Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Guilty Conscienceless?

World Trade Center developer (and criminal co-conspirator) Larry Silverstein pauses to look out a window down to 'Ground Zero' from the 52nd floor of the new 7 World Trade Center tower in New York May 8, 2006 during a tour and interview with Reuters. (Mike Segar/Reuters)

Professional Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

Larry Silverstein has never issued a retraction for his comments.

Photos taken moments before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors.

Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!

72 comments:

Anonymous said...

"(and criminal co-conspirator)"??

hope he sues your ass for libel and slander

Anonymous said...

We do too...

H Nicole said...

The strongest defense in a libel or slander case is truth in the statements made. He would have to sue and then prove the statement was not true.

Also, isn't there some kind of "public figure" clause that makes it more difficult for a public figure to sue for slander or libel?

Anyway, I think I'll stick with what I said a while ago here -- Silverstein probably suspected something was amiss on 9/11 when he was informed that WTC7 was going to have to be demolished for safety concerns (but that he should keep it under wraps for "national security" reasons). However, I'd still like to think that he, like a lot of people including Georgie Boy himself, may have been sincerely caught off guard by the destruction of the twin towers and may have even initially believed that it was indeed Arab terrorists.

(Did I win the Wishful Thinker of the Week Award yet?)

I doubt he still thinks that now and is most likely guilty by association now. It is what it is.

Anonymous said...

"may have even initially believed that it was indeed Arab terrorists"

?? WTF ?? if it wasn't arab terorists, then who the fuck was it? christian white men corporal punishment black women in jail haters? geezus christ

Shoes4Industry said...

That's what we'd like to investigate and find out WHO it really was...

Nothing more, nothing less.

Anonymous said...

"Nothing more, nothing less"

that would be your brain compared to a piss ant's fart in the wind

Lee said...

Stop it with the "nothing more" "nothing less". You refuse to believe that terrrorists stuck on 9/11 (although I've never heard any of them deny they were responsible). You "trufers" want it to be "something more" in your suspicious little minds.

If you don't believe it was a terror attack then it is up to YOU (trufers) to PROVE it.Going on EIGHT YEARS- no proof yet.

This site is so anti-American. I have my suspicions about who some of the regulars really are.

Shoes4Industry said...

Given all the new information that's just come out, who could NOT question
9/11 Commission's final report?

Period.

Lee said...

Questioning it is one thing - PROVING it is quite another. Period.

Anonymous said...

anybody who thinks it was anybody other than arab terrorists is an idiot anti american douche. 8 years and not one bit of REAL evidence to the contrary. PERIOD

Shoes4Industry said...

There's a mountain of evidence to the contrary and it's growing every day.

Wake up and smell the Truth.

Cocked45 said...

The only mountain is the giant pile of bullshit that is still being spewed on this site. And it still smells as bad as it did the last time I was here. Losers.

H Nicole said...

I just checked, and all the links still appear to be working after all this time. Yea. I am so glad I put everything together like this in one place and published it before I turned myself in. Now I just have to republish it (everything still stands, as far as I concerned) instead of wasting time going round and round and round in the usual circles with the anti-9/11 Truth crowd.

Let me offer up the typical response now, just to make it easy for them...

"That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard from the stupidest person I've ever known. (Insert some personal putdowns here, plus a few swear words)."

-----------------------------
H Nicole said...
It's fax time again!

This is similar to the Fax I sent to all 100 US Senators on September 20, 2007, except I've added a few more links of evidence, not the least of which is the informative video footage posted on this site on October 10, 2007.

It is interesting that in my checks to see if all the links were still working properly since 9/20/07, only one was no longer available online -- the 300 page thesis by (now) Dr. Granier from Texas Tech about thermite nanoparticles. Fortunately, I had saved that file and am now making it available from my own website.

I may be away from home for a while without any Internet access, so if my homies here at S4I don't hear from me, not to worry. I'll be partying with a different set of homies elsewhere!

----------------------------------

October 14, 2007

RE: Your Oath of Office and Possible Acts of Treason

Dear United States Representative and Fellow Citizen:

This is an update and summary of some of the strongest publicly available evidence that implicates top officials in the US government for carrying out heinous crimes against humanity in a false flag attack against innocent US civilians on 9/11/01. A similar letter was sent to every member of the US Senate on September 20, 2007.

Despite any proclamations of "not knowing" or "ignorance of the facts" that may be presented as a defense at a future trial, any United States Representative in Congress who continues to support the current administration and its various illegal activities and occupations after having knowledge of the evidence presented in this letter today is tantamount to nothing short of treason and a violation of an oath to protect the US Constitution from enemies from within.

1. The planes were probably not hijacked on 9/11/01, at least not as claimed. If they were, it would have been the first successful hijackings of 757’s and 767’s in the history of the aircraft . Effective anti-hijacking capabilities were available long before 2001 and may have been installed in all 757’s and 767’s at the time of the purported hijackings.
Sources:
- http://www.airsafe.com/events/hijack.htm
- http://www.911-strike.com/remote_bb.htm

2. The plane that hit WTC2 may not have been a regular commercial airliner, and/or the facades of WTC2 where the plane hit may have somehow been modified, because the plane apparently pierced right through the building with its nose mostly still in tact as it came out the other side.
Sources:
- http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929 (see time marker 21:20)
- http://tinyurl.com/ysscje (see time markers 6:30, 5:25, and 4:55)
- http://www.archive.org/details/abc200109110912-0954 (see time markers 0:58-1:04 and 1:56-2:06 for what appears to be a piece of the plane on fire hanging outside WTC2)
- http://shoes4industry.blogspot.com (see the October 10, 2007, video posting and comments therein)

3. It is highly improbable for each of the world trade center towers to be so completely dustified, and in such a short time span (10-15 seconds), without some input of energy other than from gravity.
Sources:
- http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html
- http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154
- Any physics textbook discussion on conservation of mass, energy, and momentum.

4. There are countless observations that are consistent with the idea that a chemical breakdown of materials, especially iron and steel, occurred (or continued to occur) after the world trade center towers had been destroyed.
Sources:
- http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110954-1036 (see time markers 4:45-5:05 and 7:14-7:20 and beyond for what appears to be the beginning and the continuation, respectively, of a possible chemical breakdown or "fuming" of the mostly-steel leeward facade of WTC1 just after a seemingly reactive dust cloud from the destruction of WTC2 came in contact with it).
- http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111011-1053 (see time marker 17:15-17:30 for what appears to be a steel spire turning to dust after the destruction of WTC1; also see http://tinyurl.com/2c2aep for a close up view of the same video clip).
- http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/
- http://www.drjudywood.com (see photo evidence and audio discussions of observed "fuming" and "toasted car" phenomena, including possible acts of covering up evidence of fuming phenomena with dirt, debris, and the spread of inaccurate, misleading information about the purported discovery of "molten steel" during the clean-up at ground zero)
- http://www.stevenwarran.blogspot.com (additional photo evidence of possible fuming and toasted car phenomena and possible cover-up of the phenomena with dirt at the Pentagon).

5. As one of many alternative explanations, technology exists that would allow the inconspicuous coating of much of the steel frame interior of the WTC towers with explosive material (say instead of the purported fire protective coating that was continuously being "re-applied" throughout the lives of the buildings), a material that may later have been triggered with a laser from a remote location.
Sources:
- http://fdi03754139.info/911_related/nanothermite_explosion_thesis (nanoparticle-sized thermite is one possible laser-triggered explosive material)
- http://tinyurl.com/yqzf99 (a recent advance in laser technology called "ultrashort laser pulsing" might allow for much faster, more explosive chemical reaction times for laser induced chemical reactions).
- http://tinyurl.com/3bmlod (directed energy laser guns developed by Raytheon is a technology that may have been used to trigger chemical explosions in the WTC towers on 9/11/01).

6. It is evident just from the video footage alone that WTC 7 was purposely and skillfully destroyed by a different mechanism from the WTC towers because, unlike the WTC towers which were turned to dust from the top down, WTC 7 was destroyed from the bottom up and a relatively large amount of the building survived as a heap pile. The destruction of WTC 7 is not counted here as evidence of crimes against humanity, however, because nobody was killed in its purposeful destruction.
Source:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

This is only a partial list and does not include additional evidence that can and should be obtained through the investigative powers of the United States Congress.

Sincerely,

H. Nicole Young, Ph.D., Representative of the Citizens of the United States of America (ROC-USA)
hn_young@yahoo.com
This letter also posted at: http://shoes4industry.blogspot.com

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
~Abraham Lincoln

10/14/07 6:34 PM

zm said...

If it had been anybody else, insurance investigators would have assumed insurance fraud, and any other Justice Department would have investigated arson.

Just review the facts: earlier in the year 2001 Silverstein signed a long term lease on the WTC, insured it for 3.5 billion specifically against terrorist attacks, insisted on a lease clause that released him from all financial responsibility if terrorists attacked but let him keep the insurance. A few months later 911 happened. Because there were two planes he claimed two attacks thus double the payoff.

That alone is suspicious. But remember, 911 was the only time in the hundred-year-plus history of steel high-rises that buildings collapsed (allegedly) due to fire. On that day, in one office complex, three buildings collapsed: two towers that were known white elephants, difficult to rent out and needing massive asbestos abatement estimated as prohibitively expensive and permits applied for but denied for controlled demolition because of air-quality dangers. The third building was very secure, housing the largest CIA office space outside Langley, the FBI, the mayor’s emergency command-and-control bunker, and the SEC (Its files on Enron, WorldCom, and many other pending fraud cases—all lost). WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, was a block away from WTC 1 & 2, and had minimal small fires and damage. All three buildings fell straight down through the path of greatest resistance at the same speed they would fall through thin air, through tons of steel which was certified to withstand at least 2000 degrees for at least 6 hours (the towers fell in about one hour). Jet fuel burns at a maximum of 1800 degrees under ideal conditions (i.e. in a pure-oxygen environment) but the black smoke indicates a much cooler oxygen-starved fire. What little steel not illegally removed from the crime scene and destroyed before any investigation was done shows the temperature of the steel was closer to 5-600 degrees. The steel could not have failed in one hour due to fire, and the damage from the planes was anticipated by the engineers and would not have caused building collapse.

Cocked45 said...

LMAO!!!

Shoes4Industry said...

Well stated ZM!

Lee said...

"America will never be destroyed from outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

Isn't THAT the truth! But Mr. Lincoln certainly would have never thought we would be destroying our country by...

Questioning someone saying "Merry Christmas" but catering to Muslums when they want baths in public places to wash their feet

Letting generation after generation become victims of welfare. Letting them get away with doing NOTHING but still getting paid (and maybe after paying no taxes getting a REFUND!!)

Instead of pulling together in time of war, we burn flags, march in protest, disrespect national monuments, make a fool and mockery of our commander-in-chief (in spite of whoever he is is performing his #1 duty-to protect the homeland)

Letting cities like Berkeley, Calif. get away with trying to remove a Marine recruiting station (but they'll still have their hands out for federal monies)

Letting ILLEGAL* aliens pour across our borders, take advantage and put a burden on our health and educational systems, commit crimes and end up in our prisons so we, the taxpayers can support them

*ILLEGAL-no one really likes to say this word but ILLEGAL means just that-You have no business being here unless you've done it the right way. Not aliens, ILLEGAL aliens are what we are talking about. Go ahead, say it ILLEGAL aliens

Taking prayer out of schools because a HANDFUL of people want it

Letting minorities use the excuse that they ARE a minority -from everything to not being able to seek employment to living in poverty to stealing to murder and on and on and on

For letting everyone have an EXCUSE and BLAME someone else for all their failures in life

For being too stupid to realize what a real threat terrorism is and the unwillingness of sacrifice to protect ourselves from them

And the list goes on and on

H Nicole said...

It's Muslims, Lee, not Muslums.

As a sympathetic, fellow horrible speller of the worst possible words at the worst possible times (i.e., like Muslums in that last post, though I think I've done worse than that, actually) I correct the spelling here while keeping the utmost respect for you and your arguments, Lee. I meen it!

And as for ZM...

Where the heck (I am swearing off swear words for life, trust me) have you been all my life, ZM? Wanna get married? I'm bi, so it doesn't matter to me much whether you are a man or a woman, though we might have to be a bit choosey about the state we get married in, depending...

:)

Cocked45 said...

Actually it's Mooslime.

And offering to marry someone off of one post? Wonder why one would end up in family court with such morals and scruples.

What a bunch of yahoos.

Lee said...

Actulee, the misspelling was dun on perpose - just wanted to cee if some mynority would b offended.

Shoes4Industry said...

"Taking prayer out of schools because a HANDFUL of people want it"

Lee, Lee, Lee... what if you were one of those HANDFUL of people?

Who's protecting YOUR rights if you don't protect the rights of others?

Geez.

Lee said...

Of all the examples I listed you only address the one about school prayer?

Again, WHY should we take prayer out of school because a few want it. You don't want to pray? Fine, they DON'T. But DON'T take that RIGHT from others

You DON'T want to say Merry Christmas? Fine, then DON'T. But DON'T make it some sort of over-blown issue

You DON'T want to work? Fine, then DON'T work. But DON'T sit on you dead ass and expect the government and other TAXPAYERS to support you. DON'T drag down the rest of society in your crime infested, drug-ridden ghettos then BLAME everyone else for you self-induced circumstances

You DON'T want to come into this country LEGALLY? Then DON'T come at all. DON'T come in this country and demand WE learn YOUR language along with all you other demands. Go back to YOUR OWN country and try to change things. If you did maybe you wouldn't have to leave your country to come here ILLEGALLY

Libs. are only concerned about rights when they pertain to their certain "pet" groups.

Cocked45 said...

"Libs. are only concerned about rights when they pertain to their certain "pet" groups."

You would be correct.

Voluntary insertion of your penis into another man's anus = AIDS. A "victim"

Having unprotected sex with many partners = welfare babies. A "victim"

Being to stupid to keep from shoving shit in your mouth and being a fat slob = high health care cost at taxpayer expense. A "victim"

I could go on, but since progressive liberal perverted lazy stooopid people wouldn't understand, that would mean they're a "VICTIM" of being STUPID!

Lee said...

Oops, almost forgot! One would think that George Bush would have learned a lesson when he sent Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans. But NOOOO. He sent ANOTHER horrible storm to a few southern states just yesterday. Now I don't think any on those neighborhoods were predominately black so does that mean that George Bush hates white people, too?

H Nicole said...

Whoops. Me thinks I chased our good friend ZM off for good. *sigh*

I've also been dropping the ball in my position as the Honorable Barbara Lee's campaign manager for the "Barbara Lee for President, 2008" campaign. *sigh*

She is one of the few in congress engaged in the real battles in the political trenches against Bush and his cronies. Here is her latest battle...

Dear Friend,

It has long been a worry that the Bush Administration is attempting to establish a permanent U.S. presence inside Iraq, all while failing to disclose its true intentions to the American people.

Just last week, we received a clear indication of what Bush really plans to do. When the most recent Department of Defense Authorization Bill -- which explicitly precludes the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq -- reached his desk last week, he issued another of his famous "signing statements" that makes clear his intention to violate this law.

We cannot allow this attempt to override the clear will and intent of Congress -- and the American people -- to stand. The President is not allowed to override provisions in laws that he has signed by simply waving his pen around. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship.

I hope you'll join me in signing Barbara Lee's petition demanding an immediate Congressional investigation of the President's signing statement today. Just click the link below to get started!

http://tiny.cc/tRx3n

H Nicole said...

(Sound of crickets chirping)

Looks like I scared everybody off, not just ZM!

Oh, well, onward...

I recently had a conversation with a Ron Paul supporter and friend of mine in which he mentioned that the Republican National Convention was in Minnesota this year. This, of course, triggered my spiel about the "oddities of things happening in Minnesota," but being an old lady now, I couldn't remember a lot of it.

I sure wish you had some kind of search engine on this blog, Shoes. It took me a while to find my posting about Minnesota. Glad I went back, though. All my postings for the October 1, 2007, blog were fun to read -- and still spot on as far as I'm concerned, including the family court system doing its usual number on Britney Spears, but I digress...

In honor of my Ron Paul friend, here is the string of posts leading up to the Minnesota posting. I did not realize that I did not include any links for all this stuff. I'll have to go back and do that some time...

The following was the string of comments made in response to this fun poll from a Minnesota News station. It still seems to be up and running, too..,.


LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...

http://tinyurl.com/35lw9o

Guess who was last on my list...>;}

10/1/07 8:55 PM


Shoes4Industry said...
The next President of the United States...no doubt.

10/1/07 10:28 PM


H Nicole said...
What a fun poll, Life. I was in complete alignment with Kucinich. Hilary was my number four (your number 11, I'm sure). Good enough for me. The vagina factor trumps all for me in this election. Sorry, guys, desperate times call for desperate measures.

Can't believe Joe Biden seems to be the right of many Republicans here. No wonder my guy Jeremy Scahill does not like him very much...

http://tinyurl.com/2pvjkx

http://tinyurl.com/38mdqp

10/1/07 10:36 PM


LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...
mine were
Hunter/Thompson tie 53
Romney
Gilmore
McCain
Brownback
Huckabee
Tancredo
Giuliani
Paul
Biden
Richardson
Edwards/Clinton/Obama..tie 10
Dodd/Gravel/Kucinich..tie 3

I love those little kinds of doodads...What "they" think "we" are thinking.

I favor abortion on demand (with common sense applied of course) so hilly and I agree on one thing anyway...>;}

10/1/07 10:57 PM


LifeBeginsAt200MPH said...
...OH!! and it was from a Minnesoooda station no less.

10/1/07 10:58 PM


H Nicole said...
I still can't figure that Minnesota place out, man. What a weird place. Lots of funny business, it seems. Talk about seeing Trolls and Ops behind every tree. I'm sure in Minnesota I probably wouldn't be too far off!

10/1/07 11:59 PM


H Nicole said...
1) Senator from Minnesota Paul Wellstone and family die in a small plane crash on Oct. 25, 2002, just a few days before an election in which Wellstone, who originally was behind in the polls, suddenly surged ahead by several percentage points when he voted against the gulf war on October 11, 2002.

2) Norm Coleman, current senator, went on to win the election that he otherwise probably would not have won had Wellstone not died in a plane crash. Coleman was the first in line to condemn Larry Craig for being arrested in "his" bathroom at the Minnesota airport.

3) Michael Zebuhr, one of Dr. Judy's Wood's students, is murdered in a relatively safe Minnesota neighborhood in March of 2006, while visiting his mother and his sister, just a week after he completed laboratory work that was critical of Prof. Steven Jones' claims of molten steel at ground zero.

4) Amy Klobuchar, the DA in charge of Michael Zebuhr's case, which received heavy criticism for being sloppy and looking so obviously like a cover-up, is elected as a the new Senator of Minnesota just a few months later in November, 2006.

5) The senator that Klobuchar replaced, Mark Dayton, was the first and only senator to publicly question the 9/11 commission report. He decide not the run for re-election.

6) Keith Ellison from Minnesota, first Muslim congressperson, compares Bush to Hitler in June of 2007, then a bridge in his home district "collapses" a few weeks later. It has yet to be determined what caused the "collapse."

7) Larry Craig found playing footsie in a men's bathroom in Minnesota, etc...

8) Didn't a few of the hijackers purportedly attend flight school in Minnesota?

9) Rachel Paulose, US Attorney from Minnesota, is under investigation for all the funny business involving the firing and questionable hiring of certain US attorneys under Gonzales. Wiki says she is the first Indian American woman[1], the youngest attorney, and the first woman in Minnesota to hold this post.[2]
I personally am almost willing to forgive any and all transgressions here just because she is a young woman in a key political position -- hey, desperate times...

10) And now this poll is from Minnesota! I'm tellin ya, the coincidences and funny business just keeps stacking up! :)

10/2/07 12:58 AM

Shirley Heezgay! said...

America IS destroying itself from the inside.

That is such a homophobic and INACCURATE statement. You don't "volunteer" to have sex with women.

HOW DARE YOU IMPLY IT'S ANY DIFFERENT!!!

your statement should read:

"Voluntary insertion of your UNPROTECTED penis during hetero/homsexual sex= RISK of AIDS.

Victim? Depends on you and your state of mind, but "victim" ended decades ago.

it's the closed minds of buddy here and lee and all the rest that are ruining america.

don't think so? then what are you doing in your communities to make it the slightest bit better?

Lee said...

What to you mean "victim" ended decades ago? Victim ended?? Hardly. EVEYONE seems to be a victim of SOMETHING today. It has come to be an EXCUSE for everything.

Mabye if everyone lived by some kind of morals, values, self-control, integrity, self-respect, pride,etc., our communities WOULD be better places.

My heart goes out to third world countries and those people suffering from AIDS. But this country? NO! Everyone knows what to do to prevent this but the "if it feels good do it" mentality prevails-guess what?

The real shame is some who are truly victims of circumstances beyond their control are getting lost with those that use "victim" for their sorry lives.

Cocked45 said...

I fail to see why anyone would insert their penis, protected or unprotected, into an orifice in the body designed for the expelling of feces, male or female. Other than for the sole purpose of self gratification and due to mental perversion, lack of self respect, and no moral bearing.

I assume that you support NAMBLA also. Or are they just "victims" of ageism?

There is no substitution for self respect, common sense, and decency. Anything else is for the sole purpose of perversion, self gratification, lack of morals, and a result of mental deficiencies and illness.

Shoes4Industry said...

Mabye if everyone lived by some kind of morals, values, self-control, integrity, self-respect, pride,etc., our communities WOULD be better places. And just WHO should establish those morals and values, Lee. Who's to say what is right and what is wrong? You? Cocked45? The "Church"?

We think you're on a slippery slope here.

Shirley Heezgay! said...

"What to you mean "victim" ended decades ago?"

I was referring to those who become infected with HIV. "Victim" no longer is an accurate mentality that should be associated with HIV. It's not a death sentence anymore, folks. Sorry 'bout that.

"Mabye if everyone lived by some kind of morals, values, self-control, integrity, self-respect, pride,etc., our communities WOULD be better places."

Again, how are YOU making a difference in your community?

Clearly, you have expressed that people who are "suffering" in your country don't deserve your compassion. Aren't they fellow Americans? How is that not destroying America from the inside. Sorry Lee, you might think I spit BS, but at least I have compassion and try to help when I can. What are you going to do when you need to get a little help from your community. Good luck with that.

As for Cocked45, I could say the same about where you're putting yours. I fail to see why, but I ain't judging you for it.

You proably do it for self-gratification and I'm all for that! I'm not mentally perverted (that was made offical a LOOOOONNNNG time ago). Nor am I lacking self-respect, common sense or moral bearing. I believe in God, but I don't believe I'm a sinner. I don't believe I have a mental perversion, but sometimes its fun being a bit "pervy."

And I DON'T support NAMBLA in any way at all.

SO sorry that I can't live up to your stereotype.



Now.
Back to Larry...sneaky S.O.B.

Cocked45 said...

Actually, up until about 1971 when the McGovern wing of the party took over and started infiltrating long established associations and institutions, homosexuality was classified by the APA as a mental illness.

Explain to us why you derive pleasure from inserting your penis, protected or unprotected, into an orifice that feces comes out of. Or having a penis inserted into your anus.

Is it for procreation? While normal hetero sex may be for that purpose and for pleasure besides, the vast majority of normal people are repulsed and disgusted by acts that are indicative of some sort of mental problem and are by their very nature, not healthy.

Your support of an unnatural act implies that you naturally support other unhealthy, disgusting acts. How about animal sex, scat acts, urine drinking, torture, suffocation, and other acts? Are they "Normal"?

Your only defense is that "If it feels good, then people should be allowed to do it."

Mental deficiencies and illness are just that, no more, no less. Any other attempt at an explanation is merely a rationalization and not acceptance of reality.

Lee said...

Shoes:"Who should establish morals and values?? They were established a LONG TIME ago and if you don't know that then YOU are a hopeless case.

If you don't know the difference between right and wrong, then YOU are a hopeless case. Should murder and rape go unpunished because whether is is right or wrong can't be decided? This is why this country is in such a sorry state-because no one seems to know the difference between the two.

Shirley: Where do you get the idea that I have no compassion for the "suffering" in this country? I was talking about AIDS only. You expect sympathy for a group of gay men who get high on drugs and decide to have unprotected sex? Sorry, not here. This is America. They have every precaution available to them. They want to "do it because it feels good". Fine, go ahead just don't cry about the conquenceses and don't expect the rest of society to bail you out. I'm personally tired of the "in your face attitude" that surrounds us. This attitude that "this is MY life and I'LL do what I WANT" doesn't cut it. What we choose to do in our lives DOES affect others whether it is family, friends or strangers.

I choose to help those that are at LEAST trying to help themselves.

Shoes4Industry said...

They were established a LONG TIME ago and if you don't know that then YOU are a hopeless case.

By WHO Lee? And what makes them relevant today.

And why should you impose YOUR MORALS on others? How would you like it if the open toe'd pump was on the other foot?

Shoes4Industry said...

Why do we get the sense that "cocked45" isn't sticking his in any orifice anywhere...

Shirley Heezgay! said...

"Your support of an unnatural act implies that you naturally support other unhealthy, disgusting acts. How about animal sex, scat acts, urine drinking, torture, suffocation, and other acts? Are they "Normal"?"

Wow. You are either completely naive, an 85 year old shut-in or just plain old fashioned stupid.

"if it feels good, then people should be allowed to do it." is not my "defense." ---There's nothing to defend. It might shock you to know that I agree that the other things you've mentioned are disgusting and I don't understand them.

I think you might need to accept some realities.


now Lee....

I just love this:

"Where do you get the idea that I have no compassion for the "suffering" in this country? I was talking about AIDS only."

Once again, you manage to pick up the shovel and dig yourself in deeper.

Your suggestion on the transmission of HIV ("gay men high on drugs") panders to the lowest form of ignorance. Do some gay men get high on meth and have sex? Yes. Is it dangerous? Yes. But couldn't one say that the Meth is an "addiction" which you should be compassionate about. More often than not, the transmission of HIV is the result of an accident or a mistake.

You can forgive a mistake can't you? You have compassion for an addiction don't you?

You forgive George his demons don't you? Strange that he's helped to kill millions and he's stone cold sober. (or so we're told)

Cocked45 said...

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how inserting a penis into an anus designed for expelling feces from the body is a "natural" process.

And your attempt at a jab doesn't even come close Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms/Mz Shoes.

Perversion and sodomy are just that and nothing more and nothing less.

H Nicole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...

Shoes: It figures that some looney lib. would question who established morals & values, right & wrong? Who decides the rules of a game? Who cares? Play by the rules or don't play the game. And if you choose to play the game BUT not by the rules then DON'T cry about the outcome.

Proof that you are a hopeless case: "What revelance do morals & values, right & wrong have today?"
Fact is, when one chooses to live their life without morals or values, self-respect, not knowing the difference between right and wrong and lack of personal responsibility then we all suffer.The game of life is ALL about responsibility, morals and values. But I guess when you never grow up you just don't get it.

Shirley: AIDS-mistake or accident=Excuse. I can forgive some addictions but not all. How long have we've known the dangers of drugs and their effects? Someone wants to ignore that and be cool by doing drugs fine. Just don't expect the rest of us to bail you out.

I see that NYC is handing out condoms with the ever-so-clever "get some" slogan. And just who is paying for these "free" condoms. Don't you think everyone should be RESPONSIBLE for their own birth control and condoms? Oh, of course not, that would be under the heading of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

And, I see that you are still suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).

H Nicole said...

It is sadly ironic that you will probably never find a stronger proponent of gay rights than me, at least on a personal level, while at the same time my entire family, especially our children, has suffered tremendously from what appears to be an extremely harmful, deeply rooted bias against bisexuals such as myself from within the "progressive" gay community of San Francisco.

Who would've thunk it? Certainly not me when I naively put my entire trust in the San Francisco Unified Family Court, a family court system that (as I only discovered when it was too late) is controlled almost entirely by older (it's definitely the sixty and over crowd), politically active lesbians who have probably endured tremendous bias in their lives as they forged new paths and advanced gay causes, but at the same time, they unfortunately do not believe there is such a thing as bisexuals and in fact seem to reserve a special kind of resentment and bitterness for this "lesser, sell-out" form of sexual preference.

Can't we all just get along? *sigh*

H Nicole said...

Shoes might call me on being "off topic" here, but protecting fundamental rights, including the right to be a parent (yes, even a bisexual parent), is what I believe it's all about here on this blog.

That being said, I am going to reproduce here a letter I sent to California State Senator Joe Simitian in response to an "Open Call for 'There Oughta Be a Law' Suggestions" as published in the San Francisco Chronicle on Monday, November 26, 2007. The letter was written while I was incarcerated...

November 29, 2007
RE: There Oughta Be a Law

Dear California State Senator Joe Simitian:

I am currently incarcerated at San Francisco County Jail #8 awaiting trial on charges of threatening a public official. The public official I am accused of threatening is a family court commissioner. Regardless of the details of my predicament, it is clear I am not doing very well in my grand attempts to reform family court in a mature and civilized fashion. Either way, I hope you will see beyond the shortcomings of the messanger and take heed of the message, one that I have tried to convey through my website over the past year:

http://fdi03754139.info

In a nutshell, the fate of our children caught up in the family court system is dangerously dependent on vague rules and arbitrary definitions of abuse that are far too easily manipulated and that seem to be guided more by money and politics than by the best interest of the children. Although there probably oughta be several laws (and there probably oughta not be several other laws that currently exist) in order to accomplish the type of reform that is needed, where better to apply the method of "baby steps" than in family court reform?

With this in mind, I want to propose only one law for now with the hope that by keeping it simple, it will increase its chances of success and possibly open the door to other positive changes that aim to protect the rights of families, and especially the sanctity of the parent-child bond, from the undue influences of money and politics in family court.

The law would read something as follows:

At no time, but especially not during so-called "emergency situations," where most of the real abuse of the family court system (and hence abuse of our children) seems to occur, can the court take away the rights of a parent (be it to transfer those rights entirely to another parent or to a legal guardian or to the government itself) without proper representation present in court on behalf of the accused parent. If the accused parent can not afford an attorney, one will be provided by the court.

In that I have yet to come across anybody with a solid objection to such a law, and in fact, most people seem surprised that this is not a law already, I would be most interested to know who in Sacramento would object to this proposal and why.

Sincerely,
H. Nicole Young, Ph.D.
Inmate #2338128
San Francisco County Jail #8
425 7th Street
San Francisco, CA 94103

H Nicole said...

Okay, well, while I am on a roll here (and with about 20 minutes left before I have to get to work), let me post some excellent news regarding my other pet cause -- getting women into Congress at all costs, which also happens to be the name of my up-and-coming Political Action Committee (i.e., Get Women In Congress At All Costs, or GWICAAC, and never mind the comments, Anon-cum-LifeBeginsat200mph, that it sounds like a cat spitting up a fur ball -- it's a PAC that aims to support getting women into Congress regardless of political party or affiliation).

I will be forming GWICAAC soon, I promise, very soon, I mean it, yup, any minute now...

From the Washington Post yesterday:

"Md. Challenger Edwards Wins Stunning Victory Over Long-Time Incumbent Wynn"

http://tiny.cc/wz6u0

Cocked45 said...

"LOL! I love that you, Cocked45, think that Shoes and I are the same people."

Where on earth did you get that impression from? Absolutely ludicrous. Of course your lengthy diatribes resulting from your many neurosis' confirm that.

Shirley Heezgay! said...

i'm not going to keep hashing this out with you "cocked" ... as with many other topics discussed on this site, one person is not going to make you change your mind. at this point, all i can do is offer this:

don't knock it 'till you try it.

Cocked45 said...

"don't knock it 'till you try it"

Try what? Inserting my penis into another man anus? Why would I want to do something that's biologically unfeasible, perverted, disgusting, and a good way to contract and spread life threatening diseases?

Do you not look in a toilet when you're done taking a bowel movement and see what comes out of your anus? What makes you want to insert your penis into an orifice that something that looks and smells like that comes out of?

Very easy question to answer, Why do you want to insert your penis into another man's anus? Or vice versa? What's the appeal? Are you pretending to be a woman with a vagina? WHY?

And just because "it feels good" in not a rational or sane answer.

H Nicole said...

Whoops. My mistake, Cocked45. Post deleted now that I read the entire string. I misread the comment about Shoes being Ms/Mr/Mz...

Lee said...

Getting women into Congress AT ALL COSTS - now THAT'S a scary thought...

Cocked45 said...

Because it's the election season, let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until one day the owner threw them a curved ball (or is that a curved beer!). "Because you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four Continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our Tax System works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

H Nicole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
H Nicole said...

Good post, Cocked45. (BTW -- that's an interesting handle for somebody so affected by the homosexual act).

I like these kinds of perfect world, Libertarian, Ayn Rand annecdotes about taxes that I used to buy into hook, line, and sinker back in the day. In fact I still think it is a good way to rein in some of the extremists on the other side of the tax argument.

The big problem is that it is not a perfect world, and there is nothing very realistic nor impressive (to me anyway) in the capitalism-and-capitalists-can-do-no-harm-if-left-to-their-own-devices view to account for simple real-world things like corruption, cheating, and yes -- racism and xenophobia.

As bad and corrupt and inefficient as the US government may be at times, it's still the best we've got to protect us from even worse corruption and unfairness that a completely "free" capitalist world would have to offer us, I believe.

I am still learning and morphing daily about this subject, though, so I don't want to say too much here beyond I am pretty sure I am in favor of repealing the income tax entirely (way too much wasted peoplepower going into collecting taxes and paying taxes in this manner, I think) and replacing the income tax with a straightforward consumption tax.

Wishful Thinker of the Week Award, no?

2/16/08 4:43 PM

JohnMark said...

Wow, someone is really obsessed with the anus.

I think it's weird that he doesn't seem to realize that other major "sex parts" are wrapped up in human waste as well. What else comes out of that vaginal hole that hetero men stick their penises into? That's right--urine! And what else comes out of a penis itself besides sperm? Yes, that's correct--urine! So some people (gay, straight, male, female) like to have anal sex. Who is to say that the anus' purpose is solely for feces? After all, there's a nice prostate gland there that makes some men feel real good when their wife's finger or another man's penis rubs against it.

Okay, end of basic sex lesson for today.

Cocked45 said...

Yeah, right. Big difference between feces and urine. Try reading a book once in awhile. But that would require a brain. Something you obviously lack as proved by your statements. An anus is not a sex organ, very simple concept to rational thinking normal people.

JohnMark said...

Yes, but the prostate gland IS a sexual organ, and stimulation of it can most effectively and pleasurably be achieved by accessing it through the anal cavity.

In your words--very simple concept to most rational, normal-thinking people.

Lee said...

Isn't everyone getting a little side-tracked here??

Lee said...

Aspen Times by Gary Hubbell-"In election 2008, don't forget Angry White Man"

-Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians

-There is one group no one has recognezed, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard

-His common traits are that he ISN'T LOOKING FOR ANYTHING FROM ANYONE-just the promise to be able to MAKE HIS OWN WAY on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He PAYS MORE THAN HIS SHARE OF TAXES AND WORKS HARD

-The VICTIMHOOD SYNDROME buzzwords-"disenfranchised," "marginalized" and "voicless"-don't resonate with him. "Press 'one' for English" is a curse-word to him. He's USED TO PICKING UP THE TAB,whether it's the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding

-He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted LITERALLY, not as a "living document" open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives

-The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he's willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his COUNTRY. He is willing to LAY DOWN HIS LIFE TO DEFEND THE FREEDOM AND SAFETY OF OTHERS, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn't bother him

-The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a VICTIM. Noboyd like him drowned in Hurrican Katrina-HE GOT HIS PEOPLE TOGETHER AND GOT THE HELL OUT,THEN WENT PACK IN TO RESCUE THOSE TOO HELPLESS AND STUPID TO HELP THEMSELVES, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter

-His last name and religion don't matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American

-He's a man's man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hung deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, changes is own oil, and build things.

-Women either love him or hate him, but they know he is not a disrag. He stands up straigh, opens doors for women and says "Yes, sir" and "No, ma'am."

-He is not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the WORST STEROTYPES OF THEIR RACE. He is willing to give EVERYBODY a FAIR CHANCE IF THEY WORK HARD, PLAY BY THE RULES AND LEARN ENGLISH

-Most important THE AWM is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers he DON'T PAY TAXES and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Shparton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers.

-He also votes, and the AWM loathes Hillary Clinton. It's not that she is a woman. It's that she is WHO she is. It's the LIBERAL VICTIM GROUPS she panders to, the "POOR ME" attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his TAX DOLLARS that she wants to GIVE TO PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO DO ANYTHING FOR THEMSELVES

-There are many millions of AWM. Four million AWM are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush

-He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum

Cocked45 said...

If every law abiding gun owner would join the NRA for Life like I have, it would mean the salvation of the country. Over 80 MILLION Americans own over 300 MILLION guns. WE are the biggest army in the world---and we ARE getting angry.

Great post Lee. I tire of arguing with those who have decidedly delusional thought processes.

JohnMark said...

GREAT post, Lee--thanks for sharing! If the multitude of spelling and grammatical errors hadn't tipped me off that it was satire, this would have: "He is not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the WORST STEROTYPES OF THEIR RACE."

Absolutely brilliant! Here is an entire article detailing "the worst stereotypes" of a particular group (angry white men) masquerading as a criticism of others. This is a piece of self-reflexive (and self-loathing) satire that is positively Swiftian. Thanks for the best laugh I've had in ages, Lee.

(And cocked, I haven't forgotten your delightful contribution; your tin hat grassroots army is almost as amusing! Perhaps you and Lee could join forces as a comedic duo. You could don peppermint-striped suits and join the vaudeville circuit--which I hear is still going strong in the rip in the fabric of time you two live in!)

Lee said...

Typical lib. pointing out spelling and grammar errors when the truth hits a nerve. I copied the article word for word from the newspaper article so, the errors were simply (in my haste) hitting the wrong key.

Just to keep you laughing here are a few comments regarding that article:

-"An excellent and accurate article. Actually, I hope Hillary is the Democrat candidate for the reasons mentioned. I think she will be much easier to beat than Obama. She is dispicable as is her weasly husband."

-"Special interest groups abound, except for the middle class white guy who is exactly as Gary Hubbell describes: too honest, hard working and involved in his family, community and job to demand any SPECIAL consideration. HE IS A GIVE NOT A TAKER."

-"When will politicans realize illegal immigration and securing the border are burning issues with this group of Americans? I guess is NOT POLITCALLY CORRECT?"

-"The best, and most honest article I've read from any newspaper in years!!"

-"I'm sending it to everyone I know so they can see that FINALLY someone has enough guts to point out who REAL Americans are and that they DO vote!!"

-"I'am an angry white woman who has worked all her life to support three children-WITHOUT, I might add, WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS OR OTHER GOVERNMENT GIVEAWAYS and resent the 300 billion tax dollars goint to ILLEGALS,the stimulous package for people who took out loans they KNEW they couldn't afford, people who build houses on the beach knowing they can be swept away then EXPECT SOMEONE ELSE to build them back up-and I'm really pissed off at having to press one for English!"

AND iff i have msspelled anything git over itOK jonboy??

JohnMark said...

You get funnier with every post, Lee!

Love it!

Signed,

A Registered Republican (who is somehow a "lib" in your mind!)

Love it!

Lee said...

Well, since you are a registered Republican(wink,wink) here is something else to keep you laughing...

Top Psychiatrist Concludes Liberals Clinically Nuts

Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifiying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." Like SPOILED, ANGRY CHILDREN, they rebel against the NORMAL RESPONSIBLITIES of adulthood and DEMAND that a parental government MEET THEIR NEEDS from CRADLE TO GRAVE."

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity-as liberals do. A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population-as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create
an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrputs their character and reduces them to wards of the state-as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
- creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization

- satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, idulgence and conpensation

-augmenting primitive feelings of envy

-rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the govenment

"The roots of liberalism-and its associated madness-can be clearly identified by understanding how CHILDREN develop from infancy to adulthood and how disorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,"he says. "When the modern liberal mind WHINES about IMAGINARY victims, rages against IMAGINARY villans and seeks above ALL ELSE to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

Now, after checking for spelling and grammar errors, are you still laughing, johboy??

H Nicole said...

Actually, I'm not a big misspelling pointer-outer either (let he who has not sinned cast the first stone), but I have to point this one out just for fun...

hung deer

I think your psychiatrist friend, Lee, might call that a bit of a Freudian slip, no?

Everybody is gay and everybody is heterosexual, guys, it's just a matter of percentages. I think 95% is about as far as Mother Nature takes most everything, at either end of the spectrum. "Purest" gays (i.e., 95% gay -- or pretending to be 95% gay) hate hearing it as much as "purest" heterosexuals, and I think the world would be a better place if you gathered up all the purests, men and women, into a big room and told them they weren't allowed to come out until they all had a big orgy.

Instant World Peace!

Wishful Thinker of the Week Award, no?

H Nicole said...

Not a big misspelling guru, but am a stickler for the facts, and naming the sources of my facts.

Here is the link to the article...

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324

In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man

Gary Hubbell
February 9, 2008

Many interesting things you left out, though I think you listed the gist of it well. I will list the excerpts at a later time!

H Nicole said...

Here are the parts of the Hubbard article that were left out in the above post. Interesting editing choices, especially about Hillary. It seems even you, Lee, of all people, thought old AWM Hubbard went a bit over-the-top on Hillary, like there was something more to it than just her "being a woman," as he tries to proclaim in the article:

"It's not that she's a woman... I swear..." Yeah, right. Me thinks ye all protesteth too much on that point!

Also, I wasn't able to find the comments about the article at the source, so I'm wondering where to find them.

Excerpts from what Lee left out...


Intro:

There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain...

About AWM:

...He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch...

...Women know he’s a man. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy...

...He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner...

...When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement...

...Hillary Clinton's voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader...


Gary Hubbell is a regular columnist with the Aspen Times Weekly.

Shoes4Industry said...

As they say, don't knock it til you've tried it.

H Nicole said...

There you are, Shoes! I finally have Internet access from home. Yea. No more Berkeley Public Library for my 1-hour daily fix/limit of Internet in the early afternoon. Night shift reporting for duty, Sir!

My old hard drive had completely unrecoverable, irreparable damage, as if somebody had taken a sledge hammer to the darn thing.

I am not a very good backer-upper of data from my home computer, too, so I am starting from scratch here, including having to redo all those congressional fax lists. Darm! (Darn is just not doing it for me these days as I am going through swear-word withdrawal, so I am allowing darm for now, a combination of darn and damn).

Thank goodness all my most important stuff was stored at places like Yahoo Mail and on my web server, etc -- you know, places that are really protected from government intrusion!

H Nicole said...

What did I press here to get "Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author?"

Something new you will have to explain to us, Shoes, though it just seems like an option and not a requirement for posting.

Anyway, onward with the diatribes...

I am currently working for a progressive, politically active non-profit in Berkeley where a lot of UC Berkeley students also come in to work, and I love bringing up a "political topic for the day" with these kids.

Today's topic, since an important decision is coming up here in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 4, is gay marriage:

"Churches weigh in on same sex marriage"

http://tinyurl.com/33eyx6

M, who happens to be gay, had the best idea, so I'm going with it here...

Just cross out the word "marriage" on everything and call it "civil union." Keep everything else the same. It's just a word problem. Brilliant! Instant World Peace? No?

H Nicole said...

Test

H Nicole said...

What's going on here, Shoes? Why aren't my postings being posted?

H Nicole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
H Nicole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
H Nicole said...

In my continued quest to change the entire family court system and expose some of the corrupted tyrants specifically in the San Francisco Unified Family Court system (unfortunately, they appear to be mostly politically active lesbians who seem to despise "non-pure" bisexuals), I will probably continue to be marked as an agitator and even criminal by the very court system that still holds my children hostage. It's a sad situation that is apparently rampant across the US and even abroad. Anyway, I recently came across this inspiring quote from another family court reform web site:

"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops
without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle! Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." --Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857.

H Nicole said...

Hey, Shoes, glad you turned the monitoring off so that I can more easily edit my own posts, as I did the last one to tone it down a little and to remove a few swear words.

Well, if nobody is going to chime in and if you aren't going to post any new topics, I'm going to carry on here about family court reform!

And here's what the family court tyrants (who are apparently controlling a bunch of other people on this "committee for improvement" who probably know better, but aren't reading anything or paying much attention) are up to now in California...

"No guns for targets of restraining orders"

http://tiny.cc/sXnKv

Here is my response at SFGate.com (http://tinyurl.com/2aa5eu)...

Has anybody here even read through this 135-page disaster? Domestic violence protective orders are notoriously unconstitutional and in all practicality have become a big joke. These recommendations only make matters worse by encouraging even more human rights violations by an already overly-burdened, unchecked, and overly-manipulated system, thereby causing many real victims to continue to go unprotected. Take a lookie at this eye-popper of a recommendation... 20. Orders generally. The court shall consider the application for a DVPA restraining order and may issue all appropriate orders without requiring corroborating evidence. This smells like, "Well, we've been doing it illegally for so long now, let's just sneak it in writing somewhere to make it retroactively official." Not sure why this is labeled "liberal propaganda" here when it is straight out of the Bush/Cheney playbook on how to advance a political agenda, over the dead body of the US Constitution, with fear mongering.