BellGab.com Archive

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on August 24, 2015, 09:28:42 PM
All Navy SEALs should be required to have a penis.  If nothing else, it will keep Quick Karl out of their ranks.

As always, Daddio, you are very perceptive.

I think though, that in Karl's case, it's more like: he's jealous that those without a penis can do what he was just too damn scared to ever try --even with his tiny peepee. 
I stand ready for these blow-hard righties to prove me wrong with a scan of some discharge papers.  In Karl's case, though, I don't think that he's ever even CLAIMED doing any military service!

As for his insults at gays: same thing.  I have my 7 years in Army units that Karl could never serve in if he tried.  Karl:  show us some record of you doing a job that a gay man or a woman could never do.

Quote from: albrecht on May 24, 2015, 12:32:22 PM
...and IH-35 in San Marcos flooded over but open now. Lake Travis went up 7ft in 12 hours. We need rain but all at once and for weeks?

So what's the problem?  Them individualistic, freedom-lovin' Texans will slap some plywood over that span and you might get a bicycle across it.  If the immediate locals ever cop to wanting help, I'm sure that the good Baptists in the next county will take a donation and get $57 to help them build something more substantial.  But in the name of God, just keep that fucking Federal money out, right?!  'Cause that leads to enslavement, right?
   Except when you need it to get YOUR produce to market or YOUR kid to an emergency room, right?  In those cases, then, BY ALL MEANS call that good ol' Texas Republican representative in Washington, and get him to tote that pork on down there like he's spose' to.
But otherwise, if they ain't personally suffering, they don't want no damn Federal money.
    Right, albrecht?   Might turn 'em into fags.

Quote from: Foodlion on March 26, 2014, 03:28:09 PM
Can't be. There can only be one, and I am that one! 

I can truly dig it.
Now prove yourself.

Quote from: The Neverender on March 26, 2014, 03:03:59 PM
...if you think that is a snap shot of a redneck just going about his day and not posing for the camera.... i've got a dead bigfoot in a cooler for sale

WOW, sweetie, you sure shut me down!!  I guess I don't know WTF I grew up around.  I guess I don't know WTF I live around.
Because your photo may be of a fake person, I have no idea who TF I live around.  NICE!!
I still invite you to come on down to south Alabama or Florida panhandle.

Nothing bugs me more in an online forum than people telling me that I don't know what I know.

Excuse me, folks.  Let me quote myself, to describe the American "Tea Party" --

Quote from: Ben Shockley on March 26, 2014, 02:24:54 PM
Everthang about GUMMINT is wrong and a damn fraud, goddamnit!!  'Cept THEIR checks!!

Got that?

Quote from: NowhereInTime on March 26, 2014, 02:06:44 PM
...I'll bet Hilljack Sam is on various forms of public assistance complaining about people on public assistance.

Right.
Everthang about GUMMINT is wrong and a damn fraud, goddamnit!!  'Cept THEIR checks!!

Sail the ex- 5th Fleet into the Black Sea.  Expose whatever carrier to attack almost 360-degrees  because THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT, right boys??   GET SOME U.S. FORCES SHOT  then you have your new mega war, right?  Mega war for perpetual mega profits for the self-appointed profiteers Cheney and Rumsfeld, right??

Quote from: NowhereInTime on March 26, 2014, 01:54:39 PM
Yeah, doesn't this seem like some smart-ass kid thing to do?

No, Nowhere and b_dubb.... I swear that y'all are giving too much credit to the rednecks.  That is REALLY how they look!

offending post deleted.

W.O.T.R. -- sorry for the very bad wording.

Quote from: West of the Rockies on March 26, 2014, 01:10:18 PM
Wait, you think I am some sort of Yoda of Misdirection?

I am the Yoda of Mis-Statement.
Calm down.

Of course, he's the same "tool" that waved the Marine Flag along with the 1863 Battle Flag outside the WHITE House, right?

Same guy, right?  Hired by the same firm that put those hired nig... I mean, those Blacks hired from Seattle and Vancouver and Tokyo who were forced by DemocRAT goons to sit on top of those otherwise 2000-year-abandoned houses in New Orleans and make the government look bad, right?


GodDAMN, won't ruling become easy once that George Soros dies??  He's the fount of all evil, right?

Quote from: wr250 on March 26, 2014, 07:18:11 AM
because people like this exist:

Onan, I will never "get" why you play soft and easy with these scum when I know that you know who they are.   That flag which they (pretend they) don't understand but love so much, posted by wr250, says it all.

...I believe it is the typical Ashkenazic place-/geographical name/spelling Wiener, i.e., aus Wien, i.e., from Vienna.

Quote from: Juan on March 10, 2014, 02:09:36 PM
...  I'd point out that Cain was cast out after killing Able, and that he went out in the country and took a wife.  I always loved asking where she came from.
But then, I'm a born trouble maker.  Even in my Christianity.

I did the same thing.  But god damn it (so to speak)... don't you get it, Juan: we are oppressing "Christians" in their effort to claim their right to religiously rule us on the basis of their infallible SCRIPTURE (i.e., THE only thing ever written, implicitly according to that term) if we ever point out any inconsistencies or errors!  They have the right, bestowed by themselves upon themselves, to tell you and me HOW THE HELL TO LIVE, and if we don't like it, we can just by god (no pun intended) either move to California or North Korea or suck an exhaust hose because this is a by god (no pun intended) Fundie religious country and that is by god (no pun intended) in the CONSATEWSHUN  'cause Jurr Faw'well an' ol' Russ Limbawer tol' me thayut!!!!

Quote from: West of the Rockies on March 12, 2014, 08:24:50 AM
Well, as long as those who are the highest paid get theirs, that's what matters!

Exactly.  Why people who hate something and have worked all the way to get something killed then crow about their own successes as proof for how the thing was worthless in the first place.... well, there is exactly no rhyme or reason to these right-wing assholes.
To inversely quote the oh-so-well-reasoned originator of this thread: subscription to right-wing hatred and paranoia is a mental disorder.
Hey Ruteger: try something a little smarter than parroting a Jew-hating Jew who won't even use his own name on the radio (namely Michael the Savage Wiener).

Quote from: b_dubb on March 09, 2014, 01:16:32 PM
What do you call the Obama Birth Certificate nonsense? If that isn't whining about getting your ass handed to you in an election I don't know what is.

b_dubb ... far be it from me to say it, but: just let this level of commentary go.
   Let them stew in it.

I'm getting soft in my old age.

1) FTF: I respect you for taking the lick from my first post in here because you know you can't argue it.
2)  P*B -- try to stick to your own fights.  Someone sent me a PM last night that made me get soft about you.  Don't blow it.

Quote from: MikeJ on March 09, 2014, 11:09:03 AM
...how many times have these celestial events occurred with no impact whatsoever? It is like saying bad things happen on Fridays because 5 negative historical events took place on a Friday while ignoring the fact that there is a Friday in every week and absolutely nothing happened on the vast majority of them.

Exactly.  And as much as I now hate to give any credit to Simone, I think he was trying to make that point by asking how many "significant days" are on the Hebrew calendar-- the idea being, if you've been around that long, and made that many holidays, damn near everything will happen on one of your holidays.
   -- Especially voluntary actions (like, by the Israeli military) done for a date's acknowledged significance; Mister, that don't qualify as "mystical occurrence!"
(That's my explication, not quite Simone's)

Quote from: FightTheFuture on March 09, 2014, 10:39:54 AM
It appears that the mere sight of a [ginned-up religious icon serves our purpose of causing] dyspepsia and headaches [for the Religion mafia, who then react with brutal anger once regular people ask any questions about what the hell is going on].

It appears that you have nothing better to do than look for and create supposed offenses.

Quote from: FightTheFuture on March 09, 2014, 07:58:41 AM
Malaysia is a beautiful place, with an incredibly diverse population; I`ve been there several times. I always found the Maylays to be genuinely warm and friendly.

From FTF, I welcome that admission of human diversity.

But why is this a big story?  If y'all are thinking that the plane was hijacked by bad guys to come crash into your Wal-Mart -- where is it and how/where will it re-fuel..?
...I can imagine Ted Cruz, in the Well of the Senate, this October, oh-so-solemnly intoning "...we don't KNOW where that plane is... it could be above this building right now..."

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 09, 2014, 04:10:12 AM
I guess I should take your word for it, but I would not have expected someone with the briefest background in statistics, let alone a highly credentialed person such as yourself, to take the Federal statistics I mentioned at face value. 
That they are calculated using very flawed methodology is not even disputed among economists, and, I would have thought, among statisticians.

First, P*B, I am not asking you to take my word for anything.  I am not making any judgments about any specific sources you attacked (not "cited"), because I haven't just psychically gone to your mind and learned which specific articles and local PSAs and high-school pamphlets from your real life course you think are so damned dirty and biased against good, real Americans like you.
As for "very flawed methodology, not even disputed" --that sounds so hack to me that I scarce want to touch it, but if you want to tell me about specific studies and specific critiques, I'll look at them.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 09, 2014, 04:02:37 AM
I realize there are some people posting here who are never going to get it. 
I find it a little hard to believe an expert in statistics is one of them.  I would have assumed most of those folks to be reasoned and analytical and make their decisions based on observation, facts, and common sense instead of emotions.

Translation: as I noted last time, P*B presumes that any substantial degree of life experience will inevitably, and only, make people think like him.

And your presumption that "observation [and] facts" inevitably lead people to think like you is fatally flawed, buddy.  If your presumption was correct, P*B, why aren't academics overwhelmingly right-wingers?  You know: if exposure to "observation and fact" makes one a rightie?

Quote from: Scully on March 09, 2014, 04:15:10 AM
I've begun to think I'm a masochist, Ben.  I listened to the entire show tonight, telling myself I wanted to become thoroughly familiar with Simone.  What a waste of time, and what a downer the whole thing was. Dumb, dumb, dumb. 

Howdy, Scully.
Don't feel bad; I had the whole thing on, too, although I can't say I exactly "listened" to all of it.

And for All:
As for Simone's voice: doesn't he sound like he is swallowing his sounds, in any "self-conscious" speech, rather than exhaling/emitting air?
In his "radio speech," like his intros and outros, he almost sounds like he is trying to make his voice un-hearable.  In (more-)spontaneous speech, such as "interacting" with a guest, he sounds a little more like a regular human.  It may be that he is just trying so hard to simultaneously soften and deepen his voice to Trans-Venus-Flytrap levels that it just distorts the general feel of it way up into the range of notice-ability.

Quote from: MikeJ on March 09, 2014, 01:28:48 AM
If these bible freaks are so against science, why do they try to use it to support their nonsense?  Either you believe in science or you don"t.

Situational ethics, baby!
You love something when you think it goes your way; you say it sucks when you think it goes against you.
And/but the "Bible freaks" and their political analogues are stridently against "situational ethics" when perceived in others ("it indicates moral decay!") so ...go figure ~~

Quote from: smithy on March 09, 2014, 03:51:50 AM
C2C is today's sermon in some church in anytown usa. Why don't they call this the Bible, Angels, God and Heaven (plus Medicine, Drugs, Pills and Creams) Show?

AMEN (so to speak)
As I once bitchingly e-mailed to John B. Wells after he harangued a physicist with crap like (in essence) "I'm going to heaven and you're not! Nyah-nyah!," this is supposed to be "Coast to Coast AM," not "Preach to the guest, Amen!"
Except lately, the guests are doing the preaching, with the hosts just facilitating the spewing.

For anyone still thinking that Simone is mentally sharper than Noory, or anyone, you can now officially hang it up.

How long did he bumble around tonight, near the end of hour #2, not "getting" that the guest was slyly (yet so obviously) suggesting that the God of Moses was an "extraterrestrial?"  The guest (Mark Biltz) apparently had pre-provided a circumlocuting tease, duly read by Simone, about "an ET event to the east of Egypt, witnessed by 3 million people," where, the guest said, the "ET" laid down all sorts of rules of human behavior.  I immediately "got" that he was describing the Mt. Sinai events of "the Exodus," but Simone JUST COULDN'T GET IT.  Simone kept asking "what verse describes the ET event?" and other stuff indicative of density.  I give the guest great credit for staying calm in finally having to literally feed it to Simone: that "God is the extraterrestrial."


And just in case anyone has forgotten: Simone thinks there are "NASCAR lines" in Peru.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 08, 2014, 02:42:59 AM
Now we're looking at the Carterization of Obama, and the same people who hate Reagan for his success are supporting Obama and his Carteresque policies every step of the way.   

I just recently had to educate FTF about this.  You can't successfully insult someone by associating them with someone or something they like.  And you can't tar Person A's image (no pun intended) among a given audience by associating him with Person B if the audience likes Person B.

In other words, P*B, the only people you're going to turn against Obama by associating him with Jimmy Carter are people who hate Carter; but I would gladly venture that people who hate Jimmy Carter probably already hate Obama.  Got that?
So keep on saying that Obama is like Carter.  Your side already hates them both, so you're adding no new converts there.  My side likes both --Carter more than Obama, for most folks-- so you're building Obama's cred on this side.
Preach on, P*B!

Quote from: FightTheFuture on March 08, 2014, 12:42:40 PM
Maggie Thatcher SAVED Britain from disaster. 

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on March 08, 2014, 01:05:42 PM
Yep..Thatcher was a real saviour! (If you happen to believe ripping the guts out is salvation)

Quite obviously, and not surprisingly, FTF has a very value-skewed image of "salvation" and the "disaster" he asserts was the alternative.
I'm reminded of the line supposedly uttered by the U.S. Army officer to a reporter, after forcibly evacuating and then razing a Vietnamese village, about having to "destroy the village in order to save it."  That bespoke a mindset that held that there are worse things than being de-housed and trundled off at gunpoint by foreign troops: namely, having a government that flies the wrong-colored flag.  Better dead than red!
In FTF's case, we see his belief that an

Quote from: FightTheFuture on March 08, 2014, 12:42:40 PM
80% tax rate... and... government monopoly of most industries and utilities... [and the existence of] public sector unions

were worse than anything that has befallen Britain since then.  Never mind that the tax money was being used for the public commons, and industry and utilities were nationalized to similarly maximize the public benefit, and that the presence of unions improves the conditions for all labor.  The fact that there weren't enough individuals getting filthy rich off the process, and that FTF could discern enough of whatever it takes for him to characterize British government and society as "commie-light," are reason enough in FTF's mind to have burned the whole place down.
But remember: it was to "save it."  Better dead than red, baby!!
Or, since FTF allows that Britain was only "commie-light," better dead than pink!!

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 08, 2014, 02:26:43 AM
You ought to consider taking a Statistics class.  It might open your eyes a little and make you a bit skeptical too.  You would at least know what questions to ask...

How staggeringly presumptuous.   You really ought to pay more attention to the clues I've fed you over lo these months and years.
P*B, I've had more stats and research-methods classes (Master's and Doctoral) than most 100 random people you'd meet, combined.  I've taught research methods.  I've performed or been involved in most stages of design, analysis, and interpretive reporting of funded quantitative research.

You're showing a troubling tendency lately to assume that any and all "experience" inevitably produces a right-wing mindset.  Like your line a few days ago about those who would question your logic "not knowing how the world works;" now you turn up with the implication that any minimal training in stats ("a class") will inevitably lead to a person interpreting quantitative research in a way amenable to your political beliefs.

It just doesn't quite work that way, and certainly not in anything like an inevitable fashion.

QuoteA few objective Economics courses wouldn't hurt you either.

Maybe.  I have never claimed any particular expertise in Economics.  But most significant, in your recommendation, is that snide little adjective "objective."  I'd be fascinated, but probably not surprised, to know what about a class would make P*B consider it "objective."  Maybe it being taught at Liberty "University" or some other right-wing sewer..?

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 07, 2014, 04:20:25 PM
I have however watched Liberal policies destroy black neighborhoods...  Before LBJs 'War on Poverty' the people in those neighborhoods were god-fearing religious people who valued education, built small businesses, had intact families, crime was nearly nonexistent, there were nearby factories and other businesses that provided jobs.  Society was vibrant, things were finally looking up. 
50 years later none of that is true.  It's all been ruined.

Sure.  And some people swear that shaving makes a beard grow stiffer.  Roosters think their crowing makes the Sun come up.  And so forth.
Apply logical time-ordering, and a little bit of Occam's Public-Policy Razor.  Why would policies under a "war on poverty" even be applied in such thriving communities as P*B confabulates?  Maybe P*B could get an Air Force job, claiming that the Roswell incident of 1947 was explained by stuff that started in 1957..?*

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 07, 2014, 04:47:17 PM
Oh, I do pay attention to the various studies and surveys that make the news...
I'm just saying that too often they don't 'seem' right based on everything else we know or have heard about the subject, and digging deeper into the study it's not uncommon to find the 'flaws'.

Translation: most studies done by scientific methods and reported by reputable sources don't jibe with P*B's preferred, 100%-right-wing propagandists; "flaws" must thus exist in the non-righty-partisan research, and right-wing pseudo-scholar shills are happy to come forth and toss out a few words of ostensibly-scientific jargon to mystify and reassure the faithful that everything is as they have always been told and have believed.

QuoteThe Federal government is the worst.  The way they calculate inflation, the increase in the cost of living, how they define 'poverty', how they determine the unemployment rate... How they estimate the amount of fraud in their programs.  Their estimates of the cost of a project.  The vey rosy assumptions they make to project future return on investment for their pension funds.

Obviously, any or all must be bullshit whenever they don't agree with what people like P*B 1) have always been told, and/or 2) want to believe about the future in order to make Obama or any other hated political figure go down in history as a failure.

Quote
The Media is just as bad when they report on it without comment.  They either know better or ought to know better.

Translation: for P*B, all news and commentary should always bracket the name of any Democratic politician or any Liberal-leaning public figure between the phrases "notable America-hater" and "who deserves summary lynching."

QuoteThen there are the 'polls' they conveniently provide during election cycles.  They commission a poll, with results biased to show 'their' candidates doing better than they actually are.  They then make their biased poll a story of it's own.

You mean like ol' "Never Say Die" Karl Rove, who, on election night 2012, just KNEW that Ohio was in the bag for Romney and kept holding out for the numbers to change --like they were supposed to!-- right?  You mean like various posters in here, who back before November 2012 were COCKSURE that we Democratic-voting types were just (to quote my old pal, Sardondi) "whistling past the graveyard?"  Those stalwart Republican True Believers had access to the real data, ya see, in the form of "non-biased polls;" but them dirty, biased Democratic pollsters, ya see, had it all wrong, and Romney was going to win in the Mother of All Landslides.
Except he didn't.  Turns out that them biased, dumb-ass pollsters who refused to kowtow to Republican Myopic Zeal had it right.  Yeah, Sardondi, old buddy: someone was whistling past the electoral graveyard in late 2012, but it wasn't my side.

Quote
I don't think I have to say much about various non-government organizations commissioning their own studies and shaping those to get the desired results.

Right; see above.


* By the way, just accepting P*B's vision for a moment: how did the "war on poverty" make factories and businesses disappear?  Why would it?  (Aside from just--you know: the pure meanness of goddamn Liberals..?)
P*B, if, for an explanation, you want to invoke "Democratic conspiracy" designed to foster dependency on the nanny state: explain for us why you are savvy to this now, yet no stalwart Republican was either savvy to it in the 1960s and/or never came forth to blow the whistle on such immoral, politically-game-changing shenanigans.

Quote from: NowhereInTime on March 07, 2014, 10:25:09 AM
"Ghettos".  More code... Its not 1977 anymore. The Bronx is no longer Burning.

Yeah, but P*B's play books are all a lot older than that.  He's practically "mod" for not saying "the quarters."

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 07, 2014, 11:50:56 AM
...Anyway, I don't really like studies and statistics...

Of course you don't, Mr. Anti-Empirical.

Quote...Too many of them don't even pass the smell test.  It's too easy to include this and exclude that and shape the desired result.

It sure is, especially by "researchers" who don't even pretend to be scientific or objective (like right-wing "think" tanks), and when the results are voiced by people as anti-empirical as you, P*B-- like Faux "News" and other rightie talkers.

Quote...an article on a Brookings Institute study which found that the places with the widest income disparity between the rich and poor are in Democrat strongholds.  In other words the same people who've wrecked our inner cities also govern areas with the highest incomes.

It doesn't mean that at all, "in other words."  "Widest disparity" could be created by having very-low incomes, stacked next to fairly-middling incomes.  It is highly unlikely that people with the "absolute highest" incomes live anywhere near the people with the "absolute lowest" incomes.
In any case, your imposition of your usual weird back-asswards logic doesn't work here either.  Are you suggesting that "voting Democratic" caused people to be poor-- or what?  Take your time and make an argument for us where the logic indicts Democrats for causing "absolute poverty," but for only some people who happen to live very near very rich people.

Quote from: NowhereInTime on March 07, 2014, 12:19:19 PM
...The poverty problem for whites is desperate and widespread, yet due to centuries of race hatred all a Republican has to do is decry "welfare queens" (more code) and they win elections with the votes of white people on welfare. Stunning.

Goddamn right.  Or, in local/state elections, they point at the scary, scary (half-)Black man in the WHITE House and "tar" (no pun intended) their local Democratic opponents with his name and face, and also win.  I've seen it happen.

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 07, 2014, 02:13:30 AM
...borrowing and spending and making promises in exchange for votes the way we have been, don't you.

In YOUR GOD'S NAME, will you please tell me when I can expect some of the bribe money that you assert is the reason why people vote Democratic?  Where do I apply?

Quote from: Paper*Boy on March 07, 2014, 02:35:49 AM
...We'll never be able to pay for everything the Libs can dream up,...

You mean like cutting taxes during time of voluntary wars?

Quotepay for everything the Libs can dream up, all the people they need to vote for them.

Again: when do I get my cut??

QuoteI would choose reorganizing and reducing government and laying off unneeded bureaucrats

As determined by P*B, no doubt.  I'm sure you would start with the staff of those offices where people go to register for their Democratic-Voting check.  Right?

Quote...cutting off the people who could and should be working

As determined by P*B, right?

Quote...and those who come from elsewhere and are getting handouts.

That old bit, huh?  Not just "welfare queens," but foreign welfare queens!  Who could be against kicking their sorry asses a little bit?
Sure; force immigrants to live in squalor which is still better than what they left in Mexico or wherever, and I doubt if you'd curb immigration much, but you'd damn sure create a bunch of sick, more-desperate people for you or your kids to have to mingle with whenever you upstanding, good Christian Americans leave your bunkers.

QuoteThen we'd have money to focus on the Americans that really need it.

You mean, there are some?  I wonder what P*B considers "really needing it."  Somehow, I doubt if conditions that "actual poor people" face would qualify under his system; I imagine that you'd have to already be sort of rich, in some way, for him to think you "qualify."  After all, Mr. Calvin, aren't the poor, by their very condition and definition, already scorned by "God" and thus "UNworthy" of human consideration?