User Profile: Balthazor


Member Since: March 04, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [5] June 24, 2016 at 2:51pm

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

  • [1] June 23, 2016 at 8:32pm

    Again, do you have evidence of this?

  • June 23, 2016 at 8:30pm

    Do you have proof of that, or are you just making stuff up?

    I’ve read every book that’s ever been written about the band. I’ve listened to every interview. I’ve listened to every concert recording known to exist. And I can tell you that they’re about as apolitical as a rock band can get.

    In fact, during the 1975 tour, Plant would often complain about the absurd level of taxation in England. Most of the big British rock acts went into tax exile during the 70′s when the top marginal rate in England was 95% or something in that ballpark. Plant would often bemoan the fact that this ludicrous tax rate drove all of England’s great artists right straight out of the country. This is hardly what I’d call a big-time liberal position.

    While I’m sure none of these guys are in the Ted Nugent camp, they’ve never demonstrated themselves to be anywhere near the Bruce Springsteen camp either. Whatever their politics might be, they largely keep it to themselves and keep it out of their music, which is great in my book.

  • [8] June 22, 2016 at 9:33pm

    I wish I could give more than just one thumbs-up.

  • [67] June 22, 2016 at 9:32pm

    I agree with the ACLU. In other news, a pig was just spotted flying in Iowa, and the devil is launching a new business venture selling ice cubes.

    Responses (9) +
  • [2] June 22, 2016 at 11:02am

    There are still more blacks in the country than Hispanics. Especially when you consider that many so-called Hispanics are technically white, racially-speaking.

  • [9] June 22, 2016 at 10:59am

    ” Only a fool would say that this country is not better because of his presence in the White House…”

    Oh my lord that’s the funniest thing I’ve read in, well probably my whole life.

  • [11] June 18, 2016 at 1:33pm

    If the ship had been built by American union workers, this time lapse video would have been 18 hours long.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] June 18, 2016 at 1:05pm

    That’s how it should be, and just to be clear I wasn’t in my above rant attempting to admonish all women, but rather the liberal feminists who’ve been pushing this nonsense and demanding special treatment for decades.

    Back when I worked in metal stamping the company hired several young women just out of high school to work in the shop. One of them was great, but the other three made my head explode. They were perfectly happy to sit there on their butts watching their machine spit out parts, but whenever some actual work needed to be done, anything heavy or dirty especially, they’d play the waif card and get some guy to come do it for them. Hey big strong man, can you load this steel for me? I’m just a weak helpless little woman. But then I’d hear them in the lunchroom carrying on about equal pay for equal work. I was a supervisor at the time, and at one point I just couldn’t take it anymore and flat out told them that they weren’t going to see the equal pay until I started to see the equal work. That’s the mentality I’m talking about. Here they were doing part of their jobs, while the men were doing all of their own work and part of these girls work, yet they still thought they should get paid as much as those men. And this, they call “equality”.

  • [1] June 17, 2016 at 8:19pm

    Or someone should’ve stormed the stage and taken the mic a la Kanye West :)

  • [2] June 17, 2016 at 7:37pm

    @WOLD – I would guess Schwarzenegger. He was a huge draw in the 80′s.

  • [5] June 17, 2016 at 7:33pm

    Yeah, there’s been a whole series of this nonsense ever since women entered the workforce. First they insisted that they should be out there working and having a career just like the men. Once that happened, they realized that there’s things about having a career that suck, like having to be away from home and family working long hours. But rather than accepting that life is about choices and each choice has consequences, good and bad, they instead demanded that the workplace change to accommodate them with things like shorter hours and flex time and 9000 weeks of maternity leave and family leave, and failure to do so would make you sexist. So the workplace gave them what they demanded and allowed them to work fewer hours to spend more time at home, but that just led to now, where they complain that they’re making less than the men who work more hours than them.

    The very same study from which the 70% figure came also showed that on average a woman working full-time works 30-40 hours a week whereas the average man works 40-50 hours a week. Gee, you think working less might lead to getting paid less? Again, normal people would say ok, I chose to work fewer hours and consequently I make fewer dollars. Not so with today’s feminist woman. They expect to get paid the same as a man for working fewer hours than a man, and again, saying no means you’re some sexist fiend.

    Now I’m sure most women don’t think this way, but the feminist harpies that are pushing this crap sure seem to.

    Responses (2) +
  • [9] June 17, 2016 at 7:14pm

    @Rowacajr – well that’s just blatantly untrue. The US Census data as of 2014 indicates that whites are 77% of the population while Hispanic, which isn’t really a race anyhow, is 12%.

  • [20] June 17, 2016 at 7:00pm

    It is weird how in the past the big actresses were often huge draws. Women like Elizabeth Taylor, Judy Garland, Katharine Hepburn, Marilyn Monroe, and others I’m sure I’m forgetting. People would flock to the theaters to see a movie because one of these megastars were in it. But honestly, I can’t think of an actress that had that kind of star power in the past few decades. Julia Roberts maybe, but even at her peak I doubt she had the kind of draw power that Taylor or Garland had back in their day. I’m honestly not sure what changed. It’s puzzling.

    Responses (6) +
  • [2] June 17, 2016 at 6:47pm

    @Marnin – yeah I know, and I’m not saying the owners shouldn’t take a handsome profit if their team is hauling in the dough. But I guess, it’s just ironic because so often the people who complain about athletes being overpaid are the same people who complain about corporate CEOs making millions while their employees make minimum wage. So if you turn it around on them and point out that if the athletes weren’t making the big bucks, all that money would go into the pocket of the rich owner, they kinda start to look like one of Asimov’s robots that was just ordered to violate one of 3 laws of robotics.

  • [1] June 17, 2016 at 6:22pm

    Not really, there’s only so much an agent can do when the movie producer can just go hire Ms. Some Other Hot Chick for less. If there’s anyone deserving of blame, it would be the writers, who can’t seem to write a compelling female lead to save their lives. Or perhaps the producers themselves, who don’t seem to care which pretty face gets cast as long as it’s a pretty face. Whatever the case, the big male actors like Brad Pitt or Robert Downey Jr. have massive draw power whereas, with a few exceptions, the female actors tend to be just an interchangeable array of pretty faces.

  • [3] June 17, 2016 at 6:10pm

    Absolutely right. The same goes for professional athletes too. While it may seem absurd to get paid millions to toss a ball around, fans are paying those millions to see the athletes. Nobody is paying to see the ball. So if fans are paying millions to see the athletes, then who should get that money? The athletes, or some rich team owner?

    Any film producer could go out and hire no-name actors who’ll work for peanuts, but odds are they’d end up with a movie that nobody would want to pay to see.

  • [48] June 17, 2016 at 5:58pm

    Exactly, which I’m sure is why Elizabeth Taylor was making ten times more than Caine.

    Responses (4) +
  • [8] June 14, 2016 at 11:50am

    Yeah if you want to see an “unhealthy body shape” just take a gander at Rosie O’Donnell.

    “extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end.”

    Good freaking grief, so because your precious little snowflakes cant’ look at a picture of a shapely attractive woman without feeling bad about themselves, we should ban pictures of shapely attractive women.

    What happens when these delicate flowers see a shapely, attractive woman in the flesh? Will they be banned too? Will the government mandate that thin women eat more?

    If you have a body that you’re unhappy about you have exactly two choices: change it, or deal with it. If these precious little snowflakes can’t see a picture of a thin woman without feeling demeaned or self-conscious, then they’re really not prepared for the world in which they live.

  • [5] June 13, 2016 at 4:46pm

    No kidding, the guy uses ellipses like Bill Clinton uses women.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love