A crowd that sometimes swelled to about 150 people gathered at White Memorial Park for more than an hour and a half Wednesday afternoon for Emporia’s version of the national Tea Party, initially billed as a tax protest.
The park was full of signs and flags, ranging from “Taxed Enough Already” to “I’ll keep my $, you keep ‘The Change’” to a flag bearing the motto “Don’t Tread on Me.”
Chester Morris, pastor of the Church of the New Covenant, greeted participants and led the group in prayer and the National Anthem; military veteran Curtis “Mac” McAuley led them in the Pledge of Allegiance before speakers took the podium.
After several politicians and their representatives spoke, Tea Party organizers took over the meeting.
Barb Nichols, a Republican who has run against state Rep. Don Hill in primary elections, handed out booklets containing the U.S. Constitution the start of the Tea Party, and she quoted from it several times during her presentation, often stressing the 10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Nichols emphasized states’ rights are being usurped by the federal government.
“Knowledge is power,” Nichols told the group.
Viola Heskett said she had recently investigated details of the AIG bailout and found that significant portions of the bailouts were given to three banks overseas.
“I’m talking foreign banks,” Heskett said.
She said that this year’s stimulus package, including earmarks, cost each U.S. citizen between $8,000 and $9,000, with individual shares of the $11 trillion national debt reaching about $36,000 per person.
“It’s time for us to stand up and stop the train wreck,” Heskett said.
Organizer and keynote speaker Vonda Weidmer of Madison emphasized that citizens are responsible for making changes.
“We can do this, people,” Weidmer said. “We can take our country back.”
Weidmer said she had obtained a book from the National Center for Constitutional Studies Web site. With its unattractive cover, she had not been drawn to reading it until last week.
“I’m not that good of a reader, so you’ve got to entice me a little bit,” she said, smiling. “I picked it up last week.”
From the book, “The 5,000-Year Leap,” she said she learned that in the 1920s, college professors began teaching economics that were contrary to the Constitution. She urged a return to values and beliefs written by framers of the Constitution and, in particular, writings by Benjamin Franklin.
Wiedmer read a list of five principles, based on Franklin’s religious beliefs, that should be taught in schools. Among them were “‘All mankind lives beyond this life.’ Do you know any kid that learned this this week in school?” she asked.
“People, this country has been diluted down to where it’s not even America any more. … The government cannot give anything to someone without taking away from somebody else.”
She recommended reading “The 5,000-Year Leap,” and learning more about Phyllis Schlafly, “the little Catholic lady — and she knows everything about everything.”
Wiedmer warned the crowd to beware of the Association for Community Organizations to Reform Now (ACORN), a non-partisan voter registration group that claims it registered 1.3 million minority, young, and low-income voters before the 2008 election. ACORN came under scrutiny when it reported that some of its workers had turned in fraudulent registrations.
“ACORN is the enemy,” Wiedmer said.
She also identified Harold Koh, who has been nominated to be legal advisor to the U.S. State Department, as someone who would place the World Court above U.S. courts.
“Do everything you can to defeat that man,” Wiedmer said.
She provided telephone numbers to reach Congress and President Barack Obama — (202) 224-3121 and (202) 456-1414, respectively — and asked the audience to enter those numbers in their cell phones.
“We’re gonna call the president,” she said, adding that it may be difficult to reach senators and representatives beyond Kansas legislators.
“It’s hard to get through to them unless you lie and say you’re from their state,” she said.
She asked them to talk with people around them at the rally, to write their names and contact information on a clipboard being passed through the crowd and to gather in groups to discuss their common beliefs. Through that networking process, she said, the day’s protest rally could become a stronger movement.
“I just know there’s a fire in my belly and there’s a fire in your belly and things have got to change,” Wiedmer said.
Before the protest ended with a group singing of “God Bless America,” Morris returned to the podium.
“Now, you right-wing terrorists, give yourself a hand. ... We are the proverbial David fighting the proverbial Goliath and with God on our side,” Morris said, his voice growing louder. “With God on our side, with God on our side, we will have the victory.”
People who want to communicate with organizers of the Tea Party here may e-mail emporiateaparty@yahoo.com.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by gg (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well we all finally know, there are 150 people in Emporia that watch Fox News.
Posted by Blackshirt (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"We can take out country back" does not equal overthrow the government. How do you even make that leap in logic? You can take a country back by educating people about their rights, duties and those rights and duties of the ones elected. That's one way to take the country back.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
crackinsack,
"Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God." ~~Heywood Broun (1888 - 1939)
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Religion has no place in government, that was one of the founding principles of our forefathers, religious freedom. The problem with the group mentioned above is that they are in the minority, and until they are the majority this all means nothing.
Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How is it the Tea Party turned into communion? The purpose of these nationwide demonstration was taxation, but leave it to Emporia to give it a nice a Hallelujah-theme.
"Wiedmer read a list of five principles, based on Franklin’s religious beliefs, that should be taught in schools." Really? Children go to public schools to learn Algebra and English. If one believes their children are not learning the basics about Adam and Eve, that's a conversation you need to have with your church. Preserve the separation of church and state.
Posted by DJrocksthemic (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Did I see some "No Taxation, without representation" signs on the news last night. Did I fall asleep and wake up where we don't elect the officials anymore. Ahhhh, this world is so confusing.
Posted by blulitespecial (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I didn't hear all that much on religion.Even the article only mentions Franklin's beliefs(which I just don't remember hearing that,I'll take the reporters word). I'm not much on religion these days,but I didn't mind hearing "with God on our side".I was there from 330 to 540. What little mention there was didn't bother me at all. This was more of motivational rally than anything else.Seems there's a lot of what little information is reported in the article being taken out of context,and blown up.But whatever opinion you have- You're sure entitled to it!
Posted by slvrnblck (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ahhhh, how cute, a little cult right here in Emporia.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
crackinsack, the "kill him" reference at the McCain rally has long since been shown to be a unfounded hoax claimed by a liberal reporter. And that info is from the Secret Service, not some right-wing nut. Keep up with the times. (Watch Fox once in awhile, you will be amazed at what you never knew - LOL). Yes, you are right. It's scary that there are still people out there...... who are so uninformed......
Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Watch Fox? Fox News? Seriously? Nothing makes me think of fair, unbiased and respected journalism more than Fox News.
Posted by Absolute (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why on Earth do they think that God is on their side?
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And now, a few words from our founding fathers:
“No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given to man and I as Chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example" - Thomas Jefferson
"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions…… to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” - James Madison
Our founding fathers never said religion had no place in government. What they said was that government has no right to impose any religion upon people, or that government had no right to penalize anyone for their religious beliefs. And that includes people IN the government.
Posted by arminius (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You might be a redneck if you were at that rally.
Posted by Absolute (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So that means that God is a republican?
Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess I just find it rather humorous for Emporians to be hosting a Tea Party against taxation. Isn't that a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face?
"GOP fights against stimulus, yet Red States get way more federal money than Blue States. Ironic or Hypocritical?"
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analys...
"Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed"
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/...
Posted by create (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Must be the same God that made it okay to kill all the Native Americans, you know, the one involved with Manifest Destiny and a belief in the natural superiority of what was once called the "Anglo-Saxon race."
Why only now? Why not all these eight years? Lotta sore losers out there.
Posted by create (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh yeah, here's news from Governor Perry of Texas, you know, the one who used to be Lt. Gov for GWB.
"Texas secession
In April 2009, Perry endorsed a resolution supporting state sovereignty as granted by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On April 15 at a "tea party protest" he said, "Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that...My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that."
Texas secession: Heaven for right wingnuts.
Posted by sail (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whats wrong with saying the Gov. IS AND HAS BEEN OUT OF CONTROLL!!!!! I support the citizens of Emporia shouting there concerns about the future of our Republic.
Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not one to complain about taxes. As a matter of fact, I find the topic boring. That said, if so many people want to reduce the amount of taxes that are being paid into the federal government, I'm all for it. That means we in California will get to keep those dollars that are redistributed to red states (see previous links).
But, I have to ask, how will Kansas pay its bills? All 150 of those demonstrators will be SOL.
Posted by historian1982 (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wow, heaven forbid people actually are waking up to realize that the government in DC is about to bankrupt the country. this has been brewing for years and Obama's actions have only sped up the absurdity. No nation truly survives without the acknowledgment of religion....those who believe in nothing will come to believe in anything
Posted by arminius (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
crackinsack.... your statement seems to assume that scientific explanations contradict religious ones. That's questionable.
And why do you consider religion to be a "feeble attempt"? Aren't you just making another feeble attempt yourself?
Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Humanism is a crutch for people who can't admit they need a Savior."
--Author Unknown
Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The last thing President Obama wants to do is spend, but it's a necessary evil in order to keep these large long-unregulated companies afloat. Do you not comprehend the enormous devastation which will occur if these companies close their doors? It wouldn't be just GM, Ford, Chrysler and the banks that go out of business and lay off their workforce. The ripple affect will be disastruous. Everyone from the suppliers who sell to these corporations to the administrative assistants out at John North Ford wil be negatively affected.
Posted by historian1982 (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oh4theluvof
Nice!
Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I was looking at that photo, again. It made me laugh. It reminds me of an email that made its way around the office entitled, "What celebrities would like like if they lived in Kansas." Well, I found the same photos online, but the caption had replaced the word Kansas with Ohio. Close enough.
Enjoy! http://pictures.streakr.com/ohio.htm
Posted by DJrocksthemic (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wait, God is a Republican, what are the Christian Democrats going to do. I'm so lost, please save me religious right from the hell fire and brimstone. Isn't it amazing that none of these people protested during the last eight years, you do know that Bush gave Billions away in TARP funds.
I only do this because coming to the forums is so much fun.
“I’m talking foreign banks,”
And the problem with helping other countries is, I mean Bush sent Billions in aid to other countries to provide better schooling while American teachers struggled to find supplies for their classrooms. When they asked Why? he called them terrorists. Foreign banks are in just as much trouble as we are, and guess what, money is international now. American banks rely on foreign banks for loans and vice versa, so someone has to give money to somebody, or we will stay in this slide forever.
“We can do this, people,” “We can take our country back.”
Back from who, the officials we elected during the last elections (like six months ago-who took office only four months ago)? Golly Beaver, seems like that's not enough time to do anything. How would you feel if your employer gave you four months to learn a job and then told you that you were terrible at it.
“ACORN is the enemy,”
Yep, helping get people registered to vote is bad. Even if they were doing bad things, their motives were good, you people and minorities need to register to vote. I'd like to know why those were fraudulent too, could it be some of the thousands of people they tried to help register weren't completely honest.
“It’s hard to get through to them unless you lie and say you’re from their state,”
Wha!! Elected officials jobs are to serve and listen to the concerns of their constituants, not axe grinders from other states. If you feel the need to help, tell you congressperson to contact all they know.
“Now, you right-wing terrorists, give yourself a hand. ... We are the proverbial David fighting the proverbial Goliath and with God on our side,”
Isn't this exactly how democrats probably felt during eight years of Bush. Power changes hands, why do you have to be so angry about it. Instead of throwing tea and scaring the crap out of people, why don't you start leading a grass roots movement that can actually change something. In two years you have the RIGHT to go and vote everyone of those "so called" corrupt congress people out. And vote in the ones who push your agenda, which by the way would probably involve putting the Christian Democrats in jail.
But anywhozer, that's all i got, thanks for listening.
Posted by eiggohp (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It amazes me that so many of these posts are from such uninformed people....or you are not ones that know what is going on in the world.
How can you believe that we, our children or even our grandchildren can EVER pay the debt that our Presidents (past and present) and Congress are bestowing on us??? There is enough blame to go around....I hope that when the next election comes up, we will stand together and replace those congress members who have their "golden umbrellas" with their insurance and retirement never to worry about, for we are paying highly~~~~ Do you think that any of them are worried about the lives of the people in Emporia, Kansas??? I doubt it.
People, we have to do something to stop the debt we are getting due to the extra-ordinary needless spending that is going on in our land. Look at the pork spending they are doing....now is not the time to spend millions of dollars investigating the smell of pigs in Iowa....or any other place.
It is past the time to insist that only the necessities of this land be met....not the pet issues that the congressmen/woman have for their states and work for the entire USA~~~~
And for those of you who don't like that "God" was referred to...you have taken Him out of everything that our founders fought for and moved to a new continent to have. Maybe we are being punished for taking Him out of our land and our lives.
Wake up.....join the stop the spending NOW!!
Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I attend church each Sunday. But, I keep my religious beliefs to myself, because I see my relationship with God as a personal one. I don't feel a need to share my religious views with anyone else. Too bad others can't do the same.
Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seriously? You people live in Kansas. What are you complaining about? 90% white, and predominately Christian. I would think these facts would make all of you white, anglo-saxon protestants happy.
Posted by arminius (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I prefer the prayer from Lincoln, asking that we would be on God's side - instead of declaring "God is on our side."
But that said, crackinsack... your statements are loaded with theological/metaphysical assumptions.
"...a higher power or some unexplained force"
"beyond anything we currently have the capacity to conceive"
These are both assumptions about divinity and theological method - and the second one is very debatable. It's a broad statement about all human knowledge. It also fails to consider the possibility of revelation.
Science and religion contradict one another only when you are selective about the religious beliefs. Science has nothing to say about religion - the National Academy of Sciences has said as much.
Another thought: Imagine if Martin Luther King had kept his religious beliefs to himself? The US would be a drastically different place - and not for the better.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Very Happy
Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Very Disturbing.
Posted by twgriff (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Although He is regularly asked to do so, God does not take sides in American politics." Senator George J. Mitchell, Iran-Contra Hearings, 1987
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support." ~~John Buchan (1875 - 1940)
Posted by justamarine (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are no atheist in foxholes.......
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
crackinsack.....Today you have proved something I have long suspected....given enough opportunity any two people can eventully find common ground. After weeks of disagreeing with virtually everthing you posted on the smoking ban issue, I stand in total agreement with your views of yesterday's "homespun protest", religion and its place in our world, and the scary nature of many people of a right-wing affliction. And although I believe open-eyes's assertion about the kill him reference is technically correct, a casual viewing of Fox News coverage of yesterday's protest events offered abundent examples that prove your point. The fact that you and I have apparently come together on this point also illustrates something else....where you stand on any individual issue should not be construed as acceptance of any specific political ideology. That is of course unless you are too ignorant to figure out what you believe and must be spoon-fed everything on a platter. I visited with a man last week that lived in government subsidized housing...paid for with social security....with no health care but Medicare, driving a thirty year old vehicle and eating goverment subsidized food. He was watching Sean Hannitty on Fox and bemoaning how the goverment was taxing the rich ot help the poor. I said to him...but aren't you poor...would you rather they tax the poor to helpthe rich? his only reply was "that damned Obama is turning this country into Socialist...SAD...VERY SAD!
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All I can say is, in reading all these posts since my last one... is...... WOW......... anyone that would even for a zillionth of a second think that "God is a Republican" or anything even remote.......whether you believe in Him or not..... I just have alot of heartfelt sympathy for.
I'll give ya this though - there are people out there who DO act as though God is more beholden to one party or the other. Yep, there's alot of people out there who claim to be religious but yet have no comprehension of what religion or belief in a something greater than ourselves is truly about. Just as you don't want people on the right stereotyping every liberal or Democrat based on the action of the misguided far-left, then pull your head out of your a$$ and quit being so ignorant as to blame all religion and faith based on the actions of some misguided nut cases like Phelps. Sometimes its the people who claim to be the most learned that really know the least.
Who's really more at fault - those who make fun of religion from the outide (as Jesus said, "they know not what they do") or those who profess belief but totally miss the mark? They should know better. But the problem is - even if you do know better, and act it...... be prepared, because you're still going to get slammed and blamed with the same stuff. Something we just have to learn to live with, and react to the way we should, not the way we may want to.
DrJ, you DO know that half of that TARP was Obama's, not Bush's, right? And I don't consider trying to cheat an election a "good motive" in any sense of the word.
Throwing tea & scaring the crap out of people.... hmm..... would that be anything similar to anti-war rallies? Pro-gay-marriage demonstrations? Those haven't happend for 8 years? Really? Have I been asleep that long? Well, slap me and call me Rip Van Winkle!!! :)
Crack, I would like to comment on your statement "We can be a Nation of values without actually believing in religion." (Which, as I showed earlier, is NOT at all what our founding fathers intended).
That's the point. WHO'S values? And if those values change by democratic vote, does that make it right? Our constitution says that we have certain inalienable rights bestowed upon us by our CREATOR, not by our government, not by humanity. If it said our rights to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happingess were bestowed upon us by our government, then by that reasoning, once the government decided that a certain group, say Africans, did not deserve those liberties, and voted thus, then that would be the law. A dark period in our history where this nation did NOT live up to its own ideas. But hey, if man is the one who gets to set the moral values, then once it is voted on, you have no right to say that it is morally wrong, right, if man and man alone decides what is morally right & wrong?
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
biscuit, I watched Fox's coverage too, and, as usual, although they were more pro-right than not, they DID show and mention the signs saying "Obama was the antichrist" and so on. AT LEAST THEY SHOWED IT, regardless of their opinion of it. THAT is my point about the news. I turn to another channel, and I rarely see anything that they don't agree with. It's as if it never happened. Yeah, I've heard all the blame (by the other networks covering it) that all this tea party stuff was all dreamt up by and whipped into a frenzy by Fox News, but not a one of them will cover it with the same slant that they cover all the other protests of the last 8 years. They glossed over a few signs spread around the country that were rude and disrespectful, but when signs like that in the thousands have been slamming Bush in the last 8 years of demonstrations, it's nothing they bother to report. In Kansas City, volunteers at the tea party were screening signs before people were allowed in to make sure nobody had any offensive or rude/classless signs. Do you think we've generally had the same behavior at anti-war or gay marriage protests? I've long ago accepted the fact that there is little or no media anymore without its own bias, but AT LEAST SHOW IT. I'll decide on my own if I agree with the commentator's bias or not.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
biscuit, I would also like to add a comment about your story about the poor man who was anti-socialist.
You sound as if you are making the assumption that all poor-people SHOULD be pro-Obama, and all rich people should not. Are there not plenty of very rich people out there who are very pro-Obama? Why does a poor person HAVE to agree with socialism and/or Obama? I don't know how well you know that person, but is it possible that he does not WANT to be in the situation he is in, and does not believe that government owes him any more than he is already getting? Should the country be divided right down the line based on their income when it comes to politics? Is that all that matters, money?
Nobody on either side believes that the rich shouldn't shoulder more of a burden to help the poor. The question is, how far does that go? Does every poor person DESERVE a free 60" plasma tv? Or just the basics, based on their situation, and the OPPORTUNITY to work and improve their situation, for those that are able. (It will never be a perfect system, no matter what you do, or which side does it, because there will always be those, rich and poor, who will take advantage of the system and abuse it).
I grew up poor. Yes, at times we utilized government programs. But I never thought that I deserved more. Only that I deserved the opportunity. Had I been given too much, I most likely would never have bothered to try for anything more. There would have been no point to it.
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
open-eyes...If it sounded like I was making the assumption that all poor people should be pro-Obama it was only because of my complete inability to understand what the Republican Party is offering, or has offered in recent memory, that would cause a poor person to support their policies. Cutting taxes for the rich and cutting programs and policies that help the poor. And where was it that I said every poor person should get a free 60-inch plasma TV. But, in a country like ours, poor people should have the right to some level of health care, education for their children of a quality sufficient to allow their kids the opportunity to improve their lot, and housing and food sufficient to maintain life at a subsistance level. As far as the man in my story is concerned the sad thing there is his willingness to accept the premise that the rich are being taxed into poverty to support some lazy ingrate poor class just be cause Sean Hannitty said it was true. And Hannitty by the way is very rich compared to this man.
Posted by booker5m (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Open eyes where does it say I should pay for poor person kids college education. I worked 40 hrs aweek while going to college.I dont feel I should have to pay for anyones college education.Let them work!. Obama got elected by promising to give and give. But who pays for the giving?. I agree everyone should have the basic health care. The people in charge in DC have the best health of anyone. On top of that they give themselves pay raises. All this talk of taking back the gov. is just that talk. Until we have term limits and no more lobbying the poeple will get the shaft.I was at the rally to see what was going on. While I agree with some of the ideas they had I wonder how many keep on voting on the same jerks each time around.And then complain about the way things are going. Those of you talking down to those who use God in the speaches that were giving have no idea what you are talking about. I agee you and everyone else has the right to free speach but aleast know what you are talking about before you open your mouths
Posted by booker5m (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok I messed up My comment was for Biscuit. Sorry open eyes
Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sundance, last I knew California was broke. Most of the rest of us would just as soon not follow your lead. It would suit me fine to turn the Red states into one country, and the blue into another. Since you guys are so smart, you should do just fine without us.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
biscuit, I never meant to imply that you said or believed every poor person should get a 60 inch plasma. I just used it as an example of where does the help end, or should end. I totally agree with you - poor people SHOULD get some level of health care, education, and housing food at the very least a subsistance level, and the lion's share of that should be shouldered by the wealthy, which it is.
I don't know why he feels the way he does - but I do know that different people have different issues that they deem more important than others. Perhaps this person places abortion at the top of his list - or he is where he is because he lost his job to illegal immigrants, and that is his rant (not that Bush did much about that, either, nor did I have faith in McCain's stance) - just an example. Or maybe he just is a very proud American and was miffed that our First Lady only recently became proud of her country, I don't know.
Hannity is rich compared to LOTS of people - including me - LOL
Posted by DJrocksthemic (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL Open Eyes that was my exact reaction when I saw the sign that said No Taxation without Representation, and yeah I agree, I'm saying the other side did the same thing over the last eight years, and felt the same way, that was the jist of it.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sundancekid, I would like to point out something interesting about your links showing which states get the most federal money.
It clearly states that the numbers are based on federal outlays vs. how much tax money was sent to Washington. In other words, not how much money total goes there, but how much they get compared to how much they pay.
Now, lets think about this a little. The top states were, with the exception of Alaska, which is far and away our largest state, smaller states that you could probably generalize as "poorer" states. In other words, states that paid in the least taxes, because they aren't as rich or have as many rich people, or are industry-poorer, to generalize... lesser-populated states. And they got more back in return.
Isn't that the way it is supposed to work? Isn't that what you want? The rich pay, the poor get? Isn't that what Obama wants more of, with "redistribution of wealth"?
So, what's your point? I think you just made it..... for the other side........
Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I went to a tea party, but not in Emporia. I have to say I have been a little surprised with how easily the American people have accepted the snowballing national debt and deficit. The left wants to make anyone remotely concerned about what is happening to our nation today a right wing zealot, and never can say much of anything explaining how all this debt and the required interest to service it can possibly be a positive for the nation, all they can ever do is say, "Bush started it" much like a child protests to his parents when caught doing something wrong. Bush did start it, and the tea party I was at was fairly even in its criticism of both the GOP and the Democrats. While I personally am a registered member of the GOP, I haven't got much good to say about my own party. It seems our Democrat bretheren in this nation(we are after all all Americans, the future of this nation and the mounting debt will impact all of us) are so fixated in their adoration of Obama they cannot even for a minute think for themselves. Any thinking person has to have questions about how our country can possibly continue on in any recognizable fashion while trying to service a multi trillion dollar debt. It says volumes about the state of our nation that people who have honest questions about the future of our country are ridiculed so completely because they chose to do something pretty American, get together and hash things over in public. What a completely radical far right idea.
Posted by Absolute (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How much has been spent on the war on "terror" in the last 8 years?
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 10:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What was Jimmy Carters shoe size?
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
1) Not enough to raise our national deficit nearly as high as our current spending will.
2) 10 1/2 E
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 11:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks open_eyes. I was thinking 9 1/2 E for some reason. Silly me.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, seriouslyfolks, I really have no idea. I couldn't find it, so I just went halfway between the unemployment rate and the inflation rate his last year in office. I would have averaged in the interest rate also, but that would have made him BigFoot :)
Posted by Topher_Wright (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 3:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Crack(head)
"because they are then telling me to live according to their beliefs and not my own"
WOW!!!! Sounds like what the smoking ban was about...
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 6:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
over and over again in this space I hear any criticism of left leaning policies and practices being defended by the mantra "they did it to us for the past eight years", thereby implying that in and of itself justified doing it back to them. It is to a large extent true...at least for the last five or so years of the Bush administration, that much of the same type thing happened. But then it also happened for most of the Clinton administration. So where does it stop...or does it just continue until we do divide into The United Red
states of America and The United Blue States of America. Keep in mind here that I am not complaining about legitimate politicl discourse. What I am complaing about is unfounded and/or crude and disrepectful personal attacks replacing any factual conversation. And yes I know that MSNBC does it just as much as FOX News....but no more so open-eyes. On a personal level however I do find Olberman's comments more amusing than those made by O'Riley and Hannitty...too angry. But seriously...when are we even? And since many repubs are always wanting more religion in government what about "turning the other cheek" or the more secular "two wrongs don't make a right". This might be a good opportunity for religious right wingers to practice what they preach. After all as one post pointed out earlier, us secular democrats are incapable of such values because values are the exclusive property of the devout. BULL...BULL....BULL.
United
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I read these forums at about 5 A.M. The only way I could make sense of them was to take my dog for a long walk around the E.S.U. campus. He seemed far less concerned with the machinations of Gazette forums than me. He just sniffed the air, the ground, the retaining walls, etc, wagged his tail, barked at a squirrel or two. He just seemed to enjoy the morning.
I left my house this morning a bit perplexed about my belief system (Christian), but came back home with a healthy perspective. While I wish some hadn't made this forum a referendum on matters of faith, with particular emphasis on "conservative" Christianity, the fact is some have decided to do that.
I don't know exactly where I fall in the spectrum to Christianity's detractors in this, but suffice it to so for many the fact that I claim belief marks me as a fool already. I accept the insult gladly. As the great apostle told the super apostles of his day, "You are so wise and I am such a fool." I think the same holds true for the super apostles of this forum. You are so wise. Me? I'll just keep plugging away in my foolishness.
Some thoughts did strike me on my morning walk. If I were to consider whether or not the Salvation Army or the U.S. government would spend my money more wisely/humanely there's not a shred of doubt in my mind who would act more compassionately. I'll leave it to you super apostles to figure out which.
As to the notion that manifest destiny, killing native Americans, the Crusades, etc are perculiarly Christian ideas, let me disabuse you of the notion. When I abandoned atheism many years ago I actually read "the Book," with particularly emphasis on the teaching of Jesus and the early Church. I could not find then, nor can I now find any references to manifest destiny or killing for bloodsport in the teaching or life of Jesus. In fact, I found exactly the opposite. I have studied a bit of history, however, and have read that secular men/governments have killed far more people than those claiming to do so in the name of Jesus. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, Kim, Tojo. And of course there was Hitler who proudly boasted that "Christianity is the illigitimate sister of bolshevism." I guess if it came down to body count we Christians couldn't hold a candle to the world's secularists.
I'll end this little ditty on a secular note. For any of you super apostles who want to gain some insight into political and secular conservatism I recommend Russel Kirk's "The Conservative Mind," Whitaker Chambers' "Witness," F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," or Robert Higgs' "Crisis and Leviathan." It would be an interesting exercise. Why you could even tell your friends that you've ventured into the enemy's camp and gained some inisight into how the mind of a fool works.
Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ouch Topher, It looks like ya struck a nerve.... lol
Posted by create (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Netloafer, of course manifest destiny is not in the Bible. Nobody said it is. The idea of manifest destiny is man's idea. The theory did not come about because it can be found in the Bible; it came about because believers accepted the perspective based on what they thought they found to be true in that good book. Similar belief systems caused those Puritans to burn people at the stake too. Perspective can be a destructive force.
Posted by antmarching (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The whole Fox News argument is so tired and used up. Every other news station on TV is so left-wing it's pathetic. Fox News HAS to be right-wing because all of the other stations leave out anything that doesn't coincide with their liberal agenda. If you don't want to watch it, don't watch it! Just continue soaking up the tailored "news" from MSNBC, CNN, etc., and find something new to regurgitate.
Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL, again. It doesn't matter how bad it is, you are still a pot calling the kettle black. I just thought it funny thats all. Its Friday and I'm in a particularly giggly mood I guess... Have a great weekend.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Comedy Central has two nightly news programs, one "left" and the other "right". For a prospective on current events, Southpark always gets pretty close too.
Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Alfalfa - California is the world's 8th largest economy. We can do just fine without you, thanks. To say that we are broke is making a mountain out of a molehill - every state is doing poorly at the moment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_...
If Kansas is doing so well, why is it synonymous with rural flight? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_fligh...
Getting back to my point, which you, Buckwheat and Closed Eyes failed to comprehend, how is a red state like Kansas going to pay its bills?
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Last night The Daily Show with Jon Stewart did a great piece on the "Tea Party" and The Colbert Report, well, I really hope that my new friend from California, sundancekid, was watching.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL YY4U - you're right, Southpark usually does give a darn good tongue-in-cheek perspective on things :)
Ok, I know this is getting old & off-topic, but I will try one last time to explain myself. I think people continually miss the point I try to make when I talk about FoxNews. It is WHAT gets showed or makes the news, moreso than HOW it gets treated. I'll repeat myself - I've resigned myself long ago to realizing no matter where I get my news from, it is gonna be spun. But give it to me and let ME make the decision on whether I agree with that particular slant, or whether it is deemed newsworthy. I'LL be the "filter", not the network, not the editors. Don't cherry-pick over it and only show me overwhelmingly only one side. And, yes, Fox does have their particular shows that will do that, but more often than I find on other shows I get to see the other side as well, regardless of how it is treated.
In other words, I'll think for myself.
I'm sure the smoking ban people will be going after Koolaide soon anyway, what with all that sugar and whatnot.....
Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Refer to Table 2. Federal Spending, Tax Burden, Balance of Payments, and Return, All States, Fiscal Year 2003
http://www.calinst.org/pubs/balance2003....
Clearly, Kansas spends more than it is taxed, while states like California pay the bills.
Posted by historian1982 (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
its a sad day in our history when someone has to mention getting balanced 'news' coverage from shows on a comedy network
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No, They like mixing koolaide with their vodka
Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
YY4U,
Listen, if you're in a place that is mixing vodka with kool-aid, and you don't like it, no one is FORCING you to be there! You can exercise your god-given right of personal choice, and choose to leave!
Sorry.
Man, ever since the smoking ban passed, these blogs are BORING!
Matt
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sundance, we've just recently seen how KS is going to pay their bills - by standing up to the Governor and limiting her free-spending ways. It's been in the news lately, but I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't heard about it, given the discussion on news sources here.
California can do just fine, thx....... wow! Did everyone see that! Out the window! A donkey just flew by! LOL
"California faces financial meltdown as debt grows by $1.7m an hour"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo...
"More California towns face bankruptcy"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12295434...
But then again........"Every state is doing poorly".....????
"Montana surplus approaches $1 billion"
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/...
"Blue states financial deficit, red states financial surplus"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEd3St4za...
I'll agree with you on this point: One of California's big problems, is that they ARE paying other's bills. But those "others" AREN'T legal American citizens........
Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I had some koolaide this past weekend. It was pretty good. My hubby informed me that it had vodka in it after polishing off a 32oz cup of it. wee haw cowboy..... Seriously! It was pretty tasty. lol Sorry peeps I'm kinda bored today.
Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You've clearly missed the point, Closed Eyes. The entire country is in a recession, so of course the headlines are going to be a negative.
In regards to your complaint about legal citizens, might I suggest you watch "A Day Without a Mexican."
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Seen it, sundancekid. Of course, I can make a movie to make any point I want. Since the actors are paid to do whatever I ask them to. I would also like to see a movie "A Day Without An American" made. (I predict South Korea & Taiwan would both fall within 2 days, and we would see a nuclear exchange in the middle east shortly thereafter).
Ever see Terminator? Damn machines......
And you're right. Montana's $1 billion surplus is quite a negative headline.
But don't worry, I won't resort to your name-calling. Here, I've even got some extra rope. Help yourself.
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Create
I can go on with the comparisons. In the Soviet gulags, Christians (particularly Pentecostals and "fundamentalists") were given labotomies based on the assumption that belief made them raving lunatics. Hitler's camps were filled with all sorts of religious types, particularly Jews and Evangelicals who dissented from the tenants of the master race. In North Korea Christians have been murdered by the hundreds of thousands in the last decade.
Your original point was that people do terrible things in the name of God. You pointed out religious folk for special note for a reason. I'm well aware of the history of things people of done in the name of God. My point was that far more attrocities have been committed in the name of government and secular notions of social justice than all the armies the Pope, the Puritans, etc could ever muster.
One of the ironic things about all the trumpeting about equality and brotherhood is that some despots and despotic secular governments so concerned with expunging religious belief and believers is that they had some modicum of success. In the Soviet Union there was equality of misery, sans religion. In North Korea Christians are bulldozed (literally) while the "great one" sips Johnnie Walker and cavorts around in platform shoes, thumbing his nose at every international agency chartered to protect the "rights of man." Etc, etc, etc.
I'm far from being ready to revolt. I recognize that one of my duties is to render unto Caesar, so I do. But I'm far less enamored of government and the notion that political leaders are my salvation. In fact, I tend to think that the real point of government is to keep particular brands of government (Republican, Democrat, Socialist) in power and expand that power. Maybe it is just me, but I find it interesting that the National Security Agency is actually getting far more aggressive, doing more domestic spying under President Obama than it ever was under G.W.B. Under G.W.B it was those tilting left. Under Obama it's the right wing, particularly those opposed to abortion or government bailouts. I find it interesting to see that the Congressional Budget Office (under the executive branch) has projected budgets through the year 2019 and it reveals something quite startling - In that out year our total national G.D.P. will be about $22 trillion. In that same year out total debt (owed to China, Japan, the Saudis, and other possible despots who will give us the money) will be close to $18 trillion. That's a ratio of 80% debt to equity. Given that, I will continue in my foolishness. I'll stand and watch for the Second Coming. I'll continue in my foolish notion that the Sermon on the Mount has far more to offer me than any bloated federal budget or bailout. I'll continue with my foolish notion that Jesus cares far more for me than an politician or political savior, be he or she Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist Workers, Green, etc.
Posted by dalelinn (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sundancekid ,
I'm not sure, is California a state of the United States or Mexico? I was out there a few months ago and couldn't really tell.
Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sundance kid, by all means leave the union then, or let some of the rest of us leave it. I am a little confused about you telling us now California is not broke, because almost all media seems to say that it is.
As far as all the atrocities in the name of God, people tend to do things others object to in the name of something else to give it a little better "flavor" (or perhaps smell). I am not buying all this hoo-haw of how many bad things have been done under the guise of Christianity. As I look back to 1900, most of the mass murders between now and then had nothing to do with God. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, the genocide in Rwanda are all the biggies I can think of, I don't believe God and Christianity had anything to do with it.
I don't go to church very often, and I am turned off by mega churches and people who wear their religion on their sleeves.....BUT.......as a Christian who believes our Christian culture is real and worth protecting, I am way more willing to see the far right succeed than I am the far left, because if the far left wins this "battle" for our nation, the world I grew up in will be gone. So, if the left would quit harping about Christmas, and people who post the 10 commandments(whether you believe in God or not, they aren't bad ideas) and accept the fact that most recent polls say over 70% of the population believe in God, I would be a little less concerned that the USA is "going to hell in a handbasket".
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I spilled some vodka laden Kool-Aid on some American money and noticed it had the United States of America and in god we trust printed on it, so god is just right up there in my books....
Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oxen - Why is racism so out of control in Kansas?
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One thing I like to continually ask of the results of studies I see is "Why"? The answer to the above links to states receiving federal outlays is found and clearly stated within the reports themselves, if one cares to dig. One of the biggest factors is...... the overall average age of the population. States that have an older population that is no longer working, paying as much income tax, and receiving federal money such as social security, medicare, etc, are going to be receiving more fed $$ than they pay in (they've paid it in all their life prior to that). Younger states, such as California (and yes it was singled out for an example) - with vibrant industries, and the corresponding younger workforce to man those industries, have people that are more in their wage-earning prime, but not yet on social security, etc..... so they are going to be paying in more than they are receiving.
So, what are you trying to say? That everyone's poor old grandma needs to go back to work at the factory full-time so all the kids in California can spend more time surfing? Maybe they're get a stimulus package to promote the surfer life-style (along with the machine to remove tattoos from their previous lifestyle) - and that will help even out the $$$.
Or, maybe this is your true aim for California:
Here's the story and pictures from a few years ago about the California high school where the students took down the American flag, put it back upside-down, with the Mexican flag above it.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/m...
Now, I seriously doubt you saw anything about this on CNN, MSNBC, etc... (because that would be showing bias, I'm sure), but I have to be honest and admit that FoxNews covered it with their usual typical conservative right-wing-bias, those unfair bastards......
Netloafer, well put. Unfortunately in the world right now, alot of damage is being done in the name of Islam, but then again I don't subscribe to the Muslim religion. But who is it they predominately want to erase? Christians and Jews. Well, we should be safe now, Obama told them all that we are NOT a Christian nation. Everyone breathe a big sigh of relief.
Posted by sundancekid (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Because, we are not a Christian nation. We are a nation of many beliefs. Think about that tonight, as you sit back on the front stoop of your double-wide, watch NASCAR and sip from your jug of moonshine.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You are right, sundancekid. We may have been founded on those principles, but those principles guaranteed our right of freedom to whatever beliefs we choose (and yes, we are a nation of many). I'm sure you don't consider Christmas as the celebration of the birth of Jesus, since its not a national holiday, anyway......
I could point you to the many links that have been posted here many times showing that rural kids score better in math, science, & school subjects than their urban counterparts. You are convincing me without a doubt that the trend continues well into adulthood.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sundancekid, What racism? Kansas was the first state in the nation to pass legislation that legalized mixed race marriages. We couldn’t understand why a German man and an Irish woman couldn’t be married. Today, all the other states accept this, but Kansas as first.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it's because we NASCAR hicks don't hang the US flag upside-down under the Mexican flag like our learned, sophisticated, we're-all-better-than-you-trailer-park-moonshiners California counterparts that makes us racists.
And netloafer, you don't have to stand and watch any longer. Don't you watch MSNBC? The Second Coming was Jan 20, 2009!!!! (Of course, according to Sean Hannity, that was also the beginning of the Tribulation, but either way, it was an event of Biblical Proportions.... :)
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I didn't think of that open_eyes. Maybe Kansas legalized mixed race marriages so that Obama's mama and daddy could be legal. She was from Kansas, right? It was destiny!
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes
I must have missed the segment on MSNBC, but I have to admit I don't watch much cable news. Most of what I get is from C-Span, the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, or an occasional e-mail exchange with E.J. Dionne from the Washington Post.
I've been northbound on the turnpike many times and have occasionally thought that seeing the eastern sky split would be far preferable to the temporal reality around me. The times after 9-11 were like that, as were other days when the tragedies of life overwhelmed.
There are a lot of things I admire about Barack Obama. I wish him well. But, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, "Mr. President, I serve Jesus. I know Jesus. Jesus is a friend of mine. And, despite what the adoring throngs are saying Mr. president, you're no Jesus."
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
California has big race riots all the time. Have we ever had one here in Kansas? All we ever get is stuff like “Brown v Board of Education”. I'm jealous.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh now, YY4U, stop and think a little, we've had the smoking ban riots. I'm sure the ice cream social suggestion is just a ploy by one side to get all the opposition together in one place and then drop a small nuke on them. BEWARE!!!. It's probably an ambush or trap. :) LOL
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Netloafer, Sean Penn's best buddy in Iran is trying his best to hasten that sky-splitting event along, and is very open about that being his goal.
I just hope our President TRULY understands that.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They will probably try to spike the ice cream with vodka...wait...That might not be so bad...orange sherbert with vodka. I'll be there! :)
Posted by dalelinn (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sundance kid,
Why do you jump to the conclusion that Kansans are racists. You have more illegal aliens per capita, certainly more than Kansas. It is pretty hard to pull into a McDonalds in California and try to make an order if you speak English. I guess I just believe our laws should be enforced. Somehow you twist that to racism?
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
YY4U ....I hate to quibble over technicalities, but a marriage between a German man and an Irish woman is not a mixed race marriage....unless of course you subscribe to the Nazi view of German as the super-race.
And open-eyes, you are constantly harping about Fox News at least showing both sides. Of course...they are all to happy to show a bunch of nitwits professing their hatred of the president on their T-shirts because that's the image Fox News wants to project. Perhaps the other networks limit such coverage...not because they are censoring the news....but because they realize such displays are really the handiwork of a tiny fraction of "incompetent newts". They might also be trying to show a little respect for the office, if not the man.
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh...and for OXEN.... "why do you jump to the conclusion Kansans are racist?", you ask sundancekid....then you turn right around and make his case. GOOD JOB GUY! and since when has it been against the law to order from McDonalds in a language other than English.
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bisquitboy
Could you please explain this "you ask sundancekid....then you turn right around and make his case." I don't understand how anything oxen said proved that racism is out of control in Kansas. Is being against illegal immigration somehow racist?
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
biscuit, congrats on finally getting some names right.
But, ouch, you just shot yourself in the foot, Dang, that's gotta hurt. You claim the other networks "limit such coverage"..... LOL.... I watched quite a segment where they showed the CNN reporter running around trying to single out the people that had the disrespectful signs. She was really ripping them for being disrespectful, and even people that didn't have the signs. But then there's also video of the same CNN reporter covering protests where they had Bush dressed up as a Nazi...and the devil and guess what.... she complained not one whit, nor was it not shown out of your claimed respect..... quite a bit different treatment.... I've watched it also for quite some time and I've not seen any of this so-called "limiting of coverage" that you claim whenever disrespect was being shown the other way.....
Here's the link to her videos.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/0...
or
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2009/04/...
As a matter of fact, looking this up, I ran across quite a few videos where they broadcast Bush protests, with all sorts of signs, disrespectful displays, chants, etc..... not a peep from the reporters. But in this case, she went off on them.
And besides, that's not the "limited coverage" I'm talking about.
You better get some medical care for that foot in a hurry. Don't bleed all over the blogosphere.
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I did not intend to imply that oxen had made the case that all Kansans were racist because I know that to be not true. What I did intend to imply was that oxen's laments about illegal immigrants per capita and the inability to order a hamburger in English made him appear racist which then helped make sundance kids case. Any other implication was unintended.
open-eyes First my apologies for any faux pas' I may have committed by misusing or perhaps just mis-typing somebody's name. I am not the world's most accomplished typist or speller but neither are many others that post on this space and I don't recall you calling them out on it.
I do not believe I have ever claimed that any network news organization was perfect. In fact, they all do have their slants and biases. And examples of excess can be found on all outlets. I seem to be better able to admit that than you do.... but you will never convince me that Fox stands above all others as a paragon of jounalistic virtue.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nor have I ever claimed any network news org was perfect. Nor did I claim that you did. I have even STATED repeatedly Fox's bias. I have simply said that I see MORE balance there than elsewhere OVERALL. That does not mean at specific times they will not be more biased. I've even stated my disappointment that they have taken off some liberal commentators like Combes. Just that personally, overall, I see more things covered there that raise my eyebrow why others didn't report it. And in the total sum overall, more balanced. Sometimes that might be like saying that I can physically pick up and throw an elephant farther than I can throw a blue whale, after all it weighs less, if you get my drift - LOL.
But you will never convince me that the other networks have went out of there way in any way, shape or form to "limit such coverage".... or "show a little respect for the office, if not the man" in the last few years. I've watched it enough to know better. And I can prove it with just about any video of any protest you care to name. It's pretty clear just from this reporter that she covered both protests, disrespecting both Presidents, in a COMPLETELY different manner.
I think I seem to be better able to admit that than you do.
And, I DID post on another forum AT LENGTH that I thought the disrespectful signs and comparisons of Obama to the antichrist and so forth were wrong, disrespectful, and rude.
Just as they are when the shoe is on the other foot.
I don't read every forum here, nor do I check them all regularly at times, and I'm not the blog cop, but not only HAVE I called other people out at times, I have been called out myself plenty (as others here will readily attest to, I'm sure). We all get emotional at times, and if you have read me in the past then you will know that I have apologized myself for crossing the line & being rude more than once. And I've stated before I appreciate it when someone reminds me to simmer down :) Apology accepted.
Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on April 18, 2009 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
biscuitboy, you failed to mention several "themes" of this string. "Vodka", "Kool-Aide", "FOX NEWS", "Double Wides", "NASCAR" and or "Tea Bags". Vodka would have worked too. I don't know where you come from, but in my world, Marriage between a German and an Irish involves a shotgun or two.
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on April 18, 2009 at 4:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As you all know, I'm new at this game and still learning. I sometimes too need to be reminded to lighten up. And when I do break protocal I appreciate a light tap on the shoulder...please try to refrain from a fist in the nose.
And YY4U....where I grew up German and Irish was quite alright....but Irish and English was quite a different thing.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 18, 2009 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, there's been some real humor in the reporting of these tea parties that probably SHOULD have been on South Park. Garafalo on MSNBC claiming that these parties were all about 1 thing and 1 thing only..... people hating a BLACK president.....and Olbermann yucking it up & agreeing totally with her..... good lord where do they find people like this...... I needed another sip of moonshine just to be able to turn the channel to MSNBC and watch that - LOL...... and on the clips of the CNN reporter mentioned above, there is some private video of her arguing with some people... they were complaining why didn't she talk to other people instead of singling out the people with the hateful signs, and claiming it was all anti-Dem...... (hmmm.... quite the OPPOSITE of limiting coverage of hateful things to show a little respect, I would say......) they turned her around to point to the guy holding the sign that said "Republicans SUCK too!"..... she said something like "well, that was out of her field of vision"............. she was standing right in front of it........... then she claimed it was all organized by Fox...... but, wasn't it the guy on CNBC who originally called for all this? Aren't they owned by NBC? Who needs South Park!!!! ......... LOL
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on April 18, 2009 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's not just the networks calling people racists if they disagree with President Obama, it happens a lot on these forums also. President Obama is more powerful than any president before because people just have to go along with everything he says or you're ridiculed. Hopefully sanity returns to this country but I'm not holding my breath..... well, I am but for completely different reasons.
I haven't put my "third" party disclaimer on here for a while. Before you start calling me a Republican, I voted Reform party. Vote for anything other than Democrat or Republican and truly take our country back. Viva the voting booth revolution!
Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on April 18, 2009 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with seriously, Obama is the new God. He hasn't really promoted that idea, but he is using it to his advantage. Anything he does right now is divine to all but a few of us hillbilly type people. The enlightened ones(Obama supporters/fanatics) offer up phrases like, "after 8 years of what we had" and "well, just look what Bush did" as their only justification for any argument the few of us heretics who speak out against this new religion bring up.
There is one absolute fact. $12 trillion is alot of debt. By Obamas own figures, count on adding at least $8 trillion to that. Right now interest is very low, so debt service isn't bad. $20 trillion of debt at 1% interest is $200 billion a year of interest(if my math is correct, I have trouble with these huge numbers) at 5% it is a trillion. I remember 20% interest. There isn't any plan to pay the debt off, call any Congressman you want and ask how it is going to be paid off, it never will be. It has to be serviced though, because if it isn't, our sources of credit will dry up. No one knows what the situation will be like in 10 years, but if interest was to go up, we could see a third to half of our current national budget going just to service the debt, that probably won't allow prosperity for any of us on this forum.
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on April 18, 2009 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let me put it this way, if you act like a racist...you talk like a racist, and you do racist things....chances are your a racist. Let me hasten to add, I did not say all Kansans were racist....nor did I say that all people who disagree with President Obama were racist....nor did I say that all people who watch the always "fair and balanced" network are racist. But as was pointed out to me earlier....IF THE SHOE FITS--THEN WEAR IT?
open-eyes I regret not having the time to search the left-wing blogs for all the slanted takes, downright lies, and jingoistic reporting that I have witnessed repeatedly on the always "fair and balanced" network. But I'm relatively certain that the incidents you offer were put forth by organizations with agendas similair to said network and as such would be no more valid than any other propoganda put forth any where. It's obvious to me that any other dialogue with you on this subject is a waste of time. But never take that to mean that you have convinced me. So you keep watching your guys...I'll keep watching mine...we'll both keep hearing what we want to hear....and we will both keep believing we are right.
Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on April 18, 2009 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It would be very nice if members of Gen X and Y understood the definition of "racism" in it's entirety. It is an interesting term, as it is completely subjective. It is dependent upon geographical location and surrounding culture to give it it's practical definition. We, in the USA, have been trained to think that it is relevant to disliking persons with brown and black skin colors no matter what the reason for disliking them. Here, even disliking an act or behavior of a person in one of those catagories gets labeled with the term "racist." It is interesting to note that the history of the Kansas law and the British perspective (both cited on this forum) illustrate the "undefined" nature of this term. The simple definition is: one person or group of people who don't wish to identify with or acknowledge commonalities with another group of people. It can be based on skin color, but it can also be solely based on facial structure, cultural customs, economic status or geographical perspective. It is a very broad term that we have narrowed down to a ridiculous mis-use. It is a term that can apply to the dislike of people from "the wrong side of the tracks," but we generally refuse to acknowledge that application. If we were a bit more in tune with the feuding tribes in Africa, the warring small countries in Asia and Europe and the socioeconomic divisions throughout the New York/New Jersey boroughs, we would see just how broad and undefined this term really is. Because of this, it is very important that we always examine the statements of others to determine if it is actually racism, and if it is, whether it is justifiable or not. Most of us would agree that we don't wish to identify with criminals, no matter how rich, poor, brown, white, educated or uneducated they may be. We also need to acknowledge that a statement of description in which the speaker gives no indication of exclusion of commonalities is not a racist statement; however, we have been taught that it is. We need to be much more careful about how and when we use an accusation of racism by learning and applying its true meaning.
Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on April 18, 2009 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For more on racism, please refer to Dr. Suess's The Sneetches.
For a more verbose discussion of this term, please see: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Race
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on April 18, 2009 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oh4theloveof...it appears to me that you are trying to define your problem away. If you define it broad enough...every thing becomes racist then racism no longer exist. So I'll use the old definition that I know it when I see it. Concern about illegal immigration is not in and of its self racist....but when it becomes tied to anger about bilingual signs...ordering hamburgers in languages other than English...and carping about signs of cultural pride....Then I believe I'm seeing it.
Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on April 18, 2009 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bisquitboy
Can you point out where you see oh4theloveof having a problem with racism as you seem to imply with this statement "oh4theloveof...it appears to me that you are trying to define your problem away." Is it just that you like to label everybody a racist so that you are bound to be right sometimes? That's pretty sad.
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on April 19, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
seriouslyfolks...I stand corrected....I should have written "it appears to me that you are trying to define THE problem away". It means the same thing but now you will have to find something else to nitpick about. You can often tell how weak a person's position is by how much they resort to personal attack, overly-broad definitions, and nitpicking.
But since you brought it back up I would like oh4theloveof to explain to me how a " person or group of people that don't want to associate with another group of people..... based on (differences in) facial structure, culutural customs, economic status, and geographical perspective...." should commonly be defined as racism? Funk and Wagnals first definition of race is the major zoological subdivision of mankind. They do go on to some of the other definitions you used as sixth or seventh definitions. When used in conversation in this country most people however use the first definition. Any attempt to switch to a sixth or seventh definition is in my humble opinion nothing more than an attempt to define away THE problem. There I said it again.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 19, 2009 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
biscuitboy, I will attempt to explain what I mean 1 last time, respectfully, I think you are still missing my point. And I will just do it by using an example. I'm NOT saying Fox commentators are any more or less biased overall than anyone else's. What I am simply saying is that more often than I see elsewhere the opposing side is at the very least given their 15 seconds in the spotlight. Regardless of which side the moderator or commentator is obviously on. I at least get to see some representation of the opposition's view. Did I get to see someone on MSNBC arguing that Garafalo's view that the Tea Parties were all a bunch of racists was incorrect? HA! There went another donkey flying by my window! (Well, there actually might have been, but I'll never know because by that time I was ready to puke if I didn't change channels).
Let's face it, there is little or no middle, fair, unbiased journalism anymore. The best you can hope for is that, much like O'Reilly (claims) - that at the end of the week they make sure that they have had roughly the same number of guests and opinions presented from each side. I'm not talking about whether they agree with the moderator or not.
And I'm simply saying that I see that attempt to give both sides a voice more often on Fox than I see on other networks. Fox commentators themselves? Nobody would argue that they have more to the right than the left. But they at least sit down and have the left on for a discussion, and most of the time, (with the exception of maybe Hannity when he gets his knickers in a twit) - they are treated pretty respectfully. MSNBC moreso than anyone just seems to be a big yes-party of people that all agree & have the same agenda.
Much like here - Mr. Kelley is welcome to and has every right to voice his left-wing opinions. It would just be nice to see a counterbalance online once in awhile. Then I wouldn't have a big problem if the Gazette wanted to tout themselves as "fair and balanced".
And besides, at the heart of the matter, if the right is telling the truth and is honest, and the left is not, then the right is not being biased. Same goes the other direction. Anytime the left is telling the truth, it doesn't matter if it "agrees" with the right-wing or the left-wing view. If it is the honest truth, then it is NOT slanted or biased, regardless of who's side it agrees with.
As far as race goes, good lord a person can't play a piano anymore without being accused of favoring the white keys over the black ones or visa versa. I need to change my font to green with an orange background, because right now I have black text on a white background which obviously means that I am subconsciously saying that blacks should be oppressing "whitey". Good lord.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 19, 2009 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Per your last statement, biscuit boy, (ran out of room/limit above) about "we'll watch ours and you'll watch yours".
Therein lies the problem with the country.
I prefer to listen to both and decide for MYSELF. Regardless of what the commentator (judge) is telling me, I appoint MYSELF the jury of my opinions. Just let me hear BOTH closing arguments. (And I don't have time to tape every network every night & watch them all - I have to decide often as I'm flipping channels).
So when Pat Kelley (the prosecution) rests....... where's the defense? Do the people/view he regularly maligns get a fair trial?
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on April 19, 2009 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry for the long-winded post(s), but I hit enter above accidentally before I finished my train of thought (right handed key, so it must have been a right-wing reaction - LOL)
Hannity & Combes (which I used to really like & watch before Combes left) is/was a good example of what I mean. Even though I definitely agreed with Sean more than Alan, I saw it as a fairly balanced show (with variations from time to time, but overall). But, guess what. Lots of right-wingers saw it as a left-wing show. And lots of left-wingers saw it as a right-wing show.
Why? Simply because they DARED to even SHOW or TALK ABOUT a different point of view AT ALL, without bringing that view on simply to gang up on and ridicule. (which still happens, and yes, even on Fox). You simply cannot allow an opposing view, else you have thrown in with "the enemy".
That's what our country has become, sadly. Agree with me totally, or I'll brand you racist, right-wing, left-wing, conservative, liberal, or anything else I can think of and I'll find plenty of people that agree with me which PROVES that I and only I am right.
Obviously.
Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on April 19, 2009 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
biscuitboy:
"...I would like oh4theloveof to explain to me how a " person or group of people that don't want to associate with another group of people..... based on (differences in) facial structure, cultural customs, economic status, and geographical perspective...." should commonly be defined as racism?"
I posted a link that explains the history of the term race primarily in America. If we look at the way the definition has changed to suit the culture of each generation, we see that the term "racist" has been narrowed down. I think it should be commonly used to mean what it truly means. That's all. If you want a term to mean "exclusion of brown and black pigmented people out of dislike or hatred," I propose you invent one that doesn't already have a meaning.
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on April 20, 2009 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
open-eyes.....I was begining to think you had given up on me. Surprise--Surprise, I do understand (I think) what you are trying to say and I wholeheartedly agree that all television news outlets, and virtually all print outlets, these days identify with some ideologcal bent. And to some extent they probably always have. I myself have posted on this very space more than once my concern about the growing tendancy of most all of us to only listen to what we agree with and to ignore every other opinion...often by calling it lies, stupid, or some other negative adjective. I personnally do not agree with you that FOX tries harder than especially CNN to be "fair and balanced".In fact...on yesterdays CNN State of the Union program they ran the video you were decrying in an earlier post and were quite critical of it. I don't spend a great deal of my time watching FOX for much the same reason you said you coudn't watch MSNBC for very long....but I don't recall ever seeing them as critical of their excesses as CNN was Sunday. I would also like to point your attention to to MSNBC's Morning Joe program which makes a sincere attempt to be fair and balanced.
Even Olberman....I believe on the same night as the Garafalo apperance (I may be wrong about the night)....roundly chastised President Obama in one of his "Special Comments" . You probably didn't hear about this on the right wing blogs however since he was being critical of the President's refusal to seek punishment against CIA operatives involved in alledged acts of torture. In my opinion however, CNN is the most fair and balanced pf the three we have been talking about the most.
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on April 20, 2009 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
oh4theluvof....The vast majority of the words in the English dictionary have more than one meaning. Hence the meanings are numbered from one up in decending order of common usage. If we were required to make defference to all usages every time we chose to use a word....conversation and communication in English would cease. I have no idea why you believe it is necessry to defer to all usages as it relates to race and racism, thereby running counter to common practice with literally hundreds of thousands of other words. But it would appear to me, if one was trying to muddy the water on what was and was not racism, this would be a good way to do it. I remain curious as to why you believe deviation from the norm is so important as it relates to this matter? I humbly await your reply.
Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on April 20, 2009 at 6:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Moved to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...