quartermainefan

I said before I thought Obama won over Hillary because of his race. That doesn't mean I am racist, that means I think society hates women more than they hate black men. He had no qualifications to be president and nothing in his résumé. People voted for him anyway. Such is the way of the world.

About Clinton, I don't blame him for lying under oath. They had no business asking him if he cheated on his wife. What's he supposed to do, admit to it? No cheater admits to it and it is routine to lie about it. And this is just my theory: Hillary is a lesbian, she has known about all his affairs and just doesn't care as long as she isn't embarassed. Clinton was president and it was not like he could go to singles bars. Cut the guy a break!

The personal animosity toward Max in this thread is uncalled for. Yeah he calls Obama "Barry" and "Obummer", but I go to Crooks and Liars and they call Romney "Mittens". It's harmless contempt.

I think Romney finally did himself in with this attack on Obama over this. When Peggy Noonan is openly criticizing you and she is the reigning doyenne of the republican cognoscenti, if you are a republican you are in trouble.

“I don't feel that Mr. Romney has been doing himself any favors, say in the past few hours, perhaps since last night,” Noonan told Fox News. “Sometimes when really bad things happen, when hot things happen, cool words or no words is the way to go.”

Everyone, including The New York Times, says a youtube video produced by some neoconservative Israeli-Americans caused all of the uproar and violence. It started in Egypt when a radical cleric found the video and later added Arabic subtitles and began speaking about it on Egyptian TV. Supposedly, the video portrayed Mohammed as a pedophile and homosexual and the whole religion as a cancer. The man who produced it is now in hiding and that crazy pastor from Florida, Terry Jones, who in the past threatened to burn korans has been promoting the film.

The video is amateurish crap that has a budget of 3 cents and isn't very funny.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qmodVun16Q4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I was curious so last night checked it out. There were 12,000 views 12 hours ago and 122,000 now.

This is the part where I drive liberals nuts: That crackpot who made this has the right to make this just as much as Islamists in Iran, saudi arabia or wherever have the right to produce cartoons brainwashing kids to hate jews. The difference is we don't behave like animals killing people over something so ridiculous. And if people think Islam is a cancer maybe someone gave them reason to. Further, if you make a movie saying Islam is a cancer 8000 miles away, I am not sure how my killing some american that never heard of the movie standing right next to me fixes the problem. The world has danced around the sensibilities of these ridiculously sensitive murderers enough. They have a right to kill, but the Danish do not have a right to draw a cartoon? And then the world pretends these people have a point of view worth listening to.

wow how telling,

"But unlike...tradition conscious soaps, GH never saw much value in its roots."

I guess Monty did a lot more hurt than good.

Considering without her changes the show would have been canceled, I don't see how that is possibly true.

Romney- Maybe he has good ideas

He has no ideas, let alone good ideas. All he is is a mash up of every conservative goal bundled into one candidate. If modern conservative theory holds there is no global warming, then his position is there is no global warming. If in 2015 the new conservative consensus is there is global warming, he will say he believes in global warming. 20 years ago he was for Roe v Wade. Modern conservatism does not even allow for abortion in the case of rape, so therefore he does not believe in that and hides behind some states rights bullshit. All he wants to do is cut taxes (because truly, the 10% he paid on whatever he isn't hiding in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland was just too high a rate for his tastes). He has no recipes for fixing the economy save plugging up these mythological tap loopholes he cannot name. He does not address the fact that even if he closed every loophole it wouldn't begin to make a dent in the deficit (let alone the debt) because the true conservative agenda--as always since the days of FDR--is to drive the country broke til you get to the point where you say "we would love to have social security but we just can't afford it. Sorry the entitlements have to go."

If you cut the tax rates to zero then of course you will have a broke country. It worked so well for GWB, who bemoaned the budget surpluses of Clinton. Bush bankrupted the country with his tax cuts and wars of choice for Cheney's neo-con dreams of empire, and lo and behold there is no money for medicare. Well no kidding, you spent it all on ten years worth of some fake war in Iraq and tax cuts for Bill Gates.

Um? I am a liberal but this is not true at all... Obama made a blunder. Sure, Poland didn't have a great history with its Jews and many were happy to see them go, but Poland was defeated by then and the only responsibility for the death camps goes to the Nazis.

This has nothing to do with being liberal. The poles knew what was happening and were complicit in the goings on. Not all of them but enough to make the label "polish death camps" an apt description.

Poland..please. They were polish death camps and the poles knew what was going on there and were often willing accomplices.

Is TG posing with a JZ muppet? What happened to her nose?

She had a nose job. Probably during that year 1981/82ish when she left the show for a while

Alright, QFan... good points and I agree with much of what you write here. The only two things I would respond with would be, first, some would use the "V" word - values - and pair them with some sort of religious virtues and claim those said virtues are what those dudes who signed the Constitution had in mind when drafting it, as well as the Bill of Rights, etc.

A debate on that is a waste of time since we really can't define specific values in an ever-changing and diverse America. I would argue that we COULD debate that maybe 100 years ago, maybe as recent as 50 years ago. Our world has changed and I recognize that.

The other issue is that, in terms of the Middle East and foreign policy questions, Israel is extremely important. We have a supposed ally whose very existence is threatened. Where we stand and what we do with all of that speaks volumes to the world. I know that Obama argued that Romney/Ryan had no foreign policy experience... but neither did Obama, which was what Biden was supposed to bring to the table, right? I know that domestic issues are important and should be front and center right now, but the world has really spun out of control the past few years and I honestly don't think Obama has handled foreign affairs very well. No fault of our Secretary of State, who is "the enforcer"... I think Hillary could have worked wonders in the world if not chained to Obama's foreign policy.

Qfan, thanks offering this because your points are on and I've got more to think about now. I know there is more than just left or right viewpoints with all of this... sometimes you all think of things I haven't and I appreciate that!

Some would use the V word...yeah, fundies, republicans and religious nutjobs. That's who uses the V word. As for foreign policy, we saw Mitt's policy: The russians are our number one enemy. What longtime allies our uncomfortable with Obama?

I love this movie. The first half hour is genius

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KY3HEur-wNQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Come on, ya'll (Marceline, Ann & QFan) are all better than that... three posts in a row that qualify as a DODGE of the question asked/topic raised! I didn't ask about FOX News... the Republican convention was LAST week. I wanted to talk about DEMOCRATS, since their convention is front and center THIS week!

However, though I didn't fully agree with Wales... I sure appreciate the response, offering up some things for me to think about. I'm craving dialogue and discussion...

The topic is almost a non-entity. Who cares if the word God is in the platform? Can we legislate god in any way? Can we establish god policies? Unlike abortion and gay marriage, God has a tough time impacting day to day laws and policies. Why there is this never-ending race to prove who is the most religious in America I will never understand. Iran and Saudi Arabia? I expect their government to bow and kneel to religious fervor. We are supposed to be beyond such bullshit.

As for Jerusalem. There I think the democrats got it wrong. If Israel wants Jerusalem as their capital then that is the capital. I don't know why this is even still up for discussion. The people booing were jerks but Jerusalem vs Tel Aviv matters not a bit this election. And republicans need to realize that as they babble on endlessly about Jesus this and Jesus that, Jews don't give a rat's ass about Jesus. I don't care what Jesus would do, what Jesus would think, what Jesus would drive, it is all bullshit. I am more interested in where I can get a good corn beef on rye. It's frightening in 2012 to think about a government worrying about Jesus because that is the first step toward a government asking who doesn't believe in Jesus. And we know how that turned out for the jews in the 20th century. Republicans never will realize that the more they talk about Jesus the more it reminds Jews that they are not from the same tribe, so to speak. Democrats welcome people who worship Jesus, trees, VIshnu, the Force, or nothing at all.

As always republicans underesitimated Bill. "Too long" "too wonky" "even washington insiders eyes started to glaze"...well not according to neilsen where Bill beat the NFL football game. Clinton is basically the closest thing politics has to a rock star. If they got rid of the amendment he would easily win a third term. It is just a shame Hillary didn't win so Bill could be backdoored into power.

Recorded the 4 hour Greed and watched parts and finished it in 3 days - thought it was good - however I wonder what the 5 hours cut out was.

Recorded the 4 hour Greed and watched parts and finished it in 3 days - thought it was good - however I wonder what the 5 hours cut out was.

9 hours for a movie is insane

Thoughts, anyone, on the God and Jersusalem debacle at the DNC yesterday?

An ideological fight on the floor of the convention, suggesting deep divisions within the Democratic party on the acceptance of religion and our ties to Israel, is easily the biggest story of both conventions this election year.

Yes, if you watch Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. But according to Charles Krauthhammer on FOX Bill Clinton's speech was a failure, so who in their right mind would listen to anything anyone says on FOX?

Bill Clinton showed once again he is the best speaker of them all. No one can discuss issues and complex data and break it down conversationally the way he can. He effortlessly took on every single republican talking point. And he cuts into his targets with a smile on his face which is something all republicans since Reagan have forgotten is vital. Compare this speech to Chris Christie's somber oratory or Paul Ryan's, and Clinton comes off as the master and they the amateurs.

Speaking of Politico, Jim VandeHei from Politico appeared on C-SPAN and offered the following regarding the coverage of Michelle Obama's speech:

"The mainstream media tends to be quite smitten with the Obamas so I don’t know if we should over interpret it but there’s no doubt that’s sort of how all the taste makers in media as we talk what it does have a way shaping certainly the coverage in the morning. So I think you can anticipate that tomorrow is going to be quite glowing.”

And to underscore his points, Politico posted a laundry list of comments from our beloved mainstream media critiquing the first lady's speech - including comments by FOX News commentators:

CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "The First Lady not hitting a home run, but probably a Grand Slam."

NBC's Chuck Todd: "Michelle Obama owned this convention in a way that no speaker owned the convention in Tampa."

CNN analyst David Gergen: "If they have two more nights like this, they can probably break this race open."

Fox News's Martha McCallum: "Very positive response here from the floor, and very enthusiastic from people listening to this."

Fox News' Brit Hume: "Extremely impressive woman."

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: "Oh my god."

MSNBC's Ed Schultz: "Tonight we were reintroduced to a star."

CNN analyst Donna Brazille: "Love is in the air."

But rather that being evidence of bias, I would say if Britt Hume and Rachel Maddow both drew the same conclusion that maybe that is because Michelle Obama was good.

Max, I don't believe the media was the partisan beast you claim them to be back in 1980. I certainly don't think there was a "liberal" media then that intensely disliked Reagan, or hated that he got elected. The man had charisma and could work a crowd... the media then loved that aspect of Reagan. The media simply enjoys covering charismatic personalities. Clinton was dynamic in that one... Obama is a fantastic orator (teleprompter issues aside).

Neither Bush proved to be a dynamic speaker. Carter was as dull as a rusty razor.

I don't believe a biased hard news media (or so-called hard news media) got any real traction until the late 90's to 2000. Talk radio aside, I think the proliferation of choices presented by satellite and cable unleashed the media none of us care much for.

Hard news is dead... Infotainment rules the day now. Pundits are everywhere. Liberals watch MSNBC or listen to NPR, Conservatives watch FOX News or listen to Limbaugh or Beck. Moderates watch everything and are probably better informed than all of us!

And Max thinks another four years of Obama will doom us all.

That's not true. Study after study finds people who get their news from FOX are the most ignorant when it comes to actual facts from the news. I watched Clint Eastwood mock Obama for not consulting the Russians about going into Afghanistan. I didn't see CNN or FOX ask Clint what the hell he was talking about and that it was GWB who went into Afghanistan, but I did see John Stewart ask. Clint said maybe we shouldn't have a lawyer as President, and maybe we shouldn't. The only one though that I saw say Obama was a Harvard lawyer but Mitt Romney was one too so therefore Clint Eastwood doesn't even know who he is supporting is once again John Stewart. I bet you the fine journalists at FOX did not address any of the inane and insane ramblings of Eastwood. Stewart also bluntly and in easy to understand pieces reminded people that the very same economic panel Ryan lambasted Obama for not listening to, was the selfsame panel he Ryan was on and that he himself voted against. So what was his complaint?

There is news to be had, just not on FOX, CNN or MSNBC unless we are talking natural disasters or something. Politico.com has interesting articles, fivethirtyeight offers sharp analysis and predictions on the election from poll wonk Nate Silver. Silver has a track record second to none and he feels Obama is something like a 70-30 chance to win.

I thought it was funny how they had Ted Kennedy come back from the dead to clobber Romney

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fhzZmvmnS5M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Under Obama the stock market went from 8000 to 13000. Obama saved the auto industry over the objections of republicans who wanted to let it die. Obama wanted to return the tax levels to the Clinton era levels when the economy thrived but republicans insisted we keep the failed policies of GWB. No president can create a job market Max, and as someone who posts so often about politics you knew that before you made your post, right?

McCain, McBain...too much GH! (which has been really really good lately)

Yeah, the media loves McBain. How many times did we have to hear Wolf Blitzer call him a maverick? And there was nothing maverick about him except the bold way he went crawling on his knees to Jerry Fallwell looking for votes from the freakish fundies. Only in the American press is it mavericky to be against torture.

The press likes who it likes. They don't like Mitt but they do like Ryan.

1980 wasn't exciting at all. Everyone knew Jimmy Carter was gonna lose and lose big. It was a bit of a surprise just HOW big he lost, everyone knew what was going to happen going into it. But then, sensationlism wasn't nearly rampant then. To be honest, Patty Hearst's release from Prison, 3 mile island, and the Iran hostage crisis garnered the lion's share of the news.

1980 was a really exciting election year thanks to Ted Kennedy. His speech to the convention has to rank as one of the best ever. The republican convention was also interesting because Reagan was trying to get Ford to be his VP but Ford sort of made impossible to accept demands to be a co-president instead of just a vice. That is when Reagan went to Bush. The thing is even as recently as 1980 conventions had interesting elements to them. Now it is all so staged it takes a Clint Eastwood to provide anything interesting.

I think these presidential nominees are wrong to announce their VP picks before the conventions. Save it for the night the VP is nominated so there is a little suspense.

You think so? I don't. McCain at least had some integrity and dignity before he sold his soul and picked Snowbilly as his running mate. Both Romney and Ryan are nothing more than hypocritical, pathological power mongers. They're basically Sarah Palin x 2.

No one was worse than Sarah Palin. Romney may be a charlatan who will say anything and Ryan may be a zealot, but they obviously read newspapers.

Are people really that enamored of celebrities that they can be swayed to vote the same way?

I don't care about their political affiliations but if they say something outrageous then it might cause me to look at them differently.

Is this the quote of the night?: "When the world needs someone to do the really big stuff, you need an American."

Well at least in the 20th Century that sort of was true. The U.N. WWI and WWII, the cold war, the moon landing and all the things we can debate their virtues forever, America had to not only finance everything but also enter those wars to put an end to them. Kennedy said we would go to the moon, not some equally visionary European. When it comes time for the really big stuff the world does look to the US. Maybe in this century that job will fall to someone else.

Loved Paul Ryan's speech last night.

Did you love when he blamed Obama for the closing of the auto plant that actually closed during the Bush administration?