Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 521 To 530 Of 657 Comments
A SHORT BUT PITHY NOTE ON ACHIEVING THE RIPE OLD AGE OF 54
You managed to not get hit by a bus for an entire year . . . something not all of your fellow countrymen and women can say. That deserves a tip-of-the-hat, at least.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 28.01.2008 @ 13:33
MY TURN TO MOURN FOR FRED (UPDATE: FRED OFFICIALLY OUT)
Out of curiosity . . . why are you attacking the Left over Freddie's departure?
He wasn't running against the Left. He was running against the Right. He was competing against Mitt and Huckawhatever and McCain. The Left didn't fail to vote for him . . . the Right did. As you've pointed out in past collums, the Right went for "an empty suit of a man running a campaign of cotton candy platitudes and half thought out policies" named Huckasomething and a man who seems to be making a career out of running for the office (the very definition of "grasp[ing] for power and influence"). Sure the Left has mocked him . . . sort of like how the Right has savaged the "empty suit" and the "power mad shrew" every chance they got. But the criticisms of the Left didn't have anything to do with this, unless you think the Left's opinion controls how Conservatives vote in primaries.
It was the Conservatives' dismissal of Fred that killed his campaign, not the Liberals. But certainly don't pass up a chance to spew some hate at the Left . . . since they are the fount of all evil, I suppose this must be their fault as well.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.01.2008 @ 23:20
@Rick:
"All presidents aspire for power – mostly so that they can enact policies they believe in. The Clinton’s have demonstrated an appetite for power simply for the sake of exercising it with policies a secondary consideration or worse, simply a means to an end."
That is probably the most un/incredible thing I read in your posts for a while (probably since your "attention whores only fake assault because they are classified as hate crimes" post). It's not incredible that Hilary is a power-addict . . . it's incredible that you think somehow the other players seek power for altristic reasons.
You really think that there's a difference between Hilary and Romney (aside from style?) That the reason he will be whatever his audience wants to see is because he thinks it's the only way to advance the policies he believes in? Gotta flat out disagree with you on this one, sir.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 21.01.2008 @ 17:43
OF "GOD'S STANDARDS" AND CONSERVATISM
@Sidney Burkett:
"I find it fascinating how many are buying into the Christian = Taliban equivalency, especially on the right. All of a sudden these harmless Christians that have been a large part of the greatness that is America are now dangerous religious fanatics as well."
The problem is (as with every one of these group labels) that Christian beliefs in politcs has many faces, and as usual the most offensive get the most press time. When people who are not devout think about the Christian/political intersect, the images that spring to mind are Ralph Reed, Focus on the Family, "Don't you dare teach science to my kids", the Terry Schiavo fiasco, and other such imposition characters and situations.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.01.2008 @ 16:01
Religion in politics (in America) seems to only make the news if it involves Christians demanding certain behavior or attention, and for anybody that doesn't already 100% agree with those making the noise it always comes off as offensive and fanatical. Unfortunately, it harms not only the cause of morality/religious ideals in politics but pushes people away from religion in general -- I have many (alleged) Athiest friends that point to Fred Phelps and his protests as a reason they don't want to explore the ideas of religion . . . for them, belief seems to equate with fanatic.
Is it true? No, but that's the image that gets fostered by the religious attention whores.
RE: MY "UNBEARABLE TRUTH" POST
Rick, are you apologizing for making a mistake in expressing yourself?
I thought all bloggers harbored dreams of being politicans one day. You've got alot to learn.
Seriously, a respectful tip-of-the-hat to you. Everybody speaks inappropriately from time to time . . . but it takes a mature person to own their mistakes.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.01.2008 @ 10:09
FACING UP TO THE UNBEARABLE TRUTH
@B.Poster:
"The question is does the Republican party want to survive or not? If it does, the Stephen Greens of the world will need to get busy on trying to work out a compromise with the so called social cons. "
As has been said above, compromise is a two way street. What compromise are the social cons willing to make? Accept abortion? Accept homosexuality? Accept a loss of Christian reference is public life?
As an outsider to the Conservative Party, it seems like the so-con "revolt" is grounded not in a desire to have more input, but in a desire to have their policy goals accomplished. Isn't the impetus for this schism specifically an impatience with the Repubs not following through enough on their lip-service pledges to the so-cons? I may well be wrong, but it certainly appears so from my window.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.01.2008 @ 04:39
HUCKALIAR CHANNELS LUCIFER FOR AD PLOY
You gotta admit, while the bait-and-switch ad was a low point morally, it was pretty slick. Huck gets the best of both worlds -- he slimes Romney with the sleaziest muck (which normally he would never get away with), and ends up scoring points with his wingnut base for decency and good manners.
Nice to know the voters pay attention to the details. Makes me feel safe for the Republic.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.01.2008 @ 19:33
My condolences.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.12.2007 @ 17:27
May the mice in Heaven be fat and slow
May the catnip fields always be in season
May the sun shining thru God's window always land on the perfect napping spot
THE PROBLEM WITH RUNNING A "HOLIER THAN THOU" CAMPAIGN
@jchfleetguy:
"This has been accepted by George Bush."
W isn't the definitive voice for morality. The fact that he allowed the testing on these stem cells doesn't mean the moral issues are resolved -- just that he worked something out for the Federal government. If someone views stem-cell research as immoral, then wouldn't they still have a problem?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 24.12.2007 @ 09:49
CONSERVATIVE STUDENT FAKES ASSAULT AT PRINCETON
@ Rick:
The reason you see hate crimes being faked is because the people doing it are trying to get a message out -- that usually gets it dropped into "hate crime" categorization. It's not that the mythical attackers beat me up because of who I am, but what I stand for and represent. Faked assaults are designed to be pinned on a particular person -- that makes it harder to call it a hate crime. By trying to make the assault about ideals, the whackjob is getting their free PR.
People faking this kind of attack is nothing new -- it's just being called "Hate Crime" now. This nimrod still would ahve faked it, and it still would have got the right people in wingnuttia all up in arms, regardless of what the classification.
Are you really trying to say that the paranoids on the Right would not have run with a story about a good, wholesome Rightie being assaulted by those free-love Leftie Bastards without the Hate Crime designation? That if it were just an assault (if there were no hate crime designation) the Rightie wackos wouldn't have cared? Or are you suggesting that the wackos would never had heard of it without the HG designation, since the story wouldn't have made it into the media? If it's the latter, since the kid staged it to gather sympathy for his cause, don't you think he'd have called every wacko personally to spread the word? Doesn't do any good to beat yourself up for sympathy unless you let people know how sympathetic you are?
And you calling other people brain-dead? For somebody who often is pretty rational that's pretty moronic thinking.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 18.12.2007 @ 00:51
