This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Monday, September 28, 2009

Goss Drives to the Moon

This was sent in courtesy of someone calling themselves Watagua Watch. How about that?
NewsObserver

32 comments:

guy faulkes said...

From GoBlueRidge. Net. This is both funny and ironic.

http://www.goblueridge.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7666&Itemid=1

guy faulkes said...

This thread should be about Goss, not Tarleton. Mr. Goss has revised his campaign reports to correct his documentation on travel expenses.

I still find it humorous that Mr. Goss was appointed to the Transportation Oversight Committee at essentially the same time he was called on the carpet for making an oversight in how he reported his transportation expenses. What are the odds?

For what it is worth, I do not think that Goss intended any malfeasance in the manner in which he received his reimbursements. There was a correct way to accomplish the same results that were achieved. Apparently Goss did not know the method. If I have any complaints about this matter, it is that the methods used in our state government are so screwed up that apparently even our Senators cannot follow them. In my opinion there was no attempt to defraud the public.

Maybe Goss can help remedy this situation.

POV, are you still trying to assert that we never say anything in support of a Democrat? This is not the first time nor will it be the last. We present our opinions based on the merits of the issue, not ideology.

Blogger said...

Oops it is Goss not Tarleton. Thanks Guy. I am still aggravated with Tarleton for his bullying bill which was really a stealth bill for the gay agenda. I guess my fixation with Tarleton carried me away.

guy faulkes said...

In my opinion Mr. Tarleton.s first name should be Janus instead of Cullie. I find him to be two faced and more than willing to tell you what you want to hear instead of his true intentions.

If you do not agree with me, I much prefer you to tell me what you think than for you to try to blow smoke up my rear end.

While I disagree with Goss on many things, at least I feel he lets me know what he thinks. That is to his credit.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"POV, are you still trying to assert that we never say anything in support of a Democrat? This is not the first time nor will it be the last. We present our opinions based on the merits of the issue, not ideology."

Good job! We need more such objectivity.

Liberal POV said...

Blogger


"I am still aggravated with Tarleton for his bullying bill which was really a stealth bill for the gay agenda."

What is a gay agenda?

Why would you want open season for other kids and ignorant staff to bully and shame young kids struggling with a sexuality issue they may not fully understand sometimes to the point of sucide?

guy faulkes said...

The problem with proposing or writing legislation that is supposed to give equality to any minority is that this legislation usually results in preferential treatment for that minority. The minority then looks at any attempt to rewrite the legislation to the point of equality results in accusations of prejudice and bias because in reality the minority wants preferential treatment.

guy faulkes said...

The minority then looks at any attempt to rewrite the legislation to the point of equality AS AN ATTACK THAT results in accusations of prejudice and bias because in reality the minority wants preferential treatment.

I did not proof read before posting. Sorry.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

These are young kids that are already frightened that they are different from the majority, Their parents may be ignorant of homosexuality or would condemn them if they knew?

Allowing these kids to be targets of ridicule will not make homosexuality go away. Let those that are born this way live normal lives and not be ashamed.

As we have seen in the News the Republicans party is a good place for closet homosexuals to hide as is fundamental churches.

guy faulkes said...

POV, I notice you did not refute my comment on minorities wanting preferential treatment.

Everyone is frightened of something and is a member of some kind of minority. The goal is to recognize that fact. You can then be tolerant of others.

To claim that conservatives are prejudiced toward gays shows your own prejudice. Some conservatives are gay. Most others simply do not care what another persons sexual preference is.

To be honest, there are some people, both liberal and conservative that do not like homosexuals just as there are some people that do not like wealthy people.

My best advice to you is to hoe your own taters and leave other citizens alone. Liberals have trouble accomplishing that goal (assuming they have it).

guy faulkes said...

I left out one important thought. It is not required that you like everybody. If you do not, there is nothing wrong with it as long as you are not physically aggressive toward them. POV does not like us as evidenced by his continual name calling. He has the right of free speech. That is why I contend the best thing we can do is to let him bring it on. It stimulates discussion.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"My best advice to you is to hoe your own taters and leave other citizens alone. "

We both agree on this advice.

Does this extend to gay marriage, decriminalizing pot, dropping efforts to reinstate prayer in public schools, women's right to an abortion?

GUY
"minorities wanting preferential treatment."

What does that mean? No I don't agree with you but what is your worst case senario if the kids that are bullied get protection?

Liberal POV said...

Guy, GOP ( Grumpy Old People ), Anger addicts, Hate Radio junkies, etc

" POV does not like us as evidenced by his continual name calling. "

Actually I probabley would like most you because I've lived among you all my life. I know you or at least lots of people like you. Most people choose not to engage you because of your out spoken opinions.

Your wife remarks to me would likly be please don't get him or her started.

My goal here is to get you to dive deeper into the think tank. Hate radio has an agenda that protects the most powerful and wealthest interest in our society.

Wedge issues ( Gays, gun, abortions, prayer in schools, race) are their tools.

Sarkazein said...

"My goal here is to get you to dive deeper into the think tank."-POV

guy faulkes said...

Accusing those that have legitimate disagreements of something politically incorrect such as their being racist if they do not support Obama's policies is the ultimate wedge issue. POV has done this many times because he has no logical argument to support his opinion. He attacks you for being either evil, silly, or stupid over any issue that he cannot defend. These include abortion, gun control, illegal aliens, etc.

His insane accusations that we get our opinions from radio or any source other than ourselves is also a wedge issue. We use many sources to form our opinions.

My wife is more conservative than I am. My daughter thinks my wife and I are Communists. She has moved to the right from her original political position held when she was five years old, told her preschool teacher that she was a Libertarian, and had to explain to the teacher what a Libertarian was and that her party had a candidate running for President. POV does not want to debate her. This youngun (she is actually now the mother of the world's greatest grandchild :-) ) has an embarrassing tactic of asking questions until you are standing there making a brilliant reply such as "UUH Err UMM."

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes-

Great story. (family)

Anonymous said...

Affirmative action is a prime example of minorities wanting special treatment. It is discrimination in reverse. The most oppressed minority in the country is a working class, white, male, Christian. Affirmative action was set up to create this situation.

guy faulkes said...

A woman should not have a right to an abortion unless carrying and delivering the child threatens her life. I used to include rape and incest as viable reasons for abortions until I came to the conclusion those actions were not the fault of the unborn baby. The mother does not have a right to commit murder of her own child. I reached this change in my reasoning after much debate on this and other blogs.

If you want to pray in school, pray. If you are stopped, sue.

I do not care about gay marriage one way or the other but do not see anything wrong with calling it a civil union. This has the same legal meaning.

You probably will be surprised at my thoughts on drugs. Not only should they be legalized, they should be given away at a public facility where the only criteria is that users have to remain at the facility until they are no longer under the influence of the drug. While they are there, they should be able to use all they want and there should be no medical help given them. If they want to O.D. that is their business. The profit motive would be gone. Crime rates would drop. Before you ask, yes this includes me or members of my family. You have to take responsibility for your own actions. There is no hate in this statement. I do think we should run adds that show what pathetic losers addicts are as was done with tobacco. Harming anyone while under the influence of a drug should carry a death sentence. (Do you think I am passionate on this issue?)

I think someone else adequately answered the question of minority privilege.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"You probably will be surprised at my thoughts on drugs. Not only should they be legalized, they should be given away at a public facility where the only criteria is that users have to remain at the facility until they are no longer under the influence of the drug. While they are there, they should be able to use all they want and there should be no medical help given them. If they want to O.D. that is their business. The profit motive would be gone. Crime rates would drop. Before you ask, yes this includes me or members of my family. You have to take responsibility for your own actions."

I have little disagreement with this statement Drugs are the worst thing I have witnessed in my life time.
I wouldn't give them away.
Those addicted over dosing are not as bad at our current method of prisons.

The fewer drug addicts the better for everyone, but let them do it to themselves.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

"If you want to pray in school, pray. If you are stopped, sue."

I agree with this but it should not be part of a government run school program.

Blogger said...

Guy, Your children and grandchildren sound like mine--beautiful, brilliant, and ultra conservatives.

Liberal POV said...

Guy and Blogger

My children are also beautiful, brilliant, but not as liberal as I am ones even conservative. I don't know what I did wrong there.

I think it was all the Republican indoctrination in the school system.

matt said...

Ah, and what do you know...Burr taking more money from more lobbyists. I'm sure they will be repaid with taxpayer funds to go for more bailouts for God knows what that PAC's represent....

Do we know who is going to be running against Burr? It may be the first time in my life I vote Dem. Just to see that guy go would make my day.

Liberal POV said...

Matt

You and I agree Burr's job keep quite and vote for NC Tobacco, insurance, pharmaceuticals and banking. NC citizens and not part of the job description.

guy faulkes said...

Matt, with which lobbyists are you concerned as to Burr's reelection campaign? Do you think lobbying should not be part of the political process? What do you think of the free speech decision concerning campaigning by special interest groups such as the NRA?

My research indicates many lobbyists for businesses play both sides of the street and support both parties. The only exception is if the product, such as oil or coal, is demonized by one party and not the other.

As far as the special interest groups go, it is only natural that like minded people organize in support of their opinion. The pro-gun NRA and the anti-gun Brady Bunch are good examples. To limit these groups' efforts to participate in the political process is unconstitutional because in the long run it limits free speech of the individual. All such groups are comprised of individuals. If Soros and Bloomberg can use their vast resources to influence the political process, then the rest of us have to be able to band together to have our voices heard.

POV's contention that Burr should not represent North Carolina citizens is rather bizarre, even for him. He must have misspoke again. I must also assume he is against medicine, has no insurance, and keeps his money buried in the back yard. As far as tobacco is concerned, I do not smoke and never have, This was a personal decision that is none of the government's business.

matt said...

guy,
I don't know if we ever would truly be able to get rid of lobbyists, most modern day, life long politicians will always sell their soul for a dollar. Everyone has the right to lobby via the constitution, unfortunately there is no requirement in the constitution for character of the person they are lobbying to.

How have our voices been heard on any of these issues? The taxpayers have been robbed and conned into lining the banker's pockets under Bush AND Obama...you could have joined all the PAC's you want that opposed the bailout and it didn't matter. Burr received 90% calls against the bailout, overwhelmingly his constituents opposed the bailout...but it didn't matter. Now Freddie Mac, Fanne Mae, Aig, and everyone else will be sure to 'donate' whatever it takes for Burr to get reelected, because he is on their side...not ours.

My post was about the section in that article that talked about Burr's fund raising from $1,000 a ticket requirements. No one as slimy and two faced as Burr takes that kind of money and does nothing in return, that is my concern. He will take in millions of dollars to get re-elected... I am sure they are bankers looking for him to pass the next round of bailouts to fleece the American tax payer for more.

Burr was right there voting for spending more money than the U.S. had ever spent (at that time) under Bush...he had no problems with it...but now we are supposed to believe he has changed? please, why do you have any faith in this guy?...if you told him the republicans were for the next round of bailouts he would be first in line to vote for it...regardless of what we think.

I personally have to agree with POV on Burr not representing the people of NC. Do you honestly feel that he does? Before I attend any of his rallies I am going to add up every dollar that he has voted to spend. I bet it is well over 3 trillion dollars in the last 4 years. Some ideal conservative or republican for that matter we have here. Hes a joke, the epitome of political scum. I have more respect for half the democrats over Burr, at least they honestly believe in something. Burr will believe whatever you want him to if you can give him a little something in return...

Gregg said...

Great point Guy. "Lobbyist" has become a bad word but it really is a part of the process and most people have no problem with lobbyist for causes they support. Obama got a lot of millage bashing lobbyist (now that he's elected he loves them) but the term is pretty vague. It's like bashing the South or the rich.

guy faulkes said...

Matt, I have problems with all of our legislators, both state and federal. I have the fewest problems with Fox. The principle thing on which I disagree with her is her conduct in the Blowing Rock land trade that I read about. She should have met with those that opposed the issue as well as the town. Burr is good on most gun issues and has supported many bills protecting the individual from the government. For this I give him credit and support. However he did let me down when he supported Bush's big government bailout.

Blogger said...

Matt, Did you ever hear the warning about letting the perfect get in the way of the good?

Another gay guy said...

Hey, Guy! You are talking about smoke up your butt and you agree with civil unions and drug use. Keep talking like that, and we will start to think you are, you know, playing for the "pink team."

guy faulkes said...

I have no problem with civil unions. The issue does not effect me one way or the other. Its none of my business so why should I care?

I think the way to solve the drug problem is to let the addicts that cause crime get their drugs and remove the illegal profit motive. Hopefully if we give them drugs they will O.D. and die, thereby completely removing the problem. I do not really see this as supporting drug use, but as crime control. However look a it however you wish.

Sarkazein said...

Funny, "Another Gay Guy" and "Biker Bard" commented within a few minutes of each-other on separate threads. Both have the same comment style.