I have wondered this for a very long time: What is the attraction of Ranch dressing? And why is it capitalized?
Ranch dressing is ubiquitous. It seems that it is served with everything.
It sucks.
All people would put "IMHO" or some other preface indicating the writer's opinion, but this is not the writer's opinion -- it is FACT.
And all of you who think that you like Ranch dressing have been duped by advertisers. Do you really like that taste? And do you really appreciate the odor? Do you enjoy the aftertaste? Do your friends embrace the residual dog breath you have after you've had Ranch dressing?
It has been the best selling salad dressing for the last 20 years -- Chlorox did a good job of brainwashing all of you. Yes, Chlorox runs Hidden Valley.
This is a sad state of affairs.
Happy New Year!
From the on-line edition of The New Yorker, 12/18/2012, Daily Comment, So You Think You Know the Second Amendment by Jeffrey Toobin, Comments:
Originalism is some cases is worth holding on to, like no more slavery. Just like the 2nd amendment. Applied ehics going on here. Libs are all about pro choice when it come to abortion, but public schools and to bare arms??? hmmmmm
Posted 12/21/2012, 12:09:26pm by batcavenc
I am trying to understand the comment of batcavenc.
Is this an example of sarcasm? The Constitution permitted slavery, but banned the importation of slaves after a certain period of time -- that was the cause of that whole Civil War thingy with all kinds of armed militias from different parts of the country taking aim -- and then the 13th Amendment ended slavery.
And what about the 2nd Amendment? I agree that a bunch of hicks, my friend, DT, for instance, enjoys their guns -- oh, that's "ehics." batcavenc means "ethics." I see.
What was I thinking?
I'm a liberal guy. I don't think that I will ever get an abortion; but if someone wanted to get one for a reason that is personal to him or her, I would not stop it. I'm all for public schools -- I campaigned for the Cleveland school levy.
But I do not believe in short-sleeved shirts being worn with a suit. And while I think that sleeveless t-shirts, wife-beaters, in the parlance of our times, are fine for men to wear under shirts, I am opposed to them being worn in restaurants and baseball games and concerts and, generally, anywhere that I am present, except maybe at a construction site or if you are my grandfather working in his garden.
So, there is, in my opinion, no absolute right to bare arms; and if that does not comport with the liberal philosophy, well, so be it. I have to draw the line somewhere. I guess I wasn't raised right.
The leaders of the House Republicans are assholes.
"The House did not take up the tax measure today because it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass," Boehner said in a statement. "Now it is up to the president to work with Senator (Harry) Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff." -- from CNN.com (12/20/2012)
Why do you not be reasonable, House Leadership, and perform your duties owed to We, the People of the United States?
And I just deleted the 241 spam comments to my last post criticizing House Speaker John Boner, which is, coincidentally, the number of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives.
180 years ago, on December 10, President Jackson, attempting to keep our young republic together published his Proclamation Regarding Nullification. It is a lengthy argument advanced against the South Carolina legislature's vote that it would not collect tariffs on foreign goods imposed by the Federal government, and if required to do so by force, would secede.
Various groups are circulating petitions in favor of secession in some states, and Jackson's Proclamation might remind those individuals about the purpose of the United States of America.
But more relevant and instructive, particularly for you and your fellow Republicans in the House of Representatives, 180 years later, to the day, is something President Jackson pointed out about part our republic's underpinnings:
When chosen, [members of the House of Representatives] are all representatives of the United States, not representatives of the particular State from which they come. They are paid by the United States, not by the State; nor are they accountable to it for any act done in performance of their legislative functions; and however they may in practice, as it is their duty to do, consult and prefer the interests of their particular constituents when they come in conflict with any other partial or local interest, yet it is their first and highest duty, as representatives of the United States, to promote the general good.
It seems that there are many in the Republican Party serving in the House of Representatives who are unaware of their duty, their "first and highest duty, ... to promote the general good."
The Bush tax cuts have generated significant deficits because the government decided to spend a lot more than it was bringing in to fight two wars. The tax cuts should have been eliminated back then. Surely, you cannot truly believe that refusing to raise taxes upon a small segment is consistent with you "first and highest duty, ... to promote the general good."
I must pick up the blogging slack.
Stacey pointed out to me that her personal anti-hero, Lebron James, was named "Sportsman of the Year" by Sports Illustrated.
Let's see ...
He won his first NBA championship with a team that was cobbled together by violating the NBA's own anti-tampering and anti-collusion rules ...
In the same year it was revealed that his girlfriend, Sharon Reed, just gave birth to his third known child and moved down to Miami ...
In the same year he finally became "engaged" to his long-time companion, Savanna, who is the mother of two of his children.
He had a good year?
What does this say about the accepted culture of sports in this country and the men, in the main, who so worship and honor professional athletes and hold those athletes up to their children and the rest of society as role models?