Opaque Lucidity

» Hydrocodone. from Buy hydrocodone.
Hydrocodone. [Read More]

Are you calling people who live in KY Asshats?

No, I'm talking about the people at the polling place in the story. Keep in mind, I was born in Kentucky and I still work here. I only spend my evenings and weekend in the Promised Land (say it with me now...Innnnnn-Deeeee-Annna)

Posted by: Matt_D at November 7, 2006 03:11 PM

That news story is something else-- assault!?!?

And about the electronic voting machines being SOOOOOOOOOOOOO complicated... I live in a little podunk town with a population of 2,000. There wasn't a poll worker there under the age of 60. And everything went smoothly, no problems. That's just crazy that the workers wouldn't be properly trained on the machines in advance.

Posted by: Christy at November 7, 2006 03:59 PM

So apparently the house is now in control of the democrats. I'm not gloating, but I am relieved that a semblance of balance has been reinstated. I make no secret of the fact that I'm diametrically opposed to the Bush administration, but I wouldn't want the democrats to have complete power either. Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that's exactly what we've seen with this administration. America is in serious trouble, but as long as there are two parties, the fundamental tenet upon which this country was founded is not yet dead: checks and balances. (The separation of church and state is another one, but apparently neo-cons never learned about that one.)

Despite Matt's earlier post about the evils of polling, his predication of the outcome of this election was exactly in line with the polls. Furthermore, this poll-driven predication has been, thus far, borne out by the election results. Apparently polling isn't completely irrelevant.

Matt also said that conservatives don't talk to pollsters as much as democrats due to their superior sense of privacy. Why is it then, that this administration has done so much to curtail privacy and freedom, and yet you continue to support them? From having your public library selections reported to the feds, to warrant-less wire-tapping, Americans have lost fundamental rights to freedom and privacy during this administration. Osama wants us to have less freedom, and Bush responds by limiting our freedom? A true conservative would not support this administration.

The same goes for Bush's unquenchable quest for extra powers. Has it not occurred to you that, if Hillary (or any democrat) becomes president in 2008, that they'll inherit the extra power that Bush has acquired for the executive branch? Does that not concern you?

I’m critical of both parties, but I simply cannot understand the logic behind Bush supporters, despite the fact that I have pro-Bush friends that are, quite frankly, more articulate than the Bush supporters that frequent this site. So, if you respond, please do so with something other than recycled Sean Hannity one-liners.

Posted by: nmexpat at November 8, 2006 02:48 AM

You have friends? Poor bastards.

Posted by: Matt_D at November 8, 2006 07:53 AM

What does balance mean without moral constraints?

"You have friends? Poor bastards."

Tsk .. Tsk.. Matt. Ad-hominem personal attack. Poor form my friend. I expect better than that from you. Refute points not personalities.

Then again, it's your blog.

Hash

Posted by: Hash at November 8, 2006 09:36 AM

Ad-hominem What is that???? Is that a word??? And if it is, please make the definition short and to the point. If someone doesn't question Hash he will come up with these things all the time. I am glad to see him respond with only 3 sentences though.

Posted by: Jomerica at November 8, 2006 10:32 AM

I got it Hash... it is ad hominem. no hyphen

Posted by: Jomerica at November 8, 2006 10:36 AM

Hash,
Go back and read his comment. He insinuates that we are inarticulate. Sorry, I don't value the observations of anyone who abandons the United States and goes overseas to live.

Posted by: Matt_D at November 8, 2006 11:02 AM

Jomerica,

Your post is the very definition of an ad hominem attack.

Sorry, I didn't meet up to your high standards regarding proper spelling and grammar on this blog. I will try harder to meet up to those standards in the future.

So while we are on the subject, here is an analysis of a few lines from your post.

"Ad-hominem What is that????"
The above is a fragmented sentence. There needs to be something other than just a space between the words "hominem" and "What". Absent a period or question mark, the word "What" should not be capitalized.

"????" Proper punctuation requires the use of only one question mark in sentences.

"I got it Hash... it is ad hominem. no hyphen"

The word "no" should be capitalized as it is the first word after a period. The sentence "no hyphen" is orphaned.

"If someone doesn't question Hash he will come up with these things all the time."

The above statement obviously implies that I repeatedly make stuff up. My offered opinions aside, I have always cited a source or provided a link to things I state as fact. If you have evidence refuting those facts, please provide them and I will eat my words. Other than your nauseating, incessant, personal attacks regarding the length of my posts, I have yet to see you come up with a single coherent argument refuting any of the points I make in my comments.

I take my integrity very seriously. You might want to talk to people that know me (such as Matt) before you make flippant comments about it.

I am well aware of the irony that you probably think this response is also too long.

Posted by: Hash at November 8, 2006 02:27 PM

Hash, I never think of your posts as too long. It is everyone else that is too short. :-)

To my pal nmexpat:
“So, if you respond, please do so with something other than recycled Sean Hannity one-liners.”

Certainly the high expectations of meaningful dialogue have been forged by you Nmexpat. One can only aspire for the notable inclusion to a more cerebral crowd that is “more articulate than the Bush supporters that frequent this site.” Despite the ostensibly and awkward usage of impressive adjectives, you ultimately failed to contribute anything beyond the redundant and exhaustive rhetoric of a contemporary political blog discourse. Perhaps you should conscientiously endeavor to become more articulate yourself. Then those of us who “frequent this site” could more easily grasp your lofty ideologies.

I am a bit perplexed by:
“I make no secret of the fact that I’m diametrically opposed to the Bush administration…”
Were you attempting to imply some opponents of the President are secretive or cautious in revealing their opposition? Am I to congratulate you for exercising the fundamentals of honesty? Should I suspect you of harboring other beliefs that shape your opinion yet remain a mystery? Yes, I am great proponent of those rare principled men who see fit to remain honest in a debate.

“The separation of church and state is another one….”
Are you proposing this is another “fundamental tenet upon which this country was founded”? My assumption is “this country” is a reference to The United State of America and not the country in which you currently reside. For future reference, you may want to refer to the U.S.A. as “that country” for sake of veracity and proper grammar. Forgive me, I digressed and must return to the point at hand: the separation of church and state.

Participants of this blog might genuinely disagree with my following comments. I respect and welcome any constructive discussions. According to my admittedly limited knowledge of American history and civics, it would be a grievous error to suggest our nation’s founders were advocates of today’s meaning and intents found in the phrase “separation of church and state.” After all, this phrase is not found in our constitution or any of its articles. In fact, Article I reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

In essence, government should not meddle in the affairs of religion. I have witnessed liberals champion the judicial efforts to abolish school prayer and the removal of Christmas holiday decorations and then perversely cloak their discriminatory behavior under Article I. In an attempt of appeasement for the easily offended, our government has violated this principle. Again, it should not make a law “respecting” or “prohibiting the free exercise”. It seems to me our government is guilty of respecting some religions and prohibiting others. Hence the yearly holiday news stories of the offensive baby Jesus receiving eviction notices.

So, Nmexpat if you meant there should be more scenes of baby Jesus in a manger on private and public property, then I find myself in agreement with at least one of your points of eloquence.

“Despite Matt’s earlier post about the evils of polling….”
I reviewed Matt’s earlier post regarding polling. I applaud you for the juvenile tactic of peppering your language with a word like “evil”. Nothing smacks of desperation like the deliberate exaggerations found in your own posting. I also admire the excessive use of the word “predication”. You truly are above reproach, you Olympian of debate.

“From having your public library selections reported to the feds…”
Does anyone else find it comical that nmexpat would have the expectation of PRIVACY in a PUBLIC library? Can you say irony? It is public in nature primarily due to funding resources are almost exclusively from taxpayers dollars. The public library is not a private institution and is not entitled to liberties of privacy from essentially itself! Patrons of public libraries with common sense heed the “public” in public library. Just as one has a limited expectation of privacy at a public park. Yet, nmexpat brazenly presents this as evidence of diminishing civil liberties. My, it is persuasive.

“Osama wants us to have less freedom, and Bush responds by limiting our freedom?”
Is this an area where you are once again making “no secret” as to how you feel? Or, is there something else you would like to imply, but you realize it would sound to fanatical? After all, the above statement is not too radical from: “Bush and Osama are colluding”.

“A true conservative would not support this administration.”
The pearls of wisdom and hypocrisy just keep coming. I am a bit reticent in relying on you to define what a “true conservative” should or should not support. My lack of confidence in your ability to speak on the behalf of “true” conservatives resonates from your own admission that you are “diametrically” opposed to the Bush administration. Golly, nice try pal.

“Bush’s unquenchable quest for extra powers.”
I was surprised that you passed on the opportunity to use the word “crusade”. Boy, now that would have been really good. You could have easily drawn parallels between the President and any number of history’s “other” megalomaniacs. Of course, outside of “public library” privacy loss (I keep laughing about that one) and “warrant-less wire-tapping” you offer no enumerated citations or examples to support this accusation.

“I’m critical of both parties..”
Am I to think more highly of your opinion due to the constant qualifiers you provide? “I’m critical of both parites, but…”,
“I’m not gloating, but…”,
“I make no secret of…, but…”
It seems to me there were a lot of buts in your manifesto. Nobody should be impressed by the ability to be “critical of both parties.” If someone prides themselves in this area, it normally indicates a highly partisan individual who simply wants to pass off their points as unbiased. In reality, both parties have serious short comings. The inability to critique both is indicative of ignorance.

Next time you post nmexpat, use a thesaurus, try not to exaggerate and consult with your “more articulate” pro-Bush friends to learn the basic mechanics of writing. Otherwise, your points of contention are simply crippled by your own lack of skill.

May God bless America and may God bless our troops.

Posted by: Travis at November 8, 2006 03:09 PM

Hash-
I meant I got it........ Didn't need a lecture. But yes I do think you repeatedly make stuff up...Your opinions. They are what they are.

Posted by: Jomerica at November 8, 2006 08:11 PM

Jomerica,

OK, if that wasn't meant to be an attack - I misunderstood. I'll get my underwear unbunched. As far as my opinions being "making up stuff", I thought that's what opinions were. So I guess I don't get it.

Oh well ....

Posted by: Hash at November 8, 2006 09:34 PM

Travis that post would be considered a blog buster.

Travis: Now _that's_ what I'm talking about. That's a response. Not a particularly concise one, but it's a good 'ole response where someone reads what you say and then responds. That's why I took a swipe at the folks on this blog. For a while there is was just me responding to Matt, and Matt giving me a one-liner.

I disagree with most of what you said, but that doesn't matter. It's good to have a debate. That's what I'm here for. I hope to see you post more in the future.

Posted by: nmexpat at November 15, 2006 12:11 PM