March 29, 2005
The Bush Doctrine vs. the 'Arc of Tyranny'
Willisms has a fascinating post on the danger of what he terms 'the arc of tyranny' poses for the West and how the Bush doctrine is taking on that danger.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:29 AM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.
1
There's a great book, "The Pentagon's New Map" written by national security strategic planner Thomas P.M. Barnett which basically talks about the same thing. When people say the government plans policy decades in advance, it's these "strategic planners" who are doing the planning and theorizing. According to this book, our policies vis a vis Iraq specifically and the ME generally is about stabilizing these regions of chaos, or "archs of tyranny."
Posted by: Carlos at March 29, 2005 09:30 AM (8e/V4)
2
There was another think tank that wrote on the subject. It was the "Project for the New American Century" with Neocon members like Wolfowitz and Bill Crystal. They said that in order for the American people to get on board with what needed to be done to secure our global strategic interests we would need a "New Pearl Harbor" like event to galvanize the American people. Then came 9-11 a few years later. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Posted by: greg at March 29, 2005 10:12 AM (/+dAV)
3
Is Cuba green on this map?!
Posted by: electronicIDF at March 29, 2005 10:32 AM (MBd2J)
4
where there is freedom theee is prosperity.
tyranny stagnates human creativity and human creativity is the engine of economic growth.
If anarchists and Leftie-do-gooders really wanted to improve the lot of lives of the poor people in the Third World then they would be advocating MORE gloabalism and MORE BUSH DOCTRINE instead of less trade and a huge, international welfare regime.
Posted by: reliapundit at March 29, 2005 10:59 AM (4G2i1)
5
where there is freedom, there is prosperity.
tyranny stagnates human creativity and human creativity is the engine of economic growth.
If anarchists and Leftie-do-gooders really wanted to improve the lot of lives of the poor people in the Third World, then they should advocate MORE gloabalism and MORE BUSH DOCTRINE instead of less trade and a huge, international welfare regime.
Posted by: reliapundit at March 29, 2005 11:00 AM (4G2i1)
6
>>>"If anarchists and Leftie-do-gooders really wanted to improve the lot of lives of the poor people in the Third World..."
stop sentence. That's not what they want. They've proved it in Iraq.
Posted by: Carlos at March 29, 2005 12:18 PM (8e/V4)
7
>>>"Coincidence? I don't think so."
Greg,
probably not coincidence. Think tanks try to avoid that kind of thing. They sit and think, and they put 2 and 2 together, and make educated guesses, just like many analysts predicted the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor before they actually did. Here's an example:
"The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise, but many keen observers foresaw an inevitable attack."
http://p-38online.com/alaska.html
PNAC and many others have predicted a catastrophic attack on our soil for years.
Posted by: Carlos at March 29, 2005 12:22 PM (8e/V4)
8
Very good reply Carlos.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 29, 2005 01:00 PM (JQjhA)
9
Carlito,
You're the only one who read my post apparently.
In the months just before and after 9-11, over 200 Israeli spies were caught in the United States and whisked quietly back to Israel. This was reported by Brit Hume and Carl Cameron of Fox News in a 4 part series on Dec. 11-14, 2001 and was then removed from Fox’s website on Dec. 15, 2001. In the report, a senior U.S. intelligence agent was asked if the spy ring was in anyway related to 9-11 and he said, “This information is classified, I cannot speak about it”.
This 4 part series is still available at:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
I highly recommend that you listen to these reports, at least listen to part 1 (broadband connection required). TheyÂ’re about 5 minutes long each. Brit Hume and Fox are not anti-semitic and neither am I. Brit Hume called the piece "Explosive!".
Posted by: greg at March 29, 2005 03:00 PM (/+dAV)
10
The PNAC didn't predict a new Pearl Harbor, they wished for it. What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".
Cui bono?
Posted by: greg at March 29, 2005 03:10 PM (/+dAV)
11
>>>"In the months just before and after 9-11, over 200 Israeli spies were caught in the United States and whisked quietly back to Israel."
Honestly, and?
Posted by: Carlos at March 29, 2005 03:29 PM (8e/V4)
12
>>>"The PNAC didn't predict a new Pearl Harbor, they wished for it."
So some think tank pencil necks mobilized the U.S. government at all levels, from highest to lowest, to pull off the conspiracy, and then the pencil necks killed them all to keep it secret?
The problem with most conspiracies is that they aren't plausible. They never explain just HOW it can be pulled off. I know because I good buddy of mine is huge into conspiracies, including this one, and he never even pauses to consider just how such conspiracies could be pulled off. It never occurs to him. Same here. It would have been impossible to coopt all the necessary intelligence agencies, including the Secret Service, and the airlines and the Air Force, etc., to play along.
It's an irrational belief on your part cobbled together by isolated and unrelated factoids.
Posted by: Carlos at March 29, 2005 03:35 PM (8e/V4)
13
Carlos,
I actually read the site you pointed me to http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
Before you comment on Brit Hume's report you should listen to it otherwise you come off as IGNORant. Is the report that threatening to you?
Posted by: Greg at March 29, 2005 03:42 PM (/+dAV)
14
Is Brit Hume irrational? Regarding Israel's possible foreknowledge of 9-11, he is the one that came to the conclusion on the basis of the report, "How could they not have known".
It looks like the "terrorists" were shepherded.
If "explosive" stories like this one were not spiked your buddy and I wouldn't be so suspicious.
Posted by: greg at March 29, 2005 03:56 PM (/+dAV)
15
"By deception, we shall make war".
The motto of the Mossad.
"Let's you and him fight".
Posted by: greg at March 29, 2005 04:16 PM (/+dAV)
16
The Arc of Tyranny is a reified construct.
Posted by: Collin Baber at March 29, 2005 04:34 PM (Hkppj)
17
Carlos,
It was nice chatting with you. I've got to run and will be out of pocket. I can tell you're not too interested in the Brit Hume report.
Do me a favor and pass it on to your good buddy. He'll appreciate it.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
Posted by: greg at March 29, 2005 04:49 PM (/+dAV)
18
>>>"Before you comment on Brit Hume's report you should listen to it otherwise you come off as IGNORant."
greg,
I didn't comment on Brit Hume's report. I commented on your Israeli spies statement, and I said and?
Posted by: Carlos at March 29, 2005 04:52 PM (8e/V4)
19
>>>"By deception, we shall make war".
a factoid.
Posted by: Carlos at March 29, 2005 04:54 PM (8e/V4)
20
That arc may need a bump in the middle if Putin gets too uppity.
Posted by: Brian H at March 29, 2005 06:33 PM (8AabM)
21
The real arc of instability leads right through 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Posted by: Collin Baber at March 29, 2005 07:08 PM (Hkppj)
22
>Is Cuba green on this map?!
But most importantly, why is communist dictatorship China yellow on this map?
Posted by: Francesco Poli at March 30, 2005 05:32 AM (r3ZP6)
23
The Peoples' Republic was branded purple by that mapmaker.
Posted by: Collin Baber at March 30, 2005 05:54 AM (fufbw)
24
"The real arc of instability leads right through 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."
Right, that's why bin Laden and his ilk are so pleased Bush won the '04 election.
Colon Babbler ad infinitum!
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 30, 2005 07:11 AM (x+5JB)
25
Francesco bello,
China is clearly purple on the map not yellow (unless of course you're joking as in "yellow china"). Check your geography book.
Posted by: greg at March 30, 2005 08:12 AM (/+dAV)
26
Cuba and Haiti are the only purple in the Western hemisphere.
Posted by: Carlos at March 30, 2005 08:26 AM (8e/V4)
27
In my opinion the Muslims are not the major threat to America.
The major threat is China. A recent CIA report stated that the Chinese economy will surpase that of the USA by the year 2025. They will, along with India, be our largest competitors for oil and other commodities. Should China and Russia team up against the USA, and they have been holding talks, it will be a formidable enemy with a strong likelyhood of a nuclear exchange occuring given a confrontation.
I hate to be a warmonger, but confronting China before they undergo further economic development may be prudent.
Instead, "multinational" corporations with no real allegiance to America are feeding the slumbering Chinese giant.
Posted by: greg at March 30, 2005 10:52 AM (/+dAV)
28
Another benefit in confronting the Chinese is that we could tell them to go screw themselves as far as the American debt that they hold. This would help alleviate the American people's burden of economic slavery that thhey are currently in.
Posted by: greg at March 30, 2005 10:58 AM (/+dAV)
29
Economic slavery? Sounds like words from another loser.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 30, 2005 10:12 PM (JRpVI)
30
Roooster,
Being over taxed and in deep deep debt is economic slavery.
But you just keep slurping on that sweet government pocycle like a good little slave. Hell, go ahead and bend over so they can insert the mark of the devil up your ass while you're at it.
Posted by: greg at March 31, 2005 09:58 AM (/+dAV)
31
First the Jews, now the Chinese.
I don't feel over taxed. You imbecile we have one of the lowest tax rates in the Western world. I do feel that some of my tax dollars are wasted on stupid liberal programs that always achieve the opposite results.
I don't slurp at the Government popsicle. I buy them so losers like you can slurp.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 31, 2005 07:31 PM (CBNGy)
32
Question: If Zimbabwe was still Rhodesia would it be colored green?
Posted by: greyrooster at April 02, 2005 10:28 AM (CBNGy)
33
Greyrooster,
Probably not.
Posted by: Collin Baber at April 02, 2005 10:32 PM (fufbw)
March 21, 2005
Sexy Social Security
It's not hot girl-on-girl action, but I'd say Social Security is almost as sexy. American Warmonger has a good summary of the alternatives.
Posted by: Rusty at
11:55 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It's an interesting anaylsis, but he makes a few key ommissions regarding the problem with Social Security.
1) One of the fundamental problems with the current structure of Social Security is that it is invested only in the safest of investments - specifically, Treasurey Bills. In this low interest rate environment, the returns being invested within the Social Security money pool are pretty meagre. As such, the growth rates being used to project future funds to draw from are also pretty small. Hence, one issue of the problem.
The solution is: increase the flexibility for the managers of this pool to invest outside of Treasury Bills, making it easier to earn better returns. When markets are getting choppy, they would still have the flexibility to go into cash. But, when the markets are earning double-digit returns, they (the managers) wouldn't be handcuffed to earning only a few percent. The other alternative is you wait for interest rates to rise, and hope the extra percent here and there on the Treasury Bills is more than sufficient (but this is a pretty passive strategy).
2. The current Social Security system is too generous as it stands. He (Jeremy) touches on this briefly, but the solution that he doesn't really talk about is the fact that if you lower the payout, the pool will obviously last longer. While this may not be popular, the fact is that it's a pretty generous system (twice what, say, Canada gives its citizens).
So, obviously, the solution is: reduce the payout. Not too popular, but sometimes you have to make some unpopular moves as a government. And, it's not like the amounts couldn't be increased in the future if matters improve.
3. The current strain on the Social Security system, obviously, is the demographic surge of baby boomers joining their parents on collecting their loot. Conceivably, you could wait until the numbers of baby boomers start to decline, which might be in 20 years or so. Most conservative estimates give Social Security at least that long. Maybe population growth over that time would be enough to make the difference negligible, but it's still possible that with fewer taking it, Social Security would be given a chance to regroup.
Solution: do nothing and hope for the best. I'm sure the government has a few demographers who would have identified this if that's the case, but then again, this isn't the brightest government.
Basically, I think the whole issue of being forced into one asset class is the problem with the current Social Security system. If the Bush administration loosened the rules on that, it would probably be in a much better state down the road.
Of course, you can't really hope for a workable solution from neocons. Considering fixing a domestic social issue doesn't involve using the military, I'm sure 99% of neocons don't really have a clue what to do. The fact it's being discussed on the "blogosphere" is actually pretty funny.
Posted by: Venom at March 21, 2005 03:39 PM (dbxVM)
2
Gee, thanks Venom!
I though you were making a real critique until you threw out the liberalized snark at the end! In reality, I try not to consider myself a neocon. It's sort of like labeling everyone that voted for Kerry a liberal. Isn't labeling people rather sophomoric? It's sort of like stereotyping.
Anyway, let's discuss the points:
Your #1: The TSP has already provided an example of what can happen under a more aggressive social security (actually considered a social insurance). TSP considers these factors and allows you to move your funds around depending on what you consider appropriate.
Say for example you're 25 years old and the market is good youwould probably want to invest in the I fund (the most aggressive of the TSP funds). As you grow older, and your portfolio increases, you will want to move your funds to a more stable fund, such as the G or C funds, thus protecting your investment from loss.
Point being is that we don't need to reinvent the wheel. We just need to be allowed to use it. If we were to allow the T-bill managers to work with stocks there is a good chance they would fail. To make it work we would have to hire new fund managers with the experience in stocks. It may seem like small potatoes, but if people don't realize what is happening it would be a bigger gamble on SS than most people realize.
To water things down (and try and pull a point out of this) you're looking for Personal accounts without letting people decide for themselves.
2. If you think we're collecting a lot now you should use the SSA calculator to find out how much you will collect at retirement. It's a whole lot more than you would think.
Your idea of reducing the payout falls under something called "Fee for Service". Basically it goes into your concept as a reverse tax. People don't like the word tax. It scares them. That's why we don't "pay taxes" to SS, we make "contributions". A tax is a tax from any angle and would bring up the image of our elders eating cat food in the meantime.
3. Since I restricted myself to the three primary arguments floating around the net, I didn't get into the other, more abstract government controlled psychology of things. This may sound rather off the wall, but what would happen to social security if we had another baby boom? Wouldn't that solve to problems of Social Security in 20 years? Of course it would. Only for a temporary time though. We would need another baby boom when the new baby boom got to retirement age.
The way to enact a baby boom is through national psychological manipulation. I know this sounds weird, but it happens every day. All it would take is some form of study or push for parents with multiple children, maybe a huge tax write-off, and the babies will come. It's simple manipulation.
Lastly, I must close with a partisan bite. It seems to be the tack of the post so why change it:
If the Bush administration loosened the rules on that, it would probably be in a much better state down the road.
Bush can't touch Social Security without the Democratic party going into fits. He could have Hillary Clinton sit down with Boxer, Pelosi and Byrd write up a bill on his behalf and if the words came out of Bush's mouth the DNC and AARP would say the exact same thing they are saying now. I'd put money on it.
Posted by: Jeremy at March 21, 2005 10:41 PM (WGcw3)
3
Jeremy, if you're not a neocon, you shouldn't take offence. In truth, I appreciated your post on the topic because it didn't show a whole lot of partisan flair. I simply pointed out a few more solutions you didn't bring up. The quip about neocons was a generalized comment about how neocons seem to know how to "fix" everything, but that it usually involves the use of military force. I was simply pointing out how amusing it is to see neocons try and tackle this one. Oh, and I don't consider myself a liberal. Just an old-fashioned conservative. The "neo" that is thrown in front of it nowadays is a carte blanche for a segment of the population to spout off without really examining issues. Apparently, "might makes right" isn't just a motto - it's a religion. Fuck that.
Anyhways, on to a few clarifications on your response:
Regarding point 1, while I appreciate the flexibility a TSP offers, the fact is that most people aren't skilled enough to manage their portfolios. Most people don't know the first principles about investing and left to their own devices, will probably lose out more than if they had professional money managers doing the job for them.
So, if you're going to expand the pool of asset classes that SS can invest in, obviously you're going to have to hire more managers. I mean, of course you're not going to have bond managers making equity calls on the market. And, frankly, I'd trust a bunch of analysts who will get paid bonuses to beat the benchmark rather than expect the average American to do the same. Plus, hiring world-class managers isn't that hard when you have the resources of the federal government. Sure, it will cost more in management fees to hire more managers, but if they can beat the overall market on a consistent basis, you're already ahead.
Besides, it's a basic principle of investing that your risk decreases and your returns increase when you diversify. So, why make Americans worse off by sequestering in only one asset class, not to mention the asset class that will always offer the lowest potential returns?
2) It's a good point you make, but mine was simply an option. Obviously it wouldn't be popular (something I acknowledged), but it's still an option. And you could always grandfather (no pun intended) the current recipients that receive their payments so they keep their cheques at the same level, but decrease those that come out in, say, 5 years. But a reduction is still an option.
3) I suppose you could have another baby boom, Orwellian as it sounds (and hey, we're heading in that direction anyways), but another one would, as you point out, put the current system in jeopardy once those new baby boomers retire. The system would naturally have to be fixed in between the gap of current baby boomers and the birth of the next one. Would the government (regardless of party) have the motivation to do that? Likely not. People nowadays don't seem to care about much about issues that impact the country unless it's terrorism-related or it's about some woman they don't know getting a feeding tube removed.
"Bush can't touch Social Security without the Democratic party going into fits. He could have Hillary Clinton sit down with Boxer, Pelosi and Byrd write up a bill on his behalf and if the words came out of Bush's mouth the DNC and AARP would say the exact same thing they are saying now. I'd put money on it."
All true, but the fact is that there have been many issues that the Democrats have been passionately against and the Bush administration has pushed through anyways. They could protest, but it wouldn't really make a big impact if it was something Bush really wanted to pass.
Posted by: Venom at March 22, 2005 09:04 AM (dbxVM)
4
I was just trying to give you the partisan jab about neocons. I wan't offended in the least. You'd have to get pretty nasty to do that.
Good points all around. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on number 2 though. I guess I have a little libertarian in me after all.
I think the funniest thing about the whole political stage on this is the fact that many of the Republicans have bailed on this. Maybe they're worried about taking responsibility from the Dems?
I dunno. Just food for thought. I've rather enjoyed this little conversation.
Posted by: Jeremy at March 22, 2005 02:38 PM (farnf)
5
"I was just trying to give you the partisan jab about neocons. I wan't offended in the least. You'd have to get pretty nasty to do that."
Haha, who me? I'm never nasty. ;P
Agreed, it's always cool to talk to people with a (functioning) head on their shoulders.
Posted by: Venom at March 22, 2005 04:13 PM (dbxVM)
6
Mayflower Compact Coalition (Wangstas Fo' Shizzle My Nizzle)...
RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman today attended the unveiling of the 21st Century Mayflower Compact at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington D.C.. The nine-point agenda includes support for school choice and private social security accounts. The Coalition is advised in part by former House Speaker Newt GingrichÂ’s consulting firm.
African Americans often reach different and surprising conclusions on social issues that the casual (Caucasian) observer just won’t understand. For example, Black folks still want to see Michael Jackson find happiness. His high-pitched voice and soulful delivery is the soundtrack of generations and has a permanent place in the Black community’s psyche, no matter the plastic surgery, skin bleaching and alleged child molestation charges. Possibly, it’s the “he’s still Black” phenomenon that African Americans well understand. They want Michael Jackson’s name cleared. In short, they want him to make good music and just leave the damn kids alone.
Likewise, Blacks see Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance Program, popularly known as Social Security, as an entitlement forced into place during a period when “bigots” wanted to run things. And against the odds, a well respected Franklin Roosevelt was able to established needed protection for the public from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment. As its original name suggest, African Americans believe the insurance program was created to do much more than provide an old age benefit.
Wangstas (whites and uh oh oreos) are extremely white people who attempt to be “gangsta” (cool with Black people) in order to “pimp out.” They dress, speak and act for all practical purposes as a African Americans aside from the fact that they are not. Normally they are hated by the fam for being fake.
The White House and its oreos who support overhauling Social Security have launched a highly targeted campaign to convince Black people that President Bush’s plan to create private investment accounts will have special benefits for them. The ghetto fab element about the GOP message to African Americans: “The shorter life expectancy of Black males means Social Security in its current form is not a favorable deal.”
Proponents of privatizing social security who claim no group has as much at stake in the debate over reform as African Americans, in fact, are right. Black families of workers who become disabled or die are much more likely than their Caucasian counterparts to be dependent on the grip available from disability and/or survivor benefits. Blacks make up 12 percent of the U.S. population, but 23 percent of African American children receive survivor benefits, and 18 percent of the community are disability beneficiaries.
Although the wangstas are making a special effort to appeal to the strizzeet with the 21st Century Mayflower Compact, the “lower life expectancies” illusion appears to reached every one except the African American senior. Their attempt to focus on a very narrow element of the system (current program based on longevity is unfair) is misplaced and doesn’t gain cool points. What the oreos fail to realize is their attempt to be “down” for da brothas... is just “gosh-darn” obnoxious (using their vernacular) and another clue identifying the new face of segregation.
“A’ight?”
Social Security is an insurance program that protects workers and their families against the income loss that occurs when a worker retires, becomes disabled, or dies. All workers will eventually either grow too old to compete in the labor market, become disabled, or die. President Roosevelt created the program to insure all workers and their families against these universal risks, while spreading the costs and benefits of that insurance protection among the entire workforce.
It is a “pay as you go” program, which means the Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) payroll tax paid by today’s workers are not set aside to pay their own benefits down the road, but rather go to pay the benefits of current recipients. The tax is progressive. The low-wage workers receive a greater percentage of pre-retirement earnings from the program than higher-wage workers. And, in the 1980's, Congress passed reforms to raise extra tax revenues above and beyond the current need and set up a trust fund to hold a reserve.
As was the case when the program was established, higher-wage workers still oppose the social nature of the program. They argue low rates of return as a reason to switch from the current “pay-as-you-go” system to one in which individual workers claim their own contribution and decide where and how to invest it. In short, rather than sharing the risk across the entire workforce to ensure that all workers and their families are protected from old age, disability, and death, higher-wage workers want to enable opportunity to reap gains from private investment without having to help protect lower-wage workers from their disproportionate risks.
Allowing high-wage workers (who are more likely to live long enough to retire) opportunity to opt out of the general risk pool and devote all their money to retirement without having to cover the risk of those who may become disabled or die, is da foÂ’ shizzle identifying the republican partyÂ’s desire to return to a segregated society.
RooseveltÂ’s benefit formula currently in place intentionally helps low income earners. Lifetime earnings directly factor into the formula. And, thirty-five percent of Black workers born between 1931 and 1940 had lifetime earnings that fell into the bottom fifth of earnings received by workers born in these years. African AmericansÂ’ median earnings (working-age in jobs covered by Social Security in 2002) were about $21,200, compared to $28,400 for all working-age people.
HNIC, President Bush, does acknowledge the difficulty Blacks will have in accumulating enough savings in their individual accounts to provide for a secure retirement once the progressivity of the current system is eliminated. However, he has only suggested allowing lower-income workers to place higher portions of their income into the uncertainties of investment accounts (creating even more risk).
Yes! Private accounts would be passed on to children or other heirs. But, what the HNIC and his oreos doesnÂ’t explain is lower-income workers would be forced to buy an annuity large enough (when combined with their traditional Social Security benefit) to ensure that they would at least have a poverty level income for retirement.
YoÂ’ playa... da new private Social Security account fizzle sucks!
Posted by: kstreetfriend at March 23, 2005 02:08 PM (M7kiy)
7
Wow...there's three minutes I'll never get back again.
Posted by: Venom at March 24, 2005 02:49 PM (dbxVM)
March 17, 2005
Seattle: Grunge, Microsoft, anti-Americanism....
I spent five days at a conference in Seattle once. It was four days too long. Here's why.
Posted by: Rusty at
01:35 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The school administation should be replaced.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2005 01:45 PM (CBNGy)
2
We must remember that in a large highschool 99% of the students are not involved. Only the sickos take part in such garbage. Those that set the stage for this disgusting display were in reality probably less than 10. Nevertheless, school admistation was probably aware of this activity and should be removed.
Remember. Academia again.
Time for other students to remove this group from their school?
Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2005 01:51 PM (CBNGy)
3
Damn those students for using their right to free speech. How are Marines, trained soldiers, supposed to stand up to this massive wall of children shouting about peace?!
BTW, did Malkin catch Bells Palsy? That new picture is awful.
Posted by: Jimbo at March 17, 2005 01:54 PM (9qklm)
4
Some rights, while sacred, ought not be exercised if what you have to say is disgusting.
BTW-I'm into Michelle's new look.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 17, 2005 02:06 PM (JQjhA)
5
Truly Theatre of the Absurd.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 17, 2005 02:38 PM (x+5JB)
6
You must be kidding me..........What a freak show
M.W.
Posted by: MIGHTY WHITEY at March 17, 2005 05:11 PM (hm1Zu)
7
jimbo-what rock did you crawl out from under. you are a dip shit liberal. how about the students thank the soldiers and marines for having any rights at all. they should just be happy that they arn't thanking them in german.
Posted by: dreamer at March 17, 2005 09:16 PM (bgoXf)
8
The air must be pretty thin in Seattle. What some people will do with their gift of free speech! But, in some small way, it all makes sense. The more you set flame to your free speech, the more oxygen you remove from your immediate atmosphere, which in turn makes it more difficult to think clearly. It's a vicious cycle!
Posted by: Picasso's Revenge at March 18, 2005 05:59 AM (VgnYR)
9
We who live in the burbs don't call Seattle the People's Republic for nothing.
For further reading on this check out a blog at SOUNDPOLITICS.COM.
This blog deals primarly with the fraud and theft of the Washington State Governor's election by the King County (Seattle) democrat machine. However they did write about this subject this week . Scrol down about 1/3 of the way to "Vilification of the US Military at West Seattle High School.
Posted by: Brad at March 18, 2005 08:28 AM (M7kiy)
10
ja und...
...du zypfeschwinger?! Ham scho recht
Posted by: R. March at March 20, 2005 12:28 PM (5EKRj)
11
lol u twats
Posted by: jon at March 22, 2005 01:42 PM (bjItH)
12
I think you Must all be ignorant people. If we cannot even act out something going on... which we all know is. How do we then have free speeech? I think the highschool students were doing just that... even though in this conservative society
they showed their opinion. You are all kidding yourselves.. We are not "freeing" Iraq.. you must all be glued to your sugar coated media- FoX news...Since when did America turn into this theocracy??? ANd OFCOURSE I SUPPORT THE TROOPS> But I dont support this Administration sending our people to die for their benefit.... their Money & POWER!!!!! ALL of this information is out there.... People supporting this president are going to feel so stupid, when all the truth comes out. and it will
Posted by: Seattlechick at October 07, 2005 04:01 PM (Wvi5C)
March 14, 2005
California Court Rules that California Constitution is Unconstitutional
California Family Code 300: "Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary."
California Family Code 308.5 "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Er, I usually don't chime in on this kind of stuff but the judge really can't be serious, can he? :
In his 27-page decision, Kramer ... said the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates "the basic human right to marry the person of one's choice," and has no rational justification.So are liberal justices about to revive Lochner Era jurisprudence or what? Hat tip: Ace
PS-I have this hot cousin.....
UPDATE: Meanwhile....as California violates the 'human rights' of homosexuals Saudi Arabia is busy beheading the gays. Saudis Behead Gay Couple
More....more...more....more...
Double PS-I have been accused of a lot of things, but never a social conservative....
Posted by: Rusty at
04:01 PM
| Comments (65)
| Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 2 kb.
1
So you're saying that discrimination is OK as long as it's worse in Saudi Arabia?
Posted by: Don Myers at March 14, 2005 04:45 PM (ENqi7)
2
I'll chime in. Twisting what a marriage is--a sacramental and spiritual union between a man and a woman--into some kind of civil contract that anyone can demand is absurd and an insult to mankind. Where will it end? When will someone marry a dog? Why does one "partner" have to be actually living? Why can't someone demand to marry George Washinton, deceased for two centuries? What about an inflatable dummy?
This is the same mentality that drives people who don't believe the creed of the Boy Scouts to want to join them, even if their creed is in direct contrast. It's the same mentality that makes some sexes want to attend same-sex schools "BECAUSE I HAVE A RIGHT!" And so, in the name of diversity, every institution is sadly homogenized.
We've come along way, baby.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 14, 2005 04:51 PM (obGyP)
3
I believe a lot of types of discrimination are ok. Discrimination is a basic human characteristic that should be celebrated.
I discriminate against stupid people.
I discriminate against the intolerant.
I also discriminate against fat chicks.
Discrimination may be good or it may be bad. But crying 'discrimination' is a rather stupid political trick. Effective, yes, but stupid all the same.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 14, 2005 04:51 PM (JQjhA)
4
Didn't we do this already. Haven't the people of CA voted. So much for the Courts listening to the electorate.
Posted by: Red at March 14, 2005 05:52 PM (YyvXn)
5
Can someone tell me how gays were being discriminated against here? I really don't understand it.
Gay men are being treated exactly the same as every other man - no man can marry another man, for any reason. The same goes for gay women.
So where, exactly, is the discrimination?
Posted by: Jimmie at March 14, 2005 06:04 PM (wRMfM)
6
Don Myers: Denying homosexual marriage is not discrimination. Quip crying the same old bullshit. It abnormal and weird. While I have not particular hate for gays (more sorrow for them) sometimes they push to far. Families are not composed of two fathers who bugger each other. Islamofacists bugger camels. Should they be allowed to marry? Would denying them marriage be discrimination? Whats the difference? Both are abnormal practices against nature. Keep it in the closet.
Posted by: greryooster at March 14, 2005 06:11 PM (CBNGy)
7
Rusty: Discrimination against stupid people. OK. Discrimination against fat chicks. OK.
But when you start to discriminae against the intolerant we need to talk. Getting close to home here. What is your neck size?
Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2005 06:15 PM (CBNGy)
8
Well, Rusty, since you and your intolerant pals have decided that you and only you are the final arbiter of "good" vs "bad" discrimination, let's get our lines drawn in the sand here.
Which of the following groups is it OK to deny the civil right to enter into a contract (which is, after all, what we're talking about here):
**blacks
**japs
**lithuanians
**people who watch Yes, Dear
**people who only read books on airplanes
**Gilbert and Sullivan fans
**Yankee fans
**Red Sox fans
**the Miami Dolphins
**people who earn less than $27,000/year
**non-bloggers
Posted by: Don Myers at March 14, 2005 06:27 PM (4o3gN)
9
Well, Rusty, since you and your intolerant pals have decided that you and only you are the final arbiter of "good" vs "bad" discrimination, let's get our lines drawn in the sand here.
Which of the following groups is it OK to deny the civil right to enter into a contract (which is, after all, what we're talking about here):
**blacks
**japs
**lithuanians
**people who watch Yes, Dear
**people who only read books on airplanes
**Gilbert and Sullivan fans
**Yankee fans
**Red Sox fans
**the Miami Dolphins
**people who earn less than $27,000/year
**non-bloggers
**women
Posted by: Don Myers at March 14, 2005 06:27 PM (4o3gN)
10
Just butt pirates Don
Posted by: Brad at March 14, 2005 06:39 PM (NzgK/)
11
All of the above.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2005 07:08 PM (CBNGy)
12
A California judge decides that the constitution of California is unconstitutional. I guess he bases his decision on what the California constitution says??????????????????
Don Myers: You need to get together with faggot Jim. He's only too.
Friggin weirdo. What's a good muslim terrorist when you need him?
Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2005 07:11 PM (CBNGy)
13
Man, have I had too much to drink. Couldn't spell good when I was sober.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2005 07:15 PM (CBNGy)
14
Rooster
Lay off that Johnny Walker its lethal and
you nearly made me choke on my coffee
Posted by: sparky at March 14, 2005 07:38 PM (F1nba)
15
The decision is literally irrational since there is no legal foundation for it. There is no basis for this in the US Constitution or in the California Constitution. It will quickly be overturned by California's amazingly ( in contrast to the rest of the state judiciary ... ) rational state Supreme Court.
This is an example of the serious problem of tyranny of the judiciary.
Posted by: Robin Roberts at March 14, 2005 08:55 PM (xauGB)
16
I fully support descriminating against Yankees fans, those bastards deserve it.
Jumping back from hypersensitivity for a brief moment here, the real problem with the original story has nothing to do with homosexual marriage, it has to do with judges overstepping their bounds (which has been going on for ages, just ask Mark Levin).
A judge saying that a specific law violates the constitution (state or federal), you have a potential problem, but it's at least their job (more or less).
When you have a state judge deciding that the state constitution itself is in violation, he's gone way the Hell too far. Judges aren't there to rewrite consitutions, their there to interpret them.
That's the problem in this story. I don't give a rip who's getting married, I'm concerned about judges violating the rights of the people on a wholesale manner.
People worry about 'tyranny by majority'? Well, it's a damn sight better than 'tyranny by minority'. Which, in this case, is 1.
Democracy is "We, the people", not "I, the judge".
Posted by: Petoht at March 14, 2005 09:01 PM (oeUjM)
17
You can try to fight the tide, but the tide will win in the end.
Posted by: Collin Baber at March 15, 2005 02:18 AM (tpvAS)
18
Colon Babbler!
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 15, 2005 04:40 AM (/GhVC)
19
I have no illusions of convincing y'all that GLBT Americans deserve the same civil rights as straight Americans---for the same reason I wouldn't try to convice a racist that blacks deserve the same civil rights as whites.
Either you believe in equal rights, or you don't. Clearly, most of the people on this blog are in the "don't" column.
Fifty years ago, many of you would have been howling about activist judges legislating from the bench in Brown v Board of Education
Separate but equal isn't equal. It's just that simple.
If you would like to tell your children someday that you were on the side of equality and justice, you should be supporting gay marriage any way you can.
If you want to explain to your children someday---as Sen. Byrd has had to do---that you hated people who were different than you and tried to make them second-class citizens, then by all means carry on.
Posted by: Don Myers at March 15, 2005 05:30 AM (4o3gN)
20
Don--I see the word "hate" has reared its ugly head.
Those who oppose men or women marrying within their gender are affirming that marriage is not merely a human instition. Therefore humans do not--CAN NOT--make the rules.
If I want to swim around for the rest of my life and be officialy labeled as a fish by everyone around me, it is not hateful for someone to point out the fact that I, or anyone else for that matter, do not have the authority declare such a ludicrous thing. This is not hate, this is SANITY.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 15, 2005 07:45 AM (x+5JB)
21
Don, you still haven't how saying that any man may only marry one woman at a time, or vice versa, is discriminatory. What men are we treating differently in what we allow them to do, or what woman, for that matter?
Posted by: Jimmie at March 15, 2005 09:27 AM (LIkgw)
22
Y.B.P: What is your justification for the claim that marriage is "not merely a human institution"? It *is* "merely" a human institution and we always *have* made the rules. Your rules about marriage being only one man and one woman and nothing else is one of the more recent revisions. I'm sure you won't take my word for it, so do some research. "Boston Marriages" from late 19th-century U.S.A. is a good place to start.
Jimmie: The men (and women) we are treating differently are those who can't be physically attracted to the opposite gender. They *do* exist, though certain people seem intent on putting their heads in the sand over this fact. Straights are allowed to follow their hearts; it is legally protected. Gays can't. And not for any rational reason, but just because people like you dislike them. *That* is bigotry and discrimination, plain and simple.
Posted by: frank-o at March 15, 2005 11:15 AM (74rA1)
23
A California judge decides that the constitution of California is unconstitutional. I guess he bases his decision on what the California constitution says?
Yes he does. He bases it on the equal protection clause in the CA constitution. As far as liberal judges go, Judge Kramer is a Catholic who was appointed by a Republican. Those darn Republicans, always appointind activist judges.
Posted by: mantis at March 15, 2005 12:50 PM (FhKVq)
24
Someone should tell those ignorant judges about the only real defination of a marrage between one man and one woman and something must be done about judges who abuse their power
Posted by: sandpiper at March 15, 2005 02:59 PM (Za6Ve)
25
Frank-O: I'm basing my definition, and the definition followed by Judaeo-Christians for 2000 years, upon the New Testament. It has been the foundation of Western Civilizeation for the same number of years.
I'm not basing my views on ANYTHING from Boston.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 15, 2005 03:13 PM (x+5JB)
26
If Kramer is for gay marriage, then he is a Catholic in name only. I'll be explicit. He is a bad Catholic. If he is advocating something that the Church condemnes, then he should be excommunicated.
Here'a a basic analogy: A kid can't be a good Boy Scout if he teaches that a person SHOULDN'T be prepared.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 15, 2005 03:20 PM (x+5JB)
27
I'm basing my definition, and the definition followed by Judaeo-Christians for 2000 years, upon the New Testament. It has been the foundation of Western Civilizeation for the same number of years.
Kind of ignoring the Greeks and the Enlightenment, aren't you YBP? I think they might have had some influence on western civilization.
If Kramer is for gay marriage, then he is a Catholic in name only. I'll be explicit. He is a bad Catholic. If he is advocating something that the Church condemnes, then he should be excommunicated.
Well, maybe he was interpreting the law without letting his personal religious beliefs into his decision. If he had, that would have been judicial activism, now wouldn't it? As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, this is not grounds for automatic excommunication, or even interdict for that matter. Plus I'm not sure they do all that much excommunicating anymore.
Here's my analogy: A judge that interprets the law based on personal or religious beliefs rather than the law itself can't be a good judge. Now you may argue on legals grounds against his decision, and the interpretation of the equal rights clause, as will surely happen in the next 60 days (the amount of time the Judge allowed before anything takes effect) on appeal. But I think it's pretty clear he's not an "activist". Roy Moore is an activist. Judge Kramer may be a bad Catholic (although I don't believe that as he is not suggesting the Catholic church perform or recognize gay marriage), but he's a good judge in my opinion.
Posted by: mantis at March 15, 2005 03:56 PM (FhKVq)
28
The judge is in NoCal. Home of Peolsi and Boxer. No judge in Cerritos would rule this way.
Red - - We have voted on this 3 times in the last 2 decades. The law always passes with 62%-67% of the people. This is why Dr. Frist needs to start kicking ass in the Senate to get some decent judges on the federal benches.
This judge is a local judge BTW. The case has many levels of appeal to go, unfortunately. Our tax $ hard at work.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at March 15, 2005 04:43 PM (l5t6M)
29
The people of California explicitly amended the state Constitution to exclude gay marriage. That there is an "equal rights" clause in the same state constitution doesn't change that and is in fact a dishonest argument.
Don, calling people bigots because they don't agree with you convinces no one.
Posted by: SPQR at March 15, 2005 04:46 PM (xauGB)
30
Standard tactics cropping up here, I'm afraid.
The fact still remains that this judge does not have the authority to rule on if the constitution is constitutional.
I'm a security guard. I can stop people from entering my client's property, because that's my jurisdiction.
I can't pull people over for speeding on I 55. That's outside the scope of my authority.
Judges simply do not have the authority to change state constitutions. Amazing how quickly people forget that when the judges are making illegal rulings they agree with.
Posted by: Petoht at March 15, 2005 04:59 PM (c7ysE)
31
Western civilizations has always taken what is good from past civilzations. Buggery is not among among it.
"Well, maybe he was interpreting the law without letting his personal religious beliefs into his decision."
Basically, this means leaving morality out of our laws. Why outlaw theft? Why outlaw murder? This has long been condemned in many an encyclical. I think Kerry was the poster child for this philosophy.
"Plus I'm not sure they do all that much excommunicating anymore."
This is indeed a pity, as it only confuses the Faithful. And the not-so-Faithful.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 15, 2005 05:55 PM (S5syt)
32
I sense a great fear of assfucking around here. What's next? Picking-of-nose-o-phobia? What is it with you people and bodily crevices?
Indeed one has to wonder how something so harmless conducted by two consenting adults could be condemned in such a manner. I'm sure you people don't confine yourself to ye olde missionary position everytime it's time to dip the salami? I say, mind your own business, or crawl back under the rock and wait for evolution.
Posted by: Alchemy at March 15, 2005 07:19 PM (5wVma)
33
"I sense a great fear of assfucking around here."
Is this a common bar line utilized?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 15, 2005 07:50 PM (S5syt)
34
I've come to accept the fact that Catholics and other religious fools in this country will not accept the defacing of marriage by allowing homosexuals to commit to it. You know what? Let them. The Catholic Church DID develop the process of marriage. Let them be the fucking stupid, narrow-minded, intolerant pricks they are.
Call it something else and allow gays to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple. If the gay community won't accept this small concession then they will probably fight a pointless battle.
And you hardcore Catholics/Christians/whatever, stop pretending like you're fucking better than others. Look at your own god damned system and how corrupt it is and worry about that. I'm so fucking sick of how this country bends over backwards so as not to offend any religious folk when all they do is insult this group and that group under the mask of "God's word." Just shut the fuck up.
Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 15, 2005 09:03 PM (xM3Dg)
35
Greyrooster,
You're a fucking idiot. Plain and simple. You glorify heterosexual couples in this country? And heterosexuality in general? Take a look at the number of couples living together but not marrying. Take a look at the divorce rate between couples that are married. Look at the fucking hoards of trash in this country that reproduce and abuse their children. Oh, that's ok. But God forbid there should be two fathers or two mothers who have been shown to have no problems raising normal children and caring well for adopted kids or those in foster care. Nooooo, can't let them parent neglected and abused kids. You fucking dumbass.
You are the reason people dislike this country. You're just as fucking retarded and narrow-minded as the anti-war crowd. You don't want to be threatened by two men marrying (OOO SCARY) and they don't want to give a shit about anyone else in the world for the sake of "peace." You should all go live on other planets.
Take your head out of your ass, absorb a little culture other than the pathetic enclosed existence you lead, and start focusing on some SERIOUS problems in our country, because let me tell you, your priorities are way out of whack.
Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 15, 2005 09:11 PM (xM3Dg)
36
UBP - If you're really under the delusion that "marriage" is a sacrament that Jesus handed down to build western civilization, be assured that the judge only ruled on the civil contract between 2 adults that the government provides for people that share and build their lives together. (see 1st amendment)
Posted by: Robguy at March 15, 2005 09:32 PM (+7qPG)
37
I'm amazed by the ingnorance of posters on the role of the judiciary as descibrd by the constution.
The judicial role is not to merely rubberstamp anything which the legislature or the people through direct election attempt to establish as law. It explicitly includes the abiilty to review the resulting legislation for compliance with the Constitution. If it is found to violate it, then the law is overturned as invalid--it was never validm no matter what proportion of the populace voted for it.
This provides a check on the "tyranny of the majority". If a ballot proposition was offered which would eliminate all outstanding consumer credit card debt, even it it won by a landslide the courts could--in complete accordance with their role--overturn that law as violating a clause of the constitution. And keep in mind that the majority of CA ballot initiatives are overturned for that reason.
Even an ammendment to the constitution can be nullified if it is in direct conflict with a pre-existing constutional clause. This can be avoided by ammending to revise an existing clause, but that is not what was done. None of this is activist. It's a judge's responsibility.
It seems that people cry "liberal activist judge" simply because they disagree with the ruling, while conveniently ignoring that the majority of the MA judges (all but one) were Republicans appointed by Republicans, and also ignoring that the judge in this case is a Republican with a conservative history on the bench.
Posted by: Jboy at March 15, 2005 10:15 PM (j1yF5)
38
wow Igor. How can I say this politely...you're a dumbass. What caused Rome to fall? Sex with anyone and anything that moved i.e.they turned into little pussies that wanted to have sex than fight,hence they were defeated. I read in the paper a few months ago that a man in south east asia married the family cow.By opening the door to gay marriage we will open the door to unintended consequenses. There are alot of sick people out there just waiting for gay marriage to pass,so they can push for say marrying their sister or daughter..equal protection under the law.
Posted by: xtremewing at March 15, 2005 10:26 PM (F++qI)
39
That's all fine jboy, except that there is no constitutional violation on the part of restricting marriage to hetereosexuals unless one redefines the "constitution" to be not that compact first adopted in 1789 not to include any statement on the subject and never since amended to state anything about the subject of same-sex marriage.
No, only if you redefine "constitution" to mean instead whatever a handful of elites feel it ought to mean.
Posted by: SPQR at March 16, 2005 12:29 AM (xauGB)
40
Ok so we should keep gay marriages outlawed because we should be afraid of people wanting to marry animals as a result? Are you fucking retarded?
And Rome fell because of homosexuality?
Ahahahaha, and I'm the dumbass. Wow, this is priceless.
Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 16, 2005 01:38 AM (xM3Dg)
41
Ok so we should keep gay marriages outlawed because we should be afraid of people wanting to marry animals as a result? Are you fucking retarded?
And Rome fell because of homosexuality?
Ahahahaha, if I'm the dumbass, I can't even imagine what that would make you.
Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 16, 2005 01:39 AM (xM3Dg)
42
YBP, do you hear what you're saying? Or are you blindly typing away some pseudo-intellectual bullshit every time hoping it makes sense?
The belief that an omnipotent invisible entity created the Earth is NOT A MORAL. Why outlaw theft? Because everyone has a fundamental understanding of possession. What is yours belongs to you. Why outlaw murder? Because everyone realizes the right to life. This has nothing the fuck to do with religion. You think without the Bible everyone on Earth would be running around committing homicide and stealing?
Out of curiosity, do you have any idea how many people have died as a result of religious doctrine?
And jboy, by your theory I guess the Jim Crowe laws should still be in effect? Stop complicating the issue. What the hell does gay marriage have to do with the "tyranny of the majority?"
How will two men marrying in some part of the country have ANY effect on heterosexual marriages? Does it illegitimize them? Or does it pollute them in some way?
Would you be against it if it the legal term for it was "union" but it maintained benefits that hetero couples get?
It's 2005. Open your eyes. We're not living in caves anymore. I'm far from gay. I'm a jock, and to be quite frank with you, I love pussy. Also, really flamboyant gays annoy me. But why the hell would I care about two consenting adults entering a legally-sanctioned relationship? Who cares what sex they are?
It's disturbing how similar the arguments of people against gay marriages are to the arguments of people back in the day who considered who thought it was unsafe and "immoral" to end segregation. They also made retarded forecasts about how evil the world would become should blacks be allowed the rights of others.
Like i said, let Catholics and their friends go molest little boys while they preach about the MORALITY OF MARRIAGE (how funny is that?) and let unions be official and legal with rights and benefits for same-sex couples. Let's do this quickly and forget about it so we can take a look at the REAL problems in the U.S like people expected to live off of 5.15 an hour while the politicans who argue for this rate make off with hundreds of thousands while cheating on their wives. Or how about the open door between Mexico and this country that could allow Islamic militants to waltz right in? THOSE are issues. Instead we've got a bunch of zombies waving their fingers at two women who want to be together and fuck with strap-ons. OOOO here comes the Apocalypse. Wake the fuck up.
Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 16, 2005 02:10 AM (xM3Dg)
43
Greyrooster: Did you notice how the un-narrow-minded people who disagree with us think that we "should all go live on other planets"?
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 16, 2005 07:32 AM (x+5JB)
44
We Catholics are trying to rebuild after our Church was Hijacked by a very large group of homosexual Priests. These criminals engaged in very normal homo actiity. That is, they felt they had license to have sex with anything and everything they came in contact with. Igor, these men were not practicing the Catholic faith, but rather were just taking your faith, the gay adgenda to its ultimate destination.
They should all be locked away and never see the light of day again.
Rest assured that real Catholics will never let this happen in the future, We know the enemy and it is the gay left and it's attitude that having sex with anyone and anything is not only a right, it's to be forced down the throat of everyone. To resist it to be called hate.
What Bullshit!
I could really give a shit what two perverts do in their own home.But thats not enough for the homo advocates. Ass screwing has to be taught as a virtue in public schools (thank God for Catholic schools).
We have to have a parade in every May in Seattle to celebrate sodomy.
The Boy Scouts are pressured to accept sodomy as acceptable behavior.
It goes on and on.
The peroblem is not that you want Gay marrige, you fags want it all,hook ,line and sinker. It's a dishonest arguement to say gay marriage is all you want.
Having standards of behavior is not hate.
Posted by: Brad at March 16, 2005 08:40 AM (6krEN)
45
Brad:
Remember that the number of individuals who committed these misdeeds--who, according to the logical conclusion of some on the Left, should have a "right" to do these things, just like people should have the "right" to marry a person of one's own gender--is a small fraction of the total number of clerics, and that the problem was certainly not limited exclusively to the R.C. Church.
The Church has endured problems/scandals/attacks for 2000--what other institution has lasted as long?--and will, according to Christ's promise, endure until the end of time. The pendulum swings both ways. Many of these abusive clerics became priests during the free and easy 60's, when (sadly) many societal and ecclesiastical morays, both in and out of the Church, were looosened. Notice haw most are in their late 50's, 60's, or 70's? The pendulum is swinging back, and we now have thousands of younger priests who seek a return to orthodoxy.
Take care.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 16, 2005 10:44 AM (x+5JB)
46
John Smith was the only Protestant to move into a large Catholic neighbourhood.
On this 1st day of Lent John was outside grilling a big juicy steak
on his grill. Meanwhile all his neighbours were eating cold tuna fish for supper. This went on each Friday of Lent.
On the last Friday of Lent the neighbourhood men all got together and
decided that something had to be done about JOhn, he was tempting them to eat meat each Friday and they couldnt take it anymore.
They decided to try and convert John to be a Catholic.
They went over and spoke to him and were delighted when he agreed
to join them and become a catholic. They took him to church and the Priest sprinkled some water over him and said 'you were born a baptist,your were raised a baptist and now you are a Catholic.
The men were so relieved, now their biggest temptation was solved.
The next year rolled round and the 1st Friday of Lent came, just as they were sitting down to their tuna fish the smell of steak cooking on a grill came. They couldnt believe their noses WHAT WAS GOING ON!
They called each other up and decided to meet at Johns deciding he must have forgot it was the 1st Friday of Lent.
The group arrived just in time to see John standing over his grill with a small jug of water, He was sprinkling the water over his steak saying "you were born a cow, you were raised a cow and now your ... a fish'.
JUst to lighten the mood!
Posted by: sparky at March 16, 2005 01:20 PM (F1nba)
47
And these dark days, we NEED to! Thanks, Sparky.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 16, 2005 01:50 PM (x+5JB)
48
Sorry to all if I was too dark. I'll go back to working on spelling and wait for the Rooster to catch up with Igor.
Posted by: Brad at March 16, 2005 02:43 PM (NzgK/)
49
"Ass screwing has to be taught as a virtue in public schools (thank God for Catholic schools)."
Really? W....you know what, I'm not even going to dignify you with an answer to this stupidity.
"We have to have a parade in every May in Seattle to celebrate sodomy."
None of those parades celebrate sodomy you stupid fuck. They celebrate homosexuality. I will never participate in a gay pride parade I don't much care for them, but they are a right given to a group to express unity between each other. This obviously threatens you a lot. I think you are probably a closet homo.
"The Boy Scouts are pressured to accept sodomy as acceptable behavior."
You expect anyone to take you seriously when you spit retarded trash like this? Nobody pressured the boy scouts to accept sodomy. They were pressured to allow homosexuals to be scout leaders. And that does not mean that they would be allowed to discuss with the kids their sexual behavior, just like hetero scout leaders are not permitted to talk about what they do to women in bed.
Brad it's a shame that people like you waste space and oxygen on this Earth having been born in this time and age when you're still so stubborn and stupid that you say things like the ones I just quoted. I wish you had been born back in the 1800s when you could have lived out your closed-minded life and wouldn't have had to worry about the rights of anyone accept white, heterosexual males.
Also, I think you were molested by your father. I don't doubt that he's a Catholic.
Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 16, 2005 03:43 PM (xM3Dg)
50
Oh, sorry, I missed this gem from Brad as well:
"Having standards of behavior is not hate."
And these standards should be set by people like you? Hahahahahahaha.
Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 16, 2005 03:47 PM (xM3Dg)
51
Dammit! Another valuable piece of intellectual thought from Brad that i missed:
"...is not only a right but to be forced down the throats of everyone."
Oh really? You mean like when religious nuts say that prayer should be taught in public schools?
You mean like when religious nuts demand that creation be taught along-side evolution in SCIENCE class? And others who want the right to teach ONLY creationism?
You mean like when religious nuts stand around on college campuses across the nation and hold up signs listing everyone that's going to Hell. Let's see, bikers, masons, gays, jews, muslims, alcoholics. The list is endless.
You're talking about forcing things down people's throats? Did you know that it is the duty of all Christians and Catholics to preach and teach the word of God to non-believers? Did you know that?
Sorry to burst your gay-hating bubble but guess what, gays don't give a shit about you knowing or caring about sodomy. They just want the rights to do as they wish in privacy. You are a senseless fool.
And yes YPB, I do wish the likes of you and Brad be sent to other planets. You can have a Catholic planet where everyone believes in God and denounces everyone and everything else, but at least those people won't cause you any legislative problems. There can be a straight, non-catholic planet where homophobes try to solidify and reaffirm to themselves their gender roles by screwing as many of the opposite sex as possible. You'd love it there. Meanwhile, Earth would be mostly populated by people who have some fucking common sense and see the REAL problems in their respective areas instead of spitting unbelievable gab like the crap that comes out of Brad and xtremewing's mouth by claiming that homosexuals are actively trying to force people to commit sodomy (wtf??) and that Rome fell because of gays and that if homos are allowed to marry people will start marrying and fucking animals. What an intelligent bunch you are.
Posted by: Igor Kazakov at March 16, 2005 04:01 PM (xM3Dg)
52
Igor, I could try to spread the word to you, but something tells me you don't want to hear it.Guess I'm lucky I don't depend on you for the air I breath.
You have a lot of anger bud, sort of proves my point. You have to buy the whole program hook,line and sinker or you get the kind of response above.
Well, can't hang at the bath house all day, back to work.
Posted by: Brad at March 16, 2005 04:19 PM (NzgK/)
53
I like this blog and want it to get to 2 million. Best way seems to be to just pull the tail of a fruit cake and it's worth 500 hits.
Posted by: Brad at March 16, 2005 04:25 PM (NzgK/)
54
Igor: I am sorry that you are a fucking faggot. Not my fault that you cannot control your weird unnatural cravings. Fight to control the sick demon that rules your emotions. I know you are sick. You know it to. I don't know what causes this unnatural, sick, disturbing thing in your brain. Men fucking men is sick. Sorry, but thats the truth. control yourself, get help, do not give in to the sick emotions that now control you. Fight to be man instead of a sick depraved animal. As a last resort move to a muslim country. They will end your pain for you.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 16, 2005 09:31 PM (K/qjk)
55
Never thought I would see the day that some idiot could say the men fucking eack other in the ass has to do with culture. If it does, its a depraved, sick culture. Depraved individuals like Igor give substance to the muslim hate American culture cause. How sick do we get before curing this disease? Until now, I hoped that ignoring them was the best way. I wonder if this cancer should be removed?
Posted by: greyrooster at March 16, 2005 09:40 PM (K/qjk)
56
Igor: Igor.Just like in the Frankenstein movies. Igor is a sick monster.
Talk about Bourbons father? I'll bet a dime to a dollar his father is proud of him.
I'll also bet your father is ashamed to call a sick bastard like you son. Or is fucking your father in ass also acceptable in your sick way of life. Or how about your son? Sick, Sick, Sick.
Even Hitler had a few good ideas. And I am not referring to the Jewish solution.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 16, 2005 09:51 PM (K/qjk)
57
Y.B.P.: I'm not basing my views on ANYTHING from Boston.
Me: Ok, then you refuse to do the research I suggested, which automatically makes your view nothing more than personal bias.
Y.B.P.: It [the NT] has been the foundation of Western Civilizeation for the same number of years [2000].
Me: Never mind the numerous contributions by Arabic culture. The moslems ruled much of Southern and Eastern Europe until the mid-to-late 1400's. And that's just the tip of the iceburg.
Tell me, YBP, do you have *any* beliefs that are based on historical fact, or do they all come from religious and political dogma?
Posted by: frank-o at March 16, 2005 10:18 PM (uU9Zv)
58
By the way, has anyone else pointed out yet that the law Kramer voided is *not* in the state constitution? It is part of the family code, which is *not* a section of the California Constitution. Is is false, therefore, to state that he ruled the state contitution as unconstitutional, or to state that he exceeded his authority, or anything else along those lines.
Posted by: frank-o at March 16, 2005 10:23 PM (uU9Zv)
59
I'm sure Caligula said,hey,this is the 4th century(or whatever) nothing bad can come from having sex with another man.Alexander the Great did it,so why not.Why do the Romans no longer rule the world? anyone?
Posted by: xtremewing at March 17, 2005 04:15 AM (F++qI)
60
Hi Frank-O:
<>
I'm familiar with the phenomenon that some women chose to live together in the 19th century, either as friends or as sexual partners. There were also the Transcendentalists and Brook Farm in some suburb of Boston--Roxbury? (What is it about Massachusetts?)I never stated that some people throughout the ages have done things contrary to the prevalent cultural norms of the day. I stated that marriage since its inception has been between a man and a women. This is the norm--not "Boston marriages."
"Never mind the numerous contributions by Arabic culture. The moslems ruled much of Southern and Eastern Europe until the mid-to-late 1400's. And that's just the tip of the iceburg."
I never stated that the Arab culture is devoid of certain accomplishments. I stated that historians agree that Western Civilization is largely based upon the best of the Roman and Greek civilizations. What has this to do with my argument that marriage has long been held to be between a man and a woman? If anything, pointing out the fact that a nice chunk of land had been dominated my Moslems would back up my claims, as they hold this same view, no?
<>
Frank, the veracity of the Gospels is evident, in that their authors swear under oath that they are true. St. John says, "I testify to everyone that hears these words." St. Paul also says "I speak the truth. I lie not..." Sworn statements are accepted as evidence in modern courts of law. Courts don't need photographic proof of someone writing a will in order to accept it. Therefore I accept them. These men had nothing to gain by writing such things but ridicule and worse. They were all martyred for their beliefs. There deaths are documented by their followers in the first century. Historians like Tacitus and Josephus have recorded Christ's existence--much to the chagrin of some liberal biblical scholars (!) who defy His existence. Where is the sworn statement that Washington crossed the Delaware? And yet we have no problem believing it.
I truly wish you the very best.
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at March 17, 2005 07:44 AM (x+5JB)
61
Let me see here. We have some homo loving Ruskie who ran from his own homeland. To cowardly to stay and help make his country a better place. So he moves to England where his homo bullshit wasn't accepted. He then moves to America and now tells us how to act. Igor you homeless shit. Go back, we don't want you and we don't need you.
Americans don't need advice from those that can't hack it in their own countries. Who the fuck you think you are telling Americans what they should think and how they should act.
You dumb Russian shit. You came here because it's a better place to live. It's a better place to live because Americans made it that way. Not shit like you who abandoned their own countries.
You are pro war because the Muslim clerics know what to do with unappreciative faggots. Simply protecting your own sick desires.
We don't give a shit about what a Russian faggot thinks. GO BACK and preach to your own. If they will have you.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2005 08:26 AM (DAWnL)
62
Barney Frank-o: I guess if the muslims were so successful in the past the reason for their regression to being some of the most backward people in the world must fall on their religion. They most certainly are not a viable contributor to modern society. If they have the racial ability to progress the only factor keeping them in the 3rd world is their religion. SO: Backward Islam out of America.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2005 01:12 PM (CBNGy)
63
Let us not forget Igor the Ruskie was raised as a commie. Therefore, many of his stupid ideals come from his commie background. Didn't work there. Won't work here. Commie Ruskies out of America.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2005 01:19 PM (CBNGy)
64
Barney Frank-O: If you admire them so much, go to them. Dress like them. Eat like them. Pray for the destruction of America like them. I like to know who to shoot at. Pick a side prick. Then be a man and stand behind it.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 17, 2005 01:37 PM (CBNGy)
65
i wana have iccription in instition in california
Posted by: abd el hafid ouanadi at June 14, 2005 03:51 PM (KGQMV)
March 02, 2005
Jawa Report Being Taught in MAJOR Universities
This is the second time The Jawa Report has been used in a lecture on a university campus (as far as I know). Only 4,549,278 more times and I will have caught up to Chomsky!!
Posted by: Rusty at
04:33 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Pretty cool that you are being used as an example of a "good blog"in college classes. We should have some fun and tell Ace he is being used as an example of a "bad blog".
By the way, I have you blogrolled on my intial list. Long time lurker who figured he'd start one too.
Posted by: Jack M. at March 02, 2005 05:23 PM (1W1ap)
2
Bite your tongue comparing to chomsky. He's a butt munch and you are heads and shoulders above him already, Rusty.
Posted by: Bubbe at March 02, 2005 11:58 PM (4BlQ+)
3
Jack congrats on getting your blog cherry popped!!
Good blogs vs. bad blogs reminds me too much of good naked vs. bad naked.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at March 03, 2005 09:09 AM (JQjhA)
4
You will get there a lot faster if you start letting people know that whateever is wrong it is because of America. Probably made worse by other Capitalist countries.
Also start talking up Fidel, Hugo, Joe, Mao, Nikita, and Che.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at March 03, 2005 06:02 PM (l5t6M)
March 01, 2005
Why I blog anonymously: reason #4,321
Suspended DePaul professor gagged and bound at news conference (ht: Michelle Malkin)
Posted by: Rusty at
11:27 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Adjunct profs have no rights. Its such a shame.
Posted by: actus at March 02, 2005 12:04 AM (5Lqt9)
2
We get our adjuncts out of one those dispensers in the men's room at the Sheetz......the tricky thing is to stack the quarters just so, and bring extra change in case you get one of those "mint-flavored" ones. Tarnation, nothing's quite as bad as one of those mint-flavored adjuncts...
Posted by: howie the great at March 02, 2005 06:48 AM (4cI/7)
3
MMMMM ... dont know the details of what the Prof. was challenging them with, though most of those people that hang out at those events and tout the poor conditions of their people under the opressive powers of the Jew with backing the Great Satanical Government (though not those ruled by the Great Satanical Govenment ... no those are the sympathy and cash cows they need!). They forget to tell the true story of how their own leaders do them royally over minus the KY, but tout the aforementioned views. But WE can't tell THEM that because WE might hurt THEIR feelings ... If I was that prof I would have made the gag tape out of the palestinian flag with a picture of the college president hanging from the end of a mock knife sticking out of his back.
Posted by: Salamander at March 02, 2005 08:33 AM (W2YA6)
4
Oh come on = that's bullshit. I can't even believe you're doing this now for money Rusty. Also Michelle Malkin doesn't know everything and she's not all that great, either. She's been compromised by becoming more than a blogger so to consider her a blogger is out of line. Hell she gets paid by a tv station and is on all the time; makes me sick to my stomach.
Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at March 02, 2005 09:29 PM (PEKrh)
5
Another reason I am against educating these muslim assholes. We don't need the disruption in and out of the classroom. They bring nothing to the classroom except anxiety. I send my children to college for an education. Not for political debate with a bunch of foreigners.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 03, 2005 08:29 AM (CBNGy)
6
"The students claimed professor Klocek's arguments were racist and hurt their feelings.
Well there's a crime. Don't challenge the kiddies when it comes to politics they mean to cover with the cloak of ethnicity. And we need more fake indians like Ward Churchill so the students will feel like they're getting their money's worth. Victim status trumps everything, and the kids know it.
Posted by: tee bee at March 03, 2005 03:37 PM (q1JHF)
7
When did it become a bad thing to have your views challenged in college? If you go to college and aren't pissed off at one time or another something's wrong.
Posted by: Green Wallpaper at June 14, 2005 04:58 PM (GkqP/)
Natalie Portman Wears Jawa Cloaks
Thanks to the Sanity Inspector who points out this MSN review of Natalie Portman's Oscar night clothes. What was she wearing? 'Jawa Cloaks'. It looks like she got my care package after all.
Posted by: Rusty at
09:33 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Too bad she's slated to die in the next SW episode. I bet they'll pull a soap-opera trick and leave us hanging. Did she really die? While fairytales end, Hollywood lumbers on. There have to be other episodes! Think of the marketing revenues. Amidala!
Posted by: tee bee at March 03, 2005 03:28 PM (q1JHF)
2
PS I thought that gown was awfully Episode II. Loved it. But she needed hair bagels.
Posted by: tee bee at March 03, 2005 03:30 PM (q1JHF)
3
Padme gets killed by bobba fett remmeber he is a clone so he grows fat. Unlucky natalie portman is so good lookin
Contact back
Posted by: jason at March 07, 2005 03:28 AM (eE+g5)
4
Padme gets killed by bobba fett remmeber he is a clone so he grows fast. Unlucky natalie portman is so good lookin
Contact back.
Posted by: jason at March 07, 2005 03:29 AM (eE+g5)
5
I know every thing wot happens in episode 3 it's so easy to figger out.
Im british so im smart
Posted by: jason at March 07, 2005 03:31 AM (eE+g5)
6
I have a girl friend who looks like Natalie portman. im very lucky and im gratful for that and all my friends say she looks like her
Posted by: Jason at March 07, 2005 03:35 AM (eE+g5)
<< Page 1 of 1 >>
121kb generated in CPU 0.0888, elapsed 0.2182 seconds.
123 queries taking 0.1634 seconds, 387 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
123 queries taking 0.1634 seconds, 387 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
