Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* The kooky Florida pastor finally drops his plans to burn the Koran, and will meet next week with the Imam behind Cordoba House.

Good news, but a question: What if the media hadn't inflated the Koran-burning stunt into an international incident and this fringe pastor had actually gone ahead with it without all the attention. Wouldn't less damage have ultimately been done?

* Hiding in plain sight: Josh Marshall dubs the pastor a "radical cleric."

* Too bad for Rudy Giuliani that the Koran-burning is cancelled, because for some reason it had led NBC's Meet the Press to book him for another on-air ride on his 9/11 magic carpet.

* Breakthrough: Senator George Voinovich will help Obama and Dems push the package of small business incentives past GOP opposition, giving Dems a key victory on the economy heading into the midterms.

* The smart money (which isn't always so smart) is now predicting that Obama will agree to a deal to temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich during the lame duck session after the election.

* Renowned international peace negotiator Donald Trump tries to buy the "Ground Zero mosque" site, pitching a compromise that would set the Mosque Exclusion Zone at five blocks.

* They think they know which way the wind is blowing: Lobbyists are rushing to hire GOP staffers in advance of the midterm vote.

* But: Dem veterans of the 1994 debacle say Dems stand a better chance and are better prepared this time around.

* Blue Dog Dem Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin gives Obama's performance a grade of C. Yeah, that'll work!

* Eric Kleefeld highlights a must-watch attack ad that really is an attack ad, complete with a beating, blood, scars, and a hospital stay.

* Jonathan Capehart says the Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck plan to raise cash on 9/11 will "stab hearts."

* And Glenn Beck has an odd tendency to "accidently" stage events for himself on the anniversaries of major events in American history.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  September 9, 2010; 6:21 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Foreign policy and national security , Happy Hour Roundup , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans , economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama heading to Wisconsin -- but Feingold won't be there
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

The purity of conservative womens' vaginas, update...

"Sarah Palin has endorsed Republican candidate Christine O'Donnell in her primary against one-time frontrunner Rep. Mike Castle, announcing her choice by calling in to Sean Hannity's radio show."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/sarah-palin-picks-a-new-mama-grizzly-and-endorses-christine-odonnell-in-delaware.php?ref=fpb

Posted by: bernielatham | September 9, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

There is a strange situation with the Koran pastor in Florida


First he said there was a linkage - and the Florida Imam who supposedly worked out the deal - he was standing RIGHT NEXT to the Pastor during the press conference - and didn't say anything during the press conference.

This whole thing has the potential to explode.


Now - thousands of New Yorkers are going to want to burn the Koran to show how "insensitive" the developers of the mosque at Ground Zero are.


Americans are sick of having to be so nice to everyone else - and then no one is "sensitive" to them.

It is a great deal - stop the Pastor - stop the Mosque site -

If that doesn't happen, it sure seems like this is going to explode.


Tomorrow is going to be interesting - there is no way this is over before Saturday.


.


Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 9, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

A few sane ones still kicking about.

"Colin Powell: New York Mosque Should ‘Go Forward’" http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/09/powell-mosque/

Posted by: bernielatham | September 9, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Bernie, I missed the Colin Powell thing. Very interesting.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 9, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

The mosque is PROVOCATIVE.


There was a bomb place in Times Square 5 months ago in April - which could have killed 3,000 more people.

So how much more insensitive can you be? To say that "sanity" has anything to do with it - that is a personal attack which is wrong.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 9, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

And lotsa the insane sort too. Like the Tennessee minister who wants to join in on the Koran bonfire thing...

But to Old, the U.S. is a Christian nation and “freedom of religion does not apply to Muslims or other non-Christians.” “I believe that other religions are a threat to our faith and our beliefs,” Old said.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/09/tennessee-burn-quran/

And your take on Judaism, sir?

Posted by: bernielatham | September 9, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

The statement by the Ground Zero Imam last night should be looked at extremely closely


Was he saying that muslim extremists would get violent if the Ground Zero mosque is NOT built ???

Again, what was this Imam saying that for???


Americans are sick of this kind of debate.

And again, America needs a leader who is going to represent the sentiments of Americans - and Obama is just refusing to be up for the task.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 9, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I do not know what is going on with the Pastor in Florida

He initially said his cancellation of the Koran burning was linked to moving the mosque at Ground Zero.


So - what is one to make of that ?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 9, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

nd again, America needs a leader who is going to represent the sentiments of Americans - and Obama is just refusing to be up for the task.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 9, 2010 6:48 PM
.....................

The President is sworn to defend the Constitution, not the passions of the moment, as reflected in some ephemeral poll results, that may or may not have asked the right questions.
..............

If you want a leader who will tell the mob what it wants to hear, then you should grow a little mustache, and start practicing how to goosestep.

We saw what your sort of leadership lead to in Europe and we do not want it here.

I will settle for a President who upholds his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, and not to support and defend the dubious results of some pollsters.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 9, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Liam.

Someone should go back and look at what the Founding Fathers, whom the Tea Partiers are claiming as their intellectual forefathers, had to say about public opinion, and whether it should dictate difficult policy decisions.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 9, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

What else is happening?

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington suspended the ban on embryonic stem cell research, pending appeals. It's temporary, of course, but Tom Harkin thinks it's a sign that Judge Lamberth's ruling will eventually be overturned. I hope he's right.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-09/stem-cell-research-funding-ban-suspended-during-u-s-government-s-appeal.html

Posted by: carolanne528 | September 9, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

On an earlier thread you equated those who answered a poll question by saying they viewed Islam "unfavorably" with being "anti-Islam".

Is anyone who views X unfavorably automatically anti-X?

Is anyone who answered the question by saying they viewed Islam "favorably" necessarily, therefore, "pro-Islam"?

Do you view Islam favorably or unfavorably?

I'm sincerely curious.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 9, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

"suspended the ban on embryonic stem cell research"

There is no such ban and never has been.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

carolanne528:

"The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington suspended the ban on embryonic stem cell research, pending appeals. "

No such ban exists. You must mean something else.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 9, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Wow a Republican senator who actually cares about the small businesses. Too bad he is retiring.

"We don't have time anymore to play games," Voinovich said. "I happen to believe these small-business people can't get money to save their souls."

That's all the Republican minority leader wants to do during a deep recession: play games.

Posted by: Beeliever | September 9, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

"Bryan Fischer, the "Director of Issues Analysis" for the American Family Association, wrote a blog post yesterday that argues that "Germany is giving us a template on how we handle Muslims: just like we handle neo-Nazis," which amounts to German police carrying "out 30 predawn raids against the nation's largest neo-Nazi group two days ago.""
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/top_social_conservative_bryan_fischer_handle_musli.php?ref=fpb

Round the vermin up. Make them wear colored armbands. Put tattoos on their wrists. Mark the front doors of their houses.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 9, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Round the vermin up. Make them wear colored armbands. Put tattoos on their wrists. Mark the front doors of their houses."

Are they really doing that to neo-Nazis in Germenay?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 9, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

qb:

"There is no such ban and never has been."

Why do you suppose so many people on the left have such a hard time portraying this issue honestly?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 9, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

"What if the media hadn't inflated the Koran-burning stunt into an international incident and this fringe pastor had actually gone ahead with it without all the attention. Wouldn't less damage have ultimately been done?"
---------------------------------------------

If a Koran burning happened in the middle of a forest and no one was around to notice it, who really cares? People do crazy stuff all the time.

Posted by: CalD | September 9, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3 and Quarterback1 -

Yes, I was imprecise--I meant the funding ban on embryonic stem cell research.

Posted by: carolanne528 | September 9, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

carolanne,

Words can slip out incorrectly sometimes, especially in web comments. I'll give you a pass.

I do think (and this is for Scott, too), that there has been a strong tendency in the media to describe it as a ban, which encourages the confusion. And I think it partly stems from the fact that one side of the spectrum tends to view federal dollars as a right and restrictions on them as bans.

In fact, in general, right and left tend to view flows of money to and from government very differently.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

"The smart money (which isn't always so smart) is now predicting that Obama will agree to a deal to temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich during the lame duck session after the election."

One word: reconciliation.

I'm not sure why everything has focused on a potential deal to temporarily extend the tax cuts for the rich, when that kind of deal probably isn't even necessary.

So far, the media (particularly the left, which has obsessed over a veto) has neglected to even mention that a bill can be fashioned that excludes a renewal of the cuts for the Top 2%.

The Republicans would then be faced with the untenable position of filibustering a middle class tax cut. [As filibuster-happy as they are, they are not likely to do that.] Yet, even if they were to filibuster, Democrats could pass the bill via reconciliation.

Posted by: associate20 | September 9, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Associate20,

No reconciliation left in this Congress. Obamacare used up the one that was available and there was no budget passed this year. Barry's gonna need 60 Senators.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 9, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

You probably missed a classic meltdown this morning where ruk went around the bend again on me, and I went suddenly from reasonable and intelligent conservative to arrogant and pathetic loser with a God complex. Lots of yelling!!!!!!

I had the arrogance to try to explain why I think his economic beliefs do have roots in socialism. As usual, I probably did a so-so job, but he blew a gasket.

I caught your one comment to him before the full meltdown, and I am adopting the Sybil name for him, or rusybil. Well, anyway, what's a Reich-wing, pathetic, moron loser gonna do. Liberals are strange.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Eric Alterman on the "anarcho-totalitarianism", as WF Buckley labeled the political ideas of the Koch brothers, and the manipulation of the politics in the US their billions have facilitated. If you've got the ten minutes, spend it here...

"We are all well aware of the success of the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, the editors of the Wall Street Journal, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, etc., in reorienting the media in a right-wing, xenophobic direction. But to focus exclusively on the conservative media—as I sometimes do—is a bit like worrying only about the oil slicks on the surface of a river and ignoring the gushers underneath.

The Kochs, after all, do not fund much media. Rather, they fund the politicians, "experts" and (frequently phony) citizen leaders who create the context for the content of media debate. And perhaps their greatest success has been their ability to turn the establishment media into the credulous carrier of the constant stream of propaganda their grantees have become so adept at producing."
http://www.thenation.com/article/154595/money-well-spent

Posted by: bernielatham | September 9, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

@TrollMcWingnut:

That's if this is addressed this year. There's no guarantee that it will be.

Posted by: associate20 | September 9, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

quarterback1"

"Liberals are strange."

Agreed ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 9, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

I will settle for a President who upholds his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, and not to support and defend the dubious results of some pollsters.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 9, 2010 7:03 PM
-----

So, you're a really a closet GWB fan?

Posted by: Brigade | September 9, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

More from Eric...
"Obama's Finally Ready to Rumble"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-08/obama-finally-ready-to-rumble-on-boehner-tax-cuts/full/

Posted by: bernielatham | September 9, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3:

There was also no "funding ban" imposed because Judge Lamberth ruled that the Bush-era funding could go forward, but it was the Obama funding that violated federal law. As long as the research has existed, PRIVATE funds (and even some State funds) are still being used to destroy human embryos too.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 9, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Quarterback1,

"I do think (and this is for Scott, too), that there has been a strong tendency in the media to describe it as a ban..."

I don't agree. My description of it as a ban was my mistake, not the media's. But thanks for the pass :)

Posted by: carolanne528 | September 9, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

"Good news, but a question: What if the media hadn't inflated the Koran-burning stunt into an international incident and this fringe pastor had actually gone ahead with it without all the attention. Wouldn't less damage have ultimately been done?"

Well, looking for the bright side, at least this apparently was too much even for the GOP so, yes, there may actually be limits to what Republicans are willing to do to regain power. Or else they ran polls and Rove told them it was a political loser to stick with the NutJob in FL. Anyway, international crisis averted for now and this guy can get his Reality Show on Fox.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 9, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

qb:

I did miss it. The schizophrenia is truly bizarre.

Be careful with using "rusybil". Greg might ban you.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 9, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

This entire "Mosque" "Quran" burning saga is just sad. Sad for America and sad for anybody who calls them self a Christian.

Obviously a majority of Americans DO believe that we are at war with Islam. Can anybody imagine a peep over a Catholic Church 2 blocks from ground zero...a Baptist Church...a Synagogue...a Morman Tabernacle?

Can anybody possibly defend all of this hatred from the perspective of Jesus Christ? Of course not. Can anybody possibly defend this hatred from the perspective of our Constitution, or our Founding Fathers..of course not!

It's a sad day when the haters have captured the dialogue in our nation. Sad for all the American values that have been portrayed...sad for all the Christian values that have been betrayed.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Anyway, international crisis averted for now and this guy can get his Reality Show on Fox.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 9, 2010 8:19 PM
----

Or get an MSNBC gig with geniuses like Olbermann, Maddow, Shultz, and O'Donnell. If you add the preacher's intelligence to theirs, you could just about come up with enough to shake pee out of a boot. However, the preacher could never match them for hate mongering.

Posted by: Brigade | September 9, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Westburo Baptist Church says if they cancel the Koran burning they will hold one instead.

SaveTheRainforest, explain to everyone how noble this is of WBC k..thnx

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 9, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

"That's all the Republican minority leader wants to do during a deep recession: play games."

That.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 9, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Greg said:

"Someone should go back and look at what the Founding Fathers, whom the Tea Partiers are claiming as their intellectual forefathers, had to say about public opinion, and whether it should dictate difficult policy decisions."

I'm curious whether this is rhetorical. Do you think you know what they said?

Much of the Federalist Papers and other writings of the era are about this issue.

But the problem for liberals is that what the founders thought, and the design of the Constitution they crafted, are largely contrary to the view of contemporary liberalism. There is little doubt that Greg Sargent and Liam would view the founders as unacceptably elitist and plutocratic. Remember the 17th Amendment?

They'd have been appalled, for example, with the ramming through of Obamacare by a briefly passing majority, imposing radical change and restrictions on liberty that may prove impossible to undo.

They would be repelled by Democrats' inciting and acting on popular passions against "the wealthiest Americans."


Liam also said:

"The President is sworn to defend the Constitution, not the passions of the moment, as reflected in some ephemeral poll results, that may or may not have asked the right questions.
..............

If you want a leader who will tell the mob what it wants to hear, then you should grow a little mustache, and start practicing how to goosestep."

Obama has no regard for the Constitution. He has only regard for the liberal living constitution.

And he is the model of a demogogue. Have we not just witnessed his latest speech sowing division and whipping up populist fervor against "the rich"? Aren't you the same liberal supporters who celebrate these populist appeals and attacks?

I can't conceive how anyone can be this blind to to self-contradiction. It's cognitive dissonance in the extreme.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Q.B. & Scott...call me whatever names you wish. Sybil, socialism..you continue to reveal the depth of your ignorance.

Since that seems to be the only way you dullards know how to communicate..tell you what...I have a name for you two.

I'll call you guys fascists.

For you Q.B. since you seem to have trouble defining such things..

fas·cist-a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views

Actually that name fits both of you perfectly! :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7:

"Can anybody imagine a peep over a Catholic Church 2 blocks from ground zero...a Baptist Church...a Synagogue...a Morman Tabernacle?"

No.

"Can anybody possibly defend all of this hatred from the perspective of Jesus Christ?"

Ye that love the LORD, hate evil ... (Psalm 97:10a)

Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Romans 12:9b

Next question?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 9, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

rusybil,

Dullards, huh. Not sure why you like to follow insults with a smiley face. Except what I said before -- liberals are strange.

Re your definition of fascism -- that would earn you a D in any respectable class on political theory or history. I won't bother trying to explain it to you, since that would be "mumbo jumbo" to you.

But you've called me fascist plenty of times before. I've never cared before, nor do I now.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

"I'll call you guys fascists."

How original.

Come one, man. "Sybil" was creative, subtle, and conveyed precisely the critique I was making of you. I actually put some thought behind that one. "Fascist" is nothing more than a trite, mundane, common, cliched insult. Can't you do better than that?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 9, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Westburo Baptist Church says if they cancel the Koran burning they will hold one instead.

SaveTheRainforest, explain to everyone how noble this is of WBC k..thnx

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 9, 2010 8:32 PM
----

One sees the photos of screaming mobs in the Middle East burning effigies, burning the American flag, calling for death to America and the President, and one can't help but contrast this with the poor soul in Florida wanting to burn the Koran. He has been roundly condemned.

Shouldn't we all agree that we're better than those who comprise the screaming mobs? We don't want to stoop to their level do we? We're better than them, right? They're very stupid and we're very intelligent. We certainly couldn't hold inferior people like that to the same standards we expect of ourselves. Otherwise, if it weren't for the danger of bringing additional harm to our troops---who should be home if they're not shooting people---we could all just defend the preacher's Constitutional right to burn the Koran and tell any and all Muslims that if they don't like it, they can stick it in their ears. Just like we tell patriots when someone burns the flag or pickets at funerals; just like we tell Christians when someone places a supposed likeness of Christ in a bottle of urine.

Posted by: Brigade | September 9, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

NFL kickoff game. My husband is like a little kid on Christmas. :)

Posted by: Beeliever | September 9, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

JakeD And you of course are our divine connection to what is evil! You are some arrogant piece of....work. Why should we grant you the right to tell us that Islam is evil..you opinionated loser.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
Matthew 7

Christ said, "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd " (John 10:16).

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

That was not in the form of a question ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 9, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Fascist1

Unlike you I don't make up definitions. That's straight out of the dictionary so you'll have to give Merriam-Webster the D fascist boy! I must confess when I went to the dictionary I was surprised at how perfectly the definition fits you and Scott.
Extreme righties who are dictatorial!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

"Obviously a majority of Americans DO believe that we are at war with Islam.'

Not sure that is true. I think many people perceive the mosque as intentionally offensive. Not necessarily the same thing.

And even for those who don't, it remains a fact that the bombers committed their mass murder in the name of Islam. Whether or not one thinks this means we are "at war with Islam," it is an entirely different question than a church or cathedral being built there.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

You mean "dictatorial" like Obamacare getting RAHM-ed down our throats?!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 9, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Or, how about Obama taking over banks, AIG, GM, and Chrysler?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 9, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

My favorite, of course, is Obama taxing us to pay for the willful destruction of human embryos, despite a judge ordering an injunction since that violates federal law.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 9, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Jake...you're not worth engaging dude...you compare dictatorial with representative government that had a free and open vote to arrive at the final legislation.

You are by definition ignorant. And not really very clever..Rahm-ed..is that what passes for humor for you...don't quit your day job..if you have one.

Here is a clue Jake. Obama...yes a black man kicked your sides arses from coast to coast. He didn't need stacked Supreme Court to get into the White House..he won it fair and square by the largest margin in a long time.

Do you get that Jake? Barrack Hussein Obama is YOUR President...unless you are not an American..deal with it loser.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

rusybil,

You're not proving anything except yet again how lame and shallow your reliance on dictionary definitions rather than actual learning is.

Like I said, a D at best in any respectable course. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Btw, I didn't give you a definition of socialism. I just explained a bit of Marxist/socialist theory that should look familiar to you. Which you blissfully ignored. But sometime when you screw up the courage go do some reading about the labor theory of value and class exploitation, and you'll see my explanation was uncontroversial.

It's obvious you have no real familiarity with any of these concepts even while you call other people ignorant.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 9:07 PM | Report abuse

As I stated on the previous thread, if things continue on the current course
folks may soon be resorting to "Second Amendment remedies" ...

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 9, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

HEY!!!

Why's everyone goin' Old Testament on each other? Lighten up already.

Anyway..."Miss Jean Louise, stand up, Mr. Favre is passin'."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

nb.: wbgonne, I've been fascinated by the influence of Gram Parsons on American music since "Sweetheart of the Rodeo."
He really was like the Big Bang or something.

Posted by: tao9 | September 9, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Here is a clue, rukidding7: I voted for the OTHER black man running for President, and Barack HUSSEIN Obama is not my President.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 9, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Sybil,

Come on man, I've busted my a** to be a fascist. I support economic liberty, equal protection under the law and free speech, just like qb1 and ScottC3. Don't be a hater!

Also, JakeD2, JakeD2, skipsailing and Truthteller12 have put in the hours.

HONOR THEM!!!!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 9, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

LOL!! Next, rukidding7 is going to call for my arrest since I will never recognize Obama as President.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 9, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Troll, you are killing me. lol

I think this is the best Trollroll we've had here at the old watering hole.

But it prompts the sentiment:

FREE BILGEY!

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 wrote,
"He didn't need stacked Supreme Court to get into the White House..he won it fair and square"
-------

You guys aren't still smarting over Gore's defeat in 2000 are you? Sandra Day O'Connor is now a right wing nut?

As I recall, there were no official counts in Florida in 2000 that had Gore ahead. Even the count which was stopped by the US Supreme Court was later finished off by members of the press, but they couldn't muster enough votes to put Gore ahead.

Of course we all know, in our heart of hearts if not in our brains, that what happened in 2000 was that the US Supreme Court stepped in to stop a renegade liberal Florida Supreme Court from aiding and abetting Gore supporters in stealing the election with a blatant "count till you win" strategy. What was one of the Florida rulings---give Gore the additional votes scraped out of one county's Democratic precincts but don't bother to recount the Republican precincts? Sounds fair. Most of the lower court rulings that were overturned in Florida were issued by Democratic judges. What a joke.

If you want to say Gore won the popular vote, fine. No way Gore wins Florida on the up and up. Multiple counts confirmed that. Sorry.

Posted by: Brigade | September 9, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

BTW: "he that is spiritual judgeth all things" (1 Cor. 2:15). Jesus simply warns against UN-righteous, hypocritical judgment. These passages taken by themselves and out of context can induce weak believers to great irresponsibility, but it is our purpose in this article to examine the Scriptures as a whole and see what they have to say about judging others, or judging what they say or do.

The Scriptures have much to say about judging others and several synonyms are used. Since, however, one Greek word, "krino" is most often used in discussing this subject, and since this is the word our Lord used when He said, "Judge not," we will deal only with those passages in which this Greek root "krino" (to judge) and its derivatives, "anakrino" (to judge strictly) and "diakrino" (to judge thoroughly) are used.

http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/articles/1017954523.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 9, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

qb1,

I read the thread where sybil lost it. My favorite part was the two quotes he wrote to you a mere 12 hours apart. The first appreciative and reasonable. The next, enraged and frothing.

Too funny!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 9, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

JakeD...my mistake...I thought you were an American not a foreigner.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

"Unlike you I don't make up definitions."

Except, apparently, when you do. Merriam-Webster actually defines "fascist" thus:

"1) a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2) a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascist"

BTW...that definitions seems to fit the left a lot more than it does a libertarian individualist like myself.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 9, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7:

I am an American, and I fought in the Korean War! YOU are the traitor.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 9, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Brigade...you are a reasonable poster and so hopefully unlike fascist1 you'll pay attention to what I'm about to say and not come back a post later and tell me I said something else or that you "interpreted" what I really mean.

My point was not that George W. didn't win the election in 2000. I am a Floridian and while I didn't really enjoy the way the entire thing unfolded...it is what it is..and G.W. was elected and he was my President for 8 years because I am a proud American not some little cowardly weasel who only has a President when MY guy wins.

And so again...Brigade...not because I think you have a problem of comprehension but for others like fascist1 who have difficulty accepting what I write in black and white....G.W. Bush WON THE 2000 election fair and square.

My point to the unAmerican loser was simply that...G.W. won by a whisker...an electoral college victory..not a popular vote victory. Obama on the other hand won by a landslide if you compare the historical closeness of MOST..not all of our Presidential elections.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Troll,

I actually still think ruk is a half-way decent guy if you were to have coffee or a beer with him. But he is . . . excitable. He actually started "wilding" on me this time apparently just because I said I was disgusted with Obama's class warfare speech.

There for a while I was reasonable, respectable, intelligent. Now I'm back to where I belong -- fascist pathetic ignorant loser. : )

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Jake...did a grenade explode too close to your head. You are a traitor sir if you don't accept the fact that Obama IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

And that is coming from a Vietnam Vet to one of the sorriest WHINY SORE LOSERS I have ever seen...even on this blog!!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

rusybil said:

"Brigade...you are a reasonable poster"

LOL, that's how it starts!

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Fascist2...I stand corrected..Merriam Webster is the dictionary on my work computer..I am currently at home...never the less the definition did come from a dictionary...sorry to spoil your gotcha moment fascist boy I realize that's all you live for on this blog.

From Dictionary.com

fas·cist
   /ˈfæʃɪst/ Show Spelled[fash-ist] Show IPA
–noun
1.a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.
2.( often initial capital letter ) a member of a fascist movement or party.

3.a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascist


I selected meaning 3 based on the fact that the first two don't really define anything...the 3rd however fits you fascist twins perfectly!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

JakeD You are not my pastor...nor are you somebody I respect from a theological perspective and so you can quote your verses until the cows come home or paster jones burns those Qurans..it won't make a difference because in my opinion you represent that antithesis of what Jesus taught in his greatest teachings..The Sermon on the Mount.

Understand I do not question your right to YOUR interpretation of divinity or religion...but you're not going to shove YOUR religion down MY throat. I believe in a God of love...certainly exemplified in the teachings of Jesus...not a God of hatred.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

@ru - You're taking the bait. These guys are riding the narrative of the day and feeling their oats. But, so what? There's really no reason to care if they are.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 9, 2010 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Slowly but in a sure way, progress...

"A federal judge in Southern California on Thursday declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment rights of gay and lesbians."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/09/09/us/AP-US-Gays-in-Military.html?_r=1&hp

Posted by: bernielatham | September 9, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Corruption.

"With Democrats in danger of losing control of Congress, some prominent lobbying shops, trade groups and contractors are already moving to bring more Republicans on board to bolster their political fortunes.

Lobbyists, political consultants and recruiters all say that the going rate for Republicans — particularly current and former House staff members — has risen significantly in just the last few weeks, with salaries beginning at $300,000 and going as high as $1 million for private sector positions."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/business/10lobby.html?hpw

Damned good money in it. And as long as it remains so incentivized, it ain't going away.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 9, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

In more important developments, DADT was ruled unconstitutional today:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/federal-judge-declares-us-military-ban-on-openly-gay-service-members-unconstitutional-.html

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | September 9, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Dangit, should have hit refresh. Sorry Bernie.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | September 9, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Ruk, Jake: I salute both of you and your service. Though I'd prefer you both not fight so much. But you sacraficed a lot to serve your country, so if this is how you want to spend your time . . . I just wanted to say, God bless America and her servicemen, past and present, like Ruk and Jake.

That being said, you guys oughta be fighting the Luftwaffe instead of fellow soldiers. Or sailors, or airmen, or marines. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 9, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Academic squabbles are so nasty because the stakes are so low.

Blogs too.

Everyone posting from 9:12pm to 10:23pm is banned from the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Chavez/Yglesias club, and no checks (until we get that HUD grant money).

It's 9-7 Vikes...get a life.

And FREE BILGEY! {TM@tao9}

Posted by: tao9 | September 9, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

@Bernie...you are correct. I tried to engage QB honestly...but he insisted on defining my thoughts for me no matter how explicitly I expressed them...but I admire your restraint and believe I shall follow your example in the future.

It's actually pretty obvious how desperate Scott is to have gotcha moments...and it's equally as obvious from the tenor of his vitriol directed at you that you have frustrated him enormously by refusing to engage in the hate and vitriolic attacks.

And so my Canadian friend I shall follow your example in the future. It's simply disgusting to me however that people say crap like he's not my president. Is there any hope for our nation if one side is indeed fascist..in the sense that they are dictatorial...if their guy doesn't win the election then they refuse to accept the rule of law or elections. Who was it who said elections have consequences...at least they are supposed to..aren't they?

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Zounds...I banned meself.

Posted by: tao9 | September 9, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"With Democrats in danger of losing control of Congress, some prominent lobbying shops, trade groups and contractors are already moving to bring more Republicans on board to bolster their political fortunes."

If they are only now hiring Republicans, I wonder who they have been employing for the last 2-4 years? Might that be, er, Democrats? In order to "boost their political fortunes" while the Dems were in control? Wouldn't that make the Dems, in your view, corrupt? Well, if your thinking had any consistency or principle behind it, that is.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 9, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

tao..."Everyone posting from 9:12pm to 10:23pm" As someone who participated in that sleaze...you are correct in your gentle humorous way...as for me..I simply need to take a shower to wash the crap off. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

BTW tao...If I'm not mistaken you are from the Great North and therefore a Viking fan.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm conflicted about tonight's game...because like everybody else I feel sorry for New Orleans residents and all that they've been though..Katrina..Deepwater Horizon...

But my wife has just jerked the pity from me and harden my view. The Saints are in our division!!! Go Vikes!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

I really love this one from Phil Gingrey, Republican of Georgia...

"GINGREY: I had somebody say you know a Contract with America is a little redundant, going back to 1994. And I had somebody suggest at a town hall meeting recently maybe it ought to be a “Covenant with America.” Just as God’s covenant with Moses, really this is a convenant. This is more of a commitment, more than a contract. This is a pledge of your sworn sacred honor. And maybe that’s the kind of thing that we need to get, to truly get attention and sign it in blood if necessary. So we think it would be not be appropriate at a time like this to raise people’s taxes, at any level. At any level."
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/09/covenant-moses-pledge/

This is right in so many ways. Newt as Moses v2. That's spot on as Moses, famously, was porking his secretary while Mrs Moses was in hospital suffered from cancer. And "contract", that's just weasel legal-speak. "Covenant" is much better because you get that whole Abraham chopping off his son's head with a sword seriositude and certainty, which is just what you need in a democracy. I'm on board with the Covenant With America. And let's follow it up with a bible-centered set of requirements for the judiciary. But we don't want to be trite so we'll label it The Ten Demandments.

Let's get this country going in the right direction.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 9, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

ru,

Don't take it so hard.

In Connemara, from where my people hail, they would call that interchange above: A palate cleanser.

Then they'd break out the Hurley sticks.

Some grand fun, that.

What Kevin said too (all a youse).

Posted by: tao9 | September 9, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

And FREE BILGEY! {TM@tao9}

I hear ya brother!

(and I didn't want to speak for you vis a vis sybil's fascist label. See above)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 9, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

I like to use the full name: Cheney-Rumsfeld He-Man Liberal Haters' Club.

How does Brees get away with so many hard counts? Or is he just that good at it?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

tao...I'm beginning to understand. But remember one can not explain or define the tao...one can only know the tao.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

"It's simply disgusting to me however that people say crap"

Hey, I know. But let them dogpaddle through the crap on their own. It's their crap.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 9, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

tao:

"And FREE BILGEY!"

FYI, Bilge is aware of the movement to free him, and he let me know that, in his own words, "The thing is...I AM free."

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 9, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

ru,

Despite WesternMA/Boston residence for 30yrs I'm a Giants man. There are many of us mostly, as they say, of a certain (pre-AFL) age. Alex "Red" Webster was my model...thought Gifford was a weenie. ;>)

I dig Favre tho, sue me.

Posted by: tao9 | September 9, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

From an anonymous poster at the St. Pete Times trying to sort through all this religious warfare...

Islam does not recognize the Jews as God's chosen people.

The Jews do not recognize Christ as the Messiah.

Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the head of Christianity.

Southern Baptists do not recognize their neighbors at the neighborhood Hooters.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

tao...you must be as old as me...I do remember Alex Webster...didn't recall his nickname though.

I grew up in Cincinati where before the Bengals we got all the Cleveland Browns games...hence I still believe Jim Brown was the greatest player ever! But my second favorite player was a Giant.

Do you remember the TV doc..."The Violent World of Sam Huff. Pretty amazing stuff for it's day...if I'm not mistaken one of the very first time a player was miked on the field.

My wife is rooting for Favre as well. I used to like him until he jerked everybody around with all the on again off again retirement BS. Still I do agree with my wife...ya gotta pull for a guy that old! :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

I saw a couple of Bilgey postings a week or so ago at a bloodcurdlingly snooty bow-tie righty blog. He seemed hale and hearty as ever. Good on 'em.

Posted by: tao9 | September 9, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Sam Huff would of made a great Visigoth.

He scared Ditka. And Chuck Norris.

Posted by: tao9 | September 9, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

From Palin's Facebook page...

"I can think of no better way to commemorate 9/11 than joining Glenn Beck and myself and drinking beers with other patriots. Tickets available at TicketMaster"

Next week...

Koran burning party with beers for patriots. Bring your guns and we'll shoot the ashes too. Tickets available at TicketMaster.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 9, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

"but he insisted on defining my thoughts for me no matter how explicitly I expressed them"

No one can define or even know your thoughts.

I rather traced an idea you explicitly stated.

And in that my opinion stands no lower than yours.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad you all think birthers are cool. See, Republicans claim to be sane but then embrace complete lunatics and even praise them.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 9, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Bernie...can we shoot those ashes from a plane?

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

So, DADT was repealed after Log Cabin Republicans filed suit. Funny.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 9, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Wonder if SBJ is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was a part of that suit?

Just for clarification...that was a genuine question..not intended as snark.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 9, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Of course Bilgey is free; who could take his freedom? The campaign is about Bilgey but more as well. It's about PL, and Greg, and all of us, doggone it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 9, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3: "FYI, Bilge is aware of the movement to free him, and he let me know that, in his own words, "The thing is...I AM free."

Truer words my friend, truer words.

tao9: I saw a couple of Bilgey postings a week or so ago at a bloodcurdlingly snooty bow-tie righty blog. He seemed hale and hearty as ever. Good on 'em.

Well, that explains it, I'm not allowed within 500 feet of Tucker Carlson, or his avatar.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 9, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

If he is then hats off to him. I still though can't imagine what it feels like to be part of a party who's majority thinks you're an abomination.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 9, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse

TMcW,

Kimball, not Carlson.

Posted by: tao9 | September 9, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

"Kimball, not Carlson."

Him to.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 9, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

My all time favorite Republican candidate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMgyi57s-A4

Posted by: bernielatham | September 9, 2010 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"My all time favorite Republican candidate..."

Now that guy is indeed a loon. They way he SHOUTS FOR NO APPARENT REASON reminds me of some people here.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 10, 2010 5:29 AM | Report abuse

Greg at 7:08

Aren't what we are doing here - is letting public opinion in the Middle East -on the Koran - dictate difficult policy decisions.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 6:21 AM | Report abuse

We really have a situation here.


First it appears that the Pastor in Florida was lied to by the Imam in Florida.


- THERE is a moral equivalency to the two issues - both involve Freedom - and both beg for exceptions to be made.


- I have to say there has been some EXTRAORDINARY ANGER shown by members of the media - Chris Matthews and Mika Brezenski both appear VISIBLY UPSET ON-AIR at the linkage presented between Florida and the Ground Zero mosque.


- These two issues involve First Amendment Freedoms - both of which there perhaps should be excpetions.


- The caselaw for Freedom of Religion states clearly that if there is a "compelling interest," an exception to Freedom of Religion can be made.


- The media appears EXTREMELY ANGRY at this linkage - and people are going to be angry at that.


One has to wonder what is going on here - WHY are individuals on the left in the media so FIRMLY PERSONALLY ENTRENCHED with the mosque issue in New York - practically DEMANDING that the mosque be built - and ANGRY at the linkage ?


Why was Mika practically asking for the Pastor Jones to be arrested ??? There was a whole discussion on how MSNBC could JUSTIFY SUCH AN ARREST, AS IF THE SECURITY GUARDS FROM MSNBC WERE GOING TO GO TO FLORIDA TO ARREST PASTOR JONES.

There is no discussion about how the Imam at Ground Zero can legally be prevented from building the mosque.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 6:32 AM | Report abuse

And again, America needs a leader who is going to represent the sentiments of Americans - and Obama is just refusing to be up for the task.


________________________________


Founding Fathers - Federalist Papers - OK not exactly sure what they say for each branch of government.

HOWEVER, the point is that there is an element to the Presidency which is LEADERSHIP.


ON the measure of LEADERSHIP, there is a quality which the President represents the sentiment of the nation - the feelings of the people.

ON this measure, Obama is seen by the American People as sorely lacking.

On the health care bill, Obama appeared to be working against the desires of the American People - and the nation was subjected to all sorts of convoluted arguments about how polling on individuals provisions the American People supported.


But there were hundreds of provisions, many of the them secret and which were not polled.


This point of LEADERSHIP - goes to the ECONOMY TOO - the American People feel that their PRIORITY of the economy and jobs has been IGNORED in favor of some dubious pursuit of a left-wing agenda which was not prominent in the 2008 election.


The whole question of LEADERSHIP goes to evaluating Obama's performance as President - and there is a widespread strong feeling that Obama isn't doing too well.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 6:43 AM | Report abuse

carolanne528, ScottC3, quarterback


Isn't there a ban on federal funding for stem cell research???


My take on the issue is Bush DID sign an executive order - but then Congress followed up with a law.


Obama tried to reverse ALL that with an executive order - and started the Federal funding.


HOWEVER, by that point, there was already a Congressional law - so Obama could have been FUNDING without Congressional approval.


Obama can not appropriate Federal funds all by himself -


I am not sure of all the details - but it sure seems like people are walking lines that they should not be walking.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 6:48 AM | Report abuse

associate20 7:46 PM


I'm just going to say this - in order to have reconciliation, there has to be an orginal law which passed both Houses properly - and the tax law is not there right now - so you still need 60 votes orignially in the Senate.


The REASON Obama had 60 votes in the Senate is because Specter switched parties (which the voters have now rejected), and the courts in Minnesota trhew out ballots and gave Al Franken a victory.


The the legislature in Massachusetts changed the vacancy law - which allowed an appointment which was NOT previously allowed.


So, the democrats went through some efforts to get to 60 votes - AND GO BACK ON THEIR PLEDGE TO BE BIPARTISAN - A PLEDGE MADE TO THE VOTERS.

Let me be clear: The way the American system works - one party is in, then the other party is in -


If you want to constantly change the rules which apply to your party when they are in, those rules APPLY to the other party when they come back in.


For some reason, it appears you want the democrats to be able to do things, but you do not want the Republicans to be able to do those same things when they are in.


Filibuster is a DEMOCRATIC TOOL - used mostly by the democrats over the decades - so historically the democrats have used the filibuster more than anyone.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 6:58 AM | Report abuse

tao:

Funny you should mention Sweetheart of the Rodeo. I was just reading about it yesterday. I wanted to make sure I had a copy of One Hundred Years sung by Parsons, who did the original studio vocal. When he and Roger McGuinn had a falling out, McGuinn replaced Parsons' vocal with his own for Sweetheart. But the Parsons version is available in the Birds Box Set if you can find it. Like ruk said, Parsons is another one who burned out far too early. Youth truly is wasted on the young.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 10, 2010 7:24 AM | Report abuse

There is a moral equivalency between the Pastor in Florida - and the Ground Zero mosque.


It is amazing how the liberals in the media talk about the Pastor -


But the same liberal media does NOT seem to place the same moral obligation of RESTRAINT on the Imam at Ground Zero.

The mosque at Ground Zero is extremely PROVOCATIVE.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 7:26 AM | Report abuse

It is amazing that the same concerns are at work in the two controversies


In the Florida case, the concern is the potential for video going around the Middle East getting people angry.


In the Ground Zero mosque case, the concern is the potential for the existence of a mosque at Ground Zero to be used as RECRUITING TOOL and a PROPAGANDA TOOL in the Middle East.


In both cases, the controversies are about what effect on the Middle East what happens here - and both beg for RESTRAINT.


Isn't it true that the concern is really what will happen in the Middle East - not here - the concern that the mosque will be a recruiting tool.


However, the liberals in the media want the Pastor in Florida to exercise restraint, but similar calls are not made for restraint from the Imam in New York.


This is CLEARLY why there is so much anger in this country toward the left - and why the country feels that things are not right - rules are not applied equally - and the left wants what it wants, and any priciples are simply not being adhered to, but only used as excuses.


If there is an exception to be applied to the Pastor in Florida, then surely there is an exception to be applied to the Iman in New York.


The left is FURIOUS at the linkage. Obama looks horrible and weak in the middle of all of this.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

MSNBC just cut off the Pastor in Florida - quoted the Bible to him - and then would not let him speak.


The Pastor said he would stand down yesterday - after he was apparently lied to by an Imam.


Somehow MSNBC now says this guy is the bad guy - the guy who was willing to compromise.


Funny how MSNBC now does NOT want to hear what the Pastor has to say.


MSNBC wants to urge RESTRAINT - but it does NOT want to talk about a compromise - MSNBC is inciting violence right now - getting people angry which just might lead to the Koran burning - which is what they don't want.


The arrogance is unbelievable

MSNBC wants ONLY their side to have First Amendment Freedoms, is that the story?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 7:47 AM | Report abuse

Greg,

Regarding my comment at 4:35 about your and Liam's comments regarding public opinion, do you have any comment about how your position reconciles with contemporary Democratic behavior?

Is it not inconsistent with appeals to populist impulses on issues like taxing the employer class, and on getting Obamacare rushed through by a temporary majority, with the intent of making it a permanent feature of the welfare state?

Wasn't it one of the most frequently expressed opinions on this blog during the past year and a half that HCR should be passed (with a public option) because public opinion supported it, and that Republicans were misbehaving by "obstructing" it in the face of popular support?

And do you agree that all the features of our constitutional republic that were designed to dampen the effects of popular opinion were intended to restrain government action, i.e., to prevent radical change?

Inquiring minds want to know. What is modern liberals' real position on Federalist 10? Why isn't Obama's populist appeal to "tax the wealthy" precisely what Madison described as an appeal to "majority faction"?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 10, 2010 7:47 AM | Report abuse

Here, for example, is a paragraph you wrote, Greg, on how the GOP might "perversely" benefit from "obstructing" HCR:

:Republicans will argue that this shows that the public wants the GOP to stall the Dem agenda. But I think something else is going on: People don't seem aware that the GOP, in addition to wanting to obstruct the Obama/Dem agenda, is successfully doing so in the Senate through the skillful application of fundamentally undemocratic procedural tricks. The press has largely failed to inform the public of of this fact, and when it does, people tune it out as so much Beltway white noise. Result: The GOP is paying no price whatsoever for obstructionism, and may well reap rewards from it."

Here you seemed to be arguing that GOP use of "undemocratic" means to block Obamacare was inherently illegitimate, and that it would be a perverse result for them to be electorally rewarded rather than punished for it.

Weren't R's doing exactly what their constitutional duties called on them to do?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 10, 2010 8:03 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 10, 2010 7:47 AM

What a stinking pile of dung. Please leave poor James Madison alone; he's been dead a few hundred years and really wouldn't like being dragged through the mud by you Koch-hacks. Better yet, stop contorting the Constitution into the Sacred Text for Greed & Gluttony. There seems little doubt that you and your ilk would have been on wrong side of the American Revolution. You'd be making grubby deals with the Crown to undermine the "radicals" and you'd be counting your Gold as the British hung Paul Revere and Samuel Adams.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 10, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

@ruk: "It's actually pretty obvious how desperate Scott is to have gotcha moments...and it's equally as obvious from the tenor of his vitriol directed at you that you have frustrated him enormously by refusing to engage in the hate and vitriolic attacks."

Everybody here is in their big girl panties (I know I am!), so they don't need me to fight any battles for them. However, I just felt like I oughta say that I read all of Scott's comments for the most part, and I don't think that's a fair characterization. He is as prone to hyperbole as anybody, I suppose (myself included, natch) when a more selectively chosen phrase might communicate the idea better, but . . . I don't think "hate and vitriolic attacks" is entirely fair regarding Scott.

I think like lots of people in this kind of environment, where people who are diametrically opposed are discussing an issue, he get frustrated that folks *seem* to be purposefully missing the point or misinterpreting what he's saying (yes, it happens on both sides, I think), so doesn't the digital equivalent of raising his voice (the one that's *not* TYPING IN ALL CAPS), which is natural, and if you really think it's all hate a vitriol, you're doing yourself a disservice (in my opinion, which may be entirely wrong).

ScottC3 is a thoughtful guy who often seems, to me, to spend more time trying to articulate his thoughts than some others (not pointing fingers) spend on trying to misunderstand them. This is not an endorsement of any name calling (not a fan of the Sybil comment, no), I'm just saying.

From my admittedly imperfect point of view, I see a lot of great points going on in these discussions from both sides that immediately get obscured by name-calling, or words like "evil","hate","vitriol","socialist","propaganda" etc, that hurt rather than reinforce good and interesting points. But this may just be me. I could just be talking out of my butt. If so, apologies.

That being said, I don't think ScottC3 is that bad a guy. I also like QB, though I disagree with the frequency of name calling, myself.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 10, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, wb, for contributing yet another substance-free rhetorical belch.

You are a real credit to liberalism.

Now, for serious adults as opposed to vacuous hate-mongers, Greg suggested that someone remind of what the founders said about public opinion. Federalist 10 is not a bad place to start.

Any liberals with courage enough to answer any of the questions raised, or carry the torch for Greg?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 10, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

@mikefromarlington: "If he is then hats off to him. I still though can't imagine what it feels like to be part of a party who's majority thinks you're an abomination."

I don't despise sbj3. Hands up for any righties who think sb is an abomination? I'm honestly curious, because I don't think there's going to be that much of it. I literally know one right-winger that I've had an argument without about homosexuality being unnatural. I know there's many more, but I don't spend much time socially with Westborough Baptist types.

And there is a difference between being opposed to openly gay folks serving in the military (not a position I find supportable, per se, especially given the nature of the fight against radical Islamic terrorism) or not supporting gay marriage (I support civil unions, but not gay marriage, although that may be a matter of semantics), and considering homosexuality an abomination. In fact, if it involves two or more really cute chicks, homosexuality is actually really, really hot.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 10, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "There seems little doubt that you and your ilk would have been on wrong side of the American Revolution. You'd be making grubby deals with the Crown to undermine the 'radicals' and you'd be counting your Gold as the British hung Paul Revere and Samuel Adams."

Samuel Adams? Come on. None of us would sit idly by while the British hung the guy that makes the beer.

If you have to go for the over-the-top hyperbole, at least try to base it remotely in reality.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 10, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/the_morning_plum_87.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 10, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

"I also like QB, though I disagree with the frequency of name calling, myself."

Please, Kevin, I appreciate your posts, but you're going to accuse me, to ru of all people, of frequent name calling?

Whew, just not even going to bother. If you have read this blog for the past year or so since I and I think Scott first dropped in, you might see some irony here.

This ru meltdown was one-sided and spontaneous.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 10, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin....."That being said, I don't think ScottC3 is that bad a guy. I also like QB, though I disagree with the frequency of name calling, myself."

I don't think either Scott or Q.B. is bad.
In fact I feel sorry for them. They seem to be very unhappy people...but perhaps that's because they are conservatives who have elected to participate in what is a "progressive" blog and they are frustrated.

Name calling as you suggest is very counter productive and I regret having as Bernie suggested "taking the bait." Actually however the name calling doesn't really bother me that much.

Disrespecting one's views by not even paying attention to black and white and yes sometimes out of frustration even CAPITALIZED STATEMENTS :-) just gets very tedious. For example Kevin...if after several discussions on the appropriate blend of socialism and capitalism for our society you keep referring to me as a socialist...until I finally for clarification sake have to type I AM NOT A SOCIALIST...and then you go on some convoluted ramble trying to prove I am a socialist...it's not the name calling I object to...it's the frustration of trying to communicate when somebody is simply going to ignore what you say, or what you think and then dictate to you what you "really" mean and interpret for you what you think. In hindsight I realize I should have just disengaged at that point but it is very frustrating during a time when I see my country drifting into some really scary right wing crap...not Scott or Q.B..here...but people like Newt Gingrich...who is now out with an ad utilizing graphic footage of 9/11 and clearly directing us to the conclusion that we are at war with Islam. That kind of reprehensible behavior from SOME leaders on the right is leading us to crap like wall to wall coverage of a hillbilly pastor and his flock of 50 acting as would be expected if you "believe" what Newt has been preaching. In other words it's not the preacher...it's the Newt's and Sarah's that have me concerned for our country and very frustrated. Not an acceptable accuse..but perhaps extenuating circumstances.

As for Scott and his gotcha moments. I have seen very few (of course there are exceptions) posts from Scott that are anything but an attempt at "gotcha" especially with Bernie. Unlike you Kevin Scott does not offer a positive or even alternative viewpoint...it's usually just snide, nasty remarks. Last night for example he tried to nail me on the dictionary thing...he can eat crow on that one because my definition DID come from a dictionary...perhaps he can take satisfaction in the fact that I posted the wrong brand...it seems that is all that satisfies Scott...trying to make others look bad...we can agree to disagree Kevin IMHO he is a mean spirited person who does often times post with vitriol...as for hatred..I'll concede that point as perhaps being hyperbolic.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 10, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Kevin...final thoughts...I appreciate that you always approach the posters here..sometimes in disagreement...sometimes in agreement...but never with the motivation of trying to make a poster look bad.

In other words kudos to you for having achieved the fine skill of disagreeing without being disagreeable. That is why I have lost respect for Scott. His posts...certainly directed at Bernie...rarely offer an alternate viewpoint that is thought out and posted without rancor...but almost always an attempt to make Bernie look not just incorrect but foolish. That's simply Scott's M.O. Maybe like me he had an arsehole as a father and is still trying to prove something.:-)

Whatever...you Kevin have brought a sense of civility and free exchange of thoughts from the perspective of a conservative...I'll let you label yourself...actually from my perspective you appear to be an independent thinker...but you are certainly no fascist. :-) Sometimes you feel free to crack on folks for their hyperbole...but generally it's justified..you've certainly caught me on more than one occasion lol...but it's always with humor and again...generally if not always..reserved for the egregious offenders...people like me. LMAO I truly appreciate what you have brought to the blog and me personally.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 10, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

@qb: "Please, Kevin, I appreciate your posts, but you're going to accuse me, to ru of all people, of frequent name calling?"

J'accuse!

I didn't accuse you of doing it by yourself. ;) You *do* do the name-calling thing, and that's totally up to you, I'm just sayin'. I read stuff you write and I think to myself, "Wow, that's awesome," and then there's a gratuitous response to someone else's gratuitous insult, and it's like somebody dropped a rat turd in the midst of a beautiful all-American meal of roast beef, mashed potatoes and apple pie.

Also, there is the soft bigotry of low expectations. I expect liberals to name-call and insult everybody gratuitously, as that's always been my experience of them. /snark

I expect better of our nations football players. Especially our quarterbacks. :)

And, natch, I'm nothin' special, and my opinion should be worth exactly 2¢ to you, as that's it's current market value.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 10, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

@ruk: "it seems that is all that satisfies Scott...trying to make others look bad..."

All I'm saying is that it doesn't look that way to me, at a distance. I see Scott (now, I've missed about a year of him being on this blog, to be fair) not being any more insulting, or gotcha-ish, than anybody else (outside of the spamtrolls who shall remain nameless), and though he clearly rubs you the wrong way a lot of the time, I think some of that is in how you're choosing to interpret him.

I understand, to some extent, the conflict with bernie. Bernie does say some things (as do Liam and wbgonne particularly) that can really rub me the wrong way. So perhaps it's that I'm sympathetic with where Scott is coming from, in my heart of hearts, so I'm too subjective. I'm just (and I'm trying to do this in every part of my life, which has been ongoing, but I'm still doing it much more than in the past) trying not to let my buttons get pushed. Blogs like this are great places for it. Folks like Ethan, who is a challenge because he really, really knows where he stands and is immune to whatever modicum of charm I might possess (/snark) are actually a great help in this regard. But I'm going off on a tangent . . .

I'm just saying, I've watched some of the conversations between Scott and others, and I've frequently seen an escalation where one person says something a little inflammatory, Scott says something a little more inflammatory (or similarly) and then suddenly we've gone Defcon 5 and there's a nuclear exchange, when some of the stuff you are responding to is, at best, choosing to interpret what Scott said in the worst possible light.

I may be mistaken. I just think you might occasionally be getting worked up (at least, since I've been following the threads) based on what has transpired in the past, or subconsciously choosing to put the worst spin on what Scott said, when there is an opportunity to, if not join hands and sing the chorus to "why can't we be friends?" at least take it down a notch.

Again, I could be totally off base here. Just sharing my experience of the fine folks in the comments. I find a lot of what qb and Scott have to say to be interesting and thoughtful, and I see that sometimes a few ill-chosen comments completely obliterates that (same goes for everybody else, including--on occasion--myself), and I'm trying to get better and not letting a few insulting things get in my way when taking in the larger message, so I condescendingly advise others to follow my sage example (sorry, there's an inherent self-congratulatory note to doing this that I can't seem to avoid, which is like saying "I'm trying to be humble, but I'm just so awesome it's not really possible", so I'm rapidly approaching the point where I just need to shut up).

Anyway, thanks for the response. Just an observation! Not trying to sit in judgement, because that would really be stupid. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 10, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

Thanks for the support and kind words. I'm pretty philosophical about all the whacky accusations being made about me. I don't take any of it seriously at all...I am used to it. Since I started posting on this board, I've been labelled heartless, greedy, uncaring, stupid and viscious among other things, all from people who know literally nothing about me or how I live my life other than that I am largely disinclined to want government to act as the nation's all around problem-solver. I was even told once by someone that they "hated" me after I challenged the notion that insurance company executives were immoral. (To be fair, this was rather out of character and this person later apologized).

I also think that if you went back in time to read some of my older stuff (which I most definitely recommend in all my modesty and humbleness!), you would find me even less prone to inflammatory rhetoric, and I don't think I am all that prone to it even now. (Bernie is a special case...I've drawn some conclusions over the past year that make me highly disinclined to either pay him the deference the lefties here think he is due or let his professor routine pass unremarked upon.)

BTW, re Sybil, come on...you didn't crack a smile at that at all? Not even just a little? I think even ruk found it amusing (although maybe he was just feeling sorry for me!)

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 10, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "BTW, re Sybil, come on...you didn't crack a smile at that at all?"

Well, yeah, especially with the side-by-side post of his swing in opinion of you. But, once and done, as I often say, thought don't often live by.

I know what you mean about bernie (and haven't even seen that much of him as there may be more egregious examples), but I try to give the benefit of the doubt (as I would hope others would with me). In any case, he seems to be a very capable rhetorician, which I respect.

It's just been my observation that you often make good points that are often completely glossed over in replies to you, often for very selective or nit-picking reasons, when I think there's clearly an opportunity for communication. Which I think improves things. It's better than you disagree vehemently with a position you understand completely than a position you only understand passingly, if it all.

Of course, some of that comes from my former (and not atypical) youthful liberalism. As I actually understood conservatism and "the right" better, via actual investigation, exposure to, and thought--I realized I wasn't as liberal as I thought.

Which is something I think both sides have people who do--intolerance for dissent ends up driving the open minded torward the other side. In my case, it was radical feminists an anti-the-first-gulf-war folks that open my eyes to the fact I wasn't quite the liberal I thought I was, if it involved censorship, redacting history, speech codes, endorsing obvious propaganda, bullying, oppressing dissent, and actively trying to prevent dialog between parties. Among other things. I realize those behaviors are not exclusive to, or necessarily even prevalent among, liberals, but at the time I have a very naive viewpoint, so was tragically disillusioned. I had a very low opinion of Republicans, conservatives, and conservatism, so at every point I discovered they were not as evil as I had thought--or their ideas as outlandish as I had assumed--it was a pleasant surprise. Until eventually my switch was pretty much 100%, and I could describe myself as a rock-ribbed conservative.

Admittedly, I do feel like certain concepts regarding supply side economics have let me down, recently, which makes me more open to traditional liberal approaches to tax policy now where I wouldn't have been 5 or 10 years ago. But, I ramble. I just think it's a good idea to have a dialog, and I used to get into knock-down-drag-outs with liberals and felt I had nothing to show for it after a year or two.

May feel the same way after trying to play mediator for a year. Ah, well. Something to do.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 10, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"But, once and done, as I often say..."

Fair enough, but if you look I think you'll see that I pretty much left it with my original.

Bernie and I have had an up and down relationship here. A little history, for what it is worth (perhaps nothing). To be fair to him, he has in the past been pleasant and welcoming of me on a personal level. We even at one point exchanged private e-mails on topics too big to leave to the ever-evolving thread machine of this blog. But I tired of his condescension, his hypocrisy (for all his talk of "haters" on the right, Bernie has a hate streak for conservatives that would make a Klansman blush), and especially his incessant propaganda schtick. The final straw for me came when Bernie approvingly and agreeingly quoted from an article calling Michael Rubin a "very loathsome, ugly, rabid little puppy". When I challenged him on what justified this characterization, he doubled down, implying that Rubin held Palestinians to be sub-human "vermin". When I further challenged him to provide evidence of this appalling claim, he slinked away, telling me to take it up with the author of his original link (which wasn't the first time he dropped a thread like that when it got a little uncomfortable for him). I pretty much lost any and all respect for him at that point, and have since contented myself with simply pointing out why his posts deserve derision rather than trying to engage him. Which I guess shoudln't bother him since he's ignoring me anyway.

If you are interested in the slightest, the thread can be found here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/happy_hour_roundup_26.html

Anyway, more than you probably wanted, but there you go.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 10, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company