Death is no whitewash
Why does the public forget about all the horribly bad things a person — especially a famous person — has done in their life when they die?
We wonder what has happened to our society as a whole, grumble that our youth are drug addicts with no respect. Yet, we continue to immortalize those who show you can do bad things such as molestation, drugs and turning a blind eye. How are our children supposed to know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, if we as a society continuously blur those lines?
Yes, Whitney Houston was a great singer at one time. She also was a drug addict with erratic and irresponsible behavior that jeopardized her children time and again. Yes, Joe Paterno was a great football coach; he also knew that little boys were being raped by a colleague and didn’t report it to the police. Yes, Michael Jackson was a fabulous entertainer; he was also grossly inappropriate with many, many children and hung a baby off a balcony.
So, I will not say RIP to Whitney, Joe or Michael. I want my children to know that I don’t support someone who uses drugs and jeopardizes the health and mental welfare of children. I want my children to know that turning a blind eye to something is just as bad as committing the act yourself. I want my children to recognize the line between right and wrong.
Sarah Bailey
Bangor
Community service valued
Last Thursday, Bob Kelly stepped down as the advisory consultant to Bangor’s Historic Preservation Commission, or BHPC. For well over a decade, Bob has volunteered his time to help guide commission members as they make decisions about changes that property owners in the city’s historic districts want to make to their buildings.
As the owner of House Revivers, Bob has nearly 30 years of experience rehabilitating historic buildings, so was uniquely qualified to give advice, not only to members of the BHPC, but also the applicants who came before it. Bob was always ready to offer good, solid ideas for approaching a rehabilitation project and would often volunteer to take a look at the building for the property owner if they needed to additional guidance. If he did not feel that an applicant’s request for altering their building met with Bangor’s Historic Preservation Code, he would quietly state his objections and offer ideas that might help satisfy their goals, yet keep them in line with the city’s code.
At times, Bob served as a buffer when discussions became heated, calmly giving his thoughts about the application and always treating the applicants who came before the commission with respect. As members of the commission were thanking him for service last Thursday, Bob characteristically offered to continue to be of help if he was needed in the future. Bangor has been very lucky to have Mr. Kelly serve in this position for so long.
Sara K. Martin
Bangor
Maine Republicans lost
You would be hard-pressed to find any competent statistician who could conclude Gov. Mitt Romney beat Congressman Ron Paul in the recent Maine straw poll.
First of all, only a minority of Republicans voted. Secondly, over 175 towns in a relatively unpopulated state did not participate, as reported on the Maine GOP website.
If the polls taken in Maine’s three largest cities — Bangor, Portland and Lewiston — were the measure, then Ron Paul won the vote by a significant margin. The Maine GOP headquarters and the state capital is located in Kennebec County where Mr. Paul beat Mr. Romney.
The following week, the Maine GOP decided to cancel the caucus in Washington County, a Mr. Paul stronghold, due to an “inclement” weather forecast of 2-4 inches of snow the morning of the scheduled caucus. Charlie Webster, the Maine GOP chairman, informed the caucus that their vote would not be counted in the straw poll vote.
If one were to guess what the outcome would have been in Washington County by the results in Aroostook County, also a rural, northerly county, Mr. Paul would win by a margin of nearly 4 to 1.
Real investigative reporting is a commodity few newspapers in Maine can afford. However, it is inexcusable for wealthier, major news organization to lead the American public on such a misinformed path.
Mitt Romney did not win in Maine and neither did Maine Republicans who lost confidence in the media and in the integrity of leadership of the Maine GOP.
Patrick Eisenhart
Augusta
It’s not a religious issue
Religious conservatives claim that providing contraceptive insurance violates their religious liberty. Nonsense. Churches are free to make their own rules.
They have the power to require their members to follow them. They may ex-communicate members that don’t. They may operate religious institutions, hiring and serving members only. They can refuse insurance inconsistent with their religious beliefs. And Americans support them in the form of tax exemptions as long as they remain religious and nonpolitical.
Those groups currently alleging violation of their religious rights are not running religious institutions. They are running hospitals, universities, day care centers, soup kitchens and more. They hire nonchurch members. They accept local, state and federal funding and generous tax exemptions. They serve the nonreligious needs of the general public and the law prohibits religious testing for services or proselytizing the people they serve.
Logically, this law extends to the people they hire. Ethically, they should provide full health care coverage. The requirement to pay for contraceptive insurance in no way forces church members to use contraceptives — although 95 percent of them do. Most of us pay taxes for expenditures inconsistent with our beliefs and the claim of religious persecution doesn’t pass the straight-face test.
This is a health care issue, not a religious issue. Unfortunately, churches seem very eager to make it into a political power play. This needs to stop or they need to give up their tax-free status.
Janet Alexander
Old Town
What view?
I have been listening to and reading the arguments opposing the Searsport propane project and they seem entirely superficial. I keep reading about how it will impact the view and I wonder if we are looking at the same piece of property, as there are already tanks there.
There are many benefits from a diversified tax base to jobs. I plan on attending the March 10 town meeting and voting no on the moratorium.
Melissa Lockhart
Searsport
SARAH,
It’s not politically correct to remember these folks for the truth. What”s worse is keeping it in the media for days and weeks. I agree with you ” who cares “.
Sarah has forgotten to mention that our government teaches by very bad example too. Under Pres. Bush we went into Iraq under false pretenses, spent upwards of 1.7 TRILLION $$$$, killed over a hundred thousand Iraquis, maimed over 50,000 of our men, degregulated big business etc. etc. Young people are not mislead only by pop stars. Look what the LePage administration is doing to the poorest among us. Young folk know that no one cares about them and they are right.
Mr. Eisenhart, having Charlie “Voter Fraud” Webster count votes for the GOP caucuses is like getting marital advice from Newt Gingrich or financial advice from Bernie Madoff.
Great letter, Ms. Alexander. No bishop has the right to prohibit a St. Joseph Hospital employee from having access to the same contraceptive coverage that would be available at EMMC. Could a Jehovah’s Witness hospital refuse health insurance coverage for transfusions? Could a Quaker hospital refuse health insurance coverage for those wounded in combat? Could a Jewish or Islamic hospital refuse coverage for those who contracted trichinosis by eating pork?
Thankfully, the nuns who run these hospitals strongly disagree with their bishops.
No one should have the right to prohibit anyone from access to health care at all.
If bishops got pregnant this issue would disappear.
If we had single payer or a public option this issue would disappear.
The Catholic Church fought against that also.
I forgot about that. Did that ever go anywhere, or did they just drop it when the public option was dropped?
The Bishops prefer a single prayer system.
I am personally sick of hearing this phony meme about Christians being supposedly so oppressed, hated and put upon. What reality are you operating in? Like, oh, maybe one day, just one day in the future, one amazing Christian will rise up and become a Senator…or even President! Oh wait, reality check, the past 45 presidents have been Christian. It’s quite enough with this phony victimization.
A well-kept secret is that Jefferson and Lincoln were deists and both Adamses, Fillmore, and Taft were Unitarians, who technically don’t accept the divinity of Christ. We will have experienced 104 consecutive years of Christian presidents after Obama’s re-election.
Faux News keeps blathering about the “War on Christmas.” Christians appropriated the winter solstice celebration and conveniently ignore the near certainty that Christ was born in the spring. Shepherds would watch their flocks by night during the spring lambing season.
We won’t find the Christian right subscribing to the non-Chirstianity of either Founding Fathers or the philosphies behind the Revoltuion or the Constitution.
I prefer to think of them as the Christian wrong.
We don’t look to politicians as our Savior. I take it anyone who believes and fights for a cause is a self proclaimed victim? I guess you view Jesus Christ, who was hated, a phony victim.
Janet Alexander, very well stated. Unfortunately the religious right seem to have gotten into the primary process, in that they are using their pulpit to brand or favor politicians according to how they cow tow to these religious factions.
Patrick Eisenhart, what I’m guessing is that none of the Washington County republicans signed a pact with the southern Maine repubicans. They really don’t like dissention down in southern Maine.
Sarah, These people are being eulogized, not sainted. In death many people grieve and remember the good the person did and the contributions they gave while alive. After the mourning ends most people will remember only what led to their demise, the poor choices , crimes committed, abuses allowed and decisions made that ruined their lives and the lives of others. None of us are perfect and thank God we do not live our lives in the fishbowl of celebrity. Let them rest in peace while teaching your children how to learn from the mistakes of others. Let them rest in peace while trying to make the world a better place for their victims and those hurt by their actions. Let them rest in peace as we are all told that “Ye without sin, cast the first stone.”
No, entertainers are put on the pedestals of true American heroes by a society (and president) that does not give two hoots about a soldier returning from battle in a casket, fighting for them.
pffft
Add my pfft to yours. A double pfft to Bonny the ignoranus.
So who does the USO shows for our servicemen and women serving overseas? I always thought that entertainers did that but you have enlightened me.
You are so right. In my 4 trips to Afghanistan or Iraq I did see a few “stars.” It was very nice of them. Nobody that were on Grammys or Oscars. I do not idolize/role model any entertainers, especially when they destroy themselves with self indulgence. They could be donating those millions of dollars to worthy causes.
Enjoying someone’s talents and entertainment isn’t the same as hero worship. They market their skills and people pay for that — but you want them to work for free, why? Sounds like socialism. Either way, they obviously donate much of their time and energy in order to give back, as you’ve stated you’ve seen those “stars.”
I don’t really see a difference between you saying that those stars should donate their profits and saying a guy like Romney should donate his profits. Kind of just seems like you’re not being consistent with your logic.
I’ve never said anything about Romney, but I believe he does donate millions of dollars to very worthy causes. I think if I had that kind of money I also would rather donate a lot to worthy causes, rather than the federal government which seems to fritter it away.
Like by spending it on useless wars and military generally. Want to cut some useless fat from government? get rid of the military. The USA spends more on it’s military than the next five countries combined. That includes China!
I was willing to go along with Micahel Jackson’s family grieving until they ramped up the MJ image since their meal ticket was now dead. That’s what I object to.
Patrick Eisenhart –
5,600 out of 258,000 voted over a one week period came out to vote. That’s pitiful. Everyone loses when the people remain silent. By the way, Ron Paul has some good points, but there is no way he can beat Obama. And if he drops out and runs as a Libertarian, Obama will be a sure bet to get 4 more years. We can’t take 4 more years of his overspending, over-regulating, and socialist-agenda pushing.
Ron Paul has a lot of support from Independents. That can’t be said for the other three. I see Ron Paul as the only one that can beat Obama.
You might “see Ron Paul as the only one that can beat Obama” but the current polls do not see it that way
General Election: Gingrich 39.0% vs. Obama 52.1%
General Election: Santorum 40.7% vs. Obama 50.0%
General Election: Paul 39.2% vs. Obama 49.2%
General Election: Romney 43.1% vs. Obama 48.8%
All information from Real Clear Politics http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
Even an exhumed Ronald Reagan cannot beat President Obama.
Maybe not, but he can vote in several states.
EJ, I think Santorum should be your man. He is more authentic than R-money (that’s damning with faint praise) and doesn’t believe in serial monogamy like Gingrich. I hope you caucused for him.
Since President Obama is down-sizing our only purely socialist institution, the US military, I am confused that you would call him a socialist. What industries has he nationalized during his first three years? Do you understand how socialism is defined in the English language or do words for you mean whatever you say they mean?
If we are free to randomly assign definitions to words, may I call you a fascist? I assume you don’t believe in a single leader government closely aligned with the church and major industries, but calling you a fascist serves as a rhetorical flourish. What do you think?
I think you’re a nutjob. But that’s your right. And I served in the socialist military for over twenty defending your right to be a nutjob.
What industries has nationalized? Healthcare and GM for starters. And he wants to control the banks and Wall Street.
You do not understand the definition of “nationalize”.
I sure do. And I understand the definition of nutjob.
Yes you do understand that term, from the inside out.
Then you should probably used the words socialist, socialism and nationalize correctly, then.
He makes up his own words and definitions. Apparently he has even written his own dictionary. I don’t know why anyone would take this individual seriously.
You seem to have changed your tune about name calling and civil comments.
Remember, this is EJ Parsons you are dealing with. Not one would call credible in any senese of the term.
I was responding to a question.
So? It’s just the same. You’re calling names and not keeping it civil.
Unlike some on here, I apologized for being flippy.
What does flippy mean?
The EJ dictionary: flippy: calling names, but the name caller is absolved from any improper behaviors because he hates the current Democratic administration, which is considered by the ignorant to be an admirable position. LOL
The word “hate” is not in the EJ dictionary. You must have an illegally pirated copy.
You don’t realize what you just said, do you? AAHAHAH!!!
Humor, ms. Get some.
Yes it is a made-up word.
Off the cuff: flippant: wise crack: etc.
EJ,
Progressives deny Obama being a socialist on one thin technicality while painting anyone conservative as a fascist with a broad brush. They totally ignore Obama’s social and entitlement agenda or his own words.
Sort of like declaring a murderer who poisoned his victim instead of shooting them with a gun didn’t commit a “violence”.
I have read endless posts by conservatives on this website using the word “socialist” to describe their opponents without knowing what the word means. I can remember no post by anyone on this site calling a right winger a fascist. My initial post sought to heap scorn upon EJ for his misuse of the word socialist; I sought his permission to call him a fascist although in that post I readily acknowledged that he was not.
Humpty Dumpty, please point to a single post by anyone on this site that has called a right winger a fascist.
The ad hominem response is a sign that one is losing the debate. Socialism is defined as the government ownership of the means of production in any dictionary you might choose. Calling President Obama a socialist is a warping of the English language and indicates a willingness to twist language to fit one’s agenda.
The Affordable Care Act involves doctors who are privately employed and reimbursed by private insurers whose profit margin is more tightly regulated. There is no government ownership or employment of anyone involved in the process beyond the government-run insurance of Medicare and Medicaid that was enacted over 4o years ago. The health industry has not been nationalized as that word is understood by the English-speaking world. In your 20 years of admirable service in the military you likely had government-owned housing, government-owned communal dining halls, government-owned equipment, government-paid superior officers, and health care delivered at no cost to you by government-employed physicians. You likely benefit from Tri-Care for your health care insurance now. This is provided by private insurers with a government subsidy to bring the cost down for you. We have a nationalized military and hire very few private mercenary forces like the former Blackwater armies. As to GM, the government bought shares in the corporation as a price for its aid, much as Bush did with the banks. Those shares, as well as loans, are being repurchased or repaid over time. Being a minority shareholder in a private corporation is not nationalization and I would hope that any federal government would obtain security for financial assistance it gives: prudence demands this. The GM/government relationship is not much different conceptually than that for a host of small business loans that the SBA has made for years. The readers of our respective posts can decide for themselves who thinks carefully and who reacts emotionally. I will not call you a fascist, as words have defined meanings and I respect the English language too much to warp if for rhetorical effect.
Okay. I apologize for getting flippy with you, but your comment was a little on the ridiculous side, don’t you think? Anyone that follows the news and the history of President Obama knows that he was mentored by professors that believed wholly in Marxism and Socialism, and he cited those professors as heroes in his own book. He is anti-Capitalist, and has not only eluded to that fact, his actions go against capitalistic methods. He is unfriendly to small businesses, big businesses, and any business that does not support his causes. His takeover of GM was calculated, and his use of the company to push the multi-billion dollar failure, the Volt, is purely selfish to him and his agenda.
What really surprises me is how anyone can defend this president. He’s been a complete and total failure on all fronts. Unemployment, even under his new calculation rules, is still far too high. Actual unemployment is nearly 15%. He is spending at a rate that will bankrupt this nation in less than a decade, and his worshipers want him to spend more. He has, on several occasions, expressed his displeasure with the US Constitution and the Congress. He’s acting more like a selfish king than an elected official. And he’s now in campaign mode, which, by the way, he never left, and is doing nothing to help this nation, and everything to help him get re-elected.
Of course, he’s got his followers. And every one of his followers has a hand out.
When you read the reasoning, the rants and the twisted truths used by the those that hate President Obama it really isn’t too difficult align oneself with President Obama.
I’m sure glad I don’t hate the President. His policies and beliefs, however…..
Then quit using the word “Messiah” as a pejorative.
I don’t capitalize messiah when I’m talking about a mere human.
And that does in no way constitute hatred.
Maybe not the “H” word but McCain induced hyperbolic ridicule.
Actually EJ, Obama and his administration is much closer to being an offshoot of Fascism. Most people only associate Fascism with the Nazi version and it’s strong nationalism and racism. Fascism actually encompasses a wide range of the political spectrum just as socialism actually does.
The hard left progressives on here declare that Obama is not a socialist because he has not openly proposed that government own the means of production while ignoring the fact that he embraces almost all other aspects of socialism. Very much like most of Europe. Despite the historical definition of socialism, this is the modern version.
Isn’t it ironic these people have no problem with fundamentally redefining the basic meaning of the word “marriage” but are demanding that we all accept the strict historical definition of socialism.
Definition of FASCISM
1 often capitalized :
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti)
that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands
for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Note how the second definition is very appropriate when describing Obama and modern progressives.
Let’s have a history lesson here. Fascism began in Italy and came to power with Mussolini. It has been used to describe Hitler’s Nazi Party and Franco’s Falangist Party in Spain. All three ran decidedly right wing governments which battled the socialist and Marxist parties in their countries, had significant support from right wing industrialists, were opposed by the labor unions, and, in the case of Franco and Mussolini, had significant support from the church. All three parties were extremely nationalistic or racist and two out of three (the Nazis and the Fascists) believed in conquest by military force. Two of the three (Hitler and Mussolini) were elected, but then never again held remotely fair elections. Franco came to power through the Spanish Civil War.
That any literate person would suggest that any American President, all of whom have stood for reelection, recognized democratic norms, and allowed wide First Amendment expression, was a fascist is a sign of someone who has lost his ability to think.
Pray tell me what your very own definition of socialism is. You remind me of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland who said “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
You shall forever after be Humpty Dumpty to our readers.
Rather more like the “White Queen in Alice in Wonderland” who boasted that she could believe “six impossible things before breakfast”
That better fits Bishop Cheesecake.
Oh my Gosh! You called him Humpty Dumpty!
A well-earned nickname.
Another ad hominem attack by you. I feel honored since as you yourself put it in another post on this very thread, ” The ad hominem response is a sign that one is losing the debate.”
Actually, Fascism is more accurately described as a syncretic movement that takes ideas from both the right and the left. My opinion is that in general it takes the worst of both extremes. It can also be argued that Fascism’s original genesis was as an offshoot of socialism competing with the socialist and communist parties for the same group of people.
You should read the Nazi party platform of 1920. It combines multiple elements adopted from the philosophies of nationalism, racism and socialism.
While Obama and other progressives give lip service to the concept of democracy they in fact support the empowering of bureaucracies that wield the real power. This is in effect a form of authoritarian democracy that advocates the rule of the most qualified, rather than rule by the majority. A basic tenant of Fascism.
One set of definations for Fascism includes the phrase “Nationalist, authoritarian goals for the creation of a regulated
economic structure to transform social relations within a modern,
self-determined culture.” Leave off the word Nationalist, or change it to international or global, (think UN), and the rest fits right in with Obama and modern progressives.
Another partial definition of fascism, “A political aesthetic using romantic symbolism, mass mobilisation, a
positive view of violence, promotion of masculinity and youth and
charismatic leadership.” Leave out the promotion of masculinity and the rest fits Obama again.
Humpty Dumpty, an ad hominem attack is one directed at a person’s character, not at his use of logic or use of words. Look it up.
Members of my extended family have died under fascist oppression. Read about Auschwitz, Guernica, and Mussolini’s slaughter of innocents in Ethiopia before you ever think of calling an American President a fascist. I disagreed vehemently with the handful of liberals who called Bush a fascist. I have too much respect for words and the tragedies of 20th century history to use such a word so loosely. You, sadly, do not. I pity your myopia.
Your apology is accepted.
I have read both of President Obama’s books and do not recognize the man you describe or the “mentors” you claim he had. Could you give me page numbers or are you simply citing something from the fevered imagination of Glenn Beck?
President Obama, like FDR before him, is trying to save capitalism from its own excesses. I doubt you would use the interstate if there were no speed limits and anyone could drive northward in the southbound lane. Why don’t you expect the same commonsense regulation of our financial markets that you expect of our highways?
We had a regulated financial system from FDR until Reagan and the result was an avoidance of the financial crises that had plagued the nation all through the 19th century and, most spectacularly, in the 1929 crash. Reagan, Clinton, and Bush believed that a deregulated financial market would regulate itself. Reagan gave us the Savings & Loan debacle and Clinton and Bush gave us the 2008 crash.
I am a small businessperson who has seen both profits and investments improve under President Obama. The Dow has risen 60% since his inauguration. GM is making a profit and rebuilding a manufacturing base: this country is doomed if we don’t preserve our manufacturing base. The Germans and the Chinese understand this and both are net exporters. Wall Street doesn’t care a whit where it invests its money.
I don’t have a hand out for anything. I am certain that I pay more in taxes than you do. I expect my government to work and know that no country in history has been able to find its way to prosperity through budget cuts. We had a higher debt to GDP ratio at the end of WW II and neither Truman nor Eisenhower let that stop them from public investment in education (the GI Bill) and roads (the Interstate Highway System). We grew our way out of a high debt load and the country thrived.
I drove on the Audubon for 2 years with no speed limits. I loved it.
The Dow hit a high of over 14k under Bush. So, in reality, it’s down under Obama.
GM has yet to pay back most of the bailout money. The money is just shifted around from account to account to make it look like it’s paid back. By the way, Ford didn’t take a dime, and they’re number one.
‘Prosperity through budget cuts”? The trouble with that logic is that it doesn’t account for the out-of-control spending by Congress. Obamacare, even by the non-partisan budget office, is unsustainable. The deficit is rising faster than ever, with no effective cuts in sight. And Obama’s newest budget is a budget buster.
If the President had the guts to cut entitlements by 15 to 20%, the deficit would be eliminated in just a couple of years, and the debt would begin to fall. But, since the majority of entitlements enslave the voting base in the shackles of government, as long as the politicians’ lust for power exceeds their love of country, entitlements will be off the table.
Yes, we grew our way out of a high debt load; we didn’t spend our way out of it.
The word is Autobahn. Audubon painted birds. The Autobahn does not allow northbound traffic in the southbound lane, yet a deregulated financial market allowed Goldman Sachs to sell worthless collateral debt obligations to clients and then place bets (credit default swaps) that the financial products it had just sold would fail.
The last day of the Bush presidency the Dow was at 8218.22. It was 10,587.59 when he took office. You sound like the fellow falling out of a 30 story window who, at the 5th floor on his way down, said things were “going pretty good so far.” It is pointless to talk to someone who thinks Bush left us with a swell economy. You probably still think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and still possessed WMD on the day of our invasion.
Check out who was in charge of both the House and Senate when the Dow began the fall.
The military is an all-volunteer force dedicated to protecting our freedoms and liberties from all entities, foreign and domestic. It is funded by taxpayer monies, and structured in a manner that keeps it focused on its goals. If the structure of the military resembles socialism to you, then that’s for you to handle. To me, after being in for a couple of decades, it was a great way of life, and a necessary part of what makes America great.
If military service was mandatory, this would be a better nation. And our elected officials wouldn’t be such a band of crooks.
Per your last paragraph, check out Robert Heinlein’s “Staship Troopers” (the book, not the movie). It’s SciFi but in that future world, suffrage was only granted to those with military service.
When the Labor Party nationalized the coal mines, the steel industry, and the railroads in England in the 1940s (an actual act of socialism as opposed to your imagined socialism of President Obama) every employee of those nationalized industries was a volunteer who could quit the next day. Enlistment in the military is a little less voluntary as one has to serve one’s initial enlistment term, but is otherwise indistinguishable from what happened in England.
I am trying to gently get you to understand the words you use so blithely. Every society has some aspect of common or government ownership: schools, highways, the military. etc. Your use of the word socialism to describe a government program with which you disagree is fundamentally at war with the English language as any dictionary defines the word. To call the Affordable Care Act socialism is the mark of someone who does not understand the language he speaks.
EJ: Chenard’s posts are always well written, thoughtful, informed and tempered: unlike some who post religious rants, call names and then sanctimoniously claim they are doing their Christian duty to point out their sins.
Do you ever read with both eyes open?
Yes, I do read with both eyes open. I also read with my intellect fully engaged: that’s why I so often disagree with what you post.
Intellect fully engaged???? Now, that’s funny.
Well, when dealing with you I only need to run on half engaged.
Good one. But that does explain your inability to understand what I post.
EJ, everybody understands you. You read like a primer: “See EJ run” “Run, EJ run”
As do you.
Back to insults again? You have been quite civil for a while.
I already apologized for that.
We can’t? Why not? It seems to be working. I say he should get tougher!
He doesn’t know how to get tough. He’s STILL too busy blaming Bush. He did it again yesterday. When is he going to take responsibility? He’s a complete failure.
Your complaints aren’t even compatible. First he’s weak and not a leader, next he’s a radical extremist hell-bent on destroying the country. How do you weakly destroy a country?
Good lick, fwteagles. Let’s see all the Obama haters explain that sophomoric bit of cognitive dissonance.
And that’s where you make the mistake. No one on the right hates Obama as a person.
OK, you all love President Obama, his beautiful wife and really nice kids and you never, ever make hateful personal comments about any of them. (snort) You still suffer from cognitive dissonance as a result of a serious thinking disability.
Never have I wished any harm on the President, his family, or anyone that I disagree with. If it came down to it, I would take a bullet for Obama or anyone else that holds that office. So, get off of the hate train and get on the reality train. The view is quite different.
The Messiah term comes right straight from Rush Limbaugh, hate generator. If you don’t want to be associated with that kind of hate quit using the same words they use.
Both the terms ‘messiah’ and ‘magic negro’ were first coined by journalists on the left.
Brody: Let me ask you a little about some of these ads that John McCain has been running not just on television, but on the web. Let’s face it, let’s call a spade a spade, there has been some Messianic references, there’s been some antichrist stuff going on, the celebrity, they’re trying to pigeonhole you a certain way. Do you believe this is being done on purpose?
Obama: Well of course it’s being done on purpose. They’re not spending a whole bunch of money to make me out as a good guy. They’re engaging in the kind of politics that I think we’ve become accustomed to which is you try to tear your opponents down and you engage in sort of slash and burn tactics. And very personal sort of personal character attacks. And one of the challenges for us in this campaign is how do you make sure those attacks are answered quickly and forcefully, but also truthfully and that we don’t fall into that same kind of tactic.
In March 2007, Ehrenstein wrote an opinion piece on Barack Obama, in which he used the archetype of the magical negro to describe Obama, who was then an Illinois senator and candidate for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president. The title of the piece, “Obama the ‘Magic Negro‚'” was later used in a musical parody called Barack the Magic Negro by conservative satirist Paul Shanklin. This piece of music caused some controversy in late December, 2008, when compact discs featuring the song were distributed by Tennessee political activist Chip Saltsman (a candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee) to various Republican Party activists as Christmas gifts.
Thanks for providing proof on my comment. That’s mighty fine of you.
Then why do you continue them? Look, it’s not about right and left. It’s about not saying idiotic and racist things. Just cut it out. It’s wrong no matter who does it.
What I say is neither idiotic nor racist. Don’t know what you’re talking about.
Doesn’t matter. Tell me why you decided to call Obama my “Messiah.” Please explain that because I don’t understand it.
Messiah. Savior. Angel of Hope. Magic Negro. All of these labels came from left-wing journalists. But, since I’m not a left-winger, I guess I’m not allowed to repeat their labels. Is that what you’re saying?
No, what I am saying is that they’re not right no matter who says them. I’ve actually never heard the terms before, besides the Messiah one, which I’ve heard from Limbaugh and on Fox News. Why’d you call him my Messiah? I’d like you to answer that.
A messiah (no capitalization) is an object of worship. This is the form of the word I used. A Messiah (capitalized) is the word used for Christ, the real Messiah. I did not use that form. So, I didn’t call Obama your Messiah, I called him your messiah.
That said, I’ve yet to hear you criticize him in any way. So, as a politician, it seems you hold him in high esteem. Therefore, it’s possible that he would fit the definition of messiah.
By the way, I wasn’t referring to Obama as your “personal” messiah. “Your” was more of an inclusive word to include the left.
Would you take a bullet for the President?
I guess that lack of an answer would be a ‘no’. And by the lack of others chiming in, I’d say there aren’t a lot of people on here that would protect the President with their own life. Where have all the Patriots gone?
That is an outright falsehood.
Elaborate, please.
No one? Really? Maybe not you, but too many others do.
Put it this way, I’ve never heard anyone on the right, and I listen to quite a few of them, that have said they hate Obama as a person. If you have, then specify, please.
Do you contend that the Tempe, AZ, Baptist preacher, Steven Anderson, who told his congregation that he prays for President Obama’s death, is a left wing liberal? Beware the categorical absolute, EJ, as its use will make you look foolish.
His policies are destroying the economy. But, he’s far too weak to take responsibility. Pretty simple to figure out.
Not really though. It doesn’t add up. If he’s so weak, how is he enacting these incredibly destructive policies?
The same way the unions get their way. They stack the deck in their favor, change the rules to favor their cause, and bully. He had both the House and Senate for two years and got everything he wanted. Now he only has the Senate, but his buddy, Reid, isn’t allowing anything to pass or even come to the floor for a vote that might make Obama or the Dems look bad. It’s an election year after all.
So, he’s weak because he’s not enacting the agenda you want him to? He’s enacting his agenda which includes a lot of proposals that originated from Republicans (whether you want to admit it or not). That’s not what weak means. You don’t get to call him weak and not leading, when he is leading but just not in the direction you want him to.
If you actually believe he’s improving things in this country, then more power to you. And, granted, he’s taken enough so-called Republican ideas and salted his legislation with them in order to use that for his campaign. But, overall, his policies are crippling this country, ripping freedoms and liberties from our lives, and bankrupting us. Even a blind man can see that. And I think you can, too. You’re just too prideful to admit that your messiah has faults.
Why are you calling him my messaih? That is weird. He’s the President.
You’re also changing the subject. You said he’s weak. He’s not weak though, he’s just not putting forth the agenda you want him to. There is a big difference.
He is weak. He refuses to take responsibility for the results of his own actions. He refuses to follow up on his promise to work with the Republicans. He bullies everyone that opposes him, but refuses to meet with them face to face. He’s weak.
I agree. Cut the messiah stuff.
The Dow is up 60% under President Obama.
It peaked at over 14,000 under Bush. Then when the Dems took over both houses of Congress in 06, it took a massive dive. It is yet to make it back to the high it was prior to their takeover. By the way, just ask someone that had a 401K back then about their losses. You might not want to get too close to them when you bring up the subject.
Sarah Bailey – Far too many great people die in silence. Of course, if you ever want to visit them, they’re in Arlington and all the other veterans cemeteries.
Melissa, melissa, really, have you no sense of the blight that the 138 ft tank will visit upon Penobscot Bay . Really ,pay attention, I am continually upset with those folks who can’t do a simple goole search and find the glaring flaws in DCP’s plan. And the damage that we will do to the integrity of the coastline and tourism as it stands and is able to cripple but not extend extend its # 1 status as Maine’s primary economic engines. Destroying jobs is stupid. Keeping and maintaining jobs is always easier and cheaper then creating jobs. Let’s not LOSE jobs because of this misguided and underhanded slick job of pushing DCP’s corporate vision. Their vision is not our vision, their profit leans far exceeds ours. It is a bad deal for Searsport. Let’s get a better one.
Why shouldn’t we allow a company to come in that will pay a LIVEABLE, year-round wage?? Just one job at this facility has the capacity to earn as much in one year as one “tourism job” would make in four years, why are we afraid to let people prosper? Maybe it’s just folks want to oppress the working class and keep the poor poor and dependent. We all want the economy to improve, so let’s give it a shot. Let people earn some REAL money and make something of themselves, let them live their dreams!
The “facts” that TBNT are spreading are not facts at all. This tank will NOT “loom” over downtown Searsport as they claim. Tourists have been coming to Searsport for centuries, and they will continue to come.
Searsport is an industrial port, let’s keep it that way.
I have not seen anything from TNBT that says the 22.7 million gallon tank will loom over downtown Searsport. But it will loom over Angler’s Irvings, and the two small businesses and the Rhumb Line and Silkweeds. I haven’t seen any animosity towards working people on the things that TNBT has printed, but I sure have heard that anyone against the tank isn’t “normal”. Searsport is so much more than “just” an industrial port. The people who are screaming loudest for the tank just seem not to have done any independent reading. But thank you for your reply.
That’s why many of the residents of Searsport have been asking to see the scale model of the entire project with accurate pictures as DCP promised to create after their first two presentations over a year ago. Their were only a couple of tanks down to Mack Point when I was a kid.
The recent strong growth of the industries at the port have challenged the efforts of tourism related businesses, which are most, to be creative in dealing with increased noise, smell and traffic. As Mack Point did develop the town did not seem to benefit.
We were the first to lose state accreditation of our school because it was falling apart, our downtown was almost empty, the mill rate was the highest in Maine and where was the industry…not at a town parade, festival or local business meeting.
The opportunities for business in our town are limitless. We have so much more to work with than almost any town in the country. But we continue to chase the direction of others outside the community whether it be another DOT planning effort or a wood chipping plant on the island. But we never ask what’s in it for the all the people of Searsport and the plans never come together because the money was never real so we keep waiting to rebuild up our town .
And now the plan for keeping our youth in Seartsport is another gas station job. We should do better and ask more for all of the people of Searsport, because they will once again have to pay the price.
It seems to me that an independent economic impact study would go a long way toward resolving the question of whether the town would benefit financially from the tank. People on both sides of this issue ought to be clamoring for such a study.
What a despicable attitude for someone we trust with our property and lives.
Who are you to measure the worth of people by their jobs? So you would trade four old jobs for one new DCP job? 15 DCP jobs would equal the 60 jobs they destroy? What of the 60 families impacted? You are a cold, calus person to be so willing to sell out your town and see its character destroyed for the promise of a job you will not get.
The lies are being spread by DCP and their henchmen (witting, and unwitting) not the opposition. Those opposed do not stifle free speech nor lie. The facts are clear. Unless you are sitting on your head you will see this tank for miles. It is 14 stories tall. Do you think we
are morons? It is 14 stories tall!
The first tourists (the rusticators) came to the area in the 1860’s. Not quite “centuries” ago but before there was a a Mack Point terminal. Facts matter, it is what makes up the truth.
Searsport HAS an industrial port, but it IS so much more.
Let’s see…….Searsport’s industrial sector contributes 14% to the town’s revenues. of which the port contributes 8%, the commercial businesses (read small businesses) comprise 30% of revenues…DO THE MATH. Underestimating the real contribution of small business seems to be the ploy of those who always want to make everything a class war. This is about safety, balance, the survival of the real economic engine of the community and the preservation of what little unspoilt coast line is left. When it’s gone it’s gone.This isn’t the “people’s dream”…it’s DCP’s
Patrick Eisenhart you are factually incorrect when you say ” the Maine GOP decided to cancel the caucus in Washington County, a Mr.
Paul stronghold, due to an “inclement” weather forecast of 2-4 inches of
snow the morning of the scheduled caucus.”
It was NOT the Maine GOP that cancelled the Washington County Caucuses. The Washington County caucus leaders called the Maine GOP and asked if they could postpone for one week. They were told (according to the interview I heard yesterday that they could).
The Washington County GOP has no one to blame but themselves. They knew that the caucuses started on February 4th and ended on the 11th. The Washington County GOP waited to hold their caucus on the last available day. The Washington County GOP either forgot or didn’t care that February in Maine could mean inclement weather.
The Washington County Girl Scouts seemed to be able to meet on Saturday without any problems or travel issues. So why did the Washington County GOP feel the need to request a postponement when they knew the caucus was scheduled to end that very day?
I find it interesting that the Article stated that there was no way Romney beat Paul, Yet the headline on google states that he did. Nice journalistic integrity.
Death isn’t a whitewash, no one is trying to do that either. We all know how addiction impacted Houston’s life and career. No one is trying to pretend that didn’t happen. No one was applauding her poor behavior in her lifetime either. So making sure you halt the celebration and mourning of someone’s life to remind us how awful that person was, to refuse to wish peace on the dead — that is also doing your children a disservice. You do them no favor painting the world in black and white only.
Re: Contraceptives and the Catholic bishops: Once you allow rape to go on in your church you have no moral standing to be telling anyone how to manage anything. Let alone decisions about when to bear children.
Janet,
Well said. The nonsense needs to stop. If the CC can morally afford to “butt in” with politics, they can afford to pay some taxes…..
One side of the political spectrum gets upset when the Catholic Church “butts in” when it comes to social justice issues–such as the passage of a national health care plan, which the Bishops supported– and the other side gets upset when the church “butts in” and stands up for the constitutional right to practice faith free from government intrusion and mandates.
The Catholic Church in this country has funded more charities, schools, hospitals, than any other single religious institution. Don’t act as if they contribute nothing to the American society.
Politics should be the last thing on their minds. Don’t have a stance on any issue. Period. Once you do, you are subject to tax. It’s very simple. When there are specific political references in parish minutes, things are already out of hand. Keep religion what it is and keep is separate. We don’t need the “church’s” approval for new laws, regulations, or help redefining of words. The church can practice their religion just as intrusion-free now, as they did prior to this mandate. If the good followers stay the path, this will be a non-issue.
An “The Church” plays both sides of the 1st Amendment depending on which way the wind is blowing or what agenda they’re following. And we’re supposed to vote for Catholics becasue The Church will not interfere with their governance? I have both a bridge and a swamp …
Janet Alexander – excellently put!
I might have some respect for the Catholic bishops if they tried welding their clout to end war and its killing, instead of their continual attempts to control the lives of all women.
Hopes Ron Paul runs as an independent to siphon off Obama voters.
you’ll figure it out some day…….
Not likely
Sarah Bailey, Janet Alexander: good letters.
I’ve flipped.
I’ve been defending the church on the contraception issues. I no longer do.
If even a quarter of practicing catholic women followed the teachings of the church perhaps it would make sense. Upwards or 95 percent of women within the age range use birth control. How many of them are on the side of the church? The Catholic church in particular is teetering on the brink of irrelevance. No female priests, no contraception, gay people are the devil, the world is a few thousand years old.
Look at where these teaching have gotten them. Good honest people are forced to hypocrisy. And yet the Church appears unable to bend. Stuck with the tradition that some of the most devout practitioners have a difficult time defending. How can these teachings survive without common sense modification?