Woman Who Leaves Small Children Alone In House, Which Catches Fire, Expresses Concern . . . About Her Food Stamp Card
UGH. “@drboycewatkins1: Two Babies Killed in House Fire and Aunt Is Only Upset that Her Foodstamps Got Burned Up
http://t.co/gNOqJl6Phn”
— Kathleen McKinley (@KatMcKinley) December 20, 2013
When I saw the tweet above, I thought: no. Something here has to be exaggerated. Well, it’s not clear from the clip (which appears to be about a month old) that the kids died . . . but the callousness of this aunt cannot be overstated.
From NaturallyMoi.com comes a clip of one of the most callous people you will ever see. Watch all the way to the end of the two-minute clip or you’ll miss the most grotesque part:
Note that she and her sister both needed to take the “dude” home, leaving the kids home alone. But the jaw-dropping part is how she does, indeed, seem to care more about her food stamp card than these kids.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I don’t really want this woman to have food stamps.
I don’t want this creature to breathe the same air I do.
nk (dbc370) — 12/20/2013 @ 7:47 amThe chronic problem of the African American community will only improve when the truth can be told of those with the problems and the cultural brain damage they suffer. When Gov.t goes along to get along — they make it worse and are to blame.
Same goes for vast segment of white and hispanic society who are trending towards this cultural brain damage. Emulating the very worst of our society in some perverted way in order to “be cool” or to get over just “the other victim class does.”
From victim hood being claimed b/c of “racism” or “single parent HHs” — Julia and Pajamafag are underwear smears on society. They are not cute, they are disgusting and we need to bleach them out.
Rodney King's Spirit (11dcd5) — 12/20/2013 @ 7:52 amI really hate to say it, but C’mon black community. You need to STEP UP.
It’s not racist to find this woman vial in reprehensible. YOU SHOULD TOO.
Wherever you find this in your community, you should put an end to it.
© Sponge (8110ec) — 12/20/2013 @ 7:59 amOf course, she also says she has no regrets about leaving young children to fend for themselves.
Those poor children…
pookysgirl (8475c3) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:04 amThey was just gettin’ their drink on. First things first. Save the foodstamps and the EBT!
Colonel Haiku (2add70) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:07 amIt was the aunt, not the mother, who was concerned about the food stamps!
What was the point for her about being worried about the children?
They were already dead, but her food stamps could be replaced, and how would she eat, maybe?
cf I Samuel 12:21-23
Sammy Finkelman (9fe80b) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:11 amSamuel was just ahead of his time, Sammy. http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2011/01/10/dmv-not-amused-by-this-liscene-plate/
nk (dbc370) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:20 amSammy, it doesn’t seem that the aunt did much weeping before or after the death of the children.
I would like to say that sometimes people process things in unexpected ways, for example to be concerned over some trivial detail is a way the mind tries to cope with something too horrendous to face.
But the rest of her tone and body language do suggest that she isn’t that bothered.
Did you note that she suggested maybe the children were themselves responsible for the fire.
Humans, made in the image of God, then fell and fall short. Sometimes it is very sad to see how far some have fallen. From the image of God to a creature concerned about the next feeding time.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:21 amNew York Times story today about a family where children were left alone in the house – twice – in 1992 and 2007 – and played woth matches and started a fire and they got killed and/or burned.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/nyregion/scourged-by-fire-and-aiding-a-sister-burned-even-worse.html?_r=0
In the second fire, nobody was killed, but the little girl was more severely burned. She lost her fingers, ears, lips and nostrils and spent three years hospitalized, and skin grafts continue.
After the second fire, the parents, both of whom were drug addicts, lost custody, and the younger children went to live with their grandmother.
Camilia, the 22 year old previously burned girl, who left them completely alone in the house while she went to buy fire extinguishers, had to live with friends, but now she has a place of her own and as formally adopted her siblings.
Sammy Finkelman (9fe80b) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:21 amOn a scale of 1 to Sammy, how tone deaf can a person be?
JD (5c1832) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:23 amSammy, there were 12 yo and 14 yo children at home in the two instances above. Both are tragedies, but a 12 yo I think could often be expected to be left home alone for awhile and not let the 7 yo sister start a fire, more so a 14 yo.
Of course, not all 12 yo are that responsible.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:26 amBut anyway, 2 and 3 is a lot different for 12.
Correction: The second time, in 2007, it was a lighter, not matches.
And if the 22 year old had told her younger sister she was going out for a few minutes, she wouldn’t have gone back into the fire to look for her.
Sammy Finkelman (9fe80b) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:28 amShe has the look of a liar in her eyes. They were doing something illegal, not just driving a dude home.
I was talking to an AA girl, a temp, and she and another girl are the only people who work in her 8-unit apt. building. She has a father in the home so maybe that’s why. I asked what the other people do, and she said they get up about 6 a.m. and start drinking and it goes downhill from there. I hope she does okay, but she’s got a tough road.
Patricia (be0117) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:39 amSammy– once in a while it is OK to read a story, and after the facts are clear to raise one’s arms to the sky in utter despair and say, “this person is pure evil”. This day and this story would be a good time for you to practice that rather than make excuses for her.
elissa (78bee9) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:43 amfood stamps is of the devil
happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:44 am21. What you do now, fool? Yeah, you was all chillin’ and payin’ no mind to the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, you got up off your fat ass and ate all the bread.
22. And she said, While your baby was alive, I went without and had faith: and I was all, who knows whether Obama still has some ObamaCash in his ObamaStash? will he have my back, so that the rent gets paid?
23. But now he’s dead, so why shouldn’t I party? Ain’t no bringin’ that child back… I’ll take a sip for me and spill a sip for my li’l homey.
Colonel Haiku (2add70) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:47 amThe End.
Colonel Haiku (2add70) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:48 am7. Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:20 am
Samuel was just ahead of his time, Sammy.
The book is called samuel, but that was King David. the son was son he had conceived with Bathsheva while her husband (the Rabbis say they had the poractice of issuing dicorces to their wives in cas ethey died and their bodies were not recovered, so it was not technically adultery) was alive. Solomon was born later.
Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:58 amTechnically not adultery? I don’t think God is aware of that.
Dana (5cc70d) — 12/20/2013 @ 9:09 amComment by elissa (78bee9) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:43 am
rather than make excuses for her.
There might be a number of things wrong here, and they might be lying, but mentioning that now she wants to get back in to see if her purse survived, most importantly because her food stamp card is in it, is not really one of them. This also came after she was asked about responsibility. Now getting back in could help assess the cause of the fire.
They probably left the children alone many times without anything happening. She’s right that she doesn’t know if it would have made a difference. (except that she would have been much more likely to have gotten them out of there without being trapped herself.)
Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 9:11 amSometimes you should know to fake it.
Richard Aubrey (c411da) — 12/20/2013 @ 9:13 amComment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/20/2013 @ 8:21 am
Did you note that she suggested maybe the children were themselves responsible for the fire.
That was what she was trying to avoid saying, because that would make her responsible for starting the fire. (She wasn’t thinking too much about possible responsibility for rescuing them.)
She said maybe the door started it (?) or maybe somebody threw something in. She pushed aside the idea that the children started the fire. And indeed maybe they were too young for that, although her alternatives don’t make too much sense.
She also said (there’s a cut in the tape) she needed to get in to see if her purse was OK, because her food stamp card “and everything” was in it.
It wasn’t just the next feeding time, which maybe was taken care of – there would be someone or some place she could go to – it was the next days, and it was more actually an argument that she should be allowed back in because there are valuable things in there – and then maybe she could answer the question.
Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 9:28 am19. Comment by Dana (5cc70d) — 12/20/2013 @ 9:09 am
Technically not adultery? I don’t think God is aware of that.
The Rabbis have to deal with the question of how King David could be forgiven.
Technicalities matter.
Even without it being adultery, there’s something very wrong with this.
See II Samuel 12: 1-14 (the parable about the sheep.)
Nathan first gets David to condemn what was done, although the crime in the parable is only theft by someone rich of a poor man’s only poessession.
And Nathan tells him he killed Uriah the Hittite, even though it was done with the sword of the children of Ammon.
At the end David admitted what he did was wrong, and didn’t try to justify it.
That’s a stage many people don’t reach. Like the aunt, maybe.
Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 9:36 amIt was the little laugh she gave after she mentioned her food stamps that makes me question whether or not these people have souls.
CrustyB (5a646c) — 12/20/2013 @ 9:54 amGreetings:
A while back, I was reading a bit of Niall Ferguson’s work and he addressed the subject of how present day “entitlements” cause and increase “social parasitism”. It’s going to get worse before it gets better.
Back in the mid-’70s, I spent a short while working in New York State’s social service industry. One day a “consultant” came by to continue our indoctrination and he asked if there were any suggestions to improve our work. I offered up my assessment that we should do away with the waiting area. When he asked me why, I responded that it seemed to me that most of what went on there was our clients trying to figure out how to extract more goodies from the welfare system.
I think that it’s time for a “War on Entitlements”. One with an “exit strategy”.
11B40 (abd5a3) — 12/20/2013 @ 10:02 am24. There was something else, not just an EBT card, in her purse. Pills? Drugs?
Thinking about it, I’d say she gives a laugh because of the fact she is so concerned about it, because she shouldn’t be. Women laugh about things about themselves that are irrational.
OK. It’s something she is addicted to.
Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 10:03 amTone. Deaf.
JD (4ebc00) — 12/20/2013 @ 10:16 amShe jus’ don’t give a Duck!
ropelight (32cb49) — 12/20/2013 @ 10:25 amI don’t think the aunt was too close to the children.
Now the mother was crying.
Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 10:32 amfurther proof, as if any was needed, that there is no story damaging the meme that Sam the Sham won’t try and spin away…
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/20/2013 @ 10:44 amOf course God is aware of it. God’s aware of everything, how could He not be aware of the divorce? As a matter of law, Bathsheva was a single woman at the time. She had a clear understanding that Uriah would remarry her if and when he came back from the war, so what David did wasn’t right, but it wasn’t illegal. If he’d been charged with adultery no court, including the Heavenly one, could have convicted him.
His offense was real, but in the realm of ethics, not law. Much like this aunt we’re discussing here. As a matter of law she was not responsible for her niblings’ safety, and did nothing wrong by leaving them alone; if charges are brought they will be brought against the mother, not against her. The mother had a duty of care, she had none. And of course there is no law against callousness. But we all look at this and see that it’s wrong nonetheless.
Milhouse (b95258) — 12/20/2013 @ 10:56 amShe looks like a witch.
The Emperor AKA the ReAlist (03864d) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:07 amMilhouse,
I think elissa was being sarcastic, as in “God isn’t aware” of that flimsy excuse you just offered for your sins.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:12 amAs a matter of law she was not responsible for her niblings’ safety, and did nothing wrong by leaving them alone;
She should take great solace that she didn’t do anything wrong as a matter of law.
JD (4ebc00) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:15 amDRJ–I think you were referring to the sarcastic Dana. I posted nothing concerning adultery.
elissa (78bee9) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:16 amI think this happened in 2009 but the video is recirculating this week. This report suggests the aunt might have mental problems.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:17 amAlso, it appears the sisters went shopping and to pick up a 5 year old child, not taking a “dude” home.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:18 amIt was Dana, not elissa. I’m sorry and my mistake.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:19 amGood grief, Milhouse, stop being so literal. Of course God knew it was adultery – that was my snarky point.
Dana (5cc70d) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:23 amIt’s sunny and warm where Chimperor is, he’s crabbed his way from under his rock…
Colonel Haiku (2add70) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:31 amNo, God knew it wasn’t adultery — and wasn’t impressed.
Milhouse (b95258) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:43 amIt wasn’t a flimsy excuse; technically, as a matter of law, it was a rock-solid defense. There was no actual sin involved. And yet God wasn’t impressed; He expected better from someone as close to Him as David was.
Milhouse (b95258) — 12/20/2013 @ 11:46 amIsno one going to mention the obvious? How have blacks and their dependance on welfare gone so far down this road of greed, dependance, and disfunction?
Federale (09b473) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:06 pmHow did she get food stamps in the first place? It is supposed to be hard to get them if you are single without kids. And Moms is going to see hers cut, for sure.
Prediction: they were gone for quite some time, smoking their brains out. Women don’t go anywhere without their purses unless they have a good reason not to.
Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:26 pmNow they are saying the story the aunt told was wrong (and this was in 2009)- they were taking a 5-year old somewhere.
Sammy Finkelman (3bb3ae) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:27 pmDRJ–
Just saw that, clearly you are right. But if they really went shopping, why did the aunt not take her purse?
Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:29 pmMilhouse,
This is my day to make stupid mistakes so I could be wrong, but I think you and Sammy are arguing the same technicality of Jewish law. I think we’ve been down this road before and I acknowledge you’ve correctly stated the principle, but will you also acknowledge that not everyone abides by Jewish legal technicalities when it comes to their own religious principles?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:30 pmThe reason this is going around now:
http://wreg.com/2012/12/13/police-search-for-memphis-mother-guilty-of-toddlers-deaths/
Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:33 pmOh. that was 2013, not 2013. But looking through Google tells me the story is evergreen.
Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:35 pmgah. 2012 not 2013. I await the happy day PP has an edit function.
Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:36 pmKevin,
Maybe she has a food stamp purse and a going shopping purse, or it could be she expected her sister to pay. Or it could be she doesn’t bother to pay since she was arrested the week of the fire on outstanding warrants for various crimes.
The authorities claimed the sisters were shopping but her defense attorneys claimed there was no video of her at the store (where I assume she claimed she went) and it was her “that it was her normal practice to pick up her 5-year-old son at school around the time of the fire.” In addition:
Her mental problems appeared to be grief and denial over her sons’ deaths, which is probably why her mental claim was contested by the state.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:40 pmWhile there is undoubtedly a strong cultural component, it isn’t only cultural.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:42 pmTo clarify my last comment (I wish there were an edit feature, too, Kevin!), Marilyn Watson is the aunt and she was arrested the week of the fire on outstanding warrants.
In addition, the mother of the children is Melodia Dunn and she was charged and convicted in connection with their deaths. She received a sentence of 14 years probation and mental health treatment.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/20/2013 @ 12:44 pmIt also wasn’t technicaly murder when KIng David sent Uriah with orders to Joab always to put him on the front line, but in reality it can be regarded as such. It can be taken both ways.
Sammy Finkelman (9fe80b) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:02 pmMy first suspicion regarding the mysteriously-left-behind purse is that it is fictitious. Its mention was the first step in some sort of fraud against the state whereby multiple EBT cards may be issued.
After all, if you leave your toddler nephews alone to die in a fire while you take some dude home, why in the world should I not also suspect you of lesser intent-to-defraud crimes?
Pious Agnostic (ac89e5) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:10 pmI wonder how successful that mental health treatment was, DRJ. I would think extreme sociopathy would be hard to overcome. As Professor Richard Lynn said in an article based on a paper published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, 2002, Vol. 32, pp.273-316:
Is that something one can treat? If so, how often is treatment successful?
In Lynn’s paper, he presents evidence showing that, over and above any difference which would be predicted by having lower average IQ, blacks have a higher incidence of anti-social behaviors, on average. He postulates that this is probably genetic. This may go some way to explaining the higher degree to which blacks are charged for and convicted of crimes, although my opinion is that the law has fundamentally become more racist in the last several decades by criminalizing behavior which should not be crimes (buying, selling through mutually-agreed-upon voluntary transactions), and this has disproportionately affected black communities.
Even if Lynn is wrong, despite the evidence he presents, that there is a genetic racial difference in anti-social behaviors, can they be successfully treated?
Because this lady’s problems went well beyond drug addiction to a profound lack of moral sense.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:11 pmGood thought. That might explain why she laughed as she said it.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:12 pmMy last comment was in response to Pious’ comment.
FC:
I don’t know what the mental health problem is but it sounds like both sisters have it. My guess is the side effects from drugs like meth.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:14 pmKing David.
Richard Aubrey (c411da) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:14 pmIt’s easier to get “jody” into marching songs. One-third fewer syllables.
From Professor Lynn’s article:
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:16 pmI what have to imagine that was a likely cofounding variable. On the other hand, cause and effect are not easily established. From the same article:
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:18 pm*confounding
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:24 pmIt’s not a matter of religious principle, it’s a matter of Biblical law. Since Bathsheva was divorced, David’s sleeping with her was not adultery. Just as this aunt leaving her niblings alone in the house was not against the law, and she can’t be charged with anything. That’s all. In both cases we’re dealing with wrongdoing that is not captured by law. Ethical wrongdoing, not actual crime or sin. With all the lawyers here, you’d think this distinction would be well understood.
Milhouse (b95258) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:25 pmEthical wrongdoing, not actual crime or sin.
Interesting.
nk (dbc370) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:31 pmAs a lawyer, I know that laws must be interpreted. In addition, do all Christians accept that Old Testament laws are meaningful or binding?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:33 pmI know One who did:
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:46 pmThis is my stupid day, but I’m glad you corrected me so quickly, FC. The Commandments are indeed the law. I guess I’m wondering if Christians interpret the Commandments the same way Jews do, given Milhouse’s point about technicalities.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:53 pmI’m not sure that Jesus is universally considered to have been a Christian.
(Not that this invalidates your point at all, FC.)
Pious Agnostic (ac89e5) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:53 pmAnd I think I know the answer to that: The answer is different denominations and even different ministers within denominations can have their own spin on what things mean.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 12/20/2013 @ 1:55 pmIn Matthew 19:8-9, Jesus says:
Not sure how to reconcile this with your quotes, FC, but that’s not my job.
Pious Agnostic (ac89e5) — 12/20/2013 @ 2:00 pmI’m not even … http://i.imgur.com/rzISQM1.jpg
nk (dbc370) — 12/20/2013 @ 2:00 pm………
askeptic (b8ab92) — 12/20/2013 @ 2:09 pmThat guy is participating in the marketplace of ideas on the demand side.
Pious Agnostic (ac89e5) — 12/20/2013 @ 2:15 pmI’m not a Christian. I think the Bible’s inconsistent. Well, and evil.
But I’ve been debating with some friends about this Duck Dynasty thing, and some of them pull out the card that no true Christian would disapprove of homosexuality or, well, anything really. Which is nuts, but — common. I’m actually sort of defending the guy. I think he’s wrong (homosexuality is natural and not immoral), but I think he’s at least more internally consistent than most Christians manage.
I agree with atheist Penn Jillette on this: Why Tolerance Is Condescending
Now I can get along with fuzzy-headed Christians who neither believe in reason and evidence nor what their Bible says, but it’s a lot easier if she’s a hot brunette. Because really, there’s only so much silliness I can tolerate without compensating considerations.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/20/2013 @ 2:16 pmI am on the side of Milhouse’s take — that human beings should behave better than their nature, regardless of whether God’s or society’s laws demand it. Their individual nature — character, temperament, call it whatever you wish. And I don’t think it’s humanistic. I think God, too, wants us to transcend the mud from which He made us.
nk (dbc370) — 12/20/2013 @ 2:26 pmMy wife’s people have an expression to describe any woman who fails to live up to a certain standard of behavior: “She’s no better than the ought to be.”
That takes a bit to unpack, but I think it means the same thing that y’all are discussing.
Pious Agnostic (ac89e5) — 12/20/2013 @ 2:30 pmUgh. “..she ought to be.”
Is that edit feature ready yet?
Pious Agnostic (ac89e5) — 12/20/2013 @ 2:30 pmHey, Pious Agnostic, in regard to your post number 70 in this thread, you might also want to look at Mat 5:31-32 which has more info in the same theme.
Miss Tified (72ac6e) — 12/20/2013 @ 2:36 pmAnother way of answering your prior question, DRJ.
Yes. Many Christians consider the Old Testament to be non-binding and not meaningful.
(The degree of cognitive dissonance in my species is disturbing. If you are significantly less cognitively dissonant than most, you are considered insane. Also, if you are much more cognitively dissonant.)
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/20/2013 @ 2:52 pmJust watched the video. Some quick impressions.
She has the look of a crackhead not an alky.
If she were white she would look like the typical toothless cranker.
Not knowing anything about Memphis economy and crank being cheaper than crack, she just might be a methamphibian, not a crackhead.
She’s probably 10-15 years younger than she looks.
They may have dropped the dude off, but I would bet they went out to score.
Labcatcher (61737c) — 12/20/2013 @ 2:58 pmUmm, originally the term “Christian” was used of people who believed in and followed the teachings of Jesus.
Some people still use the term that way.
According to polling data, there are many people who consider themselves to be Christians in the US who do not believe in objective reality or morality.
To say one is a Christian but not believe the teachings of the Bible is like saying one is an Orthodox Jew who likes his pork ribs every Sabbath.
It just doesn’t work that way.
Jesus always did have a problem with people who nit-picked the Law to explain away why they were really righteous enough to stand before God on their own merit. He preferred people who were willing to admit they needed mercy.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/20/2013 @ 3:14 pmI would think extreme sociopathy would be hard to overcome.
Especially since the sociopath thinks he’s the one thinking clearly. The one true sociopath I had the misfortune to work with for an extended period took “Ethics” as a major in college. Apparently he wanted to understand how we-all thought people should behave. Not that he intended to behave that way, but it would serve as cover.
Then he became a lawyer.
Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/20/2013 @ 6:20 pmI agree with atheist Penn Jillette on this: Why Tolerance Is Condescending
Tolerance is different than acceptance.
Let’s say I own a hardware store. I find out that one of my employees is a card-carrying member of the Flat Earth Society. Can I fire him for this? No. I must tolerate his holding this provably false view. But I do not have to accept the view as having any validity and I can require him to STFU about it where customers might hear. Or me, for that matter. Tolerance yes, acceptance no.
Kevin M (536c5d) — 12/20/2013 @ 6:26 pmWow.
Watching this makes me think I’ve been a fool for urging a rational argument from the GOP on how entitlements are robbing the next generation. Intuitively, with my values, this argument is very compelling. But without the values, there’s only selfishness to guide people.
No wonder both political parties clamor to sell us shiny entitlements and what a big government can do and decide for us.
I wonder if this country was ever anything more than this, of if our individual liberty was just a fluke and human nature is just this awful. There are good people out there, but they seem to always be opposed by a bunch of bad ones.
Dustin (303dca) — 12/20/2013 @ 7:12 pmBut I’ve been debating with some friends about this Duck Dynasty thing, and some of them pull out the card that no true Christian would disapprove of homosexuality
Well, that’s because there’s one thing that trumps religion or religiosity: Liberal bias. Your friends are of the left more than they’re Christians. Similarly, people who are most into racial politics — and are more likely to rally around the woman enamored of food stamps instead of children’s lives — are, in reality, into leftism as much as anything concerning black, white, Latino, Christian, Jew, atheist, etc.
Mark (58ea35) — 12/20/2013 @ 9:38 pmMark, that’s why it is such a problem that people identify with their beliefs. Then they can’t allow anything to threaten the belief because it’s a threat to themselves. If you are a Christian or a Liberal, and some fact could change your mind, then you cease to exist. Or at least that is how it feels at the time. So people are resistant to fact. And wrong opinions change very slowly in society.
Miss Tified (72ac6e) — 12/21/2013 @ 4:56 amRe the original topic, adults at home is no guarantee of safety.
Anyone with small children sees how much trouble they can get into while you are fixing lunch. Or how one could set the house on fire while you are washing poop of another.
My cousin’s son died in a fire while 2 adults were home.
Miss Tified (72ac6e) — 12/21/2013 @ 5:07 amIrrelevant. David was not a Christian.
Milhouse (b95258) — 12/21/2013 @ 3:58 pmThis is true. But leaving no adults at home means that in case of a fire there is no real chance of saving them.
Milhouse (b95258) — 12/21/2013 @ 4:06 pmI always hear it said that Jimi Hendrix was the greatest guitarist that ever lived.
Can’t even argue against it because there isn’t any real criteria to measure. “Greatest” doesn’t mean anything objectively.
But then you pull the record, and give a listen.
It doesn’t help. Frankly, the music sucks.
So now why does the media sell Jimi Hendrix as the greatest? Nobody is buying records. Even if the music was good, nobody is buying records.
SO what are they selling?
Stratocaster. Piss poor, weighes a ton, built in defect (If you use the thing correctly the bridge will break, utterly ruining the guitar. Not a matter of if it will break, it’s a matter of when).
It’s in Fender’s interests that Jimi Hendrix is billed as the greatest guitar player.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 12/22/2013 @ 6:20 amSame reason Mily Cyrus twerks for a living.
For Christmas, if you are buying the kid a guitar get a Teisco or Silverline.
They’re built better in the first place. And when the urchin gives up on it, they have a better resale value in the used market.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 12/22/2013 @ 6:26 amWhen I went from nylon to wire, in 1982 or so, I bought a Strat. Think about it, classical to Strat. I hated the sound (or myself). Traded it in for a Tele and I got rid of that too. (All genuine Fender, including the tube amp.) It’s a thing. For technique, there are thousands of players who can player better than Hendrix on his best day. And compose, too. But it’s all a question of what you like. I like a lot of electric sound, to listen to, including Hendrix.
nk (dbc370) — 12/22/2013 @ 7:21 amMy Guild acoustic is too hard on my daughter’s fingers, so I got her a couple of cheapo electrics that her teacher approves of. I’m not sure we’re doing the right thing. Tone production is very important.
nk (dbc370) — 12/22/2013 @ 7:25 amPer FC’s quote from John:
Old Testament law had been fulfilled with through Christ.
Hebrews 9:15
Christ had fulfilled the law with His death. The old covenant had been replaced by a new covenant.
Romans 10:4
Galatians 3:23-25
The old covenant was with the nation of Israel. Much of the law, such as the clothing and dietary restrictions, was laid down to make the nation of Israel distinct from other nations.
God only gave us two commandments in the new covenant.
Matthew 22:34-40
The Old Testament moral laws remain a guide to how to love and please God.
Steve57 (be5be1) — 12/22/2013 @ 8:09 amLighter the better, so I’d suggest an acoustic electric.
You can play it without plugging in. The one I have has a plastic bowl shaped body, with a wooden face.
Applause – brand name.
Easier for a youngun to carry. Narrowish neck for littler hands. Too small actually for my sausage fingers.
Practically indistructable. You would have to really whack the neck to break it.
The only universal drawback, if the electronics ever went bad, I have no idea how to access them, but it hasn’t come up. Knock on wood.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 12/22/2013 @ 1:26 pmFWIW, I saw a clip of Hendrix with Dick Cavett or Carson or somebody. He was asked the old “What does it feel like to be the world’s best electric guitarist” or some such, and after fumbling with a “I wouldn’t know” and such like that, he agreed that he was the “Best guitarist sitting in this seat right now”.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/22/2013 @ 4:24 pmHe also said that he “makes a lot of mistakes because I’m always trying something new”.
In the process of not playing my Sigma steel string with Medium gauge to an Epiphone Les Paul knock-off with light gauge. Night and day, from pain to barely feel it.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/22/2013 @ 4:27 pmMy first suspicion regarding the mysteriously-left-behind purse is that it is fictitious. Its mention was the first step in some sort of fraud against the state whereby multiple EBT cards may be issued.
Tim (15965b) — 12/22/2013 @ 7:02 pmhttp://graphicsmystictoolkitvolume3.com/
After all, if you leave your toddler nephews alone to die in a fire while you take some dude home, why in the world should I not also suspect you of lesser intent-to-defraud crimes?
http://twitterbusinessinaboxreview.com/
I’m not a Christian. I think the Bible’s inconsistent. Well, and evil.
Tim (15965b) — 12/22/2013 @ 7:03 pmhttp://graphicsmystictoolkitvolume3.com/
But I’ve been debating with some friends about this Duck Dynasty thing, and some of them pull out the card that no true Christian would disapprove of homosexuality or, well, anything really. Which is nuts, but — common. I’m actually sort of defending the guy. I think he’s wrong (homosexuality is natural and not immoral), but I think he’s at least more internally consistent than most Christians manage.
http://twitterbusinessinaboxreview.com/