winsor

What?!?!?! You know - Santa . . . Chris Cringle . . . Saint Clause . . . And the easter bunny - You HAVE to know the easter bunny. That....was....hideous! Yeah, well Santa has his off days as well.

Gee whiz, who would have thought that a multiple-thousand page bill might include a few surprises?

Jesus, as an observant Jew, would have adhered to Mitzvot regarding the poor, needy, downtrodden and what have you. Under archaic Hebrew traditions, failing to look out for those down on their luck is a pretty serious sin, this in a book that mandates capital punishment for calling your mother a whore if she turns tricks. BTW, there is no mention in the Torah of 'heaven,' 'hell' or 'the devil' of any kind. None of this, however, translates into a government run program of any kind. The 'logic' whereby Jesus reportedly referred to commandments that one must look after the poor, Food Stamps and Social Security look after the poor, therefore opposing Food Stamps and Social Security will get you a ticket to Hell is an interesting take on the whole process. Of course, to some of us it only goes to show that Charlie Rangel is a world-class schmuck, but that goes without saying to anyone who has followed his career even in passing. BSBD, Winsor

Just because you repeat that sentence over and over, and it includes a fancy word for the Old Testament, doesn't make it true. No, the fact that it is accurate does. Pay attention here. The term 'Old Testament' only works against the assumption that the new one is somehow related. It is not. The Tanakh is a compendium of writings of varying authorship that are pivotal to the history of the Children of Israel. That's it. You figure? Did you figure that out all by yourself? Like the 'Book of Mormon,' the Koran is an entirely synthetic document, prepared for political purposes. Each relies on the Christian and Hebrew Scriptures for a claim of authenticity, but each was fabricated out of whole cloth. I think anyone who takes the Hebrew Scriptures at face value A) Is not too tightly wrapped, B) Doesn't get out much and/or C) Is not particularly bright. If you ask many a Rabbi about the literal content of the Torah, you might get a raised eyebrow and suggestion that one put it into context. Many observant Jews - to include Rabbis - are operationally atheists. The significance of many traditions has little to do with the religious overtones in practice. The Christian Scriptures are indeed cherry-picked and heavily redacted. The politics of their compilation is interesting, and I find it amazing that anyone who knows anything about it takes any of it at face value. Your apparent assumption that because I consider Islam to be without redeeming value, following the lead of a a vicious pervert, there is some other set of religious tenets to which I ascribe. Wrong. I value our traditions, but do not expect Elijah to walk in and drain his cup at the Seder any more than one might expect Santa Claus to pop down the chimney with a bag of presents or the Easter Bunny to show up with colored eggs. BSBD, Winsor

Do you speak and read Arabic? A few words here and there. People get picky about the editorializing and choice of verbiage of the King James Version's treatment of Hebrew Scripture, but the key points that show up in Hebrew and Aramaic come across. From a literary standpoint, 'The Recital' consists of an insane amount of repetition. Believers=good, disbelievers=bad ad nauseum. Okay, we get it. As far as taking Mitzvot far too seriously and trying to implement them in real time goes, the wannabe ethic espoused in the Koran is particularly virulent. The pathology of Islam, whereby it is indiscriminate in its infection, is hardly to its credit. One should not use facts as a drunkard uses a lamppost - for support, rather than illumination. BSBD, Winsor

As opposed to the Old Testament (or whatever you want to call it), which is just full of puppies and rainbows. Okay, it had one rainbow, but you know what I mean. The Tanakh is a Bronze to Iron Age family history of sorts, and was never intended for general consumption. If you spend any time with Parsha study at various Congregations, you will find that the general consensus is one of "you've come a long way, baby." The Children of Israel are one big, dysfunctional family, and we look at our track record as recorded in the Tanakh to remind us that none of us has ever batted a thousand. The Koran consists of cherry-picked transcriptions of the ramblings of an illiterate wannabe who picked up a smattering of Hebrew and Christian teachings during his early travels, and provided a watered-down revisionist treatment as part of his claim to legitimacy. The "cherry-picking" consisted of declaring that a great number of the transcriptions were "satanic verses" and burning them, the primary criterion being that these particular passages were too definitively evil - even though they came from the same source. I am not saying that the writings of one religion or another have much to recommend them. I am, however, noting that the Koran is as fucked up as a football bat, and that the adherents of its misogynistic, medieval and malevolent teachings have little to recommend them on that basis. BSBD, Winsor

And you think Muslims are horrible people? 'The Koran' outdoes 'Mein Kampf' for outright evil, and is actually more poorly written. That is an accomplishment of sorts, like making a worse movie than 'Plan 9 From Outer Space.' I have as much admiration for the 'Koran' crowd as I do for the 'Mein Kampf' types, for pretty much the same reason. Even if adherents have never read either, the fact that they voice the affiliation says it all. BSBD, Winsor

You would have to ask those that are happy about it. ***Apparently it's a travesty that poor people get to pay no income tax, but just fine when wealthy people do the same. Well, when the wealthy create jobs, stimulate the economy, and pay plenty of other taxes while using very little in services.... I'll admit I have less issue than people who vote to give themselves more benefits knowing they will not have to pay for any of them. . Well, except that the wealthy are receiving dividends from corporations that are big recipients of corporate welfare, and who have bought the Congress lock, stock and barrel. I take exception to the notion that our legislators are for sale. They are for RENT!

What? Nobody believes that. You've just made it up because you think it sounds pithy... Wrong.

There are a few issues that are dealbreakers. An unacceptable standpoint on slavery, genocide, misogyny or other matters may outweigh any glowing qualifications one might otherwise have. It would be nice if one was limited to selecting which candidate was truly the least mediocre choice, but the group to which each party must pander often loads the dice in advance. The set of particulars dear to the hearts of dunderheads on the 'right' and 'left' are often requisite for being on the ballot, and often override the more negotiable issues. Without getting specific, it then becomes a matter of "if you have the endorsement of XXXXX, there must be something severely wrong with you, and I will thus vote for your opponent." All else being equal, comparing one group to the other is on a par with deciding whether canine or feline feces are 'preferable.' The bottom line is that both are particularly vile shit. BSBD, Winsor

I'm sure he's every much as "not guilty" as OJ. You realize that OJ's son: A) Was big enough and strong enough to have committed the acts in question. B) REALLY did not like his soon-to-be-ex stepmother. C) Was at that tender age where impulse control is at a nadir. and D) Was the one person for whom OJ would take the heat without clarification? I do not claim that anyone in particular did it, and agree that it is pretty likely that OJ did. However, even if he had been convicted, there is a significant chance that he would fall on his sword before turning in his son. If jumping to conclusions was an Olympic event, you would have a shot at the Gold. BSBD, Winsor

Anyone who talks like this: "I really don't have nothing to say." is not so rational in my book. JerryBaumchen PS) So will this kids friends just call hi Mess? What the hell - don't make no nevermind nohow.

Interesting. 10 years or so agaon, when that primary concern was raised the answer tended to be: Fuck the rest of the world and what they think. Perhaps, but there were rather a few of us who considered it to be insanity defined. You know, doing the same thing and expecting different results and all. I know rather a few people on the high end of the IQ scale who did not think it through very well, for reasons I can only guess. When I ticked off a list of very serious negatives that were sure to come of our adventure in the sandbox, they came up with remarkably lame counters to my arguments. I wish I had been wrong. Actually, I wish we had seen fit to do most anything besides invading. Talk about leading with your chin... After we 'liberated' Iraq, I was reminded of the finale of 'The Candidate,' in which the newly elected Senator (Robert Redford) turned to his campaign manager (Peter Boyle) and said "what do I do now?" As Philip Seymour Hoffman's character noted at the end of 'Charlie Wilson's War,' "we fucked up the end game." Would that life did not so often imitate art. Anyhow, there were rather a few of us that saw just what was coming when everyone was waving the flags, sounding the horns and beating the drums. I wish I'd been wrong. BSBD, Winsor

McDonalds and Coca Cola. I rest my case.

Why did you have to say that now i have to say 6 weeks no baby just cells. Would i go to jail if removed a wart in her sleep? Well, if you used a chainsaw to do so there is a pretty good chance you'd do more than raise a few eyebrows.

It's been done.

Wrong, as usual. I don't agree that we should bomb Syria, but I can see his point in relation to the linked article. How is he wrong on this one? Or are you just playing contrarian? Where to start? There is nothing in the article that would suggest that: A) Syria used Sarin or that B) The opposition does not have access to Sarin. Quite the contrary, the Syrian Gov't may have come to the realization that they really don't stand to benefit from having the damned stuff around, and that they can gain quite a bit by having the Russians broker their divestiture of same. Indeed, using this issue to demonstrate that the US CIC is a waffling buffoon and the the Russian leader is comparatively masterful - without losing anything of value in the process - is a real win/win situation. The Russians consider chess a national pastime, and it shows. Since at least one group of "rebels" has verifiable access to Sarin, it could support the claim of the Syrian Gov't that any future use of CW was the work of one group of "rebels" or another - as may well have been the case here. As far as being an admission of anything, one would have to be delusional to reach that conclusion. A basic education regarding the recent history of civil wars and popular uprisings makes it clear that the simplistic scenarios put forth by the US Gov't and various media are pure nonsense, for any number of reasons. I shall attribute to ignorance the espousal of such tripe, and doing such homework as is necessary to have a rudimentary understanding of the subject is left as an exercise to those interested in having an opinion worthy of consideration. BSBD, Winsor

Wrong, as usual.

Nobody is saying that. Nobody. Wrong, as usual.

This one you conveniently ignored. ***What is your solution that puts tin-pot dictators on notice not to use NBC warfare and doesn't otherwise affect the future history of Syria? It's a legitimate question. I don't blame you for not having an answer if you don't have one. That said, suppose we simply let this one go and chemical weapons are used again, and again, and again? Some people have said, "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing." Are you certain you want to be one of the people who does . . . nothing? Doesn't even try? Just says, "Fuck it. Let Allah sort it out?" I ignored nothing. I said that it is not our job. If we must do anything, we should report them to the United Nations and send sympathy cards to those affected (to show we really care).

Paul, I hate to break it to you, but "Team America - World Police" was a comedy, not a documentary. Providing a solution is not our job. My solution? To what? Two groups of people who hate our guts killing each other? Sounds like a self-resolving issue to me. Anyhow, there is a big difference between thoughts and feeeelings, whoa, whoa, whoa, feeelings....

Just because it's a Kobayashi Maru situation, doesn't mean you just fucking give up. Wrong, as usual. Thanks for your "brilliant" insight on what should be done during a crisis. One of many points on which you are completely wrong is the contention that it is a Kobayashi Maru situation. What crisis? Who are you quoting? What is your point (if any)? Anyway, you're welcome.

Just because it's a Kobayashi Maru situation, doesn't mean you just fucking give up. Wrong, as usual.

According to this, it is the opposition who has the most solid track record for using CWs. The Syrian Gov't has little to gain and much to lose by verifiably using CWs, but the opposition is largely immune from international outrage. What do they have to lose? If it turns out to be an opposition group that is responsible, which one in particular is it? Given the internecine squabbles between the various factions aligned against the Syrian Gov't, killing some of their competition and having the blame fall on the Gov't is a definite win/win situation for most any of them. With the credulous morons in Washington evaluating the situation and deciding upon the basis of what they think they know, a better use of CWs could not be made. Deception is cheaper and more effective than brute force, which is a lesson we have yet to learn. BSBD, Winsor

Or maybe they just don't like the idea of hundreds of kids and over a thousand adults being gassed to death by their own government. Does this action remind you of anything from 20th century history? There is a REASON why chemical weapons were banned after World War 1, you know. People often make issues political, when in reality they are moral. I have to call bullshit across the board here. For one thing, the "rebels" have been caught with some of their supplies of Sarin, in particular, being smuggled in through Turkey. For another, there have been reports of the deaths being the result of mishandling of Sarin by said "rebels." Putin's comments regarding the characteristics of the event and the likely culprits were spot on. It may have been the Syrian Gov't, but at least as likely the "rebels." As far as the whys and wherefores of the ban on CWs, I refer you to Ian V. Hogg's "Gas," which addresses the subject line and verse. Like most legislation attempting to make a kinder, gentler world by controlling weaponry, the ban was a kneejerk combination of emotion and ignorance. Don't get me wrong, antipersonnel toxins have had significant effect on my family tree, and I am not advocating their use. I do, however, consider ignorance, hysteria and outright stupidity to be a greater threat when all is said and done, and we seem to have an endless supply of all three (as well as WMDs...), and no compunction about using them. Before we start mucking about in the dreadful affairs of other countries, I suggest we do a little homework regarding how things may be expected to turn out. In-depth evaluations of the Spanish Civil War and the Russian Revolutions are enlightening. Re: the Spanish Civil War - "Homage to Catalonia" notwithstanding - Francos turns out to have been about the ideal side to prevail. Given the war that raged around Spain after the dust settled, and the fact that NO Spanish troops were committed to either side of the slaughter, I'd say that made up for a lot. In any event, close inspection shows Assad to be an enlightened moderate compared to the bulk of the assholes operating in opposition to him. This seems to be a classic case of MUCH better the devil you know, and all that. We are pretty good at the military stuff. The Russians play chess as a national hobby, and do a much better job of the diplomatic arcana. All things being said, turning the issue over to the idiots, incompetents and various dunderheads we routinely deport to Washington DC is a VERY BAD IDEA - unless you seek the worst possible outcome. BSBD, Winsor