It doesn't matter. It's a win/win. Both the debate and the NFL win.

excuse me, we all know that john boehner is rush limbaugh's lap dog.

john calls rush for advice, and when he agrees to something, as he did when the whitehouse asked him for the jobs speech on wed., sept. 7th, he backtracks on it because rush tells him he "has to".

in regard to the pissing match debate between the baggers on sept.7, i will be watching the candidates falling all over themselves trying to outdo each other, trying to gain approval of the tea party. how extreme can they get?

what a joke, it should be very amusing.

No, they are kinda joined at the waist. It was an accident that happened in the Mens Room in Capitol Hill. We are hopping this unfortunate incident undoes itself within a few more days. Just anews crock.

What I do want to point out is that this is just another clue as to the extension of the same partisan polarization of our government that will continue until November 2012. And that we the people have nothing to look forward to as far as any joint effort by both political parties to improve our lives and this nation.

And who is Rush Limburger to be quoted? hahahahahahaha!

Interesting you've thought that about Boehner. I've always thought Obama to be Richard Trumpka's lap dog.

Yeah what's shrivelled follows behind John Boehner everywhere he goes and only works when crap needs to be produced. Nope it's not Boehners bunghole, it's Eric "Kochwhore" Cantor.

rusty,

do you even watch much news at all? or do you just come here and spout off knowing nothing?

President Obama is NOT Trumpka's lap dog. get real. trumpka and the democrats are upset with the President because he said/did very little when the republican governors were trying to get rid of collective bargaining. as usual, rusty, you don't know what you are talking about.

on the other hand, i do listen to rush limbaugh, and i have heard boehner calling rush asking for advice and begging for his approval.

rush limbaugh: the head of the republican party. rush, just like the baggers, is motivated by the hatred he feels for this president. the GOP is scared to death of displeasing their master, they will say and do anything for his approval.

suzette- Organized Labor will line up solidly behind Obama in 2012. When you say otherwise, it is not me that you are making look foolish.

rusty, re-read my post if that is what you need to do for clarification. i did not say that oganized labor would or would not line up behind Barack Obama. i clearly said that President Obama is NOT trumpka's lap dog, AND HE IS NOT. if trumpka and labor want to line up behind President Obama, and that remains to be seen, (we know they will not support any republican) they will do so wishing that President Obama would have done more for them during the collective bargaining fight in wisconsin and ohio.

President Obama is too bipartisan to be anyone's lap dog. he is too moderate.

just because we see and know that the republican/bagger party kisses rush limbaugh's fat ass, that doesn't mean that you can say that President Obama does the same thing to those in the democratic party, when it is clearly not so.

rush limbaugh is clearly the head of the republican party, just ask boehner and cantor and mcconnell. trumpka is not the head of the democractic party. there isn't one democrat who thinks so.

OH, so that's what the republican party's problem is, Russ is their head! No wonder it is such a mess, all mouth and no brain!

suzette- lol- I get such a kick out of the way you use words. Obama- bipartisan- you have to admit the humor.

no rusty, you are oblivious. President Obama has tried have the republicans work with the democrats. for one, he brought the individual mandate to the table in regard to health care, A REPUBLICAN IDEA. now the republicans act like it is the worst idea in the world, and they have never heard of such a horrible thing, just because the president included it in health care reform. they have done this over and over, ever since President Obama took office.

i find no humor in President Obama's trying to reach bipartisan agreement, WHEN THE BAGGER/REPUBLICANS SAY NO TO EVERYTHING HE PRESENTS. there is a great deal of motivation in their hatred for this president, it is what motivated the baggers, and it is what has motivated the republicans to say NO to everything, and to not move this country forward.

hatred of this president is the great motivater of the republican party. they are so blinded by hate, that they don't care about the economic recovery of this nation. President Obama has tried to work in a bi-partisan fashion (much to the disgust of many in the republican party) to bring everyone to together to get our country beck to economic stability.

of course, the rich are doing better than ever, i am sure the republicans are happy about that. they don't care about the rest of the country.

you must also be blinded by the same hatred, and your strong biblical values.

You don't seriously believe what you say, do you? I will admit that Bill Clinton made numerous attempts, and was successful at bipartisanship, as did Bush I and Bush II. But it is pretty much a stretch to say Obama has reached across the aisle with anything but a token gesture or two. There was an interesting point that after 2 years, and only after losing the House, did Team Obama even attempt to meet with any GOP member.

But- to alleviate your fears,and since you obviously didn't like Eccl 10:2, my prayers are with Obama in the spirit of Psalms 109:8

who said i didn't like eccl. 10:2? it is your interpretation of it that i find blasphemous.

so you are praying for mitt romney to take Barack Obama's place. are you also praying for his daughters to become orphans, and his wife to become a widow?

perhaps this verse is referring to Barack Obama specifically.

maybe the whole bible was written with politics in mind, and the eventual presidency of Barack Obama.

this is my prayer for our President, Barack Obama.

God, these bullies have reared their republican heads!

a gang of thugs is after our President, and they don't care a thing about you.

but you O god, are both tender and kind, not easily angered, immense in love,

and you never, never quit.

so look me in the eye and show kindness (to our President).

give your servant, our President, the strength to go on,

save your dear dear child.

make a show of how much you love me

so the bullies who hate me will stand there slackjawed

as you, god, gently and powerfully

put me back on my feet.

Obama 2012!

i took a few liberties, but this is how i pray for our President.

i love the psalms.

who said i didn't like eccl. 10:2? it is your interpretation of it that i find blasphemous.

so you are praying for mitt romney to take Barack Obama's place. are you also praying for his daughters to become orphans, and his wife to become a widow?

perhaps this verse is referring to Barack Obama specifically.

maybe the whole bible was written with politics in mind, and the eventual presidency of Barack Obama.

this is my prayer for our President, Barack Obama.

God, these bullies have reared their republican heads!

a gang of thugs is after our President, and they don't care a thing about you.

but you O god, are both tender and kind, not easily angered, immense in love,

and you never, never quit.

so look me in the eye and show kindness (to our President).

give your servant, our President, the strength to go on,

save your dear dear child.

make a show of how much you love me

so the bullies who hate me will stand there slackjawed

as you, god, gently and powerfully

put me back on my feet.

i took a few liberties, but this is how i pray for our President.

oops, didn't mean to post twice.

Amen

Amen

That said- you should be really careful. You just might get yourself labeled a Republican because it sort of sounds like you attend Church (and we know what goes on there- all that preaching about voting GOP, etc)

my dear naive ignorant rusty,

i've been called worse things than a republican.

i don't know what goes on in your church or how you use what they tell you to blasphemously assume that the bible is the partisan political word of god, but i feel very comfortable with the knowledge that the bible was written for everyone, and was not written to "tell" republicans that they are 'wise' and 'right', and that democrats are foolish and wrong.

this is absolutely a very naive and judgemental interpretation/view of how we should approach the word of god. this basic assumption sets everybody up for division, because you have already decided that god has blessed you and your political party by declaring you wise, and that god has disdain for me and my party by calling me foolish. in a country where christianity is welcomed and embraced by almost everyone, (even though republicans do feel that democrats are not christian) this is a very shrewd and sneaky way to gain approval from christian voters.

there is no mystery here as to what the republican party is doing. it is very easy to catch someone who is already in a cage. by dragging religion into politics, the republican party is using fear to snag voters, using emotional issues like abortion and gay marriage, all deemed sinful in the eyes of god according to the republican party, to help the voters fall in line.

the republican party is using religion as a device to control others, to put them, and keep them in their place. we know, in looking at history, that religion has long been used to manipulate and coerce. i feel that the republicans, and you have helped to show me that this is true by YOUR belief as evidenced by your statements here, are intimidating christians by their religious tactics and taking away gods gift of freedom. people who experience religion in a cage based on fear as the republicans represent it when they mix politics with religion is short-lived and is not the true nature of god's gift of freedom.

i would also like to add here that people who go to church, or people like you who claim that eccl. 10:2 was written specifically for the republican party, are "christians" of sorts. but people who claim to be christian are not always the best example of how christians should live their lives. they are- you are- like everyone else, imperfect.

Once more we've found something we agree on. There are indeed lots of worse things to be called than a Republican.

And, in my church, I've never heard the Pastor preach politics from the pulpit. But I've been told many times by liberals that it is the norm. Probably the closest I've ever heard of politicking in church was a U-Tube vid I saw. A Rev Wright was really getting into it.

how did you form your belief that eccl. 10:2 is a political bible verse, the "right" referring to the republican party, pray tell?

david barton?

i would really like to know.

rusty,

one more thing, since you mentioned rev. wright.

why are rev. wright's statements subject to more scrutiny than those of hagee, robertson, falwell or parsley?

if i recall correctly the statement of wright's that seems to have caused so much scrutiny and upset is the one where he suggests that there is a casual link between the constant bombings and other interferences in the middle east by america and the willingness of some middle eastern zealots to attack the united states. the republican party took the position that wrights statement was proof of his anti-americanism, and that all good people would find any questions about that link disdainful. and then we learned that they felt that no person (Barack Obama?) would subject his children to a pastor who shares such hateful ideas.

the idea that wright is politicking in church seems to offend you and other republicans, when the idea that the united states deserves terrorist attacks and other disasters has often been expressed by white evangelical ministers to whom the republicans are strongly linked. jerry falwell and pat robertson never retracted their statements that america deserved the 9/11 attacks by doing things to anger god. john hagee believes that new orleans got what it deserved when katrina drowned its people and devastated the city, and the lives of thousands of americans. and lets not forget james inhofe blamed america for the 9/11 attacks by arguing in a speech on the senate floor in 2002 that "the spiritual door was opened for an attack on america because we pressured israel to give away parts of the west bank."

is there a difference between what wright said and the statements made by the white evangelical ministers and james inhofe?

i have heard wright speak, and i have heard these other ministers speak. what is the difference, since they all say the attacks were deserved?

Suzette- you are a little slow on the uptick when someone pulls your leg. I've also been known to say that John Chapter 3 is really Nic at night. But to put your fears to rest, I really don't actually think that Jessus and Nicodemus sat around watching TV that night.

Liberals would do well to not be so angry and to have a sense of humor.

rusty,

liberals are not angry, and we do have a sense of humor. we think that conservatives are the angry ones, and that they should have a sense of humor.

why wouldn't i take you seriously? "blogging" is a very difficult way to have a conversation. i can't see facial expressions, i can't hear inflections in your voice, lots of things that we take for granted when we have a conversation with someone, are simply not available to us here.

not to mention the fact that what i wrote in my post # 1.18 is true of many politicians, but especially of republican and bagger politicians who are using religion and politics to manipulate and coerce potential voters to vote republican based on fear.

so when a republican says that he believes what many other republicans also believe, why would i doubt what you say?

Mea Culpa. Next time I quote a writing from thousands of years ago, and prescribe that they actually were referring to 20th & 21st century nomencalture, I'll add a (wink-wink)

rusty,

you neglected to answer my question about the difference between the right evangelical ministers vs. rev. wright.

the only difference that i can see, based on what i have heard from wright and the other ministers i have mentioned above, is that he isn't saying so much that god is angry and is causing or allowing these things to happen. Wright seems to be saying that 9/11 was a consequence, a "cause and affect" of middle easteners against the american people because they are angry about our interferences in the middle east.

the evangelical ministers and the evangelical extreme right love to drag god's wrath into the conversation. they feel god is directing His anger at highly emotional issues like abortion and civil rights for gays. the republicans are telling the american people that they better change their behavior, or we can expect more hurricanes, more terrorists attacks, all done at the hand of an angry and unforgiving god.

after all didn't god allow the katrina hurricane to occur because of the gay parade?

It didn't so much seem like a question as much as a statement followed by a question mark. You anwered your own question above, and then again.

That pastor from Kansas and the one from Florida- well, I put them in the same category as Rev Wright. Their parishoners (Wrights, and the others mentioned), who seemingly accept lunacy from the pulpit, belong in the same category as well.

Suzette? You begged for a response. I've given it to you. I've comitted to you what I think of the noted far right zealots. They are nutty, their parishoners are nutty. Ditto Re Wright. What you say?

rusty,

i see that you are unable to distinguish and thus answer my real question.

i will try again.

the white evangelical ministers i have mentioned above have all said that we (america) "deserved" the 9/11 attacks. we also deserved katrina and other horrible disasters because of the sinful lives that the gays and the abortion-lovers and democrats and liberals lead. i realize part of the reason why christian people feel this way. they love to base their feelings about disasters and how they occur on the story of "Noah's Ark". that story is a perfect story about how god unleashes his wrath on people with whom he is displeased. it also gives people who believe every word of the bible, an explanation for why horrible things happen in this world, because we feel better knowing why, we feel as if we have some control that way, because we have an answer. so god's wrath will not spew on us directly like katrina did because of the gay parade in new orleans (judgement from the extreme right) we try to live exemplary lives, doing as god would have us do and judging others who do not live up to our expectations.

as for rev. wright, he did not say that we deserved 9/11. he clearly said that this was in response to the horrible things we have done overseas. there are consequences to acts of atrocity. if we bomb and kill people all over the world, we must expect that there will be retaliation, just as americans wanted to retaliate for 9/11, going into iraq instead of staying in afghanistan because of the bush administration. because americans wanted to retaliate, and this was a very emotional issue, and rightly so, they bought into the lie of WMD in iraq, and didn't stop to think. like a few in congress, i never bought into the iraqi war. i knew it was wrong from the start. they took their eyes off bin laden, and went after saddam hussein, a personal vendetta by W. bush.

my question to you is this: why were the attacks against jeramiah wright so vicious, even though you think they are all nutty? did it have to do with his association with Barack Obama? did it have to do with how rev. wright said it, "god damn america"? from what i have seen and heard, america is not always the "good guy" when it comes to the slaughter of their fellow human beings. is it because he is black, and we all know that black people do not show ENOUGH appreciation for what we have done for them-you know ending slavery and all. giving them some civil rights.

should rev. wright have said, "god is displeased with america and allowed this disaster to happen". would that have been the better way to say it, and not directly blame 9/11 on the violence that we have inflicted on others? rev wright is saying we need to take responsibility for how we treat others in the world, or they will retaliate. i agree with rev. wright. it is a simple as that. the white evangelical ministers do not have to drag god's anger and wrath into it. there are consequences to actions where we have behaved badly.

oh my god. of course they do have to bring the wrath of god into it, because then they do not have to look at what they themselves have done.

they are blameless.

Suzette- I do not have the ability to enter people's minds and discern why they did this act or that act. Your question is leading and misleading, and calls for me to hypothesize about someone's (or numerous someone's) inner thoughts.

So I answer with what I think, because I do know that. An I asked you what you think. Not gobs of other people who did this or that, but, What does Suzette think.

rusty,

are you avoiding my question?

i am asking you what YOU think. i am only giving a hypothesis based on what i heard rev. wright say, and what i heard the evangelical white ministers say, and how people reacted to it.

i am not asking you to guess what other people think, i am asking you if you recognize the difference between what rev. wright said and what the white evangelical ministers said, and if YOU FEEL that may have had something to do with their intense reaction to rev. wright.

his answer was based on retaliation from the middle east based on what america has done to them. the evangelicals are saying that god's wrath against gays and abortion, etc. is the reason for 9/11, katrina and other disasters, man-made or not. you know, to make gays and women and doctors feel responsible and guilty for the "sins" they have committed, that their personal decisions on how they live their lives are responsible for the horrible disasters, and not the actual people who committed horrible atrocities against the middle east.

it seems to me that "america" (people in power who have made the decisions in that regard) does not want to accept blame, or take any repsonsibility for the atrocities they have inflicted. rev wright gave the most sensible answer in my opinion, we can expect retaliation.

do you feel that god is angry at gays and abortion, and that he is "responsible" for disasters?

i just wanted to add here that rev. wright is a veteran of the marines and the navy.

I've sifted through your manuscripts for the question. It sort of gets lost with you setting the stage and parameters, etc.

my question to you is this: why were the attacks against jeramiah wright so vicious, even though you think they are all nutty? I don't know that the attacks were "so vicious"- but nice try at setting the premise. In what I've heard from Wright's clips- I'd say he was goofy. I've been in many churches over the years and I really haven't heard any other compare to it.

did it have to do with his association with Barack Obama? Quite obviously, his relationship with Obama is what brought him onto the radar screen. Without that, no one would ever have noticed him. Kind of a stupid question if you think about it. Obama had previously described segments of America as cling to their bibles and guns. I would suggest it would be fair to test what he chooses to expose himself to as a spiritual guide.

did it have to do with how rev. wright said it, "god damn america"? I think that many Americans who subscribe to a Christianity viewpoint would recognize one of the Ten Commandments is not to use the Lord's name in vane. Also, I would think that even you would subscribe to people in authority being held to a higher standard than a rank and file person. As a Pastor, in front of his Christian populi, it would be offensive to many.

from what i have seen and heard, america is not always the "good guy" when it comes to the slaughter of their fellow human beings. Not really a question, even if you had used a question mark.

is it because he is black, My opinion- that had nothing to dio with it. I think that if you had a vid of anyone speaking in those terms from the pulpit, there would be offense taken. I think that only a very shallow minded person would suggest otherwise, so I know you are not saying that.

and we all know that black people do not show ENOUGH appreciation for what we have done for them-you know ending slavery and all. giving them some civil rights I appreciate your opinion on this thought, but I don't subscribe to it. However, I find it surprising you think Black people should be more appreciative.

Hope you appreciate my time to answer your hodgepodge of statements/questions.

Suzette?

rusty,

first of all, you didn't answer my very last question. i am sure you would rather not. just like everyone who voted for W. bush, while he was still president, they were too embarassed to admit it, even though they like and agree with what the republican party stands for, much of it is left behind closed doors. until, that is, the birth of the baggers. i understand you reluctance to answer my questions.

you are very naive, in my opinion, if you believe that bigotry has nothing to do with how rev. wright and especially with how President Obama has been treated since he took office. hate is a very strong motivator, and bigotry and hate were the motivation behind the tea baggers, and behind the despicable way the republicans in washington are treating this president. i should not be surprised that you won't admit it, but i can't believe that you don't see it. i am sure you agree with the "party of no" and their filbustering against everything this president has tried to do. the republicans want to take this country back to when W. bush was president, and repeat all the failed policies that got us into the mess that W. bush left for us.

do you not contribute anything to a conversation unless a direct question is asked of you?

i would like to add one more thing. i am not an african american, and i would in no way assume that for many african americans that their way of worshipping is the same as mine. i have not been through what most of them have had to bear. yet we have white americans telling them to "get over it", to do things "our way". or we have people like pat buchanan, the biggest republican bigot, speaking out explicitly against "affirmative action", and making racist comments about our president. it is so easy for them to make snarky comments about Michelle Obama and how she should feel appreciative of how far the black people have come, and she should be proud of america no matter what. it is not up to the republican party to tell michelle Obama how to feel about ANYTHING.

i am surprised that you don't remember all the petty comments made by pat buchanan and other white republicans (cindy mcCain and others). their remarks were clear. not having walked in her shoes, they might do well to remember how they took america from the indians, how native americans are treated in our country today STILL, and admit that this is a practice that they enjoy.

you know, having others beholden to them like african americans and native americans.

Suzette- you must excuse me for not wading through all the way to the bitter end of your angry diatribe. I went to the last line, and did find a question mark, but it is really numerous questions. When learning to ask questions, surveys, etc- you must learn to ask a question, and not be leading. Like giving a survey that says, "do you want to keep the speed limit the same on the highway and keep the recommendations for food safety on holidays, or would you be willing to sacrifice the lives of loved ones in order to go faster and get food poisoning?" What does a "yes" mean, or a "no". You've taken survey 101 from Ed Schultz.

do you feel that god is angry at gays and abortion, and that he is "responsible" for disasters? Any question starting with do begs for yes/no. However, as above, that would be meaningless. So I will expand- I don't have any feelings about what makes God angry, or what would make God mad enough to wreak havoc. I can tell you, though, what I think of Gays and abortion. I think that is what you're trying to discover. I am friends (and relatives) with a number of gay people. I really don't have a problem with them, their relationships, etc. One couple of gentlemen in particular, are close friends. I don't smooch with my spouse in front of them, and they don't in front of me. We have a close relationship- started out as neighbors- have moved across town but we still get together to eat or socialize quite often. Abortion- otherwise known as the intentional killing of an unborn child. I think it is terrible that a women would feel so trapped that she would think that terminating her child was the best way to proceed. I really don't have a clue as to whether that would make God angry enough to bring on Katrina though.

Suzette- "you are very naive, in my opinion, if you believe that bigotry has nothing to do with how rev. wright and especially with how President Obama has been treated"-

How do you think Bill Clinton was treated by the opposition when he was in power? How do you think Bush II was treated by the opposition when he was in power? How much did the Left hate Bush II? Was it more, less or about the same as the Right hates Obama? Ditto question on Clinton.

Call me naive if you wish, but in my honest opinion, the Left hated Bush II to the utmost extent possible. The Right hate Clinton just as much. Now, explain to me why if someone disagrees with Obama, or even hates him, why bigotry or racism has to be involved?

rusty,

thanks for taking the time to explain. i am not begging you for answers. i am curious as to what you and other republicans think, because it feels "foreign" to me. i am trying to understand, i am NOT angry. i realize it might appear that way when you read my posts.

if you do not have a clue about whether god would be angry enough to bring on katrina because of a gay parade, that tells me you believe it may or may not be possible. the large death toll and the massive destruction of katrina could have been prevented NOT by gays and lesbians repenting of their "sin", but by building the dykes to withstand such a storm. even the rebuilding of the dykes NOW are not strong enough to handle another katrina. there is much concern about that.

i see a major difference between the way bill clinton was treated and President Obama has been treated since he took office. i know that clinton was treated horribly also (especially the impeachment process led by newt gingrich and others who were doing the same thing that clinton was doing, they brought every blow-by-blow into the public record, hoping to embarass clinton, and change the way america felt about him).

yes, bush was treated horribly, also. the way his presidency began, his annointing by his daddy's friends on the supreme court, when the popular vote in florida was gore's. also their dismissal of the information that was given to them at bush's ranch about "bin laden determined to attack in the U.S. he absolutely appeared stupid and ignorant to me, making up words, mispronouncing them. i never understood the large tax cuts either, especially when we were at war (the wrong war based on a lie). where was the sacrifice that all american people should have made, and not just the service men and women? this was the first time we have been in 2 wars unpaid for.

and while the democrats were disgusted with and didn't like W. bush, they still repected the "office" of the presidency enough to give bush what he wanted.

this is what i see as one of the main differences between the republicans and the democrats. republicans appear to believe that democrats should not hold the office of the presidency.

like you, there are many who believe that if people hate Obama that it has nothing to do with racism. putting Obama aside, do you really think that there is no significance to america having our first black president? you don't think that there is a connection to the way he is being treated and the fact that he is a black man? i believe when history judges the republicans in washington, that racism will be found to be the strong motivater in their treatment of him.

the reason that bigotry "has" to be involved is because President Obama is a black man, it is a factor. for you to completely rule it out (i am not saying you are racist) is totally overlooking a possible motivater. you appear to be saying that racism is dead and gone, when it clearly is not. even as a woman i see the sexist comments made by the republican party when they want to take away birth control and abortion rights, and by saying that the women in the united states are having "only" 2.5 children per woman, like we are cattle or something. like african americans, women have also had to fight, and some have died, to get voting rights and other rights that white men take for granted. i suppose i have a perspective that you do not.

i have seen the republican party for the past 30 years, but especially in the last 10, and now in the last 4 years lose their openess and fairmindedness, and their message of freedom. in talking to my republican friends, they see a very narrow-minded republican party. they see the radical right moving the party to a place of anger and intolerance. they see themselves as a private club, not accepting of new ideas, or even of old republican ideas if President Obama brings them to the table (individual mandate, and now tax cuts in the american jobs bill).

if a republican is not conservative enough, they are called a RINO. they are not "good enough" to be called a real republican. ronald reagan and barry goldwater would be considered RINO's today. they would not pass the test of a "real" republican.

i am not saying that every disagreement with Obama is racism. overall, though, i see the gridlock in washington, and all the filibustering, the disrespect shown to our president so openly by calling him a liar. these republicans are shamless and unembarassable, especially when they ignore the fact that the individual mandate was their idea and one they supported, and now they call it unconstitutional. where is a tax cut that the republican party doesn't love and hasn't supported historically? oh, we just found one; the gimmick in President Obama's jobs bill for america.

hatred and bigotry are powerful motivaters. i can see no other reason for how they have treated President Obama.

please tell me you see SOME of this, even if you don't think it is racism straight-up.

Thanks, Suzette- good conversation.

My biggest complaint on this blog is the stereotyping of people who are by nature conservative. Gays causing flooding- something like that would never even cross my mind. If I hear a goofball say that, I dismiss it as a goofball. On the other hand, even the Global Warming backers have backed away from a lot of Gorisms- I put Gore in the goofball list. But I don't put all liberals on that list. I firmly believe that I don't know what I don't know. The power of the Diety is something I don't know- so I spend zero amount of time even thinking about it.

New Orleans, though, has a bigger problem than an Angry Deity over Gays. They have a sea level / mother nature / physics problem combined with an historical governmental ethics problem. Much money has been allocated to fixing things there, before Katrina- and corruption was rampant. Then- no matter how much you spend on the situation, in the end, Mother Nature may just prevail.

I did vote for Bush II, but here are my thoughts on him: A) He won the Presidency- only far left lunatics still claim Florida, etc. Almost every respective look back at it shows he won the vote. It was emotional at first, so understand that when you see vids of officials looking at ballots upside down and at all angles trying to discern a vote- I understand why there would be skepticism. That said-at a point- you must move on and except the results. B) The Supreme Court will make rules I agree with and that I disagree with, but it is final. My suggestion for people is to get over it. C) Gore could have made it irrelevant by winning his own state. That should say something. D) Bush was a terrible President. E) Your timing is off, I believe. Without looking it up, the Tax cuts came before the Iraq war. In fact- they came in several waves starting right after he took office, and the country was reeling from the dot.com implosion that started a year earlier, and Enron which was discovered soon into his Presidency. (The interesting thing- the tax cuts were not "for the rich", but across the board. I've yet to hear Ds recommend a rescind on them- they only focus on the "rich"- and also, Obama isn't suggesting anything so different at this time. He has put in a tax cut across the board regarding the 2011 SS tax, and is proposing to extend it to next year and expand it both in size of cut and extending it to the "rich" as a match).

I am not in any way saying there aren't racists, homophobes, etc in this country. I would suggest they are not cleanly divided by party lines. I also believe that some people hate Obama because he is Black. I will differ, though, to the extent. The major part of the ire against Obama comes from his concept of re-making the economy, health care reform, budget issues- and I migh also say- his penchant for publicly blaming his opponents for everything that doesn't turn out rosy (the opposite of the picture of JFK we have now with the released tapes, and the opposite of leaders like RR and Bill Clinton). The real problem here is that every time there is disagreement on an issue- there is a hue and a cry about racism. Obama gives the Rs zero respect, so it isn't beyond the realm that he should get zero respect from him. I get a kick out of idiots on these blogs complain about the Republicons (et al) disrespecting Obama by calling him Obummer (et al)- Respect is a two way street. A short time ago, one of the bloggers ripped Conservatives for not accepting Obama as their President. I agree we should, but pointed out that in the same mode, he must accept Bush II as his President. You would have thought the sky fell in. Had one threaten to "come off on me". LOL

Some day- I'll share my views on health care with you. A hint- I have the same problem with it that Ds claim to have with Bush IIs prescription drug plan. Paid for with invisible lines and mirrors and card tricks.

rusty,

don't have time to write much now.

the bush tax cuts that were signed by bush were in 2001 (before the war) and in may of 2003, the same time (march 2003-may 2003) that troops were being moved into iraq. the 2001 and the 2003 tax cuts are the ones known as the "bush tax cuts", the second part of it being signed at the end of may 2003, two months after the iraqi war started.

later.

You must not have read the letter the Prez sent and Boehner's response. There is no one lying. Just disrespect for the White House.

If you had been paying attention then you would have known the reichwingnuts have alot to be blamed for.

Just look at the facts TX Obama tries to work with GOP over and over but They lie stall block filibuster 100's of times ,threaten default, demand more corp cuts. Even policies GOP liked before, Now they hate since Obama agreed with them GOP vowed long ago to Break Obama Thats the only thing they care about Not jobs Not disasters, not middle class, not disabled, not old - poor

AllenP2, why do you not reconize the fact that his Mother was White and therefore he is of mixed race and stop declaring him a black man.

Are you racist against white people?

Who's black? lol If it isn't obvious by now, there are far too many people NOT wanting to see the issue.

My feelings exactly! There is nothing that President O'bama can do to help our country that the Republicans vote down. Why? Would they be so negative if he were a white man? He's a good man, trying to help the midddle class and the poor. I only wish that he were tougher, not allowing the Republicans to walk all over him. Forget about Bipartisanship. It's not working, at least not with this group.

Obama had a super majority for two years,he owned Washington,he acomplished nothing. His stimulus did nothing but triple our defict (google Solyndra) Americans spoke in Nov 2010 and will again in 2012!

President Obama has never owned washington. as i have said here before, i hate to give the likes of grover norquist credit, but he has accomplished what he set out to do, make it impossible for a democratic president to govern. then when you add the bigotry of the republican party to the "no new taxes" mix, he is dealing with a party in lockstep, an immovable object.

as for the stimulus there is bi-partisan agreement (not in washington of course) that the stimulus saved and produced jobs that prevented our economy from going into a depression. and tell me why all of those republican governors who bad mouth the stimulus, like gov. perry, took billions of dollars to help him balance his budget and create all those gov't jobs. he never mentions that he took that stimulus money that helped texas, all he says is how much of a failure it was, it must be some sort of a ponzi scheme like social security.

when americans spoke in 2010, they didn't know they were getting the extreme end of the republican party. they weren't voting over the deficit, either. they were voting based on their personal situation: the american people want jobs. the baggers have shown themselves to be who they really are, and the republicans in washington have had to move far, far to the right to keep up with their bagger colleagues. many of the baggers will be voted out of office, as they have done nothing but prove how unempathetic, stubborn and bigoted they are.

Obama has uncovered an ugly under belly of hate that still resides in many peoples hearts . I hear it all the time. The 2008 campaign was full of ugly name calling and comparing him to a monkey N word was used . I saw Slurs on signs at GOP rallies Rush made several racist comments . You can not bury that or the toxic legacy of the Bush years Its part of history now .

joe's name is on the moniker of "morning joe". i am sure he gets the final say on what mika is allowed to ask. i have often wondered how she can sit there and take his disrespectful and ignorant rhetoric day after day. if you listen to the show at all, the only time mika speaks is when joe has a day off. she can't complete a full sentence, especially if joe disagrees with her. i wish he would shut up, and let mika have her say.

joe is a republican, although probably a bit more moderate than some. still, he doesn't want mika asking cheney questions that will make him look like he is lying. when bush was still president, joe used to say unbelievably silly things, giving rationale for why bush did this or that, or how bush could rectify an annoying situation he had gotten himself into. i do agree with him on some things, and he did a really great job as guest co-host on the view. he can be quite funny.

i think that joe doesn't want to know the truth, or doesn't care about the truth in regard to bush and cheney, and the republican party. or maybe he thinks they are telling the truth.

i like mika. i hate to say that joe doesn't give her a voice on the show, but i feel that it is true. i just get the feeling that he disrespects women, and mika is a democrat, so she has two strikes against her.

mika is very beautiful.

maybe joe is sexually frustrated by her.

She has 3 strikes againest her shes a B___h!

Suzette, this is why the show is called Morning Joe and not Morning Mika! Mika is the reason I (and I'm sure many others) don't watch this garbage. Joe is a Rino, he's just not a huge schill for Obama like Mika,Sharpton,Schuld,Mattwews,Odonnell and the majority of guest they have on this show. If Rush is the head of the republican party, then MSNBC is the Democratic party.

i know why the show is called morning joe. do you think you are telling me something i don't know? mika doesn't say that much. you must find both joe and mika very irritating, mika because she is a democrat, and joe because he is a RINO.

i find fox and friends very irritating, well fox news channel is irritating in general. their hosts are disrespectful to their democratic guests, and the badmouth the president all day long. hannity and laura ingraham are the worst over there. by the way, how far does one have to go to the right so he is not considered a RINO by all of you sitting up there on your extreme right wing perch?

joe says he is a republican, and i believe him. why can't you all just let republicans be who they are, and not call them names like RINO (republican in name only). all the republicans in washington are falling all over themselves to see who can be the most extreme, to see who gets the baggers vote.

you all have two heads of the republican party-fox news and rush limbaugh.

everybody knows that MSNBC leans to the left, and fox news is an extremely right wing news station with a black ops room used to hack into the families of the 9/11 victims.

someone has to counter the damage that fox news has done to this country, and MSNBC does a great job, even if you do tell me that no one watches MSNBC.

love love love MSNBC.

glad to see you are watching, too.

MSNBC leans to the left? They are laying down left !I watch to see what the left wing idiots like Mika,Rev Al,Matthews,Sgt Schultz(mostly I read there websites) and all the other Race baiters are saying. Suzette, LOOK @ the ratings Fox destroys all and I mean all of msnbc shows (google nielson rating cable networks). If political commentary were a sport msnbc would be jock itch!

By the way Suzette when I read your blogs,I feel as if Maxine Waters is speaking!

jeff p.,

it will be my pleasure to set you straight on fox news.

over and over we hear that MSNBC is the liberal fox, as though their prinicples to the commitment of journalism are the same, or even comparable to the lies and smears that fox directs at democrats. i do believe that MSNBC does a good job of countering fox news' conservative agenda, but in no way does fox news have a left-wing equivalent.

i guess my view of MSNBC is that it does lean to the left, but it also has its share of conservatives who frequently pass along republican spin (example, pat buchanan, a well known conservative bigot). when democratic politicians from washington or elsewhere come on fox news, they are treated very disprespectfully by laura ingraham, bill oreilly, sean hannity, and others, and are not allowed to get a full sentence in, unlike those who are kissing Bill Oreilly's ass like dick morris, dennis miller, bernie goldberg, or laura ingraham do every time they appear on his show.

fox news shoves their ratings down everybody's throat. we hear it all the time from bill Oreilly and other conservatives on fox news. what they don't mention when they are bragging about how great they are, is that they attack maliciously and very dishonestly those with whom they disagree.

we all know about the study done that found fox news viewers the most misinformed.

the following, all false, are largely believed by fox news viewers.

-most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses or no jobs.-most economists have estimated that health care reform will worsen the deficit.-most scientists do not agree that climate change is occuring.-the stimulus legislation did not cause any tax cuts.-their own income taxes have gone up.-the auto bailout occured only under Obama.-when tap came up for a vote, most republicans opposed it.-it is not clear if Obama was born in the united states.

in addition, the study said the increased viewership of fox news led to an increase in belief in these FALSE stories, or otherwise known as LIES.

you might also want to know that jon stewart is beating the fox news network in terms of total viewers.

while stewart is moving up, fox news is on the decline. the month of may was very bad for fox news.

this is part of the reason why fox news hates and fears jon stewart. he is much more popular than they are, and he spends much of his time exposing the lies that fox news tells, and the biased way in which they deliver their news.

thanks for the Maxine Waters compliment.

He had better take the advice of Chris Matthews, Robert Reich and so many more who have been saying for several years now that Obama needs to go big on a jobs program for the country and if he wants to be Pres again. Who knows maybe he wants to lose

The White House made the proper response to this little snafu. It is the news media that is ramping it up into some sort of judgement of Obama's strength as a leader. It seems that even in the Liberal leaning press he can't get a break.

Can we all remember, please what the alternative would have been? Had he put his foot down over this, Obama would have given the conservative media more ammo to push their "angry black man" meme. They've been at it since 2008, and just last month we saw the FOX Nation focus on Melvyn L. Fein's editorial titled: “Obama’s Rage Starting To Show.”

Point well taken - Obama is in a box because they will use 'their race card' on him -

joca41: We are on the fast track to being like China, India, and other countries with no insurance, no benefit, no social security, no unions. In other words, all the things that made America great. Eliminate them and you have eliminated our greatness. Take our jobs overseas and you have eliminated liberty not just in American but in the World. Abuse our President with disrespect and you have eliminated our Under God!