First, I love all the Wisconsin football clothes. Only the daughter isn't wearing a football shirt. I can see that's a Packers sweatshirt that Janna Ryan, the wife, has on. We've got 10 electoral votes here in Wisconsin, you know. And people love football. (Are Americans more excited about the campaign season or the football season? I say the football season, in part because campaigning never goes away, so there's no season anymore to look forward to — other than to look forward to its ending.)
So, here's a lovely, wholesome family. Janna, looks a bit like Ann Romney to me, but the 2 women are distinctly different:
Janna Little, the future Mrs. Paul Ryan, was a Washington tax attorney living in Arlington, Va., when she met him. The Oklahoma native graduated from Wellesley College and George Washington University Law School.Despite some Googling, I can't figure out if she still works or if she became a full-time homemaker.
Speaking of Googling, CNN can't bother to do the most basic Googling. I just heard it say that Ryan is from a "small town" in Wisconsin. Janesville isn't a small town! It's a small city, with a population over 60,000. It takes 2 seconds to discover that. If you don't bother to get the little, easy things right, why should we ever trust you? Of course, we don't. Speaking of small... CNN ratings are way down.
Posts
449 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 449 Newer› Newest»My iPad shows page 20, but it's actually page 17 in the document, sorry.
By the way, those above ridiculing and rebuking commenters who note (with a sense of humor) Ryan's handsomeness are so effing sanctimonious.
Like no conservative men noticed or appreciated Palin's attractiveness in 2008. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Also, note the age categories, on page 17.
Yah. They talk out of both sides of their mouths, and so are probably attracted to a P.R. who does the same. For some reason his effusive "team-building" support of all of Bush's spending and the earmarks he secured for his district don't seem to clash with his Randroidianism - though the disconnect is obvious to everyone else.
This New Yorker article does a great job explaining how Obama duped the little guy into being the face for entitlement destruction. The easy issue, from now until November, will be to showcase how radical and unwanted it is - which is something the public already agrees about.
Don't go to the other Paul Ryan articles there today -- They're being swamped by right-wing trolls who seem to get off on why his inexperience makes him somehow similar to Obama.
Synova,
You are right that "coupling" child labor laws and teachers unions as though they are inseparable, does not make much sense. I apologize for creating the sense that they are of a piece with one another. But in all seriousness, I do think that child labor laws combined with truancy laws, ultimately spell a number of students that distorts what the market would bear in a truly free system--and this distortion benefits noone so much as the very powerful American schoolteacher. So that is the connection I see; though I understand they are separate issues, they are hardly alien to one another. To say they are alien to one another would be pretty damned specious of you, but it still wouldn't guarantee that you would be taken seriously.
Indeed, how could any thinking person deny that this artificially inflated pool of American schoolchildren (artificially inflated, that is, because originated by something other than the Freedom Market), adds to the huge power that teacher's unions (and those individuals who are actually in teachers' unions? right, individual teachers) wield over the US economy and its social policy.
Although, i do wonder why you keep throwing the conversation back to the "teenager." I mean, I sort of see the point, as we have a sentimental culture that in some ways cannot readily acclimate to the thought of, say, ten year olds making products or working for wages on industrial farms. In this, we are far weaker, far stupider, than the Chinese who make our stuff for us, by the way.
"The left" in the United States defends child labor laws for no reason. This, too, illustrates common ground with public education. No reason to defend these things, except to mollify interest groups loyal to--you got it--"the left."
Meade must be sorely disappointed with Romney's pick. Wasn't he just saying the other day that POTUS and VPOTUS's should ideally not have small children?
Or was that more of a dig at Palin?
And garage, how can you credibly pull that 'Sconie's should stick together shtick" you pulled on me the other day and get all fecal scorn against Ryan?
Why'd the Jews care so much about it?
Because they think they own the dead? I don't know why. You dead, you dead.
Anyway, I was wondering why YOU care, not why the Jews care. I'm sure I've eaten a lot of things that have the atoms of dead people in them. Sue me.
If you dare question the authority and corrupt sacred cow Democrat Teacher's Union, you must want to turn kids into slaves.
Title of the morning: Less Interesting Person than Romney Found in Wisconsin.
Well, if they're going to light their hair on fire when it comes to talking policy, they'd might as well be SOBER about it.
The point being made by the "trolls" is that the criticism being directed at Ryan by Lizza applies a fortiori to Obama.
But thanks for the talking point about how Obama gave a 3-D chess beatdown to Paul Ryan. Best laugh I've had all day.
One of the kids is wearing a #4 Packers sweater. Not cool, very not cool.
Obviously a Herm Scheidman fan if I ever saw one.
And garage, how can you credibly pull that 'Sconie's should stick together shtick" you pulled on me the other day and get all fecal scorn against Ryan?
When has garage ever aspired to credibility?
The porch swing is dangerously overloaded.
That guy's kind of funny, actually. Here's an excerpt from the first line of a (fictional) interview conducted with The Mane from Bane:
"Q: What do you see as the biggest challenge of your campaign going forward?
A: Well, I suppose the biggest challenge would be the same one I’ve faced all my life: that no one likes me. But as I’ve found in the past, money usually takes care of that."
Here's all you need to know about Janesville. When my wife and I have a little time and money to go somewhere, we go to Janesville. And we HATE the north. It's pretty, it's clean, it's quiet. Just enough people to make it nice, not enough to make it crowded. Everyplace should be as nice.
The point being made by the "trolls" is that the criticism being directed at Ryan by Lizza applies a fortiori to Obama.
The article was neither about Obama nor about his fictional run as a vice presidential candidate on a ticket with Mitt Romney in 2012.
But thanks for the talking point about how Obama gave a 3-D chess beatdown to Paul Ryan. Best laugh I've had all day.
It sure gave me one. And it's part of how he'll beat that bastard in November (Romney).
I feel sorry for how naive Munster is. Obama did the same to the SCOTUS when they sat before him during a SOTU address in which he criticized their decision to let the volume of someone else's speech drown out those of individual candidates. The irony that they could not respond at the moment was probably lost on them.
Nice bravado on your response, though. Just remember how badly burnt little Munster felt when that old hand of the GOP, Gingrich, coined the phrase "right-wing social engineering" to describe the Boy Wonder's "plan".
It's nice to know that these things really are that easy.
Paul Ryan: "Munster." "Bastard."
You're a font of insightful commentary and civil discourse, Ritmo.
As for the humor stylings of Andy Borowitz, I'm with this guy:
...the most hacky, obvious, Leno-on-a-bad-day reactions you could ever imagine to the news of the day.
Janna Ryan is indeed a stay at home mom. Graduated from Wellesley College with Honors (Economics) and George Washington Law School. Worked as a tax attorney in Washington, DC, married in 2000, and is now a stay-at-home mom. Interestingly, Janna's mother, Wellesley Class of 1965, was also an attorney (first in her class, University of Oklahoma) and from what I found online, Janna's mother did continue working as a very successful lawyer while raising 3 daughters and battling melanoma, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and melanoma again until her death in 2010.
YAY Wellesley!
When has garage ever aspired to credibility?
I'd like to think he does.
Maybe he is. But that line in the "interview" was insightful and spot-on.
As for my own cranky insults directed toward actual candidates, powerful public figures who need no defense against measly verbal attacks on their own propaganda machines, I'm sure you're mature enough to read the substance and tune out the cranky slights. I afford the same courtesy toward everyone else on this board, at least when they do have a piece of substance or two beneath the crank and snark. You should hear the names my buddy Traditional Guy has come up with in insulting Democrats.
Doesn't bother me one bit.
@ChipS: I follow many of Ritmo's original quips and I agree those are kinda lame. It's not like "Munster" is going to resonate the way "Lurch" did with Kerry.
I'd like to think that Ritmo is capable of better.
60,000 is not a small city. Just saying.
"This New Yorker article does a great job explaining how Obama duped the little guy into being the face for entitlement destruction. The easy issue, from now until November, will be to showcase how radical and unwanted it is - which is something the public already agrees about."
Yes, the New Yorker and Ryan Lizza are reliable sources to explain how Obama will triumph in November.
Fiction is often more interesting than fact. It doesn't require all that math.
Paul Ryan is Kurt Cobain to Obama's spandex tights 80s big hair band.
@chickelit: But "Lurch" was actually kind of a funny and accurate way of describing John Kerry - physically at least.
And in terms of speaking patterns.
But I digress.
As long as they don't become the sole focus of your complaint, why does it matter? Should we really allow these egomaniacs a thinner skin than we allow ourselves, or other supposedly every-day, ordinary people?
You two speak as if you never hung out at Trooper York's.
Graduated from Wellesley College with Honors (Economics) and George Washington Law School. Worked as a tax attorney in Washington, DC, married in 2000, and is now a stay-at-home mom.
She's no Fluke. More like the anti-Fluke. Good on her.
Ryan family is young and attractive.
Should help with the diffident female voters going with their feeeeeelliings!
"I think I can shift Boyfriends! I'm tired of other people saying BF Obama is lazy, long-winded, no real thinker...and while Sasha and Malia are adorable and I should vote for them on their adorability..well ....
Paul is hot and his wife is really nice and HIS kids are adorable!"
@chickelit: But "Lurch" was actually kind of a funny and accurate way of describing John Kerry - physically at least.
I agree! But what does Ryan have to do with Munster? Fred Gwynne? Eddie? I guess I don't see the obvious conection you do.
Come on Ritmo...if you were Trooper, how would you bust Ryan's balls?
I mean, what are we talking about here if not freedom?
Someone please explain to me how we can be a free people if we are told by the boot-in-the-face state that we must send our children to school? Even homeschoolers are forced by the State to meet certain "standards," aren't they? How is this a mark of freedom? Aren't we taking for granted that government knows better than parents what is best for parents' own children? What if mom and dad say they don't want their kids to go to school, they want to find ways to get their kids working as soon as possible? What is the justification for mandating that all children get an education? How does that happen in a free society?
Here's what I propose. Since we would never emulate the Chinese and put up with their child-laborer suicide rates, we could offer tax credits to companies that create "child safe" jobs for kids, say, between 6-12. After they become teenagers then they can climb on up to more challenging work. For example, in downtown Charlotte, the lovely Bank of America (Obama, the socialist, will be speaking from Bank of America stadium. it's very rich) building has a mail room. Seems like some safe jobs for seven year-olds, could be created by the job creators there. Think of the money BoA could save, the overhead costs would drop through the floor!
This is an especially important way of thinking as we approach the thorny problem of getting rid of entitlements. Poor people would be better able to sustain, and even chase the American dream, if they could only send their children to work. Job creators, given big tax credits, would make sure that the kids weren't in danger. Then, after working really really hard and saving money, if kids later decided to go to school, they'd be able to afford it.
It's how you get rid of lots of debt. But more importantly it is freedom. I think America is ready.
@chickelit, it's a reference to his hairline.
Seriously? That massive widow's peak of his doesn't distract the hell out of you?
It does me.
Anyway, gotta get my oil changed for now. More cyber-warfare/cafe chat later!
Allie, your link doesn't work. Maybe overloaded by lefties making your argument.
I'm a senior and I like Medicare but I know, like most other seniors, that it is about to go bankrupt. Obama's method of dealing with that is to cut off payment to doctors and other providers and to create death panels. California shows you how well that works. Stop paying and you save all kind of money you don't have.
The trouble, like most problems with Democrat policies, is reality. Seniors know about reality. Kids even know about it by now. My oldest son, who is 47, is sure he will never see a dime of Social Security. That doesn't stop him from being an Obama voter but he is a lawyer and I guess cognitive dissonance doesn't bother some lawyers.
Ryan represents reality. It is very late in the game. This is probably the last chance for our country before the house of cards collapses. Very few Democrats seem interested in math and reality, which is the same thing. Certainly, Obama isn't. His so called plans don't even resemble reality.
When the French Revolution ran out of reality, they got Napoleon. A "whiff of grapeshot" and all that. Maybe that is what is coming. I would be sorry to see that but I probably won't anyway.
Crack wrote:
See, I don't think I've been asking for much - despite what my critics claim - I just want a dose of reality to be inserted into our public life, and Paul Ryan or no Paul Ryan, having (a still un-vetted) Romney in charge continues to leave us open to whatever Mystic Mayhem™ he's a part of and carries with him.
Do you like Ryan less now that he seems to have drank the Mormon koolaid? Or, to put it another way, if you don't mind Ryan, and HE can look past Romney's Mormonism why can't you. Ryan, seems like a pretty level headed guy, and yet he's not too worried about Romney's Mormonism. Perhaps, there's a lesson there?
"If you dare question the authority and corrupt sacred cow Democrat Teacher's Union, you must want to turn kids into slaves."
AprilApple, I am talking the OPPOSITE of child slavery! I am talking jobs! of course, we're talking about unskilled labor, so their starting salary, dictated by the market, would be what some liberals would consider so low as to approach slavery, but they would just be caterwauling on behalf of teachers and other special interests. So we could ignore that and talk about freedom instead.
Michael K, it works fine for me. I don't know why you are having issues with it.
O Ritmo wrote:
Nice bravado on your response, though. Just remember how badly burnt little Munster felt when that old hand of the GOP, Gingrich, coined the phrase "right-wing social engineering" to describe the Boy Wonder's "plan".
Gingrich has no right to demean others for their right wing social engineering. ANd you'll notice, Gingrich is nowhere to be found on the ticket. Nor was he even in the short list for VP. Nor the long list. Who cares what Gingrich has to say?
If it didn't matter that Ryan was attractive, would Ritmo be calling him "Munster" over and over?
I hear Ryan is pretty fit, and does p90X regularly every morning. Maybe he'll get the Titus vote.
Oh Ritmo is just being goofy, having fun. He knows Ryan is a handsome devil.
Crack wrote:
I'm writing you from my home in Salt Lake City, Utah. I work for a Mormon company. One of my best friends here served with me in the Navy - he was born LDS and our friendship has lasted over 30 years. I have many other Mormon friends as well, and know their beliefs - and where they stray from them - better than they do (as it seems I know them better than you.)
How is that possible that you don't view your friend as the biggest cult follower and liar? I'm surpised you deign to call him "friend". I'm even more surprised that he, knowing what you think of his cult, I mean religion, would ever bother responding to you in any way on a friendly basis.
He's a cultist, a new age thinker, an new age apoligist, a rube, a liar. What else do you got? THat's your friend.
YOu should direct him to your website and then tell him what your really think of him.
I think the education department faculties, the teachers' unions, and the teachers themselves are three quite separate interest groups and should be treated as such.
Bundling them plays into the hands of the first two.
Why'd the Jews care so much about it?
Crack, you're a fucking bigot, as usual.
The Jews were pretty pissed off at the nuns praying at Auschwitz.
What's the difference again between Catholics and Mormons again?
Seems you love the mainstream Christian cults, but the Mormons really bother you. What's up with that?
Mojo asks good questions (notwithstanding the superfluous insult). Looking forward to Crack's answers.
Crack, you always have some half assed excuse for Christianity as a whole as opposed to Mormons. Still haven't been able to explain that, have you?
You keep going on about "convicted con men." Is this sorta like the convicting people of being witches in Salem?
Hey. Whatever brings 'em down, right? Like religious persecution in the 19th centruy United States legal system is just A-Ok to you!
You haven't been able to show me a single fucking thing about Momonism that is weirder than Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Whatever-fucking-ism. You fucking believe in god, and you go around screaming that Mormonism is a cult?
That's your problem, Crack. You see yourself as a gatekeeper. But you never look to yourself.
Who watches the watchers, I wonder?
I don't remember Crack commenting on Palin's attractiveness.
Chef, Crack is an atheist.
I think the reason Mormons catch this kind of flak as opposed to the other religions you name, Mojo, has more to do with chronology and technology than anything else.
Though much older than Scientology, the history of the Mormons is still recent enough, and modern enough in its context, that we can go back and watch the religion from its beginnings, in the very newspaper clippings, as it were. Mormonism because it was thus "caught on tape" in its moment of origination, cannot (at least not yet) approach the level of the sacred that the world's other major religions take as a matter of course.
Is it unfair to single out the newer religions as cults and whack-job magnets? of course. But that's how the world plays the game.
Is it unfair to single out the newer religions as cults and whack-job magnets? of course. But that's how the world plays the game.
This is how many see Black Liberation Theology.
There are major differences in the theology and rationality of different religions. To pretend that all religions are the same is to indicate that one knows very little about religions.
That said, I don't care about Romney's Mormonism. Mormons have some good things going for them practically, even if one thinks their beliefs are baseless.
Who watches the watchers, I wonder?
We all do. No one is immune.
Crack wrote:
One of my best friends here served with me in the Navy - he was born LDS and our friendship has lasted over 30 years. I have many other Mormon friends as well, and know their beliefs - and where they stray from them - better than they do (as it seems I know them better than you.)
To call criticism "hatred" already reveals you aren't willing to allow for a level-playing field, but instead, want to stack the deck in your own favor. This is but one thing I dislike about the Mormon "faith" -
When you talk to your Mormon "friend" and talk about his "faith" do you put it in quotes?
how it allows those within it to think playing dirty is fair, because they want to position themselves as persecuted instead of merely admitting they've always been wrong.
So you think your friend is trying to position himself as persecuted instead of admitting he's ALWAYS been wrong. And he thinks that playing dirty is fair simply because of his "faith" This is your "friend"?
Your leader was a convicted con man, and you are con artists to anyone unaware of the particulars and peculiarities of the condescending belief system he left behind for you to exploit others with.
Your "Friend" is a con artist who's belief system he uses to exploit others with?
Sorry, but that's the truth. You're no different than Scientologists. Just as gullible. Just as deceitful. Just as in need of cult deprogramming.
Nothing hateful about it,...
How many scientoligists do you count as "friends" Crack? How many of your friends do you describe as no different than scientologists, gullible, deceitful and in need of cult deprogramming.
It sounds an awful lot like "Some of my best friends are black" that someone might use to suggest they aren't a racist. Only if they describe blacks as lazy, dumb, subhuman or what have you, it's kind of hard to take their suggestion that they are "friends" at face value. Seriously, if that is your idea of friendship, then you don't deserve any.
chikelit,
"This is how many see Black Liberation Theology."
Well, yes. Even some people who actually have read the literature and thought about it, might identify it as such.
Indeed, it is how, to invoke your distilled language, "many" see "many" things. Hard to put a halo on a new concept, and give it "true religion" status. Perhaps it is impossible for a great many of us.
"To pretend that all religions are the same is to indicate that one knows very little about religions."
Who is pretending they are all the same?
They do, however, share some important characteristics. Especially ones that sustain success, and continue to win converts into the present day. Dontcha think?
By the way, Freeman, I hope you realize I wasn't referring to you up there. I agree it's an unfortunate consequence of the modern media age that looks play such a big factor in politics.
That doesn't stop me from remarking on a politician's attractiveness as part of their overall charisma.
Crack is an atheist.
Yet he was an enthusiastic supporter of Santorum in the primaries. Whereas Romney is apparently theocratic cult satan incarnate.
"To pretend that all religions are the same is to indicate that one knows very little about religions."
Who is pretending they are all the same?
They do, however, share some important characteristics. Especially ones that sustain success, and continue to win converts into the present day. Dontcha think?
Freeman wrote:
Crack is an atheist.
While this is true, he does seem to reserve a special brand of hatred for certain religions magical thinking than for others.
garage mahal,
Handout = paying money into a system your whole life promising your return. Instead, you're told that you'll receive a coupon that doesn't begin to cover your expenses.
Well, exactly. Because what you paid in was spent on other stuff, and now this is the brokest government in human history, and there is no money to pay you back the money you were under the impression you were saving for your retirement; all we can do is hope that the Chinese won't cut off the lending spigot.
Crack. SLC, baby.
In the belly of The Beast, aren't you?!?!
Fuck, dude. That's SO harsh. Salt. Lake. City. It's so BAAAAAD, ain't it? Those fucking Mormons are just coming down on you, ain't they?
Like being in Birmingham in the 50's! Just waiting for Bull Connor to come with a dog to bite your ass?
C'mon, Crack! Really? Like the Mormons are that bad? Gonna come after you with fire hoses and dogs, right.
Fuck your 'shruggie" bullshit, asshole. Long as you believe in god, you're the cultist.
BTW, that's not an insult to you believers out there. I respect your beliefs. I just disrespect Crack for his selective beliefs.
I'm over 55, and the only thing that I don't like about Ryan's plan for Medicare is that I get stuck with Medicare the way it is. I would rather have a voucher that I could use to choose my own plan- even if it meant that I had to add some of my own cash. Medicare patients are already treated like second-class patients. When the payments go down even more, seniors are going to have a hard time finding care.
Chef, Crack is an atheist.
Nope, Freeman. Not even close.
An atheist wouldn't let the Virgin Cult slide while ranking on Mormons.
Crack is many things, but he ain't an atheist by any stretch of the imagination.
Me? I'm an atheist. I call 'em like I see 'em. In the end, I comes down to relative harm. Mormons? Totally milquetoast. Crack wants to compare SLC with fucking Jonestown? Or any other death cult?
Can't even begin to provide proof or evidence beyond his own fevered fantasies.
Hey, Crack! What are the voices saying about Episcopalians, huh?
Fuck, dude. That's SO harsh. Salt. Lake. City. It's so BAAAAAD, ain't it?
Crack is a bit like Joe McGinniss gone to Wasilla. Reporting from the trenches.
Romney's attempting to outsource his candidacy, but I doubt it will work. VP picks can only complement a ticket. But they can't make up for its glaring deficits.
VP picks can only complement a ticket.
I think Ryan was about as Tea Party as Romney wanted to get. It works for me, for now.
I just got cataract surgery in Mexico for about 1200 USD. Waiting time: 2 days. Clean modern facilities, excellent followup. In Canada I would have been on a waiting list for at least a year and my livelihood as a graphic artist severely jeopardized in that time. Two years ago my partner needed an MRI. He got one the same day. In Canada he would have waited 25 WEEKS. What will the waiting times be under Obamacare? I know the theme of this thread is Ryan's lovely wholesome family, but seriously people, Obamacare is a nightmare. Please, just once in your lives, listen to a Canadian. We've been where you're headed, and we've been there for a VERY long time.
Garbage said:
"Handout = paying money into a system your whole life promising your return. Instead, you're told that you'll receive a coupon that doesn't begin to cover your expenses."
Yeah Garbage and since I have been working for 40 years, I have paid into this scam since dopey Slow Joe Biden entered the Senate in 1973. I don't recall Biden ever objecting to their spending my "contributions" as fast as they could once it was in their grubby hands.
But they can't make up for its glaring deficits.
How did the Bush Dynasty folks take Romney's choice? How about George Will?
Romney's attempting to outsource his candidacy
by picking the clearest thinker and speaker on the most critical issue of the campaign? OK, then, I'm sold on outsourcing.
Things lefties would've said if another guy had been picked:
Tim Pawlenty: boring white guy
Christ Christie: fat, obnoxious white guy
Bobby Jindal: voodoo guy
Marco Rubio: desperate Hispanic pander guy
Rob Portman: Boooshguy!!
Yawn.
Chris Wren, thanks for the warning.
Here's one American that looks with dread upon the prospect of Obamacare (entrenched forevermore if Obama wins-- since Roberts left it up to us voters to get rid of the damn thing).
To my Wisconsin friends:
Did anynoe else hear the MSNBC All-stars this morning (Maddow, Chris Hayes, Melissa Harris-Perry or Perry-Harris or whatever)?
They were pontificating about how Ryan was from a district that had "no big cities" in it or even around it, so that Ryan was somehow going to be exposed to big media for the first time.
The implication was that his district (they barely mentioned Janesville) had no media market of its own, and wasn;t even within range of the Milwaukee, Madison or Chicago media markets.
I suppose one could argue that parts of Ryan's district were rural and exurban. But Janesville is within shouting range of all three metro areas: Madison, Milwaukee and Chicago. There aren't too many folks falling off turnip trucks in Janesville.
The Wisconsin hat on Rep. Ryan is okay; but in fact he's agraduate of Miami University in Ohio. I expect that Paul Ryan is going to be every bit as good a campaigner in Ohio as he is in Wisconsin.
If the Romney-Ryan ticket takes Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio, plus Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, is it not virtually impossible for Obama to win a second term?
Well, one thing you can say about Boy Wonder... He truly believes the bullshit being peddled by that ticket. It's good when you get someone who believes what they say. Will the sunny optimism of a believer successfully supplement the sunny optimism of a swindler? It's hard to say. I think at the end of the day, though, the country might conclude that this is just the silver coda to 32 years of Republicans convincing us that beliefs are all that matters.
As for what your bigwigs and poobahs make of that choice, I don't know. I'm not sure I care about what the "Dynasty" folks think (your words) but Will's might be worth reading.
It shakes things up, certainly. It's just a question of whether this will be enough of a shake-up to get people to believe the same message they were being sold while we slept in a bubble of brightness. The New Yorker piece implies that Obama wanted this kid to be the face and voice of Republicanism. And if this is the result, I'd hope he was smart enough to anticipate what he could do about it. But the fact that Republicans balked for years at the idea of being outwardly avowed Social Darwinists says something. We will see if a full-throated offensive of right-wing social engineering gets as far as the G.O.P.'s Young Turks want it to.
"I've known several people who once lived in Janesville, Wisconsin. They all loved the place. That's unusual. There must be a lot of fun going on there."
I had never heard of Janesville, wisconsin until a couple of weeks ago when the Janesvile 11 year old boys won the 2012 Cal Ripken Ohio Valley Regional u11 & u12 Tournament held here at the Elizabethtown sports park here in Elizabethtown, KY.
Chuck wrote: They were pontificating about how Ryan was from a district that had "no big cities" in it or even around it, so that Ryan was somehow going to be exposed to big media for the first time.
He's been in the spotlight plenty.
Regarding Janesville, I suspect that Maddox et al. are put off by the "ville" suffix.
Francophobic bigots.
...Ryan was somehow going to be exposed to big media for the first time.
Huh?
I can only assume they mean "exposed to big media" these deep thinkers meant "exposed 24/7 false allegations and violations of every shred of privacy".
"But the fact that Republicans balked for years at the idea of being outwardly avowed Social Darwinists says something. We will see if a full-throated offensive of right-wing social engineering gets as far as the G.O.P.'s Young Turks want it to."
Exactly. That's part of what has me both intrigued, and very, very frightened, by this coming election.
Chip, today is your day to gloat and glorify. That's fine. This kid is being given all the bells and whistles and parades and confetti and that's fine. He might very well be the only one over there without a charisma deficit. If that helps even out the race, enrich the Republicans' self esteem and get us to a debate about the reality of the arguments and facts at hand, then so be it. Obama would have transformed politics and moved the discourse into a debate about real things. Good.
So swoon all you want over him. At least, if he loses, you can't blame it on his having bad hair or a bad complexion. It will end up being a lost race over bad ideas, after all.
Crack,
"
The Crack Emcee said...
Dante,
His doctor thought it was the right thing to do AFTER THE FACT.
Yeah, because dying would've really put a crimp in things.
Did the doctor prescribe it? No. Is it illegal? Yes. Did your friend join a company that "pries into ones life, knowingly" Yes. It's freedom, baby.
There's no freedom in a policy that says, if you get sick, we will force you to pee in a cup and face whatever we decide to do to you. If he had fucked-up at work, but drank a 12 pack the night before just to party, his job would be secure. But, instead, he was trying to save his life - and by extension - his ability to keep coming to work while gravely ill.
Mormonism is supposed to be this compassionate religion, no?
I have a hard time with the third hand account, too. And why could your friend get pot if he couldn't see a doctor?
He has a concerned daughter and limited options.
What's wrong with you?
8/11/12 2:41 PM
"
I worked for a megabank in New York for a number of years. At the outset I had a piss test, passed of course. Subsequently I think they had the right to do so again, but did not. Had they chosen to, and had I tested positive, I might have had trouble, though I might have got away with some sort of disciplinary action, been sent to rehab, whatever; obviously it never came up.
But if I toked, for whatever wonderful reason, and they caught me, and I blew the test, and they fired me, I couldn't actually blame them in any meaningful way. Correct? Because that was their policy. And they were not Mormons; I knew one Mormon my whole time there.
Also, what would the Navy have done to one of their signalmen, or their nuc boat guys, or MPs, who failed a drug test? Well shit on the Navy, eh?
Tough on your pal. I feel for him. One of my few agreements with John Lennon is that "the laws against marijuana are immoral in principle and unworkable in practice," if I have that correctly. But it's not like it was a surprise to him, was it? The surprise was being tested at all. For being skinny - how odd. I dunno what to tell you. If his rights were violated he should sue.
Re: Romney, supplements: do you mean vitamins, or what exactly?
...
Ritmo,
Since Barack Obama is a formal, legal, actual bastard,
and since one of the few times he has ever showed human decency was in calling the dogs off (not Palin but) Palin's daughter for daring to have a child out of wedlock,
it's odd that you like to fling around that particular insult. Your lord and master would like you to show a little more restraint.
Are you, too, still stuck in 1950s-land, Nichevo? No one uses the word "bastard" literally any more.
Ritmo, your comment offers the foundation for an honest debate.
There are two basic ways to deal with the coming entitlement tsunami. One is to reform them along the lines Ryan has articulated. The other is to jack up taxes by about 25% to finance current benefit levels.
That is the clear choice in this election. But the Dems are trying to hide the facts from the voters with their preposterous claims that all that's necessary is for "the rich" to pay "their fair share."
Cackling over how Paul Ryan fell into Obama's clever trap by speaking the truth is a transitory and decadent amusement.
"Michael K, it works fine for me. I don't know why you are having issues with it."
He said he liked it but he knows it is going broke.
And harro,
Fucking really?
Ritmo, that's a gracious thing for you to say @5:34 (I'm not being sarcastic).
It's refreshing to see conversation between partisans that's more than just snarky sniping. (IMO harrogate's a valuable addition to this blog too.)
Did you mean to write "Obama" at the end of that first paragraph or was that a slip?
I guess so, Ritmo. I didn't know any bastards growing up; it seems a terrible thing to me. I know it annoyed Obama enough to get his peeps to drop it, and he never likes his dogs to let go of a bone.
There's a third way, Chip: Economic growth by acknowledging the importance of consumer demand and the way their quality of life contributes to it. That's what the only guy to reduce the deficit over the course of this 32-year period of Republican ascendancy, Bill Clinton, did. And you guys love him for it.
Also, there is a time-course issue. The debt is an issue over time. The immediate issue is a lack of growth, low demand, high unemployment. If that cycle is not broken then you will never have a way to pay down the debt -- at least not without breaking the stability of the nation.
Sorry, meant to say "debt" where I said "deficit" (5:44).
Thanks yashu.
@Chuck: I have cousins in Janesville and I went there often growing up. I was just back there a month ago for a visit. It ain't Hooterville like the MSM will play it.
Crack, final point.
The fact that you say you have friends for 30 years despite them being part of a cult I find hard to believe. But lets take you at face value. Doesn't the fact that you can hold a friendship with a mormon disprove your whole argument? You can look past his craziness and still consider him a friend despite his belief in magic underpants. He hasn't converted you, there is nothing about his friendship that is nefarious, nad if you are friends for 30 years, his character is such that he maintains it, DESPITE being in a cult.
Are you a cult apologist for maintaining that friendship? Or, are you able to look past that one issue and still find common ground with your "friend" even though you think mormonism is silly/stupid.
How is that different than supporting Romney despite him being a Mormon. If your friend was actually trying to convert you, or exhibiting cultist thinking in front of you, I highly doubt that you would remain friends with him. FOr thirty years no less.
YOu can have a relationship with someone with differing views on things like God and how he manifests himself, SO LONG AS YOU SHARE SIMILAR values.
I don't see Romney as espousing anything value wise that is fundamentailly different than what a Christian would argue.
So, if you can maintain friendships with Mormons and are not a cult apologist, I don't see why me voting for one would make me a cult apologist either.
@Ritmo: Clinton's economic growth was aided and abetted by a Randian!
"Chuck wrote: They were pontificating about how Ryan was from a district that had "no big cities" in it or even around it, so that Ryan was somehow going to be exposed to big media for the first time."
Are you sure they didn't mean that he'd finally get cable television? Maybe they plan on asking him what newspapers he reads.
It's hard to believe but even in the "information age" there seems to be an idea that if you live out in the sticks that you're isolated somehow.
But whatever... either definition he's been "exposed" to big media so all the concern is moot.
And he's not likely to get annoyed by the reverse provincialism like Palin did and slip up.
FOr the record, I have no problem with "reforming" entitlements, to some degree. I don't agree with the idea of radically replacing them entirely, though. Nor do I think that doing this, alone, will pay off the debt. It's just a piece of the puzzle, as is the revenue issue.
The other pressing problem in this was the need to make sure that our massive defense spending wasn't kept off the table.
It's going to be a series of approaches, and not one ideologically-favorable plan over every other.
I'm beginning to think that Romney pulled off a gamechanger here. I don't think the WH, DNC, or MSM have a coherent attack plan against Ryan or they would have had a countervailing narrative ready to go in the playbook. Maybe they were distracted by the Pawlenty and Portman stalking horses, but they should have had something ready to go in case Ryan were picked.
The nonsense I'm seeing on the net in general and what we're getting from this site's marching morons like Ritmo is just flailng about with stale talking points about Ryan. No depth, no force, and the constant theme is trying to yalk about anything BUT Ryan. That says there were no up to date new and shiny talking points on tap.
Synova wrote: Maybe they plan on asking him what newspapers he reads.
If he's honest, he'll say the Janesville Gazette--more hoots and howls of francophobia!
Clinton's economic growth was aided and abetted by a Randian!
Who subsequently, and rightly, disavowed the extreme Randianism later implemented during the much worse bubble that came after him.
Greenspan understands that no self-interested party can regulate itself of its own excesses alone. Why don't the others follow suit? Just because we have a society and economy complex enough to outsource every risk imaginable, doesn't mean that we should. Nor does it mean we should de-regulate financial services of any public oversight. Should candidates be allowed to outsource their political speech? If so, where's the responsibility for it?
Let me be the first to point out that a river rolls through Janesville called the Rock.
Rock, roll, get it?
Ryan's been front and center in the national discussion about economic policy for a long, long time now.
I do agree with those who have said, Obama was going to run against the ideas associated with Ryan anyway, so why not nominate him. Of course, Romney's economics are the same as Ryan's, but that is somehow less well known.
But the notion that Obama or anyone else was somehow 'caught off guard' by this nomination, and isn't prepared to campaign against Ryan, holds no water.
Why don't the others follow suit?
You mean Ben Bukkake?
Roger J. seriously, are you edutcher's twin? I thought so.
Since you're too stupid to understand my point, let me recap. (2) chickenhawks appear on a navy ship to announce their misbegotten campaign together. Obama and Biden did no such stunt er weren't so brazen.
Rehashing, mittens wasn't popular w/voters before his v-p pick and nothing has changed since this morning.
Indeed, Reps capitulated for a flip/flopping, cluesless RINO as Newt/Santo/Paul/Perry/Cain etc. split the con vote and mittens won by default. Interesting many of the Althouse lemming, anti-Obama sect from a couple mops. ago are now falling all over themselves to give their support.
Too funny!
>
And no it wasn't a Hillary/Obama scenario as they both pretty much agree on every issue.
Again, we'll get to see if a loser nominee can win w/a $$$ advantage. And it ain't workin' in OH as Sherrod Brown and Obama are solidly leading.
Stay tuned and keep hope alive.
Everyone has a plan until they get hit! ~ Mike Tyson
And Obama has been effectively hitting mittens w/the truth the last (3) mos ...
Roger over, over out!
Nichevo asks,
"Fucking really?"
The answer is yes, really.
Bernanke wasn't exactly ever a Randian, as far as I'm aware. The question is in regards to those who reflexively spout that awfully excessive ideology in political life, of which there are many. The Fed chairman is just one person, much as people like Rick Perry would like to depict his autonomous position as the focus of all government evil and a repository for directing any leftover lynching tendencies.
anti-mittens sect, not Obama
Although many here despised Romney almost as much as they hated Obama, if possibe. :)
carry on
@Ritmo: I'm just suggesting that the current Fed policy of flinging dollars from helicopters may be incompatible with Clinton style growth. Every new economic era needs a new man at the helm of the Fed. Don't ask me how this will happen, but I think people are Fed-up with taking their yields on the chin with Ben and a POTUS advised by the likes of Paul Krugman.
I wrote: Every new economic era needs a new man at the helm of the Fed.
I meant man rhetorically of course. It could be a woman.
Janesville is the original manufacturing site of Parker Pens.
How can you not like it ?
To be clear, harrogate, I was asking about your Modest Proposal-ism regarding ooh, horrid child labor. (Yes, we get it, we get it. Swift, you ain't.)
Personally I was an avid saver at seven and, if offered a chance to make money at honest work within my means, would have jumped at it, sorting bolts or a paper route or whatever for a couple of hours a day; running a meat slicer sounds fun; maybe greasing bearings in a garage; these days, looking back, I daresay you could have probably taught the seven-year-old Nichevo to assemble PCs from the base parts, certainly by twelve. In fact, I was wiring my dad's office for AppleTalk at thirteen. (Didn't get paid, of course, but even the $5/hr I was promised would have been nice to get, nevermind what you would have paid a guy to actually come in and do it; the economy was out that money I guess, OTOH his agency had that savings to spend on other things.)
Given that even harmless child things like lemonade stands are being quashed all over, though, I guess your fears or whatever are unnecessary. No Child Let Betterhimself!
Or are you just busting chops, is what I was asking? But you say no, so presumably you mean that hogwash. I mean seriously, you foresee some kind of actual widespread problem? I can't be bothered with your attempts at satire, so please state your case simply in as few words as possible.
Crack, I wasn't sure how to respond to your post but then I saw that everyone else had already responded sufficiently to your "criticisms" as you call them. I will say this though about Salt Lake City, it's less than 50% Mormon. Also, if it's so bad as you claim, then why is it thought of as gay friendly?
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635159889/Travel-book-to-highlight-Salt-Lake-as-gay-friendly-place-to-live.html
"Since you're too stupid to understand my point, let me recap. (2) chickenhawks appear on a navy ship to announce their misbegotten campaign together. Obama and Biden did no such stunt er weren't so brazen."
No, shiloh, lefties like you prefer Kerry with his treasonous fraternization with the North Vietnamese during a war. What was amusing was his belief that the guys who knew him in Swift boats (one of whom is a friend of mine), just because they let him alone when he was only a local problem in Massachusetts, would allow him to become president.
You might as well think that Edwards would make a decent president. The Democrats sure have a collection of losers, don't they ?
"FOr the record, I have no problem with "reforming" entitlements, to some degree. I don't agree with the idea of radically replacing them entirely, though. Nor do I think that doing this, alone, will pay off the debt. It's just a piece of the puzzle, as is the revenue issue. "
Reforming entitlements to guys like you means nibbling around the edges so as not to disturb the feeding of lefty supporters.
California is about to implode. Such is the result of your "reforms."
I tell you something, though, this Mormon lark of baptizing dead Jews - do I understand that aright? - that should stop. If you can put a claim on my soul after death "because I don't need it," why not dig up my body and eat it, or use the ashes for cat litter?
No, not funny. And did Crack say they promised to stop, but lied? That could make a mofo go shoot up a tabernacle or something.
Aside from being perfectly blasphemous from my/the victim's standpoint, it seems silly and pointless from theirs. Pathetic, worthy of the Muslim jabbery (better word, please, anyone) making Adam and so forth into Muslims. No, Crack, I'll still be voting R, because, burning house (plus maybe there is an explanation?), but, feh.
The debt is an issue over time. The immediate issue is a lack of growth, low demand, high unemployment. If that cycle is not broken then you will never have a way to pay down the debt -- at least not without breaking the stability of the nation.
This is quite true. And the idea that there is only one way to reduce the debt, raising taxes, is a fool's dream. It requires a multi prong approacy
We need to raise taxes by broadening the tax base. Meaning all, except the very poorest, pay some income taxes. It is unacceptable to have almost 50% of the working population paying no income taxes.
If we first stimulate growth and employment rises, then people will have more discretionary income to spend and demand goes up. YES, YES. I know this is somewhat of a chicken and egg proposition, which comes first demand or growth. I believe that REAL jobs. Not temporary or illusionary jobs are what drives growth and demand.
The reason the 'stimulus' didn't work was that it didn't create long lasting jobs. Jobs people could depend upon. Those few businesses that did receive money, knew it was a one time thing and the pervasive climate of fear and uncertainty made it unlikely that they would invest in long term obligations.
Much of the stimulus money actually went to back full public employee union pensions and to expand government jobs. I don't begrudge some government working jobs, but...government doesn't create anything or create a demand for goods. The money would have been better spent to help small (100 people or less) businesses to expand.
Relaxing some of the onerous rules, regulations, fees, taxes, levies, inspections, conditions on businesses would do much to free up the 'free enterprise system'.
Regarding entitlements. I'm not saying that they need to be eliminated. There is always going to be a need to help out those who cannot help themselves or who temporarilily find themselves on hard times. A helping hand, not a permanent lifestyle.
They just need to be scaled back and the MASSIVE waste and fraud needs to be eliminated.
Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, Disability, Food Stamps.....all rotten with corruption and wasting billions of dollars annually.
That would be a top priority if I were Queen.
lol Michael ((( Kerry swift boats Edwards ))) K can't stay on topic to save his life and wasn't talkin' to him notwithstanding.
On the bright side he didn't deflect to Carter/Carter/Carter!
Take care little buddy and watch the blood pressure.
That's why Bernanke went to the Congress and told those incompetent, intemperate, Revolutionaries-in-Children's-Clothing to grow up and acknowledge that their branch of government has responsibilities and tools to aid this economy no less important and far-reaching than his.
But that fell on deaf ears. The only (audible) response out of those goons was - We want to have a REVOLUTION!!! WE HAVE A POINT TO PROVE!!! NIKITA KRUSHCHEV GOT TO BANG HIS HANDS ON THE TABLE AND NOW WE WILL TOO!!!
So go get yer Rev-O-Lution on, O Born-Again Fiscal Evangelists. So glad you saw the light after ten years, two wars and a VP named Cheney lecturing us about how "Deficits don't matter." Just try to do it while decreasing the unemployment rate, raising GDP growth, and with a system for evaluating the progress in those areas that isn't rife with corruption, greed and conflict of interest. Or as Republicans refer to those things - "A winning political strategy."
That would be a top priority if I were Queen.
Ah, but you are a queen. ;-)
But DBQ, you're not going to turn down your own Social Security and Medicare, are you? Of course not, neither am I when the time comes.
Actually, my sources tell me that it was a shoe Krushchev was banging. My bad.
Time out over, Revolution on.
Social security can be means-tested. Medicare currently cannot. If, however, Obamacare succeeds in reducing the adverse selection problems of private health insurance, then perhaps less beneficiaries will be necessary there, as well.
Means testing should be amenable to conservatives, didn't they come up with he idea? So no squawking from the right when the rich folks get no SS.
Crack Emcee
[about Utah:]
There also wasn't much in the way of scenery, unless you escape the Salt Lake area entirely.
Yeah, well, there isn't much in the way of scenery in California, unless you escape the Sacramento area entirely. And I have it on good authority that the most picturesque parts of New York are nowhere near Albany.
wv: beiventi 72. Sounds like a new Starbucks concoction.
jr565,
Do you like Ryan less now that he seems to have drank the Mormon koolaid?
No, Paul Ryan is Paul Ryan and I'm fine with him.
Or, to put it another way, if you don't mind Ryan, and HE can look past Romney's Mormonism why can't you.
Because I understand cultism. What part of that don't you get?
Ryan, seems like a pretty level headed guy, and yet he's not too worried about Romney's Mormonism. Perhaps, there's a lesson there?
Yes, the lesson is Mormonism is one of the least understood cults operating today. What makes you think Paul Ryan has an interest in the subject? Most people don't know diddly about ANY cult, but all of a sudden he's an expert?
I don't mind dumb questions, but you ask dumb questions. Now here's one for you:
With all the mayhem cults cause in the individual lives of followers and their loved ones, why are you always so keen to defend them? Is there something about Charles Manson you find attractive? Jim Jones? The kidnapping and molestation of children? A "religious group" that doesn't even honor it's own teachings, but insists on sticking it's nose into our politics? Abandoning those who have been hurt by Mormonism? People who don't think for themselves or aren't allowed to? Do you have something against individual freedom, unmediated by unelected leaders prone to declaring they have "revelations" about, and over, others lives?
I have good reasons to be skeptical of, and on offense towards, cults - but you? What's the attraction?
I just don't get it,....
There's an 82-year old conservative I work with (when he's there part-time) who's happily taking his Medicare. What's funny is the hypocrisy of these types. He insults his (apparently too) "liberal" grandson while talking up Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan. That surprises the hell out of me because he tends to be decent in other regards. But likes to keep things quiet.
R-Money's the same way, with his secret tax returns, sheltered off-shore accounts and whatnot. He's embarrassed to admit how well he does within the current American system and the ways it allows him to buck it through other nations.
Their ticket really has become a naked front for untested or poorly considered ideas espoused by a phony man and the wonky dupe who actually believes them. The narrative is being led to determine the reality. The imperative of the narrative.
The narrative is imperative.
The narrative is imperative.
Beliefs over facts.
WIN!
"Means testing should be amenable to conservatives, didn't they come up with he idea? So no squawking from the right when the rich folks get no SS."
Means testing is amenable to conservatives.
If we reform the whole thing so that it's welfare for the elderly, and we just admit that, then I think that means testing would be entirely fair.
As it stands, though, it's a compulsory government pension plan and you don't get to have your pension confiscated just because you also had a separate, private, retirement fund.
But DBQ, you're not going to turn down your own Social Security and Medicare, are you? Of course not, neither am I when the time comes.
Of course I'm not going to turn it down. I paid thousands of dollars for the program. If you give me back the money that I and my employers have paid in over time with modest interest...I would call it good. I figure you owe me about $450,000. Thank you.
If you read my statement, I said reform and eliminate waste and fraud. I also purposely didn't include Social Security INSURANCE since that is a program that IF you paid into it, you should be able to collect the set annuity payments that were guaranteed to you.
Medicare INSURANCE, however, even though people paid into it can easily manipulated for fraud and profit.
Means testing for higher income people is already in effect for Medicare. In addition I hope you realize that Medicare is not a 100% freebie program. Once eligible, you have to pay for Part B and you are penalized if you don't sign up for the free Part A. Not a freebie give away.
I don't see why we shouldn't do the same for Social Security. Currently you are taxed and your amount is reduced if you earn over a certain income. You can't even REFUSE to take the SS payment even if you wanted to. How stupid is THAT????
It is the WELFARE aspects of those programs that have bloated to unsustainable amounts. SSI for disability when you are not disabled. Medicaid for illegal alien, people who have never paid into the system and unlimited medical procedures.
Our doctor friend calls the MediCal card, the California Gold card. Meaning you can waltz into the emergency room and get almost anything you want. People come in to the emergency room because their baby has diaper rash because they are too stupid/careless/ignorant/drug addicted to change a diaper. And then it costs us thousands of dollars for each visit. THIS is the fraud and waste that I am talking about.
"There's an 82-year old conservative I work with (when he's there part-time) who's happily taking his Medicare. What's funny is the hypocrisy of these types."
Well that settles it for me. People who don't demand a 100% libertarian/objectivist anarchy are hypocrites when they fail to live up to a 100% libertarian/objectivist anarchist philosophy.
Also, the jerk is selfishly working at 82. Who does he think he is?
"ol Michael ((( Kerry swift boats Edwards ))) K can't stay on topic to save his life and wasn't talkin' to him notwithstanding."
The kid who brought up the lefty meme of "chickenhawks" which means those who supported defense but didn't fight the war themselves, sort of like FDR, is concerned about staying on topic.
The topic is adults, something you know very little about.
"But DBQ, you're not going to turn down your own Social Security and Medicare, are you? Of course not, neither am I when the time comes.
Of course I'm not going to turn it down. I paid thousands of dollars for the program. If you give me back the money that I and my employers have paid in over time with modest interest...I would call it good. I figure you owe me about $450,000. Thank you."
The lefties can't get it through their heads that IT WON"T BE THERE.
A wise man once wrote :"There is a corollary of this largely unspoken assumption: that no matter what you do to one part of a machine, the rest of the machine will continue to function normally.
A variant of this is the frequently expressed denial of the law of unintended consequences: the belief that, if the effect you intend is good, the actual effect must be similarly happy.
Very small children, the mad, and certain extinct primitive tribes, have shared in this belief system, but only the fully college-educated liberal has the vocabulary to make it sound plausible."
IT WON"T BE THERE !
jr565,
How is that possible that you don't view your friend as the biggest cult follower and liar?
First, people can't choose their families. Second, my friend isn't a freak like you. He's interested in what I have to say and what information I present to him. He doesn't spend his time denying it, as you do, but - being a serious person - engages with it.
I'm surpised you deign to call him "friend".
Why? Oh yeah - because you're not mature enough to understand the difference between reading something online and conducting oneself, offline, in the real world.
I'm even more surprised that he, knowing what you think of his cult, I mean religion, would ever bother responding to you in any way on a friendly basis.
Again - that's because you're a freak. My friend reads my blog with his oldest son and, most times, finds a lot to laugh about. Unlike you, he knows me, knows I'm not a loose cannon, and appreciates the perspective I bring to the subject. I mean, who else is going to tell him what other Mormons (or people like you) won't?
Somebody has to speak the truth around here and my friend (and I) don't think enough people are willing.
You want to live in a world of lies,...
He's a cultist, a new age thinker, an new age apoligist, a rube, a liar. What else do you got? THat's your friend.
No he isn't. He's a guy born into a situation and making the best of it he can, as a lot of Mormons are. The idea some people are trapped - and you are being of no help to them - seems to have escaped you entirely. Which is natural because, as I've said many times, you don't understand the first thing about the subject you're defending.
YOu should direct him to your website and then tell him what your really think of him.
He reads it every day, and we have lunch together at least once a month.
Like I said, you're the defensive freak - and you understand nothing. It would be like me going through the roof every time someone here criticized black people. You can't tell right from wrong, truth from fiction - you're just a reaction - and whether I'm right or not doesn't matter. You could care less.
Not everyone is like you,...
If Colonel Angus is still here, would it be too forward of me to call you by your first name- Anil?
"
Our doctor friend calls the MediCal card, the California Gold card. Meaning you can waltz into the emergency room and get almost anything you want. People come in to the emergency room because their baby has diaper rash because they are too stupid/careless/ignorant/drug addicted to change a diaper. And then it costs us thousands of dollars for each visit. THIS is the fraud and waste that I am talking about."
Boy, have I seen this ! I once had a family bring an elderly relative to the County Hospital admitting room. This was years ago. They told me that they could no longer care for grandpa. I suggested that it might be cheaper for them to arrange a private nursing home since they obviously had assets.
They looked around the room with an incredulous look and said; "This IS the County Hospital, isn't it ?"
The narrative is imperative.
George Lakoff and the JournoListers and the SuperPAC blaming a candidate for a woman's death by cancer etc.-- they're all Republicans? I learn something new every day.
Nichevo,
Tough on your pal. I feel for him. One of my few agreements with John Lennon is that "the laws against marijuana are immoral in principle and unworkable in practice," if I have that correctly. But it's not like it was a surprise to him, was it? The surprise was being tested at all. For being skinny - how odd. I dunno what to tell you. If his rights were violated he should sue.
This is Utah - there's no suing. You'll find yourself facing 12 Mormons against one of their own. Good luck.
And yes, it was a surprise to him. To come under suspicion because you're sick - and then to be fired when you're fighting for your life and job? What's the point of a building up a good reputation when it's proven nobody cares? Mormons abandon their oaths and teachings like the rest of us discard trash, but they face no punishment for it. But let anyone else even bend the rules and they'll let you know what-for. It's bullshit.
Re: Romney, supplements: do you mean vitamins, or what exactly?
It doesn't matter - we don't need them and, unless prescribed under a doctors care, can be harmful. And Romney's selling them under a bogus criminal law set up by his fellow cultist - an issue he's never had an ethical problem with. because he doesn't care about ethics. He cares about taking "gentile" money and attaining power.
That's the Mormon way,...
Also, the jerk is selfishly working at 82. Who does he think he is?
An asshole who admits he doesn't need the money and is just there because he wants something to do with his time (other than volunteer). Silly me! I assumed he needed the money and job.
But management saw through it and decreased his hours to nearly nothing anyway.
Yes, people who can't distinguish between needs and wants are probably not very good when it comes to opining on policy, ideological consistency or lack thereof notwithstanding.
And inconsistency is not the same thing as hypocrisy.
Chef Mojo,
Crack, you're a fucking bigot, as usual.
Thank you [bows, accepts flowers]
The Jews were pretty pissed off at the nuns praying at Auschwitz.
Yeah, but the nuns probably stopped while the Mormons said they did, and then kept right on going in secret.
I really wonder - is there ANYTHING you guys would hold a cult's feet to the fire for - other than outright killing people?
Clearly lying isn't going to do it - which says as much about you as them.
What's the difference again between Catholics and Mormons again?
You can't read newspaper accounts of the day, stating Catholicism was a fraud and it's leader was repeatedly busted for swindling people.
Seems you love the mainstream Christian cults, but the Mormons really bother you. What's up with that?
I'm a realist when it comes to these things. (You're mostly a bunch of hippie anything-goes NewAge types.) The idea that some beliefs are more dangerous or destructive than others doesn't seem to register with you. Nor does the idea people have a right to be free of mental slavery, even if they don't understand they're trapped in it.
You will allow anyone to do anything to anybody as long as they dress it up right. That's why the Catholics could pull off child molestation, or Jim Jones could murder, or any of the rest of it.
You are simply too silly, and simple, to think beyond your own assumptions.
Crack wrote:
Why? Oh yeah - because you're not mature enough to understand the difference between reading something online and conducting oneself, offline, in the real world.
THat suggests then that you are not being truthful with your friend about how you REALLY feel about his cultism. Why don't you man up and tell him you think he's a freak, deceitful, a liar, and a cult member who is out to brainwash the world.
Do you ever bother listening to yourself?
Chef Mojo,
Crack, you always have some half assed excuse for Christianity as a whole as opposed to Mormons. Still haven't been able to explain that, have you?
No - you just won't accept any answer that doesn't let them off the hook. Who's close-minded again?
You keep going on about "convicted con men." Is this sorta like the convicting people of being witches in Salem?
Why don't you try reading the accounts for yourself? Oh right - you don't have a brain. But you do have Google. Try it - it works.
Hey. Whatever brings 'em down, right? Like religious persecution in the 19th centruy United States legal system is just A-Ok to you!
I don't mind your silly assumptions - I do mind you acting like they come from my mouth. Have you noticed I don't have to ask what's the difference between Catholics and Mormons? That's because I know the subject. You don't understand anything, but you flail around, proud of your ignorance.
Shit, even Catholics and Mormons know they're different,...
You haven't been able to show me a single fucking thing about Momonism that is weirder than Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Whatever-fucking-ism. You fucking believe in god, and you go around screaming that Mormonism is a cult?
See? You don't even know I'm an atheist. You're a fool.
That's your problem, Crack. You see yourself as a gatekeeper. But you never look to yourself.
As you just proved, claiming I believe in God, it's you who can't see what's right before your eyes.
Who watches the watchers, I wonder?
Not you, blind man, that's for sure,...
Crack Emcee wrote:
With all the mayhem cults cause in the individual lives of followers and their loved ones, why are you always so keen to defend them? Is there something about Charles Manson you find attractive? Jim Jones? The kidnapping and molestation of children? A "religious group" that doesn't even honor it's own teachings, but insists on sticking it's nose into our politics? Abandoning those who have been hurt by Mormonism? People who don't think for themselves or aren't allowed to? Do you have something against individual freedom, unmediated by unelected leaders prone to declaring they have "revelations" about, and over, others lives?
How are you comparing Charles Manson and Jim Jones to Mormonism? Is Rmoney out telling his follower to commit murder to start a race war, or carving up pregnant ladies or having his followers drink poison laced koolaid. Who said I was SUPPORTIVE of those cults?
The idea that some beliefs are more dangerous or destructive than others doesn't seem to register with you.
Says the person equating Mormons to Charles Manson and Jim Jones!
Re: Romney, supplements: do you mean vitamins, or what exactly?
Yes, Crack means vitamins. That's a sign of new ageism don't you know. Whatever you do, don't go into a GNC any time in the future. Otherwise you are being brainwashed by newageism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's possible some beliefs may be more dangerous than others but anyone who's so extreme in his belief as to refuse to admit any conflicting facts or arguments entry is a silly little man anyway.
That said, Crack probably agrees with mainstream Christianity's mission of exterminating native Americans with smallpox because, you know, they were PAGANS. Worshiping STRANGE GODS.
If he's really as maximalist as that then you know he's not worth taking seriously. Not that some of us had much doubt about that. He's just here (as are most of Althouse's pets) for the entertainment value, anyway.
Some of his raps are halfway decent, though.
jr565,
When you talk to your Mormon "friend" and talk about his "faith" do you put it in quotes?
That's a funny thing about friends, not having to lie to them.
So you think your friend is trying to position himself as persecuted instead of admitting he's ALWAYS been wrong. And he thinks that playing dirty is fair simply because of his "faith" This is your "friend"?
Yes, and - this is going to shock you - he corrects me when I fuck up as well. That's what friends are for - not simply co-signing each others shit, no matter what they do.
Your "Friend" is a con artist who's belief system he uses to exploit others with?
Sometimes. Not as much as other Mormons I know, but sometimes. Ethics can be tough for Mormons, considering the teachings lead to cons.
How many scientoligists do you count as "friends" Crack?
None - but I dated one once. She was weird.
How many of your friends do you describe as no different than scientologists, gullible, deceitful and in need of cult deprogramming.
Too many to count. You have to understand - I understand cultism, they do not. It's like when someone starts talking about "karma" or astrology - they don't know they're full of shit. It's part of the culture to think in that wrong-headed fashion. It's only when they (rarely) come into contact with someone, who can explain what's up, do they even give it a thought. Mormonism's no different.
It sounds an awful lot like "Some of my best friends are black" that someone might use to suggest they aren't a racist. Only if they describe blacks as lazy, dumb, subhuman or what have you, it's kind of hard to take their suggestion that they are "friends" at face value. Seriously, if that is your idea of friendship, then you don't deserve any.
Bullshit. You have a different, less mature, idea of what friendship is. You sound like you'll let your friends do the stupidest things just to avoid saying, "no" to them.
Some friend you are,...
An asshole who admits he doesn't need the money and is just there because he wants something to do with his time (other than volunteer). Silly me! I assumed he needed the money and job.
I'm having a really hard time parsing this sentence. I don't understand it. Is it just me?
People who want to work but don't need to... shouldn't be allowed to work? That can't be what you're saying, is it? I'm feeling dense here.
But management saw through it and decreased his hours to nearly nothing anyway.
Yes, people who can't distinguish between needs and wants are probably not very good when it comes to opining on policy, ideological consistency or lack thereof notwithstanding.
Again-- "distinguishing between needs and wants"? What? Are you implying that jobs should be restricted "to each according to his need" and need alone? That we should base society and the market on needs and not wants?
That can't be what you're saying. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely perplexed and feel stupid because I don't get what you're saying.
Remember when Romney proposed a constitutional amendment requiring any president to work at least 3 yrs in private sector?
Oops!
Crack Emcee wrote:
No he isn't. He's a guy born into a situation and making the best of it he can, as a lot of Mormons are.
How do you know that Romney is not that same type of person?
The idea some people are trapped - and you are being of no help to them - seems to have escaped you entirely. Which is natural because, as I've said many times, you don't understand the first thing about the subject you're defending.
Your default position seems to be that if you are a mormon, you are trapped in that situation and must be rescued. Maybe your friend is a Mormon, because he likes Mormonism. And thus doens't need to be rescued? Did you ever think of that? You feel pity for your friend, because he's someone trapped in the situation. Thats pretty presumptuous of you. Mormonism may suit him just fine.
And if so, you are not serving your friendship by shitting all over his beliefs that he may have come to willingly.
But if someone is literally holding a gun to his head, and telling him "YOU MUST NEVER LEAVE THE MORMON CHURCH" then I'm supportive of him getting out of the situation. Not everyone feels trapped because they are a mormon.
I really wonder - is there ANYTHING you guys would hold a cult's feet to the fire for - other than outright killing people?
Torturing and killing animals. Animal sacrifice[voodoo etc]
Destroying other people's property and interfering with their lives. [green peace]
Interfering with and harassing others [Westboro Baptist Church, Gay Activists, OWS]
I'm very torn about the children being indoctrinated. Adults can do what they want. BUT>>>>>>Until all children are wards of the state, we can't stop parents from instilling their religious views [Catholic, Protestant, Mormon Wicca] as long as the children are not taught to do the above things [kill torture, be assholes]. That kind of leaves Islam out of my grouping of acceptable cults.
Religions...ALL religions are full of stupid, mythical, bullshit thinking. All religions/cults have been this way, have been forever and probably always will be. It seems to be part of the human mind. The human condition. We just have to be the smart ones who avoid the magical thinking.
I don't care if people want to dose themselves to death with supplements, tattoo every available inch of their bodies, commit suicide waiting for some comet, flail themselves with chains to honor the crucifixion, stick spikes through your cheeks.....whatever.
Can cults draw in the vulnerable. You bet they can. But...I also view that as being part of Darwin's rules. If you are that stupid to fall for a cult...you probably would have been the stupid one back on the prehistoric savannah with your pack of Australopithecines who carelessly got eaten by a giant hyena. You deserved to die for being stupid, for having no self preservation instincts and removed yourself from the gene pool. Thank you. We are all better for your loss.
yashu,
Crack is an atheist.
Yet he was an enthusiastic supporter of Santorum in the primaries. Whereas Romney is apparently theocratic cult satan incarnate.
No - you're not looking at my criticisms with any nuance.
As an atheist, I can't stop the religious world from turning, so I have to make my accommodations. Rick Santorum isn't part of a cult and he made good sense (a fact many admitted, after he was out).
Romney IS part of a cult - and it's not just him I'm reacting against but him as a vehicle for giving more legitimacy to his cult. That's the danger as i see it.
I've said, many times, Romney could do well as president - partially not to embarrass his cult - but I wouldn't trust those who guide him as far as I could throw them.
You guys seem to enjoy your ignorance. You won't read criticisms about Mormonism on your own - you'll just bust my balls on what you don't understand, pretending you're defending something good when you really don't know. I'm not like that:
I study what I want or need to know.
If it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then fuck 'em.
Mormonism has a LOT to answer for,...
Crackey belongs to the cult of anti-cultism.
You have to understand, he sees cults everywhere... like Haley Joel Osment sees dead people.
Right now, he would say that I belong to the cult of unconventional opinions.
Sometimes I use inappropriate diction and creative phraseology. Surely there are cults for those things.
He had a lot of instability in his life and therefore probably longs for conformity. It's his cross, so to speak. That should make it harder to take personally.
Unless he burns or hangs himself on it.
Crack Emcee wrote:
Yes, and - this is going to shock you - he corrects me when I fuck up as well. That's what friends are for - not simply co-signing each others shit, no matter what they do.
But what is it that he is doing? Simply believing somethign that you don't. He's not out killing or beating his wife. So, he's not FUCKING UP in his own mind. THa's your characterization of his beliefs. Having a friend telling you over and over again that your beliefs are shit and you are brainwashed, probalby at some point would make you pull away from your friend.
Chef Mojo,
I just disrespect Crack for his selective beliefs.
I don't "believe" in "believing" - which is why I always put them in quotes.
You miss everything, don't you?
(Mainstream) Christianity for thee but not for me, so sayeth the Crack.
Chef Mojo,
An atheist wouldn't let the Virgin Cult slide while ranking on Mormons.
You don't read my blog, do you?
Crack is many things, but he ain't an atheist by any stretch of the imagination.
It's pretty obvious you have a very limited imagination.
Me? I'm an atheist. I call 'em like I see 'em. In the end, I comes down to relative harm. Mormons? Totally milquetoast. Crack wants to compare SLC with fucking Jonestown? Or any other death cult?
No - the Mormons never massacred anyone, right? And they don't attack children, right?
Give me a break.
Can't even begin to provide proof or evidence beyond his own fevered fantasies.
Or you're never around when I do. Ever consider that? That I get sick of answering the same questions repeatedly, or digging out the same links? What makes you special? You have a computer - look it up.
Hey, Crack! What are the voices saying about Episcopalians, huh?
You're a loon,..
Nichevo,
For one thing, I'm not understanding what it is that I have written ion this thread, that several posters here, including you, would object to.
Why require schooling for kids? Why subsidize primary education with tax moneys, property or otherwise? Are these not anti-freedom measures on their face?
The tax credit idea, too, seems to me very much in line with the sorts of ideas we see from GOP politicos and bloggers these days. What's wrong with that, from your perspective?
You're right it aint Swiftian. Swift was hyperbolic. My proposals only seem to at first blush.
Synova,
Also, the jerk is selfishly working at 82. Who does he think he is?
Indeed. Doesn't he know that you're supposed to retire at 55? (Hell, AARP mailings start at age 50.) Stupid old guy, making other old guys look like lazy slackers by doing that stupid working stuff. [Best read in Homer Simpson voice.]
chickelit,
Crack is a bit like Joe McGinniss gone to Wasilla. Reporting from the trenches.
I remember when I first got here, and started talking about cults - nobody understood anything and harshed on me even worse than now with Romney. But over time - and after news stories started to confirm my rantings - that changed. And now what I say carries, at least, a little weight because most know I could be right. But they can't be sure because, since we're talking about cults, secrets have to be revealed before they can "believe" such nice people can do such horrible things.
I learned it the hard way - and I don't plan on forgetting it.
Sounds like Michelle Gulag Thompson is joining Synova's cult of Confusion between Work and Productivity.
There is a difference between valuing initiative for its own sake and valuing the quality of work actually performed. Not that those two confused Randroidians would know it. There is nothing admirable about getting out of bed in the morning in a zombie-like trance, just because that's all you know and are too selfish to give of your time in other productive ways. Yes, the impulse is encouraging. Refusing to question the reason for it and what others who rely on your performance do or do not get out of your doing it, not so much.
Now back to your Randroidian catechisms. Which is itself a cult.
Am I right, Crack?
"Such generalizations are simply stupid."
Are they?
David, YES.
Allie is emphatic on this.
Why YES I am!
The MLM herbal industry is huge in Utah. We're not talking vitamins here.
Many of the practices used in "prescribing" for herbs are, indeed, based on ideas found in the new age movement which of course has roots and branches in eastern mysticism, occult and New Thought: Iridology, "muscle testing", energy meridians, vibrational medicine, color therapy, radionics, etc. etc. etc -- not to mention plain old quackery.
That being said, our First Amendment rights are demonstrably at risk with Barack Obama. His view of the U.S. Constitution is significantly, and appearing more and more to be dangerously, flawed.
So given the choices (Gary Johnson is not a choice) I am more comfortable with a president whose religious beliefs (and anything else) I can publically and loudly disagree with (which I do, and I have more than a passing acquaintance with Mormonism) than one who is determined to narrow my rights to free expression, Constitutional protections, right to build my own whatever, own property and practice my religion.
one who is determined to narrow my rights to free expression, Constitutional protections, right to build my own whatever, own property and practice my religion.
Name one way in which Obama has done any one of these things to you?
Or would a fact detract from the Imperative Narrative?
What about Paul Ryan's wife and kids?
They will go after Mrs. Ryan the tax lawyer for PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Who did she represent!??!? Some of those 1%ers!!1!!
It won't work, but I already came across some crass comments on another site of the "wealthy and privileged" class warfare crap because Mrs. Ryan went to Wellsley and George Washington U.
You can't fix stupid. Sigh. (Think Hillary Clinton: Wellsley / Yale, Michelle Obama: Princeton / Harvard . . .)
"No one uses the word "bastard" literally any more."
Speak for yourself. When I use it, I do.
DBQ,
I don't care if people want to dose themselves to death with supplements, tattoo every available inch of their bodies, commit suicide waiting for some comet, flail themselves with chains to honor the crucifixion, stick spikes through your cheeks.....whatever.
Well, if they want to stick spikes through your cheeks, I think you do have a right to protest, and so do I. But I think that was a slip of the finger.
Can cults draw in the vulnerable. You bet they can. But...I also view that as being part of Darwin's rules. If you are that stupid to fall for a cult...you probably would have been the stupid one back on the prehistoric savannah with your pack of Australopithecines who carelessly got eaten by a giant hyena. You deserved to die for being stupid, for having no self preservation instincts and removed yourself from the gene pool. Thank you. We are all better for your loss.
The only — and I do mean only — reason Mormons are seen as "cultists" while Jews and Christians and Muslims aren't is the entirely irrational belief that supernatural events, supposing there to be any ever, obviously have to be located in the distant past. Chesterton refuted this very nicely; he said that "But this is the Twentieth Century!" was about as cogent as "But this is Tuesday!" You can be a theist, an atheist, an agnostic, and anything else you like in any century.
Good for the Ryan family. Good for the Romney family. Good for the USA and world. titus says "tits," I say "Truth."
Restriction to my right of conscience re the Federal govenment telling religious organizations they have to violate their beliefs.
The disenfranchisement of the GM bond holders. (Grand larceny? Theft? Fraud?) So qwhose next if HIs HIgnmess deems it necessary?
The arbitrary wave of the hand which changes immigration law and another wave of the pen which undoes a legally passed requirement for benefits (workfare rules).
Whatever Barack wants? He takes.
no thanks.
MDT wrote:
the entirely irrational belief that supernatural events, supposing there to be any ever, obviously have to be located in the distant past.
At every mass, the body and blood of Christ are present in the consecrated bread and wine. That sounds supernatural to me.
O Ritmo Segundo,
Sounds like Michelle Gulag Thompson is joining Synova's cult of Confusion between Work and Productivity.
Hey, Ritmo, you can mess about with my maiden name to your heart's content, but that is "Thomson" without a "p," and don't you forget it.
There is a difference between valuing initiative for its own sake and valuing the quality of work actually performed. Not that those two confused Randroidians would know it. There is nothing admirable about getting out of bed in the morning in a zombie-like trance, just because that's all you know and are too selfish to give of your time in other productive ways.
I see. Getting out of bed is something you do because you are "too selfish" to do anything more productive -- like, say, die and let your kids (supposing you to have been the sort of selfish bastard who has kids, and therefore has increased his own carbon footprint upon the defenseless planet) inherit the proceeds of your totally worthless life.
Yes, the impulse is encouraging. Refusing to question the reason for it and what others who rely on your performance do or do not get out of your doing it, not so much.
So, an old man's working is useless unless "others" are obviously getting something out of it. That he himself might get something (monetarily or otherwise) out of it is nothing to the purpose.
My definition of "cult" is based on the type of controlling behavior involved. Some churches with pretty standard doctrine are run in a cult-like way. The whim of the leader gets confused with revelation and coercive methods of social control keep everyone in line. There is a clear distinction when the Pope speaks for the church and an excommunication just means you anent part of the church anymore.
Compare that with trying to leave Scientology, as an example.
It's not just (or even) having weird ideas, but prohibiting contact outside the group and punishing those who attempt to leave.
When my sister tried to stop being worship leader at one relatively normal Christian church the pastor started with the guilt trips and telling her that she was disobeying GOD.
That, to me, is cult-like behavior. It's all about control.
"You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians, by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race." -Jeffrey Amherst, British Commander in Chief of North America during the French and Indian War.
Look into it.
1) What MDs give you is not quackery. My dad in hospital is getting B6 plus a multi. Linus Pauling, the Linus with the Nobel Prize, preached megadoses of C. I know that vitamins are a mixed bag but I can't dismiss them with "Cultist swindles!"
2) Herbal medicines are not necessarily nonsense either. Reputable herbalists won't even fool with foxglove because the strength of its pharmaceutical product, digitalis, is so variable that a quarter grain can kill you. But, note: pharmaceutical product. Likewise aspirin from willow bark; melatonin; others.
So, no inherent swindle. I don't know about all of them - St John's wort, spirulina, brewer's yeast, royal jelly, whatever. But I have had my own MD tell me that if I am having joint pain I should consider glucosamine, or chondroitin, or whatever it was.
3) Do I believe like cures like, that something diluted in a billion parts of water will cure cancer? Don't be silly.
But even so, free country. Besides, LOL, our European masters like it, LOL!
So I'm trying, but I'm failing to entirely be with you here, Crack.
BTW, please note that big deal "reputable" pharma drugs like amioderone, daptomycin, linezolid, heparin, famotidine, can all have startling and sometimes life-endangering side effects.
Harrogate: that is just sad. Please state clearly what it is you are advocating, or if you prefer, what it is you are opposing. Can you do that without snark, /sarc, or irony?
Because IIUYC, I think the strawman you are beating, or rather the straw chicken you are fucking - that your opponents, whoever you take those to be, oppose the education of children, or even a framework for universal education - is just nonsensical.
Well, however you spell your name, you're an imbecile who is either too illiterate to read properly or enjoys twisting other people's words and confusing their various statements.
No, I won't bother to correct them. Too many other intellectually honest people on this thread today for me to waste my time dignifying your bullshit amphiboly.
To the extent that it's a valid quote, I imagine Amherst's concerns were tactical, not theological.
The funny thing is that whenever I start to think that Rand was just making it all up someone goes and says something like, "too selfish to give his time" and then I realize that she was right all along.
Productive behavior is vilified. Productive people are considered evil because they benefit from their own productivity.
Time and productivity have to be GIVEN. Or else you are an evil, selfish, SOB.
Really Ayn? Hyperbolic much?
And I'm surprised. EVERY. TIME.
Crack wrote:
I remember when I first got here, and started talking about cults - nobody understood anything and harshed on me even worse than now with Romney. But over time - and after news stories started to confirm my rantings - that changed. And now what I say carries, at least, a little weight because most know I could be right. But they can't be sure because, since we're talking about cults, secrets have to be revealed before they can "believe" such nice people can do such horrible things.
But you're being very vague about CULTS as if they are interchangeable. THere is a world of difference between Charles Mansons's cult and mormonism. Mormons are not out killing people. So, making a linkage between the two simply because they share the status of cult (and whether Mormonism is a cult or a religion is a matter or perspective) doesn't really mean the linkage is necessarily valid.
As such, you may be right about some cults, but not necessarily right about all cults, and you may not even be right that Mormonism is in fact a cult.
That doesn't mean that therefore cults are great and everyone should join one.
You have a friend who is a mormon who puts up with extremely judgemental bullshit from you and yet still remains your friend. Perhaps then, his mormonism allows for a lot more tolerance of differing view points than your atheism does. maybe then, in that regard, you could learn something from your friend even though he is in a cult (your opinion not necessarily the truth)
That he himself might get something (monetarily or otherwise) out of it is nothing to the purpose.
Is "he" his own boss? If no, then those things are secondary to what his boss and the organization feel regarding the quality of his contribution. That is the sad reality of the workplace -- get used to it. It sounds like you've never been to one, though.
And this is probably why you might actually vote for someone as phony and flimsy as Mitt Romney. You actually view jobs as mere positions, titles, sinecures. No work or productive output need actually be performed, in your view.
Thank you for illustrating this.
Your understanding of the causes of unemployment must be similarly ignorant.
Synova actually seems to believe that a paycheck = productivity.
Her bubble must be a very comfortable and privileged one.
It sounds like unearned privilege is a concept she either doesn't understand, or is very comfortable defending.
jr565,
Crack, final point.
Whew!
Lets take you at face value.
Good idea.
Doesn't the fact that you can hold a friendship with a mormon disprove your whole argument?
No - I understand the difference between a cult and it's followers.
You can look past his craziness and still consider him a friend despite his belief in magic underpants.
Yep - just as I have friends who are ganstas, cowards, liberals, right-wing nuts, and more. My friendship is a "big tent" affair.
He hasn't converted you, there is nothing about his friendship that is nefarious, nad if you are friends for 30 years, his character is such that he maintains it, DESPITE being in a cult.
Rephrase:
He CAN'T convert me, he knows it, and as long as the fruity shit stays within parameters he can live with, we're here for each other.
Are you a cult apologist for maintaining that friendship?
No - as an atheist, I have no choice but to deal with people who accept screwy shit. What I can't do - which a cult apologist does - is defend the indefensible.
When my friend is sick of it, I'm here for him. I'll probably be the only one, which is sad and shows how shallow cultish thinking is.
Are you able to look past that one issue and still find common ground with your "friend" even though you think mormonism is silly/stupid.
Again - I make a distinction between the cult and the follower. The follower I can have sympathy for, the cult - never. It only exists to control others.
How is that different than supporting Romney despite him being a Mormon.
I wouldn't let my friend, or his cult, run the country.
If your friend was actually trying to convert you, or exhibiting cultist thinking in front of you, I highly doubt that you would remain friends with him. FOr thirty years no less.
You don't know me - and don't want to, if you ask me. You let your assumptions run your life and outlook - which is stupid. There are millions of cultists out there - how can I avoid them?
I've thrown cultists out of my house. I've also had many come back and apologize. There are many I'll never speak to again. And there are some who I've never had a problem with. (They know my position and they respect it, partially because they know my history, and partially because they know I take the subject seriously.) Many cultists know I'm right, but that still doesn't mean they're compelled to defend it - or leave the cult - for a variety of reasons.
I don't think you take the subject seriously enough to understand such reactions. You're just a knee-jerk reaction, trying to be "open-minded" when you shouldn't be. That helps no one.
Cont'd.
That's a weird quote. Inoculation is done to protect from disease. Modern usage of those words in that order are internally incoherent.
The quote is either out of all context or words have changed meaning and usage.
Or its a flat out willful lie like claiming a verse of the star spangled banner was pro-slavery.
I wonder what commander Amherst said about the French.
YOu can have a relationship with someone with differing views on things like God and how he manifests himself, SO LONG AS YOU SHARE SIMILAR values.
Nope. I share values with few of my friends. That's not what our friendship's about. We'd never learn anything from each other if it was. Being a friend isn't about always agreeing, or being each other's "yes man," but in being *of value* to each other.
I mean, if they don't have me to say "don't do that" or if I don't have them to say something equally-important to me, who is going to say it?
Unlike the rest of you, I don't think the time to speak up is AFTER someone's dead or disaster has struck. That, too, helps no one.
I don't see Romney as espousing anything value wise that is fundamentailly different than what a Christian would argue.
You're not paying attention, either. I don't bother with only what cultists say - they're trained to lie and dissemble - but what they do and what their doctrine says as well.
Mitt Romney couldn't be in the supplement business if he was truly into being honest. It's a scam. We know his character - we use euphemisms like "flip-flopper" but the truly honest term is "liar." You'll vote for that, but not me - I'm not a mark.
And is that Christian?
So, if you can maintain friendships with Mormons and are not a cult apologist, I don't see why me voting for one would make me a cult apologist either.
Your vote doesn't make you one - your defense of cultism does.
I imagine Amherst's concerns were tactical, not theological.
Then your imagination is very active. Denigrating an "execrable race" sounds like a very NON-military aim. Those words might well describe a tactic, but a racial and xenophobic one, not really a military one.
Ritmo, paying someone to come to work and do nothing is the opposite of selfish. You must be proud of your employer.
Ross,
Crack, I wasn't sure how to respond to your post but then I saw that everyone else had already responded sufficiently to your "criticisms" as you call them. I will say this though about Salt Lake City, it's less than 50% Mormon. Also, if it's so bad as you claim, then why is it thought of as gay friendly?
It isn't - that's just the latest push by the Mormons to wipe away bad publicity. (The newspaper you linked to is the Deseret News - the Mormon paper - a propaganda organ not to be trusted.)
BTW, I think that the dignity of one's work is an important concept, and worth defending and asking of an employer. (Unions, anyone?) But to confuse that with the productivity to the organization that is the whole reason behind someone's paycheck, well, that must explain why Republicans believe that high unemployment is a phenomenon that we can ignore and blame away on "the lazy".
LOL. Nothing the slightest bit Xenophobic was ever said by a military commander about the Germans or Japanese
Because that not military.
Honest. Funniest thing I heard today.
Ritmo, paying someone to come to work and do nothing is the opposite of selfish. You must be proud of your employer.
Not that there's much use arguing with the willfully ignorant, but:
1. They stopped doing that (as I described),
2. There are limits to selflessness, and fora where it is more useful than in others,
3. It became evident the person in question was being similarly selfish.
Also, I can turn around your exercise on you. A lazy worker is just being selfish - which is a quality that both you and Ayn Rand extol. Ditto a lazy employer.
Get used to it now and admit your ideological contribution to the shitty economy.
Nichevo,
I tell you something, though, this Mormon lark of baptizing dead Jews - do I understand that aright? - that should stop. If you can put a claim on my soul after death "because I don't need it," why not dig up my body and eat it, or use the ashes for cat litter?
No, not funny. And did Crack say they promised to stop, but lied? That could make a mofo go shoot up a tabernacle or something.
Aside from being perfectly blasphemous from my/the victim's standpoint, it seems silly and pointless from theirs.
And two more things:
1) it allows them to lie, claiming to be growing, when the truth is many are leaving - mostly people born into the cult. Which isn't "nice," or honest, or good - and it pisses people off, only for them to discover the Mormons don't mind pissing people off.
That's hardly "spiritual" or compassionate behavior - not that any of you care about that.
2) It's fucking creepy. But what do you expect from a cult with a history in the occult?
Nothing the slightest bit Xenophobic was ever said by a military commander about the Germans or Japanese
Because that not military.
Honest. Funniest thing I heard today.
Glad you like it. Which of your other statements do you simultaneously "hear"? Because I sure as hell didn't say that one.
Also, our commander-in-chief is called a "president". If he had said anything nearly as nasty it wouldn't have been in public. Or it would have been shortly disavowed. Either way, it wouldn't have been a military tactic, but a blustering way to let off steam. We left those tactics to our enemies, known as the "Nazis". Perhaps you've heard of them?
Perhaps you're one of them.
Yes Ritmo. That's why rules to keep lazy people from being fired always originate on the Right.
jr565,
THat suggests then that you are not being truthful with your friend about how you REALLY feel about his cultism. Why don't you man up and tell him you think he's a freak, deceitful, a liar, and a cult member who is out to brainwash the world.
Do you ever bother listening to yourself?
Yes, I do - did you notice when I said he reads my blog and we have lunch together?
Not everyone reacts as you do, jr.
That's why rules to keep lazy people from being fired always originate on the Right.
Especially when the lazy person goes by the title "C.E.O.", and bribes Congress to get some corporate welfare, lest he cut off his political contributions to them and threaten to bring the economy to its knees because his company is "too big to fail".
When workers do this, it's called a strike. And you denigrate it. Because hey, someone's got to be considered better than everyone else, right?
jr565,
How are you comparing Charles Manson and Jim Jones to Mormonism?
Joseph Smith got people killed just like Charlie did - including himself.
Is Rmoney out telling his follower to commit murder to start a race war, or carving up pregnant ladies or having his followers drink poison laced koolaid.
Read Mormon history and you can find atrocities that would blow your mind. Your problem is how you frame the question:
Why limit it to Romney? What do you know about the cult Romney's in? What do they order to be done - or have ordered? Do you know? Nope:
You just defend them, no matter what.
Who said I was SUPPORTIVE of those cults?
I do - your every utterance to me is a challenge to very idea there's anything wrong with mental slavery. Shit, without your bullshit defense - which came out of the blue - I wouldn't even know you exist.
You're a cult apologist, jr.
Man, lefties are tedious.
And losers. Tedious losers. Very tedious.
Heck, Ritmo. I didn't know you worked for Solyndra. Or is it GM?
yashu,
The idea that some beliefs are more dangerous or destructive than others doesn't seem to register with you.
Says the person equating Mormons to Charles Manson and Jim Jones!
Because the Mormons have never killed anyone, right?
In your dreams,...
See, Synova! Michael just implied that right-wingers don't have the patience for tedium.
Which is a self-congratulatory way of saying that they're lazy.
Romney/Ryan will win Wisconsin in November.
You remember that well-oiled ground game that got Walker the huge recall victory? It's tan, rested and ready. And it wants another big win.
Thank you lefties! You made us organize and run that machine, Now it will be used to crush your candidates.
And God bless you Thistle, wherever you may be.
GM's ineffective boss was replaced, at the insistence of the Obama administration.
So as usual, you either don't know what you're talking about or have just gotten desperate.
Being full of sh$t is really not a quality you should aim for, Synovlyndra.
Crack,
Sounds like we are in similar situations. Your Utah vote wouldn't count, so you can sit things out. My CA vote doesn't count, so I can sit things out.
I don't like Process Romney, you don't like Romney who is a cult member, so I can see it doesn't matter what we do.
Given that, I don't like stupid cults. But I would rather the country would elect a real president. We've had a lot of losers lately, including that alleged rapist Bill Clinton (how women could support him after Juanita Broderick (sp?) came on the scene is beyond me, and why I ever saw any "I believe you Juanita" bumper stickers on Volvos is beyond me).
Post a Comment