Whom The Gods Destroy They First Make Mad Dept., Day of Labor Division


Looney Tunes should sue to get back the good name of  “looney.”

1.  Neil Simpson at Eternity Matters continues to court anti-socialism.  No, not “contrary to socialism”, but “anti-social” raised to the maximum.  Now Simpson disavows education quality and Boy Scout-style citizenship, all in a whiny complaint about President Obama’s actually paying attention to school kids.  Simpson’s complaints in Texas are highly ironic, considering that conservatives in the Texas legislature demand that Texas kids participate in exactly the kind of discussions that the Department of Education now urges.

According to the U.S. Department of Education:

During this special address, the president will speak directly to the nation’s children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.

“Oh, noes!” we might hear Simpson say.  We can’t have our nation’s youth “persisting and succeeding in school.”  Can’t have them “work hard,” and “take responsibility for their learning.”

One more deeply hypocritical demonstration that, for Simpson and his colleagues in whine, it’s all about being a sore loser and a carbuncle on the derriere of America, and not about policy at all.

Obama might be expected to plug charter schools again, a position Simpson would find good if Simpson had a reasoning cell left in his body.  Not that Obama’s support of charter schools is a good idea, just that Simpson previously has expressed similar views, which he now would have to eschew, since Obama adopted them.  Of course, it’s not about Obama.  Right.

The Department of Education release has other details you should check out, if you’re interested:

The U.S. Department of Education encourages students of all ages, teachers, and administrators to participate in this historic moment by watching the president deliver the address, which will be broadcast live on the White House Web site (http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/) and on C-SPAN at 12:00 p.m., ET. We also encourage educators to use this moment to help students get focused and inspired to begin the new academic year. The Department of Education offers educators a menu of classroom activities—created by its teachers-in-residence, the Teaching Ambassador Fellows—to help engage students in the address and stimulate classroom discussions about the importance of education.

To learn more, please see the following:

That is, if you agree that education is important.  (Oh, don’t even go to the post where Simpson starts arguing that “survival of the fittest” is tantamount to killing everybody else.  Doesn’t this guy ever think?)

2.  Making the case for Birther Control once more, Orly Taitz managed to get in front of  a judge in some Texas court with her inane claims about Obama’s birth certificate.  She’s not a Texas lawyer, she didn’t bother to get a Texas lawyer to sign in with her, she broke almost every rule possible, but the judge bent over backwards to be nice to her — and she still whines.  Read the events at Dispatches from the the Culture Wars.  You can almost decipher it at Orly Taitz’s blog, but she doesn’t even allow friendly posts without editing there.  Get the facts from Brayton.

3.  Meanwhile, riding the crest of the idiocy wave generated by inanities like Taitz’s and Simpson’s, these guys are gearing up for a violent confrontation with an evil, militant force, that isn’t even under discussion (if you read their links).   Go read it.  It’s the seedbed of homegrown terrorism.

4.  GOP candidate for governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell repudiated the masters thesis he wrote for Pat Robertson’s Regent University.  One by one, he disavows each of the offensive things he wrote then, claiming that he’s healed, or something, since then.

After McDonnell repudiates the education he got at Regent U, do you think the school will use him as an example of a graduate success in recruiting?

Already-elected GOP governors aren’t doing too well, either.

5.  The Sedalia, Missouri band t-shirt flap keeps some people in stitches.  I’m not sure whether it’s encouraging so many cross-stitchers show sanity on the issue, or discouraging that a few still remain deeply mired in darkness, claiming evolution is a problem.  (See earlier post here.)

Sure, it’s all sign of apocalypse, but not the apocalypse most people worry about.

About these ads

30 Responses to Whom The Gods Destroy They First Make Mad Dept., Day of Labor Division

  1. Nick Kelsier says:

    Come on Neil, surely you’re man enough to admit you were wrong and that you were being irrationally paranoid in your claims, yes?

    Or should I start calling you Walter Peck?

    Oh and if you don’t get the reference, watch the original Ghost Busters. I’m sure you’ll catch it.

    Like

  2. Nick Kelsier says:

    Neil, do bother to remember that the bank “takeover” or TARP was Bush’s idea. And that more then a few of the banks have paid back the loans and Obama let them. See..a government “takeover” would require that the government actually stay in charge. So once again your lying.

    As for your claim about government takeover of health care where? Under the President’s plan the insurance companies would still exist and still be able to do business. They just would have actual competition for once because the government would merely expanded it’s already existant involvement to be an option for those who can’t afford private insurance. You know..the full sixth and growing part of the population.

    But why is it that you don’t advocate the killing of Medicare or the VA, hm? And why is it you aren’t saying that Republican officials in Congress should give up their own government run and government paid for health care?

    and as for abortion, your party is about as “pro-life” as the Nazi’s were pro-Jew. The so called “pro-life” crowd has been conned by the Republicans for thirty plus years.

    Like

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    Thanks for the pointer to Simpson’s blog, Mike.

    I am so sick of stupidity, obtuseness, and crude brutality as demonstrated by that guy. He complains:

    I am so tired of the race card being played every time someone disagrees with President Obama. From now on I’ll just treat it as the pathetic concession speech that it is — i.e, “I have no arguments against your position, so I’ll call you a racist. I win!”

    It isn’t the color of his skin, it is the thickness, along with his awful ideas.

    Do you seriously think we’d be opposing a 100% black person who was pro-life, anti-socialism, etc.? I wouldn’t care if the whole administration was non-white as long as they weren’t pro-abortion, pro-government takeover of one thing after another (health care, automotive, banking, etc.), and more.

    We could assume he missed the point, but since he’s bragged about his GPA and CPA test scores, we have to assume that’s impossible. So we know the guy really is hateful in his obtuseness.

    I didn’t say that Simpson was racist because he disagrees with Obama. I said he’s racist because the policies of Obama he opposes are anti-racist — getting more minority kids to graduate from high school.

    It has nothing to do with Obama’s race. It has everything to do with Simpson’s dreadful claim that Obama urging minority kids to stay in school is somehow evil. Simpson’s position is undefensible under any view, but it’s completely irrational except as a racist view. When more kids graduate, regardless their color, gender, national origin or creed, our economy does better, Social Security is more secure, our armed forces function better, more people pay more taxes, family violence goes down, other violence goes down, crime is diminished, and more lawns get mowed. Why would he oppose that?

    He may be simply stupid and crazy, but his GPA is too great for that, isn’t it?

    Of course, Simpson doesn’t link back here — he can’t afford in his mind to have his readers exposed to other ideas, of course, but it may be just that he’s making another, disconnected-from-reality rant that has nothing to do with his indefensible position. He assumes a stance that is overtly racist if anyone listens to him, but his complaint about racism doesn’t defend or apologize for his previous stance.

    Such disassociation is a form of madness. See the title of the post at the top of this thread.

    Like

  4. Nick Kelsier says:

    Posted this on Neil’s website but I think it bears repeating:

    And I’m sick and tired of your side bandying about the false canard of “socialism” every time the government so much as sneezes. Sorry, if you think socialism is afoot then you’re either 1: a sociopathic liar or 2: insane or 3: stretching the definition of socialism so wide that you could conceivably argue that the existance of the US military is an act of socialism as well as the CIA. After all, PMC’s like Blackwater are conducting what amounts to military operations and Blackwater has its own version of the CIA.

    But tell me, if racism wasn’t playing some part in some of the right wing opposition to Obama, especially in the birther movement, then what is?

    After all..John McCain WAS born in a foreign country, Panama, and yet curiously no one was questioning whether he was qualified to be President or not. There wasn’t rumors flying around that he was secretly a muslim either. There was no one alluding to that he was in cahoots with terrorists. And because he picks a Latina to be a Supreme Court Justice he’s suddenly a “racist with a deep seated hatred of whites”? When his own mother is…wait for it….white?

    Face it Neil, your side of the political fence has gone batshit nutty.

    Like

  5. Nick Kelsier says:

    And it’s not like Neil and the other rightists can be objecting to the question “What can you students do to help the President achieve his goals?” which was included in the packet.

    After all….George H Bush asked that same exact question in his address to the students in 91 just as the election campaign of 92 was starting.

    That would be hypocritical of them to object to it.

    Oh wait….the Republican party lives on hypocrisy and being rampant hypocrites these days. Silly me.

    Like

  6. obotinchief says:

    Neil is definitely a PUMA….

    Like

  7. Nick Kelsier says:

    The point still remains, Neil, is that you played chicken little about an address in which you don’t know the contents, have no idea what he’s going to say and you clearly don’t trust what he says he’s going to say despite no rational reason for it. When did the concept of “Innocent until proven guilty” escape you?

    All the while conveniently ignoring the fact that Obama is hardly the first President to address the nation’s students.

    If you were bothering to be intellectually honest instead of a pathetic liar you would have waited til you actually saw/heard the speech and then made a judgement. But no…being intellectually honest was too much of a challenge for you. So instead you fall back on histrionics and bluster just because a guy you don’t like and a Democrat at that dared to win the Presidency.

    Well get used to it. We Democrats are loyal citizens of the United States despite your party’s delusion to the contrary, we want what is best for the country and we’re not going anywhere.

    Sorry, despite your arrogance, you and your party are not the sole deciders of what is right and what is best. You will simply have to get used to the fact that you and your party aren’t always right. You will also have to accept the fact that the Democrats aren’t always wrong.

    So get over the fact that Obama won, grow up and start acting like a rational adult human being.

    And I would suggest that you and your party stop this incessant and irrational fear and hate mongering. It’s not healthy for your party and it sure as hell isn’t healthy for the country. You and yours are doing a hell of a job tearing this country apart. If you want to know why your party lost in 2006 and lost worse last year that is a primary reason why.

    Your party can be leaders or your party can become a party of irrational demagogues. If the former then your party will deserve to be in charge at times. If the latter then the best thing for this country would be if your party went the way of the Whigs, which is what your party is apparently doing, and some other more rational party take it’s place and be the opposition to the Democrats.

    Your choice.

    Oh and before you dismiss what I just said, I am a former Republican. The reason I am not a Republican any longer is because the Republican party went so far to the right that I simply don’t recognize it any more. It abandoned reason, it abandoned rationality, it abandoned common sense, it abandoned morality, it abandoned looking out for the common good and it for sure as hell abandoned actual conservatism. And for what? A bunch of uber social “conservatives” and fake Christians like Michelle Bachmann and Pat Robertson merged with irrational anti-government hatred epitomized by Scaife? And toss in a bit of rampant worship of ignorance epitomized by Sarah Palin?

    Oh please, that’s a recipe for absolute disaster.

    If you and your fellow Republicans go the way you guys are going, Neil, the Republican party will be dead before I will. That I guarantee.

    Like

  8. Ed Darrell says:

    But first you said that I don’t allow contrary opinions at all. Read your own blog, liar: “but we do know that Simpson won’t allow contrary opinions at his blog, especially if they show him to be incontrovertibly in error.”

    The point is, Neil, that you’re an offensive bully. I imagine you as a second grader picked on the kindergarteners and enjoyed it fully.

    You bluster and say the most patently offensive stuff. Your disregard for the nation, the president, education, blacks, Hispanics, anything anyone does of quality, is repugnant. Your comments about Obama make me pity your children. Your absolute ignorance about biology, science, and espeically evolution, make me fear for our nation. You are the epitome of the rising tide of mediocrity the Excellence in Education Commission warned us about, and if a foreign power took after America like you do, we’d consider it an act of war.

    I’m sure you got good grades. Good grades do not make virtue. Joe Stalin was good in seminary at first, too. Enron’s guys were always considered the “smartest in the room.” See where that got us?

    I’ve struggled with this since I saw your complaint, Neil, but at length I’ve decided that the most offensive part of your rant is the patent racism in it. Obama plans to encourage kids to stay in school, to not drop out. You call that a problem. Why? There is no good reason under God’s heaven. No doubt if we reduce dropout rates in Texas, it will mean a lot more Hispanic and African American graduates. To most of us, that would justify a lot of otherwise bad policy — but it’s not bad policy, it’s good policy. So the only thing I can imagine is that you just can’t stand the idea of black and brown kids getting ahead.

    That both disgusts me, and makes me sad for you. You’ve missed so much good in life.

    Like

  9. Mike says:

    Shorter Neil Simpson:
    I am too a special guy! Why won’t you admit how great I am? My mom said so!

    Like

  10. Neil says:

    No, Neil, I didn’t say you don’t allow any dissent. I said you especially don’t allow dissent that is clear, precise, and shows you definitely in the wrong.

    But first you said that I don’t allow contrary opinions at all. Read your own blog, liar: “but we do know that Simpson won’t allow contrary opinions at his blog, especially if they show him to be incontrovertibly in error.”

    So not only are you wrong in your claim, but your dismissal of all the contrary commenters at my place as being unclear and imprecise is a foolish ad hom on your part. All the evidence is there for you being the liar and an cocky jerk to label them that way. I’d send them here to roast you but I don’t feed trolls.

    Mike, you have got to be kidding. I pasted virtually your whole post. I laughed when you tried to act like I took you out of context by quoting douchebag multiple times, among other things, as if what you really said was that I wasn’t a douche bag. How do you look yourself in the mirror for criticizing my approach when you write such things? Intellectual integrity doesn’t appear to be your strong suit, either.

    You never offered a single fact, just an extended play ad hom like you did in your comments here. Oh well, that’s just another concession speech on your part.

    Re. intellectual capacity — that is the first time I’ve ever mentioned my background like that. It was just fun to annihilate your silly accusations that I’m not intelligent.

    And then there’s Ed pathetic dig at my career choice. Hey, go ahead and call a bean counter, though “highly paid VP of Bean Counting” would be more appropriate (I do more management and decision making than bean counting, but whatever).

    Re. “snot” — now there’s another term I usually expect to here from Junior High kids. Though once again you are wrong, of course. I get lots of kudos for my debating style and willingness to have dissent at my place. Oddly enough, I got this unsolicited one on my Facebook page last night after exchanging differences of opinion on a hot topic:

    Neil, I would like to compliment you for the Christ like way in which you discuss differences of opinion.

    But I bet “Christians” like Ed and Nick get that a lot, too. Hey, Mike, be sure to ask Ed and Nick to defend their Christian views to you. I’m sure they’ll do a swell job of obeying 1 Peter 3:15-16.

    Man, you guys are too easy. I’m going back to my place for some people with critical thinking skills. Dissent is fine, but elementary school taunts are a waste of time.

    Ed, keep the links coming. I’m always glad to pop back in to link to your list of lies. Though from now on I can only promise one comment, then you guys can re-hash your ad homs without me around.

    Enjoy the last words and ad homs and virtual high fives from each other. I won’t be back to read them, so you can throw in some extra lies and vitriol this time. Just read this and my other comments as (p)rebuttals to your future comments — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/pro-abortion-fallacies-r-us-and-more/

    Enjoy the long weekend, all!

    Like

  11. Mike says:

    See, Neil, the issue here is one of snarkiness. As an aside, I notice you heavily quote-mined – cherry picking words from a longer passage to “prove” something is a hallmark of dishonest Creationists, and it’s nice to see you show your true colours, once again.

    Just to make the point, I’ll quote-mine one of your posts:

    I … waste endless time watching TV. I’m …covetous and lustful.

    Look, ma! I can be as obnoxious an asshole as Neil Simpson!

    Anyway, back to teh snarx0r. The thing about snark is that it’s generally used against people whose arguments and ideas are ridiculous – you’re mocked because you’re talking nonsense, and engaging seriously with you on these subjects only validates your stupid ideas. In other words, we make fun of you because you’re so far from the truth that you’re not even wrong; we mock you because you’re a smug, holier-than-thou loudmouth with a history of deliberate misrepresentation and plain old lying.

    In short, you’re the typical Creationist cretin we’ve all come to know, despise and ultimately disregard – the very model of a modern Pharisee.

    Still, at least you have your GPA to comfort you; your parents must be very proud.

    Like

  12. Ed Darrell says:

    No, Neil, I didn’t say you don’t allow any dissent. I said you especially don’t allow dissent that is clear, precise, and shows you definitely in the wrong.

    You could show me to be in error by correcting the egregious errors you’ve made. Something in you won’t allow you to change what you’ve posted, even to make it accurate and truthful.

    But instead, whenever anyone catches you in a whopper you simply ban them and pretend you’ve got God and the truth on your side.

    Abraham Lincoln observed that the more difficult test is whether we are on God’s side — but that would require careful adherence to the truth. You’ll crucify women on a false claim of death by Gardasil, condemning hundreds or thousands to painful death by cervical cancer, rather than admit error.

    If a lie would save one of those women, I’d be happy to tell lies constantly for that sake. But it’s truth that helps them. To save their lives, you can’t bring yourself to admit that Gardasil hasn’t been connected to any deaths? Why?

    Like

  13. Neil says:

    Ed Darrel, pathological liar: Claims I don’t allow dissenting opinions but can’t back up the claim. Pathetic. Read the whole thread, folks!

    P.S. I find it amusing that my quote of Mike’s blog was filtered by WordPress for its filthiness. I’m sure you’ll approve it shortly (anything else would be Stalin-like) and then give Mike a good speech about being anti-socialism.

    Like

  14. Ed Darrell says:

    Logic failure:

    “Snot?” “Stupid?” Heh. Guess you haven’t seen my IQ, GPAs, CPA scores, SAT and ACT scores, logic test scores, resume, etc. But I did notice your inability to reason.

    Since when did a high, or low, IQ, or GPA, or CPA score (champion beancounter? That’s a virtue?), SAT or ACT score, or any other academic achievement, preclude snottiness?

    Assuming Neil’s right about his scores, clearly high scores don’t preclude snottiness in any way.

    And — don’t look now, Neil — but that post simply proved Mike’s point. Res ipsa loquitur.

    Like

  15. Ed Darrell says:

    Of course, like Nick, he ignores what his Ed says and the fact that I just busted him for lying. Again. The facts are there people, but Ed, Nick, Mike & Co. don’t like to be confused by them. They’d rather call names like 2nd graders and think that passes for dialogue.

    Neil busted somebody? For lying? When all they did was tell the facts?

    Back in the day we’d all wonder what Neil was smoking.

    Neil — I notice you’ve not corrected the error on evolution yet. I notice you’ve not corrected your post, or updated it, to show what Obama’s really going to do, as opposed to what you falsely claimed.

    Dare I look to see whether you’ve retracted your slander against Gardasil? You falsely claimed that 32 deaths had been attributed to the drug, when the CDC showed none. Oops — that’s still true; according to the FDA:

    Concerns have been raised about reports of deaths occurring in individuals after receiving Gardasil. As of December 31, 2008, 32 deaths had been reported to VAERS. There was not a common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine. In the majority of cases with available autopsy, death certificate and medical records, the cause of death was explained by factors other than the vaccine.

    Oh, and look: There’s Neil’s unchanged post, a stinking falsehood since April 23.

    Neil’s right: Somebody got busted.

    Like

  16. Nick Kelsier says:

    Considering, Neil, that you just got shown to be a liar and an idiot on this blog and your own blog you’re in no position to lecture me about anything.

    I don’t talk trash. Not even attempting it.

    If all you can do in response to what I said, Neil, is try to launch an ad hominen attack then I accept your surrender and your acknowledgement that you were wrong. But you really should have just admitted that you got shown to be wrong and that you were liar. You would feel so much better about yourself then.

    Like

  17. Neil says:

    But I’m sure that Ed will write a post critiquing Mike for his anti-socialism, since he’s so consistent in his views.

    Like

  18. Neil says:

    Here’s more of Mike’s keen intellect and winsomeness on display:

    “repulsive douchebag . . . some arsehole in a wig, stumbling around and molesting the occasional parrot . . . It’s like watching elephants trying to do ballroom dancing – there’s lots of dull thuds and shit flying in every direction . . . In other douchebag news . . . It’s a mark of how deranged the Republicans have become in recent years that these comments have appeare . . .mouthfrothing insanity ”

    There you have it folks! Effective discourse at its best. How can you argue with such persuasive facts and logic? Not sure why he is so fixated on douchebags . . . hadn’t heard anyone use that term since Junior High.

    Like

  19. Neil says:

    “Snot?” “Stupid?” Heh. Guess you haven’t seen my IQ, GPAs, CPA scores, SAT and ACT scores, logic test scores, resume, etc. But I did notice your inability to reason.

    Another fact-free rant full of name calling from Mike. Shocking. Sort of like your post about my send up of the multiverse theory — all ad hom, nor logic or facts.

    Of course, like Nick, he ignores what his Ed says and the fact that I just busted him for lying. Again. The facts are there people, but Ed, Nick, Mike & Co. don’t like to be confused by them. They’d rather call names like 2nd graders and think that passes for dialogue.

    Just visit my blog and note all the dissenting comments. Then re-read Ed’s claim that I don’t allow contrary opinions.

    Like

  20. Mike says:

    I just followed Neil’s link… Wow. He’s a passive-aggressive little snot. Then again, I could’ve told you that, having dealt with him before.

    The stupid is strong in him – he’s the Luke Skywalker of Duh.

    Like

  21. Neil says:

    but we do know that Simpson won’t allow contrary opinions at his blog, especially if they show him to be incontrovertibly in error

    Sigh. Just picked one of Ed’s transparent lies to address because I’m short on time.

    Just read the comments on my blog. Ryan, Fox, Merkur, Seas of Bright Juice, Racing boo and others disagree with virtually everything I write, yet all their comments are there.

    The reasons people like Ed aren’t allowed to comment are very well documented — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/pro-abortion-fallacies-r-us-and-more/

    Again, read the comments section and know for certain what a liar Ed is. You’ll see contrary opinions every day, just not by irrational pathological liars.

    Then there is Nick, who tries to talk trash but comes across like an elementary school child. Really, Nick, don’t choose people like Ed as people to emulate.

    Like

  22. Nick Kelsier says:

    Ooh, found another example. This time President Reagan uses an address to American schoolchildren to promote his agenda of low taxes.

    Q My name is Cam Fitzie and I’m from St. Agnes School in Alexandria, Virginia. I was wondering if you think that it is possible to decrease the national debt without raising the taxes of the public?

    PRESIDENT REAGAN: I do. That’s a big argument that’s going on in government and I definitely believe it is because one of the principle reasons that we were able to get the economy back on track and create those new jobs and all was we cut the taxes, we reduced them. Because you see, the taxes can be such a penalty on people that there’s no incentive for them to prosper and to earn more and so forth because they have to give so much to the government. And what we have found is that at the lower rates the government gets more revenue, there are more people paying taxes because there are more people with jobs and there are more people willing to earn more money because they get to keep a bigger share of it, so today, we’re getting more revenue at the lower rates than we were at the higher. And do you know something? I studied economics in college when I was young and I learned there about a man named Ibn Khaldun, who lived 1200 years ago in Egypt. And 1200 years ago he said, in the beginning of the empire, the rates were low, the tax rates were low, but the revenue was great. He said in the end of empire, when the empire was collapsing, the rates were great and the revenue was low

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909030020

    Like

  23. Ed Darrell says:

    I wrote: Oh, don’t even go to the post where Simpson starts arguing that “survival of the fittest” is tantamount to killing everybody else. Doesn’t this guy ever think?

    Neil Simpson responded:

    Oh, please do go there. Read what I actually wrote, which Ed is too dull to understand and/or or too dishonest to convey accurately.

    Once again, Mr. Simpson portrays evolution incorrectly. The competition is not done by stabbing other members of one’s species in the back. It may be a subtle point, but it’s an important one. Even the lowly hummingbird competes against other hummingbirds, as does the earthworm — neither by murder, however.

    I don’t understand Simpson’s fascination with murder and his attempts to tie it to evolution theory where it does not naturally reside.

    The funny thing is that I clarified exactly what I meant to the atheist commenter (whose worldview is virtually indistinguishable from Ed the “Christian”, oddly enough). I wrote:

    “I think you missed my point: If evolution explains how we got here and why we are the way we are, then it is “responsible” for killing, good deeds, Christianity, etc.”

    And here’s how the atheist evolutionist responded:

    “OK, I see what you meant. Yes, that is my view.”

    Got that? He completely agreed with my summary. So the facts are that I characterized his view properly and that your view is indistinguishable from his.

    I have no way of knowing who the other poster is, or why he or she agreed with Simpson’s false portrayal — but we do know that Simpson won’t allow contrary opinions at his blog, especially if they show him to be incontrovertibly in error. So we may presume that the person is not a scientist nor one who could vigorously defend evolution.

    In any case, getting someone else to agree to Simpson’s error doesn’t erase Simpson’s error. Simpson has misstated evolution theory, probably with malice aforethought. He should know better. He knows better now. I’ll wager it’s one more error he won’t correct.

    But don’t let that get in the way of a good lie on your part!

    If I ever tell a lie here, I won’t let Simpson’s previous prevarications be a hurdle, surely.

    But then, Simpson is so far ahead of me on that score that my path would be smooth.

    Frost was right. The road less travelled is better, especially when it’s the road Simpson has trod less.

    And all of that is obfuscation. My post’s point was that Simpson made scurrilous and false claims about Obama and Obama’s planned speech. Shame on him, still.

    The Department of Education even changed a few words to obviate Simpson’s objections completely — but does he do the honorable thing and urge people to listen to the president encourage students to work hard?

    We know Neil’s occupation, we’re just dickering about the price.

    Like

  24. Nick Kelsier says:

    Neil, you’re the only one being schoolyard. You’re the one so cocksure that the President is going to advance some agenda or somehow brainwash the kids in an address that you haven’t read, haven’t heard and he hasn’t given yet.

    http://www.edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1991/10/09/06addres.h11.html&destination=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1991/10/09/06addres.h11.html&levelId=2100.

    October 9, 1991:
    Democrats Question Use of E.D. Funds for Bush Address
    By Julie A. Miller
    WASHINGTON–Democratic lawmakers last week questioned the use of $26,750 in Education Department funds to have a Presidential address to schoolchildren staged and taped by a private company under White House direction.

    Representative William D. Ford, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the House Education and Labor Committee, has demanded that Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander appear before the panel to discuss the matter.

    Oopsie, Neil and the rest of the Republicans making a fuss about Obama making an address to our schoolchildren just got caught lying.

    Seriously, Neil, you and the rest of the Republican wingnuts (as opposed to the actually sane Republicans which appears to be a shrinking number) would have an apolyptic fit if Obama got up in front of Congress and declared that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Or that the color of the sky is blue. You jokers are seriously projecting your sociopathic insanity.

    Like

  25. Nick Kelsier says:

    Neil writes:

    If you really think Obama just wants to pay attention to school kids then you are as naive as you are dishonest — though my money is on your continued dishonesty.

    Oh you mean like how Reagan, George H and George W Bush and Bill Clinton all did the exact same thing, Neil?

    Or did that tidbit of history escape your knowledge somehow? Or did you just decide to ignore that the last 4 Presidents, at least, have all made similar addresses to our nation’s schoolkids at various times?

    Sorry, Neil, the dishonest one is you.

    Like

  26. Ed Darrell says:

    If you really think Obama just wants to pay attention to school kids then you are as naive as you are dishonest.

    Better naive than crabby, wrong on the history, needlessly contentious, and destructive to calm public discourse.

    As to “dishonest” — well, I’m not the one making false accusations against the president.

    Like

  27. Neil says:

    If you really think Obama just wants to pay attention to school kids then you are as naive as you are dishonest — though my money is on your continued dishonesty. Pathological liars rarely change — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/pro-abortion-fallacies-r-us-and-more/ .

    Obama might be expected to plug charter schools again, a position Simpson would find good if Simpson had a reasoning cell left in his body.

    A baseless schoolyard taunt from Ed — shocking! No reasoning cells? Yeah, I just graduated summa laude from an honors college, scored in the top 125 people in the nation on the CPA exam, have had a very successful business career, score very highly on logic tests, get lots of positive feedback on my reasoning skills and logic, etc. But I just can’t keep up with a pro-abortion “Christian” like Ed when it comes to consistency, can I?

    The funniest thing is that Obama knows he was busted which is why they immediately changed the questions the students were going to be asked. Gee, Ed, if his motives were as pure as you (mis)represent, why the sudden change? Why wouldn’t they just ignore these silly critics?

    (Oh, don’t even go to the post where Simpson starts arguing that “survival of the fittest” is tantamount to killing everybody else. Doesn’t this guy ever think?)

    Oh, please do go there. Read what I actually wrote, which Ed is too dull to understand and/or or too dishonest to convey accurately.

    The funny thing is that I clarified exactly what I meant to the atheist commenter (whose worldview is virtually indistinguishable from Ed the “Christian”, oddly enough). I wrote:

    “I think you missed my point: If evolution explains how we got here and why we are the way we are, then it is “responsible” for killing, good deeds, Christianity, etc.”

    And here’s how the atheist evolutionist responded:

    “OK, I see what you meant. Yes, that is my view.”

    Got that? He completely agreed with my summary. So the facts are that I characterized his view properly and that your view is indistinguishable from his.

    But don’t let that get in the way of a good lie on your part!

    Like

  28. Neil says:

    If you really think Obama just wants to pay attention to school kids then you are as naive as you are dishonest — though my money is on your continued dishonesty. Pathological liars rarely change — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/pro-abortion-fallacies-r-us-and-more/ .

    Obama might be expected to plug charter schools again, a position Simpson would find good if Simpson had a reasoning cell left in his body.

    A baseless schoolyard taunt from Ed — shocking! No reasoning cells? Yeah, I just graduated summa laude from an honors college, scored in the top 125 people in the nation on the CPA exam, have had a very successful business career, score very highly on logic tests, get lots of positive feedback on my reasoning skills and logic, etc. But I just can’t keep up with a pro-abortion “Christian” like Ed when it comes to consistency, can I?

    The funniest thing is that Obama knows he was busted which is why they immediately changed the questions the students were going to be asked. Gee, Ed, if his motives were as pure as you (mis)represent, why the sudden change? Why wouldn’t they just ignore these silly critics?

    (Oh, don’t even go to the post where Simpson starts arguing that “survival of the fittest” is tantamount to killing everybody else. Doesn’t this guy ever think?)

    Oh, please do go there. Read what I actually wrote, which Ed is too dull to understand and/or or too dishonest to convey accurately.

    The funny thing is that I clarified exactly what I meant to the atheist commenter (whose worldview is virtually indistinguishable from Ed the “Christian”, oddly enough). I wrote:

    “I think you missed my point: If evolution explains how we got here and why we are the way we are, then it is “responsible” for killing, good deeds, Christianity, etc.”

    And here’s how the atheist evolutionist responded:

    “OK, I see what you meant. Yes, that is my view.”

    Got that? He completely agreed with my summary. So the facts are that I characterized his view properly and that your view is indistinguishable from his.

    But don’t let that get in the way of a good lie on your part!

    Like a dog returns to his vomit, Ed just can’t quit with the pathetic fallacies. But thanks for pointing people my way. At least they’ll go to a place with clear thinking, adult conversation.

    Like

  29. Mike says:

    Doesn’t this guy ever think?

    No.

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,150 other followers

%d bloggers like this: