Weekend Open Thread

140
  by: Colorado Pols Sat October 6, 2012 at 3:03 PM MDT

“Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation.”

–Henry Kissinger


Full story: Weekend Open Thread

140 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Duke Coxdukeco1 says:
    Sat October 6, 2012 at 3:31 PM MDT

    ludicrous thing I have heard in a long time. In a CNN promo, the announcer finishes with the tag…”Can Obama stop the new Romney”?

    What a joke.

    • Libertad says:
      Sat October 6, 2012 at 5:59 PM MDT

      Contrary to the myths that spin around Obamas head and his perception of the world, Obama had his ass handed to him.

      Had Obama not been so lazy in debate prep, it still wouldn’t have mattered, Romney would have still won.

      Obama purports to advance America with government growth and a central planning model where in government pulls all the levers and directs businesses to invest capital under its rules for the new economy. This scheme requires the additional diversion of private capital to fund the public sector, additionally it retards the natural flow of private capital.

      I know you hate that concept of capital flow in the private sector, but it’s been the foundation of America for hundreds of years.

      I think the President learned a lot about the American economy this week. If he’s re-elected….I still think his super PACs will come through….it should help him make much better decisions.

      He’s still missing that whole leadership thing…unfortunately Saul Alinsky’s book probably didn’t have too many chapters on leadership.

      Full disclosure I am voting Romney-Ryan

    • Libertad says:
      Sat October 6, 2012 at 6:08 PM MDT

      Therefore we move to the facts …. The financial condition of the US.

      US GDP = $15.5 trillion

      US Treasury Debt = $16 trillion

      Debt to GDP is now over 100%

      US Revenues = $2.3 trillion

      US Expenses = $3.6 trillion

      Annual Deficit = $1.3 trillion

      Our annual deficit ($1.3T) is increasing our outstanding debt ($16T) by 10% per year. This is a completely unsustainable path.

      For every 1% increase in interest rates, the cost to finance our debt will increase by $160 billion per year.

      - that $160B increase equals 10% of our annual deficit

      - that $160B increase equals nearly 5% of our annual revenues ($2.3T)

      The current borrowing cost of the U.S. is at historic lows and represents 6% of our annual spending. The probability is a near certainty that rates will rise given our current path.

      So, do you feel Obama has taken us to the fiscal cliff for a looksie? Remember he’s added almost $6T in debt in 4 years.

      Back to interest rates, interest expense and borrowing costs. If rates rise by only 5%, then we will need to direct 25% of our annual current revenues to simply fund the increase in our borrowing costs.

      To put this in perspective, the increase alone is the same amount we spent on all of Medicare and Medicaid in 2011, it was more than the entire Defense Department budget in 2011, and it was more than we spent on Social Security in all of 2011.

      So 4 years down the road and our failed-to-lead President Obama is asking us to move forward with him … you know get his back.

      Here are some solutions you leftists have proposed … of course the impacts are covered too.

      1. If we repeal all of the Bush tax cuts it will add only $100 billion in revenue.

      2. We could double taxes on individual income and still not close the current budget deficit. Let alone begin to repay our debt.

      3. What about spending? Eliminating the entire Defense Department budget of $700 billion would only reduce our annual deficit by just over 50%! Throw in all discretionary spending and you get close to balancing the budget but stop short of repaying any debt.

    • The realistThe realist says:
      Sat October 6, 2012 at 7:01 PM MDT

      Someone else “in the neighborhood” is non-functional . . .

  3. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:
    Sat October 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM MDT

    I had this great idea on how to reach 45,000 potential customers. It was a complete failure. Not all guerrilla marketing efforts work well – but this is one of the few that was a total failure.

  4. Gadfly says:
    Sat October 6, 2012 at 7:47 PM MDT

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c…

    A week ago the punditry was talking about a possible Obama landslide.  Given how the polls are breaking in the swing states including

    Colorado we maybe need to be thinking about a Romney landslide.  Maybe the new job numbers will cause a swing back?

    • ClubTwittyClubTwitty says:
      Sat October 6, 2012 at 8:02 PM MDT

      But nice try…

    • sxp151 says:
      Sun October 7, 2012 at 12:49 AM MDT

      What’s he saying? Something intelligent? Not this time? Oh well. Maybe next time?  

    • Libertad says:
      Sun October 7, 2012 at 3:01 AM MDT

      More than one in seven Americans receives SNAP – that percentage (15.1 percent) is comparable to the percentage of the American workforce affected by unemployment or underemployment (15.0) percent in July 2012 according to US Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics U-6 Measure).

      State-by-State Trends

      Increases in SNAP caseloads between June 2011 and June 2012 occurred in 39 states and the District of Columbia. The five states registering the highest over-the-year percentage increases were Hawaii (10.0 percent), Florida (9.6 percent), Georgia (7.2 percent), Colorado (7.0 percent), and Delaware (7.0 percent).

      http://frac.org/reports-and-re…

        • ClubTwittyClubTwitty says:
          Sun October 7, 2012 at 5:17 AM MDT

          But we have to respect his ‘free speech’ or something.  Posting the same crap over and over and over and over again.  Its entertaining I’m told.  

        • ClubTwittyClubTwitty says:
          Sun October 7, 2012 at 5:17 AM MDT

          But we have to respect his ‘free speech’ or something.  Posting the same crap over and over and over and over again.  Its entertaining I’m told.  

        • ClubTwittyClubTwitty says:
          Sun October 7, 2012 at 5:17 AM MDT

          But we have to respect his ‘free speech’ or something.  Posting the same crap over and over and over and over again.  Its entertaining I’m told.  

        • ClubTwittyClubTwitty says:
          Sun October 7, 2012 at 5:17 AM MDT

          But we have to respect his ‘free speech’ or something.  Posting the same crap over and over and over and over again.  Its entertaining I’m told.  

          • ClubTwittyClubTwitty says:
            Sun October 7, 2012 at 5:20 AM MDT

            Like I said, and I quote:

            Posting the same crap over and over and over and over again.

            It was inadvertent, but I guess I was channeling the ‘turd, and projecting.  Damn trolls.  

          • MADCO says:
            Sun October 7, 2012 at 5:27 AM MDT

            And I rarely reply to him.

            But the facts need to come out once in awhile.

            • ClubTwittyClubTwitty says:
              Sun October 7, 2012 at 5:33 AM MDT

              Rather than reply directly to the troll you can always post a fresh comment that affirmatively states the case…

              Doesn’t always work.  

              But the guy is clearly 1) immature 2) suffers from terrible self-esteem and so thrives on negative attention (probably all he has ever gotten) and 3) rude, unpleasant and obnoxious, as well as noxious.  

              I mean I could almost feel sorry for him, having to go through life as such a reprehensible being.  But then again, not so much.  

              • Libertad says:
                Sun October 7, 2012 at 5:56 AM MDT

                All it did was laid out some facts and your leftist-heads just exploded! Ka-Boooooom!!

                Which fact actually made you e maddest … was it:

                -that more then 1 in 7 Americans is on foodstamps?

                OR

                -that Coloradoans on foodstamps grew by 7%+ last year …one of the highest foodstamp growth states?

                What makes you cry the hardest 31 million unemployed or nearly 50 million American brothers and sisters and children on foodstamps?

                • MADCO says:
                  Sun October 7, 2012 at 6:39 AM MDT

                  How does SNAP determine eligibility?

                  And who rewrote those standards?

                  And who appointed the industry lobbyists to do that work?

                  Hint: 1 in 7 is because of President Bush- and believe it or not- it’s a good thing.

                  • Barron X says:
                    Sun October 7, 2012 at 2:55 PM MDT

                    folks who really appear to need the assistance,

                    and they usually reply that they were turned down.  

                    Through a church ministry (Saint Vincent de Paul,) I encounter folks with needs that defy my imagination.  Folks dealing with problems I don’t think I could handle, and I think I’m pretty tough.  

                    I was on a job last week with a guy living out of his truck, dying of cancer, making $10 an hour, and he couldn’t qualify.  

                    He did tell me, though, that he was very happy with the health care made available to the homeless in Somalia Springs.  

                    So there are lots of people in need who don’t get food stamps.  

                    • MADCO says:
                      Mon October 8, 2012 at 6:43 AM MDT

                      when there are dependents.

                      I gotta believe the cancer-truck guy is solo.

                      Or that’s just wrong – not doubting you, saying SNAP is too hard.

                      I  know that starvation and hunger are a distribution problem not production problems.  Back when the global population was closer to 5B, there was approx 800mm people living in  hunger (WHO).  But then world population topped 6B. and WHO said there were approx 800mm people livening in hunger – meaning 5.2B were fed.

                      I believe food should be available to everyone in America, that no one should go hungry here. At least not while …certain expenses are still being incurred.

                    • parsingreality says:
                      Mon October 8, 2012 at 8:16 AM MDT

                      I do think that hunger is far less an issue that it was some decades ago.  

                      “Food stamps” have always allowed the purchase of shit, scuse me, junk foods.  That’ wrong at every level, but there is a perfect example of corporate America (i.e., Frito-Lay, Coke, Pepsi, the sugar companies) infiltrating the obvious.

  5. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:
    Sat October 6, 2012 at 8:16 PM MDT

    First off, it takes a bit of time for the debate to impact people. The only way you see an immediate shift is if one of the candidates says “watch me drop kick this puppy.” But over a couple of days it’s shifted to the point that Nate Silver now thinks Romney will win (barely).

    What’s important here is that Obama’s performance reinforces a central view of him – that he’s ineffective and wimps out when directly confronted.

    Romney lied. Gee, what a surprise. Obama’s job in the debate was to call him on that. Instead we got the same Obama that rolled over every time the Republicans in Congress said no.

    The problem Obama faces is that campaign ads and speeches pinging Romney can’t address this. He has to face him down directly in the next two debates. If he again is an ineffective wimp, then I think we’ll see Romney win.

    And the fundamental issue here is that Obama is who he is. You can be ready with the right replies. But you can’t turn someone into an aggressive fighter in 2 weeks of debate prep.

    Or as one person said to me, Obama handled the debate like he’s handled the economy – ineffectively. And Americans don’t want a president who’s ineffective.

    • gertie97 says:
      Sat October 6, 2012 at 8:31 PM MDT

      He says Romney’s chance of winning the Electoral College increased from 12.9 percent to 15.3 percent.

      That’s winning the election?

      Let’s see what the next round shows once the jobs report news is reflected.

      • Barron X says:
        Sat October 6, 2012 at 8:44 PM MDT

        unemployment numbers are down due to folks who quit looking.  

        Except that about 50% of Americans (a WAG) either have dropped out, or know someone who has.  

        • AristotleAristotle says:
          Sat October 6, 2012 at 10:44 PM MDT

          Barron, I know that, abortion aside, you’re generally smart. So I’m going to smack you down hard for that lie.

          Read and learn, or forever be written off as a Republican stooge at heart.

          The unemployment rate fell by 0.3 percentage points in September to 7.8 percent, the lowest level since January of 2009. The drop was driven by an 873,000 reported increase in employment. The employment-to-population ratio (EPOP) rose to 58.7 percent, its highest rate since May of 2010. While the establishment survey showed just 114,000 new jobs for the month, the prior two months’ numbers were revised upward by a total of 86,000. This brings the average rate of job growth over the last three months to 146,000.

          There’s further analysis showing that this isn’t so rosy as it may appear, but THE DECREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT IS DEFINITELY NOT DUE TO PEOPLE GIVING UP.

          • Libertad says:
            Sat October 6, 2012 at 11:25 PM MDT

            Obama is like 4-5 million employed Americans short of where he said we’d be if we let him invest the $1T he said it would take.

            David’s friend said it best…..

            Obama handled the debate like he’s handled the economy – ineffectively. And Americans don’t want a president who’s ineffective.

            • AristotleAristotle says:
              Sat October 6, 2012 at 11:52 PM MDT

              Bush measured unemployment using the same metrics Obama does. Accurate or inaccurate, it’s only fair that we use the same yardstick.

              • Libertad says:
                Sun October 7, 2012 at 12:09 AM MDT

                Unemployment is only a symptom of the failures of Obamas policies.

                When our policies divert private sector capital to the government you can in theory force employ 100% of the people, yet still your government tax receipts will decline.

                Households have seen massive declines in income and hikes in tax and goods/services expenses. That is not the growth mix you need to move forward the economy … That mix actually retards growth.

                Obama must have missed macro and micro economics 101 at Occidental and Columbia.

          • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:
            Sun October 7, 2012 at 4:22 AM MDT

            What is important to a voter is do they have a decent job. Do they think that job will be around a year from now. And can their family & friends say the same.

            The rate measures how many people either are themselves looking or have people close enough that it emotionally matters looking. And by this measure, a lot of voters are feeling positive on this measure.

            The gigantic thing is not the drop this month, it’s the revised numbers for the previous two months. That’s why Obama’s numbers are where they are – because all those people now have jobs.

            • AristotleAristotle says:
              Sun October 7, 2012 at 4:32 AM MDT

              I wouldn’t rely on it as the best, but it is a significant stat. That’s why so many on the right are now rushing in to say “oh, people have just given up looking.” Which isn’t true. Which is why I’m correcting them when they say it. And which is why they then avoid the topic and don’t acknowledge the point.

          • Barron X says:
            Sun October 7, 2012 at 3:05 PM MDT

            CEPR –

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…

            I spend time almost every week at the Workforce Center in Somalia Springs.  

            My anecdotal experience is just that.

            But folks are quitting looking for work that just isn’t there.  

            Your religious leaders preach that the Anointed One is not responsible for anything bad.

            OK.  I get it.  

            I’m not blaming him.  

            Nevertheless, someone has to deal with the facts, even if you can’t.  

            ……

            Please do not write me off as a Republican stooge.  

            Better to be written off as a Tea Party stooge, or an Occupy stooge, or even as a Socialist stooge (not the grasping kind, the giving kind) than as a GOP stooge.  

            • VanDammerVanDammer says:
              Mon October 8, 2012 at 8:13 AM MDT

              one posting up for 4 weeks and in time between phone screens and sched 1:1 interviews I’ve had 1/3 of my prospects inform me they found FT jobs.  That’s factual anecdotal from my zip, so itsndef turning for a lot of folks.  Hell, even on this board SSG Dan & PCG both jumped on new jobs in last 6 mos and bluish DaveT keeps moaning about open jobs w/ no ppl.  

              Enough of the GOPers spouting LIES and hating the economic uptick.  8 Yrs of idiot George and the Turd Blossom cabal drove us into a ditch and then stripped the buggy bare.  Only IDIOTS bemoan our turnaround.  Only IDIOTS want a return to an overinflated RE bubble, Escalades getting idiotic hybrid deductions, 2nd & 3rd mortgages written on no equity, and all the other yeah-hey AIG/ Wall streeter fraud.  

              Let those idiots line up & embrace Mitt’s outstanding performance of LIES over content & character — they’ll have some soul searching to do after Nov 6th.

          • Barron X says:
            Sun October 7, 2012 at 3:09 PM MDT

            that he shouldn’t worry about courting their votes, since their government dependency drives their voting,

            not that he shouldn’t worry about leading in a manner that benefits them, as well.  

            • The realistThe realist says:
              Sun October 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM MDT

              Many of the 47 percent are children, the elderly in nursing homes, veterans who need help because of their service, the disabled, etc, etc.  To use the phrase “government dependency” to describe these folks is heartless, and shows a substantial lack of understanding of the human condition.  And what about military retirees – traditionally a fairly conservative block of voters – does Rmoney not care about them either, because of their “government dependency?”

            • MADCO says:
              Mon October 8, 2012 at 6:36 AM MDT

              Nor do I believe that is what he meant to said.

              But you say potato – I say he’s unfit for the office  and a flip-floping  douchenozzle.

            • VanDammerVanDammer says:
              Mon October 8, 2012 at 8:25 AM MDT

              Fuck, you must be a welcome helper down @ tax exempt St. Vinnie dePaul’s.  You ladle subtle rejoinders about societal parasitism to down & outers going thru the soup line?  You treat your car-living cancer patient to some of the pure Mitten bullshit?  You’re sure a piece …

      • Diogenesdemar says:
        Sat October 6, 2012 at 9:02 PM MDT

        from his mountaintop seclusion .  . . as the second-coming of ArapaGOP.

        • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:
          Sat October 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM MDT

          So I would bet on Mr. Romney right now given the odds the model offers – but I’d have done so more confidently before the morning’s jobs report.

          But your ad-hominem response is a nice reminder of what political discussion all too often degenerates to.

          • Diogenesdemar says:
            Sat October 6, 2012 at 9:17 PM MDT

            more smiley faces.  Really glad to see you kept your sense of humor.   Welcome back.

            ;~)

          • ClubTwittyClubTwitty says:
            Sat October 6, 2012 at 9:37 PM MDT

            But reading it as you do does not follow from of the rest of the article, or the ‘nowcast.’  

            Read some of the comments, like this on, which I think is the explanation:


               Jesse

               New York, NY

            Hi Chris,

            He means that if you allowed him to put $15 down for the chance to win $100 if Romney is elected, he would take that bet. He doesn’t mean that Romney is straight-up favored to win, but just that the quoted “odds” – almost 6-to-1 against Romney, are too conservative.

          • AristotleAristotle says:
            Sat October 6, 2012 at 10:52 PM MDT

            When you say Nate Silver is saying something, and Nate Silver is in fact saying no such thing, you exasperate us. Your quote is referring to whether or not the polls are displaying a bounce in the wake of the debate. It is NOT about whether Silver believes Romney will win the election, which is what YOU say he said.

            You must not have read Silver’s column thoroughly.

            Is it possible that you deserve an ad hominem when you do that? If not, how would you like to be notified that you’re absolutely as wrong as you can be?

            Serious question, not at all rhetorical.

          • sxp151 says:
            Sun October 7, 2012 at 3:19 AM MDT

            This sentence does not appear in the current version of the article, though maybe it did earlier.

            So I would look more positively on Mr. Romney right now given the odds the model offers – but I’d have done so more confidently before the morning’s jobs report.

            But at no time does Silver claim that he thinks Romney has more than a 15% chance of winning. You misread the article.

            • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:
              Sun October 7, 2012 at 4:15 AM MDT

              Substantially in intent. Maybe he always meant to say what he now has written, but before it clearly ended with his saying he thought Romney was now winning. He added:

              The FiveThirtyEight forecast did show a clear shift toward Mr. Romney on Friday, giving him a 15.1 percent chance of winning the Electoral College – up from 12.9 percent on Thursday.

              And changed the closing. I quoted him based on the original article.

              • AristotleAristotle says:
                Sun October 7, 2012 at 4:28 AM MDT

                But did he really ever say, in so many words, that he “now thinks Romney will win (barely)”? Even before the revision? Because, frankly, I sincerely doubt it.  

                • ClubTwittyClubTwitty says:
                  Sun October 7, 2012 at 4:46 AM MDT

                  But Nate’s column never included anything of the sort David suggested, the ‘odds’ were always (today) at about 15% in his ‘nowcast.’

                  David read into it something that was never there.  He could just admit that and we could all move on.  Or not.  

                  But here’s something we can all laugh at:

                  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-…



                  Republican says evolution, Big Bang theory ‘lies straight from the pit of hell’

                • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:
                  Sun October 7, 2012 at 10:36 AM MDT

                  But the original did not have the “15.1 percent” paragraph and the closing one was the one I listed above.

                  It’s also interesting that there is no note there about it being edited. But the quote I posted above I copied from the article – promise.

                  I do agree he’s now saying something very different – that Obama remains the likely winner. But the previous phrase “So I would bet on Mr. Romney right now” – hard to take that as anything but who he thinks will win. You can’t really bet that on election day one candidate won 15% of the time.

                  • ClubTwittyClubTwitty says:
                    Sun October 7, 2012 at 4:43 PM MDT

                    I found it very confusing.  But at that time it also had the 15% quote, and looking at the sidebar (nowcast) which is always part of the column, I concluded that the single sentence did not obviate the rest of the article.

                    Whatever, sometimes its best to say ‘whoops….my bad’.  

                  • AristotleAristotle says:
                    Sun October 7, 2012 at 7:57 PM MDT

                    The quote you gave may have been confusingly written. BUT… if you’re a regular reader of Silver, you know that he was giving only about 12% chance for Romney to win the election earlier this week. So, reading something like the original quote, even if the revised 15% figure was not included (sorry, but I’m going to take Twitty’s word that it was there, over yours that it wasn’t), the logical reaction would be to go, “Say what now?” After all, it was one debate, and it was more lost by Obama than it was won by Romney. It should have given Mitt a bump (as this morning’s latest diary shows) but not suddenly evened the odds.

                    It takes a LOT to reverse two month’s worth of bad news. (A LOT may be coming our way, but that’s beside the point.) Even if Romney had cleaned Obama’s clock (FAR from the truth – don’t believe A-BOT or any partisan hack who says he did), it wouldn’t be enough to even the odds.

                    Dave, the problem here is that you were being rather credulous when you read Silver. You’ve been very pessimistic about Obama and his chances, and you interpreted Silver’s words through that lens without remembering the realities of campaigning. Now you’re being loathe to admit that you made a mistake in your reading of an admittedly confusing quote. You took it to mean something that was at odds with political reality, and you didn’t stop to question whether that could really be true.

                    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:
                      Sun October 7, 2012 at 9:49 PM MDT

                      is that a number of states are within the MOE and he felt that the debate had moved those just enough to be Romney barely over Obama. I was surprised he now though advantage Romney but I do find it believable that this has shifted the race.

                      Reading subsequent polls, it’s unclear how big an impact it had. Some say substantial, some say not as much. (There is also the fact that people lie to pollsters – my daughter and I now respond to every robo-poll – but I’m a 20 – 30 year old African-American woman Democrat voting for Romney. And my daughter is a 30 – 40 year old Chinese male independent voting for Romney.)

                    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:
                      Sun October 7, 2012 at 9:50 PM MDT

                      I’m pessimistic about his chances of becoming effective in his second term.

  6. Barron X says:
    Sat October 6, 2012 at 8:41 PM MDT

    Hey, some of the finest people I ever met are LDS,

    but the fact remains that most Americans think it’s a cult, comparable to ??  

    maybe comparable to being a Muslim.  

    Personally, I’d have no problem with having a Mormon or a Muslim for Prez; I’m tired of having so many atheists and money worshippers in high office, and a person of faith – any faith – would be a nice counterbalance.  I don’t mind having a former Muslim as our current Prez.

    But to folks I talk to, and eavesdrop on, it’s a big deal.  

    • Gray in Mountains says:
      Sat October 6, 2012 at 9:12 PM MDT

      I don’t think we’ve ever had an atheist, an agnostic or an apathist. That is who we ought consider in ’16. For now the xtian dude from Chicago/Hawaii

    • AristotleAristotle says:
      Sat October 6, 2012 at 10:54 PM MDT

      Nearly every politician I know of claims some kind of faith. I don’t think you can go higher than the House of Representatives identifying as an atheist. But please, enlighten me if you know otherwise.

    • Diogenesdemar says:
      Sat October 6, 2012 at 11:50 PM MDT

      that, for all his shortcomings and cultist beliefs, that least Willard’s not one of those money worshippers, huh?  

    • Duke Coxdukeco1 says:
      Sun October 7, 2012 at 4:40 AM MDT

      I’m unaware of when it was that President Obama was a practicing Muslim. When was that?

    • Duke Coxdukeco1 says:
      Sun October 7, 2012 at 5:18 AM MDT

       

      I don’t mind having a former Muslim as our current Prez.

      are you gonna answer my question?

      • Barron X says:
        Sun October 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM MDT

        sorry, I don’t drop by often enuf.

        My understanding, not backed up by anything, is that his father was a Muslim, and in that faith tradition, a child is automatically a Muslim at birth (maybe at conception ?)

        If correct, then Barry was born a Muslim.

        I don’t think a child has to be baptized to become a Muslim, but its automatic.  

        My understanding, a man child has to be cut at age 13 to retain his Muslimicity.  

        At some later stage, he was raised by that Sotero guy in a Muslim majority country, and attended a Muslim school.  I think.

        Then he moved to Hawai’i, where the dominant culture is ….

        heck, there is no dominant culture there.

        It is perhaps the most mixed up place in the world.  

        Then he moved to Kansas, and was immersed in a type of Christian culture.  I assume he was baptized a Christian at this stage, if not before.  

        Then, off to college, he became Barack, by choice.  He was exploring his roots and identity.

        He saw himself as transcending boundaries, maybe incorporating all his experiences into a sort of Thomas Merton-ish Zen Muslim Christian.  I don’t see that as a bad thing.  

        Now, early editions of his first book allegedly said on the jacket that he was born in Kenya.  I think he lied to sell more books.  Newspaper clippings strongly suggest he was born in Hawai’i.  The 2010 birth certificate is an obvious fraud.  to me.  

        I don’t recall if his genetic father was around at his birth.  He may have abandoned Barack’s pregnant Mom, his second of 2 wives, at the same time, before he was born.  If Barack Senior wasn’t even there, then maybe all my rationalization above falls apart.  

        …..

        By my understanding, I think that technically some Muslim scholars teach that every single person is Muslim at birth.  Including me.  Including my anti-Muslim paranoid neighbors.  

        …..

        N E way,

        I don’t think he was ever a consciously choosing, voluntarily willfully practicing Muslim.  

        I assume he was forced to recite shahada the same way I was forced to learn the Mass in Latin.  Baptized and cut at or just after birth, my folks decided for me that I was a Christian.  I only chose that for myself at a much later date.  Maybe I was 12, maybe I was 30.  Either way, it is my choice now.  But I could choose otherwise in the future.  It’s up to me what I believe, and what I invest myself in.  

        For now, it’s Nikos’ Dancing God, one version of the God of the Catholic Bible.  

        • Duke Coxdukeco1 says:
          Sun October 7, 2012 at 2:39 PM MDT

          for me to call you a former Catholic.

          I was taken to Pentecostal Holiness churches when I was a child. Ask anyone who knows me if I resemble a “Holy Roller”.

          I don’t think he was ever a consciously choosing, voluntarily willfully practicing Muslim.

          So…why did you call him one?

          • Barron X says:
            Sun October 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM MDT

            go ahead, call me a former Catholic.  Say I was formerly a human being.  I don’t understand that part of UR post.  

            ,,,,,,

            I don’t think I ever said that Obama was a

            consciously choosing, voluntarily willfully practicing Muslim.

            I just said he was, at one time, a Muslim.  

            I clearly explained how he is a former Muslim.  He was a Muslim at birth.  

            No, he didn’t consciously choose that.  

            But it’s what he was.  You can’t just wish that away.  

            Try ‘splainin’ how his Muslim father abandoned his mother before he was born, renounced her and her unborn child, and you might have a case.  

            But you didn’t do that.

            In fact, I saw a photo of him visiting Kenya as a teen.  I don’t think his father renounced him.  

            Argue that he was never coaxed or forced or induced to recite Shahada, if U can.  

            Everyone in Muslim schools recites it.  Everyone.

            Anyone who declines is kicked out.  

            Argue that he didn’t go to a Muslim school.

            In that way, maybe U could refute my case.  

            I presented a case.

            I started from basic facts of his life that you apparently accept: his parentage, his living in Indonesia, and extrapolated to pretty obvious stuff.

            You failed to rebut my case.  You tacitly accept my argument, but don’t like it.

            OK.  

            • Duke Coxdukeco1 says:
              Sun October 7, 2012 at 4:27 PM MDT

              is the “Muslim baiting” nature of your comment. Why did you bring it up, if not to attempt to bias the conversation? … to imply that Barack Obama was ONCE a Muslim, so that he might, secretly, STILL be a Muslim… when you KNOW it is not true.

              Barack Obama is an avowed Christian, a choice he made, just as did you and I. Where he was born, to whom, and where he went to school (are all kids who went to parochial school Catholics for life?) is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

              I do not accept your argument. That sort of mendacity is sickening and I thought perhaps you were above that sort of cheap shot bullshit. I guess when you have nothing else…you can only rely on partisan prevarication.

               

              I don’t mind having a former Muslim as our current Prez.

              You should apologize for this dishonorable, dishonest comment or accept the title of “lying, partisan, hack”.

              • Barron X says:
                Sun October 7, 2012 at 9:29 PM MDT

                if you think that Obama was never a Muslim, then you are fooling yourself, or lying to yourself.  

                To what end, I might ask ?  

                I’m not “Muslim baiting,” you’re being dishonest.  

                Is he a Muslim today ?

                I sure don’t think so.  I don’t think he ever embraced that faith, he was just born and acculturated into it.  

                Is he subject to the rumored consequence for apostasy, death, for changing ?  

                I don’t know a lot about Islam, but I think that ultimate sanction only applies to adults who renounce the Shahada.  So, no.  

                This forum is not the gutter you perceive it to be.  I would never have this sort of discussion with my Islamophobic neighbors, but I ought to be able to discuss something like this rationally here.  

                Why can’t you ?

                And why aren’t any other community members straightening Duke out on this ?  

                • Gray in Mountains says:
                  Sun October 7, 2012 at 11:14 PM MDT

                  you are not what your parents are or what they choose for you. You are what you choose to be.

                  Muslims say if the father is Muslim then the child is. Jews say if the mother is Jewish then the child is. Most folks who are religious will claim for their child the religion of the parents. That is just foolishness

                  • ClubTwittyClubTwitty says:
                    Sun October 7, 2012 at 11:53 PM MDT

                    So by that standard I am/was an Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ member who also attended Jewish summer camp one year.

                    growing up in a particular faith does not make someone that faith–then or later.  

                    • Gray in Mountains says:
                      Mon October 8, 2012 at 1:55 AM MDT

                      some places our folks took us to Quaker Meetings, some to the ecumenical protestant chapel on base, some to another protestant building. But, my dad always said the catholics worshiped idols. So, I was not allowed to play with catholics.

                • Duke Coxdukeco1 says:
                  Sun October 7, 2012 at 11:32 PM MDT

                  I am not sure at what point I became irrational. However I will defer to civility, as you have yet to give me a reason to do otherwise.  

                  I, at one time in my early years, ascribed more to Buddhism, after having examined a number of religions. My conversion is based on personal experiences that are no ones’ business but my own. The moment in your life you find that door and choose to knock on it, is not important.

                  If you have a reason to doubt that a Christians’ profession of faith is untrue…do tell why.  

    • raymond1 says:
      Sun October 7, 2012 at 7:28 AM MDT

      … Yet your crapping on the idea of atheists in office so blatantly ignores the constitutional values of freedom of religious belief and (more expressly) the rule barring religious tests for public office.

      • Barron X says:
        Sun October 7, 2012 at 2:15 PM MDT

        There’s yet another difference between the thinking man and the rabid partisan.  Thanks 4 pointing it out.  

        I don’t WANT atheists or humanists or Mormons or Baptists or worshippers of Ba’al or Mammon or Bacchus in the White House.  

        Outta my control.  I may get over it, eventually.  

        I support the Constitutional provision on no religious tests, yet I still have my druthers.  What to do, what to do ?  

        Check out

        http://www.americanconstitutio… (Colorado state party) and

        http://www.constitutionparty.c… (national party.)  

        I belong to an explicitly Christian party.  

        It is NOT a Catholic party.  I even sense a hint of anti-Catholicism in it.  

        But it fits my values closer than other parties.  

        You also belong to a religiously based party, as does Mitt, though neither of your parties acknowledge that explicitly.  

        …….

        I know you’ve met adults, people like me, folks who make up their own minds.  We’re all around.  There’s even a couple that post here, liberals to boot.  

        Don’t feel threatened by us.  We’re here to help.  

        • raymond1 says:
          Sun October 7, 2012 at 10:02 PM MDT

          … because it believes in excluding folks from public life based on their religion. Got it. But your party does believe:

          * the Second Amendment is awesome.

          * so is the Third Amendment, I assume.

          Could you perhaps post a redlined version of the Constitution to show which provisions the “Constitution” party actually believes in?

          It’s a testament to Colorado that only by whoring your party out to a disgruntled former Repub congressman (Tancredo) can you surpass 0.5%.

    • Diogenesdemar says:
      Sun October 7, 2012 at 12:33 AM MDT

      For someone, like you, who believes that all liberals are fools, you really should give us some hints.  (Besides, I can’t work in the yard today and need the entertainment.)

    • taterheaptom says:
      Sun October 7, 2012 at 12:38 AM MDT

      The Church of Latter-day Saints apologized Tuesday for posthumously baptizing Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal’s parents amidst much Jewish vitriol. But despite more than two decades of negotiations and agreements between the two groups to prevent such baptisms of dead Jews, the practice persists.

      These by-proxy ceremonies (where the living dip themselves to represent the dead) are so integral to abiding Mormon life that, as one Brigham Young professor and practicing Mormon put it, “I don’t see any way that we can ever ultimately say we’re not going to do it for people.” But LDS leaders continue to make promises to Jewish leaders that they do not keep.

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…

      Q: Do Mormons believe that they’re Jews?

      A: No, but they do believe that they’re modern-day Israelites.

      …

      Q: Do Mormons believe that Jews will go to hell for not believing in Jesus?

      A: Nope. …Everyone on earth, including Jews… will have a chance to accept or reject God’s truth at some point before the Final Judgment

      http://www.jewishjournal.com/j…

      When asked by Newsweek if he has done baptisms for the dead-in which Mormons find the names of dead people of all faiths and baptize them, as an LDS representative says, to “open the door” to the highest heaven-he [Rmoney] looked slightly startled and answered, “I have in my life, but I haven’t recently.

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…

      • Diogenesdemar says:
        Sun October 7, 2012 at 6:07 AM MDT

        perhaps along the lines of:

        “Damn, this limestone is dandy; sure would look bitchin’ in Ann’s horse stable.  I hear these guys are really tough traders — I wonder if Bibi or Adelson can hook me up?”

    • MADCO says:
      Sun October 7, 2012 at 2:10 AM MDT

      http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-…

      And, FTR, until the pope says hai la mia benedizione, I reject any Mormon baptism, posthumous or not.

  9. ClubTwittyClubTwitty says:
    Sun October 7, 2012 at 6:03 AM MDT

    ‘is’

    Ha ha ha ha

  11. Diogenesdemar says:
    Sun October 7, 2012 at 6:13 AM MDT

    From a previously convicted two-time offender??  How much more??

  12. ClubTwittyClubTwitty says:
    Sun October 7, 2012 at 4:44 PM MDT

    “I believe any time where you run an organization where more people believe the President is a Muslim than believe in Evolution, it’s a problem.”

    Read more celebrity gossip at: http://www.thehollywoodgossip….

  13. Libertad says:
    Sun October 7, 2012 at 8:53 PM MDT

    Diverting private capital has impacts

  14. GiveEmHellHarry says:
    Mon October 8, 2012 at 1:05 AM MDT

    Brian Watson’s TV ad is terrible.

    Dan Kagan is going to win going away.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.