Yeah, I can hardly wait for their support of "Christmas".

"...when we celebrate the 10th anniversary of 9/11."

With respect, I believe "commemorate" to be a more appropriate verb choice.

I guess it will just be a reminder of what happens when we let our gaurd down.

I enjoy watching those lefties backpeddle. They are so good at it. They ought to be in the circus.....wait....they are in the circus....

"The contrast of a brand new mosque adjacent to the Ground Zero site, with a grand opening scheduled for Sept. 11, 2011, would stand as a stark and painful reminder of our inability to rebuild Ground Zero."

Time to find a new strawman argument - this one is leaking faster than you can say "If I only had a brain"..

The Park51 Community Center, if built, won't be ready by September 11, 2011. As of now it isn't financed, there are no architectural drawings, nothing has gone out to bid, etc.

Gee, can't bigots just fess up and admit they hate Muslim Americans?

The 1st Amendment does the following:

1. Protects the freedom of religion.
2. Prevents the government from endorsing a religion.

I believe the 1st Amendment protects the right for a mosque to be built 2 blocks from ground zero.

I also believe that a nativity or any religous symbol on government property amounts to the government endorsing a religion.

"The Park51 Community Center, if built, won't be ready by September 11, 2011. As of now it isn't financed, there are no architectural drawings, nothing has gone out to bid, etc."

Hell, I have an idea for a humongous casino.

All I need is the funding and I will plop it right on the edge of town.

You need to watch your Lee Ward like tone you Dane in the ass!

"Gee, can't bigots just fess up and admit they hate Muslim Americans?"

We're too busy poking fun at hateful hating hater bigots like yourself.

---------

"You know who I hate? Firemen." - Bill the Pyro.

"You know who I hate? Policemen." - Bob the Thief.

"You know who I hate? YOU!" *BOOM* - Achmed the Dead Terrorist.

I have always spoke up for the 1st Amendment as it applies to protecting the freedom of religion and preventing the government from endorsing religion. Yet many of the same people that have been staunch advocates of the 1st Amendment's protection of religion freedom, are now arguing that it should not apply to the NY mosque. Isn't that where the real irony is?

Tina S,

If you are going to bother participating perhaps you could take the time to actually read what people have been saying here for weeks already. There is no disagreement that they have a constitutional right to build their mosque. The issue is that the large majority of the community wants them to move it elsewhere. The issue is that they will not disclose their funding. The issue is that they are doing it as an act of triumphalism over America and celebrating the murder of our countrymen.

The only people crying about religious liberty are people like you: libs that don't give a crap about religious liberty if the person is a Jew or a Christian.

The issue is not and never has been religious liberty. The muslims claim they want to build bridges but they are really building a monument to the 19 hijackers. If they really wanted to build bridges they would have moved the project ages ago.

The 1st Amendment does the following:

1. Protects the freedom of religion.
2. Prevents the government from endorsing a religion.

Let me fix number two for you Tina.

2. Makes sure that the government "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Endorsing and making law are two different things, Tina. Allowing a nativity scene or a Menorah or whatever on Government property is NOT making law.

As far as the Muslim community center, in my opinion, let them build it. Just not at the current location planned. It's a provocation. It's divisive and will do more to create animosity toward Islam than it will create productive dialog.

Sorry, but these issues can't be conflated. No one is talking about supporting the construction of a mosque in the city hall (vs. Christmas displays on public property, which, like the Supreme Court, I have no problem with). I get the sentiment, but this is apples and oranges, have to search for irony elsewhere, I'm afraid.

Liberals...I just roll my eyes and ignore them now because they're bloody crazy. Ya never know what stupendously stupid self contradictory Shite

Liberals...I just roll my eyes and ignore them now because they're bloody crazy. Ya never know what stupendously stupid self contradictory Shite will come out of their mouths anymore. ???

sorry #12 didn't post correctly.

Gee, can't bigots just fess up and admit they hate Muslim Americans?

Dane, are you a Muslim American? If so, I've found one that I am not at all fond of.

Here let me help you out Dane, I hate Muslim Americans...feel better sweetie?

Hell, how about I hate Muslims period.

After years of hearing Progressive jokes about people having a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ," we are now told that we should believe that Obama has an unseen "personal relationship with Jesus Christ." Some joke.

Frankly, this man wears religion like a suit, different religions for different occasions a "religious camelion." Quite cynical, if you ask me.

The man is an agnostic.

Dane has that 'hate' card down pat. Can hardly wait for 2012 when he'll be whipping out the ol' race card.

I just went ahead and did a preemptive strike on him (Dane) by making some bigoted statements he wanted to read. It will give him some glee to spill over at the daily Kos. He was gonna call us bigots anyway. It's the new progressive plan(oh golly am I frightened!).Sticks and stones. All they have is schoolyard taunts anyway. I'm waiting for homophobe again and whatever else they dream up.

Always remember the two prerequisites for being a leftist--utter hypocrisy and absolute shamelessness!!

"I also believe that a nativity or any religous symbol on government property amounts to the government endorsing a religion." Tina

Tina I would very much like for you to respond to the following: City and Town roads are public property, much like parks and town greens. A Neo-Nazi group marched down Main St. in Skokie, IL. Prior to that they sought and received a parade permit from the town. Did the town of Skokie (where the population is primarily Jewish, by the way) endorse the Neo-Nazis, or did they just accommodate them? Was the Neo-Nazi group reaching out to the Jewish community and trying to build bridges to them, or were they being provocative? Was the greater good served by allowing the parade or were the town residents injured and the Neo-Nazi group afforded a cheap victory? If you believe the town residents were injured, do you believe they would have been equally injured if the group had marched in another town and state instead?

Yes, I understand that Neo-Nazi group is not recognized as a religion, however at its core is a highly structured believe system in which all members believe and to which they all adhere. So please grant me that variance.

Jeez Tina S., having a problem understanding the debate. Here it is. It is not "Can they" it is "Why would they". Read it slower.

Dane, move on. Your mom is due home anytime now. These latchkey kids are a problem.

I have been raise by believing "we the people" are the government and no one we elect can erect a public display of faith. But "we the people" can use our land (public owned land) as we see fit. Of course, that would be radical. ww

There is no guarantee of a right to "build" anything anywhere in the Constitution.

To suggest otherwise is to display ignorance.

Hey, Dane - you might want to check this out...

Guy's a hater, all right - he HATES the future that the left has set up for his child.

And he doesn't exactly mince words, though he does get a bit repetitious. (That goes to where he really gets wound up.) NSFW if you've got someone who can actually read anywhere near ya...

The last line is really telling...

...for I want to return the hate you have for me.

So read and enjoy, Dane - he's meaning it for YOU.

Let's see--

The Koran says to kill infidels.

Muslims attacked (among so many other things) on September 11 and killed thousands in the name of whoever their god is.

People in Muslim countries partied in the streets after learning about 9-11.

Feisal Abdul Rauf says the US was an "accessory" to 9-11.

Am I wrong to dislike people who want to be a part of this?

Tina S.

I would ask whether or not you would show the same outrage regarding the Fourth Prebyterian Church in Chicago which was refused permission to build an addition on top of it's existing buildings to expand its community center. They merely blocked someone's view.

So it's OK if muslims upset 65% of the nation, but if some Christians block the views of a couple dozen people we need to stop that ASAP.

Nothing about freedom of religion there. Just another example of liberal hypocrisy.

I hear you, Dane. And I applaud your open mind.

I also looked up your home address and have arranged for the KKK to open a chapter on your left side, the John Birchers on your right, the New Black Panthers in your backyard and some Jehovah's Witnesses across the street. There's a bar and strip club opening right next to your neighborhood playground, a halfway house for recovering drug addicts and another for paroled sex offenders a few doors from where you live.

They're all real happy you are so open minded, they all said they'd pay you a vist.

Real soon.

In private.

28, MK,

Now THAT is a sock puppet and comment worthy of Ace!

Well played.

I read today on Drudge that Obama is a christian and prays daily.

My first thought was that he *better* not be praying in the white house - everyone knows that only muslims have that right.

Hey Mr Lawson, I checked out your link. Wow.

Only a teaparty conservative could let the occasion of his beautiful daughter's entry into kindergarten become an angry, f-bomb filled rant against "liberals." Whom, by the way, though you and he may feel they are wrong on the issues, and perhaps stupid, are well-intentioned patriotic Americans.

It was especially "telling," to properly use the expression you misused, how the author wails about how sick and tired he is with being told that hate is his motivation - then goes on to prove that that is indeed the case.

So, is this how YOU, and other Wizbangers, really feel in your heart of hearts? If so, that explains a lot.

I'm off to the beach. I'll check out any answers you may wish to post on my return this afternoon.

Hate to remind us but thanks entirely to the moral depredations of successively less courageous (with the exception of the eight years of the Ronald Wilson Reagan and at least several years of the George Walker Bush presidencies) feral "administrations," our beloved fraternal republic hasn't won a war since 1945. During which year, least we forget, the only reason we dropped only two nuclear weapons on Hirohito's bloody barbarians was that we had only two.

And to also remind us that Hirohito's bloody barbarians were but Boy Scouts when compared to the morbidly-hesperophobic mass-murderering followers of the false fuhrer, Muhummud!

And you miss the point completely, Bruce.

But that's not really surprising, is it? I see someone pissed at what the LEFT is doing to screw up his child's future. You see a conservative hate-filled rant against the left, which isn't justifiable in your opinion. Because, after all, the people who's efforts have caused that rant are "well-intentioned patriotic Americans."

You know that old saying about what the road to Hell is paved with? I'd say as a country we're pretty far down that road - but we shouldn't get angry because the people who have been pushing us down it are "well-intentioned patriotic Americans"?

No, Bruce - that doesn't fly.

You can only hit someone so many times, no matter how justifiable you think striking them is, until they get fed up and hit back.

For the last decade or more, we've been told by you and your 'progressive' friends about how hateful we are, how hate-filled, how hating and racist and angry we are, whenever we object to the things being done TO us when they're supposedly to HELP up. We were told we were mean and heartless when we objected to Obamacare - when there was no way it could ever actually work by a cursory running of the numbers, and the more people are seeing what's 'in the bill', the less people like it.

We were told Obama's Stimulus package was needed to keep unemployment under 8%, and if we objected we were hateful, mean-spirited people who WANTED the poor to suffer. We're told we're hateful, ungrateful hypocrites for objecting to trillion dollar plus annual deficit spending for AT LEAST a decade to come - and how DARE we question that spending when we didn't object to what BUSH was spending during his time in office and our only reason for objecting is because we're RRRAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCIIIIISSSSTTTT!

So, okay. We get it. We're hate-filled, intolerant, racist bigoted homophobic poor-hating hateful hating racist haters who hate. That's how you see us, that's what you've called us, that's what you think of us. But much as you deny it, much as you think of yourselves as "well-intentioned patriotic Americans", you're doing your best to destroy the culture that made you possible.

Why? Because, if the psychological model of projection is valid, your (and Dane's and Jim X's, and Lee's) constant accusations of hate, hating, hateful bigoted behavior, racist thinking and the like are manifestations of YOUR actual feelings, of hatred against the folks who don't believe as you do. As the other - we have to be marginalized and put down so your group can be ascendant.

Much damn good THAT'S doing you.

So you object that this man hates.

This man hates, HATES, the fact that idiots like you have created a world for his child which is "Yes, the hate for those who wish to make her life more difficult than what I had. Not hate for an ethnic or other group, but hate for an idea, since people can change their views. And the idea I hate is liberalism. I confess, I hate. I hate those who want to advance an agenda that ruins the today, the tomorrow, and the tomorrow's tomorrow. And to them, I wish them the following:"

Your agenda isn't working. It's damaging the entire country. And you think we're wrong for objecting. You won't listen to objections, you won't even look at Europe which is abandoning the 'progressive' ideas that have dominated their economies and populations for years because they're finally understanding that they're unsustainable.

And you find his hate objectionable?

Bruce - do you have kids? What would you do to someone trying to harm them?

BTW, Bruce?

Look at California. The Progressives have had control for decades.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/-262918--.html

A state that's rich in resources and scenery, lush and fertile - that's hamstringing and starving itself, and can't even generate the power to keep its lights on, but has a bloated public sector that resists changes and drains the economy. But the 'progressives' in charge don't care - the government will bail them out.

The ticks don't give a damn what they feed on, as long as the blood comes from somewhere.

The people NOT in public sector jobs? Screw 'em. The 'progressive' aristocracy know what's good for them, and they'd damn well better cooperate!

So Silicon Valley packs up. Major corporations pack up and leave. Businesses depart. Tax revenue falls, conditions deteriorate but...

The folks in charge MEANT well!

*applause*

Well said in #33 JLawson, very well said!

Sadly Bruce and the rest of the left will still miss the point and dismiss it.

Well, at least one of my questions was answered - this IS the way Mr Lawson feels in his heart of hearts.

You have a strange idea of the history of the US since about, oh, 1980 or so, Mr Lawson. It isn't liberalism, in my opinion, that has messed this country up. It's the trickle-down, rig-the-system, protect-the-incumbent, good-ol'-boy, screw-the-little-guy-while-the-already-rich-get-even-richer, hoodwink-the-rubes-with-flagwaving CONSERVATISM that's been the norm since then.

And it didn't get any better when supposedly liberal Bill Clinton was in office. Bill Clinton was more like the best Republican president this country ever had.

In the time intervening since this morning, did you get a chance to peruse that article about Mott's, for example? Shameful, almost sociopathic behavior by Dr Pepper Snapple, IMO.

But unlike you, and the author of your linked article, I don't despise my political opponents. They DO make me angry, and I DO get exasperated by their stubborn refusal to recognize their own "rube-dom," and I confess to a certain hatred of some of their LEADERS, like Cheney, Beck, and Limbaugh, for instance. But I recognize that most rank-and-file conservatives are sincere, well-meaning patriots who want what's best for the country. Like the guys I work with.

As for what you've been told by "me and my progressive friends," I can only say that if the shoe fits...

Nah, I don't know what you've been told by "my progressive friends" (perhaps Dr Laura would tell you you're being hypersensitive) but I only find conservatives truly hateful when they talk about social issues. That you would deny two people in love the right to marry; that you would presume to dictate, because of YOUR religious tradition, the choices a woman and her doctor must make in regard to reproduction; that you would undo decades of racial progress in dishonest pretenses of "color-blindness" - these things I find hateful in conservatives.

And conservatives can SAY they hate Obama for his policies, not his skin, until the cows come home. I suspect that if Obama introduced Constitutional amendments TOMORROW to ban abortion, gay marriage, and unbalanced budgets, you guys would STILL hate his guts. I've lived in the conservative Bible Belt long enough to know that.

You may think it's normal for this dude to let the occasion of his daughter's entry into kindergarten become a rant because he blames liberals for his worries. I say he's a crude, paranoid nutcase who might be dangerous. I pity his child.

"Well, at least one of my questions was answered - this IS the way Mr Lawson feels in his heart of hearts."

Do I hate the tick that tries to fasten itself where it can feed? No - I avoid it if I can, kill it if I must. Do I hate the mosquito trying to get a meal off me? Do I hate the cockroach that scuttles across the floor? No - I dislike them - but they can't help being what they are. Do I hate the spider going across the wall? No - I put it in an environment that it'll find more food in. (Maybe it'll chow down on the tick, mosquito and cockroach.)

You saw the answer you wanted, Bruce, which wasn't there. Which says much more about you than it says about me.

And what about you, Bruce?

"That you would deny two people in love the right to marry; that you would presume to dictate, because of YOUR religious tradition, the choices a woman and her doctor must make in regard to reproduction; that you would undo decades of racial progress in dishonest pretenses of "color-blindness" - these things I find hateful in conservatives."

First - I don't care about them marrying, as I've said before many times. (An untapped market for lawyers - gay divorce - what's wrong with that?) Abortion? I want it legal - I don't like it, and ever since I held my infant son I think it a sad and terrible thing, but I won't deny a woman's right to choose, and will vote against ANY attempt to do so. And I WANT a color-blind society - it's the ticks who feed off racial animosity who don't want the strife to die down and people be seen as PEOPLE instead of skin colors.

"And conservatives can SAY they hate Obama for his policies, not his skin, until the cows come home. I suspect that if Obama introduced Constitutional amendments TOMORROW to ban abortion, gay marriage, and unbalanced budgets, you guys would STILL hate his guts. I've lived in the conservative Bible Belt long enough to know that."

And you, sir, are a bigoted racist. You're not paying attention to what's going on - you're looking at ONE thing, Obama's skin color, and immediately inferring that ALL objections to him must be because of color.

If Obama introduced an amendment to ban abortion, I'd vote AGAINST it. Same with gay marriage - I believe that's something which should be left to the STATE, not imposed from on high. If my state votes on it, I'll probably vote for it - since I see no problem with it at all. If he introduced an amendment to ban unbalanced budgets, I'd applaud the guy - but both you and I know that's about as likely to happen as me winning the lottery.

Wait a sec.. (Checks last night's tickets...) Yeah, it ain't gonna happen.

As far as 'hate' goes? Look in your own mirror, Bruce. You 'hate' conservative attitudes that you're insisting are in everyone else who doesn't agree with you.

"They DO make me angry, and I DO get exasperated by their stubborn refusal to recognize their own "rube-dom," and I confess to a certain hatred of some of their LEADERS, like Cheney, Beck, and Limbaugh, for instance."

And who's saying they're the leaders, Bruce? Indulging in a bit of Journolist reading, perhaps? Maybe you ought to reconsider who's the rube - I think you've been conned, man.

BTW, you ever watch Beck? I've seen him a couple of times on the TV at the gym - he's a showman and a bit over the top, but he's entertaining. You ought to try watching him and seeing if he's worth hating for yourself, instead of depending on people telling you he's evil.

Because, you know, opinions aren't facts. And speaking of that...

It isn't liberalism, in my opinion, that has messed this country up. It's the trickle-down, rig-the-system, protect-the-incumbent, good-ol'-boy, screw-the-little-guy-while-the-already-rich-get-even-richer, hoodwink-the-rubes-with-flagwaving CONSERVATISM that's been the norm since then.

It's the trickle-down, (trillions from Washington to the unions and banks) rig-the-system, (Barney Frank - "Fannie and Freddie are fine! No oversight needed!) protect-the-incumbent, (Slate's most gerrymandered districts - 16 D, 4 R.) good-ol'-boy, screw-the-little-guy-while-the-already-rich-get-even-richer, (Ah, Kennedy, what a philanthropist, and Pelosi... and Reid... ) hoodwink-the-rubes-with-flagwaving CONSERVATISM that's been the norm since then.

Tell me again what the unemployment numbers were in 2006? They must have been horrible, Bruce, because once the Dems got control of the House and Senate they seem to have been doing everything possible to get them down - and they've succeeded in dropping them almost to 10%!

I think you've got the wrong folks pegged as rubes, Bruce. And it does no good to blame Conservatives for the problems now - because the House and Senate have been in Dem control since early 2007. And with a Democratic President since 2009.

And things keep getting worse, Bruce, with no signs of improvement. Everything they touch has 'unexpected' consequences that require more 'corrections', which have 'unexpected' consequences...

So... who's the rube?

Check the mirror, Bruce. You'll be looking right at him. Of course, you won't admit it - you're too smart to be conned, right?

Well - enough for now. Hope you didn't get sand in uncomfortable places!

Well, Mr Lawson, if YOU don't support stuff like Prop 8 in California, if YOU are pro-choice, then in those two instances you are at odds with what are generally considered "conservative" political positions. Sorry to lump YOU in with all the rest. But those are "conservative" positions that I consider to be hateful, and the ones that generate the most animosity in me. Not enough to call everyone who espouses them "fucking fucksticks from fucking hell" or similar nonsense, but you get my meaning.

I'm afraid you DON'T get my meaning about Obama's color though. I didn't say, and never have, that ALL objections to Obama are because of color. What I meant to say is that I've been around enough "I'm-not-a-racist-but" racists to know that SOME of the visceral hatred of the President IS simply because he's black. As Chris Rock said, you don't have to be the guy who shot Medgar Evers to be a racist! There are milder, unspoken, even unacknowledged, forms of racism. Or do you disagree on that point?

Jumping around a little, you disagree that Cheney, Limbaugh, and Beck are leaders of the conservative movement? Well, if you say they're not, I'll take your word for it. They sure seem to have a lot of FOLLOWERS, though, not to be leaders.

By the way, I've seen plenty of Beck, just as I've listened to plenty of Limbaugh. Both are more than showmen - they're con men. And those who go around quoting them, those who agree with Limbaugh that he's the "smartest man in America" and with Beck that he's a latter-day prophet, are to put it blandly, RUBES. Not me. Maybe not even you, Mr Lawson.

One of my points, and the linked piece's, was about the last few decades, not just the time since the 2006 elections. You talk about things getting worse - I say things have been getting worse since Reagan fired the PATCO guys.

Real wages for the bottom 90% of earners, adjusted for inflation, have been stagnant since the early 1980s, while income for the top 10% DOUBLED just from 2001-2006.

Income inequality is rampant. In the 1970s, CEOs of big corporations made 45 times the money their average workers made. Today, it's THREE THOUSAND times! The top one percent of this country own 23% of its wealth, and the top 10% own most of the rest.

Well funded incumbents keep getting re-elected to Congress, where they keep doing favors for their donors. It's gotten to the point where the corruption and arrogance is not even hidden anymore. Where the idea, for instance, of putting a consumer advocate like Elizabeth Warren in charge of a CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY is a non-starter due to conservative opposition. Imagine the nerve of those hateful liberals - trying to put a consumer advocate in charge of a consumer protection agency!

Big money interests succeeded in rigging the political system. Then they rigged the banking system, and when their house of cards imploded in 2008, they simply took us all to the cleaners. THEY'RE still rich, but the rest of us, as individuals and as taxpayers, have been screwed.

But even if it's true that things have gotten worse since Obama took office, one has to measure that against what WOULD have happened had a McCain-Palin administration been in charge the past year and a half. It's my contention that we're living in Paradise compared to what would have happened in that case. You may disagree. You say Obama sucks - I say thank God we aren't talking about President McCain's failures. Or even worse, that McCain had keeled over after achieving his dream and we had to live in a Palin administration. Makes me shudder.

I don't know about this idea of "projection" you keep referring to, Mr Lawson. Sounds like I'm-rubber-you're-glue to me, but I don't have a psychology degree. Apparently, "projection" works like this: A guy writes an article about how much he hates liberals. I say, "That guy's a real hater!" And that means that I'M the hate-filled one, and should "look in the mirror." Or something.

Bruce -

WTF? Yeah, things are terrible but it would have been worse with a McCain-Palin White House?

You've proven yourself to be a racist, a bigot, and a gullible rube who could be shown again and again how three-card monty works and STILL insist it's an honest game, as long as the right folks are running it. You just gotta trust 'em, as your wallet empties faster and faster.

And you can't even be bothered to figure out what 'projection' means. Yeah, you're the smart one, all right.

Seriously, Bruce - you're the rube, like it or not. You got took by a Chicago con artist with no accomplishments worth mentioning, who doesn't have any concept of leadership, who believes that it's perfectly okay to both stifle business with higher taxes and slap trillions of dollars of debt on the country that we'll be DECADES paying off, if ever.

And you're blaming conservatives. Oh, of course. Can't do otherwise, good little rube you are, rushing to judgement as quick as you can if anyone dares speak ill of the folks ripping you (and me) off.

I wish you'd figure it out, and good luck to ya.

By Bruce's logic we could say the counrty could have been much better if Bush I had beat Clinton afterall that has as much credibility as the if McCain had won it would be worse. Jez we're moving from blaming Bush to favorable comparisions to an administration that was never elected. Pretty weak defense of Obama.

Liberals must be sick they can't even compare Obama to Bush anymore cause he looks so bad they want to measure his success against the who lost the election to him. Hey Obama is much better than the make believe administration of the racist McCain.

Mr Lawson, I know what "projection" is. I was making a funny. You, umm, didn't get it.

My remarks were in response to the article you linked to, in which the author pisses and moans about how liberals have ruined "his" country. He is, (and, apparently, you are) filled with hate for those he blames for the state of the country. I was pointing out that he, and you, apparently are under the mistaken impression that liberalism has been in the ASCENDANT since 1980. It hasn't. With Reagan, Bush I, the Republican Congress of 1995-2007, and Bush II, we have had trickle-down, anti-labor, free-market-is-always-right, tax-cuts-are-the-answer-to-every-problem CONSERVATISM as the norm. The prevailing mindset has been comfort-the-comfortable-and-afflict-the-afflicted even during the so-called "ultra-liberal" Clinton era. Remember, it was Bill Clinton who famously proclaimed the "era of big government" over.

So, please, get over your hatred, and maybe get in touch with Mr Hater and clue him in too. Read up on the history of the last 30 years, and recognize who's been in charge, or at least most influential, all this time. Hint - it ain't been liberals.

"You've proven yourself to be a bigot..." Really? Please re-read my comments to point out any bigotry. Where do you get stuff like that? Does that come from the Lawson version/theory of "projection?" In other words, "He who smelt it, dealt it?" Or is every Wizbang commenter who can spell and write a complete sentence really DJ Drummond writing under an alias?

"You got took by a Chicago con artist..." No, I had a choice between Obama and McCain. McCain had proven himself in the campaign to be a pathetic opportunist who was so desperate to be President he would abandon any principle or independence he ever possessed to win. His campaign sickened me, and it should have sickened you. And when he picked the spectacularly mediocre Palin to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, I COULDN'T, in good conscience, have voted for him (although, believe it or not, given a McCain-Gore choice in 2000, I would have chosen McCain back then).

Bruce -

I know you by what you are on-line. Perhaps in person you're something other than a smug, sanctimonious bigot. Perhaps not.

You accuse people of hate, and hatred, and bigotry, and racism so quickly I can't help but think that you may know the concept of projection but certainly don't see how it could possibly ever apply to you. After all, YOU aren't hateful, bigoted or racist - everyone you disagree with is! You don't get it, and you don't want to get it.

In fact, I think you dare not get it - because if you start questioning yourself or your beliefs you're not going to like what you see.

Re the guy's 'hate' - do you have kids, Bruce? You ever look at them, and then think about the economic disaster that's Social Security, and the looming deficit problems, and the massive debt that'll be on their heads in the future - and get ticked off at the people who steadfastly refuse to look beyond the next election when it comes to promising out goods and services without number - and no way to pay for them but to borrow more?

Yeah, all our objections are because Obama's got less melanin in his skin than I do when I used to get a heavy tan. Couldn't be anything else, I'm sure.

As it is - have a nice day. And seriously - look in the mirror. A friend once told me an old Jewish proverb (while we were in the midst of a heated political argument, btw) that when you point a finger, there's 4 fingers pointing back at you.

Might want to consider that, Bruce. You seriously might want to consider it.

Look at California. The Progressives have had control for decades.

Sure - except the other 11 of 15 governors since 1923, who've been Republican. If you count since the mid 1960's, the same thing - only 1/3 of the governors have been Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_California

Please look stuff up. The results may jar your ideology, but that's a good thing - you will end up with a more accurate view of the world.

I'm not one to accuse conservatives of being hateful. I am one, however, to think you guys in particular are at risk for following your ideology to the exclusion of facts - and this "progressives have run California for evah!!" nonsense is a clear example of just that.

jim x,

OK, Mr. Smart Internet Research Guy. When was the last time the Republicans held a majority of the seats in the California Legislature? And how long did they hold that majority.

Please don't let those facts upset YOUR ideology.

Tell you what, Sheik - you can look it up and tell me. I don't see why I should research your arguments as well.

The overall point here, is control. The legislature does not control California - and progressives in California don't even control the Democrats. They have a strong influence, to be sure - but that's different than control.

Therefore to suggest that "progressives have had control of California for decades" and therefore all of California's problems are solely progressive's fault, is unsupported by reality.

No, jim x. You are the one making assertions regarding who controls California that are not supported by the facts.

Good grief. It was two seconds of Google searching to find.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_State_Legislature

In the last 40 years, the R's have had a majority for one session.

Who writes the CA budget? The Lege.

Don't let that "jar your ideology", though.