Artful Dodger: [ Maybe they think he's hungry? ]


Naaa, I don't think their first instinct would be to say, "Hey, if you're hungry just take a bite out of me. That should hold you until dinner... or until the next woman walks by."

Women should carry treats with them in case they ever run across a hungry looking man. Seriously, there are hungry men everywhere you go, so why wouldn't they? If they are going to take precautions against getting pregnant then it only makes sense they should also take precautions against getting chewed on.

Artful Dodger: I tried to find the exact meaning of the expression "bite me", but all I've been able to come away with is the understanding that it's not meant to be a compliment... big deal, I knew that before I began my time consuming in-depth two minute research project.

The Col: [ btw, I have only heard women say "bite me" ]

I've heard women say all sorts of things, but never that. Why would they say that to you?

The Col: FYI I generally like to keep my messages limited to one two posts per idea. Three if needed.

I COULD make very short and concise statements for your benefit, so you are able to digest it all without too much trouble. But frankly, if I need to walk you through every little detail with one short message after another this could easliy take up an entire page doing nothing more than that. I can do this, and have done this for my children when they were young because of their limited knowledge and attention spans, but I will not be doing this for you.

The Col: And I'm sure you took a quick flight down the map to look up the old timers from my home town, to ask them about it as well. I probably should have told you they are all dead now, and saved you the trip. I was a boy at the time and they were old enough to be my grandparents. But I am having fun reading your insightful comments, so please... do continue.

The Col: You missed the point, but then go on to explain the point I was making... to me?

I'll have to mull that one over, because I'm not really sure what kind of turn around you are trying to pull here. Or maybe you're not trying to do anything like that, maybe you really don't get it.

The meaning of pot calling the kettle black is to illustrate hypocrisy. I didn't say the meaning of the statement is racist, I was merely pointing out how an original subtext of that statement no longer applies or is even relevant anymore. And I'm not surprised by your knee jerk reaction, I've come to expect it... in fact I have yet to see either you or V understand or respond to anything I've actually been saying. But maybe that's been my fault, because unless I spell everything out for you guys you just don't seem to get it.

Anyway, here's another one of those kind of statements, and you are free to disagree with me about this as well... "one got in over the fence." The literal meaning is, a dog gets in over the fence and impregnates someone elses dog. But one of the originally underlying (flies below the radar) meanings of that has also been been nulified by time and changes in attitudes.

I grew up in a small community where racist attitudes were the norm. I learned what some of those sayings actually meant back then from listening to the old timers. I didn't understand until I was older that these guy were actually transplants from a different time and a different place. They were kind of like the aging hippies we have today, who still get off on "free sex" and drugs and rock and roll and spouting off that all Republicans are warmongers. But don't tell the old hippies that, because they still think this is the 60's and you shouldn't trust anyone over 30...

Maybe it's time grandpa hippy pants should take a long look in the mirror at himself, and realise he passed the age of 30 about 40 years ago.

(V): [ Just the ones that try and make you feel good? What about the ones designed to make you feel insecure or afraid... seems you've got some listening to learn ]

Good point. I'm surprised you caught that one, but not so surprised you miss the connection between fear mongering and phony warnings over things like global warming or "Oh, no... the earth is running out of resources so we need to stop drilling for oil!" Or, we need to get as many contraceptives for women as we can, because... uh, because we men respect them and, and... because we don't want to have to spend the rest of our lives paying for some brat just because we can't keep our pants zipped up... because we respect them!

My favorite attempt at fear mongering is when someone claims we are "hurting the earth". But maybe they too have a point, and should encourage everyone to have a pet rock to care for, so they may learn the value of caring for inanimate objects. And just to make it clear so there is no hint of inconsistency with this liberal line of thinking, babies in the womb are NOT inanimate objects... so caring for them, let alone caring anything about them, is simply not an issue.

I wanted to be a liberal at one time, but I never could follow the herd all the way down the path to Insanity Meadows. By the way, that would be a good name for a nursing home for elderly hippies and radicals from the 60's... only one problem with that though, they are not inanimate objects either.
Well, not yet.

(V): [ pot calling kettle black ]

Are you aware of the origins of that expression? Most people are aware of what it means, but not the racist overtones it once meant to convey. I'll give you a hint, it's like saying "A person of color calling another person of color a person of color."

Artful Dodger: All right, so maybe the lemon flavored stuff isn't so great... have you tried the lemon lime?

They say once you've had the lemon lime there is no going back... and by "they" I mean me.

Übergeek 바둑이: Very interesting stats. I am in the 50-64 year old group, but I actually belonged to that group when I was in the 30-39 year range.

So here's an interesting question... In light of those stats (I believe they are accurate) how popular do you believe Reagan would be today compared to how popular he was with voters during his tenure? It seems to me he would have been no more popular among voters today than Romney was.

(V): [ "More people are out of work, and have stopped drinking the koolaid because now they'd rather know (instead of being told) how our economy actually works."

....??? a tasteless reference to the Jones town massacre?? ]


That response of yours was such a good example of what we "right wing extremists" have been trying to tell people, that I've been waiting for the right time to respond to it.

It's only "...a tasteless reference to the Jones town massacre" if you learn nothing from it. The trend in US politics from the liberal side has been to promote a "cult (or culture) of personality"... taking the focus off policies and placing it squarely on the personality of a leader. In the Jones town example, the reason so many people followed a cult leader and were willing to do anything he said is precisely because he was able to influence them through manipulating their emotions... and by discouraging any rational or independent thinking of their own.

Obama has successfully tapped into our national obsession with personality. As a nation we have gradually lost the ability to resist the cult like loyalty and devotion to persons (or political parties) rather than to an ideology. And by "ideology" I mean core beliefs that enable people to resist what cults do best, appealing primarily to our emotions and making us "feel good". I like feeling good too, I don't know who doesn't, but not at the expense of what can happen if I only follow my feelings.

I've made huge mistakes believing people who don't really say anything substantive, and falling for their pitches. But that was a long time ago, and I no longer worry about resisting questionable sales pitches. If I hear a message that appears tailored only to making me feel good, then I immediately become suspicious. This has worked very well for me... the last time I got conned it only cost me a dollar or two, but I can live with that. But even when you become "cult proofed" or "con proofed" it doesn't stop them from trying... I'm always amused when someone works hard to talk me into something, but doesn't realize he is actually talking me out of it.

The Col: [ shouldda been a comma after "reject" ]

Doh!! Of course... that was it! It was missing a comma. How could I have missed that?

(V): I was thinking of asking you to translate if for me, seeing as how you both speak the same "language", but that would be like hauling coals to Newcatstle. I was also thinking maybe I could get it translated from English into... English? But it was actually the message itself (not the garbled language) I found amusing. The idea that Christie must not read what AD says (at this board?) was hilarious. But who knows, in the near future there could actually be laws to regulated what people may or may not read. There are laws in existence now that people 40 years ago would have scoffed at you for even suggesting could be become law.

The Col: What about my views? Is it okay for Christie to log onto brainking and read my views?

By the way, have you informed Christie whose views he may view and whose views he may not view? If he doesn't hear from you soon he might just go ahead and read any 'ol darn thing he wants to, whether you approve of it or not.

So anywho, how's the view up there on your high horsey thingy there... can you see all of us from up there okay, eh?

[]_ [[]] []_

The Col: Christie must reject from reading AD's views?

(V): [ Now.. what regulations were you referring to in this...
"Technically, it's illegal to have an underground economy that avoids regulations paperwork and taxation, but when government makes it impractical to do business legally then underground economies will thrive" ]

You really do have a one track mind. I wasn't referring to regulations nor rules nor off shore accounts nor anything else you seem to wish limiting the conversation to.

I was merely referring to a fact of life. Underground economies can and do exist, either because they deal in illegal activities (theft, drug and gun running, prostitution, extortion, etc.) or because their existence is a natural reaction to over taxation and over regulation that restrict rather than encourage otherwise acceptable free trade practices. My focus is NOT on what are generally accepted to be illegal activities, but rather on naturally emergent underground economies that come about due to heavy handed governmental interference in day to day LEGITIMATE business activities.

If this is confusing, then all you really need to take from this is (and here I go quoting myself again) --->

---> "...when government makes it impractical to do business legally then underground economies will thrive."

Again, I am NOT referring to any particular rule or regulation. All I am saying is "...when government (any government) makes it impractical (for private citizens) to do business legally (and by impractical I mean difficult to the point of not being able to effectively engage in business) then underground economies will thrive."

If there is a need that cannot be supplied, or supplied well, through a government sanctioned (government approved) economy, then usually what happens is an underground (not government approved) economy will naturally emerge.

That was my point. It had nothing to do with any particular rule or regulation... nor did it have anything to do with aliens from outer space, nor the Easter Bunny nor Santa Claus nor the one religion on this planet that bothers you so much you feel compeled to rag endlessly on and on about it even though but especially if it has nothing at all to do with what is being discussed.

This could be from lack of sleep, but I could swear I'm seeing before me very eyes a shift in "ideology" from some who not long ago were approving of voter fraud, but now seem to be disapproving of voter fraud. There must a reason for this dramatic shift in attitude... whatever could that reason be?



Okay, yes, I admit it... that WAS a rhetorical question.

*</:op

We should leave what is left of the earth's oil where it is. At the same time, we should be looking at technologies that may enable us to replace the missing oil with a syntheic whale-like blubber substitute because we can't afford to kill any more whales if they are needed for other things in the future.

Don't conservatives know anything about science? Underground reserviors of crude oil lubricate the earth's crust and keep earthquake/volcanic activity to a minimum. The reason for startling increases of both earthquake and volcanic activity over the past 50 years can be directly linked to how much oil we have already sucked up from under the earth's crust.

The natural lubricating properties of oil over the past 5 gazillion years has stabilized the earth's crust by minimizing friction between tectonic plates, causing the surface of the earth (where most of us live) to become less volcanic and gassy than it was many eons ago before we was here. If we remove most or all of that oil, we will wish we only had to worry about global warming... followed by global cooling, with intermittent periods of mild temperatures and occasional precipitation.

Bwild: [ I really dont think anyone has the answers...but big business funded dems and repubs....got to go!!! ]

I hate to say this, especially right after you backed me up (I did appreciate that) but I don't believe we would be better off with a third party alternative to Democrats and Republicans. When I was thinking of switching parties I first considered registering as an Independent, so I wouldn't feel I was limiting myself to supporting any particular party. I decided to switch to registering as a Republican not because it was perfect, but because it was the party that came the closest to representing my point of view. But as far as big business or any other group (or individual) who gives money to one side or the other is concerned, if the Independent party grew to the point where it could become a serious contender then it would have to accept money as well just to stay in the game. I'm not going to say "sad but true", because to my way of thinking it's just a fact of life... like paying for groceries or anything else you want to have. Actually, it's more like an investment, because it's not perfectly clear even to the investor how it might benefit him or not. Not everyone gives in the hope of a personal kickback, and it's not always some plus/minus game these people are playing when they donate to a campaign. The benefits many contributors are hoping for are intangible rather than tangible... benefits like a better economic environment for working families and individuals, where they have a chance to get ahead instead of only working to not lose what they have.

Personally, I won't throw millions of dollars to anyones campaign because I don't have millions of dollars to spare... if a bum walks up to me on the street and asks for spare change, all I can do is to tell him...
"Well gosh, if I just had a few more million dollars to my name I could spare a little change, but I don't know how long I'll be able to hang on to what I have. Look me up after the election, then I'll know if I can help you out or not."


I've been up all night, so if there is a point I'm trying to make then I'm afraid it's up to you to figure out what it is... because I've already distracted myself into wandering into some other area of the Twilight Zone...

On the up side though, I believe I now know what Darth Evaders problem has been all this time. He just needs to get more sleep, a LOT more sleep... a hibernation type ultra REM sleep.

(V): [ the story is that if your country relied purely on internal stocks you'd run out of cheap oil quickly. Your country consumes more than it can provide itself on a reasonably sustainable level. Everyone knows that I thought.. maybe you are an exception ]

If I was a liberal then yes, I would be an exception to the rule of not telling anyone about how much oil we could be getting from our own sources.

And yes, all of the oil (every bit of it) in the whole wide world would eventually run out sometime in the future, but not nearly as soon as we have been told. After liberals restricted the drilling of oil and the building of new oil refineries in MY country, they then pointed to dependence on foreign oil as their reason for promoting other energy sources... many of which would be coming online in the future anyway as technology continues to naturally progress. But instead of letting free market forces and the natural progression of technology run it's course, liberals want to be in control of that process themselves.

However, in the process of gaining control over this for themselves, they have managed (as they always seem to do) to gum up the works and slow down that very progress they wish to take credit for. They can't be content with simply letting it happen, they feel they must make it happen.

I don't know where you get your information, but I suspect it's from sources commited to not telling the whole story and for reasons I've already explained. The US has over the years discovered enough untapped oil to live very comfortably and for a very long time, without needing to import oil from anwhere else. The reason we are as dependent as we are on foreign oil are the roadblocks and restrictions liberals have put into place. If those restrictions are lifted, along with restrictions against building new oil refineries, we could become just as independent as any other country that does not restrict itself from tapping into oil in areas that belong to them.

(V): "Other than yourself, no one said anything about free enterprise with no rules."

[ So.. what regulations would you keep? Be clear for once if you can. ]

Very well, I will clearly state for you here and now that I said nothing about "free interprise with no rules". You added that bit about "with no rules" to it... that did not come from me, it came from you. Do not expect me to continue commenting on your responses to straw men. When you are able to read without adding your own bits here and removing things there, maybe then we can have an adult conversation.
Maybe...

(V): "...various ways to escape paying taxes. Legal one... that's the joke. It's legal to avoid paying taxes if you are rich.. something a ordinary man does not have the ability to do."

The ordinary man isn't required to pay 40% to 70% of his income in taxes. The ordinary man can escape paying this higher tax rate by simply not being wealthy. So one way to look at this is that NOT being wealthy is in effect a tax break for the ordinary man, because he is soaked at a lower rate than his wealthy counterpart.

"But please tell me how this free enterprise with no rules works?"

Other than yourself, no one said anything about free enterprise with no rules.

"What safeties are there to protect us from fraud, lies, death in your world?"

What safeties did you have in mind, or are you asking because you don't know? As far as safeties to protect you from death... well, don't be a klutz and watch where you are going, avoid fatty foods and don't drink too much alcohol or smoke too much weed or watch too much porno or tell ANY woman those pants make your butt look fat. Also, you should occasionally look up and watch out for falling anvils and pianos, drink plenty of fluids before going to bed at night and throw salt over your shoulder if you spill any and try not to break any mirrors (that one actually falls under the heading of don't be a klutz) and take two aspirin but don't call me in the morning... there are many other precautions you should take, but you are going to die someday anyway, and your chances of being raptured away grow slimmer by the day, so seeing as how I weary of my own ramblings I'll see you tomorrow if you live long enough to get there...

(V): "So why has our nations supported so many in return for ore and crude oil?"

If dependence on foreign oil is so bad then why do liberals want us to remain dependent? We have enough untapped oil here to become independent of any foreign oil. So what's the story here (V), are you for the liberal agenda or against it?

"If the companies exploiting Cuba had not done so with such disregard for the locals... Would Castro have risen to power so dramatically?"

So Castro was actually revolting against US companies... but if aliens from outer space had gotten involved to protect US companies like Hasbro and Pepsi Cola then Castro would have still revolted and taken over the US securities and exchange commission's oversight committee chairmanship and positioned himself to go on from there to rule Cuba.

"... It's recorded in records.. Resources to the civilised world... guns and bullets to keep control in foreign lands."

So I guess that means you are for gun control, to limit individual gun ownership so as to insure foreign forces will meet with no significant resistance from the locals. What do you care if the locals are armed and able to protect themselves? How does that impact you, or in any way create for you an intolerable impaction with no relief in sight?

Artful Dodger: 45 people? Did they have to bus people in from other states?

(V): You are moralizing, and not really saying anything about the legality of business practices. Technically, it's illegal to have an underground economy that avoids regulations paperwork and taxation, but when government makes it impractical to do business legally then underground economies will thrive, according to the same principles of supply and demand that have proven to work in sanctioned business practices.

When government limits it's mandate to ONLY governing, and keeps it's hands off business except when laws are violated, then those underground economies shrink to accomodate already established illegal activities such as prostitution and drugs and illegal gun running (Fast and Furious)... in other words, the "thou shalt not steal" sort of laws designed to protect people. But if government gets itself involved in truely illegal activities as we've seen in petty dictatorships, then it's anyones guess what can happen next... and it's usually not anything good, except maybe for the petty dictator.

The only reason our nation (as well as yours) was able to become very prosperous as quickly as it did was because there were enough people acting on solid moral principles. You might want to believe it was for other reasons, but the connection between moral values and a nations safety and prosperity has been proven by history time after time after time... which to my mind means after several years of letting ourselves go, so to speak, we have put ourselves in the position of losing more ground than we have gained.

The last four years has been like a doctor treating a guy with an cut on his finger by breaking his legs and cracking open his skull. I think Obama has easily broken all past records of how much damage one president can do in four short years... and he couldn't have done it without the help of our major news organizations and the Democratic party machine... a puppet cannot stand up and walk around and mouth words all by itself.

(V): Have you ever asked yourself why any big business would contribute heavily to a candidate who vows to raise taxes on big business? How can any business benefit from supporting higher taxes on their own business? Are they drunk on the koolaid and now believe giving it all away is the key to more profits? Actually, IMO if you look past the surface it appears to be a smart move and strictly a business calculation... it's not really a sacrafice if it gains you more profits in the long run.

It's because big business knows that in spite of the rhetoric leading peons like you and me to believe ONLY big business will be impacted, in reality all businesses are impacted by higher taxes. Bigger business can absorb the impact while smaller competitors are severly hamstrung or forced out of business, and can be bought out by their larger competitors. The key word here is "competitors". Raising taxes on the rich in effect causes less competition from rivals, which in turn allows prices to remain fixed (not go down). Competition is what leads to greater efficiency, which in turn allows for lower prices... prices become lower because you have various businesses competing in the same markets. Consumers usually don't have a problem with paying lower prices for the same things... only a moron would choose to pay more, but fortunately reasonable people still outnumber the morons. (I hope so)

In the long run a big business can benefit by elimation of competition, but everyone knows (or should) that competition is what causes prices to go down over time. A free market benefits everyone, especially the consumer.

This is basic economics that anyone can understand. Places like your London School of Economics is a great place to go if you want to become proficient in the esoteric art of forcasting, but for gubbers like me (and most other people) it's unnecessary overkill.

I have to say though, when the government can legally take over a business and force it to make bad investments, that is not good for anyone. Our housing crises can be blamed on large part because Democrats in congress put pressure on our banks to make bad loans. The idea was that anyone should be able to own their own home, even if they couldn't afford a down payment or the risk of default was high. Politicians who "feel our pain" and get what they want because of appeals to emotion end up being the biggest pains in our butts. They are long on promises and short on delivery.

By the way, since your knickers seem to permantly be in a twist over off shore accounts and people trying to avoid getting screwed by unfair tax laws, then maybe the government should step in and take over any and all businesses. That would go a long way to solving the unfairness problem. What do you think?

Artful Dodger: You were a liberal? When did you change your mind, and what changed your mind?

Our new and improved progressive economy is the future of "free" trade... light on the supply side and heavy on the demand.

Artful Dodger: "I'm just a white guy with an ID (since I was 16). And here I thought I was stupid back then!"

I was a 16 year old white guy too! We really do have a lot in common, I mean, what are the odds? I'm not 16 anymore, but I'm still white... and still a guy. I suppose that isn't going to change anytime soon. Actually, the liver spots on my hands say otherwise... if I was a horse I'd be a palomino.

At 16 you're not really stupid, just naive. Even smart people are naive at 16. Though after 30 not being any brighter than you were at 16 is... well, it's no longer naivety. Then it really can be called stupid. And the older someone gets after that (without gaining any wisdom) the stupider they become... until one day it can be said "There's no fool like an old fool."

(V): "4 more years?? Either way, the GOP is facing having to appeal to a more wider voting base."

The GOP is already appealing to a wider base, including Independents and many people who voted for Obama 4 years ago. And there also are more people who have decided class envy and raising taxes on the rich does nothing to free up money for growth and investment. More people are out of work, and have stopped drinking the koolaid because now they'd rather know (instead of being told) how our economy actually works. They've seen first hand what can happen when someone starts playing around and screwing with the economy, adding obstacles to free market growth rather than removing them. This so called "taxing the rich" ploy ends up raises taxes on all businesses and costs are passed along to consumers... because inevitably that is what happens when "only the rich" are taxed.

There is plenty of money right now just sitting on the sidelines, ready to be pumped in as soon as investors know they will not be simply throwing their money down an endless tax and spend rat hole. 4 more years of Obama means the choices are to continue sitting on their money, or watch it go away in higher taxes and more restrictions on how they are allowed to run their business. So tell me, does your government over there tell you how to spend your monthly stipend? If not, why? Why should you enjoy MORE freedom in deciding what to do with YOUR money than someone who works long hours hoping to stratch out a living?

It's Obama's base that has been dwindling, but he is still trying to appeal to them hoping there are more of them than anyone else can see. Who knows, maybe he really is the magical man. Maybe he can see things the rest of us can't see.

What we know now about the Benghazi attack is astonishing. We know at least three requests for help were denied. Hillary was the first to make such a request... it was based on what she knew about Al Qaeda amassing forces and getting ready to attack the embassay.

Everyone at the highest levels knew this was coming. Then after it was over a video story is concocted to make it look like no one saw this coming, and we are expected to believe nothing could have been done about it... a protest mob spontaniously erupts into violence, so there was no time to respond. We now know this was a lie, a fabricated story to replace the true account of what really happened. But I still can't understand why the president did nothing to help. If he had said yes go help them, get them out there immediately, then when the story got out he would look like a hero... granted, an armchair hero, but it certainly wouldn't hurt his standing with the voters THIS close to the election. Instead, all he does is watch the 7 hour assault and murder of four people from a surveillance drone.

Until we find out exactly why the president rejected at least three urgent requests for help, then none of this makes any sense. Even after the attack started we had fighter jets stationed in Italy waiting for the order to go, and two groups of operatives stationed near the embassay waiting for a go order... but again, nothing.

All Obama had to do was say go for it, get our people out of there. There must be something he is afraid of more than doing the right thing and looking like a hero. This is something I know I'll have to wait to find out, after what I'm sure will be a lengthly investigation. Even the Democrats in congress want to know what the hell was going on, why did he just simply sit and watch 7 hours of battle taking place without doing one thing to stop it? Did he think he watching a movie, or that it was only a video game?

Less than a week to go, but there is still time for the president to pull one more boneheaded stunt before the election.

The Benghazi story is not likely to go away or fizzle out like Fast and Furious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t82D8QT4TPs&feature=relmfu

6 tips on how to handle office politics

Consider this: Almost two-thirds of workers interviewed by Robert Half International said involvement in office politics is at least somewhat necessary to get ahead today. The key is to remain attuned to workplace dynamics without getting drawn into power struggles or playing petty games.

Here's a rundown of some of the most prevalent political players in the office, along with tips for working with them:

The Gossip Hound. This person loves spreading rumors and can often be found hovering around the water cooler, speculating about sensitive issues. Keep your distance from the Gossip Hound and don't say anything you wouldn't say to someone directly. Although this person may provide accurate or relevant information on occasion, that's not reason enough to allow yourself to be pulled into corrosive conversations.

The Credit Thief. This individual loves the spotlight and relishes taking credit for other people's work. When something goes wrong, the Credit Thief is nowhere to be seen.

When collaborating with this person, document your contributions and provide regular updates to your supervisor so he is aware of your work. Don't hesitate to correct misperceptions about who did what.

The Sycophant. "Shameless" is this person's middle name. She will offer excessive flattery to anyone who is in a position of power, ignoring anyone below the highest levels.

Although it may be hard to watch, don't sweat the Sycophant's tactics. Most managers can see through this type of person. Also be sure to give kudos to deserving individuals, regardless of their position.

If the Sycophant displays a sudden shift in attitude toward you, be wary. She could be buttering you up for a favor.

The Saboteur. Watch your back when working with this person, who loves to play the blame game and make others look bad. Limit your interaction with this master manipulator, and don't back down if the Saboteur's tactics become apparent. Often, he will retreat when confronted.

The Lobbyist. The Lobbyist is passionate about her projects and ways of doing things. This individual advocates strongly for support but is often unreceptive to outside points of view.

When collaborating with the Lobbyist on projects, be aware of the agenda she is pushing, and be willing to stand up for your ideas.

The Adviser. The office's most influential people aren't always the most high-ranking or high-profile employees. For example, this professional is often closely aligned with an executive and serves as his eyes and ears. Develop a good rapport with the Adviser because he could have a direct line to the top.

How you handle sensitive workplace dynamics can make or break your professional prospects. But navigating office politics doesn't have to be complex. More than anything, it simply involves common sense, courtesy and compromise. Showcase your savvy by carefully observing your office environment -- and the players who make up the scene -- without getting mired in political pitfalls.

For more advice on keeping a positive political tone at work, download this free career guide: "How to Navigate Office Politics: Your Guide to Getting Ahead" at www.roberthalf.com/bloopers.

Uh ohhhh! Don't look now, but I do believe someone wishes to have a word with you...

Artful Dodger: Don't bother me, I'm very sleepy and have immersed meself in a study of network analysis pertaining to historical relevance of past events (((((i.e. the 60's))))) as may potentially relate to today's presently warming political climate change and hope this won't take too long because it's all I can do right now to keep my eye lids up and peepers in focus.

Obama is a zero,
He is no wartime hero;
And as Allah is his witness
He is working to deplete us

Nero was a zero,
he was no big shot hero;
he thought he was a winner,
but I say he's a wiener.

Artful Dodger: [ show me where there is such wide spread abuses from the Right. ]

Maybe later. He's studying past history at the moment and can't be bothered by irrelevant distractions. There is a time for discussion, and a time for study...


Uh oh ... Sensing fits of laughter surfacing within meself, so I shall be excusing meself as well.

(V): If it's not "less bad", then you should have no trouble finding examples to match what AD has shown.

By the way, I saw a newscast about how yard signs supporting Obama were being defaced in a nearby city, and also a report about someone seeing a man urinating on an Obama sign in the same neighborhood. What the news station did NOT report later in the week is that some of those men were caught doing this, and they all lived in the same neighborhood where this was happening.

But here's the kicker... those men were registered Democrats, and one of them was seen in his own front yard defacing his own sign.

(V): LoL

I will continue to read and post messages, but I leave the soap opera part for others to enjoy.

(V): Are you saying (or implying) you beat the "real devil"? I don't know if that is what you mean because you are still talking about an imaginary devil... and are blaming your fake devil on people you think are trying to scare others.

I see you have much to say about what you say I and some others say, but don't have much to say about anything actually said. If that's your game then sure, I can bs along with you and make stuff up if it amuses you. I can play along for as long as it amuses me... but truth be told, it doesn't. Pulling fake arguments out of the air and telling people what they think (instead of listening) is what it is.

Artful Dodger: "do you know who said that first?"

You have to go into debt to get out of debt?... I want to say Obama, because that's probably where that liberal first heard it, but I think some "economist" came up with that theory a few years back. Might have been around the time of FDR, or even before that.

(V): "I beat up the devil years ago."

Really? Wow. You beat up what you believe to be an imaginary being years ago... I must admit I am impressed.

By the way, I beat up Mike Tyson and Rocky Balboa at the same time and with both my hands tied behind my back.

(V): So now you are saying God is on your side in the war against babies... and free will is evidence He approves your cause?

I don't think you need God's permission or help with this, because babies put up very little resistance. Babies can't fight back... well, not enough for it to become a problem for you. Some of them have survived the ongoing holocaust, but their numbers are very small and you are still the victors in this battle. So pat yourselves on the back and praise one another for victories in an ongoing battle against the enemy.

You know who your enemy is, but they are very small and defenseless, so you will undoubtedly win and the god of your war will reward you with hundreds of virgins.
FYI, not all of them will be pretty, and not all of them will be female.. so prepare yourself for a few surprises when you get there.

Artful Dodger: I can't watch actual abortion pictures or clips, it's too disturbing. I clicked on a link you put up showing an abortion but I had to stop watching it. I think for some people if they see that it will drive the point home, but for others it doesn't seem to mean anything. And listening to an actual survivor of abortion would I think make it clear just "what" (or who) it is that is being aborted. But again, for some people it seems to mean nothing.

I thought people who became outraged over animal abuse, but didn't bat an eye over babies being tormented and killed, I used to think they were shameless hypocrites. But now I have a different take on that, because even a hypocrite is able to know the difference between what he says and what he does. Anyone who thinks it's okay to kill babies but is outraged over animal abuse has actually gone a step or two beyond hypocrisy... feeling empathy towards animals but no empathy towards people (especially baby people) borders on the pathological. When I see this kind of disconnect among otherwise normally well ballanced people, I know something has gone terribly wrong in our society. Normal has been re-defined to mean something else... the distinction between normal and seriously abnormal behaviour has become blurred.

The Col: Those other neighbors were women, and they obviously didn't want to speak to me. They would quickly leave if they were there when I got home. I saw that behaviour as evidence my wife was not exaggerating or being oversensitive.

Gallantly rushing to their homes to tell them off wouldn't have accomplished anything. They undoubtedly would have lied to my face and claimed I was being a bully. As it turned out there was no need to intervene, because my wife was able to deal with it. And I was proud of her for standing up to them... but I guess that's just me.

By the way, I did get a chance to meet their husbands sometime afterwards. The subject never came up. Either they were unaware of what their wives had been doing, or they didn't care. NIce enough guys, but probably didn't know what was happening on the homefront. I only knew about it because my wife told me.

To whom it may concern: or anyone with an opinion as to how US citizens should behave, or who we should vote for.


This was a long time ago, but I often came home from work to an upset wife because a few neighbors were giving her a hard time. Apparently they were telling her what we were doing wrong and how we should raise our children. I tried comforting her but that never helped. So finally I told her not to wait until I come home to tell me about it... just tell those clowns to piss off and mind their own business. She didn't want to confront anyone, so then I told her if you saw them walking into your backyard and pissing all over your flowers, what would you do then? Never heard stories about problem neighbors after that.


A few years before that she went ballistic when she saw a young teenager taking a dump on our welcome mat. So I knew there was warrior spirit hiding somewhere in that cute little package.
Yowzaaa!

Artful Dodger: I watched that clip where one abortion survivor talks about it. For someone to understand they were not wanted is difficult enough, but having to live with the knowledge their mother wanted them dead seems almost unimaginable. In situations like that, learning to forgive does more for the one who does the forgiving than for the people being forgiven... but in the long run I believe it works out better for all concerned.

It happened on 9/11 ... of THIS year.