"LAS VEGAS (Dec. 14) -- The owner of a brothel more than two hours' drive from Las Vegas said she hopes to hire Nevada's first legal male prostitutes within a month, now that state health officials have approved a method to test men for infectious diseases.
The world is ready for women, or even other men, to legally buy sex, said Shady Lady Ranch owner Bobbi Davis. Plus, being the first to offer male service could boost business in tough economic times, she said.
Until now, men have been effectively barred from legally plying the world's oldest profession in Nevada by the specificity of a state health law requiring prostitutes to undergo frequent cervical testing for sexually transmitted diseases.
The health board approved a regulation to allow urethral testing for men -- a crucial rule change by the state agency with ultimate power over whether prostitutes can or can't work.
For more than 25 years, no licensed female prostitute in Nevada has contracted HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, said George Flint, a Reno wedding chapel owner and longtime lobbyist for the Nevada Brothel Owners Association."
December 15, 2009 1:39 PM
Anonymous said...
if you read other blogs, you probably know that Barry O has given himself a B+ for his performance in the White House
the voters beg to differ:
"Back in August as part of its special coverage of Obama's "Second Hundred Days", CNN asked its viewers to give the Obama administration grades on a number of issues.
Here is how the American public graded the Obama administration:
Handling of the Economy = C- Handling of Health Care = D Handling of Foreign Affairs = C
As for the grade the public gave President Obama himself? C-.
Not exactly the kind of report card kids like to bring home to their parents.
For the record, President Obama's job approval rating in early August after his second hundred days was 54% and his disapproval rating was 40%.
Four months later with a job approval rating of only 48% and a disapproval rating of 45%, it's awfully hard to imagine the public thinks President Obama deserves a higher grade than they gave him in August."
Shortly thereafter, Wolf Blitzer asked Robert Gibbs what grade he would give Barry O.
Gibbs said B.
Once again we see that no one has as high an opinion of Barry O as Barry O himself!
December 15, 2009 3:01 PM
Derrick said...
What is happening in Urganda is quite sad. Those who have led up to this horrible act against humanity should regret it the rest of their gross lives.
December 15, 2009 6:07 PM
Anonymous said...
as of now, nothing's happened, drick
why don't you tell that pathetic excuse of a president, that you like so much, to speak out against it and threaten sanctions?
oh that's right, he's probably packing for this weekend, when he will go to Copenhagen, the tenth foreign trip of his miserable presidency
he does have to set priorities
that's why we're keeping DADT and straight marriage!
December 15, 2009 6:19 PM
Comment deleted
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
December 15, 2009 6:21 PM
Comment deleted
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
December 15, 2009 6:21 PM
Anonymous said...
Barry O lost his cool today and went jubilant over indications a health care bill was about to pass
while he's dancing a jig in the Blue Room, Americans are deeply worried:
"A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds the public generally fearful that a revamped health care system would bring higher costs while worsening the quality of their care.
A bare majority of Americans still believe government action is needed to control runaway health-care costs and expand coverage to the roughly 46 million people without insurance. But after a year of exhortation by President Obama and Democratic leaders and a high-octane national debate, there is minimal public enthusiasm for the kind of comprehensive changes in health care now under consideration.
There are also signs the political fight has hurt the president's general standing with the public."
and this guy is probably wondering why we gave him a D
earth to Barry: we wanted you to fix the system, not make it worse
December 15, 2009 6:30 PM
Anonymous said...
"Anonymous"...you seem to be fascinated by the doings in Uganda. Are you planning on vacationing there? I'm sure they could use your homophobic expertise. And if not Uganda, perhaps Nevada's Shady Lady Ranch? ("The world is ready for women, or even other men, to legally buy sex, said Shady Lady Ranch owner Bobbi Davis.") I can't imagine Ms Davis would turn down your dollars, whether for a female or male prostitute. And the benefit is that it is so far away from home..no one will ever know!
December 15, 2009 11:20 PM
Anonymous said...
"you seem to be fascinated by the doings in Uganda"
I am?
I've made a couple of attempts to change the subject.
Really, I'm not in favor of executing deviants but, look around the world: it's filled with injustice or over-justice.
“I think this article is probably correct in saying that the religious right in the US is realizing that their crusade of hatred is failing within our borders, and so are taking the show to the developing world where reaction is not likely to be so sophisticated, people will not be so well educated.”
I also think it’s a practice run for the U.S. in the hopes that their reconstructionist/dominionist designs come true. --- “Really, I'm not in favor of executing deviants”
And we all know what the word of a sociopath means: Say whatever it takes to make you look good at the time.
December 16, 2009 5:34 AM
Anonymous said...
oh, is that what it means?
improv apparently doesn't have a PhD in religious studies
authentic, biblically-based Christian groups do oppose homosexuality and agree that it is a sin meriting death but that is only part of the story
they also believe all sin merits death and that judgment belongs to God alone and the their mission here is to make disciples of Christ, who are forgiven- that is, to help other escape judgment
there are heretics who say all kinds of things
some heretics say homsexuality is not really unscriptural
other heretics say we should execute homosexuals
then, they are people who quote heretics and say their unbiblical view represents Christianity
when, in truth, it represents inanity
right, inane-B?
December 16, 2009 11:13 AM
Anonymous said...
what really is starting to get ugly is Barry O's polls:
"(Dec. 16) -- President Barack Obama's approval rating dropped to a new low, as Americans continue to be unhappy with the poor economy and are skeptical about his plan for health care reform, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll found.
Obama's overall approval rating dropped 6 points in just the past month in the ABC/Post poll.
When it comes to the president's key initiative, health care, a majority of 53 percent disapprove. And 52 percent disapprove of his handling of the economy.
Obama recently provided his own analysis of his first year, telling Oprah Winfrey on a Christmas special that he earned "a good, solid B-plus.""
he must have thought he was filming and episode of the old MTV show, Unplugged
December 16, 2009 11:22 AM
bagpiper said...
I heard he was going to give himself a B and then decided he should get extra credit for scoring the Nobel Prize
Precisely. You’ve made up your own mind as to what the Bible should and should not contain in regard to what is right and wrong. So your question to me returns to you. Answer it for yourself, and you’ll have my answer as well.
December 16, 2009 3:27 PM
Anonymous said...
"You’ve made up your own mind as to what the Bible should and should not contain in regard to what is right and wrong."
No, I haven't.
I've come to trust the Bible through experience.
Revelation is one of the ways we learn, in addition to observation and reasoning. When all three coincide, you likely have truth. When they don't, you likely have fallacy.
The revelation that seems to best coincide with observation and reasoning is the Bible, thus, based on that experience, I would trust the Bible. In the ridiculous example you hypothesized, I know enough to know the Bible would never say anything like that.
"So your question to me returns to you. Answer it for yourself, and you’ll have my answer as well."
This is quintessential improv circular non sequitur cop-out.
Show a little courage and answer the question or, at least, admit you have no idea.
"I know enough to know the Bible would never say anything like that."
What are you basing your knowledge of that on?
December 16, 2009 7:04 PM
Anonymous said...
improv has again evaded answering
could you tell us how you learned the difference between right and wrong?
December 16, 2009 10:34 PM
Anonymous said...
Of all people to accuse others of "evading answering"...you, "Anonymous" are the supreme practioner of that particular trick.
And you hiding behind a religious version of Grimm's Fairy Tales doesn't cover up the fact that you are a hypocrite of the worst kind...a religious phony, a "cafeteria Christian"...who spouts such nonsense as: "authentic, biblically-based Christian groups do oppose homosexuality and agree that it is a sin meriting death but that is only part of the story they also believe all sin merits death and that judgment belongs to God alone and the their mission here is to make disciples of Christ, who are forgiven- that is, to help other escape judgment"
Didn't you just state that "Judgement belongs to God alone"? Yet you set yourself up as "sinless" because you have been "forgiven" and that somehow bestows you with the gift and power of judging others.
I wonder what the Great Pie in the Sky thinks of your hubris and sin.
December 16, 2009 10:55 PM
Anonymous said...
"Of all people to accuse others of "evading answering"...you, "Anonymous" are the supreme practioner of that particular trick."
could you give us an example?
"And you hiding behind a religious version of Grimm's Fairy Tales doesn't cover up the fact that you are a hypocrite of the worst kind...a religious phony, a "cafeteria Christian"...who spouts such nonsense as: "authentic, biblically-based Christian groups do oppose homosexuality and agree that it is a sin meriting death but that is only part of the story they also believe all sin merits death and that judgment belongs to God alone and the their mission here is to make disciples of Christ, who are forgiven- that is, to help other escape judgment""
perhaps you could be more specific and explain why that is nonsense
"Didn't you just state that "Judgement belongs to God alone"?"
I sure did.
"Yet you set yourself up as "sinless" because you have been "forgiven""
actually, I said disciples of Christ are forgiven
I didn't say whether or not I was one
regardless, being forgiven doesn't make one sinless, it just makes them forgiven
"and that somehow bestows you with the gift and power of judging others."
I never said any remotely like that.
God alone is the judge.
December 16, 2009 11:14 PM
Anonymous said...
improv actually made this judgmental statement:
"If you need a book to tell you the difference between right and wrong, then you’re the one with the problem."
but then refused to answer this quite appropriate question:
"could you tell us how you learned the difference between right and wrong?"
when will the improvisational one improvise a way out of the corner he's back himself into with his smart aleckery?
December 16, 2009 11:19 PM
Anonymous said...
"Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society, you put in something, you get something back. I understand not enjoying having a big chunk of your paycheck disappear before you see it, sorry, we do enjoy the stability and prosperity that result, we would not enjoy anarchy or the tribalism represented by these primitive groups."
Jim, going back to a previous topic. Very curious what the general feeling on this blog is to the flat tax approach...
case in point, have one friend whose siblings have incorporated, are all multi-millionaires, all got stimulus checks. that is courtesy of our current tax code, where small businesses can declare EVERYTHING as a business expense, it comes off the top line against any income before any tax on the total profit is rendered. so, everything becomes a business expenses, valid or not. whereas a FLAT NATIONAL SALES tax would abolish that issue. kill the entire current income tax code, set up a flat national sales tax. More you spend, more you pay.
I did not get a stimulus check. two of my good friends that are single moms did not get stimulus checks.
everyone I know running a small business did get stimulus checks... which means that everyone running a small business declares little or no income (or most of them anyway).
It's radical, but it might be something both left wingers and right wingers can agree on....
"I know enough to know the Bible would never say anything like that."
What are you basing your knowledge of that on?
December 17, 2009 2:11 AM
Anonymous said...
improv, we're still in suspense, waiting for you to disclose how you learned the difference bewteen right and wrong
I think we may reached the limit of your ability to reflect and we haven't even gone anywhere
anon-alt, these guys would tend to oppose a national sales tax because it is fair and they prefer tax policies that advance a socialist agenda to redistribute income and punish those who succeed
taxes provide a drag on whatever they tax
the question is: are we better off taxing the production of income or the consumption of products?
if Congress allows Bush tax cuts to expire, they will increase the marginal tax rates on income and investment (tax rates on dividends will go up 25%) and destroy the weak recovery
November 2010 is less than a year away and will be a conservative landslide
December 17, 2009 6:40 AM
Aunt Bea said...
taxes provide a drag on whatever they tax
That's one view. Here's a better one:
"...The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows. Again, comrades over there, take the lesson from your own experience. Not only did you not grudge, but you gloried in the promotion of the great generals who gained their promotion by leading their army to victory. So it is with us. We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.
No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered - not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective - a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate..."
there was no income tax during Teddy Roosevelt's presidency (1901-1909)
the Supreme Court ruled income taxes unconstitutional in 1895 and an income tax wasn't re-established until a constitutional amendment was passed in 1913
how did we survive?
December 17, 2009 10:28 AM
Aunt Bea said...
Oh brother, Anone.
Other than the Great Depression, from the time income taxes began being collected in the USA right up until Bush slashed the tax rates in the upper income brackets and spent the US Treasury like a drunken frat boy, the US economy did pretty well. We survived quite nicely paying graduated taxes, where the poor pay a little and the rich pay a lot, all those years.
Paying taxes did not stop us from becoming the world's greatest superpower or a nation with one of the highest standards of living.
Revelation is one of the ways we learn, in addition to observation and reasoning. When all three coincide, you likely have truth.
based on that experience, I would trust the Bible.
I apologize, that actually is a good explanation/answer. And like I said, if you answer your question you’ll have answered mine.
But you say that you trust the Bible based on this.
The Bible is riddled with error. To say that your revelation, observation and reasoning are what lead you to trust the Bible, puts your ability to observe, reason, and interpret revelation in serious doubt.
You say “homosexuality” is a sin, yet, in and of itself, it harms no one. To believe that same-sex attraction, or even same-sex sex is a “sin,” tells me that your idea of sin and judgment does not include the concept of right and wrong.
Or, like I said before, “You’ve made up your own mind as to what the Bible should and should not contain in regard to what is right and wrong.”
You said you didn’t, which is why I asked: "if the Bible said that killing children for fun was a good thing, would you believe it?"
You said you “knew” the Bible could not say such a thing. I then asked how you knew, which you didn’t answer.
Did you misspeak, or do you really know? (Keeping in mind that your “Revelation…observation and reasoning” no longer apply, given that you consider those traits responsible for believing that a book, riddled with error, is the truth.
Point being, outside of the Bible, what is the so-called immorality that exists between those who love differently that you? -- could you tell us how you learned the difference between right and wrong?
Perhaps a better question would be: How did you learn to discern the difference between right and wrong?
There is no end to learning the difference between right and wrong. Is it wrong to kill if it’s to protect your family? Is it wrong to steal from those more fortunate if it’s to feed your children?
Those are extremes, I admit, but these are all decisions that have to be made everyday in this world, little or big, one harm over another. But the Golden Rule is the centrifuge. No Bible required. It is simply a recognizable choice. Which makes it all the more meaningful to God when atheists makes that choice, despite their disbelief in a god. -- judgment belongs to God alone
to help other escape judgment
Whom are you to decide who is to “escape” judgment?
To judge others who have not committed harm, is to judge arbitrarily.
Is this what you believe is acceptable to God?
December 18, 2009 10:46 PM
Terrible things are happening in Africa. As this Guardian article notes, "As far as gay rights are concerned, it would appear that much of Africa is going backwards." Because this blog has a local focus on Montgomery County, Maryland, we have not talked about the issue here. But it is turning out that there is a local connection. You may have seen Rachel Maddow's brutal takedown of Maryland "ex-gay" Richard Cohen on her show this week -- watch the remarkable footage HERE. Cohen was one of those who spoke to the Montgomery County school board to oppose the new sex-ed curriculum, he was President of PFOX, who actively opposed our health classes and has filed lawsuits against the school district. Maddow had him on her show because Cohen's writing is being used in Uganda to support legislation calling for the death penalty for homosexuality.
I am going to skip around the article in Sunday's Guardian, discussing how the American Christian right is supporting brutal anti-gay law-making in Africa. Uganda is likely to pass a law within months that will make homosexuality a capital offence, joining 37 other countries in the continent where American evangelical Christian groups are increasingly spreading bigotry
"Learned behaviour can be unlearned," said David Bahati. "You can't tell me that people are born gays. It is foreign influence that is at work."
Bahati has just presented his anti-homosexuality bill 2009 to Uganda's parliament. The bill, which will be debated within a fortnight and is expected to become law by February, will allow homosexuality to be punishable by death. Anti-gay bigots plunge Africa into new era of hate crimes The idea that homosexuality is learned is nonsensical and can be traced directly back to the American "ex-gay" hoax, which teaches that "change is possible." Richard Cohen's life mission has been to tell people they can stop being gay.
It is hard to imagine why any American would want to get involved with this kind of legislation in a foreign country, except maybe to denounce it and try to promote diplomatic pressure to stop it. It appears that anti-gay attitudes are spreading around the African continent. There is wide support for Bahati's law which, while being an extreme piece of anti-gay legislation, is not unique. As far as gay rights are concerned, it would appear that much of Africa is going backwards. Nigeria has a similar bill waiting to reach its statute books and already allows the death penalty for homosexuality in northern states, as does Sudan. Burundi criminalised homosexuality in April this year, joining 37 other African nations where gay sex is already illegal. Egypt and Mali are creeping towards criminalisation, using morality laws against same-sex couples.
The Ugandan bill extends existing laws to make it illegal to promote homosexuality by talking or writing about it, and forcing people to tell the authorities about anyone they know who is gay. The bill, said Bahati, 35, an MP from the ruling party, aims to "protect the cherished culture of the people of Uganda against the attempts of sexual rights activists seeking to impose their values of sex promiscuity on the people of Uganda". After a lifetime of hearing about bloody massacres, mass rapes, brutal dictatorships, violent revolutions, famine and starvation, Americans may feel numb to the real lives of people across the African continent. We simply cannot imagine the scale of these kinds of tragedies. Yet, it seems, there are some in our country who do tune in to the African cultures, in order to help make things even worse. [Bahati] denied reports that international pressure might result in parts of the bill being toned down. "We are not going to yield to any international pressure – we cannot allow people to play with the future of our children and put aid into the game. We are not in the trade of values. We need mutual respect."
But many suspect that it was outsiders who inspired this bill in the first place. In March, Bahati met several prominent anti-gay US Christian activists who attended a conference in Uganda where they pledged to "wipe out" homosexuality. The conference featured Scott Lively, president of California's anti-gay Abiding Truth Ministries and co-author of The Pink Swastika, a book claiming that leading Nazis were gay. Also there was Don Schmierer, on the board of Exodus International, which promotes the "ex-gay" movement, believing people can change their sexuality and be redeemed. The third extremist evangelical to attend was Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is linked to Richard Cohen who believes that psychotherapy can "cure" homosexuality.
Bahati's bill was drawn up within weeks of the conference, but it has only just begun to cause waves within America's powerful evangelical community. Legalising killing gay people has triggered a bad press for the bill. That last sentence is breathtaking. Bad press, oh my! I would think the bad thing about "legalising killing gay people" would be ... killing gay people.
To his benefit, Pastor Rick Warren, who you will remember delivered a benediction at the Obama inauguration, spoke out against the law. This weekend, Rick Warren, the most powerful evangelical in America, released a video statement. "As an American pastor, it is not my role to interfere with the politics of other nations, but it is my role to speak out on moral issues," he said, adding that the bill was "unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals". Okay, you gotta give him credit for that, even if he is only trying to prevent bad press.
Skipping down... In Entebbe last week, 200 religious leaders, under the powerful umbrella group Inter-Religious Council of Uganda, demanded diplomatic ties be severed with "ungodly" donor countries, including the UK, Sweden and Canada, who are "bent on forcing homosexuality on Ugandans".
Joshua Kitakule, the council's secretary-general, said: "Those countries should respect our spiritual values. They shouldn't interfere. All senior religious leaders have been given copies of the bill to read and educate people in churches and mosques." Further down... Ugandan newspapers often out "homos" and the bill will force many more like Nyombi to leave, said Peter Tatchell, veteran gay rights campaigner. "In many cases, these countries are using laws imposed by the British in colonial times. Before that, homosexuality was actually tolerated or accepted in the traditional cultures.
"The right-wing are losing the battle in the US, so they are exploiting the poverty-stricken developing world. The response of the Commonwealth is pathetic. Of the 80 countries who criminalise same sex-relationships around the world, over 40 of them are in the Commonwealth – where is the concern for human rights?"
It is not just Africa where homophobia is rife – Iran and Jamaica have seen homosexuals imprisoned and attacked and many American states have laws against sodomy. In South Africa, gay rights have advanced: its first gay pride march was held in 1995 and it has now legalised civil same-sex marriage.
But for developing nations, the attraction of right-wing organisations with dollars to spend, combined with fears over a creeping "westernisation" of societies, is increasing the demonisation of gay people.
In 2004, Ruben del Prado, co-ordinator of the Joint United Nations programme on HIV/Aids in Uganda, was prematurely transferred out of the country after he held meetings with lesbian and gay groups about preventing HIV/Aids. The Ugandan government later accused him of holding secret meetings with undesirable groups. Since then, NGOs and aid officials have kept silent. This is a tough kind of problem, because Ugandan society is so different from ours, it is hard for us to know what to do. Even as Westerners become more liberal in their acceptance of diversity, other parts of the world are cracking down, forcing a kind of tyrannical conformity that is shocking. It is not our place to pressure members of other cultures to behave like us, to dress like us, but it is our place, if America is to consider itself a world leader, to do what we can to promote justice around the globe.
This article covers a lot of ground, and I am omitting most of it. Here's how it ends: In Uganda, the ethics and integrity minister sees the uproar surrounding the bill as positive. Uganda was "providing leadership" to the world, said James Nsaba Buturo.
"It is with joy we see that everyone is interested in what Uganda is doing, and it is an opportunity for Uganda to provide leadership where it matters most. So we are here to see a piece of legislation that will not only define what the country stands for, but provide leadership around the world."
It has certainly created some religious unity. It came as the Muslim Tabliq youth revealed plans to form what they called an anti-gay squad, to seek out and expose homosexuality.
Sheikh Multah Bukenya, a Tabliq cleric, said: "It is the work of the community to put an end to bad practices like homosexuality."
But Gerald Sentogo, of Sexual Minorities Uganda, said the bill was inhumane. "It violates every aspect of a human being. I mean, you cannot tell me you will kill me because I'm gay," he said. "How will somebody know about my sexuality unless he comes to my bedroom? You will trust nobody because everyone will become a spy over the other.
"Imagine people fighting over other issues and somebody will say you are a homosexual to get rid of you, and then you are arrested and you spend seven years in jail or life imprisonment." American nuts like Richard Cohen are being taken seriously overseas, and are having an effect. Cohen may say he does not approve of the legislation itself, but it is a natural consequence of the inflammatory things he has been saying all these years, and they are holding up his book and quoting from it to support their positions (plus, his organization sent somebody over to work with the Ugandans on this). I think this article is probably correct in saying that the religious right in the US is realizing that their crusade of hatred is failing within our borders, and so are taking the show to the developing world where reaction is not likely to be so sophisticated, people will not be so well educated.
What they get out of it, I don't know, but I know that the good people of the world have to remain vigilant against this creeping ugliness.
"Richard Cohen and the Creeping Ugliness in Africa"
31 Comments -
new vacation option for certain TTFers
you won't see this in Uganda:
"LAS VEGAS (Dec. 14) -- The owner of a brothel more than two hours' drive from Las Vegas said she hopes to hire Nevada's first legal male prostitutes within a month, now that state health officials have approved a method to test men for infectious diseases.
The world is ready for women, or even other men, to legally buy sex, said Shady Lady Ranch owner Bobbi Davis. Plus, being the first to offer male service could boost business in tough economic times, she said.
Until now, men have been effectively barred from legally plying the world's oldest profession in Nevada by the specificity of a state health law requiring prostitutes to undergo frequent cervical testing for sexually transmitted diseases.
The health board approved a regulation to allow urethral testing for men -- a crucial rule change by the state agency with ultimate power over whether prostitutes can or can't work.
For more than 25 years, no licensed female prostitute in Nevada has contracted HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, said George Flint, a Reno wedding chapel owner and longtime lobbyist for the Nevada Brothel Owners Association."
December 15, 2009 1:39 PM
if you read other blogs, you probably know that Barry O has given himself a B+ for his performance in the White House
the voters beg to differ:
"Back in August as part of its special coverage of Obama's "Second Hundred Days", CNN asked its viewers to give the Obama administration grades on a number of issues.
Here is how the American public graded the Obama administration:
Handling of the Economy = C-
Handling of Health Care = D
Handling of Foreign Affairs = C
As for the grade the public gave President Obama himself? C-.
Not exactly the kind of report card kids like to bring home to their parents.
For the record, President Obama's job approval rating in early August after his second hundred days was 54% and his disapproval rating was 40%.
Four months later with a job approval rating of only 48% and a disapproval rating of 45%, it's awfully hard to imagine the public thinks President Obama deserves a higher grade than they gave him in August."
Shortly thereafter, Wolf Blitzer asked Robert Gibbs what grade he would give Barry O.
Gibbs said B.
Once again we see that no one has as high an opinion of Barry O as Barry O himself!
December 15, 2009 3:01 PM
What is happening in Urganda is quite sad. Those who have led up to this horrible act against humanity should regret it the rest of their gross lives.
December 15, 2009 6:07 PM
as of now, nothing's happened, drick
why don't you tell that pathetic excuse of a president, that you like so much, to speak out against it and threaten sanctions?
oh that's right, he's probably packing for this weekend, when he will go to Copenhagen, the tenth foreign trip of his miserable presidency
he does have to set priorities
that's why we're keeping DADT and straight marriage!
December 15, 2009 6:19 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
December 15, 2009 6:21 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
December 15, 2009 6:21 PM
Barry O lost his cool today and went jubilant over indications a health care bill was about to pass
while he's dancing a jig in the Blue Room, Americans are deeply worried:
"A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds the public generally fearful that a revamped health care system would bring higher costs while worsening the quality of their care.
A bare majority of Americans still believe government action is needed to control runaway health-care costs and expand coverage to the roughly 46 million people without insurance. But after a year of exhortation by President Obama and Democratic leaders and a high-octane national debate, there is minimal public enthusiasm for the kind of comprehensive changes in health care now under consideration.
There are also signs the political fight has hurt the president's general standing with the public."
and this guy is probably wondering why we gave him a D
earth to Barry: we wanted you to fix the system, not make it worse
December 15, 2009 6:30 PM
"Anonymous"...you seem to be fascinated by the doings in Uganda. Are you planning on vacationing there? I'm sure they could use your homophobic expertise.
And if not Uganda, perhaps Nevada's Shady Lady Ranch? ("The world is ready for women, or even other men, to legally buy sex, said Shady Lady Ranch owner Bobbi Davis.") I can't imagine Ms Davis would turn down your dollars, whether for a female or male prostitute. And the benefit is that it is so far away from home..no one will ever know!
December 15, 2009 11:20 PM
"you seem to be fascinated by the doings in Uganda"
I am?
I've made a couple of attempts to change the subject.
Really, I'm not in favor of executing deviants but, look around the world: it's filled with injustice or over-justice.
Why the focus on Uganda?
December 15, 2009 11:33 PM
“I think this article is probably correct in saying that the religious right in the US is realizing that their crusade of hatred is failing within our borders, and so are taking the show to the developing world where reaction is not likely to be so sophisticated, people will not be so well educated.”
I also think it’s a practice run for the U.S. in the hopes that their reconstructionist/dominionist designs come true.
---
“Really, I'm not in favor of executing deviants”
And we all know what the word of a sociopath means: Say whatever it takes to make you look good at the time.
December 16, 2009 5:34 AM
oh, is that what it means?
improv apparently doesn't have a PhD in religious studies
authentic, biblically-based Christian groups do oppose homosexuality and agree that it is a sin meriting death but that is only part of the story
they also believe all sin merits death and that judgment belongs to God alone and the their mission here is to make disciples of Christ, who are forgiven- that is, to help other escape judgment
there are heretics who say all kinds of things
some heretics say homsexuality is not really unscriptural
other heretics say we should execute homosexuals
then, they are people who quote heretics and say their unbiblical view represents Christianity
when, in truth, it represents inanity
right, inane-B?
December 16, 2009 11:13 AM
what really is starting to get ugly is Barry O's polls:
"(Dec. 16) -- President Barack Obama's approval rating dropped to a new low, as Americans continue to be unhappy with the poor economy and are skeptical about his plan for health care reform, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll found.
Obama's overall approval rating dropped 6 points in just the past month in the ABC/Post poll.
When it comes to the president's key initiative, health care, a majority of 53 percent disapprove. And 52 percent disapprove of his handling of the economy.
Obama recently provided his own analysis of his first year, telling Oprah Winfrey on a Christmas special that he earned "a good, solid B-plus.""
he must have thought he was filming and episode of the old MTV show, Unplugged
December 16, 2009 11:22 AM
I heard he was going to give himself a B and then decided he should get extra credit for scoring the Nobel Prize
December 16, 2009 11:24 AM
“authentic, biblically-based Christian groups do oppose homosexuality and agree that it is a sin…”
If you need a book to tell you the difference between right and wrong, then you’re the one with the problem.
December 16, 2009 2:00 PM
really?
could you tell us how you learned the difference between right and wrong?
December 16, 2009 2:19 PM
“could you tell us how you learned the difference between right and wrong?”
Oh wow, you actually do need to be told the difference.
Tell me something, anon, if the Bible said that killing children for fun was a good thing, would you believe it?
December 16, 2009 2:44 PM
hey, improv
you didn't answer the question
to answer yours, the Bible doesn't say that
if it did, it wouldn't be the Bible
could you tell us how you learned the difference between right and wrong?
December 16, 2009 2:55 PM
“to answer yours, the Bible doesn't say that
if it did, it wouldn't be the Bible”
Precisely. You’ve made up your own mind as to what the Bible should and should not contain in regard to what is right and wrong. So your question to me returns to you. Answer it for yourself, and you’ll have my answer as well.
December 16, 2009 3:27 PM
"You’ve made up your own mind as to what the Bible should and should not contain in regard to what is right and wrong."
No, I haven't.
I've come to trust the Bible through experience.
Revelation is one of the ways we learn, in addition to observation and reasoning. When all three coincide, you likely have truth. When they don't, you likely have fallacy.
The revelation that seems to best coincide with observation and reasoning is the Bible, thus, based on that experience, I would trust the Bible. In the ridiculous example you hypothesized, I know enough to know the Bible would never say anything like that.
"So your question to me returns to you. Answer it for yourself, and you’ll have my answer as well."
This is quintessential improv circular non sequitur cop-out.
Show a little courage and answer the question or, at least, admit you have no idea.
At least, then we could respect you.
(wink-wink)
December 16, 2009 5:07 PM
"I know enough to know the Bible would never say anything like that."
What are you basing your knowledge of that on?
December 16, 2009 7:04 PM
improv has again evaded answering
could you tell us how you learned the difference between right and wrong?
December 16, 2009 10:34 PM
Of all people to accuse others of "evading answering"...you, "Anonymous" are the supreme practioner of that particular trick.
And you hiding behind a religious version of Grimm's Fairy Tales doesn't cover up the fact that you are a hypocrite of the worst kind...a religious phony, a "cafeteria Christian"...who spouts such nonsense as: "authentic, biblically-based Christian groups do oppose homosexuality and agree that it is a sin meriting death but that is only part of the story
they also believe all sin merits death and that judgment belongs to God alone and the their mission here is to make disciples of Christ, who are forgiven- that is, to help other escape judgment"
Didn't you just state that "Judgement belongs to God alone"? Yet you set yourself up as "sinless" because you have been "forgiven" and that somehow bestows you with the gift and power of judging others.
I wonder what the Great Pie in the Sky thinks of your hubris and sin.
December 16, 2009 10:55 PM
"Of all people to accuse others of "evading answering"...you, "Anonymous" are the supreme practioner of that particular trick."
could you give us an example?
"And you hiding behind a religious version of Grimm's Fairy Tales doesn't cover up the fact that you are a hypocrite of the worst kind...a religious phony, a "cafeteria Christian"...who spouts such nonsense as: "authentic, biblically-based Christian groups do oppose homosexuality and agree that it is a sin meriting death but that is only part of the story
they also believe all sin merits death and that judgment belongs to God alone and the their mission here is to make disciples of Christ, who are forgiven- that is, to help other escape judgment""
perhaps you could be more specific and explain why that is nonsense
"Didn't you just state that "Judgement belongs to God alone"?"
I sure did.
"Yet you set yourself up as "sinless" because you have been "forgiven""
actually, I said disciples of Christ are forgiven
I didn't say whether or not I was one
regardless, being forgiven doesn't make one sinless, it just makes them forgiven
"and that somehow bestows you with the gift and power of judging others."
I never said any remotely like that.
God alone is the judge.
December 16, 2009 11:14 PM
improv actually made this judgmental statement:
"If you need a book to tell you the difference between right and wrong, then you’re the one with the problem."
but then refused to answer this quite appropriate question:
"could you tell us how you learned the difference between right and wrong?"
when will the improvisational one improvise a way out of the corner he's back himself into with his smart aleckery?
December 16, 2009 11:19 PM
"Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society, you put in something, you get something back. I understand not enjoying having a big chunk of your paycheck disappear before you see it, sorry, we do enjoy the stability and prosperity that result, we would not enjoy anarchy or the tribalism represented by these primitive groups."
Jim, going back to a previous topic. Very curious what the general feeling on this blog is to the flat tax approach...
case in point, have one friend whose siblings have incorporated, are all multi-millionaires, all got stimulus checks. that is courtesy of our current tax code, where small businesses can declare EVERYTHING as a business expense, it comes off the top line against any income before any tax on the total profit is rendered. so, everything becomes a business expenses, valid or not. whereas a FLAT NATIONAL SALES tax would abolish that issue. kill the entire current income tax code, set up a flat national sales tax. More you spend, more you pay.
I did not get a stimulus check.
two of my good friends that are single moms did not get stimulus checks.
everyone I know running a small business did get stimulus checks... which means that everyone running a small business declares little or no income (or most of them anyway).
It's radical, but it might be something both left wingers and right wingers can agree on....
thoughts ?
December 17, 2009 12:00 AM
"I know enough to know the Bible would never say anything like that."
What are you basing your knowledge of that on?
December 17, 2009 2:11 AM
improv, we're still in suspense, waiting for you to disclose how you learned the difference bewteen right and wrong
I think we may reached the limit of your ability to reflect and we haven't even gone anywhere
anon-alt, these guys would tend to oppose a national sales tax because it is fair and they prefer tax policies that advance a socialist agenda to redistribute income and punish those who succeed
taxes provide a drag on whatever they tax
the question is: are we better off taxing the production of income or the consumption of products?
if Congress allows Bush tax cuts to expire, they will increase the marginal tax rates on income and investment (tax rates on dividends will go up 25%) and destroy the weak recovery
November 2010 is less than a year away and will be a conservative landslide
December 17, 2009 6:40 AM
taxes provide a drag on whatever they tax
That's one view. Here's a better one:
"...The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows. Again, comrades over there, take the lesson from your own experience. Not only did you not grudge, but you gloried in the promotion of the great generals who gained their promotion by leading their army to victory. So it is with us. We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.
No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered - not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective - a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate..."
--Theodore Roosevelt
December 17, 2009 9:10 AM
uh, anon-B
there was no income tax during Teddy Roosevelt's presidency (1901-1909)
the Supreme Court ruled income taxes unconstitutional in 1895 and an income tax wasn't re-established until a constitutional amendment was passed in 1913
how did we survive?
December 17, 2009 10:28 AM
Oh brother, Anone.
Other than the Great Depression, from the time income taxes began being collected in the USA right up until Bush slashed the tax rates in the upper income brackets and spent the US Treasury like a drunken frat boy, the US economy did pretty well. We survived quite nicely paying graduated taxes, where the poor pay a little and the rich pay a lot, all those years.
Paying taxes did not stop us from becoming the world's greatest superpower or a nation with one of the highest standards of living.
Yes we did!
Yes we can!
December 18, 2009 6:29 PM
Revelation is one of the ways we learn, in addition to observation and reasoning. When all three coincide, you likely have truth.
based on that experience, I would trust the Bible.
I apologize, that actually is a good explanation/answer. And like I said, if you answer your question you’ll have answered mine.
But you say that you trust the Bible based on this.
The Bible is riddled with error. To say that your revelation, observation and reasoning are what lead you to trust the Bible, puts your ability to observe, reason, and interpret revelation in serious doubt.
You say “homosexuality” is a sin, yet, in and of itself, it harms no one. To believe that same-sex attraction, or even same-sex sex is a “sin,” tells me that your idea of sin and judgment does not include the concept of right and wrong.
Or, like I said before, “You’ve made up your own mind as to what the Bible should and should not contain in regard to what is right and wrong.”
You said you didn’t, which is why I asked: "if the Bible said that killing children for fun was a good thing, would you believe it?"
You said you “knew” the Bible could not say such a thing. I then asked how you knew, which you didn’t answer.
Did you misspeak, or do you really know? (Keeping in mind that your “Revelation…observation and reasoning” no longer apply, given that you consider those traits responsible for believing that a book, riddled with error, is the truth.
Point being, outside of the Bible, what is the so-called immorality that exists between those who love differently that you?
--
could you tell us how you learned the difference between right and wrong?
Perhaps a better question would be: How did you learn to discern the difference between right and wrong?
There is no end to learning the difference between right and wrong. Is it wrong to kill if it’s to protect your family? Is it wrong to steal from those more fortunate if it’s to feed your children?
Those are extremes, I admit, but these are all decisions that have to be made everyday in this world, little or big, one harm over another. But the Golden Rule is the centrifuge. No Bible required. It is simply a recognizable choice. Which makes it all the more meaningful to God when atheists makes that choice, despite their disbelief in a god.
--
judgment belongs to God alone
to help other escape judgment
Whom are you to decide who is to “escape” judgment?
To judge others who have not committed harm, is to judge arbitrarily.
Is this what you believe is acceptable to God?
December 18, 2009 10:46 PM