The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The majority doesn't have the will to discriminate against the minority and deny them their rights.

The abstract notion of "rights" extends only so far as the will of the people allows.

And there wouldn't be that majority if it hadn't been whipped up and turned into a political issue by right-wing bloggers (and I'm not even saying that out of my ass, it's been shown that it was right-wing bloggers keeping the story alive and pushing it to get it attention).

Thankfully, it's working. There's years of bullshit like permissiveness-as-a-"value" and other left-wing propaganda to overcome, it's not reasonable to expect positive change overnight nor for it to occur without effort.

It's an idiotic non-issue.

To you & your liberal cronies perhaps. To most Americans however, it's clearly an issue.

There's already (and has been for YEARS) a FUCKING MOSQUE CLOSER TO GROUND ZERO THAN THIS ONE. AND THAT ONE (AS FAR AS I KNOW) IS 100% A MOSQUE. I posted a fucking picture of it up the thread.
If people were really that upset they should be upset about that, and picketing there and all.

It takes time to educate the public on the mistakes that we've made. Whether allowing it to be built in the first place could be fairly debated I suppose, the fact that it still exists today however is just one example of a national lack of good judgment among too many to count.

I'm realistic, I don't expect all of those to be corrected overnight. I mean, that's a nice pipe dream & all, but it simply isn't realistic & I know that. One step at a time, that's the way progress will have to come.

[cartman]

Glad that you think people who are Americans, whose only connection with the foreigners that perpetrated the attacks was a book that they obviously interpreted in vastly different ways, suddenly ceased to be Americans in your eyes on 9/12/2001.

The abstract notion of "rights" extends only so far as the will of the people allows.

The Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson are perfect examples of the will of the people being dead wrong, and eventually being corrected.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, I will agree with JIMG that rights extend only so far as the people want them to... which is why we must remain ever vigilant against their erosion (which was not JIMG's point, but it is what I take from it)

[SirFozzie]

Tensions Flare Over Proposed Mosque on Staten Island - NYTimes.com

Some of this shit is ridiculous:

“Wouldn’t you agree that every terrorist, past and present, has come out of a mosque?” asked one woman who stood up Wednesday night during a civic association meeting on Staten Island to address representatives of a group that wants to convert a Roman Catholic convent into a mosque in the Midland Beach neighborhood.

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Tensions Flare Over Proposed Mosque on Staten Island - NYTimes.com

Some of this shit is ridiculous:

“Wouldn’t you agree that every terrorist, past and present, has come out of a mosque?” asked one woman who stood up Wednesday night during a civic association meeting on Staten Island to address representatives of a group that wants to convert a Roman Catholic convent into a mosque in the Midland Beach neighborhood.

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

Lowest common denominator. A majority of Americans are uneducated or undereducated idiots. We don't see it as much here locally because of where we are, but it's true. There's a lot of stupid, bigoted people in this country.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Anyway, in real news, the court decision to put a hold on stem cell research is certainly disappointing.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Anyway, in real news, the court decision to put a hold on stem cell research is certainly disappointing.

Hugely.

But unlike some people I'm not going to advocate for getting rid of the Judiciary branch because of that.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

There's a lot of stupid, bigoted people in this country.

Yes and many don't even know it.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Ah, the ole' "you're a bigot if you don't like bigots!"

I'm just saying that I've met a lot of "bigots" that would never vote for a Republican.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm just saying that I've met a lot of "bigots" that would never vote for a Republican.

Originally Posted by merriam-webster.com defines bigot

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I don't think you're using the word correctly. Particularly as it's used in the modern sense, rather than in the "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" more general definition. And even then I'd argue that never voting Republican doesn't make one intolerant at all. Certainly not by the dictionary definition of intolerant. And obstinance - well everyone will claim that the person that disagrees with them is being obstinant by the dictionary definition.

Never voting for a Republican doesn't make you obstinate or intolerant. Nice try though Dutch.

[Dutch]

Haha, you had to google "bigot". Stupid people...they are EVERYWHERE!!!

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I just get tired of letting him get away with his bullshit every so often and periodically call him on it.

Really? This type of banter is the main reason I keep coming back here. You and Jon (and many more) manage to be very entertaining as well as thoughtful. If I want reasonable and informative dialogue I'll listen to NPR.

FWIW my new pet peeve is posting "official" definitions to make a point. Language is as language does.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Haha, you had to google "bigot". Stupid people...they are EVERYWHERE!!!

I included so that there could be no argument about my definition of the word, not because I needed to look it up.

[Greyroofoo]

BREAKING NEWS EVERYBODY

Originally Posted by AFP

Lady Gaga takes 'Twitter Queen' crown from Britney Spears

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) – Lady Gaga has dethroned Britney Spears as "Twitter Queen" with more than 5.7 million followers on the microblogging site and promised on Monday no online celebrity nonsense during her reign.

An "inaugural message" posted by the pop music diva at her official YouTube channel had been viewed 345,145 times by Monday afternoon.

"Thank you for beginning my reign as Twitter Queen," Lady Gaga said in video that showed her sitting at a make-up table backstage with a lacy crown atop her head and a glowing wand in one hand.

"I vow never to partake in online shenanigans and I vow to always tweet and tweet again."

Lady Gaga, whose birth name is Stefani Germanotta, posted the video after getting word that she had replaced singer Spears as the person with the greatest following at microblogging service Twitter.

The music star known for creative outfits had 5,750,270 followers at Twitter as of early Monday in California, while there were 5,712,098 people signed on to receive musings or other terse missives fired off at the service by Spears.

Others in the club of Twitter users with more than five million followers included US president Barack Obama and celebrities Ashton Kutcher and Ellen DeGeneres.

As with fame, popularity at Twitter is subject to the whims of fans.

"May you always have cropped cuticles while tweeting and may you never have carpal tunnel," Lady Gaga said, referring to a repetitive stress injury sometimes caused by too much typing.

Now back to whatever mundane thing you guys were talking about...

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I don't think you're using the word correctly. Particularly as it's used in the modern sense, rather than in the "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" more general definition. And even then I'd argue that never voting Republican doesn't make one intolerant at all. Certainly not by the dictionary definition of intolerant. And obstinance - well everyone will claim that the person that disagrees with them is being obstinant by the dictionary definition.

Never voting for a Republican doesn't make you obstinate or intolerant. Nice try though Dutch.

My guess is that he is using the word bigot to apply to people like Louis Farrakhan and his "ilk" who would fit very nicely into your definition.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

My guess is that he is using the word bigot to apply to people like Louis Farrakhan and his "ilk" who would fit very nicely into your definition.

True - they would.

I'm not about to sit here and defend the Nation of Islam. I could care less about their religion, but I'm not about to defend them on any grounds really.

So I hope nobody was looking forward to seeing that.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by panerd

My guess is that he is using the word bigot to apply to people like Louis Farrakhan and his "ilk" who would fit very nicely into your definition.

I'm pretty sure I didn't mean obvious extremists. Plus, I haven't "met" Mr Farrakhan. I'll bet I meant regular folk like you and me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

FWIW my new pet peeve is posting "official" definitions to make a point. Language is as language does.

Oddly enough though, since you said something nice about me earlier in the same post, I'm probably one of the more notorious here for doing the definition thing (re: "enemy"). I'll defend the technique in general though because while primary usage may be subject to the whims of public opinion, sometimes a definition is very useful when you're using a word in a way that may not be as familiar even though it is technically correct.

[albionmoonlight]

Nate Silver's new senate model is up. Right now, it has the Dems at 52 seats.

[JPhillips]

The GOP candidates in KY, CT, FL, NV and CO make it very difficult to imagine a GOP Senate next year.

[lungs]

Russ Feingold is getting a run for his money here in WI but the Feingold Machine and local liberal media is starting to chew his opponent to mincemeat and I'm not sure RonJohnson is a seasoned enough candidate to fight back.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The GOP candidates in KY, CT, FL, NV and CO make it very difficult to imagine a GOP Senate next year.

But if it happened, especially with those people, it would almost guarantee another Dem wave election in 2012.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lungs

Russ Feingold is getting a run for his money here in WI but the Feingold Machine and local liberal media is starting to chew his opponent to mincemeat and I'm not sure RonJohnson is a seasoned enough candidate to fight back.

Johnson's another nutcase that's making it harder for the GOP to win,

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Nate Silver's new senate model is up. Right now, it has the Dems at 52 seats.

I'm pumped that Illinois actually has a race that will be close on a national scale for once. Not sure who I'm voting for in it, but it beats voting in elections where one guy wins by a landslide.

I'm sort of surprised how well Angle is doing in Nevada. I know Reid is a fuck-up, but that chick is fucking looney. Florida should be one of the funnest races of all. Will be interesting to see if Crist can get enough Democrats to say "fuck it" and dump their guy who has no shot for him.

[SirFozzie]

*sighs* If true (and right now I think it is), then some of the folks stirring up the Islam-hatred have some 'splainin to do:

Cab Driver Stabbed: 'Are You Muslim?' Question Leads to Hate Crime Charge - ABC News

[JPhillips]

Should we be suspicious of all white people now?

[larrymcg421]

We should certainly not let someone build a church anywhere near a taxicab.

[JPhillips]

This does provide yet another use for the Leatherman.

[Dutch]

This adds a bit of complexity to the story.

What We Know About Michael Enright, The Alleged Slasher Of The Muslim Cabbie | TPMMuckraker

What a weird turn of events for this guy, or so it seems.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The GOP candidates in KY, CT, FL, NV and CO make it very difficult to imagine a GOP Senate next year.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." (Even after the primaries JPhillips is still stuck on the ridicule stage while at least the rest of his party has moved to the fight stage)

LOL. Keep reading your liberal blogs. I will bet right now at least 3 of those seats go to repub's and besides CT think it will probably be four. How much you willing to go? Of course there will be 300 more Rand Paul smear articles by November, but guess what? He is still going to win.

Paul wins easily.
McMahon (deservedly because it should be Peter Schiff and not someone who contributed to Rahm Emanuel's campaign) loses big.
Rubio wins even fighting against the Republicrat double ticket.
Angle wins over the majority leader of this popular senate.
I know very little about Colorado.

[JPhillips]

I'd guess three wins for the GOP.

Look at all the polls. In almost every case the more mainstream candidate was polling better than the person that won. In each of these states the candidate selected in the primary was the lesser choice. I don't know why that's so personally insulting for you.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd guess three wins for the GOP.

Look at all the polls. In almost every case the more mainstream candidate was polling better than the person that won. In each of these states the candidate selected in the primary was the lesser choice. I don't know why that's so personally insulting for you.

You pick the five "tea party" canidates (though I would say McMahon is a joke) and choose to say they are the weak ones. I guess you can try to spin it in November but most of this country is pissed off at both parties and these are the "outsiders" that will win.

LOL that you are guessing 3 when your first post implied very little chance for any of them.

[panerd]

Plus it isn't really personally insulting. Outside of Paul (and I don't really like his views on the Middle East) these guys aren't my cup of tea. I am more amused at the liberals putting down these candidates as easier to beat. These are the ones that are going to win big. (Obviously again with the exception of CT again where Linda McMahon is almost as bad as just letting Dodd run again)

[JPhillips]

No, my first post implied that the choices of candidates makes it difficult to see a GOP takeover in the Senate. (Hint: You can tell because that's what it said!)

I'm also a little surprised to see you so strongly backing candidates that are spouting the GOP party line on foreign policy and in every case but Paul, supporting a Christian Conservative domestic policy. They may talk the talk on spending, but unless they're lying they really aren't anything but hard right Republicans.

Which, of course, is why the more moderate candidates were polling better in the two way polls.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm also a little surprised to see you so strongly backing candidates that are spouting the GOP party line on foreign policy and in every case but Paul, supporting a Christian Conservative domestic policy. They may talk the talk on spending, but unless they're lying they really aren't anything but hard right Republicans.

Which, of course, is why the more moderate candidates were polling better in the two way polls.

Originally Posted by panerd

Plus it isn't really personally insulting. Outside of Paul (and I don't really like his views on the Middle East) these guys aren't my cup of tea. I am more amused at the liberals putting down these candidates as easier to beat. These are the ones that are going to win big. (Obviously again with the exception of CT again where Linda McMahon is almost as bad as just letting Dodd run again)

I am a fan of Rand's father, think Rand could go more radical once elected, and could care less about the other 4. Just helping soften the blow when they win in November.

[JPhillips]

Liberals aren't putting them down as easier to beat, polling data is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

You pick the five "tea party" canidates (though I would say McMahon is a joke) and choose to say they are the weak ones. I guess you can try to spin it in November but most of this country is pissed off at both parties and these are the "outsiders" that will win.

Just to set a benchmark date for future reference (since I was curious where things stood atm anyway) ... from the latest Rasmussen

Paul leads 49-40 on 8/18 (leads 51-41 with leaners included)
Buck leads 46-41 on 8/12
Rubio leads 38-33-21 on 8/11 (if Meek), Crist led 37-36-20 if Greene had won
Angle is tied 47-47 on 8/18 (but leads with leaners included 50-48)
McMahon trails 47-40 on 8/13 (trailed 56-33 in June)

[panerd]

Would much rather have Obama and the liberals end the war in the middle East, end the useless drug war, and stop spending so much than I would have the Neo-con nuts back in power that want to invade Iran and build a giant church in Pakistan. But Obama hasn't come close to any of my wishes for him so I guess I will have to see if this new set of Republicans cater more towards the Libertarians. (My guess is they won't)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Considering the political tilt of Kentucky and the political picture in general, Rand Paul should be winning big. But, thanks to things like saying sheriffs don't need federal money to fight meth dealers in Eastern Kentucky, it's a toss up race.

Interestingly enough I almost mentioned that same thing. Rand looks like a guy who is always just one press conference away from blowing his lead & about two press conferences away from getting himself beat.

edit to add: And if his dad keeps shooting off his mouth (like the mosque flap), then the margin for error with conservative voters gets even smaller.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Considering the political tilt of Kentucky and the political picture in general, Rand Paul should be winning big. But, thanks to things like saying sheriffs don't need federal money to fight meth dealers in Eastern Kentucky, it's a toss up race.

Again, the GOP could've had an easy pickup in Florida with Crist but instead, they're going to have spend money and resources to win a tough three-way race.

Every non-Rasmussen poll has shown Reid beating Angle and don't forget, there is a 'None of the Above' option in Nevada. So, Reid doesn't have to win 50%+1. He has to win maybe 46-47% and thanks to Angle saying things like that there are domestic enemies inside the halls of Congress, another easy GOP pickup is falling to the wayside.

The only saving grace for the GOP in Colorado is the worse Democratic candidate in the DNC primary won. But, just for example, the 'Tea Party' candidate who won the GOP primary is so bad it split the party and will lead to another DNC hold.

The larger point isn't whether these candidates will win or lose, the larger point is that the wins by Tea Party types are causing the GOP to waste more money and resources than they should have to on these races which leads to less money and resources for other races.

Yeah I never understood why they have those pesky primary elections where the people can show they are pissed off at the government. They should just run the candidate that can talk about how bad Obama is or how bad Bush was. Those tea partiers really have no right voting in majority numbers in any of those elections.

[JPhillips]

Jon: I think the RCP averages give us a better picture by aggregating multiple polls.

CT- Blumenthal +8.5
KY- Paul +5.5
FL- Rubio +1.4
CO- Buck +2.8
NV- Reid +1.5

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I have no problem with primary elections. But, a smart person has to think about if the person they support will have a chance to win with the rest of the population instead of just the 15% that votes in a primary. You can nominate all the true believers you want, but it doesn't matter a damn if none of them actually get in office.

I mean, my local Congressman (Jim McDermott) is awesome, but I know he'd never win in a lot of districts and I'm OK with that.

You and JPhillips seem to being agreeing with JimGA about who the Republicans should run. I think I will just leave it at that, not much more needs to be said about the man who wants to end the enemy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Jon: I think the RCP averages give us a better picture by aggregating multiple polls.

CT- Blumenthal +8.5
KY- Paul +5.5
FL- Rubio +1.4
CO- Buck +2.8
NV- Reid +1.5

FWIW please infer no bias, political or otherwise, on my part with the ones I quoted. I had just finished reading something from Ras a little earlier & knew I could pop it up in my browser easily to get something quick.

[JPhillips]

I'm not saying anything about who they should vote for, I'm merely pointing out that the people that were chosen poll worse than the more mainstream candidates. That's factual whether you like it or not.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

FWIW please infer no bias, political or otherwise, on my part with the ones I quoted. I had just finished reading something from Ras a little earlier & knew I could pop it up in my browser easily to get something quick.

I didn't, I just thought RCP provides a clearer picture.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

You and JPhillips seem to being agreeing with JimGA about who the Republicans should run. I think I will just leave it at that, not much more needs to be said about the man who wants to end the enemy.

???

I supported Rubio, Angle, and McMahon in their bids for nomination, wasn't particularly disturbed about Paul as I recall, didn't follow Buck's race closely enough to have a formed a strong opinion. If I've been reading JP and SB correctly, that's not the position they're taking.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I didn't, I just thought RCP provides a clearer picture.

Cool.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

On Rand Paul, yes. But, even other conservatives have said he's done some stupid things during his campaign. I realize he's the Prodigal Son of Libertarianism, but he's made some major unforced errors. There's no reason a Republican in Tennessee in 2010 shouldn't be winning by 15-20 points.

This is just anecdotal, but I know another person on another message board who's a hardcore conservative from Tennessee who is almost as bad as Jon, but he's refusing to vote for Paul for a variety of issues. Note he's not voting for Conway. He's just leaving the spot blank.

Hmm, maybe panerd's comparison in our thoughts was meant to be limited to Rand P, and that limitation just went over my head. Hadn't thought of it that way before my previous ??? to him.

That said, I'm gonna guess you mean Kentucky instead of Tennessee here? In TN, the top of the ballot this year is the governor's race & the (R) there does indeed lead 56-31.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Kentucky. Tennessee. All the same inbred traitors.

Just pointing out that the R's are performing more to expectations in TN

[DaddyTorgo]

Rand Paul is gonna win? That's so 2 weeks ago panerd. Everybody in KY is coming out against him since he's talked about the war on drugs not being an issue there in KY and cutting funding for that and stuff.

He's in serious trouble.

And if Angle wins, with her absolute batshit looney ideas (and look, i really dislike Reid), that says something seriously significant about NV voters lack of intelligence.