Comments for: Thursday, April 26, 2012: Gay marriage, jobs and Ted Nugent

Posted April 25, 2012, at 4:11 p.m.

God’s plan In response to the letter “ Gay, period” by Nancy Rotkowitz (BDN, April 16), who says to preach what the Bible and Jesus stand for, maybe the word homosexual does not appear in the Bible, but scripture makes it clear that it’s not accepted in God’s plan of …

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    Ms. Boynton–my family will vote to support the right of all couples to commit to each other in marriage.

    Mr. Montgomery–I could kiss you! What a great letter explaining the true state this nation is in. Romney may not be my first choice, but he will be far better for men and women than Obama has proven.

    • Anonymous

       you can vote for Romney, I can vote for Obama, we’ll see who has more votes. It also seem funny to me, Why anyone  should think, that the economy, should be all fixed. I know when something gets broken, it takes much longer to fix then to break. We are growing slowly, which is always best, for bubbles burst.

      • Anonymous

        Simply to maintain the increase in population an economy needs to produce anywhere from 200 to 300k jobs per month. We have not had that except for a couple of months since Obama took office. The fact is that thousands exit the work force each month and are no longer counted as unemployed.

        We currently have the largest percentage of people not in the work force ever. We now have more people on disability income than ever before and they are no longer counted as employable. That number is approaching 1 in 20 of all adults.

        • Anonymous

          higher than that in Washington County.

        • Anonymous

           Presidents do not ‘create’ jobs. You know that. It is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. Want disability cut back? Hire more government workers to review all claims to weed out those capable of some sort of work and then to help them find those jobs. Sure,  you would support  that.

        • pbmann

          And the eight years under Bush the economy gained  total of 2 million jobs and average of less than 21000 jobs per month.

          In the 3 years that Obama has been in office he has overseen a 0.75% average annual increase in jobs.  For G.W. Bush his first term he had a 0.51% increase in jobs and his second term it was -0.84%.  No other president since since FDR ever had an average loss of jobs over a full term.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

    • Anonymous

       You are kidding, right? I suggest you check out some economists with some intellectual acumen.

      • Anonymous

        Perhaps you’d like to send me your short list?
        I don’t think accusing those of opposite viewpoints of being intellectually stunted is a productive addition to the debate.

        • Anonymous

          You were not being accused of  inferior intellectual capacity nor was your view point  being questioned.   Your facts were.  It is perfectly legitimate to challenge facts.  Try re-reading  for meaning. 

          • Anonymous

            I was not defending myself– I was assuming Kayak was referring to the letter writer and questioning his intellectual acumen.
            Very often on this board people have said Republicans lack intelligence. This charge is often leveled back at liberals. It’s not my thing. I think it is best to argue the facts presented, not the level of intelligence of the presenter.

    • pbmann

      Mr Montgomery placed the blame for men losing all those jobs which is just untrue.  The vast majority of men lost their jobs before Obama came into office or in other words while Bush was in office.

      Romney used the statistic that 92% of the women lost their jobs under Obama as prove that Obama was not working for women’s interests.  He neglected to say that most of the jobs lost to men happened under Bush and that this pattern was normal for most recessions in the past as well.  Men lose the jobs first and then women.

  • Anonymous

    Andrew Lugdon:  good letter.
    Gloria Boynton: the letter you criticized emphasized the teachings of Jesus not Leviticus.  I fail to see the harm to traditional marriage by allowing SSM.
    Michael Montgomery:  a somewhat hperbolic attack and a well written letter by Hannah Pingree.  Shouldn’t we expect better?

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Montgomery, I really don’t get how you could imply that President Obama is a “job slaughterer” when the recession was caused by the Bush administration.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/10/mitt-romney/romney-campaign-says-women-were-hit-hard-job-losse/

    • Anonymous

       Bush has been gone for more than three years. It is time to move on here Obama owns this economy. He has created more debt in 3and 1/2 years than Bush did in 8 and with what result? Is your home worth more? Are you earning more? Does it cost you more to live now than it did just 2 years ago after Obama’s first year. Obama had a Democratic Congress and a Democratic Senate for 2 years what did they accomplish in terms of the economy?
      Pingree is a Democrat. Obama is a Democrat. Do you think she isn’t going to feed someone the party line. People need to look at the stark economic reality here. Obama ain’t working
      and for anyone to draw the conclusion or even infer that Mitt Romney has a thing against women is stuck on stupid.  

      • Anonymous

        Bush has been gone for three years but he was the cause of the huge number of layoffs in the very beginning of Obama’s presidency.  You may make the case that Obama hasn’t done enough to create jobs but the crash and early fallout came from Bush’s watch.  That cannot be denied.

        • Anonymous

           OK, let’s use the Crash analogy. You crash your new car in October of 2007, Obama takes over as the new auto body shop manager. You are making payments on your car of $530 a month. 3 and 1/2 years later your car still isn’t fixed. Obama promises to fix your car if he stays on as auto body shop manager. You are paying for empty promises nothing is being fixed.  

          • Anonymous

            Bush and his criminal friends got us in the worse mess since the Great Depression. Obama is digging us out. We all knew it would take some time. I’m not an Obama supporter because he is Bush all over again when it comes to civil liberties. He’s continuing what Bush/Cheney started in 2001. But it was on Bush’s watch that it all collapsed. It’s a FACT.

          • ChuckGG

            That is an overly simplistic example.  The economy spans many administrations and cannot be flipped on or off at a moment’s notice.  We have a distinct advantage over countries such as Greece.  Yes, we had a terrible economic downturn due to Wall Street shenanigans but we also have mass.  We have a huge economy.  It takes a long time for us to slow down and conversely it take a long time to start up.  Greece and smaller countries do not have that “mass” and thus are more susceptible on a day to day basis.

            We talk about huge debts, and they are huge, and I would not lightly dismiss them, but our GDP is nearly $15 trillion annually.  The GDP of Greece is $301 billion.  Huge difference.

            We are on our way to recovery.  I have seen no real plan from the GOP (and I am a Republican) that would have done any better, any faster.  Playing Monday morning quarterback buys us nothing.  TARP and all that was started under Bush.  That was the recovery plan and really probably the only plan.  You see, the economy is not just facts and figures.  It is very susceptible to public perception and confidence.  When the crash occurred, people (including banks and investment houses) did what people always do, they pulled back to the safest possible position.  The GOP’s idea of cutting taxes to the quick (their answer for everything) never would have worked.  People were not going to invest or spend any money regardless of the tax situation.  There was no credit and there certainly was no confidence.  This is the worst of the worst of situations.   It was not until the public, the banks, and the investment houses started to feel confident again that we started to see some recovery.

            Just as I mentioned in another post, the GM/Chrysler bailout really was necessary for many reason, not the least of which was to ensure the automotive industry remained in the USA and there was confidence behind it.  Some have suggested that we should have allowed GM and Chrysler to go through bankruptcy, thinking that a white knight would ride in with billions to buy up the remains of our auto industry.  This was Romney’s M.O. for this business dealings.  But, this was far bigger than Romney had ever tackled and he misses the point that there was NO money in the commercial sector to bailout GM and Chrysler.  The banks and investment houses didn’t have it.  If they did, there was no confidence in the auto industry and thus who would throw money after that albatross given the current economic situation.  The only entity that could have saved the auto industry was the government.  And, it worked out.  The loans are paid back.  The companies are doing great.  What more could one want?  Romney says “it could have been done faster and better.”  Faster and better than what happened?  I doubt it.  It is a success story, like it or not.

            This economy will recover.  It has recovered far faster than the Great Depression.  All numbers are positive.  They certainly were not in the latter part of 2008.  It needs time.  I don’t see any viable plan put forward by the GOP that would do any better without being Draconian when that approach is not needed.

          • pbmann

            A real bad analagy.

            A better one would be Bush was piloting a oil supertanker that takes 10 miles to stop.  He keeps the tanker moving without initating the stop proceedure and Obama takes over the piloting of the supertanker 9 miles from shore and hits the stop command immediately. 

            Who is responible for the inevitable collision?  The captain who did not start the stop proceedure in time or the captain who started the stop procedure as soon as he took over control?

          • Anonymous

            You’re right – I like this one better…

          • Anonymous

             better yet. They both put the country on auto pilot and bailed!

          • pbmann

            No, I don’t think either bailed.  One just did what he was told and one is trying to correct 30 years of Reaganomics compounded by 8 years of Republican incompetence.

          • Anonymous

             When Reagan, Bush Sr.were President and Clinton took office the Congress and Senate were Democrat. In 2006 The Congress and Senate again was controlled by Democrats.
            President Obama for 2 years had a grand opportunity to get the economy moving using the advantage of his party. He chose to focus on health care not the economy. The question was posed to his Treasury Secretary what has the President done to advance the economy. Answer ” he has made health care available to everyone”. Hello..not jobs..health care. Blame Bush, but if you want Obama back you are hiring a nice guy but can he run your company? 

          • pbmann

            Nice try but wrong.

            In the 1980’s and early 1990’s the senate bounced between Democratic and Republican control with nither party having total control of the Senate.  In 1994, two years after Clinton took office, ther Republican took control of the House and kept it until 2006.  In 2001 and until mid 2002 when Sen. Jeffers left the Republican Party, G.W. Bush had both the Senate and the House under Republican control.

            Democrats regained control of the House and in 2008 gained the majority of Both the House and the Senate but not the control of the Senate.  Forty Republican Senators filibustered, and continue to filibuster, anything that they deemed would help Obama out.  this meant filibustering over 250 bills submitted by the House in 2008 and 2009.  Some of the bills that never got voted on reduced the tax rate for small businesses and made borrowing easier for small businesses, why?  Because it may have helped the economy but it would also have helped Obama.

            The Republican house has not passed any true “jobs” bills.  Any legislation they passed that they claimed was a jobs bill always required cutting taxes on the very rich and corporations, the poorly misnamed “job Creators”.

             

          • Anonymous

             Wrong but wrong again …up to 1986 the Senate was Republican. From 1986 to 1994 it was Democrat. From 1994 to 2006 both the Congress and Senate were Republican. From 2006 to 2010 the Congress and Senate were Democrat controlled FOUR years. 2 under Bush and 2 under Obama. Now you have a Republican Congress…they pas a bill  and the Democratic Senate ala Harry Reid throws their bills in the trash can. Look at the balanced budget amendment passed last summer by the Republican Congress. Reid wouldn’t even hold an up or down vote on it. So blame the Republicans it’s all a game.

          • pbmann

            Oh and this is my country not my company….. a very big difference.  We had the first CEO of America with Bush Jr.  How well did that go?

          • Anonymous

            That’s a stupid analogy.   Find something more relevant. 

          • Anonymous

            You think any amount of damage done to a car could be comparable to literally trillions of dollars gone? That doesn’t even make sense. It’d be more like having serious damage done and then 3.5 days later screaming that it hasn’t been fixed yet. To go even further with the analogy, it’d be like half the mechanics rooting for a failure.

          • Anonymous

            You don’t get it… your making payments on something you are not using for three and a half years while the person you hired to fix it isn’t doing the job for you. SO go ahead …keep making the payments…hire him again for another four years. Meanwhile, over the next four years, will you get a raise…a job, pay less for heating oil, sell your house, will you pay less for food, will the price of gas go down. Will taxes go up will the economy be fixed. If you answer yes to all of these by all means Hire Obama..he’s your man.

          • Anonymous

            No, there is nothing to get, you made a crappy analogy. 

          • Anonymous

            ridiculous comparison….absolutely absurd!

        • Anonymous

           Presidents don’t ‘create’ jobs. The blame needs be laid at Wall Street’s doors.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, I agree the president can’t create jobs (though Romney would disagree with that since that’s all he’s running on – ‘I can run the country like a business’ – probably intends to fire all us poor people who are useless to the elite now that Brazil, China and India are growing and can ‘consume’) but he can take a strong leadership position, something Obama seems reluctant to do. I do give credit to him saving the automobile industry. We would definitely be in a depression if the millions of auto industry connected jobs had gone away. The Republicans can cry socialist all they want. It was the right move.

          • pbmann

            Romney is not a strong leader as shown by his ability to be on both sides of an argument at the same time. 

            Romney, if you don’t like his stance on something today just wait until tomorrow.

      • Anonymous

        That doesn’t matter. The recession didn’t magically go away when Bush left office. There have been countless repercussions and we’re still recovering from the effects. It’s a miracle that any of us have jobs at all.

      • Anonymous

         It took Bush 8 years to break it.  Why not give the repairman time to fix it?

        • Anonymous

           Would you let the maintenance man sit on the Queen’s throne in England for 4 years? LOL

          • pbmann

            When a bridge collapses it happens within minutes but the repair of that bridge takes months.  Most things take longer to fix then they did to break.

          • Anonymous

            Maintenance man?   Throne?   Your prejudices are showing?  

      • Anonymous

         Ummmm, that would be because he was working on keeping the country from sinking further into the quagmire created by 8 years of economic despoilment. I will repeat Presidents do not create jobs. You and I do….. and regulation that keeps those who would disabuse us in line. Those same people who shout the loudest about government spending less make this argument. Sorry, the logic fails me.

      • Anonymous

        Oh,good,  the spoiled brat rule:  “We break it, you fix it.   Today,so can break it tomorrow”.

          That’s always the way it is with Republicans. They enrich the wealthy by  breaking the social and financial structures, hand the presidency off to a Democrat to fix. Complain that they aren’t fixing it right.  Take back the presidency and again break it.  Republicans have done this again and again, from the time of the Gilded Age right up to today.  

        • Anonymous

           I’m not a spoiled brat …I’m an Independent…I maintain things. I use a kitchen table budget, use my resources wisely, not rich, not poor but I do it right. Democrats spend it as fast as Republicans fix it or vice versa. Don’t matter to me. They are both just as bad.

          • Anonymous

            “kitchen table budget” ?   as opposed to,   say,  a living room couch budget or a bedroom dresser budget?   

          • Joseph Willingham

            What about my barstool budget?

            *hic*

      • Guest

        One word:  TARP.  The program that Bush initiated and spent BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to bail out his banking buddies on his way out the door.  Then gleefully continued by the current administration.  No capital free for investment, no jobs.  Commerce is holding its money hoping they can get better tax breaks from a new administration, meteing it out only for corporate bonuses and self-serving purposes.  So, go ahead and blame the current administration, but this one didn’t start the ball rolling with the big giveaway. 

        • Anonymous

           And what Congress and Senate voted for TARP….the Democrats! Yep! blame Bush! not the Democrats…they never appropriated any money for it now did they…they just followed his marching orders.

  • Anonymous

    Gloria Boynton – Stand your ground. You’re right, and the left is going to crucify you.

    Michael R. Montgomery – You knocked that one out of the park. Obama has been bad for all Americans.

    David Melochick – Nugent rocks. And if the truth were out, far many on the left have said far worse than Ted said. But, that’s the old double standard in action. I hope the concert sells out.

    • Anonymous

      Like you crucify gays?

      • Anonymous

        Good one!  But when they selectively do what the Bible says, they are satisfied they are doing their duty.  Now, where did I leave those stones…?

      • Anonymous

        EJ Parsons shows us what a hypocrite he really is.

        Nugent faked a mental illness to avoid military service. This is draft dodging in its lowest form. Given EJ’s self promotion as retired military, this should leave Nugent with no credibility.

        Nugent’s conviction for illegal hunting means that he a proven law breaker. Given EJ’s position on criminals, Nugent should not have any credibilty with him.

        Nugent’s appetite for underage girls shows a lack of morality. Given EJ’s past posts in this forum on his self proclaimed morality, this should have suffered the wrath of God; therefore, a lack of credibility according to EJ.

        Yet, Nugent says something stupid about the president and EJ backs him all the way. This is the real EJ Parsons. It’s OK to lie, break the law and sexaully abuse young girls as long as you bash President Obama.

        I wish I could be there when you meet your maker. You will have plenty to explain.

        • Anonymous

          You’ll meet my Maker one of these days. If you want, you can ask Him if I’d been His way yet. 

          As for Nugent, you should check out the Snopes file on him. After you read it, you might want to edit your comment.

          • Anonymous

            So you have a standard for those who agree with you and a different one for those you disagree with. That’s pathetic.

          • Anonymous

            As usual, you’ve managed to read something that isn’t there in my comments. 

          • Anonymous

            No, it’s there. But as usual, you’ve managed to skirt personal responsibility for your comments. Once again, a standard for yourself and another one for those you disagree with. Funny how that works.

          • Anonymous

            You gotta love EJ and his threats that “you’ll meet my Maker one of these days”    Talk about ego!!!!   When did god become a wholly owned subsidiary of EJParsons?   LOL

          • Anonymous

            Ego? Threat? Hardly.  It’s just what I believe. You can take it or leave it. 

    • Anonymous

      So you are fine with hypocrisy as long as it agrees with your dislike of gays?

      I forget where Jesus said the ends justify the means, was that in one of the apocrypha? 

      • Anonymous

        Never have I ever said I dislike gays. I just don’t agree with altering marriage to satisfy their desire to wed. Civil unions should suffice. Leave marriage alone.

        And Jesus never said that the ends justify the means.

        • Joseph Willingham

          Would a civil union suffice for you?

          • ChuckGG

            No, not for me.  See my response above.

        • ChuckGG

          Simple issue.  The problem is that the term, “marriage” may well be one used by churches but that is irrelevant to the law.  The term “marriage” also is used by the secular, civil world to describe a concept similar but different than a church wedding.  There certainly are civil weddings called marriages between a man and woman that are legal and are considered “marriages.”  That’s the legal term for it as far as the state goes.   This state-sponsored marriage has nothing to do with a church and no mention of god or religion is part of the standard civil marriage ceremony.  Can we agree on that?

          Okay, then what you want is a “civil union” instead of “marriage” for state-sponsored wedding ceremonies for gay couples?  There is the problem.  Two concepts in law that mean exactly the same thing end up being called the same thing.  If A=C and B=C, then it will be called C.  That’s just the way it works.  So, civil unions are not equal to marriage.  Here is the acid test.  Civil marriages are recognized by the State, by all other States, by the Federal government, and by all other countries.  Civil Unions, on the other hand, are not recognized by all other states, nor by the Federal government, nor by all other countries.

          There you have it in a nutshell.  That is why for the purposes of civil marriages, the state-issued marriage contract must be blind to the genders of the participants.  The couple is “married,” case closed.  That way, you don’t have other states saying, “we recognize different gender marriages but not same sex marriages.”  Right now, they can say, “we recognize marriages, but we don’t recognize civil unions.”  The 14th Amendment, “Full Faith & Credit clause” resolves this issue of marriage contracts in one state in that they must be recognized by other states.  This is one of the reasons DOMA is doomed.  It just beyond unconstitutional and no doubt will be shot down in flames soon enough.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Holy cow, this is awesome!!!!

          • Joseph Willingham

            I don’t know how, still, they could circumvent the Full Faith and Credit clause like they did.

          • Anonymous

            Because the 14th Amendment doesn’t cover chosen lifestyles. And, as of yet, the homosexual lifestyle has not been proven otherwise.

        • RoostookGuy

          Liar.

        • Joseph Willingham

          Again, would you enter into a civil union with the person you love?  Does “Civil Union” me convey the same meaning of love and commitment?

          Just WHAT about civil unions makes it sufficient for me?

    • RoostookGuy

      crucify ?  WHAT a drama queen !

  • kcjonez

    Gloria Boynton–Here we go again…….You are cherry picking one verse out of a largely fictional 2,000+ year old document to try to impose your bigoted and misinformed will on others in the name of mythology.   I wouldn’t have such a negative view of your “religion” if you would advocate against the other abominations as loudly as you do the gay issue–to wit– 

    Unclean things including lobster and clams and other shellfish (Lev. 7:21)
    Cheating (Mic. 6:10)
    A proud look (Pro. 6:16-17)
    A lying tongue (Pro. 6:17; 12:22)
    Hands that shed innocent blood ((Pro. 6:17)
    A wicked scheming heart (Pro. 6:18)
    Feet that are quick to sin (Pro. 6:18)
    A false witness that speaks lies (Pro. 6:19)
    A sower of discord (Pro. 6:19)
    Wickedness (Pro. 8:7)
    A false balance or scale (Pro. 11:1)
    The proud of heart (Pro. 16:5)
    Justifying the wicked (Pro. 17:15)
    Condemning the just (Pro. 17:15)
    Refusing to hear the law (Pro. 28:9)
    Prayers of the rebel (Pro. 28:9)
    Eating flesh of peace offerings on the 3rd day (Lev. 7:18)
    Wearing clothes of the opposite sex (Dt. 22:5) 
    Re-marriage of former companions (Dt. 24:1-4)
    Cheating others (Dt. 25:13-16)
    Making images/idols (Dt. 27:15)
    Incense offered by hypocrites (Isa. 1:13)
    Eating unclean things (Isa. 66:17)
    Offering human sacrifices (Jer. 32:35)
    Robbery (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Murder (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Adultery (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Oppression of others, particularly the poor or vulnerable (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Violence (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Breaking vows (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Lending with interest to a brother (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Lying with a menstruous woman (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Hardness of heart (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Injustice (Ezek. 18: 6-13)
    Incest (Lev. 19: 6-30)

    and more…….So, seriously, I think you have work to do–I’m particularly concerned aboutOppression of others, particularly the poor or vulnerable & Lending with interest to a brother.  I think we could do a lot more good for both your God and the rest of the world by focusing more on these issues and less on your particular obsession.

    • Anonymous

      So when Gloria speaks out against immorality it’s an obsession but for you to speak out against lending with interest it’s just a genuine concern straight from the heart. you gotta love liberal logic. As a side note, if you would spend as much time trying to learn the Bible as you spent copying and pasting off some liberal website you just might come away with some real perspective.

      • kcjonez

        Love is immoral?  Maybe you are the one that needs to study the good book.  

        • Anonymous

          What if I loved your spouse? Would that be okay? What if I loved alcohol more than my family. You really can’t think of any sort of love that is comletely inappropriate? Really?

          • Anonymous

            There is a difference between mutual and harmless love and what you’re coming up with. Obviously. 

          • Anonymous

            Logic is not your strong point.

          • Anonymous

             There are plenty of instances where love might be inappropriate.  It just that you don’t have the right to make that decision in any of those instances… including someone being in love with your, or my, spouse!

          • Anonymous

            “What if I loved your spouse?”

            People do it every day of the week. But is it illegal and codified into the countries legal code as such? No it isn’t.
            ~~~~~
            “What if I loved alcohol more than my family.”

            Again people do that every day of the week too. In some cases it is illegal (i.e. driving a car under the influence, atv, etc…) but the legal basis is not a religious text.
            ~~~~~
            “You really can’t think of any sort of love that is comletely inappropriate? Really?”

            Here is a list (not all inclusive) of “love” that is illegal. Bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc… Please not that homosexuality is not among that list because the SCOTUS ruled that sodomy laws were illegal in Lawrence vs. Kansas.

      • Anonymous

        No, it’s purely selective. Unless you’re forcing legislative remedies to fight other sins, then you’re being a bit of a hypocrite. 

      • Anonymous

        It may have been copied and pasted from a “liberal” website, but is it not accurate?  Why must the entire bible be read in order to put these ancient laws into perspective?  Were they not the words of the god you worship?

      • Anonymous

        When did a religious text become the basis of secular law?

      • Two generations of Biblical scholors have determined that the BIble is not using the term homosexuality the way you think it is. You are using it for the same hate that it was used for in the past and as excuses to kill innocents. 

        • Anonymous

          really, jersey? care to give us the facts on these two generations of Biblical scholars? Name names and studies? or just vagueness to try and prove your point.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Apparently if you question these sorts of statements it’s up to you to prove them wrong.  It’s never up to them to back them up.

      • Anonymous

         kcjonez quoted from the Bible. When did the  bible become  “some liberal website”  ?  Too funny!!! 

    • Anonymous

      These were quotes and rules that were ascribed to the Israelites not Christians as they did not exist during these times.  The New Testament is for Christians. How do I know this? Because when Jesus sent the Apostles out as missionaries to spread the Good News, He did not state that any new converts had to subscribe to Old Testament law.

      Also, read Jude 1:7 if you want to know for certain The Lord’s view on homosexuality.

      • Anonymous

        Removed and improved

      • Anonymous

        Jude 1:7 (King James Version (KJV))
         7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an
        example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

        So, where is the reference to homosexuality?  “…strange flesh…?”  That could be anything from same gender to different race to bestiality.  Are you really going to hang an entire system of hate and vindictive vituperation on that?

        • Anonymous

          Yeah, the lord isn’t very clear on this one.

          • RoostookGuy

            He’s perfectly clear.  He says nothing about homosexuality or homosexuals.

      • Anonymous

        And what does Jesus say about homosexuals Kent?

        • Anonymous

          Kent has given you the correct answer.  The answer is “nothing.”

  • Anonymous

    If I may make a slight change to Gloria’s last paragraph:

    “Vote in favor of same-gender marriage. Thousands of Maine families, consisting of husband/wife, mother/father, are counting on you.”

    Gay people have families who love and support them, too.

  • Anonymous

    Ms. Boynton, Explain to me what is going to happen to “Thousands of Maine families, consisting of husband/wife, mother/father, who are counting on you” if gay marriage is approved? My children were raised by me, a single mother, not a husband/wife, mother/father. Does that mean we weren’t a family? Time to get over your homophobia and” Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
    Isn’t that the Golden Rule? I believe that’s also in the Bible.

    Instead of living in fear of someone else’s life style, why don’t you live and let live? A gay couple marrying is going to do nothing to you.

  • Anonymous

    To Gloria Boynton: What brilliant historical analysis you offer. One can find similar jeremiads dating back to the Puritan preachers of the 17th and 18th centuries, though they didn’t explicitly condemn gay marriage. How sad that you can’t show any compassion toward those who only want to be married. And do you condemn single parents and divorced couples with equal hatred? Or are you just selective in your moral outrage?

  • Guest

    —–

    • Anonymous

       I will cast my vote for President Romney…that choice is easy!

      • Guest

        —–

  • Guest

    —–

  • Anonymous

    Gloria Boynton, I hate to break the news to you but two adult people of the same sex who are in love and desire to get married will not corrupt anyones morals, so don’t be afraid. The world will not come to an end, the sky will not fall and no opposite sex married couples and their families will be in danger from one of those harmless but scary gay marriages!

  • Anonymous

    Gloria you are 100% correct. One only has to read the posts here to see how low we have sunk morally. Watch the Biblical ignorance that is sure to follow. The Bible convicts one of sin and that is precisely why they despise and twist it to no end.

    • Anonymous

      I’m not a christian, or a jew, so how in a country that does not effect the establishment of religion, can you justify public policy that is based on religious dogma. Don’t impose your arbitrary religious rules on me or anyone else, please.

  • Anonymous

    Michael R. Montgomery, if I read you correctly, you are condeming President Obama for not creating as many jobs as President Bush did in their 2nd year in office. Can you also compare the state of the nation at the same stage in their presidencies?
    I do believe that President Bush came into office with the nation well on its way to haveing the books balanced and paying down the debt.
    I do believe that President Obama came into office with the nation on the verge of colapse into a depression that would have been equal if not greater than the ‘Great Depression’.

    Are you expousing the do nothing policies that allowed the ‘Great Depression’ to sink this nation and the world into the fertile bed that brought us WWII? I hope your students have more common sense and write your classes off as a loss.

    • Anonymous

       It begs the question what progress has President Obama made toward getting the country out of debt? He has driven us further into debt..that is the problem. He has not shown us the way out or the way up. We are worse off now, he has not demonstrated anything through action…he only uses words and never produces any results. What has changed…where is the hope. Nothing…there is none.

      • Anonymous

        The hope is in the fact that Ford, Chrysler and GM are still in existence and their suppliers are still in existence. Their dealerships are still in existence. That entails millions of people who are still making a paycheck. If we had let them go belly up as many conservatives wished we would have an even worse situation than we have at the moment.

      • Anonymous

        He saved the country from going off a cliff.   It really would be helpful if you paid attention to more than just the right wing messaging machine.

  • Anonymous

    Gloria Boynton, I find it curious how some people scour the Bible to find things to condemn their fellow human beings. Is their no love or charity in the Bible?

    • Anonymous

      Is there nothing, nothing at all in this life that you feel compelled to speak out against.
      Have we as a nation become so PC that we fear making a stand against anything?

      • Anonymous

        I don’t feel that I’m being PC when I speak out against hate. If I see, what I feel is an injustice, I have no compunctions about speaking out. That is the beauty of living in America. You have the right to speak out in your opinions also.

        • Anonymous

          So are you being hateful in speaking out against what you perceive to be hate? You make the false assumption that we are hateful in speaking out but yet that same logic doesn’t apply to you? Isn’t that just a tad hypocritical?

          • Anonymous

            You cannot deny that people do direct hate at homosexuals.

          • Anonymous

            Some people.

          • Anonymous

            I did not say “all” people…I said “people”.

      • Anonymous

        I think it’s funny, you only hear the far right complaining about things being PC when it’s offensive stuff they want to hurl. And yet, they’re so sensitive that wishing someone “happy holidays” is considering a religious attack.

  • Anonymous

    Your marriage is so weak that strangers you don’t even know exist can destroy it? Sounds like you have bigger problems.

  • Anonymous

    Gloria Boynton, it is pretty hypocritical to hold up old testament abominations you have no problem avoiding, while ignoring all the other old testament abominations that occur every day. Do you never work on saturday, eat shellfish, or wear mixed fabrics?

    Offering civil marriage to same sex couples is the right thing to do, so that all Maine families can protect the lives they build together.

  • Anonymous

    Michael Montgomery shame on you. This economy was not created by Obama. He inherited it. You are an economics professor for god’s sake. You know better. I would encourage you to educate yourself by checking out Econ4. I sure hope your students see beyond your shortsightedness and look to other role models for credible economic theory.

    • Anonymous

      I seem to recall assurances from President Obama’s administration that the bailout he wanted and received was critical to keeping the unemployment under 9%. It took almost four years to get it under 9% and even then many economists believe it is due to people giving up rather than job creation.

      Look, I don’t believe President Obama is “perfect”. I didn’t think President Bush was “perfect” either. But it IS President Obama’s policies now and he needs to take responsibility (I doubt he ever) for what those policies are and are not doing.

      • Anonymous

         Neither am I an Obama supporter. However, I did not miss the article that addressed this issue of unemployment in which it was argued pretty clearly that presidents have little effect on job growth. Don’t you think it odd that Wall Street is doing well while job seekers are not? The government does not create jobs. Just listen to all those in posts here who want government to do less. You cannot have it both ways….. government doing less AND more jobs created by the executive branch. Jobs are a function of money to spend. And very few of us have it.

        • Anonymous

           It is government regulation that is the problem. It is government uncertainty and the fact that businesses are unwilling to invest in an uncertain economy that is the problem. They do not know which way the winds of government influence will blow. So they will sit on their cash until things stabilize.

          • Anonymous

            Business has had no problem investing in new factories in foreign countries that are secured in large part by the stability brought to their regions by the blood of our soldiers.

          • Anonymous

            Lack of proper regulation was the reason that we got in this financial disaster.  Things will stabilize when the Republicans put country before party,  or when there is a Democratic sweep in the upcoming election.

          • Anonymous

            You had a Democrat President, Democrat Senate and Democrat House and all you did was pass a failed stimulus and a potentially unconstitutional Health Care law.  I think I’d rather not see the damage you plan to do next.

          • Anonymous

            I have no interest in what you think.

      • Anonymous

        As it turned out when all the numbers were in the financial devastation that Bush left the country was way more than they said that it was.   
        The continued obstruction from the Republicans towards anything that the Obama administration tried to do is a major reason for the slow recovery.    The stimulus should have been larger, and now even the doubters are agreeing on this.
        I cannot understand why anyone who has looked into Romney’s record would think that he would be a better  president.  Vulture capitalist, 47th in jobs when he was governor of Ma. are a few areas to look at.
        One cannot recall what one does not know.

        • Anonymous

          Thank you for responding and questioning my recall.

          The report was issued in January of 2009 authored by Christina Romer, the incoming chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, chief economic adviser for incoming Vice President Joe Biden.

          On page 4 of that report a chart is found that shows that without a recovery plan totaling about $775 billion, the U.S. unemployment rate was expected to peak at 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, it shows unemployment was projected to top out at just under 8 percent towards the end of 2009.

          According to a NYTimes article published March 15, 2012 there were three (3) economic stimulus packages passed since 2007. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html )

          #1 – A bipartisan $158 billion package of tax cuts signed by President George W. Bush in early 2008,

          #2 – A $787 billion bill pushed by President Obama when he took office in 2009 in the wake of the financial system’s collapse (which was $12,000,000,000.00 more then the report stated would keep unemployment under 8%), and

          #3 – A tax cut and unemployment fund extension agreement reached by Mr.
          Obama and Congressional Republicans in 2010 and extended again to cover
          2012.

          You also conveniently forget that until the mid-term election of 2010 President Obama enjoyed a House and Senate that was controlled by the Democrats.

          So when does President Obama start to take responsibility for his policies?

          • Anonymous

            Information that became  available after this report by Christina Romer that you site showed the ‘hole’ to  be much more than was initially projected by the Bush team.   That  is the information that I was referring to that you seem to be unaware of, still.

            I believe that the President does take responsibility for getting the economy in better shape and that he is doing the best that he can in spite of Republican obstructionism.  He did save the country from going off a cliff and things are improving albeit slower than if he would have been able to pass a more substantial stimulus.   That he does not take responsibility for the mess that Bush left  may be a sore spot for Republicans and their talking points, but it is reasonable.

            I do wish that he taken more proactive policies on the housing front.

            I really do not get your point from the info that you have provided.

  • Anonymous

    It amazes me how uncaring, unlinking, and close minded you are. God taught love not hate. I am pretty sure that God would frown on your condemnation of others before frowning on individuals loving each other. What about bible versus such as God is love, judge not lest thee be judged, and treat others as I have treated you.

  • Anonymous

    Gloria, please do not impose your religious feelings on the rest of us. The use of religious dogma to justify law effects the establishment of religion, which is prohibited by the Constitution. If you can find a non religious reason to justify prohibiting gay marriage, fine, but quoting scripture is a waste of time because we don’t use scripture to make our laws. That’s what theocracies like Iran do.

  • Anonymous

    David- I agree. Ted has been a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and personal ownership of firearms his entire life. This alone is more than enough reason for the city of Bangor to welcome him, and also for the city to say thanks for all that he has done for America.

    • Anonymous

      There is nothing wrong with a person supporting the 2nd Amendment.  I believe the Supreme Court did just that a while ago.   There is nothing wrong with a person owning firearms and using them appropriately.  Many enjoy hunting, competitive shooting, target practice and collecting.  

      However,  a person that thinks  freedom of speech means its OK to publicly threatening the life of the President of the United States( especially a president that has not even suggested any laws against gun ownership)  is neither mentally stable nor very intelligent.  

      Is it a good idea to have a not very smart and not very stable, gun totting, President hating, politically aggressive, verbally abusive person on stage at a non-political, family and music oriented gathering?

      • Anonymous

        It seems that the U.S. Secret Service disagrees with your threat assessment.

        • Anonymous

          The Secret Service were  assessing his potential for carrying out his veiled threat to President Obama not his appropriateness and acceptance at a music festival.  He has shown he has no self control in a public venue.  I’m not willing to take a chance of exposing family groups to verbal political abuse when there are plenty of other charming and talented people to invite to the festival. 

          • Anonymous

            Sorry sally but threatening the life of the President (with or without the ability to carry it out) is a federal crime. So when the U.S. Secret Service finds that no further action is necessary means no threat was made.

            “I’m not willing to take a chance of exposing family groups to verbal
            political abuse when there are plenty of other charming and talented
            people to invite to the festival. ” Do you feel the same way about liberal entertainers as you do about conservative ones?

            Kanye West made some outrageous comments about President Bush during a telethon to raise money for Katrina relief. Would you not take your family to see him?

            I have friends in New Jersey that paid $100.00+ per ticket to a Bruce Springsteen concert (it was their anniversary gift to each other) and ended up walking out because of his verbal political commentary.  Would you not take your family to see him?

          • Anonymous

            Ted Nugent is mentally unstable and verbally aggressive.   That’s a fact whether you like it or not.  Do you want a mentally unstable person at the Bangor Folk Festival.  That’s the question.  Whether he is a mentally unstable liberal or conservative is not the question.

          • Anonymous

            And you received your PhD or MD from what institution of higher education to allow you to diagnose a person as “mentally unstable”?

          • Anonymous

            So you consider his performance at the NRA convention normal and appropriate for the Bangor FolkFestival?

          • Anonymous

            So what you are saying is you have no PhD or MD from any institution of higher education that would allow you to make a medical diagnosis of a persons mental “stability” one way or the other.

            Since I didn’t see his “performance” in its entirety it is difficult to classify his actions as being “mentally unstable”. Did he make a poor choice of words? Yes, absolutely he did to the point that the Secret Service investigated them…and found them non-threatening and no further action was required.

            Is his appearance as part of the Waterfront Concert Series (not the AFF) appropriate? That’s not for me to decide. That decision is up to the promoter.

          • Anonymous

            As far as I can determine, he isn’t appearing at the Bangor Folk Festival. He is appearing in an unrelated event with REO Speedwagon and Styx.

          • Joseph Willingham

            But that seems like a judgement call.  Maybe there are venues where family groups shouldn’t go.  It’s a choice for the families to attend or not attend.  I don’t like the idea of someone banning an entertainer because of voicing an unpopular view or the way that view is expressed.

          • Anonymous

            Mr. Nugent did not simply voice an unpopular view at the NRA convention.  He indulged in  out of control verbal abuse.  That’s not a judgment call.  That’s what he did.  He appears to be an unstable person.  That means neither you nor the Bangor council can predict his behavior at the Bangor Folk Festival.  Is a political harangue appropriate at the Festival?

          • Anonymous

            Take the blinders off please..

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, Ask the Bangor PD how they feel about guns in the hands of idiots.

      • Joseph Willingham

        Are we all idiots?  Should all guns be taken away from the people because of a few idiots?  What’s your point?

        • Anonymous

          There are more than a few idiots with guns who should not have them. But to answer your question; no you are not all idiots. However, the poster that I responded to made an idiotic statement that “Ted” should be allowed to play in Bangor because he supports 2nd Amendment rights. I support 1st amendment rights so Ted Nugent should be able to say what he pleases unless someone like the president gets killed because of his idiotic statement. Then he should be held responsible and pay the penalty for what he said. Those are my points.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Ah, I see.  That makes sense.  Thanks!

      • Anonymous

        No need. Been there, done that.

  • Anonymous

    Ms. Boynton:  again with Leviticus?  It says all sorts of things, so should I go take care of my neighbor who had a lobster dinner last night?  It’s bad enough he was wearing double-knits at the party!

  • Anonymous

    Great job, Mr. Montgomery. Pingree’s column was over-the-top and downright whacky.

  • ChuckGG

    Mr. Montgomery:  I am not seeing how the financial debacle we got ourselves into in any way is Obama’s fault.  As far as the recovery goes, this Republican cannot see how the traditional method of cutting taxes to the quick would cause a economic stimulation.  At the time, 2008/2009, the financial markets, the banks, the international banks, were all in lock-down mode.  Banks would not loan to banks.  Money was locked up tight.  And, as you know, what makes an economy move is money moving, not sitting still.  “Risk adverse” was the name of the game at the time.

    I had a friend rant on about the “Cash for Clunkers” (CFC) program (as an example).  He explained about how this really didn’t save any gas or improve the overall mileage of the fleet, and so forth.  But, he missed the point entirely.  CFC was designed to get people to buy cars.  They could but they were too scared to do so (and understandably so), but when Bob & Sue down the street bought a new Chevy, Ted and Sally saw this and figured they could do it, too.  It worked well.  It broke the ice.  People started buying again, CFC being a contributing factor.

    I had another friend (yet another Obama hater) who said GM and Chrysler should not have been bailed out and (parrotting the Romney spin) should have been allowed to go through bankruptcy.  Are you kidding?  That would have taken months and would have been the biggest confidence killer in history – GM failing?  Instead, funds came in, millions employed by GM/Chrysler, directly and indirectly (via outside suppliers) could rely on the confidence the two big companies would survive.  My friend went on to say, “it might have been done better.”  Better than what?  The loans are paid off, millions remain employed, sales are way up, Buick is the number one seller in China, and the confidence of the American automobile industry is restored.  How much “better” do you want it?

    I realize there are many Obama haters out there.  I see their reactions as emotional and not factual.  I do not know if they cannot see success, it is subliminal racial bias, it is ideological distrust – I have no idea why this President who took up the reins of government at the onset of the largest financial calamity since the Great Depression cannot catch a break and get one good word said about him.  He nailed Osama bin Laden.  What, no one complained about the helicopter than was lost?  Should we send a bill to Obama for the malfunctioning helicopter?  I swear the man could pass solid gold bars and his critics would complain he is not passing them fast enough, nor are they really shiny enough.  The criticism of this President (yes, we have a black guy as President), is unfounded.  Cut the guy some slack.  Given the state of the economy, I cannot see how we could be doing much better.  The Tea Party crowd is completely out to lunch on economic ideas, those being mostly Draconian instead of long-term, put forth by a bunch of freshman Congressman, wet behind the ears, with no understanding of the art of diplomacy or compromise.

    I know this would be anathema to the Fox News crowd, but tune in PBS’s “Frontline” and watch the minute-by-minute series called, “Money, Power, and Wall Street.”  Check out who was running the show when McCain announced he was suspending his campaign to return to Washington to work on the financial crisis.  Take a look at who was working behind the scenes, was fully vetted and aware of the situation.  This will provide a good timeline on what really happened behind the scenes and here in Washington.  I think this would be a great assignment for your students, as well.

    • Anonymous

      Great post.  Thanks.   The excessive antagonism is a mystery, isn’t it?    Where is it coming from?  If  you analyze carefully  the illogic behind the  accusations against President Obama one is left with the conclusion that the frantic hostility has its origins in bigotry.

      • ChuckGG

        Thanks.  I have tried to analyze where this hatred originates.  I think I have heard everything.  It clearly is emotional vs. factual.  Part of it could be racial but that seems almost too obvious.  Part might well be that Obama is very well-educated and well-spoken.  He comes off as an intellectual because he is one.  I think some people find intelligence threatening.  I’m not sure why but perhaps they feel inferior to him and also to a black man, which admittedly, that racial prejudice does exist.  A friend from the South told me that when he grew up, as hard as times might be, you always had the fact that you were better than a black man.  Appalling, but their reality.

        I also sense they do not consider Obama a “real” President.  I have heard people say “well, he has fancy parties in the White House, ” and “he uses Air Force One too much.”  They don’t quite “get it” that the man is the President of the United States of America.  With that title comes certain perks.

        I cannot give you an explanation for the excessive antagonism.  I suspect it is some combination of race, intelligence, intellectualism, and political party.  All together, he is unattractive to the ultra-conservative, religious, white, neo-cons and TP’ers who now control the GOP.

        What we have lost is the “loyal opposition” concept.  Years ago, the parties would battle it out and one party would win.  Once that happened, the “loyal opposition” jumped on the bandwagon for the good of the country and moved forward with OUR President’s agenda, interjecting its views where it felt necessary but ultimately moving the country forward.  Today, there are few gentlemen or gentlewoman in Congress with any sense of decorum.  They are rude, ill-mannered, and anything but diplomatic.  The religious crowd drones on about morality.  Instead, it should consider speaking toward civility, manners, and the deportment expected within an institution as esteemed as the United States Congress.

        A good example of this is the old movie, “Advise & Consent” from 1962.  It provides an example of how a code of ethics should be followed, and was followed, when Congress was not burdened with the low-class buffoons now occupying those seats.  Interestingly, and perhaps, coincidentally, the movie dealt with a gay issue even back then.  Available on Netflix, I imagine. 

    • Anonymous

      You know, Chuck, I would give Obama a break if it weren’t for some facts: His policies have made this bad economy linger and he has imposed so much debt upon our country that we have lost our AAA credit rating for the first time ever. His party has been unwilling to submit a budget in Congress since he was elected. His administration has said up the war in Afghanistan, continue the Patriot Act, assassinate US citizens without the benefit of trial, sue the state of Arizona for attempting to enforce federal laws.
      Obama is an idealogue who is willing to put his utopian agenda into place regardless of the real costs to the citizens of this country. He is so blinded to the reality of this country. Accusing others of racial bias, or irrational hatred may make you feel better, but it is not reality either. I have no hatred for the President. I also have no confidence in his policies, or his ability to lead this country.

      • ChuckGG

        I have a mixed reaction to your statement, some in agreement, and other not.  I see nothing that the GOP could have done to improve the economy any faster.  It tends to have a life of its own and how much any president to can do is questionable.  We have seen this throughout history.  The GOP solution to cut taxes to the quick would have bought us nothing.  No one was interested in investing a dime and cutting taxes would not have triggered any growth nor instilled any confidence.  It would only have increased the debt.

        Do remember that TARP was a Bush plan and frankly was the only plan that could have happened.  Had the government not stepped in with TARP, we could have seen a worldwide collapse of the financial system.

        When a president comes into office, he has a great number of plans, but then reality hits.  With regard to the wars, I am sure he listened closely to JCS and Gates and heeded reality.  At least Iraq is dramatically scaled back.  Afghanistan is another matter and is being handled.  All of it takes time.  I am not crazy about the Patriot Act that originated under Bush, but I will accept that if someone who normally would be against such an Act (Obama) reversed his position on it, then there must be a very good reason for him doing so, probably one to which neither you or I are privy.  Taking out some technically U.S. citizen who committed treason and has denounced the USA, is the least of my worries.  It’s been done forever, directly or indirectly.  I happen to agree with suing AZ.  My hope would be that Congress would come up with a reasonable Immigration Plan, much like Bush-43 aspired to (but was shot down by his own party).  But, because there is so much hatred of immigrants – the same hatred shown to the Irish, the Jews, the Italians, and most of the other minority groups – nothing gets done in Congress.  A reasonable Immigration Plan and a government agency that actually could process some of the applications in under 10 years, would go a long way to solve the immigration issue.

        And, yes, perhaps Obama does have a Utopian agenda.  I would say “good.”  We need one.  When was the last time you were in Europe or in China?  Take a look at their infrastructure.  It’s almost embarrassing to come back here and look at our dog-eared, worn-out crap that we call our infrastructure.  When was the last time you saw something really new, neat, well-built, and for which you could be proud to say, “Built in America?”  Damn few and far between.  Instead, we relied upon the trickle-down theory (I was a Reagan Republican, too), in which we assumed allowing more profits to the rich (through lower taxes) would mean more investments in factories, infrastructure, jobs, and such.  It didn’t happen.  Instead, the companies took the easy way and invested in questionable financial instruments.  Why build a factory and take a risk when I can offshore all that, increase my profits, and invest in the market, and make far more money?  It was all human nature and it bit us in the behind in 2008.

        So, I am all for a major facelift in the USA.  We should be leading the world in mag-lev trains, the best highways, the best educated scientific minds (retaining some of those foreign students with a short-path to citizenship would help), a new space race, and the best of the high-tech manufacturing.  People need something to which to aspire.  I see very little coming from the GOP (and I’m one of the originals, now called a RINO) and far more futuristic goals coming from the current administration.  Also, it appears to me that the TP crowd would rather we simply stop everything, pay down the debt, and then move forward.  That will not work.  We cannot cripple the economy by failing to provide to business the necessary infrastructure and assets necessary to compete in today’s global economy.  It is fine and dandy to cling to pure capitalism.  Our competitors have not and they are burying us.  It is time to fight fire with fire.  Hiding in the closet and thinking the private sector will solve every problem is not realistic.  Left to their own devices they will take the easy way out and it won’t include the middle class or jobs.  We need to help small business, reduce some burdens, but certainly provide them with the means to accomplish what they need to do.  This means some deregulation and also some investment in infrastructure and education.  The ideologues on both sides need to meet in the middle and they are not.

        • Anonymous

          Bravo.  
          I would add that the loss of the country’s AAA rating was  a direct result from  the deficit ‘crisis’,    a crisis created by the Republican brouhaha when they refused to raise the debt limit so that the country could pay their financial obligations. It was not for MORE spending..   It was another cynical political ploy.   To say, as a poster does,  that President Obama is responsible is completely false.
          I am not saying that the deficit is unimportant, but austerity is not the answer now.   Look at Britain and their austerity policies which have landed them in a double dip recession.

          • ChuckGG

            Yes, true enough.  I forgot to mention S&P’s downgrade of the USA credit-rating.  That was such a debacle in Congress and truly an embarrassment to all intelligent people.  I have forgotten now what was tied to the debt extension that both parties regularly vote in favor of, but it was the first time some significant bill was tied to raising the debt ceiling.  I am pretty sure it was Draconian debt reduction.  It made Congress look like fools and certainly showed the inexperience and ineptitude of the freshman Congressmen who insisted on charging down the center of the ice instead of learning the effectiveness of a hat trick.

            Austerity is not what is needed right now.  Keep it in mind, yes.  Be efficient with the funds, certainly.  But, sitting back in a hole waiting for the debt to clear itself out while China and the Central European nations clean our clocks in technology and trade, leaving us even further back in the stone age, is not the way to go.  Even Reagan knew this and got the economy going by massive government buying and development in military programs and Star Wars.  Granted, the debt went up, but it did get the economy moving once again and the debt was paid off eventually, although it happened on Clinton’s watch.  This again, goes to my point that the economy knows nothing of a 4-year presidential term.  It always spans and cycles much greater time frames.  I am all for what works.  Unfortunately, most in Congress and most of the public have no sense of history so we are condemned to repeat  it.

          • Anonymous

             How soon they forget!

          • Anonymous

            How easy it is to lay the guilt  for Bush’s embarrassing administration on someone else. 

          • Anonymous

            The problem is the President received $12,000,000,000.00 more in “economic stimulus” money then he requested in January of 2009 with the stated goal of keeping unemployment below 8% by the end of 2009. It didn’t work. It was his policy, recommended by his economic advisers, passed by a Democrat controlled House and Senate and signed into law by the President.

            That was his policy…it failed. He needs to accept responsibility for his failures.

          • Anonymous

              President Obama  hasn’t  thrown in the towel.  He keeps working to bring down unemployment. That would appear to be a tacit admission that  things still aren’t as good as they should be yet.  However, unemployment has come down from 9-10%  to 8.2%.   That’s not failure.   How would you like his statement of abject self abasement worded so you would be satisfied?

          • Anonymous

            Sally the failure comes in when the Presidents and VPs economic advisers write a report that stated $775,000,000,000.00 was needed to prevent the unemployment rate from exceeding 8% before the end of 2009.

            Congress gave the President $787,000,000,000.00 in “stimulus” money and the unemployment rate EXCEEDED 9% and hovered at 10% for some time.

            What did the $787,000,000,000.00 accomplish? How many “jobs” were created and how much did each job cost to “create”? I know in the case of school departments around the state it maintained jobs and may have created jobs but now those jobs are disappearing because the funds are gone. So what was accomplished?

            Bangor Fire has a nice shiny Winnebago Mobile Command Vehicle that has been used how many times? And the new Fire Boat that is replacing a Zodiac, how many jobs were created and how many jobs remain at the boat manufacturer now that FEMA funding is drying up?

            Between 3 economic “stimulus” packages we have thrown a little over $1,000,000,000,000.00 at the economy and what do we have to show for it. An anemic economy, part time jobs, people that have given up (remember some economist believe the actual unemployment rate is north of 15%), etc…

            If we do not understand by now that this problem needs more than money thrown at it, then I don’t know what to say.

        • Anonymous

          While I don’t have time to respond to your entire comment, I will touch upon a couple things. I’ll make them mostly positive too. Although I disagree with the federal suit against AZ, I have to admit that the one of the few times I thought Bush had the potential to be a good president was when he proposed the Guest Worker initiative for immigration reform. If I remember correctly, he was riding on the “political capital” of having been elected for a second term, and he comes out with a great idea, or at least a great starting point, for immigration reform discussion. And he was pummeled from the right and the left with a couple hits in the middle. That is definitely one moment in history I wish we could go back to and do over. It was a missed opportunity.
          So I am not much of a Bush fan, but I do not subscribe to the theory that Bush is all to blame for this current economic situation. Nor do I give it all to Obama. Economic crashes, such as the one in the housing market, develop over time. And I can accept that the recovery will take time. I cannot accept our government’s continued spending spree and scapegoating of the wealthy as a healthy way to move forward out of this poor economic climate.
          You say we need vision and that the US needs to lead in infrastructure and scientific advances– and I agree. But developing a climate of divisiveness will not get us there. Take the recent student loan pandering going on. We cannot have top universities without those universities investing in the latest technology. That costs money, and it is reflected in tuition. We need youth who are willing to grasp opportunity, work hard, and be responsible. I can’t believe I have reached the age where I can say that and mean it. But I see a dad quoted in today’s paper, saying his daughter will owe $22,000 in loans after college, and he doesn’t want her to be forced to take a job she doesn’t enjoy, just to pay back those loans–and I think we may have pinpointed why the US is starting to lag behind.

          • Anonymous

            You are generalizing from one example..  Most kids are struggling to pay their loans.  It’s the loan structure the banks have set up in order to charge as much as 26% interest and the for-profit colleges making a bundle  from secured loans that are the problem. Not the one overly protective dad.

          • ChuckGG

            I believe I agree with you.  It is a shame the AZ suit had to occur.  I lay the blame for that at the foot of Congress who failed to properly fund and lead the effort both in securing the borders but also providing a reasonable means for some forms of immigration, including the Guest Worker visa.  If that were in place, we would eliminate all this wasted money on enforcement and deportation, workers would be treated fairly, and we would be collecting payroll taxes from them.  We saw what happened in GA this year when farmers could not find workers to pick the crops.  We need the workers.  They need the jobs.  Put together an ID card and get this system in place.  It cannot take that long to accomplish something this simple.

            No, I do not think Bush was to blame for the economic crisis.  However, there was a great deal of deregulation going on and no one was watching the hen house.  Just like the BP oil spill, it should never have happened.  Where were the inspectors and the bank regulators?  Where was the SEC?  Why was this allowed to happen?  The GOP trimmed back regulation and underfunded inspections and enforcement and this is what we got.

            I will disagree on the taxing the billionaires.  If we simply had a fair tax code – not a surcharge for being rich – just a fair tax code and even returning the tax rate to what it was under Clinton (which was not onerous) we would be ahead of the game.  Right now, we need the cash and being at least fair is the way to go.  People say the middle class isn’t paying taxes.  Sure, that’s because they aren’t earning enough TO pay taxes.  Let’s get the jobs going to achieve this. 

            Develop a climate of divisiveness?  Who is doing that but the Tea Party crowd?  They are completely uncompromising and it is their way or the highway.  Clearly, they have no idea how to compromise and their only goal is to make Obama a one-term president even if it costs the country the economy.  The debacle that was our credit-rating drop is a prime example of the foolishness of that crowd.

            As far as technology goes and tuition – I agree that this all costs money.  I would argue that we need to look at the past and what worked.  The GI Bill made a huge difference in generations of people.  The kids that graduated under the GI Bill put a man on the moon and put their kids through college.  There is a place for investment.  Additionally, we used to do far more government pure-research projects that were farmed out to the universities.  Those contributed greatly to not only helping college kids and universities with funding for pure-research labs, but also for the betterment of society.  The Tea Party crowd looks at these kinds of projects as expenses while those with a broader view look at it as an investment in society.  The products, skills, capabilities, and knowledge we gained from the Space Race is immeasurable.   Yet, left to the mindset of the Tea Party crowd, none of this would have happened.  Certainly, no private firm would ever have been allowed by their stockholders to do this.  It is only today that space companies are appearing in the private sector and they are doing so because they are “standing on the shoulders of giants,” namely NASA.  All that NASA research and testing is being used by these new startups.

            Look at the Human Genome Project.  It was funded by the government through NIH and DOE.  This resulted in a tremendous asset to our country and to private business which obtained the data for free.  The same is true with the internet – again, a government-funded project.  Don’t forget the Hoover Dam, the inter-state highway system, and all of our seaports and airports – there because government made the investment to promote business and provide the infrastructure for the container ships to dock and for Delta Airlines to fly to anywhere in the USA – something that could not have been done had Delta been forced to build its own airports.

            Call all this socialism if you want, but there are some projects that the private sector will not do and cannot do.  It is only with a cooperation of government and business that we have created the country we have today.  The radicals of the Tea Party cannot see any history and it is a shame.

      • ChuckGG

        Oh, yes, and as far as racial bias goes, you need to travel down South where I am.  There would be no question in your mind of some cases of racial bias.  The “N” word is frequently used.

      • Anonymous

        If I remember correctly it wasn’t President Obama’s ideology that triggered the downgraded rating but the Republicans in Congress that were drunk on ideology that did the job.  

        “S&P first put the government on notice in April that a downgrade was possible unless Congress and the administration came up with a credible long-term deficit reduction plan and avoided a default on the country’s debt.
        After months of wrangling and negotiations with the administration, Congress passed this week a debt reduction package that averted a possible default.
        In its statement, S&P said that it had changed its view “of the difficulties of bridging the gulf between the political parties” over a credible deficit reduction plan.
        S&P said it was now “pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics anytime soon.”
        No wonder you see President Obama as a failure and have dispensed with patience.Your interpretation of the Obama presidency stands in historical isolation of any past actions or behaviors by anyone else.    Republicans are deep into denying the embarrassment and guilt of the Bush presidency and are simply reveling in the appearance of a very convenient scapegoat.  How convenient that he is “different”.   It makes unloading the guilt so much easier.  

        • Anonymous

          The quote you offer points to two parties not being able to reach a solution to the debt ceiling crisis: Congress and the administration.
          A President needs to be able to lead. I don’t feel Obama has been the leader we need.

          • Anonymous

            Well, now that little sophistry would be somewhat acceptable and we could discuss the culpability of both the Congress and the administration if the Republicans in Congress hadn’t stated, even before President Obama took office, that they were not going to cooperate with President Obama because their main job for the next four years was not to make the country work but to make sure Obama was a one term president. So, your argument that President Obama hasn’t led is bogus.  Caving in to every Republican demand is not leading either.  Unless you consider Republicans infallible.   The fact is Republicans in Congress have been an embarrassment and President Obama is your scapegoat.   The country was down rated because Republicans acted like spoiled children. “If we can’t run the country we are going to make it so you can’t either”  So much for political honesty. 

          • Anonymous

            So well said !

  • ChuckGG

    Ms. Boynton:   I have been working to secure same-sex marriage since the 2009 People’s Veto of Marriage Equality.  As a sidebar, I think the People’s Veto ought to be changed to a required 2/3rds majority to override a law because with the current system, it is defeating the whole purpose of an elected representative government, and instead converting it to a fully democratic government where the majority wins on everything.  Not the way our elected representative government, found in our Republic, was designed.  Imagine the People’s Veto effect had it been available during the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Blacks would still be sitting at the back of the bus.

    But, I digress.

    Look, I have heard about as much religious dogma as I can stomach.  This is all about civil marriage and it has nothing to do with your church.  No one is going to force your church to perform same-sex marriage.  Your interpretation of your particular religious text is for you to follow but not for you to impose on others, despite you knowing this is the absolute word from the absolute source, absolutely.  Well, I checked with my gods, Zeus and Jupiter, and they said it was fine for two guys to get married.  I know my source is absolutely correct, too.

    This is a legal issue, not a religious one.  Get over it.  I’m tired of having to repeatedly explain this in simpler and simpler terms.  I’m planning on coming out with a comic book version soon.  Perhaps, that might help.  It’s going to be sent to the Fox News viewers – the most bang for the buck, and all that.

    • Anonymous

      LOL  I really like the idea of the comic book explanation.  Perhaps if it goes over well you could extend the idea to explain other issues  that  religion addleded conservatives lack the skills to understand.

      • ChuckGG

        Well, at some point, you just hit your exasperation level.  In my profession and career, logic rules the day.  But, as many friends and colleagues have told me, I should forget about trying to explain logic and legal matters to those whose only answer is that their faith tells them otherwise.  It always is a conflict between reality and la-la-land.  And, no matter what logic or proof you put forward, at some point you always hear the fallback response that their faith tells them differently.

        When I was a small kid, some preacher tried to explain all this hocus-pocus malarkey about a guy floating in the clouds, white, speaking English (interestingly enough) wearing a toga and sandals, looking like Burl Ives and sounding like Raymond Burr (gay, by the way).  I thought he was down-for-the-count nuts.  After all, I was a product of the space race.  I built my own binary computer with a bunch of switches, lights, paper tape, and a motor out of an electric shaver.  I was about 10.  I was really into science and rocketry (as were many of my friends).  And, some schmoe in a suit that I saw drunk the night before is telling me there is some guy watching me every moment of every day?  To me, it was the biggest load of hogwash ever foisted on mankind.  But, having been taught to be polite, I just nodded and let them live in their dream world.

        That worked fine until about 1980 when Jerry Falwell waddled onto the scene.  All of a sudden people were believing Creationism over science.  Bizarre.  Still, be polite.  That is their choice.

        Now, the limit has been hit.  A specific religious crowd (the all-encompassing “Christians” label) want their fantasy world interjected into our secular laws.  Huh?  How exactly is this any different than an attempt by an Islamic cleric to impose Sharia law into our laws?  I see no difference except that, of course, the Christians (the only “true” religion, after all) think they are the moral authority of our country.

        As I said countless times before, this is a legal issue and one of civil rights and fairness.  If their version of their particular religion has its knickers in a twist about secular civil marriage, that is just too bad.   No one is, or could, force them to perform SSM in their church.  That is what the First Amendment is all about, if they would care to take the time to read it.  Well, it can be somewhat obtuse the way it is worded.  Perhaps, that is the next candidate for a comic book version.

        • Anonymous

          LOL about the age of enlightenment.  Ten is a suspicious age.   

  • Anonymous

    Gloria Boynton:  RE: “God’s plan of things”

      “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it
    turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

     Anne Lamott quotes (American best-selling author)

  • Joseph Willingham

    Opposite gendered families have nothing to fear should I marry my boyfriend.

  • Anonymous

    The question is not whether Mr. Nugent was with in his rights to express his opinion and his veiled threat to the president;   the question is how appropriate is a gun totting, politically abusive, rude,  crude man at a family and music oriented event.  He will be within his rights to rant and rave his political views at the Bangor Folk Festival , also.  Is that the kind of folk performer we want?

    • Anonymous

      If you dont like what he stands for then dont go, pretty easy…

      • ChuckGG

        True enough.  He still is pretty rude, though.  There are so few gentlemen these days.

      • Anonymous

        Sure then next year let’s invite a ranting raving lunatic bunch of liberals to shout at the crowd and we can turn what was a Folk Festival into a political festival. Maybe it would be best to not go down that road and we can stop at inviting Mr. Nugent. Surely he isn’t the best of his class.

        • Anonymous

          I missed the part where he was appearing at the Folk Festival… where have you read that?

    • Anonymous

      If we only allowed performers on stage whom everyone agreed with, we wouldn’t have many concerts.

      If you don’t like Ted Nugent, don’t go to see Ted Nugent. It’s really that simple.

  • RoostookGuy

    People who quote Leviticus to support their willful ignorance are neither deserving of being called “Christian” nor of respect.

Similar Articles