With Saviors Like This

How lost are the Republicans? They're looking to Newt for answers.

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: George Dorn @ 06/24/2009 1:15:23 PM

    Fact: The current democratic party congress is a disaster. They have become self-parodies. They have to go.

    Fact: The GOP isn't going to shift them if they continue the way they are going, looking to the failures of their past instead of working to reform their party as something resembling actual conservativism. That doesn't look likely, right now.

    Fact: Neither party has any interest in the republic. Neither party is fit to govern America.

  • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 06/22/2009 6:35:36 PM

    Where is that misogynist, 40yr Stalker? Is he still around, or is he in hiding? I am so looking for him....

    • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/24/2009 10:16:00 AM

      Is looking for make sexy time with him?

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/22/2009 6:49:22 PM

      Are you going to post this comment to every Newsweek article?

      • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 06/23/2009 6:29:31 PM

        I might. Is it a problem for you?

        Newsflash; I don't care.

  • Posted By: RO in Reno @ 06/22/2009 9:28:04 PM

    Well paulejb I would not be surprised to see Gingrich run for the white house in 3 years, he could have Ensign as VP, the mens room stalker from Idaho as Secretary of State, Jindal as transportation, Palin as homeland security (she could keep an eye on the world from right there in Wasilla) Paulenty as treasury Sec, Steele would be in charge of entertainment, no idea what to do with the likes of Cantor and Bonher neither has the brains to pour piss out of a boot but I'm sure there is a place in such an administration for them. Ann coulter would make a fine Press Secretary
    But two points, one; I think you missed the point, not only of my comment, but of Howard Fineman's article.
    And two; were you aware that extreme optimism is a sign of insanity?

  • Posted By: RO in Reno @ 06/22/2009 5:39:51 PM

    The reason Republicans bring in the old is there is no new talent available. Gingrich is a bright guy and these GOPer's need someone to give them talking points or they would be at a loss for anything to say. More often than not they all sound like recordings of each other.
    But there are not going to be much in the way of newt talent coming either, The requirement is you have to be able to keep a straight face while promoting a bald faced lie and people willing to do that are few and far between. They have trotted out the likes of Palin, Jindal and others all who have made a fool of them selves from the get go.
    The GOP is not capable of recruiting the best and brightest but will most likely hang on with the 21% of voters they are at now. But it will be a very long time before they hold the white house again. The electorate is more involved than it has been in the past.
    Just as the depression is a topic of discussion even today so will the tragedy of the past eight years last a very long time.

  • Posted By: funkdome @ 06/15/2009 12:03:52 PM

    What a hypocrite. Fineman is a regular on the same Olbermann show in which the host called Bush a fascist.

    • Posted By: Peggy97478 @ 06/21/2009 4:29:19 PM

      Does ANYONE watch MSNBC anymore? No one I know. They are all a bunch of Leftist idiots who get thrills up their legs at the mere sight of their Marxist Messiah. Pathetic bunch of losers! Mr. Fineman, you don't need to worry about the Republican party. You are not even qualified to speak of the Republican party. Stay with what you do best, *utt kissing Barack Obama and blathering your spew on PMSNBC. We will be just fine, thank you very much.

      • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/22/2009 10:28:26 AM

        "You are not even qualified to speak of the Republican party."

        Is journalist pain in ass, is send boys around to shut him up, yes?

    • Posted By: RO in Reno @ 06/15/2009 1:27:38 PM

      GW Bush was as close to a fascist as fascist can get and took this country as close to fascism as we ever want to be.
      Good lord we still have a public debate on the virtues of torture. People locked away for years with no trial, some who died in custody as a result of torture.
      The constitution was under attack from day one of Bush's administration.
      How damned sick can that be?

      • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 9:55:02 AM

        This is someone who doesn't know what facism is. You are mad at Bush and don't REALLY know why. (Other than the media tells you to be.)
        Doc

        • Posted By: PastMaster @ 06/16/2009 1:39:31 PM

          There is NO question that the ultimate basis of Bush's approach to government was economic fascism and as much exercise of absolute power as he could take. "Fascism" is a merging of government with support for and from an oligarchic organization of business interests - either official, or ad-hoc. To many people it also reflects an overpowering use of state organs to direct and control society either through a totalitarian police structure (which Bush sought to establish in Homeland Security) or through control of dissent by use of existing police powers (which Bush actually started while he was still campaigning in 2000). Bush is as close as this country has ever come to fascism. About the only redeeming feature of his Regime was that he was so entirely incompetent he couldn't really make it stick.

          • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 2:11:04 PM

            Apperently you need a lesson.
            Fascism:
            What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments is a highly disputed subject that has proved complicated and contentious. Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets.

            Most scholars agree that a "fascist regime" is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. Authoritarianism is thus a defining characteristic, but most scholars will say that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist.

            Similarly, fascism as an ideology is also hard to define. Originally, "fascism" referred to a political movement that existed in a single country (Italy) for less than 30 years and ruled the country from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Clearly, if the definition is restricted to the original Italian Fascism, then "fascism" has little significance outside of Italian politics. Most scholars prefer to use the word "fascism" in a more general sense, to refer to an ideology (or group of ideologies) that was influential in many countries at many different times. For this purpose, they have sought to identify a "fascist minimum" - that is, the minimum conditions that a certain political group must meet in order to be considered fascist. Several scholars have inspected the apocalyptic, millennial and millenarian aspects of fascism.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] According to most scholars of fascism, there are both left and right influences on fascism as a social movement, and fascism, especially once in power, has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the "far right" or "extreme right."[8]

            If you look up the reference, they are quoting from a British text. In Great Britain (and Australia and Japan) what they call the "Right" would be what we in America would call the "Left".
            Doc

            • Posted By: PastMaster @ 06/16/2009 2:58:28 PM

              Sorry, Dopc, you gots it wrong. AGAIN. "Fascism" is considered by EVER serious student of this movement to be right-wing conservative in its values. It was the party of Franco - the Falangists, still in existence today in some North African countires, were and remain socially-conservative, oligarchic in their economics (as were Mussolini's and Hitler's versions of Fascisst parties), and for the most part repressive in their social operations. Authoritarianism is not as you note a necessity for a 'fascist" regime to exist but it's typical indeed - as was the Bush Regime. It is NOT in any sense comparable to what you call "liberal" in the U.S. today. As noted before, time for you to quit pretending you control historical authority, because you don't.

              • Posted By: CrazyWorld753 @ 06/16/2009 3:30:14 PM

                You got to love people like Doc_Navy who spout all that false intellectualism. The sheep love people like him because they can't see behind all the big words he uses how full of *BS* he is and so allow themselves to be manipulated and swayed by his polluted ideas. He'd make a good politician!

                • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 3:39:35 PM

                  Wow, now come the Ad hominem attacks.
                  That's usually where the intellectualy spent go when they can't back their arguments up.
                  Keep it coming Crazy. You are only making a fool of yourself.
                  Doc

                  • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 3:42:28 PM

                    Excuse me.. intellectually I mean.

                    • Posted By: CrazyWorld753 @ 06/16/2009 4:22:46 PM

                      I've read all your posts and can't find anything logical, factual, intellectual or even common-sense in any of your idealogy, arguments, or rants, as they are definitely starting to appear to me to be. So go ahead and call the kettle black Mr. Pot. Your angry words are meaningful only to yourself and sheep who are too stupid to know better.

                      • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 4:46:39 PM

                        You think they aren't factual because you haven't looked anything up.
                        You think I'm angry and hate filled because I dissagree with you.
                        Remember YOU started with the name calling and Ad hom. Not me.
                        Doc

                        • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/16/2009 5:04:58 PM

                          "You think they aren't factual because you haven't looked anything up."

                          Uday confused. Is you make argument, is you look up fact and post for support, yes? Is not opponent responsibility to look up facts for support your argument.

                          • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 5:20:00 PM

                            Uday:
                            Yes. IS my resonsible to look fact up. Then present to thread. Is other posters responsible to check make sure I wrong before call "BS", and "intellectually fake". If other poster want cite reference, need ask. I provide. If other poster call names, and Ad Hominem attack because they not agree with me... they wrong.
                            Understand you?
                            Doc

                            • Posted By: Alvy @ 06/16/2009 6:31:57 PM

                              Nah. You're all BS.
                              No need to look it up.

                              • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/17/2009 10:32:59 AM

                                No need to look up? Is Jesus tell you he wrong, or is you just know everything?

                                • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/17/2009 4:01:31 PM

                                  Now THAT'S funny. "Snap!"
                                  DOC

                                  • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/19/2009 10:26:37 AM

                                    Is America wonderful country, but is get for fights over stupid things. Of course Obama corrupt, is politician, yes? Of course Palin crazy, is live on glacier. All politicians corrupt, most also stupid, yes? Is why in Salizore, we has no the politicians. Is only generals. Is also corrupt, is also stupid (except glorious leader, of course), is better because peoples no feel guilty for "electing" them, is not have to defend stupid crap because "your party" did, yes?

                                    Is your famous writer, H.L. Mencken say "Democracy is the notion that the average man knows what he wants, and deserves to get it good and hard."

              • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 3:36:19 PM

                Fascism it the third brother in a set of triplets. Fascism/Socialism/Communism. Three peas in a pod. Bush's Administration was NOTHING like that. If you disagree, please cite SPECIFIC actions in the Bush Admin that support your claim to fascism. Thanks
                Doc

                • Posted By: Alvy @ 06/16/2009 6:30:25 PM

                  Doc? As in Doctor?
                  Of what?

                  You know the modern term and what political group it relates too right?




                  Doc.
                  Yeah.

                  The answer is not: Duh, site your refs, duh.
                  And it's certainly not: Duh, it "goes" with these words.

                  Fascism opposes ----- Doc.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

                  You could, if you want - read a dictionary ---- Doc.
                  Navy too? Yikes.

              • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 3:33:04 PM

                Yeah yeah.. you give no references. You just made that stuff up. Please cite some refence for me. YOU are wrong.
                Doc

          • Posted By: John Dough @ 06/16/2009 5:07:20 PM

            Boy!! Wahteve you are smoking must be some GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD stuff. If Bush wanted a police state he would have enacted one using the military since that would be necessary to take complete control. He never made any attempt to natiionalize the police forces of the nation into a federal police force. Homeland Security was a title given to all Federal Law Enforcement agencies merging them into one government oversight department for information sharing, streamlining activities and providing for more effective delivery of services due to the terrorist threat that continues to exist since 9/11. Contrast that to the "real control" Obama is now undetaken: banks, pay, insurance companies, health care, public education, Corporate control, 16 Czars who answer to no one but him (Unelected persons placed their to do his bidding that he could never get by congress even his own party) You call Bush a facist man wake up before we are the United States of Obama.

            • Posted By: Alvy @ 06/16/2009 6:22:55 PM

              Bush is a Messiah!
              Go Johnnie!!

              He'll save us!!

              Oh sorry. Too late.

      • Posted By: John Dough @ 06/16/2009 4:42:36 PM

        Three prisoners hanged themselves they did not die as a result of torture. Several hundred people hang themselves in our jails every year despite our best efforts to prevent it. As far as Facism goes let's see: Obama hasa taken over the Banks (your and my finances), the car companies, insurance companies, CEO pay, stocks of various companies, wants to take over health care, public education, corporate decision making on product production, utliities via Cap and Trade, cigarette smoking, (by the way which he does) and on and on the list goes and grows and you call Bush a facist just what rights did you lose under Bush? Cite an example. This guy is taking control of the whole country and you blind deaf and dumb democrats are head bobbling along with him. Even Pravda the Russian controlled media (by the way Obama controls most of the left media too) says we are becoming a socialist/communist/Marxist state at an alarming rate. Kruschev words are starting to reverberate: We will take you over without firing a shot. Obama appears to be the man doing it for them. GOP in 2010 and 2012!!!

        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/16/2009 10:29:41 PM

          I get and share your concerns about Obama. Obama is certainly talking control of a lot of the economy. I found it striking when on Meet the Press this weekend Joe Biden couldn't give a straight answer to the question of when there is too much government intervention in the economy. That said though, I don't think it is helpful to call Obama Facist.

          Moreover, just because Obama is bad doesn't mean Republicans are good. Assuming I can't trust Obama to govern, why should I trust Republicans govern? I think after looking at the Bush years it is clear that I shouldn't trust the Republicans to govern. Until Republicans can give a good answer as to why they can be trusted, I don't see me and many others supporting them. No, right now I'm hoping and betting that the GOP will lose by a landslide in 2010.

      • Posted By: archmsu @ 06/15/2009 1:37:53 PM

        RO in Reno..... Obama still reserves the right to torture in extreme circumstances and also Obama said he would close Gitmo-not release them, so what's the difference? "One mans trash is another mans treasure!" I love how you people always give a pass to the Democratics you voted for the wars, voted for torture, voted for Bush's tax cuts, etc..... But if it makes you "feel" better to blame one person go ahead and be niave. Democrats count on people with short-attention spans and empty wallets.......

        • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 10:02:55 AM

          EXACLTY. Obama hasn't "Changed" anything. He has kept almost ALL of Bush's policies concerning terrorism (Although apperently we aren't allowed to call it that anymore.) and the ones has changed are all collossal mistakes. (Like dumping terrorists into Bermuda w/o telling Great Britain, and allowing the terrorists to be given ~CITIZENSHIP~ to Bermuda. Or the Miranda rights for terrorists. Excuse me? Miranda Rights?? You gotta be kidding me.)

      • Posted By: brydges @ 06/15/2009 1:40:23 PM

        Look at history's fascists and their politics, and how they came to power. If you can do that without the blind liberal hate, then compare between Bush and Obama, you wont ever say that again.
        However liberals and blind hate go together to well these days.

    • Posted By: WeisWulf @ 06/16/2009 4:48:42 PM

      What does that have to do with the article you responded to???

  • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 06/20/2009 3:10:36 PM

    "I welcome a debate about how we can make sure our regulations work for businesses and consumers," Obama said. "But what I will not accept - what I will vigorously oppose - are those who do not argue in good faith." As this quote clearly points out Obama once again gets to the heart of it and 'calls a spade a spade'. He simply doesn't always have all of the best answers but he really seems to continually have the honesty and conscience to sincerely identify and address the problems, something not seen enough in politics. As far as not always having the best answers, he states he "welcome(s) a debate" and in the past he has completely encouraged compromise with the intent of finding the real best solutions, which actually should be the single focus of an honestly conscientious congress. The Associated Press article continues, [By that, Obama said, he meant those who defend the status quo at any cost. He didn't name any people or organizations, but said special interests are already mobilizing to fight change. He called that typical Washington. "These are the interests that have benefited from a system which allowed ordinary Americans to be exploited," Obama said. The president said he would stand up for his plans, saying: "While I'm not spoiling for a fight, I'm ready for one. The most important thing we can do to put this era of irresponsibility in the past is to take responsibility now."] Really, who can deny that the Special Interests and Republicans who are loudly criticizing and aggressively trying to block everything, while offering no real solutions and only hoping to return to 'more of the same', are nothing more than obstructionists irresponsibly playing politics and focused only on their own selfish interests. Obama's responsible approach to conscientiously focus on what is right for the people is what this country desperately needs but to be really effective it has to be coupled with a Senate and Congress who put politics aside and conscientiously focus on fine tuning everything. Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever should see this truth and demand that our representatives/candidates drop their deceptive and exploitive politics, with their focus on only benefiting a few, and begin to "in good faith" debate and cooperate to achieve what is best for the people, which is their only real responsibility. To loose this opportunity and return to 'more of the same' would be disastrous.

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/21/2009 1:43:58 AM

      I think you are being overly optimistic. I agree Obama is genuinely interested in what is best for the people and in having a good debate about what policy is best. But I doubt this debate will truly occur.

      Obama says things like this a lot, that he welcomes a debate and acknowledges that he doesn't have all the ideas, but he is will only consider debate and ideas of people that HE thinks has good ideas and argue in good faith. He often clearly implies that he thinks that the Republicans do not have good ideas and are not acting in good faith. For example, he said this very thing about the stimulus and then criticized the Republicans tax cuts ideas as bad ideas. To be clear, the Republicans recently have done a poor job in offering good ideas and acting in good faith. But there seems to be a pattern here. Moreover, there are those who disagree with Obama, including some Republicans and many citizens, that feel that things like tax cuts are genuinely good ideas or solidly oppose Obama's policies in a way they regard is justifiable. There are many citizens that view the stimulus bill as wasteful or solidly oppose a public health care option. These people are patriotic and want what's best for America too. It seems that Obama, with good intentions, in dismissing their concerns because he disagrees with their views. Obama certainly can and should protect the political process from those who maliciously. But if Obama truly wants good debate and good alternative ideas, he should be open to debate with anyone, including Republicans and not just those who more or less share Obama views.

      Another thing to consider, is assuming that Obama does want a good debate, the Congress is in charge of the legislative process. It is the Congress that writes and passes the legislation. It is the Democrat leadership, including Pelosi and Reid, that control the debate and legislative process. I don't believe that Pelosi and Reid want give the Republicans any significant say in the legislation. Obama so far has not gotten that involved in the legislative process and has pretty much let the congressional Democrats do whatever they want. So all this talk about Obama wanting bipartisanship, debate, and other people's ideas is just a bunch of talk. Unless Obama is going to get more involved with the Congress and make his talk a reality, Obama should probably stop saying things like "I welcome a debate" because frankly it isn't his debate to welcome.

      Let me note what I am describing is what I saw happened on the stimulus bill and is now happening on other economic issues and health care.

      I think you should also keep in mind that "the Special Interests and Republicans" represent the interests and views of many Americans. You yourself are probably represented by several interests groups and by the Democrats.

  • Posted By: MJ000777 @ 06/19/2009 2:22:02 PM

    I would take Gingrich in a minute over anyone in the Liberal/Progressive/Socialist party. I do not think Newt is a viable presidential candidate though. I like his ideas, but he rubs too many ("middle roaders" - who are mostly informed via the Govt. run media) the wrong way. Palin is the kind of common sense person the country could use compared to the high IQ'd Messi-uh who has little common sense, but she has no chance because the Govt run media (especially The MS National Barack Company) has piled on her using propaganda techniques that would make the old Soviet Union proud.

    A new conservative leader will emerge shortly to further expose the error of the Progressive way. I do not like the out of control spending that was done by Pres. Bush and congress during his administration, but how can Dems decry the amounts Bush spent and then go out and try to spend 5 times more? How is that helpful to an economy that is suffering from Govt. over-spending and a lack of consumer confidence? The evidence is showing that it is not helpful. Everyone's overall taxes are going up in various forms, not just the TOP 5% as the Pres. promised. Some of you who thought you were going to get a bunch of Freebies will be dissapointed! - TNSTAAFL - "There's no such thing as a free lunch" ~ some Economist.

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/19/2009 5:58:06 PM

      Um, "Govt run media"? What media would this be? Several media sources have biases, which may or may not support the current government. But the media is run independent of the government.

      I mostly agree with your assessment of Newt Gingrich. However, Sarah Palin's problem isn't the media, it's herself. She is the one who exhibited little intellectual curiosity and doesn't fully understand the issues (at least the national issues). She's the one who interviews poorly due to her lack of understanding of the issues and do to poor preparation. That's all her fault. You don't believe me, watch the Charlie Gibson interviews of both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. IMHO Gibson is condescending, is biased, and asks tough questions in both interviews, but Obama interviews much better than Palin and comes off much more knowledgeable of the issues than Palin. Also, if Palin has common sense, I didn't see it. Palin knew too little about the issues to show off her common sense. Palin is an embarrassment to the Republicans and Republicans should distance themselves from her.

      Though I do agree that TANSTAAFL.

      If you are "some Economist", I am curious what you think Obama should have done other than the massive spending that you seem to disagree with.

      • Posted By: MJ000777 @ 06/19/2009 7:54:09 PM

        bkrummel,
        I am not an economist, but cranking up spending 4-5x of what Bush was doing is crazy. The stimulus bill is a disaster and included way too much waste and not enough targeted spending to create jobs. Lower taxes across the board (more money in people's pockets) almost always leads to an increase in economic activity and increases in tax revenues to the Govt. B.O. lowered taxes a bit for some, but I don't think it was enough and was seen as temporary.

        I mostly agree with you about Palin, but you have to admit the media loves Obama and for the most part shows disdain for Sarah P. And I still believe she has much more economic and national defense common sense than Obama. Don't spend the country into oblivion and don't go around the world apologizing for the USA and stand up for Democracy - that is common sense to me. She could probably kick his Metro sexual Azz too. You have to admit that MSNBC is Democratic run media for the most part. Fox leans right, but they give voice to many Liberals also.

        The republicans need fresh faces and fiscal conservatism to get back in the game. They are not trusted now because of their recent track record on spending. They cannot depend on voters having anti-Democrat feelings to win elections. They must come up with real solutions to fix SS, Medicaid, etc. Regarding health care; most of the people are not buying the sales pitch that the system should be changed drastically to ensure all are insured. Most of us don't want Govt run healthcare....period.

        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/19/2009 9:31:15 PM

          "I am not an economist"
          Fair enough. I seemed to have misunderstood you.

          Otherwise, I mostly agree with you. The media certainly adores Obama and disdains Palin and has other biases. I don't believe Palin sufficiently competent to be VP. But we seem to mostly agree about Palin, so moving on. If Republicans really want to reclaim fiscal conservatism and cut spending, real entitlement reform is the key. You can count me as one of the people who "don't want Govt run health care".

          "The republicans need fresh faces and fiscal conservatism to get back in the game. They are not trusted now because of their recent track record on spending. They cannot depend on voters having anti-Democrat feelings to win elections."
          I agree 110%. This is entirely dead on. Unfortunately many Republicans just don't get it.

  • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/19/2009 6:06:26 PM

    As a general point, I don't feel comfortable with this use of the term Socialist to describe liberal. I agree to some extent the term applies. But I think it rubs people who lean-left the wrong way and Republican need some of these people to vote for them to win elections. Moreover, I don't like how Obama and Biden haven't clearly explained when there is too much government intervention in the economy and I think they might be overreaching. But if Republicans are going to oppose Obama on the basis that they think he is overreaching, shouldn't Republicans answer the same question of when there is too much government intervention in the economy?

  • Posted By: MJ000777 @ 06/19/2009 2:22:00 PM

    I would take Gingrich in a minute over anyone in the Liberal/Progressive/Socialist party. I do not think Newt is a viable presidential candidate though. I like his ideas, but he rubs too many ("middle roaders" - who are mostly informed via the Govt. run media) the wrong way. Palin is the kind of common sense person the country could use compared to the high IQ'd Messi-uh who has little common sense, but she has no chance because the Govt run media (especially The MS National Barack Company) has piled on her using propaganda techniques that would make the old Soviet Union proud.

    A new conservative leader will emerge shortly to further expose the error of the Progressive way. I do not like the out of control spending that was done by Pres. Bush and congress during his administration, but how can Dems decry the amounts Bush spent and then go out and try to spend 5 times more? How is that helpful to an economy that is suffering from Govt. over-spending and a lack of consumer confidence? The evidence is showing that it is not helpful. Everyone's overall taxes are going up in various forms, not just the TOP 5% as the Pres. promised. Some of you who thought you were going to get a bunch of Freebies will be dissapointed! - TNSTAAFL - "There's no such thing as a free lunch" ~ some Economist.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/18/2009 7:48:41 PM

    Whats this ''one''crap?

    McCain,Flake, DeMint,Coburn,Grassley, are among other Republicans who are taking on too damned much Democrat corruption as it already is . Rangel, Dodd, Moran,Mollohan, Murtha, Visclosky,Burris, are all subjects of federal investigations into corruption and fraud with Jefferson in the center of his own trial. Your ''here and there'' garbage has cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions already [ ye gods,150 million alone on one crummy airport no-one ever uses, a sort of ''Airport To Nowhere'' bearing the name of John Murtha International Airport],let alone the wads of lobbyist cash Dems are drowning in , a ''swamp'' they promised to ''drain''.
    Inserting historical revisionism won't cut it. McCain, Grassley, Flake,Coburn, DeMint, Hegel, Voinovich,Paul ,and other Republicans either opposed Bushs ''military adventurism'' or fought corruption and excessive spending in Congress.They are still at it, with Flake having been shot down by the Democrats eight times in a row seeking to end this pay to play crap that is infecting our government.
    By your lame lights you would allow corruption and abuse to go unchecked and unaddressed simply because the one demanding answers has an ''R'' after his name. We already had one Tammany Hall. We do not need another. Dullwits like Pelosi [ whose GALLUP numbers are even worse than out-of-office Cheneys[ ye gods, CHENEY ], at 34%] .Reid is at his lowest approval rating ever in his home state of Nevada, Biden has no clue, Obama ,as we see, already has Americans nervous and passes into the 50s as I promised on Inauguration Day when I stated here that his ''72''% would be squandered even before Independance Day.
    And make no mistake. With gasoline headed north in 55 straight days of increase, this will be yet another area whereby a concerted GOP effort in tandem with fighting corruption will bring these back into parity at a minimum with the Dems,and long before your ''2010''. [and by using Obamas own device,already unsteady and unsure,that of the biggest expansion of government in our history]. Fortunately, in shooting this particular messenger, you have chosen a faulty weapon, a shotgun the barrel of which, is pointed right back at you.

    www.politico.com June 18,2009:''Democrats Dodge Ban On Cash From Lobbyists''

    Hows Pelosis Swamp Draining Service doing now..?

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/19/2009 12:26:45 AM

      Alright, now we are getting somewhere. You first post was a lame attempt at suggesting the Republicans are standing up to Obama. Your second post is much better. One Republican fighting back against congressional corruption does not mean that the Republicans "are pushing back at Obama and are getting tough enough to rightly demand several things". One Republican is not a big deal considering there is always a few senators in each party fighting corruption and excess spending. Several senators is a completely different story. While this doesn't mean the Republican Party has turned a corner, but it is start. And certainly fighting corruption is important (you suggest I think otherwise), but we need an entire party standing up against corruption.

      Who cares about Pelosi, Reid, and Biden's approval ratings? What about the Republicans' approval ratings?

      "And make no mistake. With gasoline headed north in 55 straight days of increase, this will be yet another area whereby a concerted GOP effort in tandem with fighting corruption will bring these back into parity at a minimum with the Dems,and long before your ''2010''."
      You must be kidding. Gasoline prices go up every summer. Just like last year, the public will complain, Republicans will advocate their "All of the Above" energy policy, Pelosi will shut them down, at the autumn gas prices will go back down, and everyone will forget about energy policy until next summer. This with fighting corruption will not return Republicans to power.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/18/2009 3:45:04 PM

    ''With Saviors Like This'' , eh Howard?

    Howard is peddling his half-loaf tall tales again,designed,like the rest of the Obama-thralled media, to keep your eye off the ball.

    Americans are not buying. The newest NBC/WSJ poll shows clearly that a solid majority of Americans ranging from 70% on the auto bailouts and over 60% on the economy feel that the Anointed One is taking this country down the wrong path.

    Meanwhle, Finemans ''Lost'' Republicans are pushing back at Obama and are getting tough enough to rightly demand several things, all of which were salient regions of concern for Democrats back when they were the minority.

    1. The White House with no evidence whatever, called AMERICORPS Inspector General Gerald Walprins sanity into question as a reason for canning him. After first conducting interviews with Walprin, [ ''who is very sharp''] Sen.Charles Grassley [R-Ia] went to the WH offices of special council and demanded that Obamas mutt start answering questions or he would do it for him by hailing him in front of a Senate hearing [this political hitjob on Walprin stems from his offices investigation,completely shut down by Obama,that focuses on a former NBA star for the Sacramento Kings who gave a boatload of money to Obama, and took tons of money from AMERICORPS to spend it on personal purchases]. We will also note here that yet another IG ,this one Neil Barofsky,who headed up the GAO-ordered oversight of,wouldnt you know it, stimulus spending, has just been sacked by Obama and a third has been ''leashed'' by same. Thus at the present moment there is again,absolutely no independant oversight of how our money is being used by this administration..[Update: 12:00 PST. The FBI has now launched an obstruction of justice investigation of their own].

    2. Todays Hartford [ Ct.] COURANT has reported that Grassley, who is fast becoming a one-man Elliot Ness, has demanded all documents relating to Chris Dodds[D-Ct] relationiship with subprime COUNTRYWIDE LOANS CEO Angelo Mozilo, who favoured Dodd with cutrate mortgages on three properties owned by Dodd denies knowing Mozilo despite the COURANTS possession of documents copies with Dodds signature upon which the initials ''VIP'' and ''FOA'' [Friend Of Angelo] are scrawled.

    The Chicago Tribune June 18,2009:''Senator Questions Firing Of Three Inspectors Generals'' [ in less than two weeks,all of which were looking into abuses tied to the Obama administration or its handling of the federal stimulus packages which is probably the same thing].

    www.politico.com June 18,2009

    www.opensecrets.org The Center For Responsive Politics

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/18/2009 5:34:08 PM

      ONE Republican, Charles Grassley, takes on a little Democrat corruption here and there. Hooray! (sarcasm)

      So if "Fineman's "Lost" Republicans" are doing such a great just at "pushing back at Obama and getting tough enough to rightly demand several things", tell me, how are the Republicans doing at pushing back against Obama's massive spending and expansion of government?? You know, the auto bailouts and economic policies that "a solid majority of Americans" disagree with. Isn't Obama still perusing his big government agenda and the Republicans basically unable to do anything about it because they don't hold enough seats in the House or Senate? Moreover, with the way Republicans have been acting I seriously doubt they are going to gain any seats in 2010. This is probably a good thing considering the Republicans have been weak on offering alternatives and are trying to stop Obama from addressing important issues.

      Speaking of things that "were salient regions of concern for Democrats back when they were a minority". Is this like the Republicans having salient concerns about excessive government spending and corruption, big government, and military adventurism when Clinton was President and then Republicans forgot about all this when Bush became President. It's great that you remember this stuff now that you are a minority again, but are Americans really supposed to trust Republicans now?? Both parties express concerns as a minority about issues, often government spending and misusing the military, and promptly forget it when they are in power. Just because the Democrats are doing it now doesn't mean we are just going to elect the Republican back into power, especially not after what happened under Bush.

      The "Savior" Fineman refers to is Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is clearly a leader in the Republican Party. But do you want him to stay a leader? I think Gingrich is better than some and has some ideas, but he is also a hot-head and a loud-mouth. His claims that Sotomayor is a racist and Obama is a socialist are ridiculous. Republicans can do much better than Gingrich.

      Mention whatever news articles showing the Republicans pushing back that you want. The fact of the matter is the Republicans are lost. They lost they way under Bush and their party is still badly broken. The sooner you admit that to yourself and start working to fix the party, the sooner Republicans can do something substantial to oppose Obama.

  • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/15/2009 10:29:36 AM

    "Posted By: katiec @ 06/15/2009 9:01:48 AM

    Any politician who does not put our country over party first, politics as usual needs to be impeached."

    I absolutely LOVE this line. Of course, Mz. Katie has probably NOT applied this thinking to herself, or her own political party. You libs just LOVE painting the Repubs/Conservs with the "Hate, Greed, Racism" brush never looking in the mirror. Here's a couple of FACTS for ya sweet cheeks:
    1. It was the conservative republicans who stood on the side of the Blacks and civil rights for over 200 years! It was the Dems who opposed, resisted, and segregated the Black civil rights movement. (look up How the Republican Party started, and the Plessy vs Ferguson case. Or better yet, check out President Woodrow Wilson's actions on civil rights/Segregation.)
    2. Ever notice that it's the extreme left wingers who are the ones VIOLENTLY protesting in the streets when they don't get their way? Prop 8/Bash Back/Code Pink/G8 confrences/Black Panthers.
    3. I've NEVER EVER... EVER seen a liberal beauty Pageant queen loose her job and her crown because a conservative activist asked her opinion on a politically loaded question, then didn't get the answer he wanted. Nor would conservatives pile on the mud in the press AFTER she was supposedly "Punished". (Only libs do that)
    4. If you think that "Re-making America" and that "The Constitution is an imperfect document that needs to be tossed out and rewritten" are the way to go, then I guess supporting Obama is a good thing. THAT'S showing support for your country first!!! WOO HOO! Go Presidential CZARS!! GO BIG GOVT! /sarc off
    5. Speaking of lies, how's that Global Warming coming along??? Or the absolute NEED to pass TARP, or all that transperancy in the White House? How about kicking the lobbists out of the administration? Errr or the "If you make less than $250,000 you won't see your taxes go up one penny." statement... yeah. Thought so.
    6. For the freaking record. Von Brunn is a Crazy, Racist, Socialist, Conservative/Republican hating LIBERAL!!! (Keep in mind, Hitler was a Socialist/Progressive and so was the Nazi Party.)
    Doc

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/16/2009 2:10:52 PM

      Regarding the liberal beauty Pageant queen, you got it wrong Doc Navy. Donald Trump let the beauty queen keep her crown after the political controversy. She then lost the crown because she could not hold to the contract that came with the crown and title. Get your facts straight.

      • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 2:29:47 PM

        I have my facts straight.. maybe YOU haven't been keeping up... She NEVER broke contract. That was a made up exuse by the Miss California pageant management and without proof to the contrary Trump upheld their "decision". By the time it came out that it was all BS , the damage was done and a new Miss California had been crowned.
        Still my point is correct. Prejean lost the miss USA pageant, and her Miss California Crown, and has been smeared in the press for ANSWERING A QUESTION ASKING HER ~OPINION~! Her answer is in-line with the majority of Californians, the State she represented, and in-line with President Obama's public position. It is the intolerance of the Left that has caused this.
        Doc

        • Posted By: Alvy @ 06/16/2009 6:51:11 PM

          Now I see. You get your info from reality TV.

          • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/16/2009 8:36:57 PM

            Actually, I'm betting on FOX News. When I tried to double check his claim about the beauty Pageant queen, I came up mostly with FOX News hits. It would be interesting to see if he confirms or denies this (and gives the real source).

            • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 06/16/2009 8:55:20 PM

              Your reply is senseless. What, are you expecting Kieth Olbermann and Rachel Maddow to pick up the story? And then it will be collaborated in your little mind? Newsflash, leftie, the vast majority of the MSM will ignore this story so as to fall in lockstep with the radical gay agenda.

              • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/16/2009 10:19:45 PM

                Newsflash jimbo, I'm not a leftie. I'm a politically moderate libertarian. I like limited government, individual liberty, etc too.

                Personally Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are just as bad as Bill O'Reilly. These people are just talking hot heads that offer nothing in the way of serious journalism or political dialogue. I also regard MSNBC and CNN are just as bad as FOX News, as these "news" sources are obviously biased and sensationalized, and thus I avoid getting my news from them.

                I don't understand the current Republicans. They all get their news from FOX, which just tells them what they want to hear. They complain about the MSM and claim FOX is fair and balanced when FOX is clearly biased and tabloid-like. I know the MSM has a bad liberal and (more notably) sensationalist bias, but FOX is worse than the MSM. I think the Republicans need to stop relying on FOX News for news.

                Put it another way, I have no interest in joining or voting for a Republican Party whose supporters tend to rely heavily on FOX News. Such a party is just too, well, stupid and extreme for my taste.

                • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 06/17/2009 8:06:28 AM

                  Wow, you sure paint with a broad brush. So "Republicans get all their news from FOX"? That is news! And here I listen to NPR every morning and read 2 newspapers every day.

                  • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/17/2009 1:06:38 PM

                    Hey Jimbo, if you use more than just FOX News, that's fine. But I've talked to several Republicans that proudly claim that I should listen to FOX News because it is fair and balanced. FOX News is really just garbage and I have no interest in a political party that generally views FOX News as a legitimate news source.

                    If you use multiple news sources, great. That's one way to get around the bias. Provided, of course, the newspapers aren't conservative newspapers and NPR doesn't mostly mean Rush Limbaugh, as then your news is still fairly biased. But otherwise, that's great.

                    • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/17/2009 4:58:35 PM

                      You may have a PERSONAL OPINION that FOX News is garbage, biased, etc... Buuut, studies conducted over the years don't bear that out. In fact, FOX News has consistently come out in the top 5 most CENTERIST.
                      Now, before you call me a liar, or tell me I'm wrong... Look up:

                      Groseclose, Tim and Milyo, Jeffrey. ???A Measure of Media Bias??? The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. CXX, Issue. 4 November, 2005

                      PEW Research Center. ???The color of News??? Journalism.org. 29 October, 2008 <http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

                      Center for Media and Public Affairs, George Mason Univ. Study finds Hillary hit hardest, Fox News most fair and balanced (not a typo), 21 December, 2007 <www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf

                      DOC

                      • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/18/2009 1:01:30 AM

                        I looked through your articles. The PEW "The Color of the News" study says that MSNBC had more positive coverage for Obama and more negative coverage for McCain than the norm. Meanwhile FOX News was the reverse, with more negative coverage for Obama than average and more positive coverage for McCain than the norm. So this study actually supports my personal opinion that FOX News is biased.

                        "A Measure of Media Bias" seemed to be an in depth study and the most reliable you mentioned. It concludes: "The ordering of the scores is largely consistent with conventional wisdom. For instance, the two most conservative outlets are the Washington Times and Fox News??? Special Report, two outlets that are often called conservative..." It also states that "Fox News??? Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networks??? evening news broadcasts." So FOX is biased to the right as I said. However, I'll concede that FOX is closer to the center and balanced than I originally though.

                        • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/18/2009 10:19:58 AM

                          Look. I have NEVER claimed that FOX News or ANY news outlet is completely
                          free of bias of any kind. Here's the big difference...
                          FOX news has NEVER claimed to be unbiased, only "fair and balanced." For every conservative
                          article they have there is usually a counter argument or liberal guest there to provide some "Balance".
                          Also, FOX news ~commentators~ don't claim to be:
                          1. Jounalists when they aren't..
                          2. Objective in their commentary.

                          That said, I rarely ever see a news article on FOX STACKED (Guest wise) 3-1, 4-1, 5-1 against Liberals, while on most other stations (Especially MSNBC) it happens FREQUENTLY, daily even. Sometimes (again especially on MSNBC) there will BE no conservative counter argument.

                          You seem to be a fairly even headed individual, so I can't figure out how you come by the "Fox is garbage" bit because they have SOME right lean, but Everyone else, including your fave MSNBC, is fine when they have EXTREME left leanings. I mean, come on... Chris "I got a quiver up my leg" Mathews publically claimed that he felt that it was his JOB to make the Obama Administration a success!!! What if that had been Bill O'Reilly saying that about the Bush administration??
                          I could spend ALL day listing completely hypocritical moments in the Mainstream Media concerning left-wing bias. It would span dozens of media outlets, and cover DECADES. All you'e got for right wing bias is FOX, Rush, and Wall Street Journal.
                          Here's some of my FAVORITE ones:
                          1. Bush spends $45 mil on his inauguration, Liberal media EVICERATES him as irresponsible. Obama spends $150 mil, and declares DC a "disater area" to use FEMA funds for the clean-up under WORSE economic conditions... Liberal Media Hails it as "His due".
                          2. Libs and Lib Media claim Bush "Stole" the election despite three separate independent investigations find that he did indeed win. Obama is in NECK DEEP with ACORN which is under investigation in 15 states and indicted in 14 for voter fraud. I've found 23 separate cases involving financial corruption as well. Lib media... not a peep.
                          3. The liberal media excoriated FOX news as being under the contol of the Bush Administration because SOME of their stories seemed to come from the White House Press releases...ok. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY has said a WORD about the ~Daily~ morning conference calls Rahm Emmanuel makes to CNN???s James Carville and Paul Begala, ABC???s George Stephanopoulos, and pollster Stan Greenberg.
                          4. Bush fires US Attornies that HE appointed (An action that was totally under his purview), gives notice and credible reason... Lib media SCREAMS "corruption!" Obama fires Inspector General. The Inpector General in question had exposed one of Obamas friends for fraud and barred his organization from recieving federal funds until redress had been made. The Obama administration overturns his decision (not in their purview) and fires him without cause or notice(Als

                          • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/18/2009 10:39:14 AM

                            Cont..

                            Also not under their purview... Liberal media: Crickets.

                            How about when Bush got confused in Beijing and tried to use that locked door? Remember that? The Lib media made fun of him for WEEKS as being some stupid hick from Texas. Obama walked into a freaking WALL in his OWN OFFICE.. lib media... silence.
                            Seriously, I am no FOX News fan.. (although I like Glen Beck.. he makes me laugh.) but I am SOOOOO sick and tired of all the lefties with their "Faux News" or "False News" schitck, when the media they slobber all over is ODERS OF MAGNITUDE more biased.
                            Doc

                            • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/18/2009 3:03:41 PM

                              Let me repeat that "I have no further interest in debating the merits of various news options". I'll indulge you a little, but I really would like to end this discussion.

                              "Everyone else, including your fave MSNBC" "I mean, come on... Chris "I got a quiver up my leg" Mathews publically claimed that he felt that it was his JOB to make the Obama Administration a success!!!"
                              I did not claim MSNBC to be my "fave". I merely counter-argued that msnbc.com is an effective means of learning what the news is. MSNBC has the crap commentators Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow. Their liberal bias is so extreme and absurd that they almost make Bill O'Reilly look tame.

                              I did read the PEW article carefully. I stated what the PEW conclusions were accurately. You should look at the second page where they show FOX News notably less negative about McCain than average.

                              I think you have eloquently made your point about why you like FOX News and why the MSM is much more biased. I can appreciate you being so sick about "lefties with their "Faux News". We I'm so sick with righties complaining about the MSM and "Newsweak" and expressing their love of FOX News. This loving news that supports one's own biases and hating on news that doesn't is absolutely ridiculous. The liberal vs. conservative is ridiculous in general. The point of the news is not to validate one's own biases, but to get information about what is happening in the world.

                              But personally there is a big difference between lefties and righties: I'm not a leftie but I lean right. I could care less about the lefties, but I do care and have a great deal concern for what happens to the righties. And I think the righties need a lot of tough love right now considering how badly messed up they are.

                        • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/18/2009 11:27:16 AM

                          BTW, on the PEW thing... you should read farther in. It seems like you only skimmed it. Check out the graph on the first page. the coverge for Obama vs McCain on FOX is almost IDENTICAL. then there's this statement:(Read the last sentence)
                          "On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally). For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall). Yet even here, his negative stories outweighed positive ones by almost 2 to 1."

                          Also, apperently NBC was more positive to Palin than even FOX was...
                          Then, if you go to the second page and really look at the graphs... you should be STUNNED. MSNBC with 73% of all coverage of McCain being NEGATIVE! That's a 7.5 to 1 ratio! Versus their coverage of Obama with only 14% being negative. That's a 8.5 to 1 ratio POSITIVE or Neutral. Their coverage of Palin was equally dismal. Same with CNN. horribly biased against McCain and Palin... balanced for Obama. Heck, even FOX had a 2-1 ratio in Negative to positive coverage of McCain.

                          Maybe you should go back and look at it a little more in depth.
                          DOC

                    • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 06/17/2009 7:30:31 PM

                      Yes, heaven forbid that I should read a conservative newspaper. But liberal ones are OK, right?
                      I was right the first time around; you are just another brainwashed leftie masquarading behind other labels.

                      • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/17/2009 11:45:39 PM

                        jimbo3800, my point was that if you only watched FOX News, read conservative newspapers, and listened to Rush Limbaugh, you would have a rather biased view of things. It would be equally bad if you only watched MSNBC, read liberal newspapers, and watched Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow. There is no difference beyond the particular bias being presented. So, you interpretation that I would regard it as horrible if you read a conservative newspaper and only okay if you read a liberal one is not what I think, nor is it what I actually said. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't misread and misrepresent me in this fashion.

                        I know "brainwashed lefties". Obama gives a speech and they are immediately like "it was... wonderful" as if they heard Jesus speak. Lefties actually think that Obama's plans to get the government involved in banking, car companies, energy markets, health care markets, etc with no end in sight and massive expenses mounting up is a-okay. They aren't bothered by little things like when Joe Biden can't give a direct answer to when there is too much interference in the economy. I could go on, but it won't convince you that I am not a "brainwashed leftie"...

                        What I am is the new liberal in the Republican Party. Culturally, I'm a liberal. I am a college-educated youth living in California, I don't go to church, I never owned a gun, and I hate Rush Limbaugh. And on social issues, I am politically liberal, more so that Obama even. I support gay marriage, abortion rights, and even legalizing marijuana. But cultural wars aside, my political views are what the Republicans USED to believe in before Bush. You know, limited government, cut spending, fiscal discipline, individual liberty, upholding the original Constitution, peace through strength, and keeping the government out of people's lives as much as possible. A political philosophy that Bush ignored and the Far Right has abused. Just because I don't adore the conservative media like you do doesn't make me any believe this stuff any less than you. You should know there are a lot of other people out there just like me. We stand for some of the same things you do. But Republicans will never get our votes as long as you call us "brainwashed leftie masquarading behind other labels".

                • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/17/2009 12:08:30 AM

                  Try me then BK.

                  In over three years around these parts, I have never relied upon a ''FOX''.

                  You want ''stupid and extreme''?

                  Try this.

                  www.msnbc.com

                  • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/17/2009 12:59:31 AM

                    I'm glad you don't rely on FOX.

                    I actually have msnbc.com as my homepage. Let's be clear, this is msnbc.com and not MSNBC the channel. MSNBC the channel have Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, and other hateful liberal crap that I have no patience for. But msnbc.com has a nice layout, shows videos, and does a good job of linking to other news sources so that I can find out the top stories of the day. It is reasonably balanced in that if a CBO report releases information against a Democrat bill, I will find out about what the CBO said. The website also has a link to the Meet the Press main page where I can watch the netcast. After finding out what the stories are, I can do a Google news search to find other articles, even FOX News articles, and I can find clips of what people in the stories actually say on YouTube. The real problem with the MSM is not the liberal bias, but the sensationalism, especially where political stories become controversial arguments. I prefer information sources like Meet the Press, C-SPAN, and YouTube so I can listen to whole speeches without the inaccurately, out-of-context, sensationalized versions of quotes.

                    So yes, I use a news source you seem to think is "stupid and extreme" and yet I use it in a way I think is intelligent . The key is not to rely on just one source like FOX News, because such sources are always bias and sensationalism in news sources. I also deliberately avoid crap like FOX News, Rachel Maddow, etc. since I don't need pure bias and sensationalism but I also need some news.

                    • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/17/2009 11:52:22 AM

                      Not so fast. Chuck Todd, Howard Fineman, Andrea Mitchell and other ''reporters''[ and we use this term most loosely], spend their time crusing the waters between NEWSWEAK,MSNBC The Website, and MSNBC The ''News'' Cable Channel. All three [and more when we include Bailey and Wollfe] are patent ideologues, blurring lines between not only their respective homes, but in offering independantly-sourced news. In point of fact, only CSPAN eliminates the spin as proferred by FOX rightists and MSNBC leftists and liberals. Yet FOX is the only one that stands out in the packed crowd, as it runs counter to MSNBC/CNN ideologies, it commands greater audiences as NIELSEN clearly displays.. Say what one will regarding the bombast of an O'Reilly. He garners support due to his strong,vehement pursuit of a national JESSICAS Law while Hannity gets props for his FREEDOM concert series that directly benefit veterans and their families. The MSNBCS simply do not offer similar positions that would garner firm agreement and participation by ordinary Americans. It becomes more important for this writer to include only those sources that come from a liberal or non-partisan slant, paying critics back in their own coin,as it were.

                      • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/17/2009 1:00:23 PM

                        Okay, Howard Fineman is a pure ideology, so I get why you mentioned him. But Chuck Todd? Chuck Todd provided excellent election coverage and is as unbiased as I can find in the MSM.

                        FOX gets more Nielsen ratings? O'Reilly supports a national Jessica's Law and Hannity supports Freedom concert series? What does any of this have to do with whether FOX News is quality news or complete crap?

                        "The MSNBCs simply do not offer similar positions that would garner firm agreement and participation by ordinary Americans."
                        So what, you are choosing your news sources based on whether they agree with your political views? You only watch conservative news? Getting the news has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with obtaining information. If you think one news source is factually inaccurate or excessively biased and ignore it, that's one thing. But if you ignore a news source because it doesn't have the conservative bias you prefer, but rather a slight liberal bias, that's ridiculous.

                        I like msnbc.com because it does a good enough job of getting the information out. FOX News on the other hand is garbage. Of course you have to be careful of biased analysis and out-of-context quotes, but this is a problem with any news source and there are ways to get around this.

              • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/17/2009 1:11:14 PM

                Please to explain to Uday what "radical gay agenda" is?

          • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 06/16/2009 8:51:46 PM

            A good one-liner is just too tempting not to use, huh, Alvy? Too bad that Doc is right on the money, and you are just spouting the left-wingerisms of the day (as usual).

    • Posted By: Want A Change @ 06/16/2009 12:45:17 PM

      I am sooooo happy to have voted for Obama after reading all your posts, idiots like you need to be silenced, or better yet, given enough rope to do the job for yourself.

      • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/17/2009 10:26:56 AM

        "idiots like you need to be silenced"

        Is make camps for them, is "send them east"?

      • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 1:19:55 PM

        "Idiots like you need to be silenced...."

        Hmm, I guess I can see all that "Hope n Changey" tolerance coming from the Left. Tell me Moron, how is you comment any LESS "hate-speech" than say Bill O'Reilly talking about Tiller??
        You people amaze my with your hypocrisy.
        Doc

        • Posted By: Alvy @ 06/16/2009 6:52:22 PM

          You are again so right "doc".
          People should be more tolerant like the republicans right doc?


          Doc?

          • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 06/16/2009 8:55:55 PM

            Alvy, you are embarassing yourself. Again.

  • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/16/2009 2:11:38 PM

    Doc Navy, despite what you might thing, you do owe me.

    I can not speak for minorities since I myself am white. But as I mentioned before, Republicans seem to avoid opportunities to simply talk to minorities. Seriously, the Republican front-runners last election didn't bother showing up to a primary event in Maryland that was specifically to talk to minorities. Nothing says "Republicans don't care about black people" more than avoiding talking to them. Then there's the Chip Saltsman CD with "Barack the Magic *****". I know the song was mostly bad taste referring to an article, but that song was really, really bad taste. Republicans need to do much better and go out of their way to show minorities they care, not act silly and validate the notion that Republicans are racists. All I'm asking is Republicans talk to minorities and stay on they best behavior when it comes to race.

    But reread my and gvillagran3's posts, as there were a lot of other groups listed. Let me explain how you have offended me as a 25 year old, College Educated, politically moderate, atheist guy. Republicans patronize young folk as if young folk don't know any better than to vote Democrat. There is a common phrase that "If you aren't liberal when you are young, you have no heart; if you aren't conservative when you are old, you have no brain". Well, people can certainly be young and conservative, so I don't what to ever hear that phrase again. Moreover, I recently heard Jon Voight's remarks at a Republican fundraiser. The guy thought the liberals reached to young people at the colleges to convince them of lies about Bush and can't understand how the youth were taken in by Obama. Voight has some never to suggest that young people were dupped by the Democrats. Young people weren't duped, they were smart enough to realize that Bush and the Republicans are incompetent. Republicans will do much better with the youth when they start treating the youth like intelligent adults rather than foolish children.

    Republicans have anti-intellectual tendencies that are extremely offensive to the college educated. Stop calling people with a good education elite for sounding intelligent and sounding like they know what they are talking about. We have no interest in a party that demonizes intellectual curiosity and celebrates people like Sarah Palin who lack it. Also, most college educated people understand what good science is. Stop ignoring good science and taking stances against science like denying evolution or global warming. Gillagran is dead on when he talks about Republicans acting like imbeciles that "don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution". And if you take those stances, bring scientific support for your view rather than denying the science and arguing via politics and theology.

    • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 2:57:32 PM

      1. It's not about "Denying Gays the right to marry", it's about changing the DEFINITION of "Marriage". If two gay/lesbians want to have a partnership.. fine. I'm all for it. I'm even for giving them the same leagal status as a traditional marriage, with all the Pros and Con's that come with it.
      I'm NOT about changing the "Definition" of marriage" though. Gays/Lesbians represent less than 1% of the population. they ARE different. That's not bigoty, that's fact.
      here's the logical argument:

      Gay person: You are denying me my rights to get married!!
      Me: Umm what's Marriage?
      Gay person: The union of two people who love...
      Me: Wait! Why only two people?
      Gay person: umm, well... traditionally that's how...
      Me: Wait! How can you reject "tradition" when it's against you, yet accept it when it meets YOUR definition?
      Gay person: Hey! This is about my RIGHTS...
      Me: Nooo. There are statutes already in effect that give you the same "Rights" as a traditionally married couple.
      Gay person: Well, those don't cover it all. There's things that they missed.
      Me: Ok, well why don't you go after the laws that are already on the books. Changing the Definition of "Marriage" does nothing to change those laws.
      Gay Person: Well I'm tired of being told I'm not normal, that I'm different.
      Me: Everybody is "different", and as for normal... well that's as label that is applied. YOU choose to either accept or reject those labels. This sounds an awful lot like a self-esteem problem vice a legal one. Also, sexually speaking... you represent less than 1% of the population, so by that definition, you are different, nothing to be ashamed of.
      Gay person: Well, "They" make me feel ashamed. "They" are intolerant, and persecute me.
      Me: YOU choose to feel ashamed. Nobdy makes you feel anything. As for the persecution and intolerance... well that may be so, but how you react to it is YOUR choice. People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks, eh?
      Doc

      • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/16/2009 3:42:19 PM

        Me: I had two post talking about how I felt the Republican Party didn't respect young, college educated, politically moderate, and atheist people like me. Do you have something to say before we discuss my short point on the issue of gay marriage???
        Doc Navy: I don't owe you anything.
        Me: You know I'm not voting Republican then.
        Doc Navy: (silence)

        Doc Navy: If two gay/lesbians want to have a partnership.. fine. I'm all for it. I'm even for giving them the same leagal status as a traditional marriage, with all the Pros and Con's that come with it.
        Me: That's good. It's a start.
        Doc Navy: I'm NOT about changing the "Definition" of marriage" though. Traditionally, marriage is defined to be between a man and a woman.
        Me: Isn't marriage just a union of two people in a committed, loving union? You know "To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part." Why can't gay people do that?
        Doc Navy: How can you reject "tradition"... Oh shoot, you didn't say tradition like I thought you would. Well I said I support the unions, I just don't want to call it marriage.
        Me: Yes, but it is basically marriage. The only difference from the traditional definition is the gender.
        Doc Navy: (Stumped or gives some long explanation that will inevitably be the response to this post.)
        Doc Navy: There are statutes already in effect that give you the same "Rights" as a traditionally married couple.
        Me and Gay person: So you mean there should be separate but equal? You are undermining equal rights of gays. Also, gay people want to be called married so that their unions are recognized as commitments with the say strength as straight marriage.
        Prop 8 supporter: But why should we be forced to accept your unions when we disagree with them.
        Me: You can still disagree with the unions. You don't have to marry them in your churches, as gay people want just the legal recognition. But why should straight people have marriage while gay people have civil unions.
        Doc Navy: Because of tradition.
        Me: Do you have a better reason?

        Me: Have you change your mind about that apology you owe me yet?

        • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 4:02:52 PM

          Allow me to respond:
          1 It's LEVITICUS, not Leviathan.
          2. "Listen Jerk, I lost my job because I was Gay." My reply, "Prejean lost hers because she was straight, and said so. Cry me a river."
          3.About "traditional" marriage. Answer: NO it's NOT about two committed people. yada, yada. THAT'S the point. See there's your atheism coming through. Again I never said Gay people can't have relationship like straight. It's about DEINITION.
          4. Yes You are correct. The only difference is gender. A union of a man and a Woman is Called a Marriage. the Union of two people of the same gender is something else. Call it what you want... just not "Marriage". Besides you are straying from the point.
          5. I dissagree. the word "Marriage" contains RELIGIOUS connotation.
          6 No it's NOT seperate but equal. You are being disengenouous, and comparing Apples to Onions.
          7. You are inferring a sentiment that isn't neccesarily there for Prop 8 supporters.
          8. Doc: Why should Straight people And Gay people be limited to just one "Married" Partner?
          Krummel and gay Person: Because it's against the law.
          Doc: So is calling the union of two Gay people a "Marriage".. what's the difference?
          See your logic fails.
          Have you changed YOUR mind about owing ME an apology?
          Doc

          • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/18/2009 1:23:50 PM

            "Because it's against the law."

            Jim Crow was law in America for many years, yes? Is make right?

          • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/18/2009 1:22:47 PM

            "5. I dissagree. the word "Marriage" contains RELIGIOUS connotation."

            In America, is legal agreement, no?

          • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/16/2009 4:36:04 PM

            1. My apologies for getting it wrong. Though you did know what I was talking about.
            2. I would love to know how a gay person who lost their job because some bigot fired them would feel about your response. Prejean doesn't compare and you know it. But if you want another example of persecution, try the fact that some Christians try to "make" some gay people straight. Tell me what you have to say with a gay person that experienced that, jerk.
            3a. Firstly, I openly mocked the fact that you are hiding behind "traditional" marriage. Forget tradition; we are considering redefining marriage. Why should marriage be only for straight people and not for gay people. I challenge you to come up with a reason without referring to "traditional" marriage.
            3b. "See there's your atheism coming through." See, there is you intolerance of atheists coming through. I now have you, a registered Republican, on a public blog insulting college educated people, youth, and now atheists. Us atheists are Americans too and you don't get to decide the legal definition of marriage based on your religion and force atheists to live with it.
            5. There are a number of different cultures with very different religions and all had marriage. Can I get married given that I'm an atheist? Because if marriage is religious, I can't. But you said "connotation", not denotation. When it comes to the definition of marriage, there is nothing religious about it. And there is certainly nothing religious about a marriage license given out from the state government.
            6. I disagree. You are talking about separate but equal. Straight and gay couples have all the same legal rights. Except straight unions are called marriage and gay unions are called civil unions. That is obviously separate but equal.
            7. "Prop 8 supporter" was just my representative for a person who opposes gay marriage. Obviously there are a number of different reasons for supporting Prop 8. I don't get why you can have "Gay person" and totally misrepresent gay people but I can't have "Prop 8 supporter", which did accurately capture what some Prop 8 supporters said.
            8. Doc: Why should Straight people and Gay people be limited to just one "Married" Partner?
            Krummel: I don't know. I find nothing wrong with polygamy and many cultures have practiced it (oh snap! you can't say polygomy is traditionally wrong now). As long as the married contract if fairly followed and all parties consent, I see no problem. I hope you weren't going to put words in my mouth about "against the law" or something.
            9. No, I don't intend to apologize to you. You haven't clearly stated what you want an apology for. And I have respected you up to the point you insulted me for being a young, college educated, atheist guy, so I think you are a jerk and don't want to apologize to you at all.

            • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 5:10:45 PM

              Look, YOU started with the Anti-intellectual, disrespecting stuff. Call me whatever you want. No skin off my nose.
              Couple of things...~I'M~ not representative of the Republican Party, nor the Conservative Mindset. Just as YOU aren't representative of Liberals and Gays. (You're not gay, I'm not a Republican, yet here we are speaking for them, funny.)
              the Seprate but equal is argument is based on the fact that seperate is INHERENTLY unequal. That's why we got away from it. The "Gay Marriage" issue is an entirely legal one. There IS no loss of equality by keeping the definition of "Marriage" as is and recognizing Gay "Unions" as the same leagal status as Straight "Marriages". BUUT, once you open the door of redefinition THEN you have a MINORITY forcing the STATE to infringe on RELIGIOUS belief. I though you were all about separation of Church ad State? How's this you ask?? Simple. Let's say we redefine "Marriage to encompass ALL unions. Let's take it one step futher and include polygymy as well (awww snap!) just for you. Now, let's pretend that a Gay couple decides to get "Married" and they want it to be done in a Chatholic Church for whatever reason. (Because this whole issue is really about WANTS, not rights.) The couple comes to the local Catholic Church and says "marry us." The preist says, "I'm sorry but my faith doesn't recognize homosexual marriage. If you like there is a different Catholic church over there that may preform the ceremony." The gay couple says, "NO! we want it done HERE. You HAVE to marry us, if you don't THAT'S discrimmination under the law."
              Now we have an impasse between the preists right to freedom of religion, and the Gay couples right to be "Married." Who wins??? Who knows. but this whole thing wouldn't have been possible without the redefinition of "marriage".
              Doc

              • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/16/2009 5:48:59 PM

                "(You're not gay, I'm not a Republican, yet here we are speaking for them, funny.)"
                I'm not gay, but I do support gay rights and do represent that side of the issue. Similarly, if you take Republican positions (you have) and/or are a registered Republican, you are a Republican. If you are not a Republican in this way, you should have said so and I would have regarded you as not a Republican. If you said "I am not a Republican", I would have said, and now say assuming you are not a Republican, "fair enough, you don't owe me that apology".

                "BUT, once you open the door of redefinition THEN you have a MINORITY forcing the STATE to infringe on RELIGIOUS belief."
                No you don't. This is a common misconception. Gay are only asking legal marriage to be redefined. Legal marriage is the right to the marriage license and the rights that come with it, that's all. Religious marriage is a totally separate issue. If gays can legally marry, churches can still refuse to recognize the union and hold the church ceremony for a gay couple. For the state to grant the right to religious marriage would infringe upon your 1st Amendment rights as you point out, which is something that gays and other gay right supporters are very much aware of. Thus gay people have not and can not demand the right to religious marriage. Thus the scenario you describe simply cannot occur.

                • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/17/2009 10:28:26 AM

                  Good Morning.
                  After our discussion yesterday, some of the things you said gave me pause to think last night. Not about the history of the Republican party, of course... anyone who tries to dissagree with facts is just spitting in the wind. The two counter arguments made were weak and basically just extentions of Republican Derangement Syndrome. If folks want to try and explain away the Pro-Civil Rights achievements of the Republicans, you can find someone else. Facts are facts, History is History. Period. Trying to say "Yeah, but NOWADAYS it's different" is ignoring how we got here in the first place, and to make it very clear... without the REPUBLICAN PARTY, African-Americans would still be slaves today. Without the REPUBLICAN PARTY, Afican-Americans WOULDN'T have the Civil Rights they enjoy today. That is just plain FACT. Every Pro-Civil Rights law passed since 1854 to 1965 took the REPUBLICANS to do it. I'm done debating that subject. If you disagree, you might want to look it up FIRST, before you open your mouth.

                  That said. Your argument that I was espousing a "Seperate but Equal" relationship concerning Same-Sex Marriage was actually compelling. I spent a great deal of time last night soul searching the subject. Here's the conclusion I came to: Seperate but Equal is related to a SPECIFIC set of events and laws. It entails the PHYSICAL separation and segregation of a group (Originally African-Americans, who BTW are against Same-Sex Marriage as a voting block as evidenced by the Prop 8 vote.) with the excuse of receiving equal PHYSICAL resources, opportunities, and facilities. The correct counter arguemnt is that Seperate but Equal in that sense, is inherently unequal.
                  You have taken "Seperate but Equal" from being a specific thing and turned it into an overarching concept. You have also applied it to an issue that it DOES NOT appy to. Same-sex Marriage is about "Equality under the law". Well, a "Union" that is granted the same legal status as a "Marriage" IS "Equality under the law", and it would be much easier to get that as there are already laws out there granting this.
                  I also gave you an imaginary scenario and your response was that it was a misconception and that Gays don't want to change anything, they just want that same stuff as everyone else. They would never try to seek repercussions for someone elses religious beliefs, even if it clashed with their own desires... Unfortunately, you'd be wrong. A quick search on any search engine, and you can find SCORES of incidents where someone expressing their religios beliefs when confronted by the Same Sex- marriage issue ends up sued, in-jail, loosing their job (Oh, Snap!), Etc..
                  DOC

                  • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/18/2009 6:28:10 AM

                    They have tried Civil Unions in New Jersey and there is evidence that "separate but equal" simply does not work there. In fact, Civil Union law has lead to the denial of "PHYSICAL resources and opportunities" (I leave out facilities because it is not like gay people have to use different bathrooms or water fountains). In particular, same sex couples have been discriminated against by employers and been give inferior medical care. The government of New Jersey has the following report that verifies this:

                    http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/downloads/CURC-Final-Report-.pdf

                    To highlight some of the main issues, here are some of the commission's conclusions (quoted from page 5 and 6):
                    1. For the overwhelming majority of civil union couples who testified, the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is the reason employers have given for not recognizing their civil unions.
                    3. The testimony presented by many civil union couples indicated that their employers continue to discriminate against them, despite their familiarity with the law.
                    4. Civil union status is not clear to the general public, which creates a second-class status.
                    5. Many witnesses testified about unequal treatment and uncertainties they face during a health care crisis, particularly in hospital settings.
                    9. The requirement that same sex couples declare civil union status, a separate category reserved for same sex couples, exposes members of the United States military to the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

                  • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/17/2009 1:47:10 PM

                    "If folks want to try and explain away the Pro-Civil Rights achievements of the Republicans, you can find someone else."
                    I'm not denying these achievements. I openly admit that your facts are entirely correct. But you analysis is wrong, because the political parties have changed and the party of Lincoln, the Republican Party in 1960, and the Republican Party in 2009 are three different political parties. You fail to take any of this in account in your analysis, so your analysis is incorrect. But in any case, I only really care about the Republican Party of 2009, so moving on...

                    Your counter argument to "Separate but Equal" is interesting, so let me hold off on countering it right away.

                    Your "imaginary scenario" is a frequent misconception and is something that, under our Constitution, shouldn't happen. However, I will grant you that the gay rights movement may and has already overstepped. In particular, yes some hate speech law seems to override the Free Speech rights (this is allowable if it creates a public safety concern but shouldn't be used to simply silence speech in opposition to gay rights). If religious folk want gay marriage bills/amendments that provide explicit protections for religious freedoms to prevent your "imaginary scenario". That would protect the Constitution. It would also dispel may of the misconceptions and fears people have about gay marriage, and I think the gay marriage advocates need to more do dispel these misconceptions and fears.

                    Regarding the "Redefining Marriage Away" article, yes I believe that gay marriage would expand and strengthen the institution of marriage. If nothing else, it would strengthen gay unions. And yes, any gay rights measure would change the role between the sexes and this is something that needs to be discussed more. I repeat, I think those opposing gay marriage have many honest concerns that the gay marriage supporters need to do a much much better job of addressing. There is actually some actual policy concerns here, the fact that some agencies classify straight people as male or female and gay couples as others to handle the addition of gay marriage, which is silly. But I don't see how gay people marrying with in any way change your relationship with your wife.

                    The question of infidelity in gay marriage is a common one and is difficult to respond to since, as you point out, gay couples tend to be promiscuous. One counter is that straight marriage and gay relationships are not a fair comparison. People in serious relationships that aren't married do cheat. The fair comparison would be straight marriage and gay marriage and gay marriage hasn't be around long enough to make such a comparison. If anything, this may suggest (though the data does not directly imply this) that gay marriage and increasing acceptance of gays would reduce gay promiscuous behavior. But of course, there is not enough information right now to confir

                    • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/17/2009 3:45:56 PM

                      Well, Finally... some common ground. I think this entire exchange is sorta humorous because you claim to be a Libertarian, recently converted from a Republican... and ~I~ am a Constitutional Libertarian with conservative leanings. So you'd think that we would have more in common than not. Anyway, I'm glad you fianlly admitted that there are really valid reasons/concerns that those who oppose the redefinition of "Marriage" besides being a religious quack. I hope that even though you are an Atheist you will at least look at and READ what those with whom you dissagree with have to say about the subject. If for no other reason than to develop your own counter arguments.
                      One of the defining characteristics of the "middle road" is the ability to read and understand the arguments of both extremes. One of the defining characterists of libralism and extreme conservativism is the fact that they only read media that supports their own beliefs.

                      As for your comment on a different string. The Prejean thing: Yes FOX covered it. So did MSNBC, the TODAY show, the LATimes, Digg.com, The Huffington Post (Where I read the initial story, confirmed on FOX), TMZ and DailyMail UK. (BTW, apperently the Brits and the Aussies are on Prejeans side too, for whatever it's worth.)
                      Again, on THAT issue... I don't think that ANYONE can, with a straight face, say that all the fallout that Prejean has gotten DIDN'T stem from her answer to Hilton's loaded question. Seriously, if Prejean had caved in and given Perez Hilton what he wanted, a public sounding board for his cause, she'd be Miss USA right now, and nobody would be scouring her photos from 10 years ago looking for contract infractions.
                      DOC

                      • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/17/2009 4:37:02 PM

                        Minor but important correction, I am a libertarian (lower case "l"). I am a registered Independent. I have always had these libertarian leanings and was a Republican (capital "R") since I thought incorrectly that they were the best means to implement libertarian ideas like limited government, etc. I will become a Libertarian only when the Libertarian Party becomes more mainstream (though they tend to be moving in that direction and hence why I voted for Barr) or I will rejoin the Republican Party when it returns to its core libertarian principles.

                        I entirely agree that understanding both sides of an issue and following multiple news sources is important to actually fully understanding an issue.

                        As for the Prejean thing, I was curious what your source might be. I'll double check your sources at some point. Yes, if Perez Hilton never asked asked Prejean the question, there would have never been controversy. There is nothing wrong with Prejean giving an honest answer (frankly the same answer Obama gave in the debates). But the latest I heard is Trump let her keep the crown in spite of her gay marriage answer and in spite of the photos. The crown was later taken away for failing to make appearances required in her contract. Have heard little other than hearsay showing this isn't the case, but maybe you have more recent info.

                  • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/17/2009 10:43:14 AM

                    To continue...
                    The REAL issue with Same-Sex Marriage is this, (I qoute from: "Redefining Marriage Away" by David L. Tubbs, Robert P. George)

                    "Conservative advocates of same-sex marriage insist that their goal is not a radical alteration of the institution itself. They favor the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships as marriages in order to secure "equal rights," they say. Their goal in redefining marriage is not to weaken or abolish it but to expand access to it, while leaving its core features intact. Far from harming marriage, they contend, the move to same-sex marriage would strengthen the institution."

                    WOW! That sounds like YOUR argument, doesn't it??

                    "Though this argument has a certain superficial appeal, it is profoundly mistaken. The issue is not one of equality or the right to participate in a valuable social institution. What divides defenders of traditional marriage from those who would redefine it is a disagreement about the nature of the institution itself. Redefining marriage will, of course, fundamentally change the posture of law and public policy toward the meaning and significance of human sexuality, procreation, and the bond between the sexes. Even more important, there are powerful reasons to fear that the proposed redefinition of marriage will destabilize and undermine this already battered institution."
                    Cont...
                    DOC



                    • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/17/2009 11:19:39 AM

                      Cont...
                      And as to your, "To have and to hold, until death do us part... can't Gay people do that too?" argument... the answer is SURE...but as a group, they don't. Read on:

                      "Do most American husbands and wives honor the principle of sexual exclusivity in practice? The best evidence says yes. In their rigorous and acclaimed 1994 study on American sexual behavior, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann and his associates found that 65 to 85 percent of American men and more than 80 percent of American women (in every age group) had no sex partners other than their spouses while married. These figures are remarkable, especially if we recall the many ways in which popular culture has mocked or trivialized human sexuality and the demands of marriage in recent decades.

                      But do most same-sex couples accept the norm of sexual exclusivity? In a 1999 survey of such couples in Massachusetts, sociologist Gretchen Stiers found that only 10 percent of the men and 32 percent of the women thought that a "committed" intimate relationship entailed sexual exclusivity. An essay called "Queer Liberalism?" in the June 2000 American Political Science Review reviewed six books that discussed same-sex marriage. None of the six authors affirmed sexual exclusivity as a precondition of same-sex marriage, and most rejected the idea that sexual fidelity should be expected of "married" homosexual partners. For more than a decade, a wide array of authors who favor redefining marriage to include same-sex partners have advanced similar views. In a 1996 essay in the Michigan Law Review, University of Michigan law professor David Chambers even suggested that marriage should be redefined to include sexual unions of three or more people--so-called polyamorous relationships."

                      So, we are back to the same argument... DEFINITION.
                      DOC

      • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 3:19:03 PM

        Also, as a 37 yr old College educated, father of three, Christian, active duty military member... I think you are off-base. ~I'm~ certainly not anti-intellectual. Neither are any of my friends. I think you DON'T know what you are talking about to be honest. You have a lot of emotional taint to your posts. (A trait of youth) Voight was right. He was a raging Liberal until he realised that the leaders really didn't "care" about the little man, it was completely about political power. YOU should listen to the voice of experience and stop thinknig that because you have a college education you know everything. You don't. (Neither do I, but I bet I've experienced a heck of a lot more than you.)
        I also have to agree that for the most part, the young voters who hit the polls and voted Obama WERE DUPED. You guys don't remember Communism, or the Cold War, your first adult experience was Desert Storm. Socialism/Communism sounds really great to the young mind. Especially on paper. It seems fair, and equal, all that. It's NOT. Equality is great, I'm all about it, but people ARE different. Not everyone has equal ambition, or equal talents, or equal motivation therefore you CAN'T have equal outcomes. You don't achieve equality by hobbling the "go-getters" or the ambitious, and propping up the lazy and the antipathetic.
        The whole "If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem" crap.. is total BS. It divides people, not brings them together. WHy is it that the Left always talks about equality, and rights and free speech... until someone says something they don't want to hear? Then it's all about "Silencing" them. Think about it.
        Doc

        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/16/2009 4:11:28 PM

          Doc Navy, this entire post proves my point. You are a Republican that openly disrespects the college educated and the youth; your entire post is pure venom against such people. "...stop thinking that because you have a college education you know everything." I didn't say I did and I don't think I do. But insulting me for getting a college education just makes me mad at you and makes me want to have nothing to do with your political party. "You have a lot of emotional taint to your posts. (A trait of youth)" "the young voters who hit the polls and voted Obama WERE DUPED" You have anything other insults you want to sling at the youth? This post just makes me want to never to Republican. I gave you a chance to make me feel otherwise and you blew it. That makes you an idiot.

          "You have a lot of emotional taint to your posts."
          I have made no secret to that. I specifically have been talking about how I feel treated by the Republican Party. I sure know how I feel the Republican Party treated me, so I certainly know what I am talking about. I also gave examples and support, not just raw emotion, and you just look right over it.

          "the young voters who hit the polls and voted Obama WERE DUPED. You guys don't remember Communism, etc."
          The young voters do remember Bush and the Republicans and they were an embarrassment. In particular, remember the Iraq War and the damage Bush did to the deficit. The young voters knowingly voted against the Republicans. Most of my peers who voted for Obama were quite knowledgeable of his policies. Many other peers and myself voted for third party candidates in protest of the Republicans and Obama. None of us were duped; we knew exactly what we were doing.

          "Socialism/Communism sounds really great to the young mind."
          I have a young mind and I do not at all think Socialism/Communism sound great. Many of my friends are concerned that the government under Obama is going to overstep. This idea that youth like Socialism is insulting.

          "The whole "If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem" crap... is total BS."
          I know.

          "Oh... and ~I~ don't owe you S**t! What have YOU done to serve America? What sacrifices have YOU made for this country? Hmm"
          So what, you think you are better than me because you are an active duty military member? F**k you! Just because you are in the military and I'm not does not make you better than me. It's my country just as much as it is yours!

          The reason you owe me an apology is for supporting a political party that treats me like crap. That doesn't follow it's own political philosophy, nor does it treat me with respect. You owe me because I won't vote for your political party otherwise. And considering that YOU treated me with disrespect in your last post by being condescending to me for going to college and being young, you owe me a personal apology now too.

          • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 4:44:08 PM

            Oh, I see.. now I've hurt your feelings. It's all "venom" and "Disrespect". Hogwash. Grow up.
            Tell me, Oh knowlegable one... Name me three Bills/Laws or political actions that Obama did while he was a US Senator...can you do it without looking it up??
            How about this one: Who was Obama's self admitted political Hero? You know that one?
            Maybe THIS one: As a community Organizer WHO did Obama work for?
            Finally, What was Obama's personal opinion of the United States Constitution?
            Those are ALL questions you should have known BEFORE voting for him.
            Say what you want... I seem to remember reading about all those post-chic twentysomethings who are bitching because they have to work now thanks to the Obama economic policies.
            Your statement about young voters remembering Bush's policies is PERFECT, and only goes to prove what I said before. You kids didn't KNOW Obama... you voted for him because you believed in his "I'm not Bush, and McCain is" BS.
            I'm GLAD you are worried about the Obama administration overreaching.. You SHOULD be. But you CAN'T deny that it was the Young Liberal (Pro-Progressive/Socialist) and African-American vote that got him elected.
            I'm not trying to insult you, but you seriously need to grow some thicker skin. You don't see me getting all flusterd and pissed off when people call me names, and talk about "Silencing" me, and all that. If someone calls me a name I give it right back. In the same tone. No anger. I'm not calling for anyone's "Silence"...
            Doc

            • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/16/2009 5:31:32 PM

              "Tell me, Oh knowledgeable one...(bunch of questions about Obama) Those are ALL questions you should have known BEFORE voting for him."
              I think I told you this already, but I DID NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA. I voted for Bob Barr as a protest vote. I knew Obama was going to overreach and spend a lot just from the debates and reading news stories. So it didn't matter to me the details of his US Senator or community organizer experience, the policies Obama supported were more interesting to me.

              I and most young people I know did not buy into the "I'm not Bush and McCain is" BS. We felt based on the record of Bush and the Republicans that they were incompetent. We separately thought that McCain had bad policies and little substance, hated Palin, and voted against McCain accordingly. Our knowledge that Bush, McCain, and other Republicans are incompetent drove us to support either Obama and the Democrats or third parties.

              "But you CAN'T deny that it was the Young Liberal and African-American vote that got him elected."
              I think we can almost add that as another insult to young people and an insult to African Americans. It was a broad coalition of people, in which youth and blacks were just a part, that elected Obama. They all voted for Obama because they felt he was the best candidate.

              You aren't trying to insult me, but you are. Republicans aren't mostly bigots, they are just intolerant and don't know better. They say something insulting without thinking about it and when people talk offense and stop liking Republicans they do what you do: quote history of Republican support of blacks, defend what they said and in the process dig themselves a hole, and tell people to grow thicker skin. You know, all you have to do is say: "I'm sorry Republicans did not follow their principles, but we will now and here are some good proposals based on Republican principles that Republicans are working on right now. Also, I'm sorry some Republicans have treated you that way, but I do respect you and I absolutely want you in my party". Then you talk to people like youth and blacks and show Republicans care about them. And when someone says something disrespectful, remind them that Republicans don't behave like that. It really isn't that difficult.

              I used to have thicker skin; I put up with the crap from the Far Right because I thought Republicans believed as I did and would lead well. Well, I thought wrong and it seems the Far Right dishes out more crap than I thought. I'm tired of tolerating it. I don't have to put up with this from my own political party and I won't.

              • Posted By: Alvy @ 06/16/2009 6:41:27 PM

                Why would someone calling themselves "doc" not see how petty and well... old it is to say: Duh I hurt your feelings?
                Isn't that just some bad marriage comeback from someone avoiding the subject?

                Well - it is Doc.
                Yep. Doc Navy.

        • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 3:21:37 PM

          Oh.. and ~I~ don't owe you S**t!
          I have more of a claim to YOU owing ME than the other way around. What have YOU done to serve America? What sacrifices have YOU made for this country? Hmm?
          Doc

      • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/16/2009 4:29:16 PM

        "It's not about "Denying Gays the right to marry", it's about changing the DEFINITION of "Marriage". "

        America is change definition of marriage before, yes? 1967 was last time.

      • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/16/2009 3:42:29 PM

        Religious Nut: But the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Gay marriage is wrong! (Quotes Leviathan.)
        Me: We have a separation of church and state. 'Nough said.
        Prop 8 supporter: Gay couples can't have children.
        Me: Gay people can adopt children. Besides, some straight people can't or don't have children and you still call them married.
        Prop 8 ad: Children are going to be taught that a princess can marry a princess. Our youth will become gay.
        Me: The schools have no authority to teach children about marriage, at least not in California. Also, there is no evidence that being exposed to homosexuality makes someone gay.
        Doc Navy: Everybody is "different", and as for normal... YOU choose to either accept or reject these labels. This sounds like a self-esteem problem.
        Gay person: I know. I wasn't going to deny that I'm different. I'm here, I'm queer, and I'm proud of it. Also, people should stop persecuting me.
        Doc Navy: That may be so, but how you react to it is YOUR choice.
        Gay person: Listen jerk, I lost my job because I was gay.

      • Posted By: MartyinLA @ 06/16/2009 3:09:35 PM

  • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/18/2009 1:35:54 AM

    Republicans, if you want to watch FOX News, fine. I don't think it is a good news source, but who am I tell you what to watch. But don't call people "leftie" if they hate FOX News and use the MSM. There are people who actually support your political views who don't like FOX News and you might actually want to build a big tent party that includes such people. You know, a big tent like you used to have and not a tiny ideologically pure base like you are trying to create right now. And stop talking up FOX News and deriding the MSM and "Newsweak". In fact, Republicans need to stop attacking liberals for the sake of it in general. If the MSM is reporting bad news about conservatives, it's your fault. Your ideals and ideas should be so successful that you know it by watching the MSM and without using conservative news. You should so effective at communicating your message that people watching MSNBC get your message. If you can't do this, it's your own fault that your political party is a complete failure, not the MSM's.

    Now I have no further interest in debating the merits of various news options. If you want to reply, explain to me why the Republican Party is such a complete failure that it is losing elections and unable to stop Obama's big spending spree.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/17/2009 6:47:18 PM

    BK: It pays to observe that FOX was granted its cable news leadership spot in 2006 which it has never relinquished due to the fact that the only ''crap'' in the news was eminating from other sources during the 2006 Lebanon War which saw only FOX providing the most truthful coverage. These were the first to expose the phony ''Tyre Massacre'' leapt upon by the NY Times ,AP and CNN, concocted by HEZBOLLAH. These were also the first to report that the conservative website ''Little Green Footballs'' was accurate in observing ''photoshopped''pictures which appeared in TIME,NEWSWEAK,the NY Times,and the Washington Post. All of the above news services later retracted these photos and the accompanying reports that went with them, penned by HEZBOLLAH stringers sending their news through REUTERS to the western MSM which jumped the shark in trying to ferret out Israeli ''brutality''. They were first in exposing the problems with Jeremiah Wright [ vindicating FOX as late as last week when Wright blamed ''The Jews'' for not being able to see Obama],and they were the first to report the phony CBS/Guard/Bush documents mess in 2004 that brought down Dan Rather.
    Even a busted clock is right twice a day. FOX does not appear to have any more problems with veritas than say,the entire rest of the MSM that does not include CSPAN. Their disgrace continues to be compounded in an America that finds its lowest trust ever in the fourth estate, and is not assisted by its odd devotion to Obama, made manifest by the new introduction of the ''news informercial'' first done by NBC, and now by ABC which will shill for Obama in backing his version of the new healthcare plan in a one hour ''program''live from the White House next week which will have ABC NEWS ''choosing who will be in the audience''. This is not news. It is theater. [or ''garbage'' or ''crap'' if you prefer].

    POLITICO www.politico.com June 17,2009: ''For The Media,It's All Obama,All The Time''

    The San Francisco Chronicle [Editor Phil Bronstein] June 07,2009:''The Press And Obama Need To Get A Room''.

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/17/2009 10:23:24 PM

      We probably with have to agree to disagree on FOX News. Certainly the entire media (MSM sources and FOX News included) has notable problems with providing quality news. Dan Rather was crap too, and Newsweek and the NY Times have parts (not everything though) that are crap too.

      I really only use msnbc.com to find out what the news stories are, which I think it is effective at. But any MSM source would do for this.

      As for the Obama hour programs on NBC and ABC, I actually like them. Yes, I know they are political theater where Obama tries to sell his ideas and they aren't really news. But I prefer listening to what politicians say directly rather than listening to news analysis. I prefer to get my news by watching an event live and then do my own analysis, provided this is possible. That's why I love C-SPAN and Meet the Press. I'd rather Obama go on ABC and tell me in full what he plans to do about health care, because then I know what he says rather than out-of-context misquotes, what he think (or at least says he thinks), and I can judge whether he knows what he is talking about. So I get to watch Obama live and ABC gets to make money from it. Sounds good to me.

  • Posted By: I'm all in @ 06/17/2009 8:51:15 PM

    The GOP's problem isn't that they are lost. The problem is that they've been found. They have been found to be controlled by a relatively small base of Southern Bigots. Those that have found that out are leaving the party at high speed, thereby increasing the stranglehold on their former party. No one wants to be associated with a racist except another racist. Several of the commenters here are certainly in their comfort zone with the hate groups that make up a substantial portion of the base.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/17/2009 4:27:26 PM

    Obama is getting his head handed to him by my aforementioned coalition of Republicans and Blue Dogs over this healthcare fiasco. Yesterdays CBO report threw a stick into the spokes of the administration and congressional leftwingers, who are rapidly running out of room to stand by their nonsense. Pay no attention to partisan blowhards like Fineman, who is merely an administration stooge at any and all rates and is merely introducing intrigue rather than purposeful debate.
    The GOP has mustered enough neccesary clout to ditch the Obamination known as ''healthcare reform'' with the CBO driving another nail into its coffin by acknowlaging frankly that the numbers as crunched are closing in on 2 trillion,as opposed to the 1 trillion Obama stated would cover all, but lapsed in the CBOs own findings that no more ''than half'' of Americans would get care that is already uneven, and unsteady,particularly with those having medical precondition.
    The AMA politely listened [other than some boos at his speech], gladhanded ,and then ripped Obamas idea to shreds,coming out foursquare against his policies

    What to do?

    Back to the drawing board. The leftwingers will not gather under Conrads [D-ND] banner, thus shutting them out, with the other Blue Dogs who,with the GOP, are as merciless with these as one who owns hotels on all of the Red,Yellow,Green and Blue properties in a BOARDWALK game,kicking these to the curb with a whiny,affronted Kucinich [D-Ind] wondering what the hell happened. What is ''happening'' is that the GOP actually has some damned fine ideas in this area, and Howies ''Powers That Be'' are gathering around a heathcare bill sponsored by Democrat Wyden of Oregon and Republican Bennett of Utah. This device would allow for minority government ''public'' intrusion while also allowing Americans to accept and keep private plans leaning on these companies to offer plans equal or superior to those that Obama has in mind.
    Obama has already been busted in his attempt to cull dough from MEDICARE/AID in order to pay for this program angering Americas seniors [ who are using their biggest lobby, the AARP to back Wyden-Bennett,and array themselves against Obama and the leftwingers].
    Thus the GOP in this regard is not only not acting ''lost'' ,but are performing in a cohesive manner in blocking the machinations of an administration that is rather,losing its own way in crafting a lasting compromise in this quite important and crucial area.

    www.politico.com June 17,2009

    www.thehill.com June 17,2009.

  • Posted By: MichaelX @ 06/17/2009 1:45:00 PM

    Who really is the Republican party? I notice that all the talking heads are most often black, and I believe that it is a take-over by this socalled "minority" group.to further their own agenda. Well, good luck, I thing we are seeing the demise of a two-party system as we slide into socialism.

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/17/2009 2:56:50 PM

      Which talking heads are you referring to? Michael Steele? The other talking head on the Republican Party are Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, etc tend to be white males. There are several white females like Sarah Palin and there is Bobby Jindal, who is of Indian decent. None of these people are black.

      Moreover, what is so wrong with blacks taking over the Republican Party? I think it would be fantastic if more blacks were Republicans.

    • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/17/2009 2:00:04 PM

      Wait. You saying Black peoples are not minority (is 13% of population), is saying that Black peoples are taking over GOP? Is also saying Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann are the Black?

  • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/16/2009 2:12:37 PM

    Still to Doc Navy: For the political moderates, stop pandering to the Far Right, esp. the Religious Right. We have no interest in extremists and their ideologies. Many of us hate Rush Limbaugh, so stop kissing his ass. I know your "base" feels otherwise, but they are only 25% of the population and you will never any of the other 75% by kissing up to extremists. Also, stop calling moderate Republicans RINOs.

    By the way, Republicans are never getting the support of the youth, intellectuals, or moderates as long as they oppose gay marriage. It is ridiculous that Republicans think that, as gvillagran3 said, "gay people can pay taxes, but can't get married if they like". To say you support individual liberty and then take away the liberty of gays is hypocrisy anyways.

    As for atheists, stop saying that "American and its Constitution are only for a moral and religious people" and that "America is a Christian nation". I have heard many Republicans, including Mitt Romney and some in congress. I am not religious, but I am a good and proud American. Also, given you say you care about the Constitution, try following the separation of church and state. Stop pandering to the Religious Right who is trying to force their Judeo-Christian views on everyone. I am not a Christian and I don't wish to live like one.

    Oh, you certainly do owe an apology and explanation for the Bush years. Bush's big government, fiscally reckless, etc policies are simply unforgivable. For the Republicans to turn around and say they are fiscal conservatives after Bush's spending is ridiculous, as you have no credibility. You do need to explain why we should believe a word you say after you ignoring your political philosophy under Bush.

    Now you said one line about not owning me anything and spent the rest of your post declaring Obama a socialist. I won't deny Obama tends towards European socialist policies. But you miss the point. Republicans won't win based on "Obama sucks". I am talking about how the Republicans suck. Until the public thinks the Republicans don't suck, the Republicans aren't getting elected.

    • Posted By: PastMaster @ 06/16/2009 3:04:56 PM

      Nice to read this.

      The USA is specifically a SECULAR nation. It was intentionally established that way because the Founding Fathers were all too painfully aware to the horrid problems experienced by England since the time of the Tudors. In specific, modern political parties arose out of the centuries-long disputes and social dislocations caused by fighting among the Whigs and Tories, starting in the latter 1600's, over the "established church" in England (later Great Britain). (BTW - the GOP is the successor party to the early U.S. Whig Party.)

      The wisdom of the secular character of the US is borne out today by the unrelenting efforts of the religious right to claim what they have no right to own - political authority in America. You are so right, most of the country has become quite disgusted with that and has moved quite firmly away from it. Now let's take the political preachers' tax exemptions away. They have forfeited the right.

      • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 3:25:14 PM

        Actually, if you had done you homework you'd know that the Republican Party was created because of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, in an effort to OPPOSE slavery. The Republican party was created by a split in the Whigs, with addition of the Free Soilers, some Conservative Democrats, and a few smaller independent parties.
        Sorry you get a C- for your homework.
        Doc

        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/16/2009 3:44:48 PM

          So you otherwise accept PastMaster's claim that "the USA is specifically a SECULAR nation"?

          • Posted By: Alvy @ 06/16/2009 6:47:52 PM

            He missed the point. But Republicans did oppose slavery. They don't oppose it today however. They count on it.

            • Posted By: PastMaster @ 06/17/2009 10:10:03 AM

              This is really pretty much a discussion about nothing, but for the record ... Doc's citation of the Wikipedia piece (and I do agree with him that Wiki is at best an reliable source) does not alter anything. MY point was that the Whig part of yore was a descendant of the British party, and that the core of the Republican Party sprang from Whigs' disaffection and division. That stands and is really all this was about.

              As for opposing slavery as part of the Republican Party's foundation, I haven't at all disagreed. And I rather like the succinct statement Alvy made about how things have changed, indeed, indeed. Today's GOP gave us labor reform laws (during the Reagan Administration) that penalized workers forced to work overtime, and created the "permanent temporary" employee condition that infests America today. The Bush Regime really didn't care that in its first two years of office 3 million US jobs were permanently lost, nor that its approach to regulation ensured that while a small segment of the upper middle class grew weal;thier, overall household income fells and yet more Americans dropped into poverty. The Republican Party has been, and now seems to be committed to, the party of an economic aristocracy.

              • Posted By: PastMaster @ 06/17/2009 10:44:00 AM

                Small correction - Wiki an UNreliable source

        • Posted By: PastMaster @ 06/16/2009 3:41:23 PM

          Gaaah. Check out James MacPherson's "The Battle Cry of Freedom." The GOP resulted from the divisions in the Whig Party, and then grafted the others on, especially after the Democrats began also splitting apart over mainly the slavery issue. Phooey, doc. The GOP, as I accurately wrote to begin with, is today's successor party to the Whigs.

          • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 4:20:52 PM

            Geeeh! The Republicans were a completely new party, with differnent ideals and different motivations from the Whigs. Yes, it is true that SOME whigs joined the Repubs, but so did SOME Dems and MOST of the Free Soilers. Also, the Whigs existed at the Same time as the Republicans and finally died out in 1856 Here's a quote from Wiki (Though I am loathe to use Wiki all the time, it THIS case they have it right.)
            Republicans Origin:
            "Founded in Ripon, Wisconsin, in 1854 by anti-slavery expansion activists and modernizers,[6] the Republican Party quickly surpassed the Whig Party as the principal opposition to the Democratic Party.[7] It first came to power in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency and presided over the American Civil War and Reconstruction.[8][9]

            The party began to form in the late 1840s, though it would take opposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act to unify the party. [10] Their first official party convention was held on July 6, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan.[11] The Republican's initial base was in the Northeast and Midwest and the party solidified its position as the second party with the nomination of John C. Fremont in the 1856 Presidential election. Early Republican ideology was reflected in the 1856 slogan free labor, free land, free men. "Free labor" referred to the Republican belief in a mobile middle class that left the workforce and set up small businesses. "Free land" referred to Republican efforts to facilitate this spirit of entrepreneurship by giving away government owned land. The Party hoped that this rapid growth would help check, and eventually end slavery.[12]"
            So, there you go. they are as much the successors of the Whig Party as they are of the Democratic Party.
            Doc

            • Posted By: Alvy @ 06/16/2009 6:48:58 PM

              The point "doc" is it does not apply today. Just read you and you'll understand.

          • Posted By: PastMaster @ 06/16/2009 4:23:14 PM

            By the way, for anyone who really does care: The origins of official American secularism, based on very miserable British experience, are well documented in an obscure study of British history in the late 17th Century. Craig Rose's excellent "England in the 1690's" gives fascinating detail. Of course, this is a period of history virtually ignored in US education, but it is actually the birthplace of the ideas embodied in our constitution and principal legal customs. Worth a read.

  • Posted By: gvillagran3 @ 06/16/2009 10:35:51 AM

    Doc_Navy.

    I agree with bkrummel. The Republican party, but much more specifically the Right WIng base, owes us an appology for they are the ones that have the Republican party one step away from absolute irrelevance.

    You know Doc I used to be a Republican but no more. You are wrong when you say that the party does not owe us anything. The Republican party owes its supporters the basic respect that comes from ACTING upon it's words when in power. You my friend most have us confused with the standard Party fanatics, that will support a party, just for the sake of hate of the "other party".

    These fanatics on the two extremes of the political spectrum (Liberals, and Republicans) have nothing to give to America other than hot air. In their pathetic little world only they are right, and every one else is wrong. In their narrow minded views no other possible solution exist to problems, other than the ones they approve on.
    Adult discurse demands compromise, and extremist do not compromise and as a result they get nothing. I see in you that kind of mentality. The Republican party does not owe us anithing you say...... That's fine, I got it . I used to be a McCain Republican supporter, but seeing the sorry spectacle of a war hero beeing attacked by my very same party, when he ran against Bush in the primaries as "an unstable individual" , and a "Liberal allied to the Democrats" because he dare to compromise with them gave a clear picture of where the party was heading. Fast forward to McCain 's Vs. Obama and I again had to take the spectacle of a decent man forced into accepting an ignorant extremist (Sarah Palin) as a running mate "to please the base" .

    I was not expecting an appology from you, or any one in the Right. Frankly at this point I could care less if you apologize or not, is too late. I will be darn if I ever go back to a party controled by a bunch of nuts, that can turn a hero like McCain into a "mental case", because the poor man suffered years of torture, and in the next sentence portray themselves as supporters of the military.

    You guys don't understand when to draw the line. I for one will take your Obama is a socialist any day over Newt is a Right Winger. At least I don't have a nut in the White House.

    • Posted By: Doc_Navy @ 06/16/2009 10:56:23 AM

      "I used to be a McCain Republican supporter, but seeing the sorry spectacle of a war hero beeing attacked by my very same party, when he ran against Bush in the primaries as "an unstable individual" , and a "Liberal allied to the Democrats" because he dare to compromise with them gave a clear picture of where the party was heading."

      Umm, kinda like when Hill-Hill and Obama were going at it for DNC presidential Candidate? I saw more racist/sexist remarks from those two (About eachother!) than from the entire GOP lineup combined. THEN, there's all the straight up Bigoted/Sexist mudslinging that came from the left over Palin. The fact that they are STILL slinging the mud her way is ample proof to me that she scares the living bejeezus out of them. She splits the women vote and energizes the moderate conservatives AND the conservative movement as a whole. Where are all the women advocacy groups when the liberal media smears her. This latest Palin/Letterman thing a a prime example. Who's sticking up for Palin??? The few that have are all half-handed, apologetic quasi-slams against Palin.
      btw, ever notice how the left ALWAYS compared Palin to Obama??? What was THAT about? It seemed to me that the unsaid statement there was the GOP's Vice-Presidential Candidate was on par with the DNC PRESIDENTIAL one and just plain blew Biden out of the water.
      Tell, me, if the letterman joke had been about Michele Obama, and her daughert Malia... what would the reaction of the left/media have been, hmmm?
      Doc

      • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/17/2009 10:37:13 AM

        Hillary is woman? Uday fooled.

      • Posted By: mcrochip @ 06/16/2009 2:13:01 PM

        Until the day that McCain picked Palin as his Hillary-surrogate... err, running mate, I was leaning more towards McCain. Until that time, he was a serious contender for the Presidency. However, after hearing Palin talk and hearing her lack of skill in putting together coherent sentences or logical thoughts, any chance of voting for McCain was gone. Rather than trying to pick an intelligent and thoughtful woman to attract the female vote from the Hillary supporters, he picked Palin. I never saw any mudslinging against Palin as a woman... just against her lack of any degree of thoughtfulness or intelligence.

        Face it, Doc... your argument has been made, repeated, expanded, and continuously proven to be phony.

        • Posted By: standingwaver @ 06/16/2009 7:59:27 PM

          I think the Left sees Palin as a joke that just might stand the test of time.But you are right about one thing - the idea of another religous fanatic in power is truly frightening.

        • Posted By: Alvy @ 06/16/2009 6:53:24 PM

          In perpetuity.

    • Posted By: Want A Change @ 06/16/2009 12:27:48 PM

      Gvillagran3: Very well written, I totally agree...............

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse