Comments
Comment #135777

Yes, the “Less Opposition to Gay Marriage” is an interesting article. This should be good news for the Gay and Lesbian activist groups out there. This provides evidence that their indoctrination programs are working across the country. And the millions of dollars they spend each year lobbying for rights above and beyond the average citizen are beginning to make a difference in the hearts and minds of the American public.

Great! I look forward to the day when our American soldiers are able to openly express how they feel about members of their fire team or platoon. When fellow soldiers will wash each other off in the field showers as an expression of what they truly are and how they feel.

So what comes next after gay marriages? Do we open the door farther? Marriages between older men and pre-teens? A marriage between a woman and her dog? Where does it end? Sounds unnatural? Yes, it is. A relationship between a man and another man is unnatural. A relationship between two women is unnatural. If you take Biology 101 or Health class in sixth grade, you would see that.

Okay, I will stop ranting. I could just go on and on.

CFT

Posted by: CFT at March 25, 2006 2:08 AM
Comment #135785

Blair is a great orator. But, Blair’s attempts to vindicate his lies and support of the invasion of Iraq belong in the same category as Bush’s speeches to vindicate his failed presidency. Oration is the only difference between Blair and Bush, and Blair puts Bush to shame in that regard.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 25, 2006 4:43 AM
Comment #135786

P.S., the truth lies in geography. Pakistan is a military dictatorship one bullet away from becoming an al-Queda nation with Nuclear Missiles. But, Pakistan does not sit atop oil.

This is not a clash about civilization, for if it were, we would be engaged in clashes with China, and a host of African nations. No, Blair is trying to whitewash the Middle Eastern focus by western nations as something noble. But, the truth is, it is all about black gold. They are desperate to make it appear as something else, but, the poll numbers show, the truth is out and it won’t be put back in the bottle.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 25, 2006 4:48 AM
Comment #135790

>>So what comes next after gay marriages? Do we open the door farther? Marriages between older men and pre-teens? A marriage between a woman and her dog? Where does it end? Sounds unnatural? Yes, it is. A relationship between a man and another man is unnatural. A relationship between two women is unnatural. If you take Biology 101 or Health class in sixth grade, you would see that.

Okay, I will stop ranting. I could just go on and on.

CFT

Posted by: CFT at March 25, 2006 02:08 AM

CFT,

Yeah, and if North Viet Nam takes over the South, it will have a dominoe effect and the entire Southeast Asia community of nations will fall to the Commies. The sky is falling…the sky is falling!!!

Posted by: Marysdude at March 25, 2006 5:32 AM
Comment #135799

I’ve asked it before and I’ll ask it again…why does the word “hysterical” appear so often in Republican postings and blogs????

Posted by: Lynne at March 25, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #135803

Lynne

“Hysterical” in this case is historical. It is an artifact of a post I did about a month ago where I talked about hysterical liberals and how they see nothing but problems with good economic growth and low unemployment. It is a kind of hysteria. It brought so many hysterical responses that I knew I hit a nerve. It was very funny. So when I started doing sources, I put it in as a joke (and to draw more liberal ire). Now it is sort of a tradition. Here it means nothing in particular.


Posted by: Jack at March 25, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #135809

Jack:

don’t flatter yourself…it’s not just your blog that uses that word…”hysterical” is used so often by neocons, RINOs, so-called conservatives…I want to know what’s in their psychological makeup that causes them to use the word “hysterical” when they disagree with someone…

Posted by: Lynne at March 25, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #135814

Lynne

You asked here. I answered for this place.

The reason I used hysterical to describe some liberals is becuase I can’t explain some of their behavior in any other way.

When they look at the state of our economy, our health, our environment and crime rates and still believe they live in a very bad place, there just is no logical explanation. It must be hysteria.

Posted by: Jack at March 25, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #135815

Lynne,

Or it could be that the other side has Cheney/Bush tunnel vision and/or rose colored glasses.

For instance some see one good figure in air quality that shows an improvement over thirty years…attribute the improvement to Cheney/Bush even though those improvements will recede because Cheney/Bush is stripping all those programs that helped the improvement. For seeing that, and for speaking out, we are called hysterical…go figure…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 25, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #135827

CFT, how in the hell can you make the leap that if we allow two human beings who love each other marry, never mind the gender, that soon we’ll have them lining up to marry animals? Truth be told, I’d rather marry my dog than even have a conversation with someone this close minded.

Posted by: ray at March 25, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #135831

Tony Blair sees it as it is, not as he would wish it to be. Denying that the terrorists are not the root cause of strife in the Middle East, but that the West is a fault, is putting your head in the sand…pun intented. Who are the killers of innocent people? If you say that the coalition forces are at fault, you are on the wrong side. The bad guys have won you over without firing a shot at you. Fools are made not born. My personal view is that most fools are so embittered in politics that they fail to see the truth of the matter. How many attacks on the West must be committed until they see the light?

Posted by: Ken at March 25, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #135842

>>My personal view is that most fools are so embittered in politics that they fail to see the truth of the matter.

Ken,

Pointing can sometimes rebound…the same could be said about your views.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 25, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #135852

When we examine the reasons for the downfall of the world’s greatest civilizations, we find a common denominator: The decline of the moral glue that helped hold it all together. And in this instance, morality is that behavior defined as acceptable by society as a whole. Homosexuality in America today is not in and of itself an evil thing (I’m speaking from a non-Biblical perspective). But it is a symptom of the decline of a society that has decided such behavior is unacceptable.

Note to Ray:

I hope you and your dog live happily ever after.

Posted by: Bill M. at March 25, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #135857

Jack:

When they look at the state of our economy, our health, our environment and crime rates and still believe they live in a very bad place, there just is no logical explanation. It must be hysteria.

Do you really believe our economy is good when wages for the workers are not good? When the minimum wage hasn’t been raised in how long? When workers can’t afford housing in their own communities?

How is our “health” good, when over 6 million people have lost their insurance over the past 5 years…and our rank is lower than many 3rd world countries in infant moratlity?

And crime rates? Have you missed the meth wars going on all over the U.S.???

No, that’s not “hysteria” in our own locales and not being afraid to face it straight on and realizing that all these things can be made so much better for the average citizen.

Not sure why you would see dealing with reality as pessimism and hysteria…perhaps you are the hysteric because you can’t seem to deal with things…just let Bush drive our country so deep into debt that we’re practically owned by China…and it’ll be our future generations who pay and pay and pay for his outrageous “mistakes”.

Nope…not hysteria, reality…get some.

Posted by: Lynne at March 25, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #135858

Marysdude:

I think you hit it…people who can’t deal with reality point at those who do as “hysterical”…when it’s really the people who are unable to deal with reality who are the hysterics.

Posted by: Lynne at March 25, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #135860
Jack made the mistake of voting for Jimmy Carter in 1976, but redeemed himself by supporting Ronald Reagan the next time. He supported John McCain in 2000 and will do so again in 2008. In between he worked for Bush.

Boy, this explains a whole lot!!

I live in Arizona (after 40 years in Wisconsin…land of progressive politics) and would never, ever be fooled into voting for John McCain…McCain let Bush almost destroy his family, yet did nothing to retaliate or even acknowledge these incidents. No courage. Yet he carries water for Bush…jumps everytime Bush calls on him…licks Bush’s boots as a little side favor. No courage, none whatsoever…

Posted by: Lynne at March 25, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #135873

Lynne,

hysterical Look up hysterical at Dictionary.com
1615, from L. hystericus “of the womb,” from Gk. hysterikos “of the womb, suffering in the womb,” from hystera “womb” (see uterus). Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus. Hysterics is 1727; hysteria, abstract noun, formed 1801.

The word originates from the eighteenth century when women who were overly excitable or argumentative were believed to have hysteria, the cure for which was the removal of the womb. Whether he’s totally aware of it or not Jack uses this way - as a dismissive suggestion that Democrats are girlish and silly. It’s very similar to Republican’s suggesting Democrats are somehow “French”: foreign and effeminate.

Throughout history people like Bushies often play on peoples’ fears through xenophobic and sexist slurs.

Posted by: Max at March 25, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #135875

Max

I am aware of the history of the word, but the meaning has broadened and changed. Yes I use the word hysterical in the sense that people are silly.

(re words, you think of the word prevent - which orginally had the meaning of go before based on Latin. The meaning has changed. Or try to use disinterested or inflamable with 90% of the population and see if they understand the “original” meaning)

You can point of problems in the economy. But all the commmonly used measures are good - not best ever - but very good compared with other societies and with our own history.

It takes a lot of hysteria to find a 4.8% unemployment rate so terrible. It takes hysteria to call a 3.8% growth rate slow. It takes hysteria to call the lowest crime rate in more than 30 years a major threat. It takes hystria to call the cleanest environment in our lifetimes dirty.

I don’t attribute all these good things to Bush. As I have written on many occassions, they are the result of long term trends. But the Dem narrative seems to need to paint everything dark. It just is not so.

Realism means you recognize the good and the bad, not just one or the other.

Posted by: Jack at March 25, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #135876

OK. Lets say I have two Aunts who love each other very much. They share a house, owned by one of them. They would never dream of being intimate (an old fashioned term for “having sex”) If they could marry, they could save money on taxes and get other benefits reserved for married people and people who pretend to be married. Should we let them marry? How about two guys who share an apartment without sex and would like some of the marriage benefits? And, since we are being so liberal about marriage, lets re-open the whole bigamy thing. Mormons should celebrate their lover amongst themselves.

Isn’t it obvious? Marriage is an institution invented by mankind, and strongly supported by churches, the purpose of which is to protect the children that more or less inevitably come out of unions between men and women. I know, I know… many gay couples want children by adoption and other means, but they are a tiny, tiny minority. And, yes, a few heterosexual couples don’t have children by choice. But, I thought it would be obvious that marriage is an institution created not because two people love each other and want to enjoy sex, but because their activities will produce children and society benefits by making it hard for the parents of children to walk off without consequences. If two men or women feel more comfortable having sex with each other than with members of the opposite sex, I think its a shame… a case of wasted opportunity. Not a serious crime, but not the ideal way to live your life. Should we persecute them? No. Can I be friends with them. You bet… I already am with several, including my daughter! Should they have a special protected place in society equal with men and women who get married??

No.

Posted by: Shakingmyhead at March 25, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #135878

Lynne, Your heart is in the right place, no doubt, but you aren’t applying logic or facts, it seems. Why should I believe working people are worse off today because the minimum wage has not been raised? I am no economist, but I have read plenty of articles that more and more people are moving up the economic ladder. Yes, there may be an increasing gap between the top and bottom rungs of the ladder, but most people are moving up and more and more are populating the middle and upper rungs of the ladder. And, it seems to me that most of the people on the bottom runs are there because they have made bad choices. The homeless people who congregate by the church on my way to work aren’t poor because the system did something to them. They either like it there, or can’t get beyond the endless complaining they seem to enjoy.

Posted by: Shakingmyhead at March 25, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #135883

It seems to me that the word “hysterical” in these threads MUST be effective. The reality of it is evident as it certainly grabs the attention of many a reader!

As far as minimum wage goes, as it was pointed out to me in another post, what a lot of people don’t realize is that when minimum wage increases, so do the prices of everything else. Here in Michigan, we are facing a 35-40% increase in minimum wage, and without a doubt, the prices at Wal-Mart will reflect that. Not to mention the fact that the more one makes, the more taxes they pay on that increase in income. So in reality, does raising the minimum wage really do THAT much good in the long run? Sure it looks good on paper…

Posted by: Tanya at March 25, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #135884

Shakingyourhead,

Certainly there are societally permissible marriages, ones that ostensibly could produce children, that might also be deemed to be a misuse of the marriage, e.g. political/dynastic marriages, arranged marriage, old men marrying the Anna Nicole Smiths of the world, etc. Or we could engage in the esoterica of the thought experiment, and say, should a man and a woman who are infertile be allowed to marry?

Now all of these seem like various ways to subvert the practice of marriage as far a most people are concerned, and yet I doubt you are wagging your finger at these types of unions, or seeking to deny old men their trophy wives. And if you answer in the affirmative to the thought experiment, then you have to accept that procreation is not the issue for you, but rather the sex of the parties.

Your whole argument smacks of an attempt to rationalize what is, at its base, a bigoted viewpoint.

Moreover, I’m not sure you can say with certainty that marriage was invented solely as a way of protecting children. Granted, I’ll profess my ignorance on the subject of the history of the practice of marriage, but I tend to believe that it is an arrangement borne of a set of complex desires and practical needs that arise when two people wish to be together, and to have that fact be recognized by the state. And that, as such, it is in a state of constant evolution, as we find better ways of addressing those needs.

It also, arguably, is another in a long list of behaviors satisfying the human need for creating community. One could also assert that it has served as a means of social control and political necessity for the state, and in the past, the church. In short, it’s a complex practice the reason for the existence of which I seriously doubt is reducible to one thing.

If your claim is simply that marriage must be reserved for those for whom producing children is biologically possible because we don’t want people with children to be able to dissolve their association on a whim, I would point out that the requirement bears little to no relationship to the purpose, for parents can raise children and create a stable home irrespective of their ability to procreate. Far more relevant a requirement that actually addresses your concern for the destabilization of home life for children would be one that outlawed divorce. That requirement would be much more closely tailored to the problem you raise.

Finally, and most importantly, legal equality is not “a special place”. In fact, it is what citizens of the United States are entitled to under the Constitution.

Posted by: Yossarian at March 25, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #135888

Jack,

another fine, strawman-laden piece of work:

It takes a lot of hysteria to find a 4.8% unemployment rate so terrible. It takes hysteria to call a 3.8% growth rate slow. It takes hysteria to call the lowest crime rate in more than 30 years a major threat. It takes hystria to call the cleanest environment in our lifetimes dirty.

OK, so who are the hysterical liberals who’ve made these statements?

When they look at the state of our economy, our health, our environment and crime rates and still believe they live in a very bad place, there just is no logical explanation. It must be hysteria.

Names please? Quotes?

By the way, your “hysterical liberals” link in your 3/25 10:03 AM post is broken. I did navigate past the error and looked at the “Hysterical Liberals” blog entry and noticed that while you sure did put a lot of work into providing supporting links to prove we are or all practical puproses living in a modern-day nirvana, you never quite got around to backing up your statement that hysterical liberals say that either evreything is wrong in this country or that what is commonly believed to be good is really not.

Posted by: wanna_be_jack at March 25, 2006 9:20 PM
Comment #135889

Wana

If you look at the original post, you will find litterally hundreds of responses telling me how rotten the world is.

I disagree.

Take a look at the responses I got when I checked a source someone thought proved how bad things were and found that SO2 was down by 28% and NO down by 10% under Bush. People actually called me names.

I think it was hysterical.

Posted by: Jack at March 25, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #135895

Jack,

I went back and read your Christmas Day 2004
“Yes to Gay Marriage…” article and still
can’t agree with you on this subject. Maybe
you should go back and read the last comment
by Dennis on that thread. He makes alot more
sense.

The two concepts of incrementalism ( a live frog
in a pan of water doesn’t realize what hot water
he’s in because the heat’s being turned up ever
so slowly ) and the “Big Lie” play a big part in
this subject as CFT, Bill M. & Shakingmyhead
have tried to point out to those of you with
your heads in the sand.

To those of you who wear rose colored glasses
or who don’t have a religious or moral compass,
the whole homosexual rights debate is slowly but
surely winning you over to the darkside. The PR
propaganda machine works best when it tells the
same lies over & over & over again until it’s
slowly perceived as truth. Hitler knew that the
Big Lie works on small minds. Apparently the
social agenda fascists of America know its power
works here too.

I think Lynne might be right when she inferred
that you’re a RINO and Rocky may be right saying
that you need ( another ) hobby. I think Zell
Miller would be a better spokesperson for most
conservative beliefs and wish to GOD that he and
any other conservatives ( on both economic AND
social issues ) had time to write to R & C WB.

Posted by: Dale G. at March 25, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #135900
If you look at the original post, you will find litterally hundreds of responses telling me how rotten the world is.

Hundreds? Are you talking about this original post or this original post or some other original post?

There are barely even two hundred responses to the two posts combined, much less one hundred telling you how rotten the world is. Do you understand the meaning of the word literally?

In addition, does it really make sense to you to post a blog entry stating that liberals are hysterical, i.e. your 2/20/2006 blog entry with first sentence:

Democrats are in a nearly constant state of hysteria.

offering no proof or support to that statement other than the responses to that very statement? Obviously, it does to you but not to anyone who has the slightest grasp of the principles of civil debate.

It seems to me that you would be more intellectually honest had you made the statement “Democrats are in a nearly constant state of hysteria.” then give one or more examples of hysterical behavior by Democrats instead of making a provocative and unsupported statement like that, then offering the supposed hysterical response to your statement as supposed proof of your statement.

It is no different than it would be for me to make the statement “Republicans are mindless robots marching in lockstep with orders from the RNC”, offering no proof except the justifiably outraged responses from Republicans who disagree with me.

Take a look at the responses I got when I checked a source someone thought proved how bad things were and found that SO2 was down by 28% and NO down by 10% under Bush.

I looked at the responses but didn’t see any name-calling. Maybe you could point them out. I saw where someone named JayJay Sandman called right-wingers such as yourself quote p%#!&*s end quote. But that didn’t seem to have anything to do with your pollutant numbers.

I don’t know where you got those pollutant numbers so I can’t really comment on them. I will say that if they are on the up-and-up and pollutant numbers did go down, it is pure unintentional coincidence that it happened on any Republican’s watch. To pretend otherwise is putting lipstick on a pig. Most likely, policy on how the pollutants are measured was changed. Or it could have been reflective of economic and manufacturing downturns. I’m not really sure I understand why you would want to try to convince people that Republicans are pro-environmental regulation anyway. They aren’t, are they? I thought they were in favor of less regulation, especially for business, especially for supposed environmental impacts. Are you trying to convince me and the rest of the people who read this blog otherwise?

Posted by: wanna_be_jack at March 25, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #135902

Jack,
Another fine post and the Blair speech was especially poignant. Alas your liberal detractors are addicted to negativity. To them, there is no war on terror, Bush is the real enemy. And the economy can’t be good because that might shine a positive light on Bush. Hate Bush first. A great prescription for extending their minority status and edging closer to irrelevance.

Posted by: boojum at March 25, 2006 11:56 PM
Comment #135904

Wana

Since you like to read, you have to go back and forth across the blog. I wrote hysterical liberals largely in response to America’s Future.

One of the posters mentioned a report. The report had an ominous cover and a scary executive summary, but when you looked at the data, you found that pollution overall had actually decreased.

You can read though all the entries and draw conclusions as you wish.

Re the environment - if you read my posts, I believe that many things are long term trends. Bush policies have been very similar to Clinton’s, which were very similar to Bush I etc. The talk changes. You can read the posts if you want more details.


Posted by: Jack at March 26, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #135907

Someone please name the 2 or 3 other countries where you have the freedom to work where you want to work, doing the job you you want to do,(not what the government decides for you),live where you choose and and have access to the educational opportunities we have here. Minimum wage? Again? This wage is an entry level, non-skilled pay grade. Not designated for those wishing to own a home or support a family of 4. You take the job, work hard and learn the skills needed to become a crew leader, then shift supervisor, then shift manager etc. If you want no crime-no drugs-no freedom-no choice, China awaits you. The utopian communist playground where everyone is equal and no citizen lacks the desires of their collective hearts, crime is virtually non exsistent and the environment is the first thing they worry about. P.S. where was all the liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth during the 40 plus years of deficits under a democratically controlled congress?

Posted by: JR at March 26, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #135924

>> Yes, there may be an increasing gap between the top and bottom rungs of the ladder, but most people are moving up and more and more are populating the middle and upper rungs of the ladder.

Shaki,

Wrong…the top layer is getting smaller, it just possesses more of the treasure (the rich really are getting richer), and the bottom is growing (while their treasure shrinks), so the poor are actually getting poorer.

As for marraige, it was instituted so that ‘great’ families could integrate for the purposes of gaining strength and/or treasure and/or power. The masses didn’t marry until much later…there was no strength, treasure or power among the masses.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 26, 2006 8:33 AM
Comment #135941

Jack:

So, as you have admitted in some postings above, you use the word “hysterical” to denote anything you are not able to understand. I’m guessing you’d use that to describe the theory of relativity, too, provided you aren’t able to understand that.

It’s a judgment call all on your own…has nothing to really do with the people making the statements you aren’t able to understand; it has everything to do with you not understanding the statements.

Seems to me that makes you rather “hysterical” in your own reactions. [See definition #2 (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language): “Excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as panic”]

Posted by: Lynne at March 26, 2006 10:28 AM
Comment #135965

Lynne

I don’t understand most things. But I can usually understand enough to know that it makes sense. I don’t understand relativity on anything more than a basic level, but it seems to work. I am not even sure how my car works, but it does so I assume the people who made it knew what they were doing.

I understand a little about the economy and investing. I have worked with trees and the environment for thirty years and I live in society. When I see all the numbers that we have used to measure economy prosperity, environmental quality and crimes rates and for fifty years all look good and when I see a general prosperity and then I hear some people say that this is a terrible economy, enviroment and society, I don’t understand that. And it seems to approach panic among some Dems.

This is not the best economy on record, but it is very good. The environment is cleaner than ever. The crime rate is lower than it has been for about forty years. We can do better, but it makes sense to recognize that we are already doing pretty well.

Posted by: Jack at March 26, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #135992

Jack:

None of that explains why you use the word “hysterical” so often to describe people whose views you aren’t able to understand…

As I said, the use of that word says more about you than about the people for whom you use it…

Think about it a little…maybe you can come up with a more truly descriptive word or two…

You honestly can’t see what meth is doing to our crime rate? Not sure where you live, but it’s happening in most parts of the country…rich, poor, urban, rural…

Environment may be cleaner than it was, but laws are being enacted and funding be withdrawn that will reverse that trend in many areas…

Economy may be good, but “economy” is an abstract…too many people are falling below the poverty line, too many people are have lost their health insurance, too many people are having to pay more and more of their limited incomes for prescriptions…look at the microeconomy instead of the macroeconomy…more people are doing worse than people who are doing better…

Nope…not hysterical…just dealing with that old reality again…things might be doing “pretty” well, but that’s not nearly good enough for too many people…it’s not good enough for a few to do really well…all who possibly can should be doing better…outsourcing jobs and not enforcing the laws against hiring illegals don’t help…but there’s lots more that can and should be done…and lots that’s been done over the past 5 years that needs undoing so the common citizen can again have hope…real hope, not pie-in-the-sky hope.

Posted by: Lynne at March 26, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #136017

Lynne

I can see what meth is doing and what it is doing still is not causing enough crime to keep the general crime rate from dropping.

Any sort of average will include some things going up and others going down. Half of all Americans always earn less than the median income, for example. That can never change.

When you look at the President’s environmental plans, even the informed critics really don’t say we are going backward. They say he will not REDUCE as much. This is a matter of dispute. What is not a dispute is that there is less pollution today.

But lets take some of the complaints. We hear that President Bush will increase mercury pollution, for example. Bush is the first president and the U.S. is the first country to regulate mercury from power plants at all. Or take the famous arsenic case. After eight years, on January 22, 2001, President Clinton finally decided to reduce arsenic in water. The Bush Administration put this - and all last minute regulations - on hold. (Clinton did the same thing to Bush I. It just makes sense) Then you read that Bush was increasing arsenic. He was not changing anything of course. And in October 2001 the stricter regulations went into effect. You didn’t read about that, did you?

About the economy, see above re statistics. Sure some people are doing well, others not. This is not different from any other time. Did you think 1998 was a good year? This year is about the same in terms of growth, unemployment etc. Of course, the crime rate is lower and we have less pollution.

In fact, this year is better than almost all the past thirty years (except 1999 and 2000). There just is no reason to be very upset unless you have been upset with only a two year break since at least 1970.

Re hysterical, I used the word in the one post as the actual title. Now I do it because it is fun.

Posted by: Jack at March 26, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #136070

>>Re hysterical, I used the word in the one post as the actual title. Now I do it because it is fun.


Posted by: Jack at March 26, 2006 10:55 PM

Lynne,

And because his absolute arrogance will not allow him to drop it…kinda reminds you of Cheney/Bush? But, I’m sure I’m just being hysterical…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 27, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #136149

Yossarian-if you’re still reading this…
Thank you for a thoughtful, very well written piece. Much of what you say is true. Personally, I think that marriages between 87 year old wealthy men and young women are ridiculous, but they fit within the “rules.” Obviously, the intent is to guarantee that the young woman gets her share of the inheritance in return for making the guy’s declining years interesting. Your comment about dynastic and political marriages, more practised of old than recently, is, I think, wide of the mark. These marriages were intended to produce children, don’t you think? Regarding loving couples who produce children without marriage, I think that probably works out reasonably well most of the time (although I have no knowledge one way or the other), but from the standpoint of the children, I think it would be better if they took vows and submitted themselves to the restrictions of the State (such as they are). I don’t think I am bigoted just because I don’t buy the party line. I have several friends who are gay, and my wife and I love my gay daughter and her partner very much. In California, same sex couples can obtain all the legal benefits of marriage by declaring a civil union. They can have ceremonies and invite all their friends. I just don’t see why society as a whole owes them a formal recognition of their choice of lifestyles. If you want to object to my choice of words (pun intended), please do so.

Good luck, and thanks again.

Posted by: Shaking myhead at March 27, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #136153

I might drop it next week, but maybe not. I don’t see what it has to do with being arrogant and it tends to draw a crowd.

Posted by: Jack at March 27, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #136234

>>I don’t see what it has to do with being arrogant and it tends to draw a crowd.

Posted by: Jack at March 27, 2006 05:17 PM

Perhaps the word narcissistic is more defining, i.e., people with narcissistic personality disorder display a pervasive pattern of grandiose behavior.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 27, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #136584
Any sort of average will include some things going up and others going down. Half of all Americans always earn less than the median income, for example. That can never change.

Of course half will earn over the median and half under…that’s the definition of median…however, the median is so seldom reported; the average wage is always the one that is reported and while an average may go up, the median can most certainly go down…and has.

About the economy, see above re statistics. Sure some people are doing well, others not. This is not different from any other time.

The difference is in who is doing better…the top 2%…the bottom 98% are starting to lose hope…6 million have lost their health insurance, which puts them a step away from bankruptcy; one-fifth of our children live in poverty; record numbers are having to use food banks, including the working poor. This is untenable.

Re hysterical, I used the word in the one post as the actual title. Now I do it because it is fun.

Fun for whom? You…so you can generate responses to an otherwise lackluster posting in your blog…stands to reason…I think marysdude is on to something with that “arrogant” label…you still don’t seem to understand that the use of the word “hysterical” tells more about your psychological makeup than it does about the people to whom you apply the term…until you understand this, you’ll just continue to look like anything except a serious and intelligent blogger…among other traits.

Posted by: Lynne at March 29, 2006 9:14 AM
Post a comment