I've decided to make this blog less about all things and instead focus on family and other fun stuff. Like drinking fortified wine (see last blog post). I do have a new blog that is political in nature, where I can rant to no one but myself and have to burden you fine people with my crazy ideas of Obama intentionally destroying America. OK, OK, I promise though, that will be the last time I say anything about it.
Please be sure to put a web filter block on this URL so that you never accidentally stumble upon it: http://sullysoapbox.blogspot.com.
Well - I have to go back to work so that I can continue to earn devalued wages (John, you promised!!). Yeah, yeah. Next time.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Ewww... creepy!!
Tina and I like to read this blog called Eyes for Lies. She is a human lie detector by nature and by occupation. Anyhow, I just read one of her more recent posts and I found it really disturbing.
What do you suppose this guy was going to do? What was he really after?
What do you suppose this guy was going to do? What was he really after?
Thursday, May 07, 2009
How about this instead:
A $17,000,000,000.00 budget and a $3,400,000,000,000.00 budget cut? Let's flip-flop the numbers. I know, that's not at all realistic. But I think we could get away with a $300 - $400 billion dollar annual budget.
My comments, btw, relate to this article.
My comments, btw, relate to this article.
Let's see if Huff Po publishes
I have no reason to think they won't, but just in case I'm going to paste it on my blog. This was my comment made to this article on Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/republican-political-hack_b_198326.html
COMMENT:
Democrats wouldn't vote for the bill because the pedophile distinction was made? Is it not obvious that pedophiles, as a group, swing both ways? Therefore, isn't it clear that a pedophile would stand to gain added civil protection under the guise of persecution based on sexual preference? I understand the "consensual" qualifier is there for the purpose of handling just such a scenario, but I see the point of explicitly defining pedophilia as not being a qualified orientation. Why let the distinction rest on the collective presumption of what "consensual" means when you can declare the exception explicitly. After all, the possession or distribution of child pornography, I would have to think, qualifies one as something of a pedophile while never requiring the consent of anyone to obtain the images.
And on a separate note, even if this were some sort of dirty political trick, it is hardly unique to one party.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/republican-political-hack_b_198326.html
COMMENT:
Democrats wouldn't vote for the bill because the pedophile distinction was made? Is it not obvious that pedophiles, as a group, swing both ways? Therefore, isn't it clear that a pedophile would stand to gain added civil protection under the guise of persecution based on sexual preference? I understand the "consensual" qualifier is there for the purpose of handling just such a scenario, but I see the point of explicitly defining pedophilia as not being a qualified orientation. Why let the distinction rest on the collective presumption of what "consensual" means when you can declare the exception explicitly. After all, the possession or distribution of child pornography, I would have to think, qualifies one as something of a pedophile while never requiring the consent of anyone to obtain the images.
And on a separate note, even if this were some sort of dirty political trick, it is hardly unique to one party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)