Mickey

Your post has nothing at all to do with the language of mine you quoted in what I assume was for the purpose of letting people read the comments you were addressing. I don't know how your fevered mind jumped from your crap about adored and lunatic political spouses to a rant about liberal bastions and body bags. It does seem characteristic though of your posts that are always, always, always an expression of rage and anger at the evil left that has been imagined for you by the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world. Since that is where you want to go, fine. I accept your surrender on the issue we were actually discussing and will move on to the new fight you want to pick. You accuse me of "...insulting those in the military..." please provide an example of such an insult by me or have the decency to withdraw the charge. Please point out where it is that I have questioned the intelligence of soldiers? I can't think of anything more ridiculous, more divisive and more hateful than comparing deaths of soldiers on a blue state by red state basis. That was your meanspirited, rage inspired trick. Since that is where you want to go, take a look at this link which shows that your crazy, lunatic assumption that liberal states are somehow not represented among the dead is an insult to more heroes than I would have thought possible: Casualties by State A sampling of the sacrifices you so nastily denigrate: California: 150 dead Pennsylvania: 64 New York: 60 Illinois: 55 Michigan 36 Wash: 29 NJ: 28 Mass: 24 Utah: 6 Wyoming: 5 Does this mean that California is more American than Utah? By your logic perhaps, not by mine. I think of these sacrifices as those of Americans, not those of gutless liberals on one side and demonic conservatives on the other with a tote board to see who is the "real America". I'll leave that kind of dark rage and twisted hate to you. You really do believe every one of the worst lies ever told about "liberals" by the hate machines from Limbaugh to Coulter don't you?

I didn't see "nationally adored" or "lunatic" mentioned in any of the polls reported in the linked article. As I suspected, your partisan internal translator converted "favorable view" to "nationally adored" for your side and "unfavorable view" to "lunatic" for the other. That is what is commonly referred to as "SPIN". People who clean up after livestock have a different word for it.

I never claimed that there is anything wrong at all with Mrs. Bush. I am not the one here making over the top claims about political wives. AKC is the one who went from "nationally adored" for his team, and pack of "lunatics" for everyone else. If I had posted that in reverse, you would have been all over it. In fact, your on my case anyway for simply pointing out the obviously partisan motivated hyperbole. I was just doing your job. Lazy.

I am still waiting for an answer to the questions I posed. All you have done is present an undated local radio station poll where the respondents indicated they thought Theresa was hurting Kerry's chances. You go from that to concluding that she is a lunatic? I wonder, did you know of that poll before your assertion that she was a lunatic or did you dig it up afterward in an attempt to justify the conclusions you already reached with no research beyond the last Limbaugh rant you listened to? So, it is your "understanding" that she was institutionalized? Do you have anything better than your "understanding" by way of proof? Forgive me if I am reluctant to slur a total stranger based on your "understanding". Again, I await your links to polls showing that Mrs. Bush is nationally "adored" as opposed to "liked", "respected", etc. 51 million people voted against her husband so apparently not everyone "adores" her or is stupid enough to cast their vote based on their personal like or dislike for the candidates spouse.

Do national polls indicate that both of Kerry's wives are lunatics? As for the "nationally adored" one, is that what the polls said, that people "adored" her or is that your spin on a poll that simply said people had a "favorable view" of her or "liked" her?

Right, you didn't whine about not being able to celebrate Christmas at school? You did say: "Hell, most schools in the U.S. won't even let the children celebrate Christmas, because it might offend 2% of the students. " If your post wasn't about Christmas, why did you finish it with a comment complaining about Christmas? If you are going to post that kind of comment, have the guts to stand by it and defend it or admit that it was just a stupid, ill advised rhetorical dingleberry you are now too embarassed to defend. As for your worry that the left is not concerned about terrorists, what on earth are you basing that on? Newsflash: Most of the 9/11 victims came from Boston and Manhattan, areas replete with liberals and their limousine driving ways. They are as much on the front lines of terrorism as any of its victims. How dare you infer that your hatred of them is somehow more pure, more real than theirs? Just because they are not willing to blithely condemn every Muslim on the planet as an "Islamo fascist" (whatever that is) doesn't make them any less of an enemy of terrorism than you, in your conceit, seem to think you are.

That is not anymore true for estates than it is for anyother income. When my neighbor gets his paycheck, he pays taxes on that income. If he then takes some of what is left and pays me to cut his lawn and I declare the income, I pay taxes again on that money. Is that double taxation? If that same neighbor dies, his income, his life's paycheck if you will, gets redistributed in the same way that money changes hands when a service is paid for or a good purchased. The only difference is that the person who receives it did nothing to earn it, they didn't render a service and they didn't market a commodity. Why is taxing money when it changes hands double taxation when it comes to transfers by estates to live people but not when it is between two live people? As I am sure you know, there is no estate tax on estates valued at less than $1,500,000. Add in to that the gift tax exemption which is now $1,000,000. By 2009 the exemption will be $3.5 Million per person, $7 million per couple. Quite literally, this is a tax only on the heirs of multi-millionaires. I certainly don't begrudge them their wealth but since the hard earned income of wage earners is not tax exempt, I don't see why inherited wealth should be. Besides, in the first decade of there being no estate tax, tax revenues would be about $4 Trillion dollars less. Given the already stultifying deficits we have, how in the world would we make up for the loss of $4 Trillion dollars of revenues? Any thought that you could some how cut that much money from the already mired in deficit budget is delusional. I am not sure that this is the kind of wild tax scheme we need to indulge inorder to come to the rescue of besieged multi-millionaires.

How surprising. You find that Mrs Bush is "nationally adored" while Kerry's first wife and second wife are both lunatics. How clearly objective. I also think women would appreciate your point that they cast their votes based on what they thought of each candidates spouse rather than the actual candidates and their policies. Kerry did far better among women than did Bush. Why not conclude that therefore woman found him to be the better candidate because they weren't impressed with the "nationally adored" Mrs. Bush or Condoleeza or the brought out of retirement just before the election Karen Hughes?

I am not sure what school your kids go to but the school mine go to have all the christian holidays off from Christmas to Good Friday. They celebrate all Holidays from one religion to another including Christmas. There is a Christmas tree in the main square downtown as well as one in city hall. My kids do almost as much celebrating of Christmas at school as they do at home. The school choir is giving a Christmas concert replete with traditional carols and at Easter they will perform a full repetoire of sacred music, mostly from Handel's Messiah. The concert will be performed in the school auditorium. The state hospital has more Christmas decorations than the Catholic hospital. The celebration of Christmas seems to be doing quite well despite all this imagined christ hating paganism the Bob Joneses of the world are bravely ready to fight. Of course, they will need your tax free donations to fight the good fight and fend of the atheist armies poised at the gates. The idea that Christmas celebrating christians, all 98% of them by your estimate, are somehow being persecuted by a minority of non christians is one of the more humorous and at the same time, delusional, fictions of the right. You hear one ridiculous anecdote from Rush Limbaugh about some christian getting screwed somewhere by someone and that becomes your dominant view of the treatment of all christians, your proof that christians are besieged. At the same time you ignore the gazillions of examples all around you of favorable treatment of christianity from "Touched by an Angel" to Sunday morning TV to free Bibles in hotel rooms to a President who believes God wants him to be the head man. I guess you have to inorder to keep pretending that christianity is under siege as if Nero was about to let loose the lions when the truth is, christianity never had it so good and is more in control of the power of the state than ever before.

Higher interest rates are the almost certain result. That means it will be harder and more expensive to borrow which means fewer purchases from new shoes to new homes. Higher interest rates act like kryptonite to an economy. My advice: shed yourself as much as possible of as much debt as you can as soon as you can. There are far more complex issues going on with potentially far more devastating problems than higher interest rates but for the average Joe, the higher rates are what is going to impact them the most.

I have a lot of respect for McCain but I gotta say he is jumping in the boat before checking for leaks first on this one. Baseball needs to get its act together but I don't think this kind of thing is the answer. Why not just do what the NFL does? They test for steroids don't they?

I am not sure what you are talking about, are there some commercials about something or other that you are thinking about when talking about the lack of commercials about Shepherd's killers? This isn't the first reference you have made to Shepherd's killers, are you upset that they got a raw deal? The study of homophobia and how it leads to violence against homosexuals is pretty well developed. The issue has been studied in an effort to understand and hopefully prevent such violence. I have a sense that you actually believe the tripe spewing from hate radio about us terrible, fiendish, limousine driving liberals and our traitorous ways? Is that where all this is coming from? Seriously, if you come here just to beat your chest and show how cleverly you can denounce people you don't know as cowardly, christ hating, baby killing, anti-American pagans then why bother? If you care to actually have a discussion about a complex issue, let me know, I'll be around.

Actually, quite a few people have looked very closely at why drunk rednecks kill a guy just because he is gay with the hope that it might help prevent such crimes in the future. Is that such a horrible notion? I think you misunderstand the primary and effective purpose for protest. I could march against serial killers but somehow I don't think that will have much of an effect. They don't kill or refrain from killing because of what the general populace thinks. Protest is for the purpose of influencing political leaders, especially ones who are democratically elected and therefore have to pay attention to protests because it might be an indication that they are losing the popular support they need to survive in their jobs. Terrorists unfortunately, do not respond to protests. I haven't seen conservatives protest against beheading in Iraq either. I have read posts from both the right and left and everywhere inbetween denouncing these killings right here on this board. The idea that any political faction in this country beyond some fringe lunatics in a hole somewhere, are not equally appalled at these sadistic crimes is right wing lunacy. I probably know more liberals than you do and trust me, they couldn't be more angry. The idea that only the right is properly appalled enough is the height of conceit. As for what Hollywood people do with their paychecks, most of them generously support charities regardless of their political views. If you are going to cast accusations at them for not giving enough, please be fairminded enough to include in your criticism the corporate sultans and republican princes who make Hollywood money look like chump change. Is your criticism of Hollywood consistent as against all actors, directors and producers or is it targeted only against those whose politics you do not share? Here is a list of conservative celebrities since it appears from your rant that only democratic Hollywood denizens are part of the "Hollywood in-crowd".Conservative Celebrities Are these conservatives also part of this Hollywood in-crowd? Celebrities aren't telling anyone how to live their lives. They have political opinions just like the rest of us and have the right to voice them. This stereotyping of them with denigrating phrases, sweeping conclusions, short-hand insults and straight forward meanness smacks more of jealous anger than reasoned discussion. If a famous actor stood up and called all of red state America a haven for trailer trash, bible thumping, Ku Kluxer rubes the right wing culture of victimhood would be bouncing off the airwaves with righteous anger about such hateful rhetoric. Somehow though, it is okay for them to condemn everyone who disagrees with them as a bunch of Hollywood limousine elites. Would it be so hard to simply quote a remark by an actor or producer with which you disagree and then provide the evidence showing that the actor's view is clearly wrong? Must there be this mean spirited rhetoric about the "Hollywood in-crowd" and their limousine driving ways? It is basically Marxism dressed up in right wing clothing. Same tactic in a different cause.

It is the congregation that wants her, not the "radical gay-loving left", whoever that is. Who is on the other side of that paranoid delusion, the "salt of the earth gay hating right"? First we were "!@#$ lovers" now we are "gay lovers" the issues change but the denigrating, dehumanizing rhetoric remains the same. I don't think my general support for the idea that all Americans deserve to have their civil rights protected, even if they are gay, makes me a "radical gay-lover" anymore than being opposed to gay marriage makes someone a gay hating lunatic.

Any chance you could duct tape the previous owners' mouths shut and leave them to sleep in their own fecal matter?

Riiiggghhht. Why can't we offer constructive criticism like that offered by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Liddy, North, Schlesinger, Ingram, etc, etc, ad infinitum? Why can't we just sit still and be called a bunch of traitors, terrorist sympathizers, communists, sodomites, elitists, baby killers, tree huggers, femminazis, pederasts, pagan christ haters for decades? Yeah, we are the complainers.

Who is the "Hollywood crowd" that you are complaining about? I guess it doesn't include the scores of conservative actors, directors, writers and producers who are politically vocal (hence blabber mouths by your reasoning) or ride in limousines. Help me follow your argument, what is wrong with riding in a limousine? It is something rich people all over the country do, not just the "Hollywood crowd". Is it rich people you have a problem with or do you take issue with everyone who has ever ridden in a limousine from prom dates to lottery winners? Is it making movies that bothers you? Is it the fact that they get paid very well for their work or that the shareholders of film corporations are doing well? You seem concerned about persecuted minorities, are white, heterosexual, christian males being somehow persecuted by people in limousines? What about the white, heterosexual, christian males who ride in limousines? What about the Corporate Sultans and Money Mullahs riding in limousines? Where do they fit in to your delusions of persecution of the majority by nonexistent enemies? It just seems to me that railing against a wealthy and powerful "elite" because they ride in limousines is not only Marxist, it is in fact the very essence of Marxism. Next thing you know, you'll be calling them "robber barons".

What makes you think I disagree with this program for any reason other than its poor results? I called the program's goals "laudable" and the program "well meaning". I also pointed out that abstinence should be pushed in health class or sex ed by the teachers. I posted all the relevant stats I could find on its performance. The definitive report that was due out last year has been repeatedly postponed so I don't have that available to review. I suspect that its findings are not very good, hence the delay. I will take it as a compliment to the tightness of my argument that all you have left to attack is me. If your beleif is that I have unfairly or inaccurately hyped a program that was a failure because I support it despite that failure, I would be willing to look at any examples you can reference. (Just noticed the avatar change, how old is that dog? its a dobie right?)

If you don't want your kid to get a condom unless you are informed, you don't need that program. Without such a program your kid will have to get the condom directly from you or just not tell you and either not use one or get one from another source besides you or the school. Odds are, the kid just won't ask you and then it is more of a gamble as to whether a condom is used. If you have the program but require a separate consent for each distribution, then the kid knows that he has to tell you about the whole deal to get the consent to get the condom from that program. The kid will then likely not bother with the program and proceed just as he or she would if there was no program. They will have sex and it will be more of a gamble as to whether a condom is used. With that type of consent rule, you have the same result as you would have with a program as without so why bother? Not being told that your kid picked up a condom at school today is not abdicating your parental concern over you child's sexuality. Quite the opposite. Rather than using the school and its condom availablity program to figure out what your child is up to for you, you have to do it yourself. Yoy would have to do it the old fashioned way, by reading their notebooks, their diaries and listening in to their phone conversations. You know, the same way people did it before condom availability programs were invented.

I thought Comet was Fireball's dad?

After being confronted with a study of the totally false information being spread in some of these programs, at tax payer expense no less, Bill Frist, Republican Majority leader in the Senate agreed that the program needs to be seriously reviewed. For example, one program tried to tell kids that they could get aids from sweat. Even Bill Frist had to admit that one was wrong. Oh well, who cares if they blow $127 million bucks each year and can't get the basic facts right? As long as someone's brother-in-law or cousin has a nice juicy salary thanks to the patronage system, all is well.

Not at all. It simply recognizes a reality: somtimes, parents are the last people in the world a kid wants to talk to about a problem. There is a conflict inherent in this issue that is unavoidable: The kid wants to have a sexual encounter and the parents don't want the kid to have a sexual encounter. If every parent could just say "I forbid it" and thus it was so, then there wouldn't be a problem to discuss. The fact is, I hope I don't shock you too much here, some kids don't always listen to their parents. Sometimes, even the best, most involved, intelligent and dilligent parents have kids who don't listen to them 100% if the time. Further, some kids are able to fool their parents, not all the time but just enough to get into some risky situations. The kid wants to have sex, the parents don't want him to, however, they can't stop him forever and these days, unprotected sex can kill you. Is the answer simply concluding that parents with kids who have sex are bad parents so the heck with it or is the answer to recognize reality and do what can be done to make the whole situation a lot less risky?

A child who is planning on having sex, isn't likely to go to his or her parents and tell them that. "Dad, I am going to have sex with Billy after the dance, will you buy us some condoms?" Can you imagine that conversation taking place very often? If the condoms are available at school and a parent has provided permission, ie, "if my kid should ever ask, give him/her one" I see no problem. The kid isn't going to ask the parents because they will just do what they can to prevent the encounter which is the opposite of what the kid wants. A general premission slip means that if the kid ever asks, he gets one. If the kid has to get permission each time, before he gets one, then that is the equivalent of having to go to his parents and say, "I am having sex this weekend, can I have a rubber?" What this kind of program does is bridge the communication gap between the parents and their kids. Most parents are going to prefer that their kids not have sex, but, if they do, they want them protected. If you make the kid go to the parents for a condom on a per-encounter basis, the parents are going to try and enforce their preference that the kid not have sex. To avoid that, the kid just isn't going to go to them to give them that chance. If the cost of the condom is going to mom and dad and give them a chance to stop you, most kids just are going to just bag the condom. With this kind of program that communication stand-off is avoided. The parents still have some input as they decide if their kid is condom elegible and the kids can get a condom and still essentially make the decision to have sex or not their own.

"Because they hate the US." Who exactly is "they"? Do you seriously believe that there are large and well organized domestic political groups whose primary political plank is hatred of their own country? Here is a question, inorder to be credible when deploring injustice, must one divide their time and resources equally among all the millions of injustices occurring daily everywhere or can you pick what you feel is the worst one and concentrate on that? Boy, the nerve of those people, making a big stink about apartheid, what were they thinking? And then to be, as you accuse but do not prove, silent on the problem of Winnie Mandela, how awful. How much nobler were those who were silent on apartheid and on Winnie Mandela for they were consistent. Consistently unconcerned with injustice anyway. I bow to their superior morality carried with so much consistency and so little conscience because thats what matters, consistency.

I guess its because Mel Gibson, Arnold, Tom Selleck, Gary Oldman, Andy Garcia, Bruce Willis, James Caan, Kurt Russel, Dennis Miller and scores of other Hollywood conservatives don't really go in for protests all that much. Do I really need to come up with a list of the charities supported by celebrities to show what an idiotic, moronic, nasty, class warfare fomenting, quasi-marxist load of crap that post was? Since they apparently occupy a prominent place in your paranoid fantasies, perhaps you could tell us just what the eff is a "euro-weenie"? Better yet, maybe you could explain to us why anyone should read your post as anything but a meanspirited attack against people you don't even know but about whom you have assumed the worst? It really is a lot like racism. "All Hollywood people are....." "All Poles are stupid." "All San Franciscans are...." "All Jews are greedy." "All Europeans are....." "All women are weak". The same diseased thinking is at work in all of those statements. First you come up with a stereotype that is profoundly negative and usually just as profoundly inaccurate and then you paste the fictions you have created to make yourself feel superior on to an entire group of utter strangers about whom you know nothing.