Constitutional amendment | emporiagazette.com

Currently	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri
26°
Light Snow Fog/Mist	34° 25°	46° 32°	46° 31°	47° 28°	49° 30°

glarson (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Dunno, does it? You obviusly have a particular affiliation towards one party currently, yet what you just said contradicts some of their core beliefs. The issues I gave were just a few, and I am sure we do differ, but is it not funny to see that we are closer to agreement than you thought? And you have often tagged me a Liberal=)

If cap and trade nets us more Nuclear Plants and gets this nation on its way to being off our crack addiction we call oil then I say bring it on. Think about all the billions we could keep here if we did not have to feed our habit, and worse, yet, give that money to people that don't care for us very much.

Biscuitboy,

Way I see it, if I want to own an automatic weapon and keep it in my house so that if I ever have an intruder come at me I can quickly end their existence, so be it. The key word here is law abiding, they are the ones we should not be concerned with in the slightest, but yet they are the ones all these gun laws affect, the criminal element is not phased a bit.

I like your take on the Illegal profiteers, but instead of turning a rifle on them I would rather just see them forfit all assets to the government similar to how drug forfits work. I say turn a rifle on the illegals simpy because death is a huge deterrent and in my eyes they have no rights here, and could be terrorists.

November 8, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Not all LIBERALS (as you like to type it) are against nuclear power observation....this one isn't. I'm for it for precisely the reason goodoleboy stated.....to free us from our addiction to Middle East oil. Having said that we have some major hurdles to clear regarding the handling of waste but if we could divorce ourselves from this not in my backyard mentality I'm sure that problem could be worked out.

goddoleboy

My problem with the assault rifle is more with the manufacturers than the legitimate law abiding owners. My question is if the manufactures determine there is a market next year for say three thousand sales to the military (just an arbitrary figure)...another three hundred sales to the law abiding citizen market.....why then does he manufacture ten thousand pieces. Now of course these figures are just made up....but the point is, at present anyway, production often does not reflect legitimate demand......and the manufactures must know the rest are going somewhere...the question is where?

November 8, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

http://www.triplepundit.com/2007/11/t...

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/polit...

KERRY-GRAHAM OUTLINE

While six Senate committees develop various climate-change bills, Democratic Sen. John Kerry and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham have outlined a plan to bridge differences among the panels and between their parties.

The Kerry-Graham package would set up a cap-and-trade system allowing polluters to buy carbon-emission credits from firms that cut their output.

The senators' plan, described in a newspaper column, has several key features:

- It sets maximum and minimum prices for the carbon credits.

- It streamlines the permit process for new nuclear power reactors.

- It authorizes expanded offshore oil and natural gas drilling.

- It considers a "border tax" on imports from countries with weak environmental standards.

It already being addressed, and unlike the healthcare bill I am actually seeing some GOP support for it, Nuclear power is the future for our nation, it's stimulus in the building of them, and long term job creation in maintaining them.

November 8, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I always get a kick out of hearing someone talk about "paybacks are hell"........ memories are sooooooooooooo short these days.

It's almost like we live in the middle east...... nobody knows anymore who's "paying back" who........ lol

November 8, 2009 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Observation
Yes, I agree that nuclear power may be more efficient, until it comes to what to decide to do with the spent fuel rods and nuclear waste ! That is where the rub comes in for me !
I also agree with your take on " true " illegal aliens !
Since I weigh all the possibilities, benefits or detriments, whether, good or bad and then decide how to vote,
Now does that make a Liberal, Conservative or Independent /
?

November 8, 2009 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Now the Kerry -Graham initiative.....at least at this stage.....sure sounds like a reasonable package to me....but who am I other than a damned old LIBERAL.

November 8, 2009 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Apparently memories are sooooooooooo short open_eyes.....you seem to have totally forgotten just how long the demonetization of liberals has been going on. lol lol

November 8, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I also remember you remarked not long ago, when you felt that Obama was being treated with disrespect - that you were going to remember some remarks made by people because paybacks were going to be hell if/when things changed again. At that point you somehow drew a complete and utter blank/attack of amnesia on the previous 8 years, apparently. So I think my memory is just fine, thank you ;-)

One doesn't have to dig very deep to find there was backlash against conservatives for example, during the Depression (do some digging on the 1938 "purge" attempt by FDR against conservatives).

You brought up Neville Chamberlain - but you forget to mention that Churchill was actually banned from the BBC during that time for speaking out against Chamberlain. Who was being demonized?

I'll stand by my previous statement: Whichever party holds the power attempts to demonize the other. It happens as regularly as clockwork. Actually both parties/mindsets are constantly trying to demonize the other, all the time. It's just that the party in power usually gets the most traction at the time.

People only remember what they want to remember, it seems.

November 8, 2009 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes

I do remember the eight years prior to this, and I remember the eight years prior to that, and the four years prior to that, and on and on and on ad nauseum, I guess what I may see that makes it look worse from my perspective is the state of the art execution that the conservatives achieved in the past 25 or so years. They kicked our butt. We never had any weapon that even approached the effectiveness of the fat man and his sidekick Ann Coulter. And we never came close to achieving the lock-step discipline the conservatives did in sticking like glue to the talking points put out by the chosen few. Even today, it is no accident in my opinion, that virtually all conservatives all of a sudden started referring to every thing the Obama administration did as being communistic at virtually the same time.

So maybe it has always gone back and forth.....but you guys have been one hell of a lot better at it than we have....and I guess that's what burns me up.

November 8, 2009 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Folks, if the predictions about this world coming to an end on Dec. 23, 2012 just happens to be correct, then we all will have only 2 more years to argue about right,wrong, fair, best, Conservative, Liberal, Independent, rich, poor, religion, christian/christianity, illegal aliens etc., anyway ! But that is a whole other topic of discussion !
Right now I believe that most of us on this thread are " Independent, middle of the road " and just want to see some improvement and whats best for our country and its people !
Anyway thats what I am seeing from most of the posts on this thread and we all seem to believe and see some good and some bad in everyone, no matter their political affiliation !

November 8, 2009 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy
You are absolutely about the Conservative Army being better prepared and disciplined, however when you fight a war, and politics is a war, the Army that is better prepared, trained, disciplined and has a winning strategy will be the winner everytime ! Thats just a fact of life ! If you want to blame anyone for Bush's 8 year disastrous tenor, then you/we must blame the Democratic, Liberal, Independent and Libertarian parties for not having a battle plan to defeat the Conservatives and their party ! Oh, and we must not forget the monetary backing !

November 8, 2009 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

You know Open Eyes, the thing that bothers me most about the current political climate in regards to Obama is this attitude that Bush was hated, so now all the Bush supporters hate Obama.

It took every bit of Bush's 1st term and a chunk of his 2nd for him to reach the level of discontent and disgust with the people of this country. In fact he enjoyed higher approval ratings, and was served almost everything he wanted during his 1st term, in short I think he had it made, and blew it.

Obama is not even a year in and ALREADY hate levels are back up around Bush levels in certain demographics, and lets be honest, less than a year is almost impossible to judge ANY president on. I think that is what bothers people so much about the right, Obama could cure cancer and Aids and the right would scream at him for not getting the common cold too! I'm not taking sides mind you, I just want the guy to get a chance, or at very least, as much of one as Bush had.

November 8, 2009 at 5:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

That's my point, biscuitboy. It's been going on for as long as we can remember or care to dig up. I'll agree that the conservative machine in the recent past years has been better at it, but I think the tides are turning. McCain ran as poor a campaign as I think I've ever seen and Obama's was nearly flawless. Now that the majority of major media is leaning left, most college professors are pushing liberal agendas, and I would say if not for things like that darn FoxNews they'd be in the home stretch. And they're working hard on that. (And I think we should all be in fear if they succeed).

I'll disagree with you partly goodoleboy on the popularity thing. There was alot of hatred following 2000 elections, and people forget that Bush's popularity stayed in the mid 50's right up to 9/11 (55% on 9/10). It TOOK 9/11 9 months into his term for his popularity to rise. While Obama started in the 70's and took months to drop to where Bush's stayed at that same point. So I would say pre-9/11 Obama enjoyed more support and was given more of a chance than Bush had. Winning 53% of the vote and having approvals in the 70's sure sounds to me like lots of people giving him a chance. The difference I see is that Bush never pushed thru as radical an agenda and spending as Obama has right off the bat, or I'm sure his popularity would have suffered even more.
As for giving a chance, people have tried - but when things are happening that you very much disagree with, (and in some ways opposite of what he campaigned on) - how long should one wait? Should one wait until someone dies before calling a doctor to tell them they are bleeding to death?
Obama has done a few things I like, and hopefully will do more. Some things he's done I like because he went back on his campaign promises ;-). But I will not agree that the current level of hate is anywhere near Bush's until I turn on the TV and see people on national media saying they would like to murder Obama, with not a soul (at least on the left) getting the tiniest bit upset about it. There have been many instances similar, but this was one of the most recent - just a few weeks ago, Gore Vidal said on the Joy Behar show that he was upset that he didn’t murder President Bush.

“That’s one murder I regret not committing.”

Joy Behar agreed, “It’s too late anyway.”

http://brevardcounty.momslikeme.com/m...

Anyone care to guess what an uproar the country would be in if someone on FoxNews said that about Obama? Honestly? I'm sure it was racist - Vidal & Behar just probably hate whites.....

November 8, 2009 at 8:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And while we all know that Bush also could have cured cancer and AIDS and still been hated for it, I see the converse being true - Obama could GIVE everyone cancer and still be loved by some. Lord knows Bush did some things that sorely disappointed me, especially later in his term. People tend to turn a blind eye when someone they voted for does things they formerly ranted and raved against, and that goes for both sides. Another reason I stay Independent ;-)

November 8, 2009 at 8:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Observation

Sounds to me like everybody is a LIBERAL to you except yourself and maybe two or three others.....that's going to make it a little tough for you to win. Judging from the sound of most of your post you should drop the name conservative and adopt the name PARANOID! :-)

By the way...note the time of this post.....the early bird is at it again.

November 9, 2009 at 3:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes

While I may be jealous of the republican war machine you often sound like your biggest problem with Obama is just pure simple jealousy that he is more popular than your guy. Don't worry though my friend...as we both like to say.......what goes round comes round.

November 9, 2009 at 3:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Well I don't know who "my guy" is, since no Independent has been president in recent memory. I simply dislike many of his policies. Period. And, try to set the record straight on the "popularity" comparison between Bush & Obama pre-9/11. Just the facts.

November 9, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

We'll just have to agree to disagree, Bush was not hated near like Obama is at present pre 9/11. People were upset about the election, not the man and his policies. After 9/11 Bush rammed home the Patriot Act, Tax Cuts, etc, all crappy ideas. Yet he was still loved for it until we finally realized that "Mission Accomplished" was just him and his cronies prostituting our Patriotism to further his political agenda. I know were you will go with this, you will say that Dems are playing the race card, and that is true to an extent, the president himself debunks its but others don't. But if I had my choice I take the race game any day over having fellow Americans put in harms way. Obama is wrong on the War of Necessity, we should pull everyone home now, buts that's my opinion.

Bottom line, what I said still holds true, hate is already running rampant as it was late the W. tenure, and it sets a very scary precedent if it remains this way when the worm turns again.

November 9, 2009 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

BTW, I have watched Gore Vidal on that and on other shows, I don't think much of anything that he says can be taken seriously, he seems drunk half the time, but if you want to take a broke down old loon seriously then you must quaking in your boots at protesters with AR-15's, or the fact that death threats are up almost %400 on THIS president, almost %400 over Bush, hmmm.........

November 9, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

And just an FYI, I compared Bush's 1st term ratings as a whole to what I think Obama's will be, I highly doubt he will get anywhere near those unless he really does cure cancer LOL

November 9, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Observation

Please present me with a list of who is not a Liberal in your book, should be pretty easy to do, and don't forget to exclude yourself. Your stance on abortion alone makes you a liberal by your own standards

November 9, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Regardless of the reason for the hate, whether it be policies or the election, it was still directed at the man. It was a very divisive election and it was reflected in his approval ratings. POST 9/11 then yes, he rode his wave of popularity to push thru alot of things. I merely said that Vidal was the latest in a long string - I've posted numerous links before to plenty of other well-known and visible people spewing the same things as Vidal. So-called Nobel Peace laureates, among others, (yet another reason I think the Peace Prize has been so belittled as to be meaningless).
Let's also look at what has been treated as a death threats against Obama. First of all, I do not condone, in any way shape or form, ANY threat against the President. I think they ALL should be treated seriously. However, what was routinely ignored against Bush is being treated as a serious threat against Obama. The death threat numbers are being spun to a certain extent. For example, on August 12, a man holding a sign that said “Death to Obama” at a town hall meeting in Maryland was detained and turned over to the Secret Service which charged him with threatening the president. But there are tons and tons of protestors who held signs saying easily the same or worse about Bush who were routinely ignored. We actually had many, many more holding signs like that at rally's "threatening" Bush's life. Is it being taken more seriously because of the race issue? Possibly. But I don't believe it is fair to take the exact same type of thing and ignore it towards one president, but then treat it seriously against another, and then claim death threats are up. It would be interesting to compare the numbers had threats been treated the same against both. We've all seen where even CNN reporters seem incapable of treating them the same. There are legitimate threats out there, white supremist groups, etc, just as there were legitimate threats against Bush. All I'm saying is, if we're going to count every person who yells a slur or holds a threatening sign, then lets count them the same for both. We might even discover that "threats", when counted the same, might have even DROPPED under Obama. We certainly haven't seen nearly the signs threatening death to Obama as we did to Bush. Personally I wish they all would have been treated the same. I would have taken every person holding a sign like that, burning Bush in effigy, Vidal, the Nobel laureate, and threw them in the clink to let them cool their heels for a day and think about it. I don't take threats against the President lightly, no matter who is in office. One doesn't have to hold signs threatening death to voice one's displeasure with an administration.

November 9, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Dont' forget that Obama has actually EXTENDED parts of the "crappy" Patriot Act ;-)

November 9, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Here's another example that happened on August 7, 2008........while Bush was still President.

"The Secret Service has arrested a 22-year-old man in Miami on charges he threatened to kill the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

As the Associated Press relates, a Secret Service affidavit charges during a class for bail bondsmen last month, Raymond Hunter Geisel "allegedly referred to Obama with a racial epithet and continued, 'If he gets elected, I'll assassinate him myself.' "

According to the AP story:

"Another person in the class quoted Geisel as saying that 'he hated George W. Bush and that he wanted to put a bullet in the president's head,' according to the Secret Service.

"Geisel denied in a written statement to a Secret Service agent that he ever made those threats, and the documents don't indicate that he ever took steps to carry out any assassination. He was charged only with threatening Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, but not for any threat against President Bush."

So...... you can threaten to kill the sitting president, while he is still in office.... and it is ignored..... but if you threaten the same against Obama, you're arrested. I would have considered them BOTH death threats, or neither. (I'd have preferred both). But I'd treat them the same. Gee, in that class alone, death threats against Obama were up 400% over Bush...... apparently......

November 9, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes.......while your digging up every thing but the kitchen sink to make your position don't forget the little 13-year old Texas girl that was interrogated by the Secret Service for saying she wished President Bush would die. Your acting like all manner of threats were made against Bush and ignored doesn't hold water my friend. More of that oh soooooooooo short memory?

November 9, 2009 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

So you have a link to the story? The only thing I can find about a 13 year old was a boy, and he sent threatening e-mails to the white house, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Pentagon.

Now, if he had sent the same threats to Obama, and one was ignored, but the other acted upon, then you might have a case.

Not the same thing. Not even close. Sorry.

November 9, 2009 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Your still missing the point, it took 8 years for Bush to get the point he was at, it's taken Obama less than a year, and you are right that he extended SOME of Bush's crappy ideas, something I don't agree with one bit, thank god the tax cuts are going to lapse, trickle down just does not work. But in a lot of ways yes Obama is a lot like Bush, which perplexes me because he gets a pass on a lot of things Bush did not, but hated for things that are not near the magnitude of the very issues he gets a pass on? See the problem?

I'll go dig up my links on the Secret Service, there is no spin, threats are threats and according to data over the last year threats on Obama are up near %400 over Bush at his peak. We can only go off what they constitute as threats. If you want to dispute that then I like to see some credentials that would qualify you as an expert to question those Secret Service agents that quantify the data. But you are of course, welcome to an opinion. My question to you is it going to take someone taking a shot at Obama for you to see my point? Or will a shoe do?=)

November 9, 2009 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I only remember watching the story on one of the nightly news shows during the bush presidency. I'm not going to even bother trying to find it because it wouldn't make any difference to you anyway. You are so blinded by your prejudices you can't even accept Secret Service data with out claiming to be an expert on what is a legitimate threat and what isn't. Give me a break.

November 9, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Besides that you are the link king so I guess if you can't find one of your precious links it must not exist. But weather it did or not it wouldn't make any difference to you.....you would just find some way to rationalize your way around it.

November 9, 2009 at 5:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

And I know....my last two post only prove to you that I am the one that is blinded by prejudice. At least I can admit a bias in my thinking and don't always have to claim that I'm only trying to be fair and balanced.

November 9, 2009 at 6:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Interesting. We're back to the old "precious links" thing. (Sigh....)

Also interesting how what I thought was a civil debate turned into some ranting about how I'm blinded by my prejudices, etc, etc...... I've admitted my biases time and time again. (There's those short memories again).

Goodoleboy, while we may disagree that it took Bush 8 years to get where Obama is at (even YOU have to admit the hate started years before 2008) - I do agree with you on some points. He does get a pass on alot of things that Bush didn't, and is hated for things that (some feel) are not of the magnitude of the issues he gets a pass on. I see your point there. Go figure. What some politicians get blasted for and passed over for is beyond me.

Nowhere did I ever claim to be an expert on the Secret Service. I am asking questions and asking for explanations, and giving my opinion (if its a rational opinion, then I guess I am "rationalizing") as to why. So I'll ask again, as respectfully as I can:

1) Why do protestors carrying signs like "Kill Obama" get arrested and charged by the Secret Service, while many more similar protestors against Bush were not?

2) Why does one man make death threats against both a sitting President and someone campaigning, and is only charged for the threat against the one and not the other?

Perhaps it is because we are so overly politically correct and sensitive against things such as race. Reminds me of the Ft. Hood thing - looks like there were plenty of signs that this guy was going radical but looks like everyone tried to bend over backwards to be politically sensitive/correct. I honestly don't know why the SS seems to be treating some things differently. Perhaps they view, maybe from experience, the possibility that violence that may be racially motivated as more serious threats than others? That may be why, I don't know...... just guessing at straws...... (grasping :)

I remember how O'Reilly got blasted for "whipping into a frenzy" people against Tiller when he was murdered (by some posters here, also). How do we know Vidal or any of the other numerous people that have been on the media saying they would have liked to have murdered Bush didn't whip people into a frenzy? If Bush had been shot would we have all went back and pointed a finger at each of them?

I've repeatedly said I think ALL threats should be taken seriously. REPEATEDLY. My question is: Would it have taken someone taking a shot at Bush for people to take them seriously? Why is THAT point so much less sensible and more blindly prejudiced than others? How is that none of that fair and balanced? (Sounds like a prejudice right there to me).

Well, if anyone wants to have an adult discussion/debate, I'll be around. If the answer is that anyone that asks a question you don't like is too biased and blinded to bother with........ I won't bother either.

November 9, 2009 at 7:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Interesting article on Presidential Secret Service coverage:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...

"Presidents accept Secret Service protection with varying degrees of appreciation." And at times their stubborness trumps security.".......

"Agents have historically tended to push for the more-is-more approach (some have called it oppressive) while presidents, including Mr. Bush, prefer a less-is-more approach."........

"John Kennedy, who agents considered among "the easiest" presidents to work with, insisted - against Secret Service recommendations - on removing the protective bubble from his convertible that fateful day of his assassination."

I also found this:

"When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event."

Well, that may be the answer. Bush often answered, when protestors were numerous, things about guaranteeing their right to free speech. Perhaps he did not want to make it seem he was lashing out against protestors and instructed the SS that carrying signs and so forth was not to be treated harshly (as long as they were in a "safe" zone).Perhaps. AND, I ALSO did find a few instances (finally) of protestors arrested and charged at gatherings against Bush. In once case, the person was told to move to the “free speech zone” but refused to co-operate.

You may not believe this but before I post some things I often also try to find the opposite. I'd like to know myself before I blurt out if I have a leg to stand on ;-)

Well, I think Obama SHOULD be very prudent and take all threats seriously. I don't want to wait until someone does something drastic to find out if it was a serious threat or not.

November 9, 2009 at 7:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Posting under another name, but we, ( the Secret service) are monitoring this thread. It seems two words, ( president & kill popped up on a NSA computer.

November 9, 2009 at 7:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Just a joke, but you can never know what those acres and acres of computers at the NSA are set on.

November 9, 2009 at 8:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Nah, Steve_Corbin, I could have talked at length about wanting to murder Bush, even done it on national TV, and I would have been safe, history has shown us repeatedly. Not a soul from a certain segment of our population would have complained, either.
But I think I was the first person to complain when a poster here made the crack about needing a grassy knoll, however. I also reported it to the Gazette as requesting removal.

November 9, 2009 at 8:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

". AND, I ALSO did find a few instances (finally) of protestors arrested and charged at gatherings against Bush. In once case, the person was told to move to the “free speech zone” but refused to co-operate."

You act like this was a rare occurrence, would you like me to dredge up some examples? There are more than you think, and last I checked there was a guy that did time for throwing a shoe=)

"Nah, Steve_Corbin, I could have talked at length about wanting to murder Bush, even done it on national TV, and I would have been safe, history has shown us repeatedly. Not a soul from a certain segment of our population would have complained, either. "

What you just said works both ways, and while we can look back on what happend to Bush I'll be very interested in what happens in the coming years with Obama, I place my bets that it will be worse, care to wager?

November 11, 2009 at 2:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I'll even give odds on your bet goodoleboy.....it will be worse......bank on it. And there will still be those who will say "Oh what you did to us was much worse than this." So it would probably be impossible to collect on the bet no matter what happened.

November 11, 2009 at 4:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I'm talking about the US, not Iraq. What Iraq does to prosecute people has nothing to do with this.

Yes, I have managed to dredge up some that go both ways. Given the amount of protestors holding signs for the one versus the other, yes, I would say by comparison, they are rare occurences percentage-wise.

And I agree that it would be worse. "Treated" worse. If/when some celebrity (or drunk) or former Nobel Peace Prize laureate comes on national TV shows and talks about wishing they could have or would have murdered Obama....... it will be MUCH, much worse. The press and public will crucify them like we've never seen before. Instead of it being ignored by all but maybe 1 media outlet, like it was. We'll see an outrage that will dwarf what was said by comparison.....oops, well, if anyone says anything at all it will dwarf it. Here's another bet for ya: I'll bet Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are all over the airwaves talking about the racist who said they wanted to murder Obama on national TV. Compare that to what they said about the multiple instances that went the other way? (Which was......zilch....). And they won't be the only ones.....
I think we've already seen an example by the CNN reporter who went off on the very few despicable anti-Obama protesters, who was quiet and cool as a cucumber when videotaped at an anti-Bush rally, while many, many more protesters equally as bad or worse paraded by her. That is what I have been referring to lately, not the amount of hate, but how it is treated by the media.

But, I think I managed to answer my own question as to why in my previous couple of posts. Looks like Bush took pains to keep the negative protestors separated where they could keep an eye on them. And he apparently had the SS go easier on protestors and such than many. I think the SS does a good job and given the amount of protest/hatred against Bush I think that was a wise decision. If they had started cracking down on every person carrying a poster that said Kill Bush there would have been alot of complaints about free speech rights. Again, I'm glad Obama doesn't. I don't trust any of the crazies.

November 11, 2009 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

Yes and CNN was quite critical of that report on its reliable sources program the following Sunday morning. You are the link king...look it up.

It just could be that the investigation of signs critical of Bush were lessened by the fact that his so called "free speech zones" were so far removed from him they were no real threat. I guess that might also imply that the area close to him then must have been described as a no-free-speech zone. :-)

I don't recall anybody carrying loaded firearms being allowed close to Bush like some anti-Obama protesters apparently believe they have some right to do.

November 11, 2009 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I'm not sure if the discussion is the old "your side always hates worse than mine", or the seeming disparaging way in which the media treats them both. Nobody ever seems to view hate as bad when it comes from a point of view they agree with more or less. Personally, I've always had difficulting rating and comparing degrees of hate. Whether you hate someone enough to kill them, say, in retaliation for burning down your house, or because you don't like the color of socks they are wearing, they're just as dead both ways in my view.

I will give you this: I think the levels of hatred, while not yet where Bush was later in his term, are getting there faster than they did with Bush. But is it just "because", or is it because of his policies? As I said, Bush didn't do anything pre-9/11 that turned so many against him. Or could it be by comparison? Bush started out never very popular, while Obama started out in the 70's - as a foreign newspaper put it, "enjoyed near God-like status in the US".

Well, since things seem to always veer slightly as discussion progresses, and I usually never get direct questions answered, (which I'm used to), I'll try to respectfully spell out my opinions separately as stated below. Please feel free to disagree on each one, and if so, please explain why. Thx.

1) Bush was NOT very popular his first term UNTIL 9/11. There was alot of hatred and anger directed towards him after the 2000 election. However, it did not approach the levels seen later in his term(s).

2) After 9/11, Bush's popularity soared for a year, and he pretty much did as he pleased. It took about 1 1/2 years for his popularity to drop back to pre-9/11 levels. It spiked again when the Iraq war started, dropped back, spiked some when Saddam was captured, then dropped back to below pre-9/11 levels. And remained there. All this before 2004.

3) Pretty much thereabouts is when the REAL hatred against Bush started in. Beyond what he got his first 9 months in office. And remained (and sank) the remainder of his administration.

4) Obama started out more popular (and with less anger and hatred against him) than Bush ever had in the beginning. His popularity has dropped and the anger risen to the point now, I believe, it equals or is even slightly worse than Bush's first 9 months.

5) I do not yet believe the anger and hatred towards him has reached what Bush experienced later in his term. It may get there - it may even go beyond (depending on his policies and actions) - but at the present moment I do not believe we have reached that.

continued....

November 11, 2009 at 12:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

6) The media seems to treat it differently (and many quite hypocritically). The CNN reporter I mentioned before - Nancy Pelosi - We can have 100,000 people protesting (even angrily - but still respectfully) policies, and a handful of disgusting racists and hate-mongers among them, and we seem to single them out (ast he CNN reporter did) - call them Nazi's (Pelosi & others) - and call them all racists on national TV. While we have as many people protesting the Iraq war, a much larger percentage of them holding signs advocating assasination/etc, and they are ignored by most media or at the very least glossed over (praised by Pelosi).

7) I'll still maintain that the first time someone on the Joy Behar show, MSNBC, Fox News, etc, says openly they would like to murder Obama or see him assassinated it is jumped on much, much worse than "just a broke down old loon you can't take seriously". Basically in the media we didn't even get that. He was totally ignored by most. I'll bet the opposite won't be. (Not to say there aren't idiots out there saying those things - just not on Prime-Time TV).

8) I think I answered my own question on the death threats - I think the SS certainly takes their job extremely seriously no matter who is in office. But I think the logistics and prevailing atmosphere at the time, plus their activities to separate protestors, probably may factor into the statistics. I never said the SS was shirking their duties or lying about the statistics. I said I felt they were being spun to a certain extent, because of some things not seemingly being treated the same, and asked how the numbers would compare if they were. Which I think I've found the answer to (satisfactorily to me, anyway).

9) As a gun owner and believer/defender in the 2nd Amendment, I totally disagree with anyone bringing guns to events as above. Loon. I'm sure some anti-Bush protesters BELIEVED they had the right to get close to him with guns, but thankfully were not allowed if they tried.

10) The current admin has made some attempts with their "war on Fox" to make much of the media a "no-free-speech-zone" ;-) (tongue in cheek) ;-)

Release the Hounds!

November 11, 2009 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I would like to ask some questions of everyone on this thread.

1. In your opinion, do you believe that the previous administration, in particular Bush and the Conservative Congress at the time, incurred the wrath of a lot of working Americans because of the tax cuts implemented and given to the wealthy ?
2. Do you believe that the Bush administration also incurred the anger and wrath of working class Americans, because of getting America and taxpayers involved in a war that was unnecessry and one of the costliest wars to the taxpayers and country, since WW II ?
3. Do you also believe that the taxpayers and people of America had absolutely nothing to be angry and disinfranchised with and about the way Bush handled things ?
4. Do you believe that not only the previous administrations, as well as the current administration and most likely future administrations is, was and will be influenced by certain influential and powerful individuals, Corporations, special interest groups, etc. and do you believe that this is the way a representative government of a Republic should function ?

November 11, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

1) Yes. (but I got tax cuts..... and I'm not wealthy...... so you might need to define that a little better. Plus alot of jobs were created, etc....)

2) Yes. People can debate on whether it was necessary or not, but regardless, they incurred alot of wrath and anger.

(Duh).

3) NO!

4) Yes. (Again, Duh).

Since you're asking such simple and obvious questions, methusla - I'd like to add one more that's roughly in the same vein....

5) Does a bear s##t in the woods?

;-)

November 11, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

So let me get this straight, your saying the tax cuts on the wealthy were responsible for the jobs and not the housing boom? Voodoo economics do not work, conservatives cannot get this notion out of their head for some reason, especially in a global economy where trickle down, trickles out of the country.

As for your Bush argument I will break it down to simplest of terms:

Bush held office for 8 years
Obama for less than 1 year, yet he is almost at Bush level hate. Could be above depending on how you interpret Secret Service data. Either way its getting there fast, and is exclusive to a few demographics from the data I have seen.

Bush had the gift of being hated across party lines, he had people from all spectrums that disliked him. With Obama people may dislike the guy and approval rating might slip a bit but the hardcore hate is coming almost exclusively from a few demographics, and it's odd because those same demographics supported Bush, who Obama bears resemblance to in some areas. I am just seeing a lot of hypocrisy and not a lot of substance as to why these people are so upset. He has yet to start any wars under false pretenses which lead to Americans dying. It's just the "threat" that he might sign a bill.

Btw, I did see the other night on a Texas newscast an Aryan that said he would "murder Obama in a second" if he had a chance, and was there not 2 kids in their 20's arrested earlier this year for trying to put together a plan to shoot Obama? Sounds a lot worse to me than some old man in a wheel chair wearing a diaper who looks like he is daydreaming half the time. It really does not matter if they say it on Fox news, CNN, or whatever, most credible threats we are never going hear about on the national news before they happen.

November 11, 2009 at 9:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

open_eyes
Let me see if I understand you correctly, Your answer to my 4th question was an equivical and resounding " Yes " , punctuated with a " DUH " !
So you do believe that a representitave republic government, which the U.S. government is supposed to be, shoud be " influenced by certain influential and powerful individuals, Corporations, special interest groups, etc. !
Exactly what kind of government would you call a government that is " influenced by certain influential and powerful individuals etc. ?
I believe that this type of government would be an " authoritarianism " type of government !

November 11, 2009 at 10:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I have also fouond that simple questions on this thread are the best kind of questions !

November 11, 2009 at 10:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Sorry, methusla, I misread your question # 4. You actually phrased it as 2 opposing questions, so I guess the real answer is Yes AND THEN No. I read it as do I believe that our government is infuenced by powerful corporations, etc. Which I answered yes to. Didn't catch that you asked if that was the way it was supposed to be. To which I would answer no.

Goodoleboy, I said I got tax cuts, and I'm not wealthy. But there's no end to that argument. I guess maybe you should take it up with President Obama, apparently he is unable to get the notion out of his head either. This is what he said during the campaign - article titled "Obama: Raising Taxes on the "Rich" Hurts Economy"

"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy. "

Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date,.......Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class......

"Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority."

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC......

Interesting. Apparently he thought it would hurt the economy to raise taxes on the wealthy when the economy was in a fragile state.

On a side note, this is my favorite Obama quote from that same article:

"John McCain likes to talk about fiscal responsibility, but there is no doubt that his proposals blow a hole through the budget," Obama said.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Ah, good old campaign rhetoric. Brings a tear to my eye at times :-)

November 11, 2009 at 11:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And since I broke it down into simplest terms with numbered items, but they were ignored, let me break it down for you (again) into even simpler terms. You say Bush held office for 8 years, and you compare that to Obama's 1. But I think we all know (well, with one exception here, apparently) that the hate started long before 8 years. Looks like about 3-4. AND.... I agreed with you that he looks to be getting there faster than Bush did. Of course Bush had the big 9/11 ride for a year, year and a half, before he dropped down to the dungeon. And they didn't even have to wait till he was President, actually. On August 4, 2000, when Bush won the Republican nomination (but before he was president), Craig Kilborn on CBS’s The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn ran a graphic of the words “SNIPERS WANTED” under George Bush as he gave his acceptance speech. (Now this wasn't a couple of 20 year old skinhead wackos or some Aryan nation nutjob leader, this was the Craig Kilborn show, you seem unable to distinguish between the two).

Why the radical nutjobs hate, well, they've hated from the start and are just getting louder and bolder. Alot of people are just plain very dissatisfied. Alot started when the porkulus package got rammed down everyone's throat before they knew what was happening. (That has already been signed, in case you missed it). The fact that you "don't see a lot of substance as to why these people are so upset." pretty much says it all. You interpret things as going the way you like, others do not.

And I've said.... (good LORD I have to repeat myself alot here) - there are plenty of idiots out there. Legitimate threats. And they are dealt with. AND.... for about the 4th time..... there are other instances of people on national TV saying the same things about Bush. I've posted links to them, several times. Just using Vidal example as the most recent one. You are TOTALLY missing the point I'm trying to make. The POINT I am trying to make ........ is NOT that there aren't total jacka$$ idiots out there that are legitimate threats - NOR whether idiots on national TV are or aren't credible threats - ITS THE MEDIA TREATMENT OF THE ONES MAKING STATEMENTS OF THAT TYPE ON NATIONAL TV. I'm not saying it will or won't be worse (possibly) in the near future. What I am saying is that IF people make comments (such as Vidal's) on major media....... there will be hell to pay....... instead of the big fat zero Vidal (AND others) received. (Well, actually, they got applause and agreement). Think we'll ever see "SNIPERS WANTED" underneath a video of Obama on Letterman or Leno or Kilborn? On the nearly infinitely small chance that we would, do you think it would be largely ignored the same way Bush's was, or would we have half the country whipped into a frenzy within minutes?

Comprende what I'm trying to say?

November 12, 2009 at 12:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

According to Gallup Bush's approval rating his last year in office was 66% among Republicans, 24% among Independents, and 6% among Democrats (Nearly 4 in 10 Republicans say the immigration debate, which ended in defeat for Bush's overhaul proposal, caused them to lose confidence in him.) Doesn't seem like the hatred crossed party lines quite as much as one would like to believe. Even Obama has close to twice the approval among conservative Republicans than Bush's 6% among Democrats.

And here's Obama's broken down weekly by demographics from July to August. While it shows a wide gap between some demographics, it shows a steady decline across all demographics.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122468/oba...

As stated in the article: " This is a broad-based decline, not focused among specific demographic or political groups."

November 12, 2009 at 8:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And here's the very latest Obama polls broken down by demographics. Still 3 times the approval among Republicans than Bush had among Democrats, and twice among conservative Repubs. Bush's 6% was among ALL Dems. Looks like that was the most centralized demographic disapproval group of all.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121199/oba...

November 12, 2009 at 9:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

open_eyes
I actually did ask a two part question in #4 and I appologize for that oversight ! I do, however congratulate you on giving an answer to the questions, honestly and forthrightly and I agree with your answers ! And I thank you for your answers .

November 12, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Thanks methusla. Straight answers are hard to come by around here ;-).
I had alot of displeasure with Bush, mostly centered around his last couple of years or so. I think the final straw for me was the immigration deal, like many Repubs as pointed out above. I tried to be hopeful with Obama but it didn't take long for those to be dashed. Does that mean I condone running around with signs or going on TV advocating assassination? For either one of them? Absolutely not. Still holding out hope for a few issues, however. Nobody ever aligns completely with or against my personal ideology 100% of the time.

I'm still curious as to what "substance" warranted putting the snipers wanted banner under Bush's video before he even became president in the first place. If it was just comedy, how come we don't see the same comedy directed at other presidential candidates/presidents?

November 12, 2009 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"Goodoleboy, I said I got tax cuts, and I'm not wealthy. But there's no end to that argument. I guess maybe you should take it up with President Obama, apparently he is unable to get the notion out of his head either. This is what he said during the campaign - article titled "Obama: Raising Taxes on the "Rich" Hurts Economy"

"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy. "

Taxes were higher under Reagan, in fact taxes on the wealthy in regards to a historical context are low. Most Economists that take that position still think that "trickle down" economics work. The middle class is what should be grown in the country if we want to see a healthy economy, when the wealthy decided to outsource the middle class they effectively slit their own throats with an added tax burden, now its time to pay the piper and they don't like it, poor babies..

November 12, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"And I've said.... (good LORD I have to repeat myself alot here) - there are plenty of idiots out there. Legitimate threats. And they are dealt with. AND.... for about the 4th time..... there are other instances of people on national TV saying the same things about Bush. I've posted links to them, several times. Just using Vidal example as the most recent one. You are TOTALLY missing the point I'm trying to make. The POINT I am trying to make ........ is NOT that there aren't total jacka$$ idiots out there that are legitimate threats - NOR whether idiots on national TV are or aren't credible threats - ITS THE MEDIA TREATMENT OF THE ONES MAKING STATEMENTS OF THAT TYPE ON NATIONAL TV. I'm not saying it will or won't be worse (possibly) in the near future. What I am saying is that IF people make comments (such as Vidal's) on major media....... there will be hell to pay....... instead of the big fat zero Vidal (AND others) received. (Well, actually, they got applause and agreement). Think we'll ever see "SNIPERS WANTED" underneath a video of Obama on Letterman or Leno or Kilborn? On the nearly infinitely small chance that we would, do you think it would be largely ignored the same way Bush's was, or would we have half the country whipped into a frenzy within minutes?

Comprende what I'm trying to say?"

The people you mentioned are comedians, much like when you complained during the elections last year about SNL, the viewers determine what what is funny and what they want to see. The answers you seek are the people around you. Much like when Falwell was parodied in the Campari ad by Flynt. Much like when people decided that Tina Fey as Palin was a riot and the guy they had do Obama was not. There is a big line between satire (the Kilborn skit) and what could be an actual POV (Gore Vidal), but in reality none are a real credible threat. Yet it if had no entertainment value it would be continually propagated now would it?

November 12, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"According to Gallup Bush's approval rating his last year in office was 66% among Republicans, 24% among Independents, and 6% among Democrats (Nearly 4 in 10 Republicans say the immigration debate, which ended in defeat for Bush's overhaul proposal, caused them to lose confidence in him.) Doesn't seem like the hatred crossed party lines quite as much as one would like to believe. Even Obama has close to twice the approval among conservative Republicans than Bush's 6% among Democrats.

And here's Obama's broken down weekly by demographics from July to August. While it shows a wide gap between some demographics, it shows a steady decline across all demographics.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122468/oba...

Use your common sense for a minute, were there not a lot of conservatives that were very unhappy with what Bush did? If Republicans thought him so great then why did they not use him to campaign for McCain? Lets not also forget that the conservative base shrunk during his tenure, making his numbers among independents and dems even more important. One could claim that all he had left were stalwart supporters that vote the party line no matter what, and he still had average/poor ratings among them.

Overall his approval ratings with the country as a whole were dismal, and even is this community I knew a lot of die hard Republicans that hated the guy with a passion for what he did to the party. The links and numbers don't always convey the whole truth, and thus that is what is so argue here at times, because almost anyone can google up something to support their arguments, although I have seen you use CNS on more than one occasion chide me for using something that had a leftward slant=)

November 12, 2009 at 1:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I think I'm going to christen you the echo king, goodoleboy. I don't have time at this moment to re-read thru all my own posts because you cut/paste the whole thing everytime but I'll try to filter out what is what soon. :)

November 12, 2009 at 2:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I think what you said was exactly what I said. Literally. LOL.

After wading thru your "walls of text" you mention so often as being annoying, I finally found where you replied ;-)

Reagan first had a massive tax cut, then raised them back. I think there are times for tax hikes as well as tax cuts. (As does Obama, apparently). I agree that the super-rich in this country are not paying their share, I've said that repeatedly on other threads. I'm all for growing the middle class. Question is where is this line at?

Not everyone is a comedian.... the Nobel "Peace" prize winner telling groups she would like to murder Bush is not a stand-up comedy routine. But I think, for once, you've explained it quite well. What you're telling us is that people (at least those on the left) find it extremely funny to talk about murdering a Republican president. But somehow they don't think its funny if you do the same comedy about a Democrat one. (I personally don't think jokes that go that far are funny no matter WHO they are about). Not only have you explained it quite well, but we've gotten some valuable insights into the minds and thinking processes of liberals. Thx!

I never said there weren't plenty of conservatives unhappy with Bush. As a matter of fact, I POINTED OUT that nearly 4 in 10 lost confidence in him over his immigration proposals. Please read closer next time, instead of just blindly cut/pasting paragraph upon paragraph upon paragraph, while complaing often about disliking "walls of text". ;-)

November 12, 2009 at 3:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And I am using my common sense. I just tried to honestly examine your claim he had the gift of being hated across party lines, and had people from all spectrums that hated him. Well of COURSE he did. BIG DUH. However........ it seems an overwhelming chunk of the disapproval........ came from a specific demographic (66% approval from one group....... 6% from another....... )

And I tried to examine your claim that Obama's disapproval only comes from specific demographics. But his approval is dropping pretty much across all demographics. And even now, there are multiple times more conservative Republicans that still support Obama than Dems that supported Bush. So maybe when we look at it closer, we should say things like....... Democrats were pretty much nearly unanimous in their disapproval of Bush, but Republicans still have several times as many that support Obama as Dems that supported Bush. In other words, there's no single group as united in their dislike of Obama as Dems were in their dislike of Bush. I look at that and have a little trouble figuring out how one is way more demographic than the other. Seems nearly just the opposite.

Well, I don't know how else to present arguments and debates other than backing up what I say with what means are possible. I guess I could just sit here and spout some pie-in-the-sky claims as fact like I heard BillyBob down at the bar say that Obama intends to secretly inject all Republicans with swine flu, and it must be fact because BillyBob never lies, but no thanks, I prefer to at least try to find some stronger evidence for support than BillyBob. Even though he's a really nice and friendly guy ;-)

Not sure who CNS is - did you mean CNN? Sorry, I don't understand your point there....

November 12, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

I thought this was great news today about the feds taking over mosques all over this country on suspicion of funneling money to Iran. One mosque is an entire skyscraper on 5th Avenue in NY. The latest I heard about an hour ago is that a large one in Houston has also been taken over. Way to go U.S. Attorney Eric Holder. Here's my news from Honolulu if you haven't already heard:

http://www.kitv.com/news/21598957/det...

November 12, 2009 at 6:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Not sure who CNS is - did you mean CNN? Sorry, I don't understand your point there....

www.cnsnews.com

Have seen you use it quite a few times, has a conservative slant and yet have also seen chide others for linking websites that tip in the other direction. Can link the posts if you like.

November 12, 2009 at 6:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"Not everyone is a comedian.... the Nobel "Peace" prize winner telling groups she would like to murder Bush is not a stand-up comedy routine. But I think, for once, you've explained it quite well. What you're telling us is that people (at least those on the left) find it extremely funny to talk about murdering a Republican president. But somehow they don't think its funny if you do the same comedy about a Democrat one. (I personally don't think jokes that go that far are funny no matter WHO they are about). Not only have you explained it quite well, but we've gotten some valuable insights into the minds and thinking processes of liberals. Thx!"

Society determines what is funny because what is funny generates ratings and sells ads. You keep bryinging up partisianship where it is not applicable. SNL parodied Clinton all the time, people thought it was funny, they did Bush, people thought it was funny. When they get a guy that can do a good Obama guess what? Back during the elections they tried to do Obama skits, they just did not garner any ratings in comparison to the Palin and McCain parodies. Humor is an odd thing, and liberals are not restricted to being the only ones with "sick" sense of humor. Good grief next you are going to suggest to me that all audiences are all liberals, sorry bud, there are independents and conservatives driving those ratings too.

PS. Stop trying to label me, it irritates me, I don't label you so please afford me the same courtesy.

November 12, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"And I am using my common sense. I just tried to honestly examine your claim he had the gift of being hated across party lines, and had people from all spectrums that hated him. Well of COURSE he did. BIG DUH. However........ it seems an overwhelming chunk of the disapproval........ came from a specific demographic (66% approval from one group....... 6% from another....... )"

Go look at the factoids out there showing how many people the conservatives think Bush drove from the Republican party to independents. Independents are becoming more and more critical to elections, 66% of republicans currently means nothing if you can't carry the independents and a few Dems.

November 12, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 12, 2009 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not sure who CNS is - did you mean CNN? Sorry, I don't understand your point there....

www.cnsnews.com

Have seen you use it quite a few times, has a conservative slant and yet have also seen chide others for linking websites that tip in the other direction. Can link the posts if you like.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 12, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Not everyone is a comedian.... the Nobel "Peace" prize winner telling groups she would like to murder Bush is not a stand-up comedy routine. But I think, for once, you've explained it quite well. What you're telling us is that people (at least those on the left) find it extremely funny to talk about murdering a Republican president. But somehow they don't think its funny if you do the same comedy about a Democrat one. (I personally don't think jokes that go that far are funny no matter WHO they are about). Not only have you explained it quite well, but we've gotten some valuable insights into the minds and thinking processes of liberals. Thx!"

Society determines what is funny because what is funny generates ratings and sells ads. You keep bryinging up partisianship where it is not applicable. SNL parodied Clinton all the time, people thought it was funny, they did Bush, people thought it was funny. When they get a guy that can do a good Obama guess what? Back during the elections they tried to do Obama skits, they just did not garner any ratings in comparison to the Palin and McCain parodies. Humor is an odd thing, and liberals are not restricted to being the only ones with "sick" sense of humor. Good grief next you are going to suggest to me that all audiences are all liberals, sorry bud, there are independents and conservatives driving those ratings too.

PS. Stop trying to label me, it irritates me, I don't label you so please afford me the same courtesy.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 12, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"And I am using my common sense. I just tried to honestly examine your claim he had the gift of being hated across party lines, and had people from all spectrums that hated him. Well of COURSE he did. BIG DUH. However........ it seems an overwhelming chunk of the disapproval........ came from a specific demographic (66% approval from one group....... 6% from another....... )"

Go look at the factoids out there showing how many people the conservatives think Bush drove from the Republican party to independents. Independents are becoming more and more critical to elections, 66% of republicans currently means nothing if you can't carry the independents and a few Dems.

November 13, 2009 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Sorry...... got so carried away cut/pasting ala echoboy I forgot to actually post anything of my own! LOL

November 13, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Funny thing about that comedy, goodoleboy..... not very many people found it as funny as you think. And I am happy to learn that someone actually DID get upset about it and look into it. Glad to hear it. I rescind my earlier statements that things like this are always dismissed. At least in THIS particular case they weren't.

"The portrayal outraged some viewers, who in turn contacted CBS. Others contacted the U.S. Secret Service to inquire about whether the parody constituted a threat.

Not only do such actions legally constitute a threat, but, according to a Secret Service agent who spoke with WorldNetDaily, the agency takes all such threats seriously -- regardless of who makes them or whom they are directed against.

The clip may have been aired as a news parody, "but we don't find such parodies very amusing," said Special Agent Jim Mackin, a spokesman for the Secret Service. The agency has been assigned to protect Bush and his running mate, Richard B. Cheney, throughout the campaign.

Mackin said the Secret Service was made aware of the "SNIPERS WANTED" parody shortly after Kilborn aired it last Friday night, one day after the close of the Republican National Convention. Since then, he said, agents have been in contact with Kilborn and CBS after verifying the authenticity of the clip.

"I can't go into any details, but I can tell you that we have investigated this matter and whether or not there was any harmful intent behind it," Mackin told WorldNetDaily on Wednesday.

He also declined to comment on CBS' reaction to the clip or whether action would be taken against the network generally or Kilborn specifically.

Others were clearly upset by the broadcast, however.

Ray Sullivan, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, seemed nonplussed about the CBS broadcast, telling WorldNetDaily, "Though no one here has actually seen it, it does appear that it was in poor taste."

"As to the security issue, we don't discuss Gov. Bush's security and we're prepared to let others judge the legalities of the incident," he added.

However, CBS offices in New York released a statement to WorldNetDaily apologizing for the incident.

During the Aug. 4 broadcast, "an inappropriate and regrettable graphic was briefly presented on the screen during an 'In the News' item about George W. Bush's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.

"This graphic -- which was not accompanied by any remarks from Mr. Kilborn -- should not have been included in the telecast," said CBS spokeswoman Rosemary Keenan in the statement. "CBS and Worldwide Pants, which produces the program, deeply regret this incident."

Keenan said CBS was "concluding a review of this matter" and pledged to "take appropriate action when this process is complete."

Of course, I've pointed out other instances which were not all "just some drunk", but you seem to be in an infinite loop on those and the comedy angle so I'll just let the rest go.

November 13, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I link from all sorts of different places, because sometimes.... certain news orgs seem to not want to report things, or claim ignorance (Remember ABC's Charles Gibson not knowing anything about ACORN? Big.... WOW).....

And I've seen you often allude my posts to conservative views, etc - wasn't too long ago you made a remark about my "conservative side showing" - so forgive me for not thinking you're being very honest when you claim you don't label me.

Speaking of irritating, I also remember you were going to stop cut/pasting entire chunks every single time you post. How's that been working out for you?

As for "checking the factoids" about Bush driving conservatives away........ I even POSTED facts showing that. If you didn't spend so much time repeating pages of posts like a parrot you might read closer......

November 13, 2009 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"Speaking of irritating, I also remember you were going to stop cut/pasting entire chunks every single time you post. How's that been working out for you?

As for "checking the factoids" about Bush driving conservatives away........ I even POSTED facts showing that. If you didn't spend so much time repeating pages of posts like a parrot you might read closer......"

-------------------------------------------------------
Could you cry anymore? Would you like me link my post where I said we'll just have to man up and deal with it until the Gazette upgrades it's forums? It is common practice on blogs to quote the poster to whom you are replying, most forums have a "quote" button specifically for this purpose, if my format annoys you so you can always stop reading and replying, else, deal with it and stop being childish alluding to me as echoboy and a parrot, insulting me denigrates credibility, one more thing, alluding to one's slant on an issue is a lot different than going outright and proclaiming one's affiliation, you claim to be an independent so I afford you that, I expect the same.

I checked your links

On a side note apparently conservatives are going to burn an effigy of Pelosi now:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/...

Now I am not a Pelosi fan at all, but last I checked burning at the stake went out in Salem awhile back.........

November 14, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Out of all the people who post here, you are the only one who constantly feels the need to repost page after page of what has already been posted. And I'm not the only one that has complained. Would you like me to link others? I've been on many, many other forums and never, ever, have I seen as much reposted in a month as you do in one day. Occasionally when referring to an older post someone will copy as the thread may have wandered but apparently you don't think anyone here can figure it out from one post to the next. Especially coming from someone who has "cried" often about "walls of text" - rather hypocritical, isn't it. And I didn't come outright and call you a liberal any more than you do me a conservative - I said you've given insight into liberal thinking - which isn't anymore so than saying one's conservative side is showing - so maybe you should quit crying and so much yourself and be honest about it.

And you haven't checked very often, apparently. I can show you plenty of instances of Bush being burned in effigy, if you like. (Actually have linked in the past). WAY more recent than Salem. You should really try harder to stay up on current events ;-)

November 14, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"Funny thing about that comedy, goodoleboy..... not very many people found it as funny as you think. And I am happy to learn that someone actually DID get upset about it and look into it. Glad to hear it. I rescind my earlier statements that things like this are always dismissed. At least in THIS particular case they weren't."

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

Well in the case of SNL, yes... they did. During the elections last year SNL enjoyed some of it's highest ratings in recent years. Are you now going to contend that millions of people do not watch comedy shows to laugh? As I said before, the audience and ratings drive any program, if it does not entertain it goes the way of the dodo bird.

Now onto your Bush claim:

""According to Gallup Bush's approval rating his last year in office was 66% among Republicans, 24% among Independents, and 6% among Democrats (Nearly 4 in 10 Republicans say the immigration debate, which ended in defeat for Bush's overhaul proposal, caused them to lose confidence in him.) "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...

Given this data it would suggest %66 of a Republican Party that has shunken dramatically does not mean much, neither does %24 percent of independents or %6 of dems. If you would like me to go run the math I can, but it is not going to be pretty.

The intangible is that Bush(admitted by many republicans) is responsible for driving many either from the party, or to not even participate, those numbers are hard to account for and the Gallup poll you posted does not tell the whole tale. I'm sure if I wanted to dig around out there I could find something on it but I really don't need to, it's common sense. There was a good reason the sitting president was not asked to campaign, and it was because at that point a good chunk of all people from every group, conservatives, independents and Dems did not like him one bit.

November 14, 2009 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Once again..... since you seem to be completely blind to the point..... we are referring to talking about assassination, murder, etc. NOT general comedy. Don't know how much plainer I could possibly make it.

And as someone with a math minor, your "not pretty math" statements really don't make sense. First he drove tons of people from the party, but since the party had shrunk it doesn't mean much. But the other party is bigger, but turning nearly all of them against him doesn't mean much either. I really have no clue what you are trying to say there. I think what you are saying is nothing means anything. (???). I never denied he drove tons of people from the party (and I know some Dems who voted for Obama who are very unhappy with our sitting president at this time, as well). What I said (and is plain to see) - is that this "broad demographic of hate" you claim is much more centered, and on Independents (and Dems in particular) - than you admit. The numbers don't lie - and as you say, they ain't pretty.

Even if an incumbent has 100% approval among his own party, elections are usually decided by the Independents, and at times how many of the other side you can get to cross the line, since neither party has over 50% of the country registered. Given his 6% approval among Dems and 24% among Independents, its obvious they felt he would be no help whatsoever in trying to appeal to those that could and would tip the election. There was enough dislike of the other candidate by both sides that they each could pretty much count on the majority of their party - but since neither side has a majority, they needed the ind/crossovers.

That's just common sense.

McCain actually got 90% of the registered Republican vote and 10% of the registered Democratic vote, Obama got 89% of the Dem & 9% of the Republican. So by both percentage and total numbers (since the GOP is smaller) - more Dems voted for McCain than Repubs voted for Obama. Interesting.

November 14, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"Out of all the people who post here, you are the only one who constantly feels the need to repost page after page of what has already been posted. And I'm not the only one that has complained. Would you like me to link others?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

More tears? Stop reading if you don't like my posts, no one is forcing you.

" I've been on many, many other forums and never, ever, have I seen as much reposted in a month as you do in one day."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link away, I'll link just as many where the "quote" function is used freely and often, that is all I am doing.

"Especially coming from someone who has "cried" often about "walls of text" - rather hypocritical, isn't it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny, said I would deal with awhile back, apparently walls of text in articles you quote are ok but when I do it, it's annoying? Hypocritical indeed.

"And I didn't come outright and call you a liberal any more than you do me a conservative - I said you've given insight into liberal thinking - which isn't anymore so than saying one's conservative side is showing - so maybe you should quit crying and so much yourself and be honest about it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said and I quote:
"Not only have you explained it quite well, but we've gotten some valuable insights into the minds and thinking processes of liberals. Thx!"

I've been open and honest that I side with liberals and conservatives on a number of issues, but neither exclusively, links are availible upon request. You implied above that I am in fact a liberal, whereas I implied only that you had a "conservative side".

November 14, 2009 at 10:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

One last try to make it simple:

Bush certainly alienated many in his own party, and across all demographics his popularity suffered, no doubt about it. But if one claims that he was hated across all demographics more or less, one would expect to see numbers closer than 66 to 6. Instead, one finds that, although he was not popular among any group, (even among his own party 66 should be considered low) - we find that one group stand out as being way, way, way, way, way lower than any other. Only 6% of Dems approved. VERY demographic.

And if one makes the claim that all the disapproval of Obama is coming from very specific demographics, one would expect to find numbers similar to what Bush had - one demographic way, way, way unhappier than the others. But the numbers show the opposite. His popularity is sinking, as the polls show, "This is a broad-based decline, not focused among specific demographic or political groups". You can't even find nearly as many Republicans disapproving of Bush as Democrats disapproved of Obama. 18% - 3 times as many, and 12% of those who consider themselves VERY conservative Republicans still approve (twice as much as Dems).

So sure, there's always SOME truth to the claims, but when you compare them side-by-side, the numbers ain't pretty...... but they don't lie, either.

November 14, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

The difference is when I put up articles they aren't word-for-word the very same article that someone posted 2 minutes earlier. Nobody has to read anything if they don't want to but at least they don't have to wade thru line after line to find something new.

And maybe I was implying that you gave valuable insight into only your liberal thinking half or side. What's the difference? People can call me conservative all they like, I side with them more often than not, but I've also quite pointedly here sided with the opposing view at times. So?

November 14, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"And you haven't checked very often, apparently. I can show you plenty of instances of Bush being burned in effigy, if you like. (Actually have linked in the past). WAY more recent than Salem. You should really try harder to stay up on current events ;-)"

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

What was the argument again? Oh yes!

You said:
"ITS THE MEDIA TREATMENT OF THE ONES MAKING STATEMENTS OF THAT TYPE ON NATIONAL TV. I'm not saying it will or won't be worse (possibly) in the near future. What I am saying is that IF people make comments (such as Vidal's) on major media....... there will be hell to pay....... instead of the big fat zero Vidal (AND others) received. (Well, actually, they got applause and agreement). Think we'll ever see "SNIPERS WANTED" underneath a video of Obama on Letterman or Leno or Kilborn?"

Well, they are gonna burn effigys of 3rd most powerful official who is a women and I am not seeing much "hell to pay". I'm sure people will applaud as she burns while singing the Barack the Magic Negro tune. What am I thinking, this kind of thing only happens to Bush=)

November 14, 2009 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Ok let me know how much time needs to go by or how many posters can be between me and the person I am replying to before I am allowed to quote someone. Please enlighten me and tell me how much of a post I can copy, direct me to the part of the forum that regulates this.

Or,

You don't have to read it................

November 14, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Man oh Man, I could comment on this last post, but I will bite my tongue, grip the arms of my chair and not comment at all !
I think the next to last sentence in this post says it all !

November 14, 2009 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

This is the sentence that I refer too ! " I'm sure people will applaud as she burns while singing the Barack the Magic Negro tune."
Think about the conotation mentioned in this sentence !

November 14, 2009 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Give it time, give it time....... I also rescinded my earlier rant about the Kilborn incident being ignored. You can find the definition of that word online most anywhere. ;-)

Nice to see you are among those who brand everyone a racist. More insight.

As to how long you must go before quoting, figure it out. Most kids could ;-)

November 14, 2009 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Methusla, here's a little background on it for you:

"Barack the Magic Negro" is a satirical song by Paul Shanklin, which appeared on his 2008 album We Hate the USA. The song is a parody sung to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon".

The lyrics of "Barack the Magic Negro" refer to President Barack Obama (who at the time the song was written, was a candidate in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries) as an example of the stock character of the magical negro for whom white American voters would vote in order to assuage white guilt.

The song was first aired on The Rush Limbaugh Show in 2007, prompting criticism of the show's host, the conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh; however, Limbaugh noted that he was not the one whom had originally coined the term in reference to Obama. The term was first coined by Los Angeles Times columnist, David Ehrenstein, in a column published on March 19, 2007.[LATimes.com, Opinion Section, March 19, 2007]

The title is a reference to the magical negro, a stock character in fiction who commonly helps the white protagonist to get out of trouble. The song mocks David Ehrenstein's assertion in the Los Angeles Times that Barack Obama would serve as a "magical negro" to assuage white guilt, as well as the fact that these comments drew very little heat from the media.

The term was originally used by LA Times writer David Ehrenstein in a March 19, 2007 op-ed titled "Obama the 'Magic Negro'"

In December 2008, Chip Saltsman of Tennessee, a former chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party, became embroiled in controversy when he distributed the song on a "Christmas CD" to RNC members. On December 27, 2008, incumbent RNC chairman Mike Duncan publicly criticized the song's distribution: "I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate, as it clearly does not move us in the right direction." Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich commented that "This is so inappropriate that it should disqualify any Republican National Committee candidate who would use it."

Saltsman later defended himself by accusing the media of bias, of holding him to a double standard compared with Ehrenstein: "liberal Democrats and their allies in the media didn't utter a word about David Ehrenstein's irresponsible column in the Los Angeles Times last March. But now, of course, they're shocked and appalled by its parody on 'The Rush Limbaugh Show."

November 14, 2009 at 11:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"Nice to see you are among those who brand everyone a racist. More insight"

Ummm ok? ? This group of people are among the same who claim Obama is Hitler, support Limbaugh who played the "Barack the Magic Negro" tune on his show and now they are burning effigys and you think I am out of line suggesting that they are extremists? Yes I do find the Barack the Magic Negro song to be racist in nature, do you not? Do you think it was created to honor Obama? Insight indeed=)

November 14, 2009 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Methusla, here's a little background on it for you:

"Barack the Magic Negro" is a satirical song by Paul Shanklin, which appeared on his 2008 album We Hate the USA. The song is a parody sung to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon".

The lyrics of "Barack the Magic Negro" refer to President Barack Obama (who at the time the song was written, was a candidate in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries) as an example of the stock character of the magical negro for whom white American voters would vote in order to assuage white guilt.

The song was first aired on The Rush Limbaugh Show in 2007, prompting criticism of the show's host, the conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh; however, Limbaugh noted that he was not the one whom had originally coined the term in reference to Obama. The term was first coined by Los Angeles Times columnist, David Ehrenstein, in a column published on March 19, 2007.[LATimes.com, Opinion Section, March 19, 2007]

The title is a reference to the magical negro, a stock character in fiction who commonly helps the white protagonist to get out of trouble. The song mocks David Ehrenstein's assertion in the Los Angeles Times that Barack Obama would serve as a "magical negro" to assuage white guilt, as well as the fact that these comments drew very little heat from the media.

The term was originally used by LA Times writer David Ehrenstein in a March 19, 2007 op-ed titled "Obama the 'Magic Negro'"

In December 2008, Chip Saltsman of Tennessee, a former chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party, became embroiled in controversy when he distributed the song on a "Christmas CD" to RNC members. On December 27, 2008, incumbent RNC chairman Mike Duncan publicly criticized the song's distribution: "I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate, as it clearly does not move us in the right direction." Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich commented that "This is so inappropriate that it should disqualify any Republican National Committee candidate who would use it."

Saltsman later defended himself by accusing the media of bias, of holding him to a double standard compared with Ehrenstein: "liberal Democrats and their allies in the media didn't utter a word about David Ehrenstein's irresponsible column in the Los Angeles Times last March. But now, of course, they're shocked and appalled by its parody on 'The Rush Limbaugh Show."

=============================
Sorry, for the repost, I only wanted to add that David Ehrenstein's mother is African-American (the guy that first used the term). But the prevailing wisdom I'm being told is that nobody would figure that out unless I re-posted everything in its entirety ;-)

November 14, 2009 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I do appologize, I had not heard of the song, nor do I watch or listen to Limbaugh, Beck or any other of those whom I think have a radical view and I did not mention the word racist, only that the phrase had racist conotations ! You see I am big enough to appologize when I am wrong or have jumped to an unfounded conclusion ! Again I appologize !

November 14, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Yes, I do think it is reprehensible that they are burning Pelosi in effigy. And some of them are extremists. And that the song as well is being used as racist in nature and is also reprehensible. But I'm also just showing the facts behind it, as well.
But not everyone at a tea party is a racist, nor an extremist. People who do the above, yes, I condemn. Most people who attended tea parties, no. Unless you want me to say all Democrats are just like Rev Wright and/or Bill Ayers.

(Notice how easily I figured out who/what I was referring to? Bet everyone else can too! Piece of cake! ;-)

November 14, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

That is so rich Open Eyes, I never expected desperation from you. Trying to paint me as a racist for calling a group of EXTREMISTS what they are, EXTREMISTS, funny how YOU brought RACE into equation, thank you for that "insight" First name calling now this.....

November 14, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Gazette, PLEASE do not add a an easy way to re-post the previous ala/reply. We'll end up with 382 posts spread over 50 pages in 3 days........ of which only 17 sentences will be new/original..... ;-)

November 14, 2009 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

And just to clarify, per the article that I posted, the people that show up to that event, are extremists. I don't care what god they pray to, or what political party they follow, they are idiots.

DISCLAIMER!!! Nowhere in this post did Goodoldboy claim that all Teabaggers are extremists, just the idiots mentioned in the article.

Crystal?

November 14, 2009 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"Gazette, PLEASE do not add a an easy way to re-post the previous ala/reply. We'll end up with 382 posts spread over 50 pages in 3 days........ of which only 17 sentences will be new/original..... ;-)"

Suggestion box is that way---------------->

=)

November 14, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Hmmm...... funny how you claim I brought race into it...... well everyone else can quite clearly see when "The Magic Negro" was brought up, and by whom. Oh, that's right, you claimed the song was not racist. Oops, my bad, you claimed it was. So.... you brought up a song that you claim is racist, said everyone would be singing it and cheering.......... and I'm the one that brought race into it.

Uh.......... ok.............

November 14, 2009 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Hey! We finally agree! Not all teabaggers are extremists! Now if you could just get Pelosi & most media to agree with you....... ;-)

November 14, 2009 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Methusla, you don't need to apologize, I like the fact that you give straight answers to straight questions, whether I agree or not. Something that actually DID go out back around the time of Salem around here - LOL

Well I gotta run for the day. But it's been fun! (but confusing and elusive ;-)

November 14, 2009 at 12:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

WTF are you talking about?

I never claimed the song was not racist. Have always felt that way guess I will have to repost since you failed to read it the first time:

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 14, 2009 at 12:01 p.m
Ummm ok? ? This group of people are among the same who claim Obama is Hitler, support Limbaugh who played the "Barack the Magic Negro" tune on his show and now they are burning effigys and you think I am out of line suggesting that they are extremists? Yes I do find the Barack the Magic Negro song to be racist in nature, do you not? Do you think it was created to honor Obama? Insight indeed=)
___________________________________________________

I made a satarical comment about a group of nutjobs and what I get from you is:

"Nice to see you are among those who brand everyone a racist. More insight"

Branding everyone a racist? YOUR words not mine, are you serious or on crack? If these individuals are PUBLICALLY burning effigys of a women politician they dislike I cringe to think what they do when not in public, I would bet the farm that Barack the Magic Negro would be kind in comparison to what really transpires, common sense much?

November 14, 2009 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Ok, back now, I'll repost for your benefit: "Oh, that's right, you claimed the song was not racist. Oops, my bad, you claimed it was. "

Guess you didn't read far enough. It was the very next sentence.

It was my tongue-in-cheek attempt at sarcasm since you brought up the racist song first, (implying that those protesting would have an element of racism) then tried to pin it on me that I brought racism into it. I guess I could say WTF and ask if you were on crack for that attempt at reversal, but I won't.

And your attempting to switch the order of things around I find rather dishonest. The statement above was NOT my reply that followed your preceding paragraph. THIS was my actual reply: "Yes, I do think it is reprehensible that they are burning Pelosi in effigy. And some of them are extremists. And that the song as well is being used as racist in nature and is also reprehensible.". My statement about your racist branding and insight was in response to YOU, NOT me, initially bringing racism into the discussion.

I apologize to any and all reading, and also you, goodoleboy, that this has spiraled down into a shouting match where the main point was lost long ago. I DID read a little too much into it that (once again) tea party people were racists and nutjobs. You did not brand all that way, and I apologize for reading too much into it. Since so much of the media does however, please forgive me for being somewhat conditioned to respond that way.

I totally agree with your last statement. I, too, cringe when I see that type of behavior. On both sides. And, I have already seen the backlash beginning. However, Palin was both hung and burned in effigy last year (McCain too) so I'd like to ask you - did you cringe to think what those people do when not in public? Did you speak out against it as reprehensible behavior? I saw backlash against that too - but only from, as you say, very specific and small demographic groups. Compare that to the list of high-profile conservatives I listed who publicly spoke out in condemnation against the song.

November 14, 2009 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

But anyway, to get back to the topic (respectfully) - this was never about Pelosi. I was trying to look at the comparisons between media treatment of our last 2 presidents - Bush and Obama. I agree that it is reprehensible what these nuts are doing towards Pelosi & Reid (but it would be nice if the effigy's of Palin were met with the same condemnation, for instance) - but that and they are not my point. My point is, that although we already do, and will, see disturbing and disgraceful behavior from both sides towards the other, (and this is my OPINION - and I hope I am proved to be right) - we won't have satire shows trying to be "funny" by advocating assassination of Obama. Joy Behar will not have anyone on her show talking about wishing they could or had murdered Obama. And you won't see things like that on major conservative shows like Beck or Hannity, either. If someone does they'll admonish them right on the spot instead of agreeing like Behar did. We won't see Nobel Peace Prize winners at international conferences saying they wish they could kill Obama. Or saying the same thing when speaking to school children in Australia. (Nobel Peace Prize winner my a$$. No wonder the Prize has lost its credibility).
(Side note quote: "Despite the fact that threatening to kill the president is a crime, the Secret Service refused to question her or detain her; according to the Dallas Morning News, “Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren in Washington declined to comment, but a Dallas agent said Ms. Williams had not been questioned and there were no plans to do so.” However, the people who emailed the conference in anger about her threats — they were the ones investigated: “Conference organizers reported that a Dallas police detective was working with hotel security to review about 40 hateful e-mails received in response to Ms. Williams’ speech.”)

Feel free to agree or disagree. Again, I truly hope that I am proved right (that none of these things actually come to pass). And will be deeply saddened if they do :(

November 14, 2009 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

The Emporia Gazette

Good morning.

Search

Emporia Weather

Reader Poll

What should the City of Emporia do to improve Housing in Emporia

Events

Search events

glarson (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

methusla (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

methusla (anonymous) says...

methusla (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

methusla (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

methusla (anonymous) says...

methusla (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

methusla (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

create (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...