The National Memo
Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:03am —
Joe Conason
Former President Bill Clinton says that he would invoke the so-called constitutional option to raise the nation’s debt ceiling “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me” in order to prevent a default, should Congress and the President fail to achieve agreement before the August 2 deadline.
Sharply criticizing Congressional Republicans in an exclusive Monday evening interview with The National Memo, Clinton said, “I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy.”
Lifting the debt ceiling “is necessary to pay for appropriations already made,” he added, “so you can’t say, ‘Well, we won the last election and we didn’t vote for some of that stuff, so we’re going to throw the whole country’s credit into arrears.”
Having faced down the Republican House leadership during two government shutdowns when he was president -- and having brought the country’s budget from the deep deficits left by Republican presidents to a projected surplus -- Clinton is unimpressed by the GOP’s sudden enthusiasm for balanced budgets. But he never considered invoking the Fourteenth Amendment -- which says “the validity of the US public debt shall not be questioned” – because the Republicans led by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich didn’t threaten to use the debt ceiling as a weapon in their budget struggles with him.
According to Clinton, the Gingrich Republicans thought about that tactic before rejecting it -- and Treasury officials who served under Clinton commissioned legal research on the president’s power to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval. While some legal scholars believe the Fourteenth Amendment requires Congress to fund the debt that results from its appropriations, and therefore empowers the president to raise the debt ceiling, others vehemently disagree.
Like President Obama, Clinton is a former law professor who once taught the Constitution, and he understands that the extent of presidential power remains highly controversial, whether the issue is waging war or increasing the debt.
“Here’s what happened, as I remember – but let me back up a second,” Clinton said. “I have read accounts of that time where people at Treasury have been interviewed, and they say they did look into [the president's authority to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval].” As for the Republicans, “they did think about doing that" -- withholding approval of a higher limit -- "and I knew they were thinking about it.” But the question ultimately did not arise for Clinton, he says, because his opponents in Congress decided “they didn’t want to get caught” in a position where they appeared to be repudiating the debt incurred by their own party’s two previous presidents.
“The reason that raising the debt limit is so unpopular is that people think you’re voting to keep [increasing] deficit spending, instead of voting to honor obligations that were already incurred,” he said. “I think [the Gingrich Republicans] figured I’d be smart enough to explain to the American people that they were refusing to pay for the expenses they had voted for when Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were president. And that would make ‘em look bad.”
Obama could offer precisely the same explanation in the present circumstances, where most of the current debt can be traced to the profligate military spending and tax cuts of the last Bush administration. Just as the nation’s debt had tripled or quadrupled between 1981 and 1993, in the dozen years of Republican rule before Clinton’s first inauguration, as he points out, so the second Bush administration plunged the budget from surplus to deep deficit before Obama spent one penny on economic stimulus or anything else.
Although Clinton says that if he were in Obama’s place he would raise the debt ceiling without legislation – “if it came to that” -- he believes the crisis will be resolved before August 2. “It looks to me like they’re going to make an agreement, and that’s smart.”
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Tammy weighs in again
..............................
myolivercat
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/19/1729386/newborns-death-probed.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1SbRRDR8Q
..............................
Now of course we all know that myolivercat (aka GinaMD) isn't any paragon herself when it comes to commenting!
..............................
myolivercat
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/19/1729386/newborns-death-probed.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1SbRRDR8Q
..............................
Now of course we all know that myolivercat (aka GinaMD) isn't any paragon herself when it comes to commenting!
..............................
500 miles, 500 miles.....
The annual trip to Otter Crest, south of Depoe Bay, OR, is but a memory to the Kardnoses. Just a suggestion - if you're looking to make a local excursion and have a few days, drive Highway 101 South on the Oregon coast. Oh...and don't forget to buy saltwater taffy.
Monday, July 18, 2011
GOP voters not as hardcore as Boehner, et al., say
........................................
Would voters forgive Republicans for agreeing to tax hike? Most would, poll suggests
By Chris Moody | The Ticket – Thu, Jul 14, 2011
Congressional Republicans are standing behind their pledge not to raise a penny in taxes as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling. Nevertheless, at least one new poll suggests that most Republican voters might forgive them for giving in for the sake of saving the deal.
Most respondents stressed that they would prefer spending cuts over tax increases as part of the deal currently under negotiation between Republicans and the White House. But the level of opposition to tax hikes is not nearly as strong as Republicans make it out to be, according to a new Gallup poll.
Just one in five voters said they want the debt deal to include spending cuts only--the path outlined by House and Senate Republicans who say they will refuse any plan that raises taxes. More surprisingly, just 26 percent of Republican voters said they wouldn't support a deal if it included tax hikes.
Of course, Gallup doesn't have a monopoly on tax polling. House Republicans can point to numerous other surveys over the past few years that show strong opposition to tax increases. A Bloomberg poll in June, for instance, showed that 55 percent of respondents thought spending cuts and lower taxes were the best way to spur the economy. Only 17 percent said they supported increasing spending levels, and 61 percent said they would not be willing to pay more in taxes to reduce the deficit.
House Speaker John Boehner has said for months that "the American people don't want us to raise taxes," and the party will likely hold its ground even if it means jettisoning a debt-reduction deal. For those who think they'll crack, there is precedent to suggest that they're not bluffing: When the parties were embroiled in negotiations about whether to extend the Bush-era tax rates last December, the Republicans wouldn't budge, and a deal was made. (Although it's looking increasingly unlikely that they'll see a successful conclusion this time around.)
But the newest Gallup poll does drive home a point that perhaps GOP leaders aren't focused on: While most Americans prefer taxes don't go up, they won't necessarily take to the streets if increases are part of the package deal.
........................................
Would voters forgive Republicans for agreeing to tax hike? Most would, poll suggests
By Chris Moody | The Ticket – Thu, Jul 14, 2011
Congressional Republicans are standing behind their pledge not to raise a penny in taxes as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling. Nevertheless, at least one new poll suggests that most Republican voters might forgive them for giving in for the sake of saving the deal.
Most respondents stressed that they would prefer spending cuts over tax increases as part of the deal currently under negotiation between Republicans and the White House. But the level of opposition to tax hikes is not nearly as strong as Republicans make it out to be, according to a new Gallup poll.
Just one in five voters said they want the debt deal to include spending cuts only--the path outlined by House and Senate Republicans who say they will refuse any plan that raises taxes. More surprisingly, just 26 percent of Republican voters said they wouldn't support a deal if it included tax hikes.
Of course, Gallup doesn't have a monopoly on tax polling. House Republicans can point to numerous other surveys over the past few years that show strong opposition to tax increases. A Bloomberg poll in June, for instance, showed that 55 percent of respondents thought spending cuts and lower taxes were the best way to spur the economy. Only 17 percent said they supported increasing spending levels, and 61 percent said they would not be willing to pay more in taxes to reduce the deficit.
House Speaker John Boehner has said for months that "the American people don't want us to raise taxes," and the party will likely hold its ground even if it means jettisoning a debt-reduction deal. For those who think they'll crack, there is precedent to suggest that they're not bluffing: When the parties were embroiled in negotiations about whether to extend the Bush-era tax rates last December, the Republicans wouldn't budge, and a deal was made. (Although it's looking increasingly unlikely that they'll see a successful conclusion this time around.)
But the newest Gallup poll does drive home a point that perhaps GOP leaders aren't focused on: While most Americans prefer taxes don't go up, they won't necessarily take to the streets if increases are part of the package deal.
........................................
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Giuliani: GOP, quit dwelling on gay marriage
....................................
Giuliani to GOP: ‘Get the heck out of people’s bedrooms’
Posted by Chris Grygiel on July 17, 2011.
Rudy Giuliani, the former Republican mayor of New York City, on Sunday advised his party to halt its vocal opposition to gay marriage.
“I think the Republican Party would be well advised to get the heck out of people’s bedrooms and let these things get decided by states,” Giuliani said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We’d be a much more successful political party if we stuck to our economic, conservative roots.”
Last month New York became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriages. Of that vote, Giuliani, who is mulling a 2012 presidential run, told CNN: “I think it’s wrong, but there are other things that I think are wrong that get decided by democratic vote. I see more harm, however, by dwelling so much on this subject of gays and lesbians and whether it’s right or wrong in politics.”
In 2009 in Washington state the Legislature approved, and voters later upheld, an “everything but marrige” bill which greatly broadened the rights enjoyed by same-sex couples here. State Sen. Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, told seattlepi.com last week that Olympia was going to “make a serious effort” to legalize gay marriage in the Evergreen State.
....................................
Giuliani to GOP: ‘Get the heck out of people’s bedrooms’
Posted by Chris Grygiel on July 17, 2011.
Rudy Giuliani, the former Republican mayor of New York City, on Sunday advised his party to halt its vocal opposition to gay marriage.
“I think the Republican Party would be well advised to get the heck out of people’s bedrooms and let these things get decided by states,” Giuliani said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We’d be a much more successful political party if we stuck to our economic, conservative roots.”
Last month New York became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriages. Of that vote, Giuliani, who is mulling a 2012 presidential run, told CNN: “I think it’s wrong, but there are other things that I think are wrong that get decided by democratic vote. I see more harm, however, by dwelling so much on this subject of gays and lesbians and whether it’s right or wrong in politics.”
In 2009 in Washington state the Legislature approved, and voters later upheld, an “everything but marrige” bill which greatly broadened the rights enjoyed by same-sex couples here. State Sen. Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, told seattlepi.com last week that Olympia was going to “make a serious effort” to legalize gay marriage in the Evergreen State.
....................................
Friday, July 15, 2011
The Reason for ThurstonBlog
It's been awhile since I've really gotten on the editorial soapbox, but today is as good a day as any.
I'm going to start by suggesting that anyone who is not aware of why ThurstonBlog came of age, some 40,000 pageviews ago, check our archives and look at December 2009.
Frankly, nothing has really changed at The Olympian, other than a few people have moved on. It's still management by chaos and crisis and there isn't enough common sense to see the forest for the trees. Pre-Tammy McGee, they had Aaron Mason. Mason, like McGee, wasn't reading the text of the forums and was only relying on "complaints". Both make the mistake of publically getting into the fray, as opposed to quietly moderating from the background.
Looking at December 2009, you'll see that The Olympian forums were being shut down, due to abuse of the complaint link, on a daily basis. I opened up ThurstonBlog as a dialog option. This morning, from 98507's blog, I see that they are back to the same place, with a slight twist.
Nothing has really changed and never will. Oh...by the way....anytime The Olympian would like to respond to ThurstonBlog, all they need to do is apply for an account, just like they would require of a reader.
I'm going to start by suggesting that anyone who is not aware of why ThurstonBlog came of age, some 40,000 pageviews ago, check our archives and look at December 2009.
Frankly, nothing has really changed at The Olympian, other than a few people have moved on. It's still management by chaos and crisis and there isn't enough common sense to see the forest for the trees. Pre-Tammy McGee, they had Aaron Mason. Mason, like McGee, wasn't reading the text of the forums and was only relying on "complaints". Both make the mistake of publically getting into the fray, as opposed to quietly moderating from the background.
Looking at December 2009, you'll see that The Olympian forums were being shut down, due to abuse of the complaint link, on a daily basis. I opened up ThurstonBlog as a dialog option. This morning, from 98507's blog, I see that they are back to the same place, with a slight twist.
Nothing has really changed and never will. Oh...by the way....anytime The Olympian would like to respond to ThurstonBlog, all they need to do is apply for an account, just like they would require of a reader.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Tammy on the offensive AND the defensive
.......................
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/14/1723860/it-takes-a-village-to-raise-an.html#ixzz1S7abluLh
----------
Moderator Tammy started out the day by deleting one of glenn’s comments on the “Village” LTE, and to her credit, she DID respond with her reasons when called on it. However, I think that if she’s decided that "cedar" needs to be blocked, why doesn't she block some of the real offenders (glenn, GunnarWade, Suze, RedForeman, etc.), too/instead? If she blocked the offenders who "start" the problems, i.e. the above list plus some others, she shouldn't have to worry about anybody continuing along an objectionable path.
----------
cedartree
One last message from cedar: I have been blocked from the forum, so the right wing can have it almost completely to yourselves. It's just as well; it was a huge time-waster, and nobody's minds were ever changed. It seems that Tammi never shared my sense of sometimes caustic humor, and the abuse button kept being hammered by your compatriots.
-30-
in reply to glenn
----------
rosetta_stoned
Here's a tissue, Mr. 'Moderate'.
For the record, I don't believe in 'reporting' comments. I'd just as soon everybody see the nonsense put out there, and decide for themselves.
in reply to cedartree
----------
OlyKay
I agree. I'd just as soon see what people have to say, unedited. Gives some insight into their thought processes when you can see their most extreme rants.
in reply to rosetta_stoned
----------
Tammy McGee , Moderator for TheOlympian.com
Your thoughts are duly noted, but not everyone wants to read through 3 pages of comments that add up to not much more than verbal volleyball between people who basically hate each other because they disagree, so the comments will continue to be deleted when they are offensive.
in reply to OlyKay
----------
GunnarWade
If you have been blocked from the forum, how is it that you are able to still make comments?
in reply to cedartree
----------
cedartree
Here is a tip: there is an unlimited supply of email addresses and names and passwords in the world.
I will not be returning after this morning, and will be out of town for some time.
in reply to GunnarWade
----------
Friendlyfoe
That's too bad Cedar, I liked the biological perspective that you often brought to this forum. Keep that good sense of humor on your sleeve throughout the journey!
in reply to cedartree
----------
OlyKay
They may -- lockstep pushing the "report" button -- keep you from your First Amendment rights, but they can't keep you from voting. Got to have SOME rational people voting.
in reply to cedartree
----------
Astuteone
I was with the writer until he threw in the gay community. What do they have to do with this?
----------
fedup
Yeah, I have to agree with others on here. If it is about seniors then keep it about seniors. Being a senior has nothing to do with what they (or anyone else) does in their own bedroom!
I really think sometimes that the government is pushing for the creation of a "Unisex" race of people. Nope, can't say or do anything for fear of offending another person! Everyone forgets the fact that real equality comes from hard work and not hand-outs.
----------
glenn
Well, I guess we have an ultra sensitive gay advocate trolling the comments sections trying to censor the challenges to their ultra sensitivities. Security in their gayness is equivalent to a f_rt between two tea leaves. If you're proud of what you are and secure in what you are, then you won't run around trying to stiffle any perceptions of unacceptance. I'm glad I'm NOT them. Obviously they haven't accepted themselves yet.
----------
Tammy McGee , Moderator for TheOlympian.com
And when you start attacking "them" as people, is when you start getting your comments deleted. If you don't agree with someone, fine, but don't attack them as people. Say what you have to say without being offensive. "Security in their gayness is equivalent to a fart between two leaves." What does this mean, anyway? You thought the sarcasm was funny? Well, maybe it is to you and one of the other readers, but it's not funny to everyone. It's offensive, and if you can't make comments without being offensive, then don't comment. Don't like me? I don't care. I'm not here to be your pal, and quite honestly, I've gotten roughly 10 emails in two days calling me names and accusing me of being on the side of either the left or the right.....depending on who is attacking me. These comment threads can either be populated by mature adults attenmpting mature conversation, or comments will be deleted and/or threads closed.
in reply to glenn
----------
cedartree
If you took your job seriously and fairly moderated these forums, I don't think people would be as angry with you. But you allow all the right wing folks to call other people communists and socialists and marxists all day long, and to make fun of our president as if it was one long and funny game.
But to quote you out of context, you said "I don't care."
in reply to Tammy McGee
----------
Tammy McGee , Moderator for TheOlympian.com
And here is an excerpt of an email I received this morning:
"This is all uncalled for, the Libs say and do as they please, many of us have noticed that lately."
So, who's right? All I can do is delete the comments that insult, or make fun of other people. Everyone has a right to comment, but most on these threads anymore, treat the comment threads as their personal battle ground. It's offensive to many other people who wish to have a conversation here, and can't for fear of being personally attacked.
in reply to cedartree
----------
cedartree
And yet, the ratio of insulting right wing comments to liberal comments is probably five to one, yet you constantly eliminate the liberal comments in a MUCH higher percentage than that.
It is easy to blame someone else for your problems, but I think that your approach to moderation is a big part of the problem.
in reply to Tammy McGee
----------
OlyKay
Cedartree, while the more insulting and vicious comments are from the right, typically, it could also be that they are the ones pushing the "report" button on any moderate or left comments, and so those are the ones Tammy -- doing her job -- ends up reviewing.
When I get attacked -- and I do both from the far left (I'm not pure enough, I guess) and especially from the far right (because I'm left of Atilla the Hun) -- I'd just as soon leave the attacks up on here since they show the mentality of the folks doing the attacking.
Anyway, she may just be responding to whoever hits the "report" button the most.
in reply to cedartree
----------
Jon_YAYA
Mocking the President and calling each other names is an American tradition with a long and glorious history. What do you think our soldiers are fighting for?
I do see the right wing doing more mocking and name calling than the left, but doesn't that make sense? When you're not that bright and the facts are not on your side, what else do they have?
in reply to cedartree
----------
Bioya
Another triumph for censorship. Glenn's comment was a rebutal to the blatant attempt to push the gay agenda by Patrick Babineau. Why wasn't the article censored for dishonesty and blatant bias? What open minded individual will push the trap door button of censorship on my article, for being open about someones attempt to be underhanded about a controversial subject. The sands of time are falling for the news papers of America because of this type of censorship while they allow their bias to flourish in their editorial and news articles. Until the left is successful in their attempts to control the internet too, your version of open dialogue is doomed to failure and inclusion on the trash heap of former leftist newspapers. Why not put an abuse button on the papers editorials and opinions if you want to be open minded and honest.
----------
Jon_YAYA
Newspapers have endorsed certain political candidates and agendas for hundreds of years. This is not something new. Don't like the left wing slant? Go read one of the 150 newspapers owned by NewsCorp, they'll tell you just what YOU want to hear.
in reply to Bioya
----------
MarcusWoodson
I don't understand the gay reference either.
----------
MemoryMan
Gay people get old, too. Whether you want to call it orientation, lifestyle, determination, identity or what ever, they get old, they get cancer, they get dementias, they have strokes, and they need help. Prejudice against elders in Olympia, gay or otherwise, is subtle and mostly superficial for show. There is a definite bias for :"the children, " at the expense of seniors. Don't think so? Go down to the Olympia Senior Center, staffed by a non-profit and not the city, and take a tour. Seniors taking care of seniors privately is a norm. Of Course, you can be like city council members who come down only when running for office.
.......................
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/14/1723860/it-takes-a-village-to-raise-an.html#ixzz1S7abluLh
----------
Moderator Tammy started out the day by deleting one of glenn’s comments on the “Village” LTE, and to her credit, she DID respond with her reasons when called on it. However, I think that if she’s decided that "cedar" needs to be blocked, why doesn't she block some of the real offenders (glenn, GunnarWade, Suze, RedForeman, etc.), too/instead? If she blocked the offenders who "start" the problems, i.e. the above list plus some others, she shouldn't have to worry about anybody continuing along an objectionable path.
----------
cedartree
One last message from cedar: I have been blocked from the forum, so the right wing can have it almost completely to yourselves. It's just as well; it was a huge time-waster, and nobody's minds were ever changed. It seems that Tammi never shared my sense of sometimes caustic humor, and the abuse button kept being hammered by your compatriots.
-30-
in reply to glenn
----------
rosetta_stoned
Here's a tissue, Mr. 'Moderate'.
For the record, I don't believe in 'reporting' comments. I'd just as soon everybody see the nonsense put out there, and decide for themselves.
in reply to cedartree
----------
OlyKay
I agree. I'd just as soon see what people have to say, unedited. Gives some insight into their thought processes when you can see their most extreme rants.
in reply to rosetta_stoned
----------
Tammy McGee , Moderator for TheOlympian.com
Your thoughts are duly noted, but not everyone wants to read through 3 pages of comments that add up to not much more than verbal volleyball between people who basically hate each other because they disagree, so the comments will continue to be deleted when they are offensive.
in reply to OlyKay
----------
GunnarWade
If you have been blocked from the forum, how is it that you are able to still make comments?
in reply to cedartree
----------
cedartree
Here is a tip: there is an unlimited supply of email addresses and names and passwords in the world.
I will not be returning after this morning, and will be out of town for some time.
in reply to GunnarWade
----------
Friendlyfoe
That's too bad Cedar, I liked the biological perspective that you often brought to this forum. Keep that good sense of humor on your sleeve throughout the journey!
in reply to cedartree
----------
OlyKay
They may -- lockstep pushing the "report" button -- keep you from your First Amendment rights, but they can't keep you from voting. Got to have SOME rational people voting.
in reply to cedartree
----------
Astuteone
I was with the writer until he threw in the gay community. What do they have to do with this?
----------
fedup
Yeah, I have to agree with others on here. If it is about seniors then keep it about seniors. Being a senior has nothing to do with what they (or anyone else) does in their own bedroom!
I really think sometimes that the government is pushing for the creation of a "Unisex" race of people. Nope, can't say or do anything for fear of offending another person! Everyone forgets the fact that real equality comes from hard work and not hand-outs.
----------
glenn
Well, I guess we have an ultra sensitive gay advocate trolling the comments sections trying to censor the challenges to their ultra sensitivities. Security in their gayness is equivalent to a f_rt between two tea leaves. If you're proud of what you are and secure in what you are, then you won't run around trying to stiffle any perceptions of unacceptance. I'm glad I'm NOT them. Obviously they haven't accepted themselves yet.
----------
Tammy McGee , Moderator for TheOlympian.com
And when you start attacking "them" as people, is when you start getting your comments deleted. If you don't agree with someone, fine, but don't attack them as people. Say what you have to say without being offensive. "Security in their gayness is equivalent to a fart between two leaves." What does this mean, anyway? You thought the sarcasm was funny? Well, maybe it is to you and one of the other readers, but it's not funny to everyone. It's offensive, and if you can't make comments without being offensive, then don't comment. Don't like me? I don't care. I'm not here to be your pal, and quite honestly, I've gotten roughly 10 emails in two days calling me names and accusing me of being on the side of either the left or the right.....depending on who is attacking me. These comment threads can either be populated by mature adults attenmpting mature conversation, or comments will be deleted and/or threads closed.
in reply to glenn
----------
cedartree
If you took your job seriously and fairly moderated these forums, I don't think people would be as angry with you. But you allow all the right wing folks to call other people communists and socialists and marxists all day long, and to make fun of our president as if it was one long and funny game.
But to quote you out of context, you said "I don't care."
in reply to Tammy McGee
----------
Tammy McGee , Moderator for TheOlympian.com
And here is an excerpt of an email I received this morning:
"This is all uncalled for, the Libs say and do as they please, many of us have noticed that lately."
So, who's right? All I can do is delete the comments that insult, or make fun of other people. Everyone has a right to comment, but most on these threads anymore, treat the comment threads as their personal battle ground. It's offensive to many other people who wish to have a conversation here, and can't for fear of being personally attacked.
in reply to cedartree
----------
cedartree
And yet, the ratio of insulting right wing comments to liberal comments is probably five to one, yet you constantly eliminate the liberal comments in a MUCH higher percentage than that.
It is easy to blame someone else for your problems, but I think that your approach to moderation is a big part of the problem.
in reply to Tammy McGee
----------
OlyKay
Cedartree, while the more insulting and vicious comments are from the right, typically, it could also be that they are the ones pushing the "report" button on any moderate or left comments, and so those are the ones Tammy -- doing her job -- ends up reviewing.
When I get attacked -- and I do both from the far left (I'm not pure enough, I guess) and especially from the far right (because I'm left of Atilla the Hun) -- I'd just as soon leave the attacks up on here since they show the mentality of the folks doing the attacking.
Anyway, she may just be responding to whoever hits the "report" button the most.
in reply to cedartree
----------
Jon_YAYA
Mocking the President and calling each other names is an American tradition with a long and glorious history. What do you think our soldiers are fighting for?
I do see the right wing doing more mocking and name calling than the left, but doesn't that make sense? When you're not that bright and the facts are not on your side, what else do they have?
in reply to cedartree
----------
Bioya
Another triumph for censorship. Glenn's comment was a rebutal to the blatant attempt to push the gay agenda by Patrick Babineau. Why wasn't the article censored for dishonesty and blatant bias? What open minded individual will push the trap door button of censorship on my article, for being open about someones attempt to be underhanded about a controversial subject. The sands of time are falling for the news papers of America because of this type of censorship while they allow their bias to flourish in their editorial and news articles. Until the left is successful in their attempts to control the internet too, your version of open dialogue is doomed to failure and inclusion on the trash heap of former leftist newspapers. Why not put an abuse button on the papers editorials and opinions if you want to be open minded and honest.
----------
Jon_YAYA
Newspapers have endorsed certain political candidates and agendas for hundreds of years. This is not something new. Don't like the left wing slant? Go read one of the 150 newspapers owned by NewsCorp, they'll tell you just what YOU want to hear.
in reply to Bioya
----------
MarcusWoodson
I don't understand the gay reference either.
----------
MemoryMan
Gay people get old, too. Whether you want to call it orientation, lifestyle, determination, identity or what ever, they get old, they get cancer, they get dementias, they have strokes, and they need help. Prejudice against elders in Olympia, gay or otherwise, is subtle and mostly superficial for show. There is a definite bias for :"the children, " at the expense of seniors. Don't think so? Go down to the Olympia Senior Center, staffed by a non-profit and not the city, and take a tour. Seniors taking care of seniors privately is a norm. Of Course, you can be like city council members who come down only when running for office.
.......................
Voters still blame bad economy on Bush more than Obama
......................................
Voters blame Bush more than Obama for the economy
By Holly Bailey
Voters are increasingly displeased with President Obama's handling of the economy, but a new poll finds most Americans still think George W. Bush is responsible for the nation's dismal financial state.
According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 54 percent of those surveyed say Bush is responsible for the "current condition" of the economy, compared to just 27 percent who blame Obama. Among self-described independent voters, a key 2012 voting bloc, the number shifts slightly: 49 percent point the finger at the former GOP president, while 24 percent blame Obama.
Supporters of Obama's re-election will no doubt view the number as a good sign for the president's bid for a second term. But they shouldn't get excited yet.
Polls over the last year have consistently found that voters continue to blame Bush more than Obama for the struggling economy. Yet Obama and Democrats have consistently struggled to translate that displeasure with Bush into a vote against GOP candidates.
But that could be changing. While Obama's approval rating on the economy is nothing short of dismal—just 38 percent approve—the Quinnipiac poll finds more Americans trust the president on the issue than the GOP congress, 45 percent to 38 percent. Meanwhile, 48 percent of those surveyed say they will blame the GOP congress if a debt deal isn't approved, compared to 34 percent who say they will blame the Obama administration.
Those aren't great numbers for Republicans who are likely to face just as much political peril as Obama in 2012 if the economy doesn't improve over the next year.
The Quinnipiac poll also finds major support for one of the concessions Obama has called for in the debt deal: 67 percent say any deal on the deficit should also include tax increases on the wealthy and corporations, in addition to spending cuts.
......................................
Voters blame Bush more than Obama for the economy
By Holly Bailey
Voters are increasingly displeased with President Obama's handling of the economy, but a new poll finds most Americans still think George W. Bush is responsible for the nation's dismal financial state.
According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 54 percent of those surveyed say Bush is responsible for the "current condition" of the economy, compared to just 27 percent who blame Obama. Among self-described independent voters, a key 2012 voting bloc, the number shifts slightly: 49 percent point the finger at the former GOP president, while 24 percent blame Obama.
Supporters of Obama's re-election will no doubt view the number as a good sign for the president's bid for a second term. But they shouldn't get excited yet.
Polls over the last year have consistently found that voters continue to blame Bush more than Obama for the struggling economy. Yet Obama and Democrats have consistently struggled to translate that displeasure with Bush into a vote against GOP candidates.
But that could be changing. While Obama's approval rating on the economy is nothing short of dismal—just 38 percent approve—the Quinnipiac poll finds more Americans trust the president on the issue than the GOP congress, 45 percent to 38 percent. Meanwhile, 48 percent of those surveyed say they will blame the GOP congress if a debt deal isn't approved, compared to 34 percent who say they will blame the Obama administration.
Those aren't great numbers for Republicans who are likely to face just as much political peril as Obama in 2012 if the economy doesn't improve over the next year.
The Quinnipiac poll also finds major support for one of the concessions Obama has called for in the debt deal: 67 percent say any deal on the deficit should also include tax increases on the wealthy and corporations, in addition to spending cuts.
......................................
Do dumb you wonder how It breathes
From an opinion piece on the retirement of the Space Shuttle:
GunnarWade
GunnarWade
GunnarWade
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Another happy reader...
I see how it works. "progressives" get to make off-topic comments, and that is okay and allowed. Right thinking people do not. I guess I need to make "progressive" off-topic comments from now on....
Here is another symbol for you....
Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2011/07/12/debt-argument-leaves-us-out/#ixzz1S3S5hAY0
and here is another symbol for you
![]()
Here is another symbol for you....
Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2011/07/12/debt-argument-leaves-us-out/#ixzz1S3S5hAY0
and here is another symbol for you
Comment on it here (closed thread on The Olympian)
MELISSA SOUZA; Tumwater |
Conservatives say they care so deeply about the sanctity of life they would legally ban all abortions. Yet, they have no problem forsaking millions of the now born to be raised in the abyss of poverty, with all the related social maladies. This is evidenced by the billions in cuts the Republicans are now insisting upon in Medicaid, WIC and other services to the poor so they can funnel the savings to the wealthiest people and corporations in America.
The conservatives care so deeply about the sanctity of life that they have built the most extensive network of prisons in the world. And they wallow in the death penalty as a deterrent to crime while defunding social programs to educate and rehabilitate offenders so the cycle of poverty and criminal behavior can end.
Yes, conservatives are pro-life.
And let’s not forget conservatives’ quest to defund President Barack Obama’s health care plan and privatize Medicare and Social Security. Again, conservatives are pro-life, yet they have no problem in causing the deaths of 50,000-plus Americans each year through a lack of health care. And they want to privatize Medicare and Social Security so a business entity, with no moral compass, can capitalize on our old age and poor health. Yes, conservatives are so pro-life.
The real conservative agenda is to decentralize, deregulate, privatize, and defund. Is this the kind of pro-life democracy we want?
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/13/1722612/conservatives-dont-care-about.html#ixzz1S2pwd61b
39,780 7:54 PM 7/13/2011
Closing in on 40,000 pageviews!
Of course, as you all know, none of the Conservatives in Thurston County ever read our little blog.
Of course, as you all know, none of the Conservatives in Thurston County ever read our little blog.
Hope the righties are happy
..........................................
Conservatives don’t care about the poor
According to the "Most commented" section, this LTE had 88 comments, but not now. Obviously some of the commenters got out of hand with the usual result that all existing comments were removed and new comments can't be posted. Thanks, Olympian, for taking the lazy way out again!
..........................................
Conservatives don’t care about the poor
According to the "Most commented" section, this LTE had 88 comments, but not now. Obviously some of the commenters got out of hand with the usual result that all existing comments were removed and new comments can't be posted. Thanks, Olympian, for taking the lazy way out again!
..........................................
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Just imagine the horror she must have gone through and even more so if, she was very low income....
I for one do care if, she is going to be okay physically, as well as, emotionally .......