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.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Chills


29 comments:

Sarkazein said...

Who paid this man? Who produced and paid for this movie? Who hired this actor? Bush Cheney bad. Corporations will profit from this.

Reader said...

This is a know nothing person HD, couldn't you find something better to post, than propaganda? Plus, he wants to take Pelosi's gavel for goodness sake. Who's leading this man, the Tea Party Mob?

Keep them coming HD, I'm sure there's many more to be found.

Honest Debate said...

Gee wiz guys, at least he doesn't speak with a "Negro dialect".

He is a little dark-skinned though.

Sarkazein said...

He's clean and probably smells good too.

Honest Debate said...

A couple of years ago he would've been serving coffee.

Sarkazein said...

And he would have been shot going to the gas station.

Honest Debate said...

I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter, and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease. . . .He’s an absolutely reprehensible person.

Liberal POV said...

HD

I'd like to see this man replace Ms Foxx if Billy Kennedy doesn't.

Anonymous said...

Chills???? It's about as surprising as finding an eastern elite Yale grad who's a registered Republican.

This guy reminds me of a rerun of "The West Wing" that I caught a few days ago. When asked how he could possibly support a particular piece of legislation that seemed to create inheritance tax breaks for millionaires at the expense of educational subsidies for the disadvantaged, a black congressman explained that "the first generation of black millionaires are about to die."

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

He's running in Florida so he won't be replacing Foxx but your comment is interesting. I don't see much difference between he and Ms. Foxx after looking at his website. He is very conservative. I conclude you don't know his stance on the issues. Why would you support him? Is it just because he's black?

Pop quiz: Sark and I were engaging in a satirical back and forth that went 5 comments. It was creepy writing that filth even when joking, especially my last one. Can you name who said the comments we wrote and who they were being said about?

Honest Debate said...

Nonny,

I named the post "Chills" because that's what the video gave me. I'm weird that way.

Are you the Nonny Nonny or the other Nonny? I'm not sure this time. Nonny Nonny has mellowed since the Shyster days. Your comment went over my head and I read it three times. Could you elaborate... a little bit.

Johnny Rico said...

The idiots just let me back on Watauga Watch. Party time!!!!

Liberal POV - how bout goin over to the watch and see me embarass you in front of the other liberal socialist sheep.

I probably won't last long until I get censored, but it will be fun while it lasts.

Johnny Rico

guy fauleks said...

I beleive Nonny's point is that as blacks escape from the entitlement slavery that has been imposed on them by liberals, that the way they are perceived is going to change. This includes everything involving stereotypes from politics to humor.

If so, I agree. If not, then I agree with me. :-)

Reader said...

Sark, you and HD had me cracking up...out loud no doubt. I don't have one of those loud laughs you know, I'm just one of those people who open my mouth and nothing comes out. Gettin' a better picture of what I look like? Lord help you.

Sarkazein said...

Reader-
I know what you mean. I have a political laugh that is just one very loud "HAH!" that is involuntary and usually scares everybody in the room.
All conservative women are beautiful.

Anonymous said...

HD: I'm the Nonny who's been here about six months or so. The same guy you've called out for being a personalized jerk anytime I breath a word about religious hypocracy. And though I've never commented on the whole Shyster thing before now, finding it more fun to think several here thought I was someone else, I've never been Shyster, so I have no idea if he's mellowed. I've posted on goblueridge.net as "Overall" in the past, and I've found it more prudent, of late, to either remain silent or tone down the rhetoric a tad, but I've never written a thing on a blog under a different name.

And guy pretty much did get my point. Basically, the accumulation of significant wealth, or at least having been convinced (warrantedly or unwarrantedly) that one CAN accumulate significant wealth, appears to be a galvanizing factor when people select sides in a socio/economic/political discussion.

Honest Debate said...

Thanks for clearing that up Nonny. I get my Nonnys confused.

One thing, if I ever called you a jerk it had nothing to do with your pointing out religious hypocrisy...at all. I don't recall specifically but more than likely it was for assigning beliefs to me that I don't hold. I hate it when that happens. I say plenty of things that can be challenged legitimately. I rather stick with that.

Honest Debate said...

Nonny,

I almost forgot to comment on your point. I see where you are coming from but I would put it another way. I think it is the accumulation of wealth by others that bothers many liberals. They tend to feel entitled to it or feel that it was gained at their expense. Some are just jealous and most are very resentful of anyone who has more than they do. I can't for the life of me figure out why.

Liberal POV said...

HD

" I think it is the accumulation of wealth by others that bothers many liberals."

Let me comment here as I'm the one who most often criticizes the wealthiest one percent.

I know lots of very generous wealthy individuals and have nothing against them, I don't know any of the supper wealthy.

My feeling is those that benefit most from a capitalist system needs to support the system that makes that possible the greater the wealth the greater the support.

Our country is currently operating in the red and the tax on the wealthiest one percent is at an all time low.

We do have a segment of America wealthiest who made that wealth not producing anything but praying on the poorest among us. We have pay day loans, banks charging families with medical bills interest rates at 30%. That ain't right!

Those the capitalist system failsfails inin the richest country in the world need to have access to a decent life ( Health care, basic food, public transportation and education) so the next generation can compete with the successful capitalist son or daughter.

If we want to continue capitalism lets not return it to the system of Dickens during the industrial revolution when communism got its start.

Johnny Rico said...

"Our country is currently operating in the red and the tax on the wealthiest one percent is at an all time low."

Our country operates in the red because Hussein Obama wants to give entitlement programs to illegal aliens!! We operate in the red because our factories operate overseas.

The wealthy people are the ones holding our country up. What few jobs we have are given to us by wealthy people!! Destroy the wealthy and the jobs go too!! If there is no incentive to improve oneself then we will all become mediocre.

Socialism is the bane of America. Let's hope we vote the socialist sheep out in November and put someone in who values what the wealthy do for us.

Johnny Rico

Honest Debate said...

"...the tax on the wealthiest one percent is at an all time low." -LiberalPOV

I don't know if that's true but let's assume it is. If you want more revenue to flow to the government then raising taxes on the wealthiest is the least effective way to do that. The rich actually paid a higher percentage of the tax burden when Bush cut their taxes and more revenue was generated.

LiberalPOV does not get to decide how much money makes one wealthy nor what a fair share is. He endorses tax policies that generate less revenue but evidently will feel better because he perceives the rich as being punished more than they already are. I suppose it's a revenge thing for the ridiculous notion that the rich are preying on the poor.

Anonymous said...

HD: I know you said "most," not "all" liberals, but I for one am one liberal who isn't bothered at all by the accumulation of significant wealth. I don't feel entititled to any other person's signficant wealth and I don't think anyone has gained significant wealth at my expense. And I'm neither jealous nor resentful of others who may have more than me.

I think it's the escape from poverty by certain groups of poor citizens that bothers many lower-middle-class conservatives. They tend to enjoy having an under class to look down upon and they're conned into thinking that its elimination will come about at their expense. Some are just jealous and resentful of anyone who accepts a hand up to better themselves as opposed to pridefully refusing assistance and remaining in squaller.

And I, HD, can't for the life of me figure out why.

Honest Debate said...

Nonny,

Regarding your first paragraph, if that's the way you feel then you are in the minority. As you point out I said "most" not all. I would up the ante to "most all" or "vast majority". I'm curious if you agree I'd imagine you do because the evidence is overwhelming (starting with LiberalPOV's post). I stand ready at your request to list examples of Obama encouraging that train of thought.

It's the second paragraph that I can't relate to. I know no one nor have heard of anyone that thinks that way. Who are you referring to? Or is it a theory, if so what do you base it on? I believe your premise is flawed in that it assumes that generosity is always used to better oneself. When it does it's beautiful. When generosity is demanded and squandered it's not and the squaller remains. You assume only two options when there are a world of them.

I wouldn't spend a lot of time trying to figure out elitist scumbags.

Honest Debate said...

Nonny,

I guess I should reciprocate your going on the record.

I, for one, don't want to see anyone live in squaller. I want the poor to get richer as well as the rich to get richer. I do, will do and have done anything I can to help my fellow man if that help makes a difference for the good. I don't expect, demand or want anything in return.

Liberal POV said...

HD

You may have missed the point. When the wealth is confined to fewer and fewer and the capitalist system no longer works for most Americans it will be voted out. Reform of our current system is needed the middle class is getting smaller and smaller and those living in poverty continues to rise.

Roosevelt ( both saw this ) Teddy Roosevelt a Republican reformed the robber barons and Franklin Roosevelt added social reform when capatialism failed during the great depression both saved capitalism. Obama is facing a similar failed capitalism era, reform is needed again to make the capatialist system stronger by working for all Americans.

Honest Debate said...

Nonny and Lib,

Ya'll (mainly Nonny, sorry Lib) have inspired me to start a new thread on this subject. Allen West is not all that germane to our politics here in NC. I always like to highlight black Republicans and tea partiers, beyond that I guess it's played out.

Please check back (I'll try to be quick) for a thread entitled "Revisiting Compassionate Conservatism".

Anonymous said...

HD: No need for examples of the people you're refering to. I'm well aware of their existance. But I do believe, simpleton that I am, that most of even THOSE folks speak and act the way they do not out of a sense of resentment or jealousy, but out of a sense of what they perceive to be an acceptable and fair way to help others.

I know, I know, that's a WRONG way to think, but it's the way most of those you're refering to actually do think.

As for the folks I spoke of in my second paragraph, the ones you're doubting the existance of, think of Archie Bunker.

In the case of that specific character, and in that of many from his generation and his economic background, I doubt seriously there was any type of intentional attempt to raise bigots or persons who'd automatically begrudge a helping hand, be it that of an individual or the government, being lent to his fellow man. But when he paired the realization of assistance being given to persons unlike himself with the realization that the socio-demographic mores and class structure of his youth were in flux in his own country, he frequently reacted with anger, with resentment, with hatred and with bigotry.

And, to some degree, I believe that particular dynamic is truly at play today. I don't see it being a southern thing or a white thing. And I certainly don't see it being universal among lower-middle-class conservatives. I just see it as a sort of "loss of power and position" defense mechanism employed by many folks.

I find that understandable, but still unacceptable.

Anonymous said...

To be clear, I'm NOT saying that's the only reason some lower-middle-class conservatives oppose government assistance programs. I'm just saying that many folks I come in contact with on a daily basis do indeed feel that way.

Honest Debate said...

Nonny,

I disagree, but you've presented a rational rationale. I'm holding back a bit because I'd like to reframe the debate to a more solution based argument on a new thread.

To me, the interesting aspect of the debate is what people "perceive to be an acceptable and fair way to help others." It's quantifiable. They are either helped are they are not. I see no reason to perceive I'm helping somone if in actuality I'm not. That would be just stroking my ego. I'll get on that new thread and hopefully we can get others to join in.