Greg's GL

I think President Obama is making some positive steps regarding the budget. Of course, the right is critical of it already. I wonder, where was all this fiscal responsibility when they were in control? Obama wants to trim $17B from budget And this article I found interesting. Seems some of my ilk are getting a little impatient about the President moving on issues of importance to the LGBT community. It's been what, 5 months?!?!?! Give him a chance, people! Obama pressed to engage on gay issues Thoughts?

Back at cha, Brian. I will send you an email one of these days, I promise! <<hugs ya back>> You could have posted this without the jab to Obama. Regardless, I think we're of the same mind on the immigration issue. A blanket declaration of amnesty is perhaps too much. But there are some illegal immigrants that are productive members of society - at least here in Florida. And alot of them do jobs that no one else will do. If they were all to disappear with a blanket deportation, our local economy would suffer tremendously. This is a toughie. I agree with all of you on this issue. But Brian, are you willing to allow for more spending to fix some of these problems in our own backyard? President Obama is proposing some additional domestic spending initiatives, and some of the stimulus money to the states might improve the problems. However, when there are Republican Govenors refusing stimulus cash and general reluctance from Republicans on more spending, how do you propose we fix the problems? There has been quite an explosion of states allowing gay marriage and today there's word that Vermont and Maine are looking at the issue. When it comes to Marion Barry's statements, however, I have to say that I don't have a problem with it. His job is to represent his constituents. If they are against it, then he voted correctly. If I were in public office, I would have done the same thing and we all know how I feel about the issue. Shocked? I hope not. For a public servant's mandate is the will of those that put him in office. Not his own agenda. I think it's quite clear he's on Israel's "side". All the Assistant SOS said was the goal of the US was UNIVERSAL participation in the non-proliferation treaty. He also mentioned India, North Korea and Pakistan as well, didn't he? Israel was not singled out in the least. If this comes to fruition in the UN, I have a hard time believing that they would impose this on Israel without first having the other countries join as well. The Washington Times notoriously has a conservative bent. I know. I lived there for 4 years. If this ever happens (I doubt it will), I will have a hard time supporting foreign policy as put forth by this administration. You have my word. Regarding "Islam Day". I believe in the separation of church and state. The separation of ALL churches from state affairs. The 9/11 - News Flash. Not all Islamists believe in the destruction of the United States. Those that perpetrated that crime against us were radicals. Much like Christianity has radicals and every other religion. The entire faith can not be condemned because of their actions. The lawmakers that voted for this day are smokin' crack IMHO.

You pose some good questions regarding America's reach. It will be interesting to see how it plays out when there's a bill put forth. I guess we will all have to wait and see until then unless there's someone with more insight into the issue. For example, I know my company got tax breaks from the state and county for building an office in Lake Mary with the promise to hire X number of people. But when they start laying off workers here to then hire more in India, should those tax breaks continue? The issue of "pay to work" is one I that I will have to plead ignorance. Do you have any links outlining how it will play out next year at tax return time? I'd be interested in checking that out. One thing I will say, giving me an extra $40 or so a month is supposed to help me out somehow? I am disappointed in that aspect of the tax cut plan for sure. I can't say I'm thrilled with your response. But like the old saying goes, don't ask the question unless you're prepared for the answer (and yes, Steve. I do agree with your assessment of the whole Miss California thing and Perez in particular). So, Brian....since you didn't answer my question the way I wanted you to, I'm going to make your image into a voodoo doll and get back at you by doing stuff to it! But you're a little contradictory in saying it doesn't "bother" you yet you won't support it. Strange, but no big deal for me. I am a little hurt by your stance, but so be it. The immigration issue needs some attention. That's true. But it's gonna take some time. The issue has been ignored for something like what - 20 years - so there has to be something functional put in place. We can't simply pack all of 'em up and ship 'em back to where they came from without some consequences to our economy. But things can't continue on the way they are because for one thing, the cost to the taxpayers for their healthcare (emergency rooms) and education is getting enormous. No hard feelings though buddy.

Brian, I can completely understand how you and probably alot of other posters in the forum might have come to the conclusion that I'm a gay marriage advocate. However, in my everyday life, it's not the most important issue to me on the political landscape and actually, if I could marry my lover legally I don't even know if we would do that. Shocking, I know! The underlying issue regarding gay marriage for me is the line in the constitution (and you're probably tired of me saying this) that states unequivocally that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. "Civil Unions" are not the same and we all know that separate but equal doesn't work. It didn't work for African Americans and it will not work for gay marriage. It never works. Honestly, I would feel that way about any group of people that are marginalized for whatever reason - WITHIN reason. Other than that, I'm more of an environmentalist than a rainbow-flag waving, in your face "we're here and we're queer" kind of guy. Educational issues and other social issues are also right up there in my book of political priorities. Just thought I'd clear that up a little. That being said, would it be great if the Democratic Congress and President were to recognize same-sex marriages at the federal level? Hell to tha yes, my man. But it ain't gonna happen because it would come with a helluva political price and I don't think they're willing to pay that price. But at least I don't have to listen to Democrats degrade me simply for one small part of the bigger me - YES, like Republicans have done in the past. In a perfect world, we would have politicians that govern from the center and from the heart. But this ain't a perfect world obviously and our politicians are business people at best and (some) criminals at worst. Republicans and Democrats can fall into either of these molds. They will govern issues based on how far it will extend their political career - I think we can both agree on that. Frankly, you're implication that all I care about is gay marriage is a little insulting, my friend. You, of all people, should know I'm more well-rounded politically than that. I'm curious though - how do you feel about same sex marriage? You said that Republicans better align with your "values", so ???? On to another issue, President Obama is keeping another campaign promise in regards to companies shipping jobs overseas. Good for him, I say! Obama tax dodge plan

Steve - Great post. You made some great points and it was an interesting read. Mind you, not that I AGREED with some of it but it was a great post just the same. I did want to say that based on UCLAN's post that I sincerely hope that you didn't take what I posted as a condemnation of your point of view. Like UCLAN, I wouldn't want you to alter your posts either. I love a good debate and was simply trying to push your buttons a little. I did not! Please post it again or quote the post you put the link in buddy. I have to check that out. Now for my good buddy Bri - Damn. And that's just what my aim was - to waste your time. Guess I fucked it up somehow.... Hmmmm. Some more good arguments presented by a "Rightie". I guess I'm off my game today cuz I'm just sitting here with my mouth open. NOT. Brian, you make some good arguments so let me get to work buddy - 1. The argument of "redistribution of wealth" rings hollow as has been pointed out many times in this thread. Either the Dems do it to benefit the less fortunate or the Repubs do it to benefit the more fortunate. That's the foundation of our tax laws, my friend. That hasn't changed with the election of President Obama. Furthermore, I can hardly compare tax laws to marginalizing a segment of the US population based solely on whom they [!@#$%^&*]. How can you? 2. Nice jab with Sen. Byrd. I posted something about DixieCrats during the general election. They are no longer part and parcel of the Democratic Party. However, Sen. Helms and Sen. Thurman were mainstays in the Republican party no more than 15 years ago. Can you defend them, my friend? 3. Ya got me with Mayor Newsom. Guess I never thought of him using a positive thing as a wedge issue...Hmmm. So maybe the Democrats do not have their hands clean after all, but it's still my assertion that they may have some smudges on their fingers, the Republican's hands are completely covered in crapola. And Brian .... you rock too buddy. Mucha ruca.

Well, I meant in relation to this thread. Obviously, I can't work on mending the relationships betweeen Dems/Repubs on my own. My intent was between us in this thread and the whole "Republicans did this, so the Democrat's are gonna do this" and vice versa. It's apparent, at least to me, that your sympathies lie with Republicans or why else would you be playing devil's advocate the way you have over the last few months. And honestly, it's surprising to me the line you are towing is primarily on the right. You do realize, that you are defending a party that would rather throw you to the wolves (based on your orientation) than sit down at a table and welcome you with open arms, right? The party you are defending were willing to classify you as a second class citizen in the constitution all for the sake of (hopefully) winning an election? And when was the last time the big, bad Democrats did the same to you and I, my friend? Hmmm......the answer is never. That's just my point, Steve. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T VOTE FOR OBAMA BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN. This ad on MTV didn't cause those people to suddenly realize that. They already felt that way. They didn't need an ad to justify their bigotry. If a white man chooses not to vote for a black man because of the pigmentation of his skin, fine. So be it. But if that is the primary reason WHY he cast his vote for the opposition, then NEWS FLASH....he's racist. Plain and simple. I don't understand how that's difficult to comprehend. The ad you mentioned will not turn a white man to vote against a black candidate and I would like to know why you think otherwise. Furthermore, I simply can not accept, nor would (I imagine) the majority of Americans, a white person that announces to everyone that it's ok he's prejudice against a black man because of a television commercial. It simply doesn't wash. I will defer to my earlier post but given the history of race relations in this country, it's simply not acceptable. If this were a country without the racial discriminatory history that we have then it may be different.....but it's not. Therefore, the argument falls flat to me. If you can explain it on perhaps simpler terms for someone like me, that would be great because I'd love to hear it. For a country that professes that all men are created equal, it's history says otherwise. Even it's current history betrays the constitution in relation to gays and lesbians. If anyone feels differently, please speak up. We will have something to debate in this muthafuckin thread.

I, personally, would like to know more about this point, Brian. What, exactly, do you mean by "values and principles"? Are they geared toward social issues (gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research) or fiscal? It would be great if you could explain this to us. Brian does post points of view from conservative web sites. I expect that. Just as I expect Roman to post from left-leaning ones. And I readily admit I've called out Brian for being closed-minded. Guilty as charged. But he has done the same. As a matter of fact, I think everyone here - perhaps UCLAN being the exception - has called out someone for being biased. So be it. And I've stated this before - but I actually VOTED for a Republican in November because I thought he was the best person for the job. Mind you, this is not a moderate Republican, but a crazed right-winger. His name in case anyone wants to research? John Mica. So let's understand that if someone from the right posts something inflammatory about the left, we will challenge them just as they have every right to challenge someone from the left. I think that's one of the best things about this thread. Brian is no martyr. He comes out fighting and I think, would expect opposing views to do the same. Don't feel so sorry for him! I respectfully disagree with this, and have stated why in my previous many posts. It's probably best to let bygones be bygones at this point. But I thought that you originally said you had a problem with his statements - that they were "offensive" because he said for the first time he had something in common with someone he was voting for as President. Isn't that true? Please correct me if I'm wrong, Steve, but I was merely pointing out that if he feels something in common with Obama and it's his skin color, then so be it. For alot of the same reasons you state above. Look, Steve. If there were two candidates, both of whom you identify very closely with on the issues. The only difference is one of them is gay the other straight - do you mean to tell me that you wouldn't pull the lever for the gay guy? If you wouldn't, then you're a bigger person than I. Brian - I noticed that you didn't address some questions from my earlier post. What's up with that? Giving up buddy?

I wasn't really coming to Roman's defense. I just think that you may have read a little too closely between the lines. It seems to me that over the course of the last 6 months or so that Roman hardly minces words. It is my belief that if he thought you were a racist, he would simply say it. Of course, that's just my impression of Roman. Since I have no way of knowing what he's thinking or meaning to say, you can take that for what it's worth. What is it that I'm supposedly denying? That you've been around the block a few times? Or that Roman is a "lightweight" debater? Or that you weren't born yesterday? Or that Roman could have made his point without including "the color of his skin"? Brian.....I can't rationalize Roman's "need" to bring this up when discussing the topic with you. Anymore that I could rationalize why you post some of the things you do. The only person's postings that I would even BEGIN to rationalize would be mi macho's. And he doesn't post here....so......unless one of you want to be my man, I can't go there! I'm glad you got a good laugh outta that. But answer me honestly, buddy. When is the last time a Democrat wanted to write discrimination into the constitution? Or used gay marriage as a wedge issue simply to get votes? Or went on public television claiming that the country was "less safe" because of someone of the Republican party's actions (that's happened so many times by Repubs it's alarming)? Can you examine your own party without prejudice and deny that? Actually, I am biased toward Democrats. I feel that they are the party that (mostly) aligns with my beliefs. Everyone here have some preference for a particular party and will tend to give that party a little more leeway than we would an opposing party. That's just human nature. GWB made some very, very bad decisions during his Presidency. Even Brian admits that. And there was ALOT to criticize when he first took office. A few refreshers: 1. Pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, effectively killing any worldwide effort to combat the destruction of our environment. And it was done unilaterally. 2. Ending allowance for stem cell research. 3. His seeming inability to construct a meaningful sentence without mispronounciations or grammatical mistakes. Steve - You are a proponent of dissent. That much is obvious. Are you saying that such dissent is harmful when only directed at Republicans? At times it seems that you hold more disdain for Democrats so I'm curious. The Iraq War was/is controversial because of the justification. If we all recall correctly, the reason for going to war changed almost daily before GWB kicked it off. Human rights violations, chemical weapons, sanctions violations, collusion with Osama, etc. The Iraq War was the first (and hopefully last) started under the pretense of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption which was another strike against it. Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator. That's true. But there are many others that are better positioned to do us harm than Hussein was. So why exactly did GWB have a hard-on for this one in particular? I don't think we will ever know the real reason why. Afganistan is completely different because that's where the War on Terror should have been concentrated from the get-go. A bastion of the Taliban and Osama's followers, this is where he (Osama) was given refuge and planned the attacks of 9/11 with the help of the Taliban. I argue the true terrorist enemies of America are there and more effort has to be done to stop them before more harm can come to our country. The ad question is a good one. I am going to take your word about it because I never saw it and you seem like a trustworthy guy, Steve. But here's my thoughts on that. No white person here can possibly ever know what it's like to be black in America. From the beginning of this promised "land of the free" - they were not. And even after they were given their freedom, they were oppressed for what, another 100 years as "separate but equal"?!?!?! Most of this was done in order to serve white people or to be made to feel less than white people. Given this history, I can completely understand some hesitation or "disconnect" with white politicans to the average black citizen. The argument that the Civil Rights movement was 40 years ago is debatable because for the majority of time the USA has been the "USA", black people have been second class citizens. Therefore, Obama being the first Presidential candidate that a black person (not all of them, but for some) felt they had something in common with is not all that hard to understand for me. Let's turn the tables. What if this were the case for white people? What if, in my 22 years of voting, all I ever saw on the ballot were black people?!?!? And then one year, a white person is on the ballot! How could one resist voting for them because of their skin color? It would be tough I'd imagine. And honestly Steve...if there were a gay man - Repub or Dem - running for President.....could you be so impartial to that as well? Commonalities - real or imagined - tie one to a candidate and whose to say they are wrong? What he were voting for him because they're both left-handed? Or wore the same size shoe? And BTW, you most certainly can dislike a President for his policies and nothing else.

My apologies, everyone....this might be a long post but I'm catching up after a few days in the hospital with my man. And there are some things that I just have to respond to! Brian, Brian, Brian....<sigh>. You know I think you're a great guy. And enjoy your posts here. But OMG you have such a gift of twisting words and meanings around to a post like no other! I'm "judging your words and presuming your actions"?? REALLY? What do you call this response to my post? I wasn't calling you out on the actions the Prez took on the pirate situation or the other thing he did that you approved of. This was directly posted because you said you didn't watch his press conference. That was it. You (I can only assume by this post) flew off the handle and thought I was talking about his entire time in office up until this point. Talk about judging one's words! Exactly. And I'm getting tired of it too buddy. We were all supposed to gather around and support Bush at a time of a national disaster and we did (myself included). I was actually LIKING him until he started running off at the mouth about gay marriage. Then the Iraq War. Then he lost me. Forever. I propose that we are now at a time of national emergency and the President needs the support of everyone. Not just Dems. But you see, it's a double standard. Republicans and (some) Independents expect Dems to be open-minded and support whichever Prez is in the Oval Office. But they do not act in the same manner when there's a Democrat as Commander-In-Chief. I say GOOD for you Mom. Anyway, it would be great if you could provide some examples of how the Democrats "dogged" GWB for 6-8 years of his presidency? I would agree the last 2 years of his reign, he did get some resistance from the left. And I would argue that that's the beauty of dissent. Did you expect the Dems to go along with everything GWB did? And now you DON'T expect the Repubs to go along with everything Obama is doing? This is the double standard I mention above. Brian and Steve - I looked at Roman's post. He called NEITHER ONE OF YOU A RACIST. HELLO?!?!?! Was there a post that is now deleted where that accusation was made? Cuz it wasn't in the one I saw. Quoting: "If you can't stand Obama for whatever reason (including the color of his skin)..." The fact of the matter is that there are people living today (yes, it's true) that dislike Obama for....wait for it....THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN. It's true! As hard as it may be for Brian and Steve to believe that. Don't get me wrong here - I'm not calling either one of you racists and I really don't believe either of you are. Steve is simply jaded. Brian is a Republican. That's why they don't like Obama IMHO. The color of his skin is an issue for a lot of people. And it does have to be brought up because there are still some serious race relation problems in this country. How someone can say "I don't even know why it's an issue" regarding Obama's skin color baffles me. The fact of the matter is that involvement in Nazi/Skin Head/White supremacy groups has increased since Obama took office. Why do you think that is? Because he is left-handed? Or because he's black? HMMMMM. Let me think. So let's give it a rest, people. No one has called you racists. And YES.....racism is a problem in this country in 2009. If you think differently, I'd love to discuss that more with you. Interesting post. Hopefully your party can break the bonds of the religious right. It's doing them more harm than good. But now that Spector has defected to the Dems, I wonder how many more will do the same? Besides Snow and a couple others, are there really many moderate Republicans left in the Senate? Republicans have gotten so good at the politics of fear and hatred, I think it may take them longer to break out of their rut. Alot of people will remember the campaigns of old and how hateful Republicans were during them.

So much for being open-minded. But why should I be surprised. You said from the get-go that you would never support President Obama and at least you're true to your word, Brian. I wonder though if the shoe were on the other foot, and I had said the same thing about a Republican president elected with a great majority of the vote, would you be so understanding of my position? Hmmm. The fact of the matter is most Americans feel he is off to a good start. Even Ed Rollins on CNN thinks he's off to a good start....but...

A couple of things I felt like I needed to chime in, Steve! :-) Most people believe that this is a "public health" issue. However, I tend to disagree. While I do wear my seatbelt, my father absolutely refuses since it was passed into law in FL in the late 80s. Originally, law enforcement could not pull someone over for not wearing their seatbelt - there had to be some other traffic infraction before you could be cited. And now that has changed as well. Today, if you are pulled over for not wearing it, the fine is somewhere in the range of $100. That's ludicrous. Respectfully, Steve, learning a second language can hardly be classified as "punishment". I have traveled abroad as well in the early 1990s - Germany, Spain, Azores, France - and most people that I encountered knew English. I know for a fact from friends that students in India learn English from a very young age and it is mandatory. The fact of the matter is that there is a huge latino population immigrating to the US (not all of them are illegal, btw) and what harm does it do to help them along the way with learning another language? Admittedly, I haven't heard of ANY layoff announcement in FLORIDA (of all places) that government workers MUST learn Spanish or face termination. The persons in government jobs that are bi-lingual do get more pay, and I think deservedly so. Again, respectfully disagree with this particular statement. I don't see any need for anyone to have an AK-47. Just as simple as that. If that person is not hunting other PEOPLE, why would they have it? They certainly aren't going to go put down a 12 point with a semi-automatic!

Spector has always been one of the more moderate Republican voices and this makes complete sense now that his party has become the bastion of the religous right. The modern day Republican can't see past gay marriage, abortion and legislating morality. It's a shame because some of their fiscal platforms make a lot of sense to me. And I'm actually surprised this didn't happen sooner. After reading the article, I'm glad he stated that he wouldn't be an "automatic" 60th vote. Now that it appears the Dems picked up the Senate seat in Minnesota, the filibuster proof majority appears to be nigh. Not something that I believe is good for the country. Honestly. Yes, I'm a liberal SOB and proud of it. But what this country needs is a consensus between the two major parties on how to fix things. I don't believe that it will be saved on all Republican ideas nor do I believe it will be saved on strictly Democratic proposals. A mixture of both would help to ensure that if a liberal idea falters, perhaps a conservative one is needed. President Obama should continue reaching out to Republicans on fixing America. It's the only way it's going to succeed. And for all of the grandstanding "WE LOVE AMERICA!" crap the Republicans spouted during the election, NOW is the time to act like you truly love the country and work to make it better. That's the way to show that you love this country and want it to continue.

The policies of the last 8 years did not allow for that and the US image paid a price. All GWB and his "dream team" of Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld did was ridicule our enemies with sound bites to the media and ignoring them at the UN. It didn't work. That's a fact. Hell, Rumsfeld even had the nerve to ridicule our ALLIES (France, Germany among them) when they didn't kowtow to the administration's tactics regarding Iraq. What is the harm in talking to people we don't see eye to eye with? Don't we all - on a personal level - do this in our everyday lives? Or do we simply write them off because they disagree with us? Why can't heads of state behave in the same manner? There are no logic reasons why this approach should not be on the table. If, once again, the relationship goes sour during these talks then it would be another time to change how we deal with our enemies. That being said, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro and Kim Yong-ll are horrible "leaders" and guilty of many crimes against their own citizens. These things should not be forgotten. I don't believe that President Obama is going this route, nor is there any evidence that this is his plan. If there is, please correct me. A photograph of shaking hands does not prove anything. Lastly, let's not all forget that China is prime example of a country that is the polar opposite of our democracy. However, we have an open dialogue with them regardless. Whose to say that the same type of relationship can not be formed with one of the dictators I mention above? Wouldn't that help to make America safer? Like the old saying goes - keep your friends close and your enemies closer! JMO.

Thanks for pointing that out, UCLAN. Let's play a little game called "What if...." WHAT IF Obama parted the Red Sea? Brian : "Why is he RUINING the environment?!?!?!" WHAT IF Obama achieved peace in the Middle East? Brian : "Obama is cowtowing to terrorists!!!!" WHAT IF Obama balanced the budget? Brian : "It's the policies of the past 8 years of Republican rule that balanced the budget" WHAT IF Obama made health care affordable to ALL Americans? Brian : "SOCIALIST!" I know you can take a joke, Bri. Just thought I'd lighten things up a little. How have you been buddy? Look for an email from me in the next couple days.

However, not as interesting as wiretaps that were intially sold to the American public as only to be used against terrorists. In actuality, every American was subject to such wiretaps. Why did they feel the need to hide this from everyone? It's funny how all this "outrage" concerning presidential authority was absent during the last 8 years. And now, all of a sudden, it's a problem. Mind you, the last 8 years saw was historically the period that saw the president - and VP - gain more power than in the HISTORY of the USA. And NOW it's a problem? GMAMFB.

I don't know why you would waste your breath. But the fact remains that you did give partisan Dems quite a bit of flack during the election. And now you say you're partisan. Why is it OK for you and not for someone on the left? He has started changing things. He HAS set a timeline to bring the troops home. Is it within the 18 months he said on the campaign trail? No. But he always said that he would evaluate that when he took office WITH the help of the JCS and the generals on the ground. Supposedly, the military thought they needed a little longer and Obama respected that. Hence, the pullout is delayed a little longer. How can you argue with that. Other changes - Stem cell research, rollback of GWB's horrendous environmental regulations, signing statements. There are others. Just for the record. "worsening economic outlook" can't be attributed to Obama's policies. This is the result of 8 years of Republican rule. The takeover of the auto and banking industries began (again) under Republicans. It wasn't even an issue during the campaign because the Paulson "bailout" had not yet happened. You will have to explain yourself regarding Obama turning foreign policy into a "joke" after only 60 days in office. Nothing compares to the foreign policy damage done under the previous administration. I can't rightly remember Reagan's first 100 days in office to speak to if he had any missteps. I was 13 years old and didn't pay much attention. However, I can say that Clinton stumbled miserably during his 100 days in office with health care, Nanny problems with his nominations and gays in the military. I do, however, agree that his administration did perform at high levels of compentency after the first year or so. Surely you aren't comparing Obama's little over 60 days to Clinton and Reagan's 8 years???? Thanks buddy. I can't say that I was the BIGGEST fan of GL over the last year or so. Or of what EW has done to my show. But the show has given me so many wonderful memories. It was the first soap that I started watching on a regular basis after staying home sick from school one day. And I watched it ever since...31 years now. It will be very hard to see it go after all this time. And I'm afraid you're right about the other soaps. I hope that doesn't happen, but now that the "vintage crown jewel" of daytime - as you put it so well - it will probably lower TPTBs inhibitions about canceling other shows. Did you watch the show at any time? What is your soap, Brian?

UCLAN First of all (a little off topic) but I guess you've heard the news about our show. I don't know how I'm going to act without seeing "Guiding Light" on the DVR list everyday. But on to the topic at hand. You make some good points, UCLAN. And to the topic of "pork", it's all relative - isn't it? I don't consider spending on health care or any other social program to be PORK. I don't consider spending on highways and infrastructure to be PORK. I consider that an effort of President Obama and his administration to help the American people. That's what it's all about. That if one of us falls, there will be someone there to pick you up and help you get back on your feet. I believe in that. As a country, we're only as strong as our weakest citizens. Once we work to lift everyone up and make everyone strong, we become stronger as a result. Furthermore, President Obama made some very good points specifically on health care. How can a country return to economic prosperity when the cost of health care is eating up the majority of people's income? It can't. He's beginning to fix ALL aspects of the economy, and if the cost of health care isn't brought down, we will be suffering under the weight of the elephant in the room once again. I say more power to him.

OK. Let's see...... Hmmm. You got me. You never said the exact words "YOU MUST VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS". No, you didn't say that verbatim. But you encouraged it. And you most certainly did give anyone you deemed as a left-leaning partisan a fair amount of [!@#$%^&*] for not considering voting for someone that your party nominated. You don't agree with that? Remarkable judgement? Probably not. Listen. I love the man. I think he's the perfect person for the problems this country faces. But Bri - you are setting higher standards for Obama than you would have for someone with an ® behind his name, wouldn't you agree? Obama has said himself that he would not be a perfect president. He has admitted he's made mistakes. If YOU expected absolutely no problems from the moment he stepped onto Pennsylvania Avenue, that's your problem. Don't project that onto others. I'm willing to give him some leeway in fixing our problems. I'm willing to accept that there will be stumbles for a new administration. There were for GWB and Clinton. Why would Obama be any different - especially faced with these monumentous problems? And lastly, I can't remember the last administration that "performed to its highest level of competency". Can you? I don't know if there was EVER such a thing in the HISTORY of the United States.

First of all, WHAT'S UP BRIAN! It's great to see my good buddy back here posting again. << Gives Brian a hug >> << G mutters: Even if it is a bunch of hogwash >> In short, this post of yours from 3.22 was primarily what I was talking about, Brian. Of course, I'm not confused as to where your political loyalties lie as you've posted enough on here for me to know that. Hello! Specifically, the bold part of your post is what prompted me to post what I did. Why? Because throughout the campaign, you needled and egged on hard left-leaning Dems to vote for Republicans quite a few times. (And no, I'm not going to post every quote from you on this matter. You know you did it.) And you turn around and make a statement like this - the bold text above. Your duplicity comes from pretending to be an open-minded Republican and then making this statement. It's not hard to understand, is it bro? Yeah, you have been but this wasn't really related to what I was talking about. I don't agree with this at all. He's doing exactly what he was hired to do according to the majority of people that casted a vote on November 4th. That's fix the economy. That's what he's been trying to do. So I fail to see his priorities being "out of whack". Do you think he should have started to work on the justice system first? Would that be a priority that you claim is important to the majority of Americans? This is news to me. Exactly which newspaper/website headlines are claiming that the "world" is unhappy with President Obama? Would that be the FOX News Channel website? Or the ramblings a few weeks ago from ONE SOCIALIST in the EU that doesn't agree with some of his economic policies? Enlighten me please. You seem to think that I'm living under a rock so please, Brian. Guide me. Educate me with some right-wing propaganda. Be my Guiding Light through the storm of the liberal left-wing media!!! << Greg waiting. Twiddling thumbs >>

The thing is .... 1. It's very interesting how Republicans always want Dems to be "open-minded" and non-judgemental when it comes to their president (YES - GWB) giving away 700 BILLION dollars with no oversight (the little there was included was because of the Dems in Congress, thank you very much) to the banks. 2. I'm feeling a bit deceived. And yes, I'm calling you out Brian. Because it's funny how the Repubs always want the Dems to be open-minded and non-partisan. Now I see in writing from Brian's earlier post how he is very partisan. Hmm. NICE. So....let me get this straight. I'm supposed to give a president that started an illegal war with Iraq and squandered a budget SURPLUS some extra lee-way, but you can't give a president that's been in office a little over 60 DAYS any lee-way?!?!?! That seems a little fucked up to me. Brian - can you say DUPLICITOUS? But I guess it's unfair for me to pin this all on Brian. All Repubs are this way. Just look at the postings by the other conservatives - they aren't willing to give President Obama a chance regardless of the state of the union he inherited after their president left office. 3. All the complaining from the right about the budget is hypocritical. President Bush would submit the annual budget WITHOUT the costs of the Afhgan and Iraq wars included. Then (very slyly, of course) he would turn around and request some "special funding" for his wars. No wonder his budgets were never as expensive as the one President Obama turned in - but they would have been if GWB would have been forth-right in his! 4. During the Presidential Press Conference tonight, President Obama fielded some very tough questions from the press corps and I would dare any right-winger to claim differently. GWB was always lobbed softballs during his press conferences and hmmmmmm......he damn sure didn't have 2 of them within 65 days of assuming office! Oh wait...silly me. That's because of the "liberal press" mmmm hmmmm. RIGHT. 5. At least President Obama is WORKING HIS ASS OFF trying to get the county on the right track. No one in this thread can say that he's been resting on his laurels. Compare that to GWB (who created this mess with his 8 years of horrendous governing) that did NOTHING other than give the big banks 700 BILLION dollars with no oversight. I would honestly like to see his actions defended. GWB knew how fucked up the country was and was more than happy to hand over his [!@#$%^&*] up to a Democrat. Finally, I believe President Obama is off to a fine start. Is it perfect? No. But what is? GWB's reign certainly was not. His father's governship was far from perfection. [!@#$%^&*], Ronald Reagan's time in office was no where NEAR it. So whom are they to complain when members of their own party have fallen short? GMAMFB. Like y'alls hero GWB would say "Bring it on". You can't defend yourselves or your treasonous way of treating President Obama.

I have much I want to say but don't have the time right now. I will leave it at this until my return..... <SIGH>

Exactly, Roman. ICAM. Actually, I think most of the cuts in the package that would help the average joe blow are because of the right. Heaven forbid that Head Start get some help from Uncle Sam. but please give Citibank $50 billion bucks. It makes no sense. Honestly, when Bush was pushing through his "stimulus" package, I don't recall anyone from the right making a fuss about it. All this after 8 years of free-spending from the "fiscal conservative" Republicans. Please. At the very least, at least Obama's plan has some accountability built into it. Bush just gave Wall Street $300 billion and didn't have any of those safeguards in place until the Dems wanted it.

Howdy, y'all. Had to take a break for a little bit, but my liberal ass is back. ^ ^ Roman - YES. I think we did get the high hard one on the cuts. Interesting how they are cutting things like Head Start and Title 1. Even cutting money for the EPA Superfund to clean up industrial waste. But no cuts to the money they are giving the banks or Wall Street or the nearly bankrupt American car companies. I think it's great that Obama has capped executive pay. But more needs to be done for everyday people. What good does it do to give Citibank billions of dollars if they aren't lending it? Speaking from experience, most of my credit card's credit lines have been cut in half by the issuer (Citi and Chase). Why? They gave no reason. It's not like I owe alot of money or have bad credit. But the actions they are taking DO affect my credit rating. I don't get it. What we need is help for the homeowners. Help for people with mortgages that are going into foreclosure. Until the housing market is righted, the rest of the economy will not recuperate. But that seemed like one of the last things they debated when it came to this package. If they had to cut some things to affect greater passage through the Senate, then fine. I'd like to see a more unpartisan package passed, but why all the cuts coming from things that everyday Americans need now more than ever? Teachers are being laid off, and they are cutting that from the bill? I don't get it.

Jay! Don't do this to me!!! Man, I can't wait to see how this will play out......

Yes, I do remember the problems Kevin was having with Maureen, and the fact that he seemed to get so upset when she tried talking about it. It started me thinking back then. Personally, I think the more homophobic a guy is, the more he is repressing his own feelings. But that's just my opinion. Danny/Marina vs. Danny/Michelle? Hmm. I have been enjoying the angst Danny feels in deciding between one or the other. It's obvious that he's not over Michelle, or he would have never went looking for her at the Bauer Cabin. On the other hand, he seems to be rushing things with Marina because he wants to use that to finally get over Michelle. I don't know which couple I'm rooting for now, because they are all likable. I've preferred Danny with Michelle in the past, but the way you've written this story makes it hard to decide!