Greg's GL

Good cuz I think the world of you... and value your friendship! <<hugs>>

Back at cha, Brian. I will send you an email one of these days, I promise! <<hugs ya back>>

I'm for productive immigrants melding into the American fabric... proper legal channels, all that. Those who crowd the line or don't even bother to get IN line -- no sympathy at all. I'm sorry their home country is a shithole... it should be fixed. President Obama should be helping third-world country leaders getting their houses in order rather than slapping them high fives and jokie-joking around with them.

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.

Could BECOME? Some would argue we're already there. Anyway, you're preaching to the choir, brother. I'm far more radical than you, though. I have had enough of ALL American Presidents shoveling cash around the world to fix problems that are beyond our ability to fix. And I totally agree... fix it all here first.

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?

Mostly for Greg, but for everyone to comment on please...

D.C. Council member Marion Barry (Democrat-Ward 8), the only council member to vote against the bill today to legalize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, predicted today there could be a “civil war” in the District if the Council decides to take up a broader gay marriage bill later this year.

“All hell is going to break lose,” Barry said while speaking to reporters. “We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this.”…

Although he has been a longtime supporter of gay rights, Barry said he voted against the bill to satisfy his constituents in Southeast Washington.

“What you’ve got to understand is 98 percent of my constituents are black and we don’t have but a handful of openly gay residents,” Barry said. “Secondly, at least 70 percent of those who express themselves to me about this are opposed to anything dealing with this issue. The ministers think it is a sin, and I have to be sensitive to that.”

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.

This is one of Obama's more scary policy moves...

President Obama's efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel's nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.

The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

"Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, ... remains a fundamental objective of the United States," Ms. Gottemoeller told the meeting, according to Reuters.

So, let's see... Mr. Obama will demand Israel stand down and give up their nukes... Mr. Obama expects ISRAEL to follow the rules. However, Iran has yet to follow rules. My question is, wouldn't this leave Israel vulnerable to hostile states surrounding them? It reminds me of the old "Who wants to volunteer?" act... and everyone steps backward, leaving an unwitting and unwilling party standing out from the rest.

This can't happen. If Obama were to push this issue with Netanyahu, I'm sure he would be told to "[!@#$%^&*] off" in the nicest possible terms. But that Obama would even ask... Ummm... whose SIDE IS HE ON???

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/0...se-nukes/print/ for the straight dope.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/06/obam...-give-up-nukes/ for right-leaning commentary.

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.

Why, you needn't be insulted, my good friend... It is, after all, debate -- and we have both taken good jabs at each other. I expect that to continue... I would be insulted if it didn't.

I read about the Obama tax dodge plan and my immediate reaction was bad, then my reaction was positive. Now, I'm not sure. I mean, how far does our government's sphere of influence go? I see good and bad here and I want so badly to ding companies that have moved jobs overseas. I don't like calling customer service and end up talking to someone in South Korea! Lovely people, those South Koreans... they try mightily to help, but are a little hard to understand sometimes. Keep American jobs in America, damn it!!! But can our government demand taxes from a business that is brick and mortar in an entirely different country?

I'm concerned about Obama's "pay to work" tax incentive. Sure, I've an extra $50 a month... my wife, too. However, I'm hearing that the IRS will take back my wife's portion next year. Fortunately, our withholdings already are such that it won't hurt us... but I see where some people are going to have a surprising tax bill next spring. Is this really a wise thing to do to people? Yes, they don't want couples "double-dipping". But, wait... why is receiving a tax rebate or refund "double-dipping"... yet it isn't "double-dipping" when a couple both working has taxes taken out of both their checks? Hmmm... Could someone explain it to me?

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.

With regard to your question on gay marriage, my gut instinct is to not support it. But my gut instinct is also to not really care what other people do; not my business. In the end, I'm certain gay marriage will make the cut. Whatever you personally want to do, Greg, is your business... I'm basically non-responsive to the issue. It's not something I'm going to get worked up over either way. Not sure if this the answer your expected or hoped for from me... As for other "Republican" values issues... I feel as if the party has abandoned their core beliefs on many of these sorts of issues and they no longer represent my personal beliefs and values. One issue they have abandoned and left unresolved is that of illegal immigration. I live in California... 'nuff said.

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.

All issues are relevant and should be discussed. Why hasn't President Obama addressed the issue you clearly wish to see at the forefront of political debate?

I wouldn't dream of defending them. Why would I? But, Greg, do you really believe there is no bigotry left in the Democratic Party? I'd stake money that there are just as many bigots in the Democratic Party as there are in the Republican Party... Maybe more bigoted Democrats when you consider the hate they throw at middle America...

LOL... Not EVEN. I'll say all hands are equally covered in [!@#$%^&*]. The problem is, the focus always falls on the party in power. And, right now, they have complete control. And there is absolutely no reason in the world why Democratic pet issues shouldn't be dealt with in a manner satisfactory to the Liberal wing of the party. Greg, there is no reason at all why a federal amendment recognizing gay marriage and making possible all rights recognized for straight couples be granted to gay couples. Right?

I think this very point... this very debate... hinges on whether or not President Obama and the Democrats with full power over both houses, can make that happen... If they fail to deliver, Greg, will you stand by President Obama and the Democratic party?

>>HUGS!!!<<

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

I have no sympathies with either party. I am fed up with the actions of both. At times I think they all act worse than 3 year old children who need to be taken out to the wood shed and given a good thrashing.

I am like UClan I enjoy seeing a good exchange of ideas - not just here - but in politics. But more often of the last few years we get the blame game every time they are togehter. Let's forget who's fault it is and discuss the issues. Children lay blame - adults are supposed to discuss and fix the problems. But not one of them can get in front of a microphone and not immediately start pointing fingers at the other person. I just want to reach through the TV and say get over it and move on. If we want to play the blame game believe me there is enough to go around on both sides. We could be here until next year playing that one.

Steve Frame, please do not alter your posts. Speak from your views. I can gather how you feel from what you post. I've gotten it that you don't affiliate with either or any party and that you are an independent thinker. I view you as fiscally conservative but socially moderate. It's not up to you to justify or explain how you feel. It's up to us as the reader to agree or disagree and proceed from there. I enjoy reading you posts. They trigger a lot of thought and lots of times require me to seek out more information.

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.

Did you see that link I posted about that Congresswoman who said those vile things about Matt Sheppard?

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 -

Nice dodge, my friend. And you know it isn't worth my time to reconstruct the dialogue and point out the obvious.

Damn. And that's just what my aim was - to waste your time. Guess I fucked it up somehow....

When they change the tax laws... Or when they pass a new tobacco tax... Or when they redistribute my wealth and give it to someone else... Or... Shall I go on? When Senator Byrd was Grand Dragon, perhaps?

What about when Mayor Newsom in San Francisco declared marriages would be performed in San Francisco, despite a law suggesting otherwise? You think he did it in liberal 'ol California for the fun of it?

Dude, Dems claimed G.W. was endangering America from the very start of the freakin' War on Terror!!!

I deny your furtive assertion that Democrats have their hands clean when it comes to all of these things. In an election year, Democrats are as good as anyone else in stirring up the politics of hate and fear! It would seem YOU need to research history, my friend...

...but you still rock.

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.

I am not sure if you mean bygones as far as the people in this thread or bygones as far as Reps and Dems in general. If the last is the case, I just have to ask how far do we take it.

I mean do we wipe the slate completely clean and start all over. Because I don't see that ever happening. Democrats across all the boards are still bringing up things the Republicans did to the Dems while Clinton was in there. And it was brought up numerous times while Bush was in office.

Again I ask when does it start. Just because Obama is now in there and people want everyone to come together - is that why all of a sudden this comes about and if Obama loses the next election and a REpublican comes back into power - does it all go away then.

I just don't see that ever happening. I don't see the Republicans or the Democrats ever giving up on dogging one another and letting bygones be bygones.

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.

I should have worded my problem with the ad better I guess. I thought I explained it right but I didn't. The reason I had a problem with the ad was not a problem with why he was voting for Obama but the message that it sent. As I said it further justified to me why a white person has the right to not vote for a black man because of the color of his skin. If a man can go on TV and say I am voting for him because I identify with the color of his skin then the other man can say well then I can not vote for him for the color of the skin. you identify with him but I don't because of that - so I now I am full justified in not voting for him. It just sent the wrong message to me. I would have preferred that MTV stuck with the issues in their spots and not focus on this man identifying with Obama souly because he was black.

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.

Hey Steve, actually I don't so much consider myself a Republican as I do conservative in my thinking. I am not thrilled with the Republican party these days, however I find the tact taken by Democrats often to be more repulsive. I guess if I needed a label to apply to myself (as opposed to the one Roman and others feel they have a right to tag me with based on their rather narrow interpretation of who they think I am), I would be more independent... but I lean right and only vote Republican because their ideology is most closely aligned (or at least it used to be) with my values and principles.

I would almost pay money to sit down and have dinner with Roman and just chat one on one... man to man... no bullshit. I wonder how that would go.

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.

I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever and you are right it is human nature. But at the same time I sit back and wonder why when it is human nature that those same poeple will call out others for being biased or give their party the benefit of the doubt. It goes back to what I was saying where each party seems to think the other party is wrong for what they do - yet they are doing the same thing themselves.

I see GD get called out so many times saying he is biased toward the Republicans and makes excuses or stuff like that for them - when I see so many do the same exact thing for the Dems over and over. Just an observation and that is why I brought it up.

It is just like I have seen it be pointed out that some of the stuff GD posts is from conservative sites that are biased - yet others will turn around and post stuff used as fact that comes from sites that liberal sites that are biased. What is the difference.

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 ahve admitted too over and over that GWB made bad decisions during his presidency. And I have no problem whatsoever about him being called on them.

Some of the things you just pointed out go back to the party thing and how you feel personally. The same way that you see that there were many things to criticize right off about GWB many feel the same way about Obama already - yet when they point them out - it is brought up about them being jaded or that they just can't stand behind their president when they need too. So many see only good about Obama and preach that people need to give him a chance. Yet many of those same people were the same ones who never gave Bush a chance even back then. Just because someone else doesn't find something to criticize about him doesn't mean there is nothing to criticize.

And see some of the things that you bring up about Bush are not the things I would have criticized him about anyway. That last one esp. always seemed petty to me. So what if he wasn't a great speaker. Who cares? Obama is a great speaker but I don't believe a word he says. His words often come off as empty to me. They are eloquently stated but they mean nothing to me.

It all comes down to a matter of opinion and beliefs.

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.

Greg I should have pointed out that I had no problem with the guys statements. I understood his reasons for feeling that way. I just wanted to see what your response was and how you felt about what I brought up.

I think everyone brings into the voting booth the situations they grow up in or can relate too.

I think the problem for me comes into play is when some are criticized for using those things to justify their vote or their actions and yet at the same time the person who criticizes that person does the same thing when he enters the voting booth. None of us go into that voting booth and cast off everything that has influenced our lives. Our experiences play a role definitely.

I would not expect a Jew for instance to suddenly forget all he has been through and go into the voting booth and vote for a skinhead - even if they both believe in all the same issues.

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?

What an outrage! What a ridiculously long post!! Ugghhhh!!!!

I don't think that's what I did. But I believe you and I are very similar in posting style, my good friend. However, a good example of twisting words and meanings? Well...

I'm soooooo tired of this blanket defense for anything Roman says. Roman's point could have been made without the "color of his skin" line. He was talking to ME, not a member of the Klan. So, I'm assuming that Roman felt the line was important to include because, somewhere in his mind, he suspect I have an issue with black folks. Greg, you know as well as I do that 2+2=4 and that none of us here post so much as a word unless we MEAN it. I think it's safe to say that this forum is filled with very intelligent individuals and we say what we mean and leave little to question. Roman's implication was obvious... Dude, I wasn't born yesterday. Nor was Steve. We both have been around the block a few times. Roman is a lightweight when it comes to debating but he definitely chooses his wording carefully and purposely. You deny that, Greg?

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"?

No doubt, but this fact was not part of our ongoing debate here. Again, no reason to discuss the issue of race when it had no bearing on MY feelings or STEVE'S feelings regarding his policy and performance in office. Greg, please rationalize Roman's need to bring this up while referencing and discussing MY reasons for disliking Obama. To remind you.. and please look back on the thread... Roman and I were discussing *MY* disapproval of Obama's performance, NOT anyone else.

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!

That you can honestly say this without acknowledging how good Democrats are at this is absolutely hilarious. That has been the mantra of Democrats for as long as I can remember. In fact, it is always the mantra of the party not holding the White House.

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?

And see I see that on both sides - Democrat and Republican. And I would think because of the sort of high five you gave to my Mom that you are jaded in favor of the Democrats - something that you have accused others of being for the Republicans. I am jaded toward both parties and don't favor either.

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.

As far as the other yes there was a time when SOME Democrats but not ALL did rally behind the President in last election but I think more of it was out of Patriotism after 9/11 than anything else. I do not remember any gerat specifics right now but I do recall several articles right after Bush was elected where he was dogged right off. I sent a few of those to Jess by PM a few months ago. If I can find them again I will post them. He was hardly in office and already was being criticized by Democrats.

And I can remember many posts right here on this very board where the Democrats dogged Bush very badly over the last 6 to 8 years. Many of them were removed due to the controversy of them all.

So yes there was a brief time when yes people rallied right after 9/11 but it wasn't too long after that it was party lines again.

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.

You mentioned the Iraq War and that brings up something that I have been wondering how some feel and have been looking for things. I know that most of you had problems with the Iraq War but have no problems with Obama sending troops to Afghanistan. I know that there is an anti-war group out there of both Dems and Reps who are against any kind of war. People like Martin Sheen and Cindy Sheehan are part of that group. I have not heard at all what Sheen is thinking about more troops to Afghanistan but I did hear the other day that Sheehan who supposedly supported Obama is against sending troops. I just wonder if this movement will immobilize bigger as Obama gears up to send more troops there. It will be interesting to see if Sheehan and her group of mothers will camp outside of Obama's home like they did Bush's. Because their stance was against war and bringing troops and not - at least not supposed to be - a political thing.

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.

I will ask you this Greg. MTV was so good at showing both sides of things during the election. They let McCain supporters as well as Obama supporters speak in their ads and urges to get the young people out to vote. I was proud of that and proud that they never endorsed one candidate or the other.

One ad they ran though really bothered me. There was a black man who did the ad and he mentioned that for the first time when he went to polls to vote there was a man with the same color skin as him and for the first time he felt like he could relate to a candidate. It was the first time ever that he had something in common with a candidate and had a reason to vote. And for that reason alone it was the first time he was voting.

To me that was really offensive and made me think that this young black man was sending out the wrong message to whites. If he was only voting because he had something in common with Obama, what does that say to whites. It says and gives white people the right to say well I don't feel I can relate to this man and so I shouldn't vote for him.

But if a white man said that he would be called a racist. The press would be all over it.

Why can't I dislike and distrust him simply because of what he believes in?

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!

But... You, my friend, are behaving like the close-minded one. I laud Mr. President when I feel he has done something good. If you will take a moment to refer back several pages in this forum, there are two recent instances where I applauded President Obama for action he had taken. Did you miss those, Greg?

I'm not interested in watching a speech... As countless election cycles and every President in my lifetime has underscored, it isn't words or a planned agenda that means much -- it is actually legislation passed and policy acted upon that impresses me. Forget a 100 day benchmark, let's sit down and talk at, say, the 1,000 day benchmark. What will an entire term tell us about a President's performance? For shame, Greg, judging my words and presuming my actions!

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!

But now the same ones who felt that "No matter who it we need to stand behind our president" when Bush was in office, come here and keeps up these childish, petty rants about Obama. They won't get behind for nothing.

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.

As far as all this [!@#$%^&*] of one party sitting around and waiting for the other party leader to tank - that is what I am talking about that turns me off of politics. We sit around every 4 years listening to this one bitch and moan and blame that party for everything under the sun, and then the other party comes into office and the roles become reversed.

There was a time when they did try to work together some but the 2 parties have gotten so far apart there is never any hope in my mind of them working together again. The moral issues and the problems that came up during the Clinton years with people like the Clintons, Gingrich, and so many others who acted like third grade children instead of leaders and representatives of our country - there is such a rift there that they will never be able to work together again. There are too many hard feelings and too much animosity there. I used to sit and laugh and think how childish Gingrich acted so many times with the way he treated the Clintons and the other Democrats and then to see the way Clinton made Gingrich sit on the back of the plane or something like that one time. I thought my children acted better than these reps of our country did.

I just think it will take years before the rifts that are there will ever be mended. Or at least it will take a long time. I do find it funny that after the last 4 years esp. when I hear Dems want to know why people just can't come together and support the President. Again it goes back to those hard feelings. Republicans have been sitting back and waiting for the chance for the shoe to be on the other foot. Now they can dog the Democratic President for the next 4 years in the same way the Democrats dogged Bush for at least 6 of the 8 years he was in office. LOL

Its like my mother used to say (she was die hard Democrat - I often said if Hitler had been a Democrat Mom would have voted for him). But anyway she used to say that it was against her religion to say anything nice about a Republican at all. And she didn't. Never did. Some people are so party oriented that they are not going to come togehter and support anyone unless they are of the same party.

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.

It's a tired and old line, Roman... If those of us who disagree with Obama's politics were as bigoted as you yet again try to paint us, we just couldn't be successful at all and function in the world day to day. I don't give a jolly hot [!@#$%^&*] about President Obama's skin color. Irresponsibility fiscal policy? Yes. Insane foreign policy? Yes. Inability to speak without a teleprompter? Not so much... but it is fun to watch.

Drop the whole "You guys hate Obama cuz he's black" routine. It truly weakens whatever argument you attempt to put forth. Try responding to me or guys like Steve or Kwing with facts we can't refute or some sort of evidence that discounts the points we offer rather than simply rattling off (and in a shockingly witless way, I might add) the same old rants and vanilla attacks.

I just to high five that post. I am tired of that one too. I won't even speak to a former friend of mine anymore because he throws that up with everyone who doesn't like Obama. And it is thrown up often on boards and in real life.

My dislike for the politicians I don't like has nothing to do with the color of their skin. I can't figure out why it has to even be brought up. I don't remember anyone going around and saying you don't like Bush just because he is white. I know the first time I ever said that I didn't trust him that was the first thing hurled at me was I was a racist.

All I know is I just like you am getting tired of being called a racist just because I don't trust Obama.

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.

Unfortunately, the far right will remain in control of the party for quite a few years to come, which of course means that Republicans can expect to do poorly in the 2010 and 2012 elections. Yet, after enough electoral beatings, I predict that the far right will eventually lose credibility among those in the establishement, and the GOP will finally begin to embrace moderates as the key to its future. Obviously, such a drastic change will take many years to complete, since the far right has controlled the levers of power in the party for so long; specifically, I expect that it won't be until around 2016 or 2020 when the moderate wing of the party prevails. However, once that happens, I believe that the GOP will enjoy a long run of successes, since the views held by moderate Republicans truly do reflect the beliefs of a large portion of the American electorate: conservatism on issues of economics and national security, and tolerance when it comes to the hot-button social/cultural issues.

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.

I had no desire to watch. Rather, I did the dishes. My wife cooked, so I did the dishes. When I cook, she does the dishes. Then we went for a walk. Upon returning, I enjoyed a bowl of Cocoa Pebbles, then the three of us watched Mythbusters.

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! :-)

We have to wear a seatbelt now. It's a law.

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.

You have people in Government and teaching jobs who are being forced to learn Spanish in order to keep their jobs. Many of them have been in their positions for years, but now face early retirement or the loss of their jobs because they don't know Spanish. I have been to other countries, and it is rare that you find someone in a shool or a government office that knows how to speak English. Yet we are forcing restrictions on our teachers and employees to learn a second language to accomodate foreigners here. Where is it going to stop. If the US suddenly has a influx of Russian immigrants coming in, are these same employees going to be required to learn Russian too. Instead we should be focusing on forcing the immigrants to learn our language - even offering more programs to educate them. Why punish our citizens?

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.

And I guess many would argue that their right to bear arms is being infringed on too. Personally I don't see why anyone needs to own some guns, but at the same time if all the guidelines are followed who is to say what guns they should and should not have.

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.

No, Michael. You see, Obama is supposed to do the same garbage Bush and Co. did for the last 8 years. No wonder other nations hate out guts. I mean, a popular U.S. President? Who actually TALKS to other leaders instead of acting like Marshall Dillon? No, we shouldn't do that.

IA with you. Talk to your damn enemies to find out where you stand, and then go from there.

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.

Well, being in education, I see the value of a service learning requirement. Granted, there are many clubs in hs, but the majority are not service oriented. At my school, we have an annual canned food drive for our local senior center. The drive is coordinated and run by our graduating seniors, thus they earn their service learning credit. Many times you need to bring the horse to the water. Many of our students wouldn't think about doing something like this unless they were exposed to the opportunity. Yes it is a shame that courts order community service as restitution. As far as I can remember, service requirements for HS were in place long before NCLB (late 80s early 90s George 1's thousand points of light)

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.

Actually, I don't agree with that. During the election, I spent more time debating issues at hand that encouraging people vote Republican. I can't recall a time I ever encouraged, say, Roman for example, to vote Republican. Why would I waste my breath?

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?

I wouldn't agree with that, either. My standards for Bush were never met and I have often made that a big deal. The man with an ® behind his name failed. However, the man with an ® behind his name did not campaign on a platform of "CHANGE". Tax cheaters galore, worsening economic outlook, skyrocketing debt thanks to the porkulus, government takeover of the banking and auto industries, mandatory community service for all young people (the Obama Youth Corp?), failure to keep his promise on bringing troops home, turning US foreign policy into a joke, etc. In addition to doing everything BUT "CHANGE", I see some scary socialistic items on Obama's agenda. I didn't set higher standards for Obama... Obama did. And he has failed to meet them.

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.

Actually, I will say that the Reagan and Clinton Administrations did quite well for themselves. I think both can be termed as successful and I personally regard them as having performed to their highest levels of competency. Prosperious times... America was secure... I don't feel so secure today. And I don't feel the greatest threat to America now is external.

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????

And my condolences on the news of GL's cancellation. I honestly can say that I'm not surprised as I predicted this... Next to fall will be DAYS... then ABC will follow suit by cancelling either AMC or OLTL. At this point, I'm leaning heavily toward AMC. I believe the industry has held its collective breath for a while now... but with the ax having finally fallen on the vintage crown jewel of daytime (though tarnished the last year or two), the rest will start falling like dominoes...

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......

I am not only an open-minded Republican, but I am also partisan. Greg, I always lean right. However, I'm tolerant to opposing viewpoints. If I wasn't, I wouldn't like YOU at all! Nice try to discredit me on this issue, buddy... But people can be partial to one set of beliefs while still being tolerant of others. And I never EVER needled and egged on hard left-leaning Dems to vote for Republicans. I have occasionally discussed ideology, but have I ever stated to others "YOU MUST VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS"?? Hell no. Even YOU know that McCain was my last choice to run for the party.

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?

His APPROACH to resolving issues indicates that his priorities are out of whack, Greg. Pork? How does that resolve the economic issues? Why would he sign so much waste into law? How does spending more pork on Acorn and other pet projects of lawmakers resolve our economic woes? Do you agree that Obama has displayed remarkable judgement in how he has proceeded? Do you agree that his administration has performed to its highest level of competency?

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 >>

Hi Steve,

Facts are facts and it is clear that Obama is doing very poorly. Yeah, I admit that I'm not an Obama supporter and I'm sure Roman and others can feast on my statements as being ultra-partisan... and it's true, I'm quite partisan... but pointing out my partisanship really does nothing to mask the very plain fact that Obama has truly bungled his first months in office.

I'm worried for the country.

Describe my "duplicitous" nature... I'm curious. If need be, quote me from previous posts.

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?

The thing is:

1. I have been quite judgemental of George W. Bush. I've expressed my disappointment in his presidency more times than I can count. But apparently not enough times for you to have read it, Greg.

Yeah, you have been but this wasn't really related to what I was talking about.

5. I agree that Obama is working his ass off... problem is, his priorities have been out of whack. And, in many cases, he's doing things nobody wants him to do.

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?

It isn't just me who is not pleased with Obama... search the headlines, my friend. The world is unhappy with our President, too.

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>

And Max, the difference between me and you......

I CAN call out my president, regardless of what party he/she is a member of.

I'm not going to sit here and play partison BS just because the POTUS is a member of my party, and act like he/she didn't do anything wrong.

I've listened to that bullshit for 8 years, and you what I find incredibly pathetic?

Someone calling out a POTUS after 3 weeks. I wonder what you said when people blasted Bush after 3 weeks?

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.