Just an excuse for an open thread: what kind of dog is Obama? (Compiled from Lucianne commenters):
TelePointer
TeleprompTerrier
CHE-huahua
Open Border Collie
Labrador Deceiver
WeaselHund
Shitzonyou
Dorkshire Terrier
Border Follie
Great Drain
Kenyan Short-haired Pointer (at Bush)
Alinski Malamute
American Sheepherder
American Taxhound
Rhodesian Taxhack
And my contributions:
Crashing Borzoi
California Boxer
Olbermann Pischer
Latent Gayhound
Union Lapdog
Whining Fox Toy
Mulish Brayhound
Himalyin' Creepdog
Lha'sa Bolognese
Chicago Thughound
Taxagain Clueless
Afghan Retreater
Pro-Palestinian Bomberanian
Antisemitic Chinook
Scheming Goydog
Broken English Bulldog
Iranian Water Carrier
Republican Bitch
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Theme Song
61 comments:
Those are excellent! Ha ha!
Here's a few more:
Duncehund
French Doodle
I would've added "flea-bitten cur,"
but Obama probably doesn't have fleas so there's no reason to get personal.
Although he does tick me off a lot so perhaps "ticky cur" would work.
I'm going with a cross between a Himalyin' Creepdog and a Shitzonyou... quite the pedigree, but gosh darn tough to clean up after.
The ever popular Bull-Shit
American Bull Whiner
Tax Mouthed Cur
Van - the Himalyin' Creepshit?
So so spiritual Bob. So so spiritual. Shame.
Freevangelical Pundamentalism clearly isn't for everyone.
This politicalness is my least favorite aspect of the blog.
Probably because I've been completely turned off by the entire political process.
I can't even articulate what purpose politics is supposed to serve.
The stakes couldn't be higher. True religion -- and the very possibility of pneumatic evolution -- will die in the absence of the correct political order, just as it has already died in Europe.
Or, if politics does not reflect man's higher aspirations and possibilities, it will surely pander to his lowest.
JP said "I can't even articulate what purpose politics is supposed to serve."
In a nutshall? Politics is supposed to keep your head un-severed from your shoulders and free to be able to move you around, making as many mistakes as needed to learn from your life, without interfering with other's ability to make the mistakes they need to make as well.
Uh-oh... wv:hater
Don't be one
There cannot be the slightest doubt that if one side wins, there will be an end of all such freedom and hope of light and truth, and the [spiritual] work that has to be done will be subjected to conditions which would make it humanly impossible; there will be a reign of falsehood and darkness, a cruel oppression and degradation for most of the human race such as people in this country do not dream of and cannot yet realize. --Sri Aurobindo
Probably because I've been completely turned off by the entire political process.
I sympathize, JP. Trouble is, no matter how much you may wish to leave politics alone, politics will absolutely not leave you alone.
Bob, I want to suggest that when you open your posts declaring that Obama is some sort of "dog" or anything else you may call him, you accept and perpetuate a frame that does not encourage or enact taking the view from love. That’s the way it feels to me. Scorn and rejection, embodied by name-calling, seem to have power, but actually have the effect in my opinion of weakening your effectiveness and influence, because it comes across as inconsistency and hypocrisy, because it has the feel of reaction and closure, not response and openness. Which feels like a lesser integrity if not a lack of integrity. Which makes some people less open to considering your views. Why should we discuss GW [Bush] respectfully, with willingness to seek to understand, while you exempt Obama from this same respect and care? I want to be inspired to dig deeper in myself, to look at where I excuse myself from the call to love without condition, no exceptions. What inspires me most and will be most likely to call me to that level of integrity is witnessing it in others. So, where you are coming from seems to me to be deeply understandable, but I want to suggest that it is not the highest level of power you can come from.
Not everyone is a Jehovial Witticist.
On a serious note, good-natured ridicule of politicians is a healthy American tradition.
aninnymouse said "but actually have the effect in my opinion of weakening your effectiveness and influence, because it comes across as inconsistency and hypocrisy..."
But you should have meant,
"...weakening my effectiveness and influence, because it exposes my inconsistency and hypocrisy..."
There, fixed it for you.
" I want to be inspired to dig deeper in myself, to look at where I excuse myself from the call to love without condition, no exceptions."
But you should have admitted (this does count as a second tech support call),
" I want to be inspired without having to dig deeper in myself, i want to be able to embrace truth without it biting my face off for extending a happy face to evil as well."
Listen to wv, stop being such a hater.
namusty
Bob says:
"There cannot be the slightest doubt that if one side wins, there will be an end of all such freedom and hope of light and truth, and the [spiritual] work that has to be done will be subjected to conditions which would make it humanly impossible; there will be a reign of falsehood and darkness, a cruel oppression and degradation for most of the human race such as people in this country do not dream of and cannot yet realize."
I'm glad to see that Mr. Auribundo recognized that the dark fate of mankind (i.e. hell on earth) is one of the boundary conditions of humanity.
I figured out that years ago.
Aren't we mixing up politics and religion here?
Anon-
Lighten up Francis.
Hey, you know what's really uninspiring? Being a sanctimonious prude. Without a sense. Of. Humor.
JP said "Aren't we mixing up politics and religion here?"
While obviously not speaking of laws & doctrines... do you really think they can be separated?
JP, While one should never make politics their religion, one should also not ignore the fact that politics absolutely influences religious expression. Just ask a Christian in China.
"Aren't we mixing up politics and religion here?"
Yep. But don't forget the Jehovial Witticisms and Freevangelical Pundamentalism.
Anon, censure is not the same thing as hatred. Nor is mockery. To act lovingly towards another is not all warm fuzzies all the time. Sometimes, it is the sound and justified application of a cluebat.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Wow, people sure are getting edgy. I think having your politics informed by your religion is a good idea. And one should never take a politician more seriously than a used car salesman.
I started to say "a clown", then I remembered a Henry Miller quote from Tropic of Capricorn:
I should have been a clown; it would have afforded me the widest range of expression. But I underestimated the profession.
Why do so many people assume that "spiritual" equates to saccharine feel-good sweetness and light at all times?
The freedom to criticize and ridicule the ruling class is primary American strength. Furthermore nobody is suggesting the left does not have the right to talk about Bush in the same way. I do take umbrage when the left lies about conservatives, which is different than obvious satire and ridicule.
Julie says:
"To act lovingly towards another is not all warm fuzzies all the time. Sometimes, it is the sound and justified application of a cluebat.
Why is this so difficult to understand?"
Becuase love is often associated with rainbows, flowers, soft fluffy bunnies, and pretty happy thoughts.
Mushroom, I used to find clowns vaguely disturbing until I met this guy.
Van says:
"While obviously not speaking of laws & doctrines... do you really think they can be separated?"
I'm probably thinking more of the scope of civil law itself, being that I am a lawyer.
I haven't read all of the Lucianne comments yet although what I have read has been good.
So apologies if this one has been made:
Thepittsbull.
JP said,
"Becuase love is often associated with rainbows, flowers, soft fluffy bunnies, and pretty happy thoughts."
Whoa, wait..,soft fluffy bunnies?
I mean, I love rabbit...fried, but the soft n' fluffy live ones? Not really my thing, but different strokes for different folks I guess. :^)
In all seriousness I one of the (several) things I loved about my grandpa was his taciturn nature, and the fact that he was a tough guy that didn't let me get away with any crap when I got to visit.
He also didn't entertain foolishness and yet had one of the best senses of humor I have ever seen. Smart humor I reckon you could call it.
I certainly didn't love watching Jimmy Stewart or John Wayne for their milquetoast fuzziness, of which they had none (ergo the love of watching).
And those are jest a few of the reasons I love the OC.
Thanks for bringing him back, Julie. That was a great portrait, especially with the accompanying thoughts. It may have been a buried memory of Curly that brought the Miller quote to mind.
Tell me about the rabbits, George.
A Kenyan dingo ate my baby.
What sort of dog? The kind who wants to be spelled backwards, but who goes wee-wee-wee all the way home.
JP said "I'm probably thinking more of the scope of civil law itself, being that I am a lawyer."
I'm probably thinking more of the philosophical scope, being that I am a wannabe philosopher (including philosophy of law), and being ever mindful of their different purposes and proper separations (which among the regular crowd here I think need no rehearsing)... can you really imagine the Law being in anyway meaningful without the people being moral? Even the simplest of rules are inherently moral.
However, we were talking of mixing or separating Politics & Religion, not Law & Religion, and I find it hard to imagine someone who consciously has any religious and/or philosophical beliefs (and while someone can be unconscious of them, they cannot not have them... though they'd likely be muddled beyond belief in that case), being able to make a political decision without those beliefs fundamentally influencing their political decisions - even to the point of electing a dog catcher.
And why would you want to? And again, we’re not talking about dividing over creeds, or inserting doctrines into legislation, but of attempting to ‘un-mix’ your internal, personal religious/moral beliefs from your political ones... how would that be possible? That really depends upon what the meaning of ‘IS’ is!
But then again, I consider the statement "2+2=4" to be an extremely moral One... and not seeing it as being one, is what enables Keynesian economics, 'economic rights', 'spreading the wealth around' and every other leftist political position – they all come down in one way or another, to denying reality to be what it is... and there you may see where my amazement at your statement comes in.
I'm with JP. I can't think of any.
Van, on the "2+2=4" front, I propose this improvement:
"2 is not 3"
No need for complicated mathematics, I say. What you say?
Ricky said "2 is not 3"
Well... while I suppose you can get to One through the difference, still, saying that 2 is not 3, leaves a whole lot more open that it could be... and we all know what lawyers can do with those darned loopholes.
However if you want to go with the 'not', I'll siddle your way with saying that Aristotle's focus on non- contradiction, rather than mathematics, and though a bit less pithy, it's also far better than Rand's "A is A", for while hers says what 'A' is, it also leaves a lawyerly sized loophole open in not saying that it might not also be something else as well... and leaves context out in the cold.
..."Evidently then it belongs to the philosopher, i.e. to him who is studying the nature of all substance, to inquire also into the principles of syllogism. But he who knows best about each genus must be able to state the most certain principles of his subject, so that he whose subject is existing things qua existing must be able to state the most certain principles of all things. This is the philosopher, and the most certain principle of all is that regarding which it is impossible to be mistaken; for such a principle must be both the best known (for all men may be mistaken about things which they do not know), and non-hypothetical. For a principle which every one must have who understands anything that is, is not a hypothesis; and that which every one must know who knows anything, he must already have when he comes to a special study. Evidently then such a principle is the most certain of all; which principle this is, let us proceed to say.
It is, that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect; we must presuppose, to guard against dialectical objections, any further qualifications which might be added. This, then, is the most certain of all principles, since it answers to the definition given above. For it is impossible for any one to believe the same thing to be and not to be, as some think Heraclitus says. For what a man says, he does not necessarily believe; and if it is impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject (the usual qualifications must be presupposed in this premiss too), and if an opinion which contradicts another is contrary to it, obviously it is impossible for the same man at the same time to believe the same thing to be and not to be; for if a man were mistaken on this point he would have contrary opinions at the same time. It is for this reason that all who are carrying out a demonstration reduce it to this as an ultimate belief; for this is naturally the starting-point even for all the other axioms. "...
What you say?
He is a spitting mad, penciled dick Chiuaua. Any other questions? Oh yeah, he is married to a skank pretentious poodle with an attitude.
Van,
Me no like math. Me an engineer.
(hey, where'd yer comment go?)
Ricky said "Me no like math. Me an engineer."
Lol... me neither.
I think maybe Cuz has found the flask in the garage and whacked the comment... or it might be that weird google-linky hating thing again... I'll repaste and pop the link in the next.
Or Cuz may be on a roll and whack this one again just for grins... let's see,
Ricky said "2 is not 3"
Well... while I suppose you can get to One through the difference, still, saying that 2 is not 3, leaves a whole lot more open that it could be... and we all know what lawyers can do with those darned loopholes.
However if you want to go with the 'not', I'll siddle your way with saying that Aristotle's focus on non- contradiction, rather than mathematics, and though a bit less pithy, it's also far better than Rand's "A is A", for while hers says what 'A' is, it also leaves a lawyerly sized loophole open in not saying that it might not also be something else as well... and leaves context out in the cold.
..."Evidently then it belongs to the philosopher, i.e. to him who is studying the nature of all substance, to inquire also into the principles of syllogism. But he who knows best about each genus must be able to state the most certain principles of his subject, so that he whose subject is existing things qua existing must be able to state the most certain principles of all things. This is the philosopher, and the most certain principle of all is that regarding which it is impossible to be mistaken; for such a principle must be both the best known (for all men may be mistaken about things which they do not know), and non-hypothetical. For a principle which every one must have who understands anything that is, is not a hypothesis; and that which every one must know who knows anything, he must already have when he comes to a special study. Evidently then such a principle is the most certain of all; which principle this is, let us proceed to say.
It is, that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect; we must presuppose, to guard against dialectical objections, any further qualifications which might be added. This, then, is the most certain of all principles, since it answers to the definition given above. For it is impossible for any one to believe the same thing to be and not to be, as some think Heraclitus says. For what a man says, he does not necessarily believe; and if it is impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject (the usual qualifications must be presupposed in this premiss too), and if an opinion which contradicts another is contrary to it, obviously it is impossible for the same man at the same time to believe the same thing to be and not to be; for if a man were mistaken on this point he would have contrary opinions at the same time. It is for this reason that all who are carrying out a demonstration reduce it to this as an ultimate belief; for this is naturally the starting-point even for all the other axioms. "...
What you say?
... and here's the Aristotle link...
hmmm... being a flogger at heart, I'll try it one more time,
Ricky said "2 is not 3"
Well... while I suppose you can get to One through the difference, still, saying that 2 is not 3, leaves a whole lot more open that it could be... and we all know what lawyers can do with those darned loopholes.
However if you want to go with the 'not', I'll siddle your way with saying that Aristotle's focus on non- contradiction, rather than mathematics, and though a bit less pithy, it's also far better than Rand's "A is A", for while hers says what 'A' is, it also leaves a lawyerly sized loophole open in not saying that it might not also be something else as well... and leaves context out in the cold.
..."Evidently then it belongs to the philosopher, i.e. to him who is studying the nature of all substance, to inquire also into the principles of syllogism. But he who knows best about each genus must be able to state the most certain principles of his subject, so that he whose subject is existing things qua existing must be able to state the most certain principles of all things. This is the philosopher, and the most certain principle of all is that regarding which it is impossible to be mistaken; for such a principle must be both the best known (for all men may be mistaken about things which they do not know), and non-hypothetical. For a principle which every one must have who understands anything that is, is not a hypothesis; and that which every one must know who knows anything, he must already have when he comes to a special study. Evidently then such a principle is the most certain of all; which principle this is, let us proceed to say.
It is, that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect; we must presuppose, to guard against dialectical objections, any further qualifications which might be added. This, then, is the most certain of all principles, since it answers to the definition given above. For it is impossible for any one to believe the same thing to be and not to be, as some think Heraclitus says. For what a man says, he does not necessarily believe; and if it is impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject (the usual qualifications must be presupposed in this premiss too), and if an opinion which contradicts another is contrary to it, obviously it is impossible for the same man at the same time to believe the same thing to be and not to be; for if a man were mistaken on this point he would have contrary opinions at the same time. It is for this reason that all who are carrying out a demonstration reduce it to this as an ultimate belief; for this is naturally the starting-point even for all the other axioms. "...
hmmm strange goings on. Ricky, looks like you've got a gazillion links to this post... maybe the asteroid came closer than they thought.
Blue State Heel[er]
Those aren't my links.
(these aren't the links you're looking for)
You lost me.
links... droids... obi-wan... move along... nothing to see here... including my comment.
Blogger has an anti-Aristotle vendetta going....
Porkshare terrier.
As the Shop Steward of my Local Canine Companions Extraordinaire Union, I really must express most vigorously the linking of this Bounder with the Noble, Faithful and True members of my Species. Do not demean our service and our devotion...
Anyone else here read the Oath and the Ax? How about in the original French? I can't find the French version, but I'm curious how many of the bizarre little aspects of this book were introduced by the translator (far more common than many people realize).
In particular, what is up with the multiple non sequiter references to training dolphins to assist humans with fishing?
Van, I suppose it would help if I mentioned that I don't see what purpose my life is supposed to serve at this point.
I understand that the overarching goal is to achive the bright destiny of mankind, but in terms of my personal goal, I don't really have any at all at this point in my life.
The early part of my life was easy, since I was in school. Just graduate valedictorian and get a full scholarship in something. Check. Then get a law degree from a good law school so that I can make money and survive. Check. Get married. Check. Have kids. Check.
As far as I can tell, I'm faced with sheer boredom from here until death.
NB:
I read the Axe & the Oath. Didn't care for it. Nothing about dolphins, though. Just Dauphins.
Weenie dog.
JWM
JP said “The early part of my life was easy, since I was in school. Just graduate valedictorian and get a full scholarship in something. Check. Then get a law degree from a good law school so that I can make money and survive. Check. Get married. Check. Have kids. Check.”
Yep, hey good job on getting your outer goals checked! I came up short on #1 & #2,
“Just graduate valedictorian and get a full scholarship in something”... ”ehh!... well... at least you graduated, book store’s around the corner, move along”,
“Become rich & famous rock star”... ”ehh!... Thanks for playing! Please collect your ‘A for effort!’ prize and move along”,
But #3 & #4 I did pretty darn well at though, so I’m good there.
Now I’d humbly suggest for the inner goals, drop the goals altogether and just look. Worked for me anyway, and I tell you what, going from bouncing around on stage in front of hundreds of (sometimes) screaming fans... to wearing your name sewn on your shirt... that was a toughie to get used to.
But when I began to notice that “2+2=4” was a moral issue... every damn thing, statement, idea, began to take on hugely interesting and important significance, clues and messages, one leading on to the next, ever deepening and more fascinating than the last.
And all the more so, because it was important and present internally, even more so than externally.
Activities often bore me, especially the supposedly ‘exciting’ ones, but being ‘stuck’ with a spare moment on my hands is always a godsend.
(And I'll stop after this, but curious to see if it's the link that's causing it)
Ricky said "2 is not 3"
Well... while I suppose you can get to One through the difference, still, saying that 2 is not 3, leaves a whole lot more open that it could be... and we all know what lawyers can do with those darned loopholes.
However if you want to go with the 'not', I'll siddle your way with saying that Aristotle's focus on non- contradiction, rather than mathematics, and though a bit less pithy, it's also far better than Rand's "A is A", for while hers says what 'A' is, it also leaves a lawyerly sized loophole open in not saying that it might not also be something else as well... and leaves context out in the cold.
..."Evidently then it belongs to the philosopher, i.e. to him who is studying the nature of all substance, to inquire also into the principles of syllogism. But he who knows best about each genus must be able to state the most certain principles of his subject, so that he whose subject is existing things qua existing must be able to state the most certain principles of all things. This is the philosopher, and the most certain principle of all is that regarding which it is impossible to be mistaken; for such a principle must be both the best known (for all men may be mistaken about things which they do not know), and non-hypothetical. For a principle which every one must have who understands anything that is, is not a hypothesis; and that which every one must know who knows anything, he must already have when he comes to a special study. Evidently then such a principle is the most certain of all; which principle this is, let us proceed to say.
It is, that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect; we must presuppose, to guard against dialectical objections, any further qualifications which might be added. This, then, is the most certain of all principles, since it answers to the definition given above. For it is impossible for any one to believe the same thing to be and not to be, as some think Heraclitus says. For what a man says, he does not necessarily believe; and if it is impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject (the usual qualifications must be presupposed in this premiss too), and if an opinion which contradicts another is contrary to it, obviously it is impossible for the same man at the same time to believe the same thing to be and not to be; for if a man were mistaken on this point he would have contrary opinions at the same time. It is for this reason that all who are carrying out a demonstration reduce it to this as an ultimate belief; for this is naturally the starting-point even for all the other axioms. "...
What you say?
Van says:
"Yep, hey good job on getting your outer goals checked! I came up short on #1 & #2,"
It would have helped if my outer goals had originated with me, I suppose. I basically dredged them up from either my parents and/or my sense social obligation and/or a need to do something to make money (with the original intent to completey self-fund a political campaign later in life and create foundations so that my will could be exercised over future generations to create what I perceived as an asthetically pleasing society).
I did what my parents told me to do (graduate valedictorian) and then I majored in what they told me to major in (engineering). I realized that I would never make enough money as an engineer, so I went to law school for financial reaons (i.e. a higher salary).
I went to school in something i cared absolutely nothing about, chemical engineering. I basically committed academic suicide, and bailed out into law school as a last ditch effort to achive fiancial stability. Used my extreme innate intelligence to get a high standarized test score and then proceeded to commit academic suicide on purpose again, since I was bitter and burnt out on life. I also found that I had no interest whatsoever in law, but that was ok. Duke wouldn't really let you fail. I didn't attend much class and I did as little work as possible.
I even squeezed a year's tuition out of Duke. That was kind of fun.
And then I ended up as a lawyer.
It was only in doing my last job, basically representing the assorted bipolars, schizoaffectives, and suicidals of the world that I realized that psychology had anything whatsoever to offer to the world.
wv: cluman.
I could sure use a clue.
JP
As far as I can tell, I'm faced with sheer boredom from here until death.
Ah, the deadly depression of nihilistic ennui. Been there, done that. Didn't much care for the t-shirt.
Certainly, one may see one's life as boring, repetitive, and pointless; if atheism is true, in fact, then pointless is exactly right. But the vertical is real, and that changes everything.
As far as what to do about your circumstances, I highly recommend finding a way to be part of something you care about that is greater than yourself. Volunteer. Join a choir, or even better, a church. Learn a new skill. Preferably, this would be something away from home and family (though I get the sense that may be problematic). Above all, pray, and listen with an open heart for guidance, and as Van said already, drop the checklist. Life is what happens when you're making other plans.
The point of making one of these changes is to remember that you matter. Not just as generic husband/ father/ work unit, but as an individual human being who can give and receive something of the spark of creation. There must be something you know you could do in that regard. Find a way to make it important, and try it.
Right now, I bet you go through your days with your head down, just struggling to get through the grind except for a couple bright moments here and there, and all you can see is time stretching out ahead in a uniform, relentless gray funk. If so, that's what you see because that's what you expect to see. The checklist is complete, but you haven't accounted for anything beyond it, so you see nothing. It's very difficult, I know, to break out of that vision, and stories abound of good men who went to their end in just such a way. It doesn't have to be that way.
I'm making a lot of assumptions, I know, so my apologies if I misread the situation. But if I'm right...
open your mind to the possibility that each day can be an adventure that brings you closer to the source. If a chance to step off your beaten path comes, take it. Maybe it'll go nowhere, or maybe it'll go nOw-here. It's the mystery that's important.
Again, above all, pray - and listen. Because you do matter, and there's something you could be doing that would help you to realize that truth.
JP - one more thing that just popped into my head, and again my apologies if I'm off base...
Forgive them.
I don't know who, what or why, but if you're holding on to a lot of anger about how things were, it is holding you back. Anger can be righteous, but too much for too long is simply poison. Let it go, and while you're praying for yourself, maybe pray for them, too. I'll bet they need it just as much as you do.
Van,
I did receive the email since I subscribed to them at my first comment.
Thanks.
Post a Comment