Recent Comments

1. about 5 hours ago on Bob the Angry Flower

   I smile every time I picture all those slanderous T-shirts about Biden that they probably had printed thinking they would net them “magaBucks” and now they will all have to be trashed.

2. about 5 hours ago on Bob the Angry Flower

   “Eliminating him from re-election and anointing someone without her ever getting one vote in a presidential primary is a coup and undemocratic.”

   Hahaha, you actually typed that thinking it to be an astute observation, thanks for the laugh as, obviously, you have been told what to think.

   Most of the rest of us realize that “In the United States, national party conventions are held every four years to nominate candidates for the presidency and vice presidency and to adopt a national platform.” One example was “Vice Pres. Hubert Humphrey, who had not entered the party’s primary elections, was selected as the party’s presidential nominee.”

   Now, since the DNC has yet to be held, there is nothing in stone as of yet. Imagine that…

3. about 8 hours ago on Looks Good on Paper

   “Only the readers suffered discomfort.” Yup, my sides still hurt…

4. about 8 hours ago on Looks Good on Paper

   Didn’t you do a card with this cartoon captioned "Life is meaningless (or “just isn’t the same”) since you’ve been gone." or something similar.

5. 2 days ago on Strange Brew

   My second biggest pet peeve is the use of clichés…my first is hate.

6. 3 days ago on Non Sequitur

   “That’s the fallacy you have been told and mindlessly believe”

   And again, all it has is presumptions—presumptions of our news sources (I lean towards Scripps, Reuter’s, and API among others—topic dependent of course), presumptions of our material resources, and then presuming that what we have read, is not further verified. Why? My guess, is that is the way he/she does it sooooo…everybody must do it that way, right. Hah, such a fun life no homework—just listen and repeat—or as I had to hear it too often—écoute et répète.

7. 3 days ago on Non Sequitur

   In all my years, I have only heard one claim that the over-building was creating a risk of sinking and that was the river island, known as Manhattan. Manhattan is the most densely populated of New York City’s 5 boroughs. It’s mostly made up of Manhattan Island, bounded by the Hudson, East and Harlem rivers.

   Then there’s this: “New York City, which sits on land that was raised just outside the edge of the ice sheet, is now sinking back down. The scientists found that on average the metropolitan area subsided by about 0.06 inches (1.6 millimeters) per year – about the same amount that a toenail grows in a month.”

   So, sinking, but yeah, that won’t show up in a landscape photograph either.

8. 3 days ago on The Barn

   klapre will be along momentarily to complain about those facts, evil grin.

9. 4 days ago on Pearls Before Swine

   Umm, in your haste to be insulting you forgot the tag. But I left the tab open just for you, ’ow ’bout dat.

   “Partisan hacks making political hay is not the same as analysis on dead people.”

   Wow, I thought I was communicating with an adult. So, everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a hack? That is truly special especially considering all the degreed professionals that have come to the same conclusion. But do go on about your enhanced educational background regarding anything of a psychological nature..

   “But you share their bias so ypu believe it.”

   And the same could be said for you, the main difference being the accuracy of my statement claiming that you are spouting nonsense verses the inaccuracy of yours claiming that all those scholars in the field are hacks…not to mention all the others that worked in his employ and came to similar conclusions.

10. 4 days ago on Pearls Before Swine

    “Any “mental health practitioner” who diagnoses without examining and testing the subject is a quack”

    Gee, I’ll have to remember that when I re-read the chapter on Hitler in my Theories of Psychopathology book. As in, No, one does not need to examine or test a subject in person; merely examining their behavior is sufficient, but I’m sure Faux Spews or some other location led you to that false notion.

    There’s another article at Scientific American called The ‘Shared Psychosis’ of Donald Trump and His Loyalists and I’m willing to bet that all those subjects weren’t examined in-house either.

    At least try to apply some sense of logic to your posits as it will save time for all.