The Goat Pen

Johnette's Daddy wrote:
I give McCain credit, however: he HATES Obama and it is clearly personal. If Obama says it's raining, McCain will hold a press conference in a thunderstorm and talk about Obama's discrimination against American precipitation and the farmers who need it.

Reportedly, the two had a decent relationship/mutual respect as colleagues in the Senate, but it's become a blood feud for McCain.

Bush 41 and Bob Dole took their defeats in stride and retired as a respected statesmen, and John Kerry did likewise and is now Secretary of State.

Whereas McCain still displays the red ass he got from the drubbing he took from a political neophyte. He will retire the trophy as politic's Sorest Loser.


some has-been scolding somebody over God-knows-what

"Even when those common goals are the refutation of empirical truth, harming the general welfare of the people in support of a small group of oligarchs and supporting sedition/fomenting revolution"

Why would people supporting a small group of oligarchs want to foment revolution? That's bad for the oligarch business...

hedge wrote:"Even when those common goals are the refutation of empirical truth, harming the general welfare of the people in support of a small group of oligarchs and supporting sedition/fomenting revolution"

Why would people supporting a small group of oligarchs want to foment revolution? That's bad for the oligarch business...

Distraction - they foment a revolution against "big gubment" that let the mud people move into our neighborhoods and date our daughters, take all our good jobs, and use our tax money to subsidize crack whores and people too lazy to pick cotton.

Don't look behind the curtain, son. Pay no attention to the fact that you're subsidizing Big Oil, Big Ag, Big Defense, Big Pharm, etc., to the tune of record profits and that your boss who used to make 34 times as much as you now makes 1,432 times as much as you.

Too bad the other side is no different.

“On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”

“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”

“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”

“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”

“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”

“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”

“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”

“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”

“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”

If you like your policy, you can keep it, period.


Brock Obammer

John McCain is a dipshit.

hedge wrote:

bluetick wrote:

Toemeesleather wrote:Thank God I'll be dead when this happens.....

heh standby for hedge in 5..4..3..2..

Damn, I missed that one..

You missed that hanging curveball.

He misses a lot of things. I blame his Crack habit.

Toemeesleather wrote:Thank God I'll be dead when this happens.....



Bergdahl in 2036!

Heh heh

Maybe "Bergdahl-Snowden in 2036!"

"According to Vice President Susan Rice, "Snowden served his country with honor and distinction as Director of the NSA under President Chelsea Clinton."

Dumb post ^ example

As a vet and paratrooper, this story is beyond cool to me:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/05/world/eur ... ?hpt=hp_c3

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/0 ... lp00000592

WASHINGTON -- The federal judge who struck down Wisconsin's gay marriage ban thinks state officials have a thing or two to learn about the history of marriage as a social institution.

In defending their same-sex marriage ban, state officials claimed that "virtually all cultures through time" have recognized marriage "as the union of an opposite-sex couple."

But as U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb wrote in her 88-page ruling on Friday, that's simply not true.

"As an initial matter, defendants and amici have overstated their argument. Throughout history, the most 'traditional' form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and multiple women, which presumably is not a tradition that defendants and amici would like to continue," Crabb wrote in her opinion.

History alone wasn't enough to justify a ban on same-sex marriage, Crabb said.

"Like moral disapproval, tradition alone proves nothing more than a state's desire to prohibit particular conduct," she wrote, citing Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in a 2003 sodomy case, which stated that "'preserving the traditional institution of marriage' is just a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same-sex couples."

Crabb pointed out that tradition was used as an argument to keep women from voting.

In other words, that judge thinks he has better moral judgement on the legal definition of marriage than the people of Wisconsin. He's smarter, and probably went to Harvard, so that qualifies him to negate the wishes of a bunch of cheese eating hayseeds, who didn't go to Harvard, and therefore have no say in the matter.

Like many liberals, he probably considers himself exquisitely tolerant and open to all points of view, and extremely reluctant to impose his personal views on others. But like most liberals, he actually tolerates no dissent whatsoever and will send those who dare disagree with him to the gulags if given the chance.

Professor Tiger wrote:In other words, that judge thinks he has better moral judgement on the legal definition of marriage than the people of Wisconsin. He's smarter, and probably went to Harvard, so that qualifies him to negate the wishes of a bunch of cheese eating hayseeds, who didn't go to Harvard, and therefore have no say in the matter.

Like many liberals, he probably considers himself exquisitely tolerant and open to all points of view, and extremely reluctant to impose his personal views on others. But like most liberals, he actually tolerates no dissent whatsoever and will send those who dare disagree with him to the gulags if given the chance.

And like many members of the American Whig Party, you cannot wrap your head around the fact that women can vote, exercise self determination, manage their uteruses . . . and serve as judges in Minnesota.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Brandriff_Crabb

According to Wiki, she's a graduate of Wisconsin-Madison (undergrad), U of Wisconsin law school, practiced/taught law in Wisconsin after that until becoming a Federal Magistrate and then a Federal Judge - all in Wisconsin.

So the meme of her imprinting her Eastern Establishment Liberal values onto the cheese eating hayseeds falls flat . . .

[On a personal note - I actually have something against Judge Crabb - she struck down the tax exemption for clergy housing allowances last year, which will significantly affect my income if upheld. She must be some kind of atheist tramp.]

Okay. I will revise my statement to accommodate your immaterial point:

In other words, that judge thinks she has better moral judgement on the legal definition of marriage than the people of Wisconsin.
She's smarter, and went to Wisconsin law school, so that qualifies her to negate the wishes of a bunch of cheese eating hayseeds from her home state, who didn't go to Wisconsin law school, and therefore have no say in the matter.

Like many liberals, she probably considers herself exquisitely tolerant and open to all points of view, and extremely reluctant to impose his personal views on others. But like most liberals, she actually tolerates no dissent whatsoever and will send those who dare disagree with her to the gulags if given the chance.

Is that better?

And like many members of the American Whig Party, you cannot wrap your head around the fact that women can vote, exercise self determination, manage their uteruses . . . and serve as judges in Minnesota.

If you want to get pedantic and silly, I thought you said she was from Wisconsin, not Minnesota. Your inaccuracy about the judge's state is about as irrelevant to the discussion as my inaccuracy about her gender.

But to the larger point, are you really stooping to the argument that you either support court-imposed gay marriage, or you are a sexist (and might as well trot out all the other usual hackneyed accusations like racist and homophobe).

If that is your argument, then the vast majority of your fellow African American pastors are also sexists. Particularly in California, where they were the reason Prop 8 passed. Are those hundreds of thousands of African American pastors and Christians also "unable to wrap their head around the fact that women can vote, exercise self determination, manage their uteruses . . . and serve as judges in Minnesota... er... Wisconsin?.

A natural slip, as there's hardly any difference between WI and MN.

Kinda like Alasippi (Missabama?)

Kennesee and Tennetucky?

Professor Tiger wrote: But like most liberals, she actually tolerates no dissent whatsoever and will send those who dare disagree with her to the gulags if given the chance.

Weekend gulags are the best, with the usual Tolerance and Self Awareness themes, along with How to Get in Touch with Your Emotions. But if your worried about getting homesick they now have the internet gulags.