(Manassas, Virginia) Following are the main points made by Richard A. Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big-Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause (Bonus Books, 2006), in his new paper, “Mike Huckabee—Wishy-Washy Republican”
Mike Huckabee poses as a conservative, but he enthusiastically promotes big government.
In fact, he’s just another wishy-washy Republican—inconsistent in policy because he’s inconsistent in principle.
Gov. Huckabee claims to support “empowering people to make their own decisions”, but he has consistently promoted government meddling in the market economy.
He called no-tax pledges “irresponsible” but then signed one.
In his 10 years in office, Gov. Huckabee had raised the state’s sales tax by 37 percent, motor fuel taxes by 16 percent, and cigarette taxes by 103 percent.
He publicly opposed repealing a tax on groceries and medicine, though he claims that he’s “always philosophically supported” axing the tax.
State spending under Gov. Huckabee rose by 65.3 percent during 1996 to 2004.
Not only did he increase Arkansas’s minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.25 per hour, but he even encouraged the U.S. Congress to do the same thing nationally.
He supported President George W. Bush’s 2003 massive expansion of Medicare by adding a prescription-drug benefit.
He called the No Child Left Behind Act, which increased federal education spending by 48 percent and expanded big-government control of local schools, “the greatest education reform effort of the federal government in my lifetime”.
He wants to fence illegal immigrants out, but to give them cheap tuition while they’re here.
Mike Huckabee calls conservatives “blind purists” but poses as one of us. ]
Many more details about Mike Huckabee’s conservative charade are contained in Richard Viguerie’s paper, “Mike Huckabee—Wishy-Washy Republican”, available on-line here.
1
Well, it's not like we're ever going to get spending under control without a coup. Who do you promote at this point?
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at October 19, 2007 01:24 PM (vR7Sl)
2
I had been a BIG Tancredo supporter, but it seems like he's not really working to win now, and instead is just happy to bring immigration to the forefront -- which is GREAT, mind you. But I'm not sure Tancredo is in it for the long haul.
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2007 01:37 PM (oifEm)
3
I think that this is little more than a compilation of mis quotes and misconstrued headlines... do I agree with Huck on everything? Heck no, sometimes he is too big gov for me. But there were several quotes in there that were somewhat inaccurate.
Posted by: chukmaty at October 19, 2007 02:25 PM (2gdS7)
4
I think the biggest thing that turns me off to Huckabee is that he wants a federal ban on smoking. That's just scary.
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2007 02:28 PM (oifEm)
Fred Smith, Republican candidate for governor, recently held a BBQ fundraiser. Now if you want Ogre to show up somewhere, food is a sure way to get him there. And BBQ will do it nearly every time. His campaign sent me a nice invitation, and I was getting excited about going to the rally (and eating BBQ) and meeting Mr. Smith, asking him questions, and perhaps taking some pictures to post here.
Then I read the date and time on the invitation. It was Wednesday, October 17, from 6:30-8:30 in Statesville. Then I looked at the clock/calendar on the computer. It was Wednesday, October 17, 7:45 pm. Oops. I had just received the invitation in the mail that day. Mr. Smith, you need to talk to your campaign people, because I bet I'm not the only one who missed the rally because of not getting the invitation!
Well, he also sent a copy of his book, "A Little Extra Effort." I'll take a read and post some updates and quotes from the book over the next week or so as I learn more about this fellow who wants my vote.
1
Gives me a reason not to quit. I'm doing it for the children.
Posted by: Trench at October 18, 2007 07:34 PM (VEZiY)
2
The reasoning of the Left on the SCHIP issue is par for the course: they're on the side of the angels--how could anybody be against them? Heh. With arguments that weak, we just need to hang in there. THe public has shown itself to be receptive to reasoned appeals.
Posted by: Nathan Tabor at October 19, 2007 04:55 AM (mvnDa)
3
There you go, Trench, now you're getting the hang of this!
Nathan, I'm thinking the public has shown itself MORE likely to believe "It's for the Children" no matter what! Heck, we have state gambling in NC "for the children." Charlotte is about to pass a HUGE, unneeded bond package "For The Children." Mecklenburg is about to get a sales tax increase "For The Children."
I'm thinking that line will STILL work on way too many people.
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2007 11:10 AM (oifEm)
4
I can't remember where I saw it but to fund this SCHIP program someone who voted against it said that and additional 22 million people would have to take up smoking to fully fund the new program.
So I guess we now have to die for the children.
Posted by: Quality Weenie at October 19, 2007 02:01 PM (BksWB)
5
You're getting the hang of this, too, QW! If it's "For The Children," we're going to do it! So what if you die, you'll have gotten one child a band-aid that they couldn't afford.
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2007 02:08 PM (oifEm)
6
Where's the queue to die for the children? Or would that just be for the President's amusement too? *snort*
Posted by: oddybobo at October 19, 2007 02:08 PM (mZfwW)
7
Maybe they should start giving away cigarettes so more people will smoke for the children...
Think about it...
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2007 02:09 PM (oifEm)
This post is for those who support Giuliani because "he can beat Hillary."
I've heard, many times, the argument of selecting someone because they can win the election, even if they're the best candidate. I've heard it a lot in the Republican primary, and it really is one of the #1 reasons I've heard people give for supporting Giuliani. However, take a look at this poll.
It shows that the Giuliani CANNOT beat Hillary. All other issues and discussions aside, this poll (I know, it's a poll) clearly shows that Giuliani will not beat Hillary. I know the election is a long ways away. I know there's lots of other factors. But based on this poll (and other anecdotal evidence), the argument that Giuliani can beat Hillary is no longer valid.
Giuliani CANNOT beat Hillary. Numerous groups have mentioned that they will support and run a 3rd-party candidate should Giuliani win the Republican nomination. This situation is very real. Again, to those who support Giuliani just because he can "win," please note these results. He cannot win. I know I won't vote for him if he's the only name on the ballot. And there's clearly a lot of others like me.
Know what would be a true dream ticket for me? And would have a VERY strong chance of beating Hillary? Ron Paul and Alan Keyes. Holy crap. Both strong on the Constitution and freedom and Keyes with very strong foreign policy experience. Wow.
Those who read here regularly (thank you!) know my position on public schools (aka government monopoly schools). They stink. I mean, they really, really stink. They're garbage. I know, YOUR schools is okay, the rest are bad. No, I'm sorry, but YOUR public school is crap, too. If you want a very long read about the actual history of schools, check this one out. It's LONG, but it's accurate.
I know some of you are school teachers, or know school teachers, and you're quite sure that they are doing all they can. Well, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. "Our problem in understanding forced schooling stems from an inconvenient fact: that the wrong it does from a human perspective is right from a systems perspective." In other words, schools are about the SYSTEM, not people -- and therefore it destroys people.
Here's a couple recent news stories that help illustrate how bad public schools have gotten (they're NOT the school you went to years ago):
In California, two-parent families are banned. Seriously. Any person who is sending their child to ANY public school in California is doing a great disservice to that child. And yes, it's EVERY school there now. It's not about "protecting" gays, it's about openly discriminating against heterosexuals and two-parent families. Your children WILL be taught that they might be a different sex, despite what they know. Your children there will share bathrooms and locker rooms, regardless of their gender. And using the words "Mom" and "Dad" is basis for a lawsuit. California is lost.
Keep in mind: it's about the SYSTEM, not people.
And since it's about keeping kids in the system (so the system gets cash from other government agencies), if you DARE to take your child out once they're in the system, your children may be taken from you! I expect to see much more of this in California if people start running from the discriminatory system. I strongly suggest that anyone with children have a "bug out bag" with cash and clothes to flee, should social services EVER show up at your door. These are no longer conspiracy theories, they're happening right now.
In addition, another trend in public schools is the forced medication of your children, without parental permission or knowledge. After all, 11-year olds needs to have sex, right? That's what some schools are claiming.
Oh, and are you ready for the views of those who voted to encourage your 11-year old to have sex?
If my daughter were not able to talk with me about something, if she couldn't reach me for whatever reason, to keep her safe and healthy, I would want to make sure she had access to those resources from trusted adults.
Richard Verrier
Let me interpret what that actually means:
"If I suck so bad as a parent that my child won't talk to me about something as important as sex, I think she should talk to some strange adult who will encourage her to have sex. I'm glad that these strangers, who are government employees, and therefore completely trustworthy, but who might be pedophiles, will encourage my daughter to have sex often, perhaps even with them."
And much, much worse is what's also implied by this statement:
"In addition, not only do I trust complete stranger adults encouraging MY child to have promiscuous sex at age 11, I DEMAND that every other adult in the state of Maine equally trust random, unknown adults to encourage every one of their children to have open sex at age 11, too." Mr. Verrier, you are an evil, horrible person. I don't want ANY 11-year olds having sex, and you are horrible to demand that I allow ALL 11-year old girls to have rampant sex.
At the same time, religion will NOT BE permitted in these horrible institutions called "public schools." You see, if you're a government employee, you're simply not permitted to have ANY religion other than the ACLU and government-approved religion of atheism.
When you subject your child to a government school, you ARE giving up nearly ALL rights to that child. That's not exaggeration. Various courts have ruled that the school is allowed to act as a parent -- and ANY decision the school makes cannot be overridden by any parent.
Public schools are beyond repair. They are beyond hope. I implore you, if you care about your child, you will not let them into such evil places. Again, it's about the SYSTEM, not about your child, education, or ANYTHING else.
Update: The government has "backed down" in attacking the homeschooling parents -- but left them with VERY ominous warnings: "We will be watching you." Anita Nicoli, I suggest you pack up and RUN from that state RIGHT NOW. Social services will not surrender so easily. I suggest you head to New Hampshire as quickly as you can (and so should anyone else looking for freedom).
Van Helsing puts a face on this nightmare.
My friend (Kim) has just started home schooling her two younger sons...she pulled them from the public schools after she realized how bad the sex education classes are AND that she, as the parent, had no say in the curriculum; once she saw that she requested her boys not attend; she was told she had no choice on the matter. Her sons would have to attend in order to get the "credits" required to move on. Mind you, these are elementary and middle school aged boys.
The crap she went through to get them out of school was something else as well. But it's done..and she is teaching them what she feels is important and vital. Three weeks into it and her sons are already improving in all areas.
Posted by: Raven at October 18, 2007 02:06 PM (yjgAc)
7
Homeschooling IS the best option -- even if it's "difficult" or someone can't afford it. It simply is -- and yes, the schools will very much oppose that because they lose cash when students leave.
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2007 02:19 PM (oifEm)
8
Ogre, check out this:
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/10/school_to_offer.html
And follow the link under the picture of the girl.
We see the results of our society where girls are sexualized- and somehow they are blamed.
Sorry for the long link...
Posted by: Raven at October 18, 2007 02:22 PM (yjgAc)
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2007 02:37 PM (oifEm)
10
..and wait til you read this:
http://www.darleenclick.com/weblog/archives/2007/10/school_board_su.html
Posted by: Raven at October 18, 2007 03:59 PM (yjgAc)
11
I absolutely agree with your post. Unfortunately, I'm the choir you're preaching too...lol...but I wanted to let you know I agree.
And, Anita SHOULD run from that state right now.
Posted by: Holly at October 19, 2007 05:16 AM (KMpke)
12
Yes, Raven, there are even more people who honestly WANT to force all children to have sex at age 11, no matter what parents want. It's ALL about control -- total and absolute control.
Thanks for stopping by and dropping me a line, Holly!
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2007 11:07 AM (oifEm)
13
Some of the things schools do are absolutely stupid. I completely agree.
But public schools were founded for a reason. There are some really shoddy parents out there. You mightn't think so, but I think if you remember your own days in school, you'll remember kids who had parents who didn't give a hoot. We can't write those kids off. As a society, we need to educate them. And protect them to our best ability.
If an 11 year old is having sex, and you do abstinence counseling and tell them it's a bad idea and they still have sex, well, tell me what's wrong with providing contraceptives. That school district (Portland Maine) had 17 known middle school pregnancies last year. If even 1 of those poor kids had been prevented, it would be worth the program.
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at October 19, 2007 01:40 PM (vR7Sl)
14
No. Public schools were NOT founded to educate the poor. Anyone who wants to know exactly why public schools were founded, please follow the very first link in the post. It had NOTHING to do with educating poor people -- or even actually education (aka learning).
Do you think poor kids didn't learn before public schools? They learned a LOT more and they learned a LOT better. EVERYONE was MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more educated before public schools. Not a little more educated, TREMENDOUSLY more educated. Public schools are DESTROYING learning!
What's wrong? It's the school deciding THEY want to give permission and openly ENCOURAGE someone's child to have sex. That's really, really, wrong and evil. NO ONE should be telling 11-year old girls that sex is okay. Giving them prescription medications that remove consequences from sex is telling them it's okay.
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2007 01:54 PM (oifEm)
15
I actually heard someone who was at the meeting in Maine. They are NOT encouraging sex. They are using the birth control as a last ditch effort to help prevent another generation of lost kids.
and I said nothing about educating the poor. Unless you mean poor in spirit. I said kids who don't have parents who can teach them or parents who care. Like it or not, that is a significant portion of people.
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at October 19, 2007 01:59 PM (vR7Sl)
16
Just because they claim it's not encouraging sex, doesn't make it so. When you tell an ELEVEN YEAR OLD girl that you're giving her something to make her not pregnant, that IS not only approval, but encouragement to continue that action.
It's sort of like if you punch me in the face, and I give you $50. At the same time, I tell you, please don't do that, because I don't approve. But each time you punch me in the face, I'm going to give you $50. Now, do I "approve" of you punching me in the face? Gee, I said that I didn't approve...
You can use the word "poor" whichever way you like, but the results are the same. ALL people were much, much more educated before public schools came around. That's factual information, not an opinion. There's reams of data around to prove that.
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2007 02:04 PM (oifEm)
I think those of us who want freedom will continue to have trouble -- because so many people (most educated by the system) really want government to do stuff for them. Maybe they're just lazy, but again and again I read about people demanding "more" from government -- no matter the cost to freedom. And that just stinks. Take a look at this news release:
The Civitas Institute has been involved in conducting surveys in North Carolina for more than two years. Every month the voters are asked to pick the issue or program that needs the most attention from state government. During the past two years lower health care costs has always been in the top three and usually the top choice.
According to the October DecisionMaker Poll, 21 percent of voters said that lower health care cost is the most important issue facing the state. Within the margin of error is to improve public education at 20 percent, followed by 17 percent who want to control immigration. These three issues have consistently been the top three issues; controlling immigration has grown over the two-year period.
In a series of questions on health care, the study found that North Carolina voters are satisfied with the quality of health care they receive by a 76 percent to 23 percent margin. The cost of health insurance is voter’s major concern (43 percent) with 31 percent concerned about the number of poor without health insurance. These two major concerns are followed by 16 percent who are concerned about the availability or access to quality care and 5 percent about the inability to qualify for health insurance.
The working poor in need of government provided health care is strongly tied to the poverty level. Forty-two percent of those surveyed believe the income level for the working poor to receive government insurance should be $21,000 per year. Another 29 percent would cap the income level for the working poor at $41,000, and only 6 percent believe the coverage should extend to families making $62,000. A small-minority of voters (4 percent) believe coverage for the working poor should include families of four making in excess of $62,000 per year.
“When voters say they are concerned about lower health care costs they are really concerned about the cost of health insurance,” according to Civitas President Jack Hawke. “And when it comes to government providing health insurance for the working poor more than 70 percent would cap the income level at $41,000. It is obvious that voters do not favor providing health coverage for families with incomes more than $41,000 per year, as many of our legislators support.”
Tel Opinion Research of Alexandria, Va. conducted the poll on October 9-14 with 800 registered voters who voted in the 2002 and 2004 general elections, were first time voters in the 2006 general election, or voted in 2004 and 2006 as newly registered voters. It has a margin of error of +-3.7 percent.
In other words, a majority of people support government using force to take money from some people who earn it and freely give it to people who do NOT earn it. That's not freedom. AND they want government to interfere MORE with business to "reduce" health care costs. Folks, government CAUSED the high insurance prices, especially in North Carolina!
One of the primary reasons health insurance is so expensive in NC is that the state forces insurers to cover things you may not want. For example, I want just catastrophic coverage (only pay when I'm seriously injured, don't cover doctor visits, etc). I also do NOT want to pay for chiropractic coverage, AIDS coverage, mental health "treatments" and outpatient counseling. However, the state will NOT PERMIT me to buy that coverage. I am forced to buy all that coverage I DO NOT WANT. That's the #1 reason insurance is expensive.
The #2 reason is the lack of tort reform, but that's a topic for another post...
GOVERNMENT is completely incapable of solving just about ANY problem. They simply cannot do it.
1
and it's like people are completely amnesiatic. Ask anyone to name a program which the government has implemented successfully - measured against COST of course. THERE ARE NONE.
sheep. stupid sheep.
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at October 19, 2007 01:48 PM (vR7Sl)
2
Oh, I'm sorry, you can't measure government programs by cost. You see, in government, the measure of success is how much money you SPEND. The more you spend, the better your program. NOTHING else matters (results, return on investment, people helped, expenses -- none of it).
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2007 01:55 PM (oifEm)
1
An absolutely totally awe inspiring man, Rick Hoyt is. People who hold themselves back should look to him as a role model. Really. Goes to show when you put your mind and heart into anything, anything is possible.
Posted by: Raven at October 18, 2007 12:41 AM (Y4j4I)
2
What an awesome film. Thanks Ogre, after dealing with a few whiney folk, you made my day.
Posted by: GM Roper at October 18, 2007 01:16 AM (S60yG)
3
It's absolutely amazing. Before his son was born, he couldn't even swim. He learned to swim for his son. And the story about his son and how much he actually could see and comprehend while no one thought he could is just amazing. VERY inspirational. Man truly is capable of amazing feats.
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2007 01:29 AM (wkwq7)
Posted by: birdwoman at October 19, 2007 01:55 PM (vR7Sl)
5
Isn't that just awesome. I LOVE it. And the story behind it is even MORE powerful -- the parents were told the child would never be responsive and could never react or respond to them. He was raised normally and when he got a computer to communicate, the first words he typed were "GO BRUINS!" He had been watching the hockey playoffs and paying attention when the doctors all told them it was impossible. Unbelievable.
He degree is from Boston University, where he graduated in 1993 with a degree in special education.
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2007 01:58 PM (oifEm)
I wonder, since the news media claims that over 60% of the United States is anti-war, now that the Democrat presidential candidates (with just one exception) are all anti-war, whom shall they vote for?
1
I think that most Americans are having issues with HOW the war is going. Not with THE war itself. And I know most Americans do not want to cut and run- most realize this would be a big mistake. The anti war crowd doesn't represent all people yet the candidates are trying to appease them and the far left. Must be hard to tote the line like that.
And they all know being President will be that much tougher.
Posted by: Raven at October 18, 2007 12:44 AM (Y4j4I)
2
There's anti-war candidates? Really? Who? I mean other than Ron Paul and Bill Richardson.
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2007 01:31 AM (wkwq7)
There are a number of web sites that chronicle abuse by the police. And sure, there's always the "bad apples." But it seems to me that there's more and more reports like this one -- where police abuse and brutality is met with "the department supports the actions of the policeman" and "no charges have been filed."
In the first case, I have to say -- the policeman is lucky to be alive. There are a lot of people I know that would have shot him. Imagine what you would do, men, if at night you walked into a hallway and found an unidentified man on top of your wife, pinning her to the ground, with two of his unidentified pals standing in the doorway. I'm afraid to say that the two in the doorway may have been shot first. And I'd bet that if that happened, the man would be portrayed as a cop killer instead of a home defender.
On a forum I read, someone who read this story posted, "Wait, they can't do that." And the response, sad as it is, was, "In fact, yes they can. And there is no one to stop them." I lose more faith in this country and freedom with each passing day.
The exact Mecca orientation of the Flight 93 Memorial
A person facing directly into the giant central crescent of what was originally called the Crescent of Embrace will be facing 1.8° north of Mecca. Defenders of the crescent have used the inexactness of its Mecca orientation to dismiss concern.
•Patrick White, Vice President of Families of Flight 93, argues that the giant crescent cannot be seen as a tribute to Islam because the inexactness of its Mecca orientation would be "disrespectful to Islam."
•Both major Pittsburgh newspapers are denying that there is any such thing as the direction to Mecca.
•The internal investigation conducted by the Park Service denies that there is any such thing as almost:
...mihrab orientation either points to Mecca or it does not ... [it] cannot be off by "some" degrees. [From page 2 of report summary. Page 1 here.]
All of this willful blindness about the simple orientation of the crescent structure has been effective in keeping public inquiry from reaching a second startling fact: that the crescent design also contains a hidden exact Mecca orientation, corresponding to architect Paul Murdoch's own description of how the crescent structure should be interpreted.
Physical crescent tip vs. thematic crescent tip
What points not quite exactly at Mecca is the physical Crescent of Embrace structure (every particle of which remains completely intact in the Bowl of Embrace redesign). Connect the most obtruding tips of the physical crescent, form the perpendicular bisector to this line (the bisector of the crescent), and it points 1.8° north of Mecca:
Click for larger images. The green circle with "qibla" direction marked is from the Mecca-direction calculator at Islam.com. "Qibla" is Arabic for "prayer direction," which Muslims calculate as the "great circle" or "shortest distance" direction to Mecca.
But Paul Murdoch has also given a thematic explanation for the crescent structure, indicating how the thematic or "true" upper crescent tip should be understood. In Murdoch's description, the flight path breaks the circle, turning it into a giant crescent. Thus the thematic upper crescent tip is what is left of the crescent structure after the parts that are "broken off" by the flight path are removed. Take away the parts of the Entry Portal Walls that extend out beyond the flight path, connect the most obtruding tips of the remaining structure, and a perpendicular to this line points within a couple hundredths of a degree of Mecca (i.e. it points exactly at Mecca, as far as can be determined given the pixel resolution of the graphics).
The flight path is represented in the Crescent/Bowl design by the Entry Portal Walkway, which comes down from the NNW. The Walkway passes through the Entry Portal Walls and projects out into the crescent:
Take away the parts of the crescent structure that are "broken off" by the flight path, and the remaining crescent structure is oriented exactly on Mecca.
[The above graphic was created by laying the Crescent of Embrace and the Bowl of Embrace site plans on top of each other. This was done to accurately capture the one real change that Murdoch made in the Bowl of Embrace redesign: the lengthening of the Entry Portal Walkway. (See "Memorial riddle #2: Why did Paul Murdoch lengthen the Entry Portal Walkway?) So that the new Walkway length can be seen, the low resolutionBowl of Embrace site plan is enhanced by overlaying it with the high resolution Crescent of Embrace site plan.]
The 44th inscribed translucent block on the flight path
At the end of the Entry Portal Walkway (marking the thematic or "true" upper crescent tip, according to Murdoch's own description), sits a large glass block, inscribed with LAFD Captain Stephen J. Ruda's dedication: "A common field one day. A field of honor forever."
This will be the 44th inscribed translucent block emplaced along the flight path, matching the number of passengers, crew, AND terrorists. 40 will be inscribed with the names of the 40 heroes (despite Tom Burnett's demand that Tom Jr.'s name not be used). Three three more will be built into a separate section of Memorial Wall that is centered on the bisector of the giant crescent (the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag). These three blocks will be inscribed with the 9/11 date. Thus the date goes to the Islamic star. The date goes to the terrorists.
By having the 44th glass block mark the thematic "true" upper crescent tip, and by having that thematic crescent tip create a hidden exact Mecca orientation for the giant crescent, Murdoch is able to tie his Islamic and his terrorist memorializing design features together into a perfect bin Ladenist embrace.
TACKLE THE BARE NAKED HIJACKER!
After all, it does not get much more naked than this:
Or this:
Or this:
The Walkway riddle: When Paul Murdoch extended the Entry Portal Walkway, he was doing more than just perfecting the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent. This slight adjustment in the placement of the 44th block also perfected two other terrorist memorializing elements of Murdoch's mosque. Anyone who can figure out either of these elements before looking at the answer wins a glorious prize.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that North Carolina is a communist state. They have ruled that the government is to control the means of production. They have decreed that government, and only government, will determine which companies will exist in North Carolina and which companies will be driven out of North Carolina. They have ruled that if a government uses cash to bribe companies to do things, that is allowed (but have not made it legal for citizens to do so).
The decision may be appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, who is also expected to rule that the government in North Carolina is absolutely permitted to control all means of production -- because who has the guts to stop them?
1
This editorial cartoon provoked my first laugh of the day...one major category of humor is exemplified by this exchange. That is, something that may be good or bad, but that can be identified with, as valid or true, by the listener/reader. Thanks for providing the laugh... even as it presents a disquieting reality.
(ie, FOX News and PBS/NPR audiences keep watching/reading only those programs/articles which reinforce their own world-views and genuine dialog between the right and the left is discouraged by today's entertainment-driven media which promotes only controversy, not common ground.)
Posted by: Bob Cobb at October 17, 2007 05:57 AM (h1vJ/)
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2007 10:48 AM (wkwq7)
3
Thought you might enjoy this humor break from all our serious talk :-)
Ahmed and Hamid are both beggars at one of London's tube stations.
Ahmed drives a Mercedes, lives in a mortgage free house and has a lot of money to spend.
Hamid only brings in hardly 2 - 3 pounds a day.
Finally one day Hamid asks Ahmed how does he manage to bring home a bag full of £10 bills every day.
Ahmed says, "Come on man! Look at your sign: "I have no work, a wife and six kids to support."
Britons who see that do not feel excited about giving you money!!! And you will still have no job and a large family to support. You must make it worth their while!
Ahmad boasts, now look at my sign: "I only need
another £10 to move back to Pakistan"
Posted by: Amlan Chaterjee at October 25, 2007 09:42 PM (8Tq4X)
More greedy, selfish, miserable bums are out for free cash. This time it's the victims of the VA Tech shooting spree. And they want your money. Yes, YOU reading this. They've now filed an intent to file a lawsuit. No, they haven't filed it yet, but they're either going to get a "settlement" or they will file it.
Once again, this is about nothing but piles of free cash. That's it, absolutely nothing more. Anything else you read about these lawsuits is just lies. There's NOTHING to be gained by the people filing these lawsuits other than piles of cash -- preferably (to them) large piles.
Oh, they might claim they want to "punish those responsible." Yes, they know the evil person who did this is dead. And they might even believe that they can "punish" the government. But that's total crap, too.
You see, in a lawsuit against a person, you can punish them financially. Against a corporation, that only works a little bit, because the corporation just raises their prices to offset the loss. However, against government, it has absolutely ZERO effect. You see, members of government DO NOT CARE how much money they pay out! If they have to pay out $1 million in lawsuits, they'll just get another million from the taxpayers! They're NOT CAPABLE OF BEING FINANCIALLY PUNISHED.
But hey, these miserable, selfish, greedy people are so shallow and self-centered that if you give them enough money, they'll just forget about their loved ones who were shot that day. They'll just claim it's "punishment" so people won't call them greedy bastards.
1
at least one of the dead students was a CCW holder that was legally prevented from defending himself while on campus... i really hope his family sues the hell out of everyone involved
Posted by: chris at October 18, 2007 06:54 PM (qz/By)
2
That would at least be a more reasonable lawsuit -- but still won't bother government because you cannot financially punish government, ever.
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2007 11:09 AM (oifEm)
Apparently some people are still suffering "injuries" from 1898. So walking will heal those open sores, somehow. And as usual, the reporters about historical facts simply choose to ignore facts.
The 1898 riots in Wilmington were not about race. Instead, the riots were a political action. Most reports today about those riots forget to publish the truth -- that it was Democrats who moved in and killed Republicans because the Republicans were in control of government. Democrats said that they were putting down the "black devil" Republicans in attacking, killing, and driving them out of their homes and businesses. Democrats, with deadly force, overthrew a Republican government because the Democrats hate competition.
The color of people's skin was a secondary trait in this battle. And yes, the news reports continue to omit that the Republicans were black and the Democrats were white. So it continues today, with blacks typically identifying with Democrats -- the ones who attacked and killed blacks for disagreeing with them.
But hey, November 10th people will walk, and all will be forgiven. I wonder if blacks will be allowed by Democrats to be Republican again after the walk -- or if they'll continue to be told to vote Democrat or be killed again.
1
This story is akin to your recent post on the noose.
Why does it seem that everything is immediately about race? I don't get it. There hasn't been slavery in this country for 142 years. But somehow, there are still wounds. Anybody alive in 1898 would now be at least 109 years old!! It would be like me saying I have wounds from the Roman Coliseum where my Christian ancestors were killed for sport.
It is like what is happening at Western Illinois University, where a history club put up a poster that said "Don't get hung up in your studies" and showed a picture of a Gallows with noose. The Black Student Association took offense, and has made a mountain out of nothing. As soon as the history club was told someone found the poster offensive, they took them all down. But still, the BSA suggested that the History Major be changed to include mandatory a black history course (and what is the difference between black history and American history). What are kids being indoctrinated with when they still feel the "wounds" of something that happened 150 years ago.
Sorry to rant for so long. Just felt I needed to air out my frustration.
p.s. Just for the record, it was the Republican Party that was running the government when slavery was abolished.
Posted by: Petey at October 16, 2007 03:49 PM (tmnSV)
2
It's about race because people want to be victims. People want stuff for free, and victims get free stuff. It's about race because a certain segment of society financially profits from claiming that slavery is just around the corner.
I once attended a "black political caucus" meeting. It was utterly unreal. It sounded like slavery had ended just yesterday and if anyone in the room dared to vote Republican, slavery would be re-instituted the next day. And yes, those speaking got piles of cash for speaking and saying those things.
It's truly sad that Martin Luther King's legacy has been so perverted.
Posted by: Ogre at October 16, 2007 03:54 PM (oifEm)
3
The Black History course will likely turn out to be a Marxist Indoctrination Class.
Every one I have ever attended was so.
Posted by: Thunder Pig at October 17, 2007 10:07 AM (QOyVJ)
4
Well, those who teach black history typically need to have government force their ideas on other people -- because no one would accept them any other way.
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2007 10:51 AM (wkwq7)
Q. How do you make a cat sound like a dog?
A. Soak it in lighter fluid and light it up: It will go "woof."
Q. How do you make a dog sound like a cat?
A. Freeze it and put it on a band saw and it will go "merrrrowwwww"
I am SO sick of the whining. Hey, residents of New Orleans that are still complaining about government -- get up off your rear ends and try working like the rest of us.
Posted by: Ogre at October 16, 2007 09:55 AM (wkwq7)
3
I was watching the news the other night and they had a special on about that town this summer that was taken out by the tornado.
Guess what, not one person they interviewed bitched about not getting free stuff.
They actually said things like, we are moving on, we are rebuilding, we are helping our neighbors build.
Shocking, I know.
Posted by: Quality Weenie at October 16, 2007 10:00 PM (BksWB)
4
Can we film that and buy TVs and DVDs and send them all the New Orleans?
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2007 02:02 AM (wkwq7)
5
One N.O. upper-middle-class owner of a few single family residence rentals who was wiped out after her insurance corporation failed to rebuild the houses she had faithfully paid premiums on for many years said, "Take a good look at my face. This could be YOU after the next hurricane."
She wasn't complaining about FEMA freebies, she was complaining about private companies not honoring their insurance policies.
Posted by: Ann Coulter at October 17, 2007 05:41 AM (h1vJ/)
6
Well, that's ONE person compared to the tens of thousands who are still waiting for government help -- and demanding government help.
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2007 10:47 AM (wkwq7)
7
Insurance kompanies have ruined health care in this country and you want to pick on the government?
For example, you may believe those first-time home buyers whose mortgage payments are being increased tremendously don't need our collective help. Just a simple "don't increase existing mortgage payments for a year" law wouldn't cost a penny yet it might prevent half of the expected foreclosures.
You probably think "THEY" are being punished, but if you think about the effects of massive foreclosures across our nation you'll realize that we're all in the same boat (even those of us who haven't had a late payment ever in our lives).
Note: Your "truth filter" requires a "k" instead of a "c" sometimes :-)
Posted by: Ann Coulter at October 17, 2007 08:45 PM (CrO2/)
8
Wrong. Insurance c-ompanies are HEAVILY regulated -- in other words, they charge what they charge BECAUSE GOVERNMENT TELLS THEM TO DO SO. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply lying. Government sets the coverage and the rates, NOT the companies!
Wrong about increasing payments -- you may think it won't cost a penny, but what about the company who loaned the money who has expenses that increase? When they can't meet expenses, they go bankrupt, and then *I* have to pay for the bad loans.
I'm not against helping people -- I'm against GOVERNMENT forcing others to help people -- that's just wrong, no matter what.
Thanks for the note on the filter, I'll check that out.
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2007 11:59 PM (wkwq7)
9
"you may believe those first-time home buyers whose mortgage payments are being increased tremendously don't need our collective help. Just a simple "don't increase existing mortgage payments for a year" law wouldn't cost a penny yet it might prevent half of the expected foreclosures."
Hey "Ann"
They were the dumbasses that bought more of a house then they could afford, they should get zero help. Maybe they will learn next time to buy what they can afford.
They were the ones that had the contracts in front of them, they were the ones that did not read said contract. They were not forced to get into said contract, nor forced to sign the contract. They were adult enough to lie to get bigger houses and payments, they should be adult enough to pony up to the bar and face the consequences.
Posted by: Quality Weenie at October 18, 2007 12:40 AM (BksWB)
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2007 01:31 AM (wkwq7)
11
Re: the filter --- _you_ can write insurance c_om and America -- just us posters can't.
Posted by: Ann Coulter at October 18, 2007 08:19 PM (VZyOx)
12
Well, it's certainly true in health insurance that our wholly-owned subsidiary (Congress & the White House) make sure that government cannot compete in the marketplace -- like get volume discounts like WalMart does. Private insurance c-ompanies are the biggest rip-off and the biggest reason why I can get a doctor appointment in Denmark for $60 and $40 in Japan, but the same treatment in the U.S. costs $200 or $300. And, BTW, I made a telephone call for an appointment without any long delay, so please don't fall for that "socialized medicine" crap about long lines for service. Check out the current issue of AARP Bulletin to see how budget cuts have destroyed the good service we used to get from SSA.
Before you make up some abstract esoteric claim about banks going bankrupt check out the current Wall Street earnings report. Bank of America reported today $5 billion in PROFIT, down from $8 billion last year. I think those poor CEO's can sacrifice their bonuses for another year :-)
If government doesn't help then who will? You?
Hey, I read those junk mail ads from mortgage companies -- big bold print that advertises 1.5% interest rates with very affordable monthly payments. Then you read the tiny 4-point font at the bottom that says 1.5% for one-month only; interest rates adjust MONTHLY; capped at 9.5% -- gee, 9.5% in 4-point footnote with giant 16-point blue-colored font advertising 1.5% rate.
Please don't try to tell me the government made the mortgage companies do that.
Yes, first time home buyers make mistakes -- and to miss an 8% point difference is a very stupid mistake. But doesn't an 8% difference seem even a little bit unfair to you?
Regardless, think about the value of your 401(K) pension and the value of your home and keep in mind that while your net worth falls, all we needed was for the government (or banks themselves) to reign in some of their excesses until the situation improves.
Posted by: Ann Coulter at October 18, 2007 08:41 PM (VZyOx)
13
All I really need is for government to get the hell out of my way and let me be free. That's all I ask. And that's as "fair" as you can get. And YES, people should be absolutely free to make stupid mistakes -- and take risks -- and suffer the consequences of that risk.
No, GOVERNMENT is the source of the vast, vast majority of problems in America, not "evil corporations."
And YES, if government doesn't help *I* will. But right now I have to give nearly half of everything I earn to government to mismanage, so I don't have much cash to spare. If you don't believe it will work, check out America in the late 1800s and early 1900s. People do VASTLY better without government interference, every single time.
Posted by: Ogre at October 19, 2007 11:26 AM (oifEm)
14
Yes, working people pay 43% fed tax (28% income + 15% SSA payroll taxes) while the non-working (ie, "rich") Americans pay only 15% tax on Capital Gains. And that's not even counting sales taxes -- a far greater percentage of poor and working people's earned income goes to sales taxes than rich CEO's huge stock options ("capital gains").
I hope you'll agree that this situation has been created by corporate lawyers, not grass-roots public demand. Lobbyists are paid by rich CEO's not average working people, so please don't blame the government.
I still don't think you're getting my point though. You say "suffer the consequences of that risk" and I'm telling you that GOOD PEOPLE are already being hurt if the GREEDY mortgage companies are allowed to foreclose on first-time home buyers who can afford 6% interest, but not the 9% interest they weren't expecting.
At least please let me know whether you realize how YOU will be affected by the oncoming 2 million home foreclosures coming in the next quarter -- after there already is an 18-month backlog of homes for sale on the market.
And please let me know if you think 9% rate in a 6% market (a 150% overcharge) isn't just a tiny little bit unfair? (eg, super-super greedy by the sleazy mortgage companies who interrupt your dinnertime with annoying telemarketing calls)
Side note: America was still an agricultural nation back in late 1800's and early 1900's -- the world has changed upside down and sideways since then ... things are very different now ... you have heard the term "globalization" haven't you? That word was unthinkable before the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the rise of Windows (PC's with modems & email), followed by the World-Wide Web (1994) and a popular user-friendly browser (called Netscape (1995) running on top of the Internet (TCP/IP)... Netscape (Firefox) makes our conversation in your BLOG possible. People in the 1880's & early 1900's couldn't even dream of the world we live in today.
PS-- Who invented the Internet? AARP, a special project for the GOVERNMENT. If it werent'f for government support, we'd still be networking computers over proprietay networks like IBM's SNA and DEC's DE_C_NET or Microslop's NETBUI.
You seem to take government contributions for granted, just because you don't have to pay $60/month royalty fee to some company for the use of the "open protocols" TCP/IP.
Maybe you would feel better if you wrote a check for $60/month to Salvation Army and pretend that's your payment for your use of the Internet.
Posted by: Ann Coulter at October 20, 2007 06:42 AM (VZyOx)
15
Oops .. the Internet was invented by university professors (inexpensively) under grants from DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), sill a GOVERNMENT-sponsored program.
Since you obviously enjoy paying private corporations $45-60/month for your Internet connection, I think it would only be fair if you donated $45-60/month to New Orleans Salvation Army, since your Internet service wouldn't be possible at all without a selfless group of dedicated university researchers collaborating on a project "bigger than themselves" (which wasn't some bogus political war in Vietnam or Iraq).
Posted by: Ann Coulter at October 20, 2007 06:59 AM (VZyOx)
16
I'm sorry that we will continue to strongly disagree. You see, I trust people. I believe in people. You, based on your statements, believe people are stupid and incapable of doing, well, anything, without government forcing them to. That's sad, but that is the position of the Democrat Party today.
I think any agreement between two people to exchange goods and labor is fair if they agree (without government forcing them to). I think the internet would exist even if government hadn't spent a dime on it. How much did the government spend making Windows?
I believe we would be much more technologically advanced if government were 1/100th of it's size. More people would be better off, there would be more "middle class" and more "rich" people. Paying money to the government will always have worse results than NOT paying them.
Posted by: Ogre at October 20, 2007 01:08 PM (wkwq7)
17
Would you really want to live in a world where everybody watches only FOX news, everybody belongs to the Republican party, and all the Christians wear Ku Klux Klan hoods?
2 points: I wouldn't want to live in a 100% leftist world and just because SOME Christians joined the Ku Klux Klan doesn't de-legitimize ALL Christians.
That's why 2nd Timothy Chapter 4 Verse 7 is my favorite scripture -- even if SOME Christians have become as extreme as SOME Muslims are, I have kept the faith in the Love that Jesus Christ wants our world to have.
Sorry, you are just wrong about the Internet. IBM, DEC, Honeywell, H-P, and every other company promoted their own, proprietary networking system. Essentially a "tower of babel" to communicate with other vendor's computers. Microslop is the most CLOSED proprietary system in the world, and they use their monopoly power to destroy competitive products -- thus diminishing user's choices for better products.
I agree about government being far too big.
Let's bring back Eisenhower and start reducing the size of government by tearing down the military-industrial complex that wastes almost as much money as the INTEREST our federal government pays every year for the money it has BORROWED to pay for military excesses even the Pentagon hasn't requested.
Posted by: Ann Coulter at October 22, 2007 02:06 AM (604CD)
18
Obviously we're not going to agree. I suggest that I trust people to do things based on freedom, and you suggest they will all be Klan members. That's just sad.
You can give one example where companies compete. GOOD! That's great! Okay, how about hard drives? Somehow they managed to come up with quite a standard there without government.
You want to reduce government, there's just one choice for President in 2008: Ron Paul.
Posted by: Ogre at October 22, 2007 03:02 AM (wkwq7)
19
I said Klan members are not an excuse to lump all Christians into one lump sum and say they are ALL bad (as you claim ALL Muslims are bad, without exception).
How much have you contributed to help rebuild the homes that were destroyed by the fires in Southern California? Or Katrina? Zero. I thought so,
I think you trust the people to do nothing except look out for their own selfish interests (and count their blessings that an "act of God" doesn't take away their life savings).
If you saw Russell Crowe's movie "A Brilliant Mind" you would know that the Nobel-prize-winning mathematician he played made a breakthrough discovery in game theory in 1953.
In simple terms, "If we all four (guys) go after the very prettiest girl, then there will be one winner and three losers. But, if instead, we collaborate our efforts, we each can get a date with one of the four attractive girls, and thus have four winners."
It is an important foundation for modern economic theory. The disk drive companies also were led by IEEE Computer Society (a NON-PROFIT professional organization) who recognize the value of standards (ie, regulations or "rules" or "laws").
Sometimes good things happen without government intervention, but I think your answer to the Southern California/Katrina question is most revealing.
Posted by: John Daley at October 23, 2007 08:58 PM (eAUyf)
20
You have already decided my answer, so I guess there's no point in providing the real answer, is there?
Posted by: Ogre at October 23, 2007 10:00 PM (aF6z7)
What have you done to help the people in New Orleans/San Diego who need help?
Posted by: John Daley at October 25, 2007 07:21 AM (eAUyf)
22
I'm not sure why you answer a question, then ask me to answer it. You have already decided, magically, my thoughts and actions, based on your mind-reading abilities. I see no need to correct you because you have already decided the answer. If I were to tell you an answer that contradicted with your pre-determined answer, I'm quite sure you'd claim I was lying. Instead of trying to upset your delicate sensibilities with the truth, I'll just let you continue life in the world of your own creation in your own mind.
Posted by: Ogre at October 25, 2007 11:27 AM (oifEm)
23
Why are you so embarrassed about answering this simple question? I wouldn't even know you if we passed each other on the street. And it looks like this discussion is essentially a private one between you and me; it's not like I'm trying to use your soap-box to corner you and make some big splash in the Blog-O-Sphere :-)
I'm just trying to point out the flaw in your assumption that people in need will magically get the help they need without some organized (government or non-profit NGO) way of helping them get back on their feet.
Right-wingers used to whine about "lazy, non-working welfare moms". Now they are blaming victims of natural disasters for trying to mooch off of others.
What will you do if your insurance c_ompany cancels your home owner's policy? Sell your house? Who will buy it if they can't insure it?
You dump all the blame on the powerless at the bottom of the economic totem pole, while the powerful who run insurance c_ompanies get a free pass from you. Why is that?
Posted by: Amlan Chaterjee at October 26, 2007 08:57 AM (x3vvv)
24
Sorry about the insurance c-ompanies spam thing, I can't figure out how to get that out of there.
As for freedom, I just happen to like it. I don't put blame on anyone for things they don't do. I simply like freedom. I like people to be free to help others. Today's government HATES allowing people to be free to help others. I think that's wrong. And with insurance c-ompanies, the primary reason they do ANYTHING they do is because government forces them to. And again, that's just plain wrong.
Posted by: Ogre at October 26, 2007 11:34 AM (oifEm)
25
It may be a ".com" filter. I'm not sure why anyone would try to advertise in your political blog, it would seem to backfire if someone tried to take commercial advantage of a discussion blog like yours.
How about 'dem tax-averse, Libertarian, selfish, "less government, more for __MEE___" Orange County voters who got caught with their pants down -- only two Vietnam-era helicopters to fight the fire -- even AFTER a similar fire disaster happened in 2003, those freedom-loving tax-averse citizens voted down a local tax to buy new fire-fighting equipment... so they ended up MOOCHING off of San Franciso and Arizona fire-fighters after their fires got out of control.
NOW those rugged individualist Libertarians want govermint help.
Hope they enjoyed their tax-savings :-)
BTW, 2/3 of Americans say they received no benefit from Dubya's tax cuts.
(At least you were able to fix the "ica" filter. Thanks!)
Posted by: John Daley at October 27, 2007 07:30 AM (4hwtR)
26
Well, it's not a ".com" filter -- just when i type "insurance c_om".
Don't worry about it. As a computer programmer I know how hard it is sometimes to fight the syntax to get a computer to do what you want it to :-)
Posted by: John Daley at October 27, 2007 07:34 AM (4hwtR)
27
It's automated spam, they don't care where the links end up. There's lots of them that advertise for insurance c-ompanies (go figure).
Posted by: Ogre at October 27, 2007 12:26 PM (2WD8n)
28
Wow! I would report them to Homeland Security, They are about the only govermint agency with funds to pay staff to do stuff anymore. And spam is the #1 threat to Internet bandwidth.
Still, what do you think about those tax-averse libertarian San Diegan's who voted down a tax increase to pay for modern helicopter/ariel attacks on the small forest fire that was getting out of control. Their Fire Chief did the honorable thing and resigned after the votes were counted. If people aren't willing to pay for their own protection, then it's futile to try -- he didn't delude himself into thinking he can protect them or, worse, collect a handsome Fire Chief compensation package for his family, while pretending to help them.
The really sad thing about that is, if San Diego had bought more modern equipment, possibly they might have contained the fire and prevented damage to neighboring counties who DID pay for more modern fire-fighting equipment.
Worse, they ended up MOOCHING off other fire departments to pay for the fire protection they have been neglecting for over thirty years now.
When I hear "less government, more for __MEEE__" I always think of free-loaders like the San Diego voters who voted to tax their neighbors for the necessary equipment to fight their fires.
Posted by: John Daley at October 27, 2007 10:09 PM (uetv9)
The drive against freedom continues. Now if I use the word "Mom" in the wrong place and the wrong time, I might be jailed. I really think that Lex Luthor had the right idea. Someone needs to mine the San Andreas fault and get California away from a country that wants freedom -- because they despite it there.
If you have children in California, you are doing them a disservice. If you want to raise them with your morals and values, you will not be allowed to. Yes, I realize there are many who have insane morals and values in CA, but most of them don't procreate. I strongly suggest if you care about your children and want them to see freedom, that you move to New Hampshire. That seriously looks like the ONLY hope for freedom left on this planet.
A family is meant to be two parents of different sexes. No, it really doesn't matter what you think. That's a family, even if you don't like it. Men and women are different (again, if you don't like it). They were created with different purposes, values, and abilities. Study after study shows that children ARE better when raised by two parents: a MOTHER and a FATHER. ANYTHING else is just plain wrong.
Now I realize that there are single-parents that are raising children. And sometimes it's because something happened that was out of that parent's control. That's a completely different situation -- but it's still NOT a good situation.
Now California wants to completely and totally disrupt any semblance of order remaining in society. That's fine, if they'd keep it to themselves. Unfortunately, they won't. I'm sure the middle school boys are happy -- because now they are allowed to use either the boys' locker room or the girls' locker room. Gee, I wonder if there will be any increase in sexual activity?
Once again, this is about making some people "more equal" or more protected than other people. This is a very clear government action that shows that certain people and activities are preferred by government -- and in this case, it's the abnormal that government is supporting at the expense of the family.
Do you realize that a science textbook that says that people are born male or female is now banned in CA? Let's see the anti-religious science people get upset about CA refusing to allow facts in textbooks this time. Oh, right, this advances the liberal agenda, so it's perfectly okay to destroy science if it's in the worship of liberalism.
Ironically, this law also supposedly increases punishments (and definitions) for harassment. Gee, do you think that by allowing boys into the girls locker room that there might be more harassment?
The law also removes any state funding for any religious organization that might help people -- unless the religion is anything but Christian. The state will continue giving money to their approved religions, but not to other religions. Sure, go ahead, try and convince me this law has even one speck that's Constitutional (I know we don't use that document any more, but in theory we do).
What a puss-filled cesspool the state of California really has become.
When the patient saw my name, he refused to be examined by a Muslim doctor. I couldn’t reach his primary physician, and the other physician on call was also Muslim. A physician assistant offered to complete the evaluation, but as the patient was in no immediate danger, I did not allow this. Instead I discharged the patient without a full evaluation. Was I right?
Imagine that. Someone actually refused treatment by a Muslim doctor. And it seems like the NY Times and the doctor are quite offended. Since the doctor is a Muslim, I wonder what he burned to release his "offendedness."
Actually, this is happening a lot more today -- except in reverse. More and more Muslims around the world (especially in England) are demanding they are served by Muslims and Muslims alone. And no one seems to condemn nor care about that when Muslims do it, but if a non-Muslim refuses treatment by a Muslim, suddenly it's "religious bigotry."
But wait -- shouldn't we have freedom of association? Shouldn't we actually be free to be examined by a person who shares our morals and values? What if, during the examination, the Muslim doctor decided that you were an "infidel" and needed to convert to Islam or die? What if you accidentally said "Mohammed" in the wrong way and the Muslim doctor decided he needed to punish you for saying that and he cut your head off? These are not irrational thoughts to those who are radical Muslims. My question is: how do you determine which are the radicals and which are not?
If you can't tell which ones are the radicals and the non-radicals don't speak up, your only safe choice is to assume that any Muslim you're talking to IS a radical. And therefore, it's certainly logical to not want to want a medical exam from a Muslim who may or may not be a radical who will kill you for his religion if you say or do the wrong thing (in their eyes).
(H/T for the story to Raven).
1
> My question is: how do you determine
> which are the radikals and which are not?
That's easy! Radikals are the baby-killers who terminate unwanted Hispanic pregnancies so that we have a majority Catholic Latino population in the USA.
Sensible medikal professionals throw human embryos in the garbage can so they cannot be used by evil medikal researchers to find cures for liver cancer and other horrible diseases that God judges bad people deserve.
Posted by: Muhammad Ali at October 16, 2007 08:18 AM (VZyOx)
2
I'm sure that made sense in your head before you typed it.
Posted by: Ogre at October 16, 2007 09:55 AM (wkwq7)
3
A better question would be, what if I was there seeking treatment for an injury sustained while butchering my pig - thus, covered in pig blood and bodily fluids, and having sustained a serious emergent injury, would he treat me?
Seriously though, it could happen!
Posted by: oddybobo at October 16, 2007 07:20 PM (mZfwW)
4
Now you're thinking, Oddy. Can I borrow your pig so I can give this a try?
Posted by: Ogre at October 16, 2007 08:04 PM (oifEm)
Posted by: Ogre at October 16, 2007 08:04 PM (oifEm)
6
> > I'm sure that made sense in
> > your head before you typed it.
I was poking fun at religious beliefs (like abortion and embryonic stem cell research) where one group of believers want to write laws which disrespect the religious beliefs of others of different religious faiths.
Like our Constitution prevents Congress from passing any laws which restrict the religious freedom of our citizens.
So maybe we need an Executive Order to do that.
Posted by: Muhammad Ali at October 17, 2007 05:27 AM (h1vJ/)
7
Wow. You think life is a religious belief? So if my religion holds that I'm allowed to murder anyone with the letter "M" in their name, then Congress shouldn't pass a law that would stop me because it's my religion. You scare me.
Posted by: Ogre at October 17, 2007 10:46 AM (wkwq7)
8
Well _YOU_ brought up the subject of "Good and Evil" and mocked a Muslim/Jewish belief that seems silly to Christians and Bhudists.
I never said anything about murder (which is still one of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, isn't it?).
PS-- the joke about an Executive Order is poking fun at the many unconstitutional E.O.'s Bush has issued.
Posted by: Muhammad Ali at October 17, 2007 08:31 PM (CrO2/)
9
Sorry, but there is a difference between religions. Islam is NOT a good religion -- they're evil. When your religion tells you to kill people for uttering a "wrong" word, that's plain evil. If you can't see that, then you simply have no basis in reality. Feel free to move to Iran and drop us a line.
Posted by: Ogre at October 18, 2007 12:05 AM (wkwq7)
10
I never said Islam is a good or bad religion, I just said it (and Judaism) has a belief about pork that Christians and Buhdists may think is silly.
I challenge you to show me a quote in the Koran which tells people to kill other people. I suspect that you are repeating what is broadcast in the media; I doubt that you have much theological understanding of religion in general, but Islam in particular.
Check this out: Russian President Putin offered a new idea to resolve the nuclear situation--to the Iranians. Please note: Putin offered his idea to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who actually controls the Iranian nuclear program, rather than to court jester Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...although Bush continued to rant about Ahmadinejad in his press conference.
Putting esoteric religious debates aside, I think Putin is far more effective dealing with Iran than Bush has shown.
And check this out: the Iraqis are turning to China and Iran to construct electric power plants. This is particularly significant because Amerika's inability to provide electricity in Iraq has been, for average Iraqis, the most infuriating daily evidence of our ineptitude.
(Sorry, your "truth filter" requires me to use a "k" sometimes instead of a "c".)
Posted by: Muhammad Ali at October 18, 2007 08:12 PM (VZyOx)
But a chapter & verse reference would help me determine the context of that quote (it could have come from a BlackwaterUSA Pep talk :-)
Something like 2nd Timothy, Chapter 4, verse 6-7:
http://christianisrael.com/douay/B55C004.htm
I can show you many non-violent, economically successful Muslims who don't believe the quote you sent me. And that's just my personal aquaintences; a formal study would prove you wrong many times over (if you claim to apply that to all Muslims, as the Christian Germans did to all Jews during 1930's-1940's Germany -- that is just wrong, and I hope you know it).
BTW, Iran was a "coalition partner" in the "war on terror" against the Taliban in Afganistan, until Bush chose to take political advantage out of American hatred for the SAUDI ARABIANS who carried out 9-11. George Bush has a unique ability to divide Americans while uniting our enemies.
Don't you ever get the feeling they are playing chess while we are playing checkers??
And you seem noticeably quiet about Iraqis turning to China and Iran for electricity power help because the Bush administration has done absolutely ZERO to help the Iraqi PEOPLE.
Posted by: Muhhammad Ali at October 20, 2007 07:30 AM (VZyOx)
13
Exceptions are not the rule. Those who follow the religion of Islam use to appease their god. I'm sorry that you cannot see what is right in front of your face. That's factual information, proven over and over again. Those who do not follow those instructions are simply not Muslim. Don't believe me? As the Imamns in the various mosques -- but don't expect them to tell the truth, because their religion also REQUIRES them to lie to advance their religion.
Islam is evil.
Posted by: Ogre at October 20, 2007 01:03 PM (wkwq7)
14
Please tell me what is the difference between your hatred of Muslims and Christian Nazi's hatred of Jews.
Posted by: John Daley at October 23, 2007 09:52 PM (eAUyf)
Posted by: Ogre at October 23, 2007 10:00 PM (aF6z7)
16
Look, it's one thing to have "skin-head" hatred for a certain race/religion/ethic group, but it's quite another to show your hatred without even acknowledging it.
I sincerely believe that if the U.S. started sending six million Muslims into gas chambers to be murdered you would have no problem with that at all.
Right?
Posted by: John Daley at October 25, 2007 07:17 AM (eAUyf)
And it's OK with you if the U.S. starts burning 6 million (or more) Muslims in crematoriums, right?
Posted by: John Daley at October 25, 2007 08:58 PM (8Tq4X)
19
I wonder how much shock there would be to your system if you ever visited planet earth.
Posted by: Ogre at October 25, 2007 09:20 PM (2WD8n)
20
I'm just trying to guage where you would draw the line in your hatred of Muslims ... would you be OK with the U.S. killing every Muslim they could round up, or would you draw the line at something less extreme, like maybe shipping them all back to Pakistan or where ever they came from?
Posted by: Amlan Chaterjee at October 26, 2007 08:36 AM (x3vvv)
21
No, you're applying your personal perceptions to my thoughts. They're wrong, but you don't care because you've already made up your mind what my thoughts are. There's clearly no point in my trying to change your mind, because you have already decided everything that I have thought or will think.
Posted by: Ogre at October 26, 2007 11:30 AM (oifEm)
22
Just to clarify for a moment, you believe the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim, right?
And you are SO different than the Christian Nazis.
Posted by: John Daley at October 27, 2007 07:14 AM (4hwtR)
23
So when, exactly, did you say you stopped beating your wife?
Posted by: Ogre at October 27, 2007 12:25 PM (2WD8n)
24
Like I said, I'm just trying to find out where your hatred for Muslims stops.
Is it just this blog, or do you shout obscenities to Arabs you meet on the street, too? I doubt you would do that to a strong, healthy young man, unless he was hand-cuffed.
Or do you throw dirty looks at them when they walk down the street? Maybe women or children.
You have shown no concern for the safety of those being held in Guantanamo, even the ones that U.S. Federal Courts have declared deserve the right of habeus corpus.
Oops, that's a term in our Constitution which you may be unfamiliar with.
Posted by: John Daley at October 27, 2007 10:20 PM (uetv9)
25
Oh, so you DO actively beat women wherever you find them. Strange that you haven't been arrested.
Posted by: Ogre at October 28, 2007 07:28 PM (2WD8n)
26
I don't think you have the balls to confront a Muslim eyeball-to-eyeball without a Ku-Klux_Klan mask hiding your hateful face.
Posted by: John Daley at November 07, 2007 09:40 AM (y2s/z)
Click for larger images. The green circle with "qibla" direction marked is from the Mecca-direction calculator at Islam.com. "Qibla" is Arabic for "prayer direction," which Muslims calculate as the "great circle" or "shortest distance" direction to Mecca.
But Paul Murdoch has also given a thematic explanation for the crescent structure, indicating how the thematic or "true" upper crescent tip should be understood. In Murdoch's description, the flight path breaks the circle, turning it into a giant crescent. Thus the thematic upper crescent tip is what is left of the crescent structure after the parts that are "broken off" by the flight path are removed. Take away the parts of the Entry Portal Walls that extend out beyond the flight path, connect the most obtruding tips of the remaining structure, and a perpendicular to this line points within a couple hundredths of a degree of Mecca (i.e. it points exactly at Mecca, as far as can be determined given the pixel resolution of the graphics).
The flight path is represented in the Crescent/Bowl design by the Entry Portal Walkway, which comes down from the NNW. The Walkway passes through the Entry Portal Walls and projects out into the crescent:
Take away the parts of the crescent structure that are "broken off" by the flight path, and the remaining crescent structure is oriented exactly on Mecca.
[The above graphic was created by laying the Crescent of Embrace and the Bowl of Embrace site plans on top of each other. This was done to accurately capture the one real change that Murdoch made in the Bowl of Embrace redesign: the lengthening of the Entry Portal Walkway. (See "Memorial riddle #2: Why did Paul Murdoch lengthen the Entry Portal Walkway?) So that the new Walkway length can be seen, the low resolutionBowl of Embrace site plan is enhanced by overlaying it with the high resolution Crescent of Embrace site plan.]
The 44th inscribed translucent block on the flight path
At the end of the Entry Portal Walkway (marking the thematic or "true" upper crescent tip, according to Murdoch's own description), sits a large glass block, inscribed with LAFD Captain Stephen J. Ruda's dedication: "A common field one day. A field of honor forever."
This will be the 44th inscribed translucent block emplaced along the flight path, matching the number of passengers, crew, AND terrorists. 40 will be inscribed with the names of the 40 heroes (despite Tom Burnett's demand that Tom Jr.'s name not be used). Three three more will be built into a separate section of Memorial Wall that is centered on the bisector of the giant crescent (the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag). These three blocks will be inscribed with the 9/11 date. Thus the date goes to the Islamic star. The date goes to the terrorists.
By having the 44th glass block mark the thematic "true" upper crescent tip, and by having that thematic crescent tip create a hidden exact Mecca orientation for the giant crescent, Murdoch is able to tie his Islamic and his terrorist memorializing design features together into a perfect bin Ladenist embrace.
TACKLE THE BARE NAKED HIJACKER!
After all, it does not get much more naked than this:
Or this:
Or this:
The Walkway riddle: When Paul Murdoch extended the Entry Portal Walkway, he was doing more than just perfecting the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent. This slight adjustment in the placement of the 44th block also perfected two other terrorist memorializing elements of Murdoch's mosque. Anyone who can figure out either of these elements before looking at the answer wins a glorious prize.
