Mark the date March 21, 2010, on your calendar. That's the day the great Obama health-care reform finally passed Congress. It's also the day that any realistic hope of passing significant gay-rights measures at the federal level died until at least 2013.
President Obama showed what a determined Democratic president and large congressional majority could do in the face of unified political opposition, powerful interests standing in the way, and the mobilization of the most energized and angry portion of the American public. When a president cares about something - really cares about it - he uses the bully pulpit in tandem with the political muscle and control of legislative procedure that a congressional majority gives him and he gets it done. That's what presidential leadership looks like.
But the fact is, the Democrats have now spent whatever political capital they had remaining for the passage of unpopular liberal-identified causes. They have called in all their chits. They have pulled out all the stops. Use whatever hackneyed phrase you like, but it all comes to this: They are done.
All of the liberal constituencies that make up the Democratic Party - environmentalists, gun-control enthusiasts, abortion-rights advocates, financial-reform supporters, and yes, gay-rights activists - will now be told that the urgent necessity is to focus on the fall election and that, for now at least, their pet causes must be subordinated to that larger goal. So sorry.
It's not as if gay-rights measures were headed anywhere fast before yesterday. Nobody is talking about repealing any part of the Defense of Marriage Act these days. Remember the president running on that?
Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been put off for at least a year and the White House is in no mood to have it brought up before then. Fat chance getting it done after November.
Even the most innocuous and politically popular measure that even pre-election Obama skeptics like me thought would happen, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, has been delayed time after time. It's not clear it can pass the House with "gender identity" included, which gay groups are once again insisting upon. It's even more doubtful that supporters can round up 60 votes in the Senate for it, with or without protection for transgendered people.
After the November election, all of this legislation now on life support - to the extent it has any life left at all - will have the feeding tubes pulled out and the respirator turned off. The urgent necessity then, we will be told, is re-electing the president.
Then, in 2013, if he is re-elected, and if he has sufficiently large majorities in Congress, we get to start the cycle again.
UPDATE: A reader emphasizes a reasonable point: it's not as if the Democrats were making gay-rights measures a priority before health-reform passed, so what difference has passage made? The difference, I think, is that without this signature accomplishment the president and Congress would feel somewhat greater pressure to do something for various constituencies. Now they can say: "We've accomplished the liberal dream of the past century. Leave us alone until after the next election."
100 Comments for “The Day Gay Rights Died”
posted by Jimmy on
Jeez, Carpenter, I mean, Debbie Downer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ_R-G_i4Xk
The legislation passed yesterday, while expectedly imperfect, is more significant to me and my life than any LGBT measures under consideration. As a gay man, I am not trying to get married, I am not in the military, and I’m not trans-gendered.
I do have a pre-existing condition that has locked me out of the market. Many Americans, including LGBTs, are in the same situation. We woke up this morning with that paradigm changed. LGBT people who have been committed Democrats should not see the events of the last 24 hours as some kind of departure from the principles the party represents. Millions who have been waiting for today wait no longer. The fact that no Republicans voted for this reform should be a shinning example to those LGBT who imagine that the grass is greener on the right side of the fence. Think again. The GOP represents the status-quo. The modern Democratic Party has shown time and time again to its constituents that one thing is true – stay the course and the day will come.
posted by daftpunkydavid on
::sighs:: and of course you would have forecast something COMPLETELY different had the health care bill not passed, right? you would have, surely, proclaimed by a similar post by now that health care has been defeated, and the president has been weakened, we will now be able to end dadt, pass enda, repeal doma, etc. correct? please…
i can’t really decide wether you are purely cynical, or if you’re too old (please don’t take this as an insult, it’s not meant as such at all) and been disappointed too often to believe that, indeed, if we want something, it’s up to us to make it happen.
i’m not a political insider (and that may as well be better given their wrong predictions) but my belief is at least on dadt, and possibly on enda, we can see leadership from the top, but not until the bottom makes it clear they want change, and start making even more noise than last week’s demonstrations.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I do have a pre-existing condition that has locked me out of the market. Many Americans, including LGBTs, are in the same situation. We woke up this morning with that paradigm changed.
Actually, you didn’t.
Access to the âhigh risk poolâ is limited and the pool is underfunded. It will cover few people, and will run out of money in 2011 or 2012
Only those who have been uninsured for more than six months will qualify for the high risk pool. Only 0.7% of those without insurance now will get coverage, and the CMS report estimates it will run out of funding by 2011 or 2012.
And:
The bill would ban private insurers from denying coverage to Cuvar or anyone else with a pre-existing condition, starting in 2014.
Of course, by then, with premiums going through the roof and the massive cost increases, you won’t be able to afford it anyway, but that’s all right — you can just pay the penalty for not having it, right?
The problem here, Jimmy, is that you can get coverage. You just don’t want to pay for it. That’s because you don’t understand how insurance works – the lower the risk, the lower the chance of payout, and the lower the cost. You are a guaranteed payout, so you are a high risk — and that puts you into annuity territory, not insurance. Guaranteed outcome requires higher rates.
What you are essentially doing is demanding that everyone else pay your bills for you and using the force of law to produce it. That is inherently un-American. What makes it really pathetic is that, if your Obama Party really cared about you, they could pay for your insurance, given that the vast majority of Obama Party Congresspersons are millionaires or higher. But instead of Pelosi reaching into her pocket and paying your bills, she demands that other people pay it for her so she can have her vineyards and her multiple houses.
posted by Jimmy on
“Of course, by then, with premiums going through the roof and the massive cost increases, you won’t be able to afford it anyway, but that’s all right — you can just pay the penalty for not having it, right?”
Or, Americans will, in due time, see the the truth and take reform farther, to where many said we should go to begin with: expansion of Medicare to Medicare for All, or better yet, Single Payer.
posted by acoolerclimate on
I do not understand people who object to universal medical care. What is the point of society if not to band together for the good of all? And one of the biggest “good of alls” is health care. If everyone had health insurance, we could accomplish so much more when we didn’t have to worry about all the current costs associated with health care.
“The problem here, Jimmy, is that you can get coverage. You just don’t want to pay for it. That’s because you don’t understand how insurance works – the lower the risk, the lower the chance of payout, and the lower the cost. You are a guaranteed payout, so you are a high risk — and that puts you into annuity territory, not insurance. Guaranteed outcome requires higher rates.”
I’ve had insurance through my employers since I was 25, and I’m 45 now. So I have been covered continuously for 20 years. Well now I have Diabetes. It’s mild, I take metformin, eat low carb and low fat, excercise, and I keep it under control. Now I would love to start my own business. But if I quit my job, I lose my health coverage. Currently, if I then try to get coverage on my own, the diabetes makes me uninsurable or so expensive there is no hope of affording it. Why? I’ve had insurance for 20 years, long before Diabetes came about, long before I had a pre-existing condition. But if I quit to start my own business, suddenly the insurance companies decide that I’ve never had it before, that my condition is pre-existing, and I have to suffer. That makes no sense.
My business could really benefit society. I would benefit society by being a productive member, contributing greatly to the economy. But insurance has decided that due to my pre-existing, I’m an evil person trying to get coverage I don’t want to pay for. Well I have been covered for 20 years! Why can’t that continue as it is now? It makes no sense to me. Why keep me locked into being employed by a company, when I could really contribute with my own business, and hire other people?
I’m hoping that the new health plan will allow me the ability to have my own business. I’m not holding my breath, as you have amply demonstrated. If insurance for me costs more than I could ever make, then there is no point in starting my dream. How is that American? Can you just imagine what we could all accomplish without the fear of no coverage, bankruptcy, etc hanging over our heads?
A BIG SIGH. It works so well for France, Germany, etc. Why can’t we be like that? They pay less, they don’t have to worry, life would be so much better. We all buy car insurance so we don’t have to worry, why can’t health insurance be like that? Affordable, covers everyone, spreads the risk around, and makes it so we can all function without worry?
posted by JP on
“I do not understand people who object to universal medical care. What is the point of society if not to band together for the good of all? And one of the biggest “good of alls” is health care. If everyone had health insurance, we could accomplish so much more when we didn’t have to worry about all the current costs associated with health care.”
The problem is, once everyone gets it, nobody will pay for it and good healthcare will actually decline, for everyone. Yes, of course we’ll pay taxes and they will skyrocket. Here’s the kicker, they need to charge us the taxes 4 years before they start the program. I don’t know about you, but common sense already tells me they can’t afford this legislation and neither can we. And, when you have a government who has never been able to run any program successfully in the past take over a large portion of our economy such as this, it scares me. Sorry, I don’t have that much faith in my government. All I have to go on is history and their track record is awful.
Don’t get me wrong, I get what you are saying, but it’s a fairytale. It will never happen, even under universal healthcare.
Has anyone ever wondered why people come to this country to have certain procedures taken care of when their government has universal healthcare?
Has anyone ever looked up the death rates (medical) of other countries compared to ours?
I’m not cynical either, I’m just trying not to be fooled by a government who has continually proven that they are a bunch of liars, especially Obama.
posted by Bobby on
JP makes great points, right now I see a dentist that for $50 more he uses nitrous gas on me, the gas calms me down and makes the experience pleasurable. How do I know that government healthcare isn’t gonna tell that doctor “sorry, the gas is wasteful, so you can only give your patient local anesthesia and hope for the best.”
I don’t trust the government and I don’t like politicians that think they can save money by telling doctors what procedures are necessary and which ones are wasteful.
posted by Jorge on
I do not understand people who object to universal medical care. What is the point of society if not to band together for the good of all?
I don’t understand why you think these two statements make sense together. Universal health care is not something that is for the good of all, but a safety net for the unlucky and the destitute.
Now if only we could fine people who go on welfare and stay on it without bettering themselves.
posted by Jimmy on
“Has anyone ever wondered why people come to this country to have certain procedures taken care of when their government has universal healthcare?”
Ever the canard.
Is it no wonder so many Americans, usually those with insurance, travel abroad to get certain procedures because they are far too expensive here?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If everyone had health insurance, we could accomplish so much more when we didn’t have to worry about all the current costs associated with health care.
Or, in other words, “If I don’t have to pay the bill, it must not cost anything at all.”
Meanwhile, if your issue is diabetes, there are more than enough resources out there to help you with that issue. Again, your problem is simply that you don’t want to pay and are demanding that others pick up the bill for you.
Why do you think you should have the right to take from other people?
posted by Lori Heine on
Having already given up on the Democratic Party and their great, “progressive” commitment to gay rights, I don’t consider our rights in peril simply because they are — as usual — acting like unprincipled, self-interested cowards. It is exactly what I’ve come to expect from them.
I predict that in the coming years, the Republicans will actually do more for gay rights than the Democrats will. There will be fresh faces coming into GOP leadership, now that they’re focused on traditional Republican issues (the economy, national security, etc.) instead of all the culture-war crap.
It may not happen overnight, but it will happen.
posted by Jimmy on
“Why do you think you should have the right to take from other people?”
It’s such a tired assertion within a political argument that was lost long ago and those on losing side should really get over it. Through the consent of the governed, this nation decided it was prudent to have a social contract, a la Hobbes and Rousseau, whose influence on the founders is indelible.
This is unlikely to change and the continued nursing of old grievances is puerile.
posted by Debrah on
The health-care system has long been a nonsensical, shattered maze of brazen profit at the expense of the vulnerable.
That said, there’s something very scary about this latest “cure” and the way in which these pols went about “passing” this gargantuan government-controlled “reform”.
Sowell weighs in…… Point Of No Return?
“With politicians now having not only access to our most confidential records, but also the power to grant or withhold medical care needed to sustain ourselves or our loved ones, how many people will be bold enough to criticize our public servants, who will in fact have become our public masters?”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Dale, I think the biggest flaw in your argument is the notion that the Democrats are out of political capital because they have spent it. I can’t believe I need to point out, on a libertarian-dominated website, what we often hear from entrepreneurs and investors: you have to spend money to make money. Obama has led the Democrats to passage of the most significant piece of legislation in 45 years, and that earns him political capital. You may not like it, but the GOP has so oversold the evils of the bill that anything short of Armageddon will make them look awfully foolish. Of course power concedes nothing without a demand, as Frederick Douglass said. Indeed, gay activists have not given up on DADT repeal this year. I think you know that I have agreed with you on ENDA strategy, but that has nothing to do with the bill Obama is about to sign as I type this. If Obama had just been handed a devastating defeat on Sunday evening, you surely would not have claimed the chances of gay-related legislation were better. So I think you are being awfully disingenuous here.
posted by Bobby on
“Is it no wonder so many Americans, usually those with insurance, travel abroad to get certain procedures because they are far too expensive here?”
—Yup, Nightline did a segment on medical tourism, apparently some women love going to Costa Rica and getting their liposuction and tummy-tucks there. But there are drawbacks, some of these women suffer complications and end up spending big bucks in the USA to correct their problems due to bad doctors in Costa Rica.
posted by Acoolerclimate on
North Dallas Thirty | March 23, 2010, 1:02am | #
If everyone had health insurance, we could accomplish so much more when we didn’t have to worry about all the current costs associated with health care.
Or, in other words, “If I don’t have to pay the bill, it must not cost anything at all.”
Meanwhile, if your issue is diabetes, there are more than enough resources out there to help you with that issue. Again, your problem is simply that you don’t want to pay and are demanding that others pick up the bill for you.
Why do you think you should have the right to take from other people?
Actualy what I said was that I’ve been insured for years, but if I quit working for companies and start my own, why am I suddenly considered brand new to insurance?
I’m completely baffled at your idea that we all need to go at life completely alone. I’m assuming that means you have hundreds of thousands of dollars available should some unfortunate medical affliction befalls you? I guess you have enough money in case you get into car accidents too so that you don’t need car insurance? I’m guessing you’ve built your own power lines, roads, water supply, etc? I think of the Amish. No one can build their own barn so they all help each other to build barns. Why can’t we all help each other so we don’t have to be bankrupted by our health? Everyone benefits when people get good, quality, medical care. Think of all the things that could happen to you because some people don’t have good access to care. I can think of a number of things that could hurt you because some people can’t afford care.
I’m really beginning to think we should split the country in two. This constant back and forth is getting so tiring and neither one of us is going to compomise or understand the other. It would be so nice to be able to just move on and spend our energy on other things. No idea how to work out the details but i think were going to have to do it.
posted by Mark F. on
ND 30: I sometimes find you rather annoying, but I agree with you this time.
posted by Tom on
Dale: “Repealing “Donât Ask, Donât Tell” has been put off for at least a year and the White House is in no mood to have it brought up before then. Fat chance getting it done after November.”
I understand your concern that Republican victories in the midterms will eliminate the Democrats’ ability to repeal DADT on their own dime, and probably increase the number of “Never!” votes in Congress as the Republican party veers to the extreme right in primary battles.
However, I think that DADT repeal will go through regardless.
The reason is twofold: First, Military leadership has been signaling their readiness to repeal DADT for the last two years, and will, in about a year, report that the military is ready to implement a plan under which gay and lesbian service personnel can serve openly, backed by a RAND study that recommends repeal. Second, every poll in recent years show strong support from the public for repeal.
The social conservatives will pull out all the stops, even more so than on marriage, calling in every chip they have in Congress. But when the views of the public and the military converge around repeal — when the polls say “We should repeal DADT …” and the military says “We can repeal DADT with no serious problems …” — a significant number of Republicans will vote for repeal.
I understand the impatience of gay activists, but I don’t share it.
I believe that there is a good military reason to move deliberately, and I’m glad that the Obama administration is moving carefully, despite the howls.
While military culture is “top down”, in the sense that an order is an order and will be obeyed, I think it is important to understand, as Admiral Mullen seems to understand, that “buy in” by junior personnel is an important factor in ensuring that orders relating to DADT repeal, when issued, will be carried out efficiently, effectively and uniformly.
By spending a year confirming the earlier studies and planning for implementation, military leadership is building into the DADT repeal process an opportunity for military leadership to build the case for DADT repeal from the inside out, facilitating “buy in”, both to the necessity and wisdom of DADT repeal itself and to the military’s implementation plan for repeal.
Because I believe that “buy in” is important, I think that the year of preparation will have been time well spent, an important factor in ensuring that DADT is repealed, and that once repealed, the military adjusts quickly and efficiently.
In short, it is more important to do it right than it is to do it quickly.
posted by JP on
“Through the consent of the governed, this nation decided it was prudent to have a social contract”
Actually this nation didn’t. It has been all but clear that this nation does not want healthcare ran by the government. Somehow people who support this type of reform are under the impression that we don’t want reform at all, which is of course 100% not the case. I for one want quite a bit of reform, I just don’t want my government to run it, at all!!
As it stands, in a sense, we already have a form of nationalized healthcare system. It isn’t even close to perfect and isn’t run right as it is. I don’t get how we think they can do better by running the whole thing into the ground. I work in healthcare, I see how some things are not fair, but I believe wholeheartedly that how bad things are now is just the tip of the iceberg.
posted by Lori Heine on
“I’m completely baffled at your idea that we all need to go at life completely alone.”
Climate, I’m completely baffled at your idea that if the government doesn’t perpetually ride our asses, we have no alternative but to “go at life completely alone.”
I am imagining, a la John Lennon, a world in which people can purchase health coverage from any company they choose, even if it’s in another state. A world in which small insurance companies — no longer hampered by excessive regulation — can afford to design innovative new plans to cover those who previously could not find coverage. A world where our own government could not force us, at gunpoint, to buy an expensive product that ill suited us and make criminals out of us if we don’t (probably because many of us can’t).
The big lie from the Left is that ALL the options have been fairly considered and found wanting, so Big Momma Fed must now step in and do it all for us.
Those who become wards to the State become its slaves. The Twentieth Century abounded with examples of that lesson. It looks as though, in the Twenty-first Century, some of us need to learn it all over again.
Too bad the rest of us have to share the consequences of their dumbassery.
posted by Jimmy on
“It has been all but clear that this nation does not want healthcare ran by the government.”
Really? That’s funny. As a matter of fact, the government run healthcare we DO have in this country, Medicare, is overwhelmingly approved of by the people who are served by it. Veterans also give very high approval ratings on the healthcare they receive through the VHA. And VHA hospitals consistently rate higher than fee-for-service hospitals by NCQA (National Committee for Quality Assurance) standards.
Thanks for playing.
posted by dalea on
Democrats plan to bring up programs and policies that rev up the teapartiers. This is producing a backlash against the Republicans already. So, I suspect ENDA may still be in the pipeline. Nothing like hoards of conservatives shrieking on street corners to reve up the Democratic base.
posted by dalea on
The reason for universal health care is that diseases are infectious. They spread from person to person. It is now demonstrated that several cancers are caused by a virus. Infections play a major part in the development of heart disease. How anyone can find their freedom enhanced when people with untreated typhoid, tuberculosis, diptheria and other contagious deadly conditions are working in restaurants is beyond me.
It is like letting everyone treat their own sewerage. Some people will have indoor plumbing, others just a pit in the yard.
posted by Debrah on
How are things going over in the polls? from National Journal
Not well enough.
posted by Bobby on
“Democrats plan to bring up programs and policies that rev up the teapartiers. This is producing a backlash against the Republicans already.”
—How so? The GOP is standing against everything the Tea Partiers hate, except for David Frum, most republicans recognize that if we don’t go back to the constitutional principles of Glenn Beck and the Tea Parties, we’re going to lose a large segment of the voting public to third parties.
Democrats only listen to democrats, they are insular, out of touch, urbane, more European than American in everything they do and want. It’s funny how they love JFK when that former president was NOTHING like them. In fact, JFK was an anti-communist while Obama keeps appointing Marxists and “former” Marxists as spiritual advisers and czars. JFK never talked about social justice, economic justice or ecologic justice, yet that’s all the left talks about, and when I say “the left” I mean people with access to the president, not just Cindy Sheehan and her merry nuts.
So Dalea, in my opinion the Tea Parties are working, people like David Frum are like those insecure southerners that try to develop a yankee accent to fit in. Frum isn’t a real republican, he’s spent too much time inside the beltway, he’s out of touch with real Americans.
What the GOP needs to win is listen to the people and fight for them. The mainstream media cult of Obama is sickening, the RINO’s in the GOP are appalling, Americans are angry. If the GOP manages to capture that anger we can take back the country once again.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why can’t we all help each other so we don’t have to be bankrupted by our health?
Acoolerclimate, if you want to help other people so that they won’t be bankrupted by their health, be my guest. No one’s stopping you for paying for other peoples’ health insurance, are they? You could reach into your pocket right now WITHOUT ObamaCare and pay for other peoples’ health insurance.
Have you done it?
A good example of why this is such a red herring from liberals is this little statistical point here:
People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Nancy Pelosi is a freaking multimillionaire. She has more than enough money to buy thousands of families health insurance on her own. Her husband owns multiple buildings in San Francisco and elsewhere that she could be giving away free occupancy from so that the homeless could be housed.
Is she doing it? No. Instead she’s taking money from people with far less of it, thus inconveniencing them and reducing their own assets. She is being “charitable” — with other peoples’ money that she has taken from them by force. Furthermore, since her actions punish people who have already demonstrated responsibility by earning money and using it to purchase their own health insurance, she is motivating exactly the wrong behavior.
This is what Ayn Rand referred to as “mooching”. People like Pelosi use the poor as an excuse for taking from other people and avoiding their own personal inconvenience.
posted by Debrah on
“You could reach into your pocket right now WITHOUT ObamaCare and pay for other peoples’ health insurance. Have you done it?”
*********************************
ROTFLM-tits-O !!!
posted by Jimmy on
“Nancy Pelosi is a freaking multimillionaire. She has more than enough money to buy thousands of families health insurance on her own.”
Hell, with that line of thinking, Madame Speaker is naturally paying way too much in taxes, and should have her taxes cut even more.
“People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.”
Depends on what is considered charitable” giving”. Is tithing at church, which is deducible, figured into such “giving”? What percentage of that amount actually goes toward providing services? Liberals believe public institutions, supported by taxes, do a better job at addressing public need, and THEY DO!
Since red states are essentially welfare queens, in that they take in more federal dollars than they contribute, they would do well to adequately fund their state programs, through taxation, thereby reducing the charity they require from the GUBMINT.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Liberals believe public institutions, supported by taxes, do a better job at addressing public need, and THEY DO!
What exactly would you define as that “public need”?
If it’s putting over ten percent of annual outlays from Medicare and Medicaid into the pockets of criminals, then yes, the government is doing swimmingly. A 10% annual fraud rate would send a private or nonprofit company sinking below the waves in a hurry and torpedo any charitable organization, but of course, it’s the government, so the normal rules of success don’t apply.
Since red states are essentially welfare queens, in that they take in more federal dollars than they contribute, they would do well to adequately fund their state programs, through taxation, thereby reducing the charity they require from the GUBMINT.
Ah yes, this old canard.
The reason why is very straightforward. The average cost of living in the red states is lower, so average annual salaries can be lower without any decrease in purchasing power. However, since the income tax is progressive, those blue states with higher costs of living and the resulting higher salaries required pay more in income tax.
In short, it’s a problem of liberals’ own making. They choose to make their states more expensive to live in through excessive and stupid regulation, thus requiring salaries to be raised and increasing the Federal tax burden of individuals.
Hell, with that line of thinking, Madame Speaker is naturally paying way too much in taxes, and should have her taxes cut even more.
Actually, the top 5% of taxpayers in this country alread pay over half of the income taxes.
What you don’t realize, Jimmy, is that taxing the productive only raises costs for the poor. Businesses respond to tax increases by doing two things — raising prices and cutting other expenses, primarily payroll. In short, your jealousy and class envy doesn’t really affect the people who you are trying to target, but it does have a substantial impact on those you are trying to protect.
posted by JP on
“Medicare, is overwhelmingly approved of by the people who are served by it. Veterans also give very high approval ratings on the healthcare they receive through the VHA. And VHA hospitals consistently rate higher than fee-for-service hospitals by NCQA (National Committee for Quality Assurance) standards.”
I personally work in emergency medicine on an ambulance and pick up quite a few vets. Our local VA hospital just recently began accepting vets that we pick up, but only just recently. Also, they aren’t as happy with their healthcare as you might think. You also might want to do some research on how difficult it is to get certain services through the VA, many of our troops are being abused by this system, but if you want to be deluded by some committee, feel free, that’s your right.
As to Medicare, of course the people that are on it love it, you are just proving my point with that comment. I especially love taking the droves of people with 000-00-0000 as their social security number to the ER that never ever pay a bill. Medicare is an abused system, I see it firsthand. Some people need it, more people abuse it when they use it.
posted by Jimmy on
“In short, your jealousy and class envy doesn’t really affect the people who you are trying to target, but it does have a substantial impact on those you are trying to protect.”
Not really. You’re the one griping about Pelosi’s millions. I like rich people, in fact, I need rich people in that the business I am involved in needs them, the ones who actually do produce or bring something of value to the market, that is.
But what we are all dealing with right now is not the fact that we are overtaxed, but rather, the current situation that is the result of the Objectivists on Wall Street who created a lot of wealth that was based on nothing of value, which literally broke the bank. Then they got theirs from the fed only to hold on to it to further enrich themselves rather than fulfilling their function by extending credit to businesses and get this economy moving again. Without credit lines, businesses can’t do business.
So it irks me when people like you, NDT, go around quoting a sociopath like Rand. And a sociopath is exactly what she was.
posted by Lori Heine on
“[T]he Objectivists on Wall Street…” who “got theirs from the fed”???
Jimmy, you might want to learn a little more about “The Objectivists” before trying to stick that label on the recipients of corporate welfare.
Actual Objectivists don’t believe in taxpayer-funded welfare of ANY kind — and that includes corporate welfare.
I’d take more seriously your characterization of Ayn Rand as a “sociopath” if you could offer even one shred of evidence that you’ve ever read any of her work.
posted by BobN on
Ah yes, this old canard.
I see no documentation of ND30’s theory. Odd. He’s usually so good with the links. His theory being utter hogwash might be the reason…
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
His theory being utter hogwash might be the reason
Or so BobN thinks.
Even if you don’t like Barack Obama’s plan to raise tax rates for families earning more than $250,000, give the Democratic presidential candidate credit for this: The proposal doesn’t pick on the red states.
In fact, Obama’s wealthy targets are found most often in high-income, high-cost-of-living states that have voted Democratic in recent presidential contests and are likely to do so again.
And there’s more.
We first present the comparison of red and blue statesâmore formally, regressions of Republican share of the two-party presidential vote on state average per-capita income. Figure 1a shows that, since the 1976 election, there has been a steady downward trend in the income coefficient over time. As time has gone on, richer states have increasingly favored the Democrats. So far, this fits with the âDavid Brooksâ story of increasing elite support for the left, rather than the âHorace Greeleyâ story of elite support for the right. Rich, âblueâ states such as California and New York are voting for Democratic presidential candidates, while poorer, âredâ states like Alabama and Mississippi are voting Republican. For the past twenty years, the same patterns appear when fitting Southern and non-Southern states separately (Figure 1b,c).
There has been a trend of richer states supporting the Democrats. It makes sense that the âred/blueâ issue has been more widely discussed in recent years, as this pattern has become increasingly clear.
Perhaps if you would actually do some research instead of simply repeating your Obama talking points, BobN, you wouldn’t make these kind of mistakes.
But what we are all dealing with right now is not the fact that we are overtaxed, but rather, the current situation that is the result of the Objectivists on Wall Street who created a lot of wealth that was based on nothing of value, which literally broke the bank.
Actually, it wasn’t Wall Street that was creating the problem.
Between 2005 and 2007, Fannie and Freddie acquired so many junk mortgages that, as of August 2008, they held or had guaranteed more than $1.011 trillion in unpaid principal balance exposures on these loans. The losses already recognized on these exposures were responsible for the collapse of Fannie and Freddie and their takeover by the federal government, and there are undoubtedly many more losses to come.
And who created, backstopped, and ordered Fannie and Freddie to purchase and securitize risky vaporware mortgages in the name of “affordable housing”?
That’s right; the Obama Party-dominated Congress. Government. In short, government tanked the global financial markets.
posted by BobN on
Perhaps if you would actually do some research instead of simply repeating your Obama talking points, BobN, you wouldn’t make these kind of mistakes.
I’m not quite sure why you did all that work without addressing the hogwashery of your assertion. Regardless of how and why different state populations send more or less money to the federal government, so-called red states receive more in federal payouts than blue states. It has nothing to do with local salaries, etc. and everything to do with federal support for building infrastructure in conservative states and ignoring large population centers on the coasts because federal support of things like mass transit is “socialism”. Building highways in Alabama, on the other hand, is “investing in capitalism”.
posted by BobN on
Between 2005 and 2007
The Dems retook the Congress in the Nov., 2006 elections, with the new Congress taking office in Jan., 2007.
Another case of Democratic retroactive domination, no doubt.
posted by Bobby on
“Our local VA hospital just recently began accepting vets that we pick up, but only just recently. Also, they aren’t as happy with their healthcare as you might think. You also might want to do some research on how difficult it is to get certain services through the VA, many of our troops are being abused by this system, but if you want to be deluded by some committee, feel free, that’s your right.”
—If they want to try going to a private clinic, they can do so. In the past I have gone to Urgent Care and paid less than $100 for medical attention. Also, people who work for the government are rarely happy with anything, they always want more benefits, higher salaries, did you know that the average government salary is way higher than the average private sector salary? Those soldiers are getting free health care, free housing, room and board stipends if they live outside the base, excelent pension benefits, lots of money for college, if they’re married it’s their SPOUSE that gets money for college… So I’m not gonna take complaints against the VA seriously, these people are getting something for free at taxpayer’s expense, they should be grateful.
posted by Jimmy on
No Lori, I haven’t read her work. I haven’t read the Koran either, but I hear there are some who have corrupted that faith too.
I have viewed every taped instance of Rand, interviews, bios, etc, that I can get my hands on and I’m convinced that freak-show is better on film than in print.
I’m sure those fellows I referred to earlier DID her sh*t, though. Coupled with getting their cues from Greenspan, one of Rand’s lap dogs, they pretty much took it to its natural actualization.
As to Rand’s motivations and ideations:
http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shrieked-why-ayn-rands-right-wing-followers-are-scarier-than-the-manson-family-and-the-gruesome-story-of-the-serial-killer-who-stole-ayn-rands-heart/
posted by Jimmy on
NDT, reading is fun.
http://daytonos.com/?p=3601
posted by Christopher on
Probably more on target than most of his comments to the post would indicate. Simple fact of the matter is the issues that plague the rights of Homosexual Americans never touch the lives of those who represent us in the political realm and until we get representation this will not change.
Sexual Equality and Health Care were never bound together in people’s minds, but they shared a similar heartbeat in politics. Time to start campaigning not for our rights, but for the positions that can initiate our rights into reality.
-C
posted by Debrah on
“So I’m not gonna take complaints against the VA seriously, these people are getting something for free at taxpayer’s expense, they should be grateful.”
*******************************************
People in the military are rewarded quite well when you consider that so many have only high school degrees.
Anyone employed by the government or by any institution benefiting from government funding—(taxpayer funds)—knows very little (or cares) about the real cost of things.
It would shock most people to consider the salary levels they enjoy for doing so very little.
Their excellent health-care plans and pension plans for doing so very little.
And the majority of them are the dimwits you may remember from university who barely slid by, intellectually.
One thing to remember: So-called “poor people” and the very wealthy have nothing to worry about.
The former receive any type of health-care imaginable at public expense which is passed on to others with inflated doctor and hospital fee schedules.
The latter are able simply pay out-of-pocket if they don’t like being tossed around by the insurance companies.
As always, it’s the people in the middle who bear the real burden.
posted by Debrah on
From Rand’s wiki …….
Rand’s political views, reflected in both her fiction and her theoretical work, emphasize individual rights (including property rights) and laissez-faire capitalism, enforced by a constitutionally-limited government. She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, socialism, and the welfare state, and promoted ethical egoism while rejecting the ethic of altruism. She considered reason to be the only means of acquiring knowledge and the most important aspect of her philosophy, stating, “I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.”
*************************************
Hmmm….
Sounds pretty good.
posted by Debrah on
“Sexual Equality and Health Care were never bound together in people’s minds….”
****************************
Ah, but a gay man with a hard-on for this beaten-to-death agenda will always find a way to contaminate any discussion inside any arena or forum with the sweet little refrain— “marriage equality”.
And, consequently, comes off sounding like a real fruit, no matter how intelligent he might be on other subjects.
When one considers the ravages of the AIDS epidemic and the financial burden it has brought on the country for decades, I’d say it’s quite easy to relate “health-care” and the gay definition of “sexual equality” .
“Sexual equality” ?
It would seem that some types of “sexual equality”—(insofar as observers actually believe you do not already have the “right” to express your sexuality as you wish)—come with a higher price than others.
And your definition of “marriage equality” requires us all to basically suspend reality.
posted by Lori Heine on
“I haven’t read the Koran either, but I hear there are some who have corrupted that faith too.”
The question remains: are people always to be taken as exactly what they claim to be — even if they do specifically make that claim?
I doubt many Wall Street honchos would specifically refer to themselves as “Objectivists.” If they did, it wouldn’t necessarily be because they had read Rand and knew what she meant by the term.
I am tired of being lectured about the horrors of capitalism by people who give no indication they know what it means. If you think it’s what we had under “eight years of George W. Bush,” then you have no clue what it is.
We haven’t had real capitalism in this country for nearly eighty years. What we have more closely resembles what Germany had under Hitler — it is a type of socialism that redistributes wealth, via corporate welfare, to the biggest companies and drives smaller competitors out of business. Most of our attempts to punish big business, the “little people” merely end up paying for.
If Atlas is shrieking, he may have a damned good reason.
posted by Jimmy on
Capitalism is fine as it pertains to widgets and the services devoted to keep widgets working. When I see Joan Rivers peddling her junk jewelry QVC and HSN, and doing very well at it, I conclude that capitalism is in no danger of going anywhere.
“We haven’t had real capitalism in this country for nearly eighty years.”
People who wax sentimental for 1927 and 1928, while willfully ignoring 1929 and its causes, should never be trusted to play with other people’s money.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Here’s a table showing the monthly salaries of enlisted-rank military personnel. The range is from $1,447/mo. (for a private who’s been in less than two years) to $6,130/mo. (for someone who’s put in 26 years of service AND attained the rank of Sergeant Major, assuming for the sake of example that we’re talking about the Army or USMC).
posted by Throbert McGee on
Oh, those spoiled, whiny soldiers, sucking at the public teat…
posted by Lori Heine on
“People who wax sentimental for 1927 and 1928, while willfully ignoring 1929 and its causes, should never be trusted to play with other people’s money.”
And you claim we’re “ignoring 1929 and its causes…” how? Now you’re shifting all over the place. What has that to do with Objectivism, and your original assertion that Wall Street robber-barons are all adherents of that philosophy?
In 1921, incidentally, there was an economic downturn that could have proven to be as disastrous as the one in ’29. It was handled far differently, resulting not in long-term Depression but in a decade of unprecedented prosperity.
I guess they’re only “Objectivists” if they fail to generate prosperity for all the shrieking Atlases.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Regardless of how and why different state populations send more or less money to the federal government, so-called red states receive more in federal payouts than blue states.
Ah, but that wasn’t the question asked, now was it?
Since red states are essentially welfare queens, in that they take in more federal dollars than they contribute, they would do well to adequately fund their state programs, through taxation, thereby reducing the charity they require from the GUBMINT.
As I pointed out, there’s a perfectly good reason for why red states contribute less. You just didn’t like having your narrative destroyed.
Next:
The Dems retook the Congress in the Nov., 2006 elections, with the new Congress taking office in Jan., 2007.
Another case of Democratic retroactive domination, no doubt.
Perhaps you should read the article you were provided more closely instead of, once again, simply repeating Obama talking points.
It is eloquent testimony to the power of Fannie and Freddie in Congress that even after these extraordinary events there was no significant effort to improve or enhance the powers of their regulator. The House Financial Services Committee developed a bill that was so badly weakened by GSE lobbying that the Bush administration refused to support it. The Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, adopted much stronger legislation in 2005, but unanimous Democratic opposition to the bill in the committee doomed it when it reached the floor. Without any significant Democratic support, debate could not be ended in the Senate, and the bill was never brought up for a vote. This was a crucial missed opportunity. The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBS); that measure alone would have prevented the disastrous investment activities of the GSEs in the years that followed. GSE immunity to accounting scandal is especially remarkable when it is recalled that after accounting fraud was found at Enron (and later at WorldCom), Congress adopted the punitive Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which imposed substantial costs on every public company in the United States. The GSEs’ investment in controlling their political risk–at least among the Democrats–was apparently money well spent.
This is no surprise. After all, Barack Obama’s own campaign finance chair was one of the people profiting off subprime mortgages and leaving others holding the bag. And we all know about Barack Obama’s connections to Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, the corrupt heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
posted by Bobby on
This is a good example of how public workers like cops have it made:
“Some of the cops on the list are simply hard workers. The third highest earner last year, for instance, was Sgt. Hyok Chong, the force’s only Korean speaker. He has amassed a clean IA file during 13 years on the job. He brought home $177,827.36 last year.
Then there’s Sgt. Jerome Berrian. In 2004, Miramar Police responded to a call at the then-34-year-old patrol officer’s home. Inside, they found his wife, Velma, had been hit in the lip and head. He was accused of domestic violence for striking her and trying to backhand her daughter during a fiery argument. The case was never prosecuted after Berrian’s wife refused to press charges.
Three years later, in 2007, Berrian hauled in $225,065.15. About $38,000 of that came from an off-duty job, but from taxpayers he still made $77,000 in salary, $99,700 in overtime, and almost $10,000 in so-called premium pay, which is compensation for special classes, motorcycle work, and other tasks.
Over the past five years, in fact, Berrian has made more than three-quarters of a million bucks: $824,528 to be exact. He worked plenty of off-duty hours for private employers. But even if you subtract that pay, he still garnered more than $730,000 in tax dollars â $146,000 per year.
Berrian is a prime example of one of the dangers of allowing officers to work so much overtime”
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-03-25/news/miami-beach-cops-are-paid-up-to-225k-and-face-lawsuits-galore/
posted by BobN on
Perhaps you should read the article you were provided
ND30, I’m stunned that you think anyone familiar with your modus operandi would read anything you link to. I stopped giving you the benefit of the doubt long, long ago.
posted by dalea on
Once again, I remain astonished that the proprietors of this blog have allowed ND40 to post here. As someone who has posted for over a decade, I can remember when this was a vibrant and flowering space for libertarian gays to congregate. As someone who actually organized a get together for libertaian gays in the pre-AndrewSullivan scandal period, I find the political correctness demonstrated by the propriators to be both counter-productive and futile. All that has been produced is a blog that allows the most viscious right wing filth while alientating actual gay libertarian voices. I truly wish the moderates would take some personal responsibility for their choices in running IGF.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Um, what kind of “actual libertarian” responds to a social nuisance (such as secondhand smoke, or annoying forum posts) by calling for stricter regulation from the top down?
I’m perfectly capable of ignoring ND30 if I want to — which, admittedly, is nearly always the case. That’s what the scroll wheel on my mouse is for.
posted by Throbert McGee on
But having made that point, I will also say that in this particular thread, ND30’s posts have been high on interesting signal and low on the noisy, time-wasting personal abuse that he’s notorious for. So Ms. Dahlia picked a weird time to complain about “vicious right-wing filth.”
posted by Debrah on
My senses tell me that “dalea” has feasted inside a Leftist ideological reticulation for so long that when someone—anyone!—with the pertinacity of ND30 surfaces, the affected Libertarian ambience so parsimoniously displayed by some……
…….is easily disrobed.
Naked, albeit impotent, glory.
One of the main features of the gay community that is so self-defeating is its cultivated insularity.
Only eclipsed by the constant navel-gazing and pity-parties.
And for what?
A specialness because of the way one expresses their sexuality.
It’s a constant assault on the senses and so often good and decent people become the victims of this splenetic “minority” and its self-service.
ND30, Bobby, Throbert, and a few others serve as examples that not everyone is a clone inside this world of constant pettiness.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ND30, I’m stunned that you think anyone familiar with your modus operandi would read anything you link to. I stopped giving you the benefit of the doubt long, long ago.
This reminds me of an incident back when I was teaching of a student who tried to avoid a bad grade for failure to complete a required essay with the argument that the story over which the essay was to be written had too many curse words in it. The mother’s imaginative excuse, when she was asked to point out exactly what constituted curse words, was to say that, since I had previously assigned a story that was “disturbing” (“A Rose for Emily”, if anyone is interested), that it was natural for her to assume that this particular story would be objectionable.
As the principal put it to her, “You certainly have a right to your opinion. However, the fact that you chose not to inform yourself prior to making it does not make your opinion any more valid in comparison to the facts.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
All that has been produced is a blog that allows the most viscious right wing filth while alientating actual gay libertarian voices.
Yes, dalea, we all know that you would prefer to be the arbiter of right and wrong, gay and straight, in and out here.
Hit a nerve did I, Lori?
Fundy housewives who want to pose as out dykes are so easy to smoke out.
Meanwhile, there seems to be a bit of confusion here as to regarding libertarianism. True libertarianism talks both about freedom and responsibility and has no space for identity politics. Your philosophy is far more akin to libertinism, in which responsibility is avoided, morals and sanctions are spurned, and all becomes acceptable in the pursuit of pleasure because of your membership in a certain group.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Pssst, ND30 (and everyone): The “blockquote” tag works fine on IGF now (there was a time when the server seemed to choke on this tag, forcing people to use bold or itals for quoted text) and can help avoid confusion, especially when you’re quoting someone else INSIDE your own post, instead of before it.
< blockquote > text < / blockquote >
(But, of course, you should close up the spaces inside the angle-brackets, as you do for any HTML tag.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
You can even nest blockquotes inside of blockquotes, as I did in the preceding example.
(But I added the “ND30 quotes dalea” manually — the blockquote tag doesn’t do that automatically. It simply encloses your quoted text between two vertical lines that are indented on both the left and right.)
posted by Lori Heine on
The jig is up! I’m a “fundy housewife!”
One question about being “smoked out” — is it painful?
Funny how, in their speculations about those who say things they dislike, people usually manage to say more about themselves that about the ones they’re trying to smear.
Anyone who believes that all Christians aren’t evil (which I believe was the context of that quote) MUST be a “fundy housewife” pretending — for some unfathomable but surely hilarious reason — to be an “out dyke.”
One would think that Google had never been invented.
Like unto it is the notion that, if one wants to talk about something in these comments besides orgasms, one must be a stinky old prude.
Leave aside the logic of coming to a website dedicated to substantive political discussion when one wishes to discuss sex. Are there no places on the Internet one might more logically go to scratch that particular itch?
Seriously, Dalea and I made peace a long time ago, though I appreciate NDT being in my corner.
I come here to talk about politics because this is a political website. If I were a fundy housewife, there are surely places I’d find more interesting to go than this one. If I were trying to convert people to my religious beliefs, I’d do it ALL THE TIME, not only in a single instance. I don’t think fundy churches give out those little gold stars unless their missionaries persevere!
And if I were a prude, I would just faint and clutch my pearls. If I wore them, of course. I don’t believe I’ve ever had any.
posted by JP on
“–If they want to try going to a private clinic, they can do so. In the past I have gone to Urgent Care and paid less than $100 for medical attention. Also, people who work for the government are rarely happy with anything, they always want more benefits, higher salaries, did you know that the average government salary is way higher than the average private sector salary? Those soldiers are getting free health care, free housing, room and board stipends if they live outside the base, excelent pension benefits, lots of money for college, if they’re married it’s their SPOUSE that gets money for college… So I’m not gonna take complaints against the VA seriously, these people are getting something for free at taxpayer’s expense, they should be grateful.”
Bobby, somehow I think you are making my point. Now apply that to the whole country who will want something for nothing. At least the troops are dying for us, whether you believe we are there for the right reason or not, they at least are serving their country, and dying for it in the process.
posted by JP on
“And your definition of “marriage equality” requires us all to basically suspend reality”
Uh Debrah, no it doesn’t. You are being stupid and dramatic. I don’t think there is any other way to say it unfortunately. Aids is not a gay disease either. Africa is ravaged at this point. What you are saying is analogous to saying that cervical cancer is caused by being heterosexual. Also, you people seem to forget that GAY women have the “lowest” incidence of Aids. Maybe you should become a lesbian.
posted by JP on
“Once again, I remain astonished that the proprietors of this blog have allowed ND40 to post here. As someone who has posted for over a decade, I can remember when this was a vibrant and flowering space for libertarian gays to congregate. As someone who actually organized a get together for libertaian gays in the pre-AndrewSullivan scandal period, I find the political correctness demonstrated by the propriators to be both counter-productive and futile. All that has been produced is a blog that allows the most viscious right wing filth while alientating actual gay libertarian voices. I truly wish the moderates would take some personal responsibility for their choices in running IGF.”
Everyone deserves their opinion Dalea. I don’t agree with his opinions usually but he is an american deserves as much of a voice as we do. It should be about changing hearts, not shutting up voices.
posted by JP on
McGee,
I do appreciate your lesson on quoting in html. However, I hope you are okay with me simply using quotation marks.
posted by Debrah on
TO JP–
I can’t decide if I want to do a Rahm Emanuel or a William F. Buckley type of response to some of your cliched logorrhea.
Everyone knows all about Africa. This is not an Out of Africa conversation.
Have someone go through the “60 Minutes” archives for you and check out the esposé the late Ed Bradley did long ago about how the disease was first spread in the U. S.
From where and from whom.
I don’t really want to belabor the obvious; however, anyone for whom anal sex is a constant joy ride into ecstasy is at monumental risk compared to other groups.
Moreover, HIV mixed with the drug culture was/is a potent combination.
“Aids is not a gay disease…”
****************************
G/d, please find another cliché. That one went out when poor Ryan White allowed himself to be its poster boy.
And, of course, anyone placing themselves in similar situations of risk can get any disease.
However, many gay men have certainly done all they can to make it a “gay disease”.
Do you think everyone in this country has developed amnesia?
Just check out the life and times of Brit transplant….cum….gadfly writer Andrew Sullivan. Super Andy didn’t let HIV slow him down in the bare-backing parade.
Yet he’s very, very, very “respectable” and “celebrated”.
“Also, [ ‘you people’ ] seem to forget that GAY women have the ‘lowest’ incidence of Aids. Maybe you should become a lesbian.”
*********************************
Well, maybe everyone should become a lesbian.
Avoiding contact with the almighty appendage does seem the safest way to go.
Although, I doubt if gay men could survive without giving a blow job at the drop of a hat. It seems to be their extension of Mama’s pacifier.
The bulge circuit is a big business with gay men. Most heterosexual women don’t obsess and go nuts over bulging cocks in quite the same way.
LIS!
posted by Throbert McGee on
Of course not — to obsess over bulging cocks, they’d first have to tear their attention away from other women’s shoes…
posted by Throbert McGee on
Guilty as charged. (Or, like they say in metric, “It’s a fair cop!”)
Cock is comfort food.
P.S. Mind you, I don’t do it at the drop of a hat anymore — I’ve learned that it’s much more spiritually rewarding when you reserve sexual pleasuring for someone special. But still, if a genie granted me eternal youth and measureless wealth on the condition that I never suck a penis again, I wouldn’t take it — because it’s such a wonderful pleasure for me to do this for a man that I like and respect, knowing that he’s eager and happy to reciprocate.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, somehow I think you are making my point. Now apply that to the whole country who will want something for nothing. At least the troops are dying for us, whether you believe we are there for the right reason or not, they at least are serving their country, and dying for it in the process.”
—Oh, I support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, not that I want to be spreading democracy all the time, but once in a while it’s good to use our military. By the way, a lot of military people don’t mind putting themselves in dangerous situations, after all, going to war is more exciting than participating in drills all the time.
Also, it’s not all our troops that are dying for us, so far we’ve had about 10,000 death out of like a million soldiers. So while I honor our death, this isn’t like Vietnam or WW2. Truth is without danger there can be no heroism. And before anyone asks me why don’t I join the military, I have two thinks to say. 1. Not everyone can join. 2. Not everyone belongs in the military.
Sometime ago I wanted to join, so I went to the Navy, Marines, Army, National Guard and Air Force website. Then I decided to buy a book called “American Gulag” which is based on real life experiences in the US military during Vietnam. After reading in detail how soldiers in basic training had to clean their barracks, carry beds outside of them, pass inspection, I started getting second thoughts. Then when I read of military exercizes like running 4 miles, the confidence course, etc, I decided, this place wasn’t for me. I’m not a team player, I don’t have attention to detail, I’m self-absorbed and self-involved, I’m used to being comfortable, I’m not a morning person, in short, I don’t belong there and if I joined and was accepted I would probably be more of a burden than anything else.
posted by JP on
Debrah,
It’s hard to argue with ignorance which is what you are. If two men who do not have aids sleep with each other (i.e. anal sex), they cannot get aids. It cannot happen. I also love how you people LOVE to talk about gay men and seem to always forget, conveniently, about how gay women have the lowest incidence of Aids, including heterosexuals. I know, I know, it’s your fear tactics. But seriously I’m over it and you have a right to your opinion, however you are just a crazy nut case of whom I hope one day God will rebuke and open your eyes. Of course, that’s my opinion.
posted by JP on
Debrah,
Also, don’t fool yourself to think that gay men hold the corner on the market of sex obsession. Look at TV, look at a magazine, look at birth rates for God’s sake. Sex is an obsession with which no one holds the market. You are so pompous and arrogant it’s disgusting. You who present yourself as a self righteous, judgmental, God. I suggest you learn to remove the plank from your own eye and learn about the life of jesus a bit more. I am a christian and I am saying these things to you because you need it, whether you think you do or not.
posted by Jimmy on
“I am a christian and I am saying these things to you because you need it, whether you think you do or not.”
LOL!!! However self-righteous Debrah may seem, she certainly doesn’t have the market cornered on that trait, and certainly not on this forum.
posted by Debrah on
TO JP–
I don’t really want to insult you as you have tried to use base insults……for it is painfully clear that those are your major debating tools.
Understandable, I suppose, when you know you cannot argue with the realities…….albeit rather useless.
“If two men who do not have aids sleep with each other (i.e. anal sex), they cannot get aids. It cannot happen”
**********************************************
You see, right here you have invented a red herring as diversion.
I DID NOT even say this.
Your problem, and the problem of other feverish men like you is that you know that most gay men are not monogamous…..or even want to be.
Go over to “Toll Road” and check some of the comments. Gay men admit readily that what Dan Savage says about this topic is very true.
Take a look at the comment section of this thread.
I realize that this puts a huge dripping hole in the quest for “gay marriage”, but why blame the outside world for repeating what gays, themselves, admit?
“I am a christian and I am saying these things to you because you need it, whether you think you do or not.”
**********************************************
Well, after what I’ve been through the last several months, I’ll take that under advisement.
Although, I will never use religion as a crutch……or as a weapon inside a debate……simply because I’m not religious!
posted by Debrah on
“…….if a genie granted me eternal youth and measureless wealth on the condition that I never suck a penis again, I wouldn’t take it — because it’s such a wonderful pleasure for me to do this for a man that I like and respect, knowing that he’s eager and happy to reciprocate.”
*******************************************
Throbert dah-ling, that’s boundless dedication!
posted by JP on
“I don’t really want to insult you as you have tried to use base insults……for it is painfully clear that those are your major debating tools.”-Debrah
Maybe you should go back and read your posts Debrah, you are quite insulting. What you think all gay men are does not match me in the least so what you are saying is offensive and just plain wrong. You have no basis in fact whatsoever because I have not presented myself in that manner. However, the way you are presenting yourself is exactly what I feel I described. It is not a self righteous judgment against you as Jimmy obviously thinks, it’s just how you have presented yourself. I don’t dislike you because I don’t know you, I am just making statements based on what you have posted.
Also, Throbert represents Throbert, not me. His decision with the genie is purely his. However that being said, I am sure that his decision does not solely apply to gay people, I’m sure many straight women would probably agree with him. Of course I don’t believe that that applies to ALL straight women, because that would be preposterous, HHmmm?
posted by Debrah on
“Maybe you should go back and read your posts Debrah, you are quite insulting.”
***************************************
I prefer to view my approach as employing signature unadulterated candor.
Why show up if you want to offer a Sunday school schtick and gloss over facts that are well-known to everyone?
This is culture war debate…….”We’re not making dolls.”
Heaven knows, the gay world in general, and its mascots and janissaries have carved out an unusually loud and obnoxious place for themselves in which there is a constant assault on others who will not yield to their bastardization of reality—hoping to co-opt the very term “marriage” (as just one example) that is such a fundamental feature of the much-loathed “heteronormative” world.
Grand irony by anyone’s assessment.
However, “JP”, say anything you wish. I wasn’t suggesting that you should refrain from insults……just that insults are your primary debating tools.
Also, it’s always a good idea to avoid proselytizing as if you’re auditioning to be the side-kick of the oily Pat Robertson.
More grand irony.
Throbert is a bon vivant cyber gem. Obviously, he and I don’t agree on a number of things; however, people like Throbert can thrive in any atmosphere simply because he exhibits the always-refreshing ability to view life in objective terms.
He isn’t tethered to his own d!ck as the definition of his very existence.
And Jimmy has a great point. Self-righteousness abounds.
The only difference is that I am right!
LIS!
posted by Jimmy on
“The only difference is that I am right!”
Oh, Lawd!
posted by Throbert McGee on
My genie scenario was, incidentally, a sort of trick question. Everyone properly schooled in myths and fairy tales knows that if a genie (or other magical creature) offers you immortality and/or eternal youth, always say “FUCK NO” and walk away — this is one of those wishes that never, ever turns out happily.
Either you shrivel down to a grasshopper, or you get transformed into a statue/painting, or you wind up as a perpetually handsome 25-year-old with senile dementia, or you find yourself trapped in an inescapable prison unable to find relief by suicide, or you become a zombie-vampire and your soul is damned to Hell, etc.
posted by JP on
“He isn’t tethered to his own d!ck as the definition of his very existence.”
Yet that’s what you claim we are. Now you are confusing me. What point are you exactly trying to make.
Me, not a big fan of Pat Robertson, and I apologize if I came off too preachy but as a gay christian, I tend to have to fend for myself on all sides of the equation. As far as my insults go, I believe it is not my main claim to debate. I feel that I stated my points quite well and if you don’t agree then that’s your choice. My insults were simply pointed to how I felt you were coming across and making blanket statements as if you are some scholar on the subject which I clearly do not agree with. So, in the sense that I used insulting language, I also apologize. However, the base argument still stands and I don’t feel your opinions on the matter are based on any fact, but rather your own prejudiced feelings. I hope you can accept my apologies and that we can agree to just disagree because I think it’s apparent that we can’t do otherwise.
posted by Throbert McGee on
By the way, it occurs to me a little belatedly that Debrah’s suggested Freudian reading of fellatio as “Mama’s pacifier” is way off target for many guys in the “MSM demographic.” If you want to explain the cocksucking urge in psychoanalytic terms, I think it’s often better understood as a sort of symbolic cannibalism. Much as the primitive hunter would eat the raw liver of the slain mammoth (or bear or saber-tooth lion or whatever) in order to obtain the beast’s strength, speed, vitality, etc., so the male fellator subconsciously desires to increase his own masculinity by “eating” another guy’s “manhood.”
Of course, there are other guys who, instead, prefer to see it as self-feminizing when they smoke someone else’s sausage (that is, they’re aroused and gratified by the idea that the act “makes them into a bitch”). And still other guys may do it as a self-infantilizing act, for all I know — so that it really is “an extension of Mama’s pacifier”.
posted by Debrah on
“I hope you can accept my apologies and that we can agree to just disagree because I think it’s apparent that we can’t do otherwise.”
***************************************
Sure, I have no problem with that, and I certainly wouldn’t suggest that you stop insulting people if you want.
My statements may come across as insults; however, they are really just an honest assessment of things that I see which are often glossed over by gays….especially gay men.
I previously never got into this culture war debate and was quite dispassionate about it, really.
However, with all the hoopla about SSM beginning last year, it seemed that lots of people in the gay community overreached and became a bit arrogant in their positions.
More than a few contaminated, needlessly, other fora and discussions with this issue; however, I noticed that when some disagreed with them, debate was shut down.
That was interesting to witness and I must admit that I experienced a bit of Schadenfreude when SSM was defeated in Maine….simply because of the cold and arrogant attitudes of some and the illogical tactics.
I don’t care what the debate is about, when I see self-serving and unfair tactics used, I usually speak up…….and this SSM issue which was previously not even on my radar screen has become one of interest.
I’ve begun to sympathize, somewhat, with SSM detractors when they say that the gay community is really asking for something that isn’t real—a “marriage” between a couple of the same sex.
And many elements of gay male culture are a real turn-off for many. I now understand that well. A quest for “marriage” amid acceptance of raw and celebrated promiscuity.
The many disconnects are rarely addressed.
posted by Debrah on
“If you want to explain the cocksucking urge in psychoanalytic terms, I think it’s often better understood as a sort of symbolic cannibalism.”
********************************
Most provocative, Throbert.
This one seems to be a more “manly” take on the subject.
“Of course, there are other guys who, instead, prefer to see it as self-feminizing when they smoke someone else’s sausage (that is, they’re aroused and gratified by the idea that the act ‘makes them into a bitch’).”
*********************************
This one is the most repulsive.
Remember the guy who played Harvey Milk’s lover in “Milk”……a little feathery man who walked like an eight year-old Brownie Scout? IMO, that character ruined the film in many ways.
You have to wonder about Harvey Milk and how any semi-intelligent man could be attracted to such a person.
That’s what people think about—if they think about it at all.
What’s in a man’s head if his sexual appetites are satisfied by such a strange little waif of a man?
In any case, Throbert, the strange nonstop preoccupation with other men’s bulges is a provocative topic…….and you can be counted on to make it even more so!
posted by Jimmy on
I think there are also the BJ aficionados out there, like yours truly, a self-styled “Little Oral Annie”, who are simply orally fixated.
I do think there is something to Throbert’s first analogy. I have thought about that, too.
posted by BobN on
Remember the guy who played Harvey Milk’s lover in “Milk”……a little feathery man who walked like an eight year-old Brownie Scout? IMO, that character ruined the film in many ways.
You have to wonder about Harvey Milk and how any semi-intelligent man could be attracted to such a person.
The cool thing about relationships — well, hetero ones — is that no one feels the need to justify the attraction. The heart wants what the heart wants. I suppose you would have been more approving if Harvey had been chasing bulges???
As for “feathery” people, look to your own team on that score and explain the dimwitted blond archetype before you start ragging on Harvey’s partner.
posted by LaShon on
I think you may have a point.
posted by Debrah on
TO BobN–
Don’t look to me for a defense of the dumb blonde waif.
Bobby can tell you that I am no apologist for goofy hetero women.
I employ no discrimination with respect to my “critiques”. LOL!
But allow me to give you a dose of reality: When men are with other men, it’s a whole different ball game….as much as you’d like to believe otherwise.
Giving it and taking it in the rear places this issue in a whole new orbit.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby can tell you that I am no apologist for goofy hetero women.”
—Debrah, I find you absolutely fascinating, like a centrist Ann Coulter.
“Giving it and taking it in the rear places this issue in a whole new orbit.”
—Yes, the anus is a tricky area. In the porn movies anal sex looks so easy, in real life it takes practice, relaxation, and taking your during penetration until the door has been fully opened. However, the anus is worth it and some straight women and even straight men have experimented with anal sex with great success. Did you know for example that when a man masturbates with a small butt plug up his rear, he can experience a lot more pleasure than when his anus is free of foreign objects? We’re talking the orgasm of a lifetime, the kind of noisy orgasm one rarely gets to experience alone.
posted by Debrah on
“Debrah, I find you absolutely fascinating, like a centrist Ann Coulter.”
************************************
That’s a good one.
And that’s true. I am a centrist for the most part.
Coulter is deliberately provocative sometimes just for the attention she gets, IMO.
However, I find her extremely intelligent and well-prepared for the debates she has with detractors.
She was one of the first to call out John Edwards and his wife on their phoniness and fraudulence. That was enjoyable to witness.
Although many of her views are too conservative for me, she’s certainly effective and I like her approach better than that of Sarah Palin…….who tries to be so “downhome”.
“Did you know for example that when a man masturbates with a small butt plug up his rear, he can experience a lot more pleasure than when his anus is free of foreign objects? We’re talking the orgasm of a lifetime, the kind of noisy orgasm one rarely gets to experience alone.”
***************************************
No Bobby, I didn’t know that fascinating bit of info.
I have seen a few videos (in my “research”) LOL!!!……..in which a guy had his posterior to the camera…….opening and closing his cavity to show how “flexible” he could be.
It was really a shocker. I had never seen anything like it at all.
Let me put it this way: You could tell that “fisting” was a huge part of his menu>.
posted by Jimmy on
“It was really a shocker. I had never seen anything like it at all.”
Here’s the thing. The world of porn is sort of like a circus, or better yet, a carnival with side-show freaks. That’s where “fisting” can be found. There are those in the “amateur” realm that continue to push the envelope in order to garner stardom. Americans are all about one upmanship. I play golf as a hobby, whereas, some people stick the equivalent of construction pylons up their rear. Whatever!
I’m waiting for the day some dude can shoot ping pong balls (and only ping pong balls) out of his mangina.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDu9gbuKpKc
posted by Bobby on
“Although many of her views are too conservative for me, she’s certainly effective and I like her approach better than that of Sarah Palin…….who tries to be so “downhome”.”
—Well, I disagree, I like Palin speeches, I like her “downhome” attitude. I know you’re an intellectual, but the average American isn’t which is why they like politicians who talk like them.
In my industry we call that “identification marketing,” Obama on the other hand sells himself as the “aspirational” president. “Oh, look at me, I’m so cute, my wife is cute, my kids are cute, I’m so sexy without my shirt off, I went to Harvard, I’m articulate.” This appeals to progressives who are drawn to celebrities and people they perceive as being better than they are.
George W. Bush and Sara Palin are different, their message is something like: “I’m like you and if you elect me you’re going to be in the White House.” When Bush was president it felt good having a man who thinks like me when it comes to many issues, now that Obama is president it feels like a hateful Harvard professor with controversial views has taken over the country.
The fact that the liberal media keeps putting his face on the cover makes a large segment of the population dislike him even more. It’s like putting salt in the wound of the nation.
posted by Jimmy on
“The fact that the liberal media keeps putting his face on the cover makes a large segment of the population dislike him even more. It’s like putting salt in the wound of the nation.”
Well, let’s see, he is the POTUS, so, yeah.
If a minority of the electorate is wounded, Bobby, that’s kind of tough. It’s called, “LOSING”.
They should really be wounded about how their party finds new ways to crash and burn with every new day.
W. is a member of THE Elite (capital ‘E’). He pulled the Hee Haw act on y’all, and you fell for it. Same for McCain. That he was heroic while a POW is not in doubt. That is his singular achievement. He would have flunked out of the Naval Academy had his daddy not pulled strings. Patterns abound.
Palin is a nut, a documented racist, and a ball of Holy Rollin’ self-righteousness. Finally, she has landed a job befitting a 3rd rate beauty queen, as a travel guide. Not quite weather girl, but the future is wide open (does Fox News have a weather bimbo?). I hope Discovery Channel’s legal staff is top notch in the area of Breach-of-Contract, cause ol’ Sarah is apt to just up and quit when a more lucrative deal comes down the pike.
posted by Debrah on
“Well, I disagree, I like Palin speeches, I like her ‘downhome’ attitude.”
************************************************
Bobby, there’s no question that Palin appeals to a lot of people out there. In fact, it seems that celebrity is her main goal at the moment.
I’ve said that it’s refreshing to see a woman pol who is naturally attractive instead of the usual stodgy type; however, I can’t take Palin’s nasal voice too long. She gets all nasal when she’s excited and trying to make a point. The “twang” is something that Hillary Clinton had to work on as well in the beginning. She had that Midwestern twang that she morphed into a kind of fake Arkansas drawl when she and Billy Jeff were living down there.
Many politicians are hilarious because I think that deep down they’d like to be in show business.
Obama has begun to turn off some who previously supported him. He’s simply got to understand that he’s going into overkill. He’s addicted to the cameras and just has to inject his mug into everything.
Since I’m a registered Democrat and supported him in 2008, I get nonstop emails from the Obama website. Everytime he sneezes, they send out an email about it.
Often there’s a “letter” from him which always begins with “Friend”.
It’s really too much.
A president doesn’t need to be on television and in the news 24/7.
Less is more……and less is more dignified.
I have to agree with you regarding George Bush. At first I was not a big fan of his and regret that he wasn’t a good speaker because that always gave his rabid and threatening detractors—(and the Far Left was allowed to say and do anything they wanted without media criticism)—a tool to use.
GWB is anything but “stupid”. As Christopher Hitchens once said….”The only people who call George Bush ‘stupid’ are the stupid people.”
At university, records show that his SAT scores and GPA were higher than both Al Gore’s—who flunked out of law school and divinity school—as well as John Kerry’s.
But with the tendentious media we have, no one would bother with the facts.
Sincerity counts high on the list with me, and GWB is a what-you-see-is-what-you-get kind of person who made decisions and was resolute in the face of horrific push-back from Leftists.
One thing that Obama will regret is alienating and playing around with Israel.
He gives lip service to being pro-Israel, but actions speak louder than words.
Very unwise.
posted by Jimmy on
“He gives lip service to being pro-Israel, but actions speak louder than words.”
The president has handled Bibi, who has miscalculated the situation, appropriately. The only one who stands to lose is Bibi, who would be severely damaged should he antagonize Israel’s benefactor, something for which Israelis, with the exception of the ultra-orthodox right wing, will not stand.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
You might find these two columns of interest.
One deals in opinions and with feelings.
Another deals in historical facts and reality.
posted by Jimmy on
I shall read those articles with interest, Debrah, but I have a tee-time and must be off.
posted by Bobby on
“Well, let’s see, he is the POTUS, so, yeah.”
—Bush was POTUS and if The Rolling Stones ever put his face on the cover it was never a flattering picture.
“If a minority of the electorate is wounded, Bobby, that’s kind of tough. It’s called, “LOSING”.”
—Obama won with 53% of the vote, that’s not a lot. He’s certainly not worth the media adoration he receives.
“W. is a member of THE Elite (capital ‘E’). He pulled the Hee Haw act on y’all, and you fell for it.”
—Typical progressive, I think different than you do so I must be stupid for voting the way I do. Bush may have been part of the elite, but he didn’t act like the elite. Obama and his minions act like they’re better than everyone else.
“He would have flunked out of the Naval Academy had his daddy not pulled strings. Patterns abound.”
—That’s bullshit, I’ve never heard of that, he was a pilot for godsakes, you know how hard that is?
“Palin is a nut, a documented racist, and a ball of Holy Rollin’ self-righteousness.”
—You got proof of her racism? Opposing affirmative action is not racist.
“The president has handled Bibi, who has miscalculated the situation, appropriately. The only one who stands to lose is Bibi, who would be severely damaged should he antagonize Israel’s benefactor, something for which Israelis, with the exception of the ultra-orthodox right wing, will not stand.”
—When President Obama has to deal with Mexicans crossing the border and blowing themselves up, then perhaps he can lecture Israel on how to handle the Palestinian terrorist problem. Until then, he has no moral authority. Oh, and if this is an issue about money, what about all the money the Egyptians and the Saudis get from America? I don’t see Obama making demands on those countries.
Israel is America’s best friend in the middle east, it’s the country that provides America with vital intelligence about everything that’s going on in the region. Of course, Obama doesn’t get that because his family has a Muslim background and we all know those people are notoriously anti-semitic.
Plus, Obama was educated in the progressive tradition – he comes from a family of hippies for God sakes! In the progressive mindset, terrorists are freedom fighters, rich countries are exploiters, and poor countries are noble.
Debrah, interesting points about Palin. I agree.
posted by Brian Miller on
Debrah:
I’m perfectly happy not having government marriage licenses nor government “health services,” if you’ll kindly extend complete exemption from taxation of all sorts to gay men.
(That’s typically where the conservatives balk. Like all good big-government statists, they talk about liberty and small government, yet when offered the opportunity, always jump to the side of big government).
There are two acceptable alternatives in the gay marriage debate. One is getting government out of the marriage business entirely. The other is treating everyone the same.
So long as you’re going to tax me at a greater-than-heterosexual rate (in most cases), I’d better get equal access to all that gummint cheese I’m being taxed for. Period.
posted by Jimmy on
“You got proof of her racism?”
I think, “Sambo beat the bitch.” and referring to Inuit people as Arctic Arabs is sufficient. These incidents have been witnesses by locals who must remain anonymous to avoids reprisals from Sarah P.’s, and the GOP, political machine.
“When President Obama has to deal with Mexicans crossing the border and blowing themselves up, then perhaps he can lecture Israel on how to handle the Palestinian terrorist problem. Until then, he has no moral authority.”
The only way the US would have to deal with Mexican suicide bombers is if we were to ever violently, and illegally occupy Mexican land. The Obama administration is dealing with what W. was characteristically derelict in addressing, the proliferation of guns originating at US gun flea markets and ending up in the hands of narco-terrorists. Why does this country have such a shitty record when it comes to put guns in the hands of people who end up killing young American soldiers? It would really suck to be taken out of this world by a bullet my taxes paid for!
“Of course, Obama doesn’t get that because his family has a Muslim background and we all know those people are notoriously anti-semitic.”
That is such a stupid thing to say. Talk about something unprovable. You can see into Barry’s heart, huh? Palestinians are semitic people, too.
posted by Bobby on
“I think, “Sambo beat the bitch.” and referring to Inuit people as Arctic Arabs is sufficient. These incidents have been witnesses by locals who must remain anonymous to avoids reprisals from Sarah P.’s, and the GOP, political machine.”
—Then I don’t believe it, progressives play this game all the time, when they can’t find you saying something on the record, the find a convenient anonymous source. It’s like the Eric Massa story, allegations say that he harassed men in the military yet I doubt a soldier that does that won’t be discharged. If Massa was the pervert the liberal media thinks he is, he would have not had an illustrious career in the navy. But you see, when Massa didn’t vote Obama’s way, he became public enemy #1 just like Palin is public enemy #1 of the far left.
“The only way the US would have to deal with Mexican suicide bombers is if we were to ever violently, and illegally occupy Mexican land.”
—Google the mexican-american war, also google aztlan and learn about this radical mexican organization that wants to destroy America.
“The Obama administration is dealing with what W. was characteristically derelict in addressing, the proliferation of guns originating at US gun flea markets and ending up in the hands of narco-terrorists. Why does this country have such a shitty record when it comes to put guns in the hands of people who end up killing young American soldiers? It would really suck to be taken out of this world by a bullet my taxes paid for!”
—That’s a lie perpetuated by the liberal media.
The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/
“That is such a stupid thing to say. Talk about something unprovable. You can see into Barry’s heart, huh? Palestinians are semitic people, too.”
—The term anti-semitic refers to Jews, even if Palestinians may or may not be semitic. Besides, did Barry not spend time in a Madrassa in Indonesia? Besides, I don’t need to see his heart, I’m already seeing him snubbing photo ops with the prime minister of Israel while bowing in front of Arab leaders.
You know what’s funny, Obama gets away with everything, he’s like John Gotti, the Teflon Don, let me show you.
Bush was called a coward and ridiculed for serving in the National Guard.
Obama’s lack of military service is never questioned.
Bush was ridiculed for being a former alcoholic and allegedly using cocaine.
Obama admits using hardcore drugs in his own autobiography.
Bush was criticized for his massive spending.
Obama spent in one year what Bush spent in 8 years.
Isn’t it amazing how Obama always gets a break from the mainstream media? I remember a friend of mine who used to refer to Bush as “that coke freak” yet do you see him referring to Obama as “that crackhead?”
Do you realize how infuriating is to see Obama getting the breaks Bush never got?
posted by Jimmy on
There are no UN resolutions on record that the US should remove itself from any Mexican lands, Bobby. The motives of Aztlan, an ethnic/nationalistic fringe movement, have been disavowed by La Raza, a legitimate political organization.
I am well aware of the standard usage of the term, “anti-Semitic”, I just don’t agree with it. It is a smear designed to stifle debate by characterizing any disagreement with the behavior of the state of Israel, or the byproducts of radical Zionism, as “jew-hating”.
I recommend reading the links Debrah provided above. They illustrate how terms like “enforcement” and “UN Resolution” mean different things to different ideologies.
We are supposed to believe that the “mistake” by Bibi’s aids was just that, rather than a coordinated leak by a rightist government designed to embarrass a US president perceived as weak. When that perception changed, due to Obama’s legislative win on HCR, Netanyahu’s switch to damage control mode was rather entertaining.
People who came of age during the drug infused years following the mid-60’s, and freely admit to their participation, are granted a degree of credibility by most people who can objectively view those times. It was the roaring 80’s when W., a grown man, gained his reputation as a boozer and tooter. Obama had stopped his drug use by the time he was 20 years old.
Only a drunk would trade Sammy Sosa in ’89. W. still managed to show the recklessness typical of the “dry drunk” as president.
posted by Linda Barr on
In response to this article, I would say this. In a football game, when one the home team fumbles the ball, and the away team takes that fumble in for a touch down, and wins the game. There is nothing to be done, unless you can prove that the away team dsomehow cheated when picking up the ball. I’m sorry, I am not a Democrat, nor am I an Independent. And God forbid I be Republican. It’s just too bad we hinge our exsitence upon one thing in order to survive. I tend to believe that if politicians worked togethe, rather than on their own agendas-getting rich-we would all be happier. My brother and I were talking about this the other day, and I said I think we would all be better off if they took a bull-shit-dozer, soveled the who lot into the Potomac and started over again. If we had a few more Barny Frank’s, and a few less come and let’s pretends in congress, maybe something would be accomplished for everbody. Take Care, and keep speaking your opinion.