Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
251 Comments
How’s Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?
By ALAN REYNOLDS
Straining to add credibility to Mr. Obama’s fantasy about discovering $75 billion in 2013 from “closing corporate loopholes and tax havens,” CFARB assures us that “the campaign has said that an Obama administration would look for other sources of revenue.” Indeed they would.
In one respect, CFARB is more candid than the Obama campaign. Mr. Obama favors a relatively draconian cap-and-trade scheme in which the government would sell rights to emit carbon dioxide. The effect on U.S. families and firms would be like a steep tax on electricity, gasoline and energy-intensive products such as paper, plastic and aluminum. Whenever Mr. Obama claims he has not (yet) proposed any tax increase on couples earning less than $250,000, he forgets to mention his de facto $100 billion annual tax on energy. (The McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade plan is more gradual and much less costly.)
CFARB assumes Mr. Obama’s cap-and-trade tax would raise $100 billion in 2013 alone, but the actual revenue raised would be much lower. Like every other steep surge in energy costs, the Obama cap-and-trade tax would crush the economy, reducing tax receipts from profits and personal income.
The Joint Tax Committee reports that the bottom 60% of taxpayers with incomes below $50,000 paid less than 1% of the federal income tax in 2006, while the 3.3% with incomes above $200,000 paid more than 58%. Most of Mr. Obama’s tax rebates go to the bottom 60%. They can’t possibly be financed by shifting an even larger share of the tax burden to the top 3.3%.
Mr. Obama has offered no clue as to how he intends to pay for his health-insurance plans, or doubling foreign aid, or any of the other 175 programs he’s promised to expand. Although he may hope to collect an even larger share of loot from the top of the heap, the harsh reality is that this Democrat’s quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then he’d come up short.
Mr. Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute. This was adapted from a paper for Hillsdale College’s Free Market Forum (www.hillsdale.edu/seminars/offcampus/freemarketforum/speeches/2008.asp).
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
=============================================================================
I will bet anyone a dinner that Mr. Obama is lying and people making less than $250,000 will be paying more taxes either directly or by de facto tax by increased cost due to corporate/business tax increases.
Instead of just calling names like an immature grade school bully, read the complete article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122480790550265061.html?mod=article-outset-box and tell me how he will do it without raising my taxes or admit he’s lying.
Age old mystery solved using science, not superstition (the bible says chickens came first, eggs later, science findings say otherwise).
Which Came First? Eggs Before Chickens, Scientists Now Say
A rare fossilized dinosaur nest helps answer the conundrum of which came first, the chicken or the egg, two paleontologists say.
The small carnivorous dinosaur sat over her nest of eggs some 77 million years ago, along a sandy river beach. When water levels rose, Mom seems to have fled, leaving the unhatched offspring.
Researchers have now studied the fossil nest and at least five partial eggs. The nest is a mound of sand that extends about 1.6 feet (half a meter) across and weighs as much as a small person, or about 110 pounds (50 kg).
“Some characteristics of the nest are shared with birds, and our analysis can tell us how far back in time these features, such as brooding, nest building, and eggs with a pointed end, evolved — partial answers to the old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg,” said researcher Francois Therrien, curator of dinosaur paleoecology at the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Alberta, Canada.
More real science, not creationist lies at:
http://www.livescience.com/animals/081114-chicken-or-egg.html
The end of the presidential campaign seemed to signal the completion of the Obama-Clinton drama. But now it turns out there could be a surprise ending.
Advisers to the onetime rivals for the Democratic nomination confirmed Friday that President-elect Barack Obama had met with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday afternoon at Mr. Obama’s transition office in Chicago and discussed the secretary of state job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15obama.html?em
Hillary as secretary of state? I think that’s a wonderful idea. After the primaries, Hillary did the right thing and set aside her political aspirations for the good of the country. It’s only fitting that she should play a major role in an Obama administration.
Friday Five: Dr. Neil and Briar Whitehead
by Kim Trobee, digital producer
Their research demonstrates homosexuality is not innate.
The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) recently held its annual convention in Denver.
Dr. Neil Whitehead was the keynote speaker at the Nov. 7-9 event. His wife, Briar, also spoke.
The Whiteheads are co-authors of My Genes Made Me Do It! A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation and have lived and worked in India, France, Japan, Afghanistan and the U.S. They currently reside in New Zealand.
Dr. Whitehead has published more than 130 scientific papers. He holds his Ph.D. in biochemistry and worked as a scientist with the New Zealand government for 24 years. He has now been a consultant for seven years.
Briar Whitehead is a journalist, researcher, writer and speaker. She is the author of Craving for Love and God Speaks from a Little Box.
The Whiteheads spoke with CitizenLink during the Denver conference.
1. Dr. Whitehead, you’ve done extensive research in the area of homosexuality. What have you found with regard to the causes of male homosexuality?
There are multiple causes, and some of them are sexual abuse and failure to identify with the masculine world, sometimes a rebellion against it, sometimes exclusion and bullying by peers, sometimes failure to copy a father.
The twin studies show that genetics could not be a high factor. If you have identical twins, they have the same genes and probably the same family environment. So, if you have identical twins, one of whom is homosexual, will the other be homosexual, as well? Only about 10 percent of the time. That means it’s mostly not genetic.
2. In the United States, there is a lot of resistance to helping people who have unwanted same-sex attractions. Do you find that in New Zealand, as well?
Indeed. There are far fewer therapists in New Zealand (interested in such therapy).
3. Briar, how did you get into all this?
I’m a writer by training. I thought I might look at homosexuality; it just interested me. I found a fellow who had been a homosexual activist and prostitute, who had become a Christian, who had had an experience that was so profound of God’s love that he wanted to get out of homosexuality. I met him and I thought, “Wouldn’t it be good to do a racy biography of this guy? It could sell well.”
We started with interviewing, and I found I had no empathy whatsoever. I was very switched off by what he had to say about what he did. And then God took me on a crisis in which I discovered … a series of emotional dependencies in my life on men old enough to be my father. I could not break these things. I could not shake these things. If I relocated geographically, I would find another one. And I would hook in again, and my emotional world would shrink down to the size of this person who I could not do without.
And God healed me of this. He profoundly spoke to me and explained the reasons for this, and at the end of it I found I was able to empathize with the homosexual person. The book I wrote was called Craving for Love.
4. Dr. Neil, modern psychiatry says that if you treat someone for homosexuality, you are doing them harm. Is that true?
No. There haven’t been any studies which have shown conclusive, significant harm. One study, which looked deliberately for harm, found a lessening of suicides afterward. So, therapy must be doing a tower of good.
5. Briar, how do you respond to those who say, “I’ve read your book, but I don’t think that can work for me”?
God deals with us as individuals. There are different paths for different people. We’re uniquely made, and God relates with us uniquely. And what heals one person will not necessarily heal another. But there are things you can find in common. When it comes to homosexuality, you can get out of this thing. It’s not quick; it’s a process. But it is a steady movement out.
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000008691.cfm
Hey Maggotpunk,
Is a dinosaur a chicken? Or a chicken a dinosaur?
Common sense out to prevail here, in spite of what some “scientists” say.
looks like the spoofers are back. Sock puppets live!
I can’t believe that there are some who still believe homosexual orientation is a choice..the real agenda is that they couldn’t discriminate as easily if they accepted the FACT that people are born with their sexuality. Would you discriminate against someone who was born left handed with red hair? Of course not…but sexual orientation is no different. Mother Nature made us all unique and individual.
“hen it comes to homosexuality, you can get out of this thing. It’s not quick; it’s a process. But it is a steady movement out.”
In other words…go back into the closet.
Hey Mary, great LTTE today. I love a woman who stands up for what’s right and who does what’s right. One who walks the talk.
Even though we dont agree on everything, I respect you so much and love ya dearly!
Say hey to Dave!
I guess you’ve figured out it is Sock Puppet Saturday!
code falcon principle invoked…
…the pregnant calf has embarked on a journey…
Thanks, Frnmgrl….It’s always good to see your smiling face :)…miss your ‘tator salad!
Heheheh. And KANSAS thinks it has a claim on Obama?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081115/us_time/httpwwwtimecomtimenationarticle08599185875900htmlxidfeedyahoofullnation
Funny, but I’ve never heard him claim to have a craving for overly salted and soggy fried meat covered in pasty gravy. Served over instant mashed potatoes.
The state dish of Kansas!
Heeeee. The next time I’m in Wichita, I’ll bring some just for you! And this time, I have home grown fried chicken.
And now for something different…
Sometimes, ya read things that really give hope for the younger generation.
The young lady in this blog post lost her Dad last year. He did live long enough after his stroke to go down the aisle with her in his wheelchair.
They are a very special family, and she’s a VERY special young lady.
From Peg’s blog.
http://kansasprairie.net/kansasprairieblog/
#
ksfarmgrrl
Posted November 15, 2008 at 8:31 am | Permalink
Funny, but I’ve never heard him claim to have a craving for overly salted and soggy fried meat covered in pasty gravy. Served over instant mashed potatoes.
The state dish of Kansas!
_______________________________________________
Hey, I LIKE instant mashed potatoes….
Ewwwwwwwwwww!
I dont mind the soggy fried meat, but the pasty gravy and instant mashed potatoes? Not so much.
hehehhehe. Peg, my blogger friend, and I had lunch recently at the local truck stop. Yeah, I know. But…
We both LOVE liver and onions, and they have it on the menu. It was quite good. But…they put this instant gravy all over it and served it with the WORST instant mashed potatoes ever.
Next time? We’ll still have the liver and onions, but with hash browns and no gravy.
You know what I always say about Kansans and what’s on their plates.
They only recognize two veggies. Corn and green beans, and they are not real damn sure about the green beans…
Out here? They love three veggies. Corn, green beans, and sauerkraut!
So where if Obama from? Check out this article.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80931
The news about Kansas’ state budget grows more alarming by the day, and that means residents should prepare for potentially painful cuts in state services.
Because of declining tax revenue, Kansas faces a $1 billion deficit in next year’s budget, on top of a more than $140 million shortfall in the current budget year.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/331/story/55886.html
__________________________________________________
In a Republican state like Kansas, there’s only one answer.
Tax cuts!
And WHY did you not oppose the invasion of the nation of Afghanistan?
The country of Afghanistan did NOT attack us, a group of terrorists who happened to be operating in the country attacked us. So why did we inflict so much pain and suffering and death on the people of Afghanistan based upon this group?? They supposedly didn’t have anything to do with it.
Why was that okay with YOU??
———————————————-
I’m still asking this question. As to why was it okay to invade Afghanistan and not okay to invade Iraq, BOTH state sponsers of terrorism.
ksfarmgrrl
Posted November 15, 2008 at 8:24 am | Permalink
Hey Mary, great LTTE today. I love a woman who stands up for what’s right and who does what’s right. One who walks the talk.
—————————————–
As long as it agrees with MY idea of right. Isn’t that what you mean KSFARM?
Oh no geno.
I mean what your PREACHER thinks is right, of course!
Big eye roll….
I think george and geneo have their tinfoil on too tight. Sock puppets need to breathe.
#
generaston
Posted November 15, 2008 at 9:18 am | Permalink
And WHY did you not oppose the invasion of the nation of Afghanistan?
The country of Afghanistan did NOT attack us, a group of terrorists who happened to be operating in the country attacked us.
_______________________________________________
Gene, Afghanistan stood between us and the people who attacked us. They refused to hand them over. Al Queda killed almost 3,000 of our countrymen and we had every right to go after them.
_______________________________________________
I’m still asking this question. As to why was it okay to invade Afghanistan and not okay to invade Iraq, BOTH state sponsers of terrorism.
________________________________________________
Nobody from or in Iraq attacked us. As for Iraq being a sponsor of terrorism, that’s only in the fevered minds of Republicans.
Mary, I read your well reasoned letter in today’s paper. You were kind to those bigots at Spirit One Christian Center who gather to spread hate and use Christ’s name to do it. They haven’t indicated an ability to recognize anything but evil, but you tried.
At least they display their hate on a billboard so those without mean spirits can read their warning of what’s inside that building and inside the hearts of every person gathered there.
gotcha XXX, so Iraq NEVER sponsered terrorism and did NOT wish the US any harm. Is that what you are telling me?
generaston
Posted November 15, 2008 at 9:57 am | Permalink
gotcha XXX, so Iraq NEVER sponsered terrorism and did NOT wish the US any harm. Is that what you are telling me?
—
If “wishing the US any harm” is the criterion by which we invade other countries, then we’ll need every man, woman, and child of this country to join up and learn to shoot.
>Well, it’s still unclear whether chicken eggs or chickens came first (the intended question in the original riddle), said Darla Zelenitsky, a paleontologist of the University of Calgary in Alberta who was the first scientist to closely analyze the dinosaur nest. <
Doug… don’t you even read your own posted articles?
Almost every country in the world wishes that American foreign policy would be changed in Obama’s administration.
What almost every country in the world would like to see from Obama’s administration is an admission, reflected in policy, that the use of military force by the USA directly reduces the quality and quantity of authority held by the US.
In other words, they’d like to see the new adminstration dial back the Bush Doctrine because, as employed in Iraq, because it is patently self-defeating. For example, see Iran, N Korea, Russia, China: all of these regimes are seeing their power grow under the application of the Bush Doctrine in Iraq, rather than recede.
You could probably argue that this causes harm to the US military, if you define “harm” loosely enough.
Should we therefore invade the world?
“Should we therefore invade the world?”
It sure would be good for the coffers of bushco, halliburton, blackwater, and the whole contractor gang of thugs. Not to mention the Carlyle Group and the bin ladens.
Birds of a feather, ya know?
Mary.. although we disagree about 90% of the time, I have to say you were right on in your editorial today. Believe me when I say Spirit One is extreme and does not represent the views of most everyday Christians. I would love to see the hateful rhetoric between ALL Christians and non-Christians stop! People can disagree without being hateful about it….. the WE Blog would be a good place to start.
Mary – we (wife and I) salute your letter today. Good job!
sam – did you see the article about the shelter?
THE AMERICAN PURITANICAL ETHIC!
The Republicans are so afraid of sex, it’s really humorous. Lights out and strictly missionary. How boring. No wonder they freaked over a stained red dress. Imagine the impact if there had been a condom involved. They would have been screaming for God to smite them. I think that takes the Republicans out of any intelligent conversation about sex, straight or otherwise.
The problem with Iraq was this. Iraq under Hussein was defiant of UN regulations (which were largely enforced by US forces). However, Iraq under Hussein did not tactically employ terrorism against either the UN or the US for two reasons. One, he traded (illegally) in the black market with almost every country which was a member of the UN Security Council. Two, he never effectively employed terrorism as a tactic against the US because as a secular government he couldn’t control Islamic terrorism…and maintaining control of Iraq was obviously Goal #1 for Saddam Hussein.
So what it comes down to is this, Hussein wished the US harm (true) and he did so while thumbing his nose at both the UN and the US. He had supported terrorism in that he had offered aid and comfort to Palestinian suicide terrorists. These terrorists were a threat to Israel, though, and only indirectly to the US. Unlike Al Qaeda, these PLO terrorists were never a direct threat to US citizens residing in North America.
Also, like every country in the Middle East, in every country in South Asia, and every country in Eurasia, Hussein was surely trying to join covertly the Nuclear Club, i.e. acquire nuclear weapons.
Was this a good enough reason to invade Iraq?
I would argue that the answer is “yes” ONLY IF you become unhinged by the events of 9/11. Unfortunately George W Bush failed the test.
“the WE Blog would be a good place to start.”
Sure sam. You go first.
How about a LTTE from YOU advocating the repeal of the Kansas hate amendment.
george – good to see the nutcase media (WND) is still calling the governor of Hawaii a liar.
farmgrrl,
Did you read this article? I wondered if in your neck of the woods you have newcomers who could use lessons on how to take care of the land, animals, and navigate rural life. Fodder for your column?
http://www.kansas.com/news/state/story/597806.html
I think that the events unfolding up to, say, 2035 will show clearly that the application of the Bush Doctrine in Iraq lead directly to an explosion in members of the Nuclear Club, btw.
I would venture to guess that a burgeoning market is opening up right now for nuclear armaments. Right now the US is weak, pinned down in Iraq, riven by internal strife, and no other country has the means to stop nuclear acquisition. I bet there is far more money chasing nuclear weapons now than there was in 2000.
The invasion of Iraq will be judged a failure, in my opinion, independent of even a perfect US-style democracy in Iraq in 2035.
And that last bit won’t happen.
XXX, couldn’t agree more. Tell me a cabinet containing Hillary, and the best of the old Clinton team isn’t going to make this the most fun four years in politics in decades.
My God, the right wing pundits are already freaking out. Rush and friend are already calling this the Obama recession, and condemning him for his choice of Chief of Staff. Personally, I think they’re all saying, “Oh s&&t, we’re in trouble; he’s out thought us again.”
Imagine Al Gore as head of the EPA, or UN ambassador. Fun times are here . . . finally.
Hey thanks Linda! I missed that article. And it’s true. I was wondering what I was going to write about this week. I’m bored with the usual, so I imagine my readers are too.
Good ideas are always appreciated!!!!
Oh, and Summer approves too. She says “Bark!”
But she’d really prefer more dog columns….
Pedant – I would add the US-supported invasion of Iran by our loyal ally Saddam Hussein. It was only after that US-supported war that Iran decided it needed a deterrant against future attacks of that sort.
JMWalker
Posted November 15, 2008 at 10:24 am | Permalink
THE AMERICAN PURITANICAL ETHIC!
The Republicans are so afraid of sex, it’s really humorous. Lights out and strictly missionary. How boring. No wonder they freaked over a stained red dress. Imagine the impact if there had been a condom involved. They would have been screaming for God to smite them. I think that takes the Republicans out of any intelligent conversation about sex, straight or otherwise.
——————–
Thanks JM for a little laugh this morning. You know this because you in a previous life were a Republican? You guys are funnier than watching the Key Stone Cops. You run in circles but unlike the Cops you don’t have a clue what you are doing or what you should be doing you just know what those dang Repubicans do.
Thank again for the laugh!
farmgrrl… we have discussed that many times before and you know I don’t support the Amendment. You write the letter, I’ll be happy to sign it. I do not believe gay marriage is morally right.. but I also do not agree that it should be legislated.
Now.. you tell me that you really didn’t mean you hoped to live to see the day when there would be no churches because that would be just as harmful to me as the Marriage Amendment has been to you.
Well, I am NOT bored with the usual but I do think I’m a bit behind. Ahem… The Oct. 23rd column about the new baby was the last I received. Ahem…
sam – I think you are I are in agreement (and maybe we have that middle ground). What would you think of removing the term “marriage” from the legal system altogether and replacing with “union”. Not a gay-straight ’separate but equal’ situation but across-the-board. So, a couple’s civil ‘marriage’ would be called a ‘union’ for all legal/civil purposes. Then the issue of the ’sacrament’ would be left to the church where it belongs.
As a ‘non-churched’ person I agree with you – there is no reason to do away with churches.
“I do not believe gay marriage is morally right.. but I also do not agree that it should be legislated.”
I can live with that. Everyone can determine what is right and wrong for themselves, but no one has the right to deny me and mine our secular civil rights based on their own prejudices.
“Now.. you tell me that you really didn’t mean you hoped to live to see the day when there would be no churches”
Sorry Sam, but I do think that. I think churches are the greatest evil in this nation, and have caused waaaay more harm to humanity than good. I think you are a good man, and I wish you no harm. But churches are evil. You can always find another job, but it’s hard for those with the church’s foot on their necks to have another life. This one is all we have.
And like you with gay marriage, even though I think churches are bad, I dont want them legislated out of existence.
I think the “marketplace of ideas” and demographic changes, along with a better educated society, will eventually put churches out of business, except for some rabid nut case groups.
Hell, even the KKK and Nazis and such still exist in pockets!
Sorry Linda. I’ll get right on that :)
Ben, I think as time goes on, the “legal” institution of marriage should just be abolished. It no longer serves any purpose but for the legal and finanical benefits, and if those cant be equal for all, what’s the point?
As the wingnuts here point out, you can live together, have relationship, have children, etc. without the state sanction.
Churches are still welcome to have their quaint little ceremonies, but with no “legal” status for any of them.
That’s what it’s going to come to if the wingnuts dont agree to share the civil benefits. If they cant share equally, they’ll have to give them up.
ksfg – yep, that is what I am advocating. I have no desire to intervene in any way in church functions.
Well my neighbor is out of town and shut off the paper.
But if Mary has a LTTE? I need to go buy a paper.
In other news?
After two years, AND voting not for Senator Obama but against Sarah Palin?
I find I am warming up to President elect Barack Obama.
Against all that we have heard and speculated, I think that relations between President elect Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton are actually quite good. TOO, now comes word that Obama wants to council with his former rival and TRUE (if not lately) maverick John McCain.
This in the light of the fires of a brewing con civil war.
It feels like a time of renewal and promise and optimism. It feels like morning again in America.
I’m in agreement that all citizens of our country are given rights by our Constitution and those should be fair and equal for all. The right to worship (or not) in the way each chooses, the right to the benefits of marriage… No matter how many times voters make a choice of intolerance it won’t change the Constitution of the United States of America. And a constitutional amendment to take away rights isn’t going to happen unless it takes that right away from all (like that’s gonna happen!).
Buy a paper if you choose, but here’s Mary’s letter, BlueJay.
http://www.kansas.com/711/story/597388.html
We know that both Afghanistan and Iraq supported terrorism. Based upon your logic of Iraq, why did we invade Afghanistan?
The country had NOT attacked us. Afghanistan had NO history of WMD, Iraq did. So why did we invade Afghanistan?
Did we try dipolmacy?
Did we try sanctions?
Did we try embargos?
We invaded a soveign nation simply based upon we didn’t like a group in the country, so that was okay to cause death and destruction against the people there???
“I find I am warming up to President elect Barack Obama.”
I hate to say it, but I am too. I like the way he is treating the Clintons.
But…
It remains to be seen if he will even wiggle his little pinky to help gay folks. I’m still thinking not.
He shares that passive homophobia with governor “leadership”.
So why was it so wrong to invade Iraq?
Stopping the rape rooms, torture rooms, mass graves, known usuage of WMD and known sponser of terrorism against our allies was bad.
But invading a country with NO WMDs, with a government based upon the religion of peace shiria law, that had NOT attacked us was okay, simply because a group of people in the country, we didn’t like. That was okay???
C’mon folks, you can’t have it both ways. Ooops, I forgot, Dem logic says they can.
Survey
What is right and what is wrong?
Place and R on the ones you believe are right and the ones you believe are wrong.
Those are your only 2 choices.
You have 10 minutes to answer the survey.
Ready, set, GOOOO!
1. Murder
2. Rape
3. Abortion
4. Sex outside of marriage
5. Lying
6. Cheating
7. Man and woman living together without being married
8. Stealing
9. Homosexuality
10. Heterosexuality
11. Euthanasia
12. Speeding on the highway
13. Tailgating
14. Government bailout of industry
15. Same-sex marriage
16. Burglary
17. Slander
18. Gossip
19. Libel
20. Working to provide your own living and living within your means.
21. Choosing to be dependent upon your government for your existence.
Ooops!
And W on the ones you believe are wrong.
He does know the Constitution — taught constitutional law in fact. By surrounding himself with people from different perspectives he might continue to “believe” what he does and see equal as equal on the subject of civil rights.
lindainks55,
Everybody has the same rights to exist and live in this country.
Homosexuals, heterosexuals, etc.
But, this includes, not special rights to demand something, that is not mentioned in the US Constitution, as some would desire.
#
okobserver
Posted November 15, 2008 at 10:41 am | Permalink
Thanks JM for a little laugh this morning. You know this because you in a previous life were a Republican? You guys are funnier than watching the Key Stone Cops. You run in circles but unlike the Cops you don’t have a clue what you are doing or what you should be doing you just know what those dang Repubicans do.
Thank again for the laugh!
===================================================
Actually, I know this from reading the right wing pundits doing everything they can to avoid intelligent conversations about sex. Why else would they be afraid gay marriage will be the ruin of this country?
But that’s okay, feel free to laugh about it: it only proves my point:-)
American, I have my own set of values, morals and beliefs without your test. Which one do you think you are RIGHT on and anyone who disagrees with you would then be WRONG about? Why do you think anyone has to be wrong? Will you be held accountable for your beliefs and opinions and me for mine?
#
American
Posted November 15, 2008 at 11:20 am | Permalink
Survey
What is right and what is wrong?
Place and R on the ones you believe are right and the ones you believe are wrong.
Those are your only 2 choices.
You have 10 minutes to answer the survey.
Ready, set, GOOOO!
1. Murder
2. Rape
3. Abortion
4. Sex outside of marriage
5. Lying
6. Cheating
7. Man and woman living together without being married
8. Stealing
9. Homosexuality
10. Heterosexuality
11. Euthanasia
12. Speeding on the highway
13. Tailgating
14. Government bailout of industry
15. Same-sex marriage
16. Burglary
17. Slander
18. Gossip
19. Libel
20. Working to provide your own living and living within your means.
21. Choosing to be dependent upon your government for your existence.
=======================================================
Thanks for proving my point, American.
generaston
Posted November 15, 2008 at 11:13 am | Permalink
We know that both Afghanistan and Iraq supported terrorism. Based upon your logic of Iraq, why did we invade Afghanistan?
The country had NOT attacked us. Afghanistan had NO history of WMD, Iraq did. So why did we invade Afghanistan?
Did we try dipolmacy?
Did we try sanctions?
Did we try embargos?
We invaded a soveign nation simply based upon we didn’t like a group in the country, so that was okay to cause death and destruction against the people there???
—
Not at all. Any country, including the USA, is fully justified in repelling invasion or other direct attack on its citizenry by whatever means necessary.
The Taleban left Afghanistan a rogue nation, one that harbored Al Qaeda. Not only did Afghanistan harbor Al Qaeda, but it’s rogue status actually succorred Al Qaeda. That had to change.
Also, as any proponent of capital punishment will attest, the ability of capital punishement to act as a deterrent is directly related to the time elapsed between crime and punishment. Nothing convinces a would-be criminal that a crime punishable by death ain’t worth it than to see another human commit said crime (literally see the crime, that is) followed immediately by news of that human’s death. The time elapsed is crucial in converting would-be criminals to citizens in good standing: the shorter the time the more lasting the conversion. (of course humans for several millennia now have tried to apply this deterrant to crimes outside those worthy of death — like debt, theft, arson, etc. — which has obscured its effectiveness and weakened its appeal).
Please note that I’m talking about the ability of capital punishment to deter crime. I am not talking about the use of capital punishment per se. I am trying to use the power of capital punishment to deter crime as a metaphor for the power of swift invasion of Afghanistan to deter future attacks on the US.
Once it became clear that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11, the US was fully justified in punishing the Taleban because the Taleban were directly responsible for Al Qaeda’s health.
The difference between the actions against Afghanistan and Iraq is pretty clear to me.
lindainks55,
Not willing to commit to an answer then, eh?
Do you have an opinion about anything, stand for anything, or are you afraid to communicate what you really believe?
So what are your values, morals, and beliefs and what are they based upon?
Where will the “Progressive liberalism” end if we are constantly adding another level of progressiveness?
Will all the items on the list above be “Right” to do?
“ksfarngrrl” –
Although I do not participate with any religious congregation, I kinda understand the appeal and potential benefits of such institutions.
I was raised in the Presbyterian Church (God’s Frozen People) and in a fair-to-middlin’ progressive congregation. There were a few fanatics but mostly, when Presbyterians are faced with a controversy the form a committee. That’s pretty benign in the grand scheme of things.
I recognize the value of “fellowship,” and think that’s a generally good thing. In small towns such as WaKeeny, Parsons, Hoxie, or Wichita there is some logic that fellowship centers around a church.
Personally, I find Jesus to be a pretty wise observer of life and human nature and how we mere humans should approach life. Too bad most “Christians” don’t think like that.
If there were a Church of the Jeffersonian Jesus, I might join. At least I’d appreciate the fellowship with fellow congregants.
I don’t need the mythological parlor tricks — water-to-wine, Lazarus, making the crippled see again and the blind to walk!
I mean, I kinda buy into to peace-makers getting blessed. And I’m not the one to cast the first stone at anybody, thanks to Jesus’ advice. And a lot of that other stuff.
But as soon as the twice-born step up and claim they speak for God because they donate 10% of their (net, not gross) income to The First Church of the Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship, I feel good that the writers of the Constitution of the United States of America got pretty specific about separating church and state.
I think in small towns in Kansas — like WaKeeny, Colby, Emporia, Coffeyville, or Wichita — church membership is more of a social commitment than spiritual. You want to see your banker or your best customer or a lawyer in a non-professional context, just in case. And what better venue than a covered-dish dinner in the church basement?
There was a piece on NPR this morning about “The First Church of Beethoven.” It’s in a former gas station somewhere; the former garage has been converted into an auditorium for the local community theatre. People go there on Sunday mornings and sometimes poets read their stuff, sometimes they discuss books or ideas, and often musicians simply perform… frequently Beethoven or Bach… and the whole point is sharing a spiritual experience and having coffee and donut holes together afterward.
I think that’s what “church” is for people in small Kansas towns such as WaKeeny, Cottonwood Falls, Holton, Burlington, and Wichita.
What we see in this forum seems to be weighted toward those twice-born who think they’ve got one foot in heaven and the other on a banana peel. And they rejoice at the prospect!
They’re pretty extreme in their expectations and conviction they’re among God’s “select.”
I suspect most of them got where they are simply for the free coffee and donut holes and the “fellowship.” And they pick up the patter.
They don’t know what they believe. Their friends cite a couple of Bible verses and to belong to the crowd they parrot snips of Leviticus just to fit in with the free-coffee-and-donut-holes crowd.
It’s about being human.
That is what religion does and is for.
God is simply a prop.
JMWalker,
Your point being, since I, therefore am not a RW pundit, unless of course you think I am Glenn Beck?
Care to answer the survey?
Careful, or “american” will go on a scripture quoting binge. Or fit. I guess “fit” is the better term. Do sock puppets have “fits” or tantrums?
Nevermind. It’s all the same wingnut baloney.
Hey, remind me again, WHO will be the next president? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
loser
“Also, as any proponent of capital punishment will attest, the ability of capital punishement to act as a deterrent is directly related to the time elapsed between crime and punishment.”
For those of you with a scientific bent, I meant “indirectly.”
I think everybody else understood the meaning.
bth
Posted November 15, 2008 at 11:01 am | Permalink
ksfg – yep, that is what I am advocating. I have no desire to intervene in any way in church functions.
————————–
Sorry Sam, but I do think that. I think churches are the greatest evil in this nation, and have caused waaaay more harm to humanity than good. I think you are a good man, and I wish you no harm. But churches are evil. You can always find another job, but it’s hard for those with the church’s foot on their necks to have another life. This one is all we have.
——————
Ben this is what you are advocating. The furtherance of a group that thinks Churches are evilll. KFG is kind and understanding. Yeah and pit bulls don’t bite. Rattlesnakes are good pets. Need I go on.
——————-
Yep she convinced me I should give up my right to be married so she can have what she has defined as her right.
I’ll get right on that. And they wonder why it keeps getting voted down. It isn’t because they are misunderstood. Oh no. It is because the voters understand them all too well. I want my ‘right’ and forget about yours.
Nice piece Monkeyhawk. I’ve said many times that the world would be a better place if people followed the actual teachings of Jesus. No wonder he weeps.
But I think they dont really give a rat’s ass about Jesus. Not the loving Jesus anyway. They prefer the ANGRY Jesus action figure. They only go to church to flock together and feed and groom their hatreds and superiority complexes.
Hell, we had coverd dish dinners at the 4-H building too. But we didnt use 4-H to bastardize the bill of rights. There are many ways to have fellowship. But not as many ways to feed bigotry and hatred. I think the Klan pretty well has that covered. Why would churches want to duplicate their efforts?
Now if you want real church fellowship? How about BEER CHURCH!
Google it.
okobserver
Posted November 15, 2008 at 11:40 am | Permalink
I want my ‘right’ and forget about yours.
—
This makes no sense.
What she and bth are advocating is protecting your right to marriage, not forgetting about it.
Can you describe what right you have to deny “civil union”, i.e., secular, rights to self-identified gay Americans?
Heheheh. HAHAHAHAHAH.
See monkeyhawk? Right on cue, grmie proves how right I am about the “churches”.
Al Quida was a terrorist group training and operating in Afghanistan. The Taliban was the government of the country of Afghanistan. Again, Al Quida was just a group in the country.
We didn’t try sanctions against the government to turn Al Quida over to us.
We didn’t use diplomacy.
We didn’t try anything, we simply invaded a country based upon us not liking a group in the country.
The country of Afghanistan did NOT attack the US. Afghanistan had no WMD or history of WMD, so what threat were they to the US. Why couldn’t we just use sanctions against the country and wait for them to turn Al Quida over to us?
So why was it okay to invade a country that didn’t attack us but then it was not okay to invade a country that didn’t attack us?
She’s a christian Pedant. That’s all the “right” for bigotry she needs.
Reminds me of a Jimmy Buffet song. Something about “God’s own drunk, and a god fearing man”.
But I cant even “risk one eye” these days.
Ben if this all were decided today, you are saying make marriage a civil union and do away with benefits for all.
You know I could go along with that. But of course you realized that finally yesterday KFG said it is about the money after all. She doesn’t want the right to a civil union. She wants the right to the ‘marriage benefits’. And now you want to take those who want it. This won’t help your popularity.
The only “right” you can claim in denying the same civil benefits to self-identified gay Americans that are extended to married Americans is the power of the ballot.
In other words, you’re saying that you have a right to vote to deny this extension.
This is just another way of saying “might makes right.”
This never stands up over time. Never in all of human existence has “might made right,” and never will it.
Jesus WEPT! No one could make up a better example of today’s christian than grmie.
If sock puppets like her didnt exist, we’d have to invent them. But she’d be funnier if she was a real person.
“Ben this is what you are advocating”
okob – you are a liar. You are bearing false witness against me. You are a Godless heretic.
Too funny. Uh, yeah. I want ALL the “money” benefits you get. I see how tightly you are gripping your “money” benefits of marriage.
So loving the “money” benefits of marriage is ok for you grmie, but not ok for me.
Well, there ya go. I couldnt make up a better example of that famous christian love and charity.
She’s all yours Sam.
Hee hee heeeeee….
Still lauging at how loony grmie is.
She wont give up the “money” benefits of HER marriage, but it’s ok to deny me mine?
Wingnut logic
“ksfarmgrrl
Posted November 15, 2008 at 10:59 am | Permalink
Sorry Linda. I’ll get right on that :)
Ben, I think as time goes on, the “legal” institution of marriage should just be abolished. It no longer serves any purpose but for the legal and finanical benefits, and if those cant be equal for all, what’s the point?
As the wingnuts here point out, you can live together, have relationship, have children, etc. without the state sanction.
Churches are still welcome to have their quaint little ceremonies, but with no “legal” status for any of them.
That’s what it’s going to come to if the wingnuts dont agree to share the civil benefits. If they cant share equally, they’ll have to give them up.
bth
Posted November 15, 2008 at 11:01 am | Permalink
ksfg – yep, that is what I am advocating. I have no desire to intervene in any way in church functions.”
Where did I call churches evil liar okob?
Pedant I really don’t care what KFG has or doesn’t have but she sure cares about me. She just doomed churches with a few strokes on her key board and from that you and she who is demented got that that I wanted to take something from her.
From her own story last night religion is targeted 25% of the time as opposed to 10% for sexual orientation.
Any intelligent person would be able to look at this and see what is happening.
Thank you ben for proving my point. That is quiet a condemnation. Elaborate on that for me. With evidence from what I just posted.
“okobserver
Posted November 15, 2008 at 11:45 am | Permalink
Ben if this all were decided today, you are saying make marriage a civil union and do away with benefits for all.
You know I could go along with that. But of course you realized that finally yesterday KFG said it is about the money after all. She doesn’t want the right to a civil union. She wants the right to the ‘marriage benefits’. And now you want to take those who want it. This won’t help your popularity.”
I’m not sure I understand your point. My think would be to simply allow that suite of legal protections etc that go with ‘marriage’ to go will ALL unons. Thus, as I made very clear, all ‘marriage benefits’ (under civil law) would become ‘union benefits’
‘Marriage’, as a sacrament of the church, would remain in the church. And – it would have no impact on ‘Caeser’s Law’
#
American
Posted November 15, 2008 at 11:35 am | Permalink
JMWalker,
Your point being, since I, therefore am not a RW pundit, unless of course you think I am Glenn Beck?
Care to answer the survey?
======================================================
My point being you make my points.
And your “survey”? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
I think what okobserver fears here is that by limiting the rights of government to legalize civil unions only (and giving churches or religion the exclusive right to bestow marriage on those in civil unions) that the US will see a diminution of religion in America.
I think that’s wrong. The reason that religion in America is taking incoming right now is because it’s got its hands too far in the pockets of political power.
I think that if social conservatives got onboard with the civil union concept, and accepted their monopoly power of granting the status of “marriage,” then religion would become more healthy in the USA, not less.
In other words, I wish yall had more faith in your religion, not less.
And lord knows self-identified gay Americans would finally see some justice.
ksfarmgrrl,
per your above:
“I’ve said many times that the world would be a better place if people followed the actual teachings of Jesus.”
So, if I am to understand you, you believe in what Jesus taught? Correct?
What did Jesus teach then, from your perspective, and how did you come to that conclusion?
“Sorry Sam, but I do think that. I think churches are the greatest evil in this nation, and have caused waaaay more harm to humanity than good. I think you are a good man, and I wish you no harm. But churches are evil. You can always find another job, but it’s hard for those with the church’s foot on their necks to have another life. This one is all we have.
——————
Ben this is what you are advocating. The furtherance of a group that thinks Churches are evilll.”
I am NOT advocating elimination of the Church my wife and I attend or any other church. Your claim that I DO advocate that is a deliberate LIE – bearing false witness. With that you place yourself right alongside Holick the Heretic and Pharisee Phred.
It just so happens that I DISAGREE with ksfg on her overall blanket condemnation of churches – and have said so in the past.
“‘Marriage’, as a sacrament of the church, would remain in the church. And – it would have no impact on ‘Caeser’s Law’”
Yep. But ya know, that’s not what the theocrats like grmie want. They are TOTAL dominionists.
They share more with muslim extremists than they are willing to admit.
With them, it’s church law or no law.
Correction. It’s the law of THEIR church, or no law!
Not willing to commit to an answer then, eh? — American
——–
I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request.
I see that the tactics of duh Libs haven’t changed.
If they can’t win an argument through logic, they employ the ever popular “you’re a racist, lunatic, unintelligent, socially un-unenlightened etc. blah blah” to lower their discussion opponent down to a level where they supposedly defeat him/her.
Works fine on a forum, sucks in a court of law though.
JMWalker,
A non-answer.
No commitment?
“From her own story last night religion is targeted 25% of the time”
Like Holick the Heretic tareting Islam – which just happens to be a religion? Or the KKK targeting Catholics and Jews?
okobserver
Posted November 15, 2008 at 11:45 am | Permalink
Ben if this all were decided today, you are saying make marriage a civil union and do away with benefits for all.
You know I could go along with that. But of course you realized that finally yesterday KFG said it is about the money after all. She doesn’t want the right to a civil union. She wants the right to the ‘marriage benefits’. And now you want to take those who want it. This won’t help your popularity.
—————-
Pedant and all of the others such as fermie who has a reading disfunction. I said “You know I could go along with that.” Hard to some to read the words when they perceptions are so ironclad.
I refuse to spend my sat. reading what the leftwing nuts post to make fermie look good. That just isn’t going to happen. Her ugliness is too deep. I think I will spend some time gardening this morning with my lesbians neighbors who are classy women that would never sink to fermies level. They do more in one morning for the SSM movement than fermie could do in a year.
“CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets.”
See also my forthcoming paper: “Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them”.
Posted by: z | March 31, 2008 8:20 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/remember_eg_becks_dodgy.php#comment-813954
lindainks55,
You too?
What a surprise!
A non-answer.
No commitment?
I dont usually respond to idiots, but I’ll make an exception here.
“What did Jesus teach then, from your perspective,”
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That’s not too hard is it? Didnt Jesus say that was the greatest law? EVERY religion has some form of the golden rule in it’s teachings.
And yet? The “religious” seem to ignore that one. I can only assume, since you and grmie are such good christians, that you want your own marriages to go unrecognized, since that is what you “do unto me”.
“and how did you come to that conclusion?”
I can read. Even fairy tales and historical fiction.
Can you?
ksfarmgrrl
Posted November 15, 2008 at 11:59 am | Permalink
“‘Marriage’, as a sacrament of the church, would remain in the church. And – it would have no impact on ‘Caeser’s Law’”
Yep. But ya know, that’s not what the theocrats … want. They are TOTAL dominionists.
—
Yep.
We did this last weekend in another thread. Freebird71 asked American what his objections were to gay marriage, and others of us interjected by saying that what American and others like him want is CONTROL OVER THE BEHAVIOR OF OTHERS.
Period.
That’s it in a nutshell. It has less to do with justice than it has with voting to control others by voting to restrict their civil rights.
#
Regular
Posted November 15, 2008 at 12:00 pm | Permalink
I see that the tactics of duh Libs haven’t changed.
If they can’t win an argument through logic, they employ the ever popular “you’re a racist, lunatic, unintelligent, socially un-unenlightened etc. blah blah” to lower their discussion opponent down to a level where they supposedly defeat him/her.
======================================================
Actually, since the right-wing is incapable of intelligent, socially enlightening discussions, we have no choice but to lower ourselves to your level in order to educate you in the finer points of, say, intelligent, socially enlightening discussions.
Or, as you percieve it, “you’re a racist, lunatic, unintelligent, socially un-unenlightened etc. blah blah”!!!!
okob – perhaps you also chose to ignore other conversations sam and I have had about faith-based efforts to deal with homelessness. Much of that effort comes from some wonderful churches – Gracepoint and St Elizabeth Ann Seaton come to mind here on the west side.
A good comment from the pastor at Gracepoint when they decided to spend much of their building fund helping people – “The church is not bricks and sticks.” Bless him and his congregation for that.
okobserver,
Are you claiming that the Secret Service reported NO increase in threats? Link please.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/11/open-thread-1114/#comment-469463
By the way, last weekend’s discussion ended with American, the self-described conservative, insisting that all civil rights flow from the constitution.
Not from a Creator, mind you, but from the constitution. If a right ain’t in the US Constitution then it don’t exist, according to the “conservative” American.
This is purely an exercise in keeping a foot on somebody else’s neck, nothing more.
hee hee heeeee…
“They do more in one morning for the SSM movement than fermie could do in a year.”
I think it’s called the Thin Veneer of Middle Class Civility.
I bet they roll their eyes when they see you coming and after you leave.
I wonder if they would still “garden” with you if they read your posts?
hee hee heeeeee.
I’d like to be a fly on the wall and hear what they say when grmie leaves. Of course, she’d have to be a real person and have “real” neighbors for all this to be true.
She’s not. She’s a sock puppet.
“It just so happens that I DISAGREE with ksfg on her overall blanket condemnation of churches – and have said so in the past.”
True enough. Ben and I disagree on a lot of things. So do sol and I. But they dont hate me and want my relationship to be second class.
We can still be friends. But with people who want me and mine to have second class status? Friends not so much…
Ya know, I was just thinking that Freebird was one of the nics that disappeared in the great blog purge last week.
How funny. When we decline to participate in american’s wingnut games (like reindeer games?) then we have no commitments or values.
Typical
My day beckons, and I’m out of here.
Football later today, followed tonight by indulgence in my weakness, live rock’n roll.
The Toadies are at the NorVa later….and even 90s rock played with conviction is better than no rock, at least in my world. And the Toadies are redeemed in part by virtue of being Texans.
Peace.
#
Regular
Posted November 15, 2008 at 12:00 pm | Permalink
I see that the tactics of duh Libs haven’t changed.
If they can’t win an argument through logic, they employ the ever popular “you’re a racist, lunatic, unintelligent, socially un-unenlightened etc. blah blah” to lower their discussion opponent down to a level where they supposedly defeat him/her.
Works fine on a forum, sucks in a court of law though.
______________________________________________
I see there’s just no cure for willful ignorance.
Reg, go join the rest of the losers in the corner.
#
JMWalker
Posted November 15, 2008 at 12:05 pm | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted November 15, 2008 at 12:00 pm | Permalink
I see that the tactics of duh Libs haven’t changed.
If they can’t win an argument through logic, they employ the ever popular “you’re a racist, lunatic, unintelligent, socially un-unenlightened etc. blah blah” to lower their discussion opponent down to a level where they supposedly defeat him/her.
======================================================
Actually, since the right-wing is incapable of intelligent, socially enlightening discussions, we have no choice but to lower ourselves to your level in order to educate you in the finer points of, say, intelligent, socially enlightening discussions.
Or, as you percieve it, “you’re a racist, lunatic, unintelligent, socially un-unenlightened etc. blah blah”!!!!
———————–
Actually, I already successfully argued about gay marriage and came to the conclusion that it is legally unethically to prevent gay marriage in the construct of our current society.
I also noted that part of fitting the legal boot to the feet is always problematic as society is not one size fits all.
The current mind set of society often dictates which rules are followed and which are not.
The societal mindset has greater weight than the legal precedent or interpretative injection because tradition carries the burden of overwhelming societal approval of keeping marriage defined by traditional standards.
Gay marriage cannot bear such a burden in today’s society as it is uni-dimensional and cannot support external pressures exerted upon it.
#
XXX
Posted November 15, 2008 at 12:13 pm | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted November 15, 2008 at 12:00 pm | Permalink
I see that the tactics of duh Libs haven’t changed.
If they can’t win an argument through logic, they employ the ever popular “you’re a racist, lunatic, unintelligent, socially un-unenlightened etc. blah blah” to lower their discussion opponent down to a level where they supposedly defeat him/her.
Works fine on a forum, sucks in a court of law though.
______________________________________________
I see there’s just no cure for willful ignorance.
Reg, go join the rest of the losers in the corner.
—————–
Thanks for proving my point.
“Actually, I already successfully argued about gay marriage and came to the conclusion that it is legally unethically to prevent gay marriage in the construct of our current society.”
Really?
Because I dont think that’s what you said on the gay marriage thread.
#
Regular
Posted November 13, 2008 at 9:11 am | Permalink
One has to look to nature if to see if there is any precedent assigned to gender preference. As far as I know, there are no known species that further their genetic lines through association of ’same sex’ relationships.
Humans have complicated the issue by putting in societal values in substitution for biological values. There is no substance to the claims nor are there any validations studies to prove that ’same sex’ relationships would have a detrimental affect if they were not to exist in a formally recognition.
This is much more about protest by ’squeaking wheels’ that any fundamental principles being violated.
One has to examine the basis in fact here. Society can move on without ‘gay marriages’ and laws that may govern them. There would be much more chaos if there were no laws adjusting behavior in straight marriages however. The absence of after effect over long terms that the argument of gay marriage is of little merit because it cannot stand the test of time.”
Yeah KFG, that was one facet of my argument. I don’t like to limit my arguments to a single paragraph or even a single group of paragraphs. I do like to argue with myself. :)
My contention is basically, is that the prohibition of ‘gay marriage’ is constitutionally unsound or illegal because it does not apply ‘equal protection’ status.
The biggest obstacle, imo, for gay rights advocates is not one of hammering out of legal decision because I think that argument has already been challenged and won –
- the biggest challenge is elevating ‘gay marriage’ into a status of equality in regards to tradition. Hetereo-sexual marriage is traditional and is deeply rooted in custom and ceremony.
Gay marriage has very shallow roots of tradition and it is unlikely that significant legal obstacles of uprooting tradition can be used to plow under by ‘equal protection’ obstacles if it flies in the face of society and what it considers to be normalized tradition.
Just speaking philosophically here, not trying to paint the wagon red, set it on fire and drag it through the market square while blowing my own horn.
“Hetereo-sexual marriage is traditional and is deeply rooted in custom and ceremony.”
NO PROBLEM! Allow for tradition, custom and ceremony in the privacy of peoples clubhouses, churches, etc. But do NOT elevate those customs to legal status in Caeser’s realm. Proposition 8 in CA did just that.
#
bth
Posted November 15, 2008 at 12:44 pm | Permalink
“Hetereo-sexual marriage is traditional and is deeply rooted in custom and ceremony.”
NO PROBLEM! Allow for tradition, custom and ceremony in the privacy of peoples clubhouses, churches, etc. But do NOT elevate those customs to legal status in Caeser’s realm. Proposition 8 in CA did just that.
———————
Well, one can force rule over tradition and custom, but one cannot legislate ‘tradition and custom’, that is – without great harm to the fabric of the society.
Regular posted November 15, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Yeah KFG, that was one facet of my argument. I don’t like to limit my arguments to a single paragraph or even a single group of paragraphs.
————–
Multi-nic’d Regular also likes to use false, fictional paragraphs to make his argument — like the false fictional last paragraph in his copy/paste post here.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/open_thread_25-4/#comment-239232
That’s nice cosmos… the only thing you have proven to everyone, what a bitter person you are to bring up an irrelevant post that is almost three years old and introduce it as an ad homonim detractor.
When you can’t argue the topic cosmos, you always result with your usual low ball tactics.
———————
As I said, I have no objections with gay marriage being implemented as it appears to me to have legal standing under the ‘equal protection’ clause.
What I’m identifying are the pitfalls that may come about.
Other pitfalls is how to make a domestic law translate internationally –
- what if a gay marriage statute is enacted and upheld in the U.S. Then, one goes over seas and it is not recognized legally as a marriage.
This could cause all sorts of problems.
There are other things, just food for thought.
Mutli-nic’d Regular,
Your many lies on this blog are relevant.
That’s not an ad hominem, it’s a simple fact. You have no credibility.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted November 15, 2008 at 1:12 pm | Permalink
Mutli-nic’d Regular,
Your many lies on this blog are relevant.
That’s not an ad hominem, it’s a simple fact. You have no credibility.
———————
cosmos,
One more time for your facist ideological driven brain…
I did at the time and many times since then apologized for the post.
If you won’t want me to defend that gays have a right to marry under the law, then I won’t.
You can explain future my lack of voice on the matter from here on to kfg when I was supporting her stance.
Typical Libs, throw the ‘baby out with the bathwater’ so you can have some sort of artificial moral stance.
Pitiful…
So much for reasonable discussion with duh libs.
Someone needs to reign cosmos in, he’s killing your liberal causes with this own radical personal agenda of hollow personal victories over calm discussion.
cosmos is already trying to bury the gay marriage issue with his personal agenda of radical environmentalism.
Don’t think cosmos wouldn’t sacrifice gay marriage on the altar of environmental correctness? Just look at your newly elected candidates and their willingness to use scotched earth policy in pushing their own personal agendas.
Sorry kfg, with people like cosmos around, you have no friends with the radical environmentalists- he use every opportunity to kill your message(s) so he can present his.
If you won’t want me
=
If you don’t want me
#
Regular
Posted November 15, 2008 at 12:16 pm | Permalink
Gay marriage cannot bear such a burden in today’s society as it is uni-dimensional and cannot support external pressures exerted upon it.
========================================================
And normal marriage can? A failure rate of better than 50%? How many single parents out there? Till death do us part? For richer or poorer? Amazing how society picks and chooses its losers to reward. It’s you who cannot afford to live with a bisexually inclusive society. It’s the right-wing in this country that wants nothing less than to have Jesus, nailed to a cross, as our national symbol.
Apparently, even in 1776, our founding fathers had more common sense than today’s right-wingers.
I don’t care JWWalker,
cosmos has found that regardless of their stance on a subject, those who he does not consider worthy of discussion, will not be allowed to because they will be attacked.
He’s your boy, I’m done with the matter.
But a nice job on pissing off your allies Libs.
Regular posted November 15, 2008 at 1:22 pm
cosmos,
One more time for your facist ideological driven brain…
I did at the time and many times since then apologized for the post.
—————-
Multi-nic’d Regular,
Then post the links where you admitted that the Sierra Club did NOT “screw” the N.O. levees.
Oops. . . Regular falsely continued to insist that his lie was true
And admit your other lies — about you were not earlier posting as “JM”, your lies about what I’ve posted, your lies about AGW, etc.
Cosmos,
Could you acknowledge that Regular is looking at the constitutional right to be treated equally and agreeing that gay marriage should be afforded legal status? Then, if you have disagreements about the environment at least you won’t be discrediting those arguments. Or not, but it would contribute to your cause.
#
Regular
Posted November 15, 2008 at 1:27 pm | Permalink
I don’t care JWWalker,
========================================================
That’s pretty obvious.
Regular posted November 15, 2008 at 1:27 pm
cosmos has found that regardless of their stance on a subject, those who he does not consider worthy of discussion, will not be allowed to because they will be attacked.
—————–
No, I simply pointed out that you have no credibilty on this blog, multi-nic’d Regular.
And you are personally responsible for that fact, because you are the one who posted so many lies.
It just feels yucky telling another poster what to do, how to behave! I steer clear of that as I find it distasteful.
I’m sorry, Cosmos. I lost my head. Wish I could erase that post, but they don’t have a delete button…
Linda,
I’ve made no comment about Regular’s posts re gay marriage. Regular is trying to tie that issue to the Sierra Club, AGW, etc because he can’t defend his lies about those issues.
I’m back on track with the firm belief that what each of us post reflects on us, not someone else. That we each are known by the posts we make and aren’t responsible for any post except our own. Ah, that feels better.
Linda,
I’ve got no problem at all re your 1:40 pm post. But thank you for the later comments.
I’ll apologize again, Cosmos. I am sorry. I’ll try harder.
Linda, again, no problem at all. . . but thank you.
Good! It was actually a great day for me.
I fought the refrigerator and I WON!
It’s an old thing and the crisper drawer easily gets off it’s track. It’s a terrible to get it lined back up properly. Involves getting down on the floor and holding your mouth “just so,” and being patient… Patience isn’t one of my virtues.
But, hey, I did it! I fought he refrigerator and I WON! ;-)
hmmm, now I can work on typos. ;-(
always something, isn’t it!?
A corrected version just to prove I know the difference between it’s and its and…
________
Good! It was actually a great day for me.
I fought the refrigerator and I WON!
It’s an old thing and the crisper drawer easily gets off its track. It’s terribly difficult to get it lined back up properly. Involves getting down on the floor and holding your mouth “just so,” and being patient… Patience isn’t one of my virtues.
But, hey, I did it! I fought the refrigerator and I WON! ;-)
Too bad Spirit One couldn’t have been listed in this article, about post election hatred.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081115/ap_on_re_us/obama_racial_2
Regular, can you name any foreign nations where same gender people cant register in the same Hotel room?? Or rent an apartment together?? Just wondering…
Hey Linda — Congrats!!
Regular,
Considering your wild rant at 1:22 pm, maybe you should take some time off from this blog, to recover from the stroke you had on Nov. 4? Give your eyes, etc a rest?
Well, Jayhawks need to go back to the drawing board… They just dont have what they had a year ago…. Just let TX walkl all over them today…. tsk tsk tsk….
Some background — bypassing media, Reagan’s weekly radio speech, earlier ‘fireside chat’, etc.
‘Video: Obama’s Radio Address, Now an Online Video, Too’ — AssociatedPress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqXqZv-whis
First one,
‘Your Weekly Address from the President-Elect’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd8f9Zqap6U
#
cosmos_originally
Posted November 15, 2008 at 2:40 pm | Permalink
Regular,
Considering your wild rant at 1:22 pm, maybe you should take some time off from this blog, to recover from the stroke you had on Nov. 4? Give your eyes, etc a rest?
————-
Yeah, wild rant cosmos…
You’re probably still pissed that some kid called you a jerk when you were in the fourth grade and hold that against him and other people that wear the same color shirt or have the same last name as him.
Linda,
“It just feels yucky telling another poster what to do, how to behave! I steer clear of that as I find it distasteful.”
Did you wake up today and just decide to do this?
“cosmos_originally” —
I dunno.
Even before “Regular” suffered brain damage on November 4th I was inclined to reconsider any opinion I might have that coincided with his.
If “Regular” or “HLP” or “Nathaniel” or “American” or “Boxlock” or “okobserver” or “outlander” &tc… came out in favor of fluffy kittens, my instinctive reaction would be “Bring out the clippers!”
We see the thought processes of CONs every day in this forum. They start with their political answer and pick and choose arguments that can be taken out of context and support their prejudice.
They lean on “What If?” arguments like Tiny Tim on a crutch.
CONs just tend toward ideology over real-life evidence and the facts at hand.
CONs tend to master the art of compartmentalizing issues that they face; they’re against government intrusion into personal decisions but want to dictate a woman’s reproductive options.
They claim they want less government but want the Feds to finance “faith-based initiatives.”
And they’re oblivious to the obvious contradiction of their so-called “principles.”
According to the Gospels, Jesus admonished hypocrisy 19 times. He had nothing to say about homosexuality.
But what is the so-called “Christian” hot button these days?
You know.
MonkeyHock is an idiot.
I took the ‘gay marriage’ argument as one of an academic argument and there was no application of religion or any other tests.
But, as I said before, screw it – if Libs want to own the argument can’t see the forest because of the trees, then let them get lost by their own means and chaotic mistakes.
I dunno.
Even before “Chas” suffered brain damage when he had his stroke, I was inclined to reconsider any opinion I might have that coincided with his.
If “MonkeyHawk” or “CapnAmerica” or “Linda” or “Mary” or “Maggotpunk” or “Steven” or “Chas” &tc… came out in favor of fluffy kittens, my instinctive reaction would be “Bring out the clippers!”
We see the thought processes of Liberals every day in this forum. They start with their political answer and pick and choose arguments that can be taken out of context and support their prejudice.
They lean on “What If?” arguments like Tiny Tim on a crutch.
Liberals just tend toward ideology over real-life evidence and the facts at hand.
And they’re oblivious to the obvious contradiction of their so-called “principles.”
Regular posted November 15, 2008 at 3:38 pm
You’re probably still pissed that some kid called you a jerk when you were in the fourth grade and hold that against him and other people that wear the same color shirt or have the same last name as him.
———-
Nope. . . I just dislike liars.
Multi-nic’d Regular has repeatedly LIED about the Sierra Club re the New Orleans levees, about AGW science, about what I’ve posted, and other issues.
Regular cannot restore his credibility, so he instead falsely attacks me.
Cosmos,
For someone who dislikes liars, you sure do love to lie about what other people have said.
“I took the ‘gay marriage’ argument as one of an academic argument and there was no application of religion or any other tests.” — Regular
———-
It’s fairly easy to argue in favor of what is stated in the Constitution of the United States of America with no application outside that document. What I haven’t seen is a cogent argument against giving equal rights without bringing in religion or prejudice.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted November 15, 2008 at 4:00 pm | Permalink
Regular posted November 15, 2008 at 3:38 pm
You’re probably still pissed that some kid called you a jerk when you were in the fourth grade and hold that against him and other people that wear the same color shirt or have the same last name as him.
———-
Nope. . . I just dislike liars.
Multi-nic’d Regular has repeatedly LIED about the Sierra Club re the New Orleans levees, about AGW science, about what I’ve posted, and other issues.
Regular cannot restore his credibility, so he instead falsely attacks me.
———————————
Yeah right cosmos…
Is that how you would debate in an academic setting?
You’d be laughed on the stage for bringing up such tripe.
There is no excuse for your behavior cosmos. You have posted hundreds of times that same thread, posted it irrelevantly off-topic in all topics and generally made an ass of yourself and one known that cannot defend an argument so you attack posters or their ‘credibility’.
To keep throwing the same dead bird’s nest on every topic you disagree with me about, how about you try and debate?
Naw, that requires actual thinking, not cutting and pasting…
off the stage..
Nathaniel,
Two simple questions:
1) Do you believe that the agricultural economist Dennis Avery is a credible source re AGW science?
2) Are the peer-reviewed scientists who say that Avery misrepresents their opinions on AGW wrong?
Regular cannot restore his credibility, so he instead falsely attacks me.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted November 15, 2008 at 4:12 pm | Permalink
Regular cannot restore his credibility, so he instead falsely attacks me.
—————————-
There’s absolutely nothing false about your hundreds of way off topic attack posts cosmos.
Attacking other posters is what you do cosmos and you do it often, multiple times a day.
yada yada yada
I liked reguliar a lot more when he was incapacitated. He’s still the bitter old coot he always was. Maybe the good Lord will give him a bigger dose of karma next time.
“Liberals just tend toward ideology over real-life evidence and the facts at hand.”
That’s why Liberals believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old so that they can stay consistent to the ideology of their Bible even though the scientific evidence . . . hey, wait a minute!
Agreed, Myxie–
He should go back to posting as Jim Johnson.
Yeah, whoever Jim Johnson is…
Was hard to post on the blog last week as I was on the 10th floor of Wesley Medical Center for four days.
But leave it to the paranoid libs that I must be posting under several nicks even though I couldn’t have possibly done so.
Linda,
The problem is that you argue from the premise that being a homosexual is not a choice.
So how does one prove if someone is a homosexual or not, without them tellng you?
Goldurn it, McCluer! I’ll say this much for ya . . . no matter how obvious the lie, you never admit it.
Just like you never admitted you were JM, even after it was proven you were JM . . .
CapN —- Shhhhhhh about Jim Johnson… it might bring him out of the sock drawer!!! LOL
Nathan, how do you prove you are NOT a homosexual?? Do you have to tell them??? LOL
Thank God!
Nathan continues to choose to be heterosexual.
All the gays continue to be very relieved by that . . .
Better yet, Nathan, WHY would one have to PROVE their sexual orientation??? Hmmmm????
#
CapnAmerica
Posted November 15, 2008 at 4:36 pm | Permalink
Goldurn it, McCluer! I’ll say this much for ya . . . no matter how obvious the lie, you never admit it.
Just like you never admitted you were JM, even after it was proven you were JM . . .
——————————
It’s probably you Crapn.
You and your buddies already have posted many times under ‘JM’.
Too bad you are so spinelss and won’t release your real name and address.
Must be comfortable for you to hide behind a computer screen.
Notice how the most foul Libs are those that hide behind fictions screen names.
Nathaniel,
Are you going to answer my two simple questions?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/11/open-thread-1115/#comment-469561
Just like sex and color of skin, sexual orientation doesn’t make a person less than another person. Who cares what you think about choice? It doesn’t matter. Each individual is ensured equality.
Hey, JM, James McClure–
Are you sure it was the 10th floor that you spent four days in Wesley at last week?
I’m going to give you another chance to correct yourself on that . . .
#
CapnAmerica
Posted November 15, 2008 at 5:14 pm | Permalink
Hey, JM, James McClure–
Are you sure it was the 10th floor that you spent four days in Wesley at last week?
I’m going to give you another chance to correct yourself on that . . .
——————-
Yeah, I’m very sure.
Why, are you going to make an idiot of yourself once again?
You had a private suite?
Wow, who knew that Vet’s Health Care would shell out for that?
#
CapnAmerica
Posted November 15, 2008 at 5:26 pm | Permalink
You had a private suite?
Wow, who knew that Vet’s Health Care would shell out for that?
——————
Why should you care?
I pay insurance premiums just like anyone else.
Pretty uptown for your neighborhood . . . Johnson, hehehe . . .
CapnAmerica
Posted November 15, 2008 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
Pretty uptown for your neighborhood . . . Johnson, hehehe
——————-
whatever crapn,
I haven’t even read anything this Johnson has written.
You’re rambling on about nothing. More than likely it is you or one of your buddies as you are pushing this association a bit too hard.
What a pathetic dweeb you are crapn.
REALLY?!
I think Freud called that projection.
I’m not the one who has to keep nic-switching, hehehe . . .
Besides . . . calling people nasty names is going to get your tires slashed again.
Oh, wait. That didn’t happen either.
Pathetic dweeb indeed.
Freud calls what projection?
If I wanted to use different nics, I would have done it a long time ago. You wouldn’t know who to address now would you?
So, just as before there was a registration, you accuse me of nic switching, yet can provide no proof other than you constant, mindless accusations.
Libs on this blog don’t want to discuss anything.
They just want constant turmoil and strife.
And they’re oblivious to the obvious contradiction of their so-called “principles.”
LOL! That describes you to a tee, Nathan. Talk about projection.
Multi-nic’d Regular,
Since you want to “discuss” issues — did you find those Congressional and Justice Dept links that you claimed supported your (false) claim that the Sierra Club “screwed” the New Orleans levees?
No? Why not?
Amazing: Franklin and Max have disappeared. They still licking their wounds? I’ll bet both are stocking up on WMD in case Obama decides to A) take em away, or, B)make em grow big ugly beards.
#
Nathaniel
Posted November 15, 2008 at 4:35 pm | Permalink
Linda,
The problem is that you argue from the premise that being a homosexual is not a choice.
So how does one prove if someone is a homosexual or not, without them tellng you?
======================================================
And you argue from the stance gays choose their lifestyle. So obviously, there is no middle ground. The point being, Who’s right?
I guess if they “choose” to be gay they turn into a giraffe. Or a pelican. Maybe a hippopotamus. Something besides a human citizen of the United States of America?
The “choice” argument is just inane.
You know, it doesn’t matter who’s right….everyone has the right to live in a committed relationship with their choosen significant other and all the legal rights that come with it. It doesn’t matter how our sexuality is determined, whether it’s a choice or the way we’re born
lindainks55
Posted November 15, 2008 at 6:41 pm | Permalink
The “choice” argument is just inane.
——————————–
So, if someone chooses the “Christian lifestyle” or the “Buddhist lifestyle” or whatever, the predominant group is allowed to discriminate against them and deny them equal protection afforded by the Constitution?
Incredible!
mxyzptlk, those choices would make them a turtle, or a frog. It’s important! ‘Cause only humans are protected by the Constitution.
Mary – well said. My own best guess is that some are born and some choose, In fact, I suspect that some become gay due to trauma of some sort. However, as you correctly note – what difference does that make in regards to respecting a person’s rights?
I still fail to see how respecting a couple like ksfg and her significant other in any way threatens my marriage.
It’s simple… When you throw religious beliefs out, they throw in economics(well, fake economics)… When you prove their economic paranoia wrong, they throw in Polygamy, and NAMBLA… When you throw out that then they complain about equality, and the Constitution…. When we show that to be a scam, then they just get nasty…
There isnt a rational leg to stand on as far as this issue is concerned… Either gay people are 100% human, and entitled to the same, equal rights with all other humans…. Or, the underlying issue is something far more sinister….
My bet is on the latter….
Ben —– “I still fail to see how respecting a couple like ksfg and her significant other in any way threatens my marriage.”
You are of course, right on target… KFG and her significant other have NOTHING with which to threaten anybody’s marrige…
Well,
One of the LOUDEST opponents on this forum against gay marriage is “Boxlock” He routinely gripes that gay marriage is not going to be forced on him
(I csll him Bawksalot now)
I wanted to make the acquaitance of such a “man”. SO invited him to meet me and explain how gay marriage would diminish his marriage, his God, the size of that certain part of the male
anatomy, etc. He agreed to meet…
And then punked out and did not show up.
My conclusion has to be his ideology is not worth defending to him. That he is intimidated, as most bigots are, by exposure to scrutiny.
Now there is safety in numbers for the cons in stoking baser hatred…for now.
But in REALLY showing up, one on one to defend their cherished institution? One of their loudest screechers here was a no show.
It’s just a matter of time until such weak and defenseless hatred falls.
You have no room to talk Junior…
you took the coward’s way out on our meet up with steven davis…you slinked out like the small dog you are.
He proved he lies and he can’t be trusted. Why would anyone want to communicate with him in any way. Can’t trust him or anything he says. The nic is listed first to warn you where the scroll-over territory begins.
You can bitch to Nathan there Jimmuh “Regular” McCluer.
HE changed the conditions of that meetup.
Nothing was changed up on Bawksalot.
You and I didn’t have anything interesting to talk about anyway. I was just going to tell you to seek the mental aid that you need. I here encourage you again to do so.
Regular you have been told, and told, and told, what happened when you met Steven… WHY do you keep denying what you have been told?? If you want to try it again, why dont you set up another meeting…. instead of just posting your usual double talk screed…
JR… drop me an email… I have an idea why Boxtop didnt show… It’s just a thought…
NATHAN didnt respond to my questions upthread >>>>
Chas
Posted November 15, 2008 at 4:39 pm | Permalink
Nathan, how do you prove you are NOT a homosexual?? Do you have to tell them??? LOL
Chas
Posted November 15, 2008 at 4:40 pm | Permalink
Better yet, Nathan, WHY would one have to PROVE their sexual orientation??? Hmmmm????
I doubt he will respond….
“Ben —– “I still fail to see how respecting a couple like ksfg and her significant other in any way threatens my marriage.”
You are of course, right on target… KFG and her significant other have NOTHING with which to threaten anybody’s marrige…” — too confusing.
I agree completely. When chicken lady marries her dildo, it will not threaten my marriage.
Charles, can Box Lock marry his hand?
Survey
What is right and what is wrong?
Place and R on the ones you believe are right and a W on the ones you believe are wrong.
Those are your only 2 choices.
You have 10 minutes to answer the survey.
Ready, set, GOOOO!
1. Murder
2. Rape
3. Abortion
4. Sex outside of marriage
5. Lying
6. Cheating
7. Man and woman living together without being married
8. Stealing
9. Homosexuality
10. Heterosexuality
11. Euthanasia
12. Speeding on the highway
13. Tailgating
14. Government bailout of industry
15. Same-sex marriage
16. Burglary
17. Slander
18. Gossip
19. Libel
20. Working to provide your own living and living within your means.
21. Choosing to be dependent upon your government for your existence.
“Mary_Caruso
Posted November 15, 2008 at 8:21 am | Permalink
I can’t believe that there are some who still believe homosexual orientation is a choice..the real agenda is that they couldn’t discriminate as easily if they accepted the FACT that people are born with their sexuality. Would you discriminate against someone who was born left handed with red hair? Of course not…but sexual orientation is no different. Mother Nature made us all unique and individual.”
Your opinion letter in todays’s WE was wrong.
Homosexual behavior (which is being a homosexual) is a choice, and not inate, anymore than a heterosexual does not have the choice to wait until after marriage before having sex.
You choose how you are going to act.
A person does not choose their race, their parents, the date of their birth, their sex, whether they are left handed or right handed, blone, blue-eyed, their birth name, their health, their place of birth, how much they will weigh, or how long they will be, or how they will look.
It is just an excuse to behave in they way they want to behave and to have freedoms that not good for society.
Who says so?
God for one. Society for another. Voters for a third reason. Common sense says so. Logic says so. Physiology says so. Reproductive capability says so.
Freedom doesn’t mean lack of guidelines, laws, accepted morals, rules, expectations.
Freedom comes with responsibilities.
Justice with mercy.
Should we act kindly to others?
Yes!
Should we care for others?
Yes!
Should we love others?
Yes!
22. writing stuckass stupid surveys.
Ooops., over-reliance on the word “arse.” Mmmmmm. wonder if I have secret orientation issues.
(p)
#
Chas
Posted November 15, 2008 at 8:08 pm | Permalink
Regular you have been told, and told, and told, what happened when you met Steven… WHY do you keep denying what you have been told?? If you want to try it again, why dont you set up another meeting…. instead of just posting your usual double talk screed…
——————-
No, I was given a convenient version of the story.
Junior didn’t not show up in person like he promised – he lied and took the coward’s way out.
Well, have it our wy, but thats not the way it happened…. but you wouldnt believe the truth if it bit you on your ankle!!
type — that’s “your way”
#
Chas
Posted November 15, 2008 at 10:22 pm | Permalink
Well, have it our wy, but thats not the way it happened…. but you wouldnt believe the truth if it bit you on your ankle!!
———————-
I was there over an hour at the location, about 20 minutes of it by myself.
There is no excuse for Junior, he took the coward’s way out.
I think you need to re-read what Steven told you as to what happened…
#
Chas
Posted November 15, 2008 at 10:28 pm | Permalink
I think you need to re-read what Steven told you as to what happened…
—————-
I think Junior should have kept his word and showed up like he agreed to.
I dont think JR should have shown up, since he thought Nathan was going to be there… He didnt know Nathan would be a no-show… Like I said, why dont you take it up with Steven… He can explain what happened.
BlueJay was simply too imature to be able to be around me.
Steven realized just how immature BlueJay was as well.
Show us quite a bit about the type of person BlueJay is and even Steven knows it.
Why do we keep going over this same crap over and over, ad nauseum…. It’s over… it happened… move on… set up another meeting… stop bitching about it!!
#
Chas
Posted November 15, 2008 at 10:32 pm | Permalink
I dont think JR should have shown up, since he thought Nathan was going to be there… He didnt know Nathan would be a no-show… Like I said, why dont you take it up with Steven… He can explain what happened.
——————-
Actually, I did take it up with Steven Davis at the time and commented several times why Junior hasn’t shown up. Each time Steven Davis claimed ignorance on the where abouts of Junior and there was no admission by Davis that Junior was not going to show up.
That ‘told Junior to stay away story’ was fabricated by Steven Davis after the fact and after the event.
#
Chas
Posted November 15, 2008 at 10:35 pm | Permalink
Why do we keep going over this same crap over and over, ad nauseum…. It’s over… it happened… move on… set up another meeting… stop bitching about it!!
—————-
Just handing Junior a bit of his own medicine; when he crows about the non-meet up with boxlock.
Junior claims Boxlock is a coward for not showing up;ergo – I can make the same claim that Junior did not show up at our arranged meeting as well.
Oh yeah, I told boxlock not to show up, just to tick Junior off.
See, I can change my story to fit the bill as well.
Like I said, you will believe whatever you want, as long as it feeds your ego… I also heard Steven tell what happened… in person… I cant say any more about it…. So, you go on ahead and believe whatever you like… true or not…
The truth is, BlueJay didn’t show.
He was a coward.
Your meeting with Steven, and JR’s meeting with Boxlock arent at all comparable… TWO different situations entirely… And what’s more, you know it… Boxlock just flat out failed to show up… end of story…
Regular, that has been explained more times than I can count. BlueJay was honoring a suggestion made by his friend Steven. Steven made the suggestion in order to avoid any possible conflict and make everything as pleasant as possible. I’ve seen the email Steven sent (complete with date and time). That day he had no idea who would show up. One man invited himself and said he would be there, another hadn’t responded to his email so he didn’t know if it had been read. The question Steven asks is so apropos, “who has ever taken such grief for buying another lunch?”
I agree Linda… And on that note, I am not going to deal with this matter any more… Regular, you can keep on bitching till the cows come home from India… it wont change what happened… Only YOU can change that, and arrange another meeting…
And yet Steven spares no opportunity to use that meeting to bash Regular.
Oh yes, he has taken so much grief, yet has no problem dishing it right back out.
I think we are past the pitty party game for Steven.
#
lindainks55
Posted November 15, 2008 at 10:44 pm | Permalink
Regular, that has been explained more times than I can count. BlueJay was honoring a suggestion made by his friend Steven. Steven made the suggestion in order to avoid any possible conflict and make everything as pleasant as possible. I’ve seen the email Steven sent (complete with date and time). That day he had no idea who would show up. One man invited himself and said he would be there, another hadn’t responded to his email so he didn’t know if it had been read. The question Steven asks is so apropos, “who has ever taken such grief for buying another lunch?”
————–
There wasn’t any grief to be taken, unless one has a persecution complex.
The event was an a very open area with access to a small cafe – both very public.
There was no reason for Junior not to show up, it was all B.S. on Junior’s part.
Perhaps Nathan’sassessment may be the most accurate of all’ that Junior is simply not house broken enough in social manners to meet real people in public and Steven Davis asked him to say away.
It remains as true as it has always been — in order to have a friend, you must be one.
What none of you know and I’ve always been protected. I was going to be there too. I wanted to meet you, Regular. The email wasn’t to only one person, but two.
I’d still like to meet you, Regular. Maybe someday.
#
Chas
Posted November 15, 2008 at 10:48 pm | Permalink
I agree Linda… And on that note, I am not going to deal with this matter any more… Regular, you can keep on bitching till the cows come home from India… it wont change what happened… Only YOU can change that, and arrange another meeting…
——————
You don’t know Chas, you weren’t there. I even think Junior lied about driving by as well. We were very close to parking lot and I would have noticed any drive by’s.
I ain’t arranging squat until I get better. Still have weeks of physical and visual therapy to do and I can’t drive in my condition anyway.
No one asked me to stay away.
Yet Steven went out of his way to ask BlueJay not to show.
Very telling.
I just watched a movie on television titled, “Freedom Writers.” I laughed, I cried, I really appreciated. Here’s a website about the class the movie was based on.
http://www.freedomwritersfoundation.org/site/c.kqIXL2PFJtH/b.2259975/k.BF19/Home.htm
If you get the chance, it’s a good one.
good night; good luck; god bless —-
whatever you conceive god to be!!
blessings ALL!!
blessings on your therapy, Regular!!
so mote it be!!
“Boxlock just flat out failed to show up… end of story…”
Boxlock didn’t fail to show up, Boxlock never intended too, and set him up. The immature BJ ‘buffed up’ and challenged a meeting like a junior high school kid.
To have obliged would have been just as immature and asinine.
This isn’t the first time BJ has done that, and he needed to be taught a lesson by standing in the cold thinking about that just because he dares others do not have to follow.
I assure you he will think of it before doing it again.
“Boxlock just flat out failed to show up… end of story…”
Boxtop…errr Boxlock said:
“This isn’t the first time BJ has done that, and he needed to be taught a lesson by standing in the cold thinking about that just because he dares others do not have to follow.”
To my knowledge, BJ has never done that to anybody else… without some kind of proof of your statement, I shall consider that to be just one more in your long line of LIES… Good night!!
Boxlock20 I showed up just to see what a flag burner looked liked,which was not much. you did not miss a thing.
Chas,
Since you are so interested in others conversations about meetings…
When do you want to get together?
“I assure you he will think of it before doing it again.”
On the contrary.
I look forward to seeing who is next afraid to meet me and stand for their ideals.
BlueJay,
You were too much of a coward to meet Regular and you are wondering about others afraid to meet you??
LOL
“Boxlock didn’t fail to show up, Boxlock never intended too”
Debatable.
But not to Bawksalot’s advantage.
He is either a calculating liar or a coward.
Nathaniel
Posted November 15, 2008 at 11:34 pm | Permalink
Chas,
Since you are so interested in others conversations about meetings…
When do you want to get together?
===========================================
With you?? Not interested… at least not in this century… catch me around 2102
YOU insinuated yourself on that meetup Nathan.
My friend asked me to stay away. I agreed.
Comparing that to Bawksalot’s cowardice or deception?
I can clear that up fairly quickly.
I’ll meet the rights pet kook James McCluer.
Thing about upping the ante?
You just may get called.
#
BlueJay
Posted November 15, 2008 at 11:44 pm | Permalink
YOU insinuated yourself on that meetup Nathan.
My friend asked me to stay away. I agreed.
Comparing that to Bawksalot’s cowardice or deception?
I can clear that up fairly quickly.
I’ll meet the rights pet kook James McCluer.
Thing about upping the ante?
You just may get called.
——————-
You need to stop drinking, you can’t even write coherent sentences.
“No one asked me to stay away.”
And yet you did Nathan.
Like Bawksalot, you said you would be there and you were not. This makes you WORSE than a coward.
You said you would stand up for someone (albeit a most indefensible someone) on your side.
And you left poor “Regular” twisting in the wind.
This is quite funny!
Heh
Not quite an RSVP on your part there Jimmuh.
I wasn’t about when your identity was outed. But you blame me, Capn, Steven, the editors, etc.
I thought it was you who did it to gain attention.
Well, I feel like twisting the knife a bit.
I KNOW who outed you. Everyone I know knows.
And you would never, in nine million years guess who it was.
McClatchy Co. down to $1.63 per share.
I wonder if this BJ Puke has anything to do with the Wichita Eagle’s parent’s decline?
My God, over 5 years, this graph look’s like’s Chas’s congregation attendance numbers! LOL!
http://investing.businessweek.com/businessweek/research/stocks/charts/charts.asp?symbol=MNI
Soon, BJ will have to find something else to do.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003891512
McClatchy Stock ‘Could Be Worthless,’ Analyst Says
By Mark Fitzgerald
Published: November 14, 2008 10:40 PM ET
CHICAGO Citing The McClatchy Co.’s high debt and shrinking revenue, a Morningstar report declares that the chain’s slumping stock “could be worthless.”
Tom Corbett — the Morningstar analyst who this summer similarly dismissed GateHouse Media Inc. shares as having a “fair value” of zero — said debt from McClatchy’s 2006 acquisition of Knight Ridder, added to declining revenue, means that the company will look to satisfy its creditors rather than its shareholders.
SINKING FASTER THEN THE TITANIC!
oooooooooooooooGAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!
oooooooooooooooGAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!
oooooooooooooooGAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!
DIVE!
DIVE!
DIVE!
NET INCOME of McClatchy:
http://investing.businessweek.com/businessweek/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?symbol=MNI
2004 155.9
2005 160.5
2006 -155.6
2007 -2,736.0
Bye Bye Birdie
Who’s gonna miss you so?
Bye Bye Birdie,
Why’d you have to go?
No more wise-ass liberal crap,
It’s followed you away;
I’ll cry laughing Birdie,
Till you’re home to stay.
I’ll not miss the way you btich,
As tho’ it’s just for me;
And each and ev’ry night,
I’ll write you faithfully!
Bye Bye Birdie,
It’s awful hard to bear;
Bye Bye Birdie
Think anyone will give a care,
Guess they’ll never care,
Guess they’ll never care!
Bye Bye Birdie
Man, many of you people need something better to do, a hobby?, a girlfriend?, a job? something…
ROFLMAO
BlueJay
Posted November 15, 2008 at 11:39 pm | Permalink
“Boxlock didn’t fail to show up, Boxlock never intended too”
“Debatable.
But not to Bawksalot’s advantage.
He is either a calculating liar or a coward.”
But not a fool, as are you! I say again; My ego and my confidence in myself are such that I NEED NEVER issue childish school yard challenges to others as you have on repeated occasion, NOR do I feel any obligation to accept them. As you BJ so obviously do.
To have shown up would have accomplished nothing, and as I have said, it is foolish to enter into anything that can yield no benefit. You issued that silly challenge for your own benefit, not mine or anyone Else’s in spite of what you pretend.
To have declined would simply have invited the same accusations of fear, EXACTLY like you and your fellow jackals have been entertaining your simple minds with now.
Now BJ, you call it whatever you need to to protect that fragile ego, go ahead lie to yourself.
The fact remains; you made a childish dare to meet. I, realizing there was nothing good to come of it decided to teach you and others so immature and gullible a lesson, and I have done precisely that as clearly evidenced by the unending chatter you and others of your character are putting out. Take heart in knowing there are a few showing themselves to be the childish idiots you showed yourself to be, so…you are not entirely alone.
I am humored at how much I accomplished showing not only you but some of your fellow children how ridiculously juvenile you all are.
BJ, was it cold standing in front of Dillions all that time….did ya miss lunch, did you learn anything or remain the grown child you were.
Bye the way BJ, while you were standing in a parking lot in the cold I remained working at home, receiving and making calls to promote my company, to help my customers and to provide income for my family.
Now who’s the fool or coward???
It’s pretty clear to all here if they are honest and not simply a member of the jackal pack.
“Boxlock20″ claims –
“…while you were standing in a parking lot in the cold I remained working at home….”
Uhm.
So you were lying at the time when you said you were out getting the oil changed and running other errands?
Y’know, the amazing thing to me is people who lie about stuff that doesn’t really matter. Just to keep your lying skills sharp, I guess.
So when were you lying, “Boxlock20?” When you claimed you went out to get the oil changed or when you claimed you were sitting at home trolling for customers?
We already know you lied when you told “BlueJay” you’d meet him for lunch or a cup of coffee? Well, I guess we know that about you.
“So you were lying at the time when you said you were out getting the oil changed and running other errands?”
No you nitwit, the Saturn dealership has two computers in the waiting area. Damn you Libs are uninformed.
I was home working while numskull was looking lost standing there in a parking lot, and then getting the oil changed and then off to the west side for business
Try and keep up Monkey, instead of trying to find holes in something there are none.