The Seinfeld Thread-A rambling, non-strict topic thread free-for-all

[FiredMotorCompany]

Washington's Blog

 

 

The poem has links to the various political violations, just click on the link above.

 

Biting Our Tongues Doesn’t Keep Us Safe … It Only INCREASES Danger In the Long Run

 

 

 

First They Came …

 

Preface: German pastor Martin Niemöller initially supported Hitler. But he later opposed him, and was imprisoned in the Dachau concentration camp for years.

 

Niemöller learned the hard way that keep your head down doesn’t keep one out of trouble … in the long run, it increases the danger to all of us.

 

Niemöller wrote a brilliant poem – First They Came – about the manner in which Germans allowed Nazi abuses by failing to protest the abuse of “others” … first gypsies, gays, communists, and Jews, then Catholics … and eventually everyone.

 

This is my modern interpretation of Niemöller’s poem …

 

 

First they tortured a U.S. citizen and gang member …

I remained silent;

I wasn’t a criminal

 

(The remainder of the post deleted for brevity-FiredMotorCompany)

 

 

While I was inclined to show agreement with your post, I see that you copied the entire content of the writers blog and posted it under your own name, plagiarism by any standard.

 

The appropriate way do have made such a post would have to selected the text and then click the "Quote" icon. You should then note the authors name.

 

But, in closing, I do not have a lot of problems with the authors "poem". And I see why you would want to post it here. Just be clear who's words you are posting.

 

 

The post was under his name. He included a link to the blog but did not distinguish any of the words as separate from his own or the authors.

 

 

Being obstinate? You know full well the point I am making. And I am not brow beating him, only emphasizing that he left the impression those were his own words.

 

 

Take a pill, dude, maybe two of 'em. Not plagiarism: I have not claimed that it is mine, and if you didn't have reading comprehension problems, you would have noted my writing: "The poem has links to the various political violations, just click on the link above." — which was the SECOND line of my post. Capisce?

Let's just bypass the traditional petty personal attack response and directly address the crux of my comment.

 

Since your post never cited the author with his words and you started with your own words as a post under your name, I stand by my comment that, whether unintentional or not, you failed to credit the source where you mixed your own words with other's words and made no clear distinction between the two.

 

 

 

 

 

I grant you may not have intended to plagiarize his works, and I have used quotations from sources without attribution only when the thread of conversation made clear the reference, so I am inclined to forgive you. What I do ask is you to stipulate the following text is a citation or full quotation from another's post. Using the "Quote" feature would have eliminated the blurred lines and clarified your intent to copy/paste the entire article that you linked to.......as an extension of your own sentences.

 

Grok?

Edited August 21, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany

[Edstock]

Since your post never cited the author with his words and you started with your own words as a post under your name, I stand by my comment that, whether unintentional or not, you failed to credit the source where you mixed your own words with other's words and made no clear distinction between the two.

 

Stand wherever you like. If you were bright enough to follow the link, then = golly! = the page with the author's name would have presented itself to you. Even your truncated perception would realize I didn't write it. And perhaps your comprehension retention would remind you that I said to clink on the link to see the active links. Ah, well, you do what you can, as well as you can.

 

In future, because you are challenged, I will make effort to make sure that you can keep up with no confusion.

[Edstock]

CLICK ON THE LINK

 

 

An Overworked Chemist is Allegedly Responsible for One of the Biggest Scandals in Massachusetts History

 

This week, attorney David Meier announced the results of his review, and the scope of the problem is way bigger than was previously believed. Meier estimates that more than 40,000 defendants may have been affected by Dookhan’s alleged misdeeds, up from an initial estimate of 34,000.

[FiredMotorCompany]

CLICK ON THE LINK

 

 

An Overworked Chemist is Allegedly Responsible for One of the Biggest Scandals in Massachusetts History

 

This week, attorney David Meier announced the results of his review, and the scope of the problem is way bigger than was previously believed. Meier estimates that more than 40,000 defendants may have been affected by Dookhan’s alleged misdeeds, up from an initial estimate of 34,000.

Wow. Not even two words of your own before posting a link. Have you no personal insight to add or could this be your new M.O., link bombing?

Edited August 21, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

Politics aside, there's little debate he espoused pride in this country and whether he was the best president or not, he was it's best cheerleader.

[Edstock]

Some feel otherwise . . .

 

Politics aside, there's little debate he espoused pride in this country and whether he was the best president or not, he was it's best cheerleader.

 

[FiredMotorCompany]

Some feel otherwise . . .

 

 

He may have "acted" as your video asserts. But our current president hasn't passed up a chance to minimize this country to present it as less than it can be so as to not "threaten" the Arab world.

[Langston Hughes]

Politics aside, there's little debate he espoused pride in this country and whether he was the best president or not, he was it's best cheerleader.

 

He was a cheerleader for something but it wasn't really America.

[Edstock]

Lewis Black has some pithy observations about a lot of today's irritations . . .

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELji4-TogMI

[FiredMotorCompany]

I thought the entire "legalized abortion" debate was to make sure women could "terminate" their pregnancies without going to non-physicians, because of the "butchers" who were not licensed doctors.

 

Now, in light of Obamacare at that, we are seeing California propose allowing NON-PHYSICIANS to perform abortions.

 

Why's that? I thought Obamacare would make it easy for everyone to see the doctor they wanted?

 

Or is it another way to get around requiring so many years of medical school to be qualified?

 

Either way, where's Arnold Schwarzenegger when you need a "Terminator"?

[FiredMotorCompany]

Let's play "Who said THAT?"

Would it be okay to point something out in what looks to me like a morally questionable battle between posters here? It seems that you are all out of your minds, scrambling around to attack each other and make this place look like a bunch of drunk homeless people fighting over a refrigerator box. I've been to premier league soccer games where there is more class and respect for the other side. As I go back and read through the pages of name calling and incident after incident of shocking disrespect towards each other by both sides I don't see how the section hasn't been closed. All of you should be ashamed of yourselves. The liberal posters for the reactionary judgments towards everyone you felt were not on the same page. The conservatives for the way you became a roving gang of apologists for each other. And independents failed as badly because they could have, should have called bullshit on both sides equally.

There has been a serious failure to dialogue, to exchange ideas and thoughtfully look at the contradictory view with an open mind. All i see was people arguing for the purpose of strengthening the entrenched beliefs they brought here. Not one of you gets a pass.

 

The answer later today.

[Langston Hughes]

Who cares, he goes to premier league soccer games.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Who cares, he goes to premier league soccer games.

Why are you speaking in third person?

[Langston Hughes]

Why are you speaking in third person?

 

All great people eventually do.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

All great people eventually do.

As they slip over the edge of sanity...?

[Langston Hughes]

As they slip over the edge of sanity...?

 

Perhaps....but not really

[FiredMotorCompany]

Martin Bashir may be "toast". (As in done. Not referring to his skin color. Pre-emptive clarification)

 

One must shake their head in dismay when the celebrities adored by the left, i.e. Alec Baldwin, and mouth pieces for the ultra liberals (further left than Obama), appear to be coming unraveled.

 

Homophobic vitriol from the man who loves his overweight daughter and foul mouthed idiot from MSNBC Martin Bashir suggests p*ssing and sh*tting in Sarah Palin's mouth.

 

Tell us how the left believes the right is misogynistic and is open to all ideas.

 

MSNBC's Bashir: Sarah Palin Should Be Defecated, Pissed On

 

 

Then a mia culpa. Like he was pressured to make the statements and didn't think before making off-the-cuff remarks (He had quotes and slides prepared. He meant to say every single word. Only threats to kick him off the air caused him to back pedal.)

 

MSNBC's Bashir Apologizes For Saying Someone Should Defecate on Sarah Palin

Edited November 19, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany

[Langston Hughes]

Martin Bashir may be "toast". (As in done. Not referring to his skin color. Pre-emptive clarification)

 

One must shake their head in dismay when the celebrities adored by the left, i.e. Alec Baldwin, and mouth pieces for the ultra liberals (further left than Obama), appear to be coming unraveled.

 

Homophobic vitriol from the man who loves his overweight daughter and foul mouthed idiot from MSNBC Martin Bashir suggests p*ssing and sh*tting in Sarah Palin's mouth.

 

Tell us how the left believes the right is misogynistic and is open to all ideas.

 

MSNBC's Bashir: Sarah Palin Should Be Defecated, Pissed On

 

 

Then a mia culpa. Like he was pressured to make the statements and didn't think before making off-the-cuff remarks (He had quotes and slides prepared. He meant to say every single word. Only threats to kick him off the air caused him to back pedal.)

 

MSNBC's Bashir Apologizes For Saying Someone Should Defecate on Sarah Palin

 

Who?

[FiredMotorCompany]

There's a theory that you can tell who is running the country by how many clothes they wear.

 

The average person would be the "less-ons"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ones running the country would be......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"the more-ons".

[FiredMotorCompany]

The implications of granting voting rights to convicted felons is mind boggling. And democrats pandering the them as a voting bloc, while hilarious, is ominous for the country.

 

Can you envision democrat candidates roaming the cellblock, handing out fliers to the inmates, promising them their wishes will be fulfilled, when they elect the democrat candidate.

 

I see it coming.

 

 

And what does it say about democrat policies and mindsets that having served time in jail predisposes one to voting democrat?

 

Could it be because democrats tend to be so liberal and embracing to extreme and alternative lifestyles?

While I understand and expect the rebuttal to be about the cliche', "They paid their due to society by their prison sentence, so they deserve to have their full rights restored.", I am concerned that those who chose to take advantage of society will use their vote to continue their past practices....but now with the authority of the law.

 

Most Convicts Vote Democrat, Study Shows

 

Get this: If you’ve spent some time in jail, you are much more likely to vote Democrat, according to a new study published in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

The numbers are actually pretty stark. In the three states the study analyzed – New York, New Mexico, and North Carolina – convicts overwhelmingly identified with the Democratic Party. Almost 62% of convicts in New York are registered Democrats and only 9% are Republican; 52% in New Mexico are Democrat, with just over 10% as Republican; and 54.6% are Democrat in North Carolina, and 10.2% are Republican.

There’s a joke in there somewhere about Democrats stealing from the rich, but I’m not going to make it.

The big takeaway: The AAPSS study puts it bluntly: “Democrats would benefit from additional ex-felon participation.”

 

[Langston Hughes]

 

The implications of granting voting rights to convicted felons is mind boggling. And democrats pandering the them as a voting bloc, while hilarious, is ominous for the country.

 

Can you envision democrat candidates roaming the cellblock, handing out fliers to the inmates, promising them their wishes will be fulfilled, when they elect the democrat candidate.

 

I see it coming.

 

 

And what does it say about democrat policies and mindsets that having served time in jail predisposes one to voting democrat?

 

Could it be because democrats tend to be so liberal and embracing to extreme and alternative lifestyles?

While I understand and expect the rebuttal to be about the cliche', "They paid their due to society by their prison sentence, so they deserve to have their full rights restored.", I am concerned that those who chose to take advantage of society will use their vote to continue their past practices....but now with the authority of the law.

 

Most Convicts Vote Democrat, Study Shows

 

 

Except there is no pandering, which was in the story.

 

The study that found substantial support for the Democratic Party among convicts also looked at states’ attempts to remind felons of their right to vote. But they didn’t do much. The study found “little evidence of an increase in ex-felon registration or turnout after notification laws are implemented.”

 

 

And what does it say about you that you make wild ass guesses about why people are registered but do not necessarily vote a certain way without knowing anything about the demographics other than the registration?

 

Funny, that you don't worry about how voter id laws disenfranchise minorities despite numerous studies that say so and reject that conservatives endorse them for the purpose of winning elections. Must be the anti-two party side of you coming out again. Way to not be partisan. LOL

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

Except there is no pandering, which was in the story.

Oh, contraire, mon ami.

 

There WILL be pandering, especially as the movement progresses to recruit ex-cons to vote for the party that gave them back their rights. Not much different than the unemployed voting for those who keep promising extended benefits.

 

Where the proper approach would be outrage that politicians haven't gotten the economy back on track after 5 years of the WH and Senate.

If the economy was as strong as it was promised to be and could be, there'd be no need for those extended benefits.

 

Obama should have campaigned on providing extended benefits because it gets him (his party) more votes than putting folks back to work....when they'd be paying for the government programs instead of being paid BY the government.

[Langston Hughes]

Oh, contraire, mon ami.

 

There WILL be pandering, especially as the movement progresses to recruit ex-cons to vote for the party that gave them back their rights. Not much different than the unemployed voting for those who keep promising extended benefits.

 

Where the proper approach would be outrage that politicians haven't gotten the economy back on track after 5 years of the WH and Senate.

If the economy was as strong as it was promised to be and could be, there'd be no need for those extended benefits.

 

Obama should have campaigned on providing extended benefits because it gets him (his party) more votes than putting folks back to work....when they'd be paying for the government programs instead of being paid BY the government.

 

You mean the unemployed VOTING AGAINST THOSE WHO CUT THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS right? How silly of you to ASSume they were voting FOR someone instead of against someone. And Democrats would be encouraging felons to vote against those who would deny them a return to suffrage not for themselves. That would be conservatives like yourself.

 

The proper approach would be outrage that a jobs bill could not get past the Republican house.

 

Your a funny dude, knowing that with a republican congress there is gridlock and yet you suggest that with 2 of 3 they should have done something, when what they wanted to do didn't pass the opposition controlled House. Intellectually dishonest but funny.

 

Obama should campaign on a guaranteed income just like Martin Luther king wanted because we know how you like us liberals to follow Dr. King.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

You mean the unemployed VOTING AGAINST THOSE WHO CUT THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS right? How silly of you to ASSume they were voting FOR someone instead of against someone. And Democrats would be encouraging felons to vote against those who would deny them a return to suffrage not for themselves. That would be conservatives like yourself.

 

The proper approach would be outrage that a jobs bill could not get past the Republican house.

 

Your a funny dude, knowing that with a republican congress there is gridlock and yet you suggest that with 2 of 3 they should have done something, when what they wanted to do didn't pass the opposition controlled House. Intellectually dishonest but funny.

 

Obama should campaign on a guaranteed income just like Martin Luther king wanted because we know how you like us liberals to follow Dr. King.

No. Vote against those who get elected by not putting them back to work. As long as the politicians (liberals benefit the most from calamity) maintain the downtrodden demand for public services, they keep getting re-elected to continue providing those benefits. The last thing liberals want to do is have a booming economy with record unemployment. And if civil unrest and racial conflict was solved, they'd be out of a reason for their existence.

 

Like corporate consultants. They only have a paycheck by convincing others that they have a better way of doing things. And none of their changes will ever permanently solve the problems because no one would need the consultant any more.

[Langston Hughes]

No. Vote against those who get elected by not putting them back to work. As long as the politicians (liberals benefit the most from calamity) maintain the downtrodden demand for public services, they keep getting re-elected to continue providing those benefits. The last thing liberals want to do is have a booming economy with record unemployment. And if civil unrest and racial conflict was solved, they'd be out of a reason for their existence.

 

Like corporate consultants. They only have a paycheck by convincing others that they have a better way of doing things. And none of their changes will ever permanently solve the problems because no one would need the consultant any more.

 

Actually that's the theory I prescribe to conservatives. The last thing conservatives want is for the economy to be booming.

 

#1. Obama is president

 

#2. If the economy was booming how would they blame blacks on welfare for voting liberal to gain entitlements to gain white votes.

 

If civil rights (gay marriage) and racial intolerance were solved then republicans would be out of a reason for their existence.