Happy Birthday Yahoo Serious

Yahoo was born on this date in 1953. I haven’t seen Young Einstein since it came out. Has anyone seen it recently? Does it hold up? In case you were wondering, Yahoo is still doing movies, and he hates Yahoo! because he claims they stole his name.
Plagiarism is a form of flattery some say. Well maybe in some cases, if carried out by other artists. But a bunch of marketeers have destroyed the uniqueness of a name. They’ve blanded it, McDonaldised it! Worse actually. There were hundreds of thousands of people in the world called McDonald. There is only one person called Yahoo. There is only one real Yahoo and no amount of mass marketing can ever change the facts or the history.

53 thoughts on “Happy Birthday Yahoo Serious

  1. Well, if a movie that is simply awful when it was made and still is awful 25 years later qualifies, then this movie “holds up'.

    1. Bob has gone so schizoid that it's just no fun anymore debating him. It seems as though JMP has more than adequately replaced me, however as Bob's official “foil.”

  2. BMT, as usual, PJ has nothing to say beyond the usual insults and personal attacks. He's been hiding out from me lately because he doesn't want me reminding him that he confidently predicted that the surge in Iraq was doomed to failure, and also that he categorically stated on numerous occasions that the Iraqi war was totally and completely lost, and could never be won. If I had screwed up that badly and had that kind of track record, I would hide from myself too, and I wouldn't want to debate myself anymore either. Well, whatever, you know what I mean

  3. Just for the record Yahoo! stole the name from Gulliver's Travels, Swift describes the Yahoos as vile and savage creatures, filthy and with unpleasant habits, resembling human beings…..

  4. You mean, like Bob.

    And despite the wild mischaracterization of my position by Bob, the fact is that we are still mired in Iraq, with almost 5000 American soldiers killed in vain over a war that never was in American interests. What have we “won” Bob? Was it worth a single man or woman? Was it worth the cost in money and the effect on our economy? Did it have anything to do with 9/11 or WMD? Why are we there?

    Just keep mouthing the Linbaughian crap and leave me out of it.

  5. Oh, and now we're back to the old slander that I just mouth Limbaugh's opinions. The fact is that we have won this war by every imaginable criteria, despite your oft-repeated predictions to the contrary, and also, not incidentally, no thanks to such defeat mongers such as you and other fellow travellers, including, incidentally, the current disgraceful president of the U.S. Just like you, he would prefer that people forget his constant refrain about an unwinnable war and the inevitability of defeat.

    And, yes, the outcome has been worth the cost. We are no more “mired” in Iraq than we are in any other theatre of critical American interests now or in the past. We had hundreds of thousands of troops in West Germany for decades. We had tens of thousands in South Korea for decades also. In return we have overthrown a terror state that was a constnat source of concern and a constant threat to our security and that of the rest of the world, as well as liberated about twenty million people from a totalitarian dictatorship. We have established a fledgling democracy against all odds in an inhospitable part of the war. And the successful outcome of the Iraqi war has dealt a major defeat to al Qaida, and what will probably turn out to be a turning point in our war against them and other Muslim extremists. The successful conclusion of this operation will also serve to help undermine the Islamic totalitarian dictatorship in Iran, which is beginning to self-destruct and will, I am convinced, ultimately collapse.

    And you probaly should keep quiet about the monetary costs of the war. You complaine constantly about relatively small deficits, but have had no criticism of deficits five or more times as large. We could have paid for the Iraqi war about a half a dozen or more times over with the huge deficits being run up by your hero, Obama, deficits which will accomplish little for our economy and country other than serve as payoffs to favored Democratic special interest groups.

  6. You are wrong about everything you wrote. If you actually think that a long term presence in Iraq is similar to such a presence in Europe and Korea, you not only are uneducated, but simply mouthing neocon bullshit. We are in the middle of an ongoing civil war and the historical records of the US and Britain in that area shows it is nothing similar to the other areas. Al Qaida was not present in Iraq when we invaded, so saying we have dealt a defeat to Iraq is the old, “we had to destroy it in order to save it” argument. And this war has strengthened Iran rather than weakened it. If the mullahs fall, it will be to a totalitarian military and not to anything we did.

    And to equate trillions for an unnecessary war to a stimulus package needed because Bush screwed up the economy so badly is criminally insane.

    Go live in your world with the wingnuts Bob.

    1. Uh, the “stimulus” is stimulating little and was not necessary, and moreover the country has begun to wake up to that fact. And any “screwing up” of the economy done by Bush is dwarfed by the massive harm already done to our economy by the community organizer in chief and chief prevaricator. The scary thing is that he's just warming up.

      “Wingnuts.” My, what a clever retort.

      1. BTW, genius, if the Iraqi war was and continues to be such a huge mistake, why did not the great hopeychanger begin an immediate withdrawal the moment he assumed power. Why are we still there? And why since Gitmo is such an outrage and a human rights disaster does it still remain, and will probably continue to remain, open? Why are such things as warrentless wiretapping, indefinite detention, etc. etc. allowed to continue since they amount to a “shredding” of our constitution? Bush is long gone, but these and similar outrages for some inexplicable reason continue. Could it be because the left is full of shit. Once again the complete lack of logic in your pronouncements is on full view.

    1. Hey, John, if they are “outrages,” why are you and PJ not outraged that they are continuing under Obama? If we are dealing here with unconscionable activities and our constitution was “shredded” by Bush, why do you not consider that “shredding” to be continuing under Obama? He has in piecemeal fashion pretty much adopted and continued each and every facet of the Bush national security program. But no outrage from the left. No cries of war crimes. Maybe as I mentioned above, Dems are full of shit. Maybe they're only outraged by things when the other party is in power.

      And if the Iraqi war was and continues to be a disaster as well as immoral and illegal and all the other bullshit charges that we heard unceasingly from morally superior lefties, why hasn't it ended? Why didn't Obama immediately withdraw from Iraq? Why didn't he immediately close Gitmo? Does one have to slowly disengage from disasters and unmitigated evils? Does trashing and shredding the constitution have to be slowly wound down? Please explain.

  7. What continually amazes me is that people who have viewpoints that differ from the mainstream are considered 'wingnuts' and much, much worse. Democracy is democracy for the simple reason that multiple opinions are tolerated and considered. Anything else is well, totalitarianism. I think those who differ with Bob would have him off to the gulag or at the very least, brainwas, er, reeducation training. Heck, some of your would kill him. (I think at least one of you has offered that lovely sentiment.) That is, at the very least, unattractive. Why not at least give another opinion a respectful argument and honest challenge. No one is entitled to having the 'right' opinion.

    1. Good to see you again Andrea defending the King of the Wingnuts. Thing is that you have everything backwards. If you are a doctor performing a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, you are subject to murder. If you are a country western singer who voices her opposition to a war of aggression, you are a traitor and have your records banned from about half of the stations in the country. If you are an African American lawyer with credentials from the best universities in the nation running for President, you are not an American citizen and people at Sarah Palin rallies openly call you names that are unfathomable in this day and age.

      Really too bad that progressives call guys like Bob “wingnuts.” Lots of equivalency there.

      1. Uh…so who is it that is speaking in favor of killing abortion doctors? Me? Andrea? As for the country western singers in question as well as all the other celubutards who criticized the war, they are rather relentlessly celebrated and praised for their great courage, to the point of nausea, rather than ostracized. Meanwhile in the entertainment industry and other career fields such as academia, there might as well be signs hung up that say “No Republicans or Conservatives Need Apply.” And some people get upset about the fashionable leftist views of some ditzy entertainers and people such as you consider it evidence of McCarthyism or fascism or some such bullshit.

        As for the African-American you referenced who ran for president, well, you might have noticed that he won. And I might point out that during the entire time he was running and up to the present moment we've had pretty much the entire mainstream media relentlessly kissing his ass and celebrating him every time he does anything from scratching his balls to reading a speech from his omnipresent teleprompter. Barack Obama is definitely not being persecuted by the media. And if some people don't agree with bleating sheep such as you that he's the greatest human being in the history of the fucking world, than I suppose in a fucking demiocracy you're just going to have to accept that. If you can't, then maybe you should move to someplace where criticizing the head of state isn't allowed. Maybe North Korea or Iran.

  8. I guess I am the only one here that understands you can't go to war in a day and you can't end a war in a day. it takes a long time to build up to a war,150000 troops and equipment, and even longer to end one. what you think they they can all be teleported home?
    as for gitmo it is a base we lease from the cuban goverment. I think you are referring to camp delta where the prisoners are held. the problem is where to put them. no one wants them i their back yard. you can't teleport them.
    i hope this finally answers your questions and gives you a broader view.please no i don't have to resort to profanity. tho i do need a spell checker.

    1. Yes, John, but then we're not withdrawing from Iraq in defeat. If so, we would be out of there by now. The fact is that Obama has basically adopted the Bush game plan for Iraq. Which kind of brings one around to the conclusion that the war wasn't an unmitigated disaster and a lost cause as PJ and as Obama maintained. Otherwise, as I've pointed out, we wouldn't be there any longer, and we wouldn't be following the Bush game plan.

      Your grasp of the obvious about the prisoner camp at Gitmo is rivaled only by that of our current Commander in Chief. No, we don't have anywhere else to put them. Other countries don't want them, our own country wants nothing to do with them. We can't bring them here because of legal, constitutional issues, and we can't try them in civilian courts, also because of legal issues as well as security issues. All of which were positions taken by the Bush administration, and all of which are positions which our morally superior C in C, who relentlessly criticized Bush and still continues to do so– I wonder when he is going to realize that blaming your predecessor for all your problems is a political strategy with a very limited shelf life, that appeals to a very limited number of Americans, beyond PalestraJon, of course– all of which, as I say, are postions which have been adopted by the Obama administration. So Obama maintains a morally superior attitude and criticizes his predecessor's approach, but nevertheless Obama can come up with no acceptable alternative plan. Good work, Mr. President.

    1. I appreciate your support, Andrea.

      As for any sort of rational, logical or evenhanded response to your link from PJ, don't hold your breath. His outrage is very selective. Some people at a Sarah Palin rally somewhere months ago say something derogatory about the guy he has a mancrush on and he's hyperventilating with outrage. I assume he's talking about somebody throwing out the “N word.” He draws all sort of illogical conclusions from this occurence and tries to tar the entire Republican party because of it. Meanwhile, both you and I, as well as Palin, McCann and the vast majority of Republicans would denounce such speech. But PJ, on the other hand, has no problem with the outrageous attacks on Sarah Palin. Far from being denounced by most Democrats and the media, these sort of personal attacks on her and her family– attacks which even included mockery of her handicapped child– were actually encouraged. No problem for PJ with that sort of thing. No sirree. Those people are throwing shit in the right direction. He is a hypocrite.

      1. Like most others of your ilk, Bob, there is no discussions with you. The FACT is that every act of domestic political violence since the 1970s comes from the right. The FACT is that attacks on free speech come overwhelmingly from the right, and that 8 years of the Bush administration's attacks on our constitutional rights have made it almost acceptable. As for Palin, you give me a single example of any moderate or left wing writer or media commentator (i.e., not a blogger) who personally attacked Palin. You won't find one, notwithstanding that she used her kids as props, thus warranting any attack.

        You create straw men and then use the straw men as your examples…the Fairness Doctrine bs that you threw up previously being a perfect example.

        You are wrong about everything, yet contrary to what Andrea says, I have no problem with you spouting your ignorance. It just gets tiresome to me. So go ahead and trumpet your “victory” since talking with you is like talking to the North Vietnamese at the Paris Peace Talks.

        1. So I suppose attacks on the Obama children, and perhaps their dog also, will be acceptable to you because those children are also used as props. Your nonsense about domestic terror attacks always coming from the right is also wrong. You forget minor things such as the riots in Seattle, not to mention the Brinks armored car robbery by Obama's Weathermen buddies. Selective outrage again. I'm sorry, shithead, I'm not going to take responsibility for crazies because it fits in so well with your bigoted world view. The left has its full quota of assholes too.

          I also just love the constant bullshit about Bush's attacks on the constitution. As I pointed out to you, the Bush national security program has basically been reendorsed and continued by Obama. But we can be sure that there will be no charges about “shredding” or “trashing” the constitution concerning these ongoing security programs now that your mancrush is president.

          Imperial Presidency? Executive power grabs? We've now got a president who has taken over large parts of the banking industry as well as the auto industry and now wants to absorb the health care industry into his Democratic party empire. No Imperial Presidency there. No way, man.

          Baa! Baa! Baa! Better go hang out with the rest of the bleating Obama flock of sheep. I can hear them calling you now.

          1. BTW, genius, DEMOCRATIC TALKING POINTS, such as your assertion that attacks on free speech come only from conservatives, do not become facts simply because you use capital letters.

          2. Bob, you never provide facts except when you make them up. For example, the Brinks Robbery was hardly domestic terrorism. It was a robbery and police shootout….and it was 1981. The “Seattle Riots” were organized protests against the WTO (mostly from the right–against Globalization) but it wasn't violent.

            How can you live with yourself mouthing off talking points and then accuse me of what you are doing? I challenge you to provide facts and you make it up or just spout Limbaugh show rhetoric. You are an automoton Bob—no independent thought at all.

      2. Once again, bob shows that he lives outside of reality. No one mocked Palin's handicapped child – she accused people of doing so when it didn't happen. But, he lives in a different world than the rest of us; this is a man who denies the reality of global warming and supports teaching creationism in schools, so he has a tenuous connection with reality.

        You also claim that liberals must support Bush's shredding of the constitution because Obama has continued it. Uh, have you noticed that most liberals are really pissed off at Obama for doing so? That, plus his handling of gay issues and, yes, lack of withdrawal from Iraq. But no, in bob-land liberals all worship Obama and blindly support everything he does, just like conservatives in the real world did with Bush.

        And Obama is getting attacked by the media all the time – he's a Democrat, of course the media hates him. Supposedly mainstream places like CNN hire far-right hosts who espouse the ridiculous rightwing conspiracy theories (of course, the same thing happened in the Clinton years). Now, the media is attacking him for saying something true – that a cop who did something stupid, did something stupid. But of course, this is media land, where calling out racism is treated as worse than actual racism.

        The conservative movement, though, has really come unhinged since Obama's election. Just look at the tons of racist “jokes” spread about Obama, the teabagging parties, the birthers' conspiracy theories, and the claims that Obama is taking away Americans' freedoms without any evidence, or even an argument, to back it up. And bob is an example of that. You know, he really might want to look into getting some professional help for his anger management problem.

        1. I really wish you would stop making up lies about me. As I pointed out to you before, what I oppose is the left wing agenda relating to climate change and the attempt to stifle any sort of rational debate about our approach to it. If you think that the recent cap and trade bill that passed has anything to do with fighting climate change, you're the one who is separated from reality.

          I have never supported or endorsed in any way the teaching of creationism in the schools. That is simply an out and out falsehood. You are a liar if you say differently.

          If you maintain that CNN has a right-wing slant, you are being ridiculous. Or else you are so far to the left that you're in danger of falling off the earth. I suppose Castro or the North Korean Communist party would argue that CNN is right-wing. Most of us here in the U.S., probably not.

          Palin's handicapped child was mocked by various left-wing bloggers. Thankfully, such outlandish and outrageous types of attacks would be denounced by the majoruty of Democrats. Just as the majority of Republicans would demounce racial insults hurled against Obama and killing abortion doctors.

          If you read PalestraJon's post above, however, you might notice that he is not one of those mainstream Democrats who would denounce mockery of a handicapped child. He defends such attacks.

          Sorry that Obama has disappointed on the gay rights thing. He has a lot on his plate these days, what with trying to take over the health care industry.

          1. Bob, you have said before that there is disagreement among scientists about climate change – which is just not true. There is uniform agreement among climatologists that the Earth is getting warmer, and that it is because of human activity. So, yes, you have been spreading lies about global warming.

            You also previously supported the teaching of intelligent design, which is creationism. Although you tried to claim it was different, which once again is not true. So yes, you support creationism.

            Note that I have not called you a liar; I have said that you spread lies, which you do, but I do think that you probably actually believe those lies you spread; you are an unhinged idiot, but not a liar.

            CNN is very right-wing. Hell, how the hell could they continue to employ Lou Dobbs, an overt racist and conspiracy theorist, if they weren't? There are only two actual liberals on television news, and both just started in the last few years – and note that their network has a reputation as the liberal network, even though it continues to employ conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough and Cris Matthews.

            Who mocked Palin's child? And I mean, actually mocked the child – photoshopping a radio host's head is mocking that host, and Palin, not the child or the handicapped. Is there any liberal blogger who has actually mocked Palin's son? I know of none. And yeah, I would denounce such mockery – had it actually happened. But since it hasn't, there is nothing to denounce. Similarly, David Letterman's joke about Brisol Palin, while tasteless, was not about rape or about an underage girl.

            And yeah, I hope health care reform works. This country has the worst system in terms of outcomes while spending the most money in the entire developed world, so I would like to see this shit fixed.

          2. All right, I'll go through it all once again. I stated previously that creationism is not the same as intelligent design. It isn't. I do not care if a court in Dover, PA said that teaching IT amounts to trying to sneak creationism in through the back door. You are twisting the legal opinion rendered in that case and applying it in a way that makes no sense. To say that a belief that there is an intelligent being in the universe, a God, who is directing the univwerse, His creation, a belief which is held by many people both Democrats and Republicans, is definitely not the same thing as the teachings of the people who are generally referred to as “creationists.” Such people believe that the earth was created in seven days. They promulgate such idiocies as dinosaures wearing saddles, because Genesis states that man was given dominion over the animals and since a literal Biblical chronology necessitates man inhabiting the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs, than man needs have established primacy over the dinosaurs.

            Need I say, JMP, that I do not believe such nonsense. Let us indeed talk about setting up strawmen as your buddy PalestraJon accuses me of doing. You seem to have to believe that your political opponents are idiots. I am not. You yourself would have to be an idiot to believe that I believe such things. Despite the many manifest flaws in your thinking and argumentation, I do not believe you are an idiot. So why do you find it necessary to misrepresent my statements and lie– yes, indeed lie– about my beliefs.

            I remember telling you in a recent post that I have read numerous books about evolution and human origins. I am fascinated by evolution. I am, needless to say, not a creationist. I also do not believe in intelligent design. I told you that before. I do not believe in God. I am, in fact, an atheist. I never in a million years would say that I support teaching creationism in public schools. So why do you insist on lying about my beliefs? I've told you these things before. Why the lying? What is it other than lying?

            I might also point out in passing that many Democrats, who according to you and PalestraJon are by defintition intellectually superior to Republicans do, in fact, believe in intelligent design. Many believe in God. And, yes, many are creationists. If I attempt to have respect for people's religious beliefs, and not mock them for their religious beliefs, it does not follow that I subscribe to each and every one of their religious beliefs. Why is that so fucking hard for you to grasp? I can only conclude that you have some psychological need to dismiss people who don't agree with your political beliefs as idiots.

            As for the global warming issue, just recently there was a scandal about the EPA attempting to silence a scientist who questioned the officially promulgated data about the earth's temperature. The fact– yes, indeed, fact, dear JMP and dear PalestraJon– is that the earth's temperature has not been rising in recent years despite large increases in carbon emissions. Without going into a lot of detail, there is nothing cetrtain or definite about global warming models. They are coming under increasing attack by many reputable scientists. If you have missed this, I suggest that perhaps you don't get out of your little left-wing ghetto enough. Yes, global warming is not an established fact despite the heroic efforts of Al Gore and the left to make it so. Global warming as promulgated by politicians is politics not science. If you doubt that, you are naive. Even if the arth's temperature were indisputably rising, bullshit legislation such as the recent Waxman Markey bill will have no measurable impact on it.

            It's nice to know that would denounce mockery of Palin's handicapped child. Yes, such mockery has occured. Don't be dismissive of this and then turn around and give me anecdotal tales of Republicans making racist slurs about Obama. I give you credit for some consistency at any rate. Thanks for that. I mean that's kind of the bare minimum here and I shouldn't have to thank you, but I will anyway. That asshole PalestraJon is on record as saying that such mockery is acceptable because Palin deserves it.

  9. can you type anything with out using profanity??? there was a gentleman at the palin going away speech with a sign that said “thanks for the laughs” . he was bombarded with gay bashing. the funny thing is the guy was not gay and married. go figure huh?
    btw sarah palin 2012 to 20141/2

  10. I also love how PJ accuses Bob of spouting right wing political ideology while spouting left wing dogma is all he does. I guess it just depends on what side you're on; obviously PJ is right becaust it fits into the mainstream. Just give me some examples of independent thinking in PJs rants. You hear all of it over and over in the press, the blogs, the Bill Mahers and the rest of his ilk, and on and on and on. I agree with Bob. Baa baa baa. Sheep.

    1. Ok Andrea, give me an example of any left wing dogma I have spouted? Being against the war is hardly “left wing.” Being against internal surveillance, torture and concentration camps is hardly “left wing.” Being against politicizing the State Department, FBI and CIA is hardly “left wing.”

      The fact is that we have no real left wing in this country. There are two capitalist parties favoring the corporations who give them the most money. One, in my opinion, goes further to support purely monetary interests, but our system disqualifies anyone who does not kowtow to those interests. That's why I never got too upset when a Ford or a Bush I took office—just knew it would be more of the same.

      Bush II was different. Without an electoral mandate, he radically changed what had been a national consensus as to the use of force and our military and weeded out the longstanding internationalist view of our State Department (most of whom were life long Republicans) in favor of an asinine “US against the world” philosophy that mired us in endless war, which not only made us the most hated nation on earth, but also one of the most threatened. Those who protested were me with the Himmlerian retort that they were unpatriotic, and Bush, more than any other President, improperly combined his partisan political agenda (Rove sat at cabinet meetings) more than any other. It became Red vs Blue, not what is in the American interest. War favored the Republican Party so we remained at war.

      So think about what you are saying when you post your blind support for Bob. He spouts dogma. I do not. What Bush did is strongly opposed by a large majority of the nation's voters for good reason. I can live with his domestic policy and wait for the next President. His foreign policies (and how he attempted to pay for them) are the worst in American history, and I would feel that way were I a Republican as well.

  11. I call what you write dogma because it is the same stuff, all the same stuff, coming out of the sources I noted and many, many more I don't need to outline here. You know them. We can quibble over whether your point of view is left-wing or not, but my point did not involve that. I just wanted to point out that I saw nothing original in your writing. I've heard it all before ad nauseum. I really don't want to discuss the fine points of left-wing thinking and to what degree of the left you represent.

    We still do have a capitalistic economy; both our major political parties still center on market-driven values. But I see you would prefer we get away from them. I do agree that Bush wandered away from true economic conservatism….prescription drug coverage, etc. You should have approved of that.

    Do you think Rahm Emmanuel sits in cabinet meetings? Are you sure Rove did, or was that some sort of left-wing slander. I'd like to know for sure on both counts, but does it really matter? Both/all presidents rely/relied heavily on their chiefs of staff.

    1. To further support Andrea's assertions about PJ's left-wing dogma, I will point out that his entire third paragraph above is a collection of left-wing and Democratic talking points without any outside objective support. For example, that Bush fostered an “us against them” mentality in his approach to the world is not a “fact,” but rather an opinion advanced ceaselessly by the left. And to maintain that Bush “politicized” policy any more than any other president is simply another unsupported prejudice, one that was once again relentlessly trumpeted forth on the left. PJ's entire anti-Bush schtick is, in fact, just one long unsupported litany of left-wing talking points. It has little to do with “facts”; much to do with left-wing propaganda.

      Bush won the election of 2000. That people such as PJ refused to accept the outcome of that election does not detract from iota from his legitimacy. At any rate, his reelection in 2004 was by a comfortable margin, and cannot be disputed by any rational observer If there had been any sort of longstanding “national consensus” that Bush had upended, the nation had an opportunity to reject his approach in 2004. They did not. Perhaps this “national consensus” PJ is babbling about exists only in his mind, or in the minds of like thinking (or like non-thinking) individuals.

  12. Andrea, you are truly wasting your time here. I spout dogma; PJ does not. I get my opinions from Rush Limbaugh and vomit them back; his spring fully formed from his great intellect without being influenced in any way by what he might read or listen to. I am wrong; he is right. I am a bigot and narrow-minded; he is tolerant and accepting. We can all see that. It is self-evident. Just read his posts.

    Of course, just to give one example of how PJ's assertions are undermined by the facts, we need only look to the above exchange about racial insults directed at Obama and mockery of Sarah Palin's handicapped child. I denounce such attacks on Obama. But our tolerant and broadminded PJ can't even bring himself to admit that mocking a handicapped child is outrageous and unacceptable. He defends such attacks.. She was asking for it, he explains.

    I suppose this sort of approach to discussion must have something to do with being an ambulance chasing lawyer. Attack, attack. Concede nothing. No matter how self-evident or reasonable the assertion, concede nothing. Any concession of any sort might chip away at that injury settlement, and your resultant fee. Incidentally, isn't it just a happy coincidence that PJ's Democratic party affiliation jibes so well with his occupation? It's nice to have a bunch of politicians firmly in your pocket, like our attorney friends so evidently do.

    I mentioned above that the left has its full quota of assholes. By refusing to even make the obvious concession that mocking a handicapped child is unacceptable behavior, I think our ambulance chasing friend PalestraJon has pretty effectively demonstrated that he is one of those assholes.

    1. You are completely insane. Really. Once again, creating strawmen. You know nothing about me Bob.


      1. Did you or did you not refuse to agree with the simple assertion that is unacceptable and an outrage to mock a handicapped child? Did you or did you not state that Palin brought this on herself, that she was asking for it? I'll give you another chance here. Simply repeat after me: “It is really uncool and beyond the bounds of acceptable political discourse to mock a handicapped child to score cheap political points.” Go ahead. Give it a try. You can do it. You can rise above the level of being an asshole.

          1. I am not insane like you Bob, sitting around drinking and waiting for the next message. Nonetheless, I said nothing of the sort. Try reading you moron. All I said is that no left wing commentator attacked Palin or her kids—like you, it is the creation of the strawman and then use that as your evidence. My comment about using the kids as props was to show that she made them public figures and when you do that, you bring on the consequences of being a public figure—such as ridicule. I never said anything about her children or that it was morally acceptable to criticize the handicapped kid. You are incapable of abstraction and I thought you were more intelligent than you apparently are. And then to declare victory when I don't respond in your timeframe (while the alcohol still was flowing)? Pretty funny.

          2. “As for Palin, you won't find a single example of any moderate or liberal writer or media commentator (i.e. not a blogger) who personally attecked Palin. You won't find one, notwithstanding that she used her kids as props, thus warranting any attack.”

            There are so many problems with those two sentences, which I quote verbatim, that one doesn't know where to begin. But I'll try.

            First of al, you complained about people in the crowd at some Palin rally using racial slurs. But all of a sudden you change the subject to “moderate or liberal writers…” You won't find any “moderate” Republicans or conservatives, or probably even any “immoderate” ones, throwing around racial slurs. I regularly read a number of conservative publications and I have never come across any. I pointed out that if there are people throwing slurs at Obama, there were also people throwing vicious slurs at Palin. So you suddenly switch to mainstream writers and moderators, and “moderate” commentators. That's kind of like saying that you won't find anybody who isn't an asshole making personal attacks on Palin or her children. Which isn't all that different from what I said.

            Your statement about no such people attacking Palin isn't even true. There were vicious personal attacks on her and her family in mainstream publications, i.e. the NY Times, and from mainstream TV and radio people. While not a political commentator, Letterman's personal attack on Palin and her kids on national TV is just one example. Do you really maintain that these sort of atacks weren't regularly made. What about that supercilious overgrown school girl Maureen Dowd and her regular slurs and insults about Palin? What about that sanctimonious simpering asshole Frank Rich? Bill Maher? The list goes on and on. Conversely, there were no racial slurs that I'm aware or heard any reports of coming from Fox news or even from talk radio.

            So if you're going to include bloggers and unnamed people at obscure political rallies in your complaint about people who mouthed slurs about Obama, you don't get to restrict the group to only the mainstream people in my complaint about attacks on Palin. As I point out, that isn't even true. Many of those mainstream people launched pretty vicious attacks.

            Palin no more “used her kids as props” than any other politician. When was the last time that we had a presidential or vice-presidential candidate from either party whose children and family weren't out on the stage during the convention. You're going to tell me that we're not treated to endless photo ops involving Obama's two girls. (The man can't even get a dog without it becoming a major news item and the source of asinine adulatory news items. I can recall no such coverage of the Bush dogs.) Like every other facet of the media's Obama coverage, the adulatory over the top coverage of his family goes on to the point of nausea. And even if Palin abused the privilege of putting forth her children, which she didn't, that would not justify personal attacks on children. Especially handicapped children. Sorry. It would not. No. Not at all.

            And you did excuse mockery of Palin's handicapped child. “…thus warranting any attack.” What the fuck else does that mean if not that any such attack was “warranted.

            I'll try once more, PalestraJon. Repeat after me: “It is unacceptable and beyond the pale to mock a handicapped child for cheap political purposes.” Go ahead. It won't be hard. And you can redeem yourself and rise above the level of an asshole who maintains that it's acceptable to mock handicapped children.

          3. BTW, PJ, you know nothing about me. You picture me sitting around drinking and waiting for posts from you and listening to Rush Limbaugh. Not hardly. Despite such blots on the landscape as you and Obama, I manage to lead an active and pleasant life. My alcohol consumption has become very moderate, if for no other reason than health issues. I doubt if I could find Limbaugh's program on the radio, even if I wanted to. I no longer have a functioning TV set because of that switchover business. I do not have cable. I do watch TV when I'm at my girl friend's house, especially when I'm exercising.

            Go chase one of your ambulances, or curl up with your copy of The Nation and switch on MSNBC, and leave the psychology and medical diagnoses to the professionals.

    1. Kristy, you are skirting around my point. If Republicans mock handicapped people, I denounce that. If Republicans make racist slurs about Obama, I denounce that also. In this, I differ from PalestraJon who is outraged by racist slurs against Obama, but finds mockery of Palin's handicapped child to be defensible, because, as he explains, she deserves it. I find that to be rather inconsistent. Do you not find it to be inconsistent also?

      The whole thing reminds me of a recent debate in which I promulgated the rather obvious point that a belief that the U.S. government created the HIV/AIDS virus in a lab as a means of genocide against the black population to be a rather ignorant belief. PalestraJon refused to concede the point. His reasoning seemed to be that such a belief is held by many black people, and, is therefore acceptable. Moreover, the majority of thes black people are registered and vote Democratic, and, therefore, such a belief is even more acceptable for that reason. And, at any rate, those black people are not registered and do not vote Republican. They are, therefore, by definition intelligent, since Republicans are by definition unintelligent. We went round and round, but I could not shake him from his strongly held belief. I do sincerely hope that you are not an idiotic asshole like our friend PalestraJon has demonstrated himself to be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *