-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
Campaign contribution$ and failing a ploygraph test are the 2 most important job requirements in this white house,
You’re not listening to the medical experts when it comes to Ebola anyway, so what would it matter?
I’m curious: did conservatives voice similar complaints in 2004, when President Bush hired Stewart Simonson, a political operative with no medical training, to be his bird flu czar?
Or did you understand then that the job was to coordinate crisis response, and didn’t require medical expertise?
If the latter, why are you pretending not to understand that now?
Oh so now you want to compare Obama with Bush? lol That’s very funny…for years you have railed on Bush, you hated everything he did. Now you want to use him to support your argument. Real nice. Ever hear the story about two wrongs?
Jack, I criticized Bush when warranted, but I have also given him credit when warranted. You seem to think it has to be all-or-nothing; because I hate some things Bush did, I have to hate EVERYTHING Bush did, no matter how trivial. I understand why you feel this way; this is exactly how you and Tina treat Obama, which is why you’re outraged by his appointment of the Ebola czar. It has nothing to do with what actually happened. All that matters is that Obama did it, so it is by definition bad.
My position makes perfect sense: I did not care when Bush appointed a non-doctor to be the bird flu czar, and I do not care that Obama appointed a non-doctor to be the Ebola czar, because those positions do not need to be doctors.
Your position is the inconsistent one: you did not care when Bush appointed a non-doctor to be the bird flu czar, but you do care that Obama appointed a non-doctor to be the Ebola czar. And the reason for that is because you are just looking for any excuse to bash Obama, even if you’re bashing him for things Bush also did.
Your position is entirely clear Chris. Your single purpose is to prove how even handed you are as compared to Jack and I who are always biased, unreasonable and unfair. The hall monitor just keeps on keeping score.
You don’t know whether anyone cared about Bush appointing a non-doctor or not. You’re assuming that is what Jack and I would do. I don’t recall it even being discussed on PS. You’re creating a straw man Chris.
Meanwhile, the man you defend has not done much that worked or improved conditions, in fact things are much worse for many Americans. This has created enormous distrust and you blame Jack and I for not finding anything to admire?
Obama is not even perceived as being on the job. He’s had to change his talking points on Ebola several times. He wasn’t really engaged in the first place…too busy fund raising. Every appointment has been political. Why are you shocked that people would question his choice and motivation?
I remember well the days when Bush was being bashed on the economy by everyone, including every conservative posters here. Jack gets n credit for that? I agreed Bush had racked up too much debt. I was the only one willing to defend his economy in terms of debt to GDP, attempting to put his economy in perspective. In hindsight there is a lot more that can be defended in the Bush economy especially compared to the Obama economy for which Obama has been given a complete pass. Obama says it’s “improving” and that’s good enough for you on the left.
There is nothing even remotely fair or even handed about your criticism of the two parties ad their representatives, Chris. It’s a pretense you hide behind but the big picture exposes you as no different than anyone else. Your bias is always evident. The score keeping is boring, unreliable, and avoiding of important issues.
This president still has not received widespread demonizing criticism to the level that Bush endured on the economy BUT he deserves it much more.
You should be keeping score within your own party. The inconsistency there is killing the country. All left politics is about destruction of the opposition and not what is good for the country no matter what the issue.
From my perspective your criticism is meaningless. You don’t have the capacity or the wherewithal to see that what Obama has done to damage the nation deserves wider criticism or that he has earned the distrust of the voters. This choice would be a non-issue IF Obama wasn’t failing to lead so spectacularly!
Tina: “Your position is entirely clear Chris. Your single purpose is to prove how even handed you are as compared to Jack and I who are always biased, unreasonable and unfair.”
As usual, I will propose the easiest solution to this: start writing in a more reasonable and fair manner.
“You don’t know whether anyone cared about Bush appointing a non-doctor or not. You’re assuming that is what Jack and I would do. I don’t recall it even being discussed on PS.”
Do you understand that the last sentence here completely contradicts the first? (What am I saying–of course you don’t.)
I know that you and Jack did not care when Bush appointed a non-medical expert to be bird flu czar precisely BECAUSE neither of you ever discussed it on Post Scripts. You feel the need to nitpick every single move Obama makes, and in many cases–like this one–it’s not because you have any legitimate point, it’s because you are looking for something to whine about.
“You’re creating a straw man Chris.”
You do not understand what the term means. My criticism was completely fair; you did not (and still do not) have a problem with Bush appointing a non-medical expert as his bird flu czar. If you did, you would have said so by now.
“Meanwhile, the man you defend has not done much that worked or improved conditions…”
None of the critiques you bring up after this point have anything to do with the topic of this article, which is Obama appointing a non-medical expert to be Ebola czar. Once again, you seem to be suggesting that because Obama has done a lot of bad things, that justifies mindlessly wailing about the good or neutral things he does. That is unfair and irrational. It has always been unfair and irrational, every time you have done it.
“This president still has not received widespread demonizing criticism to the level that Bush endured on the economy BUT he deserves it much more.”
You do realize that Obama has literally been accused of being the anti-Christ on multiple occasions by World Net Daily, a source that you and other conservative bloggers continue to rely on frequently? That’s the very definition of demonization.
Chris you have been told time and again and you never learn. This is a conservative blog. If you want fairness go in search if an independent blog with writers who are out to prove they are superior due to their so-called “open minds”. If you are going to continue to post here please expect a conservative slant and position.
If you see a contradiction it’s because you don’t see that purpose is not the same as imagination.
“You feel the need to nitpick every single move Obama make”
Chris there are plenty of “moves” that have not been posted to these pages but I understand that these list making duties are very important in a hall monitors life. Keeping track of every slight and gold star has to be exhausting! But you and I both know that we have not hit on every “move” made by either president. You and I also both know that in most cases you will be on the left and we will be on the right…so what’s the point? Do you just need to whine about fairness? Will it change how you behave toward the next republican president?
My position on Obama was clear from the start. I said he was unprepared for the job, not qualified. I thunk my assessment has been born out.
“you did not (and still do not) have a problem with Bush appointing a non-medical expert as his bird flu czar”
You assume the problem is just that he is non-medical. You assume I had no objections to the Bush appointee even though I haven’t ever expressed an opinion. You assume you are smarter than you are.
“None of the critiques you bring up after this point have anything to do with the topic of this article, which is Obama appointing a non-medical expert to be Ebola czar.”
Wow, Chris, you’ve never gone off topic so I can understand completely why you bring this up now.
“You do realize that Obama has literally been accused of being the anti-Christ on multiple occasions”
Oh poor baaaby. Obama has had the near absolute support (adoration really) of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NYT, LA Times and many other media outlets for six years. The comparison is extremely weak and non-serious but it explains how you’ arrived at the unreasonable position that Obama is being treated badly or unfairly.
“rely on frequently?”
Occasionally would be more accurate.
When the information is relevant, timely and on point isn’t that more important?
Stay tuned regarding this: “–it’s not because you have any legitimate point”
Legitimate point: the man cannot be trusted!
CNS News:
There probably are no DC people with clean hands but some are definitely dirtier than others. A letter to the editor in South Jersey Times expands on that thought:
Another layer that fails to deliver confidence in this administration. What does Obama do besides stand in front of the cameras, play golf and go on vacation?
This guy was not selected for his administrative skills nor was the selection a nonpartisan pick made in the best interests of the American people. Obama is the most partisan ideologues to serve in the WH in my lifetime; everything is political.
Legitimate point: the man cannot be trusted.
USA Today:
This article in Breitbart has a few more reasons for conservatives to doubt that the appointment will prove effective.
Tina: “Chris you have been told time and again and you never learn. This is a conservative blog. If you want fairness go in search if an independent blog with writers who are out to prove they are superior due to their so-called “open minds”. If you are going to continue to post here please expect a conservative slant and position.”
There is a difference between leaning conservative, and being completely irrational and hypocritical. That you see no difference speaks poorly of you.
Tina, why waste your time? Your not dealing with meaningful discussion.
Clearly to me Post Scripts has had to deal with some who tend to be rude in their approach to posts that challenge their ideology. My opinion about Post Scripts was it is intended to be a” point counter point” forum of current subjects, with a obvious slant toward fiscal and conservative values. But importantly a site where all postings would be shared with maturity, and civility. Only then could different perspectives be realized with open comments. If the purpose of a reply is to inflame, why even post it?
My suggestion is to ignore such posters, and if need be censure their critic’s that only serve to reflect rudeness.
An occasional rude response would strike me as normal human behavior.
The constant use of rudeness is a conditioned response. Why tolerate it? as its only intent is to provoke another person and attempt to put the rude responder in a position of superiority if only to serve their own narcissistic need to be noticed.
Subject matter being secondary.
I agree with Harold and his suggestion to ignore rude and uncivil comments meant to elevate ones own feelings of superiority. It’s a no win exchange because the individual is arguing for their own feeling of self-worth, not the content of the subject or taking into account the rights of an individual who believes differently to express their views.
All civil comments should be welcomed and those that attack or bully anyone should be ignored. Maybe they’ll learn how to treat others with respect.
My comments were neither uncivil nor meant to inflame. The argument posited in this cartoon is illogical, hypocritical, and invalid. Pointing out when arguments fail in this way is not rude, it is completely fair and valid. Harold, the reason there is no “meaningful discussion” here is because no one will admit when weaknesses are pointed out in their own arguments, and when their arguments are criticized, they mistake it for a personal attack. Post Scripts is free to not publish dissenting comments, but publishing them and then refusing to engage with valid criticism, and then pretending that they are simply being trolled, is simply not intellectually honest.
Chris: “There is a difference between leaning conservative, and being completely irrational and hypocritical.”
Chris your opinion is welcome here. But it is just your opinion. There are times when your own sense of importance and superiority gets the best of you.
I frankly don’t mind that you find me irrational or hypocritical, in fact, its a compliment given my own observations about you, your beliefs, and your politics.
Peggy and Harold I do hear what you’re saying and will work to be more selective. There are times when a comment that has some power to deceive is just too compelling to ignore. One of my bugaboos is the despicable way the left has tainted the reputations of entire groups of people. The more I learn the more I realize they are the most intolerant and judgmental people in America and the leadership, the most radical among them are completely amoral…the end justifies the means. These are not just cheap shots. They are talking points that come directly from the Alinsky progressive machine. These comments are not just directed at me. They are designed to taint us all. If we don’t speak up and counter this barrage of vile speech who will?
I don’t expect any of you to wade through the garbage and respond but it is part of my mission to stand up to the miss-characterization, bullying, and lies.
Tina, you are to be commended for your level of tolerance.
I’ll stand with you when it comes to presenting conservative views and their benefits. It’s when the conversation sinks to name calling, bullying and being told to admit I’m wrong for believing as I do I find unacceptable. This is where I choose to not participate any more.
Go get them!!
Chris I don’t know where you came up with the idea it has to be all or nothing. I’m just like you when it comes to criticism. I have criticized Bush too and I’ve criticized other republicans. Feel free to take shots at both sides, I applaud that!
“Harold, the reason there is no “meaningful discussion” here is because no one will admit when weaknesses are pointed out in their own arguments, and when their arguments are criticized, they mistake it for a personal attack”.
‘No One’ do you not see yourself in that category?
You are the most blatant offender of ‘no one’ in my opinion and your angry style of attacks have been criticized prior, yet you continue to seek ways to insult people, subtle or outright. That is the point of my post.
I can only speak for myself, but I used to read your posts, looking for a point I may have missed. That time has passed because of your increased insults.
Those unbridled berating’s toward others who see things differently than you do nothing to encourage readership of your views. You know how to choose the words, so why insult, inflame or otherwise attempt to belittle another’s point of view. You state your profession as a teacher, then teach.
This approach might encourage others to read your posts:
“I read your post, I disagree and here’s why” in doing so, it opens a path of civil debate, calling us idiots and other insulting phrases does nothing of benefit , and we ALL have made mistakes, including yourself.
To learn? At least that is the purpose of Post Scripts in my opinion.
Use your knowledge to help, not brow beat someone on any given subject, follow the examples set by Tina and Jack, with a degree of civility you could become meaningful counter points on subjects, so put your hubris aside, please.