NFL may pull the plug on AZ Super Bowl if anti-gay bill passes

[NowhereInTime]

Heh...another disgusting, race-baiting coward shows their true colors.

You must be a  raaaaaaaaaaccccccccccccccccccccccissssst for having an issue with the President.

And another callous, self serving cur conflates the truth to bolster his immoral position.  Mugabe and Obama the same? Go fuck yourself.

[PB the Deplorable]

Heh...another disgusting, race-baiting coward shows their true colors.

You must be a  raaaaaaaaaaccccccccccccccccccccccissssst for having an issue with the President.

When it comes down to it, it's all they have.

Conservatives and Republicans are 'Nazis and racists', no matter that it was the Dems who openly supported racism, and that Hitler was another Left wing murderer in the same mold as Mao and Stalin.  When Reagan was elected the Soviet Politburo leaders began to be referred to as 'conservatives' in the American Media (make that the UnAmerican Media).

Just yesterday, on another thread, a poster said Reagan was to blame for the homeless and kicking mentally ill people out of mental care institutions - no matter that had started before he was governor of California and it was the ACLU who were agitating and winning court cases claiming forced institutional care and medication was 'unconstitutional'.

I think people have heard this BS for so many decades now that it's become ingrained as part of who they are.  'Hi, I'm Jim and I hate Reagan'

Reagan's been out of office for 25 years.  Even if he literally kicked people out in the streets and locked the doors personally how could he be responsible for the homeless of today?


I used to think the Libs never bothered to look behind them to see how destructive their policies are, but now I realize they do look at it, and just blame it on someone else.  And Big Media backs it all up

[FightTheFuture]

And another callous, self serving cur conflates the truth to bolster his immoral position.  Mugabe and Obama the same? Go fuck yourself.

Oh, please. Are you actually trying to cover for that blatant race-baiting nonsense??! You really think PB is a racist? Really?? Because that`s the insinuation your buddy, pudding pop, made; "it`s a black thing"? That`s almost to the level of that simpleton asshole, shockley. Hell, why not accuse him of being a child molester while you`re at it? There`s certainly equal justification.

[FightTheFuture]

When it comes down to it, it's all they have.

Conservatives and Republicans are 'Nazis and racists', no matter that it was the Dems who openly supported racism, and that Hitler was another Left wing murderer in the same mold as Mao and Stalin.  When Reagan was elected the Soviet Politburo leaders began to be referred to as 'conservatives' in the American Media (make that the UnAmerican Media).

Just yesterday, on another thread, a poster said Reagan was to blame for the homeless and kicking mentally ill people out of mental care institutions - no matter that had started before he was governor of California and it was the ACLU who were agitating and winning court cases claiming forced institutional care and medication was 'unconstitutional'.

I think people have heard this BS for so many decades now that it's become ingrained as part of who they are.  'Hi, I'm Jim and I hate Reagan'

Reagan's been out of office for 25 years.  Even if he literally kicked people out in the streets and locked the doors personally how could he be responsible for the homeless of today?


I used to think the Libs never bothered to look behind them to see how destructive their policies are, but now I realize they do look at it, and just blame it on someone else.  And Big Media backs it all up

You`re absolutely right on. My old friend, Andrew Breitbart, would spin in his grave if I let that LEFTIST hypocrisy BS, go without rebuttal.

[NowhereInTime]

When it comes down to it, it's all they have.

Conservatives and Republicans are 'Nazis and racists', no matter that it was the Dems who openly supported racism, and that Hitler was another Left wing murderer in the same mold as Mao and Stalin.  When Reagan was elected the Soviet Politburo leaders began to be referred to as 'conservatives' in the American Media (make that the UnAmerican Media).

Just yesterday, on another thread, a poster said Reagan was to blame for the homeless and kicking mentally ill people out of mental care institutions - no matter that had started before he was governor of California and it was the ACLU who were agitating and winning court cases claiming forced institutional care and medication was 'unconstitutional'.

I think people have heard this BS for so many decades now that it's become ingrained as part of who they are.  'Hi, I'm Jim and I hate Reagan'

Reagan's been out of office for 25 years.  Even if he literally kicked people out in the streets and locked the doors personally how could he be responsible for the homeless of today?


I used to think the Libs never bothered to look behind them to see how destructive their policies are, but now I realize they do look at it, and just blame it on someone else.  And Big Media backs it all up

No, we also have your misogyny, your classist elitism, your insufferable support of oligarchy, your neverending craven desire for wealth and power and your undeniable callousness toward your fellow citizens, let alone other people.
Hi, I'm Jeff and I despise Ronald Reagan.

[NowhereInTime]

You`re absolutely right on. My old friend, Andrew Breitbart, would spin in his grave if I let that LEFTIST hypocrisy BS, go without rebuttal.

God passed judgement on that lying son of a bitch where he literally dropped dead.  Great role model.

[NowhereInTime]

Oh, please. Are you actually trying to cover for that blatant race-baiting nonsense??! You really think PB is a racist? Really?? Because that`s the insinuation your buddy, pudding pop, made; "it`s a black thing"? That`s almost to the level of that simpleton asshole, shockley. Hell, why not accuse him of being a child molester while you`re at it? There`s certainly equal justification.

Yeah, I am.  I'm sick of the code like "inner city" P*B uses to denegrate ethnic minorities.  There's no justification for insinuating he's child molester, and that's exactly the horseshit demagouge response I expect from a conservative; extreme hyperbole and non-sequiturs.
Besides, that was Qunt Karl's gig. Hope he's enjoying his vacation in Thailand.

[FightTheFuture]

God passed judgement on that lying son of a bitch where he literally dropped dead.  Great role model.

Unlike you, I don`t speak for God.

I only know that AB was one of the greatest human beings with whom I ever crossed paths. He relished every day he got to wake up and expose hypocrites on the left. He died doing what he loved, and I suspect, lived more in his 43 years than most live in 100 years.

[FightTheFuture]

Yeah, I am.  I'm sick of the code like "inner city" P*B uses to denegrate ethnic minorities.  There's no justification for insinuating he's child molester, and that's exactly the horseshit demagouge response I expect from a conservative; extreme hyperbole and non-sequiturs.
Besides, that was Qunt Karl's gig. Hope he's enjoying his vacation in Thailand.

Hey, let it all out, brother! Don`t hold back!

[Yorkshire pud]

Heh...another disgusting, race-baiting coward shows their true colors.

You must be a  raaaaaaaaaaccccccccccccccccccccccissssst for having an issue with the President.

I don't though.

It's what heroin does I guess; Changes your perceptions of reality and comprehension...Get someone to read it and explain context to you sweedy.

[Yorkshire pud]

Oh, please. Are you actually trying to cover for that blatant race-baiting nonsense??! You really think PB is a racist? Really?? Because that`s the insinuation your buddy, pudding pop, made; "it`s a black thing"? That`s almost to the level of that simpleton asshole, shockley. Hell, why not accuse him of being a child molester while you`re at it? There`s certainly equal justification.

Yes because other than both being President of their respective countries (One is President of Zimbabwe, look it up on a map of Africa), they have one other common denominator...so what else is it?

[FightTheFuture]

I don't though.

It's what heroin does I guess; Changes your perceptions of reality and comprehension...Get someone to read it and explain context to you sweedy.

You`re worse than your buddy, shockely!! He says Tea Partiers are racists, and then -- with a straight face, I assume -- in his next post, claims he never said it!!

God help me, but I am having a good hearty laugh!





Oh...and that little cheap shot you keep taking? You know, the one about my former drug usage you insist on bringing up ad nauseam? The more you mention it: the better 

[FightTheFuture]

Yes because other than both being President of their respective countries (One is President of Zimbabwe, look it up on a map of Africa), they have one other common denominator...so what else is it?

[FightTheFuture]

You really haven't a clue who Mugabe is, if you compare him with Obama...Ahhh, it's the black thing, I get it.

[NowhereInTime]

Fascinating.  "Losing the debate?" 
Of course, you reply with cheap demagougery.

[Yorkshire pud]

You`re worse than your buddy, shockely!! He says Tea Partiers are racists, and then -- with a straight face, I assume -- in his next post, claims he never said it!!

God help me, but I am having a good hearty laugh!

Hmmm, yep...you are having difficulty comprehending.. I didn't say i didn't say it...I said that was the only common denominator, dumbfuck.

Oh...and that little cheap shot you keep taking? You know, the one about my former drug usage you insist on bringing up ad nauseam? The more you mention it: the better 

Only twice so far...You can't count either.

[Yorkshire pud]

He he...you're soooo sexy.

[West of the Rockies]

Man, why do you guys bother? 

Okay, I know the serious answer:  politics is too important to ignore, to leave to the misinformed, dishonest, incompetent, and corrupt.  I DO get that.  And this perspective is one-hundred percent true.  And that's why I still bother to weigh in from time to time, even though it's pointless to imagine anything I write might actually get anyone else to ponder a new perspective.

Still...  Mugabe and Obama?  The same mentality?  Really?...  Oh, look!  I can do that, too:  Reagan and Idi Amin!  Fuckin' ideological twins!*

Clinton was no liberal:  he protected the status quo and tinkered with the lacey edges to appear progressive.  I think that largely describes Obama's tenure in office, too, though I will concede that he may have wanted to be more progressive (but had no ability to make that happen with the congressional hand he was dealt).  Similarly, I think that George H.W. Bush was largely a status quo kind of guy who mucked about with those lacey edges to appear a bit more conservative than perhaps he was. 

* No, I don't think Reagan and Amin were similar.  And, yes, I dare mentioned St. Ronnie:  why is it that every time a liberal mentions Reagan, we get told, "Oh, man, you're referring to a guy who's been out of office for a quarter of a century!"  But when a conservative does it, everyone is supposed to genuflect and acknowledge Ronnie's accomplishment of single-handedly bringing down the Soviet Union?

How about a little more all-around honesty?  You wanna bitch about Obama using a teleprompter?  Fine.  Just be honest and admit that every fucking president has done so since that technology was invented.  Wanna bitch about Obama playing golf?  Go ahead, but admit that George "Now Watch This Drive" Bush did the same, too.  Wanna say the media roughed up Clinton?  Go for it, but don't pretend that hasn't happened with EVERY president since probably John Adams.

[PB the Deplorable]

Yeah, I am.  I'm sick of the code like "inner city" P*B uses to denegrate ethnic minorities...

Actually, I use our inner cities to denigrate the people whose policies created the current conditions there - the Lib's, and the people who continue that failed policy because they benefit from the votes they get for doing so - the 'Progressives'.

[West of the Rockies]

Okay, in a fruitless attempt to perhaps create common ground, I will say that I, self-avowed lib, sometimes wonder if we have created a generational welfare state in this country in which we genuinely do discourage people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.  Having never owned actual boots that had any sort of strap attachment, I am perhaps not the one to ask!

Nonetheless, I DO think that institutional welfare is NOT a good thing:  it does not enable or inspire the human spirit. 

Ah, but here comes a second nonetheless:  Yanking the rug out from under people who genuinely need help (having been there myself more than once) is not a good, compassionate Jesusy thing to do. 

[FightTheFuture]

Hmmm, yep...you are having difficulty comprehending.. I didn't say i didn't say it...I said that was the only common denominator, dumbfuck.


Only twice so far...You can't count either.

It`s a "black thing", huh?

[onan]

Yeah, it's all liberal programs... Redlining had nothing to do with it.

[West of the Rockies]

Redlining is demonstrably real; denying as much removes a person from the serious "adult discussion" of politics.  Redlining is why programs such as affirmative action still matter.  They are why such things as institutional welfare exist. 

[Yorkshire pud]

It`s a "black thing", huh?

I guess it must be, because neither you or PB have put forward any other similarities between Mugabe and Obama. You can't have President, that's a given..

But keep trawling google images because it's a good substitute for your lack of comprehension and it also keeps you busy. 

[onan]

Just yesterday, on another thread, a poster said Reagan was to blame for the homeless and kicking mentally ill people out of mental care institutions - no matter that had started before he was governor of California and it was the ACLU who were agitating and winning court cases claiming forced institutional care and medication was 'unconstitutional'.

You are confused. Yes the ACLU took mental institutions to task for many inappropriate factors: wrongful involuntary commitments, unsafe and unsanitary units, rooms, and other areas, and most egregious, violence against patients. Those factors cost hospital management lots of dollars. And yes those that were unable to manage the costs did close. But, what Reagan did was cut funding... fucking huge funding cuts. And that is what put mentally ill patients into the community.

Even the article you cite by the New York Times shows that Reagan, then governor of California cut funding to mental hospitals and reduced patient population from roughly 37,000 to 22,000.

And I am quite familiar with the ACLU and their stance on mental illness and civil rights... this is an area where they are right and wrong at the same time. Yes it is confusing, sometimes the theory of law cannot cope with the reality of mental illness. It is impossible to ascertain a minute by minute measurement for the patient's safety.

[Ben Shockley]

I swear, folks, that I hate flogging the expired equine, and I apologize for having to do this.  But something I hate worse is being mis-characterized, or in other words, being lied about.
That dumb-ass, FightThe Future, has mentioned me twice today as some kind of paragon of "bad stuff" with which to attempt insulting some of my forum comrades.  I can let that go, realizing that with his selective and very limited abilities of reading comprehension, he missed my helpful hint about how he should save himself the silly and fruitless effort of trying to insult people by associating them with things they like.  But hey: I named him "Futility Personified" for a reason, so what can you expect?

But as for beating the horse I considered dead some time ago: this FTF asswipe is either flat out lying about me, or just too dumb to breathe, with his REPEATED kvetching about my supposed 1) textual abuse of his Dear, Sweet, Love-Filled Tea-Partiers, and 2) my supposed "denial" of having done so.
So, y'all gather around that horse corpse and stand ol' Sea Biscuit up on his petrified hooves for me to swing at him ONE MORE TIME.
I have no trouble admitting --nay, exclaiming-- that I think the Tea Party is composed mainly of dumb, scared, angry old White people who happen to be, predominantly, racists (with several other defects, but racism is the issue here, so I'll just stick with that).  This is at least the third time I have fully and explicitly stated that, since FTF started bellowing about it. Why he keeps asserting that I am (I think he means) a "coward" for "not admitting" this opinion is utterly beyond me, in light of the fact that I have OPENLY STATED this opinion on at least 2 previous occasions specifically in response to, and to generally fuck with, FTF.  I also have no idea what he thinks or claims that I would be "afraid of" --you know: "cowardly" about-- to make me supposedly deny (like he asserts I do) the stuff I keep openly stating.
At the outset of all this, several weeks ago, I did deny that I had written the words "all Tea Partiers are racists" in a particular post where FTF alleged that I had done; I denied it because 1) I had not in fact directly asserted that, but also 2) mainly to show what a dolt FTF is by showing that he could not even properly comprehend a passage of mine that he was trying to quote.  Within that same riposte, I openly responded that I do in fact believe that Tea Partiers are mostly racists, but that I had simply not overtly made that assertion in the passage where FTF, in his victimhood-seeking mania, had claimed.

That he also called Pud "a coward" at least 1) puts me in great company, and 2) further proves my point from several days ago that FTF seems to essentially identify "disagreement" with "moral- or character flaws" in his opponents.  Today, in regard to Pud, FTF goes so far as to make the claim that to even mention race and racism is --you got it!-- "to be a coward."  I trust that the rational and lucid among you understand how stone fucking bizarre and (since the term came up) non sequitur that is.

But (according to FTF) I'm a "simpleton?"  I have lost more higher-order mental processing ability through disuse atrophy and general boozing than "FTF" ever dreamed of having.
Yet, dig his fake humility:

...I don`t speak for God.

One wonders, then, to whom or what he would attribute his zealous self-righteousness and cocksure MORAL SUPERIORITY.

...neither [FTF] nor PB have put forward any other similarities between Mugabe and Obama.

Nor has FTF offered any factual rebuttal to what he apparently feels is my self-evidently, factually-incorrect, easily-falsifiable opinion regarding his precious Tea Party; only attempts to shout me down.
     Easy explanation for that: he knows I'm right; he's just annoyed that I mentioned it.
I've noted here before that most of these Righties are just hip enough to know that they aren't supposed to admit what they believe!  Remember that Righties, in their own profound ignorance, are convinced that everyone else is as dense as they are, and thus that America and the world aren't hip to who they are.  They think that if they can just discredit us big-mouths who shine the light on them, they really can pull one over on us!  And remember that despite the guilt trips they try to lay on us, they are the ones with the consciousness of guilt regarding their hateful, destructive ideologies; hence their panicky indignation when we mention them.
I guess FTF shares the Quick Karl worldview / self-delusion that all they need to do is come in and stomp their Mighty Righty Foot, and all scurrilous wrong-thinkers will flee in terror, and they will never have to actually think too much to justify their arrogantly self-assured aspersions on everyone else's morals --like in that case above, on their own President's morals.  You know: PRESIDENT OBAMA.

Shifting gears:
Howdy, Nowhere Man--

So P*B has stumbled onto a new political operating system: "Two systems; same mentality."
Good stuff.

Not only that: P*B has re-ordered classical logic if not Physics itself.
Note my post at http://bellgab.com/index.php?topic=5725.msg240592#msg240592
and then P*B's "rebuttal" at http://bellgab.com/index.php?topic=5725.msg240601#msg240601
where he counters my argument that he is (to make it simple) engaging in some seriously back-asswards reasoning, with the dismissal that people who might presume to identify his ideo-logical fallacies just

don't understand how the world works

In other words, and let the record clearly show: in P*B World, effects produce cause (i.e., "your candidate not winning" produces the "insufficient vetting," not vice versa).  I know that he would never understand the technical explanation about how that is exactly what he is saying (and he would joyfully trumpet his failure to understand as being proof of his Moral Superiority over dumb-ass "perfessers," as he likes to spell it), but I trust that some of you readers will get the mind-blowing illogic I'm documenting.

[Ben Shockley]

Even the article [P*B cited] by the New York Times shows that Reagan, then governor of California cut funding to mental hospitals and reduced patient population from roughly 37,000 to 22,000.

I'll take onan's word about the article.
So does P*B display "poor reading-comprehension," or does he engage in "willful mis-characterization?"
You all be the judges.
I'd say they both "correlate significantly" with his stated ideology, as demonstrated in my last post's observations about another Righty poster.

[NowhereInTime]

I swear, folks, that I hate flogging the expired equine.  But something I hate worse is being mis-characterized, or in other words, being lied about.
That dumb-ass, FightThe Future, has mentioned me twice today as some kind of paragon of "bad stuff" with which to attempt insulting some of my forum comrades.  I can let that go, realizing that with his selective and very limited abilities of reading comprehension, he missed my helpful hint about how he should save himself the silly and fruitless effort of trying to insult people by associating them with things they like.  But hey: I named him "Futility Personified" for a reason, so what can you expect?

But as for beating the horse I considered dead some time ago: this FTF asswipe is either flat out lying about me, or just too dumb to breathe, with his REPEATED kvetching about my supposed 1) textual abuse of his Dear, Sweet, Love-Filled Tea-Partiers, and 2) my supposed "denial" of having done so.
So, y'all gather around that horse corpse and stand ol' Sea Biscuit up on his petrified hooves for me to swing at him ONE MORE TIME.
I have no trouble admitting --nay, exclaiming-- that I think the Tea Party is composed mainly of dumb, scared, angry old White people who happen to be, predominantly, racists (with several other defects, but racism is the issue here, so I'll just stick with that).  This is at least the third time I have fully and explicitly stated that, since FTF started bellowing about it. Why he keeps asserting that I am (I think he means) a "coward" for "not admitting" this opinion is utterly beyond me, in light of the fact that I have OPENLY STATED this opinion on at least 2 previous occasions specifically in response to, and to generally fuck with, FTF.  I also have no idea what he thinks or claims that I would be "afraid of" --you know: "cowardly" about-- to make me supposedly deny (like he asserts I do) the stuff I keep openly stating.
At the outset of all this, several weeks ago, I did deny that I had written the words "all Tea Partiers are racists" in a particular post where FTF alleged that I had done; I denied it because 1) I had not in fact directly asserted that, but also 2) mainly to show what a dolt FTF is by showing that he could not even properly comprehend a passage of mine that he was trying to quote.  Within that same riposte, I openly responded that I do in fact believe that Tea Partiers are mostly racists, but that I had simply not overtly made that assertion in the passage where FTF, in his victimhood-seeking mania, had claimed.

That he also called Pud "a coward" at least 1) puts me in great company, and 2) further proves my point from several days ago that FTF seems to essentially identify "disagreement" with "moral- or character flaws" in his opponents.  Today, in regard to Pud, FTF goes so far as to make the claim that to even mention race and racism is --you got it!-- "to be a coward."  I trust that the rational and lucid among you understand how stone fucking bizarre and (since the term came up) non sequitur that is.

But (according to FTF) I'm a "simpleton?"  I have lost more higher-order mental processing ability through disuse atrophy and general boozing than "FTF" ever dreamed of having.
Yet, dig his fake humility:One wonders, then, to whom or what he would attribute his zealous self-righteousness and cocksure MORAL SUPERIORITY.
Nor has FTF offered any factual rebuttal to what he apparently feels is my self-evidently, factually-incorrect, easily-falsifiable opinion regarding his precious Tea Party; only attempts to shout me down.
     Easy explanation for that: he knows I'm right; he's just annoyed that I mentioned it.
I've noted here before that most of these Righties are just hip enough to know that they aren't supposed to admit what they believe!  Remember that Righties, in their own profound ignorance, are convinced that everyone else is as dense as they are, and thus that America and the world aren't hip to who they are.  They think that if they can just discredit us big-mouths who shine the light on them, they really can pull one over on us!  And remember that despite the guilt trips they try to lay on us, they are the ones with the consciousness of guilt regarding their hateful ideologies; hence their panicky indignation when we mention them.
I guess FTF shares the Quick Karl worldview / self-delusion that all they need to do is come in and stomp their Mighty Righty Foot, and all scurrilous wrong-thinkers will flee in terror, and they will never have to actually think too much to justify their arrogantly self-assured aspersions on everyone else's morals --like in that case above, on their own President's morals.  You know: PRESIDENT OBAMA.

Shifting gears:
Howdy, Nowhere Man--Not only that: P*B has re-ordered classical logic if not Physics itself.
Note my post at http://bellgab.com/index.php?topic=5725.msg240592#msg240592
and then P*B's "rebuttal" at http://bellgab.com/index.php?topic=5725.msg240601#msg240601
where he counters my argument that he is (to make it simple) engaging in some seriously back-asswards reasoning, with the dismissal that people who might presume to identify his ideo-logical fallacies justIn other words, and let the record clearly show: in P*B World, effects produce cause (i.e., "your candidate not winning" produces the "insufficient vetting," not vice versa).  I know that he would never understand the technical explanation about how that is exactly what he is saying (and he would joyfully trumpet his failure to understand as being proof of his Moral Superiority over dumb-ass "perfessers," as he likes to spell it), but I trust that some of you readers will get the mind-blowing illogic I'm documenting.

Greetings, Ben Shockley!

Thank you for yet another enlightening evisceration of conservative retro-thought!

To P*B and FTF, I extend sympathies; this is like that dream where you are naked in front of the whole class and have no idea what to do.

Except that you're awake.  Sort of.

[PB the Deplorable]

You are confused. Yes the ACLU took mental institutions to task for many inappropriate factors: wrongful involuntary commitments, unsafe and unsanitary units, rooms, and other areas, and most egregious, violence against patients. Those factors cost hospital management lots of dollars. And yes those that were unable to manage the costs did close. But, what Reagan did was cut funding... fucking huge funding cuts. And that is what put mentally ill patients into the community.

Even the article you cite by the New York Times shows that Reagan, then governor of California cut funding to mental hospitals and reduced patient population from roughly 37,000 to 22,000.

And I am quite familiar with the ACLU and their stance on mental illness and civil rights... this is an area where they are right and wrong at the same time. Yes it is confusing, sometimes the theory of law cannot cope with the reality of mental illness. It is impossible to ascertain a minute by minute measurement for the patient's safety.

When the ACLU won those lawsuits, the mentally ill were let out of those institutions and were no longer forced to take their meds.  That was the point of the lawsuits.  That as the point behind Hollywood making 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest'.  That was the point agitating for the legislation.

When the number of patients are drastically reduced, institutions close and funding is reduced.  The actions of the ACLU and their friends caused that.

As far as Reagan 'cutting' funds that Carter had approved on the way out the door, that's a Washington DC cut - a reduction in proposed funds - not a real cut.  Weren't those funds block granted back to the states to spend on this anyway?  At least some of it was.

Reagan believed whatever can be handled on the state level should be.  I believe that too.  It's even in the Constitution.  Others want everything to be done by the bureaucracy at the Federal level.  For most things that is less efficient and is done on a one-size-fits-all basis.  The further from the people the less unaccountable and the more unresponsive these officials are.  States have a much better idea of their own needs and priorities and should be able to allocate funds better than faraway Washington can.  Some states are going to do this better than others.  Some ore going to do a terrible job.  Some are even going to be innovative.  This is an argument about federalism, not an example of Reagan's evilness.

Reagan didn't run on meaningless slogans like 'hope and change', he ran on a platform composed of specific items.  One was reducing the reach of the Federal government and empowering the states to make their own decisions.  He won in a landslide, and by an even larger landslide the second time.  He was elected, in part, to make decisions like transferring programs to the states and block granting funds to them to continue them as they saw fit.


That NY Times item you mentioned - here is a cut and paste:

"... In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr..."

Those are California numbers.  Edmund G Brown (D) both preceded AND followed Reagan as Governor of CA.  The number of patients went from the 39k to the 22k under Jerry Brown's dad, not Reagan.  The number of patients continued to decline under Reagan and later under Brown again.  Seems bi-partisan.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html


Even your link to the Mother Jones article said the number of patients in the US peaked in the 1950's


Homelessness is a real problem where I live.  If I could do so, I'd have the mentally ill re-institutionalized and move the people willingly living as hobos along to somewhere else.  I'd do a lot of things differently than they are being done now - kids in abusive homes or with unfit parents, injured, ill, elderly, healthcare, education.  We should be doing a much better job at all levels of government.  We are certainly paying for better than we are getting.  I don't think we need to spend more, we need to spend what we have a lot better.

I'll take onan's word about the article.
So does P*B display "poor reading-comprehension," or does he engage in "willful mis-characterization?"
You all be the judges.
I'd say they both "correlate significantly" with his stated ideology, as demonstrated in my last post's observations about another Righty poster.

As it turns out, I didn't display poor reading comprehension or mis-characterize the NY Times. 

[FightTheFuture]

I swear, folks, that I hate flogging the expired equine, and I apologize for having to do this.  But something I hate worse is being mis-characterized, or in other words, being lied about.
That dumb-ass, FightThe Future, has mentioned me twice today as some kind of paragon of "bad stuff" with which to attempt insulting some of my forum comrades.  I can let that go, realizing that with his selective and very limited abilities of reading comprehension, he missed my helpful hint about how he should save himself the silly and fruitless effort of trying to insult people by associating them with things they like.  But hey: I named him "Futility Personified" for a reason, so what can you expect?

But as for beating the horse I considered dead some time ago: this FTF asswipe is either flat out lying about me, or just too dumb to breathe, with his REPEATED kvetching about my supposed 1) textual abuse of his Dear, Sweet, Love-Filled Tea-Partiers, and 2) my supposed "denial" of having done so.
So, y'all gather around that horse corpse and stand ol' Sea Biscuit up on his petrified hooves for me to swing at him ONE MORE TIME.
I have no trouble admitting --nay, exclaiming-- that I think the Tea Party is composed mainly of dumb, scared, angry old White people who happen to be, predominantly, racists (with several other defects, but racism is the issue here, so I'll just stick with that).  This is at least the third time I have fully and explicitly stated that, since FTF started bellowing about it. Why he keeps asserting that I am (I think he means) a "coward" for "not admitting" this opinion is utterly beyond me, in light of the fact that I have OPENLY STATED this opinion on at least 2 previous occasions specifically in response to, and to generally fuck with, FTF.  I also have no idea what he thinks or claims that I would be "afraid of" --you know: "cowardly" about-- to make me supposedly deny (like he asserts I do) the stuff I keep openly stating.
At the outset of all this, several weeks ago, I did deny that I had written the words "all Tea Partiers are racists" in a particular post where FTF alleged that I had done; I denied it because 1) I had not in fact directly asserted that, but also 2) mainly to show what a dolt FTF is by showing that he could not even properly comprehend a passage of mine that he was trying to quote.  Within that same riposte, I openly responded that I do in fact believe that Tea Partiers are mostly racists, but that I had simply not overtly made that assertion in the passage where FTF, in his victimhood-seeking mania, had claimed.

That he also called Pud "a coward" at least 1) puts me in great company, and 2) further proves my point from several days ago that FTF seems to essentially identify "disagreement" with "moral- or character flaws" in his opponents.  Today, in regard to Pud, FTF goes so far as to make the claim that to even mention race and racism is --you got it!-- "to be a coward."  I trust that the rational and lucid among you understand how stone fucking bizarre and (since the term came up) non sequitur that is.

But (according to FTF) I'm a "simpleton?"  I have lost more higher-order mental processing ability through disuse atrophy and general boozing than "FTF" ever dreamed of having.
Yet, dig his fake humility:One wonders, then, to whom or what he would attribute his zealous self-righteousness and cocksure MORAL SUPERIORITY.
Nor has FTF offered any factual rebuttal to what he apparently feels is my self-evidently, factually-incorrect, easily-falsifiable opinion regarding his precious Tea Party; only attempts to shout me down.
     Easy explanation for that: he knows I'm right; he's just annoyed that I mentioned it.
I've noted here before that most of these Righties are just hip enough to know that they aren't supposed to admit what they believe!  Remember that Righties, in their own profound ignorance, are convinced that everyone else is as dense as they are, and thus that America and the world aren't hip to who they are.  They think that if they can just discredit us big-mouths who shine the light on them, they really can pull one over on us!  And remember that despite the guilt trips they try to lay on us, they are the ones with the consciousness of guilt regarding their hateful, destructive ideologies; hence their panicky indignation when we mention them.
I guess FTF shares the Quick Karl worldview / self-delusion that all they need to do is come in and stomp their Mighty Righty Foot, and all scurrilous wrong-thinkers will flee in terror, and they will never have to actually think too much to justify their arrogantly self-assured aspersions on everyone else's morals --like in that case above, on their own President's morals.  You know: PRESIDENT OBAMA.

Shifting gears:
Howdy, Nowhere Man--Not only that: P*B has re-ordered classical logic if not Physics itself.
Note my post at http://bellgab.com/index.php?topic=5725.msg240592#msg240592
and then P*B's "rebuttal" at http://bellgab.com/index.php?topic=5725.msg240601#msg240601
where he counters my argument that he is (to make it simple) engaging in some seriously back-asswards reasoning, with the dismissal that people who might presume to identify his ideo-logical fallacies justIn other words, and let the record clearly show: in P*B World, effects produce cause (i.e., "your candidate not winning" produces the "insufficient vetting," not vice versa).  I know that he would never understand the technical explanation about how that is exactly what he is saying (and he would joyfully trumpet his failure to understand as being proof of his Moral Superiority over dumb-ass "perfessers," as he likes to spell it), but I trust that some of you readers will get the mind-blowing illogic I'm documenting.

Holy s###! I must have struck a nerve with ol' benji. Now, run along and smear your feces on the wall. The nice men in white jackets will be along shortly to give you your yummy medication.