KBF Irregulars discussion

We had such a fun politics discussion in the comments to the poll, I thought that I would start one here.

So, Mitt Romney "wins" Super Tuesday. Anyone got anything to say? Other than that he clearly has superior hair.

I made a comment last night in one of the threads, General Info, I think, but I will make it again here. It truly was a phenomenon.
I saw Newt standing before an audience in Georgia, where he had just won the primary.
I swear that I could actually SEE his head inflating as he stood there. I may have imagined the hissing sound that I heard in conjunction with the expansion.

As a Mass resident where I actually voted for Romney once (back in the old days when he endorsed insurance for all and was pro choice). Yesterday, a whopping 5% of MA voters voted for him again.
Not exactly overwhelming support, eh?

Charlene wrote: "As a Mass resident where I actually voted for Romney once (back in the old days when he endorsed insurance for all and was pro choice). Yesterday, a whopping 5% of MA voters voted for him again.
N..."

Mitt gets no love from the Republican party. He also never met a principle he wouldn't abandon for a few more votes.

That's exactly it! He tailors whatever he saying to whomever he is speaking to. No matter that it is the exacty opposite of what he said yesterday. And why is he so stiff and inhuman?

BTW, it is too bad that he is distancing himself from our state...which has the lowest amount of uninsured people in the country.

Charlene wrote: "That's exactly it! He tailors whatever he saying to whomever he is speaking to. No matter that it is the exacty opposite of what he said yesterday. And why is he so stiff and inhuman?

BTW, it i..."

Ironic, isn't it? That he is responsible for the essence that is Obamacare & is running away from it as fast as his long, elegant legs can carry him.

It is! Most especially since it's been so successful!
I guess that doesn't carry much weight with the GOP though. Not surprising, really.

I don't know what happened to the GOP over the course of my lifetime, but it seems that it landed in the hands of the far-right, off-the-charts, not-in-touch-with-reality zealots some years ago and it's only gotten worse.

I remember explaining once to a Chinese immigrant (who spoke absolutely beautiful English) who was asking me about the political parties, that Republicans and Democrats usually identified the same problems, but they prioritized them differently and chose different kinds of solutions depending on their philosophies [ETA: and explanations for the problems]. That off-the-cuff and overly simplified definition I gave her depended on both parties being able to agree on (most) facts even if they couldn't agree on interpretations and solutions. It's more than just a difference in world view now; it's become a difference in what world they're viewing, and the far-right sees a "reality" that is absolutely nothing like the reality that everyone else does. A lot of them don't even have a basic grasp of the Constitution, the foundation for our governance and our laws -- and it's not just a difference in interpretation. It's a complete lack of understanding or wilful ignorance about what is actually in the Constitution.

Bah! It gives me heartburn and makes me angry. I dislike both of those states.

Amelia wrote: "I don't know what happened to the GOP over the course of my lifetime, but it seems that it landed in the hands of the far-right, off-the-charts, not-in-touch-with-reality zealots some years ago and..."

I think I remember hearing after the last election the Speaker of the House making all of the Representatives read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at the start of the new session as most of them could not name any of the amendments or what was listed in the Bill of Rights. It kind of made me sick to my stomach. I think you should have to pass a test on Government before you are even allowed to run for office let alone be elected.

I agree with you Meadow and Amelia.
I most especially agree regarding the test about government. All you need is to win one seat anywhere and you are set for medical insurance for the rest of your life. You should at least know the rules of the job (the Constitution) before winning such a big prize, don't ya think?

Meadow wrote: "Amelia wrote: "I don't know what happened to the GOP over the course of my lifetime, but it seems that it landed in the hands of the far-right, off-the-charts, not-in-touch-with-reality zealots som..."

The problem with the whole "read the Constitution aloud" thing (aside from the fact that the various legislators took turns reading, which made it reminiscent of one of those uncomfortable school room events where all of the students have to read a few lines from Romeo & Julie) is that it was a total farce. The problem isn't so much that the legislators don't know what is in the Constitution -- most of them have at least picked & chosen their favorite parts and can quote them at will.

The problem is that Republicans essentially reject 200+ years of Constitutional interpretation by the judiciary and executive branches of government, unless they like it. So, when a Republican says "the words separation of church and state are not in the Constitution" this is technically a true statement. You can scour the U.S. Constitution, and you will not find those words. The first amendment doesn't say them.

Therefore, the crazies claim that there is no impediment to establishing a Christian theocracy, ignoring all of the other documents that relate to the intent of the founders (that phrase actually comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802) and the Supreme Court interpretations of the Establishment/Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. And when one points out, gently, that they can't simply ignore 200 years of jurisprudence because they don't like the result, they mutter something about "damned activist judges."

And the Republican legislators who are lawyers -- like Michelle Bachmann, for example -- who know better, benefit from whipping the crazy base into a frenzy.

That was a fun little rant.

I saw a poll on the poll link that I never received, but I would have voted for Mr. Bachman.

You're right, Christine, about how they conveniently ignore whatever they want to. How about the words: In a well regulated militia in the 2nd amendment.

Apropos of nothing what do you all think of Calista Gingritch's hair? ; P

Charlene wrote: "I saw a poll on the poll link that I never received, but I would have voted for Mr. Bachman.

You're right, Christine, about how they conveniently ignore whatever they want to. How about the wor..."

That's another really good example. But, you know, Obama wants to take their guns away, so you'd all better run out to stock up on fully-automatic weaponry and 100 years worth of ammo. In case of a zombie apocalypse.

Do you think the founding fathers intended to protect BillyJoeBob from Georgia's right to possess armor piercing ammunition? Oh, wait, since it didn't exist, I'm going to go out a limb here and suggest that NO, THEY DIDN'T! I'm totally fine with no restrictions at all on the possession of muskets and minie balls.

And Calista Gingritch reminds me of a poor man's Cindy McCain.

Yeah, cuz those deer? They have access to armor now.

so is this going to be a political rant thread, or just a general rant?? because I have both...lol!

first - rush limbaugh and the slut comment - WTF!!! 'nuff said - I hope his sponsers keep pulling out

second - I just bitched out someone on the YA thread on amazon when she told me money must not be precious to me because I don't question price raises in books...I hate it when people say that - you don't know me, don't know my financial state or how I choose to spend my money

I hate when people make any kind of assumption about me, too.
I don't know what thread that is?

Charlene wrote: "I saw a poll on the poll link that I never received, but I would have voted for Mr. Bachman.

You're right, Christine, about how they conveniently ignore whatever they want to. How about the wor..."

That is one of my favorite "I'll interpret that how I want to" parts of the Constitution. I got in to an argument with some one on this one and they just about ripped my head off when I told them that the Constitution does not give them the right to bear arms. I quoted the well regulated militia part and told them one person with 60 guns and armor piercing bullets does not a militia make.

Meadow wrote: "Charlene wrote: "I saw a poll on the poll link that I never received, but I would have voted for Mr. Bachman.

You're right, Christine, about how they conveniently ignore whatever they want to. Ho..."

Plus, the fact that there is a "right" to do something doesn't necessarily mean that the right is completely unfettered. There are all sorts of restrictions on all sorts of "rights" that don't offend the constitution. One may, indeed, have a "right to bear arms" but this doesn't mean that one has the unrestricted right to conceal a rocket launcher on one's person and take it on a tour of the White House.

The government regulates shit all the friggin' time that people have a "right" to do. The right to free speech is regulated to bar the right of someone standing up in a crowded movie theater and screaming "fire." No one has the right to share images of child pornography, even though adult pornography is technically deemed to be protected speech.

Gun control is one of the biggest irritants. Seriously, I don't want to take away your handgun and your basic ammunition. But you modify it be fully automatic, and put an extended clip with armor piercing bullets in it and, yeah, I think that's excessive and should be subject to some gun control.

Christine wrote: ... Gun control is one of the biggest irritants. Seriously, I don't want to take away your handgun and your basic ammunition. But you modify it be fully automatic, and put an extended clip with armor piercing bullets in it and, yeah, I think that's excessive and should be subject to some gun control.

People are sometimes surprised -- perhaps because I'm a liberal-leaning, citified Vegetarian -- that I don't have general objections to hunting and think that hunting rifles are just fine, and people who hunt deer & actually eat them (or donate them to food pantries), can be mighty-fine people (I say "can," because I'm sure that some of them aren't, for reasons that have nothing to do with hunting), and that I think that owning a handgun, properly registered after taking a licensing test is just fine (we license cars, but not personal weapons? mmmmm, don't think so).

I agree that the far-right likes to characterize all gun-control advocates as anti-gun, granola-eating, tree-hugging freakazoids, but even we who are granola-eating, tree-hugging freakazoids just might not be anti-gun-ownership. I would venture to say that even people who have very, dare I say, liberal views of gun ownership, and think there should be a gun in every bed-side stand and a rifle above every hearth (or big screen TV), would agree that people who have been declared mentally ill with violent tendencies should not have guns. And rather than have some posse disarm them, they should simply be kept by the government from having them.

I could go on and on, but my tendency to blather is beginning to bubble up again after a period of quietude. :)

ETA the end of a sentence to make sense. :)

Heck, Amelia, I live in the country & most of my friends are well-armed cops. I have no issue with guns in general, or with hunting. Most rational Democrats, including Obama, have no intention of banning all guns.

But my legislature just passed a law allowing carrying guns on college campus. There are some places that should be gun free. IMO, a college campus is one of those places.

I live in the country now, too, actually.

I remember being appalled when Va. made it legal to carry a gun in bars. Yep, 'cause alcohol & firearms are such a good combination.

Amelia wrote: "I live in the country now, too, actually.

I remember being appalled when Va. made it legal to carry a gun in bars. Yep, 'cause alcohol & firearms are such a good combination."

Everyone knows that drunks with guns are just awesome to have around! No one ever gets pissed off for no reason in a bar. Oh, wait . . .

Who wants a fist-fight when you can have a shoot-out?

I definitely don't want to take everyone's guns.
I would just like there to be a mental health check (as Amelia mentioned) and I have to admit, that I am also for a waiting period while said check is being performed.
I also have no problems with hunters that eat their food or donate their food. I do have a bit of a problem with just killing animals for fun and leaving them to rot, but I guess we cannot legislate everything.
I also have a problem with armor piercing bullets. What good could come out of having them? I guess there could be some use to police against criminals that have armor, but other than that?

Charlene wrote: "I definitely don't want to take everyone's guns.
I would just like there to be a mental health check (as Amelia mentioned) and I have to admit, that I am also for a waiting period while said chec... I also have no problems with hunters that eat their food or donate their food. I do have a bit of a problem with just killing animals for fun and leaving them to rot, but I guess we cannot legislate everything..."

A lot of places (in the U.S., anyway), people can be fined for hunting and leaving the animal to rot -- cutting off the head & leaving the rest of the animal -- unless it's considered a pest animal. Even in places where there are no hunting regulations against it, it's considered really bad practice by other hunters.

Charlene wrote: ...Apropos of nothing what do you all think of Calista Gingritch's hair? ; P

LOL! I missed that line when I first read through the thread. My mother keeps harping on about her hair. She thinks it looks like a wig -- a helmet-head wig -- and that maybe she's bald under it. I wonder if she shellacs it or something. It doesn't move, and it's all one piece -- hardly looks like strands of hair at all. It reminds me of the hair on those little Fisher-Price peg dolls (I've forgotten their name).

Personally, I think she's an android sent from an alien planet to observe human-kind and is doing her "real woman" impersonation. :D

Ok, here is my random rant for the day - we had a birthday party for my 5 year old last night and OMG when did they make getting kids toys out of their boxes an Olympic Event. I have never seen so much tape, ties, twists, etc in a box ever. Do they sit in the factory's as they are packing them laughing their a#@ off about how it will take longer for the parents to get the toy out than it will take the kids to break it or lose interest in it. I consider myself a fairly intelligent person but after it taking 20 mins to get a stupid La La Loopsy doll out of the box I felt like an idiot. Its a freakin kid toy......it does not have to be packed and secured into a box like its gold from Fort Knox....kids should be able to open it.

Ok, now I feel better, thank you for listening to my angry mom rant this morning.

Amelia wrote: "Charlene wrote: ...Apropos of nothing what do you all think of Calista Gingritch's hair? ; P

LOL! I missed that line when I first read through the thread. My mother keeps harping on about her hai..."

Ha Amelia! I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who thought of Callista's hair as a helmet head wig.

Meadow wrote: "Ok, here is my random rant for the day - we had a birthday party for my 5 year old last night and OMG when did they make getting kids toys out of their boxes an Olympic Event. I have never seen so ..."

LOL Meadow! Sorry it was so frustrating for you.

Charlene wrote: "Meadow wrote: "Ok, here is my random rant for the day - we had a birthday party for my 5 year old last night and OMG when did they make getting kids toys out of their boxes an Olympic Event. I have..."


Thank you :-) I was so beyond frustrated. Now I get to tackle the next nightmare.....assembling one of the toys.......

Meadow, I remember one year when my son was about 6 or 7. We had gotten him a regular train set, one of those plastic train sets and something else I can't remember for Christmas. I DO remember not going to bed until about 3:30am because we wanted to have him wake up and come out and see all the trains ready to roll. Around 5:00am we hear my son screaming "Santa came! Santa came!
At that point I could've killed Santa, LOL!

Is anyone besides me thoroughly fed up with the spamming, trolling, and other garbage that is clogging the kindle book forum. It had a brief resurgence and has, again, died.

Why do people keep enabling the troll named B? He is an ass. He may shape up for a day or so, but he then returns to his trolling asshatterish ways.

Mahala wrote: "B can be quite civilized for a troll. A friend of his, who also posted on Amazon, was murdered recently and he posted about his death somewhere over there. Several of us who weren't especially fans..."

Hi, Mahala!

That is genuinely awful, but it seems like everytime he starts to act human, it doesn't last. I'm sorry about his loss. But I'm leaving him on ignore. It's not that he's unfriendly with/to me. Aside from Ed's threads, which are always a good time, & the group read threads, I'm barely there. The troll infestations seem to be more prevalent and longer lasting than before.

Zen is the one that I can't take. I keep putting him on ignore, and then peeking anyway, always to my regret.

I've started skipping Amazon more and more. The escalating arguments are beyond annoying. I try to stay uninvolved, but then get frustrated enough to want to smack someone upside the head until I post (perhaps unwisely).

HJ wrote: "Zen is the one that I can't take. I keep putting him on ignore, and then peeking anyway, always to my regret.

I've started skipping Amazon more and more. The escalating arguments are beyond ann..."

I've had Zen on ignore for weeks. It's unfortunate, because he does occasionally respond with interesting posts, when he isn't trying to escalate hostilities. But, I've finally trained myself not to look.

Christine wrote: "HJ wrote: "Zen is the one that I can't take. I keep putting him on ignore, and then peeking anyway, always to my regret.

I've started skipping Amazon more and more. The escalating arguments are..."

I always knew that you were much more disciplined than I was. :)

To be honest, I don't mind Zen. I admit, though, that I don't take a lot of time in the types of threads that don't talk about books, so I don't know a lot about what he is doing to tick people off.
I don't know what B did, but when he showed up I already had him on ignore. The one time I did peek he was being a jerk to Amelia so I don't look anymore. Time is too short.

Ok, when did grade school homework get so hard....I am doing homework with my 2nd grader and she has to do a report on some one famous who has made a difference in the world and research them and include a hand drawn picture of them on the back of the report. REALLY!!!!She is in 2nd grade. I don't remember even getting homework in 2nd grade (though it has been a lot of years) let alone reports on famous people who made a difference in the world. Though I am kind of proud of her, she decided to do her's on Martin Luther King, Jr. (I was expecting like Justin Beiber or someone like that)
This is my rant for the night.....Thank you for listening :-)

LOL that's an assignment I would fail for sure. I can't draw for chit.

Meadow wrote: "Ok, when did grade school homework get so hard....I am doing homework with my 2nd grader and she has to do a report on some one famous who has made a difference in the world and research them and i..."

I hear you! My 3rd grader just had to do a stand up speech on a historically important figure. He got Frederick Douglass. Who's that, you say? I had no idea until I helped him.

He had to stand in front of the class and speak without reading for 3 minutes. And pretend to be that person, as well. I don't even think I could do that. Poor kid.

Wow, that's tough! Even now as an adult I don't think I could do that.

I just love Ed. I love the time that he takes to put together his questions and I very much enjoy seeing everyone's answers. (I was waiting for you all to come back for the Steamy Sex thread because you guys are the experts on that!)
I have seen the thread killing here and there but I don't bother with it, because they aren't threads I generally visit.
I'm sad that it's all falling apart. : (

What I've always liked about the Ammy threads is that they were easy to navigate and the conversations were more like true chats. I enjoy 'talking' with various people and having those discussions. The Romance forum doesn't have rampant thread hijacking. Lurkers usually jump in impatiently to get things back on track, lol!

I would love it if these threads could be used the same, but it's not quite as user friendly, though I'm completely happy to be here to participate.