Saturday, January 9, 2010

Saturday Silly with Maxine.


We have problems in this country: illegal immigration, hurricane recovery, alligators attacking people in Florida...Everybody's worried about the problems, but not me. I concentrate on solutions for the problems.
It's a win- win situation.
+ Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border.

+ Send the dirt to New Orleans; raise it above sea level.

+ Put the Florida alligators in the moat along the Mexican border.

How 'bout these: Cows, The Constitution, The Ten Commandments?

C O W S:

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that during the mad cow epidemic our government could track a single cow, born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she slept in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give each of them a cow.

T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N:

They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq ... Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.

T H E 1 0 C O M M A N D M E N T S:

The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse:

You can't post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal,' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment.
~~~

30 comments:

DUTA said...

Great post! I like the humour.

cocked and loaded said...

Wonderful thoughts and ideas!

One Ticked Chick said...

Give each of the illegal immigrants a cow, too funny!

Susannah said...

DUTA! Glad you're here. Thought we could use a little humor after the last post & comments! ;)

C&L~ Are you Chatham guys are COLD as we are in Forsyth?? Oh my word! Maxine's cool, huh?

OTC~ About the cow...I know, funny visual, no? ;)

ExPatMatt said...

Susannah,

That gave me a good chuckle! Nicely done.

Cheers,

Janie Lynn said...

Great fun! Sometimes you just have to laugh or you'll lose your sanity. Thanks Susannah!

Kathy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Right Is Right said...

Now what in the world does going to Hell in a Handbasket mean?- I never did understand that one!

Fredd said...

It's not that WE (conservatives) are not using the constitution anymore; THEY (you know who they are) are not using it anymore.

And to ship our constitution off to Iraq seems like a waste to me: the Iraqis will just wipe their butts with it, toss it into the sand where camels will urinate on it. Hmmm, come to think of it, sounds like it would not get much better treatment over there than Democrats are doing to it right now....

...aw, go ahead and send it then.

Susannah said...

RisR~ "in a handbasket" hmmm. Good question.

Fredd~ Great point. Our new friend Matt questioned that BHO is trying to shred the Constitution. I referred him to this link . It's several minutes, but well worth the watch.

Joe's New York said...

Super blog, I'm in agreement with you all of these.

Jim said...

Spalding is not the only Constitutional scholar in the country. Many others disagree.

Furthermore, he repeats the canard that you keep claiming that the government is going to take over 1/6th of the US economy. This is simply untrue. Even if we went to a single payer system, doctors nurses, and hospitals, etc. would still be private entities.

But this isn't even single payer AND there may not even be a public option. Only regulation of the insurance industry. So the idea that "Obamacare" will take over 1/6th of the economy is absurd from beginning to end.

The US regulates energy companies, financial institutions, drug companies food production, and just about every other part of the US economy. Does the government control the entire economy? If so, it has since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.

It's a silly claim.

This guy even FURTHER spews the LIE that the bill can't be repealed. That is simply FALSE, FALSE, FALSE. As in not true and a LIE. Even the one subsection that he uses to claim this lie only applies to the way in which Congress will evaluate the recommendations of the cost saving commission, and IT CAN BE changed or repealed with a 60 vote super majority.

So this Spalding guy is spewing untruths all over the place and you are presenting THIS clip as proof that Obama is "shredding" the Constitution?

FAIL.

Dan said...

Spalding is not the only Constitutional scholar in the country. Many others disagree.

Proof that there is always common ground between libs and conservatives. I can't imagine anyone, even among the most ignorant, disagreeing with this one. Way to go!

Furthermore, he repeats the canard that you keep claiming that the government is going to take over 1/6th of the US economy.

This is ridiculous of course.

With all the You Tube video available right now showing that this is indeed the first step toward taking over health care Jim makes the case that the take over is a canard.

hmmm let's look at the definition of "canard", Etymology: French, literally, duck; in sense 1, from Middle French vendre des canards à moitié to cheat, literally, to half-sell ducks

So Obama, with cheers from Jim, is actually the one selling the canard. He wants us to buy this half duck and believe the other half won't ever show up. Does anyone honestly believe that this bill is not a first step in taking over the health care industry?

Why don't you try a little honesty please Mr. Jim. Of course most people will reject your half duck, but at least you would be being... well... honest.

"But this isn't even single payer AND there may not even be a public option."

Yep, and C-span may be allowed into the rooms where..., ah oh, to late for that one, and the government may not go broke, and Social Security may not be approaching insolvency, and high taxes and inflation may not destroy what's left of the economy; Yep, I've gotta hand it to ya, you've got a point on that one Jim.

Now Jim is going to tell us all how I'm fear mongering here. Well to that I say, I am afraid. God didn't give us fear so that people could use it to control us, sometimes there's good reason to be afraid, and I think this is one of them.

...there may not even be a public option...only regulation of the insurance industry.

aaahhh... raise your hand if you think that the insurance companies are not now regulated.

This guy even FURTHER spews the LIE that the bill can't be repealed. That is simply FALSE, FALSE, FALSE.

Dude, take a pill. Now, go back and watch again and show us where he "spewed" (I like that by the way, kinda sounds like he's the demon possessed little girl on The Exorcist). I'm not saying that he didn't say it, I'm just saying that after watching it twice, I'm not getting where the did that spew thing with that message at all. here it is on You Tube for your convince, I think anyway

And while you're at it, why don't you take issue with the issues Spalding presents rather than just generalize that "some scholars disagree". I thought he was very fair, articulate, and did a good job of presenting his case.

Anonymous said...

Good blog. I like your style

Joe said...

Maxine is, indeed, cool.

Joe said...

Jim: "The US regulates energy companies, financial institutions, drug companies food production, and just about every other part of the US economy. Does the government control the entire economy?"

So, because they contro some, some more won't hurt? Is that the point of your question?

How much should they control?

They want all of it. Should we give it to them?

Susannah said...

JoeNY~ Welcome! Glad you came by, & thanks for the follow. Oh, & that's JT in your pic., right? He was raised a North Carolina boy, you know?

Jim~ I'm w/ Dan on the 'spewing' thing (i.e., there's no spewing to be seen/heard/found). Spaulding is clear & articulate, & his assertions are absolutely plausible. His assertions are also validated by all of the other news/information sources that I have consulted. In fact, the only 'source' that I've found who disagrees w/ these concerns is you, Jim dear. Oh...you & that Gibbs fella.

I think you've overdone your word choices too, Jim: 'spewing,' 'false,false, false,' 'lies, lies, all lies.'

Reminds me of Shakespeare: "Methinks he doth protest too much," if you get my drift...

Dan~ THANK YOU for the clarity, the links & your determination to bring reason to the huddled masses. I'm with ya. :)

Anon~ Thanks. Come on back & let us know who you are!

Joe~ My buddy, my pal! Glad to see you.

"How much should they control? They want all of it. Should we give it to them?"

Over my cold, stiff & lifeless body...This is why there's fear...b/c many of us are passionate about our country & do not want control ceded to the socialists in Washington DC.

Heaven help us.

Susannah said...

Hi all~
I apologize, I introduced (in my comment to Fredd) a topic of conversation which actually belongs to another comment thread. If you'd like to know what we're talking about, feel free to take a peek .

Or, just ignore us & enjoy Maxine's levity!

Jim said...

Spewing is an absolutely appropriate word. The claim is untrue, it is demonstrably untrue, and Spalding either knows it's untrue and therefore he's lying, or he has never read it and is lying when he claims to know what it says. Either way he is a liar.

Validated by other news sources you've consulted? You mean video clips of Spalding and Krauthammer where they make assertions but present no facts? Eh!

"why don't you take issue with the issues Spalding presents rather than just generalize that "some scholars disagree"." I believe that's exactly what I did.

"Reminds me of Shakespeare: "Methinks he doth protest too much," if you get my drift..."

With all due respect Sussanah, this is your SOP. If I protest at all, I doth protest too much. I don't buy it.

Dan said...

Jim is a jewel for providing such wonderful and blatant examples of the typical fallacious arguments forwarded by leftist. Check this out:

StrawmanThis is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam.

Susannah said...

Jim~ My SOP? (I assume you mean 'standard operating procedure' & not 'soprano;' b/c I am 1st soprano, but then, how would you know that?).

That said, I don't follow re: SOP. Please elaborate.

"If I protest at all, I doth protest too much."
If you say so. But you know Jim, it is my blog. I make no secret of my opinions. They're passionate, yes, but also carefully reasoned & reasonably articulate.

I call it as I see it. Take it or leave it.

And yes, Jim, imo you do protest just a wee bit too much on this one. Makes your arguments feel a little weak, actually.

Susannah said...

Dan~ Have you noticed my use of italics? Yippee!

That's Life said...

I agree with the others, I'm new to the world of blogging myself and I frirst getting around the boards, but this on is a really good one and I'll be here often as I like what you have to say.

Dr. Striden said...

"spewing"

This fellow's got it bad.

Dan said...

Way to go!

Jim said...

Gee, Dan, thanks for another erudite explanation of the obvious. Anyone who watches Fox News, as do I, knows what a strawman is.

That said, rather than defining strawman, why don't you specifically name the one I'm supposedly asserting?

Dan said...

You said:

This guy even FURTHER spews the LIE that the bill can't be repealed.

That is simply FALSE, FALSE, FALSE. The claim is untrue, it is demonstrably untrue, and you either know it's untrue and therefore you're lying, or you haven't ever watched it and are lying when you claim to know what he said. Either way you are a liar.

Jim said...

4:46-5:51

Dan said...

Its just not there Jim.

You can claim it's there if you'd like, the video is available for any to watch and make their own judgments, and I hope that many do for Spalding is a well spoken scholar who isn't making any of the claims that you falsely accused him of, along with being a liar, but is instead well spoken, level headed, and informative.

That's it, I'm done.

Jim said...

Spalding at 5:36 of the video:

"The notion, the audacity of putting something in to prevent this from every being changed, repealed, amended, is a violation of the Constitution but is also just insulting to the way that a Constitutional rule of law system operates."

I'm glad you're done.