Joseph West commented on Bill O'Reilly & Greta Van Susteren Are Being Sued By NY Business Owner
2012-08-09 19:10:47 -0400
· Flag
To Priscilla, when you wrote "*Correction: I originally identified O’Reilly as the source of the “hippy dippie” statement. It was Juliette Huddy.", I’m not seeing where that correction is needed. If Huddy was working for O’Reilly as you note in your (apparently) corrected line “O’Reilly’s news correspondent for the piece, Juliette Huddy (also a defendant),” then O’Reilly, as Huddy’s EMPLOYER, is just as guilty for the “hippy dippy” statement as if he’d said it himself. ESPECIALLY under FoxNoise’s own “rules of complicity.” We’ve all seen how FoxNoise holds Obama PERSONALLY accountable for an underling’s comments even when the underling is speaking off-the-cuff in a live setting (like a press conference). So, if FoxNoise can expect Obama to be held accountable for something one of “his people” says, then it’s only “fair” that FoxNoise hold itself to the same standard. (I know, I know. This is FoxNoise. They have one set of standards for themselves and their “favorite” con-servatives and a different set of standards for others to follow.)
Joseph West commented on Fox Nation Headline: Second Obama Term Could Kill Second Amendment
2012-08-08 23:40:07 -0400
· Flag
Hmmm…….let’s stop for a moment and see if the FoxNation folks understand how such an event could take place. Since we’re talking about the Second AMENDMENT, any attempt to “kill” it would require ………..? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
For those who replied, “an amendment,” you go to the head of the class.
Now, according to that little document that (one presumes at least) the FoxNationalists respect—the US Constitution (well, they respect it as long as it says what they want but here, they have to respect it since it shows how little chance there is of the Second’s imminent demise—especially during the four paltry years that Obama’s second term would comprise). The Constitution states there are two manners in which an amendment can be added (and one of these has NEVER been used in the entire history of the USofA). The first is the standard presentation of a bill in both Houses of Congress which must be passed by a 2/3 majority in each House (and considering the incredibly partisan attitude in Congress, that ain’t a-happenin’). It is then presented to the states for their approval, with a required 3/4 majority of the states (currently the magic number is 38) needed for the bill to become an amendment. (As an aside, the bill must be worded identically in both Houses—if there’s even the slightest difference, the bill must be presented to a committee which will attempt to forge a single bill that both Houses will vote on.)
The second way for an amendment to be added is via Constitutional Convention. For this to take place, 2/3 of all the States’ legislatures must agree to a meeting at which any number of proposals are submitted for the purpose of becoming amendments (at this time, the magic number there is 34—2/3 of 50 is 33.333, so you have to round up). Once the Convention has passed a proposed amendment, it then has to be presented to the States (as above) and is subject to the same 3/4 requirement to be added. This process has never been employed in our history, and given the highly partisan nature now found in state legislatures, it would be next to impossible for this to happen now.
(Incidentally, I’ve made no mention of the President’s role in this process for a simple reason: He has no role. He cannot veto a proposed amendment; he cannot veto a ratification. He can offer his opinion on the matter, but that’s it.)
Now, for the state ratification process, there are two ways this can be done: First, by the State Legislature (the usual procedure); and Second, by a Statewide Convention (done only once—for the 21st to repeal Prohibition). A simple majority vote (50% + 1) is all that’s required in either process.
Since the Constitution was first written in 1787, there have been only 27 amendments added in the ensuing 225 years. The first 10 were officially ratified in 1791 (after having been presented to the states in 1789; Virginia was the 11th state—Vermont’s entry into the union as the 14th state in 1791 upped the required 3/4 from 10 of 13 to 11 of 14). From 1791 through the Civil War, only 2 amendments were passed. From 1865 to 1920, a grand total of 7 amendments were ratified (3 of which happened between 1865 and 1870; the other 4 were ratified between 1913 and 1920). The next 6 were ratified between 1933 and 1971, and the most recent was ratified in 1992 (it was actually proposed in 1789 as part of the Bill of Rights but was ratified by only 6 states between 1789 and 1791; the next ratification wouldn’t happen until 1873 and it would lay dormant again until 1978 before finally picking up major steam in 1983 after which another 31 states would ratify the amendment by 1992). Additionally, there’s really no official time limit on the amendments. Only 4 amendments have explicitly mandated a 7-year period during ratification must happen or the proposed amendment becomes null but it’s become a “tradition” (according to the actual text of the proposed ERA, there is NO time limit; however, it appears that there was an “unwritten” 7-year rule involved which is why more recent proposals have explicitly included the time limit). During the ratification of the 20th century amendments (except for the 27th Amendment—including that would really skew the numbers), the shortest time between proposal and ratification was 100 days (that was for the 26th which lowered the voting age to 18); the average length, however, has been 546 days or roughly a year and a half and there’s been NO proposed amendment since 1971 that’s met the 3/4 ratification process in even 7 years. According to USConstitution.net, a study by C-SPAN indicated that the number of proposed amendments dropped in each session of Congress from 214 offered by the 101st Congress (1989-90) to only 103 offered by the 105th Congress (1998-99)—an era which, when compared to today’s Congress, was a model of bipartisanship and civility.
Now, where have I been going with all this information? Simply this: That President Obama, who couldn’t even get his own party to support his original health care program, would NEVER be able to get a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress to agree to an amendment that would rescind the 2nd Amendment. And even if he could, it’s an absolute absurdity to think that 38 states would ratify such an amendment. And, in all reality, the folks at FoxNation know this but presenting the actual facts of a story has never been the goal at FoxNoise or any of its affiliated liars.
For those who replied, “an amendment,” you go to the head of the class.
Now, according to that little document that (one presumes at least) the FoxNationalists respect—the US Constitution (well, they respect it as long as it says what they want but here, they have to respect it since it shows how little chance there is of the Second’s imminent demise—especially during the four paltry years that Obama’s second term would comprise). The Constitution states there are two manners in which an amendment can be added (and one of these has NEVER been used in the entire history of the USofA). The first is the standard presentation of a bill in both Houses of Congress which must be passed by a 2/3 majority in each House (and considering the incredibly partisan attitude in Congress, that ain’t a-happenin’). It is then presented to the states for their approval, with a required 3/4 majority of the states (currently the magic number is 38) needed for the bill to become an amendment. (As an aside, the bill must be worded identically in both Houses—if there’s even the slightest difference, the bill must be presented to a committee which will attempt to forge a single bill that both Houses will vote on.)
The second way for an amendment to be added is via Constitutional Convention. For this to take place, 2/3 of all the States’ legislatures must agree to a meeting at which any number of proposals are submitted for the purpose of becoming amendments (at this time, the magic number there is 34—2/3 of 50 is 33.333, so you have to round up). Once the Convention has passed a proposed amendment, it then has to be presented to the States (as above) and is subject to the same 3/4 requirement to be added. This process has never been employed in our history, and given the highly partisan nature now found in state legislatures, it would be next to impossible for this to happen now.
(Incidentally, I’ve made no mention of the President’s role in this process for a simple reason: He has no role. He cannot veto a proposed amendment; he cannot veto a ratification. He can offer his opinion on the matter, but that’s it.)
Now, for the state ratification process, there are two ways this can be done: First, by the State Legislature (the usual procedure); and Second, by a Statewide Convention (done only once—for the 21st to repeal Prohibition). A simple majority vote (50% + 1) is all that’s required in either process.
Since the Constitution was first written in 1787, there have been only 27 amendments added in the ensuing 225 years. The first 10 were officially ratified in 1791 (after having been presented to the states in 1789; Virginia was the 11th state—Vermont’s entry into the union as the 14th state in 1791 upped the required 3/4 from 10 of 13 to 11 of 14). From 1791 through the Civil War, only 2 amendments were passed. From 1865 to 1920, a grand total of 7 amendments were ratified (3 of which happened between 1865 and 1870; the other 4 were ratified between 1913 and 1920). The next 6 were ratified between 1933 and 1971, and the most recent was ratified in 1992 (it was actually proposed in 1789 as part of the Bill of Rights but was ratified by only 6 states between 1789 and 1791; the next ratification wouldn’t happen until 1873 and it would lay dormant again until 1978 before finally picking up major steam in 1983 after which another 31 states would ratify the amendment by 1992). Additionally, there’s really no official time limit on the amendments. Only 4 amendments have explicitly mandated a 7-year period during ratification must happen or the proposed amendment becomes null but it’s become a “tradition” (according to the actual text of the proposed ERA, there is NO time limit; however, it appears that there was an “unwritten” 7-year rule involved which is why more recent proposals have explicitly included the time limit). During the ratification of the 20th century amendments (except for the 27th Amendment—including that would really skew the numbers), the shortest time between proposal and ratification was 100 days (that was for the 26th which lowered the voting age to 18); the average length, however, has been 546 days or roughly a year and a half and there’s been NO proposed amendment since 1971 that’s met the 3/4 ratification process in even 7 years. According to USConstitution.net, a study by C-SPAN indicated that the number of proposed amendments dropped in each session of Congress from 214 offered by the 101st Congress (1989-90) to only 103 offered by the 105th Congress (1998-99)—an era which, when compared to today’s Congress, was a model of bipartisanship and civility.
Now, where have I been going with all this information? Simply this: That President Obama, who couldn’t even get his own party to support his original health care program, would NEVER be able to get a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress to agree to an amendment that would rescind the 2nd Amendment. And even if he could, it’s an absolute absurdity to think that 38 states would ratify such an amendment. And, in all reality, the folks at FoxNation know this but presenting the actual facts of a story has never been the goal at FoxNoise or any of its affiliated liars.
Joseph West commented on Cheney And Hannity Suggest Sarah Palin More Qualified Than Barack Obama To Be President
2012-08-07 01:49:34 -0400
· Flag
And exactly what was Dubya’s “experience” before his appointment to the Presidency? Anyone who knows anything about the Governorship of Texas knows it’s one of the weakest gubernatorial positions in the entire country. The Lt Governor has more power because of his presiding over the Senate.
And, of course, before that, Dubya had nothing but failure after failure in business.
And, of course, before that, Dubya had nothing but failure after failure in business.
Joseph West commented on Liz Trotta: Negative Press Coverage Of Ann Romney Due To Female Envy She "Followed Mom's Advice To Marry Well
2012-08-07 01:34:50 -0400
· Flag
Scooter, you forgot to ask the Liz the most important question: “Liz, why are you talking in public? Don’t you know your proper place is in the home, tending to your husband’s every whim? Get back to the kitchen, you tramp.”
Joseph West commented on Fox’s Gasparino Misinforms About Reagan Tax Cuts
2012-08-07 01:31:59 -0400
· Flag
Interesting how Gasparino uses the “inherited all of Carter’s nonsense” to “explain” to Ben Stein why the first few years under Reagan were bad. And yet, somehow, FoxNoise completely lays all the blame for the current economic woes on Obama, as though the Dubya years had nothing to do with the economic downturn.
Of course, that’s SOP for FoxNoise.
Of course, that’s SOP for FoxNoise.
Joseph West commented on Bolling Calls Democrats ‘Un-American’ For Voting To Let Bush Tax Cuts Expire
2012-08-05 02:36:39 -0400
· Flag
It would be nice if someone would point out to FoxNoise’s “reporters” that the tax cuts were supposed to expire a couple of years ago and that Bush ALONG WITH THE GOP CONGRESS designed them to be temporary.
But why bother confusing “reporters” with something as inconsequential as “facts?”
As to Matheson’s comment about “not understand[ing] how taxes affect” individuals and small businesses, I’d say that Matheson’s the one who doesn’t understand how taxes affect folks. Then again, he’s got a cushy government job making between 4 and 6 times a year as much as the average TAXPAYING American family earns. (Granted, he’s probably making less than Bolling is but still….)
But why bother confusing “reporters” with something as inconsequential as “facts?”
As to Matheson’s comment about “not understand[ing] how taxes affect” individuals and small businesses, I’d say that Matheson’s the one who doesn’t understand how taxes affect folks. Then again, he’s got a cushy government job making between 4 and 6 times a year as much as the average TAXPAYING American family earns. (Granted, he’s probably making less than Bolling is but still….)
Joseph West commented on Chicken, Chicken and More Chicken on the Fox Nation
2012-08-03 14:19:59 -0400
· Flag
And how much do you want to bet that Redstate.com would be right there posting pictures of someone from the left “doing something stupid” like “yelling at Christians” or “assaulting (shoving, hitting, etc.) Christians” or “telling Christians to go to hell or using other obscene language” and “other photographable nastiness?”
Joseph West commented on Fox News Crusades For Chick-fil-A But Ignores Businesses Targeted By Christians?
2012-08-03 14:13:44 -0400
· Flag
Gooch, you did forget it; you’ve misread it. The conservative version of the First is parentheses-laden.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (as long as that religion is God’s own Christian religion); or abridging the freedom of speech (provided the speech is acceptable to the Christian majority), or of the press* (provided the press is acceptable to the Christian majority); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble* (provided the people are God-fearing Christians and do not hold views that would offend God’s own people), and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (although as long as the Government maintains its Christian perspective, no one should ever have a reason to feel aggrieved).”
And all references to “Christian” were amended (by voice vote) to “Judeo-Christian” sometime in the 1980s. Although many Jews believed this to be a positive thing that would end their persecution by American conservatives, it was merely a ruse designed to ensure the Jewish role in the forthcoming endtimes.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (as long as that religion is God’s own Christian religion); or abridging the freedom of speech (provided the speech is acceptable to the Christian majority), or of the press* (provided the press is acceptable to the Christian majority); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble* (provided the people are God-fearing Christians and do not hold views that would offend God’s own people), and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (although as long as the Government maintains its Christian perspective, no one should ever have a reason to feel aggrieved).”
And all references to “Christian” were amended (by voice vote) to “Judeo-Christian” sometime in the 1980s. Although many Jews believed this to be a positive thing that would end their persecution by American conservatives, it was merely a ruse designed to ensure the Jewish role in the forthcoming endtimes.
Joseph West commented on Megyn Kelly Smiles As Right Wing Guest Tells "Pro-Life" Lies
2012-08-02 14:30:35 -0400
· Flag
Well, Wendilynn, how about you taking your opinion and putting into action when YOU get pregnant? Neither you nor the government should have any say in how any other woman (presuming you are, indeed, a real woman and not just some anti-choice plant using a female name to give your opinion some weight) deals with HER body.
As to the “depression” meme, I would guess you’ve also heard of “post-partum depression”—that’s where women actualy give birth but then, for as yet unexplained reasons, they undergo a serious depression that nothing seems to help. Some of these women have attempted to kill, and some have actually succeeded in killing, their children. But for most women who have abortions, the real root of their “depression” tends to be pressure from know-it-alls like you and the rest of the anti-choicers who insist on treating them as ignorant chattel who need someone else to tell them how they need to live.
It’s also interesting that you want to “compare the numbers” in YOUR state, but you don’t tell us what that state is. It’s hard for US to “compare the numbers” when we’re lacking some vital information. Again, there’s a part of your argument that fails that little comparison. I’ve never heard of any state or anti-choice organization protesting a pregnant woman’s “right” to give up a child for adoption; there’s little real stigma placed on a woman who gives up a child for adoption (though most of these women would face difficulty in accessing adequate medical care if groups like Planned Parenthood are defunded by the right-wing) and I’d love to see the stats on how these women feel about knowing there’s a part of them living with others 5 or 10 or 20 years down the road.
As to the “depression” meme, I would guess you’ve also heard of “post-partum depression”—that’s where women actualy give birth but then, for as yet unexplained reasons, they undergo a serious depression that nothing seems to help. Some of these women have attempted to kill, and some have actually succeeded in killing, their children. But for most women who have abortions, the real root of their “depression” tends to be pressure from know-it-alls like you and the rest of the anti-choicers who insist on treating them as ignorant chattel who need someone else to tell them how they need to live.
It’s also interesting that you want to “compare the numbers” in YOUR state, but you don’t tell us what that state is. It’s hard for US to “compare the numbers” when we’re lacking some vital information. Again, there’s a part of your argument that fails that little comparison. I’ve never heard of any state or anti-choice organization protesting a pregnant woman’s “right” to give up a child for adoption; there’s little real stigma placed on a woman who gives up a child for adoption (though most of these women would face difficulty in accessing adequate medical care if groups like Planned Parenthood are defunded by the right-wing) and I’d love to see the stats on how these women feel about knowing there’s a part of them living with others 5 or 10 or 20 years down the road.
Joseph West commented on Sarah Palin Calls Chick-Fil-A Boycott A Chill on Freedom of Speech, and Compares Herself to a Baseball
2012-08-02 14:00:21 -0400
· Flag
R L: I think everything Palin knows about the First Amendment would fit on the pointy end of the pin—a thousand times over.
Joseph West commented on "Devout Catholic" Eric Bolling Says God, Not Obama, Builds Roads
2012-07-30 14:32:27 -0400
· Flag
I’m surprised that Bolling had the audacity to brag about his “big win in AC.”
A lot of conservatives (those folks that FoxNoise likes to have as viewers) and especially religious conservatives (more of those folks that FoxNoise likes to have as viewers) deplore gambling.
A lot of conservatives (those folks that FoxNoise likes to have as viewers) and especially religious conservatives (more of those folks that FoxNoise likes to have as viewers) deplore gambling.
Joseph West commented on Fr. Jonathan Morris Continues Whitewashing Chick-fil-A's Homophobic Connections
2012-07-29 14:22:05 -0400
· Flag
You forgot to note that another reason why Fr Johnny didn’t take issue is that Catholic priests really love chicken.
(Anyone who doesn’t get that, go look up what “chicken” means in sexual slang.)
(Anyone who doesn’t get that, go look up what “chicken” means in sexual slang.)
Joseph West commented on No Democratic Guests On Fox News Sunday Again
2012-07-29 14:19:05 -0400
· Flag
You know, this article is kind of falling into the “Dog bites man is not news” category.
Let’s turn this around to the “man bites dog” and only report when FoxNoise DOES have Democratic guests on FNSunday. (To put it into the “rabid man bites dog” category, I suppose we’d have to wait until the Dem is a real Dem—one who doesn’t sit back and agree with most of the FoxNoise agenda.)
Let’s turn this around to the “man bites dog” and only report when FoxNoise DOES have Democratic guests on FNSunday. (To put it into the “rabid man bites dog” category, I suppose we’d have to wait until the Dem is a real Dem—one who doesn’t sit back and agree with most of the FoxNoise agenda.)
Joseph West commented on Cavuto: I'm Beginning Not To Recognize The U.S.
2012-07-28 17:12:13 -0400
· Flag
Well, in fairness to the dork, I already don’t recognize the US, thanks to selfish so-called conservatives like him. Maybe “We the People” should demand that Congress, for just 5 years, raise the top tax rate back to the 60% or so range it was when Richard Nixon took office (but with an adjustment so that rate only kicks in on people who “earn” more than $1,000,000; IMS, the top rate back then was applicable to those earning over $200,000 or $250,000).
Put all that revenue to trimming the deficit without slashing programs to the bone. It CAN be done. The GOPers want to gut social programs that only account for 5% of the total budget while boosting the defense budget by 15%, and then demanding even more cuts for the social programs to “pay for” the “necessary” defense budget.
Put all that revenue to trimming the deficit without slashing programs to the bone. It CAN be done. The GOPers want to gut social programs that only account for 5% of the total budget while boosting the defense budget by 15%, and then demanding even more cuts for the social programs to “pay for” the “necessary” defense budget.
Joseph West commented on Charles Krauthammer Runs Out Of Adjectives Slamming Romney's 'Olympics' Gaffe
2012-07-27 16:05:52 -0400
· Flag
Something that just occured to me about Mitt’s little Olympics gaffe: Wasn’t the Salt Lake City Olympics game a WINTER Olympics? A contest which hosts fewer countries with fewer athletes competing in fewer games? And Romney STILL needed government money to help make it possible. (Oh, and on that, I remember reading where someone pointed out that Romney—I want to say during that Games’ opening ceremonies or just prior to the Games—spoke to the athletes and noted how none of them had gotten there without help from others. Basically, the SAME speech that Obama gave about business—the speech that the right-wing has gone bonkers over.)
Joseph West commented on Utah GOP Fundraiser Accused Of Multiple Rapes - Fox News Ignores?
2012-07-25 15:47:08 -0400
· Flag
Why would anyone think FoxNoise would care? FoxNoise doesn’t believe rape happens (unless, as pointed out, the suspect is a Democrat) to innocent women. I’m guessing they haven’t figured out how to slut-shame the women bringing the charges so they’re keeping it hush-hush. Once blowhard Limbaugh determines the best way of blaming the women, FoxNoise will fall in right behind (and every woman at FoxNoise will be reminded—once again—of exactly WHY they were hired; brains have nothing to do with it).
Joseph West commented on Bill O’Reilly’s Heated Debate With Rep. Chaffetz On Stricter Gun Laws – But Don’t Call It Gun Control
2012-07-25 15:32:50 -0400
· Flag
As W Mace pointed out, it’s really the NRA leadership that’s causing the trouble. Maybe there needs to be some sort of grass-roots movement within the NRA, a “Take Back Our NRA” kind of thing, from the membership which genuinely does believe that sensible gun laws aren’t some sort of demonic liberal UN-sponsored plot,
I’ve read a number of gun owners posting on other sites who have, unfortunately, spent time spinning the NRA’s position even as they say there’s a need for sensible gun laws.
And, of course, there’s this right-wing nutcase view that we shouldn’t even be discussing gun laws after such tragedies (not just the Aurora shootings, but here in Alabama, there was a mass shooting in Tuscaloosa a couple of weeks ago; I’ve got a feeling it would’ve gotten far more national attention if the shootings had happened during a major Alabama football game). But that’s exactly the time. There’s been too much accomodation of the NRA so that the politicians wait and wait until tragedies have passed and the feelings have been smoothed over and, by that time, no one wants to talk about sensible gun laws.
(And, of course, if the shootings had been done by some Mexican-supported gangbanger in LA or El Paso or Phoenix, who wants to bet that Issa would be calling for heads and linking it with his Fast & Furious “investigations?”)
I’ve read a number of gun owners posting on other sites who have, unfortunately, spent time spinning the NRA’s position even as they say there’s a need for sensible gun laws.
And, of course, there’s this right-wing nutcase view that we shouldn’t even be discussing gun laws after such tragedies (not just the Aurora shootings, but here in Alabama, there was a mass shooting in Tuscaloosa a couple of weeks ago; I’ve got a feeling it would’ve gotten far more national attention if the shootings had happened during a major Alabama football game). But that’s exactly the time. There’s been too much accomodation of the NRA so that the politicians wait and wait until tragedies have passed and the feelings have been smoothed over and, by that time, no one wants to talk about sensible gun laws.
(And, of course, if the shootings had been done by some Mexican-supported gangbanger in LA or El Paso or Phoenix, who wants to bet that Issa would be calling for heads and linking it with his Fast & Furious “investigations?”)
Joseph West commented on Got Hypocrisy? Brian Kilmeade Uses Children For GOP Political Agenda
2012-07-24 16:16:42 -0400
· Flag
I’m really not going to dignify a FoxNoise report by watching the clip so perhaps someone can explain to me how it supported the FoxNoise meme of how Obama was wrong in what he said?
While the notion of a couple of kids operating a lemonade stand sounds cute, I seriously doubt the kids did it “all on their own.” At least one of their parents had to have “loaned” them the cash to start up the business (lemon and sugar don’t exactly come free, and it’s a pretty safe bet that the kids aren’t paying the family’s water bill). Then, of course, there’s the stand itself. I’m sure the kids got a little help in putting it up (even if it was no more than a parent’s inspecting the stand to make sure it wasn’t going to fall apart from the weight of the lemonade pitcher).
Wait. What’s that you say? It’s one thing for parents to help out but an entirely different thing for others (ie, government) to help? Well, most of these little stands are set up near a road or alongside a sidewalk, and those things are rarely—if ever—built by “parents” by themselves (that’s a case for others—or, the government). So, if the road or sidewalk didn’t exist, how would these kids attract their customers?
Then, there are the customers. Unless all the customers are relatives of the kids, I’d guess the kids would be out of business without “others” coming around to buy the product.
So, all in all, it sounds like the report simply proved Obama’s comment to be true. (Then again, the right-wing took Obama’s comment completely out of context. If FoxNoise reported the actual facts, instead of the facts they want to report*, they would’ve had to find some other way of attacking Obama.)
*FoxNoise’s REAL motto: We report (what we want to report), you decide (if what we report is even close to the truth).
While the notion of a couple of kids operating a lemonade stand sounds cute, I seriously doubt the kids did it “all on their own.” At least one of their parents had to have “loaned” them the cash to start up the business (lemon and sugar don’t exactly come free, and it’s a pretty safe bet that the kids aren’t paying the family’s water bill). Then, of course, there’s the stand itself. I’m sure the kids got a little help in putting it up (even if it was no more than a parent’s inspecting the stand to make sure it wasn’t going to fall apart from the weight of the lemonade pitcher).
Wait. What’s that you say? It’s one thing for parents to help out but an entirely different thing for others (ie, government) to help? Well, most of these little stands are set up near a road or alongside a sidewalk, and those things are rarely—if ever—built by “parents” by themselves (that’s a case for others—or, the government). So, if the road or sidewalk didn’t exist, how would these kids attract their customers?
Then, there are the customers. Unless all the customers are relatives of the kids, I’d guess the kids would be out of business without “others” coming around to buy the product.
So, all in all, it sounds like the report simply proved Obama’s comment to be true. (Then again, the right-wing took Obama’s comment completely out of context. If FoxNoise reported the actual facts, instead of the facts they want to report*, they would’ve had to find some other way of attacking Obama.)
*FoxNoise’s REAL motto: We report (what we want to report), you decide (if what we report is even close to the truth).
Joseph West commented on Liz Cheney And Hannity Suggest Iraq’s WMD’s Are In Syria – So Maybe We Should Start A New War!
2012-07-24 09:43:39 -0400
· Flag
It’d be nice if people would stop and think for just a minute about what crazy dictators say.
With Saddam, none of the nitwits in charge really believed there were any WMDs; it was all an excuse. IF Saddam really were sitting on a massive cache of WMDs, why would he have bothered trying to move any of them when he knew he was being threatened with invasion. It’s not like Saddam really gave a rat’s ass about “his” people; he’d already shown his willingness to sacrifice a village here and a village there for the smallest imagined slight or opposition to him. Why would he willingly just sit on his “greatest deterrent” when his country’s being invaded a SECOND time?
As for Assad, again, the man has already been responsible for the deaths of thousands of his subjects via bullet and mortar shells. Why would he deliberately wait until “foreign” forces attack before using these alleged WMDs? And this little uprising has been going on for a year and a half. He’s willing to let his army run through their conventional arms but NOT make an example of a particularly uppity town and just use part of that “WMD cache” of his? Assad’s putting on a show and there are idiots (unfortunately, with too much pull for their position) who are willing to fall for it.
With Saddam, none of the nitwits in charge really believed there were any WMDs; it was all an excuse. IF Saddam really were sitting on a massive cache of WMDs, why would he have bothered trying to move any of them when he knew he was being threatened with invasion. It’s not like Saddam really gave a rat’s ass about “his” people; he’d already shown his willingness to sacrifice a village here and a village there for the smallest imagined slight or opposition to him. Why would he willingly just sit on his “greatest deterrent” when his country’s being invaded a SECOND time?
As for Assad, again, the man has already been responsible for the deaths of thousands of his subjects via bullet and mortar shells. Why would he deliberately wait until “foreign” forces attack before using these alleged WMDs? And this little uprising has been going on for a year and a half. He’s willing to let his army run through their conventional arms but NOT make an example of a particularly uppity town and just use part of that “WMD cache” of his? Assad’s putting on a show and there are idiots (unfortunately, with too much pull for their position) who are willing to fall for it.
Joseph West commented on Sean Hannity Waterboard Watch: 1188 Days And Counting
2012-07-24 09:23:19 -0400
· Flag
Now truman, only if they’re golden.
(Please. I really don’t want to have explain that.)
(Please. I really don’t want to have explain that.)