…that key GOP figures will exploit the death of Ronald Reagan for all it’s worth in order to seal the election. I’m looking ahead to the GOP National convention and am suggesting the following odds:
A minute of silence will be called for: 1-1.
Chances that Bush will mention Reagan one minute into his speech: 5-1.
Two minutes into his speech: 3-2.
Three minutes into his speech: 3-1.
That a key speaker will exhort his comrades to win this election “for the Gipper”: 1-1.
That it will be stated Reagan would have approved of this country’s direction: 2-1.
That if Reagan were there, he would be urging you to vote for Bush: 1-1.
PAD
• 
Wow.
A writer posts a bit of political speculation on his personal site, and one cracked mind turns the place into a sounding board for some of the most hate-filled, mouth-frothing, MPD-afflicted lunatic wailings I’ve heard since… well, since the last time some hate-filled, mouth-frothing, MPD-afflicted, right-wing lunatic stumbled across a left-leaning celebrity’s personal site.
To quote a friend of mine, “just f–kin’ chill, dudes”.
PAD – I can already see the Republicans beginning to exploit Reagan’s death, but that hardly comes as a surprise. Bush’s campaign site has been magically transformed into a Reagan tribute, which is either the simple paying of respects or a hint of the pandering to come. I suppose we’ll see. The coming weeks will be interesting, at the very least…
Congrats on the “Fallen Angel” trade, by the way. I’ll be picking up a copy next week.
Bry Kayz,
I wouldn’t say that there is a huge amount of hate on this thread. Just a huge amount of discussion about hate. The MPD afflicted poster notwithstanding, that is.
Salutations,
Mitch
sorry to do this …….and yes , I am a bleeding heart liberal, but dámņ it someone has to say it:
hey Dee:
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
get a life!
if bad language and racist remarks is the best you can come up with, then I feel so sorry for you. typical repulican, so full of hate.
“if bad language and racist remarks is the best you can come up with, then I feel so sorry for you. typical repulican, so full of hate.”
Most Republicans here condemn her comments, including this one. Hardly typical. That would be like me referring to Ted Rall’s comments–he hopes Reagan is burning a crispy brown–to be a typical Democrat, so full of hate. No, I realize he’s a jerk, and that most Democrats are respectful in their disagreement.
My thoughts:
1) The name of Reagan was likely to be invoked at the GOP convention anyway, dead or alive.
2) Invocation of his name (and especially a moment of silence) is only to be expected, much as the Dems would do if it was Clinton or Carter.
3) Who cares what the GOP does at the convention except the GOP? I doubt there’s a single current Kerry voter or undecided voter that’s going to watch the GOP convention, hear Reagan’s name (or anything else for that matter), and think, “Oh yeah, I’m voting for GW now!”
I agree that PAD’s comments weren’t offensive. I agree that he’s probably correct. I just don’t see how it matters. Everyone at that convention has already made up their minds, and everyone opposed to them is going to find something to disagree with. Nothing new there.
Kurt wondered if there are three people in West Michigan who read PAD and to whom the “L-word” applies.
Okay, I’m a Trekkie and I’m Lumpy. Get over it.
Actually I campaigned in ’96 as a radical moderate and would-be crackpot despot. Didn’t get a single vote, but at least when they “empeached” Clin-Ton I was able to use the slogan “Don’t blame me, I ran against him.”
“Empeached”: that means soaked in schnapps, right?
So do any of you lefties, righties or ambidextries know if they’re going to rerun todays episode of “The Screamin’ Al Gore Show”? I love that show.
(ps: yes, I knew he meant “scared” and not “scarred”. I was refering to my own “scarred little mind”, an example of self-defecating humor. But it soaks the humor right out of it if you have to explain the joke – so, if you were joking, don’t explain it, okay?)
Does anyone else suspect that “Double-C” or “Letter-4” or whatever he who is to henceforth be shrouded’s name is was just a plant, a straw dog set up to make the connies and reps look bad? I’d almost think so except no self respecting politically correct liberal would feel comfortable tossing such utter crap around.
But then that’s what I usually think about sincere extreme conservatives. (Note adjective “extreme”; I don’t mean you Mr. Just-to-the-right-of-moderate compassionate conservative. (That’s not a complete oxymoron, I’ve known a few.)
Okay, getting back to the important question…
originally posted by Jonathan (the other one):
… “1-1” means that in 1 trial, the event happened once – a 100% chance. A 50% chance would be 2-1 – that is, for every 2 trials, the event happened once. (Doubt me? Then find the notation in that system indicating a unitary probability.)
Perhaps I’m wrong. I’m reading the notation 1-1 (also written as 1:1) “one to one.” Similarly, 2-1 = 2:1 = “two to one,” 3-1 = 3:1 = “three to one”, etc. That’s how I’ve always understood the notation to read. Is this not how others use and pronounce this notation?
In answer to the question of how one would indicate a probability of 100% in this notation, that would be 1-0 (1 chance of occurrence to no chances of non-occurrence).
Now I’m curious. Next time PAD does an open question thread, I’m going to ask what he intended by the odds posted at the start of the thread.
My above rant should read “if abortion became ILLEGAL, imagine how many more babies would be murdered.”
Sorry about that.
And Mr. Richie Photo, plenty of republicans here were outraged by by Dee’s coments. This isn’t the 1st time we asked, but I will be cordial & ask again, Don’t put as all in the same group. I’d be glad to show you examples of Democrats that are full of hate.If you have issues with Dee’s coments, join the club.
Also, quit it with Dee. PAD has asked that he be shrouded & if you keep responding to his childlike banter your giving Dee just what he wants.
Joe V.
Hm. This entire thread has been interesting. I read this blog because I’m interested in PAD’s thoughts on things in general, however, I generally don’t feel the need to argue about things. It’s kinda neat the way I see the same people who just love to debate though. American politics kinda scare me. I’m scared about being asked to participate in another war. I’m Canadian, and I’m glad that we didn’t end up going with the States in Iraq. But my concern is in being named against the States, just because we didn’t want to go to war with them. :o/
Joe V.,
The idea that we have to “cut down every tree” to accommodate people in the near future is claptrap. ONE QUARTER of the world’s population resides in China alone!While they are reaching a breaking point, think of all the land available in the rest of the world.
It is becoming a well-known fact all of the U.S. could live in Texas and it would simply have the density of the population of New York City.
To use the unique situation of the rainforest as an example is disingenuous. Yes, it’s insane to burn down tis habitat which may provide all kinds of natural medicines not even found yet. But then, if we found all of these medicines and cured cancer, AIDS, etc. you would see that as an eventual bad thing!
We have more trees than ever before, more arable land than ever before and more capacity to grow food than ever before. Please don’t buy into the extreme environmentalists’ propaganda.
Joe V.,
The idea that we have to “cut down every tree” to accommodate people in the near future is claptrap. ONE QUARTER of the world’s population resides in China alone!While they are reaching a breaking point, think of all the land available in the rest of the world.
It is becoming a well-known fact all of the U.S. could live in Texas and it would simply have the density of the population of New York City.
To use the unique situation of the rainforest as an example is disingenuous. Yes, it’s insane to burn down tis habitat which may provide all kinds of natural medicines not even found yet. But then, if we found all of these medicines and cured cancer, AIDS, etc. you would see that as an eventual bad thing!
We have more trees than ever before, more arable land than ever before and more capacity to grow food than ever before. Please don’t buy into the extreme environmentalists’ propaganda.
I can’t figure out what all this debate is about.
They’re POLITICIANS, guys. GOP or Dem, they all lie, cheat and steal, and say anything to get you to vote for them and then go their merry way after they’re elected. It’s instinctive, just like the way birds sing to proclaim their territory.
It is becoming a well-known fact all of the U.S. could live in Texas and it would simply have the density of the population of New York City.
Just because we can doesn’t mean we should.
I’m still trying to figure out if the nation is mourning a time gone by or Reagan’s death. Reagan lived much longer than the vast majority of people in the U.S. He lived a great life filled with much more money than he could ever possibly need even for luxury items. He married the love of his life and spent most of it with her. He had an incredible influence on the world. For the past two years or so he has not been “Ronald Reagan (I had a grandfather who suffered with Altzheimers and being completely non-functional for much longer than Ron Reagan.). His death was very natural and he lived much longer, much better, and a much more fulfilling life than most of us could ever dream of. The nation had him for a long time. More than anyone could hope for or expect.
So my question is are our people mourning his death or the death of a nation largely united under him and a time when they felt great about our country?
Fred
“We have more trees than ever before, more arable land than ever before and more capacity to grow food than ever before. Please don’t buy into the extreme environmentalists’ propaganda.”
I don’t think of myself as an extreme environmentalist. In fact, my job regularly calls for me to approve projects that fill wetlands, clear trees, pipe streams, and take biotic species.
But I can certainly attest to the fact that we don’t have more trees or more arable land than in the past. Want proof? Do some searches for aeriel photes of just about anywhere in the U.S. Get a photo from 1940, then one from 1960, then one from 1980. You’ll see, in many areas, reductions of up to 100% of anything larger than a shrub. That’s all the trees in an area that used to be hundreds of acres of trees. And that’s just the U.S. Rain forests all over the world are being cleared to make room for grazing cattle. Now ask yourself, with all that reduction, do you see hundreds of acres of new trees being planted?
Well, you can probably answer yes to that. Sure, hundreds of acres of trees get planted every year. But that can’t compensate for the millions of acres that have been lost over the past 60 years.
And even if you could replace close to the acreage that has been lost, a tree is not a tree is not a tree. By which, I mean that replacing a stand of old growth forest with some new saplings is not an equal act. You’re taking an eco-system that has developed over hundreds of years, and trying to “replace” it with an engineered system. There’s no way that our current science can quickly replicate the biotic diversity that a true, ages-old forest contains.
And while we may have a greater capacity to produce food today, we’re doing it on less arable land. In part related to the taking of forests (and wetlands), a good deal of the best arable soil in this and other contries is now floating around in various oceans. The removal of flood-controlling forests and wetlands has let a good deal of our best soil wash down the Mississippi.
Amen Craig, I know I don’t want to live that closely packed with other people in closet sized apartments.
Besides, where would find jobs for all those people in that small of an area, imagine the commuting nightmares….
So in the whole everyone in Texas argument does that allow for the acres and acres of food production that will be needed to sustain the population as well as industrial zones for that population to produce our goods in? OR is it only the towers of apartments? with us importing?
Ðámņ… why Texas… i’d rather be a little bit more crowded and live in California… or a little less crowded and live in Alaska.
And Bobb you are certainly right about the trees and the topsoil lost down the rivers (a direct result of the deforestation)
Craig,
It was just an extreme example, but it is a fact.
And what do you mean by whether we “should”? As if it’s something immoral.
Me, I feel it’s immoral to place restrictions on people’s standards of living – and possibly their right to reproduce in the future – based on a “threat” that is an absolute myth.
Bladestar,
you’re riiiight! There’s NO jobs in New York City! That’s why so many people, from high-powered executives to writers and artists to immigrants continue to move there!
It’s the biggest city in the country for a reason!
“So in the whole everyone in Texas argument does that allow for the acres and acres of food production that will be needed to sustain the population as well as industrial zones for that population to produce our goods in?”
If everyone on Earth lived in a single megacity covering all of Texas, that would leave the rest of the planet for growing crops…
Actually, young trees, in order to grow, actualy take more carbon dioxide from the air than old, huge trees. So they actually slow down/prevent global warming.
And again, that’s just if we have to do it today, which we obviously do not Seems to me we still have a LOT of land left over in the other 49 states. But the fact that we COULD all live in Texas drives a stake through the heart of one of radical environmentalism’s biggest bûllšhìŧ claims: that we are in imminent danger of overpopulation.
Elise,
Regarding politicians:
They do NOT all lie, cheat and steal. Many, if not most, do good things, from local township supervisors to national elected officials. But it’s too easy to bash them all, as if they’re all the same, instead of paying attention to what’s really going on.
i have known many politicians, and believe me, when you see up close the work they do and what they have to put up with, you conclude that most of them are heroes.
Jerry, you once more show an inability to read or think.
Why would the entire population WNAT to live in that small of a space? THere’d be no room for jobs anbd the like.
How many who live in New York work there and vice versa?
It’s such a big city because people think they need all the glitz and glamour and crap that is New York….
And besides, have you looked at how much it costs to live in New York? over $1000/month for a tiny apartment?
You may want to live like a sardine, but I’ll take several acres and my nearest neighbors over 1/2 mile awya if I ever get the cash.
By the way Jerry, we could live on gruel and water and live packed 4 in bunkbeds in 10x 10 rooms, but that doesn’t mean we should strive for that.
And what do you mean by whether we “should”? As if it’s something immoral.
Not everybody wants to live in a place that looks like a lost relative of a landfill.
Which is what some metropolitan US cities look like.
I live in Denver, which is the largest city I could ever see myself living in. Some of these places, like NYC, or Mexico City, etc… it just makes me shake my head why people would want to live there.
Bladestar,
Why, whenever I disagree with you, do you feel it necessary to dispute my intelligence.And I read (and write) quite a lot, thank you.
I am simply using the situation I described as a hypothetical, to illustrate how this myth on how we’re about to suffer catastrophic consequences because of overpopulation is absolute horseshit and has been for at least 40 years.
And I love New York.
Craig,
Fine. That’s your choice. No problem.
But the problem with radical environmentalists is that they make it seem as if we’re all living that way right now, and want everyone to sacrifice act as if all their horseshit propaganda is true.
Enjoy Denver:)
Bladestar,
Can i please ask you not to call me Jerry? I just don’t like it.
Thanks,
Jerome
And I repeat, “just f–kin’ chill, dudes”.
It’s a sound policy. 😉
Gotta love two empeached presidents turnout to be Dems.
I see you still haven’t learned how to spell “impeached,” huh?
BTW, Andrew Johnson, the only other president besides Clinton to be impeached, was a republican.
No, he was a Democrat. Lincoln nominated him as Vice President to run on a national unity ticket in 1864, to the everlasting regret of Congressional Republicans and generations of black people.
Be glad I don’t know you in the real world, you’re official Jerry in my book now.
And why don’t you like “Jerry” with a name like Jerome?
Bladestar,
Why “Be glad I don’t know you in the real world?”
I don’t hate being caled Jerry. I just prefer to be called Jerome. Can’t you respect that?
And why can’t you respect that I want to call you Jerry?
Jerry, you once more show an inability to read or think.
At least he can spell. You?
Why would the entire population WNAT to live in that small of a space? THere’d be no room for jobs anbd the like.
How many who live in New York work there and vice versa?
It’s such a big city because people think they need all the glitz and glamour and crap that is New York….
You theorize that people live in and around New York because they’re attracted by its characteristics? Brilliant! I think you’re right!
And besides, have you looked at how much it costs to live in New York? over $1000/month for a tiny apartment?
You may want to live like a sardine, but I’ll take several acres and my nearest neighbors over 1/2 mile awya if I ever get the cash.
OK, you’ve convinced me. We need more space, or living room, or elbow room, or whatever it’s called. I think the Germans came up with a word for that a while back. Anyway, we can’t make the globe bigger, so we’d better make global population smaller. What do you suggest?
Karen wrote:
Bladestar: Jew, ņìggër, honky, etc. are only offensive if you are foolish enough to take offense to them. Stop giving other people so much control over you. They’re only words…
Words wich incite people to violence. And I choose not to have to listen to them or use them. My right.
Should be easy not to use them. For not having to listen to them, I recommend earplugs.
Dear Lord, I’m kind of agreeing with Bladestar on something. Maybe the evangelicals are right and we’re coming up on the end times. Someone throw a lamb in a pen with a lion quick, and see what happens.
“so we’d better make global population smaller. What do you suggest?”
World War Three? 🙂
“And why can’t you respect that I want to call you Jerry?”
Bladestar, do you mind if I call you Rush Limbaugh? I know your a liberal (and so am I), but I’m sure being called Rush will piss you off a lot more than being called Michael Moore.
“Dear Lord, I’m kind of agreeing with Bladestar on something. Maybe the evangelicals are right and we’re coming up on the end times.”
I’ve always been convinced that the sign that the end is near is when the doomsayers stop saying it is.
Nice guess Ben, ben Libertarian.
I’ll take Gas-bag’s money though, I’ll do with out the fame though… or the painkiller addiction…
How’d I double-type ben instead of but for the second word, when “u” and “e” and “n” and “t” are so far apart on the keyboard….
Sorry Dave, but you aren’t important enough for me to spell-check my posts…
And how the fûçk do make the leap from living space to being a Nazi? I see you are unable to think logically …
Don’t have to make the existing population smaller, just have fewer babies and make more land available for housing and less for golf courses, baseball stadiums, cemetaries. Cremate the corpses. No reason to waste so much space on worm food.
Michael Moore and Rush are both idiots that twist the truth and ignore facts that are inconvenient to them.
Although in retrospect, a nice “Captain Trips”-type virus (Remember “The Stand”?” would work pretty good too, but preferably at only about 1/3 the fatality rate. And quicker and more painless…
Sorry Dave, but you aren’t important enough for me to spell-check my posts…
If you’re not willing to make the effort to write coherently and legibly, why should we put in the effort to mine your diamonds in the rough? It’s actually much more tempting to believe that your sloppiness in writing is symptomatic of your sloppiness in thinking. The content of your writing certainly leads to that conclusion, as well.
And how the fûçk do make the leap from living space to being a Nazi? I see you are unable to think logically …
Wait for it…
Although in retrospect, a nice “Captain Trips”-type virus (Remember “The Stand”?” would work pretty good too, but preferably at only about 1/3 the fatality rate. And quicker and more painless…
THERE we go.
Hey, you wanted to know how to shrink the population. And obviously you can’t read. In “The Stand” there was no racial bias in the effect of the American Government-created supervirus…
Nice try Dave. Once more you prove my point.
Hey, you wanted to know how to shrink the population. And obviously you can’t read. In “The Stand” there was no racial bias in the effect of the American Government-created supervirus…
“Can’t read” != “hasn’t read The Stand.” In any event, I wasn’t accusing you of plotting a racially biased massacre. I was implying that your stated goals would require a massive population reduction, and that any such thing would be an atrocity. I’m not quite sure how you think that your endorsement of a nondiscriminatory holocaust (small H) really subverts my point, but I’m sure you’ll tell me.
I’m still amazed that you went after that huge troll.
Nice try Dave. Once more you prove my point.
Likewise. By the way, thanks for spell-checking this time. It means a lot.
All I ask is enough respect to be called by the name i wish to be referred to by. Why is that too much too ask?
And I want the winning PowerBall numbers, is that too much to ask?
Life ain’t fair, you don’t always get what you want.
Besides, “Jerome” sounds WAYYYY too formal. I don’t know or like you enough to refer to you in formal manner. You haven’t haven’t earned that from me yet.
Life ain’t fair, you don’t always get what you want.
But that doesn’t mean you have to be a total jáçkášš about it.
And you continually prove, in your own manner, that you are no better than The One That Deserves to be Banned.
High praise from Craig, the master of the universe
You know, “Bladestar”, just because we lost D** to shrouding doesn’t mean the position of Resident Ðìçk is open for applications.
“Resident Ðìçk?” Isn’t that an associate of President Nixton’s?
Blade, I don’t know where you picked up etiquette from, but generally, when one does not know a person well, is *exactly* when one should employ formal modes of address. If you can’t bring yourself to type “Jerome”, perhaps “Mr. Maida” might suffice?
Jonathon:
>Blade, I don’t know where you picked up etiquette from, but generally, when one does not know a person well, is *exactly* when one should employ formal modes of address. If you can’t bring yourself to type “Jerome”, perhaps “Mr. Maida” might suffice?
… or simply not reply at all. Short of the amusement factor that runs short-term, I never understood why people who don’t respect someone, their opinions, or the exchange of ideas would continue to poke each other with sticks when it serves no purpose.
Fred
“Mr. Maida”???
HAHKAHAGHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHEGHEHHEHEHEHEHHOHOOHOHOHOHOHAHAHA
What a great joke! Thanks for the laughm I needed that!
By the way Bill, good way to shroud the shrouded one by bringing him up.
Amazing how you only want your interests and wants respected but everybody else HAS to bend to your wishes…sad actually
Okay i get it now ,the shrouded one has leaped inside of Bladestar and is using him as a way to keep spewing venom for no apparent reason and blasting anyone who disagrees with him.Must not be complete because there is no caps lock,and the spelling is correct for the most part.Of course it could be that Bladestar is just being an áššhølë.Thats just my opinion….I could be wrong.
Opinions can’t be wrong Deano