Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

March 2026
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Archives

metacognition

Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?

A: You got me. But if it has anything to do with Ron Paul being bugfuck crazy, I’d totally sympathize.

32 Replies to “metacognition”

  1. sdferr says:

    The dude is the Thersites of the early Iliad, but who is going to be the Odysseus to crack him over his hump with the speaking-stick?

  2. happyfeet says:

    he’s retiring i think so it’s easier to be nice I think

    I remember going to one of his rallies when I was a widdle kid I think that may have been where we met festus from gunsmoke but I might be mixing him up with John Sharp

    he wasn’t always a wackadoodle he grew into that

  3. Slartibartfast says:

    The dude is the Thersites of the early Iliad

    Glad you clarified which Thersites. Sooo confusing these days.

    Still, wouldn’t it have been funny if he’d offered to answer any questions after he finished this-here mint julep?

  4. Darleen says:

    It was the only time last night I started shouting at the tv … not just at Mr. Crazy but at his obviously crazy supporters screaming in the audience.

    Could we get them all to pee in a cup?

  5. Pablo says:

    No deets yet, but the Appeals Court has ruled the Obamacare mandate UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    YES!!!!!!!!!!

  6. sdferr says:

    Which court Pablo? The Virginia one or the Georgia one?

  7. bh says:

    Sweet.

  8. happyfeet says:

    Clarence Thomas is in for a very very long year next year

  9. Silver Whistle says:

    Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?

    A: Because it was stapled to the punk.

  10. sdferr says:

    This calls for pound cake.

  11. McGehee says:

    Now it’s time for the congressional delegations from 26 states to defund ObamaCare.

  12. urthshu says:

    are we there yet? are we there yet? are we there yet?

    /overheard in a car passing a chicken

  13. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Obamymandias bestrides the fruited plan like a colussus! He scorns to laugh at your pathetic pieces of parchment!

    Make obeisance before your God Emperor slaves!

  14. sdferr says:

    Hearing Rush say the Appeals Court did not agree with the Florida District Court on the question of severability, but no details beyond that.

  15. Pablo says:

    Which court Pablo? The Virginia one or the Georgia one?

    The big ‘un! Sweet, sweet Jawjuh.

  16. Silver Whistle says:

    Not a whiff of this at the NYT or Wapo – I must conclude that it hasn’t happened.

  17. cranky-d says:

    Progressives need a very strong sense of denial just to survive each day. Ignoring this ruling is easy for them.

  18. dicentra says:

    A Ten-Point Primer on Our Current Politics by VDH:

    8) Liberal regret: Current liberal confessionals that many were mesmerized in 2008 and were inadequately attuned to deficiencies in Obama’s preparation and expertise — to the point of unfair deprecation of Hillary Clinton’s efforts — are much different from conservative worries that many liberals were mesmerized in 2008 and were inadequately attuned to deficiencies in Obama’s preparation and expertise.

  19. Silver Whistle says:

    Progressives need a very strong sense of denial just to survive each day.

    Boy, when you’re right, you’re right, cranky.

  20. DarthLevin says:

    From Pablo’s link:

    Justice Stanley Marcus, also appointed to the court by Clinton in 1997, wrote in his dissent that the majority opinion ignored precedents set by the Supreme Court justifying an expansive reading of the “commerce clause” in the U.S. Constitution

    (my emphasis)

    So it’s still prevailing proggthink that if people did something stupid in the past we are forced to continue those stupid things because of “precedent”?

  21. sdferr says:

    How about in addition to a strong sense of denial, an even stronger sense of ownership?

    Obama Wants Credit For Texas Job Growth

  22. Darleen says:

    oops!! I posted about the mandate before checking this thread … [waves at Pablo!]

  23. Squid says:

    The Administration argued that the requirement was legal under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. One of the three judges of the appeals court panel, Stanley Marcus, agreed with the administration in dissenting from the majority opinion.

    The majority “has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress’ commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy,” Marcus wrote.

    Somebody might want to clue in the Honorable Stan that the exponential growth he cites is long overdue for some serious reeling in, and that the majority he criticizes knows exactly what it’s doing.

    Poor Stan. Just not cut out for 17th 18th 19th 21st Century jurisprudence.

  24. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Naturally di. I mean, why would anyone give credence to anything a conservative has to say? Don’t you know that some of them are the trashiest of trailer folk who go to churches the size of stadiums where they have cameras so as to push their pushy Jesusy-ness on other, more restrained people? My God! How can ANYBODY take people like that seriously! (psst: between you and me, there’s other conservatives that are just, well, weird. Y’know what I mean?) [wink an’ a grin]

  25. […] Insider via Pablo The court said Congress cannot “mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private […]

  26. Swen says:

    Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?

    A: Because as a fan of Jim Hightower’s she was well aware that there’s nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos (no offense). Even a chicken knows that when the sky is falling it’s time to bail on the Democrats, and even a chicken has enough brains to know that Ron Paul is bugfuck crazy so there’s no point in putting your eggs in that basket case.

    Also, as a chicken, she knew that it’s impossible to run over a chicken, so she had nothing to lose.

  27. McGehee says:

    So it’s still prevailing proggthink that if people did something stupid in the past we are forced to continue those stupid things because of “precedent”?

    That’s the effect of stare decisis, unfortunately. In a legal system with a written Constitution, that principle should perhaps be curtailed.

  28. LTC John says:

    #28 – only partly so, McGehee. To the Left, precedent is holy, unshakable and inviolable – if it backs what they want (ie. Roe v Wade). If not, it is worse than Dred Scott and just a mechanism for reactionary tools of imperialism to wield, taken from the dead white patriarch arsenal.

  29. Squid says:

    If I were smart like a lefty, I’d be able to tell which decisions were which. As it is, I’ll just sit quietly and do what they tell me to do.

  30. dicentra says:

    I still haven’t posted anything on Steyn’s After America, but ArthurK over at Ace’s has summarized the prologue here.

    I’m more apt to type up the more entertaining passages.

    ¡Cuando me nazca, meus filhos!

  31. To a progressive stare decisis means what’s mine is mine and what’s yours remains negotiable.

Comments are closed.