I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

Sorry Pip - that's way too much for a day.

I am sorry Pip.  That is one of the hardest things to have to do...

Hugs.

Many thanks to all of you for your thoughts.  Our neighbour's kids have let us keep their dog (who actually spends most of his day with us) overnight.  Isn't that sweet?

Pip - your dog and your horse?  Our pets are our children....I'm sorry. 

So sorry Pip, we love our furry friends and it is heartbreaking when they cross the Rainbow bridge.

Kam, love that Rosie Perez vid -- thanks!

(((Ann))) how nice to se you - where have you been hiding? :-)

Good morning all.  Pip, I'm so very sorry about your animals. 

Beesie - please don't bite your tongue too hard.  You know we disagree about some things (heck, I jumped in with both feet in response to your post!), but as the header to this whole thread says, differences of opinion are part of life. 

Ann - hope your burrito was delicious.  (Is my fondness for fruit crumbles that obvious?  It's just that they're easy and delicious and go with brunch as well as dinner!)

Linda

Anne and Beesie, I might have mentioned this before but I was a strong Hillary supporter too. Although I would have preferred her in the presidency, I agree she would have faced Republican obstructionism also. However, I think she would have tried harder to get progressive legislation though and would have been much more supportive of environmental issues. But it is what it is and we have to keep Obama in at this point.

And with a sharp turn off topic, got an email saying my new iPhone 5 will arrive this Wednesday! Woohoo, can't wait to ditch my miserable old phone for the new shiny object!  

Rip Van Romney.  Lol!!!  That's what David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's Budget Director calls Romney!  Great article about the "great deformer."  Excerpt and link below:

"Mitt Romney was not a businessman; he was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses. He did not build enterprises the old-fashioned way-out of inspiration, perspiration, and a long slog in the free market fostering a new product, service, or process of production. Instead, he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt, gussy them up as reborn "roll-ups," and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale-the faster the better."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html

Ok as long as we're opening up here. I like Hillary but I had Clinton fatigue. I knew the right wing would go after her (who can forget that somehow she was a lesbian who killed her lover Vince Foster...etc., just didn't want such craziness to continue).

I somehow thought that maybe the Republican party would not be as vicous against a black man - might have a little reticence in fear of furthering the perception of racism that the Republican party has garnered...yeah...I was that dumb. But I loved Obama and couldn't understand people hating him in the way that they have. He still has my full support.

Why Republicans Have Been Fooled

Over here on the left, we have a bit of a joke. We say that there
are two types of Republicans; the manipulators, and the manipulated. I think
there are a few more. Those who are genuinely bigots, those who are willfully
ignorant, the manipulators mentioned above, and, lastly, those who have
romanticized the Republican Party for what it has done in days gone
by.

Let's be honest, progressives, liberals, and left-minded people:
the Republican Party of history has done some pretty awesome stuff. They haven't
always been obstructionists and voter suppression artists.

//
//

If
you didn't read last week's Opinions, wherein I dissected the
religiously-obsessed GOP platform for this year, you can find that here, or the one from the week before, here.

Little could you tell from current evidence, but the
Republican party used to be quite progressive. Here's an excerpt from one of my
colleague's
articles:

Where would you
guess the following quote came from?

"We are proud
of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic
human needs - expansion of social security - broadened coverage in unemployment
insurance - improved housing - and better health protection for all our people.
We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent
social and economic problems of our people."

If you guessed the
1956 Republican Party
Platform, congratulations! Once upon a time, Republicans stood for
far-reaching advances in matters of basic human needs. Once upon a time,
Republicans stood for expansion of social security. Once upon a time,
Republicans stood for broadened coverage in unemployment insurance. Once upon a
time, Republicans stood for improved housing. Once upon a time, Republicans
stood for better health protection for all our people. And once upon a time,
Republicans stood for being warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic
problems of our people.

Another Addicting Info
piece, by Nathaniel Downes, details how "progressive" used to be a word
you could apply to the Republican Party:

"When the word
progressive is thrown around in the politics of today, it is always tied to the
Democratic party. But it was not long ago where if the word was uttered, it only
applied to another party, a fresh upstart party which refused to "play ball"
with established power brokers. They took office and attacked corporate
interests, corruption, those oppressing labor unions or the minorities of this
nation.

What was this
miracle party, which put into its platform over 100 years ago that women are
equal to men, and that racism was unacceptable in this
nation?"

The Republican
Party, of course. But the Republican Party of history no longer exists. It
simply doesn't. Now they want "traditional family values" and fiscal
conservatism that are used as code words for organized bigotry and failed fiscal
policies. However, the right-wing propaganda machine has pushed this agenda onto
innocent Americans whom, in some cases, truly believe in that
cause.

Here are some
reasons why you should reconsider being a Republican:

Do you hate
women?

Let's face it. The
right wing has a war on women. I know, I know, there are Republican women that
disagree, but it simply isn't true. Let's concentrate on abortion, for now. In
the recent VP debate, Biden illustrated a point beautifully; he said he was
anti-abortion because of his personal beliefs but wouldn't push those

beliefs on others, while Ryan said there is no difference between his public and
personal agendas. If you don't believe abortion is right, don't get one!
However, you shouldn't restrict someone else's right to do what they
wish.

Not only that, but
here's where the hatred of women comes in: it is a fact that the same percentage
of women will seek out abortions whether or not they are legal. And back-alley
abortions end all too commonly in lethal hemorrhaging or sterility. Therefore
being anti-abortion is, in no way, being pro-life. You're just anti-choice,
which is interesting because the Republican Party claims to champion individual
rights.

Are you
racist?

If the answer is
yes, by all means be a Republican. I have no interest in associating with anyone
ignorant enough to truly judge someone from their region of origin. I don't even
view it as a type of hate; more a type of stupidity.

I don't mean to say
all Republicans are racist. That would be wrong. However, racism is accepted
by the right, and there is an undercurrent of white/male superiority that
can't help but be slightly racist by definition.

The acceptance of
racism on the right can be seen almost weekly; from direct hatred and bigotry
from a Republican legislator publishing a book that said slavery was a
blessing in disguise and that African-Americans are holding white kids
back in school, to the passive racism shown by Ann Romney saying Hispanics need
to "get past their bias." There seems to be a fear among conservatives that if
certain demographics achieve equality that somehow their own demographic will
suffer for it.

Do you believe in
religious freedom?

I've gone on and on
about the religiousness of the right wing
before, so I'll keep this short. The Republican obsession with
Christianity is a danger to this country, Christians and non-Christians alike.
First of all, we are not a Christian nation. If we suddenly decide to be, as
some of you reading this might wish, which sect of Christianity shall we select?
There are over 10,000 different versions in the United States alone. James
Madison said it excellently, "The same authority which can establish
Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same
ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other
sects."

If you value your
religious freedom, you value secularity of government. When we secularists say
we want "God" off of our money and out of our pledge, it's not because we
dislike your religion! It is because we love our country and value its
historical values (the pledge and money did not contain 'God' until 1954 and
1956 respectively). Would you want "Allah" in those places? I somehow doubt
it.

Do you believe in
personal freedom?

This one really
ties in to all of the above, with the addition of gay rights (uh oh). See, if
you value your personal freedom, why are you supporting a political
party that doesn't? They want to control what gender you have sex with, what you
do with your body, even what god you worship!

That isn't freedom.
That is facism. Bush the younger started that with his talk of "freedoms." There
are no "freedoms." There is simply freedom, or lack of it. For the record, if
you think "Obamacare" is taking away your freedom by forcing you to buy health
insurance, well, you need to stop watching Fox and go do some research into what
Obamacare really does.

When it comes to
same-sex marriage, if you have a religious reason for opposing why others get
married, go re-read the abortion one. It's a personal freedom. If you think a
couple of men that truly love each other in a romantic way are violating the
sanctity of marriage, well, I'll start to come around (no I won't) when there
aren't people with seven ex-spouses and 24-hour marriages "just for fun."
Marriage is no longer a sacred concept; individual bonds are. And there is no
reason you can justify for opposing it. If you believe in personal freedom,
well, you aren't a Republican.

Do you believe you
are intelligent?

If you do, you
aren't a good Republican, because your representatives treat you terribly. Let's
take Mitt Romney for example, and his 47% remark. If you're an avid conservative
and are already think of your arguments about my comments above to put in the
comments below, you probably really think that those 47% of people are
freeloaders that pay no taxes. Well, first of all, there are many taxes besides
Federal income tax (the tax Romney's statistic came from) and so those people --
the working poor, soldiers, and elderly -- have contributed regardless. However,
he insults his own constituency when he says that; red states have higher
welfare rates!

They think they can
control you. Don't let them.

Do you continue
doing things repeatedly when they've been proven not to
work?

If the answer is
yes, stay where you are! Fiscally irresponsible is a good way to describe
several of the more recent Republican administrations. To face facts, rampant
capitalism simply doesn't work. Superrich companies feel that they can privatize
their financial gains and socialize their losses, and that's exactly what
happens. Let's look at the facts. Back during the Democratic National
Convention, I did a piece regarding the fact
checking on Bill Clinton's speech.

Here's an excerpt
that both Bloomberg and FactCheck.org agree is absolutely
true:

Well, since
1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the
Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million
private-sector jobs. So what's the job score? Republicans: twenty-four million.
Democrats: forty-two."

The simple truth is
that the blue has been doing better fiscally for a while now. I'm sure that
you've seen economists that have argued the opposite, or political figures, but
we see that on both sides and the simple truth is that history shows the
Democratic side to be better economically. "Trickle-down" economics doesn't
work. By the way, am I the only one that thinks "trickle-down government"
doesn't even really make sense?

You should note I'm
not telling you to be democrats. I just wish you wouldn't be Republicans! Either
someone is lying to you, or you are lying. Either way you see it, it's sad. I
understand if you don't like the Democratic side. I just don't think you should
be part of the voter suppression crowd. Isn't that anti-democracy? These people
represent you! If you don't want to be blue, I understand. Just be purple. Or
green.

Start a new party
and get the Tea Partiers out of it at least.

I don't hold much
hope to this reaching any of them, unfortunately. Another fact is that
conservative rhetoric has been tied, in studies, to lazy thinking or simple
thinking. People that are busy or under the influence of a depressant are more
likely to have conservative ideals.

I wrote this in the
hope that a few Republicans will wake up and see what is happening. I somehow
doubt it.

Next week's
Opinions will explain bias in journalism and the errors on both sides;
don't miss it!

Why Republicans Have Been Fooled

Over here on the left, we have a bit of a joke. We say that there
are two types of Republicans; the manipulators, and the manipulated. I think
there are a few more. Those who are genuinely bigots, those who are willfully
ignorant, the manipulators mentioned above, and, lastly, those who have
romanticized the Republican Party for what it has done in days gone
by.

Let's be honest, progressives, liberals, and left-minded people:
the Republican Party of history has done some pretty awesome stuff. They haven't
always been obstructionists and voter suppression artists.

//
//

If
you didn't read last week's Opinions, wherein I dissected the
religiously-obsessed GOP platform for this year, you can find that here, or the one from the week before, here.

Little could you tell from current evidence, but the
Republican party used to be quite progressive. Here's an excerpt from one of my
colleague's
articles:

Where would you
guess the following quote came from?

"We are proud
of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic
human needs - expansion of social security - broadened coverage in unemployment
insurance - improved housing - and better health protection for all our people.
We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent
social and economic problems of our people."

If you guessed the
1956 Republican Party
Platform, congratulations! Once upon a time, Republicans stood for
far-reaching advances in matters of basic human needs. Once upon a time,
Republicans stood for expansion of social security. Once upon a time,
Republicans stood for broadened coverage in unemployment insurance. Once upon a
time, Republicans stood for improved housing. Once upon a time, Republicans
stood for better health protection for all our people. And once upon a time,
Republicans stood for being warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic
problems of our people.

Another Addicting Info
piece, by Nathaniel Downes, details how "progressive" used to be a word
you could apply to the Republican Party:

"When the word
progressive is thrown around in the politics of today, it is always tied to the
Democratic party. But it was not long ago where if the word was uttered, it only
applied to another party, a fresh upstart party which refused to "play ball"
with established power brokers. They took office and attacked corporate
interests, corruption, those oppressing labor unions or the minorities of this
nation.

What was this
miracle party, which put into its platform over 100 years ago that women are
equal to men, and that racism was unacceptable in this
nation?"

The Republican
Party, of course. But the Republican Party of history no longer exists. It
simply doesn't. Now they want "traditional family values" and fiscal
conservatism that are used as code words for organized bigotry and failed fiscal
policies. However, the right-wing propaganda machine has pushed this agenda onto
innocent Americans whom, in some cases, truly believe in that
cause.

Here are some
reasons why you should reconsider being a Republican:

Do you hate
women?

Let's face it. The
right wing has a war on women. I know, I know, there are Republican women that
disagree, but it simply isn't true. Let's concentrate on abortion, for now. In
the recent VP debate, Biden illustrated a point beautifully; he said he was
anti-abortion because of his personal beliefs but wouldn't push those
beliefs on others, while Ryan said there is no difference between his public and
personal agendas. If you don't believe abortion is right, don't get one!
However, you shouldn't restrict someone else's right to do what they
wish.

Not only that, but
here's where the hatred of women comes in: it is a fact that the same percentage
of women will seek out abortions whether or not they are legal. And back-alley
abortions end all too commonly in lethal hemorrhaging or sterility. Therefore
being anti-abortion is, in no way, being pro-life. You're just anti-choice,
which is interesting because the Republican Party claims to champion individual
rights.

Are you
racist?

If the answer is
yes, by all means be a Republican. I have no interest in associating with anyone
ignorant enough to truly judge someone from their region of origin. I don't even
view it as a type of hate; more a type of stupidity.

I don't mean to say
all Republicans are racist. That would be wrong. However, racism is accepted
by the right, and there is an undercurrent of white/male superiority that
can't help but be slightly racist by definition.

The acceptance of
racism on the right can be seen almost weekly; from direct hatred and bigotry
from a Republican legislator publishing a book that said slavery was a
blessing in disguise and that African-Americans are holding white kids
back in school, to the passive racism shown by Ann Romney saying Hispanics need
to "get past their bias." There seems to be a fear among conservatives that if
certain demographics achieve equality that somehow their own demographic will
suffer for it.

Do you believe in
religious freedom?

I've gone on and on
about the religiousness of the right wing
before, so I'll keep this short. The Republican obsession with
Christianity is a danger to this country, Christians and non-Christians alike.
First of all, we are not a Christian nation. If we suddenly decide to be, as
some of you reading this might wish, which sect of Christianity shall we select?
There are over 10,000 different versions in the United States alone. James
Madison said it excellently, "The same authority which can establish
Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same
ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other
sects."

If you value your
religious freedom, you value secularity of government. When we secularists say
we want "God" off of our money and out of our pledge, it's not because we
dislike your religion! It is because we love our country and value its
historical values (the pledge and money did not contain 'God' until 1954 and
1956 respectively). Would you want "Allah" in those places? I somehow doubt
it.

Do you believe in
personal freedom?

This one really
ties in to all of the above, with the addition of gay rights (uh oh). See, if
you value your personal freedom, why are you supporting a political
party that doesn't? They want to control what gender you have sex with, what you
do with your body, even what god you worship!

That isn't freedom.
That is facism. Bush the younger started that with his talk of "freedoms." There
are no "freedoms." There is simply freedom, or lack of it. For the record, if
you think "Obamacare" is taking away your freedom by forcing you to buy health
insurance, well, you need to stop watching Fox and go do some research into what
Obamacare really does.

When it comes to
same-sex marriage, if you have a religious reason for opposing why others get
married, go re-read the abortion one. It's a personal freedom. If you think a
couple of men that truly love each other in a romantic way are violating the
sanctity of marriage, well, I'll start to come around (no I won't) when there
aren't people with seven ex-spouses and 24-hour marriages "just for fun."
Marriage is no longer a sacred concept; individual bonds are. And there is no
reason you can justify for opposing it. If you believe in personal freedom,
well, you aren't a Republican.

Do you believe you
are intelligent?

If you do, you
aren't a good Republican, because your representatives treat you terribly. Let's
take Mitt Romney for example, and his 47% remark. If you're an avid conservative
and are already think of your arguments about my comments above to put in the
comments below, you probably really think that those 47% of people are
freeloaders that pay no taxes. Well, first of all, there are many taxes besides
Federal income tax (the tax Romney's statistic came from) and so those people --
the working poor, soldiers, and elderly -- have contributed regardless. However,
he insults his own constituency when he says that; red states have higher
welfare rates!

They think they can
control you. Don't let them.

Do you continue
doing things repeatedly when they've been proven not to
work?

If the answer is
yes, stay where you are! Fiscally irresponsible is a good way to describe
several of the more recent Republican administrations. To face facts, rampant
capitalism simply doesn't work. Superrich companies feel that they can privatize
their financial gains and socialize their losses, and that's exactly what
happens. Let's look at the facts. Back during the Democratic National
Convention, I did a piece regarding the fact
checking on Bill Clinton's speech.

Here's an excerpt
that both Bloomberg and FactCheck.org agree is absolutely
true:

Well, since
1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the
Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million
private-sector jobs. So what's the job score? Republicans: twenty-four million.
Democrats: forty-two."

The simple truth is
that the blue has been doing better fiscally for a while now. I'm sure that
you've seen economists that have argued the opposite, or political figures, but
we see that on both sides and the simple truth is that history shows the
Democratic side to be better economically. "Trickle-down" economics doesn't
work. By the way, am I the only one that thinks "trickle-down government"
doesn't even really make sense?

You should note I'm
not telling you to be democrats. I just wish you wouldn't be Republicans! Either
someone is lying to you, or you are lying. Either way you see it, it's sad. I
understand if you don't like the Democratic side. I just don't think you should
be part of the voter suppression crowd. Isn't that anti-democracy? These people
represent you! If you don't want to be blue, I understand. Just be purple. Or
green.

Start a new party
and get the Tea Partiers out of it at least.

I don't hold much
hope to this reaching any of them, unfortunately. Another fact is that
conservative rhetoric has been tied, in studies, to lazy thinking or simple
thinking. People that are busy or under the influence of a depressant are more
likely to have conservative ideals.

I wrote this in the
hope that a few Republicans will wake up and see what is happening. I somehow
doubt it.

This came in my in-box this morning from Justin Acuff. Part of waking up would be to admit being wrong and being willing to be bi-partisan, and be willing to think for oneself.  If Romney is as great as many would have us think, just why in the world has he been running so long. Also, I'd be very worried as thre is clear, concise evidence ( unless someone feels they need to manipulate history ) that we have not fared very well especially so in the last few Republican terms.  Lots of shame and blame going to President Obama with little mention of the fact that we were in shambles when he took office.  I know this last paragraph is covered ground, but my goodness.....you can think Pres. Obama is as wrong as wrong can be, but all the cheers in the world as well can't erase what Romney is and will continue to be. He is, as has been the case from the beginning, out for himself first and if there be something left, and there won't be much, you can stand in line hoping you might get a little.   Just my opinion as always, and it is not whether I am wrong, because I could be, but there are very heavy odds and the facts are all around to see if you allow yourself to look that I have a very good chance to be right. 

 Jackie

p.s.  sorry this is so long but I can't do links.  Will probably hear from the mods about this...oh my.

If Romney is as great as many would have us think, just why in the world has he been running so long.

Oh, man, Jackie - that reminds me of a great observation by Rachel Maddow the other night; she pointed out that some kindergarteners have not been alive as long as Romney has been running for president.

(of course, Nixon ran for ages and was elected too. )

Chiming in on Hilary/Obama - I liked Obama from the beginning, too. I was actually a John Edwards supporter initially, and disappointed when he didn't make it (and just as appalled and apoplectic as everyone else when it came out what a worthless, mendacious toad he really is). Hillary was interesting to me, but like many I was uncomfortable with the "dynastic" nature of what was shaping up: Bush/Clinton/Bush II/Clinton II... (followed by Bush III with Jeb?). And I really liked Barack Obama's personal narrative and the beliefs he has expressed in word and deed. There are things I would like to see him do more of, and -- as a bumper sticker I'm fond of says - Forward ... And a little more to the left."



The choice is so stark between Romney and Obama, though, that I cannot imagine someone who supported Hilary hating Obama so much that they would vote for Romney -- who is the very antithesis of what the Democratic Party stands for.



L