Yeah, he probably shouldn't have said it,

Lets apply the reverse golden rule.

If someone had said that about Bush (insert your preferred poltician here) would you have found it funny?

You know I watched the end of a Bill Maher show the other day and they had Barney Frank on, talking about the middle east and thought wow, for the first time I understand why he gets voted in. If I only went by the Barny Frank of the bad jokes, I'd have trouble understanding how he gets elected. But here was a guy who was knowledgable, reasoned and articulate on the issues in the middle east.

I'm all for going after politicians when they say something stupid, or worse support bad legislation. But if we tell jokes about killing politicians, don't be suprised if no one ends up supporting any politicians ever. And then fewer people involve themselves in the political process and the system devolves from there.

For the record, I don't find AIDS jokes or Columbine jokes or 9/11 jokes funny either.

James

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/336173.html

.... a very accurate point could have been made. Instead of offering a blanket apology, he could have said something like this.

[i]You know, political passions oftentimes run high, and people say things that are probably, in hindsight, ill advisable. But I won't apologize until Wanda Sykes apologizes to Rush Limbaugh.....[/i]

[i]...... as well as an apology from President Obama, who seemed to approve of the death-wish, and every person who flung insults and death-wishes at President Bush apologizes to him. I'm tired of the double-standard where insults and similar ill-advised comments generated from the left are deemed more appropriate, and seldom result in similar outrage.

It does seem odd to reasonable, intellectually honest people, how one is acceptable while the other is just fine and dandy.

I laughed everytime I see some retard with a sign saying "Will someone please give Bush a blowjob so we can get him out of office?". They are to stupid to realize that yes, Clinton was first of all, impeached for perjury (not because he got a blowjob) and second he was never removed from office.

All you hear from the left is hate, all the while talking about how hateful the right is....... Interesting.....

I would have had him say;

"Im sorry for crossing the line into an area that should not have been crossed. I realize that this type of humour has become popular on both sides of the aisle and I fell into that trap. But upon reflection, I've come to realize that one example does not justify another, and that I hope to do better."

James

I think it does bring out that the people really over in IRAQ see her for who and what she is.

They also see and realize that she and her being more interested in things failing for Bush than succeeding for our country have put them at more risk.

Would it be wrong now to make comments about bayonets?

Everybody doesn't like the same thing.

I find incongruity and irony to be humorous, especially when it's not "politically correct", or when it demonstrates Karma in action. I know It's not real. And yes, I laughed at the Bush jokes too.

Having Wanda Sykes (haven't read it yet) say something stupid doesn't justify someone else say something stupid. An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.

And for the record, I'm not "outraged" I just don't find it funny. I don't really care about Pelosi or Reid. But I do care about more people getting involved in democracy, and this kind of thing doesn't build the environment that gets people off their but and into the political process.

James

but three lefts do.

..... said that saying something stupid can be justified by another person saying something equally stupid.

I said that people on the left get away with it, while people on the right are called to task. I said there's a double-standard. And anyone who doesn't see it isn't looking.

See my reply to Oz's message. People are too sensitive, and CHOOSE to be offended.

I don't give a rat's ass what Wanda Sykes says, and I'm damn sure not offended by it - and neither is Limbaugh, I would bet. It's the double-standard that should be the REAL news.

by cupcake May 11, 2009

And I find it interesting that all I read from the right is hate, all the while talking about how hateful the left is.

And there you go again with the generalization of "they" (democrats) being too stupid... and anyone who opposed Bush being a "retard", but heaven forbid if its the other way around.

Yeah, very interesting...

Give us some examples - some direct quotes, if you would?

but only expect to hear the crickets chirp....

Seriously. if you don't find it to be rib tickling humour, that's fine but its hardly offensive or shocking. So he poked at a politician, so what? Are they now devoid of such commentary, to be protected and handled with Kitt gloves?

Late night hosts hammer on them far worse than that and JUST because it was a gun un an elevator that doesn't change anything.

I think Americans need to lighten up and take a chll-pill or something, these are f'in politicians, who cares what people say about them, even if it was directly at ANY of the presidents, it just doesn't matter, it's a verbal bashing, nobody actually gets hurt.

If it was Canada, it would probably make the news, but not in a way that shows a shocked public. People would continue to play on it and make it even more cutting but not to anyone's surprise, offense or shock, its politics, free for the bashing.

I think the major difference with us is that it would probably be our own PM who made such a comment though.

In this case it is a GOLF REPORTER! How important is HIS political opinion to anyone? It was just a joking comment. Don't find it funny? Don't laugh, but its hardly reason for concern, repercussions or even to warrant his apology. Why would he have to apologize for 'offending' some people?

Don't be so uptight and ready for defense, people get bitch slapped sometimes but rarely do they actually get hurt.

People are too damned sensitive. Being offended is a matter of choice.

But I don't find it funny, the same way you didn't find the Rush joke funny.

And I think jokes like this help lower the tone of political discourse. Why talk ideas, lets trade barbs.

James

but he never could get it down Pat. :)

by nicknielsen May 11, 2009

...until now! :D

The a**hole rejected him.

OOOOOOOOld Monty Pythons there.

point is, politicians of all persuasions are fair game for all kinds of humor, because... well, because they're politicians!

by notsochiguy May 11, 2009

Reid, Pelosi, Jesse Jackson (sr or jr, take your pick)....

Ain't nothing right about those three lefts!!!

;)

Even if you chopped off the left arms of all of them, the right ones would be left.

because the hypocrites would have to admit there was one.

.... for the most part, people on the right DO want to talk ideas, but it's the people on the left who primarily fling barbs - and they do it because they CAN'T discuss ideas, lest they reveal their true agenda. It's so obvious to me that the majority of the hate-talk, insults, barbs, etc. all come from the left, and they do it to AVOID discussing ideas.

President Obama hasn't overturned even one policy that Bush was soundly criticized for - nor will he - and for which Bush was a constant target of such barbs. Wire tapping, Guantanamo, Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc.

Max, your personal political agenda is simply too obvious for you to offer an unbiased comment. Though I understand what you are TRYING to say, you can't say it without sounding like the right bashing the left and that's a problem for both sides. Unable to accredit yourself without discrediting the other side.

Here's what I mean:

"and they do it because they CAN'T discuss ideas, lest they reveal their true agenda. It's so obvious to me that the majority of the hate-talk, insults, barbs, etc. all come from the left, and they do it to AVOID
discussing ideas."

In an effort to illustrate how the left doesn't listen to the right, the only way to do that is to accuse them of not being able to, being inept, "they CAN'T". Everyone knows they CAN but many choose not to, its not a matter of inability its a matter of how the right sees it. If they are not adhering, cooperating with and listening to the right, they are incapable of doing so, but why SHOULD they? and hwo many times did Bush actually heed what the right or ANY opposing view had to say? "You are either with us or against us?" Nice mantra for the people of a supposedly united country.

'President Obama hasn't overturned even one policy that Bush was soundly criticized for - nor will he - and for which Bush was a constant target of such barbs. Wire tapping, Guantanamo, Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc.'

Actually the Guantanamo promises are moving forward faster than originally planned. They need to first decide how, who, and where to move people. Who is let free and who is not, how they will be incarcerated, where etc. This was stated to be finalized by January of 2010. Currently they are SAID to be farther along in the most daunting part of tha task, 'how, who and where', than they had originally thought they'd be by now. The rest should happen quickly once this 'redistribution of prisoners' is sorted out.

But on another perspective, because Obama is a democrat and Bush was bashed for initializing many issues in his term, does that mean tha Obama is expected to simply overturn all thw Republican administration's actions right away? Is he even expected to just because some left wing voters disagreed with Bush's actions?

I dunno, but if 43 presidents constantly overturned each others every disagreeable move from the previous term, would there actually be ANY progress or hope for such an electoral system? I don't think its a realistic expectation at all.

First order of business, revert all actions of the previous president and start doing things my way, the opposite way?

Could that really be expected or effective?

NOTE: Hopefully you'll see I'm trying to play fair here and not take sides, but just see reality and middle ground that simply doesn't seem to exist there.

The only thing that will change is the piece of real estate it's sitting on and the name. There will always be a [i]Guantanamo[/i] somewhere called something.

....is obvious. I admit it. I make it known. I don't hide it. I don't mince words. I articulate (or try to) exactly what it is.

Unfortunately, all too many people don't admit their agenda or bias. And I don't buy into the notion when someone (even you) tries to convince people they don't have one. Everyone has a bias, and everyone has an agenda.

President Bush was trashed for his [i]illegal wire tapping[/i]. Where are these people today? Why aren't they trashing President Obama for HIS [i]illegal wire tapping[/i]? Nothing's changed.

That's a rhetorical question, of course, because, as you and I both know, that's the way the political game is played. However, you won't see me do it. I criticized President Bush for advancing his Social programs, for increasing spending on social programs, and for creating budget deficits as a result, just like I continue to criticize President Obama for the same thing - except he advocates even MORE of it.

Like James said, we should discuss issues, but the political game doesn't allow it. To prove my point, I challenge ALL TR water cooler folks who trashed Bush for those things I mentioned, to publically criticize Obama for continuing them. (They know who they are, but they'll remain silent.)

I discuss issues, Oz. You might disagree with my positions, but if you don't give me credit for wanting to stick to the issues, you haven't been paying attention.

By the way, I give Obama credit for doing the right thing and reneging on his early campaign promises to immediately withdraw all combat troops from Iraq. I give him credit for acknowledging that a significant number will remain in Iraq for years to come - something I've been saying for a LONG time. And I also predicted that a Democrat winner would renege on such a promise - I said it would be the [i]mother of all flip-flops[/i]. (Look it up; I really did.)

Where are the [i]Obama lied[/i] folks?

Let see if I get this right... the "left" primarily fling barbs but yet in this short post you 'fling' the following:

-it's the people on the left who primarily fling barbs
-they do it to AVOID discussing ideas-they CAN'T discuss ideas
-the majority of the hate-talk, insults, barbs, etc. all come from the left,
-they do it to AVOID discussing ideas

These are all YOUR words. Make of it what you will...

Have a great day, Max.

by maxwell edison May 12, 2009

..... to a debate on the issues. No name-calling, no barbs, no relying on political spin, no stereo-typing, no preconceived notions, no political party references, but ONLY the issues. You pick two issues, and I'll pick two.

I nominate JamesRL to be the moderator, and I will ask him to start the discussion with a list of rules he deems appropriate. If he's not acceptable to you, suggest another, and I may or may not agree.

If you want to stick to [i]the issues[/i], I accept that, as do I.

Do you accept my challenge?

Their nonsense always makes the news, doesn't it? And they're always spewing it on the talk-shows. The hate-talk coming from those people is painfully obvious, but it's ONLY the left-leaning Hollywood types.

I challenge anyone to find any similar comments from the right-leaning Hollywood-types: Kelsey Grammar, Tom Selleck, Bruce Willis, Adam Sandler, Chuck Norris, Bo Derrick, Drew Carey, Pat Sajak, James Woods, Clint Eastwood, et al.

Look at the hate-speech directed AT the late Charlton Hesston, yet not a single personal attack came from him - he discussed IDEAS. They ALL (right-leaning) talk ideas, while it's their leftist counterparts who make the outrageous and hateful personal attacks and comments. The right-leaning Hollywood types are obviously more dignified.

The closest they might be able to cite is Dennis Miller, but even his is not hate, per se, but rather more pointed.

Gary Sinese. He seems to have a decent head on his shoulders.

James

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2002&month=07

Pat Sajak:

Wanda Sykes:

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/336173.html

Who's dignified, and who's [i]hateful[/i]?

This is just some golf reporter telling what he feels is political humour.

Shall we nwo push for greater censorship with regards to political speech? Why not just do away with free speech altogether, that's pretty much all it protects us from, being chastized and punished for speaking our mind about our politicians'.

Show me where I have advocated against free speech in any way shape or form.

Its his free speech rights to make a bad joke, its my free speech right to say I didn't find it funny. And I would have said the same thing if he had said it about any public figure, politician, actor, journalist.

James

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/10/golf-analyst-feherty-sorry-pelosi-joke-dallas-magazine/

It was an example based on your viewpoint.

If you are going to say that, then why not.....?

how you truly feel is irrelevant, it is one person's comments. I am sure much of what yuo say would be seen as tight arsed and completely devoid of any humour at all, even if you are joking around.

So YOUR opinion of what HE said is irrelevant, don't like it? Don't laugh.

You can't chastize someone for speaking their mind though. Whehter I agree or disagree with what was said, I understand it was humour, whether I laugh or not. I don't even care who it is aimed at, my personal friend or distant enemy, a joke is a joke.

If you don't find it funny, turn the page, but it doesn't make HIM wrong or politically incorrect in any way, until you feel your own ideals and standards are superior to his of course. However that is something we usually hear from a right winger with an overly defensive superiority complex.

by cupcake May 11, 2009

Back to the old habit of making generalized statements but when they're made right back to you, you demand examples?

I took JD's statement word for word, only switching the location of the words "right" and "left"...

Guess I will go listen to the crickets chirping for a while...

by cupcake May 11, 2009

David Feherty:

and Wanda Sykes:

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/336173.html

One is about killing three people by gunshot and strangling and the other one is about wishing about kidney failure.

Now, who would you deem truly hateful?

"taking offense".

The first one stated that something would happen. The second one was a wish for something to happen... a subtle difference to some, perhaps, but not to me.

don't much like them.

"Last weekend, just for fun, we kidnapped Michael Moore and gave him a decent haircut and some clothing." K. Grammar

On left wing doubts of not finding WMD in a country the size of California:
"John Kerry's been leveling some real shots at President Bush lately," he said. "I want you to give them some time, don't forget they're still looking for O.J.'s weapons."

Rush Limbaugh:
"This is an Obama recession, might turn into a depression. He hasn't done anything yet, but his ideas are killing the economy."

Anne Coultier recently suggested that Obama's government will bring back Janet Reno.

"Sounds like there's going to be a lot more Waco raids, Elian Gonzalez snatchings."

Sean Hannity predicts that Obama will be making mistakes in his term, and wondered why they should wait until the mistakes are made before everyone should start criticizing him.
"Do we wait until he makes a mistake?"

Arlington, Texas high school history teacher, Patrick O'Toole - Here is a public servant who flies an American flag outside of his house every day, upside down beneath a solid black flag.

"It is not about race and don't ever throw the race card at me," he said. "It's about values. It's about people that work hard and want to keep what they own."
Of course the disclaimer "it's not about race" always indicates it is explicitly about race.

American flag upside down? under a solid black flag? How partiotic, what an upstanding and fair minded Republican!

"Barack Obama will be the next Adolf Hitler. Georgia congressman Paul Broun accused Obama of planning to build a well-funded civilian military organization"

WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions of Dallas, a member of the House Republican leadership, is accusing President Barack Obama of intentionally driving up unemployment and dampening stock prices in a bid to consolidate
power.
(yet another level headed and understanding Republican addressing the overly aggressive left.)

Too true, the right never bashes the left, they are far too mature for that. I mean the first indication of that is how understanding and accepting the right wing TR peers are of the left wing.

We NEVER hear about Liberal weenies or how Obama is turning America into a socialist state or how he is stripping you of your assumed Constitutional freedoms. There's no way a right wong supporter would lowr himself to rhetorical lies about Obama, it is simply unheard of from such a level minded and equally accepting political viewpoint.

Thee right accepts the left in all they do, especially when compared to the left that just hammer on the right incessantly as if they have nothing creative to do.

It's a wonder how such a passive and unaccusing political think tank could possibly wind up starting a war?

How can you compare the two?

Pat Sajack is a host of a family oriented game show, his livelihood resides in being overly sickly sweet and generally being a nice guy.

A stand up comedienne is someone expected to hold no punches, to let rip and tear you a new one.

It's like comparing Alex trebec to Howard Stern.

"I think Alex is far more professional, reserved and polite than Howard"
No kidding?

Here's a view on why Right Wing comedians always fail:

"Question: Don't right-wingers have a sense of humor? Don't they laugh, too?

Answer: Of course, they do...they can laugh their asses off with the greatest of ease.

But the type of humor that right-wing neanderthals, mostly middle aged white christian males, enjoy can not be broadcast on the radio or television because their favored play-list is always filled with the crudest of racist jokes, misogynistic vulgarities, homophobic put-downs and xenophobic cracks. Naturally, it all reveals how socially insecure they are and how developmentally challenged they are as grown-ups, but that's the foundation for their preferred humor.

How can a conservative comedian or comedy format score with its bigoted audience without using the "n" word whenever they talk about African-Americans, the "q" and "f" words when referencing homosexuals, the "b" and "c" words when putting down women? They can't. Of course, if they could use those words on television, then Fox's "comedy" show would be a smash hit and Dennis Miller's show would still be on once the monkey of restraint was removed from his back. The ugly slur is the comedic trigger that their pent-up audience requires for comedic nervous release."

Sorry, copied it and moved on before grabbing the link.

One is a stand up comedienne, that's what she does, roast people for a living.

The other is a golf reporter trying to be funny.

Answer, neither is that bad, they were both comments said in jest, however it seems that many Americans don't quite understand the difference between jest and hate speech.

If people don' tget the joke, that's one thing, if people are so stuck up they can't laugh that' sanother thing, but either way, they are both people offering their own personal comments for amusement's sake. As far as I remember that's what free speech is all about, in fact this is one of the FEW times that someone can claim to be excercising free speech and it actually applies. (compared to the nutters who think it means they can say what they want, where they want, about anything they want).

saying stupid things can kill a business or ruin a career.

People have the right to say stupid things, but they in turn have to live with the consequences when others vote with their dollars or support.

Something simple that I am sure you can understand if you think about it real hard.

by ksoniat May 11, 2009

. . .The Dixie Chicks.

And their supposed come back with with "Not Gonna Back Down " Song. Haven't heard from them since.

by dwdino May 11, 2009

... I resign.

At least it would save us trillions.

by jackofalltech May 11, 2009

Generally, whenever I have a disagreement with a conservative we have an open debate with each side making points and stating facts.

Generally, when I try to have a discussion with a liberal, though I stick to the facts or state my opinion, the only response I get is personal attacks, vulgarity and condescension. It's nearly impossible to have a civil argument.

You know, I could make the exact generalization, only switch the locations of "conservative" and "liberal"...

I, myself, have never been able to have a civil discussion with a conservative without him/her losing control and attacking me.

Generally.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/126/begin-removing-combat-brigades-from-iraq/

Okay, hopefully you can admit your mistake here.

First, here is the campaign promise: "Barack Obama will work with military commanders on the ground in Iraq and in consultation with the Iraqi government to end the war safely and responsibly within 16 months."

Which he has begun working on. I don't think anyone would argue that you simply cannot withdraw ALL troops on a single day, even the logistics would be impossible.

And he has kept his promise (the same page has supporting facts).

I'd like to see your supporting information.

Sure of course it does and it's exactly that speech that fans of an outspoken comediene tune on for.

As for a golf reporter, well that's a different story but I am sure he has enough fans/viewers that tune in to hear his cutting style (he does have a cynical style anyway, that people seems to like).

It's no different than Don Cherry, most people can't stand the guy but those who like his edge have made him famous.

To someonne who builds success based on cutting edge comments, the LAST thing they worry about is people NOT liking them (that's good press if anything), it is the ones that like them that they cater to, not the mainstream public, that's exactly what spearates them form the mainstream.

Do you think George Carlin would have been so successful if he went out of his way to NOT offend people? His whole basis for comedy was to blatantly offend the right wing, the easily offended targets. He held no punches, offered no apologies and that's what made him so popular with mroe liberal minded folks. Conservatives ran screaming from him and thought he was offensive, making it even funnier.

To offend a right winger is so easy it's just plain funny, however many right wingers are the ones who are truly the most offensive an dpolitically incorrect, with racial bigotry.

Or is it chicks with dicks?

They are not out for right wing appeal, not too many open minded people are.

I agree, it is always teh left I have issues with, callign me just about every name one can dream up.

They find the left offensive because the left usually has a more accepting and patient view of people and the world, tolerance.

The right only agrees if you are a bigot who wants to play superiority games, a devout Christian who thinks all actions are a reults of God's desires, that white people rule the world and all others are inferior, that we have a right to make demands of others and eliminate those who don't play fair. They also seem to be the more politically incorrect and biased people, however they actually TRULY believe it's the other way around.

I admit I have bias against Conservative Americans who feel they can teach the world the right way to be.

I prefer to let others do as they choose, let them live where they want, speak the language they choose and have faith in whatever religion they want. If it comes ot teh point that someone wants to harm me, I will get involved with them, other than that, live and let live. This is definitely NOT teh rpublican face, no matter how hard they try to impress that it is.
It's always the same old pitch about how they feel about individual liberty, but that is achieved only by them being allowed to control or deny others.

In that same sense, Conservative Americans feel they are being politically correct by takign offense to off colour jokes etc. But it's a vein to cover their inherent bigotry and racism, which they profess doesn't exist, sure.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/09/12/Obama-Withdraw-from-Iraq-immediately/UPI-50171189629808/

Teh right wing is always hell bent on making their OWN comments out of what was really said. Sorry to do it again but as an example I will revert to Kerry's Flip-Flop accusations that were repeated so many times the truth was eventually buried and even left wing supporters saw him as flip flopping.

John Kerry supported using force tin complete inspections if inspectors were dismissed again by Saddam.

Bush removed weapons inspectors, even though they were nearing completion without further issues with Saddam, and invaded the country. When they said they had found no reason to justify attack, BUSH justified it himself and BS'd Americans about the existence of stockpiles of WMD in order to justify his own actions.
When Kerry then said he didn't support the war, he was said to be flip-flopping. Of course the right wing was not recognizing that what he had formerly supported and more recently had not supported were two completely different scenarios, just bend teh words a bit until they fit your own agenda.

Now we see the same thing, Obama said he'd remove troops imeediately, not what I jheard at all, immediate action to begin withdrawing support in Iraq and sending them to Afghanistan was what I had heard and exactly what has been done.

Obama is also chastized for not closing Guantanamoe Bay, whereas his original promise was that it would be closed in 2010, after a lot of logistical hurdles were overcome, however now teh right wing is callign him a liar for not closing Guantanamo Bay already.

The right is always right, in their own minds. They BS so much that they even begin to believe their own BS, of course not recognizing that they are so blatantly obvious about it and everyone can see straight through them.

by maxwell edison May 12, 2009

[i]Under the Illinois senator's plan, combat brigades would immediately begin withdrawing one or two brigades at a time, with a complete withdrawal by the end of 2008, CNN reported.

"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops," Obama said in his speech. "Not in six months or one year -- now."[/i]

- Candidate Barack Obama, September 2007

Okay, cupcake, hopefully you can admit your mistake here.

Edit:

Moreover, his revised 16 month timeline for withdraw is just a continuation of the Bush policy already in place when he took office, and it will still leave tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq for years, just like President Bush planned, and just like I have suggested all along.

by jamesrl May 12, 2009

My opinion of what he said is every bit as valid as yours. I don't think I'm superior or inferior to others.

Why do I not have the rights to say what I want to say? You don't have the power or influence to tell me what I can and cannot say.

Nor do I care if you think I'm tight assed. You clearly think I have no sense of humour. I clearly think that humour has a bigger impact than you realize, and it can and does influence people's opinions. I do have a sense of humour. But when its a potentially veiled threat in the guise of a joke, its not funny to me. Even if he meant it purely as humour, with no intent, he should realize, as a person with a wide audience, how many people could take it.

People have a right to free speech, even to say stupid thinks if they want, but there is no absolution from the impact of their speech.

Like the Dixie Chicks - they had the right to say what they said, the US public had the right to buy their albums or not. Personally what Natalie said (We're ashamed Bush is from our home state, or something like that) was far milder than someone joking about a bullet for a politician.

James

I see that you had to go back to Sept. 12, 2007 to get your data, but apparently he did say it.

Now, since then and during the actual electoral process, he revised that... will you now admit your error as well?

Or will you argue that you were right?

by boxfiddler Hot topic May 12, 2009

I've often wondered what the impact of making violence and deceit 'humorous' has been since the advent of TV.
ala 'The Honeymooners', 'The Three Stooges', 'I Love Lucy'. Each of the three horrifies me in its own fashion.

BUT... the minute you start throwing out any well rehearsed insinuation as to my beliefs or that I don't know who James Madison is, that's the end.

You know, I didn't even reply to you initially in this thread. Somehow, though, my OPINION was wrong in something I said to JD and you had to involve yourself.

Not sure what you want to achieve through such an exchange and maybe that should be defined before going in. You won't change my political views, nor do I expect that I will change yours, so... what is the point of this exercise?

Also, I do have to warn you, that I am in a bit of a lull right now at work that has allowed me some flexibility in being on TR... and that might soon change, possibly very soon. Its not an excuse, its real life.

If that is unacceptable, then state it now before we start this.

[Edited for spelling]

by tonythetiger May 12, 2009

[i]Teh right wing is always hell bent on making their OWN comments out of what was really said.[/i]

Then why was it reported that:

[u]"David Feherty wrote that U.S. soldiers would like to kill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid."[/u],

when that's not what he wrote?

The right has its problems, no doubt, but in my experience the left is far more likely to misinterpret or misread (intentionally or not). Many are on near constant lookout for any opportunity to become or create a victim of something or other. One damn near got me arrested... when I mentioned to a colleague that if the server filled up, the whole building would come down, a lefty in another room called the police and told them I had threatened to blow up the building. This same lefty had gotten another employee nearly fired because she mis-heard "...take it out of the front office" as "Take out the front office." (If you're going to dip in other people's conversations, get a Beltone for crying out loud!)

"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately [b]begin to remove[/b] our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now. [i](that means, [b]BEGIN[/b] to remove now, not to pull out altogether as he later states quite clearly).

[b]We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later.[/b] But our drawdown should [b]proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month.[/b] If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.

[i](this comment was made in September of 2007, a year before he took office, but obviously they DIDN'T/COULDN'T START NOW, but waited until he was in office a year later to begin)[/i].

[b]We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region. We'll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq.[/b] We'll protect our forces as they leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities. If - but only if - Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces. [b]But we will set our own direction and our own pace, and our direction must be out of Iraq.[/b] The future of our military, our foreign policy, and our national purpose cannot be hostage to the inaction of the Iraqi government. "[/i]

Quite different than the light you've TRIED to shed on what he said by taking specific sentences out of their original, explanatory context as usual.

Why didn't you include the full context instead of simply leaving out his comments detailing what he meant by [i]starting now and taking time[/i] and continuing to fight AlQaeda in Iraq? Didn't support your cause strong enough?

He never said he'd remove all troops now, he never said it would b a quick withdrawl. Why did yuo imply that he did by quotign him out of context?

The comments leading up to this part in his speech actually explain his views that you shouldn't continue fighting a sectarian war in Iraq and allowing their troops to continue as always without seeking resolve.

Why did you exclude that?

You also excluded the comments regarding his timeline and desire to keep troop in Iraq while slowly withdrawing others to remove the burden on the resources at home which are inadequate to support a catastrophe with so many trops comitted in Iraq.

Why is it that you choose to not mention that he agrees that they must continue to fight AlQaeda in Iraq?

You just mentioned and criticized a couple of sentences without the more descriptive explanation for his comments. It was all the same speech, not exactly a stretch to offer the full truth of what was said.

But didn't you just finish arguing how the right wing doesn't simply discount the left based on falsehoods? That only the left wing resorts to such underhanded techniques?

I guess you can say what you want, as can I, it's all in B&W here though for others to discover themselves.

Max went back a year before Obama was elected and quoted a comment he made about starting THEN. Obviously Obama was unable to start then and was merely stating that's what SHOULD happen.

MAx also left out all of the follow up descriptions that Obama added AFTER those sentences that Max took out of context and focused on as single, assertions.

It's an old game, he's been at it for years, and it just gets easier to see around as it becomes more and more predictable,especially when he provides links himself that show a different viewpoint altogether.

I think Max feels nobody will check his links, or else he doesn't read them himself or simply doesn't see anything but what he wants to. I dunno, I'm not really attacking Max here, I'm attacking his style of selective quoting to favour his views.

You point to a single headline, completely missing the point of my comments. I was describing exactly what I have proven Max doing in the next post after yours.

He tried ot paint a picture of Obama making specific comments, yet he excluded all of teh leading comments that detailed what was meant. He completely ignored, miread, oversaw, that his ORIGINAL plan was to START removign troops but with the intention of still staying there in part. He also conveniently failed to understand that Obama had made a comment abotu BEGINNIG to move out in one year, a full YEAR before he was elected. What he said you SHOULD be doing, not that he intended to remove all troops in one year.

Then again, while most of us can read, it appears only some of us comprehend what we read. I don' tthink Max has a comprehension problem though, he clearly understood what not to quote as it didn't support his argument.

I HAVE no opinion on what he said, that's the whole point. My view is that he can say what he wants to say, especially in a political context as that is what the Constitution specifically details with respect to free speech. Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant.

However, you feel he was out of line, you feel it wasn't funny, you feel...... Get it?

You are judging him based on his comments, or you are at kleast judging his comments, I am not. Again, what I think is irrelevant, he is not wrong offering his comments.

You, on the other hand, feel your judgement is relevant, which it is not. Just as mine isn't and exactly why I haven't judged him or his comments.

You are commenting on shows shown when women WERE repressed and were supposed to be at home, loyal to husband etc. The 'HUMOUR' is that the guys are sayign what they would really want to say, as are the women, but not what they actually WOULD say or get away with anyway.

Like Tom and Jerry, great cartoon suddenly deemed too violent for today's Violent video gamers. Popeye being too violent for the Grand Theft Auto crowd.

It's stupid conservative American posturing, trying to look politically correct to make it seem like their actual bigotry and racism doesn't exist.

Notice that many left wingers don't mind describing Obama as a black president, wheras many right wingers are saying it is wrong and he should be referred to as African American, ignoring the fact that he is actually American. It also illustartes Liberals segregating him by a visual reference that describes his skin tone, and veils over their replacing it by segregating him as not truly American but a sort-of-American, a second rate American. How is that any better?

Just age old bible thumping, radcial, white trash comments from poeople that feel they are above the rest but are more accepting by allowing themsleves to mix with others, unChristian, not naturally American born, etc.

The more I see and hear from Right wing America, the more I hate conservatives and see a growing KKK and their likes.
However I see conservative Canadians quite differently, in fact much more in line with America's left wing. In Canada I am quite right wing, in America I am left.

by jamesrl May 12, 2009

Why are you arguing so forcefully?

Come on Oz, you don't have a problem at all with what he said, fess up. And that is an opinion.

Again, I'm not against free speech. He can say what he wants, I can say what I want, you can say what you want.

But all of us have to acknowledge that we can and will be held responsible for what we say. And that means he has to endure some comments from people like me, and I have to endure you.

I'm not suggesting he be made to do anything he doesn't want to do, including apologies etc. I'm just saying, I don't find it funny.

And I do have a sense of humour - George Carlin was very funny, including the words you can't say on television, which may have been shocking for many back then but not for me. I'm not a tight ass or a prude.

James

by boxfiddler Hot topic May 12, 2009

re: I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners, in particular.

Ralph was a verbally abusive pig, but it was 'funny' so that became amusing which led to it becoming 'ok'.

Lucy was a deceitful, scheming b*tch. But it was 'funny' so that became amusing which let to it becoming 'ok'.

The above, and the notion that these particular programs were 'pioneering'. They were, but not in any good sense of the word.

Personally, I'd rather be home in the kitchen or the garden. Can't be that way though. Pisses me off.

etu

No it isn't James. Regardless of what he said, I would have had the same view. He can say what he wants and it is not for me to judge right or wrong.

I didn't find it particularly 'funny' either, I expect more out of comedy than that. However I don't see it right or wrong in any way. I don' tthink it was tasteless, I don't think it was harmful, I don't think it should be a shock to anyone.

Therefore, what HE said was irrelevant. He is just a person, like you or I makign a comment, so what? He has no responsibility to anyone at all, except his network owners, and the sport in which he is affiliated. He made a comment which he knew would be directly linked to who he is and what he does.

If they feel he is out of line and they don't want him to represent them that way, THEY can ask hom for a public apology or fire him.

The way this topic was focused was "OMG look what he said!!" Some liked it, others disliked it. I took you for the latter of course, denying that it was funny. Well perhaps not funny to you or I, but amusing for some I am sure.

Either way, I will nto judge him basedon it, I do nto expect him to refrain from such comments in future, I do not think he was out of line, off base or offensive. I don't think he was great, i don't think he was clever.

I don't CARE what he said, and neither should anyone else. It was intended for his audience, if you are not part of the crowd that appreciates such comments, then it wasn't aimed at you and doesn't warrant further comment.

Therefore what you OR I think is 100% irrelevant.

by jdclyde May 12, 2009

Tell me, in your travels, left vs right on the following.

The assclown that went nuts about your cigar at the race track, most likely left or right?

People on here that talk about their freedom of speech RIGHTS to post anything they want on TR or any other website, right or left?

Who makes it a personal attack instead of discuss the topic? An example, anything that isn't pro-global warming goes against the person or group turning out the report instead of discussing the report.

Perhaps mine wasn't

Neither being deceitful nor a bitch is OKAY by today's standards, both are social traits that are frowned upon, unwelcomed and unwarranted. They were then too, that's why people laughed, as it was outrageous to think of treating each other thay way.

They did not make it okay or acceptable by any means, in fact they focused on how wrong such actions were as they always ended up getting the person in more and more trouble.

Just the fact that you see Lucy as a bitch for the way she acted illustrates how such behaviour is not seen as acceptable.

Today it seems that if we see it we will miimick it. If we hear it we will repeat it.

Thus we our media is now censored to 'protect ourselves', where we were once trusted to create our own personality based on what we see hear and learn from others.

In England society is much more accepting of a bit of boob in the newspaper or on TV, in Canada it won't make the news but TV is fine when it comes to more adult verbal and visual material, in the US it is cause for reprimand, public apology, media coverage of how foul and unacceptable it is etc.
Censorship.

Think Janet Jackson, in the UK it would have been front page but with campy headlines with it, nothing showing disgrace or public shock. In Canada it would have been much the same, as it was. In the US it is caused for public outcry, demands of apology etc.

Do kids really think that women don't have boobs until they get married or something? Is it THAT horrific that a person can see a womans breast (for half a second at great distance)?

You've got a half a country that shrugs such things off with a laugh, sh*t happens afterall. Then you've got another half a nation who takes such ofense and is up in arms over such things as if they should be controlled.

USUALLY, it is the right wing who demands such control and sees such things as too loosely acceptable, "what will happen next if we let this go?"

However they are the same hypocrites that say they don't want to government to control anythying, that each person should have individual liberties and that the left is taking that away from them. LOL :D

Of course these are the same people who "accept" African Americans and complain at them being called black people.

They are the same people who accept war in another country but berate the left for being too militant in their own nation.

The same people that say all are welcome to their country, but expect everyone to speak English or go back home.

The same people who claim individual freedoms and rights, accusing the left of throwing away such rights. But then complain when someone exercising free speech says something they don't agree with.

The same people who claim they have a right to own semi-automatic weapons with fewer restrictions on purchasing them, while accusing a liberal society of making it easy for people to move among them with such weapons.

The same people who feel they are right, everyone else is wrong and that they know better than anyone else. However, everyone should be free to so as they please, as long as it pleases THEM too.

by jdclyde May 12, 2009

when he did his "knappy headed ho" comment?

I seem to recall there were a lot of hypocritical people, Obama included, that thought he should have been removed over it. Of course that was just after he defended his Reverend for being a hateful racist punk. Of course, in that instance we were not suppose to realize you can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep, huh?

"Who makes it a personal attack instead of discuss the topic? " well you just did, seeing as I wasn't speaking to you, yet you are being just a wee dram defensive.

As for the assclown at the track, I would guess right wing. He was in business attire with what looked like a team of coworkers staying in Canada on business. I would GUESS, as that's all you can do, that he would be more right leaning as he appeared to be into the whole rah-rah corporate song type of thing. People in such positions generally are very aware of the advantages to themselves due to capitalism, thus would tend to be mroe right leaning.

In short, I've worked with (make that had to deal with) a thousand of these assclowns from The States and they are mainly just clueless, arrogant, right wing prix who think their business model will be accepted worldwide.

by puppybreath May 13, 2009

You wrote "In Canada I am quite right wing, in America I am left."

What views would a left wing Canadian have that would be different from yours?

by jdclyde May 13, 2009

Your capitalists are not the people trying to tell people in a Bar or at a race track they are not allowed to smoke.

Check voting records and you will see which party it is that is outlawing smoking in public while still keeping it legal to purchase, so they can tax the hell out of it.

So no, I do not believe the guy at the track was a conservative. Just like the people that whine about freedom of speech are typically also your liberals.

Include in not advocating the RESPONSIBILITY that people have that goes alone with rights is definitely a left wing deal.

"it isn't their fault they had to drop out of school and sell drugs on the corner".......

And for the record, asking you a question is not a personal attack, it was asking your views based upon your personal experiences.

Calling you a doodyhead would be a personal attack, doodyhead. :D

by jamesrl May 13, 2009

I am against smoking in public places for a number or reasons, but I take my queue from some very libetarian philosophy. To paraphrase, Your right to smoke extends only as far as my nose. Once your right to smoke interferes with my right not to inhale your smoke, then it ends. If I can get good seating at a racetrack in a non smoking section where no smoke is likely to drift into, I'm fine. If the non smoking section is surrounded by smokers, and second hand is inevitable, I'm not in.

You can always smoke in your own home or car. I don't have a right to intrude there.

Its a question of shared space. If you like burning down a forest, and you can do so without negatively impacting your neighbours, go ahead. But don't go to public space and expect the same rights - if you burn down the forest in a national park, you have deprived me of the use of a nice place.

James

For god's sake, would you settle down?

You are completely missing the focus and the point of my comments.

My point was not that Liberals don't whine about things, however that's how you seem to take it in your typically defensive way.

You guys are trygin to suggest that any whining MUSt be left and that the right does nto bitch and complain like thta, that the right discusses things and doesn't attack such issues. That is of course pure BS, it is PEOPLE who bitch and whine, Liberals and republicans.

However it is usually republicans that suggest only liberals are whiners trying to chhange their world, which is 100% horsesh1t and any sane person would see that, once the political blinders are removed of course.

in Canada it was less of a political issue than it was a public safety outcry.
It encompassed people of all political views, not one side or another as everything seems to require political branding in the USA. It was actually workers compensation board, a board of blue collar, liberals, democrats and conservatives mixed.

Sorry, but your assinine blame game doesn't work in this case.

Most contemporary liberals are control freaks. They can't stand to be told "no" but have no problem ganging up with others of their kind to tell others "no". They are Godless (though some pretend they're not) therefore they think they know better what's good for you than you do. They are hypocrites, standing with the majority to limit the rights of others, EXCEPT when it's their ox that's being gored.

When it comes to smoking, the OWNER of the property should be the decider. But liberals don't see it that way.... If they might want to go somewhere (to a property that THEY DON'T OWN), they think that everybody else must cater to their demands (it doesn't matter that they might NOT ever go to a particular place... it's the CONTROL that nets them their jollies).

If I were to go to a rib joint, and demand that they quit barbecuing ribs because hickory smoke bothers me, I would be told I could leave if I didn't like it, yet they refuse to accept being told that. That's their hypocrisy, and their mental disease. I personally think drastic steps must be taken to prevent the further spread of this disease.

What you see in the US as left wing nutbags are actually very centered in Canada. OUR left wing nutbags are pretty much blind to reality.

They are focused on many decent issues, saving trees, fish, wildlife etc. But they are devoid of any knowledge of our infrastraucture and the way it needs to work in order to sustain our economy. They feel that NOBODY should fish, however fisheries keep BC alive. They think there should be NO lumber cut, yet lumber is our leading industry.

In contrast, a more liberal person would see controlled logging and controlled fishing to be fair solutions, as long as the industry is replenished at a rate that equals or exceeds the the depletion then it is okay. The problem arises when certain countries demand more and more and then demand a right to fish or cut their own product from our country. In an effort to pay lower prices and profit from a cheaper consumer, they fight until they are given the right to move in and take over. They then rape our resources and ignore legislation that is set out to protect them. It has been done time and time again here.

But these more 'centered' Canadians would be seen as left wingers in the US. Our right wing Conservatives are VERY close to center, they share a lot of common ground with Liberals, who share a lot of common ground with democrats. So the difference here, while on some issues one party opposes the other, is actually very close with our parties being closely aligned on many issues and only slightly different in their resolution of others.

In the US the two parties go all out to be extreme opposites and share nothing in common, there is no hope for middle ground, that's a MAJOR problem for the US as it creates segregation of people instead of them seeing middle ground and moving forward with issues taht may have slightly different reoslutions that can be ironed out and resolved together.

That said, I support a lot of liberal actions in Canada, however in doing so, I also support a lot of Conservative actions in Canada but lean more toward the right here. However, in the US my views are seen as extreme left, I've been called a lefty, dem, commie baystard etc. I think only Maxwell has seen me as right leaning in the US, however he is pretty damn astute and understands my views a little better than most, even though he like to play on it a lot.

by jdclyde May 13, 2009

It is my belief that it is the owners RIGHT to be smoking or non-smoking, or any mix he/she chooses.

Your right as a consumer is to decide if you wish to enter what you know to be a smoking establishment. Don't like smoke, then go to an establishment that is non-smoking and vote with your dollars.

Same for the workers. Don't like the smoke, then get a job at a non-smoking place or go into business for yourself.

No one is making you to into a place that has smoking, and you have NO RIGHT to demand they cater to your non-smoking preference.

For the record, I am a non-smoker, not an anti-smoker.

EVERYTIME this issue has come up in the last few years, it was Democrats trying to force this on everyone else, but of course they are willing to exempt race tracks and casino because they only care about SOME of the peoples health, right?

They are trying to turn Michigan into an anti-smoking state, and just barely being defeated.

[i]They are trying to turn Michigan into an anti-smoking state, and just barely being defeated. [/i]

They're not happy with the number of jobs Michigan has already lost???

I agree with yoru sentiment regarding smoking in public places.

A problem here was workers compensation board was pushing that workers were unfairly being subjected to smoke in bars, perticularly strip joints.

Okay, so there's 8 waitresses all have chosen to work ina strip joint for tha last 5 years and NOW it is a health issue they are being 'unfairly' subjected to?

ITS A STRIP JOINT WITH BOOZE! Of course people smoke, they ALL know that when they apply and most of them smoke themselves. They trie dbuilding little smoking rooms, which were okay at first but soon people just smoked outside.

THEN they started the law where you couldn't be within 6 meters (about 18') of a doorway or window, just getting silly now.

But again, its not so much a democratic thing, or a conservative thing or a liberal thing specifically because people from all sides of the argument represent different parties and THAT affiliation is rarely talked about or considered, we don't place people into political boxes the way they do in the USA.

I know that in the US anyone complaining about something must be tagged by political affiliation as to WHY they are complaining.

ie: "Must be a Liberal...."

by jamesrl May 13, 2009

Long way around it, sit back and get ready for the lesson.

We have three main political Parties in Canada(the 4th party is only in Quebec, 5th party is green party and has no seats).

The Conservative Party (used to be Progressive Conservatives) is obviously on the right of the others, but is like the parties in the US, a "big tent" party. In the 80s a group split off to form a more right wing party (Reform) but they remarried when they realized they would never govern alone. There are some in the party who are firmly centrist, others more right wing. There is no big Christian lobby pushing the party. The party is very strong in the west, where there are more small business/entrepreneurs/resource capitalists. The party is for fiscal restraint, but will never kill national healthcare, at least directly. (We've had it for 50 years now).

The Liberals are firmly straddling the centre. They shift depending on the wind, sometime electing a more conservative leader (current one), sometimes a more liberal one (previous). There are members from business community, anti-abortionists, as well as "moderate" lefties. Their strength is in Ontario/Quebec and east.

The New Democratic Party (NDP) and firmly to the left of centre. They are supported by big unions (although one union broke away last election to support the Liberals).

In Quebec and BC, the conservative party's provincial counterpart is weak to non-existent, so the Liberal party is actually the choice of conservatives.

But things are not as simple as they migth appear. After WWII, the Liberals saw how popular the NDP (CCF back then) were becvoming, so they pretty much stole their platform and brought in a wave of national programs. The NDP/CCF have never had the Prime Minister/governing national party, but some Liberal PMs have acted in some ways like a socialist - creation of Air Canada and Petro Canada, for example. Both are now privateized, one by a Conservative government, one by a Liberal.

Even when they gain provincial office our "socialist" NDPers haven't gone crazy. In the last 10 years, NDP provincial governments have done their share of reducing taxes and balancing budgets.

Compared to European socialists, our socialist look moderate. Compared to American conservatives, our conservatives look moderate. We do not have an equivalent of the Christian coalition, our AFL-CIO euquivalent is smaller and more moderate.

The centre is pretty crowded in Canada.

James

They want the government to do what they themselves are too cowardly to try to do.

There's a BIG brouhaha going on locally about a prayer at an upcoming local high-school graduation ceremony (it's not a legal issue since the students, not the school, chose the speakers, and since the ceremony is not required in order to graduate, nobody is forced to attend). As everyone here knows everyone else, it is very easy to make the connections... the same people who believe the government should support them also believe the government should restrict the rights of those who don't agree. These people say out of one side of their mouth that if you believe in God, you should send your kid to another school, but out of the other side, they still demand that you pay for their kids' school.

Double standards and hypocrisy abound, and they're all coming from one group. There's a boil festering on humanity's arse!

You say everyone knows each other, fair enough they do here in many cases too. However, we DON'T generally know nor care about the person's political affiliation. the focus is on what their personal suggestions are. People will vote for any party and still be fighting over issues with very mixed political support from the various participants, it is usually not left vs right. But some right, some middle, some left all on the same side fighting for the same result.

This is most likely because our political parties are closer together than they are in the US. All three parties may agree on a single issue and differ only slightly on another issue but are extreme opposites in very few issues. There is usually common ground to be found, which is why our politics change but usually not a complete 180 when the government changes.

In the US, if a democrat is in office he must appear to be the absolute opposite of the Republicans or else he is viewed as a flip flopper or crossing over and backstabbing people who voted for him.

It happens here too but to a much smaller degree and usually there is a lot of grey area that is found to be middle ground and the two actually don't oppose each other like opposing magnetic poles.

So I hang out with people who vote for the Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives whatever and we very rarely get into political arguments or issues as it is not a topic of debate so much.

I do have a friend who is a VERY passive personality, he and I get along great but while I suggest controlled logging, he thinks of all the dead little woodland creatures and opposes us being anywhere near the forest ot begin with. now if I mention controlled loggin gto an American, the instant defense is that I am a lefty supporting more government control.

There is a difference between regulating and expecting wiser use of natiral resources and expecting the government to carry you womb to tomb. It appears that in the US, there is not, one means all.

That's about as radical as the right and left get here, we just don't get into political discussions. Again, this is but one person I can think of, I don't know nor care how people vote here, and neither do they care what I feel or do.

We all have a common goal, enjoying living and experiencing this most ourstanding province and what it has to offer, that's about it. People just all seem to care about quality of life and living, as opposed to what others are doing, especially what the government is doing.

Politics are not a factor, as they always seem to be the forefront and focus in the US.

One thing that's common among Canadians, most of us see that no matter who you vote for, you always wind up with a politician winning.

I gues sthat's what I've been getting at all along, we see eye to eye more than we feel a need to be extreme opposites.

I think if the same happened in the USA the country would be better off but the people wouldn't know where they stand or how to look at each other or who they are supposed ot hang out with or talk to in church.

I see that you clearly separated church and government, which I see also, no party seems politically motivated to portray themselves as divinely superior to another.
Is that not in part due to our vast multiculturalsim and acceptance of various religions, nationalities and cultures without expecting assimilation?

It just appears that we accept change and difference a lot easier than the right does in America, who seem to feel that any change from the antiquated is a democratic ploy to destroy the nation and place everyone in harm of losing their national pride.

Just look at the fervor over the recent video Dwg posted illustrating how Islam will overrun the world. In Canada would it REALLY matter if the majority of people were Muslims? (I sometimes wonder if it is not that way already, but it hasn't changed my life in any adverse way that I can see)

can be used to make stew for the poor :)

by puppybreath May 13, 2009

Not if one of us bible totin' rednecks gets there first. Dem little animals is GOOD eatin'! Let the poor go find a soup kitchen somewheres. We gots dibs on forest critters.

I fine they make great household tools too!

A purcupine with rigormortis makes a great pencil holder or a boot brush near the door.

A cat with rigor can be used as a hand rake in the flower box, great for digging our the little bugger's turds.

A snake makes a great draft stop under the front door, etc.

All animals should be put to good use and recylced, until they get smelly, you just need to remember to sand and varnish them first.

Wow we did that in less than 560 posts! I think we are onto something here.

that also goes hand in hand with why Canadians don't focus their lives on politics the way Americans do. We don't expect anything from politicians.

As I said elsewhere, we all seem to realize that no matter who you vote for, you'll always wind up with a politician running the nation.

we often get it anyway... usually without foreplay :)