And Now for Something Completely Different

July Observations

Posted Tuesday, July 31, 2012, at 12:00 PM

July was mostly a quiet month in the political world as Mitt Romney had already clinched the Republican nomination (or so we think) and both parties began to gear up for their respective conventions, set for this month.

The Chick-fil-A debacle. The president and chief operation officer, Dan Cathy, came out against all things homosexual, most notably homosexual marriage, declaring that legalizing such marriage was "inviting God's judgment on our nation." (http://news.yahoo.com/chick-fil-president-gay-marriage-inviting-god-judgment-154602388.html). The Jim Henson company, which was running a toy campaign through the company immediately cut ties with the company because of these remarks. Several Chick-fil-A stores put up signs declaring that the reason the Muppets toys were no longer available was because of safety concerns and potential of the toys causing children injury. For those unfamiliar with libelous and slanderous statements, those signs fit the bill. There were no safety concerns with the toys at all.

Dan Cathy can say anything he wants to say about any range of topics. I happen to disagree with him on his statements and because of that I will no longer go to Chick-fil-A. I know this will not hurt the company but it's my decision. Just like he has the right to say what he wants, I have the right(or choice, however you want to word it) not to frequent his stores.

It is becoming clearer by the week and sometimes by the day that power structure of the Republican Party is growing less and less thrilled with their nominee, Mitt Romney. He refuses to release tax records other than the one year he has already released stating that it would be a very bad political move for him to do so. Just for the record it has become commonplace for all presidential candidates to release at least twenty years of tax records.

Then there is his time a Bain, which apparently no one (not even him) can pinpoint exactly when and how long he served in his role at the company. It has gotten so whacky that one of his campaign managers stated that he retroactively retired from the company.

Romney is currently on a world tour that started right before the Olympics and he has managed to offend every country that he has visited.

Let us not forget the 2010 version of the Do-Nothing Congress which for two years has yet to pass anything that will help Americans get back to work. They have been to worried about women's re-productivity, Obamacare, and making sure that the rich keep their historically low tax cuts. If you remember correctly the last time that the Republicans were in charge of one of the chambers of Congress the same thing happened. They talked big before the session began and then sat on their thumbs for two years. It has gotten so bad that one of the sub-committee's in charge of ICE recently added a section to a bill barring ICE from performing or paying for abortions for immigrants. That is all well and good but since ICE's inception in 2001 the organization has done neither. So, they have just been barred from doing something they never did.

In my neck of the woods (Arkansas) our esteemed Lieutenant Governor Mark Darr released a rather scathing attack on President Obama about comments he had made about small businesses. There was just one small problem, at the start of his column he quoted Obama as saying, "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own...If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." (http://ltgovernor.arkansas.gov/newsroom/index.php?do:newsDetail=1&news_id=87). Unfortunately, for Darr, Obama never made these comments. The Lieutenant Governor ripped that quote from Bill O'Reilly, who changed what Obama had said (odd coming from a man who is fervent about his own words out of context to turn around and do it to the president) to make a point. So, essentially Darr based an entire column trashing the president based off of a quote that Bill O'Reilly made.

What Obama actually said is this:

"If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Obama is absolutely correct in his complete statement taken in it's full context. Most, if not all, businesses have had some form of help along the way.

Romney, trying to hit Obama for the taken out of context quote, quickly released an ad featuring a small business owner taking issue with the fake Obama line, "You didn't build that." Romney actually helped Obama with this supposed snafu when it came out that the man featured in the ad had taken government assistance when he first started his business, actually proving Obama's point. Romney, on several campaign stops, featured small business men discrediting the false Obama line that had also taken government assistance when first starting their business.

We are now less than 100 days from the Presidential election, so politics is about to heat up again. It is going to be absolutely nasty, but I can not wait for the debates.

Comments

View 54 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Who is this "somebody" who built the roads and bridges? Ultimately it is the tax payer, the business people the drivers paying gas taxes on and on. We pay our small part, a contractor builds the road and bridge

We did this, you, me, Bene, Wallis we all contribute, if we have a job or business.

Isn't this the truth?

-- Posted by boojum666 on Tue, Jul 31, 2012, at 5:48 PM
I guess if you have never built or created anything you take the side of the President. Birds of a feather........

-- Posted by wmarsh on Tue, Jul 31, 2012, at 7:44 PM
Michael,

About the Dan Cathy statements. What do you think of politicians saying his company isn't welcome because they disagree with his speech?

One other question,why do liberals rush to boycott companies when they don't agree with them politically? I could be wrong but it seems that they tend to do this regularly. I can't recall hearing of any liberal owned companies or advertisers that conservatives raise a stink and boycotting although I imagine it must happen. Any thoughts?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jul 31, 2012, at 9:02 PM
Michael,

I for one agree with you on what President Obama said. Now, I don't know what he meant by it, mebbe he was just having a "oh, by the way, water is wet and fire is hot" moment. I am curious as your opinion what role businesses play in the dynamic he was talking about. Woud you, or anybody that is willing to defend his speech give me your opinion?

I can tell you my opinion. I think it was a piece of political bombast to convince people that they are victims. That they DESERVE things and there are some nefarious nebulous entities that are keeping them from being successful and that aint fair. That is most of the problem I have with the left. They seem to me to be wanting to convince people that they are victims, and then the next step is to convince those newly minted victims to go victimize someone else(or at least help them elect someone that will go victimize those ebbil ebbil things.)

Although...I suppose that you could spin that speech as a Pro business rant. The possibilities are endless.

The Dan Cathy statements.... Is there a difference between being "pro-traditional marriage" and being anti-gay? I always thought there was. But apparently I am wrong. But it does "humor" me greatly that you talk about how President Obama's speech was taken out of context and that is BAD....just a few short paragraphs after you take someone else's words out of context. You never disappoint.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Tue, Jul 31, 2012, at 10:46 PM
Well here we go fishing again. Don't take his bait as he has shown he doesn't have a clue about where the money came from to build the roads and bridges. Just a reminder of who built them, the small business owners, the large companies and their workers who paid taxes NOT the government. They are only receivers and spenders, of our tax dollars.

-- Posted by Ed on Wed, Aug 1, 2012, at 9:48 AM
O'Reilly said, "There was just one small problem, at the start of his column he quoted Obama as saying, "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own...If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Obama ACTUALLY SAID: "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own... If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

ROFL!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Mike, READ WHAT YOU POST!!! You actually said that Obama DID NOT SAY THAT, then turned around and posted those EXACT WORDS! Hahahahahahaha!

Oh, and by the way, taking a government loan to start your business does not negate all the hard work, long hours, and intelligence it takes to build one. Guess you wouldn't know what it takes, would you, Mikey? Hahahaha!!

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Wed, Aug 1, 2012, at 12:08 PM
One shouldn't take a government loan and then bite the very hand that made them a success. Once you take a government loan, or drive on their roads and breathe their CO2 scrubbed oxygen...then you are no longer qualified to complain about that government or any entity contained therein.

Michael will no longer do business with Chick-fil-A because he basically disagrees with the citizens of this country enjoying their right to freedom of religion; and then exercising that freedom.

Homosexuality is a sexual choice. Not a right. However, disagreeing with liberal theology is akin to disavowing your rights as a human being; and being held in parallel esteem as used manure. The problem with liberal dogma is that it has skewed so far to the left; that a slight adjustment back to center is viewed as radical change. Perhaps another reason to test the veracity of Mr. Cathy's statement?

-- Posted by Mickel on Thu, Aug 2, 2012, at 12:19 PM
Micheal, Michael. I am a slow, difficult reader. Try as I might, I am unable to find the apology you promised re Bill O'Reilly. BUT!! chuckle, chuclke, I didn't really expect one.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Thu, Aug 2, 2012, at 5:14 PM
Michael Phelps didn't win those gold medals. Someone else did!

-- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Fri, Aug 3, 2012, at 7:46 AM
Chick-fil-A recently had a Mike Huckabee led appreciation day. There, supporters of the first amendment and those who support biblical marriage came and supported Chick-fil-A by buying there product. In return, Chick-fil-A gave out free water to all regardless of political or spiritual belief. Even the little nazi who took it upon himself to capture his bullying prowess on video as he harassed the drive-thru window clerk. Thankfully for a brief time on you-tube, the world could see the pure facism that resides on the left. The video has since been pulled and the a mature nazi has been fired from his job.

On the other hand, today the gay lobby is scheduling a "kiss in" at Chick-fil-A to sound their protest. Of course the media will love this and greatly over exagerate the numbers to further their own agendas. The supporters of Chick-fil-A showed patience and Chick-fil-A gave water to the thirsty, what will the gay lobby give in return? In fact, other than condoms, what form of charity has the gay lobby ever given?

-- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Fri, Aug 3, 2012, at 8:44 AM
I wonder if we can get a Chick-fil-A in McCook?

-- Posted by Mickel on Fri, Aug 3, 2012, at 9:05 PM
The chicken minis are good.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Fri, Aug 3, 2012, at 9:45 PM
If they have sweet potato fries...I might be tempted to travel a good distance to give it a try!

-- Posted by Mickel on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 11:45 AM
They have tasty waffle fries. And the Chick-Fil-A sauce is the best ever.

My son and I split the 12 piece nuggets and the waffle fries with the Chick-Fil-A sauce.

Actually, the best thing on the menu is the sausage biscuit. The sausage is a lot bigger than McDonalds and the way they cook it is great.

I love Chick-Fil-A - my only problem with them is that they are closed on Sundays.

Wallis

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 2:31 PM
It appears Mitt has released his tax returns. In 2008...

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/07/19/whats-in-romneys-unreleased-tax-returns...

-- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 8:09 PM
What are they going to focus over now?

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sun, Aug 5, 2012, at 8:23 AM
Right now it appears to be Mitt's objection to the Obama administration lawsuit to stop Ohio's early voting for military personnel.

-- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sun, Aug 5, 2012, at 1:39 PM
Does it really actually say in the lawsuit filed that Obama wants to stop early voting for the Military? Do you have a link to this lawsuit? Or are you just regurgitating the faux inquirer and the rest of the rw talking heads?

Even Fox News acknowledges the purpose of the suit, noting "the lawsuit does not restrict the ability of military personnel to cast their ballots early." And another fine job of fact checking by the wingers.

From Slate:

No, the Obama Campaign Isn't Trying to Take the Vote Away from Soldiers

Fifteen military organizations want to intervene in Obama v. Halsted, a lawsuit filed by the president's campaign in Ohio. The Obama filing claims that special early voting rights violate the 14th Amendment; the org leaders read that, and worry that their votes are in danger. Mitt Romney is with them.

President Obama's lawsuit claiming it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state's early voting period is an outrage. The brave men and women of our military make tremendous sacrifices to protect and defend our freedoms, and we should do everything we can to protect their fundamental right to vote.

That's all good, but the Obama campaign doesn't disagree with it. Here's the backstory. In the run-up to 2008, Democrats, who briefly ran the Secretary of State's office in Ohio, expanded early voting so that anyone could show up at polling sites in the days before the election. In 2011, the new Republican legislature and Secretary of State rolled this back. Early voting would now end on the Friday before election day. So the Obama campaign sued. This is how its argument begins.

...

If it wins, veterans will be able to vote early and so will everybody else in Ohio. To clear that up, the campaign filed a motion supporting the 15 military groups, reaffirming that "neither the substance of its Equal Protection claim, nor the relief requested, challenges the legislature's authority to make appropriate accommodation, including early voting during the period in question, for military voters, their spouses or dependents."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/08/04/no_the_obama_campaign_isn_t_trying_...

Snopes has ruled it false

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/military.asp

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Sun, Aug 5, 2012, at 7:27 PM
I stand corrected. Thank you Wildhorse!

-- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sun, Aug 5, 2012, at 11:28 PM
You are welcome CPB

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Mon, Aug 6, 2012, at 5:06 PM
So, I'll stick with senatorial cretin Harry Reid's attempt at the political nuclear option. This is really all the libs have left. If my above link is still the truth, the fallout rains on them.

-- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 12:31 AM
From what I understand the reason why the date was "rolled back" for civilians was because of the cost involved in manning and maintaining the open polls.

If all the counties in Ohio had previously been standardized; this probably wouldn't have popped up on anybodys radar.

-- Posted by Mickel on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 11:25 AM
I like how Michael has been engaging in a "gorilla war" with his blogs lately.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 8:50 PM
grandma - you forgot:

"Romney kills housewives with deadly cancer; and he's a crook; and he drinks caffeine free soft-drinks. But you can trust me because I'm such a good guy that I gave my OWN campaign 5k." - The Big BO

-- Posted by Mickel on Fri, Aug 10, 2012, at 11:19 AM
Michael, I had begun to think maybe you had become more reasonable in your thinking, that your liberal views could be discussed. Your last couple columns have disuaded me from that thinking. Your last couple columns appear, to me, to be the same trite hackneyed liberal vomitus regurgitatiion that I originally thought of your columns.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Fri, Aug 10, 2012, at 11:35 AM
I agree with you on three points, Michael: 1) Romney was an utter embarrassment overseas. His diplomatic "skill-set" may be worse than Bush Jr.'s; 2) Romney's blatant attempt to remove (and then spin) Obama's perfectly reasonable statement from context looks pretty stupid in light of the commercials that feature businessmen who literally took help from the government; 3) the debates will be highly entertaining.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Aug 10, 2012, at 2:59 PM
Yes

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Aug 10, 2012, at 5:13 PM
Today's liberal mindset dictates American leaders are to apologize for the United States very existance. This is the only explanation for the liberals and the collective main stream media getting their collective panties in a wad. Besides, if what Mitt Romney did was such a big gaffe, shouldn't the collective be overjoyed, not hysterical.

-- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Fri, Aug 10, 2012, at 5:22 PM
Oh G-ma, by the way, who is "Oblameo"? There is an Obama in office, but no "Oblameo". I would think that a person with your intellect might know how to spell the president's last name.

Sigh............

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Aug 10, 2012, at 7:44 PM
Don't worry folks, I'll ref this one...both grandmajo and Benevolus are apparently idiots who can't spell or type correctly.

Everyone happy now?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Aug 10, 2012, at 9:09 PM
No

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Aug 11, 2012, at 1:35 AM
Benevolus,

Well you know what they say...

I do have a question I would like you to answer, I asked it earlier but if you answered I missed it.

Why the reversal on Romney? A while back you weren't you talking him up, about how he was the best Republican and one you would consider voting for? Now you are so vitriolic in your comments, I wonder if Benevolus is a nom de plume of Michael Hendricks. Did you learn something about Romney that changed your mind? As far as I can tell, nothing is different about him now.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sat, Aug 11, 2012, at 11:17 AM
Sorry SWNebr, but your memory is as poor as your unfounded speculations. In fact I have never written that I supported Romney, quite the opposite. To save you the time I went back through both Sam and Michaels' archives, here is what I found...I stand by all these statements.

Benevolus Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 11:13 AM

Romney will be the eventual nominee, but until Gingrich and Santorum concede, the beatings of the eventual GOP hopeful will continue unabated. It hasn't been since Bob Dole in '96 that a plurality of Americans did not like the GOP candidate.

Benevolus on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 11:01 AM

bberry,

I am with you. The GOP field is the weakest I have ever seen it. The only real fund-raiser is Romney, but as you point out, it is hard to see where he ends and Obama begins.

Paul is interesting, and I think by far the smartest candidate in the race (although Gingrich is up there). But for whatever reason Fox News gives him no air time and his total speaking time in the debates is a fraction of Perry's, Romeney's and Cain's. That is interesting to me because last I read he had won something like 9 straw polls.

The point is that the only vote I would ever consider apart from Obama is Paul, and he seems like a long shot, unfortunately.

Benevolus on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 12:08 PM

If you are getting Obama or Obama Light with a Romney vote anyway, then between the two a vote for Obama makes more sense.

Bachmann, Cain, and Perry are all kidding themselves at this point. I would guess that Gingrich and Romney are likely to be frontrunners--if for no other reason than they are just **** good politicians. Paul, the only candidate not sticking to the GOP script may surprise, but right now he seems to be on the outside looking in.

Benevolus on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 2:49 PM

Romney has executive experience, I wouldn't want to deny that, but one fact nobody can deny is that Obama has more presidential experience than anyone in the GOP field, including Romney. Ergo, if the choice came down to Obama/Romney (which is likely), I'll take the guy with 4 years under his belt. I encourage you to do the same.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Aug 11, 2012, at 2:35 PM
As you can see, the answer to this statement..."A while back you weren't you talking him up, about how he was the best Republican and one you would consider voting for?"...is clearly 'no', I was not talking Romney up.

Ron Paul on the other hand, I thought was a compelling candidate and alternative to the Obama/Romney choice.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Aug 11, 2012, at 2:37 PM
Benevelous, although I disagree with many of your viewpoints, I generally feel that you could be a reasonable person. Once again, I will take issue with your "more presidential experience" caveat. Obama had no presidential experience. Also, would you have used that argument to vote for Bush 43 in 2004?

I know my opinion matters not the least to you, but your responses will mean more to me if you refrain from usning the terms "stupid" and "ignorant" when referring to your opinions of others and their arguments.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sat, Aug 11, 2012, at 3:37 PM
Talking about all of this is fine. But Obama has 2 real issues that he needs to address now.

The first is the impending food shortage. Revolutions occur and riots happen when people are hungry. Obama needs to override his buddies at the EPA and suspend Ethanol.

The Iran issue is getting worse. He is going to have to deal with it. Whatever he chooses is of course his chose but if Iran develops a bomb they have given fair warning what there intentions are. If Israel acts alone he will have to deal with those ramifications as well. The Jews have been targets before.

Also a side note. Due to the drought the Gulf of Mexico is moving upstream in the Mississippi and other rivers. That is going to be an issue very soon if it doesn't rain.

Wallis

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sat, Aug 11, 2012, at 5:17 PM
Doodle,

I respect your opinion. You are right, Obama had no presidential experience in '08, but neither did McCain. So that couldn't have been a factor in the decision. My point above was that Romney and Obama are essentially the exact same politician, and if you are getting the same politician, you may as well get the one with some experience.

I still believe this by the way, despite Romney's attempts to put a lot of distance between himself and his 1992 vote for the arch-liberal Paul Tsongas, as well as his brace of liberal policies as governor of Mass.

Presidential experience is a reasonable basis for voting if the difference between candidates is small. In the case of Bush '04 the opposition was very dissimilar so there were other factors on which to base my vote. For the record, I was not a big fan of either candidate in '04. I liked Wesley Clark.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Aug 11, 2012, at 5:33 PM
Benevolus, I see your point re experience. I have some reservations about Romney, but still see him as the best choice to get us out of the quandry we're in. I dont believe that Obama has any qualms about driving us ever deeper into debt, ala Greece, Spain, et.al.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sun, Aug 12, 2012, at 10:31 AM
Doodle,

I am not so confident in Romney as you. As governor he didn't exactly do a lot to reverse the enormous debt Massachusetts faced (and still faces). Granted he managed to slow the rate at which his state's debts were piling up, but he did nothing to reverse the trend.

From FactCheck:

"That being said, it's true that the long-term debt went from $16 billion (see A-22) on Jan. 1, 2003, just before Romney took office, to $18.7 billion (see A-22) on Oct. 1, 2006, three months before he left. That's an increase of $2.7 billion.

According to Moody's State Debt Medians, in 2007 -- the year Romney left office -- Massachusetts had the highest debt per capita of any state in the country, $4,153. Connecticut ranked second, with $3,713, and Hawaii third, with $3,630."

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/spinning-romneys-debt/

Neither candidate for 2012 has a particularly good record when it comes to managing debt.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Aug 13, 2012, at 4:51 PM
absolutely agree with your last sentence. I guess I see Romney as the lesser of two evils. What a pathetic reason to vote "for" someone.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Tue, Aug 14, 2012, at 9:24 AM
Yeah, that's American politics for you...chose the person you hope will only do a little bit of damage.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Aug 14, 2012, at 12:08 PM
At least Mitt Romney did select a number 2 on the ticket who is serious about debt issue. Unlike Biden, who's only purpose is comic relief.

-- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Tue, Aug 14, 2012, at 12:15 PM
Romney also made Florida about impossible to win with his VP pick. That is a curious move.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Aug 14, 2012, at 1:20 PM
I just don't see this happening. Given the latest polling data, it won't.

-- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Wed, Aug 15, 2012, at 6:44 PM
Benevolus,

Thanks for going back through the archives and clearing up my mistake.

Interesting how a moderate centrist who sees Romney and Obama as being essentially the same would spend time defending Obama viciously attacking Romney. I would think that if one thought they were about the same, he would have roughly the same opinions about them. What is it that Sir Didymus keeps saying, Actions betray thoughts or something like that.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Aug 16, 2012, at 9:10 AM
Chunk,

It is a dead heat in Florida right now. Anything could tip the scales. Choosing Ryan ensures that some portion of the voting bloc of seniors will be skeptical that R-n-R have their interests at heart. Combine that with Obama's newest (and suspiciously timed) exec-order allowing the children brought here by undocumented parents to apply for a two-year work permit, and Florida suddenly becomes tougher to win for Romney.

SWNebr,

I think we may have differing opinions about the term "vicious". I wouldn't even characterize how everyone treats Michael around here as "vicious" and my commentary re: Romney was much tamer than how even you talk to Mike.

Regarding the remainder of your silliness: you claim that you are not a rightwing zealot, but using your logic, since you don't treat the far right posters with the same disdain with which you treat Michael, you must be hiding something....I mean betraying your thoughts or whatever.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Aug 16, 2012, at 12:23 PM
Benevolus,

I think you are incorrect. I do not support or defend Sam as you do Michael. If you go over to his boards throughout time you should find several posts critical of his logic and positions and I would be suprised if you ever find me defending his right wing zealotry. But have I ever made comments about either Obama or any other Liberal politician in the same vein as your comments about Romney? I don't think so.

You are correct I tease and use harsher language with Michael, but that is in large part because his reactions amuse me. Sam doesn't respond to criticism so he is less fun to talk to. What I hope my comments to Michael betray is how much of a hypocrite he is and that I often find his partisanship funny.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Aug 16, 2012, at 2:48 PM
Be that as it may, I maintain that my commentary regarding Romney was hardly "vicious" (i.e., "addicted to or characterized by vice; grossly immoral; depraved; profligate"). Also, I have been quite critical of Obama in the past on these blogs. But everyone on here is critical of Obama in the extreme, so if you try and think about it, it makes sense (my being more centered) that I would try and bring the discussion back to the middle.

What I hope my comments betray is that I find the group of posters here to be a far right group which might benefit from thinking about things from a more centered perspective.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Aug 16, 2012, at 3:15 PM
Florida Rasmussen Poll; Romney 45 - Obama 43.

-- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Fri, Aug 17, 2012, at 7:19 PM
Average of all the polls for Florida (not just Rasmussen): Obama 47.3 - Romney 46.3

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obam...

Florida voters, particularly in immigrant-rich pockets of South and Central Florida, overwhelmingly say they support comprehensive immigration reform that would give people living in the state illegally a pathway to citizenship, according to a new Miami Herald/Tampa Bay Times/Bay News 9 poll.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2897950/poll-florida-voters-favor-presiden...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Aug 20, 2012, at 12:40 AM
Funniest line of the year offered up by your friend and mine:

"Sam doesn't respond to criticism so he is less fun to talk to."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Aug 23, 2012, at 6:23 PM
Michael will no longer do business with Chick-fil-A because he basically disagrees with the citizens of this country enjoying their right to freedom of religion; and then exercising that freedom.

Homosexuality is a sexual choice. Not a right. However, disagreeing with liberal theology is akin to disavowing your rights as a human being; and being held in parallel esteem as used manure. The problem with liberal dogma is that it has skewed so far to the left; that a slight adjustment back to center is viewed as radical change. Perhaps another reason to test the veracity of Mr. Cathy's statement?

-- Posted by Mickel on Thu, Aug 2, 2012, 12:19 PM

Wow Mickel that is quite the statement. Unfortunately homosexuality is not a choice. The little part about it not being a right is just weird.

As is typical you have taken my stance of not eating at Chick-fil-A because I disagree with the president's beliefs as some weird attack on religious freedoms.

I just have one thing to say to you about your whole post.

I'm sorry that you think it's intolerant of me not to tolerate your intolerance.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Aug 23, 2012, at 6:42 PM
Wow MrsSmith, great job of leaving all the context out again. This is right up there with claiming that all teachers high school and below are liberal because a poll that was done with college professors and their beliefs. Kudos

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Aug 23, 2012, at 6:46 PM
Mickel,

Michael is right on this one, homosexuality is as much a part of nature as heterosexuality. You didn't chose to be straight (presuming you are, sorry if not) in the same way that a homosexual person did not chose to be gay. Look to the natural world for plenty of biological evidence of the very natural condition of homosexuality.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t18t2213605303j7/

http://www.reproduction-online.org/content/17/1/173.full.pdf

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Aug 23, 2012, at 7:44 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register