Letter to a future Republican strategist regarding white people

Eric Garland Greatest Hits, Political Trends 2494 Comments

To whom it may concern regarding the United States federal elections of 2014, 2016 and beyond:

Allow me to introduce myself to you, the existing (or aspiring!) strategist for the Republican Party. My name is Eric Arnold Garland and I am a White Man. Boy, am I ever – you need sunglasses just to look at my photo!

If I read the news correctly, I fit a profile that is of extreme importance to the GOP, as I embody the archetype that fits your narrative of Real Americans. Just how much should my profile interest you? Are you sitting down?

  • My family lineage goes back to the MAYFLOWER, BOAT ONE!!! (Garland family of New England-> John Adams -> John Alden -> Plymouth colony ->KINGS OF MUTHAF***IN’ ENGLAND)
  • I am a heterosexual, married to the super Caucasian mother of my two beautiful children who are, inexplicably, EVEN WHITER THAN I AM.
  • I am college educated (Master’s degree!) and affluent.
  • I am a job creator and small businessman.
  • We pay a lot of taxes! Every year!
  • I grew up in a rural area and despise laziness!
  • Having started my own business, I have complained at length about the insanity of federal, state and local bureaucracy – and its deleterious impact on the innovative small businessman.
  • I currently live in the suburbs in a historically Red state.

HOLY WHITE PEOPLE, BATMAN!!! Wow, you’re thinking – this is not some Mexirican in the Sun Belt we need to attract via harsh anti-Castro policies or appeals to “valores de familia” – this is the BREAD AND BUTTER OF THE GRAND OLD PARTY, a Mayflower-descended small business owner, burdened by taxation, looking out for his beautiful White family in the suburbs of a city (St Louis) surrounded by racial tension and urban blight!

How can I put this gently? My wife and I are not sensitive to your messaging, nor did we vote for the candidates you proposed for us this past Tuesday. 

B-b-but, what? Aren’t we investors, hard-workin’ white folk surrounded by same in a manicured cul-de-sac, scared by a vision of economic collapse amidst the takers in a land of fewer givers? Didn’t Mitt Romney’s strong family, wealth, leadership history and chiseled chin give us the uncontrollable urge to high-five him into the White House?

No.

May I explain why not, purely for your education, such that you might be interested in winning an election on the national level at some point in the future? It bears pointing out that I should be your Low Hanging Fruit, the easy vote to get as opposed to, say, African-Americans, Latinos, or Asians – and you’re not even speaking well to me. The reasons why ought to concern you deeply.

As a Card-Carrying White Male I love expressing my opinion irrespective of whether people care to hear it, so let’s get started.

>>>>>>

Science – One of the reasons my family is affluent is that my wife and I have a collective fifteen years of university education between us. I have a Masters degree in Science and Technology Policy, and my wife is a physician who holds degrees in medicine as well as cell and molecular biology. We are really quite unimpressed with Congressional representatives such as Todd Akin and Paul Broun who actually serve on the House science committee and who believe, respectively, that rape does not cause pregnancy and that evolution and astrophysics are lies straight from Satan’s butt cheeks. These are, sadly, only two of innumerable assaults that the Republican Party has made against hard science – with nothing to say of logic in general. Please understand the unbearable tension this might create between us and your candidates.

Climate – Within just the past 18 months the following events have come to our attention: a record-breaking drought that sent temperatures over 100 degrees for weeks, killing half the corn in the Midwest and half the TREES on our suburban property – AND – a hurricane that drowned not New Orleans or Tampa or North Carolina but my native state of VERMONT. As an encore, a second hurricane drowned lower Manhattan, New Jersey and Long Island. The shouted views of decrepit mental fossil Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma that this is a fraud perpetrated on the American people by evil, conspiring climate scientists is belied by such events and is looking irresponsible to even the most skeptical.

Healthcare – My wife and I are quite familiar with America’s healthcare system due to our professions, and having lived abroad extensively, also very aware of comparable systems. Your party’s insistence on declaring the private U.S. healthcare system “the best in the world” fails nearly every factual measure available to any curious mind. We watch our country piss away 60% more expenditures than the next most expensive system (Switzerland) for health outcomes that rival former Soviet bloc nations. On a personal scale, my wife watches poor WORKING people show up in emergency rooms with fourth-stage cancer because they were unable to afford primary care visits. I have watched countless small businesses unable to attract talented workers because of the outrageous and climbing cost of private insurance. And I watch European and Asian businesses outpace American companies because they can attract that talent without asking people to risk bankruptcy and death. That you think this state of affairs is somehow preferable to “Obamacare,” which you compared ludicrously to Trotskyite Russian communism, is a sign of deficient minds unfit to guide health policy in America.

War – Nations do have to go to war sometimes, but that Iraq thing was pretty bad, to put it mildly. Somebody should have been, I dunno – FIRED for bad performance. Aren’t you the party of good corporate managers or something? This topic could get 10,000 words on its own. Let’s just leave it at: You guys suck at running wars.

Deficits and debt – Whenever the GOP is out of power, it immediately appeals to the imagination of voters who remember the Lyndon Baines Johnson (!) administration and claim that the Republican alternative is the party of “cutting spending” and “reducing the deficit.” The only problem with your claim is that Republican governments throughout my entire 38 year life (Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) have failed to cut spending and deficit and debt EVEN ONCE. I hope you understand that your credibility suffers every time you promise one thing for three decades and do the EXACT OPPOSITE. Egads – if you actually were the party of fiscal responsibility – you might win our votes despite your 13th century view of science!

Gay marriage – As the child of Baby Boomers who got divorced (as was the fashion!) in the 80s and 90s, and for whom 50% of my friends had their homes broken by divorce in the critical years before age 18, I sure am unsympathetic to your caterwauling bullshit that “gays will destroy the sanctity of marriage.” Perhaps if everyone in your generation didn’t take the period of 1978 – 1995 to start surreptitiously banging their neighbors and coworkers, only to abandon their kids because “they just weren’t happy,” I would take your defense of marriage more seriously. The institution of Middle Class suburban marriage was broken by the generation of aging white Baby Boomers who populate what is left of the Republican Party, so your defense is wrongheaded and disingenuous. And moreover, as someone who got called “faggot” about 127 times a day from the years 1985 through 1991 – guess what – I grew up to be pretty good friends with actual homosexuals, whose sexual orientation is usually the least significant thing about them. The Republican perseveration on homosexuals as any sort of threat consigns them to history’s trough of intellectual pig dung.

>>>>>>

That’s quite enough for one essay, wouldn’t you say? Now, given my initial description as a wealthy, hard-working, job creating, heterosexual, married suburban White Male – doesn’t your current platform look woefully insufficient to the task of gaining my vote? This doesn’t even get into the demographic tensions that show that people of my exact profile are going away permanently in America. You can’t even win on what you perceive to be “home field advantage.”

Uh oh, wait, I can already hear you through the web browser, dismissing all of my above points because THAT GUY WAS NEVER GONNA BE A REPUBLICAN ANYHOW, CUZ HE’S A LIBRUL WHO HATES AMERICA AND…

All right, let’s do one last point:

Meanness– Your party is really mean, mocking and demonizing everyone who does not follow you into the pits of hell. You constantly imply – as Mitt Romney did in his “47% speech” – that anybody who disagrees with you does so not by logic or moral conviction, but because they are shiftless, lazy parasites who want “free stuff” from “traditional Americans.” Wow, you guys managed to follow up a stunning electoral defeat with insulting the very people you wish to attract for a majority in the political system! Brilliant! You are losing elections because being angry and defensive and just-plain-mean is more important than being smart and winning elections – and thus you deserve everything happening to you.

If you want to know exactly where you failed in 2012, and will continue to fail, here it is. Look you assholes, I’m as traditional an American as it gets, and I do not “want free stuff.”  I am a taxpayer, and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. I got my first job – dragging bags of cow manure, horse feed and fertilizer around a farm store – when I was 12. I started my first company when I was 28. I have followed the vast majority of the rules set out for middle class white males (for good and for ill.) And if it weren’t bad enough that your policy positions are a complete clusterfuck for the reasons I lay out in great detail, you manage to follow up the whole exercise with insulting me, my wife, and my friends of every stripe who didn’t vote for your political party – all of whom are hard-working, taxpaying, job creating, law abiding, great AMERICANS of EVERY COLOR AND CREED.

From this white, Mayflower-descended strategic analyst, allow me to offer you the three strategic options you have before you:

1. You drastically moderate your platform to harmonize with the policy positions I present above

2. You disband the party and reorganize it to reflect current realities

3. You kick and scream and stamp your feet and call me and my friends names – and submit to several decades of one party rule

While I do not want a one-party system, I also don’t particularly care which of these options you choose. If you look carefully at the numbers on Tuesday, nobody else cares, either.

Just a word to the wise from one White Man to (presumably) another.

Comments 2,494

  1. With you up until the end. We’re not designed to work as a one-party system, so we need the GOP to rediscover the benefits of rationality and constructive engagement. It would make both parties better.

    Reply

    2. We need two parties, sure, but not necessarily Democrats and Republicans. If Republicans squander their opportunities as badly as they did this election cycle, there are other parties that might be willing and able to step up. The Libertarian Party candidate for President got significantly more votes this year than in years previous. If the Republicans don’t watch out, in a few cycles, it may be the Democratic Party versus the Libertarian Party at the top of the ticket.

      Reply

    3. To be fair, we don’t work well as a two-party system either, once both parties begin to forcibly lean toward extremes and are more willing to hurt the American people instead of compromise on something. Moderates need a more powerful voice in Congress.

      Reply

  2. what is your take on direct democracy?

    in a hyperconnected age where space and time have melted, the representative form of government where elected locals are sent to washington seems nearly anachronistic ..

    as for parties, i see the usa as a one-party state; yes, there are two factions, but they are mutually funded by the same interests, preside over the same impulses present in NSA, FBI, SEC, CIA, FDA, FCC, etc … and direct democracy could bypass much of that ..

    anyway, i wanted your opinion .. thanks, gregory

    Reply

    1. Great question! Actually I think a “one party” system will be the same as the dissolution of the current paradigm. The disappearance of the second-half of the system will result in the dominant paradigm separating out into new factions along different lines of thought. The old myths are the ones dying, not just a single, poorly-run political party. And the new myths will come from the demographic make-up of the country, not to mention the incredible new technologies that will connect us.

      This is much MUCH bigger than the GOP melting down – it is the end of an era. Right in time for 2012.

      Reply

      1. I read in dismay, you want Republicans to become Dumbocrats. How outlandish. I’m really beginning to wonder if you are really a dumbo rat posing as a real American. I am a real American I am American Indian. Choctaw to be exact. I didn’t need a boat ride to make me more of an American than you my Great Grand Mother was on the Trail Of Tears! Now that said I am a minority that has never never ever ask this country to make my way. I educated myself although I’m not as educated as you pretend to be. I see blue sky all thru your rant. You took my people and put them on reservations killed them in great numbers. Now you want gays Mexicans and Blacks to rule America. All I can say is you get what you vote for good luck with that. I have my own Nation The Great Nation of Choctaw people and I can tell you Oblamer will never be our president we have our own. Hahaha!!! The greatest leader in the world. Thank you Chief Pile.

        Reply

        1. I don’t think Mr. Garland is old enough to have caused The Trail of Tears, sir, nor do I see any suggestion from him that you or the Choctaw Nation should be excluded or in any way penalized for being who you are from the American future. But if you want to excommunicate yourself, no one can stop you.

          Reply

          1. The funny thing about the Choctaw Nation has a strong history of slavery. As a result, there are many tribal members of the Choctaw Nation who one would identify as being Black. Plus, there are many, many Choctaws who are part Mexican.

        2. If you are an enrolled member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, and you use the Indian Health Service, or any other service indirectly funded by federal funds – guess what, you are taking from this country, too!

          Reply

        3. just don’t get it do ya Linn ? Besides you sound pretty much a white man in Indian charade , a common practice used in deceptive arguments to give an impression of an outside unbiased opinion . It rarely works , since what comes out of your mouth usually gives it all away , as is in your case .Sorry CHUMP , in So.Fla , there are Seminole and Micsukee tribes , none of them would ever talk like you . Beat it and come back with a different disguiase .

          Reply

        4. Ridiculous!! American Indians came here from somewhere else too. We are willing to be respectful of you IF AND WHEN you accord others the same respect you seem to expect. Until then practice moderating your racist language. You sound very ignorant and totally intolerant and that has nothing to do with your lack of a formal education.

          Reply

          1. I’m Black and Native myself, and I personally hate it when people say that Americans Indians came to this place from somewhere else. People usually say that to mean that Indians aren’t truly native to this land, and they immigrated here too. Ultimately, it is an attempt to undermine our claims to being indigenous to these lands.

            The Irish people are the descendants of immigration waves from the Iberian peninsula, Scotland, Wales, France, Scandinavia and England. How come no one ever tells the Irish that they aren’t native to Ireland? Red hair and green eyes came from Scotland by way of Scandinavia but we think those Irish are indigenous to Ireland. There has been evidence that tribes have existed in this place dating back 50,000 years so are you saying that because tribes weren’t here for 50,001 years (which is contrary to our origin stories), that they aren’t native to this land?

            No. That’s ridiculous!!

        5. To insert detail into your previous critiques (well earned by you): Your statement contradicts your argument. If you claim to be “more American” than the author, you are adopting a European name on non-European peoples. The notion of “American” refers to the hybrid culture and people composed of: European culture, Native American culture, African immigrant culture, Latin, and various Asian cultures. Where do Apple Pie and Hot Dogs come from? Who invented Baseball? Lacrosse? Rock and Roll? White people, Native people, and Black people: We are ALL Americans now. Some living with freedom and justice and some dis advantaged and living with injustice (of which the Native man and women have certainly had horrifying shares).

          You decry white rule and then blame for the resurgence of Mexican immigration. Guess what: the Mexicans immigrating are descended from both the native peoples and even the European peoples who were already here: we took half of Mexico in war. So do you argue that Land and culture displaced in War means legitimate rule? If so then your own argument for Native culture fails as it too was taken in War. (I do not so believe in the legitimacy of War. I do believe in the fluidity of culture and peoples).

          The worst of your post is the name calling. Did you read the author’s most important point? Mean people suck. What kind of America are you honoring by dividing us with antipathy and silly school boy name calling? We are all Americans now, whatever our Ancestors did. That said, Let’s talk about policies in a mature manner with policy specifics and without hyperbole.

          Reply

        6. “Now you want gays Mexicans and Blacks to rule America”… as a member of the second* genotype of people to make it to this land, and given your views of The White Man and his historic actions regarding this nation and your people, I am surprised at your vitriolic reaction to the notion of ANYONE other than The White Man being in charge (though I’m not sure how being a homosexual changes you from being White, but no matter). It seems to me that you might be happier to let someone other than The White Man run things for a bit… so why the complaints?

          *recent archeological finds in several locations along the East Coast of the U.S. support the theory that Early Europeans were here as much as 25 thousand years ago, beating the the Early Asians who crossed the Land Bridge by several thousand years.**

          **Regardless of that fact, none of you did anything with this land in the time that the Roman Empire rose and fell. You should have had Jetsons Cities here in the 9000 years you had this place to yourselves. You can’t complain when a more advanced tribe comes along and beats your ass and takes what you have. You wasted your shot. It sucks, but that’s the price we pay as a SPECIES to advance.

          Reply

        7. You completely make his point with the meanness. And underscore it with the fact that you don’t realize your nation is on permanent welfare rolls (that millions of “Mexicans & Blacks pay). Really think that Mexicans & “Blacks” are beneath you?! The Brooklyn Bridge called. It wants you to wake now.

          Reply

        8. Your opinion is yours and yours alone. The Choctaw people and the Nation is a great one but your opinion is limited at best. No one group of people rule the land. You should know better than this.

          Reply

        9. Linn Denton, there is no need to show anger with name calling to Eric for his article above. He is only showing the reader the problems of the Republican Party. Since most all polls and the actual election showed that the Republican party got a higher percentage of WHITE males to vote for THEM, he was showing why HE (a white male) was NOT happy with the GOP platform.
          When he said: “Your party is really mean, mocking and demonizing everyone who does not follow you into the pits of hell,” and then YOU calling him a “dumbo rat posing as a real American,” only reaffirms what he said.
          Don’t blame his ancestors for your Choctaw Indian demise. I actually sympathize with what you are saying, but bringing in that issue has nothing to do with his GOP subject above. Since you have your own president as you say, then you don’t need to worry about “Oblamer” as YOUR president.
          You have YOUR own nation but reap the benefits of the United States. You have access to the internet, you benefit with scientific discoveries in medicine (please thank Eric’s wife), but I do realize that like all of us, you also suffer the degradation of our environment — in which the GOP could care less about.
          Don’t blame blacks because they were brought here as slaves. Don’t blame MY relatives, for they came here as immigrants from Poland in 1900. Don’t blame Mexicans for coming here, I would too if I lived in that country. Don’t blame gays for being born that way. Don’t blame the Mayflower for creating a fantastic ship and bravely coming to a new world. Many countries have done a great injustice to its people, and you need to get over your anger with what was done to your people.
          Another thing that I do not understand is why do you hate “Oblamer” since like you said, he is NOT your president, so what has he done to YOU to cause such hate????

          Reply

        10. HAHAHAHA. The “greatest leader in the world”? You sound like the homeless guy down the street who claims his mutt is the Grand Emperor of Zarbazz.

          “I am a minority that has never never ever ask this country to make my way”

          Except for casinos
          And reparations.
          And relaxed laws beneficial to the reservations.

          Give it a rest.

          Reply

      2. As a fellow exceptionally Caucasian Mayflower descendant, who grew up, went to college and grad school, and now works for a biotech company in the states to the west, the east, and the south, respectively, of your great home state, no, really, thank YOU. I insist.

        Reply

  6. Great article – thanks so much for making so may key points and making then artfully and succinctly. Staggered by the confirmatory biases and ineptitude of the current version of the GOP which has been hijacked by its worst and meanest elements. Where are the moderate and rational republican voices and the party of Lincoln who freed the slaves? Its a same for the county that the republican party has strayed for its valid core principles into a hateful and exclusionary party dominated by narrow minded and cynical operators. I am Indian and a 1st generation american but we have a lot (in terms of our education and outlook) in common.

    Reply

  7. Excellent article, Eric. I’m a middle aged, partially disabled white woman, married to a Latino man – who works his butt off in the local public hospital, as gasp (this to your imagined audience) not a janitor, but a CAT Scan technologist, whose salary makes us nearly middle class. I say nearly, because, since I became ill, I have not been able to work and our income was cut by a full 2/5ths. We have been struggling since, but we thank God, the Universe, the Great Cosmic Bunny, what have you, everyday that we have health care, enough to eat, the ability to pay for heat and communication services, and not a lot else. You are a bright and entertaining writer – people like a little chuckle with their reality checks. Lets hope that we can come together and fix what is wrong in our nation, and spend our national budget in a positive manner, rather than to blow up people who have resources that we covet. Speak true, Eric, and stand strong. We’ll get through it, or we won’t. Either way, we will have tried our best.

    Reply

    1. God bless you, Lisa, and may you be in good health. As far as the national cohesiveness goes, I think we’re going to be fine, because there is a rising consciousness of sticking together as neighbors, if not as one national entity. Be well.

      Reply

      1. Your points are all minor, and too little too late.

        Better strategies for Republicans:

        1. Reproduce as much as possible, even if it turns your lifestyle into that of a 3rd world immigrant. Children means more influence, more opinions, more votes.
        2. Use every method to halt illegal immigration. Minorities in any country become a fifth column for lefists.

        All politics is identity politics. Demographics is everything. Multiculturalism leads to ruin for the local majority.

        Reply

        2. I didnt know about the Great Cosmic Bunny either! Oh my- Fred the Purple People Eating Octopus (who lives under everyone’s beds) is going to be super p*ssed when he finds out. You better check under your beds…. Fred is waiting. Or the Great Cosmic Dust Bunny. VERY well written article Eric- finally an article that makes me feel SMARTER for having read it 🙂

          Reply

      2. I’m glad to see this sentiment because, as a Libertarian, I always felt that we had a great story to tell where views were respected even if you didn’t agree with them. This proves that anyone who does not believe like you do is an idiot who has no place. Tolerance at its finest. I’m sure you’ve worked thru:
        1. How the laws of thermoDynamics had to be suspended for big bang to work
        2. How these laws also had to be suspended for aBioGenesis
        3. How the law of conservation of angular velocity needed to be dis-believed for Big Bang to result in a solar system with planets spinning in opposite directions
        4. How the longer days and moon travelling from the earth fly in the face of the farcical science we call Big Bang and evolution

        So for those of us who still believe in laws more than theories … I guess we’re cosmic bunny and spaghetti monster and pink whatever believers. And the message of Liberty only applies if the person thinks the same way you do on matters that have nothing to do with Liberty. Good job y’all.

        Reply

          1. It’s not mean as long as you’re only being mean to Christians. Mean to any other faith group is biased,, bigoted, racist, etc.. But slamming Christians isn’t being mean.

          2. Can either of you please give a specific example of where exactly Christians were “slammed” in the above posts? You seem to be very easily offended, kind of the way you accuse others of being.

          3. So likening our belief system to spaghetti monsters and pink bunnies strikes you as a tolerant and respectful thing. Glad you are so open minded as long as it is someone else being ridiculed.

          4. What does YOUR belief system have to do with Pastafarianism, the Church of the Cosmic Bunny, or any other religious or spiritual doctrine?

          6. Pastafarianism, Invisible Pink Unicorns, and the Great Cosmic Bunny all
            originated specifically as parodies of the religious mindset by the
            irreligious. They are therefore equally insulting to Christians,
            Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and people of just about any other creed —
            because they’re meant to be. Pretending not to know this only compounds
            your arrogance with dishonesty.

          7. It’s interesting that you mention arrogance. It’s common in those who take insults more readily than they take counsel.

            Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before the fall.

          8. Yes, we Christians (I am Catholic) are extraordinarily persecuted. So persecuted, in fact, that we must skulk our way into dark places to find our religion. Most Spring Breaks being timed with Easter is purely coincidence. Christmas being a day off for almost every worker is truly representative of this war on our faith. Let’s can the strawman argument that Christians are hated and persecuted in the US. What most non-Christians – whether they be agnostic/atheist, Muslim, Jewish, etc. – want is that we don’t dictate to them what THEY should believe and do based upon OUR belief system. That’s pretty consistent with Libertarianism. Are you sure you’re a Libertarian?

        2. You know those for points you make are not actual issues, right? Id est, they’re not scientific controversies at all or really event debated. They have clearly understood and consistent answers.

          You should treat whatever median you learned that through with seriously heightened scepticism.

          Reply

          1. Possibly you could point me to some of this evidence. Physics does not easily reverse trends (inertia), and I won’t even go into the countless other farcical facades that pass as science because people have an answer and they need to model the facts to match it. It is maybe a lack of skepticism on the part of many which has allowed few to even know about the holes in the science. So my skepticism is up, why don’t you show me some incontrovertible evidence. And then look at the complexity of the cell and the hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars which have gone into creating environments more than could have happened naturally to accommodate the genesis of that first cell, and there was nothing close … one reason is that you need RNA to create protein and protein is one of the key components of RNA (catch 22). But you go on believing in an absolutely purposeless life where everything is a cosmic accident. At least one brilliant atheist had thought it through and let everyone know that anyone or anything that they love … anything they accomplish … anything that could ever be … is all meaningless (“Unless you assume a God, the question of life’s purpose is meaningless.” Bertrand Russell). So you go ahead and look at your children sleeping and realize that they are meaningless accidents who will soon be meaningless fertilizer. I’ll look at mine and see the creation of a great God … in His image … children with purpose who help me see a beautiful creator.

          2. There’s no such thing as incontrovertible evidence in science. That’s kind of the first rule of science.

            To address your specific points:
            1. The “big expansion” does not actually violate the 1st Law–of course, the “big expansion” does not actually cover how anything came into existence at the instant before the expansion. Incidentally, matter an energy _can_ be created from nothing, so long as it is for a brief enough time that that it does not violate the Uncertainty Principal.
            2. Biogenesis is a bit vague (and I’ll presume that you are not referring to Haeckel, as that would be rather ironic), or something as outmoded as Pasteur. Feel free to elaborate in hard terms of what you feel “biogenesis” is, and what, specifically, about it is in violation of physics. Also, one should note that those who do study these mechanisms are the least likely to attribute magic to their being. Knowledge has a way of doing that.
            3. This point is bizarre. I can only guess that this is a mistaken elaboration on non-QED symmetry at instantiation of the universe–i.e., needing to explain how an initial void (inherently symmetric) could result in a (as far as we can tell) asymmetric universe. It has been demonstrated numerous times that quantum-scale interactions are non-deterministic and truly random in outcome. Thus, the universe must be asymmetric, and its later states are, therefore, a chaotic system. There are no issues with conservation of momentum here; and retrograde orbits can be created from two bodies in near collision (even if on close to parallel courses).
            4. “How longer days . . . ” Please explain what you meant on this, as it is not evident as written.

            As to your follow-up:
            RNA: it also takes a chicken to make an egg–hardly a great mystery there. Amino acids appear to be a natural consequence of 2nd+ generation star systems, such as our own. In the vastness of the universe, random chance can, in fact, bind them together as proteins–as we have done in laboratories; and they can be bound together to form RNA, as we have done in laboratories.

            The rest of your reply has nothing to do with your original post, so I’m disregarding it.

            Do feel free to supply some of the “countless other farcical façades that pass as science”, so far, you’ve presented what amounts to borderline conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo.

          3. I was referring to life from nonLife (abiogenesis … which has newer terms). Something that hundreds of millions of taxPayer dollars have tried to find some clue to … but even stacking the deck as badly as they could (and removing small constructs that did actually result because they continued to break down if left in the soup) … scientists have shown that this is highly unlikely. Something from nothing … good luck with that one … that something the size of a pin containing all the matter of the universe appeared from nothing. If you want to believe that, you have tremendous faith. As for conservation of angular momentum … that simply says that this fast spinning pin that became everything was spinning in one direction. Random accidents say that maybe 1 in a hundred items out there might have completely switched directions. That 2 of the 10 bodies are in our solar system are in that 1% club is as likely as the idea that a Mac computer could find a virus in alien software hundreds of years ahead of our (Independence Day). So if you believe that, then certainly the whole conservation of angular velocity should be easy to understand. Hey, if I believed that I had no purpose and that my loved ones (including my children) were meaningless cosmic accidents … I’d probably be out there slamming others too. Why not? When I kiss my kids good-night … I am kissing the face of God (or as you guys seem to put it … that pink bunny or spaghetti monster) … and I feel for those who see only meaningless cosmic accidents.

          4. God loves you so much that he sent his only son to die for you and if you don’t believe that without one shred of evidence for it then he will send you to hell to burn forever and ever. WTF??

    3. I in fact blame it all on the great cosmic bunny. Bunnies are cute and all, but they can be quite mean … and they really aren’t too smart. Better to rely on sensible public policy IMHO, sort of act as a civilization again where we all try to keep each other on the boat.

      Reply

  8. As a generally liberal female from your great home state, I thought you hit the nail on the head. What frustrated me most in watching the Republican Party campaign this past fall were not its’ positions on health care, immigration, or gay marriage (although I disagree with them in regards to all three), it was in witnessing how childishly GOP officials conducted themselves. Watching Mitch McConnell say that his greatest goal is to make Obama a one-term president, despite the serious issues his state faces, really makes me wonder why anyone would vote for someone so single-minded and uncooperative. I hope the GOP realizes that it is in need of a serious image change, and that future Republican leaders move more in your direction.

    Reply

    1. I couldn’t agree more. If you read elsewhere on this site, you’ll read some of my recollections of what really happened in the crash of 2008. To believe the briefings of the bankers and CEOs, we were on the brink of a collapse of the world currency system that would have made the Great Depression look like misplacing your wallet for a couple of days. And then, ten weeks later, as banks, car companies and other major corporations announce that they are leveraged 100:1 for the dumbest shit in the world and Barry Obama is just trying to keep stuff from going sideways, these guys promise to do nothing but attack? Forget TV, if you knew what was happening behind the scenes, you’d be even angrier.

      It is time to grow up.

      God bless the Green Mountain State!

      Reply

          1. His name is not Barry “Soetoro.” “Soetoro” is the last name of his stepfather and half sister. He has always been “Obama.” And yes, as a child, he went by “Barry,” but grew out of it, just like many “Jennys” become “Jennifers” and “Billys” become “Williams.”

        3. Interesting, isn’t it? I’m sure W was called “Georgie” at some time in his life, but diminutives are used toward adults for pretty much one reason, to minimize and infantilize. Unless you are someone who knew Mr. Obama when he was called that, you should probably stick to “Mr. President” or “Barack Obama”, when speaking about him, even when you think you’re being complimentary. I wouldn’t call Barbara Boxer “Barbie”, or Marco Rubio “Marky”.

          Reply

          1. Hey, I’ve got an idea– let’s pull some detail totally non-germaine to the point of the paragraph and harp on it to avoid any real productive conversation about the ideas and issues. Are there any punctuation or spelling errors we can point out to further ruin the conversation?

          2. I’m copying this and saving it for future use. Excellent for Facebook arguments, Internet forum disagreements, and the Special Olympics…

          6. Come on. Bill Maher, Maureen Dowd are just two liberals who call him Barry on national media fronts. “Barry O” sounds awesome.

          8. call him Barry, call him Barack….also call him our President and someone who should be treated with respect.

          11. I can’t imagine how your comments could be more irrelevant to the topic being discussed. Typical republican ignorance.

          15. Look up Pat’s profile on FB and tell me if you are at all surprised that he is an angry white male in his 60s. Luckily that is pretty much all the party of hate and ignorance has left these days.

          17. Sad isnt’ it.
            I was once told the President was a Nazi Communist and a Muslim. All in the same breath. Then they told me I was drinking the kool aid because I didn’t believe this BS. When I told my son what they called the President a Nazi. He asked me if these people were aware he was not white and you could not be both a nazi and communist at the same time. He is 15 with LIberal values and I am so thankful the education system has not faild him yet or he is paying attention in class.

          18. and of course, let’s not forget to notice all of his loving Jesus “likes” on his page. Well My Jesus forgives Pat’s angry, hateful, warmongering, Republican Jesus then.

          24. What about all of the people Bush let die on 9/11 and every day since the war in Iraq started? Nobody is criticizing Bush for this.

          26. If you are so concerned about our foriegn policy, sign up. I did. I spend 14 years fighting for our country so people say stupid shit on the internet. Your welcome.

          28. Thank you for your service and for your accumen. Signing up is what Pat Tillman did despite disagreeing with the overall plan and then his family found the cover up identifyingly extended right up through Gen Stanley McChrystal. Tillman died because the higher ups didn’t want to helivac out or blowup a malfunctioning Hum-V. The best analysis of the failings of our military policies is by Col. Andrew J. Bacevich , Ph. D. in History, who lost a son in Iraq 2004. His thesis in “The Limits of Power” is basically we are not getting our money’s worth and we cannot police and organize the whole world to the unrealistic likings of those in power. Another aspect of failed Republican policy to add to the well constructed list of Mr. Garland. Many prominent Republicans, such as Colin Powell and former Senators, had signed up with Republicans for Obama for just the reasons mentioned by Eric Garland and and many conservative ordinary people in Red States are sick of these endless non-productive wars! We probably shouldn’t have messed around in Libya with personnel on the ground!

          29. Thanks, Claude, for a clear, concise and effective addition to the commentary. Eric Garland probably could have gone on to much greater length and might have included this. He didn’t and I’m glad you did. 🙂

          30. not just that, but we should not even have been in that part of the world, will we never learn, one would think, that all the other countries who tried to tame the middle east, we would not have gotten involved, but no Mr. Bush needed to get even for the assassination plot on his father.

          31. I second that emotion, Robert. With a full career between the Navy and Army, I’m retiring this year with 26 and I am amazed at the number of people who spout illegitimate bullshit on the Internet without having ever been “boots-on-dirt, in-country” ANYWHERE besides their hometown.

          35. Go ahead, ask them. You’ll find that they actually *do* respect him. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good hate rant.

          37. Oh grow up! I wonder where you heard that bullcrap from. What did some misinformed person tell you that?

          39. hmmm??? those few who died in Libya by NOT being ensconced in a fortress, which would have nullified any “good” they could do and rendered them a hostile occupying presence – those “losses” in a battle/intervention intermittently (read Republican flip-fopping) urged on by angry Republicans – these losses pale against the 3,000+ 9/11 victims who were not defended properly because Condo Leaser paid no heed to intel that “Al Qaeda was determined to attack the U.S. using planes”, which was followed up with 5,000 deaths and 40,000 terribly wounded of our soldiers in the unnecessary invasion of Iraq , followed by ongoing futile deaths in Petraeus’ surge in Afghanistan which goes on and on today. Petraeus DID betray us , just not in the way we imagined – what a surprise. And you RepubliClowns are carrying on about some insignificant Benghazi incident??

          41. I take it you aren’t aware that there were no less than 5 attacks on US embassies during W’s regime. US citizens were killed then too. So I’ll buy into your BS about Obama once the Shrub and Cheney are in prison.

          43. I’m a friend of one of the four people who died in Libya. The president deserves our respect. That’s what Sean used to say. I agree with Sean. (By the way, Pat, Sean called people like you morons.)

          44. I am sorry for your loss. Thank you for putting this all in very clear perspective. Your friend would be proud of you, I think, for trying to remind people about what is important and what is not.

          46. Pat … how about we ask the families of the 4,488 men and women who died in the Iraq War? Oh, that’s right … perspective. Imagine that.

          47. I can see we will continue down the same road of obstructionist points of view to avoid real problems and real solutions. This is not to make light of what happened but I find it interesting that this now has become the topic du jour, while tragic it certainly does not come close to the four thousand soldiers and over 600,000 civilians who have died in Iraq because of a Republicans need to defend against possible WMD’s. I bet you weren’t and probably still aren’t calling Bush an a-hole. The current President did not order or condone the attack in Libya. So where does that leave you? Listening to talk radio where people spew lies and hate instead of thinking of ways to not be divisive.

          48. Yes, and this, from the guy who has Jesus all over his facebook page. Bet Jesus would be so proud of you now, with your hate speech and lack of caring for other people.

          49. Why are you responding to this guy, don’t you see that he is just throwing out all this BS to watch what happens? Ignore him …

          50. As opposed to the asshole who let all those servicemen die in a false war of aggression so that he could avenge his father’s assassination attempt. You’re a partisan with no sense of perspective. So tell you what, why don’t you go pound sand up your ass?

          52. How about you educate yourself on what “Marxist” actually means? Oh, wait. You want to abolish the Dept. of Education.

          55. That is so disrespectful not to mention so anti-American. The man is not a socialist.Try moving to a truly socialist country before you compare the two. More than half of this country does not get government assistance thank you!

          64. It’s one he and his family used themselves, just as it wasn’t disrespectful to call James Carter “Jimmy” nor Ronald Reagan “Ronnie.” Please find a single instance in the last twenty years where anyone close to Pres. Obama referred to him as “Barry” and get back to us.

          65. Seriously, you people have respect for politicians? You investors who subscribe to this website should understand that before voting for any political party is that they are both lawless and corrupt. To worry about if Obama is called “president Obama” or any other name is being ludicrous ! Understand that this country is changing and it is changing for the worst because it has become a total welfare state. Don’t you study the Euro crisis? Are you watching the developments in France, the UK and the middle east? Get off the subject of political parties because you’ll just turn this website into just another political forum!

          67. Again I repeat less than half of this country receives any government assistance! If you don’t like it go sign the stupid petition to be excused from the country. Oh and apparently you did not read the article because that was the point of the whole article was to let the political party know what ludicris they promoted this election!

          68. Seriously……….I have respect for people who act respectful, I have friends who are republican jerks, but I don’t and never will call them JERKS………. except here and NO ONE knows who they are.

          1. Don’t you dare speak about my president in that language. That is the most racist thing you could say!

          2. Read it again. It wasn’t used that way. Eric was the original user who was using it in a context sympathetic to a President who was embattled for no reason by people he had just managed to save.

      2. Not sure what happened, but I can’t find my reply (nothing bad was in
        it), so here is a retry (where I explain why I mostly agree with you)
        >>

        I’m the dude who almost won in court for the (pro-life)
        Terri Schiavo case –all while DISAGREEING with Jeb Bush on the feeding
        tube issue –so, on that last point, liberals should be glad I opposed
        Jeb’s meddling, and on the 1st point, since I addressed lack of FOOD and
        WATER -not feeding tubes, and JESUS, HIMSELF agrees with my assessment
        of the food denial issue in Matthew 25:31-46, “Conservatives” (read:
        REPUBLICANS) should also not complain to me at all.

        But, guess
        what? While Mitt Romney was not actually a gay-hater (see cite below),
        you are correct, Eric: The GOP spends more than it makes — it is
        liberal — but so are Democrats –actually, no matter WHO gets in power
        (Democrats OR Republicans) we almost ALWAYS end up going DOWN in our
        economy, and UP in our deficit, so both sides are losers to me.

        PS: I wasn’t blowing smoke in re Schiavo: Google me to verify. – In the mean time, I think most of your points are valid.

        Romney doesn’t Flip-Flop on Gay Marriage: (Even the liberal PolitiFact by the liberal St Pete Times agrees)

        “Meanwhile,
        in an interview with KDVR-TV in Denver, Romney said, “I don’t favor
        civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name. My
        view is that domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights
        and the like are appropriate, but the others are not.”…But despite
        making policy overtures to gay voters, Romney consistently drew the line
        at gay marriage, even as far back as 1994.”

        * http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/15/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-has-maintained-consistent-stance-same/

        (“Mitt Romney has maintained consistent stance on same-sex marriage,” PolitiFact)

        Reply

        1. Good post, but I especially like the bible quote. I wonder if Paul Ryan has ever looked at the middle verse (40) in that quote.

          And speaking to the same quote…

          You’re right about Repub vs Dem, there’s no difference. Both parties have thrown millions of hard working Americans out of their homes while coddling the Wall Street uber-fraud mob with additional $Billions in welfare so they can keep their bonuses, salaries, homes in the Hamptons, helicopters and the rest of their blood money. Both parties have permanent war as one of the planks in their platform – gotta keep those Pentagon contractors on their welfare rolls as well.

          It’s time for a third party to at least be heard.

          Green Party Platform:

          1st Plank: Get the money out of politics. Comprehensive Campaign Finance Reform

          2nd Plank: Direct Democracy as a response to Local needs and issues

          3rd Plank: Community Activism – build communities that nurture families, generate local food, good jobs and housing, health care for all and provide public services.

          4th Plank: Media Reform and Free Speech For All – not just the corporate plutocrats.

          Reply

          1. When the Green Party shows they can win at the local level I will vote for them for Federal office. Run for school board, city council, township board, county commission. You are not vialble at the national level and are wasting your money. Be as smart as you think you are.

          2. As i knew Obama would win by a landslide, despite the media’s efforts to convince us all of otherwise, I was happy to give my vote to the Green Party. I do think they need better front runners though.

          5. Popular vote which counts every American vote has an Obama win with 50.6% of the vote. In a free country where all votes should count, why would anyone agree with an electoral college? That should be abolished. So, no he didnt win by a 20% margin. Only if you are trying to rationalize with the fact that half the country didnt vote for him. They didnt because there are those that can see through a politician.

          7. You are precisely the “Republicans are just straight mean” paragraph that he was talking about above. People like you, who are incapable of having any kind of relevant argument with calling someone a name is precisely what is wrong with the Republican party. I would refer to them as high-schoolers, but even as a high schooler I regarded facts (like where someone was born legally, or how the voting process really works) in my arguments in debate.

          8. Thn I must presume you were not old enough to vote when George Romney (born in Chihuahua, MX) was running and that was pretty well ignored by the Republican Party and the Republican owned media hid it on page 38 just uder the ads for the strip clubs.

          9. Per Wikipedia, George Romney’s grandparents fled to Mexico to escape persecution for their polygamy. His parents were monogamous, held US citizenship, and chose US citizenship for their children, including George Romney. I believe that would have qualified George as a natural born US citizen. If the party wanted to hide his birthplace, it might have been an issue, but it was indeed raised as a potential issue. Most thought he would be qualified due to his parents’ citizenship.

          10. Sorry, not born here, don’t qualify. George wouldn’t have been eligible. The reason the provision is in the Constitution was to keep Alexander Hamilton, born in the West Indies, out of the presidency.

          11. I don’t think this is true. I sure never heard of it, and the law has most certainly changed since the time of Alexander Hamilton anyway. Besides, the West Indies was British at that time and so were all the original thirteen colonies and all the founding fathers. They only became citizens AFTER the Constitution was formed in 1781, so he would have been naturalized. If that law was actually passed, I feel sure it must have been challenged by someone.

          14. If your parents are citizens of the U.S. then your children are also, no matter where they are born. This is the main reason why they are lying about Obama. Even if he had of been born in Kenya (which was a lie) he still would have been a citizen because his mother was! These guys are so ignorant it is unbelievable. Evidently they never teach civics in Texas! or Brooklyn!
            One example, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt – first child born in Africa, but sill a U.S. citizen.

          15. His mother wasn’t old enough to confer citizenship onto Obama. Jolie and Pitt are BOTH U.S. citizens. It really does make a difference. You really need to stop calling names, especially when it is more reflective of you.

          16. The ignorance of Americans about basic workings of our union is not only embarrassing, but it will be the downfall of us all! If you knew how people become US citizens, no talking head would be able to convince you that Obama was not one, which is why the rest of us watch you and people like you from afar with mouths open in wonder. Did you have mononucleosis and miss out on your high school civics class?

            There is no age restriction or limit on a US citizen conferring citizenship onto their child. One of the three ways to become an American citizen is “Jus Sanguinis (Right of Blood)” wherein a child is given American citizenship AUTOMATICALLY IF AT LEAST ONE OF THEIR PARENTS IS A LEGAL US CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF THEIR BIRTH. This is true even if the child is born outside of the U.S. or its territories. The second way is “Jus Soli (place of Birth)” which is based on where the child is born. IF A CHILD IS BORN IN THE US they are automatically granted American citizenship regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents. Obama is both a citizen through Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli as his mother was a citizen and he was born in Hawaii which is part of the U.S. Case closed!

          17. His parents left because they were breaking the law. When came back to the US he was on welfare. Question is why is that George Romenys citizenship is not questioned but the President born to an American mother in Hawaii is? I’d llike someone to explain that one to me. Was it because he was black?

          18. Dems do the same thing. If you are not on board with their views you are a bigot, or a racist, or at the very least, and asshole, as the write of the article put it.

          21. No I’m not Jesus Christ, but I can promise you Jesus lived his earthly life as a socialist, so what I really hate are convenient Christians like you who never miss church on Sunday, or the opportunity to be hateful to your fellowman.

          22. Jesus was not a socialist. He did not advocate that the state take over institutions. He did not want the governing persons to be charitable, he wanted you to be charitable. he wanted the state to do the state’s business.

          24. Sooooooooooooo true. I used to go on Religious sites and ask how they explain the whole incest thing with Adam and Eve’s kids. They call you names and then throw you off the site. I suspect Jesus was either an alien or an hybred, but that theory doesn’t go far on religious sites either. No, I’m not athiest and feel no one has the right to strip someone of their beliefs – including mine.

          25. Jesus COULD be a socialist. He could do magic! *That* is socialism’s missing ingredient, the thing you nuts have been missing all this time.

            Now get to work on it!

          26. If people didn’t have the right to judge, there would be no courts. Bet you judge who your kids hang out with or is the local drug dealer not to be judged either. A pedaphile would have a good time living next door to your non-judgemental self.

          27. I’m pretty sure a Dem who calls someone a racist says why (“Put the white back in the White House” is racist, as is hanging a chair on a tree, following Mr Eastwood’s speech). Saying evolution is straight from the pit of hell is stupid. Saying Obama is a Kenyan and yelling for his birth certificate is bigotry.

          28. A candidate for the Presidency should provide proof of citizenship. Obama should have already been vetted. Why was he not ? That is not a partisan question. It is a simple matter of Constitutional law.

          29. ‘On October 31, 2008, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a statement saying, “I have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” On July 27, 2009, Dr. Fukino issued an additional statement saying, “I have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”‘
            ~Wikipedia

            Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii. His mother is American, his father was a British citizen born in Kenya. If one is born in the USA of foreign parents (even BOTH parents), the person is a natural-born citizen of the USA. Claims that Barack Obama wasn’t American were just another attempt to keep him from the office. They were not based on any tangible or believable complaint. When he released his birth certificate, following Dr Fukino’s statement, the hullabaloo continued, till he released the full length birth certificate. The furore continued. And now it has spilled into asking for his grades and admission/application records. Why? This is what I call bigotry.

          30. Every president shows his grades and app records…..shows us a bit more who he is…..why is it that he has spent millions to keep them under lock and key? hmmmmm……

          31. You are demostrating the very thing I’m talking about. You are so sure Barack Obama is Kenyan that no amount of evidence to the contrary will suffice. So, why do you think he spent millions “to keep them under lock and key?” Wait a minute, did he?

          32. You are demostrating the very thing I’m talking about. You are so sure
            Barack Obama is Kenyan that no amount of evidence to the contrary will
            suffice. So, why do you think he spent millions “to keep them under lock
            and key?” Wait a minute, did he?

          33. Actually, he didn’t. Schools and colleges are not allowed to release that type of information on students that were enrolled in their schools. You can get that info on YOUR OWN KID, in other words, but NOT ON MINE. That would be an invasion of my child’s privacy. And a good law, too.

          35. No you cannot. FERPA is the law. Unless your over 18 year old child signs paperwork releasing this information to, yes, you his/her parents who are usually footing the bill, tough noogies. You don’t get to see the records

          39. Nah, if anything he gained indonesian citizenship as a child when living there. If so he would have either had to renounce his US citizenship, or be a dual citizen. Either one technically makes him ineligible to be president. Of course you could argue all day about whether he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he took the loyalty oath in Indonesia (or whether an oath administered to someone under 18 even matters) but if you want to be hard nosed there are plenty of places where BO may not fit the bill. I do think the Education records are suspect though, after all we only knew how dumb GWB was because like everyone before him those records were released. Not releasing them makes one wonder what is so embarrasing that they cannot be released. Either that, or as previously stated it is all a goose chase for the right.

          40. ?They’re under lock and key arent they? Are yours under lock and key? Takes money and lawyers to keep that under lock and key. And when you’re running for president, lobbyists. So yeah he spent some money.

          41. No, it takes FERPA to keep grades under lock and key- so pretty much everyone who has ever gone to college or high school, their grades are private, and require release by the student or his/her parents if under 18 years old. It doesn’t take money and lawyers (and lobbyists?!?! do you even know what lobbyists do?) it takes a federal law that applies to everyone. You sound ridiculous. He didn’t spend money, he simply didn’t sign a piece of paper releasing his grades, nor should he have to. “Transcripterism” is just “birtherism” warmed over, but it sounds just as dumb.

          48. Hollie, if you believe that Obama has not spent millions as a public figure. you are not thinking at all. He spends other people’s money and you should bleiev it is millions. He has also benefitted from some very sweet deals , like his home purchase in Chicago. He has been so well connected it is creepy. SO, while he has not EARNED millions, please know he has indeed spent them, and he will continue to do so.

          49. I agree with you in that yes he has spent millions but that is with every & all presidents…they work for a salary & have a right to spend it as they wish! He chose to buy a house soo??? that automatically makes him spending millions of other ppls money that is so unfair of you or anyone to say. OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS VERY WELL CONNECTED AND BEING PRESIDENT HAS UNIMAGINABLE TYPES OF PERKS WHY NOT YOUR ARE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PUBLIC FIGURES OF THE WORLD. oh and he has earned millions the president of the US make a half of million dollars a year multiply that by 4!!

          55. OK so I read all these and made some comments and all I can say is “Boy is this country a mess and boy are people for real?” Maybe some day people will realize who they are voting for. Nobody is running for president to help you. They run for president to help themselves. Nobody is going to help you, not even your man, Obama. You’re on your own. Obama will do nothing for you. Watch when 2016 is here. And neither will a republican. Got it, no democrat and no republican is going to do anything for you. All this talk about who showed what and who has how much money, good luck ever seeing that much money with the way the dems and the repubs are spending YOURS.

          58. EXACTLY!!! ALL WE HEAR IS “THE ECONOMY, THE ECONOMY, THE ECONOMY,” WELLL SHOW US YOUR TAX RETURNS THAT IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO MONEY UNLIKE SCHOOL GRADES!!

          60. He has not kept anything under lock and key. His college records are irrelevant and his passport records are protected by the State Department and he is under no obligation to provide them. Mittens hid his tax returns from the American people. I find that more ominous.

          61. I keep seeing this, but I saw Romney’s released tax returns over two months ago. Are you saying that was a sham or something?

          62. Mitt only released his 2011 tax return. Most presidential candidates release many years of tax returns which undoubtedly date back to before they knew they’d be running for president. Ironically, a huge believer of this level of financial transparency was Mitt’s own father who started the tradition of releasing multiple years of returns that has been followed since 1967. Obama released 8 years of returns when he first ran…McCain released 2. Mitt is the only one in recent history to only release one.

          65. People care about tax returns because they demonstrate how a candidate has created his wealth and provide further indications as to character, transparency, and ethics (or lack thereof).

            In Romney’s case it is clear that he benefited financially from stashing his wealth overseas – which is both unbecoming of and unprecedented for a president – making his refusal to submit multiple years of complete tax returns (or even a single complete year) problematic, even for his supporters. There were also questions about his conflicts of interest…one example: publicly opposing the rescue of the auto sector while investing in the group that controlled and threatened to cut off GM’s supply of car parts unless GM and the gov’t agreed to huge payments funded by taxpayer subsidies.

            So literally while Romney was complaining about the 47% milking the gov’t, he concealed his profit (tens of millions) thus reducing his taxes on said profits from extorting the gov’t and American taxpayers. Presidential? More like a snake oil salesman. I don’t know a single thinking person who doesn’t care about this sort of thing. Perhaps you should reflect on why you don’t “give a chit”, especially since real conservatives tend to care about fiscal responsibility.

          67. He only released part of his 2011 tax returns AND did not take a deduction for his contributions to the Mormon Church. So his taxes were at 11% not the 9% is he had. Boy would I like to pay only 9%.

          68. Wouldn’t paying 9% be nice? And he had the nerve to say that others were milking the gov’t…

          69. you CAN only pay 9%! you just have to make a few hundred million to deserve your cut of the welfare first. if you actually need the welfare, like as an actual poor person, not only are you a bum (you bum!) but you have to fight tooth and nail for it. things will be much easier when you can afford an awesome accountant. hope that helps 🙂

          71. I’m sure you have seen the lochness monster too because not even CNN or FOX (or any other news station) has ever showed them so must be awesome to be you ( the one & only person in the US that ever saw them)!! I guarantee you had Gov. Romney showed his tax papers FOX would be airing them all day every day to defend him!

          72. Well, Romney won’t even show his income tax record, and that is public information. If Obama failed a class or even got funding that was inappropriate, it does not compare with making a fortune and removing it from the U.S. to some foreign island!

          74. Did you see George Bush’s? His father paid other students to take his tests because George was too busy partying in his room.

          75. So Obama is as bad as Bush. Your point? Wasn’t Obama suppose to clean up Bush’s mess rather than make it worse? Can’t wait till 2016, maybe we can elect a multiple felon or how about an illegal alien. Putin might not be busy by then.

          76. It took FDR 10 years plus the second World War to clean up the mess the Republicans of the 1920’s left that created the Great Depression. It took George Bush 8 years to create the mess
            that he left for President Obama to clean up. FDR had a united Congress all of those years.
            President Obama had a united Congress for 2 years, a divided Congress for 2 years whose only objective was to try and make him a one term President. He sent Congress a FULLY FUNDED JOBS BILL last year that would have created a lot of new jobs. It is sitting on some Republican’s desk in the House of Representatives because they don’t want his program to succeed.

            FDR put the strongest regulations in effect in 1933 so that it wouldn’t happen again. These regulations protected us for over 60 years until they started being abolished so that Wall Street
            would no longer be encumbered by them. The Banking Act provided the rule that banks had to be a “stand alone” bank, they could not have “holding companies” in which to hide their “bad loans”.

            In 2008, AIG and the big banks were bailed out because of the “bad loans” they had in their
            “holding companies”. The Glass-Steagall Banking Act of 1933 was abolished by the Republicans’ Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act in November of 1999.

            Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.

          77. The mess in the 1920’s was a bipartisan mess. FDR did pass the Glass-Stegal act, which was eliminated during Clinton’s term in a bipartisan effort(Gramm-Rudmann I believe). We do need it back. In 1935 FDR raised taxes and sent the country into an extended recession that lasted until we entered WW-II. After the war Eisenhower and Kennedy instituted programs like the Interstate Highway system(Ike) and large tax cuts(JFK) that started the economy moving lead.

          78. Alright, Mr. Logical Chemist. If you observe a chemical reaction in one flask containing two substances, and observe no reaction in a second flask that contains only one of the substances, do you then conclude that removing one of the substances caused the reaction?

            Or do you really think that removing a couple of provisions of Glass Steagall really caused this, when Canada had no such prohibitions contained in Glass Steagall, yet had no bank failures?

            Or do you really think the fact that the banks that did NOT take advantage of the changes in the law were the ones hardest hit was because the law was changed? How is that logical?

          79. You have been TERRIBLY served by your miseducation.

            It is one thing to have an opinion, but to hold an opinion on something that runs contrary to so many facts, and to do so as vociferously as you…

            I can’t find a single sentence here that isn’t a product of ideological indoctrination, and factually false.

            Regulation after regulation you claim “protected” us actually were the seeds of future crises. The New Deal banking regulations resulted in distortions in lending markets, which ended up precipitating the Savings and Loan crisis.

            Jobs programs. No credible economists holds the vulgar Keynesian view that such things stimulate the economy or actually create jobs. None. Even ones with Nobel Prizes who hang up their economist hat to write as political pundits.

            And it is a pretty mainstream view among *economists* (not historians, who more often appear to be court hagiographers) that FDR’s programs actually prolonged the Depression and made it deeper. And WWII didn’t get us out either. That theory has been largely abandoned as the misty-eyed sentimentalism of the era has shuffled off its mortal coil.

            No, the only people left saying such things are the ones who are educated by the very institution that benefits from that ideology – the state. It’s a nice racket, that. The state determines what is truth, and that truth just happens to be what best serves the state.

          80. Your arguments are weak, your logic is faulty, & your facts are just flat out wrong. Yup, you’re a moron alright.

          86. He Didn’t! It’s been proven. He was vetted, and proven to be a citizen, it’s just that some don’t wish to believe it. and before you send some link to some right-wing blog out there, look at the real news sources, and consider just how much access the Secret Service has to real records. And hmmm what ever happened to all that $$ Trump spent to investigate his birth certificate….NOTHING please just stop….

          87. That’s patently and demonstrably false. Reagan’s college records weren’t released until after his death, Bush II refused repeatedly to release his college records until they were leaked to a magazine. The statement that “(Obama) has spent millions to keep them under lock and key” is further, demonstrably false. I’m no big fan of Obama, but I do have this terrible obsession with facts.

          88. They show tax returns as well. Why did Romney keep them under lock and key? Hmmmmm
            I really don’t recall any other president showing college grades. Maybe they do. I know they show tax returns. An honest question; why doesn’t that bother you?

          91. The copy he got did not show the actual stamp that appears on the original. This is what good documentation does so that copies can’t be forged. But the Republicans picked on this as a fake which it was not, and that is why the Hawaiian health director spoke up. Most of this was a pursuit of untruths by Donald Trump. Mr. Trump is a real estate speculator from New York City who has made a fortune in rebuilding old facilities in New York. But he is from Brooklyn and who knows what kind of education he ever had – but probably never as good as the one Obama had.

            The huge negative responses were from a bunch of Texans who probably never had a civics class in their life. judging from the blogs they put out on the internet. These are also the ones who began the latest “petition” movement to secede from the U.S.

          92. McCain was born in Panama and he gets a free ride. How do we know he wasn’t born off base and snuck into the base? Double standard.

          94. Right, McCain was grilled about his place of birth. You sound like Trump supporter. Obama won, get over it and accept it.

          96. Both of McCains parents were US citizens, so it does not matter where he was born, he could have been born on the moon and he’d still be a natural born citizen through his parents (note the plural) has dad was an admiral in the navy for crying out loud. The US is the only country where you get citizenship just by being born here, and even that is tenuous. Consider that a child born of parents who are not citizens (say the French ambassador and his wife) who is born on US soil is not considered a citizen of the US even though that child is born on US soil. The child when born must be subject to the laws of the US per the 14th amendment which has been argued for immigrant children even though technically their illegal immigrant parent(s) are not really subject to the laws, or they wouldn’t be here as they would have been deported.

          97. Your example of the French ambassador makes all the difference. Children of foreigners who are in the US as military or diplomatic officials – that is, who are sent to the US on official government business – do not benefit from the 14th amendment granting citizenship by place of birth (jus soli or law of the soil). ALL OTHER children of foreigners, however, obtain the right to US citizenship through birth on US soil. This includes children of undocumented (say French) immigrants who are born after immigration to the US (it’s settled legal precedent). As for Obama, he could have been born on the moon too, because his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth (your attention to the plural is completely irrelevant – you only need one citizen parent to inherit US citizenship). He was born on US soil in Hawaii, but since his mother was a US citizen he gets citizenship both ways – by birth to a US citizen and on US soil. And the US is not the only country to grant citizenship based on birth on its soil – most countries, and basically all Western democratic states, have some version of jus soli as the primary means of ascribing birthright citizenship, although the US is among the more liberal in its interpretation.

          98. Barack Obama senior was born in 1936, there was no such thing as British citizenship until 1948. I doubt he ever acquired full citizenship – most likely he was a british subject, then a Kenyan citizen. Though many Kenyans of Asian descent later went onto become British citizens, due in no small part to his government’s policies.

          99. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated: “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth”, either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth”(…)”.
            …
            E.g. it would suffice for someone to be born of a parent who is a US citizen, or to be born on US soil. Will people now start questioning the citizenship of Obama’s mother as well?

          100. “the person is a natural-born citizen of the USA.”

            That’s the current interpretation of it, it’s clearly fucking madness and not at all what the founders intended.

          101. Your definition of natural born citizen is incorrect. There is no actual definition, but various explanations from natural law during the time of the writing of the constitution require either one parent, or both to be citizens of the country of birth. This does not mean BO is not natural born, most agree with one parent being enough as long as you are born in the country, but AT LEAST one parent must be a citizen by any account. I believe most arguments center around whether he was in fact born in Hawaii as the documentation is rather suspect, and the state of Hawaii is known to be a haven for false documentation. That all requests for further documentation have been stonewalled, or the documentation is mysteriously missing only fuels speculation. Personally I figure he is a NBC, I doubt the types of figures who groomed BO would make such a rookie mistake as risking having all their goals overturned on a case of constitutional inelligibility, but anyone viewing the evidence impartially can surely see there are reasons to question the legitimacy other than being a racist. If I had to guess I’d say it is a wild goose chase meant to keep the squirrel chasers on the right too occupied to seriously fight his agenda which he has done a very good job of pushing no matter what you think of the merits……

          103. I think he was vetted like around a hundred times including tax returns. Mint Robme however refused to release his tax returns. So who didn’t get vetted?….you moron!

          109. David, in all due respect, Obama was vetted 4 times: when he ran for the House of Representatives, when he ran for the Illinois Senate, when he ran for the U.S. Senate, and when he ran for the White House. He may have even been vetted when he ran for President of the Harvard Law Review.

            But …. from the obsurdity of your comment mimicing Donald Trump and the Birthers, I take it that you believe that Hatred is a Family Value and that all things Obama make you puke. That’s OK. Welcome to the land of diversity.

            I’m a white guy with a business, too, who could not purchase healthcare until Obama changed the law. Thousands of small business owners think ObamaCare is great.

            But … Isn’t this a strange concept the Eric is espousing: white guys actually trying to talk to white guys.

            Love ya, bro. I don’t care what you believe. You’re still an all-American to me. Just don’t use the N word and I’ll listen to you.

          110. Please go look up old videos of Obama where he is refered to as the first Kenyan Rep. His wife referred to him as a Kenyen. His book published referred to him as a Kenyen. Is he? Who the hell knows. I suspect he is not, but used it to make himself more appealing to the idiots who think only an immigrant deserves anything in this country. I think he used it to get money for school. It’s only when he wanted the top prize, the Presidency, that he suddenly decided to be American.
            The guy’s a fraud. Out of 320 million people, this is the best we can do?

          114. Besides, Sean, one well meaning and thoughtful Republican, wrote something thought provoking and soul searching. Can we restrict oursleves to Eric’s comment.
            I am a liberal from blue state NJ. I vote for Americas future and whichever platform is for America’s future. Issue based voting. I have no TV and I follow CSPAN to understand what the elected government is doing.
            Liberal to Eric Garfield, Thank you for writing so very well. You have done more service to
            Lincoln’s party than all the Senators and Congressmen since 1982. And to America.
            I will vote for Constitutional Amendment for
            Balanced Budget without exclusions. Make necessary modifications to entitlement programs. Defund Wars but continue to fund defense research.
            Equal writes to all people living in the US
            Restore Education to its rightful rank #1 in the world.
            Close the borders and make all legal and illegal workers to become green cardholders overnight. Lawyers walk away with 5K every year per legal worker in this country.
            Make direct+indirect tax fair.
            Make elected politicians more accountable — sequestration should have included congressional paycut. Then there will not even be a fiscal cliff.
            Repeal Citizens United and impeach those judges who do not have the mental capacity to discriminate between right and wrong.
            This liberal from a blue state would vote YES for all your principles. Until then I see liberal candidates more palatable.
            We need more Erics to preserve Americanism. It is that Americanism for which I became a citizen.

          115. Uh…..he already proved that he was born in Hawaii. Do you not read the paper? Turn off Faux News and think for yourself, david Whitson.

          117. What more exactly does he have to do to prove to you that he is an American citizen? Create and build a time machine so that you can witness his birth?

          118. I had to get a security clearance to reset password for Sailors and Marines. Im pretty sure he was screened. To many moving parts would have to be involved for a cover up. Instead, all we got are the trumps and nugents of the world telling us what really happaned, yeah right.

          119. So how did they cover up the Bay of Tonkin for 50 years? No moving parts?

            That was a reported North Vietnamese attack on American destroyers that helped lead to president Lyndon Johnson’s sharp escalation of American forces in Vietnam.

            The author of the report “demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) secretary of defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was ‘unimpeachable,’ but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that ‘no attack happened that night,'” FAS said in a statement.

            “What this study demonstrated is that the available intelligence shows that there was no attack. It’s a dramatic reversal of the historical record,” Aftergood said.

          120. I believe he DID show his bc and I believe he WAS vetted and I BELIEVE you need to find some other big question to be involved with—such as—why did the republicans choose such a goober to run for president.

          121. The birth certificate problem arises because at the time in Hawaii anyone could go in and ask for a birth certificate for a child. Many native Hawaiians and immigrants weren’t born in a hospital or issued a birth certificate at birth. The parents or someone else went and got it later.

          122. Ok…so your argument is that not only was Obama not born in Hawaii but that he is not the son of his mother who was a US citizen which would thereby make him one? Are you going to suggest that she be dug up next? Sheesh! Do you have no decency?

          123. False, like the rest of the birther BS. All debunked in full repeatedly at http://www.thefogbow.com/ and elsewhere. People who believe this crap demonstrate their gullibility and often their racism which motivates same gullibility when it comes to their believing garbage about this POTUS.

          124. Really? You can do that now. In some states all you have to do is present someone who witnessed the birth. Some states require more. But others are more relaxed.

          125. Exactly how many times must the President show his birth certificate??? I think this is one of the dumbest things President Obama haters ask for because not only did he already show his birth certificate but it is very insulting to think that the CIA & FBI did NOT do their jobs efficiently because I am sure they have looked into these claims by now!! Vote against him because you do not agree with his policies but stop asking for things that have already been provided bc it only makes you look like an IDIOT! (not an insult to you just in general)

          126. David, in my unschooled opinion, you are showing symptoms of a psychiatric disorder, perhaps paranoid delusions or a variant of OCD. Just like there is no truth to the OCD sufferer’s belief that hands must be washed x times, there is no truth to your beliefs. I hope you will get the help you need. Best. Wishes.

          127. i love how the birther thing is still even an issue when it’s been over for years. if you close your eyes and cover your ears and refuse to acknowledge the proof, that makes YOU the person who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. who PURPOSELY does not know what they are talking about.

            fyi.

          128. So, why was this NEVER an issue before Obama? YOU just automatically assumed that every other candidate in the history of the country was “vetted” and that the first ->black<- candidate somehow *wasn't*. No one implied your question was "partisan." It IS, however, flat-out racist as hell.

          129. Joe, have you actually RESEARCHED whether it was an issue before? I have. A lot was made of McCain being born in Panama. And a huge deal was made over Barry Goldwater’s eligibility because he was born in Arizona before it was a state.

            See, but you need to use the “because he’s black” narrative. That’s why you never bothered to research this.

          130. Obama DID provide proof of citizenship. I’m sure he was thoroughly vetted by the Democratic party before his name appeared on any ballot for President.

          131. Are you kidding me? Seriously? If I want to register my kids in after school sports I need to present a birth certificate. How the hell do you suppose one becomes president of the United States without presentation of the proper legal documents? We do have the CIA and the FBI to look stuff up, I mean I think that’s their job. Did anyone ask Romney about his birth certificate? Paul Ryan? Or do they look “American” enough for you to ask.

          134. Especially when the State of Hawaii has provided certified copies of his birth certificate time and time again is like accusing the whole State of Hawaii of lying.
            I don’t know about other people born when they had the old type of birth certificates, but like Obama’s, my original birth certificate had a lot of spaces left blank too. Therefore, according to Sheriff Arpaio, this would make my birth certificate fraudulent too.
            The thing is, I kept asking to see Sheriff Joe’s because I figured his was no different from mine and Obama’s. That for the same reason he called Obama’s fraudulent — sections left unfilled out like mine, odds are Arpaio’s has a number of spaces that were left blank too just like many of ours back then.
            My time of birth wasn’t even entered. Does that tell people anything? So because there are blanks left unfilled in my birth certificate, even though I know exactly what hospital I was born in and that my parents were as true blue blooded Americans as they could be who hailed from the State of Maine, does the fact I have blanks on my birth certificate as Obama does, mean I’m not a citizen either?
            Well according to Sheriff Joe it means my birth certificate isn’t legit. Therefore, accroding to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, I’m not a citizen.
            If you’re over 40, have you checked your long form birth certificate lately?

          136. Jane Gallagher, I wish I could understand your comment. You say “Be black”… why? You say “I am not a victim”… who said you were?

          137. you said the truth, I am a black senior citizen who is a democrat thru and thru. I’m not a bigot I just based and voted for the person that had the best record. Nothing against Mitty at all, he’s taken care of that all by himself…God bless you and peace out…from the hills of WV, who that is the most racist state in the lower 48.

          138. Only when my right wing friends continue to send me bigoted racist crap via email do I realize that I am not, and don’t want to be, connected to them in any way. They pretend NOT to be racist but it oozes out of them in many conversations.

          140. I think it’s reasonable that I am disgusted by the fact that the Republican party in general doesn’t seem to take seriously a woman’s right to her own body. I am personally offended and will judge Mitt Romney, who chose someone to be one heartbeat away from the presidency who believes that there is a difference between “rape” and “forcible rape,” and that being roofied and raped doesn’t count as “forcible rape.” It pisses me off that tens of millions of people seriously voted for a man who “would be delighted” to sign a bill outlawing all abortion, thereby forcing rape victims to go through 9 months of pregnancy AND give partial parental rights to the rapist. And it makes me both confused and angry when people somehow believe that if they don’t want it to, the separation of church and state doesn’t have to apply, and that other people’s personal life decisions are their business and up to them. Yeah. That pisses me off and it’s fair for me to say that believing and going along with those things makes you a bigot. It’s called being a decent human being with a goddamn brain.

          141. I have been saying that for 8 years, republicans are the most hateful politicals I have ever met. I have friends???? that are republican, some are mentally ill, but they have no clue.

          142. What republican acused Obama of murder or said he never paid taxes? You ever listen to Chris Matthews or Ed Shultz?!? No political ads are ever as hateful and untrue as those produced by liberals. Why do you suppose your Dear Leader let those men in Bengazie die? I suppose it could be from love of the terrorists storming the embassie. How do you sleep nights. Imagine any one of those men killed was your son or brother or father. Imagine them frantically calling for help and being denied. 7 hours of fear, just waiting for the bullet that would take them out. No sympathy yet? Close your eyes and imagine it’s YOU crying for help as the embasey begins to burn and bullets skim by your head.

          143. You seem so steamed about Benghazi where all the facts have yet to come out, but you have conveniently forgotten about:

            1) Bush sitting on intel that 9/11 was about to happen and letting 3,000 Americans die in the worst attack on American soil,

            2) Bush falsely painting Iraq as responsible for 9/11 and as an imminent
            danger with weapons of mass destruction that still haven’t been found
            nearly a decade later though 4,000+ US Troops have been killed and nearly 33,000 wounded, and

            3) Bush’s failure to oversee planning and adequate responses to Hurricane Katrina where nearly 2,000 more Americans died, many due to waiting unprecedented times for relief or rescue.

            Your selective memory is so amazing it should be bottled and sold.

          144. We talk we show the facts and they don’t hear us. These republicans don’t even look things up or research the information that comes out of their mouth. They take word of mouth form Donald Trump and Limbaugh. It is disturbing and makes me feel very sad for them that they are so gullible. We can only be thankful that the majority of America was much smarter than them and could see beyone the lies and racisim, bigotry that was out there. Thank you to all Americans that voted for Obama. I am so happy there are loving caring people out there with thier heads screwed on straight.

          145. Oh, holy shit. So ACTUALLY LEARNING of an ACTUAL SPECIFIC ATTACK AS IT IS HAPPENING that was going on for over 8 hours and NOT ACTING, is the same as getting a vague, non-specific warning that “bin Laden plans to strike on US soil,” at an unspecified place and unspecified time, and not acting? I suppose Bush was supposed to put on national lockdown for an indefinite duration until this vague threat passed?

            What kind of evil shitty sewer hole did you crawl out of?

          147. PLEEEEEEZ……we have never had a president before who divided and made fun of a certain part of the citizenry……..he constantly makes derogatory comments regarding those who oppose him…..that has NEVER happened before…..he is sooooo un presidential and it was nice to have a candidate (Romney) who actually talked about this great country unlike Barry….you don’t even see what is happening under your nose….are you not looking or just can’t see it due to your worshipping of barry? Many have woken up…..Obama got 11% less vote this time…..but there are still those like you who refuse to do their own homework and research……it’s there….you just have to search for it

          149. Brenda, what are you talking about? Are you really so daft as to lie straight just like that, and expect everyone to believe your lies are true “just because you say so”. Your deformed emotions and twisted mind are the only things revealed by your asinine comments.

            Obama is extremely polite and deferential – inside your FOX – Limbaugh universe everything is different but, from time to time you really must stick your head out of the “loopy bubble” to get some fresh air. Gad!

          150. Pardon me? Romney is a lying, pandering tool. He would and did say anything to anyone if he thought it would garner support. He told over 900 verified and documented lies in his campaign and even began repeating things that his own party said were lies. The people poke loud and clear on election day. The GOP had better figure out how to remake themselves or they are done as a party.

          151. So true. I left the Republican Party after thirty years as a devout voter, because of Reagan and his raising of interest rates and the so-called “line of credit” that was offered to farmers in the early 80s. We had tractor loans that had progressive interest rates up to 21 1/2%!!!!
            This devastated many farmers so that Big Business (Republican party in other words) could take over the farming and agricultural industries. Now we have those huge corporations like General Foods, Kraft, Armour, on and on and on and now look at the price of groceries today!

          153. Those big corporations will soon be gone. I am constantly told by Republicans I know that there will be no jobs because no one wants to hire more than 50 people or they will have to provide health insurance. So goodbye to big businesses.

          154. if Romney thinks this country is so great, why is his money in foreign banks, why does he take his business to foreign countries, and why did he close so many of his businesses in the US

          156. I would like some proof of that ! However I can bet that you won’t but the facts on the table becasue you only know this information because someone sent it to you in a chain email and you didn’t even bother to research if it was true. You really should do your research these things before you appear ridiculous.

          159. Name calling occurs on both sides, not just Republicans. In fact, Liberals are usually worse when it comes to name calling.

          162. It was an Electoral landslide — this election wasn’t close. At all. No swing state was up for grabs except Florida, which didn’t matter.

            Unfortunately, popular vote is meaningless in the U.S.

          166. As of this past Monday the total 2012 vote count was 122,579,476; not quite 41% of the ~300M population. Anybody know the overall % of registered/eligible voters nationwide? Obama got 61.7% of the electoral vote (332/538). The Faux Noyze punditry were calling for a “Romney Landslide” of up to 312. WTF? C’mon! W got 304/538 in 2004 and tried to claim he had a mandate. Credit where due.

          167. 207, 634, 594 eligible voters. Not even 60% of eligible voters bothered to exercise their rights. Lazy, ignorant, spoiled, dumb.

          168. … Or maybe they just felt their vote would be wasted since both major parties answer to the same corporate masters, so why bother?

          169. Unfortunately the electoral college is not a reliable way of determining whether a mandate exists. Since all of a states electoral votes go to the winner even if the popular vote was relatively close (Florida, Ohio, etc.) the numbers become skewed. In order to determine a mandate, there must be a large percentage gap in the popular vote. Regardless of the numerical value of the vote (whether it be 2 million or 20 million) there only existed a 2-3% difference between Obama and Romney. Hardly enough to claim a mandate. Looking back to 2008, Obama won with about 7% more of the popular vote. Yet, political analysts have stated he overstepped an assumed mandate. Best not to get overzealous again.

          170. Yes but George W stated when he was elected the second time that head a mandate and thus could do what ever he wanted. Now it is Obama’s, meaning Dems, turn to have their mandate and I can only hope the congress will not be the obstruction it was the last four years.

          171. actually, it was 2.2 million…….a far cry from 3 million…..something libs don’t like are the FACTS!!

          172. that is the pot calling the kettle black, where are you getting your figures? When are they from? All tallies a week after election day had him over 3 million, please tell me you don’t think of talk radio/tv as a reliable fact producer? I can’t even locate where a 2.2 could come from….please post your facts and try to not be so sure of yourself if you don’t have the facts correct…

          178. Actually, that is a good thing. It prevents the emotional popular votes from taking control over the country and keeps the two party system going. Countries that have nothing but popular vote have huge riots and criminal behavior that control the voting. The Electoral College helps to prevent all that stuff.

          180. Well Obama won by popular vote and electoral vote so that should mean something. Like Barbara Bush said Democrats won get over it.

          185. Here is why you lost the election. Kenyan? He’s your president. His father was Kenyan. I wonder where ancestors are from and why you don’t refer to yourself as whatever that place is.

          186. Also, here’s my favorite about this Pat Houseworth – check out his facebook page – covered with “likes” about Jesus. That just kills me.

          187. It’s people like you Pat, who made another 4 years of President Obama possible. Your blatant stupidly will have far reaching results and perhaps we on the left will continue to see years and years of complete control. Keep talking Pat, you’re doing the Democrats a huge favor!

          193. There’s no precise definition of a landslide (see the Wikipedia) but for some people a double-digit margin is a landslide. Obama took CA 59%/38%, MA 61/38, CT 58/40, NY 67/31, and the list goes on. In any of those states, it was a landslide, and it wouldn’t have changed if some voters chose the Green Party candidate (as I did, living in CA).

          194. well, Pat H, since you brought it up, how many more did he get? and I want numbers and reliable sources quoted in your reply.

          195. Pat Houseworth, You are part of the problem with the GOP. Stop listening to Limbo and Faux News and READ different newspapers and news magazines. Turn off the the TV and think for yourself!

          196. What a disgusting thing to say. “Kenyan Pole Smoker?” Jesus, what are you doing, just looking for ways to be an example of a bigoted, name calling, mean person? Really? I think our entire country deserves better than having people say something like that. Wow.

          197. The vote was 332-206, which is a landslide by modern standards. Add to that a net loss of seats in both houses of Congress, Senate losses in Mass/Missouri/Florida/Montana/Indiana/Maine (all States that the GOP was confident it would win), gay marriage approved by 3 states, pot legalized in 2. How you possibly could view this election as anything other than a complete rejection of the Republican platform is astounding.

          198. Do you know how many people per year Social Security reports as dead, that actually aren’t? Maybe not all those dead “voters” are still alive, but it does happen.

          199. Well, Pat, before the election many Fox News pundits were predicting a Romney landslide of over 300 electoral votes. That, of course, is what Obama received. So we are just using the “landslide” numbers that the Republican stalwarts were using. And as for your “how many” question, easy answer: pretty much none.

          200. @facebook-1477517977:disqus are you fucking kidding me? For one, lets try an electoral college of 332 to 206… YES LANDSLIDE! Second, there has been NO EVIDENCE of “dead, illegals, and double voting”… and lastly, “Kenyan Pole Smoker” — I don’t even know how to respond to such an ignorant line. But, since you think 3rd grade behavior is appropriate, you need to take your nonsensical bullshit and shove it up your fat fucking ass — which is the hole in back where shit falls out and not the one on your face where more shit falls out. What a fucking moron, non-patriotic, disgusting excuse for human excrement you are you fucking stupid piece of white trash…. you make me ashamed to have pale skin… but thank God that he (God) instilled me with an IQ that is sure double if not triple that which you hold claim to!

          201. Looking at the popular vote in an election is like looking at a 35-7 football game and saying it was close because the winner only had 50 more yards of offense.
            Both campaigns were trying to win electoral college votes, and Obama won that battle by a massive margin. If both campaigns had been focused on winning the popular vote, that tally might have been 60-40 in Obama’s favor. Who knows? In the end it doesn’t matter – the result of the election was a resounding 332 – 206 landslide.
            Get over it, and stop watching FOX if you don’t want to be so surprised by reality next time.

          202. And I quote, “electoral landslide.” 332 Obama to 206 Romney. Landslide. The popular vote is irrelevant, and besides, Obama did win that by way further of a margin than did Bush in ’04 and certainly ’00 (lol, get it? He didn’t).
            The Kenyan Pole Smoker won fair and square! Voter fraud is real; according to the closely-analyzed, scrutinized Ohio election in ’04, it happened .00004% of the time. It’s probably so rare because it’s, um, COMPLETELY irrational — for the thousands of dollars in fines and up to 5 years in prison that voter fraud carries as a penalty, it’s no wonder not too many people are willing to take that risk to make their candidate’s standing go up a millionth of a percent. Read this, dear: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/
            Mittens lost. America liked Obama better. People felt he was the better man for the job. That’s why he won, and there is absolutely no rational way around it.

          204. Pat, I like your electoral picture on FB showing Romney/Ryan getting 360 electoral votes…the same one where you wrote: ” Kind
            of like the Nate Silver bullshit Hal, of course Mitt won’t take
            Callifornia, but the Kenyan isn’t taking Florida or Vriginia either,
            like Silver projects”

            That Silver guy is a real rascal, isn’t he? He has no idea what he’s talking about. You on the other hand knew the deal. You were so close….just a mere 157 electoral votes off. Nail-biter.

          205. last I checked the electoral votes were 330 to 240 (or something similar). out of a possible 570, 330 divided by 570= 58 %, 240 divided by 570= 42%, give or take 2% (my numbers aren’t exact) that is about a 20% margin(although probably 18%, but rounds to an even 20%). Math is FUN! But then by the logic of most right wingers these days math is a tool of the devil. I should probably just listen to what ever subjective point you have as fact right?

          206. @facebook-1477517977:disqus LMAO YES your “GREAT WHITE DOPE” lost by over 4 MILLION votes what part of LANDSLIDE don’t you get??? individuals like you are exactly why republicans have lost the whitehouse TWICE in a row! and lost the senate! and losing seats in the house!!

          210. All I said was give them a listen. They got none this cycle primarily because of the takeover of the debates by Rep/Dem lobbyists. Remember when the League of Women Voters was in charge?

            I vote my convictions and for the party that best reflects them, not according to who is going to win – which is a self-defeating approach. Using the lesser of two evils approach we will always get more evil and have now gotten the evil which we most feared.

            If more people simply followed their own values, we would have a much different world.

          211. Do you not really mean to say that if “more people simply followed” YOUR values ? I think that most people voted their values on Election Day. In 2008, I voted for Dennis Kucinich, as he was the only candidate with the wisdom and integrity to vote against both the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and occupations. His call for the impeachment of George W. Bush was another example of his genuine leadership and statesmanship. His district has now been gerrymandered out of existence. In the real world (of realpolitik), a vote for a third party candidate without any chance of winning could easily have led to a Romney/Ryan triumph. I can set aside a misplaced and ineffective idealism in order to work to see that that did not happen. And I did, by registering dozens of voters. May the Green party grow in influence and power. While that happens, I’ll vote for someone who can win an election.

          212. Don’t forget term limits. The most powerful legislators are the ones with the most seniority but their effectiveness is largely negative or obstructing progress.

          214. 1) you can’t get money out of politics. It can either be hidden, or it can be out in the open. One suggestion- every ad advocating a political position must have the names of the individuals paying for it either printed in 12 pt type attached and visible with the ad, or , for TV, listed 6 names at a time for 5 seconds, at the bottom of the screen during the ad.
            2) Direct democracy is a fast lane to tyranny. We are already to close since the states have jiggered the electoral college that it no longer does what it was intended.
            3) We have a community activist as President. His top priority is to extend the federal government down directly to the lowest possible levels.
            4) You have free speech. Not the least, you are free to post on this blog with no government subsidy required. If you want more, buy a newspaper, start a blog, pay for an ad on radio or TV.

        2. No this is one of Mitt Romney’s flip-flop-flip-flops. As Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney opposed hospital visitation rights for same sex partners, he opposed domestic partnerships, he opposed adoption by same sex partners. He even went so far as to deny birth certificates to children legally born to married same sex partners. He also denied any birth certificate changes to children adopted by same sex partners. He also invoked a very obscure 19th century law (that didn’t really apply) to deny any same sex marriages for non-Massachusetts couples hoping to come to the state to be married. Of course, out of state heterosexual couples were allowed to marry in Massachusetts and have their marriages recognized elsewhere.

          When Mitt Romney was running for the Senate against Ted Kennedy (who trounced him by 17 points), he said he would be to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights and a woman’s right to abortion. What he meant was that he would be so far to the left he would travel round the world and end up standing to Ted Kennedy’s right on those issues.

          Reply

          1. A Massachusetts law that was specifically intended to keep interracial couples from other states from coming to Boston to get married. There’s a disgusting synchronicity there: the guy from the church that didn’t admit black people were human until the 1970’s used that law to keep the people he “didn’t realize had families” from getting married.

          2. You may be right, but I doubt that the liberal St. Pete Times is likely to miss much when they do their PolitiFact “fact checking,” but if you have specific links to prove, you are welcome to post them.

        3. Once again, the false equivalence between the parties. I wonder how often its been said that Bill Clinton presided over a budget SURPLUS? If you want to be taken seriously, stop trying to mislead and ignore the facts.

          Reply

          1. Bill Clinton (Democrat) and Newt Gingrich (who was the Republican
            speaker of the house under Clinton) used teamwork to balance the budget,
            that is true — BUT: #1 — A balanced budget was the EXCEPTION, not the
            rule, and #2: Both parties were equally “right” in this teamwork here
            –and equally “to blame” in practically ALL other instances both before
            and after –in recent memory anyway, but as to your statement — no, I
            was right: Notice I did put in the word “almost” in my quote, where I
            said: ((“” –actually, no matter WHO gets in power (Democrats OR
            Republicans) we almost ALWAYS end up going DOWN in our economy, and UP
            in our deficit, so both sides are losers to me.””))

            I did not mislead — you simply did not read. 😀

        4. You had no standing in your case and if you had appealed to the US Supreme Court you would have lost unanimously. That said, you are good at seeking publicity… But you LOST! Don’t even pretend you almost won.

          Reply

        6. The bible verse is pointed- Christ says “for I was hungry and you gave me food…..”. In another verse he says to the rich young man “Go, sell what you have and give it to the poor..” He never said “take what others have and give it to the poor…”. Christ preached the personal responsibility as the epitome of goodness, and the individual dignity and sanctity of the individual person as “made in the image and likeness of God”.

          Unfortunately there is no political party, Red, Blue, Green, fascist, communist, except maybe Libertarians that come anywhere close to Christian belief- one of the most revolutionary ideas every preached.

          Reply

        7. Excellent reply. But lets add that this guy is making alot of money with his books to possess a one-sided view. Pick a side, write a book, and you can make some money. I believe that is the real rationale for this man’s statements, besides that he loves to hear his own opinions. Ego will be the downfall of most. It is right to ALWAYS refer to scripture and not your own opinion on anything.

          Reply

      3. Eric, I consider myself an Independent and I had the same exact sentiments. With the platforms for the rebuplicans for the last 8 years, I have kind of felt like they wanted President Obama to win. As a physician/scientist/small business owner/tax payer, I support effots to make changes being made to our healthcare system, ecosystem, and reform to the economy. The only change that occured with the republican party was in it’s stand on the issues. I watched the debates in disbelief. Thank you for sharing this, this is probably one of the most nonbiased blogs I have read during this election!

        Reply

      4. Um Barry Obama bailed out the banks and car companies – another politician taking our money for his image before a potential voter, just for their vote. When Barry Obama leaves office, we wont be any better off than when GW left office, which was not good. It is dangerous for any American to believe in any political party or political figure. To have such a strong conviction as you do that you spend large amounts of your life supporting a political party is tragic. both parties, my son, both parties. Dont be blind to the democrat party. Dems and Repubs – its the same thing.

        Reply

    2. The problem is they already think it’s just an “image” change. They have to change their fundamental stance or everyone will see through it. They thought they could fool folks this year and got slapped for it at the polls. Judging by what their “leaders” are saying they didn’t learn anything.

      Reply

        1. I don’t think the GOP hates either group. Just because you are not willing to overturn 5,000 years of cultural tradition over a 10-year timeframe to elevate SSM to regular marriage, does not a hater make. This also does not “tell anyone who they can love.” Neither is there hate for Hispanics. What is your opposition to protecting the borders of a nation & restricting immigration (like Mexico does – I guess THEY hate Hispanics) to a legal flow, as has been the historic pattern until recently?

          Reply

          1. I would like to respectfully point out that immigration issues entirely aside, the intrinsic hostility the GOP has towards naturalized, legally immigrated, and American-born Hispanics is not much diminished. When you add the bullheadedness regarding immigration issues to the mix, and therefore start dragging in relatives, loved ones, or even simply the nationality of one’s direct ancestors, the GOP has a poor pitch indeed for the Hispanic vote. There are many countries who handle their immigration laws reasonably and with much less hullaballoo. Most of the ugliest of the policies enacted regarding illegal immigrants come from GOP legislation, like the ongoing proof of citizenship nastiness.

          2. No Jack, what makes them haters is the laws they want to pass that benefit only them. Or others they refuse to pass that benefit anyone else. From what they say out loud we know just what they think of any minority. Be it women, blacks, latinos, gays.etc. But, oh wait, now THEY are becoming the minority! But, they shouldn’t have a problem with that since they treat minorities oh so well!

          3. Same sex marriage is not overturning 5000 years of marital tradition. There were rites in the Christian tradition in the 10th and 12th centuries for gays and lesbians to marry.

            But more than that, a country that touts equality and then gives over 1000 benefits based on something that only applys to a potrion of the population is wrong. That country is NOT equal. And saying that it is doesn’t make it so. Gay marriage is about equality, not some backward agenda to destroy the sham that is heterosexual marriage.

          4. Two lesbians purposely bringing a child into this world – knowing the child will never have a father- is outrageous in my little world. Extreme cruelty. Kids are not accessories so you can play house.

          5. and how many children that have been raised by two mothers do you know that feel this great sense of deprivation? because most people I know raised by lesbians are thankful to have two people who wanted to be parents so badly to be brave enough to raise a child in a world that doesnt accept their family type. most people I know who have actually had the experience of being raised by gay parents are pro gay marriage…but I’m sure you know better than them.

          8. Oh I bet you have this gem bookmarked and eagerly look for opportunities to insert it into any thread to make a point that is such a gross generalization and irresponsible stereotype on all fronts. Perhaps I should take 2 minutes on YouTube and find a video of the worst possible example of a southern conservative, one that fits every stereotype and ugly personification one can make about white, southern conservatives. That there exists at least one such video absolutely must prove a point about all white, southern conservatives…yes?

          9. You said it: “…my little world.” Fine. Live in your little world. Study after study after study proves that children brought up in same-sex households do just as well, *or better*, that those brought up in opposite-sex households. But don’t let facts get in the way of your “little world”.

          11. See, the problem is that by denying same sex marriage full civil equality you ARE causing severe human suffering, regardless of your intentions. It’s not an issue of tradition, history, or personal preference – it’s about allowing consenting adults to make their own decisions about the one other person that they will give those rights and responsibilities to, and make a likewise commitment to, and respecting that decision. It’s about protecting the children in these families – families that already exist regardless of their legal standing. It’s about reducing the ability of people to discriminate against and harass people they don’t personally know, out of spite and self-righteousness and ignorance and a desire to assert that somehow it is *your* problem that some stranger disagrees with how you live your private life. And do not turn to this “everything but marriage” idea – the only reason to make a “separate but equal” distinction is so that people can discriminate. I should know – I live in a state that granted domestic partnerships to same-sex couples (now upgrading to marriage, finally) – and have heard several stories about how this distinction was used to DENY partners the *very* rights that the partnership was supposed to grant. Imagine having to keep your marriage license on you at all times or risk being barred from your spouse’s bedside – that is what it was like for same-sex couples in our state – carry your DP certificate or hospitals won’t honor it. This would never happen to a married couple, because if a hospital tells one kind of married couple to “prove it first,” they’d have to tell *all* married couples to “prove it,” or run afoul of anti-discrimination laws.

            This should never be about whether or not people *approve* of these relationships – it’s about it being nobody else’s business, and guaranteeing loving, consenting partners the same rights that society has already determined that loving, consenting partners should have. These rights are there to minimize suffering and promote stability, and I believe that anyone who would deny these rights to adults they have never met, or would like it to have a different name so they can differentiate things that are supposed to be equal, is sticking their nose someplace it doesn’t belong, and is certainly no true Christian. If a person would deny these people something this basic, they are not being charitable of spirit, and are sitting in judgement of their fellow humans, a place the Christian God reserved for Himself only. They are flaunting their religion like a pharisee in direct opposition to the teaching Christ, who said God preferred prostitutes and tax collectors to self-righteous, self-proclaiming “godly” people. They are not treating the “least” among you with kindness, and so they are not treating Christ with kindness, and they are instead contributing to the unnecessary suffering and indignity experienced by their homosexual neighbors, who they were instructed to love.

            Our homosexual neighbors are not asking for our *blessing*. It is already a moral travesty that they are compelled to ask our *permission.* If you vote in opposition to same sex marriage or discriminate against same-sex couples, I am 99% certain I will see you in Hell (if such a place exists), because you are running counter to practically every direct instruction from Christ regarding correct treatment of others (especially the judgment part). Seriously Christians, read your bible and get your priorities in order. Gays mentioned: like twice. Kindness mentioned: like entire new testament. Hispanics: not even invented yet. Ergo: if you err, err on the side of kindness and generosity of spirit. Err on the side of personal liberty and personal responsibility. Err on the side of equality. Because, really, if homosexuals really are the demons “Christians” (of the judging kind) say they are, then treating them the way they *ask* you to treat them (which is respectfully and equally) can only count as extra credit.

          13. Also, I’d like to point out a term which the Europeans (especially those in UK) have adopted over the years since they approved same-sex marriage: Whether hetero or gay, many people now refer to their respective spouses as “partners”. I believe it illustrates a significant shift in their societies’ views of marriage -whether between a man & woman, or two people of the same sex- away from the notion of ownership & into the realm where it should be -partners in love.

          14. I am seventy years old. I have heard spouses referred to as “partners” or “marriage partners” all my life.

          18. SEVERE HUMAN SUFFERING – you need to get out more! Suffering is abused spouses and children, human trafficking, starvation, natural disaster victims and listening to your bullshit. I’m fine with gay marriage but your argument is utterly ridiculous. And if you’ll see them in hell? Then you are admitting you’ll be there too. It may have something to do practicing what you preach… You say err on the side of kindness – okay kettle…

          19. Marriage, as an institution, has ALWAYS changed to suit geographic and societal norms. It’s akin to polygamy no longer existing. Same sex marriage is not an affront to the institution, it’s ALREADY a part of it’s rich and diverse history, having existed in past cultures.

          20. Curious to hear thoughts, since you mentioned polygamy. IS polygamy wrong? Should it be legalized? A British drama my wife was watching recently on public broadcasting (PUBLIC BROADCASTING?! Run Big Bird, run!) recently portrayed an elderly brother & sister having lived many years as husband & wife. Okay, not okay? If marriage is not one man and one woman, what IS the definition of marriage, and what is the point? Actually not making a point by this, but will be curious at responses, though I likely will not comment further (unless I JUST can’t help it…)

          21. @Jack: Actually, yeah, it DOES make them haters. I watched Reagan during the burdgeoning AIDS as he ignored it & did basically nothing for the gay community. Saying the GOP hates homosexuals is too soft. They despise us & would rather see us dead. That’s what happened back in the 1980s->They consigned thousands of gay men to premature deaths.
            Your assertion that gay people have only been seeking the right to marry like heterosexuals tells me how ignorant you truly are -that you would speak about that which you have limited knowledge of. We’ve been seeking the right to marry for decades. You’re probably completely unaware of this because…..gee, you’re straight. What would you really know about what gay people want & for how long we’ve wanted it?
            And your other assertions are simply disingenuous -when we consider the things we’ve heard from the mouths of the ignorant GOPers.

          22. I lost my son to that horrible disease because Reagan refused to put any more money in research.
            A small country like France was ahead of us in research. They came out with the AZT drug cocktail a month after he passed away. He actually died of sepsis from the hospital because of his lowered immune system. Reagan and others judged the sick people as being unworthy to spend any research dollars on for a cure. When I told people what my son died of, they stepped
            back as if they would catch it from me.

          25. You didn’t lose your son because Reagan didn’t fund research – you lost him because he knowingly engaged in behavior that caused him to catch the disease. Make you choices and live with consequences. I don’t worry about AIDS because I don’t stick needles in my arm or another man’s dick up my ass.

          26. Dear Ignorant F**k: Wow are you stupid. Are you really one of those morons that still thinks that only drug users or gay men can get AIDS? How’s that hole you’ve been sticking your head in since the 1980s? Yeesh.

          27. No, I’m one of those educated people who understand that MOSTLY (not exclusively) gays and junkies get it, as opposed to morons like you, who push politically correct but factually idiotic propaganda.

          29. Fred, I would advise you read a bit, for your health’s sake. HIV and AIDS are now equally prevalent in both straight and gay communities

          30. Not even close to true. Yes, straight non-addicts can get it, thank you gays and junkies for bringing it into the general population. Were it not for their insanely promiscuous and wilfully reckless lifestyle, the general population would not now be at such risk. For most people, it’s still just as true as it ever was – don’t stick needles in your arm and don’t stick dicks up your ass, or have sex with people who do either of those things, and your chances of getting AIDS drop to almost zero.

          31. And Fred, you are precisely why the GOP will die with you. I would never vote for a candidate whose supporters may hold your general level of ignorance as truth.

          32. It won’t die. It may have to adapt some, as politically correct idiocy ascends, or maybe less, if common sense and education replace politically correct but ignorant propaganda. Yes, there are many moralistic and superstitious idiots who support the Republican party, just like the Democratic party, but there are somewhat fewer Republicans who subscribe to the PC wishful thinking of “AIDS is everyone’s problem” and similar rubbish. If you studied any real history, instead of listening to the politically correct garbage the libs and dems spout back and forth to each other, you’d learn where AIDS came from, how it spreads (and how it DOESN’T spread), and maybe you’d have a clue about reality. But I doubt if you will, and that’s understandable. It’s certainly much easier to repeat slogans, and call straight people homophobic and ignorant, than make the effort to really learn something.

          33. Hey Fred? It appears that you’re talking to a real person, who had an actual kid who died (as far as I can discern, this seems true; at least, I don’t have any reason to disbelieve it and neither do you), and being a complete asshole in order to make an (also loathsome in itself) philosophical point. So I hope you don’t mind me saying: I hope you get raped at knifepoint by an HIV+ person of whatever race scares you the most, and then die in a gutter. Kind of like what just happened to your shitsmear of a political party. You are morally subhuman.

          34. Dude, you have to be one of the dumbest people I’ve every seen on the Internet. AIDS spreads by having unsafe sex or sharing needles/blood transfusions/intravenous acts with people who are already infected. It does not matter what color, religion, or sexual orientation you are. That’s a fact and it’s science. Do you really think that when HIV comes into contact with someone it says “Oh wait, this person isn’t gay, we can’t infect them.”

          35. You couldn’t be more spot on. Despite what the GOP may do moving forward as a political party, it can only be as successful as it’s base allows it to be and given the behavior of the conservative base over the last 12 years, there won’t be a resurgence of their party at any time in the near or moderately distant future.

          36. Absolutely true and if you had bothered to research the matter you’d have come across the data released by year that shows that it is heterosexual women who constitute the fastest growing demographic for people with HIV/AIDS. You’re not even lukewarm.

            And since you are fixated on “dicks up asses”, perhaps you should consider acknowledging that it isn’t just homosexuals that are sticking “dicks up asses” or having “dicks stuck up asses.” You want to play stupid, do it on Redstate’s website.

          37. Fred, a single search for the CDC’s statistics would have saved you a lot of trouble man. I believe what you MEANT to say is that gays and drug users are the highest populations (according to the CDC, this is true); HOWEVER, that is not to say that you can’t get it if you aren’t in those groups – just look at all the other populations. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm

          38. Ignorance must be bliss, because MANY people have contracted that disease in a variety of other ways. Hope you remain happy in your small small brain.

          40. You, sir, are one horribly ignorant, ill-informed and uneducated troll for having made such a comment. You are, sadly, a part of the lesser thinking minority that believes that AIDS is contracted only by “heathen homosexuals” who are engaging in sex minus morals and I, for one, am so glad that yours is a dying breed. A female friend and colleague of mine contracted AIDS from her heterosexual fiance, a conservative, mind you…who had engaged in some of those family values lifestyle choices that conservatives are known to tout and equally known to ignore in their personal lives. My friend lost her battle with AIDS in 1989 because our President at that time had the same mental defect as you.

          42. Funny Fred that my 19 month old adopted daughter has HIV, do you paint her with the same hateful brush. I should be angry, but I can only pity your life that is so black and white and lacks compassion or understanding.

            Muzzi, I am so sorry for your devastating loss and the stigma and rejection you have lived with.. 2012 – I face the same stigma with my baby girl, it is heartbreaking.

          44. I’d say ignore Fred and those like him, but I know that it’s hard and that it hurts. So I’ll just say that I was a college student in the late 70s and lost way too many friends my age in the early 80s and that I hold you close in my heart; as closely as I held dying friends. Much love to you, from a stranger who cares.

          45. Muzzi, The pain is still fresh in your post these many years since. Whether I agree with your characterizations & judgements or not, I’m sorry for the loss of your son.

          46. Ok, I’ll grant you that I may not have the full history of the gay struggle at top of my knowledge list, but if you’re seeing all this hate, you’re hanging out with the wrong crowd of, er, Republicans? You’ll see it as patronizing if I note the dramatic change in tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality just in my 40-something years. As Eric notes above, the (other) f-word (for gays), WAS a common slur in my high school days. It’s utterance now in my “Republican” circles, at least is so unheard of as to invite scorn and disdain. This does not mean your life as a gay person is perfect, but I dare say your “progress” has come faster than that for many African Americans. As for blaming Reagan for AIDS deaths in those early years, it’s unfair. It has taken years and hundreds of billions of dollars to reach some survivability level against a truly dreaded disease. There’s a lot more to be said here, but my energy wanes. Fightin’ liberals is fearful tirin’ work.

          47. The dramatic change in tolerance has been no thanks to you or your party, who have fought against treating us like people relentlessly, every step of the way. And no, there is nothing “unfair” about blaming Reagan for the deaths, which he obviously desired; of course it was going to take years of work and a lot of money to fight the disease, which is why the work should have been started early.

          48. Jack you need to read a little more. It is a know fact that Reagan absolutely chose to ignore this disease solely because it only affected gays.

          49. I dunno, Jack. We had a 300 year “cultural tradition” in this country of buying and selling people like livestock. Once purchased, a human being became the “property” of a “master” who could order the person to work until he dropped, be sold, chained, lynched, or whatever else he desired, and no one could interfere, because the (black) person was the master’s “property.” Eventually a war was fought which resulted in the slaves being freed; freed only to be hated, discriminated against and shut out of society for another 100 years. Not really a tradition worth emulating, in my opinion. If you think that there is no one in the GOP who hates blacks, or you think that the GOP does not cater to and solicit the votes of the hatemongers, just read some of the more vitriolic posts on right wing web sites.

          50. Oh brother. No one suggested emulating a tradition of slavery, did they? It was an evil that needed to go and did, despite the fact that it still exists in some nations. And the discrimination that continued in various forms & places, very often perpetrated by Democrats, I might add, was also evil. Still, while forced segregation was also wrong, there were thriving black families, economies and people in — of all places — the deep South through much of the 20th Century. The Civil Rights struggle — often aided by Republicans — was a crucial advance, however, the resulting “War on Poverty” Great Society Initiatives (notice where the enlightened politicians wanted to get in on the act), led to a new enslavement. Now those same misguided programs have brought generations of poverty and dependency; many of the thriving black families, businesses and societies have been hollowed out or destroyed. And, by the way, I never said no one in the GOP hates blacks; in a different post, I allowed that there were haters (as in every human community), but that this is a tiny subset that is not rewarded or welcomed by leadership or the majority. Yes, there are some vitriolic right wing websites, but hate & vitriol is by NO MEANS limited to the right fringe. Take a walk on the left side (see the post above just for starters) to see the ugliness of liberalism.

          51. The “ugliness of liberalism”??? Let’s recap: you started off saying you should continue to discriminate because, after all, it’s been that way a long time. It is pointed out that other terrible things have been continued, simply because they had been going on a long time, and that this is not a good thing to do. You are, in fact, suggesting emulating the tradition of slavery, because you are suggesting that evil things ought to be continued whenever they are long-standing traditions; that was the whole point, which your whole post here is simply evading. SubRock tried to evade it by claiming, falsely, that slavery did not have a long history, and while it may have been rude of Katherine to point out that he was being stupid, in fact he was.

          52. Implied in your post was that somehow a traditional practice is something to be maintained and emulated. I merely tried to make the point that not all traditions are worthy of continuation, and others are subject to change and evolve, as marriage has done throughout time.

            Yes, I know that at one time in this country the roles of Democrats and Republicans were pretty much reversed. Lincoln was a Republican, of course, and is generally credited with freeing the slaves. Much has been written about that, and it has been noted that Lincoln was more concerned with preserving the union than freeing the slaves. The time for ending slavery in the U.S. had come, and it was certainly inevitable. After that, it was mainly southern Democrats who instituted and prolonged racial segregation and discrimination. People like George Wallace vowed to keep the races separated as late as the 1960s.

            But all of that changed with LBJ and Hubert Humphrey in 1963, and was cemented in place with Reagan and the “Southern Strategy.” Race baiting and instilling fear of the “others” was now official Republican policy, and has remained so to this day, brought to new heights by the attacks of 9-11-2001. Republicans today base their campaigns on dividing the country along racial and economic lines, constantly pointing out that the poor, the minorities and most foreigners are to be feared, denigrated and demonized as threats to our safety, our financial security and our cherished traditions. Only by disenfranchising them and turning the country over to a handful of oligarchs will we “get our country back.”

            You’re wasting your time pointing out that there were “thriving” black families and businesses during the time of forced segregation in the south. A handful of moderately successful people in a society of sub-classes does not mean prosperity is inevitable for all. Even after segregation became illegal, attitudes did not change for a long time, and discrimination (in hiring especially) was commonplace, including in the north.

            This statement “Now those same misguided programs have brought generations of poverty
            and dependency; many of the thriving black families, businesses and
            societies have been hollowed out or destroyed,” is standard conservative boilerplate, but is also a lot of wishful thinking. You would love to find proof that helping the downtrodden out of poverty created a dependent class, but the facts don’t bear you out. Helping the poor does not bankrupt the rich nor destroy their businesses, regardless of their race. Social Security, the biggest bugaboo of conservatives since its inception, has allowed millions to live independent lives rather than existing in county poor farms or starving to death on the streets.

            Not everyone can be a CEO. Not everyone can just open a business and become a billionaire. To have businesses, you need workers. If everyone was an executive, there would be no production. Yet workers are demonized as leeches, taking advantage of the “job creators,” and are the first to be discarded when the economy goes sour, or management makes bad decisions adversely affecting the business. Today we are seeing people losing their jobs because some employers don’t want to take a few dollars out of their profits and their own compensation to provide basic health insurance, something else that was a tradition for decades, even while businesses, the economy and the middle class were thriving.

            I know how much money I made over the years that I worked for a living, and while I never got rich, I always did better working than I would have taking welfare. I cannot believe that there is an entire class of people who choose to live beneath poverty level when they all they have to do is get a job, almost any job, and they can live better. I think that whole concept is a myth, perpetuated by the selfish and the greedy to justify their hatred of having to contribute to the public good. I am absolutely positive that if the “job creators” were actually creating jobs, that millions now on public assistance would quickly and gladly go to work.

          53. It’s not just a conservative talking point; there’s lots of research about the ills that the war on poverty has brought to those it meant to help, and to society in general. Society ended up a lot less “great,” but it really did wonders for Democratic politicians. Just for starters, here’s a short essay by Thomas Sowell: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/03/20/race_and_rhetoric/page/full/ Also, for an example of the once-thriving black community (not to discount the perniciousness of Jim Crow), this gives a brief review of the Sweet Auburn area of Atlanta, once the largest concentration of black millionaires in America. http://sweetauburn.us/intro.htm

            No, I’m not saying all was well and prosperous with all African Americans – far from it, but there can be no doubt that many tenets of liberal faith actually harm those they purport to help. But, if it assuages white guilt or sounds good, let’s not worry about real-world results. For those of us (liberal or conservative or whatever) who do work our lives through (paying SS taxes and other), it IS hard to believe that an uncomfortable underclass would resign themselves to a life on the margin rather than work, but I think they’re out there, white, black and other. It may not even be what they WANT, but some of these forces at work, just make it so.

          54. I couldn’t access your first link. The screen was taken over by popups.

            If you are really interested in knowing the real story and not in simply perpetuating the myth that people who need help are just lazy and would rather live in poverty than work, start here http://mediamatters.org/print/research/2012/10/04/fox-ignores-food-stamp-facts-to-push-dependency/190375 and then keep looking.

            Edit: I was able to access the article you referenced on my second try. Not surprisingly I was unconvinced by his claims which contained lots of “facts” with no references to back them up. Lots of innuendo, and implications that everything bad that has happened to black and Hispanic people since 1950, including the numbers of single parent homes, black males in prison, and rising unemployment, are all due to the social welfare programs of the 60s. I know that there are lots of other reasons for the societal ills we face today as a country, and this article addresses none of them.

          55. 300 years, huh? That’s interesting since we celebrated our bicentennial in 1976. The Civil War ended slavery no later than 1865, which is roughly 150 years ago. If the rest of your post is as weak as your math ……………………

          56. Hey, stupid. Just because we didn’t become an independent nation before 1776 doesn’t mean that there weren’t settlers or slavery before then. Are you really that dumb? “In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue…” Remember that?

          57. Well, we started the name-calling immediately, and I had so hoped it wouldn’t come to that. So here goes…..

            Kathy, I’m glad to see you got your face out of your partner’s pimpled-ass long enough to read something enlightening. Columbus had what to do with this discussion? He landed in the West Indies, which is not part of America, dumbass.

            The poster I was responding to specifically mentioned slavery and “our country”. That is the United States of America which wasn’t a country before 1776. So go back to slurping ass and leave the thinking to those of us who have the equipment for the job. You stupid, slack-jawed waste of sperm.

          58. I’m not sure how this conversation devolved into name-calling and vulgarities and I have no wish to be involved in that aspect, but I would like to point out that our country’s history begins long before the Declaration of Independence. Surely you have noticed that multiple people on this blog have said their ancestors arrived at this country on the Mayflower. The Mayflower landed in 1620. You didn’t nitpick and say that their ancestors didn’t actually arrive in this country because it hadn’t been established yet…so why would you question that slavery existed in this country before the country was officially established? What is the point?

          59. Our conversation has not devolved at all. I don’t recall either of us doing any name-calling.

            Okay, so you mentioned the Mayflower. That at least gives me a timeframe for your 300 years of slavery. So, with that in mind, slavery actually began in 1620 and lasted until 1920? I think you see what I’m driving at. 300 years is overkill, hyperbole. It’s not realistic.

            Was slavery repugnant? Absolutely. But we don’t have to embellish history in order to present it for effect. It stands on its own merit, or lack thereof.

          60. Funny that you don’t recall name-calling when your last post referred to name-calling in the first sentence and then you proceeded to refer to someone’s partner’s body parts in a vulgar way. But you’re right, not being able to recall it must mean it never happened. *sarcasm*

            At any rate, you questioned the 300 years as if it was very far off. It was clearly an estimate and it was close enough. Your argument wanted to count from 1776 to 1865 which would have been less than 100 years. So hyperbole or not, the 300 year estimate was a lot closer than yours, and your estimate was supposed to be a nitpicky correction. Whoops!

          61. Please tell me what I called you that offended you? You seem to love to speak in generalities because the hard truth is elusive to you. Do you want someone to tell you that you’ve won your 300 year pity party? Well, okay then. You can be the winner. At least my bad memory doesn’t try to rewrite history. Now go have yourself a swell day.

          62. Are you literate? First you say you don’t recall name-calling when *you* previously mentioned it and now you ask how you offended me when I clearly stated that both of you calling names and using unnecessary vulgarities toward someone you disagreed with was offensive and with which I had no interest in engaging.

            That being said you have now swung from claiming someone’s math was wrong on the duration of slavery to providing your own far less correct estimate to saying those of us who are clearly looking at the numbers history has shown us want a pity party. Clearly you have a need to be right even when you are wrong. Ok. You’re right. Do you feel better now?

          64. I would have to argue that point. You specifically mentioned slavery in the context of U.S. history, then you can’t recall how long our country has actually existed. Nor the fact that slavery was abolished 150 years ago.

            My grasp of history is actually pretty acute. I just don’t sling spurious historical quotes and expect people to believe them.

          65. You’re absolutely right. The first Africans were traded to colonists in Jamestown to be kept as “indentured servants” in 1619. So from 1619 to abolition in 1865 was only 246 years, not 300. I will try to be more accurate in the future, since facts are so important to conservatives.

          66. I’m glad you did your homework…. finally. I love how you people get so passive-aggressive when challenged to be accurate… lol.

          67. And how do you explain correcting freeopinion’s inaccuracy with a far greater inaccuracy? To which “you people” does that make you a party? When will you acknowledge your inaccuracies?

          68. Oh, and by the way, who do you think “traded” the Africans in the first place? Yeah. Other Africans. Black on black slavery was going on for thousands of years before America was even thought of. Maybe that’s where you were coming up with all those bonus years?

          69. You had no idea that slavery had been going on that long, had you? There is such a vast difference between 246 and 300 after all. I have to agree with the others who believe you were counting only from 1776, because after all, those people who founded Jamestown weren’t U.S. citizens…

            It was a white Dutch trader who brought the first Africans to the colonies, and traded them for food. I have never read of any white man who was forced by a black African to buy another African and enslave him or her. With your acute grasp of history, perhaps you will enlighten me with a reference?

            For the life of me, I have never been able to understand the right wing morality that justifies slavery in the U.S. and the English colonies because of the claim that tribes in Africa traded guns for members of other tribes. There would be no drug trade today if there were no buyers; there would be no illegal black market in anything if there were no customers. Do you knowingly buy illegal goods and services?

          70. Oh, slavery was going on long before that. The Egyptians (Africans) enslaved the Israelites in antiquity. Landowners in Europe enslaved poverty-stricken vassals. It hardly began with the U.S. did it?

            I never heard of a black African who was forced by a white European to sell his brothers into slavery, either. But it happened.

            I like your assumption that I’m right wing. It’s more of your passive-aggressive mindset. It’s the fallback position for people who can’t count and can’t admit they’re wrong. You should probably get used to that.

            You seem stuck on being called out on your poor math skills. Assuming your 246 year reference is correct, you managed to account for 82% of the number you first threw out so casually. What if your boss decided to only pay you 82% of what you were actually owed for your services (assuming you’re not a bum)? Would that difference still be acceptable to you? I imagine not.

            By your reckoning, World War II is still being fought. But what does the truth matter when you can pull bogus statistics out of thin air, right?

            You’ve been fun to humiliate with nothing other than the unvarnished truth, but I’ve become tired of schooling you. Be a good little weak-minded lib and run along now. I have much more important matters to attend to.

          71. That’s what I thought. You had no idea. And I thought we were talking about the black slaves in America, not the white Egyptians. (You knew Egyptians were Caucasian, didn’t you?) But black or white, slavery in antiquity in Africa is totally irrelevant to slavery in the United States, no matter the race of the slave.

            “I never heard of a black African who was forced by a white European to
            sell his brothers into slavery, either. But it happened.”

            Right. Black slavery in America; it’s all their own fault.
            ————
            “I like your assumption that I’m right wing.”

            I assumed nothing, I mentioned right wing morality, but said nothing about you. But I’m glad you assumed that’s what I meant and liked it.

            “Be a good little weak-minded lib and run along now.”

            I like the way you assumed I’m a “lib.” More of the type of argument that you expect from the right.
            ————

            “It’s more of your
            passive-aggressive mindset. It’s the fallback position for people who
            can’t count and can’t admit they’re wrong. You should probably get used
            to that.”

            You’re a psychologist! How nice. Go back and study passive-aggressive. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

            I can count just fine, and I admitted I was wrong, I guessed you missed that part. Pity that you can’t do the same. Still, 246 is a lot closer to 300 than 89, the number of years that you thought slavery existed in the U.S.
            ————

            I’ll leave it up to others to decide just how much I’ve been humiliated by your unvarnished truth consisting mostly of insults, name calling, and hair-splitting.

          72. And assuming the 246 year reference is correct, your correction (that you had a chance to research before throwing out) only accounted for 36% of it. To quote you, what if your boss decided to only pay you 36% of what you were actually paid for your services (assuming you’re not a bum)? If you couldn’t get paid 100% would you rather get paid 36% or 82%?

          73. As there had been white on white slavery for thousands of years, but no slavery had ever been as vicious or permeated generations. Previously one could be born a slave and work one’s way out or marry out. In America rules were created to ensure for the most part this did not happen and children born to slaves would be slaves themselves.

          74. Before you speak on anything you should know your African American History. I’m pretty sure this is something you googled. Freeopinions is very correct in his statement of 300 yrs of slavery because even after the abolition of slavery was pass after the war, it was not enforce. Africans were still forced into slavery. The emancipation proclamation DID NOT free the slaves, truly know your history. You are right that slavery did exist in Africa before the North American slave trade. It also existed in other countries around the world as slavery and/or peasantry. In all countries it was usually people who were of the lower socio-economical class. The mis-education is in differentiating the two. Slaves in Africa were free people who were able to live according to there own will. Their services were traded for other services and goods but they were not considered property. The North American slave trade was developed by the Europeans. Slaves were at first traded for the same purpose but eventually the African kingdoms were forced by the Europeans and more Africans entered into slavery without will. This is where slaves became property and no longer had human rights. That’s called chattel slavery. The middle passage is the route that was used from Africa to America in transport of slaves. In this passage many Africans died because they were tortured and not fed or given water. Their bodies were dumped over into the Atlantic ocean. If they made it to America, families were separated and if they did not willingly do it, they were beaten and tortured. Eventually there was a document put in place on how to “season” a slave in the same manner that you would a horse. Many women were raped and beaten if they did not want to leave there children. A man’s limbs would be tied to 4 different horses and if he did not agree or even if he did not agree fast enough, they would summon the horses and rip his body into pieces. Pregnant women were hung and burned or they sliced women’s stomachs to let the fetus hang from the mother’s stomach. All of this was done in effort to scare the slaves and to keep them as property. I don’t think any person would offer his own an opportunity to endure this. Africans brought/forced to this country during the middle passage were the blood sweat and tears in building this great country and you should never speak of such a horrible event as if they simply agreed to be beat and mistreated.

          75. Thank you for a well-written statement. I never implied that anyone simply agreed to be beaten or mistreated. Slavery was wrong and I’m not trying to defend it.

          76. Thank you for saying this. It did seem to me that you were trying to minimize/defend slavery, both the horrors and the duration, and I appreciate you taking the time to acknowledge this.

          78. No, you implied that it was the Africans fault that they sold Africans into this hardship, which is not true. And you also stated that slavery didn’t last 300 years in America, which is also not true. Slavery lasted decades past the Emancipation Proclamation. The extra information was just for your education so that the next time you speak of slavery you show more compassion. God Bless

          79. I won’t get into de-facto slavery, which it could be argued lasted longer than 300 years, but slavery officially ended with the ratifcation of the 13th Amendment in 1865.

            [Congress passes the amendment -January 31, 1865

            [Lincoln signs it, although this is not required with Constitutional amendments]

            Amendment receives the required approval of legislatures of 3/4 of the states -December 6, 1865

            Secretary of State officially certifies the amendment’s ratification: December 18, 1865.]

            Notice that SubRock’s arguments were not backed up with any sort of reference, he was just stating a viewpoint. Typical of this type of argument, he refrained from given any definable date or reference, relying instead on vagueness, so he could not be pinned down. (reminiscent of the Romney campaign?) His purpose here was to take my exaggeration of the length of legal slavery and make the point of the argument invalid because of an inaccuracy in pinpointing dates. I don’t usually make broad assumptions, generalizations and guesstimates for precisely that reason, but this time I left the door open and he came through. Far from “schooling” me however, he simply reinforced the general belief on the left that when if comes to arguing from a factual standpoint, conservatives are usually left red-faced, and have to resort to vituperation and name calling.

          80. It is very unfortunate at how little the education system (HS, colleges) educate students on AA history. It really disturbs me when the only fact people can stand on to justify slavery is that “Africans sold Africans.” Most people see the movie “Roots” and think that that was all slavery was. Your infomation is correct with the Emacipation Proclamation in 1865 but debt peonage lasted up until the late 1930’s. Those still “enslaved” through this system were still treated as property and mistreated hince the use of the underground railroad up until the 1890’s

          81. I still say 246 is a lot closer to your estimate of 300 than it is to his estimate of 89 years (from1776-1865). Pot. Kettle.

          84. I am also a day late and a dollar short with this last bit of arguing. Whatever, slavery is/was and will always be against God. If you have listened to Mr. Romney, for him it still exists, not just with black but hispanic, he is soooo behind the christian belief of TRULY caring christians’s. that is just in this country, and it doesn’t matter if they were called serfs, slaves or what ever, it is just wrong. and here we are the home of the free and the brave. and we are still working on hate of people of different colors. GET OVER IT.

          85. Whatever. The original claim was that discriminating against gay people should be continued because it has been a long-standing tradition. The rebuttal was that slavery was also a long-standing tradition. You were wanting to say that it really didn’t last so long, which was rather silly and beside the point. Do you believe in continuing to do people harm because it has gone on a long time?

          86. The first african slaves were brought to the Americas either in the late 1500s or the early 1600s. Can’t remember exactly when, but I believe it was around that time. I know 19 blacks were brought as slaves to the Jamestown area in 1619, so that’s at least 250 years before the Civil War.

            Slavery was an old, well established trend in the old world too. While they may have been called Serfs in Europe they were still, in fact, owned by the feudal overlords. Romans took slaves from all the lands they conquered. The Greeks kept slaves before the Romans as well. It’s also all over the Bible too, so it dates back long before it came to the Americas.

          87. overturn 5000 years of cultural tradition…thats funny… no one wants to overturn anything they just wanna participate.. like black people who want to vote etc etc…

          88. The GOP can’t even manage to stop glorifying rape as being “a gift from God”. While I can agree that YOU don’t think racism and bigotry are caused by hate, most who have experienced them felt a lot of hate pouring through. There are people who honestly believe racism/bigotry are an act of love. The same folks who think rape is an act of love. The rest of us just don’t sweet that way.

          89. Didn’t this country overturn a longer-than-written-history cultural tradition in less than 5 years when the civil war was fought? The length of an inequity is not an argument for its continuation.

          90. Interesting Jack. Legal flow in the past meant anyone could get in. That’s what happened for my ancestors – my grandmother coming from Italy, for example. The restrictions are relatively new, and, if you look at them closely, seem to be unevenly applied. I notice brown people from various places have a little more trouble becoming citizens.

          91. it isn’t the illegals or the borders, it is time we changed our immigration laws, This country was made great from all the immigrants coming to this country, we have the MOST creative country in the world, because we have people from a zillion countries melding together, We have gotten lazy in this country, no white man nor woman want to do what we call menial labor, we all want jobs that keep us clean. We want to be special, because we are white. and deserve to be in good jobs……….. Well that is not happening right now is it. OPEN OUR DOORS TO THE TIRED THE POOR THE HUDDLED MASSES YEARNING TO BREATH FREE. They will be the salvation of this country.

        1. The republican party needs to get a backbone and tell the tea party members to find a different venue for their minority extremist views!

          Reply

          1. I’d be inclined to blame what happened last week on TeaPartiers, except I’ve watched the GOP for 33 years (since the first time I voted in 1980) and they are hateful bullies, intent on shoving their agenda down our throats, rewarding their cronies along the way at the expense generally of the American People/taxpayer. At NO other time in history has their hateful, bullying methods been more blatant than during Clinton’s 8 years in office, and then Obama’s. They lack leadership, but they’re really big on bullying. I, for one, am glad they were shellacqued. They needed some come-uppance to remind them that their policies are as outdated as some of their hairstyles.

          7. Obama ran on a platform of health care reform in 2008. There was nothing shoved down the throats of the nation. That many on the right weren’t happy does not make it so.

          8. lolol, oh, you were serious? Yes, of course Obamacare was shoved down our throats. You could even get some blue dog Dems to admit that – privately.

          9. Do you imply that there’s no hateful bullies intent on shoving their agenda down our throats that identify with the Burros? The Pachyderms are not the only ones with people who harbor that kind of disdain for opposing opinions!

          11. Repubs were “too extreme,” but not the Democrats. They are a glorious picture of moderation, these days, eh? From abortion to taxes to spending. Yeah, right. How’s that nearly extinct pro-life wing of the donkey party doing? Since we want to go back to the taxation levels of the Clinton admin, would the Dems support going back to those spending levels? Well, that’s not fair, so how about even as percentage of GDP? Still no? Didn’t think so. If you feel like you’re falling, that may be that “middle ground” just disappeared.

          12. Yeah! After all, it totally worked to get Mitt Romney in the White House when they told the Ron Paul voters the same thing!

        2. Their hearts have to change as well or their attempts to appeal to those they have repeatedly marginalized and dehumanized will be viewed as disingenuous at best. I’m not sure the hearts of most of their base can be changed.

          Reply

    3. The target audience was NOT you. Nor was it the educated white couple who wrote that letter. The two core groups were (1) uneducated white southern males. these peole don’t follow issues but HATE the idea of a black president. So words like “greatest goal is to make Obama a one-term president” were effective with that audience. (2) the second group is easy to understand they are people who care only about one issue: How much they personally pay in taxes.

      One odd thing is these two groups mostly do NOT overlap

      Reply

      1. You liberals have the same blinders you accuse GOPers of wearing if you think Obama’s only opposition or Romneys only support came from those two groups. Just because many millions think Obama is leading the nation to ruin, or at best mediocrity, where millions of citizens continue to suffer, doesn’t put them into the two tiny groups you mention.

        Reply

        1. You sound like a moron. Grow up. Nobody buys into your angry whining anymore. Bullshit Mountain is coming down and you can either get used to it or leave.

          Reply

          1. I find it amusing that you and so many others on this page insult, berrate, and accuse a wide range of republicans, and then go on to say that Republicans are the “mean party”.

            I do believe someone has been taking a couple healthy doses of “hypocrisy” with their breakfast each morning.

            This letter loses credibility and I lose interest in caring what he has to say because he can’t, apparently, get his words out without trying to shout profanity at me through the computer screen, even though I and many other republicans I know and converse with don’t use such foul, low class language. It really shows just how mature you guys are when the majority of you have to resort to childish insults to make your points – which aren’t usually that great.

            Last thing, you (by “you” I mean “most of the liberals on this page”) think Obama really destroyed Romney in the election, hmm? He won by a small, narrow margin. Don’t try to blow up the truth to make it seem like everyone hated Romney, when a significant number of people obviously voted for and supported him. Obama won the electoral vote pretty soundly, but had a very narrow victory with popular votes.

            I’m not going to be replying to anything else on this page because I was given this link by a friend, I don’t actually have any interest in this site; I do however hope you actually think about what I said, rather than come back and use more childish insults because you simply don’t want to be wrong. Again, in this sentence, I say “you” to mean “most of the liberals on this page, who are likely reading this comment with outrage”.

          2. Actually, in order to incite outrage your comment would have to carry weight with me. However, given that it’s just the same ole… not so much.

          3. I had to scroll back up to find the “profanity” and found that it was once in the beginning (which I thought him to be making an exaggerated point, nothing more) and once in the end; to get to the end, you have to actually read through all his points, and anything thereafter are no longer points of real concern. That you have to try and take a stab at the credibility on two profane words that are inconsequential to the entire article is a stretch. I fail to see where there are ‘childish insults’ in any of his actual points. You say ‘aren’t USUALLY that great’, but don’t debunk any of his actual points (which I think are spot on).

            There is also a significant number of people who did NOT vote; Obama won the popular vote by over 3 million actual voters, but for those who chose not to vote or could not vote, I would be willing to bet that the margin would have been a lot greater had they done so. Each of my fellow working class, family-oriented, tax-paying, law abiding citizen friends and coworkers who legitimately could not actually make it to the polls cited they would (have) like(d) to vote for Obama.

            I am registered unaffiliated; I do not choose Republican or Democrat or even Independent. I choose based on the issues and what the candidates have to offer. Being from a traditionally Red State as well (Texas), I was one of those ‘traditional’ voters who voted Republican strictly on the basis that that’s what my family and tradition dictated; that changed when I saw the consequences of my blind actions.

            I am willing to bet that you won’t be replying because you know what you have commented is just as inconsequential as the ‘profanity’ you detest; it does not make the actual issues (that real voters care about) go away–actual points that the Republican party does need to address to regain votes like mine or the ‘average white American’ that they propose to be targeting.

          4. Wasn’t my post, but actually, I count the clearly implied-with-asterisks item at the start, a somewhat milder “BS” spelled out, he calls those disagreeing with him “a-holes” and then uses his big-boy F-word again (modified by the cluster compounding). Just sayin.

          5. And yet I had to do a search to find ‘shit’ and ‘fuck’; one still not directed at anyone, and the other a common descriptive of a ‘mess of things’, but neither at all consequential. Just shows that you actually have to be looking for them (and hard even) to find them, and that the overall post itself is not ‘shouting’ profanity.

          6. Here’s a “just sayin'” point for you: So what. The blogger used profanity. Just like you rightwingers to dismiss those of us on the other side of the aisle because we got good & irritated with you & let profanity fly. Way to go. Loose the message in the way it’s presented to you. Typical & that’s PRECISELY why the rightwing lost last week. You just don’t get it. Then you criticize the message for the way in which it’s presented.

          7. It is the “Faux News” “way” to take the gist of an argument and ignore it and instead look for one or two small flaws in the way it was presented and then change the whole course of the discussion. As this was not a letter written about language and or our use of it in getting a point across…..the person who chose to use it (language) as an excuse to dismiss the letter writer’s argument was just being petty. I thought it was a great letter and its salient points were well made.
            However it is very difficult to take a long look in a mirror if you are not ready. The Republican Party as a whole is not quite ready for soul searching. Looking inward is difficult in the best of times and right now it is easier to remonstrate the President for calling Mitt Romney a Poopyhead then it is to take a look at where changes need to be made. Great Letter….Thank You

          8. This makes sense – and it’s why so many in the GOP are now obsessing over presenting the message better, or differently, or with a special sauce for other demographics. Aside from the moral failings of the current conservative crowd – for which I do not blame Romney, though he’s to be faulted for not calling out a lot of nonsense – this isn’t a ‘branding’ issue. And we’re not so stupid that we didn’t “get the message” (heaven knows, enough money was spent on delivering it). We heard it. We didn’t like it, in droves.

          10. I am not outraged at all. You call 332 to 206 a small, narrow margin? Am I being insulting by implying that you are missing the point?

          11. I believe he’s referring to the 50.5% to 48% of the popular vote as a narrow margin; which I’m pretty sure was clear to even you. It is certainly not a ‘mandate’ from the people. Nor is it a resounding approval of the President’s achievements in his first term. But nice job being condescending.

          12. Just the mere fact that the GOP lost & by quite a quantifiable margin IS a mandate from the people to cease & desist with the ignorance that marks the current incarnation of the GOP. Judging by some responses here, you STILL don’t get it. People are sick of the GOP & their underhanded tactics, not the least of which were their push to deny millions of Americans the right to vote. Kinda bit you all in the arse, didn’t it? When will you cheaters learn.

          13. A quantifiable margin in the electoral college, but the election really came down to about 400,000 votes in a few key states. The nation is obviously quite divided, not happy with Obama, but also not happy with what the Republicans put forth and articulated.

          17. The fact that many of the Tea Party/GOP darlings from the 2010 midterm election were defeated in this most recent election furthers the notion that Obama’s win is a clear mandate.

          18. http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-likely-to-win-popular-vote-by-more-than-3

            Obama’s win not only is comparable to Bush’s 2004 popular vote margin (for which he claimed he had earned “political capital” that he intended to spend), but the two elections place him historically in select company:

            “Obama is the first President since Ronald Reagan in 1984 to win a majority of the popular vote in consecutive elections and only the third Presidential candidate to do so since Franklin Roosevelt. Since 1824, the year when official popular vote totals were tabulated for the first time, only seven Presidents have won a majority in consecutive elections; Obama, Reagan, Eisenhower, FDR, McKinley, Grant, and Jackson.”

          20. Wikipedia says: “Bush won the popular vote with 50.73% to Kerry’s 48.27%.” He thought that was a mandate. What didn’t happen (either time) was a landslide. Which is a different thing.

          21. Yeah, except? This is one of the few Presidents in the last 50 years to actually gain a clear majority in the popular vote (twice!) as well as the Electoral. So, hey. Nice job being condescending.

          22. Obama lost a few million votes in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut because storm victims couldn’t make it to the polls, and in Ohio, Florida, and other places to suppression efforts. Nonetheless, it is clear now that the Republicans have permanently alienated the majority of the population; moreover, the Republican vote that is left is concentrated among the old, who will die out, while the young are breaking 60/40 against them.

          23. It was just shy of 3 million votes. There is nothing narrow about that. I happen to believe that it is a mandate from the people and am hopeful that Obama will treat it as such as he moves into his second term.

          26. the most telling part of this commentary is “I’m not going to be replying to anything else on this page” – because as is typical, republicans can rarely argue against any facts presented to them – about the economy, the debt, our healthcare system, science (rape, climate change) – and i find it absolutely hysterical that republicans try to imply that democrats are the party of hate.

          27. This seems to be a big issue with rightwingers: That you DISMISS out of hand any dissenting opinion because “they used profanity” in trying to get their myriad points across. What you fail miserably to comprehend is just how long it took this man to degenerate to calling you all well-deserved (and profane) nicknames. YOU HAVE EFFECTIVELY PISSED-OFF millions of Americans. Not just a little bit, but A LOT. If we use profanity to express our collective irritation with what the GOP have done to our country, then so be it. Cuss away. BUT -it does not render our irritations moot. They are a healthy sign that WE are paying attention & your bullshit isn’t passing for truth anymore.

          29. It’s been 4 to 5 years of some of the most horrible behavior ever witnessed in the United States of America and it hasn’t been limited to just the base; rather, much of the worst of it has come from Republicans holding elected office. To say we are fed up is an understatement. I spent the better part of 4 years trying to reason with the most rabid abusers of the First Amendment to no avail. My patience is used up for now. While I won’t get into name-calling exchanges with people like that, I also will no longer invest my time in efforts that are futile and have proven to be entirely pointless for 4 years. When reason and courtesy return to the GOP and it’s base, then I will be open to dialogue again. Until then, I’m concerned only with policies and people that are committed to moving the nation forward.

          32. I’m a liberal democrat and I would agree that the meanness comes from both sides, and both sides are equally guilty of trying to make it seem as though only the other party is mean…That being said, I don’t find this article to be mean or profane at all. There’s an issue with people getting so sensitive and easily offended by what the other side has to say that they don’t end up listening at all…

          33. Interesting how, if the margin by which Obama won re-election had actually applied to Romney, it would have been A LANDSLIDE OMG!!!! Also? Love the first sentence of the last para. Classic flounce! 🙂 Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, dearie.

          35. What is moronic (or angry) about the post to which you responded? I grant you I’ve probably written angry, moronic stuff, but I’ve reread this one a couple times. Don’t see it. Must be the blinders. Or, maybe you’re projecting, as they say. Actually it’s kinda quaint to see liberals adopt the “love it or leave it” mantra. Toot-toot, the train to hypocrisy-land has left the station…

          36. We’ve lived thru 8 yrs of GWB killing…..KILLING our country. I remember him, The Decider. Yeah, he & his party cronies decided to wage two wars without much thought to how they’d pay for them. They shipped BILLIONS in cash on Air Force planes that have disappeared. They allowed our banking execs to pilfer billions/trillions more. We don’t really care what you think about our “love it or leave it” mantra because we’ve LIVED thru decades of GOP “love it or leave it” rhetoric, all to the ruination of our country. If you don’t like what happened in this last election, or the mandate spelled out by the trouncing of your idiotic party, then by all means, do something about it. WE DID. Live with it. Or leave. Your choice.

          39. Last post of the night… Dems have been incredibly successful at painting GWBush as bringing on the banking/housing crisis, conveniently overlooking the Dems role in Congress in the years prior. You won’t really watch this, but you should. You won’t change your mind either, because “GW failed” is liberal dogma propping up the lies & purported reasons for Obama’s massive government expansion. GW was FAR from perfect with the economy or prosecution of necessary wars, but careful where you point that ruination blame gun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

          1. My point in that post, as I recall, was that I replied to a post that had said the GOP comprises uneducated Southern racists and single-issue voters who only care what their personal taxes are and then accuse GOP of not seeing the big picture. Broadbrush much? I think I was putting the iie to this liberal talking point I hear all the time that these are the only GOP constituency. Sure, there are some who fit that category, just like Dems have some embarrassments in their coalition.

    4. How come I saw this post last night, it has 284 “up” arrows, and yet it just appeared as “new” posted 6 minutes ago. I call foul — maybe some Democratic voting officials are in charge. 😉

      Reply

    5. what is a ‘generally liberal’ female? what constitutes the ‘general’ part? I’m curious, to me its like saying ‘generally pregnant’ or ‘generally drunk’

      Reply

      1. That’s actually not the same at all, but if it makes you feel better, okay. In my opinion, by saying “generally liberal” she means that on most issues she tends to side with a liberal agenda. Maybe on social issues she identifies with the Democratic party but on fiscal issues (which is a joke to call the Republican party “conservative) she identifies with Republicans. That’s being generally liberal.

        Reply

        1. in your opinion, which i didn’t ask for, you projected your interpretation onto Elizabeth and my guess is she is not a ‘moderate’ liberal but a granola eating, tree hugging, birkenstock wearing liberal

          Reply

      2. You can’t seriously tell me you’ve never even heard of moderates or left-leaning/right-leaning people. Has political discourse actually become THAT poisoned that you can’t even imagine what a left-leaning person would be?

        Reply

        1. i’m simply asking the question. ONe person’s moderate is another’s fascist/socialist.
          just a question about what ‘generally’ she is not a liberal about.

          Reply

          1. No, one person’s moderate is an IDIOT’S fascist/socialist. There’s a big difference. Fascism and socialism are, like “pregnant” or “drunk,” words with well defined specific meanings. “Liberal” and “conservative,” on the other hand, are like “west” or “east” – broad directions which give no sense of degree or distance. Which is why we use adverbs like “generally.” Both Iowa and California are west of the Mississippi despite Des Moines being 1,700 miles east of Sacramento. I know there are people who believe Iowa borders the Pacific. Those people are insane morons.

          2. While right-wingers tend to fantasize that the left is nearly fascist, the closest thing to a fascist state today is the “everything is private” corporatist fantasy-land currently proposed by the right.

          3. Except no, it’s not. Fascism and Socialism are two entirely different things. But heaven forfend you should actually have to make an educated comment.

    6. I believe what McConnell said is that his biggest “political goal” was to stop Obama from succeeding in instituting his platform. In other words, he doesn’t think Obama’s vision is right for America and he’s going to oppose it. Not well said, by any means, but not the unyeilding, scorched earth kind of statement that it gets reported to be.

      Reply

    7. Mitch McConnell is only nominally a senator from Kentucky. For years he has actually been a representative of K Street.

      Reply

    8. Right – which was SOOOO unlike the Democrat position regarding Bush during his first term. You people are such unbelievable hypocrites. Don’t tell me, you’re also against Bush’s “warmongering.” But you say nothing regarding Obama’s killing of civilians, or his illegal use of the military in Lybia. You probably also have no idea what the 2012 NDAA is or who signed it into law and what it entails. I am certain that if George Bush had signed it you would be up in arms. But you’re not. You’re nothing but an unthinking liberal whose joined in with the rest of the unthinking liberals, goose-stepping your way through your own hypocracy and your own delusions in support of a man, policies, and a party that does nothing more than strip the freedoms from people. You and your ilk think taking money from people and giving it to others is what freedom is about. You believe that it is the government that has made this country great. No doubt you also think your own farts smell great. You’re wrong on all accounts.

      Reply

    9. As a Vermont resident who was born in Maine and lived in Europe for 25 years, with ancestors in New England from before the Revolution, I can only applaud your essay! I am so grateful for Vermont’s sensible representatives to Congress and appalled at some of the choices made in other states. Keep calling things as you see them — I am definitely with you!

      Reply

    10. They don’t need an “image change”; they need to be eliminated. The 2014 midterm election can’t get here soon enough ! In fact, impeachment NOW, and prosecution for treason, would be even better !

      Reply

    11. Obama is a SOCIALLIST at best! Of course the Republicans wanted him out of office. Please remember your Dear Leader chucked our Constitution on a number of occassions and even stated he would find ways to go around the Congress. You’re not suppose to go around Congress – they are the branch the closest to the people. You people deserve whatever you get.
      Why the author of the original letter thinks any conservative misses his vote is beyond me. He’s a progressive – you know the people who want to progress from abortion to after-birth abortion. You know how much a pain a two year old can be. Why not just off them.

      Reply

  10. Brilliant! I’m sure you and your wife want to make your own family planning decisions too! I hope like-minded Republicans will come out of the closet and make their voices heard. Thanks.

    Reply

  11. Well put and well-said. As a teacher It sums up my thoughts from the past few months until now perfectly. This is a perfect piece of writing and the republicans would do well to read it, digest it, and mull over it instead of dismissing it out of hand because it does not agree with their iron-clad, preconceived notions.

    Reply

      2. Eric,
        Although I read your essay for content and not for form, you may wish to move the end paren in the first sentence of the “Gay Marriage” section so that it reads:
        “…divorced (as was the fashion in the 80s and 90s!) and…”
        instead of
        “…divorced (as was the fashion!) in the 80s and 90s, and…”

        Reply

  13. I love this. Thank you. It’s not enough to say that the Republicans lost because the demographics are changing – there are plenty of white people who don’t align with their nonsense these days as well.

    Reply

  15. Might be worth calling them on their willingness to work with people whose one aim is to obliterate the line between Church and State, and the abject racism and sexism they have held onto and used in the service of their party for about forty years now. Cosy-ing up to fundamentalism has made the GOP a joke.

    Reply

  17. Kudos! I’m also a very Caucasian Mayflower descendant with a neuropsychology PhD and politically an independent moderate (although the GOP has swung so far to the rabid-ass right that moderates appear as flaming liberals in comparison, but that’s another story). I’m also a woman with daughters, granddaughters, sisters, and many female friends, all of whom I love deeply. The ridiculous stance the GOP took on women’s issues was such a deal breaker for me that I could barely drudge through their other platform positions (also largely delusional) and absolutely could not bring myself to check any of their boxes when the time came to vote.

    Reply

    2. I’m with you. I did, however, drudge through the Republican platform and engaged in dialoge with Republican friends trying to understand where they were coming from. That said, I could never get beyond their stance on women’s rights – or stripping us of our rights – while speaking of smaller government while planning to build more government to punish women for the same rights that others have. I am not a decedent of the Mayflower, I come from a line of immigrants that came to this Country for a better life and have thrown themselves into the tax producing economy of business. I love the fact that we have two parties and that we have choice and hope that people like Eric will lead the Republican party back to the center where conversations, and compromise produce quality answers, policies, and platforms that will have us standing tall again as a Country.

      Reply

      1. Can you please be more specific about your comments regarding stripping us of our rights? Punishing women? I really do not get all this.

        Reply

        1. On the chance that you’re serious, how about (1) birth control, yeah, that’s part of it. Since it increases how much we have to pay for health insurance. But there’s also (2) women don’t need equal pay, they just need to get home early to cook dinner for their husbands, and (3) rich women are doing the greatest job ever by staying home with their kids while poor women are takers and moochers and need the dignity of work, so day care for them! and (4) a woman is of less importance than a zygote, and (5) single mothers are somehow to blame for gun violence (I have to say “somehow” because Mr Romney wasn’t really clear about the causation, but it was definitely there. Are those enough for you? ‘Cause there is more.

          Reply

          1. Just to play devils advocate – 1) there are some folks who are against BC for religious reasons. You wouldn’t tell your Jewish friends they have to serve ham, would you? Then why force Catholic institutions to supply BC? 2) women deserve equal pay for equal work and this applies to the current administration as well (I am agreeing with you but pointing out that the current administration is not living up to this either) 3) I got nothin. 4) same 5) it’s not the mothers that are to blame, it is the missing fathers. It’s a fact that there are many more kids in single parent homes in the higher crime areas.

          2. Not all employees of Catholic institutions are Catholic, so why should a Lutheran or Baptist or agnostic have to follow the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church by being denied birth control? As you say, you wouldn’t tell your Jewish friends they have to serve ham – and you wouldn’t expect them to say you can’t eat it either.

          3. No one is saying that non catholics can’t have BC. They just won’t pay for it. Ham is NOT served at the synagogue. If you want ham you have to get it somewhere else.

          4. Ham is not a prescription medication. Birth control is.

            If you are a Catholic CHURCH, no one is saying you have to provide insurance that pays for birth control. (i.e. Ham’s NOT being served at the synagogue, after all.) If you are a Catholic HOSPITAL or UNIVERSITY that employs lots of people who are not Catholic, your insurance does have to cover birth control, just like any other prescription. Church =/= any business ever. Just as your employer does not get to make medical decisions for you, no matter how strongly they feel antibiotics are the work of the devil, neither does a university or any other employer get to make those choices for their employees, affiliated with Catholicism though they may be.

            Let’s also make it clear that the Catholic Church was never being asked to pay for birth control. They were being asked to provide policies for employees that included birth control coverage, which would be paid for by the insurance company. Premiums for employers do not go up because you got a prescription, so this would not be a (directly) out of pocket expense for the Catholic employer.

          5. If Catholic organizations are able to avoid paying for birth control, there will be a rash of companies claiming to be Christian Scientists and thus not required to pay for surgery, medicine and vaccinations!

          6. I think when a religious organization sees fit to start preaching politics, then they lay themselves open for taxation. There is supposed to be separation of church and state, on BOTH ends.

          7. so seperate it already, the government is trying to force us to pay for peoples sexapades. I’m curious what they cant afford to buy condoms or BC. It exists and its availible to everyone and its fairly cheap?

            So WTF?

          8. @facebook-100000712519322:disqus – Please take the time to educate yourself on this issue. Birth control pills for women are not just about sex, as you wrote above. Birth control pills regulate hormones and can relieve symptoms of medical conditions such as dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, and migraines. Further they serve as preventative measures against endometrial and ovarian cancer. They can cost anywhere from $30-$50/month which is not cheap for someone making minimum wage, someone having trouble putting food on the table etc. Insurance companies cover prescriptions used for medical purposes and birth control should be no different.

          9. Errr, or $5 a month at Walmart. Not sure where you get the $30-50 figure, but you can get birth control pills, in all varieties, at Walmart for $5 a month, or $10 for 90 days. So I’m not actually sure this holds water.

            Also, I have to point out that despite the fact that I agree with most of this article, I also think that a religion-based business has a right to choose what health insurance they will offer, and what it will cover.

            Because no-one is forced to work there.

            That’s the crucial difference, you see? No-one forces anyone to work for a business that doesn’t provide benefits that are acceptable to them. If a religion-based business decides not to offer coverage for birth control, then any woman, or man with a covered female spouse or relative, has an absolute right to tell them to go piss up a rope and go work somewhere else.

            But that’s not the same thing as requiring them, by law, to violate their religious beliefs.

            And to the individuals using the slippery-slope argument about other religions and procedures, the same answer applies. So what if they do? Quit, and go work somewhere else. Why would you want to work for a company that refuses to cover any medical procedures whatsoever anyway?

            Your argument is analogous to telling the cable company that they are required to provide DirecTV service to their customers, rather than simply switching to DirecTV yourself.

          10. All the varieties are not $5 at Walmart and different types are prescribed based on particular ailments. Further, not everyone has access to a Wal-mart. Nice try with the analogy, except cable isn’t a drug prescribed by a doctor for medical purposes.

          11. That’s $5 or $10 a month as a COPAY with your own prescription insurance. $30-$50 per month is pretty accurate.

            Perhaps those employers who want to claim a religious exemption should be exempt from any form of gov’t input; including medicare payments to hospitals or student aid to universities.

          12. That is ridiculous to suggest that in this job market anyone could just tell their employer to piss up a rope. Some of us feel very, very lucky to have a job, any job, but especially one that has some sort of health coverage

          13. And that’s the problem. The only reason anyone gets anything is because the employer is legally obliged to pay SOMETHING… It’s a buyers market in terms of workforce at the moment and since the population is still going up, in general terms it’s not going away. Expect the continuing erosion of your personal rights by your corporate masters, unless you do something about it.

          15. I feel very unlucky to be in a country where it is up to your boss whether your health is taken care of. That isn’t how it works in any other developed country, you know.

          16. So, when you say Walmart, you mean the taxpayer, right? Walmart employees are many states’ top recipients of Medicaid. 80% of Walmart employees are on food stamps. Walmart employees receive $2.66 BILLION per year, averaging $420,000 per store. As a non-Walmart shopper, I am FORCED to subsidize it, because my husband and I pay over $35,000 in taxes every year. We are not wealthy, we live in New York City, and are barely getting by. I am FORCED to subsidize a business I do not patronize.
            In other words, you are under-educated, ‘Will Desolver’, and sadly representative of the majority of religio-fascists who would control others, at others’ expense.

          17. Much in the same way that conservative red states, whilst beating the drums about the bloated federal government, are, by far, the largest beneficiaries of government largesse via subsidies coming from liberal blue states. It’s helpful to have many military bases in your state and defense contractors in your state so that you can demand that the part of the federal budget that covers both is never cut and your state continues to receive far more from the federal government than it ever pays in taxes.

          18. That would be because your insurance pays the bulk of the cost. Which is exactly what employees of Catholic institutions want their insurance to do.

          19. first it depends on your insurance… my insurance has a “tier” program. there are 3 levels and depending on the level depends on how expensive each script is. if there isn’t a generic of the form of BC your totally fucked… see above ^

          20. “Errr, or $5 a month at Walmart […] you can get birth control pills, in all varieties, at
            Walmart for $5 a month, or $10 for 90 days. So I’m not actually sure
            this holds water.”

            WITH INSURANCE. without insurance it’s $30-50/mo

          21. My friend told me he is able to get a 90- day supply of his medication without using his insurance for 10 dollars. I am assuming this is true to almost all generic meds. Oh this was before Obamacare.

          22. Oh? And your friend takes BC meds does he? Someone already pointed out that BC meds (pills or patch) can cost as much as $100 a month w/out insurance and that all BC meds are not created equal – there are different doses, different formulations, different delivery methods. and different costs. Hearing about what your male friend pays for meds that obviously aren’t BC meds is irrelevant.

          23. You know what they say about “assume”, right? It makes an “ass” of you and “me”. Every insurance provider has their own definition of “generic”. And I’m here to tell you that most birth control medication is not “generic”.

          24. Insurance plans (including prescription plans) change and increase every year. No matter “whoscare.” Ins. policy is handle at the state level hince they want more money they raise premiums and decrease coverage. True story, I’m a physician!