CAPITOL LETTER

A Risky Strategy

The House GOP's anti-Obama stand risks marginalizing a wounded party.

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: SPIRITED AWAY @ 01/31/2009 7:34:15 PM

    To: ThadStovall
    RE: "GOP (Grand Old Perverts)"

    Can you list all of the Democrat Perverts?

    bill clinton
    barney frank
    wilbur mills
    wayne hays
    john young
    alan howe
    fred richmond
    gerry studds
    brock adams
    jim bates
    gus savage
    charles robb
    daniel inouye
    mel reynolds
    gary condit
    paul patton
    bob wise
    jim mcgreevey
    Neil Goldschmidt
    Mike Lowry

    I could go on but the list is far too large to post all of the Democrats guilty of perversion.

    The key point to keep in mind, when a democrat is doing it it is called sex or having an affair, when a republican does he is labeled by the media and everyone else as a pedophile.

    The hypocrisy of this political assassination is disgusting beyond belief. The socialists need to be stopped, they are destroying our country!#!#!

    • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 01/31/2009 7:41:08 PM

      Very good list...however...you left out Father Flamer and Michael Jackson....I'm sure they both voted Dem., and MJ is nearly as black as Obama.

      NOBAMA!!!

      • Posted By: modotx @ 03/16/2009 8:11:29 AM

        I was not aware that Republicans considered themselves socialists. I guess they are since they privatize profits and socialize losses.

      • Posted By: Cazador1972 @ 01/31/2009 10:23:35 PM


        Daniel Inouye lost his right arm fighting for your right to your mouth freely; a courage neither Bush nor Cheney nor Limbaugh had and he has lived a VERY honorable life. If you are without sin then you ought to cast the first stone. Learn some facts before you spew your utter nonsense.

    • Posted By: Cazador1972 @ 01/31/2009 10:17:47 PM


      A) You are making a strawman argument. No one has said than when a Dem does something is weighed differently than when a Rep. does it. YOU are making that statement and it is baloney.

      B) How does being gay or having extramarital affairs make you a "pervert"?

      C) Are you SURE you want to play this game? I can triple that list with Republican "perverts" in the blink of an eye. Do you want me to?

  • Posted By: gvillagran3 @ 02/01/2009 12:23:47 AM

    Cowboy.

    Maibe you should stop riding horses for long enough to read a book and inform yourself before you talk ?

    You can start by taking your advice and actualy get some history lessons on the Clinton years. In 1993 Clinton increased taxes on high income Americans. The Economy went UP not down Cowboy. In 1997 Clinton CUT taxes to the Middle class, and again the Economy went UP. Clinto left Bush SURPLUSES AS FAR AS THE EYE COULD SEE..... Until the Idiot President from Texas blew them to hell, and he inherited Obama the largest deficts in the history of the U.S. by far.

    The Republican Congress under Clinton went against the tax increases (no surprise) , went against Clinton's policies that created surpluses, and went against Clinton's economic policies that gave us our best Economy in decades.

    Now of course Cowboy, you can pretend I am making all these up, get on your horse, and continue to make believe that Republicans saved the day.... But if I was you, I would try to grow up and simply accept the fact that when it comes to deficits, and spending the Republicans are the undispiuted world champions.... And that Cowboy is no Bull.

    Or were they not the very same Republicans under Clinton the ones that gave us the deficts under Bush? So what gives Cowboy? A Republican Congress under Clinton was the one that gave us surpluses, but all of the sudden changed their mind under 6 years of Bush, and decided to spend like there was no tomorrow?????

    • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 02/01/2009 12:30:03 AM

      Not exactly. Using the stock market as an unofficial benchmark, a recession would have begun in March 2000 (Clinton Adminstration) when the NASDAQ crashed following the collapse of the Dot-com bubble. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was relatively unscathed by the NASDAQ's crash until the September 11, 2001 attacks, after which the DJIA suffered its worst one-day point loss and biggest one-week losses in history up to that point. The market rebounded, only to crash once more in the final two quarters of 2002. In the final three quarters of 2003, the market finally rebounded permanently

      • Posted By: modotx @ 03/16/2009 8:04:10 AM

        Using the stock market as a sole barometer of when a recession starts is not only irresponsible but inaccurate as well.

  • Posted By: gvillagran3 @ 01/31/2009 5:19:46 PM

    OH I see Jim... So we trust "Private Business" to spend our money in a wise way.... Do you see the crooks at Wall Street spending our money wise way Jim?

    Do you know that trillions of Dollars of our hard earned wealth is gone because we trusted these "wise" vecons of Capitalism we have in Wall Street. Tell me Jim at what point do Republicans qualify their remarks about the supposed wisdom of private business to do the right thing? At what point does it dawn on you Republicans that Capitalism with no restrains can become a recipe for desaster? At what point do you accept the fact that you live, have lived, and will live in a society that needs Government for their every day function?

    What made America great Jim is the fact that our forefathers had the wisdom to understand that Government has a place in our society. They understood that There's limits to what private business can , and can't do, just as there's limits as to what government can, or can not do. That is why they designed a Constitution that provide us with the blue print to merge private and public life in Liberty. I do not recall our forefathers giving us a "We don't need government, private business will do just firne thank you " Constitution or do you?

    I for one would remind you that for all that disdain on your part, and that of all Republicans about Government, it was to Government never the less that your "pivate business" ran to ask for help when they realised the Financial system was about to collapse on the weight of all their greed, and irresponsibility.

    But you are right Jim.. I don't trust Government with my money either, the difference is that I don't trust "rpivate business" with my money either..... That's why I want them to co-exist in a way they cancel each other by not letting either one get too much power.

    In the last ten years Business aquired way too much power Jim... And we are suffering the consecuences.

    • Posted By: jim_A @ 01/31/2009 5:36:45 PM

      What is unfortunate is that you have missed some of the biggest news stories NOT to hit the stands. Dems, such as Barney Frank pushing Fannie and Freddy to buy ridiculous loans. Barney and friends insisted home mortgage companies make loans to people who are huge risks and sell them to Fannie and Freddie.
      That is the kind of Gov intervention that is all for the politacal good of the few at the cost of our economy.

      • Posted By: modotx @ 01/31/2009 11:24:18 PM

        Please provide sources showing Barney Frank telling bankers and mortgage lenders to ignore sound business practices.

        • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 02/01/2009 12:09:24 AM

          Below is a link to C-SPAN video clips of the Congressional hearings at roughly the time Republicans attempted with S.190. to fix Fannie and Freddie. See for yourself who said what.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

          See also:



          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related (See Obama interview, about 2/3 of the way through)
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related


          For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

          "House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

          Their failed policies are what brought us to ruin. Even Bill Clinton says so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE

          • Posted By: modotx @ 03/16/2009 8:00:59 AM

            This is just things taken out of context. Anything taken out of context is suspect and I am certainly not going to trust edited material coming from a Republican.

          • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 02/01/2009 12:42:56 AM

            Sorry, for Clinton quote, try:

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

        • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 02/01/2009 12:11:56 AM

          See also :
          http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1322297

      • Posted By: modotx @ 01/31/2009 11:22:11 PM

        Please provide the source where Barney Frank was insisting that mortgage companies provide loans to unqualified applicants or where he insisted that loans be made to people who could not afford it or to not follow sound business practices?

        • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 02/01/2009 12:09:55 AM

          ??? Below is a link to C-SPAN video clips of the Congressional hearings at roughly the time Republicans attempted with S.190. to fix Fannie and Freddie. See for yourself who said what.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

          See also:



          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related (See Obama interview, about 2/3 of the way through)
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related


          For an interesting article purporting to detail the House Financial Services Committee Chairs long history with Fannie Mae, See http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

          "House Financial Services Committee Chair promoted GSEs while former 'spouse' was Fannie Mae executive."

          Their failed policies are what brought us to ruin. Even Bill Clinton says so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE

          • Posted By: modotx @ 03/16/2009 7:56:37 AM

            This is typical conservative cherry picking. None of this is Barney Frank saying he wanted to cram things down people's throats via Freddie Mac or Freddie Mae. and remember this was 2004 and was under Pres Bush's presidency which didn't regulate anything.

          • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 02/01/2009 12:52:02 AM

            Sorry, for Clinton quote, try:

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

      • Posted By: modotx @ 01/31/2009 11:22:43 PM

        Please provide the source where Barney Frank was insisting that mortgage companies provide loans to unqualified applicants or where he insisted that loans be made to people who could not afford it or to not follow sound business practices?

  • Posted By: oldtymer1 @ 02/23/2009 11:29:13 AM

    If you think out past president should be tried then you should take a look at the dem. senators and representatives that desmirched our president in a time of war. Also the whole dem party trying to destroy their opponents with smear tackticks is appauling. If this had been tried 100 years ago the dem. who made the accuasation would have been chanllenge to the duelling trees or show that he was a lying coward. Oh I long for those days when you had to prove your words were true or face the consequences.

  • Posted By: vindido @ 02/20/2009 9:57:19 AM

    What a joke.Change we can believe in ??The only change i see is baracvk Husserin has transformed himself into a 2009 version of Jimmy Carter.As a Republican,hes the best thing to happen to my party since Bill Clinton

  • Posted By: j.marksaylors @ 02/15/2009 10:30:39 PM

    To oppose a plan to save this country from the disasterous problems created by republicans is unAmerican.To be a republicanis un-American. All are guity of treason and the former preident and vice president should be tried and sentanced to death for exposing the identity of a CIA agent Valorie Plume. ITreason. f you voted for bush you are the worst threat our country faces.

  • Posted By: davie divergent @ 02/15/2009 1:06:57 AM

    So you get laid off, you lose your health insurance and house, you're hungry. What do you get from republicans? None of that socialistic stuff like unemployment. You get... a tax cut! On borrowed money! Thank you, republicans.

  • Posted By: davie divergent @ 02/15/2009 1:02:26 AM

    Actually, davole, massive job losses, bankruptcies, layoffs and foreclosures have done a pretty good job of scaring people, in case you hadn't noticed. Those are actually real problems. And they require real solutions, not just some mindless, mantra of tax cuts from a bunch of bird brains too dumb to think of anything else.

  • Posted By: davie divergent @ 02/15/2009 12:57:40 AM

    Does anyone really think you are going to get the truth from someone who calls himself nowforsomemoretruth. Ha ha. More likely 10 pounds of bs in a 5 pound bag.

  • Posted By: davie divergent @ 02/15/2009 12:52:43 AM

    Stupid republicans and their stupid tax cut mentality. They don't have the spine face the consequences of their actions; they just borrow money and stick everyone's children with the bill. And these are the people now complaining about government spending. Idiots and hypocrits.

  • Posted By: boscobear @ 02/02/2009 1:20:49 PM

    Eight years of Republican leadership (and I use that word loosely) and the resulting mess it left, how can they be trusted to now claim that they have great concern for the middle class (nothing said about the poor and homeless). Where was their concern during the 8 years Shrub ran this country into the ground?

    • Posted By: bummerbox @ 02/03/2009 3:15:38 AM

      Go to Youtube and search "Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis" then come back here and tell me who caused all this mess and who tried to do something years ago that would have averted this mess?

      • Posted By: zonawriter @ 02/13/2009 7:58:55 PM

        Give it a rest. I mean, You Tube videos? Seriously. Go read a book...or an article, for that matter...on the crisis. There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the political aisle. What's amazing tome is that Republicans have the audacity, after eight years of the worst Presidency in American history, to tell the rest of us that they're 'right" and we're "wrong." Was it not Bush and co. that played the "sky is falling" game when the banks went bust and we all had to "save them"? Sorry, but if we're going to send billions to Citi and AIG who will then take the money and go golfing, then I don't mind a pork bill where I get my cut. Republicans need to stoip the holier than thou attitude and deal with it: They lost the election, they're ideology is failed, and their elected leaders have no clue what's going on. A republican friend of mine once said to me, "The problem with yopu democrats is that you don't understand economics." I replied, "And the problem with you Republicans is that you don't understand anything else." That pretty much sums it up.

      • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 02/03/2009 9:33:57 AM

        Dude, just make is simple and copy the links. They are down on this string a couple of days back somewhere.

  • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 02/09/2009 12:21:52 PM

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37

  • Posted By: Davole @ 02/09/2009 9:57:06 AM

    Barack Obama, your empty suit excuse for a president, has resorted to the Jimmy Carter doom and gloom approach to instill FEAR into the minds of the population to stampede voters into accepting his porkulus package!

    What a pathetic cop-out by an obviously incompetent democrat (is that redundancy?) leader!

  • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 02/08/2009 7:18:01 PM

    Less than 40% of Americans now support the "stimulus Bill." That means more than 60% now oppose the Bill. Obama got less than 53% of the popular vote.

    The question now becomes: Will Obama bring change to Washington by doing the will of the American people, or is he in fact chained to the tired old partisan politics of Pelosi, Reid, and the radical left. If the latter, he is no longer representing the majority of the American people.

  • Posted By: Davole @ 02/08/2009 6:05:09 PM

    Barack Chicken Little Obama is frantically flapping his wings, running around Washington in democrat circles, and squawking that the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
    This pathetic display of ignorance and incompetence is what he is trying to mask as leadership.

    He crows - we???ve got to pass this porkulus bill NOW, it has got to be done NOW, even though it leaves a lot to be desired, but it???s our only option to avert a country wide collapse of his government - err, correct that - the American economy.

    He has bribed 2 or 3 weak-kneed RINO senators to support the monstrous omnibus bill which he is attempting to disguise as a stimulus package. And he pathetically parades their support as being a commendable bipartisan accomplishment of momentous importance.

    The only truly stimulus package which Nancy Pelosi could ever put together and accomplish would be to provide every democrat with his or her own anal vibrator, with batteries included.

    For any worthwhile proposal to qualify as a stimulus package, it would have to satisfy one main criteria - that it is able to influence both the industrial and services sectors of the nation to significantly increase the GDP within an almost immediate time frame - such as now, in 2009.
    The enormous spending has to actually produce worthwhile product, as opposed to merely employing more people to do nothing substantive.

    The 600 pages of Pelosi???s and Obama???s porkulus package would definitely fail that test!
    Why is the majority of spending scheduled to occur in 2010 and 2012, coincidently just before mandatory national elections for the positions of House Representatives, Senators, and President?

    Obviously this sleazy package is intended to bribe the voters into re-electing the same democrats who are responsible for the current economic disaster, and also to bail out the irresponsible democrat city and state governments which are bordering on bankruptcy due to an ever increasing wasteful plethora of skyrocketing democrat policies.

    This democrat can of worms package will be exposed for all to see!

    Barack Obama - the great unifier - uniting Chicago style corruption and intimidation politics with Washington ineptitude and partisanship under the table pay-backs!

  • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 02/06/2009 11:28:05 PM

    We were warned:

    See Wall Street Journal: A Liberal Supermajority:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

  • Posted By: bkrummel @ 02/06/2009 6:48:53 AM

    Wow, Obama recently talked tough to the Republicans in Congress.

    On one hand, finally Obama is providing some assertive leadership with respect to the economic stimulus plan. Up until now, he has been letting the Congress set the agenda and it's about time that changed. Moveover, Obama seemed to give the Republicans a much needed wake up call. The Republicans are still too focused on their tax cut agenda and need to be reminded that the American people are counting on them to provide real solutions.

    On the other hand, we are talking about an over $800 billion bill for which there are serious doubts whether it contains enough stimulus and too much extra spending. "The time for talk" is not over, not until the bill is gotten right. Moreover, this got to be a slap in the face to the Republicans. Obama's "new politics" doesn't seem to be going too well. I hope this isn't the way every issue is going to go.

    The Republicans need to drop the tax cut thing entirely and drop any political nonsense any of them are engaged in too. It's unfortunate; I was really hoping for the Republicans and Obama to work together and for there to be a better stimulus bill, but doesn't seem like that's going to happen now. To be honest, the Republicans and Obama are both to blame (not equally, but that is aside the point).

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 02/06/2009 9:03:29 PM

      I take some of this back. It seems some Senators have trimmed down and improved the bill and the bill now has some bipartisan support. Good job Senators!

  • Posted By: Davole @ 02/05/2009 11:21:19 PM

    The panicking, incompetent, novice president is now attempting to stampede senators to blindly approve his porkulus bill immediately, without attempting to eliminate the massive pork components which do not provide any economic stimulus.

    This is a irresponsible tactic which the sleazy democrats intend to foist on the current taxpayers, their children, and their grandchildren who will be cast into debt by that despicable, blatantly partisan, pitiful attempt at governance.

    Recently Nancy Pelosi has cowardly lied to the American public by stating that over 500 million American workers lose their jobs every month because passage of this porkulus bill is being opposed by honourable Republicans and democrats. Those honest representatives realize that this non stimulus bill is just a Trojan horse crafted to enslave current and future generations of taxpayers by facilitating radical socialist programs which will soon bankrupt the nation.

    Should Nancy Pelosi be investigated for substance abuse?
    Does she not realize that the American population slightly exceeds 300 million citizens.
    If 200 million of those would be working for a living, and if her dire warning is to be believed, it would mean that statistically every American worker loses his or her job 2 and a half times each month.
    Is she aware of the ridiculousness of her assertion?

    In light of the democrat government???s irresponsibility and incompetence, does the American public have any faith in expecting this grossly inept panicking government to competently solve the economic crisis which democrats created?

    Taxpayers do have a say in this matter - contact your local senators to express your displeasure at the government???s incompetence, and remind those senators that many of them and their counterparts in the House stand to lose their comfortable employment positions in 2010.

    Power to the people - it???s time for another effective American Revolution!

  • Posted By: alba214 @ 02/01/2009 2:37:21 PM

    When did the Republicans slap Obama's hand away? How about the idea of even before the President sat down with them and talked. They got their marching orders from people like Rush Limbaugh and they are folloing the tune set by the piper. How about the invitations to watch the Superbowl with the President? Every network had that on, and that the Republicans refused. But Fox News today with Britt Hume is saying that the President invited Democrats and snubbed the Republicans. I guess you can make up any thing you want when the people who listen to your news have their own motto....."don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up"

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 02/01/2009 3:31:55 PM

      Firstly, let's separate Limbaugh from the Republicans in Congress. Limbaugh is a jerk who said he wants Obama to fail. The Republicans in Congress have said that they want Obama to succeed, that Obama must succeed, and that they plan to work with him. To conclude from Limbaugh being a loud-mouth as usually that the Republican are following him against Obama is erroneous.

      Moreover, the Republicans claim to have met with Obama a few times and been giving him their ideas over the last week.

      As for the Superbowl invitation Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl are not going, though I'm unsure if it's political or otherwise. Them aside, four Republicans, Arlen Specter, Charlie Dent, Trent Franks, and Fred Upton are attending. Sounds like some Republicans are accepting Obama's hand to me.

      I don't listen don't listen to garbage like Limbaugh or Fox News. I don't really care what they have to say. Anyone who uses them for news and analysis is an idiot anyways. I use MSNBC for initial news and analysis, then I use YouTube (where fulls interviews and speeches are found), C-Span, and Meet the Press, among others, to get the rest of the story. I prefer to hear what the politicians actually do and say without the biased analysis. I also prefer listening to experts rather than talking heads. I then make my own opinion based purely on the facts. There are plenty on both sides that selectively read the facts as to support their opinion, I'm not one of them.

      • Posted By: Davole @ 02/03/2009 10:48:19 AM

        Continued -

        Should he instead, as a conservative, support the deceptive president???s determination to enslave America by prohibiting readily available coal, petroleum, and nuclear sources of energy, and wasting billions or trillions of dollars to combat an unproven threat of global warming?
        Should America be a beacon of free self directed policy, or should it relinquish its freedom just to gain the approval of the inept and corrupt UN and the lackluster feeble EU?

        I believe that Rush Limbaugh has a keen insight into the motivations, pronouncements, and actions of American politicians, and that he is beholden to none of them. Yes, he does delight in making comments which he readily knows the mainstream media will all, in unison, pounce on and regurgitate in a vain attempt to discredit him. That???s his personal style, he excels at it, and he exposes the drive by media???s complacent single train of thought, and its journalistic incompetence.


        Likewise, Fox News is the only American TV network which purposely enables economic, societal, and political current issues to be discussed and debated by both supporters and opponents. You won???t find that balance on the regimented and restricted train of thought MSNBC network.

        I hope that you will bother to consider my comments with an open enquiring mind!

        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 02/05/2009 4:07:38 PM

          My apologies for insulting you, as you are one of the few people posting trying to engage in a thoughtful dialogue. My language was probably too strong, but there is a reason for it and I still essentially stand by my opinion.

          I think Rush Limbaugh and FOX News is garbage and have thought so for some time. Limbaugh is mostly a loud mouth expressing far-right views. He occasionally says something insightful. Yes the media jumps on him while taking his quotes out of context; a good example of this is the "Phony Soldier" incident. But I do not feel his opinion is valuable in formulating my own, as he is a bunch of ridiculous talk and I can get better analysis elsewhere.

          As for FOX News, they are clearly a big Republican-biased tabloid news channel. They are known to get stories wrong. When they have a non-Republican guest on, they often ask silly questions and try to browbeat them to make the Republican side look better. As a news show, FOX is a joke.

          Yes, MSNBC has much of the same. I should have clarified that I use their website to get what the story is and to link to other news sites as a first step in learning the full story. I don't watch their TV garbage that much. Keith Olbermann is a loud mouth jerk too and Rachael Maddow's show is as tabloid-like and biased as FOX News. Anyone who takes these guys seriously are similarly "idiots".

          Now Davole and others reading may not be idiots. They know to take these jokers with a grain of salt and to use multiple sources and their own mind to formulate an intelligent opinion. But not everyone is as thoughtful as us. Some takes these guys too seriously and essentially parrot the opinions of the loud mouths. Such people are idiots and they are hurting our political dialogue. The jokers like Limbaugh that encourage this are greatly to blame. Examples of this includes the anti-intellectuals in the Republican Party that have lead my party to abandoning principle and competency. These people need dealt with, and harshly. They are idiots, and that's giving them more credit than I think they deserve.

          Hopefully our nation will move towards a more thoughtful political discourse. I support those like Davole who are already there. But those who aren't, including some people posting here and people blindly listening to loudmouths like Limbaugh or Olbermann, I have no more patience for.

      • Posted By: Davole @ 02/03/2009 10:50:25 AM

        bkrummel -

        Although you have offered me support on another thread of the Newsweek site, I see that you consider me to be an idiot. I???ll explain.

        We agree that the Republican party had lost its principles and sense of direction. Yes, I believe that the party was defeated in last year???s election because it selected a leader who spent more time across the aisle ingratiating himself with democrats instead of working with Republicans to refine and articulate the core conservative principles on which the party was founded, and professed under Ronald Regan???s leadership.

        Yes, I also agree that Rush Limbaugh frequently criticizes many of the Republicans in Congress, and rightfully so because they often choose to abandon their supposed core principles in favour of being democrat lite in a defeating attempt to maintain their employment as politicians. Are they in effect prostituting their values? And just look at the results of the recent election - the public voted in favour of democrats who touted a phantom undefined promise for change, as opposed to Republican candidates who ran on a wimpy collection of democrat lite proposals.

        You state that you use MSNBC for initial news and analysis, along with YouTube, C-Span, and Meet the Press. I believe that those sources, with the exception of MSNBC, do provide worthwhile news and analysis.

        But I was surprised to read your condemnation of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, and your indirectly calling me an idiot because I listen to, and appreciate them.

        Why do you call Rush Limbaugh a jerk based on the mainstream media???s abbreviated report of his statement that he hopes Obama fails? That comment was purposely taken out of context, without the qualification that he opposes Barack Obama???s determination to stealthily transform America from a capitalist society to a radical socialist one!

    • Posted By: bummerbox @ 02/01/2009 9:05:48 PM

      Who has their eyes closed? Go to youtube and search for "Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis" and "Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial mess" just as a start. You can not argue with video and audio of congress in their own words. It was the Republicans that tried to talk some sense into the Democrats and bring about change that would have averted this crisis and the Democrats would have nothing to do with it. Maybe the ones you need to send packing are those Democrats who formed the policy that got the whole world into this mess. That includes now President Obama he was the lawyer who went to court for Acorn to force banks to make loans that they normally would not have...

  • Posted By: tired and old @ 01/30/2009 3:19:05 PM

    REPUBLICANS SHOULD AND MUST STAND UP AGAINST A MAJORITY DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS THAT BORDERS ON TYRANNY.

    YES ! I SAID TYRANNY.

    SOME LIBERALS ARE USING INSULTING LANGUAGE AND SHOWING SUCH AN UNBELIEVABLE OBNOXIOUS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE REPUBLICAN MINORITY.

    LIBERALS HAVE THE NUMBERS AND THE POWER NOW TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY WITH THEIR OPINIONS AND THEIR BRAND OF ACTION.

    YES ! GIVE THE ARTS FUNDS TO PROMOTE LIBERAL ANTI-CHRIST ART; SUCH AS, CROSSES IN JARS OF URINE ?

    LIBERALS LETS ENCOURAGE THE KILLING OF BABIES.

    • Posted By: electropsb @ 01/30/2009 5:36:33 PM

      Hey, tired and old, I'm really getting tired of the same old pro-life line about "babies" getting killed by leftist pro-choicers... an embryo is not a baby yet.. and there is always the possibility that that embryo may end up miscarrying... We need to stop worrying about potential life and start worrying about the real-life babies that are already here. Who's taking care of them? Too many children are brought into this world by a single parent or by people who are in no way prepared to raise children correctly. THOSE children are the ones we should be fighting for. I refuse to judge or comment on what a woman chooses what she wants to do if she gets pregnant. That's nobody's business but hers.

      • Posted By: jim_A @ 01/31/2009 4:25:02 PM

        You sure an embryo is NOT a life? And how do you come to such an answer? Science? Philosphy?
        Sure hate to be wrong about life!
        I agree that we need to take care of those babies here and now. BUT it needs to be the people, not the government! Government botches it when it comes to helping.

        • Posted By: electropsb @ 02/02/2009 3:40:56 PM

          No, I'm not sure that an embryo isn't a life, but as long as it's tucked away in some woman's womb, it's none of my concern. I'm not saying I'm pro-abortion, I'm just saying that the minute people start dictating what a person can or can't do with their body the question becomes when will it stop? I agree that government shouldn't really have a say in the matter but legally, there shouldn't be barriers for someone to safely and humanely stop a pregnancy if they're not ready (emotionally, monitarily, etc..) ...

          • Posted By: Davole @ 02/02/2009 6:49:40 PM

            electropsb -

            In your reply to jim_A, you ask "when will it end"?

            Instead, I pose a moral question - when SHOULD it begin?

            Although I do consider birth control morally acceptable (because a human life hasn't been created), I oppose abortion - the deliberate termination of human life, especially an innocent human life.

            If a nation's society believes that its government should have a RIGHT to approve abortion, why shouldn't it also be entitled to limit the total number of infants to be born on a daily, weekly, monthly, or annual basis?

            If a government were to deem that it could or should only afford to feed or care for 300 million persons, should society accept that decision supposedly for the "good" of the nation?

            If a subsequent government were to decide to revise that target number downward for whatever reason, should the populace meekly comply with that edict?

            I believe that China has already enacted compulsory abortions to limit its population. The acceptance of government approved abortions is the start of a slippery slope toward government mandated abortions. After all, if unborn human life has no real intrinsic value or merit, what is wrong with a government supposedly taking that step if it deems its regulations to be in the nation's best interests?

            Also, if all human life is not to be respected, should a government be permitted to decide whether the lives of the physically infirmed, the mentally ill, the elderly, the less intelligent, or the physically unattractive should be terminated for the socalled common good?

            If morality has any relevance, how much less human is an infant who is 5 minutes shy of birth, as opposed to one who is 5 minutes old after birth?

            Do you now realize what can happen when a government attempts to play God in determining who should live and who should be terminated? In some ways, enabling women to make that determination is merely evading responsibility in that regard.

            If Barack Obama were truly concerned with protecting human life, why doesn't he ensure adequate funding to inform school children regarding current scientific evidence regarding the progression of weekly development of an unborn infant? Wouldn't that put more emphasis on the importance of personal responsibility for respecting and protecting human life?

            • Posted By: electropsb @ 02/04/2009 12:41:52 AM

              Is government approving abortion, or to allow someone the freedom to choose what they want to do do with an unplanned pregnancy? I think it's unfair to assume just because you approve personal freedom you have to be pro-abortion, which seems to be the conclusion so many people make on this issue. Back in my college days in the 90s, I used to hate the ubiquitous poll question "Are you pro-life or pro-choice".... can't I be both? I can disapprove of abortions, but it's not up to me to dictate to a woman what she can or can't do with her body.

              The somewhat rhetorical question to Jim_A as to when will it stop, was more about the restrictions of personal freedom.. if a woman no longer has a say in what she chooses to do with her unborn baby, can we then impose government restrictions on a person who feels the need to change their sex from male to female? You could make a moral argument about that. I think to look for morality in government is like trying to look for a whore in a convent... you'll be searching for quite a while. I believe in separation of Church and State and it irks me how our society has become so obsessed with "moral" politicians - an oxymoron in my opinion.

              Giving women the choice to end a pregnancy is the same thing as people choosing to enter into a risky loan and getting burned by it. You could argue it was God's will for any number of personal woes, why is abortion so important? From your statement near the bottom of your response, you make it sound like women are incapable of such choice. In the end, we are always haunted by our choices, and I agree that there should be more responsibility taught in school, but part of the problem are parents who don't feel that it's the government's job to teach kids the facts of life. Even sex-ed classes get scrutinized these days.. so how do you make everyone happy?

              You're also forgetting that there are people in this world who have to play God every day. Triage in an emergency room, the committees that decide who gets a new organ and who doesn't, military leaders sending troops to battle.... These are unfortunate facts of the world we live in. It's not disrespect for human life, it's trying to do the best we can in this overly complex world.

              Sorry if this response seems a bit disjunct and haphazard... I tried to respond to your points.. this comment window isn't very conducive to proof reading.

              • Posted By: Davole @ 02/05/2009 3:23:53 AM

                electropsb -

                Thanks again for deciding to continue this discussion with me.

                Regarding the personal decision - pro-life vs pro-choice, I believe that a person's morality would hold sway in making that decision, but that morality would only allow one position, not both.

                Yes, I agree that morality is rarely evident in political circles, but that again prompts a relevant question - should morality be evident in politics? My answer is that of a person who places more emphasis on the word "should" as opposed to "is".

                The founding fathers who wrote and enacted the American Constitution were motivated by morality, and I do believe that their wise intention was that politicians should always act in accordance with morality. Somewhere along the line, that distinction became lost and that concept began to be mocked and considered archaic and irrelevant.

                You ask -"why is abortion so important"? My answer is a religious one, and I admit that. I believe that God exists, and that in His generosity, He gave mankind the marvellous opportunity to actually participate in the creation of human life, especially one that would usually combine the physical attributes and thought processes of both parents. If your parent or a close friend were to give you a special gift which they valued, would your reaction be to say no thank you, and then to destroy it in their presence?

                I appreciate that you agree that more responsibility should be "taught in school, but part of the problem are parents who don't feel that it's the government's job to teach kids the facts of life". Even though sex-ed classes do get scrutinized these days, I believe that those classes should (and again I use that word "should") be balanced and scientific in their presentation. Also, a moral outlook does not restrict itself to the task of making "everyone happy".

                You seem perplexed by the life relevant decisions in Triage, organ receival, and miilitary matters - even though death may result, those decisions are ultimately precipitated by respect for and protection of human life.

                I am confident that you will "find your way" on the issue of abortion. I'll pray that you succeed in making a true moral decision in that regard, and not just one which agrees with my viewpoint.

                May you find and truly appreciate responsibility and peace - they aren't mutually exclusive!

    • Posted By: Kealia @ 01/30/2009 7:41:27 PM

      Tired and old, your comments are ridiculous. Stop bringing God into everything. Many Republicans cannot separate church from state. This is one of their many problems and their right wing politics are what got this country into trouble.

      To this day, the Bush Administration has not taken accountability for any of their actions and Obama has been stuck with the biggest mess of any president in history. Give the guy a chance, it's been what, TWO WEEKS? Do the republicans have any better ideas? No they don't. While I admit that I don't care for certain portions of the stimulus package, without it, this country will sink. Two of the largest banks in the country are on the verge of collapse and Wall Street is in serious trouble. Home prices are dropping in record time and people are losing their retirement.

      I think it's time that we stop attacking the President when he has very few options. If he does nothing, we sink, and of course, he'll be blamed. If he spends and things get worse, he'll be blamed. The guy can't win. Before you start throwing stones at liberals, let them give it a try. The last eight years are a perfect example of recklessness, overconfidence and lack of accountability. The republicans have refused to conceit that their party made some catastrophic errors and now they're pinning it on a newly elected president. You people live in la la land. You think that God will save us all and that capitalism has not faults. It does, it encourages greed and these multimillion dollar bonuses by execs is a perfect example.

      Our system is broken and we need to fix it. Give Obama some room to figure it out. Republicans and democrats need to put their differences aside and work together to rebuild this country.

      • Posted By: Davole @ 01/30/2009 10:47:29 PM

        Kealia -

        Let Barack Obama spend only democrat funds to finance his porkulus bill - then if it stimulates the economy, he alone can bask in its glory.

        On several occasions, he has chosen to employ the old divide tactic to try to cast scorn at business executives who have derived unearned financial benefits.

        Why doesn't he begin to lead by example by, as he says, putting some skin into this game.

        Since he has already made a few million dollars from royalties for his 2 books, why doesn't he and his wife announce that they will volunteer to work for the measley yearly sum of one dollar, to follow the lead of at least one business executive who was coerced into such an agreement?

        Since, as an Illinois senator he voted over 130 times by pressing the present button, who doesn't he agree to return to the taxpayers the money which he was paid for postng that immaturle vote.

        For only serving 143 days as a federal senator, why doesn't he agree to return to the taxpayers the money which he was paid for serving a full term when he only showed up for a portion of the term?

        Why doesn't he disclose the bonuses which his advisers took while they were driving their businesses into bankruptcy? And why doesn't he donate to the treasury the donations which those advisers contributed to his campaign.

        Why doesn't he investigate whether Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are guilty of any neglect of financial responsibility, whether they may have received any funds for looking the other way with regard to the fraudulent business practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and order them to return their salaries to the treasury?

        Why doesn't he personally take up a collection from fellow democrats to repay the taxpayers for the exhorbitant portion of the 160 million dollars which he squandered on his inaugural?

        To demonstrate to the public that he is serious about so-called global warming, why doesn't issue an executive order mandating that Air Force One be retrofitted to wind and solar energy exclusively, and that his presidential limosine attain the miles per gallon consumption rate that he is determined to foist onto the 3 domestic auto production companies?

        Yes, it's time for Barack Obama to show some real leadership!

    • Posted By: poguemathoin@gmail.com @ 01/30/2009 6:05:22 PM

      Well, tired and old, guess who was President in 1989 when Serano exhibited his crucifix in a urine jar? Hmmmm, could it have been. . . Yup! Ronald Reagan -- hardly a proponent of liberal thought. And since Serano must have rec'd his funding during the Reagan years, I don't think you can pin that one on a Democratic, or liberal, administration. And why are you so afraid of opinions, liberal or otherwise? The founding fathers framed our government to ensure that all opinions were heard. Is there a problem with that? And Democrats have hardly been the Congressional majority long enough to become tyrannical. How about you give things a little time and see how they turn out? Lastly, re: your comments about liberals "using insulting language and showing an unbelievable obnoxious attitude," I suggest you backtrack just a short time ago to the Republican congressional majority and take a look at their language and attitude.. Then again, it could be that you're the type who can justify any lack of civility or cooperation by his/her own party, while castigating the other party for the same.

    • Posted By: poguemathoin@gmail.com @ 01/30/2009 6:05:12 PM

      Well, tired and old, guess who was President in 1989 when Serano exhibited his crucifix in a urine jar? Hmmmm, could it have been. . . Yup! Ronald Reagan -- hardly a proponent of liberal thought. And since Serano must have rec'd his funding during the Reagan years, I don't think you can pin that one on a Democratic, or liberal, administration. And why are you so afraid of opinions, liberal or otherwise? The founding fathers framed our government to ensure that all opinions were heard. Is there a problem with that? And Democrats have hardly been the Congressional majority long enough to become tyrannical. How about you give things a little time and see how they turn out? Lastly, re: your comments about liberals "using insulting language and showing an unbelievable obnoxious attitude," I suggest you backtrack just a short time ago to the Republican congressional majority and take a look at their language and attitude.. Then again, it could be that you're the type who can justify any lack of civility or cooperation by his/her own party, while castigating the other party for the same.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse