Atlanta Opinion

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this

Andrea - criminey - why go back to the 1980s and 1990s … try just this year with Huckabee’s quote about changing the Constitution to be “in God’s standards”:

�I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it�s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And thats what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it�s in God�s standards rather than trying to change God�s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.�

Shaunti - the fact that someone like Huckabee lost so badly in the primary season pretty much shows that people of faith aren’t particularly welcome in the GOP, either.

By Truth

August 1, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this

Another religous topic.

Yes, the majority of White Christians vote Republicans. But the majority of Black Christians vote Democratic. That about sums it up.

Snidley Bullcrap

I wasn’t talking about old actors that became politicians. I was talking about a state of the art Hollywood Trained top tier Politician. A Politician. Get it? A person who is planning on living off the public dole for the rest of their lives. A person who will do or say anything that will buy him another term of power. A lawyer. A liar. A person with ties to the sleaziest people in the country. A Barbara Striesand approved, baby kissing poser.

You can disagree with anything Mccain says, but no one can deny that Barrack Obama is the slickest, most polished politician to ever come on the scene. Put him in front of a teleprompter and 10,000 of his closest friends and memories of past great speech makers come to mind.

Unfortunately.

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this

Shaunti -

in fact, the former head of Bush’s faith-based initiatives even went on the record saying that this administration mocked evangelicals:

“National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ridiculous, out of control, and just plain goofy,” Mr Kuo wrote, according to MSNBC television, which obtained an early copy of the book. In particular, he quotes Karl Rove, the president’s long-serving political adviser and mentor, as describing evangelical Christians as “nuts”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/14/usa.midterms2006

high horse. you should really get off of it.

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this

Truth -

Good Friday morning to you!

did you ever get around to seeing The Station Agent??? I may have to put you on “ignore” until you do! (how’s that for punishment?)

what about Casino Royale? you were going to wait to watch it with the GF - have you, yet???

By Gale

August 1, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

Back to religion and politics? Can we get off this?

By Truth

August 1, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

USinUk

In particular, he quotes Karl Rove, the president�s long-serving political adviser and mentor, as describing evangelical Christians as �nuts�.

You keep posting single sentences that Republicans have said, but you have no problem with obvious life decisions that democrats have made. I wish Republicans could live up to the standards you set for them. Too bad those amazingly high standards are not expected of members of your own party.

By JokesOn

August 1, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this

Shouldn’t both parties be anti-extremist?

The extremes should not be considered the norm.

By Ike Onyiliogwu

August 1, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this

It is true that the democratic Party has become home to everything that is anti reigious: secularist, atheists, hollywood and their cohorts. But the Republican Party has its own problems as well. The disdain displayed towards Mike Huckabee by economic conservatives was revealing. It was terrible and actually hateful. It showed that evangelicals are just used by Republicans to win elections. Thats all.

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this

Truth -

I wish Republicans could live up to the standards you set for them. Too bad those amazingly high standards are not expected of members of your own party.

I don’t set the standards for the GOP - THEY do each and every time they call the Dems godless (implying that GOP stands for God’s Own Party) and say that Dems have no family values. Sorry, but if they’re going to stand up there claiming that THEY stand for the family and THEY stand for religious values then THEY need to live up to it.

By JokesOn

August 1, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

It is true that the democratic Party has become home to everything that is anti reigious: secularist, atheists, hollywood and their cohorts.

I would argue that the democratic party is also home to religion. It is just that it has the same rights as all the other groups you listed. But, is it considered by zealots an insult to have the same rights as those listed.

Where as the republican party gives it special rights.

Democrats = inclusive, and republicans = exclusive.

By Gale

August 1, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this

OK, after my first reaction. I feel Shaunti tries to paint non-church-goers as amoral, uncaring, liberal elitists. It is very far from the truth. Many non-church goers simply do not find relevance in a church. It has nothing to do with faith or morality. I do not happen to be Christian, but I have no problem with the idea that many Christians receive comfort in a church environment. Unfortunately, I also see mega-church environments that appear not much more than another social network, not that there is anything bad there. But I think it isn’t really about faith. My issue. I try to not judge as it is not in my experience set.

I think both parties have been wrong to pander to religious groups. I think they do so because of the same reason they pander to any group; money. Those groups put a lot of money on the table. I wish they would pay closer attention to the lifestyles in the world’s theocracies. I do not want to live where my world is ruled by the predominent religious leaders. The problem with “ammending the Constitution to God’s order” is that it would be an interpretation of “order”. Whose interpretation?

We would do much better to remove religion from political elections. I will determine a politician’s worth by his or her votes, not by what they say in a campaign speech. Huckebee was an anomoly on the stage. He is a preacher and did not profess to be anything else. I doubt he expected to receive the nomination. He was making a point. How much money was behind a doomed campaign to allow him to do that and where did that cash come from? (I don’t really want an answer.)

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

Back to religion and politics? Can we get off this?

Gladly!!

So, today’s Washington Post had a story about a scientist being investigated for the 2001 anthrax attacks - he committed suicide just as investigators were linking him to the attack:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080100404.html?hpid=topnews

Now … why were people planting stories that bentonite was found in the anthrax (it wasn’t) in an effort to link Saddam to the attack way back in 2001?

“Four well-placed and separate sources told ABCNEWS that initial tests detected bentonite, though the White House initially said the chemical was not found.”

who were these 4 people? who did they work for? were they linked to Cheney and/or Rove? and, more to the point, why is ABC news still covering for them???

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92270&page=1

By Truth

August 1, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

USinUk

I finally watched Casino Royale the other night. I never did see the last of it. I dozed off. I am working too much. The TV show folded. I thought it would. But the producers have had to work out a deal with the locals at the Inn so they are paying me to finish that episode. I think it will be sold as a DVD in the gift shop. I don’t care. Pay me.

GF says thank you for pointing out the sponsor thing for her sister. A hospital had already looked into hiring her so they just got the HR person to write a letter. That’s not really a sponsorship, but they are hoping that will help. GF is really tired of her family. They are good folks but they stay at her house, even though they own a nice house. They just like being downtown. They haven’t lived here long and they are driving her crazy.

She is considering taking a job in Miami. Unfortunately, she would do very well in Miami. She speaks fluent Spanish, (better than English) She has never been there. If she goes to interview for that job, it’s bye bye Ukrainian. That would be a shame.

On a job from 10AM on. Have a good weekend.

By Yurtle_the_turtle

August 1, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this

Andrea…

sorry to dissapoint you, but your left-leaning friends (Socialists/Communists) ARE bitter. That is why you vote the way you do. It’s not change you seek, but change from religion. What your ideaology doesn’t recognize is that country was founded on Judeo/Christian theology and your kind has been chipping away at that for years. You fear religion relgiously. Isn’t that ironic??? And oh, by the way….your “open minded” liberalism isn’t open at all. The most bigoted, hateful people I know are all Liberal and Left. Your party is closed-minded, anti-christian, and hateful. Part of the reason your “team” is so hateful is that you have no moral basis to show kindness or love as you’ve, for the most part, abondoned religion and love. Nice party!

By TC

August 1, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this

With this election, I feel we are seeing a leaning away from fundamentalist Christianity in national politics. That is for three reasons: 1) Democrats: Democrats like Obama and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine are demonstrating strong, life-long commitments to service in government originating from Christian faith and by their leadership Christianity’s role in our nation is shifting: if Jesus were around today, would he likely be more concerned about gay marriage or poverty? Would Jesus be more concerned about abortion or torture? Would he be more concerned about immigration or social justice and equality? Duh! 2) Republicans: Republicans are pulling away from fundamentalist Christians for two reasons: A) Romney was a nearly ideal Republican candidate except he was Mormon, which made him un-nominatable in the Republican Party because of knee-jerk fundamentalists. That left McCain the only one standing and as we are seeing, McCain is a very poor standard-bearer for the party. B) Mike Huckabee very logically merged his Christian message with a populist economic message. That is very sensible given demographics of fundamentalist Christians and will be embraced enthusiastically by them soon. But populist economic policies are the polar opposite of what affluent Republicans could tolerate. (I think the chances of Huckabee-like leaders spinning off a third party is very high.) 3) Fundamentalist Christian leaders have begun to realize and state very clearly that the Republican Party has suckered them. There have been plenty of opportunities to outlaw abortion but if that actually occurred, where would that leave the Republican coalition? Fundamentalist Christians have done the grunt work of pulling the Republican cart because of a couple of carrots being dangled in their face. It would not make sense to allow them to reach the carrots. I apologize, but faith of any kind does cause the vast majority of people to be gullible. On the national political stage, fundamentalist Christians have been very gullible.

By John C. Snider

August 1, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this

Secularists hold these “intensely antagonistic feelings” not against religious people in general, but only toward the fundamentalist evangelicals who have been trying to shove their integration-of-church-and-state agenda down everyone else’s throats. Repeated polls and studies have shown that the most reviled group in America is not evangelicals - it’s atheists! This revulsion is fueled by religious bigots who spread the lie that not believing in a god means you have no morals whatsoever. Which is complete baloney. If there’s antipathy in this country towards evangelicals as a whole, it’s because the well-meaning evangelicals who believe in separation of church and state have stood by (if not enabled) their busybody brethren who try to make everyone live the way they want to live, and who want to destroy and pervert the Constitution.

www.AmericanFreethought.com

By Copyleft

August 1, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

The opening question has a punctuation error—a missing comma.

Has the Democratic Party embraced an anti-fundamentalist, Christian stance?

Answer: you betcha. I’d certainly HOPE so, since fundamentalists are dangerously extreme, hateful loons like the types who attacked us on 9/11. I note with pleasure that even the Republican Party has distanced itself from these losers.

What they have to do with “Christians,” however, is anybody’s guess. Christians are welcome in both parties.

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

Truth -

I finally watched Casino Royale the other night. I never did see the last of it.

what do you think of the new Action Man Bond? okay, I think he’s dreamy, (I don’t expect you to have quite the same reaction) - but isn’t Daniel Craig a kick-a$$ Bond???

glad I could help your GF’s sister - while a letter isn’t quite the same as an H1 Visa, it should at least help! good luck to her!!

She is considering taking a job in Miami. Unfortunately, she would do very well in Miami. She speaks fluent Spanish, (better than English) She has never been there. If she goes to interview for that job, it�s bye bye Ukrainian.

um, hello South Beach! you can always head down there for a visit and a few shots of Cuban Coffee (more proof that there is a god and he loves us).

sorry to hear about the ghostie show shutdown - something else will come along, though!

have a good weekend.

By Gale

August 1, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this

bentonite. Thanks for the suggested shift. I’ll go read that article. Although it sounds like a bit of conspiricy by war profiteers, it would be good to get the goods on it. The damage is done though. Thanks to the misinformation and bad planning, we have almost completely destabilized the mideast. I remember reading a gap sheet title in the grocery years ago that the anti-christ would come in this period in the mideast. Hmmm, metaphorical perhaps. (not serious here).

Truth, CA is still a good option for the nurse sister. Spanish is good there and it is a lot farther away than Miami.

By T

August 1, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

So that means Republicans are against the separation of church and state? Well, no wonder no one can come to a common ground and actually do something productive.

By Archie

August 1, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

My response to the topic question is no the democrats have not adopted a anti-christian stance but perhaps they are anti fundamentalist. You can be religious without being fundamentalist. You don’t have to have God on the money in order to pray. ACLU members do attend church and some democrats have a conservative value system. Some people are simply more progressive with their views.

By JokesOn

August 1, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

Has anyone seem the documentary “Why we fight?”

It tries to explain how imperialism’s ripples are still (subconsciously in many cases) motivating US decisions.

By NYer

August 1, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

USinUK,

Were those last posts to me yesterday some kind of joke? Were you tired or something? They didn’t make much sense although they did give me a chuckle.

You started by posting a challenge looking for enemies who have endorsed Obama. That was a pretty low bar. Instead of acknowledging that the challenge had been met, all you had to say was something pithy about how Hamas is probably looking forward to talking to somebody else. (And if you want to say you’re friends with MoMo, that’s your deal, not mine).

Second, you say that Soros hasn’t donated much and take Truth to task for being wrong. Then, after I post a bunch of stuff that anybody could have found with two minutes of research showing that you were the one who was mistaken, you feign incredulity that somebody like Soros would use their money for political influence. Classic.

To be able to so dramatically shift positions from “Soros doesn’t do that” to “Do you really think he’s the first person to pull that crap” so quickly leads me to believe you missed your calling as a politician - or at least as a female boxer with the bobbing and weaving.

To be clear, I wasn’t making a value judgment about Soros per se - merely debunking the inaccuracies. You may have read more into my post than was there. For the record, his political views don’t offend me; some of them I would agree with and some I would not. But you have to admit, the guy comes with his fair share of baggage.

Enjoy your weekend and loosen the grip on those pearls.

By gemology1010

August 1, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

This is a very funny discussion to have. Any smart or observant person could tell you that it is true; the Democrat Party is anti religion. All you need to do is look where the candidates of either party campaign and what groups they have an audience with. Their words also condemn them to this truth. “rural people clinging to their guns and their religion” (Barak Obama) Look up some of the comments made by Bill Maher, John Stewart, Keith Olberman about religious figures in america. Don’t tell me that their audience is not 100% democrat. (There is an exception of course Democrats love Black Liberation theology and WAHABBI ISLAM!) Those are religious groups that the Democratic party do not harrass.

By Copyleft

August 1, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

Exactly, Archie.

Anti-Christian? No way. Anti-fundamentalist? Definitely, every time.

There IS a difference, folks.

By Too Funny!

August 1, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

It showed that evangelicals are just used by Republicans to win elections.

Gee.. Ya think? Well, what other uses do they have? HAHAHA! HAHA! Loyal sheep. HAHAHA!

By Gale

August 1, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

TC, I like the bit of sanity in the WWJD ideas. And I like your carrot idea. It makes sense to wave that morality issue under the noses of voters you want to manipulate while never letting them have it. It keeps money flowing. I was personally hoping the gay marriage issue would not surface during this election cycle. As much I would like to marry my partner, I think it is distracting from more important issues.

USinUK, the new Bond is terrific for the ‘early Bond’ image. I love the rough edges, blunt instrument, bad boy attitude. Judy Dench is a great M as well. I do miss Q though. I was reminded that Moneypenny was missing in Casino Royal. Do you know if she had not yet appeared in the books?

Yurtle, I agree that most American culture for many years has been based in the Judeo/Christian, western culture. Times change. Our country and indeed much of global culture is changed. Many new peoples have populated our country. Our understanding of those peoples’ values has hopefully broadened our perspectives so we can live more full lives. At the same time, we have come to understand that we, in our ferver to bring the “word” to primitive peoples, have destroyed many valuable and perfectly good Moral cultures by insisting their way is all wrong. I think we are growing to be a better people. Narrowing our focus limits us.

By JokesOn

August 1, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

I love the “but the first settles were christain” position. If the first settler was a red headed, one-eyed hermaphrodite with a limp, would people that were similar have increased rights?

By Truth

August 1, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

USinUK

I like the new Bond a lot. i would prefer a little less sloppiness, but he does wear a tux correctly. I told my kid before his Prom to be James Bond in the tux. While the other guys have their shirt tails out as soon as the picture is taken, be like James Bond. Be completely relaxed in your tux but don’t take the tie off until you are ready to undress. His GF went on and on about how good he looked at the end of the night.

The movie was great and I loved the fact that they not only used a new Aston Martin, but they had an older DB-4 as part of the plot.

As I had told you, a lot of true “players” look for married women. They are both looking for the same thing. His weakness for married women would have never played with Sean Connery.

Too bad about the show. I have more work than I can do. It’s those unreliable ghosts. Screw em. We gave them a chance for stardom. I was amazed that the producers stuck with it as long as they did. We had half a complete series and not a single true weirdness. Just a bunch of old houses and crazy people talking about visions. I am looking for that show in the Caribbean. I worked on one back in the early 90s. I need to produce my own, but ideas are a dime a dozen. Do you know any of those Lymies that wants to dump about a million into a show about Islands?

My GF’s gams were made to live in Miami. Wrap-around skirt. Big flower behind the ear. Viva, Viva!! Damn. I hate it. But I couldn’t try to talk her out of it. She would love it so much.

I would never try to keep the relationship going. She wouldn’t be down there a week before someone would grab her. A visit would be no fun. She hasn’t even decided to go on the interview, yet. I believe she will.

Via Con Dios, my Darling. I don’t want to think about it.

By fervor

August 1, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

“Liberals” don’t walk into churches during children’s plays and open fire on the congregations. The church was targeted for it’s perceived “liberal” stance. I think the Unitarian Universalists are the most, New Testament oriented of all denominations.

Feldhan is a fool, always has been. Her column in this paper is exclusively to draw ire and letters - hence readership.

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

NYer -

Good Friday -

after I post a bunch of stuff that anybody could have found with two minutes of research showing that you were the one who was mistaken, you feign incredulity that somebody like Soros would use their money for political influence. Classic.

First of all, I cited Federal filings (found via the link I posted). You cited a watchdog group (with no link). I could do the “my source can beat up your source” thing, but didn’t feel like getting into that kind of pi$$ing match at nearly 10:00 GMT.

For the record, his political views don�t offend me; some of them I would agree with and some I would not. But you have to admit, the guy comes with his fair share of baggage.

they may not offend you, but BOY do they get under Truth’s skin (and that of pretty much everyone else on the right). as for baggage, I don’t think that anyone can make that kind of money by being a Boy (or Girl) Scout.

You started by posting a challenge looking for enemies who have endorsed Obama. That was a pretty low bar.

As for “Mo” Qadaffi, we’ve restored diplomatic ties with Libya and no longer consider them terrorists (Lockarbie? what’s that?) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799651/

Instead of acknowledging that the challenge had been met, all you had to say was something pithy about how Hamas is probably looking forward to talking to somebody else

actually, I wasn’t being pithy - the US hasn’t been thought of as an honest broker for peace in years. we need a leader who is actually involved in the peace process and who is actually willing to listen to both sides to broker an agreement.

By Gale

August 1, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

JokesOn. Did you ever read “The arrogance of Power” by MacNammara if I remember correctly. It talks a lot about American imperialism and how it effected our foreign policies.

gemology1010, You should not pay such attention to media sound bites. Many people say dumb things when faced with the craziness of a campaign rally. Politicians on both sides say things that will be offensive to someone. Pay attention to the voting records.

By Mara

August 1, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

Sorry, Shaunti. We Democrats may be the party of Church/State seperation and a safe haven for “secularists”, (that boogeyman of the right), but that doesn’t stop the religious from seeing how they’ve been duped and rejecting the annointed Republican candidate.

According to Beliefnet’s God-o-Meter, even conservative Christians don’t have as much of a problem with Obama as they do with McCain. Heck, even Hillary did better than McCain…

“GodTube.com has announced that despite the recent sweeping victory for John McCain, a stunning new GodTube.com poll reveals that if McCain wins his party�s nomination, Christian Conservative participants would rather vote for one of the two Democratic candidates.”

“With a slim 9.1% support for McCain, Obama has become a viable choice for many Christian Conservatives with 26.3% of the Christian vote, up 8% from last week.”

“Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton showed no increase in the GodTube.com poll this week maintaining her 19.6% of the Christian vote while Republican candidate Mike Huckabee increased his lead 30% last week, leading the GodTube.com poll by 45% of the overall Christian vote.”

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

Gale -

USinUK, the new Bond is terrific for the �early Bond� image. I love the rough edges, blunt instrument, bad boy attitude. Judy Dench is a great M as well. I do miss Q though. I was reminded that Moneypenny was missing in Casino Royal. Do you know if she had not yet appeared in the books?

Daniel Craig is just yummy. Think about the first 15 minutes of Casino Royale - could you picture Roger Moore doing any of those stunts? Even Sean Connery? And I want to BE Dame Judi Dench when I grow up. I’d be happy paying to watch her read the phone book.

We were talking about the dearth of Moneypenny last night - going by IMDB, neither Moneypenny nor Q are in Quantum of Solace either. BUT the CIA agent that was in CR will be back.

By JokesOn

August 1, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

JokesOn. Did you ever read �The arrogance of Power� by MacNammara if I remember correctly. It talks a lot about American imperialism and how it effected our foreign policies.

I will have to check that out. The documentary I mentioned follows those same lines though and I believe was referenced.

Interesting stuff though.

By Mary

August 1, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

As a Pro-Life Christian and a Democrat, I can tell you with certainty, I AM NO LONGER WELCOME IN MY PARTY.

By Snidely Buttright

August 1, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

Tooth, you say that I can disagree with anything Mccain says, but no one can deny that Barrack Obama is the slickest, most polished politician to ever come on the scene? HAHAHA!!

Only a celebrity of John McCain’s magnitude could star on blockbuster television shows like ‘24’ and appear in big-budget motion pictures like ‘The Wedding Crashers’. These are not little campaign commercials or staged news interviews, but major Hollywood productions; which is no surprise, given that he’s pals with Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lorne Michaels.

Only big celebrities like John McCain own seven homes, date Brazilian models, marry blond heiresses worth $100 million, attend Virginia’s elite “old boy” Episcopal High School, forget the last time they pumped their own gas and wear $520 black calfskin Ferragamo loafers.

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

Truth -

The movie was great and I loved the fact that they not only used a new Aston Martin, but they had an older DB-4 as part of the plot.

I’m not really one for cars (does it have 4 wheels? is it safe? will it get me there? fine.). BUT. If I ever won the Euro Lotto, I’d be sleeping on the curb outside the Aston Martin show room to be there when it opened. My god. those are some FINE looking cars.

I would never try to keep the relationship going.

you forget - my hub was living la vida London when we met - never say never when it comes to the long-distance thing. it’s not easy, but sometimes it’s worth it. (and I know what you mean - he was meant to wear a Saville suit …)

Do you know any of those Lymies that wants to dump about a million into a show about Islands?

criminey - if they’ll produce Big Brother year after year, I don’t know why they wouldn’t.

By Gale

August 1, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

Do you know, Judi Dench does the new voice over at Disney’s Epcot Spaceship Earth ride. My partner thinks the text got dumbed down, but I love her voice. She is a simply fantastic actor.

By JokesOn

August 1, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

Mary,

As a Pro-Life Christian and a Democrat, I can tell you with certainty, I AM NO LONGER WELCOME IN MY PARTY.

Why so? As I know it, Obama’s personal beliefs are pro-life and christian. He simply knows it is not his place to legislate that belief.

By Gale

August 1, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this

Snidely, What I hate about slick politicians with lots of money is not the many homes, expensive haircuts and shoes; it is the way they try to convince us little people that they are ‘just like us’ and come from humble families. Puhleeze!

By Phillip

August 1, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

When your religion becomes partisan, your church will live and die by the success or failure of the party to which it is attached.

As the grandson of a Baptist minister, I have witnessed first hand how Christianity has been hijacked by these so called fundamentalists, many of whom are simply Republican political operatives. It’s the GOP who went after this neanderthal constituency (the most extreme fundamentalists) and in close presidential races used them to win. By playing to the least common denominator of ignorance, their goals (such as to “cleanse” society of gay people) are so repugnant to modern voters that now the Democrats are actually benefiting from it.

However, it’s not the downfall of the GOP that concerns me, frankly they are getting what they deserve. I am most concerned about good Christians who have sold our souls and joined our church to this declining political party. Now as the Republicans are losing young people by huge margins, so is religion.

Somewhere along the way, and as wrong as wrong can be, “GOD” was replaced with “GOP.” That, my friend, is not the fault of the Democrats.

By NYer

August 1, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

USinUK,

Everything I found on Soros was through Wikipedia. And to be fair, I tried your link and nothing came up.

I disagree with some, probably even many of Soros’ views, but I don’t find them offensive. Same with anybody else - his views are what they are - in my mind they aren’t made more offensive or distasteful just because he’s rich. He leans very much to the left side of the aisle; fine with me.

By Mara

August 1, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

Bill Maher, John Stewart, Keith Olberman…Don�t tell me that their audience is not 100% democrat.

why did I get a quick picture of some guy with his fingers in his ears screaming “La-la-la-la…” at the top of his voice? LOL!!

gemology1010 may not want to know, but to pretend that ONLY Democrats watch these shows is as silly as insisting that ONLY Republicans watch Drew Carey, Jay Leno, and Shepherd Smith.

By Gale

August 1, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

Interesting post, Phillip. Thanks for your perspective. I had a good friend in Michigan who was a Baptist minister. He was a very tolerant person. I never did hear him say anything about politics. However, I remember even then he was planning to leave preaching to pursue counselling because he was distressed by what his congregation wanted to hear on Sundays. Perhaps it was the beginning of that poitical movemnent.

Mary, I disagree that your party does not want you. Your party particularly wants your money. Obama was heard to tell someone, “We don’t need them to attend, we need their checks.” What no one outside the fringe groups wants is to have a morality issue shoved down their throats as legislation. Issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and marital infidelity do not have a place in the election of the president. There are much more important issues facing our nation and our world.

By Copyleft

August 1, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

Mixing religion with politics… hey, what could possibly go wrong?

(Keep the stakes and firewood handy, everybody.)

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

Mary -

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

is THAT the sign of a party that has left you???

take off your hair shirt and you’ll realize that there are LOADS of pro-life people in the Democratic party (just as there are loads of pro-choice people in the GOP).

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

NYer -

I tried your link and nothing came up.

that one is primarily a database - type in Soros, George at the top and you’ll get a list of his donations.

now do you understand what I was saying about Hamas and Qadaffi?

By Billy

August 1, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

Mary — You are most welcome in the party. The party platform, however, is that a woman has the right to choose an abortion. I don’t know anyone that really likes the idea of abortion. One thing is certain, however — the policies put in place by the GOP lead to increased unwanted pregnancies. The best way to limit abortion is to keep it safe and legal while helping people reach a point at which they feel comfortable raising a child.

Does your party want you? Sure. Will you vote against your party if the only way its candidate’s beliefs differ from yours is on abortion? That is the real question. My high school environmental club sponsor was a huge tree-hugging (like me) teacher. After the GOP took control of Congress she asked me about a shirt I had disparaging Gingrich and Helms. “Two Rights Are Wrong”, I believe it was. She said that while she didn’t know much about Helms she kind of liked Gingrich. I asked her how, as a big environmentalist, she could like Newt and his fellow “revolutionaries”. Her answer? She really is against abortion. So, yeah, you might feel out of place. But if abortion, as an issue, is paramount to all others, then maybe the Democratic Party isn’t right for you…

By Eric

August 1, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

Andrea is right on this one … a vote for Democrat does not imply anti-religious fundamentalism, but a vote for actions that bring about positive change for all (which can be motivated by religious and/or secular values for the civic good).

By NYer

August 1, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

USinUK,

I always understood what you were saying. But you asked a very simple, straightforward question, which is what I answered. You’ve now moved into trying to qualify, to varying degrees, the answer you got from me.

I think Hamas is an enemy, and I think a majority would agree. (To your point, it doesn’t necessarily mean you do or do not engage them in dialogue.) Reasonable people can disagree whether Mo is still an enemy - renouncing nukes and removal from list of terrorist nations certainly doesn’t all of a sudden qualify him as a friend (in my book).

By DemoChristian

August 1, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

As a Christian who also happens to be Black, I am often appalled by the pseudo-righteousness of “so called” Christians who are quick to pigeonhole someone as “godless” because they are affiliated with a particular political party. I personally balance some liberal ideals with conservative ideals, however I tend to vote Democratic, simply because of the fact that I know that the Conservative movement in its current form is totally counter to my minority identity.

There is a reason for separation of Church and State in our country, and you only have to look at the countries that we are in opposition with to see why that is necessary.

So called “Evangelical” Christians can sometimes be the worst; highly judgemental and self-righteous.. and often bigoted. They proclaim faith in Jesus Christ who in the truest sense of the word, was a liberal. Yet, they only love those who are like them and subscribe to their way of thinking, whereas Christ immersed Himself first and foremost amongst those who were not at all like Him, and urged love of thy neighbor and one of His foremost imporant commandments.

It is true that most Black Christians vote Democratic, and I’m sure it’s for the same reason that I stated I do. God in Christ had no respect for the politics of the world, hence His crucifixion. Politics are inherently sinful, and therefore since God hates sin I’m sure He endorses no one political party over another. So it would behoove all you so called “Christian Conservatives” to separate your “religion” from your politics and learn how to see things from a true spiritual perspective. Nobody’s perfect, so get off your high horses. In the end you know you will have to answer to God for it. That is unless, you are only pretending to love God. I personally know it’s possible, as I hold vivid images of KKK past and present quoting scripture to justify it’s hatred against other peoples.

By kimberly

August 1, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

Does the new law in Georgia allowing us to carry firearms on MARTA and into restaurants apply to churches as well? Can we expect more good Christian Republican Conservatives like Jim David Adkisson to come in all Yosemite Sam with guns a’blazin’ to shoot up churches they deem “too darned liberal?” (Hey, something has to be done about them, right?) Perhaps Ms. Feldhahn will enlighten us in next week’s column.

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

NYer -

But you asked a very simple, straightforward question, which is what I answered. You�ve now moved into trying to qualify, to varying degrees, the answer you got from me.

what I asked for was a link (which I didn’t actually get, but I’m taking your word for it) - Truth, while I love sparring with him, is often long on assertions, short on backup (case in point - “Soros has donated millions to the Obama for America campaign” - sure, if by “millions” you mean $2,100). All I was asking for was a link, an article, something that proved his point.

you may not agree with me, but ya gotta acknowledge that I almost always provide evidence of what I say.

anyhoo - like I said, I went with what you said (despite no links) but questioned the “enemy” status of Qadaffi. Hamas are a legitimately elected government - recognized? no, but they are legitimately elected. why shouldn’t they say they would rather see Obama in office than someone who jokes about “bomb-bomb-bomb Iran”.

By Brad Bishop

August 1, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

The unfortunate part about the whole liberal/conservative ideals is that, generally speaking, they both want to control you, just in polar-opposite ways - all based on their beliefs. Both of these groups lack the vision of freedom.

Your traditional conservative wants to limit what you can do based on their beliefs. You end up with do-gooder laws for anti-drugs, no alcohol Sundays, limits on where adult-oriented stores may go, etc.

The liberals will traditionally do the same sorts of things using the same tactics (most of this is all sold under ‘protect the children’) but with different demons that must be conquered. You end up with heavier taxes on what you earn, limits on what you can do with your land, taxes / tax breaks that try to influence how you spend your money, litigation for not doing what they wanted you to do, etc.

The unfortunate part of both of these tactics is that neither has anything to do with freedom. It’s all about force. Someone doesn’t think you should buy beer on Sunday while someone else doesn’t think you should buy an SUV.

They both fail to win over anyone’s hearts or thought process. They don’t even try.

What you end up with is with mediocre politicians pandering to this nonsense and no real differences between them.

I’m for freedom. Yeah, we need laws so that there are consequences for killing each other, theft, etc. but don’t try to protect me from myself or use children or old people as the excuse for your ‘feel-good’ laws - on either side.

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

NYer -

interesting … once you get past all the “worldnutdaily” links about Hamas and Obama, you find this little gem:

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/06/04/hamas-unendorses-obama-after-speech-to-pro-israel-lobby/

Hamas promply unendorsed Obama, a Christian who has had difficulty dispelling a rumor campaign suggesting he is a Muslim and that his advisers have a pro-Arab bent.

�Obama�s comments have confirmed that there will be no change in the U.S. administration�s foreign policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict,� Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters in Gaza.

�The Democratic and Republican parties support totally the Israeli occupation at the expense of the interests and rights of Arabs and Palestinians,� he said.

�Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win,� Zuhri said.

As for our friend in Libya: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/12/gadafy.obama?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

The Libyan leader, Muammar Gadafy, has reinforced his reputation for plain and provocative speaking by suggesting that Barack Obama is a black man with an “inferiority complex” and might behave “worse than whites” if he becomes president of the United States.

Gadafy’s striking non-endorsement of the Democratic candidate focused in part on Obama’s pledge of “unshakeable” support for Israel, which caused dismay, if not surprise, across the Arab and Muslim worlds last week.

“Obama’s announcement that a unified Jerusalem should be the eternal capital of Israel and that he will support it with $30bn during the next 10 years has disappointed our hopes and that of the Africans,” Gadafy said in a speech marking the evacuation of the last US air base in Libya shortly after he seized power in a coup in 1969.

so. that pretty much takes care of that. wouldn’t you say?

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

Getting back to my earlier post about the mysterious people linking the anthrax attacks to Iraq …

this article from Slate should also make one wonder WHICH government official was warning Richard Cohen about an anthrax attack … and why:

The attacks were not entirely unexpected. I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official, and I immediately acted on it. I was carrying Cipro way before most people had ever heard of it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2186766/

who was linking the anthrax attacks to 9/11 and why? the two attacks were ENTIRELY different (9/11 being designed to take out as many people as possible, the anthrax letters targeting specific individuals).

By NYer

August 1, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this

USinUK,

I’ve never tried to post a link before. Perhaps this will work.

[http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=George_Soros]

so. that pretty much takes care of that. wouldn�t you say?

I would.

By Gale

August 1, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

USinUK, In the anthrax issue, I wonder if you are seeing different reactions to posed threats depending on the groups involved. People involved with anthrax are scientists. Those who were looking at air traffic security were possibly buearocrats.(sp) As I recall, the think tanks had come up with many potential attack scenarios. Maybe anthrax was seen as more likely, given our disbelief that anyone would fly a plane into a building.

I would expect the folks in biowarefare to be strung a bit tight. Meanwhile, nobody seemed to care that foreigners were learning to fly jumbo jets, but didn’t care about learning to land.

By Copyleft

August 1, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

Leave off the brackets; the auto-formatting should take care of it when it’s just a URL.

By NYer

August 1, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

thank you, Copyleft.

By Mara

August 1, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

actually I believe that you put the word you want to represent your data inside the brackets like this [word you want to represent data] and immediately after the second bracket, you parenthesis-URL-parenthesis.

this is what it should look like:

word you want to use to represent data

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

NYer -

great link, ballotpedia. it’s interesting, though - click down a bit and you’ll find that the assertion Soros is said to have donated $14.5 million to ACT. comes from this organization: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/

sometimes ya gotta look at who is doing the talking. :-)

By Bruno

August 1, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

Howdy bloggers—Hope everyone is doing well.

Democrats = inclusive, and republicans = exclusive.

a vote for Democrat does not imply anti-religious fundamentalism, but a vote for actions that bring about positive change for all (which can be motivated by religious and/or secular values for the civic good).

If it were only that simple, JokesOn and Eric….In my experience, there are good and bad people in both parties.

The unfortunate part about the whole liberal/conservative ideals is that, generally speaking, they both want to control you, just in polar-opposite ways - all based on their beliefs. Both of these groups lack the vision of freedom.

Brad, I think your statement rings closer to the truth.

Best wishes to all.

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

Mara -

yay! I’ve long wanted to know how to do that … you are Magic Woman!

take the rest of the week off.

By Bruno

August 1, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

The only general characterization of Dems/Repubs that I’ve found to be true in my personal experience is that Dems usually look for and support centralized solutions to societal problems while Repubs typically favor individualized efforts to solve problems. Only a generalization, of course….

By USinUK

August 1, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this

Because Mara is my new hero, here is something fun for the weekend.

I’m off to make dinner

Have a great weekend!!!

By Mara

August 1, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

UsinUK - daquiri to you, too :^) You all have a fab week-end, m’kay?

Here’s a nice link to a very funny Joke for Friday

enjoy. Tootles…

By ButtlessSnideLeft

August 1, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

Here�s a nice link to a very funny Joke for Friday

I am glad I noticed that that was The Onion because it almost sounded believable. LOL

anticipating that next we might learn that water does not boil at 212F, rather a SupremeBeing willed it to change states.

By sandi

August 1, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this

“…nearly one in five white non-evangelicals �hold intensely antagonistic feelings toward Christian fundamentalists�…” My goodness, why would that be? Could it be because ignorant christian fundies want to make laws for all of us based on their 2,000 year old book written by illiterates? Because they base their lives on folk tales written by men who knew less about the world than a 5th grader does today and they want to force everybody to base their lives on that? Because of the fundies stupid moral superiority stance? Because anyone with a basic history education sees what happened in the past when religion and politics joined hands?

By JokesOn

August 1, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this

Hey Dog,

Democrats = inclusive, and republicans = exclusive.

a vote for Democrat does not imply anti-religious fundamentalism, but a vote for actions that bring about positive change for all (which can be motivated by religious and/or secular values for the civic good).

If it were only that simple, JokesOn and Eric�.In my experience, there are good and bad people in both parties.

What I am explaining, for example, is how you and RF where no longer accepted as a conservative by “the real conservatives” on the board because you disagreed with them on certain topics.

Where as the liberals on the board do not ostracize a person that believe in pro-choice. In short, with us or against us.

Is it representative of each and every repub, no. But, do not expect to feel welcome if your beliefs differ from theirs.

Heck, if you go by the actual definition of of conservative, I am one along with most of the recent democratic presidents actions. Those words almost mean nothing now, including being “christian.”

By RF

August 3, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

Okay, I have to point out the lunacy in Shaunti’s “argument” here. First, the fact that fundamentalists see criticism of their beliefs as an “attack” is laughable. The holes in their arguments are too easy to point out and difficult to defend. Anyone who doesn’t drink the Kool-Aid, so to speak, becomes a feared enemy that must be eradicated at all costs. It’s the fear-mongering and lack of reason many exhibit, along with the bullying arguments and attacks they make that make fundamentalists so often the target of criticism. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen folks.

Also, fundamentalist strategy relies on fear and the “you’re either for us or against us” mentality. I love this speech from the movie The American President:

He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who’s to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections

That about sums up the McCain campaign, IMO. That worked for the fundamentalists after 9/11, during the 50’s, and in Puritan New England. What they don’t understand is that fear only motivates people so long. After a while, even some of the most diehard among them get tired of being afraid. As I said last week, I’m fed up with the feeding of fear from the evangelical left. It’s a tired message that just isn’t working anymore. We all fell for it after 9/11, and even liberal ol’ Hillary voted for war with Iraq while politicians crossed the aisle to join the republicans. Where are we now? Trillions in debt, fighting an expensive no-win war, paying out the nose for gas, losing homes due to predatory lenders—whose practices were tolerated and even supported by this administration—and we’re tired of it all. If they could, they’d put scarlet letters on anyone who isn’t white, middle-class, and attending the local mega-church on Sunday. Look at people like Archie, who can’t speak of his real social beliefs in church. He’d be kicked out and branded a sinner like I was. How many churches are there right now that aren’t considered too liberal that mix races? Not many, I’ll assure you. Fundamentalist practices have encouraged racism and ignoring of any social issue that doesn’t promote the white, heterosexual power structure. They’re scared to death that they might actually have to treat other groups with dignity and equality. They talk about it, but do they live it? Not really. Get a group of Southern Baptists together and see how long it takes to get them talking about poor minorities and gays. Usually it comes up within five minutes. That narrow-mindedness is wrong, counterproductive, and certainly not biblical. But they think it’s okay because they can find a verse in the Bible to support every idea they have.

If fundamentalists and left-heavy conservatives feel “attacked”, maybe it’s because the rest of us are done listening to messages of hatred and fear that manipulate christianity to support them. We’re tired of God being used as the excuse to hate. We’re tired of hearing “love thy neighbor….well, only so long as he looks like you, believes like you, and is married to the opposite sex.” We’re done with talking about helping others and equality while we keep blacks uneducated and poor and deny rights to gays at every turn. We’re tired of saying “yes we care” while people live starving within the shadows of our cathedrals of worship. If that makes them feel attacked, so be it. Paranoia feeds itself and in the end only causes much quicker that which is feared. Maybe instead of trying to make Obama look bad, McCain ought to try making himself look good. Why can’t he visit world leaders and talk to them? Oh that’s right, he’s spending his money for advertising so he can win votes by making us afraid.

Fundies aren’t viewed as the “bogeyman”. The reality is they view others that way. And they’ll tell you that if you listen to them long enough.

I close with this:

We’ve got serious problems, and we need serious people. And if you want to talk about character, Bob, you’d better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card. If you want to talk about character and American values, fine. Just tell me where and when, and I’ll show up. This a time for serious people, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up

Have a great week all. The kiddies come Monday, so I’ll likely not be in to visit very much for a while.

By AGF

August 3, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this

Wow RF - that was long rant about fundies. Are you maybe just a little bit stressed out with the kids coming back tomorrow? Speaking of holes in arguments - your arguments are so full of holes I could call your diatribe a “sponge” - but since most of what you said doesn’t hold water, I can’t do that.

The irony of your post is that you tell us that fundies aren’t being portrayed as the bogeyman, and then you make several inflammatory statements that use a wide brush to paint fundies as - you guessed it - the bogeyman.

I am a fundie and PROUD of it. I resent almost everything you wrote because most of it doesn’t represent me or my conservative Christian friends. I am not sure if you wrote the post listed above, or you borrowed it from some website. I would be willing to bet that my church and its local association (filled with hated fundies) has done more for poor people and minorities in our community than any club you or your liberal friends belong to.

And if we do make disparaging statements about the poor, it�s because we actually KNOW them. We live in the same community they do. We know where they live and how they live. We have seen them make poor decisions over and over again.

We drive by the government housing projects as we drop our kids off at school to see poor folks standing outside in their PJ’s putting their kids on the bus. We see these same kids getting on the bus wearing expensive clothes and shoes while talking on the cell phones or listening to their Ipods. We go into their homes to see big screen TV’s hooked up to a satellite, all the while asking for money to pay for groceries.

Our association sponsors a local free food bank and clothing store. The people that run it tell me that the same people come in every week. The story is always the same - no job, no husband, lots of kids to feed. And before you call me a racist, these stores are frequented equally by whites and blacks, because in the community I live their are just as many poor whites that have made bad decisions as their are blacks.

And, unlike what you posted, these examples are things I have personally seen or stories I have heard from reliable people. You on the other hand, have posted some garbage you read on some website like Slate. I doubt you PERSONALLY KNOW 10 fundies that fit the descriptions you gave in your rant.

And speaking of the Presidential election � these are serious times. Times that require someone to lead the nation, not someone who looks great while reading a teleprompter and promises �change� and says �yes we can�. McCain may not be the man I want, and I don’t believe he is the man we need, but I can promise you he will be a significant upgrade from Obama.

By USinUK

August 4, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this

McCain may not be the man I want, and I don�t believe he is the man we need, but I can promise you he will be a significant upgrade from Obama.

I don’t think that a man who calls his wife the c-word is an upgrade.

Nor do I think that a man who thinks it’s acceptable to make fun of an opponent’s child is an upgrade.

To further RF’s and AGF’s use of Aaron Sorkin’s wonderful writing: “For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being president of this country was, to a certain extent, about character, and although I have not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I’ve been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation: Being President of this country is entirely about character.”

ANYone who would call his wife the c-word and ANYone who thinks that a child is an acceptable target for ridicule is completely lacking in character and honor.

By Truth

August 4, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this

Citizens suffering, Democrats take 5 weeks off.

Without even considering any legislation that will relieve our gas pumps woes or the economic downturn, Ms. Pelosi orders that Congress adjourn for 5 weeks.

Pelosi said yesterday on ABCs Sunday morning political show that the energy crisis is too important to have people mislead about it, so she wouldn�t allow discussion on the issue. It was so important that they all went home without acting. Brilliant, dems!!! Obama�s election will empower these idiots and will offer no resistance to their fascist governing.

In almost every election, at this time the dems are usually ahead by 15-20 points. In this one, some polls list McCain as leading. Obama is very slick and incredibly polished, but this old humped over war horse is leading or close in every poll. No wonder Obama doesn�t want town hall meetings. Obama, like most liberals, like to preach and preachers don�t like to answer questions.

I have complained about the Congress / Obama connection for weeks. Sunday morning political shows are now saying the same thing. The Republicans haven�t even started ads about Congress … yet.

Stand by, dems. Your party is about to blow another election.

By Truth

August 4, 2008 8:18 AM | Link to this

Snidley Bullsh*t

If I thought you were smart enough to understand what I was talking about when I said that Obama was a State of the Art Hollywood / Washington politician, I would take the time to answer your nonsense that McCain is the slick politician between himself and a Chicago mob lawyer.

By Copyleft

August 4, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this

Oh, just post a link to Ann Coulter’s or Newt Gingrich’s latest whine and be done with it, Truth.

Quit pretending you have any ideas of your own.

By USinUK

August 4, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this

Truth -

Without even considering any legislation that will relieve our gas pumps woes or the economic downturn, Ms. Pelosi orders that Congress adjourn for 5 weeks.

um. Congress ALWAYS takes August off. Pelosi isn’t doing anything new.

By Truth

August 4, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this

USinUk, Copyleft

You guys can blow it off all you want. i am praying the rest of your party does the same thing. This is so huge that CNN and the major three can’t even ignore it. The political show that featured this the least was FOX News Sunday.

Pelosi was on Stephanopolis and the eye batting half-wit couldn’t complete a sentence. I have never seen her so shaken. On a round table, later in the show, Judy Woodruff, (who now works for Jim Larh, the PBS liberal mouthpiece) said that she believed they did it because they didn’t want Obama to actually have to take a stand and place a vote.

THIS IS YOUR PARTY!!!! Take no stand. Avoid direct questions to whatever nonsense the dems consider their talking points d’ jour. Obama is great when he stands in front of huge crowds and reads the prompter. But he is avoiding townhall meetings like the plague because he is horrible at THINKING. Clinton ate his lunch at every debate they had. He is an empty head!!

So why do you guys think they are doing it? Are the dems really taking payoffs from the Saudis? Please don’t tell me that you believe they are doing it for the environment. There’s huge money changing hands right now. Your own people say it is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world and the democrats are making damn sure the transfer is continuing without interruption.

So why are they doing it? Dems watch polls like crazy, but 75% of the country is against them on this and they close down Congress and go home, hoping that gas prices going down will make people satisfied to pay $3.50 a gallon. So what’s up?

Totally out of character for the dems. What is going on? The smartest people in the world always say to follow the money. Follow this money and you start to smell something really bad between Congress and OPEC.

The environment. LOL!! We are all being conned.

By Vote

August 4, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this

Let’s start World War Three: Vote McCain.

By Mara

August 4, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this

who now works for Jim Larh, the PBS liberal mouthpiece

er…I believe he meant “Jim Lehrer”, the “liberal mouthpeice” whom even the Republican shill Bush put in charge of destroying PBS called “a beacon of balance”.

“Tomlinson, armed with a dubious study of PBS shows he commissioned from a right-wing ideologue, charged public broadcasting programming with harboring a liberal bias…At the same time, though, Tomlinson singled out PBS�s flagship news program, the NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, as a beacon of balance, telling a July 11, 2005 Senate hearing: �Well, certainly in terms of the Jim Lehrer NewsHour, there is no balance problem. That is great journalism�

“…you start to smell something really bad between Congress and OPEC”

It’s always amusing to listen to Republicans trying to imply a love match between Democrats and OPEC, especially when it’s their president who goes skippingt hand-in-hand through fields of Texas bluebells with his closer-than-a-brother friend, Prince Bandar bin Sultan (aka “Bandar Bush”)

You want to connect our government to the Saudi oil sheiks? Just head on down to Texas, up to Kennebunkport, or south to Islamorada, Florida.

By Dictionary

August 4, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

Jim Larh, the PBS liberal mouthpiece

Uneducated, neanderthal conservatives rarely good at spelling. Plenty of proof right here.

By lyrazel

August 4, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this

Excuse me but the political persecution of fundamentalists occurred after the fall of so many evangelical politicians were found guilty of tax fraud, bribes, corruption scandals, illegitimate children, gay lovers and the sad but true fact of shooting feet off in search of $$$. I am curious as to why GA congressional candidates continue to set up shop in black congregational churches but that is traditional GA way—so different from the rest of America.

If you don’t like Obama or McCain do vote a different party. There are other candidates on the ballot whose platforms are not being heard because TV concentrates only on the major 2. Its up to you to use your vote—vote the incumbents out or let them stay. Change is good for the soul, good for politics and change is what America needs. Check alternatives!

By USinUK

August 4, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

Are the dems really taking payoffs from the Saudis?

ahem. I think the GOP is the LAST group who should be flinging assertions of payoffs from Big Oil:

ANCHORAGE�Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska has been indicted for making false statements about receiving gifts, primarily from prominent Alaska business executive Bill Allen, the former chairman of Veco, a now defunct oil and construction company, in a major renovation of his home in the ski resort town of Girdwood 40 miles south of Anchorage, and for favorable trades of automobiles. The indictment also alleged that Veco sought favorable treatment from Stevens and that his office did things on behalf of the company.

not to mention, Big Oil’s DEEP pockets for GOP donations … folks like T. Boone Pickens

Since 1980, Pickens has made over $5 million in political donations.[14] He was a financial supporter of President George W. Bush and contributed heavily to both his Texas and national political campaigns. In 2004, Pickens contributed to 527 Republican groups, including a $3 million contribution to the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth attacking Bush’s rival, John Kerry, and $2.5 million to the Progress for America advocacy group. In 2005, Pickens was among 53 entities that contributed the maximum of $250,000 to the second inauguration of President George W. Bush

By Mara

August 4, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

Hey USinUK…isn’t Pickens the Republican that wants to turn the Great Plains states into one giant wind farm? What do you suppose HE knows that the rest of the GOP is ignoring?

By Truth

August 4, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

My, my. Look at all the bots that are calling names. I seem to have touched a nerve. LOL!!

When people have the balls to post under their own name, their posts should be considered. Until then, they should be regarded as the mindless, slobbering cowards they are. Now please, start up with the sermons. I’m sure the blog is tired of civility. let’s have another day of liberal preaching.

But I’ll take the posts as fact. The Republicans are in bed with Texas Oil. The democrats are in bed with OPEC. Yep. That’s about right.

By Truth

August 4, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

Mara

*Hey USinUK�isn�t Pickens the Republican that wants to turn the Great Plains states into one giant wind farm? *

That’s the guy. Someone wanting to actually put wind to good use. BUT HE IS A REPUBLICAN!!!! Somebody get a rope!!!!

We need more people like Nancy Pelosi who wants to ignore the problems and protect her own skinny white butt.

By Truth

August 4, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this

USinUk

not to mention, Big Oil�s DEEP pockets for GOP donations � folks like T. Boone Pickens

We take Pickens who promotes wind power to your Soros who sells arms to kill children.

Your move.

By Mara

August 4, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this

That�s the guy. Someone wanting to actually put wind to good use. BUT HE IS A REPUBLICAN!!!! Somebody get a rope!!!!

yes, it was obviously a slam at one of the very few Republicans willing to make an investment in alternative energy. Allow me to reiterate…

What do you suppose HE knows that the rest of the GOP is ignoring?

The Republicans are in bed with Texas Oil. The democrats are in bed with OPEC.

two words…Bandar Bush.

By USinUK

August 4, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

Hey Mara -

Hey USinUK�isn�t Pickens the Republican that wants to turn the Great Plains states into one giant wind farm? What do you suppose HE knows that the rest of the GOP is ignoring?

yeah … I saw this story on Bloomberg today and was wondering how many GOP heads exploded at the thought that one of their Big Money Guys is hooking up with Al Gore!

By Truth

August 4, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

Mara

Bush is our president. The Saudi Royal Family are the leaders of one of our biggest allies. would you rather they be enemies?

i’m not telling you to think any way or another. i just know that two years ago, oil was much cheaper. Yes, the US oil companies have made out like bandits, but they have made nothing compared to what OPEC has made.

Last weeks adjournment of Congress with legislation on the table that would have addressed this problem was a red flag. This is the biggest problem in America and Congress has a 14% approval rating. What is going on?

My observation is simple. Follow the money. Who is making the most money? The member countries of OPEC. Who is now going waaaaay out of their way to prevent legislation that would lesson that cash flow out of our country? The Congress, particularly the Democratically led Congress.

Everybody is in bed with Texas oil. If you don’t think the Democrats are taking money from oil, you haven’t been paying attention. but a lot of major Republicans want us out of the Middle east.

Let me say that again: A lot of major Republicans want us out of the Middle East. They are tired of our children dieing and so am I.

The off shore drilling restrictions will not prevent off shore drilling pollution. In fact, it will increase it. Other countries can drill where we can’t. That’s a fact. They will not need to adhere to the EPA guidelines.

So if you have a better observation, please give it. I am baffled. If it isn’t an obvious money connection with national and international oil, what is it?

By Truth

August 4, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

USinUk

T.Boone Pickens wants investors. I’m reading up on it right now. He partnered with capitalism, not Al gore. That’s the way this will be fixed, not by enviro-fascist. Capitalism is harnessed greed. Figure out how to make money at this and it will fix itself.

You do support Pickens, don’t you? He might actually get something done.

By "The Corporal"

August 4, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

This is all so very simple whether you are a Democrat, Republican or whatever …………..

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will HEAL THEIR LAND.

By USinUK

August 4, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this

Truth …

We take Pickens who promotes wind power to your Soros who sells arms to kill children.

gosh … and all this time I thought that Guns don’t kill people, people kill people

not to mention - I know you’ll find this surprising, but arms dealing is not necessarily limited to George Soros. There are, sadly, lots of players. Although, I’m sure that won’t mean anything to you because George Soros is your favorite straw/bogeyman.

The democrats are in bed with OPEC.

put up or shut up. either post a link that supports your fantasy or quit flinging poo. I will remind you, however, that donations from foreign nationals are illegal - so good luck finding support of your little pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

By USinUK

August 4, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this

Truth -

Last weeks adjournment of Congress with legislation on the table that would have addressed this problem was a red flag. This is the biggest problem in America and Congress has a 14% approval rating. What is going on?

yep - legislation was on the table. legislation that the GOP stymied because it offered tax incentives to alternative fuels and increased oversight into market speculators but didn’t include off-shore drilling. the GOP killed it, not the Dems. even Reid was willing to look at amendments to include drilling but the GOP was more interested in running the clock out and trying to bulldoze what THEY wanted at the last minute.

By Mara

August 4, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this

Truth - there’s a big difference between maintaining cordial relations with the royal family of a foreign nation and quite another thing to “adopt” them as one of your own, as did Poppy Bush. Your charge that only a Democrat would toady up to OPEC and the Saudis is demonstrably incorrect.

anybody hear about the Westboro Baptist Church catching on fire Saturday?

“No doubt the work of f~gs or f~g sympathizers,” Also to blame, according to Phelps, are “unfaithful, oath-breaking judges,” law enforcement, the media and the “filthy, f~g-riddled military”.

the elderly woman who lives next door thinks the Phelps might have done it themselves as a ploy designed to convince her to sell them her property…

By Just curious

August 4, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this

“Bush is our president. The Saudi Royal Family are the leaders of one of our biggest allies. would you rather they be enemies?”

Most of the men who hijacked the planes and attacked American civilians were Saudis. The man who orchestrated the attacks is a Saudi and remains free nearly seven years later. With Bush holding hands and kissing the face of the Saudi royals while borrowing billions to occupy Iraq while we pay record prices for gas as Exxon records record profits, and stooopid effing bush sucking apologists like Truth who defend this greedy puppet chimp of the world’s biggest rapists no matter what he does, WHO NEEDS ENEMIES???

Just curious.

By Commentator

August 4, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

anybody hear about the Westboro Baptist Church catching on fire Saturday

sounds like g-d just might be trying to tell Wesboro Baptist Church something.

By Truth

August 4, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this

USinUK

put up or shut up. either post a link that supports your fantasy or quit flinging poo. I will remind you, however, that donations from foreign nationals are illegal - so good luck finding support of your little pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

I’m looking for an answer. Mine is that the dems are in bed with OPEC. There’s no doubt they are in bed with big oil. Would you like to compare their earnings since the dems have been in charge of Congress? I’m following the money. And it leads straight to OPEC. It doesn’t make sense to me either, but I can’t think of anything else. Can you?

You can downplay the closing of Congress all you want but the political shows were all over it, so it wasn’t just me. It is what it is. The worst Congress in history did it again. Don’t be mad at me. FOX News Sunday, Meet The Press, Face The Nation and Stephanopolis all dominated their shows with discussions about this. You are right in that no one will remember this unless the Republicans start to hammer home the point that the same eye batting half-wit that decided that NOTHING should once again be done about America’s biggest problem will have more power than anyone single person on the earth if Obama is President.

This election is not a gimme. It should be. But Obama is an empty box. It has been obvious to many before now, but more and more Democrats are turning to a third party or to the most centrist candidate in a long time. Obama is far left and with a far left Congress, you better hope your “start all over” policies about the energy crisis is going to work.

Personally, I want Old John to take his babe of a wife, enjoy his hard earned millions, maybe do some flying and enjoy his retirement. I like him too much to see him as fodder for David Letterman. I want to spend the next four years roaring in laughter at the liberal media trying to delicately step around Obama’s incompetence. Clinton turned a 40 year domination of Congress into nothing in two short years. Obama will do the same. Four years of a weeping, touchy feelie government will be enough for the public. Obama will be good for America, if we survive it.

By Rod

August 4, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

Oh no Craig is at it again. He is in a bathroom trying to pick up police.

By NYer

August 4, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this

I�m looking for an answer. Mine is that the dems are in bed with OPEC. There�s no doubt they are in bed with big oil. Would you like to compare their earnings since the dems have been in charge of Congress?

Truth, quite candidly I think you need to continue looking for an answer.

It has been a bunch of democrats that were standing on their heads that the oil industry had received approximately $17B in tax breaks in recent years.

It is also a bunch of democrats, including their standard-bearer that are contemplating a windfall tax provision against the oil companies.

These things hardly strike me as “being in bed” with big oil. That is not to say that all republicans are buddies with big oil and that none of the demorcrats are. But taken as a whole, the republican party is more friendly to the oil industry than the democrats have been recently.

Second, I believe many people over-emphasize the relationship between an indsutry and a sitting President, thereby assuming a greater cause and effect relationship than really exists, in order to support their political viewpoints. Since the President is the leader of the executive branch and therefore wields tremendous power, the “conspiracy theories”, while often striking me as far-fetched, in many cases contain at least some small morsel of merit (or circumstantial evidence). However, I must say that it is a leap of an entierly different magnitude to blame Congress for the success or failure of an industry absent any significant new laws passed by Congress governing industry action.

By NYer

August 4, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

This election is not a gimme. It should be.

Truth - I will agree with that. It’s stunning to me that the candidates are as close as they are at present. Given the approval ratings of GWB, this should be a landslide for the Democratic candidate, especially one with the star power of Obama. And let us not forget: it isn’t as though McCain is running a mistake-free campaign.

Juan Williams had an interesting article posted this morning in the WSJ. He believes race will play a big factor in the election because Obama must convince whites that he’s up to the job and that he can be trusted. Most of the data out there suggests Obama still has a ways to go on this front. Williams also points out (I think correctly) that perhaps not all whites are telling the truth to pollsters about their willingness to elect a black man to be President. Williams noted the lower concentration of whites that among primary/caucus voters versus the general population.

As an aside, hopefully Williams will convince the Obama camp that they’re not going to win in Georgia, so he can dispense with the almost non-stop advertising from 5:30-7pm. While I don’t lament seeing Obama spend money in Georgia, a state he almost certainly will not win, I certainly am tired of the incessant advertising.

This certainly will remain an interesting contest and unsurprisingly, I think the media will play a major role. The media obsession with Obama and its relative disinterest in McCain could come back to haunt Obama in this regard: McCain’s gaffes are more likely to be ignored or become old news more quickly, whereas Obama’s missteps will be amplified due to brighter media spotlight. I also think the honeymoon between Obama and the media is bound to end before the election, leaving him with greater media coverage from an increasingly scrutinous press corps. I was reading The Week (great magazine, btw) and it noted how frustrated most of the media that travels with Obama has become with his thin skin, inaccessibility and choreographed interaction.

By USinUK

August 5, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this

NYer - I will agree with that. It�s stunning to me that the candidates are as close as they are at present. Given the approval ratings of GWB, this should be a landslide for the Democratic candidate, especially one with the star power of Obama. And let us not forget: it isn�t as though McCain is running a mistake-free campaign.

why are you so surprised things are as close as they are?? criminey, let’s look at the 1976 election - Carter didn’t win by a landslide, either - and this was following Watergate, fercryingoutloud! Just because the current president’s numbers are circling the drain doesn’t mean that people are going to automatically swing to the other party.

I mean, look at Truth and Chuck. Even if Sam Nunn was the candidate (strong on defense, supported DADT, fiscally conservative, etc), they’d STILL vote GOP.

As for Juan Williams, he has a point about people who will say they’ll vote for Obama only so they don’t appear as a racist. (someone else brought this up last week - the Harvey Gantt syndrome)

However, something that the polls aren’t capturing - the number of people who don’t have a land-line who only have a cell phone. To my knowledge, they aren’t polled by Gallup or any of the other major polling groups. So, what you’re missing is a HUGE part of the young demographic (who, seem to be leaning Obama). So, the question is - is the number of “uncounteds” large enough to counter the number of closet racists?

As for the McCain�s gaffes are more likely to be ignored or become old news more quickly - well, you’re right there. They already ARE giving him a pass on a lot of his gaffes. They definitely gave him a pass on his complete ignorance of computers/the intertubes not to mention his absolutely ming-boggling comment about Social Security that illustrated that he didn’t even know how SocSec works: “Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that’s a disgrace. It’s an absolute disgrace and it’s got to be fixed.” (Denver, Colorado, July 7, 2008)

By USinUK

August 5, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

Truth -

This election is not a gimme. It should be.

see my comment to NYer regarding the Carter/Ford race in 1976. as they say in investing, “past performance is not an idicator of future returns” - just because the President whose stuff is being bubble wrapped is unpopular doesn’t mean the guy on the other side of the aisle is a shoo-in.

I�m looking for an answer. Mine is that the dems are in bed with OPEC.

poo. that’s all that is. poo. and you’re happy to fling it without regard to supporting facts.

Would you like to compare their earnings since the dems have been in charge of Congress? I�m following the money. And it leads straight to OPEC. that isn’t a fact. that’s supposition.

if you’re TRULY interested in why oil prices are so high, I suggest you read this. then, if you want to suggest that the Dems were behind the assassination of Bhutto and the attacks on the Nigerial pipeline or are forcing folks from China and India to buy cars … well … then, there’s no help for you.

By Truth

August 5, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this

NYer

t is also a bunch of democrats, including their standard-bearer that are contemplating a windfall tax provision against the oil companies.

But they won’t do that. There is no way that the Congress is going to pass a wind fall profit tax on the oil companies. This is one of the Democrat’s oldest tricks. They will promise it, knowing that they will not have the votes to get it through. They will draft the bills and watch it be defeated. It was why John Kerry promised Universal Health care in 2004. He knew that he would be able to blame it ‘s failure on the Republican Congress.

Don’t ever look at what a Democrats promises. Look at what they actually do. You will find that there is not much correlation between the two.

But taken as a whole, the republican party is more friendly to the oil industry than the democrats have been recently.

That’s what the media would have you believe. You are a “facts and figures” kind of guy. Look at the Oil Company Profits since the Democrats have taken office. They are breaking world records for profits. Follow the money.

I must say that it is a leap of an entierly different magnitude to blame Congress for the success or failure of an industry absent any significant new laws passed by Congress governing industry action.

This isn’t an issue of a new toy in a Cracker Jack box. This is the single most important issue in our country. We have one party that simply refuses to consider anything except a total re-do. Completely replace our auto fleet and then start on the trucks and trains. There is nothing that needs our government’s attention more than the success of our capitalistic economy and our energy needs are paramount.

There is so much BS out there about this. 90% of the people cannot tell the difference between supplying power to our cities and powering the Chevy. MOBILE energy is the problem. Our cities will need some work, but the crisis is in our cars. But most of the democrats are screaming for WIND POWER. How is wind power going to power my Nissan. How am I going to pay for a $25,000 Styrofoam, underpowered piece of crap that won’t haul what my Volvo hauls? How is an electric truck going to pull 40 tons up Grandfather Mountain in N.C.?

Nothing makes sense unless you follow the money. Who benefits if Congress goes home early without acting on any sort of energy policies?

Given the approval ratings of GWB, this should be a landslide for the Democratic candidate, especially one with the star power of Obama.

I am always amazed at the fact that Republicans can get a single vote considering the overt media bias in the country. We are told daily that Republicans can’t be cool. I guess there will always be the people who fall for the propaganda.

Obama is an empty box. That isn’t hard to see if one is not blinded by the stars.

Juan Williams wrote a great book called Enough! Very smart man.

I was reading The Week (great magazine, btw) and it noted how frustrated most of the media that travels with Obama has become with his thin skin, inaccessibility and choreographed interaction.

He is a state of the art Democrat. He isn’t very good at thinking on his feet. That is why Hillary killed him in every debate. But he is a pretty box. For an awful lot of people, that and the fact that he is not a Republicans is all you need.

By NYer

August 5, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

why are you so surprised things are as close as they are??

A lot of reasons. For the last two years, if not longer, we’ve gotten a constant drumbeat of “GWB is the worst president in our nation’s history”. We also saw the democrats make significant gains in the 06 mid-terms. Poll after poll after poll indicates that Americans are fed up with the direction of the country. Yet the candidate from the incumbent party has even a snowball’s chance. I was watching Squawk Box one morning last week while I was in the city and it mentioned that Obama is trailing his party nationwide while McCain is running ahead of his party. I haven’t looked that up but if it’s true, it doesn’t add up to me. I don’t believe the Chucks and Truths of the world that sit on the far left or far right and will reliably vote GOP or democrat number more than 20-25% of the population on either side, so the election is won in the middle.

By USinUK

August 5, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

Truth -

another good article on oil speculation

here’s a good article about all the influences on gas prices and why prices are going down

By USinUK

August 5, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

Democrats have given oil companies record profits:

Record profits in 2006

Oil prices have fallen, but Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell left their smaller competitors in the dust and reported record annual profits Thursday.

By making $180 million a day between them, the two largest publicly traded oil companies displayed their ability to ramp up production worldwide over the year, even in unstable places like Chad and Nigeria. Growth may be slowing and is likely to continue to do so in the future, but these two companies showed they could navigate the year�s volatile energy prices that caused smaller companies to stumble in their fourth-quarter profits.

(so, they were making record profits for the entire year prior to the Dems taking office)

and so it was in 2005, as well

ExxonMobil (XOM) reported the largest annual profit in U.S. corporate history Monday, a $36.1 billion jackpot that included a record-setting fourth quarter.

… and 2004

US oil giant Exxon Mobil made a record $25.3bn (�13.4bn; 19.4bn euros) profit in 2004 as it benefited from the surge in crude oil prices.

… and 2003

ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest privately owned oil group and a target of street protesters, celebrated May Day by reporting the largest quarterly corporate profits in history at $7.04bn (�4.4bn).

-snip-

Crucial to the surge in profits was the rising global price of oil, which averaged record highs across the three-month period, buoyed by fears of a supply gap due to the war in Iraq.

so, do you REALLY want to follow the money, considering that they have been making record profits since the beginning of the War in Iraq???

By Truth

August 5, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

NYer

*I don�t believe the Chucks and Truths of the world that sit on the far left or far right *

I’m far right?

So you think that pro-life and wants freedom of religion for everyone is far right?

So does pro-abortion and pro-ACLU mean a person is far left?

By Truth

August 5, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

USinUk

Prices have almost doubled since the democrats have taken over Congress. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t blame high gas prices on republicans while they are in charge of Congress and then give the Democrats a pass when the prices double while they are in power.

If your slimy politicians are going to take power, then fix the problems or get the hell out of the way. Don’t you get tired of voting for people that you have to make excuses for?

By Truth

August 5, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Yes. I want to follow the money. I want to see why the oil company’s profits have escalated since the Democrats have been in power. They went up under the Republicans, but nothing like the dems.

Yes. Let’s look closely at the numbers.

Your Congress sucks. it is the least popular Congress ever. And now they went home without doing a damn thing and next quarter’s oil company profits will break this quarter’s records. WHO’S IN CHARGE???? Why are they still making that kind of money?

Damn right. Let’s follow the money.

And this is the party that is going to make a wind fall profit tax. LOL!!! Is there anything that you guys won’t believe?

Obama should be killing McCain. What’s up with that? Hope and change just not going to be enough?

By USinUK

August 5, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

Truth -

Prices have almost doubled since the democrats have taken over Congress. You can�t have it both ways. You can�t blame high gas prices on republicans while they are in charge of Congress and then give the Democrats a pass when the prices double while they are in power.

if you bothered to read ANY of the links I posted (above) about what’s driving the prices both up and down, then you’d know that I’m NOT placing the blame on either GOP or DEM. What I said was that, if you’re going to play the “follow the money” game, then record profits started WAY before the Dems took office.

By USinUK

August 5, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

Truth -

Obama should be killing McCain. What�s up with that? Hope and change just not going to be enough?

if Carter wasn’t killing Ford after Watergate, why for the love of pete do you think Obama should be killing McCain?

Yes. I want to follow the money. I want to see why the oil company�s profits have escalated since the Democrats have been in power. They went up under the Republicans, but nothing like the dems.

until you learn how to read about what influences the price of oil - outlined for you in articles linked above - then it’s a waste of my time to “discuss” it with you (using that term very loosely). you don’t want to discuss - you just want to blame Dems and say they’re in OPEC’s pocket when the facts just don’t support it.

By Billy

August 5, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

Truth, pro-life and freedom of religion do not make you far right. Agreeing with Shaunti’s side pretty much every week makes you far right. As does the assertion that “freedom of religion for everyone” means that Christian groups get to put monuments to their religion on state grounds, have prayer in schools, and dictate what kinds of birth control people can use. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that is what you are saying, is it not? Like Shaunti’s assertion from a few months ago that, and I’m paraphrasing here, “Some religions consider homosexuality sinful, so if I am not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals I am not allowed to freely practice my faith.” I have to assume that you mean freedom for Christians who, though they make up (I think) about 85-90% of the U.S. population, hold all the highest offices in the land, and are courted to incessantly by everyone in politics, are somehow discriminated against by the remaining 10-15%, at least in the perspective of those on the far right. I have to assume you share this view if you think that believing in “freedom of religion for everybody” makes you in any way whatsoever on the right of the political spectrum. True freedom of religion, including the freedom to be free of religion, is a purely liberal idea, just like every other amendment in the Bill of Rights. Including the 2nd.

I don’t know if USinUK blames the Republicans in Congress for high gas prices or not. I don’t. I blame the Bush administration. The Republican Congress was just his enabler. And no, I’m not wild about the ineffective Dems in control now. But it is the administration that sets energy policy and conducts diplomatic relations with OPEC nations. Oh, yeah — and starts illegal wars that destabilize the oil-rich Middle East. I only blame the Democratic Congress in so far as their evident incapability to stand up successfully to Bush. Pass your bills that rein in his power. He says he’ll veto, and you don’t have 60 Senate votes to override. So? Make him veto. At least it will show that you are trying to improve things.

By Billy

August 5, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this

Also, “truth”, the ratings for Congress are misleading. As you well know. People on the right are going to disapprove because it is controlled by Dems. People on the left are going to disapprove because it has failed to halt the war or hold Bush accountable. Or the telecoms, for that matter. And people in the center are going to disapprove because gas prices are still high, or their stocks are in the tank, or their homes are in foreclosure, or they didn’t get sauce on their sandwich.

Congress always has approval ratings lower that the President’s. The only way this Congress’ rating will improve a lot is if they actually start impeachment proceedings against Bush. But while the rating as a whole is always low, the ratings for individual Senators and Representatives by people in their respective states and districts is almost always high. The true test of Congressional approval happens in elections, and expectations are that this November will be much like in 2006 — even more gains by Democrats, in both houses.

USinUK — I don’t think anyone’s in OPEC’s pocket. The GOP is definitely in the posket of Big Oil, though. Did you see that after McCain reversed his position (or should I say “flip-flopped”) on offshore drilling, he received $285K from ten Hess execs and family members? Coincidence? I dunno…

By NYer

August 5, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

Truth,

So you think that pro-life and wants freedom of religion for everyone is far right?

Huh? When did I say that?

You strike me as being far to the right because you defend the GOP on an almost “no matter what” basis. It’s all the democrats fault. The GOP isn’t always right, and the democrats aren’t always wrong. The converse is true as well, and I’ve said as much to those on the left.

I want to see why the oil company�s profits have escalated since the Democrats have been in power. They went up under the Republicans, but nothing like the dems.

You take the circumstances of record big oil profits and connect them to a Democrat-controlled Congress as though an iron-clad cause and effect relationship exists. That is a very flawed position. Have you done a similar analysis of other industries to map out financial results since the Dems took control of Congress? MSFT made record profits last year. So did Google. Are they both in bed with the Democratic-controlled Congress?

I made more money in 2007 than in any year prior. By your reasoning, Pelosi and I must be doing the naked pretzel. LOL. Do you see how preposterous your position is?

By NYer

August 5, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

True freedom of religion, including the freedom to be free of religion, is a purely liberal idea, just like every other amendment in the Bill of Rights

Huh? You’re going to have to explain that one a little better.

By USinUK

August 5, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

Billy -

USinUK � I don�t think anyone�s in OPEC�s pocket. The GOP is definitely in the posket of Big Oil, though. Did you see that after McCain reversed his position (or should I say �flip-flopped�) on offshore drilling, he received $285K from ten Hess execs and family members? Coincidence? I dunno

I don’t think anyone’s in OPEC’s pocket, either - TRUTH is the one flinging that poo. Both sides take money from Big Oil, but the GOP definitely gets the lion’s share. I have seen that about the Hess execs and McCain’s announcement. As they say in France, quelle coinkidink

By Copyleft

August 5, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

I don’t want to speak for Billy, but I believe he’s pointing out that the Founders were, in fact, radicals—far to the left of anyone calling themselves “liberal” today.

And the notion of holding govenrment accountable, limiting its powers, and making it subordinate to the people was all solidly liberal-Enlightenment thinking in an age of kings, popes, and caliphs.

Individual freedom is, by definition, a liberal position.

By Mara

August 5, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

Billy, allow me to be the first to say it… Bravo, sir, brav-Oh. (applause)

By Billy

August 5, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

Exactly my point, Copyleft. USinUK, I got your position clearly, though I didn’t show it in what I wrote.

By Truth

August 5, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

USinUK

If the dems aren’t being paid off by OPEC, then why is everything they are doing making billions of dollars for OPEC?

I know you cannot believe that the oil companies would give more money to the people that do not control the majority in Congress. That doesn’t make any sense.

The problem with having your party in power is that they usually take the responsibility for the condition of the country. So when can we start blaming the democrats, now that they have been in office for almost two years?

By Truth

August 5, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

Billy

Agreeing with Shaunti�s side pretty much every week makes you far right.

So is that because you believe Shaunti is far right or is it because you believe if a person takes a stand on particular issues and never varies that they are far right (or left)? i really don’t care what you think I am. Dems love to buttonhole people. it makes it very easy to pre-judge them.

As does the assertion that �freedom of religion for everyone� means that Christian groups get to put monuments to their religion on state grounds, have prayer in schools,

I haven’t really discussed that but if the church is paying for the monument, I see no problem with it. The constitution is not a geographically based document. It is good for the entire USA. If I have freedom of religion, I have freedom to pray in schools and to place a monument where ever I want.

But here’s the question that I will ask you that I think sums up my position on religious freedom. I will fight for your right to worship or not worship where ever you want. Will you do the same for me?

and dictate what kinds of birth control people can use.

I have never discussed birth control. Not once. If you consider abortion as birth control then you are the problem.

Also, �truth�, the ratings for Congress are misleading.

Only if you are a liberal. They are a bunch or criminally stupid boobs who have the backbone of a bowl full of jello.

By USinUK

August 5, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this

Truth -

If the dems aren�t being paid off by OPEC, then why is everything they are doing making billions of dollars for OPEC?

see my reply above. if you’re not going to take the time to learn how the market works and how oil prices are affected by speculation on supply/demand, then I’m not going to engage in a dialogue with you about your asinine fantasies.

So when can we start blaming the democrats, now that they have been in office for almost two years?

gosh, Truth, why wait? you just jump on in there (since you already have). you’re not really looking for my permission, anyway, so why ask?

By Truth

August 5, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

NYer

You strike me as being far to the right because you defend the GOP on an almost �no matter what� basis.

Most on here do the same for the dems. Are they all far left?

It�s all the democrats fault. The GOP isn�t always right, and the democrats aren�t always wrong. The converse is true as well, and I�ve said as much to those on the left.

But you are wrong. Normally I do support the GOP, but probably much less than the average liberal on here blindly supports the dems.

You take the circumstances of record big oil profits and connect them to a Democrat-controlled Congress as though an iron-clad cause and effect relationship exists. That is a very flawed position. Have you done a similar analysis of other industries to map out financial results since the Dems took control of Congress? MSFT made record profits last year. So did Google. Are they both in bed with the Democratic-controlled Congress?

Capitalism can only work if that harnessed greed stays harnessed. If a specific industry starts to effect the rest of the system with it’s greed, then the fed is supposed to step in. The oil industry profits is resulting in a crippled economy. Have you been to the grocery store lately?

We need help. We need a Congress that will use it’s power to control an out of control industry that is hurting the overall economy of the country. But of course I’m “far right” so I couldn’t be saying that the government needs to regulate the oil industry.

This is the problem I have with you button-holing me as far right. You don’t know me. I will write the same thing for months but because of this penchant for steriotyping, I will end up having to go back to November to find a stance I took that even back then was not the conservative viewpoint. I spend half the time I am here trying to prove that I do not take the typical conservative stance. It’s a hell of a lot of wasted energy that could be prevented if people did not try to put everyone in a neat little bigoted category. Try to be different. Judge me by what I actually write instead of what is convenient for your own pre-judgments.

I made more money in 2007 than in any year prior. By your reasoning, Pelosi and I must be doing the naked pretzel. LOL. Do you see how preposterous your position is?

If you think that I would rate your economic importance with a trillion dollar oil industry, then there is not much I can say about that.

By Truth

August 5, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

Copyleft

Pal, you never change.

Founders of our country? Liberals.

Charged up San Juan hill? Liberals

Invented the wheel? Liberals

Invented the internet? Liberals

Fought for Civil Rights? Liberals

Put up the flag on Iwo Jima? Liberals

Put a man on the moon? Liberals

fought against the Viet Nam war? Liberals

Invented water? Liberals

Yeah, pal. Everything that has ever been done that was good was done by someone that had the same political outlook as you and Barrack Obama. I’m pretty sure George Washington really wanted same sex marriages and abortions.

By USinUK

August 5, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

The oil industry profits is resulting in a crippled economy. Have you been to the grocery store lately?

The oil industry doesn’t set oil prices. The MARKET DOES. (specifically market speculation) What does the MARKET base prices on? SUPPLY AND DEMAND. If OPEC says they are keeping output low, prices will rise. If the fine folks in India and China are out spending their new-found wealth on BMWs, then prices will rise. If pipelines are under attack in Nigeria, prices will rise. If a leader of a Muslim country veeeerrrryyyyy close to the middle east is assassinated, prices will rise. If there is unrest (like, say, a war) in oil producing nations, prices will rise.

We need help. We need a Congress that will use it�s power to control an out of control industry that is hurting the overall economy of the country. But of course I�m �far right� so I couldn�t be saying that the government needs to regulate the oil industry.

Other than the war issue, Congress has NO CONTROL over any of those issues. The only thing oil companies (such as Exxon) could do would be to keep the prices at the pump low … do YOU want Congress to go in and regulate what companies can charge their customers??? Somehow, I think not.

By Truth

August 5, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

USinUK

gosh, Truth, why wait? you just jump on in there (since you already have). you�re not really looking for my permission, anyway, so why ask?

Because you keep scolding me for blaming the congress. Democrats want to be in power until they are in power. You put them there. They were going to fix everything and they haven’t done sh*t. Please tell me why Obama is going to be any different.

Two years from now: hey USinUK, why are we still in Iraq? if you don’t want to take the time to read the DOD reports so you can understand why we are still in Iraq, you are just not worth talking to. Is this what I can expect? Is this like Krammer when he vowed to stop talking now … now … . OK, then NOW … No. Now.

When will democrats that will actually take responsibility for their actions or inactions going to start running for your party? Is Obama going to be the first?

By Truth

August 5, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

USinUk

I get it. it’s like evolution. it’s nobody’s fault. Gas prices just evolved to double in the last two years. it’s like a fungus. The prices just grew. There was nothing that could have been done. I was sooo wrong. The democrats were right in not doing a damn thing for the past two years.

By NYer

August 5, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

Truth -

Most on here do the same for the dems. Are they all far left?

In my book, many of them are. IMO, this blog has more left-leaning people on it than right-leaning people. There are a startling number of absolute positions taken by people on both sides, for my taste.

By Jack

August 5, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

Lordy. The gov’t makes more on each gallon of gas sold than does the oil companies. 10 years to get oil from our own soil is rubbish. If the American people & gov’t want it done quickly, it can be done. Before WWII, our military was not near ready for war. Americans were up to the challenge and we beat it. ” We may have stumbled but we ain’t never fell. If the Arabs don’t believe it, they can all go staight to h—-“

Remember folks, what the gov’t gives it can also take away.

I’m full of other gems but alas, duty calls.

By NYer

August 5, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

Truth -

This is the problem I have with you button-holing me as far right. You don�t know me… Try to be different. Judge me by what I actually write instead of what is convenient for your own pre-judgments.

This is a very fair point. Let us review some of your comments from TODAY:

Only if you are a liberal. They are a bunch or criminally stupid boobs who have the backbone of a bowl full of jello.

Dems love to buttonhole people. it makes it very easy to pre-judge them.

Your Congress sucks. it is the least popular Congress ever.

And this is the party that is going to make a wind fall profit tax. LOL!!! Is there anything that you guys won�t believe?

Obama is an empty box. That isn�t hard to see if one is not blinded by the stars.

If your slimy politicians are going to take power, then fix the problems or get the hell out of the way. Don�t you get tired of voting for people that you have to make excuses for?

This is one of the Democrat�s oldest tricks. They will promise it, knowing that they will not have the votes to get it through.

Don�t ever look at what a Democrats promises. Look at what they actually do. You will find that there is not much correlation between the two.

I’m sorry if you think I am button-holing you. What conclusion would you prefer that I draw from these quotes?

By NYer

August 5, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

I don�t want to speak for Billy, but I believe he�s pointing out that the Founders were, in fact, radicals�far to the left of anyone calling themselves �liberal� today.

The concept of government bowing to the rights of individuals was a radical, novel concept at the time. Since this has been the foundation of our government for the last 225 years, I would be hard-pressed to say these concepts remain radical today.

Further, given how political positions have evolved over the course of history, I think it would be imprudent to draw too strong a correlation between a “radical” position 200 plus years ago and a “liberal” position today. I find it highly doubtful that an overwhelming majority of “radical” Founding Fathers would subscribe to all, or even most of today’s liberal positions if they were alive.

By Billy

August 5, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

“Dems love to buttonhole people. it makes it very easy to pre-judge them.”

Oh sweet, sweet irony…

Yes, Shaunti is on the far right, so agreeing with her week after week is a good sign you may be, too. And while you may not have talked about public religious monuments or birth control, Shaunti has. And, as we’ve said, you seem to always agree with her.

“Truth”, you can worship where you like, provided you’re not trespassing and not holding a service on government grounds. You can pray wherever, but if it’s on government property, including schools, then it must be completely mandatory and, should anyone choose not to participate, he or she must be protected from discrimination and proselytization afterward.

And you prove my point about the far right/religious right and birth control, since you evidently automatically equated it with abortion. Even “Maverick” McCain is a radical on contraception.

In case you or anyone else has trouble with it, the HHS proposal seeks to redefine most contraception, with the exception of condoms and, I guess, pulling out, as abortion. Which means that a group receiving a federal grant would not be able to require its employees to provide services or even referrals for contraceptives, even if that was the only point of the group’s existence. And, as the last paragraph notes, it would set a possible precedent that could, should Roev.Wade be overturned and new legislation passed, ban contraceptions along with actual abortion since at least one part of the government is equating the two.

Despite what fundies amy believe, no one on the left sits around saying, “Abortion! Mmmm…Gotta get me some of that!” No, we just see it for what it is: a medical procedure between a woman, her doctor, and maybe a significant other, a procedure that would be far less common would the fundies in power allow contraception and comprehensive sex education to be discussed without the loss of federal funding.

I stand by what I said about Congressional approval ratings. They are always low. No one particularly likes Congress, regardless of who is in power. They almost always like those who represent their district or state, however. This is not limited to Congress; Hillary Clinton was leading McCain by more than 10 points in Arkansas in a head-to-head matchup while Obama is down by 10 to him. Obama and Clinton are remarkably similar, position-wise. Such a difference cannot be solely attributed to racism, even if it is Arkansas. Why the difference, then? Clinton was the hometown candidate. That’s how it is in Congress.

By Copyleft

August 5, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

Really, NY? I’m sure Truth could invent some quotes showing the Founders were opposed to moon landings, abortion, and probably the Internet, but I think supporting individual freedom remains as liberal an idea now as it was back then.

Sure, they were backwards in a lot of ways—heck, some of them probably remembered witch-burnings and stoning of homosexuals—but the underlying ideals of liberalism are the same today as they were in the 18th century. It’s the application of them as our society has grown and changed that has some people thrown—just like the application of our Constitution’s principles to ever-evolving specific cases has a lot of blockheads outraged about that evil, nasty Supreme Court.

But this is getting a bit philosophical. So we’ll leave it at this: Truth, if you can convincingly demonstrate that the Founding Fathers, who wanted to overthrow an oppressive government and found a new society based on freedom, were actually conservatives somehow, I’ll be impressed. And amazed. And interested to finally see the fantasy world you evidently inhabit.

By Billy

August 5, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

“I find it highly doubtful that an overwhelming majority of �radical� Founding Fathers would subscribe to all, or even most of today�s liberal positions if they were alive.”

Like, what, abolition of slavery? Women holding property? Either groups being able to vote? Look, I’m not saying that some leftist ideas aren’t nuts, and there’s definitely some far, far left loonies out there. But certain things, like, say, habeus corpus were not radical, having been around since 1215. But since we libs support its existence today, we’re labeled as being soft on national security? Or even as traitorous?

By Mara

August 5, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

NYer - There are a startling number of absolute positions taken by people on both sides, for my taste.

I don’t know as this is as “literally true” as it is “evidently true”. If one goes on exact quotes, yes it is literally true that folks have taken absolutist views. If one looks at why, maybe not so much.

I think that the issues get defined downed to “for us or against us” terms, forcing the conversation into a stalemate. Take this topic, for example. It’s been posited, (without support)that either the Democrats are shills for OPEC or they’d allow drilling in environmentally protected areas. How does one defend ones party from such “either-or” statements without sounding absolutist? Nobody (except the mythical “far left”) says “Don’t drill at all, anywhere.” as has been implied. Yet now it’s become the assumed opinion of “the liberals” because some people insist on “either/or” simplicity.

We can sit in front of our keyboards all day long typing “drill in currently held on-shore leases” or “explore areas already open for drilling” but it gets drowned out by the loudest voice and the shrill assertion that “Democrats won’t let America drill for oil”.

By NYer

August 5, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

Billy & Copyleft,

To be fair, perhaps I should have said a “Democrat” position rather than a “liberal” position in my last post. I think the Democrat platform over the last 60-70 plus years has advocated a stronger central, National-style government than the Federalists, and certainly the Anti-Federalists, would have supported in the late 18th Century. Beginning with the New Deal, I think the size, scope and influence of today’s Federal government would have been a turnoff to Jay, Hamilton and Madison.

Copyleft,

Honestly, I do not believe the support of individual rights, today, is necessarily liberal or conservative. As I go about my daily life, I see people of both political persuasions trying to limit my individual rights. Both sides do a fine job of infringing upon my pursuit of happiness.

By kimberly

August 5, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this

NYer, then by your logic at 2:06, couldn’t we also assert that “conservative” is no longer an applicable label to describe today’s “conservatives?” (Personally I reject these labels, since they hinder both progress and common sense as applied in modern America, and because the prinicples of individualism and enlightenment call for the rejection of silly labels used as a substitute for reason. But that’s just me.)

Modern “conservatives” claim to be for individual rights, yet turn out in mass numbers to ensure that Bob and Steve will never be able to marry in their state, even though they don’t know Bob and Steve, or that Phyllis cannot decide for herself how to treat her cancer symptoms or deal with the state of her own uterus. They claim to be “for small government,” yet have consistently supported runaway borrowing and spending in lieu of taxing and spending, a more pragmatic, traditional approach. Further, they support the idea that a corporation has more rights than individuals, and certainly, without a doubt, corporations ($$$) have more representation in our legislatures than individuals. I also wonder what re-interpreting the bill of rights to effectively remove individual protections, and random signing statements giving the President power to change laws, and purported, unprecedented “executive branch immunities” have to do with conserving anything.

When modern “conservatives” actually talk about conserving the limited natural resources bequeathed to us by our Creator, I will take their proclamations of loyalty to the Creator more seriously. For now, it seems, all they want to conserve is their own hides and profit margins, the future be damned. Again, these are my observations. Yours may differ.

By NYer

August 5, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this

Mara,

I think you make a fair point and I concede that you may be correct. All I can do is read the posts. At times, you may have noticed, I probe what I see as extreme, absolute, black and white viewpoints to see if people literally mean what they are saying. And frankly, the responses I’ve gotten have often been a little more absolutist than I would have expected.

By NYer

August 5, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

NYer, then by your logic at 2:06, couldn�t we also assert that �conservative� is no longer an applicable label to describe today�s �conservatives?�

Kimberly, I’m not sure I completely follow this particular statement above, but if I get the gist of the rest of your post, then yes, I would agree that there is a dearth of politically-true conservatives in our country today. And I would also agree that we should get away with always equating GOP with conservative and Democrat with liberal. I must admit that I am sometimes guilty of this myself. I am certainly uncomfortable with the relationship that the GOP has with the religious right, I believe that the GOP has let go of a more traditional conservative platform and replaced that platform with decidedly “un”conservative stances on certain issues.

While I wouldn’t agree with everything that you said in your post, at this point, (IMO) neither party truly stands for small government anymore.

By Copyleft

August 5, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this

Beginning with the New Deal, I think the size, scope and influence of today�s Federal government would have been a turnoff to Jay, Hamilton and Madison.

Very probably. That doesn’t mean they’re bad ideas. The founders also skipped over gender equality and slavery issues, and failed to write safeguards against abuses of economic power into the Constitution. Nobody’s perfect.

By kimberly

August 5, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

NYer, I was responding to your statement that you doubt the liberal founding fathers would subscribe to today’s liberal positions. I made the same correlation with conservatives in my general rejection of the labels. You are correct, I think, in that neither party or “side” is really what they claim to be. CopyLeft also makes a great point that our founding fathers were far from perfect when they upheld slavery and told the women to get back in the kitchen. Abigail Adams would have loved to take up the sufferage movement herself, had she not been so busy handling everything John Adams didn’t have time to bother with, as did most women of their day.

I think we could do well with sitting down and looking at what IS, and what needs to be, and the best route to get there. Sometimes that route is backward, and sometimes forward, don’t you think? Vital to this discussion is the question: FREEDOM FOR WHOM? Personally, I think individual behavior that affects only the individuals should be off limits to government interference, whereas corporate behaviors that affect communities, hundreds or thousands of lives, the economy, and the environment merit some measure of oversight and regulation, to the better interest of us all. Some people argue that the “free market” should handle the economy (while people get sick and die from bad food or products, or suffer the pollution created by their manufacture?) while Bob & Steve must be denied a marriage license until the day the world stops turning on its axis. Those people are, in my opinion, neither liberal nor conservative, but UTTERLY INSANE. Shaunti Feldhahn’s columns exemplify that for me each week. I vote for reason whenever I can.

By USinUK

August 6, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this

Truth -

I get it. it�s like evolution. it�s nobody�s fault. Gas prices just evolved to double in the last two years. it�s like a fungus. The prices just grew. There was nothing that could have been done.

as Uncle Ronnie would say … “there you go again”

is it a reading problem or a comprehension problem? I mean, I posted about a half-dozen links that specifically talk about what is causing/has caused gas prices to rise. yet, you still don’t seem to get it.

okay. for the umpteenth and final time, here are specific examples:

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/12/28/oil-bhutto-pakistan-markets-equity-cxvr1228markets01.html

LONDON - Oil prices hovered Friday shy of a one-month high hit the day before as geopolitical tensions and concern about U.S. oil supplies weighed on a thinly traded market.

*The price of sweet crude oil for February delivery rose to $96.61 a barrel in pre-market electronic trading in New York, after briefly spiking to $97.79 a barrel on Thursday, following the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. *

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/29/2317462.htm

World oil prices have jumped after the Shell oil company reduced output from Nigeria because of an attack by militants on two of its major pipelines.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4399537.stm

Prices have remained above $55 a barrel in recent days after data showed that US gasoline stocks fell last week while demand was 2% higher than this time last year.

Markets are also nervous about disruptions to supply after the recent fatal explosion at BP’s largest refinery in the United States and a power failure which caused the closure of a Venezuelan refinery on Thursday. *

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1906849.stm

The price of oil has jumped to a six-month high after escalating Israeli-Palestinian violence, and an Iraqi proposal to stop exports to the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7044937.stm

Global oil prices have surged to fresh highs after increased tensions between Turkey and Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq and concerns over production.

In New York, US light, sweet crude soared by $2.44 to settle at a record $86.13 while Brent crude added $2.20 to finish at $82.75.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5612507/

Oil prices leapt above $72 a barrel Wednesday, settling at a record high for the third straight day after a government report showed shrinking U.S. gasoline supplies and traders fretted about nuclear tensions between Iran and the international community.

Supply constraints in Iraq, Nigeria and the Gulf of Mexico are also pushing oil prices higher, and analysts are predicting more pain at the pump this summer for motorists, who so far appear to be only lightly tapping the brakes on demand.

… or maybe you’re right. Maybe this guy is the one responsible for it all.

I was sooo wrong.

well, at least we can agree on something.

By Copyleft

August 6, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this

Well said, Kimberly. It’s an oversimplification, but there’s one saying about political views that has some relevance here.

“Liberals believe in individual freedom and corporate regulation. Conservatives, for some reason, believe the opposite.”

By Truth

August 6, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Does it matter that i read anything you post? I know what you are going to say: It is not the democrat’s fault. That is your point, right? The people that promised to lower the price of gas, the people that got elected on that promise, it is not their fault. I get it.

This is why I don’t vote for democrats.

By Truth

August 6, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this

NYer

If I were you, I would draw the conclusion that I am a republican. unlike you, I am not afraid to take a stand. But adherence to a party does not mean that I am “far right”. Bombing an abortion clinic? That would mean I’m far right.

The common misconception is that if a person knows what they believe, they are zealots. The country has become a mush of people waiting to be swayed. I vote for who I do because i havestrong beliefs, but having strong beliefs means I have what is called CHARACTER.

Don’t buy into the bullsh*t that taking a stand is a bad thing.

By USinUK

August 6, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this

Truth —

Does it matter that i read anything you post?

actually, by reading it you might just show that you’re open-minded about how the market works.

but by continuing with your asinine fantasy that the Democrats are controlling the world market for oil prices without even making a show of considering that, hey, there are other countries and events at play here - well, you’re just showing yourself for the far-right dogmatist that we all know you to be.

By Truth

August 6, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this

Billy

Yes, Shaunti is on the far right, so agreeing with her week after week is a good sign you may be, too.

That proves that you consider any Republican as being far right. For that reason, you have no credibility. Far right means attending meetings and bombing abortion clinics. Shanti nor I have done that. How about you? Been to any marches lately. Screamed at anyone who disagrees with you? That would mean you are far left.

And while you may not have talked about public religious monuments or birth control, Shaunti has. And, as we�ve said, you seem to always agree with her.

So anything that she discusses means that i automatically agree with her. LOL!! Damn, you are brilliant!!! I have explained why that is nonsense, but whether you are smart enough to understand how ignorant and bigoted you sound is yet to be seen.

�Truth�, you can worship where you like, provided you�re not trespassing and not holding a service on government grounds.

Why can’t i hold a service on government ground? Can I hold a service in the great Smokie Mountains National Park? How about in Woodruff Park, downtown? it has become a bill of rights, based on geographic location.

You can pray wherever, but if it�s on government property, including schools, then it must be completely mandatory and, should anyone choose not to participate, he or she must be protected from discrimination and proselytization afterward.

Do you mean that it can’t be mandatory? iot never was. it is mandatory what the liberals have forced on everyone. How about if you can practice being an atheist, but not in the United States? Would that be OK.

You didn’t answer my question. I would fight for your rights to worship. Would you fight for mine? Too much to think about?

And you prove my point about the far right/religious right and birth control, since you evidently automatically equated it with abortion. Even �Maverick� McCain is a radical on contraception.

I was questioning whether you were doing that. Is this the best you can do?

Congress sucks. it’s the worst in the history of the country. Please put your head in the sand. that will fix everything.

By Truth

August 6, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

copyleft

Truth, if you can convincingly demonstrate that the Founding Fathers, who wanted to overthrow an oppressive government and found a new society based on freedom, were actually conservatives somehow, I�ll be impressed. And amazed. And interested to finally see the fantasy world you evidently inhabit.

Which founding fathers? I will gaurentee that if you name the guy, I can post more quotes that will prove that they believe in many more ideas that are conservative than liberal. Can you prove that they wanted abortions or same sex marriage? For once, stop blathering and actually post a fact. Give it a shot. you might learn something.

However, if you name Hitler or Pol Pot, I can list quote after quote after qoute that will prove they they both were saying the same things as many democrats are saying. i have posted links to Goebbels web site but I’ll bet you didn’t check them out, did you?

Where is my apology for accusing me of changing my stance on the Energy wars? i posted where i had talked about it in November. Is an apology more about being a man that you choose to be?

By USinUK

August 6, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

And, by the way, [this] was what Pelosi and the other Democrats “promised”:

�Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.�

The GOP has stymied them on each and every point of that plan. Which leads to the question why does the GOP want prices to stay so high??? Why doesn’t the GOP want to help the working guy who is paying $4 at the pump? Why doesn’t the GOP want to roll back tax breaks to oil companies making record profits? Why do they keep putting up these road blocks??? hmmmmmm???

By norman ravitch

August 6, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

Fundamentalism and evangelicalism are signs of ignorance and bigotry. Anyone holding these views should be ineligible for public office.

By Truth

August 6, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this

USinUK

How did they stimy them? They have the majority. What has been vetoed by Bush?

democrats make promises that they know they will never keep. Whatever excuse works great.

HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROMISES THEY MAKE!!!!!

Too much to ask? I’m tired of their lies and good people like you being forced to make excuses for them.

By Truth

August 6, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

norman ravitch

Perhaps if an IQ test were required for voting, it would eliminate most of our problems. You wouldn’t be able to vote, but that would be a good thing.

By USinUK

August 6, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

Truth -

go get a paper bag. you’re hyperventalating again.

By NYer

August 6, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this

Truth,

I am afraid to take a stand? Hysterical. In my short time here I’ve debated or discussed things with nearly everyone on the blog at some point in time. My discussions have more often been with those on the left than those on the right, if you haven’t noticed.

Our political views are probably more aligned than you realize, but I don’t adhere to what appears to be your view (based on your posts) that GOP = good guys and Dems = bad guys. The world is a little more complicated to me. However, that does not mean that I don’t have principles or I don’t have character. I’m just more subtle than you are, and I don’t think the way to debate/influence/convince people of the soundness of my viewpoint is to call the other side a bunch of criminally stupid boobs with backbones of jelly. That’s called having RESTRAINT and RESPECT FOR OTHER VIEWPOINTS even when I find them disagreeable.

By Truth

August 6, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

NYer

I have a lot of respect for most of what you say, that is until i read something like this: GOP = good guys and Dems = bad guys

I just don’t like government. To say that i have said that the GOP are always good guys shows that you interpret my posts to say what you think they should say. This is why stereotyping is bad. Open mind = good.

The people I was saying was “a bunch of criminally stupid boobs with backbones of jelly.” Was CONGRESS. I didn’t even say which side. Do you disagree?

I respect anyone right up to the point that they lose my respect. If you call me “far-right” you lose my respect because that proves that you don’t read my posts, or at least you don’t read them without a preconceived bigotry against what you are reading.

Restraint returns restraint. We had never had a sour word right up to when you button-holed me as being far right. I don’t appreciate it. Get it?

By USinUK

August 6, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

Today’s report in the WaPo is an excellent example of market fundamentals:

“People are looking at the weaker demand,” Tetsu said. “I expect prices to fall to between $100 and $110 by the end of the year.”

Investors again shrugged off tension over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s response to an incentives package aimed at defusing a dispute over its enrichment of uranium is unacceptable, U.S. officials said Tuesday. Prospects of new sanctions against the country are now more likely.

The market seemed to be reacting less to potentially bullish factors like the weather and geopolitical developments and instead was turning its attention more to fundamentals, “in particular the rocky demand outlook in certain countries,” said analysts at JBC Energy in Vienna, Austria.

While Tropical Storm Edouard did not have any lasting effects on oil facilities on the U.S. Gulf Coast, the storm still led to lower oil and gas demand in that region, as the storm ushered in cooler weather, ended a prolonged heat wave in states like Texas and thereby cut electricity use (for air conditioning) where record demand had been forecast, JBC said.

… or maybe prices are going down because Nancy Pelosi is in San Francisco and away from The Big Board

By USinUK

August 6, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

Open mind = good

this, coming from someone who refuses to look at the facts of what is influencing oil prices because the truth will impinge on his 3-Kleenex fantasy about Dems causing high gas prices … now, that IS rich.

By Truth

August 6, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

USinUK

You can get as nasty as usual, but that won’t pardon the Democrats for claiming that they could do something that you apparently think they can do nothing about.

Do you really believe that the actions of our government do not affect the price of oil? If you do believe that, do you believe that Obama is lying, saying that he can also fix our problems?

You are caught in the middle. Either you aren’t considering what the rest of the world is claiming, or your boy is lying. Pick a side, any side.

By Mara

August 6, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

Quote of the day is from Paris Hilton’s reply to McCains use of her in HIS campaign ad — “While McCain�s clip called Obama �the biggest celebrity in the world,� Paris� version refers to McCain as �the oldest celebrity in the world, like super-old, old enough to remember when dancing was a sin and beer was served in a bucket.�

LOL! priceless. Thanks wrinkly old guy, for bringing Paris back into our livingrooms. Heh.

NYer - I don�t think the way to debate/influence/convince people of the soundness of my viewpoint is to call the other side a bunch of criminally stupid boobs with backbones of jelly. That�s called having RESTRAINT and RESPECT FOR OTHER VIEWPOINTS even when I find them disagreeable.

are you sure you’re a conservative? I thought they took away your credentials if you let reason and restraint (let alone respect) cloud your ideology!

okay, okay…yes, I joke. I admit that I’m friends with, and related to, some very nice, very rational conservatives so I know that all of you aren’t wild-eyed and foamy lipped. :^) Thanks.

By Mara

August 6, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

Only a child thinks that political promises are what a candidate WILL do. Adults know that when a candidate makes a pledge, what they actually mean is that they will TRY to do something.

If they had to add “…depending on the cooperation of my political adversaries” after ever campaign pledge, the speeches would end up too long to hold our attention.

By USinUK

August 6, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this

Truth …

You can get as nasty as usual, but that won�t pardon the Democrats for claiming that they could do something that you apparently think they can do nothing about.

while I know reading goes against the grain for you, please learn the difference between PLAN and PROMISE:

�Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.�

Plan - A proposed or tentative project or course of action

Promise - A verbal commitment by one person to another agreeing to do (or not to do) something in the future

The Democrats outlined a PLAN, they did not make a PROMISE, no matter how many times you bray otherwise.

By USinUK

August 6, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this

okay my little chickadees … I’m off on holiday until Tuesday!!

no parties while I’m gone. the neighbors have my number and will call if this place gets too noisy!

have a good week and weekend - see you next week :-)

By Mara

August 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

tumbleweeds

By NYer

August 6, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

Truth,

You make a fair point. I don’t like being stereotyped either.

Therefore, I apologize for stereotyping you.

GOP = good and Dems = bad is admittedly an oversimplification of (some of) your positions. I came onto this blog without any preconceived bigotry (to use your phrase) about anyone, since none of us actually know one another. All I have to go on about you is blog name and the content of your posts. While I don’t read every one of your posts, I have read many, many of them.

We can certainly debate the definition of “far right”, and therefore, I will accept my share of the blame for labeling you. That being said, I must point out that at some point, it isn’t my fault that I’ve categorized you. At some point it becomes your fault that you’ve allowed yourself to be categorized by the things that you have said.

Let me expand on that. You use the handle “Truth” - do you not realize that using this name on a political blog conveys a message about your opinion of your views? And you make disparaging comments about “libs” and “dims” nearly every day.

I recant my labeling of you and apologize if that has offended you.

I hope though, that I have made my point.

By NYer

August 6, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

Mara,

I perceive that I am one of the people that Andy mentions in her piece that are disappointed with the relationship between the “religious right” and the GOP.

By NYer

August 6, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

Very interesting.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20080806/Poll.Obama.Overexposure/

By Copyleft

August 6, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this

And yet, people will still claim with a straight face that we have a “liberal media!”

Every word and gesture Obama makes is scrutinized; all invented “controversies,” every single slip of the tongue, is broadcast 24x7, the unblinking media spotlight dogging his every step and begging for a gaffe…

And meanwhile, poor boring ol’ John McCain, who’s made TWICE as many serious blunders in his lackluster campaign, gets no coverage or commentary whatsoever. Yeah, the media’s really “worshipping” President Obama, all right. Suuure they are.

They’re doing what they always do: sticking with ratings. Obama is controversial and exciting. McCain, though a screwup and an embarrassment, is also dull. Ergo, no coverage.

By NYer

August 6, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

There is a certain irony that the media’s constant exposure of their preferred candidate may end up causing the electorate to tire of him months before the election. If I were a democrat, I would be most concerned by statements expressed by independents regarding overexposure.

This Evening’s Breaking News: Obama Sleeps!

Tomorrow’s Breaking News: Obama Wakes Up!

By Mara

August 6, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

NYer - I’ve confessed before that for my very first presidential election I voted for a Republican (Reagan2). I also admit that I voted for Poppy1. I’ve supported as many Republican congresscritters as Democratic, and was a committed Independant and closet Liberatarian for a long, long time. But, as they say, that was then, this is now. One of the many reasons I could no longer plead “independant” was because the GOP had become so riddled with the Dominionist/Reconstructionist activists that the label. Once it became clear that their dream was to create a Christianized reflection of Sharia, that was it for me. They are christians before they are Americans.

I am an American first and always. My allegience is to the Constitution of the United States and to the ideals we are supposed to represent. I will support whichever party most reflects those principles best at the time. Once it was Republicans, now it’s Democrats.

Sorry for the long post. This is one of my four “pillars of ideology” that I am admittedly unshakably devoted.

By NYer

August 6, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this

No need to apologize, Mara. I would be curious to hear your other pillars of ideology.

By Gandalf, the Grey

August 6, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

Copyleft: STFU!

By Gandalf, the Grey

August 6, 2008 4:18 PM | Link to this

Kimberly: There never was a law in GA banning firearms in churches. W******* like yoursself, having never been in a church, wouldn’t know.

By Copyleft

August 7, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this

Always there to demonstrate the wisdom and appeal of the right wing, Gandalf. Thanks!

By Truth

August 7, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this

USinUK

Got it. Democrats don’t make promises, they make plans.

Well, that certainly explains everything.

I plan to fill up both my cars today. I plan on spending about $120 on gas, today.

By Mara

August 7, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this

NYer - now that would be a loooong post :^) To simplify it, down to the basic basics with no sub-sets, nuance, or caveat…my vote depends on a candidates stand on -

Adherence to Constitutional principles

Reproductive Rights

illegal immigration

environmental responsibility

By Pat

August 7, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

Shaunti, The GOP’s takeover by hard-right-wing fundamentalists; fundamentalists, not “people of faith” - didn’t just anger and alarm “secularists” and those hostile to religion. Many of us were silently very angry. Not everyone who puts their faith in Jesus Christ believes in tax cuts for fat cats, carte blanche environmental destruction, opportunistic wars based in lies and fought for gain.

Christ never instructed his followers to follow this path, and didn’t - contrary to the so-called “Christian Coalition/Moral Majority” crowd - instruct them to infiltrate the political system to bully others by remaking the world to look, feel and act more “Christian.” Oddly, He was remarkably unconcerned with replacing Jewish or pagan politicians in power, forcing pagans to respect public Christian symbols or listen to public Christian prayers, banning immoral entertainments or amazingly, even forcibly stopping contemptible pagan acts of human and infant sacrifice.

He had something bigger in mind - the transformation of the human heart through the power of the Holy Spirit. He knew that when hearts change, so does everything else … while coercion only alienates unbelievers from those who use power to coerce. Inevitably, for those who seek power, it becomes its own end - so even Christians caught up in it join forces with others for whom power is the only rationale.

The disgusting blending of this crass power-first philosophy with the label “Christian” is totally antithetical to all Christ preached - wildly successful from a marketing viewpoint, but ultimately a travesty that will some day be answered for at the judgement for believers, when we all must give account for things we’ve done in this life.

That I at times find myself aligned in the voting booth with those who deny or mock God at times makes me uncomfortable. Can your alignment with those who torture guilty and innocent together, fatten themselves off the misery of others and foul the planet possibly be so guilt-free?

By HaHa

August 7, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

I plan to fill up both my cars today. I plan on spending about $120 on gas, today

sounds like someone has the world owes us cheap gas, let’s go kill some more Aa-rabs, gas guzzlers.

By HaHa

August 7, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

Can your alignment with those who torture guilty and innocent together, fatten themselves off the misery of others and foul the planet possibly be so guilt-free

of course, she’s FORGIVEN after all.

By kimberly

August 7, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

Pat at 10:06: Well said!!!

(Aside to the Grey one: I did to to church regularly when I was younger, am not a w——, or I’d surely drive a nicer car and some fabulous granite countertops, but I do have enough exerpience wink wink to know what kind of man calls women w——s though he’s never met them or paid them. Sorry the Cialis isn’t working for you anymore.)

By Mara

August 7, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this

kimberly, I’ll second that “well, said!” and toss in a round of applause, too.

By Truth

August 7, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this

Pat

For someone who claims to have a good relationship with a benevolent God, your post seems very angry. You make vast generalizations that are straight out of DNC talking points.

The things you claim republicans are guilty of, democrats are just as guilty. Democrats CLAIM to be the party of saints, but if you think it is about anything but money and power, you are living in a fantasy world. The man running as the presidential candidate for the democratic party was a lawyer for a Chicago slum lord. What kind of cases do you think that kind of a lawyer would handle?

George Soros, a man who has poured millions into the Democratic party is one of the world’s most brutal arms dealer. He sells to African War Lords, so keep your preaching about rushing into war for people who are just too ignorant to know the facts.

I would suggest that the bitterness and hate that is evident throughout your post said much more about you than you wanted to say.

By FYI:

August 7, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

Pat, please ignore the rage soaked man who begins his lame smack down attempt by calling you “angry.” It is his daily goal to find those who are not angry and make them so by claiming they made an argument they did not make. As they say, as misery loves company, but you need not join him.

By HaHa

August 7, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

*where on earth did Pat, in his great post, mention ANYTHING political?

better definitions of Truth keep coming from Truth himself.

By Copyleft

August 7, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

Democrats CLAIM to be the party of saints

And as proof, he offers… well, nothing but his own fevered imaginations, since no such claim has ever been made, even once. “Truth” = lies in the right-wing Orwellian mindscape.

As usual.

By HaHa

August 7, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this

Pat sounds like a TRUE Christian.

we know what Truth sounds like……LMAO

By Gandalf, the Grey

August 7, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

Copyleft: I thought I told you to STFU, didn’t you read? Please go driving with Kimberley in her nice car; she may take you home to see her countertops!

Kimberley: you are what you are. Go to church this Sunday, you heathen!

And how do you know so much about Cialis? I have never used, but I am sure any man who you try to turn a trick with does! God knows I would have to do that and drink at least a 5th of bourbon, plus spend the $20!

By HawHee

August 7, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

GTG,

God knows I would have to do that and drink at least a 5th of bourbon, plus spend the $20!

So, basically what you do each day but instead of buying crack, you would be buying a piece of crack. Sounds like an upgrade for you.

Go back to your chicken heads and smoke some more meth, you still have a tooth or two left.

By Gandalf, the Grey

August 7, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this

Hee Haw: Funny!

By Gandalf, the Grey

August 7, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this

Gas Prices? Simple! More people want gasoline…prices go up! SUPPLY and DEMAND Want prices to go down? DRILL IN ANWR and OFF-SHORE! So simple! But we don’t want prices to drop to drastically, people are motivated right now to conserve and corporations are motivated to develop alternate energy sources! Keep it above $3.50 and we may see real change in how America uses energy! Yeah Republicans! Yeah Gas Prices! Real CHANGE, Not HOPE!

By Mara

August 7, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

before the hair-pulling and schoolyard taunts get out of hand…

Tired Pressure

“It looks like John McCain won’t be backing down from his campaign’s attack on Barack Obama over tire pressure and energy conservation. At an appearance in Ohio just now, McCain mocked Obama for suggesting that people do such a thing as easily save money and energy by maintaining their cars.”

“He’s claiming putting air in your tires is the equivalent of new offshore drilling,” McCain said. “That’s not an energy plan, my friends — that’s a public service announcement.”

“The problem is that keeping your tires well-inflated is at least the equivalent of new offshore drilling in terms of how much money you’ll spend on gas. In fact, as Time reported the other day, it could potentially be better than new drilling — if everyone did it we’d consume three percent less gasoline, while drilling would only meet one percent of our overall oil needs.”

“In other words,” Time said, “Obama is right.”

“Hmm. Could we be catching another glimpse of that GOP “pride in being ignorant” that Obama noted the other day?”

By bobbylee

August 7, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

Republicans are not very good at running the Gov’t. Local, state, and federal. I had just as soon everyone run as a republican, so we can vote out the incumbents, howerver they never get opposition so we have the same crummy lawmakers. What a sham.

Democrats on the other hand have been labeled and don’t have a chance to show they too, if left in power will screw it up.

Political Unions, thats all - neither better than the other.

By SchellingOutinATL

August 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this

As a religious Democrat, I am astounded by the majority of these idiotic comments. Of course the Democrats haven’t declared war on religion or on fundamentalists. But too many folks on the “religious right” seem to have totally forgotten Matthew 25:35-40. They seem vindictive, angry, scolding, and judgmental. The Bible has alot to say about all those things. (BTW, I find it amazing that among the raft of comments so far, no one saw fit to quote Scripture.)

In case folks need reminding, here’s chapter and verse: (35)For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, (36) I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ (37) “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? (38)When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? (39)When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ (40)”The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

When the religous right starts practicing what Jesus preached, instead of trying to enforce its version of Christianity on everyone else, then we might be able to have dialog. Until then, it’s my experience that they think they have a corner on God. They don’t. At least not the God I grew up believing in and seek to serve every day.

By Tom

August 7, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

Pat—there’s been a whole lotta BS on this thread, mostly from “Truth,” but your comment at 10:06 today was really a thing of beauty. Too bad it’s so lost on the “Truth”s and Shaunti Feldhahns of this world.

By Gandalf, the Grey

August 7, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this

Dearest Mara,
Maybe he will setup up a Congressional Task Force for the Inspection of Tire Inflation, create plenty of low paying, I mean well paying minimum wage jobs, and have every car inspected monthly and every time the weather changes more that 15 degrees at a cost of $5 per inspection.
Seriously, automotive maintenance isn’t something we can or should legislate, next up, 55 MPH speed limit. I GUARANTEE that will be coming soon.

By Mara

August 8, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

Sheesh. Talk about hysterical…

Gandalf, the issues of tire pressure and vehicle maintenance were offered as ways that individuals could impact their own fuel usage, not a suggestion of mandating such things by the government. Regardless, that has nothing to do with whether those actions, if done collectively, would make a larger impact on our energy needs than off-shore drilling…which is what the article actually suggested.

By Gale

August 8, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

I was so hoping for a new topic this morning.

By Copyleft

August 8, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

I was wondering… haven’t they switched to posting new topics on Fridays now?

By Mara

August 8, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

Hey Gale. How about we pick one?!

Did you hear about some voting rights advocate in Missouri being barred from voting in their primary? Evidently he had a valid voting ID card (which the Election Board had assured him that very morning would be accepted) and a copy of the relevant law. The person at his precinct demanded a drivers liscence and would NOT accept the ID as proof of his right to vote. He ended up getting arrested and deprived of his voting rights.

or -

What do you think about our female Olympians being subjected to gender tests to prove they’re female while male athletes aren’t required to do the same? According to JAMA, “gender verification tests are difficult, expensive, and potentially inaccurate. Furthermore, these tests fail to exclude all potential impostors (eg, some 46,XX males), are discriminatory against women with disorders of sexual development, and may have shattering consequences for athletes who ‘fail’ a test…Gender verification has long been criticized by geneticists, endocrinologists, and others in the medical community. One major problem was unfairly excluding women who had a birth defect involving gonads and external genitalia (i.e., male pseudohermaphroditism).”

or -

how about McCain’s new advertisement that strongly suggests that Obama is the Anti-Christ?

“The End Times, a New Testament reference to the period surrounding the return of Christ, were popularized in recent years by the “Left Behind” series of books that sold more than 63 million copies,” the Journal notes. “The Rev. Tim LaHaye, co-author of the series, said in an interview that he recognized allusions to his work in the ad…”

“The ad has provoked a growing debate on the Internet over whether it is playing with apocalyptic themes. Those ideas are chiefly shared by fundamentalist Protestants and some other evangelical Christians. Among their expectations: the ascension of a false prophet, a one-world government and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.”

“Short of 666, they used every single symbol of the antichrist in this ad,” said Eric Sapp, a Democratic advisor who advises Democrats on religious outreach. “There are way too many things to just be coincidence.”

By JokesOn

August 8, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

What do you think about our female Olympians being subjected to gender tests to prove they�re female while male athletes aren�t required to do the same? According to JAMA

I, for one, am confused by this. One can play it either way: women are discriminated against by being the only ones tested, or men are being discriminated against for not having the same protections as the females that keep their sport fair.

I did find it interesting that, back when they first started genetic testing, they found some females have xy chromosomes but, because of suppressed testosterone, are in every way females. Just one more example that proves the difference between males and females is not as black/white as many would like to think.

By Haha

August 8, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

You are such a moron. Why would anyone need to be tested to see if they are not a woman? In athletics, strong, bigger is better. Being a man would be an advantage, being a woman wouldn’t.

You aren’t confused. You are just an idiot.

By JokesOn

August 8, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

HaHa Why would anyone need to be tested to see if they are not a woman?

I am not the one that needs to cover the obvious.

Just to show what everyone knows:

In athletics, strong, bigger is better. really? So in gymnastics that applies?

Damn comments from the peanut gallery.

By Mara

August 8, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

JokesOn - the difference between males and females is not as black/white as many would like to think.

I agree. At least we’re now looking at blood tests instead of making these women parade around naked in front of a panel of doctors, most of whom were male. I would personally find the whole thing demeaning and humiliating regardless of whether I was just giving blood or being required to “prove” that I was female.

What makes it even more senseless is that men who’ve had sex reassignment ARE allowed to compete in women’s events as long as it’s been two or more years since the surgery.

By Gale

August 8, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

Mara, perfect solution. I had not considered that only women were gender tested. Stupid really. Given the reasoning HAHA uses, (although it may be stretching it to call HAHA’s posts reasoning,) why would a man stoop to competing in a womens’ track? These are world class athletes. A medal in the womens event would pale before a medal in the mens’ events, right? One would have to be pretty desparate to live as a female just to win sporting events. And if the issue is chromosome anomoly, I think they should compete in the sex they have identified with. Historically, we have not seen many instances of this.

Practically speaking males are typically stronger and bigger. It might make some sense in the events that are not strength based; shooting perhaps. Of course there, I don’t know why there should be separation by sex at all. Some Olympic rules make very little sense.

Has anyone been able to see any of the opening ceremony live?

By Haha

August 8, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

So you admit that it was a stupid statement. Maybe there is hope for you.

Peanut Gallery? I have posted more than your smelly butt. The peanut gallery would suggest that you don’t believe I am a real poster. Put up or shut up, moron.

By JokesOn

August 8, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

What makes it even more senseless is that men who�ve had sex reassignment ARE allowed to compete in women�s events as long as it�s been two or more years since the surgery.

I agree it gets kinda screwy at the least when dealing with trans-gendered people.

I agree. At least we�re now looking at blood tests instead of making these women parade around naked in front of a panel of doctors, most of whom were male. I would personally find the whole thing demeaning and humiliating regardless of whether I was just giving blood or being required to �prove� that I was female.

I agree it could be perceived as humiliating to some, yet still find it a double edge sword. If officials decided not to test them, wouldn’t there probably be outcries of unfairness?

As far as “humiliating” goes, if it is a sterile environment (as in adult and serous), I do not understand that reaction. I have had to get butt naked many times for a nurse and could care less. I think that is more to do with ones perspective and mindset, than being a normal reaction.

I have been to way too many naked quarry parties where men and women of all ages could care less that they are in the buff.

By Gale

August 8, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

men who�ve had sex reassignment ARE allowed to compete in women�s events

Now that’s just not fair! I think only adults can choose sex surgery. The size and structure for a male is set. There are probably not many mens’ events where a smaller ‘man who is really a woman’ might compete evenly.

NPR recently did a piece about some hormone therapy being used with cross gendered children to delay puberty so the sex based changes would not happen before a surgical reassignment could be performed. Anyone hear that? The reason some male to female reassignments are so difficult is because the new female is six feet tall and has the larger structure of the male. This therapy keeps that from happening so the resulting female looks more female.

By Gale

August 8, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

HAHA, does your teacher know you are abusing your library pass?

By NYer

August 8, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

Mara,

Apparently that person may have showed up with a voter notification card as opposed to the voter ID card.

I’m sure we’ll hear more about this, or at least, we should if it’s a real story of law violation.

From personal experience I can tell you that nobody (the election judges, the police, etc) messes around at the polling locations - their tolerance for “misbehavior” is just about nil. I think people overlook the fact that it isn’t solely about this guy, it’s about the scene he creates at a polling place and the disruption it causes to the dozens/hundreds/thousands of other people that are there exercising their right to vote without causing some kind of problem.

I don’t excuse any legitimate infringement upon this guy’s right to vote, but I do understand why they would haul him out of there since according to the local news coverage he was screaming at people and pounding on desks.

By Mara

August 8, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this

Gale - Has anyone been able to see any of the opening ceremony live?

I tend to be more interested in the events themselves, but Drudge has links for stills and video if you’re looking for info. Most of it gives me one gigantic yawn though.

By Gale

August 8, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

I was told it would play here at 7:30 tonight. I still have not forgiven my dog for insisting she had to go out in the middle of the Atlanta opening ceremony. I missed a big piece of the Greek pantheon part. Too bad it wasn’t the pickup truck part.

By JokesOn

August 8, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

Peanut Gallery? I have posted more than your smelly butt. The peanut gallery would suggest that you don�t believe I am a real poster. Put up or shut up, moron.

Non one is a real poster when hiding under bs names.

And, yes, The peanut gallery. Now, go sit with GTG and tell grosser-than-gross jokes.

By JokesOn

August 8, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

Anyone hear that? The reason some male to female reassignments are so difficult is because the new female is six feet tall and has the larger structure of the male. This therapy keeps that from happening so the resulting female looks more female.

Did not hear that.

I did get to watch “born a boy, raised a girl” (might have it reversed) which was about a kid born with both features. It was during the time when scientists/psychiatrists believed sexuality is choice/nurture. So they made the decision early on for the kid, but it definitively proved that one cannot simple choose their sexuality even if enforced by the family/community/therapists. The person committed suicide in their twenties after getting sick of all the trauma.

By Mara

August 8, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

grosser-than-gross jokes

I used to LOVE those :-) LOL!

By Mara

August 8, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

JokesOn - As far as �humiliating� goes, if it is a sterile environment (as in adult and serous), I do not understand that reaction

it’s not the nudity so much as the insult to my femininity. Imagine being told that you’re so “masculine” that you have to PROVE that you’re a female. That’s what I would find humiliating.

By NYer

August 8, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this

I made the mistake of watching the opening ceremonies once and have never forgotten the lesson.

By Gale

August 8, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this

JokesOn, interesting program. I had an email correspondance with a female to male transgender for a while some years back. He told me that female to male was frequently more successful. Being gay isn’t nearly the same thing. But I think I can understand why trying to live inside the wrong sex would be traumatic. So many behaviors we don’t think about are gender-based. A lifetime of wrong behavior at that level… sheesh.

By Can't help it.

August 8, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

What about the woman who has an addadictomy? HAHAHA! Get it? Add-a….. HAHAHAHAHA! Oh, nevermind.

By Mara

August 8, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

Has anyone heard the talk about McCain accepting questionable donations, all with the name Abdullah, that were funneled through a guy in Jordan who is a Jordanian national and who is under investigation for war profiteering?

By JokesOn

August 8, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

Imagine being told that you�re so �masculine� that you have to PROVE that you�re a female. That�s what I would find humiliating.

That is where I am a blunt person. You are who you are. Be ok with it and get over it is my general mentality. (not saying this to you, just my general feeling on the subject)

I do not think people should get riled when it comes to things like: a female being more masculine than the norm, which leads to being better in sports, which leads to being scrutinized on your appearance. If you are ok with capitalizing on your difference, you should be ok with that exact difference being noticed.

One thing that really bugs be is people who put something out there, but then do not want it to be questioned or countered. Once a person decides to capitalize on, say being famous, they cannot really complain about being in the spotlight.

I used to LOVE those :-) LOL!

We all did. ….and 5 class rings fall out…

By Mara

August 8, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

one belonged to her brother…

By JokesOn

August 8, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

Has anyone heard the talk about McCain accepting questionable donations, all with the name Abdullah, that were funneled through a guy in Jordan who is a Jordanian national and who is under investigation for war profiteering?

Heard about that on the way into work while listening to NPR.

one belonged to her brother� Ok. Maybe they are still a little funny;)

By Gandalf, the Grey

August 8, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this

I be boy cotton them thar Olympics this yar, 2 many mans masquerading as womans, and the AntiChrist is telling me to puff up my tars, So I’s taking my drivers lie-scents out to MA-ZUR-RAH to vote so he don’t get his self Elected.

By Gandalf, the Grey

August 8, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

Haha: you are funny, but looks aren’t everything!

By Mara

August 8, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

Jokes - I bet it’d be headlining every newscast, politi-blog, and news publication in America if it had been Obama who was accepting donations from the Abdullahs.

By JokesOn

August 8, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

Jokes - I bet it�d be headlining every newscast, politi-blog, and news publication in America if it had been Obama who was accepting donations from the Abdullahs.

Yep.

He gets a lot of attention.

By Truth

August 11, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

JokesOn, Mara

Has anyone heard the talk about McCain accepting questionable donations, all with the name Abdullah, that were funneled through a guy in Jordan who is a Jordanian national and who is under investigation for war profiteering?

Here’s an idea. Why don’t you post a link to this world shaking story? I went to NPR and found where McCain is RETURNING $50,000 to a supporter in Jordan. I saw where both candidates are being very careful about where their money is coming from. Do you want to post a link or would you just like to lecture me for pointing out your dishonesty?

By JokesOn

August 11, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

Do you want to post a link or would you just like to lecture me for pointing out your dishonesty?

Neither.

By Truth

August 11, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

People caught in outright lies usually don’t want to continue the discussions.

Sort of sad that you need to make up lies on John McCain.

By Mara

August 11, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

It’s dishonest to ask about a story that’s all over the net?! And just because he’s “returning” the money has no bearing on whether he accepted donations from a foreign source in the first place, now does it?

As for posting a link, screw you. If you can’t figure out what key words to use on “the googles” to get links to this story, you shouldn’t be on the net in the first place. You want to be a snotty little whiner about me not including every jot or tittle of a given story, so why’n the world would I go out of my way to provide you with phrases you can twist and misrepresent?

By JokesOn

August 11, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

I figured I would let you dig your hole a little deeper before posting it.

http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_n33/idn2008.08.10.04.13.55.html

(snip) The New York Times reported Thursday that Sargeant allowed a longtime business partner, Mustafa Abu Naba’a, to bring in some $50,000 in donations in March from members of a single extended family, the Abdullahs, in California, along with several of their friends. (snip)

By JokesOn

August 11, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this

Well said Mara.

I would feel different if Truth ever acknowledged the truth when it was posted.

Meh.

By Mara

August 11, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this

to throw a little fuel on Truth’s little snit…

Turns out that Ron Suskind was correct in his allegation that the Executive Branch directed the forging of the letter which was used as “proof” that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda as well as the first suggestions about yellowcake coming from Niger.

“Today, The American Conservative also published a report saying that the forgery was actually produced by then-Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith’s Office of Special Plans, citing an unnamed intelligence source. The source reportedly added that Suskind�s overall claim �is correct.”

“My source also notes that Dick Cheney, who was behind the forgery, hated and mistrusted the Agency and would not have used it for such a sensitive assignment,” the magazine wrote. “Instead, he went to Doug Feith�s Office of Special Plans and asked them to do the job. � It was Feith�s office that produced the letter and then surfaced it to the media in Iraq. Unlike the [Central Intelligence] Agency, the Pentagon had no restrictions on it regarding the production of false information to mislead the public. Indeed, one might argue that Doug Feith�s office specialized in such activity.”

By Truth

August 11, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

JokesOn, Mara

Joke, Yeah. That’s the article i found, telling the truth, something neither one of you had any interest in last Friday. So i forced you to post the truth. My work is done here. The truth is in you, it just isn’t offered voluntarily very often. Glad to inject a bit of honestly into the discussion. The best part is your self righteousness when posting the article that i forced you to post that PROVED ME RIGHT and PROVED THAT YOU LIED. Great move. LOL!!

Mara, No. Screw you. You didn’t mention that he gave it back, did you? I used the right words on Google to find a story THAT DID NOT SAY WHAT YOU WERE CLAIMING so I knew ytou were lying and I caught you. Poor baby. Get over it.

By HeeHee

August 11, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this

As for posting a link, screw you.

Bravo, Bravo.

By Truth

August 11, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

JokesOn

I acknowledged the truth after I forced you to post it. i knew the truth and apparently, so did you, but it was so much more “liberal” to ignore the truth and post lies.

Like I said, my work is done. Now spend the day in self-righteous indignation at the fact that you were caught. Poor baby.

By JokesOn

August 11, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this

The best part is your self righteousness when posting the article that i forced you to post that PROVED ME RIGHT and PROVED THAT YOU LIED.

Where did I lie? Now you get to post a link backing up your statement….

I used the right words on Google to find a story THAT DID NOT SAY WHAT YOU WERE CLAIMING…

He did accept the donations, however you want to spin it. He simply decided to give them back (ie. to give something back you must accept it first) once the story was breaking. Nowhere is your assertion regarding “CLAIMING” happen.

SpinSpinSpin.

Meh.

By HeeHee

August 11, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this

Just because people are smart enough to sign up for AOL and click on links, does not mean they are smart enough to actually engage in intelligent thought when it comes to search engines.

By HeeHee

August 11, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

Just because people are smart enough to sign up for AOL and click on links, does not mean they are smart enough to actually engage in intelligent thought when it comes to search engines.

OR, for that matter, use Big Words like “bot” in an appropriate context.

By Truth

August 11, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

Mara

From “The Raw Story”? LOL!!

How many hours a day do you spend rifling through liberal site after liberal site after liberal site trying to find “questionable” stories that will justify your twisted politics?

My liberal buddy used to give me hell for watching FOX News until one day, i grabbed his laptop and found all the liberal sights he had bookmarked.

You guys are practically a cult.

By JokesOn

August 11, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

Mara,

I love the quote from Tenet:

�It is well established that, at my direction, CIA resisted efforts on the part of some in the administration to paint a picture of Iraqi-al-Qaida connections that went beyond the evidence,� Tenet said. �The notion that I would suddenly reverse our stance and have created and planted false evidence that was contrary to our own beliefs is ridiculous.�

Even in denying the point, he admits that the administration was pushing for fabrication! That is enough for any sane individual to find the administration’s word discredited.

By Mara

August 11, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

Truth - Try “The American Conservative”

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/08/07/suskind-revisited/

By Snidely Buttright

August 11, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

quick, call 911! I think Truth needs a waaaaaahhhhmbulance

By Truth

August 11, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

Mara

Today, The American Conservative also published a report saying that the forgery was actually produced by then-Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith�s Office of Special Plans, citing an unnamed intelligence source. The source reportedly added that Suskind�s overall claim �is correct.�

That is a direct quote from http://rawstory.com/news/2008/TapeTopCIAofficerconfessesorder0808.html

LOL!!

You posted an article quoting the American Conservative. Is the truth really just not in you? Is it worth deepening your lie to try and prove your point?

Oh what a wicked web we weave when we practice to deceive.

By Snidely Buttright

August 11, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this

On second thought. An ambulance isn’t needed. it is just JokesOn peeing on himself.

The only question is is he watching child porn and just lost control or did he imagine someone threatening him and he is just shaking in fear?

By HeeHee

August 11, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this

Snidely Buttright

Home run, buddy. The boy just can’t control his little emotions.

What is that smell?

By Truth

August 11, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

Snidely Buttright

Hey man. Back off. There is no proof that JokesOn pees on himself when he watches child porn.

By Truth

August 11, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

I realize The American Conservative has so run out of fresh ideas that they have to get their stories from places like TheRawStory. That is why I like them, they lack intelligence, so when I hang with them, I seem Bright.

By Truth

August 11, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this

the post at 12:54 is not me. Seems that someone is losing it today.

Ho hum. Another day of hysterics from the little boy that couldn’t control his bladder. So sad, Too bad.

By Snidely Buttright

August 11, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

A driver is stuck in a traffic jam going into downtown Chicago.

Nothing is moving north or south. Suddenly a man knocks on his window.

The driver rolls down his window and asks, “What happened; what’s the hold up?”

“Terrorists have kidnapped Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, Rosie O’Donnell, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They are asking for a $10 Million ransom. Otherwise, they are going to douse them with gasoline and set them on fire. We are going from car to car, taking up a collection.”

The driver asks, “On average, how much is everyone giving?”

“About a gallon.”

By Mara

August 11, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

Hey whiner…the QUOTE is directly from the Conservative and POSTED at R/S, not the other way around. Not that it’ll matter one way or another to you because you think you already know everything and anyone who says different is a liar, a liberal, or both.

“My source also notes that Dick Cheney, who was behind the forgery, hated and mistrusted the Agency and would not have used it for such a sensitive assignment,� the magazine wrote. �Instead, he went to Doug Feith�s Office of Special Plans and asked them to do the job. � It was Feith�s office that produced the letter and then surfaced it to the media in Iraq. Unlike the [Central Intelligence] Agency, the Pentagon had no restrictions on it regarding the production of false information to mislead the public. Indeed, one might argue that Doug Feith�s office specialized in such activity.�

By Truth

August 11, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

Snidely Buttright

Funny,

By Truth

August 11, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

I should probably change my name to Sherlock, which fits with my jr high development level.

By JokesOn

August 11, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

I see once again Truth is unable to stay rational and void of schoolyards tactics.

Bravo.Meh

By Snidely Buttright

August 11, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

Somebody is ashamed to write stupid cr-p under their own screenname >> Who-oh-who could it be?

By Truth

August 11, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

Mara

MY POINT was that you got the quote from yet another slobbering, lying, biased liberal propaganda site. That’s why this is such a great topic on a day that Clinton supporters are realizing that Edward’s lying cost them their candidate for the White House. If Edwards would have come clean, Hillary would have won.

Yeah, this is a great day for liberal propaganda to talk about events that happened 5 years ago. Democrats are in charge of Congress and the economy is crashing like a lead balloon and you find out that sweet john Edwards who was soooo good to stand by his wife was boinking a bimbo. Most people agree that his votes would have gone to Hillary.

Character doesn’t matter unless it costs a democrat votes. Lack of character from a democratic MAN just cost women the first women president.

Hillary lost because of a democrat boiking a bimbo and lying about it. Man, that woman has a right to hate men.

By Question

August 11, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

What is it about Conservatives that they need to create multiple personalities to converse with themselves? Didn’t that Dog guy do that as well? (he is probably Gandalf, btw)

are they really that unloved out there in the world? After 8 years of Bush, no surprise, really.

By JokesOn

August 11, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

Truth,

Are you going to back up your claim?

The best part is your self righteousness when posting the article that i forced you to post that PROVED ME RIGHT and PROVED THAT YOU LIED.

By Truth

August 11, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

Snidely.

It’s the same person that is always afraid of his own shadow. it is the person that has ran more people off this forum than anyone else.

it’s certainly not unexpected, but a disappointment to posters who would like to engage in intelligent debate.

Now he is not only using lot’s of alternative names to hide behind because he is such a coward, he is using my own name. He must have had a very bad weekend. He must have a very bad life.

By Truth

August 11, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

Question

Calm down. Looks like someone is just doing what he does. it’s the same person who always does this. Why are you losing your sh*t over it? Why is it any of your business unless you are the coward who hides behind other names. (Apparently that is exactly what you are)

I tried to take up for JokesOn but he focused his attacks toward me anyway. The boy has problems. I’ve asked him to leave me alone, but he continues to stalk me all over the internet. I must be truly irresistible. I don’t roll that way, but apparently, he does.

it’s a shame.

By Mara

August 11, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

Truth - MY POINT was that you got the quote from yet another slobbering, lying, biased liberal propaganda site

Ahhhhh. Because you don’t like the portal used to accetss the conservative source, it MUST be a pack of lies. I get it now! Even if the story is true, even if it’s supported by documentation, even if the conservative sites are reporting the exact same material…if you got to those stories through a “slobbering, lying, biased, liberal propaganda site” it’s OBVIOUSLY a bunch of hooey and a smart feller like yourself needn’t bother himself with pesky facts. Heh.

Question - are they really that unloved out there in the world?

Well, yes. They don’t even particularly like each other let alone those who don’t agree with them…

By JokesOn

August 11, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this

I tried to take up for JokesOn but he focused his attacks toward me anyway. The boy has problems. I�ve asked him to leave me alone, but he continues to stalk me all over the internet. I must be truly irresistible. I don�t roll that way, but apparently, he does.

I am not the one that has an ex gf that aborted a child to be sure ties were cut between you two. You must be a real piece of work for someone to go through those lengths to be separate from you.

Now, if you want to get off the personal attacks this won’t go further. If you want to sling mud, I will excuse myself from the blog, again, since you have yet to be a decent person.

By JokesOn

August 11, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this

Mara,

Totally and utterly pointless, no?

By Truth

August 11, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

Mara

my problem was the actual story that you and the joke was discussing was s small part of the actual story. I have no problem with the facts of the story. McCain doesn’t monitor each contribution, but he does have a system (they all do) that spots questionable contributions. the standard response is what they did: return it and report it to the media.

You and Joke were trying to say that it was a bhig scandal.

By Truth

August 11, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

jokesOn

For once, get it right.

it was not an ex-girlfriend, it was my wife. And the child that died would have been my first born child.

Bringing that up in some sort of twisted middle school mud slinging contest that so far has been all you is not mud slinging, that is you, being the spineless piece of sh*t, that you are. No big surprise. You are what you are. i can’t do anything about that.

But nice try, Joke. I think you have really won some credibility today. LOL!!

You probably should excuse yourself. Making fun a person’s dead child is not exactly a stance to stand proud by, is it?

Thanks for making my point stronger than I ever could.

By JokesOn

August 11, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

You and Joke were trying to say that it was a bhig scandal.

Not the point being made at all. If you read closely you will see that the point was that if it was Obama, that it would be a big scandal.

You probably should excuse yourself. Making fun a person�s dead child is not exactly a stance to stand proud by, is it?

Versus what? Calling a person a pedophile and making pi$$ jokes?

Why don’t you tell everyone what actually happened and how you were caught cheating with her sister while she was pregers. Yeah, you deserve a lot of sympathy.

By Mara

August 11, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

Truth - You and Joke were trying to say that it was a bhig scandal.

I won’t speak for Jokes, but I was saying that if OBAMA had accepted contributions from such a questionable source, even if he had caught it after the fact and returned it, everybody would be piling on. Questions raised, allegations made, attack ads accusing Obama of getting contributions from the Muslims (from foreigners!), innuendo and allusion galore!! Instead, because it’s McSame, all’s quite on the news front…THAT was the discussion Jokes and I were having.

By JokesOn

August 11, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this

Instead, because it�s McSame, all�s quite on the news front�THAT was the discussion Jokes and I were having.

Exactly what I said.

Plus, Mr Truth now has taken to hijacking my name to try to make himself sound not-so-bad. 3-4 posts are not mine including the 2:02…

He has reach the last phase of denial: impersonating posters that do not agree with him with the intent to discredit.

By Billy

August 11, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

Dang…Your wife? She must have really wanted to be sure there were no permanent connections…

By Truth

August 11, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this

Joke

Hey spineless piece of sh*t. You can’t get anything right, can you.

One more time. I didn’t cheat with anyone. I was seen hugging a very attractive woman at a restaurant. That woman was my cousin, whom I haven’t seen in about 10 years. My wife had an abortion because she thought I was cheating on her. Get it, you stupid piece of sht? do you think you can get it right the next time you want to stalk me around like the sick fck that you are?

The big question is: why do you care? Why do you follow me around on the internet? What the hell is wrong with you? I’m a guy. And I’m a guy that you are apparently terrified of. Is this how you get your jollies? You chase people around that you know you will never meet? Sounds like a coward to me.

Leave me the hell alone, you sick piece of crap.

By Truth

August 11, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

Leave me alone.

By JokesOn

August 11, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

One more time. I didn�t cheat with anyone. I was seen hugging a very attractive woman at a restaurant

Yeahhhhhh. That’s it. Liar.

By Truth

August 11, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this

Billy

Yeah. Wife, family, expecting a child, and a horrible mistake that cost a child it’s life and a husband and wife the death of their child. it’s the kind of thing that a real piece of sh*t can really yuk it up about.

Having fun Billy? I hope you never lose a child, Billy.

Of course you would need to have sex with a woman first.

By Truth

August 11, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

Mara

I think Obama is starting to suffer a little from the media attention, but the vast majority is positive attention.

You can’t have Obama being a media darling for the good parts and then expect them to ignore him when it isn’t good.

As far as contributions, several stories have already come out about Obama’s connections. You probably didn’t see them on the websites you visit. Nobody cares. It’s politics as usual.

By Truth

August 11, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

Still got your nose up my as*?

Take a deep breath. Now remember that smell and leave me alone.

By JokesOn

August 11, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

Diverting the conversation again because you cannot admit being wrong?

Useless.

By Truth

August 11, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

JokeSh*t

Diverting the conversation? What conversation? The conversation about my dead child? What else would you like to say?

Why don’t you go find someone else to put your nose up their as*?

By JokesOn

August 11, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this

You are hopeless.

You cannot even continue a thread without name calling sick crap like child porn once you were proven to have distorted the conversation Mara and I were having.

And then, to post under my name and use your dead child to try to divert attention from your err is messed up man.

By Truth

August 11, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this

I don’t know who you are trying to impress. There are only two of us here and we both know who posted what today, don’t we?

As several other posters have let you know, you are not fooling anyone.

Now get your nose out of my as* and find someone else to stalk.

Leave me alone. How else can I say it? You have the mind of a child and I, along with everyone else here is damn tired of you.

Do you live your life forcing yourself on others like you do here?

One more time: Leave me alone. Get your nose out of my as*.

By JokesOn

August 12, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this

You addressed Mara and I frothing at the mouth and yelling that we were lying.

Then, when we pointed out your err, you began calling names again. Read the sequence of events and grow the eff up.

Hardly me going after you.

Get it? Doubt it.

By 2D

August 12, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this

Yowza…! This conversation degenerated quickly. It usually takes until at least Wednesday or Thursday before we see this level of brutality.

A couple of quick points to hopefully spur a different level of conversation…

In response to Mara’s post about tire pressure. The thing about drilling in ANWR or OCS is that we don’t really know how much it will cause the oil prices to change. Why? A variety of reasons. First, we don’t really know how much oil is available in either area. Anything right now is an estimate. Until drilling starts and we start extracting the oil, it is a guess.

Second, because the price of oil, and therefore gasoline, is a market driven phenomena. Any piece of information that could lead to an increase or decrease of oil supply will make the price fluctuate. When there are whispers of hurricans in the Gulf of Mexico, prices for oil soar. When there are whispers of tumult in the Middle East, prices for oil soar. When we find out that the platofrms in the Gulf of Mexico survive bad weather, the price of oil goes down. What would happen to the price of oil if Congress lifted the moratorium on OCS drilling. My suspician is that very act would drop the price of crude oil.

Also… Keep in mind that the Congressional moratorium does not mean that oil companies will immediately start putting up platforms. Lifting the moratorium only means that a state can determine for itself if they would like to allow oil companies to drill off their shore lines and where. So, if the people in Virginia want it and the folks in Florida don’t, then so be it.

Back to the tire pressure statement. While we may be able to identify the reduction of gas usage based on correct tire pressure, as I mentioned before, we cannot gauage the reduction of cost based on drilling in OCS and ANWR. That is why the Time article is an estimate that should not be taken as gospel.

OMT… Has anyone ever attempted to monitor their tire pressure on a regular basis? I have, and guite frankly it’s a pain in the arse. If everyone driving a vehicle did that, there would be huge lines at the tire pumps. Large amounts of electricity would be used to run those pumps and at many places these days, people would be spending extra $$$ each week to run the pump. So, let’s do the math…

If I can save 3% on my fuel each week, that means my $40 now becomes $38.80. A savings of $1.20.

To maintain the tire pressure, I’ve probably dumped at least $0.50 into the air pump, and at least 15 minutes into the activity, which even at minimum wage would be worth almost $1.50. Not to mention the use of energy used to run the pump, which for this discussion, I’ll not even count.

So… I’ve spent $2.00 to save $1.20. Sounds great!

Woman to Woman

Has the Democratic Party embraced an anti-fundamentalist Christian stance?

Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.

Commentary

Rebuttal

Comments

Recent Woman to Woman columns:

Find Atlanta homes for sale

Find new and used cars in Atlanta

Search Atlanta classifieds

Do Good Locally » Find nonprofit causes near you

Services » Find the right people for the job

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Advertising

AJC Sites

Opinion

Blogs

Topics

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Blogs

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Woman to Woman

Has the Democratic Party embraced an anti-fundamentalist Christian stance?

Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.

Commentary

Rebuttal

Comments

Recent Woman to Woman columns:

Find Atlanta homes for sale

Find new and used cars in Atlanta

Search Atlanta classifieds

Do Good Locally » Find nonprofit causes near you

Services » Find the right people for the job

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Advertising

AJC Sites