text:
If the 49ers don't win on Saturday, the reason will be singular: Aaron Rodgers. Fortunately for the 49ers, Rodgers is having something of an off year–statistically, at least. His yards per attempt, completion percentage, touchdowns, totals yards, and so on pale in comparison to the gaudy numbers he put in 2011. And so, this begs the question: Is Rodgers not playing well?
Well, according to the well-respected (or so I've heard) senior producer of NFL Films, Greg Cosell, the answer is an emphatic yes. "I don't think Aaron Rodgers is playing particularly great football," Cosell told KNBR. "I think he's leaving an awful lot of plays on the field. I think he's indecisive and tentative in the pocket. He's not pulling the trigger on throws that are there."
Despite the fact that Rodgers is leaving a lot of plays on the field, Pro Football Focus still rates him as the best quarterback in the league. Among quarterbacks who've played at least 50% of offensive snaps, Rodgers ranks in the top-five in yards per attempt, completion percentage, and touchdowns thrown. He's also the most accurate passer in the NFL when drops and throw aways are accounted for.
In short, Aaron Rodgers is not playing great football, but he's still the best quarterback in the league. Let that sink in.
So how do the 49ers stop Aaron Rodgers, you ask? Well, to find out, we interviewed Monty McMahon, writer and editor of the highly-irreverent, and often polarizing Green Bay Packers blog, TotalPackers.com. As usual, in the interest of keeping your friends close and enemy closer, be sure to follow McMahon on Twitter: @TotalPackers.
East Bay Sports Guy (EBSG): Is there a way to stop Aaron Rodgers? I mean, when you blitz him, he picks you apart, completing 63.3% of his passes for 1219 yards and 17 touchdowns. When you don't blitz him, he still picks you apart, completing 68.7% of passes for 3349 yards and 23 touchdowns. You can sack him, a lot. But that doesn't seem to slow him down. So how do you stop him? How did Jacksonville in Week 8 and Detroit in Week 14 do it?
Monty McMahon (MM): For a while, teams were copying the blueprint the 49ers used in week 1 to beat the Packers — play two safeties deep and take away the big play. The adjustments the Packers made in the latter part of the season kind of brought back the 2011 offense. The game plan was changed to play underneath the cover 2 and the emergence of a running game also helped. Much like Adrian Peterson, I don't think there's really a way to stop a guy like Aaron Rodgers. His accuracy is the stuff of legend. Opposing defenses just have to limit the big play and put points on the board with their offense. Rodgers isn't mistake-prone and he doesn't get rattled. Like they used to say about Jordan, you don't stop him, you try to contain him.
EBSG: Randall Cobb has been quiet as of late, sitting out week 17's game due to injury and gaining on one catch on two targets in the wild-card round. In the team's first meeting, Cobb seemed like a focal point. He did after all have nine receptions on as many targets for 77 yards—61 of which came after the catch. What do you attribute his lack of involvement last week to and what role do you anticipate him having this week?
MM: I attribute it to two things. 1. Poor game planning, which Mike McCarthy is notorious for — he's the guy who gets the keys to a Ferrari and immediately goes out and crashes it into a light pole. 2. Greg Jennings. He missed half the season because of abdominal surgery before returning in week 13. It took a little while, but Jennings has reemerged as the focal point of the passing game. In week 16 he had seven catches and in week 17 he had eight. Last week, he had a team-high 61 yards receiving. That being said, Cobb has to be a factor going forward if the Packers are going to make a playoff run. He's their most dangerous offensive threat — can take it to the house anytime he touches the ball. The Packers have a lot of weapons, but I would expect Cobb to have no fewer than 10 targets this week. Some of those may come in the running game.
EBSG: DuJuan Harris is a good story and perhaps a better back. Is he a legitimate cure to the Packers' run game woes? If so, what is the difference between him and other flash in the pan—for lack of a better term—running backs (James Starks, Ryan Grant, and Brandon Jackson) the Packers have used in the recent past? How much better does he make the offense?
MM: He looks like the guy going forward and he should be. He runs hard and runs through people, which the Packers haven't had since Cedric Benson went down early in the year. One thing that's telling is, Alex Green has been healthy the past two weeks and hasn't touched the ball. Harris had been solid running the ball, but he was great as a receiver against the Vikings. He's also reliable picking up blitzers. I'm not sure if he's the long-term answer, but he looks like he's at least this year's James Starks. When the Packers went on their run in 2010, the then-unknown Starks carried the team at times during the playoffs. Harris is starting to look a lot like that guy.
Special thanks to Monty McMahon for participating. Stay tuned for McMahon's take on the Packers defense and on the infamous simultaneous catch.


text:
I was spoting at DEN Sat. afternoon, the winds were 340 @ 34 kts gusting 39 kts. Visibility was 1 and 1/2. All departing aircraft was using RWY 34 and landing 35 R. There were at least 10 aircraft waiting to take the active. My question is why was that the only RWY open for departures? I know the wind was straight down the RWY but why not 35L too? Is the crosswind component too much to handle.
Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)
©Copyright 2016 Demand Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Low and mighty
Movies | Bio flick fails to address Roman Polanski's sense of entitlement
The new documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired sets out to settle the score on director Roman Polanski's controversial 1977 rape trial. Polanski, a Polish survivor of the Holocaust, has lived a life as plagued by scandal and tragedy as distinguished by career accolades. While creating such lauded films as Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown, and The Pianist, Polanski's life has been turned upside down by his mother's death at the hands of the Nazis, his wife's murder at the hands of the Manson family, and the consequences of his sexual appetites.
A filmmaker in Poland and England, Polanski moved to America in the late '60s, where he was embraced by Hollywood and quickly took to the freewheeling lifestyle. He married actress Sharon Tate in 1968, but she was murdered a year later while eight months pregnant.
Known as a playboy before and after his marriage, Polanski's penchant for young girls caught up to him in 1977, when 13-year-old Samantha Gailey accused him of raping her during a photo shoot.
The film follows the strange events of the trial that followed, examining both the benefits and drawbacks of celebrity life. Polanski, who never felt he did anything inappropriate, negotiated a plea bargain for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. The film paints the judge, Laurence J. Rittenband, as obsessed with making a lesson of his famous defendant, no matter the rules of the law.
But while Wanted and Desired makes a fascinating study in celebrity and its negative effects, it does not address the sense of entitlement that Polanski seems to demonstrate throughout the proceedings. A wealthy, powerful man, he seemed to think that his high-priced lawyers would get him out of trouble. When it looked like they might fail, he fled the country.
Amid the intense pressures of public life, Polanski is as unbending as Judge Rittenband, unwilling to curb his wanton lifestyle and generally refusing to acknowledge the severity of what he's done.


text:
UK Law
Get UK Law Questions Answered by Verified Experts
I served the claim online and then sent the "particulars" to the defendant via the post.
Excellent. Thank-you. One last question for completeness:
Is there a time limit between lodging the claim online and sending the defendant the particulars of the claim?
I sent them within 24 hours. So probably got to them within 48 hours.
Do I also send the particualrs with the certificate to the court?
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided "as is". To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the "Verified" symbol in the Expert's profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).


text:
SEMENIUK firstname.lastname@example.com_county.london.london_free_press 2002-12-07 published
In loving memory of a dear wife and mother, Lillian Chubak, December Your memory is our keepsake,
With which we will never part,
God has you in His keeping,
We have you in our hearts.
Lovingly remembered each and every day, husband (Wasyl), daugher (Rose), son-in-law (Paul), family and Friends.
S... Names SE... Names SEM... Names Welcome Home
SEMENIUK firstname.lastname@example.com_county.london.london_free_press 2002-12-09 published
In loving memory of Lillian who passed away December 9, 1985.
Although your family struggles without you,
We keep your passion close,
Your memories will live forever,
With those who loved you most.
You are always in our hearts with love John and family.
S... Names SE... Names SEM... Names Welcome Home
SEMENIUK - All Categories in OGSPI
SEMMENS firstname.lastname@example.com_county.toronto.toronto_star 2002-12-03 published
SEMMENS, Gord (Sonny) -- In loving memory of a dear husband, father, grandfather and great grandfather who passed away December 3, 1992. Your presence we miss Your memories we treasure Loving you always, forgetting you never.
Forever remembered, Eunice, Ken, Sharon, Alysha, Peter, Rebeka, Sara and Jaedyn.
S... Names SE... Names SEM... Names Welcome Home
SEMMENS - All Categories in OGSPI
SEMPLE firstname.lastname@example.com_county.toronto.toronto_star 2002-12-31 published
CHARD, Thomas L. -- Passed away at his home in Alliston, Ontario on Monday, December 30, 2002 in his 96th year. Formerly of Islington, retired Conductor Canadian National Railway. Beloved husband of Bertha SEMPLE. Loved father of Elizabeth CHARD of Alliston and Patricia CHARD of Toronto. Loved Grandpa of Michael CHARD, Wanda SINCLAIR, Kerri and Sara WESTLAKE. Predeceased by his sisters Matilda BIRKETT and Elsie CHARD. Resting at the W. John Thomas Funeral Home, 244 Victoria St. E., Alliston on Thursday, January 2, 2003 from 10 a.m. until time of funeral service in the chapel at 11 a.m. Private interment St. George's on the Hill Cemetery, Toronto, Ontario. If so desired, memorial donations to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind - Barrie-Muskoka Branch would be appreciated.
S... Names SE... Names SEM... Names Welcome Home
SEMPLE - All Categories in OGSPI


text:
"Conservative" opinion leader jumps the shark
Ann Coulter, "conservative firebrand," is gaga over the very conservative individual mandate: "Three Cheers for RomneyCare."
All I can say by way of explanation is, this kind of risible sophistry could just be the body's natural reaction to having had Bill Maher's dick in it at some point.
Perhaps somebody might find her an ointment.
Comments (341)
I done tol' ya, the bitch is whack.
why doesn't she just move her bitch ass to Massachusetts and wallow in the wondermousness
Because she'd have to move away from all of her gay boy-toys in DC, silly.
Her family lives in Connecticut, so she can go to Massachusetts whenever she's up there anyway.
bleach affects the brain
Coulter Does RINO. Should be a pron flick.
I've seen pictures of her when she was in law school and she was healthier looking. There's thin and there's stick insect.
Sorry, every time I see Ann I can't help but think of Austin Powers.
"That's a man, bay-bee."
mittens buy them by the lot:
The name of the blogger in question who caused such outrage out there was…Rachel Abrams. That's right. As in Mrs. Elliott Abrams. In the course of this dust-up over Ms. Abrams and Rubin's re-tweeting of Abrams' views, the Washington Post itself received the predictable left-wing furies. Which in turn had the Post's Ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, answering for the paper. Deep in his reply, he reported:
Rubin said that she admires Abrams, has quoted her a lot, thinks she's an excellent writer and endorsed the sentiment behind the Abrams blog post.
Hmmm. There's something else. Ms. Rubin came to the Post from Commentary, edited by the great John Podhoretz. A decided fan of Ms. Rubin's, John wrote this nice tribute to Rubin when she departed.
The something else? John's half-sister is….Rachel Abrams. All of which — the Rubin re-tweeting Abrams controversy, the Rubin stint at Commentary run by Rachel Abrams' half-brother, the warm feeling from John about Rubin and Rubin's admiration for Rachel hints at… gasp… actual friendship between Rubin and Rachel Abrams. If not a tie to Elliott Abrams himself.
Jeez. Who are the incestuous hicktards again?
It might just be me, but I am on pins& needles waiting for Anns pitch for cap and trade.
Is that article written in English?
…libertarian Ronald Bailey praised mandated private health insurance in Reason magazine, saying that it "could preserve and extend the advantages of a free market with a minimal amount of coercion."
Because there are a bunch of words in there that apparently don't mean what I thought they meant at all.
This week's Ricochet podcast features Mark Levin, who refudiates some of the justifications for Romneycare.
It's one of their better podcasts. And it's free.
TheRightScoop grabs Levin's dicing up Coulter.
The left throws pies. The right throws facts.
The right eats pies, is what.
I am really starting to think that parody blog about Ann meeting that guy at the LA Farmer's market is not a parody.
Tallking about parodies, The Donald is endorsing tomorrow. Probably Newt but who knows. http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/02/donald-trump-to-endorse.html I doubt this helps or hurts, provided The Donald is not endorsing himself to run as a third party.
I just listened to Mark Levin take Coulter apart on that link sdferr provided.
He totally eats her lunch.
Not that she offered up a whole barrel of slow fish, but really, she's much better at argumentation than this.
Not sure what's got into her, and I think I don't want to know.
OT but the blue on blue violence is getting really fun to watch
Whatever the reason, it has outraged members of Congress like Colorado's Rep. Diana DeGette, a Democrat.
"I don't see two groups at war with each other," DeGette said. "I see the Komen Foundation declaring war on women's health."
health midgets, more like.
National Soros Radio is riding herd on the apostate Komen people.
They must submit or die.
@ 18 Always wondered what happened to Karen Handel. She should have been Governor of Georgia instead of Nathan Deal.
OT: But hopefully of interest.
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who withdrew from the Republican race in August after finishing third in the Iowa straw poll, raised more than $400,000 in the fourth quarter, whittling his campaign debt to $102,911 — little more than double the $46,268 he had in the bank as of Dec. 31. He raised $5.9 million last year for his campaign.
Pawlenty received financial help from Romney, whom he endorsed in September, and Romney's wife, Ann. They contributed the maximum $2,500 each, as did 11 other Romney family members.
Pingback: A new low » Cold Fury
Pingback: The Doug Kmiec of the 2012 Election Cycle (Updated) « The Cranky Conservative
I'd say that Coulter's problem has more to do with the affect fear (in this case, fear of four more years of Obama) has on reason, than any physiological, mental or emotional trauma arising from her poor relationship skills.
A lot of anti-Obama hysteria going around lately.
"I see the Komen Foundation declaring war on women's health."
Love it. Not giving me your money = declaring war on me.
Jeff Goldstein has declared war on me! Unprovoked! An imperialist war of choice and occupation!
I'm starting to think this whole national implosion thing is going to end up being fun. So many people do so deserve it.
Santorum gets an endorsement from Sharon Angle
She didn't win in 2010, but this might make some of the NV Tea Partiers take notice.
Hell, not war on PP… war on "women's health". I didn't even catch that.
Of course "women's health" = Planned Parenthood.
Not giving Planned Parenthood money = female genital mutilation.
Maybe that's why Ann Coulter is crazy. She didn't give Planned Parenthood money so now her mental health has deteriorated.
Coulter's crazy because she's a lawyer. Once she takes a position she can't be argued off of it. She has to be ruled against.
See Spades, Ace of.
'Risible'… hmmm.. Now there's a word you don't hear everyday.. Thanks.
(programming that into my Droid spellcheck..)
A lot of anti-Obama hysteria going around lately.
It is warranted.
I'm starting to think this whole national implosion thing is going to end up being fun. So many people do so deserve it.
And Bill Maher's dick —–> probably smartest part of him.
It's not exactly productive bigbooner.
Not productive. Like referring to people as Romneybots? Or perhaps saying that Obama is not the enemy? I see a lot of comments that I don't consider productive but I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. Obama makes me hysterical.
I was surprised about Coulter's early "coming out" in favor of Romney. It seems in contrast to alot of the things she's been saying over the past few years. Something has convinced her but listening to her, I can't really figure out what, other than she thinks he can win. On the other side of that spectrum, I can't understand alot of the endorsements for Gingrich from politicians I like and/or respect- Palin, Cain, Thompson etc.
I echo bigbooner's sentiments by the way, except I'd pick "incredibly angry" as my adjective for how Obama makes me. Also "poorer" and "depressed" would be applicable. There's a decent piece over on HotAir written by Mitch Berg which tries to put things in perspective for the "Not Romney/We're staying home" crowd and its worth a read.
Matt, the only reason I used the term "hysterical" is that someone else referred to anti-obama hysteria. I would agree with the term "incredibly angry" to accurately describe how I feel about Obama. I agree with a lot of your posts.
The Daily Caller has a great piece of work on Holder hiding another fiasco that I'm sure will lead all the network newscasts tonight.
Reached for comment, Pelletier refused to back up the allegations. "I'm not in a position to comment on the existence or non-existence of a federal investigation," Pelletier said when TheDC presented him with the facts of the case. "But, what I've just heard sounds kooky and implausible."
Kooky and implausible? Like a plan to give guns to warlords and follow the dead bodies in order to
erode the 2nd amendmentunderstand the drug smuggler network?
Mr. Berg I don't see how electing Wall Street Romney is my problem exactly it would seem to be more of a Wall Street Romney problem
Obama isn't the enemy. Statism is the enemy. Mitt Romney is a technocratic administrator. He doesn't want to limit the State, he wants to master it.
Mitt Romney's playing for the other team, but too many are too scared, angry, and/or depressed to see that.
Ann Coulter likes to be on teevee where she can toss her hair and accuse others of prattling while she says inflammatory things.
She seems to have washed up on the shores of O'Reilly and Hannity's shows.
Other than her devotees, I haven't heard of anyone taking her as a serious pundit for a number of years.
That would be because she's a polemicist, not a pundit.
She certainly is that. I'm glad I never bothered to buy any of her books.
I bought one but I'll toss it when I redo the shelves it's on
How ironic, that for love of Mittens, Ann joins a mob demonic.
Mr. Schreiber says that Obama isn't the enemy. If that is the case then what have the people on here been bitching about for three years? He is certainly an enemy. If someone wishes to identify more enemies/causes have at it. Mr. Schreiber can take on statism if he wishes but I would prefer to tackle the Obama issue first.
You fight your battle, bigbooner; I'll fight my war.
bigbooner, I would urge you to read through the archival posts on language and intentionalism that are pinned on the left. Obama is but a lever of the left.
definite and indefinite articles are SO bothersome sometimes
Yes Obama is an enemy.
And Romney is not a friend.
The problem isn't health insurance mandates. The problem isn't Romneycare. The problem isn't welfare reform. The problem is
Democrats.the Ruling Class. Fixed that for you Ann.
Let me put it this way,
Unlike Ann Coulter, I have no interest in becoming a pre-mature anti-Statist Republican.
Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
That was Robert Heinlein describing the Enemy, back in 1973. Obama would have been about 12 years old.
You fight your battles, and I'll fight my war.
Well I appreciate that you will let me fight my battle because I was beginning to think that I shouldn't be fighting that battle. And now I find out that Obama is indeed an enemy. That's one battle won. Leigh I would urge you to read what I was arguing about with Mr. Schreiber. I wonder if your comment was "productive" (please refer to post #33.
Don't bother arguing with Ernst. He's like Eeyore.
Statism is the enemy
Obama is a Statist
Obama is an enemy
Romney is a Statist
Romney is ????
wrong jackass leigh
And now I find out that Obama is indeed an enemy. That's one battle won.
The battle for reading comprehension is never truly won.
Mr. Schreiber says that Obama isn't the enemy. If that is the case then what have the people on here been bitching about for three years? He is certainly an enemy.
My bold, obviously.
Robert Heinlein was too kind to the controllers.
Enemies. Opponents. Adversaries. Counterparts. How many of each can dance on the head of a pin?
Ernst, liebchen, I would never call you something bad. I meant you are reather a gloomy gus most times.
I realize that your coming from an "anybody but Obama" position bigbooner, whereas I'm arguing for anybody but Obama to the right of Mitt Romney (and maybe Newt Gingrich, depending on the whim's of Newt and the day of the week).
But tell me, what exactly is it that you think a Romney administration is going to produce?
Ann Coulter, "conservative firebrand," is gaga…
Ann Coulter is GaGa? Everything suddenly makes so much more sense!
That's how I took it leigh, and my answer is the same as before:
wrong jackass (jackass being a bit of self-deprecating humor)
#56 should be read with only 30% obnoxious snark. The rest is just a boring restatement of a simply truism.
Well, I'll just call you "Muley" which was my youngest son's nickname when he was a toddler.
simple -> simply
I don't think it matters to you what I say about what the Romney administration is going to produce. I think you have made up your mind about that already. I am not an advocate for Romney I am an advocate for a non Obama. Now I realize for some on here that seems like an unsophisticated stance and might make me unworthy of joining the club. I get the whole big picture thing and the war vs. the battle but a war usually starts with one battle and my battle right now is to evict the momo who presides in the White House.
I am not an advocate for Romney I am an advocate for a non Obama. Now I realize for some on here that seems like an unsophisticated stance
No, it's a self-contradictory stance. The guy who drives the school bus in my neighborhood would make a better president than Obama — but he'll never be president any more than His Electable Inevitableness ever will be.
There's a decent piece over on HotAir written by Mitch Berg which tries to put things in perspective for the "Not Romney/We're staying home" crowd and its worth a read.
Stuff it. You're not talking about that "10 things to do if you're Anyone But Romney" and all 10 things are basically "change your mind"?
I hate that bastard for wasting my time by writing that.
I get the whole big picture thing and the war vs. the battle but a war usually starts with one battle and my battle right now is to evict the momo who presides in the White House.
By replacing him with a white guy who's otherwise very similar?
And if you want to say that's only because we unhelpful Visigoths won't support him, well, it isn't like we haven't been up front about it. The Electability Nazis simply refused to listen and convinced themselves that Romney would get more votes than the proverbial syphilitic camel.
He won't. We told you so back in 2010. You didn't listen. You assumed we were just saying it for love of our own voices.
Words mean things.
So McGehee you think that school bus driver has a better shot at getting elected? That is nonsensical and I think you probably know that. I see the wagons circling.
#56 should be read with only 30% obnoxious snark.
Only 30% bh? Isn't your usual quotient of snark much higher?
After the 2012 election, the HoR will likely stay in Repub hands. The Senate may shift to Repub hands.
Which is more likely to produce more onerous government interference with citizens: An opposition Executive branch, or a Repub Executive branch?
Which is more likely to produce more onerous government interference with citizens: An opposition Executive branch, or a Repub Executive branch?
Honestly, history would suggest divided government is better government.
This primary season has been draining my snark reserves at a furious pace, Ernst. I must conserve my precious bodily snark if I'm to make it through.
And maybe take some zinc supplements.
That depends on who
controls(at the head of —nobody controls the bureaucracy*) the Executive branch, doesn't it?
*That's part of the problem too.
Actually bigbooner, I think McGeehee was saying the Mitt Romney has no more chance of being elected POTUS than his neighborhood school bus driver.
I am not an advocate for Romney I am an advocate for a non Obama. Now I realize for some on here that seems like an unsophisticated stance
No, that's a very sophisticated stance. Sophisticated = pragmatic. Unsophisticated = true believer purists who want 4 more years of Obama because they refuse to back who they're told to back by people who keep sending them people to back who don't represent them.
Yeah I got that and it is nonsensical. I think Vegas might have better odds on Romney than the bus driver.
Well, I'll just call you "Muley"
Call me whatever you like leigh. I was just curious if you'd pick up on my allusion.
Think of it as a conservative/classical liberal IQ test of a sort.
And I think Obama can lose the election to Romney, but Romney can't win it.
It's a subtle but important distinction.
I guess I fail, since all I can come up with off the top of my head is Texas Hold 'em.
The important thing is that we get rid of Obama. What's way, way less important is replacing Obama with something good. Who needs something good, when you can having something that's more efficient, more competent, and more good-natured in its badness?
Jeff, you should change your legal name to "Not Obama" and get on the ballot. I guarantee if "Not Obama" were a choice, it would get more votes than Obama and Romney combined.
The only thing I would fear from you as President would be a propensity to dispense mushroom bruises to the WH Press Corps(e). 'Coz nobody needs to see that while they're eating dinner.
And I think Obama can lose the election to Romney, but Romney can't win it.
Coming this November, a thrilling, Winner-Take-All Battle Royale to see which party can get the highest percentage of their base to say "Fuck it, I'm not voting for either of these assholes!"
I guess I fail, since all I can come up with off the top of my head is Texas Hold 'em.
So all that I know you've worked really hard to become sane but you need to find your insanity again was wasted, huh? I too oblique. Good to know.
John, they have a "no enemies to the Left" rule. We don't.
And even if we did have a "no enemies to the Right" rule, it still wouldn't save Romney.
Ernst, if it has anything to do with sci-fi or fantasy books and movies, I'm lost. I never read or watch them.
I've never considered dystopian speculative fiction or polical allegory to be part of the sci-fi/fantasy genres.
What does Dewey say?
Which Dewey? John Dewey?
Melvil Dewey. I know jack all about him except his organizational skills were awesome.
John Dewey said a lot of stuff since he was very prolific and lived to be almost 100.
Jeff G. posted on2/2 @ 11:30 am
I am not an advocate for Romney I am an advocate for a non Obama. Now I realize for some on here that seems like an unsophisticated stance
No, that's a very sophisticated stance. Sophisticated = pragmatic. Unsophisticated = true believer purists who want 4 more years of Obama because they refuse to back who they're told to back by people who keep sending them people to back who don't represent them.
This looks suspiciously like the kind of argument that the left uses.
Ernst Schreiber posted on2/2 @ 11:38 am
And I think Obama can lose the election to Romney, but Romney can't win it.
It's a subtle but important distinction.
Right. And New England didn't win that game Baltimore lost it.
The battle rages on!
I feel like an Egyptian soccer player.
How's the Left stand with tu quoque?
I really want to sockpuppet as Lee Evans or Billy Cundiff right now.
Your quest for a not Obama is going to get you an Obama in all but name.
But hey, he's not Obama! The R next to his name is gravy!
(And Baltimore missed the field goal, didn't they?)
How's the Left stand with tu quoque?
They own it.
Feels like we're in a town with two restaurants. The "Big D" restaurant on the left side of the street only serves turds on a poison ivy salad. Right beside it (SWIDT?) is the "Olde R" restaurant. They only serve sugar-dusted turds on a poison ivy salad.
We're being told that unless we patronize the "Olde R", it will close its doors and the whole town will be stuck eating turds and poison ivy.
Excuse me, but I think I'll eat at home.
people are more than welcome to vote for Wall Street Romney if they want to
What if you only have turds in your refrigerator and cupboards? Do you have way to make them taste better?
I think that counts for a win for New England unless they rename the team The Obama Patriots.
Sure you can make the turds taste better. Doesn't make it good for you.
But you go ahead and join the Clean Plate Club. Because the GOP told you to. Good boy.
Oh, come now. I could have made that kick.
I've always said the dirty little secret of the right is that while they purport to fight the tyranny of the federal government, it's only to relieve the state governments of competition in their pursuit of tyranny.
So the new meme by which the Republicans will attempt to attract the left will be socialized medicine via the states:
It appears Coulter got the memo.
Hey pubs, the left never even notices when you appease them, much less gives you credit. Bono's graciousness to Bush the Second regarding AIDS policy was an anomaly.
I've always found states "rights," (the term should be "powers") to be a suspect political line. Unless we limit state governments' reach as much as we would the federal's, tyranny is the result. I believe the Constitutional guarantee of "a republican form of government" in each state was intended to address this concern. Modern conservatives' federalism makes little concession to individual rights.
This looks suspiciously like the kind of argument that the left uses.
I think he just called us Alinskyites.
DarthLevin posted on2/2 @ 1:00 pm
Sure you can make the turds taste better. Doesn't make it good for you.
But you go ahead and join the Clean Plate Club. Because the GOP told you to. Good boy.
I figured we would get to the insult stage at some point. If I were a cartoon character in South Park I might tell you to suck my balls. The GOP didn't tell me to do anything and frankly when you say stupid shit like that it's like listening to Joy Behar or Bill Maher.
Entropy posted on2/2 @ 1:04 pm
This looks suspiciously like the kind of argument that the left uses.
I think he just called us Alinskyites.
I did not address my comment towards you. This reminds me of the jocks hanging around the main hall and waiting for the nerd to walk by so they could protect their turf. Doesn't anyone ever have different opinions on here? I know they do because I have read this site everyday for over the past five years. Lordy shit, do you think you can win every argument with people? Maybe I will head out to the casino and some of you folks can pat each other on the back. What is that old saying? If you have 10 people in a meeting and they all agree with each other then you have 9 too many people there.
Don't take it personally, bigbooner. They do the same thing to everyone. It's kind of like hazing.
Right. And New England didn't win that game Baltimore lost it.
I think the distinction is a clear one… the same one that meant that Bill Clinton never did get a majority of the vote, while Bush (eventually) did. (In '04, in case you need to have that spelled out for you. A point on which I remain uncertain.)
Too much nuance, I suspect.
More to the point, there is a difference between "we scored points, despite their best efforts to stop us" and "our defense sucked just a little less than theirs did, so we ended up losing fewer points to them than they lost to us". Just ask the coach.
If I were a cartoon character in South Park I might tell you to suck my balls.
You might. I might comply depending on my mood and level of boredom. Or not. Maybe if the conventional wisdom was, "Gargle a testicle to punish Obama!" there's be a bunch of spittle-covered sacks out there. (Oooo! Tea-bagger reference!)
Ya know, I thought about stealing South Park's turd sandwich / giant douche analogy from 2004 but I couldn't get a good link to the video.
Drumwaster posted on2/2 @ 1:18 pm
Right. And New England didn't win that game Baltimore lost it.
I think the distinction is a clear one… the same one that meant that Bill Clinton never did get a majority of the vote, while Bush (eventually) did. (In '04, in case you need to have that spelled out for you. A point on which I remain uncertain.)
Too much nuance, I suspect.
Oh yes. Sweet Jesus. I have finally met a true intellect. Oh thank you so much for explaining that to me. It is actually pretty sad that you had to use your twisted logic to get through the Bill Clinton thing. It must be hard for you to say "Clinton won".
Too much nuance, I suspect. If you are uncertain of anything it should certainly not be your smugness.
Now with the Clinton stuff…I'd recommend application of the first rule of holes in this instance.
BTW, Baltimore did lose that game in the last 20 seconds, first via a yound tight end allowing a certain TD to be batted out of his hands (which, as an aside, I've read several opinions that it was indeed a TD due to 2 steps and a football move-whatevz) and then a missed kick.
Oh, I forgot; best of luck at the casino.
The Alinskyite thing was a joke referencing a Gabriel Malor post over at Ace of Spades HQ that's come up in several thread's.
Alinskyite is in the process of joining pragmatist, purist, Hobbit, Visigoth, and that oldy but a goody, money grubber in the PW lexicon of f(sh)ame, and is'nt anything to get defensive over.
I understand that removing Obama is sufficient for you. For me, as for others around here, it isn't. I see no point, for example, in replacing Obama with a President who's plan for the gross overreach and abuse of power that is ObamaCare is to substitute 50 ObamaCares.
Electing Romney is tantamount to restoring the Eisenhower era concensus: Democrats own the government and are there to grow it; Republicans are junior partners who are there to try to keep that growth within limits. That paradigm ceased to work in the 70s, and I'm not interested in bringing it back so it can continue to not work.
I think Vegas might have better odds on Romney than the bus driver.
Let's just ask Vegas who has the best odds and declare him the president.
Bob, point of clarification: It wasn't a young TE who had a TD swatted away, it was an old WR (Lee Evans, late of the Buffalo Bills).
The crazy thing about calling Romney "not Obama" is that the result is to ask voters unhappy with Obama to replace the man with someone who effectively represents all the same things.
If Romney gets the nod, Obama will win for lack of opposition.
Well gosh McGehee you seem to have the inside info on Romney not being able to beat Obama. I guess you must have the inside info.
The crazy thing about calling Romney "not Obama" is that the result is to ask voters unhappy with Obama to replace the man with someone who effectively represents all the same things.
Well, they're only unhappy that he's in over his head and plays too much golf, not with anything he's done. (Except maybe spending the first two years of his Presidency on health care reform instead of on the economy —but he's focused now— and besides, it's a problem of prioritization, not of policy) And BOOOSH! is the one who fucked it all up anyways.
If Romney gets the nod, Obama will win for lack of opposition.
Certainly a fair number of his policies will. And this time, they'll be bipartisan. So Mitt's got that going for him.
Dear diary, today I met the swellest group of guys and gals on this site called Protein Wisdom. Wow I haven't been this excited since I got the January edition of Teen Beat with Fabian on the cover. Anyway, this group has offered to help me better understand adult stuff. They use terms like GOP establishment(at first I thought that might be a castle or something but then I figured it has to be a new malt shop) and are quick to help me understand some of the stuff my parents won't talk about. I asked a couple of questions and they told me that until I get to sit at the big people table at Thanksgiving (instead of the card table) I should just zip my lips. They really are fab and I have had several other offers to do things that I really don't understand (like be more "nuanced" and try to see the big picture). Nuanced is a funny word isn't it? One last thing. It's really strange but they have these pictures on this funny screen where people write stuff and there are people with cowboy hats and kittens and coyotes and flowers and I am so confused. I mean are these people writing these things or are the kittens and other stuff writing them? Oh well, that is one of the things I will sure and ask about tomorrow. The end
Oh wait. I just have to mention that I haven't been this excited since I saw Bobby Rydell at the carnival that one time. I just wish I had been wearing my new pedal pushers that day. That was just neato psycheeto.
And besides, who's gonna get hysterical over anything a colorless, milquetoast moderate technocrat like Mitt Romney is likely to do? Why, after four years of excitement-filled Change that was hopeful as well as historical, Mitt Romney seems like just what the doctor would order!
Unless you're going to start telling your diary about the boutique designer cupcakes you got to try over your lunchbreak, the whiny-bitch act isn't going to get you very far.
Boonie, people vote for the real thing, not the phony. That's why Romney can't beat Obama.
Romney not electable unless he dumps Romneycare.
Romneycare a mess.
geoffb, that second link is befouled. Here's a do-over.
King: How do you account for the fact that his [Obama's ed.] popularity stays high?
Romney: I know that people recognize that this is a man who is a decent fellow. He's intelligent. He's well-intentioned. He's just not experienced in the matters that we're dealing with right now.
King: The latest polls say you are the leader to get the party's nomination the next time around. Others say it's Rush Limbaugh leading the party. Is he the head of your party?
Romney: He's a very powerful voice among conservatives. And I listen to him. A lot of other people listen to him. He's not a spokesman for the party, of course. But we don't have one spokesman right now.
King: You are apparently [leading] in recent polls …
Romney: Kind of early, don't you think?
King: Are you going to run again?
Romney: I can't imagine making that decision at this point.
King: But you're going to run again.
Romney: No, I don't think [so]. I'm glad that you're so insistent.
King: What did you make of Gov. [Sarah] Palin?
Romney: Boy, she was able to connect with our party in a very powerful way, ignite a lot of enthusiasm and excitement. That kind of political skill is rare. I hadn't met her before the announcement that she was going to be our VP nominee.
And I thought, boy, she's going to have a tough time up there on the stage at the Republican convention. Was I wrong. She got out there and just lit the place up.
Moderation March 2009.
That was Frankie Avalon on the January cover.
Thanks sdferr. I shouldn't have used the owly shortened one that was in the nav-bar.
Hey now! Their phony almost won in '04, didn't he?
Oooh, ouch; thanks for straightening me out John.
Well, while I take a moment to wipe the egg off my face, perhaps I should stipulate that during that moment I recounted in medias res, I was feverishly praying:) And there are some young TEs on the Ravens that, while promising, have been a little butterfingered throughout the year.
Still, in a meta kind of way the comparison holds.
Perhaps my prayers will be answered on a different timeline anyway, and Tuck, Kiwanuka, and Pierre-Paul will spend the afternoon nestling Brady in their embrace :)
Not for the revenge factor, to be sure, but because my wife is a RABID! Jeyentzzz fan
My apologies and regards to all!
Just see to it she doesn't bite you Bob.
We have an incumbent who is one of the least popular, least liked, and least competent Presidents in history. Should be a sitting duck, but Republican fanbois are having to grovel and publicly humiliate themselves to get people to vote for their candidates.
Your party isn't just broken, booner, its a smoking pile of rubble.
It's not our fault.
"They use terms like GOP establishment"
how about "beltway insiders" can you understand dat?
Forget it, B. Moe, newrouter; waste of time.
We gave him the high hat and now he's gone.
Fancy Pants! Alls of us!
Sheesh. No one even called him a troll or told him to fuck off like y'all did to me.
I guess I'm made of sterner stuff.
Coulter on O'Reilly just now, explaining that Mitt's not going to be a standard bearer for conservatives; his peeps/surrogates will have to do it.
No shit.
She's really making the rounds today. She was on Hannity's radio show this afternoon, but I turned it to something else.
his peeps/surrogates will have to do it.
So the same ones who slimed the conservatives will also have to be the ones to kiss it and make it all better while Mitt floats high above the dirty, nasty fray? Like that'll work.
"Kiss it and make it all better".
Looks like, with the nomination "inevitable", they are already on damage control, geoff.
leigh, et al., I'm a noob here, just like Mr. Bigwhatever. Can y'all just get it over with and tell me to fuck off? The suspense is killing me.
3, 2, 1, . . .
My 138 was more addressing the idea we seriously need to consider a replacement for the Republican Party, it was just inspired by boonhead.
I really think the current party is just plain too fucked up to fix.
amen, B. Moe.
Hey Red! Fuck off! Or buy a round. Whichever. Mebbe we'll let you have some pie.
Meet you at Hemenways, Pablo!
I thought the Reform Party might have gained some traction. Didn't happen. Third party is a long, hard and usually unfruitful slog. And both parties suck like Hoover couldn't have imagined.
We're gonna hit the wall, kids. I'm bored of waiting for it, and anxious to see what the wreckage looks like so I can start figuring out what to do with it.
What if you only have turds in your refrigerator and cupboards? Do you have way to make them taste better?
Why would I only keep turds in my refrigerator and cupboard?
See? That's what I mean by playing by the other team's rules.
Can y'all just get it over with and tell me to fuck off? The suspense is killing me.
Say something obnoxiously stupid and/or egregiously insulting.
I'm disinclined to use "third party" talk Pablo, not just on rhetorical grounds, so much as the two existing parties aren't a dimes worth different from one another. So to the extent that's the case, any new party would only be a second.
This looks suspiciously like the kind of argument that the left uses.
Yeah, that's me in a nutshell.
Then there's that, sdferr. Which again leads to my conclusion.
The Dems are hopeless. The GOP is worth flogging into acting according to the principles it supposedly holds if for no other reason than to pass the time…until we hit the wall. It seems it's still a bit like playing the lottery. Fun while you're doing it, but ultimately a letdown.
Now, for the full, money's worth experience call out JD.
Try telling him your from Tennesee, you play the flute, you like to draw pictures of naked women with pointy ears, and you hope Peyton Manning never takes another snap again.
I still think the OUTLAW party would sell.
Platform: Get the fuck off my lawn!
OK, Ernst, I'll give it a try: JD, I spent time on the Tennessee/Kentucky border at Ft. Campbell, I play bass in and old-folks' garage band, I like naked women, and Tom Brady rules.
Ooh, no. You don't want to rile up JD. Don't mention cats and paella. Not ever.
Jeff, I would buy a yard sign from you that said that.
Before you know it, Peyton Manning will be playing for the Arizona Cardinals.
Well, Jeff, your platform certainly encapsulates the concept of property rights.
And then, if you add the "Get off my lawn" from Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino, backed up by an M-1 Garand, you cover both the First and Second Amendments.
I think you've hit on something.
you know Pablo sometimes politicians have certain religious beliefs that maybe you don't share but if they have good ideas about what America needs to do to return to a path of prosperity and away from this ruinous path of debt and centrally planned unfreedom
… you just need to roll with it
Here's my advice: if you believe it in our country's best interest to vote for Romney, if only to rid us of Obama, do it. I've argued for years leading up to this why I believe that argument to be fundamentally flawed, and so I've decided that, should Romney win the nomination, the GOP has left me, and I won't be voting for Romney to make that new alignment clear.
This being my site, I've made my arguments, and I'll continue to do so. But you are all adults with votes of your own to do with as you please.
We are at a crossroads. And how we get where we're going matters. To me, at least.
I think we have to suck it up and vote for Romney Mr. Jeff
I understand why people are loathe to do so though
We are at a crossroads. And how we get where we're going matters. To me, at least.
Yes, we are at a crossroads. Where are we going though? Are we going to have to blow it all up to start over again? Can that be done? I don't know. I don't know at all.
I can't vote for Romney, though. Well, I could, but I couldn't look at myself in the mirror.
Do you see one of those out there, 'feets?
I'd mention one that comes to mind, but it would probably cause a thread derailing reaction and she ain't running.
mostly I see Obama Mr. Pablo – and he is baleful and malignant
Sarah Palin you mean! Bless her heart I sure gave her a hard time. But now everyone needs to work together and we all have our part to play.
Isn't Santorum promising to do all those same things when he isn't getting derailed by the abortion fetishists?
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream–the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."
The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.
Santorum makes a lot of the right noises, but I don't see him going to DC swinging a meat axe. He's by far the best of what's left. I doubt he'd get the ship turned around, but he might be able to stop it as opposed to just slowing it down, which would be a nice opportunity for people to take a look around and see where the hell we are.
"Half a loathe is better than O!" it is, then.
"by the abortion fetishists?"
says the worshiper of baal
59. McGehee posted on2/2 @ 10:31 am
Enemies. Opponents. Adversaries. Counterparts. How many of each can dance on the head of a pin?
Better to ask "how many can dance on the point of a bayonet" because I fear that's what it will come to….
well said Mr. guins
well said indeed
Pablo, I also don't see Santorum going the distance. He can be a nasty, snipey mofo, but I don't think he can rally enough Sharks or Jets around him in a rumble.
I'm willing to settle for someone who can cut the throttle until we get our bearings again. I'm willing to settle for someone who can read a map and not go all Captain Bligh on us for a few years.
Baal? Where did you get that idea, nr?
"Where did you get that idea, nr?"
oh your flippant attitude toward killing humans
my goodness aren't you the obstreperous one
"by the abortion fetishists"
yea folks into human sacrifice. go maya 2012
Oh, that's nonsense, nr and you know it.
"when he isn't getting derailed by the abortion fetishists?"
the right to live ain't fundamental.
OT sort of.
Been thinking about the mess we are in what with the spenders and the class warfare promoters and the foreign policy zealots, but mostly i have been projecting what will come once the ground thaws and the OWwies make their grand reappearance.
And it dawned on me what a funny little world we live in.
In Atlanta, the Owwies took over Woodruff Park, named after a Coca Cola magnate, who not only was a noted philanthropist but also employed Herman Cain's father as his driver. Woodruff bestowed upon the Cain's some Coca Cola stock which helped pay young Herman's way through college and onto a career that made him arguably a 1%'er himself.
Funny how the circle goes around.
Wish Herman was still running.
And then i was thinking about the uproar that came when Obama was referred to as the food stamp president. And it is true that more people are on foodstamps than at any other time in our history, but it is also true that Stanley Dunham collected foodstamps for a while when Barack was young. I do not recollect any other president having that in their biography.
And Barack is no doubt a 1%'er.
And maybe that is what makes this country great . That we can rise from humble beginnings and profit from hard work and recognizing opportunities knock.
I was talking about the people who don't think life is a gift. That don't ever ask him about anything else, unless it's homos.
You're going to hurt yourself jerking your knees like that.
"You're going to hurt yourself jerking your knees like that."
you do the same not making your argument simple and clear.
Oh for pete's sake. As oblique as people like to be on here, I am pretty damned clear.
I'm making a drink
"I am pretty damned clear."
the "abortion fetishists" are who exactly?
abortion for the cure!
green tea and coke
"abortion for the cure!"
baal for the win
"I was talking about the people who don't think life is a gift."
romney chick: always reframing stupid comments.
You're reading comprehension is poor. I can't stand Romney.
"You're reading comprehension is poor. I can't stand Romney."
establishment/inside the beltway/stupid peeps chick…..
I think we have to suck it up and vote for Romney Mr. Jeff
In your case that's probably a good idea: you flip flop as often as he does.
newrouter, in this case if leigh had meant that as a slight on Santorum, she would have said something like "lifeydoodle." "Abortion fetishists" means the people who make a fetish out of abortion.
Mr. Ernst it's time we forged a path what leads us beyond the wintry clutches of fail and rape
towards a new season, however inchoate and romney-laden it may be
America deserves it you deserve it I deserve and also capitalism deserves it and freedom
i deserve *it* I mean
cause I do
Romney arguably would have been the right person 4 years ago.
Now is a different time.
I say we veto proof the house and senate and let ron paul wreak havoc on the bureaucracies. Just make sure we have grownups at State and Defense.
"means the people who make a fetish out of abortion"
the original "americans" liked to throw virgins in a volcano or sumthing. go baal.
spitting in a wishing well
blown to hell
Mitt's the last splash
history belongs to those who show up
Romney arguably would have been the right person 4 years ago.
Now is a different time.
Romney was the right person four years ago. That's part of what makes him the wrong person now.
wax on wax off Romney's coming for your bitch ass Obama you can't run you can't hide
Vielen dank, Ernst.
Yes, Romney was the right guy last time. This time, not so much.
Who'll save the Christmas this time? That is the question.
"Who'll save the Christmas this time? That is the question."
We, the people, if we so decide.
Don't thank me. I'm still disappointed that the only donkey you can think of is Eeyore.
You spend too much time in Room 101 or sum'tin?
Yeah, like yer all that. I was busy at the casino and even got free tickets to see Herman's Hermits. Just admit yer jealous. Seriously, why don't some of you folks just admit the obvious. Gingrich is your guy and you are astonished that not everyone sees it that way. And it hurts. Sometimes your browbeating doesn't work. Maybe I should vote for Obama if Romney is the nominee. That way I can maintain my purity.
burro burro
oh baby
down in mayhico
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
Herman's Hermits. Hmm Remember them from shindig or maybe hulabaloo. Did they ever make it to the Sullivan Show?
"Gingrich is your guy and you are astonished that "
bigbooner is a effin asshole
"Maybe I should vote for Obama if Romney is the nominee. That way I can maintain my purity."
why vote for either idiot?
Damn…. wiki says Jimmy Page did session work for the hermits.
bigbooner- why vote for loser 1 or 2?
I think if you took a poll of the PW commentariat, you'd find that Sweet Meteor of Death holds a narrow lead over the Syphilitic Camel (whatever her name is), with Gingrich and Santorum vying for third.
obama very bad man
Jimmy Cagney's Bottom, Ernst?
Ernst Schreiber posted on2/2 @ 6:01 pm
Forget it, B. Moe, newrouter; waste of time.
We gave him the high hat and now he's gone.
Fancy Pants! Alls of us!
I can't quit you Schreiber.
newrouter posted on2/2 @ 10:14 pm
bigbooner- why vote for loser 1 or 2?
So you call me an asshole (we have never formally been introduced) and then you would like me to answer a question? I believe Happyfeet on another thread said something about Obama (and I am paraphrasing here) doing more damage than Romney. I think that about sums it up for me. I believe there are probably a few more on here who believe what I do but they probably do not wish to see the torches and pitchforks headed towards their houses.
it's like Obama is the death star and we're wee little x-wing fighters and god help us but Romney is our squadron leader
Now I am going to go to bed so I don't want some of you hosers acccusing me of running off again and patting yourselves on the back. I am probably just about the worst person in the world for having the stance that I do. I make Thor look like a reasonable person. Wasn't he a big Obama supporter? Maybe I am the second worst.
I never knew Cagney played Shakespeare.
Made it Ma! Top of the HEEEH HAAAAUUUGHHH AWW AWW
The Squadron leader blew up 'feets.
bless his heart
Palin's the shizzle, and Chomsky, Focault, and Derrida are intellectual midgets by comparison.
See ya at the Finland Station.
With Joe E. Brown, and across from Mickey Rooney's Puck, no less.
bigbooner, as one newbie to another, this can be a tough crowd, but the reads are well worth the time. Don't take anything personally.
Tuesday i voted for Newt in the FL primaries, flawed as he is. I agree with the majority that the house and senate are crucial to turn the ship around, and though i don't like Romney because of how quickly he went negative on Newt in Iowa, push comes to shove i'll vote for him, if the majority of the GOP voting public picks him in the primaries. Our host is correct that Ricky is the staunchest of those who are left, i just don't like Ricky. But i would vote for him too if that is what the GOP people want.
no mr. booner if your heart is half as big as your booner it's an exceedingly large heart I think
Yes, Romney was the right guy last time. This time, not so much.
To bad this one didn't show up for the primaries.
This is no time for timid, liberal, empty gestures.
Our economy has slowed down this year, and a lot of people are hurting. What happened? Mortgage money was handed out like candy, and speculators bought homes for free. And when this mortgage mania finally broke, it slammed the economy. And stratospheric gas prices made things even worse. Democrats want to use the slowdown as an excuse to do what their special interests are always begging for: higher taxes, bigger government, and less trade with other nations.
It's the same path Europe took a few decades ago. It leads to moribund growth and double-digit unemployment.
The right course is the one championed by Ronald Reagan 30 years ago and by John McCain and Sarah Palin today.
The right course is to rein in government spending, lower taxes, take a weed-whacker to excessive regulation and mandates, put a stop to tort windfalls, and to stand up to the tyrannosaurus appetite of government unions.
The right course — the right course is to pursue every source of energy security, from new efficiencies to renewables, from coal to non-CO-2 producing nuclear, and for the immediate drilling for more oil off our shores.
WTF, brainwashed like the "old man" was? And if so which would be the "real" and which the puppet?
The right course is the one championed by Ronald Reagan 30 years ago and by John McCain and Sarah Palin today?
ok one sec just gonna take a wee break from my championing of the right course to run back to washington and save the economy
I believe Happyfeet on another thread said something about Obama (and I am paraphrasing here) doing more damage than Romney. I think that about sums it up for me.
The damage is already done. The last two and half, three years have been the culmination of 100 or so years of progressivism. The present split in the Republican party is the result of the last six years, and in sense has been coming since at least 1992. Romney may not do as much more damage as Obama, but he's not going to do anything about the damage that's already been done either. But hey, fresh paint, some new carpet, and you've got yourself, a fixer-upper with lots of potential that just needs a bit of TLC.
I believe there are probably a few more on here who believe what I do but they probably do not wish to see the torches and pitchforks headed towards their houses.
Yeah, because Jeff doesn't take kindly to folks what express contrary opinions around here.
Here's the one and only Hermans Hermits song I've ever heard. Kinda like it.
Belated welcomes to all noobs.
rOMNEY, IT'S ME, HAPPY, i'VE COME HOME
so cold let me in
"Yes, Romney was the right guy last time. This time, not so much."
Back on probation for you Leigh!!!
Now right a hundred times on the blackboard the following:
I'm working my way thru these comments in reverse and I find:
"Romney arguably would have been the right person 4 years ago."
Grab the chaulk and join Leigh.
Can't believe the rest of you people let this crazy talk slide;)
Btw, I'd say that Baal Hammon works better than just Baal.
Of course, I hate those damn Carthaginians so I would say that.
I admit I forgot about Fred [shamefaced, sideways glance]
Well, Romney was the best of what was left.
I hate those damn Carthaginians
Anti-semite. Condemned and denounced!
just think how horrifically humiliating it will be for Meghan's coward daddy to see a one percenter catalog model grab the brass ring he couldn't
because he was too cowardly
"Wish Herman was still running."
You shoulda quit when you were ahead;)
Fred never showed up. He phoned it in.
You'd get that impression if you believed the MBM.
Mind cuieing up the Campaign Carl kneecap piece for BT?
that shoulda been cueing
I'll admit to certain prejudices against half-devil, half-Phoenician upstarts, Ernst.
Should we even classify Phoenician as Semitic? That just feels wrong. They were dirty port people with corrupted dirty port words.
That's like saying that people in Boston are speaking English. That's just silly.
why does La Creation du Monde sound so American this is all very confuzzling
oh. now we've taken a pastoral turn
Danger i got that impression from the voting results.
Tied for 3rd in Iowa
5th in Michigan
5th in Nevada
3rd in South Carolina
And he was probably the best public speaker of the bunch.
(Working a Boston slam into a Carthaginian slam? You people are lucky to have me here.)
I guess you got me there bh
Campaign Carl kneecap piece for BT?
Oops, here is page 1.
Fred got zapped by a whisper campaign that said some things very similiar to what's been said about Gingrich.
interfering controlling she-bitch wife
in it for the veep slot (admittedly, nobody's suggested that about Newt —who'd believe it?
Good thing for Newt he's a standout debater.
wwm-cabwsc convention
not to be outdone
Santorum's results aren't much better would you say he's "phoned it in"?
1st in Iowa
3rd in SC
3rd in NH
3rd in FL (Fred dropped out prior to FL in 08)
and prospects in Michigan or Nevada don't look good
Santorum is just playing the spoiler role I'm sure his wife will parlay it into a fabulous passover-themed cookbook or something
meanwhile back in reality if we want obama gone we need to resolve to make that happen
Thanks for the link. So Fred is claiming Carl single-handedly destroyed his chance at greatness?
But it was nice to be reminded how opportunistic Romney was in taking the slam piece against Fred and running with it.
I had no idea that outrageous numbers of people playing a piano was even a thing.
it sells tickets
Kilgore writes that by the time I announced my candidacy for the 2008 nomination "it was already becoming clear that he lacked commitment. Even before his appearance on Leno [in September 2007], there were abundant signs that he was not running for president, so much as walking — or even riding a golf cart — with abundant stops for rest and ice cream. His first Iowa appearance, in August, was at the Iowa State Fair, a must-do for any candidate, and particularly one like Thompson, who had already skipped the official Straw Poll that serves as the major fundraiser for the state GOP. With the eyes of the first-in-the-nation-caucus state on him, Big Fred showed up at the sweaty, extremely informal event sporting Gucci loafers, and proceeded to spend the day tooling around the fairgrounds in the aforementioned cart — a very big no-no for anyone who wasn't either disabled or a major fair donor."
This was taken from a story that Fox News's Carl Cameron did on my trip to the fair. The story, of course, hit all the media outlets and the blogosphere, and provided an immediate narrative for my opponents in the primary. The next thing I knew, Mitt Romney had a 30-second ad showing him sprinting through the woods, "working hard."
A few weeks later, another story popped up on a New York Times blog claiming that I'd entered one of Iowa's many diners, refused to shake hands with a single potential voter, and instead sought refuge from the great unwashed in a private room, where I no doubt propped up my Gucci loafers and indulged in large quantities of ice cream. The Times had to retract its blog post within hours because someone eating at the diner happened to post a cell-phone video showing me disturbing the dining experience of just about everyone in the said diner with handshakes, backslaps, and offers to top off their iced tea. None of that mattered, because such facts got in the way of the media narrative of the dark horse, the reluctant armchair candidate, the candidate with no fire in the belly.
Here is what happened at the fair.
In the first place, I was escorted by my former colleague in the U.S. Senate, Iowa senator Chuck Grassley. Chuck is a grassroots, pig-farming citizen politician who visits every county in his state every year. Needless to say, Chuck has not spent a lot of time in a golf cart. We walked all over the fairgrounds, shaking hands and visiting with the butter queen, the pork queen, and every other queen that was available. I patted sows and kissed babies (and maybe vice versa). I made one impromptu speech to a little gathering. Chuck and I laughed and poked fun at each other as we worked our way around the fairgrounds. In other words, it was the same kind of day I had had countless times before in Tennessee.
Chuck and I dressed basically the same. As for the shoes: Ladies and gentlemen, I am prepared to take the oath: I am not now, and never have a been, a wearer of Gucci shoes. I have never tried a pair on. I have never been alone in the same room with a Gucci shoe. And I most certainly was not wearing a pair while I was visiting the pigs in Iowa. I must correct this slur upon my reputation! (Granted, I should have taken into account the probability that if Campaign Carl was in the neighborhood and saw anything but a lace-up or a plow shoe, it might befuddle him.)
As for the golf cart, it was getting close to the time I was supposed to do a live CNN interview on the other side of the fairgrounds. Chuck hailed a fair official in a golf cart who gave Chuck and me a lift over to the media interview area. As I recall, that was the end of our visit to the fair.
Oh-oh-oh-oh… Everybody wan'ts Geoffb Fu linking, that cat is fast as lightning!
it's a lark. this is a different lark.
2/3 of japanese youth think sex is pretty damn cool
The point is the media always pulls for the democrat as its primary choice and picks a consolation prize closest to it's ideaology for the GOP (McCain in 08, Romney today)
Undermining Fred was a team effort (unfortunately including Fox).
The "macaca" will always be with us until we finally wise up to the bastards.
Ricky burned a lot of shoe leather to get that 1st place win in Iowa.
And i don't think the inevitable one is inevitable quite yet. Ricky did well in the FL debates. Unfortunately he won't have a chance to do well again in front of a national audience until the end of Feb.
Then again Ricky isn't the public speaker Fred is. And Ricky placed higher or equal to in the primaries that both Fred and he competed in,in different years and different circumstances.
god i hate facebook
"the past is never dead it's not even past"
before facebook that was something of an enigmatic statement
facebook is intrusive. I don't their data collection, collation capabilities. If they were the govt, they would be frightening.
throw the word trust in there where it fits.
Now that you know how the MSM plays the game, how do you counter it?
i know at one point hulu was hurling my tv watching onto facebook and I had no idea
how mortifying
I'm certainly not hoping for history to repeat just to demonstrate the power of the media. Last time I voted for Fred by Florida absentee ballot. Unfortunately he had already dropped out so it didn't matter.
At least this year my vote counted so I'd agree that there is still hope.
can we really talk about the MSM anymore when our own media is rife rife rife with an Ann Coulter Matt Drudge mentality?
they're like slicker than the guy with the thing on his eye
They certainly are not secure. and i guess they do a lot of cookie tracking.
"Now that you know how the MSM plays the game, how do you counter it?"
Santorum has done a commendable job considering where he started, he just might not have the time and resources to prevail this time.
Of course Reagan had the perfect counter-media approach but it's important to note that he didn't succede on his first run either.
There is always hope. Switch gears or technologies if need be.
Look how Howard Dean and Ron Paul leverage the internet.
The dead tree press is dying.
And the big three networks are losing their grip.
Who was it that said the medium is the message.
I guarantee you more minds are persuaded in the comments sections of blogs or in forum posts than are persuaded by a 30 sec negative ad on the tv. Because the tv is no longer the only oracle of the truth.
Santorum isn't even a trivial pursuit question yet first he needs to do/say something memorable
chop chop
Bachianas Brasileiras No. 2, for the trainmen.
The MBM is losing grip but they're making up for it in tenacity (Herman Cain being a prime example).
I suspect Obama will lose in a landslide to the GOP nominee so it'd be nice if that was someone we shared mostly common ideals with.
(sober girls aroun me they be ackin like they drunk)
plus also trains are involved
G'nite all,
Keep Firing!!!
Sometimes your browbeating doesn't work.
Dude, you're the one who can't take fuck no for an answer.
So you call me an asshole…
If you aren't one, you're doing a damned fine simulation of one.
Some of us will only vote for whomever the GOP selects to run for President as long as that candidate is likely to follow a certain amount of actual conservative (or classically liberal, to be more precise) policies. That "certain amount" bit varies among all of us.
In your case, Mittens will do that for a sufficient amount of those policies.
Now, a lot of us here believe that amount is effectively zero with the added negative that a GOP Congress and maybe Senate will feel the need to follow the recommendations of the President with the "R" party designator. Since Mittens appears to believe in the same really bad shit as President Obama does (as Jeff has listed on another post), it doesn't seem to me that he's likely to try to dismantle, roll back, or allow to be rolled back any of the really bad shit.
Vote as you believe. I certainly intend to and expect no less from you.
It sounds like somebody needs a hug.
295. B. Moe posted on 2/3 @ 3:54 am
He's a griefer. When his repeated efforts to browbeat us into falling into line fails, he accuses us of browbeating him. Unsuccessfully.
Project much McGehee?
xkcd #386. Go Team GOP! We got spirit, how 'bout you!?!
B. Moe, this one is for you.
B. Moe posted on1/31 @ 8:26 pm
Look, I am a debater. Sometimes in a debate picking a small detail and going after it is winning tactic, but it has to be a pretty sure bet. Here, you are using a stretched definition to go against several decades of precedent in a battle that is going to be very easy to demogogue by the opposition.
That's three strikes against you before you even start. Sooner or later we need to start fighting with the idea of winning instead of making statements. That doesn't mean voting for anybody but Obama, but we need to pick our fights wisely. I don't think this is a wise decision, and I explained exactly why, but all I get is disingenuous bullshit from people I thought were friends.
Fine, catch you later.
B. Moe posted on2/3 @ 3:54 am
Sometimes your browbeating doesn't work.
Dude, you're the one who can't take fuck no for an answer.
B. Moe, please note both of your posts. I guess you just couldn't handle it.
It's Friday and I am gonna play poker with an old high school buddy and watch the Super Bowl. My original point was that I would vote for any of the 4 Republicans over Obama. I will stick to that. Some of you folks just need to calm down a little and try to enjoy your weekend.
Sooner or later we need to start fighting with the idea of winning instead of making statements.
Well golly gee! Why don't we just go ahead an nominate Obama then. That way, there's no way we can lose!
Still trying to get into the club, I see.
That was taken way out of context, Ernst. I don't think we are winning anything bby electing Romney.
My excuse is that it's impossible to tell where you're comment leaves off and booner's begins.
And anyway that was my sarcastic and probably ineffectual way of pointing out that if all we care about is winning an election, and how we get there doesn't matter after all, the surest way to win is to surrender.
Slavery IS Freedom!
McGehee posted on2/3 @ 6:44 am
295. B. Moe posted on 2/3 @ 3:54 am
He's a griefer. When his repeated efforts to browbeat us into falling into line fails, he accuses us of browbeating him. Unsuccessfully.
Right. So your posts at 68,71,121,123,129,298 are me browbeating you? Is that how it works in your world? Your jedi cowboy bullshit is not working on me. You tried that "browbeat" bullshit on Matt too. McCloud called, he wants his hat back.
So "browbeating" is when somebody who disagrees with you argues forcefully against your position?
Ernst, try to keep up. He is the one who used the term "browbeating" in reference to me when in actuality he was the one forcefully arguing with me. Hence I showed his post numbers. I am not trying to browbeat anyone. As I stated from the beginning I would vote for any of the 4 Republicans instead of Obama.
Roseanne Barr is seeking the Green Party nomination. Let me rethink my position.
Your position is that you don't care who you vote for so long as there's an "R" next to his name.
McGeehee and others make the point that maybe you'd better care, because Romney doesn't get you what you want, which is Obama out of office, for the following reasons:
1) He's the least likely to prevail, arguments about electibility notwithstanding, for reasons repeated ad nauseam in at last every third post of Jeff's blog. (The Post on Henninger's piece is especially good on this.
2) Should he manage to prevail, he's just as likely to enact Obama's preferred policies as he is to abandon them —perhaps more so. So your stuck with Obama-ism without the public face. You haven't really won anything if the concensus is that the problem is with the man and not with the policies which enact the man's vision.
What it reduces down to is either you care or you don't. If you really don't care, then you don't have anything to argue with the people who do. For the simple reason that you don't have an argument; you don't care. Now on the other hand, if in fact you do care, then you have to make an affirmative argument that any Republican is better than Obama, and that in turn means making an argument that Romney is preferable to the alternative, Obama's re-election, with people who disagree with the underlying premises. "I think anybody's better than Obama (and so should you)" doesn't get you very far.
Roseanne Barr is seeking the Green Party nomination.
Well, they are all about saving the whales…
Ernst I figured that you would be the pit bull at the end. Here is something for you from Rush:
CALLER: Anyways, I'm a conservative here in Houston, and I think that it might not be a bad thing if Obama did get reelected, and I'm gonna give you my reason for that.
RUSH: You don't have to. I'm gonna tell you right now: NO! Why does this keep coming up? In 1992: NO! In 1988, "Rush, let the Democrats win. Let people find out how rotten they are and wipe 'em out forever." In 1992, "Rush, let Clinton win. You know, let's expose these RINO Republicans like George Bush and let's make sure people understand what a bunch of worthless creeps the Democrats are! Let 'em ruin the country, Rush, and then they'll never get elected again." And then in 2000, "Rush, come on! Let 'em elect Algore. We got a RINO, George W. Bush."
Well, let me tell you something. In 2008, the most destructive, leftist, socialist, Marxist American ever elected was elected. And as we sit here, today he's got a chance of being reelected. So the theory doesn't work. Now, I realize you're new to politics and I appreciate your calling. This comes up at least once a month here. I'm doing my best to maintain my composure. But it will not work. You're ruining the country in the process of this. Every time a Democrat wins the presidency, we lose a little of this country, and we have lost a large part of it. If he's reelected, it doesn't matter how bad people think it got. Getting it put back together is gonna be a nightmare.
Ernst, thank you for sharing your opinion with me. You say I need to justify something and I don't think I need to. I will vote for any of the 4 Republicans but I will not vote for Obama. You are just going to have to share this world buddy. Let's agree to disagree.
Hey, I am going to buy a couple of donuts and take my grandson over and watch some trains. I don't want you to think that I am running out and start talking that stupid shit. So I will come back in a few hours and you can tell me what my opinion should be. We are hoping to see a few freight trans and maybe an Amtrak or two. Wish me luck because I know you all care about me.
Let's agree to disagree.
No let's not.
For the simple fact that you don't have an argument, so there's really nothing to agree or disagree about.
Enjoy your time with your grandson.
I was wondering when that phone call from yesterday would come up.
The short answer is that Rush is wrong because Rush still believes in the Republican party as a viable vehicle for conservatism.
I don't.
And that's because, as Rush very well knows, the people in the Republican party with their hands on the levers of power aren't conservative, and aren't interested in saving the country because they don't think the country's in jeopardy. Voting to keep them in power doesn't get us what we want.
Put another way, there's no reason to prefer the Republican brand of statism over the Democrat. Arguably it's more important to defeat the statists in the Republican party than it is to defeat the Democrats, if only to protect the Republican brand. That means focusing on the down-ticket.
but also it's important to get rid of Obama cause he's hurting so many people
Well, let me tell you something. In 2008, the most destructive, leftist, socialist, Marxist American ever elected was elected. And as we sit here, today he's got a chance of being reelected. So the theory doesn't work.
Neither does the Republican Party.
it's important to get rid of Obama cause he's hurting so many people
If Obama is hurting people (which I agree is true) and if enough people in enough states recognize and acknowledge that Obama is the cause of their hurt (which is in at least some doubt) he will be gotten rid off. Therefore I think it's more important to concentrate on whom we replace him with, and what we intend to do going forward.
Again, the easiest way to be "Not Obama" is to adopt portions of his agenda and implement them. Romney has made it clear that he believes the problem is with Obama shortcomings (in over his head) and not with the policies he advocates (socialized medicine, socialized housing, redistribution of wealth, regulatory big business crony capitalism in one state ) which he supports because of whom he is (socialist, fascist, leftist, statist mastermind, —take your pick). Many Republicans think the policies are popular with people (free shit paid for by the Rich). Not only is that unsustainable, it's inconsistent with our ideals of liberty and equality under the law.
But you've been told all that before. To no affect it seems.
So I will come back in a few hours and you can tell me what my opinion should be.
As opposed to your telling me why I should just shut up and vote for Romney.
Which is very different and hardly as presumptuous as my posting my opinions on my blog and then forcing you to adopt them.
Yes Romney is not going to be a particularly respectable president but you know what
it's time people accepted that their little white house is a cowardly whore magnet
we can always try again next time
Bigbooner, a few points.
This is the primary season. Saying you'll vote for whomever at this point is removing yourself from the process. Your stance(advocacy of non-participation in the primary process?) is only effective for the general.
I actually agree with you about voting against Obama, at least I will when the candidate is declared and the general election campaign starts. We also share the sentiment with Mark Levin, who says he'll vote for an empty soup can over Obama. my feelings are, if the election was between Hillary and Romney, I wouldn't vote for either. But Obama really is different than Romney IMHO. The man is not just a progg, he's malevolent.
Having said that, the arguments for not voting for Romney are legitimate, and at this point in the process, tactic. The big money cronies buying the election for Romney need to be made aware the base is deeply resentful of being force fed another turd sandwich. Their whole "electability" propaganda blitz needs to be put in question, so they can hear the people crying out for sound principles, not short odds.
Also, your condescension makes your head look fat…
Jeff G. posted on2/3 @ 10:30 am
So I will come back in a few hours and you can tell me what my opinion should be.
As opposed to your telling me why I should just shut up and vote for Romney.
Which is very different and hardly as presumptuous as my posting my opinions on my blog and then forcing you to adopt them.
Why don't you show me where I said you should shut up and vote for Romney? That is totally bogus. I don't actually think you read all my posts. I said any of the four but not Obama. I never told anyone to shut up and vote for Romney. I never said Romney was my guy.
Why don't you show me where I said you should shut up and vote for Romney? That is totally bogus. I don't actually think you read all my posts. I said any of the four but not Obama. I never told anyone to shut up and vote for Romney. I never said Romney was my guy.
I've said I won't vote for Romney. Me. You've made arguments against my position.
Given that I've said I'd vote for Newt and support Santorum, Romney and Paul are really all we have to talk about.
Paul has no chance of getting the nomination. So we're only really talking about Romney.
So yes, I've read your posts. And I'm responding. Which responses you tend to cast as somehow demanding you fall in line — even as your argument is that we all of us should in circumstances that match your own position.
I find that ironic.
Mr. Bascom perhaps you should read all of the posts directed at me for simply making the point of anybody except Obama. I didn't start the snark nor the condescension. So Mcgehee says I am browbeating people (total bullshit) and Ernst Schreiber says I need to make an argument that any Republican would be better than Obama. And I have not made that argument and that is the point. I am either browbeating or I am not arguing according to two different people. It can't be both.
Contentiousness is a necessary prerequisite for browbeating, but having something substantive to say does not. It can indeed be both.
So if I said that I would vote for any of the four then you took that to mean that I was arguing specifically with you. That was not my intent. It was a general statement meant to express my disgust with our current president. Now as far as my saying "you can tell me what my opinion should be" comment you can clearly see on 314 and 315 that I was speaking to Ernest Schreiber. I think that is quite clear. Now you may say that I am made arguments against your position when in fact I was making a statement about my position. Evidently you chose to believe that I was attacking your position when that was not my intent.
Some people can be real douchenozzles
Evidently you chose to believe that I was attacking your position when that was not my intent.
Nor was it your effect. I do note, however, that all it has taken me in this thread to elicit some kind of reply from you was to say something in your general direction.
Entertainment comes cheap, sometimes.
Bored now.
Evidently you chose to believe that I was attacking your position when that was not my intent.
I'm easily confused.
Bigbooner, I think your comment @36, fairly or not, transferred Matt's argument onto yourself, IE, if you don't vote for Romney, it's a vote for Obama(see the comment and reference in comment 35). Also, your #34 was the first shot fired, by you by the way, as far as being contentious goes. Your #64 is where you went off the rails and started implying there is some sort of club, or we're all guilty of group think or something around here. From there you climbed on the crazy train, accusing Jeff of making leftist arguments, and writing a stupid diary comment.
But go on, play the victim if you wish. Lord knows insulting people didn't distract anyone from noticing you don't really have an argument past "Obama bad, any republican better". Maybe "poor me" will help obscure. Doubtful, but still…
Mr. bigbooner, here's to look where you began, verbatim, I think:
Well I was gonna vote for any Republican put forth against the current incumbent. But after reading the critics of Romney/Gingrich/Santorum/Paul maybe I should just stick with Obama. The only thing that puzzles me is several folks here have trashed Obama for the past three years (which I heartily support) but now seem to want to trash the 4 Republicans because they aren't the perfect candidates. This seems like a simple referendum vote on Obama to me. Pass/fail, yes/no, accept/reject, etc. I personally don't give a shit about the Republican establishment and what they do or don't do. Can it really be any worse than Obama? I read this site everyday and have for the past several years and am just a seldom poster which I realize makes me an easy target for the cool guys/gals who post here but it seems like it is time to put the big boy pants on and get this punk out of the White House. Something is always better than something else. People will either ignore this post or hammer me. These candidates may be little turds but Obama is a gigantic shit sandwich.
So. What do you see there, notionally?
I see a severe reduction of politics into the simplest of binary choices ("Pass/fail, yes/no, accept/ reject, etc."), at a time in our national political life when a full articulation of the issues — and the principles upon which we should decide those issues — is critical to the actions which will be taken after the decision is made. Yet, further, here this binary reduction is proffered at a time when the final decision over the actual candidate to move forward in opposition to Obama has itself yet to be made! (You're skipping over the best parts! Why the rush?)
Then I see an insinuation that doing other than as you recommend is to be somehow immature ("…it is time to put the big boy pants on and …"). But wait, again, that time may not have arrived yet, no? So why the gratuitous insult?
I see an assumed defensiveness ("… makes me an easy target for the cool guys/gals who post …", "People will either ignore or hammer …"), which defensiveness isn't necessary or warranted. Better, just assume we're your friends, if not in personal terms, at least in overarching political or national identity terms. I assume you love your country, and want to do what is best by it. You assume I love my country, and likewise etc. Then we can simply hash out the political questions as political questions. (Now, sure, blah blah blah, insults and misunderstandings back and forth, and so on: water under the bridge at this point. But still.)
I see instruction given — which you most likely know — no one here actually needs, instruction of "the sky is blue on a cloudless day" variety ("These candidates may be little turds but Obama is a gigantic shit sandwich."). But if you know we don't really need this instruction — as I choose to credit to you — doesn't it constitute, at the very least, a waste of time and effort, to no constructive purpose, and risk potentially to be read as another cheap shot at our understanding?
So, anyhow, let's return to the politics and the political questions. Let's enlarge our politics rather than shrink them. Let's attempt to figure out who these candidate characters are (in contradistinction to the behavior of the majority of voters in the last Presidential election, who were content to ignore that question regarding Obama altogether, only to be surprised when he turned out not to be who they thought he was!)
these suck-ass debates aren't getting any fresher
and the next one is like a month away
I said any of the four but not Obama.
It was a general statement meant to express my disgust with our current president.
Fine. Obama sucks. You hate Obama so much, you'll vote for anybody not named Obama, probably including Barry Soetero.
You have nothing to add.
I'm feeling lucky. I think I will buy some lotto tickets.
Pingback: Explaining Coulter » Cold Fury


text:
May 10, 2012
This article provides a further update to regulation of private funds by the various states' securities regulators. The state in question in this article is Missouri, and the article details both what private funds were relying on to exempt themselves from registration and the exemption mechanism promulgated by the Missouri Commissioner of Securities (and the subject of this article).
- Summary by FizzLaw Team
Read the Article at:
Missouri Commissioner of Securities Proposes New Private Fund Exemption Based on Model NASAA Rule
Alexander Davie


text:
Orale, it's Chicano Park Day!
Barrio Logan celebrates the anniversary of its iconic park
Chicano Park celebrates its 44th anniversary this weekend with a neighborhood party filled with local volunteers and community members.
But the reach of the park — and its message of activism — extends way beyond Barrio Logan, or even San Diego.
Chicano Park Day
When: 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday
Where: Chicano Park, off Cesar Chavez Boulevard between National and Logan avenues, Barrio Logan
Cost: Free
Telephone: (619) 563-4661
Online: chicano-park.org
"There's so much history in the park that's meaningful not just around here, but all over the country," said Tommie Camarillo, chairwoman of the Chicano Park Steering Committee.
She points to Rodolfo "Corky" Gonzáles, a Colorado activist and one of the founders of the Chicano movement as an example: His widow requested that part of his ashes be spread at Chicano Park.
Even for Saturday's event, bands from Minnesota and Texas are paying their own travel and expenses just to play at the celebration. For free.
"For a lot of people," explained Camarillo, "Chicano Park is like coming home."
As the 44th anniversary of Chicano Park arrives, we answer some key questions about its history, message and celebrations.
Why do we have a Chicano Park?
After the San Diego-Coronado Bridge was built in 1969, Barrio Logan became splintered, and many families were displaced.
For their troubles, Camarillo said, the city promised to designate the dirt lot underneath the bridge as park space. But in 1970, that spot was instead saved for a Highway Patrol substation.
Already upset by the newly built Interstate 5 splitting the neighborhood a few years prior, a group of activists protested. They marched, they made themselves heard, and they didn't get off the property — even as bulldozers stood waiting — until the city and state agreed to give the community the park it was expecting.
On April 22, 1970, Chicano Park became a reality, and the annual festivities are a reminder of civic empowerment.
"Chicano Park is about education," Camarillo said. "About learning and feeling pride for your culture."
What's up with the murals?
The pillars that hold up the San Diego-Coronado Bridge are painted in vivid colors and depict Latin heroes of the 1970s: Cesar Chavez, Che Guevara, Benito Juarez and Frida Kahlo. They portray everything from the 1970s Chicano movement to the history of Barrio Logan.
Painted by local and national artists, the murals are now known and respected worldwide. The San Diego Commission for Arts and Culture has described them as "the largest, most important collection of outdoor murals in the country."
But the murals weren't painted for the accolades. The idea to bring art to the park came from necessity.
The area was gray and old, and the community didn't like walking through it to get to church, school or to the store. An artist named Salvador Torres said that people needed to see something beautiful when they walked through the area, and that's how the idea of putting murals on the pillars happened.
Do the murals ever change?
Though most scenes were painted in the 1970s, new art does go up every now and then.
Ideas for new murals must go through the steering committee, a group made up entirely of volunteers. Once an idea is approved, a team of artists can get to work. There are plans, for example, to create a mural in honor of the women who have been brutally murdered in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico.
And just a few years ago, 20 murals were restored by the original artists.
"No one can touch the murals but the original artists," Camarillo said. "If something were to happen — like graffiti or anything else — the volunteers wouldn't be able to handle it, only the artist."


text:
Driver in fatal hit-run talks following not-guilty ruling
Megan Panowicz is looking to the future, not the past.
A day after being found not guilty in her fatal hit-and-run trial, Ms. Panowicz returned to the Luzerne County Courthouse on Thursday to pick up certified copies of her not-guilty disposition sheets.
After leaving the clerk of courts office, Ms. Panowicz spoke to Times-Tribune sister paper The Citizens' Voice, making her first public comments since a judge acquitted her Wednesday on charges she fled a fatal crash in August 2008 in Kingston.
"It's always going to be with me. It's never going to be something I'm going to forget about," said Ms. Panowicz, who testified at trial she continues to see counselors and struggles to come to grips with why she fled.
Ms. Panowicz, 29, was accompanied Thursday by her father and attorney Robert Panowicz, who said the two only wanted to look forward when asked about the case and verdict.
"For the last six years, Megan's life has been on hold, and what we're hoping for is to put this tragedy for all concerned behind us," Mr. Panowicz said. "For the first time in six years, she now has the opportunity to look to the future."
At trial, Ms. Panowicz said she has a master's degree in school counseling, but the looming criminal charges held up her state certification. Now, she can start looking for a job, she said.
"I want to make good things come from it. I want to do good things and be able to do something with my life," said Ms. Panowicz, who now lives in Sellersville, Bucks County.
Ms. Panowicz, then of Forty Fort, was the first of three drivers to hit Sharon Shaughnessy, 32, as she tried to cross Wyoming Avenue on Aug. 27, 2008. She turned herself in the next day, about 12 hours after the crash. At trial, she testified she initially pulled over to call police, but was horrified after seeing two other cars run over Ms. Shaughnessy's body and fled.
Despite the fact Ms. Panowicz admitted she fled, Senior Judge Charles Brown found her not guilty of a felony count of accidents involving death or personal injury, a crime that carried a mandatory minimum punishment of one year in prison.
Contact the writer:
email@example.com, @cvbobkal on Twitter
To comment you must first create a profile and sign-in with a verified DISQUS account or social network ID. Sign up here.
Comments in violation of the rules will be denied, and repeat violators will be banned. Please help police the community by flagging offensive comments for our moderators to review. By posting a comment, you agree to our full terms and conditions. Click here to read terms and conditions.


text:
Tuo city has a long history of over 2000 years. Inside the ancient city, the ZhaoTuo's former residence, ZhaoTuo plat, Majian sentry where ZhaoTuo trained his army are still exist now.
Up till now, Tuo city left over so many ancient ruins and buildings such as: Guchengji,Yuewang well and ZhaoTuo's ancient residence in Qin Dynasty; The Zhengxiang tower in Tang Dynasty: Xunzhouzhisuo in Song Dynasty and Chenghuan temple, Yuewang temple, Kong temple, the east river, Xianta bridge, new tower and Kaopeng, etc in Ming and Qing Dynasty.
Solo Adventure Tips:
How to Get There?
You can take the bus at Laolong bus station.
Ticket Price:
Opening Hours:
the whole day
More Tips:
Recommended travel time: one day
Information accuracy:
We try to make the information on China Travel accurate when we write/edit it. If you find any outdated information, please inform us.


text:
...The Man who walks the People Side of the Street in trucking and related industries.
Dan is one of the more sought-after, asked-to-return speakers in the industry.
Dan knows that people – not diesel – are what move the trucks.
This Week's Thoughtgram
Can't Get Enough of Dan?
Dan brings his Texas warmth, wit and wisdom to groups as he entertains, enlightens and urges them to look at and reconsider the people-side of who they are and what they do.