What's All the Hubbub

Michael,

I am going to post off topic, and I apologise. I am still wanting to know who Paul Ward is. If you are going to use a quote by someone, could you please follow up with a little bit of a bio or something?

That being said, I would guess that some folks think that Rick Perry is a viable possiblility as a canidate because quite a few people think he is. I would guess that he fulfills the criteria to be elligable. To the best of my knowledge he is a natural born citizen over the age of 35.

As to the rest of it, I will tell you what the Ames straw poll means. It means that the people attending a republican fundraising dinner vote for who they think should be the presidential candidate. There is a lot of hype to make it seem more important than it is. That is all it is, hype.

I hope this helps to solve your logical conundrum.

I hope as well that this is simple enough for everybody to understand. I am by no means a Political science type person. I just calls em like I sees em.

Since I never asked if he was eligible to run your response makes little sense. I asked what was the logic for a man who suggested that his state secede from the Union then run for the President of that Union (nevermind that he later took stimulus money which is the reason he suggested secession in the first place). Since what you answered isn't what I asked it seems strange that you would think you helped solve anything.

Why are you so interested in knowing who Paul Ward is? Is it really going to change your mind if you know who he is on a quote you have already dismissed?

Michael,

You asked why he was a viable presidential candidate. I stated why. If someone wants to run for office, and they are eligable, I would think that they are a viable candidate, especially if at least one person will vote for him. You didn't state a viable WINNING candidate. Because there would be a good argument there I suppose. If you are looking for certain answers, make sure you ask the right questions.

About Paul Ward, I would think that if you are going to quote someone you should know something about him. I am cursed with an unslakable curiosity, and when I read a deliberately provocative quotation, I am moved to find out more about the person. You haven't stated who it is. I don't know if it is Paul Ward the photographer, or Paul Ward the Catholic priest, or any number of othe Paul Wards. Now, if a person is cribbing from another place and know nothing about him, I would hope that they would be honest. For all I know you are quoting a neo-nazi child molesting pot smoker. I doubt it, but unless you let me know who the Paul Ward you are quoting I will have to assume you merely stole the quotation from one of the few places that I have found it at. (if it makes you feel any better they didn't state who Paul Ward was either)

Michael,

I never dismissed the quote. Asking for context to help frame a snippit of someones thoughts is actually showing interest. Please stop lying about me. You might have missed me not dismissing the quote when you were so busy ignoring the answer I gave to the question(or challenge if you like) you posed me. I will await a response. Probably a long long time, but I will remind you every now and again.

By the way, if anybody reading this is Paul Ward, and you are not a horrible monster like I might have implies earlier, my sincere apologies to you. I believe that every single one of the Paul Wards that I personally know are fine upstanding citizens. Not like some people I could mention that would steal the crutch from a one legged man. Shamefull!

P.S. I was just kidding up there. Just like in the earlier post. I think I am going to use my own tagline.... Please unbind your undergarments if they were manipulated into an uncomfortable arrangement.

P.S.S and to Ochosinco, you must be flippin old! I had to look up what the heck the Hatlo hat was.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-state-agencies/texas-workforce-commission/unem...

Texas has created jobs, actually most of them since the recession began.

Michael,

Like Sir Didymus, I am also curious about who Paul Ward is, I also asked for the context when you first posted it, but unsurprisingly, you refused to answer that question.

You have also said a couple of times that Rick Perry "suggested" that Texas secede from the Union, can you please provide support for this claim. I am concerned that this might be a similar case to Palin saying "I can see Russia from my house!"

As for stimulus hypocrisy, you have also tried to ride that horse into the ground. I'm not sure what your problem with states that were opposed to ARRA but who ultimately abided by the decision of the Federal Government is. If I oppose something but lose and will have to pay for a service, am I not then entitled to use that service in your opinion?

I had to look it up too. I think Sir D's tongue was in cheek as the post was typed at 0203 this morning!

http://www.boydellandbrewer.com/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=13635

Must be this Paul Ward, another socialist from the acadamia world.

What I find the most humorous about Perry is here is a man that is openly criticizing the man (Obama) that is responsible for the stimulus funds that Perry used to balance his state's budget. That's high class comedy.

SW, they did not have to accept any of the stimulus monies. The states were more than capable to reject the money. Instead they decried the monies in public and then while they thought no one was looking they accepted the monies anyways. You are always talking about hypocrisy and looking for ways to call people "Mr Pot". Here you have a perfect opportunity with Mr. Perry and lo and behold you excuse it.

Yes wallis they have, but it had nothing to do with Perry it had to do with the oil and gas companies.

The people of Texas (and every other state for that matter) pay federal income tax. Just because they argued againstthe stimulus does not mean they should forgoe their share of that stimulus.

I was opposed to it, too, but I'm glad my state took its share since it was gonna be spend anyway--just would have been elsewhere. If we're going to pay into it, we should receive our share.

I see none of the hypocracy you have implied with regard to such actions.

In order for a state to secede, it must get the approval of 2/3 of the other states, a very difficult thing.The feds will NEVER let a state out once it's in the union. It was tried in the 1860s and we all know how that turned out!

I think Mr. Perry suggested secession because many Texans would leave the Union if given the opportunity. There's a whole raft of freeom-loving patriots in Texas.

I think it's great for people to argue against big government, and yet, attempt to participate in that government in order to affect change.

That's not hypocracy, either. It's the American Way!

Hypocracy is pointing out the flaws of the Republicans while failing to point out the exact same flaws among the Democrats. I point out that our huge deficits and huge federal debts are the responsibility of both. Neither party really wants to cut anything--good way to get run out of office at the next election.

Ron Paul wants to cut things and get back to a Consitutional government. I would love to vote for him for president, but I doubt that chance will ever arrive. Only a 1 in a 100 chance of that. The Lame Stream Media will not give Ron Paul any coverage at all since he's not their man. He came in #2 in Iowa this year so he should be getting more media attention that Romney or Perry, but he isn't. Ever wonder why?

Anyway, it's probably too late to save us now.

That being true, you better convert your Federal Reserve Notes into gold. I know you won't, but I still gotta tell the truth.

Michael,

I disagree, I think hypocrisy would be either telling other people that they can't accept the funds while reaping benefits oneself or saying that I won't take funds while continuing to do so. Will you please address my two questions? Or will you just cherry pick the parts of my post you want to make Ad Hominem or "character" attacks about without addressing my questions?

Michael,

I am also eagerly awaiting your blog about the incivility of politics and the language of hate. You know, the type that leads people to commit acts of violence. Things like calling the other party terrorist and hostage takers and using language referring to guns being held to heads. As you pointed out with Arizona, that is unacceptable right?

who is bachman, the lead singer of BTO? who is newt gingrich? I guess you should spell it all out for them.

I would say that speaking out aginst the stimuls before it was passed is fine. Once it passed and you have your hand out to accept money in one hand and talk out the side of your mouth how wrong it is was silly.

You can and should use the service, just dont talk about how terrible it is. Accept it, say thanks, and shut up.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, Paul Ward is the greeter at Walmart here in Fremont, Ca. And thats a fact. Don't know if its the same person but what is, is. So now you know.

Ochosinco,

I am sorry! I thought maybe your handle ment that you were born in 1885, or perhaps that you were 85 years old! *wink* I should have relized that you just SOUNDED older than you are. After all, I sound much less sexy on the boards than I am in real life. My avatar picture really doesn't do my flowing locks justice. Again, accept my most humble apology.

P.S. See, Michael there is an example of what is known as Banter. Ochosinco could have taken great umbrage an gone on to attack me for imagined slights. Or, I could have reacted to his post with anger and yelled at him. But since we are adults, I teased him. Please take this lesson to heart on the benifit of having a skin thicker than the line between helping and hurting.

Crud! I fogot my new tagline!

Please unbind your undergarments if they were manipulated into an uncomfortable arrangement.

Navyblue,

I wondered if that author was the source of the quote michael used, but I had a hard time believing that michael would use a quotation from a british scholar on british history. Perhaps Michael can shed some light? Personally I am starting to believe that Michael does not know who the Paul Ward is that originated the quotation, he just stole it from someone else's site. After all, the 2 sites I could find with it shared the same misspelling. I doubt Michael will respond to any more questions about Paul Ward, he is already showing his customary tactics of dodge and attack rather than answer. After all he attempted to paint me as a mere floccinaucinihilipilificator of the thoughts of this well known (?) Paul Ward.

Keda46,

You might want to let Mr. Ward know that Michael is using his name. If you get the time, please ask him what the context of that quote was. My insatiable curiosity is bothering the blatherskites outa me.

Sir D.

Please unbind your undergarments if they were manipulated into an uncomfortable arrangement.

Michael,

"SW, they did not have to accept any of the stimulus monies"

While this statement is true, it is also true that the citizens of Texas will have to pay for the stimulus, do you think it is more "fair" for them to pay for other states ARRA funds without any benefit because thier leadership disagreed with the government's decision? The way I see this issue is similar to how I see military funding, a district or representative can be zealously opposed to funding the military, but that doesn't mean that 1: The military doesn't defend them and 2: They are absolved of responsibility paying for the military.

" Yes wallis they have, (Texas has created most of the jobs during the recession)but it had nothing to do with Perry it had to do with the oil and gas companies."

How can this be possible? I thought oil companies were just evil corporations that don't contribute anything to society but suck up our tax breaks and kill ocean life.

I would still like some support of your claims, remember how you always demand others support their claims.

(___)dawg,

"You can and should use the service, just dont talk about how terrible it is. Accept it, say thanks, and shut up."

Am I understanding your argument correctly? Are you suggesting that if a person disagrees with a policy they are not entitled to express disagreement if they are "benefitting" from that policy? That people, for example, who believe they are getting it in the rear, they should happily say "Thank you sir, may I have another?" a la Chip Diller?

Or he could be one of these:

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreL...

Even Jon Stewart has noticed and reported on the fact that the media is ignoring Ron Paul even though he was 2nd in the Iowa poll and 3rd in a national poll.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/08/jon-stewart-ron-paul/41311/

The media ignores him, reporting on the campaigns of everyone else. Why? It's simple; the media is primarily liberal-leaning. They want Republicans who are in the center, not anyone who is a true conservative like Ron Paul.

Get it? We are fed the candidates they want.

Actually what bigdawg is saying makes perfect sense SW, but you simply focus on his last statement and leave all the context out. It's funny you criticize others (mostly me) for doing the exact same thing but I'm guessing in your mind that if you do it it's no problem. bigdawg is simply pointing out the hypocrisy of someone saying how evil the stimulus was even to the point of suggesting that his state should secede instead of taking the funds only to turn around and while still decrying the evilness of the stimulus, not only taking the money and using it to balance his state's budget but taking all the credit for balancing the budget.

So tell me, SW, if you are so against people only focusing on one part of a person's argument why do you do it?

I find it absolutely hilarious how many posters are so concerned with who Paul Ward is that he is all they can talk about.

The truth is I don't have the first clue who the man is, and I really don't care. I saw his quote, I liked it, so I posted it, careful to give him full credit for the quote.

Didymus you still clearly have no idea about crediting sources that you still insist on calling it stealing. It is fully credited to the person that made the statement. I'm sorry that isn't enough for you and that you are so bothered by it that you apparently can't focus on anything else.

"I disagree, I think hypocrisy would be either telling other people that they can't accept the funds while reaping benefits oneself or saying that I won't take funds while continuing to do so."

Since that is exactly what Perry did then yes that still fits your definition of hypocrisy. He rejected the funds before taking the funds:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201106100024

Just so I calm your fears of me not answering your questions here is a site where you can not only find Perry suggesting that Texas secede from the Union but also once again claiming that he would not accept the federal stimulus funds:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/governor-says-texans-want-secede-unio...

What I find most interesting in the comments from posters that aren't stuck on Paul Ward is how far they are willing to bend to excuse Perry and other Republicans for stating they wouldn't take federal stimulus funds and then turning around and taking them anyways. Can you imagine if a Democrat running for President had done the same thing? These same posters would be claiming that was reason enough for the person not to be President.

They would also be calling the person a hypocrite, but because it is Perry they are finding any cause to excuse him for his hypocrisy, even claiming what he did was not in fact hypocritical.

I think my favorite example of putting on blinders to the hypocrisy comes from Boomer who not only doesn't see Perry's actions as hypocritical but sees it as the ultimate American deed.

"I think it's great for people to argue against big government, and yet, attempt to participate in that government in order to affect change.

That's not hypocracy, either. It's the American Way!"

Unfortunately Boomer that is not even close to what Perry did. He went in front of his base and swore to them that he would not take the stimulus funds, then turned right around and took them anyways. He wasn't trying to affect change, he was trying to save his job.

Michael,

I think the problem here is a failure on your part to use correct terminology. If you want to call Perry a liar, I could get on board with that, but hypocrite no. You clearly agree with me that he did not do what I said hypocrisy would be. If he said he was not going to do something but LATER did, he either 1: was lying or 2: changed his opinion. Neither of those situations is hypocritical. In order for it to be hypocrisy, imo, one would have to be doing two contradictory things AT THE SAME TIME.

I've read many articles about Perry "suggesting" that Texas should secede but his comments do not in fact do what you say they do. He said Texans may want to secede but he didn't initiate the idea or push it forward as your comments imply. That is actually what my problem is and you, predictably, went forward with a theme that reality doesn't support.

I must apologize for not addressing all of your lapdawg's comments, let me see if I can flesh it out for you.

No I don't think bachman is the lead singer of BTO, newt gingrich is a politician currently running for President he has held other offices in the past including Speaker of the House.

There Michael, are you happy as I have now addressed all of his comments? His other two sections were addressed earlier.

FYI Michael,

The fact that people want to check sources and identify the people you are quoting doesn't make them look foolish. The fact that you quote some random stranger off the street without any knowledge of his motivation or ideas makes you look foolish.

i find it amusing that somehow, someway, with out mikes guideance someone found out who he was. Wow, good job. I know it must have been hard to type in his name but somehow you overcame and conqured.

( )plant, i guess being a hyporcrite is however you define it. Right wing according to you, not hyporcrites, left wing, noting but hyprocrites. I expeted nothing less

no (______) plant, thats not what im saying. I say speak up loudly and be let everyone hear you. But after you have lost, be gracious, accept what is being given you and not speak badly of it out the side of your mouth with your hand out accepting what is being given you.

Michael,

Thank you for finally being honest. I am saddened that you have to indulge in misdirection and character attacks before you can do so. I realize that you do not have to credit a source when you are posting on a blog. There are many things that are ethical to do that you are not required to by law or regulation. But we have had a discussion on your ethical standards. I am sorry that you feel it is okay to use any source if it apparently supports one of your points. I would be careful about that. "The ends justify the means" have been used as an excuse for a good number of atrocities.

As to Rick Perry? I don't really care at this point, but I would like to point out something that you used as an apparent explaination to SWNebr Transplant. It's called "political perspective", Look it up. :)

bigdawg,

I don't really like responding to what I feel are your low brow attempts at "gotcha" moments, but I would like to point out that you are wrong. Nobody seems to know which Paul Ward is the originator of the quotation Michael used. If you bothered to actually read the posts about the subject, you would know that. But, don't mind me, I will let you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

Michael,

I am curious as to the real reason for your dislike of Rick Perry is. After all, he is midway down the imaginary paid for poll that you seem to be confused by. I have a suspicion as to why you seem to be so bothered by him. I will give you a hint: I think it relates to why you did a global warming post a while back, and the reason that you made your father look like a laughingstock.

I would just like to take a minute out of this to say that despite the lingering differences between myself and Sam Eldridge I hope all is well with he and his family. He has not posted on this site since May 8. I truly hope that this is a decision by him to stop posting and that nothing has happened to him or any of his family.

You are truly an amazing person SW. You give us all YOUR definition of what a hypocrite is, I then give you a perfect example of why Rick Perry is a hypocrite, by YOUR definition. Then you turn right around and change the definition of what you consider to be a hypocrite.

"There Michael, are you happy as I have now addressed all of his comments? His other two sections were addressed earlier."

No they aren't SW. This is classic behavior by you. You still have not addressed his main point. You only attacked one quote of his that you felt was out of line, but said nothing about the rest. Funny, you constantly deride for me this same behavior, but I guess you figure that if you do it, not only is it not a problem, but if someone points it out you claim that if you have already addressed the points, when in fact, you haven't.

You and I are clearly interpreting Perry's words differently.

"I am saddened that you have to indulge in misdirection and character attacks before you can do so."

Can you point out where I misdirected and attacked character regarding the quote I used, Didymus? I never responded to the question on the other blog and I only answered it here because you seemed so worried about who this guy was.

"But we have had a discussion on your ethical standards. I am sorry that you feel it is okay to use any source if it apparently supports one of your points."

Funny, I don't remember that conversation, Didymus. I know that SW charged me with plagiarism with no proof, something he has still not apologized for. Kind of makes you wonder why he stopped using his tagline about waiting for an apology right about the same time. I remember you and SW both claiming that I made the claim that I came up with a hypothesis all on my own (which I never did and publicly stated) which you never apologized for or took back (funny, when I make outlandish statements that are later proven wrong I make a point to apologize for that, you and SW? Not so much).

I also remember at one point you also making the wild claim that college professors (specifically graduate level) look down on students that use other people's work even it is credited, which is completely wrong.

Most of the "discussions" about my ethics have mostly been one-sided, dominated by you making wild, un-substantiated claims about what you believe my ethics to be.

"I am sorry that you feel it is okay to use any source if it apparently supports one of your points."

Most people do this Didymus, but again, as I have already stated, I posted the quote because I liked the quote not because it apparently supported one of my points.

Michael,

I am curious as to the real reason for your dislike of Rick Perry is. After all, he is midway down the imaginary paid for poll that you seem to be confused by. I have a suspicion as to why you seem to be so bothered by him. I will give you a hint: I think it relates to why you did a global warming post a while back, and the reason that you made your father look like a laughingstock.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Tue, Aug 16, 2011, at 10:33 PM

Actually Didymus I would really like to hear what your suspicions actually are, because I am pretty sure that they are completely off base and have no basis in fact. I have actually stated several of my reasons why I don't think Perry is a viable Presidential candidate (or as you like to call it hate), but for the moment I will refrain from refreshing your memory and adding some new information. I am really interested in your suspicions.

As for the straw poll you alluded to he finished midway down the list on a poll that his name wasn't on. He was a write-in and still managed to get 718 votes. He even finished above Romney (who again was a write-in) who was one of the first to announce his attentions to run.

By the way, I feel a little clarification is in store. I am not confused by the poll, Didymus (as you have stated a few times on this thread). The poll means little to nothing except giving a small boost to the person who wins. What I am confused about is why the main stream media is so fixated on it and has been as long as I can remember. So if you can make that needed correction it would be appreciated.

Michael,

Please stop lying and misrepresenting what I have or have not stated. I would appriciate it. If you want to continue to deny your character attacks, fine, but dont keep asking me to show proof. You tend to ignore my posts when I do. If you want to continue to lie about what I have posted, be aware that I will continually make you look like a fool.

lapdawg,

"But after you have lost, be gracious, accept what is being given you and not speak badly of it out the side of your mouth with your hand out accepting what is being given you."

I'm sorry, can you point out any difference between this statement and "Thank you sir, may I have another?" I really don't other than the actual words used.

Michael,

"You only attacked one quote of his that you felt was out of line, but said nothing about the rest."

I think you need to read what people type rather than what you think they mean. I only reposted part of his statment because it would be silly to copy and past the whole thing. The comment I addressed fairly effectively sumarized the paragraph before it. I believe a rational reader will see that they are in fact the same issue. I also didn't "attack" I sought to understand his argument.

In the future would you rather that I copy and paste all of the post I am responding to? Would that help you?

Michael,

" Then you turn right around and change the definition of what you consider to be a hypocrite."

You say things like this a lot. You often accuse me of changing my definition and you are wrong. What I am attempting to do is find a way to explain things in a way you understand because you have a tendency to spout off on what you BELIEVE a person said or meant rather than what they actually said.

Let me repost what I said I thought would be hypocritical:

"I disagree, I think hypocrisy would be either telling other people that they can't accept the funds while reaping benefits oneself or saying that I won't take funds while continuing to do so."

You have failed to show where Gov. Perry did either of those things. He didn't say Arkansas (for example) couldn't receive funds but Texas could. Nor did he, as far as I know, take funds while continuing to say he wouldn't. Maybe you don't understand measuring time and words like continuing. (Insert your favorite marijuana joke here)((Yes that is a poke))

Michael,

Please stop telling lies about me.

"I know that SW charged me with plagiarism with no proof, something he has still not apologized for."

This never happened, I warned you against the evils of plagiarism but didn't say you were guilty of it. Please retract your statment and apologize. Interestingly this is a lot like most of what you "know" and post. You interpret things in a way that may or may not reflect reality then you run with them without fact checking.

As for your character attacks you stopped responding on your last blog when I pointed out character attacks you had made. Amazing how often things like that happen, you are shown to be wrong and coincidentally disappear for a few days or a week then return with a change of subject.

You make character attacks aimed at me almost every time you respond to me it seems. But don't worry, I'm fine with character attacks, attack my character all you want. It just says a lot about your character when you have publicly decried that tactic and continue to do so. Hmmm, criticizing other people for doing something you continue to do...that sounds an awful lot like an example of my definition of hypocrisy that you talked about above. Makes one think doesn't it?

Michael, be sure you aren't making up things. Here is the quote from Perry's spokesperson,

""Texas would have balanced its budget regardless of the presence of stimulus dollars," said Lucy Nashed, the governor's deputy press secretary. "This money came from the pockets of Texas taxpayers, and we are committed to getting our fair share of these dollars, which would have otherwise been disbursed to other states."

Just like I said. Texans getting back some of the taxes they paid.

No hypocrisy at all.

He never said he wouldn't accept it. He said the stimulus was a bad idea. And it was.

Michael, I am personally opposed to the Social Security system. I would favor a privately funded system instead.

That said, I will apply for Social Security benefits when I am eligible. I paid into the system just like Texans pay income taxes. I am eligible. (I suspect you would rather I pay into it, and then, let only those who love the system receive the benefits.)

So Governor Perry is right, in my opinion, to take the stimulus money, for his state, even though he opposed the plan.

If I oppose my city building a new football stadium, but they go ahead and build it and part of my taxes go for it, am I a hypocrite for attending games in the stadium? That's a little off the mark, I think.

Perhaps this is too intricate for you to understand. On the other hand, perhaps you don't want to understand it, or don't want to admit you understand it. Especially now that you have taken a rather silly position on the matter.

You want to talk about hypocrisy, Michael?

When politicians talk about the freedoms we enjoy in this country on the 4ht of July, and then vote every day to limit our freedoms. That's real hypocrisy!

Here is Rand Paul holding forth about that:

http://videos2view.net/smackdown.htm (A while back I recommened a couple of books to you by Ayn Rand, his namesake.)

I bought a new toilet last year as the old one cracked. The govt tells me I can only buy a 1-gallon per flush model now. It doesn't work as well, but that doesn't matter to the govt. I can't buy what I really wanted.

Recently I had to buy a new clothes washer and dryer. The govt mandates that I use the new high efficiency models--they don't allow the others to be manufactured since the first of this year. My wife (who is an expert in such matters) tells me the washer doesn't get the clothing clean, and the dryer does'nt get them completely dry.

Beginning next year I won't be able to buy regular incandescent light bulbs, because of another govt mandate. Even though the new ones are horrible for the environment, and you should get a hazmat team to clean your home if you should break one of the new ones. They put out lots less light, too.

There are new dust standards for agriculture coming from the EPA which (if enforced) will shut down agricultural operations. One poor farmer in Arizona got hit with a $10,000 fine because he was making too much dust harvesting his crops.

This week the president was bragging about forcing the auto makers (that they took over to save the union voters) to stop making the popular large vehicles that actually make them money. In order to make small vehicles that nobody wants, but which the all-knowing govt has decided are more appropriate. So the govt run auto makers will make less money, and they will need more govt assistance.

Our nannie-state government continues with this crap, forcing jobs overseas, shutting down small businesses, and making our lives less free. They won't stop, Michael. Creeping socialism coming to your bathroom, laundry room, driveway, and bedroom.

Because they just know what's best for you!

You can choose to have an abortion, but not the products you want to use. So do you believe in freedom or not?

And don't bother telling me about which political party came up with these ideas. Unlike yourself, I am not a party-line man. I understand that BOTH parties had their hands in all this stuff.

Ochosinco, thanks for your posts, as well.

We freedom lovers salute you!

Here is an article from Houston Chronicle that supports what I have said about Perry taking full credit for what has happened in Texas:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/07/ten-reasons-why-the-texas-economy-is-gro...

You know it's odd Boomer. I also had to buy a new toilet this year as our old toilet was so old that it wasn't fully flushing. Like yours our new toilet is one of the new toilets. Yet it works just fine. One flush and everything goes down.

Just like you I also had to buy a new washer and dryer, mostly because our old dryer was actually starting to shed our clothes, and like you our washer and dryer is also the new high efficiency brand. Unlike you, however, our clothes come out clean with every load and they dry.

Actually Boomer, the point isn't whether or not he said he would accept the funds. The point is that he initially rejected the funds and then turned around and accepted them.

The spin cycle on this thread is at an extremely high level in the many attempts to excuse Perry for his actions.

Perhaps this is too intricate for you to understand. On the other hand, perhaps you don't want to understand it, or don't want to admit you understand it. Especially now that you have taken a rather silly position on the matter.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Wed, Aug 17, 2011, at 1:08 PM

Perhaps it is too intricate or maybe it's more likely that you are completely missing the point. I could care less if he took the funds. He took the funds to get his state out of a mess, good for him. My point is that he rejected the funds and claimed that the funds would be bad for his state and then turned around and took them anyways.

You all can continue to make these straw man arguments all you want. At the end of the day you are ignoring the actual point and making up your own points to argue against.

While it is on my mind why is everything for you patriotic vs. non-patriotic? Is it really that simple for you that if people don't agree with you on everything they are not only not as patriotic as you are but they aren't patriotic? It's a very strange position.

I hope your professor doesn't think you were plagiarizing other writers. There is the similarity between the two blogs and also an interesting phrase you use: "I had hypothesized that because of the popularity of the Andy Griffith Show, the town of Mayberry (where the show was set) had become America's hometown"

I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but this isn't a new hypothesis, again I hope you aren't trying to pass this off as your own idea as you seem to be here.

http://www.mayberrync.blogspot.com/

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 10:47 PM

I know you will spin and spin and spin as much as possible that you didn't actually claim plagiarism, SW. It's a classic bait and switch on your part. You make the claim without actually saying it by suggesting that someone else might see what I did as plagiarism.

You, like Didymus, then went on for several posts concern trolling over the fact that I didn't say that my hypothesis mirrored other authors hypotheses, even after I had done so.

So, no, I will not retract my statement and apologize to you. Since you don't apologize for any of your statements but continually expect others to apologize for theirs I understand my wait may be long and may not ever come.

So I am lying? Here's your statement on my hypothesis:

"I never claimed it to be a new hypothesis. It was simply a hypothesis."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Jul 2, 2011, at 12:52 AM

So it wasn't a new hypothesis, but an old one that you made? Which statement did you not make? this one?

"I recently wrote a paper in which I had hypothesized that because of the popularity of the Andy Griffith Show, the town of Mayberry (where the show was set) had become America's hometown."

Or was it some other statement? Does it not count if the exact spelling, punctuation etc.. is not used?

So did you come up with the idea on your own or did you "borrow" it? I would imagine that most graduate level programs frown on it. If you are going to deny borrowing ideas from others just say it instead of hiding behind attacks and prevarication.

Perhaps you didn't straight up plagarize, but at least here you imply by your statments that it is YOUR hypothesis, not that you explored the hypothesis. Se the whole "I had hypothesized" part of the statment implies that it is actually your hypothesis. Just to help you out, I know that you have some problems using syntax. Who came up with the initial hypothesis? Did you cite them on your paper? There would be no harm in that possibly, but from your immediate defensiveness I wonder....

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sat, Jul 2, 2011, at 1:30 AM

So again I ask you to provide when I have made character attacks against you.

By the way Didymus I am still waiting on your suspicions.

I guess I failed to make my point, Michael.

I have lost freedom of choice.

A lost freedom never returns.

You really believe the government knows what is best for you and me? Apparently you do.

BTW, I am glad your toilet and laundry equipment work well because you are forced to use them.

I just had an epiphany reading Michael's posts.

There is an inverse correlation between being a liberal and being responsible for yourself. Liberals love for the government to think for us, decide for us, and take care of us. Conservatives generally want to think for themselves, decide for themselves, and take care of themselves.

Maybe it's more about being responsible grownups than anything else.

Those who are responsible don't need a government nannie.

Just sayin', ochosinco!

lol I dont know if boomer heard it, but I certainly did and it gave me a flash of insight.

Boomer, since I know you read the same books I do, are you back to Orwell with me here. This quote won't be exact, but you'll get the point,

"The animals were told that they would not need apples and milk as those were not necessary in their diet. This gave them pause as they seemed to recall a time when they ate these things, but no one could remember for sure, and after all, Napoleon is always right. So the animals went about their days working to build the windmill."

I do not see this as too much of a stretch to compare this to say that one mindset on this blog is willing to accept what the government tells them, believing that their lights are brighter and their clothes are drier, while the other continues to question, saying that they recall a time when they could choose and were happier with their choices. "But at least they were free............."

It is almost scary to me how closely some of the posts on here remind me of what has been written so many years ago, in what I see as an attempt to warn us that oligarchy or totalitarianism or socialism does not work. Go ahead, call me out as you see fit, but as one of my favorite posters on here once said, "I just calls 'em like I sees 'em."

Michael,

I have answered the character attack question once before when you asked me to show proof. You ignored me. That is to be expected, I suppose. But here, I will show you again...

"Didymus you still clearly have no idea about crediting sources that you still insist on calling it stealing. It is fully credited to the person that made the statement. I'm sorry that isn't enough for you and that you are so bothered by it that you apparently can't focus on anything else."

This one is a little high brow, so perhaps you did not realize that it was a character attack. You seem to imply that my whole problem is the fact that you took from another site a quote without crediting them. When in fact, most of my posts about Paul Ward had NOTHING to do with the fact that you copied a quote from another source without mentioning the source you found it from. Interestingly enough you only came clean with your ignorance on Paul Ward after I exposed the similar mispelling in the quote you used and the places I have found it on the interwebs.

Most of the other times I have chided you about character attacks they weren't aimed at me. You seem to ignore my points.

The misdirection I accused you of? Well..... how bout this?

"Why are you so interested in knowing who Paul Ward is? Is it really going to change your mind if you know who he is on a quote you have already dismissed?"

Well....Still no answer after that mischaractarization of me. I am going to close this post and start up another one on my suspicions.

Michael,

Well, I will start out wondering why you want to hear my suspicions after a post that you have already dismissed? But, nevertheless, you ask and I will answer. Hopefully it will be easy to understand, because, as I said, they are just suspicions not a direct accusation.

To start out read the comments of.....

http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1608656.html

Then move on to the whole article by Michaels father.....

http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1610487.html

Then there is this.....

"Over a year ago I posted some info on Sun Spots and the lack of them might cause a mini-iceage from 2010 to 2030. The Mauder minimium was my analog. Some on this site thought I was a nut.

At anyrate the Sun is what warms and cools our planet. A fact that has been forgotten in all climate talk I have ever heard. Last winter was cold and this winter is cold.

Just want to reintroduce that piece of information to a new Audience.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Jan 20, 2011, at 2:04 PM"

Followed by your blog....

Climate Change is still Real

Posted Thursday, January 20, 2011, at 4:15 PM

(notice the time?)

Then finally...

"It is official now.

If anyone wants to join Team Perry please email me at wmarsh@extex.net

Wallis Marsh

Perry for President!

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Aug 13, 2011, at 1:46 PM"

Followed by this blog a day later where you bring up the Rick Perry topic. It could be all a huge coincidence, but as the saying goes, "once is coincidence, twice is happenstance, and three times is enemy action". My suspicions are that you have something personal against wallis. Some of the things that you slung at him after Mike Hendricks Sr.'s infamous Wallismarsh article seemed to at least me to be "neener neener boo boo" type statements with an apparent "I got you" flavor to them. I realize you would never admit to your motivations. Heck, you might not even know they are there.

There are my suspicions, I hopt tha the rosy fire of your indignation that they could evoke will keep you toasty. Remember, you asked, I answered. Please try and follow my example.

To wallis,

I hope that me using you in my suspicions is not offensive to you. If it makes you feel better, I am amazed that you have even more power to influence michael than I do. And Michael seems to dance to my fiddling often.

Whoops!

It should be "hope that" not "hopt tha". Didn't want anyone to worry that I had a brain infarction.

No Problem.

Michael,

"You make the claim without actually saying it by suggesting that someone else might see what I did as plagiarism."

Pretty gutsy, refusing to back down when your own words don't support your claim. I can't help it if you "add value" to my words and imagine they mean things they do not. Nowhere in my post is an accusation, so you are lying (this is an accusation, do you see the difference now?). I gave you the chance to fix it but you persist in your lies.

"So, no, I will not retract my statement and apologize to you. Since you don't apologize for any of your statements but continually expect others to apologize for theirs I understand my wait may be long and may not ever come."

Ok, first off, I have no idea what you are waiting for. Nowhere in your post do you say you are waiting for anything so I'm a little confused. Are you saying that your wait to apologize will be long and will never come? If that is your point I could probably get on board with you there, I doubt you will ever apologize.

Second, as to your assertion that I don't apologize you are once again lying (accusation). I don't remember how many times I have apologized, but I have and can copy those apologies.

To answer your charges Didymus. I posted this blog before I read the comments by wallismarsh on Perry. I have nothing against wallis (believe it or not, I have nothing against any of you, I just get tired of the constant lies and assumptions about what I believe based off misquoted, out of context and yes made up posts from me).

Perry announced his run for the presidency. I thought it was odd that someone who had suggested that secession from the Union was a possibility would then turn around and run for the presidency of that same union. I also can't really believe that a man should be taken seriously as a candidate that told every group that he went in front of that he would not accept stimulus funds and then turn right around and accept them anyways. It can be spun every which direction possible but the fact remains he told his base before his re-election that he would not accept stimulus monies and then turned around and did it anyways. Then on top of that he used those stimulus funds to balance the budget in his state and he now goes around taking credit for balancing the budget when he knows that without those funds it would have never happened.

I say all this realizing that there is nothing I can actually say that will convince you since you finished up your suspicions post with this nice little gem:

"I realize you would never admit to your motivations. Heck, you might not even know they are there."

I can blather all I want about what my actual motivations are (which I will mostly for myself) but you have made it pretty clear that you won't believe me. I guess that's your loss.

As for the global warming debate, yes, my blog entry was in part because of the conversation walllis and I had been having on another blog. I do no deny this. I felt that it was a strong enough topic for a blog so I blogged on it.

Back to the subject between wallis and my father, this whole thing blew up after my father had written an article about drugs and doctors that had no connotation of politics in it. Wallis took upon himself to turn it into a political discussion and almost fully put blame on the problem that he saw on one political party while leaving the other party completely in the clear.

It's odd that you believe my motivations about Perry come from that. I understand that you believe that I have it in for wallis surrounding that event, but the contentious nature between wallis and I go much further back than that.

But on this particular subject you are just flat out wrong and your suspicions are with no basis in fact. I call them as I see it, and I do not see Perry as a viable candidate for president. I have stated those reasons several times. In the end, I guess its up to you whether you accept those reasons or not.

"Interestingly enough you only came clean with your ignorance on Paul Ward after I exposed the similar mispelling in the quote you used and the places I have found it on the interwebs."

In order to come clean on something Didymus I would have had to have first lied or purposely hid information on the quote. I did neither. Just because I don't answer a question as soon as you want me to answer it does not mean I was purposefully hiding information. I personally did not see where the point was to going into a full discussion about a man who made a quote that I liked. However, considering the subject continued to come up I decided to answer the question. Again I saw the quote, I liked the quote, I posted the quote. There seriously is nothing more to it. It had nothing to do with any spelling mistakes or demands.

"'Why are you so interested in knowing who Paul Ward is? Is it really going to change your mind if you know who he is on a quote you have already dismissed?'

Well....Still no answer after that mischaractarization of me."

Exactly how is this a mischaracterization? I was asking you simple questions about why you were so interested in knowing who Paul Ward was. Then I asked if you knew who he was would it change your mind about the quote, a quote that you had already dismissed in the other blog. They are simple questions and I do not see why you believe them to be mischaracterizations of you.

Mike our contentious nature is just political difference.

We actually agree a lot on Football.

BTW I was lucky enough to see Coach Eddie Sutton on Tuesday and we talked Razorback basketball (1977-1982) for almost 30 minutes. It was special (for me).

If you have any interest in going to the OU/Tulsa game let me know I have some extra tickets.

Wallis

Snowball made him do it.

I think what has you bent out of shape SW is that I know how you operate and that just annoys you to no end. You made the accusation without making it a direct accusation. You, more than anyone, knows the power that words have, so you know that when you posted that some could see my work as being plagiarized that it would carry weight.

I haven't lied, despite your "accusations" I have called it the way I see it.

OFF TOPIC, sort of. Why "soaking the rich" with taxes won't accomplish anything.

In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 earners in the nation equaled roughly $90.9 billion. At present, the government steals about one-fifth of that, some $19.1 billion in income taxes.

Let's say for a moment that Mr. Buffett's friends feel the same as he does, and that they wouldn't mind kicking in a bit more in taxes. In fact, just for sake of argument, let's say they wouldn't mind working for nothing, contributing their entire yearly income...the whole shebang...100%. What does that come to? In an era of $1.5 trillion-plus annual deficits -- projected out for the next decade, at least -- $90 billion is barely enough to cover a fraction of the ever-increasing interest payments on the national debt. This year the government will spend $3.89 trillion (according to their own budget). That's around $10 billion per day, give or take. In other words, soaking the mega rich wouldn't even keep the lights on for two workweeks. And that's assuming the highest earning individuals in the land are even willing to go along with a 100% tax. Not likely.

Read more: Warren Buffett's Worst "Investment" http://dailyreckoning.com/warren-buffetts-worst-investment/#ixzz1VW5Z1x7Q

Michael,

So if you see lies and repeat them, how can you say you aren't lying? You admit that I didn't make an accusation, but because you "see" that I am accusing, you lie about my words. Does that idea make sense to you? It sure doesn't to me.

"You made the accusation without making it a direct accusation" Just because you interpret events or words in a specific way, doesn't mean that is what happened. You have been shown to have this problem rather frequently.

If I say you condone the killing of Republican politicians would that be the truth or a lie? You haven't said anything against them being called "terrorist" and our government regularly kills terrorists so the way I see it, you must condone the killing of them. See how ridiculous your spun defence is?

What has me "bent out of shape" as you put it, is that you throw a fit about people "lying" about you or other liberals often, yet feel free to "lie" about others. Once again, I think Mr. Pot has arrived.

Michael,

"I was asking you simple questions about why you were so interested in knowing who Paul Ward was."

Well this is interesting. When you ask questions they are simple questions to get more information, but when I ask questions you mischaracterize them as "attacks".

Michael,

I told you they were just suspicions. But I do think that All I have to say is... "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands."

That was a quote I like written by Douglas Adams from his book, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. (see how easy that was? Oh, wait....I generally know the sources of things I would quote.)

Another quotation that comes to mind is:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

That is another quote that I like from one of William Shakespear's plays, Hamlet.

Feel free if you have any questions about the author's of those quotes to ask me. I can point you in the direction of a bio or two.

This particular phrase seems to fit you pretty well. It doesn't matter how logically or clearly I lay out any of my suspicions, or indeed my answers to your demands of proof for your mischaracterizations(which I already stated my case for) and character attacks (which you never responded to). All you do is say, no you are wrong, and attempt more misdirection. So, I will continue to put forth my cases and you will continue to not understand(or claim to anyway)or, just ignore and attempt to move on. Good luck with that.

Strange, Didymus, that you would choose to use a quote "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" with all the protesting you have done about Paul Ward over two completely different blogs. That's just my opinion, though.

Michael,

Your retort to Sir Didymus shows me you don't understand the meaning of the phrase you used. Unsurprisingly, you have shown this tendency more than once.

Additionally, in my opinion, Sir Didymus was more accurately "probing" than "protesting."

Finally, why are you once again engaging in a character attack against a poster, when you continue to rail against others doing the same thing? Hypocrisy?

Michael,

Wow! Thank you for the perfect example of an ad hominem attack! Also, bonus points for apparently misusing/misunderstanding a fairly commonly used phrase. Perhaps you were confused because I used it correctly?

I am suprised that you feel that I supposedly need to make things up about you to make you look foolish. You do a great job all on your lonesome. I wait with bated breath for a time that you can answer with anything other than a variation of "because I said so" or character attacks.