News-Record.com

9. We have had to listen to liberals whine 24/7 because they still can't accept the fact that algore and Kerry lost.

I wonder why we do not ever have a letter like this about Raleigh?

"1. Our schools have been converted from places of learning to places of testing, leaving many children behind. (Farewell, love of learning.)"

Comment: Let us recall that the ABC testing system invented in Raleigh was in place long before No Child Left Behind and was, in fact, one of the models for NCLB, the other odel being the Texas accountability system.

Moreover, it is not as if there was a golden of age of learning in our government schooling monopolies disrupted by the testing mania that has settled in in Raleigh and Washington.

For example: I recently published this letter on the dull, distorted and HEAVY textbooks we foist on the captive clientele of the monopolies, the children and their families:

Scouring Textbooks
Letters, (Raleigh) News & Observer
December 22, 2007
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/letters/story/844389.html

While school boards or activist parents attempting to remove an occasional book from school libraries or English classes are guaranteed media attention, day-to-day systematic censorship of the textbooks children read gets almost none.

Here is reality: Comically elaborate �bias and sensitivity guidelines� � running to hundreds of pages � govern public school textbook production. It�s about dollars. Textbook publishers cannot risk offending a pressure group and thus potentially losing a multimillion-dollar sale to a big state. The scope of this self-censorship is detailed in education historian Diane Ravitch�s widely acclaimed �The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn� (2003). Below is an excerpt from the review of Jonathan Yardley of the Washington Post:

�It�s difficult to exaggerate the importance of this book. Whether �The Language Police� will turn out to be one of those rare books that actually influence the way we live � Upton Sinclair�s �The Jungle,� John Steinbeck�s �The Grapes of Wrath,� Rachel Carson's �Silent Spring,� Ralph Nader's �Unsafe at Any Speed� � remains to be seen, but surely one must pray that it does. Meticulously researched and forcefully argued, it makes appallingly plain that the textbooks American schoolchildren read and the tests that measure their academic progress have been corrupted.�

Tom Shuford
Lenoir

"As another year closes and an election year begins, it might be good to recap the accomplishments of the Bush administration these past few years"

Some of these BDS sufferers are going to be astonished when they walk into the voting booth this Nov. and discover Bush's name isn't on the ballot.

`

Poor neocon, and his sidecar buddy, Little Danny, are falling all over themselves to apologize, support, and carry water for their failed President.

Note to neocon:
Al Gore in fact WON the Presidency, Kerry did not.

Note to "Little Dany":
Can you refute the author's claims or do you just deflect by stating some well known fact about a non issue? Chris has given them to you, number by number, so why can't you offer a refutation rather than your usual surface scratching????

`

No problem Demon Deacon, I had to get both kids to school this morning and didn't have much time. This letter is simplistic at best, perhaps he should have written a Counterpoint to back up his statements.

1) NCLB was a big Ted Kennedy program along with Bush. I don't support more Federal control of the schools, I support vouchers for children of failing schools so they can enjoy the "love of learning".

2) Oh I see, polar bears are drowning due to a closed door session that Cheney had with some oil execs. Got it. Where's the proof? Demon Deacon? Chris?

Did you notice Bush signed a recent energy bill raising CAFE standards?

3) I assume this is the fact that the prez doesn't want Cindy Sheehan and other wackos withing shooting distance. That's called security. Poulos, you and others have plenty of free speech. Tell me personally when/where your right to free speech has been eliminated please. Betcha can't.

4) Folks like you and Chris, I assume, approve of special rights for terrorists. Go figure. Speaking of real drownings, refer back to #1.

5) Gates has ordered an investigation into the destruction of the CIA tapes. If they find wrongdoing I will support the findings. Stay tuned.

6) BS. We are spying on terrorists, not your aunt Edna calling from Italy to tell you about her wonderful meal she had. This one is a favorite of BDS sufferers.

7) We do continue to spend billions in Iraq. I notice how Iraq has been covered much much less by the MSM as the surge appears to be working. And why can't that pesky Pelosi/Reid Congress stop funding the war? Hmmmm.

8) I'll agree Bush isn't very articulate. Sadly, most of our populace isn't articulate anymore. Refer back to #1.

See ya Demon Deacon, got to go make some money now.

Just wait until we get our first Muslim President in the white house about a year from now.

Chris and TLC will be in an orgasmic frenzy as the rest of the sane world watches hundreds of years of democracy go down the tubes.

You think Bush was bad. He'll be a sidenote in history after Obama gets through with his 'CHANGE'.

Too many misrepresentations to deal with here, so I'll address #1.

It wasn't Bush that turned public schools from places of learning to testing. The writer's assumption is that our schools were places of learning to start with. The level of education hasn't changed in 35 years, even though the funding per student, on an inflation adjusted basis, has doubled. NCLB added testing as a means of bringing accountability to schools, but it obviously isn't working as intended.

Our public schools have become money pits, and as shown by our local system, they are addicted to federal funds. Not a year goes by that Terry Grier doesn't invent a new program, that doesn't and won't work, to improve learning that requires more federal funds. In essence, its just wasted.

If schools want to get off the bandwagon of testing and just say no to the federal mandate, they could do so. If a school administrator and board are willing to stop NCLB testing, they can do so. They just have to stop taking federal funds. NCLB only applies to school districts that accept federal funding. Get off the federal dole and you can say we are NCLB testing-free.

There is no such thing as an unfunded mandate for public schools. So, Christopher, tell your local schol board to stop federal testing and tell George Bush you don't want his money anymore, and it shall set you free.

Wow, another liberal who still thins it's necessary every day to prove they are mentally unbalanced. The writer forget to list his friends who were arrested without a warrant, or had their phone tapped, or list the freedoms the writer has lost. He obviously hasn't lost the freedom to make a fool of himself in public!

At least, with all of his faults, Bush understands that our most serious threat comes from Radical Islam, and not incandescant light bulbs.
Despite his lunatic friends in the least popular congress since records have been kept, telling us we are no safer than before 9/11, we've had no attacks on our soil, or interests (embassies, Naval vessels, etc.) in more than six years, while under the previous Demo-Rat administration who chose to treat terrorist attacks like they would treat bank robberies, we had attacks every few years (WTC, our embassies in Africa twice, the USS Cole) because we had a president who didn't want ot rock the boat (protect our interests).

Bush's most egregious shortcoming all stemmed from trying to get along with the idiot liberals by signing the blatantly unconstitutional campaign finance reform(?) legislation, letting Ted Kenney write the education bill, making the largest infusion of taxpayer dollars ever into the useless Dept. of Education (oxymoron), massive amounts of taxpayer dollars for AIDs in the third world (that's worke out well!), caving in to Demo-Rats to establish the Homeland Security Department, which is amonumental joke, federalizing airport security by adding yet another useless bureaucracy, and trying to ram an amnesty bill down our throats. You liberal lunatics should love Bush, except for the fact the he lowered taxes, and went after your favorite people, the Islamic terrorists. Have a nice day!

Wow, another liberal who still thins it's necessary every day to prove they are mentally unbalanced. The writer forget to list his friends who were arrested without a warrant, or had their phone tapped, or list the freedoms the writer has lost. He obviously hasn't lost the freedom to make a fool of himself in public!

At least, with all of his faults, Bush understands that our most serious threat comes from Radical Islam, and not incandescant light bulbs.
Despite his lunatic friends in the least popular congress since records have been kept, telling us we are no safer than before 9/11, we've had no attacks on our soil, or interests (embassies, Naval vessels, etc.) in more than six years, while under the previous Demo-Rat administration who chose to treat terrorist attacks like they would treat bank robberies, we had attacks every few years (WTC, our embassies in Africa twice, the USS Cole) because we had a president who didn't want ot rock the boat (protect our interests).

Bush's most egregious shortcoming all stemmed from trying to get along with the idiot liberals by signing the blatantly unconstitutional campaign finance reform(?) legislation, letting Ted Kenney write the education bill, making the largest infusion of taxpayer dollars ever into the useless Dept. of Education (oxymoron), massive amounts of taxpayer dollars for AIDs in the third world (that's worke out well!), caving in to Demo-Rats to establish the Homeland Security Department, which is amonumental joke, federalizing airport security by adding yet another useless bureaucracy, and trying to ram an amnesty bill down our throats. You liberal lunatics should love Bush, except for the fact the he lowered taxes, and went after your favorite people, the Islamic terrorists. Have a nice day!

Two quick things. Dan wrote:

2) ...Did you notice Bush signed a recent energy bill raising CAFE standards?

We'll soon find new and inventive ways to rue this. Don't forget that their raising of CAFE standards was the reason SUVs gained prominence to begin with. Think- Gas is $3.00/gallon. If an automobile manufacturer could figure out a way to get a 25% in fuel efficiency over the competition reliably, at competitive market prices, and in a design people wanted/needed (read as truck), they would own the market.

But they can't. The technology isn't there. So our government will legislate it into place. Hopefully they'll soon legislate that chemotherapy should make people 25% less nauseous. Or that cell phones should receive signals 25% better.

Heck, why not just legislate that drug companies will have a medicine capable of curing breast cancer by 2020? Forget those pink ribbons. It's apparently as easy as passing a law, so why not start passing some laws?

Has anyone stopped to think that a great deal of this might just be about money?

From: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm

The penalty for failing to meet CAFE standards recently increased from $5.00 to $5.50 per tenth of a mile per gallon for each tenth under the target value times the total volume of those vehicles manufactured for a given model year.

Since 1983, manufacturers have paid more than $500 million in civil penalties. Most European manufacturers regularly pay CAFE civil penalties ranging from less than $1 million to more than $20 million annually. Asian and domestic manufacturers have never paid a civil penalty.
----

"Most European manufacturers regularly pay CAFE civil penalties ranging from less than $1 million to more than $20 million annually" Wow. The more failure we see, the more money that will go to the government. And, if it's easier to fail than to meet a technological impossibility, don't doubt that the cost will be passed on to you, the consumer. "Asian and domestic manufacturers" haven't thrown money at the problem yet, but don't think they're above raising prices across the board to get the government off their backs, lobbying for exemptions the whole time.

Dan also wrote:

8) I'll agree Bush isn't very articulate. Sadly, most of our populace isn't articulate anymore. Refer back to #1.

I've always held that, as shallow as our culture has become, if Bush had Blair's oratory skills he would've had at least 20% more support throughout his presidency.

Roger

Roger, thanks for pointing out how Dan once again proves to be an inch deep and a mile wide. No substance--and if he gets near something substantive, he basically rants, "The Dems did it too! They did it too!" all the while showing his total ignorance and partisan bent.

Speaking of ignorance and partisanship, it is ALWAYS nice to see Tony Mostschitti post!! When it comes to divisive "us vs. them" rhetoric, Tonymo is the best in the County! Like Danny, he has no depth, but he sure has that rote memorization down pat! In case you've never read his posts, here is the only thing you have to know:

Democrats = Bad
Republicans = Good

Of course he'll interchange "liberals" for Democrats, just to make it appear he has some skills in writing, but you can't make chicken salad out of chickensh_t! Jesus could come down today talking of giving all your riches to the poor and Tony would label him a liberal and a friend of terrorists! Tonymo is the most one dimensional person to post here--but he believes every word that he speaks, writes and blogs. His rhetoric does not emanate from a desire for change or improvement. Rather, his rhetoric springs from a hatred of the Democratic Party. That is the reason that most people ignore his letters. He is the classic "blowhard" from the North who, like a painful hemorrhoid, came down and stayed.

Gotta love it though. He's still apologizing for the worst President this country has had thus far.

Peace and Chicken Grease!

`

Roger,

I don't think that Bush's oratory skills has much to do with his popularity. The Dems hate him because he "stole" the 2000 election, and they'll never get over it. Ref: Demon's rants. Many Repubs have lost faith in him because he just isn't enough of a conservative for them. He has made to many too many compromises with the Liberal Democrats over the years; i.e. NCLB, Open Borders. You see, Bush isn't a true conservative, he's really more like a Neo-Con, which is more like an old John Kennedy or Scoop Jackson Democrat. Here are some descriptions of neo-cons and conservatives. Tell me which Bush is.

Conservative - Specifically a "fusionist" conservative of the National Review - Heritage Foundation mold. Someone who believes in traditional morality and capitalism, and the need for a limited government to allow both to flourish.

Neoconservative - A "neocon" is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.

So, my opinion is that conservatives are not happy with Bush because he isn't a true conservative, not because of his articulation, or lack thereof.

By the way, does this description look like anyone else that posts here?

Radical � Critical of bouregois morality and strongly opposed to capitalism and willing to use state power to achieve desired ends.

`

MOST IGNORANT POST O'THE DAY:

nitpicker said:

"Just wait until we get our first Muslim President in the white house about a year from now."

THIS IS THE MOST RIDICULOUS SHOW OF IGNORANCE IN QUITE SOME TIME! SO HERE ARE SOME FACTS FROM REPUTABLE SOURCES:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112802757.html?hpid=topnews

GOD HELP US, IF THE IGNORANT PEOPLE VOTE ---AGAIN! JUST LOOK AT WHAT THEY GAVE US LAST TIME!!

`

"MOST IGNORANT POST O'THE DAY"

Demon wins that one every time. He also gets the most hateful post of the day. Momma used to say "ignorant is as ignorant speaks".

:

Oak Ridge Runner,
This one sentence from you totally sinks your point:

"He has made to many too many compromises with the Liberal Democrats over the years; i.e. NCLB, Open Borders."

HILARIOUS, BUT TOTALLY FALSE!

He called NCLB the greatest acheivement of his administration!!! As far as open borders, he has plenty of company within the GOP to support his plan!! Of course you're blind to that one too, just like Tonymo! When was the last time you saw Dems using "open borders" as a campaign platform???? Examples???
We never heard conservatives complain about Bush until AFTER he was re-elected. The guy is a trainwreck, but you and many others can't get up the nerve to admit it. Sure, he can't string a sentence together, but no one cared about that---the fact he is a moron IS important. Calvin Coolidge was known as "Silent Cal", but he was NOT a moron. When I see people, like you, defending Bush, all I can think of is Bill Engval, "Here's your sign"!

`

Oak Ridge Runner says,
"Momma used to say "ignorant is as ignorant speaks".

Did Forest Gump have a retarded brother---now living in Oak Ridge???

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Gotta love it!
Oak Ridge blames Democrats for Bush's foibles!
Nitpicker actually thinks Barack Obama is a muslim!
Tonymo just continues to hate anything not of the GOP.

C'mon guys! Cut your IV drip bags to talk radio and hop on the Peace Train! Make a New Year's resolution to seek truth, not ignorance!
Leave your vapid thoughts and T-H-I-N-K for a change! Heck, you've got lots of good choices within your party to carry the mantle of the Bush Administration!

Huckabee--Sexist, Baptist Minister...but I repeat myself!

Giulianni--Estranged from his family, corrupt, pro choice, pro gay rights, and pro gun control.

McCain--former maverick who now kisses up to Pat Robertson and Bob Jones...AND supports the Iraq war and everything W says and does.

Romney--Oh why waste the ink. He's D.O.A.

My point?

Quit apologizing for Bush and get on with your candidates! Or will you be like nitprick, and spout some ridiculous rumor you heard from Sean Hannity--believing it to be true!??

You guys are a laugh a minute though! Thanks for making me almost pee my pants at your ridiculous posts! I really mean it!

`

Obama is THE ultimate Manchurian Candidate.

People can disagree all they want but I remind you that Isaid well over a year ago that Obama would win this presidency. You think I just had the knowledge on my own? Who woulda thought a Muslim schooled negro with little experience would be a shoe-in for a President? Me, that's who.

Get out of your bubble, guys. This guy will prove to make Hitler look like a day in the park.

`

OMG! Call the white coats, poor old nitwit has gone mad.

I hate making fun of mentally ill folks, but it seems that old nit has gone past his "Sell by" date! First we had the "Vince Foster was killed by the Clintons" conspiracy nutz, and now we have a poor bloke who believes everything he hears from talk radio! The Bush people put out the word that McCain fathered an illegitimate black child to injure him seven years ago, now we have nitwit believing that Obama is the Manchurian Candidate---guess it's the name and his skin color our pea brained friend can't get past. Whatever it is, I'm sure it can be traced to some right wing website, blog, or radio show, as I don't think our friend has the gray matter or creativity to come up with this kind of stuff on his own.
Geez Louise! Someone get these nutcakes back to their dorms--Nurse Ratched, says, "It's medication time".

I can just picture the group therapy scene from "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" with Nitwit, neocon, Ghost from White Oak, Oak Ridge Runner and Bubba sitting there discussing how the "liberals" are taking over the planet!

Dang! Nit, you have taken WIN, PLACE and SHOW today with your posts on this thread! My fedora is off to you, as it takes a "special" fellow to be crowned king of that genetic boulliabasse!

THIS IS UNREAL! You could NEVER make up stuff like this! Thanks Nit!

`

O.R.R.,
"...conservatives are not happy with Bush because he isn't a true conservative, not because of his articulation, or lack thereof."

Agreed.

Can someone help me remember who said (paraphrased):
Anyone who wants to be president shouldn't be allowed the position.

Essentially meaning that a reluctant farmer-type president is the best kind to have.

I consulted The Oracle but couldn't get close enough to yield a name.

---

Dan,
Yikes.

Roger

Roger,
There is no candidate out there I would vote "FOR", only candidates I would vote "AGAINST" seems to be the mantra for the past three elections. If Edwards had talked the last run, like he talks today, I would be energized to support him. He sounds more like RFK than anyone else running.

Read the posts above to get some really "unenlighted" voter education...or just a good laugh!

Peace, and Chicken Grease!

`

DING, DING, DING!!! A new contender for

STUPIDEST POST OF THE DAY:
***************************************
Nitpicker says of Obama:

"This guy will prove to make Hitler look like a day in the park."

*********************************************
Whew!
Quick! Someone call the CIA and the FBI and let them know what Nitpicker knows! A black man with a funny name is developing traction, and needs to be stopped! Hurry up!
Danger! Danger! Dr. Smith, behind the rocks! Watch out Will Robinson! Black man with funny name could be President! Quick! Compare him to Hitler! Villify him for being born to father from African continent! Danger!

------------------------------------
LOL!

`

23 posts and 9 belong to Demon Deacon.

"Tonymo is the most one dimensional person to post here--but he believes every word that he speaks, writes and blogs. His rhetoric does not emanate from a desire for change or improvement. Rather, his rhetoric springs from a hatred of the Democratic Party."

I'll change one name and one word and yield the EXACT same result.

"Demon Deacon is the most one dimensional person to post here--but he believes every word that he speaks, writes and blogs. His rhetoric does not emanate from a desire for change or improvement. Rather, his rhetoric springs from a hatred of the Republican Party."

Might I add any blogger who disagrees with his opinions, witness 9 insult loaded posts.

But I will add Demon Deacon prays for Bush of course.

Oxymoron, wound a little tight today, are we?

BTW Demon Deacon I notice you never answered my question, just the normal tirade of rants to be expected.

Here 'tis again.

Tell me personally when/where your right to free speech has been eliminated please? Betcha can't.

You own 9 of 23 posts, 39%. Too much speech if you ask me.

I'm waiting, answer the question. Betcha can't.

Canuck sez...
"Note to neocon:
Al Bore in fact WON the Presidency, Kerry did not".

Then pray tell O wise Canadian, why has albore been tossed into the dustbin of history, trying desperately to remain relevant by hawking 'globull warming' accessories, while Bush is leader of the free world?

If and when one of the socialists now running for president manages to get elected and introduces state run health care, I sincerely hope they will make the mental health of those delusional individuals who suffer from SBDS a priority for treatment. It's embarrassing to watch them make idiots of themselves in public like this.

Neo, you just hit the raw nerve of the genesis of BDS. Sufferers still believe algore won the election and continually wallow in rage all these years later. Their mental stability suffered even more in '04. There are still wackos, including RFK Jr., who think Kerry won in '04.

Notable quote:

"After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004."

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Note: same RFK Jr. who said Bush was to blame for Hurricane Katrina by not signing Kyoto.

Lets' be fair and give Demon Deacon a smidgen of credit Neo. He has swallowed alot of Kool Aid in years past, but at least not the nectar of believing Kerry won in '04.

Here is a cool site for Demon Deacon featuring Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA). It questions whether Stark and folks like Demon Deacon suffer from Paranoid Schizophrenia or Bush Derangement Syndrome.

You fill in the blanks and make the call. To be compassionate with folks suffering from schizophrenia, my vote is firmly BDS for Demon Deacon and Christopher Poulos for that matter.

http://conblogeration.blogspot.com/2007/10/paranoid-schizophrenia-or-bds.html

I dunno, Dan, but with 208 footnotes, the RS article seems fairly well researched.

Do you (or Hannity) have anything beyond partisan conjecture to offset the article?

ORR:

I agree Bush's oratory skills are not a reason for his un-popularity.

.. but Bush is neither a Conservative nor a Neo-Con. He is a man without strong beliefs other than a need to get-along with others (it is widely reported "bad news" and "contradictions" are not allowed in the WH) and the related cronyism and loyalty requirements. His only other strong belief is in Jesus - as witnessed by the anti-abortion / anti-stem cell issues - the only thing he vetoed with his buddies running Congress.

I personally dislike him because he is deferred all important decisions to a very small think tank: Cheney, Rummy, and Rove .. ignoring the Military Brass including Powell as well as many other thoughtful folk. Plus he purchased votes by spending like a drunken sailor.

BTW - Your National Review - Heritage Foundation definition of Conservative is very close to the definition of a "Classic Liberal" .. of which I am a proud member:

" ... a doctrine stressing individual freedom .. the importance of human rationality, individual property rights .. the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint ... with laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society .. not opposed to the state's provision of a few basic public goods."

The difference, I see is while today's "Conservatives" say similar things, their actions do not match the rhetoric ... ESPECIALLY the Neo-con's, who by even your own definition are "more inclined .. toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies."

Yea yea, conservative schmergative. Sounds like the " ... willing to use state power to achieve desired ends" you claim to despise.

Individual freedom and human rationality? Only when matching their morality.

Individual Property Rights and Free markets? Only when it does not interfere with big business.

Constitutional Limitations of Government and the Protection of Civil Liberties? Yea right ... all in the name of terrorism.

Opposed to the state's provision of a few basic public goods? What a freaking joke.

ORR:

I agree Bush's oratory skills are not a reason for his un-popularity.

.. but Bush is neither a Conservative nor a Neo-Con. He is a man without strong beliefs other than a need to get-along with others (it is widely reported "bad news" and "contradictions" are not allowed in the WH) and the related cronyism and loyalty requirements. His only other strong belief is in Jesus - as witnessed by the anti-abortion / anti-stem cell issues - the Only thing he vetoed while his buddies were running Congress.

I personally dislike him because he is deferred all decisions to a very small think tank: Cheney, Rummy, and Rove .. ignoring the Military Brass including Powell as well as many other thoughtful folk. Plus he purchased votes by spending like a drunken sailor.

BTW - Your National Review - Heritage Foundation definition of Conservative is very close to the definition of a "Classic Liberal" .. of which I am a proud member:

" ... a doctrine stressing individual freedom .. the importance of human rationality, individual property rights .. the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint ... with laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society .. not opposed to the state's provision of a few basic public goods."

The difference, I see is while today's "Conservatives" say similar things, their actions do not match the rhetoric ... ESPECIALLY the Neo-con's, who by even your own definition are "more inclined .. toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies."

Yea yea, conservative schmergative. Sounds like the " ... willing to use state power to achieve desired ends" you claim to despise.

Individual freedom and human rationality? Only when matching their morality.

Individual Property Rights and Free markets? Only when it does not interfere with big business.

Constitutional Limitations of Government and the Protection of Civil Liberties? Yea right ... all in the name of terrorism.

Opposed to the state's provision of a few basic public goods? What a freaking joke.

Paranoid schizophrenia or (S) BDS...same thing, except one needs serious help while the other provides entertainment money just can't buy.

Pete Stark is the poster boy for these wackos, although RFK is emerging as a serious contender.

RFK says Kerry lost because Bush failed to mail all those democrats living in exile (Canada, perhaps?) their absentee ballots and put a pox on the voting machines in New Mexico (all swept under the rug by a pro-Bush media of course)...makes perfect sense to me. I never gave Bush his due credit for being so innovative. (probably that wascally Rove boy and his network of underground shadow operatives out to subvert the constitution)

hahaha! professor poulos????

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/SelectTeacher.jsp?the_dept=All&sid=1352&orderby=TLName&letter=P

James,
neo and Dan drink from the same swill of FoxNews. Poor Dan has no clue how stupid he appears to normal people, but I think neo knows he's off his rocker but not to the actual extent!

When offered proof, Dan attacks the messenger. It is the extent of his cerebral capacity as he is quite limited in that area. He's either apologizing for Bush, Tonymo, or neo. As I've said many times, he's an inch deep and a mile wide.

`

`

Oh, and James, when you point out the shortcomings of our current Moron-in-Chief, you have BDS! These guys have no idea how bush league (pardon the pun!) they are when it comes to knowing their current political events.

`

`

neo refuses to give the highest level of education he's received---no small feat for the one who advocates abolishing public education!
Here's your sign!

Dan can't refute the letter and its contents, so he attacks the messenger---Danny boy, Here's your sign!

Ghost from White Oak can't string two sentences together about "WHY" Bush is so great, but he sure can put in his "atta boys" for little Danny and his symbiotic buddy.
Ghost, here's your sign!

Lilbean on another thread acts like Christians are persecuted---I can't stop laughing!!
Lilbean, here's you ANOTHER sign!

Bottom line:
Give us some reasons why you worship at the feet of George W. Bush. Tell us "WHY" we should respect and wallow in his excrement as you do. Tell us why all the GOP candidates, with the exception of McCain are running as far away from "W" as they can. Try to refrain from posting blogspots. (as Danny and neo do)
Oh, and one more thing, tell us how you square Iraq with the current deficit, the ongoing expense, and the decimation of our military? I think we'd ALL be interested to hear that!

`

James D. Rockefeller said:
I dunno, Dan, but with 208 footnotes, the RS article seems fairly well researched.

Do you (or Hannity) have anything beyond partisan conjecture to offset the article?

****************
James,
You hit the nail on the head! Dan has NEVER offered proof of anything other than opinion pieces. I think the last link he posted supporting his opinions, came from a priests' website! From what I can tell, neo got a computer one Christmas and uses it to read right wing sites and especially blogs--has to be something along those lines because he has yet to offer any reputable back up for any of his wacked out statements. Those two really deserve each other!

*******************

`

"Oh, and James, when you point out the shortcomings of our current Moron-in-Chief, you have BDS!"

Sorry Demon Deacon you still don't get it. If that statement was true then I would have BDS, as I have pointed out shortcomings in Bush for years.

Here is the Wiki definition:

"The term BDS refers to a purported tendency by some American liberals to blame President George W. Bush for virtually every ill in the world. It also purportedly refers to opposing a position advocated by the President just because he supports it, regardless of the position's merits."

Fits pretty well.

Here's another one:

Bush Derangement Syndrome

"Originally coined by columnist Charles Krauthammer as - the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush"

This one describes the symptoms of BDS:

"Bush Derangement Syndrome (or BDS) is a loss of the capability for rational thought. This loss is often displayed over a period of hours, days or even months and years. The sufferer in all cases blames President George W. Bush for any and all types of disasters, human maladies, etc. despite abundant evidence of contrary causal effects. BDS is also manifested in many sufferers by a determination to label President Bush as the greatest single threat to democracy and freedom in the United States since the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts during the presidency of John Adams. Also, closely related, see Karl Rove Syndrome (KRS)."

Keep praying for W Demon Deacon!!!!!!

I dunno, Neo, but with 208 footnotes, the RS article seems fairly well researched.

Do you (or Hannity) have anything beyond partisan conjecture to offset the article?

lilbean - I don't get your link. Please explain.

It's fun to watch you suck up JDRs rear end Demon Deacon. JDR you have a new admirer!! Impressed?

Didn't like my Pete Stark link? Yep it's from a blogspot but the blogger didn't make it up. This is your party Demon Deacon.

Keep praying!! I'd love to have some more fun but I've got things to do today.

One reason why everyone should be a Democrat:

THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE said:
"I could never be a Republican, because I would have to hate black people, Mexicans, and gay people." Posted on October 3, 2007 12:28 PM

I perhaps am hijacking the thread .. but since we're talking about BDS - and no one seems to contest that Bush's "only other strong belief is in Jesus - as witnessed by the anti-abortion / anti-stem cell issues - the only thing he vetoed with his buddies running Congress" ... can someone point me to the bible phrase where Jesus explicitly speaks against abortion? I'll let you slide on the stem cell thing, but if you have one that'd be great.

man there are some wacky dudes out there .. I found this:

http://www.wikiality.com/Abortion

J.D.R.,

Matthew 25:40. Lot's of people use it to justify welfare, but it seems to work much better here. And it's in red.

"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

Did anyone go see the Body Worlds exhibit? Google it if you don't know what I'm talking about. Exceptional and intriguing. My mind changed a bit there. I challenge anyone to tell me that the plasticized extracted-at-X-weeks bodies weren't babies. They might not have been when they were inside their mothers, but the moment they were taken out I think they were. Living we'll call them preemies. Dead and we'll sometimes call them abortions.

Now whether a fetus is lesser than, say, a homeless drunk or meth addict is, I suppose, a personal value, but I think we'll each answer for what we see, individually, as "the least of these."

I dislike discussing it since people are unlikely to change their minds (or even open them enough to properly address the topic), but you asked, and that is my reading/interpretation/belief.

Roger

Roger,
I could live with the right wing wackos wanting to eliminate abortions if they would sign onto promoting birth control, and helping the poor indigent mothers who chose "Life". Problem is, they want no abortions, they want to cut funding for family planning, and they oppose helping the poor, calling it a "giveaway" program, or a "nanny state". Bottom line is they are mostly like Dan, no substance, just armchair ideology.

(Note that Dan claims better things to do, then immediately post again! Too funny!)

I guess you never read my threads Demon Deacon, perhaps I will archive some of mine as well. I have no problem with contraception, but I do have a problem with schools giving out contraception to 11 year old girls. I have no problem with helping out the truly needy, I do this myself. There are thousands of charities that do it as well. I do have a problem with the govt. providing health insurance with my tax money to families making $60K.

Gotta go again, glad you liked my post of your Oct. 3rd post. That was a keeper, please provide some more.

I do not disagree, Roger .. it just seems inconsistent - at best - to stake one's political beliefs on individual reponsibility and limited [if non non]-government, but to then insist on government intervention into another individual's reponsibility.

non non = non not

non non = not non

One more thing while I'm waiting for my daugther:

He said as a preamble to the Matthew Parables (Matthew 17) "For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it."

So how do we "know" we are getting the correct message? Maybe we just can't grok.

13 :This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: " 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

15 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes ...

"I dunno, Neo, but with 208 footnotes, the RS article seems fairly well researched"...

"well researched" enough to stand up to the scrutiny of a court of law?
Why haven't the dimocrats - led by Pete Stark and the wide-eyed queen - pounced on this with 4 feet? They've held power for more than a year now. What are they afraid of? What are they waiting for? If they had one shred of proof that the rantings of RFK and his cronies had any legitimacy at all, they'd already have W lynched. Are we to believe they simply do not want to 'put the country through such an ordeal'?
Yeah, that MUST be it...they are so concerned about the welfare of the country, they don't want to embarrass the President during his last year in office. Real nice of them...

I hate that the answer is simply "faith." It's one of the most difficult things to grasp. But that's the nut of it.

The trick is to read it without seeing the numbers-
"You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused;"

(Thanks for the passage, btw. The group-possessive has never registered with me before)

Me, R.B., will tell you nothing you don't already know.

We're all searching for what is right, but we're bombarded by useless nonsense at least 39% of the time.

I'll use the N&R for the first example. I think it was last Sunday that they printed an article on a peregrine falcon that had been seen downtown. I don't know why it stuck with me, but here's what the lady said about it:
"The sleek, bullet-like peregrine can cruise at 100 mph, and the U.S. Air Force has clocked one diving at 263 mph- impressive to test pilots, because a human without a pressure suit passes out at 90 mph."
http://www.newsandrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071230/NRSTAFF/470063431/-1/NEWS30

"...a human without a pressure suit passes out at 90 mph." Ha. If that were the case, every day at 8am and 5pm we'd have lots more wrecks on 85 and 40. Poor editing? Maybe. We might compare it to translations. A person who doesn't grasp falconry (or jet fighters?), but made some phone calls or read some stuff on Wikipedia, trying to write to her demographic. Overall, I'd wager the reporter heard, but she didn't understand. Worse, she spread the word (preached, in a way).

And her demographic read it, digested it, and doesn't understand it or now knows something that is completely wrong. And next week the same reporter will write about casseroles or whatever she can find to fill space and justify another page because a used-car lot bought a full-page ad and the paper is just a vessel for advertisements. Truth and accuracy is unimportant when there are other priorities (self).

But she spread the word. And people heard, but don't understand. Yet they think they do. Maybe some old person is driving even slower this Sunday, worried about passing out behind the wheel...

I had a nifty analogy of progression of understanding based on atoms, with young students grasping Bohr's models and it being adequate for what they need, but people who want to understand more can study, and eventually almost understand, Schrodinger's (further enlightenment), and have faith that the unseen things are working exactly as they should. Between what I think your background is and your use of a term (Asimov fan, myself), it made me think the analogy would be easily received. Again, I don't really think I'm telling you anything new, but writing it out is strangely useful for myself.

"You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused;"

We've heard so much that is wrong that we're afraid of what is right. Because of our problems perceiving, our emotions are unable to lead us correctly. How do we "know" we're getting the right message? We can't. But I think we all have a right/wrong compass, and part of our responsibility of being free-willed humans is to pursue the right message, and it's up to each of us to determine the truth. Make notes. Learn. Study. There will be a test at the end of class, and we'll all test individually. And, like all good teachers, He wants you to pass.

Please forgive the length. I take a rambling old man's liberties.

Roger

Compelling anti-evidence, Neo.

"FAITH" is a more than adequate answer, Roger.

I like you latter paragraph (highlights below):

"We've heard so much that is wrong that we're afraid of what is right. Because of our problems perceiving, our emotions are unable to lead us correctly. ... we all have a right/wrong compass, and part of our responsibility of being free-willed humans is to pursue the right message, and it's up to each of us to determine the truth. Make notes. Learn. Study.

I confess to being neither a biblical scholar nor a believer in the after-life. Perhaps I'll be unpleasantly surprised, but the evil done in the name of Jesus and the overt hypocrisy of some church folk claws on me - as do the political power folk that exploit religious coat-tails - as do the buffoons that blindly follow these same political power folk. On the other hand, the faith and strength I often see in both everyday folk and the occasional well known leader inspire me to hang in there, and at least try to follow my understanding of the positive teachings of Jesus - which is one "right message" I can at least understand.

Thanks for the discussion.

Roger: Your discussion about atoms reminded me of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0316109304/ref=dp_olp_2/002-3308464-2246432

You can get it delivered for 4 bucks. It is a history of science and the way mankind has been changed by specific discoveries. Using atoms, or more specifically electrons, he discusses the difference between knowledge and certainty.

Another chapter discusses new revelations about light, circa 1400, and how that lead to changes in art including the addition of perspective and movement and ultimately the depictions of man .. which leads to the self-imposed isolation of Muslims from the western world.

Fascinating reading - fast and easy too. While Bronkowski was a physicist who hung out with the Fermi's of the world, this book is very down to earth .. Newtonian so to speak.

J.D.R.,

Done. We'll consider it a trade with nothing actually changing hands. Yours is worth twice mine, but I'll ask you to order this one:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0871136643/ref=dp_olp_2/002-9707936-6677605?ie=UTF8&qid=1199572734&sr=8-1

The explanation of the evolution of evil. And brilliant.

Roger

Roger and James,
Thanks for the enlightment. You are bright beacons in this otherwise quagmire!
Have a great weekend!

J.D.R.,

I re-read your 4:14 post and will be brief, but I'm compelled to reply. Part of that faith thing, I guess, that I hope you'll tolerate before I call it a night.

You wrote:
"...inspire me to hang in there, and at least try to follow my understanding of the positive teachings of Jesus - which is one "right message" I can at least understand."

I'm no scholar, either. But I can read, and I've read the Bible, and, boiled down and as best I can tell, Jesus told us to do two related things:
1) Love Him.
2) Love everybody else.

Roger