Well said; this whole thing is not about "rights", it's about decency.
The tipping point for me came when Gov. Patterson offered to broker a compromise, and even suggested the possibility of state assistance in finding a new location for the mosque. The fact that Imam Rauf chose not to explore this alternative proves that he has a political agenda. He doesn't want just any location; he wants THIS location.
Nobody here is saying that most Muslims are terrorists; however, most terrorists are Muslims. What do you think was going on with the Fort Hood shootings? Or the Times Square bomb plot? Does the name, "Faisal Shahzad" ring a bell with you?
You may want to ignore reality, but fortunately, most people in this country believe that our freedoms are worth defending.....as are our allies, like Israel.
For you to say that this project "should be a non issue" reflects a frightening disconnect with reality. The greatest threat to our country is radical Islam, regardless of what a small intellectual elite may believe.
Mid-term elections are generally referendums on the incumbent party.
What you just don't get is that people really don't give a rat's ass anymore about George W. Bush; he is not the President. Barak Obama is now President, and people are going to hold him---and the clown show in Congress---accountable for their mistakes.
Wow, that's a fairly remarkable discovery you've made:
It wasn't the tax cuts that engineered the upturn in the economy in the early 80's, it was that Volker stopped raising rates and instead started lowering them.
Economists have debated the relative merits of fiscal vs. monetary policy for decades; I'm glad that you've finally arrived at the definitive answer. Since Nobel prizes are easy to come by these days, maybe you'll win this year's award for economics.
Seriously, there's really no way you (or anyone) can prove how much Reagan's tax cuts or Volker's monetary easing contributed to the economic boom of the 80's. But if Fed interest rate cuts were as powerful as you suggest, we'd be in a helluva recovery right about now.
For one thing, your history of Fed actions in the current economic recession is incorrect. Bernanke and company cut rates in three successive meetings during the Fall of 2007, by a full point to 4.25%; the recession didn't begin until Q4 of 2007. Contrary to what you suggest, there was plenty of add'l Fed easing that occurred during 2008 as the economy continued to weaken; it just didn't do any good.
What you need to understand is that monetary policy creates the conditions necessary for capital expansion to occur, but it's limited in stimulating consumer demand. And given that our economy is 70% consumption-driven, tax cuts are key to getting consumers (and small businesses) to spend. The experience of both JFK's and President Reagan's tax cuts prove that aggressive fiscal policy is necessary to generate real economic growth.
Your fairly naive statement that the 80's expansion was due entirely to Fed policy is a pretty transparent attempt to denigrate President Reagan---the greatest President in modern history. And I suspect it has something to do with the fact that your own boy-President is failing so badly. Sorry, but bashing President Reagan (or George W. Bush) is not going to take Obama from being a failure to being successful. He's got to man up and do it on his own.
Your entire post sickens me, and is obviously intended to be incendiary. With a caption on your video like "American Soldiers have fun Killing Civilians", do you really expect people to take you seriously?
Keep it up; you're destined to remain a third-tier blogger, instead of professional journalist. The only thing you've accomplished here is to prove correct many right-wing partisans like Sean Hannity, when they assert that most liberals simply hate America. Grow up, little man.
I'm not sure what your thinking is in predicting the following:
The Recovery Summer never materialized, but a Recovery Winter next year may be in the cards... and it runs right through Des Moines.
President Reagan had a rough patch with the '82 midterms, but he had massive supply-side tax cuts already in the hopper. They soon ignited the economic boom of the '80's, creating prosperity and 21 million new jobs.
President Clinton---in a truly creative and gutsy move for a Democrat---had passed NAFTA prior to the disastrous '94 midterms, which helped launch the free trade boom of the 90's, aided later by his Capital Gains tax cuts. Clinton's prosperity helped create 18 million new jobs, and followed through on the Reagan economic miracle.
Obama has nothing going economically at this point; he has done nothing "bold and transformational", as originally advertised. He outsourced an $800 billion stimulus bill to the Congress.....wow, that's an innovative idea: getting Congressmen to spend money. The bill was poorly crafted, poorly implemented, and was basically just walk-around money for the appropriators. Despite Obama's periodic wailing that this has been the "greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression", his advisors routinely inform us that the stimulus funds have only been half-spent. Oh well....so much for a sense of urgency.
To your main theme, I don't think it's necessarily that people want to rehabilitate President Bush; it's just that they're sick of hearing Obama whine and blame all of his woes on his predecessor. It's time for the current White House occupant to man up and act like a real President...not the impostor that he is.
Dude...most of us enjoy MyDD and find it interesting, occasionally stimulating, and a nice alternative to the loons over at Daily Kos. But it's read by a few dozen people, and that's on a good day. It's not like this is broadcast to thousands and is going to alter mass behavior, or cause riots or something.
Yes, Fala rode right beside Mrs. Roosevelt in the President's funeral cortege. When he died, he was buried next to his master in the Rose Garden at Hyde Park. Obviously, I was gratified to see a bronze statue of Fala when I visited the FDR Memorial in DC a couple of years ago.
Portugese Water Dogs are great companions, but they do require a lot of exercise, and grooming can be a challenge. They are like Scotties in one aspect of their disposition: they typically bond with one, maybe two people max. Very much an owner's dog.
Ike had two Scotties (Caacie and Telek) when he was Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in North Africa. President Reagan had two Scotties (Scotch and Soda) during his marriage to Jane Wyman.
Good luck in your search for a new dog. To paraprhase Harry Truman, if you really want a friend in this life, get a dog!
To read your post, you'd think that Obama was some lonely, heroic figure in Washington, battling a hostile and powerful Republican Congress.
Only problem with that narrative is that the Congress has huge Democratic majorities, which have given this President everything he asked for.
It was Obama's choice to ignore the economy in favor of his "pet projects", i.e., the issues which he felt would secure his place in history. Health care, for example---where he focused on access instead of costs. Now he's facing massive unemployment, and an ugly recession. Double dip recession? What a joke....everyone knows we never got out of the first one.
Obama's rhetoric has been to constantly call this "the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression". But instead of working to fight it, he plays basketball and golf, and goes on vacations. There has never been a sense of urgency from Obama when it comes to restoring our economy. Outsourcing an $800 billion stimulus bill to a bunch of parochial, greedy Congressmen doesn't substitute for intelligent economic policy.
Can anyone seriously say that this President has shown a strong commitment to fighting the recession? Are voters in 2012 really going to look at Obama and say, "man, I want four more years of this!" I don't think so.
The problem is not what you call "the right wing noise machine", or that this man is being prevented from getting his policies implemented. The inconvenient truth here is that whether you're talking about his trillion dollar stimulus.....or his health care bill, or whatever, Obama DID get his initiatives passed. And they're failing.
I realize that radicals like yourself have nothing but contempt for average Americans, but that doesn't give you the right to ignore reality. Current polling indicates that in numbers ranging from 62-70%, Americans oppose the building of a mosque at Ground Zero.
Given that inconvenient truth, logic would suggest that it's Mr. Obama who is the masochist, by wading into this controversy with his incoherent remarks, which vary depending on what day it is.
Regardless of which Obama statement you accept as his true position on the mosque, it's a loser for him and his party. Republicans stand to gain from Obama's botching of this issue.
The silver lining for you and other Obama groupies is that at this point, he'd probably rather talk about the mosque than the economy. (Hint: check out this AM's numbers on new initial jobless claims....)
And why don't you shorten this post, as it will encourage people like me actually read beyond the title.
This coming from someone who, on average, posts 8-10 comments responding to his own diaries. I mean, more often than not, you are the ONLY person who comments on your little articles. I guess you just enjoy talking to yourself.
is to erect a mosque at the site of what they regard as great victories over their enemies. Hence the reluctance to take this monstrosity to another site in New York.
More troubling is the fact that Imam Rauf won't reveal the source of his funds (over $100 million) to build the mosque. Maybe the ultimate insanity in this whole mess is that Mayor Bloomberg has the time to delve into his citizens' salt intake, but not into the source of funding from radical islamists for this mosque.
This is yet another example of political correctness run amok. Years from now, we will look back on this controversy and wonder, "what were people thinking" when they turned a blind eye to something so dangerous and threatening to our freedoms.
Liberals are always babbling about "sensitivity" and "feeling people's pain", yet in this case they are completely insensitive to the families and loved ones of those who died on 9/11. Even more ironic is that this may be the first time I can remember so many liberals being anxious to protect an organized religion. More often than not, faith and religion are something they sneer at , something that is beneath them. Surely we can all remember those poor, bitter Americans in Pennsylvania, "clinging to their guns and religion...."