OT Liberals...where is the outrage?
ath...@home.com
you would have been all over it.
So what's the problem here?
You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to
be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk
showing yourselves to be even worse.
http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
arheist@home#1554
Robibnikoff
<ath...@home.com> wrote in message
news:kls6s4he6apqado2b...@4ax.com...
Feeling a little cranky today?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight
#1557
pba...@worldonline.nl
Maybe it's the fact that English isn't my native language,
but nowhere in your post I see even a hint as to wath people should be
outraged about. The fact that the president is no good at bowling?
Even with my locked shoulder syndrom I could do better that 129 :-)
Truly an outrage!
Love,
Peter van Velzen
March 2009
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
Mark K Bilbo
You know, conservatism didn't used to be the same thing as bitter and
angry.
Boy Reagan really is dead huh?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“In this world of sin and sorrow there is always
something to be thankful for; as for me,
I rejoice that I am not a Republican.”
- H. L. Mencken
walksalone
So is the problem the Special Olympic remark, or the use of USAF1?
If the later why?
If the former, why?
BTW, until you brought it up, I was blissfully unawarwe of either one.
> arheist@home#1554
walksalone whose life is full enough that he doesn't have a tv or radio.
The locals provide plenty of free entertainment as well as food for
thought. AS in, how do I avoid that fate?
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.
Andres64
Who's a liberal?
Elroy Willis
> Who's a liberal?
Socially, or politically? There seems to be a big difference from
what I've learned recently...
Brian Westley
>Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
>you would have been all over it.
>So what's the problem here?
It was certainly a boneheaded remark.
Did you have a point?
I guess not.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Matt Silberstein
I don't know which is sillier, that you think there would be outrage
over this or that you think there should have been so much public
outrage by 8 EST this morning. You, sir, are silly.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Andres64
> Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote in alt.atheism
I just love the way people throw the word liberal around like it has
some pejorative value when I doubt they could even define it, and they
certainly know very little about the thoughts/opinions of others.
Syd
Anyone who doesn't agree with him.
PDW
Syd
Yeah... Political liberals are a dying species, though social ones
thrive...
PDW
Andres64
Exactly.
Kate
>On 20 mrt, 11:50, athe...@home.com wrote:
>> Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
>> you would have been all over it.
>> So what's the problem here?
>> You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
>> And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to
>> be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
>> You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk
>> showing yourselves to be even worse.http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>>
>> arheist@home#1554
>
>Maybe it's the fact that English isn't my native language,
>but nowhere in your post I see even a hint as to wath people should be
>outraged about. The fact that the president is no good at bowling?
Special olympics is for the mentally retarded - you could take Obama's
comments as a put down of the mentally retarded.
Obama apologized and I suppose that Mr. Atheist is offended that he
did so, since conservatives think an apology is a sign of weakness and
not to be tolerated.
Uncle Vic
<pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
> Maybe it's the fact that English isn't my native language,
> but nowhere in your post I see even a hint as to wath people should be
> outraged about. The fact that the president is no good at bowling?
Probably the Special Olympics thing. Hey, anyone in the limelight is fair
game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWuldLuRMT0
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Looking forward to May 21, 2012
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Who's a liberal?
>> Socially, or politically? There seems to be a big difference from
>> what I've learned recently...
> Yeah... Political liberals are a dying species, though social ones
> thrive...
A long-time friend of mine seemed shocked that I considered him a
liberal when we were talking one day... He's definitely a liberal
when it comes to social issues, but obviously not when it comes to
political issues...
Uncle Vic
> A long-time friend of mine seemed shocked that I considered him a
> liberal when we were talking one day... He's definitely a liberal
> when it comes to social issues, but obviously not when it comes to
> political issues...
Hi Elroy! Long time no see! Are you "back"?
Uncle Vic
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:50:27 -0500, in alt.atheism , ath...@home.com
> in <kls6s4he6apqado2b...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
>>you would have been all over it.
>>So what's the problem here?
>>You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
>>And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to
>>be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
>>You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk
>>showing yourselves to be even worse.
>>http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>>
> I don't know which is sillier, that you think there would be outrage
> over this or that you think there should have been so much public
> outrage by 8 EST this morning. You, sir, are silly.
>
This silly?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b558kjihQQg
ath...@home.com
Heh, I was.
I'm having a hell of a time trying to figure out of Obama is doing
good things or bad.
I didn't like him much yesterday but then today I found out about a
program to help strapped homeowners that takes effect in April and one
that makes very good sense.
And I haven't seen a thing in the news mentioning it much less
explaining it.
And this is day seven of the family, including all the kids being out
of town leaving me here alone with this pervert dog who is really
weirding me out.
It's too damned quiet here.
Oh, and day four without a cigarette.
I think I'm going to smoke a sock ;)
atheist@home#1554
raven1
Given that the Administration issued an apology before the show even
aired, indicating that Obama clearly realized that he was wrong to ay
such a thing, where's the cause for outrage?
ath...@home.com
Ah, I just had a bad moment.
Too much b.s. coming out of Washington and I'm having trouble deciding
who is dishing it out.
But it isn't what Obama said, it's that if he were a Republican he
would have caught hell over it.
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
>On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:28:46 -0700 (PDT), "pba...@worldonline.nl"
><pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>
>>On 20 mrt, 11:50, athe...@home.com wrote:
>>> Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
>>> you would have been all over it.
>>> So what's the problem here?
>>> You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
>>> And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to
>>> be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
>>> You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk
>>> showing yourselves to be even worse.http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>>>
>>> arheist@home#1554
>>
>>Maybe it's the fact that English isn't my native language,
>>but nowhere in your post I see even a hint as to wath people should be
>>outraged about. The fact that the president is no good at bowling?
>
>Special olympics is for the mentally retarded - you could take Obama's
>comments as a put down of the mentally retarded.
>
>Obama apologized and I suppose that Mr. Atheist is offended that he
>did so, since conservatives think an apology is a sign of weakness and
>not to be tolerated.
Again, I'm not a conservative in most things.
It's the hypocrisy in the game that bothers me.
atheist@home#1554
John Locke
They lost the election. Anything trivial thing will do.
___________________________________________________
"The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those
who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find
compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others."
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), British philosopher.
ath...@home.com
<spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>ath...@home.com news:kls6s4he6apqado2b...@4ax.com
>
>> Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
>> you would have been all over it.
>> So what's the problem here?
>> You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
>> And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to
>> be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
>> You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk
>> showing yourselves to be even worse.
>> http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>
>So is the problem the Special Olympic remark, or the use of USAF1?
>If the later why?
>If the former, why?
>
>
>BTW, until you brought it up, I was blissfully unawarwe of either one.
Nah, its not really either.
I guess I screwed up when I started studying the differences in the
way modern liberals and conservatives conduct the business of politics
because I was curious as to why I so often read and heard both sides
saying the same things about one another.
And I've learned that there is no difference.
Its all dishonest, lying hypocrisy from both sides.
Besides which I need a damned cigarette!
Bad week to stop smoking.
In an earlier post I said it had been four days since I had a smoke.
I've actually just cut down to practically nothing and I'm scaring the
pervert dog to death with my attitude.
>walksalone whose life is full enough that he doesn't have a tv or radio.
>The locals provide plenty of free entertainment as well as food for
>thought. AS in, how do I avoid that fate?
atheist@home#1554 whose grandkids have been gone for a week and who is
being seriously weirded out by the silence.
ath...@home.com
I don't honestly know any more.
I am however sorely disappointed in those modern Americans who call
themselves liberals.
They are as a group almost unbelievably closed minded and cruel in
their politics.
I guess I naively believed liberals shouldn't be that way.
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
Hello Elroy :)
Haven't seen you in a while.
What's the difference between liberals and conservatives in the way
their politics is conducted?
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
And does conservative not have pejorative value in a.a?
And among liberals in general?
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
wrote:
I relish disagreement.
Many modern American liberals will not tolerate it.
They are in fact far more conservative than they know.
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
wrote:
I made the point.
Bush couldn't stumble over a word without liberals mocking him as
stupid and yet Obama slides no matter how dumb a statement he makes.
He also seems to get away with lying while Bush was accused of lying
without any evidence that he was.
Its just sheepish partisan politics as usual.
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:50:27 -0500, in alt.atheism , ath...@home.com
>in <kls6s4he6apqado2b...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
>>you would have been all over it.
>>So what's the problem here?
>>You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
>>And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to
>>be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
>>You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk
>>showing yourselves to be even worse.
>>http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>>
>I don't know which is sillier, that you think there would be outrage
>over this or that you think there should have been so much public
>outrage by 8 EST this morning. You, sir, are silly.
Had it been a conservative, especially Bush who said such a thing
liberals would have been ranting on and on about it for weeks.
Tell me, where is the outrage that Obama kept the rendition program
and that he hasn't so much as uttered a word about the Patriot Act or
at least said anything about doing away with it?
Where are Code Pink and all the other protesters who were a nearly
daily feature of the news when Bush was in office?
How is it that Bush was so soundly criticized about the deficit he ran
up but Obama is justified?
Where are the liberal complaints about all the pork in the bill and
the fact that most of those voting for it didn't read it?
Are you going to deny that the people who were outraged and went on
and on about no bid contracts are silent about the fact that the bill
was passed in a manner that would have caused them to raise mighty
hell had it been Republicans who did it?
How is the way the bill was passed justified?
Where is the outrage rather than denial that Democrats helped to get
us into this mess?
Where are the accusations that Obama is stupid for claiming he had
visited 57 states with one more to go and that ten thousand people had
been killed in a tornado?
Where are the accusations that Biden is stupid over the absolutely
silly things he has said?
Conservative or Liberal, the mindset is the same and so is the game of
politics.
There is no difference between the two.
And the fact that we are the way we are is the reason nothing will
change in the way the game is played.
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
>On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:50:27 -0500, atheist wrote:
>
>> Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
>> you would have been all over it.
>> So what's the problem here?
>> You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn. And just
>> like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to be
>> justified because it is you or your man who does it. You really should
>> shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk showing yourselves
>> to be even worse.
>> http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>>
>> arheist@home#1554
>
>
>You know, conservatism didn't used to be the same thing as bitter and
>angry.
Yes, I am a bit bitter, disappointed and somewhat irritated that we
continue to play the game of politics in the way that we do.
We've only had thousands of years to learn better.
>Boy Reagan really is dead huh?
But then the myth of Reagan isn't exactly Reagan is it?
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
You missed the point; there is no cause for outrage but if it had been
a Republican we would have never heard the mocking end of it.
It would have been used to judge the man globally as unfeeling and
stupid.
And if it had been a Republican no apology would have been accepted by
liberals.
Its the hypocrisy I object to.
And the fact that liberals don't seem to be capable of self evaluation
and recognizing the fact that they are in many ways just like the
people they condemn.
I think maybe I expected too much of liberals.
They are not what I grew up believing they are.
But then I think maybe they never were.
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
<johnloc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:15:14 -0400, raven1
><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:50:27 -0500, ath...@home.com wrote:
>>
>>>Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
>>>you would have been all over it.
>>>So what's the problem here?
>>>You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
>>>And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to
>>>be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
>>>You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk
>>>showing yourselves to be even worse.
>>>http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>>
>>
>>Given that the Administration issued an apology before the show even
>>aired, indicating that Obama clearly realized that he was wrong to ay
>>such a thing, where's the cause for outrage?
>>
>They lost the election. Anything trivial thing will do.
Same thing conservatives said about liberals when Bush was elected and
Republicans took control.
And I didn't lose any election and in fact had great hopes for Obama.
I think maybe he will learn, or is learning that he can't trust anyone
in Washington.
But we had better learn that we cannot trust him either and that not
only is it legal to criticize him but a responsibility as well.
But I know there will likely never be a critical word about him in
a.a.
He will be treated by his supporters just like Reagan's supporters
treated him.
Everything he does will be excused and rationalized.
Nothing will change in that department.
atheist@home#1554
zamboni30...@yahooonspam.com
>Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
>you would have been all over it.
>So what's the problem here?
>You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
>And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to
>be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
>You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk
>showing yourselves to be even worse.
>http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>
>arheist@home#1554
Well, in the grand scheme of things... yeah... it was a somewhat
offensive thing to say. But what of it? Will the President resign? No.
Will he apologize? Yes. Should we get over it? Probably. Not much else
to do. There are so many other things to worry about.
I voted for Mr. Obama. I thought, and think, that he was the best
choice of the candidates presented. That said, I don't think that the
President should be on talk shows. He has a job and should carry
himself with a certain dignity. We don't have royalty in this country,
but for the brief period of time that any President holds office, I
would like for him or her to be more than just one of the commoners
that we all are.
Mr. President. Be just a little distant. Be just a little higher than
us, the unwashed masses. You'll come down to earth soon enough.
Meh, I'm probably wrong, and I'm sure more than one of you will tell
me so.
ath...@home.com
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
Here ya go.
And this is what I object to on both sides.
"Palin Hits Obama on 'Special Olympics' Joke.
Gov. Sarah Palin responded to remarks made last night by President
Obama related to the Special Olympics on The Tonight Show with Jay
Leno."
“I was shocked to learn of the comment made by President Obama about
Special Olympics,” Governor Palin said.
"This was a degrading remark about our world’s most precious and
unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world.
“These athletes overcome more challenges, discrimination and adversity
than most of us ever will.
By the way, these athletes can outperform many of us and we should be
proud of them.
I hope President Obama’s comments do not reflect how he truly feels
about the special needs community.”
"Well, after the way his allies went after her, he really couldn't
count on a full-throated defense of a boneheaded comment.
Obama used the whole 'it's just a joke' excuse with his 'lipstick on a
pig' comment, too."
There are people at AIG who are in fear of their lives because of
heated rhetoric coming from both liberals and conservatives.
It is a dishonest, unfair and damned dangerous game the self serving
idiots on both sides are playing.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090320/D9720I901.html
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:50:27 -0500, ath...@home.com wrote:
>
>>Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
>>you would have been all over it.
>>So what's the problem here?
>>You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
>>And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to
>>be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
>>You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk
>>showing yourselves to be even worse.
>>http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>>
>>arheist@home#1554
>
>Well, in the grand scheme of things... yeah... it was a somewhat
>offensive thing to say. But what of it? Will the President resign? No.
>Will he apologize? Yes. Should we get over it? Probably. Not much else
>to do. There are so many other things to worry about.
Exactly, but again, both sides engage in mean spirited politics
regarding such things.
>I voted for Mr. Obama. I thought, and think, that he was the best
>choice of the candidates presented. That said, I don't think that the
>President should be on talk shows. He has a job and should carry
>himself with a certain dignity. We don't have royalty in this country,
>but for the brief period of time that any President holds office, I
>would like for him or her to be more than just one of the commoners
>that we all are.
>
>Mr. President. Be just a little distant. Be just a little higher than
>us, the unwashed masses. You'll come down to earth soon enough.
>
>Meh, I'm probably wrong, and I'm sure more than one of you will tell
>me so.
I agree with you.
atheist@home#1554
walksalone
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:13:20 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
> <spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>
>>ath...@home.com news:kls6s4he6apqado2b...@4ax.com
>>
>>> Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a
>>> thing you would have been all over it.
>>> So what's the problem here?
>>> You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
>>> And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves
>>> to be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
>>> You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or
>>> risk showing yourselves to be even worse.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>>
>>So is the problem the Special Olympic remark, or the use of USAF1?
>>If the later why?
>>If the former, why?
>>
>>
>>BTW, until you brought it up, I was blissfully unawarwe of either one.
>
> Nah, its not really either.
Glad to hear that, you were starting to sound obsessed. Something we can
all do, but is not good for any of us.
> I guess I screwed up when I started studying the differences in the
> way modern liberals and conservatives conduct the business of politics
> because I was curious as to why I so often read and heard both sides
> saying the same things about one another.
Well, did you learn anything useful?
> And I've learned that there is no difference.
In this accidentally surprised you? I had thought you were more
observant than that. Or is this simply a more detailed observation of
what you already knew?
> Its all dishonest, lying hypocrisy from both sides.
I believe, a mark twain, fellow made the comment, America has only one
native criminal class, politicians.
> Besides which I need a damned cigarette!
For some, that's extremely rough. I walked away from a pipe, a constant
companion for over 40 years. People still ask me where it is and how
come I'm not smoking it because they liked the smell. For me, it was
easy. Once I had paid attention to the fact it had control.
For others, I understand it's rather awkward. An acquaintance, a good
acquaintance of mine down Florida way was up to five packs a day when he
decided to quit. He says he sure didn't want to, but he couldn't afford
tobacco anymore. Even if he raised it himself. He found a product
called cig arrest, and even though the spelling is probably wrong, it's
pronounced correctly.
It helped him and he been smoking for close to 60 years. It's a violent
and mineral supplement, no patch, no nicotine, no tapering. So I
suspect, this might ease your pangs. If you can find it, good, if not,
darn.
> Bad week to stop smoking.
> In an earlier post I said it had been four days since I had a smoke.
> I've actually just cut down to practically nothing and I'm scaring the
> pervert dog to death with my attitude.
I take it then, this has not been a personality, enhancing activity for
you.
>>walksalone whose life is full enough that he doesn't have a tv or
>>radio. The locals provide plenty of free entertainment as well as
>>food for thought. AS in, how do I avoid that fate?
>
> atheist@home#1554 whose grandkids have been gone for a week and who is
> being seriously weirded out by the silence.
Yes, the sound of life. It's amazing how fast you notice it's not there,
and how fast you realize why. It's the only thing in the way of a
shortcoming I can find a being a bachelor.
walksalone, who was curious, and now the itch has been scratched and
satisfied. I actually appreciate your response.
He who postpones the hour of living is like the rustic who waits for the
river to run out before he crosses. -Horace, poet and satirist (65-8 BCE)
Robibnikoff
<ath...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3fp8s45conegqnt2s...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:27:48 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
> <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><ath...@home.com> wrote in message
>>news:kls6s4he6apqado2b...@4ax.com...
>>> Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
>>> you would have been all over it.
>>> So what's the problem here?
>>> You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
>>> And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to
>>> be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
>>> You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk
>>> showing yourselves to be even worse.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>>
>>
>>Feeling a little cranky today?
>
> Heh, I was.
> I'm having a hell of a time trying to figure out of Obama is doing
> good things or bad.
Personally, I have bigger fish to fry.
> I didn't like him much yesterday but then today I found out about a
> program to help strapped homeowners that takes effect in April and one
> that makes very good sense.
> And I haven't seen a thing in the news mentioning it much less
> explaining it.
> And this is day seven of the family, including all the kids being out
> of town leaving me here alone with this pervert dog who is really
> weirding me out.
D'oh! Details!
> It's too damned quiet here.
> Oh, and day four without a cigarette.
> I think I'm going to smoke a sock ;)
Ah, so THAT'S it! Keep up the good work! :)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight
#1557
Mitchell Holman
4ax.com:
>
> He also seems to get away with lying while Bush was accused of lying
> without any evidence that he was.
"Gov. George W. Bush, who acknowledged Thursday that
he pleaded guilty in 1976 to a drunken driving charge,
told The Dallas Morning News two years ago that he had
not been arrested after 1968."
Dallas Morning News, 11/4/00
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States
government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap
requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.
When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're
talking about getting a court order before we do so."
-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004. His administration was
already conducting warrantless wiretaps at the time.
"We found the weapons of mass destruction."
George Bush, 5/31/03
vs.....
"It turns out that we have not found weapons
of mass destruction."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.
"I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first
of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this
plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on..."
George Bush, Jan 5, 2002. In fact there was no coverage of
the first plane hitting the WTC because no one expected it.
"My message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course."
George Bush [4/13/04]
vs...............
"We've never been 'stay the course'"
George Bush [10/22/06]
"I heard somebody say, 'Where's Nelson Mandela?' Well,
Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas."
George W. Bush, on the former South African president who
is still very much alive, Sept. 20, 2007
Fred Stone
Conservatives blame liberals for everything that goes wrong, and liberals blame conservatives. The truth
is, they're both right.
Alex W.
> A long-time friend of mine seemed shocked that I considered him a
> liberal when we were talking one day... He's definitely a liberal
> when it comes to social issues, but obviously not when it comes to
> political issues...
Which might make him Libertarian rather than liberal.
Alex W.
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:15:14 -0400, raven1
> <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:50:27 -0500, ath...@home.com wrote:
>>
>>>Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
>>>you would have been all over it.
>>>So what's the problem here?
>>>You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
>>>And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to
>>>be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
>>>You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk
>>>showing yourselves to be even worse.
>>>http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>>
>>
>>Given that the Administration issued an apology before the show even
>>aired, indicating that Obama clearly realized that he was wrong to ay
>>such a thing, where's the cause for outrage?
>
> You missed the point; there is no cause for outrage but if it had been
> a Republican we would have never heard the mocking end of it.
> It would have been used to judge the man globally as unfeeling and
> stupid.
> And if it had been a Republican no apology would have been accepted by
> liberals.
> Its the hypocrisy I object to.
Point of interest: how much of that is genuine
hypocrisy/sanctimony on the part of one or the other
ideology, and how far might your perception be skewed by the
media on which you base your opinion? US media are
notoriously partisan, so your choice of source for current
affairs informaiton can seriously affect the way you see not
only any given issue but also the atendant public reactions
and debate.
Robibnikoff
"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9BD547D86D426...@216.196.97.130...
Ooooh, snap! :)
ath...@home.com
<witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
><ath...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:3fp8s45conegqnt2s...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:27:48 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
>> <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><ath...@home.com> wrote in message
>>>news:kls6s4he6apqado2b...@4ax.com...
>>>> Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
>>>> you would have been all over it.
>>>> So what's the problem here?
>>>> You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
>>>> And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to
>>>> be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
>>>> You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk
>>>> showing yourselves to be even worse.
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>>>
>>>
>>>Feeling a little cranky today?
>>
>> Heh, I was.
>> I'm having a hell of a time trying to figure out of Obama is doing
>> good things or bad.
>
>Personally, I have bigger fish to fry.
Actually me too.
Gawd, I miss my babies.
I have the finest, funniest bunch of beautiful grandkids a Grandpa
could ever want.
Five of them.
I miss them terribly.
I can't wait for them to get home.
I'm going to hug them till they can't stand it.
It's just so damned quiet around here.
Except for that damned dog.
She's either barking or she's moaning like a teenager in heat.
The barking I can handle because that's what a dog is supposed to do;
but the moaning unnerves me all to hell.
It has a weird sort of perverse sound to it.
I don't know how to describe it.
Its just really bizarre.
>> I didn't like him much yesterday but then today I found out about a
>> program to help strapped homeowners that takes effect in April and one
>> that makes very good sense.
>> And I haven't seen a thing in the news mentioning it much less
>> explaining it.
>> And this is day seven of the family, including all the kids being out
>> of town leaving me here alone with this pervert dog who is really
>> weirding me out.
>
>D'oh! Details!
She humps Teddy bears.
Can you imagine that?
I mean who the hell humps Teddy Bears?
<Other than your typical teenage male who would hump a cold cucumber
if that was the only thing available>
And its like "Ohh...Ohhh...arrruugh...My Teddy, my Teddy!"
And there are other things regarding which grace and decency firmly
disallow public expression.
I'm telling you, the dog is in serious need of counseling.
And before this is over I think maybe I will be as well.
>> It's too damned quiet here.
>> Oh, and day four without a cigarette.
>> I think I'm going to smoke a sock ;)
>
>Ah, so THAT'S it! Keep up the good work! :)
Oh boy.
I made a promise to the kids.
And I can't break it.
They all worry about my health and that's a pretty cool thing isn't
it?
I have to quit for their benefit.
Life was so much simpler before they came along but so much better
since they did.
But that dog...that dog just ain't normal.
atheist@home#1554
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> A long-time friend of mine seemed shocked that I considered him a
>> liberal when we were talking one day... He's definitely a liberal
>> when it comes to social issues, but obviously not when it comes to
>> political issues...
> Hi Elroy! Long time no see! Are you "back"?
No, just dropped by for a short visit. :)
Syd
> Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >> Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote in alt.atheism
> >> Socially, or politically? There seems to be a big difference from
> >> what I've learned recently...
> > thrive...
>
> A long-time friend of mine seemed shocked that I considered him a
> liberal when we were talking one day... He's definitely a liberal
> when it comes to social issues, but obviously not when it comes to
> political issues...
Sign of the times.
PDW
raven1
As a Special Education teacher for nearly 18 years, I agree with what
Palin had to say (Stop the Presses! I agree with Sarah Palin!), but
again, it was apologized for before it even aired. I'm sure Obama
doesn't actually look down on the developmentally disabled.
>"Well, after the way his allies went after her, he really couldn't
>count on a full-throated defense of a boneheaded comment.
>Obama used the whole 'it's just a joke' excuse with his 'lipstick on a
>pig' comment, too."
Whoa, back up there soldier! That was a deliberate distortion by
right-wing pundits. While it referenced Palin's joke about pit bulls,
lipstick, and soccer moms, Obama was clearly referring to the policies
Palin was advocating, not Palin herself.
Oh. National Review. Why am I unsurprised that they would resurrect
that tired canard? Under WFB they were frequently witty, and
occasionally right, but post-Buckley, they're about as entertaining
and honest as Ann Coulter.
>There are people at AIG who are in fear of their lives because of
>heated rhetoric coming from both liberals and conservatives.
>It is a dishonest, unfair and damned dangerous game the self serving
>idiots on both sides are playing.
I agree that the rhetoric against the executives at AIG is unfair and
dangerous (although I would like to see every legal means employed to
claw back the bonuses, which are an outrageous reward of incompetence
at the taxpayers' expense), and it ought to be always kept in mind
that populism is a very dangerous path whose fruits are often riots,
lynch mobs, and crowd-filled stadiums chanting "Seig Heil". The White
House needs to lean on Congress hard, telling them to tone down the
rhetoric, and start looking at rational approaches to the crisis,
rather than emotional ones.
>
>http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090320/D9720I901.html
>
>atheist@home#1554
raven1
I supported Obama, and did criticize him for his remark, but also
recognized it to be completely trivial. I'm much more concerned about
his failure so far to get Congress to act like adults.
Eris
> Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
> you would have been all over it.
> So what's the problem here?
> You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
> And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to
> be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
> You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk
> showing yourselves to be even worse.http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>
We don't need to express outrage, we have you anal orifices to do it
for us. :-)
Matt Silberstein
in <rps8s4dgf2tb4tert...@4ax.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:53:03 -0400, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:50:27 -0500, in alt.atheism , ath...@home.com
>>in <kls6s4he6apqado2b...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
>>>you would have been all over it.
>>>So what's the problem here?
>>>You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
>>>And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to
>>>be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
>>>You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk
>>>showing yourselves to be even worse.
>>>http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>>>
>>I don't know which is sillier, that you think there would be outrage
>>over this or that you think there should have been so much public
>>outrage by 8 EST this morning. You, sir, are silly.
>
>Had it been a conservative, especially Bush who said such a thing
>liberals would have been ranting on and on about it for weeks.
So you say, I don't see it. But I'll repeat my point: somehow
Republicans objected to the lack of outrage before most people had
even heard the story.
>Tell me, where is the outrage that Obama kept the rendition program
It is out there. I will admit that some people are waiting to see what
he actually does, but plenty of liberal are objecting to that policy
>and that he hasn't so much as uttered a word about the Patriot Act or
>at least said anything about doing away with it?
Well, I'm upset about that. But it is only 2 months so far and he has
been kind of busy. There was plenty of crap to clean up, so I am not
yet ready to complain that he missed a spot.
>Where are Code Pink and all the other protesters who were a nearly
>daily feature of the news when Bush was in office?
Where should they be? Obama is astoundingly better IMO than Bush. Not
perfect, not even close, but far better. That I object to Bush's
policies does not mean I have to object to Obama's
>How is it that Bush was so soundly criticized about the deficit he ran
>up but Obama is justified?
What a dishonest question. Bush was criticized for giving massive tax
breaks to the wealthy and funding that by putting debt on the rest of
us. Obama is engendering debt because he is trying to get the economy
moving. Bush ran a deficit in *good* times, that is horrendously bad
economics. You can try to object to the economic argument here, but
don't give me nonsense. The issues for most liberals was never
"running deficits". That is *Republican* dishonesty. They claim they
care about deficits, but applaud it when it is a Republican doing it.
>Where are the liberal complaints about all the pork in the bill and
>the fact that most of those voting for it didn't read it?
You mean the 40% that went to Republicans? Or the fact that some 1% of
a *stimulus* bill was "earmarked". (I wonder about that term since we
don't seem to have an accepted definition of earmark.) Again, it is
Republicans who claim that government spending is such a terrible
idea, Democrats accept that idea that government spending *can* be
good.
>Are you going to deny that the people who were outraged and went on
>and on about no bid contracts are silent about the fact that the bill
>was passed in a manner that would have caused them to raise mighty
>hell had it been Republicans who did it?
Huh?
>How is the way the bill was passed justified?
Why?
>Where is the outrage rather than denial that Democrats helped to get
>us into this mess?
It is there. There is far more, and reasonably more, outrage against
Republicans because they are far more at fault.
>Where are the accusations that Obama is stupid for claiming he had
>visited 57 states with one more to go and that ten thousand people had
>been killed in a tornado?
I guess you lost it about here. Now you are back to some distortion
during the election. Why in the world should there be outrage now that
he made a stupid mistake in speaking once?
>Where are the accusations that Biden is stupid over the absolutely
>silly things he has said?
There has been. SFW?
>Conservative or Liberal, the mindset is the same and so is the game of
>politics.
>There is no difference between the two.
To bad you did absolutely nothing to support that claim. Showing that
A and B share character X does not mean A and B are identical.
>And the fact that we are the way we are is the reason nothing will
>change in the way the game is played.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Uncle Vic
Good to see you again, anyway...
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Looking forward to May 21, 2012 or is it 2011? Or is it sometime in
December? These idiots can't even agree...
ath...@home.com
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>ath...@home.com wrote in news:ncs8s4pb3lb14baqhtnu1m5gc40s1114kf@
>4ax.com:
>
>>
>> He also seems to get away with lying while Bush was accused of lying
>> without any evidence that he was.
>
> "Gov. George W. Bush, who acknowledged Thursday that
>he pleaded guilty in 1976 to a drunken driving charge,
>told The Dallas Morning News two years ago that he had
>not been arrested after 1968."
>Dallas Morning News, 11/4/00
Ok.
>
>
>"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States
>government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap
>requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.
>When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're
>talking about getting a court order before we do so."
>-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004. His administration was
>already conducting warrantless wiretaps at the time.
That issue became pretty complicated but the arguments made by the
Bush administration were that under certain technical conditions
wiretaps were not necessary, so to say that they were getting warrants
in every case would be a lie.
>"We found the weapons of mass destruction."
>George Bush, 5/31/03
> vs.....
>
>"It turns out that we have not found weapons
>of mass destruction."
>Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.
On June 23 2004 U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched
uranium from a nuclear facility in Iraq.
BBC news.
According to Bryan Wilkes of the Energy Department, experts also
removed 1000 radioactive materials in powdered form that could have
been used to make a dirty bomb.
Energy secretary Spencer Abraham called it a major achievement.
Polish military officials bought 17 chemical weapons warheads from
Iraqi civilians for $5,000 each to keep them from being sold on the
black market.
Some of the warheads contained cyclosarin.
BBC news, July 2nd 2004.
Road side bombs containing gasses were also found.
Those things of course are dated after the Bush statement you
referenced so maybe he did lie.
Or maybe the press reported the dates wrong.
I have no way of knowing but Bush is a politician and I wouldn't
expect him to be any more truthful than any of the rest of them.
But it is also untrue that no weapons of mass destruction were found.
>
>"I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first
>of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this
>plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on..."
>George Bush, Jan 5, 2002. In fact there was no coverage of
>the first plane hitting the WTC because no one expected it.
A company from the NYFD was filming a training exercise I believe it
was and there was a very clear video with sound of the first plane
hitting.
I do not know when the media got it but it may or may not have been
early on.
I don't know that this one is a lie.
>"My message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course."
>George Bush [4/13/04]
>
> vs...............
>
>"We've never been 'stay the course'"
>George Bush [10/22/06]
>
I seem to remember that one.
Still a source would be helpful.
>
>
>"I heard somebody say, 'Where's Nelson Mandela?' Well,
>Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas."
>George W. Bush, on the former South African president who
>is still very much alive, Sept. 20, 2007
>
Lol!
Do you have a source for that one as well?
That's a bit weird even for Bush.
But I didn't say that Bush didn't lie.
My objection is to the willingness to believe that certain specific
things are lies and to pass those things on without evidence that they
are in fact lies.
There are three conditions, all of which must be met for a thing to be
a lie.
The thing must be false, the speaker must know that it is false and
the speaker must intend for the listener to believe it is true.
We can all say something, forget years later <Or days or weeks in
fact> and believe we are being consistent when we are not.
Once when confronted by a contradiction Obama said that he believes
the American people know the difference between campaign rhetoric and
the real truth.
<I'm paraphrasing but that is the gist of it>
I happen to agree that in general we do.
But there are also a number of things he could be accused of lying
about except that running for president is much different than being
president and circumstances can come up in briefings that the
candidate wasn't aware of causing him to alter his position.
But when Obama said there ware no earmarks in the recovery bill was he
lying or was he unaware of them?
His spokes people have now said that he knew but that it was so
important to pass the bill right away that he let it slide and now he
claims that in the future he will start vetoing bills with "extensive"
and "unwarranted" earmarks.
And the wording leaves it open to claim that he didn't lie if he
doesn't veto such bills.
However, if he does refuse to veto a bill with earmarks he may
honestly believe they are not extensive or unwarranted.
But people even in that case could still accuse him of lying.
Having said all that, sometimes the lie is a complicated matter and
what we believe to be lies are not in the strictest sense.
Thanks for the info.
atheist@home#1554
JTEM
> Given that the Administration issued an apology before
> the show even aired, indicating that Obama clearly
> realized that he was wrong to ay such a thing, where's
> the cause for outrage?
Let's experiment. Let's try your very own logic on you.
<ahem>
Please accept my deepest and most sincere apology for
what I am about to say. It's is (or at least will be) tasteless,
infantile and totally uncalled for.
Your mother was a stinking whore.
ath...@home.com
wrote:
Yes, and they even use misleading headlines.
The hypocrisy is this;
A man we are opposed to does or says a thing that we believe to be
false or contradictory and we condemn him for it.
Another man whom we support can say and do the same thing and we
defend him.
But sometimes its not a true hypocrisy because just like the hardcore
religionist we simply cannot see what we are doing.
And that is the reason we are so easily used by those who want to
control us.
A good part of my study for the past two or three years has been on
why we are prone to be deceived and to deceive ourselves.
It can be pretty discouraging to realize how little in the last few
thousand years <More actually> that we have advanced when it comes to
using our brains and not allowing ourselves to be manipulated.
atheist@home#1554
Mitchell Holman
4ax.com:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 07:03:18 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>ath...@home.com wrote in news:ncs8s4pb3lb14baqhtnu1m5gc40s1114kf@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>>
>>> He also seems to get away with lying while Bush was accused of lying
>>> without any evidence that he was.
>>
>> "Gov. George W. Bush, who acknowledged Thursday that
>>he pleaded guilty in 1976 to a drunken driving charge,
>>told The Dallas Morning News two years ago that he had
>>not been arrested after 1968."
>>Dallas Morning News, 11/4/00
>
> Ok.
>
>>
>>
>>"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States
>>government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap
>>requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.
>>When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're
>>talking about getting a court order before we do so."
>>-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004. His administration was
>>already conducting warrantless wiretaps at the time.
>
> That issue became pretty complicated but the arguments made by the
> Bush administration were that under certain technical conditions
> wiretaps were not necessary, so to say that they were getting warrants
> in every case would be a lie.
Bush had already approved warrantless wiretaps when
he said they didn't exist. A lie.
>
>>"We found the weapons of mass destruction."
>>George Bush, 5/31/03
>
>> vs.....
>>
>>"It turns out that we have not found weapons
>>of mass destruction."
>>Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.
>
> On June 23 2004 U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched
> uranium from a nuclear facility in Iraq.
Look at the dates. The Bush administration itself
said there were no WMDs found AFTER the above date.
There was no broadcast footage of the first plane
hitting the WTC. Bush lied about seeing it.
>>"My message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course."
>>George Bush [4/13/04]
>>
>> vs...............
>>
>>"We've never been 'stay the course'"
>>George Bush [10/22/06]
>>
> I seem to remember that one.
> Still a source would be helpful.
>>
>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sulDYYAiCU
>>"I heard somebody say, 'Where's Nelson Mandela?' Well,
>>Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas."
>>George W. Bush, on the former South African president who
>>is still very much alive, Sept. 20, 2007
>>
>
> Lol!
> Do you have a source for that one as well?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1KGwQ1O88Y
raven1
wrote:
> raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>> Given that the Administration issued an apology before
>> the show even aired, indicating that Obama clearly
>> realized that he was wrong to ay such a thing, where's
>> the cause for outrage?
>
>Let's experiment. Let's try your very own logic on you.
You wouldn't be able to recognize logic if you were spotted "L_GIC"
and allowed to buy a vowel. Obama recognized after the fact that he
said something potentially offensive, and apologized for it before the
show aired later that evening. Did you think that "The Tonight Show"
is broadcast live? Or that Obama meant to insult the developmentally
disabled? Or that he would tell NBC to censor his gaffe?
Or are you just being the same obnoxious prick that you've always
been?
><ahem>
>
>Please accept my deepest and most sincere apology for
>what I am about to say. It's is (or at least will be) tasteless,
>infantile and totally uncalled for.
Pretty much your whole Usenet career in a nutshell.
Kate
wrote:
> raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
Show your sincerity - in the comment and the apology. Oh yeah -
impossible in an example.
Pretty damn silly JTEM.
ath...@home.com
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
Again, my objection is that Palin felt a need to say it for the sake
of politics and that others on both sides are lying in wait for the
opposition to slip up.
Her statement had no corrective function.
It was nothing more than an opportunity for her to get her licks in.
And this "I hope President Obama’s comments do not reflect how he
truly feels about the special needs community,” is a clear, cold
blooded and absurd attack on his character and I find that sort of
thing despicable.
As an aside here is one of those Special Olympics types.
Pretty amazing.
http://tinyurl.com/cdjok2
>>"Well, after the way his allies went after her, he really couldn't
>>count on a full-throated defense of a boneheaded comment.
>>Obama used the whole 'it's just a joke' excuse with his 'lipstick on a
>>pig' comment, too."
>
>Whoa, back up there soldier! That was a deliberate distortion by
>right-wing pundits. While it referenced Palin's joke about pit bulls,
>lipstick, and soccer moms, Obama was clearly referring to the policies
>Palin was advocating, not Palin herself.
I don't think I've made myself clear.
It's that very type thing that I find objectionable.
I know what Obama meant and it was fairly clear.
But the opposition jumped on it and whether they believed what they
were saying or whether they did not it was an inaccurate
representation of what he meant.
And again, both sides are guilty of those sorts of things and it
damages us.
But most disturbing is the fact that some repeat those sorts of things
and believe they are being truthful.
In other words, because of partisan politics they may have actually
heard something that wasn't there.
>>http://tinyurl.com/c4fcd2
>
>Oh. National Review. Why am I unsurprised that they would resurrect
>that tired canard? Under WFB they were frequently witty, and
>occasionally right, but post-Buckley, they're about as entertaining
>and honest as Ann Coulter.
I don't read them.
But again, does the guy who wrote it actually believe it?
>>There are people at AIG who are in fear of their lives because of
>>heated rhetoric coming from both liberals and conservatives.
>>It is a dishonest, unfair and damned dangerous game the self serving
>>idiots on both sides are playing.
>
>I agree that the rhetoric against the executives at AIG is unfair and
>dangerous (although I would like to see every legal means employed to
>claw back the bonuses, which are an outrageous reward of incompetence
>at the taxpayers' expense), and it ought to be always kept in mind
>that populism is a very dangerous path whose fruits are often riots,
>lynch mobs, and crowd-filled stadiums chanting "Seig Heil". The White
>House needs to lean on Congress hard, telling them to tone down the
>rhetoric, and start looking at rational approaches to the crisis,
>rather than emotional ones.
I agree, its very dangerous given our current circumstances and both
Democrats and Republicans need to realize they can get people hurt.
And when we look at bonuses we have to remember it's the stock holders
who pay them and the executives need to be held accountable.
>>
>>http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090320/D9720I901.html
>>
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
wrote:
I realized that quite a while back.
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
<spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>ath...@home.com news:koq8s4t3uic8qrl4p...@4ax.com
>
>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:13:20 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
>> <spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>>
>>>ath...@home.com news:kls6s4he6apqado2b...@4ax.com
>>>
>>>> Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a
>>>> thing you would have been all over it.
>>>> So what's the problem here?
>>>> You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
>>>> And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves
>>>> to be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
>>>> You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or
>>>> risk showing yourselves to be even worse.
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>>>
>>>So is the problem the Special Olympic remark, or the use of USAF1?
>>>If the later why?
>>>If the former, why?
>>>
>>>
>>>BTW, until you brought it up, I was blissfully unawarwe of either one.
>>
>> Nah, its not really either.
>
>Glad to hear that, you were starting to sound obsessed. Something we can
>all do, but is not good for any of us.
I should stay away from the politics.
>> I guess I screwed up when I started studying the differences in the
>> way modern liberals and conservatives conduct the business of politics
>> because I was curious as to why I so often read and heard both sides
>> saying the same things about one another.
>
>Well, did you learn anything useful?
I don't know how useful it is but I've reached a point at which I can
pick out the b.s. pretty easily now and most things involving politics
really are b.s.
>> And I've learned that there is no difference.
>
>In this accidentally surprised you? I had thought you were more
>observant than that. Or is this simply a more detailed observation of
>what you already knew?
Actually it did surprise me.
But yes, its a more detailed observation and a better understanding of
why it happens.
Who was it that said too much learning doth make a man mad?
>> Its all dishonest, lying hypocrisy from both sides.
>
>I believe, a mark twain, fellow made the comment, America has only one
>native criminal class, politicians.
Yes.
Maybe I should read some Twain.
I have Hal Holbrook's performance on DVD and there was a time that
when I got upset with the way things are I would play it and end up
laughing about the messes that we are.
>> Besides which I need a damned cigarette!
>
>For some, that's extremely rough. I walked away from a pipe, a constant
>companion for over 40 years. People still ask me where it is and how
>come I'm not smoking it because they liked the smell. For me, it was
>easy. Once I had paid attention to the fact it had control.
>
>For others, I understand it's rather awkward. An acquaintance, a good
>acquaintance of mine down Florida way was up to five packs a day when he
>decided to quit. He says he sure didn't want to, but he couldn't afford
>tobacco anymore. Even if he raised it himself. He found a product
>called cig arrest, and even though the spelling is probably wrong, it's
>pronounced correctly.
>
>It helped him and he been smoking for close to 60 years. It's a violent
>and mineral supplement, no patch, no nicotine, no tapering. So I
>suspect, this might ease your pangs. If you can find it, good, if not,
>darn.
I'll check it out.
I've been trying to do this for years and I'm pretty ticked at myself
for being unable to do it.
Funny thing is that I hate the things and have for a long time.
>> Bad week to stop smoking.
>> In an earlier post I said it had been four days since I had a smoke.
>> I've actually just cut down to practically nothing and I'm scaring the
>> pervert dog to death with my attitude.
>
>I take it then, this has not been a personality, enhancing activity for
>you.
I'm accustomed to taking care of the one granddaughter every day and
the other four kids quite a bit.
I like to cook for them and take them to parks or for ice cream but
all of a sudden I found myself without a purpose and it's a bit
unnerving.
And I love the noise when they are all here so the quiet is
uncomfortable.
>>>walksalone whose life is full enough that he doesn't have a tv or
>>>radio. The locals provide plenty of free entertainment as well as
>>>food for thought. AS in, how do I avoid that fate?
>>
>> atheist@home#1554 whose grandkids have been gone for a week and who is
>> being seriously weirded out by the silence.
>
>Yes, the sound of life. It's amazing how fast you notice it's not there,
>and how fast you realize why. It's the only thing in the way of a
>shortcoming I can find a being a bachelor.
And that's it; the sound of life.
They will be home Monday so things will be better then.
>
>walksalone, who was curious, and now the itch has been scratched and
>satisfied. I actually appreciate your response.
And I yours.
>He who postpones the hour of living is like the rustic who waits for the
>river to run out before he crosses. -Horace, poet and satirist (65-8 BCE)
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
wrote:
Well, it has to be done ;)
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
It appears so.
>
>>
>>>"We found the weapons of mass destruction."
>>>George Bush, 5/31/03
>>
>>> vs.....
>>>
>>>"It turns out that we have not found weapons
>>>of mass destruction."
>>>Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Oct. 4, 2004.
>>
>> On June 23 2004 U.S. forces seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched
>> uranium from a nuclear facility in Iraq.
>
>
> Look at the dates. The Bush administration itself
>said there were no WMDs found AFTER the above date.
Again, I never claimed that Bush will not lie.
I simply object to the insistence by some that certain things are lies
when they have no evidence that they are.
If claims reach a point at which they are unprovable it serves no
purpose other than those political to keep referencing them.
For instance, there were people who claimed Bush went AWOL and others
equally credible or equally not who claimed he didn't.
There was no solid proof one way or the other so it was a waste of
time to keep discussing it.
Such things corrupt the political process because they are not
helpfully informative.
It's one of those things that if you want to believe bad of a
politician you can take one position and if you want to believe good
about him you can take the other.
Or one can realize that its useless as information, refuse to be
distracted by it and move on to more important matters.
Again, I don't remember and don't know if there was or was not.
The memory is vague but I believe the fire department tape showed up
later.
>>>"My message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course."
>>>George Bush [4/13/04]
>>>
>>> vs...............
>>>
>>>"We've never been 'stay the course'"
>>>George Bush [10/22/06]
>>>
>> I seem to remember that one.
>> Still a source would be helpful.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sulDYYAiCU
Doesn't work.
Stay the course in which particular instance?
Stephanopoulos is a bit mumbled and I don't know what he was referring
to.
It wouldn't be uncommon to promise to stay the course regarding some
matters and not promise to do so regarding others.
Was Stephanopoulos asking about Iraq?
>
>
>>>"I heard somebody say, 'Where's Nelson Mandela?' Well,
>>>Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas."
>>>George W. Bush, on the former South African president who
>>>is still very much alive, Sept. 20, 2007
>>>
>>
>> Lol!
>> Do you have a source for that one as well?
>
>
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1KGwQ1O88Y
Bush had said that there were no democratic reformers to take over the
Iraqi government at the time.
He was referring to Mandela type leaders Hussein had killed and didn't
mean that he had literally killed all the Mandelas.
There again, if one dislikes Bush he can hear it in one way and if one
supports Bush he can hear it in another.
Thanks again.
atheist@home#1554
JTEM
> You wouldn't be able to recognize logic if you were
> spotted "L_GIC" and allowed to buy a vowel.
Oh, sparky, show us how it's done...
> Obama recognized after the fact that he said something
> potentially offensive,
Obama? His wife? One of his many advisors?
You say "Obama," but you base this on... what?
> and apologized for it before the show aired later that
> evening.
Why does the air time of the show make a difference
here? This isn't the first time you mentioned it, so one
must presume you think it relevant. Why?
Obama did something stupid: He went on "The Tonight
Show."
Secondly, while doing something stupid he said something
stupid.
Finally, after saying something stupid he apologized for
it.
> Did you think that "The Tonight Show"
> is broadcast live?
If it were, that would change... what?
Oh, go on, and lavish us with details.
> Or that Obama meant to insult the developmentally
> disabled?
So this means it was okay? Is that it?
You're saying a great deal, but you're not articulating
a case here.
JTEM
> Show your sincerity - in the comment and the apology.
> Oh yeah - impossible in an example.
>
> Pretty damn silly JTEM.
Agreed. It's was totally tasteless and worthy of your contempt.
I could have made my point without stooping so low. But, I
did make my point. Which is to say, the fact that the apology
came out before the remark alters nothing.
But, yeah, I could have made that same point without being
so vulgar. I am not deying it, and I am not making excuses.
Andres64
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:29:29 -0700 (PDT), Andres64
>
>
>
> <andres...@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 20, 9:27 am, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >> Andres64 <andres...@excite.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
> >> >> Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
> >> >> you would have been all over it.
> >> >> So what's the problem here?
> >> >> You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
> >> >> And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to
> >> >> be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
> >> >> You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk
> >> >> showing yourselves to be even worse.http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>
> >> Socially, or politically? There seems to be a big difference from
> >> what I've learned recently...
>
> >some pejorative value when I doubt they could even define it, and they
> >certainly know very little about the thoughts/opinions of others.
>
> And does conservative not have pejorative value in a.a?
I don't know. I don't use it.
> And among liberals in general?
Who's a liberal?
ath...@home.com
It is.
>> And among liberals in general?
>
>Who's a liberal?
I should say leftist rather than liberal.
atheist@home#1554
Robibnikoff
<ath...@home.com> wrote in message
news:q1o9s45qp6osn1qkh...@4ax.com...
Aw, sorry to hear it. Though, personally, I wouldn't mind some of that peace
and quiet ;)
> Except for that damned dog.
> She's either barking or she's moaning like a teenager in heat.
Yikes!
> The barking I can handle because that's what a dog is supposed to do;
> but the moaning unnerves me all to hell.
> It has a weird sort of perverse sound to it.
> I don't know how to describe it.
> Its just really bizarre.
My dog's a bit of a whiner, which is like fingernails on a chalkboard for
me, but thankfully no moaning.
>
>>> I didn't like him much yesterday but then today I found out about a
>>> program to help strapped homeowners that takes effect in April and one
>>> that makes very good sense.
>>> And I haven't seen a thing in the news mentioning it much less
>>> explaining it.
>>> And this is day seven of the family, including all the kids being out
>>> of town leaving me here alone with this pervert dog who is really
>>> weirding me out.
>>
>>D'oh! Details!
>
> She humps Teddy bears.
> Can you imagine that?
> I mean who the hell humps Teddy Bears?
I had a friend whose Yorkie had a stuffed animal it molested with great
regularity. But it was also a male dog.
> <Other than your typical teenage male who would hump a cold cucumber
> if that was the only thing available>
> And its like "Ohh...Ohhh...arrruugh...My Teddy, my Teddy!"
Eeeeek!
> And there are other things regarding which grace and decency firmly
> disallow public expression.
> I'm telling you, the dog is in serious need of counseling.
> And before this is over I think maybe I will be as well.
LOL - What the heck kind of dog is it?
>
>>> It's too damned quiet here.
>>> Oh, and day four without a cigarette.
>>> I think I'm going to smoke a sock ;)
>>
>>Ah, so THAT'S it! Keep up the good work! :)
>
> Oh boy.
> I made a promise to the kids.
> And I can't break it.
> They all worry about my health and that's a pretty cool thing isn't
> it?
> I have to quit for their benefit.
Exactly. I quit for the witchling more than anything else. I want to be
around for her. And being a chainsmoking wino didn't really figure into
that.
> Life was so much simpler before they came along but so much better
> since they did.
> But that dog...that dog just ain't normal.
LOL - Definitely doesn't sound like it :)
Andres64
That's better, but still. It seems to me that those on the right love
to make things black or white (You're either with us, or you're with
the terrorists.), when the fact is that many people agree with the
right on some things, and the left on others.
Mark K Bilbo
> On 20 Mar 2009 12:01:31 GMT, Mark K Bilbo <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:50:27 -0500, atheist wrote:
>>
>>> Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
>>> you would have been all over it.
>>> So what's the problem here?
>>> You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn. And just
>>> like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to be
>>> justified because it is you or your man who does it. You really should
>>> shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk showing yourselves
>>> to be even worse.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>>>
>>> arheist@home#1554
>>
>>
>>You know, conservatism didn't used to be the same thing as bitter and
>>angry.
>
> Yes, I am a bit bitter, disappointed and somewhat irritated that we
> continue to play the game of politics in the way that we do. We've only
> had thousands of years to learn better.
Yeah but in the long, evolutionary view, we're still a bunch of barely
rational apes.
We should demand better. We could demand better. But in the main, the
public is just... stupid. As a country, we have not done a good job of
managing our democracy. Especially in the sense that it takes an
educated, engaged public.
But *bitterness* only consumes you. It's not going to make anything
better.
Obama said something really dumb and insensitive. He got whacked for it
and apologized. But, really, it's a distraction. Billions of tax dollars
are flat out being looted from the treasury before our eyes and we're
supposed to be outraged over a bad joke? That's the truly bad joke.
>>Boy Reagan really is dead huh?
>
> But then the myth of Reagan isn't exactly Reagan is it?
Yes and no.
I may have had sharp disagreements with him and have had more as I've
changed over time but I still think he held real, actual, conservative
principles. One can hate what he stood for because he actually stood for
something. This current crop, what the hell are they?
One example of the weirdest thing I've seen is the "conservative"
vehemence over cap and trade. Cap and trade was pushed by the
LIBERTARIANS. It was the "free market" approach to pollution.
The "liberal" approach would be heavy regulations and fines. Cap and
trade is conservative.
I mean, what the hell is THAT about? The freaking Libertarians pushed the
idea back when it first surfaced. How much more "free market" can you get
that the freaking Libertarians?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“In this world of sin and sorrow there is always
something to be thankful for; as for me,
I rejoice that I am not a Republican.”
- H. L. Mencken
Kate
wrote:
>cob...@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
>
>> Show your sincerity - in the comment and the apology.
>> Oh yeah - impossible in an example.
>>
>> Pretty damn silly JTEM.
>
>Agreed. It's was totally tasteless and worthy of your contempt.
>
>I could have made my point without stooping so low. But, I
>did make my point. Which is to say, the fact that the apology
>came out before the remark alters nothing.
>
Yeah it does.
ath...@home.com
But again, those on the right say the same about those on the left.
I was pretty confused about the similarities between the two for a
while but I now realize its a people problem rather than one of
differing beliefs.
We still in large part function at a primitive level emotionally and
intellectually.
I have books by writers from the left and right and I read the comment
boards and BLOGS and typically the opinion goes something like this;
"Those on the left/right are all batpoop insane as is evidenced by the
fact that they believe everybody on the left/right is."
<They do not see the irony in the claim>
"Those on the left/right are mean spirited as hell in their politics
as is evidenced by their name calling, Nazi, fascist, lowbrow, inbred
approach to people who disagree with them."
<And again the irony eludes them>
"Yes, my guy was caught smoking dope and driving around with two
bodies in the trunk of his car, sort of like your guy, but the
difference is that my guy only had the two while your guy had three.
And those bodies in my guy's trunk were Mafia hit men who were sent by
people on the left/right to try to kill him as part of a left/right
wing conspiracy while the bodies in the trunk of your guys car were
regular citizens who were just trying to live their lives.
And your guy was smoking dope just to get high while my guy uses it
for medicinal purposes.
Oh yeah, and you are stupid if you can't see the difference."
But I agree, most people do in fact lean left on some issues and right
on others.
So, where is the party for those of us who are generally in the middle
and who do not want to buy into or support all or nothing politics?
Democrats and Republicans are at one another's throats most of the
time and Libertarians are a bit whacked in many of their beliefs.
But here's a thing; I seldom meet anybody in the real world, left or
right who is not seeped in politics who take extreme positions.
They are mostly live and let live sorts of folks with some who
identify as conservatives being more liberal than those claim in
opinion pieces, books and on BLOGs to be liberal and some who identify
as liberals being more conservative than political types who claim in
opinion pieces, books and on BLOGs to be conservative.
But neither side in my opinion is morally or intellectually superior
to the other despite the opinions of each that they are.
It can all be pretty confusing until we decide to play the part of an
alien anthropologist sent to Earth to study these strange and
irrational hairless apes called humans.
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
>On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:32:26 -0500, atheist wrote:
>
>> On 20 Mar 2009 12:01:31 GMT, Mark K Bilbo <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:50:27 -0500, atheist wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
>>>> you would have been all over it.
>>>> So what's the problem here?
>>>> You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn. And just
>>>> like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to be
>>>> justified because it is you or your man who does it. You really should
>>>> shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk showing yourselves
>>>> to be even worse.
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/d7ybrv
>>>>
>>>> arheist@home#1554
>>>
>>>
>>>You know, conservatism didn't used to be the same thing as bitter and
>>>angry.
>>
>> Yes, I am a bit bitter, disappointed and somewhat irritated that we
>> continue to play the game of politics in the way that we do. We've only
>> had thousands of years to learn better.
>
>Yeah but in the long, evolutionary view, we're still a bunch of barely
>rational apes.
Sadly true; but the question is do we have to be that way?
I think maybe one of the biggest flaws in America's educational system
is that we do not teach people to really think at a young age.
But then I had an uneducated uncle who couldn't read or write his own
name but who was one of the clearest thinkers I have ever known.
He could hear a politician's speech and rip it to shreds explaining
why it was total b.s. and had no real meaning.
I was astounded at the amount of knowledge the man possessed regarding
a multitude of subjects.
He said he got it by paying attention and analyzing everything he
heard and he was very, very good at it.
>We should demand better. We could demand better. But in the main, the
>public is just... stupid. As a country, we have not done a good job of
>managing our democracy. Especially in the sense that it takes an
>educated, engaged public.
And that was one of the concerns of the founders.
Some of them didn't seem to have a lot of faith in our ability to
maintain it.
>But *bitterness* only consumes you. It's not going to make anything
>better.
I just had a bad moment and it doesn't really mean anything.
But it can be frustrating to realize that we are still depending on
brains that are basically the same piece of equipment we've had for
hundreds of thousands of years.
We can be trained to think better but unfortunately we still suffer
from the ego and aristocentric illusions regarding our innate
abilities that our ancestors suffered from.
We can be so firmly convinced that we are right that we sometimes
support really irrational things.
>Obama said something really dumb and insensitive. He got whacked for it
>and apologized. But, really, it's a distraction.
Yes, a distraction and the sort of thing that political types create
to force our minds off real issues.
Here's how stupid it can get.
During the presidential campaign I read a left wing BLOG that was
commenting on McCain.
They had posted a picture of him as a prisoner of war lying on a
hospital bed before his injuries had been taken care of.
The comment next to the photo said; "Of course McCain's hero stature
may be somewhat diminished because he is shown smoking a cigarette."
On the surface of it that looks just mind numbingly stupid but if one
considers the rabid fervor that so many displayed over the most recent
anti-smoking campaign in America, with smokers being vilified and
portrayed as selfish and evil people, its easier to understand that
the poster had probably been so caught up in the rhetoric that he had
come to believe that we are all in fact evil because we smoke.
To him it apparently seemed that McCain was less of a decent man
because of it.
The point I'm trying to make is that the poster had chosen which tribe
or congregation he belonged to and the folks in the smoking tribe or
congregation were his enemies.
And a part of our problem is that we are tribal and will too often
defend our tribal leaders, buying into anything they say and are
literally unable to see how ridiculous it is.
>Billions of tax dollars are flat out being looted from the treasury before our eyes and we're
>supposed to be outraged over a bad joke? That's the truly bad joke.
I've never seen anything like it.
Its the first time I've actually believed our government may literally
destroy America.
I had high hopes for Obama and didn't say anything bad about him <Sort
of supported him actually> during his campaign but I'm having more
than second thoughts now.
I'm trying very hard to keep an open mind but there is a lot of talk
from some very knowledgeable people who seem to actually be afraid of
him.
Some of what he wants to do doesn't set well with me and not in the
sense that I'm just uncomfortable with it but more that it's somewhat
frightening.
And there again we have the political rhetoric that makes it difficult
to find what is true and accurate and what is not.
Our politicians may end up scaring us to death if they don't starve us
first.
>>>Boy Reagan really is dead huh?
>>
>> But then the myth of Reagan isn't exactly Reagan is it?
>
>Yes and no.
>
>I may have had sharp disagreements with him and have had more as I've
>changed over time but I still think he held real, actual, conservative
>principles. One can hate what he stood for because he actually stood for
>something. This current crop, what the hell are they?
I think maybe one thing is that Democrats and many Republicans went a
bit nuts because all of a sudden they could spend money in amounts and
in areas that Bush wouldn't allow and they suddenly had an excuse to
do so by claiming the money spent was meant to restart the economy.
And everybody moved too fast in my opinion with a lot of finger
pointing and outright fear that they would be blamed for our situation
if they didn't move quickly.
There seemed to be a sort of mob mentality at work with a witch hunt
attitude that may have distorted the thinking.
The stupid thing is that it shouldn't be a blame game but rather a
clear and logical approach to problems that have a number of causes
which could not be laid totally at the feet of either major party or
individuals.
But they panicked.
Just went loony tunes.
It would be comical if it wasn't so serious.
>One example of the weirdest thing I've seen is the "conservative"
>vehemence over cap and trade. Cap and trade was pushed by the
>LIBERTARIANS. It was the "free market" approach to pollution.
>
>The "liberal" approach would be heavy regulations and fines. Cap and
>trade is conservative.
>
>I mean, what the hell is THAT about? The freaking Libertarians pushed the
>idea back when it first surfaced. How much more "free market" can you get
>that the freaking Libertarians?
Lol!
Its nuts isn't it?
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
<witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
I thought I might enjoy it for a couple of days myself but I guess I'm
so busy when they are all here that I don't enjoy it when they are
not.
I did drink a little beer and watch Twilight Zone and Columbo and a
few movies.
But I also read a couple of books about serial killers that my sister
sent me and that of course led me to do some reading about them on the
Internet and this was definitely not the time for that sort of thing.
>> Except for that damned dog.
>> She's either barking or she's moaning like a teenager in heat.
>
>Yikes!
Its weird.
I had never heard her do that before.
I had just finished reading about some very demented killers and dozed
off with some really strange images dancing in my head only to be
awakened by this otherworldly moaning from the other room.
Silvino, my sort of son in law fell halfway through my bedroom ceiling
a few weeks ago while I was laying there in the dark dead asleep and
while that got my attention and was sort of funny the dog thing
spooked the hell out of me.
Ever hear a staunch Catholic preach when he falls through a ceiling?
It was a hell of a sermon delivered in an angry, animated, Old
Testament fashion and the only thing missing was a heartfelt "Amen" at
the end.
He was just hanging there both feet flapping away in every direction
while he cursed and tried to pull his pudgy arse back into the attic.
I laugh out loud ever time I think about it.
>> The barking I can handle because that's what a dog is supposed to do;
>> but the moaning unnerves me all to hell.
>> It has a weird sort of perverse sound to it.
>> I don't know how to describe it.
>> Its just really bizarre.
>
>My dog's a bit of a whiner, which is like fingernails on a chalkboard for
>me, but thankfully no moaning.
What kind of dog?
Ever heard two cats during their mating ritual?
That can be really strange.
>>>> I didn't like him much yesterday but then today I found out about a
>>>> program to help strapped homeowners that takes effect in April and one
>>>> that makes very good sense.
>>>> And I haven't seen a thing in the news mentioning it much less
>>>> explaining it.
>>>> And this is day seven of the family, including all the kids being out
>>>> of town leaving me here alone with this pervert dog who is really
>>>> weirding me out.
>>>
>>>D'oh! Details!
>>
>> She humps Teddy bears.
>> Can you imagine that?
>> I mean who the hell humps Teddy Bears?
>
>I had a friend whose Yorkie had a stuffed animal it molested with great
>regularity. But it was also a male dog.
I have seen male dogs do that; but this one.
Let's just say she's not a lady when it comes to her sexuality.
>> <Other than your typical teenage male who would hump a cold cucumber
>> if that was the only thing available>
>> And its like "Ohh...Ohhh...arrruugh...My Teddy, my Teddy!"
>
>Eeeeek!
Lol!
It's also like she looks to see if anybody is watching and when she
sees that I am she gets more into it.
I'll say "Stop that! What the hell is wrong with you?" and she
dismounts and skulks off looking over her shoulder like she's really
embarrassed or maybe angry that I corrected her.
>> And there are other things regarding which grace and decency firmly
>> disallow public expression.
>> I'm telling you, the dog is in serious need of counseling.
>> And before this is over I think maybe I will be as well.
>
>LOL - What the heck kind of dog is it?
She's part Chihuahua but I don't know what else.
I'm thinking that maybe everybody being gone has made her weird too.
>>>> It's too damned quiet here.
>>>> Oh, and day four without a cigarette.
>>>> I think I'm going to smoke a sock ;)
>>>
>>>Ah, so THAT'S it! Keep up the good work! :)
>>
>> Oh boy.
>> I made a promise to the kids.
>> And I can't break it.
>> They all worry about my health and that's a pretty cool thing isn't
>> it?
>> I have to quit for their benefit.
>
>Exactly. I quit for the witchling more than anything else. I want to be
>around for her. And being a chainsmoking wino didn't really figure into
>that.
I started getting headaches so I've had to take a few puffs but I'm
mostly hanging in there.
Three days right?
Isn't that when the discomfort is supposed to lessen?
For some reason it seems to have grown worse.
But it is important to quit for those who care about us.
>> Life was so much simpler before they came along but so much better
>> since they did.
>> But that dog...that dog just ain't normal.
>
>LOL - Definitely doesn't sound like it :)
She needs a shrink ;)
atheist@home#1554
raven1
wrote:
>cob...@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote:
>
>> Show your sincerity - in the comment and the apology.
>> Oh yeah - impossible in an example.
>>
>> Pretty damn silly JTEM.
>
>Agreed. It's was totally tasteless and worthy of your contempt.
Again, your whole Usenet career in a nutshell.
raven1
wrote:
> raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
I'll make it simple for you, Sparky:
He said something stupid.
He realized it was stupid.
He apologized for it before most people had the opportunity to even
hear the stupid thing he said.
WTF is your point?
Ghod
news:kls6s4he6apqado2b...@4ax.com...
> Some of us know that had it been a conservative who said such a thing
> you would have been all over it.
> So what's the problem here?
> You are exact duplicates of the people you so often condemn.
> And just like them you wallow in your hypocrisy feeling yourselves to
> be justified because it is you or your man who does it.
> You really should shut the fuck up about religious hypocrites or risk
> showing yourselves to be even worse.
Looks like you're off your meds again. Poor thing.
Alex W.
> On 22 Mar 2009 14:19:03 GMT, Mark K Bilbo <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:32:26 -0500, atheist wrote:
>>> Yes, I am a bit bitter, disappointed and somewhat irritated that we
>>> continue to play the game of politics in the way that we do. We've only
>>> had thousands of years to learn better.
>>
>>Yeah but in the long, evolutionary view, we're still a bunch of barely
>>rational apes.
>
> Sadly true; but the question is do we have to be that way?
> I think maybe one of the biggest flaws in America's educational system
> is that we do not teach people to really think at a young age.
This assertion begs to be supported. I cannot think of any
hard evidence to suggest that more than a fraction of the
population is in fact *capable* of sustained and creative
rational thought.
Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary. Fascism in all
its woolly-thought eccentricity was widely embraced among
the educated classes who lapped up the muddle-headed
irrationality of Hitler, Mussolini or Franco with all the
enthusiasm of a flock of lemmings spotting a particularly
promising cliff-edge.
Beyond that, you need to also answer these questions: do we
WANT more thinkers? Are we capable of integrating and
absorbing more thinkers? Do people really wish to live
their life by such clear-sighted rational ways? Thinkers
are by their very nature disruptive -- of their own lives,
those around them and of society at large. This is not
necessarily a positive trait if expressed in more than small
homeopathic doses which do not threaten the stability of
social, political and economic structures. Nor is it a very
desirable trait for those multitudes who have enough trouble
achieving and maintaining some sort of stability in their
personal lives: thinking is *work*, on top of all the effort
and energy required for juggling the normal demands of
family, friends, work etc. For many, it is viewed with
great suspicion and fear because it removes certainty and
increases churn, in a day and age when we are already
buckling under the stress of social, political and
technological change unprecedented in human history.
>>We should demand better. We could demand better. But in the main, the
>>public is just... stupid. As a country, we have not done a good job of
>>managing our democracy. Especially in the sense that it takes an
>>educated, engaged public.
>
> And that was one of the concerns of the founders.
> Some of them didn't seem to have a lot of faith in our ability to
> maintain it.
They were (and continue to be) right.
That said, does it not strike anyone else as odd that
despite these concerns, the founders did not attempt to
enshrine measures to ensure an informed and committed
populace? They could have instituted mandatory voting.
They could have mandated universal schooling until the age
of X, or even a federal system of education of some
description. They could have taken the opportunity of the
Bill of Rights to pass a Bill of Duties to inculcate the
awareness that civil liberties always come with atetndant
civil responsibilities -- something all too many people have
forgotten these days. And yet, none of that was put in
place ....
>
>>But *bitterness* only consumes you. It's not going to make anything
>>better.
>
> I just had a bad moment and it doesn't really mean anything.
> But it can be frustrating to realize that we are still depending on
> brains that are basically the same piece of equipment we've had for
> hundreds of thousands of years.
> We can be trained to think better but unfortunately we still suffer
> from the ego and aristocentric illusions regarding our innate
> abilities that our ancestors suffered from.
> We can be so firmly convinced that we are right that we sometimes
> support really irrational things.
Which means that the human brain is like a knife: in itself,
neither good nor bad but a tool. A knife can be used to
carve an awe-inspiring, transcendent figure of the Madonna
with the Big Boobies, it can be used to dig up and cut up
vegetables, or it can be used to slaughter my mother-in-law.
A mind is no different, and our irrationality can easily be
turned to our advantage.
You complain about our support for really irrational things
-- but what is so rational about our trust and belief in our
respective nation-states, for example? After all, they are
in many respects entirely artificial constructs who depend
on creating and maintaining a rational legitimisation for
their existence only *after* their creation (currency,
economic systems, common defence etc). All things
considered, is that not an advantage?
Do we not all persuade ourselves to adhere to fundamentally
irrational notions that lead us to the support, at
considerable expense and inconvenience, of large systems to
perpetuate and enact these very irrationalities? It would
be far easier, for instance, to let the police take
arrrested criminals out the back and shoot them than to
spend huge sums trying to make sure they get their day in
court and are treated like human beings.
How rational are our notions of honour, love, integrity,
duty or charity? Volunteering for the Peace Corps,
supporting the local soup kitchen or organising a charity
golf tournament are not rational uses of our time and
resources -- and yet we are passionate about our chosen
causes. Is that not a benefit of irrationality?
For that matter, the material success of our civilisation is
very much dependent on exploiting and nurturing
irrationality. There is no rational justification for
working like dogs just so we have the werewithal to fund
irrational hobbies or engage in irrational activities like
catching skin cancer on a beach in Cancun. If we were
rational, we would not consume as we do -- and without
irrational consumption, no capitalism as we know it.
>>Billions of tax dollars are flat out being looted from the treasury before our eyes and we're
>>supposed to be outraged over a bad joke? That's the truly bad joke.
>
> I've never seen anything like it.
> Its the first time I've actually believed our government may literally
> destroy America.
They, like all other governments, find themselves caught in
a trap of their own making. Politicians survive by claiming
that they have the answers to our problems, to the extent
that they themselves come to believe in their own proclaimed
ability to deal with issues and problems which are in
reality far beyond their capabilities. IOW, no government
can sort out the current mess, but they are forced to act as
if they could. Matters would not be any different with any
other flavour of government.
> And there again we have the political rhetoric that makes it difficult
> to find what is true and accurate and what is not.
> Our politicians may end up scaring us to death if they don't starve us
> first.
Trust in this: NOBODY knows what is true and what is not.
If they had know what they were playing with, do you really
think the bankers and fund managers would have dug this big
a hole for themselves? Do you really think we the customer
would have screamed for them to give us more of the same?