Are you the Ultimate Red Sox Fan? Enter your photo in our contest and you could win fan-tastic prizes.
Little Rock, Ark., Aug. 20, 1959 | Wikimedia Commons
“Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.”
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
78 COMMENTS
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
Looks like a Tea Party rally in 1950′s clothing…same people, same “patriots”, same flags…
I can’t help but laugh at the “Race Mixing is communism’ signs. I know this was a very divisive period in our history and I was living at the time and remember the fear and hate mongering that was part of our daily lives, however, today, when I see those ignorant signs, I chuckle and think to myself “Race Mixing is Fun!”
“The Times They Are A-Changing” Please take 3:18 minutes and listen to the Eddie Vedder cover of this great Bob Dylan song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s6J4LIbEL0&feature=related
Its worth the time.
you’re an idiot
Is that a young Cuccinelli at the microphone? I suppose he is shouting about state’s rights and Constitutions and such.
Looks like a young George Allen standing next to him mumbling something about Macacas.
Put them all together you get a full set of teeth.
”Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
From Paul Krugman’s January 16 column in the NYT: “…the modern G.O.P. has been taken over by an ideology in which the suffering of the unfortunate isn’t a proper concern of government, and alleviating that suffering at taxpayer expense is immoral, never mind how little it costs.”
Regarding todays article “Old Southwest teddy bear tree fires up neighborhood”…..it appears her snotty numbut neighbors need to get a life and untighten their belts before their heads explode….I’ve seen the tree and it is downright cute. So staying in line with today’s topic “Closed Minds” it sure seems that the BigLick Valley as more than it’s share!
thans CNP for my daily Dylan fix….. Is it my imagination or was he a magic song writer for the times..
Race Mix’n is Communism… sure hope we’ve moved on.
I suspect that the link I’m going to give below will stir up a little trouble. Nonetheless, I think it’s time to give some serious thought on a historical subject. The title of the article that I am linking you to is “Five Myths about why the South seceded.” As a historian I found it very enlightning.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010703178.htm
Let’s try that link again
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010703178_pf.html
#3-To whom are you referring will?
I agree with scott w… Looks like Tea Party rally on the steps of the Roanoke Courthouse. Is that Henry at the mike?
#12 Debbie: Will is referring to anyone with whom he disagrees…
Oh debbie…probably all of us.
GaryM…if it’s so cute why don’t you go start nailing beanie babies to a tree in your yard. I thought “child molester tree” was pretty descriptive.
I agree with Gary M – people in Old SW complaining of the tree need to get a life. Our office is in Old SW and I do love it, but as but there are some busy bodies who have nothing better to do than nit pick about the condition of a yard. As for the person in the article who complained the tree was bringing down property values…really? A teddy bear tree is going to determine if you can sell your house and for what price?
Kristen… I have hated that tree since I first saw it. It is nothing but an eyesore. The animals have become filthy and when it rains they drip “who knows what”, all over the ground below. Yuck!
Having said that… It’s not my place to tell her to chop it down. It’s hurting no one and it obviously brings her a great deal of pleasure.
I spotted a tree, sitting next to the highway, along 311, last weekend that has tea cups attached to it. It is covered in teacups. Odd… but cute.
Scott, since you and Cold n P made comments before him, I wondered which one he’s referring to. He probably does mean both of you.
Kristen, regarding the tree, my first thought upon seeing the picture of it was that it’s tacky. Tacky like beauty though, is in the eye of the beholder I guess. She sounds like she has a good heart. There are worse things that could be displayed.
Debbie writes: “There are worse things that could be displayed.”
Like this, maybe?
http://drsueannmark.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/hpim0549.jpg
“There are worse things that could be displayed.”
Maybe I’ll do a Corona Light bottle tree. I bet that would be popular.
Lori and Lynda, the odd thing about that tree being in OSW is that they’re so incredibly picky there about EVERYTHING – isn’t it the case that you can’t even put a roof on your house without having it approved by the OSW historical people?
The tea cup tree does sound cute.
Debbie, Maybe someone struck a nerve thought buried. however, I think Will meant Dan though. For wasting what should have been a “caption this” photo on this thread.
Debbie: Only Will knows which of us he called an idiot. I know someone else on this blog who casually throws the “idiot” word around a lot; maybe Will is actually Suzie?
I have first hand knowledge of the ARB of OSW. 15 years ago my husband and I bought a 100 year old mansion in OSW and, during the time we owned it, every detail that we altered/replaced/added to the exterior had to be passed by them…. except paint color (I never understood why that was not included)
I do understand why their approval is required. You don’t want someone adding a ultra modern facade to a 100 year old Victorian, located in a historic district. I don’t understand, though, why they sometimes make it so difficult for folks, that are just trying maintain their properties, to do so economically and aesthetically.
Well that lady’s tree is not the most lovely thing I have ever seen…but as long as she and her landlord are copacetic, who are we to judge?
My mom has a pear tree that the birds and squirrels damage so she puts stuffed animals and dolls in and around it, hanging like they are walking there, and they move with the breeze. It protects her pears so they can grow and honest, it is the cutest thing you can imagine. Of course she only has 5 or 6 babies hanging around, but from a distance it looks like kids playing and it is precious. Eye of the beholder I suppose is correct. That and the fact that I love my Mom more than life and feel she has earned the right to do what she wants with her pear tree.
Scott W, you were exactly right in #1! This should not be a caption this because the truth is bad enough all alone.
Lynda K
HAHAHA! Thank you for that link.
Yes Lynda, I would consider that worse. It did make me laugh, but I wouldn’t want to see it in the neighborhood.
Instead of nailing stuffed animals to a tree, they could be collected and donated to hospital pediatric wards, the Ronald McDonald House, the Rescue Mission, places like that. I guess people see “art” differently. It does not appear to me, to be a work of art.
Cold & Scott, will seems to have hit and run, so I guess we’ll never know for sure.
I doubt any of us really care though.
Lynda, Kristen & Debbie – the tree is tacky. But it seems to make this woman happy and she does seem to have a good heart. I like what her landlord said – that it makes people laugh and we all need to do that more.
Kristen is right, OSW is incredibly picky, so it’s kind of surprising that she’s had the teddy bear tree there for 12 years without some big protest over it before now. If you own property in OSW, you cannot do ANYTHING to the exterior (including sidewalks) or structure of the home without ARB approval.
Lynda – I am glad that I don’t live next to the person with that tree in their yard!
Oh, snap. One of our more prolific posters postulated that the more the media hammered Palin the more her poll numbers would rise. That fearless prediction does not seem to be bearing fruit. Hate to say I told you so (Not!).
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/14/obama-improves-standing-vs-12-rivals/?iref=allsearch
Let me try some different historical information. It was on this day in 1950 that Boston robbers pulled off a historic robbery of a Brinks location. the 11 men who pulled off the robbery were not caught until Jan. 1956-just days before the statute of limitations ran out on the crime. It was on this day in 1953 that the Corvette was unveiled at GM. Oh how I wish I had one of those 1953 Corvettes. I’d be retired. A powerful earthquake rocked Los Angeles on this day in 1994. Gary Gilmore was executed by firing squad on this day in 1977. In a moment of high culture on TV, NBC, on this day in 1966 gave the green light for 32 episodes of the Monkees. The world was never the same. Paula Jones, remember her, accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment on this day in 1994. She had to get in line behind several others.
On a more serious note, it was on this day in 1961 that Pres. Eisenhower gave his farewell address to the American people. In that speech he warned the American people about the increasing power of the military industrial complex in America. He also recommended restraint in consumer habits. “As we peer into society’s future, you and I and our government, must avoid teh impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage.”
Unfortunately, we didn’t follow his advice.
“Unfortunately, we didn’t follow his advice.”
Our Generation will have alot to answer for when the history books are written.
#31 Yes, but I think Palin is enjoying every second of this publicity. I just saw an interview where she says liberals are accusing her of being an accessory to murder. Hyperbole much, Sarah?
CnP, every generation does.
the modern G.O.P. has been taken over by an ideology in which the suffering of the unfortunate isn’t a proper concern of government, and alleviating that suffering at taxpayer expense is immoral
Two false premises here:
1. Government does alleviate suffering.
It doesn’t. It exacerbates it.
2. Republicans aren’t charitable.
They are. They give of their own resources far more per capita than do Democrats.
Looks like a Tea Party rally in 1950′s clothing…same people, same “patriots”, same flags…
Really? Where are the signs calling to reduce spending and keep tax cuts?
You people continue to lie about the Tea Party.
2. Republicans aren’t charitable.
They are. They give of their own resources far more per capita than do Democrats.
Comment by Suzie — January 18, 2011 @ 9:44 am
Perhaps the question(s) you should provide answers to Suzie Q include:
A. To whom to the Republicans give?
B. Show us the data that supports your assertion that Republicans give more per capita than Democrats do?
Come on Suzie Q back up your “statements of fact.”
#37 Everything we know about lying, we learned from you, suzie.
Those people look like they should have been more worried about the effects of inbreeding rather than those of race mixing.
Ya Magpie, inevitably people who go around proclaiming themselves part of the “master race” don’t appear very masterful.
38 Show us the data that supports your assertion that Republicans give more per capita than Democrats do?
Come on Suzie Q back up your “statements of fact.”
I’ve done it numerous times, Ron. Get off your lazy butt and find it yourself. Odd that as a “Republican” you would be so up in arms about my facts.
Oh look. Democrats!
Nice to see you, Magpie!
You are the one who made the assertion in this thread. Back up your assertion Suzie Q. I’m only asking you to do what you routinely ask of the rest of us. I didn’t see any facts in your assertion.
Thanks Lori! I’m “popping” around the blogs today and catching up on some past threads.
Kristen, that usually seems to be the case. It wasn’t very nice of me to write that, but people like that always get me angry.
#43- Henry, you’re probably right. Many of the Democrats of that time (definitely in certain parts of the Country) were acting and thinking like that. It seems like the Democrats of that era are now the Republicans of ours.
Scott I was talking about your first comment. There are more TRUE racist of all stripes identified with the dems than with the tea party. But once again liberal logic applies. If you are for smaller more acountable government and less taxes, you have to be a racist. Sounds like the deffinition of prejudice to me.
From Realclearpolitics.com;
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
– Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
– Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
– Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
– Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
– In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
– People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Thank you, Rmac for doing the homework Ron was too lazy to do. Libs are lazy like that, in addition to being stingy with their own resources. I notice he doesn’t have amything else to say on the topic.
ROFL, Rmac did the “homework” that Suzie was too lazy to do in support of her arguments.
# 19 (or Comment by Debbie — January 17, 2011 @ 4:36 pm)
“Scott, since you and Cold n P made comments before him, I wondered which one he’s referring to. He probably does mean both of you.”
———
Debbie,
I have repeatedly requested folk provide a simple post identifier when replying to another post.
Thanks, Rmac. I wish I had someone to do my work for me.
Nutballs send their money to nutball televangelists and call it “charity”.
RealRightPolitics? Puhleese. Arthur Brooks is president of AEI, a noted Neocon “think-tank.” What Brooks didn’t take into account is that the rich have more money to give, and based solely on percentage of disposable income, are no more generous than their liberal brethren
Since it doesn’t like my tags, let’s do this:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/08/political_prefe.html
It is beyond doubt that the people who want to accept the conclusions Mr. Brooks gave in his book, it is the ONE constant in any discussion that the right wing will drag out time and time again as Suzie has done for over a year and Rmac has now done as well. While that may indeed be your gospel for the “truth” it bears noting that much of it is hardly statistically provable.
Generally speaking, Mr. Brooks considers “Charitable giving” to include tithes to churches. This is not only a pillar of the right wing, it is also not necessarily about “charity as it is understood when thinking about giving to the poor, homeless, downtrodden et al. Conservatives are all to happy to support their right wing churches and their ideology. That means massive churches with massive building and budget needs but not any proof of what the real world calls charity. It is a canard, pure and simple. Sure, Pavlov’s dogs will salivate over the statistic, but a closer exam proves the fallibility they do not want to see. Giving to your church does not in and of itself, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, help the mentally ill, disabled, provide jobs or uplift the least among us. It may well fund political cover organizations like the Moral Majority, the 700 Club and other right wing methods of delivery like “mega churches” for their rhetoric but again, that is not proof of charity giving. Not by a mile.
If you need further proof of this lack of real charity, look at the mega churches wanting a piece of the government funding for charities to operate theirs FGS! Why do these charities need our tax dollars?
ROFL, Rmac did the “homework” that Suzie was too lazy to do in support of her arguments.
Sorry, Dan. I ain’t chasing my tail for no liberal. If Ron wants to learn about the subject, he can get up off his brains and google it like I did.
#49 That was so sweet of you to help out little suzie. She might have chipped a claw.
You know, Sandi, I believe I asked Suzie a while back whether she and hubby tithes, and I don’t think we’ve heard and answer from her yet!
#52 DaveH, I was referring to comments 1, 2 and 3.
Generally speaking, Mr. Brooks considers “Charitable giving” to include tithes to churches. This is not only a pillar of the right wing, it is also not necessarily about “charity as it is understood when thinking about giving to the poor, homeless, downtrodden et al.
Wrong again, Crazy Sandi. Conservatives give more to secular charities than do liberals. And as Rmac pointed out, we volunteer more of our time than you selfish and self-righteous libs.
Residents ….volunteered more than twice as much for religious organizations, but also far more for secular causes. For example, they were more than twice as likely to volunteer to help the poor.
Dan,
Our giving amount is rather personal, but I’ll say we feel pretty good about our total giving to several different charities both in terms of time and money.
December, being one of the coldest on record for all you MMGW nuts, was one of our busiest and most costly months ever.
Oh wait. I forgot. The term had to be switched to “climate change”. So I guess you kooks are covered. What a neat system. Whether it gets colder, warmer, wetter, or drier, you nuts can claim “See? Climate change!” And Dan and MSM go right along with it.
Suzie,
The answer to the question “Do you tithe?” is:
a) “yes”
or
b) “no.”
It has nothing to do with amount.
Hi Magpie! Was wondering where you’ve been!
65 Dan,
I was trying to say “none of your business” in the most polite way possible.
“Wrong again, Crazy Sandi. Conservatives give more to secular charities than do liberals. And as Rmac pointed out, we volunteer more of our time than you selfish and self-righteous libs.”
Clearly SuzieQ, you don’t, as you seem to blog 24/7.
I am not the one who is crazy. VERY FEW organizations that accept volunteers ask or know the political persuasions or the religious persuasions of their volunteers. ONLY those that do so through a church could even begin to be “quantified”, same with donations of blood, time, clothing, expertise or anything else. The statistics are just not there except with what a religious group might track and “report” to someone. You, with the help of this ONE person’s book make far too many unprovable assumptions and base it on your own inability to accept any facts you don’t like. Brooks is not telling the complete truth and neither are you. No surprise there!
“According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
Even though Kristof uses Mr. Brooks as a source like all the rest, he does grudgingly admit that much.
“It seems like the Democrats of that era are now the Republicans of ours.”
Not to point out the obvious but a Democrat posted the picture above condemning “race mixing”, not me.
#63 And the rest of the year was one of the warmest on record. Troll is destroyed again.
#71- Henry, I wasn’t needling you or accusing you of anything. I was agreeing with your comment and pointing out the many of the Democrats of that era and place are like many of the Republicans of today.
In response to Suzie’s fallacy in 63
She commits the “I am the world” Fallacy. Assuming that the world looks like her yard.
Climate change is a world wide phenomenon. While there were localized cold places (and honestly there were lots of them throughout the northern hemisphere), December’s preternaturally cold nature was more than offset by the remainder of the year.
“Record December chill kept 2010 from being warmest in history” http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/archive/2011/01/record_december_chill_kept_201.shtml
“2010 tied for warmest year on record: NASA”
http://www.newkerala.com/news/world/fullnews-123003.html
And of course 683 other articles in google under the loose search “Warmest Year World” then ‘news’ and ‘past month’.
http://news.google.com/news/more?q=warmest+year+world&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=c1f&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivns&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dihMDoBnaPQqtYM_F-2mv3IjuI57M&ei=D1I3TfSKE8H58AaC-L30Aw&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQqgIwAA
Not that anyone would expect Suzie to honestly present all the facts, but this is almost the most egregious of the month for the troll.
“She commits the “I am the world” Fallacy. Assuming that the world looks like her yard.”
( shudder )
Let’s think: My place…or…your studio in a SE four-plex? Tough decision. You idiots would die to have my home and grounds.
No, we would not.
No, we would not.
Suffice it to say that it takes 4 hours to mow either of dad’s yards with his Grasshopper, that he owns/rents a thousand acres of rolling farmland, that I live in a 3 bedroom house in a decent suburban town and have no interest in inhabiting a place which must ooze evil.
I have seen those movies where the normal people move into a new home which is full of evil because the last inhabitant was insane or evil or Suzie(both).