HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » chknltl » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »


Profile Information

Name: chris chick
Gender: Male
Hometown: Between Mt. Rainier and McKenna Wa.
Home country: Hanging in there but just barely
Current location: I am right here! (location subject to change depending on the weather).
Member since: Thu May 19, 2005, 06:43 PM
Number of posts: 10,557

About Me

I am a fulltime chaperone to an aging pit-bull. She loves pigs-ears purchased from Stewerts Meat Market, long walks anywhere, feeding time and tummy rubs. We both enjoy disc golf, (golf with baskets instead of holes and fancy frisbees instead of golf balls), but for entirely different reasons. Fortunately for all she never acquired a taste for frisbees but she is a sucker for thrown rope-toys and balls. Her goal in life is to see an end to the nuisance that causes some toys to squeak when pressed by her chaperone. After the squeak has been eliminated, the toy is safe to be played with by anyone else because regardless of price it holds no further interest for her. Lastly: that is my real last name which means I can get away with calling myself a card carrying chick!

Journal Archives

Looking for link to entire context: Paul Weyrich 'Goo Goo Complex' speech.

In my ongoing and likely fruitless campaign to turn a WWII vet away from the darkside I finally almost stumped him with this:
My aging friend has contributed to the Heritage foundation and recognized the name of Weyrich. When he heard the 30 or so second YouTube cut he asked me for the entire context. I have looked a bit but I did not know where to find the speech in its entirety. Any help would be appreciated thanks.

Yep, another underwear/gun holster thread


I am no expert but shouldn't it be the illegitimate bullet holes that heal?

The way you have it wars would become sorta irrelevant. (Which of course would be a good thing but war-mongers would never allow it).

Seeking assistance regarding Election Fraud discussion.

I have a WWII vet friend who is an ex Republican Precinct Commander, a devout Christian and is a fierce defender of all things Ronald Regan.

I am none of the above and yet we are friends, I cherish our friendship and we have the grandest discussions on politics. (Only once have we actually angered each other while debating politics, doing so again is NOT an option).

In recent discussions I point out how his GOP is undermining our democracy wholesale by restricting those who can vote, thereby restricting Democrats by and large from voting.

His response is that this effort by the GOP is not happening and almost in the same breath he asks me what I have against voter ID cards

Ok so what I seek in advice from the DU here is: An easy counter argument that refutes his assertion that the GOP is not deliberately attempting to prevent millions of Dems from voting.

I have already demonstrated to him that President Bush spent millions of tax dollars on a program seeking out these fictitious Democratic voters and came up with less than a hundred fraudulent votes nationwide. (He doubts my numbers btw.).

Again, this is a friend, a very dear old friend. There are likely many of us DUers who have Republicans as friends who would like help-assistance in our never ending struggle to drag our blinds friends out from the darkness.

In my case, this man fought for our democracy in WWII. I believe if I have any chance to wake him up it will be from the angle of our right to vote. He does not like romney but he hates President Obama.

That said, this kindly old man would pick up a gun and defend our democracy with his life AGAIN if needs be. Defending our right to vote should imo be the trigger that switches him away from the GOP.....and millions of voters like him.

Volare, Deana Martin. I think she sings it just fine.

The comments below this vid are brutal. Of course she is not her dad, this is her version. I love the silkiness her voice brings to the song and I believe her father would be proud as punch of her if he was still around.






Back in the late 60s-early 70s this word was in it's most common use here in America. More often than not I recall it being written as 'boo koo' or 'boo coup' and pronounced about half the time as 'bow kew'. The word is French meaning many. I suspect that the citizenry of Viet Nam picked it up from the French military during their disastrous time there. We replaced the French and our soldiers picked it up from the Vietnamese. The word then traveled here via our returning vets and gained some popularity for about a decade, that is from my perspective in Washington State near an army base. Then it all but died out around here for the next forty years. Recently I have been hearing it used among younger people and now here in the DU I have today seen it as 'buku'.

There is no real point to my observation, I just found the local history and recent resurgence of the word fascinating.

Here Come The Brides. New movie to be released next year?

First a history lesson.
Seattle in the late 1800s was booming, but marriagable women were on short supply. There was a supply of....let's call them 'less than marriagable' single women, "seamstresseses" was the polite term used for them back then. So wealthy pioneer Asa Mercer did attempt to bring suitable young ladies to the area for purposes of anchoring the men here.

Many of the men were indeed transient, Seattle being the Northern kickoff point for the Alaska Gold Rush and the loggers came to town only to spend money on booze and getting their clothes mended.... then back up into the hills they went.

Fast forward to the late 1960s, where loosely based on Asa Mercer's plan to import marriagable women, the television show Here Comes The Brides airs. The story revolves around a plot by Jason Boldt to import 100 marriagable women to the logging town Seattle in order to keep his crew of loggers from deserting the area.

Regarding the movie, I stumbled across this small reference in Wiki to the movie slated to come out next year and nothing else:

"In June 2011 Big Valley films and Panther Entertainment expressed an interest in producing a big budget, full length motion picture based on the series, scheduled for a 2013 release date. The film version of the series would be completely recast and is contingent on the success or failure of the 2011 film remake of the 1960's TV series The Big Valley. "

The series itself only lasted two seasons,1969 and '70 and for those of us old enough to remember it, it is all but forgotten.

While doing the research and watching this piece, I couldn't help but reflect on my worldview from back then. There was never a doubt in my mind that America was growing-that it's 'greatness' would grow well past my lifetime. We were that "beautiful child, growing up green and wild, full of hopes and full of fears, full of laughter full of tears, full of dreams to last the years."

Here then is a clip to the original, with theme music. No, it is not the actual theme song but instead the lengthier version as sung by Bobby Sherman who played the youngest of the Boldt brothers, known for his stammer and his shyness. It includes many vignettes of the series.


Well there's your problem Mr. Romney......

"Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me, only money works on me."

Seeing as how you are not a Jedi....

Attn. Romney for President campaign staff:
Please make your contributions to the Democratic Underground. With a generous enough contribution we will post an advertisement on this forum promoting Governor Romney's bid to reclaim America. We at the Democratic Underground reserve the EXCLUSIVE right to design this ad.

(attn admins, The big DU tent holds tons of talant, surely someone here could come up with a suitable advertisement...maybe we could hold a contest!)

In case you missed this, Thom Hartmann on 2nd Amendment.

I post this for those here who may have missed this. It is from The Thom Hartmann Show and was posted over in Video and Multimedia by fellow DUer Thom Hartmann.

A little about Thom in case you do not know him. He is a remarkably educated historian, especially regarding our founding fathers. He owns an original set of Thomas Jefferson
Diaries which he found in the attic of a house he once owned. Thom is a prolific publisher with well over a dozen books to his credit, most dealing with America, her history and our democracy. The Thom Hartmann Show is broadcast Monday through Friday, noon to three pacific time.

This is a segment from his show which aired Tuesday. Lastly, I post this for those who wish to read it, not for any other purpose. I am not Thom, I can not add anything to further the discussion
of Thom's words. Sometimes (rarely) he answers our posts to him in his OPs.

Entire OP over at:

"Rewind back to the early days of America - even after the British were beaten back in the Revolutionary War there was still tremendous fear that American was vulnrable to attack. It could be the Spanish coming up from Florida. Or the French - or the British again - coming down through Canada. And most of our Founding Fathers also had an enormous fear of standing armies during times of peace - after all, thousands of years of history showed them that great nations that kept a standing army during times of peace were often taken down by that very army in a military coup. Jefferson wrote exhaustively on this - even threatening to blow up the Constitution since it didn't include protections from standing armies. As Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1787: "I do not like the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly... protection against standing armies." And as Jefferson wrote in 1814: "The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves...Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so."

And that's why they formulated the Second Amendment, which would provide for a well-armed militia that could be called on should the nation be under attack. Again - the second amendment is there to protect the nation - and, in part, to protect it FROM a standing Army during time of peace. In fact, it was modeled on the Constitution of Pennsylvania, the state where the Framers met, in Philadelphia in 1787, to write our Constitution. Article 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, adopted in 1776, says it pretty plainly: "XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

But recently - especially since President Obama took office - that rationale has been flipped on its head - and many - particularly on the Right - believe that the Second Amendment is there to protect the people AGAINST the nation. As though militias in South Dakota armed with rifles, handguns, and shotguns could somehow beat back the U.S. government armed with cruise missiles, tanks, and drones. They can't - and this idea that the second amendment is a protection against tyranny from our own government is a lie - a lie that's increasingly used today to paint President Obama as a radical who wants to take away our freedoms."

The rest can be found over in Video and Multimedia:

I strongly recommend reading on as Thom brings things forward to our current Supreme Court where he diagnosis Justice Scalia's recent interpretations.

So now that the Britts have gotten a good look at the mittster....

....they might be justified to quarantine us and send in doctors to see what the hell is in our drinking water!
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »