Word Over Usage

Posted Thursday, April 22, 2010, at 10:41 AM
View 51 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • *

    So let me get this straight Edmund, you used "satire" to once again make light of those that are really truly horribly raped and compare them to the taxpayer. By the way what you typed to start off the blog (and why you almost always the first to comment?) was not satire but a simple cut and paste from another blog.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Apr 22, 2010, at 12:30 PM
  • This reminds me of the completely incorrect current usage of the word "tolerance." Tolerance has always been defined as "putting up with," "enduring," "allowing the existance of." However, today it is used as though it means "complete agreement with and approval of..."

    Another misused word would be "diversity." True diversity would have no problem with a conservative or conservative-Christian opinion...but diversity today encompasses only those that hold conservative and Christian beliefs to be "intolerant."

    Of course, that makes the diversity crowd intolerant themselves, but they somehow seem to miss that fact.

    What other good English words are completely misused and warped?

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Apr 22, 2010, at 2:38 PM
  • Senior,

    If your beliefs entitle you to consider Christians wrong for obeying God, that is one thing. However, to think it is ok to legislate your beliefs is a whole other thing. Legislating intolerance and bigotry is wrong from either side of the aisle...yet we still see religious orders forced to hire irreligious personnel, religious clubs forced to allow irreligious members and officers, religious people forced to censor their words at public functions, even the basis of our legal system is forced out of our courts...

    I guess this "don't legislate" wall is only intended to block those you don't tolerate?

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Apr 22, 2010, at 3:00 PM
  • *

    edmund you are a completely horrible person. Only someone such as yourself would read a blog about the misuse of the word rape and then find a way to fit rape into every one of your comments. Of course then there is the complete denial that taxpayers are paying the lowest taxes in half a century.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Apr 22, 2010, at 3:42 PM
  • *

    MrsSmith I do not fault you for bringing up the words tolerance and diverse and how the meaning has changed but they are not even remotely in the same boat as rape.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Apr 22, 2010, at 3:43 PM
  • It has been a "Christian perspective" that has seen us through some of the most trying times in our country's history. There was a time when the President saying "God Bless America" meant more than the ending of a speech. It reinforced people's faith and strengthened their resolve to make it through hardships more difficult than some people could even fathom. There was a lot more "Christian perspective" in those times than there are now but I don't think we're better for it, at all.

    Christianity has already been legislated, it's called a Bible and it has the written law. Whether you agree with it or not it's still the law. Just like any government law, you can't pick and choose the ones to follow. Unlike any government law, you can't change the parts you don't like. I can't force you to obey the laws written in the Bible but I would encourage you to do so. However, that's between you and your Creator when you meet but if you decide to do things your way then you can't say you didn't know any better because there were people trying to warn you and offer you the choice we all have, we can follow God's path or we can follow our own path. The difference is that our path will take us only where we want to go and God's path will take us only where we need to go. Ultimately, the choice is ours and we'll reap the benefits or pay the consequences for all of our choices.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Thu, Apr 22, 2010, at 4:14 PM
  • Mike,

    To your original post, the evolution of words in society is unstoppable. Although, by the same definition we would have to stop using terms like "robbing us blind", "pimp my ride", "you're killing me", "they're killing themselves" and the list can go on and on because in the examples above you have to consider the victims of robbery, victims of pimps who can be extremely cruel and often do rape people or force people to be raped and worst of all, the people who have lost a loved one by murder or suicide.

    Obviously we all agree rape is serious but I don't see any indication that anybody is taking the physical rape of another person any less seriously because society has created other definitions for the word. I think you've isolated one type of victim but neglected victims of other crimes who would also have to endure similiar hardships according to your theory of tv trauma if they hear the term "raping mother nature" or "environmental sodomy" or any other variation of the word. Of course, if that would upset them then the report of a woman being raped would devastate them. How do you get around that?

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Thu, Apr 22, 2010, at 4:39 PM
  • Senior,

    We give murderers and thieves opportunities so why would I oppose giving opportunities to gays? I don't think government should have anything to do with marriage, period. Marriage is a historically religious activity. If you want to file jointly then "file jointly". Why make it "married filing jointly"? I don't think you should be prevented from doing that regardless of whether you're married or not. Some people don't believe in marriage so they can't enjoy the benefits of marriage regardless of sexual orientation. That's not fair to them either. Any person in this country can own a house together regardless of sexual orientation and put whoever's name on the deed that they want so that's a non-issue. Just what opportunities do you mean for clarification?


    I don't claim to know what does or doesn't go on inside someone's head. People who have been declared vegetables without any "mental activity" have come back and shown they were aware. Man knows so little and it is not my place to judge who will specifically go to Heaven and who won't. I also don't claim to have better answers than those in the Bible. The Bible is to be understood through prayer and study. So I'll let you begin with Luke 12:47-48...

    "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

    But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Thu, Apr 22, 2010, at 5:11 PM
  • Senior,

    I take it your bigotry has blinded you to the fact that gay people have exactly the same opportunities and rights as all the rest of us? In fact, conservative Christians deny gay people no rights at all...they can live any way they choose. Thanks to our Christian heritage, this is a free country (as long as you don't want to pray at a graduation) that does not limit free speech (except political speech on the private grounds of a church) and does not tell it's citizens how to live (unless they wish to meet and work with those that share their values.)

    So, exactly how do you justify the legistlation of your "morals" and bigotries upon the rest of the country? Why do you and those of your opinion constantly shove your views down the throats of everyone else? Why is the entire country forced to act in a manner that you approve...while you deny so many the same rights?

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Apr 22, 2010, at 5:35 PM
  • Mike,

    I do have to mention that I hear "tolerance" and "diversity" misused about 100 times more than the word "rape." Rape is a horrific thing, but it is far from the only horrific thing that can happen to someone.

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Apr 22, 2010, at 5:37 PM
  • GI,

    Christianity is the majority religion in this country...yet by your own words, you reveal the fact that you know almost nothing about it. You don't even understand the main manual. An education is a wonderful thing...perhaps you should look into a couple basic theology classes?

    You may want to reread the Constitution...and perhaps some of the writings of the Founding Fathers. Aside from the one well-known quote from Jefferson's letter, they made it extremely clear that the purpose of the First Amendment was to keep government out of churches...not the other way around. In fact, exactly opposite of the way many think today...with the government actively silencing speech in churches and on public grounds in direct disobedience to the First Amendment.

    You are correct that most of our laws were originally based on the Christian perspective. In point of fact, all our freedoms come directly from the Judeo-Christian worldview. The more that worldview is removed from our government and our laws, the more our freedoms...all our freedoms...will be limited.

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Thu, Apr 22, 2010, at 5:47 PM
  • What a bunch of neo-con clowns.

    Just received word my tax accountant really went off the track this year and it will cost me almost $20,000.

    Eduardo, Backasward Enrique, Mr. Smith Mickel, Boo, Leo, Sam -- How about we swap tax bills and I stand around in front of the pool hall and complain about your taxes for a week and you pay the tax mistake for me.

    Reality -- compared with the Reagan and Poppa Bush Years,Nixon and Gerry Ford time -- our taxes are greatly reduced, except in some rather conservative states -- Indiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Misissippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas.

    Friend moved from Georgia two years ago, no change in size or quality of home, vehicles, income or anything else -- His tax burden from the conservative state was decreased by more than 20%.

    Back in good ol' Reagan years, federal income taxes for a couple, plus the costs for the woman working -- clothes, SSI, baby sitter, etc. exceeded all of her income and about a fourth of his earnings. That's when I went off payrolls forever and into business for myself.

    Now a hired hand gets stupid and it costs me enough for a family to live on MODESTLY, of course.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Thu, Apr 22, 2010, at 5:52 PM
  • *

    MrsSmith, can you point to some of these writings from the founding fathers regarding religion? A large portion of the founding fathers were weary of religion, especially a government ran by religion. The original intent of the first amendment was to keep religion out of government (the whole establishment part) because of what happened in England and keep the government out of religion (the whole prohibiting free exercise thing) also because of what was going on in England.

    The government has never and will never actively silence speech in the church (this is an absolute myth) but the government would have the right to stifle political speech in the church since their whole tax-free status is based on that. When a preacher asks his people to pray for Obama's death his church should lose it's tax free status at the very least.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Apr 22, 2010, at 11:23 PM
  • *

    By the way MrsSmith, morality has not been legislated against gays? You seriously believe that? States banning gay marriage isn't legislated morality? States banning gays and lesbians from adopting children isn't legislated morality? Sodomy laws aren't legislated morality? Banning gays and lesbians from receiving benefits isn't legislating morality?

    Glad you cleared that up for everyone.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Apr 22, 2010, at 11:26 PM
  • I'm not going to read all the replies, but find it quite distressing that even the TEACHER doesn't know history.

    Even if you don't care to READ A BOOK or two, there are tens, if not hundreds, of websites with the words of the founding fathers, their speeches, their letters. Of course, most of you don't want to look any of it up, you'd be horribly embarrassed by your ignorance. The founders were worried about a government-controlled religion...like we have TODAY in secular humanism. We are today doing EXACTLY what the founders despised.

    Senior and GI...good comebacks. Really. Calling names always works so much better than facts. Seriously. (ROFL)

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Fri, Apr 23, 2010, at 3:05 PM
  • MrsSmith,

    You are a better person than I. After taking the name calling for simply stating an opinion, I would have found myself in the mud with the slingers.

    The name calling and hateful comments from the twin hijackers prove to the readers of this blog the true intentions and intelligence of the radical liberal left. Thank you for helping to expose them for what they truly are.

    I would encourage everyone with a doubt to go back and read MrsSmith's comments, and the subsequent "rebuttals" from the two leaders of the McCook Gazette Liberal Blog Cult, and explain to me the justification for the personal attacks and name calling.

    I wouldn't bother with posting any links or quotes MrsSmith...they aren't used to learning anything in print without a professor standing in front of them explaining it.

    If only MrsSmith would have beheaded a Christian on the internet, she would have likely received more compassion from these two trolls.

    Half of the posts on this site are from these two. Hmmm, I wonder if they are posting on a computer at work? My guess is no.

    -- Posted by Husker23 on Fri, Apr 23, 2010, at 4:36 PM
  • G.I.,

    You're right that obeying God is a choice and the binding part comes at the end when we're all judged. You've chosen to cherry pick the things you like in the Bible and tossed away the parts you don't like. That's your decision and you're accountable for it. What is so shocking to you about scripture? That may be one of the parts you don't like but that's what is in there and I quoted it verbatim. I don't know anyone who follows the Bible exactly but it's not because it's irrelevant. It's because we all sin and we ask for forgiveness, in turn we turn from our sin. People will still continue sinning but at least some try to do better and repent honestly. I think that's admirable even if you don't.

    You continue to be prone to jump to conclusions by reading with a preconceived bias of the other side (which isn't really even "the other side") and a result you are so quick to label someone a bigot and that is inexcusable. The worst part for your argument of bigotry is that the contrast I used was based on something I read long ago by a person supporting rights to gays and not judging people. That person went into far more detail but I knew where they were coming from right away because I did not have a preconceived notion that I knew what they were thinking before I read it.

    I believe anybody should be able to have a list of people they would like to see them with no hassle and that list should go with their medical records. That has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

    "Mitigating hostile religious practice"? Just what do you propose? Do you want the government to go after churches and tell them what they can and can't preach? I know a lot of people who believe the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin but not one has done anything hostile towards homosexuals and many are friends with them. In my circles of Christianity we have a "he who is without sin let him cast the first stone" mentality and while we don't condone sin, we also don't judge and belittle those who sin. To do so would be hypocritical since we all sin.

    If the military can find a way to go coed and still maintain the discipline they need then I have no problem but they need to address housing straight men and straight women together if they are going to house gays/lesbians/bisexuals together.

    I addressed tax incentives in my earlier post unless there's a specific tax incentive you want me to clarify.


    Christianity is going strong and getting stronger so I assume you mean it's just more unacceptable to you and the rest of the minority.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Apr 23, 2010, at 5:39 PM
  • G.I.,

    So you are shocked I believe what's in the Bible? Believe it. I have yet to set foot in a single church that teaches intolerance and nothing I have said is intolerant if you read it with an unbiased mind. You don't like churches saying homosexuality is a sin. Well I don't like that Mac's is closed on Sundays for the Sabbath but I don't think it's because of their intolerance of my desire for a cheeseburger on a Sunday.

    Your failure to competently read a contrast is astounding. You call people bigots a bit too precipitously and it undermines your credibility. Btw, there are others in support of rights for gays who use the same contrast and you've just labeled them bigots. I have met people like you who stereotype and make ridiculous claims of bigotry because they don't think exactly like you on a particular issue. Although, I take great offense to your rampant accusations of calling me a bigot, I will not stoop to your level of name calling, even if you deserve it.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Apr 23, 2010, at 7:19 PM
  • Husker23, GI and Senior are completely immune to any facts. If I were to post, for example, Jefferson's inaugural addresses, they would simply "not see" all the words that disagree with their opinions.

    It's the same way on any liberal site. Places like DemocraticUnderground are so non-inclusive, they will actually ban anyone that expresses a conservative opinion, no matter how civil that person is. Free speech is certainly not allowed.

    If Senior and GI had any case to make, they'd be quoting our founding fathers...but they'll have trouble with that because the writings are about 90% in agreement with me. :-)


    If you're still reading any of these replies, Mike...and I'd hardly blame you if you stopped due to the overwhelming "logic" and "civility" of your fellow-Democrats...I've run across an article you may, well not exactly enjoy, but you may choose to read just to prove that you are not as narrow-minded and closed to knowledge as your fellows.


    Have a nice weekend, everyone.

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Sat, Apr 24, 2010, at 7:32 AM
  • *

    MrsSmith, you clearly do not understand the Constitution if you believe the Freedom of Speech clause extends to websites. The Freedom of Speech clause is there to protect citizens from the government intruding on their right of speech.

    MrsSmith I assure that even as a TEACHER I know quite well what the Founding Fathers had in mind in regards to the religion question in the Constitution. As I said you can revise history as much as you want to in order to make it fit your personal beliefs but that does not make it a true history.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Apr 24, 2010, at 10:18 AM
  • *

    "I would have found myself in the mud with the slingers."

    "twin hijackers"

    "McCook Gazette Liberal Blog Cult"

    Posted by Husker23 on Fri, Apr 23, 2010, at 4:36 PM

    Thank God you did not sling any mud with the mudslingers Husker.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Apr 24, 2010, at 10:21 AM
  • G.I.,

    I'd get my money back on my education if I were you. They must not have taught you what a contrast is or you just lack the ability to understand a contrast. I suppose we can just ignore the fact criminals are given opportunities that homosexuals aren't because some people, such as yourself, lack the intelligence to comprehend the difference between a contrast and a comparison. You seem to have quite an intolerant dedication to your opinion but it only serves your own ego, no one else. The ironic part is that you're now sounding pretty self-righteous yourself.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Sat, Apr 24, 2010, at 11:59 AM
  • G.I.,

    Let's see, I've stated it was a contrast to clear any misunderstanding which any reasonable person would automatically know is not a comparison simply by the virtue of definition. I could explain this to you a million different times in a million different ways and you still would not be able to comprehend it because you are looking at it with assumptions about the intent even when it has already been explained for you. I have better things to do than say the same thing a million different ways just to please you and much better things to do than being called names by ideologues like yourself. I've got some friends who support gay rights that I should probably warn about your type though. I think they'll find it interesting about how people fighting for gay rights can be bigoted against gay people.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Sat, Apr 24, 2010, at 12:55 PM
  • Mike- Would you please explain this gamer stuff you are referring to? I am 43 and do not "game" . I have heard people at the office that spend 4-8 hrs at night gaming. I am ignorant to this as I have two kids and we read or do lego projects or go to Rockets or Astro's games. I would truly like to learn more about gaming. I do know of a friend who divorced her husband because he played video games all the time. I think I am staying on topic as your blog was referencing gamers using the word "rape".

    -- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Apr 24, 2010, at 2:23 PM
  • *

    It's a very good question wallis and thank you for attempting to get this way out of control (unfortunately with my help in cases) blog back in control.

    Gamers are those that spend any amounts of time playing video games, whether it is on a console (XBOX 360, Playstation 3, Wii -- or more to your age and the consoles I grew up on Atari, Nintendo) computer (online games and regular games) or hand helds (IPOD Touch, PSP, Nintendo DSi, and the old favorite Nintendo Gameboy). This is my simple definition.

    True gamers would probably expand that ten-fold as they literally spend hours and sometimes days playing games. The gamer has evolved into someone who plays these games solely online against other people. I have ventured online on some of my games and I frankly do not understand the fascination with it. It seems boring to me, but then again when I do play I game I have the goal of beating the game.

    Divorces are common if one of the people is a gamer. There is the case in Vietnam where a married couple (that probably would fit the definition of a gamer) who were so wrapped up in raising a virtual baby online that their newborn baby died due to never been fed.

    At this time gamers are not classified as having an addiction but it can not be far behind.

    The gamer world itself is a very unique and strange place, indeed.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Apr 24, 2010, at 3:04 PM
  • *

    You are a disgusting human being for making light of men and women all over this country that have actually been raped.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Apr 25, 2010, at 2:57 PM
  • *

    You know better than that edmundburke I am speaking directly to you and to another extent to the McCook Gazette for continually allowing you to make light of real rape victims just so you can feel better about yourself.

    I have given you nothing you have taken this opportunity to show just how classless and inhumane you are that you would compare paying taxes to actual physical rape and even using the same descriptions but taking out the victims and replacing them with TAXES?

    You are certainly proud of yourself and that is the most disgusting thing of it all.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Apr 25, 2010, at 5:40 PM
  • Mike,

    Your research ability has been discredited yet again by your own blinded (intentional?) misunderstanding of the English language.

    Not that it matters much, but my entire quote that you purposely took out of context was: "You are a better person than I. After taking the name calling for simply stating an opinion, I would have found myself in the mud with the slingers." It makes one wonder how much of your writings are also deliberately misquoted.

    I didn't say I wasn't above slinging mud back...did I Mike? In fact, quite the opposite...hence the "you are a better person than I" part. Kind of an important part of my statement, huh mike?

    #2 It is entirely common for blog sites to have what are called "hijackers" who take the text of the blog completely off target intentionally to divert attention from the truth. Calling them twin hijackers doesn't really seem comparable to them calling Mrs. Smith an "idiot". I'm really quite surprised that I would have to explain that to someone who writes a blog. Then again, considering the source...it really shouldn't surprise me at all.

    Or maybe you are wanting me to consider the feelings of real "hijackers". I wouldn't want to offend them, would I? For any hijackers or cult members that I offended by comparing you to gi or loud, I humbly apologize.

    If your intentions are to have 50% of your blog controlled by one "bot-speak" fantasy land liberal, and another troll calling every conservative who posts an opinion, derogatory names then congratulations mike...you get what you have here. A blog with 163 posts from 6 bloggers. Don't quit your day job.

    -- Posted by Husker23 on Mon, Apr 26, 2010, at 9:48 AM
  • I miss Stephanie.

    -- Posted by Husker23 on Mon, Apr 26, 2010, at 10:29 AM
  • I propose a game...every post that gi makes calling someone a name, everyone else takes a drink.

    We are sure to be drunk by noon.

    P.S. Reformed - I stand corrected. Thanks for taking the time to count and validate my sarcasm.

    -- Posted by Husker23 on Mon, Apr 26, 2010, at 11:29 AM
  • Shucks gi, we both know that all but a handful of my jabs are directed at you. Heck, you were my inspiration to join the mccook gazette blogs. Your quick trigger to make angry hateful posts just brings out the best in me.

    So I guess your work here isn't a failure after all...if only your words could inspire more like me. Keep it coming condescending, arrogant troll. Three drinks to you...I believe it's your call.

    -- Posted by Husker23 on Mon, Apr 26, 2010, at 2:28 PM
  • Why does it not surprise me that you think arrogant and condescending are compliments?

    I'll bet a weeks worth of your wages (earned, not government subsidized) that you have your picture pasted next to those words in your handy little pocket Websters dictionary as your own little badge of honor.

    If I happen to be wrong, let me know where to send $7.25.

    My apologies on the troll comment...you are obviously a master-debater.

    -- Posted by Husker23 on Mon, Apr 26, 2010, at 3:36 PM
  • gi,

    lol...we all know you've never been with a woman. You buy kleenex in bulk, don't you?


    why would I share such personal info with someone of your character? I'm guessing that's a ton of cheeto's for you.

    -- Posted by Husker23 on Mon, Apr 26, 2010, at 5:04 PM
  • *

    Interesting that on the link you supplied earlier Senior that there is a TEA Party shirt that says "I teabagged Obama" Now I thought this was supposed to be a huge insult to the TEA Party crown and yet they are using it to sell merchandise. How positively delightful.

    So I guess edmund you have nothing left to say but link please?

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Apr 27, 2010, at 11:09 PM
  • *

    Of course I guess it does not matter that a national sales tax is a Republican idea.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 12:17 PM
  • *

    But it still is a Republican idea which goes to prove once again that you will oppose even those ideas that you support if a Democrat supports it. Do you really even stand for anything? I know you say you do but the very moment that a Democrat shows up and supports what you say you stand for you will turn against.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 1:08 PM
  • *

    Being called an idiot by someone who sells out his own beliefs does not really have affect that you may think it does edmund.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 1:17 PM
  • *

    You just said you were against it. So which is it?

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 1:43 PM
  • *

    I know exactly what it mean my question is that you said you were against a sales tax that apparently Obama supports before the qualifying statement now you say you are for one.

    Defining terms? When have you EVER defined anything?

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 2:52 PM
  • *

    I hate to go down to this level but edmund you do know that if physically impossible for one person to gang rape another right? But besides that you have obviously run out of things to say since you have returned to claiming that everyone has done things to you.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:35 PM
  • *

    So according to edmund there are 244,886,400 sucklings in this country? Wow the majority of this country are sucklings according to edmund.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 28, 2010, at 10:41 PM
  • *

    edmund you haven't stopped talking about this new conservative revolution since November of 2008 what makes you think a supposed win by the Republicans will shut any of us up? I mean seriously if you can talk and talk and talk and talk after a majority of voters put Democrats into office would you seriously expect us to be quite after a majority of voters in states put the Republicans back in charge of Congress?

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 5:34 PM
  • *

    Someone poke edmund his brain is skipping.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Apr 29, 2010, at 5:35 PM
  • *

    Actually GI Rasmussen is the only poll that has Crist that low, most polls have him either winning the general election or Meek winning as a result of moderate Republicans splitting the vote between Crist and Rubio. But you know my feelings on Rasmussen.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 11:40 AM
  • *

    The race in Florida will indeed be an interesting race to watch. Let's not forget that what happened to Crist is what is happening to moderate Republicans all over this country, they are being pushed out of their own party. The Republican Party would have nothing of a party in Florida if it weren't for Jeb Bush and Crist, but in today's Republican Party THEY are too liberal. This is why I still believe that by 2012 there will be three parties for the national election, The Democratic Party, The Republican Party (filled with TEA Party people) and third party filled mostly with former Republicans that are moderate and some independents. All the signs are pointing towards it as of now. It can change of course. The next two years politically are going to be interesting to watch.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 1:37 PM
  • *

    You really have no shame do you.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 4:10 PM
  • *

    Nice try edmund but my blog stating that rape as a word was being overused and you using rape to describe every day situations is not staying on topic its just showing what lengths you will go to in order to make your side you absolutely heartless and cruel. Keep it up edmund. I am sure other conservatives on here are just thrilled that you are still around. Hey, us liberals are too. It isn't everyday that a person presents themselves as the extreme right for everyone to see just how out there you really are.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, May 2, 2010, at 6:53 PM
  • *

    I love how when a few polls show what edmund wants he constantly comes on here and shouts "Look at the polls, look at the polls!" Yet the very minute polls come out that do not support his position we get and will get, the polls don't matter, the polls are wrong, the polls are biased.

    What's even more interesting Senior is they yell at me ad nauseum about trying to get those posters of my like mind to tone down their language but not only do they not expect the same toned down language from their side, they shout freedom of speech when one of their fellow posters comments get removed for vileness or just simply breaking the terms of service. Yet they are silent when a moderate or liberal's comments are taken down.

    They are a fun bunch, they scream of others hypocrisy while ignoring and/or approving of their own.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 9:12 AM
  • *

    You know that comment would have been a great comment and something worth debating if you hadn't decided to go lowest common denominator with it, but with you that's nothing new.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 10:21 AM
  • *

    since you can copy and paste so well, I will do so as well:

    Nice try edmund but my blog stating that rape as a word was being overused and you using rape to describe every day situations is not staying on topic its just showing what lengths you will go to in order to make your side you absolutely heartless and cruel. Keep it up edmund.

    I know it's the only thing you know how to do. But once again you keep proving me right so why in the world would I want you to stop.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 12:22 PM
  • *

    How old are you 10?

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 5:14 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: