Ray comments on the Congress' passage of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill, wondering where the money came from when the cash wasn't there to fix our crumbling infastructure or supply our military properly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
what is wrong with this Govt. They acually want to give AIG more money after the incident the past week. Are they all that stupid or just don't care about the little people who will be paying the bill. I think it's time we took what little bit of money we have out of the big banks. Rates on credit cards should be lowered so we can actually pay them off. We need to get the career politicians out and put people in from actual working class in. I get so furious over the brainstorming of some of the people speaking for our behaves
Ray Nice comment today about mud wrestling
More under "let her loose"
Boy Gibbs certainly tucked it to hannity
What a hypocrite Hannity is
I did some readin about Andy martin and i am not surprised Fox network gives him a forum.
Summary: On Fox News' Hannity's America, Sean Hannity hosted Andy Martin -- identified by Hannity as an "Internet journalist" -- who made what Hannity called "the explosive claim that [Sen. Barack] Obama's role as a community organizer was a political staging ground perpetuated by the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers." At no point during the segment did Hannity note Martin's history of smears against Obama or Martin's history of anti-Semitic and racially charged comments.
If you go by the guilt by association rule which Hannity is trying to pin on Obama for serving on a community board,with someone who made bombs when Obama was 8 years old, then i guess
Hannity must be anti- semitic
" The Times also reported that Martin "is credited as being among the first -- if not the first -- to assert in a chain e-mail message that Mr. Obama was secretly a Muslim." This is a typical credible person that Fox "News" relies on for their smears.
So, since you like Hannity, what do we assume from that? Using Hannitie's own guilt by association standards of course.
I do not watch Hannity's America and rarely watch Hannity and Colmes unless it is the night of a big news event such as a debate.
I rarely catch his radio show because I am usually at a soccer game, helping my children with their homework.
I don't know who this Martin guy is. Guess I will have to look into him.
It is obvious that you think because people have similar ideas, they are in lockstep.
I simply do not have the time to worry about whether Hannity, Rush, O'Rielly or the rest agree with me.
Ray, I've been hoping you'd do an audioblog post about the Connecticut gay marriage issue, because I was very interested in what you had to say on the show. I'm responding here. I hope that's okay.
First of all, I very much appreciate the thoughtfulness with which you approached the story. Too many people on both sides have knee-jerk reactions to court decisions without bothering to examine the actual legal issues. So thank you for taking the time to read and contemplate the ruling before weighing in.
Okay, that said, I want to address the second part of your argument. I understand you're not likely to change your mind, but you seem like the kind of guy who can give fair weight to an opposing viewpoint.
You said that you oppose gay marriage because it goes against your faith. With all due respect to your religion, that's a lazy position to take. It's not enough to say my faith says it's so.
For years, good people of faith were told that slavery was OK. But then some people stood up and challenged that, and faith's teachings changed. For years, good people of faith were told miscegenation was a sin. But then some people stood up and challenged that, and faith's teachings changed. There are countless examples in history of good people of faith successfully challenging the tenets of their religion. I know: You have no desire to challenge this particular tenet, but you should own that position rather than fobbing it off on your faith. (For the most part, I think you do; I just thought that was the least rigorous aspect of your argument.)
You say that marriage isn't a secular entity, but that simply isn't so. Marriage exists in both the religious and secular worlds. Plenty of people with no religious leanings at all get married by a judge or a justice of the peace.
No one's saying churches should have to perform gay marriages, just that the government should. The Catholic Church does not permit a second marriage after a divorce, but (thankfully for the current Republican nominee) that does not mean that our laws should be changed to make it illegal for divorced people to marry. Plenty of things forbidden by religions are perfectly legal in America.
You say that homosexuality is unnatural and goes against God. But homosexuality exists in all species. How is it not natural? Do you think the millions of gay people on this planet chose to go against nature? How plausible is that?
You call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Question: Would that retroactively nullify the thousands of gay marriages that have already occurred? How cruel is that, to yank away a couple's marital status? Talk about government intrusion! Even if it didn't, and those couples just became a gandfathered oddity, do we really want to amend our constitution to strip rights away from citizens? I believe that would be the first time that happened since the Volstead Act. Look how that turned out. (Well, I guess the 22nd amendment restricted the rights of a tiny segment of the population.)
I predict that in 50 years, gay marriage will be perfectly acceptable in our society, and today's fervent opposition to it will look quaint and somewhat puzzling. Have you ever seen footage of black people at "whites only" lunch counters getting milkshakes poured on their heads? It just seems so bizarre now, but that was practically in our lifetimes. I don't think the folks who were pouring those milkshakes were evil, but they were the product of a time that thought a certain way. Times change. They always do.
Ray, if you've made it this far, I thank you for considering my arguments. My best to you.
Post a Comment