That I was up for this particular job. It went down to the wire, but eventually they determined that they wanted someone who was not only Christian, Catholic, but apparently they needed to have played professional baseball with St Louis as well. I was hoping the fact that I had been a "Scarlet" as a high School Athlete would work to my benefit, but they were settling for nothing short of Cardinal.
Anyways... here's a congratulatory salute to then new Pope... um... Pope "what's his name", as well as a shout out for a fine retirement to the old dude as well. Pope John, or Paul, or Paul John, or John Paul, or Peter, or Luke, or Peter Luke, or John Paul Peter Luke Matthew or whatever his name was.
I hear the new guy is supposedly much more open minded about woman's issues, gun control, the new judges on American Idol, the chances of the T-Wolves of making the playoffs, and artificial sweeteners.
286 comments:
1 – 200 of 286 Newer› Newest»I bet guess the starch bill at the Vatican must be pretty high.
I heard you had it, Ch, but then your atheism came up.
Oh wait. That didn't stop SOME previous Popes.
From the headline banner
THE CHTRUTH ZEN PAGAN BACKUP BLOG
The truth as it is seen by a coldhearted zen pagan
_____________
You're into Zen, Ch?
Please explicate the following Zen Buddhist saying:
"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."
Anonymous hb said...
Pope Childrape XXIII is announced. "
Liar. I had something to say about that.
Now go away. You bring your stench with you wherever you show up.
""If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.""
If you're not smart enough to know the meaning, you're not smart enough to understand the answer.
Can anyone explicate the following Zen Buddhist saying?
"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."
"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."
alternate phrase:
if you're ted kenndy, offer buddha a ride.
- rrb
This is the only thing you said...
"Now, now, Hb. The College of Cardinals has been specifically enjoined to pick a Pope with no connection to the childrape scandals.
If they don't -- oi vey."
Mitch is right - crickets.
"if you're ted kenndy, offer buddha a ride."
LMAO
"if you're ted kenndy, offer buddha a ride."
I don't think Ted Kennedy and the Buddha travel in the same circle in the after-life.
Ette, chickenshitstainJane, never learns.
He had to backhand agree with HE.
Jane, what crimes have happened in your church?
Barry Nixon.
Americans Express Historic Negativity Toward U.S. Government"
dissatisfied with zero's govt,,, 81 percent.
Satisfied those on welfare.
"I just want to govern for at least a couple years"
Sure, just reverse course and do what is right for the employed earning class and not your ever expanding slavery-class.
I did not write the child rape comment you idiots. I noted it was the talk radio guy Tom Lykis.
weirdos
" hb @ trootherland dot com said...
I did not write the child rape comment you idiots. I noted it was the talk radio guy Tom Lykis."
so why repeat it?
and it's duly noted that you and lie-kis are way too chickenshit to ever insult or offend islam in such a disgusting manner.
you cowardly scumbag.
- rrb
HE, also took a shot at the Cardinals and the way they conducted their business.
Jane stood in support of HE's comments as Ette was good enough to beat him over the head with..
HB posted the " Pope Childrape XXIII is announced. " comment because it agreed with his views.
They certainly ARE weirdos, Hb.
___________________
KD, crickets from the left said...
Anonymous hb said...
Pope Childrape XXIII is announced. "
________________
James New Leaf said...
Liar. I had something to say about that.
___________________
And I did. But Squawette who increasingly shares the subhuman racist mentality of KD says I didn't:
____________________
Squawette:
This is the only thing you said...
"Now, now, Hb. The College of Cardinals has been specifically enjoined to pick a Pope with no connection to the childrape scandals.
If they don't -- oi vey."
_________
Mitch is right - crickets.
_____________________
Nope. Anyone with two cents worth of fairness and good will could see that I said,
"Now, now, Hb" [don't say that because]
The College of Cardinals has been specifically enjoined to pick a Pope with no connection to the childrape scandals.
If they don't -- oi vey."
_________________
Anything but crickets.
You're welcome. :-)
Can anyone explicate the following Zen Buddhist saying?
"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."
"and it's duly noted that you and lie-kis are way too chickenshit to ever insult or offend islam in such a disgusting manner.
you cowardly scumbag."
Coward is right.
"Now, now, Hb"
Now that's stern, lmao.
Thought you "had better things" to do....
White trash freak.
This is a riot. You are offended by a smart ass comment on a real problem in the Catholic Church.
Not one of you are Catholic.
But you are obsessed morons.
And as such dedicated reliable idiots, why aren't any of you at CPAC?
Oh yeah, you are the worthless idiots they depend on.
Gore explained “You can’t farm spiders for a number of reasons, so people are talking the genes from spiders and splicing them into goats…They look like goats, then these spider goats secret silk through their udders.”
Algore was almost the pres, dodge a bullent.
"Jane, what crimes have happened in your church?"
It's a cult...
...they'd follow Jim Jones.
Not one of you are Catholic."
wrong
Born and raised a Roman Catholic, still practicing today.
Hit that do over button scum.
..they'd follow Jim Jones"
lol, pray for similar end results.
"Not one of you are Catholic."
You're not a muslim, but you get your thong in a wad when we speak the truth about their disgusting doctrine.
Rat's right - you're a coward.
Obama = I created the sequester and shut down The People's House tours.
but, later zero said the Secret Service ordered them stopped.
Then Jay said,,,, Obama stopped the tours of The People's House tours.
All the hard working bake sales MOM's and fund raising Kids know is that The People's House is closed to them.
My congregation (the "cult" Savagette mentions) remembers how a while back the following appeared in our church bulletin and was part of my sermon.
They responded with sensitivity to Savagette and to Hb, doubting that Savagette was as without faith as she indicated and doubting whether Hb was really as much an atheist as he claims, all things considered.
______________________
From the BULLETIN
There's a political blog I participate in and this is excerpted from it. (Savagette is a Native American who says she has lost her faith and is no longer a Christian and Hb is an avowed atheist.)
__________________
James: I thought you said you were Methodist, Savagette.
Savagette: Even though I was baptized in the Native American Methodist church as a child, joined the same Native American Methodist church as a child, still choose to contribute to the same Native American Methodist church, as an adult – they seem to be real Christians...they do a lot of good things...
...I've experienced a new awakening, if you will.
I've always been a skeptic, talking donkeys? – but the election of President Infanticide sealed the deal for me.
Obviously, there is no grand spirit in the sky looking out for the least among us, or this country either – or children in other countries...
...millions of children killed in the Holocaust, mass graves with little girls still holding their dolls? Little boys abused by priests, sodomized by Islamists...
Somethin' wrong, somethin' ain't right. It was a beautiful thought while it lasted, lol.
James (after some time went by): Perhaps God weeps too?
After poetically describing a squalid London with its squalid,
ordinary, less than perfect, clueless people, T. S. Eliot went on:
I am moved by fancies that are curled
Around these images, and cling:
The notion of some infinitely gentle
Infinitely suffering thing.
--T. S. Eliot, "Preludes"
____________________
Savagette:
Perhaps God weeps too?
It doesn't appear that he does...
I look at it this way ...
Supposedly we're all God's children. Supposedly he has the power to protect his children. If he won't protect the most vulnerable, what does that say about him?
I'm open to a power that we don't know, or understand – I've simply come to the realization that he probably isn't it.
I know for a fact that my father would have never allowed harm to come to any of us – nor would my husband have allowed anyone to harm our kids – just humans – not the alpha and omega....
Savagette: Also, if you believe the Bible we know what to expect from Satan...at least he does what he says he'll do.
Much to the chagrin of my daughter and two sisters – I'm not buyin' it anymore.
--to be continued
(continued)
James:
I don't know a whole lot about Process Theology, but it's my impression that the process theologians believe that God is part of the process of all that is going on in the universe... and somehow that must include the bad, and yet God is trying to work against the
bad – it's just that God can't do just any old thing that God might wish to do to oppose it, being confined as God is by the process itself – and thus not omnipotent.
I am moved by the image of Jesus in the earliest gospel, Mark, when he returns to Nazareth in the sixth chapter and is unable to help the people of his own home town as much as he would like
because of their lack of faith. He tries, but is unable to be as
effective as he wants to be – except in a limited way. And he is
utterly astounded by the situation.
Could that also sort of stand for divine frustration with our world,
but with an unyielding and continuing resolve to strive for compassion, righteousness, love, peace, joy, hope?
Hb (an atheist):
Ette, I don't buy it either. But I believe there is a power greater than me. It, whatever it is, helps me every single day.
Savagette: I'm moved by quite a few passages in the Bible – its influence on culture can't be diminished or denied.
Actually, it's my favorite book –extremely inspirational, from Old Testament melodies to the Gospel of Luke.....and forward.
Commonsense:
***Much to the chagrin of my daughter and two sisters – I'm not buyin' it anymore.***
Not given to preaching, but I hope you will regain your faith one of these days Ette.
James:
Even now, she may have more real faith than you do, Commonsense.
Hb:
James, absolutely. If being truthful is important, then Commonsense fails, big time.
I think my people are having trouble recognizing the woman in that bulletin in the woman they now see here.
This is a riot. You are offended by a smart ass comment on a real problem in the Catholic Church.
As I said, you couldn't resist the temptation to take a cheap shot.
So much for your "A thorough and honest self examination of my moral failings."
You haven't changed one damn bit.
They responded with sensitivity to Savagette"
Ette did ChickenshitstainJain's members contact you personally?
James:
Even now, she may have more real faith than you do, Commonsense.
I hope she does James. One thing I know for certain.
You're the last person in the world qualified to pass judgement on the faith or truthfulness of anyone.
The Obama administration said Thursday it has rearrested and brought back four of the most dangerous immigrants it released from detention last month in the run-up to the budget sequester cuts.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton testified to Congress that his agency released 10 “level one” offenders, and has gone out and brought four of them back in. He said the other six are non-violent."
Cost of the re-captures to date 59 k,,, and that price is rising as they search down the remaining 6.
This is not a success in any way, shape or form, it is a disaster caused by zerO created sequester.
What a mess he is.
Ette did ChickenshitstainJain's members contact you personally?
Sounds like one of the many voices knocking around in his head.
Sounds like one of the many voices knocking around in his head. "
He has enough voices to field a baseball team.
And yet, he can not get one of those voices to tell her the answer to a question on a topic he brought to the blog.
"inequality of income" or some such non-sense, or as Jane told us one day that is somewhat how the direct quote went.
ChickenJane stated that she wished that Obama would stop talking about the budget and after four failed years in which the unemployment was higher at the end then at the beginning go back to talking about jobs and economic growth and soon undefined non sense that he was asked to define,AND that not one liberal did called "inequality of income".
So Liberals
What is the meaning to you of that term.
Should have known it , silly jane the ignorant no original thought butt ranger stole from algore.
“One of the underlying themes in the book is that the role of us as human beings is being changed…contributing to the hollowing out of the middle class and the growing inequality of income.”
come on jane channel your algore voice and set it free here with the definition of "inequality of income"
"I think my people are having trouble recognizing the woman in that bulletin in the woman they now see here."
You don't seem to understand...
...we know your "people" aren't here.
I'm pretty sure your "people", in real life, would wonder why you would insult a Native Indian woman by calling her a squaw - just because she holds different political and/or spiritual beliefs.
A "man of the cloth" - a true "man of the cloth" - believes in a mission that shows non-believers the beauty of God's LOVE...the beauty of God's forgiveness...the strength derived from having the Lord and all of his glory as a guide...
...not hate - and certainly not human pettiness.
Too bad your "people" won't ever know the real hypocritical, judgemental, self-absorbed, pious James.
"I think my people " CSSJ
is now channeling Eric Holder, for the love of all things holy (not jane) can this s/he get some help.
"for my people," said Holder
Never before in the history of this Nation did I ever think some people thought of themselves as not being part of my America.
My America has 100 percent the same people.
Not ChickenJane or his channel surfing buddy Eric.
believes in a mission that shows non-believers the beauty of God's LOVE...the beauty of God's forgiveness...the strength derived from having the Lord and all of his glory as a guide.."
Yep, that is my God...
Oh and Jane said his god, gives up on people, that is new teachings of the Bible.
Savagette, you and I have had times in the past when we were communicating well, and it was happening in the exchange that took place up there and appeared the church bulletin... And people DID show sympathy and empathy toward you and Hb in comments they made after the service.
Here's another example of when we were communicating well, or better, is the following:
__________________
HERE IS SOMETHING SAVAGETTE EARLIER WROTE:
With all due respect - the government can't make their [blacks’] daddies into something they're not. The failed policies helped create their daddies into what they are.
Those poor little kids need nurturing, loving parents - two of them.
They need a dad who knows he has to work to support his family - they don't need a dad who relies on the government for continual help.
It's no different in some of "our" communities. But, I can tell you one thing. Those who know the values of hard work, honesty and self-dependence - raise kids with those same values (most of the time).
The failed policies have done nothing but breed generations of lazy people - pure and simple.
The neighborhoods need to take responsibility for allowing despicable actions of those within their neighborhoods.
It's sad, I know it is. But, we just can't keep doing the same dang thing and expect different results.
What I meant by insulting is this:
Minorities are just as capable as anyone else to make it on our own - level playing field or not.
Government has created a vicious cycle and I do not know how you young people are going to solve it. I do know that letting government continue that cycle only delays the inevitable.
Continuing to blame the white people of today for the actions of white people long, long ago - is not the way to success***..........imho.
JAMES says:
Imho, everything ‘gette says above is true.
It is also my humble opinion that Sen. Obama also agrees.
He tells his own people to take personal responsibility for themselves. That’s one of his major emphases.
He comes down hard on black fathers who desert their families.* He comes down hard on black parents who don't turn off the tv and the video games and read to their children.**
It's that kind of emphasis that offended Jesse (ugh) Jackson. It's that kind of emphasis that got Bill Cosby booed by some blacks.
Yet when Obama says it, black audiences break into cheers.
I can’t think that sort of thing is going to be bad for America.
____________________
*Obama knows how harmful that is. His own father did it.
** Obama’s mother, while they were in Indonesia, got him up mornings at 4am to work on his English and keep it current.
***One thing that really upset me after Obama’s speech on race, was the way so many whites interpreted that as a “continuing to blame the whites” speech when it was not. Obama made it clear that he “blamed” both races for bad things while at the same time seeing the legitimate (as well as the illegitimate) grievances which whites and blacks have with each other. His emphasis was that it’s time to get beyond all that.
"white"
"black"
"savage"
Jane is never race or color blind.
When one moves the barrel , one finds in the slug under in the mud, a chickenshitstainjane.
Here's another time when Savagette and I were communicating better:
_________________
SAVAGETTE: James, when B O first came on the scene, I had an open mind. In fact, Oscar and I both commented that perhaps he would turn out to be the real deal.
When the debates were centered on Clinton, Edwards and B O, I questioned whether Clinton and Edwards weren't ganging up on him. In fact, it was one "reasonable" conversation that HB and I have ever had on here.
Moving along, I watched him closer and closer - and paid more attention to Clinton than I had ever done, because I knew it would come down to the two of them - obviously.
Then, when he made President Clinton's, of all people, remarks into racial remarks - that pretty much did it.
Hell, the bitter, clingin' to guns thing is another nail.
Now, for the most part, I'm a live and let live person. I don't care if gays marry, I don't care if we have some social programs to help the truly needy. Actually, if I have to pay more in the form of taxes, if the government were to show me some restraint I would happily anty up what is "needed" from me.
There are several things I do have a passion for and against.
I am unapologetically pro-life, and I don't care who doesn't like my position on that. On top of that, Planned Parenthood is a scam, imho, that women have "fallen" for - which has made billions off of the baby-killing industry.
I am unapologetically opposed to open borders. I want our government to know who should or shouldn't be here.
I am unapologetically opposed to CFR, as is it written now.
I am unapologetically opposed to turning people into professional minorities, by making them totally dependent on the government for existance.
I don't care who sleeps with "whom" in government, just do the job you're paid to do.
I don't expect any President to be perfect - that's why I never fall in "love" with a candidate.
Moving on - there is no way I would subject my children or my granddaughter to any kind of hatred, bigotry or any such garbage coming from a Pastor.
Now, since I'm a Republican - how do you think his remark "did I mention he's black?" set with me? On top of everything else?
Quite honestly, you seem rational. You don't seem like someone who remembers history like a romance novel.
If it looks too good to be true - it probably is.
10/14/08 @ 13:09
'Gette, thanks for your fullsome answer. I'll be replying fullsomely and I hope we'll avoid the bitter tone that sometimes gets into this. In my reply and replies, I don't just want to be polemical -- one-ups-manship -- but sincerely give you my reactions and counter arguments.
I don't have time to pursue your entire letter now. There are just a couple of things that I will here mention. I myself regretted Obama's comment on "bitter" remark, not because I thought it was so horrible, but because it was him privately talking the way a professor might analyze a situation. It was not meant as a campaign position. Of course, today with phone recorders, a candidate can't afford to "think aloud" like that.
I thought the Clinton campaign carried their lambasting of him for that remark a good bit too far -- just hammering it all the time. I thought and think the Right still occasionally does the same, frequently hammering it.
Obama could have DEVASTATED Clinton if he had wanted to drive into the ground her "remembering" her invasion of Bosnia. In the debates all he would have had to do is point out that on three separate occasions she stood before the American electorate and consciously fabricated a narrative that she even as she spoke she knew never happened. (She finally admitted that.)
$845 billion. That may still sound like a big number, but given the state of the economy it really isn’t.
Bear in mind that the budget doesn’t have to be balanced to put us on a fiscally sustainable path"
Pop quiz which fucking economic retard said the above:
1, Krugman
2, Halfbaked
3, CHickenshitstainJane
4, zerOkidsallowedinthePeople'sHouse
Actually, if I have to pay more in the form of taxes. ShitstainJane
Liar
Honest taxpayer James said... I pay far too much in taxes "
Maybe you need to talk to a CPA or Timmy Tax Cheat.
My point is that there have been times in the past when I have actually enjoyed what seemed to me to be a genuine attempt to really communicate and understand the other person's point of view.
But twice things came to an abrupt halt, as I remember it:
FIRSE, I let you know that I found it difficult to feel "respect" for anyone who argued that Obama had "thrown his grandmother under the bus" in his excellent "A More Perfect Union" speech on race. That was my sincere reaction. But anyone who interpreted that speech as racist, or who used that bus analogy just seemed to me to have gone beyond any reasonable pale.
We all have things we feel strongly about. I never cut off from you because of your intense lack of "respect" for my position on abortion (though you do distort what my position really is).
You took GREAT umbrage at that, far more intense than I think was justified.
SECOND: The second time was more recently. After we had established some really good communication in the posts I reproduced in the church bulletin, all of a sudden your anger mounted fiercely just because I had made a sexual innuendo joke about you and Rat, which I thought you would actually laugh at. Yet you said I had "stabbed" you "in the back!"
Strange, since I could have taken umbrage at the constant barrage of sexual innuencdo nonsense about Hb and me, which you sure seemed to find funny.
I do not believe it is possible to maintain healthy communication with you simply because I think you suffer from something like delusional paranoia, and I expect you have gone through numerous friendships because of it.
If that is not the case, fine. I do not wish you ill.
DETROIT—Michigan's governor on Thursday named a financial overseer of Detroit, who said his turnaround work could be completed in as little as six months if all of the stakeholders in the deeply troubled city work together.
Kevyn Orr, a bankruptcy attorney and partner at the law firm Jones Day in Washington, D.C., was named Detroit's emergency financial manager, a role that will give him sole, sweeping power to map the future of the city of roughly 700,000 residents. Republican Gov. Rick Snyder announced the selection at a news conference .."
Where is zerO now that "his saved city" is in bankruptcy?
I think you suffer from something like delusional paranoia" Jane
Yes, I know, "rich".
DiFi said "I am not a 6th grader"
Then acted worse then an 11 year old.
She did later apologize to the Adult in the room Senator Cruz, she apologize for acting like a 6th grader.
21 of the 49 posts come from the obsessed k'putz.
But the most creepy ones are written by Chicken-James.
The dude needs help. Help and pharmaceutical management.
By the way CH. You are not qualified for the job. You have to be male, you have that part covered, but you also need to be a Catholic.
You better get moving if you want the job next time around. Francis is 76 so the job will open again. LOL
libruhls hated Reagonomics, yet they likes of hb, HB and Hb love the Best Socialist Ever and His Market Highs.
Yet, the market is giving the top a boost in wealth, and they are spending, and it still trickles down....in a yellow stream...onto the middle class and poor.
"There is evidence that spending among wealthier households has climbed higher while spending among lower-income households has slowed," Nomura Securities economists said in a report. "This dynamic makes sense given the disproportionate burden on lower-income households from higher taxes."
Tax increases tend to hit lower earners harder because they derive most of their income through salary, while higher earners get more of their wealth through investments"
Oh really Machine Gun Mensa? You think k'putz with his constant repetition and attention seeking posts show stability? LOL
You think James is nuts because he differs from you and is significantly more intelligent.
Sounds like jealousy to me.
LMAO!! Significantly more intelligent? Not a chance.
You're telling me you read James' posts and you don't see a seriously disturbed individual? You are deluding yourself.
Then again, you also have a problem with anger management.
Jealousy? More like pity.
Video: Dianne Feinstein not happy with Ted Cruz’s question on the Second Amendment
Di-Fi got into a real huff over whether her ban is constitutional or not. Her attitude seems to be pass it and let the courts decide.
Do we really want politicians what a blatent disregard for the Constitution to make laws?
I saw that exchange. Cruz knew what he was saying was a lie. He knew that there are restrictions on every amendment. Famously you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Nor, much to your chagrin, can you keep your collection of child porn on the coffee table. He was playing the audience, people like you!
I saw that exchange. Cruz knew what he was saying was a lie. He knew that there are restrictions on every amendment. Famously you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
That wasn't the question, the question was a good one. Can congress decide which books are worthy of first amendment protection and which books are not?
Di-Fi was finally forced to say "No".
As for you gratuitous insult, I just ignored it and chalk it up to you're projecting again.
Do we really want politicians what a blatent disregard for the Constitution to make laws?"
No , but without Democrats that are willing to stand up and protect it, we are screwed because we know full well thru their actions and words Obama and Executive Privileged Protect Eric Holder are not going to protect the USC.
(new deficit spending - the new balanced Democrap approach) $845 billion. That may still sound like a big number, but given the state of the economy it really isn’t.
Bear in mind that the budget doesn’t have to be balanced to put us on a fiscally sustainable path"
Pop quiz which fucking economic retard said the above:
1, Krugman
2, Halfbaked
3, CHickenshitstainJane
4, zerOkidsallowedinthePeople'sHouse
But if the oath of office Feinstein took has any meaning, she is in the business of supporting and defending the Constitution. And Congress is in the business of making only laws that don’t violate said Constitution. Thus, by refusing to consider the constitutionality of her legislation, Feinstein ignores her sworn duty.
A sixth grader wouldn’t realize this, but an intelligent ninth grader taking a decent course in “Civics” very well might.
That means DiFi and the fat man aren't qualified.
hb said...
Pope Childrape XXIII is announced. "
The above spoke to the inner scum of the low life that posted it.
Today we look for Obama to release his budget. Over due by 4 years, nice role model for all of the children locked out and barred from entering "The People's House".
If zerO just would have done his homework the children that saved and labored to raise the money could have enjoyed a place I have been in twice.
A small victory for freedom of religion.
Feds can't force Domino's founder to offer contraceptives, judge says
A judge on Thursday blocked the federal government from requiring the founder of Domino's Pizza to provide mandatory contraception coverage to his employees under the health care law.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the contraception provision of the law against Tom Monaghan and Domino's Farms Corp., a management company located near Ann Arbor, Mich.
The company, which is not connected to Domino's Pizza, has 45 full-time and 44 part-time employees, according to its court filing. Monaghan sold his controlling stake in Domino's Pizza in 1998 to private equity company Bain Capital and sold his remaining Domino's stock in 2004, according to Domino's Pizza spokesman Chris Brandon.
"It is in the best interest of the public that Monaghan not be compelled to act in conflict with his religious beliefs," Zatkoff wrote.
Monaghan is a Roman Catholic and said in his suit that he considers contraception a "gravely immoral" practice. He offers employees health insurance that excludes coverage for contraception and abortion.
He knew that there are restrictions on every amendment."
Really "ever amendment" do tell, one by one give us those "restrictions".
Thanks, can not see now you a simple minded low education voter delineates your position.
Do go all DiFi on us, 6th grader, oh and by the way she later apologized for acting like a 6th grader.
"This dynamic makes sense given the disproportionate burden on lower-income households from higher taxes."
whatta
makes perfect sense, like those wallet sucking higher taxes on low earners, gasoline and the spike in food prices are draining out of household budget's disposable income, hitting a 30 year low.
The price I will charge to those that buy sides of beef from me has gone up .10 cents per pound, I sent the email to my customers yesterday based on higher feed costs and diesel fuel costs. My custom hay cutter told me he has to raise his per bale cost by $1.00 because of fuel cost with both effect the plastic weave wrap and the diesel itself.
Business like mine and other pass that cost to the end user.
Amendment VI
HB, you said "ever amendment".
Do tell us about the exceptions as you know them to the Sixth Amendment.
I also saw the Cruz-Feinstein exchange and offer the following thoughts:
We saw elitist Senate arrogance at it's aloof club-like best with Feinstein, Leahy and Durbin's attempted tag-team against a very intelligent and clearly unintimidated Seanate newcomer. Cruz's question was a thoughtful, legitimate question. Feinstein's answer was esentially to say in a few different variations "don't you know who I am?". The fact that she needed Leahy and Durbin to try to assist her, and that Cruz came right back at her and made her actually answer the question, tells me that he got the better of the debate.
The entire episode tells me that he is already getting under their aloof, entitled skin.
It is quite remarkable that a new Senator has not only the stones to take on the old establishment the way her does, but the very necessary intellect required to do it successfully. And he's not up for re-election for 6 years. So much the better.
Obama’s Second Term Troubles Have Begun
In the aftermath of President Obama’s now-obvious-to-all sequester overreach–in which he first predicted the end of the world as we know it, then backed away from those claims once the cuts went into effect, then attempted to inflict maximum pain on the American people, and is now blaming the Secret Service for the stupid and unnecessary decision to shut down White House tours–something is changing.
President Obama’s RealClearPolitics.com approval rating is in the 40s. His disapproval rating exceeds his approval rating in three different polls (Fox, McClatchy/Marist, and Quinnipiac). Congressional Democrats are beginning to grouse. And according to a Washington Post story yesterday, Mr. Obama’s approval rating at this early stage in his second term is among the lowest of any president in the post-World War II era.
According to the Washington Post-ABC News poll, half of independents express a negative opinion of the president’s performance; just 44 percent approve. A majority of Americans give Obama negative marks on handling the economy. And the president has only a four-percentage-point lead over Republicans when it comes to whom the public trusts more to deal with the economy.
This is clearly not where a president who is less than two months into his second term wants to be. But in some respects, it’s not all that surprising. Mr. Obama, while he won his contest with Governor Romney fairly handily, was not a particularly popular president for most of his first term–and the key elements of his agenda are decidedly unpopular.
The posts I provided between Savagette and myself are examples of how people who disagree ought to be able to talk to one another, disagreeing on the issues but maintaining a respectful tone and attitude toward one another.
I have not always done that here. At times I have tried. It is not easy, in this atmosphere of constant "gotcha."
But if we wanted to be both adult and decent, we should try.
Several individuals here don't want that here.
I am taking it up again.
James Nice Life
Let me guess. Cali's article is from National Review?
Let me guess. Cali's article is from National Review?"
Nope google #1 hit is not from National review.
Attacking the site and not the facts contained is very 6th grade of you James.
How about ever talking about issues, your issues, like this one.
.
"inequality of income" or some such non-sense, or as Jane told us one day that is somewhat how the direct quote went.
What does that mean to you, no wrong answer, just looking for your definition.
And let's see. If it appropriate to point out that Obama's RCP averages are now in the (HIGH) forties, would it perhaps be appropriate to point out that his Rasmussen averages have been in the fifties? And have remained at fifty or above for six months?
The truth is, the American electorate is disgusted with Washington government in general (and Congress in particular).
Obama gets smeared by that too, but is also probably in the best position eventually to benefit from it.
Just mho.
Hey jimmy I'm lying here with an IV in my right hand and a blood pressure monitor on my left arm. I get my first my colonoscopy today, waive to the camera.
DiFi looked like a spoiled rotten little pigtailed leftist.
She later apologized.
Look at the leftist here, same deal, you ask them a question on policy or economics, fiscal or financial and their default setting, fake outrage, then dancing.
It is not the first and God willing not the last time Senator Cruz nukes a liberal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyKjwFvQw6s
Cali, God walks with you.
***The posts I provided between Savagette and myself are examples of how people who disagree ought to be able to talk to one another, disagreeing on the issues but maintaining a respectful tone and attitude toward one another.***
The posts of KD are not an example of that.
It's just a routine scope to make sure all is clear, thanks for the thought mich
Hope it goes well, Cali. Mine did. I think they removed a couple or three polyps. No problemo.
The worst part was drinking the scum. The best part was going to sleep and waking up to hear it was all done and okay. I wish the same for you.
No problem , when did the left here stop talking about zerO's policies?
We could discuss the Murray plan that put another 6 trillion on the credit card over the next 10 years
vs
Being at a balance budget in 10 years.
We can't compare those plans to the zerO plan it has not been published ,, late as is it is.
The People's House still closed to working mothers and their children.
I love the delicious irony that machine gun mensa take the wide stance that the U.S. congress cannot pass legislation limiting the types of firearms available. Of course they can and have and the courts have upheld such laws. For example, he cannot legally purchase a fully automatic weapon without first obtaining a permit. And again the courts have held such laws.
Note this: None of us are constitutional lawyers. Mensa boy less of one than most of us. But Cruz was wrong.
The Obama Administration today reversed itself.
Hi Paul! I hope you get or already got, the same report I did.
All Clear.
And for the twit who constantly wishes me ill, I had the full spectrum of lab tests this week and every single one was within normal parameters. My medical provider also declared my disease in remission. So a hale and hearty kiss my ass is dedicated to you this fine morning.
HE, I wish you only the best of health and a long retirement. As I did on the day you announced that you were retiring and beginning to milk SS, even tho you said you do not need it.
Failing dear zerO's shared sacrifice rule.
. The consumer price index for February jumped 0.7 percent"
Not to worry we have it on the zerObots that inflation is not about to hurt the pocket books and purses of the earned income class .
caliphate4evr said...
Hey jimmy I'm lying here with an IV in my right hand and a blood pressure monitor on my left arm. I get my first my colonoscopy today, waive to the camera.
Bet you had a fun night. Hope all is well.
I love the delicious irony that machine gun mensa take the wide stance that the U.S. congress cannot pass legislation limiting the types of firearms available. Of course they can and have and the courts have upheld such laws.
It's not banning a type. It's banning a list of specific models. And that list would be expanded at discretion of the government.
Courts would call that unconstitutionally vague, capricious and arbitrary.
To expand on it, to ban a type they would have to define that type and they cannot legally define what an assault weapon is.
So a hale and hearty kiss my ass is dedicated to you this fine morning.
Roger can't even wish someone well without making it all about him.
Geeze, get help with that anger.
"The posts I provided between Savagette and myself are examples of how people who disagree ought to be able to talk to one another, disagreeing on the issues but maintaining a respectful tone and attitude toward one another."
I think this blog is just a reflection of the country.
How could liberals not know that the vitriol leveled at W would be forgotten?
Then, on top of that - liberals come back with the race card. Pelosi, Reid, Kerry - it wouldn't matter - conservatives such as myself would OPPOSE their progressive policies - yet, here you guys use the race card. CONSTANTLY.
So, okay, then we move on to NATIONAL TRAGEDIES - committed by insane people - and instead of EVERYONE mourning TOGETHER, liberals can't wait to blame conservatives, immediately jumping to conclusions - BLAMING TEABAGGERS.
You wonder WHY the country is as divided as it is? You wonder why we don't trust liberals to engage honestly? There's two examples for you.
As for me, personally - I don't care what names I'm called - just don't act like name-calling only happens from right-wingers.
Two last things. I make zero apologies for my criticism of islam - zero. I know too many women who have been personally harmed, and continue to be personally harmed by muslim men - from surviving rape as a child, to female genital mutilation, to witnessing the rape and abuse of their daughters AND sons. So, yes, to me those men are muzzies - and sometimes much worse names come to mind.
Secondly - since Rat is such a lightning rod - I make zero apologies for my respect for him. He's done more good for our family than you, or anyone else, could ever imagine - I'll leave it at that.
"And for the twit who constantly wishes me ill"
Liar. I want you to live as long as possible - you need to pay those taxes you've leveled on the rest of us.
I think you suffer from something like delusional paranoia" Jane
Yes, I know, "rich".
Today, I forgive all past wrongs of the left here, and unless attacked I will not attack them, after this post.
Consumer sentiment is taking a surprise plunge so far this month, to 71.8, down from 77.6"
Not to worry , all is well , we can run unlimited sustainable debt.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/14/nuclear_reactor_salt/
I will leave it to our nuclear scientists, Machine Gun Mensa and k'putz to inform us if this is viable.
*** the question was a good one. Can congress decide which books are worthy of first amendment protection and which books are not?***
Di-Fi was finally forced to say "No".
_______________
So, if Congress cannot decide what books I can or cannot have, it cannot decide what weapons I can or cannot have.
I want to be the first kid on my block to have a suitcase sized nuclear device.*
And Congress can't prevent me, can it?
_____________
*also a bazooka, sub machine gun, machine gun, flame thrower, surface to air missile launcher, grenade launcher, etc., etc.
And Congress can't prevent ANY of that! Freedom! Freedom! Wonderful land of total Freedom!
(And if you thught Detroit looked bad, just wait till WE get through with it!)
I will answer HB, I don't know, but if that did come from MIT then I would think it is credible.
At home we have more oil/gas then the Peaker's (peak oil believers, fake shit).
But don't worry zerO is making darn sure we send money oversea's.
You know how liberals here speak of how food stamps and unemployment is stimulative to the US economy.
Just try oil income and gas lines being built with jobs and paychecks being created, people off of food stamps and off of unemployment. Trading income and restoring worth of self.
If KD can be nice, surely I can.
Still trying to be nice, I want to ask Commonsense a common sense question:
HB SAID:
I love the delicious irony that machine gun mensa take the wide stance that the U.S. congress cannot pass legislation limiting the types of firearms available. Of course they can and have and the courts have upheld such laws.
YOU, COMMONSENSE, SAID:
It's not banning a type. It's banning a list of specific models. And that list would be expanded at discretion of the government.
Courts would call that unconstitutionally vague, capricious and arbitrary.
9:26 AM
Commonsense said...
To expand on it, to ban a type they would have to define that type and they cannot legally define what an assault weapon is.
_____________________
JAMES: Now, I'm still trying to be nice, but for the life of me I cannot see how you can say the above with a straight face.
Weigh each word:
Congress cannot be specific in their listing of what weapons they will ban.
Why not? Because that would be too "unconstitutionally vague, capricious and arbitrary."
WHAT?!!!
Does that make any sense at all?
Does it make common sense?
Doe it make intellectual sense?
Does it make ANY kind of sense?
Can congress decide which books are worthy of first amendment protection and which books are not?***
Di-Fi was finally forced to say "No".
NOPE< she said it after her panties where wedged up your old crack, on the 2nd time Cruz had repeated the question for granny.
And yet, he can not get one of those voices to tell her the answer to a question on a topic he brought to the blog.
"inequality of income" ?
James you ask others questions, and when you ask me I answer, surely you do think you should do the same.
KD, I will tell you why I don't even bother to answer you or to deal with you most of the time. (But there is no way I can do that and be nice at the same time.)
Some time ago, I made the statement (in reply, I think, to something YOU asked me) that I did indeed feel that my taxes were too high. I made that statement in the context that, if people who are SIGNIFICANTLY WEALTHER than I am can get off at rates that are, comparatively, rather low, AND by taking advantage of all sorts of loopholes not available to the middle class -- then yes, I do think my tax rate should be lowered and theirs should be raised at least somewhat higher through the closing of loopholes and through an increase in their actual rates.
Probably just about every lower middle class, middle class, and upper middle class person in the USA would agree with that. It just makes sense. It just seems fairer.
Yet you took a statement that was THAT sensible and have used it every chance you get to mimic it and ridicule it.
You say you want to be nice, but you use language in such a way that it DRIPS with venom.
I don't believe you know HOW to be nice, or fair, or decent. And you yourself have roundly demonstrated that what I believe is true -- many, many times.
So most of the time I just ignore you. And will continue to.
LaPierre. The Chinese are going to hack the database and use it to take your guns after the takeover!
And by the way, in my 10:09 post I did not edit ANYthing (as you charge at 10:15* above, calling me a liar). I simply quoted directly from Commonsense's 9:26 and 9:30 posts.
_____________
*Your reference to "wedged up your crack" in that 10:15 post is a perfect example of what I mean. You are incapable of maintaining civility. Incapable of being nice. Incapable of avoiding venom.
Today, I forgive all past wrongs of the left HERE, and unless attacked I will not attack them, after this post.
James, notice that I said I would not attack those liberals HERE.
I am still holding to my word, you can hit the do over button and I will again forgive you.
10:51 AM Post
missing a link and " "
other then that it looks correct.
loopholes not available to the middle class"
Name 3 of those "loopholes" which are really just parts of the tax code that both parties wrote, voted for and the sitting president of the time signed into law.
(not income based "loopholes")
Because there are parts of the tax code that are favorable the low income earners, yes, I have at least three examples of my point.
I nicely wait for you to post those and clearly define this term you brought to the blog " inequality of income"
NOPE< she said it after her panties where wedged up ( not your) her old crack, on the 2nd time Cruz had repeated the question for granny. KD
where it says "your" Translate my ‘your’ to ‘her.’
Just watched another video, this one with Ted Cruz debating Pat Leahy on the constitution and the Senate's role in it and oath on it. And right on cue, Leahy offers the same sad rebuttal that Feinstein offered. That is to say, 'Do you know who I am and how long I've been here?'.
This is the depth of their justification? To simply cite their years in the Senate as counter-argument?
Bravo Senator Cruz! Keep it up.
OtherHalf,, have you seen the one of Cruz Nuking the hell out of AG (executive privileged protected) Eric Holder.
Eric was undress and then was whipped.
Sen. Robert Menendez Being Investigated by Grand Jury in Donor Scandal"
03-15-2013
oh well,he is a good Liberal, so , let him go .
Weigh each word:
Congress cannot be specific in their listing of what weapons they will ban.
Why not? Because that would be too "unconstitutionally vague, capricious and arbitrary."
WHAT?!!!
Does that make any sense at all?
It does to anyone with an ounce of commonsense. Obviously that excludes you.
You cannot say one semi-automatic rifle is legal while another semi-automatic rifle with equal or less capabilities is illegal simply because you don't like how it looks.
That's the very definition of "unconstitutionally vague, capricious and arbitrary."
Exactly...
I have a gun that my grandfather and father owned and now I do.
It is illegal because it has the capacity to hold 10 rounds. The gun was produced in 1890's,,, I would have to turn this gun in for destruction under this gun grab.
Mr. Gabby Gifford owns a .45 pistol and a AR-15,,, his hypocrisy is now well known.
Gill Bidens shot gun is not being attacked , or skeeters shotguns or even john kerry's ,,, how convenient to exclude those long guns.
Liberals in charge they move to shirk individual rights.
"You cannot say one semi-automatic rifle is legal while another semi-automatic rifle with equal or less capabilities is illegal simply because you don't like how it looks."
liberals are cowards at their core and they frighten very easily.
- rrb
You cannot say one semi-automatic rifle is legal while another semi-automatic rifle with equal or less capabilities is illegal simply because you don't like how it looks.
No, indeed you cannot.
That would indeed be "the very definition of 'unconstitutionally vague, capricious and arbitrary.'"
But why can't you pass legislation to the effect that a semi- automatic rifle limited to ten rounds is legal while a semi-automatic rifle capable of one hundred rounds is not?
After all, legislation already exists to the effect that semi-automatic weapons capable of one shot per trigger squeeze are legal, while fully-automatic weapons capable of multiple shots per trigger squeeze are not.
Also, bullet shooting weapons are legal while fire spewing, missile launching, and grenade launching weapons are not.
And yes, one could argue that society is too "cowardly" to allow legalization of such weapons, though "sensible" would be a better word.
But why can't you pass legislation to the effect that a semi- automatic rifle limited to ten rounds is legal while a semi-automatic rifle capable of one hundred rounds is not?
Thanks, the would pretty much make all semi-automatic rifles legal since a detachable magazine is not a permanent part of the gun, the gun itself has zero capacity.
You don't know shit about guns do you?
***KD: "James, notice that I said I would not attack those liberals HERE."***
Inaccurately calling me a liar in post 10:15 was in no way an attack?
There is no good reason to communicate with you. What I said about you above holds true.
So I will continue mostly to ignore you. It's what you richly deserve.
______________
Indeed, you have sometimes gone out of your way to deserve it ('cheap Chicago w., black monkey,' etc. And then lied about it repeatedly until shown absolute proof, and now you have the temerity to mouth the pieties of your yesterday's 3:46 post and claim to be a good, practicing Catholic).
regarding 1:06:
No reply to such a remark.
I'm too nice.
Thanks to Ronald Reagan
Missile Interceptors moved to west cost to protect against the NK Threat.
Humm, we were lead to believe that NK was not a threat to the mainland of the USA.
Today, I forgive all past wrongs of the left HERE, and unless attacked I will not attack them, after this post.
James, notice that I said I would not attack those liberals HERE.
I am still holding to my word, you can hit the do over button and I will again forgive you.
11:04 AM
^^^^ see the time above^^^^^
that would be after 10:15 AM
Then I take it you're conceding you don't know shit about guns.
Maybe you should stop and think before you open you mouth again and make a total ass of yourself.
Then again. It is amusing when you do.
Directed at James of course.
Sorry they are being deployed in Alaska.
http://armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm
If you have the money and the want, you can own a tank.
Nice, civil but ignorant James innocently says:
"Of course, we could be talking about legally limiting the size of magazines, now couldn't we?"
_____________________
But on to something else (GOOD NEWS):
OBAM'S FALLING APPROVAL HASN'T MADE HIM WEAKER YET
Nate Cohn says that too much weight is given to President Obama's approval rate sinking below the 50% threshold in recent polls.
"Falling below that mark might give the impression that the president is 'weaker' politically, but it hardly warrants notice. After all, the president entered his reelection campaign with similar numbers and ultimately won by a convincing margin. A larger decline in Obama's approval ratings, to the low forties, would augur poorly for Obama's second-term agenda, but not what we're seeing now. The president's legislative initiatives, including a debt deal and immigration reform, depend on cultivating organic Republican support for compromise, not the president's ability coerce Republicans with his popularity. Even at the height of his post-election bounce, Obama's mid-fifties approval ratings didn't force Republicans to accept a balanced approach to reduce the debt."
"But lower approval ratings, and the desire to raise them, could make the White House more interested in the long sought 'grand bargain'--perhaps the only event, other than noticeably improved economic conditions, that might send the president's approval rating back into the mid-fifties, or higher."
Obama still at 50% on the Rasmussen
(He's been there or above for over six months.)
And today his slide on the Gallup stopped, and he's holding at +48% vs -46%.
"Of course, we could be talking about legally limiting the size of magazines, now couldn't we?"
But we were talking about banning guns weren't we?
OBAM'S FALLING APPROVAL HASN'T MADE HIM WEAKER YET
Nate Cohn says that too much weight is given to President Obama's approval rate sinking below the 50% threshold in recent polls.
LMAO!!!
After crowing about Obama +50 approval rating for nearly two months now you say it doesn't really matter now that he's under-water.
You never not amuse James.
Glad you're amused. But the article makes sense.
Are you amused that he's been at 50% or better on the skewed Rasmussen for more than six months, and still is? (Funny, I don't hear you laughing.)
And on the RCP aggregates, Obama has not been in the red (in disapproval territory) since September 7, 2012.
Hilarious, right? :-)
SpiderGoatManBearPig lives!
UR
Are you amused that he's been at 50% or better on the skewed Rasmussen for more than six months, and still is? (Funny, I don't hear you laughing.)
(Laughing with amused scorn)
His approval rating is worst at this time than any other 2nd term president since FDR.
Be happy in your +50 la la land.
Clueless Doughboy said...
Note this: None of us are constitutional lawyers. Mensa boy less of one than most of us. But Cruz was wrong.
Cruz was on the winning side of Heller.
Ted Cruz on Assault Weapons and Heller
Open mouth, insert foot. You're real good at that.
If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him.
I forget the name of the Zen master who first said this. The interpretations have been legion, but the saying, not meant literally, means something like this:
Buddhism teaches that we each find our own enlightenment within ourselves, so we should have no need for an outside influence, an outside Buddha.
House Republicans Unanimously Vote Down Minimum Wage Hike.
Is anyone surprised? Most of the teatards would eliminate it completely. Let the "market prevail".
I'm finding the troother love affair with Cruz amusing. He's managed to piss off everyone, right or left, with his arrogant, hate filled rhetoric. McCarthy Jr. He even resembles Joe McCarthy. I wonder if he shares his affinity for intoxicating beverages?
I know one thing, every one of the current troothers would be deeply in love with Joe McCarthy They would be defending every accusation and believing them. Cruz claims that 12 of the professors at Harvard Law were communists. He's nuts. But you fuckers don't care. He states the paranoid shit you take as gospel.
I pity you.
Joe McCarthy? You're such a bore Roger.
"Joe McCarthy? You're such a bore Roger."
and an insufferable parroting hack.
if the douchenozzles on MSDNC had not made the cruz-mccarthy comparisons a million times already, hackwit would have never made the connection.
cruz is brilliant. feinstein is just a fucking saggy liberal tool who prides herself on being in the senate forever - as if that's a fucking virtue.
- rrb
BS. When I saw Cruz he reminded me of McCarthy. Then he made that insane claim about Harvard professors.. and since then he's turned into the Rush Limbaugh of the Senate. A blowhard.
And as noted, you all, every last one of you, would have been behind McCarthy too.
Oh, and I hope the old format is restored in time to remember the chorus of lies that took us into an illegitimate war of choice. One that is projected to cost us over $2 Trillion, just a little bit higher than the initial U.S. government estimates of $50 to $60 billion.
http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2013/03/warcosts
This crowd of chickenhawks supported the war and the use of torture. You need to be reminded of how wrong you were, and remain to this day.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — Ten years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, researchers have released the first comprehensive analysis of direct and indirect human and economic costs of the war that followed. According to the report, the war has killed at least 190,000 people, including men and women in uniform, contractors, and civilians and will cost the United States $2.2 trillion — a figure that far exceeds the initial 2002 estimates by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget of $50 to $60 billion.
The report was released by the Costs of War project, based at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies. Catherine Lutz, the Thomas J. Watson Jr. Family Professor of Anthropology and International Studies at Brown University, co-directs the project with Neta C. Crawford, professor of political science at Boston University.
Among the group’s main findings:
More than 70 percent of those who died of direct war violence in Iraq have been civilians — an estimated 134,000. This number does not account for indirect deaths due to increased vulnerability to disease or injury as a result of war-degraded conditions. That number is estimated to be several times higher.
The Iraq War will ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers at least $2.2 trillion. Because the Iraq war appropriations were funded by borrowing, cumulative interest through 2053 could amount to more than $3.9 trillion.
Th $2.2 trillion figure includes care for veterans who were injured in the war in Iraq, which will cost the United States almost $500 billion through 2053.
The total of U.S. service members killed in Iraq is 4,488. At least 3,400 U.S. contractors have died as well, a number often under-reported.
Terrorism in Iraq increased dramatically as a result of the invasion and tactics and fighters were exported to Syria and other neighboring countries.
Iraq’s health care infrastructure remains devastated from sanctions and war. More than half of Iraq’s medical doctors left the country during the 2000s, and tens of thousands of Iraqi patients are forced to seek health care outside the country.
The $60 billion spent on reconstruction for Iraq has not gone to rebuilding infrastructure such as roads, health care, and water treatment systems, but primarily to the military and police. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has found massive fraud, waste, and abuse of reconstruction funds.
Me again. This is just a hard number accounting, the damage done to the US around the world are going to take many more years to be understood.
What in the world did Joe Scarborough SAY about Ted Cruz this morning? It has the ear wax absolutely SPURTING from Mark Levin's ears just now.
"When I saw Cruz he reminded me of McCarthy."
You do realize, don't you, that Cruz isn't the one on a witch hunt...
..hunting down legal, innocent gun owners (witch hunt - McCarthy) is happening on your side.
I'm not surprised you'd be confused about this.
Twit, are you insane?
"hunting down legal, innocent gun owners" Seriously. Are you out of your ever loving mind? NO ONE IS DOING THAT you bloody moron.
"Ten years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, researchers have released the first comprehensive analysis of direct and indirect human and economic costs of the war that followed. "
The same Iraq war that over half of the democrats in the Senate voted for?
The same Iraq war that 82 dems in the House voted for?
That war?
"NO ONE IS DOING THAT you bloody moron."
BS.
This is a classic example of liberals - McCarthites - lookin' for boogeymen.
Now, now. Play nice children.
_____________________
I am surprised at how little I find in the leftwing commentaries regarding Ted Cruz. Doesn't that mean he must REALLY have flopped? Can it be he is so little a threat to future Dems that the left is not even bothering to pile on? (While the right is going apoplectic!)
Just a thought.
I camae across this by accident. My eye fell on 9:44 below and I said WHOA!
____________
Kd said it was alright to falsely call me a liar at 10:15 because he had not yet made his new resolve then not to attack.
And yet, what is this below?
KD:
Today, I forgive all past wrongs of the left here, and unless attacked I will not attack them, after this post.
9:44 AM
________________
No comment. It's too pitiful even to laugh at. (But I can't help it, LOL)
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced plans on Friday to bolster U.S. missile defenses in response to a growing nuclear threat from North Korea, adding 14 interceptors to a missile defense site in Alaska by 2017 and deploying a radar tracking system in Japan.
Wow, if the naive Bumble hadn't stopped them in 09 they'd be on line now.
How are you doing, Cali? I was just getting ready to ask.
Could as can be after being violated, thanks for asking
Roll Call
According to Taegan Goddard's
WONK WIRE
Reuters looks at a new report by the Costs of War Project showing that “war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest.”
“The report concluded the United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region, set back women’s rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system, the report said. Meanwhile, the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud.”
_____________
Another reason Cheney is no hero in my eyes.
Let's emphasize part of that:
"... expenses that could grow to MORE THAN SIX TRILLION over the next four decades counting interest.”
You weren't violated, Cali.
You were 'scoped.
"hunting down legal, innocent gun owners"
I know that you believe this to be true, but you have long shown the ability to create facts out of thin air.
Show me one serious piece of legislation that is being proposed to accomplish this. And the fact is, this has never been proposed by this administration. Or any I am aware of in the past. Perhaps you can enlighten us with proof this exists?
Second, a law like this would be instantly challenged in the courts, and in my view, would not survive judicial review. I would oppose it, as would most anyone else I am aware of.
And consider this, twit. What would be involved to confiscate 300 million guns? Who would do it?
If you apply ONE ounce of logic to your accusation if falls apart. But for as long as you have been posting here, you have shown a total inability to think in logical terms. It's all how you "feel" the facts be damned.
Pitiful.
Paul, it did not bother me a bit. I woke up for a few seconds after the first procedure. They said they were going to do the upper GI next. I think I asked them to make sure they did not mix up the probes.
Glad to hear you are ok. Just don't think about it. It will fade into the past.
"I am surprised at how little I find in the leftwing commentaries regarding Ted Cruz."
Haven't been watching msDNC or HB, eh?
According to both, Cruz is the modern day McCarthy, LOL!
Even though Cruz isn't the one on a witch hunt...
"If you apply ONE ounce of logic to your accusation if falls apart. But for as long as you have been posting here, you have shown a total inability to think in logical terms. It's all how you "feel" the facts be damned. "
Do you EVER THINK?
LMAO! You see Cruz as McCarthy, lmao.
It wasn't Cruz, or OUR people who published a map showing where the commies -er - LEGAL gun owners live.
Show me one serious piece of legislation that is being proposed to accomplish this. And the fact is, this has never been proposed by this administration. Or any I am aware of in the past. Perhaps you can enlighten us with proof this exists?
You can't.
"Show me one serious piece of legislation that is being proposed to accomplish this."
Show me evidence that Cruz is out lookin' for commies - er - legal gun owners.
You can't.
You just repeat what you've heard.
Kinda funny - really it is, lol.
"When I saw Cruz he reminded me of McCarthy."
lmao
am surprised at how little I find in the leftwing commentaries regarding Ted Cruz.
Taking a break from MSNBC are you?
And let me tell you something else. I don't need someone else to tell me what to think. I have done something that you obviously did not do. I read books. On history. On McCarthy and his tactics. Then when I saw Cruz claim that law professors at Harvard were communists, it reminded me of the tactics used by McCarthy. Cruz is not an idiot. He went to the finest law school in the country, as did our President, the one you think is stupid.. But the difference is, the President isn't an obnoxious, lying, Fox "News" inspired Republican. He cares for the country, something you don't.
I also asked you to provide a credible link to one piece of legislation that would be required to accomplish what you claim. Nor did you consider that such a law would never pass, and even if in the .0002% chance it did, the courts would not let it stand, nor should they.
And so again, here we are. You believe a lot of things you can't prove. You "feel" that this is true. And when asked to provide anything to verify your feelings, you slip back into your accusation mode.
I have seen you post for a long time. And you have never, and I mean never, have been able to use logic. It's ALL what you feel. The facts of the matter do not intrude on your bubble.
Show me one serious piece of legislation that is being proposed to accomplish this.
It's the law in Caleeefoorrrnia.
California tracks, disarms people with legally registered guns
alifornia gun laws allow agents to seize weapons with neither probable cause nor due process, and illustrate a sobering, even chilling assessment Ann Coulter made on The Sean Hannity Show in early February.
“Universal background checks means universal registration,” she said. “Universal registration means universal confiscation, universal extermination. That’s how it goes in history.” She was right.
"It's the law in Caleeefoorrrnia."
He's on a mission right now, lol.
He's tryin' to convince all of us that he actually thinks before he speaks - lmao - he makes me laugh - he's good for something around here.
He watched mcDNC today - and they were all in a tizzy over Cruz - hence his little hissy fit.
Gosh, that sounds awful, I thought.
It sounds Hitleresque.
It sounds Stalinesque.
It sounds downright UnAmerican.
Then I read the next few lines of the article.
Try reading the next few lines of Commonsense's article, Savageette.
. I read books. On history. On McCarthy and his tactics. Then when I saw Cruz claim that law professors at Harvard were communists, it reminded me of the tactics used by McCarthy.
Cruz wasn't that far off.
Ted Cruz May Not have a List of Communists at Harvard Law, But I Do
After all the howling and vituperative whining from left-wingers it turns out Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was absolutely correct when he said Harvard Law School had significant numbers of what might reasonably be called “communists.”
These “communists” adhere to a bizarre school of legal thought called critical legal theory. The brilliant Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals describes critical legal studies (CLS) as “horse manure.”
Critical legal theory is anti-law. It’s like throwing a shrapnel grenade into a packed courtroom. Teaching it to law students is Marxist indoctrination, not education.
It takes the neo-Marxist perspective that the law is concerned with power, not justice. Because the law is a fraud perpetrated on the people, an oppressive tool of capitalism, imperialism, sexism, racism, and whatever other ism it is currently fashionable to attack, the legal system should be criticized endlessly as a means of tearing it down.
If you’re a communist it’s natural to embrace critical legal theory as a way of wrecking American society.
Maybe you should do some more reading.
MAYBE WE SHOULD ALL DO SOME MORE READING:
THE NEXT FEW LINES OF THE ARTICLE CITED BY COMMONSENSE AT 7:44. INDEED, HERE IS THE REST OF THE ARTICLE ENTIRE:
Any owner in California of a registered firearm who is later convicted of a felony, has a mental health issue or is subject to a domestic violence restraining order, will have his Second Amendment rights revoked.
This sounds pretty reasonable on its face. I probably join most people in saying I don’t want felons, mental incompetents or those who beat their spouses to possess a firearm.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris urged Vice President Joe Biden to adopt a similar provision nationally.
“What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?” she wrote to Biden, according to Bloomberg.com.
As reported by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, any disqualified gun owner:
must immediately designate a third party who is not prohibited from possessing firearms by completing a Power of Attorney Declaration. The third party then has 30 days to properly transfer or dispose of any firearms possessed by the prohibited person. The third party may relinquish the firearms to a local law enforcement agency, sell or transfer them to a third party through a licensed firearms dealer, or sell them to a dealer.”
If the disqualified owner wasn’t properly notified, ignores or doesn’t understand the notice, the firearm is confiscated. The Bloomberg article described a typical gun confiscation:
Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who’d recently spent two days in a mental hospital.
They knocked on the door and asked to come in. About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms.
Let’s take a look at the criteria California uses to confiscate a firearm:
Felony Conviction: What if the person is convicted of a white-collar crime like embezzlement? What about other non-violent crimes? Such a person isn’t so much showing a propensity toward violence as he is a desire to get something that doesn’t belong to him without the messiness of physically harming others.
Mental Disease or Defect: What if the gun owner is suffering a bout of depression due to the loss of a loved one or a career or a financial setback? Do we remove his firearm on that basis? The California law makes no provision for voluntary treatment.
Domestic Restraining Order: I know this will surprise a lot of readers, but people going through a divorce will sometimes lie — in fact, they’ll often lie, to their lawyer, to the judge, even to themselves.
The Justice Department agents lack probable cause for a search warrant to enter a residence and confiscate a weapon — they have to talk their way in, according to the Bloomberg article. When a homeowner is confronted with nine armed agents wearing bulletproof vests, I’ll wager it doesn’t take a lot of talking.
Coulter was right in her assessment — and if this insanity were to spread across the nation, we have every right to be afraid.
__________________________
Now, here is my take on this. The author tries as hard as he can to make all this seem unreasonable.
It seems to me he only partically and only at times almost succeeds. succehioistnOW,
*succehioistnOW
(a secret communication with the Kremlin)
"Cruz wasn't that far off."
Yeah, but hadadick gets all pissy when it's called to his attention that the Socialist Party USA, the Communist Party USA align themselves with his party, lol.
And now I just finished reading the article Commonsense links at 8:03.
It sounds pretty --- McCarthyesque.
I mean, of the fourteen people listed there, only five were tenured professors at Harvard. And as for how left-leaning THEY were, that's not certain.)
Two people who briefly taught but were denied tenure -- some of their supporters thought they were too pinko.
(Ah, but I thought Harvard was a hotbed of Marxism.)
It's almost like some of the others listed were -- well, one day they WALKED PAST the school.
It's really not wise to call anyone communist these days. Neo-Marxist is a better, more convicing term.
And what is a Neo-Marxist?
Someone who still values FDR and the New Deal and is committed to keeping Social Security for the people.
Round those people up!
Take away their guns before they get ours! ;-)
(
*nice though satirical
There you go again twit. Off in another direction with a grade school insult. And again saying something that isn't true. But to you a feeling is sufficient. The fact that two totally insignificant political parties may or may not support the President is meaningless. Except to you. They have less than zero influence on anything.
Is that all you have? From a rational standpoint you were shown as nothing more than a shallow loser.
Calm down drunkard...
...just embrace your fellow commie travelers.
This might be a good time for your self introspection, lol.
Interesting segment on Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough.
"Joe Scarborough? You mean the Republican who's often come down so hard on Obama?"
"Yeah, THAT Joe Scarborough."
_________________
TRANSCRIPT OF THE SEGMENT:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: I’ve got a serious question here. John Heilemann, this guy -- this guy [Cruz], what he is saying, the way he is framing his question, suggests complete, utter IGNORANCE. I'm talking about Ted Cruz here and I have brought this up before. Complete and utter IGNORANCE and anybody – conservative jurists will agree with me and they do, that when he goes on this line of attack about violating the Second Amendment, it suggests complete, utter IGNORANCE of what the Second Amendment says and what Scalia, Thomas, and the conservative court said in 2008 about what the Second Amendment is and what it is not. So did Ted Cruz not go to law school? Has he ever been to law school?
JOHN HEILEMANN: I believe he went to Harvard law school.
SCARBOROUGH: Did they teach Ted Cruz to read what the Supreme Court said, especially in the landmark -- the landmark decision regarding Second Amendment rights over 200 years was written in 2008. I'm just wondering why would he use his seat on the judiciary committee if he went to Harvard to-- to-- to put forward a willfully IGNORANT statement about this bill violating the Second Amendment, because it does not. And Ted Cruz knows it does not. So who is he playing for? Is he playing for-- for-- for people who can't read, for illiterates? I don't understand. I’m not – you know, there are a lot of people out there that support Ted Cruz's position that will say, this is not a violation of the Second Amendment, however, I have real concerns because you take this first step, the next thing you know they’re going to be trying to overturn Heller, they’re going to be trying to get my shotguns, they’re going to be trying to get my hunting rifles. I don't mean to go on and on here.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: No, no. You make a good point.
SCARBOROUGH: But I am so shocked that he would continue to use his seat in the judiciary committee to just mislead millions of Americans and put forward a willfully IGNORANT position on what the Constitution says and what it does not say.
_______________
IGNORANCE used three times.
IGNORANT used two times.
Oh I am fine. I live a good responsible life. Nor am I angry. All I did is point out how you operate. You made multiple accusations. Yet you could not provide a link, a quote, a piece of legislation, nothing. Then in your usual MO you resorted to the old reliable. An insult. So again I am simply asking you to provide a bill number, a verifiable link, anything to support your accusation. For someone of your education and intelligence this should be child's play. I wait with baited breath!
I am glad I did not hold my breath. But I am sure there will be more insults than verifiable information.
You mean this Joe Scarborough?
Scarborough Rips Ted Cruz as ‘Ignorant’ for Arguing Feinstein Gun Bill Violates Constitution
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough unleashed a vitriolic tirade against the left-wing media’s new favorite punching bag, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), on Friday’s Morning Joe. Incensed at Cruz’s questioning of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Scarborough attacked the freshman senator as “ignorant” five times.
MSNBC’s resident RINO was upset because Cruz suggested to Feinstein that her gun control bill violates the Second Amendment. According to Scarborough, this is an “ignorant” view: [Video below. MP3 audio here.]
In the clip that sparked Scarborough’s outrage, all Cruz did was ask Feinstein whether it would be consistent with the Bill of Rights to selectively chop away at the First or Fourth Amendment as her bill would do to the Second Amendment. That seems like a legitimate concern that a conservative would have.
And Cruz admitted later in the hearing that he "represented 31 states before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller case." Furthermore, he added that "what the Supreme Court said in Heller, it did say there are some restrictions on the Second Amendment that are permissible." He went on to list what he interpreted as the restrictions. Is this "willful ignorance" on Cruz's part?
It’s nasty enough that Scarborough lambasted Cruz for raising a legitimate constitutional question, but then he went and condescended to the Texas senator: “So did Ted Cruz not go to law school? Has he ever been to law school?”
Ignorance is Lambasting Cruz about his "ignorance of the "Scalia, Thomas, and the conservative court said in 2008" not knowing Cruz was the winning litigator in that case. Scarborough's become a clown who dances at the pleasure of the liberal masters who pay his salary.
Go sell grits and gravy. You are qualified to do that. Just the other day Scarborough was the genius who bested Krugman in a debate. Now he shows Eugene McCarthy, oops, Cruz is ignorant.
How do you want your coffee sir? Rinse and repeat.
You amuse me doughboy. The only ignorance Scarborough has shown is his own.
And you won't see me cheering Scarborough along we he tries to occasionally redeem himself with conservatives. (And let's face it, Krugman is a far left wacko to everyone but ninnies like you)
He more into lambasting Republicans nowadays to the joy of his bosses.
Grits, gravy and biscuits for breakfast, you don't know what you are missing.
Six Democrats joined 227 Republicans in voting it down; 184 Democrats voted yes."
Time for the radical left to target those 6 turncoats.
Will the press now look into the 184 Democrats and who the hire/employe and expose the ones that pay the current min wage?
Consumer sentiment is taking a surprise plunge so far this month, to 71.8, down from 77.6"
Not to worry , all is well , we can run unlimited sustainable debt.
Sen Murry and Obama and Krugman all agree 23 Trillion is a sustainable debt level for the US, even more if new stimuless is needed.
"I wait with baited breath!"
Fishing with your bad breath?
LMAO - McCarthy.
This has become the new unholy normal of the liberal zerO.
When ask for specifics he jokes how stupid the Democrat Freshman From the Saved State of MI is, what was the outrageous question from the Dem Fressman. Where are the Jobs Mr Prez.
Michigan Democratic Rep. Dan Kildee has been in Congress for a little more than two months, and today the leader of the free world gave him a gentle ribbing about just how new he is to Capitol Hill.
At a closed-door meeting between President Barack Obama and House Democrats, Kildee introduced himself as a freshman, to which Obama said, “Wow, you’re really classing up the place then.”
Kildee then proceeded to ask what one person described as a somewhat “long-winded” question about the importance of creating jobs for his economically distraught district.
“I can tell you’re a freshman because you didn’t pay much attention to the State of the Union,” Obama joked. “I talked about that.”
Amid the resulting laughter, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra of California then offered to provide Kildee a printout of the speech.
Obama was referring to his $1 billion proposal for 15 manufacturing “innovation centers,” the details of which are still somewhat hazy.
Actually, though, the joke was on Obama: On Wednesday, Kildee had met with the White House legislative affairs team about the innovation centers proposal, so he was quite familiar with it.
And his question was broader, about what types of reforms are necessary to reform decaying urban centers like Flint, Mich., which Kildee represents.
“Dan wasn’t specifically talking about innovation centers in his question,” a spokesman said.
McCarthy, I found that very typical of that poster.
Anyways, Cruz has droned TWO of the TOP Dem's and you see how childlike direct questioning over policy makes them.
Gosh, what's this really all about?
Either Cruz is the up and coming, bright and shining new top hopeful of the Right, or a presumptuous upstart who did a poor, over the top and ill informed job of questioning seasoned fellow members of the committee.
You'd think Scarborough would be defending him and pushing FOR him if he were the former.
I haven't even seen all the exchanges (just the one where Feinstein pushed back on Cruz) so I don't pretend to know.
Doesn't Scarborough's dismay come down to this:
We on the Right need better representation than that?
If he is correct, there must be others on the Right who agree...
Obama refuses to open The People's House to children and single mothers, however the expre$$ lane is open just walk to the back door and put the caSh under the table.
Is the USS Harry Truman and its nearly 4 K war fighters still docked?
MEANWHILE, ANOTHER BRIGHT AND SHINING SAYS:
"All too often we're associated with being anti-everything: anti-immigration, anti-women, anti-gay."
-- Jeb Bush, quoted by USA Today, in an address to the Conservative Political Action Conference.
________________
And that's going to change, when?
This President has failed the lower, lower middle and middle income.
Uphold the US Constitution
MEANWHILE CHRISTIE, WHO WASN'T INVITED TO CPAC, IS TRYING TO MEND FENCES
Christie Seeks Teacher's Union Nod
Politicker NJ reports that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) was at the New Jersey Teacher's Association for their screening process, apparently in search of their endorsement.
Christie has been a "political enemy" of the group and has generated national attention over his previous attacks on the union.
_____________
Whatta party. Whatta Klown Karnival forming again.
The response of the twit, as predicted.
Insults 1, Links 0.
The response of the twit, as predicted.
Insults 1, Links 0.
Irony!!
Talk about anything but Obama Economic and fiscal Policies.
Murry's budget, disaster on steriods. nobama budget, crickets.
I disagree with Scarborough, and for a matter of fact, Chris Christie on almost every political question of today. But the hard right (Machine Gun Mensa) hates them both. I have to cheer on the loony righties.
Bothered by my use of "twit" are you. To use a line from and old t.v. commercial, she earned it. She made two comments yesterday that if true would be easy to prove. When asked politely to provide back up of any kind, she either changed the subject or tossed out a gratuitous insult. That has been her standard response when cornered. She is incapable of defending statements, because they are based on what she believes to be true. But there simply no objective, verifiable data to support her beliefs.
Therefore the honorific "twit" has been bestowed upon her.
You'd think Scarborough would be defending him and pushing FOR him if he were the former.
Scarborough doesn't miss a chance to grind his ax with is former party.
Nor play the role MSNBC assigned to him as the "conservative" who has "seen the light".
You pushing Scarborough impresses no one.
***[h]is former party***
Scarborough has become a Democrat?
Don't THINK so...
No no no no no. I support YOU. The longer the Republican Party is controlled by your ilk, the better it is for the Democrats. I wish you and your kind all the success in the world.
It will never happen but I would love to see Scarborough come here and take on Mensa Boy. There would be nothing left to clean up.
"The response of the twit, as predicted.
Insults 1, Links 0.
Irony!!"
lmao - this is great.
File this under:
NO WONDER THINKING CONSERVATIVES ARE UPSET
Cruz's comments were promoted by Fox Nation, The Blaze, Red State, Breitbart.com, PJ Media, The Daily Caller and The Gateway Pundit. Breitbart.com wrote that Cruz "destroys" Feinstein's argument for an assault weapons ban. Red State ran a headline that Feinstein was struck by a "Ted Cruz Missile." The Daily Caller titled its article on Cruz's comments, "Ted Cruz offends Dianne Feinstein by bringing up the Constitution."
The praised heaped upon Cruz by conservative media outlets ignores that the junior Texas senator's constitutional argument is flawed because it fails to acknowledge longstanding and widely accepted limitations on all of the liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Both amendments cited by Cruz, the First and the Fourth, have numerous exemptions. A report by the Congressional Research Service laid out a number of First Amendment exceptions deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court including limitations or restrictions on obscenity, child pornography, commercial speech, and speech intended to incite imminent violence. Similarly, the Fourth Amendment limits the right against "unreasonable searches and seizures" in cases of emergency.
During the committee meeting, Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) pointed out deficiencies in Cruz's argument. As reported by ThinkProgress, Schumer noted that "you can't falsely scream fire in a crowded theater" and concluded, "There are reasonable limits on each amendment, and I think it is anomalous, to put it kindly, for either side to interpret one amendment so expansively and another amendment so narrowly that it just doesn't add up because your interpretation of the Constitution should be consistent."
Whitehouse took this point further, stating, "It is hard to imagine that it would be a violation of the First Amendment for somebody to yell fire in a crowded theater but it's not a violation of the Second Amendment to prevent somebody from bringing a hundred-round magazine into a crowded theater in a Aurora, Colorado."
________________
Now that makes sense.
As Feinstein noted in her response to Cruz, the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision authored by conservatives on the Supreme Court explicitly spelled out limitations on the Second Amendment. While Heller held that the Second Amendment confers an individual to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, also wrote that, "[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited" and that "the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
______________
Damn. I can't have that bazooka and machine gun and sub machine gun and surface to air missile launcher and flame thrower I wanted for Christmas.
And if they ban assault rifles, I can't have that either. Bummer!
Post a Comment