Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Open Thread

Seems the consensus is that Obama's presser yesterday was way too boring, substantive and unemotional to produce an abrupt and massive enough turnaround in the polls to guarantee in advance that Dems hold their majority.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  September 11, 2010; 8:44 AM ET
Categories:  Miscellaneous  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Sunday Open Thread

Comments

My ridiculous comment on the last thread got the reaction I was hoping for.

Now, every time I see right wingers come on here talking about how the left hates this country, our military and are purposely helping the terrorist or cheer something on our CENTCOM commander clearly outlined would directly put our troops unnecessarily in harms way I expect tao, scott and qb to be the first to defend the left from the vileness I see.

Right? Good. I'm glad I've got your support.

Now, I hope the outrageous actions by some on the right don't put our troops at further risk then they already are. That preacher down in FL and Pamella Gellar and all those that cheer that despicable person have blood on her hands.

Friends of mine that are both in AfPak and Iraq say the news on this has been going on even before Petrayus came out regarding this, meaning it was already an international incident.

Have a good day and to hell with those of you celebrating the inflaming of people we are trying to turn to work with us.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 11, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

May God bless the victims of 9/11, the troops in harm's way, and all conscientious Americans.

And may the insidious despicable Republicans who seek to capitalize on 9/11 or the ginned-up fear of Muslims for profit or personal political gain go straight to hell along side of those who attacked us or seek to do us harm.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 11, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

May God bless the victims of 9/11, the troops in harm's way, and all conscientious Americans.

And may the insidious despicable Republicans who seek to capitalize on 9/11 or the ginned-up fear of Muslims for profit or personal political gain go straight to hell along side of those who attacked us or seek to do us harm.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 11, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

My first wife, an American girl as is my second and present wife, remains a very close friend. At my second wedding, performed by a JP in Greenwich, my ex was in attendance. This surprised the JP as in some 25 years of marriage ceremonies, it was the first instance where an ex of bride or groom was present.

For five years, five days a week, my ex would take the one hour trip via the LIR and subway links from her home on Long Island into Lower Manhattan to help first responders, still ill from the circumstances of that day, try to regain their health.

She won't be turning on the TV today and nor will I. The remembrance of that day has become a vehicle for the fomenting of hatred and for a deeply crass and cynical grab for power.

We're now frighteningly far into an Orwellian world where permanent war is the paradigm "reality" and where the necessary hatred is inculcated with daily broadcasts and where true "patriotism" is measured by one's adherence to this paradigm and to one's enthusiasm in screaming as loud as others at the evil up on the screen.

Disgust and fear are my two emotions today.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 11, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

@Bernie...

"Disgust and fear are my two emotions today."

I hear you Bernie! Alas I must confess disgust and fear have been overriding emotions for me for awhile now. They peaked the night before last resulting in intemperate remarks on my part...and as you accurately pointed out Bernie...in me "taking the bait"

With Interpol, CIA, FBI, and law enforcement agencies around the world working on stopping the jihadist's next terrorist attack...while I realize they are not perfect I literally feel less fear of an attack from an Islamic terrorist than I do from a domestic terrorist. After all they are already amongst us, can easily blend in, and they are already all over the place, including btw on this blog, talking about 2nd Amendment solutions. When a Senate candidate talks about 2nd Amendment solutions we have passed into the land of morons. How can this country even consider a person talking about 2nd amendment solutions as a serious candidate.

While the idiots are running around, prompted by scum like Newt" the cheating hypocrite" Gingrich..worrying about Sharia...I'm worried far more about a Christian theocracy that is attempting to rule our lives. Mike Huckabee..a seemingly nice guy...a former minister..and a leading R presidential contender (almost won the nomination last time) is braying about how the Bible supercedes the Constitution. Logic would seem to dictate that the Muslims who comprise less than 3% of our population are not a threat to impose Sharia...can the same be said of the aggressive Christians in our nation. Do you really fear Muslims and Sharia more than Pat Robertson and Biblical rule.

Sorry to be so long...but yes Bernie...I'm with you..."Disgust and fear are my two emotions today."

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

You could mention that the address and conference were deeply partisan, divisive, details dishonest, and demogogic. Summary:

Q: How do you change the tone in Washington?

A: It's the Republicans' fault. They are what is wrong with Washington. I know there arue issues on which people genuinely disagree, but I can't think of any. On all these issues they are just acting in bad faith for political gain and to hurt me.

Q: Is there a way to compromise on taxes?

A: No. These Republicans want to give away hundreds of millions of working people's hard earned money to millionaires a.d billionaires. Those are the only people whose taxes would go up--millionaires and billionaires who've stolen enough from we common working a d middle class folks and don't need any more. I mean, what does John Boehner think, that his billionaire buddies and sugar daddies don't have enough cash to light their big fat cigars while they laugh at starving orphans?

Q: Isn't the economy going to hurt Democrats?

A: Only if Americans are stupid. This whole mess was caused by tax cuts and abolition of consumer protection and deficits. Everybody knows that is what made the government create the junk mortgage market and kept us from tightening up on Fannie and Freddie. And these guys are just offering the same old stuff. We've given the country huge new spending programs, taken over health care and insurance, and we're going to raise taxes on employers, the millionaires and billionaires who are the people keeping us down. These are the new and fresh ideas we need to grow the economy and get us moving again. Cuz that's what Democrats beloved in. The most important thing isn't more government programs but creating jobs with more government spending, more regulations, and taxes on emplo . . . I mean millionaires and billionaires.

In closing, I'd just like to say, don't blame me. Blame Bush and Boehner and their millionaire and billionaire buddies. I mean, what the hell is wrong with you people! Can't you see that I've got people skills!?

May God bless America, except for the millionaires and billionaires and their Republican cronies, who are always trying to treat me like a a dog.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Mike

Imbecilic, insulting, and a lie in the bargain is closer.

As a toss off stunt it shows your lack of seriousness.

As an accusation it shows you have a disturbing lack of understanding of your neighbor and your country, combined with a deep disdain for those that don't share your politics (as if that were truly important on this journey).

As in indicator of character, and good faith, it shows you're probably not to be trusted.

And yet, in a pinch, it would probably be my ass or someone like me to defend you.

I expect no reciprocity from you. You are the mirror of those you hate.

Posted by: tao9 | September 11, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry Mike, you crossed a rhetorical bridge.

Ascribing the majority (and that is exaxctly and heedlessly what you did, it's not only one party that "inflame(s)" the radicals) of American citizens as sympathetic to the non-entity in FL is astonishingly insulting and juvenile.

I think you shot off your mouth and are presently backfilling.

I think you are a liar.

nb.: Say a prayer today

Posted by: tao9 | September 11, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Right, mike, that would be less pathetically unconvincing if your comment had been out of character for you.

Unfortunately, it was not. It didn't change my opinion of you in the least.

And, no, I won't be policing right-wing excess, just like I didn't bother to respond to your jack@ass comment. I responded to tao and ru.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Right right guys. And I'm not backing off a damn thing. I purposely baited you imbeciles because if you look at the beginning of the last thread where I posted that the usual villiage idiots continued on with their cries to cheering on the Koran burning and calling Dems terrorist sympathizers and being on the side of those trying to kill our troops.

You are both full of it. Every day I see scumbags on the right here calling Dems pro-terrorist, anti American and you two are silent. You were silent when scum like bildge would do it daily, and you are still silent when others on a daily baiss continue.

And now you suddenly have a streak of nobility when the generalities are pointed in your direction.

Spare me the faux outrage. If I had seen either of you speak out against those that lash at Dems on a daily basis that would be one thing but your silence is acceptance.

Sometimes it takes shock to get someone to pay attention to what the heck is being said here sometimes.

Have a great day you phony patriots.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 11, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

"Logic would seem to dictate that the Muslims who comprise less than 3% of our population are not a threat to impose Sharia...can the same be said of the aggressive Christians in our nation. Do you really fear Muslims and Sharia more than Pat Robertson and Biblical rule."

Not just fickle but daff.

Here at PL, manning the country's defenses against jihadists who've been murdering and attacking us for years is appealing to the most base emotions in the most unAmerican way. And showing concern about the nascent but real imposition of sharia restrictions in our country, following on the heels of its infiltration of Eureopean societies, is lunacy.

But we should really fear Christians, who've been a majority of the population since before we were a country. The public influence of Christianity is still being aggressively erased and forbidden in the U.S., but liberals find it reasonable to be very afraid of impending "theocracy."

That, of course, isn't an irrational and degrading appeal to "our worst instincts." No fearmongering there, nor divisiveness.

Too funny.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Ethan2010 and share his disgust with Republican politicians capitalizing on 9/11.

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20100911/NEWS01/9110317/Fundraiser-sparks-spat

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 11, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

yada, yada, mike. It kind of kills your argument that I didn't respond to your (typically) vile nonsense, nor did Scott. I am responsible for no one but myself and for sure am not here to police right wingers. Hint: I don't even read a lot of it.

I've never been here to play thread nanny, and I normally ignore lots of unworthwhile commenters of all stripes, including you. You've been a gutter commenter since I can remember you being here. And to me that makes you mostly irrelevant.

The ultimate problem for you is that the comment threads speak for themselves, so you can bs all you want but can't change what people have seen with their own eyes.

So keep digging your hole, by all means.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse


The truth of the situation is that Obama IGNORED the economy for so long - treated the economy like it was going to get in the way of his ego and his "big things" - that he has no credibility left on the economy.

Like the Iraq speech, instead of being a man and admitting he was wrong on the Surge - Obama starts to talk about the economy.


Even worse- I don't like how Obama played politics with National Security and the War on Terror.


The war in Iraq IS a part of the War on Terror - even today. Obama - in order to gain political advantage and nothing else - decided to DIVIDE THIS COUNTRY AND RISK OUR NATIONAL SECURITY - by DIVIDING THIS NATION IN ITS RESOLVE IN THE WAR ON TERROR.


Bush did not FULLY support Bush in the War on Terror - this is an UNFORGIVABLE RISK TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY - and risks encouraging our enemies and encouraging them to kill more Americans.


I am 100% opposed to creating DIVISIVE conditions in this country concerning NATIONAL SECURITY - and that is what Obama has done.


All this "I am against Iraq, but not the War on Terror" was BULL - to gain political advantage at the expense of our national security.


NOW Obama wants to "CUT AND RUN" from Afghanistan - giving our enemies a pull-out date - and risking American lives AGAIN>


Weakness in National Security can not be tolerated - and that is what we get from Obama.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 9:02 AM


Your comment is a disgrace to America.


You do not respect Freedom of Thought.

Furthermore, you FAIL to realize that the democrats - after voting for the Iraq War - sought to divide this nation for POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.


The democratic party did this WHILE THERE WERE TROOPS FIGHTING IN THE FIELD.


I find that the most horrible thing I have seen in my life - the people who cared only about the overnight poll numbers of the democrats and made the Iraq War effort and efforts to stablize that country a political football are the worse kind of human beings on Earth.

Your comments are VILE.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Have a great day you phony patriots.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 11, 2010 10:52 AM
-------

I think you may be missing something, Mike. It's gray, lobed and wrinkled. It's usually attached to the upper end of the spinal cord.

But have a great day.

Posted by: Brigade | September 11, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

I'm sorry but are any of you watching the pictures on TV this morning?


YOU want a mosque down there??

We are still in a WARTIME situation.

You can't end a war by ignoring it.


And you can't get smarter by ignoring the truth.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

AND the television has video of the muslims CELEBRATING on 9/11 - that the Twin Towers were down.


Their main feeling was their opposition to all the money and military support the US has given to ISRAEL.

Why won't anyone talk about that ????


That is a major problem in the Middle East.

The democrats used the Iraq War for political GAIN - and the comments today on this blog ARE VILE -

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

I believe that if you support the mosque at Ground Zero, you have so little respect for this country - and for the attack on this country -

that anything you say reflects so LITTLE judgement and so little REASONING ABILITY that you should not be taken seriously on any political issue at all ....


ever, for you whole life.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

What else is happening?

As reported by CNBC:

...For 25 years, legendary Wall Street strategist Byron Wien, now with The Blackstone Group, has held summer meetings with high net worth individuals to get their outlook on the global economy and investing. This year’s group, totaling fifty individuals and including more than 10 billionaires, was decidedly pessimistic on the U.S. economy, investment opportunities and the Obama administration.

“They saw the United States in a long-term slow growth environment with the near-term risk of recession quite real,” said Wien, in a commentary to Blackstone clients. “The Obama administration was viewed as hostile to business and that discouraged both hiring and investment. Companies and entrepreneurs were reluctant to add workers because they didn’t know what their healthcare costs or taxes were going to be.”.....

Are you happy now, JounoList?

Posted by: TECWRITE | September 11, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

This New York Imam - who made the statement this week that the US should be concerned about the reaction in the muslim world if the mosque at Ground Zero is stopped.


THAT WAS A THREAT


That was a TERRORISTIC THREAT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND AMERICAN CITIZENS.


THAT STATEMENT MAKES THE NEW YORK IMAM A TERRORIST.


PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

“They saw the United States in a long-term slow growth environment with the near-term risk of recession quite real,” said Wien, in a commentary to Blackstone clients. “The Obama administration was viewed as hostile to business and that discouraged both hiring and investment. Companies and entrepreneurs were reluctant to add workers because they didn’t know what their healthcare costs or taxes were going to be.”.....

Posted by: TECWRITE | September 11, 2010 12:04 PM

...................

If that is what they feel is stopping them from restoring the economy, then why did it collapse under Bush, when those Fat Cats were getting everything done their way, in the White House?
................

I always love it when the Arsonists start to blame the Fire Fighters.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

And may the insidious despicable Republicans who seek to capitalize on 9/11 or the ginned-up fear of Muslims for profit or personal political gain go straight to hell along side of those who attacked us or seek to do us harm.

Posted by: Ethan2010 9:02 AM


___________________________________

Obviously this same principle can be applied to the democrats and Obama who sought to capitalize on the Iraq War - and leave our troops in the field while efforts were underway to stabilize Iraq.


The democrats wanted to leave Iraq before it was stabilized properly.


Mr. Ethan has a vile, horrible Partisan view of life -

I think scientists might be interested in examining his brain for what is wrong.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Ted Koppel is correct, sadly:

"The goal of any organized terrorist attack is to goad a vastly more powerful enemy into an excessive response. And over the past nine years, the United States has blundered into the 9/11 snare with one overreaction after another. Bin Laden deserves to be the object of our hostility, national anguish and contempt, and he deserves to be taken seriously as a canny tactician. But much of what he has achieved we have done, and continue to do, to ourselves. Bin Laden does not deserve that we, even inadvertently, fulfill so many of his unimagined dreams."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090904735.html?hpid=topnews

Osama bin Laden understands the United States better than Americans do. That's why he's still alive and we are in never-ending wars.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 11, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

While we remember the victims of 9/11, on this day,

Do not forget to remember those thousands of US Troops who have also lost their lives, and we should never forget the far greater number of Troops, who have returned from Iraq, with wounds that have ruined their lives, and the lives of their families.

I see that John Bolton is going to be addressing the rabble today, and I think to myself; So this is the person that President Bush felt was the best he could find to be our Ambassador to the world, at the UN?.

Will his special envoy to the Muslim nations, Karen Hughes, show up to address the rabble also? After all, she already wrote an op-ed piece, agreeing with Newt and Bolton.

John Bolton, Karen Hughes, and Newt Gingrich are: Bin Laden's Three Best Friends.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"We're now frighteningly far into an Orwellian world where permanent war is the paradigm "reality"..."

Oh my. Spare us the purple prose, Bernie.

If you actually believed this lunacy, you'd be (or at least ought to be) advocating those infamous "second amendment solutions" we've heard tell about in order to help rescue the nation from this "Orwellian world". As it is, you are obviously content to run your little shop, play golf, and pass the rest of your spare time posting your sage thoughts on a moderately trafficked blog. Which I think tells us a little something about how seriously even you take this apocalyptic nonsense.

The only difference between you and the whacked out people who stockpile weapons and food in an underground bunker waiting for Obama to seize dictatorial control of the nation is that they are actually sincere about the loony things they say. You are just propagandizing.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 11, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Well Pastor Jones of Florida has stood down.


Do we see the same RESPECT AND RESTRAINT from the New York Imam???

OR is the New York Imam THREATENING the US with more terrorist attacks if his mosque project is not built ???

Which is it, all you liberals who think this New York Imam and Daily Khan are such peace-loving and bridge-building creeps ?


,

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

STRF

You can make the same argument against General Petraeus and Defense Secretary Gates, since they also warned that burning The Qurans, would put Americans, including our Troops, in greater danger.

You are now actually accusing those two men, of threating America.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

edit:

threatening America...

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

From the Department of Understatement:

"Tax Cuts May Prove Better for Politicians Than for Economy"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/economy/11tax.html?src=busln

And, Bernie, even Orwell could not have imagined the pernicious grasp that Greed and Gluttony have on this country.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 11, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

STRF, formerly known as 37th&OStreet on the Fix, makes a career of being a friend to the friendless. He'll defend crazy pastors who shoot from the lip and crazy tea partiers carrying "n*ggar" hating signs. He defends gun toting loonies and every kind of antisocial human put on this earth, as long as they are right wing. And why, you might ask? Well,his defense boils down to relativism. The other side is crazier (hence the imam reference). When all else fails he resorts to violence in the inner cities which he finds to be the fault of blacks, so in his narrow world, that explains EVERYTHING.

If you read STRF very often, your head will feel like it is going to explode because he is busy with his crazy making it feels contagious. I'll probably get banned for saying this, but if you have any doubt check the archives at the Fix for his crazy spamming, where Chris Cillizza himself could not control him.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

'The public influence of Christianity is still being aggressively erased and forbidden in the U.S., but liberals find it reasonable to be very afraid of impending "theocracy."'

Yeah, we're just irationally paranoid. Maybe you should talk to George Tiller's widow:

"....this past Tuesday, the FBI arrested 26-year old Christian radical Justin Carl Moose in Concord, NC for “providing information to create explosives” to “blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic.” Through his conversations with an FBI informant and his Facebook page, Moose expressed virulent “anger at abortion doctors, President Barack Obama’s health care plan, and plans to build a mosque near ground zero in New York city.” He goes on to describe himself as “the Christian counterpart to Osama bin Laden” who “has learned a lot from the muslim terrorists and have no problem using their tactics”:......

...Moose is self-attested member of “Army of God,” an “underground network of domestic terrorists who believe that the use of violence is appropriate and accetable as a means to end abortion.” According to its manual, the group’s purpose is to “officially declare war on the entire child killing industry.” Believing that “Our Most Dread Sovereign Lord God requires” bloodshed, members “are forced to take arms against” abortion clinics in which “execution is rarely gentile [sic].”...

....In a post taunting the federal authorities monitoring him, he told “all the feds watching me: You can’t stop what is in motion. Even if you bring me in, my men will continue their mission. Furthermore, I will not go peacefully. Do you really want another Waco?”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/10/christian-bin-laden/

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat,

Maybe Mr. Moose should link up with JakeD who will advise him how to beat the charges because, don't cha know, sedition is protected under the First Amendment. In fact, Jake could even be his attorney. Moose and Jake, what a pair. Sounds like a road movie.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Wow. So much bitterness in the comments.

I'll just say this: a nation is made up of people. It's not a piece of real estate; it's not a scrap of cloth. It's the people who belong to it that make a nation.

Ergo, hating your fellow citizens, as several of you clearly do, is the equal of hating the nation. It is the opposite of patriotism. By the same token, these Randian notions some of you cling to are expressly anti-patriotic, as they elevate the individual above all else and assume that the individual's merit is his and his alone, occuring in a vacuum with no outside help from anyone, and therefore no debt owed to anyone. We all know that Randism is the adolescent fantasy of the emotionally stunted, but I'm sure some of the more dull-witted among you is asking himself, "ok, but anti-patriotic? Where are you getting that?" Here's where: if the individual can truly succeed to the fullest only when fully unencumbered by rules, regulations, and what is fair to other people, then there is no need for a nation; indeed, the concept of a "nation" is antithetical to the ultimate expression of Randism. Patriotism means exaltation of the nation; therefore Randism is unpatriotic and by extension, so are its adherants.

So suck on that, bufords.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 11, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

This New York Imam - who made the statement this week that the US should be concerned about the reaction in the muslim world if the mosque at Ground Zero is stopped.


THAT WAS A THREAT


That was a TERRORISTIC THREAT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND AMERICAN CITIZENS.


THAT STATEMENT MAKES THE NEW YORK IMAM A TERRORIST.


PLAIN AND SIMPLE.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

S'sCat...Thanks for that post on yet another Christian terrorist. It's time to just admit it. All religions..with the possible exception of Buddhism field plenty of terrorists. And you are correct in pointing out what may be the most ignorant sentence of the day if you of course do not count any of STRF's posts which are basically nothing but rambling ignorance.

"'The public influence of Christianity is still being aggressively erased and forbidden in the U.S., but liberals find it reasonable to be very afraid of impending "theocracy."'

"THE PUBLIC INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY IS STILL BEING AGGRESSIVELY ERASED AND FORBIDDEN IN THE U.S."

This is so far beyond simply hyperbole it's just jaw dropping!!!! Do we suppose this poster has never lived in the U.S. or perhaps they simply keep their head so far up their arse they can't see or hear what is actually going on around them. Hard to really know.

Christians have their own Network(s)..and other Networks like Fox to do their bidding with religious revivals hosted by Glen Beck and Sister Sarah. Pat Robertson gets away with the mind boggling insensitivity to proclaim that 9/11 was really OUR FAULT..because we don't live as Pat Robertson would have us...where is the outrage. Where is all the Republican disgust at such incredible insensitivity.

Basically what this poster believes is that anybody who doesn't accept this poster's religious beliefs being crammed down their throat is somehow a liberal trying to AGGRESSIVELY ERASE...Christianity in our country!

The ignorance of this post is simply astounding!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

First comes: "Ergo, hating your fellow citizens, as several of you clearly do, is the equal of hating the nation."

Then we read: "By the same token, these Randian notions some of you cling to are expressly anti-patriotic"

Along with: "We all know that Randism is the adolescent fantasy of the emotionally stunted"

And: "I'm sure some of the more dull-witted among you".

Then there's: "So suck on that, bufords."

Thank goodness these statements steer clear of the unpatriotic act of hating your fellow citizens. I feel your love!  Salud!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 11, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"Yeah, we're just irationally paranoid. Maybe you should talk to George Tiller's widow"

Do you know the difference between a lone wacko and "theocracy"?

Envirnonmental wacko James Lee explicitly said he was awakened to his need to exterminate humans by Al Gore.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/

What kind of -ocracy are we in danger of as a result? Do you feel even more threatened, given that this creed requires global genocide?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Some great news on an otherwise depressing day. All Floridians are not wack!

Rick Scott raises just $43,000 after primary; Alex Sink pulls in $525,000!

Who wants to give money to a multimillionaire? Not too many people, apparently.

In the first glimpse of fundraising after the primary election, Democrat Alex Sink has taken a large lead over Republican Rick Scott, her wealthy opponent for governor.

Sink, Florida's chief financial officer, announced a $525,000 haul during the 10-day period after the Aug. 24 primary, while Scott raised $43,000 — less than several down-ballot candidates. The figures show Sink with about $5 million on hand, compared with $224,000 for Scott.

A former health care executive, Scott and his wife poured $50 million of their own wealth into his primary battle with Attorney General Bill McCollum. In the days since, he has said he is reluctant to spend more on the general election.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/rick-scott-raises-just-43000-after-primary-alex-sink-pulls-in-525000/1120814

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

@12BarBlues: Moose and Jake, what a pair. Sounds like a road movie.

Yeah, I think it would go something like this (except, of course, they would never in a million years pick up the hispanic family by the side of the road):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrbKn5boVPA

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

@JennofArk...

You go girl. That was as fine a take down of Randism as I've seen in awhile. Of course the libertarians who infect our blog are not bright enough to follow...and the 2nd Amendment wackos like Jake D and STRF...well what can I say that hasn't already been said?

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrbKn5boVPA
--------------------------------
Hilarious. I think the passenger must be Jake. They both have this trait, oh how can I phrase it?, the trait of saying they want to kill someone but, oh, don't take that seriously. It's all a Joke.

How about the fake widow's peak on the truck.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Troll...finally we agree on something as indicated by your last post. You consider yourself a "buford"...Amen to that brother!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

STRF posts mostly the same rant, over and over.
It is the worst case of Typerette's Syndrome, that I have ever encountered. Did he always double and triple space, between sentences, to try and puff up the size of his dung heap, or did he contract that Space Out malady from Jan, I can't even express my own notes, Brewer?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

"Typerette's Syndrome" Good one Liam! LMAO

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

S'sCat I had forgotten that scene from Dumb & Dumber...it made me roll all over again.
Thanks. And yes you are correct...these posters would never stop to pick up an Hispanic family....unless of course it was to check their papers.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

President Barack Obama told voters repeatedly during the health care debate that the overhaul legislation would bring down fast-rising health care costs and save them money. Now, he's hemming and hawing on that.

____________________________


Two words to the democrats: OBAMA LIED.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"Do you know the difference between a lone wacko and "theocracy"?"

Yes, I do...do you?

A theocracy is a theocracy...whether it is imposed by fundamentalist Muslims or fundamentalist Christians. I don't want either thank you very much.

Muslims compose a tiny portion of our population and hold next to no political power. Can the same be said of Christian fundamentalists?

I currently am unable to buy liquor on Sundays.....is that because of Muslims? There was a stink in our local school district over Harry Potter books....was that because of Muslims? The fundamentalists fighting to teach intelligent design in our classrooms....are they Muslim? The people fighting to close down reproductive health centers and the pharmacists refusing to fill lawfully issued prescriptions....are they Muslim?

Trust me when I say that I am no fan of Muslim theocracies - their human rights records, their treatment of women are appalling and disgusting - but currently it's the Christian fundamentalists who are the biggest threat to me and my freedom. When fundamentalist Muslims own a house a few blocks from the Capitol where several Senators and Reps live - well, then I guess I'll start to worry.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

To the democrats:


Americans learned one thing from Bill Clinton: A deception is the same thing as a lie.

I am going to call Obama a LIAR again - because it's true.


Obama KNOWS there is caselaw concerning Freedome of Religion - and Obama KNOWS that if there is a "compelling interest" there is an except to the First Amendment.

In this case - ALL of Obama's statements on the mosque at Ground Zero are deceptive and lies.

Obama is REFUSING to tell the American People the truth - that the caselaw allows for an exception to the First Amendment.

Ironically, Obama is hiding behind the First Amendment in order to side with a bunch of muslims - one of which made terroristic statements last week.

The American People are SICK of this kind of politics.


The American People keep on attempting to communicate with the left - the left responds with ARROGANCE, NAME-CALLING AND HATRED.


The left even came up with a new word for bigot and racist: Islamphobe. That is just another democratic attempt to sterotype and hate people. Plain and simple. Let me be clear.


GIVE THE COUNTRY A BREAK - NO ONE IS BUYING THIS CRAP.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

George W. Bush told voters repeatedly, that he was going to conduct a modest foreign policy, and not engage in nation building abroad.

He also told voters repeatedly ,that his Tax Cuts For Fat Cats would create jobs, and balance the budget.

Yes he did, and No he didn't.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

JennOfArk:

"By the same token, these Randian notions some of you cling to..."

I'm curious...which "Randian notions" are you referring to?

Also, as an aside, do you "cling" to your notions, or is "clinging" reserved only for notions of which you disapprove?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 11, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

S'sCat...great post at 2:03PM. As they say..WORD!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

President Barack Obama told voters repeatedly during the health care debate that the overhaul legislation would bring down fast-rising health care costs and save them money. Now, he's hemming and hawing on that.


____________________________

Two words to the democrats: OBAMA LIED.

.

For all you people who carried signs saying the "Bush lied" - when Bill Clinton also said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction -


Don't you all feel like complete idiots now ???

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Don't you all feel like complete idiots now ???

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 2:09 PM

.................

No; you have captured that Trophy in perpetuity.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm curious...which "Randian notions" are you referring to?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 11, 2010 2:06 PM |

............

Those that Rand Paul has espoused, or perhaps; Arsehole Shrugged?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues - you and your liberal friends destroyed the discussion on the Fix - no one else.


Your hateful language - and constant taunting contributed to the negative atmosphere.


It is clear that the liberals did not want to have constructive conversation - only name-calling, mocking and hate.


YOU can blame them.


I constantly advocated having people tone down their attitude.

If anyone does not believe me, the archives are there - in full view - for anyone to go back and see EXACTLY what the liberals were doing - going back two years to the beginning of 2008.

It is that plain and simple - you can blame others as much as you want - in fact you are continuing to peddle your hatred on this blog - trying to stir up negative feelings against other posters.


Attempting to stir up a negative atmosphere against another poster is clearly against the rules of civil discussion.


It is unfortunate that you have decided to come onto this blog and do this several times already.


It is your fault that the Fix has less disccusion - you personally contributed. And your band of liberal friends too - so stop trying to blame others.


AND what is worse - YOU are trying to bring your negative attitude toward other posters over to this blog.


Anyone can review the archives if they don't believe me - I invite everyone to read what the liberals did to the Fix.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Liam:

"George W. Bush told voters repeatedly, that he was going to conduct a modest foreign policy, and not engage in nation building abroad."

Indeed he did. And indeed he failed to do so. Here are some others you didn't mention.

“Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, campaigning in 1940

"We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves. " - Lyndon Baines Johnson, campaigning in 1964

"I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that." - Barrack Hussein Obama, campaigning in 2008

Sometimes events intervene to make campaign promises moot.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 11, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"The ignorance of this post is simply astounding!"

Says the sage who says we should be afraid of impending Christian theocracy.

I aware that you are generally ignorant of such matters as court decisions relevant to this question. But you might at least have at least heard of, for example, U.S. District Judge Vaughan Walker, who "found":

"Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are
sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and
lesbians."

Sound like impending theocracy? Or is it an example of the steady push to marginalize, delegitimize, and erase Christianity in the public sphere?

What do you think the implications of this are? Suppose SCOTUS upholds his findings. If mere religious beliefs "harm" gays, how can the state allow them to be held, let alone expressed?

Perhaps you should look up the ongoing case of the graduate student at Georgia State whom the state school is trying to force to recant her traditionally Christian views on homosexuality in order to continue her degree program in counseling. Do you think Christians should be allowed to receive degrees and licensing in counseling and psychology? Many officials, academics, and "professional" groups do not. Theocracy on the rise?

There are innumerable such examples, but you are probably ignorant of them since you don't appear to get information from any sources but left-wing opinion outlets. I'm not going to bother trying to educate you, since that is always a hopeless task.

But perhaps you could explain how a lone wacko constitutes impending "theocracy." That was your claim. How do you feel about envrionmental religionists like Al Gore inspiring terrorists? Are they about to take over government?

Or perhaps you'd like to play Ethan's game again. Let's see how you do:

Anyone who thinks that our representative government can be a theocracy is either certifiably insane or simply hates American democracy.

Agree or disagree?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Scott.

How did Iraq Invasion, Occupation, and Nation Building intervene. Nothing had changed there, from when Bush made his campaign promise, from when he abandoned the pursuit of Bin Laden to go Nation Building in Iraq?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"So suck on that, bufords."

That being the giant, reeking straw man of "Randian" menace you concocted?

And, yes, as Troll pithily illustrated, your screed is comically hypocritical.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3

Bush did reverse himself on nation-building - but only because of the situation.


The democrats FAIL to say that the elder Bush allowed Saddam to stay in power - AND THAT POLICY DID NOT WORK.


Saddam continued to not cooperate with UN inspections - and there was an assassination plot against the elder Bush.

OK - what would the democrats say if there was a foreign leader who tried to assassinate Obama???

The democrats seem to claim that Saddam and the rest of his crew were a bunch of boy scouts helping old ladies across the street -


The democrats refuse to say that Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people -


The THREAT that Saddam would link up with terrorists to get chemical weapons INTO THE US WAS TOO GREAT.

The democrats seem to be saying that they would PREFER A CHEMCIAL ATTACK ON AMERICANS IN A US CITY.

Bush's mistake was to NOT push back against these STUPID DEMOCRATIC STATEMENTS.


The anti-Iraq people have said some pretty idiotic things -


And the desire to leave Iraq BEFORE it was stabilized - and trying to characterize that as a "loss" - as Harry Reid did - is TREASON.


When there is a War - and Congress VOTED FOR THE WAR which it did - aiding the enemy is TREASON.


.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Iraq was being handled in the very same manner, when Bush2 was running for President, as how his father set it up to be handled. Nothing had changed, and Bush2 did not tell the American People that he did not agree with how things were being handled, and that he intended to invade and overthrow Iraq. He said that he was going to avoid nation building.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

""Do you know the difference between a lone wacko and "theocracy"?"

Yes, I do...do you?"

Perhaps you should not have cited a lone wacko, then, as proof of rising "theocracy."

"I currently am unable to buy liquor on Sundays.....is that because of Muslims?"

Well, no. If it were up to Muslims we would have prohibition.

Most states have abolished Sunday liquor laws. The rest probably will, too.

So is the malign influence of "that old-time religion" waxing or waning?

"There was a stink in our local school district over Harry Potter books....was that because of Muslims?'

Wouldn't know, but more likely the Islamists would just ban it outright and issue a murder fatwa.

I'm guessing Harry Potter got into school despite the Christian terrorists, and no one was killed.

"The fundamentalists fighting to teach intelligent design in our classrooms....are they Muslim?"

What is taught in science crosses in every public school in the country, Darwin or Genesis?

How many schools even allow creation beliefs or intelligent design theories to be mentioned?

"The people fighting to close down reproductive health centers and the pharmacists refusing to fill lawfully issued prescriptions....are they Muslim?"

So you think that pharmacists should be required to dispense abortion pills that violate their consciences? Why aren't you just proving my point rather than yours?

I'd like to see you make the case that our laws and policies are more influenced by Christianity today than 50 or 100 or 200 yars ago.

But of course, it's a fatuous notion on its face.


Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama was "too boring, substantive and unemotional". LOL! Just the way I like my politicians.

The great thing about O is that he can burn his fire blue and he can burn it red. Folks seem to get hung up on the red and don't give the blue enough credit. Plus, it was a "presser"-not usually the place for heavy emotion, in contrast to the campaign speeches.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 11, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Heh! Heavy on the "I know you are but what am I?" and accusations of "strawmen" and "hypocrisy"; notably lacking in counterpoint.

Probably because it's irrefutable: Randism is inherently unpatriotic, as are its adherants.

Suck it again, bufords.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 11, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

President Barack Obama told voters repeatedly during the health care debate that the overhaul legislation would bring down fast-rising health care costs and save them money. Now, he's hemming and hawing on that.


____________________________________


Just wait until the REAL COSTS are in.


Provided that a Court doesn't stop Obamacare, or there is a repeal, the costs of Obama's health care plan are going to SKYROCKET.


We are talking 2 to 3 TRILLION DOLLARS.


The democrats never wants to talk about the costs during the debate - they were too busy making false charges of racism to be bothered with the costs.

It is clear that the democratic party is the MOST FINANCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION IN HUMAN HISTORY.


It is UNPRECENDENT how financially irresponsible Obama is.

The American People would be wise to stop these people before they destroy the nation.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse


Obama was "too boring, substantive and unemotional". LOL! Just the way I like my politicians.

The great thing about O is that he can burn his fire blue and he can burn it red. Folks seem to get hung up on the red and don't give the blue enough credit. Plus, it was a "presser"-not usually the place for heavy emotion, in contrast to the campaign speeches.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 11, 2010 2:59 PM

....................

The Empty Talking Heads, and The Vapid Pundits lament that President Obama does not communicate with the people like this guy does.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhV5RgcNJjE

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Save The Rainforest thinks it's the liberals who ruined the Fix. Notice that HE is the one who has been blocked on the Fix. I have no trouble posting over there.

STRF is now proceeding to spam this blog just like he did on the Fix. Nothing new, nothing different, except that he has added the New York imam to the long list of brown and black skinned people who are the source of all problems according to STRF.

As STRF gets more and more strung out, his use of CAPTIAL letters and

spacing will be exaggerated.


.


.

Typerette's Syndrome. I'll have to report that back on the Fix. They'll get a big laugh. Good one.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

"Probably because it's irrefutable: Randism is inherently unpatriotic, as are its adherants."

Wow, you spout some dopey nonsense. You didn't identify a position espoused by anyone who comments here. You just described anarchy, called it "Randism," and said it is unpatriotic.

Here's a similarly "irrefutable" assertion: Communism is inherently unpatriotic, as are its adherants!

Btw, this:

"Patriotism means exaltation of the nation"

Is a pretty bad definition.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

STFR (Salvage The Brain Stem?)

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Notice the continuing lack of counterfactual example.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 11, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"Notice the continuing lack of counterfactual example."

Of? Do you even know what you are trying to say?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest was possibly a cute baby who smiled at his mother.

You just never know how things are going to unfold.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 11, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Percentage breakdown by US gun deaths in 2004, by type:

* 16,750 suicides (56% of all U.S. gun deaths)
* 11,624 homicides (40%)
* 649 unintentional shootings, 311 from legal intervention and 235 from undetermined intent (4%).

That averages out to 81 people dying everyday from guns. And also some gun ownership stats:

More than 100 million handguns are owned in the United
States primarily for self‐defense, and 3.5 million people have permits to carry concealed handguns for protection. Currently, the population of the U.S. is around 300 million people.

..................

And here we thought that Right Wingers were against helping people to take their own lives.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

In a thoughtful post on "intellectual" honesty, Yglesias makes another point worth attending to - who we ought to bother spending our time reading and why...

"The whole thing to me really seems like a kind of cop-out. How hard would it really be for an editor to put out a help wanted add saying “I want to pay you a bunch of money to write coherent English sentences without lying?” Talk about a low bar! When I read books or articles or columns or blogs, what I’m looking for is writers who I learn from. Dahlia Lithwick is a good columnist (and so is Michael Kinsley) because she’s usually persuasive and accurate on interesting subjects not because she’s “honest.”

I guess people feel that admitting that accuracy has some relevance would be to merely encourage cocooning. But people who are serious about learning-to-read will still try to avoid this. Ross Douthat, Tyler Cowen, and David Frum are all people I tend to disagree with but you still learn from reading them. But that’s because they, like the liberal writers I like, make some persuasive and accurate points on important subjects. Honesty’s great, but it’s a terribly low bar to clear."
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/intellectual-honesty/

Now, obviously this has a broad application but it applies maybe even more acutely right here. Read for the purpose of learning rather than, for example, to get into a rumble.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 11, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse


SaveTheRainforest was possibly a cute baby who smiled at his mother.

You just never know how things are going to unfold.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 11, 2010 3:37 PM

..................

Or; far more likely, that as a newborn, he had to be rescued from dumpsters, by bag ladies, on several occassions.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I want to give credit to Emo Philips for the bag lady line, since I heard him say that he had a special warm spot in his heart for bag ladies, because, when he was a baby, they rescued him from Dumpsters, several times.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"Perhaps you should not have cited a lone wacko, then, as proof of rising "theocracy."'

Why not? Your side is pretty content to parade one isolated event as evidence of the coming Muslim takeover.

"Well, no. If it were up to Muslims we would have prohibition."

Where in my post did I say that Muslims were any better or less theocratic or that I would prefer them to run things? Your arguments basically boil down to "yeah, the Christians are trying to run your life - but, ya know, it could be worse!" How about if EVERYONE - Christians, Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, Scientologists, Wiccans - stop trying to impose their beliefs on me and my children?

"What is taught in science crosses in every public school in the country, Darwin or Genesis?

How many schools even allow creation beliefs or intelligent design theories to be mentioned?"

Well, it's certainly not for a lack of trying. See Selman v. Cobb County School District and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. For added fun you could try : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings

Then, of course, you have my favorite of all: Don McElroy of the TX State School Board. He's against including Thomas Jefferson in history school books because of Jefferson's support for separation of church and state. I'll give you $5 if you can guess what religion he is and uses for a justification! (and I'll even give you a hint: he's not Muslim!).

"So you think that pharmacists should be required to dispense abortion pills that violate their consciences? "

In a perfect world, yes. I believe that it is a state granted PRIVILEGE to be a licensed pharmacist - not a right - and if you feel that you cannot in good conscience fulfill your duties then you should do something else for a living. Since it's not a perfect world, though, I think it's reasonable for someone to refuse to fill a prescription as long as there is another pharmacist available to handle the job. Berating, lecturing, or proselytizing to a patient in any way, though, should be immediate grounds for loss of license.

"I'd like to see you make the case that our laws and policies are more influenced by Christianity today than 50 or 100 or 200 yars ago. "

Is the US a more Christian nation today than 200 yrs ago? I don't know the answer to that. I think the intensity of religious movements ebbs and flows. While there have been other periods of religious fervor in this country, the merging of fundamentalist Christianity and rightwing politics beginning in the 20th century makes the LIKELIHOOD of Christian influence that much more likely and that much more dangerous. If we are not more theocratic today that is only because of the vigilance of groups such as the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Planned Parenthood, People for the American Way, etc. And with the Roberts Court, things could very quickly turn the other direction.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

@Jenn....LOL "Suck it again bufords"

I love it. I've actually given this matter some thought...trying to understand the mind of a libertarian..or perhaps their fantasy.

As has been said repeatedly and pointed out so well by you...libertarianism sounds like a plausible idea to some...can anybody name a LIBERTARIAN nation. Not really because as you point out Jenn...that would be an oxymoron..libertarians care only for THEIR version of freedom..and nothing for society at large.

I think this actually stems from our love with the taming of the Wild West. Some of our posters fantasize about the world of Jeremiah Johnson...Robert Redford's famous movie mountain man. He didn't need no stinkin government to tell him what to do or provide help or protection. The telling scene in that movie is when the U.S. Army commandeers Redford in an attempt to save settlers snowed in a Mountain pass...even though it goes against his better judgement..Redford (Jeremiah Johnson) decides to help. Can't imagine some of our posters helping..after all their stinkin freedom and ability to possess every penny they earn is far more important than their fellow Americans. After all aren't we all in this for ourselves?

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest was possibly a cute baby who smiled at his mother.

You just never know how things are going to unfold.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 11, 2010 3:37 PM

..................

Or; far more likely, that as a newborn, he had to be rescued from dumpsters, by bag ladies, on several occassions.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 3:47 PM


___________________________________

At least bernielatham has a sense of humor.


Liam is just mean.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

@Bernie: "You just never know how things are going to unfold."

LMAO!

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

President Barack Obama told voters repeatedly during the health care debate that the overhaul legislation would bring down fast-rising health care costs and save them money. Now, he's hemming and hawing on that.


____________________________


Two words to the democrats: OBAMA LIED.


.


For all you people who carried signs saying the "Bush lied" - when Bill Clinton also said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction -


Don't you all feel like complete idiots now ???


.
_____________________________________

Incredible that the REPUBLICANS are running on Obama's health care plan this year.


And the democrats are running far, far away from Obama's health care plan. The DNC is even advising democratic candidates to AVOID old health care talking points, because they have been PROVEN TO BE A BUNCH OF LIES.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat at 4:10 PM


Take your cat for instance, you just don't know if its dead or alive.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama's presser yesterday was way too boring, substantive and unemotional to produce an abrupt and massive enough turnaround in the polls to guarantee in advance that Dems hold their majority.


_____________________________________

Yea, but the American People are judging Obama's ACTIONS from now on.

Last September, Obama went before Congress, and told America that he didn't want the economy to interfere with his "big things" - "what he went to Washington for."


Well, the American People wanted attention to the Economy, not Obama's wacky "big things" that have to get undone now.

Everyone wants Obama out - even the democrats. Obama has proven he can not govern - and he lacks the ability to make proper decisions.


Obama is off on some ego trip - and telling us NOW what he should have done before - it just rings like someone telling us what we want to hear.

Obama's own ARROGANCE governed this first year and a half - and there is no reason that the same arrogance isn't going to hurt the nation again.


The democrats haven't learned either.


Obama seems to forget he is the President, and the democrats have the majority in Congress - he can't blame the Republicans anymore.


The party of blame ??? Is that what Obama wants to run on??


/

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

S'cat...excellent takedown at 4:06

If I may add just one thought. Here in the heart of lalaland Florida...there is rarely a day that goes by that posters to the St. Pete Times don't refer to the U.S. as a "Christian Nation" It's even happened at least once in this blog for a debate.

Of course that necessitates going to the google/wikipedia and finding the links to the Treaty of Tripoli..""As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"...and pointing out that quite a few of our Founding Fathers...Ben Franklin, James Madison and of course Tom Jefferson were not Christian but in fact Deists. Of course as you point out S'scat that got old Jefferson a severely diminished appearance in Texas history books. Was that NOT an egregious example of perverse Christianity invading our public schools in a most ignorant manner.

Question for all...have any of you heard of the United States being referred to as "Christian" nation?

Have any of you heard of the United States begin referred to as a Muslim nation...even by Muslims?

So yes by all means lets all prance around with Sharia signs while the Christians in Texas are literally dumbing down our textbooks because of THEIR Christian beliefs.

Much has been made of whether Romney can overcome the fact that he is a Morman in the R primaries...NOTHING has been said about Mike Huckabee's fundamentalist Christian beliefs and his statements about the Bible taking precedence over the Constitution. Yet one incident of a school not wishing to grant a COUNSELING diploma to a woman who demonizes gays as somehow an assault on her religion...or perhaps stated more accurately..."THE PUBLIC INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY IS STILL BEING AGGRESSIVELY ERASED AND FORBIDDEN IN THE U.S."

Yeah right...cases where schools don't wish to grant diplomas and states that don't wish to accredit counselors and professionals who are bigots who attribute their bigotry to THEIR Christian beliefs is "aggressively erasing" the influence of Christianity.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

James Fallows at the Atlantic points to a very interesting piece up at Stratfor by George Freidman...

"...What happened was that an act of terrorism was allowed to redefine U.S. grand strategy. The United States operates with a grand strategy derived from the British strategy in Europe — maintaining the balance of power. For the United Kingdom, maintaining the balance of power in Europe protected any one power from emerging that could unite Europe and build a fleet to invade the United Kingdom or block its access to its empire. British strategy was to help create coalitions to block emerging hegemons such as Spain, France or Germany. Using overt and covert means, the United Kingdom aimed to ensure that no hegemonic power could emerge.

The Americans inherited that grand strategy from the British but elevated it to a global rather than regional level. Having blocked the Soviet Union from hegemony over Europe and Asia, the United States proceeded with a strategy whose goal, like that of the United Kingdom, was to nip potential regional hegemons in the bud. The U.S. war with Iraq in 1990-91 and the war with Serbia/Yugoslavia in 1999 were examples of this strategy. It involved coalition warfare, shifting America’s weight from side to side and using minimal force to disrupt the plans of regional aspirants to gain power. This U.S. strategy also was cloaked in the ideology of global liberalism and human rights.

The key to this strategy was its global nature. The emergence of a hegemonic contender that could challenge the United States globally, as the Soviet Union had done, was the worst-case scenario. Therefore, the containment of emerging powers wherever they might emerge was the centerpiece of American balance-of-power strategy.

The most significant effect of 9/11 was that it knocked the United States off its strategy. Rather than adapting its standing global strategy to better address the counterterrorism issue, the United States became obsessed with a single region, the area between the Mediterranean and the Hindu Kush..." http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100907_911_and_9_year_war

My only contention here, but it is a serious one, is Freidman's omission in not stipulating the source of this strategy in the neoconservative community. This strategy he lays out above could have the important passages cut and pasted from the PNAC documents.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 11, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Save The Rainforest you are a total jackarse.

Stop the threadbombing already...

Understand you moron.

Stop double spacing.

It is wasting our time because

the vast majority of us

wish to avoid the Village Idiot!!!

But then you are proud of proving

what an incredibly ignorant and rude

arsehole you are.

Here's a deal. Reduce your double spacing

by 80%

and perhaps

we'll glance at your lunacy!!!

Really...you are being RUDE!!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

I looked at the Fix, you havent posted there, why not?

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"Yeah right...cases where schools don't wish to grant diplomas and states that don't wish to accredit counselors and professionals who are bigots who attribute their bigotry to THEIR Christian beliefs is "aggressively erasing" the influence of Christianity."

Here you have a perfect and unwitting admission of precisely the secular bigotry and assault of free exercise of religion I described.

This poster equates Christian doctrine with bigotry and believes orthodox christians should be barred from professional licensing. You and Judge Vaughan are peas in a pod.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

rukidding.


So now the liberals are defining the truth as LUNACY?


Is that your position ?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I don't like how Obama played politics with National Security and the War on Terror.


The war in Iraq IS a part of the War on Terror - even today. Obama - in order to gain political advantage and nothing else - decided to DIVIDE THIS COUNTRY AND RISK OUR NATIONAL SECURITY - by DIVIDING THIS NATION IN ITS RESOLVE IN THE WAR ON TERROR.


Bush did not FULLY support Bush in the War on Terror - this is an UNFORGIVABLE RISK TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY - and risks encouraging our enemies and encouraging them to kill more Americans.


I am 100% opposed to creating DIVISIVE conditions in this country concerning NATIONAL SECURITY - and that is what Obama has done.


All this "I am against Iraq, but not the War on Terror" was BULL - to gain political advantage at the expense of our national security.


NOW Obama wants to "CUT AND RUN" from Afghanistan - giving our enemies a pull-out date - and risking American lives AGAIN>


Weakness in National Security can not be tolerated - and that is what we get from Obama.

__________________________________

Obama is WEAK on national security issues -


Obama does not want to take a firm hand - and PREVENT terrorists from attacking innocent Americans.

Obama would prefer to wait until an attack happens - give the terrorist a lawyer - and then wait for some crazy liberal Judge to let the terrorist OFF.

People are still talking about getting rid of Gitmo - but the truth is no one wants the terrorists in their country -

So Obama wants to bring the terrorists to Illinois !!!!!

Isn't that hilarious?? The people of Illinois don't want the terrorists either. Obama thinks because he lived there for a few years - that now the people want his terrorists ?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"Just Asking

BY DAVID FOSTER WALLACE

Are some things still worth dying for? Is the American idea* one such thing? Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, “sacrifices on the altar of freedom”?* In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life—sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?..."
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/just-asking/6288/

Posted by: bernielatham | September 11, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

"As has been said repeatedly and pointed out so well by you...libertarianism sounds like a plausible idea to some...can anybody name a LIBERTARIAN nation. Not really because as you point out Jenn...that would be an oxymoron..libertarians care only for THEIR version of freedom..and nothing for society at large."

Meet libertarian jennofark:

"How about if EVERYONE - Christians, Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, Scientologists, Wiccans - stop trying to impose their beliefs on me and my children?"

except she sorta only believes in a little liberty for religious people, only up to where their beliefs have to be subject to hers:

"Since it's not a perfect world, though, I think it's reasonable for someone to refuse to fill a prescription as long as there is another pharmacist available to handle the job. Berating, lecturing, or proselytizing to a patient in any way, though, should be immediate grounds for loss of license."

You folks are incoherent. But you do hate consistently.


Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

I looked at the Fix, you havent posted there, why not?

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 4:51 PM
-----------------------------------
Well, just for you.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama is WEAK on national security issues -


Obama does not want to take a firm hand - and PREVENT terrorists from attacking innocent Americans.


Obama would prefer to wait until an attack happens - give the terrorist a lawyer - and then wait for some crazy liberal Judge to let the terrorist OFF.

.


___________________________________

I don't know how anyone can expect Obama to have a press conference the day before 9/11 and have Obama come out looking good.

IN OBAMA'S WORLD, we never invaded Iraq - which means Saddam would still be in power right now.


IN OBAMA'S WORLD, perhaps Saddam did transfer CHEMICAL WEAPONS to terrorists...

IN OBAMA'S WORLD, maybe the failed bombing last April in Times Square - had CHEMICAL WEAPONS - AND 3,000 PEOPLE COULD HAVE BEEN GASSED TO DEATH IN NEW YORK THIS APRIL.

Before you dream about how wonderful a world would be without the Iraq war, THINK ABOUT WHAT THE WORLD WOULD BE LIKE WITH SADDAM STILL RUNNING AROUND.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Aspirin is just a part of the evil scheme...

"Consider what the Limbaugh/Morano crowd is saying about climate: not only that that the world's scientists and scientific institutions are systematically wrong, but that they are purposefully perpetrating a deception. Virtually all the world's governments, scientific academies, and media are either in on it or duped by it. The only ones who have pierced the veil and seen the truth are American movement conservatives, the ones who found death panels in the healthcare bill.
It's a species of theater, repeated so often people have become inured, but if you take it seriously it's an extraordinary charge. For one thing, if it's true that the world's scientists are capable of deception and collusion on this scale, a lot more than climate change is in doubt. These same institutions have told us what we know about health and disease, species and ecosystems, energy and biochemistry. If they are corrupt, we have to consider whether any of the knowledge they've generated is trustworthy. We could be operating our medical facilities, economies, and technologies on faulty theories. We might not know anything! Here we are hip-deep in postmodernism and it came from the right, not the left academics they hate..." http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-09-the-rights-climate-denialism-is-part-of-something-much-larger/

Posted by: bernielatham | September 11, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

ps...on that last Grist piece, do read it all and (if you want to have the bejesus scared out of you) check the graphs included.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 11, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

bernie wrote: For one thing, if it's true that the world's scientists are capable of deception and collusion on this scale, a lot more than climate change is in doubt. These same institutions have told us what we know about health and disease, species and ecosystems, energy and biochemistry. If they are corrupt, we have to consider whether any of the knowledge they've generated is trustworthy. We could be operating our medical facilities, economies, and technologies on faulty theories. We might not know anything!
--------------------------------------
Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hence, the flouride-in-the-water-will-make-you-a-communist plot.

The only thing more ludicrous than thinking the entire scientific and worldwide governments are conspiring together (and successfully keeping that a secret) is believing that a blowhard scientific mental midget like Limbaugh would ferret out the real truth. Thank you very much, I'll bet on the scientific community, not the dropout and ADD king, Limbaugh.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

As a Christian I am praying today for peace and understanding. I pray for the families of those who died on 9-11 and the families of Muslim civilians who have died in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Their sorrow is no less than ours and many who died (including children) were good, peaceful people too.

I pray, for my children's sake, that Americans comprehend that we cannot win a war waged against the Islamic population, and we cannot convict an entire religion of over a billion people for the acts of a few hundred. Eventually that war will reach our soils and a horrible price will be paid for our arrogance.

There is no righteousness in hate. Only when the martyrdom stops (on both sides) can we start listening to each other and stop spiraling toward catastrophe.

Posted by: Beeliever | September 11, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

STRF

"So now the liberals are defining the truth as LUNACY?"

NO STRF..now liberals and conservatives alike define your threadbombing double spacing as rude and offensive. You are simply obnoxious...and yes I suspect many would define you as a lunatic...but again STRF..I'm not concerned about your lunacy..
It's your rampant, unabated rudeness with all of these double spaced posts. You prove nothing with them other than the fact you are an inconsiderate jerk.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

@ruk: "there is rarely a day that goes by that posters to the St. Pete Times don't refer to the U.S. as a "Christian Nation" It's even happened at least once in this blog for a debate."

Agree. They like to claim this until they need to scream and holler about how they are a persecuted minority.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

@QB: "Meet libertarian jennofark:"

That was me, not jennofark. Your lack of reading comprehension skills explain a lot.

And why is it "incoherent" for me to consistently believe that people should not be imposing their religious beliefs on me?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham: "This strategy he lays out above could have the important passages cut and pasted from the PNAC documents."

You're so close bernie. Connect the dots for us. Take us where you know you want to go.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 11, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

@Bernie...Your David Foster Wallace cut..Just Asking...certainly asked the right questions...but who wants to answer questions with that kind of nuance and reality based thought when we can have us some gripin about Mosques..and have us some fun burnin Qurans...and of course if you're the megalomaniac Newt Gingrich perhaps we can flame these fires of hate, fear, and intolerance into a run for the W.H. It really is hard to think of a more despicable excuse for a human being right now than Newt Gingrich...and I live in Florida where we have R gubernatorial nominee Rick Scott, and it took a lot for me to move Newt ahead of him...but his latest video using graphic 9/11 video pretty well sealed the deal.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

And why is it "incoherent" for me to consistently believe that people should not be imposing their religious beliefs on me?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 5:42 PM
-----------------------------------
dear cat,

Because I doubt anyone else will be honest with you, here's the scoop:

1. Some peoples' religious principles requires YOU to follow their orders.

2. If you object to following their orders, you are depriving them of their religious rights.

3. See? :)

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

s-cat,

Oh, yes, typing the wrong name shows I can't read. It's hard sometimes to keep all the echos in the liberal chamber straight.

What is incoherent is exactly what I showed by juxtaposing statements by you and ru from your little lovefest. You denounce libertarianism, except when you are denouncing rising theocracy, and you denounce supposed imposition of beliefs, except that yours should be imposed on others.

All in all, your beliefs appear to be ad hoc and driven by your animus against people you don't much like.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

rukidding


I understand how you feel - Obama lied to you. Obama lied to the whole nation.


But Obama did something worse to you - he made you THINK, BELIEVE that somehow all your wacky liberal ideas would come true - that somehow you were right.

Well, you have been under a vast deception - those wacky liberal ideas are just that - wacky liberal ideas.


But what Obama has DONE - Obama has DESTROYED THAT DREAM OF YOURS - that somehow those wacky liberal ideas would rule the world - and somehow a liberal world is a better world.


The problem is a liberal world is an expensive fantasy-world that does not exist - and if it does exist, it is right next to candyland.

I'm sorry that your WORLD has come crashing down.


I'm sorry that Obama has made it clear that your liberal fantasy world will never happen.

I'm sorry you feel so bad.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

rukidding


You already announced that you would not read my posts - so why should you have any say in what is contained in my posts ???

Hey wait a minute......... if you aren't reading my posts, how do you know what is in them ??

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

@qb: "You denounce libertarianism, except when you are denouncing rising theocracy, and you denounce supposed imposition of beliefs, except that yours should be imposed on others."

I don't recall denouncing libertarianism, but, okay, whatever.

What exactly does libertarianism have to do with a rising theocracy? You don't honestly believe that only libertarians are capable of fighting for civil liberties, do you? And just because one may disagree with a political philosophy in general doesn't mean that there aren't areas of agreement.

"All in all, your beliefs appear to be ad hoc and driven by your animus against people you don't much like."

Really? Who don't I like much?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Into focus...

"Our Jillian Rayfield is doing great live-reporting/tweeting from the scene of the anti-mosque rally in front of the proposed site of the park51/Cordoba House project. And watching them now, I see the moment that brings it all together. The headline speaker at the rally is none other than Geert Wilders, the neofascist Dutch parliamentary. Brings it all into focus. Pam Geller, the force behind the rally, just toasted him as a "modern-day Churchill." http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/09/brings_it_all_into_focus.php?ref=fpblg

Posted by: bernielatham | September 11, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I've got it! According to STFup, and I wish he would, Obama is actually a conservative. The liberals have been lied to and our liberal world has come CRASHING down (do I have enough emphasis on the crashing part?).

Since I know it will make your day, STFup(and I wish he would), you can go to the Fix and read all about yourself.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

@qb: sorry, I forgot about this one. "and you denounce supposed imposition of beliefs, except that yours should be imposed on others"

No, I denounced the imposition of RELIGIOUS beliefs and I don't see where I ever said that my RELIGIOUS beliefs should be imposed on others.

I mean, c'mon....we live in a constitutional republic...we hold elections, elect leaders, vote on referendums....at some point SOMEONE's beliefs are going to have to prevail. But those are POLITICAL beliefs, not religious beliefs. I don't think that MY or anyone else's religious beliefs (or lack of them) should be up for discussion and debate in the public square....so long as they are not intruding on anyone else's freedoms.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

@cat,

I hate to keep imposing myself between you and qb, but I can explain qb in a very simple fashion. Here's the scoop:

1. When conservative win, they impose their beliefs because those beliefs are RIGHT.

2. When liberals win, they don't get to impose their beliefs because Obama might have been born in Kenya.

3. Even if he wasn't born in Kenya, conservatives might win the next time, so just to be efficient, liberals do not get to impose their beliefs because they are WRONG. The efficiency part: when conservatives do win, they'll have to go through the whole messy thing of repealing everything and returning it to its pristine condition of 2008.

4. See? :))

5. I understand conservatism better than they do.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat wrote,
"I currently am unable to buy liquor on Sundays.....is that because of Muslims? There was a stink in our local school district over Harry Potter books....was that because of Muslims?"
-----

In what sort of place do you live? Maybe you should consider moving. Thank God for state and local sovereignty. Imagine if a powerful federal government tried to ban liquor sales.

Refresh my memory. Was it Christians or conservatives or Muslims who once, not too many years ago, tried to have Huckleberry Finn removed from schools?

Posted by: Brigade | September 11, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

9 Months of anti-Muslim bigotry...
http://mediamatters.org/research/201009100042

It's been a truly glorious period in the history of American religious liberty.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 11, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

@12BarBlues: "I understand conservatism better than they do."

LMAO! I agree that you do! :)

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

George W. Bush told voters repeatedly, that he was going to conduct a modest foreign policy, and not engage in nation building abroad.

He also told voters repeatedly ,that his Tax Cuts For Fat Cats would create jobs, and balance the budget.

Yes he did, and No he didn't.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 2:06 PM
----

As an independent who is conservative and leans way right, let me take the opportunity to give credit where due. You are exactly right. As a conservative voice, I post here rather than on conservative blogs because I don't like the echo chamber. I enjoy sparring with those who hold contrarious views. They are the ones most likely to get me to consider another angle or (gasp!) reconsider a position. In this particular instance, I agreed with you even before I read the post.

Posted by: Brigade | September 11, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

"The Slump Goes On: Why?
SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
Paul Krugman and Robin Wells"
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/sep/30/slump-goes-why/

Posted by: bernielatham | September 11, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Suck it again, bufords.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 11, 2010 3:00 PM
-------

Is a buford anything like a cletus? Just wondering.

Posted by: Brigade | September 11, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

And here we thought that Right Wingers were against helping people to take their own lives.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 3:38 PM
-----

That pesky ole second amendment got you riled again?

Posted by: Brigade | September 11, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade: "In what sort of place do you live? Maybe you should consider moving."

Or we could just have true separation of church and state in this country and then my ability to buy beer on Sunday wouldn't be up to whims of the local snake kissers.

"Refresh my memory. Was it Christians or conservatives or Muslims who once, not too many years ago, tried to have Huckleberry Finn removed from schools?"

Refresh MY memory: where did I state that the banning of books under any circumstances by anyone of any political persuasion was acceptable?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

And here we thought that Right Wingers were against helping people to take their own lives.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 11, 2010 3:38 PM
-----

That pesky ole second amendment got you riled again?

Posted by: Brigade | September 11, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

@12BarBlues: "I understand conservatism better than they do."

LMAO! I agree that you do! :)

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 6:44 PM
-------------------------------------------
Hey, just put the questions out there. I can boil it down for you, no problemo.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

This whining about pharmacists having to do their jobs (which is: filling prescriptions written by doctors) must be one of the conserva-memes of the day, since I heard one of the brigade making the same non-argument on another site earlier - that somehow Catholics were being "barred" from being pharmacists if they don't want to dispense birth control.

I'll go over this slowly so that even the slack-jawed here can understand: not taking birth control if you are a Catholic is exercise of your religious freedom. Trying to stop someone else from taking birth control is not - this is attempting to IMPOSE your religious beliefs on someone who has different beliefs.

If you don't feel like you can do the job without infringing on someone else's beliefs, you should find another line of work. Because, really, Wal-Mart, Walgreen's, or CVS isn't going to keep you on the payroll if you're not doing the job, and "doing the job" involves dispensing drug whether or not you agree with them on religious grounds. Though as noted, it will never come down to a federal case because your corporate masters don't really give a fig whether or not your precious religious fee-fees are being offended - they just want you to do your job.

That having been said, who's going to be the first brave conservative to stand up for all those poor, maligned Christian Scientists who not only cannot practice pharmacy but also cannot be involved in any type of medical profession, since they think God frowns on medical intervention? Which one of you guys is going to scream about what an imposition on the religious freedom of Chrisitian Scientists it is that no one is willing to hire them to stand behind pharmacy counters and refuse to fill ANY prescription?

Buford? BUFORD? Anyone?

Because, you know, it's the exact same frickin' thing. So I look forward to the entertaining twists of logic you come up with for explaining how it's history's greatest injustice to expect a Catholic to dispense birth control, but somehow A-OK if no one will hire a Christian Scientist who refuses to dispense medications at all.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 11, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama is completely weak on national security.


Today, everyone should remember we are still at war.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 11, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham wrote,
"What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, “sacrifices on the altar of freedom”?* In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life"
------

This does sound much like the liberal view. The fly in the oinment is that people want to be safe, and they want their government to keep them safe. I well recall the mood in the country after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks. I recall the waterboarding, the Patriot Act, and the prison at Guantanomo. I even recall the (30?) Democratic Senators who voted to authorize the Iraq War. I don't recall but have read about the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. What I know for sure is that Americans today are still putting their pants on one leg at a time. This sort of thing never changes much. We can wring our hands all we want and talk about being "better" than our enemies, but as I mentioned in an earlier thread, we're just one more terrorist attack away from suddenly getting a lot more conservative again. How would you sort out the victims like Bernie, who want to be "sacrifices on the altar of freedom", from the rest of us?

Posted by: Brigade | September 11, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

@JennofArk: Great post. Thanks.

You should hang out here more. We could use the support. It seems we have been outnumbered as of late. :)

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Refresh MY memory: where did I state that the banning of books under any circumstances by anyone of any political persuasion was acceptable?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 6:56 PM
----

Didn't accuse you. Merely pointing out that the left has its share of book burners.

Posted by: Brigade | September 11, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

"Country First" right? Not even on 9/11 of all days.

* Florida Republicans get political on 9/11 anniversary *

Saturday marked the ninth anniversary of the September 11th attacks, typically a day when politics are put aside to honor the memory of those who died in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

But the somber nature of the day didn't prevent nearly 4,000 Florida Republicans from gathering in a Sarasota arena to assail President Obama and root for Democratic failure in the midterm elections.

[...]

The overtly partisan rally, at which campaign stickers were handed out alongside barbecue sandwiches and $3 beers, was called “offensive” by the state’s firefighters union.

"On a day that should be spent remembering those we lost nine years ago today, including 343 FDNY members, and commemorating the brave service of our firefighters, police and first responders, it is disappointing that instead Rick Scott, Marco Rubio, and Pam Bondi are spending their day in a show of partisan attacks and name calling," said Gary Rainey, president of the Florida Professional Firefighters.

While each candidate took time to honor the dead, none shied away from outright attacks against the opposing party.

Asked about the criticism from the firefighters union before he took the stage, GOP gubernatorial nominee Rick Scott told CNN that the 9/11 anniversary “is a day to respect the individuals who lost their lives that day.” Pressed a second time about the political nature of the event, Scott repeated his answer.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/11/florida-republicans-get-political-on-911-anniversary/

What a disgrace.

Re-read this graph, it's worth it:

"On a day that should be spent remembering those we lost nine years ago today, including 343 FDNY members, and commemorating the brave service of our firefighters, police and first responders, it is disappointing that instead Rick Scott, Marco Rubio, and Pam Bondi are spending their day in a show of partisan attacks and name calling," said Gary Rainey, president of the Florida Professional Firefighters.

Shame on the Republican Party of Florida.

God Bless you, FL Professional Firefighters, for helping keep America safe and strong.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 11, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

@Jenn of Ark,

Great handle, btw.

Being a cradle Catholic, and prolife myself, I'll throw in my 2 cents. I'll bet there are a lot of Catholic pharmacists who dispense birth control (and probably use it too). I'll bet that 99% of Catholic pharmacists have no problem serving the public and filling their prescriptions.

I remember when you couldn't play German music in church (Bach, Beethoven and Mozart to name a few) because they were Protestant. So, of course we musicians all wanted to, and sure enough, we did. In the American church, the term "prohibited" is subject to a little interpretation.

Of course, none of this undermines your basic argument that no one watches out for the poor Christian Scientists who might want to make a living in the medical community, all while dispensing no medical care. Gosh, who would object to that, except for their patients?

:o

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat wrote,
"@JennofArk: Great post. Thanks."
-------

Funny. Someone must have deleted it. The only JennofArk posts I can find are the ones with the bilge.

-------
"You should hang out here more."
-------

Or not.

-------
"We could use the support."
-------

Can't argue with you there.

Posted by: Brigade | September 11, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade: "We can wring our hands all we want and talk about being "better" than our enemies, but as I mentioned in an earlier thread, we're just one more terrorist attack away from suddenly getting a lot more conservative again. "

Meh. Who says we need another attack? Just the idea of a Muslim YMCA two blocks away from Ground Zero has people ready to throw the Constitution under the bus. So much for "Give me liberty or give me death!".

"Merely pointing out that the left has its share of book burners."

And they're idiots.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues,
Why don't YOU hang around here more? I gave up on the Fix because either they went on a banning binge or people got tired of being monitored and deleted. They evidently got rid of ChrisFox and Drindl as well as Moonbat and 37th. Since I started posting here a short time ago, I've found it nearly impossible to get many people to call me an idiot or a moron. That's one niche you could fill admirably.

Posted by: Brigade | September 11, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Again, Brigade, since you and yourn seem unable to grasp the concept: insult does not equal refutation (or even refudiation). Calling me a poopy-head doesn't make me wrong; it just indicates that you can't state the counterfactual and lack the imagination and/or intellect to formulate a serious defense of your position.

It indicates that you are not a serious person, and as such, not to be taken seriously by anyone.

As you wish.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 11, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

@S'scat...Agree completely with your post about JennofArk...she comes in about once a week and simply destroys the wingnuts. It's always a treat to watch her eviscerate their arguments!

But you've done a great job yourself today S'scat...denying them their favorite trick...the false equivalency...measuring everything against what Muslims do without EVER responding to the direct and specific examples you provided. Way to stick to your guns.

And 12barblues...enjoy seeing you hear as well...and from your observations about STRF you've dealt with this loon before.
Actually STRF provides nothing of substance other than all the white space between his sentences. The blank white is the most intellgence STRF has yet to display.

Glad to have you as well 12bar for awhile I was beginning to feel like the Lone Ranger.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan: "The overtly partisan rally, at which campaign stickers were handed out alongside barbecue sandwiches and $3 beers, was called “offensive” by the state’s firefighters union."

Well, yeah, Ethan...but their union members and civil servants. That's two reasons they don't count as "real 'merikunz".

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

"said Gary Rainey, president of the Florida Professional Firefighters."


No way, a UNION president attacking Republicans for holding a political event?

But why was he attacking Republicans on 911?

You're gullible, Ethan. People who hate so intensely are easily taken in.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

I have never called you an idiot or a moron. I remember calling you distasteful for some specific posts. If I remember right, I also said you were not my cup o' tea. Somehow, I doubt that my comments even made the slightest cut in your hide. You don't strike me as thin skinned.

I'm sorry that the Fix does not suit you anymore. I post there occasionally as I've made "friends". I do not miss the banned persons at all. I think the blog is better for having turned out some of the most toxic posters, but I would agree that the Comments section still needs some improvement. Hopefully, traffic will pick up when they make it a little easier to follow ones own threads.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 7:51 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade: "I've found it nearly impossible to get many people to call me an idiot or a moron."

We'd be happy to comply if it will make you feel better.

@ruk: Thanks. I know you usually do a lot of the heavy lifting around here. I've been pretty dispirited lately, but I'm just tired of the rightwing rhetoric dictating the conversation.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

JennofArk wrote,
"Calling me a poopy-head doesn't make me wrong"
-----

No, but you could be wrong and a poopy-head at the same time.

-----

"it just indicates that you can't state the counterfactual and lack the imagination and/or intellect to formulate a serious defense of your position."

-----

It's worse than that. I don't even know what position you expect me to defend.

-----

"It indicates that you are not a serious person, and as such, not to be taken seriously by anyone."

-----

That sort of goes along with "lack the imagination and/or intellect." Not the first time I've heard this and, I'm sure, not the last.

But nice to see you decided to hang around.

Posted by: Brigade | September 11, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Schrodingerscat wrote,
'@Brigade: "I've found it nearly impossible to get many people to call me an idiot or a moron."'

'We'd be happy to comply if it will make you feel better.'

----

Figured you would. :)

Posted by: Brigade | September 11, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Yeah...like it's really appropriate for EITHER party or any organization to use the anniversary of 9/11 to hold fundraisers...sell three dollar beers and hurl more hate at Obama.

But then that's the R way now isn't it...the R's favorite two grifters Glen Beck and Sister Sarah are selling tickets for a little over a couple of hundred bucks...those are actually the good seats...I think if you're lucky you can get a seat in the rear for about $65. And as Sister Sarah said...join them for this 9/11 memorial and have a beer with them..again if you have the bucks for the grifter's pocketbooks. Palin supporters at this point in history simply amaze me.

And then of course there is the most despicable of all of the hate mongers..Newt Gingrich who is using 9/11 and it's anniversary to sell his new DVD...and Newt can even top Beck, Sister Sarah and the disgusting Florida R's...he's even used some of the very graphic video from 9/11 to make sure he can really really scare the beejeebus out everybody.

Yes..as many of us remember the victims of the 9/11...and not just those who perished and their families...but the awful wound to our nation's psyche which obviously still hasn't recovered, those clever R's figured a way to milk the tragedy and to make a buck and score some points on the backs of close the 3,000 people who perished that day. Of all the disgusting things that have been posted on this blog...none of the comments matches the disgusting behavior of the R's today!!!

tao you were angry at Mike for saying R's didn't care about the troops. Can you spare some of that anger for the R's who chose to desecrate the memory of 9/11 in an opportunistic manner to raise money and garner votes. Saying despicable things is certainly unpleasant...doing despicable things shows the true character of a political group when there are numerous examples and NOBODY on the right calls them for it!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

"she comes in about once a week and simply destroys the wingnuts. It's always a treat to watch her eviscerate their arguments!"

LMAO

Quoth jenn:

"I'll go over this slowly so that even the slack-jawed here can understand: not taking birth control if you are a Catholic is exercise of your religious freedom. Trying to stop someone else from taking birth control is not - this is attempting to IMPOSE your religious beliefs on someone who has different beliefs."

Truly, my jaw is slack at the sight of your dizzying intellect.

But declining to sell abortion pills or other pills used for morally unjustifiable uses (like killing human beings) actually isn't "trying to stop someone else" from using them or imposing your beliefs on anyone. If you cannot make such basic analytical distinctions, you'll never be able to think logically about the issues.

"If you don't feel like you can do the job without infringing on someone else's beliefs, you should find another line of work."

See above -- your right to use a pill does not entail an obligation on me to sell it to you. You are trying to impose your beliefs on the pharmacist.

"Because, really, Wal-Mart, Walgreen's, or CVS isn't going to keep you on the payroll if you're not doing the job, and "doing the job" involves dispensing drug whether or not you agree with them on religious grounds. Though as noted, it will never come down to a federal case because your corporate masters don't really give a fig whether or not your precious religious fee-fees are being offended - they just want you to do your job."

Walmart or CVS can require whatever they want in their pharmacies. That's a different issue than your claim that you as a customer have the right to demand that the pharmacy sell you an abortion pill. That would be no different than if you went to Mom and Pop's pharmacy. If you have the right to force Mom to sell you abortion pills, you have imposed your own beliefs on her.

See how this logic thing works? And before moving on, I'll note your scornful reference to the "precious religious fee fees" of Christians. Bigotry. You're a bigot.

Now let's move on to the remainder of your schoolin' of the slack jawed.

"Because, you know, it's the exact same frickin' thing."

No, actually they aren't. Someone who doesn't "believe in" medicine and medical science at all, and who rejects the entire practice, is not the same as someone who does but finds certain practices immoral because, oh, you know, they involve homicide.

I'm sure you would have no trouble seeing that if, for example, we were talking about conscientious objectors to eugenics or sterilization practices of a century ago, or of Nazi Germany.

That's because you're really just an unreflective dogmatist of secular liberalism.

And a religious bigot.

btw, when you call me a slack-jawed Buford, is that like calling someone a poopy head?


Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

@S'scat...You are hot today ...we have to give you a rimshot if I had a drum and cymbals...you're making it look too easy...

S'scat if I was a conspiratorialist I'd swear you've hired some of the righties to make you look like a genius...

You post...."but their union members and civil servants. That's two reasons they don't count as "real 'merikunz".

The very next post....

"No way, a UNION president attacking Republicans for holding a political event?"

As you say they show no respect for the working class...they're all too busy kissing wealthy behinds.

And then of course comes the standard...
"I know you are but what am I" PeeWee response one poster has become famous for using as often as possible.

"But why was he attacking Republicans on 911?"

Some posters here simply blindly follow their ideology even when it takes them to a place of profound ignorance.

How about something simple like...it's wrong, I don't support that behavior even though I am an R.

He's not here and I can't speak for him...but Kevin W doesn't seem to have a problem calling out his own side when it's wrong...and Brigade who is here and can speak for himself has posted some reality...Bush was not a conservative..etc...at least Brigade can deal with the truth...unlike some of our righty friends.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Like I said it's a treat to watch Jenn chew up wingnuts and bait them into inane responses. LMAO

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Real leadership. You know it when you see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rO3F6mZUaE&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: bernielatham | September 11, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Why does qb talk about pills to accomplish abortion, when the question was about birth control pills? Or does qb say that birth control pills are homicide? Many, if not most, people view birth control medication as something that prevents conception, rather than something that ends conception.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

I almost forgot the other obvious (and laughable) hole in jenn's "argument."

Christian Scientists who are being denied medical licenses because they don't believe in medicine?

They must be getting turned away in droves. Surely they are being denied the right to earn a living by . . . not providing any medical care to patients.

I don't think anyone needs your opinions about who is a "serious person."

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

"No, but you could be wrong and a poopy-head at the same time."

Granted, but being a poopyhead does not equal being wrong.

"It's worse than that. I don't even know what position you expect me to defend."

You wouldn't be the first conservative here to suffer from reading comprehension difficulties.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 11, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

"Why does qb talk about pills to accomplish abortion, when the question was about birth control pills? "

Because "every sperm is sacred...."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar...."Why does qb talk about pills to accomplish abortion, when the question was about birth control pills? Or does qb say that birth control pills are homicide?"

Actually it's better than that. He takes the conversation to that tried and true place...NAZI GERMANY!

"I'm sure you would have no trouble seeing that if, for example, we were talking about conscientious objectors to eugenics or sterilization practices of a century ago, or of Nazi Germany."

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

"Why does qb talk about pills to accomplish abortion, when the question was about birth control pills?"

Who said that's the only question? Birth control is an issue for some. Abortion pills are an issue for others.

It's a broader question than birth control. Should doctors be compelled to perform abortions? Hospitals? Should consellors be compelled to recant their convictions about homosexuality?

You liberals, as per schrod above, generally assert that they should, because their mere and inferior "religious" beliefs are trumped by patients or consumers' "political" or "nonreligious" beliefs. But all you are really doing is imposing your own beliefs, and there is no relevant distinction between A's "religious" belief and B's "nonreligious" belief that the liberals assert must be accepted by A.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Unreal. Who hates firefighters?

These are people that will literally RISK THEIR OWN LIVES by running into a burning building in order to save ANYONE regardless of political party, ethnicity, age, etc.

But right wingers hate them because they belong to a union.

Republicanism really is a sickness.

FIREFIGHTERS!

People who FIGHT FIRES!

And SAVE AMERICAN LIVES!

It's just hard to comprehend that anyone in their right mind would speak out against those people for ANY reason.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 11, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

@S'cat...hopefully Liam will be back to enjoy that link. You're a bad bad girl:-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Well, I thought qb must be onto something. Maybe my info was old--like birth control in 2010 now equals abortion.

Soooooooooooo, here's what the Mayo Clinic has to say about HOW birth control works:

* Prevent sperm from reaching the egg
* Inactivate or damage sperm
* Prevent an egg from being released each month
* Alter the lining of the uterus so a fertilized egg doesn't attach to it
* Thicken cervical mucus so sperm can't easily pass through it

Different meds work differently, but they work in some of the above ways. That's not to say there isn't a chemical abortion possibility, but that's NOT what is meant by garden variety birth control.

From a careful reading of the above mechanisms, each and every one of them is preventative to conception.

Or am I too much of a poopy head to understand?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

@qb: "Someone who doesn't "believe in" medicine and medical science at all, and who rejects the entire practice, is not the same as someone who does but finds certain practices immoral because, oh, you know, they involve homicide."

Actually, that last part should be: "...is not the same as someone who does but finds certain practices immoral because, oh, you know, they BELIEVE it involves homicide."

That's a bit more intellectually honest.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Ethan...Amen brother...it really is quite amazing...as I said..following your ideology blindly can lead you to places of profound ignorance.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Oh, what a poopy head I must be. I left off the citation to the Mayo Clinic.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/birth-control-options/MY01084

Just for those who don't believe anything liberals have to say.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

qb - the boards that certify and regulate pharmacists and other medical professionals are the ones who "impose beliefs" or guidelines on people in the various medical fields. They base these guidelines on what is legal, not what meets the religious dogma for any particular faith. Medical professionals are sworn to put the patient's needs above all else; I don't know for sure about pharmacists but I imagine they operate under a similar sort of code they are obligated to uphold.

Let's also note that a pharmacist who owns his own dispensary, or doctors in private practice or private hospitals are allowed to pick and choose which medications they'll dispense and which procedures they'll perform. They just can't do so if they're going to take federal money because the federal government is not obligated to help you in imposing your religious beliefs on others, which is what you're doing when you refuse to prescribe a legal medication because it's not in line with your religious beliefs.

You're free to do it, but you can't expect to be reimbursed by taxpayers for doing it. And that's not in any way an infringement on anyone's right to follow whatever religious practice they like.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 11, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

@12BarBlues: "From a careful reading of the above mechanisms, each and every one of them is preventative to conception.

Or am I too much of a poopy head to understand?"

Oh, 12Bar, 12Bar, 12Bar...where have you been? It is #4 on your list that sends the fundies over the edge. Implanted or not - that little fertilized egg should be entitled to all the rights and privileges that the Supreme Court says corporations have.

The abortion fight has little to do with any grand ideas about the sanctity of life - it's about the evils of S*E*X - especially of the out-of-wedlock variety. (Unless of course, you're a Republican boinking a staffer or the wife of one of your staffers or a prostitute or....well, you get the picture).

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

To whet the appetites of the curious, here's a small bit from an extraordinary lecture by Jay Rosen...

"The engineering of opinion

I am conducting this tour at the level of ideas. But one could also say ideals. The all-inclusive public that is fully informed about what is happening… and argues about it in public settings…. so as to form an independent and reasoned opinion… which is then listened to by the people in power… this has never been a description of how public life in a competitive democracy actually works. The fight has been to make it truer and truer for more and more people. That fight goes on. When we compare the reality to the picture, we can tell where we are, and perhaps where we need to go.

Meanwhile, there are endless complications to weigh. For example, the same tools that make an informed public possible allow for manipulation and propaganda on a national scale..." http://jayrosen.posterous.com/the-journalists-formerly-known-as-the-media-m

Posted by: bernielatham | September 11, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Pardon me, I'm new here, and just trying to follow this line of logic that starts out with birth control pills, which morphs into homicide and Nazi Germany. If I understand qb correctly, he is trying to defend the right of vendors to not deliver legal goods and services because they don't want to.

Follow that to its logical conclusion, and stores won't sell you tomatoes if the manager thinks they're bad for you. The DMV won't give driving tests to biker dudes with tattoos because they're scary. And the news guy won't sell you a copy of the WSJ because you could be a rightwinger.

And our soldiers died to give us this right? Fine, if that's the way you want it, but I doubt you'd like it for long.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

12Bar - to be more precise, qb is arguing that vendors have a right to not deliver goods and services because they don't want to, while receiving federal funds via Medicare and Medicaid for those goods and services they do deign to deliver.

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

"It's worse than that. I don't even know what position you expect me to defend."

You wouldn't be the first conservative here to suffer from reading comprehension difficulties.


Posted by: JennOfArk | September 11, 2010 8:32 PM

-----

Actually, I was just trying to be cordial. My "reading comprehension difficulties" do not prevent me from realizing that I did not engage you on any of the particulars in your Randism screeds.
I simply read them. So there was no position for me to defend. As for the comment about "bilge" in your screeds, I think the screeds pretty much speak for themselves.

You might want to go back and actually check who was involved with you in those earlier exchanges before commenting on difficulties in reading comprehension--- that is unless you're one of those Fix exiles who believe that there is only one conservative in the world and he/she simply posts under a series of different monikers.

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

"Bush was not a conservative..etc..."

I've said that probably dozens of times. Guess I stumbled into "reality" a few times.

"As you say they show no respect for the working class...they're all too busy kissing wealthy behinds."

Spare us the sanctimony. It has nothing to do with respect for the working class. It's a union official attacking Republicans. Pretending he isn't acting consistently with his own poliical motives is naive.

"And then of course comes the standard...
"I know you are but what am I" PeeWee response one poster has become famous for using as often as possible."

You're really tiresome. Follow closely if you can. He is claiming attacking Republicans for engaging in politics because 911 "should be spent remembering" those lost.

He made this attack on 911, so he obviously did not spend the day remember the lost. He thought it was pefectly fine for himself to attack Republicans.

And don't try to say he was just responding. If he meant what he said, then he wouldn't have responded. He would have actually spent the day in remembrance.

I know how frustrating it is to you to have your own and other liberals constant hypocricies pointed out. And this one is a classic. You ought to reflect on your own and his behavior rather than hurling insults.

In fact, it all raises a good question. If it is "wrong" to do anything but remember the lost, and certainly "wrong" to engage in politics, why have you spent much of the day attacking Republicans?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

About 9/11 - I'm probably not the only one who read the NYTimes "Portraits of Grief," one of its finer endeavors, I think. I stopped after awhile, but then came across this about a month later. It's about an online community, one of whose members died on 9/11, and I've never forgotten it, both b/c it's about an opera lover and also about the way his forum grieved for him. I loved the line about how his cybercommunity materialized at his memorial service. I hope you can find the time to read it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/04/technology/in-an-online-colloquy-an-absent-voice.html?scp=2&sq=Stephen%20Poulos&st=nyt&pagewanted=1

Posted by: carolanne528 | September 11, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

@Jenn,

Important clarification.

I find it hard to even engage in this because it's so antithetical to business principles. You're in business, right? You have inventory on the shelf, right? A customer comes in and says "I'll have one of those", right? And then you say, "hell, no, I won't sell you that". Right?

Wrong. You can count on the fingers of your hands and toes (if you need 'em) how many times that happens in the real world. At least if you want to stay in business.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

"Actually, that last part should be: "...is not the same as someone who does but finds certain practices immoral because, oh, you know, they BELIEVE it involves homicide."

That's a bit more intellectually honest."

Wow, you really got me there. Conflicting beliefs are the issue, no?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

@Bernie....You know you are preaching to the choir when you reach me with posts about the "propagandizing" of our society. Rosen certainly raises some interesting points.

And while I agree with your basic observations about how the plutocrats are manipulating the working class through concerted "marketing" "propaganda" campaigns I sometimes fear there is something more frightening at work.

If I may perhaps bore you with some old sayings..."We have met the enemy and he is us." Or as a conservative hero Edmund Burke said.."There are none so blind as those who will not see, non so deaf as those who will not hear."

I realize the perils of arguing a point from the general to the specific...but if I might...My lovely mother is a Fox junkie.
Whenever we discuss this and I point out facts about Fox...so many lies and distortions to choose from...she becomes very, very, very upset..."Ohhh son I don't want to hear that". She doesn't disagree with the observations I've just made...it's just too important for her to be able to maintain her "fantasy" view of the World. The same is true, on a much less emotional scale, for our dental lab tech. He too loves Fox and even acknowledges that they distort, lie and are a wing of the Republican party. This is OK by him because of course the ENTIRE REMAINDER of the media are liberals. But I sense something deeper. Like my mother he doesn't want his world view challenged. He is comfortable not having to think or make decisions.

I'm simply suggesting that people enjoy being sheeple...IMHO it's the basis for the most dogmatic of religions...people don't really enjoy making serious decisions, they're largely too lazy to perform the due diligence required but mostly they simply like that old ditty from "Guys and Dolls". Sit down, sit down,sit down you're rocking the boat.

Obviously I'm not speaking of everyone. Again IMHO there is a significant % of folks who are critical thinkers...who are able to operate beyond ideology...but alas I'm afraid the critical thinkers (on all sides of the political spectrum) are outnumbered by the sheeple.

Have I just painted a depressing pic or what? :-) Don't know what the answer might be?

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

"12Bar - to be more precise, qb is arguing that vendors have a right to not deliver goods and services because they don't want to, while receiving federal funds via Medicare and Medicaid for those goods and services they do deign to deliver."

I can see it isn't possible to have an honest discussion with you, because you simply aren't honest. So I'll just leave you to argue with your straw men.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Since liberals apparently are unaware that there are abortion pills on the market:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/abortion-pill-medication-abortion-4354.asp

Who'd have thought they didn't know.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

If you haven't had the chance to see it yet, there's a great column by Kristof:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/opinion/12kristof.html?_r=1

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 11, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Brigade - as noted several times over, use of insult, in this case the word "bilge" indicates disagreement with content. Which of course you know, but hope that your affectation of being just so above it all will paper over.

An insult isn't a critique; it's merely an intellectually lazy and dishonest way of showing disdain without supporting a counterfactual. You think it's "bilge" because you disagree with it, but you're unable to explain why it's bilge, or even why you disagree. So you can't expect anyone to give your opinion any weight, no matter how many arch responses you concoct to evade your failure to advance any point whatsoever, other than your faux superiority.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 11, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

qb writes that "Since liberals apparently are unaware that there are abortion pills on the market:"
--------------------------------

"That's not to say there isn't a chemical abortion possibility, but that's NOT what is meant by garden variety birth control."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 8:41 PM
--------------------------------
Guess liberals are aware.

Anyway, I thought it didn't matter to you whether it is abortion or preventative birth control. I thought your point was that a provider of birth control has a right to deny these products whenever they feel like denying them.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Just when I was really beginning to fear for my country I see sane people DO outnumber the loons.

http://www.krqe.com/dpps/news/us/911-memorial-brings-demonstrations_3578333?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+krqe-news-national+%28KRQE+News+13+-+National+News%29

NEW YORK (AP) - Hundreds of family members of Sept. 11 victims recited loved ones' names through tears on the ninth anniversary of the attacks Saturday, avoiding direct mention of the political furor over plans for a mosque that later drew thousands of protesters on both sides.

After the ceremony, around 1,000 activists rallied about five blocks from the site of the 2001 attacks to support the proposed Islamic community center. Several hundred others rallied nearby, chanting "USA, USA" and "No mosque here."

Elizabeth Meehan, a 51-year-old Christian from Saratoga, N.Y., rode in by bus from her home 180 miles away.

"I'm really fearful of all of the hate that's going on in our country. People in one brand of Christianity are coming out against other faiths, and I find that so sad," she said. "Muslims are fellow Americans; they should have the right to worship in America just like anyone else."

The event was largely peaceful, except for occasional exchanges with anti-mosque passers-by.

One man walked by holding a poster that said, "Stop Obama's Mosque," while another held a more provocative sign with a Quran attached."

Stop OBAMA'S Mosque? Wow STRF must have done his posting with his cellphone today.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

"Anyway, I thought it didn't matter to you whether it is abortion or preventative birth control. I thought your point was that a provider of birth control has a right to deny these products whenever they feel like denying them."

My point was to challenge the liberal position that pharmacists, physicians, counselors, et al., must subordinate their beliefs and consciences to those of patients or customers because otherwise they are "imposing their beliefs," when in fact it is the beliefs of others being imposed on the pharmacists, et al. Only you were fixated on birth control.

And it isn't a matter of what they "feel like" or "want" to do. When your side consistently uses that language, it's a dead give away that you simply don't respect the rights or beliefs of others. Thus, you have no problem seeing them trampled and ruling them out or order.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

If pharmacists are going to deny birth control products to their customers, I suppose it would be OK if they denied them to SOME of their customers. I mean, ones religious beliefs might be very specific.

For example, the pharmacist might recognize someone who goes to his church.

She doesn't get any.

Or the customer is white--she doesn't get any because he thinks whites should reproduce more.

Or it's a teenage boy, and wow, he could make good babies, so no protection for him.

The possibilities are endless.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Okay 12bar, you're obviously not a serious person either, so enjoy your monologue.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 11, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

@Jenn "An insult isn't a critique; it's merely an intellectually lazy and dishonest way of showing disdain without supporting a counterfactual. You think it's "bilge" because you disagree with it, but you're unable to explain why it's bilge, or even why you disagree. So you can't expect anyone to give your opinion any weight, no matter how many arch responses you concoct to evade your failure to advance any point whatsoever, other than your faux superiority."

You've just described a half dozen right wing posters on this blog...although in fairness...IMHO...that's not Brigade's normal M.O....more like Scott C and Q.B.

I love your posts Jenn because they help guide me back to the straight and narrow...back to genuine discussion and debate...I consider you, Kevin W. and Bernie to be role models in this area...while all of us can get snarky and yes even toss off an insult or two...more than most you three try to stick to discussion of issues.

There are some...probably on both sides..who approach commenting on this blog as if it's a blood sport. I find personally I get into the most trouble if my main motivation is simply to prove the other person wrong rather than consider and then engage in factual and counterfactual discussion.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

Welcome. We are happy to have you here. We hope you come here alot.
We too ate sick of some posters

Don't worry. We are a good group here. We do have one rule though: you have to tell us if you are gay or straight

It's just fun among us. A few of us get of of hand sometimes. But you will see.
Enjoy and we hope you come back often.

Posted by: Classic777 | September 11, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Heads up, sane people!

I had not seen this segment from Maddow's show and it's really really stupendiose. How the various income sectors of American society have done in terms of income growth under 1)Dem administrations and 2)Republican administrations. The difference is striking.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-why-elections-matter-one-gra

So watch it then read this addendum...

I think the consequences are, in reality, greater than what these amazing graphs demonstrate.

Wealth is relative. In a certain situation, if you have two goats, you're the top fellow in the village. And it is that "top fellow" thing that's important.

For some, accumulation of wealth has little to do with comfort or security. It's importance for these people is facilitating a power-differential over others through hierarchy. Equality is the last thing they want and they'll fight to destroy initiatives that move in that direction because it will functionally disallow them to achieve dominance.

And if you look at those graphs again, note that not only do the income increases diminish under Republican rule but also, disparity (inequality) increases. Just what these people want.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 11, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

We do have one rule though: you have to tell us if you are gay or straight
-------------------------------
Oh, yeah? I wouldn't recommend that because I KNOW at least one poster on this blog who harassed and stalked an openly gay man on the Fix.

Anyone who wants to know who that poster is, let me know and I'll find a way to tell you privately.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Bernie...that is an awesome graph. I need to find where I can actually download and copy that cleanly. It WILL get passed out at my small business...it will get handed to everyone I can possibly reach with it. It truly does tell a story and it's be interesting to see how the blog fascists try to discredit it.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

12barBlues

We don't know who that is. We are a tight knit community here. We know who is on our side and isn't

Again welcome here. We hope you return often

Posted by: Classic777 | September 11, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

"We do have one rule though: you have to tell us if you are gay or straight"

Umm....I don't recall that rule.

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

Umm....I don't recall that rule.
---------------------------
There's a good reason for that. Recognize the handle Classic777?

I thought it was against policy for a poster to have multiple handles.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Since everybody has duly vented their spleens in the comments above, I'd just like to share, at this late hour, something 'un-disgusting,' and absolutely edifying I saw today.

First Lady Michelle Obama and former First Lady Laura Bush were the epitome of graciousness and meaningful themes this morning.

Their combined addresses in Pennsylvania were healing, inspiring, uplifting, and absolutely on message. Their ability to address the spirit of the day was truly amaizing, and I was truly proud to see these two truly lovely women comforting and inspiring not only all of us us but also all the assembled relatives of those who perished onFlight 93.

Posted by: marybel9999 | September 11, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Schroeingercat

That's because we all know you are unsure of yours.

Posted by: Classic777 | September 11, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

@marybel...Well for once we are in complete agreement. I have always thought Laura Bush was a totally class act and I'm glad to see that you could also point out that Michelle Obama also has class.

It's no surprise to me that these two lovely ladies would do an excellent job during today's remembrance.

Great post Marybel

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar...You mean in addition to recent invasion of trolls they've brought along their sock puppets? Geeessh!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

@cat,

My comment is not aimed at you, so don't take it that way.

He knows who he is, and I know who he is. This particular little trickery is not new. He thinks my opinions on this blog, and about him, will be discounted if he makes these little "gay" innuendos.

Just like he just did to you.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

@rukidding,

You don't know the half of it. A year of putting up with this troll and you get to know every trick. He's so homophobic that he thinks that someone just being accused of being gay will totally destroy that person's credibility.

It's so "yesterday" as Carly says.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Okay genius, let's have a look at one of your wonderful posts. Here the first of the day:

JennofArk posted,
"Wow. So much bitterness in the comments."
------

Addressed to no one in particular, this seems to violate your own rules of order. Like WHAT comments in particular?

------

I'll just say this: a nation is made up of people. It's not a piece of real estate; it's not a scrap of cloth. It's the people who belong to it that make a nation.

------

Okay, so what's to argue about?

------

"Ergo, hating your fellow citizens, as several of you clearly do, is the equal of hating the nation. It is the opposite of patriotism."

------

Really? This is part of the bilge. Who hates their fellow citizens? "Several of you clearly do". Like who? Hate the nation. Unpatriotic. Some really deep thinking there. Lots of thought to demand counterfactuals.

------

"By the same token, these Randian notions some of you cling to are expressly anti-patriotic, as they elevate the individual above all else and assume that the individual's merit is his and his alone, occuring in a vacuum with no outside help from anyone, and therefore no debt owed to anyone."
-----

You obviously like to read your own blather. What Randian notions exactly? To whom exactly are your comments addressed? I can comprehend fairly well, and I don't know what in Hades your talking about. Who has "elevated the individual above all else?" Do we have anarchists here? Who says they owe no debt to anyone? It's pure poppycock. You evidently carry some deranged idea of a conservative boogeyman in your head.

------

"We all know that Randism is the adolescent fantasy of the emotionally stunted, but I'm sure some of the more dull-witted among you is asking himself, 'ok, but anti-patriotic? Where are you getting that?'"

----

No bitterness or name-calling there. Are the dull-witted anything like poopey-heads?

-----

"Here's where: if the individual can truly succeed to the fullest only when fully unencumbered by rules, regulations, and what is fair to other people, then there is no need for a nation; indeed, the concept of a "nation" is antithetical to the ultimate expression of Randism. Patriotism means exaltation of the nation; therefore Randism is unpatriotic and by extension, so are its adherants."

----

Okay. You've defined a strawman and other strawmen to oppose him. Nice argument with yourself.

-------

"So suck on that, bufords."

------

Tsk, tsk. More name-calling. Now, tell me again, what point am I supposed to be defending? Which "facts" should I address with counterfacts? Yours it what we call a fact-free rant.

I think all but the dim-witted are asking, why waste this much time and space responding to Jenn's post? I guess because someone complimented you and you took them seriously.

Posted by: Brigade | September 11, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar...if he's a rightie then he's going to have to deal with SBJ....Don't know if you've seen SBJ's posts yet. He is a conservative and a very decent person...at least his posting persona is decent..don't really know him personally. He is conservative, but still rational and sometimes I get the impression that he posts just to get us fired up...you know effin with us a bit for fun...but he's never malicious and doesn't insult people. However he has described himself as gay...which of course we all find incredibly interesting...not his sexual identity..just how a gay man rationalizes being in a party with such a large homophobic element...as in their entire base. LOL SBJ and Classic77 should have a lot of fun.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham wrote,
"I had not seen this segment from Maddow's show and it's really really stupendiose."

----

So YOU'RE the one who actually watches Maddow's show. I was wondering who it was. Oh, and I wouldn't make any more comments about Fox news after admitting I watch this partisan lunatic.

Posted by: Brigade | September 11, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

12barblues

So you are a lesbian. It's OK with us.

Enjoy your stay here. We know you will be kind to all posters and you won't attack anyone

Again welcome. We will enjoy to hear your policy views as along as you are nice to all posters.

Posted by: Classic777 | September 11, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

LOL SBJ and Classic77 should have a lot of fun.
===============================
Oh, I doubt we'll see Classic777 again. He'll revert back to his regular handle.

Don't know how the gay guy of the right will interact with the crazy guy of the right. If SBJ is like other intelligent humans, and it sounds like he is, he'll just skirt around this particular pile of steaming detritus.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

JennOfArk:

"It indicates that you are not a serious person, and as such, not to be taken seriously by anyone."

I asked you earlier what exactly you were referring to when you mentioned "Randian notions" held by unnamed people here. If you are a serious person to be taken seriously, you really ought to specify what in the world you were talking about when you made reference.

I await your answer.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 11, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Ok, STFup, you can come out now.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

@everyone,

How does someone have multiple handles? Use a phone as well as a computer?

I just have my one handle and never had another.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: rukiddng7 | September 11, 2010 10:24 PM

Thank you.

It's not so much about 'class' as compassion and comfort.

On such a sad day, may all sleep in peace tonight.

Posted by: marybel9999 | September 11, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

12barblues

There is nothing wrong with being gay if that is what you are saying

In fact your remarks are quite offensive. We don't need homophobes on this board. So don't be a bigot and anti- gay.

Posted by: Classic777 | September 11, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

I just have my one handle and never had another.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 10:44 PM
----

People as cordial and non-confrontational as you and me should never have to worry about using multiple monikers. :)

Posted by: Brigade | September 11, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

"Oh, and I wouldn't make any more comments about Fox news after admitting I watch this partisan lunatic."

A bit strong brigade...unlike Bill O..she never tells her guests...SHUT UP! Unlike Hannity she never puts up graphics of a ten year old rally and tries to pass them off as something that recently happened...and Beck...well he special even for the propagandists and liars at Fox.

And actually TRMS has a decent viewership...not the number of sheeple who watch Fox...but in reality if you combined MSNBC AND FOX ratings you still wouldn't have a hit show.

As a former broadcast journalist myself I can state unequivocally you are mistaken!
You can have your opinion but not your facts. By any reasonable measure of journalistic integrity Maddow is light years ahead of any of the propagandists on Faux!!!! And she is courteous to all her guests...whether they be liberal or conservative...if you actually watched you might realize this...but perhaps that would challenge your world view and wouldn't want to have to open your mind a bit now would we?

BTW If you saw the now infamous Rand Paul interview you will see that see didn't need to raise her voice..tell him to shut up..or use that God awful whiny nasally wimpy Sean Hannity voice to try and berate him. She simply repeated questions to get him on the record. In fact she was a bit incredulous at first and was actually trying to give him a way to backtrack his comments...but no, old Rand had to go all in with his chips and claim if a private business wishes to discriminate it's their prerogative and that the "free market" would take care of discrimination. Yeah if we had simply waited long enough ole Lester Maddox would have finally admitted blacks into his business.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 11, 2010 11:04 PM | Report abuse

12barblues

It is not right for you to come on this blog and not yell us something about yourself. I suppose you have something against lesbians. Well that kind of closeted attitude is offensive.

Posted by: Classic777 | September 11, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

God, you are sooooooooo stupid. We all know who you are.

Anyone who hasn't put two and two by now--its STRF.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 11, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Sorry ole buddy, I'm not biting on trying to defend segregated lunch counters. I actually have watched the evening line-up on MSNBC. Chris Matthews is partisan but well-informed and the best of the bunch. Schultz, Olbermann, Maddow and now O'Donnell are strictly minor league hack partisans IMO (the only opinion I can give). Have you ever seen any of O'Donnell's meltdowns? Even though I'm conservative, I must conclude from liberal post that liberals spend much more time watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh than I do. They must hang on every word.

Sheeple. FAUX. Careful or JennofArk will be calling you a hater of your fellow man and unpatriotic in the bargain.

I recall a recent poll---can't remember if it was likely voters or registered voters---wherein about 65% of respondents could not name a single member of the current United States Supreme Court. I work with some college educated people who like to hunt and fish and watch football but pay no attention whatsoever to politics. But they do vote! If you wonder why politicians and pundits pander, repeat talking points, and tell lots of porkies, it's because many people don't follow issues and events like you do.
It's really just a big propaganda war.
Sorry to sound so cynical.

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

12barblues.

Let's all get out of the closet and be done with it. It is good for the discussion if we all know where everyone is coming from. You said you were a lesbian and now you are running for the closet. Quite strange. But the rest of us are proud of our sexual orientation. And we don't need homophobes running fir the closet at every light of day.

Posted by: Classic777 | September 11, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse


You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price by calling 877-882-4740 or check http://bit.ly/9fDY7U If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!

Posted by: reginaldjo10 | September 12, 2010 2:02 AM | Report abuse


Apparently for Obama and the liberals - "Pleas for Tolerance" go this way: Americans are told that they should not offend muslims - but muslims are free to be as offensive as they want to Americans.


This is Obama's new world order.


If you ask me, the country is DONE with Obama and the democratic party.


The American People are telling Obama that they want some respect.

That is basically the problem - isn't it? Obama does not respect the American People - from the Founding Fathers who Obama holds a grudge against for slavery - to the ordinary white American who is trying to earn a living in today's tough economy - OBAMA HOLDS A GRUDGE AND WANTS TO LASH OUT AT AMERICA.


.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 2:06 AM | Report abuse

Obama wants restraint

But do we HEAR a word from Obama on restraint from those who are BURNING AMERICAN FLAGS ???


Do we hear a word from Obama on restraint from the Imam - who wants to build a mosque in AN OFFENSIVE LOCATION ????


This is the problem with Obama - and it goes to the core of why no one wants him to be leading this country anymore - OBAMA REFUSES TO BE THE LEADER OF THE NATION.

Obama is WORTHLESS to this country.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 2:25 AM | Report abuse

ONE THING IS CLEAR FROM ALL THE KORAN BURNING TODAY


Obama's position on the mosque at Ground Zero has NOT helped things.


Obama has NOT been a leader.


Obama has NOT acted to stop the mosque - which is what real Americans want.


Obama has acted like he is ANGRY WITH AMERICAN - AND HAS SOMETHING TO PROVE AGAINST AMERICA.

No one wants Obama around, no one is looking to him for leadership - Obama is MORE TROUBLE THAN HE IS WORTH.

Obama should RESIGN IMMEDIATELY.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 2:37 AM | Report abuse

I really do not believe muslims are doing enough to contain their own people.


For centuries, that is how nations dealt with each other - if an attack came from one people to another - the nation from which the attack came was held responsible.

This concept works well: because of the concern for retaliation, nations held their populations in check - and peace was held.

Well - at this point the muslims do NOT contain their own radicals.


If we held the nations responsible for their own radicals - perhaps there would be peace.


We have been too kind to the muslims - no one in Pakistan should be burning flags.


Perhaps some response from this nation to the towns in which the American flags were burned would PREVENT future flag burnings.

At this point, Obama is ALLOWING this situation to spin OUT OF CONTROL.


Obama is at fault here, for not being tough enough.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 12, 2010 2:43 AM | Report abuse

Shorter ruk: Maddow spouts her deceptive propoganda in a pleasant voice.

Here are a couple of Maddow lies for you.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/rachel-maddow-lies-fox-shirley-sherrod

http://liberalfail.com/2010/03/surprise-rachel-maddow-lies-again/

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 7:31 AM | Report abuse

Hannity admitted his show's video error on air.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/hannity-jon-stewart-was-r_n_354887.html


So perhaps ru can give up that little hobby horse and sleep easy for once.

Pathetic, ru, really pathetic.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 7:36 AM | Report abuse

"Legend Management"
http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/db/

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

The WP damned well better give an op ed space to Ackerman or another in response to this AEI piece here... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/10/AR2010091002679.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

"The WP damned well better give an op ed space to Ackerman or another in response to this AEI piece here"

Why?

What is the response he needs the chance to give to these months-old revelations?

Perhaps he will explain this one as well (from Politico):

"At another point, Ackerman acknowledged that, while he didn’t like having to toe a partisan line, “what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”


He continued: “I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a right winger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously, I mean this rhetorically.” "

I'm not aware of SA's having given any response to the revelations. I can't imagine what it would be other than -- if he had a shred of honor -- to abjectly apologize for his sins and withdraw from "journalism" and public commentary, since he plainly has disqualified himself.

And then there is the question of the rest of the Journolisters, who knew about or even participated in this coordinated misinformation campaign.

What's the defense of this propoganda conspiracy?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 12, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

All, here's a fresh open thread for you:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/sunday_open_thread_5.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 12, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

When you have no compass bearing other than power/money, then you can say pretty much anything at all and feel no responsibility towards truth or towards your fellow citizens.

From the NRO this morning:

"Citing a recent Forbes article by Dinesh D’Souza, former House speaker Newt Gingrich tells National Review Online that President Obama may follow a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview." http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/246302/gingrich-obama-s-kenyan-anti-colonial-worldview-robert-costa

And of course, there's nothing racist in that "Kenyan" thing there. It evokes all the same racial and cultural notions as "Canadian" or "Swiss".

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

@Bernie: Funny how Mr. Alexander made no mention of the "Southern Strategy" and Lee Atwater's famous "ni**er, ni**er, ni**er" quote.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 12, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

@Brigade....You posted..

"I work with some college educated people who like to hunt and fish and watch football but pay no attention whatsoever to politics. But they do vote! If you wonder why politicians and pundits pander, repeat talking points, and tell lots of porkies, it's because many people don't follow issues and events like you do.
It's really just a big propaganda war.
Sorry to sound so cynical."

If you see my 9:27PM post Brigade you'll see that I not only accept your point but basically agree with it.

The only difference here is again as a former journalist I do see "some" journalism still alive and well it's not all propaganda...yet. While you pointed out the MSNBC lineup..Chris Matthews...personally drives me crazy because he won't shut up and let his guests answer...he is as rude as O'Reilly and I wish they'd can him...and yes O'Donnell is certainly partisan and get's exercised...Olberman is an entertainer...like Glen Beck only Olberman (while certainly not infallible) doesn't play fast and loose with the facts and does try to maintain some journalistic principles...but Maddow is the exception to all of these guys...she truly tries very hard to admit up front her own biases, where SHE stands on an issue, and then to use facts or polite and fair interviews to make her point. Another great example of Maddow at work is her interview of Meghan McCain. McCain on for a 2nd time..this time to plug her book...which contained some really loaded statements about Sarah Palin. If Maddow had been O'Reilly..or the "lunatic" you suggest she would have gone right for the Palin quotes and concentrated on "red meat" for her base audience. She didn't, instead she decided to engage McCain on the thoughtful and IMHO far more important issue of does McCain feel like the lone ranger as a moderate Republican...a descriptor by the way that is rapidly approaching an oxymoron. It was a gentle interview that focused far more on substance than the titillating Palin material.

The main difference between Fox and the other networks is their so called "news anchors" also participate in the propaganda...the "hosts" we have discussed are "pundits" and not journalists by description...this frees them..however again IMHO it shouldn't free them to absolutely lie as O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck do. And when their "news" anchors say stuff like "fist bump or terrorist fist jab?" describing Obama's acceptance of his nomination...when they put up false video again in their purported "news" segments...perhaps again it's because I was a journalist..it disgusts me.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 12, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

@schrod - Actually, he does mention the 'southern strategy' but fails (as he does pretty much everywhere in his piece) to be honest about it. No mention, for one simple example, of the constant flow of racist commentary from talk radio or the Obama with bone through nose imagery that has been all over the rightwing online world for more than two years. Etc etc.

It's a propaganda exercise (a major part of the AEI's role) meant to defuse the power of such charges. His reference to and description of Journolist is a typical example of the rightwing's long-term campaign to devalue media structures and content ("they are biased against conservatives/republicans") which has two goals: 1) ad hominem and 2) justifies setting up an alternate media structure which is explicitly rightwing (they do propaganda so we can too).

The WP commonly allows itself to be used in this manner and I have no confidence that the folks who invite it in aren't happy to have the institution so used.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 12, 2010 9:54 AM | 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