Match Game's big three now matched up for good...

Brett Somers, the 3rd daily regular (along with Charles Nelson Reilly and host Gene Rayburn) on every Match Game episode from the 70s, has died.

the wrong question guarentees the wrong answer

"Our task ... is to determine whether the right to same-sex marriage is so deeply embedded in the history, tradition and culture of this state and nation that it should be deemed fundamental," the court wrote in a 244-page opinion. "We hold that it is not."

You came to the conclusion based on the question asked.

Is the right to same-sex marriage "deeply embedded", or is the right to be free from state-sanctioned discrimination "deeply embedded"?

Had they asked themselves that second question, the right conclusion would have presented itself immediately.

As for "protecting the children"?  BULL SHIT BULL SHIT BULL SHIT BULL SHIT BULL SHIT BULL SHIT BULL SHIT BULL SHIT BULL SHIT

If for one fucking second you gave one rats fucking ass about "the children", you would give them EVERY SINGLE BENEFIT AND PROTECTION YOU GIVE TO EVERY OTHER CHILD OF EVERY OTHER MARRIED COUPLE ON THE PLANET.

Instead you forcefully make them second-class citizens, untouchables, bastards in your eyes with none of the legal safety nets you give to everybody else, all because you insist that discrimination should be legal.

rather happy with this one

For those not wanting to go more than 2 pages back in their f-list, I have photos up from 2007 (last Sunday) and 2005.

"tax cuts weren't the problem, the lack of spending cuts was"

Someone replied to me on that in a thread about Krugman's rebuf of Greenspan's sudden "I never supported the tax cuts" book.

Excuse me while I say "bull shit" yet again.  I wrote in reply:

Depends on your perspective and whether or not you think what the government is spending money on is worth spending.

Clinton made it a public campaign in 1993 to spend money on infrastructure support and repair, money that was cut off in the budget wars with the '94 elected Gingrich Congress. Would that have changed things this last summer had that spending support continued?

A balanced budget is a balanced budget, and responsible fiscal planning. Whether its budgeted by spending cuts or increased revenue is irrelevant unless you're the one seeing your money go to something you don't want it to go to.

Like, say, "Faith Based Initiatives", or "an unjustified war". Such spending is to many just as reckless as the socialist-driven handouts (Social Security, etc) that others see as the remnants of the New Deal.

If you know you can't cut spending because there would be an uproar among those who benefit from that spending, then DON'T CUT THE REVENUE. You can't have it both ways and call it "responsible".

I await the reply...[crickets]