home

Sunday Morning Open Thread: Boycott Arizona!

Boycott Arizona!

Yanks and Rays off to a fast start in the AL East. The Padres have won 8 straight and lead the NL West.

9 Gators were chosen in the NFL Draft, the most from any school.

The Celtics will put the Heat out of their misery today (where will Wade play next year? He has to be upset with the lack of support.) The Bulls try to scare the Cavs and even their series today (as Durant and the Thunder did to the Lakers last night.) As expected the series in the West have been very competitive. The Mavs play for their season tonight in San Antonio, the Blazers have tied the Suns and the Jazz lead the Nuggets.

In cycling, returning from his 2 year suspension, Vino wins his second L-B-L on a podium that included Valverde. The anti-doping movement takes a hit today I think. As does Johan Bruyneel.

< Republicans Drafting New "Contract On America" | Who Will Intelligently Critique The Dems? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Sounds good to me, what could go wrong? (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 11:41:20 AM EST
    March 31, 2010. The Obama offshore drilling proposal is to reduce dependence on foreign oil, generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases, and help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation. In other news, the exploded offshore rig in the Gulf of Mexico is leaking 42,000 gallons of oil a day, a very serious spill according to the Coast Guard.  Senator Lindsey Graham stated today that he is pulling his support for the climate bill. April 25, 2010.

    Refreshing and rare to hear (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by brodie on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 12:01:56 PM EST
    a serious contender for Scotus publicly put forth the reasons why she, or someone not from the judiciary, should be considered

    "I think it's a very wise move to consider experience that is not just from the judicial monastery because -- I mean it's not just me, you know Janet Napolitano, people that have applied the laws that Congress enacts, that have seen their impact on people, that -- you know, I mean I'm from the most challenged state in the country," Granholm told CNN's "State of the Union." "And, you know, for somebody to experience and see what everyday people are feeling and experiencing out there, I think is an important thing to consider."

    The issue of her being an unorthodox pick was discussed, but of course the well-paid Candy Crowley failed to address another possible issue that could stymie a Granholm pick:  the fact that she's Catholic, and would become the 7th on the Bench, with no Protestants.  

    Other than that, Granholm meets about all the criteria for an ideal pick:  smarts, diverse real world experience, young (51), elite law school, personable, liberal, already vetted.

    So, now that I know she wants it, I'm putting her at #2 (and with a bold upward arrow) on my list of preferred picks, and I'm back to worrying about Diane Wood's age again ...

    I mean, you know, (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 02:08:13 PM EST
    I'd like to see someone on the Supreme Court, former or present judge or not, who can express him- or herself orally without saying, "I mean, you know" all the time.  If you know what I mean.

    Parent
    Not exactly a substantive (none / 0) (#24)
    by brodie on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    objection.  And who is your preferred nominee, the one whose oral statements are always grammatically perfect?  

    Parent
    Not substantive, but not irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 03:42:22 PM EST
    (Nor was there anything wrong with Granholm's grammar.)  I have addressed my preferences, and explained them, in several comments on several threads over the last two or three weeks.  For example, I have mentioned and briefly discussed some pros and cons of Elizabeth Warren, Harold Koh, Pamela Karlan, Paul M. Smith, Diane Wood, Bryan Stevenson, and probably a few more. Too busy just now to provide all the links to my earlier comments, but you can find them.

    Parent
    Well, apparently I need (none / 0) (#27)
    by brodie on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 04:00:05 PM EST
    to look carefully at the transcript of their various oral statements in media interviews so I can pick them apart for any verbal hitches or imperfections.  Can't have anyone after all who isn't as perfect in her oral expressions as she is with her written ones.  Not when you seem to imply there are already plenty of potential candidates out there who speak flawlessly.  

    Again, I look forward to closely scrutinizing their remarks made in major media interviews.  Should be interesting to see if they can all live up to your lofty standards ...

    Parent

    Suit yourself, and have fun ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 04:24:58 PM EST
    As for what I believe, I recommend you stick with what I say, and not what you think I imply.  To make a quick comment about something as striking as the inarticulate nature of Granholm's comment,  as quoted on this occasion, is not to elevate it to the highest importance.  In fact, as you can see from my list of suggested candidates, I'm not strong on sitting judges (just one of my six names is a judge), so on the merits I'm agreeing with her.  Frankly, you are being a bit ridiculous, Brodie, pursuing this.  What do you think of my suggested appointees?

    Parent
    Finally on JGranholm, (none / 0) (#35)
    by brodie on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 06:36:28 PM EST
    people who are interested in the intelligent and experienced JG as a possibility for the Court can go visit the CNN website and view the entire interview with Crowley and judge for themselves (program is State of the Union).  I was actually more interested not in a discussion of any all-too human verbal tic she might occasionally display as we all do, but in whether posters here had a major problem with naming yet another Catholic to the Bench or whether that is mostly a surmountable matter.

    As for others, I've already advocated for 4 from your list, though I have a slight preference for Obama naming another woman to the Ct if at all possible.  

    Parent

    Good grief (none / 0) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 08:23:40 PM EST
    You may be the only person on the planet who would think to call Granholm "inarticulate."  <the mind reels, actually>

    Parent
    Oh, please ... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 08:34:46 PM EST
    I didn't say she was inarticulate.  I said that this particular comment, as quoted, was inarticulate. Wasn't it? ("I mean it's not just me, you know Janet Napolitano, people that have applied the laws that Congress enacts, that have seen their impact on people, that -- you know, I mean I'm from the most challenged state in the country," Granholm told CNN .... "And, you know, for somebody to experience and see what everyday people are feeling and experiencing out there, I think is an important thing to consider.")  But as I said, I didn't meant to suggest on this basis that she wasn't generally well qualified; as to that, I don't really know.  I really didn't mean it to come off as personal.  Just commenting unhappily on the invasion of teenage speech tics into the serious public statements of even highly accomplished folks.

    Parent
    Granholm (none / 0) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 08:22:13 PM EST
    meets about all the criteria for an ideal pick for anything.  Damn shame she was born in Canada and not eligible to run for POTUS, IMO.  She impresses the bejesus out of me.

    Parent
    Good Republican ideas sometimes have (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 12:30:15 PM EST
    unexpected consequences: Sue Lowden, a former Nevada GOP chair and  current candidate for the U.S senate has offered up her now famous "Chicken Health Care Barter Plan" as a timeless and commonsensical solution for doctor's care.  But, in related news, Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, claims that due to the hormones used in chicken farming, such poultry eating "experiences deviances in men", meaning they become gay.  Seemingly, implementation of Ms. Lowden's plan may result  in all male members of the Nevada medical profession becoming of one affectional orientation--not that there is anything wrong with that, but the Nevada Medical Society may be looking for diversity.

    Just heard about Jon Meacham (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by brodie on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 12:41:25 PM EST
    taking over for Bill Moyers on PBS.  Not the best news I've seen today, but at least the curious execs at Public Broadcasting, who seem determined to water down all remaining liberal programming, are throwing in the likable Allison Stewart (ex of Msnbc) as co-host.  

    Not that I think she was any strong liberal voice in her previous job -- she was mostly lightly liberal -- but her presence might tend to check what could otherwise be some too-conservative and bland mainstream tendencies by religious guy Meacham.

    Meanwhile, Bill Moyers can spend the next yr or so finally writing his memoirs.  He really owes us plenty of frank talk about his years working for LBJ, defending his war policies while quietly arranging to attack war critics for his boss, including running around in the audience to plant soft Qs at Johnson pressers.  It will also be interesting to see whether he publishes ahead of Johnson biographer Rbt Caro, whom Moyers has shut out completely for much-sought interviews.

    Reminds me of the scene in Treme... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Raskolnikov on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 04:21:54 PM EST
    ...where John Goodman, before answering the phone call from NPR reassures his wife, "We'll be fine, they get it.  It's NPR, the N stands for nuance" only to end the conversation yelling at the interviewer.  Old expectations that we could rely on NPR or PBS to be "nuanced" or reasonable or progressive are perhaps out of date.  Personally I haven't listened or watched either in a few years.

    Parent
    No question they've both (none / 0) (#36)
    by brodie on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 06:46:37 PM EST
    gone downhill, especially for those of us who remember the more robust NPR reporting from the 70s/early 80s and the first few decades of PBS.  I think both entities got scared off of their former mission by RW Repub threats of defunding because of librul programming, then a gradual emasculation occurred over time to where just some empty corporate-minded suits now run both and just want to keep corp sponsors satisfied with empty shows.

    Moyers will be missed, and I strongly suspect, with controversy-averse host Meacham probably being the dominant figure in the new incarnation, PBS is clearly intent on watering down Moyers' old show from its current strong liberal pov to a more "centrist Beltway consensus" approach of the kind one sees on display with Washington Week.

    Parent

    Badges We ain't got no badges! (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Saul on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 01:43:43 PM EST
        "Papers? We ain't got no papers. We don't need no papers! I don't have to show you any stinkin' Papers!"

    Proposed Senate climate bill (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 06:02:46 PM EST
       * The bill would remove the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, and the states' authority to set tougher emissions standards than the federal government.
        * There will be no fee--or "gas tax"--on transportation fuels. Instead, oil companies would also be required to obtain pollution permits but will not trade them on the market like other polluters. How this would work is not yet clear.
        * Agriculture would be entirely exempt from the cap on carbon emissions.
        * Manufacturers would not be included under a cap on greenhouse gases until 2016.
        * The bill would provide government-backed loan guarantees for the construction of 12 new nuclear power plants.
        * It will contain at least $10 billion to develop technologies to capture and store emissions from coal-fired power plants.
        * There will be new financial incentives for natural gas.
        * The bill would place an upper and lower limit on the price of pollution permits, known as a hard price collar. Businesses like this idea because it ensures a stable price on carbon. Environmental advocates don't like the idea because if the ceiling is set too low, industry will have no financial incentive to move to cleaner forms of energy.
        * The energy bill passed by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last year will be adopted in full. This measure has sparked concerns among environmentalists for its handouts to nuclear and fossil fuel interests.
    link


    I found a write up at FDL (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 10:46:50 AM EST
    by someone who has the exact same take on the Hamilton Project and what they intend to do with Social Security that I have.  I will be hunting the net for more writings from this author now.

    link

    According to the write up (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 10:49:41 AM EST
    a quote from Joe Biden clarifies that the freeze in government spending is a sign of Hamilton Project ideology now showing up in policy....even though freezing spending is the last thing we should ever think about doing when we have an employment crisis like this.

    Parent
    So (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by hookfan on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 11:57:08 AM EST
    Obama's economic team all come from the same place. I think you may be right Tracy, and we better get ready for the fleecing of Entitlement programs.
       Connecting the dots, I wonder if our UE rate is left high on purpose (promotes deficit), while we are involved in two wars (exorbitant spending), prioritized the Financial sector bailout (I believe their lending is now the lowest since 1942 or so to main street), deprioritized mortgage stabilization (we are now 35% over last year in mortgage defaults), and  voila! deficit reduction (which is never an issue with the military budget, or corporate largesse) is to be placed on the backs of entitlements.
       Yep, Obama doing things GW never could. . .

    Parent
    Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 12:08:18 PM EST
    You found out! Of course Rove and Gingrich, worked out a secret deal with Obama. He sells out America to the wingnuts and Obama gets a small African country.. and all of his followers each get $5K to start a new life as Obamanuts, in Obamangocunutia.

    I knew it was not long before the cat would be out of the bag, so to speak.  

    Parent

    Squeaky (3.66 / 3) (#8)
    by hookfan on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 12:11:14 PM EST
    projecting his/her fantasies for people's real meanings. At least there are some constants in the world. . .

    Parent
    Fantasy? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 12:17:54 PM EST
    More like satire, riffing on your grand conspiracy theory.

    Parent
    "Conspiracy" (4.33 / 6) (#10)
    by hookfan on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 12:20:44 PM EST
    Squeaky projecting his/her thoughts for someone else's meaning. The constant continues. . .

    Parent
    COnspiracy to Gut Entitlement Programs (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 12:29:54 PM EST
    The breakdown simplified:
    Obama's economic team all come from the same place....[conspirators]
       Connecting the dots [the conspiracy theory]...

    [1]UE rate is left high on purpose
    [2] ....involved in two wars ....
    [3]prioritized the Financial sector bailout...
    [4]deprioritized mortgage stabilization....
    [5]deficit reduction... to be placed on the backs of entitlements.

    ...Obama [and his fellow conspirators] doing things GW never could. . .

    They are going to take your freedoms away. Life as you know it will cease to exist.

    Parent

    And (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by hookfan on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 12:51:21 PM EST
    what does that have to do with some fantasied deal per Squeaky between Rove Obama and whoever else you fantasy about?
      It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to understand that Obama's priorities are corporate interests over the rest of us.
     

    Parent
    Already Told You (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 01:10:14 PM EST
    And what does that have to do with some fantasied deal per Squeaky between Rove Obama..

    It is called satire, and if you are unsure of what that means, it means making fun of your conspiracy theory by exaggeration.

    Parent

    Gee (3.67 / 3) (#16)
    by hookfan on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 01:13:13 PM EST
    their seems to be a rather lot of factual support for this. . . ah, let's use a less pejorative word than a squeaky "conspiracy" (which only exists in squeaky's mind) like-- hypothesis. Takes away the hysteria that you want to inject dontcha think Squeaks? What do you make of those facts Squeaks? Perhaps it will help clear your mind of your hysteria and fears of losing your freedom.

    Parent
    Secret Intent? GOP Agenda? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 01:19:31 PM EST
    All done surreptitiously...  nice touch about the two wars..

    And the goal of all your points is that Obama and his like minded acolytes, advisors or co-conspiritors main agenda is to gut Social Security GOP style.

    We get it. Obama is worse than Bush because he is sneakier.

    Parent

    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by hookfan on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    See? I'm not just knee jerk against Obama.He does do some things better than Bush. You could be right that Obama is sneakier. That's true especially if he kept hidden many of his backroom deals with Pharma. But Cheney, now. . . I doubt obama's sneakier than Cheney. But he's got time yet to learn. Maybe he can practice on entitlements. Watcha think?

    Parent
    What GOP Agenda? (none / 0) (#21)
    by hookfan on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 01:51:10 PM EST
    I didn't know they had one. It certainly isn't an agenda limited to the GOP to prioritize corporatist interests.
       Or did you mean Bush's agenda? I didn't know he had one either,-- well other than to wreck things, blow them up, and serve the rich.
       Maybe your projection isn't totally wrong. There are some remarkable similarities between the Bush "happening" and the Obama administrations performance. State's secret doctrine for one. War on drugs for another. Prioritizing the banking industry comes to mind.
       Oh, that's right you must avoid facts. They mush up your fantasies so. . .

    Parent
    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 02:27:09 PM EST
    But you must have been too busy to notice.

    Parent
    and this proves? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by hookfan on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 03:54:14 PM EST
    That Repubs want to gut social security? So, what's new? Oh, that's right. You want to forget Obama praises Reagan, continues Bush's policy on support the rich, and sets up a commission headed by an anti- social security zealot and puts everything on the table how to solve the soc sec "crises" in funding. or did you miss that?
      perhaps Obama will succeed in enacting another bipartisan effort. Maybe president Collins will help. . .
     

    Parent
    How thrilling BTD (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 11:20:22 AM EST
    knows the Padres exist. Hope they sweep the Fish. Meanwhile my brother thanks the Bronocos. Says he can now still wear his Gator shirt in CO.

    Obama Meets Billy Graham (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 01:33:51 PM EST
    MONTREAT, N.C. -- President Obama arrived at Rev. Billy Graham's mountaintop log cabin Sunday afternoon, making a brief visit to the 91-year-old evangelist who has been a spiritual adviser to presidents for seven decades.

    The pair met for about a half-hour as Obama ended a brief vacation in nearby Asheville, and prepared to depart for a somber memorial service in West Virginia on behalf of 29 miners who died when an explosion rocked their coal mine.

    link

    And Obama goes hiking. CSM has a backhanded view of "progressive" Asheville and Obama...

    Is progressive Asheville Obama's vision for America?

    Barack Obama (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Spamlet on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 04:44:11 PM EST
    has been to the mountaintop! Hallelujah!

    Parent
    It's A POTUS Tradition (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 08:55:31 PM EST
    Save for JFK...

    At the last of his 417 crusades, the one held in New York City in June 2005, evangelist Billy Graham made an unscripted proposal.
    Both Bill and Hillary Clinton were sitting with him on stage in Flushing Meadows when Graham greeted them as his "wonderful friends of many years." "I told him," Graham said of President Clinton, "when he left the presidency, he should become an evangelist, because he had all the gifts." Graham paused, and added with a smile, "And he could [let] his wife run the country."

    link

    Parent

    If it's a POTUS tradition, (none / 0) (#43)
    by Spamlet on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 11:00:03 PM EST
    it's not a tradition that I approve of.

    Do you?

    I didn't like it when candidate George W. Bush went to Bob Jones University.

    I didn't like it when candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton went to Saddleback Church.

    And I don't like it that President Barack Obama has made the "traditional" (as you say) pilgrimage to Billy Graham's mountaintop.

    Do you?

    Nor did I like it when candidate Jimmy Carter introduced the current evangelistic tone into our politics.

    Did you?

    Parent

    Doesn't Bother Me (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 11:20:07 PM EST
    I do have a problem with this though:

    He [Billy] opposed segregation back in the 1960s. And he's never been one to attack the religious beliefs of others.

    His son, Franklin, unfortunately, is a different sort. His vehement attacks on Islam are the result of both ignorance and prejudice, betraying a narrowmindedness that only inflame tensions between Muslims and Christians.His son, Franklin, unfortunately, is a different sort. His vehement attacks on Islam are the result of both ignorance and prejudice, betraying a narrowmindedness that only inflame tensions between Muslims and Christians.

    As just one example, he has said:

    "We're not attacking Islam but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God, and I believe it [Islam] is a very evil and wicked religion."

    Pentagon was right to withdraw Franklin Graham's invitation to speak

    Oh, and Obama delivered a eulogy in West Virginia, that did not bother me either.

    What would bother me is if the government forced any religion on me. But from what I have been reading here over the last two years many of you believe that is about to happen, with Obama.

    Bedwetting is fun.

    Parent

    To Be Clear (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 11:23:38 PM EST
    I do not have a problem with Billy Graham, or Obama meeting Billy Graham. I do have a problem with his son's preaching bigotry and am pleased that his pentagon speech was revoked.

    Parent
    I am sure (none / 0) (#46)
    by Spamlet on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:22:42 AM EST
    that the miners' families were comforted by this eulogy from the president of the United States.

    I did not find anything overtly religious in Obama's remarks as reported in the story that you linked to. Therefore, it's not clear to me what Obama's eulogy of the West Virginia miners has to do with my comment. Even atheists eulogize and are eulogized at memorials.

    I do object to the ubiquity of religion in our political life, and I don't know of a single politician, Democratic or Republican, who hasn't gone along with it, from  Jimmy Carter on down, and well before Carter there were the special interests who added "In God We Trust" to our currency and the words "under God" to the loathesome Pledge of Allegiance.

    I find this religious emphasis unseemly and in violation of the spirit of the Constitution's separation of church and state. In fact, I find it un-American. But that is far from saying that Obama is about to "force" religion on me. In fact, I have never said any such thing. Therefore, again, it's not clear to me why you say this:

    [F]rom what I have been reading here over the last two years many of you believe that is about to happen, with Obama.

    I don't know what you've been reading, but whatever it is, it has nothing to do with my comment.

    Bedwetting is fun? Thanks for the tip.

    Parent

    My Point (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:31:36 PM EST
    Is that Obama as president, traditionally represents a large country. That group includes people who you have little respect for.

    On his trip to Asheville, Obama also ate at a famous BBQ place, and went on a hike in the mountains.

    As long as the government does not make me pray to a god of their choosing, or make me eat bbq or go on hikes, I have no problem with any president meeting, or eating with anyone.

    Your bedwetting, and alarmism, that since Obama talked to someone you do not like means that you will have to practice some state sanctioned practice is absurd.

    But it goes with your schtick, everything Obama does, worth mentioning, is bad.

    Parent

    Lying again (none / 0) (#48)
    by Spamlet on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:37:30 PM EST
    As usual.

    Sayonara.

    Parent

    Waaaah (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    Not just bedwetting, and running around like chicken little, ... lol

    Parent
    Violation of Sports & State (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 05:12:44 PM EST
    For some sports is a religion... and deification of the Yankees most notable...

    I find this repulsive:

    WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama celebrated the world champion Yankees on Monday for their heroics and character - and bemoaned that his Chicago White Sox couldn't match New York's remarkable record of success.

    In a jam-packed ceremony in the East Room that was part pep rally, the president pointed out that the last time the Yankees - winners of 27 titles - were toasted at the White House was 2001.

    WaPo

    Soon, little children will be forced to wear baseball hats and pray to the gods of baseball...  lol

    Parent

    Jeralyn speaks for me (none / 0) (#51)
    by Spamlet on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 07:15:39 PM EST
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:01:11 PM EST

    I have nothing against religion. I even subscribe to one. It's the insertion of religion into government that I oppose.  Martin Luther King was not an elected official. There's nothing wrong with political leaders showing respect to him and his legacy.

    Selling oneself as a candidate who will restore religion and prayer to government is an entirely different and objectionable matter.

    A personal visit from Obama to Billy Graham, after Obama is out of office, would be just fine and none of my business. A visit to Graham by the incumbent president of the United States is very much my business. It falls under "selling oneself as a candidate [coming soon: 2012] who will restore religion and prayer to government," and I do object to that, for the same reasons that I objected to Obama's and Hillary Clinton's visits to Saddleback Church, and to George W. Bush's visit in 2000 to Bob Jones University (which, by the way, still had a ban against interracial dating at the time of Bush's visit).

    Your comparison of presidential visits to religious leaders with presidential hosting of sports teams is a mistake that is called a "category error" in Logic 101.

    The rest of this comment space is intentionally left blank for you to lie about what I just said and about anything and everything I said earlier.

    ___________

    ___________

    ___________

    ___________

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 08:08:56 PM EST
    How is Obama restoring religion to government by visiting Billy Graham?

    And more germane to the discussion, how is Obama's visit to Billy Graham violating the separation between church and state?

    Please enlighten me?  You seem concerned about your rights being taken away.

    Bedwetting is all I see from you..

    Parent

    More Church/State Separation Problems? (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:00:10 PM EST
    Now he is pandering to Muslims... soon you will have to wear a burka

    Obama Renews Vow Of "New Beginning" With Muslims

    Depends are on sale at Walmart

    Parent

    You know what? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Spamlet on Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 11:45:11 PM EST
    This is the Sunday morning open thread, and where I am it's Monday night.

    Bedwetting is in the eye, or on the sheets, of the bedwetter. Water, so to speak, seeks its own level.

    Piss off (so to speak).

    Parent

    More Church/State Separation Problems? (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 12:18:44 AM EST
    From the articles of faith section of the Boston Globe:

    Obama meets with Jewish leaders

    or from The Hindu:

    Obama meets Dalai Lama

    Or this:

    President Obama Meets Pope Benedict at the Vatican

    I think that at this point it is a religious conspiracy to change your life as you know it...  lol

    Parent

    When one (none / 0) (#31)
    by hookfan on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 04:54:27 PM EST
    goes to the mountain top, does one get to turn in a tarnished halo for a new shiny one?

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#32)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 05:12:36 PM EST
    George Bush's memoir is going to be called "Decision Points."  Isn't this man's ability to butcher the English language and make it as un-poetic as possible simply amazing?  You cannot make this sh*t up.

    C'mon, give the guy a break (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 10:22:09 PM EST
    What could he do?  "Shrub" was already taken.

    Parent
    What a lousy title (none / 0) (#41)
    by shoephone on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 10:07:36 PM EST
    I'm surprised the editor and publisher are on board with it.

    Parent
    Son Franklin does not seem as agile as (none / 0) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Sun Apr 25, 2010 at 05:19:14 PM EST
    the father, Billy.  He is sticking to his anti-Muslin, Islam is evil statements even though they got him disinvited by the Pentagon to the big prayer day. Franklin needs to learn the political value of the apology from Dad, as when Dad said that all homosexuals should be castrated (guess he did not know about lesbians), and then apologized, or when he said AIDS is a judgment of God, and quickly apologized, or when Nixon tapes, declassified in 2002, confirmed previously challenged Robert Halderman's diaries that Graham shared and joined in on anti-semitic remarks, he apologized. But, then again, maybe the times are now such that apologies are not necessary from the preachers; the politicians are expected to be the agile ones.