Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 491 To 500 Of 657 Comments
TOP TEN THINGS THAT CREEP ME OUT ABOUT OBAMA
Thank you, Mr. M. I'm just approaching the tail end of 2 day + work binge, and was dragging so hard I could barely shuffle papers. Your reason #7 had (and still has) me laughing so hard I sprayed Red Bull all over my desk.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 27.07.2008 @ 13:04
Its been 10 minutes, I've read it 5 times so far, and I havent stopped laughing or grinning like a schoolgirl talking to her first big crush.
Normally, when I need a mental/emotional pick-me-up, I watch that goofball that travels around the world dancing. He's silly, but seems to brighten my attitude. This post put him to shame, and I still haven't gotten halfway through.
Presuming you take all this as sarcasm, I can only tell you with all the sincerity emotionless text provides that your post has put a Sound-of-Music-caliber song in my heart, just when I really needed it.
Sometimes it feels like God just sets up annoying roadblock after roadblock to force you to pay a little extra into the Karma bank. I've come to the personal belief that you never get the interest when you think you want it, but The Boss always seems to send you a nice Karma check when you really need it need it. I needed it, and this was like the emotional Ed McMahon knocking on my door with his silly oversized pennies from Heaven. A bad week now doesn't seem so rotten, and the remaining grind looks less imposing than the same pile was 15 minutes ago.
Again, whether you believe it or not . . . thank you.
@ Retire05:
"Got that Obamaniacs? Obama thinks that ethnic cleansing lowers violence. That should tell you all you need to know about his ability to impliment any meaningful foreign policy."
This doesn't say that ethnic cleansing lowering violence is a good thing, or a desirable course of action -- it just says that ethnic cleansing lowers violence. You indicated that idea is nonsensical, and I indicated that it seems to be factually correct. I'm not sure how you jumped to ethnic cleansing as a positive policy goal from the above statement, and I certainly hope you don't think Obama said "Ethnic cleansing is a great way to reduce violence" because he didn't, and I'm sure you know that.
Still not following your argument. You claimed that Obama made a statement and implied that the statement was so outrageous anybody who would say that was an idiot. I said that, far from being outrageous, the statement sounded pretty factually accurate on its face. Somewhere in that you heard "ethnic cleansing is a great idea for foreign policy", something nobody has said except you. How does Obama's "statement" impinge his fitness for the job of President?
Just so I'm clear -- I'm NOT an Obama fan (I would have voted for Biden if I was registered Democrat, but as an Independent I don't get a say in party primaries). I'm just stunned at the level of hatred he generates among the hardcore Right, and what amazes me the most is the strongest insults I hear hurled at him are "He makes empty speeches and vacuous promises!!" Really? A politician (of ANY party) making vague, nice-sounding-but-substancially-empty speeches? I'm rocked to my core. I guess next you'll tell me there's no Easter Bunny too.
btw, "let them kill each other" seems to have been our official Darfur policy for the last decade or so.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 25.07.2008 @ 16:58
@ retire05:
Funny . . . I don't remember writing anything praising Obama in the post. Let me re-read it . . . nope. Not a word of praise. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I've ever said he was a great person, or a great candidate. Feel free to correct me, but I'm pretty sure I haven't since I'm not a huge fan of his.
Guess you equate "not-foaming-at-the-mouth-rabid-hatred" with worshipful adoration. Understandable when your worldview consists of pitch black and glowing white, but might I suggest there are different shades in between?
However, I do have to agree with the point that ethnic cleansing reduces violence. When you have two parties fighting, and one wipes out the other, there tends to be less fighting. Since that sounds so silly to you, feel free to educate me: Who do the winners fight with after they've murdered all their opponents?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 25.07.2008 @ 13:03
"It was Thatcher, Reagan, and Pope John Paul II who freed Eastern Europe and anyone who was alive at the time knows it."
I was alive at the time, albeit still in high school (even got to visit the USSR before the collapse -- no advertising anywhere. Unearthly.) Always seemed to me that the greatest player in the freedom of Eastern Europe and Russia was Gorbachev. I know we like to think that Reagan's "tear down this wall" pablum was so powerful the Soviet's collapsed, but imho the Soviets wern't forced into quitting (debt? bad PR? like they gave a damn) . . . it took a once-in-a-lifetime statesman to rise to the heights of his country's power structure, look out on the Politburo, and say "This is friggin silly. Let's try something else."
btw . . . first Hitler, now Lenin. I'm moderately impressed, but to really get me applauding I'm waiting for the trifecta and your "Obama reminds me of Genghis Kahn" post. C'mon, you know it's in there! Let the eagle soar, Mr. M!
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 25.07.2008 @ 09:39
THE MAN WHO WOULD BE <em>FUHRER</em>
Y'know, with all these Obama posts, I'm still not quite sure how you feel about the guy Rick. C'mon, tell us what you really think.
I know. I'm much too obtuse. If I posted a picture of the guy and great big Red X across it, do you think that might help?
ed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 24.07.2008 @ 17:16
THE CONSERVATIVE'S SHAMEFUL DEFENSE OF GRAMM
@manning:
You might want to look at the full quote. He didn't call liberals whiners. He called Americans whiners. You. Me. Every poster in here. He didn't say that the ecconomic downturn is being enhanced by FUD (Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt) -- he said that there wasn't an ecconomic downturn -- it was just the whining:
"You've heard of mental depression? This is a mental recession . . .You hear this constant whining, complaining, about the loss of our competitiveness, America in decline . . . we've never been more dominant, we've never had more natural advantages than we have today . . . we've sort of become a nation of whiners . . ."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBVIwO5n9hk
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/09/mccain-adviser-addresses-mental-recession/So America has never been more domininant ecconomically speaking. If you don't think so, its all in your head.
Given that recent polls are showing approx. 75% of the country worried about the ecconomy, either 3/4ths of America are liberals or there are conservatives worried about the ecconomy too. Weak minded whiners. Guess they don't realize how good they have it.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 15.07.2008 @ 08:21
@ BETTY:
"Americans have become a nation of whiners they expect gov to solve all their problems without lifting a hand to do anything for themselves. "
What specifically should citizens do in regards to nationwide job loss? I'm all for pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, but some problems go beyond individual ability to rectify.
Although something tells me that come November, you're going to see quite a few of the whiners lifting a hand to do something for themselves.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.07.2008 @ 15:42
@M. Wilcox:
"Wouldn’t the dominant species on any planet be top predator much like us,just food for thought."
Actually, that was kind of my ultimate hope . . . that another species might be "just like us". Somehow though I didn't equate "just like us" with "detect another sentient species and immediately focus on their complete enslavement and/or annihilation." Guess I'm a bit naive: I thought they might at least say howdy before launching Death Wave Alpha.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 13.07.2008 @ 02:06
"But the most likely reason we have yet to achieve success in our SETI efforts is that there just aren’t that many civilizations transmitting."
Or the transmissions haven't gotten here yet. Even at the speed of light (radio waves obviously aren't) and even if the closest civilization was the next cluster of rocks-and-a-sun over (Epsilon Eridani, an unlikely source for life as we know it) it would take over a decade for a signal to reach us. Slow the signal considerably, have it eminating from a more likely source (much, much farther away) and the signal would have to have been sent hundreds of years in the past (minimum) to even begin to arrive. Certainly might not be anybody sending a signal, but there's a pleathora of reasons why there might be and we still haven't heard them. Hope springs eternal, I guess . . .
"As I said, the question of whether or not to engage in active SETI research should hang on erring on the side of caution."
2 comments to this:
a) With all the bandwith we already spewed out into the cosmos, worrying about waking potential neighbors is a bit too late. Frankly, I'm not sure why the need to send more powerful signals exists -- they're not going to move any faster than the ones we already sent. Our First Contact with another species will probably be episodes of I Dream of Genie, which might damn us to a quick oblivion or work in our favor (Ms. Eden certainly knew how to work a veil).
b) Why gamble the future of humanity against the risk of potentially meeting reeeeeely bad critters? Because that's what we do. Better not send Pioneer out with a roadmap. Better not try to land on the moon. There might be baddies under the soil. To be safe, we better not even send somebody up in orbit. After all, they might catch an unknown space virus and then it'll be Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Odds are slim, true, but can we be sure it won't happen? Better not ride through the frontier to California. Probably isn't a threatening society out there, but why take the chance? Better to stay on the East Coast and build defenses (btw, flying a kite on the rain is a dman fool stunt, Mr. Franklin. Save making discoveries until you can find a safer plan). We probably shouldn't sail across the Atlantic looking for a shortcut to India either. I mean, nobody's been out that far, and there might be sea monsters or Atlantis laser-tridents or something. Probaly not, but why risk it?
Because (foolishly) exploring is what we do. As a species undoubtedly, but beyond that I egotistically pride myself on being a member of (IMHO) the tribe that has more "Lets-do-it-because-we-can-and-we-haven't-before" moxie than any other group of humans that have ever existed. To me, its a defining human and American characteristic, as deeply rooted in our national identity as The American Dream.
Sometimes, you have to damn the (imaginary) torpedoes and go full speed ahead. Or curl up with a nice comforter and a cup of hot choclate next to the fireplace and worry about Boogeymen. As I said before it's really irrevelant at this point anyways, but my insignificant vote is for the former. It may be a risky gamble, but some bets need to be made.Read Brin's piece from 2006. He points out that the radar,TV, and radio emissions are very weak and don't stay coherent for more than a few light years.
As for a more powerful signal, I imagine some kind of interferometer could be cobbled together with a bunch of space telescopes. Don't know if that would make the signal more powerful or not.
ed.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.07.2008 @ 15:11
McCAIN'S DISAVOWAL OF HAGEE A GOOD SIGN
@manning:
"All I can attest to is the present evil I see, hear, and have testimony about, of which there is a surfeit regarding Islam."
(I haven't figured out how to make those fancy quote-boxes yet)
You have seen absolutely nothing about the entire religion of Islam that does not directly and specifically endorse pure bloodshed and evil?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.05.2008 @ 14:56
Damn. Might I suggest you look somewhere aside from FoxNews/evangical pulpits? Do you really believe that a religion has accrued a billion adherents by focusing totally on mass evil?
A Muslim could see Pastor Hagee's speeches and decide that they have all the proof that they need to decide that the entirety of Christianity is dedicated to the destruction of the planet and the torture and murder of all non-believers . . . but they would be woefully short-sighted if they did, as short-sighted as if I listened to Bin Ladin's speeches and decided that it represented the mainstream orthodoxy of the Muslim faith..
A complex theology isn't summed up in as few snippits of extreme zealots. To quote the Christian ruler that sheltered Mohammed during his flight, "the difference between our religions is this line" (drawing a line in the sand between them).
