[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 66°F  
High: 68°F ~ Low: 53°F
Sunday, Sep. 14, 2014

The True War on America

Posted Friday, November 19, 2010, at 1:25 AM

There is currently a war on America unfolding before our eyes and it is a lot closer than we want to pretend to know. This war on America though has been going on a lot longer than 2001. No, this war began, in earnest, in the 1980s when the right decided it was okay to question the patriotism of anyone that did not agree or cow-tow to their absolute way of thinking.

It was slow to start at first, after all they were still waging the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Then when the Soviet Union collapsed due to several republics (including the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, which included Moscow) decided to opt out of the compact that held the Soviet Union together, the right had to find a new enemy (of course do not tell anyone on the right what actually happened, they still believe that Ronald Reagan single handedly destroyed the Soviet Union).

There were several countries out there (even some communist ones) that the right could have chosen from. Inexplicably they turned their sights inward and began a war on their fellow Americans. The drumbeats for war were getting louder and louder as the 90s drew on, and then the right fired it's first shot when they impeached Bill Clinton. Even though it was highly unpopular (Clinton's popularity grew during the impeachment while the Republican's popularity plummeted) and they did not have the votes to actually convict they soldiered on putting America on the back-burner while they went after a sitting president.

We fast forward to the 2000 election when the right got the President they wanted (even though he actually lost the popular election) in George W. Bush. The country was now fully divided. Then, on September 11, 2001 America was attacked by al Queda and for one brief bright shining moment all of America joined together with a common enemy. The right, however, who already had a war of it's own going could not be bothered by a new war and they squandered that unifying moment in order to better vilify and repudiate anyone who did not cow-tow to what they wanted.

The right began chipping away at American's rights (mostly privacy) in the name of protection. The government listening in on your phone calls? Get over it we are protecting you. American citizens who do not look American being treated as terrorists or at least suspected terrorists? Get over it we are protecting you.

Then a mysterious thing happened. A Democratic candidate won the White House with the largest margin since the Reagan years. Was the right gracious in their loss? Of course not, they cried and yelled at a grand conspiracy ad voter tampering all across the United States. Remember these are the same people that told people to shut up after the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush president. Someone a man being elected president despite losing the popular vote is perfectly fine, but a man wining the presidency by almost 10 million votes something fishy had to have happened. Lest we forget the right is the same group that is still upset that two members of the New Black Panther Party were not charged with voter intimidation because they stood outside of a mostly black polling station.

All of a sudden all those "protections" they kept telling us to ignore or get used to were now a problem. It is really ironic to listen to the same people that, throughout the 00s, told us that in order to be protected from the boogey man we had to give up some basic right now harping that they are having to give up rights just to fly on a plane.

Let us get down the brass tacks here. The right is waging a war on anyone in America they deem to not be of their mindset. They invented a war on Christmas and war on Christians though there is none. They complained loudly at people saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" as though it was a new phenomenon. It is not, people have been saying "Happy Holidays" for over fifty year.

The right loves scaring people. If they believe that by scaring someone that person will support them they will. Why do you think some of the same people on the right that have been trying to get rid of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid since the beginning all of a sudden were trying to convince the elderly that they were trying to protect those programs during the health care debate, then turned around and immediately started trying to destroy those same programs?

The right needs people to be in a constant state of fear. This is why President Obama has been called a socialist, Nazi, communist, and totalitarian (sometimes all at the same time). People fear those words and if you can paint the President from the opposite party as even one of them you are victorious (especially if it has no basis in fact).

The right also can not stand history and will attempt to change it at every opportunity in order to paint themselves in a better light.

The right does not deal in fact, they deal in hate-mongering, personal attacks, fear mongering, flat out making crap up.

They consider poor people to be lazy and the scourge of this great country of theirs. They consider people out of work (whether by choice or not) to be lazy and welfare queens (whether or not the unemployed person is on welfare or unemployment). Can you imagine what today's right would have said about the unemployed during the Great Depression? They consider that giving to people that are less fortunate than them to be social justice and socialism. The consider anyone not an absolute devout Christian (of the protestant variety) to be sinners. The profess to love Jesus and his word but at the same time consider many of His acts to be social justice and socialism.

You will always know someone from the right by asking simple questions. The most basic question is anything about America, they will always answer with some variety of "my country" instead of "our country". They really do consider this to be their country and if the rest of us do not subscribe to their way of thinking their will be hell to pay.

They will belittle you for your thoughts all the while claiming that you are the one belittling. They will personally attack you for your beliefs and then not understand what was wrong with what they said. They will call you names and question your intelligence or sexuality. They will make fun of your weaknesses especially if they have the same weakness. They will, in a word, dehumanize you in order to win a debate. When they apologize, they are apologizing for getting caught not for what they have said or done and will issue the famous non-apology apology where they apologize that you were offended.

They believe liberalism to be a mental disease or disorder, makes you wonder what they consider moderates to be.

Above all the believe they are always right and any admission to being wrong to being a huge sign of weakness. They will, from time to time, admit to a mistake but only as long as that admission does not prove their overall point wrong, if it does they will continue arguing the wrong point ad nauseum.

They do not care about the truth, because the truth only gets in the way of what they are trying to do

They will stop at nothing to get and keep power and eventually they will turn on themselves. Power hungry people always do.

Will this lead to a War of Aggression by the Right? Highly unlikely they will likely collapse under their own weight, much like the Soviet Union did.

*A very special thank you to one of my readers for reminding me of this one. Those on the right, when faced with actually having to challenge a person that doesn't agree with them but actually having nothing to challenge will (if that person is a man) will continually question that person's manhood, over and over again.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

It's called insomnia ocho, look into next time before prejudging someone.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 19, 2010, at 11:19 AM

Drip, drip, drip, and the insomniatic brain water torture continues.

There is no way you can even pretend to know anyone, Michael, who is a conservative. Your diatribe above is bereft of reality and full of stereotypes and bloviated un-supported opinion.

It's nice to have kool-aid addicts such as yourself around, so that we may use your absurdity to teach our children what absurdity actually looks like.

I imagine that you suck the joy out of any room into which you walk.

Good day.

-- Posted by Mickel on Fri, Nov 19, 2010, at 5:08 PM

Thank you for such a great example of personal attacks, vilifying, and essentially saying nothing to refute anything I just said Mickel. Perfect example.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 19, 2010, at 5:38 PM

My opinion on when the true war on America started is somewhat different than yours. I believe from what I experienced in my life time, I would say the Vietnam war played a bigger part than anything. This is when the sides were drawn.

I don't want to argue about this because it's just opening another can of worms that has been opened to many times.

-- Posted by Keda46 on Fri, Nov 19, 2010, at 6:20 PM

@keda Interesting you would mention that. The first war started under false pretenses. I recently Watched a special on the pentagon papers. Very interesting stuff, was somewhat surprised I didn't learn about it more/ at all in school.

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Nov 19, 2010, at 7:29 PM

"You need to stop the whiny attitude when you insult a large part of the audience of this blog, grow a pair and man up."

So you think I should man up? How should I do this, by not calling out the other side? By allowing the right to ridicule and belittle those that believe the right way? Thank you for yet another perfect example of what I mentioned above.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Nov 19, 2010, at 10:53 PM

Yes Mike man up. Take the criticism of your far left rant in the same sense you offered it up.

The True War on America....its all the republicans fault. You need to go back to November 3 and re read the results of what just happened.

If the Dems, and libs have such a great approach to solving the problems why did the huge number of people vote the way they did? Seems to me the dems have declared war on America.

I think the voters are fed up with the attitude from the Dems... voters? They are stupid stupid stupid. These dems are arrogant, power hungry elitists.

The best example recently... Charlie Rangel... I didn't do any thing wrong Rangel.

So Mike yes again grow a pair and man up.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sat, Nov 20, 2010, at 7:22 AM

Oh so that's why the Democrats were left in charge of the Senate? Okay glad you cleared that one up. It's funny, I've got one person telling me to forget the election already and one person telling me to go back and look at the results again. I have and the tsunami, earthquake, tornado, hurricane, or whatever you guys are calling it never actually happened.

The Republicans picked off the blue dogs (a large proportion of them, so I thank Republicans for that). Very few liberals actually lost

You are obsessed with Charlie Rangel for some odd reason

You think the Dems think voters are stupid? How about the Republicans. They just convinced Americans to go back to the failed policies of the 2000s. They just convinced Americans that throwing tantrums and voting no just to vote no and holding up nomination (even when they support the nomination) is the right thing to do.

The Republicans won for one simple reason. It wasn't that Americans were fed up, because poll after poll from the election shows Americans have very little faith in the Republicans to actually get anything done. The Republicans were able to push the narrative while the weak kneed Democrats despite actually doing more in two years than in recent memory sat back and look scared.

But again once again thanks for proving my point in the blog above and actually helping me expand it. What does questioning my manhood have anything to do with what I said? You haven't actually challenged anything I said. You haven't given any counter-examples (except for your weird infatuation with Charlie Rangel). I will say that as much as you keep bringing up Rangel, the very office that just found him guilty of ethics charges is the very same office that the Republicans want to get rid of. You might want to fight against that otherwise you wouldn't be able to keep bringing up Rangel.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Nov 20, 2010, at 9:18 AM

The next fake outrage from the right about Obama will start in

3......2......1.....

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Nov 20, 2010, at 10:09 AM

Wow, 3....2....1... did your head just blow up???

Yes, I did nothing wrong Rangle democratic poster boy, is just the latest example of liberal arrogance.

Now haveing said all that the republicans will need to fine a better way also because I don't think much of them either. But it is a lot more fun jacking you and the libs ;) and a lot easier.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sat, Nov 20, 2010, at 11:23 AM

How do you believe it is better? You haven't rankled me just given me fodder and perfect examples of what I have already state. I think your opinion of yourself is a bit too high there boojum. Of course I'm not really sure what "jacking" me is so not really sure what you succeeding in doing that would look like.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Nov 20, 2010, at 12:44 PM

disregard a minor typo I repeat

The republicans will need to find a better way because I don't think much of them either.

I didn't say they would do better, that remains to be seen.

However the voters have sent a strong message despite not winning the senate, yet, that our goverment needs to change. This vote is a result of the last two years, it can't be any thing else.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sat, Nov 20, 2010, at 2:13 PM

We voters listen to the campaign rhetoric hoping that some of it may actually come true, but so many times we find out the promises are empty and our taxes still go up.

Are these politicians inherently dishonest or does DC change them?

And this is supposed the be the best government in the world.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sat, Nov 20, 2010, at 2:34 PM

Mike, my opinion of myself is high, just as yours is high for yourself. You ought to drop the whiney retorhic and stick to the argument your case would be made better. Ignore the sarcastic rebuttals your posts always seem to generate from a large number of posters, not just me. You toss out your leftist dogma in a conservative area you get what you deserve.

I am not infatuated with Charlie, its not fair, Rangel, he is just the most recent image of the democrats.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sat, Nov 20, 2010, at 3:06 PM

I guess when all else fails, restate your original argument, huh boojum?

I stuck to the argument and you have yet to prove me wrong, so why should I change because you say so? You keep telling me that I am whiny and that I should stick to my argument, but my argument hasn't changed. I don't consider it whiny because I am simply stating what I see and hear day in and day out. Yet at the end of the day my argument still stands. It may infuriate people and drive people to insulting me, but at the end nothing I have said has been disproved.

If you aren't infatuated with Rangel then why out of your 6 original posts did you mention Rangel in 4 of them?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Nov 20, 2010, at 5:06 PM

And why the infatuation with sticking "it's not fair" in the middle every time you mention his name. Who cares if he doesn't think he was treated fairly (I didn't specifically hear him say it but if you say so then okay) he broke the rules and was punished.

Of course in the new Republican House that department that just sanctioned Rangel will be abolished so maybe the Republicans agree with him. Who knows?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Nov 20, 2010, at 5:09 PM

Be accurate mike, i used charlie, it's not fair, rangel, once. and there are only 5 posts.

Maybe you deleted one of them?

Maybe I should admire charly, I've been here for 50 years, rangel for being able to say he is honest with a straight face. Like all good Dems.

It's not fair is a quote from rangel when he walked out on his hearing.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sat, Nov 20, 2010, at 6:15 PM

Great revision of history if you can really only find one time that you used Charlie Rangel.

I'm still waiting on you to disprove any of my blog.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Nov 21, 2010, at 1:08 AM

Mike

Read carefully

This is what you said

"And why the infatuation with sticking "it's not fair" in the middle EVERY TIME you mention his name."

I use that one 1 time. There are plenty of quotes from Rangel's hearing and subsequent news clips that are howlers and make for good humor, and I used a few other ones. I did use Rangel every time.

Disprove your Blog, the entire blog, all of them? That covers a lot of topics

Or just this one post in your blog?

The True War on America

I don't have to disprove this, the voters already voiced the opinion for change. We don't like what Obama and the dems are doing, and the vote changed the political balance in DC. Has the balance shifted completely, no, will it change some more in two years, yes. If Obama fights the public opinion voiced by the November 2nd vote he will be a one term president along with more of his cronies.

I think the headline in your latest post in your Blog is more descriptive of the Democrats and their attitude toward the public. Anecdotal comments from Obama, Pelosi, Reid as reported in the press showing disrespect for their own base even more that trying to dis an "enemy" in your mind. Soros has even smacked Obama in the face with the gauntlet by telling Obama that he needs to shape up and toe the Soros Line or else.

Money talks

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sun, Nov 21, 2010, at 8:17 AM

I'm sure this goes into the Republican "revolution" theme that they love using so much. Since the 80s there has now been three Republican revolutions and every time they have lost their majority in a 2 to 4 year time span.

I'm not even talking about the elections boojum. I fully understand that in politics there is a turn around with just about every election. The voters didn't give the Republicans the majority because they didn't like Obama's policies, the gave the Republicans the majority because they were unhappy with the pace of the recovery. They favor just about every part of the health care reform, the favor the stimulus (they were just unhappy with the speed of the stimulus).

No, I'm not talking about elections. I'm talking about personal politics and more specifically the demonizing of people who don't agree with them. You have proven this time and time again.

I also notice that you changed the argument on Rangel, another tactic of the right. When you are wrong just change your argument. Of course you will deny this as is typical, but it's okay I know how the tactic works.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Nov 21, 2010, at 9:58 AM

"I also notice that you changed the argument on Rangel, another tactic of the right. When you are wrong just change your argument. Of course you will deny this as is typical, but it's okay I know how the tactic works."

Mike

Yes, I will deny that I have changed how I have used Rangel. Yes, I have used Rangel every single time I inserted a comment from Rangel's hearing of last week. I did change the subject each time to use a different comment, and there are many to pick from.

Maxine Waters is next sooner rather than later I hope, even though her trial has been pushed back again. I think she will generate just as ludicrous protests of unfairness.

Charlie and Maxine are just the latest best representatives of the left.

I have been consistent with my posts in response to your post in your blog, no revisionist history, no change in argument. I think you are wrong and the left is corrupt.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sun, Nov 21, 2010, at 10:59 AM

Let's see the party with some corrupt politicians, or the party with a pedophile that headed up a committee meant to protect children from predators, a gay man who tried extremely hard to block or prevent gays from getting certain right and being protected from hate crimes, a man that wanted to throw Clinton out of office mostly because he was was having sex out of his marriage while he himself was having an affair on his wife and also served his wife who had cancer with divorce papers while she was in the hospital.

I know you are trying really hard to paint just the Democratic Party, specifically in Washington as being the bad guys while oddly enough not mentioning a single Republican guilty of the same things. I get that, but again that's not what I am talking about.

You are once again proving my point. My point is that the right will stop at nothing to vilify, dehumanize, and belittle any who do not agree with them. Instead of the defending the right from my (only what I can assume what you feel are false) charges you attempt to turn the tables and claim that not only is the Democratic Party as bad, you claim they are worse with only one example.

There are examples of corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle, but the right excels at being corrupt, being hateful, trashing those who don't agree with their views while simultaneously ignoring or claiming that it isn't happening on their side.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Nov 21, 2010, at 11:52 PM

What about this nutter they want to make the chairman of energy?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archive...

-- Posted by Damu on Mon, Nov 22, 2010, at 10:44 AM

Wow - the biggest ego in the room writes the blog and posts 50% + of the responses. Some drum-beating going on perchance? What point could be so essential that all us commoners can't quite grasp?

Oh yeah - Liberals should be commended, praised, revered, and respected because their intentions are so pure - never mind that their methods are so destructive.

I don't think anyone has a problem per se about a Democratic candidate winning the White House...I do believe, however, that the majority of this country believes that this particular occupant of the White House is weakinging this country while simultaneously destroying the private sector.

eddy - a word just to help you preserve some dignity, man...stop trying to be Michael's mini-me...it's truly pathetic.

-- Posted by Mickel on Mon, Nov 22, 2010, at 1:39 PM

"Thank you for such a great example of personal attacks, vilifying, and essentially saying nothing..."

Priceless, absolutely priceless, Mike.

After writing an entire column full of attacks and villifying, all you can do is whine about some of it returning to you. :-)

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Mon, Nov 22, 2010, at 2:27 PM

I read what you had to say, and noticed that you left out some pretty important facts. Like the fact that America NEVER won the Revolutionary War, because how in the hell is the King of England dictating to ESQUIRE (British Nobleman) Washington in the Treaty of 1783, where we can build, and that all of the gold and silver is to be sent to England once it is brought up from the mines?

Let's start with DEMOCRATIC CEO Woodrow Wilson signing the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, giving a non-regulated by the White House (Whorebama just admitted this at this last G20 Summit)FOREIGN entity, UNCONSTITUTIONAL powers to print money, charge interest to the U.S. Govt (INC), and regulate the economy.

How about the fact that in 1930 at the Geneva Convention, along with the UK, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, and Portugal, REPUBLICAN CEO Hoover declares the Federal Govt to be BANKRUPT; and in 1933 DEMOCRAT CEO Roosevelt facillitates this act of treason by mandating Americans turn in their gold, and closing banks nationally for 3 days?

How about DEMOCRATIC CEO Roosevelt, under the auspices of the Trading with the Enemy Act, makes every American citizen an enemy of the FOREIGN Corp, the United States, Inc (See VOL: 20 Corpus Juris Secundum 1785); thereby destroying the power of the Constitution, and our Creator Endowed inalienable rights, and placing us under Martial Law?

How about the same liberal jerk in the above sentence declaring a "national emergency" in 1933, and EVERY SUCCEEDING POO-TUS (Pawn Of Oligarchic Tyrannical Usurping Supremacists) has declared a "national emergency" of some sort to maintain their tyrannical control over the mob?

There isn't a Main Stream Media station operating that is reporting the truth about anything these days, nor have they really ever- for they are all controlled by the Zionist & Zionist Jews and Arabs. The American commentators are just puppets, and I don't trust ANY of them. It is their J O B to keep us divided, with their distorted versions of history.

All POLITICIANS are crooked, especially the ones who've been in office for more than a few years, because every one of them knows that we have been living in The Matrix for centuries, thinking we are Dejure free men and women, and we are not. We are indentured slaves paying off the war debts of this foreign gov't, the CORPORATION, the United States.

All we've done is fallen into the trap of racial, religious, political & social ideologies, and class divisions, while they continue to enact their nefarious agenda for us ALL.

We are fighting the wrong people, which is one another. We need to join sides and fight against this British control over our economy, and drive tyranny from our shores.

May G-d help us all to see the truth.

RainMan --aka-

blkmanhatesobama01 (Y/T)

http://www.amazon.com/RainMan-RainMan/e/...

-- Posted by blkmanhatesobama on Mon, Nov 22, 2010, at 4:17 PM

uh oh, some one left the booby hatch open. Mike, did you forget to lock up this afternoon??

-- Posted by boojum666 on Mon, Nov 22, 2010, at 6:33 PM

Exactly when did I whine MrsSmith? I really think you guys need to spruce up on the definition of whining. I simply made several statements and boojum continued giving me perfect examples of what I was talking about.

Now you have joined in on giving more examples, claiming that I am whining and trying to belittle me all the while not actually proving me wrong on anything, in fact, you are helping my point even more. So thank you.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 22, 2010, at 9:56 PM

"I don't think anyone has a problem per se about a Democratic candidate winning the White House..."

Yes Mickel that's why we haven't heard for two years that Obama can't be president because he wasn't even born in this country or how we also haven't heard that Obama stole the election (even though he won by the most votes and electoral votes since Reagan). That's true comedy gold.

"Wow - the biggest ego in the room writes the blog and posts 50% + of the responses. Some drum-beating going on perchance? What point could be so essential that all us commoners can't quite grasp?"

Another great example Mickel, thank you. By the way what does it matter how much I post? I'm answering posts. If that means I end up posting over 50% of the posts, what exactly does that have to do with ego?

You do also point out another tactic of the right, you assign qualities to a person and then push it off of them. Several posters, including yourself, continually state that I believe I am the smartest person on this blog, yet I have never said that I am or believe that I am.. Perfect example from the political world, the people on the right who claim liberals see Obama as some sort of deity, even though the only ones who have made those comparisons are all on the right.

"eddy - a word just to help you preserve some dignity, man...stop trying to be Michael's mini-me...it's truly pathetic."

Yet another perfect example, Mickel, of what I was talking about in my blog, dehumanizing and belittling all within the same comment. Truly nice.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 22, 2010, at 10:05 PM

You guys have been absolutely wonderful helping me to prove my points. You all are great.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 22, 2010, at 10:05 PM

Mike,

I don't think anybody has to help you prove your point....to yourself.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Mon, Nov 22, 2010, at 11:34 PM

Ah, yes, let us return to those oh so civil days before Obama, when George W. Bush was pResident, and none of the opposition would EVER stoop so low as to engage in 'hate-mongering" or "personal attacks".

(such as "Shrub", "Chimpy McBusHitler", "Jesusland", or "Dumbf*$kistan")

-- Posted by Owen McPhillips on Mon, Nov 22, 2010, at 11:40 PM

I neither defend nor condone those of my political stripe stooping to the level of the right. I have to admit this is the first time I have ever hear Chimpy McBusHitler.

I have also never stated that there weren't people on the left that engaged in hate-mongering or personal attacks. My point is that the right has the market cornered on it. The reason that is it so much more glaring is because it has been preached to everyone that the right is so much more religious than the left, yet they seem to ignore the basic tenants of Christianity. Jesus taught us to love our fellow man no matter his deficiency. The right says we must vilify and crucify our fellow man specifically for their deficiencies. The Bible tells us that only God can determine who is a sinner. The right tells us that not only can they determine who is a sinner but they must also make laws against those sinners.

For years the right tried to tell everyone that Gary Condit was responsible for Chandra Levy's death. The pronounced him guilty without the benefit of a trial. It destroyed his career. Yesterday the actual murderer was found guilty (big surprise it wasn't Condit). Yet despite that some of the right will always condemn, vilify, and dehumanize him despite that fact.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 7:50 AM

Oh, I beg to differ Didymus. I offered only basic examples. If it weren't for the vast majority of posters here I wouldn't have had the vast amount of perfect examples as you have given me.

For instance, your post is a great example of vilifying someone who disagrees with you. So, thank you for the example.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 7:51 AM

Mike,

Your blog is about your opinion, there are no facts to be proved or disproved how many times much I we discuss this before you get it?

Also, here a another classic Mike moment:

"I have also never stated that there weren't people on the left that engaged in hate-mongering or personal attacks. My point is that the right has the market cornered on it."

Umm Mike, if someone has the market cornered that means no one else has access to it. Therefore you just said that the left doesn't engage in hate-mongering or personal attacks while trying to say you never did so. You amuse me greatly.

Also its' kowtow not cow-tow, or did you mean that people expect everyone to drag cattle around with them? You can tow a cow to water, but you can't make it drink. Rather like my experience with trying to point out the hypocrisy of Mike's blogs to him.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 9:12 AM

Geez, I can't type today if my meaning isn't clear let me know and I'll try to address typos.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 10:00 AM

"Also its' kowtow not cow-tow, or did you mean that people expect everyone to drag cattle around with them? You can tow a cow to water, but you can't make it drink. Rather like my experience with trying to point out the hypocrisy of Mike's blogs to him."

Thank you for yet another great example of belittling, SW. I have been specifically waiting for you to show up because you are one of the greats at proving examples. I use the wrong verbiage and instead of just correcting me on my misuse of a word you go the extra mile and make fun of me for it. Perfect example.

I believe you and I have differing opinions on what cornering the market mean. You suggest that no one else has access to it. I believe that it means that (specific to this example) while both groups do practice in it only one has perfected the craft to such a degree that when they do it they will actually claim they aren't doing it.

We've argued many of time over your blatant hypocrisy in trying to point out my hypocrisy. You never admit to your hypocrisy and many times will deny making the statements that were hypocritical to begin with in order to claim that you aren't hypocritical.

But again, thank you for providing yet another perfect example to dovetail nicely with my blog.

You guys are just outstanding in your help. You all have just been wonderful.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 10:12 AM

You're welcome.

Sorry if I go by the accepted definition of a term you try to use to mean something different. Didn't you have a discussion with another poster a while back about trying to change the meaning of accepted terms. I know how you tried to use the term, I was only pointing out you did so incorrectly.

You are wrong, search back if you like, I have often admitted to being wrong, being a hypocrite, and to picking on you to set you off. So there is my challenge to you admit your hypocrisy as I have done. See, my thought is that since you refuse to see your own hypocrisy it offends you when I or others point it out or call you on it. I am secure in my hypocrisy so I don't care if people point it out to me.

In my opinion, you are still just a whiny wannabe victim, you post all of your belittling blogs then whine when people throw it back at you. You almost always seek to position yourself as a person who has been wronged in what I assume is an attempt to garner pity. I missed whoever told you to man up and get some thicker skin, but I couldn't agree with them more.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 11:09 AM

"In my opinion, you are still just a whiny wannabe victim, you post all of your belittling blogs then whine when people throw it back at you. You almost always seek to position yourself as a person who has been wronged in what I assume is an attempt to garner pity. I missed whoever told you to man up and get some thicker skin, but I couldn't agree with them more."

Let's take this most wonderful of comments one step at a time. First, many have tried but you have succeeded in showing how to belittle, demonize, dehumanize, make fun of, and question one's intelligence with one fell swoop. Second, did you really need to throw in words like whine, wannabe, victim, wronged to make your point? Certainly not. You seem to be an intelligent person, so why water down your arguments with insults and belittling? Third, I will once again make this statement as now apparently you and MrsSmith before you seemed to have missed this statement: You think way to highly of yourself if you think posting your comments on my blog affects me one way or another. I really enjoy this thread because every single one of you are proving my point time and time again.

It seems to me that you are trying to hard to get under my skin and annoy me that when it doesn't work you fall back on insults and demonizing, which as I stated doesn't hurt my feelings because it only strengthens my original case in the blog.

I still don't get the whole man up theme. I know it is yours and boojum's attempts at trying to make me feel less as a man that I need to grow a pair or whatever but it really just falls flat. I did grow a pair I went after the right and their hateful, demonizing, self-grandizing language and acts and with every post you prove my point.

I don't ever recall you admitting that you are a hypocrite. You change your argument so frequently it's really hard to tell what your positions are.

Okay, then, here's my admittion of hypocrisy. I will admit that from time to time I was guilty of calling our former President, Dubya. At the time the previous eight years was still fresh of the right calling Former President Clinton, Bubba, so I assumed that it was a term of endearment to call Bush Dubya. I realized that I was wrong and I have only called former President Bush by his name for several years now.

Oh by the way, can you pinpoint where exactly I haven been whining on this specific blog? I have looked and if anything I have been very gracious and thankful for all the great posts so far. So please, SW, MrsSmith, and boojum please point out to me where you believe me to be whining.

As "cornering the market" goes I have looked in several different places looking for your "accepted" definition as being "no one else has access to it" and have yet to find it. Most of the definitions I have found have stated "owning ENOUGH (emphasis mine) of a particular item to manipulate it" which oddly enough fits my original statement.

Could you please provide a link to your "accepted definition of "cornering the market" being "no one else has access to it"?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 1:14 PM

Mike,

When did I ever say I didn't agree with you? and how did my post belittle or vilify you? I did not slander you, or make you vile. I would hope that any point you try to make in an opinion blog would be accepted pretty well by yourself. If you are going to post a blog about your opinions, you should be pretty comfortable about those opinions and not go on the attack when somone brings up their own opinions. I have yet to see any poster that actually agrees with you. There are some that disagree with people you disagree with, but that doesn't mean they agree with you.

If you want me to start belittleing you, I can easily oblige. Here goes:

Mike, you seem to have a problem with typos and using words incorrectly. I wonder if you are mistaking the word 'whining' for 'winning'.

There, is that better? Now I can "prove your point" even more! Even though you don't know what political leaning I am.

Again, It is sad that you and eddy seem to be the most vocal of the left's voices. (I don't count Damu because he mainly just has his hate on for religion, especially christianity. Oh, and he wants to be able to take whatever drug he feels like doing.)

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 2:03 PM

@Didymus Your somewhat close. I'm against religion while for personal freedom. I'm not sure if you really understand how personal freedom works. I can understand that, the media is a powerful tool to mold public opinion regardless of whether that opinion is correct or not.

Christianity being the most prevalent in my region makes it the easiest target. Not to mention it is currently the only one I know of in America trying to teach sudo-science to our children.

The left and right both have good ideas. Being affiliated with either one in this day and age of politics however doesn't really work. The polarization by media in the last few years has gotten to a point where, we don't compromise anymore. We simply scream louder until our side is heard. With this going on it become impossible to hear the people in middle.

-- Posted by Damu on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 4:46 PM

Mike,

this is an excerpt from your post, The True War on America.

"Let us get down the brass tacks here. The right is waging a war on anyone in America they deem to not be of their mindset. They invented a war on Christmas and war on Christians though there is none. They complained loudly at people saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" as though it was a new phenomenon. It is not, people have been saying "Happy Holidays" for over fifty year."

Google responded with many pages for the search phrase war on Christmas and many of them indicated the right prefers Merry Christmas over happy holiday, I certainly do.

I think your assertion is off base and wrong.

Another excerpt from your post

"They do not care about the truth, because the truth only gets in the way of what they are trying to do

They will stop at nothing to get and keep power and eventually they will turn on themselves. Power hungry people always do."

Sounds a lot like the dems trying to blunt the republicans attack during the campaign leading up the the November shakeup.

You use a wide sloppy brush to paint the conservative right in a negative light with out basis in fact.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 6:13 PM

I don't really understand your point about Christmas boojum because the second part actually goes a far way in confirming what I said.

Maybe there is a misunderstanding. When I said that the right invented the War of Christmas I was saying that they invented the idea that there is a war on Christmas.

"You use a wide sloppy brush to paint the conservative right in a negative light with out basis in fact."

Yet you have still yet to disprove any of my points. If what I say is wrong then where is the proof?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 6:34 PM

Didymus, when did I ever say that you agreed with me? I am not really sure what you are talking about with your post.

"If you are going to post a blog about your opinions, you should be pretty comfortable about those opinions and not go on the attack when somone brings up their own opinions."

I would say this better fits you than it fits me Didymus. I am very comfortable about my opinions that's why I defend them, but again thanks for proving yet another point from above. Between the two of us you are the only one that has gone on any attacks. I brought up my opinion with my blog and your immediate response was to go on the attack. You have taken your approach to a subject and attempted to turn it into my approach.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 6:39 PM

Damu, that is the reason that in our latest election (which apparently some people wish I would just stop talking about and just move on, silly) more Conservatives and Liberals were elected to Congress. The moderates have been all but wiped out for the time being.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 6:41 PM

Mike

You made the claims, prove your own, support your post with facts

-- Posted by boojum666 on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 6:51 PM

I'm not disputing what I said in the blog you are. Besides that, you, among others, have been proving my claims perfectly for me, as I have stated over and over again. You want proof? Look back through all the posts that you, MrsSmith, SWNebr Transplant, and Sir Didymus have posted. The proof, they say, is in the pudding.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 8:40 PM

Your post would have some veracity if supported with facts, other wise it is just...opinion

-- Posted by boojum666 on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 9:02 PM

Mike,

You said I disagreed with you. I was trying to get across that I disagree with your methods. Hope that clears things up.

I would like to know how my posts prove some of your claims. I only attacked after you falsly accused me. Trust me, if I were so inclined there are multiple holes in your blog to pick apart.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 12:51 AM

I would also like to point out that the handful of posters on this blog do not proof make. And thats for anything, leftie or rightie. If anyone thinks otherwise, they are fools.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 12:54 AM

You are all over the place here Didymus. First you make the claim that I said you agreed with me (which I never did), now you are saying that I said that you disagreed with me so no nothing is cleared up.

What false accusation are you claiming that I made.

By the way you once again are helping to make my points and are actually adding another one. Those on the right will say that they can blame someone's argument out of the water, but they just don't feel like it or just are not inclined to do so.

I for one have never understood that. If you can blow holes (multiple at that) in an argument why no just do it, instead of making the claim that you can and then at the same time refusing to do so.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 10:18 AM

Mike,

are you cracked? When did I say you thought I agree with you? Obviously you don't.

Personally I think you are mad at me because I point out your failings. Again, are you sure I am on the right?

And Why would I want to "blame" your argument out of the water? (what does that mean anyway?) Its not an argument, its your views. When you "prove" your point about the evils of all that you believe the "right" represents, you sorta "prove" some of the stereotypes and preconceptions that a lot of folks have about left wing folks. Maybe you are okay with that, I'm pretty sure eddy is, I know that all the conspiracy theory spouting kooks that drive by posted are. You are known by the company that you keep, after all.

The false accusation that I spoke of is the claim that I was belittling and/or vilifying you.

And I am sure you don't understand my motives for not picking apart your blog. You seem like a wannabe passive-agressive bully.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 11:19 AM

Mike,

I don't think anybody has to help you prove your point....to yourself.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Mon, Nov 22, 2010, at 11:34 PM

This is an example of pure belittling.

"Personally I think you are mad at me because I point out your failings. Again, are you sure I am on the right?"

Classic projection. You are going on rant after rant against me but you claim that I am the one mad you.

I couldn't care less what your political ideology is, Didymus, you are displaying the classic tactic of the right, tell everyone they are wrong and then when you are challenged to prove that they are wrong your replies are that you don't have to, or you don't want to. The bottom line is you keep telling me just how wrong I am yet you offer no proof.

I would like to offer one retractions and an apology. I was wrong in the "agree-don't agreement" conversation. I misread your earlier post. I apologize for the error on my part.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 1:26 PM

Since the example of Charlie Rangel was brought up as some sort of counter argument against my original argument I thought I would bring up a couple of others:

How about former majority leader Tom Delay who was just convicted for political money laundering?

or

How about Sarah Palin, who ran to be second in charge of this nation not knowing the difference between the Korea's?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 5:19 PM

Mike

I will stipulate that Republicans and Democrats each have their fair share of corrupt politicians.

Now, are these people corrupt before they get to Washington and attracted to the atmosphere that allows bigger and worse corruption, or does Washington Change them?

Charlie and Maxine are just the most recent best reps for corruption. Delay is old news and hopefully gone for a long time.

My favorite quote from Charlie is "I am as clean as the driven snow"

I hope all have a safe, and happy Thanksgiving, even EDDY ;)

-- Posted by boojum666 on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 6:18 PM

I guess it really depends which deity eddy worships on Christmas. There are a handful to choose from. Actually, based on the bibles own description of the time of the virgin birth it would be impossible in the geographic location to have taken place in December. During the period of time that they were hashing all the holidays out though, it made it a lot easier to gather followers if the dates they celebrated in Christianity aligned with already setup pagan holidays.

-- Posted by Damu on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 7:35 PM

@ocho The best part about that is, everything I just said is verifiable fact.

-- Posted by Damu on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 8:00 PM

I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but if everyone would move to the middle and start looking at both sides you will find that they are both so corrupt its laughable. Of course we would miss out on you guys throwing each other under the bus. Just a thought!

-- Posted by Keda46 on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 8:05 PM

@Ocho I'm not really sure what part of either of my two posts above is intolerant. Using facts to facilitate an argument isn't really intolerant. None of my statements above are derogatory in any way. I'm curious why you think they are?

There is however some interesting irony with what your saying though. Do you think that I, the non secular person, would be more or less apt to be intolerant of others based on my religious book? (Note. I don't have one, aside from the Golden Rule) Do you think that Christians would be more or less apt to be intolerant based on theirs?

-- Posted by Damu on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 9:01 PM

Damu,

You are right, Christmas is the feast celebrating the birth of Christ. Thats all. What I belive that Ochosinco was trying to say is the term "pagan" is offensive to many that practice some of the religions that would fall under the umbrella of what a lot of folks would label pagan. That is why it would be intolerant.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 10:37 PM

"I couldn't care less what your political ideology is, Didymus, you are displaying the classic tactic of the right, tell everyone they are wrong and then when you are challenged to prove that they are wrong your replies are that you don't have to, or you don't want to. The bottom line is you keep telling me just how wrong I am yet you offer no proof."

So, what you are saying is. Because you think I act mean and ebbil like what your notion of the way the "right" acts I prove that the "right acts that way? Even though you do not know my personal political ideology. So if anyone is mean they are part of the "right"?

What I posted about proving your point was simply a statement of fact. It does not seem that you are proving whatever nebulous point by pointing out that some people disagree with you and you feel that they attack you. If you decide to take that as an attack and claim that I am being a big ole meany don't be upset when I take umbrage at your accusations.

In short, untwist your knickers, get some thicker skin, and give up your victim mentality.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 10:48 PM

@Ocho After a bit of thinking I would have to agree that it could possibly be construed as being intolerant towards the umbrella of religions that could feasibly fall withing said definition. Although, I'm somewhat torn on this since the word was used by Christians as a demeaning term toward other non-Christian religions. Thereby since atheism could technically fall under the umbrella as well does that give me the allowance to use it in a way that isn't intolerant?

Please, if you are aware of other religious celebrations that regardless of the actual time they took place, where purposefully transitioned to later dates to increase the following from then current practioners of other religions in a given time period, I'm all ears. I know you might mention Islam killing non-believers. That's cool and a valid point, just remember Christianity did the exact same thing.

Don't fret sir or madam. I am of the opinion that all religious practices are as ridiculous as the ones in Christianity. My current geographic location however is predominately Christian. Within the United States, it is mostly Christian based organizations that are trying to push creationism in school not to mention trying to legislate their moral beliefs.

There is no real demeaning of Christianity here. There are a few other gods that predate Christianity that celebrate the same date of birth. This is historical fact. The fact that Easter falls on the Summer Solstice and not within a range of dates that would make sense based on the text of the bible is another interesting example of the point I'm trying to make.

Personally, I'm completely for the separation of church and state. I believe in individual freedom and accountability. I'm a reasonable fan of Goldwater republicans. Interestingly enough, even he saw the danger in religion overtaking his party.

-- Posted by Damu on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 11:37 PM

I don't hate Sarah Palin. I find it humorous that so many people are hitching their political wagons to someone who didn't know what the Vice President does (the office she was running for at the time), continually exploits her children for political gain, and didn't know that we are on the side of North Korea, among other things.

You call them gaffes if you want to, but these are serious gaffes for someone who may end up running for President in 2012.

Even middle school children know which Korea we support.

I don't hate her. I couldn't care less if she is a woman or a Republican. I do care that she is parading around trying to convince people that she is qualified to be President when she apparently doesn't even know the basics.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 11:44 PM

I don't really understand where you are getting that I am playing the part of victim here Didymus. Again I believe you are projecting, because with exception to boojum, you are protesting more than anyone. Yet you still refuse to refute any of my claims.

I do love, however your running theme of I'm not attacking you, but untwist your knickers, I'm not attacking you, but get a thicker skin.

It's very comical stuff.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 11:51 PM

I think the grander theme that should be seen here is that a good portion of you actually believe that what you are typing on these posts is somehow affecting me. From the pleas of telling me to "man up", "grow a pair", "pull up your knicker", "get a thicker skin", and the myriad of other school yard taunts it's apparent that maybe you need to take a good look in the mirror.

The only ones on here using taunting language is you.

So, where exactly have I acted like a child, or acted the part of the victim, or whined? Any examples?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 11:56 PM

The interesting thing about church and state Damu is that 17th and 18th Century Evangelical leaders favored the separation of church and state absolutely.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 11:58 PM

@Michael Actually it makes perfect sense. They recently come from lands where the two things were not.

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 12:08 AM

Ochosinco, yes I'm definitely a minority, and yes I agree.

Michael, I think Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, I agree she does exploit her children for political gain. She is hated by the left as much as Hilary Clinton is hated by the right, and will end up hurting the Republican party if she runs. I didn't know we were on North Korea's side either

-- Posted by Keda46 on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 12:18 AM

Is appears that Specialist Bradley Manning did leak all those wires to the wiki leaks website. Should be interesting to see the results.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/2010112...

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 12:51 AM

Mike,

You misunderstand me. The latter statements could certainly be called "attacking" you. Just as your own blog and most of your many many replies could be considered attacks. I stated that I wasn't attacking you in the beginning. I would like to know is it "you" as in Sir Didymus? or a more broad "you" as in all of the people that are stating all the school yard taunts? Because if it was directed at me,your accuracy in what I actually said is horrible. 1 out of 4 statements? Is that the accuracy of your "facts"?

I suppose that I am an eternal optimist and I hope that you will realize what damage you are doing to the lefts reputation and be more reasonable and credible such as your father is.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 1:17 AM

Damu,

I see where you claim to follow "The Golden Rule", AKA Matthew 7:12. Shouldn't this be reflected in your posts?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 10:12 AM

@CPB The rule was actually spoken about long before jeebus. I don't normally attack individual posters chunky. I would actually say that I haven't posted a derogatory statement directly at a poster since I started on these boards. The same rule doesn't apply to ideas however.

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 11:05 AM

Michael, your delusions are wildly inaccurate and silly. Perhaps if you spent some honest time in real thought.

You remind me of a spoiled child, throwing a tantrum whenever you don't get your way. Yet, you are so very easily deceived. You have swallowed hook, line and sinker, all of the hate on the left, and then you spew that hate like you were handing out flowers.

It is actually sad to see a young man with talent throw it away such hate. Now, you are over educated and over programed, and with that comes very little real insight.

-- Posted by tiney56 on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 1:17 PM

Damu,

Why would differing ideas get a pass. Could this be called, hypocrisy? You may not have attacked a person directly, but you do attack their beliefs, correct. So how can you possibly say you observe the "golden rule"? Or do you just want others to follow it?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 3:27 PM

@CPB Do you frown on people who still practice blood letting to cure disease? Do you think in that instance that people who argue for modern science and look down on people who still practice blood letting are hypocritical?

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 8:41 PM

I do not look down of people who practice "blood letting". I do not believe this is a sound medical procedure. To be hypocritical, one must condemn a practice, while still practicing it. Therefore, for proponents of modern medicine to be hypocritical of "blood letting", they must condemn the practice, while they themselves, still practice it. I just don't think any of them do that, therefore, they cannot be hypocritical.

If you are going to debate me, please know what your debating about.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 9:48 PM

You on the other hand, are to be called hypocritical. You say you practice the "Golden Rule", you may even wish others would practice it, but in real life, you don't.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 9:52 PM

@CPB If you have valid responses to ideas then go ahead. I'm not hypocritical, if you can respond to things I'm putting out there in a scientific and meaningful way. Then feel free to do so, remember chunky we are talking about ideas and beliefs here, not people. You challenging my ideas doesn't offend me. My thoughts are malleable, if credible evidence comes up counteracting my thoughts. I don't take offense to it. Why would you with yours?

Some people may allow their beliefs to make up their entire persona. Where one could argue that attacking their ideas and or beliefs would be offensive to them. If your beliefs are to the point that being confronted with evidence that they are wrong is offending to you. Perhaps, you need to rethink what it is you believe in.

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 11:56 PM

Michael

I noticed you left out any reference to corruption so I have included a link for you and other readers to enjoy.

http://www.republicanoffenders.com/index...

You also forgot to mention the manipulation of scientific documents, editing of sworn testimony, etc. by the past administration in their efforts to deceive the American Public on the dangers of Global Warming. The following link is to a Congressional Oversight Committee investigation completed in 2007.

http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?opt...

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Nov 26, 2010, at 11:51 AM

Geezer

How do you like the current poster boy and girl for the dems, Pure as the driven snow Charlie and remains to be seen Waters.

All these exchanges mean is that corruption in washingtion is the most bilateral action of the entire govenment.

We don't need any links to see the corruption of the left, it is the current events.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Fri, Nov 26, 2010, at 6:55 PM

boojum666

I am against corruption regardless where it decides to show its ugly head. If Charlie and Ms. Waters were involved in corruption, they should be brought to justice. As should those public officials who deceived the American Public on the dangers of Global Warming.

As far as your comment "We don't need any links to see the corruption of the left, it is the current events." Do you mind if I ask you to be just a little more specific and elaborate on what current events you are referencing? An argument based on facts and the sources of your facts would be greatly appreciated.

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Nov 26, 2010, at 8:27 PM

Gawd Geezer "if Charlie and Waters were involved in corruption"? What planet are you on?

And what don't you understand about current events?

-- Posted by boojum666 on Fri, Nov 26, 2010, at 8:37 PM

boojum666

It seems that new evidence has not proved corruption by Ms. Waters. Aren't we innocent until proven guilty?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40374474/ns/...

Now if you want to talk about current events and corruption, maybe we should mention that on Nov. 24, 2010, Tom Delay was found guilty of money laundering and faces up to 20 years in prison.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

-- Posted by Geezer on Fri, Nov 26, 2010, at 9:06 PM

Holy **&&^^^%% Delay was quilty? When did that happen, what paper was that in? My god, I am sure glad you gave me that link, I've never heard that Delay was in trouble. Amazing.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Fri, Nov 26, 2010, at 9:47 PM

Man, EDDY, do I feel bad. now I promise from now on just to listen to.......you, you are so smart, so edurite, well read and written. yep that is where I have gone wrong. ;)

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sat, Nov 27, 2010, at 11:14 AM

Who outed a CIA agent?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Nov 27, 2010, at 11:20 AM

@CPB Scooter Libby I believe was his name.

-- Posted by Damu on Sat, Nov 27, 2010, at 12:40 PM

Try Richard L. Armitige, Damu.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Nov 27, 2010, at 2:55 PM

Come on EDDY, i am waiting for my next opinion...I need some direction, drifting here and there... maybe geezer can give me a current events link... come on help me out, feeling lost, h e l p m e e e e e e

;)

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sat, Nov 27, 2010, at 4:29 PM

@CPB Touche!

-- Posted by Damu on Sun, Nov 28, 2010, at 2:24 PM

tiney, thank you for yet another perfect example of my blog. It's just pretty near textbook.

Geezer, just some advice. On this posting portion of the blog for certain blogs no matter what the Democrats have done either recently or in the past they are wrong and should be punished. No matter what the Republicans have done recently or in the past is largely ignored and sometimes even excused.

According to one poster on here the two Democrats are more important because they are current but DeLay is old news because the crime happened some time ago (despite the fact that he was just convicted this past week) and therefor it isn't that big a deal.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Nov 28, 2010, at 2:52 PM

Actually I think the person who should take most of the blame on the outing of Valerie Plame should be the *cough* "journalist" who was leaked the information and then decided (that even though outing the name of a CIA Operative is a treasonable offense) to name her in his article anyways.

Robert Novak

In the end, though, how no one was actually penalized for the outing of Plame just matter of fact escapes me.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 29, 2010, at 9:38 PM

Hendricks

This is what I said

Charlie and Maxine are just the most recent best reps for corruption. Delay is old news and hopefully gone for a long time.

Get it right.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Mon, Nov 29, 2010, at 9:58 PM

"old news" I don't really think a person just having been convicted of charges hardly counts as old news.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 29, 2010, at 10:51 PM

It looks like the birthers have lost yet another attempt to throw a fairly and legally elected President out of office.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 12:59 PM

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

found this under the name EDDY

-- Posted by boojum666 on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 7:46 PM

The TEA Partiers lose another one as yet another (I'm sure soon to be labeled "activist") judge has declared that new health care law does not violate the Constitution. This one has to sting a bit.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 9:40 PM

I thought this was pretty cute:

http://www.salon.com/news/taxes/index.ht...

-- Posted by Damu on Wed, Dec 1, 2010, at 11:41 PM

God forgive us for allowing Congress to punish the unemployed (many of which Congress originally put on the unemployment line) while at the same time rewarding the rich.

Last time I checked not a single member asked me (as an American, as a voter, and as a taxpayer) if it was okay to continue to send my debt out of control just to give the rich some extra money.

Up until this week I was in favor of a tax cut for those making $250,000 or less. Now I firmly believe that all of the tax cuts should be allowed to expire.

One of my conservative friends argued that unemployment benefits were not permanent and should be allowed to expire. I posed the argument that the Bush tax cuts also were not permanent and should also be allowed to expire.

Are we so backwards right now that giving rich people MORE money is more important than creating jobs?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 2:14 AM

*sigh*

Not the Valerie Plame bit again....

Look, her very first assignment was to an EMBASSY. That's what they call "official cover". And it sends a message to whoever is paying attention (and there are LOTS of folks paying close attention to embassies) that the new "diplomat" is, in fact, a spy.

Once a CIA officer is given "official cover", he/she can NEVER have a credible "non official cover."

You want to know who "outed" Plame? The CIA itself did, at the very beginning of her career.

-- Posted by Owen McPhillips on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 2:18 AM

Ocho, yes eddy gave me permission a few weeks ago.

I promised to give up Rush and only watch CNN, Msnbc, read Huffington and TOE The Liberal line or else. ;)

-- Posted by boojum666 on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 6:47 AM

"Are we so backwards right now that giving rich people MORE money is more important than creating jobs?"

This comment seems to sum up the left's argument as I hear it and is indicative of the disconnect between earners and takers.

Tax cuts allows a person to KEEP more of the money they EARNED. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT GIVING THEM MONEY.

See here is the problem, leftist like Mike think that people need the government to GIVE things to the TAKERS without thinking about where it comes from.

Mike are you arguing that continuing unemployment somehow creates jobs?!?!? That's sure what it looks like to me.

In what way would raising taxes on the rich create jobs?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 8:51 AM

@SWNEBR I don't think mike is in so much arguing that allowing the tax cuts for the rich to expire would create jobs. It would however contribute a lot to helping cut down the deficit. I think we can clearly say that the tax cuts haven't generated jobs, which was their alleged purpose when Reagan implemented them.

I actually find this pretty interesting. Since before these tax cuts, the USA was one of the largest lenders in the modern world, afterwords however we became the largest borrower, coincidence, perhaps.

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 10:45 AM

Then I suggest you read my post again SW because once again, true to form, you are asserting a stance into my argument that I never make and never even allude to.

I guess I could ask the same question of you. Do you really believe that giving out tax cuts actually creates jobs, because that's what it sure looks like to me. I know, though, that you never said that or anything close to that.

The unemployed, the right's boogeyman. The right put them out of work, now they seem put out that those they put out of work would like some help while the right is fighting to help the rich keep more money. Nevermind that extending unemployment benefits would actually cost much less than extending tax cuts for the rich. Facts don't matter. You just have to keep painting all unemployed people as lazy idiots sitting around there house doing nothing but collecting unemployment.

Nevermind that the people who are supposed to be kick-starting this fabled trickle down effect would rather hang on to their profits than hire one single person.

It is so much easier to look down on people when you are not in their situation. It takes a true man, a true Christian man to look at them and want to help them instead of treat them like dirt. Something the right, apparently knows nothing about.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 11:23 AM

eddy,

Where in my post did I say anything that would make you think I don't know what tax cuts we are talking about or an implication that I made that these tax increases would be on middle class? Perhaps if you are going to call people names, you should have an idea what they are talking about. What facts do I have wrong? I patiently await your clarification.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 2:50 PM

Michael,

I'm sorry if I am incorrect in assuming when you discuss two things in one sentence I believe you are logically trying to tie the two things together. Can you not agree that it would seem that your post made them appear linked? I believe Damu understood what I meant and I will defer to his opinion, but he, at least I think, would agree that your post allowed for my interpretation.

The greater point I was making and the one which you predictably did not respond to is that you think reducing taxes is GIVING money to people who don't deserve it, where I would say it is allowing those people to KEEP what they had.

You amuse me greatly with your boogeymannery. So it is SOLEY the fault of the RIGHT that people are unemployed huh Mike?

How do tax cuts COST money? That is like saying because I didn't get a raise this year that my employer COST me money. After all if they gave me more money, to use your point about the governmnet giving money to the rich, then I would have more to spend. Because they didn't they have spent my money elsewhere.

Also: "It is so much easier to look down on people when you are not in their situation. It takes a true man, a true Christian man to look at them and want to help them instead of treat them like dirt."

Give a man a fish and whatnot, what is the greater help? See, sometimes people have different ideas of how to help, and unlike you say Mike, these differences don't make either side evil.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 3:06 PM

Oh yeah, btw Mike

I agree with you all the tax cuts should expire. But if they don't, it isn't the government giving us money.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Dec 2, 2010, at 3:11 PM

I see you have fallen for the lies and misinformaton of the the political right SW. Tax cuts do cost money because the tax cuts aren't letting us keep money we have earned it's giving us money we haven't earned yet.

The tax cuts do not and have never paid for themselves, ever.

I have gone back now both time that you have asserted that my post would lead people to believe that I somehow was making a point that unemployment leads to jobs. It's just not there. Even when I add unemployment benefits leads to jobs it still doesn't work because I said nothing close to it at all.

My point is that right now Congress and the President seem more concerned about giving tax breaks than they do about creating jobs. They seem more concerned about giving tax breaks than extending jobless benefits for those that are out of a job.

I never said that it is solely the fault of the Republicans that there are unemployed people(those are your words. I never said anything remotely close). What I said is that for many of the unemployed are unemployed because of the right. In other words (even though I am not supposed to even talk about the 00s on this website according to some posters I am going to) because of the policies of the right in the 00s, it became more lucrative for the businesses to not hire people, even to fire people. The tax cuts are one of those policies.

Even Ronald Reagan raised taxes while in office.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 7:05 AM

"Actually, the reason the socialists want to kill the tax cuts is because the sooner we implement a more punitive tax rate, the quicker we can accelerate the "redistribution of wealth" in this country, and achieve pure socialism."

Where did you come up with this one? Anyone who thinks that letting the tax cuts expire while cause any sort of redistribution is not dealing with facts. If the tax cuts expire the tax rats will increase across the board. The only true way to redistribute wealth taxes would have to be cut down to near nothing for the poor and middle class, while tax rates will have to be increased to the 90th percentile and higher for the rich.

No one is even coming close to suggesting that.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 7:09 AM

Unemployment up to 9.8% and Congress passed a bill yesterday that is going to raise taxes on business' that are LLC's, Limited Partnerships and S-Corp's as those entities are flow through to the owner - owners.

The "Left" seems to be defeating the "Right". The "Left" agenda is to create a country dependent on Government aid. By hurting private employment and increasing dependence on the government (unemployment benefits, etc) they are accomplishing their goals. I actually heasd a government official today comparing extended unemployment benefits as "Humantarian Aid". Yet Congress is raising taxes on small business?

Mike you are correct about the War being fought. I just happen to be on the side of freedom and less government and keeping what I make. If that makes me on the "Right" as you call it than I am on the right.

The point is unemployment is still bad and the current Congress has made it worse and is trying until the bitter end to keep it bad. I cannot explain the thought process other than punitive punishment.

P.S. I was on Hell's Kitchen 12/1/2010. We taped the show in 2/2010. It was an interesting experience.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 8:28 AM

Mike,

"I see you have fallen for the lies and misinformaton of the the political right SW. Tax cuts do cost money because the tax cuts aren't letting us keep money we have earned it's giving us money we haven't earned yet."

You're funny in a kind of sad way. So tax cuts cost money because they don't let us keep the money we earned?!?!?! What the heck is that supposed to mean? How did the government EARN the money? While it may be true that lower tax rates can mean less money coming into the government they in no way COST money. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "cost". Perhaps the government should look into ways to reduce spending since that is the only true cost anyone has.

"The unemployed, the right's boogeyman. The right put them out of work"

Clearly refutes your later claim of: "I never said that it is solely the fault of the Republicans that there are unemployed people(those are your words. I never said anything remotely close). What I said is that for many of the unemployed are unemployed because of the right."

Is this an example of Mike changing his story when he realized he's made himself look foolish? I'm sorry Mike but you did say the "right" is the cause of the unemployed, when I call you on it, you try to change your tune. Your previous post didn't say some or many or most or any other qualifier you clearly said the right is to blame. The sad/funny thing is I'm sure you believe it too.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 9:02 AM

I thought this made some interesting points, I'm curious what you guys think.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 9:07 AM

eddy,

I'm still waiting for you to show where I was wrong, or to appologize for your comments.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 10:43 AM

Damu,

I thought it was a pretty good and accurate article, I did however have a couple of points I disagree with. Primarily in his 3rd myth he says he ran games which proved his theory but doesn't indicate what they are. Also I generally object to the theme that tax cuts increase debt. Cuts cannot by their nature increase anything. It is not the tax cuts that increase debt, it is the spending of money one doesn't have that increases debt. Kind of a chicken vs. egg deal.

I would also contend that in regard to myth one, nothing we have tried has actually stimulated the economy, nor do I believe anything we try will do so.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 11:05 AM

@SWN Tax cuts only increase debt if the amount of spending isn't reigned in with the cut. Obviously with the decrease in capitol coming in with the same amount of capital going out creates a deficit increase. I hear the majority of Republicans wanting to keep all the tax cuts, but I haven't really heard the areas they would like the spending cut?

Personally I do think spending should be reigned in. We can easily start with the ridiculous amount we spend on the nations drug war every year. Cut out a few billion there. Then legalize everything we were fighting initially and increase the budget from tax revenues from these new substances.

I get why people aren't for social services in terms of helping other people. Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor as it were. Personally though, I think these systems are important. Do they get abused? Sure, probably no more than these ridiculous no bid contracts our government likes to award though. I don't see everyone up in arms about this, and I find that somewhat confusing.

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 11:49 AM

On a side note, I'm kind of surprised none of the bloggers have done anything on the current wiki leaks release. The blatant hypocrisy of the US in regards to free speech on this issue should be lightening all kinds of people on fire.

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 11:54 AM

I own farm land and do not recieve any government money.

However, I believe the concept of farm subsidies deals with food supply stability. If we have a shortage of food - panic will ensue and the government will lose control and anarcy could happen. So is it Socialistic - yes. Am I for it? To a certain degree, yes. I was also for TARP and I was against the War in Iraq. I have no opinion about Gays in the Military and I have no problem with same sex marriage.

What I have a problem with is the government harming the economy with class warfare and Populism. In America, the Democrats talk about getting that kid out of the ghetto and getting him to college. So why is it that once that kid gets out of the ghetto gets a good job and starts making money he is now the Democrats enemy? He is. And most of the time the kid that gets out of the ghetto does it because of his or her hard work. Not because of a government program.

I am a believer that we all get out of life what we want. If you want to make a lot of money - you pick a career that pays a lot and you get the degree necessary to get the high paying job. Why is that a punishable offense? To this current Congress it is. That is Un-American and wrong!

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 12:50 PM

@Wallis Correct me if I'm wrong here. The top tier tax cuts that we are talking about are roughly a 3 and 4 percent increase correct? Will an increase of 3 or 4 percent of income above the $250,000 mark really create that large of a disturbance in the business world?

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 1:08 PM

Damu,

You are so close to being right here it's almost painful :)

"Tax cuts only increase debt if the amount of spending isn't reigned in with the cut."

Tax cuts don't increase debt, spending increases debt. Increasing tax revenues can help to decrease debt but lower tax revenue never increases debt.

"Do they get abused? Sure, probably no more than these ridiculous no bid contracts our government likes to award though. I don't see everyone up in arms about this, and I find that somewhat confusing."

If you are unaware of people being up in arms about these contracts then it may be because you only watch what the right does in order to castigate it. People on the left have been attacking them for years, I don't know how you missed it.

"The blatant hypocrisy of the US in regards to free speech on this issue should be lightening all kinds of people on fire."

To what hypocrisy are referring? Free speech has established limits, I'm pretty sure stealing information is not protected.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 2:54 PM

Business is bad so what is another 4%? Throw in the added expense of Health Care. That makes sense to non-business people I suppose. I guess that is why umployment is only 9.8% and going higher. Obamanomics!

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 3:31 PM

@SWN I don't believe wikileaks stole anything. I'm fairly certain those documents were leaked to them from another source. In this instance they are not thieves simply publishers. This is the exact same circumstances the NYT was able to publish the pentagon papers under.

"The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of government suppression of embarrassing information."

William Orville Douglas

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 4:01 PM

@Wallis Since less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small-business income are filed by taxpayers in the top two income brackets -- individuals earning more than about $170,000 a year and families earning more than about $210,000 a year.

I'm curious how something that will not effect 98% of the business's is going to somehow hurt them?

-- Posted by Damu on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 4:17 PM

Damu,

What has the hypocritical US done about the "leaks"? I was referring to the arrest of the alleged "leaker".

You also need to be careful about what type of argument you are making in other situations. If 4% isn't a big deal why are people fighting about it?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 4:32 PM

2% of filed tax returns is about 3,000,000 tax returns filed that is small business, according to you (in 2005 there were 134,000,000 tax returns filed). The average small business has 4 employees. That means 120,000,000 working Americans are employed by small business that are going to see a tax increase. Considering we have about 275,000,000 American Citizens that is a big number employed by small business. Small business has laid off more than big business, therefore by raising their taxes it should hinder employment. The math doesn't lie and these facts should speak for themselves.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 7:51 PM

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

Tax returns filed.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 7:52 PM

Actually, small business accounts for 60,000,000 no farm payroll. I was using your 2% number and the average number of employees per small business. I think you are in error - I was using your number before I confirmed. My fault for taking you at your word.

I actually thought the number was 1.7 million tax returns where small business returns will be effected and hurting about 52 million small business jobs. Regardless, when you study the tax return data - 2% of 134,000,000 return is a big number.

BTW Warren Buffet is a Billionaire and there are only about 400 of them. He is a pro business guy. Trump thinks the current congress is a cancer. Not sure who Mike Gates is.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 8:02 PM

Pretty good op-ed a friend of mine wrote -

The Audacity Of Economic Ignorance

Posted 07:01 PM ET

View Enlarged Image

Economy: Why do we seem so helpless in solving our current mess? A big reason is the shocking lack of basic economic literacy among many of our political leaders. Case in point: Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown.

Brown ripped into GOP Rep. Eric Cantor, saying he "either failed English class or failed logic class or failed history class because these tax cuts for the rich that Bush did twice ... resulted in very little economic growth. We saw only 1 million jobs created in the Bush years, 22 million created in the Clinton years, when we reached a balanced budget with a fairer tax system."

This is false. From 2002, the last year before the cuts, to 2007, the last year before the financial meltdown, the real economy expanded by $1.77 trillion, or 15.2%. "Very little" growth? Jobs increased by 7.77 million, business investment surged 38%, and personal net worth soared 56%. Brown is wrong on every point.

Yes, gross domestic product did fall sharply in 2008 as the financial meltdown hit. But no reputable economist maintains the financial panic was a result of the Bush tax cuts.

Laughably, Brown talks about how "we" reached a balanced budget during the Clinton years. What do you mean "we," senator? Since budgets are written and passed by Congress, and only approved by the president, Brown must know that it was Republicans who balanced the budget -- not Democrats.

That's right, a GOP-led Congress controlled the spending that led to the surpluses of the late 1990s. It also proposed welfare reform and pushed through cap-gains tax cuts that helped the economy boom. To his credit, President Clinton signed these initiatives into law -- but only after much political arm-twisting.

Brown's idea of "fair" when it comes to taxes is strange. Since when is unequal treatment under the law, which our skewed tax code promotes, considered fair? Talk about failing Logic 101.

He went on to say: "There is no real history illustrating that these tax cuts for the rich result in jobs. It's extending unemployment benefits that creates economic activity that creates jobs, not giving a millionaire an extra ... $30,000 in tax cuts they likely won't spend."

"No real history"? Taxes were cut on high-income earners in the 1920s (Coolidge), 1960s (Kennedy), 1980s (Reagan) and again in the 2000s (Bush). These cuts benefited the rich and everyone else. In all these cases, jobs boomed after tax cuts. In fact, history shows that the best way to boost jobs is to cut taxes on the rich.

Brown: Do extensions of jobless benefits really "create jobs"? AP View Enlarged Image

"Extending unemployment benefits" stimulates nothing. It merely takes money from one person's hand and puts it into another. How do Brown et al. get it so wrong? Maybe they don't know any better. They come from a generation schooled on a now-discredited Keynesian model that assumes the economy is driven by consumer spending, and that when consumers falter, it's the government's job to step in and "boost aggregate demand" by spending more.

This, too, is exactly backward. Consumer spending doesn't drive growth; it results from growth. Economies grow mainly because of business investment. The chart above shows how consumer spending barely budged in the last two recessions while business investment plunged. Today we're still 14% below our peak on business investment, while consumer spending has bounced all the way back.

If we want a strong expansion, business investment must grow. It won't as long as Brown and his colleagues continue to believe that extending jobless benefits to boost consumption, and raising taxes on the "rich" would create economic activity.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 9:06 PM

Heading to OU/NU game tomorrow.

Since 1970:

OU 19 wins

NU 16 wins

Winner of this game has 9 National Championships.

RIP greatest rivalry of my time.

Not sure why NU wants to leave the Big 12 and give up all of the history. I guess it is because they are 1-9 against Texas. I have heard all the Texas league and Mack Brown controls the refs and Texas A&M cheated but if that is true and the Conference is all about Texas why is OU playing in its 8th Big 12 Championship game in the last 11 years?

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 9:10 PM

http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2010/...

I can buy this about OU/NU.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 9:24 PM

I have never understand why people always refer to Nebraska as NU. I went to school there and it is UNL.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 11:22 PM

@Sw I was referring to the site itself.

@ Wallis, Warren buffet also agrees that the highest rate cuts should be allowed to expire.

-- Posted by Damu on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 12:36 AM

Nebraska University back in the day.

I have been named as a Director of a Publicly traded company therefore I am going to stop posting my opinions on this site.

Good healthy debate is the cornerstone of this country. Keep it up. Sometimes we take it a little personal but that is only because we believe in what we are saying.

OU and UNL is a perfect way for me to retire.

Mike - the offer stands for a couple of OU tickets. If you ever want to go to a home game let me know.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 6:11 AM

Trust me Wallis I will keep you in mind in the future. It's a shame that for the time being Nebraska will not be traveling within the state of Oklahoma for football games. But the future still holds promise.

After all Arkansas and Texas A&M, old SWC opponents just finished the second year of a ten year schedule with each other.

Congratulations on your new position, best of luck with it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 6:21 AM

You know all we heard this past election season from the Republicans was that if they won they would listen to Americans before voting for any legislation. Why then, are they prepared to vote against 74% of the American population just to ensure that the rich get their tax cuts?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 6:44 AM

Great game and Great way to end the series. Good luck in the Big Ten Huskers.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Dec 4, 2010, at 11:51 PM

Another interesting tactic that the posters on here use in attacking those that don't agree with them. Attacking by proxy. I have to use myself as an example since this is my blog and most posts are directed at me.

The method in which they attack by proxy is attacking another poster but directing at me. There have been several posts on here attacking eddy but for some reason some of them have been directed at me.

I don't know eddy, he has his own ideas and his own way of discussing his ideas, but it is funny how some posters in going after him for what they feel are bad examples of liberal posters (remember I have been in the past accused of assuming to know the political leanings of some posters while those same posters assume eddy to be of a liberal leaning, though he has never actually stated what his political leaning is as far as I know) direct these posts at me and not at eddy.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 9:12 AM

Mike,

You are right, Eddy clearly has nothing to do with the left. He is obviously a republican, therefore proving yet again your point that the right use despicable tactics. He is part of all the THEY that you speak of in many of your posts.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 12:33 PM

I would say that you took me out of context Didymus, but considering that you took something I never said and added your own context to it to make it appear that I had said I'll just say you completely made it up.

All I said is that posters continuously assume that he is a liberal though he has never actually stated his political ideology. My point is that some of the posters that have declared him as a liberal are the same posters that take umbrage with me when I assume that a poster is a conservative.

My main point, which you ignored all together, was that when they are painting him as a liberal and a bad example of one they aren't pointing it at him but me.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 12:56 PM

Mike,

Im sorry, I assumed because you said I was using the tactics of the right when I was being rude to you, you would agree that Eddy was on the right because he was using annoying irrational statements to try and refute what the people that disagree with him are saying. My appologies, I misread the meaning of all you have said to me earlier.

"All I said is that posters continuously assume that he is a liberal though he has never actually stated his political ideology. My point is that some of the posters that have declared him as a liberal are the same posters that take umbrage with me when I assume that a poster is a conservative.

My main point, which you ignored all together, was that when they are painting him as a liberal and a bad example of one they aren't pointing it at him but me."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 12:56 PM

I am heartened by the fact that you are cognizant of the fact that people take umbrage when you assume. Hopefully you can connect their feelings with your feelings. Try and work on that empathy.

Make sure that they are pointing it towards you, though. And feel free to express how much that is unpleasant. Then, when you want to make some "THEY" statements linking all of one flavor of people, realize that people are individuals first. Its one of the universal ethical principles.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sun, Dec 5, 2010, at 5:28 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)