55 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

616 weeks ago @ - Obama, congressional d... · 0 replies · +1 points

Sorry pal. That was totally unintentional. I was quoting from memory and when I went back and checked it tonight after reading your comment, I was ashamed to admit that the estimate I was referencing was only 2 million. So I missed it by a third and when you're dealing with these kinds of numbers, that's a lot of people. Anyway, thank you for pointing out that Obama missed at least 1 - 2 million people on his doorstep, let alone several hundred thousand.

As for your claim of "unconstitutionality" concerning article VI and Bush Jr's alleged statement that he wouldn't choose anyone who isn't a Christian to be a Supreme Court judge, I won't call you a liar, as you did me. But I will say that you are mistaken my wacky liberal friend. Article VI clearly says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Saying your picks are going to be "Christians" is not the same as requiring a religious test you knucklehead...any more than saying your picks are going to be this, that, and/or the other thing. The prez can pick anyone he pleases or hadn't you noticed? Article VI doesn't even apply to the president. It applies to the legislature, since they are the ones who have to confirm the nominee in question. BTW, I really resent you calling me a Bush supporter. Why don't you just cuss me out and talk trash about my mother? That's pretty low, even for you..."Bush supporter." But it's not nearly as low as calling me a liar. I've been your friend a long time. I've had many, many heated discussions with you, most of them revolving around politics. And while I didn't agree with you the majority of the time, and in most cases I thought you had your facts screwed up, I have never called you a liar. That was a cheap shot, bro. Next time you want to call me a liar, why don't you just pick up the phone or come over. Then we can have it out face to face. That would be much better than coming in here after months of silence with both barrels blazing and leaving me this pissy comment.

Concerning your statement about the political power of those opposing president Obama, all I can say is you and the rest of the liberwocks are in for a rude awakening come November.

Oh, and your psych evaluation notwithstanding, if the content is so bad, why are you wasting time coming in here to read it, much less to comment? Don't bother visiting if that's how you truly feel, man. You'll be happier and so will we.

619 weeks ago @ - KILROY SAYS: You Can't... · 0 replies · +1 points

I like cheese!

645 weeks ago @ - Welfare falls short of... · 0 replies · +1 points

I have to respectfully disagree with you, Aaron. While your assertion that the poor have intrinsic worth is certainly worthy of merit; your logic that the poor exist solely as a means of "brownie points in heaven" doesn't follow from the writer's premise. You're putting words in his mouth. Spiritual benefit doesn't necessarily derive as some kind of treasure in heaven reward. There is such a thing as spiritual growth, which is played out in how we treat one another as individuals. This can only come through love expressed as an act of the will. This never happens by way of coercion, as you're advocating here.

I do believe that the sentiment you express is noble, but ultimately bankrupt, because it robs people of their autonomy, and their personal responsibility. What follows from that is a situation where people are made to support the poor (and anything else Uncle Sugar deems appropriate) on the basis of coercion. Such a system never produces the humanity we want.

Your assertion also assumes that it's the place of the state to provide this support for the poor a priori, and that the state is capable of being the best arbiter of truth when dealing with the poor. As such, your conclusion is erroneous. It was never the government's job to make love compulsory through the legislative power of the state. Moreover, the government has shown over and over again that is it utterly inept at providing this support in an effective manner.

It doesn't take much digging to see how this view of mandated charity has impacted our culture. Has it produced a heart change in those participating in this system? Are things much better in terms of the spiritual condition of the nation and thus our ability to help our fellow man? Are those who "benefit" from this system finding a way out of it or are they hopelessly dependent on it? The answers to these questions show us that such a philosophy doesn't work.

Good intentions aside, your view actually makes matters worse, because it robs people of their autonomy in the area of giving and replaces that autonomy with the weakest form of "charity" imaginable--one where man-made government is God, and Jesus is relegated to the philosophical scrap heap. Ironically, it is the latter who is the only one capable of producing the kind of world you and I both want.

645 weeks ago @ - THOR'S DAY RANT: Why b... · 0 replies · +1 points

Now you feel my pain. Five years of dealing with political nutroots has left me tired and burned out. I hate feeling powerless. But I hate being powerless even more. That's exactly what we are. To the elitist politicians we're nothing more than cattle. After seeing so many whacked out lefty cosmonauts singing We Are the World and chanting "Change" as the O Train pulled into the White House, I am tapped out. Maybe the politicians are right; we are cattle and as such, we deserve to be knocked in the head, slaughtered, and eaten.

The only hope I have left is Jesus coming back. It's either that or being abducted by aliens. Given the choice I'll opt for the former.

646 weeks ago @ - How To Beat A Conserva... · 0 replies · +1 points

Perhaps he's concentrating on the finger. It looks like he just took me seriously. That has happened a lot man, especially when I'm writing political satire. I guess I should take it as a complement when someone reads my satire and thinks it's for real. LOL.

Next time...

646 weeks ago @ - How To Beat A Conserva... · 0 replies · +1 points

Of course, it proves I'm wrong. That was the entire point. This little excursion was something I threw together to poke fun at liberals. It was done tongue-in-cheek. It looks like hyperbole, but it isn't, which makes even more humorous.

648 weeks ago @ - The short trip around ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Yes, and one can only guess at what Ms. Leavitt means by changes that support primary care physicians who don't earn as much as specialists.

648 weeks ago @ IntenseDebate Blog - Coming Soon to an Inte... · 0 replies · +2 points

And "they" said it couldn't get any better. Awesome job guys.

On a different note, I hate to post this here, but I'm not getting any response to my request for a donate button on your site through email. Anyway, what I mean can I give you money?

648 weeks ago @ - How To Beat A Conserva... · 0 replies · +1 points


'Bout damn time you said it.

Wasn't so hard was it? Now I'll be able to sleep tonight..hehehe

See you next time, then, pal.

648 weeks ago @ - How To Beat A Conserva... · 0 replies · +1 points

Well, the feeling is mutual, pal. And let me go further and say that I am so glad that we can have this discussion without everyone getting pissed off at each other. But I also gotta say that your way of going at this drives be bananas, man. Sometimes I think you do it just because it drives me bananas...LOL.

Anyway, I appreciate your attempt at clarifying this for me. I really do. And I don’t mean to be obtuse, but now I’m even more confused. This view simply makes no sense to me. I'm forced to ask what you mean when you call something "right." Isn't that the opposite of "wrong"? To reiterate from my perspective, you're correcting me and/or Ron. Why? Because we're "wrong," of course. Then you turn around and say you're not claiming to be right. After that you state: "No one's 'right' is universal." I'm wondering how you know that view is...well, right, seeing as how the statement is, itself, a universal truth claim, which fails to satisfy its own requirements. It’s a statement which commits suicide. It’s self refuting. Kind of like saying, “I can’t speak a word in English.” The moment you utter such a statement it commits hari kari. I mean, think about it; if no one's "right" is universal, then even your "right" can't be universal and self destructs. Moreover, if you're not right, then why should I listen to you when you chastise me for how I treat liberals? After all, you're just stating something which probably isn't right anyway....right? But since you can’t know that (the rightness of the supposition you put forth) then you had probably better not answer that. Otherwise, you’ll get impaled on the very truth, you claim is not true. Sorry, man. I just don’t get it. I’ve seen this tack lots of times before and I don’t think any of those trying to explain it to me have done a better, or more thorough job than you…But it is totally and completely lost on me. So, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Have a good one and talk to you later, bro.