Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Obama’s Definition of Fairness

Obama’s Definition of Fairness

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare 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.


  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Christopher Rose

    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

    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.

  • 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?

  • 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.)

  • Christopher Rose

    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.

  • 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 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Not everything discussed in college philosophy classes are common knowledge.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • zingzing

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

    quite often, if you believe bullshit.

  • 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.

  • Glenn Contrarian

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

  • 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

    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.

  • 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.

  • Christopher Rose

    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.

  • 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.”

  • 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.

  • Warren Beatty

    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

    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.)

  • roger nowosielski

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

    I surely do.

  • zingzing

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

  • 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’?

  • roger nowosielski

    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

    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).

  • 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

    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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • Christopher Rose

    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.

  • roger nowosielski

    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.

  • roger nowosielski

    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!

  • 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.

  • 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….

  • troll

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

  • roger nowosielski

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

  • Glenn Contrarian

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

  • roger nowosielski

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

  • Glenn Contrarian

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

  • roger nowosielski

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

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • roger nowosielski

    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?

  • roger nowosielski

    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?