Elect Ed Mazurek
This is to alert Knox County voters, that although your attention may be upon the activities and joys of our all too short summer season, the state of Maine will soon be entering the election season. Because of unlimited corporate political funding a media deluge will occur and be mainly focused on the U.S. Senate, Congress and presidential races.
However, we suspect, local Republican candidates will receive a money infusion from the treasuries of the oil-rich Koch brothers and other modern day robber barons. This is an effort to ensure their anti-worker, anti-women, anti-environment and anti-education objectives continue to rule in Augusta. Don’t allow yourself to be duped by them.
If Maine is to begin to change the current negative atmosphere in Augusta, the election of senators will be of the utmost importance. To that end we call your attention to Rep. Ed Mazurek, a Democrat who has served four terms representing House District 47 (Rockland) and is now the Democratic candidate for the District 22 state Senate seat (Knox County).
Mazurek is a retired Rockland teacher and coach. A graduate and a football team member of Xavier University, Mazurek went on to play professional football for the New York Giants. He served on the Rockland City Council and was Rockland’s mayor in 2003 and 2004. He will be a strong voice in the Maine Senate for the people’s interests. His election to the District 22 Senate seat will help move the state forward in a sorely needed positive direction. We urge you to vote for Mazurek in November.
Steve and Barbara Melchiskey
Camden
Support for Gilman’s seat
I am writing to express my support for Democrat Aaron Gilman’s bid for the District 12 seat in the Maine House of Representatives. Gilman is an active member of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and he’s an avid supporter of worker’s rights. He’s able to see both sides of an issue and find solutions that work for both sides, and I know he’ll do the same thing in Augusta.
He will fight against attacks on collective bargaining, workplace safety and child labor. He will also work hard to reduce the cost of health care, and make sure that public schools get adequate funding.
Gilman is just the kind of person that we need to put in Augusta. I hope you will join me in supporting Gilman on Election Day this November.
Robert Economy
Brewer
Picking and choosing
I find it paradoxical that tea partiers and conservative Republicans stand on the high hill dictating who may legally marry. Invoked as sources for their opinion are religious beliefs enforced by the U.S. Constitution and Christian bible. Ironically missing from the discussion is the acceptance of religious pluralism, which is clearly stated in the Constitution. Talk about picking and choosing!
Though the separation of religion and government is not asserted in that document, James Madison’s letter to another signer was clear, saying “religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” Jefferson was also clear when he asked for a “wall of separation between church and state.”
There is nothing in the Constitution stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, and the bible appears ambiguous at best. It seems logical to me that along with the freedoms to assemble, speak, bear arms and believe, the freedom to choose a partner in marriage is consistent with inherent rights.
Something that seems even more incongruous is the extent to which Ayn Rand, who was an atheist, is idolized by these political groups and whose objectivism philosophy of self-interest was cited by Paul Ryan, who in 2009 said that she “did the best job of anybody to build a moral case of capitalism.”
Rand supported gay rights! Picking and choosing…
Phil Stack
Hampden
Collins wedding magic
Cynicism is the last thing our country needs. In response to Mr. Busby’s opinion piece, ” Will Susan Collins spread her wedding magic to the freckled people?” (Aug. 15, 2012) I say the following: Let the people of a state decide what they’d like to do. Collins herself has said this, as is acknowledged by Mr. Busby in his writing of this article. Did Mr. Busby happen to consider that Susan actually believes that when she says it?
As the “people’s representative” she is allowing it to happen by not using her clout. This would make sense. As is written in this piece, “she would not say whether she voted yes or no” regarding past votes on the matter. And besides, it’s none of our business what her vote as a citizen of Maine was. We have no right to know that anymore than knowing what your neighbor voted. It’s best to let the matter iron itself out without asking a person who serves the people to tell the people how to vote. The people direct the elected. Not vice versa.
Jordan Cross
Brewer
King has my vote
There are so many thoughts going through your head when you graduate. So many possibilities for the future are open to you. But in this economy, it is now twice as hard to find a job and there is a lot of competition for the jobs that are available.
I recently graduated college three months ago, and I am still having a hard time finding a job. Applying and sending out resumes are not helping in the slightest. I now find these positions going to people that are less qualified because employers want to pay less for training. This is not a good way to boost job growth.
During this bad economy, you have to take into account what political leaders are going to do to help promote jobs, and the economy. I find myself thinking about Angus King. He has what it takes to help the state of Maine and the thousands of college graduates that are having a hard time finding employment.
During his two terms as governor, one major thing that he focused on was job creation. He has help add over 70,000 jobs, an average of 175 jobs a week. This is what we need in this economy.
Angus King is the best choice for the U.S. Senate. I believe he will help create many jobs, and help thousands of people who are in the same boat as I am. I know that Mr. King has my vote.
Sarah Graettinger
Presque Isle
No Mr. Cross. As an elected representative we certainly do have the right to know exactly how Senator Collins votes in any general election. It is not at all to her credit that she leaves the rights of our citizens to be voted on in the ballot box. She has shown no leadership at all in this arena.
This is yet another ugly blot on her already pock marked record. She is and has never been anything more than an opportunist for herself.Vote yes on SSM in November.
Then the same rule should apply to the President. Right? Obama should release his college transcripts, financial applications, thesis papers, and the birth certificate that he writes about in his book.
You should release yours right here, right now. I am particularly interested in your sources of income, and whether you pay taxes on all of them. Put up or shut up.
Don’t ask anyone else to do what you wouldn’t do yourself.
I can’t tell whether you are answering for EJ or replying to him.
If I’m ever elected or run for office, I’ll do just that. I have nothing to hide.
By the way, that was a really intelligent comeback. Think much?
Why have you asked for Romney’s birth certificate yet?
Romney released a copy of his birth certificate in late May and got slammed by the media. It seems the left wing, overly sensitive media thought Romney might be launching a salvo in Obama’s direction by releasing without being asked. Really lame.
Quit blaming everyone else for your hypocrisy.
Obama has released much more than Romney and yet you’re only going after Obama. That’s what is lame.
Just yesterday Romney stated that nobody had asked for his Birth Certificate because we all know where he was born. He later said it was a “joke”
It could also be because Romney is a white male that no one has asked to see his Birth Certificate just like all the other white male candidates for President have never been asked to show proof of citizenship before either.
I guess I should have given you the source for my information. I’m sure you’ll trust this site:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/24/1123898/-Romney-releases-his-birth-certificate-despite-no-one-asking-for-it
But you are missing the point. Nobody asked or expected him to show his birth certificate or prove that he is an American citizen.
I guess I should have shown my link for him taking a jab/joking about the nutcase RW obsession with Obama’s Birth Cirtificate.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/08/24/romney-makes-birth-certificate-joke/
Missing the point is the Parsons’ M O.
Yup. Change the subject and point to all sorts of other things in order to skirt responsibility for himself and those he agrees with. Ironic that the party of personal responsibility feels entitled to not having to be personally responsible for what they do.
I take it there are no mirrors in your house.
“I know you are, but what am I?” Isn’t an argument.
I wonder what the GOP meme would be if a native Hawaiian ran for President. I recall someone here posting once that Puerto Rico is ” third world.” I see a color connection.
Why not do yourself what you demand of others? Do you have something to hide?
If I run for office, I’ll supply anything that is asked. Until then, I’m a private citizen.
I noticed you can’t answer my questions/address your double standards head on.
You are not private and you show no proof that you are a citizen.
Get a grip.
Just proving the double standard you libs live by.
You prove nothing.
Speaking of double standards…
And, how do we know we’re libs? A lot of room to the left of your views.
Same song, umpteenth verse, a little bit louder and still invalid. Gets tiring (for the rest of us at least)
many posts on here get tiring, mainly the ones praising the liberals or the liberal letters to the editor. I guess you would prefer to only view liberal posts.
Nope. I cease to be amused by the same old stuff over and over again, especially when it’s invalid.
Because, of course, that’s what all other Presidents have done — NOT! Name/cite one President who has released such things (other than, of course, his birth certificate which, in case you’ve been living on the moon, already *has* been released).
Nope, I live in the good ole USA. And for your information, the long form birth certificate that Obama released has never been authenticated.
As for President’s in the past releasing documents, nearly every one has released whatever documents that were asked for in order to remove doubt or suspicion about their past. But, since Obama is a liberal Democrat and black, he is being protected. He’s hiding something, and many people want to know what he’s hiding.
Subtle and veiled racism is still racism. It’s enough already. It’s disgusting and it’s un-American.
If you want to find someone that acts un-American, go find a mirror. Your constant jabbing and insulting is disgusting and unnecessary. I feel sorry for anyone that has no respect for the rights of others to state their opinions and beliefs. You need to take a break for a while, or go crawl in someone else’s sandbox.
You pulled out the “un-American” claim first. You accused Obama of being anti-America and anyone who votes for him as well. Don’t start crying now when you get the same treatment you shell out back.
You can say whatever you want all day long — I’m not trying to deny you that. You crying that you’re the victim somehow when someone uses that same right is hypocrisy.
What is Romney hiding by not releasing his Tax Returns?
I would think someone like you who wants full disclosure would be calling out Romney for not releasing all documents people have asked him for.
He has released more of his taxes than many of the others already in Congress. Regardless, if there were problems with his tax returns, I’m sure that the IRS would have pointed them out. After all, he’s running for President against a Chicago-thug bought-and-paid-for-progressive, so I’m sure that Obama has had Romney audited.
The tax release noise is nothing more than deflection. Obama has nothing to run on, so he’s desperate. That’s why he’s gonna’ lost in November.
He is not running for a congressional seat, he is running for President, a position that requires greater scrutiny than a member of Congress.
He is hiding something in his tax returns that he and his team have deemed is more damaging to him than not releasing his tax returns. I wonder what that could be?
And it doesn’t have to be anything he did illegally, just questionable morally, maybe?
Exactly right.
And you know this how? MSNBC, perhaps?
I know what, that he is refusing to release his tax returns?
Everyone knows that, nobody but Romney and his political team know why but no politician takes the path of greater damage when running for office, so he is hiding something.
Most recently he is using the doctine of his faith as the reason for not releasing his tax returns…. tithing is to be done in private. Releasing his tax documents would make his tithing public and would be against the doctrine of his chosen faith.
I guess his father was not a good a Morman as Mitt is….
What does all that have to do with how Senator Collins voted in Maine other than your delusional hatrd for anything Obama?
I don’t hate anyone, and that include Obama and you.
That’s just semantics. You act pretty hateful towards a lot of people.
Hmmm. I’ll have to think about that one. Get back to you …
…..
Then the same rule should apply to the President. Right? Obama should release his college transcripts, financial applications, thesis papers, and the birth certificate that he writes about in his book.
So what’s the rubric for candidates when they run for office? I want to know what your standard for Presidential candidates is. No tax returns but definitely college transcripts?
Could you please specifically outline what you want them to release and why?
I’m just curious, because from my vantage point it looks like hypocrisy and double standards. As it is, Obama has released more than Romney has, but you’re only complaining about Obama. I just want to know why that is.
He buys into the RR vitriol that somehow release of these records will prove that the President is not a citizen and eligible for the office. He tipped his hand last week and some of us called him out on that.
And you buy into the drivel that it won’t show any improprieties. If there are not issues, why the secrecy. just sayin
Drivel? sounds more like desperation to me.
OK so it is desperate drivel.
Actually there is no reason for ANYONE to release ANYTHING about themselves to be President except proving age, citizenship and legal Selective Service compliance.
If anything it is the Duty of the voting citizens and their representatives to properly vet the candidates. This is certainly being done with respect to Romney and Ryan, but somehow our present President excaped the anal exam of the press.
That’s hypocrisy. The right was screeching for Obama’s birth certificate and is currently still screeching about his college transcripts. They claim Obama has been so secretive. Now all of a sudden secretive is fine?
It is you that is hypocritical. You countanance Obama’s secrecy, even though it is very likely that Obama’s education was publically funded, and demand that Romney show his tax records.
What nonsense.
Obama has already showed more than Romney. So if Obama is secretive, then that makes Romney super secretive ;)
Yet, somehow that doesn’t bother you. That’s the hypocrisy.
Still hung up on the birth certificate stuff huh?
Yeah Gadael, you tell em! We should be able to have several wife’s/husbands. We should be able to marry our mothers/fathers, brothers or sisters aunts and uncles. Heck, if were bisexuals we should be able to marry one of each.
Someone should have said that to women when they were asking for the right to vote. Next thing children and then animals will want to vote!
You may be on to something there….even my dog is smart enough to not vote for Obama.
I’m onto something. I’m proving how stupid the slippery slope argument is.
Really? On what grounds would you deny two brothers from marrying? Explain to us how you would deny people from marrying multiple spouses, or bi-sexuals from having one of each.
On what grounds would you deny the speed limit being up to 27 from 25? On what grounds would you deny the right to vote for those under 18? On what grounds would you deny animals from joining the military?
You refuse to answer it because you know you can’t. Polygamists are already lining up to challenge this in court….and surprise….using all the very same arguments as homosexuals. Just a matter of time folks if we don’t wake up and vote this down.
Vermont Inn Keepers just paid a $30000 fine to get a lesbian couple off their backs because the lesbians “perceived” that they were refusing their wedding reception on religious grounds when that assumption was totally false.
I refuse to answer because it’s irrelevant.
Did you know in Maine if you discriminate against gay people you can already be sued/sanctioned? It’s illegal to discriminate already. Even if gay marriage gets voted down in November, it’s still against the law to refuse service to people because they are gay.
Of course you can, sexual preference is specially protected under equal opportunity laws.
Besides most of your posts are irrevelant.
Exactly, so that’s why cp444 Vermont story is irrelevant to the gay marriage debate.
No, actually you refuse to answer because you can’t. Plain and simple. You would have no legal argument to deny it and even you know that.
As far as the lawsuit in Vermont, you need to read my post again…. It was a “perceived” discrimination. An employee misspoke. The lesbians wouldn’t drop it. If I as an employer fire you because you’re a lazy slob and you happen to be gay, guess what. Yup, you fired me because I’m gay….try to prove otherwise without a lengthy and expensive court case.
No, I don’t need to answer it because it’s not relevant. You don’t argue for something by first arguing against all sorts of other issues. What you’re doing is bringing in irrelevant issues in order to change the subject and deflect from the actual issue at hand: gay marriage.
Second, your Vermont thing is still irrelevant. It has nothing to do with marriage. Whether it was perceived or not, all irrelevant. Gay marriage being legal wouldn’t change that situation in any way.
Sadly, This blog is your whole life, if you had an argument you would have provided it.
And let me guess, you have an amazing argument and that’s why you’ve resorted to personal attacks, right?
If there are no legal arguments to deny homosexuals marriage, what would be the legal argument to deny multiple spouses or brothers marrying?
They already tried using your argument in court and it got thrown out.
Explain please
You can’t use slippery slope arguments in court because it proves you don’t have “rational basis” for your current position. With a slippery slope argument, you can argue against everything and anything.
You’re looking bad here. If homosexuals can marry on what basis will you deny multiple spouses? It’s not a difficult question, why can’t you answer it?
Pumpkin, no I’m not. Slippery slope isn’t a legal argument and that’s what you’re trying to use. It doesn’t fly. If it was a magical winning argument, then it would have been used in the courtrooms when gay marriage/gay marriage related trials hit the stand and yet, they’re not. Because it’s bunk.
So your answer is because it’s a slippery slope argument? That’s what you would stand in court and say? If only the homosexuals had you for their defense..lol you have no answer and you’re looking foolish trying to squirm out of it.
LOL, no, you’d be in court arguing that gay marriage leads to brother marriage and dog marriage. The judge would laugh you out of the room.
The federal and state gov only recognize the legal contract between two people in regards to marriage. The benefits, rights and responsibilities granted through civil marriage are specific to one individual and one other individual ….. not multiples. Next of kin is automatically shifted from parents or siblings to an individual’s spouse …. not multiples, gov pensions and SS are only available to the individual’s spouse (and/or minor children) when the individual passes away….. not multiples. Inheritance tax does not apply for a surviving spouse … not multiples.
You are correct …. there has not been a legal argument that has been made to deny SSM. Multiple spouse marriage is and has been legally argued against since 1890…. Utah had to disallow it before becoming a state. Two brothers or two sisters marrying is illegal becasue it is incest and incest is illegal.
Same-sex couples can be married in the state of Maine …. there are churches who will perform the ceremony ….. however they are not legally recognized. You could argue on semantics but there is a difference between illegal and not legally recognized.
You have provided no legal argument at all. Laws are constantly changing to fit “our ever changing morality”. You are a woman who fled this country to marry another woman, and here you are trying to bring our Country down the immoral abyss along with the others.
Congratulations on your very own sign in, must be a big step for you.
Contrary to your statement ….. I did not flee the US to marry anyone. I moved away and have since moved back. I am a US citizen, always have been and always will be.
Your personal attack does nothing but show who you truly are.
PS Congrats on your new sign in too, 4Him.
It’s easy to prove otherwise if you aren’t a hack employer.
There is no RIGHT to vote. What would the point be without a government to vote for or against.
Since legally driving is a priviledge government has a duty to regulate it.
There have always been animals in the US military;, horses, mules, dogs … even if they have only recently been considered military members.
It is already illegal for family members to marry, for example brothers cannot marry sisters etc for public health and genetic reasons.
If you are using this argument to be against non-related same sex partners you are getting to the bottom of the barrel.
As for the poligamy argument, when was the last time you saw a poligamist marrying multiple women over the age of 16? Every case of poligamy I have read about involved a much older man marrying underaged girls which would be illegal even if they only married one girl. It is not the same thing.
If a man wanted to marry multiple adult women, then I say good luck with that. He is a braver man thant me :)
It’s also illegal for SS to marry in Maine, mute point. I never mentioned brother and sister, I clearly said two brothers, or how about two sisters? On what grounds would you deny them? You also cleverly avoided the polygamy question. The answer is you won’t be able to deny them marriage once the definition has been changed. They are patiently waiting their turn. Immorality made the norm only begets more. We have not even come close to the bottom of the barrel.
In answer to your idiotic surmises, in the U. S. it is not legal for close blood relatives to marry. There are some states where it is legal for 1st cousins to marry but they are few.
That was a non answer. Laws can be changed which is what homosexuals are trying to do apart from also trying to normalize their lifestyle. It’s an easy question…on what grounds would you deny brothers marrying, or sisters? What about bisexuals marrying multiple partners?
Hate to bring you upto speed but the majority of American’s believe that homosexuality is normal, along with every professional organization that studies/determines things like that. ie the AMA.
it’s moot point, not mute.
” …On what grounds would you deny two brothers from marrying…”
That is a quote from you saying that we oculd not stop two siblings from marrying. I said that is was illegal for two siblings to marry because the possiblility of genetic issues.
Why would two brothers or sisters want to marry? To have the same name, to share property rights, inherentance rights, hospital visitation rights? Oh wait, they already have those legal protections and more because they are related by blood.
I did not avoid the poligamy question. I said I had no problem with poligamy as long as the females were over the age of 18 but since the only polygamous marraiges I have heard of involved under-aged girls and much, much older men I had a problem with that and it should not be legal under those instances.
That’s one unintelligent dog.
Actually children are voting since 18 year olds were priviledged to do so, and there has been talk of lowering the voting age to 16.
LOL
Hyperbolic deflection to the extreme. Then again, what did I expect?
I think that applies to both major parties.
Couldn’t agree with Phil and Sarah more. Should the Republicans gain control of Washington this is the future America: http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/22/723241/gop-approves-most-conservative-platform-in-modern-history/?mobile=nc
And if Obama gets another 4 years, he’ll implement his ideology. And that ain’t good.
http://2016themovie.com/
You guys said that the first time before he got elected. There were all sorts of doomsday theories being pushed and it didn’t happen — it never happens. You guys are paranoid.
Wasn’t Obama supposed to have a private army that would come to all of our houses and take our guns?
Gee… do you think Obama might be waiting for his 2nd term to implement all of his “Change.” We have only seen a small sample. He would not have a chance at re-election if he enacted all of his “Change” in the 1st term. Fortunately he will not have that opportunity.
I have to agree that I am disappointed with his record on change. But, I have to say I certainly hope he will move forward with some needed change in his second term, which I do believe he will have. The crux of any success will depend on who controls Congress and that seems to be up for grabs.
Consider that the writer for this farce, 2016, is Dineesh D’Souza, whose previous work blamed 9/11 on cultural liberals. And all that time we thought Atta and his gang of terrorists were masterminded by Osama bin Laden. EJParsons, should President Obama have had the Seals take out the cultural liberals of Hollywood instead?
Do you happen to know the producer of this movie? Let me fill you in, it is Gerald Molen the Academy Award winning producer of “Shindler’s List”, Rain Man, Juraisic Park and many other major motion pictures. It is opening at over 1,000 theaters this weekend. It is currently in the #1 position at the box office. New York City has among the highest ticket sales. I realize Maine is sometimes behind the times, it is time to wake up.
So ? The producer is a rabid anti- Obamamist. The movie is a complete infomercial for his beliefs. And yes, documentaries can be biased.
Anything/anyone can be biased, including news reporters, columnists, editors and especially commentators. I would not call “Shindler’s List” biased.
this movie, is not Shindler’s List, nobody said that, that movie biased. Molen is a Mormon, and is very high up in the Church. That makes the movie bias, in it’s own right.
I guess you know Harry Reid is a Mormon too? Was he biased when he produced Shindler’s list because he is a Mormon? What church does Dineesh Dsouza belong to? He wrote the book which the film is based on, he is not a Mormon. Religious affiliation has very little to do with this.
This isn’t about Harry Reid, this about some who has stated he dose not like Obama, way before this movie was made. I think you’ll find that when this is all over, the money for the movie came from the Mormon Church IMHO. The Mormon Church is very powerful, and very controlling. You should do some reading about it.
And because he has an Academy Award suddenly the movie is automatically unbiased? Michael Moore has an Academy Award for best documentary and has made the highest grossing documentary of all time. Why aren’t you shouting that from the rooftop? Seems like your rubric is awards and #1 postions. Well I guess Moore tops your guy ;)
If someone wants to call a movie a “farce” they should actually see the movie first. Gerald Molen is a respected producer. Do you not think Shindler’s List and Rain Man were respectable movies? Michael Moore is a rich hypocrite who criticizes the wealthy, yet he is one. Molen is a respectable producer. You should go see the movie, then comment.
Well now you’re changing the rubric. Have some principles and standards. Please.
HAHA, just watched a trailer for that “documentary”. What a joke. The truth really needs a soundtrack like an action thriller? Come on. That’s not a documentary. That’s pure propaganda. Search for the real truth and only what you agree with.
See the movie, then comment. The majority of films add a soundrack to their trailers. Basic cinematography. You could search for the truth yourself, it sounds like you need to do more research.
I’m not seeing a stupid propaganda film. The trailer was outrageous enough. It literally has an action film, doom and gloom soundtrack. It’s ridiculous. It’s based on pure hatred and speculation. I already know about the book the film is based on. You’re not going to persuade me that Obama hates America. This is simply a film for partisan hacks who want to have their hatred for Obama affirmed.
The difference between me and you is that I’m willing to admit that a guy like Michael Moore is biased. But because you like what this 2016 guy is saying something you love, you deny that there is any bias or propaganda in the film and say it’s completely truthful. You don’t have principles.
By your logic, I should accept the message of “Triumph of the Will” and its glorification of Hitler because the filmmaker, Leni Riefenstahl, did such a brilliant job in her propaganda. Watch the film. Its cinematography is breathtaking. Its message is sickening.
Once D’Souza tried to blame 9/11 on Americans of any political stripe I placed him as unworthy of anything other than my undying contempt.
Who did Jeremiah Wright try to blame 9/11 on. Your logic about Triumph of the Will makes absolutely no sense.
No, it makes perfect sense. Technically it’s an amazing film, but the message itself is indeed sickening. The notion that Obama is running for President because he hates America and wants to take it down a notch is sickening.
I wonder if it was the “cultural liberals” or right wing propagandists at Fox nonesense that revealed the name of the Navy Seal commander who lead the raid that killed Osam Bin Laden. His family is now in danger from Al Qaeda due to Fox broadcasting his name to the world.
Fox,true Americans?
Remember Scooter Libby? No jail time.
Murdoch is proof of Dr. Samuel Johnson’s warning that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
And Romney-Ryan won’t? I guess it is a question of what kind of America you want to live in. Whoever wins you and I will have to come to terms with what that will be.
Right on (and I don’t mean conservative). Speaking of less desirable ideology (and I’m being kind), look no further than Romney/Ryan (new meaning to R&R).
And you and the rest of the hard conservatives aren’t ideological?
You’re sourcing a fictional movie based on a fictional book to show how bad it will be if Obama wins re-election. That is just too comical to be taken seriously.
well, the man thinks the earth is only 6000 year old, what do expect?
6,000 years? Never said that.
No, there is no fiction in the movie. And it’s not about what he will do if re-elected. It’s about his life growing up, his family, the places he lived, and the many influences that have groomed him into what he is today. It’s the truth, and that’s why the libs are demonizing it. The libs are afraid they might learn something they don’t want to know.
Oh geeze whiz, you’ve found a movie that tells you everything you want to hear, no wonder you’re screaming it’s the truth. It’s opinion.
The movie is a fictional account based on the slightest hint of truth designed to make money off of gullible people like yourself.
It is designed to put him in a poor light, that is why RWers like you think it is so good.
I admit I’ve only read one of D’Souza’s books, and it wasn’t this one. Was the trailer supposed to tell me something?
It all depends on what you knew before you watched the trailer.
I knew nothing and I could immediately see it’s a propaganda film.
edit: yeah, great job EJP, take my words out of context and then use it against me. What a substantive and honest approach.
Your first three words say it all.
Just a note, this is from the thinkprogress website:
“Think Progress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. The Center for American Progress Action Fund is a nonpartisan organization. Through this blog, CAPAF seeks to provide a forum that advances progressive ideas and policies. ThinkProgress was voted “Best Liberal Blog” in the 2006.”
It sure is good at smearing the right. But, then, it was voted “Best Liberal Blog”.
Are you saying the Republican platform does not include the listed items?
Yes or No …. human life amendment has no exceptions for rape, incest or health of the mother?
Yes or No …. waiting period and madatory ultrasounds prior to an abortion in all cases?
Yes or No …. no legal recognition of same-sex couples including civil unions and domestic partnerships?
There are 3 simple examples, are they written into the platform or are they not?
Ordinarily, I don’t comment on letters advocating voting for someone who’s district I’m not in, but I agree with the reasoning by the Melchiskys. Good letter.
I also agree with letter no. 3 on SSM and no. 5 advocating a vote for King.
Of course you do! Same old song. I am shocked!
Mr Stack, You are absolutly correct. The Constitution of theese United States is silent on the subject Of Marriage of any form, therefore the Federal government has no legal standing on the subject. The Bill of Rights gives the various States the duty of regulating that which the Federal government has no DUTY to deal with.
I realize that the much misused 14th Amendment says that States can not abridge the Rights of Citizen’s, but since marriage is a PRIVILEDGE granted by the State the 14th Amendment xdoes not cover that issue.
A RIGHT is something that can be done without permission or license and can not be abridged. A priviledge is something that someone or some government has granted permission or license to do.
BTW I left acouple typos here so that some of the pompous a-holes can correct them.
It’s purposely silent and vague on a lot of issues. However, what isn’t vague is equal protection under the law.
See 9th Amendment.
Nope, if you read my explanation you will see that the 9th Amendment is irrevilent. Since you have to have State permission to get married, getting married is a priviledge not a right.
Then again maybe you are not smart enough to understand the logic.
I always get a kick out of your dumb posts Larry. Notice how no one has corrected your atrocious spelling.
The hatred shown here by esp. EJ Parsons for Pres. Obama appears to be growing, not diminishing, as he seeks another term. Since Obama, before he became Pres., wrote an eloquent and detailed autobiography that reveals a lot more about him than anything that the saintly Mitt Romney has produced, why is Obama still condemned for allegedly hiding something(s)? Those who, like Parsons, are at least de facto “birthers” clearly have something to hide themselves: their demonization of our first black President. If, as Parsons said earlier this week, our moderate Senators Collins and Snowe hardly meet his high standards of fitness for office, whom would he prefer? Oklahoma’s Senators Coburn and Imhofe, the latter a fanatic climate change denier? Or, better yet, Sen. Demint of South Carolina, the ultimate hypocrite in demanding that the entire nation embrace his beloved Tea Party while representing the first state to leave the Union? Many of us in Maine hope and pray that Snowe will be replaced by a genuine progressive like Cynthia Dill or, if need be, Angus King. Summers would be an embarrassment.
Exactly. It’s these high impermissible standards for those they disagree with, and those they agree with are entitled to all sorts of free passes.
Strange that you never dare to comment directly to me.
Great comment about the Republicans and their complete and utter hypocrisy on same-sex marriage. Chalk that up as another hunk of hypocrisy on their part. They say they are for “freedom” and then want to tell people who they can marry, what they can read, what they can watch, what they can smoke, what kind of healthcare they should have, what they should do with their bodies, what their personal and family medical and reproducctive decisions should be, and on and on and on. And then, worst of all, they despise everyone else’s first amendment rights. They try to force their brand of religion down everyone’s throat, condemn other religions, and then turn around and do things that would make Jesus sick to his stomach such as voicing constant contempt for the poor, killing middle class jobs, worshiping at the feet of their corporate masters, and having love affairs with wars. They are the poster children of hypocrisy.
Angus will win and win handily. The Republican dirty tricks designed to hurt him are only HELPING him. Mainers see the dirty tricks for what they are. It won’t work. Summers has no chance, and he and the rest of the TeaPublicans are going to take a serious hit at the polls come November.
Re EJ Parsons’ question re I don’t debate with him directly: many years ago a provocative judge on the PA Supreme Court was so beyond the pale in his opinions that the chief judge was asked why he and his fellow judges never responded to the guy’s opinions in their differing ones. “I don’t like fiction,”
the chief judge said. My sentiments exactly. Some comments, like the allegation that gays and lesbians completely choose their gender preferences as if one were choosing one’s clothes for the day, don’t deserve a serious response. Nor does the demonization of Pres. Obama solely because he’s not white.
No, just been following these posts for quite sometime. I just happen to find your brand of immorality repulsive. You not only feel absolutely no sense of shame for your lifestyle you try to encourage others to do the same. It’s all spelled out quite clearly in the book of Romans. It’s talking about YOU!
Then you also know that I am celibate… I am truly sorry if you find that repulsive …. so perhaps you could explain my “immoral lifestyle”…?
Romans …. I fulfilled my “natural use” as a female by bearing 3 children. My “use” has been naturally made moot as I have been post-menopausal for over a decade.