Tuesday:

Is murder a moral issue or personal choice?

Tuesday: Freedom of expression doesnt give you the right to violate my rights, or to attack me....



..anyway, so as long as it is consenting adults, the federal government should not regulate it with laws?

Tuesday: "...so called freedom of expression we have supposedly given them."

I believe the "freedom of expression" would be more of freedom to think and speak what they wanted.

Throwing items at someone is a form of assault, which I believe is not even allowed in the US. (Even throwing something that will do no harm can still be considered an assault.)

Tuesday:

Do you think the government should determine who marries as long as they are of legal age and consenting?

Well, the government doesnt stop anyone from getting married.... but if you want a marriage sponsored by the government, well then they have to regulate it somehow, dont they? I mean, what about making it between two people only? That is a restriction, isnt it?

Tuesday: I was a bit confussed too..when he said that the government doesn't stop anyone from geting married

Tuesday: ohh,hun...it takes TWO gazillion to get any point across here ;) and then still...ehhhh

anastasia: Marriage to me is a religious institution, anyone can have a religious based marriage ceremony, swap rings, do whatever they want to, the government doesnt really care.

But if the government is giving a legal document,IE a license to get married in the eyes of the government, of course they have the right to give rules and such.

There are some people who marry multiple partners, but the government will not sanction it. The government has always defined marriage as a whatever between 1 man and 1 woman, thats what marriage is, if its between 2 men or 2 women then it is not really marriage!

Then, you start to make changes to the actual definition of marriage, and you probably get into something more than you bargained for? If the courts rule that the definition can be changed to make same sex okay, then what would be your argument that the definition cannot be changed to make more than 2 people involved?????? What would stop the definition from including a woman and a dog? You think that is silly, but is silly a reason to not allow something???? You see where this is going, right?

4 years ago the media were up in arms about Bush spending 40 million on his inauguration, listed all the better ways to spend the cash instead, this while the economy was doing well....


Anyone heard anything about that now when Obama is going to spend twice that amount, 80 million plus another 80 million in private funds, making the total 160 million dollar party????


Not a word (except for some pointing out the bias on conservative talk radio) but nobody is complaining, or even mentioning, in fact the media is falling all over itself, like proud parents!


No..... no , the main stream media has no left wing bias or agenda.... no, not at all....

Tuesday: But its the government giving a license!!! Who else should decide then????

Should we get to write our own definition when it comes to drivers licenses too??? I dont like the definition of "speeding" , should that make it okay for the definition of speeding to be changed as well?

Czuch: Your post was almost a direct quote from The McCafferty File on CNN tonite.Do you consider CNN right wing?


here's the link

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/

Jim Dandy: ah ha........another CCP king ROFLMBO

Tuesday:

Everything costs more since Bush has been in office. I wonder how much is security. Obama has a mess to clean up. He deserves a huge party. ;)


I know some of that was tongue in cheek, and you do empathize with what i am trying to point out...

But its really true, we like Obama so he gets a pass and we dont like Bush so he gets screwed... but in all truth and honesty, is that really what you want from your media outlets????

Czuch: what is it excatly that all the money is being spent on for the event?? I heard that is was more expensive then Bush's BUT I honestly didn't hear what they said after that,I was just passing through...is it security??? just bells and whistles?? or both?? I dont feel ANY president incoming deserves to have THAT much money spent on one event.
I also don't feel that every first lady should go through and COMPLETELY redecorate at the tax payers expense..thats just my opionion :)

Jim Dandy:

Well thanks for that blog, and it is nice to see... I dont know if that stuff made it to air or was just part of his blog..... the thing is, when it was Bush, it was the AP circulating this stuff...there is not one news room in the US (radio, tv, news paper etc) that does not subscribe to the AP news wires... not this time though, and to read some of the reader comments after the blog, it seems just the same ol same ol... if its Bush its bad, if its Obama its just money well spent on a mental health day required from the last 8 years!

anastasia: yes it isd more expensive than Bushs, by 4 times, hardly the cost of inflation or security, yes half is paid from private donations, but if this really is the start of a new day, why not just have an 80 million dollar ball and not use any tax payers money?

Artful Dodger: and if they slobbered all over Bush you would be all in favor of them

Czuch: I saw him discuss,and make the same points on air at around 5pm est.I searched CNN to find the The McCafferty File section and he discusses it on his blog also

ABC has this report

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Inauguration/story?id=6665946&page=1

Artful Dodger: Fox/MSNBC can be tossed out as a wash,concerning left/right leanings

anastasia:

and if they slobbered all over Bush you would be all in favor of them

I dont think that is the point...if they didnt care about one inauguration price tag, then no complaints on this one either.... its about them not being biased... if I am a reporter, and I didnt make any reports about Bush spending too much, then i woulod be off the hook here too, but there are some reporters who made a stink about Bush at the time, who have all of a sudden lost their passion for frugal spending??????


Point is, they were Bush bashing, pure and simple, they didnt care about spending, it was just an excuse to bash.. they still dont give a crap about spending, and since there is no one they want to bash right now... there is no story.

Artful Dodger: I don't think it is EVER ok to spend that much on something like this...we have people straving,kids getting sick...not so much a homeless issue here,they are all frauds....people loosing jobs left and right...to ME anyhow...this,and I dont care Dem OR Rep...this kind of...again IMO is a slap in the face to the people.
What I was origanally wondering tho...how much of this price tag is security on him?? does anyone know...have there been any numbers or breakdowns of WHERE the moneys are going??

Artful Dodger: it is sad,you're right...this is the stuff that pisses me off,the spending like this....HOW tho,can we,as citizens be heard to tell them STOP SPENDING...we can't...
what kind of cookies???

Artful Dodger: Colmes is also gone now from prime time,they didn't replace him with a liberal counter balance.You can find studies till the cows come home,any intelligent individual who has watched both MSNBC and Fox(for a fair amount of time) can sense their leanings,it's not even subtle

Artful Dodger: Yes,I intended to say counter balance to Hannity.It seems to me that the only reason people get worked up about Fox News is due their need to deny their right wing leanings.Who cares? do they think it somehow discredits their opinions?

It eems to drive both them (and you) nuts

Artful Dodger: Rather blew it,it was sad to see,but it shouldn't diminish his entire career.Yes Rather didn't have the proper airtight background when he went out on a limb,but I don't think anyone doubts Bush was a weekend warrior with very little interest in serving in the military.

Artful Dodger: You're far too diplomatic in your opinions

I don't know if I agree with being lumped into your "anti-Fox" gang.I often watch Fox,now and again I'm on board with their slant,(such as the present war in Gaza)but I've rarely come across anyone who isn't aware of the "slant" liberal or republican.I suppose I'm a "tweener" these days,so save the Coulter shtick for a hardcore lib

I don't think libs are the only ones underwhelmed by GW''s act

Artful Dodger: And I'm still waiting for a proper explanation of the film 2001

anastasia:


The swearing in ceremony is about 1.2 million dollars, and the party budget is about 45 million or more..... the rest is security and porta potties

Artful Dodger: I think you give too too little acknowledgement to the value of nuance in a presentation, Fox is Fox,according to you they're very misunderstood.I happen to think the general view of their presentation is in the ballpark.Where do you see Fox leaning?

anastasia: Also, I would say that the "homeless" who fight over the best traffic corners to beg for money are mostly 100% scammers. No, I have no actual proof, but you also dont have any proof that they are not scammers, so given that nobody has any proof here, except the local news who did hidden camera stories on many of them here in Florida, wouldnt you prefer to give your money to some local charity who has the time and resources to make sure that your money is going to people who really need it?


That gets me back to Tuesday and her "I dont mind giving my money to the government to let them do things for us"..... when you complain about Katrina and the many other things our government does badly..... I just dont understand how in one breath people can be so critical of the government, and then in the next think that their tax dollars are spent more frugally to help people than we could do spending the money ourselves more at the local level?????


It seems so basic to me...if I need my driveway paved, am I better off taking my money to a local contractor and getting er done? Or to give my money to the Feds and let them take care of it for me????

Its a no brainer really.... your money will always be spent better and more wisely and more efficiently when you spend it yourself over letting a bureaucratic nightmare or the government do it for you!

Conservatives dont want the homeless to get a job (well we do) but we just dont think that growing the government and increasing taxes is the best solution for solving our problems, and that the less we rely on government to solve our problems the better chance of having the problems resolved anyway!

This is the way to being to bridge the gap,good for Obama

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=261763

Jim Dandy: I think part of what you see from Fox is a reflection of the past 8 years, where there was a need to balance much of the mainstream news that was so heavily slanted.... that made them seem like they leaned conservative, and based mostly on their non news stuff they do.

But lets see where the next 8 years takes us with Fox. If the mainstream news continues to drool over everything Obama and they give him a pass IE inaugural spending, then we shall probably see more of the same from fox, out to try and give some balance. But if the mainstream media uses the same guile in reporting on Obama as they did with Bush, then you might even end up saying that Fox leans to the left a bit, because they will again try to balance what you might typically hear.


Point is... when 95% of news is biased to the left, or course anybody who brings some balance to that coverage is going to appear themselves to lean right. It doesnt mean that Fox does lean right, only that to give a balanced coverage in todays market place they will always appear to lean right, its just the circumstances of the way things have been the past 8 years.

Jim Dandy: Got to admit the guy delivers a well written speech better than most.....

Jim Dandy:

It will be interesting to hear him tomorrow talking about ideals like personal responsibility, and see if he attacks and blames and presses for the achievers, or if he will be talking to the non achievers as well?

Czuch: Obama is smart,he is going to try and steamroll his agenda by gathering bi partisan support,and those who stand in the way will be considered to be standing in the way of American progress.

unite an conquer

WOW....25,000 strong police force to guard one man....do you think that will stop the white supremacists(sp) if they "rebel"?