AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > November > 07 > Entry
What is the single most important ramification of the election?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Before I tackle this week’s topic, I must first congratulate Barack Obama. Even the election of a man with whom I deeply disagree makes me proud to be an American. I will probably object to his policy priorities, but the ascendance of our first African- American president - someone who worked hard for the quintessential American dream — is something we can all applaud.
But I also respect him enough to have no reservations about pointing out a critical ramification of his election. Obama’s presidency looks likely to push the Supreme Court and our entire court system in a direction that fundamentally changes our balance of power and how our Constitution is viewed.
As envisioned by the framers of America’s government, judges must dispassionately interpret the law or the Constitution - in other words, regardless of how they personally feel. Impartial judges with lifetime appointments were a balance of power to elected legislators and chief executives whose creation of law based on personal preferences had to answer to “we the people.” But in recent decades we’ve seen activist judges ascribe to the “Living Constitution” theory and essentially create policy based on how they feel the world should be - something supposedly reserved for elected representatives. Further, because activist judges are by definition less conservative, they are activist in only one direction, creating a purely ideological, not judicial, liberal check on the will of the people.
In a 2007 Planned Parenthood speech, Obama said judges should have “the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” There it is: judges with empathy, not dispassionate impartiality.
Dozens of vacancies exist on federal appeals and district courts and we’ll see many more in coming years. Not to mention multiple retirements of activist Supreme Court justices who would have been replaced by strict constructionists had McCain won.
Obama’s election is history-making, and I sincerely congratulate him and those jubilant at his election. At the same time, I hope he - as a former constitutional law professor - will be willing to put personal preferences aside and do the right thing for our Constitution.
Rebuttal
My favorite election night photo? The cheering crowds in front of the White House, our nation’s house, forever immune to foreclosure. It reminded me of a recent family trip to the capital, when I had the pleasure of showing my 6-year-old around D.C. Katie was particularly excited to see 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Yet instead of being thrilled, she was initially disappointed — with the guards, the gate and my explanation that we couldn’t just walk inside anytime we felt like it.
Barack Obama’s long, hard walk to that house has been elevated not just by his history-making status but by the overwhelming numbers walking alongside him. More people voted than ever before in our history, and a Democrat hasn’t reached this percentage since the Lyndon Johnson/Barry Goldwater landslide in 1964.
Indeed, the level and intensity of turnout in this election has brought all of us to an enthusiasm for democratic participation unprecedented in my lifetime. And just who has most inspired this development? A liberal who will govern from the center when he should, a former constitutional law professor who treasures that document too much to tamper with its timeless foundation.
Now is hardly the time to suddenly be concerned with leadership that “fundamentally changes our balance of power.” After eight years of Dick Cheney, most Americans are looking forward to a restoration of civil liberties, not further erosion. And despite partisan efforts at demonization through rhetoric, “activism” swings both ways. Recent appointments to the Supreme Court have brought us Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas—all far more ideological and passionate in their views than, say, Stephen Breyer — a Bill Clinton appointee.
Shaunti and I agree on one important thing this week: Obama’s election makes us proud to be Americans. The morning after, my youngest daughter Katie grinned upon hearing the results. Then a frown crossed over her face. “But how will Barack Obama get into the White House?” she asked me, clearly remembering our visit last summer. “He doesn’t have the keys and the gate is locked.”
I reached down and gave her a squeeze. I thought about the huge volunteer party I had witnessed the night before. Complete strangers, black and white, gazed at a television screen in disbelief before falling, crying, into one another’s arms.
“Not anymore” I told her.
.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By kimberly
November 7, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this
Hope.
Sure, that may sound trite and naive, but when you don’t have it, you sure do miss it. We still have the same problems we did last week: a tumbling economy, the bottom of which no one seems to be able to predict, a sense of betrayal by our leaders who lied to us and stretched our national defense and fine soldiers thinner than we ever imagined, the ongoing NON-resolution of our beef with Osama Bin Laden, the expansion of executive powers and secrecy, and the reduction of civil rights and individual power over our own lives, the looting of our collective wallets by (now taxpayer supported) unregulated financial geniuses, and the wholesale theft of our treasury by people who’ve done everything possible to avoid putting any of that money back into our own government or economy, mind-boggling debt and continuing dependence on unfriendly nations and no clear path to independence, millions of Americans who can barely make ends meet, bankruptcy and foreclosure nipping at their heels, who can’t afford medical care, and whose children are receiving substandard educations and dropout rates that prepare them for little beyond basic labor.
But this week, HOPE has been added to the equation. THANK YOU! I don’t know about you, but really (bleeping) needed that!!!!
By Gale
November 7, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
I disagree with Shounti’s idea of doing what is right in reference to the courts. But Andrea’s response was limp. She needs to get over her election euphoria and move on. Another liberal judge on the Supreme Court would be welcome for me. I want a living constitution. But I don’t want the court so liberal -or conservative- that it tramples on the Constitution. As for the President, balance is needed.
Two things off topic. Thank you Archie for your comment on my last post. Two: In the elction flurry, I missed the passing of a great American. Studs Terkel died Oct 31 at 96 years old. If you never hear Studs radio programs, you missed a consumate story teller and observer of American life.
By Archie
November 7, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
I echo Kimberly in that maybe HOPE is the most important ramification of this election because too many people don’t have health insurance that work everyday and I hope that gets fixed. As for supreme court appointees, what I would like to say to Shanti and those of her ilk is that Barack can nominate who he wants to the Supreme Court not who you want. It’s amazing that some folk are okay when they win and get their way but they still want to control the issues,policies,etc. when they lose. Obama must bring the troops home from Iraq and it is my understanding we’re already in the process of drawing down. Shanti you are not going to like what Obama does politically,plain and simple, and I don’t think he should govern from the center but I think he needs to keep the promises he made because that’s why the people voted for him. Obama needs to implement the plans he has spoken about for the last two years because you can’t please everybody as Bush said he’s the decision-maker. I think it’s most important that Obama go forward with all of his plans and if the people don’t like they will, they will vote somebody else into office but you can’t be afraid to do what you promised.
By Mara
November 7, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
Shaunti wrote - …because activist judges are by definition less conservative, they are activist in only one direction
LOL! At least Shaunti is honest about the whole “activist” judge canard. She says right out loud that if a judge rules FOR the liberal POV, he is, by definition an “activist”…but if he supports the conservative argument he’s obviously an impartial and honest jurist.
This has always been understood, but it’s nice to see a conservative finally willing to ‘fess up!
By chuck
November 7, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
They funniest comment of the day Andrea:
A liberal who will govern from the center when he should
Don’t you know that liberals NEVER govern from the center, just as Conservatives never govern from the center?
If they believe what they say, THEY CAN’T. Bill Clinton is a perfect example. What was the FIRST THING he did when he took office? He tried to overturn centuries of military tradition and common sense by allowing gays into the military. The country said no. Now, was a compromise reached? Yes, but it was a bad one. “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” became the policy because some Republicans went back on PRINCIPLES they SAID they believed in and compromised.
My point is that IF CLINTON truly believed in that issue, he would not have settled for DADT. He would have fought for full inclusion. If not for a few liberal republicans, the compromise never would have been reached. Those Republicans who truly believed that the policy would be BAD for the military, held firm. They would not even broach the idea of compromise on the issue. Clinton doesn’t care deeply about ANYTHING except self-gratification. I think most of us would agree on that based on his record. He was great at PRETENDING that he did. He was willing to compromise on EVERY ISSUE, including those which he claimed were deeply held convictions. Contrary to popular belief, willingness to compromise is not NECESSARILY a virtue.
IF Barack HUSSEIN HAMAS Obama is a TRUE liberal, he will follow through on his campaign promises. I don’t think that many Americans who voted for him were actually paying attention to what he SAID he was going to do. If he does WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO, he will take this country much farther to the left than anyone has imagined EXCEPT that 20% or so in this country who actually WANT HIM TO DO THAT. That 30% in the MIDDLE that voted for him is going to be shocked at that.
Watch him. If he begins compromising right away on issues that he says are core beliefs, that will mean that we have a POLITICIAN as president and NOT A LIBERAL.
By Sunshine
November 7, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
Good Morning all! Maybe I shouldn’t but, oh well, completely off topic, (well except for Kimerly’s shout out to hope! YEAH!) a snippet from Mr. Morford’s column today, thought it might provoke some interesting discussion about the almighty. What do you think?
Let me suggest it outright: The vast majority of Yes on 8 voters seem to have been motivated, at least in part, by this sad misunderstanding of God, this harsh spiritual slant that supports a discriminatory, micromanager Almighty who fully endorses marital bliss, but only for some.
(Interestingly, I believe this is the same God who, until recently, didn’t allow whites to marry blacks. Or women to vote. Or slaves to be free. Or people to get divorced. Or women to become priests. Or humans to wear condoms. Hmm.)
Then again, when you put it that way, the ugly fight for Prop. 8 makes perfect sense. After all, hetero marriage is all organized religion really has left, their last vestige of power and control. Everything else they fought so hard to inject into the national agenda — intelligent design, God’s war against Muslims, the end of reproductive choice, more prayer in schools, abstinence education, et al — not only failed, but failed spectacularly. No wonder they’re clinging to this old, failed idea of marriage so violently.
So let me correct myself. I don’t blame God. I certainly don’t blame the kind of fluid, open-throated spiritual awareness that promotes, rather than denigrates, all forms of consensual love, that understands the human soul is ever in flux and must, like the society that forms around it, be allowed to grow and evolve lest it stumble and atrophy and vote Republican.
I do not blame God. I blame a very gloomy, revisionist version of the divine, a sour and demeaning mindset that believes in restriction, constriction, dread.
The good news is, I think Prop. 8’s desperate, last-gasp victory merely reveals that this hollow, homophobic version of God is waning, sliding, fighting for its last taste of relevance, soon to be replaced by something just a bit more dynamic and open-hearted and, well, truly divine.
The bad news is, it’s just going to take a bit longer than we’d hoped.
By Monica
November 7, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
What’s the most important ramification of the election? NO MORE CAMPAIGN ADS ON TV. :) I was bummed when I heard about the runoff between Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin; their ads are by far the most annoying - both of them!
By Gale
November 7, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
I heard a commentary that I think I agree with as the biggest ramification for Obama’s election. American has proved it is ready for a black president. Is black America ready for a black president. His comment, or what I heard from his comments, had a lot to do with expectations. There is a great deal sitting on the shoulders of the first family. They will be a role model for all Americans. Will black America be ready to follow this lead and not the professional athlete lead that so many youngsters have followed for years?
By chuck
November 7, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
Archie:
I don’t think he should govern from the center but I think he needs to keep the promises he made because that’s why the people voted for him. Obama needs to implement the plans he has spoken about for the last two years because you can’t please everybody as Bush said he’s the decision-maker.
This is the conundrum for Obama. IF HE DOES WHAT HE SAID, he will most assuredly NOT BE re-elected. If he DOESN’T DO IT, if in other words he “governs from the center”, the liberals will turn on him. I think that HE WILL GOVERN FROM THE LEFT. Our only hope is that the 42-43 republicans hold firm and filibuster EVERYTHING.
By Sunshine
November 7, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
IF HE DOES WHAT HE SAID, he will most assuredly NOT BE re-elected—Weren’t you the same guys that said he wouldn’t be elected this time? I don’t think I will take your opinion as fact. The hard right is dying a slow death, and this election was a testament to that.
By BJ
November 7, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
I think Obama is going to disappoint a lot of people — namely, those who voted for him. He can’t possibly come through on his campaign promises. His message of “change” now has to be put into action. He knows this too. He made it clear in his acceptance speech when he noted that “we may not be able to do it in 1 year or even 1 term” — wo, buddy, doing quite the backstep now that you’ve won the office, aren’t you?
When he’s compared to Kennedy, that’s really spot on. Kennedy won on this dream and “Camelot” thing.. but he had no idea what he was doing either. Particularly when it came to foreign policy. Obama has bitten off way more than he can possibly chew. But, hey, you elected him. So, here we go!
By chuck
November 7, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
Sunshine, that article shows that the left really has NO IDEA what conservative Christianity is all about. We support policies based on the God of the BIBLE. That is not open to REVISION for us. Those tenets have been the same for thousands of years. WHO THEN ARE THE REVISIONISTS?
It’s the ones who have TRIED to change Who God is. Those are LIBERALS, who want to believe in God, but aren’t willing to accept Him as HE IS. They want Him to CONFORM to their social “gospel”. That’s why Jesus said:
Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
God doesn’t conform to us, He EXPECTS US TO CONFORM TO HIM. He is truly a God of LOVE, but He is also a God of JUDGEMENT.
Gale, I wonder if you are right. Will Obama be “black enough” for black America?
By Andrea
November 7, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
GALE—
“She needs to get over her election euphoria and move on.”
With all due respect:
No. I. Don’t.
as always, thanks for reading our column! andrea
By Sunshine
November 7, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
WHO THEN ARE THE REVISIONISTS?— Well I would say that King James was one of them, or do you read the original Greek and Hebrew texts yourself Chuck?
By Sunshine
November 7, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
Those are LIBERALS—Yeah, like that guy, what was his name? Oh yeah, Martin Luther!
By Gale
November 7, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
Sunshine, the hard right may be dying a slow death, but if Obama does implement all the liberal ideals he presented, the hard right will be hard against him, and the starry-eyed moderates who thought they wanted change will dig in their heels and say, “I didn’t think you meant that!”
By k
November 7, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
I find it funny how some people claim, at great length, to know the inner hearts and minds and capabilities of people they’ve never met or shared a personal conversation with. “They CAN’T! They NEVER……! They TRULY BELIEVE….. They ONLY care about…. ” How could one possibly be so sure? Sounds like someone snagged a super deal on a crystal ball at one of those church-sponsored white elephant sales. Haha! Riddle: Why do you suppose God gave us TWO ears, but only ONE mouth? Anyone?
By chuck
November 7, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
SUNSHINE, you can believe it or not, but I would bet on it. The VAST MAJORITY of people don’t have a CLUE what he stands for. When Howard Stern sent “reporters” out on the street he pretty much proved that most people don’t know anything about the issues. It’s sad really, but MOST of the people who voted for him, did so for reasons OTHER THAN HIS POSITION on the issues. Some because they hate Bush, some because he seems to be something different, some because he’s black, some because he just happened to be the NON-REPUBLICAN in the race. Here’s an example:
In California 70% of Blacks voted in favor of Prop 8. Obama is in favor of Gay Marriage (though he uses different terms for it). These same blacks who voted for him at a rate of 96%, don’t share his values on that issue. In fact, over 30 states have enacted similar legislation…60% of the states. The bottom line is that only about 20-25% of Americans identify themselves as liberals.
By Sunshine
November 7, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
Hey Chuck, I think instead of taking “god’s words” as you say out of context and cherry picking what you want the bible to say you should try reading in in context, as a body of work it has much more wisdom that way. From your same Book, same Chapter: Mathew 7:1-5:
Judging Others 1”Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3”Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
I will play sward drills with you any time!
By k
November 7, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
Haha! High five to Andrea! I’ll ride mine for awhile too. You’re free to hang out with the Republicans if we’re too cheerful for you.
By Gale
November 7, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
Andrea, Ok, keep the euphoria. But don’t bring it into every debate from now on, please, with all respect.
By JokesOn
November 7, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this
If they believe what they say, THEY CAN’T. Bill Clinton is a perfect example. What was the FIRST THING he did when he took office? He tried to overturn centuries of military tradition and common sense by allowing gays into the military. The country said no. Now, was a compromise reached? Yes, but it was a bad one. “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” became the policy because some Republicans went back on PRINCIPLES they SAID they believed in and compromised.
Sounds exactly like “governing from the center.” Both parties have beliefs, and Clinton had his beliefs, but they all bend those beliefs based on the need to reach a compromise, which is a good thing. People on both sides of the issue may not be real happy, since no one gets everything they want, but dealing with the reality and not the ideal is part of being mature.
Most adults know that their candidate is going to present their ideal policies during their campaign, which can be very different from what they have to do in reality. What’s the point then? We know what is driving their compass and understand when detours occur that the general trend will conform to that compass. It is not necessary that each and every decision will be dictated by it.
By chuck
November 7, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this
SUNSHINE, there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a TRANSLATION and a REVISION. AND BTW, yes I do. I have “parallel” Bibles that have the Greek/Hebrew texts in a column beside the English. I often pull out greek/Hebrew dictionaries as I study.
By chuck
November 7, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
I didn’t take anything out of context at all Sunshine. JESUS HIMSELF said that MORE PEOPLE will go to hell than will go to heaven. THAT is God’s Judgement. NOT MINE. He calls HIS PEOPLE to follow HIS WORD. We are Christians 100% of the time. We don’t compromise in areas where the Word of God is CLEAR. We don’t “go along to get along”. We obviously don’t get to make the decision for the country, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN WE SHOULDN’T TRY TO.
By JokesOn
November 7, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this
SUNSHINE, there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a TRANSLATION and a REVISION. AND BTW, yes I do. I have “parallel” Bibles that have the Greek/Hebrew texts in a column beside the English. I often pull out greek/Hebrew dictionaries as I study.
Calling bs.
I have repeatedly asked chuck if he knew the Greek translation for words like homosexual, and he blanked. (the point being that there are none - so in translating, they changed words; which is revision)
By chuck
November 7, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this
How about the very next verse that you conveniently left out:
6”Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
By chuck
November 7, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
In other words, don’t expect heathens to understand the meat of the Word of God.
By rick
November 7, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
well said andrea. well said…
By Sunshine
November 7, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
We obviously don’t get to make the decision for the country, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN WE SHOULDN’T TRY TO.— Wow, the religiousness right FINALLY admits their true agenda! Way to go Chuck! I am really proud of you for tell the truth about what you and your ilk believe!
By GOB
November 7, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this
In other words, don’t expect heathens to understand the meat of the Word of God.
But you, Chuck the Middle School Teacher, are in a position to tell us exactly what God and Jesus think about issues like gay marriage, taxes, gays in the military and civil rights (althought thankfully for blacks, God changed his mind on this one in the late 60’s).
And surely you see the irony of responding to a verse that says dont be a judgemental as* by being a judgemental as*.
By JokesOn
November 7, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
6”Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
Sounds like that could be applied to legislating xian morality through the government…
By k
November 7, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
Since we’re having Sunday School on Friday, I have a question: “Heathens, dogs, pigs….” How does one man know which pejorative label to place on another man (whom he may or may not actually know) while at the same time following a directive from his LORD and MASTER to “Judge not?” Just curious.
By GOB
November 7, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
and to piggyback on what JokesOn said, if you really believe that what you are reading in the Bible is just a translation, and not a collection of revisions, you clearly dont understand as much as you claim to about the origins of the book.
By Sunshine
November 7, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
AND BTW, yes I do. I have “parallel” Bibles that have the Greek/Hebrew texts in a column beside the English.—You do realize that these “parallels” do NOT have the texts that were OMITTED in your so called “translation”, I personally believe when you EDIT things out you are REVISING a body of work, but you know me, I am just kinda crazy like that, reading the definition of words and that sort of thing!
By Monica
November 7, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
Sunshine, Mr. Morford’s commentary does not accurately portray the God that I worship. However, the Bible is clear about marriage being between a man and a woman. I’m not casting judgment; I am simply stating the definition of marriage defined by the Bible. SO, in that sense, there is a discrimination about who can enjoy marital bliss.
THAT SAID, if we had a true separation of church and State, marriage would not be a term that is used in politics since it is founded on religious principles. I think Netbanker brought this point up at some point in time - something about the differences between civil unions and marriage.
I may be completely in the dark about this issue but to me, it appears that there are only two benefits afforded to married couples that are not afforded to “unioned” or co-habitating couples: income tax deductions and health insurance dependents. The “flat tax” plan would eliminate one of those benefits. I’ll get back to you on the health insurance one. Give me time to come up with a solution besides National Health Care. :)
By JokesOn
November 7, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this
k,
Since we’re having Sunday School on Friday, I have a question: “Heathens, dogs, pigs….” How does one man know which pejorative label to place on another man (whom he may or may not actually know) while at the same time following a directive from his LORD and MASTER to “Judge not?” Just curious.
Chuck has explained to us in the past that he is led by the holy spirit in his judging others.
By Craig Spinks
November 7, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
Hope is not only audacious but also inspirational.
By Sunshine
November 7, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
Hi Monica! Can you please quote the chapter and verse that says this: “However, the Bible is clear about marriage being between a man and a woman.” specifically that uses some form of the word marriage?
By Gale
November 7, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
Monica, Folks who have checked the facts say there are some 1100+ rights and responsibilities granted to the contract of marriage that are not afforded to civil unions. The foremost in my mind and the one that riles the most is that a civil union is only valid in the state that registers it. You move to a different state, you can start all over. Most homosexuals will agree that churches can continue to marry couples as they see fit. As long as marriage is a civil contract in America, it should be available to a citizens who are of legal age of either sex.
By GOB
November 7, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this
Monica is absolutely right about the only way to truly solve the “marriage” issue. Get the government out of the “marriage” business altogether. They can issue civil union permits at the county courthouse which afford the couple all the rights and privileges that current married couples have.
Then if a couple wants to get married, they can go to their church and be “married.” Now the government isn’t discriminating against anyone, and nothing changes for the church either. Seems simple, but I think the christians would go ape if it were ever proposed on a national level.
By Sunshine
November 7, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
As long as marriage is a civil contract in America, it should be available to a citizens who are of legal age of either sex. Gale gets the TIARA for today!
By Sunshine
November 7, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
GOB—I agree with Seems simple, but I think the christians would go ape if it were ever proposed on a national level. but what I can’t seem to figure out is WHY? WHY do they care sooooooooo much about what other people do with themselves? How could it possibly effect a christian if two people buy a house together, or are on each others insurance, or leave property to each other, or visit the other in the hospital, or register at pottery barn and pick out silverware together, why in the HECK do they care?
By Sunshine
November 7, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this
Ta-ta all, I hate to stir things up and run but I know Gale, GOB, JokesOn and USinUK (where are you today sweetie?) can take it from here! I am off to my new second job. YES to my amazement in my 6th month of pregnancy I had an interview and got hired for a 2nd job to counter act the slow downs at my other job. Today is my first day, so I hope it goes well, and I hope I can keep up a 55 hour+ work week during my Third Trimester! Have a great weekend everyone!
By GOB
November 7, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this
Sunshine - It wouldnt effect them in any way at all, but they have been taught to fear homosexuals so much that anything having to do with them is turned into some national crisis that will destroy us all.
The christian church has demonized sex to such a huge degree that when anything having to do with gays is brought up, it is sex that they think of, not the other things that make up life and marriage.
By Monica
November 7, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this
Sunshine, Here is the first one:
Genesis 2:21-24 says, “21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribsh and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the ribi he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Also, Christ refers to this passage in Matthew 19:4-6, when the Pharisees ask him about divorce. Hope this helps.:)
By Mara
November 7, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
FYI - it wasn’t until the Council of Trent in the 1500’s that the church became even peripherially involved in the institute of “marriage”. Prior to this meddling, part of the Catholic Church’s grasp for power, the union was considered a private matter and no business of either church or state.
really though, it serves no purpose to argue with those who, through ignorance or willful disregard of fact, claim Biblical inerrancy. We’ve argued over this before.
Some people just refuse to accept that not every word has an equivelent in other languages. Or that certain words can have multiple meanings, or may mean one thing in one language and something different in another. Nor that syntax, colloquialisms, slang, or language shifts might, just possibly, affect the translated meaning of a given text.
To people like this, belief equals fact even when empirical evidence contradicts that belief. It’s a waste of breath to try to convince them.
and HUZZAH to Gale for “As long as marriage is a civil contract in America, it should be available to a citizens who are of legal age of either sex.”
By Monica
November 7, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
Gale, can you point me in the right direction for researching the rights that are only given to married folks? Thanks!
By Monica
November 7, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
Sunshine, I am sorry! I mis-read your question. The word “marriage” didn’t exist until Anglo Saxon time, I believe, or Medieval France. I thought you meant the context of a marriage being between a man and woman. oops :)
By AF
November 7, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
Shaunti, honey, I think you have your words a little mixed up.
Obama would “push the Supreme Court and our entire court system in a direction that fundamentally changes our balance of power and how our Constitution is viewed.” It is the purpose of the Supreme Court to assure a balance of power between the branches of government. Maybe, if we can get enough impartial justices, they can decide if the office of Vice President is in the legislative or the executive branch and end the kind of chicanery practiced by Mr. Chaney.
“Impartial judges with lifetime appointments were a balance of power to elected legislators and chief executives whose creation of law based on personal preferences had to answer to “we the people.” No, that one is just flat out incorrect. The actions of the legislators and chief executives had to answer to the Constitution.
In fact, one of the goals of the writers of the Constitution was to prevent the “tyranny of the majority.” That is, the Constitution would keep a majority (“we the people”) from depriving a minority (I guess we will call them “them”) of rights guaranteed in the Constitution. “We the people” can still do whatever it is they want to do that is not permitted by the Constitution - by amending it. A thing the writers of our Constitution very wisely made much harder to do by requiring any change be approved by two thirds of the states.
I do want impartial judges, so I agree with you on that one. It is just all in what “impartial” means.
By Jack
November 7, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
I didn’t want Obama to win but he did. We should stand behind him because wether we like him or not he is going to be the HMFIC. Everyone should get their gardening, hunting and fishing skills up to par just in case another 9/11 x 2 or 3 comes up. The bad guys are drooling right now. We should be ready and God help us all.
By Bruno
November 7, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
I echo Kimberly in that maybe HOPE is the most important ramification of this election
I am never one who downplays the importance of hope, both on a personal level and on a national level. However, hope is meaningful only when you have solid policies in place which lead to a well-functioning system.
Obama’s entire campaign was based on restoring “hope” to those who felt disenfranchised the past 8 years. I respect that. At the same time, many of the proposals which Obama made during the campaign will lead to financial ruin for our country if implemented. Specifically, his proposal to raise capital gains tax is just plain stupid. Saddling the capital providers with additional taxes in the middle of a recession will do nothing except prolong the recession. In addition, Obama’s proposal to nationalize health care is also going to severely cripple our economy, IMO.
The best I can hope for at this point is that Obama makes a sharp turn toward the middle in the two months before he takes office. I personally believe a lot of his rhetoric about foreign policy was nothing more than hot air as well. Once he becomes more privy to the REAL situation around the globe (e.g. Iran’s and Russia’s aggression toward their neighbors), I believe he will be singing a different tune.
All just my opinions, of course.
By jhpoke
November 7, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
Republican filibuster will be the last nail in the neo-con coffin.
With a Obama as prez it will be shown that neo-cons’s are the road-block of progress in America and the world.
The neo-cons’s have been lucky in the last 2 years. The threat of filibuster (record number by the way) has been enough to cause Reid to knuckle under. He also knew that the veto by Bush (a very large number) was always looming.
They won’t be so lucky this time. There is someone in power that will call their bluff and identify those that cause the lack of progress.
By Mara
November 7, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
Jack - …wether (sic) we like him or not he is going to be the HMFIC
don’t you think we should give him a chance to fail before we start hitting him with perjoratives like “HMFIC”?
By Fandalf, the White!
November 7, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
A new name for our country!! We are now OBAMASTAN! Hope in one hand kimberly…U Dum BASS!
By Jack
November 7, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
Hi mara. You don’t know what HMFIC stands for? I was not intending to use it in a derogatory way. Who wouldn’t want to be the head mother f——- in charge?
By Bruno
November 7, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this
But in recent decades we’ve seen activist judges ascribe to the “Living Constitution” theory and essentially create policy based on how they feel the world should be - something supposedly reserved for elected representatives. Further, because activist judges are by definition less conservative, they are activist in only one direction, creating a purely ideological, not judicial, liberal check on the will of the people.
Though most of you Libs on board automatically dismiss Shaunti’s arguments out of hand, I think she is raising an incredibly important point today. Just a few years ago, the brain-dead liberal SC justices handed down the worst court decision that I’m aware of within our lifetimes: a radical expansion of the “eminent domain” laws by which any municipality could arbitrarily seize your property as long as they deemed that it was for the “public good”. Never mind the fact that our Constitution allows for this taking of land only when said land is for “public use”, e.g schools, highways, etc. Under this “activist reinterpretation” of the Constitution, land can be seized for basically any imaginative reason, most often so that redevelopment can take place to increase the tax revenue from a given property. Under this new law, many, many people have been forced out of their homes and businesses by local govt’s.
I don’t know how any of you here feel about personal property rights, but IMO they are as close to sacred as any man-made law can be. One of the tenets of socialism and communism is “collectivism”, in which resources like property are owned by the state and not by individuals.
By USinUK
November 7, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
Sunshine -
YES to my amazement in my 6th month of pregnancy I had an interview and got hired for a 2nd job to counter act the slow downs at my other job. Today is my first day, so I hope it goes well, and I hope I can keep up a 55 hour+ work week during my Third Trimester! Have a great weekend everyone!
hey squirrelly girly!! take care of yourself, you 2-job-working crazy woman. rest as much as you can and make sure you’re eating right.
chuck -
Barack HUSSEIN HAMAS Obama
Obama won. he won big - including traditionally red states. get over it. really - you look like a complete idiot when you say crap like that.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 7, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
No one has waterboarded me in the last 8 years, no one has suppressed my free speech, no one has suspened Habius Corpus on me, no one has done one thing to suppress my liberties. But guess what? Obamasti terrorisst will suppress talk radio. Either put on a liberal show or go off the air. guess what most of them will do? Go off the air. I just hope some lawsuit proves rags like this one are liberal and make them post opposing views, or simple fold. Your rights will suffer greatly in the next 4 years, or however long it takes before the impeachment can begin. This man is a threat to the American way of life. I shall be the one who says I told you so. Be araid be very afraid!
By Fandalf, the White!
November 7, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
SUUNSHINE? WHAT ABOUT POLIGAMY? WHAT ABOUT MARRAIGE TO A CONSENTING GOAT? The most liberal state in the nation said heck no to this Obamanation! Adjust you view missy!
By Fandalf, the White!
November 7, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
SUUNSHINE? WHAT ABOUT POLIGAMY? WHAT ABOUT MARRAIGE TO A CONSENTING GOAT? The most liberal state in the nation said heck no to this Obamanation! Adjust you view missy!
By USinUK
November 7, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this
Bruno -
Specifically, his proposal to raise capital gains tax is just plain stupid. Saddling the capital providers with additional taxes in the middle of a recession will do nothing except prolong the recession.
… for people who make more than $250K/year ($200K if you’re single) - they can afford the hit.
meanwhile, he’s giving a tax break to the middle-class - the folks who have EARNED a break.
so, I won’t be shedding any tears for the land speculators who have to pay capital gains the properties they bought. they were one of the huge factors that caused the housing bubble in the first place, as you and I have discussed.
By Bruno
November 7, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this
One last observation regarding the election: It seems to me that the only people making a big deal about Obama’s ethnicity are the liberals. In my experience, conservatives are the more “color-blind” group, focusing more on a person’s accomplishments than their skin color. With the liberals, it’s all about skin color.
So, just who is the more racist group?
By Monica
November 7, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
Hi UsinUK! The people I worry about are those like my friend who has a small business. On paper, he makes 250 K, but that’s before he pays his overhead costs. He doesn’t really make anywhere that much, but he is afraid that he will close his business because he won’t be able to afford to pay taxes.
By Gale
November 7, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
Genesis 2:21-24 is part of the Bible creation story. Please note that every religion/mythology has a creation story. It is not the rule of law for everything that follows, primarily because it is a story created by mankind to explain what he did not understand.
Monica, here you go, the GAO report. http://www.gao. gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf (copy, paste, remove space after gao)
By USinUK
November 7, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this
Jack -
I was not intending to use it in a derogatory way. Who wouldn’t want to be the head mother f——- in charge?
oh, THAT’S what HMFIC stands for … hahahahaha … I’m kinda with you on this one!
Bruno -
fwiw, I agree with you on finding the Kelo case abhorrent - however, the SC had a precedent in the Midkiff case (eminent domain for the public good) - I believe that case was from the 1950s.
By Bruno
November 7, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this
for people who make more than $250K/year ($200K if you’re single) - they can afford the hit.
USinUK—You of all people should understand the risk that anyone, whether “rich” or “poor”, takes when they put their capital on the line. Then, when you rig the rules of the game such that you are taxed heavily if you succeed, it hardly makes it worth the risk in the first place. As such, if faced with a substantial increase in the capital gains tax, I can forsee a lot of “rich” people saying “screw it” and not investing their money to begin with. If that happens, none of us will have jobs.
I just wish that you and Obama could get past all of the “class envy” you seem to exhibit when castigating the “rich”. Capital investment is what drives our system. Period. History has shown that when capital gains taxes are lowered, investment goes up, and all boats rise with the rising tide. When capital gains taxes are raised, the opposite occurs. Obama is already on record as saying that he is unconcerned with this historical truth, that it is strictly a matter of “fairness”. From what I have heard many times, the top 10% of wage earners already pay around 70% of the total tax burden, while the bottom 40% pay nothing. Obama wants to go one better for the bottom wage earners by sending them checks. In my world, that is known as “welfare”.
By Bruno
November 7, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this
Gale, if you are still on board, I would like to know specifically which legal rights you and your partner are currently denied by being a homosexual couple. From my understanding, all of the civil rights afforded to “straight” couples can be had through legal filings (power of attorney, etc.). Please correct me if I am wrong.
BTW, my best friend, who happens to be a gay man, opposes gay marriage for a litany of reasons, one of which is the legal necessity to become divorced if the union ends.
By JokesOn
November 7, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this
bruno,
One last observation regarding the election: It seems to me that the only people making a big deal about Obama’s ethnicity are the liberals. In my experience, conservatives are the more “color-blind” group, focusing more on a person’s accomplishments than their skin color. With the liberals, it’s all about skin color.
So, just who is the more racist group?
Didn’t you just recently post something about dims on here negatively generalizing repubs?
But, since you brought it up: In my experience, conservatives are the more “color-blind” group, focusing more on a person’s accomplishments than their skin color.
Exactly. They focus on others who have accomplished financial stability, or inherited those accomplishments from their parents, as the “in-group.” They watch out for their own.
Unfortunately, many of those fall along racial lines, which they ignore and tout as coincidence; not a function of being from a privileged background.
By USinUK
November 7, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this
Bruno -
conservatives are the more “color-blind” group, focusing more on a person’s accomplishments than their skin color. With the liberals, it’s all about skin color. So, just who is the more racist group?
first of all, go back and YouTube coverage of the GOP convention, then YouTube coverage of the Dem convention - I believe you’ll see a pretty big difference in the delegates. GOP “Big Tent”, indeed.
secondly, I can’t believe YOU are saying this, when just this week you were calling libs to task, accusing us of saying that the Dems are more moral than the Repubs. And now, you’re doing EXACTLY what you accuse us of!!!??? you might want to rethink this tack, my friend, it leads nowhere good.
By Gale
November 7, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
Since Gandalf brought it up, does the Bible say anything about polygamy or the cessation of same? I know multiple wives were ok at one time. (Multiple husbands too in other cultures that were not patriarcal) Property rights are a big reason behind forbidding polygamy. But if the Bible mentions it, by the same logic the anti-gay marriage folks use, we should allow it. (I feel like I am throwing gas on a fire.) But Gandalf, no goats. Both parties must be citizens capable of making a legal contract.
By k
November 7, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
Our country is already ruined financially. They ran out of spaces on the big national debt board when we hit ten trillion. Defeat was admitted (though evident long ago) when our Congress dropped everything to issue an emergency bailout of $700 billion, and favoritism was proven when that money was then given to the people who screwed up the economy in the first place. BTW, all that money is BORROWED, since we’re operating at a deficit, something the preachers of finanical repsonsibility and self-reliance condemn daily. Somebody has to PAY FOR THE WAR, you know. The never ending money pit into a country that didn’t attack us, in a country where Saddam was captured and executed long ago… where the money does not come back to us in the form of tax revenue or local jobs… where THEIR treasury is flush while ours is in negative numbers. During every debate and every speech about cutting taxes, I wanted to say, “HOW YA GONNA PAY FOR THE WAR, JOHN?” It sure as heck hasn’t paid for itself (as we were told), now has it?
I may be a dreamer, but I think “tax & spend” beats “borrow & spend” any day of the week. Spending will not stop, so get over it. Spending should be done more wisely, more strategically, and more honestly, IMO! How will that happen? We can begin by holding our officials at EVERY level of government accountable. That means pulling your head out of your own a—, looking around, paying attention, and communicating with your neighbors and your representatives about what they’re doing.
-> Who here can name their city council rep or state legislator without looking it up? -> If yes, do you know what he supported last term? Have you ever written to him/her about your concerns? -> State Senator? (Did you know before the campaign signs went up on the corner last month?) -> Ever written to your Congressman or Senator? -> Public service commissioner? Lt. Governor? Insurance Commissioner? Attorney General? -> Joined a civic group to improve your community in some way? (say yes if you’re active in your church doing something tangibly useful, not just judging) -> Literacy or school volunteer?
If no to all the above, then you’ve basically left all the work to someone else and have no business whining. But that’s just my opinion.
By Bruno
November 7, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
With all due respect: No. I. Don’t. as always, thanks for reading our column! andrea
To andrea and the liberal peanut gallery: Feel free to crow as long as you want. Just remember that come January, your man and your party are going to have to start taking responsibility for everything under the sun, including natural disasters like Hurrican Katrina, in the same way you tried to blame Bush for every perceived downturn the past 8 years. We conservatives will try not to be as negative as y’all have been.
By Bruno
November 7, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this
Didn’t you just recently post something about dims on here negatively generalizing repubs?
secondly, I can’t believe YOU are saying this, when just this week you were calling libs to task, accusing us of saying that the Dems are more moral than the Repubs. And now, you’re doing EXACTLY what you accuse us of!!!??? you might want to rethink this tack, my friend, it leads nowhere good.
Just stirring the pot a little today, guys!! I should have put a smiley icon after that post. ; > }
By USinUK
November 7, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this
Monica -
I worry about are those like my friend who has a small business. On paper, he makes 250 K, but that’s before he pays his overhead costs. He doesn’t really make anywhere that much, but he is afraid that he will close his business because he won’t be able to afford to pay taxes.
I don’t know how he has his business set up, but when I had my business, you paid taxes on what you made AFTER taking out for overhead, not on the gross income.
Buno -
Then, when you rig the rules of the game such that you are taxed heavily if you succeed, it hardly makes it worth the risk in the first place. As such, if faced with a substantial increase in the capital gains tax, I can forsee a lot of “rich” people saying “screw it” and not investing their money to begin with. If that happens, none of us will have jobs.
fercryingoutloud, he’s not raising taxes to 85% - in fact, the amount he’s proposing is still lower than capital gains taxes were during the Reagan administration.
and, I’m sorry, but short-term gains are what has put this country in the pickle it currently finds itself. capital gains taxes, if structured properly, can reward people for long-term investment rather than short-term churn.
By Bruno
November 7, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
I may be a dreamer, but I think “tax & spend” beats “borrow & spend” any day of the week. Spending will not stop, so get over it.
k—I’m totally with you regarding the “borrow and spend” policies of the past 8 years (and under Reagan and Bush I before). However, I part company with you in your view that unchecked spending has to be the norm.
Call me a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. Snark.
By Mara
November 7, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
hey, Jack. Yeah, I know what it means. But I’ve only ever heard it used as a sneer, usually in reference to a certain manager who believes he’s more important (and more competent) than he actually is.
Bruno - something like 95% of the public disagreed with Kelo v New London. That means it wasn’t just conservatives, or even conservatives and moderates, that thought the Supremes were nuts. But they didn’t make the ruling out of “activism”, they followed precedent…which is what the courts are supposed to do. The finding ALSO galvanized lawmakers into proposing and passing legislation that specifically barred this type of taking. In most states, a situation like Kelo can no longer happen, which one assumes most people will find to be a good thing.
On the “activist judges” claim though, don’t you find it odd that the only time a judge is considered “activist” is when s/he rules against what conservatives consider “the right way”? Even when precident and case law DEMAND such rulings? As I posted upthread…Shaunti actually said out loud what many of us have long known, “because activist judges are by definition less conservative,they are activist in only one direction” which is kind of a collary to the principle of IOKIRDI.
By USinUK
November 7, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this
Bruno -
Feel free to crow as long as you want. Just remember that come January, your man and your party are going to have to start taking responsibility for everything under the sun, including natural disasters like Hurrican Katrina, in the same way you tried to blame Bush for every perceived downturn the past 8 years. We conservatives will try not to be as negative as y’all have been.
I don’t know what bug you have up your butt today, but you need to get yourself rid of it - you’re sounding a lot like TOJ’s a*-ish-ness when you say crap like that. you’re a better person than that.
You are welcome to blame the new administration and new congress for what IT does or doesn’t do - just promise us you’re not going to start on Jan 21 saying “Unemployment is 6.5% - you promised us you’d create jobs, blahblahblah” … in other words, don’t blame us for the sh!tpile we inherited from the current WH resident.
By Bruno
November 7, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this
fercryingoutloud, he’s not raising taxes to 85% - in fact, the amount he’s proposing is still lower than capital gains taxes were during the Reagan administration.
BTW, exactly WHAT figure IS Obama proposing for capital gains? From my recall, he has never named a specific figure, preferring to be vague about it.
By k
November 7, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this
Bruno, I never said “unchecked spending” should be the norm. I don’t know anyone who has, not even the most “liberal” politicians. Hence my entire rant about paying attention to what they’re doing with our money, in our name, and making our voices heard. Snark.
But I would like to correct my last post, where I said spending will go on. If there’s nothing left to spend, and nothing and no one left to spend it ON, then spending may well stop. Can’t imagine that to be a good thing, though. I guess that depends on your POV and how much contempt you have for everyone.
By Gale
November 7, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this
Bruno, yes you are wrong about gay couples being able to form contracts to match all of those granted for the price of a mariage license to straight couples. Here is one: When I die, my spousal benefits will return to the federal government rather than to my partner of many years. That one rankles because I am older and likely will go first. However, because I know someone will claim that it all comes down to money, agreements such as Power of Attorney will require an attorney setup and will need to be rewritten if we ever move to a different state.
A straight couple can get married in Las Vegas for next to nothing and all the same rights and responsibilities apply that would apply for the couple that planned a $50k wedding with 14 attendents. If my partner and I went to MA where it is still legal and got married, guess what status the state of GA gives us when we come home? Single. Even if the status of a civil union is equal inside a state, the rights do not travel outside the state of registry.
There are a number of gays that oppose marriage because of the divorce issue. Many more have already been in very long term relationships and are very unlikely to divorce. Believe it or not, many things about being a gay couple solidifies a relationship. I sometimes think the absense of children enables a couple, straight or gay to focus on each other. When we consider defense of marriage, divorce IS a big issue. Think what a reduction in divorce there would be if straight marriages were even a tenth as hard to get as a gay marriage?
By JokesOn
November 7, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
To andrea and the liberal peanut gallery: Feel free to crow as long as you want. Just remember that come January, your man and your party are going to have to start taking responsibility for everything under the sun, including natural disasters like Hurrican Katrina, in the same way you tried to blame Bush for every perceived downturn the past 8 years. We conservatives will try not to be as negative as y’all have been.
Bruno’s previous persona seems to be re-emerging.
Must we always have one person that fulfills the token a*******hole or something?
By Gale
November 7, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this
The PR at least, will have us believe Obama is hard at work putting an economic team together. True or not, I feel better knowing it won’t take 100 days after Jan 21 to work on the financial crisis after the current administration leaves. The best thing will be if the outgoing administration and the incoming administration can work together on the problem. That will be a win-win for all of us.
By Bruno
November 7, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
in other words, don’t blame us for the sh!tpile we inherited from the current WH resident.
Just poking at you, USinUK. Though you may not have noticed it, there has been a constanst negative drumbeat coming from the left for the past 8 years. Don’t you think a little payback is in order??
I’ll tell you what, I’ll save all my b***!ng for next January. Enjoy Obama’s victory until then. ; > }
By Bruno
November 7, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this
Bruno’s previous persona seems to be re-emerging.
JokesOn—I don’t see how you have much to so proud about with your ongoing flaming wars with chuck, TOJ, and Gandalf. In fact, you tried to nail me all last week with “fact-check” requests, but never once admitted you were wrong (e.g. that Obama is the most liberal Senator). Three pointing back at ya’.
By JokesOn
November 7, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
BTW, exactly WHAT figure IS Obama proposing for capital gains? From my recall, he has never named a specific figure, preferring to be vague about it.
Try learning about the candidate (president now) before starting….(have I not said this?)
You have proven you can listen some, but your ability of “self-starting” leaves a lot to be desired. You keep parroting the same crap.
Why would you expect a hard number? That is something that needs to be decided at the time.
By USinUK
November 7, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
Bruno -
BTW, exactly WHAT figure IS Obama proposing for capital gains? From my recall, he has never named a specific figure, preferring to be vague about it.
aRGH!!! Bruno, my good friend … would you please put a quarter on the table and BUY me a break??? I’ve sent you to articles outlining Obama’s economic plans. Jokesy has sent you to articles outlining Obama’s economic plans. You have just proven the adage that you can lead a horse to water … blahblahblah.
Here … again … from BusinessWeek, is Obama’s plan for capital gains taxes: Capital-Gains Taxes: Obama would again limit any increases in capital-gains rates, as well as taxes on dividends, to households making more than $250,000 or individuals bringing in more than $200,000. For those folks, he proposes increasing the maximum rate to somewhere between 20% and 25%. The highest rate during the Reagan administration was 33%
please. Bruno. Google. it’s your friend. (as am I)
By Gale
November 7, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
To andrea and the liberal peanut gallery: Feel free to crow as long as you want. Just remember that come January, your man and your party are going to have to start taking responsibility for everything under the sun, including natural disasters like Hurrican Katrina, in the same way you tried to blame Bush for every perceived downturn the past 8 years. We conservatives will try not to be as negative as y’all have been.
Gee, I didn’t find this comment as harsh as some apparently have. Sour grapes, yes. I’m all over that. I think this is another situation of text without body language to complete the meaning.
By Bruno
November 7, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this
Here is one: When I die, my spousal benefits will return to the federal government rather than to my partner of many years.
Good point, Gale. That is unfair.
Back to work, all.
By Bruno
November 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
Why would you expect a hard number?
somewhere between 20% and 25%. The highest rate during the Reagan administration was 33%
Apparently, your definition of “vague” is a little different from mine. McCain clearly said that he was going to leave the capital gains tax rate alone.
In the end, you are free to believe Obama’s vague campaign rhetoric if you like, but I’m not buying it. I’m entitled to my opinion, just as you are entitled to yours. You believe, I don’t. It’s as simple as that.
Gee, I didn’t find this comment as harsh as some apparently have.
Considering the crap that conservatives have had to take the past 8 years, I thought it was pretty mild as well, Gale. I’m just getting them warmed up for the avalanche of criticism that is likely to result if Obama is successful in implementing his anti-capitalistic policies.
By JokesOn
November 7, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this
I don’t see how you have much to so proud about with your ongoing flaming wars with chuck, TOJ, and Gandalf. In fact, you tried to nail me all last week with “fact-check” requests, but never once admitted you were wrong (e.g. that Obama is the most liberal Senator). Three pointing back at ya’.
Big difference between calling names, and replying to those that are calling you names.
Did you post a fact site that said Obama is the most liberal senator? I think not.
It is evident that you never looked into what Obama himself said and triangulate that with fact-check or such. You got your “facts” from McCain, which is really not trying to learn about the candidates.
By dw
November 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
To Sunshine,
I think if God came down, so that you could physically hear and see Him, and said the homosexual lifestyle was wrong, you would still tell Him to take a hike.
Call it domestic partnership, or whatever symantics you want, and have all the rights of heterosexual couples. Whatever. But it won’t ever truly be marriage from a biblical perspective. I’m sure you don’t care, so you can spare the “it is an archaic book” utterances.
When lesbian couples or gay couples create a baby thru natural means then you can try to convince me that it is natural and normal. Otherwise, not!!!
By lozen
November 7, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this
Hello all. Long time no see! For me this has been a miraculous week. I grew up in the 40’s and 50’s when there was total segregation in the south. Blacks and whites lived in separate neighborhoods, went to different schools, had different public bathrooms, drank from separate water fountains. The N word was used constantly, black people were sterotyped, denied their basic human rights, lynched, called names. My father quit a job during the war because he would not work next to a black man on an assembly line in New York! He believed the civil rights movement was the ruin of the country. I don’t know why I didn’t buy it; it may have been another miracle I guess. I never thought I would live to see this day and it really has changed my feelings about the USA! I didn’t realize how much I had lost hope about this country and its promise of democracy and equality until Tuesday night. It is truly pitiful to see people who can only justify their hard hearts with the words from a 2,000 year old book. Each of us has a choice. Each xtian cherry picks what they want from that big old book with all its contradictions. Some zero in on the loving accepting God. Others zero in on the judging, punishing, God who demands obedience. You must obey his (my interpretation of his) rules or you will go to hell and damnation. As for marriage, you see it change in the “good book” from men with many wives and concubines (men who were annointed by Yahweh) to the idea of one man and one woman - an idea which has never been followed by most men anyway.
By Bruno
November 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this
Big difference between calling names, and replying to those that are calling you names.
Must we always have one person that fulfills the token a*hole or something?
I guess TOJ isn’t the only person who doesn’t read his own posts.
By Monica
November 7, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this
Gale, I agree; that’s unfair. Anyone single or married or otherwise should be able to leave it to anyone they wish, regardless of sexual orientation. I was not aware of that issue.
BTW, I posted a link to a site regarding polygamy, but it didn’t post. For some reason, that happened to me a few weeks ago as well ( I was responding to Bruno regarding the Sabbath). So, if you go to gotquestions.org and search polygamy, they give an explanation of why polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament but “revised” in the New Testament. Keep in mind that it is a Christian based site, but they base all of their answers on Scripture.
By JokesOn
November 7, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
Considering the crap that conservatives have had to take the past 8 years, I thought it was pretty mild as well, Gale. I’m just getting them warmed up for the avalanche of criticism that is likely to result if Obama is successful in implementing his anti-capitalistic policies.
Considering your accusing before, and now this; I found it hypocritical.
By k
November 7, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this
Hey Lozen!!! High five, hugs, bootie shaking, and a big WOOO-HOOOOOOO! Yes. We. Did!
By chuck
November 7, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this
USUK:
Obama won. he won big - including traditionally red states. get over it. really
In the words of your hero Andrea (paraphrased):
NO. I won’t.
As for Obama winning “big”, you have obviously lost your mind. He won just over half of the popular vote and just over half of the states. Reagan won big…NOT Barack HUSSEIN HAMAS Obama.
By Gale
November 7, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this
lozen, - an idea which has never been followed by most men anyway. Need we point out that the books were written and translated by men?
By USinUK
November 7, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
Bruno -
Apparently, your definition of “vague” is a little different from mine. McCain clearly said that he was going to leave the capital gains tax rate alone.
yes - my definition of vague would translate in this case to “I might do something … I might not” … I think “will increase the max cap gains rate by between 20-25%” is pretty darned clear.
man … what is with you today??? I thought I was the only one on the rag … you’re giving me a run for my money on the rattiness front …
By Monica
November 7, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
I can forsee a lot of “rich” people saying “screw it” and not investing their money to begin with.
Bruno, I got this email this week that I think you will enjoy. It’s also online, but I can’t post with links, so here goes a lenghty post:
Bar Stool Economics:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
‘I only got a dollar out of the $20’, declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’
‘Yeah, that’s right’, exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’
‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’
‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls , journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
By Bruno
November 7, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
Considering your accusing before, and now this; I found it hypocritical.
Take it light, guys. Just stirring the pot today.
Hope everyone has a beautiful weekend. ; > }
By JokesOn
November 7, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this
Dog,
Whatever. You are on the attack for whatever reason and many of us are sick of people trolling.
By Bruno
November 7, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this
man … what is with you today??? I thought I was the only one on the rag … you’re giving me a run for my money on the rattiness front …
Big hug to you , USinUK. Maybe I’m ragging a little today. Don’t forget, my GF decided to display a large glossy photo of Obama and Biden in her living room. Talk about a mood killer……
Just kidding. Cheers to you and all of the “irregulars”.
By Frustrated
November 7, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this
US-That has to be the most ignorant comment that has come out of your mouth. How do you know what kind of hit anyone can take? What if they have 5 kids, what if they have 5 kids in college????? Supporting sick parents, grandparents, etc etc etc.
You act like people who make over 250k sit on their butts and do nothing. While some may, that may not be true for all….so just because some make more than you, you think it is fair for them to get penalized so YOU can be rewarded.
For someone who is all up in arms about other people’s rights, equalities, etc etc…. you are a poser.
For those who have excess money at their disposal…..THEY DRIVE THE ECONOMY….they are the people out shopping every weekend, bringing sales ups, buying a fancy car so another assembly line worker can keep their insurance….. For those who are struggling in the middle class, the money they would see from the “break” would be to catch up on bills that have piled high or better yet, be put into savings for fear of the ecomony…Which does JACK for the current situation.
Wow….
By USinUK
November 7, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this
dw -
When lesbian couples or gay couples create a baby thru natural means then you can try to convince me that it is natural and normal. Otherwise, not!!!
wow. I didn’t know that flying thousands of miles to China and the Ukraine to adopt was considered “natural means”. Ditto pumping yourself full of hormones then having a doctor “harvest” your eggs and put them in the deep freee so that the doc can create a blastula.
I guess the missionary position is the only pre-ordained way to conceive, huh.
By Archie
November 7, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this
It is truly pitiful to see people who can only justify their hard hearts with the words from a 2,000 year old book. Each of us has a choice. Each xtian cherry picks what they want from that big old book with all its contradictions Lozen it is true that christians cherry pick from the Bible but please don’t say that the Bible causes some folk to have hard hearts because it’s really all about ignorance and some folk aren’t really all that christian and even being christian doesn’t mean a person is perfect. Like Obama I do think gays should have rights to full citizenship but I had to grow up from my ignorance and I know he had to do the same thing. People aren’t born knowing the right thing to do. Chuck should be nicer just based on the fact he claims to be a christian. I mean that should be the first character trait that comes thru plain as day before anything else. Jesus was a constant healer and feeder of people and he didn’t get paid for it and he only got angry one or two times. Gale, you are welcome to my compliment.
By Gale
November 7, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this
Monica, regarding the polygamy explanation from gotquestions: I am reminded of one of my favorite Simone de Beauvior quotes, Representation of the world, like the world itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with the absolute truth.
By Frustrated
November 7, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this
If it is “natural” to be gay, why are there no gay animals?
By Gale
November 7, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this
USinUK, don’t bother trying to rebut the can’t make a baby argument against gay marriage. It always gets trotted out and it is the easiest to debunk. Hmmm, do we let people who do not intend to make babies or who cannot make babies get married?
By Gale
November 7, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this
Frustrated, there are gay animals.
By AGTFan
November 7, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this
Sunshine you forgot the ultimate liberal, Jesus of Nazereth. All that talk about love thy neighbor. He’d never make it in the Republican party. Those are the so called Christians that follow the Bible literally except for those inconvienient parts where that Jesus guy talks about love and forgiveness. Nope they would never accept HIM as a Christian. Now if would drop all that love and fogiveness stuff and start some goog old fashioned hatered of those who are different, then he could become a good Republican.
Frustrated
Maybe it will help if you understand the huge hit that those making over $250,000 a year are going to take. The conservative leaning Tax Institute estimated that those making between $250,000 and $280,000 a year will see their tax bill go up by an astounding $21 a month. I’m pretty sure that most of the folks making $250,000 a year can handle that. They may have to give up a couple of lattes a week.
By Mara
November 7, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
Frustrated - why are there no gay animals?
actually, same-sex copulation is fairly common in the animal kingdom. Some zoologists estimate as many as 1500 species are known to practice homosexuality. As USinUK said to Bruno…Google, it’s your friend.
hugs to all my blog buddies…especially lozen who has been greatly missed, and Jack, who has also been too long absent. C-y’all next week.
By Seriously...
November 7, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
If it’s “natural” to be a hard-line, closed-minded, judgmental Fundie, then why are you so FRUSTRATED?
BTW, a first-ever museum display, “Against Nature?,” opened in 2006 at the University of Oslo’s Natural History Museum in Norway, presenting 51 species of animals exhibiting homosexuality.
“Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them,” said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
By Bambi
November 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this
Frustrated,
How many animals engage in heterosexual oral sex? How many animals play professional basketball, go to movies, take their mate out on a date, french kiss, or buy wedding rings?
Or all those things unnatural because animals don’t ( or can’t) do them?
Why do people like you always bring up animals when it comes to something as complex as human sexuality, but they are just food and clothing any other time?
By JokeDay
November 7, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this
*I guess the missionary position is the only pre-ordained way to conceive, *
doggy-style results in, drum-roll please, Puppies.
By JokesOn
November 7, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this
If it is “natural” to be gay, why are there no gay animals?
There are.
More-over, I read a study that the more stresses a female rat has, the higher the probability her offspring will be gay. Not conclusive, but very well could be a function to limit overpopulation.
I would think that if your version of god existed, he would put an over-population release valve in place. Maybe you just do not give god enough credit?
By Netbanker
November 7, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this
He tried to overturn centuries of military tradition and common sense by allowing gays into the military. HAHAHAHAHAHA…oh what an interesting perspective on stopping gays who were already in the military from being kicked OUT simply for admitting their sexual orientation. Chuck there have ALWAYS been gays in the military and always will be. One’s sexual orientation has no bearing on one’s ability to do a particular job…even one that might involve shooting a gun. This might seem off topic, but what is your opinion of the Israeli military, Chuck?
Chuck…why do you keep adding HAMAS to the president-elect’s name? Very disrepectful!
Our only hope is that the 42-43 republicans hold firm and filibuster EVERYTHING. So does that mean that you want Congress to accomplish absolutely NOTHING for the next four years by completely blocking every attempt to do anything? That’ll be really helpful.
So how did this turn into a discussion of gay marriage again? I honestly think our only hope of seeing that is the passage of time. When enough of the old guard that believes two men or two women who have equal standing in they eyes of the law as a couple will somehow completely destroy their own personal marriage die off and the younger generations who aren’t afraid of gays become the majority we will see gay marriage.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 7, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this
Citizens of Obamastan! HEAR ME! Pay more taxes, just send more money in, send all you money. If you make money it is Obamas, give it freely and he won’t take too much else away from you. So, you raise taxes and you think you get more money? Who’s crack math is he using? Lower taxes raises the revenue. Lower spending…that’s the key! Do MORE with less! DUMB DUMB DUMB Oh I am no longer GTW, please refer to me as FTW or Fandalf!
By Fandalf, the White!
November 7, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
JokesON, you’re Gay, as in ueer as a Deer!! Not that their is anything wrong with that!
By Fandalf, the White!
November 7, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this
Oh Dinosaurs all turned gay, that’s why the died out. They kept ripping thier reproduction organs off during oral.
By scrappy
November 7, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this
dw - question for you: Why do you care? This is the one thing I just can’t understand with the whole “save the instition of marriage” and why letting gays marry upsets so many conservatives? If dw is here in Atlanta, why do you care if a couple in San Diego get married (regardless of their sex)? Even more, if dw is in Marietta why would care if a couple in midtown wanted to get married?
Do conservatives really think that this is going to destroy thier own marriage, their kids marriages? 2 people enjoying each others company and living happily ever after have no affect on the lives of dw, why does dw want to have a negative affect on thier lives?
By Gale
November 7, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this
NetBanker, I think the into to the gay marriage came via the Prop 8 passage in CA. You know how it is with that topic and the other. Mere mention brigs out extreme views. I know it is a matter of time.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 7, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
GOSH i AM ABOUT AS FUNNY AS i WANNA BE!
By Frustrated
November 7, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this
*BTW, a first-ever museum display, “Against Nature?,” opened in 2006 at the University of Oslo’s Natural History Museum in Norway, presenting 51 species of animals exhibiting homosexuality.
“Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them,” said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition. *
I have to go see this….I think it would be interesting to see how a human being can interpret exactly what determines certain actions by animals to be homosexual….kind of like calling a female dog who humps another female dog…not necessarily homo, just showing who’s boss… Or are they interviewing them to see what emotional attachments are there.
But again, I would have to go see this.
Why am I close-minded for asking a question? I had no idea that there was a meuseum that displayed this. Because I ask a question and do not google things my 8 hours at work each day? That makes me close-minded?
Or is it because I don’t agree with what you do? If that is the case “Seriously” …..you are close minded too…for not agreeing with me…
By Gale
November 7, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this
I think since my fingers seem to be leaving out letters in my messages, it must be time to depart. Have a good weekend all.
By Frustrated
November 7, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
*More-over, I read a study that the more stresses a female rat has, the higher the probability her offspring will be gay. Not conclusive, but very well could be a function to limit overpopulation.
I would think that if your version of god existed, he would put an over-population release valve in place. Maybe you just do not give god enough credit?”
Why would my God have to put a valve in place? That is like saying he made a mistake by creating too many people in the first place…
And the whole rat thing made me laugh out loud.. What are scientist saying determines whether an animal is gay or not?
By Netbanker
November 7, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
From my understanding, all of the civil rights afforded to “straight” couples can be had through legal filings (power of attorney, etc.). Please correct me if I am wrong. Bruno…here’s another one for you…My partner of 17 years and I could be forced to testify against one another in court while married couples are granted immunity from that requirement. (Not that I’m expecting either of us to end up in court anytime soon.) Another benefit of marriage…the portion of health benefits my company pays to cover my ‘spouse’ is imputed income which is taxed. Not so for heterosexual married couples.
History has shown that when capital gains taxes are lowered, investment goes up, and all boats rise with the rising tide. Not necessarily, Bruno. Non-executive pay has remained fairly stagnant even while the executives pay significantly increased over the past 30 years…this even when the markets were riding high. I think the golden rule of business overrides the all boats rise with tide thing. Bluntly thought taxes aren’t the problem that middle class Americans are having. It is the disparity in pay between them and the top (who holds the gold and makes the rules) that has grown ever wider over the past 30 years. Productivity gains from automation and people working smarter has primarily been retained by the top rather than being shared by all who participated in the success of the company. I’m a decision maker at my company and fully recognize that great decisions with poor execute do not equate to success. One must have the execution of the workers in order to be successful. And as such the workers should share in the rewards of said success…not just those who made the decisions.
Gale..I get so incredibly frustrated when I hear comments along the lines of Bruno’s (no offense intended Bru-dog)regarding other legal avenues to achieve the same result as marriage. First of all it’s not possible to replicate all those rights and without marriage we will never have access to the 1,100 FEDERAL rights associated with marriage. Even if the rights could be duplicated on a one-off basis, why should heterosexuals be allowed to access all those rights with a single marriage license (less than $100) while gay couples should have to spend THOUSANDS working with an attorney?
it won’t ever truly be marriage from a biblical perspective DW…gay couples don’t give a sh it about the biblical perspective. Keep it!! I even say keep the word marriage. We want the CIVIL rights and responsibilities that are granted by the law…which comes from the legislature not The Bible or any other religious book. We don’t want to make churches marry us or any other cockamamie thing you may have heard. We want equality under THE LAW.
By Seriously...
November 7, 2008 4:18 PM | Link to this
LOL! OMG, Frustrated at 4:02, you make an great argument. Just because two female animals “hump” each other does not mean they are gay. You have to inteview them about their emotional attachments to know for sure… ROFL!
By Seriously...
November 7, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this
We want equality under THE LAW.
Amen!
By My Name is Lennaaayyy!!!
November 7, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this
Oh this one’s EASY…watching the Republican party and Right Wing nutbag pundits in full meltdown!
I thought Hannity and Limbaugh were bad, but I have to say Mike Gallagher is the absolute WORST. I think he’s going to slit his wrists any minute now. And Michael Medved…the guy’s a “homo”. And that’s not said to insult “homos” by any means, I’m just saying.. the guy is such a sniveling little diva B** it’s ridiculous! And so called “intellectual” Dennis Prager.. hhhhh. Is it just me, or does this guy have a serious case of CIGAR MOUTH???
I think WGST is trying really hard to compete with Fox or something…
But I must say, I LOVE it. Those guys are only killing themselves slowly with all the hate based stress they must be causing themselves. Go right ahead, stew in your juices if you must.
By Netbanker
November 7, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this
Monica…I loved the Bar Stool Economics. That helps explain the current tax structure quite well. And as someone who is toward the top of that scale (I’m not #10 yet) I completely get it and do get frustrated by the amount in taxes that I pay.
One tax that frustrates me is the property tax for schools. We’ve been in our current home for 13 years without a child in the school system and we have a 2nd home in another state in which we will never enroll children yet pay school taxes. I completely get the need for an educated population, but seems to me that there should be some type of relief after a certain number of years with no kids in the school system.
By h ryder
November 7, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this
Two election night observations: 1) A poster stating, “Your fired Bush”, obviously the maker does not understand our election system nor homonyns, and 2) The woman with a child on her hip who replieded when interviewed, “When do I get my first check?”.
By JokesOn
November 7, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this
Why would my God have to put a valve in place? That is like saying he made a mistake by creating too many people in the first place…
Ummm…we are the ones breading. Or are you saying he would simply increase the number of miscarriages? That does not sound like good planning.
And the whole rat thing made me laugh out loud.. What are scientist saying determines whether an animal is gay or not?
You could google, but here is the short story: Stress creates an Adrenalin like hormone that binds to receptors, inhibiting the hormones to do their job. That would slow population growth in a stressed out society (lack of food for example).
By USinUK
November 7, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this
Frustrated -
How do you know what kind of hit anyone can take? What if they have 5 kids, what if they have 5 kids in college????? Supporting sick parents, grandparents, etc etc etc.
first of all, these people are getting tax breaks for each and every one of their 5 kids … not to mention, everytime we hear about poor people having to care for their kids, we hear “it was their choice to have the kids - they shouldn’t have them if they can’t pay for them/care for them”
what? does that only hold if you’re poor - if you’re rich, you deserve tax breaks???
You act like people who make over 250k sit on their butts and do nothing. While some may, that may not be true for all….so just because some make more than you, you think it is fair for them to get penalized so YOU can be rewarded.
ah. no. I’m sure they work hard for their money - just like everyone else. I’m just sick and effing tired of the rich getting all the tax breaks (which has been the trend for the last 7+ years) - meanwhile, the middle-class - the people who are losing their good-paying manufacturing jobs for poorer-paying service jobs - are the ones who are getting the mighty screw.
For someone who is all up in arms about other people’s rights, equalities, etc etc…. you are a poser.
amd you are an idiot if you don’t understand the difference between CIVIL RIGHTS (like the right to privacy, the right to counsel if you’re accused of a crime) and CIVIC RESPONSIBILITIES (paying for the government services we all use)
For those who have excess money at their disposal…..THEY DRIVE THE ECONOMY….they are the people out shopping every weekend, bringing sales ups, buying a fancy car so another assembly line worker can keep their insurance….. For those who are struggling in the middle class, the money they would see from the “break” would be to catch up on bills that have piled high or better yet, be put into savings for fear of the ecomony…Which does JACK for the current situation.
honey, it’s not the super-rich who drive the economy. the top 1% of this country isn’t big enough to drive the economy. it’s the fat part of the bell curve that drives the economy - it’s the middle class. you DO realize that average earnings has fallen below the inflation rate over the last 2 years, don’t you??? these people have not only seen a decrease in their wealth via their house value falling, they’ve been hit by higher taxes and an income that doesn’t go anywhere near as far as it used to.
but, you go and weep for the folks making more than $250K/year. me, I’m more concerned with the folks who are trying to make it on salaries with fewer than 6 digits …
By Netbanker
November 7, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this
Why would my God have to put a valve in place? That is like saying he made a mistake by creating too many people in the first place…
God gave us free will and with that we’ve tended to use it to create lots and lots and lots of other humans. God only created 2 people…we humans have created all the rest. We’re smarter than other animals, but we’re still animals and it’s still possible for us to populate the planet to the point that it can no longer sustain us.
Another main difference between us and most animals is that humans have sex for fun and women go into estrus (spelling?) every month. Most female animals can only become pregnant at specific times of the year and don’t go back into estrus until such time as the young from their prior litter are able to fully care for themselves while human females can become pregnant within weeks of giving birth…ever heard of Irish twins? Humans don’t have that built-in population control so God had to come up with another way to limit population growth and provide sets of hands to help hunt, forage, cook, clothe, etc for the existing young, but who weren’t going to further stress their tribe by adding more mouths to feed.
By Frustrated
November 7, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this
Jokes, I won’t get in the argument that will go on and on forever…you don’t believe, that is up to you… yes, we brEEd….and I believe that conception is a miracle that God has blessed us with… people go through hard times…miscarriage isn’t the only thing that causes people to die…. people can sit and fight and ask why my God would let such bad things happen, but I don’t see it that way… Haven’t we had the discussion before anyway?
So if we have a stressful life, and our hormones do whatever you just said, our kids are going to be gay? Oh my…
By JokesOn
November 7, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this
So if we have a stressful life, and our hormones do whatever you just said, our kids are going to be gay? Oh my…
Yes. Absolutely and without a doubt. (tongue + cheek)
Jokes, I won’t get in the argument that will go on and on forever…you don’t believe, that is up to you… yes, we brEEd….and I believe that conception is a miracle that God has blessed us with… people go through hard times…miscarriage isn’t the only thing that causes people to die…. people can sit and fight and ask why my God would let such bad things happen, but I don’t see it that way… Haven’t we had the discussion before anyway?
If so, I am wasting my time repeating things that have been said or could be googled. If you actually cared about the possible answers to your “question” you would not be called closed minded; but you just proved you are by ignoring everything people have said.
By JohnF
November 7, 2008 5:07 PM | Link to this
To add to the Netbanker’s response to why gay’s can’t just go get a power of attorney, etc.
My partner and I just did that, along with several other legal documents, and a simple real estate transaction. It cost us $5000.00.
And so what? That gives us legal rights to a degree, but there are still horror stories. I know of one example in South Carolina, a gay man was injured in an auto accident. He was rushed to the hospital and his partner was notified. They had done all of the legal mumbo-jumbo for just such an event. But in that type of situation you don’t have time to go home and search your personal files for copies of all your legal documents. So he gets to the hospital but some gestapo administrator delays him being able get in to be with his partner because he isn’t a family member. Finally she relents but the guy dies before his partner makes it to see him.
Yeah, he can sue…he did..but so what?
By USinUK
November 7, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this
Chuck -
In the words of your hero Andrea (paraphrased): NO. I won’t.
in the words of parents everywhere “and if Andrea jumped off a bridge, would you???”
As for Obama winning “big”, you have obviously lost your mind. He won just over half of the popular vote and just over half of the states. Reagan won big…NOT Barack HUSSEIN HAMAS Obama.
Let’s see … 364 electoral votes … and W won how many when he had his “mandates” - 271 in 2000 and 286 in 2004 …
pooooooooooooooor chuckles … him so sad because he was defeated … because the country doesn’t believe what he does … because this isn’t the “center right” country that he and his Fox-viewing ilk think it is … awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
go ahead - keep saying “Hussein” - Obama’s the president, now … you’re the one who looks like a bigot.
By Netbanker
November 7, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this
I’m just sick and effing tired of the rich getting all the tax breaks (which has been the trend for the last 7+ years) - meanwhile, the middle-class - the people who are losing their good-paying manufacturing jobs for poorer-paying service jobs - are the ones who are getting the mighty screw. YES! All completely true….but TAXATION is NOT the way to correct that situation. Taxing the “rich” (which is a completely arbitrary amount) does NOT help solve the basic problem of jobs being moved overseas or stagnant wages. Taxation won’t slow inflation. It won’t affect fuel prices which were what was really putting the squeeze on folks the past few month. Taxing the rich won’t make the non-rich save for a rainy day, or spend wisely, or slow down the out-of-control consumerism which has swept the nation. Taxing the rich won’t affect falling home values. It might feel really, really good, but it doesn’t solve the root causes of the economic stresses on average americans. Read Monica’s post on bar stool economics because it’s a really good example of the current tier-ed tax system.
So if we have a stressful life, and our hormones do whatever you just said, our kids are going to be gay? Maybe. There is more and more research pointing to sexual orientation being biological. One example is that male pheremones stimulate the same part of the brain in gay men as it does in heterosexual females while it does not stimulate that part of the brain for lesbians.
By Freedom Watch
November 9, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
We need to finish sweeping out the dishonest crooks and make sure Saxby Chambliss is defeated.—Saxby has the worst Senate record in history,always putting politics before principle and never getting anything done.—To keep our nation safe , we must get rid of Saxby Chambliss in the run-off. Put your country FIRST and vote for MARTIN.
By The Other Jack
November 9, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
The Most Important Ramification?
Hope, Kimberly is right.
Hope. That’s about it. No workable plans. Nothing for the middle class. Nothing for the corporations that employ us, insure us and take care of us in our retirement.
Hope that our enemies will like us.
Hope that the Democratic Party will, for once, stick to their pie in the sky, take money from the privileged workers and give to the less privileged watchers of Judge Judy and Divorce Court. .
In Obama’s tightly controlled first press conference, he had one message: Don’t expect much. Well, Mr. Obama, for those who have actually been paying attention and haven’t been drinking the kool-aid of your lies, we don’t.
His centrist mantra is quickly disappearing after choosing a very brutal and ultra-liberal chief of staff. His ultra liberal roots are appearing after 6 months of his pretending to be a centrist.
I’m sure many liberals will rejoice in that fact, while ignoring the basic dishonesty of his campaign. Liberals are a hard core bunch, sometimes willing to blindly support the party line and support each other even though some liberals will stop at nothing including using the death of a child as a hammer in which to punish anyone who would dare disagree with their goose stepping, often fascist agenda. So it’s no surprise that we once again hear phrases like “Character doesn’t matter” and a stumbling populace that is willing to forgive any broken promise as long as the blame of the broken promise can be hung on a long absent Republican majority.
The day after the election, the S&P took the sharpest downward turn in our country’s history of post election day records.
The Yahoo Sunday Market update:
It became evident in no time at all that the market’s economic concerns weren’t assuaged in the voting booth. Over the course of the two trading sessions on Wednesday and Thursday the S&P 500 dropped 10.0%.
Kids in Kenya are marching in the streets holding up pictures of Obama. As heart warming as that seems, kids in Kenya do not employ us. Kids in Kenya do not make the decisions of keeping their companies in the united States where taxes are about to go though the roof or move to a better educated country, where they are not considered the enemy. The kids on Wall Street are not marching in the streets holding up pictures of Obama. They are too busy dumping stocks while the government can’t take any profits in taxes.
But we do have hope. I just hope our economy can survive the next four years.
By USinUK
November 9, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this
NetB -
but TAXATION is NOT the way to correct that situation. Taxing the “rich” (which is a completely arbitrary amount) does NOT help solve the basic problem of jobs being moved overseas or stagnant wages. Taxation won’t slow inflation. It won’t affect fuel prices which were what was really putting the squeeze on folks the past few month. Taxing the rich won’t make the non-rich save for a rainy day, or spend wisely, or slow down the out-of-control consumerism which has swept the nation. Taxing the rich won’t affect falling home values. It might feel really, really good, but it doesn’t solve the root causes of the economic stresses on average americans
just a quick one before I head downstairs for the evening … I never said that remedying the current tax situation would help the value of homes, etc … what it will do is improve the painful situation most people in the middle class currently find themselves: making less and less take-home pay. Will reducing their taxes fix EVERY problem? of course not - but it’s a first step to helping the folks who are the backbone of the economy.
from today’s WaPo: “The middle class must be the focus of the economic strategy,” (Rahm) Emanuel said. He noted that, over the past eight years, median household incomes have decreased, when adjusted for inflation, while the costs for essentials including education, energy and health care have soared.
so, like I said - my sympathies lie with the folks who have 5 digits in their paychecks - not those making a quarter million dollars a year or more …
By Bruno
November 9, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
Bruno, I got this email this week that I think you will enjoy. It’s also online, but I can’t post with links, so here goes a lenghty post: Bar Stool Economics:
Monica—I logged off before I saw your post, but wanted to thank you for a humorous, but true take on the “tax the rich” mantra which is now in vogue with the lefties. The top 10% of wage earners already pay 70% of all taxes collected. Apparently, the lefties won’t be satisfied until that figure is 150%—100% for government expenses, and the remaining 50% so that everyone else can receive a check they didn’t earn under Obama’s “redistribute the wealth” plan.
In Obama’s tightly controlled first press conference, he had one message: Don’t expect much. Well, Mr. Obama, for those who have actually been paying attention and haven’t been drinking the kool-aid of your lies, we don’t.
TOJ—I tried to explain that to both JokesOn and USinUK every time they referenced published comparisons of Obama’s and McCain’s tax proposals. In return, they both insulted me over and over again for “ignoring the facts”. Apparently, in their world, a campaign promise, however vague, is on par with the Law of Gravitation. I’ll do my best to not say “told ya so” when almost nothing he promised comes to fruition.
go ahead - keep saying “Hussein” - Obama’s the president, now … you’re the one who looks like a bigot
Hmmmm—so chuck is a bigot for using Obama’s full name? So what should I call you and the rest of the lefties who called McCain every name under the sun but his own (McSame, McShame, McCrusty, etc.)? The double standards are getting mighty deep this past week.
By Bruno
November 9, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this
Those are LIBERALS—Yeah, like that guy, what was his name? Oh yeah, Martin Luther!
Sunshine, I’m going to have to invite you to do a little more digging into the life of Martin Luther before you start welcoming him into the liberal fold. For starters, he was a rabid anti-Semite who preached hatred toward the Jews at every opportunity.
Sunshine you forgot the ultimate liberal, Jesus of Nazereth. All that talk about love thy neighbor. He’d never make it in the Republican party.
Well, I guess that settles it—Jesus was a Democrat. Never mind the fact that he called on individuals to be charitable to the poor, and not the government through forced taxation. And never mind the fact that according to published studies, conservatives outgive liberals 2:1. So what say you about VP-elect Joe Biden, who, according to his own tax returns, has given less than 1% of his own income to charity?? Even Obama has been extremely pitiful in the charity department, only increasing his charitable contributions to a respectable level the past few years, conveniently coinciding with his presidential aspirations.
It is truly pitiful to see people who can only justify their hard hearts with the words from a 2,000 year old book. Each of us has a choice. Each xtian cherry picks what they want from that big old book with all its contradictions. Some zero in on the loving accepting God. Others zero in on the judging, punishing, God who demands obedience. You must obey his (my interpretation of his) rules or you will go to hell and damnation.
lozen—as difficult as it may be for you to grasp, Jesus’s message was two-fold. While he defended Mary Magdelene from being stoned to death, at the same time he beseeched her to “go and sin no more”. The bottom line is that love is both unconditional AND conditional, all at the same time. Try to wrap your tiny brain around that concept, and then we can talk.
Heathens, dogs, pigs….” How does one man know which pejorative label to place on another man (whom he may or may not actually know) while at the same time following a directive from his LORD and MASTER to “Judge not?” Just curious.
Someone please remind me to put my boots on next time before I come back to this blog. All the self-righteous pronouncements coming from the lefties is creating quite a pile of manure here. Especially from the ones who regularly spew hatred toward anyone who isn’t a member of their political party.
By Bruno
November 9, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this
I get so incredibly frustrated when I hear comments along the lines of Bruno’s (no offense intended Bru-dog)regarding other legal avenues to achieve the same result as marriage.
NetB, Gale, and JohnF—Hopefully all of you have been around the blog long enough to know that I full support equal legal rights for both gay and straight couples. My comment was made not to minimize the unfair disparities that exist in the law, but simply to put things into a reasonable context. From what I have read, a vast majority of Americans support equal legal rights for gay couples. At the same time, a similar majority isn’t comfortable using the same word “marriage” to describe the biologically dissimilar unions. From what I remember each of you saying, using the same word “marriage” isn’t all that important to you. As such, I hope that the framers of the next Prop 8 will be willing to introduce the concept of a “civil union” for gay folks, which will simultaneously grant equivalent legal rights as for hetero unions, without stepping on the toes of traditionalists who feel it is important to reserve the word “marriage” for the union of one man and one woman.
chuck—Can you live with the concept of a “civil union” which grants homosexual couples the same legal benefits of hetero couples?? If not, please explain your reasoning.
By USinUK
November 10, 2008 8:24 AM | Link to this
Bruno -
I tried to explain that to both JokesOn and USinUK every time they referenced published comparisons of Obama’s and McCain’s tax proposals. In return, they both insulted me over and over again for “ignoring the facts”. Apparently, in their world, a campaign promise, however vague, is on par with the Law of Gravitation. I’ll do my best to not say “told ya so” when almost nothing he promised comes to fruition.
take off the hair shirt, Bruno - my mother made a MUCH better martyr than you do. Jokes and I had a problem with the fact that you kept sayng “I don’t know what his promises are! he’s never stated his intent” - when, in fact, he had stated his intent in b/w. BTW, neither of us insulted you, either (this is insulting??? aRGH!!! Bruno, my good friend … would you please put a quarter on the table and BUY me a break??? I’ve sent you to articles outlining Obama’s economic plans. Jokesy has sent you to articles outlining Obama’s economic plans. You have just proven the adage that you can lead a horse to water … blahblahblah. … honey, if you’re insulted by that, you need a big dose of skin-thickener)
as far as campaign promises, we all agree that things change, that his plans may alter - but you made the statement that you didn’t know his intent, which he has plainly stated.
go ahead - keep saying “Hussein” - Obama’s the president, now … you’re the one who looks like a bigot … Hmmmm—so chuck is a bigot for using Obama’s full name? So what should I call you and the rest of the lefties who called McCain every name under the sun but his own (McSame, McShame, McCrusty, etc.)? The double standards are getting mighty deep this past week.
a little creative editing, there, Bru-dog. The full quote: Barack HUSSEIN HAMAS Obama (Chuck) … Obama won. he won big - including traditionally red states. get over it. really - you look like a complete idiot when you say crap like that.
is Obama’s middle name Hussein? yes. is Obama’s second middle name Hamas? ah. not so much. Is Chuck putting the two together to say that Obama is some kind of Mulsim terrorist or terrorist-sympathizer? you know as well as I do that’s EXACTLY what he’s saying/doing.
and, if you’re going to attribute anything to me, I called McCain McCranky - and I stand by it. I also stand by my statement that I really don’t think that highly of his “character”, so I think his actions support the nick-name.
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this
USinUK,
Thanks for covering that so well.
It is one thing to argue what policy you think is better, and another thing to misstate them as fact. I always though dog would learn about both candidates, but sounds like he gets his info from anti-obama sites instead. That is disappointing.
And the difference between trying to scare people using the racially charged middle eastern name versus goofy names like McCranky is vast. I am amazed he even tried justifying that. It is like trying to compare honky and the “n” word - there is a clear difference of intent and slander.
By Frustrated
November 10, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this
I received a great email this morning that I thought I would share….I pray for this nation.
God Has Given Us What We Begged For – Destruction - Dr. David R. Reagan –
Our nation has just elected the most pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Capitalist, and anti-Israel president in our history. In short, God has given us the kind of leader that we deserve — the kind we have been begging for. The new President now has the power to put his radical secular imprint upon this nation for decades to come through the appointment of activist liberals to the Supreme Court. I fear that our nation has been irrevocably changed for the worse.
Two factors in this election were particularly disappointing to me. First was the fact that only 59% of eligible voters bothered to vote. That was less than in the last presidential election. How could people be so apathetic in an election so important? The second voting statistic that hit me hard was the revelation that even among self-identified Evangelicals, the majority voted according to economic considerations rather than moral ones.
The financial woes of our nation are not going to be solved by any economic strategy, for they are rooted in our spiritual rebellion against God. We cannot kill babies in their mother’s wombs, promote same-sex marriage, produce filthy movies and TV programs, worship the dollar, and pressure Israel to give up its heartland, and expect God to bless our economy. Our economy will be healed only when we as a nation get right with God.
Our Recent Financial Collapse
In 2003 I wrote a book about the United States in Bible prophecy. It was entitled, America the Beautiful? In that book I presented several scenarios to explain why the United States was not mentioned in end time Bible prophecy. I stated at the time that the one I thought would be most likely would be a catastrophic financial collapse. That conclusion was based on the fact that the god of our nation has become money, and the true God of this world is a jealous God. I felt like our Creator would sooner or later touch our false god and destroy it if we did not repent.
On September 29th when the stock market dropped 777 points on the eve of Rosh Hashana (the Jewish New Year), I could see the hand of God all over the event.
The number of points the stock market fell is significant. Seven is the number of perfection and completion. It was on the seventh day that God rested from His creation activities. Six is the number of Man, for it was on the sixth day that Man was created. 666 is the Satanic symbol of Man exalted. 777 is the spiritual symbol of the Trinity.
The timing of the stock market crash was also significant since it fell on the eve of an important Jewish holiday. George W. Bush was the first President to call for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heartland of Israel. Joel 3:2 says that God will severely judge any nation in the end times that attempts to divide the land of Israel.
How God Deals With Nations
As I pointed out in my book about the U.S. in prophecy, the Bible reveals that God has a pattern for dealing with nations. He is the one who creates them, and He is the one who decides when they are to cease to exist. He blesses as they are obedient to His Word, and He disciplines when they stray from His Word. His discipline will first of all take the form of raising up prophetic voices to call the nation to repentance. If this fails, He will resort to remedial judgments. Those judgments can take many forms, such as natural disasters, economic calamities, and defeat in wars. And sometimes a remedial judgment can take the form of giving to a nation the kind of evil leadership it deserves. If the nation still refuses to repent, God will deliver it from judgment to destruction.
God began to call this nation to repentance following the cultural revolution of the 1960’s. He raised up prophetic voices like David Wilkerson, and when we paid no attention, He began to place remedial judgments upon our nation. The attacks of 9/11 were a major wake-up call. It is no accident that those attacks were against the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. — the symbols of American wealth and power. But like a sleepy person who is too groggy to wake-up, we simply turned off the alarm clock, rolled over and went back to sleep. Hurricane Katrina was another national wake-up call, in response to our forcing Israel to withdraw from Gaza.
And now, God has touched our god, and our economy is in shambles. The prospect for it improving is very slim. The newly elected President has promised higher taxes and protective tariffs. The last time a President resorted to such measures in response to a financial crisis, the result was the Great Depression.
The Christian Response
What are we as Christians to do in the face of such set-backs for our nation? We are to pray and stand for righteousness. We must pray for national revival, and at the same time, we must be willing to take a stand for righteousness by speaking out boldly about the moral rot that has infected the soul of our country. We need to pray that God will frustrate, confuse, and defeat all the efforts to further secularize our nation and promote immorality.
We also need to pray for the salvation of our new President and all his family members. Despite his protestations to the contrary, Barack Obama is not a Christian, nor has he ever been. I can say that with confidence because he is a member of the most liberal Christian denomination, the United Church of Christ. This is a church that denies the divinity of Jesus and denies His statement in John 14:6 that He is the only way to God. No one can be saved apart from Jesus, and no one can be saved by putting their faith in a false Jesus.
Another prayer priority should be Israel. Let us pray that God will raise up a new leader in Israel who will have the strength to stand against American pressure to surrender the heartland of the country to the enemies of God.
Repentance or Destruction?
Some of the saddest verses in the Bible are the ones concerning the fate of the nation of Judah. They are recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:15-17:
15 ) And the LORD, the God of their fathers, sent word to them again and again by His messengers, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place;
16) but they continually mocked the messengers of God, despised His words and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, until there was no remedy.
17) Therefore He brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion on young man or virgin, old man or infirm; He gave them all into his hand.
This will be our fate as a nation if we continue with our rebellion against God and His Word. Keep in mind that, just like Judah, our fate will be a severe one if we refuse to repent, because to those to whom much is given, much is expected (Luke 12:48). Also, we are told that God repays double for the sins of those who are richly blessed (Isaiah 40:2).
Facing the Future
Should we face the future with despair? No! We are living in the most significant era since the First Coming of the Messiah. We are living in the season of the Lord’s return. We are privileged to be witnessing the fulfillment of end time prophecies all around us, prophecies that point to the soon return of our Lord.
There are dark days ahead for our nation and the world. Christians in particular are facing increasing persecution. We need to steel our minds and fasten our hope on things eternal, just as the prophet Daniel did when he was forced to live in a wicked society. We need to strengthen our spiritual armor through prayer and immersion in the Scriptures.
And we need to remember that Psalm 2 says that God sits in the heavens and laughs at all the machinations of the world’s political leaders. He isn’t laughing because He doesn’t care. He is laughing because He has the wisdom and power to orchestrate all the evil of Man and Satan to the triumph of His perfect will in history. And that will is that Jesus Christ will reign in glory and majesty from Mount Zion in Israel, and the whole world will be flooded with peace and righteousness, as the waters cover the seas.
(1 Corinthians 16:22)
By USinUK
November 10, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this
Hi Jokes!!
It is one thing to argue what policy you think is better, and another thing to misstate them as fact.
and it’s yet another thing when you say you don’t even know what they are when at least 2 people have pointed you to articles that tell you exactly what they are. and for him to say that O’s plan to raise the maximum cap gains rate to 20-25% is “vague” … well … he’s right, we evidently do have vastly different definitions of the word “vague.”
And the difference between trying to scare people using the racially charged middle eastern name versus goofy names like McCranky is vast.
I think the strain of the election has more than a few people at the end of their tether. I’m just surprised one of those people is Bruno (TOJ and Chuck, I expected as much … but Bruno?? I was a bit disappointed).
By The Other Jack
November 10, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this
bruno
TOJ—I tried to explain that to both JokesOn and USinUK every time they referenced published comparisons of Obama’s and McCain’s tax proposals. In return, they both insulted me over and over again for “ignoring the facts”.
Well, duh? Did you except a civil and intelligent debate? You know better than that. I was looking through the archives last night and over and over USinUK listed all the reasons that the stock market has been crashing, but of course the idea that any stock broker would ever consider that the leader of the free world was going to be the most liberal, anti-capitalistic president in 100 years, was always attacked with all the liberal fury that she is famous for. My ex passed her Series 7 in 2004. She has been a broker for four years and was a portfolio manager for 12 before that. I forwarded one of USinUK’s “brilliant” responses about the reasons for the economic downturn to her. She still laughs about it.
And don’t expect an imagined friendship to mean anything during those attacks. The girl’s only loyalty is to her indoctrination. You disagree with her, you are her enemy. You agree with her, no matter what a scum ball you are, she will support you, no matter how vile your attacks against others might be.
It is the way the left operates. Scream down the opposition. If you don’t march in step with our goose stepping, you are our enemy.
They got what they wanted. Chances are, our tax dollars will be used to kill unborn babies all over the world. Bush’s reasonable tax breaks will disappear in the name of class warfare and we will see our country struggle horribly while the media will start to tell us that all is OK, “the people” are now in charge.
Understand that they cannot be friends with anyone who disagrees with their politics. That is the depth of their indoctrination. Be nice. Don’t talk politics and they will pretend to be your frined, but disagree, and expect what you got. Friendships with conservatives is simply not allowed.
By Monica
November 10, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this
Can I change the subject to vent just for a moment?
AIG gets 85 billion dollars from govt.
AIG takes a 450K retreat/conference at a California resort.
This morning, GMA shared that AIG will now receive an additional 27 billion from the govt.
I guess they needed more money to fund the company picnic to Naples? Gees! I’m in the wrong line of work.
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this
Frustrated:
The Politico reports that between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent of the 208.3 million eligible voters cast ballots this year, compared with 60.6 percent of those eligible in 2004, according to a voting analysis by American University political scientist Curtis Gans, an authority on voter turnout.
Your numbers are way off throughout.
Post long rants somewhere else please. This is for discussion; not tracks.
By Gale
November 10, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this
I’ve listened to many stories since the election relating parents feeling that finally they can honestly tell their children that yes, they can be anything they want to be. Obama is in his 40s. There are many prominent black businessmen and women, black governors, scientists, astronauts, etc. There are examples of success aplenty. What is so different about this position, president, that all the other successful blacks before him did not confer the sense of possibility? What is it that makes so many think that door of possibility has magically opened? What will happen when/if unrealistic hopes are not fullfilled because they are beyond what one man can accomplish?
I started to answer my own questions, but I won’t. I want to hear from those who think something has changed.
By The Other Jack
November 10, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
Bruno
take off the hair shirt, Bruno - my mother made a MUCH better martyr than you do.
See what I mean. She doesn’t give a flying damn about anything you say. You crossed her, so she lets go. There is no civility. You are not her friend.
With all the horrible and personal attacks that the stupid joke has launched, have you EVER seen her say a word to him about anything he has ever said. Hell, he admitted to stalking me to other blogs and attacking me there, even though I don’t go to other blogs. Attacks me for the death of my child, but she doesn’t have the moral fiber to ever stand up against anyone who agrees with her politics. She would support Pol Pot if he said that he supported Obama, (which he undoubtedly would)
Indoctrinated, rabid, liberals. All liberals are not that bad. Some can still think on their own, but few of those people come here.
By Lyrazel
November 10, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
Hmmm….I never had a tax break I did not pay for.
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this
Waaaambulance Part 2….
Here are some hankies to wipe your nose.
By Frustrated
November 10, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
Jokes: I find it funny that you completely missed the point of the entire post. Off all that you read, you found a mistake in the number of voters that the writer stated.
It is a free post, if you feel entitled to write what you see fit, I have the same right. Don’t read it if you don’t want…someone else might and actually get something out of it…instead of blasting me on a statistical error.
Don’t come on here screaming equal this, equal that….and then make someone else post somewhere else when you don’t like what they posted.
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this
Sunshine, I’m going to have to invite you to do a little more digging into the life of Martin Luther before you start welcoming him into the liberal fold. For starters, he was a rabid anti-Semite who preached hatred toward the Jews at every opportunity.
Bruno, the fact remains Martin Luther, regardless of his views on Jews had very liberal thoughts and teachings on the bible and the church, you are just grasping at straws to make some sort of counter point. You know what I meant and you know it is a fact that he changed the face of Protestant religion because of his new (ie. Liberal) views on how man and god could interact. Come on Bruno you are smarter than this. Are you really so against any new ideas that you can not see the good big bad dirty liberals have done all of us at many different points in history?
Chuck, if he is anything other than a catholic, is in a denomination because of what was at some point “radical liberal ideas”!
By Fandalf, the White!
November 10, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
So who really believes that Obama has good judgement? Anyone?
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
Don’t come on here screaming equal this, equal that….and then make someone else post somewhere else when you don’t like what they posted.
Your post was three pages deep. Post an excerpt and a link for those that want to read it. It is called being polite.
Yes. I got to the first set of (grossly) wrong numbers, then the second, a third…and stopped reading. Being based on (agenda) interpretation, fables, and wrong numbers; why would I want to invest time in that?
By The Other Jack
November 10, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
joke
Your crude and low-rent behavior is expected. It is who you are.
It’s just a surprise that others support that crude and low-rent behavior.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 10, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this
When do you thing Obama will sit down with Castro, RAMADANGADINGDONG and Hugo “Chez Guavara” Chavez? Feb? Mar?
By Fandalf, the White!
November 10, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
Jokes was 16 in 8th grade, he misses a lot.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 10, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
Jokes was 16 in 8th grade, he misses a lot.
By Gale
November 10, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
Fandalf, I am hoping Obama will be too busy with American issues at home for a while to visit with personae non grata.
By USinUK
November 10, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
well … I skimmed Frustrated’s post … all I can say is that this:
The number of points the stock market fell is significant. Seven is the number of perfection and completion. It was on the seventh day that God rested from His creation activities. Six is the number of Man, for it was on the sixth day that Man was created. 666 is the Satanic symbol of Man exalted. 777 is the spiritual symbol of the Trinity.
reminded me of this:
There in the middle of this mall is the Washington Monument, 555 feet high. But if we put a 1 in front of that 555 feet, we get 1555, the year that our first fathers landed on the shores of Jamestown, Virginia, as slaves. In the background is the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorial. Each one of these monuments is 19 feet high. Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president, Thomas Jefferson the third president, and 16 and 3 make 19 again. What is so deep about this number 19? Why are we standing on the Capitol steps today? That number 19, when you have a nine, you have a womb that is pregnant, and when you have a one standing by the nine, it means that there’s something secret that has to be unfolded. (L. Farrakhan’s Million Man March speech)
mmm … numerology … just sayin’ …
By Frustrated
November 10, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this
Jokes-
There are two sets of numbers….voter turnout and the points of the stock market..You didn’t fight the stock market number, so I am assuming you are ok with those…Therefore making the article something you just don’t find interesting…so fine, don’t read.
I am sorry that you find the Bible to be a bunch of fables. But maybe, just maybe…there is someone else out there that mind find the post meaningful… So thanks for the voter turnout correction, I am sure for the people who see the post as meaningful will actually care about that part of the article.
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
Your crude and low-rent behavior is expected. It is who you are.
Personal attacks is all you have. Funny how what you said about USinUK is actually your shtick. You insult anyone the first posting you direct at them, have incorrect facts, are too proud to admit when you are wrong, run off crying after throwing a tantrum…every time.
Lets see who can refrain from personal attacks of any kind the longest. No matter how baited.
Can you make your mommy and daddy proud? Challenge is on…
By chuck
November 10, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
Jamestown was founded in 1607
By Frustrated
November 10, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
Us-
While I am puzzled at how that piece of the article reminded you of that speech, I thank you for posting like an adult and not blasting me for statistical error.
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
And in rebuttal to “bar stool economics” ahhhhhhh if only the world were so simple. Nice viral email but here is a bit more how it really works:
In the US and throughout most of the rest of the world, the tenth man would have paid off a politician for $10 to get a beer subsidy of $30 per night(to create jobs for the bartender). Of this $30, $10 of course would have covered the lobbying expense, $10 would go in his own pocket, $1 would go to the bartender to keep his mouth shut, and $9 would go to the bar.
The Bar would give him a kickback of $10 each night for bringing in his 9 buddies to make them into alcoholics, repeat customers for life.
The Bar would then raise their prices to $130 citing inflation and higher taxes.
The tenth richest man would then secure his finances in a Dutch Holding Company managed by a trust in Ireland which invests in Chase and Bank of America. He would then explain to his buddies that he is as poor as the rest of them and can’t afford to pay himself as he cries into his beer that night citing his latest financial report which shows him to be broke on paper so that he doesn’t have to pay taxes in the United States ever again.
Citing his former generosity, the other nine men would agree that the tenth man can now pay nothing like the 4 poorest….
The tenth man would start demanding a higher Return on Investment from his investment managers, who would be hearing similar requests from all of their other investors. They would then expand their holdings into mortgaged back securities where a good deal more profit could be made.
Meanwhile the Fifth through ninth men are racking up debt on their credit cards from drinking every night, their health care costs are increasing as their liver fails, and they are also spending more on gasoline as they drink and drive as they can no longer afford to cab it.
Ultimately, they end up refinancing their credit cards into their house where they have equity. The mortgage broker promises them a 4.9% interest rate on the refinance which sounds good as their credit card interest rate is up to 21%. The broker promises them that they will not have to verify their income, provide W2’s nor copies of their tax paper work.
The loan closes, the mortgage broker gets a fat commission, the bank securitizes the mortgages by selling them to an Irish Hedge Fund and pockets collectively a billion dollars in profits that year.
The hedge fund holds the investment for a year, shows a 35% gain on paper and starts selling shares to retirement funds and 401ks in the US that the Sixth through 9th men just happen to have the rest of their life savings sitting in.
Gas prices are still going up so the President ignores a minor terrorist threat, allows the terrorists to blow up a major building and then goes to war with the terrorists home country where there is no oil, and simultaneously with a country that sits on 10% of the worlds oil reserves that has a decimated military infrastructure.
Oil prices shoot through the roof with Gold following close behind. The President whose family comes from oil barons make a fortune and become famous at their skull and bones country club outside of Yale.
Meanwhile our famous 10 guys, start paying even more money at the pump. The first 4 guys end up taking second jobs working at Wal-Mart and have to give up drinking at the bar so that they can try and beat their teenage kids out of a promotion.
The fifth and sixth guys get foreclosed upon. They were forced to stop paying their mortgage payments so that they could pay their mandatory credit card payments as required by the new bankruptcy law.
The seventh, eighth and ninth men all previously traded up their homes for McMansions that they can not afford with interest only payments of $2300 a month. When foreclosures start happening their plans on flipping their McMansions and cashing in on the equity slips through their fingers.
To make matters worse seven and eight get laid off from the companies they work for when their jobs get outsourced to China. The ninth man keeps his job at a law firm, but fails to notice that his 401k fund is slipping and has lost 10% in the last year. Things are looking up as his law firm seems on the edge of landing a big contract with Merrill Lynch.
Meanwhile, the banks and mortgage companies lobby congress spending about $10,000 a head in an election year to bail out the economy. Congress provides the major banks with government backed loans to refinance the bad sub prime loans so that the government can personally guarantee those bad loans. They also put $100 billion of actual cash into the hands of Americans hoping to stimulate the economy.
Americans however, are all in debt up to their eye balls and use the extra $1200 they receive to make 2-3 credit card payments. They take the $300 for each kid and buy groceries for the month and then they start worrying about next month.*
The banks get away free as they have Chinese financing now and no bad loans as they have refinanced them over to the US Government. The US government had to print more money to pay for all of these actions and so Gold goes up to $1500 a troy ounce.
The tenth man is now worth Billions and moves to Costa Rica to retire taking the new trophy wife that used to be the bartenders girl friend with him.
The first four men end up going to county prison for 3 months for stealing aluminum dog crap receptacles after running out of kegs to steal.
The fifth and sixth men end up living in an apartment and then homeless after they lose their jobs at Wal-Mart.
The seventh and eighth men whom we previously left hanging in our story after they lost their jobs and ability to pay for their homes, end up losing their homes, and their kids. They and their spouses are each convicted of mortgage fraud by the FBI in a major sting operation after it is revealed that they lied on their mortgage applications. Their mortgage brokers who actually did the paper work cop a plea agreement in exchange for immunity with the Feds and rat out each of their unsuspecting customers.
The ninth man ends up losing his entire retirement fund which took a big hit as the dollar rapidly plummeted into free fall.
I think the world if just a little more complicated than “bar stool economics” makes it out to be, like most other things in the world.
By HeeHaw
November 10, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
I forwarded one of USinUK’s “brilliant” responses about the reasons for the economic downturn to her. She still laughs about it.
I am thinking about starting a book of collected blog posts, the name to be Stupid Things Said on Blogs.
now let me go find all of the TOJ posts. Might need a Volume 2.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 10, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this
JokesOn? Does your mommy even know who your daddy is? STFU!
By USinUK
November 10, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this
chuck -
Jamestown was founded in 1607
out of all farrakhan’s nuttiness that is what you picked out? well, it’s a good start …
By Fandalf, the White!
November 10, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
Did you know that the Bush Invasion of Iraq freed a large number of dark skinned slaves?
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
Bruno—While he defended Mary Magdelene from being stoned to death, at the same time he beseeched her to “go and sin no more”. The bottom line is that love is both unconditional AND conditional, all at the same time. Try to wrap your tiny brain around that concept, and then we can talk. before you go insulting people, you should get your biblican context straight first. That story was never about Mary Magdelene. You should get some contaxt about what was really said and the compassion with which it was said:
In John 7:53–8:11 Jesus was teaching in the Temple in Jerusalem. Some scribes and Pharisees interrupted his teaching as they brought in a woman who had been taken in the very act of adultery. They stood her before him, declared the charge, reminded him of Moses’ command that such women be stoned, and then asked, “What do you say?” After a time of silence, Jesus stooped down and wrote with his finger on the ground. The text includes no hint of what he wrote. The woman’s accusers were after Jesus, not just her. She to them was a worthless object to be used to trap Jesus. Finally, Jesus stood up and said to the accusers, “Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone.” He stooped down once more and again wrote on the ground. In his answer Jesus did not condone adultery. He compelled her accusers to judge themselves and find themselves guilty — of this sin and/or others. No one could pass the test, and they slipped out one by one, beginning with the eldest.
When Jesus and the woman were finally alone, he asked her a simple question, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” She simply replied, “No one, Lord.” His final word to the woman was one of affirmation and commission: “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on sin no more.” While acknowledging that she had sinned, he turned her in a new direction with real encouragement.
By Gale
November 10, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
USinUK, more proof that anyone can interpret anything to mean what they want it to mean if the reference is vague enough.
By Gale
November 10, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
Oh, and numbers? I am also reminded of the people who see the face of Jesus on a piece of toast. Sheesh! What did his face really look like anyway? A piece of toast?
By USinUK
November 10, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this
Frustrated -
While I am puzzled at how that piece of the article reminded you of that speech, I thank you for posting like an adult and not blasting me for statistical error.
numerology. both excerpts used numerology.
By Frustrated
November 10, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
US-
out of all farrakhan’s nuttiness that is what you picked out? well, it’s a good start …
Nevermind, I thought you could be adult about it…guess you proved me wrong.
I am glad that I made that much of an impression, for you to mock me that is.
By chuck
November 10, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
I picked out the one item that was most easily disproved, thus invalidating the rest of the drivel.
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
Gale: What is so different about this position, president, that all the other successful blacks before him did not confer the sense of possibility?
Why would it matter to little girls if a woman was president? It is the highest office in the land, and it has never happened before. Remember that glass ceiling?
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
I picked out the one item that was most easily disproved, thus invalidating the rest of the drivel.
Ditto;)
By USinUK
November 10, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
Gale -
Oh, and numbers? I am also reminded of the people who see the face of Jesus on a piece of toast. Sheesh! What did his face really look like anyway? A piece of toast?
or the Virgin Mary in a waterstain under an overpass …
Frustrated -
I am glad that I made that much of an impression, for you to mock me that is.
mock you? no. mock the nuttiness of numerology? good gravy, yes.
chuck -
I picked out the one item that was most easily disproved, thus invalidating the rest of the drivel.
you should check out his interpretation of a-tone-ment.
By Frustrated
November 10, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
US,
I am not talking about your reponse to my post with a numerology post…I am talking about your response to Chuck….but nevermind, it isn’t important.
By Gale
November 10, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
SUnshine, the highest office in the land.
I don’t know think I felt that about Hillary’s run. But maybe it is because I don’t have children? I suppose that is one explanation.
Frustrated, when you base your arguments on false information, it makes you an easy target. Instead of the indignation, try to learn from it.
By Frustrated
November 10, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
Gale-
false information in what sense? The one numerical error??? That could have been true at the time when he wrote the article…maybe that was the number of voters at the time…
Or are you saying the rest of the article is false information?
By Gale
November 10, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
Frustrated, Apparently the one numerical error was enough for some people to discount the article. Frankly, I did not read the entire article. ( I am assuming the item in question was the very long post with Bible references.) If you have been reading long, you know I am an atheist. When people get into long articles to prove something in a Biblical context, I usually skip it. I have no idea if the rest of the article was false. I really just want the conversation to move on and not dwell on this.
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
false information in what sense? The one numerical error??? That could have been true at the time when he wrote the article…maybe that was the number of voters at the time…
That simply makes no sense. Comparing a partial count to a total count?
Errors like that, coupled by the fact that you are so eager to believe/excuse them, leads me to believe you might be a tad bit biased?
If it was a godly sign, don’t you think that he would have made it more pronounced by having the dow drop by exactly 777, instead of 777.68?
I would think god would be pretty precised if there was a message involved…
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this
Or are you saying the rest of the article is false information?
Are you trying to say this is factual?
The attacks of 9/11 were a major wake-up call. It is no accident that those attacks were against the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. — the symbols of American wealth and power. But like a sleepy person who is too groggy to wake-up, we simply turned off the alarm clock, rolled over and went back to sleep. Hurricane Katrina was another national wake-up call, in response to our forcing Israel to withdraw from Gaza.
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
Or are you saying the rest of the article is false information?
Guys, Frustrated’s post is from “www.RaptureAlert.com—Sounding the alert that Jesus Christ is coming soon!”
Why do we even address this? Every right winger on this blog wants any article from ABC, CBS or CNN thrown out because it is “left wing liberal drivel” This is an extremist website, why take the time?
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
Why do we even address this? Every right winger on this blog wants any article from ABC, CBS or CNN thrown out because it is “left wing liberal drivel” This is an extremist website, why take the time?
Agreed.
By USinUK
November 10, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
I wonder what TOJ’s ex has to say about this (from CNBC)
The economy will worsen in the coming months and cause the market to fall another 20 to 25 percent in the United States and abroad, said Nouriel Roubini, a New York University business professor, on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Monday.
“There’s going to be negative growth all the way to the end of 2009,” he said. “The surprises from now are going to be on the downside, for the economy, for earnings, for the financial system.”
Job losses will accelerate in the next months, Roubini said, and he expects a weak economic recovery in the short and mid-term.
“There’s going to be a very slow recovery, because you have the financial system that’s impaired; earnings are not going to grow very fast, and therefore the stock market will go sideways for quite a while,” he said.*
today’s news: Nortel to lay off 1,300 workers, DHL cuts 9,500 jobs, Circuit City files for bankruptcy, FNMA has record loss due to write-downs, GM was downgraded and so will probably not meet their minimum cash needs, the Saudis have confirmed they’ve cut the production of oil while Qatar said they want oil to stay above $70/bl
but, yeah, the market is crazy-erratic because Obama was elected and not because the fundamentals stink on ice … (rolling eyes) …
By The Other Jack
November 10, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
joke
Lets see who can refrain from personal attacks of any kind the longest. No matter how baited.
Does that include your army of false names and “pretend people”?
No thanks. You are slime. I look forward to pointing that out at every opportunity. How’s that for a challenge, Sunshine?
By Georgia Blue
November 10, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
Wah wah wah wah! You Republicans have only yourselves to blame! Y’all are the ones who pushed the Honorable War Hero McCain aside eight years ago when he would have made a decent leader and President, in favor of the Bush boy whose every endeavor in life was a complete disaster up until the time Daddy’s oil buddies paid top dollar to install him as Governor of Texas to attend to their own specific needs.
You forgave him for ignoring intelligence of imminent attacks to take more vacation days than any President in history. You accepted swagger and speechery as substance, and then glossed over the truth when he pulled our troops out of Afghanistan (where our enemies ARE) and invaded Iraq who did not attack us. You willingly ceded both rights and your responsibility to hold your government accountable while executive power increased, and “The Decider” decided things in secret, including how much of our treasury to empty into the pockets of his friends, sans bidding process, audits, regulations, or transparency.
You made excuses for the inept parade of old school chums he appointed to important positions, and then blamed others for their failures. (“It wasn’t Brownies’s job to save New Orleans!” even though Brownie received regular taxpayer-funded paychecks to manage just such emergencies.) You pretended not to notice that our President was playing the guitar and giggling on stage at a California GOP fundraiser while American citizens were DYING on the streets of a major American city, in puddles of their own feces, from dehydration, in a land where bottles of water outnumber humans on our own store shelves. You praised the divine righteousness of the Almighty Free Market while well-connected, well-heeled crooks lied and scammed and violated rules of honest business to secure their own financial futures, knowing full well the American economy was on borrowed time, and would collapse on the rest of us.
You preached hatred and division instead of unity, judgement and repression instead of individual rights, and YOU INSULTED THE PATRIOTISM OF EVERY AMERICAN WHO DARED EXERCISE OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SAY, “HEY, WAIT JUST A DOGGONE MINUTE!” OR “I THINK WE CAN DO BETTER!”
Thank you, Republicans of America! YOU made the “not possible in our lifetimes” not only a possibility, but a REALITY!
God Bless You, and God Bless America!
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
TOJ,
No thanks.
I figured, but did not want to pigeon hole you just yet.
Does that include your army of false names and “pretend people”? Meds! Take the Meds! They will help you.
By Gale
November 10, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
Golly, USinUK, that was cheery news. Not.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 10, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
Being as woman got Barry O’bama in Office, maybe they shouldn’t be able to vote. Nothing in the Constitution allows for it, except that silly amendment….
By USinUK
November 10, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
Sunshine -
Frustrated’s post is from www.RaptureAlert.com
… I wonder if it’s by the same nutty-nut-nut who has the early-morning TV show (Rapture countdown type thing) - he has a big, snowy-white hair-do and his wife is a bottle-blonde … (but I guess that describes a lot of TV-evangelicals) …
whatever blows your skirt up, I say. you want to believe in the Rapture? have a ball. pardon me while I sit this dance out, though.
just don’t start quoting numerology and expect to be taken seriously (the president lives at 1600 Penn Ave … take away the 1, multiply by the number of reporters Barney has bitten, divide by the total number of black tiles in the Old Executive Office Building, subtract the number of buckshots that were removed from Dick Cheney’s friend’s face and you’ll see that W is the Chosen One!!!)
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this
How’s that for a challenge, Sunshine? TOJ, how or what do you need to prove that I am not JokesOn? We share a similar perspective, that is it. Why must you persist in your delusion that we are the same person? There is no way to prove anyone’s identity here, you are just making yourself look unstable when you keep this up.
By Monica
November 10, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
USinUK, talk about the hurting middle class - if the American car makers go under… I worry about that right now more than the tax breaks that people will or won’t receive.
As for Circuit City, that’s what happens when you price gouge. Alas, our television died and our weekend was spent on a quest for the best deal. The Circuit City closest to us has already started its closeout prices. A 50” Sony plasma was going for $1298 (And way out of our price range!). That was the closeout sale. The same television was on sale at Best Buy for $998.
By Gale
November 10, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
TOJ, it is getting tedious. Name-calling belongs on grade school playgrounds where the parties can occasionally pound on one another physically to establish boundries, not in faceless discussion boards.
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
he has a big, snowy-white hair-do and his wife is a bottle-blonde
Has any reporter or such ever asked they how the heck they find that pink cotton candy hair natural? Really. It blows me away. I feel like I am watching the WWF of xians.
By USinUK
November 10, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
Gale -
Golly, USinUK, that was cheery news. Not.
on a more positive note … China’s government has announced a stimulus plan, so the markets are responding well to that today (Alcoa, Caterpillar, etc - all your construction infrastructure companies - seem to be a flotational device on the markets today).
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
Sunshine,
Riddle for you.
It is polite…I just could not find other words to make it work. It is not crude/rude. But, given your background, I think you can get it:
orgasming gemini makes an omlette
By Gale
November 10, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
Monica, THe Circuit City “close out” price just proves what my mother told me years ago. Just because the store says it is on sale, doesn’t mean it is a good price. Some silly person, who does not compare prices will snap it up and think he got a great deal.
By USinUK
November 10, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
Monica -
USinUK, talk about the hurting middle class - if the American car makers go under… I worry about that right now more than the tax breaks that people will or won’t receive.
I agree - in O’s presser last week, he discussed looking into some kind of bail-out for the auto-makers … the good thing is that they will finally be able to force GM et al to implement better CAFE standards, which is good for everyone (and about flippin’ time!)
As for Circuit City, that’s what happens when you price gouge. Alas, our television died and our weekend was spent on a quest for the best deal. The Circuit City closest to us has already started its closeout prices. A 50” Sony plasma was going for $1298 (And way out of our price range!). That was the closeout sale. The same television was on sale at Best Buy for $998.
I always preferred BB, myself - I just hate-hate-HATE the warranty hard sell!! However, I do think the CC bankruptcy is pretty indicative of how the retail sector is rapidly dissolving …
By Archie
November 10, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
Guys, Frustrated’s post is from “www.RaptureAlert.com—Sounding the alert that Jesus Christ is coming soon!” The Bible says no man,no man,no man knows the day or the hour of Christ’s return. I agree with you Sunshine don’t waste your time. I consider myself to be a liberal christian and sometimes I think folk forget certain character traits should be apparent right off the bat. I just received garbage from my manager with subtle praise of Bush blaming the media for the discontentment of americans. I just want to echo what USinUk said that most americans lost income over the last 8 years thus the discontentment and the fact we are in a war with no plan as to how to get out of it and the lies that were told to get us into in the first place thus more reason for discontentment. This stupid email ignores the fact that every president is the commander-in-chief and freedom has reigned under every president and all the troops that have died WERE NOT REPUBLICANS OR FANS OF BUSH. People have the right to be unhappy and they have the right to be happy but don’t send out a stupid email as if people should not complain about Bush as if it’s the media’s fault because it ain’t.
By Gale
November 10, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
Hmmm, so if the American auto makers are not making cars that people want to buy, assyming they could afford to buy a car, what should they convert to manufacturing so we do not lose a huge source of jobs, which obviously includes all the businesses that support the auto industry? We are trying to get out of the war business, so it shouldn’t be tanks and planes. How many scooters can one country buy? No. I don’t think scooters will work. Farm equipment? Inexpensive, small tractors and farm vehicles for the majority of farmers in the world that woek on plots smaller than five acres? Probably still not enough of a market, huh?
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this
JokesOn—Riddle for you. ok, I need a hint, I am pretty sure I have half of it, just can’t make it fit together, it is a phrase right?
By Monica
November 10, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
Here’s a thought Gale: how about making cars that people want to buy and that are easier on the environemnt? Such a catch-22: I understand the quandry of the American automakers, but as a consumer, well, there is a Kia in my garage - 10 year, 100,000 mile warranty, and 25% cheaper than competitors is pretty nice.
By chuck
November 10, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this
USUK
BTW, he was YOUR CANDIDATE’S BUDDY until Barack HUSSEIN HAMAS Obama had to throw him under the bus to get the Jewish vote.
Also, NETB and USUK, BTW, I added the HAMAS to “The One’s” name because he was endorsed by one of their prominent leaders and his campaign was quoted as saying they were “flattered” by it. The added benefit is that it gets all you guys fired up while I sit back and chuckle.
chuck—Can you live with the concept of a “civil union” which grants homosexual couples the same legal benefits of hetero couples?? If not, please explain your reasoning.
Brudog, my position on homosexuality is that it is wrong. It is a sin. It will eventually cause God to turn His back on this nation if we continue to condone it (along with a myriad of other sins like adultery, sex outside of marriage, drunkenness, etc.) Homosexuality is no different than other sins, but it is ONE area where MOST Americans agree, and we can actually accomplish something.
To answer your question, I am against ANY government policy that seeks to promote or even accept homosexuality as a valid “lifestyle choice”. Government should not accept as normal, that which is deviant.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 10, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this
Typical liberal response to any thing remotely right wing. You people worry about freedom, but you gladly take away that freedom to any that do not have the same views as your. You got what you wanted! Barry O’bama will take good care of you! When can get something for free from his administration! Like Free Taxes! Dum BASSes!
By Georgia Blue
November 10, 2008 12:32 PM | Link to this
Thank you, Chuck! Thank you, Fandalf! Thank you, The Other Jack! Thank you, Shaunti! The Democrats couldn’t have done it without you!
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
I am going against my own comment here by even addressing this but I am only posting it b/c I was reading another article and the numbers made me smile!
Between 22 and 24 million young Americans ages 18–29 voted, resulting in an estimated youth voter turnout (the percentage of eligible voters who actually cast a vote) of between 49.3 and 54.5 percent, according to an exit poll analysis released Nov. 4 by CIRCLE, a nonpartisan research center at Tufts University. This is an increase of 1 to 6 percentage points over the estimated youth turnout in 2004, and an increase of between 8 and 13 percentage points over the turnout in the 2000 election. The all-time highest youth turnout was 55.4 percent in 1972, the first year that 18-year-olds could vote in a presidential election.
Obama won the age group of 18- to 29-year-olds, in addition to the 30–44 and 45–59 brackets.
By USinUK
November 10, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this
chuck -
BTW, he was YOUR CANDIDATE’S BUDDY
ah. wrong. but thanks for playing. LF endorsed Obama, but Obama said no, thanks. the magazine published by Obama’s church praised LF, but Obama hasn’t.
I added the HAMAS to “The One’s” name because he was endorsed by one of their prominent leaders and his campaign was quoted as saying they were “flattered” by it. The added benefit is that it gets all you guys fired up while I sit back and chuckle.
fired up? ah. no, again. like I said - it just makes you look like and a$$. if you can live with it, no skin off my nose.
when reading World Net Daily, you should read the entire story - not just the headline - evey THEY got the story right (whereas you??? not so much). Obama was flattered … by the comparison to JFK:
“I like John Kennedy, too,” said chief Obama strategist David Axelrod. “That’s about the only thing we have in common with this gentleman from Hamas. We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it’s flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps.”
nice try, though.
By GOB
November 10, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
8I received a great email this morning that I thought I would share….I pray for this nation.*
Frustrated - That was really funny, but I thought Friday was joke day…
By chuck
November 10, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this
Hey Monica,
How long have you had the Kia? Do you like it and is it holding up well? I’ve been thinking about getting a van from them.
TOJ, I can tell you almost to a certainty that Sunshine and Jokeson are completely different people. Sunshine can actually make a coherent argument and her grammar and spelling are EXCELLENT.
By Gale
November 10, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
Chuck, MOST Americans do NOT agree that homosexuality is a sin. It is also not a “life-style” choice. The only thing that would satisfy some people opposed to homosexuality is the complete elimination of all homosexuals on the planet. Know what? In a few years they would be back because homosexuality is natural in life. People don’t choose it. It is like hair color. Many people change the color of their hair so they can be more acceptable to people who think only blonds are right. They still have brown hair. Homosexuals used to stay hidden so people like you would not freak out. Some still do. They are still homosexual even if you think they are not. You are wrong about this issue, Chuck.
Monica, I agree about cars. I have never purchased an American car. I am a capitalist and I want the most for my money.
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
Here is someone that I believe several members of this board could learn something from!
From Fox News by Mike Huckabee:
It’s no secret that I personally supported John McCain for president. I agreed with him on core issues and he and I are in the same party, but I also truly believe he’s an extraordinary and honorable American hero.
I campaigned hard for him — to the point of losing my voice in fact. But Americans elected Barack Obama and it’s time to put the election behind us and the country in front of us.
Barack Obama wasn’t my choice, but come January 20, he will be my president. I will pray for him and his family. I want him to be successful in leading our country.
I will not seek to see all of his faults and none of his qualities.
Some of President Bush’s harsh critics went beyond loyal opposition and engaged in angry, vile and mean-spirited hate.
Those of us who found that kind of attitude and behavior despicable can hardly engage in similar conduct toward a President Obama.
We can show our true patriotism conducting ourselves in the way that we wanted people to have treated President Bush.
In my lifetime, I saw the revolting and repulsive indignities of racism manifested in people of color being subjected to separate schools, waiting rooms, seating areas in theaters and water fountains.
It’s an embarrassing part of our nation’s history that we can never ignore. The evil, selfish — yes, sinful — treatment of other Americans because of color cannot be erased. But we can all celebrate that on this Election Day, a man was elected to live in the White House who 50 years ago would have at best been able to serve coffee there.
It means that when mothers put their children to bed, they will be able to tell them that there are no limits to their opportunities in America and young black children will be able to know that their pathway to the top is not necessarily limited to sports or entertainment, but might be through education, hard work and public service.
Surely, even the most partisan Republican can appreciate that.
If Barack Obama pushes tax increases, indifference to the sanctity of life or same sex marriages, I’ll strongly and loudly disagree. But I will still show him the respect that he has earned having been elected president of the United States.
Yes, my president.
(sorry for the long post!)
By Monica
November 10, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this
Chuck, I love my Kia mini-van. We bought the Sedona in 2004 (after I swore that I would never drive a minivan). It’s been a great vehicle. I like it because the gear shift is in the console versus the column, making it more sporty, but it’s also a smooth ride. Low noise. Seats are a little smaller than the Honda Odyssey, but not a big deal. Plenty of room in the back, and since there are just 4 of us we usually take the back two seats out on long trips. We make an annual trek to the beach, and we have made one trip to TX and one to IL since we have had the van. We are really pleased with it. I’m not superstitious except when it comes to cars, so I won’t say that it’s never given me any trouble; I don’t want to break down on the way home today!
By Bruno
November 10, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this
Jeez—Where do I begin today??
I think the strain of the election has more than a few people at the end of their tether. I’m just surprised one of those people is Bruno (TOJ and Chuck, I expected as much … but Bruno?? I was a bit disappointed).
The strain you speak of goes back a lot further than the most recent election, USinUK. Even before Bush took office in 2001, the wail from the left was deafening (He stole the election! He stole the election!). We conservatives had a brief respite following the 9/11 attacks, but not for long. For the past 2+ years that I’ve been on this blog, I’ve had to listen to non-stop crap about how evil Bush and all conservatives are and how great liberals are. Believe me, it gets old.
This week, the gloating by the Obama voters has taken obnoxiousness to new levels. Even Andrea made a surprise appearance to rub the victory into Gale’s face after Gale respectfully asked that some of the gloaters tone it down a little. I think your own statement to chuck was pretty ridiculous:
pooooooooooooooor chuckles … him so sad because he was defeated … because the country doesn’t believe what he does … because this isn’t the “center right” country that he and his Fox-viewing ilk think it is … awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
So, in the end, I guess the disappointment is mutual.
By chuck
November 10, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
USUK, Nice try to you also. Obama did EVENTUALLY turn down the endorsement, but his initial response was this, in an interview with Russert:
Here is Obama’s answer: “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan.”
Q:Do you reject his support?
Here is Obama’s second answer. “Well, Tim, you know, I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy.” The presidential candidate continued: “You know, I — you know, I — I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.”
It was actually several days later when pressed by CLINTON that he FINALLY rejected Louis’ support.
Prior to the election, Obama worked closely with “Minister Farrakhan”. He helped organize the “million Man March”. His wife sat on panels with him in the rev. Wright’s church, AND they lived in the same neighborhood. “Minister Farrakhan” was also INSTRUMENTAL in getting him elected to the state Senate.
By Bruno
November 10, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this
and, if you’re going to attribute anything to me, I called McCain McCranky - and I stand by it. I also stand by my statement that I really don’t think that highly of his “character”, so I think his actions support the nick-name.
As for the name calling, if you and your Lib buddies think it is justified to insult both Bush and McCain via mocking their names, then you’re going to have to live with people making fun of Obama’s name. Sorry.
And the difference between trying to scare people using the racially charged middle eastern name versus goofy names like McCranky is vast. I am amazed he even tried justifying that. It is like trying to compare honky and the “n” word - there is a clear difference of intent and slander.
That’s going to have to remain a difference of opinion, JokesOn.
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
Thank you for the compliment Chuck, I appreciate your civility and that you think my arguments are well structured even if we disagree!
By chuck
November 10, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
Sunshine, I heard that commentary on his show the other night and I agree with it. I have no problem accepting the fact that he is our president. The obvious DESIRE is to treat him the way that President has been treated for the past 8 freakin years by the left. Of course now that THEIR guy is in, it’s time to tone down the rhetoric.
That’s fine, but I’ll tell you this, I will NOT tone down the rhetoric when it comes to KEY ISSUES BOTH MORAL AND ECONOMIC. I think the rhetoric in those instances should not be personal, but stick to the issues. AND, if he disgraces the office as did Clinton, all bets are off.
Gale, That’s your opinion. Everybody has one, but 30 states have voted to deny marriage to homosexuals. That ought to tell you something.
By chuck
November 10, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
Anytime sunshine
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
Chuck—Prior to the election, Obama worked closely with “Minister Farrakhan”. He helped organize the “million Man March”. His wife sat on panels with him in the rev. Wright’s church, AND they lived in the same neighborhood. “Minister Farrakhan” was also INSTRUMENTAL in getting him elected to the state Senate.
Can you please site the source for this info, or is this just your opinion?
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this
AND, if he disgraces the office as did Clinton, all bets are off.—Chuck do you believe that Mr. Bush has disgraced the office of President?
By Bruno
November 10, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this
It is one thing to argue what policy you think is better, and another thing to misstate them as fact. I always though dog would learn about both candidates, but sounds like he gets his info from anti-obama sites instead. That is disappointing.
and it’s yet another thing when you say you don’t even know what they are when at least 2 people have pointed you to articles that tell you exactly what they are. and for him to say that O’s plan to raise the maximum cap gains rate to 20-25% is “vague” … well … he’s right, we evidently do have vastly different definitions of the word “vague.”
FYI, JokesOn and USinUK, I did listen to Obama’s ever-changing campaign promises and went to the websites you referenced. I saw him early in the election cycle referencing raising taxes for those making more than $75,000, then $150,000, then $200,000, then $250,000. I watched him make non-specific references to raising capital gains taxes, finally settling on some unknown figure between 20-25%. I also watched him first praise the hard-working people in middle America, then turn around and insult them in a speech in San Fran. I watched him wiggle and squirm regarding his knowledge of his pastor’s openly racist statements. I watched him first tell the Tampa Bay fans that he was rooting for the Devil Rays, then tell the Philadelphia fans that he was rooting for the Phillies. As such, you will have to forgive me if I don’t have the same confidence in what he says as you apparently do. However, if it’s psychologically beneficial for you to discredit my opinions, then be my guest.
By USinUK
November 10, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this
Chuck -
Obama did EVENTUALLY turn down the endorsement, but his initial response was this
well, I think Obama said it best when he said (in the same debate you cite, not several days later): Tim, I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There’s no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word “reject” Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word “denounce,” then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.
Brunooooooooooo -
if you and your Lib buddies think it is justified to insult both Bush and McCain via mocking their names, then you’re going to have to live with people making fun of Obama’s name. Sorry.
Bush … insult him? you mean by calling him W??? and if you think calling someone McCranky is the same as calling him a terrorist, you’re right - you and I do definitely view the world VERY differently. But, like I said to chuck, he’s the one who looks like an a$$ when he does it … it’s no skin off my nose.
on my way home … later taters.
By Georgia Blue
November 10, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this
The obvious DESIRE was to treat Bush the way that President Clinton was treated for 8 freakin years by the Limbaugh-listening, O’Reilly-boo-buying right, even though the nation enjoyed relative peace, prosperity, and a surplus at the time. Of course, once THEIR guy was in, anyone who didn’t worship the Boy King, and anyone who questioned his complete authority as “The Decider” would be called a “terrorist-loving, America-hating TRAITOR!”
But I forgive you. Thank you for making Obama’s election possible!!!
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
JokesOn—Riddle for you. ok, I need a hint, I am pretty sure I have half of it, just can’t make it fit together, it is a phrase right?
A synonym of the first word = persons last name
Yes, it is a simple sentence.
By Bruno
November 10, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this
before you go insulting people, you should get your biblican context straight first. That story was never about Mary Magdelene. You should get some contaxt about what was really said and the compassion with which it was said
Sunshine, I agree that Mary Magdelene is not specifically named as the woman to whom Jesus said “Sin no more”, although it is often accepted that way as a matter of tradition. If you need back-up on that, just google “Mary Magdelene” and “Sin no more” for a number of references. Which, in the end has nothing to do with my point that Jesus was NOT a one-dimensional, compassionate “forgive everyone” liberal as a number of your obnoxious liberal cohorts like to believe.
Bruno, the fact remains Martin Luther, regardless of his views on Jews had very liberal thoughts and teachings on the bible and the church, you are just grasping at straws to make some sort of counter point. You know what I meant and you know it is a fact that he changed the face of Protestant religion because of his new (ie. Liberal) views on how man and god could interact. Come on Bruno you are smarter than this. Are you really so against any new ideas that you can not see the good big bad dirty liberals have done all of us at many different points in history?
Again, Sunshine, your naming Martin Luther as a “liberal” is rather suspect in my book. For starters, Luther didn’t “change the face of the Protestant religion” because Protestantism didn’t exist before he presented his ideas to his local Catholic church. (As a small point of history, there is no record of him actually nailing the thesis to the church door). In fact, Luther didn’t envision a “new” religion spinning away from the Catholic Church at all, he just hoped to make some modifications. The most important of these modifications was for common people to have English versions of the Bible available so that they could read it themselves and pray to God directly. And though you beleive this to be a “liberal” idea, a good argument could bne constructed that this idea is actually more in line with conservative ideology in emphasizing the power of the individual over the power of a centralized authority.
Again, the biggest point I’m trying to make is that is completely unproductive to comb through history and label each historical figure as being a “liberal” or a “conservative”, especially when the speaker only names “good” people as “liberals” and “bad” people as “conservatives”. For example, I could likely argue that Stalin was a liberal for embracing collectivism. But what good would come from it?
In the end, if it makes you feel better to beleive that Jesus was a liberal, then don’t let me stand in your way.
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
However, if it’s psychologically beneficial for you to discredit my opinions, then be my guest.
As I recall I simply pointed you to a valid site after you would not find the info yourself.
I watched him make non-specific references to raising capital gains taxes, finally settling on some unknown figure between 20-25%.
You mean that figure that you said he did not offer? And, USinUK provided to you and that you use now as if you knew it all along?
Whatever Dog. I see your true colors now that you are not getting your way again. At least it is not pining for a blogger you never met.
Catch you on the flip side.
By Frustrated
November 10, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
chuck—Can you live with the concept of a “civil union” which grants homosexual couples the same legal benefits of hetero couples?? If not, please explain your reasoning.
Brudog, my position on homosexuality is that it is wrong. It is a sin. It will eventually cause God to turn His back on this nation if we continue to condone it (along with a myriad of other sins like adultery, sex outside of marriage, drunkenness, etc.) Homosexuality is no different than other sins, but it is ONE area where MOST Americans agree, and we can actually accomplish something.
To answer your question, I am against ANY government policy that seeks to promote or even accept homosexuality as a valid “lifestyle choice”. Government should not accept as normal, that which is deviant.
Nicely Done! Go Chuck!!!
By Mara
November 10, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this
chuck - 30 states have voted to deny marriage to homosexuals
at one time inter-racial marriages were illegal, too. That didn’t make misecnegation right…just socially accepted. And defended by the church-going masses, just as the same type of discrimination against gays is defended today.
Prior to the 1960s, an overwhemling majority of white Americans approved the illegalization of interracial marriages. Religious beliefs were the only justifications they had, besides old-fashioned racism. Old Testament verses were often cited, saying it was against God’s will to have races inter-marry.
Even today, if you Google “interracial marriage” there are numerous entries about the Bible and interracial marriage, though they are mostly just clarifications of why interracial couples are not prohibited in the Bible. Mostly.
It took between 50 - 100 years for anti-interracial marriage laws to be overturned, depending on the state.
Gale, take heart. Sooner or later gays WILL be accorded their rights. I firmly believe that. The more out gays continue forming relationships and families, even without government sanction, the more commonplace it’ll become and the more rediculous the fearful begin to sound. I’m just sorry it’s taking so long.
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this
The obvious DESIRE is to treat him the way that President has been treated for the past 8 freakin years by the left. Of course now that THEIR guy is in, it’s time to tone down the rhetoric.
As I recall, the admin and repubs were the ones calling us names, not the other way around: Unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizers, un-american, anti-american, intolerant…
By Frustrated
November 10, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this
Chuck, MOST Americans do NOT agree that homosexuality is a sin. It is also not a “life-style” choice. The only thing that would satisfy some people opposed to homosexuality is the complete elimination of all homosexuals on the planet. Know what? In a few years they would be back because homosexuality is natural in life. People don’t choose it. It is like hair color. Many people change the color of their hair so they can be more acceptable to people who think only blonds are right. They still have brown hair. Homosexuals used to stay hidden so people like you would not freak out. Some still do. They are still homosexual even if you think they are not. You are wrong about this issue, Chuck.
They are homosexual because they made the choice to be that way….for whatever reason….and where are your statistics supporting “Most Americans do not believe it is a sin?” if that is so, then why are so many states turning it down? Why are we still fighting over this??? Because we DO think it is wrong and we are saying “NO”
By Bruno
November 10, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this
Last few points, then I have to go back to work:
I’m still waiting for someone to comment on the fact that both Biden and Obama have been less-than-generous when it comes to charitable giving. Ditto for the disparity in giving between “liberals” and “conservatives”.
And to JokesOn, who apparently can’t concede when he is wrong, I invite you to google in “Obama” and “most liberal Senator” to see the number of references to back up my assertion. In addition, the Congressional Quarterly states that he voted along party lines more than 97% of the time during his tenure as a Senator. So, while you like to believe that he is somehow a centrist, a consensus builder who will reach across party lines, the fact is that he’s not.
By JohnF
November 10, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this
Gale,
I do believe that most of the people in this country still have a negative opinion of homosexuals. And frankly, some people just get a kick out of being able to have that much control over someone. Most of the people in this country also have little more education than a high school diploma. That ought to tell you something.
However, those attitudes change for the better year after year as more of us self-identify and do nothing more than merely live our lives openly.
It is that “agenda” that the Christian Right spends most of their effort fighting…the fact that we and our relationshiops might have a visible “identity” as people with dignity.
Because once you have that identity…others start identifying with you.
That’s why they use words like “homosexual” which is more cold and clinical, instead of “gay”. That’s why they insult us by saying our relatonships have no more validity than that of someone that is attracted to sheep. To the Christian Right..anything that gives any hint of dignity to our relationships is a threat. And they combat that threat by using fear.
The Chuck person does it..look at what he said above. He makes the suggestion that God is likely to take revenge on mankind if gays are allowed to have any dignity. The implications of that opinion are pretty clear.
Yes, 30 states have amendments banning marriage..some states also have laws banning civil unions and apparently in Virginia you and your partner can’t even make legal arrangements if someone thinks your contract “approximates” a marriage. But these amendments are the results of a numbers game. A little over 50% voted for prop 8, but that also means that a little under 50% didn’t.
The numbers are changing. But just as acceptance of gays increases, so will the fear-mongering and outright lies that comes out of the religious extremists…be prepared.
By Bruno
November 10, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this
Whatever Dog. I see your true colors now that you are not getting your way again. At least it is not pining for a blogger you never met.
Glad you know so much about me, JokesOn. Kind of like you accusing chuck of working at a gas station.
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
Brudog, my position on homosexuality is that it is wrong. It is a sin. It will eventually cause God to turn His back on this nation if we continue to condone it (along with a myriad of other sins like adultery, sex outside of marriage, drunkenness, etc.) Homosexuality is no different than other sins, but it is ONE area where MOST Americans agree, and we can actually accomplish something.
You think that more people think it is wrong to be in a homosexual relationship than committing adultery? Comments?
And you think these are all in the same category, meaning they should have accompanying legislation?
Once again, If your god provides free will as part of the process here, what give you or the government the right and ego to remove it? Watch Clockwork Orange a few times and listen to the priests message.
By JohnF
November 10, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this
Government should not accept as normal, that which is deviant.
Government should not restrict a citizens pursuit of happiness unless it interferes with another citizens pursuit of happiness.
Frustrated,
What..did you think you can just vote for an unfair amendment and that’s the end of it?
This will never be over. We may have to wait 30 or so years until you die out and your children, who overwhelmingly are more open minded, have to overturn all of these amendments..but it’s gonna happen.
By Gale
November 10, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Mara. Chuck, the majority that vote are only those who care enough about an issue to vote. Usually, those folk are a minority of people eligible to vote. The non-voting, silent majority has no interest in what gay people do.
By Archie
November 10, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this
I disagree with Gale when she said most people don’t see homosexuality as sin. Most people do see it as sin and that’s a big reason why you don’t have gay marriage rights. We can debate whether most people are right on gays but let’s acknowledge their motivations for being against gay rights. As a liberal christian I know I go against tradition with my beliefs but I have recently found out that there are a growing number of ministries that deal with Hiv in the black community and they are compassionate towards gays. I also disagree with Bruno when he says Jesus was a “forgive everyone liberal” because of this: “Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, ‘Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.” Matthew 18:21-22, NIV. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” Ephesians 4:32, NIV Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.
Anyway last week Mara asked why blacks were overwhelmingly against gay marriage, well, it’s because of religion and ignorance,plain and simple. Now at the same time blacks are compassionate and forgiving towards gays in their families for that very same reason. I have said before that I grew to a point to where I can accept gays and gay marriage but that came from learning about people.
By k
November 10, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this
Here’s what’s WRONG: Pretending to love a woman when you don’t, marrying her because your family, staff sergeant, and community expect it, having a family with her, and never really loving her, leaving her a lifetime of frustration, tears, and self-doubt. Ditto pretending to love a man, for the same reasons listed above, and making HIM blue-nutted and miserable, because you never really loved him or his manhood.
Honestly and openly loving whom you love leads to less pain in the end. LIES in the name of religion are abhorrent. But do go on promoting lies if what you love is to be a hater. Just don’t be surprised when YOUR KIND is relegated to the back alleys of disgrace.
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this
Alright JokesOn, I am dumber than you thought, and your riddle is driving me CRAZY! I was along the lines of twin peaks…;-) The orgasming part just throws me!
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this
And to JokesOn, who apparently can’t concede when he is wrong, I invite you to google in “Obama” and “most liberal Senator” to see the number of references to back up my assertion.
I provided a link and the pertinent text from the organization that comes up with those numbers. Even they stated that their numbers as such a snap shot and partial (he missed a full 1/3 of items being voted on and was not in the top 10 the previous years) , that it is foolish to use them. Not much to admit about when the statisticians themselves say the numbers mean little if anything.
Now, does it surprise me that there are tens-of-thousands of people that use them and provide hits on google? no. The number of hits does not validate anything, otherwise Bugs Bunny is real at 5,390,000 hits.
By Mara
November 10, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
You’d think that after seven+ years, we would have learned to never accept “trust us…” from this administration -
“The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.”
“Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn’t require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.”
You guys do know we’re being ripped off…right? Not just in regard to the renegging of transparancey for the Welfare-for-Wall-Street “stimulus package”, but that the money allocated to ‘rescue’ these lenders is NOT being disbursed as loans to the public as it was supposed to be (that was the “stimulus” part of the package)…it’s being sent out as dividends to shareholders!
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this
Glad you know so much about me, JokesOn. Kind of like you accusing chuck of working at a gas station.
Yeah dog. Whatever you are pi$$ed about, take it out on another blog, k?
By Frustrated
November 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this
Jokes- I think that if asked outright, then more people would openly say that they are against homosexuality more, but committing adultery is no better than being gay. Do I think there should be a law against it? Sure.
As far as free will, yes I think there is free will, but there is also Omniscience. God knows everything……..
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
Alright JokesOn, I am dumber than you thought, and your riddle is driving me CRAZY! I was along the lines of twin peaks…;-) The orgasming part just throws me!
I trust you can get it. Just think on it over the next few. It has nothing to do with the blog.
I was along the lines of twin peaks…;-) One (ironically) of the words is correct.
By Archie
November 10, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this
Here’s what’s WRONG: Pretending to love a woman when you don’t, marrying her because your family, staff sergeant, and community expect it, having a family with her, and never really loving her, leaving her a lifetime of frustration, tears, and self-doubt. That statement is a good point K, because I found out that was actually happening and I couldn’t deny it and after watching,reading, and learning more about homosexuality I came to accept it. I saw that Oprah show where the guy had been deceiving his wife for 20 years. There’s no way that I want a woman that doesn’t like men, no way so I rather she go and be what she is so that I can be what I am, a straight man. Denial seems to be so prevalent here in the South and we seem to be unable to be progressive inspite of straight out evidence.
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this
As far as free will, yes I think there is free will, but there is also Omniscience. God knows everything……..
And your point is?
If your version of god is omniscient, and allows free will; what makes it your job to police and report on people regarding something that does not effect you in the least?
By Frustrated
November 10, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this
JohnF…I don’t remember saying it was over. I just said that the American people have spoken and in 2008, the answer is no.
If the good U S of A is still around when our great great grandchildren are around, then they can argue about it. For I will be in a better place…all I can do is teach and raise my family in a Christian household….according to God’s word….if they take it and believe as I, then maybe you are wrong…..maybe this will be a debate for years to come.
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this
Frustrated
Is it only christianity that can infused the good U S of A with religion, or can any religious majority impose its views on America?
By Lily Toad
November 10, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
Gosh, I haven’t been to this forum for months, and people are still debating homosexuality no matter the question for the week. As happy as I am about Obama’s decisive win, I’m devastated by the anti-gay amendments. This is an excellent example of the tyranny of the majority. Just as young people aren’t as racist as earlier generations they aren’t as homophobic either. The more gay neighbors and gay co-workers that straight people get to know the better. Change will come. I’m amazed that we’ve elected an African-American/mixed raced President, so I’m predicting that gay marriage and the ability of gay parents to adopt will be commonplace eventually. That doesn’t take away the pain of the recent referunda though.
By USinUK
November 10, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
Jokes -
I’m just thrown by the omlette reference …
and, as usual, don’t you love how chuck glosses over when someone proves him wrong???
and Bruno … no response from you, either? I’m a bit let down.
By USinUK
November 10, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
Jokes -
Is it only christianity that can infused the good U S of A with religion, or can any religious majority impose its views on America?
you’d think the religious conservatives would LOVE Hinduism … after all, Ganesh is an elephant …
… somehow, I think not …
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this
USinUK,
*I’m just thrown by the omlette reference … *
Do not let it get to you. Sunshine said something about her past experiences which would enable her to get it. Otherwise, it is VERY obscure. In order to make an omlette you have to…
First name is similar to Homer Simpons wife’s name…
By Mara
November 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
LILY TOAD!!!! Wow, Netbanker, GOB, now you! (little tear)
It just seems like old home week all of a sudden.
By USinUK
November 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
… and … just because it’s out there:
A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey finds that 76 percent of Americans disapprove of how Bush is handling his job, “an all-time high in CNN polling and in Gallup polling dating back to World War II.” Bush is now more unpopular that Richard Nixon when he resigned from office after Watergate (66 percent disapproval). He also beats the previous record holder, Harry Truman, who had a 67 percent disapproval rating in January 1952.
By k
November 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
Can I answer?
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this
Can I answer?
If you want to. It is specific to an area of knowledge and would be moot (shout out to mara) for all else on here though.
By k
November 10, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this
I believe I know, but I’ll let Sunshine mull it over, since it’s an area of knowledge with which she’s becoming more familiar, I think.
By Lily Toad
November 10, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
Hey, Mara,
88 [air kisses]
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this
Sorry boys but it isn’t meant as a gloat!
YEAH FOR 44!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Barack Obama will move swiftly to close Guantanamo Bay as soon as he takes office, his aides revealed today, a clear and early sign of how aggressively he wants to break with President Bush the moment he is sworn in.
Mr Obama is planning to ship dozens of terror suspects from the prison to face criminal trial in the US as part of a plan to shut the jail down. It is a controversial move but one that demonstrates how abruptly he plans to change Washington in terms of policy, personnel and tone the moment he enters the Oval Office.
(JokesOn, I am still working on it!)
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
(JokesOn, I am still working on it!)
Take your time.
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this
k,
I believe I know, but I’ll let Sunshine mull it over, since it’s an area of knowledge with which she’s becoming more familiar, I think.
I see where you are going and like it.
By USinUK
November 10, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
Sunshine -
huzzah!!! that’s the best - and, may I add MOST PATRIOTIC - news I’ve read all day!!! let’s hear it for habeus corpus!!! (even if it’s not spelled quite correctly)
thanks for sharing!!!
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this
USinUK, this was my favorite line from the article:
He conceded that moving the prisoners onto US soil will be controversial, but added: “We can’t put people in a dungeon forever without processing whether they deserve to be there.”
What a concept!
By Bruno
November 10, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
Yeah dog. Whatever you are pi$$ed about, take it out on another blog, k?
No problem. I mean, since God Himself is a liberal, what value could a conservative bring to this blog?
So glad you lived up to your pledge to not participate in personal attacks.
I guess dissent is only ok when it comes from the left.
By Frustrated
November 10, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
Sunshine-
On the 44…..I am not sure why this can be celebrated. Aren’t we about to give non citizens….terrorists for that matter….rights to OUR courts? Something WE will be paying for out of OUR pocket? For people who have went AGAINST our country? I can understand closing the jail, but is there a better way to do this instead of bringing them here??? On the very land they tried to destroy?
I mean, if they are found guilty, do we get to send them an invoice for what they owe?
I am not totally familiar with this, so I may be missing something.
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this
So glad you lived up to your pledge to not participate in personal attacks.
Didn’t you notice? TOJ could not take the challenge.
BTW, when did “Yeah dog. Whatever you are pi$$ed about, take it out on another blog, k?” become a personal attack?
Really. We all noticed the change in you.
No problem. I mean, since God Himself is a liberal, what value could a conservative bring to this blog?
You did bring something after the math lectures and before this stint of generalizing libs (after incorrectly stating that many libs demonized repubs). But, now you sound just like TOJ. Angry and looking for a fight.
I guess dissent is only ok when it comes from the left.
You say dissent, and I say slandering all libs and freaking out.
Like I said. Whatever. I thought you were more even tempered than this.
By JokesOn
November 10, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this
On the 44…..I am not sure why this can be celebrated. Aren’t we about to give non citizens….terrorists for that matter….rights to OUR courts? Something WE will be paying for out of OUR pocket? For people who have went AGAINST our country? I can understand closing the jail, but is there a better way to do this instead of bringing them here??? On the very land they tried to destroy?
I mean, if they are found guilty, do we get to send them an invoice for what they owe?
Funny how “what you do to the least of me…” only applies to the people you think are valid. Besides, you, I or anyone can be considered an “enemy-combatant” and be sent there to rot without any trial, nada.
I am not totally familiar with this, so I may be missing something.
The short story is that there is already a worldwide agreement on what can/can’t be done to prisoners of war. Bush changed the rules and the new rules/practices have no oversight.
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this
Frustrated, it means that we are once again playing by the rules that we said to the world that we would play by. (You know its called Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War) Instead of breaking our word and imprisoning people with out counsel, trials, rights or any end in sight. Which considering all the talk this week and last from the GOP’ers here about that they want the polls closed at the exact right second “cause those are the rules” and that because Mr. Obama didn’t take public funding he “broke his word”, you should understand that we would like to also follow the rules, and not break our world, since that is what we all SHOULD be doing right?
By Archie
November 10, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this
I just read the Cnn approval rating article and all I can is …damn. I mean 76 percent disapproval means a whole lot of republicans didn’t like Bush. Even Lindsey Graham said corruption and greed were why the republicans lost the White House. I don’t think people are piling on they are just catching on and acknowledging the truth.
By Sunshine
November 10, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this
JokesOn-All I have is a word jumble that makes no sense! But it has been fun stretching the brain muscles all day! Made my day go by faster, even if I haven’t gotten it yet!
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 8:12 AM | Link to this
joke the loser
Didn’t you notice? TOJ could not take the challenge. But, now you sound just like TOJ. Angry and looking for a fight.
Personal attack after personal attack. Get me off your mind, boy. Spend the energy that you spend pining over me on something that might advance yourself. Work on getting that GED. Read some books on personal decency. Take a shower, brush your nasty teeth.
Do something, anything that will make you stop thinking about me 24/7. I’m sure you are still going from blog to i-photo to blog desperately hoping for some connection, any connection with me.
Let it go, boy.
Can you go a single day without talking about me? A single day?
Not likely. Damn, you are stupid.
By Gale
November 11, 2008 8:22 AM | Link to this
I heard an Obama staffer this morning saying Obama was unlikely to be able to implement some of the things he promised in his campaign before 2013. I understand the field is pretty crowded with problems. But if “change” waits until 2013, people are likely to become impatient and he will not get a chance in 2013.
By Frustrated
November 11, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this
Jokes/Sunshine- Thank you for clearing it up…like I said, I am not familiar with 44, so I am glad that they are taking care of this. Is there a reason that it is being done in the US? Wouldn’t that kind of be a conflict? Is there not a court somewhere else that can put these people on trial? I agree that not all of the prisoners are guilty and that they should have trial… But what will happen to those who are found guilty?
By norman ravitch
November 11, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this
Americans are foolish enough to buy ideologies which have nothing to do with their real concerns — namely the ideology of the far right. But they are not stupid enough to continue this attitude when a recession or even a depression lies over the horizon. Thank God for the depression which gave us FDR; thank God for the current economic crisis which has saved us from much Bushite nonsense.
There was a time when Georgians and Southerners realized that their best friend was FDR, not some damned Republican plutocrat. That time should be here again.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 8:33 AM | Link to this
Gale
The Washington Post is now admitting to biased reporting. Obama is saying that he is not going to be able to do what he promised. Both things I predicted before the election.
Press is biased, Politicians are liars. What else is new?
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this
I think I may have it, I am kinda hoping I am not right though, does the second word have a “gone with the wind” reference?
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this
I am not familiar with 44—44 as in the 44th president, Mr. Obama
By USinUK
November 11, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this
Gale -
I heard an Obama staffer this morning saying Obama was unlikely to be able to implement some of the things he promised in his campaign before 2013. I understand the field is pretty crowded with problems. But if “change” waits until 2013, people are likely to become impatient and he will not get a chance in 2013
not having read the same article, I can only say that it would depend on what was pushed back, I would imagine. Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’d just be happy if the economy stabilized a bit, unemployment improved, jobs were created instead of lost … know what I mean, jellybean?
By Gale
November 11, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this
True, TOJ. I am wondering about the reactions; potential reactions, of Obama supporters. How long are the supporters who only expected “change” going to be patient before they start clambering for that promised change?
Granted, Obama is making some sweeping pronouncements related to things he will have the authority as President to change like the prisoner status at Guantanamo. I don’t know if that is anything he talked about in the campaign.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this
hey norman
Presidents can only serve for two years. Bush was done this year whether we had an economic downturn or not.
You do realize that the president has almost nothing to do with the economy. Right? You did take civics class, right?
Now who has been in charge of Congres since 2006 when the economy started going south? Can you tell me? Try reeeal hard to think. You might want to look it up.
By Mrs. Angry Republican
November 11, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
That’s right, Other Jack! A Republican President borrows the money to keep all his promises, and does not use an inherited bad economy (or an inherited good one) as an excuse for pacing his plans. A Republican Presidents keeps his promises to his friends to stuff their pockets with all the tax money he can collect and borrow, sticking future generations — not his problem! — with the bill. Let us pray for the swift return of a Republican President! (If he doesn’t keep his promise to you, then you’re a stupid commie who doesn’t count. Please go drown yourself in your toilet immediately!) God Bless the Real America and to heck with the rest of you pathetic Democratic voting losers.
By USinUK
November 11, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
The Washington Post is now admitting to biased reporting.
not that you’ll ever let the facts get in the way of a good story, but you should analyze the study before you start crowing … since I know you won’t, here’s what E&P had to say:
It may yet turn out that major, exhaustive studies will prove that the media were grossly unfair to John McCain. Bring them on. But these studies don’t do that.
Since I’ve written about they were wrongly interpreted by many — let me stick close to Howell’s report here.
First, like the PEJ survey, the numbers are badly thrown off by the fact that both studies found that “horse race” angles (including polling) thoroughly dominated the overall coverage in their samples — 57% of the stories in the PEJ and much higher than that in the Post’s study (1,295 horse-race stories and only 594 issues stories).
This disgraceful proportion is worth its own critique about the media’s priorities, but the fact is: Except for a week after the end of the GOP convention, before Palinmania collapsed, Obama was ahead in the polls, eventually by a lot, and he always led in the fundraising (overwhelmingly), in the size of his crowds (ditto), and in putting more states in play. He couldn’t help but lead in favorable coverage — if that coverage was thoroughly dominated by these horse race angles (and it was).
My complaint about the Post and PEJ handling of their own results is not that they ignored this but that they did not make that key aspect clear at the very top of their analysis, not halfway down and without enough emphasis. It is unquestionably the single leading factor affecting both studies.
So we will be reading for years about the strong media “bias” against McCain when it was mainly (although perhaps not completely) a matter of Obama leading the horse race and getting credit for that by reporters who were, surprise, not deaf, dumb and blind. Does anyone doubt that if McCain had roared to the lead in October and stayed ahead until the end that the results of the studies would have been completely different?
Yes, the press is biased – in favor of recognizing who is winning and stating that perhaps too often.
Also: Can the media be faulted if one candidate is committing the major share of gaffes or (in this age of fact-check sites) making the most inaccurate statements in speeches and in ads? Is it “bias” to recognize that?
The Washington Post study did find an editorial/op-ed tilt to Obama, but opinion sections or programs (Fox’s or MSNBC’s primetime lineups) are inherently biased and should be disregarded in judging day-today news coverage – plus, as Howell pointed, part of the reason for the Post’s imbalance was that a number of conservative writers for the paper grew critical of McCain. You can’t make pundits who generally support one party back a candidate they think is weak.
more at: http://www. editorandpublisher. com/ eandp/news/articledisplay.jsp?vnucontent_id=1003889222
(copy/paste/delete spaces)
By USinUK
November 11, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Presidents can only serve for two years.
terms. two terms. 8 years.
Now who has been in charge of Congres since 2006 when the economy started going south?*
once again, Dems were elected in November 2006, not taking power until January 2007. but, thanks for playing.
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
JokesOn-you around?
By Lyrazel
November 11, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
Mr Obama is planning to ship dozens of terror suspects from the prison to face criminal trial in the US as part of a plan to shut the jail down. It is a controversial move but one that demonstrates how abruptly he plans to change Washington in terms of policy, personnel and tone the moment he enters the Oval Office.
Its grand that Obama wants to close Guantanamo and give the prisoners their day in military court (remember this will never be civilian court being they are POW). Fine. What happens when the country they are from does not have the stability to judiciously govern their return or does not want them back? They are going into America’s military prison population stateside or abroad into prisons most Americans dont acknowledge we use—jails run in cooperation with other countries that now hold many more POWs than Guantanamo could that operate completely unobserved by USA TV or reporters. They will never be regular prisoners—so do not look for bail proceedings… Their lawyers are the only thing civilian about these proceedings—and its about time they got lawyers, I agree. I have serious doubts these prisoners will ever be repatriated nor will they ever be freed. Fine Guantanamo closes its prison and everyone dances whoopie and like always America forgets them but we still will keep them prisoner. Same as it ever was. Wink Wink politics.
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
Yes, the press is biased – in favor of recognizing who is winning and stating that perhaps too often.—Stupid Biased Media, covering the candidate that is, you know, more news worthy! What are we going to do with these saps that cover the person who most people are more interested in and most people voted for, geeeez!
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this
gale
It doesn’t matter to the kool aid drinkers, which is not every person that voted for Obama.
Most liberals still blame Clinton’s inability to pass universal health care on the Republicans even though he had a completely Democratically dominated Congress for his first two years in office.
People like Obama don’t get elected because of what people believe they will do. They get elected for the exact reason that Kimberly sited: Hope. That’s pretty thin in the reasoning department but we are looking at the ultimate Teflon president.
They expect him to make great speeches.
They expect him to inspire.
They expect him to look great to the rest of the world.
That’s it. He could be going out at night and raping nuns, but as long as he continues with that 5% head tilt, making him look presidential, he can do no wrong.
It also doesn’t matter for the next election. He beat the Clintons, the most powerful political machine in our nation’s history. He has the financial backing of several pretty corrupt billionaires. Who could defeat that kind of money?
Like it or not, we have Barrack Obama for the next eight years. Congress may flip because local Senate and House races are less effected by huge money. Local spots go for $35/spot. For a few hundred bucks, a candidate can buy entire commercial blocks. local stations hate it. They are forced to give politics the ultimate premium rate.
The media did several stories on it’s own bias after the Kerry / Bush race. Expect more of this sort of thing coming from the major networks, although the bias in this one was worse than any before by a long shot.
Obama is clay, ready to be shaped by Pelosi and Reed. He is already hiring extremely leftest advisers and staff. Look for a lot of the people that he never knew or liked, but hung out with since he moved to Chicago (Wright, Aires) to become his friends again.
But none of that will matter. He will be bringing hope and change when the DOW hits 400, most of our allies have fallen to the new Russian empire, gas is $15/gal, inflation and unemployment are in the teens and Iraq and Afghanistan are territories of Iran.
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel—What happens when the country they are from does not have the stability to judiciously govern their return or does not want them back?— What is the alternative? It is easy to point out the problems, how about a solution? What do you think we should do with them? Surely you can see how some action, ANY ACTION is better that letting people sit and rot with out so much as a formal charge brought against them. How does this treatment of any POW make our soldiers safer or give us an thing but a black eye. I understand there are things we don’t know that our military does but Gitmo just makes the US look like a terrible bully. If we want to win the “war on terror” we need to stop terrorizing citizens of other nations!
By Gale
November 11, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this
I guess we are in a rather difficult position: do we continue to have a free press or switch to a state run press. Let me think about that. ::rolling eyes::
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
Stupid Biased Media, covering the candidate that is, you know, more news worthy! What are we going to do with these saps that cover the person who most people are more interested in and most people voted for, geeeez!
And this is the advantage that Joseph Goebbels found in using propaganda. Since everyone listens to the media, everyone thinks they know how it works. But of course the “chicken or the egg” argument blows this ridicules stance far out of the water. Could it ever occur to this Einstein that more people voted for him because the media worked for two years to make him look like a saint?
Small minds are a fertile fields to grow a lot of crap.
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this
TOJ—Why do you think Fox News viewership has gone down recently? Why is MSNBC beating them most nights? Is it b/c the American viewers are biased? Is it because they aren’t “fair and balanced” in their news watching, or could it just be that the nation is less interested in the conservative POV currently? (You know a good indicator of this is a nation wide election where the GOP lost seats in the House, the Senate, and the White House) Isn’t this what sells papers, you know, what people are interested in? Isn’t ratings what determines what stays on TV, oh that’s right, the rating system is biased too! Nothing is far for the Right, right?
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
TOJ—He will be bringing hope and change when the DOW hits 400, most of our allies have fallen to the new Russian empire, gas is $15/gal, inflation and unemployment are in the teens and Iraq and Afghanistan are territories of Iran.—Don’t forget he is going to eat our babies, suck out our brains, and make the earth flat too! Run away now screaming “the sky is falling, the sky is falling…. the …. sky….is…..falling!” The rest of us just might wait till he has ONE DAY in office, or better yet lets just say 100, to see if he is the Anti-Christ you are predicting!
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this
Gale
Government controlled media? That would be a very small move from what it is now. It is a media largely controlled by a single political party.
That party wants total control to be returned. PBS will change back to refuting sponsored programming, leaving it to the limousine liberals with a message like it was pre-Gingrich. Look for a strong push for the fairness doctrine, but of course that will only apply to radio, where libs always fail. (See AirAmerica). TV bias will not even be mentioned.
Look for a lot of political correctness to become law. There will be no disagreements, there will only be unity or hate. A lot of this will be aimed at religion. Remember, there is nothing that is cooler to hate than a Southern Baptist.
By USinUK
November 11, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
most of our allies have fallen to the new Russian empire
baHA! omg … that’s the best laugh I’ve had all day …
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
But of course the “chicken or the egg” argument blows this ridicules stance far out of the water. Could it ever occur to this Einstein that more people voted for him because the media worked for two years to make him look like a saint?—So is this the reason that Mr. GW Bush was elected, twice? How about Mr. Clinton, how about Mr. Bush Sr, is the only reason Governor Palin was elected Governor of Alaska because of the propaganda machine? Do you really think that everyone is so controlled by your “propaganda” that it is the ONLY reason someone is elected? Then this machine has been in the hands of the GOP a lot more than anyone else’s for the last two decades! Since the media is pulling all of EVERY ONE’s strings and controlling how they think and how they vote! I am sure you have your tin foil helmet on TOJ!
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
Sunshine/Joke
Here’s a clue. Type in Nielson Ratings into your search engine. Go to the site.
You will see a requester that has the word “show” beside it. Pick Cable TV.
Look at the list of the top ten shows. Can you see a single reference to anything that is on MSNBC? A single word.
I’m pretty sure you are too lazy to do tyhis so here is the list: NFL Regular Season Hannah Montana The OReilly Factor The OReilly Factor Spongebob The OReilly Factor Spongebob Spongebob Spongebob Hannity and Colmes Spongebob
Those are the ten top rated show for that week. Where is MSNBC, liar? For that matter, where is CNN?
Gosh, that stupidity is familiar.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this
Don’t forget he is going to eat our babies,
Since when are you concerned about a baby? A baby is completely dependent on others. They aren’t human, yet. right?
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Look for a lot of political correctness to become law.—You are right TOJ, it is already happening, the Supreme Court upheld the outrageous fines for “indecency” and you know who led that charge, the Bush appointed CONSERVATIVE judges. Get a grip dude. I am sorry you think the Democrats are the scum of the earth but it is not so black and white. Things are a lot more complex than you would like to believe and preach to the world. There are good people on both sides of the aisle, and there are bad people on both sides of the aisle. Just because some have a certain political philosophy doesn’t make them the devil incarnate!
By HeeHaw
November 11, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Now who has been in charge of Congres since 2006 when the economy started going south
more stupidity.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this
Sunshine.
I honestly don’t know if you are joke, being the creepy slime that he is or there are just two identical half-wits that can’t begin to follow discussions, always give the same disjointed, unrelated answers and strangely enough, both believe that it is totally acceptable to attack another poster because of the death of his child.
Whatever, talk to other people. You make me sick. Is that clear enough for you?
By HeeHaw
November 11, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this
Y’all primitive backward hillbilly GOP Gestapo Boys need to get with the effin’ program.
If you do not support the President and ALL of his policies, you are a PinkoCommie Unpatriotic POS. (sound familar?)
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
TOJ-another vocabulary lesson for you:
Fetus-a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate, after the embryonic stage and before birth.
Baby=Infant-An infant is the term used to characterize a human baby-“Infant” is also a legal term referring to minors;[1] that is, any child under the age of legal adulthood.
See how reading, and the interwebs can broaden the mind!
By Mara
November 11, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
It is a media largely controlled by a single political party.
Not that I agree for a minute, but why do you think the media is “controlled by a single political party”? I mean, conservatives can write and there are (arguably) as many right-leaning newspapers…Washington Times, New York Post, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, etc. as “liberal” media.
So WHY aren’t they front and center with breaking news and influential editorials? Conservatives own papers, so why aren’t they good papers? There are some really great conservative magazines, so why can’t conservatives put out a non-tabloidy newspaper that the general public might want to read?
By USinUK
November 11, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
Sunshine …
remember what I told you??? trying to fight TOJ’s nuttiness is like trying to hold back the tide with a colander … and he seems to be in high dudgeon today (which, while entertaining, the perpetual victimhood gets tiresome)
By Gale
November 11, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
Mantra for the day. Don’t feed the troll. Don’t feed the troll.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
I don’t need a lesson from someone who doesn’t think a pregnant human doesn’t have a human baby inside them.
You are far too creepy for words.
Baby=Any child that is under the age of legal adulthood.
OMG!!!! Your buddy joke seems to think that it is OK for an occasional underage person to appear in porno. So now you are promoting baby-frigging.
I really underestimated the degree of creepyness.
By Mara
November 11, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
TOJ - “Remember, there is nothing that is cooler to hate than a Southern Baptist.”
unless it’s an Arab muslim, or even someone that looks like an Arab muslim, or someone who shares a name with either an Arab or muslim.
And atheists. Nobody likes the atheists. And it’s been documented that people would be more accepting of ANY religious denomination than they are of atheist non-belief.
you’re just being silly if you really think that christians are a victim class.
By GOB
November 11, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
But none of that will matter. He will be bringing hope and change when the DOW hits 400, most of our allies have fallen to the new Russian empire, gas is $15/gal, inflation and unemployment are in the teens and Iraq and Afghanistan are territories of Iran.
Luckily we will all be too busy praying towards Mecca for us to even notice any of this. I mean, Obama wants to make us all muslim right? Or is it that he wants to make us all gay muslims? I forget which it is sometimes.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Your condescension, your self-righteousness, your know it all attitude, your extreme partisan black and white, “everyone is wrong but me and my party” stance, your “I am the final word on everything” gets a little tiresome, too, but we have top deal with it every day you are here.
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
Gale and USinUK-you are both right I will stop now! Sorry! How are you two lovely ladies today? I am just about on cloud nine right now, my baby brother (who isn’t so baby anymore) is coming to live right around the corner from me and the hubby and close by the rest of our family. He has been off doing his own thing for a long time now and is looking to reconnect with the family. I couldn’t be more excited to have him around our everyday lives again! He will be here on Saturday, and I am just soooooo excited!
By Jack
November 11, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
Gitmo…I’m against water-boarding. If they refuse to answer a question their fingernails should be pulled out one at a time with a good pair of pliers. Doesn’t sound good? Take another look at the Nick berg video.
By GOB
November 11, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
Your condescension, your self-righteousness, your know it all attitude, your extreme partisan black and white, “everyone is wrong but me and my party” stance, your “I am the final word on everything” gets a little tiresome, too
Isn’t irony a wonderful thing?
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
Mara
There are some really great conservative magazines, so why can’t conservatives put out a non-tabloidy newspaper that the general public might want to read?
Good question. But newspapers are not the problem. in fact, for the vast majority of Americans, it is the last source for their news. it is always a day late and in the 21st century, that’s just not going to do it.
Television is the key. Biased news is one front and biased entertainment is the other.
I know that you disagree that TV is biased, but that’s OK. I again, understand my limitations. I hope to point out a serious problem and i hope that some people will be open minded enough to at least begin to notice the bias and to recognize it for what it is.
If I get one person to begin to notice something that had been taking for granted, I have done something huge. You are not going to be that person, for whatever reason. I understand that and I accept it.
By USinUK
November 11, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Your condescension, your self-righteousness, your know it all attitude, your extreme partisan black and white, “everyone is wrong but me and my party” stance, your “I am the final word on everything” gets a little tiresome, too, but we have top deal with it every day you are here.
that’s ok, TOJ … I’m sure it can’t be easy when you’re proven wrong pretty much everyday … I try to make allowances for you …
GOB -
Or is it that he wants to make us all gay muslims?
he wants to make us gay muslims … who then get gay married …
Mara -
unless it’s an Arab muslim, or even someone that looks like an Arab muslim, or someone who shares a name with either an Arab or muslim. And atheists. Nobody likes the atheists. And it’s been documented that people would be more accepting of ANY religious denomination than they are of atheist non-belief.
well said.
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
Ok, OK I promise last one!
Your condescension, your self-righteousness, your know it all attitude, your extreme partisan black and white, “everyone is wrong but me and my party” stance, your “I am the final word on everything” gets a little tiresome, too, but we have top deal with it every day you are here.— UMMMMMMM TOJ, this is the Kettle calling you, we wanted to let you know that you are black!
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this
GOB
Where do you get that he wants to make anyone a Muslim? He isn’t a Muslim. He isn’t anything. He is a First Church of the Holy Electorate member. Whatever he needs to do to get more votes is his religion.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
USinUk
A small bunch of partisan hens setting around being paid for doing something other than what they are doing are hardly a standard for right or wrong.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this
Mara
unless it’s an Arab muslim, or even someone that looks like an Arab muslim, or someone who shares a name with either an Arab or muslim.
You are kidding, right?
With an Arab-Muslim, you are talking about a hate crime.
With a Southern Baptist, you are talking about a liberal political campaign.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
Gale
You started a civil conversation with me this morning. I have civil to you in every answer. Sorry you didn’t like the answers, but a troll?
Now that’s pathetic.
By Dr. Siggie H. Freud
November 11, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
Get help, Dude. Seriously. Your synapses are exploding before they reach their destinations. The women posting on this woman-to-woman blog are not your enemies. The women here did not destroy your relationships, snuff your progeny, spend all your money, force you to speak French, careen blotto through a red light, or choose your health care provider for you. You are the captain of your fate, and you have steered your own ship to “I’m an angry pr—- who hates everybody” land. Get help before you go all Brian Nichols on everybody, because, despite the NRA-induced panic afoot this week, most progressive-minded women won’t hesitate to use our second-amendment rights on an angry whack job who’s lost all semblence of sanity. You’re standing on the threshhold of whack job, Dude. Do you really want to go there? Be a pal to yourself, and get help.
By Gale
November 11, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
The truth is a great portion of the population gets news from a single source. They listen to what they enjoy hearing. Propaganda works well in that environment.
By Mara
November 11, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
Jack - “If they refuse to answer a question their fingernails should be pulled out one at a time with a good pair of pliers. Doesn’t sound good? Take another look at the Nick berg video”
and aren’t we fighting this so-called War on Terrah (TM) so that nobody has to worry about being beheaded, ever? What’s the point in any of it if we become no different than those we fight? Isn’t it bad enough that we’re using interrogation tactics developed by the Gestapo? Was the slaughter of Nick Berg terrible? Yes. So why would you wish to emulate his killers?
Do you really want to become as horrific and as savage as that which we seek to destroy? Aren’t we better than that?
By USinUK
November 11, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
A small bunch of partisan hens setting around being paid for doing something other than what they are doing are hardly a standard for right or wrong.
hahahaha … it’s called multitasking … we’re women … it’s what we do best
By Gale
November 11, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
TOJ, Can you only be civil with one person? You are acting the troll with everyone else. Try acting rational. I am sure you can state a position without name-calling. I have seen you do it.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
Hey Seggie,
You are not Jim Jones and this is not Jonestown. You are creepy enough without the mini-sermons about the behavior of others.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this
USinUK
it’s what we do best
Sadly enough, this is probably the best you can do.
By Mara
November 11, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
USinUK - thanks. It gets really old listening to Christians crying about how abused they are. If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times…they’re like Monty Python’s “Dennis the Peasant” - Help! Help! I’m being opressed! Did you see me being opressed?!” - sheesh.
TOJ - I know that you disagree that TV is biased
I don’t recall ever saying that, nor does it necessarily reflect my opinion. Some television programming is undeniably biased. That doesn’t mean that all television is, though. Others are simply perceived as biased regardless of content simply because we might disagree with the premise of the show.
By Gale
November 11, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this
Rethinking my response to TOJ regarding “troll”. Everyone, when I said don’t feed the troll, I meant that everyone should stop with the personal attacks and baiting. TOJ, you are inciting the response, and yes, you are getting some responses in kind.
By Jack
November 11, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this
Hi Mara. Unfortunately you don’t win wars being nice.
Please pass the stew and one of those baby wraps, it’s getting close to lunchtime!
By USinUK
November 11, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
Mara -
USinUK - thanks. It gets really old listening to Christians crying about how abused they are. If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times…they’re like Monty Python’s “Dennis the Peasant” - Help! Help! I’m being opressed! Did you see me being opressed?!” - sheesh.
I hope you’ve girded your loins for the War on Christmas … it is that time of year …
By GOB
November 11, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
If they refuse to answer a question their fingernails should be pulled out one at a time with a good pair of pliers. Doesn’t sound good? Take another look at the Nick berg video
Jack - you are aware that there have been numerous cases of detainees that were innocent, right? Should we be torturing them too, just in case? Many of the prisoners at Gitmo are there because someone else in their country told the US they were terrorists. Someone holding a grudge can do a lot of damage in that type of environment, especially when the investigation, if there is one, takes place after your all expense paid trip to Cuba.
From the Washington Post in January 2007:
Only 8 percent of the detainees were characterized (in the Defense Department data) as Al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40 percent have no definitive connection with Al Qaeda at all.” As for those picked up in Afghanistan, “86 percent were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody.”
And there is this revealing information: “This 86 percent of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time when the U.S. offered large bounties for capture of suspected terrorists.” The captives in these mass roundups were hardly screened carefully for their terrorist connections by the bounty hunters — nor were they carefully screened, according to international law criteria, by our armed forces.
Once at Guantanamo, to what extent were these prisoners given the due-process rights ordered by the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush (2004) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)?
This is what the Seton Hall reports found in the Defense Department documents: “When considering all the hearings, 89 percent of the time, no evidence was presented on behalf of the detainees.” And the government’s classified evidence, intended to be the most powerful — evidence the prisoners were not allowed to see and rebut — was always presumed by the tribunal to be reliable and valid. So much for any presumption of innocence — essential to due process.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
Gale
So who would you suggest I be civil toward. Siggie? HeeHaw? Sunshine? GOB? USinUK?
Did you bother to read what they wrote to me? Why on earth do you believe that I owe them any degree of civility?
Bruno, the person that probably should be working for the UN is being hammered every day to the point tha others say that he is “changing”. He isn’t changing. He’s just sick of the constant attacks by you guys for any and everything he says. This is becoming a “hen” forum.
You won, (well you didn’t win) but they did. Great. Congratulations. Get ready for me and any other conservative that doesn’t like what has been going on in our government. We didn’t drink the kool-aid. To us, he’s not the second coming. He’s still just a slimy a^sed Chicago politician that convinced enough corrupt billionaires to finance his job search.
Get ready for the next four years of what we had to deal with for the past eight. It’s time for conservatives to set back and judge everything Obama does, just like you guys have done with Bush for the past eight years.
By Gale
November 11, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this
Apologies to everyone who is being civil. I am an Aquarian. My peacekeeping stars were drawn out by the noise this morning. I will put a lid on it now.
By USinUK
November 11, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this
Jack -
Unfortunately you don’t win wars being nice.
there’s a lot of ground between inviting someone for tea and cakes and pulling out fingernails/stripping them and making them sleep in a cold cell/subjecting them to sleep deprivation/beating them …
if we become that which we are fighting, then the terrorists truly have won. well done.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this
Mara
I judged what you thought by this statement:
Not that I agree for a minute, but why do you think the media is “controlled by a single political party”?
Of course not all media is biased. Not every show or every network. But a substantial amount of media is biased. Is it a giant conspiracy where the show’s producers get together and plan this? No. But it is a fact that the more liberal a show is slanted, the more likely the show will get the big awards.
And popular culture is strongly influenced by the shows that are left leaning. VHS-1, MTV and BET are all openly liberal, as is comedy central. The most popular TV show that appeals to the 25-40 demographic has consistently been the Simpsons. (Higher overall ratings, not individually) portrays conservtives as downright evil, Christians as stupid and liberals are caring and generous. Family guy is following in the footsteps. I am an animator and I love the shows. They are funny and clever, but like most of the best shows, they intertwine politics whenever possible.
But being fair, Southpark tends to like to attack liberals and conservatives alike, but it is nnot nearly as popular as most modern media.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this
stripping them and making them sleep in a cold cell/subjecting them to sleep deprivation/beating them …
Now if you had mentioned sicing a trained attack dog on them, allowing that dog to rip away pieces of flesh, just before the severe beating and before the sleep deprivation, you would be talking about the latest episode of COPS. Bad boys, bad boys, what you going to do …
So a kid that steals a car and runs from the cops gets treated worse than a person planning a mass murder.
Welcome to the new America, folks.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
if we become that which we are fighting, then the terrorists truly have won. well done.
Which we are fighting beheads people in public like they are beheading a pig. Which we are fighting would take you out and shoot you in the brain for 90% of what you post about the advancement of women.
Which we are fighting would require you to dress like a bee keeper and would require that no young women could go to school.
Which we are fighting would kill anyone who spoke badly about Mohammad or Islam.
We are a world away from becoming “which we are fighting.”
Maybe you want our enemies to look at capture as the beginning of an all expense paid vacation. I want them to dread being captured.
By USinUK
November 11, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
Now if you had mentioned sicing a trained attack dog on them, allowing that dog to rip away pieces of flesh, just before the severe beating and before the sleep deprivation, you would be talking about the latest episode of COPS. Bad boys, bad boys, what you going to do
… well, if you’d like for me to give you a run-down on all the things that happened in Iraq (including the use of attack dogs, sodomy with implements, beatings, using children to force confessions from their parents), I will …
… a person planning a mass murder
you should try reading the WaPo excerpted above - the majority (more than 85%) were not caught on a battlefield, but were accused by others who were probably in it for financial gain … there’s a little thing called innocent until proven guilty - or is that something you’d like to throw on the bonfire???
By USinUK
November 11, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this
hooray! we don’t behead people on video!! hooray! we don’t shoot wimmen for thinking they’re equal! hooray! wimmen don’t have to wear burkhas!
yet another victory for binary logic
not beheading people = pure as the driven snow
if we are to be the moral compass of the world - if we are to serve as the beacon of democracy - then we cannot be above the law - we cannot act like despots, ourselves, incarcerating people without charge and torturing them, regardless of what they would do to us.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 11, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
Wavin’ a white flag for a truce today. Today I remember John W Hutto and Andy Alanez whom I lost on the battlefield of Jelibal Airfield. JW bled out in my hands. If you believe in God, please pray for our brave soldiers, who don’t make policy. If you don’t please think about them today.
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this
Now if you had mentioned sicing a trained attack dog on them, allowing that dog to rip away pieces of flesh, just before the severe beating and before the sleep deprivation, you would be talking about the latest episode of COPS.—What did your mother always say? Two wrongs don’t make a right! Just because we have not done the right thing in one instance we shouldn’t try any where else? If someone is able to justify the above treatment of ANY person who is merely accused of a crime, then we really have earned what the world thinks of us.
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
This lady is truly nutty! When will she just go away?
WASILLA, Alaska (AP) — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says she wouldn’t hesitate to run for the presidency in four years if it’s God’s will, even though she never thought Campaign 2008 would be “as brutal a ride as it turned out to be.”
In a series of interviews in the wake of last Tuesday’s elections, Palin said she had no problem with Republican presidential nominee John McCain, but that she resents rumors she said were spread about her and her family by the Arizona Republican’s aides. She emphatically denied that she was a drag on the GOP ticket.
“I think the economic collapse had a heckuva lot more to do with the campaign’s collapse than me personally,” the governor said in an interview broadcast Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show.
Right!!! Your inability to give a coherent interview, your lack of basic geography skills, the fact that you don’t know, much less understand, the principles of your own party, and the fact that you think it is OK to be “blessed” by witch doctors, oh and as your OWN aides put it “looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast” had nothing to do with Mr. McCain not winning the election, nope nothing at all!
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
You said this:
if we become that which we are fighting, then the terrorists truly have won. well done.
Pardon me for replying to what you wrote. So do you now retract what you said or do you just want to preach for a while?
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this
What did your mother always say?
How would you know what my mother said? My mother thought of me as a human being, long before I was born. A totally different situation than the way you think.
By USinUK
November 11, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this
heading home … pasta del fuego
By Fandalf, the White!
November 11, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
Wavin’ a white flag for a truce today. Today I remember John W Hutto and Andy Alanez whom I lost on the battlefield of Jelibal Airfield. JW bled out in my hands. If you believe in God, please pray for our brave soldiers, who don’t make policy. If you don’t please think about them today.
By Jack
November 11, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this
GOB. I’m aware. We won WWII killing a couple of hundred thousand innocents in Japan. The good Lord will take care of them. I may go to Hades but I won’t be the only one.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 11, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
Sunshine, she’s a Govenor, she won’t just go away. Maybe you could go up there and run against her! That’s the best way to get rid of her!
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
TOJ—the YOUR in “What did your mother always say?” is universal, the collective you. You are right, I have NO IDEA what kind of mothering you had. But good job wailin’ away on that dead horse!
By Gale
November 11, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this
Fandalf, I don’t believe in god, but I do believe in souls. Giving comfort to ease one’s passing is good for both souls.
By HeeHaw
November 11, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this
My, how quickly people forgot their first postings and behavior here. Must be an old-age thing.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this
But good job wailin’ away on that dead horse!
Wasn’t it you that said:
The Truth of the matter TOJ is that you have been badly and deeply emotionally scarred by your former wife who decided to get an abortion without your consent. This taints all of your arguments and makes you unable to see another point of view. You have proven, on this board, by your own account, how little you know about pregnant women, and this is enforced even more by the fact that you do not understand why someone would have an abortion, especially your wife. You are so far off topic with bringing all of this up though it is funny, and kinda sad too. I am sorry for you loss, I hope one day you can get over it. Good luck!
And you have the gall to try and preach to me about beating a dead horse.
Go preach to someone who doesn’t think that you are a piece of crap. They may listen.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this
HeeHaw
You are a joke. A really stupid joke.
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
TOJ, again I am sorry for you loss, I hope one day you can get over it. Good luck! I sincerely mean this Jack. You seem really angry. Most anger comes from hurt. I worry about you.
By The Other Jack
November 11, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this
What about this, Sunshine?
TOJ—Why do you think Fox News viewership has gone down recently? Why is MSNBC beating them most nights?
I answered by posting the current Neilson ratings.
I’m pretty sure you are too lazy to do tyhis so here is the list: NFL Regular Season, Hannah Montana, The OReilly Factor, The OReilly Factor, Spongebob, The OReilly Factor, Spongebob, Spongebob, Spongebob, Hannity and Colmes, Spongebob
So were you lying? Just making it up? Being purposely dishonest or are you just ignorant?
If want to keep trying to discredit me for the 40 month thing, get ready. I can find ten incorrect statements you make every day. Is this what you want?
By HeeHaw
November 11, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this
hehehehehehehehehehehehe
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this
If want to keep trying to discredit me for the 40 month thing, get ready. I can find ten incorrect statements you make every day. Is this what you want?—Sure buddy, if that will make you feel better :-) Not to nit pick but it is 40 weeks not months.
By kimberly
November 11, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this
HAPPY VETERANS’ DAY!!! To all of you who sacrificed for us, THANK YOU!!! You’re the BEST! (Especially, um… grin… well, you know who you are.) Looking FINE in those BDU’s baby! That’s how I’ll always remember you.
With love and immense gratitude!!!
Kimberly
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this
Fox News’ Decline James Joyner | Wednesday, January 30, 2008 (well before the election cycle)
Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert notes that Fox News is getting much lower ratings this campaign season than in past years and argues that it’s their “comeuppance” for their ideological approach to news coverage.
From ( http://www. cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/10/business/marketwatch/main4587034.shtml) NEW YORK, Nov. 10, 2008
But today, Fox’s path may not be as smooth. On Election Night from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m., according to Nielsen Media Research, CNN topped Fox, 12.3 million viewers to 9 million.
I didn’t initially respond because no matter how sound the facts I state are, no matter how many sources I show, you rant that they are “too liberal”, all media is “biased” or you just ignore the facts. So really what is the point, other than the fact that you want to pick a fight. I have still yet to see you answer one single request for factual back up of your grossly overstated and partisan opinions.
By USinUK
November 11, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this
Veterans Day in the US is Rememberance Day here in the UK (comemorated with poppies for the poppies that grew on the WWI graves) … on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, Armistice was signed, ending WWI …
in honor of that, I give you Carl Sandberg’s “Grass”:
PILE the bodies high at Austerlitz and Waterloo.
Shovel them under and let me work—
I am the grass; I cover all.And pile them high at Gettysburg
And pile them high at Ypres and Verdun.
Shovel them under and let me work.
Two years, ten years, and passengers ask the conductor:
What place is this? Where are we now? I am the grass. Let me work.in honor of all those who died, who were injured, who carry scars too deep for us to see …
By USinUK
November 11, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
Pardon me for replying to what you wrote. So do you now retract what you said or do you just want to preach for a while?
no, I quite proudly stand by what I said - and my reply to your response, as well, thankyewverymuch
By Tony
November 11, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this
As the NYTimes reported on the front page today, the conservative, rural South is becoming more and more irrelevant when it comes to picking a president and the strategy that the Republicans have been relying on for years has failed them.
By Bruno
November 11, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this
Bruno, the person that probably should be working for the UN is being hammered every day to the point tha others say that he is “changing”. He isn’t changing. He’s just sick of the constant attacks by you guys for any and everything he says. This is becoming a “hen” forum.
I appreciate the shout, TOJ, but I don’t think that I’m the most qualified person on board to work for the UN. Based on her superb diplomatic skills and all-around positivity, I would likely nominate Gale for the post.
I do appreciate your notice of the fact that the personal attacks toward me have ramped up considerably the past few weeks. Possibly some of that is deserved, but a lot of it is just plain ridiculous IMO.
I’ve done my best to look for, understand, and acknowledge both sides of every issue presented, but don’t see the same willingness on the part of the “liberal-leaning” posters. As such, I question whether my presence here has any value. At any rate, whatever fun it used to be to come here and chew the fat is now gone, so I think the best thing for me to do is to take another extended break from blogging.
Best wishes to all. Special shouts out to Mara, USinUK, JokesOn, and our long-lost buddy Jack. Take care everybody.
By Sunshine
November 11, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
Well party people I am off to Job #2!
Thank you soldiers and Veterans one and all, for everything you are doing for us all today and did for us all over the world! As Kimberley said MUCH Love and gratitude.
JokesOn, I got the “riddle”. :’-(
By USinUK
November 11, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
Brunoooooooooooooo -
Best wishes to all. Special shouts out to Mara, USinUK, JokesOn, and our long-lost buddy Jack. Take care everybody.
shouting right back :-)
By USinUK
November 11, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this
Sunshine -
when you’re done with work, check this out (give it time to load)
http:// obama2008.s3. amazonaws.com/headlines.html
(you know the drill - copy/paste/delete extra spaces)
By Gale
November 11, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this
Bruno, thanks. I don’t think I am the only one that has appreciated your comments, which have generally been calm and thoughtful. I think tempers lately have run a bit high, what with the election. No, my favorite didn’t win, and some votes that distantly effect me were disappointing. We will all perservere.
By Sunshine
November 12, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this
USINUK! Thanks for the awesome site! That was great! It was so much fun seeing all the headlines! I have a very racist Uncle, who traded barbs with me the whole election cycle and swore up and down that “No red blooded USA will EVER vote in a black president!” I sent him the site last night with the subject that read “In case you missed it!”
By Gale
November 12, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this
Sunshine. It amazes me that there are still citizens that sensitive to color. We are all still growing. Some of us will hold on to old beliefs longer than others. Mind you, I still would not have voted for Obama if he was white. I think among those who voted the other way there is a range of sentiment, from anger to optimistic watchfulness.
By USinUK
November 12, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this
Sunshine -
Thanks for the awesome site! That was great! It was so much fun seeing all the headlines!
I know … I got all teary again looking at it …
and, regardless of whether your are a Dem or GOP, I think the US can stand proud that it has broken a major barrier that no other European country has achieved. (in fact, the NYT has a story on that today: http://www. nytimes. com/2008/11/12/ world/europe/12europe.html?pagewanted=2&hp) … copy/paste/delete spaces
By Sunshine
November 12, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
Sunshine. It amazes me that there are still citizens that sensitive to color.—Gale, I agree, I know that I am far left in my views but I really was not prepared for the racial views that surfaced in my own family during this election. Now my family is born and raised in the south, Mom’s side is from SC, Dad’s from rural VA. My Mom and Dad are pretty progressive considering where they grew up (one of their nearest and dearest couple friends are from Nigeria, and they are with us nearly every holiday) but as far as others, I guess this election just let peoples true colors show, unfortunately. I was in tears several times out of pure sadness because someone I respected and looked up to was so filled with hatred and mistrust of people with a different skin color. I guess old habits die hard, and I now do believe that some of that hatred is sooooo ingrained that the older generation will have to pass away for us to truly get passed it, which is unfortunate considering all the change the Greatest generation has embraced. I am very glad that we passed this milestone but I sure learned a lot about things people feel that they don’t usually talk about in “polite company”!
By USinUK
November 12, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
Gale -
It amazes me that there are still citizens that sensitive to color. We are all still growing. Some of us will hold on to old beliefs longer than others.
honestly, I don’t get it. I have never understood hatred (or mistrust or whatever you want to call it) based on how much pigmentation is in someone’s skin. then again, I’ve never understood hatred based on someone’s religion, either (there’s nothing like being an RC kid growing up in SoBap south and being told by folks of all ages that you’re going to burn in hell). and don’t even get me started about hatred of someone because of who they sleep with. (heavy sigh)
but, like we’ve been saying all week: baby steps. O got 43% of the white vote - not as good as one would like (closer to half would have been nice), but pretty darned good. (he also got 67% of the Latino vote and 62% of the Asian vote, as a fyi)
we’re getting there …
By Mara
November 12, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this
USinUK - …the US can stand proud that it has broken a major barrier that no other European country has achieved
uh-oh…you’ve done it now. “No other European country”?! And just when did the US part of europe? >:^( (snicker, snicker…)
hope you’ve girded your loins for the War on Christmas
consider them girded. In a move borrowed from the British Humanists, it looks like the first volley in “The War On Christmas ‘08” is being loaded up in D.C. by the American Humanist Association-
“Advertisements will begin popping up on Metrobuses in the District that read: “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.”
By Fandalf, the White!
November 12, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
thanks for the kind words Gale.
By USinUK
November 12, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
Mara -
uh-oh…you’ve done it now. “No other European country”?!
d-oh! I can hear the veins popping from here. ;-)
“Advertisements will begin popping up on Metrobuses in the District that read: “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.”
huzzah!! that’s worth the price of admission just to watch Bill O’Reilley’s head e’splode.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 12, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this
Any Roman Catholic that voted for Barry isn’t really a Catholic at all, they are what we call hypocrites! They may burn in hell, but that’s not my call. They should be excommunicated, but Catholic Bishop’s are such {PUSSIES!} I bet no mormons voted for Barry!
By Sunshine
November 12, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
Hey USinUK, I was the opposite of an “RC kid growing up in SoBap south” I was the SoBap kid and I will never forget going to mass at like 11 years old with my Best Friend from the neighborhood and being told that we “didn’t really believe in the TRUE god”. Nor would we get to heaven without confessing our sins to a priest, scarred the Sh** out of me as a kid. Oh well, I think those scars have healed now! LOL! But unfortunately the hate runs both ways!
By USinUK
November 12, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
Sunshine -
Nor would we get to heaven without confessing our sins to a priest, scarred the Sh* out of me as a kid. Oh well, I think those scars have healed now! LOL! But unfortunately the hate runs both ways!*
good gravy. well, as long as you don’t eat meat on Friday, you should be okay ;-)
seriously, the asinity of it all. I think Pastafarianism is the way to go (http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/FlyingSpaghettiMonster)
By LaughoftheWeek
November 12, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
*“In case you missed it!” *
seriously doubt anyone IN THE WORLD, ‘missed’ it.
By Mara
November 12, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
Any Roman Catholic that voted for Barry isn’t really a Catholic at all…They should be excommunicated, but Catholic Bishop’s are such —
52% of catholics voted Obama. That’d leave the pews (and the offering plate) awfully empty.
Evidently the Catholic Bishops believe the Church should be more like the Republicans…punishing anyone who isn’t blindly obedient (and irrationally loyal) to the leadership.
By Mara
November 12, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
USinUK - regarding the FSM, “his noodly appendages” still makes me giggle.
By Gale
November 12, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
USinUK, I hope the next election cycle we won’t have to concern ourselves with racial demographics.
You are welcome, Fandalf, and thanks for your service to the country.
By USinUK
November 12, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
wow … just saw this …
In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday, 59 percent of those questioned think that Democratic control of both the executive and legislative branches will be good for the country, with 38 percent saying that such one-party control will be bad.
“That much good will from the public opens a window of opportunity for the Democrats,” CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. “But the public expects results and may not listen to excuses for very long if a Democratic Congress and a Democratic White House can’t get their act together in time.”
The poll also suggests that the public has a positive view of the Democratic Party, with 62 percent having a favorable opinion and 31 percent an unfavorable opinion.
That is not the case for the Republicans, with a majority, 54 percent, having an unfavorable view of the GOP and 38 percent holding a positive view.
“The public has a positive view of the Democratic Party, while the GOP ‘brand’ is hurting. Overall views of the Democratic Party have gone from 53 percent favorable in October to 62 percent favorable now; the GOP overall has seen a 5-point drop in its favorable rating,” Holland said.
The 62 percent figure is the “the highest opinion of the Democrats in at least 16 years, since before Bill Clinton got elected,” said Bill Schneider, a CNN senior political analyst.
I gotta say, that surprises even me!
Mara -
regarding the FSM, “his noodly appendages” still makes me giggle
I like that they end their prayers with RAmen …
By Fandalf, the White!
November 12, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
No Mara, they are simply weak. We have punished ourselves. For the next 4 years we shall reap that punishment. God bless America.
By GOB
November 12, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
USinUK, I hope the next election cycle we won’t have to concern ourselves with racial demographics
There was a very interesting article in the NYT yesterday talking about how the south has been greatly marginalized politically by Obama’s win. It mentioned how Kerry took much larger percentage of the white vote in the south than Obama did, but also showed that winning the south is no longer a necessity to win the White House.
By USinUK
November 12, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
Gale -
USinUK, I hope the next election cycle we won’t have to concern ourselves with racial demographics.
what are you trying to do? put pollsters out of business?? isn’t unemployment bad enough as it is??? ;-)
By Mara
November 12, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
Overall views of the Democratic Party have gone from 53 percent favorable in October to 62 percent favorable now; the GOP overall has seen a 5-point drop in its favorable rating,
heh. What’s the GOP going to do now that the “ultra-left liberal Democrats want to kick down the doors of your churches, pry your Bible and your gun right out of your hands, impregnate your daughter so they can force her to abort, infiltrate your sons’ Boy Scout Troop with homosexual pedophiles that will recruit him for the gay team and force him to marry an interior designer named “Guy”…(only he’ll pronounce it “Geeeeeeee” like some d-mn frenchman)”*-meme has lost it’s power to terrorize the average Joe. The vast middle has come to resent being told what horrid human beings they are if they don’t support everything Republicans put out there.
Hopefully, social conservatism will doon slink back under the rock under which Karl Rove found it and the Republicans can return to their CORE values of smaller government, lower taxes, and “just leave me alone” libertarianism. Now those are Republican values that might resonate with the masses.
By USinUK
November 12, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
GOB -
It mentioned how Kerry took much larger percentage of the white vote in the south than Obama did, but also showed that winning the south is no longer a necessity to win the White House.
I read that article - it reminded me of the census/reapportionment back in 1991 (and beyond). A good Republican friend of mine was crowing about the South’s gains in Congress, how the Southern states were going to drive elections, and how it would give the GOP more power. And here we are roughly 15 years later - how quickly things have changed.
I also thought the coverage of the Obama voters from the suburbs was extremely interesting - talk about a former Republican stronghold.
Regardless, I think O owes HUGELY mad props to Howard Dean for the 50-state strategy … Dem’s biggest mistake was listening to people like my friend who said the Dems could never do well in the South.
By Monica
November 12, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
USinUK, I hope the next election cycle we won’t have to concern ourselves with racial demographics.
Being the pessimist here… as long as there are people with different color skin, we will concern ourselves with racial demographics, especially in the South. It’s not just in elections either, i.e. NCLB and AYP. Besides, they have to have some sort of demographics so that the news stations can have pretty charts and graphs to show who voted for whom (and in the election today, an exit poll showed that white women between the ages of 18-29 with a mole on their left side voted for President X, where as black women ages 44-60 with a mole on their right side voted for President Y). :)
By The Other Jack
November 12, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
This has nothing to do with politics or anything else, but this is interesting.
10 germiest jobs in America
Number 9 is waaaay too close to number 10 and a bank cashier is worse than a police officer.
By USinUK
November 12, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
was that in order? or random?
and who here has watched “Dirty Jobs”??? (yeah, I have a mad crush on the host, but there is no flippin’ way I could do half the jobs he has done - especially if they involve roaches)
By k
November 12, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
I think racism is leaving its place of relevance in the US of A, but like a clueless guest, it will not be out the door soon enough. Sexism, on the other hand, informed us in no uncertain terms this year that it plans to hang around a good while.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 12, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this
Maybe the next election Blacks won’t vote as a block. Crazy how in this day and age, black would vote for a canidate just on his color. Even then he has nothing in common with Black America. His father is Kenyan and he grew up abroad for the most part. Most blacks in Hawaii are military. No heritage of slavery or oppresion, raised by a rich white lady, after his mother decided slutting around the world with muslims was a bad idea. A pot smoke, cocaine sniffing left wing wacko, and he get’s elected on black oppression! Look down on us from above.
By The Other Jack
November 12, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
Bruno
It does seem a lot more clannish than before. it has been a while since any discussion was not all about joining together to humiliate anyone who disagrees. I was having a civil conversation with Gale yesterday, but she was calling me a troll because several in that clan were being treated the way they were treating others.
I posted the Neilson ratings which proved that Sunshine was lying when she (he) said that MSNBC was beating FOX every night. So she (he) comes back preaching and screaming and posting numbers about election night coverage of CNN, not even the same network she (he) was lying about. I think she (he) is the problem. There is no civility. You can prove your point until you are blue in the face, but she (he) will just keep screaming and posting completely unrelated facts about nothing you have been talking about, sort of like … well, you know. Then she (he) is screaming that she (he) has never seen me post anything that would back up what I say, in the very post that was answering my posting of the Neilson ratings.
There is no reasoning with her (him).
I’m just glad that I have a huge amount of business right now. Hang in there, Pal. Don’t let the Klan get you down.
By The Other Jack
November 12, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this
USinUK
The span filter erases the numbers.
Yes, it is in order.
Outta here.
By USinUK
November 12, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
hey - well done, Hank - good job eroding any confidence the markets had in the bail-out plan!! so, instead of buying MBS (mortgage-backed securities), the Treasury is now going to buy ABS (asset-backed securities - things like credit card debt, loans, etc).
NEW YORK (AP) — An already disheartened Wall Street turned sharply lower Wednesday after Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the government won’t buy banks’ soured mortgage assets after all, disappointing investors who hoped to see the bad debt wiped off companies’ books. The Dow Jones industrials fell about 250 points, and all the major indexes dropped more than 2 percent as the market retreated for a third straight session.
also kicking the market when it’s down is Best Buy, who lowered their profit expectations … but at least Macy’s seems to be doing better than expected (even though it still posted a loss)…
here in the UK, the BofE has forecast a recession that could last into 2010. gah.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 12, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
Why does Nancy Pelosi want to bail out stupid companies that don’t build products we want like GM, Ford and Chrysler? Is she going to nationalize them and double the price of an import like a Honda, or Toyota? I bet that witch does! You mark my words!
By USinUK
November 12, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this
Why does Nancy Pelosi want to bail out stupid companies that don’t build products we want like GM, Ford and Chrysler?
because they employ more than a quarter million people directly - and indirectly affect another 4 million jobs.
By Mara
November 12, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this
yes. She is going to declare them “nationalized”, as you know she has the plentipotentiary powers to do. Nancy Pelosi is going to wave her witchy wand and - VOILA! - we will be forced to purchase Ford Festiva’s and the Honda Civic that we really wanted will cost us a whopping sixty THOUsand dollars! All by herself. Alone. Without any help at all. Yes, she is just that powerful.
(/snark)
I bet Pelosi just wishes she was as almighty as you seem to think she is.
By USinUK
November 12, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
Mara -
while my answer is more accurate, I think yours has more style … (and, yes, she is just. that. powerful.)
;-)
By chuck
November 12, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
USUK,
and, as usual, don’t you love how chuck glosses over when someone proves him wrong???
What in the heck are you talking about? It is YOU that has been caught in NUMEROUS LIES and half-truths, and YOU that has used almost NOTHING but biased references, and it is YOU that is guilty of just about EVERYTHING that you have accused others of. You have neither the intellect OR the intellectual INTEGRITY to ever “prove” me wrong about ANYTHING.
Maybe some of your looney friends will believe it, but the sane ones on here KNOW the TRUTH. Accept it…the truth will set you free.
By SoThere
November 12, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this
The American people have spoken over the past 30 years and let everyone know they did not want an American auto industry.
The American people rewarded the Detroit Big Three’s attempt to get around the fuel-economy standards by creating the new ‘truck’, more commonly called an SUV. And the American people bought the gas guzzlers in droves.
The American people, that great The Market, decided the American auto industry should cease to exist by rewarding them for bad decisions.
By chuck
November 12, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this
USUK:
I think the US can stand proud that it has broken a major barrier that no other European country has achieved.
Gosh, little miss perfect thinks that the United States is A EUROPEAN COUNTRY?!?!
By USinUK
November 12, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
chuck -
What in the heck are you talking about?
well, as an example, your assertion that the Obama campaign was “flattered” by the Hamas endorsement - scroll up. They rejected the endorsement, but said they were flattered by the comparison to JFK (as reported by YOUR favorite source, World Nuts Daily)
Also, if you’ll scroll up, Obama didn’t reject the Farrakhan endorsement days later, as you said, he did it in the same debate you cited (again, scroll up for the transcript)
You have neither the intellect OR the intellectual INTEGRITY to ever “prove” me wrong about ANYTHING. and I believe I just did … twice.
It is YOU that has been caught in NUMEROUS LIES and half-truths
really??? name one. like I said - I don’t expect you to admit you were wrong - it seems to be pathological with you.
By Archie
November 12, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this
Maybe the next election Blacks won’t vote as a block. Crazy how in this day and age, black would vote for a canidate just on his color.
Those are incredibly stupid statements!!! Blacks have always voted in large percentages for the democratic candidate. Also you do have a percentage of blacks that have always voted republican which means they have always voted for the white guy. The statements would make sense if on a national level you always had a black person as the nominee of a major party but this was the first time. If Bruno ever reads this then he should consider those statements as exhibit A of what K and I meant about the South. The thing is whites have always openly said they would vote based on color so voting based on color is not some unique thing or new thing invented by blacks. Those statements were just egregiously stupid but then I guess it would have been ok if 90 percent of us,blacks voted for John McCain. Let it be known that people can always disagree but intelligent people on the right and left post on this blog. Stupid statements belong elsewhere like a sports blog where it’s accepted that people are going to be stupid over their favorite team. The South is the poorest part of the country and the most uneducated part of the country and when I read something that stupid I see why.
By Mara
November 12, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this
LOL! USinUK, I was going to say the same thing except about my comment being funny but YOURS being better.
actually I was looking for an op/ed I read earlier today that had some relevant quotes in it, so you posted before I could. :^)
By Bruno
November 12, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this
It does seem a lot more clannish than before. it has been a while since any discussion was not all about joining together to humiliate anyone who disagrees
What in the heck are you talking about? It is YOU that has been caught in NUMEROUS LIES and half-truths, and YOU that has used almost NOTHING but biased references, and it is YOU that is guilty of just about EVERYTHING that you have accused others of.
Settle down, guys. Personally, I do agree that the one-sided, never-give-an-inch debating style employed by many of the “liberal” posters here does get old. A simple acknowledgement that there can be two different, but valid ways of viewing the same set of facts would go a long way toward keeping things civil here.
At the same time, it is likely that the three of us have been guilty of the same thing at times, so let’s not point fingers. There’s no scorecard here and no one is getting paid to blog, so no reason to get too upset.
Right now, I think the best thing for us conservatives to do is to go back to the drawing board to find a way to help rebuild the Republican Party. Bush and Co. have strayed so far from our core values of fiscal responsibility, respect for civil rights, and minimal governmental interference into the personal lives of the citizens that the American people spoke loudly last week and put us on the rail (that’s a poker term for any non-holdem fans on board). I’m not sure where new leadership can be found, but Mike Huckabee is making a lot of sense lately.
Cheers to all. Let’s pray together that we can move in a positive direction as one people and one country. Obama will need to move sharply to the center for that to happen, IMO. I suspect a lot of voters focused on his message of “hope” without deeply examining some of his more radical views. I think Andrea’s column this week is proof of that. While she was so excited to see strangers hugging, I don’t think she adequately addressed Shaunti’s concerns about a more liberal Supreme Court.
See you all soon.
By Sunshine
November 12, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
USinUK,
Don’t you know we can never win? I mean we are just a bunch of horrible Hen’s picking on the poor persecuted GOP’ers here. We are eeeeeeeevil. Oh yeah, and I am a he/she! Facts, figures and website are ALL biased to the left and we make up out of our minds everything here, with no proof. Obama will eat our babies, (we are all baby killers anyways, so what should it mater) and the earth is going to stop spinning on it’s axis on Jan 20, 2009! I am trying to learn, you should too!
(In case you can’t tell: /snark!)
By k
November 12, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
Archie, good point. I would also like to put forth the example of today’s national news story (these things happen regularly but don’t always make national news) about the Klan initiation in Louisiana where the woman wanted to change her mind and they (the backwoods racists) killed her. Transplants to the cosmopolitan South might be shocked to read about this, but we’ve always known people like these are around — many closer to us than we’d care to have them. Yes, I’m saddened by that, and that’s not a personal attack on all Republicans (unless they’re Klan members, in which case, they have my full, open contempt.)
By Bruno
November 12, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this
Those are incredibly stupid statements!!! Blacks have always voted in large percentages for the democratic candidate. Also you do have a percentage of blacks that have always voted republican which means they have always voted for the white guy. The statements would make sense if on a national level you always had a black person as the nominee of a major party but this was the first time. If Bruno ever reads this then he should consider those statements as exhibit A of what K and I meant about the South. The thing is whites have always openly said they would vote based on color so voting based on color is not some unique thing or new thing invented by blacks.
Sorry, Archie, but prior to the mid-1960s, blacks overwhelmingly voted Republican (the Party of Lincoln). I grew up in the North, in which racism was more covert than overt the way it has been in the South. And, while I acknowledge that “white” racism is likely more devastating due to the imbalance in wealth and power between whites and blacks, “black” racism is just as wrong. Likely it is natural for ALL people to be most comfortable associating with other people who look like themselves, so part of it is understandable. On a personal level, however, race consciousness has formed a very small part of my life. Throughout school and in business, I’ve always had numerous friends/business associates/customers “of color”. I’ve dated several black and latina ladies and am still attracted to ladies of all hues.
I look forward to the day that we can be colorblind. And though you disagree, I think that racial profiling in terms of college admissions and hiring policies is an impediment to that goal. I respect you as a MAN, Archie, not as a “black” man. Who knows, maybe you’re just a honkey claiming to be black??? ; > }
By chuck
November 12, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this
EXCUSE ME USUK, but the endorsement came on SUNDAY, the DEBATE was on TUESDAY. THAT is DAYS LATER as I said. In addition, HE NEVER did reject the endorsement. He parsed his words very carefully and was still answering the way he had before…denouncing and rejecting the anti-semitic statements made by Farrakhan NOT THE ENDORSEMENT. This was clear because they asked the question 3 times before he ever got that far. It was also clear because he had to come back and clarify a couple of days later when the issue would not go away.
You can characterize the “FLATTERED” statement any way you wish, but I don’t believe I would claim to be flattered by ANYTHING a terrorist organization said about me. The fact is that the statement was INCLUDED in the ENDORSEMENT, so my statement was factually correct. I think I would have told the terrorists to BITE ME. But that’s just little ol’ American ME.
2 strikes on the ‘proving me wrong” claim.
By Bruno
November 12, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this
Don’t you know we can never win? I mean we are just a bunch of horrible Hen’s picking on the poor persecuted GOP’ers here. We are eeeeeeeevil.
Sunshine—You and your party have long spiken of the “divisiveness” of the Republican Party. Is it possible that you are guilty of the same thing, in your own way?? I understand the frustration you and other Dem voters undoubtedly felt the last 8 years, but I don’t see you doing much to prove that you are truly better than that yourself.
But, I love you no matter what. You are a good-hearted person who passionately believes in your cause. More power to you. Prove me wrong and try to show a little graciousness this week while we Rebups are licking our wounds. Two wrongs never make a right.
Back to work. Well wishes to all.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 12, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this
SHE WOULD NEED A LITLE HELP, BUT NOT AS MUCH AS YOU MAY IMAGINE. SOCIALISM. NATION SOCIALISM. YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF IT.
By JokesOn
November 12, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this
Sunshine,
JokesOn, I got the “riddle”. :’-(
Sorry I left you hanging, but I was shooting in a tournament and was out all day. I see I mainly missed more rantings of the local idiot.
Yeah. Heavy.
By chuck
November 12, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this
BTW,
Also, if you’ll scroll up, Obama didn’t reject the Farrakhan endorsement days later, as you said, he did it in the same debate you cited (again, scroll up for the transcript)
IF YOU SCROLL UP, you will see that I NEVER REFERENCED THE DEBATE in those earlier posts.
By Sunshine
November 12, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this
Bruno, I feel that my treatment here on the boards by specific people is light years away from the way that Republican as a group usually act. While I disagree with many of Mr. Bush’s policies I do not think he is a “bad man” just that he has made some bad decisions. (and if you look back at my post you will see that I have addressed every major party candidate with the same respect, Mrs. Palin, Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain, ect. they are public servants that have dedicated their lives to trying to serve their country.) I have been called a Bit*h, a w*******, and numerous other names, and that was in the first week I posted here. I do not believe I have ever called one person a name directly. I could be wrong and if I am I apologize to the board as a whole. I am sorry that you feel the GOP needs time to “lick its wounds”, and if our excitement for our country has some how made that time harder for you. I expressed compassion for this, I said something along the lines of that I know how hard it is to feel like the person in charge is some one you completely disagree with and it is hard to feel like your voice is not represented. I do know that feeling, I realized just the other day, that although I have only voted in 4 national elections, up until this one, I have NEVER voted for a congressman, senator, state senator, state house member or President that won. NEVER once. (That’s what a democrat in GA lives with). So yes it is hard when you feel like your voice is not heard, I know that. The good thing is we have another chance in two years and again in four!
By Fandalf, the White!
November 12, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this
JUGHEAD, JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T AGREE WITH SOMETHING DOESN’T MAKE IT UNTRUE. ALMOST ALL BLACK VOTED FOR OBAMA, EVEN THOUGH MANY DIDN’T KNOW WHAT THE PILLARS OF HIS CAMPAIGN ARE. SO QUIT BEING A [DUM BASS!!] IF COLIN POWELL RAN AGAINST HILLARY, WHO DO YOU THINK WOULD GET THE BLACK VOTE? 90+%? HILLARY? I THINK NOT. IT’S A BLACK THANG, YOU WOULDN’T UNDERSTAND.
By Mara
November 12, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this
Bruno - I don’t see you doing much to prove that you are truly better than that yourself.
c’mon now…allow us our “nanner-nannner-nanner’s” and our satisfaction at the size of our win. It doesn’t change the fact that George Bush is still president for another 68 days and as yet, nothing has changed.
I will never be able to shake my conviction that George W. Bush has been the Worst. President. Ever. - but I will make a personal effort not to gloat too much when his more appalling transgressions are repealed.
After President Obama takes office, we’ll all settle down and get back to business.
By Mara
November 12, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this
SOCIALISM. NATION SOCIALISM. YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF IT.
you mean the type of thing the Republicans initiated, supported, and finally enacted to fund AIG, Lehman Bros, Bear-Stearns, etc…which has snowballed to the point that every industry now believes the government owes THEM bailout money too? That kind of socialism?
Remember, for all your lip-foaming outrage and apoplectic denunciations…ultimately it wasn’t the DEMOCRATS that eased the market toward socialism.
Just sayin’….
By Monica
November 12, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
We’ve heard the Secret Service code names for the Obama family are Renegade (Barack Obama) and Renaissance (Michelle Obama) for the First Parents, and Radiance (Malia, 10) and Rosebud (Sasha, 7).
I know that I am a lille slow sometimes, but if we all know the code names, why do they even have them? Perhaps there are actually “double secret” code names, and these are just decoys?
By Fandalf, the White!
November 12, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this
SUNSHINE, IGNORANT SLUT COMES TO MIND WHEN I SEE YOUR NAME!
By Fandalf, the White!
November 12, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
MARA, THE KIND FOUND IN ITALY IN THE 30s OR GERMANY, SAME TIME FRAME. ARE YOU PLAYING OR ARE YOU REALLY A DUM BASS TOO?
By Monica
November 12, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this
I got that from AJC by the way.
Mara, the whole bailout makes me angry. Especially when AIG has slightly mismanaged funds, and they get more money.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 12, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this
MARA ONCE BARRY TAKES OFFICE YOU WILL KNOW WHO THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER IS! BARRY! AND IT WILL BE FUNNY FOR ME TO WATCH!
By Sunshine
November 12, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this
JokesOn—Yeah. Heavy.— for sure.
How long ago?
By Bruno
November 12, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this
I have been called a Bith, a w*, and numerous other names, and that was in the first week I posted here*.
That’s regrettable, Sunshine. Singing for you: “You Are The Sunshine Of My Life That’s Why I’ll Always Stay Around You Are The Apple Of My Eye Forever You’ll Stay In My Heart*
I will never be able to shake my conviction that George W. Bush has been the Worst. President. Ever. - but I will make a personal effort not to gloat too much when his more appalling transgressions are repealed.
Air hug to you too, Mara.
Sorry I left you hanging, but I was shooting in a tournament and was out all day. I see I mainly missed more rantings of the local idiot
JokesOn, if you are in town the day after Thanksgiving, the Grapes are going to stage a reunion concert down in L5P. My buddy, Col. Bruce Hampton agreed to be the opening act for them. Should be a blast. Hope to see you there. C’mon by and say Hi to Charlie, Rahman, Ted and the boys.
By k
November 12, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this
Okay, clearly I only thought I got the riddle, and was wrong. Sounds bad.
By USinUK
November 12, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this
chuck -
you will see that I NEVER REFERENCED THE DEBATE in those earlier posts.
actually, you did: USUK, Nice try to you also. Obama did EVENTUALLY turn down the endorsement, but his initial response was this, in an interview with Russert: (only, it wasn’t an interview, was it - it was the debate) … the quotes you cited were from the debate hosted by Tim Russert & Brian Williams - which is why I cited how he closed out the subject that he rejects and repudiates the endorsement, just to make everyone happy.
also, the day prior in a speech, he denounced Farrakhan’s anti-semitic statements, as well.
so your assertion that you meant that his denunciation came days after the endorsement doesn’t jive with what you said:
It was actually several days later when pressed by CLINTON that he FINALLY rejected Louis’ support. … that was all on the same day - his “interview” with Russert was the debate - which included Clinton - and during which he said he repudiates and rejects blahblahblah.
so, thanks for playing, but you’re still incorrect.
I added the HAMAS to “The One’s” name because he was endorsed by one of their prominent leaders and his campaign was quoted as saying they were “flattered” by it. The added benefit is that it gets all you guys fired up while I sit back and chuckle.
and, again, he wasn’t flattered by the endorsement - he was flattered by the comparison to JFK - I like John Kennedy, too,” said chief Obama strategist David Axelrod. “That’s about the only thing we have in common with this gentleman from Hamas. We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it’s flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps.”
so. incorrect, again.
By GOB
November 12, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this
What in the heck are you talking about? It is YOU that has been caught in NUMEROUS LIES and half-truths, and YOU that has used almost NOTHING but biased references, and it is YOU that is guilty of just about EVERYTHING that you have accused others of. You have neither the intellect OR the intellectual INTEGRITY to ever “prove” me wrong about ANYTHING.
Wait…this from the person who has posted long sections of AnsweringGenesis. com to respond on this forum? Who believes dinosaur eggs were on the ark with Noah? Really? Really?
By USinUK
November 12, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
Brunooooooooo -
hey sweetie!! I hope you’re well … and that you patched things up with you GF (even if she has a pic of Obama up in her living room)
:-)
okay, heading downstairs to hang with the hub
have a good night, all!!
By JokesOn
November 12, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
How long ago?
4months
JokesOn, if you are in town the day after Thanksgiving, the Grapes are going to stage a reunion concert down in L5P. My buddy, Col. Bruce Hampton agreed to be the opening act for them. Should be a blast. Hope to see you there. C’mon by and say Hi to Charlie, Rahman, Ted and the boys.
Unfortunately, I won’t be in town until the new year.
By USinUK
November 12, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this
GOB -
It is YOU that has been caught in NUMEROUS LIES
if my lies are so numerous, you’d think it was like shooting fish in a barrel to actually, you know, name one or two of them …
epic. fail.
okay, I’m really outta here … have a good evening
By Bruno
November 12, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this
hey sweetie!! I hope you’re well … and that you patched things up with you GF (even if she has a pic of Obama up in her living room)
Hi, beautiful. Fortunately, she shipped the picture to her mother. It was seriously impacting our love life. ; > }
By k
November 12, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this
As to the licking of wounds: As one whose majority of lifetime post-election days have been seeped in bitter disappointment, I can say: (1) Yes. Painful. You’re not the first, and (2) SELF-INFLICTED wounds only garner so much sympathy.
It’s not the party loyalists on either side who decide an election, it’s the people in the middle who go back and forth who are to be WON by one side or the other. If “your side” lost the people in the middle, then you might want to look at why they went left this time.
You’re insulting a great many people to assert that we voted just on skin color, or on some flimsy, know-nothing, pie-in-the-sky notions. Even if that were true (which I don’t believe is the case this year), it was the failure of the self-professed conservatives to (a) provide an appealing alternative, and (b) make a convincing case for him.
SELF-INFLICTED. Why are the proponents of “the party of personal responsibility” always the LAST to take personal responsibility for their failures? “Wah wah, the mean ol’ hateful libruals ruined everything!” Moose patties, Dude. Somebody made “change” an IMPERATIVE, not just a campaign slogan.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 12, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this
Change in one hand and hope in the other! Which fills faster?
By Archie
November 12, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this
Sorry, Archie, but prior to the mid-1960s, blacks overwhelmingly voted Republican (the Party of Lincoln). I grew up in the North, Bruno,come on you can’t read and comprehend all of sudden? You made my point which was that blacks have always voted in bloc for whites!!!regardless as to the party. In recent history blacks have voted for the democratic candidate in large numbers. Your response made absolutely no sense relative to what I posted and saying you respect me as a man means nothing as far as my post goes. I am a black man, but it’s relevant here only because of the stupid post I was responding too. My post had nothing to do with who’s racism was worst but it was a response to a stupid post. Bruno, sometimes maybe you should just say you don’t know what to do? Bruno, you’re not the only that has a problem saying “I don’t know” and I see people everyday in positions of authority making decisions without understanding what they’re dealing with in full context.
By USinUK
November 13, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this
Lovely thing, the intertubes … while doing some research for my boss, I found the following timeline on CNN …
so, for anyone who is looking around the economic landscape wondering how the heck we got here, this is a pretty interesting outline of the collapse, up through mid-Oct.
http:// edition. cnn.com/ 2008/BUSINESS/09/30/ us.bailout.timeline/index.html
(copy/paste/delete extra spaces)
By Frustrated
November 13, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this
Bruno:
My husband LOVES Col Bruce Hampton. He saw him play with the codetalkers….I have to let him know about it…
By Gale
November 13, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this
The story out of the Republican meeting going on is encouraging. They might consider returning to core Republican tenets based on the election results. It is amazing, to me, it took a smack down to get them to wake up.
By USinUK
November 13, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this
Gale -
It is amazing, to me, it took a smack down to get them to wake up.
‘twas ever thus … remember the smackdown the Dems got in 1994? Clinton wised up and moved to the middle and the Dems started minding their Ps and Qs, ethics-wise (not that there haven’t been notables here and there - yes, I’m looking at you, Rep. Jefferson - but the Dems are FAR better behaved than they were)
By Bruno
November 13, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
My husband LOVES Col Bruce Hampton. He saw him play with the codetalkers….I have to let him know about it…
Good morning, Frustrated! Please don’t be offended, but I actually thought that you were a man based on the tone and content of your posts. Glad to have you on board and hope to see you and your hubby at the show.
I’ve been a fan of the Col. for more than 20 years, enjoying his work in his various incarnations such as the Fiji Mariners and especially the Aquarium Rescue Unit. He is “semi-retired” now and doesn’t play many shows. The “main act” is a hippie band called the Grapes (originally The Dreadful Grapes, a Grateful Dead knock-off band) who stopped playing together in the late 90s. They had moderate commercial success, their two biggest songs being “Water to Wine” and “Sweet Angeline”. Several of the members are partying buds of mine, all of us running around with the hippie crowd here in Atlanta. Most people don’t peg me as a hippie due to my short hair, professional demeanor, and right-wing political views, but I can party with the best of them. ; > }
By Gale
November 13, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this
I love the line in Matrix when Neo tells Trinity, “I thought you were a guy.”
By Sunshine
November 13, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
Hello all!
Gale, I was reading about the governors convention this morning also. I know that the Republicans here think we are puring salt in the wound but I think it is worth noting that these Republican governers understand the situation better and seem more willing to admit it than most:
“Similarly we cannot compete, and prevail, as a majority governing party if we have a significant deficit, as we do, with women, where we have a large deficit with Hispanics, where we have a large deficit with African American voters, where we have a large deficit with people of modest incomes and modest financial circumstances. Those are not factors that make up a formula for success going forward.”
Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, at 37 the youngest of the group, was more succinct: “They fired us with cause.” He was referring to the loss of at least six senators and more than 20 House members, the first time since 1932 that the party has lost so many seats in consecutive elections.
…He blamed the administration and congressional leaders for cutting taxes without cutting spending and for not offering solutions besides “the other side’s worse,”
This is one of my biggest problems with the GOP’s normal argument, always pointing the finger at the “tax and spend liberals” but the debt created each time the GOP is the majority party is staggering! It’s nice to say “no new taxes” but if you can’t spend within your means and fund wars and other project with out massive debt, what good is that promise?
By Bruno
November 13, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this
You’re insulting a great many people to assert that we voted just on skin color, or on some flimsy, know-nothing, pie-in-the-sky notions. Even if that were true (which I don’t believe is the case this year), it was the failure of the self-professed conservatives to (a) provide an appealing alternative, and (b) make a convincing case for him. SELF-INFLICTED. Why are the proponents of “the party of personal responsibility” always the LAST to take personal responsibility for their failures? “Wah wah, the mean ol’ hateful libruals ruined everything!” Moose patties, Dude. Somebody made “change” an IMPERATIVE, not just a campaign slogan.
Before you work yourself into a frenzy, you might want to reread my post at 2:29 yesterday. Here is the main excerpt for you:
Right now, I think the best thing for us conservatives to do is to go back to the drawing board to find a way to help rebuild the Republican Party. Bush and Co. have strayed so far from our core values of fiscal responsibility, respect for civil rights, and minimal governmental interference into the personal lives of the citizens that the American people spoke loudly last week and put us on the rail (that’s a poker term for any non-holdem fans on board). I’m not sure where new leadership can be found, but Mike Huckabee is making a lot of sense lately.
I’m not sure what you read into that, but it sounds like “taking responsibility” to me for the loss. As for “racism” being the reason for the loss, I’m going to have to get that quarter back from USinUK and buy myself a break. The only conservative on board here who has mentioned race as a factor has been chuck who simply pointed out that blacks are going to vote for the Democratic candidate as a block regardless of the qualifications of the candidate. On the other hand, you and several other liberal posters have either implied or stated directly that a vote for McCain was a vote for racism, which I personally find to be extremely insulting. In the end, I still believe that the conservative message resonates more deeply with the average American voter, as has been borne out by polls on specific issues.
By Sunshine
November 13, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
Gale, I can easily see how you could get behind someone who says things like this:
“As for the way back, Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said the governors have a chance to show how to apply Republican principles of fiscal conservatism and smaller government to practical problems. He said they should concentrate on “issues that really matter” to voters, such as education, energy, the environment and health care.
Pawlenty said that although Republicans idolize Ronald Reagan, some would balk at the compromises he made. “One of the things that gets glossed over is his pragmatism,” he said. “He got stuff done, and he compromised to do it.”
By Bruno
November 13, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
The story out of the Republican meeting going on is encouraging. They might consider returning to core Republican tenets based on the election results. It is amazing, to me, it took a smack down to get them to wake up.
twas ever thus … remember the smackdown the Dems got in 1994? Clinton wised up and moved to the middle and the Dems started minding their Ps and Qs, ethics-wise (not that there haven’t been notables here and there - yes, I’m looking at you, Rep. Jefferson - but the Dems are FAR better behaved than they were)
Unfortunately, USinUK, we don’t have the luxury of allowing Obama to further damage our economy with his off-the-mark ideas before he “wises up and moves toward the center”. Though you like to place the blame for the credit crisis squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans, I don’t see it that way. The “market overexuberance” of the housing market started when “community activists” like Obama began pressuring the banks to loosen up their underwriting standards so that unqualified people could attain their dream of home ownership. I agree that the major momentum was fueled by greedy bankers and investors who were looking to make a quick buck, but that would never have been possible without the loosening of the underwriting standards in the first place. In addition, the Democratic leadership in Congress the past two years completely ignored all warnings that the housing/credit bubble was going to burst, as witnessed by statements made by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who coincidentally were direct beneficiaries of the buildup.
Gotta run. I’ll look or your rebuttal later, although I already know what you are going to say.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 13, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
WWRRD? What would Ron Reagan Do?
By Fandalf, the White!
November 13, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
WWRRD? What would Ron Reagan Do?
By Bruno
November 13, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
This is one of my biggest problems with the GOP’s normal argument, always pointing the finger at the “tax and spend liberals” but the debt created each time the GOP is the majority party is staggering! It’s nice to say “no new taxes” but if you can’t spend within your means and fund wars and other project with out massive debt, what good is that promise?
You won’t get any arguments from me on that point, Sunshine.
BTW, I had to go heavily in debt yesterday to get Stevie Wonder to sing to you. I hope you appreciated it!
By Gale
November 13, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this
Sunshine, pragmatism was the biggest difference I saw between the positions of Clinton and Obama. They were both for many of the same things and had similar positions. But while Obama promised change and hope, Clinton presented plans that would take real effort and commitment. That was what spoke to me; the reality that it takes hard work to change things. Change is going to need a pragmatic approach from both sides in our environment. For instance, we don’t like the idea of a bailout, but we need people to stay employed.
By USinUK
November 13, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this
Bruno -
I was impressed with your post yesterday until you said I’m not sure where new leadership can be found, but Mike Huckabee is making a lot of sense lately.
Huckabee was the one who thought the Constitution should be amended to align with the Bible, just as a reminder. Wolf. Sheep’s clothing. Just sayin.
On the other hand, you and several other liberal posters have either implied or stated directly that a vote for McCain was a vote for racism, which I personally find to be extremely insulting
who???? who has said that? and this isn’t me throwing down a gauntlet or being snippy - this is an honest question. We’ve been hearing accusations of racism a lot here lately - frankly, the only person who has said anything outright is you when you said In my experience, conservatives are the more “color-blind” group, focusing more on a person’s accomplishments than their skin color. With the liberals, it’s all about skin color. So, just who is the more racist group?
I don’t think that all people who supported McCain are racist (I know my dad, brother and sister aren’t racist - they all supported McCain for different reasons). Were the some? or course there were. And I’d put my last pence down that not all of the people who happened to be racists and voted for McCain were Republicans.
In the end, I still believe that the conservative message resonates more deeply with the average American voter, as has been borne out by polls on specific issues - maybe so. but the GOP abandoned that message over the last 8 years.
The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding - if the GOP can get its collective act together and kick the very vocal religious minority out of its governing decisions, then they might stand a chance. If not, then I hope the party packed well for the wilderness, cuz they’ll be there for a while.
By Frustrated
November 13, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
I actually thought that you were a man based on the tone and content of your posts
No man here, all female. But no offense taken.
Yes, my hubby is a huge Grateful Dead fan…as well as Neil Young, Crosby Stills & Nash, etc etc. There are a few songs I like, but I prefer other bands. I will def tell him about it, are tickets for sale now? That would be a great gift for him..
By Mara
November 13, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
One of the few NATIONAL Republican leaders with any credibility left is my man, Ron Paul. And this is what he has to say about it -
Opportunity abounds for anyone who can present the case for common sense in fiscal affairs, for protection of civil liberties here at home, and avoiding the senseless foreign entanglements which have bogged us down for decades and contributed so significantly to our fiscal and budgetary crisis.
During the debates in the Republican Presidential primary, even though I am a 10-term sitting Representative Member of Congress, I was challenged more than once on my Republican credentials. The fact that I was repeatedly asked how I could be a Republican when I was talking a different language than the other candidates answers the question of how the Republican Party can slip so far so fast.
My rhetorical answer at the time was simple: Why should one be excluded from the Republican Party for believing and always voting for:
• Limited government power
• A balanced budget
• Personal liberty
• Strict adherence to the Constitution
• Sound money
• A strong defense while avoiding all undeclared wars
• No nation-building and no policing the world
How can a party that still pretends to be the party of limited government distance itself outright from these views and expect to maintain credibility? Since the credibility of the Republican Party has now been lost, how can it regain credibility without embracing these views, or at least showing respect for them?
I concluded my answer by simply stating the Republican Party had lost its way and must reassess its values. And that is what needs to be done in a hurry.
But it might just take a new crop of leaders to regain the credibility needed to redirect the Party. It certainly won’t be done overnight. It took a long time to come out of the wilderness after 40 years of Democratic rule for the Republican Party to take charge. Today though, time moves more quickly. Opportunities will arise. The one thing for certain is that in the next four years we will not see the Republic restored. Instead the need for it will be greater than ever.
The problems are easily understood and the answers are not that difficult. Abusing the rule of law and ignoring the Constitution can be reversed. If the Republican Party can grasp hold of the needed reforms, it can lead the way and regain its credibility. If power is sought for power’s sake alone, the Party will never be able to wrench away the power of the opposition
By Sunshine
November 13, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Good Morning Bruno,
I did quite enjoy my serenade yesterday, I am sorry your pocket book is suffering for it ;-)
I have a question for you (even though you already know what I am going to say, you hippie mind reader you! :->) I understand that you believe community organizers pressuring the banks to loosen up their underwriting standards so that unqualified people could attain their dream of home ownership that is what you believe happened and I am not trying to argue that point. My question is this, who hires, fires and pays the underwriters? You said: I agree that the major momentum was fueled by greedy bankers and investors who were looking to make a quick buck, but that would never have been possible without the loosening of the underwriting standards in the first place. This is the crux of the argument I was making a few weeks ago. (Remember when you wanted to borrow money from me ;-) The underwriters work for the banks, if the banks want to say “hey stop giving loans to people who can’t prove their income, don’t have any assets or don’t have a down payment” then the “community activist” really have nothing to say about it. If I am lending you my money, I set the rules for what you have to prove to me to get it. I am not saying if I lend you money and you don’t pay me back the borrower has no responsibility. I am just saying the underwriters have to go by what the BANK says, not the customer, not some third party. The BANKS lowered their standards.
By Sunshine
November 13, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
USinUk—If not, then I hope the party packed well for the wilderness, cuz they’ll be there for a while. Nice, very witty, very visual!
By Gale
November 13, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
if the GOP can get its collective act together and kick the very vocal religious minority out of its governing decisions, then they might stand a chance.
::applause:: Exactly so. I would possibly lean a lot more to the right if the GOP didn’t cave to every fundie demand for action.
I hope we have learned that business will not self-regulate. It is not enough to point out that raping the environment to acquire mineral weath is not good for the human race and therefore not good for business longevity. American auto makers have not responded to buying trends and started making cars middle America wants and can afford. We will need CAFE rules that force changes sooner than later.
By Sunshine
November 13, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this
If power is sought for power’s sake alone, the Party will never be able to wrench away the power of the opposition—Unfortunately this is the overall feeling I got from Mr. Bush and Mr. Chaney. I know many will disagree here, but it seemed so much effort was placed into staying secretive and staying in charge at the cost of all else.
By Frustrated
November 13, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
Sunshine…..I totally agree with you on the mortgage crisis…it is a problem that stems from banks lowering their standards.. In the back of my mind I see bank executives talking to the underwriting team and the famous words of Tim Gunn coming out of their mouths…….”Make it work”
By Bruno
November 13, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
Huckabee was the one who thought the Constitution should be amended to align with the Bible, just as a reminder. Wolf. Sheep’s clothing. Just sayin.
You are right, USinUK, which is why I didn’t support Huckabee in the first place despite his many sensible views. Ditto for Mitt Romney, which is a shame because I think his success as a businessman might have come in handy right now. If you haven’t noticed, I have been decrying the decidedly unholy alliance between the Republican Party and the nut-job fundamentalists for years. (offense intended, chuck).
Gotta run, but will try to address the excellent points made by you, Sunshine, and Gale later on. I gotta go work to pay for Sunshine’s serenade yesterday.
By Bruno
November 13, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
Quick question: Did anyone other than me get a little queasy at the challenge by a Dallas minister to his congregation to have sex with their spouses for 7 days straight (see AJC home page for details)? Based on the size of some of the couples that I’ve seen in church, I wonder if they are still capable of genital-to-genital contact.
Though in some ways I would like to be married again, I do beleive that dating around keeps the sex a lot hotter.
By Sunshine
November 13, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
Frustrated—the famous words of Tim Gunn coming out of their mouths…….”Make it work” :-D very true, very true, I was in the loan industry, that is EXACTLY what was going on! (And don’t you just LOVE Tim Gunn!)
By USinUK
November 13, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
Bruno -
Despite the fact that you already know what I’m going to say, I’ll reply, anyhow …
The “market overexuberance” of the housing market started when “community activists” like Obama began pressuring the banks to loosen up their underwriting standards so that unqualified people could attain their dream of home ownership.
While they wanted banking standards to be loosened so that more people could qualify for mortgages, the “market overexuberance” was not caused by the sub-prime market, which at its height in 2006 was still only 20% of all mortgages (rising from a paltry 5% in 1994, 9% in 1996, and 13% in 2000).
Fact is, there was a greater number of speculators in the market, with a high of nearly 40% of homes bought in 2005 for non-primary residential purposes (in other words, vacation homes and investment properties). THAT was what drove the housing bubble between 2003-2007.
http:// en.wikipedia. org/wiki/ Subprimemortgagecrisis
So, yes, Democrats encouraged the banks to increase their lending to lower-tier borrowers. But, to blame the housing bubble on less than 15% of the borrowers when things started taking off is a wee bit overzealous, wouldn’t you say???
I agree that the major momentum was fueled by greedy bankers and investors who were looking to make a quick buck, but that would never have been possible without the loosening of the underwriting standards in the first place.
Again, the underwriting standards aren’t the problem here. If you don’t mind an ad hoc simile - the lower-tier borrowers were like the leaves you burn in your garden. The unregulated CDS products are like the huge tanker truck that crashed into your garden and turned your nice, small contained bonfire into a blazing inferno that took out your house and 5 others on your street.
In addition, the Democratic leadership in Congress the past two years completely ignored all warnings that the housing/credit bubble was going to burst, as witnessed by statements made by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who coincidentally were direct beneficiaries of the buildup.
Again, the problem was not Fannie/Freddie who did what they were supposed to do and bought the loans from the banks. It was the derivatives based on these loans that were the problems. The reason banks were so reticent to borrow from each other - and why banks are so reticent to lend to corporations - is that no one knows how much of this crap companies are holding. Why does no one know??? Because there is no central clearinghouse for CDS like there is for futures, no one knows what individuals companies’ exposures are - much less what the overall CDS amount is in the marketplace as a whole.
Who fought regulation of derivatives tooth and nail??? Alan Greenspan, primarily. The same guy who encouraged people to go out and get ARMs when the fed rate was only 1% and had nowhere to go but up. The same guy who encouraged banks to come up with “creative” mortgage products. The same guy who turned a blind eye to the banking industry that he was supposed to regulate (it’s the Fed’s JOB)
Lastly, S&P and Moody’s will eventually be the subject of a class-action lawsuit, I predict, because they did such a crap job rating the underlying securities. People thought they were buying AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities when, really, they were buying things much farther down the food chain.
so. you’re welcome to continue blaming the Dems, but the facts just don’t bear it out.
By Frustrated
November 13, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
Sunshine- I use to work in the Mortgage Industry too….it was terrible. And yes, I love Tim Gunn, I am hooked on project runway. (I have to admit I haven’t seen his new show yet)
By Monica
November 13, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
Hi and Sunshine and Frustrated,
I watch the first 15 minutes of Good Morning America in the am before I leave for school. This morning, they finaly asked the million dollar question: What about the 47 million homeowners who are paying their mortgages on time? Should they receive a break too, so that they can continue paying their mortgages on time?
One correspondent said that banks will work with people whose payment is more than 30% of their income - they will modify their loan to a 40 year loan to reduce the monthly payment.
As former mortgage industry personnel, what are your thoughts? Anyone else? Bueller? :)
By USinUK
November 13, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
Frustrated -
In the back of my mind I see bank executives talking to the underwriting team and the famous words of Tim Gunn coming out of their mouths…….”Make it work”
thanks for the best visual and the best laugh of the day. I la-la-LOVE Tim Gunn!!!
By Frustrated
November 13, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
Ahhhh…did anyone read the article “God, humbug: Humanist holiday ads say just be good” on the main page of the ajc? It breaks my heart.
By Sunshine
November 13, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
Ok I’ll bite—Did anyone other than me get a little queasy at the challenge by a Dallas minister to his congregation to have sex with their spouses for 7 days straight—I didn’t see the article but it makes me wonder how long do these people go WITHOUT sex?!?!?!? It doesn’t seem like much of a challenge, I mean if we are talking every day for 3 or 6 months, ok? But it makes me wonder what other people’s marriage is like? Doesn’t everyone regularly engage in ‘poor man’s entertainment’?
And Bruno, I don’t know if it has to do with being female or not, but no, I have to disagree with you, there is a lot more opportunity to introduce “spice” into a long term relationship than a short one.
By Frustrated
November 13, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
Monica- Good morning! Honestly, I don’t know what a good solution to the problem is because we are ALL suffering for it. I pay my mortgage on time every month, but my neighbors who have lost their job or for whatever reason can’t make their payments have had their home taken away from them….Leaving me with a reduced home value (it sold 30k less than the average in the nhood) on top of the declining market prices. Should I get money because I am a good borrower? No, it is my duty…But on the flip side, I dont’ feel like I should pay for someone else’s mortgage. Because, let’s all say right now, these bailouts are going to bite us in the butt down the road.
Either way, someone is going to pay….loose your house or deal with your own home declining in value until the market comes back around.. I think it should be looked at on an individual level. Were the people in over their head to begin with or did the main money maker of the home lose their job… But that will never happen.. Someone somewhere will always be calling foul… You can’t please everyone.
By Sunshine
November 13, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
Monica—to answer your question, generally I think that if you buy a house, and sign the papers you should pay what you owe. I say this in GENERAL. As with everything there are going to be exceptions to the rule, and in the climate that we are currently in, with the glut of foreclosures it seems to be more beneficial for the Banks to work with borrowers than to just foreclose on ANOTHER property. Specifically people with the ARM’s that have doubled and tripled in payment per month and they are not able to refinance b/c there is negative equity in their property. If something could be renegotiated with the borrower and lender, it seems over all this would benefit everyone, the banks, the homeowners, the economy, ect. But they should be put into stable mortgage products (ie fixed rates) and yes it seems that one way to get the payment more manageable it to stretch out the amortization. What is the alternative really, how many homes can the banks hold, when really they are not able or nor do they want to hold any. Banks are not in the property management business, as is clearly seen in what the badly kept up foreclosed properties do to the surrounding home values.
By USinUK
November 13, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
Frustrated -
It breaks my heart. why? and this isn’t meant in an antagonistic way, I’m just trying to understand -
there are a lot of atheists in this world who are happy, productive members of society. they believe that god and the holy book of your choice is nothing but a myth that enslaves people’s minds and makes them deaf and blind to science.
me? I believe in god, but not in religion, so that’s where I’m coming from when I ask.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 13, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
Before the first bolt is turned on a US auto, before the first radio nob or cruise control, or spark plug, or fender is assembled,$1100 dollars is added to the price of this car because of poor management. And you want to bail them out? How bout you buy a Honda and send me a check for $1100? Dum Bass companies can’t compete with no Dum Bass companies! Duh!
By Fandalf, the White!
November 13, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
Before the first bolt is turned on a US auto, before the first radio nob or cruise control, or spark plug, or fender is assembled,$1100 dollars is added to the price of this car because of poor management. And you want to bail them out? How bout you buy a Honda and send me a check for $1100? Dum Bass companies can’t compete with no Dum Bass companies! Duh!
By GOB
November 13, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
Ahhhh…did anyone read the article “God, humbug: Humanist holiday ads say just be good” on the main page of the ajc? It breaks my heart.
Why does it break your heart? A group is advocating that people treat each other with respect and diginity, whether they believe in god or not.
By USinUK
November 13, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
Sunshine -
By Sunshine - November 13, 2008 11:12 AM
well done!
By k
November 13, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this
Geez, Mongrel, Do I tell YOU what it’s like to be from Jersey, Boston, Philly, or whereever the heck you’re from? I never accused the transplants on this board of being racist. How would I know their feelings? I merely expressed my sadness to Archie that John Kerry got more votes in the deep South than Barack Obama, despite light years of difference in their appeal factor pretty much everywhere else in the world. My acknowledgement of continuing racism here was only pointed at you if YOU are a racist, sparky. Are you asserting that I don’t KNOW what I KNOW about some of my own neighbors, relatives, and people I’ve known my whole life IN THE SOUTH? Are you a fly on the wall at every family Thanksgiving dinner from South Carolina to Texas? What, not acknowledging the elephant in the room makes you a superior being or something? Damn, you’re arrogant.
By Frustrated
November 13, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
See, I didn’t take it that way… I like how the guy explains it here
“It’s the ultimate grinch to say there is no God at a time when millions of people around the world celebrate the birth of Christ,” said Mathew Staver, the group’s chairman and dean of the Liberty University School of Law. “Certainly, they have the right to believe what they want but this is insulting.”
“Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion.”
I don’t see it as “let’s all get along, no matter what you believe”….which is clearly stated in their ads in London which say “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” I see it as, I don’t celebrate Christmas, so I am going to do what I can to make others mad during their time of celebration.
I don’t go around disgracing other religious or non-religious holidays and celebrations, so it breaks my heart for someone to insult me on a holiday in which I celebrate what I believe….
By GOB
November 13, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
Frustrated - Do you have a problem with the God ads that are along the interstates (the black ones with “quotes” from God)? I dont see a difference, other than the fact the those are supported by a larger group.
While the London ads are a little more in your face, Europeans arent quite so rigid about religion. The whole ad campaign seems like small potatoes when compared to the near constant barrage of religion, especially in the south. At every UGA football game, there are multiple groups yelling that everyone there is going to hell (even though presumably 95%+ of that crowd are christian).
By Sunshine
November 13, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
Frustrated—I see it as, I don’t celebrate Christmas, so I am going to do what I can to make others mad during their time of celebration. I think unfortunately this is why others sometimes feel that the thin skin of Christians seems as if they are saying “if you are not with us you are against us”. There are thousand of Jewish people who feel left out at Christmas, are they somehow trying to ruin your holiday if they buy a billboard that says “Happy Hanukkah”? It really has very little to do with nor is it intended to affect the Christians, I don’t personally believe. It is a way that everyone can be MORE involved in the season even if you are not particullarly “religious”.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 13, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
They can worry about thier hurt feelings while rotting in hell! Stupid Agnostics! Ruin Christmas? Ha Ha They feel lonely? Good. They feel immoral too? Haha!
By Fandalf, the White!
November 13, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
They can worry about thier hurt feelings while rotting in hell! Stupid Agnostics! Ruin Christmas? Ha Ha They feel lonely? Good. They feel immoral too? Haha!
By USinUK
November 13, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this
Frustrated -
so, is it the timing of the ad that bothers you?? because I really don’t see that big of a difference between “why believe in god? just be good for goodness sake” and “there’s probably no god. stop worrying and just enjoy your life” … ????
lastly, it’s just an ad. just like the God ads on 316 as you head to Athens. no one is forcing anything on you.
buck up, buckaroo … one of the things that makes the US great is the fact that they CAN buy ads to get their message out … just like the Mormons and the Catholics and the Methodists …
celebrate that you live in a country that’s free rather than focus on a message you don’t like …
By GOB
November 13, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this
It really has very little to do with nor is it intended to affect the Christians, I don’t personally believe. It is a way that everyone can be MORE involved in the season even if you are not particullarly “religious”.
Actually, I think it is a shot at fundamentalist christians who believe that the all morality comes from the Bible. I see it as a challenge to that type of thinking in a pretty direct way. This is going to get news coverage, and will force some people to take a look at why they believe what they believe.
The claim that athiests and agnsotics feel lonely at christmas seems pretty tenuous. The ones that I know, myself included, enjoy the season of giving and being with family, without the religous guilt that goes with it.
By Sunshine
November 13, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this
GOB, come on now, what is Christmas without a healthy dose of moral religious guilt? ;-)
By Frustrated
November 13, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
Sunshine: There are thousand of Jewish people who feel left out at Christmas, are they somehow trying to ruin your holiday if they buy a billboard that says “Happy Hanukkah”?
No, that is what I am saying….the people who are doing this do not believe in God, so why are they approaching the subject, and intentionally doing it during the holidays? Jews celebrate Hanukkah, so no, it does not offend me to see them putting up a sign to celebrate what they believe. But these people are doing this intentionally at Christmas because they feel alone…why not do it on another day? Why not call it Santa Claus day, if they don’t want to celebrate “Christmas”….or why not just go buy a sign that says “Xmas”….doesn’t that get the point across with going overboard with “There’s probably not a God…but…etc etc”
Yes, there are people that believe in God that take it to the extreme…but I am not talking about all people here…I am just talking about me…and how this article broke MY heart…
By Fandalf, the White!
November 13, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this
Those signs are kinda like Christians putting up “Chanakkah, the Holiday of Christ Killers!” MEAN and NOT APPROPRIATE. Keep you AGNOSTICISM TO YOURSELF. Silly Agnostics!
By Gale
November 13, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this
Well I’m and atheist and I’m here to tell you I do celebrate Christmas as a cultural holiday and I don’t feel the least bit left out or lonely. Consider this, many adult atheists were raised inside some religion. Christmas is a part of their cultural heritage. If I feel like it, there are several churches with great music for the holiday. They don’t ask when someone comes in the door if they are a believer. I know Jews that celbrate Christmas as the same cultural holiday. This has become a word issue. It is very like Halloween becoming a cultural holiday with very little to do with All Hallows Eve or Samheim. It is just a holiday for fun and giving.
By Sunshine
November 13, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this
I understand your point when you say “it breaks MY heart”, but you should also be careful of over generalizing other people. But these people are doing this intentionally at Christmas because they feel alone Is not a fact, it is a feeling you have. I don’t really believe in the traditional Protestant belief in god (oh dear, what have I just said, I guess now all the hounds will be loosed upon me!) but I am FAR from lonely, and kinda like the openness of “be good for goodness sake” I know it may not be what you believe but it isn’t being unkind, and it is a matter of freedom of speech.
By Monica
November 13, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
Hey GOB, how’s school going this year? This is the first time since school has started that I have had time to breathe a minute between classes!
By USinUK
November 13, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this
Bruno -
just to flog the horse a leeeeeeeeeeeetle bit more … I’m sitting here reading an article on foreclosure filings for October. The 3 states with the highest foreclosure rates are NV, AZ and FL. Tourist states. Where people buy vacation homes for themselves or to rent. Number 4 is CA - where you’re going to have more of a mix, as the number of ARMs really hit their housing market hard.
In October, one in every 452 U.S. households received a foreclosure filing, RealtyTrac said. Nevada had the highest rate for the 22nd straight month with one in 74 housing units in some stage of foreclosure, more than six times the national average. Filings more than doubled from a year earlier to 14,483.
Arizona had the second highest rate at one in 149 housing units, with filings up 176 percent to 17,507. Florida was third at one in 157 homes and had 54,324 filings, up 80 percent.
http://www. bloomberg. com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a3SL4NiQK9bk
By GOB
November 13, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
Monica - It is going very well. I have a long planning in the middle of the day, so am able to stay relatively caught up. Now that I am getting reading to start coaching though, I am sure I will constantly be behind again. How about your year?
By Frustrated
November 13, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
Sunshine: Read the article again…….“We are trying to reach our audience, and sometimes in order to reach an audience, everybody has to hear you,” said Fred Edwords, spokesman for the humanist group. “Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion.”
I am not the one generalizing…I didn’t say ALL, I said these people, refering to the ones putting up the ads…. Not all atheists, etc… Yes, there is freedom of speech, but I am not griping about it being illegal…
Sorry, I am not trying to be vicious in attack….
By Jack
November 13, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
Hope my favorite red-head is doing well. Don’t get to post like I used to. I agree, the South has a long way to go. Majette & Jones really thought an African-American could be elected senator in GA. Probably not in our lifetimes.
By Gale
November 13, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this
Frustrated. I could not locate the article, so thanks for the exerpt. I don’t know what group of people Mr Edwords hangs out with, but I think he must be generalizing. Why should atheists and other types of non-theists feel left out unless they want to take part in some of the ritual that is the religious holiday? As I said before, churches are happy to let you participate even if you are not a believer. And there are many public celebrations that are not particularly religious. I think his reasoning is flawed, or maybe, just his PR message is flawed. He should let the message speak for itself. Be good for goodness sake. It is meaningful and uses a line from a Christmas song that every American child knows.
By USinUK
November 13, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this
Frustrated -
Yes, there is freedom of speech, but I am not griping about it being illegal…
you’re feeling maybe a bit slapped by the ads?? affronted? Now that you’ve explained, I understand where you’re coming from, but keep in mind that it isn’t the atheist’s version of “you’re going to burn in hell!!!” - they’re not accusing you of anything. they’re just offering their perspective. just smile, think about what you believe in and go have a candy cane. life’s too short, yeah? :-)
By Gale
November 13, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this
I finally remembered what I was thinking about the stated topic on the drive in this morning. What would be the downstream effect of three liberal-leaning judges on the Supreme Court. Other than that lamentable public domain issue, what terrible things might a liberal court do. I confess, I have a hard time understanding how bad that could be. After all, the judges are all committed to the Constitution, even the Bush appointees. (Let’s leave Harriet out of it.)
By k
November 13, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this
Heyyyy Jack!!! Miss you! Plenty of African-Americans I know did not vote for Majette or Jones — the former because she took money from the Republicans to unseat McKinney (who was her own worst political enemy), and the latter for being a bully and ruling Dekalb in a way reminiscent of the old Boss Tweed/Tammany Hall era in NYC. She jumped the gun running for Senate w/o a full congressional term under her belt, and Jones… (having met him, I can say), is a thug, and not representative of the mostly honest Democrats I know in this state.
I DO feel we are moving forward, and just like with gay rights, it’s only a matter of time until we achieve equality and balance. (You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.) {;->
By Fandalf, the White!
November 13, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
Sunshine! I mispoke earlier! You GODLESS IGNORANT SLUT! There, now I got it right!
By Fandalf, the White!
November 13, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this
Dekalb is the home of the “Dum BASS!” Majette is a traitor to that district for not staying longer.
By Monica
November 13, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
GOB, having a good year. I have had a lull the past couple of weeks because the kids have been writing in class, so I have had time to pop in and post a bit. But, we’re gearing up for Romeo and Juliet (love teaching Shakespeare!), so I will be disappearing again. :)
By Gale
November 13, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
I agree, USinUK. I don’t know how an evangelical feels about those signs. But I know I get tired of the BE SAVED OR GO TO H@LL in your face billboards on my way to Disney. The ones I like are those that ask, Are you ready? I always think, nope. I need to do a lot more good before I am ready to risk another go round.
Jack, I’m sure we will see an African-American from GA in the senate before I die… what with all the African immigrants in Atlanta. I work with so many that I twitch when the description is applied to black Americans whose families have been here as long or longer than mine. But to your probable meaning, I think it will be a matter of time eroding old bias, just like gay marriage. I hope Obama is a fantastic president. That will make a world of difference.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 13, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this
Dekalb is the home of the “Dum BASS!” Majette is a traitor to that district for not staying longer.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 13, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this
I HOPE I win the lottery, then I can afford to go some place safe from Obama. Like the moon.
By Mara
November 13, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
Gale – Other than that lamentable public domain issue, what terrible things might a liberal court do.
According to the website “StopLiberalJudges”, a SCOTUS with a left-leaning majority (those “activist judges”, dontcha know…) would force into law –
Approval of homosexual marriage (run away! The gays are marrying! EEEEK)
Legalizing euthanasia (NO! You shall only be allowed to die when GOD is finished riddling your pain-wracked body with his holy pathogens!)
Banning prayer in school (as if state-mandated prayer wasn’t already illegal)
Banning the public display of the Ten Commandments (as if this question hasn’t already been litigated)
Banning the Pledge of Allegiance (sheesh. no comment.)
Basing our laws on the laws of other nations and not only on the U.S. Constitution (sigh)
Maintaining Abortion on Demand (ugh! we’ve been over this…)
Forcing the Boy Scouts and similar organizations (including churches) to place homosexuals in positions of leadership (private entities - as opposed to public ones - are allowed to discriminate as they please. They’re just mad that they can’t get tax money while doing so.)
Complete protection for all kinds of pornography (NEKKID FOLK! My eyes! MY EYES!)
Creating hate crimes laws to punish those who believe homosexuality is wrong (they haven’t quite figured out the difference between having an opinion and beating the cr-p out of the gay guy)
Denigrating Christianity to a secondary status (LOL! They don’t want the law to look at them as merely EQUAL to other religions)
Making secularism the only legitimate religion (no words…just…no words)
A little nutsy-fringy if you ask me, but there it is…but you did ask what they were afraid of.
By Archie
November 13, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this
What, not acknowledging the elephant in the room makes you a superior being or something? Damn, you’re arrogant. Preach k, preach!
Anyway I wish those of us with credit card balances could be bailed out or at least these ridiculous fees should be eliminated since the credit card company is alreading getting double-digit interest.
By Sunshine
November 13, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
Mara, thanks for the laugh! I was falling asleep at my desk!
By Gale
November 13, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this
Gosh Mara, maybe I shouldn’t ask what good things a left leaning SCOTUS might do. That list burned my eyes. I think the biggest issues yet to confront are those covered by the States rights thing. I know there have been some rulings and I should do my own research before bringing it here. There were several items on the list that are argued to be State issues and the SC cannot or should not rule; thus the chronic comments about marriage being a State issue, even though the federal government makes rullings on the basis of that contract. (Teachers, sorry about that awful long sentence.)
Banning the Pledge of Allegiance? Is that really there? I understand putting it back the way it started. But I don’t see why liberals would want to ban it.
By Mara
November 13, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this
Sunshine - they just write themselves. All I do is pass it on… :^P
By Mara
November 13, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this
Archie - Anyway I wish those of us with credit card balances could be bailed out or at least these ridiculous fees
Hear, hear!! Especially for those of us who’ve never missed a credit card payment but fell foul of the “universal default” penalty…
Quittin’ time…c-y’all tomorrow.
By Sunshine
November 13, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
But I don’t see why liberals would want to ban it.—We don’t. Its just a scare tactic, of what a SCARY LEFT LEANING ACTIVIST JUDGES would do! Nor do we want all the gay people in the world leading boyscout Jamborees while coaxing young boys to marry their dogs and cats!
By Archie
November 13, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
Hear, hear!! Especially for those of us who’ve never missed a credit card payment but fell foul of the “universal default” penalty Yep, I cancelled an account yesterday. Congress can do something about those fees and the way those companies just double your interest rate.
States rights issues have been primarily a Southern issue but I am hoping that the South becomes progressive on a lot of fronts because there are folk working 20 hours in a 24 hour period so folk don’t lack a work ethic they lack income and benefits and of course the the Deep South has the lower wages of most anywhere in the country.
By Bruno
November 13, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
just to flog the horse a leeeeeeeeeeeetle bit more … I’m sitting here reading an article on foreclosure filings for October. The 3 states with the highest foreclosure rates are NV, AZ and FL. Tourist states. Where people buy vacation homes for themselves or to rent. Number 4 is CA - where you’re going to have more of a mix, as the number of ARMs really hit their housing market hard.
USinUK—Either you are misconstruing or misunderstanding my argument re: the bad mortgages. If you care to go back about a year, you will see that I was the first one here to point out that the majority of mortgages in trouble were NOT primary residence mortgages, but investment properties/second homes, at least initially. My point in extending culpability to the Democrats is that the American public along with many bloggers here want to lay the blame for the mess entirely on one party, i.e. the Republicans. My point is simply that there is enough blame to go around for people of both pokitical parties, that’s all. In exit polls following the election, the economy was the number one reason cited by voters who voted for Obama. It may be just my own personal opinion, but I don’t think he has any advantage over McCain in terms of understanding what it’s going to take to get us going again. That’s all.
By Bruno
November 13, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this
Are you asserting that I don’t KNOW what I KNOW about some of my own neighbors, relatives, and people I’ve known my whole life IN THE SOUTH? Are you a fly on the wall at every family Thanksgiving dinner from South Carolina to Texas? What, not acknowledging the elephant in the room makes you a superior being or something? Damn, you’re arrogant.
Actually, I’ve lived in GA for 27 1/2 years, in fact all of my adult life. As such, I do believe that I have a reasonable handle on the “Southern mindset”. My ex-wife was from Hogansville, so I sat through many a “deep South” Thanksgiving. Apparently you are one of those (shall I say arrogant?) Southerners who somehow believes that if you aren’t born in the South that you can never truly become a Southerner. If you wish to make it an exclusive club, that’s fine with me, just be a little more careful of tossing around the “arrogant” label.
My point, once again, is that you are directly linking voting for Obama with statements about racism, which I find to be both ridiculous and offensive all at the same time.
By Bruno
November 13, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this
Bruno,come on you can’t read and comprehend all of sudden? You made my point which was that blacks have always voted in bloc for whites!!!regardless as to the party.
Archie, I’m not sure what you’re so up in arms about, but I was simply trying to make a factual correction to your statement that “black voters have always voted for Democrats.” I think that chuck’s point was that you’re not doing yourselves any favors by voting as a block. The Democrats can pretty much count on 90-95% of the “black vote”, so don’t have to really do anything to address any issues which may be pertinent to black voters. As for your charge that you are forced to vote for white candidates, my obivous reply would be to work toward getting more qualified black candidates on the ballots.
What, not acknowledging the elephant in the room makes you a superior being or something? Damn, you’re arrogant. Preach k, preach!
If you somehow find my honest attempts to understand and reply to your posts in an honest, respectful manner to be offensive, then I’ll just simply ignore you in the future. I’ve never gone out of my way to insult you, but you seem to think that it’s ok to be insulting in return.
By USinUK
November 13, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this
Bruno - My point in extending culpability to the Democrats is that the American public along with many bloggers here want to lay the blame for the mess entirely on one party, i.e. the Republicans. My point is simply that there is enough blame to go around for people of both pokitical parties, that’s all.
honey, you know I love you … but that’s soooooo not what you said. you blamed it on Dems: Though you like to place the blame for the credit crisis squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans, I don’t see it that way. The “market overexuberance” of the housing market started when “community activists” like Obama began pressuring the banks to loosen up their underwriting standards so that unqualified people could attain their dream of home ownership. I agree that the major momentum was fueled by greedy bankers and investors who were looking to make a quick buck, but that would never have been possible without the loosening of the underwriting standards in the first place. In addition, the Democratic leadership in Congress the past two years completely ignored all warnings
I’m not hearing a whole lotta “blame to go around” in that statement.
and I think I’ve said before that this doesn’t lie entirely at the feet of republicans … the worst of it lies at the feet of Alan G. via CDS and no bank oversight - but, yes, there is blame for both parties.
By Bruno
November 13, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this
Yes, my hubby is a huge Grateful Dead fan…as well as Neil Young, Crosby Stills & Nash, etc etc. There are a few songs I like, but I prefer other bands. I will def tell him about it, are tickets for sale now? That would be a great gift for him..
Frustrated—One of my best concert memories was meeting Neil Young personally after a show at Chastain in the mid 1980s. He’s a weird guy, but very interesting. He was playing with a band called The International Harvesters at the time. He and another guitarist traded licks on “Down By The River” for what seemed like a half hour. Totally awesome.
If you want tickets to see the Grapes reunion, I suggest to get them right away. They will be playing at the Variety Playhouse. They aren’t the greatest band in the world by any stretch of the imagination, but were a local favorite for many years, so I expect the tickets to sell fast.
Side note to USinUK: I found out who the Arctic Monkeys are. Because they are so new and UK-based, I just hadn’t heard anything about them until you mentioned them. I will make an effort to hear some of their songs if possible.
By k
November 13, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this
…you are directly linking voting for Obama with statements about racism..
Actually, you have that backwards. Lots of white people voted for Obama, just as lots of black people have voted for white candidates over the years. It was the NOT voting for Obama in the South, in places where John Kerry brought more votes, that I linked to residual racism. If McCain hadn’t fallen so woefully short through much of the nation, you might have an argument, but hey… the Republicans didn’t even support him a year ago. They just couldn’t decide whether to pick the adulteror, the Mormon, the bible thumper, or the actor without a script, and settled on McMaverick by default.
You’re right, though. You’ll never be a “real” Southerner if you were raised up North by yankees, and you can apply whatever positive or negative connotations to that you wish (even alternating your stance depending on whom you’re trying to impress at the moment.) YOU were the one who attacked what I said to Archie — that he agreed with — so forgive me if I find that arrogant. I do.
By Bruno
November 13, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this
I’m not hearing a whole lotta “blame to go around” in that statement.
Sorry it isn’t coming across well to you, but that’s what I’m saying.
The loosening of the underwriting standards in response to protests by “community activist” groups like ACORN merely got the ball rolling, but wasn’t the primary factor in the end. I am mentioning it in the spirit of “Chaos Theory”, a relatively new branch of mathematics, which studies how very small changes in the environment can lead to large, often catastrophic results.
Hopefully you have recognized that I’m not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. A conservative, yes, a party loyalist, no. In fact, in the last election, I voted for 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats here in GA. Fair enough?
By USinUK
November 13, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
k -
You’re right, though. You’ll never be a “real” Southerner if you were raised up North by yankees, and you can apply whatever positive or negative connotations to that you wish (even alternating your stance depending on whom you’re trying to impress at the moment.) YOU were the one who attacked what I said to Archie — that he agreed with — so forgive me if I find that arrogant. I do.
you know, I’ve read a lot of what you’ve said this week without comment, but CRIMINEY, you’re being a blowhard.
“raised up north by yankees”??? where’s that quarter??? please use it to buy me a break - what do you think this is? the 1850s??? MOST people in the greater Atlanta area were born somewhere else - get over it. if someone has been in the south since the 1980s, they’ve seen enough change to know whereof they speak …
Just because B doesn’t have memories of JB Stoner doesn’t mean his opinion is irrelevant. take a deep breath and save your bile for the people who truly earn it - B, despite his bad mood earlier this week, is a fine upstanding W2W irregular
By Bruno
November 13, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this
USinUK—please read the key sentence in my post:
My point is simply that there is enough blame to go around for people of both pokitical parties, that’s all.
Was I not clear enoug for you?
You’re right, though. You’ll never be a “real” Southerner if you were raised up North by yankees, and you can apply whatever positive or negative connotations to that you wish (even alternating your stance depending on whom you’re trying to impress at the moment.) YOU were the one who attacked what I said to Archie — that he agreed with — so forgive me if I find that arrogant. I do.
Also, USinUK, I can only hope that your new neighbors in Britain are a little more welcoming and hospitable to you as a transplant than apparently some of the Southerners on this board are toward welcoming their transplanted neighbors. Please give me that quarter back, I can’t seem to buy a break from kimberly. She apperently went from elation to grouchiness overnight. (Just ribbing you, k—Congrats agian on your candidate winning the election).
By Frustrated
November 13, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this
Us- I see your point. And I can see where the “You are going to h@ll signs can be over the top” After all, the message that Christians need to be sending is that Jesus is the truth, light, and way…not necessarily throwing in your face if you don’t believe what I believe you are going to h@ll. I can see how that message would turn people away.
Trust me, I have done a lot of growing over the years.. I was once a Bible Thumper, with the same message as the billboards on the way to Disney.. But my husband (a transplant form the north) has taught me to be a little bit more open minded. Not to the point where I sway from the Bible…..to me, the most important thing is that one believe in Jesus and what he has done for each of us.
See you guys later!
By USinUK
November 13, 2008 5:07 PM | Link to this
B-dog -
Hopefully you have recognized that I’m not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. A conservative, yes, a party loyalist, no. In fact, in the last election, I voted for 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats here in GA. Fair enough?
like I said earlier … baby steps ;-)
which studies how very small changes in the environment can lead to large, often catastrophic results.
I understand the butterfly/hurricane issue - and agree that, obviously, the subprime played a part … you and I agree that it wasn’t the sole mover.
By k
November 13, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this
USinUK, I’m not grouchy at all, thanks for caring. You don’t have to tell me how Atlanta has changed. I’ve seen it. This whole discussion VALIDATES my point that RACISM is still an issue here!!! Think about it.
I said to Archie that despite my elation, I was saddened that the Southern states stayed “red” and more saddened to learn that Kerry (who even those who voted for him weren’t terribly fond of) got more votes here than Obama, and the implications that I perceived of that. He basically said, yeah, I know what you mean, and FROM THAT, I was attacked for allegedly calling all McCain voters racists, and THEN the nasty “you don’t know what you’re talking about” exchange ensued. If anything, this supports the notion that discussing race in the South is still a big NO-NO because it will blow up in your face, no matter how well-intentioned you are.
As for your defense of the Bru-meister, trust me, Hon. You have no idea the kind of things this man has said to the women here in the past, which accounts for the fact that so many left (he admits it when his mood swings contrite) and why I use other names to make a point, always in fear of his personal attack. But thanks so much for your special input just the same.
By Bruno
November 13, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this
Just because B doesn’t have memories of JB Stoner doesn’t mean his opinion is irrelevant. take a deep breath and save your bile for the people who truly earn it - B, despite his bad mood earlier this week, is a fine upstanding W2W irregular
Hey, what are you talking about?? Me and JB go waaaaay back. Just kidding, of course. It may be a shock to kimberly, but the KKK has a strong presence in the North as well, or at least did when I was a kid. Bridgeton, NJ was one of their Northern headquarters.
I appreciate your coming to my defense to kimberly’s ridiculous attacks, but be rest assured that I take most of what she says with an appropriate grain of salt. Though she seems to have some kind of animosity toward me, I don’t feel that way in return toward her.
Talk to you tomorrow if I don’t get too busy.
By Gale
November 14, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this
With all the posts about racism, I cannot help but think about it. I feel about racism like I do about electric current theory. I know it exists, but I just don’t get it. I look at black folks and I don’t make assumptions based on color. They are coworkers and neighbors; people in line with me at the grocery or the movies. Although I have been personally attracted to black women from time to time, I did twitch when my niece told me she was dating a black man. I thought that was odd, since I would have dated a black woman. Yes, I am a transplant and not a real Southerner.
But the point I am aiming at is this: Obama is now the president(-elect). I don’t think anymore about him being black or mixed. He is now a position. The sooner the noise about his color ends, the better for the country.
By Frustrated
November 14, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this
Bruno…I will def have to check out the tickets…. I can see where Neil Young can be weird. We went a few years back to watch his movie somewhere in Atlanta…It totally went over my head, I think I fell asleep towards the middle of it…eeks. While we are talking about music, I have a band you have to check out. Have you ever heard of Will Hoge? If not, check him out, he is one of my personal favorties. He puts on a GREAT show. We use to follow him in concert when he toured around Georgia and the surrounding states. He has a website, so let me know what you think.
By k
November 14, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
I find it interesting that someone I did NOT accuse reacts so viscerally to the accusation of racism. I was talking about deep south generational racism that (clearly!) still exists, and yet a non-southerner who loves people of every color goes out of his way to tell me how f-ed up my observation is, and how offended HE is…. This does not make sense to me, but I feel like it might be a key to finally understanding it, and hence eventually ridding our society of this albatross. Any thoughts on that?
By Gale
November 14, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
k, I think the most vehement reactions to anything come from people who are certain about what they think and feel anout things.
By k
November 14, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
Gale, I got a message about a rally at the Capitol on Saturday at 1:00 to protest Prop 8. Can’t be there (and still not certain if the place and time are unchanged), but I’m on board with the Civil Rights Movement until we’re done, and clearly, we’re not. I’m sorry if anyone is offended, but I maintain that we still have bigotry in the South, and I’m not going to pretend it isn’t here. I’m going to try to rid my living room of the elephant that’s dumping steaming piles of dung on the carpet.
By USinUK
November 14, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
k -
I maintain that we still have bigotry in the South, and I’m not going to pretend it isn’t here. I’m going to try to rid my living room of the elephant that’s dumping steaming piles of dung on the carpet.
and that’s a good and noble cause - and I think we all stand there with you on that.
bigotry, however, isn’t limited to the South - just ask anyone who lives in an Italian neighborhood in Brooklyn or Boston.
frankly, I’m mighty proud of how the South did - VA and NC both went to the Democratic candidate and the media had to wait a couple of hours before calling GA (in 2004, it was one of the first states called)
as a kid in the back seat would say - ARE WE THERE YET??? - of course we’re not. but I think the south has made some very positive steps: In GA, Obama won 47% of the vote (Kerry won only 41%) - AL saw Obama at 39% (Kerry won 37%), SC saw Obama at 45% (Kerry at 41%) … TN, AR and LA are the only states that saw a lower %%% vote for Obama than Kerry.
ya gotta admit, that’s pretty good.
By Gale
November 14, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
Prop 8 is back in the hands of the court. I agree that there is bigotry in the South. I think it is waning in the metro areas. Isolated/rural Deep South will probably hang on to bigotry longer. Familiarity does not breed contempt, it breeds understanding. Living and working with people, understanding that they want the same things you do goes a long way to killing bigotry.
By k
November 14, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
USinUK, good data (as always), thanks! My comments were based on the big CNN GUI map where the guy was poking the states and little blue specks appeared, and he could change the year to show the diffence in blue specks between Kerry, Gore, Clinton, and so forth. CNN said Kerry got more votes in the south and I found that disturbing since not many people seemed to like him very much. You’re right about bigotry (rednecks, too!) being everywhere, but I can personally only comment on what I know of living in the South, and would not presume to tell someone in Boston what their childhood neighbors were like. That would be arrogant on my part, IMO. I hope the courts will overturn the anti-gay amendments on the grounds that you can’t amend your Constitution to be unconstitutional.
By USinUK
November 14, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
k -
CNN said Kerry got more votes in the south and I found that disturbing since not many people seemed to like him very much.
well, good thing is that turned out to be untrue (for most of the states) after all the dust settled :-)
I’ve lived in the South … I’ve lived in the mid-Atlantic states … I’ve lived deep in the heart of Yankeeland … people are people wherever you go - there are racists/bigots/homophobes in every region - the South just gets saddled with the reputation because the South codified it through slavery, Jim Crow and segregation.
By GOB
November 14, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this
CNN said Kerry got more votes in the south and I found that disturbing since not many people seemed to like him very much.
well, good thing is that turned out to be untrue (for most of the states) after all the dust settled :-)
While overall Obama got more votes in the south, he got considerably fewer white votes than Kerry did (per the NYT article from earlier in the week). That is a pretty big distinction in my opinion.