<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for cubbiechuck</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/cubbiechuck/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/cubbiechuck/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:42:05 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Scandal Scandal</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/11/mitt-romneys-non-scandal-scandal.html#comment-359244065</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Actually, no, I have not watched any of the debates, and probably won't for another month or two.  Two years is too long to run for president, IMO.  I'm only going by a few little snippets I see here and there.  And, I wouldn't exactly characterize him as charismatic, but, from what I've seen, he seems to have at least a little personality.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:42:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Mitt Romney's Non-Scandal Scandal</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/11/mitt-romneys-non-scandal-scandal.html#comment-358756232</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I have to respectfully disagree with you.  Americans do not elect presidents based on qualifications, but on personality and charisma.  Let's go back as far as the 70s: Carter over Ford (boring), Reagan (charismatic) over anyone, Bush over Dukakis (close as to who was more boring), Clinton (charismatic) over anyone, although Perot was amusing.  Bush II only won either time because the Dems put up the 2 most boring people they could find.  McCain couldn't even come close to, arguably, the most unqualified candidate of them all.  Carter and both Bushes were probably more unqualified than the people they beat.&lt;br&gt;I think Obama would beat Romney handily, barring a further collapse of the economy.&lt;br&gt;Based on personality, I think Cain and Perry have the best shot, but I don't think Perry has a chance to get through the primaries and Cain might be a long shot.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:51:47 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Hank Williams Is Just Plain Ignorant</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/10/hank-williams-is-just-plain-ignorant.html#comment-329062723</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Is anyone allowed to say a public prayer, such as at football games, graduations, etc.?  If not, and the other part of the first amendment applies, I would think the free speech part also applies.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 15:25:46 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Hank Williams Is Just Plain Ignorant</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/10/hank-williams-is-just-plain-ignorant.html#comment-328992004</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hank Williams has always been an ignorant redneck.  ESPN knew that, as well as the rest of us, when they hired him for MNF.  The only surprise is that it took him so long to say something stupid enough to be fired.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The only thing I possibly disagree with PP on is that Behemoth University could fire you for saying crazy things.  I understood that BU was a state institution - thereby an extension of the government and your speech should be protected.  If I am wrong and BU is not a government school, disregard this paragraph.  :)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:35:36 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Cruel Working World (Infographic)</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/09/cruel-working-world-infographic.html#comment-327449823</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Start a business.  You can then name yourself CEO of said business.  Obviously, you will start making millions - no, billions - instantly upon becoming that CEO also.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 17:08:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Rush Limbaugh: Melanin Is Thicker Than Water</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/08/rush-limbaugh-melanin-is-thicker-than.html#comment-299558654</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Of course you're right.  We can be pretty darn sure that no more than, oh say, 95 or 96 percent of blacks will vote for Obama - even though about 5-10 percent of those usually vote Republican.  But it doesn't have anything to do with BO being black, though.&lt;br&gt;I think that his point is, for many blacks, melanin IS thicker than water...as it is for many whites also.  You know, all those racists that disagree with Obama's policies - I mean color.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:52:21 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Ron Paul Says That Being Pro-Life = Pro-Liberty</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/08/ron-paul-says-that-being-pro-life-pro.html#comment-298816977</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I don't understand why a man should lose his rights (aka liberty) to make decisions regarding his own children simply because his wife divorced him.  Not exactly the same, I know. Especially since in my case nobody died.  My point is that we all lose some rights when there are other people's rights involved.  If you don't believe that a pregnant woman is carrying a person, you may well refute my argument on that alone.  I do believe it's a person.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;BTW, I think this particular issue is not as cut and dried as both the sides contend, and I am not against abortion in all cases, but am against "abortion on demand", so we are probably closer to agreeing than not.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:43:57 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Removing "Under God" From The Pledge Of Allegiance</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/06/removing-under-god-from-pledge-of.html#comment-232230653</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It's really only creepy if the chant is something you don't believe in.  To an atheist, for example, the Lord's Prayer being recited in church may be creepy.  To the rest of the congregation, it's merely an affirmation of their beliefs.&lt;br&gt;To those who think of the Pledge as a loyalty oath, it probably seems creepy.  To most of us, though, it's, as DudeBrah said, an affirmation of our pride in belonging to this great country - whether we were born here or came from somewhere else.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:23:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Removing "Under God" From The Pledge Of Allegiance</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/06/removing-under-god-from-pledge-of.html#comment-232218660</link><description>&lt;p&gt;When an athlete thanks God, almost all of the time they are thanking God for giving them the natural ability and perseverance to win that particular event.  They are not making any comment on who God "wanted" to win.  It's much less selfish to thank someone - anyone - for helping you to do something, than it is to act like you did it all by yourself.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As for the pledge, it's been the norm for 57 years (my entire life) to say it with "under God", so, if one is going to say it, that should be the way it is said...at least until it's changed again.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;And, I call BS on NBC's apology.  They edited it that way on purpose, knowing that it would offend a large number of people, but also knew that it would give them a whole lot of publicity.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:12:52 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Poll: Majority Say They "Would Never Vote" For Palin Or Trump</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/05/poll-majority-say-they-would-never-vote.html#comment-198360386</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Luckily for the Republicans, you only need about 25% to vote for you, since half of all "voters" don't vote anyway. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2011 11:00:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Newt Gingrich: Obama Has "Never Yet Become President"</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/04/newt-gingrich-obama-has-never-yet.html#comment-191532836</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think the next sentence explains what he meant by it.  He is saying that O is always in campaign mode - not in President mode.  You seem to be reading more into it than is really there.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:54:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Happy Birthday TPW!</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/04/happy-birthday-tpw.html#comment-181113722</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Happy Birthday, TPW!  Hope you had a great day, and have a great weekend celebrating.  Or, if you're like my daughter, have a great month celebrating!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:47:58 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Americans Don't Want A Government Shutdown</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/04/americans-dont-want-government-shutdown.html#comment-181105856</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I don't really understand Frum's view.  Didn't the Republicans win almost every national election for 10 years after that?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:43:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Donald Trump Is In Iowa</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/03/donald-trump-is-in-iowa.html#comment-163165414</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I was just responding to your comment.  Hopefully, if he runs, we will find out what his views are on other issues.  In the meantime, how would Obama reform our Education system? How would he correct the problems with Social Security, Medicare, and our bloated Defense Budget? How would he handle Libya?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The case can easily be made that Trump is no less qualified to be President than Obama was 4 years ago.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:18:35 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Donald Trump Is In Iowa</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/03/donald-trump-is-in-iowa.html#comment-163137517</link><description>&lt;p&gt;... and who has made a fortune multiple times, coming out of bankruptcy.  We will need someone who has experience turning a bankruptcy around when the government bubble bursts.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:25:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Supreme Court Finds For Westboro</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/03/supreme-court-finds-for-westboro.html#comment-160564838</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Does there have to be a local law in place anywhere there is a theater to prevent people from yelling "Fire"?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 12:27:31 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Quote Of The Day</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/03/quote-of-day_03.html#comment-160559913</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I agree with him.  But, I'll go a step further.  I think they should let any taxpayer who wants to to be in the room representing us.  And, for a deal to be made, there has to be a majority of taxpayers that agree with the final deal.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 12:15:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: BREAKING: President Obama Thinks That #DOMA Is Unconstitututional</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/02/breaking-president-obama-thinks-that.html#comment-157883749</link><description>&lt;p&gt;OK, if you don't have a problem with a presidential administration cherry-picking which laws to defend and which ones not to, I guess that's ok with me.  Just be careful what you wish for.  I do have a problem with that, though - no matter who the President is.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As far as a Republican President in 2012...I seem to remember about 2 years ago you, and many others, talking about how Republicans looked as though they would be irrelevant for many years to come.  Didn't work out that way, though.  20 months is a long time, especially in politics.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:48:43 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: BREAKING: President Obama Thinks That #DOMA Is Unconstitututional</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/02/breaking-president-obama-thinks-that.html#comment-155959850</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It is not the President's job to decide constitutionality.  It is the Supreme Court's.  This is a slippery slope.  If we get a Republican President in 2 years, will it be ok for him to instruct his AG not to defend any challenge to Obamacare, if he thinks it's unconstitutional?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:32:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Birther Watch, Ctd.</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/02/birther-watch-ctd.html#comment-155561686</link><description>&lt;p&gt;"Let's hope that other Republicans, particularly the leadership, starts to follow-suit."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;What West said and what Boehner said are the same thing:&lt;br&gt;"Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That's good enough for me. The president says he's a Christian. I accept him at his word."  vs. "He is a citizen. He’s the president. I mean, that’s all I know."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I realize that you would like Boehner and others to say more, but, it really is not very smart to call people who support you crazy and misguided - even if they are.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:48:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Shep Smith: Stuff In Wisconsin Isn't About A Budget Crisis</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/02/shep-smith-stuff-in-wisconsin-isnt.html#comment-155554319</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The real problem is that government is becoming the next big "bubble" to burst.  Just like the .com and housing bubbles before it, it has grown to unsustainable levels...at least, until the next bubble can come along and generate more unsustainable revenues for government.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:33:06 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Quote Of The Day</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/02/quote-of-day_22.html#comment-154693296</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think he should look up the definition of martyr.  Maybe a martyr to the cause of ruthless dictators everywhere?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:47:22 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Rep. Chris Lee Steps Down</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/02/rep-chris-lee-steps-down.html#comment-144889429</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I'll be interested to see what he does in the next few weeks.  It seems like maybe he didn't want to be in Congress any more, and came up with something - anything - to resign immediately.  Maybe a more lucrative job somewhere else...maybe he was tired of being married.  It sure looks like he wanted to have to resign, though.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:39:42 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: A Breakdown Of Birth In The U.S.A. (Infographic)</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/02/breakdown-of-birth-in-usa-infographic.html#comment-144366451</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Can anyone explain to me how 8 million babies are born with a birth defect every year, if there are only 4.3 million births?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:48:06 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: That Reading Of The Constitution</title><link>http://www.thepajamapundit.com/2011/01/that-reading-of-constitution.html#comment-125663524</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Regarding Boehner's reaction:  In answer to the second question, it would have been better if he said "I'm assuming that this interview will be published in some form, so I guess I just did say the message to them." Other than that, I don't have a problem with what he said.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cubbiechuck</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:10:22 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>