The San Diego Union Tribune has made its pick. The worst President EVAH is….guess…no really… guess….here are two clues from the article:
- He promised a more sophisticated approach to the economy than that of his predecessor, but had so little common sense that his health law actually gave businesses a big financial incentive to discontinue providing health insurance to their employees.
- He denounced his predecessor for permitting harsh interrogation tactics with suspected terrorists, but once in office somehow concluded that a better, more moral approach would just be to use drones to assassinate such suspects without getting any information from them.
So who has been anointed the worst President ever? I know many of you are thinking….hmmm….they must have chosen President Harding, or say, one of those rotund mutton chop gassers from the late 19th Century. Alas, you would be wrong. The winner/loser is…
Today’s adventure in Obamaland can be found here.
At least Bush was a Republican
And so is Obama.
Oh puhleez, I was a Bush supporter, strong Conservative, and defender and can say without a modicum of doubt that since he led the country to the precipice of near total economic ruin, almost rendered us bankrupt by fighting two simultaneous wars, and allowed the financial sector to run unregulated– resulting in the artificial housing bubble, he is one of the worst presidents in our life time.
As for nominating Obama the worst president based on one issue alone, or on the usual hysterical partisan talking points, as expected, it is emotive and charged with personal dislike, and in some instances, an inexplicable rabid hatred of the president.
Well, the records of Romney’s dealing in the Olympics including emails etc. have been destroyed. The hard drives from his governance of MA were purchased by him. He has no track record other than what he says he is, and what he will do. No supporting evidence of detail.
To date, all we have is the illusory connection between Romney’s wealth from venture capitalism, and a bogus assurance that it translates into job making!!! That connection between making money for venture capitalists and creating jobs for Americans lacks merit and can only be sold to hysterical anti-Obama hacks. This is politics not the Ancient Greek arena fight to death. Being rational is fine too. As Conservatives, we can actually think through issues, and wade through the morass masquerading as News on some hyper partisan networks.
So, no, Obama is very very FAR from being the worst president in the history of the USA. Objectively, despite the talking points on both sides of the aisle, Obama has done quite a good job. Yes, I know this sounds different from the barrage of news we are gouged with, however, compare today with where we were in the latter parts of 2008.
Thanks for letting me share.
http://blackrepublicanandmyworldview.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/running-on-fear-the-tale-of-the-2012-elections/
methinks I see a troll.
This is the most unbelievable comment I’ve read in quite a while. I’ll be over here disbelieving it if anyone needs me.
Wow! This guy totally changed my mind. Obama/Biden 2012!!!!!
Looks like ABG has taken a new nic.
Please explain what you mean by ‘barrage’ . All I hear in the msm and most cable channels is the sound of Hallmark cards being dropped in the mail slot. While you’re at it, please define ‘good job’
I don’t think Max is a troll. He makes some good points about Bush, and the harddrive issue for Romney is problematic, though I doubt it can touch him once he comes out at the convention. Max is not entirely logical however, as the comparison between 2008 to now doesn’t really pass muster. The truth is there are things that could have been done to mitigate the circumstances, but Obama had neither the knowledge or experience to execute those actions. In better times, he might be seen differently, though I still think he’s a corrupt lying bastard. But people take the rose colored glasses off when times are tough. Max hasn’t quite gotten there yet.
Yeah, right. A life-long conservative and bush supporter suddenly realizes that obama’s policies are both philosophically appealing and pragmatically effective. Now pull my other one.
No enumeration, btw, of any examples of why “obama has done quite a good job,” just obtuse criticisms of Romney’s lack of experience. LMAO.
And, of course, anyone who doesn’t accept barack as their personal savior is “Listening to hysterical talking points” and filled with “inexplicable hatred of the president.” (Read: “racism”.)
Hey buddy, my intense hatred of obama is entirely explicable, and based on his shredding of the Constitution, tyrannical rule, penchant for assassinations, pathological mendacity, and his corrupt and criminal acts, not to mention his total inability to fix the economy.
So what on earth could get a life-long conservative to support this corrupt president and his piece-of-dog-shit record? Why mummax, you’re black! You’re the fucking racist, weasel!
Tamerlane, not to put too fine a point on it, if you look at Max’s blog, just the name, even, you can pretty much guess why the shift in allegiance. This groupthink is nearly universal in certain communities.
I disagree, Lola. Never underestimate the disinformational depths ObamaNation’s troll patrols will sink to. Mum Black Lawyer Guy is a troll, through and through.
Trolls leave their trail of slime all across the interwebs. It’s easy to pick up the spur.
The fuckwad is also an incendiary racist.
And yes, when a president signs away my right to due process under the law and puts a target on my back, I get a little… what’s the word… hysterical.
What Lola said. Except one overlooked point. As president, Obama is also the de facto head of his own party, which he has done a miserable job leading. Since he’s been its leader he has almost single-handedly destroyed the Democratic Party and the momentum it had been gaining since 2006.
Well, I do totally agree with those say never underestimate the power and purpose of OFA trolls. Max could very well be. But I’m always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Are y’all surehe’s a troll? Trolls normally disrupt a thread. This guy has given it a big boost!!!!
you are most welcome.
The Olympic hard drive? Sorry, I’ve been off line the last few days as I had to put down my dog (osteosarcoma — bone cancer) and didn’t feel like dealing with the stupid, but is *this* how desperate TeamObama has gotten? Do they *not* realize the Olympics isn’t run by the government nor paid for by taxes, thus none of us are entitled to public records about it via the Freedom of Information Act or any other law? Or is this more along the lines of the “you didn’t build that/the government is responsible for everything” philosophy?
And they even brought their bridge , trolls do that ..
Wait til they find out that (per their leader) that bridge isn’t theirs…. Trolls hate that!
mummax ain’t getting but the one hit from me. That was enough to realize that his posts are even more obtuse, long-winded & irrational than his comment here.
Whether rat-fucking troll or pathetic blog-hit panhandler, I’m not wasting further time on mummax until he offers some real, concise defenses of his messiah’s record.
Of course barry is the worst… he was groomed to be. He’s Bush 3 and the next guy will be take up the torch and be Bush 4…that is, someone who will continue the same policies in place since 2000 and ramp them up …( so maybe I should call them Chaney 3 and 4.? ) What the paper points to is the pushing further development of such policies….
What’s funny is if whoever gets in tried to stop the drones, this paper would criticize him…but not to worry.(/snark) the next guy will not stop the drones…
but had so little common sense that his health law actually gave businesses a big financial incentive to discontinue providing health insurance to their employees.
now they are criticizing him for doing his real job! One of the ones he was installed to do lol
as the clown says, it’s a feature, not a bug
The media lackeys created Obama , they can break him.
Someone will be subjected to the” Dean Scream” treatment…but who?
Good point. How can you reject Shrub’s policies and record, while embracing obama’s continuation & expansion of those policies?
Everyone who supports Obama does exactly that, Tamer. They maintain that Obama’s policies are nothing like Bush’s, though the fact strongly beg to differ.
You must be a racist, Jay, for saying that.
Wow, I was under the illusion that Conservatives welcomed different perspectives as opportunities for roboust discourse. I am aghast and a little dissapointed at the abuse and fury. I think it was a tad excessive.
Spell check
Conservatives are not a monolithic group, however it appears these commenters with the exception of 2 who sincerely disagreed with me, are rabid in anger. I share no such extreme passions. As I stated in my initial post, this is politics and not a fight to death. Different view points should be welcome and vigorously debated.
I do not debate in rabidly angry and vile environments. Also, in hate, you lose the ability to make a cohesive argument for your position. I hope your decisions at the ballot are driven by more than a vociferous and unbridled outrage. Careful consideration of all candidates would be the ideal approach.
I know most of you, including those that have used crass and vulgar verbiage, all love this country. So, I hope you can look within you and wonder why your expressions of fury are so extreme.
At some point, one recognizes the futility of extremely unproductive rhetoric in political discourse.
I wish you well and encourage you to seek out other perspectives to share and compare with yours. It is not true discourse to huddle up on one blog in exchanges with only those who share the same limited and insular perspective.
I will be back some other time, however, I wish you all well.
Mum, if you’re a lawyer, I’m Tinkerbell. You fail to defend your choice, and instead, attack the messenger and give us a sermon. The minute you threw out the ‘hate’ word, you lost. Without your holier than thou disguise, you are simply a tribalist, and loyalty to the tribe trumps common sense. I get that, just stop trying to rationalize the irrational.
Oh, sweetheart — Conservatives? You think that the people who populate this blog are by an large ‘conservatives’?
That’s what happens when you carpet bomb on behalf of your Fuhrer without paying attention. Sort of like what you did when you voted for him.
mummaz, BOTT gave you Walter Hecht’s old list of “conservative blogs to spam” and you assumed we were conservatives, too! You used the wrong fake persona — ROFL!
We’re liberals, asswipe — which is why we despise obama and his corporatist, drone murder, Bush 3 imperialist presidency.
How sad you are, mummaz the kool-aid drinker, defending your Dear Leader by diverting discussion away from his record. Defend his assassinations, why dontcha; defend his many job-outsourcing treaties; defend his abysmal environmental record.
I bet mummaz can’t prove that he is:
1) black;
2) a lawyer;
3) a former conservative (just like Walter claimed to be);
4) not a Truth Team brownshirt;
5) not a fucking liar like his fucking messiah.
The “why you all be hatin’?” meme is so classic obot troll! LOL.
You’re a little fascist brownshirt, mummaz, helping your Dear Leader take away our civil liberties — habeas corpus, due process, free speech, trial by jury, and setting up a surveillance state. And that proves that you all don’t love our country.
Don’t tread on me, you little obamanazi fuck.
Jay and Tam, do you think people who are championing Romney for President, claiming things like his wealth and experience as a private equity partner make him a good candidate to formulate good economic policy, are liberals or conservatives?
I’m not Jay or Tam, but I don’t think championing Romney over Obama for president necessarily defines someone as either a conservative or a liberal. I think most of the people here who pitch for Romney would rather have a true liberal to vote for. But we don’t so it’s a choice between competence and incompetence. Obama has had a chance to demonstrate what he can and will do, and it’s not acceptable. Come January 20th, one of these two men will be our president, and we aren’t going to put the responsibility for which one it is on other people by not voting or casting a protest vote. But if it floats your boat for you and others to decide for us that we’re conservatives trying to pass ourselves off as liberals, it doesn’t change anything except our perception of you.
That’s a complex question, Zal. I tend to think of people as liberal or conservative based on their social views, not economic ones. Just a lifelong perspective I have, though it’s not particularly correct.
I’m a social liberal. I’m more and more of a fiscal conservative. I can consider Romney as a better choice than Obama, but I’d still describe myself as a liberal.
Zal, I’m voting Green and even I think Romney is the better choice the uni-party is offering. We have already seen the damage Obama can do. Can Romney be worse? Possibly but IMO not likely.
I’d prefer that more liberals would join me on the Green bandwagon, but I can sympathize with their ABO mindset.
Ellie and Jay, you both dodged my question, which was specific.
I’m not talking about choosing Romney over Obama merely because Obama’s awful, I’m talking about making a case for Romney’s experience as successful venture capitalist and millionaire hundreds of times over, with scant charitable giving except for many millions to his very conservative Mormon church (which is, for starters, famously intolerant of gay rights and feminism – his conservatism is by no means only about the economy) being an indication that he’ll be a good President with good policies that will serve the country well and help our economy improve. And BTW, “economy” includes things like tax law, which I doubt you (Jay) think should be conservative and lopsidedly benefit corporations and the wealthy, but there’s also the financial, or banking, industry, and Romney’s conservative positions would certainly not jive with liberal policy there.
Again, I’m not talking about ABO, I’m talking about Lola’s (and others’) arguments that they endorse and support Romney as a positive, not as a lesser of two evils.
gmx, I also am ABO and have been since 2008. I voted for McCain and I will vote for a candidate other than Obama this year.
Maybe you haven’t seen the arguments here but there is a group (they actually congregate at TCH and you’ve said you post there so I’m sure you know what I’m talking about), they attack me as I argue liberal principles in opposition to Romney’s conservative choices that they defend, and they’re making a case for endorsing Romney in his own right, not as an ABO candidate.
There’s a big difference.
I waited to post until scrolling down, but I second Zal’s question. If JWS can host Lola on his show who articulates well as a liberal her Romney support, why can’t we consider a black GOP supporter’s backing of O? Not that we agree, but we listen to his rationale? Why get so flustered so fast when someone pops in? Are all newbies trolls? I admit my naivete. That being said, I echo Sophie’s ear to the sound of Hallmark Cards dropped into the slot, but Barry likes raffling dinner dates more, from the sidebars I keep seeing. (GMX, I will vote Green, as usual. Not that I like all their policies, but it’s my default setting since they qualified for the state ballot in ’94, and they need 102k voters to stay on it. I do wish Rocky Anderson had made it–our two-party power structure sees fit to keep contenders few, part as we all lament of the problems of O or R and nobody else to choose, or so it’s presented by the powers that be. Blame me for losing Florida.)
Zal, your question is too laden with your agenda and desire for an answer that confirms it to be answered. Believing in a filthy rich candidate doesn’t meant a person is not a liberal. One doesn’t have to believe in keeping humble and small business to be a liberal. Dodging your question my ass.
Jay, you’re making it about what you think my agenda is, I am not. Ask yourself (you needn’t answer here) why you can’t simply answer the question forthrightly, ignoring whatever you think my agenda is.
I’ve written a lot of posts here over the past year or so and I doubt anybody honest who’s read them would say my definition of being a liberal means keeping humble and small business. I am anything but humble and I admire many people who aren’t humble (along with many who are humble), and I am unashamed of having worked at Goldman Sachs and enjoyed my early days there, and GS is certainly no small business. I have no problem with small businesses that grow large through success, I cheer them; I have a problem with corporations that use smarmy tactics to run small businesses out of business and toss workers and their pensions under the bus along the way.
I am and always have been a hearty supporter of capitalism, I think it’s the best system for making the most of human ingenuity and competitiveness, and ultimately I’ve prospered in it. I also think it can go terribly wrong when needed regulations are not in place, as they are not today. I think hard work is good and success is good and earning a lot of money –and enjoying it– is good. Meanwhile I still support and defend liberal principles and ideology applied to public policy, both social and economic; and I believe after 8 years of Bush and 4 of Obama we need it now more than ever.
mumlawyerlettered2themax, You could not be more off in tagging most people around here conservatives. Of course, conservatives are welcome and a few pop in sometimes. I’m a moderate at best and only periodically. I linked to the article in this post because it is rather complete in dismantling the Obama myth. Believe it or not – there was once a time (Pre Obama) when extra judicial killing made liberals livid. But with Barry-the-Huffpo- Pet in charge, it’s all A-Okay.
Zal, our political viewpoints are very similar in many ways. I can rubber stamp the things you have to say about crooked business practices and the politicians who protect and even encourage them. I do not know Romney to be such a man at this point.
As to the definition of a ‘liberal’ or a ‘conservative’ and how support for Romney’s success in business may fall under one heeding or the other, which is the meat of your original question, the reason it’s not an easy question to answer is that it’s not an easy question to answer — at least for a liberal like me who couldn’t vote for Obama but can consider voting for Romney.
I know from your previous comments regarding private equity companies that you think Romney and Bain in specific are morally corrupt. I’m not assuming anything about your agenda, just putting together the pieces that you, yourself, have provided over time. Your question is actually a comment to the effect of ‘A true liberal could never vote for Mitt Romney.’ At least that’s how it comes across once a person gets to know the internet persona called Zaldonis. And this liberal is giving Romney a chance for many reasons, none of which are simple. Don’t set a complicated trap and pretend it’s innocent. That’s kind of beneath you, I think.
F, unlike Lola, mummax hasn’t given us any “rationale”, just a load of incoherent meanderings followed up with accusations of racism. For years, John has been inviting obama supporters to make their case, in a guest post or on the show. But they rarely dare, and then can never present any tangible points. Bullet points, give us some damned bullet points!
The San Diego Union Tribune is editorially very conservative, always has been. It’s also true that swaths of southern California are neo-conservative and more racist (and anti-semetic and anti-gay) than one ordinarily thinks of California being. It’s not surprising they published this editorial. Not that I disagree with it — and that’s ironic because one of the reasons I left San Diego was because I didn’t want to live in a place with such entrenched conservative and racist/homophobic prejudices, and here I am all these years later agreeing with the Union Tribune.
“Jay and Tam, do you think people who are championing Romney for President, claiming things like his wealth and experience as a private equity partner make him a good candidate to formulate good economic policy, are liberals or conservatives?”
What’s your point?
You wrote, “we’re liberals,” which appears to be all-inclusive, and yet in recent weeks a number of posters have been making a case for Romney not merely as an ABO choice but championing his success as a venture capitalist and his extraordinary wealth (and what he’s done with it) as indications his administration would formulate good economic policy that’ll help our economy. That’s a conservative’s viewpoint and yet, so far as I’ve seen, I’m the only one here who’s argued against those assertions. So I’m wondering if others here, including those who’ve been attacking me for voicing liberal principles that are at odds with Romney’s choices, think a President Romney would have liberal policies, or if those championing Romney and attacking me actually aren’t liberals.
Ah. Well, I’m just an ABO, and will be voting either for Rocky Anderson or Jill Stein. I’d vote for practically anybody if it meant obama loses, he’s that dangerous.
Lola’s the only one so far as I know who’s crossed the line into liking MR. I think that makes you a moderate, not a liberal, not a conservative either.
There are others but it’s clear Lola’s the leader, or at least very pridefully sees herself as such.
I agree that a Hillary supporter liking Romney doesn’t make one a conservative, certainly not a liberal, but I don’t agree it makes them a moderate. I’ll leave it to my other posts to identify what I think it makes one.
Thank you for your forthright response, Tam; I really did want to know what you thought.
You mean George Soros and Teresa Hines-Kerry are conservatives?
So there’s the answer. All successful venture capitalists or extraordinary wealthy people are not necessarily all conservatives. All they are is successful venture capitalists and extraordinarily wealthy people, like Teresa Hines Kerry and George Soros, as I mentioned above.
Elliesmom knocked it out of the park with her answer. Right on the money (dirty word)
George Soros has not endorsed Romney or his would-be economic policy, he’s endorsed Obama for 2012 and has said he’s helping to raise $100 million for him. Before that, many months ago, he said there’s no difference between Obama and Romney except that Romney supports taxation policy that includes the conservative-defended continuation of carried interest being taxed as capital gains — and he said his hedge fund colleagues support Romney for that reason and that his (Soros’) nonsupport of Romney for that reason makes his colleagues consider him a “traitor to his class.”
As for Teresa Heinz Kerry, don’t even get me started.
I never said they are.
I said Romney is.
Soros is backing Obama and he is very specifically opposed to Romney’s conservative support of keeping tax rates low for the super rich, and in particular keeping carried interest categorized as capital gains rather than ordinary earned income. Soros is a liberal, not a conservative, and as such he is not endorsing Romney for President, nor does he tout Romney’s private equity experience as good foundation for the liberal public policy he supports.
Teresa Heinz Kerry, who was married to conservative Republican Senator John Heinz until he died, was a registered Republican until 2004 when her second husband John Kerry ran for President as a Democrat. Her legal name, to this day, remains Teresa Heinz. And she’s no liberal.
While I profoundly differ with the “freedom to choose” meme, based on professional experience and my religion, I do not judge others who feel and act differently.
That is the beginning and end of my social conservatism.. I was raised with the motto “make the best of things” branded in my brain, whether self or parent inflicted, I no longer remember. It used to be part of American culture, prior to, well, the current culture.
My tenuous support of Romney is a classic example of making lemonade out of lemons.. I long for a candidate I would literally take a bullet for, as I would have for Hillary.
Labels are meaningless in times of crisis, which imo, we are now experiencing, unless you’re trying to raise an army, or a baseball team, you don’t need a label. Just the will to follow your conscience.
Fiscal conservatism comes with age and is nourished by reality.
No sophie, labels are not meaningless in times of crisis. They may be misapplied or used as distraction to forward a smarmy cause, which is something to look out for, but they are very definitely meaningful, and if succinctly understood and applied they’re useful is distinguishing the good guys from the bad guys.
Mitt Romney is not one of the good guys. Obama is not one of the good guys. Getting taken in by those who try to paint the Romneys and Obamas of the world as good guys is two sides of exactly the same coin. And it’s dangerous. Especially in times like today of crisis.
I love and live by the old saying, and I don’t know where it’s from but Hillary used it after her 2008 defeat: bloom where you’re planted.
The labels’ liberal ” and ” conservative” are for the little people…the top .99999 are not divided in this manner…imo…that’s for the likes of us.
So that’s when questions like is George Soros a liberal or conservative become meaningless…he’s neither. He’s a destroyer of sovereign nations.,as is someone like Dick Chaney . I feel the terms “liberal ” and ” conservative” is not appropriate for either of them … it does not describe them or what they are doing.
We have come to a place where somehow banks are too large to fail, but nations are not. It’s not by accident
George Soros is a loathesome betrayer of his own people. All the money in the world will not cure his self hatred.
I am elated at the discussions that have been started here. These are the issues I wanted to discuss however the vulgarity and abuse from Tamerlane, and some other folks here made it clear that a discussion was impossible.
I am a Mother, wife, daughter and sister. I am also a Black Conservative and work as an Attorney. There is no reason for me to make any misrepresentations on this or any other blog. And as I said before, it is pointless to have an insular blog and welcome only those who share your perspectives. My intention was to have a vigorous and interesting discussions, and not have people like Tamerlane and others of his ilk scream, threaten and spew vulgarity like confused Hoi Poloi.
I am at a loss as to why Tamerlane keeps on abusing me in such violent terms. Men that attack women like he has done to me are a despicable breed! I think it is an index of deeper issues that Tamerlane might have with women or minorities. Somehow, he seems out of place on this blog with his cursing, threats and abuse. His online violence does nothing to promote any perspective. This is a discussion not a war. I came on a public site to share my opinion not to have Tamerlane attempt to violate me in a violent and vicious manner.
I am relieved that in real time/life, in my state, we uphold the constitution and all parts of the 2nd amendment, so that men like Tamerlane and other faceless cowards of his ilk, cannot violate, harass and harm women because of their brute strength. In real time, he would not be provided the ability to be this violent or threatening!
I believe in, and uphold the 2nd amendment, have no tolerance for efforts to impose gun control on any law abiding citizen, and fully support the stand your ground provisions in my state. No man should violently abuse a woman in the manner Tamerlane has done. It is excessive and unwarranted. It should not be sanctioned, ignored or tolerated by anyone on this blog or in real time. It is wrong!
Tamerlane’s conduct is abusive, antagonistic, threatening and violent and he should be stopped! This is a blog, an online discussion and not a street brawl. Tamerlane, his violence and threats against me- are a great disservice to many other folks here who appear to have valid basis for their positions. Only cowards hide online to violate, threaten, harass and abuse women. Only a simpleton and a common baboon would go to the extent that he has done just to disagree. It is atrocious and unwarranted.
The only good thing is that I see Zal, Anthony, Fionchu and Conner have started discussing ideas and issues I wanted to express and discuss. Thanks to those who came to my blog to express their ideas, and share privately with me. Your thoughtfulness and kindness is appreciated.
http://blackrepublicanandmyworldview.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/running-on-fear-the-tale-of-the-2012-elections/
Mumlawyer, I took a spin to your site to see if your protestations were sincere. I found this in a post titled “The Republican Party is Becoming The Face of the Ku Klux Klan”, where you say among other things:
Yeah…… PEASANTS! say you. And you call Romney an elitist? and a racist?
Here’s another excerpt from the same post:
And you want me to take you seriously….. Why?? I’m not a Republican. I’ve been a registered Independent my entire life. I voted for Democrats my entire life until 2008 when I voted for John McCain. Not because he was white, but because he was far more qualified than Barack Obama. Had I had my say, Hillary Clinton would be sitting in the Oval Office right now.
All of that aside, I find you offensive, racist and abhorrent. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but after looking under the surface, I have to agree with some others here. You are indeed a troll. Not a lawyer, but a troll. And probably a little crazy.
Well, well, aren’t we the little identity-politics victim? First you play the race card, now you accuse me of attacking you because you’re female. I had no idea, nor did I care, what your sex was. I attack you because you are a deceiver.
You say you want a discussion, but you can’t come up with one single point of merit to re-elect obama. All you do is spew the same old concern troll bullshit. And you do it all over the blogosphere. You like to visit a lot of conservative blogs, spew the same line-of-shit, then call people haters & racists when they disagree. You act like a BOTT; ergo, you are a BOTT.
Any true fiscal conservative would be ecstatic about the prospect of a Romney admin. Not you. Which leads me to suspect that when you call yourself “conservative”, you really mean a right-to-lifer, homophobic, jesus freak. So you block from your mind the realization that barry’s on the DL, and, hey, LDS are heretics! And the rest is glossed over by your overriding racism that compels you support the guy who’s only half white.
You talk a whole lot about the 2nd Amdt. What about the 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th? What about Art I Sec 8, Sec 9, the Separation of Powers? Your messiah has pissed all over all of these — can you defend him? C’mon mummax, amaze us with your mad lawyerin’ skills!
While you’re at it, explain the legality of obama’s violation of TANF, and his arbitrary amnesty for illegals.
Then defend Solyndra. Then the mortgage fraud deal. Then the drone murders.
You said you wanted to debate the points. John has a radio show every Wednesday. Call in to defend obama’s record, if you dare.
Tamer is a patriot who works with horses all day, his language really has nothing to do with his character or his mind, both of which are sterling.. I confess though, Tamer sometimes uses words i only wish I could. It’s a bit soon for a knee jerk judgement of anyone. There was a woman here for a long time, who was brutal, and her mind was about as open as a bank vault, so gender is a non starter. Now since your gracious comments indicated you wished to discuss ‘issues’, please share which ones you wish to raise.
On occasion, I strongly & vocally disagree with Sophie (aka Conner43), but I know her to be a patriot, lover of freedom & truth as well.
The same goes for the regulars here. This may be a liberal-leaning blog, but it is no echo chamber. I differ with Lola’s recent endorsement of MR on several points. But her argument is well-reasoned, researched, and substantiated with specific points. I’ve commented on her post, and the back & forth conversation over there is intelligent … and refreshing.
mummax’ screeds do not even rate as an “argument”. Lacking solid points, relying on obtuseness, obfuscation, resorting to ad hominen attacks and incendiary slander when questioned, mummax’ comments, all taken from the standard obot troll crib sheet, are beneath respect. Her sole purpose is that of every obot, to disrupt and confuse.
mummax stormed into a puma’s den, and is shocked to receive fangs and claws instead of licks and purrs. One thing you need to know about this cat: I’m gentle when stroked; fierce when provoked.
mumlawyerlettered2themax is most welcome on the show. I announced a general invite to pro Obama people last week right after Anna Belle was on. I thought she was forceful in her support of Romney and don’t mind a bit if pro-Obama or pro anyone else people come on.
I would hardly call donating 100% of an inheritance and nearly 1?5 of an annual income in the millions, plus another 10% to the church one attends “scant” charitable donations. Hyperbolic rhetoric like that is a credibility-losing game. Coming from a man who admits he owns sizable property, it’s ironic.
FYI, all mormons are expected to “tithe” = donating 1/10th.
But since mummax derides that, why not offer us obama’s magnanimity as a contrast?
[SFX: Crickets]
I don’t know what “1?5″ was intended to mean but the amount he gives, apart from 10% to the Mormon church, is nowhere near a double digit percentage; it is by any objective measure a scant percentage of his hundreds of millions. Even the 10% he gives to the Mormon church doesn’t suggest generosity any more than the 35% I pay in taxes does — these are forced contributions, and although they reveal something about us, if one is looking to identify generosity one has to look elsewhere in our choices.
And yes the multi-millionaire Romney gave away his inheritance — to a Mormon school.
He’s free to practice any religion he chooses, and his strongly committed choice of the Mormon church is revealing. Most of his charity goes to this ultra conservative group that, among other beliefs a principled liberal would reject in a presidential candidate, is very repressive to women and gays.
And I “admit” I own sizable property the same way you “admit” you’re a deceiver and a troll; as you did about trolling, I freely and unashamedly revealed I own sizable property — and that’s because, like your deceiving and trolling, I believe it says something about my choices that I’m pleased about and proud of. I worked hard and sacrificed for what my husband and I own, I enjoy it, I work hard to maintain it and to improve it, and we share it with a lot of people. My owning sizable property and my feeling about it, and coming from a wealthy family that didn’t give this to me, if anything places me in a position to better understand where Mitt Romney is coming from and to assess his choices from something approximating his perspective. I’ve inherited money and given it all away, and although I wasn’t rich when I did that I can tell you that choosing the recipient of that particular donation is especially meaningful and personal. Mitt Romney chose the Mormon church; I chose an AIDS services organization. Like being deceptive or forthright, those are the kinds of choices that are true identifiers of one’s thought process and belief system, liberal or conservative.
I have to agree with Zal here. Romney’s charity is all well and good but if his charity of choice is always the Mormon Church then IMO that’s less like charity and more like setting up a trust fund for your grandkids. It’s really not *my* idea of charity; IMO it’s just proselytizing with money. For me it’s a non-issue.
Hello John, I just responded to your invite for the radio show. I hope your got my reply. Thank you.
Also, for Anthony. These postings form my blog are indeed my views about certain issues WHEN they occurred, and I share them at that time. Some of my posts are raw, elitist, and sometimes too narrow. I am humble enough to know that I do not have all the answers. Even though I have very strong opinions, my need to have a continued dialogue and refreshing challenges, is the primary reason I engage people in discourse online and elsewhere. Despite my strongly held opinions, I am still a life learner, and want to share and hear others.
I am not perfect, I know, but at least one a one on one basis, I try to show people respect and debate issues in that same manner.
As for sounding elitist, yes, Anthony, I know that post (and others) could be seen as shrill and elitist. I could have edited it. However, I rarely edit posts in that manner because it is the emotion I was feeling at that time, and feel that blogging captures my feelings and perceptions on a day to day basis. It mirrors my emotions at the time I wrote the piece.
My blogs are an authentic representation of my feelings and acts at the time they are written. They are not always pretty and are certainly sometimes very raw. And when I read or mull them over, they are reassuring that I am merely human, and are beset with feelings and failings, as are most in humanity. However, my strengths and weaknesses not withstanding, I do not think anyone deserves the personal excoriation, abuse and harassment to which I was subjected by Tamerlane etc.
One other blogger from this site has shared privately with me, some very salient issues that I had been mulling in my mind on the elections, and I enjoyed having that opportunity to share and exchange ideas with her. At least, I understand a little better from the perspective of her since she is totally disenchanted by the whole electoral process. That has given me a rich and exciting perspective.
I am sorry that you will not give me the benefit of a doubt, Anthony. But, I hope that others do. I am who I am, but I am also well meaning in search of different opinions in an effort to share my views, and enrich the political debate.
I meant to put up a fiery angry post on my blog today about Romney and why he is a bad choice for female voters–it would have shocked some people, I am sure. But I think I better attend to other more pressing familial issues. I will post the fiery piece sometime this week. It will be authentic, and address the issues from my perspective. All and any other opinions without invective, threats and abuse are always welcome. Thanks for letting me share!
http://blackrepublicanandmyworldview.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/running-on-fear-the-tale-of-the-2012-elections/
No thanks, I’ve read your “rantings”.
I understand the pros and cons of blogging regularly. On my end, I accepted that it is more like talking than what one reads in a paper…with editors etc. the practice of it is more valuable to me than the lack of prettiness or skill in the final product.
I love the conversation – a big reason I do it – and am fine with it getting forceful and/or ugly at times. It’s the dinner party where you held back…except you don’t have to hold back. On some level I think that’s healthy – at least on a blog. It would be a disaster in “real” life.
mum, unless you’re a woman, you lack the perspective on whether Romney is a good, or bad, choice for women. It’s called mansplaining and it comes across as arrogant, patronizing and, most importantly, clueless. As I woman, I am well aware that neither of the uni-party candidates are *good* for women. No one needs to explain this to me.
mumslawyer-
OK, I gave you another shot. I visited your site again and read almost every post.
To my disappointment, everything I read contained overtly incendiary rhetoric aimed at inciting a black audience to rise up against the white man, sometimes including unveiled threats of “racial flames being fanned so far that it will be impossible to contain” followed by the promise that “it will be worse than the turmoil in the 1960′s” as I quoted your article in my comment above.
And then you calmly ask that we see you as a “Conservative who supported GWB”. Please. Don’t insult us another moment. You sound more like Jeremiah Wright than any Bush supporter with whom I’ve ever had discourse.
The other trend I noticed was a clear and rigid anti-Romney perspective to all of your articles about the coming election. Yet, you ask us to engage in a discussion about Romney while your mind is rigidly closed and biased against him to the point that it is laughable for me to entertain your request for dialogue.
I have no other choice than to deduce that you are indeed racist troll, and this only from your own written words on your own blog.
I was entertaining the idea that it would be interesting to listen to you on John’s broadcast, but after reading your entire blog and then reading your contradictory presentation of yourself and your motives on this thread, I can only further deduce that you are a fraud and a troll who is looking to disrupt any community you find a threat to your agenda.
I won’t be listening to the broadcast, nor will I be responding to you here or anywhere else. You have outed yourself with your own pen, and I have absolutely no interest in hearing the blather that may come out of your mouth. If I want to hear that kind of noise, I can listen to Touré Neblitt or Al Sharpton
I’m not a lawyer, but have been married to one for over 30 years. {Stanford Law, btw, not some assembly line of law studies } Lawyers run in the family. None of them are anything like you, they are deliberative, choose their words carefully, and have endless patience.. They are nothing like me either, so there’s that. I have never known any of them to have the time to wander around the internet posting hysterically. They are much too busy and it wouldn’t interest them.
So either business is really bad, you are an ambulance chaser, or you are a plant. How’s the weather in Chicago today ?
The absolutely only good thing I can say about Obama is that he hasn’t unlawfully detained me with powers he gave himself — yet.
That’d be way funny, angie, if it weren’t so scary. Remember, obama will have more “Flexibility” once he’s re-elected.
There should be laws against shouting ‘misogynist’ in a crowded blog!
Why do you hate women so much, Jay?
I’m sorry. You’re going to have to be more specific.
You dare ask me to be specific? That’s racist!
Have I mentioned lately how much I friggin love my dog?
Mum the obot has decided to stay mum. So sad. After all, Rules For Radicals does dictate that you avoid your enemy’s strength.
This is obviously a republican run paper which I and THOUSANDS of more will no longer subscribe to. Talk about being impartial, they are running their self out of business. All you people who vote for a party which only benefits rich people are digging your own graves literally. The so called obamacare insurance is designed for mostly young & poor people who wont be turned away with otherwise deadly illnesses and those who cant afford it. but you cant see farther than Democrat or Rebublican, Black or White. When the Rebublicans take away your medicare, your social security and your ability to pay your bills and give the rich more tax cuts you will have only yourself to blame. You dont know the polices only the prejudices. All of you who believe George W. Bush was a better President are already written off as dumb as dirt and deserve what you get which is the road to Loserville. Im not mad at you. But I will Light a candle and pray for you. You’ll need it.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Vote for Romney and follow him down that road.When you get there, look around, he won’t be there. He’ll be pointing his finger and laughing at you as he did with the people he sat with and laughed, that he too was out of work. Get a clue people. Unless you are a millionaire or a billonaire you will suffer under his policies. I don’t mean to beat a dead horse but that’s what it’s like trying to open the eyes of poor and middele class Republicans. WAKE-UP, read what the policies are and what they stand for. It’s definately not YOU.
I respectfully disagree. The two-party system is corrupt. This is a dirty game being played by dirty people. The only option is to play dirty. I’m not head over heels for Romney, but of the two choices we have, I will vote for him confidently. Right now, we need damage control. I trust Romney’s record of bi-partisan governance to do what is needed in the best interests of America
Romney is the lesser of two evils. Obama is the evil of two lessers.
Americans seem to be increasingly intolerant of corporate-owned puppet presidents. W lasted 5 to 6 years, O lasted 1 to 2 years… hell, R may barely get past his inauguration.
I just realized that the person who famously said ‘Corporations are people’ seems more like a corporation than a person himself. He’s running for president but secretly wants to be the voice you hear when on hold with AT&T.
In the morman faith, women arguing with their husbands is like arguing with God. They believe that a woman’s place is in the home. A Hundred years ago so did most christians in the USA. Is that a bad thing? I guess If you have 2 wives they can argue among themselves. What a Life.
YOU are a riot!