“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Saturday, December 10, 2011

What Goes Around, Comes Around



Hat Tip: Mel “the hoop” Ody

83 comments:

  1. Do-Do yourself a favor and watch this full screen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. .

    This is for Doug so he can back off on his BP medicine.

    Months ago I told you not to worry about the Boeing complaint, Doug; and I pointed out that the only thing NLRB had done was issue a complaint against Boeing and the case would never fly.

    After the complaint was filed they still needed to go through official hearings, make a ruling, and then defend against all the legal challenges that were brought by Boeing and others. The NLRB never even got to second base and as I recall a couple months ago the union even changed its mind on the new plant.


    NLRB withdraws Boeing complaint

    The National Labor Relations Board has dropped its controversial case against airline manufacturer Boeing, which had become a lightning rod for conservatives.

    NLRB Drops Complaint


    This is like all the pissing and moaning about the Husan case in Texas and how long it is taking to bring him to trial.

    The friggen guy is in jail. Those close to the case indicate the prosecution will ask for the death penalty. The guys not going anywhere and will soon get what he deserves.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  3. With regards to the Major, Q, it is not so much the speed of the trial, but the inanity of describing those murders "workplace violence" that riles the sensibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But "workplace violence" may well be an accurate description of the crime, when seen from the perspective of the Generals.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fallujah or Fort Hood, the song remains the same?

    ReplyDelete
  6. As seen here @ fragging Iraq there are more than a couple of cases of "workplace violence" working their way through the "System".

    None go quickly.
    There are acquittals, tambien.

    ReplyDelete
  7. .

    The politics of the euphemism are blatantly obvious for all to see.

    However, in this case, call it what you like the end result will be the same.

    I would imagine if you go postal in Texas you would end up the same as Husan will.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  8. That's true enough, Q.

    The military not acknowledging the Islamoid influences, but focusing on the Major's mental instability, instead.

    The military not focusing upon the religious convictions of other soldiers charged with murder in the workplace.

    13 May 2009

    ... the soldier who allegedly killed five of his fellow servicemen in Baghdad on Monday. Sergeant John M. Russell had recently been relieved of his weapon by commanding officers. ...

    Monday Mar 28, 2011 8:22:14 EDT

    FORT STEWART, Ga. — Attorneys are trying to pick a military jury at Fort Stewart to hear the court-martial of an Army sergeant who could face the death penalty if convicted of murdering a superior and a fellow U.S. soldier in Iraq nearly three years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Look I told you folks being in the military was just another job. They compete with the private sector in pay, benefits, the whole deal.

    I mentioned this because that shit allen was making out it was such a mighty thing to be in the Marines (if he was), putting him head and shoulders above us all.

    Remember, WiO, that's head and shoulders above you too.

    allen plays no favorites - he's the very very best, in his own mind, the slandering piece of shit.

    Right now he is deep into the Sabbath's non- activity.

    Might as well be dead, in my book. But it's nice to have him gone.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Generals showing consistency in their actions, with regards those soldiers charged with premeditated fratricide within the military.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My point being, a job is a job, and Hasan was at his workplace.

    It's obvious, I guess, I don't idolize the military, like some here might do.

    I wouldn't call it that though, myself, being diplomatic on occasion.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  12. If a person is drafted that's another bowl of porridge altogether, then it's more like a slave plantation.

    But if you join up, like it is today, it's just another job.

    Anyway, that's the way I've always felt.

    And farming is, or at least was there for a while, just as dangerous day in and day out.

    More dangerous than the average police work.....


    This of course puts me head and shoulders above everyone else here.

    :)

    I can't get over that asshole saying that, then condemning all to hell as well...

    b

    ReplyDelete
  13. And, there is no guaranteed income from farming, no benefits package, no early retirement, no one has ever saluted me, and I don't get to march in a parade, and the women don't go goo-goo over the buttons on my overalls, and I have no medals.

    All this self-sacrifice puts me head and shoulders above you all.

    The last being first, you know....

    (Two years ago my friend Walt was crushed to death under his machinery, another unsung hero)

    b

    ReplyDelete
  14. boobie, it was more dangerous to be a student at the local university than it is to be a Marine in 2004.

    Lifestyle differences creating a greater risk for the university student than the possibility of being injured in combat was for the Marine.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Crapper, anon above posts a study showing there may be a little hope for you yet.....

    b

    ReplyDelete
  16. Who knows, you might even be capable of learning, crapper.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  17. Do you think, crapper, you could put a hoop about your hip, hoot and shout and swivel, and make it go round and round?

    Try that first, then we will give you an accelerated task....


    b

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think I'll leave playing with hoops, boobie, to those that crave for that Basketball Jones.

    ReplyDelete
  19. According to that report, the rats often behave better than we humans.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hoop Dreams

    Chosen #1 of the 50 Documentaries you should see before you die.

    This documentary about the aspirations of high-school basketball players from inner city Chicago won awards from the Sundance film festival, the New York Film Critics Circle, and the Academy...

    Directed by Steve James. Starring William Gates, Arthur Agee, Emma Gates.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I read Sarah Palin snorted coke off a 55 gallon oil drum outside of Wasila, Alaska, and fucked the eyes out of her husband's business partner, and hung out in NBA locker rooms, and wasn't the mother of some of her own children, or was it the husband wasn't the father, I forget.

    I read this in a book.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  22. The slaver is taking me to the Mall to exercise. Maybe a hoola hoop would do my hip some good, if they have any.


    b

    ReplyDelete
  23. Did you buy the book?

    Or did your Public Library?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Fore I go, a culture should celebrate it's higher moments. That's something of what makes a culture.

    It's proper for Jews to celebrate Hannakah, improper for Obama to mistreat it.

    But a question for the rabbis - since Hannakah is a week long celebration, is it proper to celebrate Hannakah on the Sabbath?





    I didn't really read the book, I made that up, I read about the book a few minutes ago on the internet when I looked up Basketball Jones, not knowing what that phrase meant.


    We do know from Obama's own books written by Ayers that he used coke earlier in his life.


    But, like Israel, there is one standard for democrats and another for everybody else.....

    b

    ReplyDelete
  25. Quirk I always did know how to yank your chain, figuratively speaking that is.

    The thing is I could put up any hula hooping video and you would never even know it was me...If I was that good.

    Keep checking in. ; )

    ReplyDelete
  26. Cocaine use is certainly not a thing to hold against a person, taking a little snort, on occasion.

    Not something you'd want to see become a habit, though, not with someone you cared about.

    ReplyDelete
  27. JFK was a doper, not a roper.

    Nixon drank.

    Mr Carter, think he has a clean liver.

    Ronald Reagan liked jelly beans.

    Mr Clinton, he inhaled, and had other recreational activities.

    George W., a dried out drunk.

    The electorate of the US, not that concerned with occasional, recreational drug use, even abuse, in its politicians.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dick Cheney mixed beer and guns, and shot one of his companions.

    Since the fella was a lawyer, the boys at the BC tried to make a joke of the incident.

    But the reality of the situation was, really, deadly serious.

    But those that had thought Mr Cheney to be "right", still did.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I do recall the reports that Mr Clinton had a nose that could compete with a Hoover.

    ReplyDelete
  30. clinton cocaine

    Tells tales of the Mena Airport conspiracy and more ...

    Not to mention his brothers' escapades.

    It mattered not all to the electorate.
    Ms Sarah would not have even felt the bump.

    ReplyDelete
  31. .

    And I love my chain yanked, Mel.

    Figuratively speaking of course.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think that "American Lesbo", Ms T would be the appropriate title.

    Apropos to an American Farmer.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Golly ...


    Fraudie Mac's on call historian...

    ...describes Palestinian People as 'Invented'

    ReplyDelete
  34. While the NYTimes reports


    In the largest anti-Kremlin protest since the early 1990s, tens of thousands of Russians rallied in central Moscow on Saturday.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The man's a hell of a historian, ain't he?

    ReplyDelete
  36. As opposed to them historic "Israeli" people, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  37. .

    The thing is I could put up any hula hooping video and you would never even know it was me...If I was that good.


    Don't be silly. I'd know you by your tats.

    Tattoos that is. :)

    .

    ReplyDelete
  38. desert rat said...

    Dick Cheney mixed beer and guns, and shot one of his companions.


    Good ol' Dick, he hit a target....

    Who knows, the guy may have, probably did, deserve a little bird shot for some malfeasance in his past.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  39. Cheney disgraced himself. I could never, ever take him seriously after that.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Don't Click On This Link

    This reminds me of a trial we have going on here right now. Sheriff's deputy is charged with strangling his girl friend with his own belt. His defense is, she did it herself, liking autoerotic asphyxiation, whatever that is. It sounds like you might have brain damage if you did it enough, or, die. The defense is putting on some testimony from some other guy who says he did it with her once, too.

    It's an odd case, to say the least, and, the deputy confessed, to another deputy, who was arrested some time ago for shooting a decoy deer at midnight from a patrol car, and, the defense is pointing out all the mistakes in his testimony.

    All in all, an usual trial for the mill town of Lewiston.

    They had to fight like hell, and make an appeal, to force the sitting judge to even allow the autoerotic asphyxiation defense.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dad was in a car with some duck hunters and they got to laughing so hard about some joke that one guy started banging the butt of his shotgun on the floor of the car and blew a hole through the roof.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  42. I was raised around guns, and hunters, and I've never known Anyone who "accidentally" discharged a weapon, or shot someone they didn't mean to shoot (outside the fog of war.)

    ReplyDelete
  43. When drinkin' while taking blood thinners, it's not a smart thing to play with guns.

    Goes directly to judgement, questions there of.

    Then the way the Secret Service kept the Sheriff at bay, for almost a day.

    ReplyDelete
  44. It's nice to have the Secret Service at your call and order when you shoot someone, sure is that.


    b

    ReplyDelete
  45. Quirk I'm changing that tat you'll never know

    ReplyDelete
  46. I knew a kid in high school that shot himself in the upper foot with a .22 -- he said, and I quote, "It hurt like hell."

    b

    ReplyDelete
  47. Quirk has his ways of finding stuff out.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  48. Ron Paul Draws Big Crowds

    My hunch? (I'm always wrong)

    Paul does better than expected in Iowa. (comes in second)
    Gingrich does worse.
    Romney get less than his current score, in the teens.
    Bachmann does better than expected.
    Sarah gets some write-ins, or speak-ups or whatever they are in a caucus.
    Who am I forgetting - the rest don't do much. Quirk gets two votes from a half-way house.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hillary Has Real Influence With The Russian Masses

    Hillary pulled all this off her very self, she and the Department of State.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  50. Newt Gingrich supported TARP, bailouts, carbon tax and the individual mandate.

    In other words he's just a big government statist.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonobob: I always wanted to be a Lord, too.

    ...as they went by I see they had the king and the duke astraddle of a rail -- that is, I knowed it WAS the king and the duke, though they was all over tar and feathers, and didn't look like nothing in the world that was human -- just looked like a couple of monstrous big soldier-plumes. Well, it made me sick to see it; and I was sorry for them poor pitiful rascals, it seemed like I couldn't ever feel any hardness against them any more in the world. It was a dreadful thing to see. Human beings CAN be awful cruel to one another.

    ReplyDelete
  52. :)

    the king and the duke

    heh

    They could do good Shaksper though.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  53. IT was after sun-up now, but we went right on and didn't tie up. The king and the duke turned out by and by looking pretty rusty; but after they'd jumped overboard and took a swim it chippered them up a good deal. After breakfast the king he took a seat on the corner of the raft, and pulled off his boots and rolled up his britches, and let his legs dangle in the water, so as to be comfortable, and lit his pipe, and went to getting his Romeo and Juliet by heart. When he had got it pretty good him and the duke begun to practice it together. The duke had to learn him over and over again how to say every speech; and he made him sigh, and put his hand on his heart, and after a while he said he done it pretty well; "only," he says, "you mustn't bellow out ROMEO! that way, like a bull—you must say it soft and sick and languishy, so—R-o-o-meo! that is the idea; for Juliet's a dear sweet mere child of a girl, you know, and she doesn't bray like a jackass."

    Well, next they got out a couple of long swords that the duke made out of oak laths, and begun to practice the sword fight—the duke called himself Richard III.; and the way they laid on and pranced around the raft was grand to see. But by and by the king tripped and fell overboard, and after that they took a rest, and had a talk about all kinds of adventures they'd had in other times along the river.

    After dinner the duke says:

    "Well, Capet, we'll want to make this a first-class show, you know, so I guess we'll add a little more to it. We want a little something to answer encores with, anyway."

    "What's onkores, Bilgewater?"

    The duke told him, and then says:

    "I'll answer by doing the Highland fling or the sailor's hornpipe; and you—well, let me see—oh, I've got it—you can do Hamlet's soliloquy."

    "Hamlet's which?"

    "Hamlet's soliloquy, you know; the most celebrated thing in Shakespeare. Ah, it's sublime, sublime! fetches the house. I haven't got it in the book—I've only got one volume—but I reckon I can piece it out from memory. I'll just walk up and down a minute, and see if I can call it back from 's vaults."

    So he went to marching up and down, thinking, and frowning horrible every now and then; then he would hoist up his eyebrows; next he would squeeze his hand on his forehead and stagger back and kind of moan; next he would sigh, and next he'd let on to drop a tear. It was beautiful to see him. By and by he got it. He told us to give attention. Then he strikes a most noble attitude, with one leg shoved forwards, and his arms stretched away up, and his head tilted back, looking up at the sky; and then he begins to rip and rave and grit his teeth; and after that, all through his speech, he howled, and spread around, and swelled up his chest, and just knocked the spots out of any acting ever I see before. This is the speech—I learned it, easy enough, while he was learning it to the king:


    to be cont. in next post

    b

    ReplyDelete
  54. To be, or not to be; that is the bare bodkin
    That makes calamity of so long life;
    For who would fardels bear, till Birnam Wood do
    come to Dunsinane,
    But that the fear of something after death
    Murders the innocent sleep,
    Great nature's second course,
    And makes us rather sling the arrows of outrageous fortune
    Than fly to others that we know not of.
    There's the respect must give us pause:
    Wake Duncan with thy knocking! I would thou couldst;
    For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
    The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
    The law's delay, and the quietus which his
    pangs might take,
    In the dead waste and middle of the night,
    when churchyards yawn
    In customary suits of solemn black,
    But that the undiscovered country from whose
    bourne no traveler returns,
    Breathes forth contagion on the world,
    And thus the native hue of resolution, like
    the poor cat i' the adage,
    Is sicklied o'er with care,
    And all the clouds that lowered o'er our housetops,
    With this regard their currents turn awry,
    And lose the name of action.
    'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.
    But soft you, the fair Ophelia:
    Ope not thy ponderous and marble jaws,
    But get thee to a nunnery—go!


    b

    ReplyDelete
  55. Quirk,

    Re: Major Hasan and the Fort Hood terrorist attack; Sat Dec 10, 12:01:00 PM EST

    The question has nothing to do with “Where” Major Hasan is at this moment, as you claim. Neither is it “WHAT” will be his final disposition, as you assert. Rather, it is “HOW” a raving Muslim maniac could have been advanced to a position of authority by the Medical Corps of the United States Army. While you may see these as subtle distinctions without a difference, intelligent men will not. Why, I imagine that even some [“nitwits”] could tell the difference between “where”, “what” and “how”.

    Smugly, you will denigrate US military personnel by the battalion, who for four decades worked the investigations of the USS Liberty, for not arriving at your preconceived opinion: The Jews were guilty of murder with malice aforethought. Yet, you sit at your computer typing inanities which have the effect of mitigating the refusal of this Administration to provide Major Hasan’s Article 32 investigators and his Court-Martial with the results of two deeply incriminating investigations ordered by said Administration.

    What a simple world is that of Quirk: It’s all about how you feel. Your studied ennui (one is reminded of John Malkovich as a Frenchman) about the obvious obstruction at Fort Hood is nearly palpable (even the prosecutor, military lifer-trash, filed complaints for the record). See, Quirk, unless Major Hasan’s team of lawyers is given all material evidence about the case, Major Hasan might end up with life in prison instead of the needle. And as importantly, unless the US learns from the mistakes made during the career of Major Hasan, there will be more.

    What is fascinating is how you so willingly blow-off the government’s misbehavior in a clear cut case like that of Hasan while on the matter of the USS Liberty you have, essentially, accused countless military investigators and innumerable staff of subornation of perjury etc, dangerously close to treason. Prove it, Wise Guy.

    "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."
    ___Pierre-Simon Laplace

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"[
    ___Carl Sagan


    PS: While you are at your task, enjoy a piece of music that says all that needs saying about the folks you slander, with malice aforethought.
    link to “dicks”

    Ciao, Baby

    ReplyDelete
  56. The Sabbath is over.

    I'm gonna try to find the debate.

    Ciao.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  57. Mel,

    What do you think?

    I’m not crazy; I perform this way

    I am, I said

    But I got an emptiness deep inside
    And I've tried but it won't let me go
    And I'm not a man who likes to swear
    But I've never cared for the sound of being alone

    I am, I said…

    We all want to be heard. We all want to matter – “I am, I said”.

    ReplyDelete
  58. allen charges out o' the synagogue, he hasn't been inactive, he's been stewing.....

    You starvelling, you eel-skin, you dried neat's-tongue, you bull's-pizzle, you stock-fish--O for breath to utter what is like thee!-you tailor's-yard, you sheath, you bow-case, you vile standing tuck!

    I think the debate begins in eight minutes

    b

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous said...
    allen charges out o' the synagogue, he hasn't been inactive, he's been stewing.....

    Hardly, bob. Instead, I had a great day and occasionally found myself pleased with Mel's call.

    Life is good.

    ReplyDelete
  60. heh

    Newt Romney.....that was good by Bachmann

    b

    ReplyDelete
  61. "A vow to God is stronger than a handshake in Texas."

    Rick Perry

    b

    ReplyDelete
  62. bob,

    Come: Let us reason together.


    Would you agree that from time to time your behavior here has been, what, “strange”?

    Would you agree that you have from time to time been fixated on certain persons or things?

    Would you agree that you have from time to time suffered the effects of sleep deprivation?

    Would you agree that once you delusively claimed your spouse to be dying of cancer (?).

    Would you agree that from time to time your behavior has caused pain to at least one member of this blog?

    Would you agree that I begged you to seek professional help based upon perceived suicidal ideation?

    Would you agree that you have on two occasions been blocked from posting at the Elephant Bar, based upon your worrisome behavior?

    Would you agree that your being allowed to return is conditional?

    Would you agree that you seek the approval of others as a consequence?

    ReplyDelete
  63. .


    Re: Major Hasan and the Fort Hood terrorist attack; Sat Dec 10, 12:01:00 PM EST


    My. My. Straight in from Shabbat and already spinning shit. That didn't take long.


    The question has nothing to do with “Where” Major Hasan is at this moment, as you claim. Neither is it “WHAT” will be his final disposition, as you assert.


    Nonsense. These are the questions that have been discussed on this blog recently, those and the fact that the crime has been described as ‘workplace violence’. They were the specific questions addressed above.

    The question you just brought up out of the blue, about how Husan could have continually be advanced through the ranks given his history, is an interesting one. It was discussed thoroughly here at the time of the crimes. However, if you want to bring it up again, go for it.



    While you may see these as subtle distinctions without a difference, intelligent men will not.


    Once again, nonsense. Why should I think they are subtly different? They are entirely different issues. The thing that does strike me as strange though is how you feel qualified to comment on intelligent men.



    Smugly, you will denigrate US military personnel by the battalion, …countless investigators…


    Lord, you are obtuse.

    1. If you had bothered to read the info I supplied you on your so-called ‘hearings’ you would have observed that there was only one that counted, the first one, and it was flawed. I’ve supplied links to the info at least ½ dozen times before. I’ll not bother do it again.

    2. Battalions? Countless? Where do you get this stuff? If there were military personnel involved after the first hearing, they were mainly pencil-pushers and copying clerks.

    Denigrate these individuals? Why would I do that? They were merely doing their job.

    3. Denigrate military personnel? Once again, a red herring. You could argue that I denigrated ‘specific’ military personnel as well as LBJ. But then I would have to accuse you of denigrating numerous other military personnel, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the SOS, various State Dept. embassy personnel, the survivors, dead, and wounded of the Liberty, as far as I know everyone on this blog including WiO, numerous authors, etc. etc.

    You continually bring up the Liberty here but I am unaware of any you have convinced. I can only assume you are a masochist.


    Yet, you sit at your computer typing inanities which have the effect of mitigating the refusal of this Administration to provide Major Hasan’s Article 32 investigators and his Court-Martial with the results of two deeply incriminating investigations ordered by said Administration.


    What tripe.

    This issue has nothing to do with my previous discussion with rat on the issue of “workplace violence” nor my original post which addressed the issue how long it was taking to bring Husan to trial. If you want to bring this question up, go for it. However, when you bring it up and try to link it to the subjects of my previous posts on this stream, you create a non sequiter, nothing new for you of course.



    Ciao, Baby



    :)

    You are hilarious.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  64. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  65. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  66. .

    A story called Allen by the iconic Dr. Seuss.


    You whine and your pompous
    You're this and your that.
    You're far less interesting
    than the 'Cat in the Hat'.

    But there are none here dislike you
    because you're a Jew.
    They merely dislike you
    because you are you.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  67. I couldn't say it any better, Quirk.

    I couldn't say it nearly as well.



    b

    ReplyDelete
  68. Einstein said: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


    So why expect trying to argue anything with most of the blog here?

    Rat and Ms T, are died in the wool Jew haters, Zionist haters and Judaism trashers...

    Quirk refuses to actually listen to any rational discussion about the Liberty, instead trashes the author, John Loftus...

    Bob, well, Bob... on the meds, off the meds...

    Deuce? has a hardon about Jews and Israel. that's why he allows the anti-semites to run the blog...

    Mel? harmless and not political... (maybe she's the smart one)

    Rufus? same old bullshit over and over...

    SO why try to engage them?

    they are not capable of learning anything...

    really...

    ReplyDelete
  69. Quirk,

    Re: Fort Hood terrorist

    You took a lot of space to say nothing.

    If you don't know the size of a battalion, google it. But please, don't blame me for your ignorance.

    Sigh...off to bed

    You and bob have fun :-D)))


    Israel 13
    Others 0

    ReplyDelete
  70. You Jewish guys really stick together, I'll say that for you.

    Trish is a trash mouth, but not you, WiO, in allen's view. And you have had the trashiest mouth here.

    You guys can't do no wrong, in one another's eyes.

    It's a good trait, mostly.

    I'm off to bed too.

    I think Bachmann won the debate.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  71. But first, from What Mormons Believe -

    Gambling

    Gambling is found everywhere in society; poker, horse and dog races, at the grocery store, slot machines, and even in the home. Gambling is a game of chance that takes without giving value in return. Gambling puts money or other things of value into a pool and then redistributes it on the basis of a roll of the dice, a spin of the wheel, or a drawing of a number. Nothing of value is produced in the process.'1

    The Mormon Church has always opposed gambling in every form, including government-sponsored lotteries.

    Mormon prophets and leaders have counseled the members over time, to avoid gambling of any type. Doing so, leads one away from righteousness and into the hands of Satan. The Mormon belief is that it is an addictive behavior and leads only to destructive habits and practices. It undermines the value of work and motivates one to think that they can get something for nothing. In time, the gambler will deny themselves, as well as their family the basic needs of life. They will oft times steal from others to finance their addiction, which in turn leads to stealing, robbery, etc.


    Romney dared Perry to a ten thousand dollar bet.....:)

    My mother would call this being a jack Mormon.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  72. .

    SO why try to engage them?


    Indeed. If that's the way you feel why do you stick around and bother?


    Quirk refuses to actually listen to any rational discussion about the Liberty, instead trashes the author, John Loftus...



    Most people on the blog have their own idea about what happened with the Liberty. I have mine. You have yours. Allen has his.

    You and I are in more agreement about what happened than you and Allen, yet I don't see you arguing with him. I feel Allen is being credulous when accepting the official version of events. For that he calls me called anti-Semitic.

    You and I differ not so much on what happened as on what the reasons were.

    You say that I am not open to rational discussion because I don't buy John Loftus' explanation. You come to that conclusion based on one book (at least that is all you've cited). If you've followed this conversation over the past year, you've seen that I have quoted numerous books, columns, testimony, and opinions that differ from that of Mr. Loftus, yet instead of offering further argument you say I am being unreasonable for not accepting your view.

    No I'd have to say it is you that is unreasonable. Your thought processes are skewed by your Israel-first mindset. Not only do you think unreasonably, you think illogically.

    The latest example came within this last week when you accused LBJ of being responsible for the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

    You state,


    LBJ had no problem in shafting Israel in the 1967 war by NOT LIVING up to the USA's treaty obligations.

    If AMerica had kept it's treaty with Israel in 1967? There would have been no six day war.

    All because LBJ could not stand up to Nasser by sailing a SHIP up the Strait of Titran...




    This tells me you're batshit crazy.

    First, what treaty are we talking about? Well, according to you it's the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958. In addition, you said that the U.S. recognized Israel's right of free passage in the Straight of Titran.

    OK, but what are the treaties about? They are basically trade agreements outlining national rights and bounderies under international law. They also outline the principle of free passage.

    What are they not? They are not defensive pacts. They are not the NATO Charter. The fact that the US recognized Israel's right to free passage in no way obligated it to help Israel defend it's rights. The US did not default on its treaty obligations. The treaty obligations you talk about did not exist.

    I've oulined all the issues facing the US in 1967 and won't list them again. If you don't recall, just look up 1967 in Wiki. What I didn't mention was that Tibet was invaded by the Chicoms that year and that tensions over Czeckoslavakia were mounting with the Soviets actually invading in 1968. It was the height of the Cold War; yet, you whine because the US didn't risk nuclear war by running a blockade.

    You talked about the many signatories of the treaties, but it is only the US you blame for not coming to Israel's aid. What about the other countries?

    I'm sure it makes sense to you. It's always Israel first. The ramifications for the US? Always secondary in your thoughts.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  73. Can't sleep.

    There was a time, when Sweden ruled Poland, as it rightfully should, when women were virtuous, men were noble, and wishing could still lead to something.....

    Charles XII and the Great Northern War
    See also: Great Northern War
    Charles XII

    After Charles XI's death, the throne was inherited by his underage son, Charles XII. After a brief regency, he was declared to be of age to rule. Three years later, in 1700, Denmark, Poland and Russia, the countries that had lost the most provinces to Sweden, jointly declared war. Denmark was soon forced to peace after a joint intervention of Swedish, English and Dutch armies, whereafter the King and much of the Swedish army was shipped to the Baltic provinces, where Russian and Polish armies were laying siege to several towns. The Russian army was soundly defeated in the Battle of Narva, after which Charles took the army into Poland with the intent of dethroning the Polish king Augustus II. This took several years, but in 1706, with the Treaty of Altranst├Ądt, he reached his goal. In the meantime, Russia had managed to take possession of several towns by the Baltic Sea. Instead of trying to retake these, Charles chose to march directly on Moscow, but due to extreme weather, difficulties with his supply lines and the Russian scorched earth strategy, he was forced to turn towards Ukraine. In 1709, the Swedish army was defeated and captured in the Battle of Poltava; Charles managed to escape south to Bender in the Ottoman Empire. Following the defeat at Poltava, Poland and Denmark re-entered the war, along with other countries wanting parts of the Swedish provinces. In the following years, most of them would fall, and Russia occupied the eastern half of Sweden (present-day Finland). Despite these setbacks, Charles XII twice tried to invade Norway to force Denmark-Norway out of the war again. On November 30, 1718, he was shot outside Halden. With his death, Swedish war efforts mostly came to a halt, although Russia continued to harass the civilian population of the Swedish coastal areas until the concluding Treaty of Nystad was finally signed in 1721. Sweden would remain a regional power of varying success until 19th century, but the Great Northern War put an end to Sweden's time as a great power.


    You will notice that Charles XII invaded Russia and got defeated by weather, the supply lines, and the scorched earth policy. Neither the French nor the Germans were intelligent enough to learn from this disaster.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  74. "The horse is just a horse, and the bull is just a bull, as far as I'm concerned." Pablo Picasso

    :)

    Moon Bull and Sun Steed

    We think first of the classical legend of King Midas, who had ass's ears and whose touch turned everything, including his daughter, into gold, the metal of the sun; recall, too, that the leaders of the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain (c.450A.D.) were Hengest and Horsa, both of which names are from Germanic nouns meaning "horse". Figure 26 (I don't know how to show you this -bob) is a bronze solar disk ornamented with a gold design of spirals, set on wheels of bronze, and with a bronze steed before it, found at Trundholm, Nordseeland, Denmark (whence Hengest and Horsa came), and usually dated c. 1,000 B.C.; while in figure 29 (which also I can't show you) are a couple of late Gaulish coins showing horses, each with an eagle (the sun bird) on its back, and in one the horse has the head of a man. We know that annually in Rome in October a horse was sacrificed to Mars, and that at midsummer both Celts and Germans sacrificed horses. In Aryan India the high "horse sacrifice" was a rite reserved for Kings, where, as seen in 'Oriental Mythology' (another book of his) the noble animal was identified not only with the sun but also with the King in whose name the rite was to be celebrated; whose Queen than had to enact in a pit a ritual of simulated intercourse with the immolated horse; all of which gave to her spouse the status of a Solar King whose light should illuminate the earth. And, more remotely, there is a kindred legend of the birth of the beloved Japanese Prince Shotoku (573-621 A.D.) while his mother was inspecting the palace precincts. "When she came to the Horse Department and had just come to the door of the Stables, whe was suddenly delivered of him without effort."

    It is almost certain, in light of these facts, that the association of King Mark with a horse, and even horse's ears, testifies to an original involvement of his image in a context of royal solar rites, the warrior rites of those Celtic Aryans (our ancestors!) who, with their male oriented patriarchal order, overran in the course of the first millennium B.C. the old Bronze Age world of the Mother Goddess and mother right. The composition of the coin in Figure 27 in which a human-headed horse leaps over a bull as the sun leaps over the earth suggests the relationship of the two orders of the conquerors and conquered in that early Celtic heroic age; and when these figures are compared with those in Picasso's "Guernica" (you must find the best representation of this you can, and get a magnifying glass, too) where a horse and its rider lie shattered and a bull stands mighty and whole, the beginning and the end are seen illustrated, in a remarkably consistent way, of the long majestic day in Europe of the conquering cavalier and his mount.

    B

    ReplyDelete
  75. Oswald Spengler, in his final published work, "Years of the Decision" (1933) delineated in two bold paragraphs the whole reach of this great day, of which we are now in the twilight hour:

    >In the course of world history, there have been two great revolutions in the manner of waging war produced by sudden increases in mobility. (Spengler is obviously a little dated here, given the atom bomb:) ) The first occurred in the early centuries of the first millennium B.C. when, somewhere on the broad plains between the Danube and Amur rivers, the riding horse appeared. Mounted hosts were vastly superior to men afoot. The riders could appear and disappear before a defense or pursuit could be assembled. It was in vain that populations, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, supplemented their foot forces with mounted contingents of their own: the latter were hindered in maneuvers by the footmen. Nor were the Chinese and Roman empires saved by the building of walls and moats: such a wall as can be seen to this day cutting half across Asia; or such as the Roman limes recently discovered in th Syro-Arabian desert. It was impossible to send an assembled army out from behind such barriers quickly enough to break up an attack. The settled agrarian peasant populations of th Chinese, Indian, Roman, Arabian, and West European spheres were, time and again, overwhelmed, in helpless terror, by swarms of Parthians, Huns, Scythians, Mongols, and Turks. Cavalry and peasantry, it is apparent, are in spirit irreconcilable. It was in this way, to their superior speed, that the hosts of Jenghis Khan owed their victories.

    The second decisive transformation, we are witnessing at this very hour in the displacement of the horse by the 'horse power' of our Faustian technology. As late as through the First World War there hung about the famous old West European cavalry regiments an atmosphere of knightly pride, daring adventure and heroism, which greatly surpassed that of any other military arm. These had been for centuries, true Vikings of the land. They came to represent more nd more - much more than the infantry of the general armies - the true sense of the vocation of the dedicated soldier's life and military career. In the future all this will change. Indeed, the airplane and tank corps have already taken their place, and mobility has been cariied with these beyond the limits of organic possibility to the inorganic range of the machine: of (so to say) personal machines, however, which, in contrast to the impersonality of the machine-gun fire of the trenches of the First World War, now will again challenge the spirit of personal heroism to great tasks.< Spengler

    In Picasso's "Guernica", the glaring electric light bulb is the only sign of the new order of power and life by which the old is being destroyed: the old, of the barnyard bull and the warhorse, peasntry and cavalry.

    from J. Campbell

    B

    ReplyDelete
  76. What's all this mean?

    We've lost our old relationship to the noble horse, all cept my daughter that is, without which you'd probably still be digging camus roots with a stick.


    B

    ReplyDelete
  77. Joseph Campbell, by the way, who had developed what might be thought of as a long view on all these things, was of the opinion that the general nincompoopery in the mid east on all sides might yet succeed in blowing up the world.

    Then, without the black rock, and without Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem too, without, well, you name it, without so many other places, the unproductive argument might finally come to a radioactive end.

    b

    ReplyDelete