...Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney looks more and more impressive as a presidential candidate...
...With respect to Peyton Manning, a great player whom I admire, Tom Brady is the best player in the NFL and, when he finally does retire someday, may be considered the best ever at his position (QB), which is arguably the most difficult position in sports...
...I find it appalling and completely disrespectful that Harvard University, perhaps the finest school in the world, has invited former Iranian president Mohammed Khatami to speak on the issue of tolerance (!) on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary...
...Pittsburgh lost a fine man upon the passing of Mayor Bob O'Connor last Friday, a "man of the people" if ever there was one...
...the notion of current Iranian President Ahmadinejad speaking to the United Nations later this month is repulsive...
...Steelers QB Charlie Batch, a Pittsburgh native and graduate of Steel Valley HS, will get the job done tonight against Miami, providing the Steelers' great offensive line can contain Dolphins DE Jason Taylor, a Pittsburgh native and graduate of Woodland Hills HS...
...Tony Blair deserves better...
...Sen. Rick Santorum soundly defeated Senate candidate Bob Casey, Jr. in their first debate last Sunday, though both seem like decent men, not that far apart politically in many ways...
...Bill Clinton is not to blame for 9/11; President Bush is not to blame for 9/11; Bin Laden and radical evil are to blame; if either Clinton or Bush thought anything like 9/11 was ahead, they would have done anything to prevent it...the new ABC "documdrama" to be shown this weekend alleges that Clinton was so distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal that he failed to address Bin Laden and Al Qaeda; while that may be true, I cannot believe that Bill Clinton, as self-serving as he was, would not have addressed the issue had he known about the 9/11 plans...it's categorically unfair to blame Clinton for the tragedy, as flawed as his presidency was...
...Bob Dylan's new album is #1 on the charts, a well-deserved sign of hope, given the horrible state of contemporary music...
...Katie Couric is a professional celebrity and entertainer, not a journalist, and to expect her show to be "hard news" is unrealistic and unfair...
...the Pittsburgh Penguins, with Evgeni Malkin and Sidney Crosby, will be real contenders this year.
16 comments:
You think too much.
I love you anyhow...
r
Amen, and amen!!!
...Tom Brady isn't even the best QB playing today, though he may be once Favre retires...
...former Iranian president Mohammed Khatami is slime. He shouldn't be granted access to the U.S. even as a diplomat. Current Iranian president Ahmadinejad should be arrested upon entry into the U.S. regardless of what diplomatic crisis it would create. He is a terrorist, plain and simple...
...Santorum was barely a blip on the radar in last week's debate. he contiinues to show his grasp of the issues. A few more of these debates and Casey will have it all sewn up...
...though you continue to show a complete and total misunderstanding of Clinton and his administartion, i agree that neither he nor W knew of the 9/11 attacks beforehand. To suggest otherwise is absurd. W is responsible for his debacles post-9/11, but is inno way accounatble for 9/11 itself. As bad a president as he is, he's no Bin Laden...
...Kaitie Couric is the same as any television anchor that rises to that level. She is no more a jouranalist than Brokaw was, or Rather, or Cronkite, or Jennings. While they all had journalistic pasts, anchorperson is too specialized a position to seriiously think any of them, including Couric, still work as true journalists. Bravo to her for making it this far, but she stopped being a journalist when she signed on as anchor of the Today show...
Sorry about all the typos in my last response...I'm typing fast. The Steeler game is on soon.
Cronkite may have been a journalist...maybe the last of the journalist-anchors before entertainers took over. But Couric is the biggest star ever to assume an anchor chair; CBS paid for star power, not journalistic credibility. Which is perfectly OK, until they claim otherwise.
I'm not sure how I mischaracterized Bill Clinton; are you suggesting that the Lewisnsky scandal wasn't a distraction? That's hard to believe.
John Unitas is the best QB ever.
I don't watch the network news on
a regular basis any longer. If
I do it is NBC. I still read
magazines like U.S. News and World
Report and the like. I do watch
CNN or Fox now and then. I catch
things on the run or channel surfing.
I'm happy the NFL is playing again.
Can't wait for Sunday and Mon.
night.
No, the Lewinsky thing was a distraction...more a distraction to the media and the GOP it seems, but still a distraction. However you refer to him as "self serving" and as having a "flawed" adminstration. Whether or not he was (is) self serving is an opinion and not cold hard fact; anyone who attains the position f president is self serving to some degree, but there is nothing to state that he was any less self serving than any other modern president. And his administration being flawed is an opinion....not a fact...and it's an opinion not shared by the majority of Americans, who would have gladly reelected Bill in 2000 by all accounts. Just make sure that you bill your opinions as such and facts as facts. At any rate, there is no more self serving or flawed administration in all of American history than the current one...at least that's my opinion!
Well, this is my blog, and not Madeline Albright's or Al Gore's, so it's safe to assume that the opinions and analyses are mine, and not theirs. Also, please note the first two words of the post, which you may have missed.
That's all fine. I just wish you were a little more moderate and a little less far right in your analysis of Clinton and Bush. It probably has more to do with my expectations of you than anything else. I'll watch myself and try to remember you are who you are...
I'm far right? A pacifist, anti-war, pro-gun control, anti-capital punishment mainline pastor graduate of a liberal seminary who takes the U.S. flag out of sanctuaries of churches he serves? Wow, you're far more radical than you realize. Or, you aren't clear on your terminology.
Well, as I've said before, you aren't anti-war. One can not be anti-war and pro-Bush. You aren't anti-war, you just play an anti-war guy on TV, so to speak. And you are far more in step with the extremist far-right on many more issues than you are with the moderates or (certainly) liberals. I am a liberal. i am against gun control, which is not the liberal position at all. But that alone does not make me non-liberal. It just means I differ with the liberals on that issue. You disagree wth the right on gun control and capital punsihment and perhaps a few others, but you are still comfortably right. It's just a fact, and one you should not be ashamed of. There rae lots of right wingers that don't tow the party line on every issue, but it hardly disqualifies them as right wingers. Your views on Clinton are clearly from the right wing book rather than any moderates or liberals. Just embrace who you are and what you are. I will just always hope against hope that you will one day reject all that stuff because I see it as very bad and I love you and want better for you. That's all.
If emphasis on personal character is "right", then the left is already doomed. Too bad.
I couldn't care less if someone thinks I'm right or left, but folks who know far more than you or I insist I'm no conservative; I trust their analyses. I'll trust them, not that it really matters.
Your claims reveal, I think, far more about you than they do about me.
You say "folks who know far more than you or I insist I'm no conservative" but that's a cop out. You have no idea what I know, really. It's a shame that you would make assumptions about me like this. If you took the time to actually get to know me, I think you'd find I know more than you want to give me credit for. But you tend to dismiss me because you don't like the conclusions I make. That's easy to do, but not honest.
You say that my claims reveal far more about me than they do about you. But all it reveals is that I want waht is best for you because I love you. If I was an alcoholic, you would want to steer me away from alcohol I assume because you love me. It's the same thing. You are a conservative, and I want better for you because I love you. It's really that simple.
I can't tell whether you're simply way, way off or doing some kind of stand-up routine.
The truth is, you may know more than I realize, but haven't revealed that to me, and, in fact, have shown that, indeed, I do know others who know more.
As I stated previously, whether anyone considers me liberal or conservative doesn't matter in the slightest bit to me. Your claims do reveal much about you, whether or not that's something you like.
I think you're making this something it isn't. Look, I want the people I love to be in to good things. Surround them with good things. I want Rahne to listen to the Beatles because that's good for her. I want you (ideally) to see what Bush et al. really are because that would be good for you. If Rahne doesn't listen to the Beatles, I'm still going to love her. And if you don't see Bush et al. for what they are, I'll still love you. Just because Rahne doesn't listen to the Beatles doesn't mean they aren't the greatest music ever made. Just because you don't see something doesn't make it not so. If you chosse to not see yourself the way you are, that's fine. I still love you. But it doesn't change what you are. It just means that you don't see it, or accept it, or whatever. But you still are what you are. And I love you no matter what. Maybe we should just end it on that note, O.K.?
You're goofy in the head with a completely upside down weltanschuang. So let's leave it.
Post a Comment