Conservative ideology with another motive...oh never!

[billspiz]

Interesting report today about a handful of Republican governors who are considering (or considered and retracted) rejecting bailout monies for their states for education, infrastructure and healthcare proclaiming their beliefs that this may not help and hereby promoting their conservative ideology.

Its interesting to note that while they can be talking out of one side of their mouth saying no to assistance, the legislatures in their states can go ahead and take the monies anyway and not tick off the people in their state who desire the assistance...this way they can have their cake and eat it too!....you don't need the the governors approval! Funny how a couple of these governors (Jindall, Palin) have White House aspirations...

Good 'ole Karl Rove must be smiling from ear to ear hiding under his rock!

[kmcgraw5]

:confused:

[J.Q. Citizen]

Interesting report today about a handful of Republican governors who are considering (or considered and retracted) rejecting bailout monies for their states for education, infrastructure and healthcare proclaiming their beliefs that this may not help and hereby promoting their conservative ideology.

Its interesting to note that while they can be talking out of one side of their mouth saying no to assistance, the legislatures in their states can go ahead and take the monies anyway and not tick off the people in their state who desire the assistance...this way they can have their cake and eat it too!....you don't need the the governors approval! Funny how a couple of these governors (Jindall, Palin) have White House aspirations...

Good 'ole Karl Rove must be smiling from ear to ear hiding under his rock!
I'm not real sure of your point. I hadn't heard this but I've been fairly disconnected from current events today. But, if their state laws allow for this to happen then exactly what is the significance?

As for Rove, I'm really not sure what you mean about his hiding under a rock. The guy can be seen giving opinions and interviews almost daily. He's more visible now than he ever was during the time Bush was in office.

[billspiz]

Wow, I guess my version of obvious is a bit different...

My point, apparently not clear to our GOP bloggers is that you have 3 or 4 GOP governors making public statements that the bailout package is wrong and they by no means stand for it. OK fine...Meanwhile you people in their states needing help for unemployment, healthcare, etc would be livid if they didn't get the money. So..since the legislature can get the money anyway, the governors (albeit high profile ones with White House aspirations) can claim conservative ideology while satisfying their constituents. Its ironic that its the high profile govs. The article then states that they "are probably going to take it anyway"..then what the point of saying anything....

Can it be anymore clearer this is political posturing???...apparently not.. my comment about Karl Rove was merely a shot because I loathe the man....and John Q you can go ahead and write 7 paragraphs picking every word I write and interrogate it...but regarding Karl Rove...I just don't like him...thats it.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Wow, I guess my version of obvious is a bit different...

My point, apparently not clear to our GOP bloggers is that you have 3 or 4 GOP governors making public statements that the bailout package is wrong and they by no means stand for it. OK fine...Meanwhile you people in their states needing help for unemployment, healthcare, etc would be livid if they didn't get the money. So..since the legislature can get the money anyway, the governors (albeit high profile ones with White House aspirations) can claim conservative ideology while satisfying their constituents. Its ironic that its the high profile govs. The article then states that they "are probably going to take it anyway"..then what the point of saying anything....

Can it be anymore clearer this is political posturing???...apparently not.. my comment about Karl Rove was merely a shot because I loathe the man....and John Q you can go ahead and write 7 paragraphs picking every word I write and interrogate it...but regarding Karl Rove...I just don't like him...thats it.

Well, since you didn't post a link by which we could judge the merits of the article on its own. Therefore, we have no way to determine if they are being disingenuous or if they genuinely believe that the stimulus package is a bad idea but are forced to accept it because of the actions of their legislature. Did the governors in question actually say "are probably going to take it anyway" or is that the author's opinion. Are they out there decrying the fact that their legislature is going against their wishes and beliefs or are they, as you suggest, simply out there performing some political posturing. We really don't know do we.

Oh, you can feel about Rove however you choose, I don't care. I just didn't understand what you meant because the phrase you used, "hiding under his rock", is typically used to indicate that someone doesn't wish to be seen, particularly in public. In the case of Karl Rove, that is factually inaccurate. Perhaps you should have called him a name and then your intent would have been more clear. Just a thought.

[kmcgraw5]

Can it be anymore clearer this is political posturing???...apparently not.. my comment about Karl Rove was merely a shot because I loathe the man....and John Q you can go ahead and write 7 paragraphs picking every word I write and interrogate it...but regarding Karl Rove...I just don't like him...thats it.

And so how is my calling President Obama "His Highness" any different that your saying that Karl Rove lives under a rock and that you loathe him!?! Bill, your hypocrisy is astounding. I would even submit that my "name calling" of President Obama is far less egregious than what you've just done (which is the equivalent of calling Mr. Rove a snake or an insect) because, while arguably disrespectful (even though I don't intend it that way), its not hateful, as your comments obviously and admittedly are. By your own standards, even though Mr. Rove is not President or an elected official at this point, he is still a public figure that is deserving of, if not your respect, at least not being made the subject of hateful characterizations...

[billspiz]

well..one is a direct name being called at an individual and the other is where a person may be hiding and not a name called. I referred to him as Karl Rove. I did not imply he was an insect or a reptile and if any implication was made it may have been that he may be visiting Stonehedge or other natural rock formations. .

..having a bad morning kmc??...sound a little worked up for a mere reference to Mr Rove...don't worry the stimulus package will be here to help you as well and you'll be better...:)

[kmcgraw5]

well..one is a direct name being called at an individual and the other is where a person may be hiding and not a name called. I referred to him as Karl Rove. I did not imply he was an insect or a reptile and if any implication was made it may have been that he may be visiting Stonehedge or other natural rock formations. .

..having a bad morning kmc??...sound a little worked up for a mere reference to Mr Rove...don't worry the stimulus package will be here to help you as well and you'll be better...:)

On the contrary, your implication was quite clear, even to a 13 year-old. And any day I get to point out the hypocrisy of you and your cronies on the left, makes it a great day in my book... ;)

And don't worry, I probably will qualify as one of the dirty, filthy rich, so I likely will be disqualified from any assistance anyway (assuming I would even apply for it, which I wouldn't). Although, on second thought, I might have to when the hyper-inflation that's coming from all the new money being printed and dumped on the economy hits 100% or higher, and my monthly salary won't even buy a loaf of bread. Can you say Weimar Republic, boys and girls...?

[JaneBlow]

I predict there won't be a single state that rejects the Stimulus money. They can talk all they want about how they disagree with government spending, but it doesn't change the fact that their constituents need the help.

I just wish the Governors that are talking big about rejecting the money could somehow be held accountable for being against helping their constituents. Sadly, they won't be.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Interesting report today about a handful of Republican governors who are considering (or considered and retracted) rejecting bailout monies for their states for education, infrastructure and healthcare proclaiming their beliefs that this may not help and hereby promoting their conservative ideology.

Its interesting to note that while they can be talking out of one side of their mouth saying no to assistance, the legislatures in their states can go ahead and take the monies anyway and not tick off the people in their state who desire the assistance...this way they can have their cake and eat it too!....you don't need the the governors approval! Funny how a couple of these governors (Jindall, Palin) have White House aspirations...
rock!

So, even assuming that your characterization is at least close to accurate. Let me ask you something. If those governors were to reject the funds from the stimulus, what have the really accomplished? Are they going to return the money to the treasury? No. And those people still have a constituency to take care of. Are you saying that anyone who speaks out against the stimulus is then duty bound to reject the funds simply on the basis of principle? Are you willing to hold all politicians, including those you support, to that same standard? So, personally, I believe that if the spendthrifts in Washington are going to spend this money anyway, if we have lost the stimulus battle, then fine...let Texas get as much of that money as they possibly can. The stimulus is a done deal, much of it is our money, we should get as much of it as we can.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I predict there won't be a single state that rejects the Stimulus money. They can talk all they want about how they disagree with government spending, but it doesn't change the fact that their constituents need the help.

I just wish the Governors that are talking big about rejecting the money could somehow be held accountable for being against helping their constituents. Sadly, they won't be.

So, if they talk about rejecting the money and then do as you suggest and take it anyway, they should be held accountable?

[billspiz]

sorry the article I referenced yesterday was an AP release..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090219/ap_on_bi_ge/bucking_the_stimulus;_ylt=AlVy2S3VZDQMV.4BN.ShOjZv zwcF


Cronies???....dear dear kmc..please read..

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/02/bush-oral-history200902

maybe we can then come up with new names since you prefer that approach..

[J.Q. Citizen]

well..one is a direct name being called at an individual and the other is where a person may be hiding and not a name called. I referred to him as Karl Rove. I did not imply he was an insect or a reptile and if any implication was made it may have been that he may be visiting Stonehedge or other natural rock formations. .

..having a bad morning kmc??...sound a little worked up for a mere reference to Mr Rove...don't worry the stimulus package will be here to help you as well and you'll be better...:)

Oh yeah, Stonehenge was the first thought that crossed my mind. Come on Bill, you stated that it was a "shot". Why try to diminish it afterward? By the way, I could be wrong but I don't believe Stonehenge qualifies as a natural rock formation.

Bill, I think that you have missed the point. Kevin's comment, and mine if you saw it, has NOTHING to do with your opinion or comment about Karl Rove. It had everything to do with your criticism in another thread about using nicknames or pet names for some of those in government. It had everything to do with a perception of hypocrisy on your part. Did you honestly just get off track or was that intentional?

[JaneBlow]

So, if they talk about rejecting the money and then do as you suggest and take it anyway, they should be held accountable?

If, as Governor, it is your position that your state should not accept the money, you should be accountable for having that position. If this position results in your state not getting the money, then the people can hold you accountable for your position.

If your state accepts the money despite your position, then your position has no consequence and you are unlikely to be held accountable for it.

[billspiz]

I believe Freud once said..."sometimes its just an inkblot"..(although I will no doubt be corrected)

My commentary merely stated an opinion of mine..again..my opinion that it seemed ironic to me ...in my opinion...that a few of the governors who happened to have national profiles..made public comments about not taking the stimulus, knowing full well it does not matter if they personally believe in the package or not...

Just makes one go..."hmmmmm"...and in my opinion seemed like political grandstanding....no need for overanalysis..please continue to work on new names...

[J.Q. Citizen]

sorry the article I referenced yesterday was an AP release..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090219/ap_on_bi_ge/bucking_the_stimulus;_ylt=AlVy2S3VZDQMV.4BN.ShOjZv zwcF


Cronies???....dear dear kmc..please read..

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/02/bush-oral-history200902

maybe we can then come up with new names since you prefer that approach..
Well Bill, now I know from where you got your litany that you placed near the top of one of your first posts.

Let me explain why the article in your first link is a waste of my particular time. Sigh, I've had this discussion with Jane before. I will grant that pretty much any given article at any given time may have some valid points in it. That's always a possibility. And I'm always interested in knowing the opinion of someone who comes out and says "I'm a proud liberal/Democrat and this is what I believe" and then finding out why they believe what they believe. But, I believe that national publications should be held to a higher standard. Maybe Vanity Fair is a renown liberal publication, I confess that I don't know, I've never really paid much attention to them. I didn't even realize that they delved into politics. I thought their claim to fame was as purveyors of celebrity child porn...but I could be wrong.

Anyway, when an article starts with "The threat of 9/11 ignored." then I'm just going to have to assume that the remainder of the article isn't going to have a lot to offer. If they can be that historically inaccurate then everything that they write after that is going to be suspect and I'd have to waste all my time researching anything they claim is a fact.

[billspiz]

Your honor, I did not call Karl Rove a name ..

Please please my dear frustrated GOP'ers...move on...if you want to call me a hypocrite and that moves on to something else...feel free!..

[J.Q. Citizen]

I believe Freud once said..."sometimes its just an inkblot"..(although I will no doubt be corrected)

My commentary merely stated an opinion of mine..again..my opinion that it seemed ironic to me ...in my opinion...that a few of the governors who happened to have national profiles..made public comments about not taking the stimulus, knowing full well it does not matter if they personally believe in the package or not...

Just makes one go..."hmmmmm"...and in my opinion seemed like political grandstanding....no need for overanalysis..please continue to work on new names...

I'm not trying to over analyze it Bill, I'm trying to understand it.

Are you basically saying that if they know there's nothing they can do about it, they just shouldn't waste their time talking about it because, in doing so, they're going to be perceived by some as simply engaging in political posturing? And that that is going to be bad because...no one else in politics ever does that?

[billspiz]

JQ..your true colors are out. That is such a weak excuse for not reading an article..."its a waste of my time"..how much more pompous and self rightous can you be.

You know the article will not speak favorable about an administration that it appears you supported in some fashion.

Jane is right in one of her earlier threads..if it doesn't meet to your liking then it is dismissed and you choose to tailor comments to your liking.

Why don't you just start a conservative blog where everyone agrees with you??

[J.Q. Citizen]

Your honor, I did not call Karl Rove a name ..

Please please my dear frustrated GOP'ers...move on...if you want to call me a hypocrite and that moves on to something else...feel free!..

That's fair. You veil your insults and disdain all you want and I, and probably Kevin, will continue to be upfront and honest about the public figures we disdain and none of us will ever comment on the other's choice of approach again.

[kmcgraw5]

JQ..your true colors are out. That is such a weak excuse for not reading an article..."its a waste of my time"..how much more pompous and self rightous can you be.

You know the article will not speak favorable about an administration that it appears you supported in some fashion.

Jane is right in one of her earlier threads..if it doesn't meet to your liking then it is dismissed and you choose to tailor comments to your liking.

Why don't you just start a conservative blog where everyone agrees with you??

JQ, I wouldn't continue to waste your time with this guy. At least Jane makes cogent and coherent arguments most of the time...

[J.Q. Citizen]

JQ..your true colors are out. That is such a weak excuse for not reading an article..."its a waste of my time"..how much more pompous and self rightous can you be.

You know the article will not speak favorable about an administration that it appears you supported in some fashion.

Jane is right in one of her earlier threads..if it doesn't meet to your liking then it is dismissed and you choose to tailor comments to your liking.

Why don't you just start a conservative blog where everyone agrees with you??

I haven't hidden my opinions or feelings Bill so feeling that you have somehow "outted" me is simply an exercise in self-gratification. I have made it clear how I feel about things and have been upfront when I won't waste my time on certain things. Are you saying that I have to read everything that is presented for my perusal and that I can't be discriminatory in my choices of where to spend my time. I knew with the first sentence that it would not speak favorably of the Bush administration. I've read these criticisms for years. Tell me, exactly what do you think that I would take away from that article that would be beneficial to me in any way? Seriously, what? Am I supposed to find something of interest? Will I read something in there I haven't read a myriad of times before that will suddenly enlighten me in some way? Seriously, what? I'd really like to know.

Do I dismiss some things out of hand. Yes. I get to do that, it's my life.

I don't know what you mean about [I choose to tailor comments to my liking.]

[J.Q. Citizen]

JQ, I wouldn't continue to waste your time with this guy. At least Jane makes cogent and coherent arguments most of the time...

You don't understand how much I HATE the job search thing :)

[JaneBlow]

I haven't hidden my opinions or feelings Bill so feeling that you have somehow "outted" me is simply an exercise in self-gratification. I have made it clear how I feel about things and have been upfront when I won't waste my time on certain things. Are you saying that I have to read everything that is presented for my perusal and that I can't be discriminatory in my choices of where to spend my time. I knew with the first sentence that it would not speak favorably of the Bush administration. I've read these criticisms for years. Tell me, exactly what do you think that I would take away from that article that would be beneficial to me in any way? Seriously, what? Am I supposed to find something of interest? Will I read something in there I haven't read a myriad of times before that will suddenly enlighten me in some way? Seriously, what? I'd really like to know.

Do I dismiss some things out of hand. Yes. I get to do that, it's my life.

I don't know what you mean about [I choose to tailor comments to my liking.]

J.Q., you continue to give Bush credit for keeping us safe after 9/11. But when you are presented with an argument that says he didn't, you dismiss it without reading it. It's fine if you don't have time to read it, but perhaps you could at least think twice the next time you are asserting that claim and at least admit that rather than continue to research the claims being made, you've decided to move on and look forward.

Just because there hasn't been another attack yet, doesn't mean Bush everything right and deserves all the credit.

[kmcgraw5]

Do I dismiss some things out of hand. Yes. I get to do that, it's my life.

Apparently not for very much longer, I'm afraid... ;)

[billspiz]

confused by that last statemnet??

[kmcgraw5]

Just because there hasn't been another attack yet, doesn't mean Bush everything right and deserves all the credit.

While he may not deserve all the credit, he certainly deserves most of it; to argue otherwise is just flat disingenuous. Was his administration heavy-handed in some of its policies and the way they were implemented? Absolutely. There are things about the Patriot Act that I don't like and there's a lot about the policies of the TSA that, as a traveler, I depise. Personally, I would have been glad to give up some of my safety to keep at least some of the freedoms that we lost as a result of 9/11. But they have worked, and I'm sorry, but no one can seriously argue that it wasn't in large part due to Bush's and his administration's policies...

[J.Q. Citizen]

confused by that last statemnet??

I suspect that no one is certain to which last sentence you're referring.

[billspiz]

the comment:

Apparently not for very much longer, I'm afraid...

not sure I get that..sorry I didn't reference the statement

[JaneBlow]

While he may not deserve all the credit, he certainly deserves most of it; to argue otherwise is just flat disingenuous. Was his administration heavy-handed in some of its policies and the way they were implemented? Absolutely. There are things about the Patriot Act that I don't like and there's a lot about the policies of the TSA that, as a traveler, I depise. Personally, I would have been glad to give up some of my safety to keep at least some of the freedoms that we lost as a result of 9/11. But they have worked, and I'm sorry, but no one can seriously argue that it wasn't in large part due to Bush's and his administration's policies...

But he was warned weeks before 9/11 that Osama bin Laden was planning to strike the U.S. and he ignored it. He did nothing. How did that keep us safe?

You will not even consider the possibility that this is true because you filter out and ignore any information that contradicts your current beliefs.

[J.Q. Citizen]

J.Q., you continue to give Bush credit for keeping us safe after 9/11. But when you are presented with an argument that says he didn't, you dismiss it without reading it. It's fine if you don't have time to read it, but perhaps you could at least think twice the next time you are asserting that claim and at least admit that rather than continue to research the claims being made, you've decided to move on and look forward.

Just because there hasn't been another attack yet, doesn't mean Bush everything right and deserves all the credit.

So, Jane, for someone who seems rather comfortable and solidified in her beliefs, why is it you seem to expect others to have no concrete opinions? Do you think that I haven't read all of these arguments for years? Do you think that I didn't read all of the idiotic comments from various people following the election of 2000 and loooonnnngggg afterward where Bush was called our "selected" president? Do you think that I didn't analyze the evidence and listen to various analysis and opinions about the SC decisions and determine for myself that they made the right decision? Similarly, don't you think that I've been reading and listening to those who used 20/20 hindsight to say that Bush "ignored" PDB's and the "warnings of 9/11"? You don't think that I've read or heard a plethora of opinions stating that Bush didn't keep us safe? So, in an article that starts off so biased and contains comments from Richard Clarke, what do you think that I possibly could have learned that would have changed my opinion? Seriously, what?

The problem is, we don't KNOW much of anything regarding this issue. Just as you don't know that washing your hands frequently may have prevented you from picking up a flu bug just the morning. But, that doesn't mean it's not a good habit to have. But, the lack of concrete evidence doesn't mean that we are prevented from deriving logical opinions. One of my personal criteria for judging Bush after 9/11 was whether or not we got hit again. We did not. That much is a fact. And I believe, from the things I have read or heard over the years, that his actions were directly responsible. You can disagree if you choose. Similarly, I will be judging Obama in the same way. Before 9/11, no one truly believed that we could be attacked to the magnitude that we were. After that, there is NO excuse. I believe that Obama has already done things to weaken our country and to embolden terrorists. If we are hit again, I will put the blame squarely on his shoulders.

[kmcgraw5]

the comment:

Apparently not for very much longer, I'm afraid...

not sure I get that..sorry I didn't reference the statement

Just a joke about the liberal thought police infringing upon how JQ chooses to conduct his life...

For background, read http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123492175917805451.html

Or you can just dismiss it out of hand... ;)

[J.Q. Citizen]

But he was warned weeks before 9/11 that Osama bin Laden was planning to strike the U.S. and he ignored it. He did nothing. How did that keep us safe?

You will not even consider the possibility that this is true because you filter out and ignore any information that contradicts your current beliefs.

We had known since 1993 that Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. This is another case of 20/20 hindsight. There were no specifics in that warning. Nothing that would have indicated exactly what could have been done to prevent the attacks which had been in the planning for years. There were gaps in the communications between the intelligence agencies and THAT was caused by Clinton. There was a veritable flood of information coming in daily for years. There were any number of problems besides the communications within our intelligence agencies. I believe that Bush did much to resolve those issues.

[JaneBlow]

So, Jane, for someone who seems rather comfortable and solidified in her beliefs, why is it you seem to expect others to have no concrete opinions? Do you think that I haven't read all of these arguments for years? Do you think that I didn't read all of the idiotic comments from various people following the election of 2000 and loooonnnngggg afterward where Bush was called our "selected" president? Do you think that I didn't analyze the evidence and listen to various analysis and opinions about the SC decisions and determine for myself that they made the right decision? Similarly, don't you think that I've been reading and listening to those who used 20/20 hindsight to say that Bush "ignored" PDB's and the "warnings of 9/11"? You don't think that I've read or heard a plethora of opinions stating that Bush didn't keep us safe? So, in an article that starts off so biased and contains comments from Richard Clarke, what do you think that I possibly could have learned that would have changed my opinion? Seriously, what?

The problem is, we don't KNOW much of anything regarding this issue. Just as you don't know that washing your hands frequently may have prevented you from picking up a flu bug just the morning. But, that doesn't mean it's not a good habit to have. But, the lack of concrete evidence doesn't mean that we are prevented from deriving logical opinions. One of my personal criteria for judging Bush after 9/11 was whether or not we got hit again. We did not. That much is a fact. And I believe, from the things I have read or heard over the years, that his actions were directly responsible. You can disagree if you choose. Similarly, I will be judging Obama in the same way. Before 9/11, no one truly believed that we could be attacked to the magnitude that we were. After that, there is NO excuse. I believe that Obama has already done things to weaken our country and to embolden terrorists. If we are hit again, I will put the blame squarely on his shoulders.

I admit, I assumed you didn't read with an open mind all the hard evidence presented against Bust for two reasons. First, you have admitted to not reading several articles posted on this site, although that did not stop you from writing lengthy re****als to them. Second, I find it hard to believe that anyone could be so blind.

[JaneBlow]

We had known since 1993 that Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. This is another case of 20/20 hindsight. There were no specifics in that warning. Nothing that would have indicated exactly what could have been done to prevent the attacks which had been in the planning for years. There were gaps in the communications between the intelligence agencies and THAT was caused by Clinton. There was a veritable flood of information coming in daily for years. There were any number of problems besides the communications within our intelligence agencies. I believe that Bush did much to resolve those issues.

Of course! The Democrats caused the financial crisis and 9/11! They probably caused Katrina too, right?

[billspiz]

Jane, I appreciate your tenacity and your consistent attempts to point out information only to be constantly chastised. I admit to falling into some non constructive retorts today just to appease myself..sometimes its hard not to.

Thanks for taking this side and for staying above the nonsensical comments. Its nice to have a progressive voice in a forum that does appear opposed to much of the things we agree on. One has to believe that if a local blog is so idelogically opposed on so many fronts, it has to be nearly impossible to get bi-partisan agreements completed on a national stage.

I'm newer to blogging but have been active in the Democratic Party in Collin County and while not as articulate as some on the site, both Republican and Democrat, I stand firm in my beliefs as well..thanks again Jane and keep it up!!

[kmcgraw5]

You will not even consider the possibility that this is true because you filter out and ignore any information that contradicts your current beliefs.

Guilty as charged; I freely admit that I filter out and ignore certian things. Everyone does. But I don't do it just because they might contradict my "current" beliefs. And you are right on the mark (whether intentionally or accidentally) when you say "current," because my beliefs have changed over the years, and continue to be refined as I learn and experience new things every day. I filter information in a myriad of ways; from my upbringing, to my education, through the broad spectrum of what I read and hear, through my friends and family (not all of which are conservative, by the way), and then I test and strengthen my beliefs through the crucible of debate, just as you do, Jane. So just because we disagree on many things, doesn't necessarily mean we're really any different; we just think and believe differently based on how we filter various bits of information. Believe me, I've been proven wrong enough times in my life to realize that I don't know nearly as much as I think I do (just ask my wife ;)). But there are things that I believe to be right and true based on my experience and common sense, as much as anything, just because they feel right based on the context of my life, and the information I have collected based on how I have filtered it.

I believe you do the same thing; so don't be so condescending. Do I know with absolute certainty that I'm right on any particular point? No. That's why I express my opinions as such, and not as unassailable fact. Even when I express them strongly, they are still just opinion. Its the one who starts believing his own opinions to be unassailable fact, that is destined to fall into the abyss of insanity...

[J.Q. Citizen]

Of course! The Democrats caused the financial crisis and 9/11! They probably caused Katrina too, right?

Once again Jane, you have taken a one small aspect of what I've said and tried to spin it into something else. I did not say that Clinton was responsible for 9/11. I was making the point that he had a hand in some of the factors leading up to that event. You can tell the difference because if I actually believed that Clinton was solely responsible for 9/11, it would have looked something like the...."Bill Clinton was solely responsible for 9/11". I realize it's a fine line of distinction but I feel like it needed to be made. As for the financial crisis, I have repeatedly stated that both parties shoulder some of the blame but it the long term intervention of Democratic policies that have contributed the most. I stand by that.

[JaneBlow]

Just a joke about the liberal thought police infringing upon how JQ chooses to conduct his life...

For background, read http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123492175917805451.html

Or you can just dismiss it out of hand... ;)

Kevin, I read the article and have a few comments.

First, the article has as its basis the opinion of William F. Buckley, Jr. who wrote, "The Ten Commandments do not sit about shaking, awaiting their inevitable deposition by some swashbuckling professor of ethics. Certain great truths have been apprehended. In the field of morality, all the basic truths have been apprehended."

He further states that "...if the professors had more respect than the people for God's laws and tradition's wisdom", Buckley would have "favored entrusting government...to scholars instead of citizens."

Would it be ok to seek to improve on “tradition’s wisdom” and The Ten Commandments? After all, the Ten Commandments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments) don’t include, thou shalt not enslave people, commit rape, commit child abuse, destroy the planet or torture. In fact, the “great truths” contained in the Bible have been used throughout history to defend slavery, domestic violence, witch burning, torture, murder and countless other crimes.

Why, after all we have learned, is it arrogant to want a better set of rules to live by?

I do, however, agree with Buckley on the subject of the Iraq war.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley_Jr

In a February 2006 column published at National Review Online and distributed by Universal Press Syndicate, Buckley stated unequivocally that, "One cannot doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." Buckley has also stated that "...it's important that we acknowledge in the inner councils of state that it (the war) has failed, so that we should look for opportunities to cope with that failure."[62] According to Jeffrey Hart writing in the American Conservative, Buckley had a "tragic" view of the Iraq war: he "saw it as a disaster and thought that the conservative movement he had created had in effect committed intellectual suicide by failing to maintain critical distance from the Bush administration...At the end of his life, Buckley believed the movement he made had destroyed itself by supporting the war in Iraq."[63]

Over the course of his career, Buckley's views changed on some issues, such as drug legalization, which he came to favor.[64] In his December 3, 2007 column, Buckley advocated banning tobacco use in America.[65]

About neoconservatives, he said in 2004: "I think those I know, which is most of them, are bright, informed and idealistic, but that they simply overrate the reach of U.S. power and influence."[25]

[J.Q. Citizen]

Just a joke about the liberal thought police infringing upon how JQ chooses to conduct his life...

For background, read http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123492175917805451.html

Or you can just dismiss it out of hand... ;)

Wow, what a great read Kevin, thanks for posting it.

I was particularly struck by some of the passages near and including the conclusion. Specifically where Voegeliv makes the following observation:

"Another part of the program is to confound the complacent assumptions of American patriotism. Not only has America's past been bloody and shameful in ways the uninstructed few must be made to realize, but the supposed depredations of America's "enemies" are, upon examination, understandable and even admirable. "

So basically, those delusional few of us (conservatives) who have blindly and blatantly ignored the realities of our history in order to foster some misguided, imperialistic and superior view of patriotism need to be educated to the realities that it is not the enemies of America who are evil but rather, it is America herself that is the evil and once we realize that, we can't help but realize that those we once perceived as evil enemies, are actually our victims and therefore noble in their quest to strike back.
Or perhaps more simply:
AMERICA'S CHICKENS...COMING HOME.........TO ROOST.

Very powerful read Kevin, thanks again.

[JaneBlow]

Jane, I appreciate your tenacity and your consistent attempts to point out information only to be constantly chastised. I admit to falling into some non constructive retorts today just to appease myself..sometimes its hard not to.

Thanks for taking this side and for staying above the nonsensical comments. Its nice to have a progressive voice in a forum that does appear opposed to much of the things we agree on. One has to believe that if a local blog is so idelogically opposed on so many fronts, it has to be nearly impossible to get bi-partisan agreements completed on a national stage.

I'm newer to blogging but have been active in the Democratic Party in Collin County and while not as articulate as some on the site, both Republican and Democrat, I stand firm in my beliefs as well..thanks again Jane and keep it up!!

Thanks, Bill. I appreciate you taking the time to express your views here as well. There is one other progressive voice on the forum, McKinneyRes, whom I'm sure we will hear from again soon. My husband (alias Joe Blow) used to be very active on the site, which is why I took the alias I did. Joe got tired of the same old arguments, though, and has taken up other battles.

[JaneBlow]

So basically, those delusional few of us (conservatives) who have blindly and blatantly ignored the realities of our history in order to foster some misguided, imperialistic and superior view of patriotism need to be educated to the realities that it is not the enemies of America who are evil but rather, it is America herself that is the evil and once we realize that, we can't help but realize that those we once perceived as evil enemies, are actually our victims and therefore noble in their quest to strike back.

Are you demonizing anyone who tries to improve America by claiming they believe America is evil?

"The highest patriotism is...a love of one's country deep enough to call [it] to a higher standard." -- George McGovern


"The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair."
-- H. L. Mencken


"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." — Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger, 1916, Ch.9

[kmcgraw5]

Would it be ok to seek to improve on “tradition’s wisdom” and The Ten Commandments? After all, the Ten Commandments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments) don’t include, thou shalt not enslave people, commit rape, commit child abuse, destroy the planet or torture. In fact, the “great truths” contained in the Bible have been used throughout history to defend slavery, domestic violence, witch burning, torture, murder and countless other crimes.

Why, after all we have learned, is it arrogant to want a better set of rules to live by?[25]

Jane, Jane, Jane... your response is too clever by half. How can you improve on perfection? Since God is ultimate perfection, do you really expect mere man to be able to improve on his rules!?! The Ten Commandments are perfect in their simplicty, yet absolutely comprehensive; I believe that was Buckley's point. If you really, really think about it, it becomes inescapable that all laws, ethics, and morals originate with and flow from the original Ten Commandments. Every rule of life can in some way be traced back to them. I don't expect you to accept this, because you clearly disdain religion, but just because the Ten Commandments (and the entire Bible, for that matter) have been twisted and perverted by humans to suit carnal, human purposes throughout history, does not mean they are not indeed a perfect expression of how we should live our lives. Even though they may have been used to support or justify various perversities and atrocities, isn't it more logical to look at them as being ultimate prohibitions against those things, regardless of how very imperfect men may try to interpret them? Even though we as Christians were later freed from their mandates through the saving death of Jesus Christ (i.e. we did not have to continue to rigidly keep the Laws in order to attain salvation through Christ's perfect grace), they are still invaluable, and yes, perfect words to live by, whether you are religious or not... in my humble opinion...

[J.Q. Citizen]

Of course! The Democrats caused the financial crisis and 9/11! They probably caused Katrina too, right?

I was in a hurry earlier so I didn't have a chance to respond fully to this one. I thought the causes of Katrina were well known. Let's see, if memory serves the litany went something like this.

- Bush caused Katrina by...being Bush. FYI, he caused the Tsunami the same way.
- Bush caused Katrina by...not putting an end to global warming 30 seconds after taking office.
- Bush caused Katrina by...no supporting addressing global warming.
- Katrina wasn't actually the problem. New Orleans survived the hit by Katrina. The problem came when the levees broke. The levees broke because Bush had Black Ops teams blow them. - And some of these people actually believed that Bush used some kind of secret sonic device to trigger the earthquake that caused the tsunami.

So, there you have it.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Are you demonizing anyone who tries to improve America by claiming they believe America is evil?

Jane, I simply rephrased what I believed the author was saying. You said you read it, why didn't you take up any issues you had with him?

But, in point of fact, no, that's not what I'm doing and not even really close to what I said. Therefore, no rebut7al is necessary.

"The highest patriotism is...a love of one's country deep enough to call [it] to a higher standard." -- George McGovern

Ummmm....ok

"The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair."
-- H. L. Mencken

I can agree with this to a certain extent. It pretty much depends upon the actions he takes. If he tries to blow it up, then yes, he hates his country. If he gives comfort to the enemy in a time of war the, regardless of his reasons, he hates his country.

On the other hand, what does this have to do with the discussion?

"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." — Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger, 1916, Ch.9
So, now that Obama has stealthily moved 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, while simultaneously cutting the budget of the military by 10%, is he the statesman that is guilty of inventing cheap lies to make us feel better? Are you essentially saying that there is no circumstance in which it is justifiable to attack another nation? Or do you just like quoting satirists? And then, of course, there's that age old question...what does this have to do with the discussion?

[JaneBlow]

Jane, Jane, Jane... your response is too clever by half. How can you improve on perfection? Since God is ultimate perfection, do you really expect mere man to be able to improve on his rules!?! The Ten Commandments are perfect in their simplicty, yet absolutely comprehensive;

Comprehensive??? Have you read them? It's ok to leave out slavery, rape, child abuse, destroying the planet, respecting other people's opinions, etc., etc.?

If you really, really think about it, it becomes inescapable that all laws, ethics, and morals originate with and flow from the original Ten Commandments. Every rule of life can in some way be traced back to them.

The idea that all morals originate from the Ten Commandments is absurd. We didn't know it was bad to kill each other before the Bible was written?

...isn't it more logical to look at them as being ultimate prohibitions against those things, regardless of how very imperfect men may try to interpret them?

How can we look at them as prohibiting slavery, rape, child abuse, torture, etc., etc., when they never mention them? In fact, they tell you not to covet your neighbor's female slave and to let your slaves rest on the Sabbath. I'm supposed to interpret this to mean that slavery is wrong?

...they are still invaluable, and yes, perfect words to live by, whether you are religious or not... in my humble opinion...

Your idea of perfect is very strange.

Yes, I believe we can choose better rules to live by. I would only keep 3 of the Ten Commandments and throw the rest out.

I would keep:

1. Don’t kill.
2. Don’t steal.
3. Don’t lie.

But if I could start from scratch and develop 10 rules that, if everyone followed, would result in the best possible outcome for all of humanity and the planet, I could do so much better than the Ten Commandments of the Bible. Here are a few alternative Ten Commandments written by others. I would take any of them over the ones in the Bible any day of the week.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandment_Alternatives

My personal favorite alternative commandments are:
1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you
2. In all things, strive to cause no harm
3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder
6. Always seek to be learning something new
7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
10. Question everything

[kmcgraw5]

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. And yes, I have read them (I just had to have my 12 year-old memorize them as part of his confirmation class). It's OK to infer things, Jane; smart people do it every day. Just because only certain things are explicitly stated, doesn't mean other self-evident truths can't be inferred from them. Its called using your brain and common sense. And these aren't original thoughts on my part; the idea that all legitimate laws, ethics, and morals derive from the Ten Commandments is actually taught in law school. And, further, if you think that you can seriously argue that the Ten Commandments in any way condone or be used to justify slavery, rape, child-abuse, or torture, then you're just as guilty of twisting and perverting them as those persons who have twisted them to somehow justify their own perversions...

[JaneBlow]

...yes, I have read them (I just had to have my 12 year-old memorize them as part of his confirmation class). It's OK to infer things, Jane; smart people do it every day.

What did I infer? I asked a question. You said they were comprehensive and I found that opinion hard to believe if you had studied their content.

Just because only certain things are explicitly stated, doesn't mean other self-evident truths can't be inferred from them. Its called using your brain and common sense.

My brain and common sense tells me that if slavery were meant to be prohibited, God would not have told me to let my slave have Sunday's off.

And these aren't original thoughts on my part; the idea that all legitimate laws, ethics, and morals derive from the Ten Commandments is actually taught in law school.

I'm going to have to challenge you on that one. Do you have some evidence? I think humans had a sense that murder was morally wrong before the Bible was written.

And, further, if you think that you can seriously argue that the Ten Commandments in any way condone or be used to justify slavery, rape, child-abuse, or torture, then you're just as guilty of twisting and perverting them as those persons who have twisted them to somehow justify their own perversions...

I said "...the “great truths” contained in the Bible have been used throughout history to defend slavery, domestic violence, witch burning, torture, murder and countless other crimes."

The key word is "have". The Bible has" been used to defend these atrocities and with a great degree of success. This is historical fact. I am not interpreting the Bible here, I am just pointing out that the "great truths" Buckley refers to -- the ones you suggest we should infer if they are not there -- are not clear, comprehensive or perfect. We can, in fact, improve on them. And those who seek to do so are not necessarily doing so out of arrogance or, as J.Q. suggests, because they think America is evil.

[kmcgraw5]

They are comprehensive in their scope, if not their precise words. But since you are obviously a lieralist, I wouldn't expect you to accept that.

Of course mankind had a sense of right and wrong before God handed down the Ten Commandments; I'm not arguing that they didn't. Why God chose to write them down when he did, I guess is between Him and Moses (I try to never question His infinite wisdom and timing -- never a good thing to do); perhaps he felt we needed a written reminder after having lived under Pharaoh's corruption for hundreds of years.

And sorry; I for one choose not to rely on mere mortals to try to improve on anything God has created or commanded. Wouldn't be prudent... ;)

[JaneBlow]

I didn't really intend to get into a religious debate. I did want you to know that I read the article and I had an opinion on it. To summarize, I don't think Liberals (or anyone for that matter) are arrogant just because they look beyond the Ten Commandments and "traditional wisdom" for guiding principles. I actually think it is arrogant to believe that there is no need to. If I believed in God, I could only believe in a God who would expect more of me than that.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I don't think Liberals (or anyone for that matter) are arrogan

Since I've implied or outright stated this opinion before, I suspect that you are not surprised if I respectfully disagree. Particularly as it pertains to the Liberal/Democratic ruling elite as well as some of their more radical left-wing supporters.

I believe that Obama's demeanor is incredibly condescending. Harry Reid believes that the citizens who stop by the Capital Visitors Center stink. Nancy Pelosi believe that if Republicans stand up for their beliefs but it's contrary to what she supports that they are unpatriotic.

I believe it is arrogant to believe that mankind can significantly impact the environment one way or the other.

I believe that even if you do believe the above statement that it is arrogant to believe that those who don't are just too stupid to recognize scientific reality...despite the fact that 650 scientists have recently contradicted that "consensus".

I believe that it is arrogant the way that many liberals look down upon those of faith as some kind of flat-earth, superstitious, backwards moron.

I believe it is arrogant for a news anchor to report that the speech of a politician gave him a thrill up his leg and then expect us to believe he is capable of anything resembling partiality.

I believe it is arrogant for a reporter who is 1)older than dirt, 2)as liberal as the deficit is huge and 3) has a voice reminiscent of the Wicked Witch of the West espouses the belief that anyone who has access to the truth would have no recourse but to be liberal as if liberal and truth are synonymous and still expects us to believe that her reporting would have no bias.

I believe it's arrogant to feign indignation over a cartoon that, since it was aimed at liberals, was mischaracterized as something racist. To believe that you would have to be completely unaware that the stimulus was written by Pelosi and company. Oh, and you'd have to believe that, as it stands, the quality of the stimulus plan is actually better than what a chimp could have produced. (see the Infinite Monkey Theorem)

I believe that it is arrogant for some liberals to espouse the belief that, despite the color and gender barriers that the Republicans have already broken, the election of Steele to head the GOP was simply so they could have a "token person of color".

To summarize: I believe there is a growing trend of arrogance within much of the Democratic party and the Liberal philosophy and I believe it is becoming increasingly evident and increasingly undeniable.

[kmcgraw5]

I didn't really intend to get into a religious debate. I did want you to know that I read the article and I had an opinion on it. To summarize, I don't think Liberals (or anyone for that matter) are arrogant just because they look beyond the Ten Commandments and "traditional wisdom" for guiding principles. I actually think it is arrogant to believe that there is no need to. If I believed in God, I could only believe in a God who would expect more of me than that.

Fair enough. I do appreciate that you read it and had an opinion. Like I said, we just have to agree to disagree on this one, especially since we don't have the same beliefs in the Almighty. But contrary to popular opinion or conventional wisdom about Christians, I won't advocate having you burned at the stake over it. I think that would be against the 6th commandment, right? ;)

[billspiz]

How old is dirt??

my my dear John Q...what are you going to do with yourself for the next 4 years...are you building the safe room so none of that liberal arrogance gets on you like a flu bug??....poor poor man...how do you manage with all this around you..

and its funny since Im fairly new to this blog, I've had a few co workers and friends check some of this out...7 to be exact and only 1 Democrat...and you know the first comment they had about your musings??...ARROGANCE

wow....maybe us liberals and you aren't really that far apart!!

[J.Q. Citizen]

How old is dirt??

my my dear John Q...what are you going to do with yourself for the next 4 years...are you building the safe room so none of that liberal arrogance gets on you like a flu bug??....poor poor man...how do you manage with all this around you..

and its funny since Im fairly new to this blog, I've had a few co workers and friends check some of this out...7 to be exact and only 1 Democrat...and you know the first comment they had about your musings??...ARROGANCE

wow....maybe us liberals and you aren't really that far apart!!

How old is dirt? I don't know, check Wikipedia for the birth date of Helen Thomas.

How do I manage? I've been surviving with it for at least the last 8 years so I'm sure I'll muddle through.

Well, maybe this is a teachable moment. Perhaps if 7 of your friends all had the same comment about my posts on this blog then you could provide at least one example of what was considered arrogant. I'd be genuinely interested in doing a little self-analysis on that.

I will give you this. It's possible that the strength of my convictions could be perceived as arrogant to some. It's possible that some of it could be intentional...just to be irritating. It's possible that some of it could be a bit of a self-defense mechanism. I'm not saying that I haven't had my moments. However, I do not believe that it is a common theme throughout my posts. What can I say, I'm a confident kind of a guy and I have a twisted and sarcastic sense of humor. Some people may misconstrue that as arrogance. But, perhaps you've got a point and some introspection is in order.

[JaneBlow]

Since I've implied or outright stated this opinion before, I suspect that you are not surprised if I respectfully disagree. Particularly as it pertains to the Liberal/Democratic ruling elite as well as some of their more radical left-wing supporters.

I believe that Obama's demeanor is incredibly condescending.

That's President Obama, if you don't mind. :)
Fortunately, the majority of Americans are happy to have a President they can be proud of.

I believe it is arrogant to believe that mankind can significantly impact the environment one way or the other.

I believe that even if you do believe the above statement that it is arrogant to believe that those who don't are just too stupid to recognize scientific reality...despite the fact that 650 scientists have recently contradicted that "consensus".

The recycled list from 2007 was debunked time and again. If you choose to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists are engaged in a conspiracy against right wing Republicans, that's fine. But if you choose to bring it up in a public forum, don't get your feelings hurt when your belief is challenged.

I believe that it is arrogant the way that many liberals look down upon those of faith as some kind of flat-earth, superstitious, backwards moron.

Many liberals are people of faith, including President Obama.

I find it arrogant that Christians choose to believe that the vast majority of people that have ever lived or will ever live on this planet will burn for eternity in ****, while they will live in eternal bliss because they were fortunate enough to be born to Christian parents.

I believe it is arrogant for a news anchor to report that the speech of a politician gave him a thrill up his leg and then expect us to believe he is capable of anything resembling partiality.

How about if you felt a sense of pride during Obama's acceptance speech and even shed a tear -- would that be arrogant?

I believe it is arrogant for a reporter who is 1)older than dirt, 2)as liberal as the deficit is huge and 3) has a voice reminiscent of the Wicked Witch of the West espouses the belief that anyone who has access to the truth would have no recourse but to be liberal as if liberal and truth are synonymous and still expects us to believe that her reporting would have no bias.

Who are you talking about here?

Regardless, both sides vehemently claim to know the truth. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter many others conservative personalities constantly ridicule liberals.

I think constantly referring to people by derogatory nicknames is arrogant.

BTW, did you read the article?

[J.Q. Citizen]

That's President Obama, if you don't mind. :)

Well, you've made this a little difficult for me Jane. I'm not sure of the meaning of your emoticon. I'm not sure if you were trying to soften the comment of negate it. My initial response is "Yeah, I do mind actually." But, I'm not sure such a serious response is necessary and I don't want to make more out of this than you meant it. So, I guess I will simply say that I typically referred to President Bush as Bush and as such, I will continue to refer to President Obama as Obama.

Fortunately, the majority of Americans are happy to have a President they can be proud of.

Very nice Jane. The note of condescension was very subtle. Kudos.

The recycled list from 2007 was debunked time and again. If you choose to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists are engaged in a conspiracy against right wing Republicans, that's fine. But if you choose to bring it up in a public forum, don't get your feelings hurt when your belief is challenged.

I'm not sure to which list you are referring. I made my list up off the top of my head. But, to clarify the record. No, I don't believe that there is some portion of climatologists that are engaged in a conspiracy against right wing Republicans. I believe that they are a) trying to make themselves more important than they otherwise would be and b) trying to create an environment from which they can profit.

As for challenging my beliefs, that's fine. I'm pretty sure it won't hurt my feelings.

Many liberals are people of faith, including President Obama.

I believe you are correct. He's stated that he's Christian I believe. That's fine. It doesn't negate my point. Nancy Pelosi considers herself a devout Catholic but apparently the Pope recently set her straight on that account. I guess I should have clarified though...for some reason it's only Republicans of faith that are looked down upon. Only those who are not willing to violate the tenets of their beliefs for the sake of political expediency.

I find it arrogant that Christians choose to believe that the vast majority of people that have ever lived or will ever live on this planet will burn for eternity in ****, while they will live in eternal bliss because they were fortunate enough to be born to Christian parents.

Such as Obama?

I find it arrogant that Christians choose to believe that the vast majority of people that have ever lived or will ever live on this planet will burn for eternity in ****, while they will live in eternal bliss because they were fortunate enough to be born to Christian parents.

I thought this was a political discussion????

How about if you felt a sense of pride during Obama's acceptance speech and even shed a tear -- would that be arrogant?

No, that wouldn't be arrogant. However, if you are a reporter then you should save that tear for a later time and report on the events. This wasn't like 9/11 which transcended politics, this was a political event and as a reporter or anchor it is your ethical duty to report.

Who are you talking about here?

Helen Thomas, who described al-Queda as "so-called terrorists". Well lady, if you don't know that you should probably consider another line of work. I hear they're casting for a remake of the Wizard of Oz.

Regardless, both sides vehemently claim to know the truth. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter many others conservative personalities constantly ridicule liberals.

Sure, but they are arrogant. You typically don't reach the level of success that they have without having some arrogance. They also don't rule the country. They're also usually right :)
You know, if I was as successful and powerful and as feared by the current administration as they are, I would probably be even more arrogant than some people on this board seem to think I am. I still don't believe that arrogance is nearly as prevalent on the right as it is on the left.

I think constantly referring to people by derogatory nicknames is arrogant.

And that's fine Jane. You are as entitled to that opinion as I am to mine.

BTW, did you read the article?
Which article?

[JaneBlow]

Such as Obama?

Absolutely.



Which article?

The one in the original post of this thread.

edit:

actually it is the article Kevin posted here:

Just a joke about the liberal thought police infringing upon how JQ chooses to conduct his life...

For background, read http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123492175917805451.html

Or you can just dismiss it out of hand... ;)

end edit.

I'm tired. I'll get to the rest later.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Absolutely.
Well, if we're both in agreement that President Obama is arrogant, I don't know what else there is to discuss on this matter.

The one in the original post of this thread.

Well, since I've already commented on one particular passage regarding patriotism from that article and since you've replied to my comment on that passage...I'm not sure why you're asking me if I've read it.

[kmcgraw5]

I find it arrogant that Christians choose to believe that the vast majority of people that have ever lived or will ever live on this planet will burn for eternity in ****, while they will live in eternal bliss because they were fortunate enough to be born to Christian parents.


Hey, we didn't make up the rules; we just live by them. And how then do you account for the millions of Christians all over the world who came to know the saving grace of Jesus Christ, even though their parents were Hindu, or Muslim, or Catholic (just a joke ;))... or athiest, for that matter? But, I guess it doesn't matter, because you're clearly smarter than all of us... or even God, for that matter...

[billspiz]

kmc...I don't think Jane meant that she is smarter than anyone of us..

[JaneBlow]

Well, if we're both in agreement that President Obama is arrogant, I don't know what else there is to discuss on this matter.

I believe it takes extreme arrogance to believe the teachings of Christianity and I believe President Obama that he is a Christian, so the shoe fits. I also believe it takes a huge ego to get to the top of a lot of professions -- as you mentioned before about Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Well, since I've already commented on one particular passage regarding patriotism from that article and since you've replied to my comment on that passage...I'm not sure why you're asking me if I've read it.

I remember now. Sorry, I was very tired when I posted this. I was wondering how we got from discussing the whether the premise of the article makes sense -- that the average citizen was better equipped to govern than the intellectual because all the "great truths" had already been discovered in the Bible and "traditional wisdom" -- to listing examples of how liberals are arrogant.

[JaneBlow]

Hey, we didn't make up the rules; we just live by them. And how then do you account for the millions of Christians all over the world who came to know the saving grace of Jesus Christ, even though their parents were Hindu, or Muslim, or Catholic (just a joke ;))... or athiest, for that matter?

I don't feel the need to "account for" the people that have converted to Christianity from other religions or no religion. Their existence doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of souls will suffer eternally in **** according to the Bible and the vast majority of those poor souls are only guilty of believing whatever their parents taught them (those two people you should honor). Believing what your parents teach you may be a trait that has ensured the survival of our species, and ironically, it may be the same trait that ensures our destruction. Our species may not have survived if every one of us had to learn every danger for ourselves and did not learn them from our parents.

Regardless, I wonder how all those children that broke from the teachings of their parents will enjoy eternal bliss knowing their family is burning. Maybe God will be kind enough to erase their memories of them.

But, I guess it doesn't matter, because you're clearly smarter than all of us... or even God, for that matter...

No, I don't believe I'm smarter than anyone in this discussion. We have contradicting beliefs. We both think the other is wrong. Does that mean you think you are smarter than me?

Your comment really gets to the heart of the matter. If people with contradicting beliefs think there may be something to gain by sharing and defending them, they should not be offended when people do just that. Either it is worthwhile to share and discuss our beliefs or not. Accusing someone of being arrogant because they believe something you don't is not a valid defense of your belief. However, it is a very effective method of dropping out of the sharing process.

[billspiz]

Well done Jane...very well put!

[kmcgraw5]

No, I don't believe I'm smarter than anyone in this discussion. We have contradicting beliefs. We both think the other is wrong. Does that mean you think you are smarter than me?

Your comment really gets to the heart of the matter. If people with contradicting beliefs think there may be something to gain by sharing and defending them, they should not be offended when people do just that. Either it is worthwhile to share and discuss our beliefs or not. Accusing someone of being arrogant because they believe something you don't is not a valid defense of your belief. However, it is a very effective method of dropping out of the sharing process.

I aplogize; I guess that wasn't very Christian of me. Sometimes my sarcastic nature gets the better of me. I am, after all, human and quite imperfect. So, I'll say a prayer for you instead... :)

One way I choose to look at it, especially because my faith isn't as free from doubt as I wish it were, is what are the potential consequences from believng as opposed to not believing? Let's just say for the sake of argument that there isn't a God, but I believe there is one anyway? What's the worst case scenario for having done that; that I've wasted my life living it following a doctrine tha calls for unconditional love for everyone, even one's enemies? Whereas, if there is a God and I spend my life in unbelief, for which the penalty is eternal damnation, regardless of how "good" a life I may have lived, then the downside to not believing is much, much worse than the downside to believing. To me its a no-brainer. If I'm going to err, I'd rather err on the side of belief, even if that means the possibility that I will have erroneously spent my life in the pursuit of a "false" doctrine of love for my fellow man. Now admittedly that's not a very good reason for believng in God, just to hopefully avoid the off-chance that there really might be a ****, because that's not really sincere belief or faith. But I just use that as an example of why belief in God, even if in error, is much less problematic than erroneously not believing in God...

[kmcgraw5]

Regardless, I wonder how all those children that broke from the teachings of their parents will enjoy eternal bliss knowing their family is burning. Maybe God will be kind enough to erase their memories of them.

Hey, I must be making progress! You're actually acknowledging God's existence now! ;)

[JaneBlow]

I aplogize; I guess that wasn't very Christian of me. Sometimes my sarcastic nature gets the better of me. I am, after all, human and quite imperfect. So, I'll say a prayer for you instead... :)

One way I choose to look at it, especially because my faith isn't as free from doubt as I wish it were, is what are the potential consequences from believng as opposed to not believing? Let's just say for the sake of argument that there isn't a God, but I believe there is one anyway? What's the worst case scenario for having done that; that I've wasted my life living it following a doctrine tha calls for unconditional love for everyone, even one's enemies? Whereas, if there is a God and I spend my life in unbelief, for which the penalty is eternal damnation, regardless of how "good" a life I may have lived, then the downside to not believing is much, much worse than the downside to believing. To me its a no-brainer. If I'm going to err, I'd rather err on the side of belief, even if that means the possibility that I will have erroneously spent my life in the pursuit of a "false" doctrine of love for my fellow man. Now admittedly that's not a very good reason for believng in God, just to hopefully avoid the off-chance that there really might be a ****, because that's not really sincere belief or faith. But I just use that as an example of why belief in God, even if in error, is much less problematic than erroneously not believing in God...

This is called Pascal's Wager -- believing in God, just in case. It doesn't work for me, personally because it contradicts my belief that we should require evidence for all of our beliefs. I can't hold that belief and make an exception for God. If I did, and there is an all-knowing God, he would know that I'm not sincere in my belief anyway. Therefore, I would have suspended my true belief in requiring evidence for no good reason.

[JaneBlow]

Hey, I must be making progress! You're actually acknowledging God's existence now! ;)

Touché.

I should have said "Maybe, if God does exist, he will be kind enough to erase their memories of them."


 

[J.Q. Citizen]

This is called Pascal's Wager -- believing in God, just in case. It doesn't work for me, personally because it contradicts my belief that we should require evidence for all of our beliefs. I can't hold that belief and make an exception for God. If I did, and there is an all-knowing God, he would know that I'm not sincere in my belief anyway. Therefore, I would have suspended my true belief in requiring evidence for no good reason.

So, what evidence do you have that you should have that belief? :)

[JaneBlow]

So, what evidence do you have that you should have that belief? :)

What evidence do I have for believing that all beliefs should have evidence?

I think every positive contribution science has ever made should count as evidence that evidence is good.

[J.Q. Citizen]

What evidence do I have for believing that all beliefs should have evidence?

I think every positive contribution science has ever made should count as evidence that evidence is good.

Okay, first, just to be clear, you did understand that was just a light-hearted interjection right?

But your response has actually made me think about this a bit. You used phrases such as "I believe" and "I think". Isn't that really just another form of faith?

[JaneBlow]

Okay, first, just to be clear, you did understand that was just a light-hearted interjection right?

But your response has actually made me think about this a bit. You used phrases such as "I believe" and "I think". Isn't that really just another form of faith?

No, it isn't. Faith, by definition, is believing without evidence.

I believe that we should require evidence for all our beliefs. I base this belief on evidence that the scientific method works.

[J.Q. Citizen]

No, it isn't. Faith, by definition, is believing without evidence.

I believe that we should require evidence for all our beliefs. I base this belief on evidence that the scientific method works.
Actually, there are several definitions of faith including " something that is believed especially with strong conviction". But, I understand your point.

[JaneBlow]

Actually, there are several definitions of faith including " something that is believed especially with strong conviction". But, I understand your point.

I would submit that faith requires strong conviction precisely because of a lack of evidence. If there were evidence, there would be no need to have faith.

[McKinneyRes]

Wow, I guess my version of obvious is a bit different...

My point, apparently not clear to our GOP bloggers is that you have 3 or 4 GOP governors making public statements that the bailout package is wrong and they by no means stand for it. OK fine...Meanwhile you people in their states needing help for unemployment, healthcare, etc would be livid if they didn't get the money. So..since the legislature can get the money anyway, the governors (albeit high profile ones with White House aspirations) can claim conservative ideology while satisfying their constituents. Its ironic that its the high profile govs. The article then states that they "are probably going to take it anyway"..then what the point of saying anything....

Can it be anymore clearer this is political posturing???...apparently not.. my comment about Karl Rove was merely a shot because I loathe the man....and John Q you can go ahead and write 7 paragraphs picking every word I write and interrogate it...but regarding Karl Rove...I just don't like him...thats it.

Bill, Did you see Meet The Press this morning? The Gov. from Florida whom is a Rep. is in full support of the stimulas.. While, Gov. Crist, from Lousianna, got slammed on the air for talking like he would not accept the money.. Gov. Crist, said he would have to evaluate the stipulations to make sure it makes sense for Lousianna to take the money. They showed the Mayor New Orleans, who said.. "If you don't want to take, the money, please pass that money on to the City of New Orleans".

I bet money that Crist takes every dime!!

Yes, its funny to see many of these GOP Gov. incuding our own "Slick Rick" Perry talk as if they are going to decline the money.. They know full well they will gladly take every dime!!

[JaneBlow]

Bill, Did you see Meet The Press this morning? The Gov. from Florida whom is a Rep. is in full support of the stimulas.. While, Gov. Crist, from Lousianna, got slammed on the air for talking like he would not accept the money.. Gov. Crist, said he would have to evaluate the stipulations to make sure it makes sense for Lousianna to take the money. They showed the Mayor New Orleans, who said.. "If you don't want to take, the money, please pass that money on to the City of New Orleans".

I bet money that Crist takes every dime!!

Yes, its funny to see many of these GOP Gov. incuding our own "Slick Rick" Perry talk as if they are going to decline the money.. They know full well they will gladly take every dime!!

Governor Crist from Florida backed the Stimulus plan 100%. I heard Governor Jindall from Louisiana, is saying he won't take the part that is to extend unemployment benefits. That is unbelievable to me because he is screwing the people that need it the most. And unemployment benefits are guaranteed to be spent -- stimulating the economy. What is he thinking????

[McKinneyRes]

Governor Crist from Florida backed the Stimulus plan 100%. I heard Governor Jindall from Louisiana, is saying he won't take the part that is to extend unemployment benefits. That is unbelievable to me because he is screwing the people that need it the most. And unemployment benefits are guaranteed to be spent -- stimulating the economy. What is he thinking????

Must be alot of pressure in the Republican Party to just say "NO" to everything Obama does.. Man, they are bitter, sore loosers!!! :D

[J.Q. Citizen]

I would submit that faith requires strong conviction precisely because of a lack of evidence. If there were evidence, there would be no need to have faith.

Yes Jane, I said I understood your belief but I was pointing out that "by definition" there is more than one definition of faith.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Must be alot of pressure in the Republican Party to just say "NO" to everything Obama does.. Man, they are bitter, sore loosers!!! :D

You know, there is another possibility here. It's just possible that they are not bitter, sore losers so much as their beliefs and principles are diametrically opposed. It's just possible that, like many of us believed prior to the election, that the policies of Obama and the Democratically led Congress would be detrimental to the country. Much of what they have proposed is so far to the left of conservative principles that there is no middle ground.

As for the Republican governors that are opposed to the stimulus. I don't believe that they have much of a choice. I believe the package was written with language that allows the state legislatures to bypass their governors wishes. However, the stimulus is a done deal. There is no going back. It's not like if one state doesn't take the money that it goes back to the treasury thus saving the country that portion of the money. Even if a state were able to reject the funds, those funds would simply go to another state or project. The money is still going to be spent. And the citizens of that state have paid as much as the citizens of any other state so, of course they should take the money. It would be absolutely stupid not to. That doesn't make the stimulus a good thing, it just means that since they weren't able to do what they felt like was the best for their constituents and the country as a whole, they now have to adapt and do what's best for their constituents under the given circumstances...it's too late for the country as w hole.

Why oppose certain aspects such as welfare or unemployment? Because the bill comes with certain strings that could undermine the advances in reforms that one of those states may have made up to this point. For instance, the stimulus rewards states for adding people to their welfare rolls. In other words, rather than allowing existing reforms to remain in place that encourage people to get off of welfare, those reforms will have to be dismantled so that they can encourage people to be on welfare.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Governor Crist from Florida backed the Stimulus plan 100%. I heard Governor Jindall from Louisiana, is saying he won't take the part that is to extend unemployment benefits. That is unbelievable to me because he is screwing the people that need it the most. And unemployment benefits are guaranteed to be spent -- stimulating the economy. What is he thinking????

I have to ask, have any of you that watched Meet the Press or read the story actually listened to the response? I didn't have the opportunity to watch it but I did hear excerpts from it this morning. Did you guys not listen or listen and just reject the response?

Jindall doesn't want to take the UI money in the stimulus because it requires a permanent change to Louisiana state unemployment laws. If they take the money now, they will be stuck with Washington mandated changes to their laws that will no longer be funded. As he put it, why should they spend a dollar to get a dime? It makes no sense.

Here is the excerpt taken from MSLSD:
GOV. JINDAL: That's great, except the federal law, if you actually read the bill--and I know it was 1,000 pages, and I know they got it, you know, at midnight, or hours before they voted on it--if you actually read the bill, there's one problem with that. The word permanent is in the bill. It requires the state to make a permanent change in our law. Law B--our employer group agrees with me. They say, "Yes, this will result an increase in taxes on our businesses, this will result in a permanent obligation on the state of Louisiana." It would be like spending $1 to get a dime. Why would we take temporary federal dollars if we're going to end up having a permanent program?

And here's the problem. So many of these things that are called temporary programs end up being permanent government programs. But this one's crystal clear, black and white letter law. The federal stimulus bill says it has to be a permanent change in state law if you take this state money. And so within three years the federal money's gone, we've got now a permanent change in our laws, we have to pay for it, our businesses pay for it. I don't think it makes sense to be raising taxes on Louisiana businesses during these economically challenging times. And what it shows is what we're going to do in the stimulus is we're going to look at every program, every dollar. If it makes sense for Louisiana, makes sense for our taxpayers, we'll use those programs and dollars. If it doesn't, like on Friday we said, "This doesn't make sense for us. This is not a good deal for us." It makes--my job is to represent Louisiana's taxpayers. Makes no sense for us to take temporary federal dollars and create permanent state obligations.

[JaneBlow]

Yes Jane, I said I understood your belief but I was pointing out that "by definition" there is more than one definition of faith.

I understand that different dictionaries may use different words. But, regardless of the words used, no definition of faith contradicts the definition of "belief without evidence". Not unless we are talking about a different word than is used to describe belief in God.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Interesting report today about a handful of Republican governors who are considering (or considered and retracted) rejecting bailout monies for their states for education, infrastructure and healthcare proclaiming their beliefs that this may not help and hereby promoting their conservative ideology.

Its interesting to note that while they can be talking out of one side of their mouth saying no to assistance, the legislatures in their states can go ahead and take the monies anyway and not tick off the people in their state who desire the assistance...this way they can have their cake and eat it too!....you don't need the the governors approval! Funny how a couple of these governors (Jindall, Palin) have White House aspirations...
rock!
Ahh, those pesky Republican governors, always standing in the way of progress and talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Of course, Schmucky Schumer has a little something to say to those governors who dare to suggest that they should have some control over how their state is run.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has a message for Republican governors hemming and hawing over whether to accept the stimulus money Uncle Sam is mailing to each state: Take it or leave it.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/schumer-to-gop-govs-on-st_n_169411.html


But despite that, there is yet another governor balking at the restrictions imposed by the bill.

Tennessee could reject a portion of the $787 billion economic stimulus package out of concerns that it would force the state to raise taxes on businesses in the future.

At the National Governors Association meetings in Washington, D.C., Gov. Phil Bredesen said this week that he might turn down relief for unemployed workers worth an estimated $143 million because of conditions placed on the money by Congress.

The stimulus package would also raise unemployment benefits by $25 a week for all workers, but in addition, lawmakers want states to expand the pool of people who can apply for benefits. That would put more pressure on an unemployment trust fund that is already trying to stave off insolvency.


Here is a little biographical information about Governor Bredesen.

Born November 21, 1943 (1943-11-21) (age 65)
Oceanport, New Jersey
Political party Democratic [Ooops]
Spouse Andrea Conte
Children Ben Bredesen
Residence Nashville, Tennessee
Alma mater Harvard University
Profession Healthcare entrepreneur
Religion Presbyterian

[Xp007]

Hey Jane,
Not only does God exsist, but HE is also a Republican!

[Xp007]

To all,
please excuse my grammar, for English is not my native language:(

[J.Q. Citizen]

To all,
please excuse my grammar, for English is not my native language:(

Hey, you grammer, speeling and English fine just is.

Seriously, never had a problem understanding what you meant.