Monday, 6/18/12, Public Square

Advertisements

22 Comments

Filed under The Public Square

22 responses to “Monday, 6/18/12, Public Square

  1. prairie pond

    Oooo… that’s a GOOD one. Too bad it is so true.

    • Yeah, but if that banker is called to testify before Congress – he will be given hugs and kisses from our elected officials.

      And – in the case of Jamie Dimon – the REpublicans will even go so far as to demonize the Government for daring to question how in the world this same banker – that got bailed out a few short years ago – manged to lose another $3 billion..

      How dare we taxpayers ask questions….

  2. If you had any doubts about Rupert Murdoch and his involvement in politics – here is a story that is interesting.

    But, sad to say, the loyal lemmings of Foxxies in the Hen House would not care if Rupert told Tony Blair to join GWB in the Iraq War. In fact, these folks would sit and applaud loudly – even more loudly than when these same folks applauded Rick Perry for 234 executions in Texas.

    But – as the article points out – Rupert testified that he has never influenced any prime minister. Maybe Rupert’s definition of influencing a person is different than the rest of the world’s definition? Or maybe – Rupert is just plain – making stuff up… You betcha….wink-wink

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/rupert-murdoch-tony-blair-iraq-alastair-campbell_n_1605380.html?ref=topbar

  3. As you all know I am a registered Republican. Over the weekend a man knocked at my door, armed with the registration list so I’m thinking he didn’t plan to engage with anyone other than registered republicans. He introduced himself and explained that he was running for state representative in my district and would like my vote. He handed me a flyer and I noted his party quickly and told him that I wouldn’t vote for any republicans.

    He quickly looked to his list, found my name and said, “but, but, but,” while pointing to my name. I said, “Yes. I’m registered as a republican. But I’ve been a female longer than I’ve been a voter and voting for any republican would be a vote against my own best interests.” He started in with many words and I actually interrupted him (although I did say I was sorry to do that) and told him when he could put examples of legislative actions behind those words he could get back to me, but until then I had heard enough lying words to last a lifetime. I closed the door.

    He stood on my driveway making some notes before moving along. I’m thinking if he tells other republicans who aren’t interested in engaging with anyone who disagrees with them to stay away from my address I won’t have to talk to many of them.

    • I’ve not had that privilege yet – and I am still registered as Republican. Did you ever get that Survey from the RNC? I have received a separate one – from John Boehner and Mitch McConnell – along the same lines with the same questions.

      I never did return the RNC survey -0 so they sent me anoter one.

      I have yet to mail that one back.

      I figured – they really would not want to hear my opinions – so I am going to make them keep spenidng their money on postage and paper – that is one small way to pay make the RNC pay – and hurting their money-pockets is what hurts these folks the most.

      But both surveys were marked as ‘registered’ which means I have to return them – even if I did not want to participate in the survey.

      But why give them that satisfaction?

      I’ve thought about mailing all three of these surveys back with a picture from a medical book – it is a picture of a vagina. And I can draw a big circle with a diagonal red line across the circle.

      Do you think they would get my message?

  4. Now this is interesting to read. I wonder how many people would be shocked to learn the truth about their own family tree?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/us/dna-gives-new-insights-into-michelle-obamas-roots.html?_r=4&ref=todayspaper

    • I caught the tail end of a family research show on PBS last night, they were doing the family tree of a black celebrity (I don’t have a clue who it was) and traced back to his gr-gr-gr-grandfather being the slave owner’s son. This was all speculation because they couldn’t get any of the slave owner’s descendants to give DNA to test for sure. The participants of the show approached this all wishy-washy hoping these were forbidden love children and not the rape that they probably actually were. What people fail to consider is that there were probably MANY children that were conceived via forced/rape situations causing deviations in the DNA that might not show up in the written documents. Births out of wedlock were not spoke of, the babies were simply “adopted” into the family. The Jewish lines are matriarchal because proof of Motherhood was easy, fatherhood not so much.

  5. This Jerry Sandusky trial sickens me to no end. Now the defense is trying to use the defense that this alleged pervert has a psychiatric disorder that makes him act inappropriately in order to gain attention.

    Or maybe – just maybe – the alleged pervert knew exactly what he was doing and the rest of the Penn State people knew but nobody weanted to rock the golden money ship of college football?

    I find it very hard to believe that nobody knew what was going on until all this blew up in one shining moment.

    But – then again – I did hear yesterday that the Catholic Pope is concerned that their cover-up of the child molesting priests is still a stain on their reputation.

    Duh…..you think so ? Maybe now we know why their funny hats look so much like those old-fashioned Dunce hats?

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/15/12243462-judge-allows-defense-to-argue-jerry-sandusky-has-psychiatric-disorder?ocid=ansmsnbcrel2

    • Doesn’t it go without saying, without any professional making an official diagnosis, that a grown man who desires sexual activities with children is mentally ill and dangerous?

      • But what they are trying to do with this defense is to portray this Sandusky character as not responsible for ‘grooming’ these boys for his own sexual perversion.

        But – you’re right – it should go without saying that any grown man who desires sexual activiteies iwth childrens is metnaly and angerous?

        But what does that make those who covedr up such grown men – are they just as metnally ill and dangerous – or just plain lookign out for the mney?

        Which – in all honesty – is what I think the Catholic Church’s motivation was in their cover up of their child molesters. The Church did not want to rock that golden ship of money they have had floating for years.

      • Good question.

        Anyone who would protect a child abuser is scum. How would you live with knowing that person was able to hurt even more children?

        Money, they say, is the root of all evil.

        I once heard a grown man defending the Catholic priests who molested young altar boys by calling them gay men. He was so bigoted and full of hate, such a homophobe, that he had convinced himself this was the behavior of gay men. It made me sick to my stomach that anyone could be that full of stupidity. He wouldn’t even listen to reason that adults who desire sexual activity with children are pedophiles and their sexual persuasion has nothing to do with their illness. In fact someone brought statistics showing a much lower percentage of pedophiles are gay than straight to the conversation. Scientific evidence meant nothing to that doofus — he had his opinion and didn’t want to hear anything else. He told us he was a Catholic and knew what he was talking about like he expected that to convince anyone he was less hateful, stupid and homophobic.

      • I am just curious – I wonder how many people that think grown men showering with young boys is harmless felt the same way toward Micheal Jackso when Jackson was going through his trial for the same thing Jerry Sandusky is charged ?

        Do you think their feelings naq dbliefs would be different when it come sto Michael Jackson?

      • I’m sure you’re correct, Indy. Mitt Romney doesn’t have an exclusive on EtchASketch opinions. Many people choose from a smorgasbord of deeply held convictions depending on whether the subject / person is or isn’t someone of whom they ‘approve.’

  6. The Speaker of the House in the Michigan State Legislature’s decision to restrict the right of women representatives to use the word “vagina” has caused an uproar. Tyrannosaurus Rocks responds with some words of their own. Meanwhile, instead of saying “vagina” in Michigan you might try saying “gaping legislative chamber” or “Constitutional hole.”

    • There was a Conservative blogger on another blog that actually tried to defend the Michigan Republicans for banning this woman legislator from speaking because the law they were discussing was not about the vagina – but it was about the woman’s womb.

      Oh, yeah, that makes all the difference inthe world….

      If Rep8ublican men wan to govern every woman’s vagina – then I think it is only fair that we ge tot govern every pman’s penis.

      I have one simple rule – if men cannot keep their particular pen out of the wrong inkwell, then maybe we should put a chastity belt on the damn thing?

    • In reading some of the replies, I gained a little perspective. Such as this one:

      “These numbers don’t mean anything without context. I would need to see the specifics on the take down requests. If our goverment is having google take down links to terrorist bomb making websites should I be pissed? Are they having links taken down that should not be? Probably, but without any real information I can’t make an informed decision if I should care about this or not.”

      I agree that more information would be useful, but it’s highly unlikely more information will be given!

  7. Absolutely fabulous. Must send this around.