Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $13,249
Woo hoo!! And the first 15% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by tom h

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • BREAKING: Texas and California Militia Unite to Defend the Border

    07/08/2014 8:33:13 PM PDT · 47 of 47
    tom h to tanknetter

    Interesting, I hadn’t heard that the Feds in Nevada were unwilling to fight. The few videos I saw showed them looking like a—holes and quite confrontational. Can you send me some links?

  • Abortionist: One of My Patients Had Nine Abortions and There’s Nothing Wrong With That

    07/08/2014 7:27:39 AM PDT · 19 of 28
    tom h to wagglebee

    Let’s not forget the medical impacts of abortion, the two primary ones being (1) depression and (2) breast cancer,

    The abortion-breast cancer link has been desperately hidden by the political left for years, because if confirmed conclusively it will doom abortion for all except the rabid leftists - e.g., those who abort to save the planet.

    The bogus statistic in this debate that we hear all the time is that 1 in 3 women have had abortions. That’s the number you get if you divide the number of abortions by the number of child-bearing women. But since many women have multiple abortions the better number is probably 1 in 5.

    In any event, there is a growing groundswell against abortion in America. Many believe it’s because so many women are traumatized by the fact that they have ended an innocent life. See my earlier point about depression above.

  • BREAKING: Texas and California Militia Unite to Defend the Border

    07/06/2014 11:44:10 AM PDT · 19 of 47
    tom h to 98ZJ USMC
    "this is exactly what the government wants, a showdown. "

    Au contraire ... the government backed down from a showdown at the Bundy Ranch earlier this year. The government does not want a showdown. Because if it happens, the gov't will be accused of not enforcing the law while ordinary citizens do. Then the midterm elections will swing even more to the GOP. I'd be surprised if any seat in the House except in the inner city went to the Dems.

    Obama was forced into this situation by that a--wipe Mexican congressman (yes, he's Mexican because he doesn't have a patriotic bone in his body) from Chicago, Luis Gutierrez. With help from Holder and Johnson, they created the crisis and then innocently pretended that it happened on its own. Sound familiar? Think Operation Fast and Furious.

    They didn't expect that normal Americans would rise up and demand that disease-ridden, filthy, and uneducated "immigrants" be sent home.

  • Issa: New Koskinen Testimony Will Turn Up Heat On Lois Lerner (VIDEO)

    07/06/2014 11:35:48 AM PDT · 8 of 28
    tom h to The Free Engineer
    "It depends on if she thinks she can trust Obama to give her a pardon and make her rich somehow."

    A pardon will get her out of jail but if Obama pardoned her now she is still not exempt from testifying and telling the truth in front of Congress or any court of law. If she tries that with a pardon in hand, then she is guilty of perjury or obstruction of justice.

    All she can count on is Obama pardoning her at the end of his term, in January 2017. In the meantime, she will either keep her mouth shut and endure prison and humiliation or she will sing like a canary.

  • [VANITY] Why the IRS Emails Were "Lost" - The Smoking Gun

    06/20/2014 7:08:18 AM PDT · 1 of 43
    tom h
    Here's a pic of the lovely damsel, Colleen Kelley:

  • [VANITY] A Different Outcome to World War II - Attention WWII Buffs

    06/09/2014 2:07:03 PM PDT · 147 of 147
    tom h to SoCal Pubbie; C. Edmund Wright
    Dude, I'm the one who started this post and I'm finally reading about your little flame war with the other fellow. Really, it was unseemly.

    Anyway, the scenario presented was one which was intriguing. I actually think it was possible for Hitler to have won the war. It was less about the atom bomb and the aircraft and more about consolidating his clear gains in Europe proper.

    Had he retreated in December 1941 to defensible lines, Hitler could have refocused on consolidating what he'd won in Western and Southern Europe. In addition, he could have sealed off the Mediterranean Sea and fully conquered North Africa, especially and including Egypt. Britain was in no position to hold back a North African force that was hundreds of thousand of soldiers, not just the handful that Rommel actually had.

    With the westward focus, Hitler could have focused entirely on sealing off the UK from the Americans. This would have been possible had so much blood and treasure not been squandered on the Russian front. Even with the two nations formally at war, the battles would only have been at sea, at best. There would be very few alternatives for the Yanks if all of continental Europe was taken, North Africa was taken and the Mediterranean was sealed off. Ireland, perhaps could have been a staging ground. But given the distance it would have only been good for bombing runs, and during 1942 those runs would have hardly reached the coastline of Belgium and the Netherlands.

    And, once a sitzkrieg of sorts took hold between the the two continents, nothing would have happened other than some naval battles. America's focus would have shifted to the Pacific Theater and, eventually, Britain would have had to negotiate a peace treaty not because they were conquered, but because they were starving.

    The only unknown would be Russia. And that's where it gets really intriguing. I agree with you that Stalin intended to invade Germany himself, so Hitler merely beat him to the punch. But even Stalin considered a negotiated peace treaty with Hitler early during Barbarossa. So the notion that he would have agreed to at least a cessation of hostilities is not beyond the pale.

    Hitler would have had a long border to defend in the East, to be sure, yet there is no doubt this could have been done well. It took Stalin 2 full years to make significant gains against Germany, after the Germans had bled themselves dry at Stalingrad, Kursk, the Crimea. Guderian had some very novel plans for mobile defense that Hitler never implemented, because Hitler didn't go off the offense until late 1943. It is very possible that Hitler's lines in the East would have held.

    The atom bomb doesn't even figure into this. The Americans didn't achieve this until 1945. The Germans were far behind the Americans. The Russians didn't get a bomb until they stole the details in 1947. I'm talking about 1942 here. The Russians had lost 5 million men in 1941-42, and the only reason the Stalingrad pincer succeeded is because it wasn't a fair fight. Hitler fell into a trap, due his own hubris, and the Sixth Army was surrounded. Had the Sixth Army been fresh there is NO chance the Russians would have prevailed with their Siberian forces.

    As for the out years of 1944, 1945 and beyond, who knows? If Europe had become stable, albeit under the Nazi yoke, and if Russia had tried several times to break the line but failed, there might have been an uneasy stability throughout Europe. Would America have still waged a futile war then? Even if the timetable for the atom bomb was unchanged, would they have dropped it on a German nation that wasn't even within reach? I'm not even certain today that the USA would have used the bomb on Caucasians; there is a lot of scholarship about that.

  • [VANITY] A Different Outcome to World War II - Attention WWII Buffs

    06/08/2014 5:03:02 PM PDT · 142 of 147
    tom h to fso301
    There you go, I had to spend an hour researching my facts because I hate getting it wrong ... [chuckle]

    Correct, the Soviet counteroffensive started on Dec 5, 1941, two days before Pearl Harbor. History books note that it was completely ineffective for two days and largely ineffective for a number of days. Hitler signed Directive 39 on Dec 8th ordering the cessation of offensive operations. On December 11, Germany declared war on the USA and the USA, in turn, declared war on Germany.

    The Soviet counteroffensive began to gather steam during this time. Some of Hitler's generals (Halder and Von Kluge) interpreted Directive 39, and perhaps because of the theoretical dicussion with Hitler about America as an enemy, that a general withdrawal to more defensible lines was warranted and provided the order.

    On or around Dec 19, Hitler caught word about the withdrawal and forbade it. No doubt his fury was worsened by the reversal of Germany fortunes in the cold Soviet winter.

    So I concede the point, albeit a minor point at that. It was the combination of delayed success in the Soviet counteroffensive, combined with the countermanding of his officers' orders, that hardened Hitler's mind about doing the reasonable and militarily correct thing.

  • [VANITY] A Different Outcome to World War II - Attention WWII Buffs

    06/08/2014 12:58:14 PM PDT · 127 of 147
    tom h to C. Edmund Wright

    Well, I was reading some WWII books on the shelf that I hadn’t touched in ages, and was pondering it all in light of D-Day. It was on June 6th that I read that piece where it conveyed that Hitler seriously considered terminating the Russian war on the advice of his generals. Hitler might just have prevailed overall; and there would have been no D-Day. Possibly just a sustained naval war and then a negotiated peace. Because his only nearby enemy would have been Britain, and if was able to starve them they too would have sued for peace. The USA could not have fought Germany without having the UK as a staging ground.

  • [VANITY] A Different Outcome to World War II - Attention WWII Buffs

    06/08/2014 12:54:04 PM PDT · 126 of 147
    tom h to cpdiii
    "Once we developed the atomic bomb Berlin would have went up as radioactive ashes and dust. Repeat as necessary."

    I don't have time to do the research but there is very good reason to believe that the USA would not have dropped the atom bomb on a European city. Call it a racist motive if you will.

    As for "repeat as necessary," the USA postured that they could have bombed every Japanese city to rubble but the fact is we did not have enough fissile material for a fourth bomb. Extracting U-238 was still a slow and imperfect process; ditto with Pu-239. If I recall correctly the absolute dearth of fissile material in 1945 was a classified secret for many years.

    The fact that we were still, seriously, preparing for the invasion of the island of Honshu is proof positive that Truman and the Department of War did not think that two atom bombs would not be enough to deter the Japanese.

  • [VANITY] A Different Outcome to World War II - Attention WWII Buffs

    06/08/2014 10:11:52 AM PDT · 70 of 147
    tom h to tcrlaf
    "Hitler would have been dead in another 12-18 months anyway, if reports of his health are to be believed. "

    Never heard about this. What were Hitler's health issues?

  • [VANITY] A Different Outcome to World War II - Attention WWII Buffs

    06/08/2014 9:44:45 AM PDT · 47 of 147
    tom h to Rockingham
    That's the fascinating point. Had Hitler secured Europe, first and foremost, there might have been NO D-Day. He might have had to retreat hundreds of miles in Russia in an effort at reconciliation, keeping only the Baltic States and part of the Ukraine. But he would not have bled his troops dry on the Russian front.

    But he didn't. As he said in Mein Kampf, international Jewry and Bolshevism were his mortal enemies, not the Anglo Saxons. So he continued prosecuting the war on Russia to the demise of his nation.

  • [VANITY] A Different Outcome to World War II - Attention WWII Buffs

    06/08/2014 9:41:54 AM PDT · 43 of 147
    tom h to ken5050
    Interesting consideration. Prior to the invasion in June 1941, Stalin was speculating as to what Hitler's expectations were in Soviet Russia openly with the Politboro. Based on Mein Kampf, they suspected it was the Ukraine, the Pripet Marshes, and the Baltic States, which would allow for German domination of the Baltic Sea.

    A tome I read about Stalingrad said that Stalin, in a weak moment within the first 60 days of the invasion, was willing to concede these in a peace treaty if Hitler would stop the offensive. It was the Bulgarian Ambassador who assured Stalin, that, ultimately, Russia would prevail, if they just had the willpower, in a war of attrition.

  • [VANITY] A Different Outcome to World War II - Attention WWII Buffs

    06/08/2014 9:36:57 AM PDT · 37 of 147
    tom h to sasportas

    Actually, it was neither dumb nor rash. A gamble, yes, but not dumb.

    Americans had already been shipping millions of tons of supplies to the UK under Lend Lease. By declaring war on the USA, Hitler’s sub captains could now send that materiel to the bottom of the sea. His U-boat captains had been begging for that approval for a year.

    Hitler also calculated that, because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the USA would focus 90% of its war on Japan and only a small fraction on Europe, beyond just the provision of supplies. In that calculation he was wrong. 90% of the US war effort was centered on Europe. The alliance among the English-speaking peoples was too strong. Roosevelt decided that saving England and Europe took priority over saving the peoples in the South Pacific, Southeast Asia, and China. About the only serious concern in the Pacific Theater was protecting Australia — which was not peopled by Asians but Caucasians.

  • [VANITY] A Different Outcome to World War II - Attention WWII Buffs

    06/08/2014 9:24:04 AM PDT · 21 of 147
    tom h to tom h
    There is also the issue of the Japanese non-war against the Russians. Had they followed through, as obligated under the Tripartite Pact, Russia would not have had 30 Siberian divisions to release to their front with Germany in 1942.

    Or, had they attacked Siberia AFTER Stalin moved the forces, they would have made significant gains in Russia.

  • [VANITY] A Different Outcome to World War II - Attention WWII Buffs

    06/08/2014 9:21:06 AM PDT · 16 of 147
    tom h to tom h

    I happen to think the war outcome would have been totally different. Hitler’s biggest problem in 1942, when his war fortunes began to reverse, were that German troops were spread to thin. Books make lots of hay about Rommel’s Afrika Corps but it was a fairly small force. Had Rommel had another 20 divisions he truly could have invaded and taken over Egypt and the Holy Land, prevented an easy North Africa landing by the Allies. Turkey would have signed an agreement with a resurgent Germany. Once these gains were secure, Hitler would have had to secure his back along the Russian, front, to be sure, but the defensive war would have been far less debilitating than the offensive war in 1942 that lost the Sixth Army.

  • [VANITY] A Different Outcome to World War II - Attention WWII Buffs

    06/08/2014 9:06:40 AM PDT · 1 of 147
    tom h
    Question to the WWII buffs:

    First, what additional details can you shed on this fascinating possibility? Are there any books, recent, or old, that explore this? Frankly, in my view this is a more pivotal point than the decision to resume the Russian war in 1942 and secure Stalingrad.

    Second, feel free to speculate on what had happened HAD Hitler followed through on this very reasonable recommendation by his generals.

  • Watch: Police Reveal Video Footage of Brussels Attack

    05/26/2014 7:56:33 AM PDT · 22 of 24
    tom h to Dallas59

    Yes, anti-Semitism has been on the rise but the source of it is not Neo-Nazi skinheads but liberal university professors and Muslims.

  • Is the French National Anthem 'Racist'? ["May Impure Blood Irrigate Our Fields"]

    05/21/2014 10:51:37 PM PDT · 20 of 20
    tom h to Oliviaforever
    "French fields were irrigated by the blood of Americans simply because the French were too lazy to get off their asses and defend their own country."

    Dude, I am no Francophile and certainly no fan of modern France, but I am a careful student of history, especially World War II history, and calling the French soldier lazy is not correct.

    At the time of the Nazi invasion in 1940, the French soldier was ill-trained and ill-motivated to fight because of the French leadership, in both the military and in the capital. The head of government changed several times in the leadup to the German invasion, including the night before the invasion, and the head of the military was an old man who was questionably senile. The French soldier was well-equipped -- not as well as the Germans, but equipped well enough to cause the Germans a lot of problems -- but it was all squandered because of horrible leadership and a predictable and fixed defensive strategy. The French soldier was not trained to fight for his country in 1940.

    It was Napoleon who said there are no bad soldiers, only bad leaders. That was ever so true in 1940. Had Napoleon been alive he would have been shocked at the behavior of the great-grandsons of the men he led in the 1800s.

    Incidentally, I have had some rip-roaring arguments here in FR taking the other side, meaning your side. One fellow said that the French soldier acquitted himself well in 1940. I told him that, his leadership notwithstanding, there are virtually no examples of French heroism during the German invasion.

    I especially remember that one anecdote where the French soldiers were walking off the Maginot Line, because the Germans had already leaped behind them and cut off the supply lines. The soldiers were walking back to home and hearth, dejected. One platoon saw a German tank and walked over to surrender. 50 men surrendering to a tank crew, maybe 5 men. The German officer ordered the French poilus to put their rifles in a pile, ran over the pile several times with the tank tread, and then continued on toward the coast. Talk about cowardice. At the least the soldiers should have hid and brought their weapons home for a future fight.

    I think the French acquitted themselves well, eventually, during the Resistance. Many men and women, some in their early teens, risked their lives and lost their lives committing sabotage, rescuing downed airmen, and gathering information about the German order of battle in the leadup to D-Day.

    Had the French fought the Germans, Hitler might well have not had the hubris to invade the Soviet Union the following year. Think about that for a minute.

  • ALAN GRAYSON: Here's How I Plan To Make The Benghazi Investigation A 'Nightmare' For Republicans

    05/21/2014 1:10:49 PM PDT · 94 of 101
    tom h to sickoflibs
    Well I don't believe in evolution but nevertheless it is clear to me that Alan Grayson is the closest thing to a "missing link" that I have ever seen.

    Think "troglodyte" when you look at Grayson.

  • Sources: All but one fire burning in San Diego County have a suspicious ignition point

    05/15/2014 3:05:53 PM PDT · 30 of 86
    tom h to Sarah Barracuda

    I live in North County San Diego, and all of those fires began within 25 miles of our town. They did not start at the same time but started in about a one hour sequence. Some mentally deficient and aggrieved dude in an old pickup will no doubt be collared for the crime within the next week.

  • Abramson fired (NYT Dumps Liberal Female Editor - Replaces her with Liberal Black Man)

    05/14/2014 5:14:01 PM PDT · 8 of 20
    tom h to JimSEA
    "A black editor gives them more tools to deflect criticism and consort with the White House."

    ... which guarantees that the NYT will continue its decline into irrelevance.

  • Abramson fired (NYT Dumps Liberal Female Editor - Replaces her with Liberal Black Man)

    05/14/2014 5:12:52 PM PDT · 7 of 20
    tom h to tom h
    Ugh. I'd fire her because she's ugly. Can you imagine having to see that face give you direction while listening to her "pushy-broad" attitude as well. [That's the Times' characterization, not mine.]

  • Abramson fired (NYT Dumps Liberal Female Editor - Replaces her with Liberal Black Man)

    05/14/2014 5:10:39 PM PDT · 5 of 20
    tom h to tom h
    What a relief - her replacement is a clone politically. That'll guarantee the Times continues to wither into obscurity:

    Dean P. Baquet is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist and the executive editor of The New York Times. He is the first African-American to serve as executive editor, the highest-ranking position in The Times's newsroom.

    He studied English at Columbia University from 1974 to 1978 ... He joined The New York Times in April 1990 as a metropolitan reporter. ...

    In 2000, he joined the Los Angeles Times as managing editor and in 2005 became that newspaper's editor. ... at the Los Angeles Times, Baquet edited the story published a few days before the 2003 California recall election that initiated the Gropegate controversy, raising concerns about gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger's sexual misconduct ...

    In 2006, ABC News reported that Baquet killed a story about NSA wiretaps of Americans.

  • Abramson fired (NYT Dumps Liberal Female Editor - Replaces her with Liberal Black Man)

    05/14/2014 5:02:50 PM PDT · 1 of 20
    tom h
    News flash -- the New York Times engages in wage discrimination and, in addition, has an extreme dislike for "pushy broads."

    Wow, talk about not being able to live according to what they write in their editorial page.

  • Mom and daughter reunited 77 years after (rape &) adoption (grandson astronaut)

    05/13/2014 9:03:13 AM PDT · 15 of 15
    tom h to cdga5for4
    Wonderful story. Just goes to show that the product of a rape is not necessarily more tragedy.

    I've always loved another story, more modern. A white married woman in Boston is raped by a black man and gives up the mixed-race child for adoption. Happened in the early 1960s, not long before Roe v Wade.

    Mother and daughter reunite 33 years later. Lovely story. Had it happened 10 years later, feminists would have been screaming that the woman have an abortion. Think of all the lives that would have been snuffed out by such a selfish and murderous act.

    Geraldine Cummins Reunites with Daughter 33 years after Rape

  • Woman Charged With Wiretapping Because She Dared To Record The Cops

    05/12/2014 8:57:13 PM PDT · 14 of 14
    tom h to Impala64ssa

    In NYC, the difference between a liberal and a conservative is one mugging. Let’s hope this Massachusetts gal is now a conservative as well, having experienced what liberal governance hath wrought.

  • New Pew Poll: Opposition to Obamacare at All-Time High

    05/05/2014 3:54:56 PM PDT · 22 of 23
    tom h to Homer_J_Simpson

    Probably 3- from the District of Columbia. Reagan’s landslide in 1984 was 59-41 and Mondale only won his home state and DC, if I recall.

  • Chris Matthews Plummets To Last Place In Cable News At 7Pm

    05/05/2014 3:39:21 PM PDT · 40 of 46
    tom h to uglybiker

    That’s Matthews’ “good” side.

  • Breast implant used by 99% of women in Britain is ‘triggering new cancer’, warn scientist

    05/04/2014 10:29:36 PM PDT · 66 of 67
    tom h to ottbmare

    As a man I can hardly figure all this out, but I will say that my wife is slender and tiny busted, even when she was nursing our children, and she has always — always — had deep-rooted sensations of inadequacy because of this. She can’t find clothes to fit her, has no cleavage, etc.

    I’m not sure pity is the right response, because as humans we are wonderfully imperfect; and as I’ve told her for 26 years, if a tiny bust is her greatest flaw she is indeed blessed with a loving husband, three wonderful children, excellent health, classy looks, naturally low blood pressure, and much, much more.

    But I’ve never been dismissive about her feelings about this. She has talked about implants for 20 years, and each time I told her emphatically “don’t do it for me because I love you the way you are.” She usually says that women don’t necessarily address or adorn themselves for men, including their husbands. It is here I have to stop talking and just listen.

    Not once have I wished my wife to have a large bust. But I’d be lying to say that I don’t appreciate a nice rack like every other man. I just have to suppress my biological urges and stop my eyes from goggling out. Go figure.

  • Breast implant used by 99% of women in Britain is ‘triggering new cancer’, warn scientist

    05/04/2014 4:32:25 PM PDT · 55 of 67
    tom h to Kackikat

    Well, I’m a man who’s been happily married to the same woman for 26 years so I haven’t done my own survey from the female perspective. But I will hazard a guess that women who are well-endowed hate their bosom, and wish they were smaller; and women who with small bosoms wish they were larger. I can vouch for the latter opinion.

  • Breast implant used by 99% of women in Britain is ‘triggering new cancer’, warn scientist

    05/04/2014 4:28:41 PM PDT · 54 of 67
    tom h to bgill

    Roger that. Men are obsessed with their appearance as well but it seems we are biologically wired to do less about it. Except for the girly-men like Stallone and the creeps like Jackson.

  • Breast implant used by 99% of women in Britain is ‘triggering new cancer’, warn scientist

    05/04/2014 4:16:08 PM PDT · 50 of 67
    tom h to BobL
    "Then IGNORE me."

    As I'm sure most people do when you get on your high horse.

    Listening to you, I have this strange sensation as if I saw you walking on the street, alone, wearing an "I'm with STUPID" t-shirt.

  • Breast implant used by 99% of women in Britain is ‘triggering new cancer’, warn scientist

    05/04/2014 4:12:44 PM PDT · 49 of 67
    tom h to nascarnation; BobL; qam1; Kackikat; 1_Rain_Drop; AAABEST; TheZMan; Veto!; This I Wonder32460; ...
    Funny, the archived article deleted the pics. Try this post from 2007:

  • Breast implant used by 99% of women in Britain is ‘triggering new cancer’, warn scientist

    05/04/2014 4:01:47 PM PDT · 46 of 67
    tom h to nascarnation

    Admit it, you wished you had seen her strut by with her stuff. Can’t lie; I did.

  • Breast implant used by 99% of women in Britain is ‘triggering new cancer’, warn scientist

    05/04/2014 4:00:55 PM PDT · 45 of 67
    tom h to BobL
    Also, BobL, people who CONSTANTLY insert all-capital words into their WRITING are not considered more COHERENT, eloquent, or CONVERSATIONAL. They just validate that they are STRIDENT in their writing and probably very UNPLEASANT to be AROUND. I can just imagine discussing this TOPIC with you at a garden PARTY hosted by my friends; we don't SUFFER fools and within about 30 MINUTES you'd be standing alone in the backyard trying to get the stars to listen to your HAREBRAINED comments.

    Constantly using CAPITALS is also pretty JUVENILE as well.

  • Breast implant used by 99% of women in Britain is ‘triggering new cancer’, warn scientist

    05/04/2014 3:55:05 PM PDT · 43 of 67
    tom h to BobL; qam1; Kackikat; 1_Rain_Drop; AAABEST; TheZMan; Veto!; This I Wonder32460; familyop; bgill; ...
    "If you can’t live with the body God gave you, then tough."

    Well, I love a war on FR so here goes.

    First, it's pretty axiomatic about women that they obsess over their appearance. Don't blame this on culture or the media; women have been like this throughout time. The Bible cautions women against excessive regard for their appearance, and it has been well documented that women of antiquity from Cleopatra to Jezebel all obsessed with hair, clothing, and the forms of makeup and youth potions available at the time.

    Acknowledging said article, a female journalist at the Daily Mail a number of years ago did a personal study of the effect of bigger breasts on British men. She was a normal, attractive gal but wasn't well-endowed; she had a makeup artist prepare a new rack that looked as real as anything. The impact on men was astounding. Check out the article yourself:

    My Instant Boob Job

    Given that such is the effect of bigger boobs on the men who view them, I am not surprised that 30,000 women in the UK get boob jobs each year. I expect that 300,000 or 3 million women wish they could, or wish they would.

    So BobL, for heavens sake, back off. Sounds like you have a dog in this hunt because you are waaaay too obsessed with this matter.

  • Chris Hayes Wants to Kill About 5.7 Billion People

    04/26/2014 8:26:10 PM PDT · 26 of 26
    tom h to FlingWingFlyer
    "Who the hell spawns these fools like Hayes?"

    Ivy League colleges - he is a graduate of Brown. Brown, where communists rule and common sense hasn't been seen for over 100 years.

    Unlike so many of the other lefties, who at least lived through some deprivation, Hayes is the ultimate sissified pansy who has never had a difficult day in his life -- except when his local Starbucks was under construction and he couldn't get his morning vanilla chai latte without having to drive 15 minutes out of his way. Never worked a day in the hot sun, never picked up a rifle to defend his country. Hard to take anything he says seriously.

  • The Coming End of Affirmative Action

    04/26/2014 9:00:28 AM PDT · 36 of 43
    tom h to Baynative

    If Sotomayor personally experienced discrimination it was not because she is a Latina but because she is UGLY.

  • [Homosexual] Pedophile Teacher Drugged, Abused 90 Students From Managua to London

    04/25/2014 5:56:36 PM PDT · 1 of 18
    tom h
    For a lefty news outlet, it was pretty amazing that they were willing to admit that the pedophilie preyed on boys in the first paragraph.

    I just felt duty bound to include it in the title.

  • Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Ruling: An Explainer

    04/23/2014 11:52:18 AM PDT · 36 of 36
    tom h to TBP

    Breyer is an old-fashioned liberal, e.g., one with a conscience. A jurist who believes the law is what it actually says. Period.

  • Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Ruling: An Explainer

    04/22/2014 2:06:35 PM PDT · 25 of 36
    tom h to TheThirdRuffian

    Funny that you say that.

    I am a true “white Hispanic” — don’t speak Spanish, don’t look like a minority, middle class upbringing, never encountered any discrimination — but I have had HR Directors come to my office and beg me to check the racial minority box (which I usually check “white”). I had manager roles at a young age, you see, and they wanted to include me in the diversity tallies.

    For over 25 years my bride has been Mrs Tom H and I am certain that, because her married name is Hispanic, her employers have included her in the diversity tallies as well.

  • Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Ruling: An Explainer

    04/22/2014 1:58:08 PM PDT · 23 of 36
    tom h to Verginius Rufus

    Big surprise that Ginsburg and Sotomayor voted the party line.

    Their votes are so predictably leftist that we could replace them with machines and it would have no visible effect on the judiciary.

  • An open letter to Chelsea Clinton’s unborn child

    04/22/2014 9:38:24 AM PDT · 1 of 46
    tom h
    The author of this letter forgot to remind Baby Clinton that her mother can, at a whim, decide to abort her, thereby degrading her status from "baby" to "fetus" or "foreign uterine matter."
  • Pilot's Response to Profiling of Arabs

    04/15/2014 7:54:47 PM PDT · 5 of 18
    tom h to econjack

    In WWII Japanese-Americans did their utmost to prove their patriotism and loyalty to the USA. They endured some of the toughest fighting in Europe — Monte Cassino, Battle of the Bulge — and earned the respect and gratitude of the nation.

    There is no reason why we can’t expect today’s Muslim-Americans to do the same. E.g., not just enjoy the fruits of liberty but also fight and die to defend it.

  • Covered California = Colossal Catastrophe

    04/15/2014 4:05:25 PM PDT · 37 of 37
    tom h to ltc8k6

    Dude, pause a moment from foaming at the mouth and read first. Apparently the fellow answered you directly in post 27.

  • Teen punk accused of killing Indiana dad-to-be smirks, laughs his way into courtroom

    04/12/2014 6:25:10 AM PDT · 3 of 89
    tom h to heartwood

    Guess the race of the perp and guess the race of the victim.

  • Just in Time for Easter: Proof that Jesus was Married

    04/11/2014 1:28:34 PM PDT · 84 of 97
    tom h to NYer

    Well said. I put forth a different argument in post 80. Would I be right to guess that your are a priest?

    Lots of mush-headedness in this threat, but that always happens on a post about Christianity.

  • Just in Time for Easter: Proof that Jesus was Married

    04/11/2014 1:19:42 PM PDT · 83 of 97
    tom h to stonehouse01
    Just did a quick search and found a link that says Bible study was not allowed until Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943. So it appears there was a policy change. Looks like it just didn't filter down to Catholic schools in the 1960s and 70s,at least the schools in Los Angeles.

    But it also amplifies my initial point that there was a time when Bible reading was discouraged, and possibly prohibited, by the Catholic Church.

    And I will say that even in my evangelical church there is no Bible study done from the pulpit. The mere recitation of mostly familiar verses is hardly "bible study." To me, it's the verse-by-verse study of an entire book. And it's within these studies that the richness of our faith truly comes alive. As I said earlier, I'm studying the Gospel of John now with about 15 other Christians and I get goosebumps each Sunday.

  • Just in Time for Easter: Proof that Jesus was Married

    04/11/2014 1:12:39 PM PDT · 81 of 97
    tom h to stonehouse01

    Friend, I don’t mean to start a Catholic versus Protestants battle here. And I hardly know what Vatican policy has been since I was born.

    But I did attend 8 years of Catholic school, and bring home catechisms to study over those formative years. And I am quite certain that the priests and nuns told us that it was their job to interpret Scripture, not ours. That’s why there was a catechism.

    I also remember, as a lad, being surprised when I entered the home of a friend’s family who was Protestant. They usually had the family bible front and center in the living room. I asked my parents once, why didn’t we have a family bible, and their answer was from the priests in our parish — you don’t need one.

    My father, now in his 80s, taught me the same as well — That the Bible is too complicated to understand and it is the job of priests to do that for us. I usually hear that from him now when I talk about my Bible study groups.

    That doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church’s position hasn’t shifted over time. It also doesn’t mean that the priests in our parish weren’t taking some liberties with Catholic policy. I don’t know and it really doesn’t matter to me.

    It is curious, however, that the Vatican was furious that the Bible was being translated into other languages during the Middle Ages. I think Catholic history also includes periods where Popes were opposed to citizens reading the Bible directly. Pope Innocent III was on record saying that the Bible can only be understood by those who are qualified to understand them.

  • Just in Time for Easter: Proof that Jesus was Married

    04/11/2014 12:56:40 PM PDT · 80 of 97
    tom h to faithhopecharity
    Sorry, folks, my Irish is up over -- yes, she is -- an airhead. I don't think she understands the difference between a feeling, an opinion, and a fact.

    Saying "I think that Jesus could have been married because it would uplift traditional marriage" is a lovely sentiment but that's all it is. A feeling. Saying that the Bible doesn't say whether Jesus is married, so he might have been is just the work of someone who's never read the Bible, or at least not understood it.

    The Bible is also silent as to whether Jesus was a Democrat or a Communist. But that doesn't mean there is the slightest chance that he was.

    Someone who understand the Gospels would know that the omission of any mention of a wife to Jesus would not be an oversight or an irrelevant detail.

    At the cross, Jesus asks John to care for his mother, Mary. He did not ask John or anyone else to care for a wife or a child. This is very good evidence, prima facie, that there was no wife, or child.

    Elsewhere, in the Gospels and NT letters, specific reference is made to Jesus' brothers and sisters, in particular James. Okay, so we know his mother had additional children, not born of the Holy Spirit.

    So, it appears that the Bible authors pretty much round out Jesus' family. His genealogy is mentioned in the Book of Matthew, his parentage is mentioned in all four gospels, his siblings are referenced in several other places in the NT. His cousin John the Baptist leaped in his mother's womb and baptized Jesus. Bible authors took care of all familial details. So it is highly likely that Jesus had no other relatives, at least significant ones, including a spouse.

    This is amplified by the fact that there are many non-biblical sources of history from that time, most notably the Jewish historian Josephus. If there were any scandals, sin, fraud, or hypocrisy in Jesus' life these would no doubt have been captured in these historical records. That includes a marriage, especially to a woman of ill repute (when this matter comes up, Mary Magdalene's name is usually offered up). And, these would have been big problems for we Christians.

    But there are none. It has always been a wonderful surprise that none of the historical records of the time were able to disprove what we know to be the gospel story -- Jesus' life, his ministry, his crucifixion, and his resurrection. Not one. And we know that the ruling Jewish leaders, and the Roman leaders, certainly had good reason to document said disparaging facts, if they existed. But they didn't because there were none.

    Another reason that an earthly wife poses problems for we Christians is that a marriage would have produced children. Fine. But given Jesus' standing among his disciples, had he died his children would have been viewed as the next in line for his Kingship. This would have dramatically weakened the story of Jesus as Son of God, because earthly children would have meant there were grandchildren of God, part divine. [This starts to sound like Greek mythology.] Jesus' genealogy had to end with him because he died, rose, and ascended, and the veneration of any earthly descendant would weaken the fact that Jesus is the only path to God, and that "no one comes to the Father except through me."

    And, a final and even larger point is that, symbolically, Jesus' bride is the church. This is made ever so clear in the Book of Revelation, and hinted at throughout Scripture and in the gospels. Some people like to ignore that fact, because it seems creepy, but the symbolism equates to the fact that he gave his life for his bride, which is a very understandable symbol. And if Jesus had had a real wife, this notion of the bride of Christ would not work anymore.

    To me, the mere fact that the apostle John, inspired by the Holy Spirit, writes of the Bride of Christ in Revelation is proof positive that Jesus did not marry.

    Someone who studied the bible would recognize some or all of the above. Many freepers no doubt know more.

    Now, the earlier commentator, upon seeing this, might say: "Gosh, I never knew some of this. I'd better crack my Bible and follow up on some of this."

    But only an airhead posing as a FR commentator would, upon seeing some of the facts, continue to write about her feelings that "wouldn't it be lovely if Jesus had married" and act hurt when she is exhorted to look things up.