User Profile: KJGreen


Member Since: July 03, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [2] March 27, 2015 at 7:26pm


    Yes, please explain it to me since I must be too stupid to understand. The fact is that individuals will sometimes react poorly to a foreign situation or unfamiliar personal attributes of someone they are seeing for the first time. Obviously age and experience makes a difference in how one reacts, however, whether that is based on color of skin or other attributes such as physical disfigurement makes no difference if the person has no frame of reference for the foreign attributes.

    But you go ahead jumping on people about being white guilt cowards when you have only a mote of evidence, if that, to support your assertion. In so doing, you are exhibiting the same behavior as those who play the race card with a hair trigger.

  • [5] March 27, 2015 at 6:06pm

    Jeez, cut JGIII some slack. Sounds to me like he concluded his OLDER daughter behaved as she did because of her not being able to react properly to seeing a person with characteristics that were foreign to her. Seems like common courtesy and that both he and the salesperson handled the whole thing with grace.

    I did the same thing when my child recoiled when seeing a disfigured man in the store. Should I have not concluded that the cause for my son’s distress was the man’s appearance and not apologized to the man for my son’s reaction? Or am I a “non-disfigured guilt” coward?

    It is just as annoying to hear someone frivolously play the white guilt/privilege card as it is to hear someone frivolously toss out the race card.

  • [3] March 26, 2015 at 3:08pm

    Time for another addition to Wilkow’s Guide to Media Perception:

    If you are guilty of malfeasance…
    Conservative: you must pay for your past sins regardless of how long ago they occurred
    Liberal/progressive: this was a learning experience, a teachable moment, etc.; we must move forward and learn from these mistakes; it is not productive rehashing the past.

  • [6] March 18, 2015 at 3:16pm

    ‘Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) asked Republicans to move right to the Lynch vote, and argued that Democrats would be willing to return to the trafficking bill after that. “The United States Senate can do two things at the same time,” he said.’

    Funny when he was the majority leader, they couldn’t even do one thing at a time. And now he has the temerity to comment otherwise?

  • [8] March 17, 2015 at 12:26pm

    More of the misguided philosophy to get people to like you by being nice to them. Of course Iran will stop all of their malicious behavior if we don’t say bad things about them.

    To paraphrase the old Mark Twain quote: “It is better to not communicate on any matters of substance and let people think you are a fool than to do so and remove all doubt.”

  • [3] March 10, 2015 at 5:13pm

    A few years back, I almost drove off the road when hearing on the radio that Chicago had lost its bid to host the 2016 Olympics. (you might recall .. the one for which Obama personally lobbied.) Along with numerous other Chicago area residents, I couldn’t have been happier.

    I’m not sure if Boston suffers from the same cronyism as Chicago does (likely with this kind of sweetheart deal for the governor), but if so, run as fast as you can from supporting this bid.

    Responses (1) +
  • [13] March 6, 2015 at 12:26pm

    Another installment of “Ground Hog Day”.
    I get weary of the chorus that says this doesn’t authorize more spending, it only authorizes payment on what we’ve already spent. Then quit flippin spending so much! If you’d quit going over your dang credit limit, you wouldn’t have to keep raising it!
    Apologies in advance to our next generation of citizens who have yet to be born, but will be paying for this largesse.

  • [2] March 4, 2015 at 1:22pm

    My oh my. I’m shocked. The pols implement a sweeping program with significant tax increases pre-loaded (collected before the program is in full swing), then come back saying they need more money to implement the behemoth. Of course, the rationale is that “we’ve invested $x so far, we must fund what needs to be ‘fixed’”.

    Thus, you end up with programs growing out of control, with perpetual “fixes” needed. Can anyone give me an example of a program of this magnitude that has not taken on a life of its own? Or one that has been canceled for lack of meeting original expectations?

    The cycle continues … 1) identify a problem (or invent one), 2) “solve” it in ways that are infinitely more complex than what is needed to solve it, 3) drag those who do not have the problem down to a lower common denominator, 4) wait for the unintended consequences to occur, 5) plead for more money to address those unintended consequences and hire thousands more bureaucrats to staff it, 6) lobby for higher taxes to help fund this largesse, …. When the cycle is complete, go back to step 1.

  • [6] March 3, 2015 at 5:57pm

    Guess the statute of limitations on the blame Bush / Bush equivalence hasn’t expired. Regardless of Bush or Clinton or any pol, the lack of transparency is getting old. And there is plenty of that in the current administration. Fool.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] March 3, 2015 at 5:26pm

    The most telling comment I saw earlier today on the CNN ticker was the one where Clinton (or her rep — not sure of the attribution) indicated that all of her email record at the State Department is available and archived because her emails were sent to State Department emails, which are archived.

    So … instead of going to one email account archive to pull relevant emails they have to go to multiple target party’s emails, some of whom we are not aware of, in order to reconstruct her email trail? So is the next complaint by State going to be that a request for her emails via this path is too onerous and cannot be filled?

  • [1] February 28, 2015 at 10:28pm

    Natasha embodies the true lib … never having to say he/she is sorry.

  • [9] February 23, 2015 at 8:16pm

    Why not just say “You know Harry, you decided to suspend Senate rules when it met your needs. We’re going to do the same thing. Choke on it …”

    Responses (1) +
  • [7] February 18, 2015 at 4:46pm

    I think I was dreaming when watching this briefing when I heard Earnest say, “Well, Ed, we really wouldn’t want to identify them as Christians because that really doesn’t fit our narrative, does it?”

  • [2] February 16, 2015 at 12:27pm

    Coming soon to a theater near you … when (I am hopeful it is not if) the gravy train ends for the entitlement/recipient class, there will be howls of unfairness. The same chorus that is presented in this jerk’s commentary will by the recipient class:

    “the economic laws of scarcity need not apply to Greece because its thriftier northern neighbors have cash to spare and should willingly fork it over without any conditions”

    The contemporary revisions to Aesop’s Fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant nail it. I especially liked the one that Michelle Malkin published in 2008.

  • [19] February 12, 2015 at 1:14am

    Double standard …

    “McDonald … “I’ve run a large company, sir. What have you done?”

    Wonder if he’s asked his boss that same question…

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] February 10, 2015 at 2:51pm

    Herein lies the problem with our government. Very few of our public officials spend money as if it were their own. Thus we end up with government boondoggles, waste, and self-dealing. Then they retire with their better-than-us pensions.

    I would love to see statistics on the numbers of these people who leave government and start a business of their own. Probably not very significant — they wouldn’t survive if they had to watch their own money.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] February 9, 2015 at 9:06pm

    “The reason we decided to publish it now is because Williams has, I guess, backed out of this appearance on ‘The Late Show with David Letterman,’” Tritten said, referencing the “Nightly News” anchor’s decision that was announced Sunday.” and “We are five days after and Williams has not yet come forward and answered questions,” Tritten said. “He has made statements on his own, but he hasn’t sat and answered questions about it. So we thought this would be valuable.”

    What, they were expecting a probing and incisive interview by Letterman?

    Now that’s funny.

  • [10] February 7, 2015 at 2:02pm

    “‘We believe everyone should be able to speak their minds and practice their faith freely,’ Rice said.”

    This lady can’t stop being used by Obama, can she? She is the useful idiot who parroted the Benghazi video story until it became too ludicrous to continue. I’d like to take her comment at face value but based on her past history, I can’t help but assume she is once again playing the minion role and helping with the drip-drip-drip method of Obama building a message — this time one of how we must recognize Islam as a credible religion while being unable to call out Islam when it is used to justify atrocities.

    Just as the administration was unable to label Benghazi a terrorist attack, it appears unable to speak bluntly about the threat of Islamic extremism. Neither fit the administration’s “narrative”. So, they nibble around the corners with broad messages like this. Hopefully we will be able to unwind the damage that Neville Obama will have done by the time he completes his term in office.

    Note to Susan: When you make as public a comment as this one giving your support for the business owners who are being harassed or put out of business because they refused business on the basis of their religious beliefs, I will begin to give your sweeping comment about practicing faith freely some credibility. Not holding my breath, though.

  • [4] February 4, 2015 at 3:53pm

    Government knows best … especially the faceless, unelected bureaucrats.

    I heard these regulations will result in a $2500 per year reduction in each family’s internet costs.

    If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet … at least until that is no longer true.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] February 4, 2015 at 3:47pm

    Google this guy and you will see he is simply a tool. Among his recent hits:

    - He criticized ISIS but in the same sentence the governments of Syria and Iraq.
    - He commented that ISIS was fueled by US invading Iraq and by the West’s failure to address the atrocities of the Syrian government.

    This last one speaks volumes in its seeming contradiction — on one hand he criticizes our invading Iraq. On the other, he says we haven’t done enough on Syria. What is he expecting on the latter, that we intervene in Syria? Will his next play for press then be criticizing the fact that we acted there?

    I wish all of these self-important hypocrites would just shut up.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love