home

Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:48:04 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm swamped. J too from the looks of it.

Open Thread.

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | NY Times Sends 8 Million Customers False E-Mail >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 144 comments (144 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    For the record I'm not boycotting HBO (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:34:04 PM EST
    I will probably watch twice as much now.  If you are going to pray in front of the cameras for the cameras and parade around Focus on the Family and its all cool when you are winning, nobody can $hit in my opinion when they atheists parade around that you are losing.

    whooops (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:35:41 PM EST
    Nobody can SAY $hit when the atheists parade around that now you are losing.  It must be God's will that Denver lost, and not only lost but got stomped.

    Parent
    It was God's (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:40:18 PM EST
    will you wrote the first post.

    Parent
    I have a different sort of God (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:53:31 PM EST
    so no, not true.  But because I'm not shoving my God down your throat in front cameras and my God (sucking up to my God) and everyone, you wouldn't know that.  In fact, it sort of makes bringing God into daily conversations with me under encouraged when compared to our real shared daily problems and struggles.

    Parent
    You are a bright ray (none / 0) (#76)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 07:21:59 AM EST
    of sun on a cloudy day with that missive.  I hope you get the rest you need.  

    Parent
    Now, now, MT (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:44:45 PM EST
    You know that they can always "say $hit."  Personally, I really don't think that God, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Shiva, Mohammed, the Universal Life Force, or whoever or whatever, gives a flying f*ck who wins a game.  It's just a game.  A game that brings in a whole lot of money, but just a game.    ;-)

    Parent
    My husband says that it offends him (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:54:45 PM EST
    that people are across the world dying for Tim Tebow in real life and death situations, and praying before cameras before he plays a stupid game is all that important :)

    Parent
    You should consider this (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:54:44 PM EST
    The military is protecting the right of Tebow to do what he is doing.

    Don't like it? Don't watch the game.

    Parent

    Well, I won't disagree totally (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 08:23:56 AM EST
    The military is the instrument that allows the other instruments to be used before the military is used.

    And I don't need a TV remote to ignore Maher. I just don't watch HBO. The good stuff they produce is available on DVD's within a short time and I purchase it as desired.

    Parent

    The military is also protecting (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 09:02:54 AM EST
    my right to express my opinion on religion and how far into my own boundaries someone can force their religion and all the nuance that that entails.  I'll watch any game I want to too because the military also protects my right to do that at this time.

    Parent
    That is also why God invented (none / 0) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 09:04:17 AM EST
    opinions and freedom of speech :)

    Parent
    I don't think we are in disagreement over (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:35:47 PM EST
    the pernicious and cruel and ignorant philosophies of Focus on the Family, but...while Tim Tebow is on the football field, or on the sidelines, he is not proselytizing for that organization nor is he commanding anyone who watches him to give their souls over to God.  He's just not.  The media has made Tim Tebow's religion an issue, and time and again, in interviews where the media tricksters have endeavored mightily to capture Tim Tebow saying something they could use to create even more controversy (ratings), Tebow has (1) been unfailingly polite and (2) refused to be drawn into that trap.

    Bill Maher, on the other hand, has never failed to infuse whatever the controversial-issue-of-the-moment is with a steaming helping of vitriol and obscenity - the smirk is his "tell" that he relishes doing so - and if he can do it on an issue where he knows his comments will be especially offensive, he doubles down.

    And he does it for the same reason the sports guys have been trying to "get" Tebow: for the ratings.

    I don't watch Maher, because I don't enjoy watching full-of-themselves, too-clever-by-half, egoistic blowhards manipulate their audience with juvenile, playground-level taunts that add nothing to the discourse.

    I don't care that Tim Tebow prays, nor do I care what he prays for or whether he thinks God is or isn't answering those prayers.  And I don't, for the life of me, understand why anyone else does, nor do I understand why people like Bill Maher think their rants elevate them to some especially higher moral ground.

    Do I agree with the Focus on the Family agenda?  Hell, no.  And if Tebow gets on the TV and tries to sell me on that stuff, I will quickly change the channel.  But let's be honest here, and acknowledge that it isn't Tim Tebow who is making a big deal out of his faith, it is the media and thinks-they're-so-smart a-holes like Maher who are making a big deal out of it.

    I'm completely over it, and I'm completely over the over-reaction to it.


    Parent

    I'm not (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:42:45 PM EST
    If he does a commercial for It Gets Better I'll think about it.

    Parent
    It took all year for Anne and I (none / 0) (#22)
    by me only on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:46:23 PM EST
    to substantially agree, but it did happen (three days left!!!).

    Only change to her comment I would make from

    I don't watch Maher, because I don't enjoy watching full-of-themselves, too-clever-by-half, egoistic blowhards manipulate their audience with juvenile, playground-level taunts that add nothing to the discourse.

    to

    I don't watch Maher, because I don't enjoy watching full-of-themselves, too-clever-by-half, egoistic blowhards manipulate their audience with juvenile, playground-level taunts that detract from the discourse.

    Parent

    Gradation (none / 0) (#10)
    by bocajeff on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:10:03 PM EST
    There's a big difference between praying and saying what Maher said. Whether one agrees or not with religion in public (or religion for that matter), what Maher said was juvenile and vindictive.

    To me, what Maher said was no different than Falwell saying that gays deserved to die from AIDS. It's ignorant, stupid, vindictive, hurtful and deserved of all condemnation. Getting F**d by Jesus is pretty obscene and not worthy of support.

    Parent

    The way I read the context... (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:21:42 PM EST
    Maher didn't mean literally "f*cked" in the sodomy sense of the word, he meant the slang "f*cked" as in "My boss f*cked me and made me come in on Saturday"

    Can no one take a joke anymore?  I understand the holy rollers getting bent outta shape, but even liberals are giving Maher sh*t over it.    

    And by "sh*t" I mean "grief", not literal "sh*t" as in "poop".

    Mary mother of god when did everybody get so uptight?

    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#15)
    by bocajeff on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:33:29 PM EST
    It wasn't meant as a joke in the same sense as "why did the chicken cross the road". It was meant to be show Tebow in a bad light for his religiosity and, due to Maher's known hatred of religion, the stupidity of such religiosity.

    I agree that we are all too uptight...but I venture to say that both sides are way too uptight. And using Jesus and F**d in the same sentence is close to the line if not over it.

    Parent

    In some circles.... (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:50:12 PM EST
    Jesus Christ's middle name is "f8ckin'"...as in "Jesus f*ckin' Christ where did I leave my car keys?"

    Bill Maher is a comedian, an atheist comedian, whose best material is based on religion.  I see nothing out of line, in fact it's kinda tame.

    Tim Tebow seems to understand this better than most people...he's gotta know he is opening himself up to ridicule by wearing his superstitions on his celebrity sleeve, and he doesn't bat an eye or get involved in twitter flame wars when people poke fun...and good for him on that.

    I mean I got some whacky beliefs myself, and I expect them to be met with ridicule.

    Parent

    personally (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CST on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:54:54 PM EST
    I always went with "H" as his middle name.  Which would often be followed with a f*cking.

    As in "Jesus H Christ where did I leave my f*cking car keys".

    Where did H come from?  Does anyone know if Jesus actually had a middle name?

    Parent

    I first heard the 'H' (none / 0) (#28)
    by cal1942 on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:36:30 PM EST
    from the character Robert Shaw played in Jaws.

    Parent
    I'm big on the Jesus H... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 07:45:37 AM EST
    that one gets tons of airplay, good call.

    The origins are in dispute...consensus is it is a uniquely American slang profanity derived from the ancient Greek monogram for the old hippie bastard, IHC.

    Parent

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:54:59 PM EST
    I see nothing out of line with what Maher said. He's a comedian.  Their job is to try to be funny and a good way to do that is to be extremely offensive at times.

    Parent
    Maher is a comedian??? (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:55:59 PM EST
    Really???

    My guess his ratings are falling and he's trying to get attention.

    Parent

    Do you suppose anyone here has read (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:41:18 PM EST
    Tebow's best-selling book and admit it?  (I didn't know he'd even written a book til yesterday.)

    Parent
    The very first time I watched Maher (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:24:36 PM EST
    Ben Affleck called him out and told him he was offensive and that he needed to back off of lumping all religious people in with those few that are extreme and can get in front of a camera.

    Parent
    I wish (none / 0) (#16)
    by sj on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:34:19 PM EST
    I had seen that.

    Parent
    I haven't said things much better (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:32:40 PM EST
    I'm sick of Evangelicals though.  I'm sick of the preaching to me night and day, in my face that public schools won't preach their faith to their kids, sick of them lobbying for the removal of teaching evolution, sick of them fighting to own my uterus but $hitting all over the kids that must come out of that uterus.  I'm sick that every single one of their rock stars has turned out to be a charlatan, but in their addiction they only go find a new one.  I'm sick of their degayifying programs and their vicious attacks on gays.  They are bullies and if in dealing with them some look juvenile and vindictive....oh well, we have a few things to be vindictive about.  I'm so done with the American Taliban.

    Parent
    Tracy (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:54:17 PM EST
    You said it would take some proof of Romney being directed by the Mormon Church.

    How about this:

    Several years later, Dushku was pleasantly surprised to read that Romney was running for Senate as a pro-choice candidate, and even thought she could lend her support to Romney and his newfound pro-woman political stance. When she visited his office, he told her that he only supported a pro-choice agenda because church elders in Provo had told him that it was the only way he'd win the seat in the liberal state.

    That is pretty good evidence, I would say.

    Parent

    But we don't know the context of that (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:07:34 PM EST
    non-quote. Perhaps he said/asked/told the elders he wanted to campaign as pro-choice and they said fine, that's the only way you will win. Kinda takes away him being directed by them and becomes more getting approval or giving them a heads up.

    Note: before you jump to conclusions, I am not a Romney supporter, nor would I ever vote for him. Hope that saves you some typing . . .

    Parent

    It is indicative of him (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:18:14 PM EST
    seeking Church approval for policy decisions, that's disturbing to me.

    Parent
    I'd say it's fairly typical/not surprising (none / 0) (#46)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:27:09 PM EST
    and I doubt he would be able to govern that way (Did he in MA?). Has God spoke with him yet? Or has he "prayed on/about it"? Perhaps it would be better if he met with the Bishops?


    Parent
    He has had a bit of (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:38:26 PM EST
    publicity put out there though about his leftishness, and how his wife who would be a Liberal if not for being married to him.  I think it is important for it to also be out there that he is on the record not making policy decisions that Provo doesn't back.  It is the Independents that will decide this election.  My husband is an Indy.  He starts out with a relatively clean slate for everyone and must be reminded of who and what they are on the record and what their past is.  He isn't a political junky.  He will always need the assistance of political junkies in order to "remember" things.

    Parent
    Then, MT, your husband might be (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by christinep on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:17:09 PM EST
    interested in some of the positions Romney has recently taken on foreign policy...read: Iraq, Iran, etc.  In his effort to secure the right Repubs, he has pushed for staying as long as possible in Iraq & questioned getting out; he is talking bellicose on Iran; etc.  Yet, I'm sure that he will modulate that position to a "middle" should he get his party's nomination. Ah well...you may want to research his "positions" with regard to foreign policy and the military.

    Parent
    Not to worry on any of that (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:32:13 PM EST
    That is the easy stuff to "know about" in this house.  It is impossible for us to ignore, but we do actually have to turn the Republicans off right now because they just flat out get too phucking crazy to even be able to tolerate hearing.

    Sadly, as Iraq has problems without us, some will attempt to "blame" President Obama for what is happening within Iraq.  Iraq is now a sovereign nation though.  They have had elections, more than once now.  Our SOFA agreement is up with them.  This was the SOFA that Bush signed with them, it didn't even have anything to do with Obama.  And it was Muqtada al-Sadr's influence that made a new SOFA unattainable.

    One of our close friends was some of the very first in Iraq and part of military intel.  He said that the military decided to take on al-Sadr but L. Paul Bremer shut them down, said that he needed to use the influence that al-Sadr had.  At that time with the Bush administration, anyone who was a Sunni was the enemy and anyone who was a Shiite was the friend.  Everything that is happening could never be more squarely on the Bush administration's shoulders.  This is the Iraq of their making.

    Parent

    Are you saying that you have a close (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 08:33:34 AM EST
    friend in Intel who is giving you "Inside Baseball stuff?"

    Tracy, Obama has been President for almost three years. Anything Bush did that he did not agree with he has had ample time to change. He didn't change the SOFA. It is his child.

    And I guess by your logic the killing of bin Ladin is 100% Bush. After all, Bush started the hunt.

    Parent

    How do you change a SOFA (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 08:44:55 AM EST
    when the host country won't agree?  You are such an idiot Jim.  I don't think it is classified that Bremer shut down the military going after al-Sadr or our friend would not have mentioned it.  It may have been inside info as it was happening but it isn't anymore.....duh.

    Parent
    Tracy, I weary of your potty mouth. (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 07:58:32 PM EST
    "You are such an idiot Jim."

    Frankly my dear Tracy I find that you have become a mean spirited little person who doesn't know 5% of what you think you do. You might try thinking instead of throwing a hissy fit and making insulting comments. And that includes your supposed knowledge of the military.

    And you "don't think" something is classified?? Really??? Is that your guideline when discussing what some insider has supposedly told you?

    Good grief. How would that sound inside the intel community?

    Parent

    I spoke to our friend about this yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 09:11:39 AM EST
    He said it was in Time magazine, military intel wasn't wearing that mud on their face and it was reported to Time magazine off the record and it was written up too.

    If you really cared about your troops as much as you always profess to, obviously you would have known all about this.

    Parent

    Tracy go back and read (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 01:11:46 PM EST
    I never commented on the accuracy, just noted you using a supposed "insider" in intel. If he/she is in intel I don't think their boss wants them talking about such things, no matter what was in Time, or you using them as a source.

    I had/have several issues on how Bush let his minions run the show. One of the most obvious is that they should have told the Iraqi army after the initial fighting was over to go back to their barracks and they would be taken care of.

    Then killed everything else that didn't obey.

    Instead they started talking about nation building, etc and wound up in the middle of a civil/religious war. Old recipe for rabbit stew. First you catch the rabbit.

    What I care about is having people killed taking the same ground twice because of diplomats and politicians playing games.

    We stayed in Iraq because it was said if we withdrew Iran would move in. We stayed and now we have left and Iran will move in. Our choice will be to let them or fight them. I know what your choice is.

    As for Obama and SOFA, see what I wrote to Yman. Obama had plenty of time and the resources to change it. He accepted it. So don't blame it on Bush.

    Parent

    You insinuated what you wanted to (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 09:48:51 AM EST
    So many things happened during the Iraq War that it can be difficult if you don't want to dedicate your life to daily study of it to remember everything that went down.  It was you though that insinuated that someone was leaking classified info, when someone was only reflecting back on something very pertinent among all the many pertinent things.

    As for people dying twice for the same patch of ground.  As long as history has been documented, isn't this the only area of the planet where we don't have good documentation about how many people have died over various patches of ground.

    Human beings are tribal and we have sadly been killing each over ground seemingly forever.  So I have no clue what your big hang up, is sounds very Vietnamish once again.  Sounds you're still in Nam.  And if you really cared about people not needing to die for the same patch of ground twice you would never have supported the Bush administration and their leadership in Iraq.  That happened a lot to U.S. soldiers, everytime there was a change of command in a certain area of Iraq there was a change in mission.  Commanders literally set their own mission and there was no agreed upon rules of how Iraqis were treated and soldiers paid with their lives over and over and over again as insurgencies blossomed and grew.

    Parent

    Seriously?!? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:10:22 PM EST
    Tracy, Obama has been President for almost three years. Anything Bush did that he did not agree with he has had ample time to change. He didn't change the SOFA. It is his child.

    A SOFA is a bilateral agreement between two countries, Jim.  If you want to modify a SOFA (or enact a new one), you must have both sides agree to the new terms.  The Iraqis were sharply divided about allowing US troops to remain in Iraq after the 2008 SOFA, and there was such strong opposition to immunity for US troops (a US condition of a new SOFA) that the Iraqis wouldn't even bring it to a vote in the Parliament.

    Obama gets blame (rightly) for a lot of stuff, but he can't just impose a new SOFA on the sovereign, democratically-elected Iraqi government.

    Parent

    Yman (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 07:52:51 PM EST
    If you have 250,000 troops in country you have a slight edge in any negotiations.

    Parent
    Brilliant, as usual (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 06:52:08 AM EST
    Right, Jim - and that "slight edge" means nothing when you've already signed an agreement (Bush's 2008 SOFA) to withdraw those troops.  Unless, of course, you're suggesting (again) that the US can take the Mark Antony/Roman Empire approach and just occupy Iraq by force because we have the biggest army.

    Obama could not unilaterally "change the SOFA", or force the Iraqis into another SOFA.

    But you always spin a nice fairy tale ...

    Parent

    Agreements ate changed (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 08:40:38 AM EST
    every day.

    And yes, we could take the Antony approach. In fact, we did that.

    Your issue is that you think that every thing can be settled in court.

    I wish it could, but it can't.

    Obama ran on getting out. He adopted the SOFA.

    If things work out, fine. If they don't it is his baby.

    Afghanistan is different. He gave the enemy the date we will leave.

    He's on the hook for that, also.

    Parent

    We invaded Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 09:56:28 AM EST
    We destroyed the regime that ruled them.  The people held elections, more than once now, Iraq is a sovereign nation. And this was the SOFA and the no new SOFA that their elected leaders chose for their people who voted them into office.

    Are you in favor of dictatorship?  Are you going to declare a new war against the new sovereignty of Iraq?  Muqtada al-Sadr held the most sway over whether there would be a new SOFA and he said no, he has the most...the strongest militias in Iraq under his control.  If we had refused to leave, new attacks and fresh war and more civilian death and upheaval would follow.  In fact, I doubt we will be able to hold our embassy there because al-Sadr will have none of it.

    We all knew Iraq was going to go through difficult times though as we left.  It was having difficult times when we were there as well.

    Parent

    Exactly, MT. Well said. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 10:10:33 AM EST
    But, in the minds of people like Jim, what Iraqis want doesn't matter and they are only a sovereign nation as far as he wants to let them be with a gun pointed at their head. And their laws matter even less.

    Parent
    Makes no sense though (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 10:13:15 AM EST
    You can't say you brought democracy to and toppled dictatorship in Iraq, and then act like a dictator over Iraq.  I mean I know you can do that in Jim's unprincipled mind, but it doesn't play in mine.  And I'm grateful that it doesn't play in the mind of our President.

    Parent
    I don't know what Obama thinks (none / 0) (#148)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 10:18:25 AM EST
    I do suspect though that if it wouldn't have sparked massive Iraqi opposition and attacks on US troops in the country, he might not have given a hoot about the SOFA either.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#136)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 10:32:03 AM EST
    Agreements are changed every day.

    No $hit, Sherlock - but not when one of the parties doesn't agree to the changes.  The Iraqis would not agree to allow US forces to remain, nor to grant them immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts.  Much as you want to ignore those facts, those facts remain.  Obama couldn't unilaterally impose a new SOFA agreement.  If you have an issue with the SOFA, call your buddy Bush.

    And yes, we could take the Antony approach. In fact, we did that.

    We (arguably) took the "Antony approach" with Saddam Hussein, a guy we were told was threatening us with WMDs and was violating U.N. Resolutions and ceasefire agreements - not a democratically elected government elected by the Iraqi people that was doing none of those things.

    Kind'uv a big difference.

    Your issue is that you think that every thing can be settled in court.

    Uhhhhhmmmmm, .... no, I don't.  But facts have never stopped you from putting imaginary words in the mouths of others.  OTOH - there are some armchair warriors who love to use military force from the comfort of their Lazy Boy while they do their best John Wayne, tough-guy impersonation, watching the war on TV and reliving the glory days of their own - non-combat - military service.

    Those guys are pretty funny.


    Obama ran on getting out. He adopted the SOFA.

    Yes, he did, and the vast majority of the American people wanted him to do just that.  But he "adopted" nothing.  The 2008 SOFA belongs to Bush and the wingers who elected him.

    It's your baby.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Yes Yman (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 01:14:05 PM EST
    I understand the Iraqis didn't want to.

    That's what all those soldiers are for.

    Mind changing.

    And I doubt many people understand the SOFA.

    One more time.

    Obama had three years. The SOFA is his.

    Parent

    Might makes right (none / 0) (#141)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 03:57:35 PM EST
    The rallying cry of armchair warriors everywhere.

    One more time.

    Bush and his supporters are responsible for the 2008 SOFA that required us to get out of Iraq.  If you're unhappy with it, give GW a call, ...

    ... or get off the Lazy Boy and yell at your mirror.

    Parent

    One more time??? (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 05:45:37 PM EST
    Good grief. I know you want to surrender but that ole devil military has came in handy a few times.

    Why should I call Bush?? He isn't the President. He couldn't have changed a thing.

    Obama could have.

    Parent

    Sorry, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 07:58:45 PM EST
    Good grief. I know you want to surrender but that ole devil military has came in handy a few times.

    Ridiculous BS as usual.  But I'll remember the next time you whine about someone putting words in your mouth ...

    Why should I call Bush?? He isn't the President. He couldn't have changed a thing.

    Obama could have.

    Sorry, Jim - the 2008 SOFA was binding unless the Iraqis wanted to agree to a new one.  You can't force them to grant immunity to our soldiers, although I can understand why some people wouldn't care about that kind of thing.  But from a winger's perspective, GW already gave away the store with the 2008 SOFA.

    Get out of the Lazy Boy and look in the mirror if you want someone to blame.  Of course, most Americans are d@mn happy to be done with that idiotic war.

    Parent

    But that non-quote is not evidence (none / 0) (#55)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:50:54 PM EST
    of:

    I think it is important for it to also be out there that he is on the record not making policy decisions that Provo doesn't back.

    Unless there's something in his record in MA regarding this. If Romney wants to, he could contradict her and then we are down to he said/she said. Aren't there decisions/actions he's responsible for in his past governing/biz background that are more solid as to why he would suck just as much as all the others on the right? Direct quotes from him (past not present)?

    Parent

    Let us get this He Said She Said (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:53:08 PM EST
    Show on the road then.  I'm good with that.  I want to hear what Romney has to say about ALL OF THIS.  And if he runs scared from this conversation?  Well that says much too

    Parent
    This has been an account (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:56:11 PM EST
    told by a person with her name on it....at least the name of the person to whom Romney made the admission....that has been around for awhile.  

    I would like to see Romney deny it...he hasn't yet.  The author has credibility.

    True, the Bain Capital and the current Right blather he offers of social issues should be the focus of the main campaign....

    But I am telling you Romney is a stealth candidate....He will never cross the Church.

    Parent

    Not on all issues (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:44:28 PM EST
    But just on the issues the Church cares about which include:  Abortion, gay marriage, and the Second Coming at Armageddon--Mormons are just as apocalyptic as the Evangelicals and perhaps more so.....and others....

    Take at look at the White Horse Prophecy.  Many Mormons will believe Romney is the fulfillment of that prophecy.

    And, it would be simple phone call or two between one of the chief leaders in Salt Lake and Romney.

    Did you see how the Mormon Church organized to push anti-gay Prop 8 in California?  You think the Church leadership is going to forego an attempt to use their influence on Romney?  He is their guy.

    True, you will never find the leadership's fingerprints on the decisions but the LDS Church has labored for over a hundred years to burnish its image in the U.S.and it will be very careful.   One example:  The LDS Church stopped running the feel good television ads in early primary states....To help Mitt.

    Parent

    You understand the orchestration, MKS (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:28:51 PM EST
    The periodic "I'm Mormon" cheerful, upbeat, friendly ads that we have been seeing on the national air waves during prime time are synchronized well, don't ya know.

    A little bitty anecdote from a relative by marriage (she is married to a cousin): Twice in the past six months or so, this usually very open and definitely not-sarcastic, nor religiously judgemental woman--one who grew up in a Catholic family in Mormon country in Idaho--has made an off-hand (sotto voce) comment to me after a news program about Romney, etc. that "Mormons tell you one thing & do another."  I found that quizzical. Yet, as a Coloradan who has dealt on personal & professional levels in Utah, Wyoming, Montana, etc. (R.VIII states in fed jargon)...this is a comment that I have heard more times than fingers on both hands. My sources may well be bigoted; but, it does not abnegate the fact that I have heard similar statements (sotto voce) over the years & without solicitation a number of times. Again, it could be bigotry; it could be cultural differences; it could be envy in those states where Mormons are perceived as being preferred for appointments (see states referenced above, e.g.)  Who knows...but, it is worth noting.

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 08:36:52 AM EST
    I lived in the west over 20 years, 17 in Denver and my experience with Mormons proved that they were....

    people.

    And, like people, the vast majority were good. A few were bad.

    Parent

    Of course, Jim (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:57:30 AM EST
    Mormons are people and often good people.

    The issue is the politics of the Mormon Church.

    Parent

    The whole discussions reminds me (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 07:47:01 PM EST
    of the Baptist church attacking Kennedy because he was a Catholic.

    Bad then, worse 51 years later.

    Parent

    Of course jim (none / 0) (#90)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:14:11 PM EST
    My comment was intended to point out questionable/perplexing/suggestive remarks from other ordinary people relative to the matter under discussion.

    BTW, my experience mirrors yours on this "issue."

    Parent

    Stray, (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:51:25 PM EST
    And do read the horrific account in the same article of how he "counseled" a woman who was seeking a life-saving abortion.

    Talk about monstrous.....

    Parent

    I did read it (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:10:16 PM EST
    I'm unfamiliar with that site, so I don't know about the credibility/agenda etc. What we have is an anon woman and another woman who says "he said". We have a lot of this ahead of us in the next year. There's not one candidate on the right who's "God" I want influencing this country, but I'd like to see them taken down with some credible facts. Romney may not address this, as the other religious nuts prob agree with his actions/words, and it's all about getting those votes in the primaries. They have no prob with stopping women from life saving medical procedures or making their life H*ll for just going to a women's clinic . . . if they can find one in their Red state.

    Parent
    Do you think the Pope told JFK to (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:44:58 PM EST
    to  invade Cuba?

    Parent
    No, but Curtis LeMay did (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:49:44 PM EST
    JFK was a church member.

    Romney is part of the church leadership.....It is as if a Vatican official were running for President.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:50:07 PM EST
    Nor do I think the Pope told him he needed secretaries that his wife would nickname Hanky and Panky :)  Just a few reasons why I feel like I could trust JFK :)......not Jackie, just me

    What would JFK's official stance on abortion be though?  Not in his private life, his public life :)

    Parent

    Yes, one could argue that (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:33:01 PM EST
    But the context is that Romney was telling his feminist Mormon friend that the only reason he said he was pro-choice was because the Church leaders told him he needed to do it to win.

    He was saying the leaders told him to do it.....as if it wasn't his idea....

    Perhaps one could assume the more benign version you posit, but the overall history here does not lend itself to that interpretation.

    And the account has credibility.   It is Romney's friend (who has gone public) and they are talking Church politics. This rings true.  

    Parent

    Even if it was his idea (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:46:27 PM EST
    The fact that Mormon leaders needed to be onboard with him is the tell for me that getting Mitt Romney is the equivalent of getting the Mormon Church running my country.

    Parent
    That's evidence (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 05:52:52 PM EST


    Parent
    That's evidence I'm going to use :) (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 05:53:57 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm tired (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:38:39 AM EST
    of there being no one to defend separation of church and state or the Constitution that requires same because everyone seems afraid to stand for rule of law or anything they think might oppose the mantra of the day.  What ever happened to leadership on this or any other issue?

    Parent
    I thought a couple LDS missionaries were (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:35:57 PM EST
    at my door this morning.  But the door hanger was for stucco/house painting!

    Parent
    How do you handle the LDS guys? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 05:57:12 PM EST
    I just start laughing and tell them there is no way they have any hope with me, and please, don't make me hang up that no soliciting sign.  It just seems too angry.

    Parent
    The Dot used to do a pretty good imitation (none / 0) (#44)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:11:24 PM EST
    of a serious guard dog when they approached my place. Pretty fun to watch them get big eyes and back down to the sidewalk before they hit the porch :D  

    Need to teach that move to my new gal. Hate getting to the door and having religion standing there . . . .

    Parent

    I didn't open the door or talk to them. (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:39:47 PM EST
    My daughter invited them in once just for fun. Maybe my lintel is marked.

    Parent
    And they all love that new book (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:36:10 PM EST
    about disciplining your child.  Hasn't it officially killed three kids so far, three children have been beaten to death by their Christian parents who never use the words F*ck and Jesus in the same sentence.  But Bill Maher would never beat any child to death in the sweet name of any God.

    Parent
    To me, there is a big difference between (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 05:16:50 PM EST
    what Falwell, an ordained Southern Baptist pastor and televangelist preached (gays deserved to die from AIDS) and a lame and edgy  joke by Maher, a professional comedian.   Gradation, indeed.

    Parent
    Of course there is (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by bocajeff on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 05:57:16 PM EST
    Because you hate one and like the other (I'm assuming). To me they are the same: Stupid, lame attempts at trying to make a point at someone else's expense. Many religious people don't see the humor in what Maher said. Many liberals didn't see that Jerry Falwell's position, as stupid and evil as it was, didn't amount to a hill of beans.

    I'm also getting tired of people hiding behind "i'm a comedian' banner. He takes himself seriously - making a documentary regarding atheism - and his show has serious discussions. You can't have it both ways.

    Then again, he's also for euthenizing mentally challenged children up to the age of one so he is just as bad as those who beat their children to death.

    Parent

    Well, it is curious that you see Falwell's (none / 0) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:52:04 PM EST
    preachings and Maher's joking as the same.  For me, it is not that I hate one and like the other (I will assume you mean Falwell for the former, and Maher for the later), but rather, that the parallelism seems terribly off.  

    Parent
    The Muslim Brotherhood is here ... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:19:42 PM EST
    ... and has already infiltrated the highest levels of the US government on a mission to spread Shariah Law and convert or kill us.

    So says Victoria Jackson of SNL fame.  She previously called Michelle Bachmann "my girl" and said, "Very few people in America are informed and educated as I am."

    Oyyy ...

    Well, since Michele Bachman seems to be (none / 0) (#126)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 08:28:43 PM EST
    heading down the road to obscurity, I'd say we are more likely to find Ms. Jackson and "her girl" hanging out at a St. Paul, Minnesota Starbuck's at 11 a.m. than in the Oval Office discussing... education policy. And they may be joined by their pal Dennis Miller.

    Some of those former SNL'ers are still so funny!

    Parent

    Sad when the talented (none / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 09:54:28 AM EST
    aren't talented to the bone, I never realized she was this phobic.  Always liked her stuff on SNL.  Watching six hours worth of slides about Korans does have an affect, just like sitting through six hours worth of someone's vacation slides can make you fear London :)  

    Parent
    Tip of the iceberg with her (none / 0) (#137)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 10:36:43 AM EST
    I was never a fan (just not my style of humor), but she's really gone off the deep end with anti-Muslim, homophobic rants on her blog and webshow.  She even claimed she was being spied on.

    Parent
    I always admired her kind of funny (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 10:57:14 AM EST
    because it was a style I could never do, not in my wildest dreams even if I wanted to.

    Parent
    Well, I'm sick and tired (none / 0) (#5)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:47:35 PM EST
    of leftovers.  They're very, very good leftovers, but still.....  I thought that I wasn't going to cook pretty much all week, given the amount of leftovers and the Christmas baskets of food that we got.  But I couldn't help myself.  I didn't exactly "cook," but I made some hummus, just to have something different to eat.

    We are almost through the leftovers (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:55:34 PM EST
    Just in time for New Years, going to a bring stuff party.  Please everyone....eat everything there :)

    Parent
    More US Foreign LulzPolicy (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:51:21 PM EST
    Finally realizing the fruits of ten years of economy breaking expense, war, occupation, and millions of deaths, the country has signed a deal to develop Afghan oil fields.

    Ooops. Wrong country...

    Afghanistan on Wednesday signed an oil deal with China which could earn the war-torn country $7 billion over 25 years.

    Afghanistan's first major oil exploration contract will see state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation develop three oil fields in the relatively peaceful north of the country along the Amu Darya river.

    Under the deal, signed in Kabul by Afghan mining minister Waheedullah Shahrani and CNPC president Lu Gong Xun, Afghanistan will take 70 percent of the net profits, and the Chinese oil giant will pay 15 percent corporation tax.

    "This will have enormous benefits for Afghanistan," Shahrani told reporters after the signing.

    Energy hungry China, which is pushing into oil-rich countries to secure the resources needed to fuel the world's second largest economy, outbid four companies for the contract.
    Doesn't that make some geographic sense? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by EL seattle on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:11:41 PM EST
    North Afghanistan and China are pretty close to each other.  If the Lower 48 can get oil from Alaska, I'd imagine that it might be easier to send oil from fields in North Afghanistan to refineries in China than to a port in the Indian Ocean.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#26)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:57:41 PM EST
    I think this is great news actually.  The more wealthy the country becomes, the greater the chance for democracy to flourish and the warlords to lose power.

    Parent
    Do you always miss the obvious? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:32:55 PM EST
    Or only sometimes?

    Parent
    I think it's the fumes from the Teflon (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:37:24 PM EST
    tank he has at the ready to make sure nothing icky ever sticks to Obama.


    Parent
    Explain the point (none / 0) (#30)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:44:00 PM EST
    Assume that I don't care whether we get a drop of oil from Afghanistan when you do (because I don't).

    I care about Afghanistan prospering in whatever way possible.  I tepidly supported the war in Afghanistan based only on the Al Qaeda threat and cared nothing about what they did with their oil.

    What did I miss?

    Parent

    What did you miss? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 05:04:43 PM EST
    That you are a waste of time.

    Parent
    I am in your head (2.00 / 0) (#33)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 05:14:13 PM EST
    Ha ha.  In the next few days I am going to completely agree with everything one of you guys write but do so in slightly different words so I can read you say

    "Ha!!! ABG you don't pay attention to anything and only support Obama when making the exact same points I am . . . er, wait a second."

    Parent

    Uhhh, no (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 05:21:08 PM EST
    You're not that important.

    Parent
    That's a wickedly funny comment (none / 0) (#36)
    by Towanda on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 05:41:26 PM EST
    and I hope it's a harbinger of a New Year's resolution to continue in this mode.  It becomes you.

    Parent
    Hope that was to me (none / 0) (#39)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 05:54:02 PM EST
    My plan is to lighten the tone a bit in 2012.

    If we spend the next 11 months pounding the Obama v. Anti-Obama issue without cracking a joke or two it is not going to be very fun.

    It is surprising that Edger, Anne and SJ have taken my presence here so personally.

    I am some random person you will never meet on a random website that we all visit instead of playing mindsweeper or doing cross words. It's just not that serious.

    Parent

    It isn't your presence, it's (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 06:07:54 PM EST
    having to wade through your contorted logic, your off-the-mark analysis, your conflation of facts, your misrepresentation of the comments of those who respond to you, your constant hijacking of threads to suit your own agenda, your indiscriminate cheerleading for bad policy on the sole basis of their political effect rather than the real-world effect on real people...I'm sure others have their own take on your presence, and I will let them speak for themselves.

    For the most part, people are quite serious about the issues that matter to them - thank you for resolving once and for all that this is a just a game for you, a distraction from the grind of daily life, a way to entertain yourself when you're feeling bored.

    You do keep us sharp, though; if nothing else you provide endless opportunities to hone arguments and stay on top of things, so it's not a total loss.

    That being said, I'd happily pitch in some money to help Jeralyn have an "Ignore" button installed.

    Parent

    Wow, all that (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:11:51 PM EST
    for a comment about Afghanistan oil.

    In terms of twisting words, ABG did not do that as there was no analysis to begin with.  It was just an article with the barest suggestion that the U.S. should have gotten the deal.  Interesting critique from the Left given the "no blood for oil" reason for opposing our involvement n Afghanistan.  Michael Moore did go on about a pipeline there....

    That we did not get the oil does cut against the argument that we were in Afghanistan for the oil.

    My oh my, you guys really have a thing for ABG.  He posts one comment, and out the whole pack comes snarling and growling. None of you engage on the merits.

    Parent

    I wish (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by sj on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:53:39 PM EST
    I could growl and snarl with this kind of clarity.  I mean, I can practically see your predator fangs.  ::rolls eyes::

    Parent
    Amen (none / 0) (#64)
    by sj on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:30:43 PM EST
    To this whole comment.  Whether or not the reader is religious.

    I am very careful to say exactly what I mean.  Now that doesn't mean I express it correctly every time.  And it doesn't mean I believe I am right 100% of the time.  But mostly I can quote Horton:  "I meant what I said, and I said what I meant".  

    Do you want to ignore me?  That's fine.

    Do you want to disagree with what I said?  Also fine.  I'll listen.  I have, upon occasion, been convinced :\  

    And best of all, do you want to agree with me?  Perfect.  

    As long is in the last two cases your response takes into consideration what I actually said.

    An honest misunderstanding is one thing.  But taking 4 or 5 of those carefully considered words and using that to post yet another 3 or 4 or 6 paragraphs on something just barely related in a sort of stream of consciousness disregard for consistency is ... contemptible.  I have contempt for that.  It's lazy thinking and it's dishonest and it shows a complete lack of regard for ones fellow wayfarers.

    I don't take his presence personally.  I don't think my TL given privilege supercedes his.  But the thread jacking that he does by completely misrepresenting what someone else has said?  And then using that as a springboard to verbally bounce off of more walls than I even knew were there?  It's just contemptible.  

    And I don't know why I bother. Because if he deigns to read, much less respond, to this comment I am about 96% sure it will be to some aspect that completely misses the point.

    Parent

    Dear Anne (none / 0) (#95)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:31:50 PM EST
    You said: "this is a just a game for you, a distraction from the grind of daily life, a way to entertain yourself when you're feeling bored."

    Let me take this opportunity to find a rare source of complete agreement.

    Me posting on blogs while eating a sandwich or taking a 5 minute mental health break at work is "a distraction from the grind of daily life, a way to entertain yourself when you're feeling bored."

    The real question: what kind of life must you have if you take comments made at a blog as anything other than that?

    There is a difference between the seriousness of the issues we discuss and the reasons that we discuss them on blogs and such.  

    Lighten up. It's anonymous words.

    Parent

    As someone here said: (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:20:22 PM EST
    Jesus H. Christ.

    You just don't get it.  You really just don't get it.

    Words, anonymous or otherwise, have meaning.

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I discuss serious issues because I think they are worth discussing - these are things that matter to me.  I am not generally in the habit of giving short shrift to things like facts and analysis and understanding if I'm trying to make a convincing argument - or defense - for whatever my position happens to be.  

    When I want a dose of mind candy, I read, or I catch up on TV shows I enjoy, or I do the crossword.

    The problem is, ABG, that the quality of your comments, your inattention to facts, the ease with which you distort and manipulate the words of others, your habit of dropping buzzwords into comments in the hope we will all be fooled into thinking you followed and read a link or an article or even a quoted excerpt - these are all things that tell me - and perhaps others - that you'd be better off watching p@rn, or the Comedy Channel.

    This may be just a blog, full of anonymous commenters, but there's an authenticity here that you just don't seem to have picked up on, nor have you made any effort to strive for.  And that's one reason people tend to reject your comments - because you've pretty much just told us that you're f**king around with us for sport.

    If this doesn't make sense to you, I'd be happy to donate to the "Buy ABG a Clue" Fund.


    Parent

    He's trolling (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:39:17 PM EST
    Purposely trying to upset you. It's part of his game to call it a game.

    He wants reaction and attention. He doesn't care what kind. Any kind of reaction will do, because it gives him attention.

    And if he can upset you at the same time as getting attention from you, all the better.

    Seen him before, hundreds of times, with hundreds of names...

    Parent

    Edger (2.00 / 0) (#108)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:59:04 PM EST
    is Anne without a sense of humor. "Not possible to have less of a sense of humor than Anne" you say?  

    Aye, I thought so as well.

    But here we are and there it is.

    Parent

    You're the funniest thing (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    I've seen in a few minutes. Maybe since the last one.

    Parent
    Dang Anne (2.00 / 1) (#107)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:55:52 PM EST
    How do you see from up there, and more importantly, how did you get a horse that high?  You take yourself waaaaaaaaaayyyyy too seriously.  

    Anyway, bottom line for me is that I'll keep posting my thoughts on the stuff that comes up around here and you are free to respond or not respond as you see fit.  If you want to turn everything into a personal attack on me, go for it.  If that's what rings your bell, ring it as much as you'd like.

    As I have said before, I'll take up Towanda's challenge, find ways to hilariously make fun of your overreaction, and the circle of life will, as always, continue.

    Parent

    Yes, the reply was to you (none / 0) (#62)
    by Towanda on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 07:19:52 PM EST
    even though we have jousted in many another exchange.

    Let us see this side of you more often, do lighten the tone more than once or twice, please, and our minds may be better able to meet on more serious issues.

    Parent

    Completely Agree (none / 0) (#84)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:00:05 AM EST
    You can disagree about very serious issues without it degenerating into personal attacks or questioning of knowledge and whatnot.

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:05:12 PM EST
    I think much of your efforts are wasted

    Parent
    You are probably right (none / 0) (#92)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:27:06 PM EST
    I just re-read this chain and it is a little crazy.  

    That's about as innocent a comment as I could make, and it created a weird s**t storm that doesn't make a lot of sense.

    Parent

    You had an actual point to make (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:30:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Interesting to watch MKS (none / 0) (#66)
    by BTAL on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:06:27 PM EST
    launch an "evangelical" attack on Romney and the LDS.

    Very interesting.

    As if the LDS church is above (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:11:19 PM EST
    such things as MKS brings to the table :)

    This was a long term discussion between MKS and myself.  I asked for evidence, simply because I need some evidence and I have other things to do with my time, I already know what the LDS church stands for.  I just needed some evidence that Romney does their bidding in the political realm and evidence has been presented.  I'm certain as the election continues on more will be presented too because this is an issue that people care about.

    Parent

    You are aware that this debate (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Towanda on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:54:02 PM EST
    exactly replicates the major debate of the 1960 campaign?

    Parent
    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:29:03 PM EST
    There are two issues:  (1) is Romney a social conservative, and (2) how close is Romney to LDS Church leaders....

    Liberals too often want to stick their heads in the sand.  

    As to issue no. 1, too many want to believe Romney is a moderate.  That is belied by his browbeating a women in the hositpal to forego a potentially life saving abortion--as part of his pastoral counseling of her as her Bishop.

    As to issue no. 2, there are some superficial similiarities to JFK and Romney.  But not many.  JFK was jast a member in the Catholic Church.  He as not a Catholic Bishop or a Vatican official. Romney is enmeshed in LDS Chruch leadership.  He was a Stake President for many years--akin to a Catholic Bishop.  And it defies reason to think he got to head the Salt Lake Olympics without the LDS Church giving him the nod.

    And we do have a first hand account of why he "became" pro-choice--the LDS Church leadership told him he needed to do that to win in Massachusetts--as Romney has admitteed to a feminist who has gone public.

    Parent

    What is your concern? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 09:14:54 AM EST


    Parent
    That the ugly undercurrent in 1960 (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    could surface again.  I'm so old that I remember it, being Catholic then, and I have gone back since and read research on the constant attacks -- that JFK would take orders from the Vatican -- and the impact, not only on the election but also on other individuals singled out, on our society, etc.  In a state, for example, where he had won a key primary, he lost the general election after truly ugly attacks on the church and on Catholics.

    And sure, JFK wasn't a priest, but his family had direct ties to and favoritism from the Vatican; they were among Catholic lay elite in this land -- in the same way that many a Prot president had been among the elite in Prot faiths, but somehow, that never had been a problem.

    I just do not want to see the ugliness again -- and so I raise it to remind those who may have been too young then to be careful about joining in a chorus that could boomerang badly . . . if only to raise questions again about Obama and the Rev. Wright, etc.
     

    Parent

    Obama and Wright (none / 0) (#109)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:04:57 PM EST
    That is a spurious connection to Romney and the Mormon Church.

    What you are doing is conflating all religion into one gigantic box and saying all religion is off limits.  

    Obama was a member, not a leader of the Wright congregation.  And, everyone focuses on two sermons Wright gave over a 20 year period....And, guess what, Obama did have to answer for Wright--and in a more glaring way than Romney and his church-induced (original) flip flop on abortion for political expediency.  If Obama had to answer for Wright (and many here attacked Obama on Wright), then Romney should have to answer for his having consulted with Church leadership regarding his political position on abortion.

    Here, we have Romney part of the leadership of a church that has successfully thwarted gay and women's rights.  Let me know the next time Rev. Wright does that.

    Parent

    It seems (none / 0) (#117)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 04:38:44 PM EST
    That if someone was running whose religion (or at least, politics) you agreed with - then those religious practices, beliefs, and statements would be off limits - i.e. it's racist to talk about Obama and Wright (his very close friend and mentor who definitely gave more than 2 controversial sermons) and who sat in his church for 20 years, but if it's someone that you don't agree with, then all's fair with the attacks.

    How come you don't want to talk about Obama's religious beliefs, the fact that he may have joined the church he did for political expediency, and how that affected his many flip-flops / WORMs?

    Parent

    jb, I'm am fine with such a discussion (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 04:53:31 PM EST
    It has already largely been had...but if you want to continue, by all means....

    We have not had such a discussion about Romney, however--everyone is too squeemish.....

    Bringing up Wright just re-inforces the idea that one's religious associations can be fair game....

    So, Obama gets raked over the coals, and now Romney gets a bye?  That appears the consensus here.  How many here blasted Obama because of Wright?  Did you?  I never said that the discussion of Wright was taboo because of the JFK speech.

    And who said I agreed with Wright's religious views?

    And, btw the criticism based on Wright largely fell out of favor here when the stock criticism of Obama was not that he was a leftist anti-colonialist, but rather that he was a fascist who is having too many drone strikes and is just the same as Bush.....

    Wright kinda harms that narrative, and so is not mentioned much.....  

    Parent

    Towanda (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:16:07 PM EST
    I do not think you are aware of LDS Church politics and strategies of influencing public policy.  Nor do I think you are aware of how important to Romney and how much a part of that effort he is.

    Another analogy:  It is not as if Romney were Catholic but that he was a leading official of Opus Dei....who consulted with the Vatican.  It is not a perfect analogy but not that far off, either.

    Parent

    But we just had a rightwing Christian (none / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 07:01:28 PM EST
    President give taxpayer funds to Christian Churches via Faith Based Initiatives and now Obama continues it on some level.  Some us, we are fed up and demand a separation between church and state again.  I am one of those people, and religion is now an issue because Bush and Obama made it one.

    Parent
    Towanda (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:38:35 PM EST
    Clearly, the DNC won't and shouldn't be doing ads on Romney and LDS Church leadership.

    My point is mainly for those who want to see Obama defeated and don't see the perils of Romney or understand how conservative he really is.

    Parent

    Then make your point (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    without bringing his faith into it.  It may be easier to do so, but the harrrd work is worth it.  

    Parent
    With Romney, the two (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:09:07 PM EST
    are intertwined.

    That is the whole point.  To figure out Romney, you need to know his connection to the LDS Church.

    Parent

    Deja vu all over again, then (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:33:17 PM EST
    and it will be sad to watch, sad for our society.

    Again, though, be careful of what you want, as you just might get it -- back at you.

    Parent

    That is really a facile response (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:52:26 PM EST
    Romney is not your average Mormon.  He is part of the leadership.  JFK was never a Catholic Bishop or a Vatican official.

     

    Parent

    I wasn't around (none / 0) (#118)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 04:42:07 PM EST
    But I've heard my mother tell stories of the discrimination Catholics faced back then - from being forced to recite the King James version of the Bible and Protestant version of prayers in school.  Even dumb things like school cafeterias deliberately serving meat on Fridays when they offered things like egg salad on Tuesdays.

    I just am not comfortable definitively saying what is in someone's heart about their faith.

    But as I said before - Romney flipped positions to get elected?? I'm totally shocked!

    I bet they never do that in Chicago....

    Parent

    jb, you miss the point (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 05:02:12 PM EST
    It is not about switching positions.  It is about whose "advice" Romney followed.  And it is about how Romney came to be supposedly pro-choice in the first place--to predict what he will do going forward....

    (Obama never did the abortion switcheroo that Romney did.  He appointed Sotomayor and Kagan...Romney has said he would select Roberts and Alito.)

    It is clear that you do not support Obama.  If you want to support Romney (because he is from Michigan or for whatever reason), go ahead, but you would be supporting someone just like George W. Bush in 2000.

    Parent

    Query (none / 0) (#115)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:38:10 PM EST
    Why can't we just say that "X" religion is different from most other religions when judging a candidate?

    Example: If we had a satanist or a wiccan running for POTUS, I don't think people would have an issue with discussing the religious angle because those religions come with a little extra baggage. Not that atheists shouldn't be allowed to hold office. More that the beliefs are relevant to the politician's world views.

    If a politician comes out a invokes his faith or god, the kind of God he/she believes is worth talking about I'd think.

    Parent

    I agree with this (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 08:18:42 PM EST
    for the very reason that I am a firm believer in separation of chruch and state, and more important, when a candidate feels he or she must consult his/her religious authorities before making policy decisions, that is a danger, IMO. Romney seems to fit the mold of someone who not only holds a leadership position with LDS, but consults with elders on matters of government and social policy. That's a red flag for me. However, we cannot pretend that major tensions and divisions won't be created if we unilaterally assume the authority to determine which religions are "different" from others. Absence of a Judeo-Christian foundation means Buddhists might be considered too "different" to run for president. And, obviously, Athiests have little to no chance of winning the presidency in  a nation so strongly associated with Judeo-Christian tradition.

    Personally, I don't really care which religion a candidate believes in and personally practices, as long as it is not an extreme or secretive form. As a Jew, I can state unequivocally that I would oppose a Joe Lieberman candidacy with everything I've got, for any number of reasons. I consider Orthodox Judaism to be as loathesome and discriminatory towards women and girls as fundamentalist Christianity or  extreme practice of Islam. And the inability and unwillingness to honestly discuss the Israeli government's continuing settlement building in historically Palestinian areas is harming our country's integrity and relationships with other countries. So good riddance to Lieberman.

    That being said, every GOP candidate currently running for president is attached to extreme religious codes -- except for Ron Paul, who is simply from another planet altogether.  

    I don't know enough about the Mormon religion to say "no way" to any Mormon candidate, but Romney's relationship to his church and his commitment to bringing Mormon beliefs to bear on public policy is absolutely something that deserves to be discussed. I know some bristle at that, but I personally consider calls to hold off from "going there" to be political correctness, and not helpful in truly examining candidates.

    And now, I will await the incoming...


    Parent

    Heh, I'll help put the target on your (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:15:57 PM EST
    back by agreeing with you and uprating your comment.

    Parent
    I'll (none / 0) (#128)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:28:34 PM EST
    Put myself in the same line of fire.

    To be honest, I think when people learn what Mormons really believe they will be surprised.

    Wiki planet kolob.

    Parent

    He's pretty sad (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 09:16:22 AM EST
    But it is IMO important to lay out all of his faults, put them on the table before everyone.  Two faults now in my book between this discussion you and I are having.

    Parent
    Actually, no, that is not true (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:21:25 PM EST
    The "Evangelical" attack on Romney is about Mormon doctrine:  Joseph Smith, the Trinity, the Book of Abraham (for those who dig the deepest), polygamy, and bascially the South Park view of how odd the Mormon Religion is (in the view of the Evangelicals) and that Mormons are not Christians......The Southern Baptists have published tracts attacking Mormon beliefs for years....

    My posts are totally different.  I focus on things that should make conservatives very happy:  Romney's inherent social conservatism and the political muscle the LDS church uses to enforce its social views.

    Parent

    Watching this Strait of Hormuz thing continue (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 09:27:17 PM EST
    Iran really doesn't want to push this thing, our Navy will take care of them just fine and not even be late to dinner, but we'd have plenty of allies if we needed them.  We'd have so many allies Iran might actually come to understand how isolated they are.  And if it was decided to destroy all of your assets along the Strait of Hormuz you wouldn't have much influence over anything in the Strait after that.

    MT, I evaluate it (none / 0) (#96)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:36:07 PM EST
    as a grasp at relevance in the region as a nation-state. No intention of causing anything metallic to rain down no them.


    Parent
    It looks like you are right today (none / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 09:45:12 AM EST
    They were trying very hard to project tough and capable yesterday, but it is quiet this morning.  They sure did bluster big for a few days.

    I wonder what has been discussed about the sanctions between us and them?  Does Obama have any latitude in how, when, and what that comprises?

    Parent

    I would think he does, (none / 0) (#149)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 03:20:52 PM EST
    but who knows about Obama's 'kingmakers/handlers?'

    Parent
    Just what the world needs - MORE bots (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:51:26 PM EST
    Soon they'll be on your doorstep demanding you vote for their favorite pre-programmed politician, and they won't take no for an answer...
    Japanese firm Kawada Industries is on the leading edge of a growing industry that threatens to become a major disruptive force in the coming years: automated labor.

    At a recent robot expo, Kawada showed off Nextage, a human-shaped robotic laborer the company says is intended to "work alongside" people. In actuality, the robot could end up replacing people whose job it is to carry out menial tasks on assembly lines. And at just 1,500 watts of power consumption while it is working -- less than some hair dryers -- the device or one like it could one day become a compelling alternative to sweat shop labor.

    -- RawStory

    I guess we could always pull the plug on 'em?

    This calls for some Outkast... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:46:06 AM EST
    "Drinkin' Again Interlude"

    "Man my woman done left me"

    "Damn"

    "I got laid off"

    "Sh*t"

    "They say a computer can do my job better than I can damn do it"

    "Motherf8ckers"

    "Man pour me another drink"

    "I feel ya"  

    Parent

    Lol! (none / 0) (#97)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:37:15 PM EST
    You got it, kdog!

    Hiking boots and very deep woods, maybe? ;-)

    Parent

    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 144 comments (144 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment