I would like to take a moment to welcome aboard Tom in Texas.
Long time readers will remember when this site was one-man operation, and it was only on a whim that I invited Tim aboard a year ago (has it really been that long?). In fact, it was with a great deal of trepidation that I invited Tim aboard, as this was my baby for so long. The fact that Tim has done such a great job, filling in the gaps when I was unmotivated/disinterested/burnt out/disgusted, that made bringing Tom in Texas on board a no-brainer. This site may have a different feel to some of the original readers, but I think this has become a better and more readable website and I really like our community we have built (I can not believe I just used the word community. I feel so hippy.).
At any rate, I hope you all treat Tom in Texas just like you would Tim or me (which means, Tom, be prepared to be both excoriated and lavished with praise for every post, and to have every word or phrase dissected to the atomic level of meaning), and I am really excited to read what you have to say.
Good luck, and welcome aboard.
And Go STEELERS!
In keeping with John’s instructions:
So Tom in Texas, how long have you been a Bush apologist?
Will you disavow the Republican party whom you helped elect in 2000?
What do you think of Cindy Sheehan?
Good one, John (Galt).
As long as Tom contributes on the Mon-Weds BJ lull time with some meaty posts, i’ll forgive the wine and cheese essays…
Oh, and welcome…
After all that Worthlessberger has been thru, I’m a little surprised by this:
Indy without James is like Grampa without Viagra–they’re just not going to score that much. For Indy to be the odd-on fav is crap.
And the Steelers picked so high to win after losing 2 good recievers and the all-around threat, Randle El, is also stunning. I think the Steelers are one savage hit on Duce or Parker and they’re 9-7.
I see the Bungles taking the AFC, as long as Palmer stays off the stretcher…in other words, as long as he doesn’t Rex himself (Bears fans everywhere nodding in agreement)…
It’s all about People Power.
Welcome aboard, Tom. As long as you’re not a goddamn Cowboys fan.
Tom in Texas
I consider the Cowboys to be everything that is wrong with the NFL. They are the Yankees or the Lakers of their professional sport. Jerry Jones, like Mark Cuban, is nothing more than a kid with a fantasy team. I’m a little bit happy after a Cowboys intrasquad, simply because one side got burned. I boldly predict the Bengals will win their division because they’ve got a ton of offensive talent and Marvin Lewis is a brilliant defensive mind and motivator. I could care less who wins the NFC because there are at least six teams in the AFC that could win that conference outright.
And John, thank you again for the invite. I fully anticipate discovering in the coming days that I am an anarchistic fascist who simultaneously wants to turn America into Red China, depending on whether its Darrel or Thyme/Nut doing the characterizing. Should be fun.
Tom in Texas
And Mr Galt (as well as all others);
I apologize for 2000. I honestly thought at the time that Gore and Bush were virtually identical, and that it didn’t really matter anyway. I felt Gore was the candidate pandering to the extremists in his party for the nod (yes I know how wrong I was). I was an apologist for Bush until late 2002 or thereabouts. Several issues caused my reversal. Primarily I didn’t agree with going into Iraq, Enron revolted me, and I am a firm believer in federally funded stem cell research.
Tom in Texas,
I’m with you there–I didn’t see how either candidate could manage to screw up the peace and prosperity I had started taking for granted over the past few years or so. I would have voted for Nader in 2000 if I could have, but votes for Nader (even write-in votes!) weren’t counted in NC. So I didn’t vote in 2000, and I voted for Kerry in 2004 (not that either vote had an effect there…).
Tom in Texas
I didn’t vote for Nader in 2000 because the Green Party activists were obnoxious in trying to recruit me. I couldn’t stand my friends at parties yammering about how the answer was no NAFTA and how the WTO was some NWOish trilateral commission bent on ruling the world. FWIW I still consider pretty much all activists obnoxious, regardless of affiliation. It is, however, no longer a major factor in my vote. It’s whether the party panders to their extremists that I pay attention to.
Well, if you’d just get on that recumbent bike instead of using it as a clothes hanger…
Jeez, of all the things I’ve ever thought John might be, a hippie was never one of them.
Oh… you meant he’s “hippy”?
Never mind, then.
Still amazes me…the extent to which our (liberal) media convinced so many that W was the moderate and that Gore wanted to disassemble capitalism. A suprisingly large percentage of even particularly intelligent self-described libertarians share this viewpoint to the current day.
The implications that the media is liberal by nature is one that has always annoyed me… the media isn’t liberally-biased, it is ratings-biased. Mainstream media will go wherever they can get a good story, and if there’s one thing the Republicans have been in lock-step about since 1994 it’s the media message. Present a good, solid sensationalist message and the media will dance to the fiddle you’re playing every time.
And John, I forgive you for being a Steelers fan. Nobody’s perfect… Go Browns! (Yes, I realize that the Browns will suck again this year as they have so many times in the past, but that’s what being a true fan is all about)
Gore did write about how we should eliminate the internal combustion engine. But after inventing the internet, I give him a pass on his disdain for engines.
God damn COMMUNISTS!!!!!
So John, how did this come about? Did Tom approach you or did you approach Tom? Are you aware of the site Scrutator? Did you know GOP4ME/DougJ emailed me several times and invited me to be a writer on his site? Under the guise of being most helpful and interested. (Of course I didn’t fall for it).
Come on now, wouldn’t that be DougJ’s ultimate triumph? To weasle his way in here by contacting you and acting like he’s interested in wine and beer and libertarianism and football until you like him enough to invite him to be a commentator here? I’m afraid of what’s going to happen here next. Or maybe you ARE in on it. There’s almost too much spoofing here for you not to approve of it. Very disappointing thought John. I can’t wait till my cable is restored so I can go back to not being on the net for entertainment.
Please tell me Tom isn’t a Cowboys fan. I can live with all Bushites, even the all the megaphon-download Israel-firsters, but not a Cowboys fan,
There have to be SOME standards.
And as for TimF, I give him good marks for his energy and the variety of topics he posts on. I also think he’s a decent writer and pretty funny too on occassion.
Where I give him failing marks is in his logical ability and ability to conduct a fair debate. I think it’s somewhat unseemly how he swoops down from ahigh his lofty position as blog commentator to pick on the more conservative voices here while giving the libs a pass. As this is a place for “debate” he should welcome all voices, not just act like it’s a team Lib sport column. In addition he tends to get personal and trivial, indulging in silly insults for anyone who disagrees with him, instead of trying to make a legitimate point. That is not behavior becoming of a debate moderator.
So in summary, keep TimF because you get to watch more Steelers on TV and still get the money rolling in without having to do anything. But try to teach him that being a debate moderator of a supposedly non-partisan blog has its special responsibilities. In fact, maybe you should tell him, stick more to the reporting and less to the editorialzing. In other words, tell him to stick to his strengths.
GOP4 and DougJ are not the same person.
I can prove it, and I have $10k to wager to back it up.
Just let me know when you have the cash and the bet is on.
Would a money order suffice?
How many days has Terrell Owens sat out of practice now?
As a Redskins fan, nothing in the world made me happier than this offseason than the Cowboys signing TO. It’s like hearing that the ex-girlfriend you hate has a new boyfriend she’s so proud of…except he’s got the herpes.
I could tolerate a Texans fan just because Charlie Casserly was a great man ;]
I’m sorry, my friend, but nowadays, there just isn’t such a thing anymore. They may START that way, but Republicants don’t like being told how incompetent they are, and Dumbocrats hate being reminded how spineless and gutless they’ve become. So every blog turns one way or the other, and those in the minority tend to just leave…
Will Tom from Texas be cat blogging at all?
Not from you. Cash only.
Agreed. I think we’re going to get along just fine, Tom.
Yeah…I miss the cat/dog blogging, too. It’s fun to be able to give our furry friends their 15 minutes of fame. (Unintentional alliteration — sorry.)
So tell me the evidence right here, gaz. Why wait for the money.
I thought it was hilarious how Republicans tried to get people to believe that Al Gore wanted to get rid of the automobile.
Damn hippies should use an internal combustion engine instead of the tree hugging Stirling engine.
Tom in Texas
Tim approached me because in a previous thread I discussed wine at length and he was interested in starting a weekly feature on the site. As to my credibility as a non spoof, all I can say is this: Rather than reading comments only seeking evidence of a conspiracy to replicate characters on the site, why not read them and respond to the points raised? Or you could return to cable… unless every network news anchor is an animatronic robot controlled by Doug J. I’m not saying it’s so, but you never know.
Can’t wait to hear how T-squared shaves his cat, so that he and Mr. Cole can have cat-shaving square-offs and the rest of us just sit back and guffaw at the double entendres…
And let me second the relief that TnT isn’t a ‘Boys fan, so we don’t have to hear shit about how the Fat Man and Owens barking at each other is a good thing for team unity…
Now that is funny..
Tom in Texas
No cat shaving for me. I’m the proud owner of a pit bull/boxer mix. Any cat in this household would be lunch (not that cats give a damn what you call them anyway).
Speaking of dog-blogging, we lost our dear beagle/daschund/who knows? Maggie 4 months ago, and were not ready to replace her until two nights ago, when we rescued a 8 month old beagle/hound/? mix from a shelter. Once someone indicates dog-blogging is back, I’ll send in a pic of each of them.
I haveta say, losing that damn dog was like getting punched in the gut every hour for 3 weeks. Now it’s more like a twinge in my back a few times a week. I was a mess.
Ella (the new pup) is gonna be a handful.
Put your money where your mouth is, or shut up.
There is no debate. Commentary is not debate.
Hot air is not debate.
What made you think there was debate?
Some grade A quality work from scs in this thread. Our poor wounded little chickadee…
Sorry to hear about your loss, IJG. You get so attached to them, don’t you? Dreyfus (my Lhasa mutt) is almost 15, and hasn’t been well for the last week (vomiting, weight loss, no bladder control), and I’m constantly veering around between wild optimism, denial, crying jags, fatalism, and sheer stubborn determination to make him get better. Anybody who thinks it’s silly to be emotionally attached to a pet has either never had one, or else has a very hard heart, indeed.
Tom in Texas, as this site has evolved in ways not that dissimilar from Andrew Sullivan’s site over the last year or so, where do you stand on gay issues?
Well I don’t know. I read Tom’s writing up there… and the jury’s still out. The best way to reveal a DougJ clone is to get his ire up- that’s when he forgets himself and slips into obvious DougJisms. So, time will tell. But you can’t say I haven’t warned you after you receive the possible future reveal.
Are you saying that John Cole is a masochistic and confused Catholic looking for deeply angsty barebacking while desperately reaching for a nonsensical and pretend political party that exists only in the fevered depths of oxygen deprived dreams?
Tom in Texas
I think society promotes marriage for a reason. A married couple tends to buy a home and live in a neighborhood or town for decades rather than rent and move immediately. They take care of their property. Meet their neighbors. Raise a family, or help to create a place where others can raise children healthy and educated. If a couple wants to get married and live in a stable home and neighborhood, we should encourage them.
I also recall getting into this discussion in another thread and raising a little bit of a stink when I explained that I support both polygamy and the marriage of relatives. I hesitate to call the latter incest because what I support is the government providing benefits for those who live together and are contributors to society. A widow who lives with her 30 year old unmarried son should recieve the same legal benefits as her married neighbors.
Tom in Texas
Is there any other kind?
Tom in Texas says:
I don’t know about raising a stink, but such a position strikes me as pretty absurd. One example: the widowed mother who marries her son so she can get government benefits like her conventionally married neighbors, why isn’t the receipt of her husband’s social benefits satisfactory, and what would she be receiving as the “wife” of her son?
Oh Sweet Jesus, TnT just went cuckoo bananas on us. I guess the advent of 3-armed children is his version of natural selection.
Tom in Texas
If I thought that we could prevent the mirth of mutants by preventing marriages Punchy, I would advocate that we also prevent poeple living near nuclear power plants or chemical refineries from ever getting married. Or those with recessive genes that could cause genetic problems later. It’s all about the kids right?
Tom in Texas
She would receive the same benefits as the man down the street who married his secretary Dug. An income tax deduction. Medical and legal rights such as multiple beneficiaries — not so much an issue with parent/child, but two sisters living together in their old age, or cousins. Cousins should (and do in many places) have the right to marry. Who are we to tell them they can’t?
Tom in Texas
By multiple beneficiaries I am referring to the ability to cover your spouse under your own medical plan. I can’t cover my brother, for instance, even though I live with him.
If you are really serious with these rather outrageous and extraordinary views, then you need to pray for an enormous expansion of governmental health and other welfare programs, as there is no company around that can afford (or would ever voluntarily agree) to provide full medical and other employer-related benefits to brothers, sisters and cousins of one of their own employees.
Tom in Texas
Not ever brother sister or cousin should be covered. Those that live with each other and provide for each other and for others around them deserve some incentive for choosing to do so.
What is outrageous and extraordinary is to stick with an antiquated system of employer-provided health care benefits.
Thus, a paradox: total liberty (most especially in the area of family structure) increased by allowing for limited socialism where there are strong pragmatic justifications for it.
And just why should the government be a party to this arrangement?
Tom in Texas
Because it is in our society’s best interests to promote stable living conditions. I feel safe in saying that as little as 40%, possibly as many as 70% of all people who live with a relative are doing so because of a family emergency — health issues or a spouse that died or left. If a relative is helping them out, why not provide tax incentives to that relative for doing so? Why not give the relative and their family security?