Sunday, March 18, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
the daisy rules
- Oopsie Daisy
- Everyone is welcome! The only real rules here are no spamming shit and no posting personal addresses, phone numbers or other similar info. I don't need that kind of stress. That's it, although it could change if someone gets creative or something. If you don't like what is said here, you can: 1) Say so; 2) Hold it in and stew on it; 3. Address it privately to the person who said it; 4) Snark about it to your friends; 5) Leave. Don't bother me with it, I don't care and I won't get involved. I might, however, talk about you behind your back or post your email/message to me on here. *grins* Them's the rules...all of them. Have fun!
do something good
See how Sope Serigne Fallou Group from Senegal and Nuevo Camino Group from Chile doing and check Kiva out for yourself!
84 comments:
It must be Sunday :)
OMG that is a dirty dirty trick to play on those old folks....do they even know what it actually means to be caught ridin dirty?? Any of the meanings of ridin dirty??? YIKES!!!
Shannon, I know! I was so tickled...I know my mom would have no clue. How cute were they, though? And back on the old post, you said "And that people are even asking that makes me want to give them a proverbial (and maybe literal) smack upside the head."...agreed. Seriously, if you are nursing, why would you put *anything* in your body that wasn't necessary? And why would you consider putting anything in your body that you'd not be willing to put in your baby's body? Stupid fucks.
String, are you gettin' hot in herrrre? ;-)
Reminds me of a coven chanting :)
Sheeeeit. I hope those people know what they're doing. If they don't, I would smack that director a good one. And I hope they get paid if they do realize. At least that would be better than thinking they are some new church songs :-O
Covens all over the world just cringed.
Oh, I'm pretty sure they know exactly what they're doing. Most of 'em look pretty sharp..it's still cute as hell, though. :-)
Hehe.
Think I'll stick with "If You're Happy & You Know It" again this week :) ... clapping along ...
String'll have us doing the Hokey Pokey next.!
So quiet today...hope everyone had a great weekend and that it carries into the week. :-)
Yahhhhhh the Hokey Pokey :) ~!~ * ~!~ * ~!~ :)
You put your right foot in ... ??? ... ???
Lol, I feel like we ought to turn the lights off and just go home, String.
Yeah, fretting and pouting will not get any conversation going...
Didn't you mean to get all political in here?
Alternatively I could bitch and moan about MWoP again. I've just read a little over there and my day is made. As usual.
- Somebody checked w/ Oreo if JM is in fact sponsored by them? That shit again?
- People really would not let their kids on 'playdates' at JM's? Seriously, thoughts? Would you not let your kids 'go there'? One even said she might not let her kids play with JM's brood at all.
Well, they there, Kate! I think this isn't a political bunch but for a small handful, sadly enough, but I do have a sort of political question in a sec.
To answer your questions, knowing what I know now, no, I'd have not let my young child have a play date at Jennifer's unless I was there, too. I'm no helicopter parent, but my own feeling is that she leaves the kids unsupervised way too much as it is and would few a new playmate almost as a babysitter, something new to keep them occupied while she does her own thing. I couldn't care less about her house possibly being dirty or my kid being told they don't use certain words (good for her on that, even if I don't agree with what should or shouldn't be said) but I feel as if it's a household where the kids could easily egg one another on to do something dangerous and without her present to stop them. But playing with her kids in general? At my house or in a public place? I'd have no trouble in the world with it and I sort of feel sorry for any kid whose mother is so damn overly-protective they'd not allow it.
The Oreo thing? Are people really that bored?
SO, sort of pertaining to politics...what do y'all think of the Obamas letting Malia go to Mexico over spring break? She's 13, btw, and is with no family. I've heard one report she's with a school group and one that she's there with friends, so not sure on the specifics but from a parental point of view, would have let your 13 year old kid go to Mexico these days? Would having 22-25 (!!) secret services members with her make a difference to you? And from a citizen's point of view, what do you think about what this trip has to be costing? I can't find a specific dollar figure I'm comfortable as being accurate yet, yet, but I'm looking. Also, what do y'all think about how, shortly after the media broke the story, the media just as quickly "erased" the story until the earthquake hit, then it's being put out there a bit again. Obviously they were made to remove the story...do we have a right to know she's there and what it's costing us? I say yes, but am curious about the rest of you.
Personally I'd never set foot in Mexico but she's going on a school trip and I can't see that as a bad thing. And frankly I think it's costing us next to nothing. Compared to the crap we should worry about. I don't know why people focus on the piddly stuff and don't focus on the real money drainers in this country. One child on an educational trip to Mexico (which by the way why should her life end because her dad is president?) means nothing in the grand scheme of money that's being "wasted" in this country.
So I'm in the no camp. Because I know it's not worth knowing. The amount is probably less than 1% of the government spending that is already done. Stopping these children from going on educational trips isnt' going to save our economy. It's misplaced priorities.
Ok, in general: I find the Obamas to be way too pop culture. A ton of things that they do and officially let out to the public bothers me a great deal.
It pretty much started with the green water in the White House fountains on their first St. Patrick's day and it has gone downhill since then.
A POTUS appearing on Leno? Why is the president doing the entertainment circuit like a reality show famewhore? And even worse, namechecking the Kardashians?
So this latest debacle doesn't even disturb me any more. No, I wouldn't agree to a 13 y/o having 'springbreak' with a bunch of buddies.
But initiating a media white out once they noticed a backlash is again so... real housewife of wherever. They should be using their power and influence for more dignified causes, IMO.
And yeah, that's before I start factoring in the taxpayer's bill for that trip.
Pamala,
What I don't agree with about the argument 'there are bigger fish to fry' is that when it comes to misappropriated funds there shouldn't be any 'either ... or'.
Just because I disapprove of the funds paid to accompany the girl's group 'securely' doesn't mean I lose sight of bigger wastes of money.
When it is brought to my attention I can be annoyed about it without re-arranging priorities.
I agree with Kate in that yes, this is a far smaller waste of money than a whole laundry list of other things, but that doesn't mean it still isn't a complete waste. You say it costs us next to nothing and yet there are now figures of $20 million a day, broken down, it's costing taxpayers for her to be there. Are those numbers true? No clue...we'll find out the truth in time but it really doesn't matter that there are bigger wastes. This is not her parents' own personal money; if it was, I'd not object a whit. This is taxpayer money and before it gets dismissed as a drop in the bucket quite so easily, think of how much those millions (and it will be a cost of millions) of hungry people that would feed. And I mean in our country. Think of the food banks it would stock. Think of the teachers or law enforcement we could hire. Think of the lives that could be saved or made at least far better medically with that money. Shit, think of the jobs we could create with it or the homes that could be saved. And instead, it's being spent on a 13 year old school girl to go to Mexico with her friends? Really? That's shameful as hell, imo.
Same thing with the cost of Michelle appearing on Letterman. Hey, if she wants to be on Letterman, whatever. I don't find it to be very dignified but why in the hell not tell Letterman she'd love to but he will need to come to them? The cost savings to taxpayers would be huge, I'm sure he'd be honored and jump to do it...win, win.
Hell, Nixon was on Laugh-In.
I think a lot of our presidents have been on a TV show at one point in time or another. Obama certainly isnt the first. And I am fairly certain that White House children have had Secret Service for more then a school trip to Mexico. Not really why it is such a big deal with it being Obama or his daughter.
Technically, Nixon appeared there before he was elected.
And no, lots of presidents have not been on a TV show. Very few did during their candidacy, but not as elected officials.
Bush did Dr. Phil, but he did what Lisa suggested - he let the show come to him.
It's not a big deal, just the general image that I dislike. When the president's family is engaged in a slugfest with the Kardashians it feels so ... undignified.
Disagreeing with taxpayers money being spent for such trips is not focused on Obama though. That is a general issue I dislike.
There was some hoopla about the Bush twins as well - but that was made public only after they'd left the White House.
Not saying it is such a big deal, but, again, when brought to my attention I disagree with it.
I don't like *any of our presidents or first ladies appearing on shows like that while in office. It's just me, my own preference, I know, but I prefer to see them on news-type shows or more health-based things like Dr. Oz. That said, I actually do like Michelle Obama as a first lady.
Shannon, my big deal with it is that as our president and first lady, they need to set an example for our citizens and be respectful of the people who they serve. When we have hungry children in this country, truly hungry children who are homeless, it reeks of eliteism (new word? yay!) and arrogance to send your *13* year old off on a spring break trip to a country the rest of us have been warned to not go to and then expect us to pay millions for it. I'd feel this way regardless of who was president right now. If you want your kid to make the trip while our country is not only broke but overdrawn, then you need to pay for every single damn penny of it yourself. Do that and I don't give a shit.
"It's not a big deal, just the general image that I dislike. When the president's family is engaged in a slugfest with the Kardashians it feels so ... undignified."
Yup, exactly, And I also had issues with things the Bush's did. Laura made trips with those girls that were uncalled for and our country was in better shape when it happened. Hell, I had an issue with most everything the Bushes did, as I think of it. Look, I get that our president and first lady have to travel out of the country at times, or even all over the place within our country...if they're going, they may as well take the kids and grandma with them. I can't imagine it costs much extra, if anything, at that point, you know? But this? Was just tacky-assed as hell, and in so many ways. And I admit, I just can't stop thinking about how many people they could have helped with that money, life-changing help, had they just said, "Honey, you're 13 and too young to make a spring break trip to Mexico. That's for college kids" and given that money to food banks, instead. And yes, I know they couldn't have just handed the tens of millions of dollars over to food banks since, you know, it WASN'T THEIR MONEY THEY SPENT, but still.
1. This isn't a Spring Break trip. It just happens to be they are going during Spring Break. She isn't on vacation. Maybe that's why I find this hilarious. She's on a humanitary trip. Yeah, here we are bitching about a girl going down to Mexico to help people and learn things. I don't know, that does seem kind of petty, don't you think?
Not even remotely petty since there are so many people who need help and so much to be learned right in DC. And a 13 year old, on a humanitarian trip. Please. I call bullshit on *that. Now, speaking of bullshit (not aiming that at you, btw), yesterday the White House confirmed she was there on vacation. Vacation. They used that word. Then, after all the backlash and hoopla, they're calling it a "service project" through her school. Yeah...bullshit. By the way, you can check her school's "service" events for this month and a trip to Mexico isn't listed. I guess they just forgot, hmm?
I think we're bitching about the necessity of having said girl accompanied by 25 agents to ensure her safety. At least that's what I'm doing.
The press called it a spring break trip and that they're sightseeing. You're the first to mention that she's there to 'help people'.
Regardless, if Mexico is considered so dangerous that a single girl needs to be protected by 25 trained security experts that are paid for by the taxpayers, Obama should have stopped this.
As her father and as head of the Nation.
All things that Lisa has already said aside - I don't think that the girl is hurting for opportunities to learn and help.
Her father's position brings plenty of that with it. And if they're accepting the perks of this they need to suck it up and take the responsibilities as well, IMO.
"I think we're bitching about the necessity of having said girl accompanied by 25 agents to ensure her safety. At least that's what I'm doing."
And at taxpayer's expense, yes...exactly. If her folks wanted to foot the entire bill for her going, hey, have at it. Not my business, and I'd not care.
Lisa,
I guess I should have said 'I was only aware of the hoopla with the Bush twins afterwards...'.
To be honest, their father got me so distracted with other crap, I never got around to bother with those girls.
Plus, I got turned off by the scrutiny they received for underage drinking early on. That put me a little in their corner, because I felt that they were really at a bad age to be thrown into the public eye.
Ha! I love how you're doing your research, Lisa.
As long as you can back up our bitching with facts, I'd say have at it!
"their father got me so distracted with other crap"
Isn't that the damn truth? I do think it would be hard being a teenager in the White House, and for many reasons. It's such a sensitive time anyway, and to spend it under such scrutiny? Remember all the crap poor Chelsea Clinton got over her looks? I always felt so sorry for her back then.
I'll never understand the argument that because people here need help, others don't deserve it elsewhere (by the way I heard it was a service trip when it first broke, and maybe that's because I've heard of these trips before so I thought nothing of it). I also will never understand the you can't do a vacation if the rest of the world is suffering. Also I don't think these children's lives should effectly end because their father is the president.
Say this is a vacation. Should they never go on vacation again? All because I may be freaking poor and can't afford it?
Is that how we should live? Until everyone is "equal" and can all pay for a kick ass trip to Mexico (although I'd never set foot in that hell hole) should no one ever go to Mexico?
Or does this only apply to politicians?
And I'd say this no matter who was in office. I hated the BS that was said about Bush and his "vacations" What Vacation? The president doens't fucking vacation.
I just don't believe that life has to stop for politicians and their families because some people in this country may not have it as good.
Isn't that wealth envy or whatever the hell they call that?
Pamala, I'm not sure why you aren't understanding the problem here...I don't care if it's a vacation. I don't care if it's a humanitarian trip. I don't care if she's there running damn drugs as long as her folks pay for the whole damn thing. I do care when *taxpayers are footing the bill. I care that our government is broke, as in no money, in the hole, overdrawn, in debt to other countries, whatever else you want to call it and that we've got kids here hungry and homeless and we're cutting Medicaid and Medicare for our elderly, yet one particular child, and I don't care who that child is, is on a vacation to the tune of millions of dollars. I really don't give a shit what kind of money they have...some people have more, some have less and that's how it's supposed to work. I totally understand that our president needs to travel to foreign countries for the job we hired him to do and that it's expensive...I don't care if he drags the wife and kids along once in awhile and calls it a vacation for them since the additional cost is so minimal at that point. No one is talking about their life stopping or that they should be homebound to the White House for 4 years. I'm talking about sending a 13 year old on an unnecessary, very expensive vacation that has nothing to do with our government and it coming not out of her folks' pockets, but the pockets of our citizens. Maybe that clarifies it for you?
"yet one particular child, and I don't care who that child is, is on a vacation to the tune of millions of dollars."
Let me clarify, just in case...millions of taxpayer dollars. If they want her to vacation to the tune of millions of their dollars, more power to 'em. It's not my business what a person does with their own money.
Yeah, I was working on a similar post.
My take:
If public money is being used I prefer to see a public benefit.
I'm currently not seeing the benefit for the US in having a tweenie gawk at Mexican ruins.
Well, Kate did that so much better than I did and with far fewer words.
"Remember all the crap poor Chelsea Clinton got over her looks? I always felt so sorry for her back then."
I remember it, but I think she was at a luckier age than the Bush girls.
At 10/11 she could still be sheltered to some extend. And having grown into it (as much as it's possible) by the time she really starting to become her own individual self. Being 18/19 is a way more, like you said, sensitive time. And also an age where you're much more aware.
And people expect more from you.
No envy from me, trust.
and with far fewer words.
Thank you. Think I'm coming down with something?
I don't care if he drags the wife and kids along once in awhile and calls it a vacation for them since the additional cost is so minimal at that point.
Exactly.
But I do drag it out if somebody wants to paint the current discussion as me denying Molly Schoolgirl to do as everybody else in her class does and have some cultural exposure.
Can't have it both ways.
And on top of that I also have the slight issue with the 'do as I say, not as I do' aspect.
It chips away at credibility, IMO.
I have something to bitch about.
I hate when someone complains about a job, a company, or makes some sort of radical or inflammatory statement, and then gets in some sort of trouble, then people start screaming about the right to free speech.
Yes, we have the right to say whatever we want, without fear of IMPRISONMENT or death, but that doesn't mean there are no consequences to what you are saying.
Does this make sense?
Julia
Julia,
Yes.
String
"Thank you. Think I'm coming down with something?"
I hope so, since I like you most when you're all wordy. ;-)
"And on top of that I also have the slight issue with the 'do as I say, not as I do' aspect.
It chips away at credibility, IMO."
Of course it does and with any leader, be it a parent, teacher, boss, priest or president. it's particularly worse, though, when he's our employee.
And that makes perfect sense. There are still rules in certain places that must be followed. It doesn't mean you can't still say what you want to say...you can. but there may be repercussions. I've never understood things like people bitching about their jobs anyway. If it's so bad, go find a better one. Can't find a better one? Then be thankful for the one you have.
"that doesn't mean there are no consequences to what you are saying."
Yeah, that.
Although I probably have a higher tolerance for things that others find radical or inflammatory.
Calling a spade a spade is kinda outlawed by now.
"I've never understood things like people bitching about their jobs anyway. If it's so bad, go find a better one. Can't find a better one? Then be thankful for the one you have."
That is a beautiful concept that doesn't really stand the test of reality, IMO.
There are people who are thankful for their jobs, need them, work hard at them and still need the occasional outlet for frustrations.
It's all a question of context, I think.
Julia, is there a good story behind this?
"I hope so, since I like you most when you're all wordy. ;-)"
I'm gonna take this as a nice compliment & say thank you. Ignoring the fact that you've just wished a disease on me...
Rule number one of the Internet or even in public, don't bitch about your job. It's stupid.
As for the president and his daughters, they have to use tax payer money. There's no way around it. He can't say that he will foot the bill (because believe me I bet he would, he wasn't poor before he became president so I can't imagine he's poor now.) But a President can't say don't use tax payer dollars. Logistically it doesn't work.
So we can complain but until there is another system in place that allows a president to foot the bill with his own money rather than requiring him to use the services which are provided, there's nothing we can do about it.
Ack, no disease-wishing, I promise. It was a compliment!
And look, I agree about standard complaining most everyone does from time to time. that's just being human. I was thinking more in terms of the people who just talk/post absolute shit about their employers non-stop.
"Calling a spade a spade is kinda outlawed by now.:"
Damn shame, that. We have to cave to the seeeeensitivvvvve types, though, so their feelings don't get hurt and so they don't perceive anyone else's are hurt, as well.
Pamala,
But we can agree that when it comes to justifying this expense, he put his family's interest before his country's, non?
Lisa,
Yeah, I took it as such, again, thank you!
"so they don't perceive anyone else's are hurt, as well."
Now, that's the part that's really killing me.
It'll come to the point where we've brought us all down to the lowest common denominator. So that nobody ever will feel inferior ever again.
Misplaced self-esteem and entitlement will rule and peace on earth.
And now excuse me I have to go spy on my neighbors.
"Damn shame, that. We have to cave to the seeeeensitivvvvve types, though, so their feelings don't get hurt and so they don't perceive anyone else's are hurt, as well."
Now you know what I find this to be too hilarious for so many reasons.
Two of my best friends who happen to be in a relationship and who happen to be gay were actually having a discussion about people who get all offended for other people. Such as using the word 'fag'.....neither of them could give a shit about it unless it is used in a manner that it is obviously being used in a derogatory manner. They have a couple of straight female friends who will get completely bent out of shape if you say it. The gay guys....you know the ones who should be offended....are in fact embarrassed by the behavior of their offended female friends who will never know what it is like to be a gay man and be called a fag. LOL
But we can agree that when it comes to justifying this expense, he put his family's interest before his country's, non?
^^
Yeah and I see no issue with that. Because his family does have to come first sometimes.
Longtime reader.
Yes...sometimes his family has to come first. That's why he should take them on his own official trips; it's a damn fine learning experience. But. How about thinking about that before 25 charging round trip tickets to Mexico, plus accommodations, for the Secret Service agents that must accompany her? Or, alternately, sending an official plane to transport them all, at taxpayer expense?
How about sending her to do service in one of our in-need areas, such as Compton or Washington Heights, NY or Appalachia? Not as glamorous, but lots cheaper. And keeping it in-house would be nice, too.
Mexico would still be there in 14 years, if she's desperate to go do service learning there (the President's family now only has Secret Service protection for 10 years after the Pres leaves office, rather than lifetime protection). Hell, if the economy is better in 2 years, I wouldn't have a problem with her going then.
It's nice that you don't have issue with her going to Mexico, Pamela, but those of us who are constantly defending Obama's actions and paying our taxes rather than taking "spring vacations" or service trips with our own families are allowed to be ticked. Your assessment is short-sided.
"Yeah and I see no issue with that. Because his family does have to come first sometimes."
Of course, which is why I'm not objecting to SS escorting them to and from school, friends' houses, etc. Lol, not 25, but the cost of driving his kids around during day to day activities in a special, secure car with a couple of SS agents each? Totally understandable. I'm just curious...can you see the differentiation we're making now between this kind of thing and the Mexico vacation?
"It'll come to the point where we've brought us all down to the lowest common denominator. So that nobody ever will feel inferior ever again."
Yup and the sad part is, if you don't feel inferior to some degree, you have no incentive to better yourself. If you don't better yourself, you won't get ahead in life...it becomes a bad cycle aimed at bringing us all under government control, imo. And damn, I just sounded like Jesse Venture. I'm sorry.
Sorry I just can't see it. Never got it when Bush was in office, never will get the complaints while Obama is in office, and should Romney (hopefully) win the damn election, I won't get it when people complain about what his family does. I'm an equal opprotunity not getting it person. :) LOL!
On a side note, MckMama is going to be traveling again. Fuck, for someone drowning in debt she sure seems to have a shit load of money. Guess that's what happens when you refuse to pay your bills.
"On a side note, MckMama is going to be traveling again. Fuck, for someone drowning in debt she sure seems to have a shit load of money. Guess that's what happens when you refuse to pay your bills."
Well, that's what Obama is doing, on a larger scale, with other people's money. And you are complaining about what she, MckMama does, after saying you can't understand why people complain about what other people's families do.
If you can't make that connection, you just aren't very bright. Sorry to have to be the one to point that out to you.
Welcome in, Longtime Reader. :-) And the reason she didn't stick around the US for her "service trip" is because it wasn't that at all. But wouldn't it have done Obama a lot of good had she gone to help build a Habitat house or something in one of the areas you mentioned? Also, to revisit something Pamala said earlier, I do know people all over the world need help, but the ol' "charity begins at home" adage is a good one. Also, I read and interesting article yesterday...y'all might find it to be so, too. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-white-savior-industrial-complex/254843/
And, Pamala, I swear I'm not trying to pick on you, but what *I don't get is why you're okay with Jennifer McKinney's. What's the difference, as you see it?
I guess I should have read ahead but least I asked more nicely, lol.
IDK I actually see it as no matter what the President, whoever it is, does it is on the tax payers dime, and it will be for as long as they live. I dont see it as being the President, per say who has the determination as to how many Secret Servicemen surround his family members either. I mean think about it they are with them no matter where they are whether they want them or not. The SS guys are already paid for all expenses and salaries out of US taxpayer dollars.
I guess I just dont see the whole thing. I mean Obama is paid with tax payer dollars....as his salary. The SS is paid with tax payer dollars to travel with and protect the President and his family....and the President even after he is no longer in office. I guess I just see it as money that has already been earmarked and spent. The only real thing I can see that is a pissy part is the fact that our govt is telling US citizens to stay out of Mexico and yet the President's daughter is there.
Personally I am a lot more pissed off about how someone gets away with shooting down a 17 year old in the street killing him in cold blood and being able to use "self defense" as a reason to not be prosecuted.
Shannon, presumably the Obamas had money from before he became President. And he's earned his salary. I don't care how he spends his personal money, which he has earned in his capacity as President. I wouldn't care if she went on an actual service vacation (which I believe this is not). I would prefer it to be in-country, but fine. I am not mentioning that I think it is completely inappropriate to send a 13 year old, any 13 year old, to Mexico on spring break; that is their family's decision, though I do find it a poor one and one that I would NEVER make. I do care about the 25 SS agents who are now in Mexico as well, at taxpayer expense, boosting Mexico's economy, not our own.
Shannon,
"I mean think about it they are with them no matter where they are whether they want them or not."
Yeah, but that's the point here.
Her standard security is 2 agents I guess.
That's absolutely justified and nobody challenges that. It's because they're with him and we want to avoid all peril that comes with that.
If she is considered safe enough with those 2 agents she can go study in Darfur for all I care. As soon as she requires extra for a private excursion, it's no longer a justifiable expense.
And don't get me started on that Zimmerman drama! Seriously.
That brings out my Florida-phobia in full swing.
I don't know what to say because I'm apparently not so bright. But apparently because the country is in the shitter, no president shall ever again be able to take a vacation. I hope that standard holds true no matter who's in office. Us non-bright people, like to focus on the real important shit, you know as pointed out, the man who can kill a boy and walk off scott free, the lack of appropriate healthcare to children in this country, the lack of jobs in this state. The piss poor education system. No instead lets focus on a week long vacation that's less than 1% of the budget of the US. Lets forcus on that instead please.
C'mon Pamala.
Don't dwell on stuff that's not worth it.
I think we're mostly still talking about this because we're not getting a consent here. Whatever is said, you seem to argue about a slightly different point. That's kind of unsatisfying, IMO.
I take it your opinion is that any private trips for the first family are justifiable expenses for the taxpayer?
And Lisa asked: "can you see the differentiation we're making now between this kind of thing and the Mexico vacation?"
And Lisa & Anon both pointed out that what JM does is comparable to this situation and asked:
"Can you make this connection?/Where do you see the difference?"?"
Because if you do and simply insist that the president is above all and we should stop being petty, then that's that. I don't agree with that, but at least I knew we're SEEING the same thing. Just have different opinions.
(Being my usual nit-picky self I need to point out though that you're shooting yourself in the foot by saying you're concentrating on bigger problems. Because it was brought up again as a comparison to your anti-JM's travel remark. Not what I would call the real important shit.)
"Us non-bright people, like to focus on the real important shit, you know as pointed out, the man who can kill a boy and walk off scott free, the lack of appropriate healthcare to children in this country, the lack of jobs in this state. The piss poor education system. No instead lets focus on a week long vacation that's less than 1% of the budget of the US. Lets forcus on that instead please."
I am refraining from running SpellCheck to point out that nowhere in your argument for the President spending massive amounts of taxpayer money for his 13 year old daughter to go on Spring Break did you mention any of those pressing issues. Not to mention that the average thinking person can have opinions on all of those subjects. Don't be disingenuous.
Oh. Sorry. Don't be nitpicky.
Wondering what it's like over at bullies.
::whistles a happy tune::
Whoah. I just read up on the Trayvon Martin case, and am shocked! I don't know how I missed this news, but just found out about it by reading here. I truly can't believe this is really happening in the United States of America. I wish there were some sort of petition I could sign, or protest I could go to.
And Pamala: I agree with you on the Obama stuff. Seems like I might be the only one, LOL. Wonder how long before Kate lets me know how wrong I am :)
Julia
Dang Julia you been hiding under a rock??? LOL
That whole thing is just so f'ed up and honestly I see the pics of that kid and I see my son the only difference in those two boys...skin color...but everything else it could have been my kid ya know? I just hope that there is something that the parents are able to do if the justice system finds that nothing more then a civil case can come of this because of the twisted wording of this law.
Shannon,
I guess I have! I don't know how I didn't know about this case. I love a good injustice story, it gets me all riled up...I found an online petition that has over 1.4 million signatures being sent to the Feds demanding prosecution, and I signed it.
The whole thing is effed up. I'm a proud gun owner and NRA member, and people like that douche make us look bad.
Julia
You rang?
Actually, I don't go around and tell people their opinions are wrong.
What I do is to tell people they got their facts wrong. Or I tell people how much my opinion is different.
Well, I guess that makes you kind of wrong here, eh?
For me the scariest part in that whole 'stand your ground' law is that the rates of justifiable homicide have tripled since the law was passed, according to statistics.
You can't tell me that people are not seizing their chances to literally get away with murder...
That is just crazy to me Kate. I mean knowing that the NRA is so supportive of this law in fact makes me sad. I know that they are big on being able to carry a weapon and to be able to use it if needed but I think that they should be doing a serious push to separate what is actually justifiable and what is excessive and flat out murder. There needs to be a line, a very well defined line.
With 'justifiable homicide' rates tripling it clearly shows that the law is being abused.
Yep.
And I'm afraid that whenever you don't have a sweet 17 y/o to make national news, those newly 'justifiable homicides' are not looked at too closely.
You had to defend yourself? Alrighty then, carry on & good day.
Yeah. I think that this case is going to seriously open people's eyes....or at least I hope it does. I sincerely hope though that what should be important isnt lost in the race fight in this. I mean yes it is an important part of what happened but it is not the bottom line of what happened. They need to pull up all of the cases since it was enacted and examine what happened in each and every case. Was it really justifiable or were you the aggressor or an aggressor who just happened to be the lucky one to live?
I live about 40 miles from Sanford so we're especially inundated with the Trayvon story and it's horrific that Zimmerman hasn't been arrested yet. What especially amazes me is that I know of no one who disagrees, who doesn't think he should be arrested and some of them are people I actually expected to try to make some excuses for him. That speaks volumes, imo, that across the board, people are pretty damn unified on this and that oddly, it's really serving to forge closer and better relationships between races. Usually something that this divides but Trayvon's legacy is going to be one of unifying races in the very wrongness of this. I hope his family is able to find a little peace in knowing their son's name will always be attached to something so incredibly good now.
I will say, the Stand Your Ground law really hasn't had the degree of problems statistics show. For the record, I'm pro-gun, I own guns and I had serious doubts about this law when it was first passed. I worried about some Old West scenario happening. What's really happened is that yes, people have killed those who directly threatened them and who, in the past would have, instead, killed *them. In many of those cases, for every win of a justifiable homicide case, we most probably lost one murder case. Statistics don't tell that side of the story, but those cases show the actual success of the law. That said, this case is a shining example of why the law, while it works better than expected and is being skewed by the media and others right now, needs refinement. It 8can't have loopholes or "outs" and right now, it does.
Also, the media is reporting that the police chief stepped down today...that's inaccurate. He is temporarily stepping aside and the PD doesn't want to discuss whether or not he will continue to draw a salary during that time. It was nothing but a show by a bunch of white good ol' boys who were scared shitless of all the black people invaded poor little Sanford tonight. *eyeroll*
"I don't know what to say because I'm apparently not so bright."
Oh, lord, stop. One person who won't even use a real made up name said that so don't act like it was a group decision...that annoyed me enough I couldn't even focus on the rest of what you said until I commented. Besides, I'm making a guess here but I bet most of us won't waste the amount of time we have responding to you if we thought you were not bright, because what would the purpose be in that?
I dont personally like guns but I do believe that people should be able to have them. As the saying goes...guns dont kill people, idiots with guns kill people....if they didnt have a gun they would just find another way to kill people----history shows us this.
I do believe that there are instances where this law is very good to have...I mean if you are being held and knife point or something and have a gun...shoot the SOB ya know? If you are in a fist fight with someone else dammit either keep it to the fists or give up.
I am glad to hear though that there in the heart of where this is going on it is not becoming a race war.....unification in this. And not even so much with the law but in getting justice for this kid and not letting a murderer get away with it.
"Wondering what it's like over at bullies.
::whistles a happy tune::"
Well, it's not PORNolicious, I know that much. Nor are they having interesting discussions. :-)
The rally tonight in Sanford was just amazing in how good it was. Rep. Corinne Brown, a black lady with a bit of history in making negative racial comments, made a special and deliberate point of introducing Sanford's mayor, Jeff Triplett, a whiter than white man, and making it clear that *he is the one who released the police tapes the department didn't release and that he is the one instrumental in this being pursued by state and federal authorities. She all but demanded the crowd both applaud and respect him, and the crowd willingly did so. It was pretty damn awesome, actually.
Oh, and since I'm serial posting tonight, I earned FB banned status with Jennifer today. Go me.
What did you do?
I'm glad about the rally and a little bummed by the amount of online signatures for that petition.
It was 600k + on the 20th and 1.4M is really not that much more.
Right now I'll take your word for it that the spike in justifiable homicides buffered otherwise spiking murder rates... will try to do some research on it later. When I googled it right now, 2006 came up as the record year for murder for Fl. That'll be after that law had passed.
(And whatever way you look at it, Florida remains a place to avoid at all costs for me.)
In general I don't think anybody questions a person's right to defend themselves.
Questionable is merely the investigation into what is self-defense and what is pure overkill.
"I bet most of us won't waste the amount of time we have responding to you if we thought you were not bright, because what would the purpose be in that?"
Yeah, I'm gonna disagree on a general base here. Completely unrelated to Pamala I don't stop responding to people just because they might not be too bright.
It's the combination of not too bright & obnoxious where I draw the line.
And in relation to Pamala, I guess I can kind of understand where she's coming from in this moment. Being the lone defender might make you feel like people are ganging up on you anyway. Then being told by somebody unknown out of the blue one might be stupid on top is a little hard to swallow I think.
Especially as neither of us has really stepped in and told the rude anon off.
So here goes: New Anon, I understand your statement came with the caveat 'if Pamala can't make the connection', but you were still unnecessarily rude, IMO. And I wouldn't dare to make a guess about anybody's intelligence based on a single argument. For all we know Pamala is an extraordinary genius who just doesn't like the president being criticized.
"What did you do?"
Rumor has it that I said that maybe her bankruptcy judge have suggestions on which towns she should visit. Rumor futher has it that I told her it is immoral, imo, to be making trips and buying expensive items when she owes so many people so much money. And then I might have asked her to please answer if her conscience ever bothers her about that. Apparently the answer was "no", since she deleted my comment and banned me. I knew it would happen on that one but someone needed to say it and at least it stayed up for maybe 20 minutes.
"Right now I'll take your word for it that the spike in justifiable homicides buffered otherwise spiking murder rates..."
I think you'll have to since there can't possibly be facts proving otherwise. The didn't happen and you can't typically prove negatives. To me, it's a common sense thing, I suppose, although I allow that my form of common sense may not be yours.
"(And whatever way you look at it, Florida remains a place to avoid at all costs for me.)"
Bah, I hate it here. Mostly for the weather and tourists/snowbirds, but yeah...I won't defend it. I will, however defend the *intent behind that Stand Your Ground law. :-)
"Completely unrelated to Pamala I don't stop responding to people just because they might not be too bright. It's the combination of not too bright & obnoxious where I draw the line."
See, obnoxiousness trumps all with me and I'll take that on no matter how stupid the person is. But people who just aren't very bright but also aren't obnoxious? I don't waste my time with, as I have no desire to point out something they can't help and have no control over (lack of intelligence) and to actually try to debate a bit with them is a waste of time unless I have drawing utensils handy. Pamala is neither obnoxious or lacking in intelligence, though.
"Then being told by somebody unknown out of the blue one might be stupid on top is a little hard to swallow I think. Especially as neither of us has really stepped in and told the rude anon off."
Nor *will I. In the first place, I learned a harsh lesson awhile back about sticking up for people who are mentally capable of sticking up for themselves online when I did exactly that and it came back on me to bite me in the ass in a hard and hurtful way. As a result, I let people fight their own battles now unless I feel they don't have the mental capability to do so. My personal lack of telling the anon off speaks highly of Pamala and her own abilities; she doesn't need me to do that for her. In addition, I like to think it was pretty clear to her we don't subscribe to the same theory the anon poster does by continuing to engage her in adult conversation/debate in a respectful manner. I like Pamala. I don't agree with her on this topic and don't understand why she's having trouble understanding the point we're making, but that most certainly doesn't mean I find her to be less than bright or capable...it only means we don't agree on this and our own views are probably coloring our perception of the other's. Nothing more or less. :-)
How the hell is JM renting an RV when her credit is shot to hell and she can't possibly have valid credit cards at this point in her bankruptcy? Or can she have valid credit cards, still?
She could be using her parents card.
You know, I've really lost interest in JM and her antics lately, but this RV shit is unbelievable. She can't be serious, right?
And if she is, how could she not predict that even her true fans would find this a less than desirable situation. She is feigning surprise at the negative comments, but she had to expect it, right?
Julia
Jill, you're probably right. I tend to forget that if I were in JM's place, my mom would smack the bejesus out of me if I asked her to borrow her card for shenanigans like this. Hers? Probably handed it over. Let's face it, she learned how to be this way from someone.
Julia, this trip boggles my mind for so many reasons but what boggles it even moreso are the people who seem to think this is just a terrific idea. And why in the world would anyone ever do this before a bankruptcy hearing, if they want to have the judgement passed in their favor? Why aren't those she listens to pointing this out to her?
Uh-huh do you sound irritated? If so, I'm sorry about that.
That was a fairly moderate comment you left JM, I especially like "if her conscience ever bothers her about that". That's a key question, non? Because if not, there's no hope for her in any respect.
"I think you'll have to since there can't possibly be facts proving otherwise. The didn't happen and you can't typically prove negatives."
Allow me to ever so slightly disagree. Not being able to prove negatives still allows me to analyze positives.
So I've looked up Florida's exact murder rates from 2005 onwards, looked up the justifiable homicides and added them proportionally on top (for 2007 & 2009 , other years would give a different figure but similar result).
That means that while murder rates have been on the decline since 1996, they started to jump up again significantly in 2006, the year after the new law was passed.
To bore you with actual figures:
Florida avarage over 10 years 1996-2005: 5.9
2005: 5
2007 adjusted w/ justifiable homicides: 7.1
2009 adjusted w/ justifiable homicides: 6.0
In comparison Alabama (w/o Stand your ground)
Avarage over 10 years 1996-2005: 7.9
2005: 8.2
2007: 8.9
2009: 6.8
I've looked over all states for the figures 1996-2010 and there's a steady decline everywhere, most noticably from 2008 onwards.
Haven't done the math for any others, but it looks as if all states ended the last decade below their avarage of 1996-2005. With the exception of Florida.
So here's MY common sense telling me that either Florida is the lone state whose LE can't figure out crime prevention (while heavily relying on its citizens to protect themselves) or not all justifiable homicides would have turned into actual murders.
Of course my calculations are done very roughly and there might be a lot of other factors that I neglected. Hell, maybe all unaccounted for murderers have migrated to Florida, lowering rates everywhere else.
That being said, in principle I fully agree with you on the law itself. The gray area is the interpretation of “the person reasonably believes that [it] is necessary”, IMO. If all cases were thouroughly investigated, unarmed teenagers might not pass as a mortal threat to an armed man who greatly outweights him.
Finally, I hope I didn’t come across as if I wanted to provoke you into defending Florida. Dumping on people’s home turf can be a hot button and I think I need to clarify that this is just me. Having a semi-irrational fear of Florida and Oklahoma. (And very recently I decided to have an eye on Alabama as well.)
"Nor *will I."
1. I'm sorry that sticking up for somebody turned into a harsh lesson for you. I mean it. There's not much that I hate so much as seeing a good deed punished.
2. "I let people fight their own battles now unless I feel they don't have the mental capability to do so."
That's a great approach and I fully agree with that. And my initial reaction was similar. It’s just when it appeared that Pamala might actually take this to heart that I had second thoughts…
”I don't waste my time with, as I have no desire to point out something they can't help and have no control over”
See, I have no issues having light debates with those. We might not be able to ball around great ideas to improve the world, but as long as you can take things in baby-steps it can be easy fun. Few people are so dense that absolutely nothing gets through to them, IMO.
For me the combination obnoxious + stupid translates to ‘you’ll never get it and don’t deserve the effort to even try’.
”the people who seem to think this is just a terrific idea.”
They must not have small children (they actually like).
”Why aren't those she listens to pointing this out to her?”
Assuming those exist, they may not have experience with bankruptcy of their own. So when the paperwork and the lawyer and the experts are telling her that the only time period that matters are the 6 months prior to filing… who could contradict that?
*** New Post Up ***
Post a Comment
Yes, you said this...