How can we ever agree?

I don't know what I was thinking; I visited the far-left blogsite, thinkprogress.org. I do know what I was thinking actually, I wanted to see what the other side was saying and how they were feeling about issues. I truly believe that in order to continue to expand my ideas and values, I need to understand where someone else is coming from.

The issues they were addressing had to do with how much the abhor Bill O'Reilly, Bill Kristol, John McCain, Joe the Plumber and Glenn Beck but no real issues (ie. the budget, the stimulus, the military, abortion, etc.). There didn't seem to be too much of substance in the articles presented and the comments posted.

So, I started to comment and was trying to be nice and open minded and I immediately was attacked and demeaned. I was called idiotic, a moron, self-loathing, stupid troll, and an array of other not-so-nice terms. I was repeatedly flagged for "spewing nonsense" and "drivel". I was asked to leave because thinkprogress.org was a place for liberals to talk amongst themselves and outsiders weren't welcome. I was under the impression that the liberals were supposed to be about tolerance and acceptance. Apparently, not.

I politely asked why they hated Glenn Beck. I was told that he was clearly mentally ill, spoke nonsense, must still be an alcoholic and was a blubbering idiot because he cried all the time. I didn't quite understand how any of that made someone mentally ill and I never really got a solid answer to my question of "why do you think he's mentally ill?" They said because he called President Obama the Manchurian Candidate, he was clearly mentally ill.

It was quite interesting to me that anytime I used facts about conservatives/Bush, whatever, I was told I was just spinning and using talking points but whenever they used "facts" they were facts and not talking points yet the "facts" they used were simply things heard on MSNBC or read in the NYT. It seems a bit hypocritical to me and quite self-serving.

We were talking about what a big deal the conservatives are making of President Obama using the teleprompter so much. I find it entertaining and funny but not a real issue. They asked me why the conservatives would make it an issue and I replied with "for the same reason the liberals made an issue out of the money spent on Sarah Palin's wardrobe during the campaign". Well, that did it...they called me an idiot for making that comparison and told me there was clearly a difference. Is there? Really? When they complained about Amanda Terkel being "stalked" by O'Reilly's producer I asked "how is that any different that a network news show sending people to Alaska to bombard Levi Johnston with questions about his relationship with Bristol Palin and about his child?" Again, I was called a moron and told I didn't have any facts and these were not the same things.

I began to wonder, how are we ever going to come together as a country when there is this much hatred. I visited a popular blog site, that of Michelle Malkin who is really despised by the left. I wanted to see if the treatment of liberals on a conservative website was the same as the treatment I received as a conservative on a liberal website. Turns out, it is quite similar. Now, I am biased but the conservatives weren't quite as mean to the liberals as I was treated on thinkprogress.org. But, the conservatives did tell liberals to go away and that they were being flagged on the site.

We talk so much about bipartisanship but is there really such a thing? I'm not sure we can get past our own philosophies and ideals to really work together. I did learn one thing though, I won't treat anyone the same way I was treated by the people on thinkprogress.org...it was unbelievably disrespectful, hateful, mean and foolish.

How long did it take him....

I was just waiting to see how long it would take the President to once again say "I inherited this mess" during last night's press conference. It wasn't long into the questioning when he whipped out the ol' "it isn't my fault" crap. Did he forget that he voted for the TARP? Selective memory? This blame has curdled and like I said in my last post, he now owns this mess after making it crystal clear that he didn't read the recovery bill.

I wasn't surprised when Ed Henry from CNN (?) asked a question about why it took weeks for the President and his staff to express their outrage over the AIG bonuses. Originally, President Obama didn't answer the question, just like so many answers he gave last night...didn't actually answer the question at hand but then when Ed Henry asked again about the delay in outrage, the President became irritated and short and snapped out the answer of "I like to know what I'm talking about before I say anything." What a joke! What a crappy, disrespectful, childish answer for the POTUS to give. It was obvious to me, that by that answer, he really wasn't outraged about the bonuses at all and it was just delayed until the American people became aware of the situation. I just shook my head and laughed at his response.

I understand that last night, his purpose was to drive home the "only way out of this mess is through health care and energy reform" agenda. I understand it, I don't agree with it but I understand it. It just became more clear that the economy disaster is just a smoke screen for him to get his agenda passed while the people aren't looking. He's betting on the stupidity of Americans which is a pretty good risk to take.

Poor TOTUS, last night his cousin, the big screen teleprompter was utilized and apparently TOTUS had the night off.

You did it! No, you did it! Nuh-uh...you did it!

Here we go again with politics as usual in Washington. Our fool political representatives didn't read the damn stimulus bill, shocker.

The following is taken directly from the stimulus bill (of which I've actually read about 700 pages...more than our politicians can say):

"The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary. "

Now...was this provision inserted by Dodd? Yes, apparently so. But, he says that Geithner and the White House told him to include it. Stop blaming the other person...take some responsibility, SOMEONE, PLEASE!! Okay, so no matter who said this provision should be put in the bill, why are they (senators, representatives, Geithner and the President) all acting all "stunned" that these bonuses were paid out? Didn't they read the fucking bill? It's right there...it's in the bill. Whatever happened to the accountability that the President has been preaching about? It doesn't apply here? For Pete's sake! This is absurd and everyone...democrat, libertarian, republican, independent, everyone should be pissed off about this!

It's not about the bonus money itself, it's about the principle. There's supposed to be a new found accountability in Washington...when and where does it start? Shouldn't it start with the President? Did he not read the bill? Because, if he had, he wouldn't be so shocked that these bonuses were paid out. Geithner knew about this and he's feigning surprise, too.

AND, now they want to tax those bonuses by 90%! They're totally changing the rules to the game that they set up! They said it was okay to pay the bonuses and now they say it's not and you're going to pay! Lord have mercy!

This is totally President Obama's baby now...he screwed up by not reading or not fully reading this bill as did our politicians. This, to me, is the end point of "I inherited this mess" line. He can't use that with any validity any more.

Wonder what his teleprompter would tell him to do about this?

Do I offend? Tough!

We live in a very sensitive, politically correct society. I personally, believe that political correctness is a crock of crap and it's just a way to ensure we don't have open, honest discussions. Because of political correctness, we generally can't openly talk about race, religion, sexual preference and now terrorism without the worry of upsetting someone.

Eric Holder, not to long ago said, "we need to talk more about race" and in the same breath, said "we are a nation of cowards". Now, I get the point of what he was saying, at least I think I do. What he was saying is that we are cowards because we won't talk about race. Here's the thing: people ARE AFRAID to talk about race for fear of being called a racist by the ACLU or NAACP. We can't talk openly about race because of the ramifications we may face. I, luckily, have friends who are black and friends who are gay who I feel comfortable talking to about sensitive subjects. But, in general, people will get reamed, especially people in the public eye.

For instance, Jackie Mason recently referred to President Obama as a "schwartza" which, in German, means black person. Some find this term offensive, others do not. TMZ (who I think is a joke and don't understand why FoxNews even associates with them) followed Mr Mason asking him why he said that. Mr Mason laid into the "reporter" asking when did we ever come down on Chris Rock for calling Bush a retard? Mr Mason did a great job at calling out the double standard.

Another example of double standards is when O'Reilly referred to lil'ol' Helen Thomas as the wicked witch of the west. A woman's group was all over him about that and he called them on not being all over SNL or editorial writers when they called Sarah Palin a pig or said she wasn't a woman. Total double standard.

Now, we find out that our homeland security secretary, Janet Napalitano (spelling?) won't refer to terrorists as terrorists. She'll only refer to acts of terror as "man-made disasters". What the hell? Now, we're worried about being politically correct when it comes to murderous individuals? Please! This is absurd and will tell the rest of the world, including the Islamist extremists, that we aren't even strong enough to be tough in our labeling.

People really need to lighten up and not worry so much about being offended or who is going to be offended and worry more about having an open, honest conversation about actual issues. Worrying about "proper labeling" is such a waste of time and really quite embarrassing.

Mortgage, anyone?

This is an article found on 9news.com on 3/13/09:

DENVER - The Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) is responding to the economic downturn by launching two new mortgage programs aimed at helping low and moderate-income Coloradans buy homes.

Friday, CHFA announced the programs, which provide competitive low-interest financing options and the option for down payment and closing cost assistance to both first time home buyers, and those who have owned before. The new "HomeOpener Program" is available to household earning less than 130 percent of their area's median income. In Denver that's a little more than $94,000 for a family of three. "HomeOpener Plus" is also available for homebuyers who need help coming up with a down payment or covering closing costs. CHFA says they're excited to offer this, since many lenders can't right now. "We are one of the very few entities that can provide down payment assistance, particularly since the federal government is now prohibiting quite a few programs that they deem to be not suitable for certain borrowers," explained Roy Alexander, the executive director and CEO of CHFA. Homebuyers must also meet several requirements to qualify, including a minimum credit score of 580 and maximum debt-to-income ration of 45 percent on manually underwritten loans. They must also take a financial education class. "We pride ourselves on making sure that educated borrowers are making the right decisions about their long term assets they they're purchasing," he added. CHFA says all of these new requirements are to ensure the agency keeps pace with current lending standards, so that the program doesn't inadvertently attract subprime lenders or borrowers.
CHFA HomeOpener and HomeOpener Plus are available through CHFA's statewide network of lenders, CLICK HERE for a complete list or call CHFA at 800-877-2432.
(Copyright KUSA*TV, All Rights Reserved)
-----
I found this interesting....pulled it from a website:

Understanding your debt-to-income ratio
36% or less: This is the ideal amount of debt for most people to carry.
37%-42%: This is okay, but start cutting your spending now before you get into deeper debt. 43%-49%: Financial distress is right around the corner unless you act quickly to prevent it.
50% or more: You need professional assistance to severely reduce your debt.
----
Now...does anyone see anything wrong here? This company, HomeOpener Plus is doing EXACTLY what got us into this housing mess in the first place.

1. Lending to someone with credit score of 580? You shouldn't be able to finance a bottle of water with a score like that.
2. Financing down payments? Isn't that a bit odd? Shouldn't we be avoiding mortgages for people that don't have a down payment and NOT give them financing for the mortgage AND for the down payment?
3. Financing someone who has a DTI of 45%??? That's completely nuts!

This is all just asking for the same trouble we're in already with the housing mess.

Taliban? Moderate? Huh?

I'm thinking this post may be a bit short because it's a bit stupid. It's stupid, okay, maybe stupid, isn't the right word...it's arrogant to President Obama to think that #1, there is such a thing as "moderate Taliban" and #2 that we can somehow create diplomacy with them.

Am I the only one who thinks this is foolish? Well, no, I'm not...the Taliban thinks it's foolish. They themselves said that there is no such thing as "moderate Taliban". This is one area where the President's inexperience and arrogance is shinning. To his credit though, he did point out that the situation in Afganistan is more complex than in Iraq. Ya think?

When it comes down to it, the actual members of The Taliban are on a mission and that mission will not be faltered by the President of the United States wanting to have "talks". There are people in Afghanistan and Pakistan that are so scared of the Taliban that they will never do anything to go against them. The same goes for Al-Qaeda.

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are directly connected and the thought that our president thinks he can reason or have discussions to come to a agreement with this group is really quite frightening. I don't know if he or Clinton or anyone in his foreign policy department really have any clue how nervous this makes Americans; a lot of Americans (not all, I know) are very nervous about these types of moves from the administration.

I guess that wasn't really short, but you know me...I can never get off a soap box quickly.

Republicans need to get their acts straight

These silly Republicans...they are not setting a good image right now and it's a bit embarassing. John McCain is the ONLY senate republican, along with a couple senate democrats that have NO earmark spending in thie omnibus bill. I thought the republicans were the ones touting reponsible, fiscal spending and they turn around and completely go back on their word, except McCain.

Obama is expected to sign this bill without getting rid of any earmarks; this one time will be an exception. He is quickly becoming the President of exceptions and not President of substance.

I'm just saying, while I am a republican, I'm disappointed in my party, right now. I'm disappointed that they had a perfect opportunity to become the party of real change, because Obama is just going on with politics as usual, and all they did is squander the opportunity to show fiscal responsibility for once in Washington.

Time will tell whether Obama is really about change, although his changes are not something I support and if the republicans can reclaim their party.

Political hypocrisies in Washington

Well, we now know that politics are continuing as usual, in Washington, D.C. On both sides of the aisle, the hypocrisies continue and it's maddening!

1. Obama promised "no more pork barrel spending" yet the new $410 billion dollar spending bill is laden with earmarks. Now, I will give him the benefit of the doubt because he hasn't signed it yet (hell, it failed in the Senate already!). However, for someone, who is the leader of the Democratic party and the leader of our nation, you'd think that the democrats would follow him, and not include earmarks. I'm sickened by the amount of pork in this bill during a time when the country is in dire need of leadership and fiscal responsibility.

2. Now, we can't lay blame for the 8500+ earmarks in the bill solely on the democrats...about 40% or so, of those earmarks are from the republicans! The republicans in the House are the ones who ALL voted against the stimulus bill but apparently they have absolutely no qualms about putting their own pieces of pork in this new bill. That just doesn't make any sense other than it's "politics as usual".

3. Once Tom Daschle dropped his nomination for HHS secretary, Obama went on television saying that we can't have a different set of standards for one group of people than another group of people, yet Tim Geithner, the tax cheat, is still our Treasury Secretary. I don't trust a damn thing Mr. Geithner says; I don't believe he's telling the truth.

4. When John McCain suspended his campaign to go fight against the stimulus bill last year, I thought that was a huge mistake. THEN, he turned around and voted FOR it!

5. Obama touted an era of bi-partisanship in Washington. That, of course, is not enforced by him; the Democrats in the Senate and House are just as, if not more, partisan as ever. I think, possibly, his bi-partisan heart is in the right place, but it's not being executed very well. Don't forget the mockery he made of the republicans during the democrat retreat prior to the stimulus bill being signed. That's really a new era of bi-partisanship.

6. Obama said "lobbyists will have no place in my administration" and how many are there now? At least 12 nominees for the Obama administration have been registered lobbyists.

Well, I could go on about the hypocrisies in Washington and how there is nothing new going on there, but I won't. This isn't a new era, this is just the Obama era.

Question...

So far, there are two banks (Northern Trust and one other who's name I can't remember) who are giving TARP funds back to the feds. Northern Trust was forced to take the funds and the other bank took the funds but since decided they didn't need the money. So, the cash is going back to the feds. My question is...where does it go? Does it go back to China to pay them back a little tiny bit? Does it get paid to the taxpayers (ha..yeah, right), does it just go to the government to pay for something else? Will we ever know?

Also...there's all this complaining about parties being thrown by banks and now a union. Northern Trust threw a part a few weeks ago in California and used it's marketing funds to pay for it and a union threw a big bash in south Florida recently as well. Isn't this stimulating the economy? Why is everyone griping about it? They're not going to Mexico or the Caribbean...they're celebrating here...in the US and spending money here. I mean...we keep being told that consumers need to spend more but then when a corporation does just that, they're vilified.

If there is a logical explaination to either of these, please, let me know!

Get your facts straight!

Before you assume that Rush Limbaugh said he wants President Obama and the country to fail, get your facts straight!1st....Rush is NOT the face of the Republican party. He is the face of the conservative movement...there is a difference.2nd...Rush does NOT form opinions for conservatives...meaning...we don't just base our opinions off what he has to say. I, in fact, don't care for him and don't listen to him.3rd...WATCH THE INTERVIEW with Hannity to see how all this crap about Rush wanting the country and the President to fail. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!! Don't fall into the typical political diversionary tactics trap. Take what Rush said in context and you might be suprised that what he is saying, actually makes sense!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8eT_eLzdVA