Comments Posted By justin case
Displaying 1 To 9 Of 9 Comments
It seems odd to make an alliance with one silly group just to thwart another silly group. That just seems a bit hipocritical.
"So, Group A thinks one plus equals three? Well that is silly. I can prove it. See that other group, Group B, with equally silly beliefs? Well, they have an old rule written down in a really old book somewhere that says 1 + 1 equals four. So clearly Group A must be wrong."
Doesn't make sense.
Comment Posted By Justin Case On 21.10.2009 @ 21:29
-JC
Topical Image:
Comment Posted By Justin Case On 20.10.2009 @ 20:50
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thirtyonethirty/2910108363/
It's funny how easily people can ridicule the silly beliefs of others, but are so quick to defend their own beliefs.
A ghost is a ghost: Be it a holy ghost or otherwise. So why is one considered sacred and the other silly?
*Notice, I did try to insert my beliefs into the conversation... I am just poiting out the hipocrasy of it all.
Food for thought,
-JC(*The initials stand for Justin Case, not "THE" J.C. :-)
Comment Posted By Justin Case On 20.10.2009 @ 20:46
I think she is starting a 2-3 year process of beefing up the resume to remove the “stigma” that she lacks national/international experience. Keep an eye out regarding who she meets with and where she travels over the next couple of years.
In the meantime, she can also beef up her personal bankroll with speaking engagements, books and personal appearances without worrying about any conflicts of interest as Governor. I think she also realized that pursuing these opportunities while staying in office would be a huge distraction. So in that sense, maybe she is doing the right thing?
Will leaving office early come back to haunt her? Maybe. But I think most people would agree the amount of national exposure she gets is a distraction to her duties as Governor.
Is there a "shoe to drop" soon? Well, that is a possibility too -- but I would think the Left would have dug that up already and thumped the tub to death by now.
-JC
Comment Posted By Justin Case On 3.07.2009 @ 23:15
A CONVERSATION WITH MY DEAD FATHER
Can't really tell you how close to home that hits for me. Thanks. Good call reposting that one today.
-JC
Comment Posted By Justin Case On 21.06.2009 @ 20:09
IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE RIGHT ATTITUDE
John T:
How is a Sandra Bernhard comment relevant to the Letterman/Palin issue? You ask me if I would defend comments about a woman being gang raped in Harlem... um, no. But that is a non-sequitur. Irrelevant regarding Letterman. Just more spin and misdiretion.
Dave's joke was about the OTHER Palin daughter, the adult who had an unplanned pregnancy and is now the spokesperson for teen abstinence. But really, it was more of a joke about A-Rod anyway. It was a pop culture reference, one that the audience clearly understood. Letterman did NOT condone raping a 14 year old. To say so is false... and frankly, it's slanderous. And you know it.
You do know that, right? You do know that his intention was not to condone rape. You do know that David Letterman did not, would not, and does not publicly promote and condone the raping of children. You can admit at least that much, right? Because if you can't grasp that one basic simple fact, then it's a pointless discussion.
Nobody even thought that's what Letterman was implying when he said the joke... not until she told you to think that. When asked, Mrs. Palin could have said, "Well it was a bad joke. Although my 14 year old was actually the one at the game with me, I assume the joke was actually a cheap shot aimed at my older daughter who did not deserve to be made fun of. As a parent, I am offended when people make jokes about any of my children." -- She could have taken a logical, truthful high road. And most people would have agreed with her point.
But she didn't say that. Instead she accused a well known public figure of making perverted comments toward a 14 year old... and then her husband went on say he was specifically making jokes about raping a 14 year old.
She knows what Letterman meant. If she didn't know at the time, then she does now. But, maybe she doesn't? Regardless, somehow her misinterpretation has become a rallying point for conservatives??? Sad.
Spin & misdirection -- that is what the right has been doing for the past decade. And that is why they have lost the independent voters in the middle. Everything is done with a spin or taken out of context. You wanna know how to get the conservative agenda back on track? Try straight forward honesty & integrity based on LOGIC and common sense. Put down the Karl Rove Handbook and walk away.
-JC
Comment Posted By Justin Case On 18.06.2009 @ 08:48
And Rick... I liked your post. Very 'ironical' :-)
Comment Posted By Justin Case On 17.06.2009 @ 23:06
Jaguaro: Do you think it is serious to accuse someone of promoting "the rape of a 14 year old" who did not say or do any such thing?
Do you really think that is what Letterman said? Really>>>Honestly... do you REALLY think that? Or is this just an excuse to get up in arms?
He was talking about the OTHER Palin daughter (now an adult) who, in the past, got pregnant without planning.... but really the joke was about A-Rod's playboy dating habits. Everyone who heard that joke knew 100% exactly what was said... UNTIL they were TOLD to think otherwise.
False outrage over a misunderstanding is not an agenda. It's a parlor trick, a diversion at best. THIS is a huge problem with the conservative agenda. For a party that talks nonstop about Reagan, it amazes me how many fail to actually learn from the man.
Comment Posted By Justin Case On 17.06.2009 @ 23:01
-JC
An interesting post here, but it seems to me that an analysis of the role of the electoral college should be made without consideration as to which party it advantages, no? The current political party system we have is NOT mandated by the consitution; thus, it seems to be that which party might be affected more by any (of course, hypothetical at this point) changes is irrelevant. The beautiful thing to me in all of this is that there is no need for anyone to get too worked up here. Because states decide how they will apportion their EC votes, rapid changes are quite unlikely (barring the incredibly improbably circumstance of a Constitutional amendment). Instead, states will tinker here and there, like California and Colorado, people will fight over those changes, and a generally balanced system will be maintained. That said, as an urban coastal stater, I'd really prefer it the system operated to give the states which are the big population centers and economic engines of our country equal weight (relative to population) versus little states (who due to the 2 senators and at least 1 representative, are seriously overweighted).
Comment Posted By justin case On 29.08.2006 @ 11:18
