Sunday, June 08, 2008

Sunday: Too Hot

Sunday morning, sevenish. I just went outside for the paper, dreading that moment when you open the door and step outside and your body instantly breaks into a sweat, when the heavy humid air holds you down so it's hard to walk, hard to breathe. So far though it's not that bad. Yesterday was miserable. I went out and bought propane for my new in-advance-of-Father's-Day grill but there was no way I would stand out there over a fire. Maybe later today, maybe some evening this week. We stopped at some yard sales yesterday and people were sitting out there sweating and complaining. But man, you should see the recliner we got for five bucks.

Right now the birds of the neighborhood are singing about the coolness. I don't hear my favorites, the mockingbirds, I think they have wisely decided to sleep in, these sound like sparrows mostly chirping in the leaves of the trees. The whole neighborhood is full of the sound. They sound glad to be able to breathe and sing and move around without overheating.

I seem to have caught the cold that everybody has had. It went through my family, picking us off one at a time, and now I guess it's my turn. It's not worth complaining about, a little crud in the throat, some sneezing, some coughing. I sat down at ten last night -- Saturday night! -- to watch some TV (in that new recliner) and ended up falling asleep. Well, if this is all it is, then I guess I'll be all right.

Usually here we talk about strictly local things. But it seems to me that a lot of the attention, even in day to day conversation, has to do with national things. My wife bought groceries yesterday, and after an hour and a half at Safeway she came home with no meat. She could not force herself to pay those prices. Do you know why food is so expensive? Well, here's a clue. On Friday, the price of oil went up by more than ten dollars a barrel. You don't suppose it has anything to do with the White House's deal with top oil executives in the early days of this administration, do you? The oil companies want you to believe that there is something magical about a free-market ecnomony that forces them to charge what they charge for gasoline. They know the American public is too stupid to understand what it means when the oil corporations keep having record profits, all the facts point one way but they explain their "intentions" and we're supposed to believe that market pressures force us to pay four bucks a gallon while they get rich. And it's working, there is no big outcry in the US, people mutter under their breath but at least we've been trained not to cause trouble. But you see, even if you're talking about meat prices, it goes up to the federal government, we're getting screwed in everything we do at the personal level.

People tend to believe you when you say why you did something. I mean, really, as every thirteen-year-old girl knows, you can give somebody a fake name, make up a whole story about yourself, and they'll believe you. There is a certain agreement among people to tell the truth, and when somebody speaks we assume we can believe them. And that's fine when you're talking about objective things, say, which car went through the intersection first, things involving physical objects. It gets much more difficult when you are talking about people's motives. Like - why are we in a war in Iraq? Is it so our President could one-up his father? Is it for the defense contractors to get rich? To get the oil? Is it supposed to have something to do with 9/11? Uh, I know it's not this, but were we so opposed to a second-rate dictator that we invested our entire national treasury in removing him? Is it a religious war? Something as simple as that, the decision to go to war, and you try to untangle the reasons for it, and it's just impossible. So when the oil company guys pull out these charts and numbers and explain that it's not their fault that we can't afford to drive or eat any more, while they're making billions of dollars in profits, it just gets so complicated that you can't win. If you try to debate it with them you'll lose, because it will boil down to trivia. What they all need is a good spanking. Wouldn't that be fun? Just shut up and bend over, we don't want to hear what you say your reasons are. And don't try it again.

They're trying to use corn for fuel instead of petroleum products, and that affects food prices. They have to truck the produce from the farms and out of warehouses, and that affects prices. Everybody who works on the product has to drive to work, cowboys need to fill their pickup trucks, lettuce-pickers need to charge their iPods, slaughterhouses need to keep a jolt in their stun-guns, companies have to heat their buildings, everything depends on fuel. And so hamburger is four-something a pound.

The Democratic Party finally settled down this week, they picked a candidate. I watched some of Hillary's speech the other night when it was obvious she'd lost, and I kept waiting for the part where she supports Obama, that was a little frightening. She didn't want to quit, and I admire her for that. The two of them fought it out, and the Democrats definitely need somebody tough. When I saw both of them speak in one day in Iowa last year, I kind of liked her better. She seemed more professional, more knowledgeable about the details of policies, but he was an excellent speaker and a fast thinker. He'll be a quick study in the White House. At the end of the day I would be happy with either of them. Through the primaries, the Darwinian forces worked in favor of Barack Obama, his star began to rise early on and kept rising, and now he's the candidate, it looks like.

On the other side, the Senator from my home state of Arizona is running for the Republicans, which is just fine with me. Seems like a nice guy, funny, likeable. Let's see who wins, I'm not taking sides.

I'm not very interested in politics, you know. I am interested when I discover I don't make enough money to live on because of decisions that were made by elected government officials. I am interested when my kids' friends are being sent to fight in wars that don't make any sense. I am interested when polar bears are swimming for hundreds of miles looking for an iceberg because the ice cap is melting, and nobody wants to do anything about it. I do get interested when one of our most beautiful cities gets washed away and the clowns we elected stand around making jokes about it while people stand in their attics beating on the undersides of their roofs begging to be rescued. But the political process, the parties, all of that, not too interesting to me.

I'd like to say that none of this is really partisan politics, but you have to be aware that the Republicans, including Senator McCain, voted together unanimously on everything that has happened in the past seven years. An election year like this is going to produce a lot of stories, there will be a lot of lore to comment on. Imagine - a black man running for President of the United States! I mean, just imagine. And it's not because of his race, his race has nothing to do with it, he just seems like the best guy for the Democrats to run. This is amazing, a primary runoff between a woman and a black man. Things have definitely changed in this country. And imagine that, an old white guy on the other side. I suppose that makes the choice easy for some people.

Other stuff in the news lately - Scott McClellan's shocking book tells us that the Bush administration lied to us about Iraq. Who would've ever guessed? You know, I have two thoughts about all this. More than two, now that I think about it. First of all, like a lot of people I wonder how the guy stood up there and repeated the lies to us all those years -- it is really possible that he didn't figure this out at the time? Everybody else knew it was all lies, at least everybody who was paying attention. People who depended on the mass media got the government lies as fact, but with a big Internet out there it seems irresponsible to rely on those corporate sources. I've said all along that when the history of this era is written, it won't be about the Bush presidency, it will be about the media. So, first I tend to blame McClellan for going along with it, but I understand how it is when you're caught up in something. He worked with those guys, he heard their side of things all day long. I am being nice here, trying to give him a break.

Interestingly the news story with McClellan's book isn't the new revelations that the administration lied, the news is about him, about his disloyalty to his former boss. They analyze his motives, try to explain how somebody could switch sides like that. Well, I'll tell you, I think it would be interesting to stand at a quiet bar with Colin Powell, too, and have a beer, and find out what he thought about Bush and the run-up to the war. Quite a few people put their professional and personal reputations on the line and were humiliated. I imagine there may be a bitter one or two in the crop, especially all those people who resigned and retired to spend more time with their families.

One thing I haven't commented on here is the recent ruling in California about gay marriage. Gay people will be able to marry there now, but the issue will be on a referendum ballot in November. So the question is, if you choose to get married now, what will happen if they reverse the law? It will be the first time a constitutional amendment has been passed that takes away people's rights, for one thing, and I personally don't see that as a good sign. Lots of people are getting married, they say five hundred couples a day, and November's still a long way off. This will be a major mess if the referendum passes and all those marriages are ... what? Maybe somebody can write something in the comments here explaining how the situation will untangle. If people are legally married, wouldn't those marriages still be valid even if the state doesn't allow new ones?

I remember going to some gay-rights thing and they had a sign-up sheet that asked questions like, "Are you in a legal partnership now?" "What state was the partnership certified in?" Stuff like that, and I was not sure how to answer. I was married in California in a chapel with a judge presiding, my wife's uncle. It makes you realize how different things are for gay and straight people. I take all the privileges of marriage for granted -- this week my wife tried to find out something from Verizon about our cell-phone account and they wouldn't tell her, because my name is on the line, and we were mad about that. Imagine if you encountered that with everything you tried to do. Well, the fact is, the snowball is rolling, this is inevitable, it's just a matter of time but if I was gay I'd want it to happen sooner rather than later.

Our county might become a major test case for an issue that rarely receives media attention. Some conservative members of our community want to deny equal rights to transgender people, and have put forth an effort to get a referendum on the ballot in November to repeal new wording in the Montgomery County nondiscrimination law. They got signatures by telling people that this would endanger their privacy, that perverted men would be able to lurk in ladies rooms. People are against that, no doubt, but there's nothing in the law about shower-rooms or bathrooms. It's about discrimination. These are the exact same people who didn't want the schools to teach about sexual orientation, you tell me they're concerned about showers all of a sudden? They don't like the gay people, the transgender people, they don't believe they should be treated fairly. It's not hard to figure out. Will they get their way in our county? That is an open question. Man, I hope not.

It was amazing to see that the Family Blah Blah groups in Colorado are using the exact same approach to repeal a law out there that gives rights to gay people. I mean word for word exactly the same. Different issue, same propaganda, they say if gay people have rights then predators and pedophiles will hang out in the ladies room. It's crazy, but it worked here, so they're trying it out there.

Our local issue will be heard in court soon. There were many problems with the signatures that were gathered, but the county Board of Elections certified them and now some citizens have sued the Board. Hopefully a judge looks at the evidence and throws the referendum out. If that doesn't happen we will see a lot of attention paid to our little county. Our transgender friends will be in the news a lot. A bunch of political money will have to be invested on both sides. I really hope it doesn't come to that. The shower-nuts made their point, people really don't want men to hang out in the ladies room, but the people of MoCo are not interested in discriminating against people who really could use a little bit of kindness and respect.

If it comes up for election, the whole question -- the entire question -- will be whether the voters understand the issue.

Well, I've been sitting here off and on for more than three hours. The sun is beating down out there now through a nasty haze, the AC is going constantly (great, Pepco bills!), the air outside is heavy and dead and the birds have fallen silent back in the shadows of the branches. It's a good day to stay indoors, especially with this cold. I have four or five projects I'm working on, I'll listen to a little music, play with my camera (I found some software that lets you hack into the camera and make it do amazing things), my recording software, the food-dehydrator, my new grill, take it easy, maybe have a nap later. Sounds tough, doesn't it?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Greetings, Jim;

I've been watching the bathroom issue from afar. But like I infer from this post, the trans bathroom issue is really part of something larger.

The conservatives really want to defend the patriarchal Stern Father Family wold-view against anything that could call it into doubt.

Same-sex partnering calls it into doubt in a big way -- who's the 'father' and who's the 'mother' in a male-male or female-female family? You can't have a female taking on the husband/daddy role, because that would call into question the concept of the Stern-Father conservative world-view -- women can't be fathers. Believe me, that's why the severe handwringing over Mr. Thomas Beattie and his decision to bear their families' child.

Trans also tears at the heart of the stern-father construct. How dare someone give up their assigned role! Though, I do get a kick out of how female-to-male trans are completely invisible and overlooked by the conservatives. So the fear is of those who would give up the 'superior' male role for the 'inferior' female role.

What are they defending when they 'defend marriage'? (pardon the scare quotes.) Will there be less marriages if you allow same-sex couples to marry?

No, it's not about these two issues -- they are merely a small, yet potent part of larger issues. I think you brought up some very good examples in your post.

Food for thought -- what does same-sex marriage, transgender bathroom usage, the price of oil and the continuing occupation of Iraq have in common?


June 08, 2008 4:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's another reason food prices are high, namely shopping at Safeway. It wasn't just energy industry folks and other business types, but food suppliers also provided funding for Bush's 2004 reelection, and every one of them is counting on payback. Many food suppliers who were "encouraged" to support Bush by Safeway President Steven Burd. These food industry people are at least as greedy as the oil men and expect similar profit margins.

June 08, 2008 6:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like food executives need a spanking too.

June 08, 2008 6:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, as soon as Obama takes office we'll start to see some lower food and gas prices. Hopefully, our economy will become robust and stable again too.

June 08, 2008 6:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a not-so-surprising article from USA Today:

Tide is Turning on Marriage for Gay and Lesbian Couples
June 06, 2008
Rachel Balick

The following is from Elizabeth Feuerbach, HRC Communications and Marketing Intern. Elizabeth is a rising junior at American University in Washington, DC.


I came across a revealing new poll in a USA Today article that shows a majority of Americans support marriage equality. The USA Today/Gallup poll found six in 10 Americans say marriage for gay and lesbian couples should be “strictly a private decision.”

Respondents were given a variety of relationship scenarios and were then asked whether the decision to marry should be a private decision or if the government has the right to pass laws that prohibit or allow marriage. When asked about marriage for “two people of the same sex,” only 33% said the government has the right to decide. The poll also broke down the results by age, region, and religious and political beliefs:

A majority of respondents at every level of education and income say same-sex marriage is "strictly private." This was true:

* In every region: East (71%), West (64%), Midwest (63%) and South (56%).
* Among all ages except "65 and older": 18 to 29 (79%), 30 to 49 (65%), 50 to 64% (62%) and 65 and older (44%).
* Among people who also say they have a favorable view of any of the three leading presidential candidates. For those holding favorable views for John McCain, 55% say marriage is a private decision; for Barack Obama, 75% say so; and for Hillary Clinton, 69% do. All three oppose same-sex marriage. Both Democrats both favor civil unions.
* Among people who say a relative, friend or co-worker personally has told them he or she was gay or lesbian (73%).

The strongest support for government regulation of same-sex marriage came from people who say they:

* Are Republicans (56%).
* Attend religious services weekly (56%).
* Are politically conservative (54%).

So what does this mean for the upcoming election? According to one expert, the results suggest that Americans may react differently to anti-marriage initiatives than they did in 2004:

"Those initiatives … did have an impact in election results," says Mark Rozell, professor of public policy at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. "Turnout was 2.4% higher on average in those 11 states than the other 39 states."

But these poll findings "suggest caution" to conservative activists who think this will mobilize voters, he says. "People were warned, with lots of overheated rhetoric, about the consequences of gay marriage in Massachusetts. They didn't see it affect their own lives. Now, most people have let loose a collective yawn about the issue."

To check out the rest of the findings, visit

June 08, 2008 7:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"as soon as Obama takes office we'll start to see some lower food and gas prices"

Can we find an example of any economist who thinks this?

Exactly how would this happen?

How would Obama do this?

I thought all the liberals have been saying for years that gas prices are too low and we should raise them to lower consumption of gas.

When Obama becomes President and surrenders in Iraq, a war we are now winning, how will that affect oil prices?

June 09, 2008 5:12 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

These threads don't belong here; there are plenty of other blogs.

I do seem to recall, however, all the Bush cultists crowing about how Bush's invasion of Iraq will secure the Iraqi oil supply and reduce crude prices.

The only thing Bush has accomplished was to nearly quintuple oil prices for his business friends. A job well done.

June 09, 2008 7:39 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

...When Obama becomes President and surrenders in Iraq, a war we are now winning ...

Anon, I had never heard anyone mention that we were winning in Iraq -- in fact, I have not heard anybody define what winning would be -- and I had not heard anyone suggest surrendering. But it does raise a good question: who will President Obama surrender to?


June 09, 2008 7:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

“…and surrenders in Iraq, a war we are now winning…”

Ahh, FINALLY! Mission Accomplished! They should make a banner like that! ;)



June 09, 2008 8:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When Dumbya was inaugurated in January 2001, a barrel of oil cost under $22.

When Dumbya invaded Iraq in March 2003, a barrel of oil cost under $32.

When Dumbya sent the surge troops over in March 2007, raising levels from 132,000 (as they had been in Jan. 2007) to 152,000, a barrel of oil cost under $56.

A year later in March 2008, with "victory in Iraq" at hand, a barrel of oil cost under $96.

And as of May 2008, a barrel of oil cost under $109 and continues to climb through the roof.

I don't think anybody believes that toppling a third world dictator is "winning" or worth a 495% increase in the cost of a barrel of oil or worth the "Costs of the war

-- $435 million: Cost of Iraq war each day.

-- $526 billion: Cost of combat operations to date.

-- $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion: Estimated Afghanistan and Iraq combat costs through 2017.

-- $590 billion: Future costs of disability benefits and health care for Iraq war veterans.

-- $615 billion: Cost of interest on money borrowed to pay for the war.

-- $280 billion: Cost of replacing equipment and restoring U.S. military to prewar strength.

-- $16,500: Cost of the war to each U.S. family of four from 2003-2008.

-- $36,900: Cost of the war to each family if the war continues for 10 years.

-- $274 billion: Cost of increased oil prices related to the Iraq war, 2003-2008.

What $435 million per day could do

-- Enroll 58,000 children in Head Start.

-- Put 8,900 police officers on the street.

-- Provide health insurance to 329,200 low-income children.

-- Hire 10,700 Border Patrol agents.

-- Give Pell Grants to 163,700 college students.

-- Provide foreclosure prevention counseling to 260,000 families.

Sources: Estimates for combat operations costs: Congressional Research Service; Congressional Budget Office; estimates of other costs: "The Three Trillion Dollar War," by Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes; estimates of costs to U.S. families and impact on oil prices: Joint Economic Committee, Democratic staff. "

Who remembers the promise that Iraq's crude would pay for this war? What a pathetic joke that turned out to be! Nobody's laughing.

June 09, 2008 8:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aunt Bea said:

“Who remembers the promise that Iraq's crude would pay for this war?”

Well, this turned out to be true… W just thought it would pay for OUR expenses for the war – not theirs!



June 09, 2008 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I had never heard anyone mention that we were winning in Iraq --"

You need to expand your reading repertoire beyond the Blade and Rolling Stone. Both the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have said just that in their editorial pages in the last two weeks. The Post went so far as to say Obama needs to revise his policy on Iraq to explain how we can consolidate our victory.

"in fact, I have not heard anybody define what winning would be --"

Again, start listening. Victory is the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq that reflects the will of its people and that has a security structure to defend its constitution.

"and I had not heard anyone suggest surrendering."

Obama has suggested leaving before this has been accomplished, surrendering to anti-democratic forces.

"These threads don't belong here"

The moderator of the blog brought it up. If you don't like it, start your own blog that discusses your fave-or-right topic.

June 09, 2008 9:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mayberry Momma says:

"I don't think anybody believes that toppling a third world dictator is "winning" or worth a 495% increase in the cost of a barrel of oil or worth the "Costs of the war"

JFK says:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Bea, you are just the type of dangerous fool who has destroyed the Democratic Party and been responsible for the fact that they have held the White House for only 12 of the last 40 years. The damage that Lee Harvey Oswald caused makes him the worst American villain in history.

Anyone who doesn't see how the establishment of a free, prosperous and democratic Iraq will completely change forever the strategic Middle East is out of their minds. It's close to happening now. Let's not sacrifice a safer world for some short-sighted short-term false peace.

Wake up.

June 09, 2008 10:38 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I searched the Post for a recent piece saying that we're winning in Iraq, and couldn't find it. You say the NYT had something too, could you please provide URLs for those?

Getting out of Iraq has nothing to do with "surrendering." We don't have an enemy in Iraq to surrender to, the people there want us to leave, just like we would feel if a foreign country occupied our land. Their life is hell with us there. The way we win is by letting them run their own country. This was a dumb idea, and it is time for us to let it go.


June 09, 2008 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Scott McClellan's shocking book tells us that the Bush administration lied to us about Iraq"

This is a lie in itself. Here's a excerpt about his book:

"In the book, he accused Bush of "self-deception"[2] and of maintaining a "permanent campaign approach" to governing rather than making the best choices.[3] McClellan stopped short of saying that the president purposely lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, writing that the administration was not "employing out-and-out deception" to make the case for war in 2002,[4]"

Whether McClellan said so or not, did Bush lie? Sen Rockefeller, Democrat, released a report considering this question just last Thursday. In instance after instance, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, overall WMD, ballistic missiles, unarmed aerial vehicles, et al, Rockefeller's report ends with a repeated phrase, "confirmed by intelligence information". What we've learned is that the quality of intelligence information early in the 21st century sucked.

Why? Could be because we have more constraints on our intelligence community than most nations because we are committed to privacy and human rights concerns.

If so, we'll work on improving things while holding on to our principles. Let's resist blaming those who relied on the intelligence, though.

The lunatic fringe is lying. Bush didn't.

June 09, 2008 2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"but the people of MoCo are not interested in discriminating against people who really could use a little bit of kindness and respect."

No one has even remotely implied that anyone be required to discriminate against anyone. The law allows everyone to have any dealings they want with androgynuts.

Furthermore, if the people of MoCo feel this way, why is a law needed requiring them to do what they so eagerly desire to do?

June 09, 2008 2:21 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Sorry, Wyatt. Fred Hiatt of The Post is a Bush cultist who keeps dragging out the same tired intelligence which was cooked by cheney so he could make the case for his war.

If you think it's so important, why haven't you volunteered?

June 09, 2008 2:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

June 09, 2008 4:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
Unlike MN Anon who writes nonsense about everything, I read a lot of right wing blogs. Those people are angry with Bush- he has let them down in many ways- maybe different ways than us but they are unhappy with him. However Dubya is not unhappy- when he leaves office, his hands will be in the pockets of the oil rich Saudis just like his dad. Doing the sword dance with the Saudis didn't give us lower oil prices but it will cement his relationship

June 09, 2008 6:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The reason oil prices are high is because they are on an international market and not subject to price-fixing laws.

We could take military action to force Saudi Arabia to pump more oil and try to get international anti-trust laws passed, but I thought, at the beginning, you loonies were complaining that we just going to war for the oil and that such a motive was immoral.

I also thought you favored lower oil consumption to stop climate change. You should be overjoyed that Americans are cutting back on driving.

I think you're just hypocrites.

June 09, 2008 9:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh I'm awake Anon, and you seem to be too, but you need to take off the rose colored glasses. You do not see reality through them.

The latest "rationale" for invading Iraq, "bringing Democracy to the Middle East," is just that, the latest rationale after all the others -- Iraq's nuclear program, WMD, connection to Al Qaeda, etc. -- turned out to be bogus. You are dreaming if you think George Bush's blunder is going to remake the Middle East as some beacon of democracy. Ask gays in Saudi Arabia about freedom in that allied nation of ours. Ask women in Afghanistan about their freedom. Ask Katrina's victims about their own survival while Bush and Bushlite demonstrated their "Let them eat cake," attitude.

We could take military action to force Saudi Arabia...

Spoken like a true neocon who doesn't realize there are better options for getting nations to cooperate.

June 10, 2008 7:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
I don't favor getting more oil from Saudi by force and I wish people would conserve more-I would love to see fewer monster vans and SUVS whenever I park the little car. I was paraphrasing what I have read from the right wing blogs.

June 10, 2008 9:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The latest "rationale" for invading Iraq, "bringing Democracy to the Middle East," is just that, the latest rationale after all the others -- Iraq's nuclear program, WMD, connection to Al Qaeda, etc. -- turned out to be bogus."

And what is the rationale for leaving? Used to be because we can't win. Clearly not true.

The nuclear, WMD- it was based on intelligence information. Not just ours but intelligence agencies throughout the world. Saddam had, uniquely, used WMD against other nations and a subjugated region in Iraq. Furthermore, he was trying to make the international community think he was working on them. Also, interviews with former thugs in his regime indicate he was planning to resume this activity once he succeeded in having UN sanctions removed.

The bring "democracy to Mid East" isn't a new "rationale". It was articulated from the beginning.

The strogest rationale, however, is that he invaded a neighboring country, agreed to terms upon surrender, violated his agreement for over a decade and repeatedly attacked our military forces who were there enforcing the treaty. He was an aggressor against us and our interests.

"You are dreaming if you think George Bush's blunder is going to remake the Middle East as some beacon of democracy."

If the Arab street sees it working there, they will no longer be as susceptible to manipulation by agents of evil.

"Ask gays in Saudi Arabia about freedom in that allied nation of ours."

Not a democracy.

"Ask women in Afghanistan about their freedom."

A work in process. Ask how many of them want the Taliban back.

"Ask Katrina's victims about their own survival while Bush and Bushlite demonstrated their "Let them eat cake," attitude."

Oh, by all means, Iraq should be surrendered to terrorists because the government didn't act fast enough on a once-in-lifetime natural catastrophe here is America. Makes a lot of sense.

Again, you are dangerous anti-American zealot.

June 10, 2008 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

latest poll:

McCain 49%
Obama 44%
Nader 5%

June 10, 2008 2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And what is the rationale for leaving?

We didn't belong there in the first place. Personally I think Bush and Cheney and all the neocon thinkers like you should go clean up the mess you made.

If there had sufficient National Guard troops here defending this nation instead of nation building another new theocracy in Iraq (ala the US puppet Shah of Iran who was overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution), a lot more people would have survived Katrina.

June 10, 2008 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Obama 48%
McBush 41%

June 10, 2008 2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We didn't belong there in the first place."

We were invited by our allies to rollback the invasion of Kuwait and by the U.N. to enforce the deal that allowed Saddam to stay in power.

When we decided to invade Iraq to enforce the U.N. resolutions (after a decade of patience, mind you), there wasn't any protest from Saddam's neighbors. The people of Iraq partied in the streets when he fell.

"Personally I think Bush and Cheney and all the neocon thinkers like you should go clean up the mess you made."

Me? Personally, I think we should never have become involved after the Kuwait invasion. A place where our soldiers were not allowed to carry Bibles outside their base doesn't seem like a country we should fight for. After that, however, we needed to finish what we started.

June 10, 2008 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...



Interesting website. Even your biased source had McCain leading a week ago.

No matter. My polling source is more accurate.

June 10, 2008 3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...



Interesting website. Even your biased source had McCain leading a week ago.

You moron. Try using the scroll button. My link had every polling source and most of them show Obama on top. Get real.

No matter. My polling source is more accurate.

And which polling place is that?

June 10, 2008 10:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If that doesn't happen we will see a lot of attention paid to our little county. Our transgender friends will be in the news a lot."

Let's hope so. You need to get them on camera and interviewed as much as possible.

June 10, 2008 10:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My link had every polling source and most of them show Obama on top. Get real."

Oh my gursh!

Your first listed poll had McCain ahead on June 2, 3 and 4.

Seems like only a week ago.

Wait, it was!

June 10, 2008 10:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ignore 99% of the polls, but cling to those three where McBush's lead of a single point was within the margin of error, like they're life preservers!

What a great demonstration of your inability to deal with reality!

You've failed to provide us with "your" polling source that supposedly shows McBush on top this week. What's the matter, can't you provide it because it doesn't exist or because it's so tainted it embarasses even you? Which is it? We'll just have to guess while you hide out.

June 11, 2008 6:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're really gone, pal. Do you really think Americans are going to vote for some guy with less than one term as Senator for experience who wants to surrender in a war we're winning and wants to have the presidentes of North Korea and Iran over for lunch. Then he and his wife could bond with over how they never really "believed" in America?

Read the polls.

June 11, 2008 7:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"but cling to those three"

didn't "cling" to anything, you moron

I simply looked at what you put up and saw McCain leading less than a week ago

TTFers always post links and think people won't actually go to them and read them

guess you got a surprise

June 11, 2008 7:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's no surprise is your selective reading. 99% of those polls show Obama on top and all you can talk about are the exceptions to reality.

June 11, 2008 7:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TTFers always post links and think people won't actually go to them and read them

Only a moron like you would make such a comment after I sent you back to my link and suggested you "Try using the scroll button."

June 11, 2008 7:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think I limit it to the last couple of weeks. There's no point going through months of polls.

You seem quite touchy on this topic. I'm sure you know O-bomb-a ain't got a twinkie's chance in Bill Clinton's pantry.

Do you really think Americans will prefer a aloha-raised socialist neophyte to a man with a history of integrity, alienating his own party with principle, and who faced torture at the hands of Communists and stood tall? Obama is a nice story because his nomination shows we've overcome our prejudices but the real campaign starts now and the euphoria is fading as the reality of our nation's needs come in to focus.

The Democrats have a history of blowing it but this is one for the history books. We're talking 1972, baby!

June 11, 2008 10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's no point going through months of polls.

There's no point in pretending its 1972 either, moron. The times they have a'changed even more.

You still haven't used the scroll button have you? Nobody's talking about "months of polls." That website I posted has all the current polls from CNN, Investor's Business Daily, CBS News, USA Today/Gallup, Cook Political Report, Pew Report, Newsweek, Reuters/Zogby, Investor's Business Daily, Democracy Corps, George Washington University, Quinnipiac University, ABC/Washington Post, etc.

The CNN poll that includes Nader and covered the week of June 4, shows McBush 43% Obama 47% Nader 6% Barr 2%. The Rueters/Zogby poll covering May 15-18 shows McBush 37% Obama 47% and Nader 4%. The Diageo/Hotline poll through May 3 shows McBush 40% Obama 45% and Nader 5%.

So which poll supposedly shows your figures with McBush on top? If you can't produce it, we'll know you were lying.

June 12, 2008 7:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's actually almost exactly like 1972. Only difference is McCain is more well-liked than Nixon. Obama is as wacky as McGovern and will probably pick an Eagleton for VP. Get back to us in November.

We'll pick a special Supreme Court justice just for you!

June 12, 2008 8:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The CNN poll that includes Nader and covered the week of June 4"

With all the polls to choose from, what was wrong with the first one you listed, Gallup, which had McCain ahead on that same date?

Why don't you face facts: it's a toss-up right now but Americans know McCain better than Obama and the revelations to come aren't likely to break Obama's way.

Americans are looking for change. McCain has been public in his criticism of the way Bush administration has handled the war for years and has never hesitated to be a restraining force on the worst excesses of his party. In short, he has display conviction and integrity.

Obama, on the other hand, has sheepishly followed the Democratic agenda, voting on party lines a whopping 99% of the time during his scant time in the Senate and is still clinging to a war proposal that's a year out of date.

If you're a Democrat, this is a time to be nervous! If, after the egregious blunders of the current administration, the opposition party is still in a dead heat, something is wrong. If they had nominated an experienced stateman with a solid record like, say, Joe Biden, they'd be a shoo-in.

As it is, Democrats have again squandered their good fortune. Sad.

Mister, we could use a man like JFK again.

June 12, 2008 10:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We see who's nervous, Anon. It's the one who keeps babbling about McBush being something new when everybody knows he's just another old tired white conservative guy, just like you!

June 12, 2008 1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You and your friends in Iran and North Korea can keep dreaming.

June 12, 2008 4:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mister, we could use a man like JFK again.

And we're going to have one -- his name is Barack Obama.

June 17, 2008 8:12 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Hello sir, I got you by Google search.

Hi just off subject .do anyone recommend what is a good identity theft prevention out there? please visit online Vigilance for developing of people. Membership is free so please sign up to become a member of Tasmania's largest online Vigilance community. Some individuals have bad views about pickups offered on group promotion at Cheap trucks for sale, considering that many of the designs on group team group community public auction are already badly damaged and with extensive issues. While this can be actual, not all designs were badly handled and irresponsibly used by their previous business owners. Actually, there is some Auction for pickups that are a little bit used with low utilization, and they look like item new; they are also in perfect managing scenario, yet they are still well known at very low expenses.

Thanks For Very Interesting Post.

April 03, 2013 8:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home