patrick.net

simchaland says

We Jews are a nation, people, and members of a religion called Judaism.

The gene's of the average Jew shouldn't be part of the discussion, but unfortunately the Israelis (the Arabs do the same thing) try to gain their legitimacy from such nonsensical discussion so...
No one is denying that Jews are part of an international Jewish community. There is some direct Hebrew lineage amongst the Sephardic jews. Do recall that the Arabs are also directly related to the Hebrews. The Arabs and Sephardics are both semites, and most likely have incredibly similar gene pools. The Ashkenazi jews, however, are of a different lineage. They are the "converts" you speak of. Roughly 80% of the world's Jews are Ashkenazi.

simchaland says

We have always and still call ourselves Am Yisrael (People of Israel).

That's a self-serving translation of Yisrael, which is typically considered to refer to the Jewish people in diaspora, rather than in relation to any country. Besides, I think Thunder is on to something. The Lacota have a more reasonable claim to South Dakota than the Israeli's have to Israel.

simchaland says

And we Jews have never given up on Jerusalem or Israel. It’s part of our stories as a people.

Sure, but neither have about a dozen other cultural groups. The original terrorists groups that later became the IDF forced the local Arabs out of their homes at gunpoint, stole their lands, and literally gave their houses, farms, business, and communities away to any Jew willing to move to Israel--all in an attempt to gain a demographic advantage. The arabs who lived there are justifiably pissed off. Just like the Jews have not given up on Jerusalem, neither will the Palestinians.

CBOEtrader says

Agreed. Despite nothing actually changing, it will take the Democrats a while to realize that their dear leaders are making the exact same mistakes as the Republicans before them. But you know, anyone who says Obama is making mistakes must be a redneck, bible thumping, white sheet wearing, inbred, truck-driving, racist. If not, why would the news keep showing pictures of all those crazy tea-partiers?
Nomo, you drink the Democrat propoganda koollade, then try to point out when others aren’t thinking rationally–all while pulling the self-rightous routine regarding your rational reasoning skills. Your ego is standing squarely in the way of your brain functioning properly.

That is utter and complete nonsense. Krugman criticizes Obama in at least every other article. Nomo has criticized Obama many times on this forum. Obama gets criticized from both the left and right--really, who isn't criticizing him???

Tea partiers are in the news precisely because/when they are crazy. Crazy people are always newsworthy. That gets ratings.

tatupu70 says

Nomo has criticized Obama many times on this forum.

I've been reading these threads for years, and have never read Nomo criticizing any democrat. He will quickly jump in to show when a right leaning poster is logically incorrect. He doesn't hold the left leaning tards to the same standard.

The old forum used to allow a user to search through an individual's posts. I once searched through Nomo's posts for the word "AM". Turns out, he used the term "AM talk radio" a few HUNDRED times, in well over 20% of his thousands of posts--every one of them coming after someone criticized a democrat. Only a few weeks ago I read him praise Obama as the most successful President at 1.5 years into his first term in US history. (This in itself is fine, as long as he can support the thesis.) Nomo quickly followed up with a handwaiving "all Obama critics are racist" remark.

Unfortunately, this is the norm for those who support the democrats. Marcus recently started a thread about racism, aimed at the racists in his head, who he labeled the Republican old white people. In well performed Pavlovian behavior, Marcus also accused me of being a bad Republican stereotype when I criticised Obama (anyone who has read more than 3 of my posts knows I hate Republicans/Democrats pretty equally.) Again, this is unfortunately the norm--and is also my current pet peeve with the democrats.

tatupu70 says

Tea partiers are in the news precisely because/when they are crazy. Crazy people are always newsworthy. That gets ratings.

Sure, and the democratic propoganda machine is loving every minute of it. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that at least some of the craziest Teapartiers have been democrats in disguise.

CBOEtrader says

He will quickly jump in to show when a right leaning poster is logically incorrect. He doesn’t hold the left leaning tards to the same standard.

Isn't it obvious ? That's because the left leaning posts are correct, and the right leaning ones aren't.

What, you think that's not possible ? Your insistence that the left and right are equally bad, equally wrong, is what is leading you to an incorrect conclusion here. Logically, you are only correct here if they are equally bad.

Get it ? You have a position too. The cool thing about your position is it makes you right (correct) and EVERYONE else wrong.

marcus says

Get it ? You have a position too.

Of course I have a position.

marcus says

Logically, you are only correct here if they are equally bad.

I do see them both as disgustingly bad, though not equally bad. The group that is in power is the one that is the worst at the moment. Right now, that is the Democrats.

marcus says

That’s because the left leaning posts are correct, and the right leaning ones aren’t.

Is this a joke?

You don't have to agree with me, but the Democrats are bad for the working class, bad for the poor, bad for the indigent. So are the republicans, for only slightly different reasons.

marcus says

The cool thing about your position is it makes you right (correct) and EVERYONE else wrong.

I agree with the people that dislike both parties...which is quickly becoming a larger minority.

Nomograph says

*highly* recommend

Are you advocating marijuana ?

Nomograph says

I also drink alcohol on occasion, and yet I *highly* recommend certain people avoid alcohol entirely. For whatever reason, they just can’t handle it.

Typical...
Ladies, Gentlemen, and sexually confused Miscreants!
I give you the Democrats.

Do what him say, not what him do.

marcus says

Nomograph says

*highly* recommend

Are you advocating marijuana ?

Would it matter if he were? I find many of Nomo's posts interesting & funny, but his position on the use of marijuana doesn't matter.

Unless, of course, he advocates it. I can then claim that 100% of doctors polled advocate the use of marijuana.
(if he doesn't recommend marijuana, he's merely ill-informed...)
:)

Nomo has Chided me on numerous occasions not because of the health ramifications, but for the moral reasons of breaking federal laws for doing so.

Don't you guys follow each other?

marcus says

Forgetting how little connection there is between ideology (or platforms if you prefer) and what politicians actually do, are you going to tell me that you actually have no preference ?

The vast majority of what I find repulsive happens within both parties. As a party, I could never support either. Not even a little bit.

Since I do vote, I will sometimes vote for an individual that seems to break the mold of his party affiliations. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinic are obvious examples--though I disagree with both on certain topics, nor do I live in the proper disctricts to vote for these guys. I try to vote for someone that has a history of voting against most proposal, places a high priority on decreasing the size/scope of government, balancing budgets, decreasing taxes (especially income taxes--which are the root of all evil), and eliminating any infringement on individual liberty. These rare types tend to be libertarians, who call themselves republicans, or perhaps independants, but almost never democrats.

Since most races are a typical R v D, I often will vote for someone who's views I disagree with, IF they have a noticeable % of the vote combined with no actual chance of winning AND they are a third party candidate. In slowly breaking down the two party monopoly I am hoping that little by little, people will stop acting out the tired "don't throw your vote away" cliche.

I will also often vote against the guy in power, especially if his party holds too much power at that time. I voted for Gore and Kerry, then wrote in Ron Paul in the last election. Since I live in a democratic city and generally democratic state, this means I will vote for republicans quite a bit. This next election, I will probably vote republican, because the dems have WAY too much power right now.

I think we agree entirely that our government needs a major overhaul.

What we have now is the worst of all worlds. Two steps away from corporatism aka fascism.

What I want to see here is that everyone has a decent chance to become, and remain, a productive member of society.

I don't care how this comes about but am not a free market fundamentalist so I do not think anarchy will get us there. The eurosocialists, eg. Norway, Canada, and others, seem to have their ecosocial act together, but the central challenge to that is it's easier for a relatively homogenous nation of 5 or 30M to structure itself thusly than a heterogenous nation of 300M+.

America started becoming a centrifugal system -- a banana republic -- in 1980 or so. The current Republicans have greatly benefitted from the ~25M Know Nothings that make up the conservative Religious Right to destructure the US into a higher and higher Gini system consisting of a rentier minority and a screwed middle class and below.

Such critical mistakes were made 2003-2006 that I think we are running on fumes now and lack the political clarity or even bare economic understanding to right this ship. We're gefukt, right out of 1931 or Japan 1991.

Gini in the farm states isn't bad

http://illusionofprosperity.blogspot.com/2007/10/us-gini-coefficient-map.html

but we all 200M+ of us can't be corporate farmers with a productive 3000 acres and several million in working capital.

Non-pension gov't spending is $5.5T this year. Divided by $90K/job, that's SIXTY million people directly on the gov't teat, and another NINETY million people or so directly dependent on gov't employee spending. HALF the country is directly or indirectly dependent on gov't spending! Incredible!

Meanwhile the demographic tidal wave is turned 55 this year, and the medical sector is licking its lips at the prospect of getting its future piece of the senior care pie, since we've promised tens of trillions of gov't benefits to the baby boomers and the rest of America is going to have to pay the man, ie them for these goods and services.

Then we've got a defense sector that has tripled in nominal terms from 2000 to now, now notionally directly employing TEN million people ($900B/$90K), a rather healthy chunk of the skilled labor in this country. This is almost Sovietesque in its misallocation of capital and I think is going to really screw us down the road, just like the Soviet example of the 1980s.

Troy says

Very interesting that this index has China and the US ranked equally.

As I understand it, Gini is kinda bogus because it measures relative wealth not absolute wealth. I'd rather be a poor person in the US than a middle class person in China.

And if we were running a balanced budget I wouldn't care what our Gini was. But I think the rising Gini has come at the expense of running these huge deficits, perhaps we're over-incentizing rentierism by undertaxing it, either directly or indirectly.

Regarding Gini index, thanks for alerting me to it's existence.

Read the pros and cons on wikipedia. You can't do the same computation for different countries, because some have non-cash benefits such as health care and free higher education that are significant. Also, for example when immigrants are allowed in to this country ( or come illegally), it raises our coefficient.

Still, interesting.

tatupu70 says

Tea partiers are in the news precisely because/when they are crazy. Crazy people are always newsworthy. That gets ratings.

And oddly enough, they're also in the news when they are not crazy... Don't you recall a while back linking to an article about the alleged Capitol Hill incident as support for your contention that they were engaging in racist behavior, when in fact the article itself was nothing more than coverage about the coverage of the protesters?

If your observation that "Crazy' people are always newsworthy" were true, then the "crazy" behavior of left-leaning protests from the time of Bush taking office through even now would get much more coverage and analysis than it does. Example: Protesters referring to Obama as "Hitler" = racist, inflamatory, etc., enough to garner major news coverage in itself. Protesters referring to Bush as "Hitler"... No big dea...

Meanwhile, I'm still confused how, given the Status of Forces Agreement, signed under the Bush administration, Bush somehow had "no plan" but Obama, by largly attemting to follow this agreement (even if he deserves some credit for its execution) is actually his plan????

Paralithodes says

If your observation that “Crazy’ people are always newsworthy” were true, then the “crazy” behavior of left-leaning protests from the time of Bush taking office through even now would get much more coverage and analysis than it does. Example: Protesters referring to Obama as “Hitler” = racist, inflamatory, etc., enough to garner major news coverage in itself. Protesters referring to Bush as “Hitler”… No big dea…

Ah--the old left wing media conspiracy again?

Paralithodes says

Meanwhile, I’m still confused how, given the Status of Forces Agreement, signed under the Bush administration, Bush somehow had “no plan” but Obama, by largly attemting to follow this agreement (even if he deserves some credit for its execution) is actually his plan????

I guess it's because it wasn't signed until he was a lame duck President. Hard to give him much credit for it..

thunder .... this just can't be. You have made a huge mistake. The official members of the Obama Kool-Aid Drinkers (formerly known as Fainters Anonymous) on Patrick.net have reported "Mission Accomplished" and that all combat troops are heading home from Iraq. Please check, re-check and check again your source. There just has to be a mistake. Please post your correction ASAP. Thank you.

RayAmerica says

The official members of the Obama Kool-Aid Drinkers (formerly known as Fainters Anonymous) on Patrick.net have reported “Mission Accomplished” and that all combat troops are heading home from Iraq.

That actually occurred on an aircraft carrier in May 2003.

tatupu70 says

Ah–the old left wing media conspiracy again?

Who said anything about a "conspiracy?" Perhaps it has to do with the idea that humans generally can't overcome their natural biases, despite intent and attempts to do so, and that it just so happens that the majority of folks in the media have a very similar political bias... Meanwhile, I take your response to indicate that you believe that coverage of protests by those on the left against many movements vs. "tea party" movement coverage has been about equally fair?

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says
Meanwhile, I’m still confused how, given the Status of Forces Agreement, signed under the Bush administration, Bush somehow had “no plan” but Obama, by largly attemting to follow this agreement (even if he deserves some credit for its execution) is actually his plan????
I guess it’s because it wasn’t signed until he was a lame duck President. Hard to give him much credit for it..

So you believe that what a President does during his second term does not deserve acknowedgement and that the following President deserves the credit for originating a plan actually developed and implemented in the previous administration? You agree that the Status of Forces Agreement implemented under Bush was "no plan," and that Obama essentially following the same was in fact Obama coming up with a plan?

Paralithodes says

So you believe that what a President does during his second term does not deserve acknowedgement and that the following President deserves the credit for originating a plan actually developed and implemented in the previous administration? You agree that the Status of Forces Agreement implemented under Bush was “no plan,” and that Obama essentially following the same was in fact Obama coming up with a plan?

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. But I'm usually pretty good at forming them myself--my wife would argue that I probably could stand to talk(or write in this case) a little less frequently...

Paralithodes says

Meanwhile, I take your response to indicate that you believe that coverage of protests by those on the left against many movements vs. “tea party” movement coverage has been about equally fair?

I think that people perceive a bias when the coverage doesn't conform to their views. I heard much the same nonsense when Palin was interviewed by Katie Couric...

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

So you believe that what a President does during his second term does not deserve acknowedgement and that the following President deserves the credit for originating a plan actually developed and implemented in the previous administration? You agree that the Status of Forces Agreement implemented under Bush was “no plan,” and that Obama essentially following the same was in fact Obama coming up with a plan?

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. But I’m usually pretty good at forming them myself–my wife would argue that I probably could stand to talk(or write in this case) a little less frequently…

You said:

I guess it’s because it wasn’t signed until he was a lame duck President. Hard to give him much credit for it..

I initially brought up the Status of Forces Agreement due to someone claiming that it was very "clear" that Bush had "no plan" and that Obama did have a plan. Given your response above, what words did I put in your mouth, and how did I misinterpret your statement above?

If Bush deserves no "credit" (or more appropriately, "acknowledgement" due to the original "clear" claim of "no plan") for the Status of Forces Agreement because he was a lame duck President (your very clear argument), then how can you give any President credit for anything, good or bad, that they do in their second term?

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

Meanwhile, I take your response to indicate that you believe that coverage of protests by those on the left against many movements vs. “tea party” movement coverage has been about equally fair?

I think that people perceive a bias when the coverage doesn’t conform to their views. I heard much the same nonsense when Palin was interviewed by Katie Couric…

And likewise, they don't perceive a bias when the coverage does conform to their views.... Like interpreting coverage about the coverage of something as coverage of the thing itself...

Faulty perceptions of bias (on either side) does not refute that there is bias. You may wish to cast this in "conspiracy" terms in order to discredit those on the right who complain of left-leaning media bias, but that in itself doesn't refute the argument of bias either.

Paralithodes says

If Bush deserves no “credit” (or more appropriately, “acknowledgement” due to the original “clear” claim of “no plan”) for the Status of Forces Agreement because he was a lame duck President (your very clear argument), then how can you give any President credit for anything, good or bad, that they do in their second term?

I find that argument to be borderline ridiculous. There is a clear difference between day 1 of a second term and the final few months when the next President has already been elected. To imply otherwise is simply dishonest.

Paralithodes says

And likewise, they don’t perceive a bias when the coverage does conform to their views…. Like interpreting coverage about the coverage of something as coverage of the thing itself

No, no, no. Who's on first. What's on second.

thunderlips11 says

Ray, it’s just two actors on the same script. I think it’s funny how the “Surge” script was used twice, once by Bush and now by Obama. Two different actors/narrators, slightly different backdrop/props. One is more like Jim Varney trying to be John Wayne and the other one has a kind of Morgan Friedman vibe. Both Parties are MIC advocates - except for the “Whacky Extremists” on both sides (Paul, Kucinich, etc.) I know they’re extremists because the MSM tells me so, over and over again.

I agree completely. Very good points. It's pretty amazing that the Neocons (military-industrial crazies) are still calling the shots and that the "evil" Halliburton continues to operate as if Bush/Cheney were still in office. To that, the Kool-Aid Drinkers are completely silent. The military-industrial complex, along with the mega banksters that finance it, control events and politicians. Obama is just like Bush, et all, just another puppet whose strings are being pulled by these evil people that make money off of innocent blood. Afghanistan continues to deteriorate with no end in sight (9 years and counting) and no one seems to even know why we are there. Obama expands this stupid war and receives not only the mindless accolades of the left wing nuts, but also the Nobel Peace Prize. Truth absolutely is much stranger than fiction. No one could make this kind of stuff up.

RayAmerica says

Obama expands this stupid war

He can only end one war at a time. You look at all the crap he gets from so many sides. People calling him a socialist, etc., all the hate, the whole fundy racist crowd.

And you thought with all of that going on, he would step up and end both wars at once, just boom,...done. Politics Ray. It's sad yes. But you and your hater friends were going to hate what he does no matter what. I am one of those who thinks he is on track to be a great president. That's right, I said it !!

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

If Bush deserves no “credit” (or more appropriately, “acknowledgement” due to the original “clear” claim of “no plan”) for the Status of Forces Agreement because he was a lame duck President (your very clear argument), then how can you give any President credit for anything, good or bad, that they do in their second term?

I find that argument to be borderline ridiculous. There is a clear difference between day 1 of a second term and the final few months when the next President has already been elected. To imply otherwise is simply dishonest.

I'm not quite sure what you are implying is dishonest, given your initial statement that didn't differentiate between the beginning of a lame duck term and the ending of it. To be sure, the Status of Forces Agreement was signed in very late 2008, but was being negotiated through the year.

Regardless, the intial claim to which I was responding was essentially (1) Bush had "no plan" and (2) Obama developed a plan. When looking at the actual facts, Obama "inherited" a plan - the Status of Forces Agreement - that he is largely following.

You believe it is dishonest to not differentiate when something was developed within lame duck term, but don't object to 1) completely denying that there was any plan and 2) giving Obama credit for coming up with a plan from scratch? Please clarify.

Paralithodes says

I’m not quite sure what you are implying is dishonest, given your initial statement that didn’t differentiate between the beginning of a lame duck term and the ending of it. To be sure, the Status of Forces Agreement was signed in very late 2008, but was being negotiated through the year.

I made no such statement. I'm saying that general acceptance of "lame duck" occurs after the election of the next President. Not at the beginning of ones 2nd term. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

I’m not quite sure what you are implying is dishonest, given your initial statement that didn’t differentiate between the beginning of a lame duck term and the ending of it. To be sure, the Status of Forces Agreement was signed in very late 2008, but was being negotiated through the year.

I made no such statement. I’m saying that general acceptance of “lame duck” occurs after the election of the next President. Not at the beginning of ones 2nd term. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.

Do a Yahoo search on "lame duck definition" and many of the definitions linked from the first page of entries, in well known references, will also include someone ineligible to run for office again. This is simply a misunderstanding or disagreement on the definition of terms. There is nothing "ridiculous" or dishonest about it, so let's not try to escalate a flame war unnecessarily.

In any case, I was responding to someone who claimed it was very clear that Bush had "no plan" and credited Obama with the plan to withdraw forces from Iraq.
Your response to my bringing up the Status of Forces Agreement was that Bush deserved no "credit" for it because he was a lame duck President [presumably because the agreement was signed after 11/11/08].

Does this mean that Bush had "no plan" and that Obama developed the plan? I'm not asking you whether you made this statement, but since you are coming to the defense of someone who did, whether you agree with the statement. Do you?

What if the Status of Forces Agreement was signed on 11/10/08: would you then give him some credit? Would Bush have had a plan if the Agreement, worked on throughout 2008, was signed on 11/10, but had "no plan" if signed after 11/11/08? Does Obama get credit for developing the Status of Forces Agreement because it was signed by the Bush Administration during its lame duck (using your definition) time period? If No to all of these questions, then what exactly does "lame duck" status - regardless of which definition we use - have to do with anything?

Para--

OK-- Here's my take. The final days of the Bush presidency did see him change somewhat. It appears that Dick Cheney's influence had waned and other advisors had gained more traction. So, I'll agree that he probably did come up with a plan at the end of his 2nd term.

I won't, however, give him much credit for it. He basically had to be led kicking and screaming to that decision...

I think it's fair to say that the Bush administration failed in the Iraq war planning. And I also think it's fair to say that the vast majority of the credit for the withdrawl goes to the current administration. If you want to give some small sliver to Bush, so be it.

marcus says

But you and your hater friends were going to hate what he does no matter what.

This is where your crowd is way off in left field (no pun intended). I don't hate anyone. Furthermore, I don't know of anyone that personally that "hates" Obama. I certainly don’t. What I do "hate" is that this guy is just another political hack that has been packaged and sold as someone that isn't. It's a pretty lame tactic that any opposition to Obama, et all, is labeled either "racist" or "hate." This is the same tactic used on a variety of leftist causes and positions. Example: if you oppose gay “marriage,” you must be a hate filled homophobe. If you’re against affirmative action, you must be a hate filled racist. And on it goes.

RayAmerica says

What I do “hate” is that this guy is just another political hack that has been packaged and sold as someone that isn’t.

And this is where you go "astray".

Bigotry is the irrational and obstinate attachment to one's prejudices and intolerances.

You have no real evidence to believe that Obama and his administration is fraudulent, but since you have an irrational attachment to conservatism these feelings bubble out of your subconscious and become opinion, then fact.

You become a "hater".

We all have our own bigotries, I'm bigoted against money-grubbing Jews, urban gangstas that have been in this country all their lives but can't form a proper English sentence, Mexicans who don't give a shit and throw their bottles into the street, fundamentalist Christians and Muslims that put their religious bullshit before individual freedom and rationality.

These bigotries become hate when they are over-generalized and over-applied. It's OK to hate homosexual child abusers and even the gay parades featuring public licentiousness, but it's bigoted hate to want to exclude all homosexuals from public life and the opportunity to form partnerships in the eyes of the law.

The recent brouhaha about the islamic center planned for lower Manhattan is another example of bigotry -- hate -- in action. It is very ugly out there now as you haters have successfully been seizing the narrative.

Troy says

We all have our own bigotries, I’m bigoted against money-grubbing Jews

Wow !! What a revealing statement.

RayAmerica says

I don’t hate anyone

I said you were going to hate what he does no matter what. And it's probably not about race with you, it's probably just political bias. (but the racism is there and even played to on the conservative side).

I had what was probably an equally strong bias against Reagan when he became president and the same with Bush Jr., very strongly biased against both. Those biases are a lens I saw things through. In the case of Reagan, after the fact I can see some Presidential strengths he had that made him a great figure head. He was a great "don't worry be happy" daddy figure that many feel was exactly what we needed at the time. He also took some pretty big risks that worked out. But also he was in the right place at the right time ("tear down this wall").

I know I will always think GWB was a terrible president. As for Reagan, it's a bit more mixed, but he had an effective team (teams), and he certainly made changes he wanted to make. Likewise, if Obama somehow became the all time greatest president, translated by your bias, you might be able to eventually admit that he's not the worst.

Troy says

These bigotries become hate when they are over-generalized and over-applied.

Troy says

It is very ugly out there now as you haters have successfully been seizing the narrative.

You condemn generalizations on the one hand, and then utilize the same when it fits your position. Very interesting tactic.

I find it interesting that 7 + million registered voters in California voted not once, but twice to successfully overturn gay "marriage." According to you, all of these voters must have been "haters" because they collectively had only one thing in mind (again, according to you) and that was to "deny a lawful contract." The CA Constitution helps define "lawful contracts" and Prop. 8 was in fact a constitutional amendment to define marriage contracts. It seems pretty apparent that you are under the delusion that anyone that disagrees with you, or Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et all, must be “haters.” Is the left so lacking in the ability and substance to debate that they are left with only applying generalized labels (haters, homophobes, racists, etc.) in order to defend their positions? It sure looks that way to me.

I know that not nearly all fundamentalist or Tea Baggers are extreme or ignorant or racist. But the ones who are, that is the ones who listen to the fear mongering and the hate mongering, the divisive talk, those are the ones who give the anti -Obama rhetoric a hateful vibe. Maybe it's also that the more moderate conservatives, who did not vote for Obama, are on some level happy to see him fail, and almost amused by the birther bs and other nonsense spewing from the propaganda machines.

That is, in my view they are the reason that your bias and the bias of others out there looks more hateful than the liberal bias against Reagan or Bush was. Maybe it's also about the sources. The liberal bias against Reagan and against "w" came form where ? Universities ? The very well educated. Maybe in a way it was elitist. The anti Obama propaganda may come from intelligent sources, but look at the idiots that it is being directed to. The real goals have to do with what big business wants. They are afraid of Obama for reasons that have nothing to do with whether he was born here, or whether he's really a muslim.

It can't be easy Ray, being on the same team with so many idiots. IF you don't agree with that, well then....

RayAmerica says

Troy says

These bigotries become hate when they are over-generalized and over-applied.

Troy says

It is very ugly out there now as you haters have successfully been seizing the narrative.

You condemn generalizations on the one hand, and then utilize the same when it fits your position. Very interesting tactic.
I find it interesting that 7 + million registered voters in California voted not once, but twice to successfully overturn gay “marriage.”

Interesting demonstration of the power of assorted conservative religious groups to coalesce their power at the ballot box, as it was something that Madison had hoped a pluralistic democracy would not experience, a coalition of special interests able to assemble a majoritarian position to effect a tyranny of a majority to deny equal rights to others.

Granted 52% is no dominant majority but it was enough by law.

According to you, all of these voters must have been “haters” because they collectively had only one thing in mind (again, according to you) and that was to “deny a lawful contract.”

This is argumentation via strawman. My actual position is that various groups in California have problems with homosexual lifestyle and the homosexual agenda. Conservative Catholics, Mormons, Evangelical Fundamentalists, and Pentacostalists were the bulk of the pro-8 vote. There were also votes swung by the propagandistic pro-8 ads that equated legalization of homosexual partnerships with pushing it onto our kids.

The CA Constitution helps define “lawful contracts” and Prop. 8 was in fact a constitutional amendment to define marriage contracts.

It was no such thing. It was an ugly addition to California's so-called "Declaration of Rights" to exclude the right of legal marriage to homosexual partnerships. The text had no place in the Declaration of Rights or law, as the court recently held.

Discrimination on a rational basis is not bigotry or its wider form of hate. Social conservatives -- the domestic analogue of our Taliban enemy -- just want homosexuals to go away and attempted to legislate this desire into state law, without any demonstrable rational basis. Very ugly and a textbook example of "hate" -- irrational discrimination.

It seems pretty apparent that you are under the delusion that anyone that disagrees with you, or Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et all, must be “haters.”

Pelosi and Obama are not opposed to gay marriage. Pelosi has stated it is a state issue, and the politics of the issue make Obama and Reid keep their powder dry on this issue.

Is the left so lacking in the ability and substance to debate that they are left with only applying generalized labels (haters, homophobes, racists, etc.) in order to defend their positions? It sure looks that way to me.

This is because you are either an ideologue or an idiot, but I repeat myself since clearly your ideology has made you stupid and detached from reality as it is.

There is no rational basis to oppose gay marriage or the Islamic center in Manhattan, The few rational Republicans left (like Bloomberg) recognize this. The rest, like you, are lost in their blind fog of hate.

marcus says

the liberal bias against Reagan and against “w” came form where ? Universities ?

I know, there was also a bias against Reagan among minorities and the poor.

But where was the huge media machine drumming up anger in these groups against Reagan ? People talk about the liberal media, and sure the New York times followed stories such as Ollie North, and the whole Contra thing, but where was the equivalent of the sleazy swift boat or birther movement or all the little decisions the right wing and FOX "news" makes in to "here's the socialist muslim again."?

marcus says

The liberal bias against Reagan and against “w” came form where ?

I was very apolitical until Bush came onto the scene. I had his number pegged going in -- when driving home on election day in 2000 I thumped the wheel in disgust when they announced he had taken FL -- and his administration was 10X a disaster than I was expecting.

His administration made every mistake they possibly could. I never hated the man, I just hate his stupidity and the stupidity of the people he put in power, and the stupid things they did that we now have to live with and mitigate if we can.