Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Merry Christmas

The Victim Right seems to believe you can't say "Merry Christmas" any more. Brad Paisley, who I normally like, has the stupidest country and Western record out, where they bleep the word Christmas as if it were censored, even though every country station in the USA plays nothing but Christmas music at this time of year. Facebook is full of stupid things suggesting that telling someone "Merry Christmas" is an act of rebellion against the dark forces of political correctness.

A person who has grown up celebrating the Christmas holiday remembers sleepless childhood nights waiting for the sound of hooves on the roof, family dinners, gifts and carols, the smell of the tree, and probably has the best intention in greeting the friend or stranger with a hearty "Merry Christmas." On the other hand, there may be a communication issue; the salutation may not mean what you think it means to someone who does not celebrate that particular religious holiday. If you are a business you might not want to alienate clients of different faiths by seeming to impose your beliefs on them, and if you want to make your non-Christian colleague feel the warmth of the season you might give a more carefully chosen greeting, a generic "Happy holidays!" or something tailored to the other person's tradition. And if you are a government you will not express the sentiments of a particular religion at all, in deference to the higher principle of freedom for all.

The native people of Europe and lands around the Mediterranean celebrated the winter solstice as a time of awe and rebirth, and a conquering church came in and imposed its alien terminology on the annual festivities. Now the reborn sun-god will be called "Jesus," and we will associate him with the rabbi quoted in the Gospels. Some of the symbols of Christmas are mentioned in the Bible, though there is no Biblical suggestion that Jesus was born at the winter solstice. The decorated tree, the lights, gift-giving, reindeer, elves, the gathering of family, feasting, and other symbols of Christmas celebration are not even given a religious coating, they are purely pagan customs continued under a new rationale. Christmas as it is practiced in America is Yule under a different dogmatic regime.

The history of it may be sketchy, but at the same time, what holiday is better? Christmas is about the excitement of children, it's about hope and imagination and love, the message of peace on earth and good will to men is not a liberal talking-point but a central feature of this beautiful celebration. I'm for it.

It was beautiful to get some snowfall yesterday. In the best way, regardless of religion, I hope that our readers are snuggled in warmly with family and good food, and that we are all healthy and prosperous in the coming year. To all, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

63 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

And if you are a government you will not express the sentiments of a particular religion at all, in deference to the higher principle of freedom for all.

Oh Dear, Christmas Day is a Federal holi
day. What was congress thinking?
Merry Christmas

December 26, 2012 9:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Victim Right seems to believe you can't say "Merry Christmas" any more."

uh, Jim, I don't know how to break it to you but kids in lower Montgomery County schools are corrected whenever they utter "Christmas" regardless of whether it's in the form of a greeting or any other reference

the ostensible rationale is that it may make others feel uncomfortable

I also get the feeling Christian believers are a minority in this area but I've not detected any effort to protect them from religious discrimination

"A person who has grown up celebrating the Christmas holiday remembers sleepless childhood nights waiting for the sound of hooves on the roof, family dinners, gifts and carols, the smell of the tree, and probably has the best intention in greeting the friend or stranger with a hearty "Merry Christmas." On the other hand, there may be a communication issue; the salutation may not mean what you think it means to someone who does not celebrate that particular religious holiday."

that someone should really get over themselves

"If you are a business you might not want to alienate clients of different faiths by seeming to impose your beliefs on them,"

it's quite a trip from trying to exploit Christians to alienating "clients of different faiths"

my guess is, other than atheists, no one is alienated

"and if you want to make your non-Christian colleague feel the warmth of the season you might give a more carefully chosen greeting, a generic "Happy holidays!" or something tailored to the other person's tradition."

if you think of it, that might be nice but, really, wishing them Merry Christmas is no offense

they're still likley to feel warm

December 27, 2012 2:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And if you are a government you will not express the sentiments of a particular religion at all, in deference to the higher principle of freedom for all."

ridiculous

our current President has held celebrations for Christmas, Passover and Ramadan, among others

"The native people of Europe and lands around the Mediterranean celebrated the winter solstice as a time of awe and rebirth, and a conquering church came in and imposed its alien terminology on the annual festivities. Now the reborn sun-god will be called "Jesus," and we will associate him with the rabbi quoted in the Gospels. Some of the symbols of Christmas are mentioned in the Bible, though there is no Biblical suggestion that Jesus was born at the winter solstice. The decorated tree, the lights, gift-giving, reindeer, elves, the gathering of family, feasting, and other symbols of Christmas celebration are not even given a religious coating, they are purely pagan customs continued under a new rationale. Christmas as it is practiced in America is Yule under a different dogmatic regime."

well, ancient celebrations that didn't get the religious coating didn't survive so the ones that did are, in effect, of Christian source

still, what you say is somewhat true

I've never understood why those who object to the Christian message don't just celebrate all the fun stuff that has no obvious religious connotations

I recently read one of those advice columns in the paper where an atheist wrote in asking what she should do with her kids this time of year when their friends are celebrating Christmas

the columnist said get them a tree and read them the Christmas story because "kids love that story"

"The history of it may be sketchy, but at the same time, what holiday is better? Christmas is about the excitement of children, it's about hope and imagination and love, the message of peace on earth and good will to men is not a liberal talking-point but a central feature of this beautiful celebration. I'm for it."

dude, you should try an old mainstream church like Lutheran or Methodist

you'd probably find most people there, at least in this part of the country, share your point of view

"It was beautiful to get some snowfall yesterday. In the best way, regardless of religion, I hope that our readers are snuggled in warmly with family and good food, and that we are all healthy and prosperous in the coming year. To all, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year."

Aloha and Happy Cliff Diving!!

December 27, 2012 2:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A new poll finds the public’s fears over the looming “fiscal cliff” growing, as the year-end deadline for a deficit deal nears.

Fifty percent of those surveyed in a new Gallup poll released Wednesday believe President Obama and lawmakers will reach an agreement to avoid January’s set of tax increases and automatic spending cuts. Forty-eight percent are doubtful a deal will be reached in time.

Those figures represent a drop in optimism from the last poll, taken on Dec. 16, which showed 57 percent saying that a deal would be struck and 40 percent believing a deal unlikely.

The poll also finds growing confidence in Democratic leaders’ handling of negotiations. Fifty-four percent approve of Obama’s efforts in talks, up from 48 percent last week.

Forty-five percent approve of how Democratic leaders in Congress have handled negotiations, up from 34 percent in a poll taken Dec. 15-16. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has seen approval for his role in talks rise from 24 to 34 percent.

But the poll does not show a similar boost for Republican negotiators. Approval for Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) handling of fiscal talks rose only 1 percentage point, from 25 to 26 percent. Respondents also showed less confidence in Republican leaders in Congress, with 26 percent approving of how they have handled the deficit talks, down from 29 percent in the last poll.

Polls have consistently shown that the public will blame Republicans more if talks fail, and the president has sought to rally public support for his stance calling for tax hikes on the wealthy.

The poll’s results come as Obama is cutting short his vacation in Hawaii to return to Washington on Wednesday to resume negotiations. The House and Senate are also slated to be in session on Thursday.

Negotiators have less than a week to craft a deal before the nation falls over the fiscal cliff, a move economists warn could spark a new recession.

Gallup also finds that more Americans are paying attention to the negotiations. Thirty-four percent said they are following news about the talks “very closely,” the highest level of attention Gallup has found yet.

Voters also are pressing leaders to reach a deal. Sixty-eight percent say negotiators should “compromise” to 22 percent who urge them to “stick to principles” in talks.

The Gallup poll was conducted from Dec. 21-22 and has a 4-point margin of error.

December 27, 2012 4:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if these polls are correct, and I have no reason to believe they aren't, the American people are ignorant

no deal needs to be reached to avoid the "fiscal cliff"

Congress can cancel it at any time

indeed, the House of Representatives have already passed a bill to do this and Reid refuses to bring it up for a vote

if the Senate would pass it and Obama signed it, the fiscal cliff goes away

Obama is simply blackmailing the country to push his agenda

ever see Godfather II?

Michael Corleone meeting with a Senator in the boathouse in Lake Tahoe:

"Senator, I offer you nothing. And I would appreciate it you would personally cover my fee."

Obama is channeling this.

If Obama thinks the people have given him a mandate to raise taxes on the rich, he can send a bill to do that after the year-end.

He and Reid could probably even pass it in the House by combining Dems with a minority of Repubs. They'd probably have to raise the definition of rich from 250K to a million, but since Reid and Obama want this, it's their obligation to put together a coalition and do the negotiating.

What Obama really wants is to raise taxes and later say the Republicans agreed with him when our economy sinks as a result.

No can do. He's going to have to do some actual work for that fat salary and nice house we give him.

In teh meantime, Reid and Obama should cooperate and cancel the cliff.

December 28, 2012 10:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Obama and Reid can agree on the million threshold, they would still need to get Boehner to agree to bring it up for a vote, wouldn't they ?

I thought that boehner and reid both controlled whether a vote comes up or doesn't come up in their respective houses, regardless of whether there is enough votes to pass it or not ...

true ?

December 28, 2012 11:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boehner would be happy to have that vote

he tried last week

it didn't pass because there were a couple dozen Repubs that vote against and no dems that supported

If Reid and Obama support it, Dems in the House will and enough Repubs will

they don't because they want Repubs to share ownership of the tax increase

dirty little secret: Obama wants to go over the cliff

but when we do, everyone will quickly realize how much the Bush tax cuts helped the lower income population

millions who don't pay taxat all now will suddenly have to

December 28, 2012 12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

President Barack Obama gave a New Year's gift to returning members of Congress and Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday, signing an executive order calling for an end to a years-long pay freeze.

As of March 27, 2013, Congress and Biden will see a pay increase, marking the end of a pay freeze that has been in place since late 2010. Congress hasn't seen a pay raise since 2009.

According to the order, Biden's pay will increase from $225,521 to $231,900 a year, before taxes. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will see his salary increased to $224,500 and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will take home an annual pay of $194,400 after his raise.

The raise won't take place until the 113th Congress, meaning that outgoing members will see no effect from the order.

Obama ordered the raise as he continues to negotiate unsuccessfully with congressional leaders to coerce concessions from elected members of COngress in exchange for not vetoing an extension of current tax rates at the end of the year. If Obama vetoes an extension, over $500 billion in planned tax increases will be implemented.

December 28, 2012 8:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

odd that Biden and Congressmen all make less than 250K

surprise, they're not rich

December 28, 2012 8:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

guess it depends on whether their wives work, probably not,
they are probably all running side businesses soliciting favors from their husbands.

December 29, 2012 3:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

justify 200 single and 250K married as opposed to 200K single and 400K married while you're at it, and I would love to hear the working moms respond. are they any on ttf ? no I guess not.

December 29, 2012 3:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As I finally going to bed after spending hours trying to figure out what I am going to cut to make the numbers work without moving.

It occurs to me that the govt hasn’t been through this exercise in the past 4 years.
Because, the democrats, because of their refusal to pass a budget, have given our govt an unlimited credit card (until of course the debt limit is reached at which point the Republicans become the bad guys for not raising the credit card limit for folks that never bother to submit a budget plan).

Wow. Aren’t the republicans stupid ?
If I were in charge, I would simply suspend every single operation of govt until a budget was passed.

Someone did that before when the irresponsible and completely out of control spending dems failed to pass a budget. That man was Newt Gingrich.
Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner is NO Newt Gingrich. Or we would have a solution.

The Republicans can shut down the govt.
And so they should. We elected them to DO THAT.

If you spend 50 cents on the dollar over what you take in, you would shut off a credit card to your child that you had extended, wouldn’t you ?
But we won’t.

Because our current Republicans have no balls.
Damn shame I am not in charge. This crisis would be fixed immediately.
I would shut the govt down.

December 29, 2012 3:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

on the bright side, if we go off the cliff, Americans can start seeing how much they have to pay to support Obama's spending

it's easy to support borrowing money your kids will have to pay back or suggest raising taxes on people who are richer than you

if everyone has to share in paying for it, support for Big Barack Government will fade

and the Republicans who resisted and insisted on spending cuts and keeping taxes reasonable will be positioned to take the Senate in 2014

December 29, 2012 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to a study from the Pew Research Center, African-Americans may have voted at a higher rate than whites for the first time in history in the 2012 election.

While the actual numbers can’t be known with certainty until the U.S. Census Bureau publishes the results of its post-election survey on voter turnout next spring, the Pew study finds strong circumstantial evidence that black voters’ turnout rate was indeed higher than white voters’ in November. As the study notes,

[A]ccording to census data and the election day exit polls, blacks made up 12 percent of the eligible electorate this year but accounted for an estimated 13 percent of all votes cast—a repeat of the 2008 presidential election, when blacks “over-performed” at the polls by the same ratio.

Black voters have now seen their turnout rate rise in each of the past three presidential elections. By contrast, the study found that white voters’ “share of the eligible electorate has been falling for decades,” and “their turnout rate appears to have declined in 2012 for the second presidential election in row.”

The high turnout rate is particularly notable in light of the voter ID laws that many critics believe were invented with the express purpose of disenfranchising minority voters. Some observers, such as The Nation’s Ari Berman, have argued convincingly that these efforts may have backfired and actually made black voters more motivated to cast a ballot; these numbers are consistent with Berman’s conclusion.

The numbers should also serve as a glaring warning sign for the Republican Party. According to exit polls, President Obama won an overwhelming 93 percent of black voters nationally, and that trend was magnified in swing states (in Ohio, for example, African-Americans comprised 15 percent of the electorate — up 4 percent from 2008 — and Obama won 96 percent of their votes).

Many GOP leaders have acknowledged that the party must do a better job attracting Latinos and women in future elections, but few Republicans have publicly called for greater outreach to African-Americans. That is a huge political miscalculation. Black voters were a major key to the Democratic victory in 2012, and as this Pew study suggests, they are trending towards playing an increasingly important role in the future.

December 29, 2012 11:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The numbers should also serve as a glaring warning sign for the Republican Party."

actually, your type of article should be a glaring warning for minorities

if you succeed in making all political activity racist, whites will eventually follow suit and bury candidates backed by minorities

wouldn't it be better for everyone if we focused on our common issues rather than finding ways to divide us?

"According to exit polls, President Obama won an overwhelming 93 percent of black voters nationally,"

gee, imagine if whites voted in such a racist manner

"Many GOP leaders have acknowledged that the party must do a better job attracting Latinos and women in future elections, but few Republicans have publicly called for greater outreach to African-Americans."

Republicans have done plenty over the years to appeal to blacks and are always open to new ideas. Enterprise zones for the inner city, school choice, the Bush tax cuts which made it possible for low-income minorities to pay no income tax, earned income credits which disproportionately benefit minorities, et al.

There are plenty of reasons for blacks to vote Republican. It's hard to think of a reason why they don't except the media viciously attacks any black who isn't a Democrat. Think Clarence Thomas and then the recent example of a journalist saying RGIII isn't black enough because he's a Republican.

"That is a huge political miscalculation. Black voters were a major key to the Democratic victory in 2012, and as this Pew study suggests, they are trending towards playing an increasingly important role in the future."

It's just reality. If blacks vote for Democrats regardless of policies or circumstance, they've made themselves irrelevant.

Demographically, they are declining as a percent of the overall population and, again, have no rational conmplaint against the Republican Party so it's disappointing but just one of those things.

December 29, 2012 1:42 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

IO Saturnalia!

December 30, 2012 9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

early poll for 2012 out and shows Rubio tied for second place with Christie among Republicans

meanwhile, no member of a minority is listed in the top three among Democrats

most be a mix-up since, as the press has informed us repeatedly, Republican are old, angry white men and Dems are a freakin' rainbow of diversity

yeah, there must be a mistake



December 30, 2012 12:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama Most Admired in 2012

"PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans again this year name Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama as the Most Admired Woman and Most Admired Man living in any part of the world. Clinton has been the Most Admired Woman each of the last 11 years, and Obama has been the Most Admired Man five years in a row...."

December 31, 2012 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Happy New Year, All.

December 31, 2012 10:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BALTIMORE — Same-sex couples in Maryland were greeted with cheers and noisemakers held over from New Year's Eve parties, as gay marriage became legal in the first state south of the Mason-Dixon Line on New Year's Day.

James Scales, 68, was married to William Tasker, 60, on Tuesday shortly after midnight by Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake inside City Hall.

"It's just so hard to believe it's happening," Scales said shortly before marrying his partner of 35 years.

Six other same-sex couples also were being married at City Hall. Ceremonies were taking place in other parts of the state as well.

The ceremonies follow a legislative fight that pitted Gov. Martin O'Malley against leaders of his Catholic faith. Voters in the state, founded by Catholics in the 17th century, sealed the change by approving a November ballot question.

"There is no human institution more sacred than that of the one that you are about to form," Rawlings-Blake said during the brief ceremony. "True marriage, true marriage, is the dearest of all earthly relationships."

Brigitte Ronnett, who also was married, said she hopes one day to see full federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Maryland, Maine and Washington state were the first states to approve same-sex marriage by popular vote, in November, a development Ronnett said was significant.

"I think it's a great sign when you see that popular opinion is now in favor of this," said Ronnett, 51, who married Lisa Walther, 51, at City Hall.

...In total, nine states and the District of Columbia have approved same-sex marriage. The other states are Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont.

January 01, 2013 8:52 AM  
Anonymous Consequences said...

Right-wing Fox News host Sean Hannity has seen his ratings collapse in the wake of the 2012 election, suggesting that there may be some consequences for terrible punditry after all.

The New York Daily News reports that Hannity has lost roughly half of his audience since Election Day, according to Nielsen ratings. Among viewers between 25 and 54 years old — the most lucrative demographic for advertisers — Hannity’s losses were even greater.

There’s no way of telling exactly why viewers are fleeing Hannity’s show, but the most likely explanation for his ratings plunge is his outrageously inaccurate analysis of the 2012 presidential election. Many conservative pundits wrongly predicted that Mitt Romney would win the election, but few were as vehement as Hannity, whose show seemed to take place in an alternate right-wing reality.

Hannity’s more reality-based competitors in the 9pm timeslot have not suffered the same ratings decline. According to the Daily News, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has hung on to most of her audience, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper has lost “almost none” of his viewers post-election. Making matters worse for Hannity, in December Maddow has been beating him in the ratings among the crucial 25-54 demographic. It was on Hannity’s show, for example, that Dick Morris infamously declared that Romney would win the popular vote by 4 or 5 percent, winning Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, and Pennsylvania on the way to a landslide; Morris later admitted that he was consciously lying to Hannity’s viewers in a failed effort to help Romney’s campaign. Hannity also frequently hosted Karl Rove, Peggy Noonan, and Ann Coulter, among other commentators who confidently declared that President Obama’s campaign was dead in the water.

January 01, 2013 10:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the Democrats got a big victory on the fiscal cliff, right?

but only because they changed their tune

after 12 years of demagogueing the Bush tax cuts as the cause of all our troubles, they voted yesterday to make 84% of them permanent

and now we will deal with spending, lifting the debt limit and tax reform in two months

and Dems have no cards left to pay except to threaten to raise taxes on the middle class, which is the only way to afford the socialist state Obama envisions

January 02, 2013 11:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, the House GOP and its fans are just tickled pink with the way the vote went.

'DEFEAT AND SURRENDER'
DEAL SPARKS CONSERVATIVE FREAK-OUT


@newtgingrich
Newt Gingrich
The gop has been engaged in a two month dance of defeat and surrender! I hope tonight is the end of this self defeating strategy

@realDonaldTrump
Donald J. Trump
I am a Republican...but the Republicans may be the worst negotiators in history!

@DRUDGE
MATT DRUDGE
SOBER New Year: First it was Chief Justice doing the dirty. Now Republicans raising taxes on ON 77% OF HOUSEHOLDS! Surrender guns next...

@michellemalkin
Michelle Malkin
Dear House Dems: You won. Just shut. Up. And. Vote.

@RepMarthaRoby
Rep. Martha Roby
Headed back to meet with fellow GOP House members. Earlier today many of us expressed disappointment with the plan passed by the Senate.

@EWErickson
Erick Erickson
Sad to see so many Republicans patting themselves on the back saying, "It's okay. It's really a tax decrease because its Tuesday."

@JedediahBila
Jedediah Bila
Gotta love watching some Republicans bend over backwards to support policies they just spent months condemning.

Fiscal Cliff Deal Passed By Congress After Republicans Cave

January 02, 2013 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

haha!!

these quotes are meaningless

the Dems have been saying for years that the cause of all economic troubles is the Bush tax cuts

now, they've made EIGHTY-FOUR PECENT of them permanent

acknowledgement that Bush had it right all along

Obama thinks he had a mandate to raise taxes on the rich

he talked about nothing else during the campaign

he said we just need to ask the wealthy to pay a "liiitle bit more"

he got it, at the price of extending Bush's tax cuts PERMANENTLY

now, even he doesn't think he has any more "mandate"

and the House Republicans, who were all re-elected as well, have a mandate to cut spending

fasten your seat belt fellas!

January 02, 2013 1:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

more problems with gay marriage:

"TOPEKA, Kan. — A Kansas man who answered an online ad to donate sperm to a lesbian couple is fighting efforts to force him to pay child support for the girl subsequently conceived through artificial insemination.

Department of Children and Families spokeswoman Angela de Rocha said Wednesday that the agency would not be pursuing payment if the state hadn't provided more than $6,000 in benefits for the child after the Topeka couple split. She says the state tries to establish a child's paternity when benefits are involved.

Court records show that the sperm donor, 46-year-old William Marotta, signed an agreement in March 2009 giving up parental rights to the then-couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner. The agreement also absolves Marotta of financial responsibility. The state contends the agreement isn't valid."

January 02, 2013 5:02 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "more problems with gay marriage:"

The exact same thing would be happening if the couple he donated sperm to had been heterosexual with an infertile husband.

So this is as much a problem with heterosexual marriage as it is with gay marriage. Further, Kansas does not even allow same sex marriages so to say this is a problem caused by gay marriage is doubly stupid.

You're not even trying anymore. Next time try thinking for a bit before you eagerly run off to your computer to in a fatuous attempt to portray gay marriage as a problem. I know, I know - thinking is too much to ask of you.

Bad anonymous is getting pretty desperate when this is the best example he can come up with to show why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Of course, this kind of pathetic stupidity IS the best reason he can come up with for denying gays the right to marry - there simply aren't any valid reasons to discriminate, that's why every year gay rights wins more and more battles. There's no going back, we're inevitably going to win it all.

January 02, 2013 6:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The exact same thing would be happening if the couple he donated sperm to had been heterosexual with an infertile husband."

would be?

I guess, theoretically, it COULD happen

but that's the point

it doesn't

this is just another indication of the fleeting, superficial nature of homosexual "relationships"

"So this is as much a problem with heterosexual marriage as it is with gay marriage."

apparently not

this hasn't been happening in real marriages

"Further, Kansas does not even allow same sex marriages"

and this kind of thing is why

"so to say this is a problem caused by gay marriage is doubly stupid."

cause, effect, yada yada

the point is that gay couples want to play "marriage" and make it look real but there is no commitment

can you imagine what they're thinking?

they use these artificial means to produce a kid and then break up so they make the poor kid a ward of the state

"You're not even trying anymore. Next time try thinking for a bit before you eagerly run off to your computer to in a fatuous attempt to portray gay marriage as a problem. I know, I know - thinking is too much to ask of you."

I know demonstrating a little concern for the welfare of kids is a bit beyond you

a couple of gays buy some sperm and then play around and produce a kid

as soon as they finishing doing whatever it is they do, the kid's on his own

"Bad anonymous is getting pretty desperate when this is the best example he can come up with to show why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry."

as you know, it's but the latest example

"Of course, this kind of pathetic stupidity IS the best reason he can come up with for denying gays the right to marry -"

gays have never been denied the right to marry

it's just that in most states in our country, they're required to do so with an appropriately marriageable partner

the tiny few states that have allowed a redefinition of marriage imposed by the government will see these kind of problems where kids are the last thing these "marriages" are about

"there simply aren't any valid reasons to discriminate,"

definition and discrimination are different things

"that's why every year gay rights wins more and more battles."

no, that's not why

it's the same reason we have a dismal economy and are racking up debt to a Chinese dictatorship to shift the costs of masking its effects to our children, who will suffer because of our wastfulness

the country's going the wrong way

"There's no going back, we're inevitably going to win it all."

all evildoers, throughout the ages, have thought the same thing

but the things that destroy our society eventually pass

January 02, 2013 8:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So now Anon is crusading against infertile couples. Very impressive.

January 02, 2013 9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are a lot of Dems who are not happy with Obama. They don't like his attitude of tax and spend and no mention of cutting spending. We'll see what happens in the coming weeks.

January 02, 2013 11:29 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous is frothing at the mouth in a desperate attempt to spin his B.S. - I'll dispatch with it.

I said "The exact same thing would be happening if the couple he donated sperm to had been heterosexual with an infertile husband."


Bad anonymous said "would be? I guess, theoretically, it COULD happen but that's the point it doesn't".

You haven't the slightest idea what's happened in every heterosexual coupling. If it can happen it will, this has almost certainly happened more than once to a heterosexual couple otherwise they wouldn't have had this law in the first place, it would have never occurred to them there was a need for it. Once again, you're just making stuff up.


Bad anonymous said "this is just another indication of the fleeting, superficial nature of homosexual "relationships".

How ironic, you want society to do everything it can to make sure such relationships are fleeting, superficial, and without the bond of marriage, you do everything you can to end such relationships and then you complain that they are fleeting and superficial. And of course, once again, you're wrong about gay relationships being fleeting and superficial. The research shows gay couples are just as committed as heterosexual couples, more satisfied with their relationships, reported more positive feelings toward their partners, and reported less conflict than married heterosexual couples. The research showed that gay couples in a lega union were more committed than those who weren't so once again, couples like you mention (who weren't married or civil unioned) are arguments for gay marriage, not against.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012201742.html

January 03, 2013 12:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "So this is as much a problem with heterosexual marriage as it is with gay marriage."


Bad anonymous said "apparently not this hasn't been happening in real marriages". You give away the truth with your use of the word "apparently". You have no idea how often this happens in heterosexual couplings, you just claim it isn't with no knowledge whatsoever. What's apparent to you has no bearing on reality.


I said "Further, Kansas does not even allow same sex marriages"


Bad anonymous said "and this kind of thing is why".

LOL, again with the childish "logic". Obviously Kansas's disallowal of gay marriage hasn't prevented the outcome you claim is a reason to stop gays from marrying so banning gay marriage to stop "this kind of thing" is pointless. As the research shows, this couple would have been more likely to stay together if they had been allowed to marry. You types are always going on about the importance of marriage to committment and child rearing, what's good for heterosexual couples and their children is good for gay couples and their children.


I said "so to say this is a problem caused by gay marriage is doubly stupid."


Bad anonymous said "cause, effect, yada yada".

There is no gay marriage in Kansas, so gay marriage can be neither cause nor effect. You're just spouting more grade 3 level stupidity.

January 03, 2013 12:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "the point is that gay couples want to play "marriage" and make it look real but there is no commitment".

Again your claims are baseless and reality is the opposite of what you say - look at the research (I know, I know, reality scares you so you'd rather just make stuff up and pretend its true).


Bad anonymous said "they use these artificial means to produce a kid and then break up so they make the poor kid a ward of the state".

The kid never was a ward of the state, one of the mothers has looked after the child since the breakup, the state is seeking re-imbursement for welfare they gave her after the breakup. If you're worried about kids becoming wards of the state then you should oppose heterosexuals having children. Gay children are always planned and wanted, heterosexual children are frequently unplanned and unwanted products of accidental pregnancy, the state adoption agencies are full of children heterosexuals didn't want or didn't have the ability to raise, virtually none of the children in adoption agencies are the product of gay couples. In fact gay couples are frequent adopters of the unwanted children of irresponsible heterosexuals, but of course people like you would rather they stay in an adoption agency than have a loving gay family raise them (and studies show they do just as well, if not a better job of raising them then heterosexual couples).


I said "You're not even trying anymore. Next time try thinking for a bit before you eagerly run off to your computer to in a fatuous attempt to portray gay marriage as a problem. I know, I know - thinking is too much to ask of you."


Bad anonymous said "I know demonstrating a little concern for the welfare of kids is a bit beyond you".

Bigots like you disingenously claim to want to deny marriage to gays out of concern for children, but if you really were concerned about children you'd want all those children of gay couples to have married parents. If this couple had been married they'd have been more likely to stay together. Rather than allow them to marry you'd prefer to take children away from their loving gay parents and put them in a government run institution. No, your "concern" has nothing to do with the welfare of children. If children were your concern you'd be fighting tooth and nail to let the children of gay couples have the same protections of married parents that you constantly rail is critical for the children of heterosexual couples.

January 03, 2013 12:02 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "a couple of gays buy some sperm and then play around and produce a kid as soon as they finishing doing whatever it is they do, the kid's on his own."

Once again, you have no concern for the truth and just make up stories in an evil attempt to justify your attempts to harm the children of gay couples. The research shows gay couples are just as committed as heteosexual couples, gay couples never have unplanned and unwanted kids as heterosexuals do and decades of research overwhelmingly shows the children of same sex couples do just as well, if not better than the children of heterosexual couples. And what have you got to dispute that? The laughable Regnerus study which didn't even look at the children of gay couples instead, analyzing the children of the broken homes created by gays and lesbians in predictably failed heterosexual marriages, the exact sort of heterosexual marriages YOU advocate gays and lesbians enter into. Yes, we agree with Regnerus, the children of gay men married to women and lesbians married to men suffer and would be far better off being raised by married same sex couples. Once again, if you had any honest concern for children you would NEVER advocate that gays and lesbians marry opposite sex partners but the truth is you don't give a damn about such children, to you such children are acceptable collateral damage in your insane war on harmless loving couples who frequently raise the rejected offspring of heterosexuals.


I said "Bad anonymous is getting pretty desperate when this is the best example he can come up with to show why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry."


Bad anonymous said "as you know, it's but the latest example".

As I've logically stepped you through it, this is not an example of why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, its an example of why its best to allow gays to marry. The research indisputably backs this up, unlike your fevered kneejerk hate based lies about gays.

January 03, 2013 12:02 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Of course, this kind of pathetic stupidity IS the best reason he can come up with for denying gays the right to marry -"


Bad anonymous said "gays have never been denied the right to marry".

Oh yes, that tired old lie. The facts we both know is that if Ted and Bob try to marry in most states they'll be denied the right to do so.


Bad anonymous said "it's just that in most states in our country, they're required to do so with an appropriately marriageable partner".

As the Regnerus study so poignantly showed an opposite sex partner is in no way appropriate for a gay or lesbian to marry - it results in broken families and childen with all sorts of developmental disorders. The only appropriate marriageable partern for a gay or lesbian is a same sex partner. If you had any concern whatsoever for children you'd be fighting tooth and nail for same sex marriage.

Bad anonymous said "the tiny few states that have allowed a redefinition of marriage imposed by the government will see these kind of problems where kids are the last thing these "marriages" are about".

Examples like this kansas couple are very rare and certainly they happen more often in heterosexual couples given that there are ten times as many. Once again, this kansas couple wasn't allowed to marry, if they had been they likely would still be together, so this "sperm doner" incident had nothing to do with gay marriage and banning gay marriage didn't and couldn't have prevented it. Bigots like you constantly rail about how married parents are critical for well adjusted children, if you had any concern whatsoever for children you'd be fighting tooth an nail to give the children of gay couples the protection of having their parents married.

January 03, 2013 12:03 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "there simply aren't any valid reasons to discriminate,"


Grammar challenged bad anonymous said "definition and discrimination are different things".

Yes, they are and there simply aren't any valid reasons to discriminate.


I said "that's why every year gay rights wins more and more battles."


Bad anonymous said no, that's not why it's the same reason we have a dismal economy and are racking up debt to a Chinese dictatorship to shift the costs of masking its effects to our children, who will suffer because of our wastfulness".

LOL, I love your incredibly desperate attempt to connect two things that couldn't be more disconnected. There are no valid reasons to discriminate, that's why every year a greater and greater percentage of the American population (the majority now) supports gays right to marry the partner of their choosing.


Bad anonymous said "the country's going the wrong way".

Most americans support gay marriage. You're part of an ever shrinking increasingly embittered population due to pass from history as posterity looks at you with disdain. You're a sad example of a person who can't accept his own same sex attractions so he attacks the society that increasingly accepts such attractions in a vain attempt to destroy the part of himself he can't tolerate. You're going to waste your entire life, sacrificing your happiness to attack the people you resent who are happy with themselves. I pity you.


I said "There's no going back, we're inevitably going to win it all."


Bad anonymous said "all evildoers, throughout the ages, have thought the same thing but the things that destroy our society eventually pass".

Yes, evildoers like you sometimes think they are going to succeed just as the gay rights movement will, but as we can see, your culture of hate and oppression is quickly passing from our society. As the bigots like you die one by one and are replaced with accepting youth the world becomes a better place with each passing day.

January 03, 2013 12:04 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

You know, in thinking about bad anonymous's disjointed and irrational arguments (not to mention his posting of this kansas story in the first place as a reason to disallow the already banned gay marriage), its pretty obvious he's got quite a low IQ - he can't follow pretty simple logic.

January 03, 2013 12:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Bad anonymous is frothing at the mouth"

quite an ironic statement by nasty Priya, considering that "she" then rips off seven straight posts of hysteria

we're all having a hearty chuckle

January 03, 2013 8:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, after reading the above, I think we can all agree that the best thing society could do to prevent these situations is to not let gays buy body parts, such as sperm, to artificially further their sick fantasies

you can't have children because your partnership is unnatural

accept it and stop trying to tinker with nature

homosexuality is basically an attempt to create an alternative form of nature

you want to be a woman but aren't?

cut up your body to create an artificial gender

you to have have kids but can't with your chosen sex partner?

buy someone else's sperm and force nature to give one of you a kid and make the kid be part of a gay "family"

notice no one asked the kid if he wants to go through that

guys, try tree hugging

sunshine on my shoulders, almost always, makes me high

January 03, 2013 8:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "notice no one asked the kid if he wants to go through that".

You really are a moron(and likely high as you admitted). No one asks any child if they want to be born into the family that has them. Decades of research overwhelmingly shows the children of same sex parents do just as well, if not better than the children of heterosexuals.


Once again your justifications for oppression of an innocent minority are based on nothing but logical fallacies, baseless assertions, and lies. Once again I dispatch with your absurdities one by one with rational analysis, facts and research. As always, I am the teacher and you are the incompetent and recalcitrant student. Your latest absurd justifications for oppression are a classic example of how self-loathing desperation short circuits rational thought.

January 04, 2013 11:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Once again I dispatch with your absurdities one by one with rational analysis, facts and research"

hmmm..I looked back at your seven straight post of hysteria and here's the first:

"If it can happen it will, this has almost certainly happened more than once to a heterosexual couple"

funny, I don't notice any rational analysis, facts and research for this first one

you must have redefined those terms along with words like "gay", "family", and "marriage"

redefinition: the homosexual tactic of choice

"No one asks any child if they want to be born into the family that has them."

obviously, everyone prefers life, and a normal one

kids born naturally will naturally accept their place

"Decades of research overwhelmingly shows the children of same sex parents do just as well, if not better than the children of heterosexuals"

please...

the spiritual and social efects alone are devastating

if you think this is important enough to risk such things yourself, that's fine

you shouldn't drag a innocent child into it as a propaganda tool

if you really think there is no price to pay being a part of a "gay family", I guess you're admitting that gays don't need laws giving them special protected status against discrimination and harassment

"Once again your justifications for oppression of an innocent minority are based on nothing but logical fallacies, baseless assertions, and lies"

defending natural processes is not oppression

January 04, 2013 11:40 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Your repitition of logical fallacies, baseless assertions, and lies doesn't further your attempts to justify oppression any more than your initial statements of such did.

Just to highlight your irrationality I'll deal with one of your last comments:

"defending natural processes is not oppression".

No one is attacking natural processes so your claim to be defending them is a lie.

Further your implication that what is natural is good and what is unnatural is bad is what's known as the naturalistic logical fallacy - look it up moron, google is your friend.

I'm done dealing with your repititious idiocy. I'll leave you with the last irrational word. That's the least I can do for someone who has nothing but self-loathing and bitterness.

I see unlike your usual self you didn't respond during working hours yesterday whereas today you have. Was the boss looking over your shoulder yesterday?

Class dismissed.

January 04, 2013 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Priya, you redefine the language and rearrange biology and don't understand that you are basically in denial, believing you can create your own reality

"I'm done dealing with your repititious idiocy. I'll leave you with the last irrational word. That's the least I can do for someone who has nothing but self-loathing and bitterness."

and look at this: an artificial attempt to save face

the best you can do at this point, I guess

anyway, you didn't refer to me as "bad anonymous" for once so I guess you're making progress of a kind

see if you can build on that




January 04, 2013 1:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the best you can do at this point, I guess"

LOL

Priya could actually have done better by spelling repetitious correctly

January 04, 2013 2:17 PM  
Anonymous It's official!! said...

Congress confirms Obama's 332-206 Electoral College win

Congress on Friday officially confirmed President Obama's reelection victory in November by formally counting the Electoral College ballots.

That count certified Obama's 332-206 win over GOP candidate Mitt Romney.


January 04, 2013 3:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow, TTF has all the top breaking news, don't they?

January 04, 2013 3:31 PM  
Anonymous it's official!!!! said...

the White House and Harry Reid's office confirmed that they will mint a coin worth two trillion and deposit it in the Federal Reserve as a gimmick to avoid getting Congressional approval to raise the debt limit

it's official!!

he's a dictator

January 04, 2013 4:25 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"wow, TTF has all the top breaking news, don't they?".

Yes, who can forget on November 5, 2012 when Bad anonymous told us "popular vote: Romney 52, Obama 48 you heard at TTF first, people."?

January 04, 2013 5:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

apparently not you

a strange little "waitress" at a diner in a barren, frigid part of Canada who is obsessed with elections in an IMPORTANT country where she wanna be

nasty priya is so fake and does dearly love to pretend fantasies come true

but is nasty Priya repititious or repetitious?

not that's there's anything wrong with that

January 04, 2013 8:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm done dealing with your repititious idiocy. I'll leave you with the last irrational word. That's the least I can do"

no matter what nasty Priya resolves to do

NO CAN DO!!

ha ha ha!

ho ho ho!

hee hee hee!

ha chortle ho chortle hee hee chortle!!

January 04, 2013 8:26 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

LOL, I see someone's feeling mighty sensitive about his past foolishness.

January 04, 2013 9:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm done dealing with your repititious idiocy. I'll leave you with the last irrational word. That's the least I can do"

no matter what nasty Priya resolves to do

NO CAN DO!!

well, lack of self-control

things like saying you're going to stop posting and then doing it again anyway

or making seven frantic posts to reply to one

or saying you're using facts and evidence and then saying "this has almost certainly happened"

it all goes with homosexuality

lack of enough self-control to keep yourself from looking foolish

January 04, 2013 9:18 PM  
Anonymous pip pip cheerio said...

oh my, brilliant anonymous makes an excellent point here

artifice and lack of self-control typify the Canadian homosexual movement

January 04, 2013 9:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Damn shame I am not in charge. This crisis would be fixed immediately.
I would shut the govt down."


Lesson of the failed Boehner coup: We’re dealing with idiots

By now you’ve probably read one of the stories of the failed attempt by a handful of conservative members of the House GOP caucus to remove John Boehner as speaker of the House. If you haven’t, Joshua Green has a handy summary. Nine members ended up voting against Boehner, eight short of the number that would’ve forced a second ballot, and all involved in the failed ouster humiliated themselves in the most public fashion possible.

One problem was a lack of leadership. If, say, Eric Cantor had actually wanted the job, he could’ve organized the coup and succeeded. But Eric Cantor didn’t want the job. The bigger problem, then, was a lack of intelligence. The crazy caucus failed spectacularly at all aspects of the attempted conspiracy, from planning to execution. They waited until the last minute to approach potential allies, failed to count their own votes correctly, and didn’t even all figure out who they were supposed to vote for instead. Their plan was apparently to embarrass Boehner into resigning, in favor of … someone to be decided later. Candidates voted for by plotters included departing Rep. Allen West and former Comptroller David Walker, who are basically the opposites of one another.

This spectacular display of idiocy is, in microcosm, why negotiating with the House GOP is impossible. Because common negotiation tactics require dealing with an opposition that understands reality. “Leverage” only works against rational people. A large number of House Republicans aren’t just “nihilists,” willing to blow up the economy to get what they want, they’re plain morons who have impossible and horrible goals and no clue whatsoever how to reach them.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., who held an iPad listing the names of would-be anti-Boehner conspirators in full view of a journalist’s camera, is an idiot. He is not just a person whose politics I find distasteful or extremist, he is a dumber-than-average human. Paul Broun and Louie Gohmert are two of the dumbest people on Earth. In a slightly better functioning political world, these three would just do what their smarter leader told them to do. Instead, they and their colleagues have forced their leader to act as if he is as dumb as they are regarding the process of governing. Boehner’s new position is that he will not attempt to negotiate with the party that shares control of the government, which makes no sense as a strategy for achieving conservative policy goals, but makes sense if you think the best way to achieve conservative policy goals is to destroy the country until everyone agrees with you.

As we race to the coming debt ceiling fiasco, please remember that while John Boehner and Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan know that raising the debt ceiling is a thing that just has to be done, there is no indication that the Gohmerts, Huelskamps, Steve Kings and Michele Bachmanns of their caucus agree. You can’t negotiate a compromise with people who are positive they’ll get their way if they refuse to negotiate at all. You can’t avert a catastrophe if you need the assent of people who think the catastrophe is precisely what this country needs to get back on the right track.

January 04, 2013 11:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the catastrophe is that Obama won't admit that our country is hopeless unless we reform entitlement programs

Obama got what he wanted, what he campaigned on as the solution to all our problems- higher taxes on the riches

and most experts believe the deficit will be about the same

Dems are blatantly dishonest

they attacked Bush tax cuts for years and now, when they were about to expire, acted as if it would be a calamity if they weren't extended permanently

huh?

January 04, 2013 11:51 PM  
Anonymous Astroturf, bought and paid for said...

Powerful Tea Party Group's Internal Docs Leak—Read Them Here:
FreedomWorks bills itself as a grassroots outfit, but it's bankrolled mostly by big-money donors.


"FreedomWorks, the national conservative group that helped launch the tea party movement, sells itself as a genuine grassroots operation, and for years it has battled accusations of "astroturfing"—posing as a populist organization while doing the bidding of big-money donors. Yet internal documents obtained by Mother Jones show that FreedomWorks has indeed become dependent on wealthy individual donors to finance its growing operation.

Last month, the Washington Post reported that Richard Stephenson, a reclusive millionaire banker and FreedomWorks board member, and members of his family funneled $12 million in October through two newly created Tennessee corporations to FreedomWorks' super-PAC, which used these funds to support tea party candidates in November's elections. The revelation that a corporate bigwig like Stephenson, who founded the Cancer Treatment Centers of America and chairs its board, was responsible for more than half of the FreedomWorks super-PAC's haul in 2012 undercuts the group's grassroots image and hands ammunition to critics who say FreedomWorks does the bidding of rich conservative donors.

Big donations like Stephenson's are business as usual for FreedomWorks. According to a 52-page report prepared by FreedomWorks' top brass for a board of directors meeting held in mid-December at the Virginia office of Sands Capital Management, an investment firm run by FreedomWorks board member Frank Sands, the entire FreedomWorks organization—its 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) nonprofit arms and its super-PAC—raised nearly $41 million through mid-December. Of that total, $33 million—or 81 percent of its 2012 fundraising—came in the form of "major gifts," the type of big donations coveted by nonprofits and super-PACs. (FreedomWorks' nonprofit components do not have to disclose their funders.)...


Read all about it, including the FreedomWorks' Winter 2012 board book where you can follow the money trail by clicking the link above.

January 05, 2013 9:05 AM  
Anonymous Allan Lichtman was right, again said...

Obama First Since Ike to Win 51% Twice, Final Tally Shows

Barack Obama is the first president in more than five decades to win at least 51 percent of the national popular vote twice, according to a revised vote count in New York eight weeks after the Nov. 6 election.

State election officials submitted a final tally on Dec. 31 that added about 400,000 votes, most of them from provisional ballots in the Democratic stronghold of New York City that were counted late in part because of complications caused by Hurricane Sandy.

The president nationally won 65.9 million votes — or 51.1 percent — against Republican challenger Mitt Romney, who took 60.9 million votes and 47.2 percent of the total cast, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Obama is the first president to achieve the 51 percent mark in two elections since Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, who did it in 1952 and 1956, and the first Democrat to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four consecutive White House races. Roosevelt received 53.4 percent of the vote — his lowest — in his last race in 1944.

Obama, 51, benefited from political factors that included a lack of serious opposition for his party’s nomination or from well-known third-party challengers, and an absence of social unrest, scandal or foreign-policy disasters during his first term, said Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University in Washington.

“Under the big picture, this was an entirely predictable election outcome,” Lichtman said.

The president won the popular vote in 26 states and the District of Columbia, totaling 332 electoral votes, or 62 more than the 270 needed to win the presidency. Romney won 24 states with 206 electoral votes. Obama won 365 electoral votes in 2008.

Congress certified the 2012 electoral votes in a joint session today. Obama will take the oath of office on Jan. 20, a Sunday, and give his inaugural speech at the Capitol on Jan. 21.

Turnout in this year’s presidential race was about 129.1 million, down from the record 131.3 million four years ago.

....The nation’s unemployment rate, 7.8 percent when Obama succeeded Bush in January 2009, rose to 10 percent that October before falling to 7.7 percent last November. Obama is the second president since World War II to win re-election with a jobless rate above 6 percent. The other was Republican Ronald Reagan in 1984.

While Obama’s national vote percentage fell by about 2 points from four years ago, he improved on his 2008 performance in six states, including New York, where his 63.3 percent was the best by any presidential nominee since 1964, and New Jersey, where his 58.3 percent was the best by a Democratic White House hopeful since 1964.

In just four states — Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia — was the winning candidate’s margin of victory less than 5 percentage points, the smallest number of states below that threshold since 1984, when three states were within 5 points amid Reagan’s 18-point victory in the popular vote over Democrat Walter Mondale.

In 2004, when Bush was re-elected with a popular vote margin of less than 3 points over Democrat John Kerry, 11 states were decided by fewer than 5 points. In 1976, when Democrat Jimmy Carter won the White House and edged President Gerald Ford by 2 points, 20 states were within 5 points.

The Nov. 6 results underscore challenges for Republicans as they seek an Electoral College majority in 2016 and beyond.

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia, with a total of 242 electoral votes, have voted Democratic in six straight presidential elections. They include the biggest electoral-vote prize, California, where Obama won its 55 electoral votes with a 23-point win.

Twenty-two states with 180 electoral votes have voted Republican in the past four elections.

January 05, 2013 10:59 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 05, 2013 2:49 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

BOSTON (AP) — The Republican Party seems as divided and angry as ever.

Infighting has penetrated the highest levels of the House GOP leadership. Long-standing geographic tensions have increased, pitting endangered Northeastern Republicans against their colleagues from other parts of the country. Enraged tea party leaders are threatening to knock off dozens of Republicans who supported a measure that raised taxes on the nation's highest earners.

"People are mad as hell. I'm right there with them," Amy Kremer, chairman of the Tea Party Express, said late last week, declaring that she has "no confidence" in the party her members typically support. Her remarks came after GOP lawmakers agreed to higher taxes but no broad spending cuts as part of a deal to avert the "fiscal cliff."

"Anybody that voted 'yes' in the House should be concerned" about primary challenges in 2014, she said.

At the same time, one of the GOP's most popular voices, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, blasted his party's "toxic internal politics" after House Republicans initially declined to approve disaster relief for victims of Superstorm Sandy. He said it was "disgusting to watch" their actions and he faulted the GOP's most powerful elected official, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

The GOP's internal struggles to figure out what it wants to be were painfully exposed after Mitt Romney's loss to President Barack Obama on Nov. 6, but they have exploded in recent days. The fallout could extend well beyond the party's ability to win policy battles on Capitol Hill. It could hamper Republicans as they examine how to regroup and attract new voters after a disheartening election season.

January 05, 2013 2:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"At the same time, one of the GOP's most popular voices, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie,"

popular with the media, as would be any Republican who helped Barack get elected

"blasted his party's "toxic internal politics" after House Republicans initially declined to approve disaster relief for victims of Superstorm Sandy. He said it was "disgusting to watch" their actions"

I'm sure what's really disgusting to watch is Chris Christie eating habits

"and he faulted the GOP's most powerful elected official, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio."

Boehner, who is a responsible civil servant wanted to have time to examine the bill

Senators, who never waste a crisis, tacked every pork bill they've been repressing for years onto this bill,hoping to sneak it in

want to guess how much of the 60 billion was for victims of Sandy?

in any case, there was plenty of money available to continue relief efforts until the new Congress starts

what made all these people so violent is that they thought they had this flim-flam all set up with lame duck votes and now know the bill will be looked at

oh, the howl of the evildoer as they are caught


January 05, 2013 3:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey, look at Priya

waitress of the split personality!!

one of her personalities deleted the comments of another

again

some things never change

January 05, 2013 3:52 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I was listening to Shawn Hannity the other day, and he was listing leading, popular Republican governors. He mentioned several, including Bobby Jindal and Bob McDonnel. Notably missing from the list was Chris Christie.

January 06, 2013 8:07 AM  
Anonymous Birther nuts latest mission: Impeach Chief Justice Roberts said...

They’re at it again. The reliably unhinged crazies over at WorldNetDaily have a new axe to grind when it comes to their tiresome obsession with proving that President Obama is not legally entitled to serve in the office he’s held for four years and counting. Their latest gambit involves insisting that Chief Justice John Roberts is violating the Constitution by administering the oath of office to the president for the second time on January 21, and warning that he will be subject to “impeachment and eternal dishonor” if he does so.

Not being content with spouting such comically overwrought hyperbole, WND‘s Craige McMillan, in a melodramatic open letter to the Chief Justice, then buckles up the figurative straitjacket and hops aboard the express train to Loco-Land:

These things do not end well. One need only look to the aftermath of World War II and the Nuremberg Trials to see what awaits. Illegal wars. Illegal debts. Illegal laws. Will the rest of the Supreme Court’s justices, now knowing they are violating their own oath of office, continue the sham through a second presidential term? How, then, is the highest court of law in the nation any different than that pictorial proverb in Japan of the three monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil?

Oh my. That does sound serious. Too bad this particular trip to Batty Birtherville, despite its darkly turgid undertones, is about as legitimate as all the others. It’s the same old song and dance… they demand to see the birth certificate. They are shown the birth certificate. They claim birth certificate can’t be real. Then they start shrieking that he “refuses” to show the birth certificate. They are again shown the birth certificate. They’re then shown the birth announcement from the local Hawaii newspaper from 1961. So they scream louder, “WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?” because the proof that it exists is overwhelming, and everyone knows that the louder you scream, the more right you are… even in the face of mounting and irrefutable proof that you’re wrong.

It’s been proven over and over over again that the president was born in Hawaii. But let’s say for the sake of argument that he wasn’t… here are the requirements for American citizenship with one American parent and one foreign parent, if you’re born on foreign soil:

If you are born abroad to one United States citizen and one foreign citizen, you may be considered a U.S. citizen if you meet the following requirements:

• One of your parents was a U.S. citizen when you were born. CHECK
• The parent who is a U.S. citizen has lived at least five years in the U.S. before you were born. CHECK
• The parent who is a U.S. citizen must have lived in the U.S. for at least two years of these five years after his/her fourteenth birthday. CHECK

Our laws are quite clear: If you spring from an American womb, you’re an American. Whether you’re born in Kenya, Panama or on Mars, if your mom was a born-and-bred, Kansas-cornfed American — like Stanley Ann Dunham Obama — you’re an American and thus eligible for the presidency. PERIOD.

Now for the love of all that’s holy and lucid, stop it.

January 07, 2013 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Merry Christmas

December 28, 2023 1:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home