Who’s the Liar?

Whose pants are on fire?

The day that New Yorker Bob Kerrey announced that he had “changed his mind” and decided to run for U.S. Senate (in Nebraska), he had this exchange with Nebraska Watchdog‘s Joe Jordan:

Jordan: Did (Democrat Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid make any promises to you?
Kerrey: Yes he did.

Over the weekend, addressing the unfolding Bob Kerrey Kickback, Senator Reid said,

“Kerrey was promised nothing.”

Nothing. Nuuuuth-ing.

There is no misunderstanding that, eh?

So, who is lying here folks?

Bob Kerrey has said (at least) twice that Reid promised him something. As a matter of fact, Kerrey told Joe Jordan that Reid’s promises were “important” to him. So by the admissions that Reid and Kerrey had “lots” of conversations before Kerrey changed his mind to run, one would have to assume that if Kerrey did NOT get said promises from the Democrat Senate Majority Leader, he would not have run.

So if Reid is now saying he didn’t promise Kerrey anything, then either he is lying or Kerrey dramatically misunderstood him, or Kerrey is lying.

And if Kerrey misunderstood him, and now discovers what was so “important” to him, in order to run, was all just a sham, maybe Kerrey needs to reconsider?

Hey look, Chuck Hassebrook’s name is still on the ballot. We are sure that it would be no skin off Jay Noddle’s nose if Kerrey moved out of the guest house and went back home to his wife and child in New York City.

In any case, see Bob? This is what it is like when someone goes back on a promise they made to you. Now what other promises are you going to present to Nebraska?

And remember, it was Kerrey who famously called Bill Clinton, “an unusually good liar.”

Maybe Bob took lessons.

***

And continuing on Kerrey, come on Omaha World Herald! You cannot expect New Yorker Bob Kerrey to have an opinion on every Nebraska topic!

Kerrey was busy for weeks trying to decide if he should change his mind, getting Harry Reid to “promise” things, typing out a “heads up” email to Chuck Hassebrook, calling his sister to see if her basement couch was free for nine months — that kind of stuff. So Kerrey has had no time in the past year and a half to reach an opinion on the Keystone XL Pipeline!

Because on the one hand…environmentalists. And on the other hand…unions. And Paul Johnson has probably not had time to message poll out the issue to tell Kerrey where to stand. But you know, Kerrey does note that…

“Whether you solve (climate change) with Cap and Trade or some other alternative, I think it’s one that in short order we’re going to regret not doing.”

So even if Kerrey would not be in favor of blocking Tar Sands Oil from coming into the U.S. — since China could get it anyway — you can sure as heck bet Kerrey will be in favor of some other radical enviro plan to “change the Earth’s climate” by making you pay more for everything and killing jobs. Oh, and that will be while China and India laugh at you in the unemployment line.

But listen, you have to give Cosmic Bob tiiiimmme. He just moved into Jay Noddle’s guest house, for Pete’s sake! He is currently trying to decide if that new interstate that connects Westroads to Burke High would be a good idea or not. (At least that is how New York Senator Chuck Schumer described it to Kerrey…)

***

Great quote from Congressman Lee Terry, marching on Omaha’s St. Patrick’s Day parade on Saturday:

“Frankly, this is a staple for politics. If you’re not here, you’re not a candidate.”

(Searching for Kerrey in the parade lineup…searching…searching…
Nope.)

***

And one last bit on the Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender protected class ordinance before the Omaha City Council, that we discussed last week.

These things do not come out of no where, of course. Ben Gray did not suddenly have an epiphany, and decide that Omaha needed an ordinance to solve a problem for which he had no evidence of.

No, these things get pushed by those with the cash in town. And who is one of the city’s wealthiest pushers of social agendas?

Why that would be Bob Kerrey’s Central High School basketball co-fan, Susie Buffett! Are her pockets deep enough for you?

And heck, we are not sure what it is Ben Gray does for a living, but we would not be surprised to discover that he is associated with her, one way or another. And in any case, Susie’s dad, Warren, owns the local newspaper. Wondering how that fishwrap comes down on the ordinance?

Do you really have to ask?

60 comments

  1. RWP says:

    Kerrey: “Look, who doesn’t lie?”
    Russert: (weakly) “Right”
    Kerrey: “Show me someone who doesn’t lie, and it’s not somebody I want to hang out with”

    quoted in The Education of Lieutenant Kerrrey” Gregory Vistica, 2003.

  2. Kortezzi says:

    Kerrey lied to Hassebrook. I assume he lied about what Reid said, too. If Cosmic Bob didn’t get it in writing, he’ll be SOL.

  3. SoWhat??? says:

    Sweeper, you haven’t seen who makes significant campaign donations to both of the Grays and also funds their anti-gang violence sham charitable organization and Mrs. Gray’s wonderful “white privilege” required reading for OPS staff. Plus maybe some “promise” that Daddy’s newspaper will provide some favorable/supportive ink over the next election season.

  4. At the Parade says:

    Sweeper,
    I normally don’t comment, but one line in this post requires a response. I was at the parade on Saturday and saw entries for Deb Fischer and Don Stenberg but your boy Bruning was nowhere to be seen? Why do you criticize Kerrey but not your golden boy? Just curious…

  5. Macdaddy says:

    Obama must be really desperate to try to get his base fired up now with all these cultural issues. I agree that these things don’t appear from thin air. It’s quite interesting that Stephanopolos asked a ridiculous question about birth control at a republican debate and 2 weeks later Obama makes it the next salvo in his attempt to force Christianity out of the public sphere. At least non-Jeremiah Wright approved Christianity. What he hasn’t counted on is $4 a gallon gas in March. In the meantime, free condoms for everyone! That’s Obama’s strategy and it’s absolutely pathetic.

  6. Macdaddy, I don’t know if they hand out free condoms big enough to fit your head, or small enough to cover your intellect. What is YOUR strategy? Apparently it is to spread your bullshit so gratuitously that we assume everyone on the right is as ridiculous as you. Sorry, it isn’t working, but with clowns like Mitt, Rick, Newt and Ron on your first string, we’ll give you more credit than you deserve.

  7. Anonymous says:

    That’s precisely what I was looking for was a great quote from a Congressman as to what truly constitutes a candidate running for office….now we know….being present in a St. Patrick’s Day parade that’s a week early. Nothing says “electability” like the color green.

    Bruning needs to get new people around him that understand retail campaigning. No Bob. No Jon. But? Was the mayor there sandwiched between his Thunderbird and Durango like a rich cookie?

  8. Also at the Parade says:

    Stenberg also just sent some people to sticker the crowd. He wasn’t there. Nobody carrying a banner that I saw.

  9. Suttle Staffer says:

    New Poll from Voice Omaha show majority support for the city council ordinance – particulary in Thompson’s 6th District. Heard the Suttle/Gwen Howard staff piggbacked a Ewing vs Howard question. Ewing was ahead by a large margin. No wonder they didn’t release that part.

  10. Lil Mac says:

    Between Kerrey and Reid, whichever guy is moving his lips is lying. Of course they lie. Bob is called “cosmic” because it is no secret that he dithers. He is as mercurial as a school girl, he’s always been that way, and voters kept electing him anyway. If the GOP is wise, it will find a judge to rule Bob’s candidacy illegal.

  11. Anonymostly says:

    I just have a lot of contempt for politicians who’ve decided that holding elective office means they get to be playground monitor and micro-manage everyone and tell us we have to all “get along.” As though it’s an appropriate role of government to insinuate itself into our social interactions and decide for us whom we should like and whom we shouldn’t like.

    Forget about gays and lesbians for a moment. If the City Council has legitimate authority to regulate whom we must like or not like, then what’s next? Maybe you run a professional office where you receive members of the public. Like a bank, for example. Does the City have the right to tell you that you can’t discriminate in employment against people with significant, visible body art? That you, as a businessperson, have no right to make that call for yourself?

    By what authority would a city council derive the legitimacy to prohibit discrimination against gays that would not then allow it to prohibt discrimination against the pierced and tattooed? What if the legislature decided it’s wrong to discriminate against those with criminal records? Or bad credit ratings? Is this really something that the goverment should be sticking its nose into?

    Personally, I resent the idea of this imbecile deciding for me whom I have to like or not like. I think I should be able to make that call. The first amendment protects my right to free speech, which the SCOTUS has decided also protects my freedom of association. Which means that the Constitution ackowledges and protects my right to associate with whomever I choose. Which means I also have a right to not associate with whomever I choose.

    I also have the right to believe what I want to believe and the government does not have the authority to force me to hold a certain opinion. And while I think discrimination against gays and lesbians is wrong, I don’t think it’s the proper role of government to make that call for me.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Suttle Staffer,

    Was that poll done by the same people who did the UNMC survey on the LGBT community? Or did they find their own specific people to ask those questions to?

  13. Anonymous says:

    Yes, a Democrat party polling firm would find that massive support for the LGBT ordinance is there, wouldn’t it?

  14. Kerrey for NYC Mayor says:

    Kerrey’s comments about Clinton being “an unusually good liar” says more about Kerrey than it did about Clinton. Most Nebraskan’s see a liar as simply being a liar. If Kerrey believes that some people are better liars than others, one has to ask what a Liar is in the eyes of Kerrey? Perhaps his own recent canards are more indication of jealousy over resentment…

  15. Macdaddy says:

    BTO, my strategy would be to address the actual, real problems that are currently confronting our nation, not the manufactured pump-up-the-base issues that Obama vomits out and the media laps up like an obedient dog. Adding $4 trillion to the deficit in 3 years is a problem. Out of control entitlements are a problem. Sky high gas prices are a problem. High and long term unemployment are problems. An anemic housing market is a problem. The Iranisns getting a nuclear bomb is a problem. The EU going bankrupt is a problem. But instead of working on the problems, Obama would rather go golfing (look for a one hour ESPN special on Obama’s bracketology soon because that’s really really important), he takes lots of vacations, plays lots of golf, and hands out free condoms. He is a joke and the Left happily follows his lead because it makes them feel better about the selves, and we all know that feelings are all that matters.

  16. Anonymous says:

    If Bob Kerrey is so easy to beat and republican polls show that. Why do republicans talk about him so much? Sounds like all you have to do is worry about who wins the republican primary in May and then you have a cake walk to the Senate in November. How much of a threat can Kerrey be? Can’t be any worse than that fable that Obama could pick off a Nebraska electoral vote in 2008.

  17. Grundle,
    My posts have had an irascible tone of late because I am irascible. I’ve got a cold, Democrats are pissing me off, Republicans are pissing me off, and too many mindless dolts are spreading their bovine byproduct too thickly for my likes. It brings out the worst in me.
    The problem is, I like to write, I like to argue, and I have a long standing disrespect for authority. If I didn’t find an outlet for all that I might be dangerous. Just consider my rantings here like a volcano that burps out a little smoke and lava from time to time. If I stuffed it all inside I could become a regular Krakatoa.

  18. @Anon #20…Republicans talk about Kerrey a lot because, after Chuck threw in the towel, there is no other Democrat contender. Who the hell are they supposed to talk about?!

    @BTO…fair enough. I get the same way sometimes. Better to go regular volcano than super volcano.

  19. Anonymous says:

    I just love it when Osborne is mad. I think he writes his best stuff when he is. He’s like Leavenwoth Streets own Lewis Black and is always entertaini ng. It seems his favored pastime is busting huge ego bubbles.
    Keep up the good work BTO. Illegitimi non carborundum!

  20. Anonymous says:

    Anonymostly, you make some good points about the micromanagement of what constitutes acceptable behavior in the business place and who gets to decide it. Homosexuality is just the cause célèbre du jour. I posed a question to supporters of the change in the law: do you support a middle school teacher getting suspended for allegedly making porn tapes? If so, why? What makes her behavior abhorrent while other sexual acts are fine and dandy? Seems pretty discriminatory to me, just like us uptight squares.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Good idea BTO to say that you might someday become dangerous, that dispells all the rumors about you being a little coo coo.

  22. Some Thoughts says:

    “And while I think discrimination against gays and lesbians is wrong, I don’t think it’s the proper role of government to make that call for me.”

    Why doesn’t it work this way with people of different races or religions, then? I think it’s wrong to fire someone or refuse to rent to them for these reasons, and I’m glad we have laws to prevent it. “We the people” give the government its authority to make these regulations. If we all decided that people shouldn’t be fired because they have tattoos or bad credit ratings, we could do that. However, I think that would be silly. I think being gay is more like having a certain race or religion than it is like having bad credit or tattoos.

    You may not agree with me, which is fine, but the Republican Party in general would be wise to realize that most people do agree with this, and the numbers are only going to keep moving in that direction. This won’t happen overnight in Nebraska, but over time it will change even here. Poll Omahans ages 18-40 about this sometime. In all this talk about gays and birth control, Republicans are being painted as repressive busybodies who want to control everyone’s private business. Just the opposite of how you feel, right? You feel like government is repressing people by telling them who they can or cannot discriminate against. If you agree that it’s wrong, though, why should that be a problem? You can still discriminate in private as much as you like; you just can’t do it with respect to jobs and housing.

  23. Some Thoughts says:

    Anonymous #25, I do think a middle school teacher should be fired if she makes such tapes public. She has certain responsibilities to her job that extend beyond the classroom, so this is not a case about discrimination. But if she wants to make those tapes in private, why should we care?

    Likewise, being “gay in public” is not a crime. If you’re engaging in sexual behavior in public, then you’re out of line no matter whether you’re gay or straight. This is not terribly mysterious or hard to sort out.

  24. RWP says:

    Why doesn’t it work this way with people of different races or religions, then?

    It worked that way with race because there was documented and pervasive discrimination against African Americans that seriously blighted their employment prospects.

    It worked that way with religion because there was an influential and powerful Christian conservative lobby that got the bill passed.

  25. Macdaddy says:

    It works that way with religion because of the First Amendment and a whole lot of case law to back it up. But don’t worry, Obama is doing his best to get all that overturned.

  26. RWP says:

    First Amendment doesn’t cover private entities. Absent statute, you can discriminate against Zoroastrians to your heart’s content.

  27. RWP says:

    From today’s The Hill, on Haary Reid’s empty promises to Snarlin Arlen…Doesn’t augur well for Cosmic Bob

    Specter believes Reid acted with “duplicity” while managing the party switch. Specter said Reid promised him that he would be recognized on the seniority list as a Democrat elected in 1980, but failed to deliver on it.  

    Had Specter been given the seniority he was promised, he would have become chairman of the powerful Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations subcommittee and next in line to chair the Judiciary Committee.

    Instead, Reid stripped Specter of all his seniority by passing a short resolution by unanimous consent in a nearly-empty chamber, burying him at the bottom of the Democrats’ seniority list.

    Specter found out about it after his press secretary emailed him a press account of the switch. Specter was floored that Reid had “violated a fundamental Senate practice to give personal notice to a senator directly affected by the substance of a unanimous consent agreement.”

    Specter was left simmering after Reid’s spokesman at the time told the AP that Specter had known about the resolution and even joined in a deal to draft it, which Specter characterizes as a “falsification.”

    “Overall, my sense was that Reid didn’t extend himself much to advance my seniority on either committee,” he wrote.

    Specter writes that several senior Democrats refused to cede seniority to him, significantly damaging his reelection chances against Sestak.

    He says Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), now the chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services subcommittee, declined a request to let Specter take over as chairman at least until the election.

    Sens. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) refused to let him move past them in seniority on the Judiciary Committee.

  28. Grazie tanto, A@3:50
    I’m just KooKoo for Cocoa Puffs. Illiterate@4:20
    I think what we’re seeing on this thread is a prime example of what separates Liberals from Conservatives. We on the left are more accepting of the differences that each of us have, while those on the right want everyone to conform and be just like them … or die trying.

  29. RWP says:

    Yeah, BTO, I see liberal tolerance of differences every day here at UNL. Just ask Ron Brown.

    You’re channeling Kyle again. I can even deal with the verbosity, spare me the sanctimony.

  30. RWP, I’m not a sports fan, and what goes on at UNL doesn’t occupy my attention 24/7, so you’ll have to fill me in on whatever problems Ron Brown is having. I don’t know the guy, so I don’t think I’ll be asking him.
    it would be very hard for me to be “channeling Kyle again.” I quit reading his tripe a long time ago. As for the “sanctimony,” that’s is obviously a trait we share.
    To toss a bit of fuel on the fire, I’m going to say what I think, as if anythings ever stopped me before. Conservatives operate out of fear. They fear the future. They fear progress. They fear anyone or anything they don’t understand. They long for mythical times that actually never existed except in their fantasies.
    Liberals operate out of optimism. They can’t wait for the future to get here. They embrace progress. They strive to understand the things they don’t, so that they can accept them. They long for the mythical times that lie ahead and know in their hearts that their wildest fantasies can exist given enough time.

  31. I wouldn’t mind Republicans so much if they were forward thinkers like LIncoln, Eisenhower, and our own George W. (The Fighting Liberal) Norris. Were any of these folks the conservatives kind of politicians we are plagued with today, the Blacks would still be picking cotton, we would have no Interstate highway system, and the folks in the country would still be in the dark.
    There is a reason why some call us Liberals “progressives.” It is because we believe in progress and aren’t afraid to make it happen. Conservatives don’t want to take chances, they want everything to be safe, secure and they always need a light on in the bedroom at night (but keep your eyes closed when “procreating” so that you don’t see anything naughty!)

  32. Anonymous says:

    BTO, I like it when you are angry with Republicans and conservatives; it means we are winning the argument and that you realize it. Why else attack other people’s religious beliefs? Why else wish that we were more agreeable (caving to your anti-Christian, liberal position)?

    And some people call liberals progressives because socialists leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the ordinary person.

  33. Anonymous says:

    There are a lot of LIBERAL LIARS in Nebraska. Just look to the Legislative races and you can see a multitude of them. Democrats run from being labeled what they are in almost all the races for Legislature. You would think you would be proud to let the voters know you are a Democrat from all their commentary. Yet you still had people like Whitehead acting as if she was conservative, and all the while running for the Democrat label. You have the guy running in the 49th district who just recently changed his party affiliation, Wellenstien (SP), so he could pull the wool over voters eyes. Who knows how many D’s are running from the label these days. Just a bunch of liars like Kerry, the guy in the oval office, and the soon to depart Nelson.

    The bottom line is that the current leaders of the Nebraska Democrat Party are a bunch of sniveling punks who can’t get more than 20% of the vote if they were HONEST with the voters. LIBERALISM is retreating much quicker than the polar icecaps, and is actually occurring. Now if there was ever an ability for real Democrats to wrest control of the party from the Jane Kleeb’s in charge the Republicans would have a real fight on their hands.

  34. Anonymostly says:

    To whomever it was who asked about what’s different about gays than blacks, etc.: Well, one obvious difference with respect to racial discrimination is the fact that the Constitution was amended by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments giving Congress the authority to eliminate the vestiges of slavery, which included racial discrimination. Not so with gays. Nor, frankly,should it be. Adults can figure things out on their own. If you don’t like me, don’t hang out with me. Pretty simple. If I don’t like you, I shouldn’t be required by force of government to hang out with you.

    And what I said is true: If the government has legitimate authority to ban discrimination against gays, then it can also ban discrimination against people with tattoos or people with felony convictions or what have you. In fact, the one example I gave is not only not far-fetched but based on a bill actually submitted to the legislature and that was to bar employers from looking at people’s credit scores in making hiring decisions. Seriously!

    What state legislature out there knows enough about my business that they have any right to tell me whether credit scores would be useful in making hiring decisions? And if they deprive me of that tool and the employee turns out to be bad, are they going to be standing there helping cover the opportunity cost from hiring someone who didn’t work out but whom I wouldn’t have hired if I’d had the ability to request credit information? Uh, no. They won’t. I’ll be stuck cleaning up the mess, thank you very much.

  35. Anonymostly says:

    Some thoughts, I just read the rest of your post. It’s true that Republicans are being painted as repressive busybodies. It’s a dishonest smear designed to create a wedge issue because Obama’s not polling well right now, what with gas prices continuing to climb, Americans getting blown up in Afghanistan (his war) and him apologizing for some books being disposed of (which served to ignite some of the violence that led to Americans getting killed.

    Anyway, it’s a dishonest AND COORDINATED smear. The evidence of it being coordinated is all around but I don’t have time to detail that aspect. The fact that it’s a dishonest smear is also abundantly clear. No one — I repeat NO ONE — is trying to take away women’s contraceptives. There’s no lack of access. Women who want them can get them and have for a couple of generations at least. Goes back to Griswold v. Connecticut in the 60s. The SCOTUS decided that privacy rights prevented states from banning contraceptives.

    Purely coincidental that George Stephanopolous (sp?) would happen to interrogate Mitt Romney during a Republican primary debate about the non-issue of whether States have the right to ban contraceptives only days before the Obama Admin announced this regulatory change by which religious employers would be forced to supply contraceptives FREE OF CHARGE to women.

    It’s not about whether women can get them. Women can get them right now. They don’t need this regulatory change. It’s NOT about access. The question isn’t whether women can get them but whether employers must provide them for free. Even religious employers whose religions oppose the use of abortion-causing contraceptives. And Rush Limbaugh’s point on this is actually right on: Why should our insurance costs go up just so that Sandra Fluke and her friends can enjoy sex whenever they want? The simple answer is they shouldn’t.

  36. TexasAnnie says:

    If lawmakers (and ordinance makers, too) did not create inequities it would be easy enough to teach all subjects obedience to and respect for equality under the law. But alas, lawmakers do create inequity which serves to bring along endless pursuits of greater inequity and on it goes. Churches get special taxing dispensation. Corporations get special taxing dispensation, infrastructure build-up, and in Nebraska whatever they want. Universities get an overabundance of public resources. Various special interest groups get various special laws…

    By one simple premise I do believe much of the problems associated with governance may be resolved: tax equity! For example, if churches were required to pay their taxes along with every legitimate business interest, they would more likely stick to church business and out of the abortion/contraception industry.

    Under tax equity, Bob Kerrey and Harry Reid could make sound leadership judgments based upon senatorial expertise rather than lobbying wagering. Rush Limbaugh would loose most of his bitching points. And many Leavenworth St. correspondents might begin to understand the effect of social disadvantage upon the human psyche.

    We need to strive for tax equity above all political pursuits, folks. We must strip lawmakers of the power to choose winners and losers. Everyone should be paying taxes at the same rate and taxes must only be collected for public purposes; No Exceptions, No Excuses! People-people and corporation-people (including churches) need all have a duty in the outcome of taxation. Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of creating the taxing chaos we currently suffer. Focus, please, on what truly matters during the 2012 elections!

  37. RWP says:

    To toss a bit of fuel on the fire, I’m going to say what I think, as if anythings ever stopped me before. Conservatives operate out of fear. They fear the future. They fear progress. They fear anyone or anything they don’t understand. They long for mythical times that actually never existed except in their fantasies.
    Liberals operate out of optimism. They can’t wait for the future to get here. They embrace progress. They strive to understand the things they don’t, so that they can accept them. They long for the mythical times that lie ahead and know in their hearts that their wildest fantasies can exist given enough time.

    Hilarious. Liberals operate out of optimism. That’s why they like to regulate every conceivable human activity. That’s why they proclaim that climate change has already doomed the planet, that minuscule amounts of chemical compounds are major health hazards, and that people can’t be trusted to look after their own health care, retirement, and other needs. That’s why banks have to be tied up in red tape. That’s why schools need to be centrally controlled by a Department of Education.

    War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength

  38. Anonymous says:

    RWP, liberals want our descendants to have a future at least as good as if not better than our current lives are. So, yes, we are concerned about man-made climate change (which I believe you agree exists), or anything else that would impact negatively on that future. We also know history, so we have seen the results of no safety net for those who are elderly or on the fringes of society. Now your side claims to be for freedom, except when people are doing things in their private homes or to their own bodies that you disagree with. Ironic that your job with tenure gives you a safety net far greater than anything a liberal proposes for the general public. Guess we all should become university professors!

    War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

  39. RWP says:

    RWP, liberals want our descendants to have a future at least as good as if not better than our current lives are.

    So how’s the ever increasing $16 tn bill you’re saddling them with going to get paid?

    So, yes, we are concerned about man-made climate change (which I believe you agree exists), or anything else that would impact negatively on that future.

    And so, in fact, you admit you’re scared of change.

    Now your side claims to be for freedom, except when people are doing things in their private homes or to their own bodies that you disagree with.

    You have me confused with someone who gives a flying fig what you do behind closed doors. What I am against is paying for it.

    Ironic that your job with tenure gives you a safety net far greater than anything a liberal proposes for the general public.

    Can’t argue without making it personal, I see.

  40. Chris Link says:

    I forget where I saw this comment (and I am paraphrasing). Those who are screaming about Republicans wanting to “ban contraception” could just as well argue that I want to “ban food” because I don’t wish to pay your restaurant tab.

  41. RWP, we’re going to start calling you Tommy, because you are blind, deaf and dumb. I’m inclined to believe that your quote from Orwell at 9:46 is also your mantra.
    Take your share of the responsibility for that $16 tn bill and maybe we can have an intelligent conversation, but most of that hole was excavated due to “conservative” action by your pals like George W..
    Do I FEAR that mankind is doing irreparable damage to the earth’s climate? HELL YES! I don’t keep my head firmly planted up my butt cheeks – so I can see, hear, and smell what is going on. BAD change is bad, it doesn’t matter what your politics are on that point. Only fools like you would believe otherwise.
    I’m against useless belligerency towards nations that haven’t threatened us. Can I send YOU the tab for the share of that that we Libs choose not to support? What makes YOU so freakin’ special that you’d get to pick and choose what OUR tax dollars are spent on?
    As for personal attacks, RWP. YOU

  42. Anonymous says:

    So how’s the ever increasing $16 tn bill you’re saddling them with going to get paid?

    I’m generally not a proponent of increasing debt, but any credible economist would defend it as the best and perhaps only way of digging out from the worst recession since the depression. There was no excuse for running up our debt during 2000 – 2007.

    And so, in fact, you admit you’re scared of change.

    Yes, change that credibly produces very negative results.

    You have me confused with someone who gives a flying fig what you do behind closed doors. What I am against is paying for it.

    Most (almost all) of your party is against abortion and homosexuality. One is known by the company they keep. And insurance companies would much rather pay for contraception than childbirth. Do the math.

    Can’t argue without making it personal, I see.

    Nothing personal. Just pointing out hypocrisy.

  43. RWP says:

    I’m generally not a proponent of increasing debt, but any credible economist would defend it as the best and perhaps only way of digging out from the worst recession since the depression.

    ‘Credible economist’ does not equal Keynesian. Almost no monetarist economist would argue for a massive increase in the debt.

    The debt when Bush took office was approximately $5.7 tn. Bush to his everlasting shame, increased it in eight years to something between $10 tn and $11 tn, though it should be noted that some of that was TARP obligations that were ultimately repaid. At end of f.y. 2010 it was $13.6 tn., and you can add another $1.6 tn for f.y. $2011 and $1.3 tn for this fiscal year. Obama has run up as much or more debt in four years than George Bush did in eight, fighting two wars.

    We are currently in recovery, albeit an anemic one. There is no excuse for more deficit spending.

    Most (almost all) of your party is against abortion and homosexuality.

    I’m going to love to see you document that almost all the the GOP is ‘against’ homosexuality.

    That’s because I won’t be holding my breath.

    Nothing personal. Just pointing out hypocrisy.

    Even if there were hypocrisy (I have no choice whether I have tenure or not; it’s required by the by-laws of the board of regents) the attack would still be personal.

    But don’t worry; you would have disappointed me if you hadn’t engaged in anonymous personal attacks. Anyone who could debate the issues on their merits would not be a liberal.

  44. RWP says:

    Since all I know of you, BTO, is your rants on this site, even if I wanted to argue ad hominem, I couldn’t. Characterizing you as logorrheic or sanctimonious is not ad hominem — it’s not an attempt to further my argument. It’s merely a characterization of your posts.

    I have no idea how you think you can see hear or smell climate change. What change there has been (if any) in Nebraska is in the noise. To see real evidence of climate change, you need to get up to the Arctic (on a one-way ticket, preferably).

  45. RWP,
    When a vast majority of the scientific world agrees that we are having problems with what mankind is doing to the earth, I believe I will listen to their advice on the enviornment more than I will someone who spends the bulk of his free time arguing politics and economics.

  46. RWP says:

    BTO:

    So you’ve actually read some of the original climate change literature? Or you’ve spoken to some of these experts?

    I’ve actually taken raw Lincoln temperature data and done some real statistical analysis on it. And you?

  47. Anonymous says:

    You’re kidding, aren’t you, RWP? Looking at raw Lincoln (only Lincoln) temperature data to confirm or refute climate change? Do you know the definition of climate? This is as astute as Rush Limbaugh looking at the snow falling outside his window on a cold winter day and claiming that this disproves global warming.

  48. Some Thoughts says:

    To BTO: Conservatives do not operate out of fear, but something a little more subtle that we may call “prudence”. Now, I’m not the best defender of conservative ideology because I’m more of an independent, but I have great sympathy for conservative principles. Conservatives have seen dozens of your “optimistic” liberal pie-in-the-sky schemes go by, and they’ve seen that idealism only once in a while generates actual progress that benefits people. Frequently this great zeal for “progress” results in unintended negative consequences, and plans that either end in waste or inaction. In addition, conservatives are motivated by ethical principles that don’t easily fade from fashion and aren’t affected by the popular opinion of the day. There’s a lot to like and learn from in that way of looking at the world, and it’s one reason why people tend to grow in conservatism as they age. It’s not because they’re dinosaurs clinging to some outmoded way of life, but because they’ve been around the block long enough to be wary, cautious, and realistic,

  49. Some Thoughts says:

    To Anonymostly: it doesn’t really matter whether the “smear” is coordinated or dishonest, the point is that it’s going to stick, because Republicans are spending way too much time and energy worrying about other people’s private choices. You see the birth control issue as a matter of forcing employers to pay for such choices; however, that’s how all health insurance works. We make choices every day that affect our health, and it all costs money, and when we buy insurance our money is used, collectively, to pay for those choices. When it comes to the women who are part of my employer’s insurance plan, I’d rather pay for birth control pills than pay for the medical consequences of their choice to have a daily donut, pack of cigarettes, or cans of Coke.

    The only question is whether birth control is a medical thing, and it is. You may disagree, but this is where Republicans only end up looking out of touch, especially with women. Nearly all women use contraception, and they see it as a medical issue. The question to them is not “why should insurance have to pay for this?”; instead, the question is “why doesn’t insurance cover this when it covers all kinds of other things of even less importance?” These people are paying premiums into the pool, too, so I imagine they think they already did pay for it, so to speak. The most unfortunate thing about Limbaugh’s controversial remarks is that he didn’t even seem to understand that the amount of birth control pills you take has nothing to do with how much sex you have. It just makes conservatives look out of touch on this issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.