“Relax, Lilipilicious. Prosecuting Rush with a century-old unconstitutional law would be done more for amusement and to watch him squirm than for anything else. Can't you see the humor in it? Just grab some popcorn and don't over-think it.”
lilipilicious on Mar 13, 2012 at 10:59:02
“no, i dont think it is funny to set any kind of precedent to limit free speech and end up making Limbaugh the martyr for free speech.”
“As soon as Maher starts maliciously bearing false witness against someone, I'll be sure to condemn him as vociferously as I condemn Limbaugh. Until then, you can keep your cynical and disingenuous 'I'm not defending Rush' nonsense.”
“That has to be the most blatantly dishonest rationalization I have ever encountered. I'm surprised you know how to spell. Seriously, did somebody else type that for you? Aren't there rules for who is allowed to use a computer? If there aren't, your comment is proof that there should be.”
lordclane on Mar 11, 2012 at 03:33:24
“I'll let those who read my comment decide whether I was dishonest or not. As far as I can see, what I wrote corresponded entirely to physical and legal reality. I note in passing that you offered no real counter-argument, merely an ad hominem attack. That strongly suggests that you don't have one.”
“According to Gohmert's Wikipedia page, he was an elected state judge, and was even appointed by Gov. Rick Perry to serve as Chief Justice on Texas' 12th Court of Appeals! This man's ability to achieve any position of authority is an injustice in and of itself.”
“As you can see, Veros, conservatives have twisted the truth in order to smear a good man. I hope you realize that you have been lied to, and direct your anger at those who would manipulate you, rather than at people like Imam Rauf who are trying to build bridges.”
You shouldn't believe everything you hear from right-wing commentators; specifically, that the name 'Cordoba' refers to some sort of Islamic victory dance.
Imam Rauf explains the significance of the term in his 2006 book 'What's Right with Islam IS What's Right with America. Reviewer Devika Mistry put it this way:
"...Imam Fesial Abdul Rauf, draws on his extensive study of the religious scriptures of Islam and traces the common historical and philosophical roots and religious values between the Abrahamic traditions, the Jews, Christians and the Muslims – to draw out an all abiding Abrahamic ethic – which underlies all monotheistic religions and is based on the values of justice and equality. Imam Rauf traces back the evolution of these foundational beliefs through the golden age of Islam in medieval Cordoba and Baghdad to the development of the democratic and capitalist principals of the West. By doing so, the Imam, begins the ambitious quest of building the basis for rebuilding that relationship by demonstrating that the Islamic principals actually support the fundamental values of a pluralistic, free society; uncovers the promise of a Muslim form of democratic capitalism within the Quran and draws a vision of a Muslim world that can embrace its own form of democracy and capitalism, aspiring for a new Cordoba, a time in history, where Jews, Christians, Muslims and all other traditions lived together in peace and prosperity..."
“I think Taylor123 is referring to Imam Rauf and Muslim-Americans. If they back down now, the forces willing to equate all Muslims with the 9/11 attacks will have won, and a horrible precedent will have been set.
Moving the Islamic Community Center sends the signal to average people that it's okay to have an irrational fear of Muslims. Moving the center tells Muslim-Americans that they are second-class citizens.
That is not an acceptable message.”
americles on Aug 24, 2010 at 10:38:53
“Unfortunately, digging in your heels also sends a terrible message. It feeds the stereotype (rightly or wrongly) of Islam as a fanatical faith, unyielding in its desire to vanquish non-believers.”
“eric-914, do you believe Imam Rauf and his congregation are responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Are all Muslims responsible for the acts of a few extremists? Are you responsible for the crimes your co-religionists commit?
If the answer to these questions is 'no,' then why do you desire to make the area around Ground Zero a Muslim-free zone?
Beyond that issue, you do realize that innocent Muslims died in the 9/11 attack, don't you? Do their families, or other Muslims, deserve to have a place near Ground Zero where they can mourn and reflect on the horrible events of that day? It seems to me that, in attempting to prevent Muslims from having such a resource, you are being the insensitive one.
The entire premise underlying your argument is that Muslims don't deserve the same access to Ground Zero as non-Muslims, or that Muslim-Americans are not sufficiently American to satisfy your purity requirements. The Muslims you would prefer stayed away from Ground Zero didn't have to have known the hijackers or conspired with them. No. All they had to do is share a religion. Never mind that a Sufi like Imam Rauf is as ideologically close to the Wahabbist hijackers as as Quakers are to Southern Baptists.
So, to answer your question, not only do they have the right, but yes, they definitely should build the community center where they have planned. Doing otherwise would lend credence to discriminatory and insensitive mindsets.”
“Correction: My understanding of the 'Cadillac Tax' is the individual plan beneficiaries would not pay a higher tax, but rather the company or entity that offers the so-called 'Cadillac Plans' would have to pay the tax.”
“Currently, health care benefits of ALL Americans, including union members, are exempt from taxation. The 'Cadillac Tax' would merely DELAY the imposition of taxes on union members who benefit from these so-called Cadillac plans. Eventually, even union members would pay the tax.
Your comment seems to imply that ALL Americans would end up paying higher taxes with a 'Cadillac Tax,' but that implication is false. Further, you claim to crave bipartisanship, but seem oblivious to the fact that every major Republican health care reform idea has ALREADY been incorporated in the pending bills...
Finally, concerning your criticism of using reconciliation to break a filibuster; were you so outraged when George W. Bush's tax cuts were passed using reconciliation, with Dick Cheney throwing the tie-breaking 51st vote? You do realize that Bush's and Cheney's tax cuts severely UNbalanced the budget, don't you? Did you and your ilk think to raise a stink about that?
Your criticisms fall flat, prettyinpink, while ringing of hypocrisy and ignorance.”
“You call your theory a "deliciously wicked" possibility? I call your comment 'thinly-veiled race baiting.'
You don't have to be the Mentalist to know that Obama is being less than forthright in his anti-gay marriage political posturing. But for those of Kandor42's ilk, the following story may be illuminating...
Obama's public stance on gay marriage has nothing to do with his skin color, and everything to do with alienating as few people as possible while running for high office.
One more thing: People who write "LOL" usually are compensating for having written something that wasn't funny. I've also noticed a correlation between users of the LOL-crutch and conservatives who believe themselves to be smarter than they are. I strongly suspect Kandor42 fits neatly within such a profile.”
“There is hardly anything in the very brief article above that struck me as disrespectful or critical of Anne Frank. Words like 'intense' and 'possessive' hardly rate on a scale of pejoritives. Instead, we are getting a somewhat fuller picture of a girl who experienced what no one should have to experience.
And asserting that van Maarsen shows little affection for her childhood friend is too big a leap to take based on a 200-word synopsis of a book and movie deal. On the basis of such flimsy evidence, implying that van Maarsen may lack wisdom and understanding disrespects both van Maarsen and the memory of Frank, who I doubt would so quickly jump to conclusions.”
“Andrew Malcolm glosses over the simple fact that many of the so-called "large donors" (according to Malcolm) wanted to support Obama in a big way, but could not afford to do so in one fell swoop. Instead, they made multiple small contributions.
To me, that sounds like a committed small donor, as in 'not wealthy,' which would be a better description of the demographic the 'small donor' category is meant to represent.
Basically, Malcolm's article amounts to a bunch of words attempting to mislead people into believing that President-elect Obama was not supported by millions of hard-working Americans who, with great anticipation, look forward to a renewed America under smart and able leadership.
I suppose Malcolm will find a susceptible audience for his words in the conservative blogosphere; and that illustrates one of the biggest problems with Republicans/Conservatives these days: Too frequently, they are willing to believe the silliest tripe.
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." - Demosthenes”
ZimboChick on Nov 29, 2008 at 14:01:38
“May I borrow that qoute...for it responds to this tripe in FULL
Next Huffpo will be saying Obama really has a tan and its a myth that he is black SMDH”
“The author of this blog posting, Mr. Gizbert, seems to be unaware of the fact that Obama HAS agreed to do town hall meetings with McCain (one on the economy and one on foreign policy) but the McCain campaign has chosen not to pursue the matter.
“I agree with your overall analysis regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, IAM4CLINTON, but am irked by your claim to be neutral vis a vis McCain and Obama, as well as your use of the term "far left," an entity that hasn't existed in the United States since Senator Joseph McCarthy indulged his paranoid fantasies.
If you think Republicans stopped demonizing people in the '90s, you are sorely mistaken. As we speak, there is a never-ending stream of anti-Obama e-mails coursing through the 'intertubes,' misrepresenting Obama's words and background, while conveniently cleaning up McCain's and Palin's histories. And let's not forget the sleaze and slime book 'Obama-nation.' If that isn't an overt attempt at demonization, I don't know what is.”
“I agree with Steve Almond. If Obama delegates all the 'attacking' to Biden or surrogates, he runs the risk of appearing weak when Americans want strength.
The smears, the surge, and off-shore drilling all need to be addressed head on. Maybe Barack should wave a copy of his birth certificate, call for a camera close-up of the document, and then discuss the inanity of the personal attacks on him and how they do a disservice to our country and our political process.
Regarding energy, I hope he talks about short-term Republican band-aids and bribes (a $38 gas tax holiday?!) versus long-term solutions that will benefit the country and future generations. Past generations have worked to build our nation and leave it a better place. Won't we do the same?
Finally, repairing and reorganizing government after 8 years of serial abuse by Bush/Cheney must be the organizing principle of Obama's presidency. Fiscal responsibility, and a government that works on behalf of the average joe instead of the set-for-life. And absolutely, let's talk about McCain's tax cuts for millionaires while he asserts that anyone making less than $5 million a year is "middle class," and the nation nears $10 trillion in debt.”