“Not a fan, but I don't have a problem with her saying this. We need quite a bit of "less about me, more about we" thinking these days.”
A Meat Beetle on Jan 12, 2014 at 12:08:59
“You may be right about needing "less about me" but Sarah Palin saying that is the height of hypocrisy. The last five years of her life have been nothing more than one long, drawn out selfie. What she is really saying is "Hey, everybody, quit paying attention to yourselves and pay attention to ME!"”
gibby1208 on Jan 12, 2014 at 11:51:29
“It's that hypocrisy from Palin that I find disturbing.”
“I lived in Oklahoma for my secondary school education, and there's a lot of sentiment that echoes his views. There's traditionally a "we all work for our money" ideology at play in the region, and those who draw welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc., are seen as drains and are reviled as lazy, greedy, unintelligent, cheats, and many worse labels. The conservative political base in Oklahoma does exceedingly well at casting blame upon demographic groups that don't fit the Republican concept.
There's a lot of apathy towards educational achievement in the state, and if you come from a poor family, the expectation is that you go out and get to work, not get your degree. The best way to put it is this: If you live in Oklahoma and do not come from a white, two-parent, middle-income household in which at least one of the parents has a college-level education....the odds are stacked against you attaining one.”
“If you don't like homosexual marriage...don't marry a homosexual. Just saying. Besides, the courts can't validate what goes on between two consenting adults...the validation lies in the relationship itself. Vindication, though? I'll buy that.”
“Pragmatism is the key word here. Hope for gay marriage being validated and legalized, but expect a much narrower decision from the justices. It wouldn't be a surprise at all for the SCOTUS to strike down DOMA while making gay marriage strictly a states' rights issue, or to simply avoid making a decision altogether. The SCOTUS of recent years tends to play a much more deferential role than believed by many, and we'll probably see a middle-of-the-road, consensus type of decision rather than a landmark ruling.
My hope is that the Democrats take back the House during the next election cycle as well as retain the Senate majority...even if the "nuclear option" were needed, I would support Congress using their powers to repeal the law, if not more. But still, pragmatism.”
MiaLouiseKhan on Mar 28, 2013 at 06:29:01
“I agree with all of this.”
Thereaintnofinbirfday on Mar 28, 2013 at 06:19:46
“The courts wil not validate homosexual marriage...they might make it legal, but it will never be right.
“I don't mean to bring religion into this, but I hope that the God whom Bush and his ilk shielded themselves behind exists so that these crimes can be answered for.”
prairieaire on Mar 19, 2013 at 23:51:35
“If I remember my bible correctly it says the chances of a rich man getting into heaven are as great as a camel getting through the eye of a needle. especially the ones who covet money. bush and Cheney fit that description.”
stettin on Mar 19, 2013 at 23:38:45
“We never trusted to God to conduct the trials of war criminals after 1945.”
“With the election in November being a repudiation of Norquist's....well, his entire agenda , you'd think that he'd learn some humility. But then you remember that this isn't about taxes, or about the fiscal freaking cliff, it's about Grover Norquist shooting his mouth off and trying to retain some vestige of his social stature as well as his lobbying connections in order to maintain his wealth.”
ThankGodhesgone on Dec 4, 2012 at 00:56:38
“Same mindset as Karl Rove. I hear he's still sitting in the basement at Faux Noise, waiting for Ohio to be called for Romney.”
“The rest of her life might be ruined by the fallout from this, but that's not a chance she gave to the baby that she carried to term and birthed. As dramatic as this case is, we'll learn plenty about her circumstances in the upcoming days, so we'll be able to see if this is a product of stress and panic and pressure, or if this was an immature teenager not comprehending the magnitude of the situation, or anything in between.
If you want to condemn her, be my guest. But age forgets what 14 was like, I sometimes do even at 22. I think she made a mistake, and we could be righteous and indignant about the situation, and demonize her. But in doing so, we'll just make a dozen more like her, scared little girls who are absolutely terrified of coming forward with the truth. Or we could be responsible and compassionate, and try to use the loss of one to better the lives of all.”
“Was there a reason that you bought theirs without them paying for it? And it seems like your behavior is standard. By that, I don't see how or why gun sales should expand so drastically under Obama in particular.”
Grumpy Man on Sep 17, 2012 at 07:40:15
“Why I bought their guns? I have a lot more money than my daughters do. As to my wife, we discussed it, she tried different guns, decided which one she preferred and we then waited for a sale. I happen to find it on sale so I picked it up for her. None of the guns I bought for my daughters and wife would be prohibited under any ban that's ever been discussed on a national level in recent decades. They were all small, five shot revolvers. My wife has upgraded to a semiautomatic handgun with a capacity of seven. Also, none of the three are prohibited persons. I didn't participate in a straw purchase if that's what you were wondering. (You made no accusation, I'm just addressing it in case you were wondering.)
I guess my original point was - all repeat buyers are not just repeat buyers. Some are making gifts of guns to new gun owners. Surely I'm not the only one.
I would agree with you that many people are buying guns because they buy into the hype that Obama will restrict sales of certain weapons. These are people who failed Civics 101. Congress makes laws, not the President. If re-elected I won't be surprised if he pushes for more restrictions but I will be surprised if more restrictions actually result from his push.”
“Does it specify what percentage of those that might buy guns would be first time buyers? I'm under the impression that the vast majority already own several firearms, so it's really hard to see how Obama would take their guns away, as many claim.
Then again, my tinfoil hat is in the oven right now, and I ran out of snuff earlier.”
Grumpy Man on Sep 16, 2012 at 19:28:52
“Stats are a funny thing. In the past few years I bought several guns and was not a first time buyer.
One was a gift to my younger daughter. Her first.
One was a gift to my eldest daughter. Her first.
One was a gift to my wife. Her first that was pre-owned by me. (She replaced it with one she purchased in her own name this past year.)
Guns I distributed through inheritance from my father include several handguns, shotguns and rifles and made new gun owners out of 3-4 people.
I've been a gun owner since I was three months old (not a typo). In the past decade, among family members, I've witnessed or assisted some 10-12 people become new gun owners without buying a gun.
Stats are a funny thing.”
Kathleen CrouseBradley on Sep 16, 2012 at 19:01:06
“I'm all for celebrating the upholding of ACA too, but the bottom half of the article ruins any happiness for me. I think that Roberts will eventually use whatever good faith he gained by upholding ACA as a means of sneaking something big, ugly, and highly partisan by us in the future. And the conservative members of the Court who are elderly will simply linger until the next Republican is elected President in order to perpetuate the 5-4 majority bloc that exists.
The only way to offset this is at the polls. Keep dedicated and vigilant, and make sure your votes count.”
OldKatt on Sep 16, 2012 at 06:37:57
“Roberts will overturn the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”
“Well, I was worried at first, but I feel better knowing that things will probably not get much worse. I'm sure the people there also sleep more soundly at night knowing that things are only going to be as bad as they are right now, too.”
“I wasn't referring to intentionally stiffing someone because I thought it was obvious how awful that is. My views were that nobody is even trying to distinguish between those who choose to stiff a hardworking server, and those who may not have know about the pricing, or may have been counting on a special that was no longer in service, things that people on a budget sometimes rely on, and thus accidentally leave themselves short on tipping.
Also, you used the wording "where tips are expected". That means that it's a surcharge, and no longer a tip. Part of the social contract is that food servers, waiters/waitresses, etc. have to actually earn a tip, and put effort into their work. And more often than not, they are in fact rewarded accordingly for their labors, if not more.”
“It's one of those loopholes that some people are willing to exploit. "Making" someone tip defeats the whole purpose of a tip, yet without some sort of gratuity charge, there are people who will choose to not tip more than the minimum, if even that. I've picked up the practice of going into a restaurant with a tip percentage in mind, and then letting the performance of the server either raise or lower it as the meal progresses.
And I find it pretentious that people here scorn others for eating at a place where they may not be able to afford the full and complete tip expected of them. Are they to limit their expenditures to McDonalds and leave dine-in experiences to you, their betters, or does it just bother some of you to see the lower class in the same establishments as you?”
mircakes on Jun 23, 2012 at 12:16:28
“To answer your questions, yes, they should keep their butts at McDonalds. If you don't want to pay to be waited on (which is what a tip is), then don't go somewhere where you're waited on. The server, who themselves is probably struggling financially, doesn't need to suffer because you want to be "fancy" and eat at a place you can't afford. The same way a person who cannot afford Nordstrom should just stick to Macy's, a person who cannot afford Chili's (hah) should stick to Del Taco. If you want to save up money to eat somewhere nice, then save some money to add a decent tip.
Call it pretentious if you want, but in reality it's just being practical instead of trying to live beyond your means at the expense of your server. I hold myself to those same rules. When I want to save money, I don't eat out. I don't shop at Nordstroms unless I want something specific and I've saved up money for it. That doesn't make me "low class" (as you put it), it makes me smart.”
Smally Fannon on Jun 23, 2012 at 12:07:04
“If you cant afford to tip the proper amount based off the bill of what you had, then you have no right to eat at that establisment. This is how people make a living, support their children, pay their rent and mortgage, etc....So if you cant afford to tip what shoudl be tipped, then no you have no right to eat there...Save your pennies like the rest of the world and when you can afford it go the the establishment.”
L Anon on Jun 23, 2012 at 09:43:37
“No, it's not got anything to do with being "better" than someone. But to go into a restaurant, KNOWING you have no intention of tipping the 15% REGARDLESS of service is wrong. Waitresses are not rich people; hell they are often in the same boat, but having been in that position, I would NEVER go into a place where tips are expected with the INTENTION of not tipping.”
“Idk, Barney. My grandparents have told me about the good ole Joe McCartney days. I'm tempted to think that he would have extrapolated the number 80 into something like 80 million, plus every registered Negro, woman, and Democrat.”
“Okay, so there's this Victoria's Secret model I've been dreaming about....here's the plan. I move to Arizona, then "claim" to have gotten her pregnant two weeks in advance, thus requiring her to marry me, and me to consummate the whole shebang. Good strategy, yes?”