Enter your photo in the Ultimate Fan contest by midnight to win a suite night at a Salem Red Sox game and a chance at a trip to Fenway Park.
Any science, we should insist, better than any other discipline, can hold up to its students and followers an ideal of patient devotion to the search for objective truth, with vision unclouded by personal or political motive.
Where with the search for truth take you this weekend?
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
197 COMMENTS
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
As Obama campaigns in Ohio & PA touting his “economic recovery” & “job creation” (and lying about manufacturing jobs) today’s jobs report, once again, says differently.
The somewhat overlooked aspect is any future improvement would include a lag time for positive effect. We have not yet hit bottom, much less started to turn around.
The recent SCOTUS ruling & looming tax increases only exacerbate.
Oh my! More bad economic numbers! The Obama “recovery” continues to sputter!
June unemployment remains a dismal 8.2%! Only 80K more jobs created last month, lower than the expected 120K.
2Q’12 was the weakest job creating quarter in 2 years!
Those jobs being created are low paying service, retail, and recreational/amusement jobs such as in hotel housekeeping and store clerks and part time jobs. High paying jobs in construction and manufacturing continue to be scarce.
Look for Bernanke and the Fed to do a QE3 before the election to try to save Obama!
Wall Street gave these anemic economic numbers the Bronx cheer opening down over a 100 points today. The cost of gasoline has begun to rise.
Let’s hear it from the chorus of Obamanistas singing “things could be worse” and “it’s all Bush’s fault”!
I for one can tolerate two more quarters of a bad economy that will spell the demise of Obama.
Things are not well in the WH!
Do you REALLY not get that you are cheering against America’s economic recovery? President Obama is a rich, successful man, with a bright future even if he is not elected to a second term. It is not an “Obama “recovery” that is sputtering, it is an American recovery that is still not sufficient. You are blithely putting politics ahead of America and even if that wins the hot seat for Romney, you only assure the response he will get. Your glee at bad news is distasteful. Expecting us to believe Romney will change the news is incredible.
When the $800 billion stimulus bill was past in Feb 2009, it was forcast by the Obama adminsitration that unemployment would be around 5.7% today. IF WE DID NOTHING..6.0%.
In Feb 2010, then Speaker of the House Pelosi stated the (un)Affordable Care Act will create 4 million jobs, 400,000 almost immediately.
Today, because people hate our president and the nation is polarized, unemployment stands at 8.2%.
Please America, bring uemployment down. Stop the hatin’!
3 – Do you REALLY not get that you are cheering against America’s economic recovery?
I can recall discussions with neocon/GOP folks who, upon learning of my opposition to all these stupid wars we are fighting, speciously claimed that one could not claim to oppose the war but still support the troops; the extension of which, of course, is that I wished ill on all the soldiers. I don’t have to tell you, Sandi, how wrong that reasoning is. One CAN support the troops, wish them nothing but the best, pray for their safe return, and still work to end the stupid wars across the globe against people that pose no threat to the US. You and I can agree on that, right?
By the same token, I can hope the economy recovers, fully, and will give credit where it is due when/if it happens, but still oppose the methods being pursued by those in power. No, I don’t think we are in recovery, I don’t think the plans that are being implemented in Washington can and will work, and I would be foolish to not make plans for myself and my family if things get worse. I hope I am wrong, I still hope for recovery, but I don’t see it happening.
#2 Yes, we all knew John R would be here to celebrate. And even if the numbers had been better, he would have spun something.
John R, do you even realize that most everybody on this blog takes what you say with a grain of salt?
To #4 (BUD): I remember those forecasts. See page 4 of the official ARRA “jobs impact” report: http://www.scribd.com/doc/10261648/Obama-Recovery-Plan. As we move into Q3 of 2012, things were pretty much supposed to be almost “back to normal” by now, with peak unemployment having crested at 8% in Q3 of 2009.
Given that unemployment peaked at 10% and remains stubbornly above 8% even today (instead of the 5.7% it was supposed to be), one can only wonder if administration officials understood the economy at all.
No, when employers deliberately say they are putting off hiring, investing, buying until Obama is gone, it is NOT simply being unfair to call that wrong. When Obama’s jobs numbers are “unconscionable”, his predictions for the Stimulus being wrong made it all a bogus effort, and the fault of “methods being pursued by those in power” and the Bush jobs hemorrhage was beyond his control and nothing he did, it is NOT simply being unfair to call that wrong. People ARE cheering for bad news and even helping it be bad, then blaming it on Obama for partisan reasons.
Brian ..please
CEASE and DESIST!!!
Such musings can/will only lead to the loss of someone’s employment.
That position, not saved nor created, could be your own!
“It’s like Deja Vu all over again”. I remember as we moved into 2001, President Bush vowed “Tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities.” Things were pretty much supposed to be a gravy train with Congress in a “strait-jacket” and the deficit cut in half….
Given that unemployment started hemorrhaging after the bubble burst is bout one aspect of “the slowest rate of jobs growth on record since World War II, and just one-fifth the pace of the 1990s”.
One can only wonder if TP/GOP administration officials understood the economy at all and also if some folks can even remember recent history or if they only noticed political promises when Obama was elected.
8 – Sandi, a decision to not hire until Obama leaves is exactly what I am talking about; they want a recovery, but don’t see one coming, and are making plans for if that recovery doesn’t happen. They don’t see the benefit in running a business that goes under. Employers would LOVE to have an economic environment where they could hire people because that means they are making money, and that’s what successful businesses are supposed to do.
I would wager that if Obama were to suddenly issue an EO repealing the ACA, and announce some tax cuts, those businesses would change their tunes in a hurry.
They might indeed “change their tunes in a hurry” but that would still leave tens of millions of Americans with problems even bigger than no job. I do not believe that there are enough jobs, even if Obama and Biden resigned tomorrow and this country ended up being led by Hillary Clinton, who so many conservatives respected after she was never going to be President. I do not believe Romney being elected will do anything to fix the problems, but he will “change their tunes in a hurry”. The debt and deficit cannot be dealt with by more tax cuts. His plans are every bit as unsustainable and harmful as many believe Obama’s are.
Sandi…how could “TP/GOP adminsitration officials” understand the economy during the BUSH 43 administration when the TP wasn’t around yet.
I guess “some folks can even remember recent history” and some can’t.
OMG!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/311252
First, the melt-down began with the sub-prime motrgage bust. Going to blame that on Bush?
Second, to see/hear Obama continue his “we’re moving in the right direction” dog & pony show (today, in PA) tells anyone listening all they need to know about this president. Like said yeasterday, either he’s ignorant or he’s assumming you are.
Third, there is no doubt that ACA & looming (additional) tax increases will further retard employment.
Fourth, the # of jobs being created do not even keep pace with population growth. If people were not leaving the work force by the tens of thousands, the unemployment rate would be much higher.
Fifth, as to more federal stimuli, easing/borrowing/printing, etc., what has been overlooked is not only that such Keynesian policy was not meant to be “permanent”, but was designed and used when we either had budget surpluses or certainly not this degree of debt. It’s one thing to tax & spend public monies when the economy is strong, and there is gas in the tank.
The GOP can end all the unease of not knowing what will happen at year end very easily, sit down and take action on the Bush Tax cuts, the expiration of the PR tax cuts, and the debt ceiling. All this blaming Obama for the lack of direction is GOP crap. They are the ones not willing to negotiate and they are the ones that need to be voted out of office. Send the Congressmen out and elect some leaders that put the Country first.
I’ll admit taking a certain amount of pleasure from pointing out the failure of Obama’s policies.
The non-recovery during ’12 so far is worse than the non-recovery of ’11! The economy is moving in the wrong direction.
Most of the so called stimulus went to state and fed governments for preserving union jobs. The Obama admin. wrongly believes that stimulating the public sector will turn the economy around. It ain’t so! The stimulus money has now dried up and that is why the economy is going in reverse.
Like it or not, our US economy is based on the private sector and our economy will not turn around until the private sector recovers.
As Adam Smith wrote several hundred years ago in his Wealth of Nations:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
Our capitalist economy depends on the profit motive. If high taxes and oppressive regulations continue to strangle the private sector, this anemic economy will continue.
Socialism is the government control of the economy, that is where Obama wants to take our economy.
17. John R – did I read that you just said that the stimulus stopped and therefore quit stimulating the economy? Wow, you finally admit the stimulus was working.
Here is why you are wrong. The private sector other than RE and construction is up and running. RE and construction represent 2% of the unemployment in this Country. Another 1% is teachers, firemen, and policemen. You call them government Union, I call them true public servants. If these people were back to work, we would be at full employment. However, Congress in their infinite wisdom have played politics with these jobs. They have bailed out the bankers that caused the RE industry to fail, but left the workers unemployed. They refuse to take any action to help this industry. As for public servants, again Congress has cut the budget on their backs and our children and our safety is paying the costs. Obama has asked time and time for the GOP to stop playing politics with our safety, yet they continue. In November the citizens of this Nation need to throw out the Congressmen that risk our students, our public safety and the RE industry while padding their pockets with contributions from Wall Street.
John R, can you explain, or perhaps Jim Lucas can since you both have such a strong grasp on the relationship between taxes and jobs, how it is that the taxes have been cut, cut again, cut again, and again, extended and even more given and they are in fact at modern history lows and STILL there are no jobs? How could there have been prosperity or job creation when the taxes were higher under Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton? What about the so called “boom years” when taxes were truly huge on the wealthy…and they still managed to get and stay wealthy? Can you explain it?
Unemployment steady at 8.2%
Hispanic unemployment stalled at 11%
African American unemployment up to 14/4%
And Obama says the unemployment report “is a step in the right direction”.
God, help us…
Richard…
Those USE TO BE the BUSH taxrate cuts. But if you’ll remember the DEMS and Prezbo voted to extend them in the lameduck session of 2009.
And Obama’s lack of leadership is hardly..cr–..such language!!
It’s right on the money. He “leads from behind” in the mideast. He half a55ed the surge in Afghanistan. He can’t get his dem buddies in the senate to produce a budget. He had a debt ceiling agreement with Boehner only to run away after Pelosi heard about it. Prezbo has never led/run anything in his life. Being head of these 57 states is his first leadership gig..and strangely enough it looks like it.
#3 Sandi,
“It is not an “Obama “recovery” that is sputtering, it is an American recovery that is still not sufficient.”
I think you are wrong! This is Obama’s economy and he owns it, non-recovery and all!
Obama has no plan for improving the economy, he is out of ideas, just more of the same failed policies. He mistakenly thought that a public sector stimulus would improve the economy and he has been proven wrong.
Romney does have a plan, see his website if you dare.
I consider it patriotic to want Obama’s policies to continue to fail as they are disastrous for America.
I have lived through enough trickle down Romney’s in my time. I am well aware of his “plan”. Indeed, may God help us.
JohnR, give the Libs a break, will ya?
Never able to accept responsibility for their own faults and shortcomings, do you honestly expect them to come out and say, “Ya know what? I backed a loser. I accept full responsibility.”
Nope, it’s always someone else’s fault. Just wait till Obama loses…the excuses are gonna fly.
They can’t omit that Obama is a failure…it’s physically impossible for them to do so.
#23 – Oops…last sentence. That should be “admit”, not “omit”.
#18 Richard
I will admit that if you throw a big enough rock into a pond you will get some ripples. However the so called stimulus was essentially a failure because it was misdirected, it largely went to the public sector.
#19 Sandi,
Temporary taxcuts are essentially non effective for small businesses. The problem is that businesses cannot predict their future costs so they are reluctant to hire and expand until demand heats up. The Reagan recovery launched 20 years of economic prosperity. Enough said.
A stimulus directed at the private sector with permanently reduced corporate taxes, permanently reduced income taxes, ease in lending restrictions for banks to businesses, relaxing of regulation on businesses, relaxing of EPA regulation on energy, opening up our national resources, and repeal of the Obamacare Tax would be a big start for a true economic recovery.
Otherwise, 8% unemployment and 2% GDP will become the new norm for the US economy. Americans do not want a European style democratic socialist form of government.
12 – ah, but now you’ve tried to change the question. We were discussing whether one could disagree with current Washington economic policies, see no current and future recovery, but still hope for a recovery. While we all may disagree on how to go about things, we have a singular long-term goal: get the economy back on its feet.
#16 Richard, the way to end the end of year tax “crap” is to extend the levels for all. As Obama did before. The CBO is on record as stating his wish to increase taxes only on higher incomes (and small businesses) would be insignifigant to enhancing revenues or reducing the debt.
21. UD – are you telling me you like the stammering Mormon and really believe he has any answers to anything? Are you willing to give him the key to nuclear weapons considering his lack of ability to make any decision?
Sorry BUD
#18 “John R – did I read that you just said that the stimulus stopped and therefore quit stimulating the economy? Wow, you finally admit the stimulus was working.”
Right, let’s just throw another 800-900 billion (that we don’t have) at it every time it slows down. To get the results we are getting.
“The private sector other than RE and construction is up and running.”
Sort of like saying; except for my three flat tires and the blown engine, she runs great.
“….while padding their pockets with contributions from Wall Street.”
Do you really want to re-visit 2008 and talk about wall street contributions?
#19 Yes I can. It’s a matter of context & degree. When the economy is strong it can & will sustain higher taxes. (At any given time, if that is good policy is another question). Regardless of who one blames as to where we are, to draw more taxes from the economy (while contradictorily wishing to add stimuli by borrowing money) retards the economy.
It is the very essence of the stimuli arguement. Only without the waste & borrowing.
To tell the public you’re “doing something” and “protecting the middle class” might (we’ll see) be good politics. But to take money from a struggling economy, struggling individuals, and stuggling small business is antithesis.
Hey, what do ya know? Obama, at his second campaign stop, realized what a stupid remark he made about unemployment being a step in the right direction during his first batch of lies…um, I mean speech, dropped it.
I wonder which staffer pointed out the stupidity of his comment to him…
Do you know why the president will win re-election? Because the country isn’t yet fat enough for Republicans to slaughter again.
Art…if that’s the criteria, Obama and the radical left agenda will keep us emaciated and the GOPers out of power.
#24, just as NeoCons can’t admit they did the same. right? Backed losers, right? Like Reagan, and both Bushes. This indeed is a major part of the problem with our country today, people dig their heels in, they draw their lines in the sand and refuse to budge. There is no more compromise, no more negotiation, just vitriolic ranting and raving about why The Other is wrong.
I voted for Obama, and I am deeply disappointed in some of his failings. I never held him up as a Liberal Messiah, and never expected him to be such. He is a politician at the national level, and therefore flawed to begin with. I don’t view him as a “loser,” just as someone who made promises they didn’t keep. I hold him accountable for that. That said, I will vote for him again, not because I want to reward him for his failings, but because I think he has tried to do good, and in some cases has. And, quite frankly, because the alternative scares the heck out me: a Rommney presidency.
#29 Richard, “….the stammering Mormon….”. Really?
37. Jim Lucas – I believe I am accurate on both of those statements am I not? That certainly is what comes up when I talk to my ultra RW Baptist friends. They simply wish the GOP had gone elsewhere. How RW are these guys, well they still believe Obama is Muslim and that he is going to start a Muslim revolution here. So pretty RW. But at the same time, they can’t see themselves voting for a Mormon. It’s the cult thing.
So I will be surprised if they show up at the polls. Mitt will have to do a lot to get them to make the effort.
The “stammering Mormon” never uses a teleprompter as does the mulato prez.
#39 Watch it, John R, one unnecessary insult about Romney doesn’t mean folks will appreciate you showing your own true feelings about our president’s race.
There is a lot of ‘cultish’ resistance to Mormons and it may be an especially big factor in the Bible Belt. Of course, are those folks more likely to vote for a Mormon or for a (perceived) Muslim? Hard to say. I think Mitt the Twit while enlist a southern baptist as his running mate in order to win some folks over.
Personally, my objections to Mitt the Twit have nothing to do with his faith, I just don’t like phonies.
#38 Nice try Richard, but (truly, sorry to say) I don’t buy it.
#41 ‘Hoo, such tilting at windmills will get us four more years of Obama. See how far away the perfect world will be then.
“This is a man without a core, a man without substance, a man that will say anything to become president of the United States.”
Rudy Giuliani about Mitt Romney
39. Mitt needs a teleprompter, it might help.
40. gdad – an insult? I believe I was being accurate. How can that be an insult? If he was Catholic, his religion would be discussed, if he were Jewish, it would be discussed, if he were Baptist or United church of Christ, it would be discussed. He is Mormon and it should be discussed. As for stammering, his ability to speak to citizens, his ability to speak to the World is important. Jimmy Carter was greatly affected by his speech giving ability. President Bush also had troubles and was the brunt of many a joke. He of course had the personality to deflect the criticism. Mitt Romney has shown that he has a lot of trouble in his speeches and it will be a factor in leadership should he be elected. Sad, but true.
42 – Jim L, if I foresaw any real difference in governance between Obama and Romney, I might be inclined to support one over the other. I don’t, so I won’t.
Richard you didn’t “discuss” anyone’s religion. You made a purposely disparaging remark reference somone’s religion.
What does “stammering” or any other observation have to do with any religion (race, ethnicity, etc.)?
Richard, I’n no angel. I have as much hypocrisy in me as the next person. But we all know by now that the the “cover up” is often worse than the original act. Sometimes you just gott’a pull your pants up.
Obama is not the first black president, he is the first biracial president.
#45 – “gdad – an insult? I believe I was being accurate.”
John R was also being accurate. Obama is in fact a mulatto.
‘Hoo…as have said before, respect and in many ways agree with your POV.
Yet, suggest if you look back at the arguements most prominent in these threads, private/public sectors, fed/state authority, growth of government at all levels (especially fed), tax policy (wealth redistribution), growing entitlements(not genuine safety net or participant supported), health care, adherence to the Constitution, checks/balances & seperation of powers…many more. The difference between Obama & Romney (the dems & the GOP) are stark.
I too would like to see Ron Paul as President. Not gonn’a happen. Obama or Romney.
#48 – Ya know, John R, I find it funny that the crowd that demands facts all the time always seem to overlook that one.
I wonder why that is.
And before you Libs start hyperventilating, getting all sweaty, and ready to throw out your accusations of me being a racist (again), I’m simply pointing out another blatant double standard you Lefties enjoy.
Save your cries of RACISM!!! for when Obama loses in November.
Sorry, Jim. Obama is a typical democrat, a liberal pretending to be a moderate. Romney is a typical republican, a liberal posing as a conservative pretending to be a moderate. Peel back enough layers and its the same thing. Liberals are self-loathing European-American leftists, and neo-conservatives are confused liberals. I’m not biting.
AMEN Michael! I wouldn’t vote for obama if he was running against a dogcatcher. You can’t give libs facts, because they ignore them and start the name calling. Like, Mitt the Twit, Mormans are a cult, and so on.
‘Hoo, then you’ll get what others choose. Please, not doubting your sincerity or resolve, but based on your posts, you have to see the “lesser of evils”. And the difference is substantial. Not trying to pick a fight, do enough of that. (Many, more parliamentary “democracies” govern by trying to form a coalition, maybe that’s what I’m doing).
#53 – It is funny, bohica, that libs are always screaming about facts, yet refuse to admit that Obama is not black.
“He’s our first black president!”
No, he’s not…and THAT’S a fact.
#55
“They just conveniently forget that Barack had a mama, and she was white -very white American, Kansas, middle America,” the Oscar winner continued. “There was no argument about who he is or what he is. America’s first black president hasn’t arisen yet. He’s not America’s first black president – he’s America’s first mixed-race president.”
Quote from Morgan Freeman
54 – I never said I wasn’t participating, Jim, I’m just not supporting either of those yutzes.
#55 Okay, fine, so Obama is our first BIRACIAL President then. Happy?
Actually, Michael, a person’s “race” is a matter of self-identification. If a person has some African heritage and some heritage from elsewhere, it is up to them to self-identify as “Black” or “African-American” or whatever else they may choose to be identified as (based, of course, on their genetic heritage; Obama could not, for instance, self-identify as an Hispanic-American.) So, if he identifies as “Black,” then he is. So, yes, he is the first Black president. And that’s a FACT.
^thats a funny statement
“Hoo After this I’ll let it go. As said before, not trying to recruit. But again, forgive me, but for reading your posts there is no way I cannot conclude you know the very real difference between the two. And let’s not forget three, maybe four SCOTUS appointments.
Have a good evening. 75Maroon
“you have to see the “lesser of evils”
That’s why I’ll hold my nose and vote for Obama. Romney is Bush on steroids.
61 – yeah, Jim, 3-4 SCOTUS appointees in the mold of that Mitt favorite John Roberts…no thanks.
(as a side note, I won 20 bucks on the ACA ruling…I know snakes when I see them)
#59 – You simply can’t accept it when a Conservative is correct, can you E?
By definition, Obama is a Mulatto. He can call himself whatever he wants, but the fact remains that he is not our first black president.
Even Morgan Freeman admitted it.
Why can’t you?
#62 – “That’s why I’ll hold my nose and vote for Obama.”
Hold your nose?
Oh, please, Art, be honest…you can’t wait to run to the polls and vote for Obama again.
#64, oh, well, if Morgan Freeman said it, it must be true (sarcasm)! I don’t care if a NeoCon or a Liberal is purporting it, the fact of the matter is that within the context of genetic heritage, racial identification is a matter of self-identification.
Why is it so important to you to deny he is Black?
#66 – It’s not important to me, E. I couldn’t care less whether he’s black, green, or polka dotted.
I just find it humorous how Libs demand fact after fact, yet go out of their way to deny a fact when it comes to their beloved Obama.
Jim – I read that you are voting your party and its ideals. I don’t see where you like Mitt, his religion, his personality, his leadership qualities. In fact, i have not heard anything from anyone that likes Mitt. All of his republican cohorts from Newt to Giuliani had nothing good to say about his leadership skills or other traits. He is simply an investment banker and I can tell you, I never met one I could like. They would slice up their own mother for a dollar.
Tell me some of Mitt’s strengths and before this goes crazy with others on here, this is about Mitt, not Obama. You can discuss Obama all you want, but I am looking for Mitt’s abilities.
Rich….you read me wrong. Yes I do like Romney. He has been a leader and sucessful in his life, private & public….and in his faith. Don’t try to pull me into your macaca moment.
I do not make general value decisions based on one’s faith (or lack). I have known many Mormons & Mormon families and my obervation is of hard working, honest, faith-living (but not on their shirt sleeves) people.
Romney’s experience as Governor of a major state, and his vast & sucessful business experience dwarfs that of Onama. These experiences are what we need, especially now.
The Bain accusations are what some might call “crap”. Even the Washington Post, and prominent dems (including Slick Willie) know it.
#66 If you define the question any way that suits you, guess you can get whatever answer you like.
I could not care less about the blackness or lack of, of Obama (or anyone else).
Interesting, the PC slop throwers are the one’s so interested in individuals race, ethnicity & religion.
My #69 Obama. Thanks.
#67, actually, Mike, if you follow many of the posts on here and many of the national polls among self-identified Liberals, Obama is not exactly “beloved.” And, as I have demonstrated, the fact is that Obama is Black, because that’s how he self-identifies. You seemed to care because you continued to make it an issue, but I’m glad to know you claim not to care…now let’s see if your actions support your words. Have an excellent day! E William.
66-Since obama loves the Hollywood groupies, what Morgan Freeman says will affect how blacks view the prez. He gets over 90 percent of their vote, just because he IS black.
If he would say he is of mixed race, he might loose those votes. obama changes what he is and what he believes in, on days that in in “y”.
#68 – One of Romney’s greatest strengths is that he is NOT Obama.
His being a Mormon means absolutely nothing to me, and it would appear that the majority of folks who don’t like it are Obama supporters. Who throws Romney’s religion out as an insult? A Lib. Who constantly reminds people that Obama’s religious background is irrelevent? The Libs.
Obama’s blatant lack of experience was poo-poo’ed by the Libs, yet here comes a guy with a HUGE amount of business and leadership experience and all the Libs do is badmouth it.
73- Correction- “lose” not loose. Dang it!
As I have maintained since Obama was elected, if he had been white, Hillary would be president now.
#76 – I’ve often said the same thing, John R.
I bet there’s a HUGE number of people wishing they had voted for Hillary right about now.
“Oh, please, Art, be honest”
Romney is surrounding himself with the same players that got us into Iraq. He’s already floating John Bolton as Sec/State. Obama is not the man I voted for but the alternative is unthinkable.
69. Jim Lucas – macaca moment? I too know many Mormons and have attended their Church, read the Book of Mormon, read extensively on it and the business attitude of Mormons. I have also read extensively on why the Mormon religion is called a cult by the Christian religions. It is indeed a cult by definition. Which is why it is so hypocritical for the religious conservatives to complain that Obama is Muslim and to want only a Christian in any political office and then vote for Romney. Mormonism has many parts less Christian than Islam.
Does ones religion make a difference if a person is a good person? Apparently to those RW conservatives that keep trying to say Obama is Muslim or bringing up Reverend Wright. I don’t particularly care one way or the other about ones religion as long as it does not affect how one performs his duties. I do have some question about Romney since he is part of the inner circle of Mormons and is supposed to follow the direction of the Mormon leader in all things, not just religious things. Romney is more than just a member of the Mormon faith, he is a Bishop and part of the inner circle.
As for insulting his religion, I did no such thing; it is what it is – a cult by definition.
69. Jim Lucas – as for experience, there is only one candidate running that has Presidential experience and it is obviously not Mitt. As for business experience, we had one of those for 8 years and ended up in the worst recession since 1934. As for leadership, I see very little, in fact his GOP friends do not give him any credit for that. See Boehner’s most recent comments on liking Romney. It really comes down to he is not Obama and that is all the republicans are hoping for. That is not much of a reason to vote for Mitt.
That’s right, Art. Romney has even made the obligatory pilgrimage to Israel to kiss the Israeli ring, no doubt assuring them that if elected, he, like his predecessors, will fight Israel’s wars for them.
#80 – “It really comes down to he is not Obama and that is all the republicans are hoping for. That is not much of a reason to vote for Mitt.”
And yet, “Anybody but Bush” was a good enough reason to vote for Obama.
Makes sense to me…
John Bolton would make an excellent Secretary of State.
#78 – “Obama is not the man I voted for but the alternative is unthinkable.”
People tried and tried and tried to tell you Libs that Obama was not who you thought he was, but no, you guys wouldn’t listen and voted for him anyway.
Now he’s become the failure that was predicted, and getting worse every day.
Didn’t Obama’s famous pastor (before he threw him under the bus, anyway) say something about “chickens coming home to roost”?
Cluck, cluck, cluck…
Yea, Rich…but,don’t think we can stand much more of Obama’s presidential experience.
You misconstrue Boehner’s remarks. What he meant (and explained) is that the election is not a popularity contest. While Obama tries to be likable the nation sinks.
How long will you play the Mormon card, while denying it?
‘Hoo…If Israel has shown anything, it’s that they can fight for themselves. They are our only ally in a very important region. Isolationism will not help the world we live in (or us) any more politically than in trade or commerce.
#85 – “While Obama tries to be likable the nation sinks.”
Saw a pic of Obama drinking a beer in Ohio to show he was just one of the guys. Bud Light, I think. Might have been Miller Light…I don’t remember.
Arrogant Bastard Ale would have been more fitting.
@87 Certainly it would have been more tasty anyway.
#88 – Holy smokes, Christian…you and I agree on something!
Oh, my heart. I’m comin’, Ethel!
86 – come on, Jim. No one is calling for isolationism. I favor trade and diplomacy with all. But we spend an unbelievable amount of money, and have sacrificed too many American lives for the sake of Israel. If Israel is threatened by this nation or that, they should take care of it themselves. Of course, no one in Washington has the cojones to take that position.
85. Jim Lucas – He is a Mormon isn’t he. Are you telling me if he was Muslim you would vote for him? Bet not. Personally I would prefer non-religious to either as both have too much control over the individual. Methodist is probably more to my liking if there has to be religion involved.
82. Michael – “Anybody but B
82. “Anybody but Bush”?????
86. im Lucas – Of Israel has shown anything it is that they have used the Christian religion and their voters in Florida to control our politicians. They spy on us, use their religion to control out elections, use our weapons to imprison the Palestinians and to illegally establish settlements. If they were interested in peace they would remove the settlements and talk peace.
87. Michael – I will have to ask Dan Casey if he knows where to find some of that, it sounds delicious.
85. As for experience, Romney’s experience as a leader has been poor. Mass. went downhill under Mitt. Only his business experience gives him credibility and that is useless as the government is not a business and operates totally differently. Again, GWB was our first experience with an MBA as President and it was a total failure.
As for Obama, his experience took the economy out of recession in six months and has had a steady growth in spite of it being the greatest recession since the Great Depression. He has ended two conflicts and is on the verge of ending a third. He has represented the US strongly around the World. Job growth is steadily rising but will not change drastically until the GOP gets off its duff and approves his ideas.
Obama has been a moderate which is what this Country needs. Romney chose to appease the far right which would be devastating to this Country.
“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid keeps a copy of the Book of Mormon in his office just off the chamber floor. There’s a second copy handy to give away to someone in need of spiritual guidance.”
Man, can you believe we have a big Lib MORMON. Guess he likes the CULT thing. Hey, just think, maybe he and President Romney can go to Church together!
87- I do like the way you think!
86 – as far as Israel being our only ally in the region (an ally that continually spies on us and extorts money from us, but never mind that)…they don’t have to be. I would submit it is our own isolationist policies toward Iran (crippling sanctions), Iraq (invasion), Afghanistan (invasion), Pakistan (drone bombings), and general overall meddling that is the greatest impediment to stronger relations. Of course, Israel wouldn’t allow that.
#92 – Surely you remember Libs saying they didn’t care who they voted for as long as it wasn’t Bush?
#94 – I think I’ve seen it at Krogers. If not, Mr. Bill’s could probably point you in the right direction.
96. b.o.h.i.c.a – I believe Harry Reid represents the people of his State. I have a Book of Mormon on my bookshelf as well. As for Reid and Romney, they are free to believe as they like and to witness as they like.
However, having a Democrat Mormon does not change a thing about the religion does it. It still is what it is.
For those that have so adamantly questioned Obama’s Christianity and for those who fervently believe in the Bible and will only vote for a Christian, then I would say they would have as much trouble coting for Mitt as they would Harry.
98. Michael – Obama did not run against Bush.
“Hoo & Rich….if Muslim societies would allow any semblance of secularism, if Arab nations would concede Israel’s (obvious) existence, if this nation would promote such, the Palistinian/Israeli problem could end tomorrow.
#95 Rich, “Only his business experience gives him credibility and that is useless as the government is not a business and operates totally differently.”
Your Bush example is not only subjective but anectdotal. To say business experience has no value in government is absurd (but “self”-serving).
“As for Obama, his experience took the economy out of recession in six months…” Yeah, I remember that. ‘Bout three years ago now, right?
“He has ended two conflicts and is on the verge of ending a third.” Regardless of how one views either conflict, he has wasted our efforts & sacrifices.
“Job growth is steadily rising….”. Richard, did you type that with a straight face?
“Obama has been a moderate…”. Ibid.
#100 – I know he didn’t, Richard. But Bush was still President during the election and the mantra among the left was “Anyone but Bush”.
#95 – “Job growth is steadily rising but will not change drastically until the GOP gets off its duff and approves his ideas.”
Job growth is steadily rising, Richard? Really?
Did you believe every fairy tale your mother told you, too?
I’ve been unemployed for 6 months and can’t even get an interview for jobs that I am the perfect candidate for.
Job growth my aching butt…
Jim, who are we to tell another nation how it should run? Those nations are independent sovereign nations, and to exclude them because of their official faith is isolationist, and hypocritical.
Also, it’s unevenly applied. Saddam Hussein was ambivalent to Christians, and to all faiths, really…his really was a secular government. In fact, under Saddam, there were about 1M Christians; after its occupa…er, liberation that number has dropped to about 300K. Iran is a different story…they were pretty secular under the Shah…but the US helped install a radical Islamic leadership; and now we protest because they aren’t secular? Israel itself is only nominally secular, as most of its laws, traditions and government functions are rooted in Judaism, and there are stories all the time of Israelis persecuting Christians and Muslims. The Israelis get a lot of mileage out of their persecuted past, but it does not make them innocent in the present.
101. – have you considered how Mormons look at Christians. They believe you must be Mormon to go to Heaven or at least have a Mormon ask for your repentance. Islam is accepting of other religions, especially Christianity. That is directly in the Koran. However, there are many Arabs, Turks, and Persians who are not. As for Israel, they are not exactly the most freedom of religion people on the earth. You have no rights in Israel unless you are Jewish.
102. Guess I was much more selective. I voted for hte person I thought was best for the job. Don’t believe in voting against someone else.
#106 – ” I voted for hte person I thought was best for the job.”
No worries, Richard…we all make mistakes.
Unfortunately, yours is killing America.
94 – Fresh Market has it
99-This election is not about religion. Only the libs want it to be about it. If people can believe what they want or witness what they want, why can’t Gov. Romney? obama CANNOT live up to his promises and and that is what the people are going to vote on.
#105 “You have no rights in Israel unless you are Jewish.” Think you’d better check on that one, Rich.
“I’ve been unemployed for 6 months”
There are jobs out there, you’re just not willing to take them. So tell us, Michael, are you on the socialist unemployment?
“things were pretty much supposed to be almost “back to normal” by now”
When you have a do-nothing Republican House that would keep millions of Americans out of work to deny one man a job “normal” can be difficult to attain.
#105 Rich…of course you are right, and it explains a great deal.
It explains why Mormons hijack planes & crash them into buildings full of civilians. It explains why they decapitate non-Mormons with a butcher knife & film it for prosperity (cult thing). It explains why they throw acid into the faces of little girls trying to go to school.
It explains why Jews strap on suicide bomb vests full of rusty nails & rat poison & detonate in pizza parlors & on school busses. It explains why Israel announces over & over their intent to wipe Iran off the face of the earth.
Richard #95…
Romney’s experience as a leader has been poor. Mass went downhill under Mitt.
MAss unemployment when Romney took office Jan 2003 was 5.6%- when he left office Jan 2007 it was 4.6%. Romney also balanced the state budget by raising some fees and cutting some spending.
Now contrast that with your Dear Leader who took office with unemployment around 7.6%, spent $800 billion on a “stimulus bill” and can’t get unemployment below 8%. 80k in job creation is a “step in the right direction”(over 3 years into his presidency)according to Prezbo. “The Amateur” has also(will have) presided over 4 years of $1 plus Trillion deficits. We’ve got 50% more people on SNAP than when Obama took office… and you want to talk downhill.
#111 – You’re right, there are jobs out there, Art. And I’ve applied for a lot of them…to no avail.
Don’t make assumptions on what I’m trying to do to get a job, Art. You’ll more than likely be wrong.
#112 – A “do-nothing Republican House”? You’re right, things were SO much better when Obama and the Dems held both the Senate and the House!
Speaking of do-nothing, we’re still waiting for the Dem-controlled Senate to come up with a budget. How many years has it been now?
And one other thing….
In Mass…
Romney had to WORK WITH a legislature completely controlled by the opposition party his 4 years as governor of one of the bluest of blue states. Obama’s party controlled congress the first 2 years of his administration. The last year and a half, Obama has shown his inability and cluelessness to work with opposition when it controls one part of the 3 branches of our government.
Bohica – I assume you would have no problem voting for an atheist then?
113 Jim Lucas – Al Qaeda happened to made up of wacko Arabs who are Muslim. There are billions of Muslims that are most peaceful that recognize other religions. There are bad Mormons as well – ones that take young girls and make them wives and slaves.
Try again there Jim.
It is time for the GOP to take the blame for unemployment because they have done nothing to help the RE or construction industry. If you are unemployed look to the cause of the recession (GOP) and the lack of help resolving employment (GOP).
116. BUD, when the minority leader of the Senate first statement in January of 2009 is “our only goal is to make Obama a one term President” it meant that the GOP would move to stop any action by the Obama Administration. The GOP was willing to sacrifice the US economy for 4 years in order to protect Wall Street and its benefactors. In spite of their lack of leadership and their do nothing attitude, Obama has turned the economy around into continued growth and continued growth in employment.
Had the GOP been in charge of anything we would be in a long term depression like Japan had been. Thank the Lord Obama won in 2008. Thank the Lord he will win again in 2012. Now to rid Congress of some GOP members that care nothing about the middle class.
This is the perfect election, a rich white daddy’s boy running for office for the GOP who is getting all of his support from the ultra wealthy whose economic plan is to give more to the ultra wealthy vs. a poor black man that grew up without a father who gets his support $3 at a time form the middle class. He has supported the middle class throughout his Presidency.
The GOP has consistently hated the poor person that has made good. They hated Bill Clinton and they hate Obama. They do not want anyone in office that is not blue blooded. If a poor person makes good he is immediately labeled a socialist rather than being admired. To the GOP the American Dream only applies to the wealthy, middle class citizens need not apply.
BUD assures us “the TP wasn’t around yet”. Are you kidding? The TP has ALWAYS been around. They have had several names, from simply “right-wingers” to “The Moral Majority”, but they have ALWAYS been around and influential. They just reconstituted into the so called TP that is not even a party at all.
Jim Lucas, you had better bet that if you all are going to blame the 30 years worth of chickens that came home to roost on Obama’s watch on Barack Obama, I am absolutely going to blame the “melt-down began with the sub-prime mortgage bust” that happened on Bush’s watch on George Bush!
A nation that would consider electing a Wall Street tycoon who made his fortune doing what was not good for many Americans means many are “ignorant” so complaining of being assumed to be is disingenuous.
How much “further” could employment numbers “retard”? The government can only create government jobs. The Stimulus efforts can create some demand but the unemployed, underemployed and those unable to “demand” cannot sustain the supply needed for a healthy economy. That is the problem with all of the wealth being at the top. The rest of us are in survival mode. This whole anti-regulation and anti-tax fervor is totally contrived and spoon fed to people too stupid to know it is against their own interests.
Michael is finally right, it is indeed “physically impossible” for me to “admit” Obama is a “loser”, mainly because he is not. You all WANT this to be all on Obama to assuage the part that those you back played in this economy, but you know better. The folks who need to admit they backed a loser are the ones who elected Bush twice with NO record of success to validate either vote. His 8 long hard years of inaction and enabling did not help this nation. I will run to the polls to vote for Obama and know I did the right thing. Some of you have solidified that choice in ways Obama never could.
89Hoo, I no longer believe that we all “have a singular long-term goal: get the economy back on its feet” at all. Some are quite content to let this nation fail as long as it prevents Obama being re-elected. This Congress and the TP proves that beyond all doubt and history will vouch for it. If the facts don’t prove it, the vengeful, hate-filled tone does.
Even more interesting Jim Lucas, “the PC slop throwers” are able to discuss an individual’s race, ethnicity or religion (the fictitious and the factual) without the denigration the non-PC “slop throwers” cannot muster. If people had some right to be concerned over President Obama’s fictitious secret Muslim identity and he was supposedly so influenced by his Preacher, why would not Romney’s actual religious beliefs and his actually being a Bishop in his church not matter? Oh, that’s right, nothing matters but how much you all hate Obama, as if that was not readily apparent.
Joseph Smith appears to me to have had a better relationship with LSD than the LDS.
Sandi, there certainly are, sadly, the “anyone but Obama” and “anyone but Mitt” crowds, but I try not to lump anyone who disagrees with me into one of those camps. Of course, I don’t like either one of them, but I’m not an “anyone but Mitt or Obama” type; if either of them held my views, I’d vote for him.
#118 Not so. Palestinians, Taliban, Shiite, Sunni, Mullas, Ayatollahs & just mainstream Afgans & Pakistanis also in my examples.
There is no qualatative, quanatative, or much less, moral, comparison between what I cite & your weak example.
Try again Richard.
#120 “Thank the Lord Obama won in 2008. Thank the Lord he will win again in 2012. Now to rid Congress of some GOP members that care nothing about the middle class.”
Which “Lord” would that be Richard? Have you decided yet? For someone so “progressive” you’re starting to sound to me like a Bircher.
And know a “liberal” dose of the race card & class warfare/envy.
#120 This should be concerning, it may well indicate the entire strategy of the dems to attack Romney on anything they think will resonate to the uninformed, easily swayed & bigots. Race, religion, class. They cannot run against his record or on Obama’s.
#121 Not so much. Just one, predictable example that the above is working.
There is absolutely a “qualatative, quanatative”, as well as “moral” comparison between ANY religious belief and another. Islam and terrorism are NOT the same thing. Mormons, some of whom STILL practice plural marriage, treated women as chattel and married children to old men, excommunicated young men and who held themselves off in “compounds” have some serious parallels with other religious extremists, even without the external violence against their enemies. It is simply the truth.
117-The operative word I used, was THIS election.
Second, most studies and polls show that Atheist, Agnostic and non-religion voters are dems, or independents. I do not vote for dems.
Third, since 1904, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints excommunicates anyone engaging in plural marriages of any kind!
I do not disregard the Bible, because it has written that Kings had many wives.
89Hoo, believe me when I say this, I am well aware of your solid granite political views and respect you as the rare person who will not compromise, “hold your nose” and vote for ______________ anyway. I may not agree with that philosophy but I respect the right to vote above all others. I do not mean to “lump” you into the right wing.
124 Jim Lucas – sorry, Palestinians and Taliban do not fit your religious groups, they are political groups. Shiite and Sunni are two sects of Islam formed mostly because of politics that affect Islam only in their ancient leaders and who shall return in their prophecies. Their struggles are more political and over oil rights than religious. Mullahs and Ayatollahs are indeed religious, but so does Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, and Orthodox have the same. Many have been good, many are bad. Very comparable.
But you are arguing that religion is important in who you vote for. I thought you said you should not consider it.
#127 (and Rich)….and that’s what Romney did in Mass., right?
Did someone day “fearmongering”?
129 – thank you, Sandi. The modern right wing repulses me as much as the modern left wing.
Rich….the bottom line is you use disparaging religious allusions (and other baits) to denigrate Romney. Then rationalize such by comparing to Muslim extremism. Then muddle the issue with archaic anectdotes. Your choice, but please own it.
125. Jim Lucas – You must be mystified today as I most certainly am not a liberal. There are many ideas the far left have that do not suit me. I call them as I see them and in the case of Mitt, I see class warfare on his part against the middle class, I see an inner circle Mormon Bishop that most definitely is affected by his religious views, I see a poor speaker, poor debater, a man thaqt has little understanding of the world’s politics (calling Russia our greatest enemy for example), a man that blows with the group he is speaking to, and a man that will do and say anything to get elected. He has sold his soul to the tea Party which has no concept of economics or world politics. He has avoided his taxes, shipped jobs overseas, hidden his money in Swiss bank accounts and done all the things to save taxes that a wealthy person does to avoid taxation, but in doing so, he shows no loyalty to his Country.He may be a good CEO but he shows no patriotism for the USA, only his pocketbook. His own party does not like him but he has become the tea party’s puppet who will dance on a string to get elected.
If he had stayed a moderate, he may have had a chance, but he simply does not stand for anything today.
bohica – But you say you would not have a problem voting for a GOP atheist then.
133. Jim Lucas – the bottom line is the GOP, party of the Christian God, has selected a senior member of the largest cult in America to represent them and is now trying to keep anyone from mentioning it.
As a Southern Baptist for many, many years, I have heard sermon after sermon on cults and Mormons in particular and as the Baptists say, God’s rules do not change. So for Southern Baptists to vote for Mitt, it will mean they no longer care about religion in politics. No more concerns about atheists, Muslims, agnostics, what ever. As long as the politician can buy their way into the nomination by the GOP, they should vote the party. Accordingly, we need to stop hearing about prayer in the schools, abortion issues, prayer at public services, rights of Catholic institutions, etc. because the citizens are saying religion does not matter in politics and should be kept out of the discussion. Now that is more to my liking. You see, I am not the bigot you think, I just want the hypocrisy of the GOP in the open.
“You’re right, there are jobs out there, Art.”
Yes, there are. If working 4 minimum wage jobs isn’t enough. take another! Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! You still haven’t answered as to whether or not you’re accepting handouts from the government you so viciously malign.
Some of you must be heavily religious, I declare that sometimes (i.e. #126) you speak in tongues!
135- I have more of a chance of winning the lottery, than for a Republican atheist to win the GOP nomination.
Furthermore, Gov.Romney is a great speaker and debater. obama is not.
Richard, I never said you were a bigot. I did say, that IMO, you are playing to others’ bigotry, and that is still my opinion.
#137 – Unemployment Insurance is not a handout, Art. My employer paid into it.
And no, I have not collected on it. I actually saved enough to live on if times got tough and am doing exactly that.
Hmmm….whatdy’a know…planning ahead in order to not rely on the gov’t! What a bizarre concept in your world, huh?
Calling someone a member of a cult when you have always heard it said from religious people is “playing to others’ bigotry”, but calling the President a “Mulatto” in 2012 is not?
139 bohia – Obviously I hit a nerve. That is my point, the GOP has nominated a non-Christian and yet you will vote for him. Difference?
140. Obviously I am pointing out the bigotry and hypocrisy here. But I must say that I have my opinions based on experience with people of many religions and I have studied many of them and if anyone tells you their decisions are not affected by their religion, they are both lying and not very religious.
“Unemployment Insurance is not a handout”
And we’re down the Right-Wing rabbit hole again…
#142 – Is the president NOT a mulatto, Sandi?
Simply pointing out someones race does not make them a bigot.
143-Nope, no nerve hit here. I would rather have someone that believes in something, than someone who believes in nothing. Again, this election is not going to be about religion, but the economy. That is how I am voting.
#144 – “And we’re down the Right-Wing rabbit hole again…”
…while fully prepared to overlook facts due to blind hatred of the Right.
You left that part out.
Just trying to help…you can thank me later.
146 bohica – then you should study the results of 8 years of GOP tax breaks for the wealthy, no regulation, and over taxation of the working middle class that led to the greatest recession since 1934 and compare that to 4 years of growth, work for the middle class, and regulations to stop greed from destroying our economy again. Throw in a comparison of foreign affairs in the last 12 years and perhaps you will see a better way to vote.
But, the truth is, you are not going to vote based on the economy.
Michael, the “term is not commonly used anymore and is generally considered archaic because of its association with slavery and colonial and racial oppression; accepted modern terms include “mixed” and “biracial.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
It is “old-fashioned + often offensive : a person with one black and one white parent”.
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/mulatto
It is not necessary and it is not what most people use in this day and time.
#142 I never called anyone a mulatto. Please get your threads straight.
#149 – “It is not necessary and it is not what most people use in this day and time.”
That may be the case, but when people are touting how great it is to have our first black president, it’s just as important to point out that they are wrong. As one who is so adamant about “facts” and accuracy, it’s funny how you deem this fact as unimportant.
I’d bet a dollar to a doughnut that if Obama were a Republican, those on the Left would be front and center pointing out how he really isn’t black.
Like I said in an earlier post, I don’t care if he’s green, black, or polka-dotted. What I do care about is the obvious double standard when it comes to those on the Left…as usual.
148=If I am not voting based on religion or the economy, do you want to tell me what I AM voting on. But, be forewarned, I do not accept lib talking points. I have watched obama do nothing but break promises. That is not how I want to see/dread the next 4 years.
You really have convinced me, my vote is going to the right person.
Thanks.
“I do not accept lib talking points.”
Anyone using the term “lib” has already closed their mind.
#153, indeed, conservatives have attempted to make “Liberal” a dirty word, and the fact is that Liberalism built this great country. That may account for the vitriol coming from the conservatives these days; that they know this is, at its core, a country founded on change and Liberal ideology, and that it continues to be such.
Jim Lucas #150, I have my “threads straight”! You were happy to call out Richard for what you deemed “playing to others’ bigotry” but you totally ignored what was obviously the far more egregious example Michael offered. I found that telling and worth remarking upon. I never said you “called” anyone anything.
149 Sandi,
“It [mulatto] is “old-fashioned + often offensive : a person with one black and one white parent”.”
I would like to apoligize to all my liberal friends for stating the obvious, that the prez is a “mulatto”!
My Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary did not mention that the word “mulatto” was racist or derogatory in the definition.
154 E
The entire US Constitution is devoted to limiting the power of the federal government, a very conservative concept from our Founding Fathers.
Justice Ginsburg not long ago advised new nations not to look to the US Constitution as a model, it isn’t liberal enough.
Gallup polls for many years have found that the majority of Americans consider themselves “conservative”. We are indeed a center-right country politically.
Lefties seem to prefer to call themselves “progressives” rather than “liberals”, very odd. Sort of like avoiding the “m” word as discussed above, I suppose.
#155 No Ms. Saunders you didn’t, and so I gave you the benifit of the doubt (about confusing the threads).
What you did do was directly quote me and allude to terms used by others.
It’s one or the other, and thank you for clearing it up.
JohnR, indeed that is one of the purposes of our Constitution, to define the parameters of the federal government, which, for its time, was a radical notion, and therefore liberal in its ideology. Liberalism implies change, progess, (hence the applicable term Progressive), whereas “conservatism” implies keeping things as they are [to conserve].
The history of the United States is a history of change. Gallup may show people identify one way, but the progessive nature of our laws and government demonstrates the contrary. That is indeed why we are one of the greatest countries in the world, because if our Liberal nature, and I, for one am proud to be a Liberal and to work to continue the forward movement of our nation.
#159 Specifically limiting the power (“parameters”) of the federal government is “liberal”. Who new?
And I suppose Wilson was one of the founding fathers?
I call myself a liberal and proudly, have always done so. I am not a “leftist” in the actual spectrum as the “left wingers” and “right wingers” are the looney-tunes of the political spectrum IMO. Liberal and Progressive are synonyms and interchangeable as far as I can tell. Conservatives are not necessarily “right wingers” anymore than Liberals are necessarily “left wingers”. I will agree with America being a “Center right” nation, but that is still much farther to the middle than most of the conservatives who post here and we all know it.
“The term is not commonly used anymore and is generally considered archaic because of its association with slavery and colonial and racial oppression; accepted modern terms include “mixed” and “biracial.”
It’s certainly not like calling somebody one of the more racist terms, but it’s simply passe and generally not used except in a historical context. However, if John R wants to continue to show that he’s from a century or two ago, I say have at it. Heck, I can remember when my grandparents used to call African Americans a variation of the “n” word and thought they were being polite doing it.
Sandi, a good point. “Leftist” has common connotations of Marxist socialism, which is certainly not part of the mainstream Liberal ideology. The history of the development of American ideology as reflected in our laws is a history of change, of an acceptance of the idea that change, progressive change, is the nature of any valid political system. Therefore I would respectfully disagree that ours is a “center-right” nation. There have been times when “right leaning” politicians have been elected to office, and their ideologies have had some influence, undeniably; however, the over-arching movement of the country has been in a liberal direction, then and now.
The terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have both changed dramatically since the nation was founded. The Founders were indeed in the grand Liberal tradition, in that they wanted to ‘liberate’ themselves from the State; that is almost diametrically opposed to today’s modern liberals, who look for ways to make themselves more dependent on the State.
Conversely, the ‘Conservatives’ of old (paleo-cons, of which I consider myself) also looked to free themselves from the State, with the distinction that they wanted to ‘conserve’ some of the traditions and institutions of old (did not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, in other words. Today’s neo-cons have no problems relying on the state, they just think THEY should dictate the terms instead of the modern liberals.
Matters of degree and emphasis in both cases, but the classical (paleo) liberals and conservatives had much more in common than either does with its modern namesake, and the current incarnations are much closer in philosophy with each other than not.
The RW wants prayer in the schools, wants religious organizations to have special treatment, wants prayer in govt. Will we have Mormon prayers dictated in the schools? Will the Book of Mormon be the book to used to swear Mitt in? If so, is that a true oath? Perhaps Mitt will have all the young people go on a Missionary trip to help unemployment of the young. Or perhaps we will have the same decision making as Mitt has had on the Board of the Marriott Corp who has hired illegals for years.
I disagree completely 89Hoo! It is simply not true “ modern liberals, who look for ways to make themselves more dependent on the State“! That is the pejorative dismissal used because we seek national standards fair to all in every sector and believe the federal level is appropriate to manage oversight and safety net programs. We DO NOT want everyone dependent on the government! We never have and we never will. How the hell that could even be achieved remains a mystery no one bothers to explain, even if it were some “goal”. We do not want business “run” by the government either. That is just the right wing meme and I see you have bought it.
I have been a liberal for all of my politically conscience life and I have NEVER been dependent on the state nor wanted to be, nor encouraged anyone else to be. The vast majority of the people who are literally “dependent” on “the state” are neither liberals or conservatives, they don’t especially vote or pay attention to politics at all. They are simply people either in need or gaming the system, but they are certainly not running the politics of this nation, voting in droves or demanding services of their legislators.
I am past sick and tired of that dishonest meme being used as a cudgel because we care about people in need and believe society (government) has a role in fixing things that are wrong.
#164 “they wanted to ‘liberate’ themselves from the State” is wholly inaccurate. They wanted to free themselves from British rule. But, when they were successful in that endeavor, they established a new government, thereby binding themselves to “the state.” That is why they established Ferdeal law as supreme.
Your statement “today’s modern liberals, [who] look for ways to make themselves more dependent on the State” is also totally erroneous…a bit too much Limbaugh and Beck in your ear, I think.
Subtle racism is the hallmark of the Right. It’s like a secret handshake or Monty Python’s “wink, wink, nudge, nudge”. They believe it’s clever to see just how far they can go without crossing the line. It’s petty and childish, but it’s really all they have.
166 – “I have been a liberal for all of my politically conscience life and I have NEVER been dependent on the state nor wanted to be, nor encouraged anyone else to be…”
Anyone who supported the ACA is guilty of precisely that. Having the State make it illegal – punishable via taxes – for individuals to choose how to spend their own money effectively makes them wards of the state; certainly it makes them servants of the state.
167 – actually, the Articles of Confederation established a VERY weak federal state, and the Constitution, as it was written was never intended to establish the Leviathan we see today.
165-There are no requirements that any book, or a book of faith , be used to administer the oath. It is not mentioned in the Constitution. They can affirm or swear. Not all Presidents have used the Bible.
#159 & 163 You attempt to apply contemporary definitions of “liberalism” to the origins of the U.S. Then in some Herculean leap of contrived “logic” claim liberalism means change, that change means progress, and that change & progress are necessarilly good. With the caveat that “Marxist socialism” “is certainly not part of the mainstream Liberal ideology.”.
Is this what you teach in your history classes?
168 – I know what you mean, Art.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/liberal-group-calls-romney-too-white-for-blacks-to-like/article/2501754
171. bihica – but what will Mitt do?
Will Mitt be the first minister President if elected?
Guess the RW will be quiet about prayer in schools if Mitt is elected.
#167 If you cannot, will not, see the fundamental difference between seperating us from a tyrannical state, and, establishing a representative republic, the likes of which was formed only after much concern & debate, &, eventual explicitly constituted limitations on the scope & degree of it’s influence on the individual states & the individual….then I repeat my previous question as to your syllabus.
They did not establish federal law as “supreme”, see the 10th Amendment.
#170, indeed the AOC were written to create a weak national government, so weak and ineffective, in fact, that they were scraped and a new document written in 1787 establishing a new, more powerful and more carefully delineated federal system. Again, change was the order of the day. And, no, of course the size and scope of the federal government today wasn’t the intent of the Framers, but then, they never envisioned the size and scope of our nation today. And (if it is your intent) to blame Liberalism for the size, scope and power of the government today is just plain ignorant.
89Hoo, I find it patently absurd to say that “Anyone who supported the ACA is guilty of precisely that“. “The state” has NOT made “it illegal – punishable via taxes – for individuals to choose how to spend their own money effectively” by any means. This mandate, like many before it, seeks to fix a problem. Too many people believe that they should be free to not have the coverage that makes the system work and still expect the system to work. That is also patently absurd and high time it was remedied. No one has become “wards of the state”; nor “servants of the state”, in any sense except in the fevered anti-government minds cheering “root little pig or die!”.
Yeah b.o.h.i.c.a., I bet no one would even notice if ole Romney simply affirmed on the Book of Mormon…or no book at all.
Indeed 89Hoo, “the Articles of Confederation established a VERY weak federal state“. That is why the Constitution then came into being, to rectify that situation, form a more binding union, and establish a more powerful federal system of unity governance. You may believe it “was never intended to establish the Leviathan we see today“, I believe that the leviathan many see was/is inevitable in a nation of 50 states and 310 million diverse, independent, strong willed people, living in a dangerous, competitive and volatile world. Especially when governance went on the auction block.
174- First Black, First biracial,First Woman, First Minister. Maybe it’s the age of the “First.” You just never know who will be President.
‘
178- I think you are “counting your chickens before they hatch.” Or, would that be wishful thinking? I hope it is. Then we can all watch and see WHEN he takes the oath as our next President.
#168 – “Subtle racism is the hallmark of the Right. It’s like a secret handshake or Monty Python’s “wink, wink, nudge, nudge”. They believe it’s clever to see just how far they can go without crossing the line. It’s petty and childish, but it’s really all they have.”
That is probably the dumbest thing I’ve read in a long time, yet it falls right in line with the Left’s crutch of calling people racist when they have nothing left.
Save your breath, Art. You guys have played the racist card for so long and so often that it has become meaningless.
177 – yes, Sandi it’s a MANDATE, as in MANDATORY, as in YOU HAVE TO DO IT, as in it’s not VOLUNTARY…if you do not spend your money they way Uncle wants you to, you are punished via taxes; if you don’t pay those, there will be criminal charges. That’s punitive, that makes you a servant of the state. YOU, Sandi Saunders, may willingly bend over for this, but it doesn’t make you any less servile. And your support of forcing ME to spend MY money they way you want me to instead of the way I see best, is nothing less than forcing obedience to the state masters.
179 – yeah, every time I hear someone say, “The Articles of Confederation were too weak”, I always have to ask, “Too weak for whom?” The answer, invariably, is that it was too weak for those who wanted a State, instead of a union of states. In any event, the Constitution was only, as written, was designed to cede most power to the states, and only in very specific terms. That’s gone now.
“I know what you mean, Art”
From Webster’s,
sat·ire
noun \ˈsa-ˌtī(-ə)r\
1
: a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2
: trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
183 – I was shooting more for sarcasm than satire, but thanks!
#182, so to follow your line of argument, each individual taxpayer should be able to dedicate their tax dollars to which ever government function they choose? Or decide if they should pay taxes at all?
“every time I hear someone say, “The Articles of Confederation were too weak”, I always have to ask, “Too weak for whom?” The answer, invariably, is that it was too weak for those who wanted a State, instead of a union of states.” Too weak for the 55 delegates representing 13 states that worked during the summer of 1787 to draft The Constitution, and then too weak for the people of the 13 states who voted to ratify the document. It was too weak for the citizens of the United States of America.
And the concept of states maintaining their rights is very much in place, it isn’t “gone now” as you claim. Has that concept been modified over time? Yes. Largely in response to certain states attempting to violate the rights of citizens and circumvent the Constitution, which is still the supreme law of the land.
“thanks!”
I sometimes wonder if people read what they link. In this case, obviously not.
89Hoo, are you deliberately misunderstanding? I did not say it was not “a MANDATE, as in MANDATORY, as in YOU HAVE TO DO IT, as in it’s not VOLUNTARY“! But what you said was the mandate makes “it illegal – punishable via taxes – >b>for individuals to choose how to spend their own money effectively>/b>” and that is the part that is not true. When the health care system is RUN via health insurance, “choosing” not to participate hurts us all and no, I do not believe you should be able to not carry health insurance for ANY reason other than being unable to afford it. It is indeed forced responsibility straight from the right wing Heritage mindset but it is also the right thing to do so I support it. What boggles the mind is that conservatives used to support it too! Add Obama’s name to it and some would boycott ice cream! My daughter works part time for a non-profit and STILL manages to afford health insurance. Because I taught her that is the system and you need to do the right thing. It matters. I am sorry you don’t think so, but liberty that infringes on the rest of us is more like anarchy to me.
186 – you mean the liberal hate group insulting Romney for being too white? No I read it…it was in response to your screed that racism is the hallmark of the right, an implication that all conservatives are closet racists. And yes, I was shooting for sarcasm in my response. Did you not get that?
#185 “#182, so to follow your line of argument, each individual taxpayer should be able to dedicate their tax dollars to which ever government function they choose? Or decide if they should pay taxes at all?”
‘Hoo can speak for himself, but, what you speak to has no relevance to the state telling individuals what they must purchase.
Yes, the founding fathers (to be honest, I’m not crazy about that term, but use it generically) wanted a funtional federation. But there is no doubt they were very concerned with keeping it to that minimum, and protecting the voluntary participation to such federation.
185 – I’d LOVE to be able to write, on my tax return, “No, I’m not funding your stupid wars anymore, or your bridges to nowhere, or incompetent teachers protected by their unions. I’ll pay money to my local cops and firefighters (though I think the private sector can do it better, I’ll not fight that fight yet), and I’ll pay double to the good teachers. And I suppose the Mayor has to eat too, so I’ll toss in few bucks for him.”
More to the point, it’s without dispute (I’m really beginning to like unsupportable declaratives!) that the ACA includes a tax (ask John Roberts), that is used to extract money – at the threat of criminal prosecution, since it’s a law – from those folks who would rather spend their own money they way they see best. That’s punitive. And to give that power to the State, as the ACA does, strengthens the State, grows Leviathan, and completely disintegrates the claim that one has “…been a liberal for all of my politically conscience life and I have NEVER…encouraged anyone else to be…” To support that law was not merely encouraging others to become a servant of the state, it was requiring it (or mandating it, if you prefer).
Now you may agree with the law, and I’m sure you’re all excited to go stand in line for hours and hours while the State decides whether your misery is worth finding a doctor, but it is what it is. State power consolidated. Good or bad, that’s what it is.
#187 “89Hoo, are you deliberately misunderstanding?”
Well, we all must be. After all “everybody knows”.
187 – Sandi, you believe this, you believe that, and that’s all fine and dandy, and you can spend your money the way you wish…none of which has any relevance to me or Jim L or Art or Rich or anyone else on how WE/THEY wish to spend their money. It’s a basic tenet of society that when one has control over HIS property he is most free; and when that control is lost to anyone else – anyone, including the government – that freedom is eroded. That’s one of the founding principles of our nation, and you don’t have to dig too deeply into history books to find revolutionaries objecting to mandated taxes (I know all taxes are mandated, but it’s the principle of the thing). And yes, Sandi, it’s mandatory, not voluntary (oh please), no matter how you try to spin it.
OK when you get all melodramatic and projecting gulags, it is time to go read or watch TV. Have a good evening.
WITHOUT QUESTION, that is the best option for you. It’s easier being led along a primrose path when you are distracted.
“the liberal hate group”
I must have missed that part, and so, apparently, did the Washington Examiner.
195 – the media aren’t perfect.
What frosts the Tenthers is that it was one of their own who “betrayed” them on the ACA. I would posit Roberts pulled his head from his hindquarters long enough to get a few breaths of fresh air then made his judgement based on sound, Constitutional principal. Scalia, OTOH, is a partisan hack, who was for a broad interpretation of the commerce clause before he was against it. As with the New Deal, Republicans will go kicking and screaming at any attempt to broaden the safety net, wasting valuable resources and taxpayer dollars in a futile attempt to maintain the status-quo.