Hopey Changey

For the record if this blog seems to meander from one topic to another I apologize. Seeing how this allergy season is the worst in years and I am highly allergic to pollen I have been on a nice little regime of Zyrtec and Benadryl and it has knocked me for a loop.

Okay well that's not what I was apologizing for but great job in making up what I was apologizing for.

Umm edmund what name did I call you? I do not see anywhere in my post calling you a maker upper you claim that I did. But that's okay. What I said was you did a great job in making up what I apologized for, which you did I apologized that if it seemed I was going from topic to topic. I not one time apologized for being a hypocrite in the past. You made it up. I did not call you a maker upper, that was you that called yourself that.

I'm sorry edmund that you took my blog as a tongue lashing. As I pointed out in the original blog my stance against name-calling was directed at everyone not just conservatives as you apparently took it.

Though I do find it strange that after all the name-calling you have done as edmundburke and hankherndon (young sucklings ring a bell?) that you would suddenly start calling other people out on the very thing you are almost solely known for.

But if that's the course you want to take then it's all good.

You see edmundburke, Senior Loud is one of the posters that I was referring to early, but he admits it. Does that make what he says right or okay? Certainly not (no offense Senior Loud) but he admits to it. He doesn't suddenly grow a conscious and start calling out conservatives or other posters for name-calling while trying to stay above the fray. If I just did posting after posting on here of the names you have called people it would easily hit 100.

Apology accepted Senior. I do edmundburke. Whether it is sincere or not is none of my concern Senior Loud put the apology out there and I have accepted it.

What a zinger edmundburke. That got me good. No not really. I would like to know, however, what these circles you refer to that are mocking and deriding me.

So by your definition in that one statement you called me stupid, a hypocrite, and a whack job all without actually calling me those things.

See here's the difference between actually name-calling and the generic name-calling you have come up with. With actual name-calling you would call someone stupid, or retarded, or a suckling, or to use the oft used liberal slam on here Bot. By your definition every time someone says something to anyone what they say can be considered as name-calling. I am pretty sure that's not the kind of world you want to live in.

I find it funny you apologize for meandering but not for being disrespectful. When is your blog going to address the vitriol of the left?

There you go making things up again edmund.

SWNebr, my blog will address the vitriol of the left when their vitriol and hatred lead to an Oklahoma City bombing or a Christian cult planning to kill police officers, or murdering of doctors, or threatening Congresspeople for the way they vote, or protesting the tax cuts they get, or when militias start forming based on their rhetoric who's sole purpose is to fight against the government based on lies and fears and not facts.

Okay what I have I said that you took as disrespectful?

Oh and least I forget SWNebr I will address the vitriol of the left when it's leaders compare the conservative ideology to a mental disorder (or disease).

I am still stuck on the notion that all liberals are godless yet we believe Obama to be a god. Something quite does not fit in that equation.

Hypocrite, con bot, burkehead, littlehankbot, idiot, fool, racist, massive consumer of untruth, inane liberal hypocritical whack job, lying conbot, and sham... seems like that "show respect" idea is working about as well as that "hope & change" idea, sounds good at first but inevitably fails. Btw, I only left out "minimike" because I seem to recall you saying that you were proud of that name which I respect.

Why not take an objective look at these things? The guy who flew into the IRS building left a suicide note with a very long and dominating anti-business rant with some anti-government scattered throughout and his final lines were spent on knocking capitalism. That doesn't sound too "right wing" to me. The guy who shot at officers at the Pentagon had a serious hatred towards Bush and was also a registered Democrat.

There are left wing people and groups that bomb vehicles and buildings in support of their cause. Don't forget that radical left wing groups support anarchy too. This goes both ways so just be careful trying to spin this as a "right wing" problem because anyone can spin several incidents to appear as "left wing" problems too.

The truth is there are lines you do not cross in furthering a point of view. A very select few people on both sides sometimes disregard these lines but most do not. They will still cross these lines regardless of what any person or group of people say and the innocent majority who respect these lines should not be dragged down by the deeds of those who do not.

G.I.,

Not necessarily programmed, it's how they dealt with life's experiences. Some handle it with reason and others do not. The IRS suicide pilot had a lot of trouble with the government but he seemed more upset at Bush and big business influencing the IRS which is partially why he chose the IRS. He made it very clear he had no confidence in ANY politicians so people are just crazy and we both know Fox News didn't have to say anything for McVeigh to bomb a federal building.

I had to google who said this and all I found was a Savage guy and a New York Times Best Selling book writting by a clinical psychiatrist. When you talk about liberalism being called a disease, and this is just for speculation, say the government itself funded a study that said liberalism is a mental disorder. Would you concede that it was a disorder then?

im stumped trying to think of a pure capitalist country

Let us all be grateful this blog and response did not require an innocent tree dying, only some more high sulpher coal burning..

The Neo Cons in the House and Senate have blocked more than a hundred federal court and top administrative appointments via procedural obstruction.

DubYah routinely appointed people such as the Texas horse race promoter [FEMA Director and responsible for the Katrina non-relief disaster] and they were confirmed without delay by Democrats who did not go wild for them, but the president wanted them in his administration and barring total incompetence or criminal records, they were approved.

Ohio has two nominees for federal District Court vacancies, vetted by bi-partisan 20 person panels, interviewed by both Senators (one Democrat and one Republican) and both nominees endorsed by everyone as being eminently qualified.

Anonymous procedural blocks have left that district court short-handed for years.

North Carolina faces the same problem, with nominees supported by both Senators and all Congressmen, Democrats and Republicans.

When these nominees finally are allowed in for straight vote, the standard outcome for every Obama district or appellate court nominee to date has been unanimous -- 99-0, 96-0, 98-0.

This is serious, when John Q. Public is trying to get a legitimate suit heard, there often is a delay of years, because there are no judges available -- because appointments have been blocked without reason.

An example, a combat veteran, son of a Korea combat veteran who died of his wounds at an early age -- lost his new house to Katrina and has never been able to move in. Result he has a foreclosure on his record. Consequence of an incompetent FEMA director.

He contracted to take over a mortgage from a couple in another state, has been making the monthly payments for nearly three years. The bank has been attempting to terminate his rights because they committed serious felonies in granting the original mortgage.

One spouse's signature was clearly forged, by the other spouse -- who is turns out was operating with a fake name, fake ID and was an undocumented illegal from somewhere, caught trafficking in drugs. He clearly forged his wife's signature and the bank approved a loan based on a fake drivers license. Now the veteran, a cousin to the wife, having taken over the mortgage and making payments for three years is being made the victim by a bank attempting to cover up its own misconduct.

The seriously harmed veteran has a suit filed with the help of a Pro Bono attorney, but the district court is running three years behind, because some doctrinaire JackAsses are blocking appointments which were made in April and May, 2009.

And GAZETTE blog space is occupied by juvenile BS.

It has required more than 14 months to not approve a director of the Transportation Safety Agency.

For each Senator doing nothing but obstruct any and all actions, you neo cons are helping pay more than $10-MILLION annually for that non-service.

Keep on claiming intelligent life exists in the far right political ranks.

Also Colorado

HEY NON0FFENSIVE GUY,

Prepare to be offended and to discover that unless you believe the literary creators of the Old Testament were correct in placing Earth at the center of the Universe -- you are automatically a heretic, raving Communist/Nazi/Socialist/Fascist and YOU are the illegimate offspring of Attila the Hun and Lucretia Borgia.

Scary -- It gets worse.

Without exception, these folks have drivers' licenses and at least one herds 40 ton rigs down those Socialist Freeways, varying his meditation chant from "Beck Has A Brain, Beck Has a Brain," to "Limbaugh Loves Limbaugh,Limbaugh Loves Limbaugh!"

Of course,his favorite chant,"Than Franthithco Thavage Thertainly Thucks."

To bring you up to date with their standard themes:

Ignorance is bliss and the more blissful they get, the more certain the Bull Statue in the center of Wall Street has come alive and they are shoveling from behind him for their breakfast.

Appears to be their reality, because it is the only explanation for how full of it they are.

Meanwhile -- average days a federal court nominee with 100% bi-partisan support has waited for confirmation --189 days.

Seven major federal agencies do not have an appointed chief in place, because NeoCon Senators and Congressmen regard themselves as superior to the American people.

The one thing I would like to see and it has not happened yet is that when these Tea Partiers shout racial and gay epitaphs at Congressmen and hold up racist signs and signs filled with hatred and vitriol is for Republicans and conservatives to at least condemn them, but instead all we get is finger pointing and blaming "liberal operatives".

McCook1 to answer you question simply and pointed, no.

G.I.,

I didn't find the Glenn Beck quote because I was searching for mental disorders and illness. I don't recall seeing anyone say anything about cancer. The cancer analogy has been used so many times, I hardly consider it that extreme. Besides that, it's just an analogy. We must not get Savage Nation out here. As far as John Boehner, when he believes the health care bill will ruin our country you're all upset and claiming he's stirring up hatred but when Democrats in Congress say that Republicans want you to "die quickly" you're oddly silent.

I was just curious since you seem to put such stock into the scientific community and government. It would be a joke because that would mean that there would be a treatment and if that's a disorder than conservatism would have to be one too. In which case, the majority of America would have a mental disorder of some sort which means it really wouldn't be a "disorder".

I try to stay away from the conspiracy news sites edmund. But that is the usual charge when people start ruining a movement for everyone. "It's not our fault, we are being infiltrated."

It's a lot easier to blame someone else for making you look foolish than to take account that someone of your same ideology is actually doing it. Of course if you blame someone else there is naturally no reason at all to take accountability. Last time I checked Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman are not liberal plants. They have not been to any of our infiltration meetings anyways. Maybe they are working on their own.

mike,

You must not be paying close attention. Michael Steele, GOP Chairman referred to them as "idiots saying stupid things". House Minority Leader John Boehner called it reprehensible and said they don't support that. The organizer of the tea party itself called it disgraceful, intolerable and not what the they are about. How much more do you want?

The teacher from Oregon who wanted to bring racial and anti-gay signs to disrupt the tea parties is a real person, he was organizing others and therefore, it's a legitimate concern.

I went to one of the tea parties a year ago. While nobody was being racist or homophobic, there was one kid, about college age, who was "out there" and he would pipe up every once in a while about how "Congress is evil" and some other similiar rants about evil politicians that I don't recall verbatim. There were people that were obviously getting annoyed with him and this lady from the crowd came up to him and gave him a pretty good scolding. I didn't hear all of it but I made out something about how he needed to be serious about this and something else about looking like a fool. When you talk about the tea parties you think of that guy yelling craziness but when I think of the tea parties, I think of that lady scolding him like a toddler.

Actually when I think of the tea partiers I think of the people protesting the fact that they got tax cuts, or that the nation is turning into a socialist country, or that Obama is not American, or that Obama is a Muslim (why is religion would make a flying flip I really do not know).

I understand that people are angry what I do not understand is what they are angry about. First it was unfair taxes which have not risen under Obama, then it was the government takeover of health care which in fact did not happen. The same companies that were there before charging outrageous prices and cutting off insurance are still there and will continue being there. It's been one thing after another thing in their protests and what in the end they are protesting is a moderate president that they didn't vote for and they are acting like immature grown-ups. You know what if you didn't like the way the election came out that's fine show up in 2012 and maybe you'll get your candidate elected. Don't protest a democratically elected president simply because you don't like him and don't make up crap like him not being born here to try to get him out of office.

Memo to the teapartiers. You lost the election. You are in the minority for the moment. Grow up and act your age.

If you want to protest that's fine and dandy but please for the love of all that is good protest something real.

Oh yes, the Making Work Payoff? That's cancelled out by the $2,000 a year extra I'll be forced to pay for health care I don't want or need except the tax cut was temporary this is one more expense mandated by none other than, that's right, Obama. Tell me why I should be happy about a $400 tax credit when I have to pay an extra $2,000 for a government mandate that I want no part of? Money is money and regardless of what government spends it on or what it demands us to spend it on, at the end of the day it all leaves our wallets just the same. That means less freedom to choose how we spend our own money.

The insurance companies will not be around for too long when they are required to spend 85% of their profits on claims or premium reductions and only 15% on administration and all other expenses. For decades, if an insurance company was prohibited from spending more than 65% on claims and premium reductions because that would mean they were insolvent. Now, the government is forcing them to spend themselves into insolvency and that becomes effective immediately, not in four years when everyone is forced to pay in.

I seem to recall the Tea Party just cancelled a guy from speaking because he said Obama wasn't born here. Kinda contradicts the message you say they're trying to send. Although, I think I'll just leave it at that because everytime someone hears people saying how the Tea Party is racists, homophobes, uneducated or not protesting something "real" it just strengthens their resolve because what they don't realize is these are normal everyday people who will be voting and getting their friends to vote. Ah, sweet November.

G.I.,

No forgiveness necessary. I simply said I didn't recall anyone saying that, I never said it wasn't mentioned. I just didn't recall it when I was searching for who had the quote on liberalism as a mental disorder which I'm still not sure who was being referred to for that specific quote.

I say $2,000 because I don't see them remaing so "lenient" with the 2 percent penalty especially when the time comes that they can't hide the fact that the plan is a lot more expensive then they said it would be and they need to find more money for it. That is the cheapest available insurance to me that meets the coverage requirements of the government. Every person pays a different price for insurance so while I don't presume to know what you need to pay, don't presume that you know what I would need to pay for insurance. I have already looked into it.

Actually McCook it isn't mandated by Obama. It's mandated by Congress and more specifically the Republicans who got the mandate in the bill in the first place (more than likely they thought the Democrats wouldn't pass a bill that had mandates in it). But it doesn't take affect for four years (which amazingly enough people that are angry about that keep forgetting to mention) and Congress has four years to fix the mandates.

So blaming Obama for the mandates is both dishonest and wrong.

I don't have one because I don't want one otherwise I couldn't count it as an additional expense. The estimate is for Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The plan was quoted before pre-existing conditions and lifetime limits went into effect so it will likely become more expensive than that but at the time it was a $10 million lifetime limit, $500 deductible, 20% co-insurance, $2,000 co-insurance maximum.

I don't have one because I don't want one otherwise I couldn't count it as an additional expense. The estimate is for Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The plan was quoted before pre-existing conditions and lifetime limits went into effect so it will likely become more expensive than that but at the time it was a $10 million lifetime limit, $500 deductible, 20% co-insurance, $2,000 co-insurance maximum.

"The insurance companies will not be around for too long when they are required to spend 85% of their profits on claims or premium reductions and only 15% on administration and all other expenses. For decades, if an insurance company was prohibited from spending more than 65% on claims and premium reductions because that would mean they were insolvent. "

I was just wondering McCook1, can you back this up?

I noticed that this bit of information has slipped through the cracks but TARP which everyone and their mother hates and thinks is part of the bankrupting of American is only costing $89 Billion which is $115 Billion short of what was originally though. Naturally the reason this has slipped through the cracks is because it hurts the oppositions arguments.

McCook1,

I've worked in different states, and Nebraska is not as competitive with regard to health insurance as states such as Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and say, California. In Nebraskda, consumers bear a higher percentage of health care costs of any state in which I've worked. My Blue Cross Blue Shield premiums were much lower in the other states I've mentioned than they are here, and it's a real drawback to living here. I think more should be done at the state level to persuade the Nebraska legislature as well as the governor to negotiate for better and more competitive plans that would put us on par with other states nationally. Res Just

Obama pushed the bill and then he signed the bill so yes, Congress did it but so did Obama. Obama, as a candidate, opposed mandates but the candidate who was elected and the President who was sworn in seem to be quite at odds with each other. Pesky people and their memories anyhow. Btw, if you pass a bad bill and say "but we have 4 years to fix it" that's not exactly going to make anybody feel better about it.

Yeah, it's in the bill mandating the medical loss ratio which also used to be a right reserved to the states. That's why there are individual state insurance departments and not a national insurance department. Some states didn't even require them at all. By doing this, not only do they make it more difficult to operate a business by making payrolls, overhead, retirement and all the other expenses of operating a business but they just took power away from the states to regulate what is best for their states.

"SWNebr, my blog will address the vitriol of the left when their vitriol and hatred lead to an Oklahoma City bombing or a Christian cult planning to kill police officers, or murdering of doctors, or threatening Congresspeople for the way they vote, or protesting the tax cuts they get, or when militias start forming based on their rhetoric who's sole purpose is to fight against the government based on lies and fears and not facts."

Wow that is a pretty specific course of events that only then will you see left vitriol as bad. I gotta admit I don't think any of those except perhaps threatening members of Congress, I don't understand the protesting tax cuts they get remark though so maybe that will happen too. If a leftist group does bomb Oklahoma City, I will give you trememdous foresight credit.

Actually, McCook1, states will now have more negotiating power and big insurance companies will have less, given the federal mandates, and that will be to your (and consumers') advantage generally. Plus, more coverage will be available to more people. It's much more workable and optimistic than what you portray and a huge step forward. Res Just

SWNebr I did not mean for you take my words literally but since you did I will correct it. What I meant to say was when a liberal or liberals, spurned on by their leaders vitriol speech and hatred speech causes a domestic terrorist action like Oklahoma City I will write of their vitriol.

Okay you don't understand protesting the tax cuts they are getting line. The Tea Party has now protested two tax years in a row against unfair taxes, this despite the tax cuts they received this year and last. So in essence(and please do not take my words literal) they are protesting as unfair taxes the very tax cuts they are getting.

Mike it was a joke, I am eagerly anticipating the blog demonizing ELF.

It's amazing how stupid people are isn't it? They vote against their interests, don't understand anything but still manage to remain breathing. :)

Which tax cuts are the TEA party folks protesting?

It can't be that they think even those great tax cuts which benefit them so much are wrong eh? It can't be that they are arguing that getting kicked in the stomach is preferable to getting kicked in the groin so just go ahead and kick me in the stomach some more huh?

You say you don't understand the hate and vitriol but you seem to do a good job spreading it around anyway. I think maybe you understand it better than you like to let on.

this should be a surprise to the 34% of Americans and 64% (yes 64%) of Tea Partiers that believe Obama has either kept taxes the same or raised taxes but taxes are actually the lowest they have been in the 1950s. How's that protesty taxesy thing working out for you?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002548-503544.html

reformedrightwinger,

Not being a founder of the TEA Party Movement, I don't know about the timing. I'm sure you are correct in part that it is in response to Obama's presidency. Does that make any concerns less valid? It could also be a case of the straw that broke the camels back. Do you not think that could be contributing? When one spends a lot of time look for nefarious reasons or political reasons (often the same in my book) for things that happen, they can usually find them or convice themselves that they exist.

When Obama did as they feared was their ire misplaced?

SWNebr, I was speaking in jest. As I posted above 64% of Tea Partiers believe that taxes went up when in fact taxes were cut for 98% of Americans. They keep yelling that the taxes have got to stop but every single one of them that are protesting taxes received a tax cut last year.

It's almost as absurd as the people protesting against government takeover of health care WHILE they are on Medicare or Social Security.

Sorry SWNebr I do not find joking about the OKC bombing very funny. I actually find it very serious and it is still the worst domestic terrorist action in this country. Amazing how only 15 years after that day people think it is okay to joke about that bombing. We have truly forgotten. Pity. I would wonder out loud how long it will take to forget 9/11 but some politicians forgot by 2002 when they were using it to scare people into re-electing them. No I am not kidding.

Mike,

So they aren't protesting this year's tax cuts? I thought that's what your post said. But I see now you meant that as a joke. Thank you for clearing that up.

Mike,

Please explain to me how a politician using 9/11 to scare voters is any different than you using Oklahoma City to scare people about right wingers?

Aside from the fact you aren't running for office the idea is the same.

SWNEbr,

I can see you are not going to take this seriously but I would like to point out one thing. I am not using OKC to scare people. I am using OKC to remind people of what happens when rhetoric goes unchecked and gets out of hand. Politicians using 9/11 were not using it to remind people of what can happen when the government and the people let it's guard down they were using it and are still using it as a political ploy so they could go back to Washington.

I understand that you think joking about what happened in OKC is okay I don't have to like it but I understand that you do. I don't understand why you think it's okay to joke about Americans killing other Americans based on untrue rhetoric.

reformed I just saw that on television. She unfortunately went off the deep end along time ago. Yet another example of someone repeating what they have heard Glen Beck say (and yes before anyone says anything she has declared that she loves Glen Beck) and she clearly has no idea what socialism is.

I received the following, today, and it kind of fits the situation glaring from these pages.

Concider, please:

DIVORCE AGREEMENT

THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM. Hope he's real!!!!!

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce.... I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. But we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

P. S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fondawith you.

The above would destroy our country, I believe, but no worse that the hostile banter I see above.

We receive our deserved reward.

Well imagine this, the co-chairman of the Socialist Party of the USA not only says Obama is NOT a socialist he's not even a liberal. It's so nice to actually read someone that KNOWS what socialism is talk about the charge of Obama is a socialist.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/14/Obama.socialist/index.html?hpt=C1

It's interesting that in the article the person Llewellyn said was more of a socialist than Obama was Sarah Palin.

As far as the Tea Party guy who asserted that Obama pledged to "spread the wealth", Obama never made such a pledge. It's just one of those things about fact that people just do not like to recognize.

Interesting that this letter you received (and I highly doubt a "young" person wrote it) points out that this writer does not believe in freedom of religion. I would think that would not be a good thing.

But hey I am all for it. I would rather have a system that works than trickle-down economics which has been tried twice and failed miserably twice.

I also find it funny that this writer wants to get rid of the only group that actually defends the right to bear arms, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the ACLU. Strange but we'll take them too. At least I know my rights will be safe and I won't have to give them up so that someone else can feel safe.

I am assuming that the author would also let us take the fuel efficient cars that would actually lower fuel prices if that is all that was on the road. Sweet.

Fat jokes. How positively Christian of this person.

I am also guessing that this person's new country would not join the UN so when they attack a sovereign country unwarranted, other than feeling threatened they will not have anyone to attack the other country with.

Seeing as how every other country has their citizens covered with health insurance and there are plenty of doctors to go around, this is also acceptable. Of course I believe every human has a right to be healthy and be able to get the care they need without going bankrupt so we are good.

Since in our new nation this author has created we believe in freedom of religion I believe we will also have Bibles so I'm not really sure why this author believes only his new country will be allowed to have Bibles.

Thanks for sharing Navyblue. Under this new country that this author has created for people like me kids will actually be educated without being preached at about religion. There will still be religion in our country but people will be allowed to practice their own religion and not be seen as outcasts because they aren't one religion or another. We will never have to worry about trickle-down economics again. Every person would be medically covered. We will finally break the independence on oil and presumably since we won't have any gas-guzzlers like the Hummer (even though the Hummer has been canceled, odd that this author missed it) vehicles will be able to go much further on a tank of gas and prices will drop. We will have the ACLU so we will be guarunteed that ALL of our rights will be protected. We won't be fighting any unnecessary wars so our men and women won't die needlessly.

I like this idea. I am more than willing to work with this person.

Sorry NOG.

The memory of Hanoi Jane having a slip of paper giving a POW's Name, Rank and serial number which he slipped to her and her handing it to the Hanoi Hilton guards is a little too rank.

The POW, well not to worry, he only died.

Jane came home and sold her sweet posterior to a multi-billionaire, because no producer would cast her for set decorator or decoration.

Understanding the kids who demonstrated is possible, even though history has shown the organizers of those demonstrations were largely funded through the Soviet embassies and consulates.

But understanding Henry Fonda's treasonous daughter -- that's asking too much.

"I would be willing to concede a very large landmass for the Con-Bots to retreat and die on."

Mike, I hope you don't expect anybody to take anything you say in your article seriously when you seem to have no problem with this whack job saying things like this. Someday this loon will wake up and realize HE is the problem, not the solution.

Not sure if anyone has seen this or not, but thought I'd share anyway. I'm not sure if any other broader studies have been done on the subject, but it's rather interesting if true.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/19/science/sci-politics19

Mike,

I think you are a whiny hypocrit. I'm sure politicians who used 9/11 the same way you used OKC thought they were just using it as an example to show what could happen with less than vigilant politicians in power. This is why I think you are a hypocrit. You excuse or justify anything that supports your ideas while demonizing the same tactics when used by the other side.

You say you want to be fair but you are about as fair and balanced as Fox News.

reformedrightwinger,

I'm a little saddened by your turn lately, you used to be able to carry on a reasonable conversation but lately you seem too eager to engage in the name calling and lack of attention to what people mean often found here. Natso's post may well have been smarmy and self-righteous, although I challenge you to find anyone who posts here who isn't self-righteous, but I don't think there was any need to call him a hypocrite for pointing out Mike's hypocrisy, of course I am somewhat endeared to Natso since I made the same point earlier.

reformedrighwinger,

Why is Sarah Palin a Socialist and Glenn Beck not a Christian? I'm not saying they aren't what you say, I just don't know where your information came from.

Yacht,

Mormons aren't Christian?

Does Glenn Beck say he is a Christian?

reformedrightwinger,

Did Palin institute this plan on her own and does she advocate for a Socialistic system for our economy? So if she is a secret socialist, why do Liberals hate her so much? I checked out the Mormon website they say they are Christians, I'm happy to believe what people profess until proven disingenuous. Why wouldn't any follower of any religion believe it is the true religion? It doesn't seem to make much sense to me to follow something if you thought there was a better answer somewhere else.

Again, not trying to be too picky but please don't call me by labels of your choosing. If you feel you must please modify it to indicate it is your opinion not mine.

NonOffensiveGuy,

I'm glad you believe the Mormon teachings. It sounds no more or less believable to me than any other religious teachings or not yet proven scientific theories. It is all a matter of faith and what a person believes to me.

Oh I know .... hypocritical

Wow I am gone from one day and everyone gets delusions of grandeur.

Again, not trying to be too picky but please don't call me by labels of your choosing. If you feel you must please modify it to indicate it is your opinion not mine.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Apr 16, 2010, at 1:08 PM

Did you not call me a whiny hypocrite a few posts up which would be calling me by a label or your own choosing? Odd that you would protest against someone calling you a label but it is perfectly fine for you to label others. I know you have heard it before but that is a bit hypocritical.

But I just want to be clear and everyone listen up. According to SWNebr it is not okay for anyone else to label him but it is perfectly fine for him to label everyone else.

Everyone clear on that?

Mike,

I didn't label you a whiny hypocrite, I said I thought you were one, I clearly modified it as only being my opinion. I think any unbiased person would agree that is not the same as labelling someone and lumping them in a group in which they don't claim to belong. However, I am unaware of a large group that claims to be the group of whiny hypocrites, if you can produce such a group I will then, perhaps, consider that I am guilty of labelling. I was expressing an opinion. In the post that you cite me it clearly says I would encourage people to indicate that it is their opinion, apparently you weren't able to read my whole remark before responding to it. I can see why it would be hard for you, it was two sentences after all.

Guillermo,

I can't really speak for Natso but I will make a conjecture: maybe he doesn't mind hypocrites unless they are also smarmy and self-righteous.

You are parsing words SWNebr and that's just sad on your part. I could say the very same thing to try to rid the whiny hypocrite label you put on me but what would be the point.

You got all hot and bothered about labeling people and then labeled me (whether it's a group of people or one person is immaterial, and whether it's just your opinion is immaterial as well) that is being hypocritical.

There seems to be quite a bit of misinformation going on this blog site about for instance the insistence that I had excused vitriolic and hatred from liberals. I haven't but that really is immaterial when someone is trying to prove a point against me. Facts aren't needed, I guess.

Also, a poster (do not remember who) said that the nutjob that crashed his plane into the IRS was a liberal. I am assuming that this is because in one part of his manifest he railed against Bush. I am pretty sure that more than just liberals were not happy with Bush so the response is really baseless. I know there have been EVIL liberals in the past in the United States.

It is hypocritical to condemn one side while excusing the other. This is not what I have done. You can look I nowhere in this blog or following posts or past blogs excused any vitriol or hate from the left. I just have not mentioned it. There's another blogger on this site that has that covered I see no reason to double up on it.

Mike,

You are right I am parsing my words, trying to make clear that this is a fine distinction. I'm unsurprised that you and Guillermo seem unable to grasp it as you seem to deal primarily in generalities. Sharing a negative opinion of someone is NOT the same as considering them as a part of a larger group. I will use Guillermo's example to try to break it down into small enough pieces for you to understand:

You are right Guillermo, you can think my mother is a prostitute, it does not make her one. You can even state and use an example of you thinking she is a prostitute. However, when you then make a general comment about prostitutes, it does not apply to her, unless of course she is one, but when you say something along the lines of "prostitutes like you..." and she does not disagree she tacitly agrees to being a prostitute. That is why I don't like labels that people don't choose for themselves.

Back to my point for you Mike. I didn't tell anyone else you are a whiny hypocrite nor will I address a general comment to whiny hypocrites.

The reason I think you are a whiny is that lately you seem to me to try to turn everything into a victim/perpetrator scenario in which you or those whose position you support are the victim. I think you define yourself as a hypocrite with your previous post. You say you just haven't pointed out the vitriol on the left not that it doesn't exist, yet whenever I have asked for any example you choose not to discuss it. You say the vitriol is too far and needs to stop yet you only seem concerned with the vitriol of the right while you spew the vitriol of the left, in doing so you not only excuse it but encourage it. Until you stop this practice I will continue to view you as a hypocrite and share my opinion.

Guillermo,

Share your opinion all you please, I just want you to make clear when it is only your opinion.

I can see you still don't understand the difference between speaking to the general public and making generalizations about specific people. Just because the word "general" is in both phrases doesn't mean they are the same thing. My point is still valild when applied to the mothers of the general public.

Do you really see no difference between, "I think your mother is a prostitue" and "your mother is a prostitute"? For all of your professed education I am surprised you have such difficulties with simple language in these two cases.

When expressing an opinion I do not assign characteristics I share how I feel a person has exhibiited the characteristics described. When I lump someone into a larger self-identified group I do assign them the characteristics of that same group. My opinion could not be representative of the person, when I include a person in a general group and they don't take the time to clarify that they are not a member of that they are admitting that they belong in that group or at the very least giving me license to continue generalizing comments about them. Since you seem so fond of sorting people into general groups, I'd imagine it doesn't bother you. I try to judge people on individual merits. I don't wish for others to lump me in a group so I try to make it clear, if you think that is whiny, well, you have said worse things about me and you are entitled to your opinion.

Expressing my opinion could be viewed as name-calling, a practice I am primarily against. However, it would be almost impossible to share a negative opinion without calling some name. What I disagree most to, is the rampant, juvenile, generalized name calling that you and others on this board seem to find such fun.

Other than sharing my opinion about Mike's recent posts, what other labels do you feel I've assinged?

Guillermo,

You got me, I made a generalization and I shouldn't have. I should have asked you why you spend so much time telling people of religious faith they are wrong. I must be a terrible person. I agree that we all do hypocritical things at times, I think we've already discussed that. I think that in your ten minute search of my posts that you found one generalization speaks more to my efforts to not generalize than the fact that I make mistakes as well. I never said I was perfect, rather that I try to not make generalizations.

I say the once because I think the "Liberals lack defined morality" was a sarcastic response in which I was using the words of a self-described liberal and wasn't my original words. If it was my original words I will apologize for that as well though, because I don't even think that let alone would put that into a general statement on these boards unless I wasn't feeling myself that day or something.

So mea culpa, I do sincerely apologize to any Liberals who felt I unfairly catagorized them as spending time and effort in telling religious people they are wrong. I do think I should get credit for not just making a generalized statement about a specific group, but rather asking what was an question I was hoping to get an answer to.

As for name calling, I thought I just said I was guilty of callilng Mike a name I also thought I explained why I think it in necessary at times and tried to make a distinction between that and the type of name calling you often do.

I do find it rich that you feel it necessary to lecture me on why generalizations are inaccurate when I've been saying that for as long as I've been posting here and you have been as guilty of committing gross generalizations as almost anyone I can think of at this time.

I didn't believe I had unfairly labeled you Guillermo, I thought you were proud to be a Liberal. However if you aren't a Liberal just let me know and I'll never call you one again, and naturally any generalizations I make about Liberals wouldn't apply to you, so you wouldn't be able to accept my apology.

Meanwhile,

Unnamed Senators are filing unfounded objections to nominees for administrative and judicial positions to even be considered by committees or the full Senate.

A private citizen seeking legal relief from arrogant misconduct by a corporate giant with a few hundred or thousand staff attorneys and several private law firms on retainer or "of counsel" -- is getting the shaft because there is no judge to hear his plea for relief.

People who have been robbed by the likes of Goldman Sachs cannot be heard in their federal district court, because some hare-brained Senator is blocking multiple judicial appointments.

And supposedly intelligent people trade insults on the Metropolitan McCook GAZETTE website.

Use your time productively and write a few hundred letters to every Senator and Congressman.

"I didn't tell anyone else you are a whiny hypocrite nor will I address a general comment to whiny hypocrites."

Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, Apr 18, 2010, at 2:17 PM

"I think you are a whiny hypocrit."

Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Apr 16, 2010, at 8:43 AM

Is this not you telling everyone on this blog that you believe me to be a whining hypocrite? You criticize others on this website for what they say and not holding up to their own standards. But you only go after those that you consider liberal. On my blog, at least, you never say criticize the conservatives. You expect me to address both sides of the issue but if I do not I am a whiny hypocrite, but strangely enough it is all fine and dandy for you to come on here and expect all liberals (or those who you believe to be liberals) to adhere to certain standard and not say anything to the conservatives on the site.

You keep changing the parameters of your arguments to suit yourself while expecting other posters to stay well within your original parameters.

Mike,

Actually I criticize Sam on his blog as well, he just doesn't respond as often as you do so it is harder to keep a conversation going. I don't criticize him on your blog and I don't criticize you on his blog, at least I don't think I have. It's actually kinda funny, when I criticize Sam he just usually calls me a Liberal and doesn't say much else, and yes I've tried to get him to not label me as well. I figure if the right wing nuts think I'm a Liberal and the left wing nuts think I'm a Conservative, I must be doing something right.

The other thing that makes it harder to criticize Sam as a hypocrite is that he doesn't even try to say he presents a fair view he seems proud of being on the right wing fringe. Instead I criticize him usually for his extremist ideas which at least he doesn't often try to say are anything except fringe views.

All that said, I'm a troll here just like almost all the other posters, I just try to troll without being excessively rude and juvenile.

I was not referring to Sam's blog in my previous post but point taken.

I have never said that I try to present both sides. I am a liberal so I look at things with a liberal perspective. I also try to look at things logically at the same time. Sometimes I fail, if that makes me a hypocrite in your eyes than so be it.

My goal on here is to give a view in the area that is poorly represented and that is the liberal perspective. I have been called evil, hypocritical, diseased. That is all well and good. If I am fostering any type of debate on today's issues (even if it quickly devolves into childishness and immaturity) then I consider that I am doing a good job.

I constantly try to be fair to conservatives but that typically flies out the window as soon as someone called me un American, America hater, diseased, evil, socialist, communist, Hitler, what have you. Am I guilty of name-calling? Absolutely. I hate that I do it but I never try to be rude or juvenile about it. I called members of the TEA Party teabaggers for so long because it originated within the TEA Party. But I have dropped that.

I guess in the end run whatever you choose to call me is fine, if I had said something that has riled you up so much that you have to call me names then in my book I am doing something right.