blank'/> Liberally Lean From The Land Of Dairy Queen: Random Thursday Morning Thoughts

1.08.2009

Random Thursday Morning Thoughts

  • I'm excited about OU/Florida tonight but sad that the next college football game after that will be in August.
  • Speaking of, OU will play BYU in the new Cowboys' stadium this Labor Day. I'm there -- if for nothing else than to see the stadium.
  • WBAP's Hal Jay (who I continue to believe is senile) made reference to Brake-O today. The man is stuck in 1972.
  • The guy that shot and killed the Dallas Police Officer was wanted for Aggravated Assault. Someone needs to get a hold of the probable cause affidavit (it's public record) that gave rise to that warrant. Sometimes, Aggravated Assault is nothing more than a threat while holding some weapon.
  • Kidd Kraddick got divorced?
  • Yep, all the living presidents got together yesterday. When I saw the photo, the first thing I thought about was, "Is this the best we've had to offer?"
  • I watched a little of the People's Choice Awards last night -- it was one of those awards shows that you could predict who would win by who was in the audience. If they were there, they won something.
  • Had a buddy call me about a decade ago and ask, "Can you go to Rio de Janeiro in two weeks. We've got a place for you." I could. But I said no. Never again.
  • I kind of want to go to Costa Rico. Edit: I mention the country and look what happens a few hours later.
  • There's a chance out "guy who got probation but bolted from the courtroom before his sentence" story could become metroplex news and maybe even national news (in a Paul Harvey sort of way.)
  • The federal deficit this year will reach $1 trillion (that means the federal government, in one year, will spend $1 trillion more than it takes in). Last night, I saw a graph of the deficit over the years and it was absolutely shocking how 2009 looked. And didn't we have a surplus during the Clinton years?
  • I can't resist marshmallow peanuts.
  • One of the lawyers in the dope case yesterday began the closing argument with, "You are on this jury because someone had faith and trust in you or . . . (pause) . . . or less faith and trust in other people than you." Translation: You're on this jury not because I necessarily trust you, but because I didn't trust those other nut cases I struck off the panel. That was just bizarre.
  • Have you truly lived if you've never been threatened with a restraining order?
  • Going through the exact same "get ready for work" routine makes me feel like a robot. Which, in a way, I guess I am.

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

i love me circus peanuts too!!

Anonymous said...

Costa Rica.

Anonymous said...

We'll all be digging tunnels on Dec 20, 2012.

Anonymous said...

"I kind of want to go to Costa Rico."

Is that anyone near Costa Rica or maybe Puerto Rico?

Anonymous said...

Passed on Rio? Say it isn't so!

Anonymous said...

The Presidents' photo-

"One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?"

Anonymous said...

I was shocked about Kidd Kraddick too. They divorced right before their daughter's graduation and after I think 20 years of marriage. I always wondered how that happens and it could have waited til she was out of school. Sad.

Anonymous said...

O.K., the Cheerleader is very "Hot".
Next item of importance - The picture of the Presidents. Let's see, what do four out of five have in common?
Jimmy Carter - Member of the Tri-lateral Commission,
H.W. Bush - Member of the Tri-lateral Commission and Bilderbarger Group,
Bill Clinton - Member of the Tri-lateral Commission and Bilderbarger Group,
George Bush - Member of the Tri-lateral Commission and Bilderbarger Group,
Barack Obama - Soon to be a member of the Tri-lateral Commission and possibly, just maybe, the Bilderbarger Group. That's if he's accepted and with President Bushs comment of, "We want him to be successful", it's probably gonna happen. Smoke and Mirrors, Smoke and Mirrors. Wake up America!! And, no, I am not a conspiracy theorist, I just tend to read outside the mainstream crap the media attempts to feed us all.

Anonymous said...

"Someone needs to get a hold of the probable cause affidavit (it's public record) that gave rise to that warrant. Sometimes, Aggravated Assault is nothing more than a threat while holding some weapon."
The perp allegedly killed a cop "while holding some weapon." Sounds to me like the warrant was warranted. Insert yourself into that situation. If somebody threatened you while holding some weapon, wouldn't you want the cops to round up said issuer of threat to determine if there was a reasonable expectation of escalation?

"I kind of want to go to Costa Rico."
To visit Uncle Rico?

A commenter from a couple of days ago was compaining about seeing ColtMcCoy's parents a dozen times during the Fiesta Bowl. Weeeelllll, I watched the 2006 Rose Bowl last night (Texas/USC title game, remember?) They showed Matt Leinart's dad at least a dozen times, maybe more. Families of high profile players, such as QBs and RBs, get lots of face time during important games they attend. Note to ColtMcCoy/UT hater: It wasn't the network trying to aggravate you. Get over it.

Anonymous said...

Good point about the deficit. Clinton was fortunate enough to enjoy a responsible Congress with intelligent leadership. We cannot say that now.

HHL said...

Costa Rica is awesome. If you can get a direct flight it's only 3 hours. Cheap too, unless you want to stay at the Ritz Carlton. Beautiful beaches, very rustic, locals are really nice and love Americans. It's very different from going to the Mexican beach spots. If you go, make sure to do one of the "canopy tours"; they drive you a couple hours up into the rain forest (the "roads" are little more than washed out dirt tracks), put a harness on you, and you do a few miles of zip-lines run through these giant trees in the jungle; tons of monkeys and apes, tropical birds, exotic lizards, etc. Highly recommended.

Anonymous said...

I'm just wondering how old you have to be to stop calling yourself "kidd" and come up with something new. He's working on his third decade with this one. I remember him from back in high school and I now have "kidd's" of my own in high school.

Anonymous said...

Repeat after me:
Costa Rica, Uncle Rico

Francine Fishpaw said...

Ok Barry, you have to tell the Rio story. You can't just leave us hanging like this.

Anonymous said...

8:47 Yes, it was George W.

Anonymous said...

Question:During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced?
Was the federal deficit erased?
Answer: Yes
Read FactCheck.org here

There is a difference between federal deficit and federal debt
....the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus.

So, Barry, your graph shows Clinton had $236 Billion Surplus. As a Democrat, he govern in a fiscally responsible manner. (and although terrorism was threatening us during his Administration - the US was never attacked)

Bush, on the other hand, has been fiscally reckless by funding a war based on lies. His hawkish, trigger happy war policies, irresponsible fiscal management and his party's unaccountable, freewheeling approach to deregulation and unrestrained banking rules has created the worst economic disaster possibly ever (its not over yet) reaching a worldwide scale! MY GOD!

Not to mention his criminal conduct on torturing prisoners, corruption, unscrupulous political tactics, illegal firing of federal attorneys, wiretapping and on and on.

Bush has taken this country as low as it has EVER been in every way possible!!!

In retrospect, it makes that fuss over a cigar-oval office-bj seem a little over blown (no pun intended), doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

8:57 one word: WHACKO!

Anonymous said...

9:14 We are now finding out Bill Clinton's "Congress" was not that intelligent or responsible after all and Bill Clinton was sure as hell not a responsible leader, he was impeached for God's sake. If the conservative side can admit Bush has "screwed the Pooch" in a number of way's why is it the Democratic/Liberal side can never admit mistakes, failure or wrong-doing their side is responsible for? No wonder you people are so lame, you can't even admit the truth even when the proof is right in front of your face. I really don't care if the person in the White House is a Republican or Democrat if they screw-up they need to be accountable and they should have to be accountable just as everyone else is that holds a job.

BeautifulDisaster311 said...

Kidd was divorced in April of 2008.

Anonymous said...

BG, Kidd divorced almost a year ago.

Please provide us with new news, not old. If we wanted old news, we would read the Index, Gazette or Messenger.

Anonymous said...

Take your time machine back to 2000. Gore v. Bush

Question: What should the next president do with the extraordinary opportunity of $236 Billion surplus? (thank you Pres Clinton)

Gore: Put it in a "lock box" so that Americans can be sure of a secure retirement.

Bush: Tax cut for the wealthy!

Now that the 'wealthy' have pissed it all away and all those Republicans who laughed at Gore for saying 'lock box' are not laughing anymore.

Anonymous said...

In reference to the killing of the police officer in Dallas: From everything I've heard, the warrant was for the other guy in the apartment, not the shooter.

Anonymous said...

9:47, I can tell by your highly, intelligent, vocabulary, you spend a lot of time watching television. Hey, here's something new, get your head out of the dummy box and read. You would be amazed at what you could learn. You do however need to read more than one book, read reference books, those are the books listed in the back of the book your reading. The Author has used those for his information to assist him in writing the book. Once you have done that you can possibly come to some conclusions. As well, you can come up with a more intelligent vocabulary to use the next time you would like to criticize someone other than using the word "wacko". You could also elevate your vocabulary by not reading "Tractors and Bubba Trucks", NASCAR, Banjo Lessons for the Beginner and Mobile Home Trader. Hey, just attempting to help. Good luck with that and have a splendid day.

Anonymous said...

9:54 Clinton was impeached for lying to congress about marital infidelity (a private matter).

Kenneth Starr's investigation of the Lewinsky scandal cost over $47 million.

This was the Republican's greatest achievement.

They also spent another $40-$50 million on other investigations but where never able to prove anything.

Republicans strategy is to spend millions of taxpayer's money trying to destroy the character of their political opponents.

What a waste!

Anonymous said...

9:46, What do you call the explosion in the parking garage in the World Trade Center in 93? I guess the truck just backfired.

Anonymous said...

10:47

I never dreamed I'd see this day but I'm going to defend Barry. Your post was pompous and condesending. It shows you to be a psuedo-intellectual, wannabe elitist. I love to read but your "plan" to read a book and the corresponding reference books is ridicules. Have a splendid day.

Your banjo loving, truck driving Bubba who is pushing for mobile home racing in NASCAR.

Anonymous said...

Hey, 10:47. I know that is so easy to judge people, but you calling out someone for giving a one word answer seems hypocritical. You insinuate that the person has lower vocabulary (and lower economic means), and lives a life filled with banjo playing, NASCAR watching, and mobile home trading. However, is it not you that shows your limited mental capacity by insinuating any of those items makes him lesser of a person? He obviously disagreed with your view, and did so with such a simple word, but you want to try and show your obviously high intellect and try to belittle someone on a blog. Kudos to you, my friend, and good luck with the pursuit of trying to feel superior in some aspect of your life by trying to demean those on a blog. See, I can insinuate things too.

Anonymous said...

11:11 I intended to write an op-ed but let's just cut to the chase. Your right, after reading it I thought it was somewhat snobish myself. My bad, I was venting and I am certainly not the person it sounded like. Have a splendid day, good luck with the mobile home races and "fear the banjo".

Anonymous said...

Heard the warrant was for the other guy in the apartment out of Tarrant County. This is the shooters first arrest.

Anonymous said...

Sad thing for Kidd Kraddick...His success of his syndicated radio show was the downfall.

Anonymous said...

11:49

Your post shows that I was wrong about you. If I was judged on just some of my statements, I would probably be in jail! lol

Your buddy,
Bubba

Anonymous said...

Screw all of that...look at her stomach...my god, she's hot...
She must live off of the protein of a Nutrea....

Anonymous said...

11:27, I have already been called on the carpet. I have no problem with being accountable, please read my post at 11:49.

Anonymous said...

Thank ya Bubba!!

Anonymous said...

Bubba shot the jukebox!

Anonymous said...

Kraddick and his (ex-)wife sat across the aisle from us at the graduation ceremony(I had a niece in the same class). Kidd chomped on gum and played with his Blackberry the entire ceremony. He's known around the school to be a jerk in person.

And on another note.....

BuBear mentions Costa Rico(Rica) and low and behold, the earth trembles there the very same day.....

Double Fake Greek Goddess Demeter

wordkyle said...

Okay, at the risk of a dry lengthy post, here's some info about the Clinton "surplus":

1) The national debt never went down under Clinton. Here's information from the Treasure Department website. This shows the total national debt from the beginning of Clinton's first fiscal budget to the end of his last fiscal budget:

10/1/93- $4,406,339,573,433.47
9/30/94- $4,692,749,910,013.32
10/2/95- $4,987,587,163,002.89
10/1/96- $5,234,730,786,626.50
9/30/97- $5,413,146,011,397.34
10/1/98- $5,540,570,493,226.32
10/1/99- $5,652,679,330,611.02
10/2/00- $5,661,548,045,674.53
9/28/01- $5,807,463,412,200.06

The national debt never decreased under Clinton.

Simple common sense would indicate that a surplus would reduce the debt. What does a surplus do, if it doesn't reduce the debt?

2) The FactCheck.org article cited above has a telling line: "The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased."

The CBO's report cited in the FactCheck article omitted intergovernmental holdings, or money the government owes to itself. In the 90s, thanks to the dotcom boom, income went up. This caused a surge in Social Security payments (taxes) to the government. SS buys government securities with any surpluses. In other words, the government owes money to itself. These are the "intergovernmental holdings" omitted by the CBO report. In future years when SS runs a deficit, it will start cashing in those securities to pay the public. (In other words, if the government decides to cancel the debt it owes to "itself," you and I don't get Social Security.) Yet they are ignored by the CBO and those who claim a Clinton "surplus."

3) If you want to see how badly the CBO numbers are cooked, go here and look at the numbers for 1997 and 1998. Take the ending "debt held by the public" for 1997 ($3772.3B) and subtract the "surplus" for 1998 ($69.3B). This should equal the ending "debt held by the public" for 1998, Yet it doesn't. There's a discrepancy of $18.1B. That discrepancy alone shows that there are other factors involved - like intergovernmental holdings.

Just because the CBO is "nonpartisan" does not mean it's not political, or that its numbers are honest and complete. Do you trust any government bureaucracy to be completely forthright?

While there's no excuse for the way the Bush administration has spent money, the so-called Clinton surplus is a creation of the Clintonistas and the media.

Anonymous said...

God bless George Bush and our military for protecting us from any further terrorist attacks on our homeland since 911. Thank you President Bush for being more concerned about protecting us than being well-liked and popular.

Anonymous said...

WK - once again - being deceptive, but I actually think you believe your line.

You SHOULD know there is a difference in creating a SURPLUS in a yearly budget and the NATIONAL DEBT going down, which is a total of all the years of deficits. WE KNOW we didn't pay down the debt during the Clinton years, but during the CLINTON years, the YEARLY BUDGET did have a SURPLUS for 4 years, or in other words, the gov't took in more money than they paid out.

Surely you know this.

wordkyle said...

You define a "surplus" as the opposite of a "deficit." I agree with that.

If, as you state, the national debt is the total of all the years of deficits...

And one year there is a "surplus"...

Then at the end of that year, the national debt would be less than the year before. Right?

Anonymous said...

Yes, there have been no successful attacks for the last 7 years. That's good. But it doesn't follow that any other man in the office wouldn't have accomplished the same thing? Come on guys. Use your head.

Every president is going to do his best at protecting us.

Now it does follow that pissing off the whole world doesn't help cut the number of those wanting to hurt us.

George was in over his head and our young people have paid the price with their lives and limbs.

I am not that conviced Obama is the right man, but I can't see how he could be worse........but to date each new president has made his predecessor look pretty good.

Anonymous said...

6:36: that's a very rational and overall realistic way of looking at the whole show. I agree with your premise but beg to differ on

"our young people have paid the price with their lives and limbs."

The point is that if we have only lost 5,000 "soldiers" in , how many years?. After having lost 3000 "civilians" in one terrorist attack the number is not so high. Now ask yourself what we got for that loss. A few hundred thousand battle hardened troops; those will come in handy in the near future if we need them. Some forward bases in a part of the world that seems very likely to be the venue for the next big war. If you're playing chess you really do have to think a few moves ahead you know.

So my question is this: If you have a brain tumor you go to a professional who has been trained to work on brain tumors, and you pay him to do his job. You probably don't butt in a lot and tell him how to do it cause he knows a lot more about it than you do.

Now why do you suppose you don't extend the same to our generals? What makes you think your layman's input holds any value in his professional world. He has been educated by your system, conducted his entire professional career as your employee and neighbor. But you think every little absurd news clip that comes through the boob tube qualifies you to second-guess his conduct in what you hired and trained him to do.

If you really understood the quality and integrity of the average military professional as it compares with society as a whole, you'd turn off the damn TV, plant a garden, and leave these guys alone to save your lazy ass whether you deserve it or not.



Most of you don't.


Maybe this is the pure Genius of George Bush's presidency. And you'll never know. This mob mentality is blinding us.

Anonymous said...

No, wordkyle - it was reported in all the media - we never did "pay down the debt" - we were just beginning to think we had the luxury to consider doing that or doing something about social security when Bush's budget and tax cuts came around & whoosh - back to the deficit that year and every year after.

This is not rocket science or a big secret. You are making it more complicated than it is. Perhaps intentionally so?

wordkyle said...

I'm making it more complicated than it is? You are having to go through yoga-like contortions to justify claiming a a Clinton surplus. Your argument is that there was an actual surplus, although 1) Government spending went up every year, and 2) The national debt went up every year.

Contrary to your argument, Clinton himself claimed that the budget surplus had reduced the national debt -- which it clearly didn't.

Clintonistas claim three years of "surplus." If there was a surplus, and it wasn't used to pay down the debt (and we know it wasn't,) then it was spent on something else, and therefore there was no surplus. The government under the Clinton administration borrowed more money each year.

You make it sound as though there were a petty cash box where Clinton stored this "surplus" and that Bush spent it as soon as he got into office. The entire thing is simply creative government accounting and wishful thinking on the part of Clinton supporters.

Anonymous said...

10:03 says,"we were just beginning to think we had the luxury to consider doing that or doing something about social security when Bush's budget and tax cuts came around & whoosh - back to the deficit that year and every year after."

I absolutely refuse to believe anyone is retarded enough to believe that statement regardless of your political beliefs so in the spirit of the new year I'll take it as a joke and say HAW HAW- good one.