Democrats & Liberals Archives

Angry Republicans

Why are Republicans so angry? They don’t argue with Democrats; they vilify them. Instead of disagreeing with President Obama’s policies, they call him a Hitler, a Stalin, a terrorist, a socialist, a communist, the anti-Christ, someone who hates whites - the list is endless. Republicans spew the same kind of ravenous rage towards Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats. Why?

People say politics is a contact sport. Maybe it is. But the way Republicans approach it it is not a sport. In athletic sports we insist you follow the rules and that you respect the winner. Well, the winner is Barack Obama. At the very beginning of this administration, Rush Limbaugh, the titular hear of the Republican Party, said he wanted Obama to fail. All the luminaries on Fox News immediately followed his lead, spitting daily invective against Obama, Democrats and anything even remotely related to Democrats. Republican legislators in Congress followed suit.

Pundits say it has always been this way. No, it has not always been this way. Sure, during election season the parties would throw calamitous dirt at each other. But after winners were chosen, the mud-slinging would diminish. There was a certain amount of respect each side had for the other side.

But in the last decade or so, Republicans have become emotional and irrational. Since Obama's election, Republicans have become hysterical. Just listen to the ridiculous stuff spouted by Limbaugh's lieutenants: Palin, Beck and Bachmann.

Why are Republicans hysterically angry? Why do people, in general, get angry? Because things do not work out the way they expected. Or because they don't know what to do in a crisis. Or because they realize that what they believed all their life is not true; this is sometimes called congnitive dissonance.

It seems to me that Republicans are faced with cognitive dissonance. Ever since Reagan, they believed in 2 immutable "laws":

1. Deregulation will produce a booming economy
2. Tax cuts will increase government revenue

Although they may not admit it, those Republicans who have a brain can see that neither of these two "laws" is true. It should be obvious to them by now that adhering to these two "laws" was a big cause, perhaps the most important cause, of the current terrible depression.

When Democrats like me denounce deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, Republicans have no rational retort. Their emotions run wild and crazy. They go ballistic criticizing Democrats.

To my angry Republican friends I say, Calm down and start using your head. It may help you build a more rational Republican program.

Posted by Paul Siegel at August 3, 2010 2:21 PM
Comments
Comment #305125

As usual Paul, your posts make no sense and I can only respond with this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqprEihjXg

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 3, 2010 2:52 PM
Comment #305126

Paul, your comments sound much more angry than those you accuse of that emotion. In fact, to me your comments sound both angry and filled with hatred.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 3, 2010 3:25 PM
Comment #305127

Beretta9,

Please explain how the video you posted helps your side of the arguement, if you even have one. Talk about not making sense.

Posted by: Mark at August 3, 2010 3:28 PM
Comment #305128

Paul, The same question could be asked of your party during the Bush admin.

Posted by: MAG at August 3, 2010 3:51 PM
Comment #305130

Paul:

Get the anger and hatred out of the Democratic party and then come and tell us how you did it!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 3, 2010 4:17 PM
Comment #305132

Baretta,Royal,Craig, Mag,

I did not hear hate in his post.
It was very one sided, but not angry and hate filled.
The Republicans do seem to get very emotional when the Presidents name is mentioned or especially Nancy Pelosi.
The thing that strikes me as odd is that the attacks sound identicle throughout the Republican media. verbatim.
How is it that the same quotes are used by all GOP apologists?
I thought I’d ask a group of obvious GOP apologists. I really am curious.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at August 3, 2010 4:54 PM
Comment #305133

The big problem, really, is the way politics on the right has become divorced from provable, material gains other than winning elections. Conspiracy theories have taken the place of facts, and it becomes difficult to stop feelings born from such unskeptical sources.

If your anger is based on, say, Death Panels, but you believe that regardless of what Democrats tell you, they’re secretly for killing your granny, and turning the country into a socialist purgatory, well, then how much chance do folks have of talking you down?

The Republicans fear to be talked down, because they’ve internalized a real fear of political defeat, and what it means for the country. They have been taught to regard sources that aren’t ideologically aligned with them with suspicion, which makes them easy prey for the dozens of of Conservative outlets whose news output is dictated by what’s best for the Republicans in Washington, more or less.

And what the Republicans in Washington, the leaders of the party, are pushing, is that Democrats took over the country illegitimately, that they’re forcing a non-majority agenda on you, and that if you let them get away with it, the nation becomes the Soviet States of America.

Republicans are constantly angry because they are given few good choices by their political doctrines, their cynical media, and their radical, hard-right leaders to confront their problems in a constructive, rational way. They don’t have a media that debunks sensational but false claims. They don’t have politicians with real plans. They don’t have the majority they’ve been taught to think belongs to them. They are raging at the possibility that their grip on things, which they’ve been taught is necessary to the survival of this country and their way of life, is slipping away.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 3, 2010 5:01 PM
Comment #305138

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen; when will you ever learn?

“If your anger is based on, say, Death Panels, but you believe that regardless of what Democrats tell you, they’re secretly for killing your granny, and turning the country into a socialist purgatory, well, then how much chance do folks have of talking you down?”

And your point is? Do you ever proofread what you say? These statements could just as easily applied to the democrats, especially during the Bush years. I don’t think I have ever heard a conservative on WB ever say, “the democrats took over the country illegitimately, but I do remember the democrats wailing the Bush stole the presidency from Gore and Kerry. For 8 years the left thought Bush was an illegitimate president.

I consider myself an “average” conservative, and I am not angry about anything. I believe the democrats won fair and square. But believing they won does not take away my right to disagree with the direction they are taking the country. It is my right to disagree, and on average, about 60% of the American people disagree with everything obamba and the dems have done. So I am not alone. The left are the ones that are angry. They are angry because they won and we won’t just lie down and let them run the show. You have had the majority and you cry, you won the elections and you cry, the republicans use the same rules as democrats did and you cry. In fact I think those on the left are a bunch of crybaby, girly men.

If you guys cry so much now, what are you going to do in November, when you loose control? I am not angry; I am happy. I am looking forward to the elections. Today’s Gallop poll has obamba approval at 41% and disapproval in the high 50’s. What do I have to be angry about? The republicans will take control and when obamba’s health care kicks in and people’s take home pay goes down because of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and obamba veto’s all the things that the voters want congress to reverse (i.e. obamacare, and out of control EPA and FCC), his re-election will have a snowballs chance in hell of taking place. To the rest of your talking points, I say blah, blah, blah – with a smile on my face and a song in my heart. No anger…

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 3, 2010 6:14 PM
Comment #305139

Andre, The hate for the Bush admin was flying hot and heavy by the Democrats during his 8yrs. in office. You can go back in the archives of watchblog and see for yourself.

Posted by: MAG at August 3, 2010 6:25 PM
Comment #305140

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “And what the Republicans in Washington, the leaders of the party, are pushing, is that Democrats took over the country illegitimately, that they’re forcing a non-majority agenda on you…”

That comment is totally false. Please name the sources saying that the dems took over illegitmately. Now I certainly do recall such feelings among the dems when Bush defeated Gore.

As for forcing a non-majority agenda upon us, Mr. Daugherty much has changed among the views of the majority since obama was elected. Have you read any legitimate polls lately that all clearly show that much of the obama and dems agenda is clearly not to the liking of the majority.

Magical thinking runs rampant among libs today as they continue to believe they will retain their majority in congress and the presidency in 2012. Nearly every economist of reputation and the CBO and other reliable sources predict continuing or increasing unemployment at historically high levels. And, many are predicting interest rates rising which will cause great trouble for this nation which owes so much in borrowed money.

obama has even lost much of the support of the uber-liberals as they are disappointed that he hasn’t brought even more socialism to bear and they are disgusted that our foreign wars continue unabated.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 3, 2010 6:34 PM
Comment #305142

And by the way Andre I never claimed Paul’s post was hateful. I claimed that the Democrats were hateful during the Bush admin.

Posted by: MAG at August 3, 2010 6:46 PM
Comment #305144

The hatred towards the presidents I believe started when Clinton was President with the constant attacks and investigations. It increased under Bush as some sort of payback. And it has completely gone off the charts with Obama. I believe it’s a case of an eye for an eye. I fear we shall all be blind.

Posted by: Jeff at August 3, 2010 6:55 PM
Comment #305146

Jeff, Clinton was attacked for his personal bad habits and in fact, impeached, and Bush and obama for their policies.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 3, 2010 7:04 PM
Comment #305147

Jeff, I agree with Royal, Clinton just couldn’t keep his manhood in check and lied about it and that’s where all his flack came from.

Posted by: MAG at August 3, 2010 7:09 PM
Comment #305148

Rf..In the end his personal indiscretions was his undoing but through most of his term it was just personal attacks.

Posted by: Jeff at August 3, 2010 7:11 PM
Comment #305149

Case in point your refusal to capitalize President Obama name.

Posted by: Jeff at August 3, 2010 7:14 PM
Comment #305150

MAG…I would like to make a correction…make that “childhood” in check.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 3, 2010 7:14 PM
Comment #305151

Jeff you are absolutely right. If you think back before Clinton we all got along pretty well. Before Clinton it was expected for everyone once they were elected to try to work together.

It was always my opinion that they were scared of Clinton and wanted to do anything they could to get him out of office. Of course that is just my opinion and I don’t really have any proof other than what I saw and heard.

Posted by: bwood at August 3, 2010 7:14 PM
Comment #305153

Jeff observes…”Case in point your refusal to capitalize President Obama name.”

Glad you noticed Jeff. Here’s my logic. Many believe obama to be God. Many refuse to capitalize the name of God. Therefore, I refuse to capitalize the name obama in keeping with their non-reverence for God.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 3, 2010 7:18 PM
Comment #305154

RF… Thanks for confirming my suspicion with the “childhood” comment.

Posted by: Jeff at August 3, 2010 7:19 PM
Comment #305155

Mag, are you forgetting Whitewater. That is where it started.

Posted by: bwood at August 3, 2010 7:19 PM
Comment #305156

bwood in his comment believes “they” were scared of Clinton. Nope…just disgusted.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 3, 2010 7:20 PM
Comment #305157

bwood, That to. but the Monica thing was what he is best known for.

Posted by: MAG at August 3, 2010 7:23 PM
Comment #305158

RF… Once again thanks. And I know of one except republicans who refers to Obama as a god. Of course I know you mean it in the most enduring way.

Posted by: Jeff at August 3, 2010 7:24 PM
Comment #305159

bwood, also other then that he did IMO a fairly good job.

Posted by: MAG at August 3, 2010 7:24 PM
Comment #305160

Let’s talk about “childhood”. That is exactly how the republicans are acting. Like a bunch of spoiled rotten little kids that did not get their way so they are saying no one can play.

Posted by: bwood at August 3, 2010 7:24 PM
Comment #305161

RF… Thanks for confirming my suspicion with the “childhood” comment.

Posted by: Jeff at August 3, 2010 07:19 PM

You’re very welcome. Is it not childish for a sitting president to have non-marital sexual relations in the Oval Office and then lie about it? Is that manly…is that presidential…is that admired? In my world, that’s just disgusting.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 3, 2010 7:29 PM
Comment #305163

bwood wrote; “That is exactly how the republicans are acting. Like a bunch of spoiled rotten little kids that did not get their way so they are saying no one can play.”

Many dems and libs on this site accuse the R’s of getting their way by obstruction. Which will it be?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 3, 2010 7:35 PM
Comment #305165

RF…Childish no stupid yes. And lets not forget that Newt was having an affair will he was investigating Clinton. And how about That Wide stance guy and lets not forget Vitter and Ensign and we can keep going that’s my point everybody ends up blind.

Posted by: Jeff at August 3, 2010 7:40 PM
Comment #305166

OH, please Jeff…we were talking about president’s weren’t we? Why not childish? Is that considered adult behavior where you come from?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 3, 2010 7:42 PM
Comment #305171

RF

When was that ever considered “child’s” behavior? Most affairs I know of come from adults not children. So I agree with Jeff. It was stupid.

Posted by: Mark at August 3, 2010 7:55 PM
Comment #305176

Beretta9-
Obama cuts taxes, Republicans say he raises them. His actions, economists say, helped save the economy. Republicans say he’s destroying it.

So on, and so forth. Republicans say what they have to say to depress poll numbers. That’s all they care about, and it seems its all you care about. They depress them so they can argue that what he does is unpopular. But they spread all kinds of disinformation while they do it.

Quietly, on Healthcare, while Republicans have been vilifying him on other issues, the Public has come around. The current numbers have popularity at fifty percent.

What does that tell you? It tells me that polls alone do not indicate what is good policy, and sometimes polling is skewed by the sheer amount of venom some are willing to pump into the environment.

You know something: you are free to lie to yourself with a smile on your face. You are free to tell yourself that repeals on Wall Street or Healthcare reform are popular anywhere else but the Republican party. You are free to tell yourself that Bush wasn’t really that bad, even while you fight to keep his legacy of Republican decadence from sinking your party.

You’re free to tell yourself anything you want to, and be ecstatic at the prospect!

But you can’t tell me this stuff and count on me to forget what I know, what I remember. I remember the things that made Bush unpopular. I remember the way the wars went south, the way his economic growth faltered, and never really took root below his beloved rich.

I know why I was angry, and unlike folks like you, I don’t have to ignore the evidence to remember why I was so angry. I only had to see it.

But such a statement would be pretentious for Republicans like you, because your complaints against him are fabricated, more than half the time, and the other half of the time, you’re throwing stones in a glass house.

Royal Flush-
What the ****? You throw around ACORN, and voter fraud, an parade the New Black Panthers around. Your people tolerate the Birthers, and other such folks.

And you say, you haven’t claimed the Democrats won by illegitimate means? Hell, what do you think thos jokers in the Attorneys firing case were trying to get the US Attorneys to do?

Take the pick of your owns sources.

As for our policies? Let’s start with energy.

Check the numbers out: they back basically the Obama line, especially on environmental protection and dealing with greener sources of energy.

Clear majorities support Wall Street Reform. If anything, they want more.

Even on Healthcare, a majority opposes repealing and replacing, and in a Kaiser Permanente poll, the Approval/Disapproval ratings are clearly in Healthcare’s favor.

What? You asked for it. Under all the generalized numbers, Republicans have a slippery hold on things. You might win your share this fall, but at what cost? So you can win promotion to captain the ship you just torpedoed to make Obama fail?

That’s the bitter irony of all this: since Republicans have no real alternatives, they are going to be able to truly ride to the rescue. The best they will be able to do is hold the will and the ability to reform things in this country hostage, until some catastrophic event turns the country against them just like they did in the Bush Administration. Republicans have learned nothing from their fall from power. Nothing.

But you go on. Go on rearranging the deck chairs to your liking. I for one am going to stand for politics that is productive, not a politics that makes actually doing something about problems rather than making them worse for political benefit a politically iffy position.

You talk about increasing unemployment? Well, what the **** did you you were doing when you cut off those people on umemployment benefits? Did you think the money that they paying into the economy was going to get magically pulled out of their asses?

And what makes it really rich is you want your damn tax cuts back. Cute. Very cute. Do the words penny-wise, pound-foolish mean anything to you? Your party’s gotten very good at being oblivious to the results of its own policies, and worse, its own politics. You’re paralyzing stimulus, just when we need it most. You’re penalizing the unemployed at a time when even the incentive to find work that a cutoff would create can’t get over the lack of actual jobs out there.

You’re so busy trying to save capitalism from the Democrats that you may just end up creating a chronic state of high-unemployment and deflationary pressures that’s going to make hard to deal with much of anything. You’re literally creating a system where it is not in people’s interests to invest in the future, where a hundred dollars returns you less than a hundred dollar’s worth of return.

So, celebrate your immense political accomplishments, because you haven’t done **** otherwise that deserves any kind of notice, much less praise. You’ve convinced people to accept mediocrity from their government.

I guess that’s what you had to do to live down Bush: lower everybody’s standards to your level.

Well, lets see how long people are willing to accept that crap before they go crazy and just kick your asses out of office.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 3, 2010 9:15 PM
Comment #305177

I apologize for losing my temper.

Let me describe to you the me of ten years ago.

The me of ten years ago, as far as Bush went, felt that Bush had failed to respect the necessity to appear legitimate to all Americans. Instead of letting the process work out, he and his fellow Republicans intervened heavy handedly, giving the impression that they didn’t care what the real results was, so long as it was in their favor.

But, the me of ten years ago was not so partisan. The me of Ten years ago felt that Bush would eventually wear out his welcome like his dad did.

The me of ten years ago could not imagine that a President could be so foolish or so craven as to actually let what Bush and the Republicans let happen, happen to this country.

The last ten years for me has been one disillusioning experience after another concerning the depths that the Republicans were willing to sink to in order to hold on to power. You couldn’t have told me that we’d be running record deficits. I thought the deficits were dead. You couldn’t have told me that we’d be head to uncertain, or worse outcomes in two wars we were fighting at the same time. You couldn’t have told me that ten years later our economy would be struck with the worst recession since the Great Depression.

I don’t the Republicans out there properly appreciate just how much has gone wrong in such a short time under their watch, and it mystifies me why this party doesn’t step back and ask itself, how did things come to this?

The Republicans and their supporters on the right seem oblivious to the extent of the damage their leadership has done. But I don’t have the privilege of being nicely cocooned within the Conservative media. I don’t have that luxury of believing the failures of the last ten years were not historic both in their magnitude and their synergy.

You guys, in my opinion, well and truly ****ed up this country with your leadership. If you wonder why I so bitterly oppose you, well, it comes from the fact that I no longer expect that the Republicans will hold themselves accountable. The time has long sinced past since I stopped being surprised by the lengths to which folks on the right are willing to go to win.

So I am not happy. But what should there be to be happy about? It’s not so much the political problems, which I think are superficial in the extreme, as it is America’s paralysis in the face of its greatest challenges.

My pride, my patriotism as a American fills me with with shame at this, that we’ve gotten so wrapped up in the emotional stampedes of modern politics that we no longer take care of business.

However, I do not believe our decline comes from something we as Americans have lost for good, but rather something we’ve thown away, but can pick up again, if we so choose, if we are willing as such to take up the burdens.

I think America is not destined either for greatness or despair. I think we choose our destiny in this country, and I think the Republican Party, jealously defensive about its hold on that destiny, has done more than enough damage by spreading fear, distrust, and paranoia about the future under any other party.

America needs to wake up from the siren calls of mediocrity, and once again value excellence and ambition in our leadership, rather than embracing the small minded consistency of media-parasitic politics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 3, 2010 9:41 PM
Comment #305180

I’m not sure where to begin. I guess I can start with bwood’s answer to Jeff:

“Jeff you are absolutely right. If you think back before Clinton we all got along pretty well. Before Clinton it was expected for everyone once they were elected to try to work together.
It was always my opinion that they were scared of Clinton and wanted to do anything they could to get him out of office. Of course that is just my opinion and I don’t really have any proof other than what I saw and heard.

It started when Clinton’s wife tried to pass healthcare. The American people overwhelmingly were against it. It progressed to some of the other things Clinton and a democratic controlled congress wanted to do. If you remember, the democrats had had control of the entire congress for 40 years, except for the senate a couple of years during the Reagan administration. What Clinton and the dems tried to do, scared the crap out of the country, and as a result, the American people gave the house and senate to the republicans. The dems did not know how to live with the fact that they were in the minority. If you will remember, there were democrats who retired rather than be moved out of their offices. It was a terrible time for them. In the mean time there were things going on with Hillary and Whitewater, illegal campaign funds, and the crown jewel was the blue dress and Monica. The left was never able to grasp the idea that Clinton lied while under oath, to a grand jury. It was an impeachable offence. Sorry, but that’s the law.

The point is, democrats have, for the past 6 decades, run the government as they wanted, and to this day, they have never been able to accept the fact that they lost.

Stephen:

You wrote a post entitled “Angry Republicans”. To give you an example of how ignorant your statements are, you accuse the republicans of being what you have admitted you are.

“I know why I was angry, and unlike folks like you, I don’t have to ignore the evidence to remember why I was so angry.”

Maybe you should have entitled the post, “Angry Stephen”.

When evidence of Polls is given, you deny the polls by saying they are conservative polls, and not credible. Now you say that republicans are manipulating the polls. What you are saying is that the American people are so stupid, that republicans can manipulate their feeble minds. Great answer Stephen, I bet it took a lot meditation to come up with that one. Have you ever thought that maybe the American people really don’t like what the dems have to sell?

In you answer to Royal Flush, I see your anger has caused you to revert back to foul language, or the indicating of it by the ****. You would think someone with a so called education, would be able to express themselves without cursing….

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 3, 2010 10:00 PM
Comment #305182

Sorry Stephen, I gave you credit for writing this post. The credit goes to Paul. But I suppose you are defending it. To me you guys all sound alike, cut from the same piece of material, so to speak.

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 3, 2010 10:03 PM
Comment #305193

Beretta9-
I curse pretty much because that’s how I talk. But I think it would only be a problem if that’s all I ever did. And no, that’s not all I ever do. I’ve heard plenty of complaints about dissertations from the right-wing folks on the site, but you know what a dissertation is, right? It’s the kind of highly-researched paper folks write to get doctorate. It’s supposed to be something authoritative.

Of course being authoritative means getting attacked as arrogant by some folks.

My education isn’t so-called. I learned my money’s worth, over the years. And you know what? I never hobbled myself with the idea that I couldn’t learn. I don’t think other peoples should hobble themselves either.

I’m an egalitarian who believes in people rising on their merits. I think people are smarter than they think they are, than pop culture and right-wing government. makes them believe they are.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 4, 2010 12:30 AM
Comment #305196

Baretta9 said: “Now you say that republicans are manipulating the polls. What you are saying is that the American people are so stupid, that republicans can manipulate their feeble minds.”

When it comes to polls, the people are not stupid, but, they are ignorant. They haven’t taken probability and statistics in college, and therefore, haven’t learned the difference between shaped polling and objective polling. They haven’t learned that the BOTH the parties purchase two sets of polls, one for public consumption which are designed to produce results more or less favorable to their meme at the time, and another objective set which they never make public which they use to plan their strategy and tactics to manipulate the public to their side. The questions can be shaped to produce predictable majority responses. Example: Would you rather have for leadership Democrat’s failures to get everything right, or Republicans not even trying? It’s a bogus question which a majority will respond by saying Democrats. It works both ways, this was just an example. To be an objective measurement a host of variables have to be controlled for, and the questions can’t be loaded that way.

So, its not a matter of the people being stupid, just ignorant as to what constitutes a legitimate research poll which informs, as opposed to a shaped poll whose design insures desired results, and then those results, bogus as they are, are used to persuade still others.

One real easy way to tell a bogus poll is when the question is framed as Dems vs. Rep’s, without a, none of the above, option. It’s a forced choice which does not want, and eliminates entirely, the honest answer by many pollees who would indicate, none of the above. But, unless a person is educated in research polling, they wouldn’t know this and would not be able to distinguish a shaped poll from an objective one.

One more thing, well designed objective polling is very, very, expensive, and usually not made available to the public. When the polling sample size is 1,024 people conducted by land line phone, the results are severely flawed in extrapolating to the general public. Very seriously flawed. The really expensive well designed polls with real honest informative value constitute to knowledge and knowledge not shared can be used as power, as the Chinese author of The Art of War, reiterates, often.

The people are not dumb. They know what they have studied and are experienced at. Polling research design, probability and statistics, simply are not areas of knowledge and experience the public is versed in. That is ignorance, not stupidity. Stupidity is paying for shaped polling and then believing the results one paid for. That, is stupidity.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 4, 2010 3:28 AM
Comment #305205

I think passion and anger go hand in hand with politics - it always has at least in this country. Thomas Jefferson had some awful things said about him and just go back and look at some Whig newspapers and what they said about James Polk after he invaded Mexico. I was angry that George Bush started two unwise wars - I think that is a pretty rational reaction to believing that killing is being done in the name of my country for wrong reasons as is allowing my fellow citizens to be killed and wounded in unwise wars. It is rational to be angry at Obama for escalating one of these wars, I am angry about that. I think that this anger is rational. There are rational things to be angry at at every single level of politics in this country. There are also very irrational things to be angry at. Those that thought Bush was behind 9-11 were not being rational. Bush was a crappy president in my opinion but not capable of a monstrous act like that. Likewise being angry at Obama for death panels, where he was born, being a racist, or other stuff that is just plain not backed up by the facts is irrational anger and is for the tinfoil hat club not thinking Americans.

Posted by: tcsned at August 4, 2010 10:41 AM
Comment #305208

To all who support the GOP,

I really want to know why the criticism from their party uses identical phrases, word for word attacks and seems much more rehearsed, theatrical and insincere.

If you watch OReilly, he’ll call Obama, healthcare, those who appose his views the exact same names, use the exact phrases and labels to criticize as Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc. throughout the day. Then you watch CSPAN and the Republican lawmakers are using the same phrases, labels and insulting language verbatim.
How is that?
Coincidence?
It could’nt be some GOP PR spin memo that gets sent around to all the GOP talking heads is it?
When I watch MSNBC and the pro left talking heads they criticize in a less concerted, rehearsed, way. Their criticisms seem varied and real. Not necessarily correct all the time but sincere.

I would really like to know.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at August 4, 2010 11:28 AM
Comment #305211

I would really like to know.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at August 4, 2010

It’s simple Andre, just as those on this blog read comments with a prejudiced eye, they do the same with the media they read, watch and listen to.

I have listened to the Limbaugh show at times and it is hilarious when he plays segments from various liberal media sources all saying virtually the same thing on the very same day. Perhaps your eyes and ears need tuning. I had mine checked and was told they are in excellent working order.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2010 12:25 PM
Comment #305212

Beretta9,


Youtube video of Rep Winger (D)
Posted by: Beretta9 at August 3, 2010 02:52 PM


Thanks for the youtube post - I hadn’t seen it until I clicked your link. All along I thought you were a right-winger, but then I watched Representative Wiener’s attack on the “Republic” party. He was spot on in his comments. That you posted it certainly shows an apparent change of heart on your part. Starting to see the light (or listen to the facts)?

Why else would you have posted a video pointing out all of the GOP obstructionism and failures, and the Democratic progress? Maybe you were looking to post parts of his angry response to the GOP trying to block healthcare benefits for the 9/11 responders? Not sure, but this certainly is a strange post coming from you.

But thanks! You certainly help bolster the theme of the original post. Well done.

Posted by: boomxtwo at August 4, 2010 12:29 PM
Comment #305213

Mr. Remer is correct in his comments about much of the polling going on. I do like and believe the daily Rasmussen poll on certain issues and the popularity of obama. He uses the same questions every day and the results are the average of the previous 3 days.

Here is an election result, not to be confused with polling, that I found very interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/us/politics/04midwest.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Missouri Voters Reject Health Law By MONICA DAVEY
Published: August 3, 2010

“Missouri voters on Tuesday easily approved a measure aimed at nullifying the new federal health care law, becoming the first state in the nation where ordinary people made known their dismay over the issue at the ballot box.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2010 12:32 PM
Comment #305214

That’s why I’m glad I don’t live in the state of Misery … I mean Missouri. Why don’t they opt out of Medicare and Social Security while they’re at it. Maybe Virginia can arrange a transfer of our moronic governor and attorney general to Missouri so they can be amongst like thinkers or like non-thinkers.

Posted by: tcsned at August 4, 2010 12:47 PM
Comment #305217

Royal Flush-
Supremacy Clause.
Federal Law Trumps State Law.
End of discussion.

It’s just like California’s Proposition 187.
Immigration is a power delegated to the Congress.
State passes immigration law.
Government Challenges immigration law.
Government wins, because The Supremacy Clause makes federal law the law of the land.

The Republicans are winning some political points, but they do so in abyssmal, shameful ignorance of the actual workings of the Constitution.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 4, 2010 12:53 PM
Comment #305218

For those interested in Rasmussen daily polling on obama’s job (approval) (disapproval) I have provided a link.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

The daily polling began on 1/21/09 with a +28 (Strongly Approve 44%, Strongly disapprove 16%) and the polling today is -15 (Strongly approve 27%, Strongly Disapprove 42%).

That’s a change of 43 points (+28 to -15) between Strongly Approve to Strongly Disapprove.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2010 12:54 PM
Comment #305221

Mr. Daugherty writes; “Royal Flush-
Supremacy Clause.
Federal Law Trumps State Law.
End of discussion

Sorry to burst your bubble Mr. Daugherty but the health care law requires citizens to purchase something. This comes under the commerce law and has nothing to do with Supremacy. I won’t bother you with all the legal opinions I have read which believe the health care bill will be declared unconstitutional based upon this issue…not supremacy.

Should this effort by the liberals to force Americans to purchase health care or be fined succeed, the door will be wide open for just about anything those demented socialist can dream up. There goes liberty, individual freedom, and our nation.

Those not suffereing a mental disorder should clearly see the danger in such a grab by government becoming SOP.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2010 1:03 PM
Comment #305225

Royal Flush,

I have to agree that the rhetoric from right or left seems very similar to me. Hatred for Bush or Obama seems fairly equal.

I disagree that Healthcare will be declared unconstitutional unless the Supreme Court decides to overturn Social Security. If they do that there will be a riot on their steps and the justices will have to seek shelter.

I wouldn’t put it past the Robert’s court to attempt to be activist, since they have already shown a willingness to do so. I just doubt they will find a way to satisfy the majority of justices to venture into that political minefield.

Posted by: gergle at August 4, 2010 2:44 PM
Comment #305227

gergle…there is no comparison between SS and the health care bill as it now stands with regard to constitutionality.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2010 3:05 PM
Comment #305228

What I don’t get is….

1. Bush proposed and initiated the Stimulus.
2. All Republican candidates proposed health care reform.
3. We even moved forward on a Republican’s (Romney’s) health care plan.
4. Bush set the tax cuts to expire.
5. Bush’s economic council agrees cuts won’t pay for themselves.

So really, WTF? I have a very hard time believing that Romney would not have acted just as Obama has. There’s no reason to think otherwise. There’s nothing he’s done that wasn’t first proposed by Republicans. I’m totally on board with this post. I am completely puzzled as to what Republicans are so angry about. Seems like complete BS to me.

Posted by: Max at August 4, 2010 3:06 PM
Comment #305229

royal flush,

There is no requirement to purchase anything in the HC laws. Just misinformation there. People will be able to choose to buy their own coverage, regardless of pre-existing conditions, or they can choose to not purchase coverage. Those that choose to not pay for coverage, and thereby freeload on the system (when they get sick, others pay for their care anyhow), will be assessed a tax that overall equates to the burden they are placing on others. This “shared responsibility payment” essentially is intended to provide a fine for those that could otherwise freeload when it came to paying premiums, yet get coverage when they got sick.

Many against the HC reform gripe about this provision, then rant they are for personal responsibility. Most are for eliminating pre-existing conditions, but just don’t understand that you can’t do this, and then provide medical care for the non-payers without a burden to society. Many would just choose to freeload, with others paying the burden.

But, you can choose to say “I’m not paying for health care coverage.” In America, when you say that, and then get sick, we don’t turn you away from the hospital. You get care, and others pay for you. We don’t let you die, even if you would somehow claim that you wanted to “opt out of care.” This “shared responsibility payment” part of the law makes you pay for that irresponsible decision - your fair share.

The equivalent would be a person driving without insurance, never paying premiums, and when they get into a wreck, taking their car to the body shop and saying, “Fix it. Those that pay their premiums are going to pay my bill.” In this case, we are saying, if you choose to make a decision for others to pay your way, we are going to make an assessment against you to help cover the burden you would otherwise have others pay for you.

So, don’t buy coverage. Just don’t expect others to pay for you in full.

Posted by: boomxtwo at August 4, 2010 3:09 PM
Comment #305234

boomxtwo, you explained that exactly right. If they do not understand what you are saying they just do not want to.

My family and I are lucky we have healthcare coverage through work. You can not even go to the ER here because everyone with no insurance goes to the ER because they know they will not be turned away. I really get tired of the freeloaders. This town is full of them. Maybe if they had to purchase insurance they would think twice.

Posted by: Belinda at August 4, 2010 5:22 PM
Comment #305235

Was this guy not around when Bush was in office? The left was burning him in effigy, calling him Hitler, the antichrist, and a number of other things that the right is now calling Obama. It was only two years ago that the dems who have by the way been in control of the legislative branch of our government for the last four years ( it’s amazing to me how few people know that) where blocking everything Bush was trying to do to “help the country”. But that’s ok right? What im trying to say is that it might be a good thing to just say no to the government. Think really hard and ask yourself what has ether party done really for us?

Posted by: Dustin Capers at August 4, 2010 5:33 PM
Comment #305236

boomxtwo, a federal judge has already decided to allow the state of Virginia to sue over the very issues I noted. Mr. Daugherty should notice the reference to the commerce clause rather than the supremecy clause.

http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/228204-va.-ags-health-care-challenge-will-move-on

“Va. AG’s health care challenge will move on
BY JOHN O’BRIEN

Cuccinelli
RICHMOND, Va. (Legal Newsline) - A federal judge has decided Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli can sue the federal government over health care reform.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson issued his ruling Monday, denying the federal government’s motion to dismiss and allowing Cuccinelli’s challenge of the health care package’s individual mandate to proceed. Cuccinelli says the mandate is in contrast to Virginia law.

The mandate requires Americans to purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual penalty.

“While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate — and tax — a citizen’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce,” Hudson’s ruling says.

Hudson added that neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor a federal appellate court has addressed that issue.

“No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce,” Hudson wrote.

“Given the presence of some authority arguably supporting the theory underlying each side’s position, this court cannot conclude at this state that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.”

Cuccinelli says a state law passed prior to the federal health care reform’s passage in March prevents Virginians from being forced to purchase health insurance.

“In the view of (Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius), federalism is so withered and near death that States lack the power and right to go to federal court to test the validity of their own enactments when they conflict with federal law,” the response to the motion to dismiss says.

Oral arguments were held July 1.

Cuccinelli filed his lawsuit soon after President Barack Obama signed the legislation into law in March. It is separate from a 20-state suit filed in Florida federal court that claims the mandate is unconstitutional and has no state law issues

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2010 5:53 PM
Comment #305237

Royal Flush,

Conservative opposition to the health care bill is indeed strange since it was conservatives who originally proposed the concept of a mandate. Here is what the Heritage Foundation said in 2003:

In testimony before the Senate Special Committee on Aging on March 10, 2003, the economist Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation, said, “Today there is a legal and moral obligation on society to provide some level of health care to those who become ill,” adding: “It is also reasonable to expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan — one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society. To the extent that the family cannot reasonably afford reasonable basic coverage, the rest of society, via government, should take responsibility for financing that minimum coverage.”

Posted by: Rich at August 4, 2010 6:09 PM
Comment #305239

Ken Cuccinelli is a disgrace to my commonwealth - this is the same man who thought that slavery was only a side issue in the Civil War. Conservatives got all up in arms about Obama wasting tax payer money suing Arizona what about this fool wasting my tax dollars on a frivolous lawsuit only to get his name in the papers.

Posted by: tcsned at August 4, 2010 6:14 PM
Comment #305240

Rich…please reread the paragraph you quoted again and then point me to the part that even begins to resemble the health care bill passed.

MANDATE…WHAT MANDATE?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2010 6:20 PM
Comment #305242

It shouldn’t be surprising at all Rich - that’s how these guys operate. Say no to everything to try to make Obama fail. That is their singular goal even if it hurts the country. They only care about regaining power and nothing else. Even if they once supported it or even proposed it.

Posted by: tcsned at August 4, 2010 6:27 PM
Comment #305243

tcsned…your comments certainly do follow the liberal stragegy of attacking the messenger rather than the message. The fact remains that a federal judge didn’t dismiss the suit.

Regarding slavery and the Civil War I suggest you do a little reading. Those who beleive the Civil War began over slavery are just woefully uninformed. It was in fact, a side issue.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2010 6:28 PM
Comment #305245

uhh … who did you take history from? I have an MA in history and took many classes with two of the most prominent Civil War historians in the nation. One of which served on the Centennial Commission with Bruce Catton and is often criticized for being a southern apologist. He had often made the comment that those who don’t think that slavery was the central and deciding issue in Civil War are those who got F’s in history. Do you want to argue with Dr. James Robertson about this, you’ll lose. While it had little to do with the morality of the institution it was certainly the deal breaker. Why did all the states that seceded from the Union belong to slave holding states, coincidence? I think not. It had much to do with the balance of power in the senate and slavery being at odds with wage labor but those who hold some fantasy that it was about “states rights” are kidding themselves it was about a states right - the right to hold human beings in bondage.

Posted by: tcsned at August 4, 2010 6:55 PM
Comment #305251

“The name Civil War is misleading because the war was not a class struggle, but a sectional combat having its roots in political, economic, social, and psychological elements so complex that historians still do not agree on its basic causes.”

http://www.us-civilwar.com/

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2010 7:36 PM
Comment #305252

Royal Flush,

Mr. Butler, of the Heritage Foundation, quoted in my previous post went on to say after endorsing a universal “requirement” on purchase of health insurance by individuals/families and government subsidies for those unable to afford coverage:

“The obligations on individuals does not have to be a “hard” mandate, in the sense that failure to obtain coverage would be illegal. It could be a “soft” mandate, meaning that failure to obtain coverage could result in the loss of tax benefits and other government entitlements. In addition, if federal tax benefits or other assistance accompanied the requirement, states and localities could receive the value of the assistance forgone by the person failing to obtain coverage, in order to compensate providers who deliver services to the uninsured family.”

In the current health bill, it is also not illegal to decline to purchase health insurance. Rather, you will receive a tax penalty. That is exactly the mechanism proposed by the Heritage Foundation in 2003. It should also be noted that the rationale for the tax penalty is exactly the same as the current bill (free rider problem).

Posted by: Rich at August 4, 2010 7:45 PM
Comment #305253

“SECESSION AND THE CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTION. Some advocates of secession justified it as a revolutionary right, but most of them based it on constitutional grounds. The 1860 South Carolina Declaration of the Causes of Secession quoted the states 1852 declaration, which said that “the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States,” would justify the state in withdrawing from the Union. The South Carolina secession ordinance, following the procedure that Calhoun had prescribed, simply repealed the states ratification of the Constitution and subsequent amendments. The secession ordinances of other states did the same.”

http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 4, 2010 8:02 PM
Comment #305259

Royal Flush,
Why did southern secession immediately follow the election of a president that ran on a single issue - stopping the spread of slavery to new territories? Why were the first states to secede the ones with the highest percentage of slaves? Why did all of the Amendments to the Constitution after the south surrendered relate to freeing slaves and establishing their basic civil rights? Abe Lincoln rose in politics through his opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska act? He said:
“[The Act has a] declared indifference, but as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world — enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites — causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty — criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.”

Lincoln continued this line of reasoning all the way to the presidency.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”

What do you think the reaction was when the president says something like this to a group whose sole source of wealth and power is in human bondage?

The South’s economy was almost totally based on profits from unfree labor. They had no real industry to speak of. The Tredegar Ironworks in Richmond was about the only decent foundry in the whole south. They had no real exports other than things produced by slaves and you say slavery wasn’t the central issue?

I’m not saying that this was the only issue and that everything in the country would have been fine if it weren’t for this institution. But it is naive to think that it was not the end all and be all of the South. Every prominent politician in the South was a slave owner. Every member of the wealthy classes was there because of slavery.

Calhoun wasn’t an idiot. Arguing their rights and freedoms on the basis of keeping a whole class of people in sub-human bondage made for a pretty weak argument. They also needed to convince the people that did not own slaves to lay down their lives in the cause and by couching their reasons in an institution that most of the people who died for this cause could not afford nor could ever hope to afford to participate would not be a winning argument.

Posted by: tcsned at August 4, 2010 9:45 PM
Comment #305281

Speaking of angry conservatives - I’m sure they’ll be coming back out of the woodwork over the gay marriage issue now that a judge has overturned that ridiculous Prop 8. All the hand wringing and yelling by people who, for some reason, think that someone else’s marriage or right to marry has any affect on them is really baffling and annoying.

Posted by: tcsned at August 5, 2010 6:26 AM
Comment #305292

This radical decison by the US district court in California threatens to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system…that being, election results.

Within the past month and a half, the Supreme Courts of New Jersey and Wisconsin both rejected legal challenges to marriage.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2010 11:46 AM
Comment #305296

Off the subject a bit,

But who would have guessed this might happen if you build a wall? Oh, I did.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7139792.html

tscend,

Gee, that was fast.

It’s activist when a court decides against them, it’s justice when the courts decide for them.

Posted by: gergle at August 5, 2010 1:21 PM
Comment #305297

Yeah, giving a group of people the same rights as everyone else is truly radical indeed. The American democratic system does not mean mob rules and that a mob can restrict the civil liberties of an individual or a group. That’s why we have a Bill of Rights and the Amendments to the Constitution is to prevent a wrongheaded majority from usurping the rights of the individual. If the majority voted to reinstate slavery would you be ok with that?

This is an issue, I feel, worth getting angry about. I don’t have a problem with anger if it is well placed. I am angry that my gay and lesbian friends cannot enjoy the same rights and privileges as the rest of the people in this country. The SCOTUS has already said, in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is a basic right. That is enough legal precedence for this judge to throw out Prop 8. I am glad this issue is finally going to be ruled on by the SCOTUS though it’s going to come down to one judge - Anthony Kennedy - the rest of the votes are predictable. I still don’t see what all the furor is about giving gay men and women the same marriage rights as everyone else. It’s not like it is being made mandatory for everyone to marry someone of the same gender - but from the whining and crying from the right you would think that this is what is being attempted. We all only have one short life to live and anyone who is so self-righteous as to think that they should be able to restrict someone else’s happiness and ability to live the life they want to live (and does not hurt anyone else) has a real evil streak in them - and these people are generally so-called christians. If there was a Jesus he would be sorely disappointed in these people.

Posted by: tcsned at August 5, 2010 1:43 PM
Comment #305302

It is rather pathetic when one does not understand the difference between a federal judge ruling that a suit can go forward to the next step as in the health care case in Virginia and a federal judge who declares the votes of the majority of citizens invalid. Of course, his ruling is stayed pending a higher court.

ned wrote; “I still don’t see what all the furor is about giving gay men and women the same marriage rights as everyone else.”

Of course you don’t and you never will. And, the same blindless leads ned to comment on what he perceives as a fictional Jesus despite historical evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 5, 2010 4:12 PM
Comment #305310

Flush, this isn’t about right…or wrong, but going against your own narrow and personal beliefs. You just get your panties in a wad when anyone or anything does that. It is democracy when rulings fall on your side of the fence, and

ned wrote; “I still don’t see what all the furor is about giving gay men and women the same marriage rights as everyone else.”,
BS when they fall the other way.
None of these people give a rats’ patoody what you think. They don’t care what you do, or who you do it with, and are asking for, and deserve, the same consideration from everyone else.
It must be tough to go to bed at night knowing that not all in the world are sheep…….

Posted by: jane doe at August 5, 2010 6:38 PM
Comment #305323

RF,

Our Constitutional Republic was founded on the idea of individual rights. These individual rights are inalienable and not subject to the whims of 50% of the electorate. This is the basis of the recent decision on Perry v Schwarzenegger.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 5, 2010 9:29 PM
Comment #305331

Royal Flush,

Of course you don’t and you never will. And, the same blindless leads ned to comment on what he perceives as a fictional Jesus despite historical evidence to the contrary.

Not sure what the blindless are, I guess that would be sighted people. But surely, if you have historical evidence that isn’t some writer’s fiction long after Jesus’ supposed life, then I certainly hope you can produce it or write a smash book about it, because you have truly turned history upside down. While there were certainly prophets among the Essenes who were crucified, I’ve yet to hear anyone claim to have evidence of the biblical Jesus, other than zealots with no actual historical knowledge.

Of course there is Jesus who hangs out in the Home Depot parking lot, looking for work. I do have evidence he exists, but some idiot Republicans keep calling him illegal. So it must be true that Republicans believe Jesus is illegal.

Posted by: gergle at August 6, 2010 1:37 AM
Comment #305347

Royal Flush-
Supremacy clause states that what Congress legislates according to the constitution’s provisions is the law of the land. Commerce clause gets its overriding authority , which pre-empts state law where they conflict, from the Supremacy Clause.

The law by the way, forces nothing. It levies a tax, and then forgives that tax for those who have health insurance. In return for this, Insurance companies must cover everybody, no exceptions. Those who still can’t afford it either get subsidized or put into a beefed-up Medicaid system.

Should this effort by the liberals to force Americans to purchase health care or be fined succeed, the door will be wide open for just about anything those demented socialist can dream up. There goes liberty, individual freedom, and our nation.

So, essentially, you’re telling us we’re all mental patients who think we’re Snidely Whiplash.

Bull****. These are the things you say so you don’t have to admit that you’re just pushing banal, often incredibily stupid policies. You can’t argue on the facts that our proposals don’t make sense, so instead, you red-bait, and try to scare people out of agreement with us.

The world’s not going to end on our account.

On the marriage front, this was bound to happen some day. You know, the funny thing is, I think Americans will be perfectly able to wed as heterosexuals once that is said and done. It’s only if you mind homosexuals getting married so much that it puts you off of marriage yourself that this becomes a problem. Last I checked, though, people were still getting married in other countries.

Belinda-
Well, when people have coverage, they won’t have to depend on indigent services.

Dustin-
You miss the small fact that Republicans HAVE been saying NO to everthing, and have been effectively clogging the legislature for legislation that can’t get more than Sixty votes. Republican’s are blocking everything that comes the senate’s way. Our filibusters were nothing in comparison, literally. They are almost double our previous record in the 2006-2008 Congress alone.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 6, 2010 12:36 PM
Comment #305351

gergul worte; “I’ve yet to hear anyone claim to have evidence of the biblical Jesus, other than zealots with no actual historical knowledge.”

Try Josephus and Tacitus. Never mind all those who suffered horribly rather than deny Jesus.

We do not have in the Gospels “cleverly devised myths” or stories only loosely based on history, but rather eyewitness testimonies and traditions that in many cases the witnesses were prepared to die for, so profoundly did they believe them to be true.

Should you actually be interested in expanding your knowledge about Jesus may I recommend the following;

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
by Richard Bauckham

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 6, 2010 4:05 PM
Comment #305431

yaddy,yaddy,yaddy…..all I want to know - WHAT are the republicans ideas - no stalling, double talk, let’s just hear how the repubicans plan to creat jobs, war, global warming, health care, etc.

Let’s discuss.

Posted by: tink at August 8, 2010 12:11 PM
Comment #305487

RF - neither of those men lived during Jesus’ supposed lifetime and as such is not proof.

Posted by: tcsned at August 9, 2010 3:15 PM
Comment #313029

Bush has been named one of the worst presidents of all time. His approval ratings went down to 24 percent towards the end of his second term.

Democrats, had the right to argue and b*tch about Bush’s administration. The lies, Patriot Act, unnecessary wars, and tax cuts along with the massive spending were reason enough.

Obama was elected on the promise that he would bring the troops home from Iraq, combat the recession, and bring healthcare to the needy.

So far, he’s done an incredible job, against the odds of the Republicans in Congress trying to stop him at every turn.

Now, what I don’t understand is why the Republicans need to be so angry. The trickle-down theory DOESN’T WORK and minor issues like gay marriage and immigration are just a distraction from what actually matters (the economy, the war). Why do people still support conservative belief?

Also, in regards to the “Jesus” argument going on: I do believe in God, and I won’t go into it, but please don’t bring religion into this. Politics and religion should be kept seperate, just as our Founding Fathers intended. Once we begin to fight about religion in correlation to political beliefs, we may become what we most fear, a nation of religious conservatives who think only they are in the right.

Posted by: Plakat at November 12, 2010 1:10 PM
Comment #323155

Once again FOX NEWS seems to causes their followers to seen out of touch with the facts. They refuse to even learn news based on facts. Why, the truth won’t melt you mind, why do you think they show political clip, and always cut back to the host, instead of letting the complete clip play out. I have plenty of right wing friends, they stop watching FOX NEWS, do to the fact that they want to understand politics from all sides now. Their was a time when the news came from Fox was considered News. My Republican friends enter political debate for college in D.C.. Since that debate, every now & then they flip to Fox News once in a while, but swore they would never take their reporting as news anymore. To get into a political debate, and quote politics they learned from FOX NEWS, then after answers from the Young Republican debate party & and answers from the Young Democratic debate Party, switching up on each topic who goes first. Each side would comment on the subject at hand. They would play Fox News clip on the subject. Then MSNBC News clip which started the same, but the whole clip was played, without making it one sided by cutting parts out. Of course the (REP) debaters were confused because they never seen the whole clip , just what Fox wanted their views to see. so they decided their rebuttal would be MSNBC does the same thing, but they had to watch the same clip from two more separate non-affiliated party networks which [in a math term = non-bias]. Once they were forced to watch the last two clip, they became speechless, and did a 180 on their view on the topic. They were back into a corner knowing that what they just watch had to be true,because they realized that one the neutral networks is known for knocking both parties. What I didn’t mention it was a question on a health care issue, about death panel and how the rumors started & once these rumors were discredited on these clip they viewed, from top doctors all over the states mainly from the number one ranked hospital for more than 30 yearsbut if their are people clueless of which hopital has held this tiltle not just the states but #1 in the world for as I said 30 years and counting. They came back home, the first thing a couple of them did was confront their parents and realized they putting their party became more important than the good of the government. They also said that they shouldn’t have been so blind. When Fox went to far on manipulating the facts, and cross the line of law, the response was well were not a real News organization, one on their show actually The O’Reilly Factor ‘You’ve entered The No Spin Zone” a person with any sense would find it odd that a show has to use the word Factor & No Spin Zone in it’s title & daily comments. But this why they by 2020 this will be a country of one party, another reason why the right is so bias against education, because because close to 70% of college students register to vote chose Democratic or Independent, some say sooner if the Tea Baggers last long enough to completely keep a party divided! Besides Obama proving that if it came down to making a hard call to all those that doubted him. He didn’t just make the right call, out of 4 different plans he chose the hardest one, and it was his input ,on what happens if we lose a chopper. so they put in another backup plan based on his input. Meaning on Obama’s watch another historical moment has occurred, and no matter how hard the right wants to bend the truth, it flexes right back straight again!

Posted by: Raven21221 at May 14, 2011 2:53 AM
Comment #347547

all these replies proves what he says is true. Wow. Really, You could count on one hand how many republicans would say anything positive about Obama NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES. It proves how “fair, balanced and rational” you all are. If you are so religious then read the 10 commandments and live by the one rule that can take the place of all 10 of them. Treat people how you want to be treated and stop your antics. Your aggressive approach is only going to make the pain of losing power worse. If there is hatred coming from the left its because of your lying. The truth will eventually kill your party. Too bad, we really need a 2 party system to keep things in check.

Posted by: Jon at June 30, 2012 8:40 AM
Comment #347593

I came here to try to find some information regarding the Republican response to the health care bill because the original post asks a question about the Republican party being angry. I read through the comments (both views) and now I feel depressed. Why are you all so angry? None of you have solved anything. You don’t inspire people with this talk. It just makes people feel uncomfortable. Seems to be such a waste of valuable life spent bickering.

Posted by: Joe Miller at July 1, 2012 1:06 PM
Comment #349001

ZY-One of the favorite nike shoes among the women that nike running shoes fashion, style, comfort and cheap nike shoes is the Winter Hi 3. These shoes are styled as the cheap nike shoes boots which have nylon uppers, nike mens shoes lacing. These shoes will complement the jeans nike basketball shoes are available in six colors for the women nike shoes sale select from according to girls nike shoes preferences. The Nike Winter nike shoes for men come with faux fur collars and pom-poms and are nike running shoes to glam up every day http://www.nikeshoes-outlet.biz/ .

Posted by: cheap nike shoes at July 20, 2012 10:39 PM
Comment #363088

Cambridge Satchel Sale in UK Cambridge Satchel Co.Here,the most fashion styles Cambridge satchels could be found in our Cambridge Satchel outlet.Young people can always order the newest style Cambridge Satchel and Cambridge bag here.We’re professional in this line for years, so,we can provide you the best Cambridge satchel leather for any purpose.If you’re a super fans of Cambridge Satchel bag,then,you’re lucky here,as 2013 Cambridge backpack and Cambridge satchel classic Sale with Free Delivery Now.

Posted by: cambridge satchel 15 at March 20, 2013 10:13 PM
Comment #363287

linlin And here she is, on Wednesday this week, at the Louis Vuitton Louis Vuitton HandbagsAutumn Winter 2013 show in Paris. She’s wearing a Louis VuittonLouis Vuitton Handbags outlet (obvs!) monochrome chequerboard dress.Mutation at Espace Louis Vuitton Authentic Louis Vuitton HandbagsHong Kong opening to the public tomorrow, Thursday 21 March.ou can find cheap Jordans cheap jordansor sporting shoes easily with the help of internet. With advent of internet, there are many helpful sites that can help you get your kind of cheap Jordanscheap nike shoes. There are many kinds of cheap Jordans jordans for salethat you can buy. One of them is D&G-007, which is there in basic shoe color.

Posted by: cheap jordans at March 25, 2013 5:28 AM
Comment #363292

wengxy First of all, Mr. President, if you allow me, on behalf of myself and all Jordans for sale, to welcome you and your distinguished delegation back here in Cheap Jordans. I fondly remember your visit here several years ago when you were a senator, and it is a great delight to welcome you back to Authentic Jordans as the President of the United States, enjoying your second term.Now our Christian Louboutin outlet web shop supplies you 2011 new series of Christian Louboutin shoes and several other styles. Christian Louboutin sale discounted sale now, come and buying it!A few months after the collection was released, I had my hands on the Louis Vuitton outlet replica Neverfull, and I have to say, it’s impeccable. The vibrant colors are the same as the authentic, same as the intricate pattern. The Louis vuitton handbags outlet Replica Neverfull looks better than ever.Every once in a while Louis vuitton outlet sale makes a special collection of handbags, accessories, watches and ready to wear good in collaboration with various artists.

Posted by: Christian Louboutin outlet at March 25, 2013 8:12 AM
Comment #365092

“We’d walk all around him, but not through him,” he says, “The karitya mob finish replica ray ban tech off that water, too,” he adds with a grimace,There is no way of knowing what year Moko was born, but estimates put him at about 50 years old when he first encountered Europeans, walking into Anna Creek as rumours of sugar, flour and tea circulated among the desert Aborigines.”We’d walk all around him, but not through him,” he says, “The karitya mob finish off that water, too,” he adds with a grimace,There ray ban outdoorsmen outlet is no way of knowing what year Moko was born, but estimates put him at about 50 years old when he first encountered Europeans, walking into Anna Creek as rumours of sugar, flour and tea circulated among the desert Aborigines.

Posted by: jeanters at April 27, 2013 9:40 PM
Comment #368420

Under the previous collective bargaining agreement between the NHL and the players’ union, a team could buy out a player’s contract by paying two-Thirds of the remaining value over twice the number of years left on the deal.The average yearly payout, however, counted against the team’s salary cap each year.

A five-Time pro bowl defensive back, vincent plays a major role in staging the annual nfl rookie symposium, which touts the sport s legacy, player code of conduct and professional responsibility.The week-Long orientation returns to the cleveland area for a second straight year, starting june 23.

buy nike nfl jerseys

Gonzalez had eight catches for 72 yards in the Falcons’ NFC Championship Game loss, nike nfl jerseys including a 10-Yard touchdown reception with 25 seconds remaining in the first half.The falcons didn’t score again as gonzalez was denied his first trip to the super bowl.

Q:My son and daughter-In-Law divorced a Year ago.My daughter-In-Law retained the family home and my son moved in with me.They share a 4-Year-Old son who goes back and forth between homes.Parents get along and can work through most problems, however, there is one thing on which they don’t agree and it is causing huge problems for my grandson-His mother still breast feeds him before he goes to bed.Sometimes it is very difficult to get the child to settle down at our house.We’ve asked mom to stop, but she won’t.What’s good ex-Etiquette?

Posted by: nfl game jerseys wholesale at July 16, 2013 11:26 PM
Comment #369840

Rep are letting us down by not forfilling their role as a viable opposition. They are supposed to bring balance to the argument not insanity

Posted by: moses at August 24, 2013 7:12 PM
Comment #375158

Who will listen to a concert, North Face Jackets Outlet, of Wang Jie, Longchamp Paris, and Yu tears, of nostalgia trip, will be a blessing for, Gucci Outlet, the hot summer and ecstatic, Coach Factory Online, once for friends, Burberry Outlet, and sentimental romance, Ralph Lauren UK, will be for a long-awaited, Coach Outlet, reunion does not drunk return, Polo Outlet Online, how much passion, Michael Kors Outlet, and difficult moments, Canada Goose Outlet, his own covered with mill edges, Coach Purses Outlet Online, lost his best, North Clearance, those who have been ignored, http://www.guccivshoesfactory.com/, by the vulgar, Polo Lauren Ralph, reality of youth ah, MCM リュック, those pure idealism and vision ah, Gucci Shoes Outlet, I do not know, Marc Jacobs Outlet Online, when to actually be, Coach Factory Outlet Online, covered with dust into years, Coach Purses Outlet, of ruthless thin bookmarks, for a long time, Michael Kors Outlet Online, has forgotten to open, Cheap Hollister UK Online, this is a forgotten era, UGG Boots Sale, subject look back, Coach Outlet Online, adrift.

Posted by: coachbag at December 19, 2013 10:51 PM
Comment #379675

better to talk rather than making false judgement about the policies

Posted by: lesley at June 20, 2014 4:31 AM
Post a comment