Home / Culture and Society / Obama’s Definition of Fairness

Obama’s Definition of Fairness

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

President Barack Hussein Obama will have a very difficult time running on his record of accomplishments that has resulted in massive unemployment, stagnant income growth, a record number of people on food stamps, and a gargantuan level of debt that Americans will be paying off for decades to come, if ever. So, recognizing that fact, he has turned to another political ploy he favors: class warfare. He will further this ploy by campaigning in 2012 on the idea that he will bring “fairness” to struggling Americans. It’s not “fair” that some people are “rich.” Fairness means whatever Obama says it means, and the MSM goes along with his definition. There is ample evidence about what it means to Barack Obama: taking money from one group of Americans and giving it to another on a scale never before seen in America.

We, the taxpayers have heard rare flashes of truth when he was without his teleprompter. There was his “spread the wealth” comment to Joe the Plumber. There was his 2008 declaration that he would hike capital gain taxes, even if it failed to raise revenues because of fairness.He was, and is, willing to trade job losses to advance his fairness ideology. As president, again without teleprompter, he said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” At what point would Obama have cut off Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and others who have done so much to make our nation prosper? But who cares about the economy when there is fairness at stake?

So how has/will Obama fan the flames of class warfare? Here are two ways, I’m sure you can think of others.

  • Bill Clinton was prodded by a Republican House to reform welfare, and it worked. However, Barack Obama is all about change, and he has been busy rolling back welfare reform. We have all seen the MSM headlines that America’s poverty rate has risen sharply. However the Census Bureau has concocted a new definition of poverty that threw millions of people unknowingly into those ranks. The Census Bureau discovered that almost half the population is living in “near poverty” conditions if you define near poverty as an income roughly equal to the median income. That means that, by definition, nearly half the population will always be poor or near poor, regardless of any changes in actual living standards. By suggesting that many more Americans are poor or near poor, Obama can cite the Census Bureau in order to generate political pressure to raise taxes and expand the welfare state, thus ensuring greater wealth transfer, er, I mean fairness.
  • In 2009, Obama appointed Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) as head of the Department of Commerce, under which the Census Bureau falls. Immediately, the Congressional Black Caucus and The National Association of Latino Officials complained. They wanted, and Obama tried, to get the Census Bureau directly under him so he could decide what it said or declared. A professional at the Census Bureau said about Obama’s move: “There’s only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement. And it’s called politics….” In an effort to have the Census Bureau do his bidding, he tried to usurp our Constitution and have it under him. What other Census Bureau discoveries await us?
  • Obama has already permanently increased welfare spending by nearly a third, from $522 billion to $697 billion. This year (2012), the government will spend more than $900 billion on means-tested aid, providing cash, food, housing, medical care and social services to poor and low income persons. And this figure does not include Social Security, Medicare or unemployment insurance. This welfare spending comes to around $9,000 for each person in the lowest income third of the population. And the new poverty measure is propaganda to raise the figure further. 
  • A huge shift in wealth will happen courtesy of Obamacare. Taxes will greatly increase to pay for the expansion of medical care to people Obama considers underserved by the medical care industry. Senator Max Baucus (D-ID), who was instrumental in having Obamacare shoved down our throats, admitted that the goal of Obamacare was redistribution of wealth. Baucus spoke from the floor of the Senate when he declared that the bill was “an income shift, it is a shift, a leveling to help lower income middle income Americans … This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”

Of course, the federal government already runs a massively redistributionist system of taxes and benefits. The top 1 percent earns about 17 percent of all income and pays about 37% of all income taxes. But, as Obama has said many times, politics is about rewarding friends (like Senator Harry Reid [D-NV] and Representative Nancy Pelosi [D-CA]) and punishing enemies.


But that’s just my opinion.

Powered by


  • I’d rather kiss ‘n make up, but they won’t let me.

    It’s not the sadist in me, but the masochists here certainly go out of their way to make me look like one.

  • Zingzing

    the lovefest going on in here is just too much. I like making out and smacking some ass every now and again as well, but this horny frat orgy is getting in the way of a good, thoughtful discussion of the issues, which is what the Internet is all about. Don’t you forget it! and get your tongue out of my ear, it tickles. Tickles good…

  • pablo

    You really are too too much Glenn.

  • Forget it, Glenn, I only tried to be helpful. You’re not being “nice” and “considerate.” You being paternalistic prevents you from being and acting as you imagine yourself to be and to act, and most everybody sees that. Your form of words do not override your overall tone; and it’s your tone that condemns you. Unless they’re themselves assholes, Nobody wants to have a relationship with another asshole; and having a dialogue with someone is having a relationship of sorts.

    In any case, yes, I did give you advise and I’ll never do it again. Just hating seeing you badgered all over these threads, because it doesn’t do anyone any good. It’s demeaning to all parties. But apparently, you don’t appear to mind being so treated, and in that case, I’ll just look the other way and pay it no heed.

    And you still aren’t my friend, Glenn, and neither is Chris, so I’m not taking sides. If I focused on you and your paternalistic airs, it was only because I see it as the main cause why you’re being dismissed in a summary fashion; and nobody wants to see that, whether it happens to a friend, an acquaintance or even a stranger. So yes, I think you deserve better than that, but not until you drop your holier than thou attitude. And just so you know, I posted a comment to Chris on another thread.

    In any case, I’m out of your hair. Good luck.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    It doesn’t matter how nice I am or how considerate I am – for the most part I’ve been quite considerate and polite the past few days…but it doesn’t matter how considerate I try to be or how much I try to refrain from using inflammatory language or putting people down because I am still vilified for – in your words – being ‘paternalistic’. In other words, it really doesn’t matter how courteous and polite and considerate I try to be, you’re still going to tell me how wrong I am in my language, my approach, and in almost every respect. In your most recent comment on here, you said, “C’mon guy’s, that’s enough”…and then you start lecturing me. You didn’t lecture the guy who had tossed off insult after insult after insult, but instead you lectured the guy who was refraining from insults and sarcasm.

    You are not being ‘fair or balanced’ or objective at all. When someone steps in to stop an argument, that someone must be fair and balanced…and you’re not doing that. If you can’t be fair even to the point of making yourself look bad in front of your friends, then you’ll never be trusted in the eyes of others to give fair and balanced judgement.

    That’s why I’m going to pretty much ignore what you said and chalk it up to what’s going on in your life, and how much you despise me for pointing it out. Again, if you can’t be fair and balanced, if you can’t have the courage and objectivity to chew out your friends just as much as you chew out the guy you despise till your dying breath, then you shouldn’t hold yourself to be in a place of judgement.

  • Glenn, there you go leaping to assumptions again.

    I didn’t actually specify WHEN you had a questioning mind. I was NOT referring to when you wrote your speculative but unresearched article, but a time many years ago.

    See, if you had only asked a question rather than making something up, you would have avoided making an ass of yourself yet again…

    Not satisfied with that, you then go on to confuse intellectual dishonesty with mass murder. Is there no limit to your dishonesty?

    And then you have the arrogance to lecture me on objectivity?

    Not satisfied there, you then presume to lecture me on the responsibilities of judging other people’s careers?

    Setting aside the issue of what the fuck does this have to do with what we were debating, you make a fool of yourself by ASSuming that I don’t have that burden or understand the importance of dealing with these things.


    Roger, it will be enough when this kind of foolishness is seen as the corrupt and dangerous dishonesty it is.

    As to the rest of your remark, unsurprisingly I completely agree!

  • C’mon guys, it’s enough.

    Glenn, half of these problems wouldn’t even arise if you just tried to talk to people as though in person. I don’t give a shit whether you’re opinionated or not; most of us are. The worst that can happen, I just won’t waste my time. But do try to be somewhat less sanctimonious if you can. It kills all potential conversation. For even if one would be inclined to agree with you now and then, no one wants that kind of relationship.

    We’re not your underlings in the good ole Navy, none of us are. So if you can possibly drop that paternalistic tone of yours, I guarantee you all of us are going to get along much better.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Ah. So I had a questioning mind when I wrote an article last summer about how far quantum entanglement might go, but I no longer have a questioning mind. Wow! Isn’t that a profound judgement!

    And I now have a corrupted and corrupted grasp of perception, reason, and truth…and I am perpetrating a betrayal of truth and beauty!

    Gee, I’m must be right up (or down) there with Charles Manson and John Wayne Gacy! Or worse, Joe McCarthy and Torquemada! I had no idea I was such a waste of human flesh – why, I have no redeeming qualities whatsoever!

    Y’know, Chris, if you’re ever in a position where you have to judge whether or not a man’s career is worth saving, or whether there’s more to the story, I do hope you’ll be a bit more objective and circumspect…particularly in your pronouncement of judgement concerning people you don’t like. I do know what it’s like to be in that position, to have to decide all too often when to let someone go, or when to defend them and do my best to save their career. I wasn’t always successful and didn’t always make the right decision, but my failures taught me to not be so quick to judge, to toss people aside like so much chaff.

    I hope you learn to be as considerate and as protective of the careers and reputations of others – even the ones you don’t like – as you are of your own…for that’s a crucial element of professionalism. Again, I wasn’t always successful, and to this day I regret my failures – but it’s those failures that give me the strength to be patient when someone shows their inexperience and lack of character, to look forward instead to what they might be someday when they grow up.

  • Glenn, you HAD a questioning mind but NOW you don’t.

    I don’t know what is really going on with these NDEs; the difference between us is that you have made up your mind what the answer is based on what appears to be entirely made up stuff, whereas I can live with not knowing.

    Given that there is zero evidence to support the conjecture that there is a creator, which underpins your thinking, the likelihood that your dubious and unclear reasoning is correct is minuscule.

    You seem to think that you are curious and I am mainstream, but both of those are inaccurate.

    On a spiritual level, you are a member of a mainstream cult, that of monotheism, that permeates huge parts of the world, so by definition conventional.

    I am part of a growing minority that seeks a new enlightenment in which such superstitions are as credible as phrenology, numerology or astrology.

    In politics, as in religion, you have swapped one set of dogma for another, both mainstream, whereas I reject both. Again, you are the one clearly sitting happily in the heart of darkness, not me.

    I change my mind about a gazillion times a day (slight exaggeration for dramatic effect) because at the heart of a reasoning approach to the world is to ask questions, to not know.

    Apart from your one time political and religious changes of dogma, all I see from you is your assertions, which you NEVER back up with reasoning, and your blind faith.

    I did actually read two of your recent articles; one was a speculation based on zero scientific work and the other was a smug self praising piece celebrating the fact that the previous article MIGHT have some substance to it because it is one of several possible theories being considered by real scientists who do actual scientific research.

    Your very comment to me above is evidence of your corrupted and corrupting grasp of perception, reason and truth, to say nothing of a particularly unattractive stubborn conceptual arrogance.

    Of course what you see is so obvious to you but unfortunately not to anyone else as you can’t make a case for it that goes beyond “it must be true”. This is exactly why people who think like you are perpetrating a betrayal of truth and beauty.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    You say I don’t have a questioning mind…but I ask you, exactly how could I arrive at the postulations I’ve made without asking ‘why’? Whereas you somehow think that those who (like you) look at the subject of NDE’s and simply shrug it off as no big deal, well, they somehow have more questioning minds?

    Frankly, Chris, I think you’re engaging in some serious projection, for the more often someone asks ‘why’, the more likely they’re going to arrive at some answers that are significantly outside the mainstream. The more one remains mainstream – whatever that ‘mainstream’ may be – in any one issue or subject, I think you’ll find that the more likely that person is to be quite curious about the world.

    In fact, Chris, if you’ll check the life stories of those who’ve made brilliant advances in any area of study, you’ll find that they were not at all afraid to think outside the mainstream. That doesn’t mean there’s a likelihood at all for myself – of course not! But any time you want to, you can go look at my list of articles and see how many certainly are NOT in the mainstream of politics or science.

    But you won’t change your mind, because you cannot be wrong. I get that, and so I’m not going to stress over you not seeing what is so obvious to me.

  • Glenn, re your #89 – of course you’re not going to change your mind.

    You claim to have an open and questioning mind but everything you say demonstrates the falsity of that claim and, as far as I am concerned, calls into question everything you say on any topic. You simply can not be trusted.

    I’ve no idea at all who Paul Christoforo is but anyone who tries to justify themselves by what they earn is obviously deeply superficial.

    That he speaks up in support of magical thinking doesn’t augur well either.

    As to his subsequent personal attacks, macho posturing and threats, they have been deleted.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Zing #98 – I wondered if anyone would get that. Not much grosses me out, but that qualifies….

  • zingzing

    because warren brought him up… i was responding to what warren said in #74…

  • Well, in that case you’re right, zing, but why make your points so convoluted by bringing O’Reilly in and all that crap?

  • zingzing

    “Weren’t you “complaining,” sort of, about the presumed monster who created this universe?”

    no… you missed the point. i said religious adherence is based on fear, if you believe what o’reilly said. and what kind of “monster” would create an existence like that? the answer is man (“ah, humanity”). the universe is fine.

  • Weren’t you “complaining,” sort of, about the presumed monster who created this universe? Whether anything was created or not — a side question — it ain’t all that bad, is it, zing? There are some things to cheer about.

    How else did you think I got from point A to point B?

  • I see you resurfaced again, Paul Jr.

    At least Glenn and other dimwits on this site aren’t trolling, but you seem to have made a professional career out of it, as Grady has surely found out all there is to know ’bout you, as per this report.

    Are you still out of a job, Paul Jr., or are you just moonlighting?

  • zingzing

    glenn: “On another subject, I just heard that those who want Santorum are waiting for Newt Gingrich to pull it out in North Carolina….”

    that is freakishly disgusting.

  • zingzing

    so, roger… how did you get from point a (my comment) to point b (your comment #76)? it seems a bit of a non-sequitur. and the end result is a completely off-base.

  • Paul Christoforo Jr.

    Glenn, don’t let Roger and these other dimwits try to bully you. They don’t seem to be that bright of a bunch

  • Well, you surely doing your best to live up to that description. But who am I to tell you otherwise? If the shoe fits …

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger, frankly, I’d rather be a happy idiot than a miserable savant. Which one leads a happier life?

  • Idiots smile too; in fact, they smile most of the time. The trouble is, they know not what they’re smiling about.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Hey – smile when you call me a presumptuous ass! I do!

  • You’re still a presumptuous ass, so if you don’t mind being one, go right ahead.

  • troll

    I’ve heard that Ginrich wants to share the power with Santorum in an open presidency….

  • Glenn Contrarian

    zing and Chris –

    Let the topic go. I’m not going to change my mind…I’ve seen what I consider to be evidence beyond the real possibility of coincidence, and so I’ll stick with it. The two of you, OTOH, don’t see it…yet. Perhaps the seed’s been planted and one or both of you may change the way you think as the years go by. Maybe not, but maybe.

    On another subject, I just heard that those who want Santorum are waiting for Newt Gingrich to pull it out in North Carolina….

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    You didn’t have to confide in me, despite all the little snippets of information I’ve picked up over the years. I could point out a few things you’ve said about your life over the years here, but I don’t think a public forum like this is the proper place to do so, and if I did it would do more harm to you than good.

    Roger, I’ve enough training and first-hand experience in counseling people that I’m pretty good at knowing when someone’s going through hard times…and you are. Can you honestly say that you’re not? If what you’ve already said in less-guarded moments is true, you can’t. Life is tough for you right now, and you’re lashing out at all and sundry – even to those who try to show you real courtesy – as a result.

    Go ahead and hate me. At one time I returned your sarcasm and your anger, but no more…because in the past couple months I’ve come to see what the problem really is – you’re going through a very hard time and quite possibly clinical depression…

    …and you will not see me blame you at all. Blame doesn’t matter. Who did what that resulted in your current situation doesn’t matter. What does matter is you building yourself up once more, and you will. You’re not out of the woods yet, but the first step is always – always – acknowledging to yourself what the problem really is…and it ain’t easy.

    You’re going to reply to all this with spite…and that’s okay. You’ve got my encouragement. I’m on your side whether you like it or not, because I’ve seen how good you really are.

  • Yes, zing, I’m going to be dismissive of thoughtless comments, get used to it. Sure I got your restricted meaning, doesn’t take a rocket scientist to do that! – but your meaning is restricted and truncated, so I presented a corrective.

    You don’t like it? tough titty!

  • How would you know what I’m going through, Glenn? Isn’t it rather presumptuous of you to make such an off-the-wall comment, especially since I don’t remember ever confiding with you? And you’re chiding Chris now for lack of humility while setting yourself up as a paragon of that virtue?

    I can’t even speak of “losing face” anymore with reference to you. You’ve lost it ages ago. You’re but an empty vessel, Glenn, your words are hollow and empty, and it’s ridiculous for anyone to ever take you seriously: all you are is one posturing automaton.

    So let me close this comment by seconding Chris: take your bloody condescension and your pompous mannerisms and sit on it.

  • Glenn, I’m almost tempted to admire your persistence, but it is in service of such determined dimwittery that it is ultimately depressing.

    I know it is pointless to continue to challenge your unreason but let’s make another heroic effort.

    There isn’t an “incredible variety of our minds, of beliefs, of cultural boundaries” amongst humans. Most human actions, beliefs and cultures are actually rather similar. There is also only one human body form and one death experience – we die.

    It follows that there is bound to be commonality amongst those who have these near death experiences, they are, after all, the same: they nearly died…

    Furthermore, even if nobody can explain it, it STILL isn’t evidence of an afterlife. It is just something that can’t be explained yet, of which there are many, although less than there used to be.

    You actually said that this one event is why you aren’t an atheist, then switched to trying the very weak argument that as there are other similar instances of this phenomenon, it must mean what YOU think it means.

    If you can’t see the flaws in that argument then your claim that you question your religion is utterly false.

    Similarly, you appear to believe that your response to one of my points in #71 somehow rebuts them all, whilst you are in fact ignoring them, presumably because you have no meaningful answers.

    In my view, you are the worst kind of faithist, one that has convinced himself that his views are rational and reasonable, but actually is impervious to logic and cherry picks little points to argue with. That kind of thinking is actually potentially dangerous.

  • zingzing

    glenn: “Riiiight. What happened to the claim that it’s just a dream?”

    sigh. a dream, a hallucination, your mind playing tricks, same phenomenon.

    “‘Dreams’ didn’t work, and you stopped that line of argument.”

    nah, i’ll stick by it. if your mind tricks you into believing you are experiencing something you are not, that’s a dream if you’re not conscious or a hallucination if you are. i’m assuming that most near-death experiences occur while a person is unconscious, but i dunno. i don’t know how you would define these things, but as far as my argument goes, it doesn’t matter. it’s all in their mind (and their mind is not in the afterlife, and they aren’t seeing their relatives and their relatives aren’t saying “gooo baaaaaccckkk, it’s not your tiiiiimmmme… god says your special mission on earth is not compleeeeeete…”).

    “How can hypoxia or a ‘mind trick’ explain that, especially across widely disparate cultures and belief systems? It can’t.”

    sure it can. why wouldn’t it? at this point, you’re conditioned to the idea. plus, people could be flat-out liars. “i had a near-death experience too!” whatever.

    the brain does weird things, especially when faced with trauma. and every human brain, regardless of culture or belief, is built pretty much the same way.

    “You and Chris and Clavos can deny it till you’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t work in the face of reason.”

    come on, man. your “reason” leads you to what now? if you want to believe in an afterlife, go right ahead. i’m sure it’s a source of comfort. but maybe that’s the idea, eh?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And zing –

    Please be patient with Roger – he’s going through some really tough times. Remember, he’s insulted me at least as much as he has you, but this is one of those instances where patience and understanding are what is needed. The time will come when he’s back to normal, but it’s going to take time. Until then, show understanding.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    For all skeptics here –

    There’s nothing wrong with being skeptical, unless such skepticism prevents one from accepting the obvious. From the Wikipedia:

    [British psychologist] Greyson claims that: “No one physiological or psychological model by itself explains all the common features of NDE. The paradoxical occurrence of heightened, lucid awareness and logical thought processes during a period of impaired cerebral perfusion raises particular perplexing questions for our current understanding of consciousness and its relation to brain function. A clear sensorium and complex perceptual processes during a period of apparent clinical death challenge the concept that consciousness is localized exclusively in the brain.”

    “A recent study by Sam Parnia, shows that such patients are “effectively dead”, with their brains shut down and no thoughts or feelings possible for the complex brain activity required for dreaming or hallucinating; additionally, to rule out the possibility that near-death experiences resulted from hallucinations after the brain had collapsed through lack of oxygen, Parnia rigorously monitored the concentrations of the vital gas in the patients’ blood, and found that none of those who underwent the experiences had low levels of oxygen. He was also able to rule out claims that unusual combinations of drugs were to blame because the resuscitation procedure was the same in every case, regardless of whether they had a near-death experience or not. According to Parnia, “Arch sceptics will always attack our work. I’m content with that. That’s how science progresses. What is clear is that something profound is happening. The mind – the thing that is ‘you’ – your ‘soul’ if you will – carries on after conventional science says it should have drifted into nothingness.””

    ‘Dreams’? ‘Mind tricks’? And the same limited variety of dreams and/or mind tricks across cultures, having been recorded as early as the Greek philosopher Plato? Um, no. That does not work. That is beyond any reasonable possibility of coincidence. Skepticism and cynicism is good and is healthy…but as with all else, only in moderation, because too much can keep one from seeing something in front of one’s face.

  • zingzing

    for fuck’s sake, roger. do you always have to be so dismissive? you misread a comment and got something out of it that wasn’t there. i merely suggested you go back and look again. so you go and get all insulting. good for you, roger, i’m sure you’re very impressed with yourself.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    Glenn, so the reason you believe this stuff is that your great-uncle had a near death experience? That’s pretty thin. One obvious explanation of the “phenomenon”, which is actually not very common at all, is that all human bodies are the same, so why shouldn’t they have a similar response to such a situation?

    Did you not read what I wrote? If it were his one experience, then no, I wouldn’t give it any consideration at all – of course not! But his experience isn’t unique, is it? FAR from it!

    I never said it was common, Chris – but it DOES happen, it is NOT unique, and what you (and zing, and Clavos) cannot explain is why it is that so many of these people (across many cultures around the world, and are recorded as early as Plato).

  • Your comment wasn’t intriguing enough in the first place to merit second reading, zing. So do forgive me if I decline the offer.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    zing –

    It’s not a shared experience. It’s bullshit, the mind playing tricks, nothing more.

    Riiiight. What happened to the claim that it’s just a dream? It’s pretty obvious that you saw that your claim that it’s just a dream can’t work because there’s very little variety in near-death experiences…

    …and your new claim that it’s just ‘mind tricks’ fails for the same reason. For all the incredible variety of our minds, of beliefs, of cultural boundaries, we have largely the SAME ‘mind tricks’ in a near-death experience? Right down to hearing the SAME kind of words being said, the SAME emotions being felt? No, zing, that doesn’t work. You and Chris and Clavos can deny it till you’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t work in the face of reason.

    There’s one and only one explanation I’ve ever heard that might explain part of a near-death experience: hypoxia. If a brain is low on oxygen, then maybe it would see a ‘beautiful light’. BUT it would not at all explain seeing one’s loved ones, or the voice they hear telling them to go back….

    How can hypoxia or a ‘mind trick’ explain that, especially across widely disparate cultures and belief systems? It can’t.

    ‘Dreams’ didn’t work, and you stopped that line of argument. ‘Mind tricks’ didn’t work, either. Neither does ‘hypoxia’. So how will you now continue to defend your determination that these people are all – all! – victims of some kind of ‘dream’ or ‘mind trick’?

  • zingzing

    don’t know how you got from what i said to that. maybe you should read it again.

  • Don’t appreciate the universe, zing? Not even splendor in the grass?

    I surely do.

  • zingzing

    and if clavos is right, you don’t waste the only life you’ll have believing nonsense.

    (and if you take o’reilly at his word, it seems like religion is based on fear, not faith. what kind of a monster would create a universe like that? ah, humanity.)

  • Re: comment #72, Clavos, you are correct, that’s why religions are based on FAITH. As Bill O’Reilly says, if you are wrong, you will suffer for a looooooooooooooooooong time!

  • Zingzing

    “zing, you’re demoting the shared experience of thousands – an experience that only happens when they are truly at death’s door – to that of a mere dream.”

    It’s not a shared experience. It’s bullshit, the mind playing tricks, nothing more.

    “I think it would be the height of irresponsibility to not be as well prepared for it as one humanly can”

    if there’s an afterlife, there’s an afterlife. All one has to do to “prepare” is go ahead and die. I’ve not harmed anyone and I’ve lead an ok life. I don’t think I’ll go around fearing some bogeyman is going to damn my soul or anything.

  • Clavos

    I know that if a religion cannot stand against the most rigorous questioning and criticism (including facing all empirical scientific evidence against it) then it cannot be a true religion.

    Exactly. And none can — or are.

    As Chris points out repeatedly upthread, there is zero scientific evidence for the existence of a supreme being, deity – whatever you choose to name it. When really pushed to the wall, ALL believers can only respond, in the end, “you have to take it on faith.”

  • Glenn, so the reason you believe this stuff is that your great-uncle had a near death experience? That’s pretty thin.

    One obvious explanation of the “phenomenon”, which is actually not very common at all, is that all human bodies are the same, so why shouldn’t they have a similar response to such a situation?

    The fact that there are near death experiences tells us nothing except that there are near death experiences.

    Add in the facts that a) there is no proven case of anybody ever returning from the other side; b) no trace of any other dimension or space where this other side may be; and c) zero evidence of the existence of your deity anyway and you just look increasingly silly to me.

    You might as well watch David Blaine or Dynamo and conclude that as what they appear to do is impossible, magic is real.

    You’re the one that is using a simple event to sustain an entire bogus argument. You really need to improve your critical thinking skills, which are dire.

    All I’m seeing in your various arguments is some poor sap desperately trying to convince himself that the latest bunch of hooey he’s bought is worth it and nothing at all based on actual reason.

    You are so uncritical and unthinking that you manage at the same time to disagree with certain aspects of your church’s arguments AND believe that “if a religion cannot stand against the most rigorous questioning and criticism (including facing all empirical scientific evidence against it) then it cannot be a true religion”.

    Finally, if there is no creator, and there is still zero evidence for that, then there is no such thing as a true religion anyway, at least as you define it.

    There is room for spirituality and reverence for life, which is what these monotheistic constructs exploit, but that is a far different and more profound thing than you have bought into.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    errata – “I can’t point wide-eyed to some kind of light in my heart and. Last about the surety of my faith.””

    should read “I can’t point wide-eyed to some kind of light in my heart and boast about the surety of my faith.”

    That’s what I get for typing a long reply on an iPhone.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    zing, you’re demoting the shared experience of thousands – an experience that only happens when they are truly at death’s door – to that of a mere dream. Being clinically dead, with a heart that is not beating, is not the same as simply sleeping. If these near-death experiences had a true variety, then you’d have a point. But they have very little variety.

    Above, Chris spoke of information humility. No one – absolutely no one – on Earth Truly knows what happens after death. You claim there is no ‘after death’…but there’s thousands who have been much closer to death than you or I…and almost all of them have one of two stories tell, either of a great and beautiful light, or of loved ones that they saw, and many of them recall someone telling them to go back, that their time is not yet done.

    Why is there so little variety in near-death experiences, zing? That – and the fact that they’re almost (and sometimes are clinically) dead, should combine to tell you that this is far beyond the endless variety of dreams we have, that this is far beyond the possibility of mere circumstance.

    Zing, I’ll tell you something I’ve told no one else. I don’t believe blindly. I can’t point wide-eyed to some kind of light in my heart and. Last about the surety of my faith. I can’t act like Michele Bachmann and the very sound of a televangelist grates at my nerves. Why? Because they don’t question their beliefs. They never do. Whereas I cannot help but question mine – and I do so every week, because down deep in my heart I know that if a religion cannot stand against the most rigorous questioning and criticism (including facing all empirical scientific evidence against it) then it cannot be a true religion. I must be able to answer all my doubts !without exception!, or else I cannot believe, and I cannot remain.

    Now do you still think I am so blind? The fact that there are near-death experiences tells me there’s a significant likelihood of awareness after death (if the brain is intact), and I think it would be the height of irresponsibility to not be as well prepared for it as one humanly can.

  • Zingzing

    we believe want we want to believe, Glenn. My mind has made me think I’m flying. Such are dreams. If everyone has dreamed they can fly, can we fly? I think not. The unconscious mind does what it wants. Your uncle may have thought he met unknown relatives, but it’s just one of those things. You can believe it if you want to, but it doesn’t make any more real than whatever dream I’ll have tonight.

    I have a repeating dream oef being on an aircraft carrier. I’m watching a fighter taking off from the deck and I can feel the heat off the afterburners. It takes off and i realize there’s a rope around one of my legs. The fighter takes off and the rope is attached to the plane. Somehow my leg isn’t ripped off and I’m being dragged by the plane, then the plane dives and the rope burns and I fly into the water. The speed I’m going drives me hundreds of feet into the water and I’d drown except there’s a school of sharks (which don’t swim in schools in reality, but this is a dream,) aiming right towards me. Through the light, I can see them coming to eat me. And then I wake up.

    I enjoy my dream. If every person who’s dreamt of being eaten by sharks had been eaten by sharks, I guess I’d have a different opinion.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And your second comment has no bearing whatsoever on this phenomenon.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Zing – no offense, but you’re using a simple occasion or simple event to try to explain a definite pattern that cuts across cultures and generations. The greater the coincidence, the greater the likelihood that it isn’t a coincidence…and when you’re talking about one that has been so widespread and only happens when one is truly near death…

    …no, zing, the chances that it’s all just a coincidence…is minuscule.

  • zingzing

    and how often does god talk to politicians and tell them to run for office?

    quite often, if you believe bullshit.

  • zingzing

    rarely, glenn, but if you saw people you’ve never met and are generations apart from for some reason, who’s not to say it’s a bit of a dream? people believe a lot of things when they’re about to die, i suppose. either way, if i met a great grandfather (that i’d never met) on my deathbed and told you about it, i doubt you’d be all that willing to believe my story as true and sober.

    tenses were getting really difficult in that paragraph.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Zing –

    So how often does it happen that the very same shroom dream happens to people who have never met and are generations apart?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Not everything discussed in college philosophy classes are common knowledge.

  • Zingzing

    Glenn, I’ve had hallucinations before as well, and they were caused by the great god acid or mushrooms. The mind is beautiful thing, but it’s not proof of an afterlife. I wouldn’t want to die because I thought I saw something at any rate… putty tat, etc.

  • Clavos

    Thing is, the ‘near-death experience’ was not well-known by the public then…

    I was in college in the 60s; more than one of my professors discussed “near death experiences” in philosophy classes.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    Without going into the doctrines of the Church, let me relate to you something that kept me from being a full-blown atheist. I had a great-uncle who was an atheist just like you, and back in the early 1970’s he told my grandmother (while I was listening) about his near-death experience – the beautiful white light, the friends and family that had gone before, the works. He told her in no uncertain terms to never let him be resuscitated again.

    Thing is, the ‘near-death experience’ was not well-known by the public then, and I certainly had never heard of it.

    Now that begs the question – since this has been seen in so many cultures, so many peoples, how could this happen if there weren’t something there? I know the arguments of atheists against this, and frankly, those arguments are pretty weak.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    zing –

    I know quite well what men will do to get laid – I am retired Navy, you know. FYI, if my wife were to leave the Church tomorrow and tell me it’s either her or the Church, I’d tell her to have a nice life.

    You see, I will not be a hypocrite. I will not go to Church if I don’t believe in it. To be sure, there are two doctrines of the Church with which I cannot agree – creationism 6K years ago and Noah’s flood, because there’s no evidence for and a wealth of evidence against, and I’ve said so to the ministers. Personally, I think those are metaphors. But i don’t think that’s sufficient cause for me to reject the Church because of other things I have seen and learned.

    It’s easy for people to stand apart and throw stones when they haven’t take the time to really understand us. Of course every other religion says that, too – but I can disprove every single one of them using scientific fact and/or their own teachings. I cannot disprove the INC.

    Call me blind if you will, but I’m no hypocrite – except for when I get a Diet Coke and a double-meat cheeseburger.

  • Glenn, if you want to get specific about what is inaccurate about the information I posted about your cult, go ahead.

    The only reason we don’t know what led you into this cult is that you get all coy about it, which proves my point that these things don’t like the light of day.

    You didn’t write questioning articles, you wrote speculative or opinionated pieces pushing your own ideas; by definition that isn’t curiosity…

    I show intolerance for your beliefs, as opposed to your right to believe them, because they make no sense to me, to say nothing of the fact that there is still, after 5,000 years, zero evidence for the existence of the deity you believe in.

    So, you believe stuff for which there is no evidence and I don’t, yet you are trying to suggest that it is you that is humble? I consider the opposite, you are arrogant in your beliefs and can’t even consider outgrowing them, despite the total lack of objective support for them. That is truly corrupt and dishonest.

  • Zingzing

    Glenn–cool. religion, I think, is often used as an excuse for hate and a reason to kill, which is, I’m sure where chris’ objections originate from. You obviously aren’t one of the people that allows their religion to lead them down that path. You may believe something arguably silly, but so what, I say. You keep on til you can’t any more, if it makes you happy.


    Chris–I did my only little research into INC, and I basically agree. There’s the belief that if you don’t believe in my version of my god (Islam, Judaism and christian), you’re going to hell, which is bad enough. Then there’s the if you don’t believe in my version of my interpretation of my god (divisions in Christian sects), which smacks of cult to me. That it’s 100 years old and hasn’t tipped into Koresh territory is a good sign, but it still has similar origins, and that’s troubling.


    If you really believe people are free to believe what they want, don’t simply dismiss and berate them for those beliefs. Glenn may be a gullible fool, but he’s not the enemy. (and, given the origin of his particular beliefs, it’s probably got more to do with his wife. Man’s gotta get laid, and you know a man will do what a man will do for that.). (no offense, Glenn, but I’ve seen men believe whatever it takes to get to the promised land.)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Chris –

    #53 is what you get when you depend only upon information from those who give a negative opinion. Again, you do not know what I believe nor why…

    …and while I have shown precisely zero intolerance for your apparent atheism, you have shown nothing but intolerance for my own beliefs.

    Who, truly, has a problem with humility here?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    I’d just like to see you show some real humility and let go of your beliefs

    How can you accuse me of a lack of humility when you know neither what I believe nor what led to have those beliefs? You attack me for not believing what you think I should believe, yet I have NOT attacked you for not believing as I do?

    FYI, Chris, it was curiosity that led me to believe as I do, and if have such a lack of curiosity, then it’s pretty strange that I would post articles concerning quantum physics, the fabric of space, the effect of the amygdala, and the benefits of Reaganomics on the world as a whole…

    …so, um, yes, I think I tend to be quite curious – otherwise I wouldn’t write such articles.

    But you’re entitled to your opinion.

  • zingzing, I don’t have any issue with the principle that people are free to believe whatever they want to. As am I…

    What Glenn believes is that his church, the Iglesia Ni Cristo, which was founded less than 100 years ago, is the fulfillment of this quote from The Book “Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west”. That “east” refers to the Philippines.

    The INC teaches that its members constitute the “elect of God” and there is no salvation outside the Iglesia ni Cristo.

    Like all these monotheistic cults, I find it deluded, arrogant and fostering ignorance, because belief requires an unquestioning attitude which by definition denies learning, hope, optimism and growth.

    As such, I see these belief systems as the enemy of humanity and therefore their corruptive and corrosive influence should be resisted.

    Glenn, there is no need to decamp to the Culture section as there is no requirement by BC that these conversational threads remain on subject.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    zing –

    I understand what you’re saying and appreciate the constructive criticism. I was not the one who first brought up my religious beliefs – that would be Clavos – but I bear the responsibility for rising to the bait.

    I was being quite straightforward when I invited Doc (or anyone else) to discuss the matter in the Culture section because the politics section is not the place to discuss religion.

  • zingzing

    i hadn’t read past #46 when i wrote that… things seem to be lightening up a bit. prolly wasn’t necessary. prolly never was.

  • zingzing

    sigh. chris, you must at least admit that glenn isn’t shoving his fantastic prophecy down your throat. he’s saying he believes something, but he’s not saying you have to as well. his coyness (which doc noted) just may be because he doesn’t believe this to be the place to talk about it. fair enough, i say. i know it gets on your tits that someone would be so foolish as to believe ridiculous shit, but i’m sure you believe some ridiculous shit (at least in someone’s opinion) as well. it’s glenn’s right to believe what he believes, no matter how silly.

    glenn, you’ve let yourself devolve into insults and repetition over the last few comments on this thread. and if you don’t want to talk about your religious belief in this forum, don’t. you’re inviting this sort of stuff (and may deserve a bit of it). coming in here with your INC beliefs is a double blunder. religion is going to get it to begin with, and a possibly somewhat cultish christian sect is going to get it again.

    you’re both nice fellows and it’s not nice to see you spitting on each other, but i guess it does give the lie to the right wing mantra that all us lefties are monolithic.

  • Glenn, my perception of you is slightly different; I think you think you are “aware of how ignorant [you are]” but I don’t believe that. And I’ve not yet seen you show any curiosity about anything, you just spout off your new set of beliefs that have replaced your old ones.

    I’d just like to see you show some real humility and let go of your beliefs, to walk the walk of realizing “just how much there is that one doesn’t know” rather than talk the talk…

  • I’d say our knowledge and understanding of the world are shared qualities, and what we regard as truths is a function of our agreement. (Which isn’t to say truth is relative, only that it is shared.)

    Of course, the very idea of a true belief is predicated on the possibility that we may be wrong. So for a nondogmatic person, being able to suspend their true beliefs, when questioned by others, is the the optimal kind of stance (for it allows for the process of discovery).

    To quote:

    “All propositional thought, whether positive or skeptical, whether of the inner or of the outer, requires possession of the concept of objective truth, and this concept is accessible only to those creatures that are in communication with others. Knowledge of other minds is thus basic to all thought. But such knowledge requires and assumes knowledge of a shared world of objects in a common time and space. Thus the acquisition of knowledge is not based on a progression from the subjective to the objective: it emerges holistically and is interpersonal from the start.”

    Donald Davidson, “The Problem of Objectivity,” 1995

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    You’re quite right that there are so many things that I don’t see – absolutely! I am very much aware of how ignorant I am of so many things. You’ll see me claim that I know a lot only on a very, very few subjects – otherwise, I depend more on what I can read than what I already know.

    On the other hand, it’s also quite true that the more one knows, the more one realizes just how much there is that one doesn’t know…

    …and the obvious inference holds true that the more knowledgeable one holds oneself to be on a wide range of subjects, the more ignorant that person probably is, just as children are so sure about so many things – until they grow up and find out things ain’t so simple.

  • I’m sure you don’t, Glenn, but then there are so many things you don’t see.

    Perhaps information humility would help you, for you are blind yet think you see…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    “Christopher Rose”


    “Information Humility”

    You can have one, but I don’t see any indication yet that you can have both

  • We have to have an attitude of information humility and not knowing in order to see the truth, which is precisely why those who believe things too much have trouble with the process of discovery…

  • With reference to the penultimate paragraph, I’m tempted to cite a famed line from Jack Nicholson’s A Few Good Men: “You can’t handle the truth!”

    By way of clarification, “you” is generic here, referring to those BC participants we deem incapable of digesting the truth. And with respect to all nonesuch, I’d say a better strategy is to lead them by the nose.

  • I would be prepared to take your remarks seriously if it wasn’t for the following facts:

    1) My comments are subject to oversight by at least two and possibly three levels of control.

    2) I participate in the comments space as an individual just like everybody else and am not treated any differently to anybody else. I accept happily that my own personal opinions will be edited if they are seen to go beyond the intentions of the site’s now departed founders.

    3) Messrs Cohen and Kurtz were the most persistent and deliberate abusers of the comments guidelines I have seen on this site. They wilfully ignored both those guidelines and every other bit of information presented to them over a considerable amount of time.

    4) You really need to consider what you are going to accept as sources of information.

    5) Complaining about alleged personal attacks by me whilst actually making a personal attack is not going to carry much credibility.

    Personally, I believe that participants in the comments space should speak openly and honestly and I try my best to do that at all times.

    Sometimes we squabble, which is part of the process of learning to get along, but ultimately we find ways to co-exist.

  • Costello

    If you are unaware your hypocritical defiance of the personal attacks rule as documented by Irv and Allen and continual insults accomplish anything other than revealing yourself to be a braying jackass that says quite a bit about you.

  • Costello, if you find my objections to magical thinking more troubling than the focus of my objection, perhaps that says more about you than me.

    Personally, I find it dishonest and offensive and intend to challenge it whenever it presents as part of my commitment to making the world a better place.

  • Glenn Contrarian


    When someone says something is going to happen, and then that something happens to such a degree that it’s hard to think it’s anything other than what the guy said it was, well, I don’t think that’s merely exhortation of the people to change their ways. But again, any such discussion belongs in the Culture section.

  • In any case, the very concept of “prophesying” (from Hebrew) has been distorted and diluted over the years in the popular mind (which is ignorant of the original codex and context). The essence of the idea, the stress, was less on predicting future events, more on the exhortatative mode of language, appealing by “the prophet” to his people to change its ways.

  • Costello

    Chris’s militant atheist is much more annoying than Glenn’s affirmation of his beliefs.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    If you’ll check, it wasn’t me who first brought up religion in this thread – that was Clavos, and he was obviously referring to me. Of course I defended what I believe. I didn’t ask for the fight, but i certainly won’t back down from it.

    If you really want to debate religion, I can do that – I do not exaggerate when I say that it’s something I’ve done to a much greater extent than I ever debated politics. Feel free to open up a thread in the Culture section and we’ll do that, if you want. But when you do so, be sure to list what your own religious beliefs are, if any.

    If you don’t want to debate it, then we’ll continue concerning politics here. It’s your choice, Doc.

  • As to Glenn’s life changing prophecy, even if a prophecy came true, it is no proof of anything, except how gullible some people are…

  • It is a fact of life that in a country where there is a huge disparity of wealth between the most economically fortunate and the less fortunate masses, there HAS to be some wealth re-distribution, if only to stop the masses rising up in revolt.

    As the USA has one of the widest gaps between rich minority and poor masses in the world, parties of left and right do this.

    The twist the USA, and other countries, have added post 9/11 is to bump up the levels of the state security system to massively inappropriate levels that are easily on a par with those seen in countries more traditionally associated with oppression.

    We urgently need a massive rollback of security forces, excessive legal and penal systems, the influence of big business in the democratic process and the process of government itself.

    The challenge is whether that can be achieved peacefully or by far less pleasant and far more violent means. The latter option has clearly been anticipated by the state…

  • Miracle, prophecy, whatever. Fact remains that you mysteriously appeal to it quite regularly as a basis for your belief but never say what it is.

    And would this be one of those prophecies that can be interpreted in infinite different ways? Because if so, I don’t see how you can verify it, at least not impartially.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    Did I say ‘miracle’? No. I have yet to see a miracle with my own eyes, and am quite cynical of anyone who claims such. I refer to a prophecy that was fulfilled in such a way that I can verify it for myself.

    And when it comes to ‘Yelp’, please excuse me if I don’t consider such an authority when it comes to matters of salvation.

  • Glenn, you’re persistently coy about this “miracle” you’ve seen “with your own eyes”.

    Interestingly, on Yelp, the INC has a rather abysmal star rating. The only five star score it got was apparently awarded because the church is down the street from a Pho restaurant.

    Doesn’t inspire confidence.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    zing –

    I’m not offended. Like I told Clavos, if I hadn’t seen what I’ve seen and learned what I’ve learned, I’d feel the same way as he does.

    It’s the Iglesia ni Cristo.

  • zingzing

    glenn: “I can disprove every religion on the planet […] but I cannot disprove the Church of which I am a member.”

    heh. so which planet is that church on? (sorry.)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Again, if I hadn’t learned what I’ve learned, I’d be an atheist like you. You haven’t seen what I’ve seen, and so I cannot blame you. I can disprove every religion on the planet – that’s part of what I did for eight years of debating on religious forums…but I cannot disprove the Church of which I am a member. I cannot disprove what I can see with my own eyes.

    Again, you’ve not seen what I’ve seen. I agree that American exceptionalism is an oxymoron, yes…and I can agree that religious evidence is also an oxymoron for all the thousands of religions in the world, including the over thirty thousand ‘Christian’ denominations large and small…all but one.

    I know I won’t change your mind – the more conservative someone is, the less able they are to change their minds about anything (unless the people they hate start agreeing about some things, in which case conservatives will immediately do a 180 on the position (see ‘individual mandate’ and ‘cap-and-trade’ and several other positions)).

  • Clavos

    OK, Glenn, religious evidence is an oxymoron like American exceptionalism.

  • And the humor by some of your (more rabid left) commenters never ceases. They can rationalize anything, and can ignore facts that don’t fit their world.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    That’s your opinion. And you well know the falsity of calling ‘military intelligence’ an oxymoron, of pretending that it’s fact rather than a simple joke – either that, or your cherished cynicism has caused you to be much more ignorant than you imagine.

  • Clavos

    “Religious evidence” is an oxymoron — like “military intelligence.”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    You forget – or perhaps you didn’t know – that I found a way to reconcile the two. I cannot deny the science…but I could not deny what I felt to be religious evidence, either. If I had not found a way to reconcile the two, I’d probably be an atheist.

    As a result, your retort goes nowhere. As it is, though, you support the same side as do the creationists, the AGW deniers, the ones who claim that God doesn’t want women to be leaders (as one of Santorum’s staffers said yesterday), the supporters of child labor, the white supremacists, and those who oppose rights for LGBT’s.

    Lay down with dogs, and you get up with fleas, Clavos. Do you really want to be on the same side as the above idiots?

  • Clavos

    ..they would need to find someone who accepts scientific fact over Republican dogma

    Hmm. Good point, Glenn.

    So let’s also rule out people who accept religious dogma over scientific evidence, which includes everyone who believes in a “god” or other similar mythical character.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    “the Republicans running a better candidate”????

    In order to do so, they would need to find someone who accepts scientific fact over Republican dogma, who accepts historical fact over Republican fairy-tale, and who is courageous enough to stand up for brown people when his fellow candidates begin race-baiting.

    No, I don’t see any viable GOP candidates on the horizon.

  • “the Republicans running a better candidate”

    Thanks for the laugh

  • It will be an interesting campaign with both groups having a lot of money, the Republicans running a better candidate, and Obama having a record like you state.

  • Igor

    #16-Warren, your citations are lousy. All they are is old hysterical diatribes without facts, figures or argumentation against Obama claiming that he’s increasing welfare. Heritage Foundation, Washington Times and ProteanWhatever aren’t reliable sources, they’re just propaganda outlets for the Far Right.

    If that’s where you get your ideas I can see why you’d say the bogus things you say.

    Warren, you’re in danger of being dismissed as a crank.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    You’re wasting your breath. Warren’s so convinced that every little thing that Obama (or any liberal, for that matter) does is all part of a vast conspiracy where we’ll take away all their guns, force them to learn French, point our gay-rays at them, and force them into same-sex marriage with brown people.

  • Re: comment #15 , Dr. Dreadful, in response to the question you raise, please see these citations: 1, 2, and 3. Enough? Do these citations answer your question?

    Regarding the redefinition of “poverty,” “The Obama administration announced Tuesday a new formula that will take into account a wider range of factors in determining who is poor.” So a formula is being used rather than some arbitrary method, as you imply by your NASA remark.

    But the question is WHY is he doing it? The answer can be found here and here.

  • Barack Obama is all about change, and he has been busy rolling back welfare reform.


    Other than “redefining poverty”, which is a bit like claiming that the White House has reduced NASA’s budget by redefining the altitude at which outer space begins.

  • Clavos


    Never heard of him…

  • Igor

    Apparently, Warren cannot be believed.

  • “Something to do with the Constitution, probably…”

    Probably not, as I am sure Mistah Kurtz will tell you.

  • And, zingzing, I thank you for carefully reading my post. I will be more careful in the future choose my words.

  • OK, all, I made a mistake and zingzing, in comment #2 called me on it. I said in my post, “But, as Obama has said many times, politics is about rewarding friends (like Senator Harry Reid [D-NV] and Representative Nancy Pelosi [D-CA]) and punishing enemies.” Change the word “said” to “done,” then refer to the citations I provided in comment #5. Changing that one word in no way alters the message of the post, or what Obama has done.

  • Igor

    What are we to think, then, when Warren attributes a statement to someone? Should we assume he’s lying, or that it is our duty to go and check his statement out? If the latter, It’s too much work and I won’t do it. Will you?

  • Clavos

    Why does this outfit allow this guy to publish?

    Why do we allow you to comment?

    Something to do with the Constitution, probably…

  • Re: comment #6, Roger B, are we supposed to ignore his actions because he never (in a context that you will like) spoke those actual words? Did you look at ANY of the sources I provided? Who is being “technical” now? Does the word “hypocrite” come to mind?

  • Roger B


    “Technically, you are correct, he never spoke those words”

    A mere technicality.

    Why does this outfit allow this guy to publish? Desperation?

  • Re: Comment #2, zing, Technically, you are correct, he never spoke those words (unless you want to count this instance). But in the “actions speak louder than words” department, please refer to these sources: 1, 2, 3, and 4.

    Re: Comment #3, Glenn, you want context? Try reading some of the sources provided in my post. Or are we going to remain in “Glenn – ignore what I don’t like – World?”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And for Warren –

    I gave you an answer here concerning Christianity and LGBT’s.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Oh, c’mon, zing – don’t you know that in Warren World context does not matter as long as he can find something, anything to get the guy out of office?

  • zingzing

    “as Obama has said many times, politics is about rewarding friends […] and punishing enemies.”

    when did he say that and what was the context?

  • Glenn Contrarian