Comments Posted By Mike Giles
Displaying 11 To 18 Of 18 Comments
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PASSION AND PARANOIA
Point. Stop worrying about what your enemies will think of you. No matter what, Liberals will ALWAYS think ALL Conservatives are a "bunch of kooks". As for the "Birthers", there is a hell of a lot that many people would like to know about Obama's past. Giving Obama's supporters cover by labeling anyone interested in those missing years, a "Birther" or a "Kook" is simply asinine. Here's an idea. Instead of running around calling others "Birthers" and "Kooks" and attempting to read them out of Conservative ranks, perhaps we all should be demanding information. Maybe hiding his past, isn't some brilliant plot on the part of Obama and his henchmen to embarrass Conservatives; but an actual attempt to hide something in his past. Or perhaps that just me, not subscribing to the myth of Liberal political brilliance.
Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 14.09.2009 @ 16:25
WHAT IF 'OBAMACARE' MORPHS INTO KENNEDYKARE?
Ah, another example of the Liberal's "Fun House" mirror view of reality. With the exception of the state of Massachusetts, do they believe that Ted Kennedy is as popular outside the Beltway as inside it? Are they assuming that his Kennedy last name, will cause memory loss anywhere other then the MSM?
Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 27.08.2009 @ 11:40
Commie Stooge, Joe, Derrick, et al
Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 2.07.2009 @ 11:03
If Palin is such a horrible choice as the GOP standard bearer, why are all the usual suspects, on the left, side in such a tizzy about her? They should be encouraging the GOP to nominate such a "obvious loser".
OBAMA FAILS TO STAND UP FOR AMERICAN INTERESTS IN HONDURAS
I think the fact that the media and the White House keep referring to it as a "coup" (as in an illegal act), when the Honduran military simply arrested the President and immediately handed off power to the Constitutional government, is revealing.
Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 29.06.2009 @ 11:37
Uh, when did you have to be 6'4" and weigh 250 lbs to play baseball, ice hockey or even football for that matter. Different size people play different positions. As for basketball, you don't have to be a seven footer, you just need some skills. Besides American sports, baseball and basketball are increasing in popularity worldwide.
But I do find the replies above interesting. Too many of them seem to be of an "anti-American" tenor, as in "why won't America get in step with the rest of the world". As if their is something wrong with Americans preferring America's games. And note that I said games. In much of the world soccer (in this country "football" has a different meaning)is the only game in town. No wonder it's "popular". In America, at all levels, our athletes - and hence our interest and support - are split amongst a multitude of sports.
Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 29.06.2009 @ 11:32
As in football, the team with a lead in soccer will play it safe, usually dropping a couple of players back from midfield in order to prevent the other team from organizing an effective offense. This will invariably lead to the team that is behind having much the better of the play. Also, the leading team will push forward fewer players on the counterattack. The result is exactly as Schmitt describes but the reason is not because of any particular flaw in the game as much as it is a deliberate choice by the team that is ahead.
In the NFL. it's called the dreaded "Prevent Defense" as in prevent your team from winning.
And I've always felt that the fact that Soccer doesn't allow anyone - except the goal tender - to touch the ball - has something to do with the lack of popularity. Games popular in America, place a premium on hand eye coordination. Throwing a baseball, fielding a baseball, hitting a baseball, throwing a pass, catching a pass, passing the puck, shooting the puck, beating up the opposing player, shooting the ball, stealing the ball, passing the ball, blocking the shot, pulling in the rebound, etc. etc..
Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 28.06.2009 @ 12:26
MICHAEL JACKSON, WORLD FAMOUS PEDOPHILE, DEAD AT 50
I don't know which is stranger. The group yelling "Michael Jackson is the greatest entertainer of all time and the entire world should be morning his loss"! Or the other group yelling "he's an evil pedophile and should rightly burn in the lower reaches of hell"!
Uh, no and no.
With few exceptions, his work has gone the way of most Pop - instantly forgettable. With the exception of Thriller, most would have trouble recalling anything he did.
As for his being a pedophile, how much money would it take for you to set your child up to be molested? Or how much money would it take to make you go away if they were? He did the wrong thing - which was pay for the story to go away. Unfortunately there are people out there ready to believe anything about him because he was so damn weird. They take payment of a settlement as something other the proof of to many American Lawyer's decision to practice blackmail, rather then law. Also these people forget that this (for how much longer, I don't know)is a capitalist society. If one outcome is going to cost me $35,000,000 and another outcome is going to cost me $20,000,000, most Americans will take the $20,000,000. It's just good business not to be bothered with the expense and uncertain outcome of a trial. It doesn't matter if you are innocent as the day is long. I find it fascinating that those of you who still believe OJ is guilty find it strange that he'd avoid the coin toss of a trial. You obviously don't accept the infallibility of juries.
What I think, is that Michael Jackson was a sad, sad man - who had never been allowed to be a child. Who was tremendously unhappy about who he was. And spent the rest of his life trying to make that person "disappear" and also to recapture a childhood that had been stolen from him long gone.
Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 28.06.2009 @ 15:05
THE ENDURING POPULARITY OF STAR TREK
Couple of points. In the essay on the Federation, and how so many alien races are "one note". Isn't it obvious that the "alien" races, simply represent on aspect of human nature taken to the nth degree? The Ferengi as uber capitalists, the Klingon as the warlike nature of man, and of course the Vulcans as those too few moments of rational thought. And the reason that these aliens don't "rub off" on humanity is that humanity already contains aspects of each and every one of them.
Second point. Why are so many Star Trek fans so hostile to Deep Space 9? Might it have anything to do with that series being - in my opinion - the most realistic of them all? That it posits a far darker future, then the sunny one advanced by all the other Star Treks? I've always felt that the idea behind the series was "big" enough to fill two TV programs (which it did - Deep Space 9 and Babylon 5). And I think possibly the best episode of any of the Star Trek series was in Deep Space 9, where the Romulans are tricked into joining the war against the Dominion. I simply don't understand why the series generates so much animosity.
Comment Posted By Mike Giles On 8.05.2009 @ 13:43
