Thoughts on the “Black Friday Strike”

A lot of people are getting fed up with the way America’s retailers are forever pushing back the start of “black Friday” – that Friday after Thanksgiving which represents the largest retail sales day of the year.  Starting some years ago, retailers started opening up earlier and earlier on Friday morning, offering “door buster” deals for those people willing to get there at the crack of dawn.  Trouble is, each retailer tried to out-do the other – and now we have a lot of major retailers who are planning on opening on Thanksgiving Day, itself.

I’m not quite sure where this bright idea came from – given that I work in corporate America, my guess is a second-level corporate exec managed to produce some numbers which alleged that opening up an hour earlier you can grab some tiny percentage more of consumer’s disposable income – income which might be spent at other retailers if everyone opened up at the same time.  I highly doubt that this opening up earlier and earlier actually increases sales – more than likely it just spreads the sales out over a longer period of time.  At any rate, the corporate execs who thought it up are, likely, the  products of business schools who are rising to the top not based on skill or ability but simply on the fact that when they first were inserted in to junior management post-college they were befriended by someone a step higher on the corporate ladder and just rose along with them year by year (with only those entirely screwing up along the way losing their place on the ladder).  Essentially, they are just “managers” who don’t actually know what it is their troops do for a living (anyone who has worked long in corporate America is continually astounded by how executive decisions bear little connection to reality – but before any of you liberals out there consider this an indictment of the private sector, I point out that the level of senior obtuseness is vastly higher in government); most importantly, the corporate executives who are commanding their troops to give up their holiday for the sake of a 0.01% increase in gross sales won’t be there while the troops are at work – for the most part, they’ll be home with their families, enjoying Thanksgiving.

Naturally, labor unions – ie, those who helped destroy GM and are in the process of helping to destroy Hostess – are jumping on this issue as a means of garnering good press for themselves.  Sundry liberals are also all over the issue because it goes along with their general Evil Big Corporation meme which totally ignores the fact that most leaders of corporate America are liberals and donate heavily to liberal causes (it also ignores such facts as that liberals are proud to have bailed out corporate failures like GM).  But leaving aside the asinine reasons that liberals and unions are backing the “Black Friday Strike”, I do believe the general idea has merit.

Human beings, as far back as we can record, have set aside days of the year for celebrations.  Jews and Christians, of course, have always held that one day a week – the Sabbath – was a day of no work, but in addition to that weekly break both Jews and Christians (and Christians much more than Jews) had a plethora of holidays throughout the year.  A lot of these were local affairs, as when a town might celebrate the birthday of a patron saint, but some of them were general to Christian civilization – and for Christians the two weeks around Christmas and New Years was essentially a two week, annual vacation for all and sundry.  People need these holidays – I mean, heck, God commanded us to take a day off!  But even outside theological considerations, everyone just needs a certain amount of time each year to lay off work and enjoy himself.  All in all, I’ll bet that if it was mapped out by scholars it could be shown that the Medieval serf had as many and perhaps more days off per year than the average American does these days:  and days off were days off…not days to get the laundry done, repair the house and get the kids to soccer practice.

Around about the time we entered the industrial revolution, though, holidays and days off began to disappear.  Big, impersonal institutions don’t really like them: and big corporations and big governments are big, impersonal organizations.  This is why, for instance, we no longer celebrate the birth of Washington on Washington’s birthday and Lincoln on Lincoln’s birthday – we celebrate all Presidents on a set Monday each February.  You younger folks out there might not realize it, but once upon a time (and when I was a child) we had two holidays each February – one for each of those Presidents.  You also might not be aware that things used to pretty much shut down on Sundays – everything was closed.  You hung out with friends and family; went to Church, had a large meal…took it easy.  Now we work 7 days a week and our last shreds of holidays are disappearing.  And for what?  Has our overall economy really been improved by working on Sundays?  By foregoing our holidays?  By having less time for family and more time to line up for the latest I-Gizmo at the mall?

I wish the people who propose to strike on Thanksgiving well.  I wish them success – and I wish their effort to spread like wildfire around the nation.  Heck with a bunch of working on holidays – and Sundays.  Take a day off, for crying out loud – and not just “off” to go do stuff, but “off” to do nothing particular.  You need it.  It can’t possibly improve things to work 7 days a week and probably makes them worse – any alleged increase in national wealth (which I bet can be proven fictional once all factors are taken in to consideration) is not worth the extra strain on individuals and families.  The world will not end on Friday morning if our retailers remain closed all day Thursday.

It is time, my friends, that we started taking back control of our lives – and that means being, at least from time to time, in a place where no one has a call upon us, save God.  Whether it be the compulsion to work or the tantalization of slick marketing, we need some days set aside where neither are operational – where a man and a woman are left to themselves and their families and their friends…and their God.  It would be the genuine start of the revolution – a revolution which is the only proper sort of revolution to have:  a restoration of the good things which used to be but have been taken away from us by the greedy and the base.

Advertisements

89 thoughts on “Thoughts on the “Black Friday Strike”

  1. neocon01 November 20, 2012 / 1:42 pm

    The Peter principle…….LOTS of it.

  2. 02casper November 20, 2012 / 7:33 pm

    Mark,
    This is one area that you and I more or less agree. There is no reason (other than profit) for stores to be open on holidays. I would say the same for Sundays, with the exception of gas stations for those that need to travel.

    • Amazona November 20, 2012 / 8:12 pm

      Blue laws sound so compassionate, till you think of students who can only work on weekends, mothers who need the money but can’t work unless hubby is home to watch the kids on the weekends, etc. There are people who work Mon-Fri who need extra income and need to pick up weekend hours.

      As for people who need to shop on weekends, one example, aside from those Mon-Fri people I just mentioned, are people in resorts. And how would one define a “need” to travel vs a desire to go from one place to another? What about restaurants? You can buy a cooked hamburger at Red Robin but can’t buy hamburger meat and take it home to cook it yourself?

      As usual, once we start to regulate we find all sorts of Unintended Consequences. As usual, let the market sort it out.

      • Cluster November 20, 2012 / 9:31 pm

        Thank you Amazona. Can we for once please just let supply and demand run our markets and those that engage in it?

      • M. Noonan November 20, 2012 / 11:22 pm

        Amazona,

        Ah, but I still want the blue laws back – because the reason people have to work on weekends, etc is not because of choice but because we’ve created an economy which requires it. Set up a better more human-centered system and it simply won’t be necessary. On Sundays only gas stations, hospitals and pharmacies should be open – everyone else, take the day off (and the workers in those three industries should alternate their Sundays off so no one has to work every Sunday). It isn’t the free market which commands this – it is the overly-regulated market dominated by government and corporate behemoths which are incapable of understanding common, human needs.

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 9:21 am

        it is the overly-regulated market dominated by government and corporate behemoths which are incapable of understanding common, human needs.

        Have you ever been to the Mall, or Wal Mart on Sunday?
        they are jammed with people, NO one forces them to go
        if they were empty believe me they would be closed in NO time.
        Restaurants? same thing

      • M. Noonan November 22, 2012 / 12:15 am

        Neocon,

        Oh, I know the malls are packed – they are packed for the exact same reason that Obama was re-elected: slick marketing which distracts people from what is important.

        Ultimately, of course, all of our actions are exercises of free will. You are correct that no one put a gun to anyone’s head to make them go shopping on Sunday. But people are also influenced by the actions of others – and endless repetitions of any falsehood will eventually have an effect…so, a person trying on shoes rather than going to Church or a person voting for Obama when he’s a clear failure: same/same. Imagine if we had a world were just one week a year all television broadcasting ceased – a week where everyone could sit down and think.

        I’m not a Distributist for purely economic reasons but because I recognize that we are dying out, as a people. And its all around the world. It might be that we won’t be able to arrest the rot and we’ll head back in to a new Dark Age…but that doesn’t mean we should try to stop it.

    • M. Noonan November 20, 2012 / 11:18 pm

      Casper,

      I don’t think it even gives them any profit – I think they just spread out their sales over a larger number of days. Perhaps back when we were still in the credit boom which led to 2008 it pushed up some profits (bring more people in more of the time and offer them a 10% discount if they apply for credit…and then when they are approved they are immediately incentivised to head back to the store for another round), but I can’t see it happening in 2012 when people’s budgets are stretched to the breaking point and more and more people are shopping at dollar and thrift stores.

      As I pointed out in the article, I think its just a matter of some second-level execs thinking it might put up profits; tie that with the need to be “dynamic” and “innovative” and you’ve got a recipe for opening up on Thanksgiving day. I work at a monstrous blob of a corporate monstrosity (though a better one, on the whole, than others I’ve worked for in the past) and I know full well that the people running the show only have the dimmest appreciation of what it is their line workers do day by day. Think about this: when the BP spill blew up in everyone’s faces a great deal of wrath was expended against the BP CEO when he said he “wanted his life back”…no one seems to have noticed that this wasn’t some sort of heartless remark…in fact, the BP CEO might be the nicest guy in the world and have genuine concern for those who suffer. But his life is to be a corporate executive attending meetings where plans are made and profits are discussed and grand visions entertained…what the spill forced him to do was actually look at what his company did for a living…it might have been the first time he ever really saw what was involved in getting oil out of the ground. Does anyone think he started out his corporate life as a roughneck on a drilling rig? More than likely he graduated from a business school of some sort (with an off chance that it was an engineering school) and because of his credentials was immediately set up in a junior level management position…from there he rose, almost certainly because he was befriended by someone a step higher on the ladder who then eased his path upwards. The poor man simply didn’t know what was actually happening out there – and it is no surprise that when the poop hit the fan he was a bit stunned by it all and unable to comprehend what was going on…and so made his remark about wanting his life back.

      This disconnect between reality and leadership is stunning these days – and it extends through all the ranks of the large corporations and all the various departments of government. The people in charge simply don’t know what is going on – and as a result their decisions become asinine. Such as, in the one case, not being Johnny-on-the-spot to ensure that proper engineering protocols were followed during a risky oil drill or, in the lesser (but somehow more irritating) case of deciding that the best thing a person can do on his holiday is to work. In government its where we get $10,000.00 fines for ruining a wetland (ie, filling in a puddle on your property) or an entire undercover operation to “sting” someone committing the horrid crime of…selling raw milk.

      The first lesson here is that “too big to fail” genuinely means “to big to allow to live”. It is of nature that large organizations will wind up just like they are today. The thing we need to do, ultimately, to restore economic and government sanity is to reduce the institutions down to manageable size. And, to me, it is a good first step to simply refuse to work on a holiday.

      • pelirrojito November 21, 2012 / 5:50 am

        I’ve been thinking about the idea that corporations should only be of “managable size” though I’m curious on your opinion about certain cases.

        There are some companies that simply need to be massive. A perfect example is Intel. You could not possibly have a small business developing processors on the scale that they do. Another example would be IBM, it simply would not be possible to have a small company developing super computers. So assuming there existed a system in which only small/mid sized companies existed, how would these situations be dealt with?

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 9:12 am

        We in the construction – service industry have to give 24/7 service to our customers.
        Some are high rise retirement homes, hospitals, and just plain homes owned by the elderly who can not survive summer months with out A/C and in the winter with out heat.

        If inclimate weather slows a project the time is usually made up by working weekends……..Like police, nursing, and many other occupations in the service industry it is the nature of the beast.

        Also for those of us who do have to work six days a week some times only Sunday is the day we can do the shopping or get some materials for the house at Home Depot-Lowes etc.

        _____________________________________________________

        Perrywinkle

        I 100% agree.
        has any one here ever been in a steel mill?, Refinery? power house? auto mfg plant? etc?
        These are not accomplished by a mom and pop company, and the money to finance those are not loaned by the corner savings and loan.

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 9:17 am

        Mark

        The first lesson here is that “too big to fail” genuinely means “to big to allow to live”. It is of nature that large organizations will wind up just like they are today. The thing we need to do, ultimately, to restore economic and government sanity is to reduce the institutions down to manageable size.

        In business school it is taught as the business cycle…..start out small, centralized, grow, de centralize, get too big to adequately manage.
        , shrink, re centralize then usually fail…..the next guy in line takes your place and the cycle continues.

        This is a healthy cycle there is nothing wrong with it.

      • M. Noonan November 21, 2012 / 9:19 am

        Pelirrojito,

        I don’t think we needed IBM to ensure that super computers were developed – after all, it was a relatively small part of the entirety of IBM which was devoted to the project. Think of all that Edison’s relatively small group of researchers accomplished. Also remember that the American automobile industry was not developed by the “Big Three” but by a score or more of small manufacturers. But even if it could be shown that a big entity was needed for a particular enterprise then I would argue that such enterprise should not, then, be done – there is a fatality in large organizations because they simply cannot be managed successfully by human beings for human beings.

      • M. Noonan November 21, 2012 / 9:22 am

        Neocon,

        I believe that the “business cycle” is actually a defect of largeness – think of what Lehman Brothers did to us…they didn’t just mess themselves up but became a large enough entity that, by failing, could trigger a global financial meltdown. If Lehman has been, say, half the size it was then it simply would not have been that disastrous when it failed.

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 9:24 am

        there is a fatality in large organizations because they simply cannot be managed successfully by human beings for human beings.

        That is all part of the corporate life cycle….when the do get that big they will fail and someone else will take their place.

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 9:30 am

        Mark

        as with the corporate life cycle economies also have a life cycle.
        A Russian economist has proven that every 70-80 years there is a collapse, the wealth is redistributed by attrition and the cycle begins anew.
        Lealman is only part of this natural re occurring cycle.

        just Like forest fires are actually natural and healthy for the forest, economic collapses are healthy for business and people as well. They naturally level the business, and individuals playing field with or without the government.

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 9:33 am

        Kondratiev waves (also called supercycles, great surges, long waves, K-waves or the long economic cycle) are described as sinusoidal-like cycles in the modern capitalist world economy.[1] Averaging fifty and ranging from approximately forty to sixty years, the cycles consist of alternating periods between high sectoral growth and periods of relatively slow growth.

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 9:39 am

        Talk about too big to fail….

        Federal Workers to Congress: Leave Us Out of Deficit Deal…

        WTF??? REALLY??

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 9:48 am

        OT

        but REALLY???

        HOW Fn long is the GOP going to sit back and let this SHIITE slide with out strong rebuffs?

        ****MSNBC: GOP on witch hunt against ‘people of color’..*****.

        you want to know WHY we lose elections??
        it is NOT about reach out.

        …it is BECAUSE of conservative silence when this crap is flung day in and day out and our “leaders” sit like smiling monkeys on a limb.

    • tiredoflibbs November 21, 2012 / 2:37 pm

      cappy: “There is no reason (other than profit) for stores to be open on holidays.”

      uh, cappy, that is the sole purpose for the existence for all stores, all services and all business activity – PROFIT.

      Why do you proggies have to make the word “profit” equivalent to any vile or nasty word?

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 4:44 pm

        because catepuke is a Govt (US) paid leftist slug who has eaten the marxist S#!T sandwich that profits are Eeeeeeevil.

        a “teacher” that is as dumb as a box of rocks.

      • 02casper November 21, 2012 / 7:14 pm

        I never said that profit is a vile or nasty word. I worked in retail for over 20 years, almost half of that in management. I’ve run my own business. A business can’t survive without profit. That said, forcing workers to miss family time for the sake of a little extra profit hardly seems like a fair exchange.

      • tiredoflibbs November 21, 2012 / 7:40 pm

        Cappy yourI inability to comprehend the written word, rises up to bite you in your rear once again.

        It is no secret that progressives (proggies) hate profit of any kind. You only have to listen to their statements.

        I never said you said that but in the context in which you use it. You simply could have said there was no reason for stores to be open on holidays and left it at that. But in typical proggy fashion, you have to mention the proggy dirty word “profit”.

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 8:24 pm

        catspuke

        I worked in retail for over 20 years, almost half of that in management. I’ve run my own business.

        a door greeter at Wal Mart and a hair dresser hardly count.
        we know what you meant.

        FORCING WORKERS, a LITTLE EXTRA profit?
        How about closing sundays and asking those poor workers ……..”who VOLUNTEERS to be LAID OFF” due to the reduction of work???

      • 02casper November 21, 2012 / 10:13 pm

        Tired,
        “It is no secret that progressives (proggies) hate profit of any kind.”

        It’s not a secret because it isn’t true. I don’t know anyone that hates profit of any kind.

      • tiredoflibbs November 21, 2012 / 10:29 pm

        Oh, cappy, playing ignorant again?

        Apparently, you don’t pay attention to Democrats in Congress and the Senate and other “progressives” in the blogosphere, especially the occupy movement. Their contempt for profits of “big oil”, “big insurance”‘, “big banking”‘ etc. etc. is rampant against these companies. The only profit that is acceptable is their own.

        One of many examples, easily found of that attitude:
        http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/05/peter-schiff-to-democrats-at-convention-would-you-support-banning-profits/

        Again, the evidence is there if you are WILLING AND HAVE THE COURAGE TO QUESTION AND LOOK!!!!

        Again, I prove you wrong and it will be no surprise that you will deny it.

  3. Retired Spook November 21, 2012 / 10:07 am

    I discovered the secret to not having to work weekends when I started my present business 21 years ago: cater to commercial businesses who don’t work weekends.

    • Cluster November 21, 2012 / 10:28 am

      Having your own business Spook, as you and I do, assures me the pleasure of taking time off when I want to, but also suffering the possible negative consequences of those decisions as well. But I wouldn’t have it any other way. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I can’t imagine belonging to a union. To me, that admits weakness.

      Off Topic, here’s another example of how despicable liberals have become with this report from Brian Williams.

      BRIAN WILLIAMS: “You know the old expression “riding high in April?” Well the rest of the lyric might as well be pumping your own gas in November. Mitt Romney had a campaign plane, secret service detail, and motorcades just weeks ago. He was spotted pumping his own gas in California today looking unlike the man we saw on the campaign trail. He later showed up at Disneyland. Earlier in the week, he took his wife Ann to the “Twilight” movie, later to Sammy’s Pizza, a local place. On the upside he has his life and his family life back after most of six years spent pursuing the presidency.”

      What in the hell is wrong with these people? Someone needs to follow Brian around and report on his every move. What an asshole.

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/11/21/brian-williams-mocks-mitt-romney-forpumping-his-own-gas#ixzz2CrojMcss

      • Amazona November 21, 2012 / 12:04 pm

        These poor Libs, they are so caught up in The Lie Of The Day that they get themselves all twisted up in their own rhetoric.

        During the election cycle, the RRL and the Complicit Agenda Media (sorry for the redundancy…) were all about how elitist Romney is, how “out of touch with the common man” he is, how he could not “relate”. To hell with the proofs that he is and always has been just a guy, a great guy, a kind and generous and compassionate guy, who just happens to look like a model and have boatloads of money—the RRL and CAM engaged vicious snobbery in which they judged a man not by his character but by how much money he has, and passed harsh and cruel judgments.

        Now that he is out of the spotlight and going back to just being Mitt, the RRL and CAM are in a tizzy because he is doing what he always did, going to movies and pumping his own gas and hanging out with his family. This doesn’t fit with the elaborate false narrative they created, and they don’t quite know what to do with it. They are so addicted to attacking him, they don’t know how to stop, and now the only grounds for doing so are the proofs that they lied in the first place.

        Hey, Brian…..Mitt can easily afford a chauffeur, a plane, a bodyguard, and an entourage, if that is the kind of thing that appeals to him. It might appeal to the invented Mitt Romney you guys trotted out for the American sheeple, but that Mitt Romney never existed, and now you are stuck with trying to make fun of the guy for not being what you claimed he was.

        This is why I no longer watch TV news. I catch the local news on one of the networks every now and then, and turn it off when the national “news” comes on.

        As for MSNBC—-you know going in that it is utter crap, shameless lies and demagoguery without a shred of journalistic integrity, so any example of the latest glaring example of press malfeasance is just redundant, a proof too far.

    • Cluster November 21, 2012 / 10:35 am

      Spook,

      I am currently in Mexico watching the sun rise over the Sea of Cortez, and will later takes quads out on the beach with my son, followed by lunch and a corona with the wife (or as neocon would say the “princess”). I hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving.

      Buenos días mi amigo

      • Retired Spook November 21, 2012 / 1:12 pm

        Enjoy the sun and surf, Cluster. We’re going to have what looks to be one of the nicest Thanksgivings in quite a while — low 60’s and sunny. We’re getting together locally with my wife’s entire extended family for the first time in 5 or 6 years since my daughter and son-in-law in Kansas are taking their boys to Las Vegas for the week. My daughter and her husband go to Vegas a couple times a year, but the boys (14 & 11) have never been there.

  4. Cluster November 21, 2012 / 11:00 am

    Here’s another good example of the type of scum Brian Williams is, and how bad our media has become. They find the time to report on Romney pumping his own gas, but ignore potential illegalities at the EPA:

    It’s been over a week since the Michael Bastasch at the Daily Caller exposed EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s use of alias email accounts to conduct official business. A Monday evening Investor’s Business Daily editorial noted that this practice is more than likely illegal, because “Federal law prohibits the government from using private emails for official communications unless they are appropriately stored and can be tracked” — something which can hardly be done if non-flagged Jackson accounts are under names like “Richard Windsor.”

    I also just listened to an Alan Colmes commentary in which he mentioned his own skin color (white man) and those of the people he was commenting on – Susan Rice & James Clyburn. MLK would be so proud of liberals these days.

    • Amazona November 21, 2012 / 11:47 am

      I didn’t even know Susan Rice is black. I didn’t even THINK of what color she might be. I got fed up with TV news and picked up on her comments via transcripts and some audio clips on the radio.

      I came to the conclusion that she is a stone-cold liar, without having the slightest idea of her skin color. Evidently that makes me a psychic racist.

      • mitchethekid November 21, 2012 / 6:25 pm

        Audio clips on the radio. Who was the announcer? You have erred in your knee-jerk conclusion because John McCain, the loudest voice accusing her of lying and “not being very bright” (as opposed to his VP pick) recanted his statements earlier today when he found out he was; ah, mistaken.
        I also want to acknowledge some of Mark’s statements as of late. You sound positively rational, sane and objective. And dare I say it, liberal. Everyone deserves time off, especially during the holidays. While it’s true that many vocations require being on call, there really is no need to squeeze a few more dollars out of people by manning a cash register at Walmart. And remember, it was unions that provided for the 40 hr work week, minimum wage, paid vacations and holidays, child labor laws and work-place safety.
        As far as IBM, they started out in Endicott, NY as The Bundy Business Machine Company. They manufactured time clocks. If memory serves me well, I think the owner/creator/CEO was a man named Watson.

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 6:31 pm

        bmitch

        do tell what YOU do LONGfellow?
        a union drone?

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 6:35 pm

        yeah Bmitch,
        the unions saved detroit, Bethlehem steel, the auto industry, the refinery industry and a litany of others,
        We also see how well they have prevailed in “education” big whoop,
        a few bennies for NO jobs……

    • Amazona November 21, 2012 / 11:49 am

      Is Lisa Jackson black?

      If she is black, does that mean we have to apply an approved type of racism and refuse to acknowledge her activities because of her skin color?

      If she is not black, does that mean that the law applies to her?

      This post racial nation is too confusing…………

      • Cluster November 21, 2012 / 11:54 am

        Well then the question is – how black is she? You know amongst liberal black circles, there is that question? Clarence Thomas was deemed not “black enough” in one opinionated article I read sometime back, with the usual Uncle Tom references of course.

        But we are the racist ones.

      • Amazona November 21, 2012 / 12:11 pm

        The list of black people who are “not black enough” is pretty long, including Condi Rice, Colin Powell before he decided to prove his black cred, Thomas Sowell, Allen West, Herman Cain, etc.

        A former poster here once declared black conservatives to be “traitors to their race” and flew into a torrent of shrill abuse when I suggested that to her, then, race is not a matter of color or ethnicity but of political affiliation.

        Barack Obama is black enough. Halle Berry is black enough, Valerie Jarrett is black enough, and I think I remember hearing that Bill Clinton is black enough.

        And hating people for being dark is awful, but hating people for not being dark is OK.

        As I said, this post-racial America is just too confusing…….

    • Amazona November 21, 2012 / 11:50 am

      As for Alan Colmes, he got the color right, but the species wrong.

      I’d say “white weasel”…..

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 5:10 pm

        Oops

        seems Ole Alan West joins da cluuuub………

        Former TV ‘Top “Model’ Judge” Goes on Race-Based Allen West Rant: ‘You Are an Embarassment to Blacks’

        “Coon Minstrely Theatre!”

  5. dbschmidt November 21, 2012 / 12:57 pm

    Here is where I have to agree and disagree. In the Information Technology (IT) world–a great deal of our work is done when no one else is on the system meaning nights, weekends and holidays. That is both when I had my own company and in the corporate world. Let me also add the rotating duty complete with beeper. My choice of profession and I knew that going in. If I failed to appear–it could cost me my job. I feel the same about any employee working for any corporation.

    If I choose (Some choice–crappy economy) to go back to welding that would be Monday-Saturday unless an emergency. Most Saturdays and every Sunday off. But speaking of this lousy, and soon to get worse, economy–how many in the service industry (restaurants, etc.) workers will now have to work two 28 hour jobs just to make what they used to at one employer who cut back the hours to avoid Obamacare?

    Unfortunately, the world of the two parent household (one works, one stays home) has mostly gone by the wayside–most of which I would lay at the feet of the Progressive brainwashing.

    • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 1:47 pm

      Unfortunately, the world of the two parent household (one works, one stays home) has mostly gone by the wayside–

      Damn….The Princess thoroughly MISSED that message. LOL

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 2:09 pm

        Union Strike Aims to Snarl LAX Thanksgiving Traffic – But Airport Employees Say They Dont Support it!

        Most of the ******SEIU protesters THUGS “will not even be LAX workers. They don’t work here and they don’t know our company.”

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 5:06 pm

        White House Small Biz Chief’s Frustrating Interview: Won’t Explain Per-Worker Cost of ‘Obamacare’ but Will Talk About Blueberry Jam

        Alinsky 101

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 5:34 pm

        al Ubamas ameriKa

        Oversight? Team Obama’s Post-Election ‘Constituency Groups’ List Offers No Choice for ‘Whites’ or ‘Caucasians’

    • M. Noonan November 22, 2012 / 12:29 am

      db,

      The brainwashing is there but we’ve also got a system where the average working man and woman is taxed so heavily (directly and indirectly) that its almost impossible for a single-earner to support a spouse and a couple of children in a decent lifestyle. When you add in the slick marketing for rampant consumerism, you’ve got a program ready made to destroy the family by destroying any chance of the family being together, as a unit, for any length of time.

      I understand that some people are exceptionally driven – the aforementioned Edison being a prime example. Whether is for greed or glory or just the sheer joy of making things work, some people will push themselves 80 hours a week in pursuit of their dreams. That is fine: they may even be called by God to do that. But people are not all the same – to set up a society where everyone has to act as though they are driven is to set up an insane society. It would be as if we all tried to be poets – just ain’t gonna happen and if we all tried it would be quite a mess.

      The part must not attempt to become the whole – there is a place for all kinds in the world and, as it turns out, most people rest content with the moderate amount of wealth which comes with a moderate amount of work. On other hand, those who work moderately have more for other tasks which are, in the end, even more important than developing the newest technological breakthrough: raising a family, for instance.

      • dbschmidt November 22, 2012 / 2:43 pm

        Mark,

        That is what I was leaning towards with the brainwashing remark–consumerism. Most of my friends, family and myself have been brought up that we do not require the latest flashy toy, shiny car or a giant house. Live within your means has left me debt free except for my mortgage payments which I hope I can get rid of in the next 7 years or so. Oh, and my student loans now owned by Obama which I hope to get rid of quicker. The touch of Government is a cursed one.

      • neocon01 November 21, 2012 / 9:06 pm

        Uh Huh…Uh Huh…….thats the way the left likes it…..

        Who killed Hostess?
        Thomas Lifson

        The left is madly spinning (aka, lying about) the impending demise of Hostess, trying to blame the free enterprise system, and even Mitt Romney’s former firm, Bain Capital. This is a lie. It was inside job of the left, with a prominent Democrat helping himself to consulting fees and a hundred thousand dollars a year sinecure for his son.

        Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO is in the lead on the disinformation campaign, last week stating:

        While the unions and their media allies like to cite executive salaries and consulting fees paid to executives as outrageous,

        they are ignoring left winger Dick Gephardt cashing in for himself, and more outrageously, for his son, who was appointed to the Hostess Board and paid one hundred thousand dollars a year.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/11/who_killed_hostess.html#ixzz2CuQKS4SI

      • mitchethekid November 21, 2012 / 10:08 pm

        No more pizza for you! Papa John’s owner/CEO recants previous comments. As does The Denny’s owner once he was B’slapped by the franchisor. Maybe the Papa John’s guy was worried that his employees would sail a boat across the moat that guards his castle which is on a private golf course. Or bring their own golf clubs to have their way with him. He should have thought about having alligators in his moat, but then he would have to feed them and they eat meat, not pizza pie.

      • dbschmidt November 21, 2012 / 11:35 pm

        No one that has ever made a profit should immediately shut down-eh mitch? You mean every CEO of every food store you have ever visited? Whole Foods trades quite high on the exchange. Them too? You should grow up a little before you get your head handed to you.

        Disclaimer: Not me or anyone I know as long as he does not confront me personally.

  6. watsonthethird November 21, 2012 / 10:31 pm

    Since we’re veering off topic here, I’m interested in getting Spook’s comments–as an active Tea Party supporter–about this article, written by Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/how-obama-can-be-stopped-in-electoral-college/

    Mitt Romney carried 24 states. We need to have conservative activists from all over the nation contact the electors, the Republican Party and the secretary of state in all of these states and tell them not to participate in the Electoral College when it meets on Dec. 17.

    If we can get 17 of those states (just over one-third) to refuse to participate, the Electoral College will have no quorum. Then, as the Constitution directs, the election goes to the House of Representatives.

    That is how we can still pull this election out and make Mitt Romney president in January.

    • dbschmidt November 21, 2012 / 11:38 pm

      Read, and read into whatever you want. Enjoy–hope it makes your whatever do whatever. As a Libertarian I do not give a crap what you or yours wants to believe. Enjoy & Believe you are a king.

      • watsonthethird November 22, 2012 / 2:36 am

        db, I read into it that some folks are willing to pervert the entire election process just to get their way.

    • M. Noonan November 22, 2012 / 12:39 am

      Not sure he’s right:

      …The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President… – 12th Amendment

      Seems to me that as long as it is a majority of the whole number of electors appointed then the President is elected – even if 268 electors abstained from voting. I think he’s confusing the quorum with what the House would do if no one got a majority of all appointed electors: 2/3 of the House would constitute a quorum for the business of electing the President in such a circumstance.

      Of course, if a lot of Obama electors suddenly got a burr up their behind and decided to abstain and between them and GOPers with similar burrs held Obama to less than 270 electoral votes, then it would go to the HOuse.

      • watsonthethird November 22, 2012 / 2:35 am

        He was not right. They had to acknowledge this after the article was posted, saying, “Editor’s note, Nov. 20, 2012: Since this column was posted it has been discovered that the premise presented about the Electoral College and the Constitution is in error. According to the 12th Amendment, a two-thirds quorum is required in the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College.”

        But I find the entire premise to be… un American. And I’m wondering why Tea Party types would even dream up something like this. Spook has spoken often of being a Tea Party activist, so I was hoping he could comment from that perspective.

      • M. Noonan November 22, 2012 / 12:08 pm

        Watson,

        You’re forgetting that we are not a democracy but a Constitutional republic…while this was incorrect the plain fact of the matter is that our Founders put all sorts of things in to our governing document to ensure that small minorities of people could play merry hob with democratic results. We’ve atrophied a lot of them over the years and the miserable state of our nation is the result of that, but it is not at all un-American to use various Constitutional provisions to thumb the nose at the majority.

      • neocon01 November 22, 2012 / 12:52 pm

        waspstooge

        But I find the entire premise to be… un American.

        Riiiiight Pee Wee the constitution = UN American

        YET……………………Nary a PEEP about MASSIVE vote cheating by donks...talk about UN American!!!!

      • watsonthethird November 22, 2012 / 1:26 pm

        Mark said, “You’re forgetting that we are not a democracy but a Constitutional republic.”

        So you think we should figure out how to subvert the election process, too?

    • Retired Spook November 22, 2012 / 10:12 am

      Since we’re veering off topic here, I’m interested in getting Spook’s comments–as an active Tea Party supporter–about this article, written by Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation.

      Watson,

      This guy sounds like a kook to me. I’d much rather see a credible news organization conduct an impartial audit of the election, particularly in the swing states that Obama won and the two (Indiana and N. Carolina) that Romney won, but also in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Minnesota — something similar to what a number of news organizations did postmortem in Florida in early 2001. There’s lots of anecdotal evidence of massive voter fraud, particularly in the Philadelphia area and northern Ohio, where Obama received over 99% of the vote, in many cases 100%. I don’t mind losing a fair fight, but even you should not want to win that way, or am I wrong? Are you one of the Alinsky acolytes who believes doing “whatever it takes” to win?

      If I had told you the day before the election that Obama was going to get 7 million fewer votes than he did in 2008, what conclusion would you have drawn?

      • watsonthethird November 22, 2012 / 1:20 pm

        He looks like a kook to me, too. See, we agree on some things. 🙂 But he is the founder of Tea Party Nation which is a part of the Tea Party movement, if not representative of it. According to their website, they are a “group of like-minded people who desire our God given Individual Freedoms which were written out by the Founding Fathers. We believe in Limited Government, Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, our Military, Secure Borders and our Country.” Oh, and they believe in overturning the election process when they don’t like the results.

        Since you are an active part of the same movement, I am wondering if this guy’s position is common among Tea Party folks. (As I recall, you once told me that I couldn’t possibly understand the Tea Party movement because I am not a part of it.)

        And you have my word that I won’t be condescending and grade your response like I am the teacher and you are the pupil, as some people around here do.

      • watsonthethird November 22, 2012 / 1:24 pm

        Spook said, “If I had told you the day before the election that Obama was going to get 7 million fewer votes than he did in 2008, what conclusion would you have drawn?”

        If you had told me that the day before the election, I would have suspected he would lose. And by the way, they’re still counting votes in some states. As of today, it’s 5 million fewer votes.

        But if I had told you the day before the election that Obama was going to get over 4 million more votes than Romney, and win over 330 electoral votes, what conclusion would have drawn? That we need to figure out a way to overturn it despite the will of the people?

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 22, 2012 / 2:19 pm

        “Data” is not the plural of “anecdote,” Retired Spook. And there were some districts that Romney won with 99 percent of the vote–are you upset about “voter fraud” in those cases, too?

      • dbschmidt November 22, 2012 / 2:32 pm

        Watson,

        Okay, I know I could have put it better and I will try; however, since I promised not to respond to you directly–I am speaking for myself into the ether.

        The TEA party is not a party per se but a collection of like minded individuals. There is no party head or spokesperson for the entire TEA party. Yes, I agree this guy sounds like a kook who hasn’t gotten over the defeat but in some respects I am also concerned about the counting of the votes. Every time there is a recount numbers change. That should never happen.

        There needs to be large changes in the electoral system in general but no attempt to subvert the system before, during or after the election. IMHO, photo ID should be required, early and for the most part absentee voting needs to be reigned in. I mean, you vote every two years, or four for the President–you can’t figure out how to get to your polling station that day?

        For those that can not make it to the poll–an official method can come to you without rounding up van loads of folks with the promise of a pack of smokes or a bottle of whatever. Homes for the senior citizens can be polled with representatives of both parties in attendance, etc.

      • dbschmidt November 22, 2012 / 2:37 pm

        TTSSYF,

        In the most anti-Obama district (in Texas), IIRC there are 250 some voters registered. Even there Obama got 5 votes. I also read about some districts / wards (some 24 or so) that Obama got 100% of the vote–not one cast for Romney or anyone else. Some even had over-voting (exceeding the number of registered voters. Ironic, don’t you think?

      • Retired Spook November 22, 2012 / 2:52 pm

        And by the way, they’re still counting votes in some states. As of today, it’s 5 million fewer votes.

        LOL, they must have found 1,887,266 votes in the trunks of Democrat operatives since noon yesterday.

        But if I had told you the day before the election that Obama was going to get over 4 million more votes than Romney

        3,476,775 as of yesterday. Seriously, Watson, if you can’t be honest about something that simple, then piss off.

        BTW, another interesting factoid of this election is that, of the 5,134,580 votes that have been counted since 11/7/12, Obama has gotten over 58% of them.

      • neocon01 November 22, 2012 / 3:32 pm

        trufee

        And there were some districts that Romney won with 99 percent of the vote–are you upset about “voter fraud” in those cases, too?

        LIST THEM………

      • watsonthethird November 22, 2012 / 4:38 pm

        db said, “The TEA party is not a party per se but a collection of like minded individuals. There is no party head or spokesperson for the entire TEA party.”

        Did I say the Tea Party was a party per se? I don’t think so. But these guy claims to represent the thinking of Tea Party activists and organized the first Tea Party Convention. I’m glad that at least some of you think he is a kook for concluding that because the election didn’t go his way, we should just change the rules in order to get his way. I mean seriously… If Romney had won and any liberal had started going on like this guy, you would claim he is more than a kook.

      • watsonthethird November 22, 2012 / 4:42 pm

        Spook said, “3,476,775 as of yesterday. Seriously, Watson, if you can’t be honest about something that simple, then piss off.”

        Um, no. It’s over 4 million per David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report. He’s considered to have the most definitive and up-to-date data:

        https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AjYj9mXElO_QdHpla01oWE1jOFZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE&toomany=true

        You could try following him on Twitter for the latest on the election results.

        As far as your claim that I’m not being honest, I think you owe me an apology.

      • Retired Spook November 23, 2012 / 10:26 am

        Um, no. It’s over 4 million per David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report. He’s considered to have the most definitive and up-to-date data:

        Never heard of David Wasserman, sorry. My numbers were from Politico and claimed to be last updated just before noon on 11/21. I find it curious that they’re still finding votes 16 days after the election. I know a states have a self-imposed deadlines, and, while they vary state to state, the last thing they count are provisional ballots, usually by around the middle of November.

        As far as owing you an apology; you are one of the most intellectually dishonest people to frequent this blog, so if your sensibilities are hurt, piss off.

      • watsonthethird November 23, 2012 / 1:08 pm

        I don’t know what the deadlines are, if any, but as an example, the official State of California Secretary of State website shows that there are still over 1 million votes yet to be counted in California, updated as of 5:00 p.m., November 21:

        http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/nov-general/pdf/unprocessed-ballots-report.pdf

        That will probably give President Obama another 600,000 votes when they are counted.

        Kind of a weak apology, but I accept it’s the best you can do.

  7. bagni November 21, 2012 / 11:27 pm

    mark
    you go boi
    glad the currency of time
    has deep value to you
    happy tgiving

    • M. Noonan November 22, 2012 / 12:31 am

      I wouldn’t put it so – because I believe we have a literally endless amount of time. But I understand that there are duties to perform – and if we’re all out chasing the dollar or the latest gadget then it is certain that some of our duties are being allowed to slide…including our duties to God, our family and ourselves.

  8. Cluster November 22, 2012 / 9:46 am

    I am hoping maybe Watson, Mitch and Casper can explain to me why some people get “heat” in the media for speaking their mind, for example John Schnatter, but Rep. Andre Carson saying that the tea party wanted to see blacks hanging from trees, or Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a c*nt, or Chris Matthews calling the GOP racist, goes largely unnoticed. Care to expand on this for me? I am sure there is a “fair” explanation.

    • watsonthethird November 22, 2012 / 4:50 pm

      Cluster, you would sincerely accept an explanation from Watson, Mitch or Casper about anything? I think you’re being a tad disingenuous.

      Nevertheless, I remember Andre Carson getting a lot of “heat” about those comments. In fact, you can google it and pull up articles about it by virtually every major news organization. It was widely reported.

      • Retired Spook November 23, 2012 / 10:32 am

        Yeah, Carson got sooooo much heat, he was re-elected with 63% of the vote.

      • watsonthethird November 23, 2012 / 1:10 pm

        So your definition of “heat” would be that when a politician says something stupid, they shouldn’t get re-elected? Then how do you explain Michele Bachmann?

      • Amazona November 23, 2012 / 4:04 pm

        Gee, watson, I thought you would be eager to defend raising taxes on capital gains and dividends, but here you are bleating about Michelle Bachmann.

        Funny, isn’t it, how you manage to avoid actual discussions about real topics. I see you are back in your comfort zone, which is Identity Politics, with a toxic twist.

      • watsonthethird November 23, 2012 / 11:04 pm

        Amazona, Cluster ask me, among others, for a comment about why some people get “heat” in the media. I merely responded, as he asked. Don’t blame me if you don’t like the change of topic. Do you ever actually read the thread before responding?

      • Amazona November 24, 2012 / 12:33 am

        Oh, yeah, I read the thread, and I also understand that you respond to things that do not challenge you but scurry away from the hard questions.

        You stated quite clearly that you find it wrong to have a different tax rate for Mitt Romney than for you, but when your statement was challenged by facts you took off like a scalded cat to find another thread where you could emote without having to address the topic you yourself brought up.

        And by the way, you did NOT “respond as he asked” but instead veered off into a totally unrelated snarl against Michelle Bachmann. In no way did you answer his question.

        Not that I care what you say or how you dodge actual discussions, I just thought I would point out that your tactics are pretty transparent and mark you as a total lightweight.

      • watsonthethird November 24, 2012 / 12:58 am

        Amazona, it is amusing that you would criticize the tactics of others given your recent posts. But we’ve come to expect that most of your posts are consumed with denigrating other posters.

        My point was that Andre Carson–one of Cluster’s counter-examples–did in fact receive a lot of press for his comments. I don’t feel like looking up the other examples he gave. I brought up Michele Bachmann as the counter-example to Spook.

        If Cluster truly wants to make a point, then he should look up the facts himself, don’t you think? It is a common ploy by Cluster (and you) to throw out question after question and then crow about it when someone either doesn’t bother to answer your questions, or doesn’t answer them in a way that suits you.

        Regarding tax rates, my comments were in response to Cluster’s statement:

        And I just thought of one other thing. Included in that 47% who pay no federal income tax, are millionaires. Millionaires who game the system and take advantage of the numerous loop holes and exemption put in place by pandering politicians of all stripes. Those are also loop holes and expeditions that evidently you and Obama support considering that he has no plan to do anything about it.

        I replied:

        No, I don’t support [loop holes for millionaires]. I think it is absurd that someone like Mitt Romney pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than I do. Again, you’re putting words in my mouth and ascribing to me positions that I never put forth to you.

        You have turned this into some sort of crusade to prove that I don’t understand the rationale behind differing tax rates for investment versus labor income. I said:

        As far as Romney’s tax rates, they are low because the tax code gives preference to investment income over labor income.

        Is that really not clear enough for you?

      • watsonthethird November 24, 2012 / 1:33 am

        Since Amazona seems keenly interested in Mitt Romney’s taxes, let’s take a further look at his 2011 tax return, shall we?

        In 2011, Romney paid about $1.95 million in taxes on income of $13.7 million, for an effective rate of 14.1%. Romney’s income included $6.8 million in capital gains, $3.6 million in dividends, $260,390 in directors fees, and $190,350 in speaking fees.

        Presumably those dividends were taxed at the qualified rate–which was a maximum of 15% in 2011–as opposed to ordinary dividends, which were taxed the same as ordinary income. Tell us, Amazona, why some dividends should be taxed at one rate and some at a lower rate.

        A second point about Romney’s 2011 taxes is that a significant portion of his capital gains income came from his Bain Capital retirement package. Although most former money managers must pay ordinary income taxes on retirement income, Bain allowed Romney to receive his payments as carried interest. We don’t know the exact amount of Romney’s carried interest income in 2011, but we do know that he received $7.4 million in carried interest income in 2010, and a campaign spokesman said he received $5.5 million in 2011. Tell us, Amazona, why preferential tax treatment on carried interest is on our, um, best interests. And after that, please tell us why it is in our best interests that Mitt Romney should have such preferential treatment for his retirement income when 99.9% of Americans do not–especially given the fact that he played no active role in Bain in 2011 and therefore did not qualify for carried interest as it is normally applied to fund managers who receive a share of the profits of investments that they actively manage.

        A third point is that Mitt Romney chose not to deduct all of his 2011 charitable contributions. Had he done so, his effective tax rate would have been 10.55%. Tell us, Amazona, why do you think Mitt Romney chose not to deduct all of the charitable contributions that he was entitled to deduct.

        A fourth point is that Mitt Romney can amend his 2011 return and fully deduct all of his 2011 charitable contributions if he wishes. Now that he is no longer running for president, tell us, Amazona, if you think that he should go ahead and fully deduct those contributions, thereby lowering his effective tax rate to 10.55%.

      • Amazona November 24, 2012 / 10:26 am

        watson, as usual, you are so far off base you are not even on the same playing field.

        Please do your very best to refrain from lying. You quite falsely state that I am focused on Mitt Romney’s taxes.

        YOU’RE the one obsessed with what the individual, Mitt Romney, pays in taxes. YOU’RE the one whining about what the individual, Mitt Romney, paid or what you think he should have paid or why you think he paid more than he should or whatever is spinning around in that noggin of yours getting you so fretful.

        I, on the other hand, could not care less about what Mitt Romney pays or how he structures his taxes. I do not have, nor do I want, a crystal ball to consult on his tax strategy.

        What I did was try to take this whining of yours out of the realm of petty Identity Politics and into the arena of discussion on the reasons for the policies behind the tax rate itself, to see if you understand them and then if you think they are a good idea.

        Predictably, once I got away from Identity Politics, and into the realm of ideas, I lost you.

        What I said was this:

        “1. Investment instruments are usually acquired with either after-tax income or in lieu of income, which means a reduction in earned income and receiving stock instead. Therefore, revenue from investments has already been taxed, or income has been reduced by substituting investment instruments, which is like a form of tax in that the amount of remuneration has been reduced.

        2. Revenue from investments is often the retirement income of average Americans, who prudently set aside some of their own (taxed) income during their working years to provide their own pension/retirement plans, and increasing the tax burden on this kind of revenue will hurt the middle class retiree more than it will hurt the hated “rich”.

        3. Increasing taxation on investment revenue will have a chilling effect on investment, which means less money being funneled into companies for their use to expand, modernize, etc. The end result is less investment in our business infrastructure, which leads to less economic vitality.

        So my points are: Fairness, or not double-taxing income at equal rates for the first and second rounds of taxation; Not penalizing the responsible effort of so many to choose deferred gratification, spending less in their working years to help support them in retirement: Encouragement of participation in the businesses of America, being an “ownership society” not only of homes but of the very engines of our economy, and providing the capital necessary for business growth.”

        Evidently you were not comfortable with being in the position of agreeing with what I said and therefore undermining your snarls at what Romney pays and why it is based on a lower tax rate than your own, or with trying to argue against what I said, so you just ignored it and went back to Identity Politics and making some inane bitchy remark about Michelle Bachmann.

      • Amazona November 24, 2012 / 10:33 am

        “But we’ve come to expect that most of your posts are consumed with denigrating other posters.”

        You can “expect” all you want, but you really should stop short of lying.

        Any examination of my posts will show a great preponderance of ideas and discussion of ideas. It’s just that I calls ’em likes I sees ’em when it comes to lies and damned lies and utterly stupid comments, and evidently when one is the source of so many lies, damned lies and utterly stupid comments, as are you, a hypersensitivity develops and all you focus on is the commentary on the lies, damned lies and utterly stupid comments.

        Not my problem.

        For a brief period you stepped away from the wattle persona of mindless attack machine and actually engaged in a discussion, and when you did that I participated with ideas and responses to watson.

        It just looks like that was not a comfortable place for you to be, so you returned to wattle country, where you settle for snidely sniping at people.

        Again, not my problem.

      • watsonthethird November 24, 2012 / 12:36 pm

        I gotta hand it to you, Amazona. Epic dodge. Epic. You managed to evade each and every question I asked you, averaging more words per dodge than has probably every been seen here at B4V. Impressive.

        And you even reverted to name-calling. Nice work.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 25, 2012 / 3:51 am

        Enough. This is not the first time you have been warned about using the blog just to attack people. You have been repeating yourself for several posts and have done nothing but insult and attack. This is a pattern with you and will get this name removed from the blog just as your others have been. //Moderator

Comments are closed.