• Iraq War veteran Lt. Dan Choi, who will likely be discharged for saying he’s gay, tells Alan why he’s choosing to fight the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
• Does the former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit really want the U.S. to be attacked? Alan asks Michael Scheuer to clarify his controversial comments.
• Alan responds to right-wing outrage over President Obama’s handling of the coup in Honduras.
Bush had a majority for only about 5 of his 8 years…and an additional year was locked 50/50 so majority thanks to Dick Cheney…
TDRO,
Good God, man…Please tell me you actually know how it happened…and you’re not just talking outta your arse…again.
The republicans may have had the majority in Congress in 2000…but they were still short of a super majority…meaning NO WAR RESOLUTION without Democrat support. “So, basically,” they DID need the help of your spineless democrats.
The Republicans did budge on the democrats suggestions…actually, if you want to get technical…it was the DEMS who didn’t budge on any Republican suggestion…despite their united campaign promises for bipartisanship – HA!
republicans had no problem throwing money around under the Bush administration
Hmmm…this is interesting considering the current administration just passed the largest budget in US history…and is spending money like it’s fake…with no REAL way to pay for it all.
by the way…whatever happened to “I’ll take a scalpel to the budget…go line by line…”?
Or this one: “No earmarks!”?
The issue I have with the author that I’m speaking about is that he purposefully created a childrens book, based in fantasy, and carefully crafted his message into a violent end of God and religion, and subversively is teaching this to children, and that is his stated purpose, from the interviews I’ve read of this guy, he’s extremely hateful of religion, and seemingly bordering on the irrational side which crosses over into bigotry in my mind…and you thought I couldn’t write a rambling, semi-incoherent run-on sentence.
“Certainly the extreme minority of atheists who advocate actual bans on religion etc, have thankfully no power in our society.”
I agree, it’s good they have no real power (other than through their allies on the bench) but my point is that they exist and they try and influence the world based on their views.
I was in a discussion about sheltered children in another forum, someone was saying how evil it is that some religious children shelter their children from the world…my response is that it’s equally creepy that some atheists go so far as to sue school districts in order to “protect” their childrens ears from ever hearing the word God…God is a four letter word in our public schools. To the point where I feel that it’s gone beyond the reasonable seperation of church and state and entered into undue censorship.
[...] Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.” Yesterday, on Alan Colmes’ radio show, Scheuer made similar comments about the national security stance of the U.S., saying that he [...]
[...] Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.” Yesterday, on Alan Colmes’ radio show, Scheuer made similar comments about the national security stance of the U.S., saying that he [...]
Only registered user allowed |
Lemme tell ya, I was impressed by Lt. Choi. Despite my personal feelings, it seems like from the left he’s a good advocate for changing the policy.
I don’t mirror Scheuer’s view that Democrats/pro-choicers are “worse people” because of their stance on abortion, but I think his candor about the fact that we’re murdering a human life was refreshing.
Alan, I’m sorry to laugh at your expense but when the dude on Radio Graffiti said, “Admit it Alan, you get rock hard in the shower…” referring to a male group shower, I had a VERY good laugh.
4moreyears Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:25 am
Flap, thanks for the review! FUnny and shocking Alan.
Alan, thanks for this space always. Appreciated.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 am
Alan,
I listened to your podcast with Michael Scheuer.
What an a******!
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:26 am
Alan,
The experiences and social interactions that lead to the sexual development of a human being are complex and varied.
Some people who end up with a homosexual orientation were victimized at a key point during the sexual awareness and coming of age developmental period by a sexual predator. They were stimulated and aroused sexually and this experience is a key formative moment in the forging of their sexual identities.
Others were physically beaten and abused by their father and older brothers and when they became adults they longed for the love of a strong masculine male because they were deprived of this growing up.
Abuse from a mother and older sisters can cause a loathing of females and a lack of interest sexually because of these abusive female relationships.
Michael Jackson is an example of abuse that lead to pedophilia, his (Michael’s) desire was to return to the innocence of his youth, hence the fascination with Peter Pan and the lost boys, coupled to an adult body with sexual urges.
Sexual orientation isn’t set and programmed from birth, it (sexual orientation) isn’t contained within the genetic code.
The more mainstream and normalized homosexuality is within a society the more prevalent this behavior becomes.
It (homosexuality) is not a healthy behavior for the practitioners.
Homosexuals have abnormally high rates of depression, drug abuse, and suicide.
This is not because of societal stigmas attached to gay lifestyles, this is due to the accumulated emotional baggage acquired throughout a lifetime of experiences during their development.
Just what do you think happens with someone who feels that they are “born” the wrong sex?
You are whatever sex you were born as…………..
Anything else is a confused distortion of reality.
This world is turning into some kind of carnival, fun house mirror, abject reality……….
We live within a fallen, broken, heart wrenching existence.
Pretending that the emperor is fully clothed in a magnificent ensemble when he is actually completely naked will not solve the problem.
trees are people too Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:14 am
There are many, many factors that contribute to sexual orientation, I’ve listed but a few.
It is common for a young girl to desire a mate who reminds her of her dad, and if she is raised in an environment that lacks the strong male role model then she may very well be attracted to a strong masculine female. The longing for a strong masculine figure combined with the single parent female can create this phenomena.
The point of all this is that sexual identities are formed over time and acquired thru experience.
How we raise our children and the environment they grow up in is vitally important, both to their self image and confidence, and by developing them into well adjusted members of society who fit comfortably within it and productively contribute to it (society).
Lee Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:47 am
Ah yes.. here we go again..
The theory about it all being learned blah blah
The theory that its all rooted in some trauma etc blah blah
The problem here is that like many Christians who feel that homosexuality is a sin, its not possible for ‘God’ to have given them that ‘gift’ in the form of genetic/biological makeup.
Therefore, you get trapped into being incapable of accepting any argument or evidence that supports such an origin. Instead, the only evidence that you accept is predominantly from completely unbiased evangelical psychologists (yes that was sarcasm :-) ).
Homosexuals often have a rough upbringing due to their natural ‘unusual’ behavior which doesn’t fit with either their family or societies expectations as a whole. Given this and actually talking to a true cross-section of homosexual’s you’d realize that in most cases the abuse/hate follows from the behavior not the other way around.
As I stated, arguing this with you is pointless (and I’m not meaning to be insulting there, just realistic). It would be like trying to argue there is no God etc as your position is not rooted in real research and rational judgement of the available data but instead its simply rooted in your religious beliefs.
Nothing really wrong with having a personal belief. What is sad is that unfortunately in this case, Christians often try to influence society as a whole. In doing so, they implicitly oppress homosexuals by continuing to condemn their behavior and where possible using their natural lifestyle to deny them rights such as marriage or parenting etc. That is not right in my opinion.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:20 am
What is sad is that unfortunately in this case, Christians often try to influence society as a whole
—-
as do atheists, deists, agnostics, republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals, satanists (wait that was redundant ;), and every other group out there.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:22 am
also…homosexual desires are not a sin…acting on those desires is…
craig7120 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:36 am
good stuff Lee, some say its a sin but forget to include ‘in my religion’. let the religious right have their guilt filled lifestyle. to bad they apply it to others.
trees are people too Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:59 am
Hmm..
You mean like, “in my pretend world”, because only if I didn’t truly believe in God would I refer to Him in a way that denies His absolute existence.
Only if I didn’t believe in Him would I refer to Him in a way that would cast doubt on His existence.
You see Craig, because you live in a pretend world that denies that ability to know God you don’t think it possible that anyone can know Him, and so you feel that because you lack faith in God that others should conform to your lack of religious belief and treat God like He’s some kind of afterthought.
Yours is the attitude that religion is fine and harmless as long as no one really believes what they’re saying.
You don’t have to believe in Him, but don’t expect me to adopt your callous disregard for the Lord of creation.
Daddio Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:02 am
Great points Guido. There is not one group out there that does not try to influence society towards their viewpoint.
And you’re exactly right about homosexual disires and the acutal acting on those disires in differentiating between non sin and actual sin.
Daddio Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:05 am
Lee, if God said a man laying with another may as he would a woman an abomination, then why in the world would God give them that inclination to commit an abomination against God? It doesn’t make any sense.
trees are people too Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:24 am
Willy, God judges the mind as well as the actions.
“You have heard it said, you shall not commit adultery, but I say to you that if you look upon a woman with lust you have committed adultery with her already in your heart”.
It’s why nice people who live exemplary lives need the savior also.
Our righteousness is as filthy rags, our righteousness.
The Pharisees were as whitewashed tombs, beautiful on the outside, full of dead men’s bones on the inside.
It’s a nice thought but I’m afraid it’s not biblical……
Daddio Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:35 am
Trees,
I really respect your thoughts and opinions. May I ask you question? (that was a question wasn’t it) :)
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:37 am
Trees,
fixating on desires and thinking about them, planning them out etc…those could be considered sins. however simply having a desire to sin is not a sin unto itself, and as long as you actively try to control your sinful thoughts and do not extend them into actions and behaviors, you’ve done no sin. Our natural inclination is to be sinful, our quest in life is to overcome that inclination and “be ye therefore perfect”
If sometimes I have an impulse to take something that isn’t mine…am I a sinner?
We should not let sinful thoughts control our minds, but the simple desire or feeling is not a sin.
The operative in your example is that he looks with lust, looking isn’t a sin, and though nothing is said about desire in that scripture, I find it telling that he includes looking with lust.
In my statements I used the word desire, which perhaps wasn’t the best choice of words, but my implication was one of having an impulse or a feeling.
trees are people too Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:39 am
You can always ask me anything Willy.
Daddio Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:42 am
Well, actually Guido actually asked my question, but with much more eloquence.
trees are people too Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:49 am
I would say that a desire to sin reveals a sinful heart, and that if a person was to reflect inwardly and be honest with themselves we would all admit to looking with lust.
Now, the difference is that the saved acknowledge this, are convicted by the Spirit immediately and struggle against these desires and certainly would not find it acceptable or excusable to act on them.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:54 am
Trees…do you thin man is sinful by nature?
trees are people too Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 am
Yes, I do.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:00 am
do you think that a “saved” individual that struggles with homosexual desires is sinning even when they abstain physically and mentally from acting out on those desires?
Daddio Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:03 am
Thanks for your explanation Trees.
I agree that we struggle in our daily lives to not act on our sinful desires. And most find these desires unacceptable. Sometimes we lose the battle. But God is always there to pick us up and by the grace of God we can and will be forgiven.
trees are people too Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:13 am
I would say that if they’re abstaining physically and mentally from acting out on their desires then they are not committing sin.
trees are people too Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 am
And I would absolutely agree with you Willy.
Daddio Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 am
Trees, Guido,
Gotta scoot for a while. Nice chatting with you both.
Have a good day and God bless you both.
Peace
trees are people too Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:33 am
Hey Willy, you have a great day too.
I’m gonna get outta here as well.
God bless you brother, trees
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:06 am
“You don’t have to believe in Him, but don’t expect me to adopt your callous disregard for the Lord of creation.”
You don’t have to believe in gay rights, but don’t expect me to adopt your callous disregard for the rights of others.
A wise man (perhaps you’ve heard of Him. His name was Jesus of Nazareth) once said: “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone…”. He said this for the benefit of hypocrites who are very severe judges of other men. Sound familiar, Trees?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
TDRO,
He said this for the benefit of hypocrites who are very severe judges of other men
I think it’s great you’re taking the time for some introspection…I applaud your efforts!
flap Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
“I think it’s great you’re taking the time for some introspection”
That was harsh…you gonna take that, TDro?
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
“I think it’s great you’re taking the time for some introspection…I applaud your efforts!”
I expected that from you, Trees. I’m not familiar with your god, but mine said, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone…”
Perhaps your god considers you without sin and therefore authorizes you to be a hate-filled bigot.
Lee Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
“What is sad is that unfortunately in this case, Christians often try to influence society as a whole
—-
as do atheists, deists, agnostics, republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals, satanists (wait that was redundant ;), and every other group out there.”
Nice try Guido, but you missed the point..
I have no problem with anyone shouting their opinion and trying to get others to agree with them.
I do however have a problem with people shouting their opinion and in doing so denying equal rights to the section of society they happen to dislike.
Please tell me where atheists (or whoever) have attempted to demonize a subset of society and deny the same rights ‘atheists’ enjoy?
craig7120 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Trees ty for the response and hope all is well.
“Yours is the attitude that religion is fine and harmless as long as no one really believes what they’re saying.”
Actions speak louder than words, my friend. I see religion in another light, it divides the masses, fosters hate, kills in its name. Make no mistake I do not find religion harmless when those that preach it and want others to fall in line with it, quite the opposite.
“You don’t have to believe in Him, but don’t expect me to adopt your callous disregard for the Lord of creation.”
Why do you want others to adopt your callous disregard of others religion, personal choices in life style, those that think freely and our not guided by your superstitions?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:35 am
Please tell me where atheists (or whoever) have attempted to demonize a subset of society and deny the same rights ‘atheists’ enjoy?
—-
I think there is abundance evidence that at least some atheists are also maltheists and do everything in their power to step on the rights of religion and free worship, thus denying the rights of religious people.
You probably think I’m a bigot because I say homosexual acts are sins…even though I’ve professed several times that I’m fairly oblivious to gay marriage and I’m against DADT.
Who is more a bigot, me or a certain childrens book author who has stated that his goal is to inspire children to kill god in their hearts and become atheists?
Lee Reply:
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:54 am
“I think there is abundance evidence that at least some atheists are also maltheists and do everything in their power to step on the rights of religion and free worship, thus denying the rights of religious people. ”
I thought you might try this line but it isn’t true. Certainly the extreme minority of atheists who advocate actual bans on religion etc, have thankfully no power in our society.
There have been cases like the attempt to ban the 10 commandment plaque or place a humanist Christmas message in government buildings. But these actions do not discriminate one group over another in either case. For example, no atheist (actually humanist) group has stated we can put up our message but you (Christians) cannot.
Furthermore, what is especially offensive about this kind of discrimination is that it is not about what objects you can or cannot display in a public place but instead denying basic human goals of being able to marry the person they love, experience the joys of parenting (and nurturing a needy child) and having the same access to worship as any other American.
As much as I’ve had some fairly heated arguments with you, I don’t consider you a bigot, and I try my best to stay away from personal insults anyway (but forgive me if I criticize certain attitudes/positions in general).
I don’t consider the author a bigot. Please explain to me where he is advocating atheists possessing rights/freedoms that another group may not (because they aren’t atheists). There is no difference in preaching we should all be atheist than preaching we should all believe in ‘God’. However, the fight against discrimination and the principle of equality is something this nation was founded on and is quintessentially American.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 4th, 2009 at 2:52 am
The issue I have with the author that I’m speaking about is that he purposefully created a childrens book, based in fantasy, and carefully crafted his message into a violent end of God and religion, and subversively is teaching this to children, and that is his stated purpose, from the interviews I’ve read of this guy, he’s extremely hateful of religion, and seemingly bordering on the irrational side which crosses over into bigotry in my mind…and you thought I couldn’t write a rambling, semi-incoherent run-on sentence.
“Certainly the extreme minority of atheists who advocate actual bans on religion etc, have thankfully no power in our society.”
I agree, it’s good they have no real power (other than through their allies on the bench) but my point is that they exist and they try and influence the world based on their views.
I was in a discussion about sheltered children in another forum, someone was saying how evil it is that some religious children shelter their children from the world…my response is that it’s equally creepy that some atheists go so far as to sue school districts in order to “protect” their childrens ears from ever hearing the word God…God is a four letter word in our public schools. To the point where I feel that it’s gone beyond the reasonable seperation of church and state and entered into undue censorship.
Lee Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Daddio,
“Lee, if God said a man laying with another may as he would a woman an abomination, then why in the world would God give them that inclination to commit an abomination against God? It doesn’t make any sense.”
Duh! Exactly.. That’s why Christian’s who feel this way (and it isn’t all of them/you) will never be able to accept any explanation other than Homosexuality is a learned behavior.
Hence since Trees (and others like him) ‘know’ the’re right, it becomes pointless to debate the issue itself.
What I object to is that due to this belief, Christians reject their rights to marriage, rights to parenting and very often, even their right to worship the same god in the same building.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Lee
getting married isn’t a civil right, neither is being a parent, driving a car, or voting.
Lee Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Well not every right is individually enshrined in our constitution and the right to marry and parent would come under the general ‘right to pursue happiness’.
However, while its an interesting debate, it is getting away from my central theme which was that is not acceptable to use personal belief’s to influence society to discriminate against people who happen not to conform or share your beliefs.
Years ago, I lived in the British city of Birmingham. It happenend (probably still does) to have a large population of Muslims and Hindu’s whom objected to the city putting up ‘religious’ decorations at Christmas. So instead of Angels, stars etc the city only put up generic ‘flowers’ and other decorations with no Christian significance in order to appease the objectors.
Now, hopefully something like that will not happen in our country, but if it did I would support the Christian protests just as I would support Gay Right’s protest’s in the same way.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:47 am
The whole Honduras thing doesn’t sound like a coup to me. From what I have learned about it, the Honduran Pres. was trying to pull a Hugo Chavez by forcebly changing their constitution so that he could be Pres. for life.
When he came upon resistence from military leaders he had them fired.
The Honduran congress would not allow him to pull his coup and take over the entire government. Therefore I think the Honduran government did the right thing by removing the would be thug before it was to late.
To wait for elections would probably have been to late. We don’t need another Hugo Chavez in South America.
Why would Pres. Obama want to support a leader who wanted to trash their constitution and become dictator for life?? Ideas running through Obama’s head? Hmmm.
OldLefty Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:21 am
If only we had had two more liberal judges on the Supreme court, and had known that all we had to do was have the Democratic Congress and the court order the removal and arrest GW Bush!
Um Cara Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:20 am
Willy,
To wait for elections would probably have been to late. We don’t need another Hugo Chavez in South America.
What does Honduras have to do with South America?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
UM CARA,
ZING! ;)
Daddio Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
My mistake Cara. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I know you didn’t mean anything by that. :)
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 am
ALAN,
No post on the 9.6% unemployment rate?
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Maybe Alan’s waiting to respond until it reaches or exceeds the highest unemployment rate ever of 10.8% set in 1982.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Or maybe he’s not doing a post on it because Obama’s adminstration promised the American people it wouldn’t get above 8% if the stimulus passed.
Or maybe he’s not doing a post on it because Obama said “the stimulus is working!”
Or maybe he’s not doing a post on it because Obama’s economic team of “the best economists in the US” horribly underestimated the state of the economy…
Or maybe he’s not doing a post on it because it’s just flat out embarassing to libs who pushed for the stimulus to curb job loss..
Who knows…all I know is that a person would assume this tic of information would get a spot on this website rather than some obscure woman talking smack about Michael Jackson.
I’ve always subscribed to the adage: Never speak ill of the dead.”…seems this lady didn’t get the memo.
OldLefty Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Gee, did Obama say he would do it in 6 months?
Did liberals post similar questions on Limbaugh’s site about, the article in Forbes in 08: Bush says May job loss ‘consistent with slow economic growth’ as the unemployment rate soared in the beginning of 08, (after 8 years)…..Oh wait, you have to pay to question HIS intellectual honesty.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
OLD LEFTY,
Your justification/deflection is absolutely mind-boggling.
the discussion is about what Obama’s Administration promised the American people…but then did not deliver.
He said the unemployment would not get above 8% if the stimulus bill passed…there’s really no room for discussion there.
And yesterday Obama said “The stimulus is working!”
“guffaw”
Yes, he received the recession from Bush…one that he helped create, by the way…but don’t blame his failure to live up to his promises on Bush…that’s the epitome of lacking “intellectual honesty”.
OldLefty Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
JaredfromTexas,
My “ justification/deflection” is no more mind-boggling than yours…..just that you gave your guy 8 years, and want to trash the other guy in 6 months, but it took a long time for things to get this bad.
Didn’t the Bush supporters talk about the “jobless recovery” and the booming economy while they were loosing jobs? Jobs ARE the last to come back.
The room for discussion here is that I agree with Krugman that Obama didn’t go far enough and watered down the stimulus, and that he should have followed the law, put the banks into receivership, cleaned up the toxic assets, then sold them back.
He also should only have allowed them the TARP money if they started lending again.
If things are this bad now, I just think of the bullet we dodged with Mr “The fundamentals are strong”, who was likely to go back to all the practices that brought us to this sorry pass.
As for the “ justification/deflection”, you seriously remind me of a kid who gets a F, trashes another kid who only got a B, then accuses the other person of “deflection” for pointing out that you have no room to talk.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
OLD LEFTY,
I hope by “your guy”…you’re including all the Dems in Congress…or did you forget about them?
and when you demonize McCain for saying “the fundamentals of the economy are strong”, I hope you remember that Obama said the very same thing about a month ago…or did you forget about that too?
So, wait…I’m a kid for identifying your well-worn and oft used debate tactic? Don’t get upset about it…if you don’t want to get called out on it…then don’t use it.
You’re right, 6 months isn’t a long time for things to happen…but if you’re going to push that angle…maybe Obama shouldn’t have said “it will not get above 8%”.
You see…he garnered public support for the stimulus based on that statement…and now we’re at 9.6%. “it will not get above 8%” doesn’t lend itself to a timeframe, now does it?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Obama’s PR person has said recently that we gotta give it time, “it’s a two year plan”. Funny, don’t remember that every being presented when we signed away the lives of our grandchildren to fund the dreams of liberals
placefield Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Didn’t the unimployment rate in the US reach 25% in 1933?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
PLACEFIELD,
I think TDRO was attempting to make a unscrupulous dig at Reagan.
But, you’re right.
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
….And Jared just HAD to respond by throwing a temper tantrum. He never fails to amuse me. Keep up the good work!
Oh by the way, isn’t the standard republican remark supposed to be that Bush acquired the debt from Clinton? You’re slipping, buddy.
And one more thing. If you’re trying to get my dander up, it’s not working. So far I’m disappointed in Obama’s progress – but I’m optimistic.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
TDRO,
Did you, or did you not make that statement as a dig at Reagan?
And how in the world does my quoting Obama’s promises equate to a “temper tantrum”?
Oh, is that I’m holding him accountable for his political promises? How dare I?!
You see…your overt political blindness won’t even allow you to see what’s right in front of your face.
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
“Did you, or did you not make that statement as a dig at Reagan?”
Actually it wasn’t a dig at Reagan. I didn’t research to see who was president in 1982, but my comment was simply that perhaps Alan’s waiting until the unemployment rate reaches (what I thought) was the all-time high. Placefield corrected me. But hey, if you want to think it’s a dig at Reagan to make yourself feel better, go right ahead.
“And how in the world does my quoting Obama’s promises equate to a “temper tantrum”?
Because you went off on a rant about Obama when his name wasn’t even mentioned.
“Oh, is that I’m holding him accountable for his political promises? How dare I?!”
…considering you gave him NO TIME to prove himself (if I remember correctly, you started trashing him before he took office). Now that’s real big of ya.
“You see…your overt political blindness won’t even allow you to see what’s right in front of your face.”
Tell me, Jared. What’s “right in front of my face”?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:30 pm
TDRO,
Actually it wasn’t a dig at Reagan.
My apologies then…
Because you went off on a rant about Obama when his name wasn’t even mentioned.
ummm…this entire thread is about Obama…
if I remember correctly, you started trashing him before he took office
No I didn’t. and that’s interesting, because I was one of the many who had said repeatedly that I hope he’s hugely successful…unfortunately, we’re seeing a disturbing pattern of failed campaign promises.
“No higher than 8%!”
“The stimulus is working!”
“Close GTMO!”
“Troops home in 16 months!”
“No taxes for anyone making less than $250K”
Need I continue with more of what’s “right in front of your face”?
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Transparency
Iran
North Korea
cap and trade
lobbyists in his white house
possibly taxing healthcare benefits of those who are already insured
possible national sales tax
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
“ummm…this entire thread is about Obama…”
No, this thread is also about Lt. Choi.
“Need I continue with more of what’s “right in front of your face”?”
I’ve said in another post I’m disappointed in Obama. It seems he’s moving too far to the right for me.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
TDRO,
I don’t think he’s moving to the right…but I do think he was a bit more optimistic/promissory than the economy would allow.
Daddio Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Placefield,
Unemployment reached 25% indeed in 1932 I believe. It averaged around 15% through 1941.
TDro’s statement of the highest ever at 10.8% is incorrect.
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Sure Obama talked a big game when he was campaigning, which is why he was voted in. But during the last month or so, he seems to be continuing some of the Bush policies. That’s bad. I understand he was left with a flaming bag of dog poo from the last administration and he has a lot to contend with, but little things like DADT could have been rectified.
I gotta hand it to the republicans, though. When they were the majority, they did whatever they wanted. They wanted a war with Iraq, they started one. They wanted more tax breaks for the the rich, they got it. They didnd’t care what the democrats thought.
The democrats, on the other hand (and in my opinion), are spineless. They’re trying way too hard to be bipartisan when they don’t really need to. Things need to get done but they feel they need the blessing of the republican party before they can start anything. And we know that ain’t gonna happen.
But I’m still optimistic. With juggling a tanking economy, skyroketing unemployment and two wars, I’m hoping Obama will come out smelling like a rose. Not for the sake of the democratic party, but for the sake of the country.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
TDRO,
Overall, a well stated post. However, I do disagree with a couple of points:
The republicans did not “do whatever they wanted”. They needed Dem support for every bill that passed over the last 8 years.
The current democrats aren’t trying to be partisan from what I’ve seen. The republicans have offered alternatives/input to various bills with no luck…the big one was the stimulus…zero republican input was accepted.
Not for the sake of the democratic party, but for the sake of the country.
Agreed. Mark this day on your calendar! you and I agree on something!
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Daddio said, “TDro’s statement of the highest ever at 10.8% is incorrect.”
I’ve already admitted I made a mistake. Now don’t forget to remind me of it for the next 100 posts.
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
“The republicans did not “do whatever they wanted”.”
The republicans held the majority in 2000 and they wanted war with Iraq. They didn’t really need the votes of the few spineless democrats who voted with Bush to invade. So they basically did what they wanted regardless of democratic opinion.
As for the republicans offering alternatives? They refuse to budge on anything the democrats suggest. The only choice the democrats have is to do what’s best for the country, regardless of republican input or lack thereof.
As for the stimulus, the republicans had no problem throwing money around under the Bush administration. Now that Obama’s president, they’re all of a sudden worried “concerned” about spending?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 8:43 am
TDRO,
Good God, man…Please tell me you actually know how it happened…and you’re not just talking outta your arse…again.
The republicans may have had the majority in Congress in 2000…but they were still short of a super majority…meaning NO WAR RESOLUTION without Democrat support. “So, basically,” they DID need the help of your spineless democrats.
The Republicans did budge on the democrats suggestions…actually, if you want to get technical…it was the DEMS who didn’t budge on any Republican suggestion…despite their united campaign promises for bipartisanship – HA!
republicans had no problem throwing money around under the Bush administration
Hmmm…this is interesting considering the current administration just passed the largest budget in US history…and is spending money like it’s fake…with no REAL way to pay for it all.
by the way…whatever happened to “I’ll take a scalpel to the budget…go line by line…”?
Or this one: “No earmarks!”?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Bush had a majority for only about 5 of his 8 years…and an additional year was locked 50/50 so majority thanks to Dick Cheney…
OldLefty Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
JaredfromTexas,
Do we just switch the subject from presidents, to congress, but by” your guy” , I mean Bush, and largely the Republicans in Congress, but the Democrats and Clinton share some blame also.
I don’t “demonize” McCain, I think he didn’t want to admit that the policies promoted by is economic advisor, Phil Graham as his advisor, had gone so sour.
What Obama said in March was: “If we are keeping focused on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy, all the outstanding companies, workers, all the innovation and dynamism in this economy, then we’re going to get through this,”
“There’s a reason why even in the midst of this economic crisis you’ve seen actual increases in investment flows here into the United States,” Obama said Saturday in the Oval Office. “I think it’s a recognition that the stability not only of our economic system, but also our political system, is extraordinary.”
And that comes AFTER derivative trading and credit default swaps, and the AAA ratings, ‘or did you forget about that too?’
I think he garnered support because people felt that after the banks went belly up, and no one was lending, and no one had confidence that SOMETHING had to to done.
blissfulconservative,
What was Bush’s timeline when signed away the lives of our grandchildren, (and the lives and limbs of many of our children) for the dreams of the Straussians, neocons and Bush’s Oedipal tragedy?
As long as we are into hyperbole.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
yeah, always better to do SOMETHING even when it is CRAP than to ride it out.
Do you have children in Iraq and Afghanistan old?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
OLD LEFTY,
“If we are keeping focused on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy, all the outstanding companies, workers, all the innovation and dynamism in this economy, then we’re going to get through this,”
And how is Obama’s statement different from McCain’s?
“…but those fundamentals — the American worker and their innovation, their entrepreneurship, the small business, those are the fundamentals of America, and I think they’re strong,”
OldLefty Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
“And how is Obama’s statement different from McCain’s?”
…………………….
McCain said it as the entire financial sector was going belly up…..and all due to the policies of HIS economic adviser, (signed off by the “Best Republican” president ever, Bill Clinton.)
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
In other words….it’s correct because a democrat YOU voted for said it vs. a republican who said the same darn thing.
Priceless.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
OLD LEFTY,
McCain said it as the entire financial sector was going belly up
Yes..with a still rising unemployment rate at the time, a still volatile financial system at the time, and with a housing market that was still dumping at the time…Obama’s statement made more sense…?
So, I’ll ask again…what’s the difference?
OldLefty Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
JaredfromTexas,
If you don’t see the difference between a disaster, and trying to fix the disaster,(although not going far enough)….then what can I say?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:23 pm
OLD LEFTY,
There weren’t actions taken prior to Nov, ‘08 to try to fix the disaster?
The difference between “disaster” and “fixing the disaster” doesn’t translate into how McCain’s comments are ridiculous and how Obama’s are praised.
Contextually, they are the same exact comment. The only difference is, Obama’s comes after he is president.
Spin…that’s what you’re doing.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
like a record. a broken record
OldLefty Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
“Do you have children in Iraq and Afghanistan old?”
………………………..
#1)Some family, not children.
#2)What does that have to do with the rightness or wrongness of each mission?
#3)You call it “crap”, as many people called the past economic policies.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
1) You said “our children” lost limbs. Believe it or not, some of the soldiers I have seen interviewed don’t hate bush or cheney like you do. In fact, a whole he77uva lot of em supported mccain.
2) what does YOUR opinion have to do with the rightness or wrongess of each mission? What YOU view as right or wrong is different from what others see as right or wrong.
3) You darn right I call it crap. over 3 trillion in the hole, unemployment higher than promised and no end in sight. We are OWNED by china basically. Hope you are happy.
Um Cara Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
You darn right I call it crap. over 3 trillion in the hole, unemployment higher than promised and no end in sight. We are OWNED by china basically
In defense of Bliss, I do remember that she was just as much against the first bailout (Bush) as any of the subsequent Obama bailouts…
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Yes but Bliss was in favor of the Iraq war (2 trillion dollars), the funds of which we borrowed from China.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Here are the report’s estimated costs of major wars, in 2008 dollars, and their costs as a percentage of GDP in each of their peak years:
—American Revolution: $1.8 billion; GDP figure not available
—War of 1812: $1.2 billion; 2.2 percent
—Civil War, Union: $45.2 billion; 11.3 percent
—Civil War, Confederacy: $15.2 billion; GDP figure not available
—World War I: $253 billion; 13.6 percent
—World War II: $4.1 trillion; 35.8 percent
—Korean War: $320 billion; 4.2 percent
—Vietnam War: $686 billion; 2.3 percent
—Gulf War: $96 billion; 0.3 percent
—Iraq war: $648 billion; 1 percent
—Afghanstian/Global war on terror: $171 billion; 0.3 percent
—Post 9/11 domestic security: $33 billion; 0.1 percent
—Post 9/11 operations: $859 billion; 1.2 percent
“in favor of” the war?? I don’t like war. I lots of family and friends who have been and or are still there. Are they sometimes necessary? YES. Are we there now? YES. Should we finish the job? YES.
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
” Are they sometimes necessary? YES. Are we there now? YES. Should we finish the job? YES.”
Strictly your opinions.
My opinion:
Was the Iraq war necessary? NO!
Should we finish the job? NO! Not at the cost of more American lives. BTW this is no longer a war. It’s an occupation.
EricG Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Bliss – ” Are they sometimes necessary? YES. Are we there now? YES. Should we finish the job? YES.”
Well I for one agree with you 100% on solely this much.
But the real question is should we have gone in.
And you know that. And Hannity knows that, on down the line to every last Republican in the country.
And that’s the debate that every neo-con loses every time because Bush ran no nation-building and everyone who is not daft on history knows all about our ‘containment’ of the situation breeding more terrorism…
So we should let Republicans off the hook? I’m against it.
Everyone is still on the hook. Clinton is still on the hook for his actions overseas as is Bush even well after these conflicts come to close.
The blood of innocent Iraqi children killed in bombing raids concerns me more than limbs of anyone. And the shameful American Media still won’t report accurate numbers on it.
That’s FOX and MSNBC and the ‘liberal’ press and the ‘free’ internet.
—
So much do conservatives really care to know?
Is it all about nationalism of this country at the cost of the lives of others in other nations?
Or if it’s really about ‘ending tyranny’ then why do they not porpose invading every country on the globe that does not conform to our standards?
RDM Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
TDro319 said; “BTW this is no longer a War. It’s an occupation”.
Good point.
Korea was the last War, and it never officially ended. Just a cease fire and draw back to the 38th parallel. Our troops are still there.
Viet Nam-not a War. A Police Action.
The Gulf War, Iraq, Afganistan not Wars.
All this time America has not been at War. The US Military has been at War. America has been at the Mall.
Good point you made. Which makes one ask; So, why hasn’t Congress declared War?
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:07 am
I use to believe in this administration – but it is clear that “OBAMA’s CHANGE” is not good for the nation, not good for the people, not good for our person financial well being.
It seems that “HIS CHANGE” has a pricetag that we can not afford. I am not blind to what is happening.
This CHANGE must be stopped at once ~ to protect American’s.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Some soldiers ARE supportive of Bush and McCain, and some are not, that has nothing to do with the soundness of the policy. How many believed that Saddam had a role in the 9/11 attacks?
My opinion of the missions is not the point, the point was your asking if I have children serving in combat, as though that had something to do with it. We all disagree on what is right and wrong.
‘Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.
About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.
If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits.’
“We are OWNED by china basically”…That’s why Alan Greenspan called Clinton “the Best Republican president”
Hope YOU are happy.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I didn’t vote for Clinton (either time) OR obama, so yes I am happy. My conscience is clear on that regard.
“soundness of policy” has nothing to do with soldiers losing their limbs.
Yes, your opinion of the missions IS the point because you made it a point to act as if the war atrocities lie squarely on the shoulders of two men, who by the way you don’t care for at all.
Obama’s main contritubtion to the deficit is the crappy “recovery act” that isn’t doing what he promised. What is the unemployment rate again? What did Obama promise it would be?
slightly higher my arse.
OldLefty Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act , the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 ,ALL part of why we are in debt ti China, were pushed by Phil Graham and “get government off our backs” conservatives….so you should be proud of them.
Complain all you want about Obama’s “crappy recovery plan,” ( I agree he allowed it to be watered down), and take comfort in your own denial of YOUR party’s role in the need for recovery.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
The act you write about was a Bipartisan bill with support from both democrats AND republicans. 157 democrats voted YAY for that bill, so save your blame for another day lefty.
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
In the Senate 39 Democrats (all of them) voted against this act and 44 Republicans voted for the destructive bill.
Under the almost no regulation environment a few banks have been able to manipulate the price of precious metals to make inflation seem tame and to prop up a dollar under the burden of ever growing burden of national debt, a trend started by Reagan and brought to fruition under Bush.
OldLefty Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
They were absolutely bipartisan bills,when corporate power was at it’s hieght and the few who sounded the warnings were called the far left kooks.
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
the commodity futures modernization act of 2000 was co-sponsored by John Lafalce (D-NY) and the companion bill was cosponsored by Thomas Harkin, Tim JOhnson. Clinton signed the bill. 157 democrats voted YAY.
The other bill:
“The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1st by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (|Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent/Socialist 0–1),[3] [4] [5] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[6] [7] [8] [9]” FROM WIKI
You will also see WHY the CRA isn’t always on the good side of history considering clinton said this: “Crucial to the passing of this Act was an amendment made to the GLBA, stating that no merger may go ahead if any of the financial holding institutions, or affiliates thereof, received a “less than satisfactory [sic] rating at its most recent CRA exam”, essentially meaning that any merger may only go ahead with the strict approval of the regulatory bodies responsible for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).[17] This was an issue of hot contention, and the Clinton Administration stressed that it “would veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements.” FROM WIKI
TDro319 Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
it doesn’t matter Bliss. Majority rules. All of the republicans and a few democrats voted in favor of the bill. The republicans won. Simple as that.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Add to that Clinton’s defense of the bill and the current financial situation when he said:
In response to criticism of his signing the bill when President, Bill Clinton said in 2008:
“I don’t see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn’t signed that bill…. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I’d be glad to look at the evidence.” [29]
OldLefty Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Why do you act as I if you keep showing that Clinton was for something that I will not be critical?
Of course neither he nor Graham nor anybody else who pushed it when both parties were in the grasp of the corporatist agenda, wants to acknowledge that it played a great role in the current crisis.
I think the evidence of Glass-Steagall could not be more clear,
People like Dorgan, Bernie Saunders and even Molly Ivins all predicted the “too big to fail ” scenario.
Well I’m getting company soon , so tata.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
I think the evidence of Glass-Steagall could not be more clear,
I whole-heartedly agree.
EricG Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Hey, I agree. But if that’s the only piece of evidence you’re willing to accept you do an insult to this nation.
It was Bush, Reagan, Bush II … Do your damn homework and you’ll see it …
The evidence could not be more clear. Republican ‘Free Market’ strategies in economics have failed us, utterly.
If you please admit some of your own faiings, people would take you more serious in the public / political domain.
When you touted only a series of fact and reject all else it just proves your own partisanship.
So if I can see, not so much here on the web but in real life, some conservatives standing up and taking responsibility for what they promoted instead of flip-flopping every month.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:39 am
here’s something that blew my mind…the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act passed the senate with a 90-8 vote (with 2 republicans not voting) Most of those 90 Senators are still employed…how is that possible?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:39 am
sorry…Gramm-Leach-Bliley…
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
“bipartisan” Why is everyone enthralled by this word?
It’s become the most phony word in politics. Politians simply use it, say it, to mask their inability to get input from the -other party.
The other-party is not seeing things their way on an issue so lets hide behind the word bipartisanship.
I know… we can use this word to get elected and then use it again to get re-elected!
It’s a over used ridiculous phrase.
placefield Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
I agree,
I don’t vote for someone because I wan’t them to be bipartisan. I vote for them because they claim to stand for values and ideas that I agree with. I want them to fight for those values and ideas. I know at the end of the day for anything to happen in Washington there will need to be compromise, but I still want them to fight.
RDM Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
You would make your Momma proud!
Have a happy and safe 4th of July.
I hope you have some finger lickin gooooood Bar-B-Que.
placefield Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Right back at you. I plan on having some great BBQ. Think I am going to break out my smoker for some ribs and pulled pork.
EricG Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Partisanhip would be better understood as ‘political hate.’
I’m so glad to hear you hate-preaching.
It’s a boon to the nation to have you on here trying to tear apart our bicameral legislature process and our electoral system with the notion that people don’t have to get along and work out solutions in government and politics.
EricG Reply:
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:26 pm
My partisanship would be that your a dirt-for-brains American and my bipartisanship would be that I don’t agree with your assement.
The failing of bipartisanship is dryness and boredom but you don’t have to attack people to express your opinion.
But that’s probably hard to even believe is possible with the disrespectful and unpatriotic people who run for Republican seats … and then get them for saying lies about their opponent and using the media as their puppet instead of as an informative agent.
RDM Reply:
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:19 am
Eric G, I’m suprised. ” dirt for brains”?
I expected your daily Hate-a- Thon.
Something like: You’re a racist, you’re a sexist, you’re a racist, you’re a homophobe, your a facist, you’re a racist, you’re a biggot, you’re a redneck, you must be gay…followed by four letter words.
I’m disappointed.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
[...] Laden to deploy and detonate a field instrument in the United States.” Yesterday, on Alan Colmes’ broadcasting show, Scheuer prefabricated kindred comments most the domestic section attitude of the U.S., locution [...]
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:42 pm
[...] Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.” Yesterday, on Alan Colmes’ radio show, Scheuer made similar comments about the national security stance of the U.S., saying that he [...]
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
[...] Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.” Yesterday, on Alan Colmes’ radio show, Scheuer made similar comments about the national security stance of the U.S., saying that he [...]
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm