« Rex Bar @ Fitger's Opens August 29th | Main | FYI »

Help John McCain Count His Houses


Not that this matters, but arent these homes owned mostly by his rich wife?

So, he gets to live in them for free? damn... he should be more careful about calling her a trollop and cunt, if she ever divorces him he may have to move up to Kennybunkport with Bush Sr.

Not sure if this is any better as it suggests McCain is a "kept" man. Without his much younger rich wife (who he suggested should compete in a topless biker beauty pageant) whose $ helped him get in the Senate in the first place...

I don't get it. Are you saying that it's bad for the woman to have more money than the man in a relationship?

Quit being a doorknob. It's bad because he is running for president of the US and is completely clueless as to how the lower 99% of us live. Are you really that dense or are you just trying to stir it up (and with me, you have succeeded).

I'm probably not even voting for the guy!!

I just find this particular issue to be stupid and not based on facts. At the beginning of the video itself the interveiwer asks him "How many houses do you and Mrs. McCain own?". Then, later in the video, printed on the screen are the words: "Let's help John McCain count his houses!" The key word there is HIS. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see the propoganda in that. It's pretty common knowledge that not only is his wife totally loaded, but they also file seperate tax returns, and SHE has a prenup. If we're going to be making comparisons between the two major party candidates based on their own income I'd be really curious to see what we'd get. Add to the fact that the guy is quite a bit older than Obama (something which is pointed out by pro-Obama supporters all the time). It stands to reason that he would have more money. He's been around for 30 years longer than the guy and has had that much more time to make, save, and amass more wealth.

Didn't John Kerry have a similar problem, a rich wife, in the last election?

I thought making the canidate's wife's income a campaign issue was just as silly then as it is now.

Money can change who you are, and who you aren't.

In my mind, the candidate who has less money, is probably the least corrupted of the two.

Money shouldn't be an issue, but it is. Just like religion, race, and gender.

i dunno about you guys, but i tend to select my candidates based solely upon which finger they use to pick their noses. index or pinkie?

hey, danny --

do you honestly have this much trouble grasping simple concepts? or are you just a gleeful contrarian? either way, you come off as a real buffoon most of the time. is this really how you want to be perceived? give it a rest, man. try holding off on posting right at the top of every thread for a while, okay? that would probably help you look more like a real person instead of an obnoxious troll.

listen: john mccain is married to a person. these people together have at least seven houses they can stay in at any given time. most normal, average americans will have a lot of trouble identifying with this. yet, mccain is trying to paint obama (a man who owns one home) as an "elitist." do you see how this may be taken as just slightly hypocritical?

he's going to sturgis and trying to paint himself as a man of the people, and yet he can't even tell you how many houses he and his wife have. if you're so rich that you lose track of how many places you and your wife can rest your heads, that's a problem.

and then there's the thing the other day when mccain was asked what "rich" was, and he answered "five million." as if four million makes you middle-class.

obama's doing fine, too, but the man was paying off his student loans until very recently. he's far closer to the reality of the average american, at this point.

danny, really: if you'd stop doing duluth for just a second, you'd probably have time to learn some of this stuff. stop spouting off all the time and start listening.


You were starting to sway me. You really were. At least untill you made this statement:

"and then there's the thing the other day when mccain was asked what "rich" was, and he answered "five million." as if four million makes you middle-class."

If you are falling for that one, then you are a moron.

Hey, if the Republican party wants to sling around petty issues like gay marriage, etc., they had better be ready to field questions about their wealth, or anything else the press wants to ask them. That's what they should expect as soon as they throw a hat in the ring. If I were a reporter with access, I would love to try to get a question or two in edgewise. McCain has no choice, as a Senator, but to live in the public eye, and that means that the world can easily see how schmancy his life is. People then can make up their own minds about which candidate they can relate to more, and which one may be able to cut through some of the crap in order to show what is a real issue, and what is just a smokescreen.
In a campaign, it's pretty much expected that the candidates will jump on anything the other says, or fumbles on. Hillary and Obama did it to each other for months, and they are supposed to be compadres. No one should be surprised that Obama's staff took this opportunity and ran with it. I would have, too (but then again, I've been biased against the very rich for a long time).
I agree with Hells Bells; and I think Danny is a quibbler who LOVES playing the Devil's advocate. No wonder people seem to be so annoyed with him.

Hey man, I don't "seem" to be annoyed with him. I AM annoyed with him. It's like trying to explain a knock-knock joke to a 3-year-old. After a while you realize that it would be better to wait until the kid was old enough to comprehend that level of humor. The video this thread is based on is just simple humor. What makes it funny is that it is also based on fact.

If houses are an issue, how's about talking about Obama having a major campaign donor (Tony Resco) paying over $300k to cover part of the purchase of the Obama's $1.8MM "home"? We're talking about the same Resco that was convicted of multiple felonies in Illinois.....the same Resco that Obama championed to give $16MM in government funds for low-income housing development that never came to fruition. Politicians, as a matter of practice, are as shady as the day is long; however, Obama seems to have far more dark clouds hanging over him as opposed to McCain. Couple that with Obama's complete lack of experience (one term state rep, less than one term senator), his affiliation with William Ayers (convicted of terrorism against the United State) and his anti-American religious ties, and you have a grossly unqualified presidential candidate. The Dems would've had an easier time getting into the White House with The Clinton Machine.

Side note: What is wrong with the accumulation of wealth? It seems that liberals have big-time issues with successful people.

Weak debating tools:

1) Never, ever admit you are wrong about ANY point in the debate.

2) Focus the debate on the person you are debating rather than the subject at hand as early in the debate as possible.

3) Lob insults at the opponent as eary as possible.

4) Pretend that you think that the subject of the debate is not serious if you are starting feel yourself losing.

5) Show extreme anger and frustration. That is a great way to make people think that you are serious and passionate about the issue at hand.

Ha, HA! Well said, Tim K! Sorry to have been so... [meek?] in my post. I'd be a shitty candidate for any office, I guess!
Oh, wait-- I don't make enough money to run for office! ;)
Don't talk to the trolls, it's like feeding the seagulls--you just get so much squawking!

I am probably going to be branded a troll for this comment... Oh well, here goes.
Just something to think about.
After reading Hells Bells comment the thought came to my mind: A case also could be made that the canidate with less money might stand more chance of being corrupted while in office? Pander a bit to those special interests so as to get a nice cushy position after leaving office.
The rich canidate most likely has already made his money and would not be tempted by such offers.

Probably not as much of a factor for a Presidential canidate, but canidates in lower offices.

I think what mad me think about this is that, I once got turned down on a job application because I did not have a perfect credit score, the idea given was, if I was not already finacially well off, I could be talked into selling sensitive information.

My candidate swings a bigger dick than your candidate!

I don't consider that a trollworthy comment, Shane... it's thoughtful, and respectfully submitted. And I'm sure that scenario has happened more than once, and will likely happen again. Even a biased liberal like me knows that no generalization fits every candidate.

in general being wealthy does not immune you from wanting more wealth.

And no it is not "bad" that the lady has more $ then the fella. What I find obnoxious is one partner being so out of tune as to what constitutes wealth that he pounces about in $500 loafers, has access to multiple properties to live in and is in every way a sliver spoon baby, yet insists on referring to himself as something less, someone that has some inking of how the other 90% of people live. At a time where foreclosures are skyrocketing, where people have to decide between medicine or food, we have a political candidate whose 5 years of real life experience was spent as a POW, and that somehow makes him a common man? Someone who knows what an "average" American goes through?

meh, the fellow can't keep Sunni and Shia straight no wonder he can't keep track of all those properties. They spend over 300,000 on servants. Wonder if all those green cards are up to date?

Chad O -- I just have two words for you in response to your anti-Obama rant: Keating Five.

I'd rather vote for the guy who worked hard for everything he's gotten than the guy who's had everything handed to him by his rich daddy and then his even richer wife.

Check out the video made by PDD's favorite troll. Awesome!


"and his anti-American religious ties,"

when will you fucking idiots stop listening to FAUX news and wise up, eh?

Anti-American religious ties?


Let's all keep in mind that Obama has never won a straight one-on-one election in his political career. He's not a very good candidate. If I was a hard-core Democrat I'd be pretty pissed that he was our choice.

And thanks trollwatcher. It was very cool of you to plug some of my work.

danny, there's a first time for everything, and he's not the only one. never doesn't ever mean won't.

that said, I do have to commend Rupert Murdoch for making a very very wise decision.

It's never bothered me when I've heard about a politician who hasn't been that successful at campaigning for him/herself. I try to vote for them (or not) based on what they're saying and doing, and sometimes I vote for the least asshole-ish choice, if I am pissed about facing a crappy choice. Assholes in office are magnified by ten. I'll do my part to keep them away from microphones.

I agree whole-heartedly. The inexperience thing is actually one of the traits that I personally like about Obama. I just don't see a candidate with pretty much no record of ever really winning anything as a smart choice for a major political party to run for the big job. I think the current polls are reflecting that too. With the unpopularity of the party that is currently in the White House and the unpopularity of the war, a Democrat should be trouncing in the polls. Obama's not doing that right now. I think alot of that has to do with his inexperience in ever really winning an election.

Great McCain talking points.


Let's not forget that Abraham Lincoln was avirtual unknown in his first campaign. He was pegged for lack of experience. He had no executive or managerial credentials to speak of. His only political experience was serving on the Illinois State Legislature and then serving as a somwhat obscure member of Congress. He turned out pretty well I would say. Also, look where "experience" has gotten us. We have witnessed 8 years of some of the worst policies and practices in American History. Most of this administration had "experience" and their administration was an absolute train wreck. As for McCain, it is fine that his family has money. I am sure they are quite charitable with it as well. John Kerry is loaded, Al Gore is loaded, John Edwards is loaded and gets $200 haircuts. It is just funny to watch McCain try to identify with people and real problems. Don't tell me about working 2 jobs and skipping a vacation. Americans are over worked and underpaid, I need my vacations. When McCain sold out to the Bushies, he lost my vote immediatley.

JFK was also very inexperienced.

Debunking the Rezko smear:


"...As for that claim about Rezko helping Obama buy his house, well, we've dealt with that one before. The gist of the story: In 2005, Barack and Michelle Obama found a house that they wanted to purchase. The property had been divided into two parcels, one containing a house and the other undeveloped land. The owner had listed the properties separately. After considerable haggling, the seller accepted the Obamas' third bid of $1.65 million for the parcel containing the house. Tony Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining lot for $625,000.

When the Obamas wanted to increase the size of their yard, they approached the Rezkos about purchasing a strip of the adjacent parcel. Obama told the Sun-Times that a 10-foot strip of the 60-foot lot appraised for $40,000. The Obamas nevertheless paid Rita $104,500 (or 1/6 of the total purchase price of her lot) for the strip. In 2007, Rita sold the remaining lot for $575,000 (or roughly a $54,500 profit on the overall property).

McCain's ad, however, is worded in a way that could leave a false impression. It says Rezko "helped him buy his million-dollar mansion" by 'purchasing part of the property he couldn't afford.' That's true, but only because the seller wanted to sell the two parcels as a unit and the Obamas couldn't afford both. Rezko did not make a gift of any property to the Obamas. Furthermore, the fact that his wife sold her lot for more than she paid for it contradicts any suggestion that the Rezkos overpaid for their part of the deal as a way of getting the seller to lower the price to the Obamas for their part...."

Obama's (alleged) lack of experience once he's elected is A-Ok with me. Like I said, personally I see that as a plus. Although I think alot of other people see it as a negative.

I was referring specifically to his lack of WINNING experience when it comes to elections. Look at the last (and basically only) major election he was in. His election to the Senate. Near the end of the campaign his opponent became tangled up in a nasty scandal and ended up dropping out of the race. That led to the GOP throwing Alan Keyes in at the last minute, who had no chance in hell of winning anyway. All I'm saying is Obama is kind of a crummy choice if the Democrats really want to win. Forget about weather or not he's the best man for the job (which he very well could be). I think there's a good chance that he could actually do a decent job as president. It's getting there that I question. He's never had to really win anything before.

I have pro and cons for both of these guys. Many of which are (admittedly) a litte odd. But those are my opinions. As to who will win, who the hell knows? As to who will I vote for, probably neither. Or maybe one of them. Again...I don't even know yet.

I actually think Obama was a better choice than Clinton. If Hillary was the nominee right now, Republicans would be coming out of the woodwork right now to rise up against her. McCain has had to reach pretty deep to come up with shit on Obama. I think the FOX News and the EIB network would be working twice as hard on Clinton. I do see Danny's point however. Obama was put in because of his crowd drawing abilities. I agree with most of his politics but that is why he is the nominee.

He is also the nominee because he won it fair and square, organizing circles around everyone else.

nik, if the Druggie Limbug and his EIB had as much credibility at all, he'd be anyplace but AM radio. Remember "Operation Chaos?" "Millions" of EIB dittiots were supposed to register as Democrats to get Hillary the endorsement so he'd have something to masturbate to for the next 4 years. Yeah, that went well. In reality only (and I don't have exact figures here but...approximately) 4% or so actually fell for his game...and Limbug all the while proclaiming what a resounding success the "operation" was.

He also recently stated that liberals are the "real" reason that the rest of the world hates the United States. Right. And the fact that we invaded a sovereign nation against the wishes of...well, practically everyone...couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

Limbug and his ilk are propagandist entertainers...their sole purpose is to piss off and misinform the idiot fringe.

The fat bastard can't do anything but talk out of his ass.

Well zra, I won't argue with the alot of the content stuff as far as Limbaugh goes. I actually aggree with alot of what you just said. However, I will disaggree with the part where you said if he had any credibility he'd be anywhere but AM radio. First of all, he's on FM radio in quite a few major markets...including the twin cities. Secondly, radio generally has more listeners than TV has veiwers. Take any given popular radio show and put it up against any popular comparable TV show and most-likely the radio show's ratings will be much, much higher. It's an extremely viable and profitable medium. Just look at Limbaugh's recent contract renewal.

Wait a minute. When did this topic turn into a debate about Rush Limbaugh?

Let's bring it back to the presidential candidates, shall we? Looks like Joe Biden is Obama's VP pick. Everyone get ready. By the end of the week there will be McCain commercials playing clips of Biden talking about Obama and his lack of foreign policy knowledge.

Maybe you guys can help. I'm trying to decide on the better celebrity couple name for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Do you like Obinan or Jobama better?

Thank you. I'l be here al week. Tip your waitresses.

Main Point: Is this really the place for this? There's enough election stuff everywhere else.

2nd point: McCain was pretty wealthy before marrying his wife. He's just crazy as heck wealthy now. I think the point being made here is that since Reagan the Righters have been trying to label the Dems are rich and out of touch with the common man, when usually the opposite is true. Dems hate this.

3rd point: How can anyone say Obama is not a good politician? He's won the democratic nomination when most of the big players were against him. Even if he loses in Nov, he'll still be hugely popular as a senator. Also, the man can fill a stadium on a weeks notice.

Danny: despite the fact that your comments irk people to no end, I actually appreciate your wisecrack comments. The debate can get to be a bit one-sided without someone playing Republican's advocate.

That said, we understand it is propaganda. That is the whole point of the video. Nobody was arguing that this was an objective media commentary.

I think everyone is making this out to be a partisan issue when it isn't. It is a class issue. There are lots and lots of poor Republicans. There are lots of rich Democrats. I'm terribly sorry to disappoint, but despite the fact I wholeheartedly support Obama and will be voting for him in November, nobody can convince me for a fraction of a second that Obama is 'in touch' with the working class.

The entire point of a political campaign is to sell a candidate. Most of what they say is hashed out in focus groups and amongst advisers for weeks before it ever hits the press. In fact, the worse the candidate is at speaking and sticking to the script, the more honest they are likely to be. Unfortunately for McCain that clumsiness has led to him revealing that he can't count his own properties, but I think if someone were to ask Obama how many bank accounts he has, he might have a similar problem (which to his credit he would respond to in a much more acceptable fashion). The real question is not who is richer than the other, but instead which one of them actually gives a damn about me and my family?

Lastly, if anyone I have seen run for office in recent memory deserves wealth, it is John McCain. Personally, I can't stand him as an individual and think he would run this country into the ground as badly as Bush has, but I nevertheless feel he is sincere in serving his country. Regardless of the fact that he is a war-mongering stooge who has sacrificed some of his most important principles in running for president, I find it difficult to question his service to the country.

I think people forget that it is possible to respect the opponent while fighting like hell to ensure they never get elected to the presidency. More importantly, respect the people who take the time to voice their opinion one way or another and actually respond to them honestly. As much as I disagree with Danny and a few others on this blog most of the time, calling someone a troll is a stupid, pointless act of snobbery when that person is 1) Honest about their identity; 2) Generally respectful; and 3) Trying to engage in the topic at hand.

I know most people have responded to this post with well argued opinions but some of the comments have devolved into meaningless personal attacks and I can't for the life of me understand the point in having an online pissing match with far more important issues sitting in front of our noses.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) :

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."

Example from Danny (from this post http://www.perfectduluthday.com/2008/08/stupid_economy.html#comments ): "Could you please explain in under 15 words or less why racism is bad?"

More from the wikipedia Troll entry (regarding the troll variant 'concern troll'): "...The concern troll posts in web forums ... and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions ... with professed 'concerns'... to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group....the concern trolls in question ... were Republicans offering public advice and warnings to the Democrats. The author defines 'concern trolling' as 'offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient.'"

Example from Danny, from the above post: "...If I was a hard-core Democrat I'd be pretty pissed that (Obama) was our choice."

Anonymity is not strictly required for trolling, but troll behavior is distinct.

Danny is the textbook definition of a troll.

In the "Stupid Economy" post one can observe him calling someone "my lady," later attempting to get her email address, and then when she rebuffed him, he insulted her, and then denied doing so, until his quote was presented back to him. So he will also deny almost any assertion about his factual behaviour.

I have also seen him do this from the wikipedia article: "...Frequently, someone who has been labelled a troll by a group may seek to redeem their reputation by discrediting their opponents, for example by claiming that other members of the group are closed-minded, conspirators, or trolls themselves." Closed-minded is the insult he used against the woman who refused to give him her email address.

ehh...i stand corrected. Though I'll admit that I'm not in the habit of listening to him any more than I have to. I do stand by my comment however. If there were any more money in liberal talk radio, the fat bastard would jump ship in a heartbeat, and that goes for the rest of his cronies.

biden? really?

I was prepared to be disappointed by Obama's VP pick. Everyone had fatal flaws. Biden is gaffe-prone and he is not progressive enough for me. On the plus side though, he has some great zingers. It was Biden who tagged Rudy as Mr. "noun-verb-9/11." So the debates will be fun.

I bet McCain will choose Pawlenty, who crucially owns fewer houses than Romney.

IMO, Pawlenty is only slightly less batshit crazy and creepshow scary than anyone else McCain could or would choose to ticket with.

BTW I have condensed the three McCain videos into one post and filed it under the "politics" tag in deference to Nettles' Main Point.

zra: word.

then again...that may be the reason why McCain wouldn't pick him.

it's hard to take someone too seriously when he looks like an escapee from Jim Henson's muppet factory.

there. I said it. Pawlenty looks like a muppet.

Also from the Wikipedia article cited by The Professor: "Application of the term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem.

Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls""

I'm sure it has been said before, but if anyone truly thought Danny was a troll and that it is glaringly obvious to everyone else that he is a troll, they wouldn't bother arguing with him. The fact that you take the time to craft responses to his arguments in itself shows that you either A) Don't think he is a troll given your own definition (taken from Wikipedia); or B) You don't follow you own advice regarding trolls, which makes you a hypocrite.

You can be provocative without being a troll. The post itself was provocative but I don't hear anyone calling the McCain bashers trolls for baiting the conservatives reading the blog. Moreover, it wasn't off-topic and the rest of your argument rests on the presumption that Danny intended to disrupt the conversation or elicit an emotional response. I don't think you are in a position to make such a judgment and frankly, I think his comments spurred the conversation rather than disrupting it.

You are free to disagree with me and I'm not going to dissect every comment on previous posts as a means to judge anyone else's character. But if you actually feel that someone is a troll, follow your own advice and don't respond. Otherwise your arguments sound like those of a whining child complaining they've been hurt while thrashing about in a temper tantrum.

To reiterate, it is reasonable and fair to call Danny a troll. He documentedly exhibits well-defined troll behavior, and it is well-known that he trolls different sites of all political persuasions and makes himself unwelcome on purpose. Not with every comment, but because he has attached himself to PDD like a barnacle and is a constant presence in every comments thread, new PDDers don't necessarily know to not feed him. He is good at trolling, ie drawing people into arguments and head games. I encourage all to minimize responding to the troll. He will ask you to answer his questions, to look stuff up for him, and to do other stuff for him like give him your email address, and he will stomp and fuss until you deliver and insult you if you don't.

I welcome right-wing readers to PDD, and they generally know and expect that PDD is fairly described as largely a progressive community, and that their views may be challenged and tweaked here. But having heated left-right arguments in the comments is one thing, and deliberate and constant trolling is another. So whereas the application of the term troll may be oh-so-subjective, Danny is widely regarded as one for actual reasons. Just sayin.

Thank you for your comment "Professor". I enjoy a heated debate as well as anyone.

I will chime in my opinion about trolls, feel free to disagree, if you like.
In the post about the Library a few people called me a troll for making a couple of comments they did not like or agree with.

I was not trolling, I just made the mistake of trying to defend my comments, rather poorly, I might add in hind sight, to people slinging insults at me.

I do not think I was at all being a troll. A bona fide troll makes statements with the end goal of trying to deliberatly piss people off.
I was not trying to piss people off or upset anyone. I just stated my opinion and tried to participate in the debate.

I did learn something, I actually looked up Charlie Bell's racist comments and I now regret ever supporting him in the election. Luckily the better canidate won the election.

claire - chad o. is not in touch with reality. he thinks there was a sex toy toss at the chamber golf tournament and giant penises float down tower ave. during the pride parade. check out his comments in the dnt.

chad reads from the HannitySavageLimbug book of obfuscation, misinformation and demonization, using the basic premise that most people will believe the most outrageous and ridiculous story you can come up with no matter how baseless and false.

look how fast the lies about Obama's religious preferences spread, how many idiots actually buy into them and how difficult they are to quash.

same difference.

"his affiliation with William Ayers (convicted of terrorism)"

Bill Ayers never committed any terrorist act except blowing up a statue. a couple of his friends blew themselves up in a fit of underground idiocy.

the idea of his association with Obama being a scarybad thing is a joke to anyone who is familiar with Chicago political action--Ayers is an instrumental figure in the anti-poverty movement. also, he's a key man in the school reform movement, and a distinguished professor of education. it isn't possible to be involved in on-the-ground action in either camp without coming into friendly contact with Bill Ayers.

god, those right-wingers sure gotta reach far into wingnut territory with this guy.

i want a t-shirt that says, "I'm a Secret Muslim" and on the back... "and so are YOU!"

I agree with you. You were called a troll, as an insult, unnecessarily. That happens sometimes on the internet. The word gets thrown around a lot and so its currency is devalued. But it does have a definition and it may be used accurately. And so when its application was disputed I corrected the record, with examples. I am not trying to insult Danny when I call him a troll. I am identifying his behavior with the name created for it. If you ask me, Danny plays the game very well, ingratiating himself at certain times, making a big show of "keeping things on-topic" sometimes, and acting like this is his community as much as as everyone else's, but he then reserves the right to call people morons, be racially provocative, and classic concern trolling, to name a few. He does it so much all over town that it is indisputable. You got in an argument in one post and someone insulted you, but Danny is Duluth's most hated troll. If it were up to me, we'd vote him off the island. And I am JUST SAYIN.

shane, your president used his family's influence to avoid getting his ass shot off in Vietnam, then disappeared from the cushy unit he was transferred to (incidentally, they still haven't been able to find a single person who can vouch for his presence there), did his share of drugs (I understand he was quite fond of cocaine), was a notorious booze hound and womanizer, was given and subsequently ran not one but TWO very profitable businesses into the ground (Harken nergy, Arbusto Oil), defrauded the state of Texas out of millions to fund his ballpark, and sent more inmates to death than any other governor (many of whom we are finding out now were actually innocent of the crimes for which they were executed)...

need I go on?

oops...i meant CHAD not shane...

sorry shane.

Shoud I be worried about The Professor's obsession with me?

Dear Danny,
Please Kill Yourself.

Wow. It sure is a good thing that I don't believe in you.

Zra: Rick Perry exceeded Bush in the number of executions presided over while sitting as the governor of TX in 2007. To my knowledge Perry has presided over 166 executions to date. Bush was a close second at 152.

Jesus, old buddy.

Long time. You seem to have changed your tune since last I knew you. What happened to that "love your brother" idea you were always preaching?

I was going to buy you a beer, but I'm not sure I want to be associated with your current behavior.

Thats right. You always preferred that cheap ass watery wine anyway.

Keep it real, bro, and put in a good word for me to your father.

Danny - I like "Jobama".

And don't kill yourself, no matter what Christ or the other voices tell you!


Spoken like a true fan of racial provocation.

Who? What? Huh?

"Could you please explain in under 15 words or less why racism is bad?" - Danny

"An Internet troll ... is someone who posts controversial ... messages in an online community ... with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response ...."
-Wikipedia, "Troll (internet)"

Ok. Not really sure what you mean by bringing that question up. I'm not being coy here. I really have no idea what you're talking about. I've read and re-read this thread over and over and tried to get into your head on this and I have to admit defeat. When somebody calls me something like a "fan of racial provocation" I take offence. You've mentioned how I'm a "troll" many times (way too many times, in my opinion) not only here but on other sites...particularily the DCB. While I could try to defend myself and point out specific examples of how I can back up everything I post as my true opinion, I will not do that here. However, being called any form of a racist is a whole different ballgame. That sets the bar up quite a few more pegs and I think you need to think twice before you do it. Especially since this came totally out of nowhere.

Other than my most-likely accurate theories on why you use "The Professor" as your cute little imaginary online nickname, I just don't get you. Throw the "racist" ball at me, then the only thing I can say is: What's your fucking problem?

thanks, @ndy.

in hindsight i think i actually knew that (family's still in TX). i generally get a little carried away when i go off on an anti american, terrerist supporting, kitten killing, flag burning, freedom hating, apple pie stomping, bush bashing (did i forget anything?) tirade. i love hiding behind a Constitution that i hate so much.


There was a reason that Harvey was called in by the Chamber execs and rebuked for the groups' conduct. It wasn't for pink flamingos.

Secondly, I've saw the balloon myself--and had to try explain to my 4 year niece what in the hell was going on. Nice, eh?

Finally: Your candidate/pretender, Barack Obama, will end up getting crushed this fall for the same reason liberalism is being spurned across Europe: People are sick and tired of having an agenda pushed into their lives every single day. I, nor anyone else, is required to be "tolerant" or "acceptant" of conduct that I/they find reprehensible. It is about time that liberals in this country realize that by shoving their value system into the face of the collective public that they are creating a groundswell of people who will beat back the militant, agenda-toting liberal minority.

And, speaking of the lies and misinformation you referred to: you're sounding like a classic liberal-whacko. Just hate Bush because he's President and he doesn't support your views. Yep, you got it. Bush is behind EVERYTHING. 9/11, Katrina, the Patriots losing the Super Bowl--all Bush.

Obama did drugs in college. Obama voted to give $16MM to Rezko for low income housing that was never built. Obama has not authored ONE PIECE OF LEGISLATION in Congress. If you think that Obama is the sterling, upstanding citizen you want to lead your country, ask yourself: What has he done in his life that qualifies him to run the country? Answer: Nothing.

Re: Danny's M.O. It has already been observed that "he will also deny almost any assertion about his factual behaviour." He has just done so again about his racially provocative remark to me in the "Stupid Economy" post, "Could you please explain in under 15 words or less why racism is bad?"

And it is John McMansion who is going to get stomped this election.

We can get into a debate about THAT question in THAT thread if you want.

Now, can you please explain to me where I'm being "racially provocative" here?

chad o. there were noy sex toys at the event. i staffed the hole after i golfed my morning round. the game was a ring toss around FLAMINGOS. the prizes were mini footballs, bubbles and watches. there were 2 chamber employees stationed at the hole all day long. your out-right lies in the DNT show YOUR true character. using lies to push your agenda only makes you look foolish and bitter. as for the giant penis, i have never seen it in the parade. harvey and i have spoken to the chamber and we know exactly what went down. in fact it happens every day in our lives. it's called HOMOPHOBIA.

Chad O.: "Obama did drugs in college." - And so did Bush Jr., Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Newt Gingrich and Clarence Thomas. What is your point?

"Obama has not authored ONE PIECE OF LEGISLATION in Congress" - Obama has authored or co-sponsored several hundred bills. A few notable ones you ask? How about the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, the Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act and the 2007 Government Ethics Bill. And don't forget the bill he co-authored with John McCain, the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005. Go to the Library of Congress website and research it for yourself.


There was a reason that Harvey was called in by the Chamber execs and rebuked for the groups' conduct. It wasn't for pink flamingos.

Secondly, I've saw the balloon myself--and had to try explain to my 4 year niece what in the hell was going on. Nice, eh?

Finally: Your candidate/pretender, Barack Obama, will end up getting crushed this fall for the same reason liberalism is being spurned across Europe: People are sick and tired of having an agenda pushed into their lives every single day. I, nor anyone else, is required to be "tolerant" or "acceptant" of conduct that I/they find reprehensible. It is about time that liberals in this country realize that by shoving their value system into the face of the collective public that they are creating a groundswell of people who will beat back the militant, agenda-toting liberal minority.

And, speaking of the lies and misinformation you referred to: you're sounding like a classic liberal-whacko. Just hate Bush because he's President and he doesn't support your views. Yep, you got it. Bush is behind EVERYTHING. 9/11, Katrina, the Patriots losing the Super Bowl--all Bush.

Obama did drugs in college. Obama voted to give $16MM to Rezko for low income housing that was never built. Obama has not authored ONE PIECE OF LEGISLATION in Congress. If you think that Obama is the sterling, upstanding citizen you want to lead your country, ask yourself: What has he done in his life that qualifies him to run the country? Answer: Nothing.

Is there an echo in here?

If we distributed the wealth in this country evenly as many of you socialists would like, five years later the same people that were rich before would have the lion's share once again. The people that were poor before would be flat broke and pissing and moaning on this blog again about how this country is unfair. Put that in your fucking pipe and smoke it.

Sorry about the double post. Crappy internet connection.

I have had numerous conversations with numerous chamber members, and there were unacceptable items (pink dildo) present. I saw it myself. Your admission of poor conduct is admirable, however, this one is the truth.

There's no bitterness here. I feel that you are completely entitled to do whatever you so please. It's the beauty of America--freedom. Don't, however, expect people to be accepting of the conduct that so often accompanies the "lifestyle" you support--especially when there still are "homophobes" out there. Polarization is all that happens when people act inappropriately. I have worked for a member of the GLBT in the past, and she was a perfect example of what needs to happen: people going about their daily lives without shoving a controversial personal agenda down the throats of those around them. I respect her more for not expecting those around her to make exceptions for borderline conduct.

As for [email protected], thanks for the information. I did not realize he had a hand in those bills. In all seriousness and out of curiosity, did any of those bills pass?

Please--admit that he is unqualified to run the country after serving less than one term as a U.S. Senator. You're looking to put a community organizer in charge of the greatest country in the world. It's like making a McDonald's shift manager the Mayor of Duluth.

To make myself clear--I'm not looking to start a war here. I am simply stating my opinion in an open forum, and it seems that (aside from @ndy) defensiveness and personal attacks take precendent over intelligent debate.

Chad O -- I've been to that parade myself -- and have marched in it with my family -- and most certainly did not see any giant penises floating by. It's a pretty tame parade as Gay Pride parades go. I, like C-Freak, have no idea what in the hell you are talking about. Give it a rest.

Gee...I wonder if I will be labeled "troll" if I throw my hat into "The Great Dildo Debate".

I'd better not.

"Obama voted to give $16MM to Rezko for low income housing that was never built." - Chad O.

Are you referring to Cottage View Terrace? It opened five years ago.


Hell, I vote for a giant penis float in the City of the North Parade! With mistletoe on it! And local kiddoes doing gymnastics around the float as it rolls by!

In fact, they should change the name of our most famous parade to "Penis City of the North" parade.

Which will be the immediate degradation of the Country, apparently, once Obama wins this November. Doesn't the parade happen right about then?

:-) (For those who don't understand satire.)

Also, the children will be carry Gay Pride banners and handing out hot pink dildos. And syringes.


If the wealth is redistributed how I would like, I will get health care and maybe a decent retirement package, and so if I go flat broke, it won't be quite as bad. And maybe by then, John McMansion will be able to figure out the answer to the question of how many houses he has. The government already gives him health care, and I bet he could afford it himself anyway. Again - if the Obama administration gives you health care, I'm sure you can refuse to use it if you want.


Since when was it the government's job to provide you free health care and a retirement package? You must not be a real professor, otherwise you'd have a healthy little pension and stellar health insurance from the colleges that are overcharging their students. The biggest problem with liberals is that they want to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator in the name of equality rather than helping everyone succeed and make their own way. But, then, I suppose that "the man" is keeping everyone down. Stop whining and work. If people worked as hard for themselves as they do fighting for handouts, the country would be a FAR better place.

i've had numerous conversations with chamber member as well mr. chad olson. i heard only positive feedback. many folks even asked for they're picture to be taken with sharon shebang. there was no pink dildo present EVER and perhaps your LIE perpetuated the chamber email from david. i have admitted nothing as my conduct was exemplary. i met tons of new people and enjoyed myself immensely. our hole sponsorship was in step with the theme the chamber asked for - a carnival like atmosphere. we had 2 people in costume like there were at other sponsored holes. i will be posting pictures of our flamingo ring toss to end your slander of our organization. in 22 years there has NEVER been a giant penis in our parade. it is a family friendly event.

Yall's inability to stop giving credence to the binary prison of American politics (especially national and presidential) is fucking maddening.

If in decades of awareness you haven't noticed the continuity of evil despite the charade of "throw(ing) the rascals out", um, it's your fucking fault.

At least the kids passionately arguing the merits of their favorite American Idol are actually
making use of words and ideas which are useful in describing the mechanisms by which one succeeds in that contest. A bold contrast to you silly, silly fools.

Your Arch Enemy,
Burly Burlesque

Chad pontificated...
"Since when was it the government's job to provide you free health care and a retirement package?"


"Stop whining and work."

Chad, I don't know. "Free handouts" seem to work on occasion. (I'm thinking of Europe). Largely free health care, and in some cases free secondary education (Holland). Hmm...

I don't think the US is or would be a better place because of Adam Smith's ideas.

I imagine you would see the infirm as dead weight because they can't work. Shame on you.

Maybe step down off of your wooden horse :)

harvey was never called in either mr. chad olson.


Read the article. There were five other housing projects that were not completed. Cottage View was completed--and is now being managed by the son of Obama's former boss and Rezko's business partner. Interesting--I didn't know that. Obama was also working for the law firm that helped Rezko and his former boss secure the funding for those projects.

Not much proof of Obama's sterling reputation. It basically says that Obama was both working for and voting in favor of appropriating funds to Rezko. But the article was a good read. Further reinforces my image of Obama as a crooked politician.

And, as far as McCain and the Keating Five are concerned--if I recall correctly, McCain was cleared by a congressional investigation. That was Democrat-controlled Congress, as well.


Go right ahead. Post pictures. Post my name. Do whatever you choose. The bottom line is that lines were crossed, and people were extraordinarily offended. I saw what I saw--in both instances. Feel free to do whatever you please. I've spoken with chamber execs, fellow golfers and less-aggressive members of your organization, and clearly your group's conduct was, and has been in the past, OUT OF LINE. Until you can realize that, you have no ground to stand on. If you think that by posting my name you can intimidate me, you are mistaken. If you would like to have an intelligent debate on this issue, please feel free to contact me.

[email protected]

Now, if you'd like to let the fine folks in this forum get back to debating presidential politics, I'm sure everyone would appreciate it.

You read the article, Chad. The five other housing projects had nothing to do with Obama other than the law firm he worked for helped arrange them, among their many projects. They weren't the $16 million project you were referring to. He didn't vote for them. Nor did he vote for Cottage View, as you stated, he wrote letters of support. You're entitled to your opinion, but get your facts straight.

huitz knee-jerked:

"Free handouts" seem to work on occasion. (I'm thinking of Europe). Largely free health care, and in some cases free secondary education (Holland).

At Happy Valley Unicorn Ranch, all the children get a puppy and a lollipop.

"knee-jerked"? Grow up.

And at Happy Valley Unicorn Ranch, it just so happens every one lives happily ever after :O

Just trying to catch America up to the rest of the civilized world. Ooh, scary European health care!


If the rest of the world is so much better then here, why do you live here Prof? I'm not saying you have to, I would just like to know why.

Danny, how do you know the Prof does live here?

Moot point, anyway.

For me, it's love America, hate Americans. Okay, okay, that's extreme. Umm... Love potential, hate consequences.

I'd live elsewhere and actually do move around quite a bit. A foreign country would be a big step, though. Culture shock and stuff. I know, I'm a bit of a wimp.

I'm not sure anybody said anything about somewhere else being a better place to live, just simply that we could learn a thing or two from other practices.

Danny, I like ya, but a lot of your rhetoric strikes of working class elitism that borders on hyperbole.

That's a good point. I guess I don't know for sure weather or not this guy lives here.

Either way, thanks for the answer. That was 100% reasonable. I wasnt trying for the working class elitism thing, but I could see how you would think that. I've just heard alot of (really obnoxious) people ask that question to alleged "America haters" and it just hit me that I've never really heard an answer. Now I have. Muchos Gracias. I didnt really expect to get anything from Professor on this, I guess. I'm admittedly still pretty pissed about his "racial" allegations.

The Professor spewed forth: Just trying to catch America up to the rest of the civilized world. Ooh, scary European health care!

Silly socialists! Can you say Mayo Clinic? I knew you could! Now how does that compare with Europe's various one-size-fits-most-wait-4-months-for-an-angiogram-come-back-and-see-us-in-6-months-for-your-chemotherapy-if-you-live-that-long system?

You nailed the scary part right. I know, I know - Choosing what health care is right for you is so....selfish, comrade.

Now can we get back to the part where we bash politicians? Because The Obamanator, The Straight Talkin' Maverick, and pretty much any of the other presidential candidates suck.

If I voted, I'd vote for Kermit the Frog

I love it. It's so quaint.

I've had the opportunity to use health care in another country- Canada. I had a lot of preconceived notions before I went in- thought for sure I'd be turned away for being a foreigner or not having enough money to cover it - also because I'm a foreigner and assumed I'd have to pay and pay plenty (like when I visit the doctor here at home). To my surprise and delight, I filled out a standard brief medical history form and by the time I got to the signature line, the doc was ready to see me. I got a thorough examination and a quick and accurate diagnosis. When I went back to the reception to pay, I was told, "no charge." I was initially incredulous.
"Really?" I asked. "All you had was an exam and a consult. Everybody deserves at least that, don't you think?" Then I went to the pharmacy to get my prescription filled. $20 for a course of antibiotics that would have cost me $75 here. So how do those silly socialist Canadians do it? Number One: Every one (including the rich) pays their fair share in taxes. Number Two: No insurance companies.

Chad O.: All the bills I cited passed except for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. I guess folks didn't feel like siding with Bush when his approval rating was hovering in the low 30's.

"Now, if you'd like to let the fine folks in this forum get back to debating presidential politics, I'm sure everyone would appreciate it."

Chad, you're beginning to chap my hide a lil bit.

"Your candidate/pretender, Barack Obama, will end up getting crushed this fall for the same reason liberalism is being spurned across Europe: People are sick and tired of having an agenda pushed into their lives every single day."

Uhh, Chad...wake up and smell the toast burning, buddy...turn off Limbaugh or put down whatever it is that you're toking on...In case you've been hiding under a friggin rock the last seven years, It's been your buddies on the neoconservative right who have been pushing their agenda on the rest of the world...and they have given us SO much, haven't they? The invasion of a sovereign nation without provocation...a shithouse economy...the trampling of our civil liberties and freedoms (the Constitution is just a piece of paper, remember?)...and that's not even scratching the surface

...much to the chagrin of...pretty much everyone else in the world.

and you have the audacity to blame it on...liberals?

jesus man...think for yourself for once. pay attention...it's not Obama or liberalism that hundreds of thousands of people in cities all over the world have been protesting...it's your president and his "my way or the highway, let's roll, bring em on" chickenshit Coca Cola cowboy act that they're pissed off about.

"People SHOULDN'T be able to do whatever makes them happy--that is the first step on the way to a degenerate society."

--Chad O.

Some more guys who probably aren't sure if racism is a bad thing or not:



Swastika rings, neo-nazi tatoos, ties to white supremacist organizations ... yeah, to these guys, the whole "racism is bad" thing is probably a real head-scratcher that they need explained to them.

So now you're comparing me to those turds. huh?

Look "Professor", I can't believe I actually have to do this, but let me explain something to you. I'll try to do it in the simplest terms so you can maybe, MAYBE understand. I wasnt asking that question because I really don't know why racism is a bad thing. By that idiotic spinster logic I could easily use this quote of yours as a way to accuse you of being a guy who hates Europe:

"Scary European health care!"

I wanted to know YOUR answer on why racism is bad. Got that now? Good. Let's move on. Why don't we start by having you finally explain what I said in this thread that is racist. I'm still scratching my head over that one. And since nobody else has chimed in, I assume I'm not the only one confused by that horrendous allegation.

But there is one thing I'm no longer confused about as far as you're concerned. For a while now there was something about your postings that was bugging me. I couldnt quite put my finger on it. There were plenty of people on this site that dislike me, throw insults at me, call me a troll, and so on and so on. But none of them really irked me. You did and I couldnt figure out what it was about you specifically that just wasnt sitting right.

But I think I just figured it out. You seem to get a kick out of calling me a "troll" and constantly sighting online definitions of it to prove your point. You're something much worse and much, much more pathetic than that. I don't even think there's a nice little webinition for what you are, but I think I can describe it.

It hit me when I noticed you used the phrase "nice McCain talking points". If I go into my job and I'm outside having a smoke with a coworker and the two of us spark up a conversation about politics it's possible that the two of us don't agree on something. Let's pretend I'm for "Candidate A" and he's for "Candidate B". He starts complaining about Candidate A and I counter with some complaints about Candidate B. At no point in this normal conversation would either of us use the term "nice Candidate B talking points". It's not something regular people say to each other when they are conversing about politics.

So I looked back at a few more of your posts and I noticed that trend continuing with you. Everything you post is completely, 100% agenda-driven. You are constanty staying on-point like some sort of zombie. You never show any semblance of any sense of humor unless it's some embarrassingly one-sided joke that does nothing even remotely against your topic but will only be the sort of "joke" that is meant to make the reader not just laugh, but "think"...ultimately in whatever direction you are trying to push. Hell, just look at this very thread.

So what you are is a wannabe spin-doctor. You desperatey want to be one of those people who work for political campaigns to push political candidates on TV, radio, and whatever other medium will listen. You're a wannabe politico fantasizing how great you would be if you could be on Hardball touting the greatness of your guy. You're a wannabe political wonk. I have this disturbing picture in my head of you watching Face The Nation with a bottle of baby oil in one hand and your little professor in the other hand just going to town on yourself imagining that it's you there on TV arguing the points of your side. It's sad. It really is. It's one thing to be one of those bottom-feeders, it's something much, much worse and very distrubing to pretend to be one. You are the Rupert Pupkin of political hacks and you are using this site (and I assume others) as your outlet to ply your imaginary craft.

I pity you.

You know what’s just struck me, Danny, is the horrifying realization that you are actually unaware of how much you suck. I’m not just talking about the dog farts you famously huff day and night but that you simply do not realize that you lack a sort of fundamental worth as a human being. This goes much deeper than you’re simply being a degenerate pinhead with hideously misshaped, shrunken genitals and being monstrously wrong about everything of consequence. Why would you endlessly subject the nice people on this blog to your putrescent, substance-free malarkey unless, somehow, in defiance of all reason, you were simply unaware of the fact that nothing you say or do has any merit because while other people were learning how to make sense, you just couldn’t stop huffing those dog farts. It really shows, Danny, it really shows in your lousy politics and simple refusal to go away that sucking all those heinous farts from the asses of all those defenseless dogs has really brought your inherent worthlessness to the fore. In short, sir, you suck.

"So now you're comparing me to those turds. huh?"

danny, if you have paid any attention to the topics Chad has commented on, he'll just as likely compare homosexuals to pedophiles and people who like to have sex with animals...even though the three are in no way related.

this is the same guy who's been spreading lies and half truths about what he "saw" at a pride booth last year.

Way to bear false witness against your neighbor, Chad. Right Christian of ya.

Morning everyone!


Did I defend Chad? NO. The Professor called me a racist even going so far as comparing to those d-bags in Colorado with the assasination plot.

I could easily get into it with Chad as well. It's been mentioned here that I've "made enemies" over on the DCB as well. Well, one of the reason that this might be true is that whenever anyone brings up "the sodomites bringing down our community" I'm the first one to jump all over them.

Sorry that I didnt go after Chad. I think he's an ass too, but he never called me a racist...or even acknowledge my exhistance as far as I know. The wannabe politico did.

The irony here is that several of us have sunk into a minefield of personal attacks and wildly irresponsible speculation about the motivations of our opponents. You are mirroring the campaigns gentlemen. So when you are barraged by attack ads for the next two and a half months and you get really friggin tired of all the partisan bickering blasting over the airwaves, remember that you spent way too much time attacking people who have a infinitesimally small impact on politics in the real world why soldier and Iraqis were getting their limbs blown off and our economy was being flushed down the toilet. And folks wonder why such a seemingly well educated electorate could produce such terrible politics. It is because we're too busy hating each other.

I'll say it again, going back to the original point of this post. The whole McCain has more houses than he can't count crap has nothing whatsoever to do with partisan politics. It has everything to do with class. Listen to Burlesque for a minute and try doing something rather than spewing vitriolic garbage at one another.

(Just so ya know, I am directing my comments at a select few, rather than the vast majority of you, whom I'm sure share my sentiments at least in part.)

Well said @ndy. Even though I'm obviously one of the "select few" I aggree with you 100%.

We pretty much suck.



"If we distributed the wealth in this country evenly as many of you socialists would like, five years later the same people that were rich before would have the lion's share once again."

We'll cure that greed by having a maximum income to go along with the minimum wage. Won't that freak you capitalists out?

"'Obama did drugs in college.' - And so did Bush Jr., Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Newt Gingrich and Clarence Thomas."

Don't forget about me. And Lenny Bruce woulda but I don't think he went.

I'm sort of a libertarian when it comes do distribution of wealth. Question for you eco eco, don't you think that limits on wealth and equal distribution of money would cause people to not strive for success in industries like the medical field (not limited to just this...just using it as an example).

Wasn't that experiment called the USSR? We all know how that one worked out.


"It's been your buddies on the neoconservative right who have been pushing their agenda on the rest of the world...and they have given us SO much, haven't they? The invasion of a sovereign nation without provocation...a shithouse economy...the trampling of our civil liberties and freedoms (the Constitution is just a piece of paper, remember?)...and that's not even scratching the surface....."

What agenda might you be speaking of? The one that is seeking to rid the world of terrorism? The one that has fought the Islamofascist regimes that had forced women into a second-class status and murdered outed homosexuals? What other agenda is the U.S. "pushing on the world"? Are we to wait for the UN to make all the decisions? The same UN that issued a resolution to "consider" issuing a resolution condemning the genocide in Sudan? At least we have a government that is willing to take action when there are atrocities being committed. What does it matter when every time the UN decides to go into a conflict, the U.S. is supplying the firepower? (See Somalia, Kosovo, Rwanda)

According to the spineless UN, Iraq lost it's status as a sovereign nation when it invaded Kuwait in the 90's. That is why the UN could go in to inspect Iraq whenever they were so inclined. Of course, Saddam didn't follow that rule either. On top of that, the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Kurds isn't reason enough to boot the guy from power? The clandestine execution of innocent civilians is cool with you? Face it, Saddam had to go. Could the operation have been better planned? Sure--hindsight is 20/20. But even the liberal's favorite organization, the UN, couldn't keep the guy under wraps. If you follow that same line of thinking, we shouldn't have gone into Kosovo either. If you honestly think the Iraqi people are worse off now than with Saddam--that would be an interesting argument, and I'd love to hear it.

The economy? The Bush Administration inherited a declining economy, and turned it around with--gasp!--tax cuts to create more jobs. The numbers support it. The economy was stellar for nearly six years--until the Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006. Coincidence? Could be, but speculators didn't start running up prices until they saw the Dems stymie any chance of the U.S. utilizing it's own energy sources. You can't pin anything on the Bush administration with regards to the decline in the economy.

And if you think your civil liberties are being trampled on--name another country where you have more freedoms than here. The Patriot Act is a necessary evil--and it has worked, has it not? The government has not used any information gathered to prosecute any non-terrorist related activities, even though chances are good that they've had the chance.

Some other issues that "scratch the surface":

Homelessness: Down significantly over the past eight years.

National security: Best it has ever been.

College enrollments: Highest in history. Hell, even ACT scores in Minnesota & Wisconsin are the highest in history.

Do I agree with all of W's decisions? No. But given the world that we now live in, I'd rather be hated by a few foreigners than have daily bombings as are more prevalent elsewhere. If not for the atrocities that would most likely occur under an Obama administration policy of appeasement (see Chamberlain, 1938 Munich Agreement), I'd like to see the guy win just to demonstrate to the hordes of liberals that socialist ideologies do not work. If you honestly believe that rogue dictatorships such as Iran and Venezuela would be willing to work with the U.S. in a diplomatic fashion, you're in for quite a show if Obama wins. There's a reason that Chavez and Akmedinijad are pulling for Obama, and it's not so they can have crumpets and tea in the White House.

Apparently, 40% of America can't see the threat that these countries pose. Hell, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela are talking about bring nukes back to 90 miles south of Miami.

Danny--thanks for the complement. I'd rather be an ass than be wrong. Way to cow to the Perfect Duluth Day masses.


The Ass

Who let the dogs out?
Woof woof woof woof

F you, douche. I don't cow to anyone. I don't like anti-gay propoganda.

Hey Ass,

The word is "kowtow". Not "cow".



The following quote is just a stupid statement:

"If we distributed the wealth in this country evenly as many of you socialists would like, five years later the same people that were rich before would have the lion's share once again."

The independent variable that most strongly correlates with the dependent variable income is the level of education achieved.

The independent variable that most strongly correlates with the dependent variable educational achievement is parental income. There are exceptions of course, the Obamas for example, but for the most part it is the children of high income parents that go to the best colleges.

So if you redistributed the wealth the folks who possess education would probably make the higher incomes. Wealth is different story. How would Cindy McCain (A pill stealing nurse by training) find another beer baron to inherit wealth from? How would John McCain (Did you know he was a POW?) find another beer heiress to leave his wife for?

I find it somewhat amusing how some of you non-educated non-wealthy Ayn Rand objectivists buy into the myth that wealth in this country is distributed based on merit. If that were the case what did you do wrong?

Karl said:
"The independent variable that most strongly correlates with the dependent variable income is the level of education achieved."

Absolutely not even close to true. Education is not strictly related to wealth. I may have misunderstood your point, but that so-called independent variable is far from independent. I have a handful of examples, but I'll give you just this one: my friend has a PHD in physics and is "really" good (trust me, I have the education to be able to judge), and has a good personality but had to start really low on the totem pole. Most interviewers simply told him he was over-qualified.

Now, I agree, that education does catalyze the mind, but to suggest that it is directly related to having "means" is positively ridiculous.

Besides that, I'm not seeing a socialist agenda here, but more of an embrace of basic human rights (health care, etc.). Are we so selfish, nay, archaic and barbaric, to see others that are in dire straits as a monetary burden?


I guess you didn’t get my point. And by the way, I am right in what I said. I was pointing out that the very best predictor of income is the level of education achieved. Will education always predict income? No, I think Kevin Garnett has made nearly a third of a billion dollars with only a high school education. Bill Gates dropped out of college and he seems to be doing all right. But on average, high school graduates make more than dropouts, people with an Associates’ degrees or Technical School degrees make more than people with only a High School diploma. People with advanced degrees make on the average more than people with only a bachelors’ degree. These are facts, but you can believe in anything you want if it will make you feel better about yourself.

So what is your point? Are you saying we should redistribute wealth to the people with the most education or the people with the least education? Or, are you saying that we should base wealth on IQ? Take the test and you get a grand per IQ point.

What are you saying we SHOULD be doing?

A response for Chad.

"ridding the world of terrorism": Treating women like second class citizens and murdering outed homosexuals still happens worldwide, including here in the good ol' USA, we just get to hear of it particularly when it happens in hard line Islamic countries. So if it's our job to go past the UN and police the world, why did we turn away from Rwanda, East Timor, Darfur, Liberia, etc.? Because Iraq was a nice easy target, with oil reserves to boot. Even North Korea was more of a threat to us than Iraq ever was. That is where much of the world is sick of our "agenda" and are hoping that a new direction in the Executive branch will make a positive difference.

Oh, and I'm not an economist, but the downturn in our economy is linked to the housing crisis, which thanks to Senator Phil Gramm (a McCain economic adviser) was deregulated just after the whole Bush v. Gore debacle in 2000, opening up unchecked credit swaps (i.e. gambling on mortgages). All these failing banks did not cover their "bets" with adequate assets to cover losses, now running rampant due to bad ARM loans that never should have been made in the first place. Also, this deregulation included the energy sector, leading to Enron's manipulating electricity in CA. (Gramm's wife joined Enron's board in the 1990's). Bush and most other Republicans let all this slide by on their watch.

Again, Gramm is one of McCain's close advisers, and has been name-dropped for secretary of the Treasury...to keep this post focused on McCain.

I'm with Burly: myopic and unacceptable items (pink dildo).


"Webination" = hilarious
"Little Professor" = hilarious

+ last night Dave had "Jobama" on their top ten though they spelled it wrong (Joebama).

Good work!

PS: Fictitous Pink Dildoes would be an excellent name for a band! Please, aspiring musicians, feel free to take it.

(Borrowing Danny's fake halo for a moment) Gee Danny, I didn't mean to provoke you. Will you please explain to me why being compared to racists is bad. Thanks.


The point of my comment was to show how stupid skud’s statement was. The idea that our current system of wealth and income distribution is some sort of meritocracy is a myth.

I would like to see the children born to low income families have the same chance to succeed as the children who grow up in wealthy suburbs like Wayzata or Edina. A dumb kid in Edina is more likely to go to college than a brilliant kid living in one of Duluth’s slums. (IQ measurement also favors people from high income families.)

How you address this dilemma with policy is a tough challenge, especially when schools are funded primarily from property taxes.

That is my answer. Now I am going to ignore you because I think you are a Troll.

OK - That's an awfully good one too.

Fight on, kids!

Karl: Thank you. That was perfectly acceptable and answered my quetion. It was also hard to argue against. The troll comment was a bit harsh, but I've come to accept it as a part of my being here.

Professor: Don't you have convention coverage to watch. That wang isnt going to rub itself.

GFTNC: I hate it when Letterman rips me off.

Danny, I couldn’t stop myself from reading your reply. I was somewhat surprised at your reasonableness. That said, please stop your feud with the Professor, or at least stop the references to masturbation. Do you really think your approach is going to win you any friends here?

"Question for you eco eco, don't you think that limits on wealth and equal distribution of money would cause people to not strive for success in industries like the medical field (not limited to just this...just using it as an example)."

You're suggesting that doctors and researchers are motivated by money, not because they want to help people and cure diseases? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you.

Seriously, is more than enough not enough? Isn't making at least as much as everyone else enough? Do we need to cater to people who always need more toys and a bigger bank account while others go hungry?

I'm not suggesting that everyone needs to have exactly the same, only that there needs to be an upper limit. Not that it really matters at this point--our civilization's starting to learn the painful and shoulda been obvious lesson that eternal expansion is not possible.

There's so much here to comment on, but I'll limit myself to just one of Chad's brilliant talking points.

Neville Chamberlain didn't make a mistake in simply heading to Munich and talking to Hitler. That act of diplomacy in and of itself was not the problem. Neville fucked up in bending over and giving Hitler whatever he wanted. Chamberlain along with France and Italy made the mistake of just handing over the Sudetenland in hopes of appeasing Germany. Which in turn lead Hitler on his path of trying to take over all of Europe. Germany was already strong enough by 1938 that outright aggression at that time instead of diplomacy would not have ended it outright. Not to mention the England and France weren't about to start a war to save Czechoslovakia so soon after the devastation of WWI.

I just have a total lack of understanding this Limbaugh Bullet Point #57 that you Neo-Cons love to trot out. How is a diplomatic solution preventing a possible war a bad thing? Especially when the threat of military involvement is there if the diplomatic route were to fail. Obama has been very clear in saying that he would commit troops if it meant defending ourselves or Israel against any rogue state. I mean basically what you and your ilk are saying is that because of some idiot Limey's actions 70 years ago we never enter into talks with rogue states? We just go in guns a blazing and hope for the best? Because this would be the only possible solution if even picking up a phone and talking to Hugo Chavez is forbidden. And if that's the best policy then how and the fuck do you explain the recent developments in North Korea? They backed off on their nuclear program due to diplomacy and pressure from around the world, including the United States. Using yours and Rush's logic this was a massive Neville Chamberlain like fuck up and we should have sent in troops years ago.

Are you people really so dense that you think that Obama is going to go over to North Korea and hand them whatever they want? Are you really so twisted inside that you think that Liberals have no desire to see the citizens of this country safe from threats from abroad? My god what Chad, what color is the sky in this world you live in?


Sorry, but if "The Professor" is going to keep accusing me of racism, then I'm going to keep accusing him as a chronic masterbator.

Racism always trumps chronic masterbation in a level of harsh accusations.

Or I might just get bored with him. Either way, he's a bigger douche than I can ever be.

I am happy to lighten up. Consider me checked. Again, if it were up to me, I'd happily ban the most severe trolls around here and that would improve PDD about %1000. And in my own posts, I reserve the right to fight them to the finish. I see no need to sit back and get trolled on my own blog post. Besides, if I do say so myself, I played his game better than he did and beat him at it. I have a hard time believing I've been more insufferable than the-troll-who-shall-not-be-named - or that I have ruined PDD more than he has. But I'll leave that one for the ages. Thanks.