Fox News Poll: Mixed Views on Calling Ft. Hood Shooting Act of Terrorism

As for Sniper, he took flight.

What ever did he mean when he wrote:

health care isn't a 'right' just like owning a big screen TV isn't a right.

You have the right to reach into your wallet and take money out to give away but you don't have the right to do it with my money.

The difference between a conservative and a lib is; the conservative will reach into his own wallet and the lib will reach into someone elses wallet.

Could he mean that if you don't have the gelt you should be out of luck if you're hoping for some help from government because that would be reaching into his pocket? Only he knows for sure.

C'mon, Snoops, an inquiring mind wants to know.

#49 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN

I'll try and make it simple for you: In my opinion Sniper's guess about what Jackson meant is wrong; absent further clarification by Jackson himself nobody can say with certainty what Jackson meant (since what he said can hardly be bootstrapped into Sniper's interpretation), and that would, of course, include Sniper.

You didn't check out the reading comprehension link I gave you, did you? You should.

Absent that, I suggest you follow the advice of an occasional visitor to this site:

"...get over yourself asshole.
#4 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2009-09-13"

Sniper, when called to explain himself, usually crouches down into fight-flight mode with a default response to skeedaddle.

Now let's see if Sniper will actually stick around and flesh this thing out or skeedaddle because he's backed himself into a corner.

OK, he just walked through the door.

dok, health care isn't a 'right' just like owning a big screen TV isn't a right.

You have the right to reach into your wallet and take money out to give away but you don't have the right to do it with my money.

The difference between a conservative and a lib is; the conservative will reach into his own wallet and the lib will reach into someone elses wallet. We all know which one you are and which one I am.
#39 | Posted by Sniper

And if you don't have the money -- because you're a lazy schlump or because you've been laid off or because the money you do have isn't enough -- what then, Sniper? What then?

Hope springs eternal

Krauthammer's writing is starting to sound even weirder than usual, like some sort of stream of consciousness slow-mo build up to nothing in particular. I wonder if it's a case of the psychiatrist in need of one or easy access to some powerful medication.

Please tell me that question was rhetorical.
#36 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

Habard -

The question was rhetorical.

However, given Sniper's "lazy blacks" statement, I'm holding the door open just a little.

#33 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN

SNOOPS -

"You can't vote against health care and call yourself a black man."

You really believe that means, "[I]f you are black the country owes you everything"?

I've already described Jackson's statement as ridiculous, a descriptor which strikes me as equally applicable to your nonsensical interpretation.

You ask, "Do we owe the lazy blacks free health care?"

The "lazy blacks" statement is fascinating, not least for the insight it appears to offer about the internal corkscrewing that goes on inside your noggin. That aside, do you seriously believe industriousness or lack of it should serve as a standard for determining who gets health care and who doesn't?

"wtg Sniper...no date, no article link..."

'Twould appear that, like Sniper, we'll just have to take it on faith.

Seems to me Sniper is exactly right on about you in this situation.
#29 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN

Hardly a sooprise. So, then, explain where Jackson's statement supports Sniper's view that "if you are black the country owes you everything."

Why are people so scared of Glenn?
#32 | Posted by nanc | Flag: Doesn't Get The Joke

SNOOPS -

HAGBARD -

Workin' on it.

...the bank took the land, the drought got over and then the banks sold the land for huge profits.
#12 | Posted by Sniper

During the Dust Bowl? As you've said already, got a link? The banks were selling land -- when they could even sell it -- for cheap. (And farmers were often turning up at auctions with pitchforks and scythes and shotguns to intimidate the banks from selling the land -- hence part of the fear that the Great Depression would lead to revolution and FDR's ability to save the capitalist system from itself.) You really do need to get out and about more. For starters, try a library.

"I certainly wouldn't expect you to understand the simple principal that we cannot exist very long if our expendutures exceed our income. I know that concept is foreign to you libs.
#8 | Posted by Sniper"

So....

When is the last time we had a president that did redman? Looks to me it was in 1961 during the Kennedy administration. That was the last year that the change in the debt had a minus sign in front of it.
#3 | Posted by Sniper

...translates as "the simple principal that we cannot exist very long if our expendutures exceed our income"?

Hmmmm...but what's that "When is the last time we had a president that did redman" nonsense about? It sounded like you're saying JFK chewed Red Man tobacco.

True to form dok. You can tell me what he didn't mean but not what he meant.
#26 | Posted by Sniper

Did you drop out of that reading comprehension class I gifted you?

Here's what I wrote, Snoops:

Since I'm not Jesse Jackson there's no way I can tell you with certitude what he meant when he said something. I can guess, though. It would help if you told me which comment.

How does that translate as "You can tell me what he didn't mean but not what he meant"?

I said I could guess, and I'm happy to do so. But if you won't tell me which statement's got your pantaloons wadded up what am I supposed to do, try and read your mind? (Now, there's a statement that could open up some pretty funny riffs, dontcha think?)

#176 | Posted by MURPHY

Jeezus, you're free-association babbling like a deranged person.

or was I asleep all those times I was in a jury pool.
#173 | Posted by afkabl2

Probably.

Although it's best that you (a) do not personally know the defendant(s); (b) never heard of the case; (c) have no association with anyone associated with the case; (d) have no association with any institution associated with the case, you do not, as you contend, need to know hardly anything about the case to serve on a jury. What you do have to agree to is the premise that you are capable of examining the evidence presented in the case and letting that evidence lead you.

"ok so that is a mistranslated, or better yet... the words are translated correctly but have a slightly different meaning in arabic."

Not a no-biggie.

Actually, it's the outrage of the Riiighties whenever Palin's name comes up that's hilarious. It's almost as if they'd rather not see her name floated around because they also know she's a Twenty-Six Percenter who, if she ever got the GOP nomination for president, would almost certainly drag an already bedraggled political party down to depths of misery not seen since the Know Nothings faded out of the picture in the 1850s.

Sistah Sarah, the gift that keeps on giving.