The link provided by Michele goes to Telegraph.co.uk. Look at some of the articles about Prime Minister Brown, they have nothing but negative things to say about him. Brown’s popularity in Britain is down to 26%, with an election coming in June.
Prime Minister Brown was trying to obtain Obama’s support for his “global new deal” before the G20 meeting in April.
The United States has no intention of ceding any of its powers for finance to an international body. Brown wrote an article in a newspaper before he came to the US that laid out his agenda for the talk with Obama, calling for a global New Deal to be launched by the U.S. and Britain
Most conservatives would not like Brown’s agenda.
While in the US, Brown talked of grand bargains, a global new deal. Obama spoke vaguely of better co-ordination of financial regulation, and expressed no enthusiasm for co-ordinating American recovery efforts with those of the EU, except to call on Britain and Europe to do more.
Queen Elizabeth has invited Obama to tea before the G20 meeting.
Try some US Newspapers/sites:
Boston Globe – UK’s Brown seeks US help to aid world economy.

Oh, Julie, surely since PM Brown is a Conservative, Michelle would be in full agreement with his agenda. As we all know, “conservative” and “liberal” are magic words that confer power and culpability on all who ascribe them to themselves.
Also, the tooth fairy will bring each American family a $3000 stimulus later this month.

Also, the tooth fairy will bring each American family a $3000 stimulus later this month.
I got $27.00 (for a two-week paycheck).

To “Your Name” – typical liberal response.
Newsflash: the money I earn is mine – I have earned it by actually having a job – you know…working…getting a paycheck.
The federal government “allowing” me to keep more of what I earn is not a gift from the feds – although a liberal would say so.
Or is it OK to accept the money, just so long as you publicly stamp your feet and gnash your teeth first?
Why should I object to keeping what I earned?

Brown is a liberal.

Bush’s vice was that he led an administration that lied, manipulated, and fear-mongered.
Obama’s vice is that he’s a bad gift giver and host? Hah.

Whoa…that was about the lowest thing I’ve seen here yet (other than telling Michele that she deserves her cancer).
Not that I’ll be believed, but that cotton-picking comment was not me. It’s ironic that I went to bed right after the taxes comment, but the racial slur came just 3 minutes before “Your Name” scolded me for it.
I’m not going to defend myself beyond that – whoever used my name to make that point should be ashamed.
Why do you complain about the Stimulus Bill when for 98% of Americans the bill basically says “you earn what you keep”? Is it just because you need to cheerlead for your Republican Team? Disgraceful.
No, if you’ve been reading, it’s all the spending that goes along with it.
Let’s see, my general thrust in the debate has been “too much spending, too little common sense to see if the spending will work, too few tax cuts”. When I say there’s no reason I should not keep the tax cut, I get…
“What? You agree with the tax cut? Hypocrite!” (?!?!?)
Brown is a liberal.
That’s nice. What does that have to do with the traditional etiquette that happens when a head of state visits our country’s capital and president?

I CAN’T BELEIVE THAT THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE SO TAKEN OR MESMERISED BY “PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA” THAT THEY OVERLOOK EVERTYHING THAT HE DOES AND EVEN MAKE EXCUSES FOR HIS INEPT HANDLING OF SIMPLE EVERYDAY THINGS THAT TAKE A LITTLE COMMON SENSE,SUCH AS THE VISITATION OF ANOTHER COUNTRY’S REPRESENTATIVE. THAT’S NOT A “BUSH” THING-BUT EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT TOO. I DON’T THINK PEOPLE EVEN REALIZE THAT HIS MISHANDLING OF THIS VISIT BY PM BROWN IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF HIS ATTITUDE OF HOW UNIMPORTANT EVERYONE BUT HIMSELF IS.
DON’T PEOPLE REALIZE THAT IN JUST HIS “STIMULUS” PACKAGE, HE IS DOING THE SAME THINGS,(TAKING THE SAME PATH) THAT LEAD TO THE DEPRESSION. IN THIS ONE PACKAGE HE HAS SPENT MORE THAN IF WE SPENT A MILLION DOLLARS A DAY EVERDAY SINCE JESUS CHRIST WAS BORN THRU TO TODAY AND WE STILL WOULD NOT HAVE SPENT AS MUCH !!
OH, I AGREE THAT HE IS A BRILLANT SPEACH GIVER (WHICH SOMEONE WRITES FOR HIM), BUT MOST OF WHAT HE SAYS MEANS NOTHING WHEN HE IS JUST GOING ALONG WITH “HIS PARTY LINE”.
ALSO, TO DATE HE HAS NOT EVEN FILLED THE POSTS/ APPOINTMENTS THAT MOST PRESIDENTS HAVE FILLED BY THE 1ST MONTH IN OFFICE. HOW CAN YOU RUN A GOVERNMENT WITHOUT LEADERS IN MAJOR DEPARTMENTS, LIKE THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT?
PEOPLE VOTED FOR “CHANGE” BUT I DON’T THINK THEY ARE GOING TO LIKE THE “CHANGE” THAT HE IS EFFECTING !!

To the current “Your Name” – just so you know, it’s considered “yelling” to use all caps. It’s difficult to read and often is considered quite rude.
HOW CAN YOU RUN A GOVERNMENT WITHOUT LEADERS IN MAJOR DEPARTMENTS, LIKE THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT?
Seriously…sometimes the best way to run a government is with less government. I don’t think that a few major departments sitting idle for a few weeks is going to make much of a difference in this administration.

Michele, I’m writing on this blog article today and I’m writing a second blog post (cutting and pasting the whole article; I’m in the process of getting permission from the author to do that as a reminder for readers) and setting it to be published in June of 2012.
As a general rule, I don’t “cut and paste” more words than my own words…it defeats the purpose of “conversation”.
The author makes a few predictions and challenges folks to reconsider their political beliefs at the end of the first Obama term.
The ones I find interesting:
1. The US will still have an active military presence in Iraq.
The problem is that an “active military presence” can be a little as a few people around for instructional purposes. The debate will be over how large that presence should be.
2. The US will have attacked at least one more country that poses no direct threat to us. (I’m not even going to count his early air strikes on Pakistan.)
Afghanistan? We shall see on this one.
3. “No-Fly” lists will still be in place, and there may even be more restrictions on travel.
4. There will be more restrictions on gun ownership and the right to self-defense.
5. The police tactics and suppression of dissent at the 2012 RNC and DNC conventions will be just as brutal as they were in 2008.
All three of these things are about freedom. Freedom of movement, Freedom to bear arms and freedom of political speech.
I believe the author is correct on all of these. As a gun owner, I’m watching that subject.
And on the economy:
1. The US will have massive inflation. The dollar will lose at least 50% of its value against most goods and services, and certainly against the goods and services most people use every day. This is a very conservative estimate. It will probably be much worse.
2. Unemployment in the US will be worse than it is now. It will be at least in the double digits.
There are economists who are predicting massive inflation – I hope the author is wrong, but I suspect that she is right.
on 2. In Michigan, it’s already in double digits. And getting worse.
I’m writing on the article and will post the thing in its entirety in about 3 1/2 years (the advantage to a paid host with more controls)

Absolutely pathetic. I’m amazed he hasn’t broken the Hoover Dam by now.

How is this blog still on Beliefnet? Stephen Waldman should be embarrassed, since it is no longer about religion and just warmed over Rush Limbaugh with emoticons.

Michael,
I agree with you 100 percent. In fact, many months ago I made a comment under Waldman’s blog that I could not believe Beliefnet allowed Michele’s blog.
As I have said before, it is an embarrassment to Christians.
It is too bad Beliefnet does not enforce their comment policy, especially for the blogger.
It is possible that Beliefnet captures the ip address when someone makes a comment. They should at least followup with the email address or require an ID signon for all comments.

I agree with you 100 percent. In fact, many months ago I made a comment under Waldman’s blog that I could not believe Beliefnet allowed Michele’s blog.
It’s possible that some Christians allow for a difference in political opinions without accusations of slander or questioning the others’ salvation.
Although for some easier to attempt silencing those who disagree with you, rather than disagree without questioning the salvation of those who disagree with you.

Oh! Here’s a section of Beliefnet’s policy:
Courtesy: You agree that you will be courteous to others, even when disagreeing, and even to those whose beliefs you think are false or objectionable. When debating, express your opinion about a person’s ideas, not about them personally. Do not make negative personal remarks about another’s age, disability, gender, ethnicity, race, nationality, sexual orientation, intelligence, character, appearance, health, mental health, education or any other personal characteristic.
I wonder if that includes questioning your host’s salvation? Or accusing her of slander over generalizations?
As long as we’re discussing the rules of conduct and all

Oh…not to worry…I do not expect (or even suspect) that your standard would ever be the same for yourselves as it is for conservatives.
I understand that piece of the puzzle.

Given the nastiness and snideness that comes from the blogger, I’d be careful about beating the Beliefnet policy.
I just wonder what role this blog plays in Beliefnet. It seems more appropriate for some right-wing political blog. She never talks about religion, her opinions don’t seem to reflect the Scriptures, and she seems to enjoy being antagonistic and, well, simple.

Perhaps my expectations (low though they seem) are too high. Nonetheless, I would expect more from you, Ms McGinty, than more Limbaughisms. Anyone who is looking for a fault is likely to find one. You seem all too willing to see any little twist or turn as evidence that an entire administration will crumble.
If Obama chooses to do things differently than has always been done, that may actually be a good thing. Not only could Bush not do the dance, he couldn’t even turn to face the band! I am even more disappointed than I hav been in your recent cheap shots and easy mud balls. It smacks more of desperation than of actual critique or commentary.

Michael, NEWSFLASH: this blog is categorized under “politics”.

Michael said, “her opinions don’t seem to reflect the Scriptures.”
Thank you Michael. I also agree with 100% of Michael’s second statement. I have been making the exact point about not reflect the Scriptures for about a month. The same can be said for many of MzEllen’s comments.
It is my opinion that many of the statements do not reflect the Scriptures. My purpose for pointing out that the conflict with the Bible was to let non-Christians know that her statements do not reflect the commonly held / generally accepted interpretation of the Scriptures. See definition for opinion – a generally held view - I would love to see a reliable poll of Christian opinion on whether many of Michele’s statements reflect the Scriptures.
It was also my hope that Michele and MzEllen would be able to see themselves. Neither have provided any support for how their statements are supported by the Bible. Instead they have gone sideways or attacked.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Opinion:
Opinion implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute.
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed ; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
belief implies often deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent.
Faith
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one’s promises
(2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs
I do not remember anything from the past two months that included religions. Anything that included Obama did not include anything about religion.
I have tried to bring religion into how specific statements align with what the Bible says, especially what Jesus said. I provided the Merriam Webster definition of the words belief, slander, gossip, etc.
I provided Bible verses about slander, gossip, lying, and how a Christian is suppose to treat others.
I have not seen anyone provide a Bible verse that says it is OK to slander, gossip, lie, call someone a fool, stupid, etc.
I believe that Jesus died and went to heaven for our sins, which is a faith because there is no proof. If someone else beliefs differently, I am not going call them names or tell them they are wrong. I would try to demonstrate how Christians care for others and how they live their life. I have never personally attacked either Michele or Ellen. I have pointed out that there statements do not reflect Scripture.
I have an opinion that Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers was a business relationship for an organization that was started by a Republican and former US Ambassador. The belief is stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge. I did not filter out information that did not support my opinion. The organization was comprised of Republicans and Democrats. I have seen no reliable source that said the organization was radical. I have seen several reliable independent sources that said it was not radical.
I would not link my website to a New York Times interview that politifact, factcheck, and others have demonstrated there was no support for the Republican’s statements about Ayers and Obama.
If I would print a retraction on John McCain and Sarah Palin’s false statements on Obama’s tax plan. There is no question that their statements were false. The same for the statements — Obama voted to allow “born alive” babies to die. The statements are provably false.
Where is the religion in any of the following Michele’s statements?
Newbies! How embarrassing to have a president who can’t get his act together. At least Bush knew how to do the dance.
So, the guy who was supposed to change the world’s perception of us…Saturday March 7, 2009
Michele says, “How embarrassing to have such a jerk for president! Why in the world would he insult our closest allies? Was it deliberate or was he just being naive?”
Video: Whoopie complaining about higher taxes Saturday March 7, 2009
Categories: Politics
Michele says, “It is so funny to hear lefties whining about politicians (that they promoted, encouraged and probably contributed to) raising taxes on the wealthy. Here’s a clue, Whoopie, if you don’t want your taxes raised, don’t vote for lefties.”
Michele did not include the entire Whoopie clip because the entire clip would have changed the entire premise of her statement. What does the Bible say about taxes?
What does the Bible say about calling someone a jerk?

As I said, I do no suspect that Julie would turn an examination onto her own words.
. I have never personally attacked either Michele or Ellen.
Why don’t you ask those who feel attacked?

I believe that Jesus died and went to heaven for our sins, which is a faith because there is no proof.
Julie, relax – nobody is questioning your salvation. It is you who questioned Michele’s and mine.
As far as “slander” – you cannot accept a difference in opinion (and that is what it is).
As far a generalizations, a liberal made just such a generalization about conservatives this morning. Did you speak out, or do you have one standard for liberals, another for conservatives?
Anonymous Reincarnate started a post with “hey, dummy” – did you speak out, or do you have one standard for liberals, another for conservatives?
speaking of generalizations being slander, please fill in the blank with (whatever) and tell me if it’s slander:
“‘(_____) are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true.”
Julie, is that statement slander?

Feeling have nothing to do with my statements. No one can hurt your feeling unless you allow it. It did not hurt my feelings when Ellen called me a fool, stupid, etc.
My statement about Jesus was used to explain the difference between faith and opinion — proof. According to definition – opinions have a level of fact/support.
Ignoring information to maintain and spread your negative opinion is spreading gossip and slandering. A Christian has an obligation to not make negative statements about someone that are not supported by a “reasonable” amount of fact/support. Your have provided no fact/support for what you call opinion. You have ignored fact/support that does not agree what you call opinion.
You have also call statements that are 100% false to be your opinion. There is no logic in calling false statements opinion.
It is my opinion that a Christian is held to a higher standard. I have no idea whether Anonymous Reincarnate or others that have made personal attacks consider themselves Christians.
Ellen and Michele hold themselves out to be Christians.

I didn’t call you a “fool”. I described a situation and you saw yourself in it.
“‘(_____) are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true.”
Julie, is that statement slander?

While it is under the title “politics,” the other bloggers actually talk about faith when they talk about politics, even conservatives like Rod Dreher. This blog is only about politics and the lust for money and is religious only because the blogger insists she is Reformed. It just seems to be a bad choice for Beliefnet and really lowers the standards here.

“‘(_____) are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true.”
Julie, is that statement slander?

I enjoy reading Steven Waldman and Rod Dreher’s blog. I especially like Rod’s blogs about the current financial crisis and Limbaugh. I do not agree with everything Rod believes, but he is thought provoking. As opposed to many conservatives, he is open to the possibility that ideas from the past may not be applicable to the current situation.
Part of Rod’s latest Limbaugh:
“The Limbaugh speech is an example of why popular conservatism today is, as the saying goes, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The first thing we learn from the Master’s orotund remarks is that there is nothing conservatives need to rethink in light of dramatically changed circumstances.
“All we need is to nominate the right candidate,” he said. “It’s no more complicated than that.”
Really? The free market is in global systemic collapse. The culture war is lost. The Iraq debacle destroyed conservative credibility on foreign policy. The new Democratic president is socializing large swaths of the economy, obliterating Reagan’s legacy – and remains far more popular than Reagan’s unloved and disempowered heirs.
And Limbaugh thinks the problem is poor public relations? No wonder these people had no idea that Bobby Jindal’s potted-red-meat food product of a speech was going to bomb. Like long-lost Japanese soldiers hiding out in jungle dens, they really don’t grasp that the world has changed and that conservatism must change with it.
…
Yet to Limbaugh, conservatism is a fixed set of doctrines, and he is as inflexible as any medieval pope. “Conservatism is what it is, and it is forever,” he thundered. Nonsense like that turns politics into a religion – which explains why these people are forever hunting down heretics. This crackpot fundamentalism strangles reform and dissent.

“‘(_____) are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true.”
Julie, is that statement slander?

Funny…it seems that when Julie doesn’t like the question, she attacks Limbaugh (or whoever).
And it’s such a simple “yes” or “no”. Based on her past accusations of Michele, it would be so nice to have a simple “yes” or “no”.
“‘(_____) are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true.”
Julie, is that statement slander?

her statements do not reflect the commonly held / generally accepted interpretation of the Scriptures.
Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, there is a generally-accepted interpretation of Scripture, you insist a minority view has no place? I find that very disturbing.
a difference in political opinions without accusations of slander or questioning the others’ salvation.
Maybe, but how about a difference in theological opinion?
The Reformed perspective is a good thing to have at Beliefnet, especially as Waldman just added another Catholic blogger, and michele expresses it about as well as I’d care to hear it.

Moonshadow, Julie’s motive is accusation.
Her denominations differs from yours on many fronts and (yours and mine) on a few more.

Thanks, MzEllen, I think I’ve got her pigeonholed, uh, I mean pegged in that regard.
Maybe it’s just me, but I enjoy hearing a minority perspective on the Bible, etc.

Moonshadow, “Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, there is a generally-accepted interpretation of Scripture, you insist a minority view has no place? I find that very disturbing.”
It depends on the what you mean by a minority view? I am talking about basic major things.
Does any Christian view believe lying is acceptable?
Loving your neighbor, enemy, being nice in general instead of “what a jerk.”
We Answer Kindly
1 Corinthians 4:12-14
12 We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it;
13 when we are slandered, we answer kindly. Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world.
14 I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children.
How about slander, which is in the New Testament 24 times?
Titus 3
Doing What is Good
1 Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good,
2 to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
3 At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.
Moonshadow said, “Maybe, but how about a difference in theological opinion? The Reformed perspective is a good thing to have at Beliefnet, especially as Waldman just added another Catholic blogger, and michele expresses it about as well as I’d care to hear it.”
I have not read any theological opinion in any of the blogs I referenced earlier. I have not read every blog Michele has written, but I not read any related to politics or Obama that included a theological opinion.
I have no issue with someone expressing a different theological opinion, if they do not demonize. For example, evolution, drinking, or homosexuality. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone’s position.

being nice in general instead of “what a jerk.”
Well, of course, michele is nice; she’s very nice, in fact.
But she is also real and not going to pretend … anything.
I don’t know how you feel about pretending to be nicer than you really are. Maybe you wouldn’t approve. Myself, I’m sympathetic to how Lewis explains it in Mere Christianity, the pretending leads to the real thing.
http://www.philosophyforlife.com/mc29.htm
But Reformed, as best as I can tell, aren’t big on practicing virtue (please correct me if I am wrong).
So, there’s a clear theological difference right there.

give us a break.
if president obama had gone out of his way to throw a lot of pomp to host brown, or put too much effort into a gift, you’d be ripping on him with snide comments like:
“doesn’t he have more important things to spend his time on?”
or, “we’re in a recession, and he wants to blow taxpayer money on exorbitant gifts to a leftist englishman?”

perhaps foreign leaders should learn to be more realistic when they come to visit the united states. no more bull, no more hollow gestures that they got from bush.
“How embarrassing to have a president who can’t get his act together. At least Bush knew how to do the dance.”
what was embarrassing was a president with the vocabulary of porky pig; a president who had never travelled outside of the united states before he was elected; a president who didn’t know how to respond to a major natural disaster on our own land; a president who alienated our allies around the world. a president who had problems walking because he always had his foot in his mouth. thank goodness bush is gone.

This article is a joke. Don’t tell me they didn’t know what they were doing, or that they’re newbies! Most of these people have worked in the White House under Clinton. Deputy Chief of Staff Rham Emanuel (under Clinton) didn’t know proper protocol! Laughable. This was more intentional then they want us to believe.

To anonymous reincarnate:
Wow, “Bush knew how to do the dance” means he knew how to host a foreign diplomat. To “reincarnate” the liberal talking points for the last 8 years in response to that comment is juvenile. You mentioned alienating our allies – what do you think about how Obama just alienated Britian? Iain Miller, columnist for the Telegraph called Obama “rudeness personified” and “shameless” for his gifts. That’s doing a lot to improve the image of America around the world. We can’t even make our “friends” like us.

john boy,
since when are republicans defenders of the press? HAHAHA… talk about laughable! woooooooooo! you kiddos are a hoot.
forgive me if i prefer to wait to hear from the british people to get their take. i’m betting they will agree about how “juvenile” this whole hubub is. already they’re talking about it a lot less than you righties. for you to imagine that our allies won’t like us because brown gave obama a pen holder and obama didn’t gift-wrap the statue of liberty in a gift exchange is a joke. seriously, grow up or go home.
i surely don’t recall liberals making a deal of bush’s lame gift to gordon brown.
we adults know why righties (michele, ellen, you) are making something out of nothing – take the focus off of your party’s incompetence, deflect from your “leader” limbaugh’s unamerican comments, and change the conversation from the fact that republicans have nothing to offer.
When asked which party could do a better job getting the country out of recession, 48% say Democrats, 20% say Republicans
ouch! that hurts, huh?
56% believe Republicans oppose Obama agenda for political gain, while 30% believe they are standing on principle
hm, 30% are still conned. suckers.
56% approve of how Obama is handling economy
Congress approval improves 8 points from January
wonder why?
In December 49% of Americans had a very positive or positive feeling about the Democratic Party; In February that number is still 49%
In December 27% of Americans had a very positive or positive feeling about the Republican Party; In February the number 26%
please, keep talking… keep showing us how important you think this issue is while you become that much more irrelevant.

It seems that Julie is “stuck”. She would rather cling to her false accusation that answer a very simple yes or no question.
“‘(_____) are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true.”
Julie, is that statement slander?
If Julie cannot or will not answer this very simple question, I will assume that it because Julie knows very well that the accusation that generalizations are slander is baseless, false and a direct attack on Michele for no good reason other than Julie wants to attack Michele.
And and Julie questions Michele’s salvation.
I have no issue with someone expressing a different theological opinion, if they do not demonize. For example, evolution, drinking, or homosexuality. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone’s position.
Getting God right is less important that getting politics right.

I sometimes believe that MzEllen and Michele are the same person.

Michael, been there, done that, Julie was wrong, I posted my website and my email address and now I think that Julie may possibly believe that we are not the same person…although Julie doesn’t work with opinions, only facts, so I don’t recall reading where she thinks she might possibly have been wrong.

The UK tortured Obama’s Grandpappy (that happened while Churchill was PM). With that in consideration I think his response to the UK was most restrained.
It’s not like he declared war on the UK like his predecessor did on a country who had tried to hurt his father. The UK actually DID hurt Obama’s Grandfather. Therefore there is more justification for Obama to go to war with Britain than there ever was for Bush to go to war with Iraq.

Some of the British press corps who were complaining, like the Daily Telegraph, are prone to hyperbole whenever they are provoked.
So to see them complaining about the gifts weren’t surprising. I just take it as hot air really.