Something has been bugging me since the latest election, and I just can't shake it…SOOO, I decided to share it.
When a tree-hugging liberal wins the popular vote but loses the electoral votes, and therefore loses the presidential election (perfectly constitutional), libs whine and cry about the "popular vote." But, when the “popular vote” is inconsistent with the liberal agenda, the libs do a complete 180 and implement any tack they can to force their minority opinion on the American people.
I hate hypocrisy.
I am so sick and tired of hearing how GW Bush "stole" the 2000 presidential election. I mean really…you just can't "win" when it comes to competing with liberals. They argue that, "Al Gore actually won the popular vote," and that Bush's presidency was an illegal farce. Apparently the libtards were asleep in junior high social studies the day the Electoral College was explained. Had they been paying attention, maybe the libs would’ve realized the legality of it all.
Here's how it works. Our forefathers (I will refer to as “fo-pops”) were genius enough to foresee largely populated states having too much control in the "republic" (not democracy) they were establishing, which is why the Senate was formed: to give equal representation to each state, regardless of population. This also explains why no bill can pass through Congress without Senatorial approval. This measure helps to level out the playing field. Also, our crafty fo-pops originally gave the power of electing our prez to the Legislature, not the people (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution). But in 1804, the 12th amendment to the U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College (not electorial as some erroneously say), because the idea of the "elite" members of Congress choosing our prez seemed to be a tough pill to swallow for some folks. This change not only allowed, but insisted that each state appoint electorates outside of the Legislature to elect our Commander-in-Chief; with the number of electorates being determined by a state's total number of representatives and senators. Plus, the popular vote winner of each state would receive ALL of the votes from that state's electorates. Ergo, each state is able to maintain its independence, and less populated states can actually influence the outcome of a presidential election.
Please understand, our fo-pops were definitely not stupid. You have to remember, Europeans immigrated to the New World because they had no say in their respective governments, which were mostly monarchial at that time. So, after years of oppression and control from the British government, the fo-pops understood the benefit of self-governing– "…for the people, BY THE PEOPLE…" The last thing they wanted was to fight a grueling Revolutionary War, and then form another oppressive dictatorship. Therefore, they opted to establish a republic. This way, each state could maintain a sense of independence, yet enjoy the solidarity of the federal government, which, by the way, was intended primarily for national defense.
But here is what really gets my goat (so to speak). When it comes to the issues, libs always want to impose their views on the majority, even (let me repeat) EVEN after the votes are cast and the libtards lose; we witnessed this with the abortion issue. Although the "popular vote" was against abortion, the libs got the Supreme Court to overturn the will of the American people by judicial fiat. This is a prime example of why Jefferson complained that the Supreme Court was effectively an "Oligarchy." Another example of liberal imposition is Prop 8 in California. The folks of this infamously liberal state voted to ban gay marriage. Great! The people spoke. But guess what…the wacko libtards once again ran to the courts, blubbering like a daycare full of Bel Air brats, in order to impose their will on the majority. If that weren’t enough, they have begun utilizing personal attacks along with other, less benign, intimidation tactics to overturn Prop 8.
To sum it up, our government is a Republic. However, an Oligarchy seems to better serve the cry-baby liberal agenda. Even still, some people think we live under a Democracy. But you know, I believe the government that would best suit the liberals’ “say one thing, do another, and to hell with it: do whatever it takes” tactics would be most accurately categorized as a “Hypocracy.”
Wow, hypocrisy seems to rain free upon this blog too. You are arguing about forcing your views upon others and then saying that the gay marriage ban should have gone through. Don’t get me wrong, I am a Catholic, and I don’t believe in Gay marriage, but how the hell has that ever given me a right to tell other people what to do.
I also don’t understand why you are so anti-democrat. Both parties in this country are so centrist that the whole idea of there even being a division between them is nothing but a farce. The republicans pretend to be conservative, but don’t pass any conservative laws, and the democrats pretend to be liberal and for the peoples right. Both parties are just sleeping with corporations, and are doing nothing to change this country except for fill the vast majority of the stupid populace with ideas of a balanced system. Change and America go together like barf and toast.
John,
Thanks for the comment. I hope you’ll get to a chance to read my reply.
You write, “Wow, hypocrisy seems to rain free upon this blog too. You are arguing about forcing your views upon others and then saying that the gay marriage ban should have gone through. Don’t get me wrong, I am a Catholic, and I don’t believe in Gay marriage, but how the hell has that ever given me a right to tell other people what to do.”
You mean like you’re doing right now? If you don’t believe in it, John, then by all means, don’t do it. Especially don’t come into our blog and tell us what to do. To that end, the only hypocrisy I see raining on this blog is your own. If you don’t believe in forcing your beliefs, you should give up voting and give up telling others how they should behave. You, John, are a living example of the very thing you claim to abhor. Wake up and realize, that imposing beliefs, forcing beliefs, telling other people what to do, etc. isn’t the issue. We ALL do it, even if some of us don’t want to admit it. The real issue is whose beliefs will be imposed, yours or mine. I suggest you take your own medicine, otherwise you’re sure to be impaled on your own hypocrisy.
Have a nice day.
Thanks for the input John.
This piece is an opinion piece and was not intended to target the hypocrisy of every organization in existence. I simply chose the libs, because they have the loudest mouths. You must be new here, so I will educate you a little.
First, I am anti-”two party system.” I think it sucks that real people like you and me could never be president. Yes, I know it is technically possible, but politicians are farm-raised these days.
If you re-read my post (without bias), you will clearly see that I never stated my opinion on gay marriage, and for good reason…THAT IS NOT MY POINT! I am merely making an observation that is fact-based, and turning it into a (hopefully) somewhat interesting “blog post.” I’m sure no one is feeling intimidated by my impotent display of childish wit.
I believe that Dems/Libs use emotion to manipulate folks like you. You said, “but how the hell has that ever given me a right to tell other people what to do.”
The libs told you that, and you swallowed it whole…without even chewing on it. Do you have the right to tell people not to kill you? How about raping your daughter? Those are easy. What about having sex with animals? Or incest? The line gets gray at some point, right?
That is why we have laws. If peoples’ votes don’t matter, then I say we get rid of the government and let natural selection take over. Maybe you should move to Mexico where the laws are more relaxed. Do you know at what age a Mexican citizen can engage in consensual sex?… Fourteen, buddy. Are you ready to say that a fifty year-old guy has the right to your fourteen year-old daughter…or son?
My point is this, Americans’ votes either count or they don’t, plain and simple. Liberals want them to count when it fits their agenda, but when the votes don’t line up, they will gladly find some other means to get their way. Even if those means are unethical, or even illegal (see the video on the home page).
Now, are you accusing me of forcing my views on you? Did I send this post to you? Did I threaten you if you disagree? Remember John, YOU told ME I was wrong…how the hell do you have the right to tell me what to do?!
I am not accusing you of forcing your views upon me. I am just commenting on the fallacy within the quote. I am saying that your argument is a bit weak. I ask you one question, and hopefully a real debate free from emotion can happen. Why does there need to be a law banning Gay Marriage. I can see the argument from a moral standpoint, but laws are to provide justice not restriction, therefore I ask why Gay Marriage should be banned from a standpoint of justice. In specific what harm does Gay Marriage cause to our system of government.
I want to make it clear, that I am not arguing whether or not gay marriage is correct, just trying to get an idea of your opinions on what constitutes a just and an unjust law.
I wanted to make it clear that this is not a debate on gay marriage, which is a trivial issue. It is a debate purely to find out your ideas on what constitutes a just law, and what constitutes an unjust law
John, that is a very good question, and I am glad you asked.
Let me reiterate that this is a blog site, and posts are generally opinion driven and intended to be interesting to read. So, you can’t evaluate a blog post using the same criteria as you would a news media report.
That said, let me address your points one at a time, in no particular order:
You said, “I am just commenting on the fallacy within the quote. I am saying that your argument is a bit weak.”
First, you must be able to differentiate an observation from an argument.
My observation: Liberals argued in favor of the popular vote when Gore won it. I used abortion and gay marriage as examples of when liberals wanted to overturn the popular vote. I was merely making an “observation” of the inconsistency in their approach to political issues. This observation is based solely on fact and is not debatable. It happened.
My argument: If our political process is based on the Constitution, which gives legislative power to the people via Congress or ballot issues (such as Prop 8), then we MUST be consistent in our approach to maintain the checks and balances of the governing process. I am very diligent in applying good logic to my arguments: Courts have no Constitutional right to legislate from the bench, and that is why states have proposed State Constitutional amendments at the ballot box. The US Constitution does not address marriage, because “marriage” is a religious institution and not an individual right. In fact, one could argue that the Supreme Court’s “separation of church and state” interpretation of the First Amendment would nullify any government regulation of “marriage.”
Second, you have to realize that my opinion is injected into my argument, and I am also very conscious to implement logic when expressing my opinions.
My opinion is clearly stated that I see a double standard, or no standard at all, when these specific liberals are trying to implement their views. They must decide if legislation should be left to the people, or if that power should be transferred to the Judicial Branch, which would ultimately amend the US Constitution.
Another opinion I address is the irresponsibility of using terms like “stole” the election, when Constitutional due process was responsible for the outcome of the 2000 presidential election (Electoral College).
You stated, “In specific what harm does Gay Marriage cause to our system of government.”
First, government legislation on marriage (a religious institution) would violate the “separation of church and state” interpretation by the Supreme Court.
If gay marriage was deemed a Constitutional right, then churches could be sued for discrimination for not allowing it. That may seem like a stretch, but that is exactly what would happen. The goal is not to give rights to same-sex couples, the goal is to redefine marriage. That is why civil unions are not enough to satisfy the pro-gay-marriage crowd.
Second, as I stated earlier, overturning state legislation would ultimately redefine the powers of the Judicial Branch.
So, I fail to recognize the “fallacy” you claim to see. There is no hypocrisy in my statements, because the only “view” I am trying to push is to follow Constitutional law. I did not write nor amend the Constitution, so that “view” is really not based on my opinion. Plus, I am not manipulating the system to get my way.
Redefining marriage is in direct contrast to the Court’s interpretation of the first amendment.
I have a couple of questions for you: If the issue is rights, why is the idea of civil unions not enough? If we can’t force religion on people (I agree), then how can we force views on religious institutions?
Please show me the weakness in my argument.
Ron, you’ve hit the nail right on the head;
“The goal is not to give rights to same-sex couples, the goal is to redefine marriage. That is why civil unions are not enough to satisfy the pro-gay-marriage crowd.”
Homosexuals, just like liberals, demand that others see things their own twisted way. In this case, the Homosexuals want to make churches acknowledge their twisted, sinful ways as normal. And they’re seeking to do it by means of law.
I agree, there should be no law concerning marriage- only “civil unions.” Especially with the precedents rammed into place by the liberals for decades.
“Liberals argued in favor of the popular vote when Gore won it. I used abortion and gay marriage as examples of when liberals wanted to overturn the popular vote. I was merely making an “observation” of the inconsistency in their approach to political issues. This observation is based solely on fact and is not debatable. It happened.”
This is a generalization, which is a type of fallacy in rhetoric, you would need to define your terms a little better to make that an actual “fact”. Who are these liberals that complained? Did they all complain? What defines a liberal? What about the liberal republicans, they love Bush, did they argue against his win?
If the issue is rights, why is the idea of civil unions not enough?
I don’t know, I can’t speak for the Gay community, but I think it is just an attempt to get the same tax rights. The solution I think is to make a Civil Union the exact same thing as a Marriage financially.
If we can’t force religion on people (I agree), then how can we force views on religious institutions?
Why should we have to, if someone wants to take their own route to religion let them. Our founding fathers were deists, so if someone wants to change the way their religion thinks about something then they can practice in their own way. Organized religion is not, and has never been the only spiritual practice. I am Roman Catholic because I agree with their views on most issues, and because I like the community I feel within a church. I could just as well practice any christian faith, or even make my own.
Now you are grasping for straws. Generalizations? Are you serious? Talk about hypocrisy:
“Wow, hypocrisy seems to rain free upon this blog too.”
Do I really need a list of names to make my point? Are you simply befuddled, trying to figure out who in the world I could be talking about? I’ll start with a short list:
Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Alan Colmes, Kieth Olberman, Paul Begala, Alec Baldwin, Natalie Portman,…I’m running out of breath…exactly how many names do I need…hhh, hhh, hhh…to remove the…hhh, hhh, hhh…label of “fallacious?”
My point is clear. If you just want to pick at me, then your whole argument is completely debunked! You stated:
“…to make that an actual “fact”. Who are…”
How can I trust anything you say? I mean, you placed a period outside of quotation marks, which is an absolute no-no in the AP-Style of writing. So, you either have no idea what you are talking about, or even worse…YOUR BRITISH!!! Either way, your whole point is now in the pooper!
I think my point is clear, and you are just bored.
Good night
I am not picking apart at your argument, I am just pointing out that that cannot be called a fact. You could have said liberal media, but you labeled all liberals. You could have even said democrats, but Liberal is a political ideology, and there were a lot of liberals who hated the Democrats way of handling the 2000 election.
Your point is that the democratic party has a double standard. I understand that, I am just pointing out that it weakens your argument to use a broad generalization. Take it as you want.
Also excuse my typo, I am sorry I didn’t catch it.
‘I need…hhh, hhh, hhh…to remove the…hhh, hhh, hhh…label of “fallacious?”’
Since in that context the question mark after fallacious isn’t part of the quote, you should have the question mark outside.
If I had said, “All liberals,” then I would have to concede. However, the whiners were liberals, and therefore liberals complained.
Following your idea of logic, I would’ve had to research their family trees to find out from who they descended in order to accurately label the correct people.
Also, newspapers constantly have headlines that say, “GOP lashes out at Obama,” or “Conservatives oppose gay marriage.” I think that grown-ups can discern that even the biased media is not trying to say that every member of the GOP, or every conservative is included in their references. Likewise, if I say, “people broke into my house and stole my TV,” then I guess that is a weak argument. I should say “2.73 people of different age and various ethnicity…” But then again, which ethnic groups? Since I could not know for sure, I would say “various.”
So, maybe I should have stated, “liberal people of varying gender, age, and ethnic background.” But then I would have left out height and weight, so it would still be a generalization.
I give up, you win…
You’re hitting the hammer on your thumb, John. A scholar or even a careful student of formal rhetoric doesn’t need to be reminded that a generalization is only a fallacy if it is a hasty one, which makes your little “tutorial” all the more pretentious. You’re asserting (not arguing) that Ron’s generalization is the type based on induction from a statistical group not representative of the whole. Such a fallacy constitutes a “hasty generalization,” not a “generalization” as you quipped in your earlier comments. Since Ron’s observation isn’t of the hasty variety, there’s no need to belabor the point further.
That said, I think you would get better results if you knew what you were talking about before adopting a Piled Higher and Deeper attitude in this forum.
No one here has a problem explaining their point of view in a rational, logical, and forthright manner, even when the person on the other side of the table doesn’t make a positive or negative argument. What we do have a problem with are those who have no desire to understand and are just interested in one thing: annoying the living crap out of any unsuspecting soul they can find. It would appear that these are precisely the auspices under which you are operating, John.
Therefore, I would like to cordially invite you to find another site in which to peddle your toxic fodder. Further imbecilic behavior will result in your permanent expulsion from this blog.
Thanks, and have a great day.
Okay I concede, it was a grave misunderstanding because I misinterpreted your terms. I apologize for this drawn out thing.
John, no hard feelings. I embrace disagreement, and I love to have a good civil debate.
I look forward to your input in the future.
Ron
Still trying to figure out why “John” is so wrong , except that he did not conform to the ideology of this sites agenda. Therefore, “John” is a scourge to the site’s society?
Chad, god love him, blasts the poor guy (as I am sure he will do to me) with his intelligent rhetoric.
Chad says = “No one here has a problem explaining their point of view in a rational, logical, and forthright manner…”.
What I do not understand is why everyone in this god-forsaken world (so it seems) seems to believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong. It appears that only the “forum gurus” are wise enough to express “rational, logical, and forthright” points of view. That’s easy to solve…it’s their forum and only their thinking is allowed.
Seems that ain’t too much diff from the Libs thinking or the Conservative right.
Grammatical errors intended. !!!
With all this he-said, she-said………….”I know you are, but what am I? ” …playground trashtalk………………can any of you tell me what you as a blog site are actually doing to solve any relevant social, financial, or theological problems in this world ??? Didn’t think so. Just another typical site voicing a truthful and unbiased point of view. None of the thousands of these sites actually do anything to “change” America………they just bitch of how they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Don’t get me wrong, I love reading the stuff, and actually agree with most of the content. It is just when a guy gets slammed by fancy talk and (as we say out here in the cuntry) run ’round the bushes with alot of talk that says nothing, I can’t understand the motive beyond self-preservation of the ideology .Well, like when I tell my wife’s dog (Yorkie and yes, needs all the attention) I hear you , I hear you, I’m just not listening……..same kinda’ thing. But, to say I am right and you are wrong is saying that you are as guilty as poor “John” (crucified for being so wrong).
Geez, guess why I mostly keep to myself. That way, I don’t make somebody mad for just thinkin’.
Hi Dave,
Glad you could make it. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
I know ahead of time that we will agree to disagree. But I will go ahead and try to clarify both my orientation as a blogger and my initial comments to John. I should also tell you the context for this site at some point. Some of this will be redundant, so I apologize in advance, Dave. But, before telling you why I was so hard on John, right at the start of our conversation. I’ll begin with a simple question to you, buddy.
You state: “What I do not understand is why everyone in this god-forsaken world (so it seems) seems to believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong.” You also state: “to say I am right and you are wrong is saying that you are as guilty as poor ‘John’…”
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you’re saying I’m wrong to point out John’s muddy thinking. Is that your meaning? Or is it merely the packaging you find objectionable?
Thanks
Dave, nice to hear from you.
My following comments are not meant to be condescending, so please do not perceive them in that fashion.
You inquired:
“Still trying to figure out why ‘John’ is so wrong , except that he did not conform to the ideology of this sites agenda. Therefore, ‘John’ is a scourge to the site’s society?”
First, you have to separate the two concurrent discussions. John’s agreement with my assertions or “conclusions” was never really a subject of debate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I (I believe Chad, too) in no way would try to say that an opposing opinion or conclusion is incontrovertibly “wrong.” In fact, I believe John originally stated, “I am not accusing you of forcing your views upon me. I am just commenting on the fallacy within the quote.”
John clearly avoided debating the issues, which is perfectly his right, and I do not chastise him for that choice. Therefore, any “he said, she said” discourse was directed precisely at the secondary discussion: my proper use of logical reasoning in my assertions.
At that point, the debate at hand had nothing to do with one’s personal beliefs or views, but the validity of the construction of my statements. In a nutshell, whether we agreed or disagreed on opinion was never in question.
It may seem confusing, but the bulk of debate was on the logical construction of my assertions. He suggested I was using “fallacious” logical reasoning, therefore Chad and I were defending the “construction” of my assertions as logically sound.
Basically, it was a cerebral wrestling match on delivery and not content, and as you can see, it was “much ado about nothing.”
You stated, “they just bitch of how they are right and everyone else is wrong.” If you can sift through all of the “logical, illogical” debate, you will see that John was never indicted for his ideology. That would be a completely separate debate, one that never surfaced.
I hope that helps to clear the “smoke” surrounding this previously heated debate.
Dave, as to the reference of “this site’s agenda,” you say, “None of the thousands of these sites actually do anything to “change” America.” You then almost immediately state, “I love reading the stuff, and actually agree with most of the content.”
I think you answered your own question. Nowhere on the site is there a proclamation of “changing the world.” It’s just an entertaining outlet for those of us that realize that we have little control in shaping the “world.”
Hey Dave,
While you’re thinking about your answer to my questions, I thought I would try to answer your question as to why John got a cold reception in the forum. Because of the nature of our relationship, I really want to try to give you the clarification you asked for.
First, I want say that my reply to John wasn’t personal. The fact is, I’ve been blogging and working in internet publishing for about five years, now, and I’ve seen a lot in that time. My education on the blogosphere has been one of experience and sometimes instruction.
How does that apply to John? Simply put, I have learned that, in general, those who comment fit into neat little boxes or classifications. There are friends, trolls, lurkers, and flamers. If you scroll back up and look at John’s first reply, you’ll see that he fit the mold of flamer. Flamers usually buzz into a site hurl insults, etc. and then leave. Trolls are worse because they will hang around harassing people, threatening them with violence, you name it. Anyway, flamers will come into a site for the first time with guns-a-blazin’ and that is precisely what John did. What’s wrong with that? Well, let’s just say it’s a matter of blogging/commenting etiquette. It’s a matter of having good manners. When someone comes into my site, I will defend it and my contributors if the commenter is out of line. I think that’s reasonable. Here’s why.
A personal weblog is like someone’s home, and those who comment are sort of like house guests. When I’m a guest in someone’s home, I treat them with respect, I respect them…I respect their space…I respect their property. I, at least, give them a chance before utilizing what I call “the rake.” The analogy is that John was a guest in my home. But as soon as he came in, he unzipped his fly and began pissing on the livingroom rug. This is the essence of what John did in his very first comment. Coming into someone’s home and calling them a hypocrite isn’t what I’d call polite behavior. Adding insult to injury, John’s accusation was not only in error, but underscored his own hypocrisy, as he was basically doing the very thing he accused us of. If that weren’t enough, John then switched from “righteous” indignation mode to condescension when he tried to tutor Ron in the art of rhetoric. Condescension aside, this wouldn’t have been a bad thing, except that John didn’t know what he was talking about or who he was talking to. What John did was the same as if I came up to you (a master builder) and began telling you how to do your job. You and I both know what a joke that would be. I’m sure you wouldn’t be laughing, especially if I had insulted you just before I began instructing you on a skill you had mastered and I had not.
In short, John was accusatory, rude, and his accusations were off the mark by some distance. For that behavior, John, got very little mercy from me…or Ron, for that matter.
That leads me to another observation, several of our readers sent me emails inquiring why I have given you so much latitude when the tone of your comments weren’t much better than John’s. I’m sure your intent wasn’t to come off as smart-assed or whatever, but that is how these readers characterized your comments. I had to admit that the readers’ concerns weren’t completely without merit. But because I know you personally; I have a relationship with you, etc., I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I also was reluctant to reveal that our past history led me to believe I had some atoning to do. I also genuinely believe that you want to know why John was reprimanded in this forum and that given all the facts you would understand my position as your friend, even if you might disagree with my actions. I think the main thing is that I give you an explanation while affirming my respect and trust for you as a dear friend. I hope you feel the same way.
In closing, I want to add that John has since apologized for his behavior, which shows backbone as well as character. Both Ron and I have accepted his apology and also his explanation as to the misunderstanding. John will be welcome here as long as he doesn’t resort to the tack he took when participating in this forum for the first time. Like Ron, I welcome his cogent contributions here and look forward to adding him to our readership base.
Hope that cleared things up for you, or at least helped you understand my position in this matter.
See you buddy and I look forward to chatting again soon.
I indeed understand , Chad, and must return to your first response to me and actually answer the question (which I failed to originally do). It is not what you said, but how you said it, the “packaging”. No different than I also agree with other reader’s opinions about “how” I said what I said. It , naturally, was posted in a frustrated tone, and I apologize for any offense. They need to know that I expect no favoritism nor selective treatment; but in the same sense, they need to realize we are not just perfect strangers. Maybe, in hindsight, some of my comments would be better served in private convo with you instead of in an open forum.
For what it’s worth, I believe it is quite indeed hypocrisy on the Libs part in the result of Prop 8. In black and white, it stinks of things I can’t dare mention and is what some call “two-faced” and double standard. It is saying out of one side of your mouth : Democracy, freedom, equality ; out of the other side you say : I refuse to accept that I can’t have my way. Even though a “Democratic” process gave “freedom” for all to vote and have an “equal” say, when the majority voted in opposition it is somehow unfair ? The sickening part is they will continue to drag this into every courtroom until some legal system grants them their “right” to force their opinion on the majority opposing it. But, naturally, I just suppose it is because “they are right” and they know that the majority vote was wrong. Why vote on it in the first place when the extremist will rage a war until the judge puts a pacifier in their mouth ?
Oh yes, to clarify my comment : “Sadly, both of these have major influence in our country when neither is very open-minded to the root of our nation’s woes.”
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Not that being opposite is the problem, it’s opposing forces that refuse to coexist that breaks down the house. All of creation is filled with opposing forces, yet (besides the human) they know to give and take like the mighty oak gives way to the gusty spring winds. When one force imposes too great a burden upon the other, the result is chaos as in our recent wind and ice storms.
The problem is that every side is a taker and there are far too few givers.
My next post will be titled, “Dr. Phillips and Mr. Chad.” I plan to not only urinate on his rug, but also include a large fecal deposit on the center of his kitchen table.