From the Boston Globe.


Is your president this cool?

By Alex Beam, Globe Staff | November 14, 2008

For the first time in eight years, we have a president who is cool. It starts with the Ray-Bans. Ray-Bans are the ultimate cool sunglass brand, evoking memories of the John F. Kennedy presidency, of sunny cruises off Cape Cod on his sloop Victura, with the tame photographers from Life magazine in tow.

Obama wears cool suits, too: plain blue, wool, two-button affairs from Hartmarx. Even the $1,500 price point is cool. It doesn't say, "I'm in the pocket of insurance pirates AIG" - those are $5,000 suits. But it doesn't say "Men's Wearhouse" either. Why pretend? Who wants a Ford Focus president? Make mine a Lincoln.

Like a lot of American politicians, Obama has plenty of dough. But unlike Legacy Boy Bush, Obama earned his stash. He's made $5 million in book royalties, plus or minus. A friend points out that Obama is the first president since Woodrow Wilson to have a prose style, and the first president since Ulysses S. Grant to have a good prose style. Pretty cool.
The list goes on. Unlike Bush, who labors on the exercise machines for a desultory hour each day, Obama plays basketball. His brother-in-law coached basketball at modish Brown University. Too cool! Obama dines at cool restaurants with names like Spiaggia and Topolobampo, and during a particularly boring moment in the campaign he sampled a rap song, Jay-Z's foul-mouthed "Dirt Off Your Shoulder." Writing in the New Republic, novelist Paul Beatty opined that "I bet dude knows how many chambers there are in the Wu-Tang."
Of course you picked up the reference to the Wu-Tang Clan album "Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)."

But is Obama the coolest head of state in the world? For instance, is he as cool as.. .

.. . Vladimir Putin?

Putin used to work for the KGB, which was a veritable ice pack full of chilling customers back in the day. He and Obama and France's Nicolas Sarkozy have one thing in common: They are the only world leaders willing to be photographed with their shirts off. Putin is one buff fella; a few keystrokes on YouTube will take you to his recently released martial arts video, "Let's Learn Judo With Vladimir Putin." Obama may be draining the treys, but Putin is president of his local dojo. Cool that.

Did I mention that he's married to a flight attendant? And that he supposedly subdued a rare Siberian tiger with a tranquilizer gun? Alas, the incident was not captured on film.
In the voice-over to his video, Putin calls judo "a lesson in collaboration and cooperation." He is all about collaboration. The day after Obama's win, the Russian czar let slip that he was thinking of stationing short-range missiles about four seconds away from Obama's new allies in Poland. That's sort of a cool - nay, Cold War - way of saying: Welcome to the neighborhood, Barack.

.. . Nicolas Sarkozy?

Sarkozy first achieved prominence in 1993, when, as mayor of the posh Paris suburb of Neuilly, he entered a nursery school alone to negotiate with a hostage-taking lunatic who called himself the Human Bomb. The Bomb had strapped explosives to his torso. Sarkozy emerged from the school surrounded by kids and the French police subsequently defused M. Bomb, by killing him.

Even Putin isn't that cool.

The rest is history. Sarko edged out the World's Most Beautiful Socialist, Segolene Royal, to win the French presidency last year, then promptly dispatched his gorgeous ("darkly beautiful" - The New Yorker) and accomplished wife Cecilia to Libya, to handle a delicate negotiation with the mercurial Muammar Qaddafi. The negotiation succeeded, but the marriage failed.

Sarko quickly drafted a gorgeous and accomplished replacement, the Italian-born siren-singer-songwriter Carla Bruni. Ms. Bruni needs no introduction here. Michelle Obama is cool, but Bruni, who has dated reprobates Eric Clapton and Mick Jagger, takes the thermometer down several more degrees. And Bruni digs fellow cool cat Obama. This week she trashed Italian prime minister/vulgarian-at-large Silvio Berlusconi for "joking" about Obama's "suntan."

.. . Daniel Craig?

Not a head of state, you say? Perhaps not, but Bond boy Craig is permanent ambassador to the sovereign republic of Chillaxin' (capital = Ice Station Zebra). Nobody is as cool as Craig. But Obama comes darned close.

Alex Beam is a Globe columnist. His e-dress is [email protected]

I had no idea that being cool was a requirement for the Presidency. I had no idea that the "COOL FACTOR" was such an important factor in national politics. And here I thought that a President was supposed to be a leader, a decision-maker, and was supposed to promote the well-being of the nation he leads. I had no idea that coolness was a part of that.

Silly me.

Elliot

Well you got to sell them some how.
Something similar was attempted several years back with Tony Blair and Cool Britania, but it was a abject failure as his fake smile kept getting in the way of the spin..

I really think Alex Beam needs to change the air in his head quick. Is this man serious or is he just typing to fill up empty space?

Obama is about as cool as watching my dog take a dump. And believe me, she's much more cool and/or entertaining and/or smart and/or charming and/or vivacious and/or eloquent any day.

Mr. Putin actually cares about the Russian people and their welfare. I could type volumes about how he's improved his country in a lot of ways. One way in particular was to put a lot of the salacious sex clubs out of business and change the locations into family restaurants. Mr. Putin does not spend money the government does not have. He does not print more when he runs low either unlike someone else we know who does just that.

Gag me with a spoon. I can't believe the media is this shamelessly in the tank for Obama. They've obviously forgotten their adversarial role.

Maybe we should ask ourselves at this point, just WHO owns the liberal news media? Are the owners all part of some society bent on ruling the world? Is there a hidden conspiracy here?

Sure beats the conspiracy idea that Bush had the twin towers mined with explosives, huh?

Alex Beam has yet to impress me with his school girl style "crush" with Obama. Its quite pathetic that many deam these attributes as credible qualifications for being the President of The United States.

Sad state of affairs...

At least one love affair is is on the rocks (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/05/14/andrew-sullivan-giving-himself-whiplash-on-obama/)...

Obama is about as cool as watching my dog take a dump.

Oh my :D - that is classic!






G&P

I really think Alex Beam needs to change the air in his head quick. Is this man serious or is he just typing to fill up empty space?

Obama is about as cool as watching my dog take a dump. And believe me, she's much more cool and/or entertaining and/or smart and/or charming and/or vivacious and/or eloquent any day.

Mr. Putin actualy cares about the Russian people and their welfare. I could type volumes about how he's improved his country in a lot of ways. One way in particular was to put a lot of the salacious sex clubs out of business and change the locations into family restaurants. Mr. Putin does not spend money the government does not have. He does not print more when he runs low either unlike someone else we know who does just that.

Mr puting cares about his country lol hahahahha.Oh my god. And hitler loved jews .Lol hahahha

In July 2007, Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal wrote: "Russia has become, in the precise sense of the word, a fascist state. It does not matter here, as the Kremlin's apologists are so fond of pointing out, that Mr. Putin is wildly popular in Russia: Popularity is what competent despots get when they destroy independent media, stoke nationalistic fervor with military buildups and the cunning exploitation of the Church, and ride a wave of petrodollars to pay off the civil service and balance their budgets. Nor does it matter that Mr. Putin hasn't re-nationalized the "means of production" outright; corporatism was at the heart of Hitler's economic policy, too."



N its January 2008 World Report, Human Rights Watch wrote in the section devoted to Russia: "As parliamentary and presidential elections in late 2007 and early 2008 approached, the administration headed by President Vladimir Putin cracked down on civil society and freedom of assembly. Reconstruction in Chechnya did not mask grave human rights abuses including torture, abductions, and unlawful detentions. International criticism of Russia’s human rights record remains muted, with the European Union failing to challenge Russia on its human rights record in a consistent and sustained manner."[246] The organization called President Putin a "repressive" and "brutal" leader on par with the leaders of Zimbabwe and Pakistan.

Putin is a Czar with all the things the title implies. He could give a rat's @ss about the people .

Hello:

I think he's cool. Of course, you dodo's who thought the dufus was cool aren't going to understand... But, I'm used to that.

excon

Hello:

I think he's cool. Of course, you dodo's who thought the dufus was cool aren't going to understand... But, I'm used to that.

I thought you just said he sucks? Is it a cool kind of sucky? By the way, I know cool, and Obama is not cool. Bush wasn't cool either. I can't think of a single politician that is cool.

I thought you just said he sucks? Hello steve:

What?? You want consistency?

excon

Hello steve:

What??? You want consistency?

excon

Yer a natcheral born agitator, Ex.:D

Hello again,

In fact, I AM consistent. Cool doesn't necessarily mean good. I'm cool, but I absolutely ain't good.

And, speaking of consistency - as soon as the cool pres starts being consistent with his campaign promises, I'll start thinking he's good again.

It IS déjà vu all over again, for me, though. I turned on Bill Clinton when he changed his mind over gays in the military, and Obama is doing exactly the same thing at the same time in his presidency.

He sucks, but he looks cool doing it.

excon

A wink is worth a thousand words

I think Putin is in much better shape considering the man is 56 years old. He does hunt, fish and likes the outdoors.

I think Putin is in much better shape considering the man is 56 years old. He does hunt, fish and likes the outdoors.

And he enjoys the occasional geneocide on the weekends.lol

and he enjoys the occasional geneocide on the weekends.lol

Putin is Prime Minister and not President of Russia. The Alex Beam article was written back in November 2008.

Say what you want about Putin. He does have more common sense and patience with America considering some of the madmen that have held the office of POTUS. He could have easily invaded America since our standing Army and most, if not all of our military equipment is out of the country. Think about that for a minute. Or how about any other country that has a large military with appropriate equipment? They could happily come and invade us with very little resistance on the part of the US citizens. Well, at least we still do have the right to own guns.:D:D

And Putin does have sexy 6 pack ABS. Something Obama clearly does not possess.

Putin is Prime Minister and not President of Russia. The Alex Beam article was written back in November 2008.

Say what you want about Putin. He does have more common sense and patience with America considering some of the madmen that have held the office of POTUS. He could have easily invaded America since our standing Army and most, if not all of our military equipment is out of the country. Think about that for a minute. Or how about any other country that has a large military with appropriate equipment? They could happily come and invade us with very little resistance on the part of the US citizens. Well, at least we still do have the right to own guns.:D:D

And Putin does have sexy 6 pack ABS. Something Obama clearly does not posess.

What have you been smoking?

I don't think 'Bama is cool.

Every time he opens his mouth, things heat up.

Cool? And killing babies is cool too? Scuse me while I vomit.

Obama, and Protests, at Notre Dame - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/obama-and-protests-at-notre-dame/?apage=6)




A few moments later, another single protester began shouting “Abortion is murder.” The crowd erupted with loud boos directed at the heckler and then broke into loud chanting of Mr. Obama’s campaign slogan, “Yes, we can.”







That is not cool, BUT REVOLTING !





G&P

Yes we can... murder ?

During his address he recognized there were what he called 'irreconcilable differences ' about abortion (still the local rag said he bridged the gap...whatever that means. )

“The fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.”

Here is a guy who thinks he can find moderate Taliban to negotiate with but can't find common ground with over 50 % of the population that opposes abortions.

I guess he will... in an effort to be more "open minded "... tone down the rhetoric about women being punished with pregnancy .

Here is a guy who thinks he can find moderate Taliban to negotiate with but can't find common ground with over 50 % of the population that opposes abortions.


That's the problem.. You want the common ground he finds to be your 50%'s common ground. The other 50%'s ground doesn't get a look in.

Not true. There was a constitutional way to deal with the issue. But the black robed ,appointed for life oligarchs usurped it and forced their decision on the whole nation.

That's the problem.. You want the common ground he finds to be your 50%'s common ground. The other 50%'s ground doesn't get a look in.

Nope, Obama is speaking from a position of being in power, with Democrats controlling both houses, a coming Supreme Court vacancy, being able to appoint other federal judges on an issue that's "settled" law. The left ain't budging and the GOP is already arguing over some alleged "need" to be more open minded about abortion. I guarantee the only common ground he seeks is for everyone to move towards his view... even in spite of the new surveys that finally show a majority of Americans are pro-life (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-05-18-abortion_N.htm).

That's the problem.. You want the common ground he finds to be your 50%'s common ground. The other 50%'s ground doesn't get a look in.



For the unborn that are killed, what common ground can they share with the abortionists?














G&P

The Coolest President ever. I didn't know I got elected :p

The Coolest President ever. I didn't know I got elected :p

You just might be cooler than Obama.

I guess he will... in an effort to be more "open minded "... tone down the rhetoric about women being punished with pregnancy .

[/QUOTE]How many times you been pregnant Tom?

Why is that relevant ? Are you saying that because I can't experience pregnancy that I am therefore disqualified to have an opinion ? If that is true then where is the legitimacy to Obama's opinions on pregnancy ?

why is that relevent ? Are you saying that because I can't experience pregnancy that I am therefore disqualified to have an opinion ? If that is true then where is the legitimacy to Obama's opinions on pregnancy ?

Because your view does not give a woman a say so over her own body and Obama's does. He is not dictating what you are to do. He leaves it up to you. It's called a choice. Personally, I would be hard pressed to have an abortion. There would have to be an extremely compelling reason.

But, I am not about to make my choice be someone else's choice. I don't understand why anyone thinks they have the right to make someone else's decision over something so personal. I want to see all the anti abortion people foot the bill,take the baby, and raise it, Just line up at the abortion clinic and enter this contract with a pregnant woman. THEN, you can insert your opinion. Are you ready to do that?

Cozy, you are being unfair, there is a distinct possibility that Tom has a uterus.

I wonder how many abortion supporters believed the state should have gone after the mom and son who just ran from chemo. You know have some say over his body.

Personally I think any woman that uses that "I want the say over my body" to justify abortion is pretty darn selfish - you aren't giving the child a chance and in many cases of consensual intercourse aren't giving the other party to your pregnancy a say. It's no wonder liberated women are less happy (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26douthat.html).

Speech, are you one of those that will take and raise the baby that results from the unwanted pregnancy or are you just going to talk the talk?

Speech, are you one of those that will take and raise the baby that results from the unwanted pregnancy or are you just going to talk the talk?

I would take the baby in a heartbeat.

I wonder how many abortion supporters believed the state should have gone after the mom and son who just ran from chemo. You know have some say over his body. Hello again, Steve:

If it was HER body we're talking about here, I would agree with you... But, it ain't. It's her kid, and he's brainwashed with his mothers garbage.

excon

I would take the baby in a heartbeat.What's stopping you from being a foster parent or adopting children then?

I would take the baby in a heartbeat.

FANTASTIC! Get more people like you and get busy. I'm sure there are lots of women out there that can't afford the pregnancy care, aren't at a place in their lives, where a baby makes sense, would bring a baby into a bad situation, have birth defects that a birth mom doesn't believe she could give the child the special care it would need, are victims of rape or worse, have accidentally gotten pregnant when they were too young or even too old.
You may have to take many babies. Are you ready for that? Are your spouse and other family members ready for that?

Because your view does not give a woman a say so over her own body and Obama's does. He is not dictating what you are to do. He leaves it up to you. It's called a choice.


It is one of those irreconcilable differences. I don't think murder is a choice we can make.


If it was HER body we're talking about here, I would agree with you... But, it ain't. It's her kid, and he's brainwashed with his mothers garbage.

And in the case of abortion the mother is also making a "choice" if her child lives or dies... at least in this case the child has a chance.

What's stopping you from being a foster parent or adopting children then?

Caring for my wife and her health problems, helping support my AIDS-stricken daughter, my hands have been full and the expense is more than I can presently manage. And the hoops you have to jump through to adopt are ridiculous. I do what I can in other ways - but I WANT to adopt.

Caring for my wife and her health problems, helping support my AIDS-stricken daughter, my hands have been full and the expense is more than I can presently manage. And the hoops you have to jump through to adopt are ridiculous. I do what I can in other ways - but I WANT to adopt.
Ah, I see. The sentiment is there but you can't do it. Makes it easy to offer when you can't do it.

Hello again, Steve:

If it was HER body we're talking about here, I would agree with you... But, it ain't. It's her kid, and he's brainwashed with his mothers garbage.

excon

I know, a fetus ain't really a kid so it has no rights. Right?

Ah, I see. The sentiment is there but you can't do it. Makes it easy to offer when you can't do it.

Does being a jerk just come natural to you?

I know, a fetus ain't really a kid so it has no rights. Right?Hello again, Steve:

Not legally, no. But, according to your thinking, the mother shouldn't have rights either.

ME? I'm conflicted. Nowhere in the law am I conflicted, except where the rights of the unborn are irretrievably tied to the rights of the mother.

You see a winner and a loser. I only see two losers.

excon

Does being a jerk just come natural to you?More personal attacks eh?

More personal attacks eh?

What do you mean more? I just asked a question.

You seem to think a pregnant mother deserves compassion but not a husband and father caring for a sick wife and daughter. You do the math.

Hello again, Steve:

Not legally, no. But, according to your thinking, the mother shouldn't have rights either.

ME? I'm conflicted. Nowhere in the law am I conflicted, except where the rights of the unborn are irretrievably tied to the rights of the mother.

You see a winner and a loser. I only see two losers.

excon

Glass half full or half empty, I don't see what precludes the possibility of two winners.

What do you mean more? I just asked a question. Wow, in your delusion you think people buy that line.


You seem to think a pregnant mother deserves compassion but not a husband and father caring for a sick wife and daughter. You do the math.It matters not what you are doing with your time, the fact is that you offered to do something (take a baby that a mother didn't want) to make yourself and your issue look oh so dignified then come back and say that you can't do it.

Wow, in your delusion you think people buy that line.

Now who's doing the attacking?


It matters not what you are doing with your time,

It matters to me and my family. I think my wife and daughter would take great exception to that comment (and probably ask the same question I did). I also said I help in other ways which matters very much to some very special children.


the fact is that you offered to do something (take a baby that a mother didn't want) to make yourself and your issue look oh so dignified then come back and say that you can't do it.

What a load of nonsense. I've seen what abortion has done to my daughter. She, along with myself wish we could hold that child more than you can imagine. I've also seen what abortion has done to close friends. If there's anything here that should be dignified it's the child that didn't have a chance and the would-be mother that regrets forever the decision to abort. There is no turning back from that, NK. It's done, the child is lost, never had a chance, and nothing you or anyone else says will intimidate me into remaining silent.

Glass half full or half empty, I don't see what precludes the possibility of two winners.Hello again, Steve:

The possibility you hope for only exists in your happy place. In the real world, if a woman is forced to have a baby she doesn't want, they're BOTH victims.

Plus, in MY world, YOU folks, the ones from the happy place world, would IMPRISON women who disagreed with you. That doesn't look too happy in my book. Nahh. I looks real mean.

excon

Plus, in MY world, YOU folks, the ones from the happy place world, would IMPRISON women who disagreed with you. That doesn't look too happy in my book. Nahh. I looks real mean.

excon

Oh ex, you've got to be kidding me. What ever gave you that impression?

Maybe we should coin a new phrase:

"Compassionate murder"

Would that be with or without anesthetic?

[QUO5
;1760260]It is one TE=tomder5of those irreconcilable differences. I don't think murder is a choice we can make.

And I think to call it murder is ridiculous. I think the reason you use that term is just for shock value to further your cause.
And even if YOU think it is murder, YOU don't have to do it. But you are trying to force your OPINION that it is murder on others when you know nothing about their circumstance.

Oh ex, you've got to be kidding me. What ever gave you that impression?Hello again, Steve:

If you make abortion illegal and somebody gets one, what are you going to do? Tell them they shouldn't do that?? How are you going to enforce it?? You're going to put 'em in jail, that's what you're going to do. You can't fool me with all your nicey nice talk.

excon

Caring for my wife and her health problems, helping support my AIDS-stricken daughter, my hands have been full and the expense is more than I can presently manage. And the hoops you have to jump through to adopt are ridiculous. I do what I can in other ways - but I WANT to adopt.

Now, imagine that you are a woman, you are caring for your ailing spouse, you have an AIDS stricken daughter, your hands are full and the expense of another child is more than you could manage. And the hoops any one would have to jump through to adopt your baby were ridiculous. Now, you find yourself pregnant in spite of being careful. (Note, I don't consider, nor do most people consider abortion just another form of birth control. Personal responsibility is always called for in everything). So, you are pregnant. EARLY in the pregnancy. There is no way this bundle of cells can survive outside your body. What is your next step?


Maybe your next step would be to continue with the pregnancy, give the baby up, put it in foster care until you are able to "manage" it, or keep it and give it less care than you should because you have already realized that you have more than you can manage.

What are you going to do?

I know, a fetus ain't really a kid so it has no rights. Right?

You show me a fetus that is a walking, talking, thinking, breathing, individual human being and then we will talk about it's rights.

In the mean time, we have a mother that is a walking, talking, thinking, breathing, individual and technically a bundle of cells multiplying and splitting within her body.

So like you said, it's not "really a kid" as you so delicately put it. It's not "really a kid" or any other kind of person until it is able to survive outside the moms body. That is when the "rights" begin if you want to break it down to rights.

Speech, It sounds like you have certainly had your fair share of heartache. Your wife is ill, your daughter is ill, and you all apparently are regretting her choice to have an abortion. Am I coming to the right conclusion? I'm very sorry that you and your family are suffering.

I don't claim to believe that some people have abortions and regret it. In fact I assume that there is a percentage that do regret it. I also assume that there is a percentage that are thankful and relieved everyday that they were able to have that abortion. This is such a deeply personal choice that it is no ones business other than the mother and father to be.

For a government to dictate that a pregnancy be carried to full term, is the same thing as if a government dictated that every pregnancy end before full term. If you give them power over one, what's to keep them from having power over the other. It simply is not their place. I thought people wanted LESS government involvement in their personal life. Let each one live with their OWN choice, not with the governments choice.

Now, imagine that you are a woman, you are caring for your ailing spouse, you have an AIDS stricken daughter, your hands are full and the expense of another child is more than you could manage. And the hoops any one would have to jump through to adopt your baby were ridiculous. Now, you find yourself pregnant in spite of being careful. (Note, I don't consider, nor do most people consider abortion just another form of birth control. Personal responsibility is always called for in everything). So, you are pregnant. EARLY in the pregnancy. There is no way this bundle of cells can survive outside your body. What is your next step?

Maybe your next step would be to continue with the pregnancy, give the baby up, put it in foster care until you are able to "manage" it, or keep it and give it less care than you should because you have already realized that you have more than you can manage.

What are you going to do?

Go to a crisis pregnancy center, get all the help I can find, do whatever it took to make sure the child had a chance, because in my world I could never cheapen a child's life down to "a bundle of cells."

Look, it's not that I don't have empathy for the woman in that situation, I do, and I would have done everything I could to help my daughter through her pregnancy if I would have known. If Planned Parenthood and NARAL spent half the energy and resources to encourage and assist that woman as they do on abortions and comprehensive sex education for kids I believe more women would choose life.

You show me a fetus that is a walking, talking, thinking, breathing, individual human being and then we will talk about it's rights.

In the mean time, we have a mother that is a walking, talking, thinking, breathing, individual and technically a bundle of cells multiplying and splitting within her body.

I could show you a fetus with fingers, toes and a beating heart but it wouldn't matter. You're convinced that life inside is just "a bundle of cells."


So like you said, it's not "really a kid" as you so delicately put it. It's not "really a kid" or any other kind of person until it is able to survive outside the moms body. That is when the "rights" begin if you want to break it down to rights.

Like I said before, I think that's a very selfish attitude. I believe it's a child and I believe you'd have to admit that it's intended destiny is to become someone's child, not someone's medical waste.

I am calling it as I see it. If I was playing the shock card I'd say that no one has a right to snuff a baby ,or off a baby or perform a coup de grace on a baby . Actually I am not even playing the shock card when I call it genocide and infanticide.

I am calling it as I see it. If I was playing the shock card I'd say that no one has a right to snuff a baby ,or off a baby or perform a coup de grace on a baby . Actually I am not even playing the shock card when I call it genocide and infanticide.So why aren't the women being arrested?

How timely...


Harsanyi: Abortion debate changing (http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_12454493)

By David Harsanyi
Posted: 05/27/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT

As an atheist and a secular kind of guy, I practice moral relativism regularly. Still, I've always struggled mightily with the ethics and politics of abortion. Apparently, I'm not alone.

A new Gallup poll claims that for the first time since 1995, when the question was first asked by the organization, most Americans consider themselves to be "pro-life" rather than "pro-choice."

The straightforward question asked of participants was this: "With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?" Fifty-one percent responded that they were pro-life and 42 percent said they were pro-choice. These percentages are the reverse found in the same poll in 2006.

What happened? Is it possible that the nation has undergone a gigantic attitudinal shift on the fundamental issue of abortion in only three years' time? Logically, it seems that the entire framing of the debate has become antiquated and far too simplistic for the questions we face. Anecdotally, I would say it's possible.

I know I've changed my views.

After a life of being pro-choice, I began to seriously ponder the question. I oppose the death penalty because there is a slim chance that an innocent person might be executed and I don't believe the state should have the authority to take a citizen's life. So don't I owe an nascent human life at least the same deference? Just in case?

You may not consider a fetus a "human life" in early pregnancy, though it has its own DNA and medical science continues to find ways to keep the fetus viable outside the womb earlier and earlier.

But it's difficult to understand how those who harp about the importance of "science" in public policy can draw an arbitrary timeline in the pregnancy, defining when human life is worth saving and when it can be terminated.

The more I thought about it, the creepier the issue got.

Newsweek, for instance, recently reported that 90 percent of women whose fetuses test positive for Down syndrome choose an abortion. Another survey showed only a small percentage of mothers even used the test. So what happens when 90 percent of parents test their fetuses? Does it mean the end of the disease or are we stepping perilously close to eugenics?

What about future DNA tests that can detect any "defects" in a fetus? What happens when we can use abortion to weed out the blind, mentally ill, the ugly, or any other any "undesirable" human being?

Recently, Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare ruled that women are permitted to abort their children based on the sex of the fetus. In the United States, a woman can have an abortion for nearly any reason she chooses. In fact, a health exemption for the mother allows abortions to be performed virtually on demand.

If you oppose selective abortions, but not abortion overall, I wonder why? How is terminating the fetus because it's the wrong sex any worse than terminating the fetus for convenience's sake? The fate of the fetus does not change, only the reasoning for its extinction does.

Now, I happen to believe (as the civil libertarian and pro-life activist Nat Hentoff once noted) that the right to life and liberty is the foundation of a moral society. Then again, I also believe a government ban on abortion would only criminalize the procedure and do little to mitigate the amount of abortions.

Obviously, these are a few of the complex and uncomfortable issues to ponder. So maybe this poll tells us that the dynamics of the abortion debate are about to change, that Americans are getting past the politics and into the morality of the issue.

Then again, it's entirely possible that I'm just projecting.

Honesty in the debate, how refreshing.

Honesty in the debate, how refreshing.He's a right-winger like you. That's not refreshing, that's you agreeing with you. Kind of like you and tom here.

Abortion... It's not for Speech
It's not for Tom
It's not for David Harsanya
And it's not even for me with 99% of scenarios I can imagine.


BUT, who are we to say it's not for someone else. Both times I was pregnant, I started calling it "my baby" from the beginning. That is how I FELT about my pregnancies. Not everyone feels the same and you are trying to force your feelings down someone else's throat.

I referred to the fetus as cells earlier because technically and scientifically that is what it is. It has no thoughts, feelings, concepts, awareness, or fears. It just exist. It lives off your body like any other growth in your body.

What gives it an identity is what we project on to it. I gave my children an identity when they were no larger that the tip of a needle but that was ME and MY emotional connection. It had nothing to do with them or what they consented to.

I had a friend whose mom got pregnant with her when she was 16. The mom considered abortion, but ended up not aborting and married the guy. This was 1959, so it wasn't that people didn't get abortions, they just got unsafe, unregulated, unclean, abortions. Sometimes it worked, sometimes they were butchered and rendered sterile, and sometimes they even died.

My friend said to me one day. " I'm glad she did not get an abortion because I wouldn't be here. " BUT, I looked at it this way. If you were never born, then you never had the consciousness to know you were never born. So how could "you" miss it when you never knew you were a "you".

It's not like you are out there , floating around the heavens saying, dog gone it, I was supposed to be living down there in that total chaos called earth. It's more like a piece of paper has no idea that it is a piece of paper. They have an equal amount of awareness.

Well, let me finish my story of my friend, Renae. Her Mom dropped out of high school. They got married. Eventually had another daughter 3 years later. Mom and Dad were never happy because they felt forced to be together. They resented Renae, because she was the cause of this train wreck. (in their eyes) Mom ended up having an affair. While she was out late with her boyfriend, her husband dropped dead in their kitchen of a heart attack. Mom came home and found him on the floor. He was to turn 50 in 2 more days. Mean while, he had been seeing other women too. Fifteen years later, Mom dies of cancer from smoking, tanning, and basically partying too hard as she was trying to make up for her youth that she missed. Sadly, they were never really happy since they married to have their baby, my friend Renae. Today, Renae has one living family member left. Her sister Dedi. Renae and Dedi haven't spoken since their mom died about 7 years ago. Some sort of spat over their moms estate. Yes, it turned out really well for everyone involved didn't it? Everyone is miserable.

How do I know all this. We grew up together. Renae and I were best friends and our mothers were best friends. What my mom did not tell me, Renae did.

Speech, did you daughter have a "safe" above board abortion? Or did she have to go to some butcher that would do it without any regulations?

Steve,

Can I ask does your belief system (religion and subsequently on abortion) stem from the situation with your daughter? Or did you hold these beliefs prior to her illness and abortion?

It is a medical fact that babies respond to stimuli long before birth.

It is also true that for several months to maybe 2 years, they don't walk, talk, or reason.

Shall we then decide that if they don't talk or walk, we can kill them??

It is also true that for several months to maybe 2 years, they don't walk, talk, or reason.
Thus is incorrect of course.

Thus is incorrect of course.

Baloney! We raised 5 and not one of them walked before 12 months. And they sure weren't talking at 6 months.

Every year some 45 million pregnancies, out of a total of 175 million, end in abortion. Nearly half of those abortions (20 million) are medically unsafe, resulting in the deaths of nearly 80,000 women a year and a much larger number suffering infection, injury, and trauma. Thus the legality of abortion and the availability of medically safe abortion are public health issues. Criminalizing abortion does not save babies; it kills mothers.

I could show you a fetus with fingers, toes and a beating heart but it wouldn't matter. You're convinced that life inside is just "a bundle of cells."



Like I said before, I think that's a very selfish attitude. I believe it's a child and I believe you'd have to admit that it's intended destiny is to become someone's child, not someone's medical waste.

The concept of destiny is one asscoiated with God.If God wanted the baby to be somone's child then he can stop him from becoming medical waste.Let God worry about the child's destiny, you can just worry about yourself for now

It is a medical fact that babies respond to stimuli long before birth.

So does your knee cap.It's called reflexes. So does a chicken with his head cut off. It's called involuntary muscle.


It is also true that for several months to maybe 2 years, they don't walk, talk, or reason.

Shall we then decide that if they don't talk or walk, we can kill them??


Your argument is so asinine that it doesn't even deserve a counter argument. You put things out there that not one person in the universe would agree to. Kill 2 year olds, Ridiculous. Is it because you can't come up with any thing better?

How many times you been pregnant Tom?[/QUOTE]

I know we were all once fetuses, we had life though not yet born.
It is only by the grace of being born and not aborted that there is a "Choice" to then decide between life and death.




G&P

I referred to the fetus as cells earlier because technically and scientifically that is what it is. It has no thoughts, feelings, concepts, awareness, or fears. It just exist. It lives off of your body like any other growth in your body.



So a fetus is the equivalent of cancer?

That is the ultimate in relativism.



G&P

So a fetus is the equivalent of cancer?

That is the ultimate in relativism.



G&P

Out of everything that I had to say, you pull out this one line and try to make something of it. Unbelievable. Get back to me when you have something of relevance to add.

Your words -- Some don't matter? Or when you actually look at what you are saying, and its implications, it is to harsh to admit you actually wrote it?


Oh, by the way. I have adopted and am raising 3 kids.
Anyone who has been through the process knows it takes a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of emotion, a lot of legal know how.




G&P

why is that relevant ? Are you saying that because I can't experience pregnancy that
I am therefore disqualified to have an opinion ? If that is true then where is the legitimacy to Obama's opinions on pregnancy ?

That's the whole point. You do have an opinion, I have an opinion, Obama has an opinion. Pro choice says you are entitled to it. Pro-life says you are not. With pro-life, whatever
Your opinion, belief, soul searching result is, it's taken away from you.

How is that so hard to understand?

He's a right-winger like you. That's not refreshing, that's you agreeing with you. Kinda like you and tom here.

How many right-wingers like me and tom are "an atheist and a secular kinda guy" that practices "moral relativism regularly?" Maybe the Canadian health care system has something to help you with those jerking knees.

Yes I do think that murder should not be a choice .

yes I do think that murder should not be a choice .But it's not murder is it.

How many right-wingers like me and tom are "an atheist and a secular kinda guy" that practices "moral relativism regularly?" Maybe the Canadian health care system has something to help you with those jerking knees.So to be a right-winger you *must* be a christian? That's why your party is on the wane.

Hello again,

So, with all this talk of murder, don't tell me that you're not going to put abortionists and the women they work on, in JAIL! That is, if you had your druthers.

excon

Not everyone feels the same and you are trying to force your feelings down someone else's throat.

I referred to the fetus as cells earlier because technically and scientifically that is what it is. It has no thoughts, feelings, concepts, awareness, or fears. It just exist. It lives off your body like any other growth in your body.

That's all so much nonsense, my concern for innocent life has nothing to do with my "feelings," and I have yet to bring religion into either. It is a child that deserves a chance. No amount of science can change the fact that it is human life inside the womb, and if you believe it it's just a mass of tissue that just exists you haven't paid attention to science anyway.


Speech, did you daughter have a "safe" above board abortion? Or did she have to go to some butcher that would do it without any regulations?

What exactly is a "safe" abortion? I didn't realize there were any risk-free abortions.

Steve,

Can i ask does your belief system (religion and subsequently on abortion) stem from the situation with your daughter? Or did you hold these beliefs prior to her illness and abortion?

No Skell, I was pro-life long before that. Her experience and that of friends just makes me more so.

Hello again,

So, with all this talk of murder, don't tell me that you're not going to put abortionists and the women they work on, in JAIL!! That is, if you had your druthers.

excon

So far I think you're the only one that's mentioned jail. Some abortionists however do deserve prison (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15016).

But it's not murder is it.

The black robed imperial oligarchs took the choice of defining abortion as murder away from the people. But we all know that the intentional taking of innocent human life is murder regardless of the legality .

So to be a right-winger you *must* be a christian? That's why your party is on the wane.

There you go with those jerking knees again. Try something besides knee-jerk assumptions.

The black robed imperial oligarchs took the choice of defining abortion as murder away from the people. But we all know that the intentional taking of innocent human life is murder regardless of the legality .

That is so ironic. The black robed imperial oligarchs took the choice away? Actually they put the choice back in. You can call it murder if that is the way you see it and you can elect to continue with a pregnancy if that is your choice. They GAVE a choice, they didn't take one away.

Not true ,they imposed their will on the people of the country .

The concept of destiny is one asscoiated with God.If God wanted the baby to be somone's child then he can stop him from becoming medical waste.Let God worry about the child's destiny, you can just worry about yourself for now

In it's simplest form destiny is a predetermined course of events. When this sperm and egg get together is there some possibility it might grow to be a cat, or is it typically going to become a human child unless someone intervenes to change that course? If I just worry about myself isn't that entirely contrary to the challenge by "the coolest president ever" to serve others? Not to mention especially selfish?

not true ,they imposed their will on the people of the country .

Not true, you can handle it anyway you choose.

So far I think you're the only one that's mentioned jail. Some abortionists however do deserve prison (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15016).

So, if you get your way and abortion is made illegal, what do you propose to do to the women who have illegal abortions? Gaol them? Fine them? Cane them? What? If something is illegal there has to be a punishment? Or am I missing something? Ex mentions prison because that is what you do with law breakers. Gaol them.. And you guys do it better than anyone else in the world.

P.S. Im a fence sitter on this issue. I believe in a woman's choice but I also can sort of see the other side of the story. But calling it murder and genocide is ridiculous in my opinion.

But calling it murder and genocide is ridiculous in my opinion


There have been over 40 million abortion murders in the US since Roe v Wade . That puts us well past Hitler numbers into the Stalin league.

But if it isn't illegal it isn't murder. As I said, ridiculous!

There have been over 40 million abortion murders in the US since Roe v Wade . That puts us well past Hitler numbers into the Stalin league.

Your argument implies that that all of the 40 million murders should be blamed on roe vs vade, would there be no illegal abortion if women did not have the right to choose.Would there not be underground clinics performing abortions?

Dare of course... but no where's near the number now. Skell ,the Final Solution was legal in Germany. I'm sure Stalin was doing what was legal in the Soviet Union.

So, if you get your way and abortion is made illegal, what do you propose to do to the women who have illegal abortions? Gaol them?? Fine them?? Cane them?? What?? If something is illegal there has to be a punishment? Or am i missing something? Ex mentions prison because that is what you do with law breakers. Gaol them.. And you guys do it better than anyone else in the world.

P.S. Im a fence sitter on this issue. I believe in a woman's choice but i also can sort of see the other side of the story. But calling it murder and genocide is ridiculous in my opinion.

Skell, I am under no illusion that abortion will ever be banned (unless we go the Sharia route) and I don't recall having ever fought for an outright ban so I believe this argument is just a diversion. I want to change the culture that has cheapened the unborn child down to a mass of cells with no value and abortion rights approaching religious status. Changing hearts and minds to see the infinite value of an unborn child is where it starts and when that happens I believe society will be the better for it.

Skell, I am under no illusion that abortion will ever be banned (unless we go the Sharia route) and I don't recall having ever fought for an outright ban so I believe this argument is just a diversion. I want to change the culture that has cheapened the unborn child down to a mass of cells with no value and abortion rights approaching religious status. Changing hearts and minds to see the infinite value of an unborn child is where it starts and when that happens I believe society will be the better for it.

Now this is an argument I can respect. It calls for the best of each persons conscience. I believe that MOST women don't take this decision lightly. I believe that it involves soul searching, prayer, and a lot of deliberation. To promote this scrutiny is the way to go if you want to make a change. To demand a complete ban is counter productive. After all this diligence,if the decision to abort is yes, then there must be a very compelling reason.
Appealing to each persons best self is the way to go.

I want to change the culture that has cheapened the unborn child.... ..when that happens I believe society will be the better for it.Hello again, Steve:

I don't disagree. Yours is a worthy goal. But, change is a two way street..

Me?? I'd like to see efforts toward reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. But, it's probably going to involve a change in culture that you're not willing to engage in.

That would be a change to one where sex education is taught in schools, birth control for everybody - including TEENS, Plan B in ALL drug stores, and health care for all..

I somehow think those aren't cultural changes you'd be willing to make.

excon

PS> Do I think abstinence works?? Yes. Teach it at home and in your church.

Hello again, Steve:

I don't disagree. Yours is a worthy goal. But, change is a two way street..

Me??? I'd like to see efforts toward reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. But, it's probably going to involve a change in culture that you're not willing to engage in.

That would be a change to one where sex education is taught in schools, birth control for everybody - including TEENS, Plan B in ALL drug stores, and health care for all..

I somehow think those aren't cultural changes you'd be willing to make.

excon

PS> Do I think abstinence works??? Yes. Teach it at home and in your church.

Absolutely excon, they don't call it unwanted pregnancy for nothing... it's unwanted. Sex education is crucial and so is easy access to birth control. This is not to promote sex, this is just plain old common sense and to not do this is just plain naïve.

Hello again, Steve:

I don't disagree. Yours is a worthy goal. But, change is a two way street..

Me??? I'd like to see efforts toward reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. But, it's probably going to involve a change in culture that you're not willing to engage in.

That would be a change to one where sex education is taught in schools, birth control for everybody - including TEENS, Plan B in ALL drug stores, and health care for all..

I somehow think those aren't cultural changes you'd be willing to make.

excon

PS> Do I think abstinence works??? Yes. Teach it at home and in your church.

We've been round and round on this before, too. I don't object to sex education, I object to Planned Parenthood and the other abortion zealots' agenda being forced on children without regard to the parent's values and wishes. You do believe parents should still be allowed to be the parents don't you?

We've been round and round on this before, too. I don't object to sex education, I object to Planned Parenthood and the other abortion zealots' agenda being forced on children without regard to the parent's values and wishes. You do believe parents should still be allowed to be the parents don't you?


See, that's where you lose credibility. When the sarcasm sets in. No one ever said parents shouldn't be parents. Forget the agendas of abortion zealots. Who cares about them? Don't you care more about the bottom line? That unwanted pregnancies are avoided and that abortions aren't needed.

This reminds me of those poor children being brainwashed and subjected to religious indoctrination at an age when they can't even pick out their own clothes.

[/B]

See, that's where you lose credibility. When the sarcasm sets in. No one ever said parents shouldn't be parents. Forget the agendas of abortion zealots. Who cares about them? Don't you care more about the bottom line? That unwanted pregnancies are avoided and that abortions aren't needed.

There was no sarcasm there, none whatsoever. I'm dead serious, PP does NOT want parents to be the parents - they have no problem whatsoever undermining parental rights. In fact, it's one of their goals and my objection falls exactly in line with my previous point. Parents should have the right to be the parent and children are too valuable for parents to be undermined by outside forces like PP. That is part of the culture that needs to be changed. I believe if PP and others like them would mind their own business instead of interfering with families and doing everything they can to “empower” children in their sex lives, unwanted pregnancies and abortions would both decline.

Hello again, Steve:

I'm ready to get off abortion for the time being... But, I'm ready for the NEW one you brought up, Steve.

You righty's have a list of, dare I say, UN American organizations, of which Planned Parenthood is one, that frighten you to death. Your list includes the ACLU and Acorn. I'm sure there's others, but that'll do for now.

In fact, I find those organizations to be very main stream American, and do the work of the Democracy. What is it about them that makes them soooo nasty?

Plus, I can't think of ONE right wing organization that scares me, or that's UN American... But, that's just me.

excon

Planned Parenthood is as American as Apple Pie. Just ask it's eugenics supporting racist founder ;Margaret Sanger .Her original idea was to have black women have abortions to reduce the number of blacks being born .

There was no sarcasm there, none whatsoever. I'm dead serious, PP does NOT want parents to be the parents - they have no problem whatsoever undermining parental rights. In fact, it's one of their goals and my objection falls exactly in line with my previous point. Parents should have the right to be the parent and children are too valuable for parents to be undermined by outside forces like PP. That is part of the culture that needs to be changed. I believe if PP and others like them would mind their own business instead of interfering with families and doing everything they can to “empower” children in their sex lives, unwanted pregnancies and abortions would both decline.

Well that would be great IF we could count on parents doing the parental thing correctly. Unfortunately not all parents are responsible, concerned, smart enough themselves, have embarrassment hang ups, think it's giving their child the green light, are naïve, or have delusions that THEIR child wouldn't do such things. What is your solution for the kids that fall into this BROAD category? Get it at home, or not at all? I'm really looking forward to your solution to this problem because I know you must have one or you would not be so totally against kids of ignorant parents getting some outside guidance.

This reminds me of those poor children being brainwashed and subjected to religious indoctrination at an age when they can't even pick out their own clothes.

Ah, so let's let Planned Parenthood, the schools and the government brainwash our kids, but NOT the parents.

Well that would be great IF we could count on parents doing the parental thing correctly. Unfortunately not all parents are responsible, concerned, smart enough themselves, have embarrassment hang ups, think it's giving their child the green light, are naive, or have delusions that THEIR child wouldn't do such things. What is your solution for the kids that fall into this BROAD category? Get it at home, or not at all? I'm really looking forward to your solution to this problem because I know you must have one or you would not be so totally against kids of ignorant parents getting some outside guidance.

Again and again and again, I have always supported APPROPRIATE intervention under APPROPRIATE circumstances. I don't however believe most parents in this country are incompetent so the government, PP and everyone else needs to get the hell out of the way and mind their own business when it comes to parents raising their children.

Funny, but every time some abortion supporter argues that women should have the right to choose what to do with THEIR bodies it seems they end up telling us parents don't necessarily have the right to raise THEIR children. How do you reconcile that?

You righty's have a list of, dare I say, UN American organizations, of which Planned Parenthood is one, that frighten you to death. Your list includes the ACLU and Acorn. I'm sure there's others, but that'll do for now.

In fact, I find those organizations to be very main stream American, and do the work of the Democracy. what is it about them that makes them soooo nasty?

Plus, I can't think of ONE right wing organization that scares me, or that's UN American... But, that's just me.

excon

I never said PP was un-American, I say they're a dangerous, despicable, dishonest, lawbreaking, undermining, pathetic, useless waste of resources and space. They COULD be a decent organization otherwise. The other two have pros and cons, too - they do some good things, but on their worst day I don't believe they even come close to being as vile as Planned Parenthood.

There may not be any that scare you, but just mention Fox News, PNAC, Focus on the Family and a few others and watch the knees jerk all around you.

I don't know much but this seems to me like a failed attempt at propaganda.

I think it's cool a lot of people like him. They show his by waring Obama shirts and crap. But if you ask me, it reminds me of some sort of cult. Nobody was waring Bush shirts!

I don't know much but this seems to me like a failed attempt at propaganda.

Which part? As for my part I've documented Planned Parenthood's sleaze here many times. Feel free to look it up.

I think it's cool alot of people like him. They show his by waring Obama shirts and crap. But if you ask me, it reminds me of some sort of cult. Nobody was waring Bush shirts!

I saw pictures of young republicans wearing T-shirts that had a W on them at the RNC when Bush ran for re-election. All the other Bush T-shirts were not so flattering to G DUB.

Yeah I saw the perverted ones but it's almost like a cult how many people are waring them lol.

Again and again and again, I have always supported APPROPRIATE intervention under APPROPRIATE circumstances. I don't however believe most parents in this country are incompetent so the government, PP and everyone else needs to get the hell out of the way and mind their own business when it comes to parents raising their children.

Funny, but every time some abortion supporter argues that women should have the right to choose what to do with THEIR bodies it seems they end up telling us parents don't necessarily have the right to raise THEIR children. How do you reconcile that?

You left out your solution for the percentage of kids that fall under the umbrella of parents that DON'T teach their children. No one is putting limits on how you raise your children, what you teach them, etc. If you are doing a good job with that, then you have nothing to worry about do you? So what are you so upset about?

Ah, so let's let Planned Parenthood, the schools and the government brainwash our kids, but NOT the parents.

Are you saying parents SHOULD brainwash their kids?

I never said PP was un-American, I say they're a dangerous, despicable, dishonest, lawbreaking, undermining, pathetic, useless waste of resources and space. They COULD be a decent organization otherwise. The other two have pros and cons, too - they do some good things, but on their worst day I don't believe they even come close to being as vile as Planned Parenthood.

There may not be any that scare you, but just mention Fox News, PNAC, Focus on the Family and a few others and watch the knees jerk all around you.

What has PP done to you that illicits so much hatred and venom? They haven't touched my life at all. I've taught my children about love, sex, commitment, birth control, and good planning in general, which covers decisions about sex. If they hear other things out in the world, I couldn't care less. Why, because I know they get it. If they are taught correctly, then it doesn't matter what they hear on the street, in the locker room, in a sex ed class, or from any PP lit. They have the knowledge. For kids that don't, I hope they get the right knowledge.

Are you saying parents SHOULD brainwash their kids?

I knew someone would ask that. Responsible parents should be left alone to raise their children WITHOUT interference from ANYONE.

You left out your solution for the percentage of kids that fall under the umbrella of parents that DON'T teach their children.

"Again and again and again, I have always supported APPROPRIATE intervention under APPROPRIATE circumstances. I don't however believe most parents in this country are incompetent so the government, PP and everyone else needs to get the hell out of the way and mind their own business when it comes to parents raising their children."

I believe that was my solution for both sides, the responsible and the irresponsible. I didn't define "appropriate intervention." That's hard to define and each case is different, but I think a middle ground is possible.


No one is putting limits on how you raise your children, what you teach them, etc. If you are doing a good job with that, then you have nothing to worry about do you? So what are you so upset about?

I can teach my children my values all I want - for now - but when the school or another entity teaches them contrary values against my wishes that is unacceptable. What's so hard to understand about that?

I knew someone would ask that. Responsible parents should be left alone to raise their children WITHOUT interference from ANYONE.

You ask for it. No one is knocking down your door to raise your child. No one is kid napping your child and sitting them in a PP room. Why are you so paranoid that someone other than you is trying to raise your child. Something is not right here. You are way too emotional about this. I don't think we are hearing the whole story with you.

What has PP done to you that illicits so much hatred and venom? They haven't touched my life at all.

I've been over this many times, the clues are in my earlier posts.


I've taught my children about love, sex, commitment, birth control, and good planning in general, which covers decisions about sex. If they hear other things out in the world, I couldn't care less.

That's your decision, I couldn't care more.


Why, because I know they get it. If they are taught correctly, then it doesn't matter what they hear on the street, in the locker room, in a sex ed class, or from any PP lit. They have the knowledge. For kids that don't, I hope they get the right knowledge.

You must believe kids are mature and not very impressionable. I know better. And to illustrate my point...


Dodd and Obama’s Oversight: What if a Minor Wants to Charge an Abortion? (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/05/29/dodd-and-obamas-oversight-what-if-a-minor-wants-to-charge-an-abortion/)
Posted at 2:36 pm on May 29, 2009 by dougpowers
[ Abortion ] Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, the mortgage opportunist who allowed AIG bonuses to stay in the stimulus bill and then later bashed the people who got the bonuses (but who was also happy to accept AIG’s campaign donations), demonstrates his priorities in a new campaign ad.

In the ad, President Obama touts Dodd’s leadership in passing credit card reform, and expresses pride that kids under 18 can no longer get a credit card without parental approval.

But, Dodd and Obama do believe that that same kid should be able to cross state lines for an abortion without parental approval.

So, rest easy — if you have a minor daughter, she could kill your grandchild without your permission, but she won’t be able to buy clothes at the mall with a Mastercard afterwards. Whew!

But here’s a question that may lead to the ultimate dilemma for the liberal politician: What if the pregnant minor wants to charge the abortion?

Back to the drawing board for an amendment: No minor shall be issued a credit card without parental approval unless said card is only used at Planned Parenthood, or for DNC campaign donations.

That's the difference between me and people like Dodd. I don't believe kids under 18 should have a credit card OR an abortion without parental consent.

You ask for it. No one is knocking down your door to raise your child. No one is kid napping your child and sitting them in a PP room. Why are you so paranoid that someone other than you is trying to raise your child. Something is not right here. You are way too emotional about this. I don't think we are hearing the whole story with you.

First of all I'm not being emotional, I'm telling it like it is. Sounds to me like you're implying I'm unstable or unable to see this clearly. Trust me, I see it very clearly, I'm just not intimidated. I believe the most innocent among us deserve every ounce of passion I can muster in their defense.

Secondly, do you really not care whose programs are being installed in your child's school? How do you feel about abstinence education?

I believe that was my solution for both sides, the responsible and the irresponsible. I didn't define "appropriate intervention." That's hard to define and each case is different, but I think a middle ground is possible.


What about in the mean time?
Just let them learn the hard way?


I can teach my children my values all I want - for now - but when the school or another entity teaches them contrary values against my wishes that is unacceptable. What's so hard to understand about that?
[/QUOTE]

"Values" are not being taught, facts are. Values come from what you have instilled in them. Are you leaving out some of the facts? Are you concerned that if they receive a full education, that they will not adhere to the values you want them to follow?

]I've been over this many times, the clues are in my earlier posts.


Actually, I'm waiting on something concrete, not clues. Give me something to work with.


That's your decision, I couldn't care more.


Is that what you meant to say? Or was it that you couldn't care less?



You must believe kids are mature and not very impressionable. I know better. And to illustrate my point...


I fail to see how this has any connection to sex ed or PP or anything like that. I personally think the credit card bill is a fantastic thing, but it has nothing to do with teaching your children about the birds and the bees. Sounds like the writer of the article had to dig pretty deep to twist a bill as good as this one into something to get the righties riled.

Secondly, do you really not care whose programs are being installed in your child's school? How do you feel about abstinence education?
[/QUOTE]

I totally believe that abstinence education should be taught. I believe in teaching all there is to know about the subject. Knowledge is power.

This puzzles me a lot. I don't understand why people that are so totally against abortion are the first ones to limit the methods of birth control.

"I'm against abortion, yet I preach abstinence only" as a form of birth control. I MAY agree to certain appropriate sex ed under very stringent conditions. But other than that, if the parents don't teach it, and it doesn't fall within our approved sex ed curriculum, then best of luck to you." You may be a mommy or daddy to a poor child unlucky enough to be born to a couple of clueless teenagers.

I totally believe that abstinence education should be taught. Hello again,

If sex education is effective, you don't have to teach abstinence. How NOT to get pregnant becomes abundantly obvious.

excon

What about in the mean time?
Just let them learn the hard way?

Let families be families and kids be kids. Stop encouraging them in their sex lives.


"Values" are not being taught, facts are. Values come from what you have instilled in them. Are you leaving out some of the facts? Are you concerned that if they receive a full education, that they will not adhere to the values you want them to follow?

Are you really that naïve? You don't believe PP and their "anything goes as long as it's 'safe sex' mentality" isn't teaching them values?

[QUOTE=speechlesstx;1765622

[QUOTE]Actually, I'm waiting on something concrete, not clues. Give me something to work with.

PP not only performed my daughter's abortion without giving her even an inkling of an option, they "treated" her medically without having a clue that she might be HIV positive... unto the point of near death. They're incompetent idiots, and this was in San Diego, CA, not exactly hicktown. They deserve every ounce of my cintempt, and that doesn't even include any of the other vile things they've done to others.


Is that what you meant to say? Or was it that you couldn't care less?

I meant it as I said it.


I fail to see how this has any connection to sex ed or PP or anything like that. I personally think the credit card bill is a fantastic thing, but it has nothing to do with teaching your children about the birds and the bees. Sounds like the writer of the article had to dig pretty deep to twist a bill as good as this one into something to get the righties riled.

Good Lord, open your eyes. It's OK to allow teens to have an abortion without parental consent but not a credit card??

[QUOTE=cozyk;1765678][QUOTE=speechlesstx;1765622



[QUOTE]PP not only performed my daughter's abortion without giving her even an inkling of an option, they "treated" her medically without having a clue that she might be HIV positive... unto the point of near death. They're incompetent idiots, and this was in San Diego, CA, not exactly hicktown. They deserve every ounce of my cintempt, and that doesn't even include any of the other vile things they've done to others

I knew there had to be more to it. That you weren't telling us everything. I'm sorry that your daughter not only went through this but also felt the need to get an abortion. I have to wonder why she did not come to her parents when she discovered she was pregnant? Is it because you possibly taught her that abstinence was the way to go and since she obviously didn't practice that, she felt ashamed? I could be very wrong, but your daughter did decide to go to them, they did not come looking for her.

I knew there had to be more to it. That you weren't telling us everything. I'm sorry that your daughter not only went through this but also felt the need to get an abortion. I have to wonder why she did not come to her parents when she discovered she was pregnant? Is it because you possibly taught her that abstinence was the way to go and since she obviously didn't practice that, she felt ashamed? I could be very wrong, but your daughter did decide to go to them, they did not come looking for her.

I have told this here, more than once. And it could be she didn't come to us because she got caught up with a scum of an abusive guy and lived in fear of him, not us. She made bad choices and has to live with that, but that doesn't excuse PP's incompetence.

Skell, I am under no illusion that abortion will ever be banned (unless we go the Sharia route) and I don't recall having ever fought for an outright ban so I believe this argument is just a diversion. I want to change the culture that has cheapened the unborn child down to a mass of cells with no value and abortion rights approaching religious status. Changing hearts and minds to see the infinite value of an unborn child is where it starts and when that happens I believe society will be the better for it.

That's very noble of you and it would be great if you were successful. Im serious. But how does howling murder and genocide achieve this? If you guys weren't so aggressive with your views then perhaps people would listen a bit more.

Well you guys have one less 'murderer' to worry about. Unless of course you count the murderer of the 'murderer'. In that case it's even.

Abortion doctor shot dead at his church (http://www.smh.com.au/world/abortion-doctor-shot-dead-at-his-church-20090601-brvy.html)

Oh and Steve just one more quick one. I read a lot of posts just now but I'm sure somewhere in them I'm sure I read that you wanted something that resembled 'common ground'? No? Funny isn't how you lambasted Obama just last week when he called for the very same thing in his speech at Notre Dame.

Well you guys have one less 'murderer' to worry about. Unless of course you count the murderer of the 'murderer'. In that case it's even.

Abortion doctor shot dead at his church (http://www.smh.com.au/world/abortion-doctor-shot-dead-at-his-church-20090601-brvy.html)That story is popular at Digg:
Kansas abortion doctor killed (http://digg.com/world_news/Kansas_abortion_doctor_killed)

Check out the comments. The users at Digg are mostly younger tech-savvy types than the people the Current Events forum here.

That's very noble of you and it would be great if you were successful. Im serious. But how does howling murder and genocide achieve this?? If you guys werent so aggressive with your views then perhaps people would listen a bit more.

Skell, I don't generally howl murder and genocide, but after roughly 49,551,703 abortions since Roe what would you call it?

Skell, I don't generally howl murder and genocide, but after roughly 49,551,703 abortions since Roe what would you call it?Hello again, Steve:

I don't know how you can call it that, and still deny you're going to put the perps in jail.

Maybe if we talked about that, you'd stop calling it murder - or not. Just looking for common ground here.

excon

Put all the women on death row I say!

Oh and Steve just one more quick one. I read alot of posts just now but im sure somewhere in them i'm sure i read that you wanted something that resembled 'common ground'? No? Funny isn't how you lambasted Obama just last week when he called for the very same thing in his speech at Notre Dame.

You'd have to be more specific, I don't recall lambasting Obama last week for calling for common ground on abortion at ND. Nevertheless, Obama calls for a lot of things but so far his actions don't seem to match quite a bit of the rhetoric.

I knew Dr. Tiller's murder would here front and center today, but even ABC news granted that both sides of the debate find this tragic, so don't try to lay this at our feet.

I knew Dr. Tiller's murder would here front and center today, but even ABC news granted that both sides of the debate find this tragic, so don't try to lay this at our feet.As is your situation, it's tragic but please don't lay it at our feet.

Hello again, Steve:

I dunno how you can call it that, and still deny you're going to put the perps in jail.

Maybe if we talked about that, you'd stop calling it murder - or not. Just looking for common ground here.

I do believe it is murder when an unborn child is intentionally killed but I don't "howl" murder and genocide as a primary argument. Now can you answer my question? What would you call roughly 49,551,703 abortions since Roe? Health care?

As is your situation, it's tragic but please don't lay it at our feet.

Well gee NK, that might have some teeth if I had done that. And bvy the way, what on earth does your insulting opinion that the users at Digg are "mostly younger tech-savvy types than the people the Current Events forum here" have to do with anything? Say something relevant for a change.

Ok Steve, I'll let you cool down.

Ok Steve, I'll let you cool down.

I'm plenty cool, so what does your users at Digg comment have to do with anything?

Another view, different from the neocon bias of these threadstarters.

Another view, different from the neocon bias of these threadstarters.

You say that as if there's no liberal bias around here. LOL!

Ok, Steve.

In regard to Tiller's murder, no one on the right (except for that lunatic Fred Phelps) is calling for violence and/or intimidation in the abortion debate. John Yoo, who has been neither charged with or convicted of anything, is being stalked, harassed and threatened by the good leftists in Berkeley.


Neighborhood Alert: Berkeley Home to Possible War Criminal (http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-05-28/article/32987?headline=Neighborhood-Alert-Berkeley-Home-to-Possible-War-Criminal)
By Cynthia Papermaster
Thursday May 28, 2009
From time to time I receive alerts, usually by email, from the Berkeley Police Department and neighborhood groups, about criminal activity in Berkeley. I like getting this information. It helps me be on the lookout for criminals and is a good reminder to lock my doors and windows.

Last week the Grizzly Peak neighbors of John Yoo received a “Neighborhood Alert” regarding Professor Yoo, in the form of a flyer letting them know he lives among them and providing information about his crimes, namely providing unethical and shoddy legal advice and cover to Bybee, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. for illegal interrogation methods and the inhumane, degrading treatment of detainees—“unethical” because Yoo advocates breaking the law and “shoddy” because the memos were so ineptly crafted that they were repudiated and rescinded.

Unlike a sexual predator or burglar, Mr. Yoo is a criminal whom the police are not likely to point out to Berkeley citizens, though his crimes are horrific...

... there is a growing group of Berkeley citizens who are standing in witness in front of Yoo’s house on a weekly basis, starting this Sunday, May 31, at 2 p.m. Join this group on Grizzly Peak for an hour or so. If there’s any justice in this world John Yoo is going to have problems living a normal life now, unless he apologizes to us all.

... is being stalked, harassed and threatened by the good leftists in Berkeley.No one says they are "leftists" except you, not in the article or anywhere. Check your hatred at the door please.

John Yoo, who has been neither charged with or convicted of anything, is being stalked, harassed and threatened by the good leftists in Berkeley.Hello again,

Even if they ARE leftists - SCREW John Yoo!

excon

No one says they are "leftists" except you, not in the article or anywhere. Check your hatred at the door please.

I've never seen anyone here claim to be a "neocon" but that doesn't stop you from using the term disparagingly about us.

Nonetheless, one would have to be completely out of touch or in denial to not know these people in the article including the author - (and I quote) "People for the American Way, ACLU, Act Against Torture, Human Rights First, National Religious Campaign Against Torture, MoveOn, democrats.com, CREDO, World Can’t Wait, the National Lawyers Guild Committee Against Torture, CODEPINK, Progressive Democrats of America, Voters for Peace, Common Cause, and afterdowningstreet.org" - are liberals, progressives, aka "leftists (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leftist)."

Everyone knows that Bill O'Reilly killed George Tiller.

O'Reilly's campaign against murdered doctor | Salon News (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/31/tiller/)

Hello again,

Even if they ARE leftists - SCREW John Yoo!

excon

So you have no problem with vigilante justice?

everyone knows that Bill O'Reilly killed George Tiller. Hello tom:

And, who could blame the dude who yelled fire in the theater, either??

You guys are really out of touch.

excon

So you have no problem with vigilante justice?Hello again, Steve:

So it went from stalking and harassment, to vigilante justice...

Dude! It was probably just some stoned hippies carrying signs, lighting candles, and singing cumbya.

I say again, SCREW John Yoo.

excon

Out of touch ? Not at all. O'Reilly reported on this doctor because his practice was under criminal investigation.

Do you or Gabriel Winant even know if Scott Roeder watched his show ? No you don't . And yet this murder is used to smear O'Reilley because he pointed out the particularly barbaric practice of "Doctor" Tiller.

Why isn't the press emphasizing the fact that his specialty was late term abortions when there is no question about the viability of the baby ? No ;instead there is a nonsensical linkage to the anti-abortion movement itself .

This from the same people who think the bombings by the Weather Underground was patriotic protest and that Bill Ayers is an American hero.

out of touch ? not at all. O'Reilly reported on this doctor because his practice was under criminal investigation. Hello again, tom:

There is a difference between REPORTING and WHIPPING people into a frenzy.

Neither YOU, nor the loons at Fox noise know the difference.

excon

PS> This is reporting?? O'Reilly compared Tiller to a Nazi, called him a "baby killer," and warned of "Judgment Day"... He's pathetic!

Excuse me, they're "peacefully" doing what they can to get the "war criminal" Yoo fired, convicted, disbarred and otherwise "have problems living a normal life."

Skell, I don't generally howl murder and genocide, but after roughly 49,551,703 abortions since Roe what would you call it?

I would call it abortions.

they're "peacefully" doing what they can to get the "war criminal" Yoo fired, convicted, disbarred and otherwise "have problems living a normal life."Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, dissent is messy. But, as long as it's peaceful, it's legal, no?

excon

I would call it abortions.

That's it? Nothing else? Not tragic, extreme, normal, no big deal, not worth discussing, irrelevant, troubling, slightly bothersome... nothing? Nearly 50 million children dead, gone, not given the slightest chance at living, loving, being loved, contributing to society and it's just "abortions?"

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, dissent is messy. But, as long as it's peaceful, it's legal, no?

excon

At someone's home? Legally it sounds like harassment to me. You're OK with that?

At someone's home? Legally it sounds like harassment to me. You're ok with that?Hello again, Steve:

On a public street?? You betcha. Like I said, freedom is messy.

excon

Still sounds like harassment to me. Are you OK with the White House suppressing dissent (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Update-on-Recovery-Act-Lobbying-Rules-New-Limits-on-Special-Interest-Influence/) on its "stimulus" projects as part of the administration's "transparency" policy?


Following OMB’s review, the Administration has decided to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interests and more focused on merits-based decision making.

First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

Still sounds like harassment to me. Are you ok with the White House suppressing dissent (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Update-on-Recovery-Act-Lobbying-Rules-New-Limits-on-Special-Interest-Influence/) on its "stimulus" projects as part of the administration's "transparency" policy?
Anything which restricts the power of the lobbyist is OK with me. There is nothing more secretive to the american people than backroom deals done with lobbyists for the lobbyists selfish interests - Well Done Obama admin!

Hello again, Steve:

You call lobbying dissent?? Dude!! They should be shot!

excon

Dudes, your knees are jerking. Who likes lobbyists? You skipped right over the highlighted portion, "we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons."

Oh no, my knees are jerking! What will I do??

I didn't read one sentence, I read the whole thing, maybe you should too.

The ACLU opposes this move by Obama for the reason Steve mentions ;it's infringment on 1st amendment rights.

You think that these rules only apply to "lobbiest" you oppose ? It also applies to anyone or any interest group petitioning the gvt. About the recovery act.

Oh no, my knees are jerking! What will I do??????

I didn't read one sentence, I read the whole thing, maybe you should too.

You really shouldn't assume so much, NK. I have read the whole thing, and it says they're going to go beyond restricting oral communications on stimulus projects by lobbyists and apply it to "all persons," which means everyone. They're especially going to focus on restricting oral communications regarding "merit-based decision-making." The White House doesn't want us discussing which proposed projects have any merit. Last I checked it was still a free country and I have the right to orally discuss with our government officials how they plan on spending my money. This White House apparently thinks otherwise.

The ACLU opposes this move by Obama for the reason Steve mentions ;it's infringment on 1st amendment rights.

You think that these rules only apply to "lobbiest" you oppose ? It also applies to anyone or any interest group petitioning the gvt. about the recovery act.

See? I've told you before even the ACLU gets it right sometimes.

Hello again, tom:

There is a difference between REPORTING and WHIPPING people into a frenzy.

Neither YOU, nor the loons at Fox noise know the difference.

Excon

PS> This is reporting?? O'Reilly compared Tiller to a Nazi, called him a "baby killer," and warned of "Judgment Day"... He's pathetic!

To the heart of the matter... was John Brown a hero or murderous villain ?

Here is wikipedia's account of the investigation surrounding Brown's Harper Ferry raid .



On December 14, 1859, the U.S. Senate appointed a bipartisan committee to investigate the Harpers Ferry raid and to determine whether any citizens contributed arms, ammunition or money. The Democrats attempted to implicate the Republicans in the raid; the Republicans tried to disassociate themselves from Brown and his acts.
The Senate committee heard testimony from 32 witnesses, including Liam Dodson, one of the surviving abolitionists. The report, authored by chairman James M. Mason, a pro-slavery politician from Virginia, was published in June, 1860. It found no direct evidence of a conspiracy, but implied that the raid was a result of Republican doctrines. The two committee Republicans published a minority report, but were apparently more concerned about denying Northern culpability than clarifying the nature of Brown's efforts. Certainly the 1860 Republican Presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, echoed his party's view when he called Brown a delusional fanatic who was justly hanged.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

Brown was the product of the bloody battles over the issue of slavery in the territories west of the Mississippi. Ironically like Roe v Wade ;SCOTUS laid waste to the legislative solution by ruling against the Missouri Compromise in the Dredd Scott decision
saying that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories.

Predictably, the vocal left has chosen to ignore Obama's call for "fair minded words" in the abortion debate. In addition to blaming Bill O'Reilly as Tom noted, the Huffpoers are going spastic over the murder of Dr. Tiller.


Cristina Page claims this is a "foreshadowing" of things to come. Now that we have a pro-abortion president in the White House those anti-abortion terrorist "sleeper cells" have been activated just like during the Clinton years.


During the entire Bush administration, from 2000-2008 there were no murders.

During the Clinton era, between 1994-2000 there were 6 abortion providers and clinic staff murdered, and 17 attempted murders of abortion providers. There were 12 bombings or arsons during the Clinton years.

During the Bush administration, not only were there no murders, there were no attempted murders. There was one clinic bombing during the Bush years.

One can only conclude that like terrorist sleeper cells, these extremists have now been set in motion. Indeed the evidence is already there. The chatter, the threats, the hate-filled rhetoric are abundant.

How quickly the left forgets their own hate-filled rhetoric and that the majority of domestic terrorist incidents in this country are perpetrated by environmentalists and animal rights groups.

Not to be outdone, Shannyn Moore writes of Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/christian-fundamentalist_b_209521.html).


It's shocking to write. But it's time to start calling it what it is.

When Jim D. Adkisson walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church with 76 rounds and a shot-gun, he killed 2 people and was charged with murder. His motive was "he hated the liberal movement" and was upset with "liberals in general as well as gays." He should have been charged with terrorism.

Sunday George Tiller, a Wichita doctor, was killed INSIDE the lobby of his Wichita church. Reformation Lutheran Church became a crime scene; fundamentalist terrorism.

The right wing media hacks make targets of the left. The fundamentalist reverends blather their intolerance of other Americans. Their marriages are in jeopardy if the GLBT community can walk down an aisle. Their children are going to be molested if you have to rent to a same sex couple. Fear... fear... fear the queer.

Bill O'Reilly's hit piece on Dr. Tiller is a training tape for Christian Fundamentalist Terrorists. Never did he ask the woman interviewed how she, as a 13 year old, got pregnant, who was the father, or where her parents were when she underwent an abortion at Dr. Tiller's clinic. I'm sure O'Reilly's drivel will insist on personal accountability for the murderer. I'm sure he won't be in line for any "accountability" for calling the doctor "Tiller the baby-killer" or his clinic a "death mill."

Are anti-choice groups celebrating today? An abortion doctor is dead so women won't have unwanted pregnancies!

The "war on terror" needs to include domestic religious, fundamentalist terrorists.
Who is next?

Funny that she should choose Adkisson as her poster child, Huffpo previously noted (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/28/jim-d-adkisson-charged-in_n_115281.html) he "was a loner." Hardly a part of some "Christian Fundamentalist Terrorist movement.

No Ms. Moore, "Pro-life" groups are not celebrating today, they are in one accord condemning this tragic, senseless loss of life as are so-called "right-wing hate sites" like Hotair, Michellemalkin.com and LGF. There are no "Pro-life" groups, churches - fundamentalist Christian or not - that call for or advocate violence against abortion providers, supporters or gays. We're all intelligent enough to realize that would be entirely inconsistent with our cause, why aren't you?

Ms. Moore and Ms. Page, you are the ones spreading fear, fear, fear.

Back to the topic (coolest President).

How cool is it to have a food taster like the kings of yor ?

I suppose it is probably Secret Service SOP to make sure that Obama doesn't get a dose of dioxin like Viktor Yushenko got when he pi$$ed off Putin ;or even worse ,Polonium-210 did in Alexander Litvinenko. In fact ;President Bush also had a taste tester when he went overseas... but he was hated by all so it had to be a greater concern... right ?

Even though Obama again dissed French President Nicolas Sarkozy by turning down a dinner invitation; it is hard to believe he would arrange a bad serving of Vichyssoise or Foie gras in retaliation.
Barack and Michelle Obama decline dinner with the Sarkozys - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6434141.ece)

The need to have a taste tester was supposedly only imperitive if Evita became VP . So it was a bit of a surprise to the French chefs when the Obama's had their food tasted before they dined at the La Fontaine de Mars in Paris.

President Obama's French food tested by 'taster' (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.0caa9f66f64d2c5c70c0d8ddb18f1a5 b.821&show_article=1)

For those obsessed with the Obamas menu selection ( I admit it is becoming a hobby) . He ate roast lamb and everyone else ate beef filets) .

It is not clear if his food taster accompanied him and VP Biden to Ray's Hell Burger.

Perhaps there's more to it than just being dissed by Sarkozy. Maybe he just wasn't in the mood for schmoozing after hearing the EU is still taking a rightward swing (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090607/ap_on_re_eu/european_elections).

In yet another sign of his coolness, Obama is apparently the first Sesame Street president (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1902845,00.html?xid=rss-topstories).

Hello again,

Come on guys... You got to admit, he IS the coolest pres we've ever had.

I understand, though. You guys think Pat Boone is cool.

excon

Nice linkage !
I wondered why he picked Charles Rivkin ,a former President and COO of Jim Hensen Company ,as ambassador to France.

As far as the food tasting thing. Wouldn't it be better if he carried his own MREs on field trips ? I'm sure they come in Wagyu beef.

Hello again,

Come on guys... You gotta admit, he IS the coolest pres we've ever had.

I understand, though. You guys think Pat Boone is cool.

excon

Obama is cool.

However, I also think my 74-year-old grandmother, who works 10-12 hour days, is cool too. But I wouldn't want her running our country.

Pat Boone was a contemporary of Elvis. He was recording R&B and gospel about the same time Elvis did. But he changed his style and went the way of Bobby Darin.

I will always think Elvis was the best although my preferences are the Beatles and early 70s rock bands.

Pat who?

He's not just cool, he's ‘sort of God (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/06/05/newsweek-s-evan-thomas-obama-sort-god).’

OK, no more whining when we call him The One or Messiah.

He's one of the very few commercially successful 50s pop artist who has not been inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame. Perhaps his politics has something to do with it ? Naaahhhaaa.

My own opinion is that he never really improved on the music he performed . People generally do not remember his versions of Little Richard or Fats Domino songs. Elvis also borrowed heavily from R&B artists ,as did the early Beatles. But their versions of the songs endure.

For my money the most original of the early white rock and rollers was Buddy Holly ,who also heavily influenced the Beatles.

He's not just cool, he's ‘sort of God (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/06/05/newsweek-s-evan-thomas-obama-sort-god).’
So is your God, Rush Limbaugh: Smooth Operator - Rush Limbaugh Challenges God to Debate (http://www.smthop.com/article.aspx?newsnum=1187)

Give it up NK . You never see any of us on the right even quote Rush let alone cream in our pants like Evan Thomas or Chris Matthews do when genuflecting to Obama .

Edit . Just did some research and saw this was a sarcastic blog a couple of days after Rush evidently challenged Obama to a debate. I guess it's funny??

You never see any of us on the right even quote Rush let alone cream in our pants ...Whatever turns you on...

So is your God, Rush Limbaugh: Smooth Operator - Rush Limbaugh Challenges God to Debate (http://www.smthop.com/article.aspx?newsnum=1187)

ROFL, turn on your satire detector if you can find it. Do you also get your news from The Onion?

Insult, counter insult, insult , counter insult, insult...

Maybe I can pass this along here. It fits the thread.


AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

By Lou Pritchett



Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett


Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.

Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had over 500,000 hits.

Hello gal:

That guy scares ME! He sounds like he's going to DO something about it. That wouldn't be very American now, would it?

excon

I guess he is your God now. I'm glad you found someone who shares your views. It matters not that Mr. Obama has penned three books I guess, has Mr. Protchett read them? Remember, lawyers are vastly underpaid!

I like this guy's responses:
Conservative Propaganda Email is a Case Study in Disinformation | the daily mull (http://dailymull.com/1450/An-Open-Letter-to-President-Obama-Strikes-Out)
Lou Pritchett on Obama: Formative Years, Meeting a Payroll, Military Experience, and "Class" | the daily mull (http://dailymull.com/1452/An-Open-Letter-to-President-Obama-Strikes-Out-Part-2)
Lou Pritchett Thinks that True Americans Have No Class | the daily mull (http://dailymull.com/1456/An-Open-Letter-to-President-Obama-Strikes-Out-Part-3)
Lou Pritchett Tries to Mislead Us on Deregulation, Health Care, and "Wind Mills" | the daily mull (http://dailymull.com/1460/An-Open-Letter-to-President-Obama-Strikes-Out-Part-4)
Lou Pritchett's Open Letter Lies about Capitalism and Patriotism, Obama, and Spending, | the daily mull (http://dailymull.com/1462/An-Open-Letter-to-President-Obama-Strikes-Out-Part-5)

Hello gal:

That guy scares ME! He sounds like he's gonna DO something about it. That wouldn't be very American now, would it?

excon

So why not diffuse the rumors, rather than imply that the author is a terrorist? Show me what's wrong about his statements and provide evidence to back up what you've said.

I don't like Obama either; I hold the same views as in that letter. Doesn't mean I'm going to run to the White House with a gun.

So why not diffuse the rumors, rather than imply that the author is a terrorist?Read the post above yours.

You mean this kook? He scares the living day lights out of me.

Lou Pritchett - Speaker Profile (http://keynotespeakers.com/speaker_detail.php?speakerid=4175)

The one that charges $7,500. To $15,000. Per speaking engagement?

Half of the stuff that scares him is just his opinion. You know what they say about those.

Read the post above yours.

The links you provided...

One problem with the right-wing.. .
Are just as biased as the letter they're denouncing.

So why not diffuse the rumors, rather than imply that the author is a terrorist? I don't like Obama either; I hold the same views as in that letter. Doesn't mean I'm going to run to the White House with a gun.Hello this:

I couldn't have said it better than this guy did, and I copied it from NK's list. It's just the beginning, but you kind of get the gist of it:

-----------------------------------

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

So here we go:

"to kill the American capitalist goose"

Apparently Pritchett has not been paying attention this last year. It's his Republican cronies that have almost killed that Goose—whichever way you look at it: whether by "deregulating" until the economy was almost dead, or by bailouts that put the government in charge of banks.

Obama, at every turn, has been trying to keep the goose from committing suicide.
"the American capitalist goose"

You've got to give him credit for this one—it's really slick. Notice how he ties "American" to "capitalist", as though there were something about it in the constitution.

The truth is, of course, that presidents from Jefferson to Lincoln and beyond have warned this country about the dangers, to America, of unbridled capitalism and giant corporations.

There is a difference between a free market and a market dominated by multinational corporations. But it's conservative policy to constantly conflate the two, and then pretend that the combination is somehow patriotic.
"the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world."

This is also nicely done. It's such a big claim, and yet it's buried so deeply in the structure of the sentence.

You're not supposed to notice this claim at all, consciously. You're supposed to assume it's true without really thinking about it.

And, if you do think about it, he's wrapped the idea completely in the flag—so that you won't question it.

Wouldn't it be unbelievably unpatriotic to ask, even for a moment, whether Americans really do have the highest standard of living in the world?

Actually it wouldn't be. In fact, it would be classy of us to admit that we didn't, if that were the fact.

And it is.

There are a great many ways to calculate "standard of living" but under almost any objective system, the U.S. does not rank first, or even second, or third. That's just the truth.

The door you just heard slamming was Pritchett giving up on me an an America-hater—for admitting the truth.

We do rank pretty high, by the way—anywhere from 6th to 17th (and that's out of a lot of countries). Just not highest. But of course admitting that would be un-American to Pritchett, because guys like him don't think that it's patriotic to tell the truth.


---------------------------------

excon

I guess he is your God now. I'm glad you found someone who shares your views. It matters not that Mr. Obama has penned three books I guess, has Mr. Protchett read them? Remember, lawyers are vastly underpaid!

I like this guy's responses:
Conservative Propaganda Email is a Case Study in Disinformation | the daily mull (http://dailymull.com/1450/An-Open-Letter-to-President-Obama-Strikes-Out)
Lou Pritchett on Obama: Formative Years, Meeting a Payroll, Military Experience, and "Class" | the daily mull (http://dailymull.com/1452/An-Open-Letter-to-President-Obama-Strikes-Out-Part-2)
Lou Pritchett Thinks that True Americans Have No Class | the daily mull (http://dailymull.com/1456/An-Open-Letter-to-President-Obama-Strikes-Out-Part-3)
Lou Pritchett Tries to Mislead Us on Deregulation, Health Care, and "Wind Mills" | the daily mull (http://dailymull.com/1460/An-Open-Letter-to-President-Obama-Strikes-Out-Part-4)
Lou Pritchett's Open Letter Lies about Capitalism and Patriotism, Obama, and Spending, | the daily mull (http://dailymull.com/1462/An-Open-Letter-to-President-Obama-Strikes-Out-Part-5)

Thanks for posting theses links. Very interesting.

Hello this:

I couldn't have said it better than this guy did, and I copied it from NK's list. It's just the beginning, but you kinda get the gist of it:

-----------------------------------

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

So here we go:

"to kill the American capitalist goose"

Apparently Pritchett has not been paying attention this last year. It's his Republican cronies that have almost killed that Goose—whichever way you look at it: whether by "deregulating" until the economy was almost dead, or by bailouts that put the government in charge of banks.

Obama, at every turn, has been trying to keep the goose from committing suicide.
"the American capitalist goose"

You've got to give him credit for this one—it's really slick. Notice how he ties "American" to "capitalist", as though there were something about it in the constitution.

The truth is, of course, that presidents from Jefferson to Lincoln and beyond have warned this country about the dangers, to America, of unbridled capitalism and giant corporations.

There is a difference between a free market and a market dominated by multinational corporations. But it's conservative policy to constantly conflate the two, and then pretend that the combination is somehow patriotic.
"the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world."

This is also nicely done. It's such a big claim, and yet it's buried so deeply in the structure of the sentence.

You're not supposed to notice this claim at all, consciously. You're supposed to assume it's true without really thinking about it.

And, if you do think about it, he's wrapped the idea completely in the flag—so that you won't question it.

Wouldn't it be unbelievably unpatriotic to ask, even for a moment, whether Americans really do have the highest standard of living in the world?

Actually it wouldn't be. In fact, it would be classy of us to admit that we didn't, if that were the fact.

And it is.

There are a great many ways to calculate "standard of living" but under almost any objective system, the U.S. does not rank first, or even second, or third. That's just the truth.

The door you just heard slamming was Pritchett giving up on me an an America-hater—for admitting the truth.

We do rank pretty high, by the way—anywhere from 6th to 17th (and that's out of a lot of countries). Just not highest. But of course admitting that would be un-American to Pritchett, because guys like him don't think that it's patriotic to tell the truth.


---------------------------------

excon

My issue with that response is that it was clearly written by someone who has something against Republicans. I didn't go deep enough to find out if the guy is a journalist or columnist, but this is the exact reason that media is supposed to be non-biased.

Shame on him and shame on all the others who feel their political stance should be a public affair, whether they support Obama or Bush. Republican or Democrat, personal political views have no place in journalism - as we've all seen over the last century, it's far too easy to start playing favorites and not a single person on this board can honestly state otherwise.

Well Lou is a retired executive on the public speaking circuit and the response to his "public letter" is from a blogger refuting his erroneous points and fear mongering. There's really no media involved here. Personally I watch Fox News for clear unbiased news.

Well Lou is a retired executive on the public speaking circuit and the response to his "public letter" is from a blogger refuting his erroneous points and fear mongering. There's really no media involved here. Personally I watch Fox News for clear unbiased news.

Yet this same man, Ken Mull, who is so quick to defend Obama clearly has a vendetta against anything right-leaning. He writes blogs titled "Four Problems with the Religious Right" and you're willing to accept them at face value.

Personally, I'd much rather read a blog by someone without such a glaringly obvious vendetta. I'd rather someone deliver news to me and have it be just that: news. Not a mud-slinger, not a cover story. I just want the facts.

Personally, I'd much rather read a blog by someone without such a glaringly obvious vendetta. But yet you're OK with the content of the letter. You don't see an issue there at all?

My issue with that response is that it was clearly written by someone who has something against Republicans. I didn't go deep enough to find out if the guy is a journalist or columnist, but this is the exact reason that media is supposed to be non-biased.

Shame on him and shame on all the others who feel their political stance should be a public affair, whether they support Obama or Bush. Republican or Democrat, personal political views have no place in journalism - as we've all seen over the last century, it's far too easy to start playing favorites and not a single person on this board can honestly state otherwise.


You are kidding right? Written by someone against republicans? Isn't that exactly what is behind your dude? He has something against democrats.

I think it is going to be nearly impossible to totally wipe personal preference out of media.
To report is one thing but to write an editorial is another. So yes, I agree with you there. It is easy to play favorites.

But yet you're ok with the content of the letter. You don't see an issue there at all?

I said I shared those same views, yet I still asked for them to be disputed. I didn't say that the letter was right and accurate; I stated that I shared the same feelings but I'd like to be proved wrong.

BUT - I want to be proved wrong by fact, not opinion.

I just want the facts.Hello this:

I don't think you do. You want opinion that measures up with your beliefs. That's what you got with the Pritchett letter. I don't deny the response was based on opinion too.

What? Are you going to tell me that the letter was fact and the response was opinion?? Puuleze!

excon

Hello this:

I don't think you do. You want opinion that measures up with your beliefs. That's what you got with the Pritchett letter. I don't deny the response was based on opinion too.

What? Are you gonna tell me that the letter was fact and the response was opinion??? Puuleze!!

excon

Nope, never once said the letter was "fact" nor did I even allude to that. I said I share the same feelings.

You're completely glossing over that I'm asking to be proven wrong. That's all I want. I want a non-biased statement which can be proven with fact.

Instead, I get told what I want to hear, which I find quite insulting. I never have and never will be someone who talks out both sides of their mouth, and I certainly don't want words being placed in my mouth, either.

Ok, we can leave it at this: you share the opinion of the letter and others are of the opinion of the blogger. That seems OK, no?

Hello gal:

That guy scares ME! He sounds like he's gonna DO something about it. That wouldn't be very American now, would it?

excon

So you're a mind reader already yet?

So you're a mind reader already yet?Yes, he hears voices in his head that tell him things.

OK.
So what has Obama accomplished so far?

A huge stimulus package that hasn't stimulated.

Billion dollar bail outs and the ship still sinks.

The KNOWN unemployment rate at about 9.5% and rising.

Used Chicago mob tactics to take over private companies.

Apologized to the world for what a sorry country the USA is.

And all in less than 200 days.

Now THESE are all FACTS.

In retrospect, Carter will look good by comparison.

OK.
So what has Obama accomplished so far?

A huge stimulus package that hasn't stimulated.

Billion dollar bail outs and the ship still sinks.

The KNOWN unemployment rate at about 9.5% and rising.

Used Chicago mob tactics to take over private companies.

Apologized to the world for what a sorry country the USA is.

And all in less than 200 days.

Now THESE are all FACTS.

In retrospect, Carter will look good by comparison.

These aren't just facts, these are YOUR PERSPECTIVE that you call facts. You are a glass half empty kind of person aren't you?

These aren't just facts, these are YOUR PERSPECTIVE that you call facts. You are a glass half empty kind of person aren't you?

So tell us which statements ain't so.

So tell us which statements ain't so.How about "Chicago mob tactics" - prove that.

OK.
So what has Obama accomplished so far?

A huge stimulus package that hasn't stimulated.

Billion dollar bail outs and the ship still sinks.

The KNOWN unemployment rate at about 9.5% and rising.

Used Chicago mob tactics to take over private companies.

Apologized to the world for what a sorry country the USA is.

And all in less than 200 days.

Now THESE are all FACTS.

In retrospect, Carter will look good by comparison.Hello again, gal:

The jury is still out on the economic stuff. It really takes about 18 months for stuff to start showing up in the markets, so it's too soon to tell. Like you, I have my doubts.

I think admitting our wrongs isn't apologizing. Pretending that we did no wrong, when we did, ain't fooling anybody but you guys on the right...

What did WE do wrong, prey tell?? This God Blessed country do anything WRONG?? What kind of a liberal pinko must I be to admit this country did something wrong??

Well, for starters, back in the 50's we overthrew the elected leader of Iran and put in our puppet. He was mean to them. They remember. They're not happy about it. You weren't even taught about it. I guess they thought if they didn't teach you about it, it didn't happen. Guess what? The Iranians didn't forget.

excon

Ok, we can leave it at this: you share the opinion of the letter and others are of the opinion of the blogger. That seems ok, no?

No, it's not okay. Because then we're all operating on what we think is the right and good thing, and not on facts and logic.

These aren't just facts, these are YOUR PERSPECTIVE that you call facts. You are a glass half empty kind of person aren't you?

Then please give us your perspective, Cosyk. What has Obama accomplished.

As for facts:

It is a FACT that when Bush left office in January, the unemployment rate was 7.6%. It is NOW 9.4%, the highest rate of unemployment in more than 25 years. This is despite the FACT that Obama pushed his stimulus bill with the claim that if it didn't pass, we would see rising unemployment. It is a FACT that in January the number of unemployed persons in the USA was 11,616,000. It is NOW 14,511,000. This is a loss of 2,895,000 jobs, despite the PROMISE that Obama's Stimulus Bill would "create or save" 3 million jobs. THESE are facts, and they can be found at the Bureau of Labor Statistics: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/)

It is a FACT that when Bush left office, the national budget deficit was $458.6 billion. Now, according to the 2010 budget historical data the Year-end 2009 estimated budget deficit is $1.841 TRILLION. That's a 401.4% increase in the budget deficit in only 6 months. These are facts that can be found in the 2010 US National Budget historical tables: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf

It is a FACT that the national debt at January 31 2009 was $10,617,588,000,000 (That's $10.6 trillion --- principal only). As of TODAY, the national debt is $11,373,451,000 ($11.4 trillion --- principal only), a $756 billion or 7.1% increase in the national debt in less than 6 months. These are FACTS that can be found at the US Treasury's website.

What is "opinion" is the idea that Obama's stimulus bill "saved" 150,000 jobs in May 2009. The FACT is that we lost 350,000 jobs in May.

The point is that the FACTS show Obama to be a complete economic disaster in the 6 short months that he's been in office. It is only OPINION that he's somehow been good as President.

Elliot

Elliot,
Wouldn't the same results happen regardless of who took office after the Bush mess?

Cool?? President?

I think both Bush's, Clinton and Obama have and had their own interest in mind and could give a damn about any of us. Dems can point at Republicans, Republicans can point the finger at Dems but it is still the average american who gets screwed!

As for factsHello again, El:

I know you guys want immediate satisfaction, but it don't happen that way. I'm not going to argue your facts, because they represent a point in time that isn't germane.

When the government acts to effect the economy, it takes about 18 months for the actions to start showing up. As proof, I ask, if it happened sooner, how come the inflation rate hasn't skyrocketed since the Fed printed zillions and even more zillions of dollars? I'll tell you why, because it hasn't worked it's way through the economy yet. Give it a year from now, and it'll knock your socks off. Buy gold.

excon

When the government acts to effect the economy, it takes about 18 months for the actions to start showing up.

So if this is all Bush's fault, why did he wait 6 1/2 years to "screw things up"? Why not jump right in after he got re-elected?

Hello again, El:

When the government acts to effect the economy, it takes about 18 months for the actions to start showing up. As proof, I ask, if it happened sooner, how come the inflation rate hasn't skyrocketed since the Fed printed zillions and even more zillions of dollars?? I'll tell you why, because it hasn't worked it's way through the economy yet. Give it a year from now, and it'll knock your socks off. Buy gold.

excon


Yeah and Obama is soooo cool that his effects are happening right before our very eyes and we don't see it. Last month he said that we will not see any of the benefits of what he is screwing up (errr I mean 'fixing') within our life time.


I wonder why?? :confused:

Could it be because it is going to take that many Presidents to 'FIX' what he is making a mess of?


{I remember Obama saying that if he didn't bring about changes for the better within his first 100 days he would resign. Another one of his lies I guess.

So if this is all Bush's fault, why did he wait 6 1/2 years to "screw things up"? Why not jump right in after he got re-elected?
I remember Obama saying that if he didn't bring about changes for the better within his first 100 days he would resign. Another one of his lies I guess.Hello girls:

It's actually Reagans fault, but we can go into that later... You ask if this was Bush's fault?? Was Bush a spender?? Uhhhh YEAH!! Was Bush a DEFICIT spender?? Uhhhh, YEAH AGAIN!! Did Bush spend heavily on two wars, AND lower the income the government received?? Uhhhh, YEAH!! Looks like a disaster waiting to happen - and it did!

Obama DID fix it. We'll just have to wait for another year or so to see if it really DID fix it. I don't know if it did. But, it's too soon to say it didn't.

Chant this phrase as you're going to sleep, "eighteen months... eighteen months... eighteen months...." Say it over and over till you get it.

excon

What exactly did Obama fix?

I don't see any great increase in jobs.
With the things Obama is doing he is causing even more to lose their jobs and tripled the deficit.
I would love to see a list of what he has fixed with the numbers vs what he has messed up with those numbers.

He has padded the pockets of the people that messed things up while taking it out of the investors that were 'guaranteed' a profit.

Hello girls:

It's actually Reagans fault, but we can go into that later... You ask if this was Bush's fault??? Was Bush a spender???? Uhhhh YEAH!!! Was Bush a DEFICIT spender???? Uhhhh, YEAH AGAIN!!! Did Bush spend heavily on two wars, AND lower the income the government received??? Uhhhh, YEAH!!! Looks like a disaster waiting to happen - and it did!

Obama DID fix it. We'll just have to wait for another year or so to see if it really DID fix it. I dunno if it did. But, it's too soon to say it didn't.

Chant this phrase as you're going to sleep, "eighteen months... eighteen months... eighteen months...." Say it over and over till you get it.

excon

That's not what I asked. You said that it takes 18 months for a government to affect the economy; I asked you why Bush waited 6 1/2 years. You responded that it's the fault of a President from the '80s. So by your statements, first it takes 18 months - now it takes 20 years?

What exactly did Obama fix?Hello again, Saph:

The economy was about to go into the dumper. He stopped that. I guess you missed it. Now, it's just going to be bad instead of disastrous.

You're right, though, in that it remains to be seen if what Obama did (and what we do NOW) actually fixes it for the LONG term. Health care reform is part of the fix. If we don't do THAT, Obama's fixes won't fix squat.

excon

He did a temporary fix. Wait and use your 18 month quote before you jump to concluding that he fixed anything.
According to that theory this fix you are crediting to Obama would actually be the results of what Bush did Dec 2007 -Jan 08.

He did a temporary fix. Wait and use your 18 month quote before you jump to concluding that he fixed anything.
According to that theory this fix you are crediting to Obama would actually be the results of what Bush did Dec 2007 -Jan 08.

Nicely done ;)

AND lower the income the government received??

Besides the recession at the beginning of his term and last years downturn Federal Revenues as a percentage of the GDP were around 18.4 percent;which was consistent with the rate of revenues during the peak of the Clintoon presidency and the tech stock bubble.

It was not enough revenues that was the issue. It was spending ;especially the expansion of medical entitlements.

Obama's gamble of priming the pump by quadupling down on the debt while tax revenues are dropping is hardly a fix. It is a gamble bigger than the 'New Deal 'gamble that failed to bring us out of a decade long depression.

I asked you why Bush waited 6 1/2 years. Hello again, this:

I don't know what you mean. But, let me try this... I'm speaking about a currency/fiscal event. That is what the government DID to attempt to fix the situation. That injection of cash takes about 18 months to work it's way through the economy, before it starts showing up in the numbers...

The policies that BROKE the economy, however, started 30 years ago. It started with an idea - the idea that Reagan had, wherein government WAS the problem, NOT the solution. Given that the prevailing attitude was that GOVERNMENT REGULATION was the problem, REMOVING those burdensome regulations would fix everything... But, it didn't. Oh, it did for a while, but it really hurt us in the long run.

Those regulations kept the things that HAPPENED to us, from happening. They were instituted AFTER the Great Depression in order to PREVENT another Great Depression. Somebody forgot stuff.

excon

besides the recession at the beginning of his term and last years downturn Federal Revenues as a percentage of the GDP were around 18.4 percent;which was consistent with the rate of revenues during the peak of the Clintoon presidency and the tech stock bubble.

It was not enough revenues that was the issue. It was spending ;especially the expansion of medical entitlements.

Obama's gamble of priming the pump by quadupling down on the debt while tax revenues are dropping is hardly a fix. It is a gamble bigger than the 'New Deal 'gamble that failed to bring us out of a decade long depression.

Agree. I still cannot fathom how anyone thinks increasing taxes during a recession will fix anything... "You have no money? Give us more!!"

As Quinn and Rose say
A pizza place increasing the price and cutting the delivery area is not going to make more money but end up out of business.

Hello again, this:

I dunno what you mean.

You stated that when government acts to affect the economy, it takes approximately 18 months for their actions to work through.

Bush was in office for eight years. If this was truly Bush's fault, why would he do a semi-decent job for the first six and a half years, and then say, "Gee...I think I'd like for everyone in America to hate me. Let's screw the country over"? Why wouldn't he start screwing things up immediately? If it was a political move, why not wait until re-election and start the downhill slide from then? Once he's in, we can't do anything about it.

THAT is what I mean.

You stated that when government acts to affect the economy, it takes approximately 18 months for their actions to work through.

Bush was in office for eight years. If this was truly Bush's fault, why would he do a semi-decent job for the first six and a half years, and then say, "Gee...I think I'd like for everyone in America to hate me. Let's screw the country over"? Why wouldn't he start screwing things up immediately? If it was a political move, why not wait until re-election and start the downhill slide from then? Once he's in, we can't do anything about it.

THAT is what I mean.

No defense for Obama but I think that is what Bush did do but Obama is adding fuel to the mess.

We are the ones getting burned by BOTH of them!

No defense for Obama but I think that is what Bush did do but Obama is adding fuel to the mess.

We are the ones getting burned by BOTH of them!

None taken. I don't agree, but I'd like to be proven wrong by fact.

That's something that no one on this board seems to get through their head. We can have differing opinions, but opinion does not equal fact.

As a random note, I think it's kick-@ss that we have a black President. However, there are a lot of other black men/women that I think would have been 1,000% better for the job.

He did a temporary fix. Wait and use your 18 month quote before you jump to concluding that he fixed anything.
According to that theory this fix you are crediting to Obama would actually be the results of what Bush did Dec 2007 -Jan 08.Hello again, N0:

I don't disagree. The numbers showing up TODAY are the result of what Bush did 18 months ago. The numbers are bad. That would indicate to me, that Bush didn't fix anything. As a matter of fact, those numbers indicate that Bush did the opposite - and he did.

I'm NOT crediting Obama with a FIX. I'm reserving my judgment for some period down the road. EIGHTEEN months seems like a good number.

If you're referring to the massive cash injection into the banking system, it DID stop them from collapsing and causing another depression. It really DID - for the time being... It remains to be seen what the result of that injection will be (in eighteen months).

Me? I think it will result in hyperinflation. Will THAT conclusion be considered a fix?? Nope. Not to me. Does that mean Obama is a failure? Nope. He'll get the blame because he couldn't fix it, but in truth, it's really not fixable...

An economy is like a drug addict... When it gets a shot of cash, it feels really good.. But there IS pain coming down the road.

Buy gold.

excon

I believe the following to be true:

_nPbnQG-rcg

That's something that no one on this board seems to get through their head. We can have differing opinions, but opinion does not equal fact.

As a random note, I think it's kick-@ss that we have a black President. However, there are a lot of other black men/women that I think would have been 1,000% better for the job.

I am always telling people opinion and fact are not the same.

I also always tell people that say we are against Obama because he is black, "No way, I would vote for Bill Cosby as President ANY day''.

Well in 18 months from now AND 18 months from the day Obama is no longer Pres.
Tell me THEN how great a job he is doing.
I truly believe you just aren't seeing the real effects of what he is doing right now.

I am puzzled . So if the economic turn around is underway by June of 2010; will it be the fixes that President Bush put through with the original TARP that fixed the economy?

will it be the fixes that President Bush put through with the original TARP that fixed the economy?Hello again, tom:

I don't know, and I don't care. I don't have a political ax to grind. But, it looks to me like YOU do... Bush was a spender - a PROLIFIGATE spender. He didn't represent YOUR right wing persuasions. Why, on earth, are you supporting him, unless it IS political with you??

excon

PS> If you read my posts, you'll see that I really don't think the economy is fixed. You'll see that, although TARP saved the immediate collapse, I'm not sure that when the cure shows up in the numbers (down the road about a year from now), it isn't going to be WORSE than the fix.

excon

None taken. I don't agree, but I'd like to be proven wrong by fact.

I generally agree with your point. However there are facts that point to Bush being part of the problem . Overall he failed to use his veto pen and in fact initiated some of the biggest spending increases in the last decade. The revenues being generated by his tax cuts were keeping the deficit in line sort of... it never rose to above $458 billion.

But last year during the autumn banking crisis he intiated polices that first Excon condemned ,but now supports since Obama grabbed the mantle .
Overall the new IOUs written since Sept. of last year are $1,000,000,000,000 and growing .
Today there will be a new Treasury statement released and this number may be(and probably will be ) revised upward .Not only that ,but given the revenue influx the government gets in April the numbers will be most likely more optomistic than reality . We will learn that by June 1st of this year spending has already exceeded the $1 Trillion mark and is rising .Both Presidents shared in this policy. In fact ,Obama kept much of the Bush Treasury team into his administration.

Excon is correct about the inflationary train wreck coming. Already we are having problems selling Treasuries . The interest rates will be raised to give greater incentive for the Chinese to invest in them. President Obama forecasts a $18 trillion plus debt by 2014 due to his experiment . The total US GDP for 2008 was $14 trillion . So sometime in his 2nd term we will have a bigger debt than our annual GDP . That is unsustainable by anyone's measure.

That is unsustainable by anyone's measure.Hello again, tom:

Agreed...

But, now the discussion has transcended the local stuff and moved on to the bigger stage, where it actually should be.. Because the problems we're having NOW can be attributed to Nixon, in addition to Ronny Ray Gun. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm blaming Republicans.. I'm not, but they DO seem to be the most culpable.. (Ok, yes I am.)

He closed the gold window, and untied the dollar from gold. From that time forward, the government could PRINT money, and IS. Before that, they couldn't.

The debt, that is unsustainable by anyone's measure, is sustainable if you hyperinflate. Inflation is GOOD for borrowers and BAD for lenders. That way, we pay back the debt with very cheap dollars. Bernanke thinks he can control inflation with interest rates. He's wrong. The government should NEVER have been given that power. It's the power to destroy our money, and that's what's been going on since Nixon did his deed.

excon

PS> You may wonder why I call him Ronny Ray Gun. It's because I was attending a seminar in San Francisco in 1968, when a group of demonstrators from San Francisco State were GASSED from helicopters, with NO consideration for the average citizen going about their business... I was one of those citizens..

Did being gassed by a Republican sway my political thoughts?? You betcha it did!!

Elliot,
Wouldn't the same results happen regardless of who took office after the Bush mess?

No, the same results would not have happened.

1) The national debt would not have increased by 7% in 6 months, because no other president would have been stupid enough to borrow that much money to support that much useless cr@p in their overbloated stimulus bill.

2) Similarly, the budget deficit would not have increased by over 400% due to increased spending.

3) Unemployment would be LOWER, not higher, because any other president would have known not to increase taxes and regulatory expenses to businesses during a recession.

So the simple answer is NO, the result would not have been the same under ANY president, because any other president would be more interested in HEALING the economy rather than using the recession as an excuse to take over the economy.

Elliot

So the simple answer is NOUnless you have psychic powers or you can see alternate realities *no one* say that with *any* certainty. I seriously doubt that unemployment would have been lower with an inevitable recession.

Hello again, Saph:

The economy was about to go into the dumper. He stopped that. I guess you missed it. Now, it's just going to be bad instead of disasterous.

You're right, though, in that it remains to be seen if what Obama did (and what we do NOW) actually fixes it for the LONG term. Health care reform is part of the fix. If we don't do THAT, Obama's fixes won't fix squat.

excon

Right, This is kind of like when EMS gets to the scene of the accident.

FIRST Obama had to stop the profusion of blood that would cause imminent death.
After you stop the bleeding, the best way you know how, then you address the other wounds. Now we may still have a bad situation, but death is avoided.

Hello again, El:

I know you guys want immediate satisfaction, but it don't happen that way. I'm not going to argue your facts, because they represent a point in time that isn't germane.

They sure seemed germain enough when people were pointing at the unemployment figures in 2002 and 2003 when Bush was in power. Then they were VERY germain. Remember how people (yourself included, if I remember correctly, excon) were arguing that the Bush tax cuts were a failure because we weren't seeing decreased unemployment immediately?


When the government acts to effect the economy, it takes about 18 months for the actions to start showing up. As proof, I ask, if it happened sooner, how come the inflation rate hasn't skyrocketed since the Fed printed zillions and even more zillions of dollars? I'll tell you why, because it hasn't worked it's way through the economy yet. Give it a year from now, and it'll knock your socks off. Buy gold.

Inflation IS INCREASING. Food prices are up. Gas prices are up. Housing values are down (which is the same as saying that mortgage payments have increased in relation to home values). We are seeing inflation in every sector of the economy.

Here are the monthly inflation rates (CPI) for the last 12 months available:

May 2008 0.84%
June 2008 1.01%
July 2008 0.53%
August 2008 -0.40%
September 2008 -0.14%
October 2008 -1.01%
November 2008 -1.92%
December 2008 -1.03%
January 2009 0.44%
February 2009 0.50%
March 2009 0.24%
April 2009 0.25%


After 5 months of heavily DEFLATING PRICES, when Obama came into office we suddenly see massively INFLATING PRICES.

Yes, the inflation is here, it is bad, and it is getting worse.

You wanted proof of the immdiacy of the problem? That it's not just a snapshot in time? Here it is.

Elliot

Unless you have psychic powers or you can see alternate realities *no one* say that with *any* certainty. I seriously doubt that unemployment would have been lower with an inevitable recession.

Anyone with any understanding of history can say that with a very high degree of certainty. Just as I was able to say a year ago that this massive disaster was going to happen under Obama because I know and understand history.

We conservatives predicted EXACTLY this mess, and you told us we were fear mongering. Now that it has happened EXACTLY as we predicred, you are trying to argue that the same thing would have happened under any president. But it wouldn't have, because no other president would have done what Obama is doing.

Even Obama is seeing what a massive mess he's made. Even HE has figured out that no other president would have been this massively screwed up vis-à-vis the economy. That's why he announced "paygo budgeting" as one of his major initiatives for the near future. AFTER creating the largest budget deficit in history, after creating a national debt larger than all other presidents in history combined, he's finally finding religion with regard to "paygo".

Obama screwed up, NK. He knows it. The leaders of other countries are laughing at him about it. (And you thought that Bush was an international embarrassment.) The polls are beginning to show it... the people may like Obama, but their support for his policies is falling massively. That's why he's trying some massive spin control with paygo.

So I stand by my answer. We predicted this mess. We told you that nobody would be as bad as this guy for the economy. We told you that no other president would have made these mistakes... not even Hillary. And now you are trying to spin it so as to say that we don't know what any other president would have done. Well, yes we do.

All we have to do is take the candidates at their word. Obama TOLD us he was going to do this stuff and he's keeping his campaign promisses. McCain, Romney, Hillary, and all the other candidates said that they would not, and I believe them... because they never did it or tried to push for it before while in office.

There's a reason that Obama was considered the most liberal Senator in Congress... it's called a voting record, and it says a lot about a candidate. NO OTHER CANDIDATE was as liberal as Obama. Ergo, no other candidate would have taken the incredibly stupid actions that Obama has taken because of ideology. And the results would therefore have been different from what we are seeing today.

Yes, we do know, and no you don't need to psychic powers to figure it out.

Elliot

Ex You won't find me taking up Nixon's defense regarding his fiscal policies . What is the difference between wage and price controls that he initiated and the various attempts by the new President to do the same ? None .

We already know that polices that go back even further (Johnson ) were the cause of the bad medicine that Nixon Ford and Carter tried.


The government should NEVER have been given that power. It's the power to destroy our money, and that's what's been going on since Nixon did his deed.


Why stop there ? The government created the Fed . To prevent the next depression . Well ,they failed to do that in the 1930s and they have failed to control the business cycle any time since. When there is gvt. Interference in the marktplace does it really matter how the currency is pegged ?

In the whole history of humans an agreed international gold standard only lasted for a whole 50 years between 1871-1914 .

You think the gvt. Couldn't manipulate that ? Under your theory ,if the public is allowed to demand payment in gold from the state, at a fixed exchange rate between the currency and gold, then the state cannot print up too much currency . If it does, people will trade in their dollars for gold. To keep from losing its gold reserves, the government will have to stop creating new money.

But ;The money was pegged to gold during Roosevelt's terms and he just refused Americans access to gold. In essence the gold stopped being "our gold " by 1933 .It became property of the government . The convertability contract was violated.

Nixon violated the contract again in 1971 when he changed it from a fixed rate of exchange to a floating rate. But he did that after the price of gold on the world market had already begun to fluctuate and a fixed price was unsustainable .Even before ;by 1968 only central banks could get gold at the then artificial discount rate of $35 /oz .

Gold fluctuates like any other commodity today so if we are pegging our currency on commodities maybe it should be coal ,something we have in abundance. WE do not have an abundance of gold and we would be basing our currency on a product mined primarily in places such as China, South Africa and Russia.

We conservatives predicted EXACTLY this mess, and you told us we were fear mongering. Now that it has happened EXACTLY as we predicred,
You had 8 years, why weren't any measures taken to avoid it?