Comment from Jack Sprat
Time January 29, 2010 at 3:38 am

“We face a deficit of trust”.
You have put your finger on the crux of the problem,
Here is some “thoughts” on the little “o” (apparently Opra is the big “O”…)

This from the Politico on the 26th
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-sp.....bout-obama

I’m not a big fan of on-line vid’s but these kind of fit the speech…
Pre-speech by a dem on the 25th.
http://www.breitbart.tv/congre.....jobs-bill/

Luntz’s focus group
http://www.breitbart.tv/all-wo.....nt-4105141

Comment from geoff
Time January 29, 2010 at 11:07 am

“Obama’s administration is riddled with lobbyists.” Then it should be easy to name a few. Just one.

Comment from OMG!
Time January 29, 2010 at 1:04 pm

Eric Holder

Comment from geoff
Time January 29, 2010 at 1:31 pm

OMG: I was just pointing out an example of what wikipedia describes as “weasel words”: “riddled,” and yet they can’t nail that down with a single fact.
And anyway “Holder previously served as a judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, United States Attorney, and Deputy Attorney General of the United States, and as a senior legal advisor to then-Senator Barack Obama during Obama’s presidential campaign. He was one of three members of Obama’s vice-presidential selection committee.” When was he a lobbyist & for whom?

Comment from Amilam
Time January 29, 2010 at 2:58 pm

OMG Obama uses the pronoun “I” in his speeches! Text book narcissism! Another example of stellar “journalism” from the Right.

Comment from Leon
Time January 29, 2010 at 6:36 pm

Amilam:

How dare you refer to Floyd and Mary Beth as “journalists”! I think you owe an immediate apology to all hard working journalists who do research, check facts, and use the training they recieved to relay information to the public without bias!

Comment from SOLP
Time January 29, 2010 at 6:54 pm

“I think you owe an immediate apology to all hard working journalists who do research, check facts, and use the training they recieved to relay information to the public without bias”

They don’t exist. They are imaginary people like leprechauns.

Comment from Stug
Time January 29, 2010 at 7:22 pm

“They don’t exist. They are imaginary people like leprechauns.”
- Just because you can’t find any on Fox, and are ideologically forbidden to change the channel, doesn’t mean they don’t exist elsewhere.

Comment from Jack Sprat
Time January 29, 2010 at 7:28 pm

“Then it should be easy to name a few. Just one.”
How about the invitation only phone jobs conference he just had, will he release the list?
Do your knuckles hurt as you drag them on the ground?

Comment from Jack Sprat
Time January 29, 2010 at 7:36 pm

“Just one” as always you’re the under achiever.
Here’s a pre-inauguration list - doesn’t have the top “100″ Goldman-Sachs employee’s overseeing, well the bailout of Goldman-Sachs or the fancy folks fro SEIU, ACORN, COLOR OF CHANGE, and the myriad of other left cake loon bins he normally draws from, ‘course some of them “have already left the building”, but like Elvis are apparently still alive.

Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs:
•Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
•Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
•William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
•William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
•David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
•Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
•Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
•Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
•Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
•Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
•Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
•Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

Comment from Jack Sprat
Time January 29, 2010 at 7:44 pm

SOLP
“They don’t exist.”
You’ve got to quit the spin, you and I know that the leftist loosing ‘media” (you know the vaunted and trusted Newsmen like Oblermann and John Stewart) have to go all the way over to the fax machine every morning and get the Dem “Talking Points of the day”, that is time and paper, sir. Yes the Repubs do the same, but by all accounts, their phone bill is far smaller and they use far less paper in the fax machine.
Just how hard do you think the NYT (Paper of record) had to work to not print the story about Edwards that may garner the National Enquirer a coveted Pulitzer Prize?

Comment from Jack Sprat
Time January 29, 2010 at 7:49 pm

SOLP
BTW, you do remember all of the “fact checking” the vaunted NYT on their “main man” Jayson Blair don’t you? Now theres a real newsman and a real newspaper.
I think he maybe still in the News business, seems that I may not have read that he has a paper route somewhere in LA after his Stellar news career, spin at 11.

Comment from Amilam
Time January 30, 2010 at 10:34 am

“How dare you refer to Floyd and Mary Beth as “journalists”! I think you owe an immediate apology to all hard working journalists who do research, check facts, and use the training they received to relay information to the public without bias!”
Indeed, my deepest apologies! I think it’s telling that there isn’t any attempt to defend the Brown’s poorly worded hatchet job by Conservatives or any other Conservative media for that matter. Rather, the answer is just to say, “The other side is just as bad.” Never mind the concept of actually wanting accurate news, it’s all excused by the conception that the other side is just as bad. It’s remarkable just how little Conservatives care about accuracy from Rightwing media. I mean one Fox News pundit (I forget his name, if someone really wants it I can dig it up) claimed 1st hand knowledge of the BBC cheering on the Palestinians fighting with the Israelis. When this was found out to be a complete fabrication the fall out was unsurprisingly nonexistent. What would cost someone their job at almost any other publication didn’t even warrant a slap on the wrist from Fox News. Of course as recently as a couple years ago you still had Hannity on the air claiming that Saddam had WMDs. He may still be for all I know. There’s no market for responsibility within Rightwing media.

Btw Sunshine, John Daily makes no claims to being a journalist. I know you easily confused by all the comedians on the Right that you take your marching orders from (actually, let’s not box ourselves in with limiting what confuses you. I’m sure the list is quite extensive. Cross walk lights, zippers, string, etc), but try and keep up.

Quick insert claims of me being outraged/hurt/furious or whatever adjective is necessary to imagine a victory!

Comment from geoff
Time January 30, 2010 at 2:41 pm

Anilam: there was even some trial in Florida (I believe) where Fox claimed it had no obligation to report anything in any sort of “fair & balanced” manner: basically admitting they’re not in business to provide “news” in the traditional sense. Then there was Cal the other day trying to compare Beck/Rush et al. with real journalists like Walter Cronkite, the way some of these folk seem to figure that their rantings are somehow equal to analysis by real scientists. There seems to be an attempt to discredit not only scientists (a la the Creationists of a few years back) but any form of expert or professional, including journalists. And I’ve asked Cal and others if that meant next time they need some heart surgery they’ll call in the plumber and save some dough, not some elitist cardiologist… or maybe let some guy with a computer game fly the jet when they go on their next vacation.
Funny enough, I haven’t heard any response on that. Instead we get a semi-literate syphlitic with too much time on his hands being declared a “voice of sanity” (just one of the funnier examples that came to mind).

Comment from Art W
Time January 30, 2010 at 6:20 pm

Geoff: “Then it should be easy to name a few. Just one.”

Pffft. Thanks for the laugh.

I don’t even care that he has. In fact, he would be a fool not to. The problem I have is that he made bold pronouncements that he would not hire any (and I loved the grammar) . . . Obama: “I don’t take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House”

. . . just another lie.

Comment from Jack Sprat
Time January 30, 2010 at 11:21 pm

“Rather
Speaking of Dan Rather, wasn’t his “retirement ” a bit ……. quick?
How about the vaunted head of CNN teary eyed when he told of getting one of his Iraqi staff members killed during an interview, and how he had “made a judgement call” about slanting the news in Iraq under So Damn Insane? Vaunted and respected news men, like the 20th century surrender monkey Uncle Walty, of whom Giap said that when he was on the virge of offering surrender terms after the complete Tet fiasco, he heard the ever fevsent Walty, he knew all he had to do was win in the press, I would guess that LBJ’s statement “if I’ve lost Croncite I’ve lost the war”.
Thank you vaunted liar Blather (all the news fit to forge)
Thank you Vaunted murderer Jordan (all the news fit to ignor)
Thank you vaunted fool Uncle Walt (all the bones fit to bury)
That damn Bush

Comment from Jack Sprat
Time January 30, 2010 at 11:25 pm

Art W
“I don’t take a dime of their [lobbyist] money,”
Some one should have told convicted money donor, (bone headed deal), could have save himself $250 K.
Maybe he means, now I don’t, you know after refusing the “campaign finance reform money” he promised to work on?

Comment from Jack Sprat
Time January 30, 2010 at 11:46 pm

Oddly, my lil’ SunSpot, I see you are going to be another “gift that keeps on giving”, your kind seems to disagree with you, they’re “your people”…

“Jon Stewart: The new most trusted man in America?
According to a click poll of Time.com users, yes
By Steve Johnson
July 24, 2009 Jon Stewart is the most trusted newscaster in America, says a time.com click poll of about 9,400 site users taken this week after the death of Walter Cronkite, the longtime CBS news anchor known as “the most trusted man in America.”
Oddly in the latest poll by PPP (democrat pollsters) 35% of dem’s made up the “trusters”, the poll showed that more trusted them than didn’t, unlike the closest, CNN 39% and the rest of the alphabet channels, where more distrested them.
Keep up the good fight, ‘member “dope and chains”, I just hope Tinkerbell doesn’t die for you this time.
http://archives.chicagotribune.....ustedjul24
Please make some more obviously stupid statements now.

Comment from Jack Sprat
Time January 30, 2010 at 11:49 pm

correction
(bone headed deal),
interchangeable with
Tony (I like cakes with files in them) Rezko, formerly neighbor to BO and currently a member of the “soap on a rope” all “glee club”.

Comment from dEd Grimley
Time January 31, 2010 at 4:34 am

A call for a return to reality and a bit of humble from Floyd is like a prizefighter asking the other guy to stop hurting his hands with his face.

Comment from Amilam
Time January 31, 2010 at 2:57 pm

Sunshine,

Gee, someone called John Stewart a newscaster? Then I guess he must be a journalist! Nevermind that he has not only never claimed to be a journalist, but repeatedly and point blank said he wasn\’t. He is a comedian and an entertainer whose primary bit is political commentary. Second, even if one agreed he was a newscaster just because of a Time poll; every newscaster does not equal journalist. Any more than every rectangle equals a square. Just keep slamming your head into the ground, I appreciate a good laugh.

Comment from Jack Sprat
Time January 31, 2010 at 6:02 pm

I thought you might get the “irony” of seeing “olbermann or Stewart” as “newsmen”, what being the “master of the ironic” you claimed to be.
Thank you for reinforcing my confidence in today’s “Liberal Mind”.
I’m guessing you have no problem with CNN or Madcow (cuz she uses “teabagger” in every other word) or Matthews (for the first time, for an hour I forgot he was black).
There’s some remarkable reportin’, of course you always have Joy that consummate journalist and “air Amerika”. Oops, sorry, Airhead Amerika wasn’t supported even by lib’s and went bankrupt, no wonder we need to prop up the loon view.
Hey did you see any reports of the “teabaggers” biting any dissenting fingers off like the union thug did?

Comment from drhill
Time January 31, 2010 at 6:51 pm

great article - Obama is not getting it….he seems defiant and hostile…against America.

Comment from Cal
Time February 1, 2010 at 9:30 pm

Stug, are you reduced to making esattamente comments now? “Just because you can’t find any on Fox, and are ideologically forbidden to change the channel, doesn’t mean they don’t exist elsewhere.” I expect that from him or from Leon. Okay, I actually expect it from you, too, but you’re my last and only hope of a reasonable liberal. Er, “moderate.”

Amilam shares with us, “I think it’s telling that there isn’t any attempt to defend the Brown’s poorly worded hatchet job by Conservatives or any other Conservative media for that matter.”

Poorly worded hatchet job. That’s a very astute summary. Let’s take a look. Is it fair to claim President Obama uses the word “I” more than any president in history? If so (and I believe it may be true) then the claim of narcissism doesn’t fall from the tree. He’s certainly been on television trying to sell his agenda more than any of his predecessors in spite of the fact that the majority of Americans aren’t buyin’ what he’s sellin’.

The Floyd’s assert Obama isn’t hearing the message to back off. Democrats didn’t just lose, they got their asses handed to them in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. And yet the president continues to press his failed agenda. If that isn’t tone deaf, then I don’t understand the term. They further charge the president knows little about job creation even though he prattled on about it at length. He has fewer folks from the private sector who understand job creation and business than any administration since statistics have been kept. In spite of his much-vaunted “stimulus” bill that was to keep unemployment under 8% it rose to over 10. During that time, three million people lost their jobs (all Bush’s fault, of course.) The Floyds do at least have a point.

Did you hear of any national security issue Obama called for other than “gays in the military?” Perhaps I fell asleep like Harry Reid, but I don’t recall anything substantive. Only this ridiculous idea from a man who’s never led troops in combat and who probably thinks the idea is analogous to segregation. Again, they make an excellent point.

As to their closing paragraph, I couldn’t agree more.

I could continue to go paragraph by paragraph but it’s hardly worth the time. I’ve already demonstrated that each point they made has some validity to it. Next time Gene Lyons writes one of his factless “pieces” I’ll be asking you to do the same. And I guarantee you you’ll have the harder task by far.

Comment from geoff
Time February 1, 2010 at 9:41 pm

“Only this ridiculous idea from a man who’s never led troops in combat and who probably thinks the idea is analogous to segregation.”
I’m trying to remember: the first Bush was a pilot, Reagan & the second Bush had prior engagements or more pressing concerns or something better to do, so… Again: Cal’s critique is a little self-serving, myopic, silly. It’s also strange that the US, supposedly the champion of human rights, equality, etc., can’t keep up with the rest of the world. I remember articles on gay soldiers in the Danish military decades ago: soldiers seemed to be quite comfortable with the idea of sharing a tent with their gay officer, given that the Danes tend to be a little less prudish than Americans anyway, but also given the fact that a tent in bivouac is not exactly the most romantic place going.
I’m also assuming Cal has not read such classics as “The Thin Red Line.” He might learn something.
Then again, yeah: maybe it’s not such a good idea after all, given the way the US military has botched integrating women, too. What’s the rape rate like, Cal?

Comment from Amilam
Time February 2, 2010 at 4:04 am

“Is it fair to claim President Obama uses the word “I” more than any president in history? ”

They make no such claim. Probably because a claim would that would be pretty easy to verify. They could at least compare the use of “I” statistically with other Presidents in the televised era. Nope, instead they highlight eight examples from an entire speech. Wow, crack journalism there from the Right. I wonder how many times you used “I” in your tiny little post. I guess that means you’re a ragging narcissist as well. Of course we both know that inventing narcissism for your opponent is a lot easier than actually saying something worthwhile, huh?

Comment from Cal
Time February 2, 2010 at 8:31 pm

Amilam,
Interesting how your challenge was to defend this “hatchet job” and yet your response to that defense (which was done rather well if I do say so) was to latch onto what you perceive to be an omission on the part of the authors. (“Failing” to find statistics on his use of the pronoun compared w/other presidents. Wow.) It was _me_, not the Floyds who asked the question when I wrote, “Is it fair to claim President Obama uses the word “I” more than any president in history? If so (and I believe it may be true) then the claim of narcissism doesn’t fall from the tree.” Neither I, nor the Floyds, claimed he does—only that it may be true and that IF it is so, then it follows their assessment of the president as narcissistic _might_ be valid.

You didn’t refute any of their points or my defense of how reasonable those points were. Only a grasp at a completely irrelevant “slight” perceived as such by you and you alone. That’s about as credible as your very weak defense of Southern Democrats in the House “pushing the legislation over the top.” Looks a pattern is emerging.

As to being self-absorbed, it seems it was _you_ crying about, “_I_ took all the time to write this.” “They’re ignoring ME. Crickets are all _I_ hear.” There are several more examples but hunting for them would be as childish as your implication that claims of narcissism are all I offered and applicable to me alone. Pot, meet kettle.

Comment from Amilam
Time February 3, 2010 at 3:57 am

I’m not sure if you’re being obtuse intentionally or trying to be cute, but it’s a bore either way. Come back to me when/if you can manage one single excerpt of substance to the discussion. I mean I know you like to focus about me, but even I am tired of talking about myself. :)

Comment from Cal
Time February 3, 2010 at 9:08 pm

Someone appears to be borderline schizophrenic. Two or three weeks ago he was pitching a hissy fit with neck veins bulging for someone daring to challenge him on one of his drop in, drive-by pot shots at the “wingnuts.” A few days ago he was wondering if he was “being stalked.” In Reagan’s thread below he’s complaining because no one responded to him. Now in this one, my response was so on-the-money, the best retort he’s got is, “Are you intentionally trying to be stupid?” We have anger, paranoia, neglect, and narcissism all tied together in one nice, neat little package.

Oh, if we’re reducing the conversation to Forrest Gump lines please allow me to offer, “Obtuse is as obtuse does, sir.”

Makes me pine for the muddled and illogical but always genuine replies from Good Life.

Comment from Amilam
Time February 4, 2010 at 1:11 am

“Two or three weeks ago he was pitching a hissy fit with neck veins bulging…”

Ahh, looks like someone is projecting again! That’s right Missy, keep telling yourself that it’s me and not you. It’s me, not you. You can at least come up with original insults. Man, really disappointing results from a troll. Still, not a single shred of substance in that reply. I wonder if Cal would even recognize a fact if it bit him.

Comment from Cal
Time February 4, 2010 at 8:45 pm

Projecting? Wow! There’s that big word from your psych 101 class. I guess if I was getting my ass handed to me time after time, I’d take a stab at saying something similar, too, in the hopes of muddying the waters.

Did I mention delusional yesterday? If not, let me add that to the clinical diagnosis. (Do-do-do-do. Do-do-do-do.)

Hey, I asked you to call me Callie! Calling me “Missy” really hurts my feelings–bad. I do have feelings, you know!

Love,
Missy, a Con

Comment from Amilam
Time February 5, 2010 at 2:01 pm

Ahh, no more trying to pretend you’ve somehow managed to bring me into a rage with playschool taunts? Guess I hit the nail squarely on the head.

Comment from geoff
Time February 5, 2010 at 2:58 pm

“I guess if I was getting my ass handed to me time after time, I’d take a stab at saying something similar, too, in the hopes of muddying the waters.” But you do. Asking irrelevant questions seems to be one of your main ways of muddying waters. Ad hominem attacks another.
“Now in this one, my response was so on-the-money.” In your looking-glass world (speaking of narcissism), perhaps.
“Neither I, nor the Floyds, claimed he does—only that it may be true and that IF it is so, then it follows their assessment of the president as narcissistic _might_ be valid.” Yes, but what kind of argument is that? Someone did a mildly amusing variant on this a while back by suggesting Glen Beck may have raped and murdered some girl back in the early ’90s. So, if that was true, then it would be fair to call Glen Beck a murderer and a rapist; and since Glen Beck does not seem to be doing much to deny these charges… But before you make some kind of accusation along those lines, it probably might make sense to check to see if there was any validity there, first.
“He’s certainly been on television trying to sell his agenda more than any of his predecessors.” Funny, a lot of commentators have been saying the opposite: too little, too late. That he didn’t stand up to the “Death Panel” BS back in the day, somehow imagined that people would get the point, but… No sense underestimating & whatever PT Barnum said, etc.
Maybe he should stand up there and say “You’re either with us or against us” or stand on an aircraft carrier and just proclaim that “Mission Accomplished” and everyone can go home now (then hold a vote while the Republicans are off on holiday).
Oh, and poor Cal (”a Con”: ex-con, con-artist?), despite endless taunts at “leftwingnuts” and accusing others of being fat and bald and living in their mothers’ cellars, and generally acting like a spoiled, lying whiny brat rather than an ex-Marine, claims to have “feelings.” Is that supposed to make up for a lack of “facts”?
Just wondering: do you censor Fox news when they mention the dreaded T-word?

Comment from geoff
Time February 5, 2010 at 3:18 pm

Interesting:
“In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office released estimates on the cost of the policy. Cautioning that the amount may be too low, the GAO reported $95.4 million in recruiting costs and $95.1 million for training replacements for the 9,488 troops discharged from 1994 through 2003.
“In February 2006, a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission including Lawrence Korb, a former assistant defense secretary during the Reagan administration, former Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Clinton administration, and professors from the United States Military Academy at West Point concluded that figure should be closer to $363 million, including $14.3 million for “separation travel” once a service member is discharged, $17.8 million for training officers, $252.4 million for training enlistees and $79.3 million in recruiting costs. The commission report stated that the GAO didn’t take into account the value the military lost from the departures.”
And:
“Most Western military forces have now removed policies excluding individuals of sexual orientations other than heterosexual (with strict policies on sexual harassment). Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, two (Britain, France) permit gay people to serve openly, and three (United States, Russia, China) do not. Besides Greece, which bans homosexuals from serving, all other members of EU permit gay people to serve openly. The Greek discrimination policy has become the object of criticism by the European Union, as EU law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation…. Israel Defense Forces policies allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly and without discrimination or harassment due to actual or perceived sexual orientation, including special units. Consul David Saranga at the Israeli Consulate in New York City, stated, “It’s a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time.”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.....n%27t_tell

Comment from GoodLife
Time February 5, 2010 at 5:54 pm

who probably thinks the idea is analogous to segregation.——Haven’t heard one argument that is different than segregation.

Comment from Cal
Time February 5, 2010 at 8:01 pm

“Ahh, no more trying to pretend you’ve somehow managed to bring me into a rage with playschool taunts?”

Playschool taunts? You mean like this one? “That’s right Missy, keep telling yourself that it’s me and not you. It’s me, not you. You can at least come up with original insults.”

No need to pretend when we have each one of your original tantrums right before our very eyes! I’m sure the few readers that follow Cagle are as weary of the silliness as I am so I won’t repost them. But I’m equally sure they’ve learned no one dares challenge Amilam without risking the invocation of his juvenile wrath. We’ve seen it on full display in all its glory.

Comment from Cal
Time February 5, 2010 at 8:17 pm

“who probably thinks the idea is analogous to segregation.——Haven’t heard one argument that is different than segregation.” You’d have to get your news from a source that isn’t MSNBC. Segregation was based on race. Race is genetic. Homosexuality may or may not be genetic. We have no way of knowing unless you buy into the extremely poor studies of a very small number of dead gay men whose hypothalamuses were examined. That’s even more questionable than the “science” used to support global warming so it won’t surprise me if your eggs are in that basket. Nearly all of the homosexual lobby’s efforts have been about making sexuality genetic for obvious reasons. That’s the macro picture.

The micro is that ALL sexual distraction in the military is a negative on any unit dealing with it. I served in two units that had female Marines in it. The way the women were treated was unbelievably different than the men. There were also affairs ongoing on a regular basis that often resulted in pregnancy and discharge–the only real difference with gays serving openly. Is there homosexual activity in the military? Uh, duh. Is it mostly underground? Well, yeah. But if allowed to serve openly, there will be the same issue with gay men as with women. Gay men will be a distraction and that impacts unit readiness.

Saying other countries have gays serving openly is NOT justification for our doing so. It’s no different than saying other militaries allow men to wear very long hair. It’s irrelevant. Readiness and combat efficiency are all that matters. Any distraction is one distraction too many. The military is the last place we need social experimentation to make the Left feel good about itself. We have enough difficulties dealing with the problems of women on active duty. Sorry, that’s just a fact. We don’t need to compound the problem with love triangles and favoritism and special favors.

Admiral Mullen is a good man. He’s just flat wrong on this issue. Maybe he’s thinking he doesn’t want to end up looking for work the way Peter Pace did…

Just like health care and gays in the military were rejected in 1993/4, they will be both be rejected in 2010. America may have temporarily lost its mind in November of 2008, but it’s regained consciousness and neither of these insane liberal agenda items will get past the congress this time either.

GL, if you responded to my religion questions, I’m afraid the thread dropped off.

Comment from Amilam
Time February 6, 2010 at 10:23 am

You know Cal, I’ll give you credit for a surprising moment of honesty. I don’t mind if you need to “[muddy] the waters” to salvage some of your fragile self esteem, but please control yourself to a degree and limit your stupidity to one thread. I don’t mind baiting you into your hissy fits, but I don’t others find it as amusing as I do.

Comment from geoff
Time February 6, 2010 at 8:00 pm

Amilam: you really think he’s trying to salvage some self-esteem? Not sort of like deep six what little he’s got?
“Gays in the military were rejected in 1993/4, they will be both be rejected in 2010. America may have temporarily lost its mind in November of 2008, but it’s regained consciousness and neither of these insane liberal agenda items will get past the congress this time either.”
Interesting: was rejecting McCain & Palin or suggesting they constituted credible candidates equal “temporary loss of mind”?
And yeah: gays in the military seems to be one of those “insane liberal agenda items” i.e. accepting the consequences of claiming that “all men are created equal.” Obviously if you aren’t allowed to play soldier, you’re not really equal, are you? But yes, Cal: equality is a pretty insane concept. Should hurry up with the revisions so that it reads “but some are more equal than others.”
I’ll bet Cal’s a big Pink Floyd fan, eh?
It really doesn’t get much funnier than this. Cal & Colbert…

Comment from Amilam
Time February 7, 2010 at 8:50 am

Well of course. Not voting the way wingnuts say you should = America losing it’s mind. Just like how Palin justified McCain’s flagging support in the election by saying that he was winning “real America”. Too bad fake America is allowed to vote too, huh?

I don’t know why Cal has such a fixation on me. I’m content to allow him his own little fantasy world, but he feels this strange need to not only trot along after me in every thread, but to project rage onto me. It’s honestly stunning to me that he thinks he’s generic forum troll routine is anything unique or capable of inspiring anger. At this point I think it’s pretty transparent that he needs me to angry, because with the shock jocks of the Right being able to shock and offend is what passes for reasonable debate. Therefore the best way to get under Cal’s skin is just to brush off his juvenile little taunts and ignore his attempts to muddy the water. Still, I feel sorry for the other posters here who have the wade through his drivel in attempts of having something resembling a mature discussion because of his fixation on me. Honestly, if he just followed through on his promise to stop threat stalking me I think it would be to the benefit for the forum. Yet we both know he’s psychologically incapable of that.

Comment from Cal
Time February 8, 2010 at 9:15 pm

I thought my comments on gays serving in the military might bring an intelligent response from someone on the Left. Perhaps a discussion of the “science” used to “prove” inherited/genetic preference or least a philosophical attempt to justify how homosexuality is analogous to segregation. Unfortunately, no one seems interested in tackling the issue. I’d even settle for some sort of intellectual debate around the periphery. Unfortunately there have been no worthwhile thoughts offered. Perhaps by the time I get home this afternoon someone will have taken up the challenge. Nope, it’s 4pm and still no intelligent thoughts have been offered in response.

Having spent most of my adult life on active duty as an enlisted Marine and then as an officer gives me just a bit of perspective on what the challenges are in leading men in peacetime let alone in combat and how difficult that is without the added distraction of sexual tensions. There’s a very good reason women aren’t allowed in infantry units that is deeper than just their inability to handle the physical part of the job which is incredibly demanding.

Perhaps someone with no experience can chime in and explain how that isn’t true or why it doesn’t matter. Maybe even an argument as shallow as “Denmark” does it so we should, too, just to get the ball rolling? Nah, this is another one of the issues liberals “just know.” They don’t need any facts. Just a feeling and “poof” they’re right! Sounds a lot like their global warming “logic.” (Did you notice the record 32” of snow in DC at the Dulles airport? RFK Jr., wrote in 2008 lamenting the future lack of winter weather he used to enjoy when his dad and uncle would toboggan in topcoats in DC. Yep, those days are long gone…
http://www.washingtonexaminer......34057.html

Were I to let my “stupidity” show, I’d offer an unsupported and unsupportable assertion like the religious right bears responsibility for an increase in teenage pregnancy or continually insist Southern Democrats “pushed civil rights legislation over the top” when the did everything in their power to block it from becoming law. No, I’m simply making the point that there is no reputable science to prove inherited homosexuality. Well, unless you want to try and extrapolate from fruit flies to humans. (No, not liberals, literal fruit flies.)