Wednesday, September 07, 2011

Perry Likes FEMA When Texas is on Fire

I think everybody would like to pay the least taxes possible, and everybody would like to see the government stay out of our business. Government is big, inefficient, unresponsive, difficult to deal with, hard to change, government would like to know more about citizens and limit their freedom -- this isn't a partisan issue, I think everybody feels this way. Government tends to get out of control and the people need to keep it in line, Democrats and Republicans agree on that, the Founding Fathers understood it, there's no debate.

That doesn't mean that a government isn't worth having, or that it can't provide necessary services. And in fact there are some things that only a government can do, things that require impartiality, projects that are so big and so unprofitable that no private company would undertake them. Interstate highways -- if private business built and maintained the highways we'd be paying tolls every time we went someplace. Emergency response, when there's a disaster somebody needs to take control, if it was a business they'd be trying to make a profit from it and the quality of services would suffer -- you can't charge people to rescue them from the rubble of a natural disaster.

Tea Party conservatives have maligned government and promised to keep it as small as possible. Lately they are talking about cutting back on FEMA, for instance. Not to say the FEMA is the most efficient organization in the world, but when you need help on a big scale they're the only ones who can provide it.

Rick Perry, as governor of Texas, tried to streamline his state government by, among other things, cutting the firefighters budget to less than a fourth of what it was. Now his state's on fire and he needs the federal government to come in and save home, property, lives.

He just wants them to do it, he doesn't want to talk about it. Raw Story has it:
Under Gov. Rick Perry (R) this year, Texas slashed state funding for the volunteer fire departments that protect most of the state from wildfires like the ones that have recently destroyed more than 700 homes.

Volunteer departments that were already facing financial strain were slated to have their funding cut from $30 million to $7 million, according to KVUE.

The majority of Texas is protected by volunteer fire departments. There are 879 volunteer fire departments in Texas and only 114 paid fire departments. Another 187 departments are a combination of volunteer and paid.

For that reason, aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) could be more important than ever to the state where wildfires have recently been raging.

At a press conference Monday, Perry promised to seek federal disaster relief and said that FEMA would be in the state by Wednesday. Texas cut fire department funding by 75 percent this year

It wasn't so long ago that Perry was hinting that Texas might secede from the country. What was he going to do, call Mexico if his state started burning up?

Oh, and don't forget what his response was when the drought that has fed these fires became serious -- he issued an official proclamation calling for Days of Prayer for Rain. Cut the firefighting budget and tell people to start praying, yeah man, that'll work. That's the kind of thinking I'd like to see in a President, wouldn't you?
While the Texas governor has been highly critical of FEMA in the past, he told CBS’ Erica Hill Tuesday that now was not the time to worry about reforming the agency.

“The issue is taking care of these people right now,” Perry insisted. “We can work our way through any conversations about how to make agencies more efficient, how to make Department of Defense equipment, for instance, more available. There are a lot of issues we can talk about, but the fact of the matter is now is not the time to be trying to work out the details of how to make these agencies more efficient. Let’s get people out of harm’s way.”

He needs FEMA now, but at the same time he wants to get rid of it. He wants it when he needs it, but not when somebody else needs help.

And here's the thing. The contradiction, the hypocrisy here is so blatantly obvious, the short-sightedness, the self-servingness, the opportunism and the manipulativeness of it is right there on the tip of his nose for everyone to see, and you watch, his ratings won't slip an inch. The people who would vote for him -- and he is currently the GOP front-runner -- suffer from irony deprivation, they won't see any inconsistency in Perry's irresponsible and dangerous position.


Blogger JimK said...

There you go, Anon, now your ignorant pontifications can be on topic, at least.


September 07, 2011 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Stupid is as stupid does said...

"Texas Gov. Rick Perry likes to tell Washington to stop meddling in state affairs. He vocally opposed the Obama administration's 2009 stimulus program to spur the economy and assist cash-strapped states.

Perry also likes to trumpet that his state balanced its budget in 2009, while keeping billions in its rainy day fund.

But he couldn't have done that without a lot of help from ... guess where? Washington.

Turns out Texas was the state that depended the most on those very stimulus funds to plug nearly 97% of its shortfall for fiscal 2010, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Texas, which crafts a budget every two years, was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years. It plugged nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money, , allowing it to leave its $9.1 billion rainy day fund untouched.

"Stimulus was very helpful in getting them through the last few years," said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies for the National Association of State Budget Officers, said of Texas.

Even as Perry requested the Recovery Act money, he railed against it. On the very same day he asked for the funds, he set up a petition titled "No Government Bailouts."

"Join our fight and add your voice to a growing list of several thousand Americans who are fed up with this irresponsible spending that threatens our future," Perry wrote on his blog on Feb. 18, 2009."

Why should my tax dollars pay to put out fires in Texas when they have that $9.1 billion rainy day fund just lying around?

September 07, 2011 3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There you go, Anon, now your ignorant pontifications can be on topic"

I appreciate it, Jim

of course, now I'm really under to pressure to come up with something completely different

I'll search a Monty Python site

September 07, 2011 5:14 PM  
Anonymous barrytown said...

"The people who would vote for him...they won't see any inconsistency in Perry's irresponsible and dangerous position."

Count me in on that.

In the article you linked, Perry proposed that FEMA write checks to state governements and let them manage their own disaster relief programs.

That's hasn't happened yet and Perry is being responsible by working within the system as it is rather than refusing help for his constituents because things aren't how he would want them to be.

This inane thinking on Jim's part is something you occasionally hear from the liberal fringe: if you want to cut government programs, you are hypocritical to use them.

But the Federal government has taken taxes from Texan citizens and until the arrangement is changed, Texans are entitled to the services being funded by those taxes.

btw, Perry put on a rip-snortin' peformance at the debate tonight although everyone else also looked good.

I wouldn't vote for Romney, Huntsman or Paul for the Repub nomination but Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Santorum and Gingrich provide Republicans with an embarassingly rich set of alternatives and Palin, Ryan and Christie may still be coming.

Rubio, Cantor or any of the also-rans would make great VPs.

The White House is, no doubt, somber tonight.

It's actually too bad about Romney's past because he looks and talks so Presidential. He'd beat Obama with one hand tied behind his back.

Poor Barry.

I'll watch him on Dancing with the Stars in 2013, fer sure.

September 07, 2011 11:18 PM  
Anonymous hopey-changey we can believe in: Perry said...

what's going on with the Dems?

why isn't someone challenging Obama for the nomination?

how about the inventor of the intenet?

"In Al Gore's most recent post to "Al's Journal," the former vice president slams President Obama for his recent retreat on smog standards.

Last Friday, under pressure from big industries and GOP lawmakers, Obama asked the EPA to withdraw proposed clean air regulations.

According to the Associated Press, "The regulation would have reduced concentrations of ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, a powerful lung irritant that can cause asthma and other lung ailments."

Janice Nolen, assistant vice president of the American Lung Association, told The Huffington Post that she was "outraged," given that "the current standard used was based on the science as of 14 years ago -- before we knew that ozone killed people."

In Gore's Wednesday post, he writes:

Instead of relying on science, President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution—even though economists have shown that the US economy would benefit from the job creating investments associated with implementing the new technology. The result of the White House’s action will be increased medical bills for seniors with lung disease, more children developing asthma, and the continued degradation of our air quality.

Gore also mentions that fact that on the very day that Obama made this announcement, activists were outside the White House engaged in protests against the Keystone XL pipeline, which is expected to run from the Canadian tar sands in Alberta to refineries on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Over the course of two weeks, over 1,200 people were arrested for their acts of non-violent civil disobedience. In a recent HuffPost piece, Gore wrote, "The tar sands are the dirtiest source of fuel on the planet."

Many others have spoken out against Obama's decision, including Robert Redford, who wrote for The Huffington Post that "I want our smog levels to come down so more of our children and seniors can breathe clean air. Putting corporate profits above public health is unconscionable. It's outrageous that it would be countenanced -- by this president or any other."

Keith Olbermann slammed President Obama on his Friday show, asking, "What the hell is going on in the White House?""

September 08, 2011 12:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama earned the lowest monthly job approval rating of his presidency to date in August, with 41% of U.S. adults approving of his overall job performance, down from 44% in July. He also received term-low monthly job approval ratings from both Hispanics (48%) and whites (33%)

September 08, 2011 7:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The big story at the Republican debate at the Reagan Library was Rick Perry’s debut on the presidential stage. The question for the GOP was whether the Texas governor who vaulted to a huge lead after entering the race last month could sustain that margin in the heat of the battle. The answer was that by the end of the evening nothing had changed. Despite constant attacks from his opponents, Perry is still way ahead and set up to win the nomination easily.

Mitt Romney will skewer Perry for calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” and Democrats will hammer him on that point in a general election. But nothing he said will hurt him in the GOP primaries. Though Romney will attempt to gain traction as the more electable Republican, his failure to dent Perry’s armor bodes ill for his hopes to overcome the Texan’s enormous advantage with the conservative voters who make up the GOP base.

Rather than playing it safe as would be expected for a frontrunner with a big lead, Perry went on the attack himself going directly after Romney on jobs and health care. Though he would falter at times later in the debate, especially when challenged on global warming by the moderators, even on those points that his critics will claim to be gaffes Perry lost no ground with the people who decide the Republican race.

Even though Romney did well, the debate nevertheless confirmed the dynamic of the GOP race that has emerged since Perry’s entrance. Romney is the only other Republican with a reasonable path to victory but his strategy of tilting to the middle of the road in order to compete with Perry is a certain loser in the vast majority of the 2012 primaries. Michele Bachmann has faded out of contention and now must be considered unlikely even to put forth a serious challenge to Perry even in Iowa where she has devoted so much time over the last few months. None of the other candidates have a prayer so that leaves Perry ready to cruise to the nomination.

This sets up a primary season which may bear a strong resemblance to 2000 when the only serious challenge to the nomination of another Texas governor came from a Republican who tried to win by running to the center. John McCain had no chance of beating George W. Bush 12 years ago and, if anything, the Republican Party is even more conservative today than it was then. That means Romney’s hopes of stopping Perry must be considered to be even slimmer than McCain’s were of beating Bush.

The 2000 Republican presidential nomination was decided early as Bush steamrollered McCain despite a loss in New Hampshire. Unless Perry does something a lot worse than using rhetoric about Social Security than the GOP core applauds, he will do the same to Romney next year. Right now it looks as if a Republican race that was thought to be quite competitive will be a snore.

September 08, 2011 7:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld an injunction that maintains family health coverage for gay and lesbian Arizona state employees.

The equal coverage plan was put in place in 2008 under an executive order by Governor Janet Napolitano. Arizona lawmakers decided they would eliminate health coverage for the domestic partners of lesbian and gay state employees while retaining spousal benefits for heterosexual workers as part of a drastically stiff budget deal signed by Gov. Jan Brewer in 2009.

Lambda Legal, representing seven lesbian and gay state employees, challenged this denial of benefits in court saying that excluding lesbian and gay state workers while maintaining coverage for heterosexual partners is discriminatory and violates Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection.

As part of that court filing, Lambda Legal also asked for an injunction preventing the partner benefits from being withdrawn until the courts have decided the issue.

The 9th Circuit issued a ruling Tuesday in favor of Plaintiffs request for an injunction, with Judge Schroeder writing for the three-member panel that ”…plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on the merits and that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction did not issue.”

From the Lambda Legal press release:

“Today’s decision by the Ninth Circuit means Arizona’s lesbian and gay state employees will not suddenly find themselves without vital family health coverage, for as long as the decision stands,” said Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Tara Borelli, who argued the case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February. “Our clients are simply seeking equal pay for equal work. We’re confident that principle will continue to prevail as the case advances.”


District Court Judge John W. Sedwick last July granted Lambda Legal’s request for a preliminary injunction to temporarily maintain domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian Arizona State employees while the case proceeded in court. The judge also denied in part a motion to dismiss the case by State’s Attorney Charles Grube, ordering that the case proceed on the merits of the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim. The State of Arizona then appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals—resulting in today’s decision.

September 08, 2011 8:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that last comment should offend Nasty Priya as an offtopic abomination

we'll see

everyone knows that Texas, under Rick Perry, has created more jobs than anyplace else during the Obama presidency

Obama is under heavy pressure to keep up in this game of HORSE

tonight, to create jobs, he will propose a stimulus package about one-third the size of the last one, which was a dismal failure

he's finally figured it out: less is more

maybe he should go all out and get rid of the stimulus package all together

or has he forgotten that he recently agreed to cut spending?

Barack Obama: a clown for all seasons!

September 08, 2011 8:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TTFers, silent in the certainty of their coming repudiation by the American voter

it's the long arc of history again bending toward justice

September 08, 2011 12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's true

the certainty of coming repudiation by American voters has often brought peace, harmony and silence to lunatic fringe groups

maybe if they keep quiet, everyone will forget that, once upon a time, they strolled down Hopey-Changey Lane with Barack Obama

it's a valid strategy

September 08, 2011 1:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, certainty of coming repudiation is a contributor but probably a more significant factor in silencing the crazed liberals is the mirth of moderate supporters of people like Rick Perry, Sarah Palin and Herman Cain

we some sure to have a moderate President like Rick Perry in 2013 and so there's a lot of mirth among the common man

the mirth of moderates have been known to quiet the cries of the crazed

groovy, man!

September 08, 2011 2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perry: Like Bush, but dumber.

September 08, 2011 3:08 PM  
Anonymous a dream within a dream said...

hyeah, so dumb he was elected President twice

while he was President, our economy was at full employment most if the time and a bitter enemy who vowed to attack us relentlessly was foiled

"Dick Cheney would like to see Hillary Clinton run for president against Barack Obama. "So far she hasn't said she would, but I think it's not a bad idea," the former vice president told ABC News' Jonathan Karl in an interview Wednesday.

"Hillary Clinton is a pretty formidable individual," Cheney said. "I think she’s probably the most competent person they’ve got in their cabinet. And, frankly, I thought she was gonna win the nomination last time around."

"Maybe if the Obama record is bad enough -- and these days it's not very good, given the shape of the economy -- maybe there will be enough ferment in the Democratic Party so that there will be a primary on their side."

That doesn't mean Cheney would be voting for Clinton, however. "I certainly wouldn't want to discourage good primary contest on their side, but I don't want to be the position of endorsing Hillary Clinton," Cheney said. "That might be the kiss of death for her."

"The fact is I'll be supporting the Republican nominee, and I think we got good candidates that are going to mount an effective campaign against the Obama administration," Cheney said."

September 08, 2011 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Perry: Like Bush, but dumber"

oh, let's have some more genius Presidents, like Jimmy Carter and Barackus Obama

that works so well

September 08, 2011 3:36 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I disagree, Jim. It a central notion of social conservatives that government should interfere in the lives of queer people, and know more about what individuals do in their private lives.

September 08, 2011 5:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perry made some marks last night all right. Now he's going to have to clean that mess up.

According to Gov. Perry, social security is a "Ponzi Scheme" that has "failed" and has been "forced on the American people for 70 years."

According to seniors, social security is a safety net they earned over a lifetime of paying into it. Seniors don't feel social security has failed, is a Ponzi scheme, or was forced on them against their will.

Seniors don't want Rick Perry or anyone else touching their social security or their Medicare either!

Then Perry marked some more territory with this one:

“I do agree that the science is not settled on this. The idea that we would put American’s economy at jeopardy based on scientific theory that’s not settled yet, to me is just nonsense. Just because you have a group of scientists that stood up and said, this is the fact. Galileo got outvoted for a spell.”

Galileo was denouced by the Catholic Church for his scientific facts.

Pope John Paul II issued an apology years later.

By using Galileo, Perry has basically indicated that the scientists who have pushed climate change for many years now, are actually correct (they are).

He just thinks we should persecute them first!!

Scientists base their theories on facts, and most of the scientific community accepts that climate change is indeed real.

Texas is turning into toast while Rick Perry doubts the scientific consensus.

Galileo was correct in his time, and scientists today are correct as well.

Rick Perry and the Christian Right, however, are wrong, again.

September 08, 2011 6:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin is still a tease!

September 08, 2011 6:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"According to Gov. Perry, social security is a "Ponzi Scheme" that has "failed" and has been "forced on the American people for 70 years."

According to seniors, social security is a safety net they earned over a lifetime of paying into it. Seniors don't feel social security has failed, is a Ponzi scheme, or was forced on them against their will."

actually, most Americans feel that they will not recoup the money they put into it because the system will eventually go bankrupt

Perry's view is the most commonly held view of Social Security in America despite desperate attempts by Dems to use fear as a campaign tool

"Seniors don't want Rick Perry or anyone else touching their social security or their Medicare either!"

if you really believe that, which I doubt, you're living in the past

Seniors are fully aware that if SS isn't touched, it won't survive

in fact, Marco Rubio was elected to the Senate from our most senior state after pledging to reform SS

sounds like Seniors want it touched

"By using Galileo, Perry has basically indicated that the scientists who have pushed climate change for many years now, are actually correct (they are)."

no, Galileo bucked the scientific establishment of hia time much like those who look at the evidence now and say the anthropogenic is unproven

"Scientists base their theories on facts,"


other times they are swayed by political or social pressure or grant money

"and most of the scientific community accepts that climate change is indeed real"

so does RRick Perry

the issue is the cause

the latest research suggest it is caused by weak solar winds allowing more cosmic rays to reach our atmosphere

"Galileo was correct in his time,"

yes, he was, and the scientific world rejected him

September 09, 2011 12:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

in vain attempt to fix jobs, mostly his own, Obama last night posited that after jacking up our debt by 4 trillion over the last three years, without effect, that 450 billion more in Keynesian stimulus will do the trick

Republicans breathed a sigh of relief after the speech, knowing that Obama has, for all intents and purposes, conceded the election

all that's left is to determine which Repub will be our next President

we should know by March

September 09, 2011 8:03 AM  
Anonymous Already threatening to quit??? said...

Can't the GOP even START to work on solving our economic problems? Now Senator Kyl is threatening to quit before he even starts to serve on the "super" committee.

"WASHINGTON -- The No. 2 Republican in the Senate says he would quit the special deficit-reduction supercommittee if there is an effort to cut more from defense.

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl made the remarks Thursday at a defense forum shortly after the first supercommittee meeting. Kyl said he is "off of the committee if we are going to talk about further defense cuts."

The debt-limit bill that Congress approved last month calls for $350 billion in military reductions over 10 years.

At the supercommittee meeting, Kyl had commented on a "sense of optimism" that the panel could succeed in cutting $1.5 trillion from the deficit.

The forum was sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation."

Both of thse groups are recipients of Koch brothers' millions.

EVERYTHING needs to be on the bargaining table and Senator Kyl needs to face that fact, not turn tail and run.

If this Congressional "super" committee fails to meet its obligation because of Sen. Kyl, budget cuts to defense will be automatic and arbitrary. Sen. Kyl should STAY on board so the "super" committee can make smart cuts now and prevent arbitrary cuts later.

September 09, 2011 8:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

September 09, 2011 9:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


September 09, 2011 10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

how could the incident in Iran not be a disussion topic?

how can we cut the defense budget when we might have to take military action to protect BJ rights globally?

it all ties in

September 09, 2011 12:03 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Quit your whining bad anonymous. You're given plenty of leeway as to what is considered on-topic. What's going on in Iran has nothing to do with Perry's hypocrisy and bad management of the fire situation in Texas.

September 09, 2011 12:21 PM  
Anonymous spill the wine said...

it's got plenty to do with the resisting defense cuts, and while that is offtopic, I didn't bring it up

it was brought up by an inrepentant offtopic poster

when the moderator doesn't delete an offtopic comment, it's ontopic, by definition

just like I'm responding to you now even though you're completely offtopic

which is fine, because the moderator has chosen to leave your comment, thus making it ontopic

it's all in Robert Rules of Order for Lunatic Blogs

interesting definition of "whining", btw

you must have a lot of fun in your alternative universe, where words mean whatever you want them to mean

hope I'm not repeating anything your therapist has already gone over with you

as for Perry, he's right

the evidence that global warming is caused by human activity is scant

accepting the consensus of the scientific community without considering how the conclusion was arrived at has, historically, made it likely that you were wrong

if the new research pans out and it turns that solar wind activity interacting with cosmic rays is the actual culprit of GW, it's going to be very sad for the scientific establishment which is so invested in the anthropogenic theory

perhaps the next generation of scientists will have more integrity

September 09, 2011 2:34 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Robert Park said "Rick Perry led a prayer meeting of 30,000 evangelical Christians in a
Houston football stadium last month, calling on Jesus to guide us out of our national travail. It was billed as non-political. I suppose that's possible; under the First Amendment God is not excluded from politics, but if Perry wants to be President he's got to be able to negotiate at every level. The big question then is, how did God respond? It didn't take long to get an answer. The crowd had scarcely left the stadium when God set
Texas on fire. It’s still burning. In fact, when God sent Tropical Storm Lee ashore he had it it dump record rains on the other Gulf states, while leaving Texas parched. This is not a good sign."

September 09, 2011 11:14 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "when the moderator doesn't delete an offtopic comment, it's ontopic, by definition".

That was incredibly stupid, even for you.

September 09, 2011 11:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks for cut and pasting the atheist spin on Rick Perry

praying for America is something most Americans value

you obviously have some emotional baggage in your past preventing you from having a relationship with God

you have our sympathies but your desire to spread your suffering to others is reprehensible

yes, Nasty Priya, when the moderator allows a topic, it is then ontopic

you have somehow come to believe you are the topic police here but I've seen little reason to believe you've been appointed to this position

maybe you can find some other outlet for your lack of imagination

September 10, 2011 1:14 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "you obviously have some emotional baggage in your past preventing you from having a relationship with God".

Your god's nonexistance prevents me from having a relationship with him - just as it prevents you from having such a relationship. However don't let me interfere with your delusion and deprive you of your imaginary friend.

Bad anonymous said "when the moderator allows a topic, it is then ontopic".

You obviously don't understand what "on topic" means. Let me explain it to you (read slowly and then you'll get it):

A comment is on topic when it is related to the original post. A comment is off topic when it is unrelated to the original post. An unrelated comment doesn't magically become related just because the moderator didn't delete it. Whether or not a moderator deletes a comment has no effect on whether or not a comment is on topic.

I did enjoy the profound stupidity of your position though. That's what I call applied stupidity - its stupidity that one doesn't come by naturally or honestly, its a stupidity so deep that it requires one to work very hard at it to achieve that level of idiocy.

September 10, 2011 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"However don't let me interfere with your delusion and deprive you of your imaginary friend."

A nice sleight-of-hand, pretending that you are apathetic to others' belief in God. You are a follower of the new aggresive evangelistic atheism. It's all backfired on this movement because it presumes that believers want to avoid a discussion about God's existence when the truth is, they love that kind of discussion. The more interesting question is: why do certain atheists so desperately want to destroy belief in God.

Still, your loss, all around.

"You obviously don't understand what "on topic" means. Let me explain it to you (read slowly and then you'll get it):"

oh, I understand your point

it's erroneous

conversations are fluid

if a moderator allows a comment, it's part of the conversation

"A comment is on topic when it is related to the original post. A comment is off topic when it is unrelated to the original post."

that's a very topic-centric attitude

that's why we need homeland security laws screening comments from socialist countries

"An unrelated comment doesn't magically become related just because the moderator didn't delete it"

yes, it does

it's magic

"Whether or not a moderator deletes a comment has no effect on whether or not a comment is on topic."

the moderator decides what topics to allow and then, like magic, they are topical

"I did enjoy the profound stupidity of your position though."

glad I've given you something to cackle about in your lonely hovel

"That's what I call applied stupidity - its stupidity that one doesn't come by naturally or honestly, its a stupidity so deep that it requires one to work very hard at it to achieve that level of idiocy."

this is a bigoted remark

I'm on the right track, baby, I was born this way

September 10, 2011 12:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sorry, Nasty

I posted a reply to this earlier and it didn't take

September 10, 2011 3:17 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "All right, brain. You don't like me and I don't like you, but let's just do this and I can get back to killing you with beer.".

September 10, 2011 3:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

bizarre comment

but, then, what would we expect?

September 10, 2011 3:58 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Yes bad anonymous, bizarre comments are so very typical of you.

September 10, 2011 4:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, it's a matter of perspective, I guess, but the usually the best terms to describe your comments is "banal"

September 10, 2011 6:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You so stupidly said: "well, it's a matter of perspective, I guess, but the usually(sic) the best terms(sic) to describe your comments is "banal"

A great example of the kettle calling the pot black!!

September 11, 2011 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would say using such a phrase really epitomizes banality as much as anything else one could think of

September 12, 2011 12:32 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous, you saying idiotic things is nothing new.

September 12, 2011 11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get your own Blog site!

And that is definitely not a banal comment!

September 12, 2011 11:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home