A country boy can survive the Obama administration. Just ask Hank Williams, Jr.
The country music artist -- best known to millions of Americans regardless of their musical taste for his "Are You Ready For Some Football?" theme to Monday Night Football -- was profiled yesterday by Bill Lynch of the Charleston [W.V.] Gazette (h/t my NB colleague Tim Graham).
Lynch spent a considerable portion of his profile focused on Williams's politics, including his upcoming gig at a Labor Day TEA Party:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓So, Williams wants to be clear about why he's coming to the Friends of America Rally in Logan on Labor Day.
It's not about money, although there should be little doubt that Williams is going to get his share of what might be several million dollars being spent to put the show on. The Friends of America Rally is a pro-coal, pro-conservative, anti-Obama and anti-cap-and-trade legislation "tea party" arranged by Massey Energy.
The man everybody just calls Hank is coming to help heat the water.
Williams has been political for years, and despite the songs about wild ways, drinking and carousing, he's very conservative. The lyrics to some of his songs have long tied into a white, working-class rage against the establishment and rural distaste for urban sensibilities.
[...]
Williams scoffs at the Obama stimulus package as worthless, thinks the "Cash for Clunkers" program was pointless and absolutely has no faith in health-care reform.
"And let's have health care for a bunch of illegal aliens," he said, irritably. "We're not Italy, and that's what he [Obama] wants us to be."
Still, the health-care debate hasn't been a complete loss for him. Williams says he's enjoyed the coverage of the town hall meetings across the country, where small, angry groups have, on occasion, shouted down senators and congressmen speaking about health-care reform.
He says he loves that the politicians have to run and hide. It's high entertainment.
"I get a lot of enjoyment when I have my evening cigar and listen to these idiots."
Williams is also a big fan of conservative talk radio, particularly Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin, Lynch noted, quoting Williams as saying, "It's the only place you'll hear the truth."
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Has anyone noticed...
September 3, 2009 - 15:56 ET by goldenthroatHow most country music artists are staunch conservatives and the great majority of rock music artists are bleeding-heart liberals?
Hmmm - I see a pattern here...
"Who am us, anyway?" - Firesign Theatre
Pattern?
September 3, 2009 - 17:57 ET by DoktorFranken"Easy, son. That way I can see that you are persecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
"That's my Dad!"
Excellent Hank!
September 3, 2009 - 11:15 ET by MaximusBraveheartGlad to hear that about him! Kind of surprised! Excellent!!!!
M-B
I guess simple-minded
September 3, 2009 - 11:18 ET by JasonCI guess simple-minded political ranting is one way to compensate for living in the shadow of his father; you know, a real country musician.
Yup, nothing like taking pleasure in watching malcontents "shout down" their own elected officials with the BS they've picked up from Glenn Beck. Now that's Real America right there.
Laura Ingraham is the only place to hear the truth. Wow. Imagine if a liberal musician said that same sentence but inserted Olbermann. Y'all would hit the freakin' roof.
BS argument JasonC
September 3, 2009 - 11:34 ET by MaximusBraveheartSo you are the JUDGE of music?
So people should NOT get upset when the founding principals of our country are being sold out in such open fashion?
So what has Beck SAID, all of his Obama QUOTES, that are not true?
It is OK to follow honest facts and be proud. There is such a thing as twisted lies; like Olbermann. One is making legit points the other is pure BS. BS is bad and not truth. Do not hold equal weight.
M-B
I'm expressing an opinion
September 3, 2009 - 11:41 ET by JasonCI'm expressing an opinion about a music legend versus a guy who's best known for the Monday Night Football lead-in. This sort of offhand comparison is not exactly verboten on NB.
Opposing the healthcare reform is fine. Acting like a conservative version of Code Pink whilst demonstrating one's sheer ignorance of the bill in question is what I'm mocking w/r/t the Townhall meetings. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what American principles Obama is systematically destroying and how; but saying that it's the case, with little to no explanation or evidence seems to be yet another way in which these tea party types like to publicly embarass themeselves.
Beck is not exactly a paragon of objectivity, no. The quotes may be correct, but they are oft-miscontrued and blatantly lifted out of context (such as omitting the word "just" from the Christian nation comment), allowing him (and others) to feed people's paranoia.
Olbermann is just a liberal version of Ingraham. Bombast, half-truths, volume over reason. The only difference is that he still has a TV show. Likewise, the so-called TownHallers are simply conservative versions of CodePink. Loud, irritating, ideologically simplistic, easily manipulated by those who flatter their perspectives, and embarassing.
You haven't been paying attention, have you?
September 3, 2009 - 11:56 ET by Wonder95Wow, you really haven't been paying attention, have you? Try basic principles such as the free market (you know, the machine that made us the greatest economy in the world), free speech, and the truth.
JasonC
September 3, 2009 - 12:41 ET by rjwest21You really should do some research. Hank Jr. is a country music legend, with 20 gold albums to his credit (13 of which went to #1), 6 platinum and 5 entertainer of the year awards.
He's known for the Monday Night Football theme amongst (a) people who are clueless about country music; (b) kids.
Both sets are ignorant.
///I'm still trying to figure out exactly what American principles Obama is systematically destroying and how////
Firing the CEO of a private company is a good start. Next.
Garth Brooks has more bona
September 3, 2009 - 13:04 ET by JasonCGarth Brooks has more bona fides than that, but he still sucks.
Feeling an antagonistic today?
September 3, 2009 - 13:20 ET by MaximusBraveheartFeeling an antagonistic today? ... lol. You could "get in trouble" with that one!
I do hope you have a good day if there is any trouble going on! Take care.
M-B
Don't feed him
September 3, 2009 - 13:37 ET by ahusserHe keeps hijacking threads.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Actually, I started this
September 3, 2009 - 14:00 ET by JasonCActually, I started this thread. Since then I have simply been replying to detractors. As usual, a reactionary poster doesn't grasp what thread hijacking and trolling are all about, and makes accusations of such while doing it himself.
~*Peels self off roof*
September 3, 2009 - 11:32 ET by choselife3xLooked to me like he was referring to conservative talk radio in general, with emphasis on Ingraham and Levin. I've never listened to either one, so I can't venture an opinion there. As for conservative talk radio, you'll certainly hear things there that you won't in the MSM.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
you'll certainly hear
September 3, 2009 - 11:47 ET by JasonCyou'll certainly hear things there that you won't in the MSM.
That's certainly true. However, it's pretty simplistic to say that such outlets are "the only place you'll hear the truth," when it's obvious that, as in any ideologically-biased form of media, it's the only place you'll hear what your preconceptions WANT to hear.
~Preconceptions
September 3, 2009 - 11:50 ET by choselife3xCan I pick your brain? Two questions:
1. Do you believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth?
2. If so, what part of the liberal idealogical platform do you regard as absolute truth?
Thanks.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
1. Only on questions of
September 3, 2009 - 11:55 ET by JasonC1. Only on questions of natural phenomena. Water freezes at 32 degrees F, 2+2=4, objects with sufficient wind resistance accelerate in free-fall at 9.8m/s/s. Increased amplitude increases volume. Increased wavelength lowers pitch. And so on. And even these phenomena are subject to the systems of observation which we have imposed upon them. Maybe these are more facts than truths.
2. I do not believe there is such a thing as absolute truth in an ideological platform.
~Okay
September 3, 2009 - 11:57 ET by choselife3xI do not believe there is such a thing as absolute truth in an ideological platform.
So what induced you to pick one over the other?
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
It generally strikes me as
September 3, 2009 - 12:02 ET by JasonCIt generally strikes me as being more correct and sustainable. I'm sure my upbringing influenced it a bit as well. But I don't presume that, on a pragmatic, moral, or ethical level, it is supported by some sort of universal, unalterable truth.
~Bear with me, here
September 3, 2009 - 12:14 ET by choselife3xIf there is no absolute truth underpinning any idealogy, what makes one or the other "more" or "less" correct?
You say that the liberal idealogy strikes you as more correct, but what makes it "more correct"? (in your eyes/perception) What standard are you judging it against?
Thanks!
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Paradox
September 3, 2009 - 12:21 ET by dvdaughtryThe problem with Pluralism/Realitivism is that by their own definitions, they cannot exsist.
It's like saying there are "no absolutes".
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Only if you're an orthodox
September 3, 2009 - 12:29 ET by JasonCOnly if you're an orthodox relativist. I'll accept an absolutism if it can be logically proven.
~Wait
September 3, 2009 - 12:37 ET by choselife3xMy questions are still hanging out there.....come on, be a sport! Pretty please?
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
2 cents
September 3, 2009 - 12:52 ET by Another Dead KennedyThis is such an incredibly civil discussion, I almost forgot what website I'm on. Keep up the good work gang.
"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan
TAKE A HIKE BOZO!!!
September 3, 2009 - 13:08 ET by MightyMouthIs that better?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I think it's just a nice
September 3, 2009 - 14:26 ET by Another Dead KennedyI think it's just a nice change to see a liberal and conservative have a civilized discussion without calling each other names and berating each other's opinions.
"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan
ILTK
September 3, 2009 - 14:33 ET by MrShyListen, you buffoon, you moron, you dingbat, you Republican? Democrat? stooge.... you you...... listen......
:)
Hahahaha... You're a good
September 3, 2009 - 14:41 ET by Another Dead KennedyHahahaha...
You're a good guy, MrShy.
"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan
IHeartTK
September 3, 2009 - 18:58 ET by MrShyTry telling that to Jer and Shawn. And Catherine and Heather and Dawn and Susanna and Christine.... oh wait, my list is veering off course. Sorry about that.
You were a great guy, MrShy
September 3, 2009 - 19:24 ET by JerYou were a great guy, MrShy until you were abducted by the forces of darkness a few months ago. I'm anxiously awaiting the return of the former MrShy--before he announced he was no longer "MrNiceGuy"--and made good on his promise.
Jer
Jer
September 3, 2009 - 19:32 ET by MrShyAaaaaawww.
Wait till you see my new video. It will be so mind-blowing, that you will absolutely forget that you hate the guy. Sometimes greatness trumps everything.
Shy...
September 3, 2009 - 19:35 ET by JerHater?...not I. Look in the mirror, and lighten up. But, I will look forward to your new video.
Jer
~Uh oh
September 3, 2009 - 19:18 ET by choselife3xTap, tap, tap, tap, tap, tap.
*sound of sign being attached to the outside of Shy's habitat*
Feed The Ego At Your Own Risk
(Disclaimer:
No purchase
necessary..except 1,000 copies of Crossing The Atlantic and 237 Shy Thongs. Thongs available in Xsmall, small, miniscule, large, Xlarge,
and "I wish I wore this size". Dry clean only. Sanitized for your protection. No refunds. Individual results may vary. Pineapple 50c extra. Void where prohibited. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during shipment. Use only as directed. May be too intense for some viewers. May cause drowsiness. For recreational use only. All models over 18 years of age. If condition persists, contact
your physician. Freshest if eaten before date on carton. For off-road use only. As seen on TV. Contains a substantial amount of non-tobacco ingredients. Colours may, in time, fade. Slippery when wet. Not responsible for damages resulting from any defect, error, or failure to perform. Not to be taken internally. Substantial penalty for early withdrawal. Shading within a garment may occur. Use only in well-ventilated area. Keep away from fire or flame. Not recommended for children under five. Reproduction strictly prohibited. Objects on screen may be smaller than they appear. Always wear your safety belt. Not
responsible for hair growth on palms of hands, blindness, hysteria, homosexual urges, warts, or eternal damnation caused by usage of this thong. May be harmful if you have high blood pressure, back
problems, or a heart condition. Keep out of the reach of children.
Checks will not be honored. Please see your doctor if pain persists.
May cause anal leakage. Not to be used as a floatation device. Judge's decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into. Prices
correct at time of publication.")
Hahahahahahahaha!
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
chose
September 3, 2009 - 19:20 ET by MrShyDid someone say thong?
~Incorrigible!
September 3, 2009 - 19:38 ET by choselife3xHahahaha....."small and medium out of stock."
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
chose
September 3, 2009 - 13:04 ET by MrShyThe essence of Jason, if there ever was one, is collapsing before our eyes. Well, wait, yeah, there never was one, which is why it's collapsing -- all with the simple pop of c3x's needle.
So we can start with, there
September 3, 2009 - 13:03 ET by dvdaughtrySo we can start with, there are absolutely absolutes?
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
In terms of economic
September 3, 2009 - 13:12 ET by JasonCIn terms of economic ideology, one cannot judge it by anything but its utility. This is why conservatives who argue for free market absolutism under the banner of it being All-American drive me up the wall. The question should not be whether it's consistent with what the founding fathers envisioned 230-odd years ago or whether liberal policies are sufficiently socialist/communist/fascist/whatever to makes fatuous comparisons with failed authoritarian states of the past. The question is whether it is what we need right now and whether it will work. This is why the simplicity of "I want my country back" in response to Obama's proposals is infantile. Utility is demonstrable and logical, it is not undergirded by puerile emotion and ideology. (DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to argue in favor so-called Obamacare here, I am simply demonstrating why I find the TownHall shouters so irritating.
In terms of social ideology, I'm a raging liberal/libertarian simply because to not be presumes moral authority. Wanting the FCC to ban content that you personally find objectionable is not only borderline-censorship, but presupposes that your moral perspective is more legitimate than anyone elses. Wanting to ban gay marriage implies that your standards for who should have access to a basic social institution supersedes all others'.
~Now we're talking!
September 3, 2009 - 13:22 ET by choselife3xThese aren't answers to my questions, but it's material I can work with. Thanks.
The question is whether it is what we need right now and whether it will work.
Raising taxes hurts a struggling economy--true or false? Increasing government deficits hurts a struggling economy--true or false? Increasing energy prices with cap and trade hurts a struggling economy--true or false?
I'm a raging liberal/libertarian simply because to not be presumes moral authority.
So what you're saying is, anything goes. Because in order to draw a line somewhere, you need a standard with which to judge? And your position is that there are no moral absolutes so there can be no conclusive standard?
And, it looks like you're trying to be moral...by not being moral. Know what I mean?
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Perhaps most importantly,
September 3, 2009 - 14:21 ET by JasonCPerhaps most importantly, and perhaps I'm still skirting your question, moral absolutism in ideology is impossible because such moral perspective is beholden to one's viewpoint. The morass of opinion, bias, and personal experience, makes that viewpoint decidedly non-objective.
~So just to be clear
September 3, 2009 - 15:54 ET by choselife3xYou're saying that "morality" itself is purely an abstract concept based on one's viewpoint? There is no such thing as "right" or "wrong", it's all based on perspective?
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
chose
September 3, 2009 - 19:30 ET by MrShyThat's why that ideology is thoroughly creepy, and about as dark and depressing as you can get.
Talk about a slippery slope.
There is such a thing as
September 3, 2009 - 20:50 ET by JasonCThere is such a thing as right and wrong, of course, but it is always subordinated to our own viewpoints. This is just plain logical to me. We do not have a Rosetta Stone of morality to inform us what is or is not right and good, and those who believe they do have only faith to back it up.
Fortunately, the vast majority of citizens agree on what is right or wrong in most major issues. Imagine if the citizenry was as divided on the morality of murder and rape as it is on healthcare...we, as a nation, would basically be f---ed.
Some historical context, cl3x
September 3, 2009 - 19:33 ET by JerIncreasing government deficits hurts a struggling economy
Not necessarily. Massive government spending and expanding deficits during WWII helped pull the country out of the Depression. And remember, Ronald Reagan changed his public position regarding deficits during his presidency.
Jer
Jer
September 3, 2009 - 19:36 ET by MrShyWWII was one of just two world wars in the past century. That's obviously an exceptional example with exceptional circumstances.
~I thought
September 3, 2009 - 19:53 ET by choselife3xThat the massive manufacturing boom brought on by the war was the main impetus of recovery. But I specialize more in ancient history, so I can't speak with authority on that.
Let me just put it this way. All the money the government has comes from the citizens. (supposed to anyway, I doubt the Founders envisioned the kind of foreign borrowing we have now) All the money the government spends has to come out of the people's pocket at some point in time. If they're borrowing it from a foreign source, it has to be paid back eventually. With interest. And that money comes out of our pockets. Since we are the source of revenue, we can't get more out of it than we put in. Not long-term, anyway. It's just not sustainable.
It's like the tagline I had for a while, "Expecting the government to fix the economy is like trying to live off the leech stuck to your @ss." to put it bluntly.
I have no idea if I wrote that in a way that made sense, I need to go eat something!
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
History shows what works... Always will so why not learn?
September 3, 2009 - 13:40 ET by MaximusBraveheartOur constitution is the LAW, not just some "religious" like document the MSM can spurn and throw off like the same attitude they demonstrate towards devout Christians. It is there for a reason: They wrote it as students of history and they did not want us to suffer from the tyranny of an all powerful government they came from.
Now what do we have? An all powerful federal government! One that wants to start taking screen shots of our web sites! I have a HUGE problems with that and I hope many others out there do to!
Society has an "objection" to things which are harmful. So you think the addiction to porn is good for us all? Good for the makers? Good heritage to pass on to their kids? Yeah son, go do porn... Prostitution, wow, you made a good career choice! No they are harmful and corrupt what you determine to be "normal." Ever here of Caligula? He had living porn, and how did he turn out?
Marriage IS marriage. Has alway been a man and a woman and not anything else. IT IS DEFINED. We do not want it REdefined! Rights are not being taken away as anyone is free to make up any civil contract agreement they want, but it is not marriage since it is not a man & a woman. There are such things as FACTS!
M-B
Where in the constitution
September 3, 2009 - 14:13 ET by JasonCWhere in the constitution is it written that the U.S. government must adhere to an absolutely laissez-faire policy with big business. Where is it outlined what essential services the government is and is not responsible for providing. Only the most reactionary fringe believes that Obama's proposed policies are in fact a slippery slop to socialism & Nazism, just as only the most reactionary liberal fringe believe Bush was a fascist.
Having a moral objection to something is one matter. Wanting to legislate against it on the grounds that your moral objections outweight others' creative freedom or freedom to enjoy what they have a predilection for, is another. Your example is an extreme and cloying one, but suffice to say that it's the sort of attitude that led to prohibition and to other authoritarian behaviors by big government...precisely what I would think you'd wish to avoid. Why not just allow the, ahem, infallibility of the free market to determine these things' existence?
Marriage is a legal definition, it is not "what it is." If it just is what it is, a so-called defense of marriage bill would not have been necessary. Six states have now made it applicable to gay couples and more will follow suit. It is not a "fact" that marriage is only between a man and woman; that is, rather, the wishful thinking of those who for whatever reason have something against gay marriage. Semantics aside, I have still not seen one - not one - persuasive argument against gay marriage; an argument that makes a case for why gay marriage would have a real, material downside.
They are defending what
September 3, 2009 - 21:37 ET by MaximusBraveheartThey are defending what marriage always has been. It requires legal protection because it is getting attacked on a legal level. Not hard to understand that logic. A majority and LONG traditional view I might add.
Gays are hostile to social norms that dare "tell" them "what" to do when it comes to that portion of human behavior. It is a form of rebellion against such social norms and they will fight to tear down such a barrier since they feel it is "unjust" for them to be judged since they feel it is not "wrong," and they were born that way thus not their fault.
The fact is there are lots of social rules. Take a Bible based one like adultry. Same situation. You have 2 consenting adults. Yet I don't want the schools teaching that it is OK go ahead, or Congress giving them special permission or "rights."
---
Many will say they only want the "right" to get "married" and live normal
lives just like heterosexual married couples, but the truth is the legalization of
"gay" or "same-sex" marriage is part of a larger sexual agenda. Homosexual
activists are now beginning to openly admit that they don't want to marry
just to have a normal home life. They want same-sex marriage as a way
of destroying the concept of marriage altogether-and of introducing polygamy
and polyamory (group sex) as "families."
Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has
stated that homosexuals should, "...fight for same-sex marriage and
its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage
completely . To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.
. The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one
that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion
of 'family' altogether." (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has
said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a
person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so.
. Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family;
and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must
keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage
and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially
quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard,
August 4, 2003)
"Wanting to ban gay
September 3, 2009 - 16:12 ET by ckc1227"Wanting to ban gay marriage implies that your standards for who should
have access to a basic social institution supersedes all others'."
Then apparently you are ok with rape. Wanting to ban rape implies your standards supercedes all others. And slavery. Some people were perfectly fine with it. Why should your standards for who should enjoy freedom supercede all others?
Ugh. Fine, I'll chime in.
September 3, 2009 - 16:28 ET by Another Dead KennedyUgh. Fine, I'll chime in. Perhaps because marriage is an action based on love, whereas rape is anything but. Same goes with slavery. You're more than welcome to be against gay marriage, but this rape/incest/slavery/blah blah blah argument is childish. I'm sure you have a better argument than that, right?
"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan
Are you pressing on my
September 3, 2009 - 16:40 ET by dvdaughtryAre you pressing on my beliefs that love is moral?
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Of course! ; ) "If we
September 3, 2009 - 16:41 ET by Another Dead KennedyOf course! ; )
"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan
~Me, me, me, me!!
September 3, 2009 - 16:58 ET by choselife3x*raised hand waving wildly*
I do! I actually already made it, but it's a keeper. JasonC always brings infertility and married couples who decide not to have kids into it, so I headed him off at the pass, there.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Chose, that is a good link.
September 3, 2009 - 17:14 ET by Another Dead KennedyChose, that is a good link. You continue to impress me with what I can only guess is a photographic memory. You know where I stand on this issue, so there's no need for me to jump in any further.
PS - I think some of your best work here is when you enter into an honest, respectful debate with someone like Jason who stands at the far opposite end of the political spectrum as you do. We need more of that here.
"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan
Teddy~
September 3, 2009 - 17:20 ET by Georgia GirlDon't leave me in suspense. What happened with your name?
You know, I completely
September 3, 2009 - 17:25 ET by Another Dead KennedyYou know, I completely forgot! I think due to the lack of Ted Kennedy coverage in the last 24 hours, as proven by the variety of articles on the NB front page, I forgot that it needed to be done. Although I think I'm going to have to wait for the weekend to make the change. I'm undecided still. Typical liberal.
"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan
~There are few liberals
September 3, 2009 - 17:23 ET by choselife3xWho either keep it civil, or stick around long enough to have a real debate with. (yes, I know you're going to say the same for conservatives!) That's why I like having libs like JasonC and Jer (and maybe you, we'll see ;-) on the site.
You know where I stand on this issue, so there's no need for me to jump in any further.
GASP...you mean we're not going to change each other's minds?! Say it ain't so, Joe! Uh, Ted. Wrong brother....
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
I'd prefer to stick with
September 3, 2009 - 17:35 ET by Another Dead KennedyI'd prefer to stick with topics in which we can possibly change each other's minds... what are your thoughts on the philosophy of art?
"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan
~Oh dear
September 3, 2009 - 18:06 ET by choselife3xDon't get me started. You like to throw gasoline on fires, don't you?! If you think I can get all fired up about gay marriage, abortion, global warming, interrogation of terrorists, and gays in the military...you should see me on the philosophy of art!
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
HAHAHAHAHAHA... And THAT'S
September 4, 2009 - 13:24 ET by Another Dead KennedyHAHAHAHAHAHA...
And THAT'S why I like you so much!
"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan
~
September 4, 2009 - 13:33 ET by choselife3xDude..shhhhhh!!!! Keep it down over here, wouldja? I have a reputation to maintain!
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
But Reagan told me so! "If
September 4, 2009 - 13:45 ET by Another Dead KennedyBut Reagan told me so!
"If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen." Ronald Reagan
~Well
September 4, 2009 - 13:57 ET by choselife3xIf you're going to go there....I can show you lots of other things Reagan said. (the last link is really good, relevant to the healthcare situation today)
Yes, yes you did walk right into that one. Bwahahahahahaha!
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
You headed me off, but I
September 3, 2009 - 18:07 ET by JasonCYou headed me off, but I still presented an argument.
The sperm and eggs of an unmarried couple are just as likely to successfully co-mingle as those of a married one, as many people find out the hard way. While the purpose(s) of marriage may have originally included the need to keep the primary caregivers together to raise the child, the ease of obtaining a divorce - and enormous numberof couples who do - has basically rendered that function into an anachronism. That childbearing is the end-all be-all of marriage also suggests that once the kids are born, the husband and wife basically have no reason left to interact with one another, now that their primary duty is complete. Very depressing.
Bottom line: Marriage is about a lot more than kids. You may find my infertile/intentionally-childless couple analogy tiresome, but it, along with my remarks above, thoroughly demonstrate that anti-gay marriage proponents are motivated not by the inability of a gay couple to produce children, but by something, in my opinion, far more deep-seated and sinister.
~?
September 3, 2009 - 18:34 ET by choselife3xYour response was that our laws do not always adhere to what is "natural".
That childbearing is the end-all be-all of marriage also suggests that
once the kids are born, the husband and wife basically have no reason
left to interact with one another, now that their primary duty is
complete.
Did you mean once the kids are grown? Because I've never needed my husband so much as when we had kids! We need our relationship with each other just to get through the enormous amount of work it takes to be a parent! Parenthood brings a married couple together in a whole new way. The blood, sweat, tears, and screams of hysterical laughter make you closer than you could ever be otherwise. You grow together tremendously through it, really. You'll see one day if you guys ever take the plunge!
Marriage is about a lot more than kids.
If you look at it from an historical perspective, the whole purpose of a mate is to have children and continue the family line. Marriage is an alliance of families, a social network that supports the next generation. The fact is, there is nothing more important in life, than life. Without children there is no future. Without a future there is no hope.
Depressing? What's depressing is working your whole life and then dying. Having nothing to show for the fact that you existed. Monuments crumble, memory fades, civilizations come and go, but your children and your children's children go on. Because you brought life into the world. Alright, that's my paean to parenthood for the day. ;-)
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Right, all that makes
September 3, 2009 - 20:33 ET by JasonCRight, all that makes sense, but in any rational accounting, it's not the marriage ceremony/legal status that maintains this interaction between the parents, it's the kids in and of themselves. An unmarried couple could just as easily behave in this way toward their offspring...and if marriage is simply regarded as a means to make sure the parents don't neglect this duty, well, THAT'S what I find depressing. Marriage, in my perhaps naive view, is about the relationship between the two partners, not JUST their ability to effectively raise kids together.
~Here's an interesting historical tidbit
September 3, 2009 - 21:36 ET by choselife3xMarriage was not originally accompanied by a religious ritual. The arrangement was decided and the pair involved simply set up housekeeping, usually with a feast or celebration of some sort by the families of both. An exchange of gifts was also customary, the bride brought a dowry and the groom paid a "bride-price". The religious aspect didn't come till fairly late in the game; my information is that the Catholics started it during the first Protestant schism from the Church. I don't have an online source for that, before anyone asks!
Anyway, marriage can be "just about" the relationship in this luxurious day and age, back in the day it was literally a means for survival and perpetuation of the family line. I think people often don't realize how hard our ancestors had it. A man couldn't work hard all day in the fields, come home, kill something for dinner, prepare it, eat it, clean/maintain the home, care for all the domestic animals, make and clean his own clothing, etcetera..etcetera. A partnership was vital to mere survival. And what's the point of doing all that anyway if you have no one to share it with or pass it on to?
I never said that marriage is only about two people's ability to raise children effectively, I said it is the best framework to do it in.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
And what's the point of
September 4, 2009 - 14:08 ET by JasonCAnd what's the point of doing all that anyway if you have no one to share it with or pass it on to?
This sort of question seems like one that we must each answer individually, not one that should be defined through law. And to me, saying that one shouldn't be able to marry in such a way that forecloses childbearing (only if that foreclosure is related to the incompatability of one's genitals with his or her partner's, rather than related to personal choice, infertility, &c.) is like saying that you shouldn't be allowed to be a homeowner unless you promise to build an addition or put in a swimming pool within 5 years.
So while your arguments could perhaps demonstrate that there's no utilitarian reason for gay marriage (though this would not sway my support of it), it still does not demonstrate what would be the material, quantifiable downside of it, what about it would have an immediate detrimental effect on others; i.e., per my earlier post about morality & law, why it is insidious enough to legislate against. My position is that such a downside does not exist.
That is the logical
September 3, 2009 - 16:35 ET by dvdaughtryThat is the logical conclusion.
...moral absolutism in ideology is impossible because such moral perspective is beholden to one's viewpoint. The morass of opinion, bias, and personal experience, makes that viewpoint decidedly non-objective.
Islam, KKK, Nazi, Christian, Hindu, etc. They are all correct!
What a wonderful mindset to have.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
The more accurate
September 3, 2009 - 20:37 ET by JasonCThe more accurate declaration might be that none of them are demonstrably correct.
Yes, I agree that also
September 4, 2009 - 00:08 ET by dvdaughtryYes, I agree that also follows in the philosophy (insert correct noun) of Pluralism.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
I realize you're just
September 3, 2009 - 16:37 ET by JasonCI realize you're just breaking out a reductio ad absurdum here, and maybe I brought it on myself, but the fact is (and I guess I'd assumed it was too obvious to bear mentioning) that regardless of the relativism that inheres in any given person's moral position, in order to function as a society we must legislate - severely - against ANY action which places an unwilling person in immediate danger. Slavery, rape, and murder fit this definition and, for the record, I am 'against' these things on both moral and legislative grounds. There may be a small contingent who do not oppose them morally (as recently as 100 years ago, there was a large contingent who saw little problem with the first two, so long as the victim was not white), but because they involve nonconsensual violations of human beings, they must be illegal if we hope to have anything like a civilization. This is pragmatic as well as (in my opinion) the RIGHT thing to do. However, the things I discussed above - the war horses of civil libertarianism like drugs, media decency, sexual preference &c. - do not fit this definition.
c3x
September 3, 2009 - 12:48 ET by MrShyHe will dishonestly reply that he is not tied to any ideology. He will tell you he's above the fray. He's more developed than you, chose. He's progressive. No wait, that's a bad word, I don't mean he's a progressive liberal... he is not part of any group or label. So, sorry, scratch that.
~AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
September 3, 2009 - 13:08 ET by choselife3xI go out to water the lettuce and broccoli seedlings, come back to see there are four new comments.......and none of them are from JasonC answering my post! Y'all scared him away, dadgummit! How many times do I hafta tell ya...wait till ya can see the whites of their eyes! *stomp, stomp, stomp, stomp, SLAM*
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
cl3x, just scroll up a two
September 3, 2009 - 13:15 ET by JasonCcl3x, just scroll up a two or three posts.
At least you got to read MrShy's usual incisive commentary in the meantime.
Be apprised, now that I have responded to your thoughtful line of questioning, I am going out for the afternoon. I'm sure you will have follow-up questions, maybe even a rhetorical trap to spring, but it's 75 and sunny here, and even my irrepressible relativism can't bear to be indoors anymore.
~Thank you, Jason
September 3, 2009 - 13:26 ET by choselife3xI responded. I hope to take this up again with you later. I'm headed back out to the garden again myself.
Dissent: It's not just for liberals anymore.-kudzupolitics, USA Today
Main Entry:
September 3, 2009 - 13:39 ET by MrShy: impressively direct and decisive (as in manner or presentation)
Wow, "decisive". And I'm a Libra, no less.
MrShy, I find the term
September 3, 2009 - 13:10 ET by Scuba DudeMrShy,
I find the term "progressive liberal" to be an oxymoron. The policy's they want to bring about tend to be more regressive or destructive.
Take a look at taxes. They claim that they want a more progressive tax code. When is a tax progressive? If anything the only way you can say their tax plan is progressive is that if you make more money the taxes you pay get progressively HIGHER.
The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER
scoob!
September 3, 2009 - 13:40 ET by MrShyHey, yeah, while the word "progressive" in general leaves a lot to be desired, "progressive tax" is absurd, by their definition.
Liberalism
September 3, 2009 - 13:48 ET by ahusserdiscounts how things really work, the complexity of modern existence and the disregarding of human nature. A large dose of unreality, magical thinking and wishful thinking goes into it. That if we try hard enough there will be no more wars, poverty or disease, inequality, bigotry and social injustice. Most liberals I have encountered are holier than thou individuals smug in their righteousness and easily demonise any who oppose them. All liberalism/Socialism leads to totalitarianism.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
A large dose of unreality, magical thinking and wishful thinking
September 3, 2009 - 13:53 ET by MaximusBraveheartOh ahusser that was GREAT!!!! You mean like NPR? Or the Today Show. Or ... lol. M-B
JasonC, Just to pick some
September 3, 2009 - 18:37 ET by hydrodynDMJasonC,
Just to pick some nits about your number 1.
Water freezes at 32 degrees F at one atmosphere. It's different at other pressures.
I think you meant to say that objects with no wind resistance accelerate in free fall at 9.8 m/s^2. When you introduce resistance, the acceleration decreases (and usually becomes velocity dependent).
There is no general relation between amplitude and volume. In fact, they typically have nothing to do with each other.
And, yes, these are empirical facts. If you accept empirical facts as true, then you can accepts them as truths as well.
9.8 m/s/s is
September 3, 2009 - 20:24 ET by JasonC9.8 m/s/s is mathematically identical to 9.8 m/s^2 and is meant to be read as 9.8 meters per second per second. I believe I accounted for wind resistance in my original post.
I'm curious about your amplitude/volume complaint. It's not my area of expertise, so I could well be wrong...but I'm not seeing any explanation. I was under the impression that boosting the amplitude of a soundwave increases what the human ear perceives as volume. Maybe I've misunderstood that.
Amplitude=volume,
September 3, 2009 - 20:30 ET by RR GOPAmplitude=volume, frequency=pitch, wave shape=quality, wave energy=intensity.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
RR GOP, Intensity = wave
September 3, 2009 - 20:40 ET by hydrodynDMRR GOP,
Intensity = wave energy/(area*second) = wave power/area
JasonC, My issue wasn't
September 3, 2009 - 20:36 ET by hydrodynDMJasonC,
My issue wasn't with the way you wrote the units, it's with:
Maybe I'm misreading this, but it sounds like you are saying that objects in free fall which experience a sufficiently large amount of air resistance fall at 9.8 m/s^2. What I'm saying is that 9.8 m/s^2 is the acceleration in free fall in the absence of all resistance. Again, maybe I'm just misreading you considering...
OK - you meant volume in the sense of sound volume. I thought you meant in the sense of three dimensional volume. My bad. Yes, sound intensity (volume) is related to wave amplitude.
That's what I get for trying to sound all smart like.
I did indeed bungle the air
September 3, 2009 - 20:44 ET by JasonCI did indeed bungle the air resistane part and pretty much meant the opposite of what my original post suggests.
Yeah, I specifically meant in terms of sound. As to your exchange w/ RR, I didn't know that "intensity" was a quantifiable term.
JasonC, With regard to
September 3, 2009 - 21:02 ET by hydrodynDMJasonC,
With regard to the intensity thing - it's true that a lot of words with qualitative meanings in everyday speech have been adopted in science and given quantitative meanings.
That poses a bit of a problem - at least for me - when someone is using one of these words and it's hard to tell if they mean it casually or scientifically.
For example, when I see these "ghost hunter" shows and they start using the term "energy" - I just want to rip my own head off because I'm pretty sure they are trying use the word in a technical sense but they obviously have no clue how that word is used in science.
Simple Minded?
September 3, 2009 - 11:35 ET by GeneralAlWe have had to listen to THE SIMPLE MINDED CRAP FROM YOU LEFTY COMMIES for the last eight years! Guess what Pinko? You have just begun to hear from us! As far as simple minded goes, only the simple minded, such as yourself, make these claims against people who hold a Conservative or Libertarian point of view. We are not going to allow your Tele-Prez and his Commiecrat pals in the Senate and House to shove his Communist policies down our throats! We will fight with every inch of our bodies and send his supporters in Congress packing in 2010! I am still mad at the Republicans for squandering their majority but I wil vote for Repubicans in 2010 as simple as:
A - Anyone
B - But
C - Communist aka Democrat!
"Simple Minded"
September 3, 2009 - 11:43 ET by MaximusBraveheartAny I hope more DEMS in the US wake up. They vote dem for selfish reasons (imo), like Union members. Dems bought them out! They are CONTROLLED slaves now that LIBS laugh at in private. These "blue blood" liberal Dems absolutely laugh at the mid-american valued people and think they, and their values are STUPID. Don't vote DEM! Vote for Freedom and smaller government! Then our country will prosper!
M-B
Actually, I am a
September 3, 2009 - 11:44 ET by JasonCActually, I am a Libertarian. Fancy that. I just find the current Nobody-Left-of-Limbaugh strain of noisy Tea Partier/Townhaller conservatism to be an almost amusing, inverted parody of the same "lefty commies" you so despise.
Commiecrats! Wow, did you come up with that all by yourself?
I Started Using
September 3, 2009 - 12:10 ET by GeneralAlI started using the word Commiecrat shortly after serving in Vietnam under Comrade LBJ! By the way, it was Tricky Dick who got us out of that mess that Saint JFK got us into in the first place! As far as Hank living off his dads name you need to check your facts! He changed his style of music because he was sick of being compared to his dad and wanted to make a name for himself! In that, he was very successful!
Yeah yeah, at this point
September 3, 2009 - 13:27 ET by JasonCYeah yeah, at this point I'm just being an ass about Hank on purpose.
GeneralAL
September 3, 2009 - 20:38 ET by JerThe roots of our Vietnam involvement predated JFK's presidency. Blame the French. And Tricky Dick could have left us in, pulled us out, or chosen the politically expedient gradual disengagement. Not surprisingly, he selected door #3.
Jer
libertarian?
September 3, 2009 - 19:28 ET by katainkentColor me more than a little surprised.
___________________________________________
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. ~Thomas Jefferson
so Jason...
September 3, 2009 - 11:51 ET by candanceJouvenile comments about his lack of talent now qualify as intellegent dialogue? And it's funny that you talk about his dad being a "real" artist. Something tells me you don't even listen to Hank Sr anyway.
I've been to three protests and have yet to "shout down" a representative. Of course, that might have something to do with the fact that my House critter never hosted a town hall here, and my esteemed Jr Senator held town halls in the middle of nowhere that were RSVP only. Gues I should just be thankful for the leadership, right?
I love Hank Sr.'s music.
September 3, 2009 - 11:58 ET by JasonCI love Hank Sr.'s music. And like Woody Guthrie, Hank had a son who didn't inherit his gift and got by on the family name.
Don't presume that liberals dislike country music. I don't like the contemporary pop stuff, but the classic stuff that grew out of old time gospel is fantastic.
But you're right, I am probably the first NB poster EVER to be snide about the talent of a celebrity who commented on political matters.
Glad to hear you're not a shout-downer. I don't think the majority of attendees are.
how convenient
September 3, 2009 - 13:12 ET by candanceBut you're right, I am probably the first NB poster EVER to be snide about the talent of a celebrity who commented on political matters.
Let the record show that I've come down on both sides for attacking celebrities, while you are a rank hypocrit.
As far as I can tell, you're just annoyed that someone who happens to have a different opinion than you could possibly be successful enough to be given a forum in which he has a chance to make a statement at all.
I think I came down on both
September 3, 2009 - 13:21 ET by JasonCI think I came down on both sides in the story about Matt Damon inarticulately criticizing Palin about a year ago. Don't really feel like searching for it. I assure you I'm quite sincere in my dislike of H.W., Jr. In fact, one of the very few performances of his I like is on the tribute album for H.W., Sr. Coincidence, surely.
Furthermore, in the Penn discussion you linked, I was responding to a poster who had not only reveled in an absolute avalanche of homophobic slurs and implications, but one who intimated that she was being "forced" to listen to people like Penn. If you read that whole thread, you'll see the circumstances are a lot different from me making a snide remark about Hank Sr.'s legendary status.
I happen to disagree
September 3, 2009 - 13:52 ET by candancethat the number of words involved a slur somehow change the point.
But let's get back to your comment about shouters at town hall meetings. Let me tell you a little story about a House critter named Eric Cantor. He's the Republican party whip. Say you vote for him in your district in 2008.
Then upon returning to DC, he ignores your concerns as a voter. You don't want him to vote for the retroactive AIG bonus tax, but he does anyway. You call and ask him to vote against the salary caps. He says he's abstaining from any vote because his wife's employer got a bailout. You ask what good he's doing as Republican whip, and you get no answer.
August comes around. He won't visit his local office for any meetings. You attend a protest in front of the building, and he can't be bothered to even send someone out to talk to you. You call his office in DC to ask his stance on healthcare. The staff gives you the runaround, asks for you to leave your name, and then never calls you back.
You say I should restrain myself and resist the urge to yell if I ever actually see him in person. What alternative action do you supposed I take?
Well that sucks and all,
September 3, 2009 - 14:05 ET by JasonCWell that sucks and all, but I don't think it's the norm as far as TownHall shouters go; I don't see any indication that the majority of them aren't simply venting their Obama Derangement Syndrome.*
*Actually, I don't believe in this term, nor do I believe in it when its prefixed with Bush, Palin, et al. But I've been wanting to use it in jest for months.
you never answered my question
September 3, 2009 - 14:09 ET by candanceWhat do you suppose I do? And as to your point about shouters venting anger at Obama, the first "shoutfest" happened to GOP turncoat Arlen Specter. You don't think his consituents were angry at him personally?
How about waiting for your
September 3, 2009 - 14:17 ET by JasonCHow about waiting for your turn to take the floor, and laying out your grievances coherently and calmly, instead of acting like an hysterical Code Pink reject? I mean, I know you HAVEN'T done the latter yourself, but that would be my general advice to all TownHall attendees.
waiting my turn to take the floor?
September 3, 2009 - 21:17 ET by candanceThere is no floor here. There's no meeting. No conference. No nothing. Call him on the phone and you get stonewalled.
And your solution to keep waiting?
candance
September 3, 2009 - 14:58 ET by MrShy"What alternative action do you supposed I take?"
Try this:
1) Don't wear a fanny-pack.
2) Re-do your hair to make it more "sophisticated" (maybe un-frizzy it?)
3) No baseball caps and pastel colored t-shirts.
4) No outdoorsman-style boots (what are you, some civilian off the street?? sheesh...)
5) May I recommend you wear a bright color, say pink, and put some really eye-grabbing logo or curse words on it, anything visual that advocates a liberal progressive cause.
6) Oh, and whatever you shout, shout for more progressive policies, and shout extra loud if it's about evil Bush/Cheney, power-hungry Wall Street executives, or a woman's right to choose... or for the all-important gay marriage.
Then, you're no longer a shouter. You're good to go and totally accepted. Cool, even.
You don't have to go
September 3, 2009 - 20:27 ET by JasonCYou don't have to go all-out. Just #1 would be a refreshing change of pace.
@JasonC
September 3, 2009 - 14:05 ET by Utherpend"I guess simple-minded political ranting is one way to compensate for living in the shadow of his father; you know, a real country musician."
That is your OPINION JasonC, I for one never liked the whiny tone of Hank Sr and preferred his son over the father. Today I connect more with Hank III, who is a true die hard and would tell you what to do with it in multiple four letter words not to mention the state the government.
"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security."
That is your OPINION
September 3, 2009 - 14:14 ET by JasonCThat is your OPINION JasonC
Yup.
Atta Boy!
September 3, 2009 - 11:36 ET by GeneralAlAtta boy Hank! Give hell and blow your cigar smoke in their Liberal Communist Faces!
GET the word to FOA rally about VA congressman Boucher
September 3, 2009 - 11:39 ET by carolina09Boucher represents a coal district, but votes anti-coal. It'd be great if Boucher had a pro-coal opponent in 2010.
Way to go Hank!
September 3, 2009 - 13:18 ET by 1611LilacLadyWelcome aboard the truth wagon!
Isaiah 5:20a Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil. . . KJV
Bocephus is da man!!!
September 3, 2009 - 17:59 ET by DoktorFrankenBocephus is da man!!!
Good for you Hank
September 3, 2009 - 19:53 ET by nyyankee55Good for you Hank
JasonC aka Binky Braveheart runs on at the mouth again.
September 6, 2009 - 13:53 ET by JWFI is Binky. I is not over teh tops!
Binky: simple-minded ranting! malcontents! sheer ignorance! conservative version of Code Pink! miscontrued and blatantly lifted out of context! Loud, irritating, ideologically simplistic, easily manipulated! detractors! reactionary posters! fatuous comparisons! reactionary fringe! cloying! Nobody-Left-of-Limbaugh strain!
I is Binky. I makes teh sense!
Binky: I don't presume that, on a pragmatic, moral, or ethical level, it is supported by some sort of universal, unalterable truth.
I is Binky. Huh?
Binky: ...undergirded by puerile emotion
I is Biny. I confesses.
Binky: I'm a raging liberal/libertarian
I is Binky. Go to morass at church .
Binky: The morass of opinion, bias, and personal experience, makes that viewpoint decidedly non-objective.
Yes Binky, we do. We really really really do.
Binky: You may find my...analogy tiresome ...
Go Binky. Paint us a picture.
Binky: ...incompatability of one's genitals with his or her partner's
Oh, thank goodness. Now we can all relax.
Binky: Slavery, rape, and murder fit this definition and, for the record, I am 'against' these things...
I am Binky. I am opposed to war. But not war terminology.
Binky: the war horses of civil libertarianism
That may be true Binky, but it does not stop you from expounding opon it endlessly now does it?
Binky: It's not my area of expertise, so I could well be wrong
Yea, cuz it is so hard to type "jasonc matt damon palin site:newsbusters.org" in google and come up with this link - Matt Damon on Sarah Palin: 'Like a Really Bad Disney Movie'
Binky: I think I came down on both sides in the story about Matt Damon inarticulately criticizing Palin about a year ago. Don't really feel like searching for it
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.