AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2009 > January > 09 > Entry
Rick Warren’s inaugural role
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Andy worried that conservatives wouldn’t give Barack Obama a chance - but it’s not conservatives who are up in arms about the inauguration. The far left is incensed that Obama asked Dr. Rick Warren to pray for God’s blessing over his presidency, simply because Warren supports traditional marriage: something presumably supported by every pastor at every invocation in American history. And something that Obama himself supports, as explained in 2006: “I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman… [and] that decisions about marriage should be left to the states.”
So the residents of California amended their Constitution. And now those who want to demand tolerance and respect are showing extreme prejudice and disrespect. Even mainstream liberal Websites are, appallingly, publicizing plans for those at Obama’s inauguration to stand and turn their backs when Warren comes to the stage!
I was so surprised and proud of Obama for reaching across ideological lines to invite Warren - and so sad to see just how trapped in discord some of Obama’s supporters want us to remain. Those who are angry about the California decision should stop taking their anger out on a pastor who has poured his life out in the sort of ministry that they would otherwise support. Warren’s California church provides enormous succor to the poor and those with HIV/AIDS. He personally gives away 90 percent of his income from his best-selling book “The Purpose Driven Life,” to the global fight against AIDS, poverty and illiteracy. And he also reached across barriers to invite Obama to a 2006 Global AIDS summit at his church, over the objections of some parishioners upset with Obama’s pro-choice positions.
Detractors call Warren’s views divisive, but how can they be divisive if most people agree with them and they follow the teachings of every major religion? It would be one thing if he was harsh about it, but his statements have always been full of love and grace - he just won’t change to go along with the recent changes in a portion of our culture.
Although I strongly disagree with some Obama decisions, I can still admire and support his attempts to bring a fractured nation together. I call on Warren’s detractors to do the same.
Rebuttal
“It would be one thing if he were harsh about it,” my colleague writes of Rick Warren’s attitude towards homosexuality, as though tone matters more than content, as though prejudice delivered with equanimity isn’t prejudice at all.
Mere weeks after a crushing civil rights defeat in California, many who voted for Obama were blindsided by his selection of Rick Warren, a vocal and influential backer of Proposition 8. Far more than a mere proponent of traditionalism, Warren compares gay marriage to pedophilia and incest, and his church blatantly rejects “unredeemed” gay members.
So the gay community is upset, and those who share in their fight for equality are upset as well. In fact, this anger mirrors the furor that ensued when Warren invited Obama to a 2006 Global AIDS summit. Far more than “some parishioners” complained: a conservative talk radio host called Obama’s work in the Senate “inhumane, sick and sinister evil”, and Phyllis Schlafly spearheaded a furious open letter condemning the invitation. Perhaps most telling was the view of Dr. Wiley Drake, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, who explained, “You can’t work together with people totally opposed to what you are.” I think there’s more than a few gay folks who might say “Amen” to that.
Still it’s time we tried, even if the effort rankles. Yet in healing our fractured nation, we needn’t exclude hot-headed protests (provided we keep our shoes on). From Schlafly’s angry letter to a sea of angry backsides, democracy has always welcomed dissent.
I’ll be heading off soon to the inaugural, taking my place in that crowd of teeming millions. Once there, I’m not turning my back on Rick Warren. I want to hear what he has to say. And while he’s saying it, I’ll look around me, marveling at how we all got there. Some of my neighbors on that cold morning will be life-long Republicans, supporting their first Democrat. Others will be young evangelicals, putting aside old litmus tests for the pressing issues of poverty and peace. Obama’s reach across ideological lines, only surprising in light of the last eight years, has brought us to this place, a vast assemblage of humanity filled with anger and hope, exhilaration and fear, mutual distrust, mutual need.
Let the democracy begin, again.
Services »
Comments
By Gale
January 9, 2009 9:43 AM | Link to this
Personally, I don’t think religion has a place at all in the inaugeration. We are changing leadership. If Mr Obama or Mr Biden wish to seek divine guidence, I consider it a private matter. Even the Bible criticises ostentatious public prayer.
By American Woman
January 9, 2009 9:56 AM | Link to this
I never saw Obama as a “messiah” or the ultimate champion of the “left.” If I had seen him that way, I’d be upset about the Warren choice. As a politically moderate American (accused of being a “lefty” by the neo-fascists for not marching to their sick drum), I appreciate that Obama is making the effort to be Presidential for ALL of us, not just bits & pieces of us, ala the “this is the real America” (and by deduction, the other places are not) speeches made by his opponents during the campaign to foster divisiveness. Like Ms. Sarvady said, it was the deliberate reaching across ideological lines that brought us to a place where we can dare to hope again.
That being said, I understand and do share the disappointment that gay Americans feel that this Warren guy will get the spotlight on the big day. And while they’re used to being slapped in the face for no good doggone reason, this was an unexpected sting for people who invested heart, soul, money, and many hours into bringing about this new hope for all of us. GAY RIGHTS IS NOT A LIBERAL ISSUE. It’s a civil rights issue, and it’s an AMERICAN issue. Until gay people are no longer discriminated against by the laws of this nation and the states herein, we are NOT “free at last, free at last.” It doesn’t matter what you believe about homosexuality. This country was founded on principles of liberty and equality that are STILL not fully realized in our laws. Let’s make it happen. It’s the right thing to do. Thanks for listening.
By ByteMe
January 9, 2009 10:45 AM | Link to this
I’m not disappointed in the choice of Warren. I’ll be disappointed if he screws up this opportunity to help bring people together. Since his words will be vetted, I doubt he’ll screw it up.
By USinUK
January 9, 2009 11:12 AM | Link to this
Well said, AW :-)
and, Gale, I’m with you - I’d just as soon people keep their prayers to themselves.
By Gale
January 9, 2009 11:16 AM | Link to this
ByteMe, I think you are right about his moment in the spotlight being reviewed by the Obama team. If he strays from the script, I think there would be consequences. However, like the outburst you wish a jury didn’t hear… As with the entire new administration, I am watchfully optimistic. We can hope he will speak in terms of togetherness.
By The Other Jack
January 9, 2009 11:24 AM | Link to this
i think it is a sign of things to come.
As i had said sooooo many times, I was not worried about Obama because he has never taken a stand in his life. Some people thought he was a Muslim. A muslim takes a strong will and a dedication. Obama has neither.
He is a world class 21st century, media friendly politician. He has no beliefs, morals or convictions. He will do whatever the political winds decide. He knew all along that he could never run the country like he promised. He knows that most liberals are indoctrinated sheep who will believe that the answer to our gasoline problems are windmills. He knows that he will not be able to only fight the “rightous wars” that the NYT decides he should fight.
Get used to it, liberals.
All the things you thought you voted for?
Figured it out yet?
By The Other Jack
January 9, 2009 11:41 AM | Link to this
AJC
Last year we had an unfortunate shooting in my neighborhood. A local thug was killed by a man whose house he was breaking into. Your reporter ran a very biased story, supporting the thug and giving a complete description of the house that the man lived in. I warned you then about this.
I learned yesterday that because of the death threats the man kept receiving because of your story, he was forced to sell his house and leave the area. I didn’t know that or you would have a TV camera at your door every day and that reporter’s actions and the results would be on every local TV station and at least FOX News, New York.
I was friends with the young man that was shot at the Standard this week. It appears that you are finally figuring out the problem. Support the victims, not the animal-like thugs who kill people for a $400 bounty.
You pull the same dangerous crap that you pulled about the killing in Ormewood Park and I will have the national media so far uip your a^s, that you will never sell another of your biased rags again.
I have the man’s address and he wants to be interviewed about the damage your story has caused his life. You know who I am and what I can do. I dare you to give me a reason.
By JokesOn
January 9, 2009 11:58 AM | Link to this
effing delusional!
By USinUK
January 9, 2009 12:09 PM | Link to this
From Wikipedia:
Megalomania (from the Greek word μεγαλομανία) is a historical term for behavior characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, genius, or omnipotence — often generally termed as delusions of grandeur or grandiose delusions. It is a Greek word ,”megalo” meaning “very large”, “great”, or “exaggerated” and “mania” meaning obsession thus combining to denote an obsession with, either in the form of irrational perceived need for, or preoccupation with one’s own estimation of having and/or obtaining, grandiosity and extravagance (especially in the form of great fame and popularity, material wealth, social influence or political power, or more than one or even all of the aforesaid) and accompanying complete desirous and bombastic abandon; a common symptom if not the key diagnostic feature of megalomania. It may be a symptom of manic or paranoid disorders.
… not that that applies to anyone we know … I’m just sayin’
By Lyrazel
January 9, 2009 12:22 PM | Link to this
Well gee whiz… all the other preachers are either dead or in prison or facing death or facing schisms— how’s a guy to select someone WITHOUT pimples on his proverbial biblical buttock?
By Sunshine
January 9, 2009 12:28 PM | Link to this
Spot on USinUK! I love the site Someecards.com they are really funny! Considering TOJ’s view on American woman this one has a two fold truth in it, wish I could send it to him:
Sorry you think Obama is a dangerous Muslim extremist and I hope it’s not too much of a hassle to leave the country when he wins
By Sunshine
January 9, 2009 12:33 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel! Great comment! LOL! I agree, I think the whole matter about Warren matters not! Billy Gram was at Clinton’s Inauguration twice, he is not so fond of the gays either. It’s just an appearance, Jay-Z is going to be at the Inauguration with a mic too! I do not agree with or think that Warren represents the left but what “pastor” does? It’s really non-sense to pay any attention to it. Next topic!
By Mara
January 9, 2009 12:34 PM | Link to this
The unemployment rate surged to its highest level in nearly 16 years in December as a deepening year-long recession forced companies to slash payrolls by more than half a million jobs…The Labor Department said on Friday the jobless rate jumped to 7.2 percent, the highest level since January 1993, from 6.8 percent in November…For the year as a whole, the economy shed 2.6 million jobs, the largest decline since a 2.75 million drop in 1945.
finance.yahoo.com/news/Economy-loses-524000-jobs-in-rb-14013641.html
maybe we should start a war (just to boost the economy, dontcha know)…oh, wait….
By USinUK
January 9, 2009 12:39 PM | Link to this
Sunshine -
A lot of the blogs I read had pictures of homemade Anti-Obama signs decorating the lawns of “good patriots” across the country - my favorite one was against him because he’s a MusliN.
damn. I hate those flimsy cotton extremists.
Spot on USinUK! I do think the motto “you know who I am and what I can do” is absolutely PRIME! too bad the AJC doesn’t have auto-signature, or we could all use it!!
USinUK “you know who I am and what I can do” (evidently I’m a winch - so you can hook me up to your 4x4 and I can pull your friends out of the mud if they’re stuck)
okay, I’m audi … have a good evening - I might pop in later
By Sunshine
January 9, 2009 12:42 PM | Link to this
Here are some of my other fav’s from Someecards!
There’s no reason to leave the country if McCain and Palin win since it seems they will eventually destroy the entire planet
Remember to not base your vote on which presidential candidate’s middle name sounds more American
The upside of having another Great Depression is our grandparents will have to stop saying we don’t know what it’s like to live through a Great Depression
This financial crisis is so massive that I don’t think even Bush getting personally involved could make it worse
We’ve now learned that a decimated economy, a clusterf#cked war, and the worst-run Republican campaign in history is all it takes for America to elect a black guy!
By Jack
January 9, 2009 12:48 PM | Link to this
Do it TOJ. I’d love to see it. Media scum. Barbara Wawa joined the club of scum asking Patrick’s wife what was going thru her head when she found out about his terminal illness. his wife should have said that they were going to have a party.
By American Woman
January 9, 2009 1:24 PM | Link to this
Jack, I agree with you about media scum. The vast majority of them are wh-o-res IMO, and very few of them practice the principles of the profession: strive for truth, objectivity, getting all sides to a story, VERIFYING information, sticking to what’s truly newsworthy and not gossip, sticking to the facts, and leaving their opinions out of it. I’m sick of hearing the opinions of all these random a—holes. Don’t tell me what you think I should feel, just tell met what really happened, and let ME decide how to feel about it! But in defense (this time) of Baba Wawa, the Swayzes agreed to a Baba Wawa interview. I presume they did this to share with others their struggle, strength, etc. of dealing with this tragedy. In that case, “what was going through your head” was a pertinent question. What was she supposed to ask, “What kind of flowers do you put on your deck in the Spring?” People who don’t want their business aired should NOT talk to reporters. I don’t!
By Gale
January 9, 2009 1:27 PM | Link to this
flimsy cotton extremists That is funny.
So, with Rick Warren a non-topic, is anyone here besides Andrea actually going to DC for the big event?
By Gale
January 9, 2009 1:34 PM | Link to this
American Woman, thanks for illuminating that. I could not figure out what I missed and who Patrick was. I do agree. If someone agrees to be interviewed, they are open to questions like that. If they choose not to answer a given question, they can do that too. On the flip side, I have some ugly thoughts about the reporters that show up at the scene of a fire or something, shove a camera and mike at someone who just lost a child in the fire and asks them to talk. That’s a horse of a different color.
By Gale
January 9, 2009 1:40 PM | Link to this
um… that should be mic, I think. not mike.
By NetBanker
January 9, 2009 2:01 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! Happy New Year to all!
I agree with Gale that religion should have no part in the Inauguration ceremony. If a president-elect wants a private prayer before or after taking the Oath of Office that’s fine by me and I’m sure all Americans. Taking strength in whatever religion or belief system you have if you believe it will help you govern to the best of your ability and help you remain mindful of what is best for the country isn’t really the issue…it’s doing it publicly as part of the establishment of a new Administration that’s wrong if only because it opens the door to whining by other religious groups who aren’t represented that they’re being exluded.
AW…as a gay American thank you for understanding that discrimination is discrimination and speaking plainly about it terms of the ideals on which America is founded. My partner of 17 years and I could care less about the term marriage, we just want equal rights under the law no matter what it’s called…Civil union, bond, tie, alliance, unification. Pick one who cares?
By Bruno
January 9, 2009 2:09 PM | Link to this
Detractors call Warren’s views divisive, but how can they be divisive if most people agree with them and they follow the teachings of every major religion?
Like the abortion issue, I believe that there are two equally valid POVs regarding gay “marriage”. To those who begin with the premise that homosexuality is an abberation, a chosen lifestyle at odds with what is considered “normal” behavior by society, it makes great sense to not grant any special privileges to gay unions. On the other hand, to those who begin with the premise that homosexuality is biological in nature, or perhaps begin with the premise that “choosing” your sexuality does no harm to society at large, it makes great sense to extend marital benefits to gay couples.
It would be great if people on both sides of this issue could simply respect each other’s POVs and agree to disagree, but in the end we can only have one set of laws, so ultimately everyone is forced to choose sides on this issue (like abortion).
As much as the “left-leaners” like to pat themselves on the back for being “tolerant” and “inclusive”, I don’t see it that way. Anyone who doesn’t begin with the same set of premises is automatically labeled a bigot, or worse. In this way, I see the “lefties” as being just as dogmatic as “righties”, although I have yet to meet a self-described liberal to ever admit as much.
By Bruno
January 9, 2009 2:15 PM | Link to this
As a politically moderate American (accused of being a “lefty” by the neo-fascists for not marching to their sick drum)
Out of curiosity, AW, on what basis do you believe that you are “politically moderate”?? You have stated more than once on this blog that you would never consider voting for a Republican, ever. On virtually every issue, you align yourself with the “left”. As such, I can only conclude that you are simply redefining the phrase “politically moderate” to mean left of center.
I have no problem with your chosen politcal outlook, am just curious why you are reluctant to call a spade a spade.
By Bruno
January 9, 2009 2:22 PM | Link to this
He is a world class 21st century, media friendly politician. He has no beliefs, morals or convictions. He will do whatever the political winds decide. He knew all along that he could never run the country like he promised. He knows that most liberals are indoctrinated sheep who will believe that the answer to our gasoline problems are windmills. He knows that he will not be able to only fight the “rightous wars” that the NYT decides he should fight.
TOJ, I think your description of Obama is pretty accurate. Obama initially positioned himself as being farther to the left than Hillary Clinton during the primaries, then made a sharp turn to the middle once he had the nomination sewed up. That is why I put no stock at all on him following through with ANY of his campaign promises. Which will probably be a good thing…..
By JF
January 9, 2009 2:25 PM | Link to this
I wonder how many people agree with Warren’s views on spousal abuse?:
this is from the website for his church.
*Rick Warren, the Southern Baptist megachurch pastor chosen to offer the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama’s Jan. 20 inauguration, says the Bible does not permit a woman to divorce a spouse who is abusing her.
In audio clips on his Saddleback Church website, the Purpose Driven Life author says the Bible condones divorce for only two reasons — adultery and abandonment.
“I wish there were a third in Scripture, having been involved as a pastor with situations of abuse,” Warren said. “There is something in me that wishes there were a Bible verse that says, ‘If they abuse you in this-and-such kind of way, then you have a right to leave them.’”
Warren said his church’s counseling ministry advises separation and counseling instead of divorce in abusive marriages, because it’s the only path toward healing. “There’s an abusive cycle that’s been set up,” he said. “Separation combined with counseling has been proven to provide healing in people’s lives.”
Warren said there’s nothing in the Bible that says a spouse must tolerate abuse. “There’s nowhere in the Bible that says it’s an attitude of submission to let somebody abuse you,” he said. “That is not submission. So we recommend very strongly separation.”
He defined what he meant by physical abuse.
“When I say physical abuse, I mean literally somebody is beating you regularly,” he said. “I don’t mean they grab you once. I mean they’ve made a habit of beating you regularly. You need to separate in that situation, because that’s the only thing that’s going to solve that.*
By JokesOn
January 9, 2009 2:33 PM | Link to this
Out of curiosity, AW, on what basis do you believe that you are “politically moderate”?? You have stated more than once on this blog that you would never consider voting for a Republican, ever. On virtually every issue, you align yourself with the “left”. As such, I can only conclude that you are simply redefining the phrase “politically moderate” to mean left of center.
I believe she is referring to Obama, not herself.
As much as the “left-leaners” like to pat themselves on the back for being “tolerant” and “inclusive”, I don’t see it that way. Anyone who doesn’t begin with the same set of premises is automatically labeled a bigot, or worse. In this way, I see the “lefties” as being just as dogmatic as “righties”, although I have yet to meet a self-described liberal to ever admit as much.
If you mean the dogma of “equal under the law” and not having governmental policies influenced by any religious agenda, yes I follow the dogma of the spirit/letter of the constitution.
You speak as though lefties want everyone to state that they agree with the behavior, and that is untrue. We could care less if everyone agrees on the morality of behaviors, as long as the behavior does not infringe on the rights of others. You keep misrepresenting this fact, even though we correct you each time. Marriage is a legal item where government is involved, not a religious one.
Proof: The consent of any church is not needed to have a marriage license. Two separate issues that are only now being teased apart.
By NetBanker
January 9, 2009 2:34 PM | Link to this
He is a world class 21st century, media friendly politician. He has no beliefs, morals or convictions. He will do whatever the political winds decide. He knew all along that he could never run the country like he promised. Isn’t this an acurate description of the majority of politicians and presidential candidates regardless of party?
By Jack
January 9, 2009 2:35 PM | Link to this
“You need to separate in that situation, because that’s the only thing that’s going to solve that.*”
No separation. Cook him breakfast like Madea would.
Better yet, let him go to sleep and a good homerun swing with a heavy object to the head.
By JokesOn
January 9, 2009 2:40 PM | Link to this
TOJ, I think your description of Obama is pretty accurate. Obama initially positioned himself as being farther to the left than Hillary Clinton during the primaries, then made a sharp turn to the middle once he had the nomination sewed up. That is why I put no stock at all on him following through with ANY of his campaign promises. Which will probably be a good thing…..
How many times have repubs (including you) on here tried to characterize him as far left, and we stood up and called him moderate? We are not the ones that made the false claim…you are, and now you are saying what we were.
A lot of self fulfilled proficiencies going on here that most of us supporters were never in agreement on, and more over argued against. Remember you asserted his (very partial) record was extreme left, but I argued that if you looked at all his political stances was actually quite moderate. Now you claim it was our belief? Ohhh Boy.
By Bruno
January 9, 2009 2:43 PM | Link to this
Following up from last week:
guys seem to want a 21st century woman economically but a 1950s woman socially (to use your phrase, someone who makes you feel like a man but who will also pay the tab).
Again, I can’t answer for other men, but my dating experiences have been the exact opposite, USinUK. Virtually every woman I meet wants 21st century “respect”, but in the end isn’t willing to share the responsibilities of the relationship, economically or otherwise. I’ve had several women tell me in so many words “The last guy I dated took advantage of me, so I’m going to take it out on you.”
Frankly, my confidence is not particularly bolstered by an American man who comes to a woman’s forum and basically states, “American women S—K! I’ll never date another one of you horrible creatures as long as I live!!!” Then basically says, “Go date who you want, I couldn’t give less of a darn what you do.” Is this an “American” style of winning friends and influencing people?
Please don’t generalize my (or TOJ’s) statements beyond those of two individuals. I’m sure that there are many kind-hearted, fair-minded American women out there who are clear on what their dating objectives are. I just haven’t met many of them.
P.S. Haven’t you made similar statements incorporating a religious component (“I only date Jewish men”)??
By JokesOn
January 9, 2009 2:57 PM | Link to this
P.S. Haven’t you made similar statements incorporating a religious component (“I only date Jewish men”)??
In all fairness you two applied a quality aspect to your comments. That is what understandably offended. I do not recall the comment “I only date Jewish men.” And if it was made, I bet it did not state because they are better. Plus, doesn’t Judaism, for the most part, require both parties to be jewish? Apples/Oranges.
By Bruno
January 9, 2009 3:01 PM | Link to this
If you mean the dogma of “equal under the law” and not having governmental policies influenced by any religious agenda, yes I follow the dogma of the spirit/letter of the constitution.
If we are all to be truly treated equally under the law, then there should be no benefits for married people not afforded to single people across the board, including tax benefits, being forced to testify against one another, etc. Do you support a policy like that??
Your claim that the only issue involved in gay marriage is one of equal treatment under the law rings somewhat hollow, however. Society regulates the sexual behavior of individuals in other ways (e.g. no bestiality), so it’s not completely without precedent to issue laws regulating the sexual behavior of homosexuals. I’m not taking sides here, just again stating that there are two logically equivalent positions here which simply begin with two different sets of premises. Like on the abortion issue, you personally may decide that one set of premises makes more sense than the other, but you cannot honestly deny that there are two equally valid starting points.
You keep misrepresenting this fact, even though we correct you each time. Marriage is a legal item where government is involved, not a religious one.
We’ll get along much better if you can start speaking for yourself, JokesOn, and leave out the “we” BS.
By Archie
January 9, 2009 3:04 PM | Link to this
My response to the topic question is no Obama should not be upset because Rick Warren doesn’t set any policy.
By Bruno
January 9, 2009 3:10 PM | Link to this
How many times have repubs (including you) on here tried to characterize him as far left, and we stood up and called him moderate? We are not the ones that made the false claim…you are, and now you are saying what we were.
My voting record over the years has been almost evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, including the last election cycle. As such, how exactly am I a Republican??
And once again, where does the phrase “we” come from all of a sudden?? If you want any respect from me, you’re going to have to start speaking for yourself.
As for Obama’s political record, it is a fact that he has voted along party lines more than 97% of the time. If you believe that that makes him a moderate, then I’m sure that you and American Woman will get along just fine.
I do not recall the comment “I only date Jewish men.” And if it was made, I bet it did not state because they are better.
If you don’t recall that statement being made, then how are you so sure what the context/meaning was?? You’re really reaching today, JokesOn. My only point to AW is that she claimed to be offended that TOJ and I stated that we’ve grown to prefer the company of women raised in other cultures, while the fact is that she has made similar statements in the past using religious criteria. That’s all.
By JokesOn
January 9, 2009 3:13 PM | Link to this
If we are all to be truly treated equally under the law, then there should be no benefits for married people not afforded to single people across the board, including tax benefits, being forced to testify against one another, etc. Do you support a policy like that??
That simply makes no sense and you know it.
Society regulates the sexual behavior of individuals in other ways (e.g. no bestiality)
Animals are individuals in your example. Pure rubbish and extreme comments that also make no sense. Can you address what I posted?
We’ll get along much better if you can start speaking for yourself, JokesOn, and leave out the “we” BS.
Nope. Many on here have stated they do not agree with the stance that he was the most left senator.
Some days you make some sense, and then there are days like this where you cannot even volley while staying on topic.
By Bruno
January 9, 2009 3:19 PM | Link to this
or perhaps begin with the premise that “choosing” your sexuality does no harm to society at large, it makes great sense to extend marital benefits to gay couples.
You speak as though lefties want everyone to state that they agree with the behavior
If you would take the time to read my posts more clearly, JokesOn, then maybe we can stop wasting time arguing about things that were never said.
As for Obama’s voting record and campign rhetoric, it’s all a matter of record. I have to return to work now, but will be happy to pull up some statements he made while on the campaign trail when I have time. Of course, when I reminded USinUK that Obama has come out in support of redistributing wealth via taxation on more than one occasion, she denied that he really meant it. Ok, what did he mean when he siad we need to “spread the wealth around”??
By Sunshine
January 9, 2009 3:20 PM | Link to this
Jack:
While I do not normally condone violence I concur with your statement.
By The Other Jack
January 9, 2009 3:21 PM | Link to this
Bruno
Wouldn’t it be great of he was actually a good president? And the media actually supported him?
After the acceptance of what the media did to Sarah Palin, it is obvious that the battle is lost. We can’t compete any more than the anti-Hitler crowd could compete against Goebbel’s control of the German media. The transformation is complete. In spite of the fact that a large majority of Americans are socially conservative, the loony left that controls the media will be deciding who the president will be.
You have people on here who are smart enough to pass a driving test who try to rationalize the media bias by comparing what Rush Limbaugh says to what is said by network anchors. You have people on here that believe that Palin should have controlled an interview and anything that appeared in frame behind her and MSNBC stating that they were running the entire interview that started with an ANSWER by Sarah Palin, and people on here using that to prove that they were honest. Trying to prove media honesty by posting an obvious lie.
It’s done, Bruno. The best we can hope for is for Obama, who is a very smart man, to understand what he has to do in order to keep the country going and not be the brainless twit that he appeared to be during the election. Maybe he will continue to prove that Bush has been right all along.
My brand new HD camera is ready and I am picking it up this afternoon. No moving parts other than lens servos. No tape. Records on high-end flash cards and this is big time 1080p High Definition. Three chip, pristene glass prism.
BTW. If you want your life to improve, make it more positive and staying the hell away from here is a great first step. I have landed a series that paid for the new gear and I am also negotiating an animated series. Not having to explain myself to very nasty spirited liberal women every day did more than anything.
Keep your head down and good luck to you.
Business is crazy. Life is good.
By Sunshine
January 9, 2009 3:30 PM | Link to this
Bruno, I don’t mean to offend but I have to agree with Jokeson today. You seem here just to pick a fight. I have not heard many, if any points you make that I would identify as ‘left-leaning” or anything short of a typical republican stance. I thought “Republican” issues are you feel you identified with and what you believed. It is hard to believe someone who feels as strongly as you do about so many different issues that conflict with a typical democratic view would vote for someone from the party you seem to so wholeheartedly distrust.
By NetBanker
January 9, 2009 3:41 PM | Link to this
Society regulates the sexual behavior of individuals in other ways (e.g. no bestiality), so it’s not completely without precedent to issue laws regulating the sexual behavior of homosexuals. Those laws regulating the sexual behavior of homosexuals were the sodomy laws that have been repealed and also applied to heterosexuals. Marriage laws don’t regulate sexual behavior.
By Sunshine
January 9, 2009 3:44 PM | Link to this
Sorry fat fingers today should have been: I thought “Republican” issues are what you feel you identified with duh!
By The Other Jack
January 9, 2009 3:46 PM | Link to this
Bruno
One other thing. One of my newer clients is dating one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen. I can’t look at her without wondering how long I have been staring. She is smart, sweet, kind as hell, funny, always ready with something clever to say and she is from Alabama. (An accent that will NOT get out of your mind) During an all night production meeting, she showed up with her homemade lasagna. If the deal was not already done, it was done then.
So yes, there are real prizes in some American women. Of course my client is a multi-millionaire, 32, great looking and drives a Lotus. There’s good one’s out there, but they demand a higher price than we have. LOL!
Have a good weekend.
By Frustrated
January 9, 2009 3:48 PM | Link to this
JokesOn- We could care less if everyone agrees on the morality of behaviors, as long as the behavior does not infringe on the rights of others.
So you would be ok with your 15 year old daughter(just an example) having relations with a 50 year old man? It doesn’t interfere with your rights….and they are individuals…Oh wait, we will start another “legal adult” conversation…
Animals are individuals in your example. Pure rubbish and extreme comments that also make no sense. Then lets use the example of your brother and sister having relations with each other…both of “legal adult” age… Are you ok with that? Wait, we had this discussion too…
I’m just curious as to when “equality” actually starts. As humans, we should be equal from conception, but that has been ruled out with abortion…babies have no say… As children, we have no say until we are 18….At 18 we can’t drink, At 21 we still can’t get a corvette insured..At 25+ we can’t marry who we want unless they are of the opposite sex and legal age (or with marent’s consent if you are under age)… Is it fair to the 50 year old who gets charged with statutory rape because his 15 year old ex-girlfriend decided he didn’t have enough money after screwing him 30 times and finally decided to call foul to get out of it?
So when/if gays were to marry, what next? We can marry cousins and siblings and date 13 year olds and marry more than 10 women at one time…..And have sex on the street openly without getting in trouble, I mean after all, it is an expression of how we feel, right? If I can’t smoke in a resturant, then why should you be able to sneeze on the train when you have a serious illness that is contagious? Why do I have to share a hospital recovery room, I don’t want to hear you smooching your loved ones, it hurts my feelings because I have NO ONE to come visit…
I mean seriously…Why have segregation of men/women restrooms…after all, I poop the same way everyone else does….call me when you won’t have a problem with me standing up beside you at the urinal trying to pee in a straight line…
By Bruno
January 9, 2009 4:13 PM | Link to this
Bruno, I don’t mean to offend but I have to agree with Jokeson today. You seem here just to pick a fight.
There’s no reason to leave the country if McCain and Palin win since it seems they will eventually destroy the entire planet
Some days you make some sense, and then there are days like this where you cannot even volley while staying on topic.
Sunshine—Please show me where I have directly insulted anyone or made inflammatory statements like the statements you and JokesOn have made today.
I have not heard many, if any points you make that I would identify as ‘left-leaning” or anything short of a typical republican stance.
In case you missed it, I fully support gay rights, which could be described as being “left-leaning”, although I actually believe it is the proper stance for all conservatives. My only point today is that there are two sides to the story, beginning with different premises. And, as I correctly predicted, not ONE of you left-leaners can bring yourselves to even ACKNOWLEDGE that there might be a valid viewpoint other than your own. And, as I predicted, you are quick to insult anyone who doesn’t agree with you. So much for tolerance.
It is hard to believe someone who feels as strongly as you do about so many different issues that conflict with a typical democratic view would vote for someone from the party you seem to so wholeheartedly distrust.
I do my best to vote for the person, and not the party, differently from all of the left-leaners on board. AW has stated numerous times that she would never even consider voting for a Republican. How about you?? Are you a straight party voter?? Also, Sunshine, keep in mind that I often take on the role of a “devil’s advocate” on this baord simply to provide some counterpoints.
By Bruno
January 9, 2009 4:25 PM | Link to this
If you want your life to improve, make it more positive and staying the hell away from here is a great first step.
Good advice, TOJ. I’ve done my best to provide alternative points of view, but usually get insulted in return. Liberals = hypocrites in my book. They speak a good game about tolerating other viewpoints, but in the end believe that there is only one valid way of looking at things.
By JokesOn
January 9, 2009 4:37 PM | Link to this
So you would be ok with your 15 year old daughter(just an example) having relations with a 50 year old man?
Are you seriously going to make that your counter argument? A 15yo cannot consent. Two adult males or females can. In many states what you proposed is legal, with the parents consent because, as stated, the child cannot consent.
I’m just curious as to when “equality” actually starts. That has never been defined by the law or constitution, hence why it needs to be teased out.
We can marry cousins and siblings We cannot (unless second or third cousins in certain states) because of birth defects which would be cruel and inhuman. That is medical fact, not conjecture; where-as your position against homosexual unions/marriages are based on religious laws that have no cause/effect rational that can be measured or proven.
and date 13 year olds See consent statement above.
and marry more than 10 women at one time… If they consent, why not? I personally would not, but I do not see why that should be law. Heck, it happened throughout the OT, no? (but, apples/oranges in any case)
And have sex on the street openly without getting in trouble, I mean after all, it is an expression of how we feel, right? If this was a more adult society, it may not be an issue - as with the bathroom example. But the fact remains that it is not something that is necessary for equality or pursuit of happiness, privacy…etc. Add to that minors could witness such, coupled by the fact that you can legally buy porn or see a sex show, and your argument holds no water as a basis of “equality.” It is equality when NONE of us can perform a specified act. It may be suppressive, but not unequal.
If I can’t smoke in a resturant, then why should you be able to sneeze on the train when you have a serious illness that is contagious? If you were negligent (knew you were sick, coughed on a persons food, and they lost work from getting strep) you might, in fact, have a legal case. If you have aids and know it, then spit on someone, it IS attempted possibly murder.
Why do I have to share a hospital recovery room, I don’t want to hear you smooching your loved ones, it hurts my feelings because I have NO ONE to come visit… You don’t. You can get a private room. That is your right, although you might have to pay for it like anyone else: equality.
All in all, none of these stawmen establish a counter point to the topic.
By JokesOn
January 9, 2009 4:59 PM | Link to this
Sunshine—Please show me where I have directly insulted anyone or made inflammatory statements like the statements you and JokesOn have made today.
Ohhh…I have been so insulting! BS.
My only point today is that there are two sides to the story, beginning with different premises. There can be two views, but when filtered through the realm of government/law, they are not necessarily both valid. Religious belief is not a valid premise when it comes to the law.
And, as I correctly predicted, not ONE of you left-leaners can bring yourselves to even ACKNOWLEDGE that there might be a valid viewpoint other than your own. And, as I predicted, you are quick to insult anyone who doesn’t agree with you. So much for tolerance. Wrong again. I stated that i, and many on here, could care less about converting people to the same mindset. They are entitled to their belief, but cannot impose it on others.
Even Warrens know there are not really absolutes. Example: He advocates condoms and abstinence when confronting aids even though he personally does not believe in premarital sex. I actually respect the guy a good bit (that does not mean I have to agree with him…see how that works?) after reading his thought out books and interviews.
97%? Remember, that was the year he voted on about a mere third of the bills presented because of campaigning. The group that does the poll even said it was a misleading figure that has been used outside its purpose and I cited it. We covered this and you proved you were unable to acknowledge the facts in the matter, and rested on the sound bite. Example: if for the rest of the week I based all your stances based on todays posts regarding american women, and “educated” your newest american fancy with your statements, would that reflect you in any meaningful way? Would it be slanted? Divisive?
By JokesOn
January 9, 2009 5:01 PM | Link to this
I mean seriously…Why have segregation of men/women restrooms…after all, I poop the same way everyone else does….call me when you won’t have a problem with me standing up beside you at the urinal trying to pee in a straight line…
FYI - I pee standing too.
By USinUK
January 11, 2009 8:28 AM | Link to this
Bruno -
I’ve done my best to provide alternative points of view, but usually get insulted in return. Liberals = hypocrites in my book. They speak a good game about tolerating other viewpoints, but in the end believe that there is only one valid way of looking at things.
take off the hair shirt, my friend, it doesn’t suit you.
seriously, who here has insulted you? I haven’t - Sunshine hasn’t - Jokesy hasn’t - Mara, Lyra, Gale, Archie - none of us have insulted you. In fact, I think I speak for most of us when I say that we like having you around. we may not always agree with you - but debate is what this board is all about.
as for being open to other points of view - of course we are. I really don’t give a damn what god you decide to worship or who you vote for or how you dress or who you sleep with.
What I do care about is when you try to limit the rights of others. You don’t believe in gay marriage? fine. don’t marry another man - but to impose that belief on other people, limiting their civil liberties - well, you’re right in one thing - I won’t put up with it.
that doesn’t make me a hypocrite - that makes me a civil libertarian. I don’t make you believe that it’s right, I just want you to back the eff off.
As far as Rev. Warren - well, I’ve never listened to him and don’t know much about his sermonizing, so I don’t feel I can really weigh in with an opinion about him. However, I do think that Obama was reaching out to the right in a tangible way, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
who gives the invocation won’t be remembered in 20 years - what will is the kind of legislation regarding gay rights that this WH proposes during Obama’s tenure. Ceremony is nice, but substance is what matters.
By The Other Jack
January 11, 2009 11:46 AM | Link to this
Bruno
I’ve done my best to provide alternative points of view, but usually get insulted in return. Liberals = hypocrites in my book. They speak a good game about tolerating other viewpoints, but in the end believe that there is only one valid way of looking at things.
And of course the response you got was this: take off the hair shirt, my friend, it doesn’t suit you.
Which of course says: I don’t have a counter point, yes we liberals are unreasonable, unfair and hate filled, but you won’t be allowed to say it, unless I throw some folksy saying that basically says that you are a stupid child and need to be put in your place. Condescension is their most treasured tool.
You can give them all the proof in the world, but they will never admit that they are in any way wrong. I was able to hold my own very easily here as far as the arguments, but you try to make the conversations friendly and you can expect to read a conversation between them, where they are saying the most vile things they want about you. That’s why I call them hens. Be nice in conversations with you and then stab you in the back to others. It’s who and what they are. Trust me, i doubt if they are any better in real life.
Look at last week’s example: I’m talking about how certain women make me feel like more of a man, a statement that is as common as rain. But to these nasty losers, it was simply an opening for an attack.
Mean, nasty, dishonest losers, Bruno. They work for other people all day while using their work hours to stay here. They have the time to spend hours and hours finding and posting articles to counter any point we make because they are using time that they are stealing from their employers. Game, set, match is the mentality. If I can post more lies than has already been posted by my liberal media, conservatives haven’t got a chance. Here’s 15 articles that I was paid to find that proves what I say is right.
You were told Friday that you came here looking for a fight. Come here and look after you have been gone for a few days. With me gone, and Chuck finally also getting tired of the nastiness, there is no one left for them to fight and condescend to. So nobody posts anything. They come here every day looking for a fight and if there is no one here to fight, their hen sessions last about an hour. They come here because they can not only fight, they can gang fight. They feel empowered for the first time in their pathetic lives. You are not their friend, Bruno, you are their shell fodder. ganging up on you just makes them feel powerful. They know that they will support each other no matter how crazy the stance. Joke claimed that minors were never taken advantage of by the porn industry and as wrong and basically criminal as that statement might be, they stood behind him like he was Abraham Lincoln.
There are some great positive groups on the internet. i have joined several and one led to the TV series I landed. Politics breed the kind of people that are here. Get into professional guilds on the internet that will make good, real friends that can help you, not condescend to you every day. Trust me, Bruno, it really does make a difference.
These people have all they are going to have. As Jack Nicholson said: “What if this is as good as it gets?” Well, for these guys, it is.
By USinUK
January 11, 2009 1:05 PM | Link to this
Which of course says: I don’t have a counter point
… unless, of course, you go on to read the remainder of the post - which is, in fact, a counterpoint.
Condescension is their most treasured tool
you would know, TOJ, you’re the most condescending person in the room.
You can give them all the proof in the world, but they will never admit that they are in any way They have the time to spend hours and hours finding and posting articles to counter any point we make
first of all, when have you EVER supported any of your arguments with data??? as far as posting articles, it’s called offering evidence to support your argument - which I, Mara, Gale, Jokesy, JaJ and many others have done to try to illuminate the facts and destroy the myths you and Bruno like to believe in (things like your belief that the Dems caused high gas prices - as an aside, funny how you don’t credit them with low gas prices - or Bruno’s belief that the Iraq infrastructure projects were going along swimmingly)
Game, set, match is the mentality
yep. when the opposing argument is facile, unsupported and easily batted down with data, I happily plead guilty to that mentality.
By JokesOn
January 11, 2009 1:59 PM | Link to this
I’ve done my best to provide alternative points of view, but usually get insulted in return. Liberals = hypocrites in my book. They speak a good game about tolerating other viewpoints, but in the end believe that there is only one valid way of looking at things.
If those types of statements about the majority of the board were remotely true, why are all of us totally ok with, and actually supportive in a reaching out kind of way, regarding the topic???
Why are we not acting like you and screaming about having a mixture at the ceremony?
The only answer to your blindness is that the facts cannot fit in with your world view, so you HAVE to ignore them. That leaves you with no active choices, only reactionary. Sad.
So here we have examples of Projection, Denial, Megalomania, Paranoia, Inferiority Complex (which actually gives rise to the Megalomania since that is a defense)…what else besides general nastiness?
By JokesOn
January 11, 2009 2:04 PM | Link to this
USinUK,
As far as Rev. Warren - well, I’ve never listened to him and don’t know much about his sermonizing, so I don’t feel I can really weigh in with an opinion about him. However, I do think that Obama was reaching out to the right in a tangible way, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
I do not agree with many of his personal beliefs. But if you look at a lot of his actions in the world, he has shown he can compromise for the betterment of all. That is hard to find in a religious figure and I admire that. He is also critical of Mega churches and how much they actually help people, which I cheer on.
By The Other Jack
January 11, 2009 2:06 PM | Link to this
And you are the journalism major who posted a piece from MSNBC that claimed to post the entire interview with Palin that started with an answer.
Most of the time you are just too ill-informed to even address the subject at hand. You never acknowledge the central point of any post and the best you can do is to find some unrelated point to nag about.
Yes, the people who are stealing the time to be here do have more time to post articles and 90% of the time, you still can’t prove your point. Then you harp about how you win the argument, just like you did as you posted the MSNBC article, and yet you have never acknowledged what an ill informed, ill-educated thing you had done.
But you say that I “never” support my arguments with data, which I did on a daily basiis, but to be honest, it was always more fun taking what you had offered and using that to prove my point.
i got tired of the condescension, the back stabbing and the nagging from people who offered nothing except the ability to be another sheep, walking in goose step with what you were told by the media. And now Obama is promising to continue 90% of Bush’s policies and you guys are crowing about his brilliance. Unbelieveable.
The best any of you can ever say about the things I say is that I am just as bad as you guys are. Imagine having 6 or 7 people as nasty as I am up your butt every day you come here that have no independent ideas and who you could count on to always stick together to attack you no matter what. How long would you continue coming here, girl?
I feel bad about some of the things I have said here, but when I go back and see what those things were written in response to, i don’t feel so bad. You guys are nasty. i’ve been on forums since 1992 and have never seen a nastier bunch. I know that you think it is all my problem, but you may want to stand back and look at who is here and who has left.
Chuck is a good guy who practices what he preaches and you guys treated him like he was some sort of trash. He is now rarely here. Bruno should work for the UN for his diplomacy and he is treated like crap. So now you can talk about great tasty snacks, because nobody wants to be treated like you treat them. So you guys have ganged up and bullied your way into a clan that no one wants to deal with. Congratulations. You are the stereo-typical screaming liberal that WILL be heard no matter how idiotic your stances might be. The problem is that now there is no one here to hear you that gives a damn.
I see what you guys do to Bruno and it makes me mad. I wish he would get the hell away from here. He is crazy about most of you guys and you treat him like hell. But what else would I expect? He dares to offer a different political opinion than you. Somebody get a rope.
By The Other Jack
January 11, 2009 2:10 PM | Link to this
USinUK
Read Joke’s last post to Bruno. Nasty, personal, attacking everything about the man that he can. And this is all for the fact that their political opinion is different. What the hell is wrong with you people?
By JokesOn
January 11, 2009 2:24 PM | Link to this
Read Joke’s last post to Bruno. Nasty, personal, attacking everything about the man that he can. And this is all for the fact that their political opinion is different. What the hell is wrong with you people?
Get out of my a$$ you little twerp. I have not addressed you in ages and you keep crawling back. You want personal, look at you first post after mine on the last 3-5 topics I joined.
You cannot comprehend crap. That is a given.
By JokesOn
January 11, 2009 2:28 PM | Link to this
If you do not want to be ridiculed, do not counter a point with such ridiculous posts. Comparing bestiality/pedophilia/incest to gay marriage/unions is not only inane, but idiotic. Calling it such is not personal.
If what any of what you say is accurate, then Why are we not acting like you and screaming about having a mixture at the ceremony?
Can you make that fit in your belief system? Waiting….
By The Other Jack
January 11, 2009 2:42 PM | Link to this
Are you addressing me, imbecile?
Take a step back and f*ck yourself, you ill-educated, no class, coward. Step back or you will have to start making up stories about fishing trips during hurricane season in order to explain why you are running from me, again.
By USinUK
January 11, 2009 2:51 PM | Link to this
Jokes -
He is also critical of Mega churches and how much they actually help people, which I cheer on.
I thought he had a megachurch (the location of the interview with both candidates) … ???
TOJ -
Most of the time you are just too ill-informed to even address the subject at hand. You never acknowledge the central point of any post and the best you can do is to find some unrelated point to nag about.
so incorrect on so many levels. first of all, I don’t find an “unrelated” point - I pick apart your central thesis piece by piece. call it “fisking”, if you will. secondly, the person who once said that the Germans employed the Blitz in response to the Dresden bombings (just one example of many of your incredibly inaccurate statements) is the LAST person in the universe who should EVER be calling anyone else ill-informed.
But you say that I “never” support my arguments with data, which I did on a daily basis, but to be honest, it was always more fun taking what you had offered and using that to prove my point.
oh, really. you supported your incorrect thesis about how the war has helped our economy using … what? because there is no data to support your argument. heck, even the headlines you used to support your assertion that the media attacked Palin’s children didn’t support your argument (in fact, the first article you linked to - US Weekly - was an article debunking the rumors on the blogosphere)
The best any of you can ever say about the things I say is that I am just as bad as you guys are. Imagine having 6 or 7 people as nasty as I am up your butt every day you come here that have no independent ideas and who you could count on to always stick together to attack you no matter what. How long would you continue coming here, girl?
… and yet, here you are … day after day …
I see what you guys do to Bruno and it makes me mad. I wish he would get the hell away from here. He is crazy about most of you guys and you treat him like hell. But what else would I expect? He dares to offer a different political opinion than you. Somebody get a rope.
boy, you just love that theory, don’t you … how we all HATE people with different political views. you thrive on it - breathe it in like air, passing it through your lungs into your blood stream …
too bad it doesn’t stack up with reality. I can safely hazard a guess that I’m not the only person with GOP (and Tory) friends and relatives. I love them and love to spar with them. As I said earlier - I have no problem with what they believe (and am open to hear why they believe as they do)
what I do have a problem with is when they want laws enacted that limit others’ civil liberties. I don’t expect you to believe everything I do. All I ask is that you leave your nose out of my business (who I sleep with, the type of contraception I use, who I choose to marry, etc)
By The Other Jack
January 11, 2009 4:47 PM | Link to this
USinUK
I don’t know it you and most everyone else are as nasty as you are because of politics, but that sure brings it out here. I pointed you to read the post that joke wrote to Bruno. You probably didn’t bother because you just don’t give a damn. But that post was timed perfectly for what I was talking about.
You like to preach at me about gay rights. The only problem is that i have no problem with gay rights. I have avoided the conversations here. But both you and joke have preached today about an issue that I probably agree with you on. Hell, joke claimed that i compared gay marriage to bestiality. Do you guys ever actually read what OTHER people write?
Conservatives are not sheep. We are not like you guys. We all think differently. There is not a nickle’s worth of difference between the politics of every liberal on this blog. Gale may be a little different, but she just supports other democrats than you do. And amazingly enough, there is not a nickle’s difference between what you guys think and what has been pushed in the liberal media for the past twenty years. Imagine that. (I dare you to pick a single stance that you defend and not see it endorsed by the majority of the media)
I just hope you and everybody else stay as nasty toward Bruno. With me gone, he is your last person to treat like hell, and he deserves it the least. I like the guy. I’d like to see him get the hell away from this nasty little hen-house. I can’t imagine that being around you guys wouild be good for anyone.
By USinUK
January 12, 2009 8:31 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
I pointed you to read the post that joke wrote to Bruno. You probably didn’t bother because you just don’t give a damn. But that post was timed perfectly for what I was talking about.
I scrolled and reread every post Jokesy wrote to Bruno leading up to Bruno’s “liberals = hypocrites” post and didn’t find one thing that was even remotely an attack, personal or otherwise. Even the post following wasn’t “nasty” - although, I know your poor wounded soul wants to believe it is.
Hell, joke claimed that i compared gay marriage to bestiality. Do you guys ever actually read what OTHER people write?
well, you obviously don’t. He was talking about you and Bruno - who did compare gay rights to bestiality - and Frustrated has compared it to incest and pedophilia. So, despite your protestations, his comment “Comparing bestiality/pedophilia/incest to gay marriage/unions is not only inane, but idiotic. Calling it such is not personal.” is accurate.
And amazingly enough, there is not a nickle’s difference between what you guys think and what has been pushed in the liberal media for the past twenty years.
yeah. you’re right. sure, I’m a woman in my fertile years, but the ONLY reason I believe that the government should stay the hell out of my reproductive decisions is because of the media. sure, I breathe air, drink water and eat food, but the ONLY reason I believe that there should be government regulation of corporate pollution is because the media tells me to. sure, I am just an American citizen who embraces my Constitutional rights, but it’s ONLY because of what the media tells me to believe that I think that the warrantless wiretapping is an affront to everything this country stands for.
you just keep believing that, TOJ - because, as we all know, that way you don’t have to pay attention to anything someone on the other side of the aisle has to say. god forbid you should actually think for yourself. you might want to check out the Colbert speech at the press correspondent’s dinner - (although, I should warn you - it was a joke and shouldn’t be taken seriously, since you seem to think that Colbert, Tina Fey and John Stewart are part of the actual news media and not entertainment):
it is my privilege to celebrate this president, ‘cause we’re not so different, he and I. We both get it. Guys like us, we’re not some brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We’re not members of the factinista. We go straight from the gut. Right, sir?
That’s where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. Now, I know some of you are going to say, “I did look it up, and that’s not true.” That’s ‘cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that’s how our nervous system works.
yep. your gut tells you that all is well, that Dems caused the spike in gas prices and that we liberals don’t know how to think for ourselves without Katie Couric telling us what to do. you just keep burping that sentiment up and tasting it all over again - I’m sure it’ll keep you warm at night.
With me gone, he is your last person to treat like hell, and he deserves it the least. I like the guy. I’d like to see him get the hell away from this nasty little hen-house. I can’t imagine that being around you guys wouild be good for anyone.
… and again, here you are … day after day …
By Gale
January 12, 2009 8:56 AM | Link to this
Well there certainly was a food fight here. TOJ, you would probably get fewer extreme responses if your comments were less acerbic. I am sure you have valid points worth considering. But I have trouble giving them due consideration when I have to sift through the insults that accompany them. If you want the women and liberals here to consider your views, try stating them in a way that lets us be thoughtful about them. Bruno, Archie, JokesOn and JustaJew, and some other less frequent posters that I am reasonably sure are men don’t feel the need to insult women for their views when they don’t agree. I left Gandalf out because he is a special class. Gandalf insults everyone. But even there, he often makes a salient point worth serious consideration.
By USinUK
January 12, 2009 9:04 AM | Link to this
Gale -
not so much a food fight as a whine and cheese(d off) party …
By USinUK
January 12, 2009 9:11 AM | Link to this
… meanwhile … back in the real world … just as we suspected:
President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation’s thorniest fiscal challenges.
The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush’s tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago. Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output, grew at the slowest pace for a period of that length since the Truman administration. And Americans’ incomes grew more slowly than in any presidency since the 1960s, other than that of Bush’s father.
( snip )
Even excluding the 2008 recession, however, Bush presided over a weak period for the U.S. economy. For example, for the first seven years of the Bush administration, gross domestic product grew at a paltry 2.1 percent annual rate.
… and for those who prefer the GDP per capita measure of growth, the average for the first 7 years of Bush’s tenure in office came in at 1.48%. Compare that with an average of 2.52% for Clinton’s 2 terms and 2.47% for all 8 years of Uncle Ronnie. (and, considering that we’ve been in a recession for most of 2008, the 1.48% for Bush the Lesser will fall when the final year of his administration is added to the average, so really, I’m giving him the benefit of incomplete data).
http://www. washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/ article/2009/01/11/AR2009011102301_pf.html
By Gale
January 12, 2009 9:21 AM | Link to this
Anyone would think you don’t like Dubya, USinUK. :-)
By JokesOn
January 12, 2009 9:35 AM | Link to this
USinUK,
First, thanks for acknowledging that my response to multiple people in a single post was able to be understood.
I thought he had a megachurch (the location of the interview with both candidates) … ???
Yeah. Let me explain.
I heard a good 2 hour interview with him on NPR a few years back. He went through his history and progression up to where he is now. One of the things he noticed when looking at other church models is the may have sent a decent amount of money to an organization, but helped nearly no one directly.
Also, those organizations they did send money to were, more often than not, filled with church workers; meaning that 80% of the money was used up before reaching the needy and focused heavily on converting. He set up a system of small/medium/mega churches around the world that directly assisted those in need. When it came to the battle on AIDS, people in high risk areas (Africa for example), he defied his and the churches notion of abstinence only programs because he knew the practical solution had to be more inclusive.
He stated that he was not going to put these people at greater risk purely because of his beliefs and finds out how to assist government programs; not counter them or duplicate efforts.
There is a lot that I do not agree with him, but he seamed like a man that could be reasoned with more than your usual religious right type.
By USinUK
January 12, 2009 9:37 AM | Link to this
Gale -
Anyone would think you don’t like Dubya, USinUK.
don’t know where they’d get that idea …
By JokesOn
January 12, 2009 9:42 AM | Link to this
So, I guess no one that was asserting that we libs are narrow minded can respond to why we are then not all up in arms with the actual topic??
Can any conservatives state they would be equally ok with the inverse of Rick Warren? Say, a gay pastor who is marrying gays and promoting women being pastors in the church? (although, I know Bru-dog would be ok with it)
Bru-dog, I know you (as do I) like to play devils advocate, but that does not mean you can pick willy-nilly or extreme points. They still have to be sound.
By Frustrated
January 12, 2009 9:48 AM | Link to this
FYI - I pee standing too.
I don’t, so sorry if it gets on your shoes.
By USinUK
January 12, 2009 10:01 AM | Link to this
Jokes -
First, thanks for acknowledging that my response to multiple people in a single post was able to be understood.
de nachos.
re: Rick Warren
Interesting stuff … I grew up not far from the Marietta Baptist megachurch (just west of the Big Chicken) and was always a bit disgusted/dismayed that money seemed to go towards a huge campus, big screens, AV and the rest.
but, hey, I’ve also been to the Vatican and went through the Vatican museum and have seen what, I’m sure, is just a small % of their holdings collected over the centuries … I’m sure they could sell a painting here, a statue there and do a lot to solve world hunger.
good to know Warren sounds a little more pragmatic than Dr. Dobson (now, there’s someone who would have me up in arms for the invocation). like I said earlier, I saw the pick as an outreach to the right - that Obama is trying to be everyone’s president, not just the folks who voted him into office. and I see that as a good thing.
By JokesOn
January 12, 2009 10:02 AM | Link to this
I don’t, so sorry if it gets on your shoes.
Not a problem…it is just pee. I will be sure to wear galoshes when you are around; or buy you a lady-j.
By JokesOn
January 12, 2009 10:14 AM | Link to this
like I said earlier, I saw the pick as an outreach to the right - that Obama is trying to be everyone’s president, not just the folks who voted him into office. and I see that as a good thing.
Absolutely. Isn’t that the campaign he was actually running on? (Versus the one that people try to insist on: he is an extreme lefty)
Funny that he and the Maverick were running on similar campaigns of reaching out, and one hires/promotes extreme rights, and the other follows through with his campaign of diversity. Yet, no one on the right sees this.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 12, 2009 10:23 AM | Link to this
I heard the president of Iran was too busy planning the destruction of Isreal to come, but he was asked first to say the prayer! :-)!
By USinUK
January 12, 2009 10:25 AM | Link to this
Jokes -
Funny that he and the Maverick were running on similar campaigns of reaching out, and one hires/promotes extreme rights, and the other follows through with his campaign of diversity. Yet, no one on the right sees this.
to be fair, I’ve seen a lot of folks on the right say they were going to step back and wait rather than just jump in with both feet.
and, for the record, I think the selection of Leon Panetta was an INSPIRED choice. he’s a Grade-A streamliner and knows how to organize out of chaos - I think that, with him at the helm, we’re going to have a far more efficient and effective CIA.
By USinUK
January 12, 2009 10:28 AM | Link to this
GtG -
I heard the president of Iran was too busy planning the destruction of Isreal to come, but he was asked first to say the prayer! :-)!
hey GtG - hope you had a good weekend. I think Ahmadenijad has enough on his plate with his own elections coming up to fit the destruction of Israel into his schedule.
saw a VERY interesting movie this weekend that I think you might like - have you heard of/seen “In Bruges”?? I can’t recommend it highly enough - there is a theme of redemption that I think you’d really sink your teeth into.
By JokesOn
January 12, 2009 10:40 AM | Link to this
to be fair, I’ve seen a lot of folks on the right say they were going to step back and wait rather than just jump in with both feet.
True.
By USinUK
January 12, 2009 10:51 AM | Link to this
anyone else here seen “In Bruges”??? I’m DYIN’ to hear someone else’s opinion!
(me, it blew my doors off … I’m not a huge Colin Farrell fan, but I thought he was absolutely amazing in this … as were Brenden Gleeson and Ralph Fiennes, for that matter … Ralph Fiennes always plays SUCH a great baddie!)
By American Woman
January 12, 2009 11:17 AM | Link to this
Wow, looks like I stepped out just in time on Friday! HAHAHA! Dodged the flying tater tots and jello cubes.
By Archie
January 12, 2009 11:29 AM | Link to this
try stating them in a way that lets us be thoughtful about them. Bruno, Archie, JokesOn and JustaJew, and some other less frequent posters that I am reasonably sure are men don’t feel the need to insult women for their views when they don’t agree. Thank you Gale and USinUk, I certainly don’t want to insult women because I am married and I have a daughter and mother. So I know I get out of line because of some isolated incidents with women but nope, I don’t come here to insult women. Sometimes I don’t post much because I am busy and some of the other posters like UsinUk and Mara do such a great job that it’s pointless for me to add anything since I agree with everything they’re saying at the time. Based on the posts of USinUk about Bush and jobs and economic growth, it seems like Bush jr really was the worst president of all time. Here in South Carolina we have one of the worst governors of all time and it’s not because he’s a republican because the other republican governors weren’t like him but this guy is an ideologue and I noticed Georgia is having budget problems in state government which tells me y’all have some snake oil salesman down there too. To sincerely cut spending you need years to evaluate specifically where the cuts need to come from. Cutting taxes sounds good but to keep essential services going you need to know specifics and politicians don’t know them but they talk to the general public as if they do. Politiicians speak in generalities at high-level but if you get into specifics that’s when you find these guys equivocate so much. USinUk please continue pounding out the facts and pray for us here in South Carolina. If you’re an atheist or agnostic ignore my last comment.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 12, 2009 11:33 AM | Link to this
I saw “Gran Torino”, it has to be Best Picture, was an incredible movie.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 12, 2009 11:35 AM | Link to this
I, for one, will only trust an election in Iran if Jimmy “the peanut farmer” Carter goes over and personally endorses it! Maybe Fidel and Jimmy can go together?
By USinUK
January 12, 2009 11:40 AM | Link to this
Archie -
USinUk please continue pounding out the facts and pray for us here in South Carolina. If you’re an atheist or agnostic ignore my last comment.
which is a shame - SC is a great state, from Ft. Sumpter/Charleston to the “upstate” - and it’s less than an hour to drive through, averaging 70 MPH down I-85.
the true shame of it all is that SC and AL really sold their souls to get the auto plants there - ridiculous sweetheart deals that did nothing to help the state, despite the fact that (as I’ve said before), these companies use state resources just like everyone else. yes, they provided jobs - but did the cost wind up higher than the benefit???
By InBruges
January 12, 2009 11:42 AM | Link to this
Hilarious film.
quotes: Landlady “Would you please put down your gun>” Answer:(Fiennes) “Of course I cannot put down my gun, we’re having a shoot-out”.
another:
Heavyset English guy returns from going up a narrow walkway to the roof of some cathedral, unaware his partner(Farrel) has just gotten in a fist fight with some very overweight Yanks, as he called them ‘elephants’(expletive deleted) meaning they were too big to go up the narrow staircase. Yank a family of three.
so the heavyset English guy(the Yanks are unaware his buddy is the guy they were just trying to stomp) answers their “Should we go up there?” with a “well(long Pause)”
woman turns around, gives him the bird, with a “FY, MF”.
hilarious film.
By USinUK
January 12, 2009 11:44 AM | Link to this
I saw “Gran Torino”, it has to be Best Picture, was an incredible movie.
oooo … I just IMDBd that - it sounds good.
By Mara
January 12, 2009 11:50 AM | Link to this
Can any conservatives state they would be equally ok with the inverse of Rick Warren?
though he’s not performing ceremonies for gay couples, etc., Anglican Bishop Gene Robinson might be considered the flip side of Rick Warren. That said, I find a certain symetry in Bishop Robinson delivering the “kickoff” invocation for this weeks inaugural events. I think it’s a telling move for Obama to have a “lefty” open the ceremonies while choosing a “righty” to close them out (other than the actual swearing in, etc.).
It helps me believe that he actually does intend to be the President of ALL the United States instead of, like BushCo, sneering at the concerns and opinions held by half (or more)of the populace.
By USinUK
January 12, 2009 11:53 AM | Link to this
InBruges -
my favorite line is still “2 manky prostitutes and a racist dwarf. I’m heading home.”
By Sunshine
January 12, 2009 12:05 PM | Link to this
Dang, Mara you are quick! Just read this and was eager to post it here! While I am have stated that I don’t think the Warren prayer merits a lot of attention or relevance, (and I don’t think this other prayer does either) and still believe that, I do wonder how the “right” will see this prayer by this gay minister. It will be interesting to watch. I hope to be pleasantly surprised by the acceptance of the “right” of this other view point, since it seems so many posters here believe that the right is more inclusive of alternate POV’s than the left!
By Sunshine
January 12, 2009 12:09 PM | Link to this
just so there is a source: From FOXNEWS.com
CONCORD, N.H. — The first openly gay Episcopal bishop will offer a prayer at the Lincoln Memorial at an inaugural event for President-elect Barack Obama.
The selection of New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson for Sunday’s event…
“It’s important for any minority to see themselves represented in some way,” Robinson told the newspaper for a story in Monday’s editions. “Whether it be a racial minority, an ethnic minority, or in our case, a sexual minority. Just seeing someone like you up front matters.”
Clark Stevens, a spokesman for the inaugural committee, said Robinson was invited because he had offered his advice to Obama during the campaign and because of his church work. When asked whether Robinson was included to calm the Warren complaints, he said Robinson is “an important figure in the religious community. We are excited that he will be involved.”
Robinson, 61, said both Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden will attend the event, and Obama is expected to speak. As for himself, Robinson said he doesn’t yet know what he’ll say, but he knows he won’t use a Bible.
By USinUK
January 12, 2009 12:17 PM | Link to this
Mara -
That said, I find a certain symetry in Bishop Robinson delivering the “kickoff” invocation for this weeks inaugural events. I think it’s a telling move for Obama to have a “lefty” open the ceremonies while choosing a “righty” to close them out (other than the actual swearing in, etc.).
hey-hey! I didn’t realize that (haven’t read that much coverage about the inaugural) - that’s fantastic.
although, I did happen to see that they’re bringing back poetry to the inauguration! yay!! for samples of the poet to be featured next week, http://www. elizabethalexander. net/poems.html#EM
and ReRe is singing!!! woowoo!!!
let’s see, it starts at 10 there … that’s 3 here … I’m going to have to tape it and watch it when I get home …
(I actually got tickets to Clinton’s second inaugural - nearly froze my patooties off, but I was still glad to see it in person)
By American Woman
January 12, 2009 12:28 PM | Link to this
I was so moved by the poem Maya Anjelou read at the ‘93 inauguration, I bought a copy:
“…Lift up your faces, you have a piercing need For this bright morning dawning for you.
History, despite its wrenching pain, Cannot be unlived, and if faced With courage, need not be lived again.
Lift up your eyes upon The day breaking for you.
Give birth again To the dream…..”
By USinUK
January 12, 2009 12:48 PM | Link to this
AW -
I was so moved by the poem Maya Anjelou read at the ‘93 inauguration, I bought a copy
I la-la-LOVED that poem - printed a copy of it and posted it in the office of the job I had at that time - kept it there until I left in 1996.
http://poetry. eserver.org/ angelou.html
of course, you have wankers like Bill Kristol who are still all a-swooning (and affronted) that Clinton had a poet who said the word gay - and who dared be inclusive - in the inauguration. http://www. nytimes.com/2008/12/29/ opinion/29kristol.html?_r=2
By Gandalf, the White!
January 12, 2009 12:51 PM | Link to this
Episcopal? Isn’t that funny, no Bible! I think He be about as Christian as Barry is, or RAMADANGADINGDONG! No Bible! What kinda a Christian Bishop doesn’t use a Bible? I would have to say a Bishop who is also a [{“Dum BASS!”}]! (Sorry if this offends)
By Gandalf, the White!
January 12, 2009 12:56 PM | Link to this
Why do Homos get the word gay and the rainbow? What happened to gay as an expression of joy?
By Gale
January 12, 2009 1:44 PM | Link to this
Gandalf, we get ‘gay’ because homosexual is too long and we wanted something that wasn’t intentionally offensive like queer. I have know idea about the rainbow. It isn’t like there is a queer nation of something.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 12, 2009 2:00 PM | Link to this
Give me back the RAINBOW! I want one on my back window! I want to go to Hawaii and sit in Aloha Stadium and watch the Rainbow Warriors play football!
By Ironman Carmichael
January 12, 2009 3:00 PM | Link to this
I can think of lots of other words that have been given homosexual connotations Gandalf, some of them not very nice; do you want those back, too?
The wise thing to do is just let Warren give the invocation and let it go. Don’t people realize that the less fuss they make, the sooner it’ll be forgotten? After all, who remembers who swore in Bush (no looking it up!) or Clinton or Bush 41 or Reagan, etc.?
By Gandalf, the White!
January 12, 2009 4:55 PM | Link to this
NOPE, i JUST WANT GAY AND RAINBOW BACK..KEEP THE REST…
By napoleon
January 13, 2009 8:26 AM | Link to this
Today 01/13/2009 Senator, Hillary Clinton of New York begins her confirmation to the Obama white house post as roaming ambassador. “Roaming Ambassador” Have you really listen to the tone of this title. To me and my ear it sounds like a great title for an adult film.
By USinUK
January 13, 2009 8:26 AM | Link to this
aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!! change bad! change bad! the AJC changed the layout without warning … don’t they know we don’t handle upset well???
morning, all!
In case you didn’t know about this, the So Cobb band will be in the inaugural parade - (way to go, kids!!!) http://www. nytimes.com/ 2009/01/13/us/ politics/13band.html?_r=1&hp
woowoo!! Gene Sperling is heading back to the WH!! http:// thecaucus.blogs. nytimes.com/2009/01/12/bringing-sperling-back/?hp
(he’s had a gig at Bloomberg-dot-com for the last year or so, if you want to check out some of his writing/opinions - http://www. bloomberg.com/ news/commentary/columnists.html - type his name in the search at the top right)
and I thought this was hysterical … http://www. theonion.com/ content/newsbriefs/ bushfrustratedbymothers?utmsource=onionrss_washpost
By Reama
January 13, 2009 9:06 AM | Link to this
“Reaming Ambassador” would be better.
By Gale
January 13, 2009 9:07 AM | Link to this
I like the new format.
By USinUK
January 13, 2009 9:18 AM | Link to this
I like the new format.
I’m not diggin it … too many font sizes going on on the front page and the logo looks anemic. and what happened to having the opinion section as a link on the nav bar???
By USinUK
January 13, 2009 9:38 AM | Link to this
is everyone else seeing the page center-justified … or has my computer finally succombed to the evil sprites that have been plaguing it all day … ???
By Gale
January 13, 2009 9:53 AM | Link to this
Well, the logo was a no-show on the home page when I looked. It is wimpy, but it beats heck out of the logo change my company just made. (Egad the cost to change everything that appears on… after laying off a bunch of folks at HQ.) The justification is correct for me. But I agree that the opinion link is missing and the navigation here is not apparent.
By Gale
January 13, 2009 9:55 AM | Link to this
USinUK, I use IE6.0. What browser are you using?
By USinUK
January 13, 2009 10:10 AM | Link to this
USinUK, I use IE6.0. What browser are you using?
right now, I’m using “evil gremlins are out to destroy my computer and what’s left of my sanity” v.2.1
when all else fails, reboot … which is what I did … seems to be working so far … fingers crossed …
beats heck out of the logo change my company just made. (Egad the cost to change everything that appears on… after laying off a bunch of folks at HQ.)
gah … rebranding is SUCH an expensive proposition! the Mr.’s company is in the middle of it right now - we see about a half-dozen ads a night talking about the Big Name Change (ta-DAAAAAA) … all I can think about is the £££ that’s spent on all the PR and advertising …
By Gale
January 13, 2009 10:52 AM | Link to this
rebranding: I just hope “the market” likes the new logo better than I do. My designer partner says it is very dated looking and the typeface and kerning suck. I just don’t like it.
Rebooting does fix a bunch of issues. I know your Mr will have told you the ususal stuff: reboot regularly, defrag somewhat regularly, clear your internet cache, history and temp files. It is general stuff, but maybe some other reader will benefit.
By USinUK
January 13, 2009 11:00 AM | Link to this
My designer partner says it is very dated looking and the typeface and kerning suck.
I was wondering if it was just me that thought it looks dated - looks very late 1970s / early 1980s to me (no longer disco era, but not quite new wave)
By tony
January 13, 2009 11:03 AM | Link to this
I’m a gay American male who voted for Mr. Obama but I support his choice of Rick Warren. This needs to be a time in our country’s history for healing and coming together Mr. Obama’s pragmatism in selecting a conservative pastor to swear him in is commendable. I’m an atheist, by the way.
By American Woman
January 13, 2009 12:08 PM | Link to this
This needs to be a time in our country’s history for healing and coming together…
Amen, Tony, and nicely put! So true, so true. Your widely-held position would appear to contradict the bitter accusations here on Friday that “liberals” (the label given to anyone who voted for Obama) are intolerant, hypocritical sheep. Thanks for posting.
EQUALITY!
By Mara
January 13, 2009 12:30 PM | Link to this
Gale, I and many of the people at the “comment on the new look” link, think the new logo looks like it was ripped off from HP. I think the new format is insipid, aesthetically displeasing, and washed out and not as easily navigatable as a the old. Not only have they moved all the links, they’ve renamed a bunch of them too! I now have to go to three different drop downs to access the assorted “Vents” that I usually read at the start of the day. BAH HUMBUG! You’d think that the AJC, if they felt a redesign was necessary, would have actually, y’know…hired an professional designer that would considered ease of use and appearance. sigh
Oh, well…if I can adapt to the very annoying Vista layout, I suppose that, given time, I’ll adapt to the new AJC (or should I say ‘ajc’) layout. But I won’t pretend that I like it.
By USinUK
January 13, 2009 12:47 PM | Link to this
Mara - /if I can adapt to the very annoying Vista layout
GAH!!! don’t get me started … and using the new excel is a whole new form of pain
(and what’s with the not being able to italicize anything today??? methinks the AJC forgot to betatest the new format with all the stuff that is befunked)
By Gandalf, the White!
January 13, 2009 12:49 PM | Link to this
What [{Dum BASS!!!}] Decided opinion was NEWS? That’s this stupid RAG for ya, going down, down, down hill! Get rid of Cynthia and the other [AssClown]! This change Sucks! I remember when I used to get it delivered to my house!
Tony: I am glad you are a happy American Male! Who is Mr. Obama? You mean Senator Obama? The President elect? Here we call him Barry, like his mom did. We can’t get printed what his brother living in squalor in Africa calls him. Gay means happy! Rainbow means rain and sun!
By Mara
January 13, 2009 1:40 PM | Link to this
USinUK - and using the new Excel is a whole new form of pain
ARRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!! I hear ya, sister! Maybe they should incorporate it into the SERE training. Seriously.
Anybody tried the Window 7 Beta yet?
By American Woman
January 13, 2009 1:53 PM | Link to this
Bill Gates = Satan.
What’s up with all the non-backward-compatable file types? HELLOOOOOO? I need to read that file, a—wipe, and I don’t have time to go purchase a whole new system! Vista: In case the economy isn’t dragging you down far enough, Microsoft has your “This totally SUCKS!” needs fully covered.
Hey, don’t let your computer do that oh-so-helpful, automatic, I-didn’t-ASK-for-it IE7 download. Eats up mega RAM, and opens little hidden doorways for lots of other automatically downloading programs. HATE IT! Now I have to put in a new stick! Not being a techie, I don’t get all hot & bothered from that kind of thing.
Also on the “Can’t Win” front, my friend got tired of this crap and bought a Mac. Now she doesn’t know how to do anything! Aaaaaaaahhhhhhh!
By Gale
January 13, 2009 2:34 PM | Link to this
Bill Gates has been paying back his computer karma with the Gates Foundation.
I learned my lesson on Win 3.1 to carefully check my applications for compliance with the new OS. That upgrade cost a lot more that I had budgeted for.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 13, 2009 3:04 PM | Link to this
Win 3.1 was an application, not an OS Gale, it ran on top of DOS.
By American Woman
January 13, 2009 3:05 PM | Link to this
Gale, good point. My OS and apps are compatible, but someone with Vista sends me a file I need, and I can’t read it. “Oh, somebody else upgraded, so I should drop everything and go upgrade too?” Serious suckage. For what we pay for them, you’d expect your computer, OS, and apps to last at least as long as the average first marriage in the US, but noooo…..
BTW, The Shane Company is bankrupt. I never believed that schtick about diamonds being “forever” or “a girl’s best friend.” In fact, I never did see what the big fuss was. Yeah, I have a beautiful diamond ring, given to me by a skunk. (Without love, who cares how much flipping “fire” it has?) I can’t sell it for a fraction of what he paid for it — the diamond brokers all banded together to ensure that only THEY get the going “value.” It’s not an appreciating asset, it doesn’t earn interest, and it won’t pay the rental on your humble flat. It doesn’t DO anything, facilitate any task, fix the plumbing, cook dinner faster, or get stains out of silk. Wearing it in public just increases my risk of being mugged, as well as my chances of impressing someone shallow and materialistic with the false assumption of shared values.
Forget the diamonds, dudes. If you love her, get her some shiny new appliances! Wooo-HOOOOO! Now that’s love!
By USinUK
January 13, 2009 3:06 PM | Link to this
AW - /Microsoft has your “This totally SUCKS!” needs fully covered
hahahaha … YES!
By Gandalf, the White!
January 13, 2009 3:09 PM | Link to this
Is Zipperhead a blocked word? Clint Eastwood uses it to refer to the neighbor boy, who is Hmong.
By Gale
January 13, 2009 3:32 PM | Link to this
Gandalf, I stand corrected.
I keep meaning to take my old diamond to a jeweler to trade it for an earring. Just one earing. He keeps the wedding set and I get one earring. I figure I will still have to pay money for the priviledge.
By USinUK
January 14, 2009 10:13 AM | Link to this
So … Bush said in his “exit interview” that “people still understand America stands for freedom, that America is a country that provides such great hope” … in today’s WaPo, a high-level Bush official that counseled the Army says that we did, indeed, practice torture:
The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a “life-threatening condition.”
“We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani,” said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution.
Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.
Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani’s health led to her conclusion. “The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent… . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge” to call it torture, she said.
gah. to the Hague with the lot of them. the more that comes out about this morally bankrupt administration, the more disgusted I am.
By USinUK
January 14, 2009 10:20 AM | Link to this
AJC - FIX THE DANGED ITALICS!!!
By USinUK
January 14, 2009 10:38 AM | Link to this
Oh … and that “war on terror” … I’m SO glad that Bush didn’t get side-tracked from his searching out Osama bin Laden - I’m SO glad he brought the guy down … from today’s NYT:
In his first public statement over the 19-day Gaza conflict, the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, on Wednesday publicly exhorted Muslims to wage holy war against Israel and criticized Israel’s Arab allies in an audiotape posted on Islamist Web sites.
The Qaeda statement came a day after Israel conceded that despite its relentless bombardment of Gaza, it had yet to cripple the military wing of Hamas or destroy the group’s ability to launch rockets. The concession suggested that despite heavy air and ground assaults Israel’s main goals in the conflict remain unfulfilled after more than two weeks of war.
As is common with such missives, the tape’s authenticity could not immediately be verified, but it bore many hallmarks of Al Qaeda messages. The message was produced by As-Sahab, the Qaeda media arm, and the voice on the tape closely resembled other recordings by Mr. bin Laden, who was pictured on the Web sites next to an image of Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, one of Islam’s holiest sites.
Under the picture of the mosque, an inscription in white Arabic letters said the message is a “call to jihad to stop the enemies in Gaza.”
By USinUK
January 14, 2009 10:41 AM | Link to this
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
“I am truly not that concerned about him.” - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
mission accomplished.
By Vick
January 14, 2009 10:44 AM | Link to this
It is not as simple as Shaunti pretends… Rick Warren has called gay people all sortso fo horrible things over the years and equated them to pedophiles and practitioners of beastiality. He is a vile, mean-spirited pretender. He does not spread Christian love, but rather his own brand of divisive conservatism. Shaunti is not telling the whole story. Just like Warren, she warps the truth to fit her needs.
By American Woman
January 14, 2009 11:09 AM | Link to this
Question for the Republicans: During the campaign, John McCain kept saying, “I KNOW how to get Bin Laden. I can GET Bin Laden.” So…. do you think he’s going to, like, SHARE this information? Or was that only contingent upon him winning the election? And if he knew, why didn’t he share it with President Bush, the Secretary of Defense, and a slew of Generals & such? Do you think he did share the info with President Bush who decided (for whatever reason that does not make me a conspiracy theorist) NOT to act uopn the information? And if not, why didn’t President Bush call John McCain into his office for a one-on-one and just ASK him, in the interest of our nation, to tell what he knows? Hmmmm…..
By Gandalf, the White!
January 14, 2009 11:09 AM | Link to this
Why call happy people horrible things? That’s stupid! Warren is a Christian and he is entitled to his opinion. Vick perhaps you are the pretender? Maybe your truth is warped? Maybe you are a [{DUM Bass!!]} No maybe’s about it..STFU!
By Lyrazel
January 14, 2009 11:20 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel hears the bittersweet twang of the tune:New Format Blues
Seriously one would think that up and coming musicians would write about their electronic life instead of old curdled romance like their parents… Spamming for love in all the wrong places Or even the C&W tune: I cant Upgrade Without you—Babe Or do some kiddy tune: Pop! Goes the OS or something 70s like Got them ol’ Blue Screen Blues Again, mama Or maybe a more hip: I Googled My Baby & She’s in the Atlanta Pen Or: The Day My FaceBook Died
Or go with upgrades of old Beatles tunes: listen, do da do do you want to do an upgrade do da do do you have enough to spend whoa—o—no— upgrade do da do
Exits stage left leaving song mind worm…Enjoy
By USinUK
January 14, 2009 11:25 AM | Link to this
AW - / So…. do you think he’s going to, like, SHARE this information?
“you don’t want to elect me???? FINE! I’m going to take my super-secret plans with me. so there. nyah.”
By Sunshine
January 14, 2009 11:38 AM | Link to this
USin—gah. to the Hague with the lot of them. the more that comes out about this morally bankrupt administration, the more disgusted I am.
I second this, I just would like to see how the conservatives react to this since you know all us liberals=hypocrites. Lets see how inclusive their views on this subject is. How could anyone in their right mind authorize this? It is a sad day.
By Sunshine
January 14, 2009 11:45 AM | Link to this
American Woman—Question for the Republicans: During the campaign, John McCain kept saying, “I KNOW how to get Bin Laden. I can GET Bin Laden.” So…. do you think he’s going to, like, SHARE this information? Or was that only contingent upon him winning the election? And if he knew, why didn’t he share it with President Bush, the Secretary of Defense, and a slew of Generals & such?
I am so glad someone else caught this, my Hubby who usually votes Republican said this was a deciding factor in his decision NOT to vote for McCain. He said over and over “IF YOU KNOW THAN DO YOUR DUTY AND TELL THE RIGHT PEOPLE, otherwise you are either a liar or a trader!!!” He was sooooo bothered by McCain saying this over and over he would get up and shut off the TV!
By USinUK
January 14, 2009 11:50 AM | Link to this
Sunshine -
hey stranger!! how ya feeling?
all I can say is that they can’t assail the judge - she’s a Republican. and the fact that she said that she couldn’t recommend a trial due to the TORTURE (not harsh treatment, not interrogation - TORTURE) should remind people that, not only is the information gathered under torture unreliable, even when you happen to get the baddie, you can’t use anything he says to bring him to justice.
well done, Bush administration … thanks for dragging us down to the level of the Pinochet government.
By Sunshine
January 14, 2009 11:58 AM | Link to this
I like what Andrew Sulivan from the Atlantic has to say about it:
A Bushie Says The T-Word
A Bush official finally says what no objective individual could at this point deny:
"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.Notice that torture renders bringing terror suspects to justice legally impossible. So we get bad information; and they get to avoid true legal or moral accountability for their acts of terror (if they committed any).
What Crawford grasps is that torture is not defined by some cartoonish Jack Bauer-style sadism. It need not leave any physical marks (that’s why some of the techniques used by Bush were studied and used by the Gestapo). Things that might seem banal on paper - “sleep deprivation,” for example - in practice when maintained for a sufficient amount of time can be among the worst torture there is. Put these techniques together - hypothermia, sleep deprivation, repeated beatings, constant nudity, sensory deprivation - and they become something often worse than an electric shock.
The definition of torture is when the victim has no effective choice but to say something, true or false, to end the ordeal. You can bring a victim to that point of surrender of his or her soul and will in many different ways. Maybe Bush was in denial; maybe Cheney wasn’t. But the objective truth of what they did cannot be denied.
And must be faced.
By USinUK
January 14, 2009 12:08 PM | Link to this
heading home … hasta la pasta!!
By Sunshine
January 14, 2009 12:18 PM | Link to this
Hi Usin!
I am feeling ok, I am having a really, really craptastic day. My boss is being a real….I don’t even have the energy to find the right words for how much of an A* he is being. The truth is I think he is freaking about me being out for maternity leave but his way of dealing with it is being a Bastard to me, which in my mind is just ridiculous. Hello! I am working two jobs, I am 37 weeks pregnant, I come to work early, leave late, run the office, am writing up policy and procedure for you to have while I am out and offered to train a temp, AND I take your crap every day, and you still think you get to scream at me about something that isn’t my fault, well F* you! Sorry, needed to vent.
Oh and my Mother in law has decided she needs to pull out and play the whole deck of crazy cards!!! She and Father in law are divorced (10 YEARS AGO!!!!) and so she isn’t coming to see the new baby right away because she doesn’t want to see Father in law. It’s her first grandchild and she only lives 2 hours away. She informed me she will not be “dictated as to when and where she will see her grandson” when I invited her to be here and STAY AT MY HOUSE for the birth. Um…you do realize I was being nice and trying to include you not “dictate to you” AND you do realize it’s our kid and WE get to decide when you come and visit, you don’t announce (LIKE SHE DID TODAY!) that they will come and visit on March 15 and stay with us!!! UHHHHH! Sorry, like I said, craptastic day!
By The Other Jack
January 14, 2009 12:18 PM | Link to this
I’m a woman in my fertile years, but the ONLY reason I believe that the government should stay the hell out of my reproductive decisions is because of the media. sure, I breathe air, drink water and eat food, but the ONLY reason I believe that there should be government regulation of corporate pollution is because the media tells me to. sure, I am just an American citizen who embraces my Constitutional rights, but it’s ONLY because of what the media tells me to believe that I think that the warrantless wiretapping is an affront to everything this country stands for.
And there you have it: a person so indoctrinated that she believes that only she and the media have the correct answers. Only she and the media have the reasonable approach to abortions even though the vast majority of child bearing women, world wide, do not support a woman’s right to kill her child before it is born.
The question to USinUK was whether she could find a stance that she supports that the mainstream media doesn’t support. Of, course she couldn’t.
But of course, what she did do was admit that the mainstream media is very biased on the issue of abortion, but strangely enough, she has been arguing that the media is not at all biased. This proves that she is unconcerned with the bias, will lie and claim that there is no bias, and thinks that it is simply a coincidence that she walks in perfect step with every issue the media pushes, but still claims to think independently of the media.
It is Wednesday and other than Gandalf, not a single conservative has posted here. Congratulations. Everyone now agrees with you and the mainstream media. And it wasn’t Katy Couric. But it was a complete 30 year indoctrination that makes you want to list a satirist from Comedy Central as a political reference. You are far too gone to try logic or even proof of logic.
Back to work. That’s all my time I can afford. We all don’t have stolen employer’s time to spend here.
By Sunshine
January 14, 2009 12:41 PM | Link to this
TOJ—about your 12:18, you know USin was being sarcastic right? You did get that with your superior intellect and ability to understand what all woman think the WORLD over right? Since you are soooo disgusted with us “hens” why don’t you go back to the hole you crawled out of and stay gone. You are bitter beyond beyond all reasoning and you OBVIOUSLY have huge issues with women in general. Go get some therapy, go date your “non-American” woman that will put up with your crap and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
By American Woman
January 14, 2009 1:30 PM | Link to this
Shine on, Sunshine!
Hey, hang in there! Two-three weeks, YAYYY! Though it may feel like it, there has never been a pregnancy reported that actually went on forever. Also, and most importantly: when the time comes, SCREAM FOR DRUGS EARLY! Like, the minute you get to the hospital. There is nothing to be gained by trying to be brave. Scream loud, long, and persistently because those heartless EFFERS take their sweet time bringing you what you need. If you wait until you can’t take it anymore, it will be too late. They only teach the breathing to keep you from screaming. It does NOT fix pain! Scream your head off and don’t be afraid to employ the necessary bad language. {;->
By Gale
January 14, 2009 1:38 PM | Link to this
You go Sunshine!
By Mara
January 14, 2009 1:51 PM | Link to this
Sunshine at 12:41 - “Since you are soooo disgusted with us “hens” why don’t you go back to the hole you crawled out of and stay gone. You are bitter beyond beyond all reasoning and you OBVIOUSLY have huge issues with women in general. Go get some therapy, go date your “non-American” woman that will put up with your crap and leave the rest of us the hell alone.”
WHOO-eeeee! LOL! Well said, Sunshine.
By Sunshine
January 14, 2009 1:58 PM | Link to this
Thanks Gale and American Woman! Yeah, I am just a bit tired of TOJ, that is one reason I haven’t been posting much, the ridiculousness of his arguments are just a waste of time to even begin to disect. Yeah for USin who fights the good fight but it just gets old!
And AW-Though it may feel like it, there has never been a pregnancy reported that actually went on forever.—Yes, this is good news! I have had a really great pregnancy all in all, and for being this far along it could be a lot worse but I am running low on patience (probably from lack of sleep!) and people being Aholes is just not something I am handling well! I am not one that asks for special treatment but come on, I am HUGELY pregnant and trying like hell to keep up with all the day to day things at work. Have just a pinch of sympathy OR just don’t go OUT OF YOUR WAY to be an especially big A!
By USinUK
January 14, 2009 2:26 PM | Link to this
Sunshine -
I’m with AW - SHINE ON, you crazy diamond!!
Seriously, you have just a few more weeks of this - YOU CAN DO IT!!! (although, a part of me says that you should tell your boss that, unless his pants are poopy or he needs a bottle, that the only baby you want to deal with is the one who will be making an appearance in 3 weeks)
just know that you have a whole cheering section routing you on!!
as for the MIL, tell her you’re not sure the March date will work for you and you’ll get back to her and let her know.
boundaries - it’s what’s for dinner. (and b’fast and lunch)
as for the teminal troll, he will never leave - you realize that, don’t you - he relishes all the attention he gets (not to mention, he seems to have a pathalogical need to feel superior - his comment last week “I don’t want to be equal. I can’t be a woman and she can’t be a man.” was VERY telling, methinks)
By USinUK
January 14, 2009 2:40 PM | Link to this
http://www. citizenjanepolitics. com/
btw - if any of you are interested - this is a great political site started by an old DC housemate - it’s pretty center/center-left
interesting coverage of Hillary’s confirmation - what do you guys think about the hearing??? do you think there would be a conflict of interest with donations to the Clinton Foundation?
By The Other Jack
January 14, 2009 2:40 PM | Link to this
Sunshine
in case you haven’t noticed, everyone is leaving you the hell alone. They are tired of being gang attacked for any comment they make.
Issues with women in general? I don’t like men. I love women. I love smart women who take care of themselves and are tolerant of the beliefs of others. I don’t know if you guys take care of yourselves, but I do know that you are not tolerant of anyone who doesn’t do the msnbc two step. That I know. You also may be smarter than you appear on here (you would have to be) but it seems that you instantly take the ultra-liberal, pro-media stance on any and every issue and no presenting of facts will ever sway you. Indoctrination is a horrible thing.
Sunday, Joke accused me of being against gay marriage. Personally, I have never taken that stance, but USinUK justified Joke’s attack by saying that it was aimed at Bruno AND myself, like that made any sense at all. So it’s OK to group me with anyone you choose? So why is that?
The bottom line is this: If you are insulted that I pointed out that this place has become nothing more than a hen house where some very nasty and bitter women gather each day to attack anyone who dares to disagree with them, then perhaps you should first, look around and try to see where everybody went. Then change the way you react to opposing views. I don’t expect you to do it. Your political ilk has never been known for it’s honesty or it’s courage. So now it is a perfect world for you where you can all agree.
You are practically the Fairness Doctrine in action. Everyone agrees and anyone who doesn’t can “crawl back into their horribly un-media-like holes.” Open minded liberals. huh? Now that’s funny.
By Sunshine
January 14, 2009 2:48 PM | Link to this
USin~LOL at the “only baby” thing! That is almost exactly what I wanted to say! I mean come on, you are a grown man and the owner of a business, temper tantrums should not be a part of your daily routine!
And as far as the Boundaries thing you are right, as my girlfriend put it I should be counting my blessings that she didn’t take me up on my offer to come and stay with us!! Who knows what kind of drama that would have been!
Thanks for the cheering section, I need it today! And as for the Troll, me thinks you are right! The need to feel superior is paramount to him, What is the saying? He has to put others down to build himself up? Sad, Sad I say. There are plenty of other posters like Frustrated and Bruno that have very different opinions and are not insulting ALL THE TIME! The whole “I know so much more than you about EVERYTHING” stick along with all the name calling shows his true level of maturity, IMHO! I have a higher opinion of Gandalf b/c, like Gale said, at least he insults everyone and every now and then makes a good observation/point!
By USinUK
January 14, 2009 2:55 PM | Link to this
Don’t know if you guys saw the CDC report that was released yesterday, but not only has teen pregnancy risen, but, HEY-HEY, so have STDs (particularly syphlis !!! and chlamydia) … yet another “mission accomplished” for abstinence only education:
There are about 19 million cases a year; half of them among people ages 15 to 24. And that figure only represents the three “reportable” STDS — gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis. Infections such as genital herpes and human papillomavirus aren’t included in the tally.
Chlamydia has reached an all-time high, with more than 1.1 million cases recorded. But while this bacterial infection is easily treated with antibiotics in its early stages, the disease rarely causes symptoms and often goes undiagnosed, potentially leading to infertility and pregnancy complications. Officials think the actual number of cases in the U.S. is closer to 2.8 million.
Syphilis had been beaten back to an all-time low number of cases in 2000, after which its incidence remained steady until 2006, when the number of cases rose by 15.2 percent. Worse yet: its transmission from mothers to babies rose in 2007 for the second year in a row.
Syphilis appears to make the AIDS-causing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) more readily transmitted from person to person.
The CDC estimates STDs cost the U.S. healthcare system as much as $15.3 billion annually (in 2007 dollars).
BRING BACK COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED!!!
By The Other Jack
January 14, 2009 2:55 PM | Link to this
Sunshine
BTW. Congratulations on your future human (your words, not mine). I just glad it survived your politics. 4,000 children just in the US today weren’t that lucky.
By USinUK
January 14, 2009 3:02 PM | Link to this
Sunshine -
one last thought on your MIL - I don’t know if you’ve ever read Carolyn Hax from the WaPo, but I think she’s one of the best advice columnists in the country (she’s smart, sarcastic and usually right on the £££)
she must have written today’s jsut for you!!
http://www. washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/ AR2009011302865.html
By Sunshine
January 14, 2009 3:05 PM | Link to this
TOJ-do you ever get tired of hearing yourself make your own unsubstantiated points over and over and over and over…cause I sure do! You have been a Jack A* to me since the day I started posting here, with out any real cause OTHER than I disagree with you. You are completely in denial if you are unaware of your HUGELY OBVIOUS hostility toward women. Maybe it is you who should look around and find out why a “smart woman who takes care of herself” wouldn’t be interested in you as a partner! This may be a “left leaning” blog but so what? Some are some aren’t, and if you failed to read the headline it is called: Woman to Woman, which is not to say men can’t post here, but it would seem to indicate there might be a discussion of woman’s topic’s and woman’s issues. It would also indicate to most sane people coming on here and comparing ALL female posters to Chickens would not go over too well, but you are too dense to catch that type of subtlety. For all you squawking about how great you are I sure hope you are not in sales cause I just don’t buy it. You are rude, inconsiderate and you barely manage to keep your facts straight, and god forbid you actually make an argument that has a source other than a HUGELY biased conservative wack-o blog! Like I said go back to the hole you crawled out of, good riddance. Go to your “non-American” woman Bull Sh!t blog, maybe they haven’t figured out what an As* you are yet.
By Sunshine
January 14, 2009 3:10 PM | Link to this
TOJ-BTW. Congratulations on your future human — I know we already went over this but just in case you forgot, he’s not here yet. I know you were sure you knew the length of human gestation better than a pregnant woman (who you also swore was a man) but pregnancy is still 40 weeks. But you knew that didn’t, cause you know everything about woman from all walks of life from all over the world!!
And just in case you missed it, this post is sarcastic, I know you have had a little trouble picking up on that today!
By Yowser
January 14, 2009 3:19 PM | Link to this
Go Sunshine, Go Sunshine!
By USinUK
January 14, 2009 3:20 PM | Link to this
Sunshine -
daaaaaaaaaaaayum!! talk about channeling a craptastic day into a good use. well done, chicklet!!!
now, go have a pee (cuz you know you need to), take a deep breath and just let it go. he’s not worth your rising blood pressure. (neither is your boss, for that matter).
now … in other survey news … (and to paraphrase Sally Fields): they hate him!! they really hate him!! a new Rasmussen poll shows that 57% of Americans think Bush is among the 5 worst presidents evah! (see, Gale, it isn’t just me):
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Americans say Bush is one of the five worst presidents in U.S. history, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just six percent (6%) say he was one of the five best, and 34% place him somewhere in between.
Republicans aren’t much help to the retiring 62-year-old GOP president. While predictably 81% of Democrats rate Bush as one of the five worst presidents, so do 20% of Republicans. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans (65%) put Bush in the somewhere-in-between category, while only 11% say he was one of the five best chief executives.
Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 62% rate Bush as one of the five worst presidents, 31% somewhere in between and two percent (2%) one of the five best.
http://www. rasmussenreports. com/publiccontent/politics/ generalpolitics/majorityratesbushasoneofamericasworst_presidents
By Yowser
January 14, 2009 3:22 PM | Link to this
“stolen employer’s time to spend here.”
of course, he does not have an employer either. being self-employed and all that.
self-employed people are usually people who have to be self-employed because they do not get along with others.
not TOJ, of course, Ima justa sayin’
By Frustrated
January 14, 2009 3:33 PM | Link to this
Congratulations on your future human — I know we already went over this but just in case you forgot, he’s not here yet.
Gaaahhhhh- With all do respect Sunshine,I hope you didn’t mean how that came across. You still don’t think your baby should be considered a human yet?
By USinUK
January 14, 2009 3:35 PM | Link to this
Sunshine -
since you pointed me to the Andrew Sullivan blog about Judge Crawford, I thought I’d point out his post about meeting Obama:
Lots of emails from readers asking about the chat with the president-elect this morning. It was totally off the record and I’m a stickler for those rules. I can say, however, the following: it’s hard to express the relief I feel that this man will be the president soon. I realize that’s what I feel above all else: relief.
I may disagree with him at times, and criticize him at times, but his great gift is showing that he does not expect people to change their convictions in order to find common areas of agreement. That’s the challenge he’s presenting all of us with, wherever we come from ideologically. The challenge is as real for a Krugman as for a Kristol, for Rick Warren as well as Gene Robinson.
As I’ve said repeatedly for the last two years, we’re lucky to have him.
http:// andrewsullivan. theatlantic.com/
6 more days and the long national nightmare will finally be OVER!!!
By Gale
January 14, 2009 3:48 PM | Link to this
Of those who think Bush (the younger) is among the five worst presidents, I wonder if they could name the other four and who they might be if they could name them? It is a vague question. I read a ranking by a panel of folks who are knowledgable and reasonably indpendent. It was in the London Times a while back, I think. It was interesting to see the presidents they ranked lowest and why. When you remove the emotion from the question, Bush is still near the bottom. Most Americans would have a hard time remembering exactly what was happening in the world or even American when the “worst” presidents were in office.
By Sunshine
January 14, 2009 3:50 PM | Link to this
Hi Frustrated—No I don’t really consider him a “future human” at this point and regularly refer to him as Baby boy. While I am pro-choice, I don’t agree with late term or 3rd trimester abortions for any reason other than the imminent death of the mother. What I really believe is that the morning after/ Plan-B pill should be readily available because if you had unprotected sex, the condom broke, you were raped ect, you know this happened (about 99% of the time) and should take quick action if that is your choice. While I know and respect people who believe that life begins at conception, and I understand they may not agree with this POV, I think it would greatly cut down on the number of abortions, offers a choice for the woman, and promotes personal responsibility. Just my 2 cents!
And you are right USin, I am calmer now! And you are right, he’s not worth it!
By Sunshine
January 14, 2009 3:55 PM | Link to this
Gale-Of those who think Bush (the younger) is among the five worst presidents, I wonder if they could name the other four and who they might be if they could name them?
I was just typing that exact question! Guess the Antiquarians think alike! ;-)
By Sunshine
January 14, 2009 4:09 PM | Link to this
Damn Spell check! Aquarians!
By Gale
January 14, 2009 4:20 PM | Link to this
Ok then. I am not an antiquarian yet!
Yes, we do seem to be on the same track. I remember what Hoover’s administration was facing, sorta. But Buchanan? Without a reminder history lesson, I wouldn’t remember that he might have been able to avert the Civil War. As I recall, he was among the “worst” choices.
By Gale
January 14, 2009 4:23 PM | Link to this
I’m off for today. Don’t let the fox bother anyone.
By USinUK
January 15, 2009 8:17 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Gale!!
you’re looking FAB for an antiquarian!! ;-) (and may I just say that has to be the funniest malaprop I’ve seen in a while)
anyhoo …
I think you make an interesting point with your “name your 5 worst presidents” post last night. So, do you think there’s a value in placing Presidents in a continuum??
if you’re interested, here are the questions and the topline results:
http://www. rasmussenreports. com/publiccontent/ politics/ptsurveytoplines/january2009/toplinesbushlegacyjanuary672009
By Sunshine
January 15, 2009 8:41 AM | Link to this
Good Morning All!
I promise Miss Viola Swamp has left the building! I am feeling a bit better after my vent yesterday, sorry everyone!
Did you hear the House passed the Children’s health care bill yesterday? Change is coming…..
From the BBC:
The House of Representatives has voted to expand US government-funded health insurance to cover an additional four million children.
President-elect Barack Obama, who has promised wider access to medical insurance, urged the Senate to act so he could sign the bill into law soon.
The legislation is similar to bills vetoed by President George W Bush.
Tobacco taxes will be increased to pay for the programme, which currently insures some seven million children.
The bill was passed by 289 votes to 139 in the House of Representatives.
The legislation extends coverage provided under the State Children’s Health Insurance Programme (SCHIP), which is administered jointly by the federal and state governments, to four million currently uninsured children.
It provides $32.3bn (£22.1bn) over four-and-a-half years to continue health coverage for seven million children who currently rely on the scheme.
“In this moment of crisis, ensuring that every child in America has access to affordable health care is not just good economic policy, but a moral obligation we hold as parents and citizens,” Mr Obama said in a statement.
By USinUK
January 15, 2009 8:56 AM | Link to this
Morning, Sunshine!
I promise Miss Viola Swamp has left the building! I am feeling a bit better after my vent yesterday, sorry everyone!
Miss Viola Swamp kicks buttsky!!!
that’s great news about children’s healthcare … (and definitely great new for state budgets that are getting squeezed up and down the country)
By Gale
January 15, 2009 9:17 AM | Link to this
There is an interesting article in nytimes this morning about women helping or hindering women coworkers. Any comments? Personnaly, I think I make an effort to enable my coworkers, and probably I do more for the women. I don’t think I hinder anyone. But I know women on boths sides in my company. http:// www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/jobs/11 pre.html?_r=1&8dpc
By USinUK
January 15, 2009 9:40 AM | Link to this
right now, the only problem I have with a female coworker isn’t anyone on my team, but someone on my floor who insists on leaving TP on the seat in the bathroom. I finally got fed up enough to leave a note in the bathroom on one of the mirrors - (this has been going on since before Cmas, but no one has had the temerity to say anything)
I mean. Just. YUK.
as far as hindering coworkers - man. that’s just wrong. and will bite you in the butt - if your team does badly because you’re too busy sabotaging someone else, YOU do badly, as well.
not to mention, it’s just bad karma. take a lesson from Tanya Harding.
By USinUK
January 15, 2009 10:17 AM | Link to this
criminey - if you need further evidence that the economy is in a pickle:
Google has announced that it is axing 100 jobs, the first permanent cuts in its history, as the technology sector braces itself for widespread cuts.
The move is an ominous sign for the prospects at other leading tech firms, with the mobile phone manufacturer Motorola announcing 4,000 job cuts today and reports that Microsoft is considering mass layoffs.
Google, one of the steadiest ships in the industry, said that it would axe 100 “recruiters” worldwide. Writing in the company’s official blog, Laszlo Bock, vice-president for people operations, said: “Google is still hiring but at a reduced rate. Given the state of the economy, we recognised that we needed fewer people focused on hiring.”
( snip )
Google cut 300 staff last year at Doubleclick, the internet advertising company it had acquired. But this is the first time the company cut staff that it had hired directly.
Google’s cutbacks are relatively minor compared to those being made or considered at other leading technology firms. Motorola said it would cut 4,000 jobs as sales for mobile phones have slumped with consumers making fewer purchases during the current period of economic turmoil. The majority of the cuts affect its mobile devices unit in America, and means the company has reduced its workforce worldwide by 16,000 since the start of 2007.
… and another 524,000 people filed for unemployment last week.
god … my heart just hurts for them … there is nothing scarier than being laid off - especially when there are just no jobs to be had in your industry.
By Gale
January 15, 2009 10:40 AM | Link to this
Laid off is indeed scarey. I keep trying to review the jobs that are lost, though. Mobile phone business has slumped. No surprise. People are questioning whether they really need the latest and greatest when the phone they have works fine. The same concept applies to lots of areas where we have been consuming gadgets. Do I really need a phone that I can watch TV programs on when I may not be able to fill up my gas tank or pay my heating bill? People are questioning those purchases and the industries are feeling the pain. My company is in the food chain and we suffer, not because people are not buying food (We are in the middle.) but because our customers are being more efficent so they can save money. The economy is shrinking all over.
By USinUK
January 15, 2009 10:59 AM | Link to this
Gale -
agreed with the “latest and greatest” issue on the mobile phones … plus, when companies are cutting back, they’re not supplying as many employees with mobile phones/blackberries …
to me, it’s always the ancillary companies that I feel sorriest for - folks like the trucking industry - if companies are going under and folks aren’t buying as much stuff, there isn’t as much stuff to move …
god knows, I wouldn’t want to be in Obama’s (or Geithner’s or Sumner’s or Sperling’s) shoes right now - the whole administration (soup to nuts) is going to have its work cut out for it.
I remember my first East Wing tour of the White House - looking out the huge windows at the Washington monument - thinking that the president’s first night, after the swearing in, the parade and all the balls across the city - that first night must make even the heartiest of souls think “oh, crap, what have I just let myself in for”
By Gale
January 15, 2009 12:14 PM | Link to this
As with execs in my own company, USinUK, Chief Excecutive is not a job I would want. That is a tall scarey ladder.
By Sunshine
January 15, 2009 1:04 PM | Link to this
WE NEED A NEW TOPIC, WE NEED A NEW TOPIC!! LOL!
By Gale
January 15, 2009 1:21 PM | Link to this
Do I hear a new topic volunteer, Sunshine?
By Sunshine
January 15, 2009 1:31 PM | Link to this
You are right! I shouldn’t complain without offering a solution! Hmmmm….ok totally baby related and also random:
Nicknames for body parts:
Do you give it some cute/funny name or do you just call it what it is? I have no real opinion one way or the other and can see both sides. I mean Penis and Vagina seem so, I don’t know, medical, but I don’t want to give my kid a complex and not tell him the right word for it either. What are your thoughts?
I wonder if the words will be blocked?
By Gandalf, the White!
January 15, 2009 1:40 PM | Link to this
EXPAT? are you seriously advocating that our goverment first decide what the sexual norm should be then instruct our children through it monopolistic education program how to implement that norm? That just crazy! So the school nurse should pass out birth control and condoms at what age? 12? or is that too late? So queers can get married, is it OK if I go to grade school and pick me out an 8th grade girl to play with? Torture is for Ragheads, not our children!
By American Woman
January 15, 2009 1:41 PM | Link to this
Here’s topic change idea: On ABC’s What Would You Do the other night (story available from the ABC news website abcnews.go.com/WhatWouldYouDo/story?id=6613617&page=1), they punked the patrons of a bar by letting them witness a man putting some kind of powder in his date’s drink. They made it obvious that this was a first date. The young woman excuses herself, and we get to witness what people do, or for the most part, DON’T do, to warn the hapless woman. They change it up later, and dress her in a more provocative outfit. That’s where it really gets appalling!! Ladies…. be careful out there. The average bystander doesn’t give a S—T what happens to you!!!
By Gandalf, the White!
January 15, 2009 1:42 PM | Link to this
SUNSHINE, I call mine face creamer ;-)
By American Woman
January 15, 2009 1:44 PM | Link to this
Sunshine, here’s my two cents: Use the real words, but only if and your husband can say them without snickering. {;->
By Gale
January 15, 2009 1:54 PM | Link to this
Sunshine, I agree with AW. I think sexism comes seriously into play on this issue. Penis seems ok to me (though I usually refer to the entire aperatus as “boys” unless I want to be very clear. Vagina has always seemed —- an uncomfortable word. Yet I have never been able to come up with a good substitute. They are generally quite crude, not the image I want.
American Woman, I like to think I would tell the woman about the adulterated drink, probably in front of the man.
By Gale
January 15, 2009 2:07 PM | Link to this
So Gandalf, in American Woman’s situation, would you ask the guy if he had any more for your date? :-)
By Sunshine
January 15, 2009 2:11 PM | Link to this
Gale—This is kinda why I asked this here, I think it is a bit sexist too and don’t think being ashamed of the real name is a good thing, but it also seems to make others uncomfortable to hear a two year old refer to their vagina! But who-ha or the like seems like it is just silly. ahh, parenting decisions!
And I like your answer to the “what would you do” question, telling her in front of him seems perfectly correct.
By American Woman
January 15, 2009 2:26 PM | Link to this
HAHAHA! Sunshine, trust me Dear. Your two-year old (and at many other ages as well) will say FAR more embarassing things than that, at just the right time in front of just the wrong people! Haha!
Re: the ABC story… read or watch it on the website if you can. It’s not just a “what would you do” question. If you ask them directly, everyone SAYS they’d say something to the woman. But I was floored by what the camera witnessed others actually say and (not) do.
By Sunshine
January 15, 2009 2:38 PM | Link to this
AW—We saw another episode the other night, it was the one where the Spanish speaking men and women came into the coffee shop and the worker behind the counter wouldn’t serve them b/c they didn’t speak English, and he kept saying things like “you are illegal, we don’t serve illegals” and “if you want to be in this country learn English” I was SHOCKED at how many people just stood around or agreed with the JackA$$ behind the counter, and cheered him on. These people were just trying to get a cup of coffee. It was a shame! But then some really stood up, many fewer, but some! It was very telling.
By USinUK
January 15, 2009 2:51 PM | Link to this
Sunshine -
use the real word … if you’re up front and straightforward with your kid all his life, you won’t ever have to have “the talk” because it’s been an ongoing conversation …
GtG-
(since we’re on the subject) - last time I checked, teaching biology wasn’t DETERMINING what the “sexual norm” is. however, kids need to know how their body works, what the risks are, and how best to avoid those risks. they also need to learn the warning signs of an abusive relationship. as for the school nurse handing out the pill, nurses can’t write ‘scripts, so it’s not an issue. but, if a 12-year-old feels that the only person she can confide in is the nurse, then, yes, I’d rather a 12-year hold have access to a condom than a 12-year old wind up with a sprog (or an abortion).
(and just to be absolutely clear, NO, I don’t think 12 year olds should be having sex - and I would want the school nurse to say as much. however, if the kid already is, then, yes, someone needs to be looking out for her if her parents don’t know the score)
AW - I don’t know if the “What Would You Do” show said this, but there was a news story a few months ago about a wait staff that DID warn the woman that her drink had been spiked - they called the cops and they arrested the guy for assault. (don’t know anything about the court case, but I thought RIGHT ON for the folks watching out for this kind of thing)
By American Woman
January 15, 2009 2:59 PM | Link to this
Yes, the coffee shop was disappointing too. Regardless of how one might feel about the presence of non-English speakers in our country, legal or not, denying them sustenance is both inexcusably rude and just plain wrong. I was glad to see some of the bystanders step up.
“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink….” JC
By Gale
January 15, 2009 3:02 PM | Link to this
If we want to really stir the pot, we could discuss whether Mr Obama should add “so help me god” to his oath of office. The oath is specifically proscribed in the Constitution and that phrase is not included. I think he can add it if he wants. I think an oath is an honor issue. As an atheist, however, I don’t see a point to the hand on the Bible. I wonder when that got added to the process?
By brandy
January 15, 2009 3:07 PM | Link to this
Andy, AS entitled to your opinion as you are, right is still right and wrong is still wrong.. Being right does not infact make one prejudice, it just makes them right. I don’t expect everyone to have the same belief system However Man & Man cannot make babies, neither can a women & a women. Sorry but that is just a natural truth, so why spend all this time and money debating what is an obvious fact. As I see it Rick’s stand on not allowing unreedemed homosexuals in the church is a biblical stand point, it’s called accountability.. Something we don’t know much about in this generation. It is not prejudice, it’s about putting Christ before our self. Christians choose to serve Christ not our own selfish needs, we choose to daily to not take on the views of the world. This is very sacrficial you see if you asked the majority would probably otherwise have the same views that those supporting gay marriages have, however, instead of adapting to the as long as your happy it’s ok motto we choose to uphold to a certain standard , not a lack of one.
By Gale
January 15, 2009 3:10 PM | Link to this
It seems very wrong to me to make assumptions about people because they do not speak English. On the other hand, it seems prudent to me to learn a few phrases to help one get by in a non-English country. I would assume these folks didn’t just get dumped into middle America. Would it not be a good idea to get a Spanish English dictionary before coming? If I was traveling to Mexico, I know I would do that.
By Sunshine
January 15, 2009 3:22 PM | Link to this
USin—if you’re up front and straightforward with your kid all his life, you won’t ever have to have “the talk” because it’s been an ongoing conversation—This will be my whole parenting philosophy!! Talk about it early and often and then it will not be a surprise later! I had an ex that taught me that! Shame is not something that should be associated with sex. That is when it does not get talked about and that is when you have unwanted consequences.
AW—I think they forget this one also: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
::Shakes head and ignores Brandy::
By Sunshine
January 15, 2009 3:27 PM | Link to this
Gale I agree about the spanish/english thing but what the people in the set up senario said was: “Cafe, Por favor”. I think most people in this country, even if they know almost no Spanish, understand what that means, especially in a coffee shop. I could see myself in France asking for a Coffe Late and hoping I would be understood!
By Gandalf, the White!
January 15, 2009 3:30 PM | Link to this
Gale, to answer your “pull Gandy’s chain” question, I would not ask for some for my date. What I would do, hopefully without the camera running, would be sneak behind the low life cork sucking POS and cold c** him with a beer bottle, then kick him in the throat where he fell. I have no use for rapist or child abusers and I am perfectly willing to make my self the judge, jury and exectutione in any case. No, hey man, what are you doing? Just swift and violent retribution.
EXPAT: Biology good, teaching my 13 y/o how to use a condom, not good. I will take him to a hooker when he’s 16, where he can learn from professional! :-)
By Brandy
January 15, 2009 3:31 PM | Link to this
why not base your choice on a candidate in regards to who beleives in 3rd trimester abortions or if it is right to take your teen across the state line to get an abortion without your knowledge. What you dont know doesn’t hurt, right? Well at least you don’t have to be responsible and neither does the teen. More $ to go and serve yourself. MAybe a new pair of shoes. Talk about social security…What social security? With all the babies being murdered how will there be anyone in the future to pay in. who will there be to collect anyway with all the self made millionares who profit off the killing of babies and the lack of accountability on our part. well it won’t matter in the end the LORD has the final say ….So go ahead keep loving your neighbor as yourself. It seems to me that most peoplemake choices to suit their ownpersonal agenda, they are not thinking in terms of the future, why should they , it’s not as if they will see the effects of what it is to come. and if they are they’ll just blame someone else. This country was founded by those who beleived, it was built around this concept. So in order to be unbias we give up our beliefs inorder to support those who don’t. So we capitolized on that too. America is no longer an idea it is a sad reality, This country has so much freedom, and what we choose to do with it makes all the difference, it could be a great thing, or it could be what causes or death. We are like teenagers running around at the mall……The fact is we’d rather get what we want now then what we really want in the long run, maybe most of us don’t even know what we want. It’s not about keeping up with the Jones it’s about living well, thinking well & doing well.
By Gale
January 15, 2009 3:46 PM | Link to this
Gandalf, you do have my number. Yes, I was pulling your chain and I like your response. If more bystanders did not stand by, there would be a lot less crime. Not that I am in favor of vigilantism, but yes, a sever beating would press the point. I wouldn’t want you facing homicide charges though. Restrain the boot to the throat, please.
By USinUK
January 15, 2009 3:49 PM | Link to this
Sunshine -
talk early and often - my mom was a nurse, so I knew ALLL about the birds and bees - in some ways, more than I really WANTED to know, but, hey - the last thing you want is some “mystery” around it all!!
GtG -
you’re assuming your kid will wait until he’s 16??
seriously. while I don’t want sex ed like the class in “The Meaning of Life”, I do think that teaching ABOUT condoms - and IUDs and cervical caps and the pill and the ring and on and on and on - is absolutely critical. I mean, fercryingoutloud - there’s an increase in SYPHILLIS in kids 15-24!!! what is this, the Victorian era??? and the CDC says they’re not even tracking the most common diseases - HPV and such -
kids are at risk of things that can infect them for the rest of their lives. we are the adults - we NEED to be more responsible in teaching them to protect themselves.
okee-dokee Smokey, I’m outta here for the night …
tomorrow’s FRIDAY!!! (and payday - yippee!!!)
have a good night …
By Gandalf, the White!
January 15, 2009 3:52 PM | Link to this
Now for some happy news! WSB News
Shooting Called Self Defense By Chris Camp @ January 15, 2009 6:13 AM Permalink
(WSB Radio) — Atlanta police are calling a deadly overnight shooting a case of self defense.
APD Sgt. Lisa Keyes tells Channel 2 Action News a suspected carjacker was shot and killed just after Midnight Thursday morning as he attempted to steal a car from outside the Graveyard Tavern on Glenwood Avenue in southeast Atlanta.
When confronted by the suspect, Keyes says the car owner “pulled his own weapon and shot the suspect five to six times.”
Southeast Atlanta resident Edward Gilgor blames public safety furloughs and lack of officers on the street for the crime in his neighborhood. He tells Channel 2 Action News “I have no doubt in my mind that as long as the city of Atlanta chooses to not properly defend its citizens, incidents will occur, all over the entire city, just like this.”
Atlanta police do not plan to file any charges against the unidentified victim.
By Gale
January 15, 2009 3:59 PM | Link to this
WSB news. I would not want to be faced with that choice, but I am glad we are not punishing the person for defending himself.
By USinUK
January 16, 2009 8:07 AM | Link to this
GtG -
while that is good news, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s happy news (or are you saying it’s gay news???) … someone is still dead - and that person had people who loved him.
and I feel sorry for the car owner who shot him - it’s one thing to see a shooting in a movie, I’m sure it’s not an easy thing to do in real life, especially when the person dies.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 16, 2009 8:07 AM | Link to this
Gale, I would!
By USinUK
January 16, 2009 8:22 AM | Link to this
meanwhile … what about that plane landing on the Hudson??? DANG!!! talk about a pilot with some “mad skillZ” -
so, if you were in that situation, do you think you would be MORE afraid to fly? or would you think, “hey! that was my plane crash - I can fly without fear the rest of my life!!!”
By Gandalf, the White!
January 16, 2009 8:39 AM | Link to this
Typical pilot could make that landing, they practice, practice, practice in simulators. My Brother-in-law flies Cargo 747s and said the pilot just didn’t panic, most would be fine with that landing.
People on that plane need a good luck charm, like the one Barry bought from the nice lady in Atlanta. I would NEVER fly again if I survived a crash, boat to Europe, icebergs move slower than geese.
By Sunshine
January 16, 2009 8:41 AM | Link to this
Usin-my thought would be on the side of: “hey! that was my plane crash - I can fly without fear the rest of my life!!!”
Did you see any of Mr. Bush’s speach last night? It was……um…..interesting. Still toting the party line “I kept America, safe, no new terrorist attacks (on AMERICAN soil) for the last seven years, ect”
This is what the AP Said:
Leaving office with the highest disapproval rating since Richard Nixon, Bush said, “You may not agree with some of the tough decisions I have made, but I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.”
A bookend to eight years indelibly marked by terrorism, two wars and recessions, the 13-minute speech was Bush’s last opportunity to defend his record before leaving office on Tuesday. His next scheduled public appearance will be greeting President-elect Barack Obama on Inauguration Day.
The nation’s 43rd president remained defiant about his own record. He claimed foreign policy successes in Iraq and Afghanistan while crediting his administration for improving public schools, creating a new Medicare prescription drug benefit and finding more money for veterans. With the United States facing the worst financial crisis in generations — under his watch — Bush said his White House took “decisive measures” to safeguard the economy.
While there has not been another attack on U.S. soil, the number of terrorist acts around the world has increased, Iran has gained influence in the Mideast, North Korea still hasn’t verifiably declared its nuclear work, anti-Americanism abroad has emboldened extremists’ recruitment efforts and a safe haven for terrorists remains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
Bush said he leaves with a “thankful heart.” He expressed gratitude to his family. “Above all, I thank the American people for the trust you have given me.”
That trust, however, has eroded over the years. His approval rating soared to 90 percent after the Sept. 11 attacks, but he’s leaving office as a new Gallup Poll puts it at 34 percent. That’s up from 25 percent just before the November elections, reflecting a bump that presidents commonly get just before they leave office.
By USinUK
January 16, 2009 8:45 AM | Link to this
GtG - / “I would NEVER fly again if I survived a crash, boat to Europe, icebergs move slower than geese.”
hahaha … yes, you don’t hear too many problems with icebergs bringing down boats … oh, waitaminnit … ;-)
I think I would be just the opposite - woohoo!! that’s it for me - I’m immune from plane crashes the rest of my life!! (lightening striking twice blahblahblah)
By Gale
January 16, 2009 8:48 AM | Link to this
Apparently the pilot heads a safety consulting company on the side. If there was ever a pilot to have on the flight deck during an emergency, he is it. Not everyone can keep their head in an emergency. But Gandalf is right. Repeated practice makes for cool heads in an emergency.
As for pity for the carjacker, no, I have none. I would not put myself in the same place and time as the shooter, that is, you would not find me in a bar parking lot late at night. But if I felt things were dicey enough that I might be attacked in my home, the shotgun would be out of the case and available. I long ago made peace with the idea of defending myself with deadly force.
By The Other Jack
January 16, 2009 8:57 AM | Link to this
Gandalf
<>
No. Nothing to be happy about. The Graveyard has been a watering hole for myself and most of my friends. The Ace hardware is where I always go before fighting the Lowes crowds at Edgewood.
We are in the middle of a full blown shooting war. The kid that was killed at the Standard had been to several of our parties. This is escalating. So do the thugs now just shoot first? I just bought a new handgun. I have never bought a gun in my life. I own my Dad’s old hunting guns. I just bought a handgun that would kill a freight train.
I drove down by the prison the other day. What the Democrats did to Black Society in Atlanta is criminal. Great Society Ghettos that house ten’s of thousands of people, all put there to keep their kids out of White Schools and Black People dependent on the party they always support: basically warehousing votes. (Start screaming libs, and then try and find a single Republican that was responsible for those ghettos)
Up until 2000, the Georgia Legislature was still dominated by Dixiecrats. Now the state is starting to achieve, but the city is still completely dominated by Democrats and of course the corruption is astounding. They “misplaced” 16 million bucks. Then instead of any action that would solve Atlanta’s problems, they put a 170 million dollar library (not really a library, more of a homeless internet cafe’) on the ballot which of course passed.
So as we are packing heat while we are packing to leave, we will be able to drive by the new shiny library as we all drive out of town. Once again, the local democrats vote for pie in the sky social improvements while we lose almost a fourth of our police force. Thanks, liberals. I’m so glad that we will tear down a thirty year old building to replace it with a building with “more open space and many more computers for anyone to use”.
The last time the democrats promised pie-in-the-sky social programs in the form of the Great Society, the Black family structure was attacked and dismantled, resulting in what we have now.
Now they have even more power than they had in the 60s. God help us.
By Gale
January 16, 2009 9:01 AM | Link to this
If I had been in the plane that crashed into the Hudson, I am sure I would feel some more anxiety about flying. But really, when it is time, it’s time, whether you are in one crash or fifty. We face more real danger driving to and from work everyday.
By USinUK
January 16, 2009 9:05 AM | Link to this
Sunshine -
“You may not agree with some of the tough decisions I have made, but I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.”
what the he!! does THAT mean? I don’t like anything you’ve done but I can agree that you did it??? um. gee. okay.
as for watching his speech, I have studiously avoided him for 8 years (with the exception being his address the evening of 9/11). he makes my blood pressure go through the roof - even hearing his voice just makes my fillings hurt. I’d rather listen to a symphony of nails on a chalkboard combined with a dentist drill than his faux-cowboy-man-of-the-people twang. GAH! and that smirk!!!
(breathing deeply)
96 hours from now!!! 96 hours from now!!! woohoooooooo!!!
By The Other Jack
January 16, 2009 9:08 AM | Link to this
<>
And this is what was said about a president that completely stopped domestic terrorism. And this was from the Associated Press. No bias there. Just telling a complete fabrication in a headline. Of course that’s OK.
I’m just glad we now have a president that wants to arrest the terrorists, try them and put them in jail. They will be questioned like the gentlemen they are. And I’m sure if Obama’s family is in dire jeopardy, and a person is being questioned that has information that can save his family, he will still stick to his guns and allow the sacrifice of his wife and children for the principals of treating our enemies with respect. After all that’s what he is asking us to do and being the humble public servant, i’m sure that he would be glad to see his wife and children die for those principles.
Yes, we are on the right track now.
By Gale
January 16, 2009 9:12 AM | Link to this
TOJ, I agree with one thing for sure, (not that I disagree with everything else,) an investment in a buch of computers is dooming the enterprise to a lot of expense in a few years when they are all outdated or broken, not to mention a support staff. A good computer can be purchased for under $500. We would be better to subsidise purchases for families with school children IMO.
By Gale
January 16, 2009 9:17 AM | Link to this
I am thinking I will need to stay away from this board on Tuesday, and maybe Wednesday. The euphoria may be unbearable. :-)
By USinUK
January 16, 2009 9:22 AM | Link to this
Gale -
“Apparently the pilot heads a safety consulting company on the side. If there was ever a pilot to have on the flight deck during an emergency, he is it. Not everyone can keep their head in an emergency. But Gandalf is right. Repeated practice makes for cool heads in an emergency.”
AND he was a fighter pilot - so, he’s got training out the wazzooo! (although I did meet a former fighter pilot who had become a commercial pilot - he said it was like flying a Greyhound bus)
This guy and the pilot in LA who landed when his front wheel was jammed sideways - yet, he still managed a textbook perfect landing - I’m hugely impressed! (you remember what I’m referring to - happened in 2005/early 2006?)
the only sad thing about the NY flight is that it reminds me of the Air Florida flight that crashed in the Potomax back in 1981 (?). Some 74-75 people died a horrible, icy death. Who can forget the picture of the woman clinging to the rope, dangling over the icey river?
By USinUK
January 16, 2009 9:38 AM | Link to this
So … who are you going to believe:
Jack Cloonan, the 25-year FBI veteran and has extensive experience in interrogation techniques (AND who has interrogated Al Quaeda suspects), who said that there are ways more effective than torture to get information … and, even HE said that the “ticking bomb” scenario is a red herring.
or folks who think that 5 seasons of “24” make them an international security expert.
By Gale
January 16, 2009 9:40 AM | Link to this
I think the difference was this flight managed the good fortune of landing in front of the ferry HQ. There was a lot of help immediately available.
By USinUK
January 16, 2009 9:44 AM | Link to this
That should have been PotomaC … must be Friday
By Sunshine
January 16, 2009 9:51 AM | Link to this
What the Democrats did to Black Society in Atlanta is criminal.— This is funny, jee lets just throw a big giant blanket over all social ills and blame it on…..hmmmm….oh yeah, TOJ’s favorite scape goat….the democrats. Too bad that over the last decade before 1950 most voting blacks where Repubs, and that the DixieCrats were the ones that believed in States rights and lack of Federal Gov intervention where all white and are the majority of the Republican party now. But hey, lets forget history so that we can point the finger of blame at the group we don’t like. Cause it helps us justify our superiority complex and makes us feel warm and right at night.
By USinUK
January 16, 2009 9:55 AM | Link to this
Gale -
I hate to say it, but I was watching the footage of the folks boarding the ferries from the wings of the plane and was reminded of a joke:
A grandmother takes her grandson to the beach - while they’re there, a HUGE wave comes up, engulfs the boy and drags him off to sea. The grandmother cries to God, “God, I have never asked anything of you, but I have been your humble servant all my life. I have tried to do good works, I have tithed, I have cared for my family and others. All I ask of you now is that you return my grandson to me.”
Next thing you know, another huge wave hits the beach, depositing her grandson who runs to her and gives her a huge hug. The grandmother looked up at the sky and said, “He had a hat!”
All I could think was that people were watching the plane sloooowly sink into the Hudson and were thinking, “aw, man, now I need to cancel my credit cards! and replace my new laptop/iPod/Bberry Storm!”
By Gandalf, the White!
January 16, 2009 10:00 AM | Link to this
EXPAT a friend of mine from my Army days was not hit twice by lightning, BUT 3 TIMES! Talk about you bad luck!
By USinUK
January 16, 2009 10:00 AM | Link to this
Sunshine -
what did I say earlier this week about terminal trolldom? (reread my Jan 14th post)
By Sunshine
January 16, 2009 10:09 AM | Link to this
USin—“So … who are you going to believe:”—TOJ is going to believe what ever Fringe Loony-bin Right wing nut-job blog he subscribes to cause, like you reminded me, he is always right, EVERYONE on the planet, other than whoever totally and completely agree with him, are wrong.
DON’T FEED THE TROLL!!!!!
By Gandalf, the White!
January 16, 2009 11:09 AM | Link to this
What good has a Democrat ever accomplished? Some specifics please! Bill Clinton? Nothing…Jimmy Carter? LOL! what a cretin! LBJ? PLEASE! JFK? Almost start WWIII how many ways? go on back and find one that did some good.
By The Other Jack
January 16, 2009 11:11 AM | Link to this
Gale
I would agree with what you said about the computers if it was children that were coming into the libraries. it’s not. It’s old people and a lot of homeless people that are just coming in out of the cold.
I’m not against that, but spending 170 million to tear down a 30 year old building while we have 1600 cops for the whole city? We could spend a million and build a really great public use computer center, but 170 Million?
By USinUK
January 16, 2009 11:46 AM | Link to this
GtG - well, I’m not going to speak for anyone else, but I can say that my favorite Democratic accomplishment was the Civil Rights Act (LBJ)
I’m also mighty fond of the work that Carter did to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and the fact that he sounded an early warning on this 30+ years ago.
I also kinda like the background check provision of the Brady Bill as well as the FMLA and the crackdown on deadbeat parents who don’t support their kids and the development of AmeriCorps, which are just a few of the examples of Clinton successes.
Claiborn Pell and the Pell Grant, which has enabled millions of people to get a higher education
Ernest McFarland, the father of the GI bill, which enabled my dad and other WWII (and Korea) vets to get their education.
those are just a few of the things I can think of off the top of my head …
By Gandalf, the White!
January 16, 2009 12:35 PM | Link to this
Success of the Civil Right Act of 1964 was strongly opposed by Democratic party leaders, and stood on the attempts of the ‘57 and ‘60 acts. The only success for LBJ, albeit a major one. Brady Bill is an attack on the 2nd amendment, FMLA requires an employer to let some one go on extended furlough to have babies, not a place for the goverment to interfere, Crackdown on deadbeats is impressive, Bill loved the ladies…. Pell Grants? goverments sponsered Charity, GI BILL is a good thing
CARTER? OMG? What did he do to reduce our dependence on foriegn oil? Nothing? He’s a useless windbag,worse he is a seditionist and may be a spy.
By USinUK
January 16, 2009 12:57 PM | Link to this
GtG -
the civil rights act was still passed by an overwhelming majority of Dems. the background check of the brady bill keeps convicted felons from getting guns (they can’t vote, but they can be armed to the teeth??? oh, yeah, that makes sense).
sorry you don’t like the FMLA, but you can’t be a member of the party of “family values” if you don’t value families.
Pell grants is a GREAT thing - the more people who can get an education, the better.
Carter instigated TAX BREAKS (you should like that) to encourage energy saving and, as I said, he also sounded the alarm on our dependence on foreign oil.
By USinUK
January 16, 2009 1:00 PM | Link to this
OH! and Carter named Volker to the Fed - one of the best anti-inflation Fed chiefs we’ve had.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 16, 2009 2:44 PM | Link to this
Carter SUCKS DONKEY BALLS! I can’t see anything he did as right. Sorry I am blind that way EXPAT… FMLA is one more step down the slippery slope. What did Goldwater say when he opposed the CRA of ‘64? “You can’t legislate morality!”duh!
By Gandalf, the White!
January 16, 2009 2:50 PM | Link to this
CARTER SUCKED AND STILL SUCKS!