Northeast conservative wants divorce from GOP

Brooks doesn’t need another wing of the republican party for northeasterners, just become democrats – that solves that…

• Link
• Report this comment

“I have a feeling this is going to end up being Barack Obama’s fault.”

what do you mean “going to end up”? He already said it was: “would be filled with people who recoiled at President Obama’s second Inaugural Address because of its excessive faith in centralized power”

• Link
• Report this comment

“…but who don’t share the absolute anti-government story of the current GOP.”

Very telling. Notice the word “absolute.” He’s using an O’bozoism, accusing his opponents of a position they don’t have, then demonizing it to win the argument. Lib ilks and their MSM amen choir fall for that crap every time.

Soooooo, pray tell, who are these folks who are absolute anti-government? Name please.

• Link
• Report this comment

Play nice with your detractors. Heads will be exploding all over this blog. Vitrol will abound. How about “We don’t need them anyway”.

• Link
• Report this comment

Of Obama That first encounter is still vivid in Brooks’s mind. “I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.”

Sounds like quite the objective “conservative” to me…

/drive by

• Link
• Report this comment

Bobo Brooks?

Talk about your target rich environments.

• Link
• Report this comment

David Brooks does not look like the average angry old white guy. Are we sure he was born here and maybe visited the tanning salon with Boner?

• Link
• Report this comment

Whatever – Please revisit your history books. Under the Articles of Confederation the states had the power and the federal government had little power. Didn’t work out so well. That’s why we now have a constitution binding the states.

• Link
• Report this comment

Reasonable people can come to reasonable conclusions under reasonable conditions unless you are a republican.

They will never learn.

• Link
• Report this comment

he’ll be a very good president.

I guess those qualms about fitting in at the Applebee’s salad bar were somehow assuaged. Glad to hear.

• Link
• Report this comment

The question is: Who’s going to build a second GOP?”

Christy, Jindal, Rubio Jeb, Huntsman…for starters

• Link
• Report this comment

That quote RW left here is from a 2009 TNR piece, by the way

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/the-courtship

(I see that places like Hotair and Newsbusters were quite irate about it.)

• Link
• Report this comment

E. Cat — “Christy, Jindal, Rubio Jeb, Huntsman…for starters”

Could be. The wife and I were discussing this just last weekend.

We speculated that the GOP might, over time, fracture into two or more smaller parties, but that the biggest pieces would be composed of what we called “business Republicans” (who don’t necessarily care so much about social issues like gay marriage) and “principle Republicans” (because we didn’t want to call them “Jebus Freak Republicans” or something like that) who would be more interested in social issues and faith-related matters.

There could be a couple of smaller, regional versions as well, like a more Libertarian variety up in New England or a more hard-line religious and ‘Constitutionalist’ sort around the Great Plains.

I don’t know about the *inevitability* of all this, though. I suspect that the GOP’s leaders would see any sort of fracturing as leading to a lot of short-term setbacks as Democrats take advantage of every opportunity to split the former red votes among all the possible reddish candidates in the field.

• Link
• Report this comment

So the usurpers gain power and Brooks wants the originals to leave (southerners oughta like the sound of that).

I prefer the Jindal route: get rid of the stupids, let them form a party. But many already in office want to get reelected so they won’t speak truth to stupidity like Jindal did.

If Brooks thinks that’s the only chance for the Republican party, then they’re in worse shape than I thought. Then again, so are we all because of it.

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t see how anyone can call David Brooks a conservative.

Gee Jay, why don’t you ever copy and paste large swaths of text by George Will, Jonah Goldberg or Ann Coulter?

Afraid to debate the viewpoint of true conservative?

• Link
• Report this comment

Divorce yet he wants to build a new GOP, Brooks is erudite and thoughtful, Jay take note if you ever want to escape your box. Most importantly brooks represents a lot on conservatives. Let’s hope this work, this country deserves a strong ,rational conservative voice..

• Link
• Report this comment

Oops! “which does mean a separate party” should be “which does NOT mean a separate party”

• Link
• Report this comment

JHM
I don’t remember “principle republicans” until W brought in the evangelicals…before that they seemed all “business reps” that could give a crap about almost all social issues…fiscally conservative and socially absent

• Link
• Report this comment

“conservative wants divorce”

Wouldn’t be a first for the party of family values.

• Link
• Report this comment

“That’s why i have to come here.”

Two peas on a pod thing, huh?

• Link
• Report this comment

E. Cat — “JHM
I don’t remember “principle republicans” until W brought in the evangelicals…before that they seemed all “business reps” that could give a crap about almost all social issues…fiscally conservative and socially absent”

I’d argue that William F. Buckley could have been considered a “principle Republican” before the evangelicals got involved. Buckley’s whole argument centered around principle and its application. And I certainly don’t think one could call him “socially absent.”

• Link
• Report this comment

“We speculated that the GOP might, over time, fracture into two or more smaller parties, but that the biggest pieces would be composed of what we called “business Republicans” (who don’t necessarily care so much about social issues like gay marriage) and “principle Republicans” (because we didn’t want to call them “Jebus Freak Republicans” or something like that) who would be more interested in social issues and faith-related matters”

How about “principle republicans,” and “principal republicans?”

• Link
• Report this comment

“Presumably because some responsible columnists continue to observe Geneva Convention protocols against such things”

Or maybe he just gets laughing so hard he can’t get the quotes pasted and the commentary written.

• Link
• Report this comment

David Brooks swings from rightwing cheerleader to logical-minded conservative so often that I think he’s bipolar. Which David Brooks will we see tomorrow?

• Link
• Report this comment

“While gerrymandering is certainly being used by Republicans at this time due to their wins at the state level, it is and has been a sword of the Democrat as well”

and has anyone said it wasn’t?

• Link
• Report this comment

“and has anyone said it wasn’t?”

Don’t overheat. I was making a counter point to one of Logical’s points in his post.

If that is not ok with you, oh well.

• Link
• Report this comment

TBS, any comments on the other points? Gerrymandering is the toughest one to handle, due to the past unfairness by both parties.

The other points are specific to GOP.

• Link
• Report this comment

While gerrymandering is certainly being used by Republicans at this time due to their wins at the state level, it is and has been a sword of the Democrat as well.

True to a point. Dems have used it, but the current GOP has turned it into an art form.

Fully 131 of the 233 House Republicans represent districts that are more than 80 percent white. Not only have many of those members opposed measures beyond improving border security in the past, but there are also no natural pressure groups for immigration reform in their districts. The Democratic Caucus, which is largely unified in support of some sort of immigration-reform proposal, has just 31 members from such very white districts.

Meanwhile, at least 216 House Republicans come from districts that voted for Mitt Romney over President Obama in November. Jobs and the economy were the prevailing issues in these areas, but the voters in those districts also proved they weren’t turned off by a candidate who championed “self-deportation” as an immigration policy.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-immigration-reform-could-die-in-the-house-20130129

There’s also a chart to show the breakdown by percentages of non-Whites in the district. That chart kinda points to Jay’s topic yesterday but on a national level.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I don’t care about the gop so I did not comment.”

And yet you comment here everyday so obviously you do care.

points and laughs

• Link
• Report this comment

Brooks has been complaining for the past few years about Republicans. I have never read him much; has he changed his tune since Bush? Or has he always been a fairly liberal conservative?

• Link
• Report this comment

So funny to have progressives keep harping on Gerrymandering. Obama wins 51% of the vote (6 million more votes nationwide) and yet the Republicans have a 33 seat advantage in the US House of Reps.

In 1984, Reagan beat Mondale in 49 states, won the electoral vote 525 to 13 and won the popular vote by 54 million to 37 million or 17 million more votes nationwide and yet the Democrats held the house by a 269 to 166 margin.

Now let us talk which party is the King of Gerrymandering.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bro

Republicans have without a doubt sharpened the gerrymandering sword. And of course with their let’s change the electoral process where we can’t win, but keep it the same where we can it is just getting worse.

• Link
• Report this comment

td: So funny to have progressives keep harping on Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering was just one of my points. Do you have a response to the other points?

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife
January 29th, 2013
3:29 pm

Then why do you continue to comment?

• Link
• Report this comment

Now let us talk which party is the King of Gerrymandering.

Currently, the king is the GOP. Reagan is dead, and 1984 was almost 30 years ago.

• Link
• Report this comment

But their comments are heavily screened and that can be boring

It was a little livelier over at Nate Silver’s (I suspect the moderators provide more leeway at that page), but, point taken.

• Link
• Report this comment

There will be no second GOP. When Jammy Codder was crushed in a landslide by Ronald Reagen the same talk went around. The Dem Party was out of touch with the people. The Dem Party was DEAD. For a long time the Dem Party was down – way down. Like a roach under the door, even though you called Orkin, they are back and so will the Repub Party be back in due time. What will slap down the Dems? How about Obama’s Great “D” of 2013? Losing your job, your home, your family can change your mind about some one and there HAS to be a SCAPEGOAT. Just like “W” was the Repub scapegoat so shall Obama be. I don’t see any way out of this – however I do see the rise of a 3rd PARTY fed up with the PARTY LOYALTY of both sides. Both sides built this debt – both sides will feel defeat when you lose every thing and realize you were wrong you will return to LOYALTY for the USA (not the Fed gub’ment) and PARTY LOYALTY will vanish. The 3rd PARTY will bring us through the GREAT “D” of 2013 and in to a very different environment – for the better I hope.

• Link
• Report this comment

F. Sinkwich

January 29th, 2013
2:26 pm

I wouldn’t call Brooks a “conservative.”

Center-left, maybe.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Took you three minutes to get the RINO card. LOL According to Sinkie, this guys a Democrat, “center-left” not a a Republican at all……..

• Link
• Report this comment

First amendment.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gerrymandering? I’m still trying to figure out how my district got changed to Tom Price……….. You think the guy from Cobb County gives a tinkers damn about uf folks over here in Dekalb?

• Link
• Report this comment

And the fact that you obviously care…or else you wouldn’t comment.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bill Clinton “Dreamers dream and Schemers scheme and what is “is”. The crooks in D.C. are burning the midnight oil. Is there any way out from under this FISCAL CLIFF? So far no PLAN to save America.

• Link
• Report this comment

“States do not universally recognize some of these marriages. This is a state issue’

In the same way that slavery is?

• Link
• Report this comment

E. Cat — “true dat…neither would I…Buckley’s influence is before i ever showed any interests in politics…i was “absent” before then”

It was Buckley’s brand of ‘thinking conservatism’ that first pulled me in the GOP’s direction in the 1970s. I liked that he quit one of his early magazine jobs when he felt that the editorial climate was fostering anti-Semitism. I also liked that despite him having argued in favor of white supremacy in his National Review in the 50s, he *changed his mind* in the 60s, renounced the entire idea of racism and broke with the John Birchers.

I didn’t always agree with Buckley (and I’ve always had some key differences with him), but I liked the idea that he wasn’t always ‘married’ to a given argument, and that if conditions changed or his argument played out, that he’d back up, reconsider and then come up with a new argument. It was that *flexibility* he employed in his reasoning that really caught my notice. He wasn’t afraid to say ‘well, that was wrong’ or ‘I should think of that in a different way,’ and then he’d go DO it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F_Buckley#Views_on_modern-day_conservatism

To get a better idea of the man (and perhaps even a smidge of respect for him), I recommend reading one of his lighter works first; perhaps one of his Blackford Oakes spy novels or one of his travel books, and then give one of his nonfiction works a try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr._bibliography

Agree with him or disagree with him, one could never honestly call Buckley thoughtless, foolish or stupid.

• Link
• Report this comment

David Brooks is not a conservative.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gerrymandering? That would be the work of the “Count” Tom Murphy and King Roy Barnes. – such arrogance ….. makes the current gub’ment of Georgia look like innocent lambs.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here we go again. Both parties dig in an nothing is ever accomplished. The left believes that any cut in entitlements would destroy the system. Cuts must be made but they can be done by reining in the increased cost of healthcare. This will be solved by give and take by both sides. The right believes that any gun control means the government is coming to get your gun. If you believe the government or anyone in the government has the power and desire to take your gun you better turn it in now. I don’t want to fight a armored unit with U. S. Army troops with my rifle. This problem also can be solved by give and take on both sides. All Americans need to work together with opens minds or we will never solve our problems.

• Link
• Report this comment

for Coulter, are you kidding–pathetic to use that as an example

Preach, brother. Jay is obviously terrified of Coultergeist and the Doughy Pantload.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Marriage is not a Constitutionally protected right so it is left up to the states to decide just like the age people can marry and the degree of relationship one can be married.”

Loving vs Virginia proves that marriage rights are not solely a state issue.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, by reaching so far back into your archives, you’re reminding these guys that Coulter stopped being relevant ages ago, and that probably hurts.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay

January 29th, 2013
3:34 pm

It appears that 20 million people in this country in 1984 crossed voted for Reagan and the crossed over and voted for a Democrat for office. It appears that there was very few if any crossover voters this year so with districts drawn as safe by both parties.

Conclusions:

1: The nation is more partisan now then it was in 1984.
2: Districts have been packed with like minded voters.
3: Obama got every possible urban vote out to the polls while 8 million less republicans even showed up to vote then in 2008.

One other small thing to consider. Republicans in this state really thought they could have had one more seat in Congress but they were afraid of drawing the districts in a way that might have taken an African American district out due to the voting rights act.

• Link
• Report this comment

” do not think that word means what you think it means…”

It may be that thinking is your problem as assuming is a symptom.

• Link
• Report this comment

gerrymandering was invented by the left. YES you did it first. Cheating is not relegated to the right. You have done your share of shady deals. As far as the AJC goes I have found that it fits nicely in the bottom of Mushu’s (my bearded dragon) cage. Then I apply a nice layer of sand so he will feel at home. Loves those chirpy little crickets – yum yum! You know – those chirpy crickets some how remind me of D.C. politicians.

• Link
• Report this comment

DannyX

January 29th, 2013
3:50 pm

“Marriage is not a Constitutionally protected right so it is left up to the states to decide just like the age people can marry and the degree of relationship one can be married.”

Loving vs Virginia proves that marriage rights are not solely a state issue.

Being discriminated against based on race is Constitutionally protected (See the 13th and 14th amendments). Now show me who you have sex with is protected in the Constitution?

• Link
• Report this comment

My goodness! yes indeed! Mushu does shed his skin like a good lizard should but he takes no part in PARTY LOYALTY politics ’cause I raised him right…… USA first. These D.C.’ers can shed their skin faster than a lie can pass their lips. Chameleons abound in D.C. and are not what the appear to be.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Now show me who you have sex with is protected in the Constitution?”

The Supreme Court ruled against sodomy laws, the case they heard was based on sex. All sodomy laws were thrown out, states that had sodomy laws that only prohibited gay sex included.

• Link
• Report this comment

Seems like the leftist agenda ia never complete until the gays come into the conversation. Seems like the rightist agenda is never complete until abortion comes into the conversation.
Folks defend the gay situation by comparing it to slavery, etc. You gotta look at it more objectively than that. When the populace has been educated forever that being gay is this/that/the other it is hard to instantly change ones mind. In manuals, medical books, schools, etc. it was taught as a perversion, etc. Compare it to all of a sudden someone deciding that sharia law is now the law of the land. Lots of folks are not gonna just say “okay” when it was pounded by practically every institution in the country. Something ingrained for wrong as so long is not easily all of a sudden gonna be accepted as right. Lets say the scouts do accept gays, leaders and all. What is the difference between a gay leader in the tent with a little boy, even if there is no bad intention at all, and a straight male leader in the tent with a little girl in girl scouts (again, even if there is no bad intent?)
How about showers, etc? I sure as hell am independant, but this one is baffling to say the least…………………

• Link
• Report this comment

About Jay Bookman

An Atlanta blog with a little bit of opinion about a whole lot of things

Is this a lie or what? It’s not about a whole lot of things,just mostly about blasting the GOP!

• Link
• Report this comment

It appears that 20 million people in this country in 1984 crossed voted for Reagan and the crossed over and voted for a Democrat for office.

It appears that math is not your friend.

1984 vote totals.

Reagan: 54,455,472
Mondale: 37,577,352

Total votes cast in presidential election: 92,032,824

House Dems: 42,799,060
House GOP: 38,540,762

Total votes cast in House elections: 82,421,838 (including 3rd party votes)

Senate Dems: 23,079,278
Senate GOP: 22,850,493

Total votes cast in Senate elections: 46,322,800 (including 3rd party votes)

I don’t see where your 20 million crossover voters come from. There were 10 million more votes cast in the presidential election than in the House race and about 45 million more than in the Senate race. Reagan got less than 12 million more votes than House Dems, so I can’t imagine where you’d get 20 million crossover votes. However, given your knack at posting factually incorrect information, I’d say you’re par for the course today.

• Link
• Report this comment

Skin shedding is a process of this “evolving” Prez. – He shed himself of Rev RAT when he was no longer politically “convenient”. He shed himself of believing marriage is between one man and one woman when that “philosophy” was no longer convenient. Now Obama – shed yourself of the FISCAL CLIFF…….. and the political disaster to follow. This is one time I am looking for a miracle ’cause I know Obama won’t shed his way out of this one.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mabye I should spell this out a little more: Jay, if you have to reference 10 year old articlesto claim objectivity, you simply have none To stands, I am refering to the years of Jay’s op pieces, Goodness…move on. Jay, have the courage to defend your convictions not some 10 year old references….

@Common..yet divorce may help all the children of the family to lead happier lives and the sooner the better….Obama shed ACORN, the right can shed some of the far right groups…happens for political expediency,,

• Link
• Report this comment

“Northeast conservative” – are you trying to make a funny?

• Link
• Report this comment

@in for a short g@-@nder

January 29th, 2013
4:06 pm
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What are your “psychological roots”….the place where your beliefs began,

where did it spring into being?

I KNOW……The SOUTH.

• Link
• Report this comment

Morality, are you still licking your wounds? Bet you will vote for Rand Paul in 2016 and dumb it down another notch or two.

• Link
• Report this comment

Brosephus™

January 29th, 2013
4:11 pm

Ruff estimate off the top of my head after gazing over several other post with numbers.

I was counting what House GOP received as compared to Reagan and it was a little less the 15 million instead of 20 million. Geez have I committed a severe crime in your book.

Point is still relevant. A great number of people crossed over unlike this election cycle. Conclusion based on this other circumstantial evidence is that this country is way more partisan today then in 1984.

When a thesis is close being viable and debunks a left talking point you (progressives) tend to want to argue about specifics instead of the overall theme.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bro

Why does your last exchange remind me of an exchange you had about the voting in OH?

I’m just waiting to read a post about how it was the “publication’s” where the assertion was derived from fault and not the grandiose bs assertion of the blogger’s fault.

Once I read that it will be a complete Deja Vu………….

• Link
• Report this comment

SKIPPER

I can see you’ve got issues…I read your post twice. On the one hand, you seem to have a pretty good idea of where the anti gay cultural attitudes come from, but on the other, you seem to still be struggling with how to relate to that imposed from outside from your own qualms and insecurities. Keep at it, though, you are evolving.

And the thread in general?

Not a Republican, so it don’t really matter to me.

• Link
• Report this comment

A Modern Proposal (an initial draft)

It has been a long time since my great, great, great grandfather, the esteemed Dr. Swift, undertook to propose a just and sensible solution to the problem of starvation in his beloved Ireland. Happily, we do not find ourselves in that same plight as citizens of these United States. But, we are nonetheless facing starvation of another sort – a felt and dire want
of opportunity to pursue happyness as we see best. This is greatly taxing the emotions and hope of our citizenry to such an extent that people in polls regularly indicate they see little prospect for the future or their lives and our country as a whole. And, as he Good Book says, where there is no vision, the people perish. It is rare now to observe our citizens investing in new enterprises or embarking upon great adventures (as my great forebear’s close friend, Gulliver, did a few centuries ago). Instead, mired in a avalanche of responsibility, most have become technological automatons – living their pathetic lives enslaved to televisions, computers, cellphones, pdas and the like – all in a desperate attempt to save time
of which they would otherwise have plenty were it not for the oppressive burden of caring for others unable to care for themselves.

Some great strides to combat this problem have been made in recent decades, most notably the legalization of abortion. For it is an undeniable fact that children are a true inconvenience if they cannot be made to contribute to the well being of a family, such as they did at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Or – and this is more applicable to our current
problem – if the maintenance and care for children might consume so much time and money that parents are no longer free to do as they would and lapse into utter misery. Businesses offering care services, vacuous television shows and (most recently) video games have done much to alleviate this inconvenience and discomfort. But they are proving to be increasingly ineffective as the attention span of children, when they become inoculated to such diversions, has grown shorter and shorter. Indeed, children of this present age are more likely to become parasites, lounging around doing nothing while consuming valuable resources and unnecessarily taking up the space and time belonging to their parents.

So, instead of bringing infants to term and then using them as a source of sustenance (which my sage forebear, Dr. Swift proposed), it is indeed much more sensible in our present condition to terminate their lives before they are even born – thereby precluding costly food processing in a factory that would meet the applicable FDA requirements. The problem now,
however, is that abortions are allowed only before a certain period of time has elapsed in the pregnancy – the upper limit being 28 weeks. This is a monstrous and immoral restriction upon the rights of both parents and most notably the mother. For suppose, by way of example, that both parents are desirous to have a child but discover, late in the development of the fetus and by reading several articles outlining the high costs of parenting, that they really do not wish to have a child after all. Why then should their God-given right to pursue happyness be denied in the servitude of parenting? Those who argue otherwise, especially from professed religious motivations, demonstrate quite forcibly that they know neither the will of almighty God nor His power. Their only aim is to render the lives of poor parents utterly miserable and deny to them the very happyness they themselves enjoy. The lowest realms of the abyss are reserved for hypocrites such as these.

But, apart from legalizing all abortions and perhaps – for those parents who are somewhat dim-witted or otherwise slow to comprehend the ramifications of bringing another child into this world and the burden it imposes on them in restricting their right to pursue happyness – infanticide, there is yet another freedom of action that should be extended to grown children caring for another class of beings very similar to young children, who likewise have proven to be an impediment to the pursuit of happyness, and that is the infirm elderly. Indeed, it has often been observed that the elderly, once they lose their physical mobility and mental faculties, are but young children all over again. They therefore prove to be as much a nuisance as infants and as much an impediment to the desires of their caretakers to do as they wish. This, as in the case of burdensome young children, is a great evil.

Hence I propose the immediate legalization of euthanasia for the infirm elderly. Besides the very great benefit of freeing up the time and monetary resources of former caretakers, there is much to be materially gained from such a practice. Since, unlike unborn fetuses and infants, the elderly infirm frequently have in their bodies valuable items – such as harvestable organs and implantables (like gold fillings) – former caretakers might be able to recoup some or all of the money expended in the care of these organisms upon their cessation (aside from whatever goods may be gleaned through inheritance by means of a will).

They full sense and sagacity of this proposal should be evident to all. Some people have been arguing that the same rationale underlying this modest suggestion should be extended to other organisms, such as the mentally retarded and the completely paralyzed. I must say, although I felt at first some revulsion to the idea, I now see the prudence and logic of it and declare myself completely amenable to it. So, while I would be content with the implementation my own (narrower) proposal, I would be doubly content with a law that comprehends these additional modes of euthanasia.

• Link
• Report this comment

“When a thesis is close being viable and debunks a left talking point you (progressives) tend to want to argue about specifics instead of the overall theme.”

You could have just blamed it on some publication. That has been done before. I think you might be aware of it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, can there be length limits to comments please? The good Doctor is a bit long winded.

• Link
• Report this comment

Being discriminated against based on race is Constitutionally protected (See the 13th and 14th amendments).

Ok, which joker here slipped td a fake constitution? Fess up.

• Link
• Report this comment

was counting what House GOP received as compared to Reagan and it was a little less the 15 million instead of 20 million. Geez have I committed a severe crime in your book.

Nope, you have not committed a severe crime in my book. I have a degree in math, and I was simply pointing out the error of your mathematical analysis. As TBS pointed out, this is not your first time flubbing numbers to make them appear better than what they were. Whenever you post something honest, I’ll have no problem with backing you up. It only took 30 seconds to google those vote totals.

————————-

Why does your last exchange remind me of an exchange you had about the voting in OH?

Deja vu huh??

• Link
• Report this comment

josef

WSJ is known as a liberal commie rag so it doesn’t count.

• Link
• Report this comment

I listened to David Brooks on NPR for years. He is definitely left of center. He is more conservative than your typical Democrat, but left of center on every issue is hardly conservative.

• Link
• Report this comment

You can’t blame them for wanting to separate themselves from the extreme Southern right wing of the party, they make no sense. I’d run too.

• Link
• Report this comment

Michael – I am not happy about the SOCIALIST left being in office. However, as I have said many times on here before I am not a PARTY LOYALIST. I am a FISCAL conservative – did not vote for “W” or Obama – as they are BOTH FISCAL liberals. Paul…. some he says I agree with some I do not. He would be better than we currently have…. at least on FISCAL spending matters. Unless we get this spending and the Fed debt under control all your dreams of the SOCIALIST social big spending programs on the left won’t mean a thing and won’t be financed during the the BIG “D” of 2013. I am not a member of EITHER PARTY. I will be a member of the PARTY THAT IS LOYAL TO THE FISCAL SOLVENCY AND SECURITY OF THE USA.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef

Oh I caught it and the lack of response you have received as well.

______________________

Not supposed to laugh at you own joke too much, but I did like my “Jewish League” joke last night.

• Link
• Report this comment

skipper

January 29th, 2013
4:09 pm
Seems like the leftist agenda ia never complete until the gays come into the conversation. Seems like the rightist agenda is never complete until abortion comes into the conversation.
Folks defend the gay situation by comparing it to slavery, etc. You gotta look at it more objectively than that. When the populace has been educated forever that being gay is this/that/the other it is hard to instantly change ones mind. In manuals, medical books, schools, etc. it was taught as a perversion, etc. Compare it to all of a sudden someone deciding that sharia law is now the law of the land. Lots of folks are not gonna just say “okay” when it was pounded by practically every institution in the country. Something ingrained for wrong as so long is not easily all of a sudden gonna be accepted as right. Lets say the scouts do accept gays, leaders and all. What is the difference between a gay leader in the tent with a little boy, even if there is no bad intention at all, and a straight male leader in the tent with a little girl in girl scouts (again, even if there is no bad intent?)
How about showers, etc? I sure as hell am independant, but this one is baffling to say the least…………………

uhhh…homosexuality has always been a perversion in the vast majority of societies…at least until around the late 1960s when the gay/lesbian agenda really began to take off.

Lets say the scouts do accept gays, leaders and all. What is the difference between a gay leader in the tent with a little boy, even if there is no bad intention at all, and a straight male leader in the tent with a little girl in girl scouts…

If you really have to ask this you are way out in left field somewhere.

• Link
• Report this comment

“David Brooks is not a conservative.” and variations on that statement.

There you have it, folks. In many peoples’ minds, “Republican” and ‘conservative” are one and the same. And for many, it’ not enough to be conservative, you have to be CONSERVATIVE . Still say the interlopers should leave the Party and form their own Conservative Party. We keep hearing how we’re in a conservative country. This oughta be a slam dunk for them. Before you know it, they’ll have most of the people in their Party!

• Link
• Report this comment

“So Indigo, in your world view, being gay means they would sexually abuse little boys?”

I believe it is a fact that half or more of male homosexuals were sexually abused as children. The percentage is much higher than that for those I have known personally – around 80-90%. It appears that most of those that have been sexually abused do not become abusers themselves, but more than a few do. But this isn’t the primary reason I oppose gays in the Boy Scouts. I do so on Biblical grounds. If you don’t agree, Jay, take it up with God on the last day.

“By that same logic, I guess that means that as a heterosexual, you shouldn’t be trusted around 11-year-old girls, correct?”

There is such a thing as girl scouts. And if you really don’t know an adult male, you as a parent are pretty stupid to leave your daughter alone with such a person. Sexual abuse happens MUCH more than is reported – just look at how long it took for the Penn State abuse to come to light.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hmmm… being a male coach to girls gymnastics must be a virtual supermarket to heterosexual men.

• Link
• Report this comment

Only in Jay Bookman’s fantasy land is David Brooks a conservative. If that is what passes for truthful journalism, maybe Bookman should register his laptop with the freedom police.

• Link
• Report this comment

TBS

Temme sumpin…is Closet Capers closed on Tuesday?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Sexual assault is mainly a crime committed by straight men. Do we also keep all females away from all men?”

Whoops sorry rightwingextreme, your group doesn’t believe rape exists.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef

Not sure, but it seems we have a few here. Many sure seem to know what gay men want to to with Boy Scouts, NAMBLA, etc……

• Link
• Report this comment

The percentage is much higher than that for those I have known personally – around 80-90%.

TC, did it ever occur to you those gay men crying on your shoulder might not be a representative sample?

• Link
• Report this comment

Brooks cannot embrace the word independent because he is conservative in
the manner of conservative Democrats of old or liberal Republicans of old and
wants to believe that retrogressives can have a party of their own. His desires
can only be accomplished by moving to the Democratic party just like Christie
and Rubio should do and this President is holding the door open and waving them in.
Obama Republicans.

• Link
• Report this comment

Morality

Since there are pedophiles who describe themselves as heterosexual, do the Boy Scouts just ban overnight trips?

I’m sure you know and commonsense dictates that they are homosexuals that work within the Scouts as we speak. Just because they are not raising their hand and saying “I’m gay” doesn’t mean that there are not gays in that organization.

• Link
• Report this comment

Aquagirl — “TC, did it ever occur to you those gay men crying on your shoulder might not be a representative sample?”

Oh my. Skewed data? Quelle HORREUR.

• Link
• Report this comment

You are wrong Jay – as usual. No one on here has said that all “gays” are pedophiles ….. fact is some are and do rape little boys.. I said SOME. Some heterosexuals rape little girls. S A N D U S K Y. I wouldn’t put my child in harm’s way with a potential tragedy that would ruin his/her life forever just to make a P.C. point. Children trust us to protect them – but you to prove a point – would put them in harm’s way? What if your judgement is wrong?

• Link
• Report this comment

@Jay ,Ridiculous response as I said have courage in your convictions, Anyway, Brooks is definitely on to something and does have an audience. He writes op-ed pieces in the WSJ, I’ll look for him in Mother Jones next…..Goodnight , Jay, tommarrow we’d like alittle George Will and mabye MORE COWBELL..

• Link
• Report this comment

Well you don’t have to be a female to be a Girl Scout troop leader. Wonder why that is?

• Link
• Report this comment

“TC, did it ever occur to you those gay men crying on your shoulder might not be a representative sample?”

They weren’t “crying on [my] shoulder” (I am not sure why you suppose they were); they were being honest in Christian recovery-like groups – just like everyone else was (whether they were formerly gay, alcoholic, adulterous and so on). I don’t know how “representative” they are, but I am convinced that the sexual abuse of children is greatly under-reported (as I suppose is rape and similar crimes). So I don’t put much stock in the statistical “reports” on such things. I think they are probably wrong – maybe even to a great extent.

• Link
• Report this comment

Working with and knowing openly gay and lesbian people I find it rather funny when I talk to people who have no idea what it’s like to associate with people outside their own closed group and they have the idea that every lesbian woman wants them if they are female and every gay man wants every man.

Like everyone else Gay/Lesbian people prefer who they prefer, some won’t date outside their race, some prefer blonds, some like large people and some like petite people. They seem to have the same idiosyncrasies as everyone else. Why? Because they’re human plain and simple. They’re just neater than the rest of us.

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier
I believe it is a fact that half or more of male homosexuals were sexually abused as children.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
any numbers for heterosexual men

• Link
• Report this comment

TC

It is known that there are abused children that are heterosexual, what is the exact scientific link that says if a child is sexually abused they will become homosexual?

• Link
• Report this comment

rightwing;
Learn what sarcasm is……..
josef……..I reckon’ I’m tellin’ my age a little bit. I remember being taught in school how evil “those people” (and I quote) were. Yes, in our public schools the day opened with a prayer each morning and things like homosexuality were the most dispicable things imaginable; many boomers can remember this. Right or wrong, it was ingrained into folks at an early age. If someone was even suspected of being qu$$r (using “gay” was unheard of back then), they were ostracized to say the least. There were even films shown to the older kids! Its kind of like teaching a new language……….a small kid taught two languages from an early age usually can speak either w/o a bad accent. An older person who learns a language will have more of an accent towards their original language. The few child molesters from around here were MOSTLY (not always, but mostly) men abusing young boys.
To all of a sudden being expected to totally abandon this is a tall order…….one can certainly be independent w/o voting for gay marriage.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef 5:04

Thanks for the post. Insights like that are one reason I read this blog.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef @ 5:11

Bingo.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Some straights are pedophiles. Why take a chance? No adult should ever have contact with any child, ESPECIALLY those children to whom you are related, because some 70 to 90 percent of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by relatives. :

A fallacious “argument”. Observable “contact” is NOT the same as unsupervised or individual contact. And we really don’t know what the percentages of sexual abuse are. I was sexually abused as a child and never reported it. And it was not perpetrated by relative. I am telling you, I know a number of people who were sexually abused and who never reported it. It is a shameful thing to experience and many people (as I did) sweep it under the rug in their minds and pretend it never happened until it really starts to affect them in some unpredictable fashion.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul — “Televangelists and Republicans call for Olympics boycott in 3…2….1……”

There’s a hilarious recorded National Lampoon skit involving male and female commentators at a women’s gymnastic competition. The male commentator gets more and more worked up (along with more and more suggestive language) during one competitor’s routine, and you can imagine how it ends up.

Also, Robin Williams does a hilarious bit about interviewing Olympic gold-medal gymnast Nadia Comaneci (of course he does all the voices); you can’t understand what the coach/translator and “Nadia” are saying in faux-Russian or whatever, but you can easily gather from “Nadia’s” tone of voice and body language that she’s more interested in drinking, smoking and BOYS than in any silly Olympic competition.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay – Your argument is WAY PAST LAME. Common sense over rules political correctness. Go ahead and put your child at risk – I hope your judgement is correct – if not you are guilty of not protecting your child. I would say that 98 % would agree with me in their hearts though some would not have the courage to say so. There is NO danger of heterosexual men abusing little boys sexually. NONE. With a “gay” scout master that is not true because SOME, as you just pointed out, are pedophiles. We cannot eliminate the “closet” pedophiles but background checks on ALL Scout Masters and anyone else left in charge of children should be done on a routine basis. That includes day care, school teachers, etc.

• Link
• Report this comment

I agree with David Brooks 50 percent of the time. I believe he is showing his frustration with the current GOP because a large section has become inflexible, dogmatic and will not listen to reason. Of course, this is going to upset people such as Jindal, Hannity, Rove and Brooks because they mostly live in the real world, and recognize the glaring reality that American demographics and attitudes have changed. The so-called intellectuals speaking and writing about the failings of the GOP are hoping their party doesn’t go the way of the Whigs. But Brooks brings up a good point: who will finally exert some leadership within the GOP to turn things around. Of course I hope they don’t. I would like to see the Dems capture the House in 2014 so we can start getting things done in this country. I still fume over McConnell’s remark that the GOP’s only purpose was to make Obama a one-term president. Well Mitch, how’d that work out for you. I hope you get thrown out on your butt in the next election.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Are these numbers like the 20 million or something you can substantiate? It occurs without a doubt, but 80% of the time?”

I’m with TBS, thanks in advance for posting the information, Towncrier.

More data from utternonsense.com coming our way.

Goodie, more right wing science!

• Link
• Report this comment

One way to cut down on repeat pedophiles is to reduce the number of pedophiles if you know what I mean? Three months to a fair trial, three months to a possible appeal and SIX months more to let those in the prison system “work” on them. Then get the needle ready and bye bye!

• Link
• Report this comment

“What does you listening to adult gay men describe how they were molested as children have to do with anything, period? ”

Huh? It is anecdotal evidence that 1) there is a correlation between homosexuality in men and having been sexually abused as children and 2) childhood sexual abuse is under-reported. Come on, smarten up. I shouldn’t have to spell out things like this for someone like you, AG.

• Link
• Report this comment

There is no place to bury the tainted south and its mental illness in the operations of a legit party. Democrats found this out years ago and cut their losses and gave the disease to the Republicans gladly. The old guard GOP now realize that supporting these Nuevo southern illiterate lunatics is going to lower the standard of living in the northeast to the same level as the south. Since Richard Nixon it was cool to have an affair with this red lighted district, to get easy votes, but you never identified with them. Somehow in the last decade of Bushes the whole party, not just a branch of Dixiecans, but a party of them have showed how country, country can get. The right have an apathetic constituency anyway, who follow politics only if it is mixed into their gospel and social life, never straight up. One day the old guard Republicans woke up from a drunk and realized they had married the whore, the family had cut them off from the inheritance and now they want to kick her out and beg for forgiveness. This tea party gang is like junk bonds, it is junk politics and it explains why it was never tried before. It invites bums to a low bar of qualification for a business that actually demands some acumen.

The real challenge is when the south realizes it is its own worse enemy and it too decides to join the union instead of causing all of us such difficulty.

• Link
• Report this comment

AQUAGIRL

Interesting thing, at least to me, that. Just my own experience, but, yes there are a lot of conversations among gay men about NOT being molested. The gist of them is how we avoided it. Some of my gay colleagues and I are currently toying with the idea of putting together a “guide” for young gay people on how to avoid it and what to do when targeted.

• Link
• Report this comment

TC

Again, how do you account for abused children who are heterosexual?

I’m sure you have that scientific unbiased data at hand.

There are adults who are homosexual who have been abused and those who have not. Same as heterosexual.

How do you account for non abused homosexuals?

To say you do not have scientific data to back up your claim or at least not unbiased data would be a slight understatement.

You will need better data than those rabbit holes that td and yourself got lost in regarding that oversampling by the “left wing” pollsters to make it look as if Obama was leading when he wasn’t. Just saying

• Link
• Report this comment

On the subject of the Boy Scouts, I would never allow my son to go overnight camping with a gay Scout master. NEVER. While I support same-sex marriages because of the equality issue, this joint relationship from afar is distant and safe and doesn’t directly impact me. However, a homosexual male adult having an authority position in the Boy Scouts and control over my child’s welfare and safety even for short periods, is a risk that I am not willing to take. Let it be said, it hits too close to home. Go ahead and label me a homophobe, but if something were to happen to my son I wouldn’t be able to live with myself when I could have prevented it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul — “Guess I’m doomed to spend loads of time on Google and youtube……”

I’m pretty sure that the National Lampoor skit was called “Gymnasty,” and as far as I know, it was only audio.

I saw the Robin Williams routine many times, many years ago, so I imagine there will be some poorly-duped clips of it on Youtube.

• Link
• Report this comment

Will come back later to check TC’s scientific data and answers to the other questions as well as td’s substantiated 80% number? Can’t wait to read the spin or see there is no “verifiable answers”

peace……..

• Link
• Report this comment

“But he sure was a predator.”

I was wondering when this point would be made. Such predators seek targets. Easy targets. Where they don’t raise suspicion.

But that makes things begin to get a big complicated and that upsets some peoples’ nice, neat, orderly, “I can control things because I have the tidy answers” view of life.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay

Are you honestly saying you’d send your 11 or 12 year son on a Boy Scout camping trip with an openly gay scoutmaster?

Sorry, but with so many pedofile horror stories in the news, that WOULD be political correctness.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay

January 29th, 2013
5:23 pm

“There is NO danger of heterosexual men abusing little boys sexually. NONE.

Jerry Sandusky says “What?”

There is a greatly less probability of it happening. Bottom line is would you feel your male son are safer camping with a heterosexual or homosexual? Would you feel safer with your daughter camping with a heterosexual man or a woman?

• Link
• Report this comment

KUTGF — “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGwIyzrlOMQ”

I can’t see Youtubes here; is that the NatLamp bit or the Robin Williams?

• Link
• Report this comment

80% plus or minus? 20% plus or minus?

Why not just say “Whatever number I pulled from my butt, plus or minus.” The number wouldn’t be any more accurate, but it would be amazingly and consistently precise.

• Link
• Report this comment

“How do you account for non abused homosexuals?”

I do not believe homosexuality is genetic. One of the theories offered to explain, the one to which I subscribe, is that people are imprinted with a “sexual” orientation in childhood by one or more experiences. Sexual abuse would be a kind of imprinting, under that theory. But it is not the only way people are imprinted. It is true that some people as adults simply “choose” to experiment with homosexuality and then pursue those kind of relationships. But the vast majority of gays point to childhood as the time they first felt attracted to members of the same sex.

• Link
• Report this comment

JHM, the Natl Lampoon version dubbed with Nadia video.

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier, I don’t think that search you suggested will yield the results you think.

I’m sure however you can find a link to some crazy made up Christian study.

“The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so.

“”"”And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.”"”"”

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

• Link
• Report this comment

JHM, off topic but they also have the Humpback Whale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isxuT24Bm3w

I would direct it in the general direction of someone but Jay may put me in time out.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay; You’ve got more brass than I do when it comes to “trust.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Just back from meeting with comrades.

How’s rubeland?

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier

Funny thing, but the vast majority of straights point to childhood as the time they first felt attracted to members of the opposite sex.

Got any peer-reviewed studies (not from the Bachman Cure-All Institute) supporting that? Else, who is it putting forth with this ‘imprinting’s the answer” theory?

• Link
• Report this comment

Come on Towncrier, show us what you got. You are the one that suggested Google!

http://www.pandys.org/articles/abuseandhomosexuality.html

The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) 1.51% of the population of the US identify as GLBT, whereas other studies put this figure as high as 8% (Fay et al, 1989). However, statistics for people abused in childhood are significantly higher that this, with reliable estimates given for child sexual abuse to be 16% for males and 27% for females in the USA (NRCCSA, 1994).

“Therefore, if there is a causal link between childhood sexual abuse and identifying as GLBT later in life, then why aren’t the figures for the number of GLBT people in the population reflected by the abuse statistics? There are significantly more cases of sexual abuse than there are people that identify as GLBT (Macmillan, 1997), and furthermore, the vast majority of persons sexually abused as children are heterosexual (Keith, 1991).”

• Link
• Report this comment

I agree, Morality? and Indigo, and everyone else with common sense! It is foolish to put your child at risk of abuse by allowing gay boy scout leaders. Let’s say that there are the same % of gay pedophiles as straight ones. A STRAIGHT scoutmaster who is a pedophile is sick, but they are MUCH less likely to abuse a BOY scout (to which they would have abundant access) than a GAY scoutmaster would!!

This is why we REALLY need to get STRAIGHT WOMEN out of boy scout leadership positions! Did you know women are allowed to have leadership positions in boy scouts??? That’s horrifying! As you all know, WOMEN can be pedophiles too, and we really don’t want to take the risk of having our boys abused!!!

As far as I’m concerned, gay men and straight women can be leaders for girl scouts, while lesbians and straight men can be leaders for boy scouts, otherwise, there’s just too much risk for abuse.

I encourage you to think about this when you get babysitters for your children as well. Unfortunately, I have an 11 year old son and a 9 year old daughter. I’m 99% sure they are both straight — I certainly raised them that way. But finding babysitters is a nightmare, because I don’t want to risk abuse. My advice to anyone in a similar situation is to get 2 different babysitters — a straight male or gay female for the boy and a straight female or gay male for the girl. And then restrict both children to separate wings of the house… The real headache though will be in a year or so when my son starts puberty… Since he’s straight, I am gonna have to go to AWESOME lengths to keep him away from his sister! Raising kids in the 21st century is so complicated. Pray for me!

• Link
• Report this comment

“we’re”

• Link
• Report this comment

“I’m sure however you can find a link to some crazy made up Christian study.”

LOL. Not intended to be an instance of unintended irony. Why don’t you look at who wrote the linked article and observe the use of the word “rainbow” in the URL? Secondly, my principal claim was in regard to the percentage of those men who were sexually abused as children who became homosexual, not how many such people themselves become abusers.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay – Let me get this straight (n pun intended). You would have let your male child go in to the shower with Sandusky if you had known he was a “gay” man because you had no knowledge of him being a pedophile?

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay

January 29th, 2013
5:39 pm

“I can not wait until Trump buys the NY Times and cleans house.”

Yeah. That’ll happen right after he exposes Obama’s birth certificate as a fraud.

You did see the below article? It may not happen but if the TImes keeps losing this much money per quarter it is not out of the realm of possibilities since he is interested.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/23/news/companies/trump-new-york-times/index.html

• Link
• Report this comment

brooks is a con.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Towncrier, since you are soooo in the know, what are the dreams of NAMGLA?”

I have no idea; I have never heard of that organization. But, if you are instead referring to NAMBLA, why don’t you just visit their site and get it from the proverbial horse’s mouth. They dislike marriage and favor “free” love, but they also like to remain out of prison.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gay vets?

I thought the military had that solved.

• Link
• Report this comment

Wow. A NYT’s “conservative” reporter wants a seperation from the Republican party, what a surprise. He is probably afraid he will get fired if he doesn’t. Besides, what todays progressives really want is total annihilation of anyone or any organization that disagrees with them in their march towards toward one party rule. McCarthyism is alive and well today in the US and ironically it is the so-called “free thinking liberals” who are the ones doing it. It thrives in the media (as Jay and Luckovich demonstrate here daily) and it thrives in the Whitehouse. Demonize and destroy anyone or anything that doesn’t believe as you do, that is their mantra. To this day find one mainstream news outlet that has critisized Obama on anything. Just one. Oh, and Fox News doesn’t count because it has deemed as a non-news organization by Media Matters. How does it feel to an official Lockstepper Jay? Do you enjoy wearing those jack boots?

• Link
• Report this comment

Joe Hussein Mama: “The Great Spotted Ilk, noted ungulate of the western Plains states?”

Lol. Alright, well keep looking.

• Link
• Report this comment

Saywhat? – I wouldn’t worry to much about leaving my dog a gay vet’s office – unless I know he/her is in to animal sex. In that case your dog may object.

• Link
• Report this comment

Why don’t you look at who wrote the linked article and observe the use of the word “rainbow” in the URL?

If your implication is “don’t trust them gays” why do you trust the stories you hear from gay guys in your groups?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Now, let’s supposed she had “molested me.” Does that mean that I would have “become” heterosexual?”

My Dad took me to a professional on my 18th Birthday.

You can’t molest the willing

• Link
• Report this comment

How many wives did Solomon have? King Saul? King David? Yeah, the bible was ALL about monogamy……..

• Link
• Report this comment

GT: the Republican Party is at its breaking point but unlike the Democrats they have no leadership

Well, I’d argue the Democrats don’t have a strong leader as well. Obama can do a few things, but he seems weaker than he should.

I’m trying to think of any strong leading Democrat that can take actually be in the race in 2016 and I can’t really think of anyone. ([b]strong and leading at a National level[/b])

• Link
• Report this comment

TC

Of all the people on this blog, Paul probably knows his Bible better than most. He doesn’t cherry pick and has the intelligence and faith to put it into its proper context in time and place. AND he respects others’ viewpoints…an admirable quality, imeoiauo,

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay – You never know for sure do you that someone is “straight” – however Sandusky is not “straight” and we started out our discussion KNOWING that the Scout Master was “gay”. Now do you get what I am saying? More tragedies happen because someone’s judgement was wrong……. I prefer not to put my child at risk. That is the safe thing to do and it is my job to protect any child that I know is in danger of being molested and I would not turn my back and walk out of the shower like that coward did. Sandusky got off light.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If your implication is “don’t trust them gays” why do you trust the stories you hear from gay guys in your groups?”

Because I knew them as friends and am sure they didn’t have an “agenda” (you know what that word means, right?): they were just being “real” and were not trying to get legislation passed. Got it?

• Link
• Report this comment

How many boyfriends did he have? David + Jonathan = lovers!

That’s just stupid.

• Link
• Report this comment

“That’s just stupid.”

Maybe, maybe not. There is certainly some debate there.

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier

““And, pray tell, how did you “become” heterosexual.”

When I was 7 years old in second grade and a very pretty blond girl 4 grades up on my brought me to her parents house after school one day”

So if you’d never had such an imprinting experience by a female, you’d be what… neither heterosexual or homosexual?

• Link
• Report this comment

Since, according to our resident righties, David Brooks is NOT a conservative, but instead is “left of center”, I could use some enlightenment. What would typical views on a range of topics of somebody who was at the “center” (as defined by our local conservatives). What would be considered “extreme” right wing views?

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife

I bet the party down in N.O is about to get crazy. I have a buddy who lives in TX, who will be heading down there Thursday.

• Link
• Report this comment

Anyway, getting back to our topic, I think the intellectually-challenged of the Fright-Wing have willingly followed their Pied Pipers — Lush, Speck, Doorkz, Vannity, Bellow & Anger’em — right off the cliff and into the valley of Fascism.

The have become so brainwashed, they don’t even realize that the beliefs they hold in their heads have been implanted there by the corporate-controlled media that controls their masters.

If you march to right and keep marching right the logical end-point is Fascism. It’s not very complicated.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Glossed right over the part about God commanding (and approving) men to have many wives/concubines/sleep with another woman so you can have a kid ’cause there were no orphans in Bible times, didn’t you?”

No. But you apparently have glossed completely over the NT where it teaches that a man should have but one wife (as is your practice, though you try lamely to use it on some occasions to bolster you own idiosyncratic beliefs). Let me put it to you simply: you are a Biblical ignoramus, and would do well to avoid citing it and thereby embarrassing yourself. Any further references to the Bible by you will be satirized for the folly it is.

“No imprinting studies, eh?”

There are virtually NO studies regarding the development of sexual orientation in childhood that would prove anything. It is but one of a number if theories. Imprinting of animals is a scientifically proven phenomenon.

Since your are so hot for scientific evidence, please provide me with testable scientific evidence for speciation, the lynchpin of Darwin’s theory. We have been waiting over 150 years for that…

• Link
• Report this comment

TBS,

Bourbon Street will be packed.

• Link
• Report this comment

“So if you’d never had such an imprinting experience by a female, you’d be what… neither heterosexual or homosexual?”

I would have had some other experience (which I certainly did). Where did you grow up – in a bubble? But the first one was the definitive one for me.

• Link
• Report this comment

TC

So how do you account for heterosexuals whose “initial imprinting” was abuse by someone of the same sex?

Seems you want to use “imprinting” as evidence, except for the cases where you don’t want to use it as evidence.

• Link
• Report this comment

TC

You had sex outside the sanctity of one-man/one woman marriage?

Cue…for all have sinned…and the trump the Get Out of Leviticus Free card…

• Link
• Report this comment

“trump the Get Out of Leviticus Free card…”

Some folks certainly have more than 52 of these cards plus the “jokers”…………..

• Link
• Report this comment

“I’ll bet he watches FOX and listens to talk radio all day…”

I have it on good authority his TV was hard-wired to MSNBC and he had Rachel Maddow posters on the ceiling above his bed.

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier

I’m flattered with the attention, but please, remember your manners. Other people asked questions before I did. I’m willing to wait my turn. Please, there were some very good questions awaiting your response.

” But you apparently have glossed completely over the NT where it teaches that a man should have but one wife”

And how did that happen? Does God change his mind and issue new commandments that contradict the old ones? Had nothing to do with society embracing new mores and laying it on God, I suppose… But the OT must be wrong, ’cause God’s unchanging, right? But if He changed his mind on the marriage thing, who’s to say He won’t change it again? Or is He done changing his mind?

” Let me put it to you simply: you are a Biblical ignoramus, and would do well to avoid citing it and thereby embarrassing yourself. Any further references to the Bible by you will be satirized for the folly it is. ”

Yeah, I figured once you started getting wrapped around the axle you’d resort to that.

“There are virtually NO studies regarding the development of sexual orientation in childhood that would prove anything. ”

Oh, Towncrier… and you hold yourself up as an example of an educated man?

I’m willing to believe “no studies that have corroborated other studies that lead to a valid view that would support your view of how things really are supposed to be.”

“Imprinting of animals is a scientifically proven phenomenon.”

So much for God’s divine hand in making mankind different from the animals -

• Link
• Report this comment

“I would have had some other experience (which I certainly did). Where did you grow up – in a bubble? But the first one was the definitive one for me.”

So… God created them male and female…

But he left it up to whoever got to imprint them first to determine their sexual orientation.

Got it.

Is that in the Bible, too?

• Link
• Report this comment

Towncrier
Would you recommend young boys be sexually exposed to young girls in order
to be able to overcome sexual abuse by bisexual men later in life as you say you were.

• Link
• Report this comment

Great news. Local talent is leaving CNN and heading to FOX. Erick Erickson to Fox news as a contributor.

• Link
• Report this comment

barking frog: “Would you recommend young boys be sexually exposed to young girls in order”

Or to older women?

It’s certainly been done plenty of times through history. Both ways, that is, sexual initiation in adolescence through older men and women.

• Link
• Report this comment

This guy is about a conservative as I am an atheist. Jay you can do better than this….

• Link
• Report this comment

I agree with towncrier about marriage in the NT, but only to a point. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians indicates that it is clearly preferable to limit marriage to ZERO wives, not one. Honestly, we need to take it that one step further if we want to be a Christian nation. Marriage is between one person and Jesus (or between Jesus in the Church — either way, we can keep the gays happy, since Jesus was a man!). Marriage has mainly become about sex anyway, and the only good type of sex according to the bible is sex for producing children. And thanks to technology these days, we no longer need sex to produce children.

• Link
• Report this comment

td

January 29th, 2013
6:34 pm
Great news. Local talent is leaving CNN and heading to FOX. Erick Erickson to Fox news as a contributor.
—————————————–
Great news for CNN. They gain a little more credibility, and FOX, well, you can’t lose what you never had.

• Link
• Report this comment

@td

January 29th, 2013
6:34 pm
Great news. Local talent is leaving CNN and heading to FOX. Erick Erickson to Fox news as a contributor.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

WHO is Erick Erickson?

WHO cares?

You? Are you getting a piece of the action?

• Link
• Report this comment

I said it was a good one because I thought the same thing.

My bad.

• Link
• Report this comment

barking frog- “I would agree except that he has ‘confessed’ before and it seems as a way to attack
homosexuals.”

I agree with this 100%.

• Link
• Report this comment

Anybody from the right want to explain what somebody from the “center” (as defined by you), would believe on a range of issues? Also, what would constitute “extreme” right wing views?

• Link
• Report this comment

That guy is about as conservative as the imperial viceroy.

• Link
• Report this comment

@td

January 29th, 2013
6:34 pm
Great news. Local talent is leaving CNN and heading to FOX. Erick Erickson to Fox news as a contributor.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, the fat guy with the fat neck.

I love gooogle.

• Link
• Report this comment

Eric Ericson regardless of his politics is about as exciting as those “sea monkeys” they used to advertise in the back of comics.

There are a few right leaning talk shows that I can listen to from time to time. I gave him a chance, but about feel asleep while driving. CNN, Fox, WSB………….. doesn’t matter.

I will say that he is a go getter. He has turned his brand into a profitable little empire.

• Link
• Report this comment

JAY

I’ll apologize for what I said when he apologizes for what he’s said. Deal?

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey Jay ………. who cares as long as both wings support the Third Amendment !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F584p5kJL-U&feature=youtu.be

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul,

No, towncrier is right on that one point — that marriage was permitted because there would be too much temptation and that it would be better for folks to marry than “burn with passion.” But our technology is such now that marriage is not the best solution. There’s a better place for those peple who have so many sexual urges that they can’t control themselves as single, devout god fearers:

Jail.

They have GREAT bible studies in jail. Just keep them locked up — we don’t want them to be the ones reproducing anyway since they can’t control their passions and are clearly among the reprobate. That way the rest of us, who don’t have immoral sexual urges can be free to just go to church and think about our wedding ceremony with Jesus at the end of the world.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Kerry is set to formally take over from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday.”

O’bozo wept because Jane Fonda turned him down…

• Link
• Report this comment

Years ago I read a newspaper story about an elderly man who lived in an impoverished area of Cleveland, Ohio. The man was a friendless loner who seemed to have no caring family members. Neighbors had noticed his mail piling up on his porch, and, with no responses to knocks on the door, they called the police who broke into the man’s house.

And, what was perhaps a more tragic reality, he had been suspicious of his neighbors, all of whom were potential friends, although manywere probably keeping their distance from the crazy old man with the guns.

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout

The AFA is in continual boycotts of numerous companies that offer benefits to same sex couples. Can those profits be attributed to the boycotts or just sound business practices when those companies.

You know Home Depot, Lowes, Procter and Gamble, Pepsi, StarBucks, Delta, etc etc……………

• Link
• Report this comment

Alex

I don’t recall he ever addressed it.

The ‘permitting’ part predates Corinthians by a long shot. And ‘permitting’ isn’t a word I would choose to describe it. It was another one of those pieces where people forget Paul was addressing questions, relating to prior events (both of which we in many cases have no record of) and where he was giving his personal views. Just wanted to see how he’d handle it, is all.

• Link
• Report this comment

Christian Conservative

January 29th, 2013
6:38 pm

This guy is about a conservative as I am an atheist Christian. Jay you can do better than this….
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There. I fixed that for you.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fred @ 7:01

I don’t recall any admissions or apologies either, but I’m not here looking at every post for them either. I’ll agree that I was surprised by that, but I’m not one to tell grown folks how to behave.

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout

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

http://www.afa.net/

Companies AFA boycots and their own website.

Appears it is sound business practices and good for Chickfila. I doubt that any new stores opened because of a boycott. I’m sure there were on the drawing board at least a year or more out, but if that’s what makes you feel good……….. rock on

• Link
• Report this comment

Not that two wrongs ever make a right, but sometimes you press too much and you get bit when you least expect it.

That bite might be a little harder than the than any bite you would have given or expected to get back……….

• Link
• Report this comment

“psychological roots?”

Most Republicans have deep historic and PSYCHOTIC ROOTS

Grades-for-aid? Republican Lawmaker defends controversial welfare plan

State Sen. Stacey Campfield, R-Tenn., vigorously defended a proposal that would financially PENALIZE families receiving welfare for poor school performance.

A Republican state senator in Tennessee defended controversial legislation that would TAKE welfare payments from a family because of a child’s performance in school, even calling the proposal a potential national model to break families out of “generations of poverty.”

PSYCHOTIC Uh Huh

• Link
• Report this comment

@Fred ™

January 29th, 2013
7:06 pm

TOUCHE’

• Link
• Report this comment

Yo Josef? Have you ever made beignets? i think I’m going to try this recipe this weekend on the girls. I still never did USinUK’s scones………

http://www.deepsouthdish.com/2010/02/french-market-beignet-doughnuts.html

• Link
• Report this comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-82MlDDhp8

• Link
• Report this comment

You must not read the same David Brooks columns that I do. Yes, he is a “conservative” at the New York Times (actually, he is probably considered “Attila the Hun,” or worse, at the New York Times). I personally consider him “center-left” but I do give you props for calling him a “northeast conservative” in the headline.

Yes, the Pub/Cons are having a bad go of it now, and the Dem/Libs are feeling their oats and their hyperbole shows it, e.g Democrat control now for a generation or more! The fringe right is both helping and hurting (mostly hurting by costing the Pubs shoo-in Senate seats), and it is not clear how do deal with them.

The Pub habit of welcoming the Tea Party and Libertarian and fringe crowd into their Republican primaries has done a lot of damage that needs to be corrected. If Hillary is really the unchallenged heir apparent to Obama (as the chest beating Dem/Libs are now so happy to now declare), and the Pub/Con candidate has to run the same gauntlet of fringe right, Tea Party, and Libertarian lesser lights and nobodies (Paul, Palin, Pawlenty, Cain, Santorum, Hunt, etc.), who have not a snowball’s chance of being nominated, but love being considered a “candidate,” — through 25 “debates” — as Romney had to do, the Pub/Con nominee will lose for sure. Assuming, of course, that the Dem/Lib policies do not lead us into long term economic disaster. More on that in another post.

• Link
• Report this comment

David Brooks is not a bible-thumping, gun-toting southerner, but yes he is a conservative.

Is that what you mean?

• Link
• Report this comment

Wow, that last sentence was ate up with typos………

• Link
• Report this comment

When was Ann Coulter EVER relevant?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

My thinking on the acceptance of gays and their community is that in 20 years or so, when most of the old bigots have died off or are drooling away in a nursing home, no one will think anything of 2 gay men married to one another and raising a family.

• Link
• Report this comment

Interesting that conservatives question whether Brooks is a conservative or not. Some have even labeled him center-left.

In the past 6 presidential elections, the Democratic Party has won the popular vote 5 out of 6 elections, mainly by appealing to the center. In the previous 6 elections, the roles were reversed. The GOP took 5 of 6 popular vote counts by appealing to the center. Under Reagan, you even had the “Reagan Democrats” or Blue Dogs.

Now, it seems as though the GOP is running from the center faster than Usain Bolt can turn the corner on the anchor leg of the 4×100. The further they run from the center, the more ground they cede to the Democrats. I can’t recall any battle ever won by a group using retreat as the sole tactic.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fred, are you the poster that was proud of your 10 year old daughter watching the inauguration last week?

• Link
• Report this comment

Ah …………… Arab Spring !

“Egyptians flout curfew…

Military chief warns of collapse…

Chaos Mounts… “

• Link
• Report this comment

How’s tourism in Egypt doing these days ?

• Link
• Report this comment

Wild Bill in da house.

crier is a con so there is a credibility problem.

I heat the turtle is on the chopping block for daring to compromise with our President.

Time to marginalize the cons that refuse democracy some more.

• Link
• Report this comment

“president WHO WILL put this once-free nation on the path to prosperity.”

Our President is giving us peace and prosperity.

Enjoy Wild Bill.

Amen.

• Link
• Report this comment

indigo:

Or Detroit ! LOL !

• Link
• Report this comment

Don’t forget the “Puppy Bowl” Sunday ……….. they probably don’t do drugs !

• Link
• Report this comment

Food for thought. Pub/Cons, take heart! A divorce may not be necessary — but rather a marriage with Blue Dog, moderate, and center right middle class Dems fleeing the consequences of the Liberal Manifesto espoused by Obama in his inaugural address — after suffering yet another deep recession, or four more years of the slow growth, high unemployment economy.

Pub/Cons: Do you really have the courage of your convictions? Do you truly believe that a spending addicted, all controlling and more centralized government, expanding exponentially and overseeing an expanding welfare state / nanny state / entitlement state, and requiring annual trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see in order to survive — is really not sustainable and headed for the dust bin of economic history if nothing is done? Do you really believe that? Or is it just the only political rhetoric that you can find to hurl against the currently smug and very self-satisfied Dem/Libs?

If you really do believe that America is on a disasterous path and that it is only a short matter of time that the consequences of this economic folly will catch up with us, then let your convictions give you encouragement. We are in a precarious place now where just a 1% increase in interest rates or a 2% or 3% increase in inflation would have huge economic consequences. But, Obama and the Dem/Libs are not only determned to stay on this path, but expand it.

If your principles and convictions are sound, there will not be a Democrat president elected in 2016, male or female. And depending on the course of events, the Pub/Cons could control Congress entirely in 2014. If your principles and convictions about government and the economy are wrong . . . then say hello to Madame President Clinton in 2016.

• Link
• Report this comment

gm – The yankees have not fighting the civil war – if they will stop, hmm that’s nonsense, they are noy going to stop.

• Link
• Report this comment

Brocephus: LOL you would think so right? I was typing and talking.

• Link
• Report this comment

Frog – I thought USA was an improvement.

• Link
• Report this comment

If Americans in your own party call you stupid, it is time for some self reflection and change.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bro = Before you can appeal to the center, you have to be able to recognize where the center is and where the boundaries are.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oscar: To the right there is no Center. There is their warped talk radio/FOXBOT crap and then everything else is damned socialist librul communist bullsh@###$

• Link
• Report this comment

Fred – I think you nailed it

• Link
• Report this comment

Fred

• Link
• Report this comment

“Oscar: To the right there is no Center”

I don’t agree. I think that problem is that far too many of them think THEY ARE the “center”. That’s how they can label everyone else as “left of center” with a straight face.

• Link
• Report this comment

USA Patriot

January 29th, 2013
8:24 pm

Fred, just a question, would you be proud of your posts if your daughter saw them?
+++++++++++++++++++

Yeah mother fvcker I sure would. I also read the god damned bible just about every god damned day.

i’m honest. I tell the truth I teach my daughter to tell the truth. I know you liars don’t like the bluntness of my speech, but then I don’t give a rats ass what a bunch or mealy mouthed, back biting, hypocritical liars like anyway. As far as I’m concerned the whole lot of you can bite my ass.

I also teach her to be direct and ask questions for information, not to set petty little traps.

Anything else I can help you with?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dr. Ferrol Sams has passed,..if you haven’t ever read his trilogy about growing up in the rural south during the depression and the maturing of a young southern man, pick them up and enjoy, you’re in for a real treat. Jimmy Carter’s”An hour before daylight ” is in the same vein and has similar stories of a hard yet delicious childhood. Fred , I hope you like them, it’ll give you a little respite from your debilitating anger toward anything that you are not. Regardless, beautiful vocabulary,consuming personalities and morals as old as the dirt he plowed in Fayette Co. on warm March mornings a lifetime ago….

• Link
• Report this comment

We don’t NEED a new GOP, what we need is for the Republican Party to go the way of all things that have past their time and try to die a graceful death. Their policies can’t be retooled into anything beneficial to the country, primarily because they were never good for the country to begin with and the electorate has finally gained enough power to get rid of them.

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife

January 29th, 2013
8:26 pm

“Just looking for a point of reference”

For what purpose?
++++++++++++++++++++++

To be a backbiting petty little girl and try to set a trap. You had the right of it in your first post. I knew where he was going with this. People who lack moral and intellectual integrity like to be sneaky and disingenuous. They back stab and mealy mouth around because they don’t have the balls to say what they think or feel. When confronted by someone WITH the balls they get outrageously angry. I’ve seen it time and time again.

• Link
• Report this comment

Carry on…….how did you put it…”Yeah mother fvcker I sure would. I also read the god damned bible just about every god damned day.” WOW! Nice role model!

I am. A role model for honest people. I’m proud someone like you doesn’t think so. if I was YOUR Idea of a role model, I’d ask someone to shoot me. The reason I would ask someone else to do it is because if I was like you I would lack the balls to do it myself.

I gave you what you wanted. What’s your beef?

• Link
• Report this comment

ALEX

Much agreed with you on the Sams recommendations…

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh and Patriot? I knew where you were going as soon as I read your insipid little post and I typed that up before you got there. All i had to do was copy paste it when you did the expected.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fred , I hope you like them, it’ll give you a little respite from your debilitating anger toward anything that you are not.

See? You people are ALWAYS tossing out your petty little insults. You just get mad when I don’t do stealth insults, I just toss them back at you in plain talk. I’m not mad Alex. I don’t care enough about you to be “mad.”

That is the talk radio coming out in you. They preach anger and fear so anyone who disagrees is either angry or fearful. I’m actually laughing my butt off. I take the words folks write, strip away the BS and print them back in simple talk. I am nothing more than a decoder ring………..

And I read that article earlier and have never heard of the guy. If he was so good why wasn’t he famous like Snoop dog?

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, Fred, I was going to congratulate you for raising a fine daughter that took it upon herself to watch the inauguration and she was proud and had questions, AND you were proud of her.

Quite the contrary, I believe you’re an honest person. We just don’t agree politically. So what?

I have no beef with you.

I do have balls, probably, oh never mind, let’s not get into “who’s is bigger”.

• Link
• Report this comment

You people are ALWAYS tossing out your petty little insults

“We’ll pray for you” in 3…2…1…

• Link
• Report this comment

This guy is no conservative! Hit the road Jack!!

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife
it seems TR has assumed the persona of Theodore Roosevelt….

• Link
• Report this comment

ALEX

That’s a toughie…I’ll have to give it some thought, Sams being in a category almost of his own! Right off the top of my head, the first to come to mind in Eudora Welty, particularly Losing Battles and The Ponder Heart…just plain good story telling…have you ever read Faulkner’s The Reivers…?

• Link
• Report this comment

Alex 8:54 pm – Ditto!

• Link
• Report this comment

frog,

He could be 148 year old vampire.

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife
if he were Lincoln would have hunted him down…….

• Link
• Report this comment

Brillant deduction oh frog that barks, as a mere child the deceased president did pass by my fathers brownstone in the great city. I was delighted to find that a photograph of me at the window watching this is available and I must say that I happened to be with my dear friend and my future wife , Edith Carrow. A fine Republican president was this man ,but of course the party DID stray, as all do, but I remain a proud republican and you can have your spineless W. Wilson..Got to go, Franklin and I will be haunting your current president tonight—shhhh

• Link
• Report this comment

Fred ™

January 29th, 2013
8:29 pm

I see you can not last 2 days without the nasty bully coming out again. What a sad little man.

• Link
• Report this comment

Alex

January 29th, 2013
8:54 pm

@fred, whether or not you tell the “truth” is a matter of opinion..yet you are consistent,crude, narrow minded,obnoxious and unwilling to listen to anything outside your microscopic radius of influence. You do serve a definite purpose, we can aways look to you if we think that no ONE else could be anymore grating than ourselves and no matter how intolerant we can be there is ALWAYS fredTM to set the standard, congrats!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Rather than toss out meaningless insults (you hypocrite) and allegations, perhaps you could cite examples. i’m actually one of the FEW people here who isn’t rigidly left or right. I have on the same page of a blog been called a right wing nazi and a left wing bed wetter. Many times.

You don’t like apparently the fact that I actually DO deal with facts. I debunk lies. If you can find ANYONE here who has said “Sorry” or “I was wrong about that” to other posters more than I have SHOW ME.

As you see, i prove your words wrong just there. But you won’t. You’ll take the “high road” and post more insults while telling yourself they aren’t insults.

Just damn. You slay me.

• Link
• Report this comment

Josef, I am an uncultured first generation american..NO I have not read Faulkner, but have been considering it. I am not sure that I am up to it though. BUT, I thank youand this may be “the tipping point” Thanks!

@TR, I’ve seen the photograph, it’s in many of your more popular biographies:”mornings on Horseback, ” I believe.. Deeelightful!

• Link
• Report this comment

“Dow at 14,000 and no more collapses.

Not good enough for ya con?”

Nope.

Check the unemployment and labor participation rates for starters.

But thanks for asking!

• Link
• Report this comment

@ Getalife, I am grateful that the market is up, but any fool who concentrates on the daily fluctuations of the market AND his money are soon separated. Beware and be cautious, I suspect (but what do I know-at least I know that I do not know–) there will be wins and losses-cross your fingers. Remember your voices:”he ides of march..”

@ Fred, I said nothing of being left or right, read the post :..unwilling to listen..” your every word supports my words, congrats!

• Link
• Report this comment

ALEX

Faulkner is not always the easiest to read and, by his own admission, some of his stuff is pure commercial pandering. The reason I suggest The Reivers is that he once said that he spent his entire career so he could write it. It is just plain story telling for the fun of it. For his more serious, read “Intruder in the Dust.” It’s accessible to the general reader and the Faulkner “novice.”

You’re first generation? From what background?

• Link
• Report this comment

What a moron! It is the urban blight and lack of morality that WE MUST OVERCOME!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

@ Fred, I said nothing of being left or right, read the post :..unwilling to listen..” your every word supports my words, congrats!

Really? What have you given me to listen to except personal insults and attacks? I’m all ears.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh well whats to say except y’all have a great evening. Taps

• Link
• Report this comment

WHO CARES!!!!!!

Lets head to the beach, oh I am already living out the beach and not working!
I love capitalism, it got me where I am today!

• Link
• Report this comment

Fred – see ya p$ssy! Just can’t handle what you dish out, eh? “intellectual content” – are you kidding me? Do you use that grey matter between the ears or just let the mouth run rampant? Don’t waste your time, got your answer. You gonna call JB now and whine?

“You have nothing but insults.” – Puuuuhhhhleeezzzze! There’s the pot calling, oh, never mind, you wouldn’t understand!

Have a great night Fred! Nice “chatting” w/ you……………

• Link
• Report this comment

“Really? What have you given me to listen to except personal insults and attacks? I’m all ears.” Great, now the neanderthal is Ross Perot!

• Link
• Report this comment

………… and Rock City !!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

The last time it hit 14,000 I got out.

Then it collapsed.

Bought GE at 5 bucks a share.

Easy money.

• Link
• Report this comment

USA Patriot

January 29th, 2013
9:31 pm

“Really? What have you given me to listen to except personal insults and attacks? I’m all ears.” Great, now the neanderthal is Ross Perot!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Whatever happened to USMC. He sure as hell turned coward and slunk out of here after the election……….

• Link
• Report this comment