Disqus - Latest Comments for jchem

Re: Islam is “Not a Religion”; It’s a “Political System”

jchem — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:59:05 -0000

JSpencer: Can you name any left-leaning "religious fringe nut" who is actually comparable to Robertson in this way?

I'm pretty sure a strong argument can be made to put Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton in this 'club'. Then again, I've always felt Robertson was in a camp all of his own. Maybe he's friends with the Westboro Baptist loons.

Re: From “No” to “Boo!”

jchem — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:55:17 -0000

You mean to tell us it's all the Repubs fault for this bill not passing yet? Gee, and here I thought they were irrelevant these days given the crazies who run the party. I've said this on several threads, but I'll say it again. Every single Repub in both chambers can vote against this bill. If the Dems can't get the votes out of their own party, then they're really not serious about passing the bill. The Dem problem seems to be that they forgot how to govern.

Re: We Have Gay and Lesbian Veterans, Too

jchem — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:43:20 -0000

Sil said: Before you take off your shoes and start throwing them at me, take a course in social anthropology and get back to me.

Ahh, yes, once again we can rely on the vast knowledge of Dr Sil, our resident expert when it comes to psychology. How about this; we can all discuss social anthropology with you when you're willing to honestly discuss psychology with us. Perhaps we can start with how you justify giving the finger to the APA and their stance on human sexuality. I've also noticed how you no longer choose to hang so closely on to that Pfaus article you bandied around here for so long...perhaps you can give us an update on his work? Here's his website if you want to get started.

Thank you for your post Dorian, and for all of the others you have put together concerning all veterans, not just the ones Sil wants to label as "normal".

Re: Will There be a Vote on Health Care Tomorrow?

ProfElwood — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:31:07 -0000

Pelosi isn't an idiot. House leaders do their counting before they call for a vote. I'd be greatly surprised if it doesn't pass this weekend.

Re: Will There be a Vote on Health Care Tomorrow?

jchem — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:24:26 -0000

The Repubs may not be all that interested in this legislation, but the sad fact is that they are not needed. Every single one of them in both chambers can vote against it. The problem now, as it has been all summer long, is that the Dems cannot get their own party on board:

The apparent problem: Democrats have yet to resolve intraparty disputes over abortion funding and illegal immigrants' access to health care.

Intraparty disputes...If the Dems were truly interested in getting something done, as they have repeatedly said they were, they would tell the Repubs to go to hell and wallow away in the sand for awhile. With people like Bachman leading the opposition, it shouldn't be that hard to get your own party on board.

Re: Will There be a Vote on Health Care Tomorrow?

jchem — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:34:17 -0000

Never mind the fact that Pelosi has gone back on her promise to put any final health care bill up on line for 72 hours before a vote

Now this is a knee slapper if there was one. 72 hours to read, digest, and completely understand a 2,000 page doorstop?

Re: What’s Lieberman’s Problem?

JeffersonDavis — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:41:37 -0000

" I just think it's a bit dishonest to point your finger at the stupidity of the Repubs but never notice it in your own party. "

Remember, Jchem.....
Kathy is an ultra-liberal - no logic is required.
When the other side does something, it is a travesty of justice.
When her side does the same thing, they must have been victimised and didn't have a choice.

Sounds like the typical utlra-liberal approach to me.

(no offense intended to my other true intellectual liberal brothers and sisters out there who actually use logic and call both sides like they should)

Re: What’s Lieberman’s Problem?

jchem — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:02:05 -0000

And Democrats are trying to purge their party of moderates.... how? I'm supposed to "balance" any statement about Republicans trying to purge their party of moderates with an independent clause adding that Democrats are trying to purge their party of moderates -- even though they're not?

The Dems aren't purging in the same sense that the Repubs are, but when you issue veiled threats about losing your chair for not going with the party, that seems to be a bit of a purge to me. Others could call it blackmail, or buying a vote.

Is it acceptable according to your book of rules to go after a specific Democrat -- or in this case an Independent who used to be a Democrat and who still caucuses with the Democrats and claims to support Democratic goals -- as opposed to the whole party? Or can one only go after a specific Democrat if that Democrat is on the liberal side of the party? If a specific Democrat acts like the back end of a donkey, does that mean we call out the party?

Ah yes, my magic 'rule book'. I just think it's a bit dishonest to point your finger at the stupidity of the Repubs but never notice it in your own party. You do an excellent job on almost a daily basis of telling me why I should not support Repubs; however, you never give me any reasons why I should actually support your party, other than the Dems aren't as insane as the Repubs. That's very comforting...

Furthermore, I don't know who this "some of us" is, but as my memory serves me, it does not include you. Do provide evidence to support a correction if I'm wrong.

Good thing we have Disqus, which keeps a record of comments. Feel free to dig through all of mine and show me how I'm some sort of crazed ideologue.

Re: Read It and Weep

jchem — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:33:45 -0000

from the original article:

What if? Well, this year, that would mean devoting $680 billion to investments in infrastructure. That’s more than $200 billion more than Oberstar’s entire proposed transportation reauthorization bill, which was itself a large increase over the previous transportation law.

Wait...we did pass a $787B stimulus, right? Having said that, I will agree to the broader question of trimming defense spending. See here and here.

Our military expenses are close to half of the combined military spending on the planet. We also spend just over twice as much as the next country (the EU actually). I would love for someone to try making an intelligent argument as to why we should actually increase this madness.

Re: What’s Lieberman’s Problem?

Don_Quijote — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:55:10 -0000

You wouldn't be looking for some ideological purity within your own party now would you?

Lieberman is not a Democrat, he is the founding member of the Connecticut For Lieberman party.

AP: Sen. Lieberman's Party Taken Over By Critic

STAMFORD The Connecticut for Lieberman Party, the minor political party created by Sen. Joe Lieberman for his successful independent bid for re-election, has been taken over by a longtime critic of the senator.

Fairfield University political science professor John Orman's takeover has been recognized by Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz.

Orman is the sole member of the party and filed paperwork with Bysiewicz's office naming himself chairman. The state officials accepted Orman's takeover and his bylaws which limit membership to critics of the senator and anyone named Lieberman.

ROTFLMAO...

Re: What’s Lieberman’s Problem?

kathykattenburg — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:45:11 -0000

It just seems to me that you have a pretty good time pointing out how the Repubs are dysfunctional, or how they say stupid things, or how they are trying to purge themselves of the moderates. Yet you do the same things with those in your party who you don't agree with.

And Democrats are trying to purge their party of moderates.... how? I'm supposed to "balance" any statement about Republicans trying to purge their party of moderates with an independent clause adding that Democrats are trying to purge their party of moderates -- even though they're not?

You held up Frank Rich's article comparing the Repubs to Stalinists as a brilliant piece of commentary, yet you decried the Repubs when they compared the Dems to Nazis.

In fact, Republican tactics with regard to ideological purity are reminiscent of Stalinist tactics. As I suggested in that other post, we can use the word "totalitarian" if you prefer it to "Stalinist," but the point is the same.

Some of us are just willing to go after both parties when they're stupid, rather than being happy partisans carrying water for our party masters.

Is it acceptable according to your book of rules to go after a specific Democrat -- or in this case an Independent who used to be a Democrat and who still caucuses with the Democrats and claims to support Democratic goals -- as opposed to the whole party? Or can one only go after a specific Democrat if that Democrat is on the liberal side of the party? If a specific Democrat acts like the back end of a donkey, does that mean we call out the party?

Furthermore, I don't know who this "some of us" is, but as my memory serves me, it does not include you. Do provide evidence to support a correction if I'm wrong.

Re: What’s Lieberman’s Problem?

jchem — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:11:27 -0000

You give me a break, Kathy. Nowhere in my comment to you am I raising anything having to do with the New York race. I don't live there, so it doesn't matter to me. It just seems to me that you have a pretty good time pointing out how the Repubs are dysfunctional, or how they say stupid things, or how they are trying to purge themselves of the moderates. Yet you do the same things with those in your party who you don't agree with. You haven't had anything positive to say about Lieberman, and if I remember correctly, you haven't been very fond of the Blue Dogs holding up this healthcare legislation. I mean, I get the idea that your idea of compromise ends with the 51-vote nuclear option.

We had this same discussion on a previous thread. You held up Frank Rich's article comparing the Repubs to Stalinists as a brilliant piece of commentary, yet you decried the Repubs when they compared the Dems to Nazis. Some of us are just willing to go after both parties when they're stupid, rather than being happy partisans carrying water for our party masters.

I'm really fed up with your lack of consistency. It's inaccurate, intellectually lazy, and just totally obnoxious.

Re: Obama Then and Now

jchem — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:02:29 -0000

Governing is much harder than campaigning.

Which may be why some are accusing Obama of running a permanent campaign. At any rate, I'm with dduck12 on this and willing to give him a little slack for only being here for 10 months. I will however fault his campaign for the expectations they raised for themselves and the seemingly impossible task it is for them to get there. It's this reason why many folks on the left side of the aisle don't think that Obama has done enough. Take for example, Bill Maher, among many:

Is This as Good as It Gets From Obama?

Re: What’s Lieberman’s Problem?

kathykattenburg — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:58:51 -0000

Oh, give me a break, jchem. You're comparing Joe Lieberman, a senator for what? 30 years? one of the most powerful people in the Senate, to DeDe Scozzafava? Dede Scozzafava has the power to lead Republicans around by the nose? When the Republican far right faithful genuflect and do handsprings and somersaults to keep Dede Scozzafava in the Party, then you can make some sort of comparison between what Republicans do to moderates in their Party, and what Lieberman is doing to the Democrats. And that's the point. It's Lieberman that's trying to destroy the Democratic Party's centerpiece legislation after the Democratic leadership gave him concession after concession just to avoid this outcome. I mean, this is actually the total opposite of what Republicans are doing in purging their party of moderates. Give me a break. Obama and Democrats in Congress desperately trying to curry favor with Blue Dogs to get their cooperation on health care? Give me a break! When was the last time John Boehner or Michele Bachmann tried to curry favor with anyone in their party one inch to the left of them?

I'm really fed up with this false equivalency. It's inaccurate, intellectually lazy, and just totally obnoxious.

Re: What’s Lieberman’s Problem?

dduck12 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:31:26 -0000

Agreed. KK, are you paying "attention"?

Re: What’s Lieberman’s Problem?

jchem — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:00:14 -0000

Kathy, a few posts ago, you wrote about ideological purity within the GOP. You wouldn't be looking for some ideological purity within your own party now would you? You should tone down your insults as well; anybody who actually has ADD might see your slight as a slap in the face.

Re: Deja Vu: The Spanish Inquisition

kathykattenburg — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:23:37 -0000

I know. And even if he weren't a lawyer for so many years -- I mean, how many well-known political figures have gotten in trouble just in the past *year* for doing something like this? It's really dumb.

Re: Deja Vu: The Spanish Inquisition

jchem — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:06:20 -0000

oops is right. The key paragraph from the article:

But neither Christie -- a lawyer for 22 years -- nor anyone in his campaign bothered to seek any permission for using the copyrighted material in his election spot.

You think he would know better. Regardless, I think the folks in NJ are just going to have to hold their breath, or turn their faces when they vote. Neither of the candidates seem all that appealing.

Re: Political Cannibalism

jchem — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:09:49 -0000

So let's get this straight. Folks had a great time over the summer comparing Obama and the democrats to Nazis and we were treated to numerous posts here on this site talking about how low political discourse has become. Why, a simple google shows you didn't much like it and posted so here (as just one of many examples). Now, you and the left embrace the idea put forth by Rich that the Right are a bunch of Stalinists? Seriously?

During the late 1930s, Stalin launched the Great Purge (also known as the "Great Terror"), a campaign to purge the Communist Party of people accused of sabotage, terrorism, or treachery; he extended it to the military and other sectors of Soviet society. Targets were often executed, imprisoned in Gulag labor camps or exiled. In the years following, millions of ethnic minorities were also deported....Researchers before the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union attempting to count the number of people killed under Stalin's regime produced estimates ranging from 3 to 60 million.

In your post, you wrote "The right’s tactics in upstate New York are another illustration of a central paradox about the contemporary GOP — its tendency to mirror that which it supposedly reviles". How is what you are doing any different?

Re: Political Compass

jchem — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:45:29 -0000

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85

Interesting how many of us here seem to be relatively close to each other, while at the same time having some pretty heated threads.

Re: The House Health Bill: Here come the taxes

jchem — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:19:42 -0000

Jazz: (I’ve gotten through the first hundred or so, and my hat is off to anyone who reads fast enough to have finished the whole thing already.)

Ha! You know the funny thing is that you've probably read more of it thus far than anyone in Congress, considering a lot of them are in full damage control.

I'm not sure any of this is much of a surprise. We are talking ~$1.055 Trillion. It does make me wonder about that "If you make less than $250,000, then your taxes will not go up one dime" nonsense. Perhaps we should have known better when that number kept decreasing from one week to the next.

Re: Pres. Obama Stands Witness at Dover Air Force Base

jchem — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:48:03 -0000

I agree with pretty much everyone else on this thread; using this as a political football is pretty sad, and should be below anyone who wants to keep any credibility. But it really doesn't come as any surprise since everything needs to be politicized.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

AustinRoth — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:00:06 -0000

anti-war protests start up or have a daily tally of the casualties Against the One? By our not-Left-leaning, completely unbiased (except for Fox, which isn't a news organization anyway) media?

HA HA HA HA.

My vote for the funniest post of the month.

Re: Dithering Before Sending Americans to Die

jchem — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:51:47 -0000

He needs to make a decision, or at the very least tell us all what it is we are trying to do there. Call it dithering, thinking, or whatever else you want to call it, but this is what is happening while we wait for a decision:

Eight American troops were killed in two separate insurgent attacks Tuesday in southern Afghanistan, making October the deadliest month of the war for U.S. forces since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban.

So that means that four of the past five months have each been the deadliest months of this war since it was started. I guess I'm a bit surprised we haven't seen any anti-war protests start up or have a daily tally of the casualties.

Re: Why Is The Government Still Ashamed ?

jchem — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:07:29 -0000

Sil: "So how is it, specifically, that the attackers know the peson they're attacking is gay?"

Sil, I'm not sure if you're purposefully trying to sound dense, but you're sure coming off that way. If witnesses and victims report hearing a bunch of slurs while the attack was taking place, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why the person was attacked. These attacks aren't random.

And I know you have been beating the "learned behavior, fixated, deviants, the gays are recruiting our children" nonsense ever since I can remember ever discussing this issue with you. Apparently, you think the APA are just a bunch of crazies beholden to the "gay agenda", as you have never responded to any of the numerous links I've supplied to you.

I'd like to know really which external marker indicates someone is homosexual?

Perhaps you could then tell us which external marker indicates someone is heterosexual?

roro: They're not asking that you accept them, they are merely asking for their constitutionally protected rights.

Well said roro.