Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktRascal Flatts and Justin Beiber sing “Asian Baby”.
The 6 Girls You’ll Date in College. I guess I got the perfect one, but was never worried about screwing it up, just assuming it was doomed from the start, and that’s how I ended up married?
Speaking of marriage. This 5 year old girl won’t get married unless she has her own career taken care of:
Veterans day coming up. Here it is, if you haven’t seen it recently (I’d never seen this particular one): Red Skelton explains The Pledge of Allegiance.
This one originally aired on CBS, the year I was born. They might air such a thing again. But I doubt it.
20 years after I was born, the Berlin Wall came down. Here’s a picture of Ronald Reagan urged Gorbachev to tear down the wall, and the next is a picture of Ronald Reagan, a year later, tearing down a few pieces of the Berlin Wall for himself.
Now, I like Ronald Reagan as much as the next guy. He remains my favorite 20th century president (my favorites being, boringly, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson). However, it’s the valor and the sacrifice of America’s fighting men and women that made sure there was an American president to demand such a thing (not mention a NATO to protect Europe from the ever-encroaching Iron Curtain). As a dedicated chicken-hawk and hypocrite in support of a strong American defense, I salute you prematurely, American veterans!
edit:
Crazy science that will one day coercively affect our lives:
http://www.reuters.com/resources_v2/flash/video_embed.swf?videoId=217093066&edition=BETAUS
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Apparenntly I am the only person for whom Perry's gaffe reminded them of 1984.Clip below showing one of the moments when the nation went "uh oh" during the first Reagan Mondale debate in 1984. There were many others as he struggled and had to use notes very often. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TENJCJB5cjg&feaDo you recall as everybody breathed a sigh of relief to find him fully functional in the second debate?
LikeLike
I was 15 in 1984, and a huge Mondale supporter. I thought Mondale won all the debates hands down, at the time.
LikeLike
Hi, john. Glad you're here.
LikeLike
And might I add a happy 236 anniversary to the Marine Corp. Thanks to all who have served.
LikeLike
JohnI'd forgotten all about that. I hated that election anyway. I'm not too worried about the Republican candidates, I assume they'll work it out somehow and come up with the perfect nominee, lol.
LikeLike
qb is in a pissing match at PL. Apparently ruk has now picked up the schtick that he is not "an actual attorney." I sure wish he had picked a different topic (instead of Cain sexual harassment allegations). Ah well. Also see that ATiM was mentioned again today or yesterday.
LikeLike
I'm not reading it (the PL), I finally kicked the habit, but I can pretty much guess what's going on over there. I know ruk keeps thanking me (via email) for stealing qb and scott away, lol. I'm sure his blood pressure's elevated right about now.
LikeLike
Yep, I abandoned the PL after ruk's unsolicited attack that qb and Scott would be fine with beating a child with cerebral palsy. Have not been back since.
LikeLike
Hi, lms. Not sure why I decided to read the PL comments this evening, starting with HH and then scrolled back a few others. I certainly don't read them like I used to although there still are some folks there I miss whose opinions I enjoy or value.
LikeLike
I miss a few people, too okie, but I finally gave up. I read Greg's posts though. ruk and I had words, the night ashot mentioned and that was it for me. I didn't appreciate the lecture from him or apoc. I think it's better for all of us if I'm gone anyway, as they associate kevin and I with stealing posters away. Out of sight out of mind. I sure don't mind at all if any of the rest of you enjoy hanging out there.
LikeLike
lms, you are ever the diplomat. The character of PL comments seems to me have changed, so I'm no longer interested in being there so much. But I still sometimes scroll through and pick up good links, etc. I haven't commented there in so long that they have forgotten about me so different for me than for you.
LikeLike
p.s. my edit on the flying sphere.
LikeLike
okie, I doubt they've forgotten about you. I'm not really trying to be diplomatic, just honest. In some ways I feel kind of bad about the whole adventure, but then I read some of the posts and comments here and I'm grateful we broke away. bsimon, what in the heck are you talking about?
LikeLike
Sorry bsimon, just saw it above. It's like a little drone spy…………….great.
LikeLike
it also reminds me of the training tool luke skywalker used in Star Wars.
LikeLike
Yeah, I see that too. It's actually pretty cool but when I saw it go through that window it kind of gave me the creeps.
LikeLike
Howdy, all!lms, thanks for your post about 12BB, and the ensuing discussion about off-label was interesting. The disease (Spinal Muscular Atrophy) is so relatively rare that all of the drugs used to treat it are off-label. . . in fact, working in this field now is how I found out that the FDA has an "orphan drug" office–it's for drugs that work through such a specific mechanism that they can really only be useful in a very few cases of a rare disease. As you can imagine, they aren't particularly profitable. . .
LikeLike
Hi michiI learned a lot on that thread. We have some smart people here don't we? I'm probably a little out of my depth so I'll just keep asking questions and arguing politics with scott, lol. I have my post written for tomorrow in a word doc and will put it up in the morning, but right now I'm going to bed. Manana
LikeLike
I was shocked that RWR's journey down a California highway in the first '84 debate wasn't mentioned on the Fix. It did give him the all time best comeback line, though (I will not exploit for political purposes the youth and inexperience of my opponent).—Scott – The hypocrisy thread scrolled off the main page, so I thought I'd respond here. I'm not going to go point by point. You chopped up the paragraph and interjected questions. I will keep to a narrative style. That may not satisfy you, but I think context matters.WIth a little perspective, I understand what you're getting at. If I argue that it is wrong for people to not report instances of prepubescent boys being lathered up by lascivious old men in the shower (just as an example), then it's wrong for me to ignore such behavior even if a friend whom I trust is doing it.I think you and others have gone a step too far when you state that anyone who advocates a policy on a moral basis is a hypocrite if they don't behave as if that policy were law. In effect, this would forbid making moral arguments for policy. That applies to revising the tax code downwards as well as upwards. If the "death tax" is immoral, is it not the moral responsibility of a citizen to engage in civil disobedience? Say, hiding assets to avoid the tax.I think one could make a decent charge at Al Gore for having an energy chewing mansion. Mind you, there is an effective counter that doesn't involve purchasing carbon offsets. The response should be that we all should be doing more. That mansion could be built to be more energy efficient. If you're driving a car, plan your route to cut down on its overall distance, keep to efficient driving speeds, don't behave like a jackass on the highway, etc. A driver of a car that uses a lot of gasoline can actually have more of an impact than a crunchy granola Prius driver.I think I've explained my view reasonably well. I think you have done so for yourself as well. Next topic?BB
LikeLike
Hi, michi. I'm not planning a post for tomorrow because I'm not a vet. It's your day. But I know lots of VN vets for whom it is a sacred holiday, and I salute that.
LikeLike
FB, that comment was intriguing enough to me to go back and check that thread. Thanks for the tip. Later . . . .
LikeLike
ashot" Yep, I abandoned the PL after ruk's unsolicited attack that qb and Scott would be fine with beating a child with cerebral palsy. Yeah, I abandoned after that, and ruk's response, although it has as much to do with ddawd, beach_music and others. And they don't want me there because if beach_music quotes a chunk of Blazing Saddles, apropos of nothing, that is strewn with the n-word, and I'm there, I'm going to report it and get it expunged (which I did). Same for reporting Caothien.
LikeLike
qb is in a pissing match at PL.I wouldn't call it that. More like just another of the usual unhinged personal attacks packaged up with a litany of misinformed and wild-eyed claims about Cain. As most know, I'm not even a Cain supporter (although I like him). But ruk took offense after he hurled a bunch of insults and names at me and I didn't choose to engage him in substantive discussion after that (I'm just like that). He's fully morphed into twin brother of a certain other commenter, who was banned and deleted again but bounced right back in his seventh or eighth guise.
LikeLike
FB: Scott – The hypocrisy thread scrolled off the main page, so I thought I'd respond here.I just want to congratulate Mark in Austin in coming up with one of the stickiest topics on ATiM yet. One in which at least QB and LMSinca have said they are done with the debate, only to return. ;)Will just say again: if I believe something should be policy for any reason, including moral reasons (and all justifications for policy are, at the end of the day, moral justifications, IMHO) , but believe it requires collective action to successfully fulfill that obligation, and that individual action will achieve nothing, then I'm not a hypocrite for advocating for collective action while not, myself, action as if that policy was already la on an individual and (in my mind) entirely pointless manner. If I advocated after 9/11 that we go to war with Afghanistan (which I did), and believed that we had an obligation as a country to do so, I was not a hypocrite for not myself enlisting, or grabbing a gun and hopping on a plane and starting my own one-man Rambo style moral crusade against the Taliban. Note: I do not like, nor do I subscribe to, justice or fairness arguments when agitating for higher or more progressive taxes.
LikeLike
I'm just strange; I still read some of Greg's posts and like to drop in the occasional observation or reply, which is always met by a howling mob.
LikeLike
BTW: Plumline: I'll go back when the add an ignore button. As MsJS said, I'll probably be waiting a long time.
LikeLike
qb: I'm just strange; I still read some of Greg's posts and like to drop in the occasional observation or reply, which is always met by a howling mob.They've gotten to the point where they react to any conservative like Donald Sutherland and anonymous crowd at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.Must . . . drive . . . out . . . any . . . other . . . opinion . . .
LikeLike
*BTW: Plumline: I'll go back when they add an ignore button.
LikeLike
One in which at least QB and LMSinca have said they are done with the debate, only to return. 😉I usually do that, too. You should know that by now.but believe it requires collective action to successfully fulfill that obligation, and that individual action will achieve nothing,But this again is not what the Warren Buffetts and E Warrens of the world are claiming. They might well think it is true up to a point at least, although, of course, 20 or 30 billion from Buffett would pay for a lot of Avastin or free internet for low-income people. But they are making a deontological claim that it is wrong for them to be taxed, and for them to pay, less than Warren's secretary. It is not merely a utilitarian or consequentialist claim. It requires no "collective action" for Warren to fulfill his claimed obligation to pay what he fairly and justly owes. That is, imo you are again filling in for him and turning his claim into something it isn't.We could probe this argument further by asking what precisely it is that needs to be "achieved." What is it? For the tax burden to be shifted more fully on to "the rich"? Even if that were a correct characterization, that goal would be advanced by Buffett's starting to pay in what he claims he owes. Let him pay an extra billion or five. We would be that much closer to justice, wouldn't we? What is the argument that excuses him from fulfilling his own part of that duty unless and until everyone else does or the law forces them to? But, again, this consequentialist argument isn't even the one the low-tax protesters are making. He claims it is unfair and unjust for him to pay less than his secretary.
LikeLike
I think you and others have gone a step too far when you state that anyone who advocates a policy on a moral basis is a hypocrite if they don't behave as if that policy were law. In effect, this would forbid making moral arguments for policy. That applies to revising the tax code downwards as well as upwards. If the "death tax" is immoral, is it not the moral responsibility of a citizen to engage in civil disobedience? Say, hiding assets to avoid the tax.This was of course addressed to Scott, but as his evil-er twin, what the heck.The answer is, no, of course not. What you have posed is a hypothetical that involves conflicting duties and moral claims. No such conflict stands between Warren Buffett's fulfilling his claimed duty. DOT provides instructions for paying extra money and welcomes it. It does not welcome tax evasion.
LikeLike
Tragicomically, btw, PL appears to be broken again this morning. Can't even see who else piled on last night.
LikeLike
qb: "But this again is not what the Warren Buffetts and E Warrens of the world are claiming."I think it is exactly what they are claiming. At least, I think it's an obvious interpretation. "We would be that much closer to justice, wouldn't we? "And his argument might be that he will be paying an extra million or ten or hundred, as soon as the tax law is changed, just like everybody else. "What is the argument that excuses him from fulfilling his own part of that duty unless and until everyone else does or the law forces them to?"He'll fulfill his part of the collective duty, along with everybody else. He claims it is unfair and unjust for him to pay less than his secretary.Then the answer there is not that he should pay more voluntary taxes, but that he should pay more to his secretary. If he's really worried about what his secretary makes. : )
LikeLike
I think it is exactly what they are claiming. At least, I think it's an obvious interpretation.You don't believe they are saying it is unjust for them not to be paying more than they are? I really can't fathom how you can read that out of their words.And his argument might be that he will be paying an extra million or ten or hundred, as soon as the tax law is changed, just like everybody elseHe'll fulfill his part of the collective duty, along with everybody else.That isn't an argument. It is just a reassertion of position without justification. Then the answer there is not that he should pay more voluntary taxes, but that he should pay more to his secretary. If he's really worried about what his secretary makes. : )I understand the humor, but this really does not address the issue of tax justice.
LikeLike