Today's Paper Latest stories Obits Rex Nelson Wally Hall Brummett online Traffic Newsletters Weather Puzzles
Comments by Dontsufferfools
Contact Dontsufferfools

Registration is required to make comments. Click here to LOGIN.
You can register for FREE to post comments and receive alerts.

Dontsufferfools (LANDON JONES) says...

You said it "sounds like" cups. If you can't afford hearing aids until Obamacare kicks in, then just cups your hands to your ears.

February 23, 2013 at 9:31 a.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

RaylanGivens (HOLDEN BIGGINS) says...

That is our hound mix we got from the Humane Society last year, he runs like the wind and leaps like a gazelle. We do have a 13 year old beagle mix though that someone dumped in our neighborhood back when he was a pup. They actually look a lot alike.

March 19, 2013 at 9:23 a.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

Dontsufferfools (LANDON JONES) says...

Packman, accept the truth and the truth will set you free. Trying to cover up one lie with another just makes you bandaid man.

March 25, 2013 at 1:26 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

kdc72701 (KATE CURT) says...

Virtually every instinct we have from the protective instinct toward children to our sexual instinct to our desire to run from danger to aggression when we have to fight involves an emotional component. Virtually everything that makes us human has an emotional component. As I said, we have evolved behaviors, and facial expressions, that we are acutely aware of all around emotional responses. Read some Konrad Lorenz and read about Mirror Neurons. The emotional is NOT second to the intellectual, it is PART of the intellect. Only a fool fails to realize this. Or a callow young man. Now seriously. Quit while you are behind and before you show yourself to be an unrepentant bully who wants to harass others into sharing his view. You have not presented one reasonable piece of evidence to suggests we should not value human like entities above balls of cells. Because you cannot defend your view. Period. You have nothing.

August 13, 2015 at 6:27 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

kdc72701 (KATE CURT) says...

Don't Suffer: You have said so many rude things it is not funny. And the Blonde comment was telling. Apologizing means nothing. If you were not a sexist you would not say it. I never said my decision was emotional, you said that. I do not believe it is emotional. And the fact that you want abortion to be rare is an admission that you think it is undesirable. You cut off at 20 weeks because you want to. There is no rational reason for it. Baby's brain wakes up is hogwash talk invented after the fact.
```
I am angry you suggested that I am not rational, Yes. There was no basis for that and it is a cheap attempt to discredit me, nothing more.. I can think X is wrong and feel X is wrong at the same time. You made an ad hominem attack to try and discredit me as you have done repeatedly.
```
You have also avoided nearly every question. I asked you an excellent question: Is it OK to snuff out your cigarette on a man's arm if he is in a coma and cannot feel a thing. Would it be OK to snuff out your cigarette on a dead body? You seem to believe as long as a being does not "feel" ( and how can you know) that you can do as you wish to it. So would you put your cigarette out on our coma patient? When people dodge questions it tells me that they do not actually think deeply. They only claim to.
```
Why should abortion be rare if it is A-OK? Another question you avoid. You have not posed one interesting thought, not one interesting question. You simply make unsubstantiated claims and pretend that constitutes "deep thinking". Yea, right.

August 13, 2015 at 9:14 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

kdc72701 (KATE CURT) says...

You have also avoided nearly every question. I asked you an excellent question: Is it OK to snuff out your cigarette on a man's arm if he is in a coma and cannot feel a thing. Would it be OK to snuff out your cigarette on a dead body? You seem to believe as long as a being does not "feel" ( and how can you know) that you can do as you wish to it. So would you put your cigarette out on our coma patient? When people dodge questions it tells me that they do not actually think deeply. They only claim to.
```
Why should abortion be rare if it is A-OK? Another question you avoid. You have not posed one interesting thought, not one interesting question. You simply make unsubstantiated claims and pretend that constitutes "deep thinking". Yea, right.

August 13, 2015 at 9:15 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

kdc72701 (KATE CURT) says...

Don't Suffer: I will give you consideration of a woman's rights. That does not change that abortion is wrong. You agree or you would not suggest it should be rare. Also, your proclamations about what is right and wrong come from the same place everyone's ideas on such matters come from : a combination of evolved instinct and cultural training. No matter how much you want to pretend you are the big strong-minded thinker and I am the weak-minded emotional fool (we can think and feel something at the same time so you were really trying to discredit me) you, in fact, can not articulate a clear principle that makes sense to support your position. You make up a fact "baby's brain wakes up at 20 weeks and baby becomes sentient" but then you have to admit you would not inflict harm on non-sentient coma man. So you have not thought about this deeply or you would be able to articulate your position. You do what most all people do, your gut (instinct) tells you that abortion is wrong and also that a woman should have a right not to give birth so your brain compromises based on evolved and learned values. There is no logical proof to it and that is why you cannot articulate an inviolate principle for your position. You simply do not have one. Mr Greenberg has one : don't kill. And for him this trumps a woman's right to do as she wishes with her body. His position is more logically sound than yours. That is not to say he is right but he has a principle.

August 14, 2015 at 8:28 a.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

Dontsufferfools (LANDON JONES) says...

Nah, it's bleeping brilliant analysis. And if you were capable of recognizing dumb, you'd throw away your keyboard.

September 6, 2015 at 1:11 a.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

GoBigRed (C. SCOTT) says...

I send this to you because of your profile picture. I hope you can find a place to post it:

Funding for Terrorists. It's not like this is any kind of secret. In 2010, thanks to WikiLeaks, we learned that the State Department, under the direction of then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, knew full well where the money for foreign terrorism came from. It came from countries and not from a faith. It came from sovereign states and not from an organized religion. It came from politicians and dictators, not from clerics, at least not directly. It was paid to maintain a political and social order, not to promulgate a religious revival or to launch a religious war. Religion was the fuel, the ammonia nitrate and the diesel fuel. Authoritarian oligarchy built the bomb. As long as people are dying in Paris, nobody important is dying in Doha or Riyadh.

Saudi Arabia is the world's largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba – but the Saudi government is reluctant to stem the flow of money, according to Hillary Clinton. "More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups," says a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state. Her memo urged US diplomats to redouble their efforts to stop Gulf money reaching extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. "Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide," she said. Three other Arab countries are listed as sources of militant money: Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The cables highlight an often ignored factor in the Pakistani and Afghan conflicts: that the violence is partly bankrolled by rich, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them. The problem is particularly acute in Saudi Arabia, where militants soliciting funds slip into the country disguised as holy pilgrims, set up front companies to launder funds and receive money from government-sanctioned charities.

November 16, 2015 at 3:05 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

Dontsufferfools (LANDON JONES) says...

tde, I read the paper today, and it's mostly republicans criticizing trump: Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Fiorina all bashed him. Democrats are hoping that Trump does get the nomination, because Hillary would trounce him — probably take 40 states. Go Trump Go!

December 8, 2015 at 1:02 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

Dontsufferfools (LANDON JONES) says...

I play golf about once a month with two professionals, one from China and one from S. Korea, and Trump really scares these otherwise conservative men. They wouldn't vote for Trump in a million years. Thinking people won't vote for Trump. Too many contradictions, too vulgar, too many bankruptcies, there's the stupid I'm being audited so I can't release by extremely embarrassing tax returns, one can go on and on. He's got the tea party idiots still mad at their masters for the financial crisis, Dylann Roof and pals, and that's about it.

March 17, 2016 at 2:50 a.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )

Dontsufferfools (LANDON JONES) says...

I never understand this. Why can't Europe's 300 million plus people organize three armored brigades themselves and patrol the border? We have an $18 trillion debt created in part by having to impose a nuclear and military umbrella over rich EU countries. It's senseless. Today, there's a nuclear summit focused on ISIS and its ability to use a nuke or dirty bomb. Yet, these NATO countries can't conjure the will to roll up these lightly trained and armed terrorists in Raqqa and Mosul. The only discussion should be on how to do it and when.

March 31, 2016 at 1:04 p.m. ( reply | | suggest removal )