2010-3-18 04:45:00
JJ:
It is amazing how the Obamaites sound so similar. It's as if there were some site with about ten sample letters that is cut and pasted all over the country.
A prime example is found in Marci's letter. She gives Clinton full credit for the good budget figures while in office and blames Bush for the meltdown. Of course, she overlooks the fact that during the Bush presidency we had seven good economic years even though he started with an inherited recession followed by the 911 disaster.
But the most important thing overlooked is that Congress, not the president, controls spending. The President can make proposals, but Congress must approve. Clinton owes a lot of credit to the Republicans under Newt and his Contract with America that led to a more balanced budget. And for the 2008 Meltdown we must not forget Democrats were in power and are still in power with a great majority. The newest Rasmussen Reports show that Congress has reached an all time low of only 10% approval.
JJ:
We have teamwork in politics, Donna. There is the Republican team and the Democratic team. Both of them are trying to score a win for their side.
It's time both sides joined Team America and scored some points for the people.
JJ:
I think that after the Haiti incident that people of good will, will think twice about going to Chile to help those in need. Unfortunately, in this world it is often dangerous to try to help people and when one attempts to help he is often rewarded with attack rather than appreciation.
Case in point are the Idaho missionaries in Haiti. The posters here attack and condemn the leader, Silsby, but overlook the fact that she could have been motivated by a desire to help the kids. No one knows for sure but her and some of the posters here think they can read the hearts of others with a different belief system to themselves.
JJ:
When Bush signed the Patriot Act he was Hitler.
When Obama does it he is Mr. Cool.
When Bush did it he wanted to tap your phone to find out if you smoked some pot.
Obama just wants to find bad guys.
Bush wanted to find out what books you're reading.
Obama just wants you to read his books.
Bush bad -- Obama good.
Or is it the other way around?
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/02/27/1098094/obama-signs-
one-year-extension.html ?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=
2576601#Comments_Container
Speaking of the ten missionaries Michael Deangelo says:
"Their claim that God told them to do it is nonsensical. The least lesson they should learn is that the next time God tells them to do something, get it in writing and have it notarized."
JJ:
The problem with this criticism is that I do not recall any of the ten claiming that God spoke to them and told them to do anything. Most likely they thought they were performing a service approved of by God, but that is an entirely different thing.
How about criticizing them for what they say rather than what they do not say?
"Poobah":
"Barking in circles again there Joseph. You regularly pass judgment upon anyone you wish at any time. It is hypocritical to do exactly that which you declare to be wrong, regardless of how you spin it."
JJ:
Taking that which someone acknowledges believing or saying and commenting on it is much different than judging someone guilty of a crime before the facts are in.
Judging you to be a robber is a much different thing than judging you to be a Lefty - something you are probably proud of.
JJ:
Note: the following was written to illustrate why it is not hypocritical to take Social Security or Medicare when he doesn't think either is efficient use of money.
Let us say that you have borrowed [USD] 100,000 that you cannot afford to lose and give it to a financial planner to buy gold, thinking this will give you security and the price will probably go up as well. The Planner says this is a bad idea and wants you to invest in the stock market. You say no. Instead, the guy disobeys and invests in the market and you lose 70 percent of your money.
You are outraged but can't fire the guy because he's your wife's brother so you look over the situation and see what can be salvaged. You examine the stocks yourself and figure that several of them have bottomed out and can now do nothing but go up. You tell the Planner to keep stocks A, B and C.
The scoundrel tries to save face by accusing you. He exclaims: You condemned me for buying these stocks and now you say continue. You're a hypocrite!"
Obviously, any fair-minded person can see that it is not hypocritical to salvage what you can from a bad situation that you never approved of in the first place.
"Ratrace427":
"Read slowly -- taking the money and giving THAT explanation is one thing BUT having your picture taken and taking credit FOR the money you voted not to take is just being a hypocrite, by most thinking people."
JJ:
You do not understand the definition of hypocrite. It is one's actions going against one's beliefs. How in the world is it hypocritical to salvage what you can from a bad situation when that is what you believe in doing? Doing what you believe in is the opposite of hypocritical. Duh...
"Jaycifer":
"Better go back and reread the original story. Laura DID say that her God told her to head to Haiti. Like so many others in history, she was just following orders."
JJ:
Can you find me that quote? I have my doubts.
JJ:
I did a little research on the "called by God thing," and cannot find any such statement from one of the ten. The only quote in this direction comes from Mel Coulter who was not even in the group.
"Jaycifer":
"This is from the first article I looked at, dated 2/1/10. I'm sure there are more references if I dig deeper:
"'Silsby, who runs an online shopping site in Idaho, quickly put their plan on the Web, soliciting tax-deductible donations while preparing their trip.'"
JJ:
That's really a stretch to cover that deceptive quote. You can't really fault religious people for doing their best to serve the will of God in helping people. If they all stuck to that the world would be a better place whether you agree with their doctrine or not.
"Xanax":
"The easiest definition of hypocrite is: Saying one thing and doing another. Or, you can get excellent examples from YOUR posts, and other religious dirt bag's posts."
JJ:
You can't get any example from my posts. And the Republicans are doing what they say. They say the original idea was horrible but they want to get the best from a bad situation and get our share of our tax dollars. Acting according to what you say is the opposite of hypocritical. Duh.
"Xanax":
"Success? Please explain!?"
JJ:
Newsweek of all places will do it for you. Concerning Iraq the Cover states: "VICTORY AT LAST!"
See the story at: http://www.newsweek.com/id/234281
JJ:
"Xanax" posted a lot of personal information and some things completely false on the forum where readers generally remain anonymous. I replied:
"Xanax" is certainly breaking Statesman rules by attempting to post personal information as an attack. There is another guy in town with the same name as me and part of his information fits him so he is smearing two people at once. Part of it is not true of either of us.
Speaking of hypocrites. If you think it is all right to reveal personal information about me then you should give out the same about yourself. How about it? Or would you rather just admit to what you are?
JJ to "Xanax":
Oh, how hypocritical. You're worried about your professional reputation, but couldn't give a hoot about mine, or probably anyone else's. You give an example of a pro-life crazy guy as a threat from the Right when I am pro choice. I can cite more crazies on the Left than the Right. Amy Bishop who just went on a shooting spree was a strong leftist and Obama supporter and Jack Stack who flew the plan into the building in Texas was an anti capitalist.
But that's beside the point. How can you say you're not a hypocrite when you attempt to reveal private information about me and refuse to give the same about yourself?
Believe me I've dealt with my share of crazy people and want to avoid them as much as you do.
It just occurred to me that "Xanax" sounds a lot like "Graymatter." As soon as she stopped posting "Xanax" began. Also Xanax is a benzodiazepine used to treat anxiety and panic disorder. This would be a logical name for "Graymatter" to assume since she is in the medical field. I believe it is against the rules to have more than one identity here.
Whoever you are you've only had the "Xanax" avatar for a few days, but you have been here before.
"Xanax":
"Since when is being some bat_sh_t crazy religious freak with some whacked out opinions considered being 'reputable'?"
JJ:
We'd know who the real freak was if you revealed yourself. But you are afraid to have done to yourself what you did to me. Pathetic.
"InterestedObserver":
"If it is arrogance that bothers you, then I respectfully suggest that this is not the place for you. Many commenters are guilty and Joseph is hardly the worst offender in that area. In the end this is just a comment section. Credibility is not a prerequisite to posting."
JJ:
You are right Sir! Obviously a lot of incredible people post here. (Play on words deliberate.)
"Xanax":
"If you mean you think you identified 'GrayMatter,' you're wrong. Other than that, I don't know what you think you accomplished...."
JJ:
Another person he could be is a guy who called himself "Joe Smith" of all names. He was banned for his attack on me a while back, but who knows? He could be "GrayMatter" as well.
"Xanax":
"Remember you said that... Because when it comes to posters YOU don't agree with, you complain with the loudest.
"And by the way, I'll be banned by this time tomorrow, so no worries. I accomplished what I set out to do."
JJ:
So you signed up under the name of "Xanax" (a name only someone in the medical field would use, or possible a druggie) for the specific hypocritical purpose of revealing personal information about me while keeping your ID secret? Sweet. And how much false info did you give the Statesman?
"Xanax":
"Joseph writes ENDLESSLY in support of failed policies, supports 'Conservative Causes' from an 'educated' perspective, and anything that has to do with Religion is blindly supported by he and those like him.
"His credibility is at question once you understand WHO's writing it."
JJ:
Your credibility is in question after you type about three words. You don't need to know anything else.
"Xanax":
"What does that tell you? When one person calls you out, it could be just them. But when person after person does it, maybe you should take a closer look...?"
JJ:
90 percent of the Left and Right can't stand each other but doing what you did takes bad manners to a new dimension and speaks volumes about the type of character you are. It says nothing negative about me except that I have opinions that are different from your own.
If a difference of opinion causes you to come out from under a rock and attack negatively enough to know you will be expelled -- what does that say about you? It says nothing about my character, but yours is revealed.
Note: The Statesman banned Xanax but I anticipate that he rejoined under a new name.
JJ:
Those who are called progressive are not very progressive at all. Regressive is a more accurate word.
They don't want to go back to the moon or Mars. They want to cut the space program which is the most progressive thing accomplished in the history of the planet.
Most of them are against nuclear energy even though it has done many times more to reduce CO2 than any other energy source.
They were against the war in Iraq which is creating a progressive government by Middle East standards.
They have fought missile defense. Without successfully perfecting this we may be blasted back to the regressive stone age.
They are really ultra conservative to a religious degree as far as nature is concerned and fight those who are progressive and liberal in making use of natural resources.
Oh, wait -- they are for a progressive income tax in ever increasing amounts to the point of slavery, but when you think of it, that is regressive.
What would be the word to use on this bunch?
You decide.
"TimT":
"Ms Wendt writes: 'Charles Krauthammer, surely one of the great intellects of our time...' OMG! You CANT be serious! And I thought only Joseph732 could torture reality and logic to this extent."
JJ:
And where is there anyone from the Left that is even close to Krauthammer? Ann Coulter is the best political writer of them all. I know this statement makes Lefties gasp, but most of these have never read her columns and get sound bytes from hate sites.
"Proletariat":
"As usual, up is down in your world."
JJ:
You are one of the few who doesn't realize that up is down in the present political world. You have to think outside the box to see the world as it is.
"CalvinJones":
"So basically the Marxist thing to do was to let the financial system collapse the way the Tea Party folks prescribed."
JJ:
The main thrust of the Tea Party (and the cause of its appearance) was the Stimulus which had nothing to do with the banks and placed us in much greater danger of eventual collapse through excessive borrowing. The banks paid back most of their bailout money.
"Badnana":
"Your credibility is completely gone. (as if that was a commodity to lose) Ann Coulter is a shrill, venomous wasp. Eugene Robinson, a thoughtful, intelligent writer makes Krauthammer look like an intern for Fox news...."
JJ:
How many of Coulter's columns have you read? Are you even familiar with her writing style?
"TWall":
"Completely familiar. I find it amazing that she complains of the political discourse in this country yet does little to make it better."
JJ:
I just read a column from Robinson attacking Palin and he's just as much of an attack dog as Coulter, but you can't see it because attacks by the Left are seen as thoughtful to you. Coulter's pointed arguments are rarely even attempted to be refuted, but are merely mindlessly attacked.
"TWall":
"I was only arguing with what you said, not with what you did not say. If you want my overall opinion then I agree with you on the fact that both sides have 'pit bulls' and they need to be removed from their positions of influence on BOTH sides."
JJ:
Sorry for the confusion. I got you confused with Badnana who was talking about what a thoughtful writer Robinson was.
"Badnana":
"Oh say anything about Sarah, and it's an attack? Robinson is pointing out how unqualified she is, that isn't an attack -- like it or not, that is fact. She is unqualified by her absolute lack of knowledge. And that isn't an attack, it's an observation."
JJ:
He said Sarah would destroy the constitution and then provided no evidence to back that up except his divine authority. She respects the Constitution about a 1000 times as much as the guy in office. She's more qualified for the office of President than Obama and has much more common sense.
"Badnana":
"Qualifications for a job sometimes are subjective, but there is a base skill required that doesn't fall into the opinion category. If you can't drive a car, you are unqualified for a taxi driver job. If you don't know about world affairs and geography, you are not qualified to be the president...."
JJ:
If America is the car and Obama the driver then a DUI is in order.
JJ:
Here's Robinson's actual words:
"A lot of Democrats -- and quite a few Republicans, too -- seem worried that she intends to stomp the capital to smithereens, perhaps along with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."
He uses a nebulous "other people think" to sell his own opinion. I don't think he can find "quite a few Republicans" that agree with him as he says. I've never heard one Republican say this, even those few that do not like her.
And the title "The Tea Party queen" with queen not capitalized is a put down similar to something Ann Coulter would do to someone she didn't like.
And then, "Godzilla were rising from the icy depths of the Potomac: 'Sarah Palin: Threat or Menace?'" That may be even more attack mode than Coulter would do.
Coulter has a lot of counterparts on the Left, except she's a lot smarter than they are and backs up her statements more assiduously.
"Webfoot":
"Alter, Robinson and Fineman jump to mind, but what are you talking about? Seymour Hirsch for breaking stories? Malcolm Gladwell for amazing observation? Doris Kearns-Goodwin for insight?"
JJ:
I've read several of Doris Kearns-Goodwin's books. You can tell she supports the Left somewhat but she is not a political hack and is a reasonable researcher and writer. She is comparable to Amity Shlaes on the Right.
"Boohoo":
"Or documented as plagiarist copies of previously published material. LMAO."
JJ:
After 4,578,642 hours of research critics found a couple lines in Coulter's works that were similar to someone else's statement of facts. This could happen to any author and was no proven legal violation. Even the Daily Kos said it wasn't a big deal.
"GrayMatter":
"The fact is, you have no idea what some 'libs' read or don't read. Much like Palin doesn't know what she does or doesn't read."
JJ:
I'm very liberal and I know what I read. Libertarians are the most liberal of all.
"GrayMatter":
"The question is, as you self proclaim being a devotee, do you know what she writes?
"Or is it that you share her views on the 19th amendment?
Discrimination is not harmonious."Perhaps you also share her views on racism?
Racism is aggression.
JJ:
What has she written that is racist? You need to read Coulter's works rather than the hate sites.
Copyright © 2010 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved