into the white house, I mean, c'mon here! Get your as out and vote for Obama in november! What's the matter with you, have a death wish? I want my civil liberties too, and while Obama has removed some of them, the other side would have people like me in a gulag, for chrissakes... What the hell are you thinking? There isn't a third party candidate here... it's a choice between disappointment, and the probable death of our nation. Figure it out.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What's up with Obama having to go to court (in Georgia)?!?
    -------------
    Just the birther retards again trying to pretend that Obama isn't president. They really are useless. It's not nice to wish people dead, but to be frank I can't see any reason that they're alive other than to bring the world back to the stone age. Too bad the religious nutcases all wanna kill liberals and not themselves, because that herd needs thinning.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yea, what's wrong with you Harry? There's a giant green arrow pointing straight at Obama! He is Mr. Apollo for the average Joe.

    Your only other choices are a Mr. Apollo for the rich, Mr. 60 grand a day, or let everyone else decide for you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "if you can't see that you're crazy."

    Brian, I'm already crazy. Perhaps there's another reason I 'can't see that?'

    Regardless of whether he drops out of the primary or not, I'm going to vote for Ron Paul. When Obama betrayed the American people in as fundamental a way as any repub before, I knew I had to take a stand against governmental fascism, even if that meant a vote for corporate fascism.

    ReplyDelete
  13. But... Ron Paul is an idiot. He believes in Ayn Randian libertarianism, which is a joke in the real world....

    Oh well...

    ReplyDelete
  14. I guess they're all bad...

    But if you don't vote for Obama and vote for Paul and Obama loses to Romney because of his vote getting split up, it will still be the end of the country as we know it. So I'm voting Obama. No way I want to see a republican of any kind in office, but Paul has no chance anyhow.... system's rigged against him.... So a vote for Paul is just really taking a vote away from Obama.... May as well vote for Gingritch as Paul when you think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Brian, you're rude and incorrect in putting it on me to think that I consider Obama a "lucky Negro".

    I take umbrage to both. I realize you cannot help insulting other people's intelligence with your blind, arrogant ignorance and I also realize that you cannot deal with a person unless you have them mentally put into a tidy box of sorts in your brain of your self-made stereotypes of that sense on person --- which speaks to the lack of true wisdom, intelligence and correct reasoning on your part---so, I must choose to ignore your remarks.

    You must be careful what you say and take responsibility for it.

    Also, I don't know much about the birther thing and will have to look up more info on Hillary, too, because if she runs, I think that will get the people's attention.

    There was a blip of it in the news media and nothing of it since...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yea, so you see, MI can 'take umbrage', ignore you and scold you, all at the same time!

    Don't misunderestimate MI, Brian!

    ReplyDelete
  17. If Ayn Rand Libertarianism is a joke, it's a deadly one for the audience and leaves only the comedians laughing. I can't stand it, which maybe goes to show how much Obama fucked up. And he did. There's really no excusing it. This isn't Bush here, a well-meaning buffoon, a bull in the china shop of human rights. Obama knew better and did it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mi, you idiot...

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

    -- Ryan

    ReplyDelete
  19. Brian, you're rude and incorrect in putting it on me to think that I consider Obama a "lucky Negro".
    ---------------
    Now I'm talking to a wall here.

    So, do you even realize that you just fucked up again?

    It's the attitude that I'm poking fun at with my title, not the specifics. Your side is RACIST. So I poke at you. But you're just to fucking stupid to even see it at all, aren't you?

    You people need confinement... padded cells... or maye an island.... whatever it is and wherever it is you'll fuck that up too of course, but at least you'd e doing it away from real people.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So something that others just get when they look at it, something that obvious, you've failed at for two tries now.

    Don't try again, please! It's embarassing for any member of the same species.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I feel your pain, Harry. I really do. But don't not vote for Obama in this particular election, please. It's really too important to do an anger reaction vote. Obama did that, yes... but what would a republican christian evangeligal do? Or one sympathetic to such? Or really, any of those bozos? You're worried about the erosion of our freedoms, but how about the destruction, not erosion but actual destruction, of everything else we have left? That's what's on the line here...
    Thin about it.... you'd basically be voting with MI... because you'd e voting against Obama in kneejerk manner, and that's her calling card, not yours.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You need help, Brian; social skills and the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Doing Good to Do Well Gets a Legal Boost in California

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well, on this side of the line, things are going pretty much as you might expect if all the equivalent to centre and left were gone from your government.

    King Stephen comes on and tells us how fantastic we're doing and that he just needs to tidy up a few loose ends, such as raising the pension age, likely lowering the monthly benefits of the pension, and other benefit cuts, you know, not 'cos we're broke, but for our children, you see.

    No doubt in my mind that 'our children' exactly means, 'his children and the children of all the ritch bitches in Canada' and all the corporations, by lowering their taxes, they'll look after us when times are tough, right?

    Oh wait, they'll look after themselves when times are tough, I mean.

    Typical.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Romney is my choice of what is left. I want Newt to get so pissed at the republican establishment that he starts a third party. If he does I will vote for him, because a vote for Obama in Idaho is a wasted vote. we are tied with Mississippi for being the reddest state.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You need help, Brian; social skills and the rest.
    ---------
    You're right, I have difficulty interacting with people like you for some reason.
    It's the natural frustration a real person feels when interacting with a mindless idiotic robot. I'm not good at hiding it. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It seems highly likely to me we will see riots, and people are going it die. I think Obama as president will have a much lower death toll than any other person running for president. If some how we elect a republican, and if the R's should get the house, and senate the riots will be very serious with lots of people dying.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Here's a weid difference between lefties and righties that I think is curious.

    If a Rep. becomes president the left are worried that he/she(it's possible) will drag us into a depression and/or a war.

    If a Dem. becomes president, the right are in total denial, why this person isn't MY president, he's not fit to be MY president!!

    As in everything, it's a matter of focus and distraction.

    We can see that with a Rep. President, the left are thinking what an asshole he/she(it's possible) is, because of what he/she does, while the right are thinking that we must back our president no matter WHAT he/she does, because he is our leader.

    And with a Dem President, the right are thinking that he/she is not a real president, not our leader, illegitimate, while the left are still looking at the things he/she is trying to do and approving of or disapproving of that.

    It makes for no 50 yard line if one side approves ANYTHING done by a leader they consider legitimate and disapproves EVERYTHING done by someone they consider a usurper.

    So, it shouldn't be much of a surprise to us that the Romney bunch is doing exactly that to the Gingrich fans and vice versa.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Any 'values voter' who voted for Gingrich is pure and simply a hypocrite.
    A lying serial adulterer who dumps women when they are sick is a crud. Do you really want someone as president who runs in another direction when they see something and go, 'oooh Shiny!"

    (As Andrew Sheppard so eloquetly stated...) "Being President of this country is entirely about character."

    No one can know everything there is to know about any of the subjects that a President faces in office. The best you can hope for is that the person elected has the character to to do the best he or she can and make the right choice, even if it isn't the popular choice.

    Newt's character is well known. It isn't Presidential. He's the worst kind of crybaby - an angry man who has nothing to be angry about, other than as a bait and switch away from his absence of good ideas.

    I think that's what bothers many of us about Obama. The right choice was to try to engage the Repubs at the beginning, but then to come out swinging when they demonstrated that they cared only for winning the next election at any cost.

    Go down swinging instead of with a whimper. A leader is not a manager. A leader sets the tone for the fight and is in the front lines of it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Any 'values voter' who voted for Gingrich is pure and simply a hypocrite."

    And they'd say, "Well, we all know that you think that!"

    Sarah Palin is down to telling people to vote for Newt just to piss off liberals. Guess that says it all right there.

    ReplyDelete
  31. On Jerry's prediction.

    I predict that, since Floridians are supporting Romney, God will send a giant hurricane to teach them a giant lesson!

    Oh, and an infestation of snakes too!

    "Take THAT Rep. Floridians, I have spoken!"

    ReplyDelete
  32. Good Minus God
    By LOUISE M. ANTONY

    ReplyDelete
  33. Once again Jon Stewart and his crew come through with an explanation that everyone can understand, in some field that's supposedly complicated.

    Bain Capital, created by Mitt Romney, got a lot of it's money through leveraged buyouts. Leveraged buyouts are equivalent to three card monty played with corporations instead of cards where someone is left holding the debt of a bankrupt company that Bain Capital had basically bankrupted.

    And this is the Romney who wants to be POTUS on account of his business accumen?

    But his business accumen is equivalent to raping, robbing and leaving naked in a dumpster to die!

    Republicans are all nuts if they imagine Romney doing anything less that doing the equivalent of raping, robbing and leaving naked in a dumpster to die the people with the other half of the money in the USA, you know, the half him and his 1% cronies don't own yet.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Romney's not concerned about the poor?

    Hmm.. what do you think NOW, MI?

    Sounding better and better to you?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Youknow, we should all be pulling for Gingrich to get the nomination...

    If the choice in November was between Noot and Obama, Obama would win in a freakin' landslide.

    ReplyDelete
  36. BTW, Brian... did you figure out what was going on with the "200 Comments" thingy?

    ReplyDelete
  37. It would be hard for the democrats to find a better friend than Newt. He is a one man wrecking crew, and some republicans are his target. He has hinted going for a third party, if he does the religious democrats will be totally convinced god is surly involved.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Got to admit that Nuke is a master of tableturning.

    The 1% of people who own half the wealth of the entire country are harrassed by the elite media!

    You see it's the 99% including middle class, working class, poor working class and on down who are the 'elite' who the 'lame-stream media' are representing.

    He drives home his points with Saul Alinsky tactics, one of them being that the other side uses Saul Alinsky tactics!

    Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant, obvious propaganda, which no-one but glib-mouthed, 'I'm alright Jack!' types like himself are even paying any attention to.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism

    ReplyDelete
  40. anybody read the last link I posted? What, no comment.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Well, I just got back here... and Jerry, that's not a link. You don't post links. You post the titles to links. And when you post the titles to links like that, I have to google them. So I'll do that later. Have to run now... just checking in.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I would say without even looking at it, OF COURSE low IQ is linked to prejudice and so forth. The real question to me is, were the people dumb first, and that's how they were sucked into being prejudiced, or were they believers rather than thinkers, eing brought up that way and in that type of peer group, and THAT causes them to never develop much of an IQ. I bet it's the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Wow! Even the Donald is rootin' for Mitt!

    I don't know how this makes things any easier though. Mama Grizzly Palin is for Nuke, Pizzaman is squarely on the fence, Fox and friends are with the money.

    The Catholics aren't happy that they might have to give their workers the option of birthcontrol and stuff. Don't know where that might leave JW's and paying for possible transfusions?

    Tricky subject religious freedom vs. everyone's freedom, what?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Jerry,

    This might suit your purposes better. How To Put A Hyperlink In Blogger

    The code you need to use is right above the words, "Here's An Example Scenario."

    ReplyDelete
  45. Per racism, conservatism, and stupidity, I disagree with Brian that "idiots" would even be attracted to absolutist thinking. Absolutism seems to be related to emotional immaturity more so than intellectual immaturity.

    -Though granted both are obviously cognitive processes, and not to put a nail in the coffin of my claim but high functioning autistics are often the exact opposite: emotionally immature, intellectually mature, relativists.-

    Nevertheless the need for 'black & white' in all sorts of areas just screams, "I'm pathologically insecure!!"

    ReplyDelete
  46. Per racism, conservatism, and stupidity, I disagree with Brian that "idiots" would even be attracted to absolutist thinking.
    --------
    I think I more said the opposite, that the absolutist thinking, or rather being brought up in that modality, as a believer rather than a thinker (my usages defined previously) never develops the aility to think critically, and not even to think much at all, ergo the upringing is the cause of the low iq correllation, and not the low iq the cause of the believer mentality.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Like you Harry, I don't see it being more likely that the religion draws the stupid people in like moths to a flame... It would seem to be much more likely the institution and the attendant thinking patterns, or rather non-thinking patterns, create the lack of a need to develop the intellect in the believers.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I can get a high lite on a page, but not on the blog. Tried several times before and just does not work some how. Thanks for the link anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Yes, yes, we should have none of this, 'Jesus was a liberal!', hogwash at prayer breakfasts! After all, Jesus was only demonstrating how Christians ought to speak to prospective sheep until they cough up their fortune to the church, right?

    Or, not. I'm not sure how the right-wing workaround goes really, it must be one of those mysteries like the three 'persons' yet one God things.

    It must go something like, "As long as I read the Scripture and acknowledge the truth of it, I'm all right Jack!"

    ReplyDelete
  50. pboy,
    the line you liked, the door to the heart opens from the inside is in a song in case you want to hear it. Youtube; Louis Armstrong - When You're smiling (lyrics) At the start there will be a big smiley face. It is a great song done well.

    ReplyDelete
  51. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Beer-Bar-Sign-Humor-Saint-Dude-Dorm-Decor-Hippie-Tin-Metal-/290665981722?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43ad0ae71a

    Saint Dude!

    Pray for us sinners.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Harry,
    Glad to see you're not voting for Obama this time around either. My husband and I are also voting for Ron Paul regardless of whether or not he gets the Republican nomination. We'll even write him in if we have to.

    I was curious about your mentioning "corporate fascism" vs "government fascism". One of the main characteristics of fascism is a sort of merging of government and corporations. The term fascism already implies this government/corporation union, so they don't exist separately as their own subtype. Certain corporations or industries see privileges at the expense of the citizens. We see this today with pharmaceutical firms, insurance agencies, major banks, you name it.

    Having said that, there also exists the authoritarian aspect of fascism which we are seeing increase at an alarming rate lately. NDAA, SOPA, increased militarization of police forces, all indicators of a fascist state.

    Obama has turned out to be a continuation of Bush, plain and simple. He's sold out to the same people and he has just as much of a careless disregard for civil liberties. And you're right, he ought to know better. Especially as a "Constitutional lawyer".

    ReplyDelete
  53. Richelle,

    I take your point but see this, "...a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control," capable of being applied reasonably to corporations and the communities within which they operate.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I don't get it. I can clearly see that Ron Paul is an idiot, but two people I respect seem to not see him that way.

    How is he not an idiot? I mean, he's got some good ideas, but then he's all pollutted with Ayn Rand-ian amoral insensitive non-feeling automaton social theories that are like trying to apply mathematics to 'loving thy neighbor.' He also can't SEE that america is still prejudiced, totally BLIND to it, ergo he is also a BIGOT.

    So there. And I just donated $50 to Obama to help him with dealing with your two votes. ;-(

    ReplyDelete
  55. If Romney gets in, it'll be because of people protest-voting against Obama... like you guys are doing. Yes, he didn't come out strong as a liberal... he came out as what he said he was, a concensus-seeking moderate. In Harvard Law he was known to be the only guy that could bridge gaps between sides, known as a mediator... You want perfect, he's not that... but RON PAUL? Throw away your vote on a bigoted foolish midget with no concept of real morality who sees no need for the Civil Rights act and wouldn't have voted for it? Please!

    Do you really want that on your consciences?

    ReplyDelete
  56. It's a throw-away vote. It's a vote for Romney. Or (gasp!) maybe even Gingritch.

    Voting for Paul, is voting your country away. ecause if republicans win this, kiss your asses goodbye.... it'll get bad really fast. A lot worse than you can even imagine. They're slavering for it, drooling all over themselves... Evil wants to win this, and you're not out there voting against it? You think Obama is just as evil, really?
    I'm shocked that both of you very smart people can think this way. Is it that you feel jilted by Obama? What? Hell hath no fury as a voter scorned? Get over it!

    ReplyDelete
  57. And by the way...

    Richelle? Is it really you? Been a long time. How's things going? You've been missed around here... Nice to see you!

    Skeet skeet... shooting?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Incidentally, I'm not blind to the bad things Obama has done. Especially recently, signing that bill that allows indefinite detention of civilians without trial... that's definitely fucked up and I hate that crap...
    Its just that he's the far lesser of two evils. Two, not three. No independant candidate can win it. All that will do is hand the race to the republican.

    ReplyDelete
  59. A little moral test if interested.

    What Do Your Morals Say About Your Politics? Bill Moyers

    ReplyDelete
  60. Hey, Richelle! Long time no blog...

    ReplyDelete
  61. Brian,

    I can't believe your making a pragmatic argument when you are sooooo idealistic. If it soothes your conscience at all, most of the people who would vote for Ron Paul will be coming from the revolting pub side i.e. taking away votes from Romney.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I can't believe your making a pragmatic argument when you are sooooo idealistic.
    --------------
    That's because I can be both idealistic and not stupid.

    There are two choices. An imperfect one that at least seems to be more or less with the program, at least lately, and then there's an out-of-touch-with-reality insane warmongering amoral uncaring unempathetic lying asshole that pretends to be whatever the people seem to be looking for at the time. I pick "A."

    ReplyDelete
  63. You'll note that I don't even consider Ron Paul seriously. Not that I think he's not serious. And he's consistant, which is very rare on that side. But the republicans and the press have spoken. It's too bad that's how it works, but there you have it. He has no chance. None.

    ReplyDelete
  64. How could you not offend those who worship Saint Ron Paul?

    ReplyDelete
  65. I posted my real question about Ron Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Hi Brian & Ed! Thanks for the warm welcome back. I still stop by and lurk every now and then. That Eric is some character, isn't he? ;) Sorry it took me a while to respond, I've been pretty busy these days.

    Well, where to begin... I'm not looking to change anyone's mind here or try to convert you guys to vote for Paul instead of Obama, but I don't mind sharing my own process. Now this is going to be the hard part because this was a process that was multifaceted and has slowly taken place over the last few years. And let me begin by saying that I had never really identified as a Dem even though I did consider myself a liberal and tended to lean more towards the Dems and had a more negative opinion, in general, of Repubs.

    I started out with a lot of hope for Obama. I supported him because I HATED the warmongering and torturing of prisoners suspected of terrorism and I wanted that to stop and he said he would get us out of the Middle East and close Gitmo. When he didn't close Gitmo and it started looking like things weren't really changing I would make excuses in my own head and tell myself that he really did want to do these things, but he just couldn't because of Repubs or whatever. Then after a while I realized what I was doing. I was putting blinders on just like the Repubs who voted for Bush did. They voted Bush in on stopping overseas nation building and when he started doing it they made these sorry excuses for why he HAD TO. And on the left we said "What the fuck you people, don't you see what's going on?!" and we asked ourselves how they couldn't see the truth that was so obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  67. So now that I had finally come to terms with the fact that the man I had voted in to buck the establishment was just towing the line I began looking into WHY. Well it makes perfect sense if you know what to look for. Dem or Repub doesn't matter, they're all sold out. And they are sold out to the SAME PEOPLE. That's why nothing ever fucking changes. They're puppets. They don't have an agenda, they just push the agenda of those who bought them out. The rhetoric is different, and they may sign a few little pieces of idealogical token legislation to appease their base, but the shit that's really broken never gets fixed, it just gets worse. And the bones that they throw out for their base are what keeps them from making a big stink about all their other broken promises. Like with Obama, things like the health care bill and DADT were appeasements to keep the people who voted for him distracted from the fact that he fucking LIED about closing Gitmo and resigning the Patriot Act and not going after medical marijuana dispensaries in states that had voted to make medical marijuana legal. This game gets played over and over on the left and the right and one side will tell the other "I told you so!" then when their guy gets in it's the same bullshit and the other side says "I told you so!". Round and round we go, this is all just a sad political theater to keep us distracted and constantly blaming the other side while the establishment Dems and Repubs skip, hold hands, and laugh all the way to the bank. And who's getting fucked? You, me, all of us. The American people, whether they identify as left or right, Repub, Dem, Indie, whatever. The two party system is a fucking joke. There aren't two parties. They are two heads to the same monster and we've been falling for this time and time again.

    Wish I could say more, but I have to start getting ready for work. I'll try to find the time to come back very soon and talk some more with you guys and get more into why all this led me to Ron Paul. I don't want any of you to think that I'm lecturing you, like I said at the beginning I'm just sharing my process so that maybe you can understand how I got to this point.

    Oh and Pboy, I find it funny you chose the terms "worship" and "saint" Ron Paul because it sounds so familiar. Much like how the Repubs on Dinesh's blog would say that those of us who supported Obama in '08 were "worshipping" our "savior" Obama. Marinate on that.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Article on Ron Paul if interested.

    Ron Paul’s Flinty Worldview Was Forged in Early Family Life

    ReplyDelete
  69. I certainly agree with you on the two parties, but I am not ready to give up on Obama. I know there are some issues that look really bad for him, but I want more info on why he is going along on some issues. Gitmo could have been to far down the list of priorities to involve a major fight. I am well aware that I may be wrong about Obama, but am not ready to quite on him yet. I am still hoping that Newt gets pissed at the R's and starts a third party. I would like to see five parties, but if the rules are not changed and multiples run in the last go around we will, sooner or later, elect someone not many want. The last run off must be between two, not more than two.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "Oh and Pboy, I find it funny you chose the terms "worship" and "saint" Ron Paul because it sounds so familiar."

    Well, I wasn't takin' a poke at you personally, Richelle.

    I'm sure there were so many who idolized Bush to the point where they wouldn't believe, or at least wouldn't acknowledge, the things he said.

    You are right in that Obama's big change was you guys trading a war-mongering 'decider' who was fooled into thinking that he was popular because he is stupid, for a well-spoken statesman with a polished image, who imagines that he can quietly railroad undemocratic law through, masked by his charisma.

    Picture your best case scenario here though. Ron Paul takes the presidency and the right will cheer while they pass laws that suit them, then they'll put the blockers on everything they don't like.

    Cut the military? Hell no.
    Dump the social safety-net? YEAAA!
    Dump pensions? YEAAA!

    That's all I can think of right now but it's obvious that those ultra-rich, the corporations and the banks that control Washington would only let Paul do what they want anyways.

    After four years Paul would be bragging about getting half way there and complaining that the other half just takes a little longer. i.e. when HELL freezes over.

    Still the left will be crushed we'll notice, if we're still allowed to notice.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Since when did allowing workers the choice of birth control an attack on anyone?

    "It's not the Catholic people, it's the Catholic institution!", doesn't make any sense at all to me.

    Seems that Catholics are willing to be offended, not for themselves but for their 'institution', on behalf of their 'institution'.

    So one can be a Catholic woman who has had abortions, who takes the pill and still be offended on behalf of Catholicism.

    I can't see past individual Catholics not wanting women who work at Catholic institutions to be allowed to do something unCatholic, even if they do those things themselves.

    Why is having to agree with religious restrictions anything to do with religious freedom?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Jerry,
    I understand the sentiment, I really do. I held out hope that Obama would be different too. I didn't want to admit that I was duped after putting so much faith in him. Eventually I just had to swallow that pill and accept that I had been fooled. There is no excuse he could give that would ever justify the NDAA, resigning the Patriot Act, or drone bomb assassinations that kill innocent teenage boys. If you ask me, he is a murderer and a war criminal, just like Bush & Cheney.

    It doesn't matter how many parties we have if the people running can be bought. Corporate and banking interests run this country, not people like us. The more powerful the government becomes, the more control those interests have over your life. That's something I used to not understand and it has completely changed my opinion on what the role of government ought to be.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying. It seems that you are saying if the gov is to big the money people run things. Who do you think runs things if we have a smaller gov? It seems to me money runs things regardless of big or little gov. That seems to be more about our place in evolution rather than some system. People are naturally selfish, and when many get very much money greed takes over. Only through regulation can we hope to have any control over greed. I might add, I believe that democracy promotes mediocrity, and I rest my case on the results we live with.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Obviously there is no solution where we can live in a utopia because the bottom line is that people are, and always will be, imperfect. My point is that if government has less control over the way people live their lives the money interests can get involved all they want, but the benefit is gone. That's the reason they get involved with the government in the first place, so they can regulate their competition out of business and make themselves untouchable. The corporations are the ones writing the legislation and the regulations. That's how the Federal Reserve came into existence; individuals from the major banks got together along with Senator Nelson Aldrich (who married into the Rockefeller family) and crafted the legislation for the Federal Reserve Bank. People who work at places like Monsanto will go to work for the FDA and vice versa. There are government ties like this in the pharmaceutical industries, GE, big oil, Goldman Sachs, defense contractors. When the people demand more regulation, they happily oblige and write laws that favor the corporations. Sometimes the people who helped write the bill will then go to work for the legal departments of those companies because they know all the loopholes. The people who get hurt are small businesses that just want to make an honest profit.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I think that the people who get hurt most, every boom and bust, is the small investor. If you play with the big boys, you get burned.

    If you, and a whole whack of fellow workers have a pension coming, are amassing a fortune to cover yourselves for your retirement, you can be sure that they're sitting in their Wall St. offices figuring out how to kick that pot of gold over and scoop as much of it as they possibly can.

    The housing crisis was no mistake. They saw another opportunity to take that wealth, that the people had invested, from them.

    They dump a load of toxic debt on everyone that has invested in a house which trashes the market, then they buy out everyone's assets for cheap!

    Similarly they did this with the .coms, they created artificial value, sold it to pension funds and whipped the bottom out.

    The game is rigged in so many ways, government being a big part of the rigging system.

    Ron Paul wouldn't stand a chance, doesn't stand a chance, because it all depends on the money, therefore it all depends on the people who have the money.

    ReplyDelete
  76. If I understand you are saying that the money people would do just fine if the government stayed out of the way. I must say if you think that way you are being very naivete. The gov is the only hope the working man has. The rich will keep the working man scratching for enough to get by on, and few there be that will in any serious way help. What we would have, if not for the gov, is monopolies through out our society. The rich has caused every serious depression this country has ever had, and since 1980 we feel the effects of the rich standing on the necks of the working folks, and without gov help it will get to the point Syria is at now. I whole heartily agree with you that our gov is corrupt, but to let others run our country is a country committing suicide.

    ReplyDelete
  77. So Obama's done about half of what he said he would, which is twice as much as any president. Out of Iraq, but still in Guantanamo, I'm cool with that.

    For those that are "driven" to Ron Paul because of Obama disappointment, did you expect a left leaning democrat with a socialist streak to be a Randian Libertarian???? Makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I said before the 2008 election that Obama would look a lot like a modern-day Jimmy Carter, and I didn't vote for him in 2008. But I think we ought to give him another four years to finish (or at least try to finish) the things he started.

    All things considered, the last three years could have been much worse that they were...

    ReplyDelete
  79. THAN they were...

    the vodka strikes again!

    ReplyDelete
  80. did you expect a left leaning democrat with a socialist streak to be a Randian Libertarian????
    ----------
    WTF?

    Hey dude, you've swallowed the republican spin.

    Obama is a right-leaning centrist democrat. His health plan is just right of Nixon's, which didn't get passed. The whole idea of him being even a lefty, much less a socialist, is all right-wing hype. You know, repeat the lie enough, and people start to believe it. And guess what? He never really claimed to be anything else. He always intended to rule by concensus and compromise with the repulicans. Little did he know, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Yea, you're right Brian. The only way to defeat Obama was to declare him a failure before he was inaugurated and let the racists do their thing while they block, block, blocked.

    Obama nationalizes the law, already law in half of the States, concerning what religious have to do to properly insure their workers and this is hailed as a socialist move by him. Ridiculous.

    There's been no migration of Catholics from States which allow women to be insured for contraception to those which aren't, no huge outcry from religious people or the church.

    Now though, they are quick to see a stick with which they can beat Obama, or at least a wedge they can use to try to divide the people.

    ReplyDelete
  82. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/army-investigates-video-man-beating-sheep-death-baseball-bat-report-article-1.1008998

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/u-s-marine-snipers-posed-front-nazi-flag-afghanistan-report-article-1.1019864

    Gotta love the military... How nice those good christian soldiers are...

    First one, army guy beats a sheep to death with a baseball bat. Second one, marine snipers pose in front of a nazi SS flag.

    This is due to christian influence... the lack of empathy in the christian mind. The lack of thought.

    ReplyDelete
  83. All things considered, the last three years could have been much worse that they were...
    --------------
    Yes. I think most people don't look at it that way. But that's how they should look at it. It could have been a disaster. It wasn't. And Obama did that, even what with being cock-blocked by the republicans at every conceivable turn.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I have a question for the 'board.'

    Do you think that, if Obama wins a second term, that the repulicans will block him less, or just as much? (They can't do it *more,* after all...)

    I was thinking that, if they're locked in to another four years under Obama, there's less motivation to denigrate and lessen him, since he's done anyhow after the second term regardless. Of course, they might still do it in the hopes that it will make the democrats look bad in general so that whomever we run is less likely to win... although, if it's Hillary, they have no chance even if they do their worst....

    ReplyDelete
  85. I have a theory...

    Why did Obama suddenly pass the legislation that causes religious institutions to provide health plans that include birth control?

    I mean, he's not a dummy. He did it for a reason. For some reason he wanted this controversy at this time. Why is that, do you suppose?

    I'm thinking that it is to elevate Santorum, increase his power, and therefore increase the religious pressure on Romney. Romney's now talking about his religion at every stop, and he definitely didn't want to have to talkk about it at all... This way, it's possible that Romney will not be the nominee, and anybody else will be an easy ride. Santorum has his aggage... Terry Schaivo for instance... and his lobbying...

    ReplyDelete
  86. Refresh our memory, Brian... What's the connection between Terry Schiavo and Santorum?

    ReplyDelete
  87. If there is a close election, the negative will remain strong because of racism. If what I think is going to happen, the R's will be on the defense, and in disarray. My worry at this time is the R's will have a brokered convention, and Jeb bush will be the nominee.

    ReplyDelete
  88. If Obama wins I don't see any reason why the Reps/Teabaggers wouldn't just keep doing exactly what they're doing.

    It's amazing to me that in the 21st. Century C-PAC's first speaker is a White Supremacist.

    WTF?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Hmmm. Seems that Obama is willing to compromise with religious affront.

    I think that's a lot like the affront we think ought to be felt if someone works for the Coca-Cola Co. and drinks Pepsi.

    The church hierarchy knows that the majority women will take the pill on advice from their doctor, they must realise that they're out of touch with reality. Ancient laws don't always apply, most people are willing to acknowledge this.

    So, Obama is willing to compromise with people who persist in not living in the real world, people holding up huge families as an ideal on the one hand, while not actually wanting huge families themselves of course.

    Wonder what Eric and MI have to say about this giant disconnect between their religious ideal and reality?

    What else? Oh yea, maybe Romney should have squared off with his audience and said, "I am not a witch, I am you."

    ReplyDelete
  90. Santorum was the guy that made congress get involved with the Schaivo thing in the first place. It was all him. If not for him, we wouldn't even know her name.

    ReplyDelete
  91. It's amazing to me that in the 21st. Century C-PAC's first speaker is a White Supremacist.
    ---------------
    What you're not getting here, is that at C-PAC, they're ALL white supremacists. Even the few black people.

    ReplyDelete
  92. The Caucasian Political Action Committee?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Wonder what Eric and MI have to say about this giant disconnect between their religious ideal and reality?
    ----------------
    As if they are capable of seeing it.

    They're not. They won't see it. They're used to disconnects... Their minds are full of them.

    If their religion told them that there was no such thing as elephants, they'd start seeing them as mice with severe hormonal problems or something.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Every clip that I've seen today, they seem to imagine that there's nothing at all wrong with the system, as it always has been, excepting that Obama is President.

    What are they going to do to fix the banks, make the system fairer and so on? Nothing! If one of them gets the Presidency it's basically a 4 year long celebration of Obama not still being President.

    Oh yea, and no doubt they'd be showig off their 'leadership' which is a code-word for 'stick it to the poor', stand on the poors' necks, you know, put them to the 'make or break' test, tough-love and all that.

    ReplyDelete
  95. So in an unofficial poll of 5 unrelated and unconnected catholic women, they all use birth control and have no idea about this birth control fracas is.

    Obviously this is still in the realm of anecdotes, but I still think it says a lot about what it means to be catholic.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Only in America would Catholic women not know that thing about contraception.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Ryan,

    Or what it means to be a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Heathen:
    Firstly, Obama did not compromise with anyone (admirable in its own way)...his hand was forced due to the amazing amount of democrats and republicans who were against this.
    He didn't back down -- he merely shifted some wording around to make it look like the Catholic employers wouldn't be paying for contraception.
    Only a liberal idiot without a conscience would have been swayed by such verbage.
    So, now *everyone's* premiums will go up to pay for it! Yay!

    And, just for the record it's only the liberal Catholics who are pro-abortion, etc. Yes, they have given in to the amoral society around them and have sex without responsibility. They worship themselves rather than God, etc...

    Doesn't make it right, though.

    There are many, many large Catholic families out there who live out their faith in an authenic way They raise their own children and make their own way. They make sacrifices for theselves, (and they're not on Medicaid, okay?) and neither are they in the top-earning brackets-- and at the end of the day: they contribute so many positives into our society in so many ways.

    Just because you can't live that way doesn't mean that others can't handle the reality of God's Truth, which never changes.

    With that said: the less kids around the less $$ going to help retired citizens. Now, if you think the govt's got your back on that in your retirement years; you need to know that this administration's *taken* away money from our current senior$ to fund the pot for the coming healthcare....

    The pill's an abortifacient. Any authentic Catholic or God-fearing person would know this reality and would not want to *cooperate* in this murder/genocide. They are pro-Life. Why: because it's God's Holy Commandment. This reality was, is and ever will be -- it stands the test of time and the test of ignorance and of arrogance. Your reality is working so hard to diminish the reality of a good world where morals do not exist. Granted. And you will be held responsible for your part in that.

    ReplyDelete
  99. cont'd:


    I certainly follow the tents of my Faith as best I can and my reality- living in my real home, loving my real husband (handsome, hard-working and loving) and my children (note: that's a plural term. I have more than 2.2 children) who are so fun-loving, intelligent and the leaders in whatever sport, etc they are in-- is a reality that is indeed real and tangible for those in society. Many less-fortunate than we and many more-fortunate than we -- and I'm happy where I'm at in this Real World in the USA; a real country-- in which we live our real, tangible lives!

    It's all real. It's all good. Attending Mass, using the Natural Family Planning Method, giving of our $ our time and of our selves to those in our community uplifts us all. And it's Love that's at the center of our existences.

    You can't live that? Oh, I must say, you're surely missing out!!

    So, for me and many others out there just like me/my family: we're enjoying our reality while giving only what is good back into our society.

    It is you and people like you who can't get along well with others and who love to denigrate all that is good and refuse to live at peace with those around you.

    You want tolerance. Tolerance of what? (don't really care to know).
    All that you can say, truthfully, is that you have acquiesed yourself and your values to those who claim we need population control, we need slick and cunning ways to deal with those who don't live like we do and that we need to be filled with bitterness, hate and blind arrogance (which boils down to denial -- since it's just so much more easy to live that way than subject yourself to the Truth).

    Yeah, living out my Faith authentically is definitely a challenge, but; the payout is so worth it. I live a life filled with Joy--even when life's not being so fair to me at the moment.
    I have Hope. I have God. I have Reality. I do not run from Reality. I live in it and I embrace it.

    Too bad you don't have that Joy; oh, how wonderful the world's Reality could be.....seems such a shame...

    ReplyDelete
  100. Seriously; what are you going to do one day when the govt says you *have * to work to help fund the pot? Now, if you can't work well with others and have a mental "handicap" you will not be able to spew your hatred; as YOU will be conidered "expendible".
    Will you give of yourself freely for that cause as they strap you down and let Dr. Kevorkian medicate you for one last time?
    I hope you think about that for a long time because Obama will get back in office. Guarunteed.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Looks like Harry and Ryan want to convert all of these false Catholic women to Real, Holy, Intelligent, Practicing Catholics.
    Hear their prayer, Oh Lord!

    ReplyDelete
  102. Honestly, guys, I do hear the underlying theme in your posts: you want to see real women in the world. You want to know they can overcome the lures of the world and be feminine, loving and pure. I do get it; that was not lost on me.
    I feel your pain. I often wonder where have so many of the real men gone...Stand up and be one yourselves and be a witness of Hope to those around you! Have courage: you can do this!

    And, when you do that; you'll be making the room that so many women need to be real women they were created to be!


    Good-night.

    Eric..... your turn ;)

    ReplyDelete
  103. I read half way through MI. Can I have my 10 minutes back!

    You seem to be saying that you're NOT one of the 98% of Catholic women that have used the pill and/or had an abortion then?

    You also seem to be under the delusion that since you likely only hang out with bitches like unto yourself(see what I did there?), that you're 2% is equivalent to that other 98% making it about 50/50 in your tiny mind.

    So, I'm guessing that you have the three kids then, 'cos 'loviing hubby' fucked you three times before he realised that you were no damned good at it?

    You are the typical radical right that are driving the GOP away from the people, who are largely secular and don't try to force their fake humility on everyone, give your head a shake MI, you're an asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  104. As for the real men and real women crap at the end there, well the truth is that you are a real bully who would tell us what we think then tell us what you think of what you say we think.

    You surely don't actually imagine that I say, "There are no gods, not even the one!", because I'm not treating women right?

    That is nonsense.

    I hate it when you 2% imagine that you speak for the other 98% of Catholic women because you took all the brain-washing to heart.

    Sure it would be a wonderful world if the fearless leaders of your country were to try to force women to be just like you!

    Seriously? You think?

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  105. Too bad you don't have that Joy
    ---------------------
    You strike me as a miserable person. What joy? The joy of coming here and pretending you're better than us? Yeah, that's the joy allright. You like the taste of your own egotism. Did you ever hear this saying: 'In ignorance there is bliss?' That's not a selling point for being ignorant, you know. It means that the stupid are happy. So good for you on all that joy...

    ReplyDelete
  106. Good-night.

    Eric..... your turn ;)
    ------------------
    See Eric? Once again, you're her team-member! You are her shining knight of ignorance! Two peas of unenlightenment in a pod of stupid.

    I'd say 'I hope you're proud' but that's a bit like hoping the ocean's wet, huh? I mean, this is the ego-chow you were seeking, no?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Looks like Harry and Ryan want to convert all of these false Catholic women to Real, Holy, Intelligent, Practicing Catholics.
    ---------------
    Nah, they hate dumb cunts as much as the next guy.

    ReplyDelete
  108. And, just for the record it's only the liberal Catholics who are pro-abortion, etc.
    --------------------
    I wish your mother was a liberal catholic....

    ReplyDelete
  109. "Pro-abortion."

    Pretty much says it all really.

    I want women to have control of their own bodies, to have the freedom to choose, now that we understand the process.

    MI and her friends, now that they understand the process, want to take control of women and deprive them of the freedom to choose.

    But of course they cannot paint themselves as the 'bad guys' so they turn tables on pro-choice and make it pro-abortion, as if we're talking about men who'd force abortion on women.

    It must be jealousy, MI feeling forced by her religion to push out babies, while others, even other Catholics, feel free to choose.

    Pretending to love her God and his rules while others don't have to, that must chafe her in all the wrong spots.

    Why should other women be allowed to be civilized while she feels compelled to be like a bitch in heat or deny her hormonal desires?

    She must be thinking, "My religion cannot force them to be like me, but by God my politics can try!"

    Try another tack MI, look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself, "Who would want to be like me?" I think that's what hurts, you know that the answer is, "Not many, not many at all."

    ReplyDelete
  110. Science And Religion Quotes: What World's Greatest Scientists Say About God

    ReplyDelete
  111. I read a few of those. It seems that a lot of famous scientists are surprisingly spiritual, in one way or another.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I do not know how prominent these people are, but I am pleasantly surprised how open minded they are.

    ReplyDelete
  113. A Republican on the Right (Side of History)

    This is an article in the Boise paper. The page this should bring up, it is the one with the small picture, a very touching plea.

    ReplyDelete
  114. If you interpret spirituality to mean a sense of wonder and mystery, it's impossible not to be spiritual if you consider that all the life that we know is connected, that all the stars we see are other suns and that we see a tiny fraction of all the stars.

    It is with a deep sense of mystery that I open the front door when we're not expecting anyone.

    Okay, that last one isn't true. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  115. One thing I do not hear in all this wage financial issue. We have shrunk the world so wages will come closer together in all the countries, and because of our high wages, compared with the rest of the workers of the world, our wages are going to come down. So we not only have to deal with the rich and their greed, but the wages coming up in third world countries. An article I read said the chinese were getting about $3 a day in 1990 are now making $5000 per year. Also include is a fact the average production of China worker is 26% of US worker so they are making $20,000 a year for comparison while ours if $60,000 The reason for the difference in production is caused by lack of long term knowledge of workers, and the difference in modern machinery.

    ReplyDelete
  116. I watched Independent Lens last night about the plight of the negros in the South from their so-called emancipation 'til the Second World War.

    Seems that once the North felt it had accomplished it's goals in the South, they were left to their own devices, which included creating laws intended to re-enslave the black population.

    The chain-gangs depicted in 'The Longest Yard', 'Brubaker' and such were composed mostly of black men convicted of such heinous crimes as vagrancy and being uppity, walking along a railroad and owing money to a white man.

    The poor white folk sided with the former rich slave owners because they saw it as a zero sum game where any gain by the blacks automatically resulted in a loss by themselves.

    Seems to me that privatization of the prison system, the cry for States rights, picture I.D. laws and so on are all aimed at returning the South to that Old World Order where blacks weren't really people at all.

    How many millions of Southerners view Obama as an uppity nigger who ought to be picking their crops for nothing?

    ReplyDelete
  117. Basically we have this white southern/midwestern population of teabaggers that are mentally handicapped self-important assholes that need to go extinct real soon... but unfortunately they breed like rats... So what to do? It's not like stupidity gets punished by nature anymore... they have support systems in place for their idiocy.... In nature they all would get eaten by fitter beings... Or get lost in the woods and die of exposure... unfortunately, none of those things are happening to them!

    ReplyDelete
  118. My guess is the tea baggers will join with the 99% later on when they figure out that in order to get our government back it will take riots at the minimum. Between drug money, and lobbyist money coming in the power will not be given up without a struggle. Maybe I am a little to quick to guess riots, but the memory of the riots in the 60's and 70's, they sprung up over night it seemed. I hope I am wrong, but the hostile talk is driving the sides apart, and words of hate are getting stronger.

    ReplyDelete
  119. I think that the most you can hope for is the illusion of 'getting your country back', the illusion of democracy.

    I haven't read 'The Prince' but I'm pretty sure that it tells the governing party to be sure that the people think that they are 'free', that they're railing against injustices which, if resolved, are resolved completely to the governor's benefit.

    Seems to me that there was an old 'behind-the-scenes' financial royalty who were killed off in the 9/11 tragedy, and that these 'new boys' couldn't care less if their methods are seen to be self-aggrandizing, self-promoting, self-indulgent, well just selfish, really.

    Not that they're different in their aims at all, just that they're ham-fisted about it.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Teabaggers will never get behind the anarchy going on in the streets. Just don't see that happening.
    The riots will definitely come to a head in the ensuing months.
    Our destruction in the streets of businesses only going to affect the loss of more jobs.
    Besides, our president's been silent on the all of the wild raucuses and destruction. We knew that they'd be on our side but, I'm kind of surprised they haven't given us limits. I hate to say it, but I think they could give a shit what we do. Eerily unnerving to think about things that way.

    ReplyDelete
  121. There's destruction of businesses in the streets?

    Really? Where's this happening, Greece?

    ReplyDelete
  122. Watching a new show 'interrupters" on public TV. It was a demonstration of the practice, and results when one practices turn the other cheek that JC talked about. They will probably run it over again on PBS.

    ReplyDelete
  123. I watched a couple trailers for the Interrupters, powerful stuff. I hope PBS will rerun it.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Brian,

    Can I be your fan for a sec?

    "Two peas of unenlightenment in a pod of stupid."

    I fell back on the bed and giggled like a little kid. Thanks. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  125. Scott Walker must be eyeing the presidency, he seems to think that a balanced budget is a budget running $140 million in the hole!

    What's he gonna do? Take it out of the money intended to compensate people who suffered from the housing crash!

    Hey, in the Oval office, no doubt he'd take any shortfall out of pensions, welfare cheques, his own grammas purse, whatever!

    ReplyDelete
  126. "..if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality."

    'existing in the mind' equals 'imaginary'.

    There is no reason that any imaginary 'being' exists in reality. This is simply a word game where, if we're imagining a thing or a being, we put the 'imaginary' part aside to focus on the 'thing' or 'being' part, which usually describes things or beings, ideas of things or beings, that kind of stuff.

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster for example, is more likely real for the thinking of it? HE, is at least imaginary, at least an imaginary being, no?

    If Anselm's case for God is good, if it works, then it works for the FSM too. It works for all the gods that have ever been imagined, all the gods dreamed up who/that would be more perfect/greater if they weren't just imagination.

    Asking us to demonstrate the real effect of any god at all would be confusing ontology with epistemology, which a certain Eric, if not a certain Harry C. Pharisee, would be ecstatic to explain to you what a no-no that is.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Religious and political confusion technique.

    God is everywhere, can do anything, does nothing! (whaaaa?)

    Government ought to be in everyone's bedroom forcing a conservative 'norm' on everyone, no gay stuff, no contraceptives etc. AND government ought to be small and stay out of the way!(whaaa?)

    ReplyDelete
  128. "God is everywhere, can do anything, does nothing! (whaaaa?)"

    There I go 'confusing' ontology with epistemology again.

    LOL What a joke you philosophers are!

    ReplyDelete
  129. Does anyone think that human intelligence is superior to any other intelligence? If not what is the other intelligence?

    ReplyDelete
  130. Think you just answered your own question, with the question, "What is the other intelligence?"

    ReplyDelete
  131. How do you figure that I answered my own question? Sounds like you do not want to commit yourself to an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  132. For human intelligence to be superior, Jerry, there would have to be non-human intelligence to compare it to, yes?

    So, "What is the other intelligence?"

    ReplyDelete
  133. Lets try a donkey for starters.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Any donkey or any other animal or fish or.......

    ReplyDelete
  135. Como se dice, ahh, eh, ee, o, oo,
    un burro sabe mas que tu!

    ReplyDelete
  136. I dunno Jerry, we're smart enough to make enough bombs to wipe ourselves out several times over.

    We're smart enough to feed hungry desert dwellers who proceed to have 10 kids, who need to be fed if they're going to be moms and dads.

    We're smart enough to take any bad situation and call it God's Will, or turn tables on that and praise the Lord for the survivors of a natural catastrophe.

    We're smart enough to take credit for historical victories that happened before we were born.

    .. and so forth.

    ReplyDelete
  137. There seems to be an intelligence that causes evolution that looks to me as though it transcends human intelligence. I am not thinking of some god but the fact that there seems to be a lot of intelligence that transcends human intelligence. It appears that we have more intelligence than any other creature, but what about the intelligence that creates life in the first place. While it may not be a god, that does not change the facts we know, and human intelligence does not seem to be very far advanced.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Well Jerry, I dont think we can infer an outside intelligence causing evolution by studying evolution.

    Seems to me that we can infer that we are animals with intelligence, closely related to animals that are most similar to us, down a long chain to simple one celled beings, bacteria and viruses and infering that we originally came from just the chemicals that we are all still made from.

    I just cannot, in my mind, open a door to the vague idea that there could be an alien intelligence which designed, not evolution, but the physics of how the universe works, hydrogen being compressed into stars which then explode out the 'soup' of elements, some of which became planets, only some of them rocky planets, only a few of them with an atmosphere and a hydrosphere, all these steps just to make planet where the conditions for life were, let's say, available.

    Now after all these steps, this intelligence, did it need to interact and add life, or is the universe, under certain conditions, prone to have life emerge?

    You see, this mysterious intelligence of yours is so mysterious that we don't know that about it.

    What I'm saying is that if scientists figure out the conditions for life to emerge and can prove it, everyone with the conviction that there CERTAINLY is involvement from a mysterious intelligence would simply move the process back one step, you know they would.

    ReplyDelete
  139. War, selfishness, and organized religion does not speak well for intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  140. I might add the shoot yourself in the foot, republican party at this time does show the lack of intelligence that really has no equal I am aware of. Human intelligence, really?

    ReplyDelete
  141. I think we're the only species that can reason in the astract.

    ut if the question is, which is the 'most' conscious?

    Insects. That's my pick. I used to think that a bug can't see well out of compound eyes, ecause every 'demonstration' of how an insect sees the world was always presented as a mosaic of hexogonal panels of light...

    We have two eyes. Do we see two seperate images when we're just looking around? No. They lend seemlessly into one image. No difference, between two and a thousand. It's a seamless image, and better suited to the very close to near range, say within ten feet... Given their miniscule size, taking that into effect, we're practically lind by comparison.
    And it's just the same with all the other senses. Their versions are better. Smell? No comparison... Taste? No comparison.... Touch? Ahh, I once again used to assume that with a hard exoskeleton, they wouldn't e as sensitive to touch as we are. Nope! They have tens of millions of sensory hairs all over their body in little protective pits....
    Vibration? They're way better. Hearing? Many insects can hear much etter than us, way up into the ultrasonic ranges too. And see into the ultraviolet. And hell, utterflies have tiny eyes on their asses so they can see to insert their sexual organs.... They have extra senses.... Chemical senses... Very fast reaction times... and some, like a mosquito, live in slow time compared to us...

    Insects can sense the world so much better than we can even dream of, that there's no comparison at all. So I'd say they were the 'most conscious' consciousnesses around.

    ReplyDelete
  142. My "B" key is dying a slow death, if you haven't noticed...

    ReplyDelete
  143. Don't know how many times I've wondered why we don't have eyes around our sexual organs to see if 'it' is going in properly!

    Now that I DO think about it, it's about zero times.

    ReplyDelete
  144. I can't picture a mysterious intelligence sitting on a cloud thinking, "Know what, next we get working on atrophying that pineal eye and the parietal eye, less is better now."

    (many moons later) "I dunno, too much hair, a bit on the head, the pits and the crotch, that'll do. Hey, how about this, males get the hair spreading over the face, then, then get this, the hair on top falls out! LMAO"

    ReplyDelete
  145. Of course the 'siting on the cloud' thing is all about what an intelligence that is powerful enough to micro-manage DNA aiming from simple life forms to us, is doing meantime?? Definitely not 'sitting on a cloud' yes?

    ReplyDelete
  146. Not only that, but what would be the point of making human beings?

    I mean, if you're going to go with 'the universe and life must be designed', the question is 'why'?

    I'll tell you 'not why' though. Not so that we'd have to have faith that it is so and to have the faithful 'worship'.

    ReplyDelete
  147. I see no reason to think that there is a pre design of any type. In fact I would be surprised if life was pre designed.

    ReplyDelete
  148. I guess it depends on your perspective.

    My perpective is from the organic side, each person, each individual mammal being an entire world of ecosystems, fungi, bacteria, viruses, all pre-designed into it?

    Hard to believe.

    But, if you're just imagining that we are our mind, as if there is such an 'object', and completely ignore the organic stuff, I suppose it's easier to think of us as 'spirits in the material world' kind of thing.

    ReplyDelete
  149. WTF is wrong with Santorum?

    Accusing journalists of not being erudite?

    Public schools are anachronistic?

    I'm thinking that someone who purports to be a journalist/pundit wouldn't be getting a job from anyone at all if they weren't erudite, and 'no public school' would be anachronistic.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Santorum:-"Freedom isn't doing what you want to do, freedom is doing what you ought to do."

    There's something wrong with this definition of 'freedom'.

    People don't agree with 'what we ought to do'. Given that some might see you as 'free' while others will disagree. Given a choice that is equally good or bad, how does one decide the 'free' choice?(the choice you ought to take)

    Even if everything was a clear choice and you knew it was down to what you ought to do versus what you want to, the very definition of freedom is freedom to make the 'wrong' choice.

    How glib is Santorum if he can reverse the very definition of freedom itself???

    ReplyDelete
  151. Christian freedom is never being allowed to do anything 'yucky.'


    Hey, it takes a spectacular asshole to just assume with no thought about it that everyone in the country should be regulated with laws to force them into following his religion's rules.

    Santorum is a repressed gay man and should seek help with his repression and self-hatred. And stop trying instead to make that the social norm in America.

    What a putz, in other words.

    ReplyDelete
  152. I mean, let's face it. A lot of men were born gay in the last sixty years, and in years past the parents were RARELY accepting of it. So we have a shitload of repressed gay men pretending to e straight so that they don't have to kill themselves. You get my point. Where do they all go? Where is there acceptence? Where to find other repressed self-righteous gay men pretending to be straight and trying to transfer their hatred of themselves to the rest of the world by making what they themselves are, illegal and punishible?

    The loudest anti-gay voices, are seemingly invariably the biggest fags. And they love their religion. It tells them that, as long as they don't ACT on it, they're NOT it. It even tells them that, if they resist the TEMPTATION to fuc a man, they're straight and God appreciates it more since they had to resist temptation for god... As if the fact that they're tempted by other men doesn't mean they're gay! And they so desperately need to be NOT gay. They fucking hate themselves, and don't even want to acknowledge their own real sexual identity. What a mindfuck.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Jefferson's Secret Bible (VIDEO)

    ReplyDelete
  154. "Freedom isn't doing what you want to do, freedom is doing what you ought to do."
    "How glib is Santorum if he can reverse the very definition of freedom itself???"

    No, the proper question is, How poorly educated vis-a-vis our own intellectual history are we in the West when we confuse what has and hasn't been 'reversed' as far as the definition of freedom is concerned?

    See, Floyd, Santorum's definition is *the* dominant tradition in the Western intellectual tradition, from Plato to (roughly) Machiavelli. It persisted long after Machiavelli rejected it (mainly by redefining the role of the state, from 'making people good' to 'making society stable'), and is evident in the many works of the Founders of the U.S. (see, for example, Wood's work on the role the classical notion of 'virtue' played in the thought of the Founders; also instructive is Will's 'Statecraft as Soulcraft).

    The fact that you take Santorum's definition to be the 'redefinition' says more about your lack of engagement with the intellectual history of your own culture than it does about Santorum's 'glibness.' (Then again, the fault of assuming your audience to be better educated than it in fact is is nothing new.).

    ReplyDelete
  155. Hey, that really dumb guy who believes himself to be smarter than anybody has returned!

    (You can tell aout the dumb part because he's a catholic theist apologist...)

    Hi Eric! What's new? Can't find anybody 'buying it' tonight so you came here?

    (You'd make yourself a lot richer if you devoted all that creative lying to sales, you know)

    You like Santorum? Wow... you're really even dimmer than I thought...

    ReplyDelete
  156. "You like Santorum? Wow... you're really even dimmer than I thought..."

    No, I do not like Santorum, though I'd take him over Obama (now that's damning with faint praise)...

    "Hey, that really dumb guy who believes himself to be smarter than anybody has returned!"

    At least I'm smart enough to distinguish 'So-and-so is right about such-and-such' (e.g. Santorum is right about freedom) from 'if you point out that so-and-so is right about such-and-such, you must like so-and-so.'

    ReplyDelete
  157. "No, the proper question is, How poorly educated vis-a-vis our own intellectual history are we in the West when we confuse what has and hasn't been 'reversed' as far as the definition of freedom is concerned?"

    No it's not. This asshole stands up in public and tries to tell everyone what freedom is, then you back him up by saying that there's a history to the word? Fuck you.

    "Intellectual history" my ASS. Why would I give a crap what Plato or Machiavelli were meaning when they used their equivalent word to 'freedom' and how it was used by them given the historical context?

    Why should that mean ANYTHING AT ALL to me? I'm not in the habit of finding out what Newton or Einstein meant by a mathematical term in their historical context to see if it's different from how we use it now, are you?

    You snide, overbearing, pompous ass, I recall how you'd take D'Souza's latest cheap shot du jour and try to turn that shit into 'philosophical gold' too.

    Asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  158. And Eric:

    I'd absolutely LOVE to see a comparison of how typical christians take the word 'niggardly' as opposed to atheists.

    Because, you see, you guys love the stupid big time. You hate intellect like herpes. You figure that believing that you're smarter is better than actually being, since it's so much easier.

    Believing that 'niggardly' is related to 'nigger' is something the typical christian would do. Stupid people like that almost invarialy are believers rather than thinkers.

    You think you are a believer, but you believe that you are a thinker. Interesting. Both are equally invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  159. "No, the proper question is, How poorly educated vis-a-vis our own intellectual history are we in the West when we confuse...
    ----------
    ad nauseum... which only took half a paragraph.

    No, the proper question STILL is, what does the word mean to us in this culture. FUCKING PERIOD.

    Dissembling to us, who can see it so plainly, is a lot like exposing your privates to us. You should be emarassed, but for some reason, you're just not. Classless, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Now entertain us, jester! Caper! Cavort!

    You're an entertaining piece of shit, you know that?

    You make me smile... but there's a trace of pain in it. You amuse, with pure evil, lies, anti-life, anti-freedom, anti-everything that doesn't fit neatly into your rigid belief system. What you need is enforced therapy. What you will get, is a world stage, likely. Stupid loves to pay others that make them feel smart and right when they're pathetically wrong. So you have a function in life... to make the religious dopes feel better about themselves as they are, so they'll never need to change. To evolve. To grow. You are the agent of their stagnation. You'll be well rewarded... in this life. If there really was a next one, I'd be confident that you'd pay for it then, but since we both know that's bullshit, have at it sir! It's not as if you have a soul to lose, after all.......

    ReplyDelete
  161. "You hate intellect like herpes."

    Gotta' admit, this one made me laugh.

    "Believing that 'niggardly' is related to 'nigger' is something the typical christian would do."

    No, wrong category: it's something the typical Western U.S. liberal would do.

    "No, the proper question STILL is, what does the word mean to us in this culture. FUCKING PERIOD."

    Brian, you do realize that, since we're the recipients of multiple lines of cultural transmission, terms can be understood in different ways, right?

    Do you know any drug addicts? I do. I know one who makes a ton of money, and who blows it all on drugs each weekend. Is he free? He's doing what he chooses with his property, so given the modern conception of freedom, he's free. But anyone who knows a drug addict knows that he's anything but free. So, what gives? How can he be free and not free at the same time? Simple: he's free in the sense Sanotrum was rejecting, and not free in the sense Santorum was advocating.

    See, Brian, there is no one way we use and understand the term 'freedom' in the West, and part of the public debate -- at least among those of us who are actually aware of these issues -- is how these terms ought to be understood. And a large part of that debate will involve appeals to intellectual history.

    ReplyDelete
  162. So you still say Santorum is etter than Obama?

    Which Obama is that? The bizarro-world Obama? The one created entirely within the vapid and misguided imaginations of your paranoid fucked-up faithful assholes? The Tea-Party Version?


    Yeah, that's the guy.

    He's not real, you know. Hateful people on your side, many of them rabid racists, made that shit up. That's what they do. That's who they are.

    (Sigh)

    I guess you can't tell anymore, huh?



    You're just another repeater of the lies. What a useless bag of protoplasm you've let yourself become.

    ReplyDelete
  163. No, wrong category: it's something the typical Western U.S. liberal would do.
    -----------
    YOU? You went THERE? REALLY?


    That's the very first time I've seen you resort to the Christian Pee-Wee Herman Defense!


    I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I?

    Genius! Congratulations!


    And thanks for admitting that you've got nothing.

    You self-important peacock. If you developed one microgram of humility it would strangle you in your sleep.

    ReplyDelete
  164. "Intellectual history" my ASS. Why would I give a crap what Plato or Machiavelli were meaning when they used their equivalent word to 'freedom' and how it was used by them given the historical context?"

    Floyd, it's not about a *word*, but about a *concept*.

    Is a man who is trapped in a well free? How is the situation changed if we suppose first that he was thrown in the well by someone acting on behalf of the state, or if we suppose that he's there because he fell in accidentally?

    Is a drug addict free?

    Is a pedophile free?

    Is a citizen on the losing side of a public policy debate free?

    Is a dictator free?

    Is a poor, minimum wage earning worker free?

    Is Donald Trump more free than a dealer at his casino?

    Is Robinson Crusoe more or less free than a citizen of some state? Are there some states in which Crusoe is more free on the island than in the nation, and some in which he's more free in the nation than on the island?

    These are difficult questions, Floyd. Let's not pretend that there are easy and obvious answers to them. How freedom should be understood in the West is very much a live issue.

    ReplyDelete
  165. I know one who makes a ton of money, and who blows it all on drugs each weekend. Is he free?
    --------------
    YES! HE'S FREE! YOU DOPE!

    You'd have the world be a place where 'Santorums' would create laws that punish, and imprison that person. Not offer treatment, but incarcerate! We should have treatment programs instead of prisons for such as he!

    You're a lot closer to Hitler than me, so I guess this crap makes sense to you. You don't like how MOST PEOPLE take the word 'freedom.' (Of course you don't!) So you fucking redefine it in an historical context rather than the one it's already adequately defined within. Pathetic attempt, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Eric,

    You are a perfect example of what's wrong with the world.


    Big egos within small people.

    ReplyDelete
  167. "YOU? You went THERE? REALLY?
    That's the very first time I've seen you resort to the Christian Pee-Wee Herman Defense!
    I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I?"

    Sorry to disappoint, Brian, but it had nothing to do with *you* -- difficult to believe, I know. Just look at the example, my friend. It had nothing to do with Christianity or atheism or whatever, and everything to do with Western liberal political correctness run amok. I mean, the aide felt the need to *apologize*, for goodness' sake! That's contempoary U.S. liberalism, not Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  168. "YES! HE'S FREE! YOU DOPE!"

    I see that you've never met someone who is hooked on crack. Try to get out into the world once in a while, Brian. And try to be intellectually honest, please: few people are less free than crack addicts.

    "You'd have the world be a place where 'Santorums' would create laws that punish, and imprison that person. Not offer treatment, but incarcerate! We should have treatment programs instead of prisons for such as he!"

    Where in the world are you getting this from? As usual, you're letting your emotions get the best of you. From "a drug addict is not free, for freedom is the power to do what you ought to do" you cannot logically derive, "hence, imprison them all, and to hell with treatment." Nonsense.

    The drug issue is a huge problem. You're never going to solve it by focusing on the demand side, since those demanding drugs are not, when they're trying to get a fix, rational actors. But many drug dealers are rational actors. Heck, many of them see themselves as businessmen! I'd like to see life sentences, no parole, for those caught selling life destroying drugs like crack, heroin, etc. in sufficient quantities, and a greater emphasis on treatment, not punishment -- and more research into effective treatment -- for drug addicts. If you're the sort of person who's willing to ruin dozens of lives so you can drive a nice car with big rims, and stay home playing video games all day instead of working for a living, then you deserve to rot in prison for life. Just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  169. I was a christian once.


    I was taught about Jesus.


    Jesus was mostly concerned with the poor. And the ill.


    So when christians like Eric come along, or Santorum.... well, it's just ridiculously easy to spot them for what they are.

    False christians. Fakes.


    That's all they are.


    That's all YOU are, Eric.


    Obama is a real christian. Your kind, not so much. Your kind is the kind that's only concerned aout themselves, and of course, using their religion to lord it over others. So of course your kind calls his kind 'fake christians.' That's just what Satan WOULD say.

    I'm not still a christian, but if I were, I'd be absolutely convinced that you sir, were satanic. It's the lying. You're that good at it.

    ReplyDelete
  170. "what Plato or Machiavelli were meaning when they used their equivalent word to 'freedom'.."

    Pompous ass:-"Floyd, it's not about a *word*, but about a *concept*."


    Yea, the meaning and the use, in context.

    Pompous ass:-" Let's not pretend that there are easy and obvious answers to them. How freedom should be understood in the West is very much a live issue."

    Me:-"People don't agree with 'what we ought to do'. Given that some might see you as 'free' while others will disagree. Given a choice that is equally good or bad, how does one decide the 'free' choice?(the choice you ought to take)"

    This is not the first time Eric has disagreed with what I'm saying by agreeing with what I'm saying, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  171. "This is not the first time Eric has disagreed with what I'm saying by agreeing with what I'm saying, is it?"

    Um, we weren't even close to saying the same thing.

    You said that freedom cannot be understood as Santorum used it because we disagree about what we ought to do. I said that there's a tension between the classical notion of freedom and the modern notion, and that we can see examples of our appeal to each in different contexts.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Apparently I'm just soooooo wrong when I suggest that Santorum's definition is wrong, Eric agrees with Santorum.

    But then Eric suggests that the meaning of freedom is 'up in the air'(was that the expression?).

    An epistemological nightmare, Eric. You cannot know the meaning, know I'm wrong, but then suggest we don't really know, can you???

    Well, a pompous ass could, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  173. "Obama is a real christian."

    He may very well be (though he's a stingy SOB when it comes to his own money, I notice; less stingy when it comes to other people's money, though). I'm not in the business of judging who is and isn't a real Christian, Brian. For all I know, Obama puts me to shame in that category.

    ReplyDelete
  174. "Apparently I'm just soooooo wrong when I suggest that Santorum's definition is wrong, Eric agrees with Santorum."

    Floyd, please, at least try to understand what you read. Please.

    My issue with you was with your claim that Santorum was 'reversing' the notion of freedom by 'redefining' it. I pointed out the fact that he was doing nothing of the sort, but was rather responding to the true 'reversing' and redefinition of the term. I was responding to your critique of Santorum's 'glibness' with a critique of your manifest ignorance of the intellectual tradition that you have yourself been formed by.

    ReplyDelete
  175. "Obama is a real christian."

    He may very well be (though he's a stingy SOB when it comes to his own money, I notice; less stingy when it comes to other people's money,
    ----------------------------
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/romney-and-obama-vie-for-title-of-most-charitable-santorum-gave-least-to-charity/2012/02/16/gIQA3YPyHR_blog.html

    Apparently Obama and Romney are TIED for the lead among candidates gifts to charity. And lest we forget, Romney's charity is the Mormon Church...

    You sir, are once again, a LIAR.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Ironically Oama gives more than Santorum!

    LOLOL!!!

    ReplyDelete
  177. Eric, I'm sorry, was it the truth you were interested, or your truth?

    ReplyDelete
  178. "You sir, are once again, a LIAR."

    No, you're just being selective in your use of the facts (nothing new).

    When Obama earned a quarter of a million dollars a year and *wasn't* in the spotlight, he gave between .4% and 1.4% of that rather substantial income to charity. As he became much more of a public figure, that percentage began to rise.

    Coincidence?

    Come on, Brian, you're the one who claims to have a great BS detector. Why would a wealthy man give less than 1% before becoming very well known publicly, and only increase it as his political star began to rise?

    ReplyDelete
  179. "Ironically Oama gives more than Santorum!"

    Did I not say that I don't like Santorum?

    I said that I preferred him to Obama, but that's on grounds of policy and political philosophy.

    When I referenced Obama's stinginess, it was in response to your claims about Obama's Christianity. I'm perfectly willing to concede that Santorum is stingy as well.

    See, you've confused a bunch of categories. Shall I slow down so you can keep up with the conversation, Brian? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  180. People like you, Eric, pollute this world. You turn my stomach faster than a turd sandwich. Oh, I'm sure you're quite satisfied with yourself... evil people usually are.

    I'm done talking to this lying asshole for now. Anyody else, feel free. It's a free country, after all. Until a religious repulican stops that someday, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Shall I slow down so you can keep up with the conversation, Brian? ;)
    ------------
    If you can slow the LIES and DISSEMLING down so that there's some truth showing, perhaps. but that's not you, is it, Oh Nephew Of Lies.... (You're not mature enough to e the Father of them...)

    So no, I'd just rather tell you to fuck off. So do that.

    ReplyDelete
  182. "People like you, Eric, pollute this world. You turn my stomach faster than a turd sandwich. Oh, I'm sure you're quite satisfied with yourself... evil people usually are."

    Have I said anything false or unreasonable on this thread?

    ReplyDelete
  183. " I was responding to your critique of Santorum's 'glibness' with a critique of your manifest ignorance of the intellectual tradition that you have yourself been formed by."

    Neither you nor Santorum are being intellectually honest if either of you feel that you can use words as they were used in antiquity.

    Freedom DOES mean to do what you want within physical limits and, of course, of course within cultural/moral/legal limits too.

    But where one culture, such as yours Eric, runs into the modern culture, where, that there is a variety of cultures and morals, is a given, your culture ought to shut it's collective, antiquated trap.

    It's thinking like yours that would have a law against uppitiness yet.

    Despicable, both of you.

    And how did intellectual history become intellectual tradition btw?

    It is GLIB for Santorum to couch 'freedom' in terms that he likes.

    Is it only free of us that we ought to vote for Santorum because we hate Obama, because he hates Obama, because the bigotted right hates Obama or whatever?

    Is it only free of us that we ought to vote for Santorum because he paints Obama as 'a' Hitler and we don't like 'Hitlers'?

    And no, we're not really free. We're even less free under Santorum's revised meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  184. "Neither you nor Santorum are being intellectually honest if either of you feel that you can use words as they were used in antiquity.
    Freedom DOES mean to do what you want within physical limits and, of course, of course within cultural/moral/legal limits too."

    Um, Floyd, I gave examples of where we see contemporary uses of the traditional understanding of freedom, Floyd. A drug addict isn't free in a very important sense, and anyone who knows a drug addict knows this is true. But in what sense? Well, in the traditional sense.

    Let's use another example. One thing I regret is that I never learned to play an instrument. If I had the time, I'd learn how to play the piano. So, given that, I have a question:

    Am I, right now, free to play a piano?

    Well, that depends on what you mean.

    Given the modern sense of the term, I'm certainly free to sit down at a piano and bang about the keys. But I'm not free to play in the sense that a trained pianist is free to do so. See the difference?

    Now suppose I find the time to begin learning how to play the piano. At first, my playing will be very limited indeed: I'll struggle to perform the most basic tasks, and I'll perform them poorly. As I advance, I'll still be restricted by my limited abilities to play in a very rigid manner. But, as I progress, I may reach the point where I can begin to interpret pieces, or to compose them myself. I'll be a much more free piano player at this point than I was before I started training.

    There are similar parallels in other areas. If you play basketball with Michael Jordan, you'll find that there's a sense in which he's much more free on the basketball court than you are.

    These are common concepts, Floyd, and we all understand them. It's not as simple as "ancient notion then, modern notion now." Both notions are alive and well in our culture today, and both have a history of development that most people are unaware of. We all use both of them in a host of concepts, whether we're aware of them or not.

    ReplyDelete
  185. " A drug addict isn't free in a very important sense, and anyone who knows a drug addict knows this is true. But in what sense? Well, in the traditional sense."

    Blah, blah blah.

    You and I are both addicted to oxygen, you know this is true. This is not the sense that Santorum is talking about.

    Santorum:-"Freedom isn't doing what you want to do, freedom is doing what you ought to do."

    The case of a drug addict has nothing to do with either doing what you want OR doing what you ought to do. Clearly you aren't going to stop breathing to prove your non-addiction to oxygen Eric.

    The term 'addiction' implies that the addict isn't free from his/her addiction, but presumably he/she was free in the sense of wanting to bow to peer pressure(i.e. not really free) but likely there was some idea that he/she might lose their freedom to not take the drug and perhaps a nagging doubt that he/she ought not to do it.

    But all the ins and outs are meaningless in the face of the freedom to do what you want in the face of all this, and has nothing to do with what one ought to have done.

    Man you guys must persecute yourselves every time you look back at your lives and consider how things worked out to your disadvantage, knowing now what you really ought to have done.

    Either that or you're full of shit, right?

    ReplyDelete
  186. On the addiction thing. Eric, I smoke cigarettes. I'm an addict. Explain how I'm not free in an important sense.

    Presumably it's important in a way that clarifies what you're getting at and what Santorum was getting at too!?

    Explain it to me.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Floyd, suppose your nephew came up to you and said, "Uncle Floyd, I want to be just like you when I grow up! So, as soon as I'm old enough, I'm going to start smoking, just like you do!"

    What would you say? Be honest, now.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Rubbish?

    Was Santorum talking about drug addicts? No.

    I was thinking that he was talking about contraception and how it, in Santorum's worldview, isn't the Catholic thing to do. I was thinking that this was a shaded remark aimed at women for perhaps not refusing to have sex, which is what he thinks they ought to do, instead of that unspeakable animal thing that they do, under the protection of science!

    I was thinking that Santorum imagines that we're all fucking Catholics who don't know it yet and should just knuckle under to any laws that promote Catholic morality whether we all like it or not!

    What do YOU think?

    ReplyDelete
  189. I'd say, "It's almost a free country shithead, you're not going to listen to me anyways, suit yourself!"

    ReplyDelete