HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » hootinholler » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Pa/Md
Home country: USA
Current location: Some have said not earth :shrug:
Member since: Sat Nov 20, 2004, 04:27 PM
Number of posts: 26,449

Journal Archives

The Harrow

A farm implement to break up the clods after a field is plowed:

It comes in many configurations. The one above tends to trap the existing growth that was plowed under and drag it along.

Unfortunately the practice of harrowing a field leads to serious erosion issues. Sometimes the field fails the predicted yield because of it, especially if there's a vigorous rain clearing the air.

So the new National Quinnipiac poll was published yesterday

As expected, Hillary still has a substantial lead:
5. (If Democrat or Democratic Leaner) If the Democratic primary for President were being held today, and the candidates were Joe Biden, Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders and Jim Webb, for whom would you vote?

I tried to post results but the tabular nature of the results gets hosed and is unreadable, please go to the link and look at question 5, and the trend for question 5.

While Hillary has been pretty steady, Bernie has nearly doubled support this month from 8 points to 15 points continuing a trend that doubled support last month when he jumped 4 points to 8 points.

That's not the bit I found interesting though. More or less what I expected. What I didn't expect was question 6:
6. (If Democrat or Democratic Leaner) Are there any of these candidates you would definitely not support for the Democratic nomination for president: Biden, Chafee, Clinton, O'Malley, Sanders, or Webb? (Totals may add up to more than 100% because multiple responses were allowed)

Hillary's numbers are nearly double Bernies.

Question 19 is also interesting:
19. Is your opinion of Hillary Clinton favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about her?

45 favorable
47 unfavorable
5 Don't know enough

Clearly, Hillary has a problem with independent voters 39F - 51U.

Question 39 is Bernie's turn:
39. (Split Sample) Is your opinion of Bernie Sanders favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?

19 favorable
18 unfavorable
62 Don't know enough

But the big question that I wish they had asked about Bernie also is:
44. Would you say that - Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy or not?

39 - Yes
53 - No

Again, those pesky I voters are in play again here.

If I were working on Hillary's campaign, I would be concerned about these results.

Can anyone explain to me

Why voters are going to reject a candidate who aligns so closely with their opinions?

Why would you reject a candidate that has been consistent with those positions their entire career?

How does that work?

Can I ask a Memorial Day favor?

I'm a veteran - Cold War submariner.

Can you please remember that this holiday is not to honor veterans, but to honor our brothers who fell in the line of duty.

There's a thing called stolen valor. To most vets that I know, it's a pretty big deal. Speaking for myself, when someone who knows I served thanks me for my service on Memorial Day, I get this little twinge of guilt because we have another day for that in the fall. It's really just a little thing, but if it happens to me, I suspect it happens to others. Especially those who unlike me, actually saw their brother fall or found them afterward.

To me this day is really about the guys who fell on Normandy beaches, who fell in Gettysburg (both sides), who were manning Scorpion, from Concord to Iraq and all those places in between we may never remember.

It's also about those who were treated so shitty, who died at the hands of the VA denying cancer clusters from contaminated base water, denying Agent Orange leaving my brothers to suffer a lingering death, those who froze to death over the many winters because they were homeless, those who die in jail because PTSD landed them there.

The first group I mentioned, there's little we can do. The second group, well we could change that if we can pull together.

Fuck That! I'm Fighting.

For once in my life I have someone that I can proudly vote for. Someone genuine who has a forty plus years long unabated record of acting on the behalf of the people.

You nattering nabobs of negativity are totally harshing my mellow. By crying UNELECTABLE you are effectively turning good FDR Democrats into complacent oil for the gears of the vast post industrialist oligarchic machine. Fuck that, I'm not oil, I'm fighting.

The facts are that a strong populist showing happened in 2014. The people who care about populist issues supported referendum after referendum as strongly progressive initiatives were passed.

Yet we hear the piper's drones echoing he can't win daily, nay, hourly. Fuck that. I'm fighting.

We hear about a grumpy uncle with the wind tossed shock and rumpled suit. I'll get back to the suit. Let me tell you about that iconic hair. The wind doesn't move it, the force does. Grumpy? Fuck all yeah. We can use some grumpiness in the White House about how the people are treated. I have yet to see unjustified (Steve Irwin voice) Oooo, he's grumpy (/SIv) I see it when he's pissed off that people aren't cared for, which by the way, happens to be the whole fucking point of a god damned democratic republic. I get (SIv) grummpay (/SIv) about that shit too.

We hear about age, I've seen comparisons to Raygun's lost mental capacity. The dude is as vigorous as a Jedi fucking night. I challenge you to keep his itinerary and then disagree. Why do you think that suit is rumpled? It sees action.

For you young folk out there, I got one thing that is a once in a lifetime opportunity. A genuine candidate I can place total faith in to do what's right as I see right. Don't believe me? Look at the actions in the past 40+ fucking years and see how they align with your personal values. Once in a lifetime. I guaranfuckingtee it, unless it's for his second term.

Unfucking electable?

Fuck. That. I'm. Fighting.

Won't you please join me?

83 is young for a Jedi

Just Sayin'

7 Charts Show the Socialist Hellscape America Would Be Under Bernie Sanders

So, if anyone mentions it, Bernie wants us to join the Scandinavian Hellscape.

At the link are 7 charts that demonstrate unequivocally the torturous economy and fountain of crime that Scandinavian Democratic Socialist countries are.

IMHO worth clicking on


Edit: Seriously, it's worth watching.


I guess it's time to drag this out again (re: Talibornagin christian nation)

Some research I did a while ago during some other outrage the talibornagin was suffering...

We can expect a rasher of the talibornagain gnashing of teeth and wailing over their perceived persecution. Bring on the Lions!

In light of that, I thought it appropriate to provide a review of Church-State history in the U.S. As it happens, I have a file full of snippets of events that seem sorta relevant.

This is stuff I've gathered from all over.

The continental dollar of the Revolutionary War, was designed by Benjamin Franklin in 1776:The mottos on this coin are "Mind Your Business" and "We Are One."

The Tripoli Treaty of 1797 - States unequivocally the US is not a
Christian Nation:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of
enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as
the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility
against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no
pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and
President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification;
the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this
was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it
was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no
record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in
full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there
were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today."

THE WHOLE ARTICLE: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen

This is confirmed by at least 2 of the Founders. Now remember this one later:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress
consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of
religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in
the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an
establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains
establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to
be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them,
and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does this not
involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a
provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of
the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by
Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation? -- Madison In "Essay on Monopolies,"

Moving right along now... to Jefferson:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. - Thomas Jefferson 1/1/1802

In 1837 Congress passed an Act that specified which mottos and phrases
were allowed to be printed on currency; this included the national
motto, "E Pluribus Unum" (From Many One). The motto was not
required however.

And then the shit storm starts chucking turds:

* In 1860, during the Civil War, Protestant denominations organize the 'National Reform Association', which aimed to amend the Constitution to "declare the nation's allegiance to Jesus Christ."

* In 1861, Rev. M. R. Watkinson writes Salmon P. Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, a letter suggesting "the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins". He suggests "God, Liberty, Law" as a motto on a "beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object".

* In 1864, Congress approves "In God We Trust" for use on one-cent and two-cent coins.

* In 1865, Congress acts to place the motto on all coins.

In 1865, with the conclusion of the Civil War, a new Act was passed by Congress to allow the addition of the phrase "In God We Trust" to currency. "In God We Trust" was still not the national motto at this point and was not used on all money. It was simply allowed to be used on coins, and was used mostly on small denomination coins along with the national motto, "E Pluribus Unum."

Round one: Talibornagain.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 it read:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I like that, simple and to the point.

When the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 "In God We Trust" remained absent from paper currency.

In the 1950s Congress changed the national motto from "E Pluribus
Unum" to "In God We Trust" (which is how “In God We Trust”
became required to be printed of federal money), "So help me God" was
added to federal oaths (despite the fact that the Christian Bible
clearly states not to swear by God or any other person, place, or
thing when taking an oath. Matthew 5:33-37, James 5:12), and "under
God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.

This was also about the time the Presidential Prayer Breakfast started.

* In 1957, the motto is first used on paper money.

* On July 30, 1956, a bill is passed by congress and signed by the president declaring "In God We Trust" the national motto of the United States.

Round two: Talibornagain.

John F. Kennedy September 12, 1960, address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

Clearly, some people still 'get it.'

* In 1970, The constitutionality of the motto is challenged (Aronow v. United States). The Circuit court determined it "has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion".

* In 1979, Madalyn Murray O'Hair of American Atheists challenges the motto (O'Hair v. Blumenthal). The circuit court ruled "the slogan was secular".

* In 1994, The Freedom From Religion Foundation challenged the motto citing it's survey that showed a majority of Americans consider the motto religious. lawsuit was dismissed by the district Court without trial

On September 4, 2002 Michael Newdow was a guest on the popular FOX program Hannity & Colmes. On this program Mr. Newdow stated that he felt that Congressional Chaplains violated the Separation of Church and State. Sean Hannity responded by saying:

"Who hired the first chaplain for congress? ...James Madison in 1789. Did you know that?"

You want to refer to some liberal activist judge..., that's fine, but I'm going to go directly to the source. The author of the Bill of Rights hired the first chaplain in 1789, and I gotta' tell ya' somethin', I think the author of the Bill of Rights knows more about the original intent--no offense to you and your liberal atheist activism--knows more about it than you do."

Which would bring us back to the second paragraph, where Madison
Himself admits the Chaplin is a violation of Church-State separation. BWAAHAAAHAHAAAA Go bark at the moon you friggin Codger!

But, sadly it's come to this:

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, introduced into both houses
of Congress on February 11, 2004, "includes the acknowledgment of God
as the sovereign source of law by an official in his capacity of
executing his office."

Update: It gets re-introduced pretty much every session.

And with this quote from CNN on March 24, 2004:

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said there "are so many references to God" in public affairs, noting "In God We Trust" was on U-S currency and coins. She added the Supreme Court opens all its public sessions with the words, "God save the United States and this honorable Court.”

We can expect no help from the Courts with a problem so clearly subversive of the Constitution.

Kinda sad, isn't it?
Posted by hootinholler | Thu Apr 2, 2015, 09:24 PM (3 replies)

So I've taken to wearing kilts on Fridays

It's been generally well received and it's kinda fun on the Metro.

Given the poll list, vote for the temperature below which I should not wear it for fear of damaging, shall we say, the dangly bits. I've worn one at 45F and it was a tad brisk.

Feel free to supply a name for your choice.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »