Or: Is this about the Suns and Spurs?
A few thousand years ago while playing in a football game I witnessed an ongoing exchange between an opposing lineman and a referee. After the whistle had blown at the end of a series of plays, the offensive lineman complained to the official:
Ref! Ref! He’s holding me! Ref! Ref! He head-slapped me! Ref! Ref! He grabbed my [insert body part here]!!
Finally, after the second series and yet another number of whiny complaints, the official took the lineman aside and calmly informed him:
Son, he’s not holding you…grabbing you…or slapping you. He’s kickin’ your #%#$#@.
http://sonsoftherepublic.blogspot.com/
Shut up and play ball.
UPDATE: WHEN YOU WIN BIG, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WHINE ABOUT THE OFFICIALS
Hope springs eternal. Even though no NBA team has won a series after being down 0-3, the Red Sox did it against the Yankees.
GO SUNS!!!!!
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Abraham and Martin and John
Didn't they love the things that you stood for?
Didn't they try to find the good in you and me?
I always hated that song because I knew that liberals, in fact, did not try to find the good in you and me. They always looked down on you and me and felt that they knew better. It is the condescension of liberals that gets my goat. If we only understood their higher form of thinking we would not be so obsessed with our silly religions, and patriotism, and our so-called "rights". We would accept that whatever they planned for us was for our own good and we should just accept it.
George Will nailed it for me today in his article on Barack Obama. A liberal's position does not have to be demonstrated by facts or debate, it is simply assumed to be correct and the opponent is dismissed. All the great liberals are masters at this form of debate. It's all a put-down and if you can't see their point you are a simpleton not worthy of argument. To Barack Obama those who don't agree with his vision of government are "bitter" and so they fear gun control or they turn to religion for comfort. Those fools! If they only knew how benevolent we will be when we have control of the government.
Didn't they try to find the good in you and me?
I always hated that song because I knew that liberals, in fact, did not try to find the good in you and me. They always looked down on you and me and felt that they knew better. It is the condescension of liberals that gets my goat. If we only understood their higher form of thinking we would not be so obsessed with our silly religions, and patriotism, and our so-called "rights". We would accept that whatever they planned for us was for our own good and we should just accept it.
George Will nailed it for me today in his article on Barack Obama. A liberal's position does not have to be demonstrated by facts or debate, it is simply assumed to be correct and the opponent is dismissed. All the great liberals are masters at this form of debate. It's all a put-down and if you can't see their point you are a simpleton not worthy of argument. To Barack Obama those who don't agree with his vision of government are "bitter" and so they fear gun control or they turn to religion for comfort. Those fools! If they only knew how benevolent we will be when we have control of the government.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Call me a cynic
As Rush Limbaugh likes to say, "Follow the money."
It is certainly true that the Lord gave us this planet and expects us to be good stewards. His first commandment was, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." We should take care of the water and the air. We should not strip the earth of its' resources without providing for replenishment of the animals and crops of all types.
Global warming is a relatively new concept. Back in the 1970's we were worried about the planet cooling off. It seems that the factors affecting climate change are complex and include many variables out of the control of man. Many learned scientists have a variety of opinions and theories about climate change and debate on the subject may be profitable. Why then, is there a movement, lead by Al Gore and his associates, to cut off debate on the issue and to insist that any who have different opinions are in a tiny, tiny minority, and also wrong.
I think there is a simple answer. As outlined in the link highlighted, former VP Gore has formed a company to profit from the trading of carbon credits and other things "green". He is currently becoming very rich by his promotion of the global warming mantra, but he stands to make hundreds of millions when the government creates shortages by imposing limits on carbon emissions and makes a market for carbon trading.
Frankly, we are all in for it; namely another huge, useless government bureaucracy meaning more restrictions of our freedom and enormous transfer of wealth away from producers to a favored class because all three of our remaining candidates have declared their support of "fighting global warming."
Another cheerful note from the Buddha.
It is certainly true that the Lord gave us this planet and expects us to be good stewards. His first commandment was, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." We should take care of the water and the air. We should not strip the earth of its' resources without providing for replenishment of the animals and crops of all types.
Global warming is a relatively new concept. Back in the 1970's we were worried about the planet cooling off. It seems that the factors affecting climate change are complex and include many variables out of the control of man. Many learned scientists have a variety of opinions and theories about climate change and debate on the subject may be profitable. Why then, is there a movement, lead by Al Gore and his associates, to cut off debate on the issue and to insist that any who have different opinions are in a tiny, tiny minority, and also wrong.
I think there is a simple answer. As outlined in the link highlighted, former VP Gore has formed a company to profit from the trading of carbon credits and other things "green". He is currently becoming very rich by his promotion of the global warming mantra, but he stands to make hundreds of millions when the government creates shortages by imposing limits on carbon emissions and makes a market for carbon trading.
Frankly, we are all in for it; namely another huge, useless government bureaucracy meaning more restrictions of our freedom and enormous transfer of wealth away from producers to a favored class because all three of our remaining candidates have declared their support of "fighting global warming."
Another cheerful note from the Buddha.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
It's just too funny to put down
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-03-30-1.html
It's not that I want to dog-pile on Hillary, Barry Obama is such an elitist-thinking, big government supporter (see here) that he might be even worse, it's just that Hillary is so blatant and unashamed.
McCain has a few things I can support: He has opposed abortion and may support Supreme Court justices that would allow state legislatures to enact anti-abortion legislation. He is not likely to allow Iraq to be taken over by murderous thugs. He at least claims to oppose government "solutions" to all of our problems. He currently opposes raising taxes.
Now how can we get him to agree that government shouldn't try to "solve" the "global-warming" problem?
It's not that I want to dog-pile on Hillary, Barry Obama is such an elitist-thinking, big government supporter (see here) that he might be even worse, it's just that Hillary is so blatant and unashamed.
McCain has a few things I can support: He has opposed abortion and may support Supreme Court justices that would allow state legislatures to enact anti-abortion legislation. He is not likely to allow Iraq to be taken over by murderous thugs. He at least claims to oppose government "solutions" to all of our problems. He currently opposes raising taxes.
Now how can we get him to agree that government shouldn't try to "solve" the "global-warming" problem?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
