Listen to show by clicking ►
Direct link to show.
Show Notes here.
Show forum here.
Sign up for No Agenda Mailing List here.
Sites to consider: No Agenda Nation, No Agenda Films, No Agenda Records
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 4000 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Is that crossword supposed to make sense? Words Dot Matter?
Crosswords are part of the show. Once you manage to connect that dot, you may see words actually do matter. 🙂
The Irish debt? O’dious?
It’s not inside or “inward” fishing. I’m sure that either the quoter or announcer was intentionally slurring the term “N-word fishing”. I’m not sure what “C-gar fishing” is. But “Hominy Grits fishing” seems redundant to “N-word fishing”. Unless there’s so subtle distinction I don’t understand. And frankly I don’t want to know. What a waste of a quality education, these goof offs had.
In fact it appears Romney is/was a war hawk. He had always been in favor of the US draft and Vietnam War. Countering sit-in at school and college. But received two student deferments and a ministerial deferment while he was off for 30 months in France. Conveniently managing avoid being drafted, from 1965 to late 1969. When, by that time his draft number (300) was too high for him to worry about being picked. Sounds like another Dick Cheney, George Bush Jr.
Then he decides it’s time to marry his grade school sweetheart (yuk!), that he basically self-betrothed. Who decides to get married to anyone while in public elementary school? Much less sticking to that plan. That’s creepy. Anyway Wikipedia has most of the sorted details. Which don’t add up to being Presidential material to me. Unless a privileged and coddled upbringing, and not much regard for other people’s hardships, is what qualifies one.
“MSNBC” stands for Making Stupid Nonsensical Blathering Conversation. That one is mine. Other one I found is, More Snotty Nonsense By Creeps. And, Manly Sports and Nubile, Buxom Cheerleaders.
It’s boss, Phil Griffin, says “MSNBC stands for something and MSNBC is really the place to go for progressives and people who are looking for smart, thoughtful analysis.” Does he even listen to his own network’s commentaries? Maybe he’s confusing it with MSNBC Premium, which you’d have to pay extra to get, if it existed. Griffin also said, ”We are not a rubber stamp”, but I guess following a script is a subtly different thing.
I believe the BBC’s use of “Helter Skelter” was meant to confuse and marginalize what the phrase originally stood for. A common media tactic. Here’s a link labeling what MSNBC does, as causing Helter Skelter.
http://tinyurl.com/d2p7wsb
And a follow up link, if the embedded one breaks.
http://tinyurl.com/ntgazj
Oddly enough, the be-weaponed black man was a Ron Paul supporter. So naturally MSNBC wasn’t going to report that!!
Adam pines for a state that gives privileges to loyal subjects
The Constitution does not enumerate Rights, Adam. The Constitution enumerates powers of government. Limited government means People give privileges and duties to the government they create.
Limited government does not mean limited rights for people you idiot.
Limited government does not mean limited rights for people
If only the powers that be thought that way.
Instead, they are abrogating powers onto themselves, in the mistaken belief that they are and have always been an eternal dynasty (while not even being three centuries old.)
Those that do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.
Great rendition of BenRon meeting.
All-in-all very scary stuff.
Ohhhkay… we homosexuals do not ask for more rights when we want to marry the person we love, you might want to think that one through a lot more. If you want to go in this direction as an argument, then you are saying that marriage is not for love or personal connection, but just a contract that is issued by the state (feel free to discuss that with your wives next time you want to get some.)
In any case, considering it a contract, then you get into federal issues because if I get married in a state that recognizes my marriage, other states AND the feds historically have been obligated to recognize said contracts (otherwise our entire trade infrastructure would fall apart as soon as you walk over a border.) Which is largely why it will take the Supreme Court to fix the issue, since congress doesn’t have the balls to actually do the morally correct thing and kick the states’ asses on the issue.
It can be argued, as you say, that it isn’t a “right” to marry, but the fact that there the huge number of associated laws that grant rights at the state AND federal level for married couples pretty much negates your opinion. You have the right to be with your other half in a hospital situation, for instance. If I marry my partner, in some states they will ignore my partner and my wishes if he’s in a hospital. Same for almost every other situation that couples deal with.
You get “rights” automatically just by being allowed to marry — which me and my partner cannot get unless we go to particular parts of the country. Your argument that we “have” the rights (because we can marry an opposite sex person) is facetious, as it then implies that rights are narrowly defined. It’s largely the same argument that was used to fight interracial marriage — I guess you’d argue that that was unneeded since that white guy can go marry a white woman. It’s kinda disappointing to hear, as my opinion of you drops dramatically because of this.
The constitution tends to err on the side of the people having ALL of the rights, not the states or the country. I consider this a set of rights that we are granted by the constitution as citizens and we have the obligation to demand them from stupid, close-minded bigots.
And no, I don’t plan to marry my partner, he’s currently gay married in Canada and has been in the process of divorcing his ex. Interestingly enough Maryland recognizes the marriage, but is particular about divorcing.
So, while I don’t plan to marry any time soon, I demand my right as an American to marry the person I love if I wish to. Unlike you, I don’t ignore my rights and settle.