Indefinite Detention? But I Have Soccer Practice at 4: U.S. Politics 2012

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

start the new year right: with a signing statement that overlooks the long-term historical effect of the signature

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 2 January 2012 05:02 (six years ago) Permalink

lol I'd forgotten this last screenname, it's a personal favorite

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 2 January 2012 05:03 (six years ago) Permalink

heil Bam heil, baby

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, 2 January 2012 07:33 (six years ago) Permalink

are the usual commentator cheerleaders doing their thing w/this or is everybody just too depressed about it? I know Greenwald went off about it, and elsewhere 1 person responded to some of my anger about it with "he had to sign it or they would have overridden the veto," which - I mean for a person to adopt that line of thought is deeply pathetic. The signing statement says several lovely things and then enshrines into law a truly horrifying thing which future presidents will be able to lean on to enact a genuinely, not-actually-hyperbole-at-all fascist policy.

I been mad abt some shit before but this is like...find the assailant from the left making the most outrageous claims about the party & this admin, and I bet even he'll be like "wow...worse than I thought"

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 2 January 2012 13:05 (six years ago) Permalink

all otm this shit is legitimately you-couldn't-write-it ridiculous

DeLonge and Winding Refn (darraghmac), Monday, 2 January 2012 13:16 (six years ago) Permalink

the day the rhetorical value of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY died

Abattoir Educator / Slaughterman (schlump), Monday, 2 January 2012 14:02 (six years ago) Permalink

sad lol otm

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, 2 January 2012 17:44 (six years ago) Permalink

And statements like this anger me even more:

I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law

What a relief! I was so worried President Romney wouldn't be as altruistic.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 2 January 2012 17:56 (six years ago) Permalink

nobody cares. come Armageddon, etc

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 05:31 (six years ago) Permalink

Alex Cockburn on the defense/detention bill and contractor immunity in his year-end review:

Mindful that the votes of liberals can be useful, even vital in presidential elections, pro-Obama supporters of the bill claim that it doesn’t codify “indefinite detention.” But indeed it does. The bill explicitly authorizes “detention under the law of war until the end of hostilities.”

Will the bill hurt Obama? Probably not too much, if at all. Liberals are never very energetic in protecting constitutional rights. That’s more the province of libertarians and other wackos like Ron Paul actually prepared to draw lines in the sand in matters of principle.

Simultaneous to the looming shadow of indefinite internment by the military for naysayers, we have what appears to be immunity from prosecution for private military contractors retained by the US government, another extremely sinister development. The corporations involved are now arguing in court that they should be exempt from any investigation into the allegations against them because, among other reasons, the US government’s interests in executing wars would be at stake if corporate contractors can be sued. They are also invoking a new, sweeping defense. The new rule is termed ‘battlefield preemption’ and aims to eliminate any civil lawsuits against contractors that take place on any ‘battlefield’.

You’ve guessed it. As with “associated forces”, an elastic concept discussed above, in the Great War on Terror the entire world is a “battlefield”.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/30/goodbye-to-2011-year-of-the-rabbit-welcome-2012-year-of-the-dragon/

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 15:51 (six years ago) Permalink

pro-Obama supporters of the bill claim that it doesn’t codify “indefinite detention.”

literally nobody can claim this with a straight face

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:36 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah what does 'codify' mean there?

goole, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:36 (six years ago) Permalink

affirms as law the right to indefinitely detain

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:37 (six years ago) Permalink

we can use a diff. word than codify if that's a sticking point. "allows." "enshrines." "affirms." it doesn't really matter. the bill makes bad policy law. "codify" means "to arrange rules or laws into a systematic code."

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:39 (six years ago) Permalink

i wasn't defending it. i was wondering ironically what defenders of the law meant by "doesn't codify 'indefinite detention'".

goole, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:41 (six years ago) Permalink

oh yeah I don't know - I think that's sort of a word that just crept into the discourse here, it's kinda weird actually - it sounds more active than "allows" or "permits" and is less awkward and bald than "makes (x) legal"

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:46 (six years ago) Permalink

well we're going off one sentence of cockburn's anyway! i wonder if defenders of the law would say it doesn't "codify" x

goole, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 16:48 (six years ago) Permalink

Have there been any prominent defenses of the bill itself from Obama supporters, or just defenses of Obama's response to it?

JoeStork, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:19 (six years ago) Permalink

there are many people for whom there is no distinction between the two

Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:19 (six years ago) Permalink

On this board we'd murderize them.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 17:20 (six years ago) Permalink

Adam Serwer sorta disagrees with the concerns in his Mother Jones piece

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do-ndaa

and Obama's nearly alway right supporter Steve Benen at Washington Monthly earlier said this about signing statements:

As has been well documented, signing statements are not a new presidential tool, and while usage has varied throughout administrations, this power is nearly as old as the presidency itself.

But regardless of party, there’s cause for concern — this is a practice that’s easily abused. Ideally, Congress would pass legislation and if a president (any president) has significant enough concerns about the scope of its provisions, he or she would have to decide between signing the bill and vetoing it. Signing statements can quickly turn into an effort to find a third category: the president likes the bulk of the bill, but can issue a signing statement to note some language within legislation that doesn’t quite work for him or her.

Bush took these abuses to levels unseen in American history. Obama’s not in his predecessor’s league — many of his signing statements relate to Congress exceeding its authority over the executive branch — though criticism that he took a different line on signing statements before taking office seems more than fair.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_12/the_omnibus_gets_a_signing_sta034306.php

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 21:13 (six years ago) Permalink

It’s snugged into the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

Isn't the repeal of DADT in this also? Ha, Obama did not want to veto that! Alright i don't buy that argument either.

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 3 January 2012 21:40 (six years ago) Permalink

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-QW328_Cordra_D_20111205113456.jpg

holy shit never seen a picture of Cordray/Kenneth the Page before

The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 23:13 (six years ago) Permalink

but yes finally jesus just make some recess appointments

The Uncanny Frankie Valley (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 23:13 (six years ago) Permalink

Taibbi brings some perspective (no point in putting this in the Rotisserie Caucus thread):

This widespread and growing movement against the twin corrupting influences of money on our politics and state patronage on big business is going on everywhere – on the streets, in these courthouses, in the homes of people refusing to move after foreclosure, even in the antitax movements and the campaigns against state pensions.

The only place we can be absolutely sure this battle will not be found is in any national presidential race between Barack Obama and someone like Mitt Romney.

The campaign is still a gigantic ritual and it will still be attended by all the usual pomp and spectacle, but it’s empty. In fact, because it’s really a contest between 1%-approved candidates, it’s worse than empty – it’s obnoxious.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 01:35 (six years ago) Permalink

But the ugly reality, as Dylan Ratigan continually points out, is that the candidate who raises the most money wins an astonishing 94% of the time in America.

that is a handy stat that i will likely use to annoy people for the next several years.

your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 01:51 (six years ago) Permalink

otm i learned that from my ran-for-city-council-on-the-libertarian-party-ticket gov teacher in high school

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:08 (six years ago) Permalink

...and have never forgotten it, is how that sentence was supposed to end

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:10 (six years ago) Permalink

ha your civics class was taught by a libertarian? how was that?

k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:37 (six years ago) Permalink

ehhh that stat doesn't prove that elections can be bought (although they can)

it just proves that people give more money to people who are gonna win

iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:39 (six years ago) Permalink

"people"

k3vin k., Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:40 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah, i think the fact that most congressional elections are effectively non-contested kinda proves iatee's argument ... who's gonna give money to a sacrificial lamb?!?

Gay Andy Taffel (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:50 (six years ago) Permalink

me?

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:51 (six years ago) Permalink

ever the martyr, you.

Gay Andy Taffel (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 04:53 (six years ago) Permalink

Zac that Ratigan interview is very odd, whats with the random end bit of "oh hey you're into surfing lets talk about that instead of WORLD DOOM for a bit ok yeah".

Trayce, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:11 (six years ago) Permalink

i didn't even watch the clip tbh, i was just keeping the link from the original taibbi article that the quote was from.

your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 05:24 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah, i think the fact that most congressional elections are effectively non-contested kinda proves iatee's argument ... who's gonna give money to a sacrificial lamb?!?

― Gay Andy Taffel (Eisbaer), Wednesday, January 4, 2012 4:50 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

whole lotta hat hanging on the word "effectively" there

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:54 (six years ago) Permalink

most congresspeople are popular within their district so even when they're seriously contested, spending more money isn't enough. this isn't an argument that money doesn't matter, just that it buys influence more than it wins election.

iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:57 (six years ago) Permalink

s

iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:57 (six years ago) Permalink

and why are they non-contested? because the gerrymandering is done by the two corporatist parties? High rate of incumbent return is another result from the same game-fixing.

xxp

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:59 (six years ago) Permalink

also cause most voters are happy w/ their shitty congressperson as long as they bring home a project or two and don't have a sex scandal

iatee, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:01 (six years ago) Permalink

"happy" implies that they're actively satisfied. the truth is they don't really give a fuck.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:30 (six years ago) Permalink

and why are they non-contested? because the gerrymandering is done by the two corporatist parties?

short answer: no

goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 16:34 (six years ago) Permalink

It's complicated, but I'd say gerrymandering done by the two corporatist parties is a factor along with zoning rules, the history of residential segregation, various other political and economic issues, and more.

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:12 (six years ago) Permalink

YES Cordray appointed

The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:15 (six years ago) Permalink

FYI

The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:15 (six years ago) Permalink

disgust with the NDAA not overwhelming enough to keep me from lol'ing at Republicans getting endrun on the Cordray appt

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:24 (six years ago) Permalink

did he end up going with Rob or Nate

Much Ado About Nuttin (DJP), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:33 (six years ago) Permalink

@natecordray
Nate Cordray
X Games party tonight at the Conga room
31 Jul via Twitter for Android Favorite Retweet Reply

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:36 (six years ago) Permalink

I wanted really badly to post that as an image but am too dumb :(

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:36 (six years ago) Permalink

Recess appointments for the NLRB too...

carson dial, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 20:38 (six years ago) Permalink

MITT ROMNEY IS ANGRY!

“President Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is perhaps the most powerful and unaccountable bureaucracy in the history of our nation, headed by a powerful and unaccountable bureaucrat with unprecedented authority over the economy. Instead of working with Congress to fix the flaws in this new bureaucracy, the President is declaring that he ‘refuses to take no for an answer’ and circumventing Congress to appoint a new administrator. This action represents Chicago-style politics at its worst and is precisely what then-Senator Obama claimed would be ‘the wrong thing to do.’ Sadly, instead of focusing on economic growth, he is once again focusing on creating more regulation, more government, and more Washington gridlock. As President, I will focus on turning around our economy so that America can once again lead the world in job creation.”

commenters on speaker.gov demand impeachment!

no one knows what they're talking about!

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/recess-graph.png

your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:08 (six years ago) Permalink

on twitter: "Romney, if recess appointments are 'Chicago-style politics, then Reagan is Al fucking Capone."

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:11 (six years ago) Permalink

To be fair, doing it the way Obama has is pretty unprecendented...but I'm sure he'd be willing to promise to do it again in return for an up-or-down vote on the rest of his slate...

carson dial, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:18 (six years ago) Permalink

"not to do it again"

carson dial, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:21 (six years ago) Permalink

not unprecedented

gnome rocognise gnome (remy bean), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:23 (six years ago) Permalink

unprecedented in the sense that the Senate is not technically in recess due to ridiculous GOP antics

The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:23 (six years ago) Permalink

the resistance in the senate is totally unprecedented too

xps

goole, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:24 (six years ago) Permalink

^^^^^^^^^^^^

your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:33 (six years ago) Permalink

unprecedented in the sense that the Senate is not technically in recess due to ridiculous GOP antics

^^^ I had misgivings too until I remembered the reindeer games Senate GOP has played the last three weeks.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:38 (six years ago) Permalink

Recess appointments....

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 22:57 (six years ago) Permalink

recess appointment = getting high with the choom gang

buzza, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 23:03 (six years ago) Permalink

Password case reframes Fifth Amendment rights in context of digital world

i'm a little skeptical that ramona fricosu was such an advanced user of encryption that the prosecution can't break her password (did they try "password"?) but it's interesting

mookieproof, Thursday, 5 January 2012 00:41 (six years ago) Permalink

Another proud moment in Obamaland

In a crushing blow to the healthcare community, President Obama is expected to sign new legislation that prohibits federal funding on needle exchange programs both domestically and abroad -- a federally funded program that he himself signed into effect in 2009.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/needle-exchange-programs-san-francisco_n_1184420.html

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:00 (six years ago) Permalink

click link, find out it's a poison pill in a much larger bill.

Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:09 (six years ago) Permalink

wow that fuckin sucks

k3vin k., Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:11 (six years ago) Permalink

then that's just fucking fine, Matt. Goddamn you all to hell.

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:24 (six years ago) Permalink

fuck

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:34 (six years ago) Permalink

fuck this fucking guy

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:34 (six years ago) Permalink

I can't even from the degree of assholism necessary to oppose needle exchange programs. That is just next-level asshole

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:35 (six years ago) Permalink

saying

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:45 (six years ago) Permalink

like there's "oh this will affect people a few-levels-removed down the bueraucratic chain" and then there's "actual irl people will get fucked the fuck up thanks to this particular thing"

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:46 (six years ago) Permalink

Thre's actually people in the huffpo thread saying this is a good thing, they should be left to die because its their choice to do needle drugs. I mean... I just...

Trayce, Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:47 (six years ago) Permalink

only w/r/t politics obv

iatee, Thursday, 5 January 2012 04:59 (six years ago) Permalink

I get in arguments with Dems who, clawing for reasons to defend Obama, say "politics is the art of the possible." Jay Rosen interviewed by Greenwald:

I think it’s crippling sometimes to our own sense of efficacy in politics and media, if we assume that the media has all of the power to frame the debate and decide what consensus is, and consign things to deviant status. That’s not really true. That’s true under conditions of political immobilization, leadership default, a range for normalcy, but in ordinary political life, leaders, by talking about things, make them legitimate. Parties, by pushing for things, make them part of the sphere of debate. Important and visible people can question consensus, and all of the sudden break it. These spheres are malleable; if the conversation of democracy is alive and if you make your leaders talk about things, it becomes valid to talk about them.

And I really do think there’s a self-victimization that sometimes goes on, but... there’s something else going on, which is the ability to infect us with notions of what’s realistic is one of the most potent powers press and political elites have. Whenever we make that kind of decision — “well it’s pragmatic, let’s be realistic” — what we’re really doing is we’re speculating about other Americans, our fellow citizens, and what they’re likely to accept or what works on them or what stimuli they respond to. And that way of seeing other Americans, fellow citizens, is in fact something the media has taught us; that is one of the deepest lessons we’ve learned from the media even if we are skeptics of the MSM.

And one of the things I see on the left that really bothers me is the ease with which people skeptical of the media will talk about what the masses believe and how the masses will be led and moved in this way that shows me that the mass media tutors them on how to see their fellow citizens. And here the ‘Net again has at least some potential - because we don’t have to guess what those other Americans think. We can encounter them ourselves, and thereby reshape our sense of what they think. I think every time people make that judgment about what’s realistic, what they’re really doing is they’re imagining what the rest of the country would accept, and how other people think, and they get those ideas from the media.

http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2012/01/jay-rosen-on-political-possibility.html

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 12:34 (six years ago) Permalink

click link, find out it's a poison pill in a much larger bill.

I've seen far worse rhymes.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 January 2012 13:35 (six years ago) Permalink

too bad the rest of the country isn't massachusetts

thank god it isn't. brown's just triangulating his position b/c of warren, who came out crowing about the wonderfulness of the appointment that she really deserved. i've said it befor and i'll say it again, scott brown is a really nice dude but he is just so fundamentally ... opportunistic that it makes me question everything about his careeer.

gnome rocognise gnome (remy bean), Thursday, 5 January 2012 13:43 (six years ago) Permalink

more on the needle exchange funding ban

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/December/21/needle-exchange-federal-funding.aspx

goole, Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:00 (six years ago) Permalink

x-post

Will have to read this whole What if He Loses series later, but Lithwick's court piece leads with this:

For anyone considering the 2012 election’s importance to the future of the American judiciary, one fact stands out: next November, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be seventy-nine years old. If a Republican wins the presidential election, he or she may have an opportunity to seat Ginsburg’s successor, replacing the Supreme Court’s most reliably liberal jurist with a conservative.

curmudgeon, Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:04 (six years ago) Permalink

obama? seems like this is what happens when you elect a republican house majority.

the ban stood for 21 years, was lifted in 2008, now reimposed. what do you think happened in that time?

xp

goole, Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:04 (six years ago) Permalink

the excuses just never end

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:12 (six years ago) Permalink

for what, your high blood pressure?

goole, Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:14 (six years ago) Permalink

For anyone considering the XXXX election’s importance to the future of the American judiciary, one fact stands out...

just fill this out every 4 years, DNC, and your work is done.

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:14 (six years ago) Permalink

The current administration has not done much to restore the ideological balance of the federal appeals courts. For one thing, this was never Obama’s priority the way it was for Bush, his father, and Ronald Reagan. Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, has selected lower court judges more notable for their racial and gender diversity than their hard-left judicial orientation. And he also has failed to seat them in numbers comparable to the Bush record. Republicans have used Senate rules so effectively to block Obama judges that the judicial vacancy rate currently stands at eighty-four vacancies, with thirty of those designated “judicial emergencies” based on courts’ inability to manage caseloads. Filibusters, holds, and other arcane Senate rules have brought the system to the point where civil litigants may wait years to get into court. And the unprecedented waste of time that results from GOP obstruction of Obama judges has led some of the most interesting and thoughtful jurists, most famously California’s Goodwin Liu, to withdraw their names from contention.

Why have the Republicans been so much more effective at dragging the judicial branch rightward than Democrats have been in yanking it back? Focus, mainly. Since the Meese revolution of the mid-1980s, the GOP has been better at constitutional messaging, better at mobilizing the electorate, and better at laying out a judicial vision than liberals, who still seem to believe that unless the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade (or perhaps the Affordable Care Act), judges are not really a voting issue.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:23 (six years ago) Permalink

Libs need to wake the fuck up: they're as embattled now as when Ed Meese took over the Justice depts and saw post-New Deal judges everywhere.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:24 (six years ago) Permalink

Points off for none of these posts using the word "sheeple."

i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:39 (six years ago) Permalink

And yes the Dems filbustered a few Republican judicial nominees way back when and voted down at least 1 other, but when they were in the minority the bipartisan gang of 14 or something agreed to let votes on many Republican nominees go ahead. Surprise surprise, no current such agreement exists in the Senate.

curmudgeon, Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:50 (six years ago) Permalink

And Obama will likely pick a moderate Dem to replace liberal Ginsburg, but at least that's slightly better than a right-wing Federalist Society type that a Republican will choose and get on the court.

curmudgeon, Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:53 (six years ago) Permalink

nice mischaracterization of sound & impassioned opposition, Phil, it'll serve you well for making excuses when the Republicans are in power again

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 5 January 2012 18:01 (six years ago) Permalink

I was referring to Alfred.

i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Thursday, 5 January 2012 18:10 (six years ago) Permalink

SO THERE.

i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Thursday, 5 January 2012 18:11 (six years ago) Permalink

only "sheep" use "sheeple."

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 5 January 2012 18:16 (six years ago) Permalink

LOL

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 5 January 2012 18:25 (six years ago) Permalink

as i've said before there are plenty of legitimate reasons to want obama to win re-election; i'm suspicious of anyone who doesn't at least acknowledge that he's a monster

k3vin k., Thursday, 5 January 2012 18:26 (six years ago) Permalink

some very ugly Wisconsin-style "fuck it, we just do what we want" Republican hijinx last night in North Carolina

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:46 (six years ago) Permalink

that's a terrible article btw but it's the one I got in the action alert mailing. what happened was, when they released three key Democrats were in the hospital, the NC GOP declared an emergency session for one a.m.. they called this session 90 minutes beforehand, refusing to say what it was going to be about, and then voted to override a veto they didn't like.

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 5 January 2012 21:53 (six years ago) Permalink

Greenwald responds to the Digby drone:

I can say this rather definitively: I wrote primarily about (war and civil liberties) issues during the Bush years and I never once heard any progressive — literally never once — say or even imply that these issues were receiving too much attention, that too much importance was being placed on them, that what really mattered was how Americans are treated economically and not those obscure foreigners or all this academic chatter about “due process” and checks on presidential power. But now, if you believe these issues are important, you’re some sort of fringe figure with strange, obscure boutique interests (or, to use this same liberal blogger’s phrase applied to me: you’re guilty of “civil-liberties-above-all-else” mania (is that an upgrade from what Joe Klein used to call me: “civil liberties extremist”?)). We learn from that same liberal writer (who is actually a Democratic Party operative) that “Liberalism is and has always been about intervention” (emphasis in original). Did anyone hear anything about that requirement from 2001 through 2008? My how times have changed.

But this is a necessary psychological tactic in order to reconcile steadfast support for a President who tramples upon values that one once claimed to find so critical: oh, those issues? War, due process, civil liberties, transparency, restraints on executive power. Eh – they aren’t that important. Someone who insists that the only legitimate means of political expression is to march behind President Obama and the Democratic Party is forced into that radical rearranging of priorities....

I actually don’t believe that the progressive reaction to this discussion is about Ron Paul. The same anger would be provoked by favorably comparing any political figure outside of the Democratic Party to President Obama on important issues, especially in an election year.... That, as I suggested in my first article, is viewed as the supreme sin, the one that must trigger oceans of denunciation and attack in order to deter similar acts of heresy.

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/05/democratic_party_priorities/singleton/

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Friday, 6 January 2012 16:34 (six years ago) Permalink

that whole argument was stupid. the matt stoller defenses of ron paul were historically pretty half-assed and a little insidery to boot ("he's a nice guy when doing house business!"), and that particular counter-argument about liberalism = intervention was just monumentally stupid. both of them managed to get the civil war totally wrong in different ways.

goole, Friday, 6 January 2012 16:43 (six years ago) Permalink

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 19:09 (six years ago) Permalink

loooooooooooooooooooool

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 6 January 2012 19:42 (six years ago) Permalink

trolling surely

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Friday, 6 January 2012 19:53 (six years ago) Permalink

Hell, it's still more recent than trying to fit laws into the 10 commandments and so forth.

windorne grey frogs (dowd), Friday, 6 January 2012 22:02 (six years ago) Permalink

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/06/news/economy/jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3

sorry, too lazy to find the economy thread, although I am interested in implications for the election if this trend continues

Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 22:09 (six years ago) Permalink

By all historical precedent, if employment improves significantly, Obama will wipe the floor w/any of these clowns

Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Friday, 6 January 2012 22:17 (six years ago) Permalink

I don't think it will improve "significantly' by November: it will improve modestly, which is still good news for Bamster.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 6 January 2012 22:20 (six years ago) Permalink

The voter, Edward True, signed an affidavit which stated that he had helped to count the vote after the caucus at the Garrett Memorial Library in Moulton.

... at this time he has declined to make any further statements, instead directing interested parties to his attorney, Justin Case.

Frobisher (Viceroy), Friday, 6 January 2012 22:33 (six years ago) Permalink

By all historical precedent, if employment improves significantly, Obama will wipe the floor w/any of these clowns

otm

not that he couldn't beat them anyway, this is an historically terrible GOP field.

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 6 January 2012 22:47 (six years ago) Permalink

none of the candidates really seem as genuinely evil and crazy as giuliani but the 'pathetic' factor is definitely higher for this crop of candidates than '08.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 6 January 2012 23:01 (six years ago) Permalink

haha okay I think Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, Bachmann and Perry can definitely compete with Giuliani in the "evil and crazy" stakes

Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Friday, 6 January 2012 23:04 (six years ago) Permalink

Gingrich is a totally nasty dude

The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 6 January 2012 23:13 (six years ago) Permalink

Perry actually executed an innocent man. Giuliani only WISHES he could.

i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Friday, 6 January 2012 23:15 (six years ago) Permalink

IDK Guliani seemed like a genuine fascist-at-heart; most of these candidates are just jerks and bullies.

Frobisher (Viceroy), Friday, 6 January 2012 23:46 (six years ago) Permalink

paul and bachmann are much crazier than rudy

mookieproof, Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:18 (six years ago) Permalink

haha okay I think Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, Bachmann and Perry can definitely compete with Giuliani in the "evil and crazy" stakes

i don't exactly disagree with this but rudy just brought this particular brand of genuine 'banana republic caudillo' craziness that made him seem like w's natural successor in '08. gingrich comes closest to that.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 7 January 2012 00:37 (six years ago) Permalink

betting on a close election, but as Taibbi says it's the least consequential in our history, can't give a fuck.

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 7 January 2012 01:27 (six years ago) Permalink

You are as predictable as me saying that this is a consequential election because the Prez will nominate Supreme Court and other Federal judges

curmudgeon, Monday, 9 January 2012 16:52 (six years ago) Permalink

iirc our last least consequential election in history was 2000

iatee, Monday, 9 January 2012 16:53 (six years ago) Permalink

iirc our last least consequential election in history was 2000

iatee, Monday, 9 January 2012 16:53 (six years ago) Permalink

i'm getting very curmugeony about hearing about gabby giffords

if i was in her district i would be wondering when we were going to get adequate representation back.

goole, Monday, 9 January 2012 17:02 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah srsly. She may be an example of A Remarkable Recovery but the Diane Sawyers interview six or seven weeks ago had all kinds of trick editing and cuts which was bait for a skeptic like me.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 January 2012 17:03 (six years ago) Permalink

she'll still be able to cast pro-NRA votes, I figure.

curmudgeon: the Democratic Voter Doll has one hand holding its nose and squeals "the Supreme Court" when you squeeze it.

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, 9 January 2012 17:08 (six years ago) Permalink

XP Goole - I am in her district and I think that all the time... Like, why was there not an appointment? I mean I'm glad she's doing OK but everytime I feel the urge to call my rep. I remember, "oh that's not going to do much... even less than usual."

Frobisher (Viceroy), Monday, 9 January 2012 17:10 (six years ago) Permalink

whoa, Daley is stepping down as Chief of Staff?

your pain is probably equal (Z S), Monday, 9 January 2012 19:24 (six years ago) Permalink

wan't that announced months in advance?

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, 9 January 2012 19:33 (six years ago) Permalink

In November, he handed off some day-to-day management duties to Peter Rouse, a senior adviser to the president. I thought he had left in November, but now he's leaving permanently.

Jacob Lew, from OMB (and previously in the Clinton administration ) will be the new chief of staff.

Jacob Lew, is not a Goldman Sachs alumnus. No, he’s a former hedge fund manager who also worked with Citigroup (from whom he received a mammoth payout before he left in 2009).
http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/skip-my-lew-no-more-president-obama

curmudgeon, Monday, 9 January 2012 20:02 (six years ago) Permalink

she'll still be able to cast pro-NRA votes, I figure.

as a former intern for GG who took calls from her constituents on a daily basis (half of which tended to be extremist 'border' talk) i can attest that GG is as liberal a rep as this district will ever elect.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 9 January 2012 20:31 (six years ago) Permalink

not going to doubt that

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, 9 January 2012 20:33 (six years ago) Permalink

x-post -

Ezra Klein with the inside the beltway take on Jacob Jack Lew:

In Congress, Lew’s stock is unusually high. He has emerged as one of the members of the Obama administration Republicans prefer working with. Earlier this year, Ben Smith, then at Politico, profiled Lew under the headline: “Lew: A liberal GOP says it trusts.” The piece included an admiring comment from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-difference-between-jack-lew-and-bill-daley/2011/08/25/gIQAtts3lP_blog.html?hpid=z1

curmudgeon, Monday, 9 January 2012 20:35 (six years ago) Permalink

Reading the chapter on Obamacare in Taibbi's Griftopia this morning was such a depressing, enervating experience that I sought comfort in Coriolanus.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 January 2012 20:36 (six years ago) Permalink

He has emerged as one of the members of the Obama administration Republicans prefer working with.

well sayonara to that then

goole, Monday, 9 January 2012 20:39 (six years ago) Permalink

really like this "megabank rotation" we're setting up here, makes the process smoother

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 9 January 2012 21:57 (six years ago) Permalink

Reading the chapter on Obamacare in Taibbi's Griftopia this morning was such a depressing, enervating experience that I sought comfort in Coriolanus.

― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 January 2012 20:36 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

brutal. how are both of these btw? coriolanus sounds good but has some awful 2002 heavy rock song on its trailer*

*btw i'm assuming you mean the film, i feel like a philistine if you were flipping pages of the play

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Monday, 9 January 2012 22:09 (six years ago) Permalink

the play. Lots of germane speeches.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 January 2012 22:37 (six years ago) Permalink

but no gerard butler

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Monday, 9 January 2012 22:38 (six years ago) Permalink

Here's the big story of the day (Tim Burton and Johnny Depp's secret involvement in the 2009 White House Halloween party) !:

A variety of conservative media outlets, including Fox News, the New York Post, and the Daily Caller, are worked up this week about a newly-discovered White House outrage: a 2009 Halloween party.

It’s tough pinpoint exactly what it is the right is upset about, but it seems to boil down to two main complaints: the White House (1) threw a lavish Halloween party during a recession; and (2) kept the event “secret.”

that's from: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

While the Washington Post's Reliable Source gossip page says:

If Johnny Depp and Tim Burton came to your party, think you might mention it?

Of course you would — heck, you’d probably tweet the minute they walked in the door. But the White House didn’t say a word, which explains the tempest in a teapot over the 2009 “Alice in Wonderland” Halloween party.

In her new book “The Obamas,” author Jodi Kantor describes the first family’s trick-or-treat extravaganza in Washington: More than 2,000 military kids and local students received treats from the president and Michelle Obama (fetchingly dressed as a leopard) while dancers and acrobats roamed the North Lawn. Inside, there was an invitation-only party for about 200 people — mostly military families and White House staffers. “Star Wars” characters mingled with the crowd, and the State Dining room was decorated like a crazy tea party by Burton, whose “Alice in Wonderland” was a few months from release. His star, Depp, greeted the guests in his Mad Hatter costume.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/post/why-was-white-house-mum-on-johnny-depp-at-alice-in-wonderland-party/2012/01/09/gIQAHkNVmP_blog.html

Tim Burton decorated (His Alice in Wonderland movie was about to come out) and Johnny Depp attended as the mad hatter. Really.

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 15:10 (six years ago) Permalink

On Monday, the White House hit back, saying the party was anything but secret, citing extensive media coverage of the trick-or-treaters on the North Portico.

“This was an event for military children and their families inside the White House, where the press came, photographs were taken,” said press secretary Jay Carney, who called Kantor’s account “an example of the kind of hype and sensationalizing that books like this do.”

“We may not have alerted folks that Johnny Depp was coming,” another White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, told us, “but we didn’t announce Chewbacca was coming either.

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 15:12 (six years ago) Permalink

ha

Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 15:14 (six years ago) Permalink

When Chewbacca comes, you do not need to announce the fact.

Andrew Farrell, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 15:24 (six years ago) Permalink

there is an image from the rip nsfws thread that would be so perfect here

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 15:26 (six years ago) Permalink

If it shows anything, it shows a bunch of assholes who will pull at any cockamamie straw they can find to justify their irrational hatred of the President.

Bush derangement syndrome, anybody?

Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 15:50 (six years ago) Permalink

ya no kidding

Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 15:52 (six years ago) Permalink

If this had happened under Bush, Fox would be apoplectic about ppl trying to score political points for something meant to benefit military children.

Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 15:55 (six years ago) Permalink

god, the WaPo is unreadable, isn't it.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 15:55 (six years ago) Permalink

Yeah, it was so secret that if I go to Getty Images and type in "2009 White House halloween," I get 81 image results.

i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 15:55 (six years ago) Permalink

I assume Tim and Johnny were just there to officiate the Illuminati Black Mass of Samhain and that's why it went unmentioned... or maybe Presidents meet celebrities all the time and its not really newsworthy. I'll take my meds before I come to any conclusions...

Frobisher (Viceroy), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 18:32 (six years ago) Permalink

Dear These People: Fuck You with a Chainsaw

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1xlVoPf5UO4/Twuh_J1UpEI/AAAAAAAAC-U/2muX5d_5yi8/s1600/492869594.jpg

i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 19:29 (six years ago) Permalink

weird I thought Robert E. Lee was from Virginia

locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 19:30 (six years ago) Permalink

Oh, he was, but his birthday is celebrated as a holiday by several former members of the Confederacy.

i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 19:31 (six years ago) Permalink

I thought Robert Byrd was the last one to die? (ba dum bum)

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 19:34 (six years ago) Permalink

Moveon.org is requesting folks on its mailing list like me to sign petitions and host events asking President Obama to "hold Wall Street banks accountable by fully investigating the Big Bank fraud that caused the housing crisis." Next Thursday, January 19, we'll deliver these petitions to local Obama campaign offices so that he uses his power to make Wall Street pay.

President Obama has a choice to make: Let the banks off the hook or order a full federal investigation into bank practices during the housing crisis. President Obama has referenced FDR's famous quote before: "You've convinced me. Now go out and make me do it." Can you help "make him do it" by hosting an event in front of your local OFA campaign office?

Can you host a "Yes He Can?" event to ask the president to use his power to make Wall Street pay?

It's pretty sad that this type of action is necessary to try to get a White House Dem to move, and it probably won't even work (Att. General Holder or someone will insist they are looking into it, but nothing will happen or they will just push for settlements).

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:43 (six years ago) Permalink

hey what kind of cash do you guys have on you

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204257504577153041166480680.html

The owners of the New Republic, long a fixture in political journalism, are exploring a possible sale of the publication and have hired a financial adviser, people familiar with the matter said.

Blackstone Group is expected to reach out to various media companies, such as Bloomberg LP and News Corp. to gauge their interest in buying the magazine, which is known for its clout among ...

goole, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:50 (six years ago) Permalink

In the chapter dealing with the AHCA in Taibbi's Griftopia, there's a revolting scene of MoveOn.org getting its marching orders from the White House.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:55 (six years ago) Permalink

oh man ILX should totally buy TNR

locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:56 (six years ago) Permalink

murdoch owning TNR would be hilaaaarious

goole, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:57 (six years ago) Permalink

isn't Rupey to the left of Peretz on Israel?

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 21:59 (six years ago) Permalink

along with most of the netanyahu cabinet

goole, Tuesday, 10 January 2012 22:01 (six years ago) Permalink

eh TNR good riddance

rebecca blah (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 10 January 2012 23:27 (six years ago) Permalink

In the chapter dealing with the AHCA in Taibbi's Griftopia, there's a revolting scene of MoveOn.org getting its marching orders from the White House.

― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:55 PM (Yesterday

They seem to now, per my above posting, be politely differing with him and urging him to do stuff.

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 14:40 (six years ago) Permalink

I'n sure that will work.

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 14:56 (six years ago) Permalink

Ha

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 15:24 (six years ago) Permalink

lol

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 16:08 (six years ago) Permalink

jonathan bernstein found this, about the house member introducing a resolution to disapprove of obama's recess appointments:

http://black.house.gov/press-release/black-introduces-resolution-disapproving-obama%E2%80%99s-recent-presidential-appointments

It’s astounding to me that the president is claiming these are recess appointments and within his authority, when Congress was not in fact in recess,” said Black. “These appointments are an affront to the Constitution. No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test. I hope the House considers my resolution as soon as we return to Washington so we can send a message to President Obama.

uhhh

goole, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 16:52 (six years ago) Permalink

lol

locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 16:54 (six years ago) Permalink

an affronting smell

buzza, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 16:57 (six years ago) Permalink

I love that the party that has put radical partisan obstructionism ahead of the national welfare for the last two years and stalled on more judges and appointments than any congress ever are up in arms about this.

Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 16:58 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah but tbf no other congress had a muslim trying to wrest control of the country from them

til the power failure (darraghmac), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 17:02 (six years ago) Permalink

socialist muslim, be fair

WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 17:48 (six years ago) Permalink

socialist atheist muslim

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:04 (six years ago) Permalink

iirc

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:04 (six years ago) Permalink

is there any other type rly

til the power failure (darraghmac), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:08 (six years ago) Permalink

Russ Feingold's Progressives United group is joining with moveon.org to uh pressure the Prez with petitions:

If Wall Street gets investigated for the misdeeds that led to our financial collapse, they're very worried about what we'll find.

That's why they're eager for a sweetheart settlement deal that would give them broad immunity without an investigation. Thanks in part to the pressure thousands of fellow progressives put on state attorneys general, that deal is on hold.

But we don't just need to stop a deal that will cut off an investigation -- we need President Obama to take the lead and launch the investigation. That's why we're joining with our friends at MoveOn to petition the president to investigate Wall Street now.

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:27 (six years ago) Permalink

Hope there's a big Occupy/secular left turnout to protest at the DNC next September in Charlotte, cuz the religious right is a-comin:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/religious-right-activists-plan-protests-democratic-national-convention

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 19:00 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah there's one planned

iatee, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 19:01 (six years ago) Permalink

I wonder which group will absorb most of the pepper spray?

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 19:06 (six years ago) Permalink

there's one for mythbusters

til the power failure (darraghmac), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 19:08 (six years ago) Permalink

Would watch

Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 19:08 (six years ago) Permalink

Hopefully it turns out better than their stunt with the cannon

Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 19:09 (six years ago) Permalink

"At some point we have to decide whether this is a country of, by and for the judges, or of, by and for the people."

Um, did you just move here or were you dropped on your head a lot as a child?

Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 19:14 (six years ago) Permalink

lol I did not really get the context of the legal argument until the very last sentence of the article

locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 19:16 (six years ago) Permalink

i feel like, on efficiency grounds, a progressive organisation should be threatening a response to the lack of action regarding wall st, rather than impotently pushing for a so not gonna happen long-belated enquiry into it. like surely they would get more traction saying "fuck you you should have investigated we're not voting" or w/e, over "let's keep the flame a burnin re: you suddenly 180-ing on resolving that shit three years after the fact"

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 21:09 (six years ago) Permalink

By the way, today's anniversary makes the thread title true!

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 21:10 (six years ago) Permalink

yep

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 11 January 2012 21:13 (six years ago) Permalink

libs never threaten Democrats, ever. they don't want to be Naderized by their neighbors.

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 21:14 (six years ago) Permalink

I thought this framework from a Weekly Sift article, The Four Flavors of Republican, was an interesting way to think about members of a party with very different priorities:

http://weeklysift.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/gopstructure.jpg?w=530&h=397

The article goes on to define the four archetypes, talk about areas of agreement and disagreement among them, and then closes with:

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush unified the four flavors, but this year no candidate does. NeoCons can’t support Ron Paul, Libertarians can’t support Rick Santorum, and Theocrats can’t support Mitt Romney. That’s why Republican insiders keep having fantasies about some new candidate — it’s basically the same fantasy they had about Rick Perry before he turned out to be an idiot: a tough-talking, pro-business, Christian Reconstructionist who wants to abolish the EPA.

Each non-fantasy candidate exposes a different fault line, so expect Obama to run differently depending on who the Republican nominee is. His increasing economic populism of late is evidence that he expects to run against Romney.

your pain is probably equal (Z S), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 21:50 (six years ago) Permalink

keep it real America!

locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:21 (six years ago) Permalink

obama is having a 30k plate fundraiser 100 ft down the street from my boyfriend's building tonight, which dr. morbius nickname for bam should i use when i derisively heckle the attendees?

tyga mother (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:03 (six years ago) Permalink

which dr. morbius nickname for bam should i use when i derisively heckle the attendees?

Obamao

locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:04 (six years ago) Permalink

baroque o-bomber

til the power failure (darraghmac), Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:05 (six years ago) Permalink

bam will be there after he wraps one of his other private fundraisers w/ an ex-bear stearns exec

tyga mother (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:05 (six years ago) Permalink

obama is having a 30k plate fundraiser 100 ft down the street from my boyfriend's building tonight, which dr. morbius nickname for bam should i use when i derisively heckle the attendees?

Obamoneybags

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:06 (six years ago) Permalink

his other private fundraisers w/ an ex-bear stearns exec

this is more delicious than the dinner!

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:06 (six years ago) Permalink

Obamoneybags

― lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:06 PM (36 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

might have to paint this on a sheet and hang it from the balcony

tyga mother (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:07 (six years ago) Permalink

keep it real America!

this really depressed the shit out of me.

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:12 (six years ago) Permalink

^ :(

rebecca blah (k3vin k.), Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:27 (six years ago) Permalink

was already feeling really low cause of this

http://nymag.com/news/features/danny-chen-2012-1/

but now, man

bob loblaw people (dayo), Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:27 (six years ago) Permalink

looking forward to asking my in-law (currently on TOD w State Dept in Afghanistan) about this

locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:28 (six years ago) Permalink

NOBAMNEY

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:53 (six years ago) Permalink

btw you can tell those are Taliban cuz they're corpses, just like Vietcong

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 January 2012 00:54 (six years ago) Permalink

Greenwald on the assassinations of Iranian physics professors.

Is it just ME who didn't realize that 5 or 6 of these dudes have been MYSTERIOUSLY blown up or gunned down in the last 2 years?!? Does it not seem completely bonkers?

It means why you gotta be a montague? (Laurel), Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:29 (six years ago) Permalink

The NYT finally deigned to publish a story on the front page.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:31 (six years ago) Permalink

assassinations are totally predictable imho. what did you expect Israel to do.

locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:31 (six years ago) Permalink

they're pretty well determined to be the only nuclear power in the area, and they have the means and the backing to make it happen

locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:32 (six years ago) Permalink

I disagree w/Greenwald and Sullivan. I thunk terrorism should be more strictly defined and not bandied about recklessly. It is an attempt to sway a government's policy or to bring about recognition for a cause or organization by means of terror. These are targeted assassinations that attempt less, I think, to sway the government of Iran than simply to kill important scientists who may be working at obtaining nuclear weapons. It's less terrorism than low-level acts of war.

Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:45 (six years ago) Permalink

It's less terrorism than low-level acts of war.

But Greenwald has said this.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:46 (six years ago) Permalink

Even the NYT story included a quote admitting as such.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:47 (six years ago) Permalink

assassinations are totally predictable imho. what did you expect Israel to do.

I can't tell how seriously to take this?

It means why you gotta be a montague? (Laurel), Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:50 (six years ago) Permalink

Shakey's next post puts it in context.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:52 (six years ago) Permalink

I don't think Shakey is providing moral justification so much as (perhaps) pointing out that there's a long history of assasination in the region both by and against Israel.

extremely lewd and incredibly crass (Hurting 2), Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:53 (six years ago) Permalink

And that it's the kind of think one would expect Israel to do to achieve its goals

extremely lewd and incredibly crass (Hurting 2), Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:53 (six years ago) Permalink

What do people think are the chances of US involvement?

It means why you gotta be a montague? (Laurel), Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:54 (six years ago) Permalink

wd be unsurprising October Surprise by President Hope.

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:55 (six years ago) Permalink

What do people think are the chances of US involvement?

The chance that we weren't involved is about as low as Obama's second term being the liberal one.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:56 (six years ago) Permalink

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/01/201211244648837585.html

US officials have denied any role in the apparent killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist, and condemned the bomb attack which Tehran said was linked to Washington and Israel.

"I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran," Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, told reporters on Wednesday when asked about Iranian allegations over the attack.

Tommy Vietor, a National Security Council spokesman, added: "The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this. We strongly condemn all acts of violence, including acts of violence like this."

ha ha ha.

goole, Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:57 (six years ago) Permalink

Dennis Perrin tweet!

Israel is the 1972 Miami Dolphins of nuclear weapons. No one else in the region can match its record.

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:59 (six years ago) Permalink

ANTI ISRAEL OBAMA CONDEMNS ISRAELI ACT OF SELF DEFENSE PROFESSOR ASSASSINATION

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:00 (six years ago) Permalink

IDK, the US being involved on some level or not being involved on some level seem like equal possibilities to me. I could see Israel doing it with the nod from Washington, Israel doing it on its own without a nod from anyone, someone else doing it with the nod from Washington, etc.

To be clear, I would be surprised if neither Israel nor the US is invovled, I just don't think both necessarily were.

extremely lewd and incredibly crass (Hurting 2), Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:01 (six years ago) Permalink

i don't think the US could have pulled something like this off. it involved a certain degree of knowing what the fuck is up in iran which we seem not to have

goole, Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:02 (six years ago) Permalink

And if Israel could do it on its own, they likely wouldn't ask for a nod. They know we'd say yes, and not asking would give us deniability.

nickn, Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:07 (six years ago) Permalink

don't think anyone has said we were directly involved; it's more like like the Israeli general or whatever's reaction on Facebook yesterday: "I won't shed a tear."

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:07 (six years ago) Permalink

does the level of direct involvement really matter? US's complicity in Israel's policies - since Israel wouldn't survive a day without the US - should be taken as a given.

locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:11 (six years ago) Permalink

I'm sure Israel does some things that irritate the US gov't, but none of it really matters - we either agree to look the other way, issue an empty/half-hearted condemnation, or actively support them. In any event, Israel does what it wants.

locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:14 (six years ago) Permalink

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/01/12/thomas-perrelli-doj-point-person-on-foreclosure-fraud-settlement-stepping-down-by-march/

This appears to be good news. DOJ attorney who was in charge of trying to push through the weak settlement agreement on mortgage robo-signing is leaving the Justice Dept.

curmudgeon, Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:23 (six years ago) Permalink

We strongly condemn all acts of violence, including acts of violence like this.

Really? You can't be bothered to write 'unjustified' or 'senseless'? We just today droned 5 'militants' on the Pakistani border.

Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:24 (six years ago) Permalink

that was a humane targeting

locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:28 (six years ago) Permalink

I don't know how they targeted them or what I think of it but it was definitely an act of violence

Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:35 (six years ago) Permalink

those guys jumped in front of those missiles

locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:39 (six years ago) Permalink

gotta break a few eggs to keep SOME CRAZY REPUBLICAN from being elected

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:41 (six years ago) Permalink

zogby poll of iraqi public opinion & US, ME opinion about iraq

http://aai.3cdn.net/2212d2d41f760d327e_fxm6vtlg7.pdf

this part is most interesting at first glance:

3. What Has Improved, What Has Not
Question: Since U.S. forces entered Iraq, how do you feel the following areas of life have been
impacted?

unsummarizable, but the US responses are broken down by partisan affiliation. the only iraqi demographic thinks any aspect of life has been improved since the entry of US forces is the kurds. american democrats have beliefs closer to arab iraqis but still quite a bit more optimistic. republicans think it all turned out pretty good, but often by small pluralities

goole, Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:47 (six years ago) Permalink

Greenwald after quoting liberal bete noire Santorum on the wonderfulness of assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists:

We better hope and pray Rick Santorum never becomes President or else the legal prohibitions against assassinations will simply be ignored and that will become standard American policy — oh, wait. ...

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 12 January 2012 22:27 (six years ago) Permalink

lol that is ridiculous. we love assassinating people, just took a breather there for a decade or two.

locally sourced stabbage (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 January 2012 22:30 (six years ago) Permalink

Or did we?

Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Thursday, 12 January 2012 23:28 (six years ago) Permalink

well it was official policy not to for a little while anyway

job kreaytor (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 12 January 2012 23:29 (six years ago) Permalink

Frank Church RIP

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Friday, 13 January 2012 00:55 (six years ago) Permalink

He was from Idaho! Idaho's one big claim to not being a complete GOP shill-state.

Frobisher (Viceroy), Friday, 13 January 2012 05:02 (six years ago) Permalink

I went to college with his grandson.

Bon Ivoj (jaymc), Friday, 13 January 2012 05:09 (six years ago) Permalink

Instead of beefing up and straightening out the SEC and increasing the staffing for Justice's white-collar unit (to go after Wall Street), Obama proposes a tiny little merger that he naively thinks will appease Republicans and make him look like a bipartisan pragmatist who wants to make life easier for businesses

Obama will propose combining the functions and staff of six trade- and commerce-related agencies and offices: the Small Business Administration; the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; the Export-Import Bank; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; and the Trade and Development Agency. The move would ease the regulatory burden on businesses and save money by eliminating duplicative functions such as human resources, the White House official said

curmudgeon, Friday, 13 January 2012 16:42 (six years ago) Permalink

I really think / hope that Obama's done with the 'appease Republicans', at least until after we see the Tea Party reaping the results of their yammering in 2014.

Andrew Farrell, Friday, 13 January 2012 16:49 (six years ago) Permalink

One would wish that, but his actions do not yet fully demonstrate that.

curmudgeon, Friday, 13 January 2012 16:55 (six years ago) Permalink

Is Loesch still a CNN reporter?

curmudgeon, Friday, 13 January 2012 16:56 (six years ago) Permalink

moral relativism leads to barbarism, you know

goole, Friday, 13 January 2012 16:59 (six years ago) Permalink

I had a dream last night that I feel belongs in this thread:

I saw people from a corporation dumping toxic sludge into a river, so I needed to "lobby the EPA" about the issue. The EPA office was a door on a long corridor of doors. But when I opened the door, it was just a closet with a young man woman standing in it, statue-like, as though they were playing hide-and-seek.

I said "Uh, I'm here to lobby the EPA." And they were like "you can't do that," and I was like "what do you mean?" and they say "You can't lobby the EPA. The EPA is not an organization you're allowed to lobby."

And I got all incensed and started talking about my rights, when I looked at the wall and saw a small banner that read "Ron Paul Campaign Headquarters," and suddenly they started laughing, and I started laughing, and they said something to the effect of "you got punked!"

extremely lewd and incredibly crass (Hurting 2), Friday, 13 January 2012 17:00 (six years ago) Permalink

The EPA office was a door on a long corridor of doors. But when I opened the door, it was just a closet with a young man woman standing in it, statue-like, as though they were playing hide-and-seek.

if only you knew how eerily accurate this was, in an abstract way

your pain is probably equal (Z S), Friday, 13 January 2012 18:41 (six years ago) Permalink

loesch thing is just beyond words

iatee, Friday, 13 January 2012 19:08 (six years ago) Permalink

It's typical of the kind of tone deaf, emotionally retarded ppl who prefer justifyingmach posturing to winning wars. It's is essentially puerile lack of discipline.

Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Friday, 13 January 2012 20:49 (six years ago) Permalink

Come on people, this is a war. What do people think this is?"

That's kind of how I feel about this, only not in the way Loesch means it. Killing people = fine. Peeing on the people we kill = OUTRAGE

extremely lewd and incredibly crass (Hurting 2), Friday, 13 January 2012 20:52 (six years ago) Permalink

She not only does not get the ugliness of the actions, she does not get that this also potentially puts our remaining soldiers there in increased danger

curmudgeon, Friday, 13 January 2012 21:30 (six years ago) Permalink

new drinking game: Try to argue with a pseudoliberal that Obama is not the Last Best Hope of humanity. Within 2 minutes, you lose if you hear the word PERFECTION.

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 14 January 2012 03:29 (six years ago) Permalink

what happens if someone says 'don't let perfect be the enemy of the good"?

your pain is probably equal (Z S), Saturday, 14 January 2012 03:33 (six years ago) Permalink

pour a bottle of Ripple down their throat

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 14 January 2012 03:34 (six years ago) Permalink

blast some burnt by the sun and mosh

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Saturday, 14 January 2012 03:40 (six years ago) Permalink

who really thinks he's perfection?

encarta it (Gukbe), Saturday, 14 January 2012 05:37 (six years ago) Permalink

think morbs meant the standard retort would be "what do you expect, perfection?"

rebecca blah (k3vin k.), Saturday, 14 January 2012 05:38 (six years ago) Permalink

ah right. well that's a fair point though.

encarta it (Gukbe), Saturday, 14 January 2012 05:43 (six years ago) Permalink

yes truly thought-provoking

rebecca blah (k3vin k.), Saturday, 14 January 2012 05:57 (six years ago) Permalink

yes, for these folx, it's the only standard they can imagine him not meeting

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 14 January 2012 15:17 (six years ago) Permalink

I think such folx are few enough they should be dismissed as irrelevan, rather than made the crux of some kind of argument about political reality.

Aimless, Saturday, 14 January 2012 17:38 (six years ago) Permalink

there must be at least a few of them left; greenwald spends half his twitter arguing with them.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 14 January 2012 20:17 (six years ago) Permalink

haha otm

rebecca blah (k3vin k.), Saturday, 14 January 2012 23:02 (six years ago) Permalink

isn't Steve Benen stil an Obamastan?

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 14 January 2012 23:20 (six years ago) Permalink

Yes.

Washington Monthly's blog under Benen is fixated solely on Republican bad deeds.

curmudgeon, Sunday, 15 January 2012 03:08 (six years ago) Permalink

http://dccc.org/pages/GOPonvacation

Benen linked to this--- nice photoshopped pics of Boehner and Cantor on vacation

curmudgeon, Sunday, 15 January 2012 03:09 (six years ago) Permalink

think morbs meant the standard retort would be "what do you expect, perfection?"

I think such folx are few enough they should be dismissed as irrelevant, rather than made the crux of some kind of argument about political reality.

Come to a Park Slope bar, and I will introduce you to a slew of em.

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 15 January 2012 09:01 (six years ago) Permalink

Because of all the nasty hateful Tea Party-rooted and racist criticism Obama has received, I have read several African-American writers say that it is difficult for them to criticize Obama for legitimate reasons, because he engenders much sympathy because of the out-of-bounds attacks.

curmudgeon, Sunday, 15 January 2012 16:06 (six years ago) Permalink

dunno where to put this

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/the-great-gatsby-curve/

rebecca blah (k3vin k.), Sunday, 15 January 2012 19:41 (six years ago) Permalink

doesn't surprise me a bit, and I think we need to start reading "constitutional purism" as code for "only white male landowners get to vote"

incredible shrinking man on euphonium (Drugs A. Money), Monday, 16 January 2012 17:00 (six years ago) Permalink

Probably warrants a separate thread:

http://dellioandwoods.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/newsweek-obama-cover.jpg

I hope none of you have especially high blood pressure.

clemenza, Monday, 16 January 2012 17:29 (six years ago) Permalink

Let me guess. His right wing critics are dumb because they insist that he's a socialist Kenyan Muslim who eats babies and pisses on the US Constitution. OK. I'd grant him that much. His liberal critics are dumb because no one could have done a better job than Obama has done, cuz, you know, be realistic. Yeah. Right.

Aimless, Monday, 16 January 2012 17:36 (six years ago) Permalink

oh boy, the "long game" - this will be great

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Monday, 16 January 2012 17:42 (six years ago) Permalink

lolng game

incredible shrinking man on euphonium (Drugs A. Money), Monday, 16 January 2012 17:49 (six years ago) Permalink

As I read Sullivan, he basically says the critics on the right are mostly peddling nonsenscial crap. True enough. And like shooting fish in a barrel, once you look at the facts.

Then he goes on to Obama's critics on the left, agrees with a fair number of their criticisms on civil liberties issues, emphasizes the repeal of DADT at length (which his left wing critics are NOT criticizing, either), and ignores liberal criticisms of Obama's more conservative policies that he most likes, such as keeping all the Bush tax cuts in place. As a criticism of these critics, it is pretty thin stuff. But then, most op-ed is small beer.

Aimless, Monday, 16 January 2012 17:59 (six years ago) Permalink

And what have we seen? A recurring pattern. To use the terms Obama first employed in his inaugural address: the president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider. This kind of strategy takes time. And it means there are long stretches when Obama seems incapable of defending himself, or willing to let others to define him, or simply weak. I remember those stretches during the campaign against Hillary Clinton. I also remember whose strategy won out in the end.

This is OTM. My issue I have is that I want him to be to the left of some of the positions he champions. I agree with him enough to vote for him again without any regret.

Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Monday, 16 January 2012 18:00 (six years ago) Permalink

Not surprisingly--something you should almost take as a given--Sullivan says on his site that the cover headline was not his.

clemenza, Monday, 16 January 2012 18:04 (six years ago) Permalink

sullivan's willingness to relegate civil liberties to a couple of sentences is baffling to me. under bush, the executive branch's power-tripping threatened the future of the country. under obama, pushing (for the most part) the exact same policies, it's a fringe issue that only a few 'unrealistic,' 'deluded' leftists care about.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 16 January 2012 18:41 (six years ago) Permalink

it's almost like he trusts the motives of one over the other

Bam! Orgasm explosion in your facehole. (DJP), Monday, 16 January 2012 19:01 (six years ago) Permalink

right, it's the thought that counts.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 16 January 2012 19:03 (six years ago) Permalink

When your only safeguard is the good will of the current president, you have no safeguards at all.

Aimless, Monday, 16 January 2012 19:18 (six years ago) Permalink

i'm just glad niall ferguson ended class warfare, that was going on for too long

human trash (buzza), Monday, 16 January 2012 19:32 (six years ago) Permalink

fuckin hate that guy

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, 16 January 2012 19:43 (six years ago) Permalink

what sort of warfare did he substitute in its place? a first person shooter, I hope

Aimless, Monday, 16 January 2012 19:46 (six years ago) Permalink

sullivan's willingness to relegate civil liberties to a couple of sentences is baffling to me. under bush, the executive branch's power-tripping threatened the future of the country. under obama, pushing (for the most part) the exact same policies, it's a fringe issue that only a few 'unrealistic,' 'deluded' leftists care about.

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, January 16, 2012 1:41 PM (2 hours ago)

as everyone here knows i think obama's done some truly evil and unforgivable things in this realm, but i've got bigger gripes with him than his civil liberties record. why sullivan's piece fails (as it was doomed to do) is because he tactfully elides these other parts of his record - when he's not agreeing with them

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Monday, 16 January 2012 21:13 (six years ago) Permalink

the 'radical middle' will find this to be a good essay, and it might even be useful to show the first half of it to some of the more noxious conservative blowhards we all know, but the entire thing is basically middlebrow nonsense, which is why it's in newsweek

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Monday, 16 January 2012 21:15 (six years ago) Permalink

the truly weird part is figuring out how sullivan squares his admiration for a president he sees as 'moderate' and 'pragmatic' with his wobbly on-and-off support of ron 'kill em all and let the states sort em out' paul.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 16 January 2012 21:42 (six years ago) Permalink

http://www.bongsbay.com/weed_leaf.jpg

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, 16 January 2012 21:47 (six years ago) Permalink

lolololol

incredible shrinking man on euphonium (Drugs A. Money), Monday, 16 January 2012 22:08 (six years ago) Permalink

hi, guys!! What'd I miss??

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 16 January 2012 22:15 (six years ago) Permalink

Under Obama, support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization has crested to record levels.

i'll have what this sullivan guy's smoking

river, Monday, 16 January 2012 22:23 (six years ago) Permalink

I'll read the article tonight, but I can't fathom how any critic of Bush administration's civil liberties abuses and abuse of executive authority can now treat them as secondary because Obama is so cool. I would rather Sullivan just said, "Look, these things don't really matter much to me tbh."

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 16 January 2012 22:47 (six years ago) Permalink

Under Obama, support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization has crested to record levels.

i'll have what this sullivan guy's smoking

― river, Monday, January 16, 2012 5:23 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

um actually i wouldn't necessarily disagree with that claim

incredible shrinking man on euphonium (Drugs A. Money), Monday, 16 January 2012 23:47 (six years ago) Permalink

i have no idea what obama has done to make either of those things happen, though, particularly the latter. a strange point

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Monday, 16 January 2012 23:59 (six years ago) Permalink

well yeah i just mean that since Obama has been President, support for those two things have been bigger than they've ever been. I'd believe that.

incredible shrinking man on euphonium (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 00:18 (six years ago) Permalink

when Calvin Coolidge was president, Scott Fitzgerald published his best novel.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 00:19 (six years ago) Permalink

well I mean yeah, though to imply that Mr. "The business of America is business" had nothing at all to do with The Great gatsby or its themes seems a little silly

incredible shrinking man on euphonium (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 00:54 (six years ago) Permalink

Sully's statement is well-meaning gas though. How can Obama get credit for increased support for marijuana legalization?

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 00:56 (six years ago) Permalink

those raids he authorizes hurt him more than they hurt us, you'll just never know

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 01:00 (six years ago) Permalink

Yeah ok Sully's full of hot air. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that claim.

incredible shrinking man on euphonium (Drugs A. Money), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 01:04 (six years ago) Permalink

Pretty sure pot busts have increased since Obama took office, and people still hate gays everywhere

river, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 01:06 (six years ago) Permalink

Anyway, sullivan has untrustworthy facial hair

river, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 01:07 (six years ago) Permalink

well, if he's going to have a Time Magazine cover let it be for his slavish devotion to obama's long game and not an impassioned defense of the bell curve

Mordy, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 01:16 (six years ago) Permalink

worse - newsweek :(

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 01:31 (six years ago) Permalink

you know, i actually read the whole article earlier today. i just have trouble distinguishing between the two

Mordy, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 01:31 (six years ago) Permalink

i'm sure many dads will find enlightening the half of this they read while they wait in the dentist's office

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 01:32 (six years ago) Permalink

Boy, I consider Ike the least dangerous of modern presidents but Sully's carrying his idolatry too far (i.e. Ike's not the prez to go to for enlightenment and patience re democratically elected foreign leaders, especially Iranian ones).

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 01:36 (six years ago) Permalink

John Foster Dulles and Richard Nixon both graced Ike's administration.

Aimless, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 01:37 (six years ago) Permalink

Both kept on leashes, Nixon's a bit tighter.

lumber up, limbaugh down (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 01:40 (six years ago) Permalink

i want to say that sully is the dumbest "public intellectual" but there is so much competition for that role that i'll just say he's a very very dim "public intellectual"

Mordy, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 01:41 (six years ago) Permalink

'I'm a conservative but I'm not 100% batshit insane' is the best way for some average shmoe to get a lot of attention

iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 01:45 (six years ago) Permalink

sully is kind of batshit insane tho

mookieproof, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 01:47 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah but only like 94%

iatee, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 01:49 (six years ago) Permalink

well, if he's going to have a Time Magazine cover let it be for his slavish devotion to obama's long game and not an impassioned defense of the bell curve

― Mordy, Monday, January 16, 2012 8:16 PM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

"why are obama's critics so dumb?" vastly preferable to "why are black people so dumb?"

max, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 01:52 (six years ago) Permalink

life's too short to read that guy, including his personal ads

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 02:41 (six years ago) Permalink

'm just glad niall ferguson ended class warfare, that was going on for too long

― human trash (buzza), Monday, January 16, 2012 7:32 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

Did I miss something he wrote recently? Dude is good for lolz. Though his ethnic warfare stuff is interesting.

encarta it (Gukbe), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 06:57 (six years ago) Permalink

It's time soon for this again(from tpm). Fun, fun, fun:

With Congress set to return to town this week, staff-level bipartisan discussions are underway over how to pay for extensions of the payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance and the so-called Medicare "doc fix" beyond the end of February, when they're set to expire. The private meetings are a continuation of the December showdown, which ended with two-month extensions of the three provisions and a guarantee that the House and Senate would negotiate a year-long measure.

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 14:46 (six years ago) Permalink

Ike's not the prez to go to for enlightenment and patience re democratically elected foreign leaders, especially Iranian ones).

To his credit, he's posted readers pushing back on this.

Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 15:19 (six years ago) Permalink

Dem convention cut to 3 days! Bank of America Stadium lol

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/17/democrats-trim-convention-to-3-days/

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 18:21 (six years ago) Permalink

Over 1m signatures to recall Walker in WI:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/wis-dems-make-it-official-one-million-signatures-collected-to-recall-walker.php

carson dial, Tuesday, 17 January 2012 20:53 (six years ago) Permalink

has this been posted:

Mrs. Santorum, 51, apparently wasn’t always committed to the cause. In fact, her live-in partner through most of her 20s was Tom Allen, a Pittsburgh obstetrician and abortion provider 40 years older than she, who remains an outspoken crusader for reproductive rights and liberal ideals. Dr. Allen has known Mrs. Santorum, born Karen Garver, her entire life: he delivered her in 1960.

puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Tuesday, 17 January 2012 21:54 (six years ago) Permalink

there's a GOP thread

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 18 January 2012 00:54 (six years ago) Permalink

not totally dead, since Trans Canada will probably resubmit an application for a permit with a revised route through Nebraska, but dead for this year at least.

however, the political debate over it is alive and well, and that means we'll have to put up with garbage like this for the next year:

“President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs and sell American energy security to the Chinese. The President won’t stand up to his political base even to create American jobs,” Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said in a statement.

even though even Trans Canada itself dramatically walked back their absurd job creation claims, and federal and independent analyses have pegged job creation in the U.S. at around a few hundred temporary jobs. but i guess holding politicians accountable for bogus "facts" isn't a job of the DC press corp these days.

Z S, Wednesday, 18 January 2012 18:49 (six years ago) Permalink

Obama fan Benen at Washington Monthly seems very pleased-- good economic news and Obama at least delaying Keystone, while Mitt is busy with his own taxes and Newt

curmudgeon, Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:21 (six years ago) Permalink

i love zerohedge

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 20 January 2012 16:40 (six years ago) Permalink

this has been brewing for a while, but good on obama to stand his ground on this one, this is great:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/health/policy/administration-rules-insurers-must-cover-contraceptives.html

OCs, plan b, sterilization procedures, etc covered free of copay or deductible as of august 1

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Saturday, 21 January 2012 01:30 (six years ago) Permalink

Giffords to resign her House seat. Good decision.

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 22 January 2012 21:11 (six years ago) Permalink

I endured an argument with a self-described lib friend last night who says he still trusts his government to determine who's a terrorist (and he works for a newspaper). I had to explain the Obama administration's delight in drone attacks on American citizens, the president's signing of the NDAA, and the Justice Department's curious attitude towards whistleblowers.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 22 January 2012 21:20 (six years ago) Permalink

Re the contraception decision: I want to punch every single religious speaker in that article in the mouth and nose at least 4 times.

It means why you gotta be a montague? (Laurel), Sunday, 22 January 2012 21:20 (six years ago) Permalink

953 ballots cast by voters listed as dead.

Chicago machine-style!

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, 23 January 2012 12:34 (six years ago) Permalink

Re the contraception decision: I want to punch every single religious speaker in that article in the mouth and nose at least 4 times.

― It means why you gotta be a montague? (Laurel), Sunday, 22 January 2012 21:20 (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

'we are unable to live with this' is v frustrating to hear

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Monday, 23 January 2012 12:55 (six years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I mean

But church groups said the exemption was so narrow that it was almost meaningless. A religious employer cannot qualify for the exemption if it employs or serves large numbers of people of a different faith, as many Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies do.

Yes, that's right. You DO stay in "business" by serving people other than practicing Catholics, because that is your chosen JOB.

I have a paranoid daughter and a son who is addicted to internet (Laurel), Monday, 23 January 2012 14:36 (six years ago) Permalink

have we talked about the lol irony of Rand Paul's TSA detention yet

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 17:24 (six years ago) Permalink

cuz lol on way to pro-life rally, objects to gov't making invasive search of his body

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 17:25 (six years ago) Permalink

Delicious ironing.

I have a paranoid daughter and a son who is addicted to internet (Laurel), Monday, 23 January 2012 17:32 (six years ago) Permalink

x-post

I endured an argument with a self-described lib friend last night who says he still trusts his government to determine who's a terrorist (and he works for a newspaper). I had to explain the Obama administration's delight in drone attacks on American citizens, the president's signing of the NDAA, and the Justice Department's curious attitude towards whistleblowers.

― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, January 22,

I know a number of Dems who trust the government to determine who is a terrorist and believe that using drones is preferable to sending in Americans on dangerous missions to kill alleged terrorists. While they regret the loss of innocent lives, they maintain that the goverment does their best with their use of drones, and that the deaths that result are at least, not intentional killings of innocents like those done by the Taliban and various other groups.

curmudgeon, Monday, 23 January 2012 17:43 (six years ago) Permalink

come come, Mr Bond, you enjoy killing just as much as I do.

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, 23 January 2012 17:45 (six years ago) Permalink

Dems trust the government because one of them is in the White House.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 17:47 (six years ago) Permalink

^^^

that sort of myopia about civil rights is plenty irritating. altho I am more sympathetic to the "drone strikes = better than troops" argument

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 17:48 (six years ago) Permalink

they maintain that the goverment does their best with their use of drones

not sure this is easily believed, tbh

not intentional killings of innocents like those done by the Taliban and various other groups.

and this is the worst kind of relativism

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 23 January 2012 17:49 (six years ago) Permalink

better those mountain-dwelling Pakis than our boys

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, 23 January 2012 17:51 (six years ago) Permalink

Yeah, what do these crazy idiots want us to do, risk our military on the battlefield?

Famous porn scenes like "shake that bear" (Phil D.), Monday, 23 January 2012 17:52 (six years ago) Permalink

there are no battlefields anymore

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 17:55 (six years ago) Permalink

and frankly I prefer the targeted use of drones to, say, the carpet bombing of cities, as was commonly undertaken in previous wars

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 17:55 (six years ago) Permalink

I mean I know this calculus is brutal and wrong, but 20 dead innocent civilians is a marginally better scenario than the firebombing of Tokyo, or the carpet bombing of Cambodia

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 17:56 (six years ago) Permalink

Love is a battlefield.

Famous porn scenes like "shake that bear" (Phil D.), Monday, 23 January 2012 17:57 (six years ago) Permalink

no one can tell us we're wrong

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:04 (six years ago) Permalink

You guys have read the stories about inaccurate targeting, right?

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:06 (six years ago) Permalink

wait are you saying robots make mistakes

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:07 (six years ago) Permalink

glibness aside, yes I am aware but I don't see how that alters the calculus described above

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:08 (six years ago) Permalink

I suppose it's cool that our boys and girls aren't the ones dying but we're making families miffed.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:09 (six years ago) Permalink

and survivors have sought revenge.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:09 (six years ago) Permalink

I wouldn't call it "cool", exactly

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:11 (six years ago) Permalink

The legal memorandum, portions of which were described to The New York Times last October, asserted that it would be lawful to kill Awlaki as long as it was not feasible to capture him alive—and if it could be demonstrated that he represented a real threat to the American people. Further, administration officials contend, Awlaki was covered under the congressional grant of authority to wage war against al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11.

pretty much what I was expecting

although it isn't clear to me why they didn't just convict him of treason in absentia (this can be done, yes?), revoke his citizenship, and THEN kill him. seems like that would have been less legally questionable.

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:15 (six years ago) Permalink

it's funny how much stuff about treason is in the constitution

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:15 (six years ago) Permalink

man that is so much hassle

xp

yeah well new nation born in a war and all that

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:16 (six years ago) Permalink

stop corrupting the blood

dayo, Monday, 23 January 2012 18:16 (six years ago) Permalink

John Marshall's ruling in the Aaron Burr case made treason a next to impossible charge to stick.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:16 (six years ago) Permalink

at time of constitution's drafting some 1/3 of "americans" were loyalists of one kind or another right?

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:17 (six years ago) Permalink

just seems to me like leaving the country and then advocating/actively working for its "destruction" is like the legal epitome of treason.

xp

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:17 (six years ago) Permalink

John Marshall's ruling in the Aaron Burr case made treason a next to impossible charge to stick.

hmm I haven't read this, but I'll take your word for it. Burr was an interesting dude... Vidal's book about him is hilarious

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:18 (six years ago) Permalink

"two admittedly regrettable but nevertheless distinguishable scenarios..."

http://www.retrohound.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/vlcsnap-2011-01-19-14h13m32s118.png

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:19 (six years ago) Permalink

The question now to be decided has been argued in a manner worthy of its importance, and with an earnestness evincing the strong conviction felt by the counsel on each side that the law is with them. A degree of eloquence seldom displayed on any occasion has embellished a solidity of argument and a depth of research by which the court has been greatly aided in forming the opinion it is about to deliver. The testimony adduced on the part of the United States to prove the overt act laid in the indictment having shown, and the attorney for the United States having admitted, that the prisoner was not present when that act, whatever may be its character, was committed, and there being no reason to doubt but that he was at a great distance, and in a different state, it is objected to the testimony offered on the part of the United States to connect him with those who committed the overt act, that such testimony is totally irrelevant, and must, therefore, be rejected. The arguments in support of this motion respect in part the merits of the case as it may be supposed to stand independent of the pleadings, and in part as exhibited by the pleadings.
On the first division of the subject two points are made:

1st. That, conformably to the constitution of the United States, no man can be convicted of treason who was not present when the war was levied.

2d. That if this construction be erroneous, no testimony can be received to charge one man with the overt acts of others until those overt acts as laid in the indictment be proved to the satisfaction of the court.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:20 (six years ago) Permalink

although it isn't clear to me why they didn't just convict him of treason in absentia (this can be done, yes?), revoke his citizenship, and THEN kill him.

dude what?

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:21 (six years ago) Permalink

freedom from trial in absentia is like one of the most basic and important procedural protections there are! let me dig up the relevant lit

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:22 (six years ago) Permalink

guys, remember: Shakes is still lobbying to be the secretary of defense in a Soto administration.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:22 (six years ago) Permalink

i'm never sure what people get out of these "at least he's not..." arguments. i suppose i'm glad obama's not doing even worse shit than he already is, but an illegal assassination program isn't exactly the only alternative to carpet-bombing pakistan.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:23 (six years ago) Permalink

"volunteering for service in a foreign military" = grounds for revocation of citizenship

xpp

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:26 (six years ago) Permalink

shakey: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-6194.ZS.html

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:27 (six years ago) Permalink

buuut the gov't doesn't want to argue that al Q is an "army"

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:27 (six years ago) Permalink

this whole scenario does beg the question - if dude could not be captured, what other course could the US gov't take against Awlaki?

xp

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:28 (six years ago) Permalink

buuut the gov't doesn't want to argue that al Q is an "army"

yeah that's a whole other problem...

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:29 (six years ago) Permalink

That's the trouble. The national security state hasn't reconciled Supreme Court opinions, Office of Legal Counsel decisions, and Oval Office urgency.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:31 (six years ago) Permalink

this whole scenario does beg the question - if dude could not be captured, what other course could the US gov't take against Awlaki?

xp

― “How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, January 23, 2012 1:28 PM (3 minutes ago)

it RAISES the question, and yeah i guess their only other option would be to kill him, which is what they did! doesn't mean it's grounded in law

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:32 (six years ago) Permalink

That's the trouble. The national security state hasn't reconciled Supreme Court opinions, Office of Legal Counsel decisions, and Oval Office urgency.

yep, a huge mess with no end in sight.

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:33 (six years ago) Permalink

color me naive but it's still amazing & creeped out to me that "secret opinions" are possible

no doubt there's a long ass history of these things throughout the cold war. or maybe not! i rly don't know.

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:34 (six years ago) Permalink

doesn't mean it's grounded in law

shoot first, write law later lol

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:34 (six years ago) Permalink

ha otm

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:35 (six years ago) Permalink

thx for the legal links btw, thought there might be something unique aspect of treason charges/circumstances that would allow the in absentia thing but I guess not

“How you like that, Mr. Hitler!” (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:36 (six years ago) Permalink

although it isn't clear to me why they didn't just convict him of treason in absentia (this can be done, yes?), revoke his citizenship, and THEN kill him.

There's no trial by absentia in the US, also:

"volunteering for service in a foreign military" = grounds for revocation of citizenship

Only if we are currently belligerents with that foreign military, or you happen to be an officer or Non-Comm - you have to give that position up but you don't actually have to be discharged.

Frobisher (Viceroy), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:39 (six years ago) Permalink

The New York Times has filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration under the Freedom of Information Act seeking the release of the Justice Department legal opinion in the Awlaki case. (The department has declined to provide the documents requested.)

curmudgeon, Monday, 23 January 2012 18:45 (six years ago) Permalink

color me naive but it's still amazing & creeped out to me that "secret opinions" are possible

no doubt there's a long ass history of these things throughout the cold war. or maybe not! i rly don't know.

― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, January 23, 2012 1:34 PM (54 seconds ago)

hey on the bright side people have the opportunity for definite acquittal, ostensible acquittal, and indefinite postponement

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:49 (six years ago) Permalink

Oh and an XP to myself and clarification for shakes -- declaring yourself an enemy combatant through joining up with Al Qaeda or their All-Yemeni B-Team is enough (in my mind) to count as willfully giving up your citizenship. A judge might need a bit more convincing but probably not by much.

Frobisher (Viceroy), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:50 (six years ago) Permalink

TBQH I also thought for a long time that for some of the high crimes like double murders and treason and stuff you could be tried in absentia, dunno why. I blame British television.

Frobisher (Viceroy), Monday, 23 January 2012 18:58 (six years ago) Permalink

declaring yourself an enemy combatant through joining up with Al Qaeda or their All-Yemeni B-Team is enough (in my mind) to count as willfully giving up your citizenship

mm yeah no

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 19:01 (six years ago) Permalink

damn Alfred you are right - renunciation of citizenship takes some official hoops I didn't realize one had to jump through: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

Think I'll take a break from this thread for a few more years...

Frobisher (Viceroy), Monday, 23 January 2012 19:09 (six years ago) Permalink

Too late, we've ordered a drone strike on your location.

Famous porn scenes like "shake that bear" (Phil D.), Monday, 23 January 2012 19:25 (six years ago) Permalink

You might miss and take out one of the rest of us instead

curmudgeon, Monday, 23 January 2012 20:13 (six years ago) Permalink

and no army will defend our dead

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 23 January 2012 20:17 (six years ago) Permalink

jfc

dayo, Monday, 23 January 2012 20:57 (six years ago) Permalink

what the FUCK

Chaka Collar, lemme rock you (DJP), Monday, 23 January 2012 20:59 (six years ago) Permalink

fuuuck

tho in mind of b-face self-scratcher girl and the suicide census worker with "fed" on him, i think i'd like to see more info discovered about this

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, 23 January 2012 21:01 (six years ago) Permalink

I am pretty certain that was done by someone's idiot children

Chaka Collar, lemme rock you (DJP), Monday, 23 January 2012 21:02 (six years ago) Permalink

a banner day for weird shit:

An aide to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) resigned Monday after he was arrested for battery following a bizarre incident in which his wife alleged he rolled her up in a carpet, beat and kicked her.

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, 23 January 2012 23:22 (six years ago) Permalink

that's the guy on the shortlist for vp nom right?

dayo, Monday, 23 January 2012 23:29 (six years ago) Permalink

the aide would be a pretty good pick imo

iatee, Monday, 23 January 2012 23:30 (six years ago) Permalink

That cat story is bad enough, then you get to the Republican pointing to his military service in his condemnation. I think you can chill with the talking points, bro.

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 23 January 2012 23:36 (six years ago) Permalink

where did you guys talk about the state of the union?

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:09 (six years ago) Permalink

GOP primary thread, tho not much talk, really.

Clay, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:10 (six years ago) Permalink

fitting

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:11 (six years ago) Permalink

i had better use for the evening ... watching old Colin Baker-era doctor who episodes.

wad of baloney (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:13 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah i was getting drinks with friends, mercifully

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 04:14 (six years ago) Permalink

I kinda watched it while writing something about music for my local alt-weekly. Just read the annoying Washington Post (likely Fred Hyatt written)take on the speech. They grumble that Obama's proposed tax changes would unfairly benefit manufacturers over other businesses; and that he won't propose a higher gas tax and other user fees in order to deficit. They liked Mitch Daniels rebuttal speech because he focussed on the debt, but then the W. Post acknowledged that the Republicans have not offered "responsible proposals to pay for the nation's needs." Oh brother.

I liked the Buffet Rule thing Obama said: those earning 1 million or more have to pay at least 30% in taxes, but that's mostly just reelection talk.

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 13:24 (six years ago) Permalink

in order to cut the deficit

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 13:25 (six years ago) Permalink

Washington Monthly blogger (and Obama cheerleader) Steve Benen is leaving that site to become a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show” and an MSNBC contributor.

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 16:00 (six years ago) Permalink

just what MSNBC needs to blunt their skeptical edge

Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 16:09 (six years ago) Permalink

I liked the SOTU, and thought there was a lot of good substance in it, beyond the Buffett rule thing that the media focused on. For instance, reform of Senate rules to allow certain types of business to be conducted by majority vote, a shift in emphasis from deficit cutting to infrastructure investment, education reform ideas, immigration reform, and lots of other things.

o. nate, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 16:57 (six years ago) Permalink

Those ideas were nice and the speech was carefully crafted though to start off with the gung-ho America's military is the greatest stuff. Everything seemed carefully selected to respond to Republican candidates attacks.

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:34 (six years ago) Permalink

If this moves us one step closer to beatdowns on the floor of the House and Senate, I am all over it:

In a heated hearing Wednesday on Capitol Hill, Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman called upon the billionaire Koch brothers to be subpoenaed over their alleged monetary interests in the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Republican Congressman Ed Whitfield angrily cut off Waxman. “We’re not going to be subpoenaing the Koch brothers … because the Koch brothers have nothing to do with this project,” Whitfield snapped.

“Point of order!” Waxman exclaimed. “You cut me out in the middle of a sentence!”

“Your time was up, Mr. Waxman!” Whitfield shot back. “We are going to recess this hearing for ten minutes and then we’re going to come back.”

“Are you calling the Koch brothers during the recess?” Waxman sniped.

“If you want to talk about that, let’s talk about the millions of dollars the Obama administration gave companies like Solyndra and people like George Kaiser and other campaign bundlers,” Whitfield fumed.

“Why are you interrupting members and then you take unlimited time for yourself?” Waxman responded.

“I’m the chairman! And I’m telling you right now we’re going to recess for ten minutes!” Whitfield boomed, before storming out of the hearing.

You got to ro-o-oll me and call me the tumblr whites (Phil D.), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:35 (six years ago) Permalink

Waxman is the shit

Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:40 (six years ago) Permalink

Some grade-A trolling by Waxman there.

o. nate, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:40 (six years ago) Permalink

solyndra thing was ok but whitfield shoulda gone "no i'm gonna call your mom"

buzza, Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:40 (six years ago) Permalink

“Are you calling the Koch brothers during the recess?” Waxman sniped.

boom, tough actin' tinactin.

the Koch brothers certainly DO have a financial interest in Keystone XL, of course, and i'm sure Whitfield knows that.

SELF DEPORTATION (Z S), Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:43 (six years ago) Permalink

sorry, here's some context:

PHOENIX — President Obama’s visit to Phoenix got off to a rough start on Wednesday afternoon when Air Force One was met by Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona — she of the book “Scorpions for Breakfast,” in which she accuses the Obama administration of turning a blind eye to illegal immigration because migrants will help Mr. Obama register more Democratic votes.

Mr. Obama stepped off the plane and was greeted by Ms. Brewer, who handed him a handwritten letter in an envelope that she later said was an invitation to discuss the “Arizona comeback.” The two had an intense exchange for several minutes; at one point Ms. Brewer pointed her finger at Mr. Obama.

...At one point, the two seemed to be talking at the same time, seemingly over each other. Mr. Obama appeared to walk away from Ms. Brewer while she was still talking.

SELF DEPORTATION (Z S), Thursday, 26 January 2012 15:13 (six years ago) Permalink

are they... about to kiss

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Thursday, 26 January 2012 15:14 (six years ago) Permalink

The rightwing take:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/thou-shalt-not-write-bad-things-about-obama_618603.html

Two Republican govs say Obama was mean to them in person (for things they wrote about him)

curmudgeon, Thursday, 26 January 2012 15:15 (six years ago) Permalink

about to hurl
xp

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Thursday, 26 January 2012 15:15 (six years ago) Permalink

Disappointed to find out Scorpions for Breakfast isn't a cookbook ;_;

no more mr. nice girls (Abbbottt), Thursday, 26 January 2012 15:26 (six years ago) Permalink

I think you're looking for To Serve Scorpions.

You got to ro-o-oll me and call me the tumblr whites (Phil D.), Thursday, 26 January 2012 15:30 (six years ago) Permalink

One of my friends just posted the following on Facebook. RIP America:

I avoid politics on social media but I wanted to relate something to you. My son had an eighth grade history assignment in which they're studying how our government works. They were instructed to watch the State of The Union speech and write about two topics brought up in it.

He told me that some of the students brought letters from home saying they did not like Obama in their household and would not allow their child to participate in this homework assignment.

You got to ro-o-oll me and call me the tumblr whites (Phil D.), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:29 (six years ago) Permalink

that's easy to fix: F's for non-participation

I mean, no one said they had to ENDORSE Obama, just write about what he talked about!

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:32 (six years ago) Permalink

those kids should get Fs

lol xp

Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:32 (six years ago) Permalink

Those PARENTS should get Fs.

one little aioli (Laurel), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:33 (six years ago) Permalink

and so should their kids

valuable lessons will be learned all the way around

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:34 (six years ago) Permalink

i wonder if that's the same kind of facebook nugget as someone posting that their friend's kid went into show & tell with an apple & was told they had to give a recital of verses from the quran! or whatever instead

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:34 (six years ago) Permalink

are these the same parents I quoted in the Corner thread who thought FDR was a Republican

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:35 (six years ago) Permalink

Reminds of when I was a junior in HS (1986) and one of my classmates left half of a biology test blank, because he refused to answer questions about evolution. This guy, who was otherwise a nearly straight-A student, took a big ol' F.

You got to ro-o-oll me and call me the tumblr whites (Phil D.), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:35 (six years ago) Permalink

He told me that some of the students brought letters from home saying they did not like Obama trigonometry in their household and would not allow their child to participate in this homework assignment.

Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:36 (six years ago) Permalink

i was more amazed someone was charing $250 for one of those 'presidents playing poker' prints

xp 2 alfred

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:36 (six years ago) Permalink

hmmm i wonder if those parents would be able to whip up enough frenzy to get Bill O'Reilly to publicly call for the teacher to lose his/her job xxxxp

ban dejar (Drugs A. Money), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:37 (six years ago) Permalink

their friend's kid went into show & tell with an apple & was told they had to give a recital of verses from the quran!

What kind of loser kid goes to show and tell with nothing more than an apple?

Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:38 (six years ago) Permalink

Well they don't like evolution or sex ed, either, so there's probably an angle from which this is just another thing about the world they don't want their kid/s exposed to and wish to pretend doesn't exist. School a la carte.

The possibility that a public educational system might have a responsibility to educate kids equally w/r/t reality no matter what their parents think doesn't seem to have registered with the lunatic middle.

one little aioli (Laurel), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:39 (six years ago) Permalink

i am not american, i figured you guys just picked something off the table on yr way out
xp

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:40 (six years ago) Permalink

English homework?! You heathens! It's Ancient Greek and Hebrew or Aramaic or nothing - he can learn to speak in tongues.

Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:41 (six years ago) Permalink

Indeed:

Members of Tennessee tea parties presented state legislators with five priorities for action Wednesday, including “rejecting” the federal health reform act, establishing an elected “chief litigator” for the state and “educating students the truth about America.”

. . .

Regarding education, the material they distributed said, “Neglect and outright ill will have distorted the teaching of the history and character of the United States. We seek to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government.”

That would include, the documents say, that “the Constitution created a Republic, not a Democracy.”

The material calls for lawmakers to amend state laws governing school curriculums, and for textbook selection criteria to say that “No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”

Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds, the group’s lead spokesman during the news conference, said the group wants to address “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.

“The thing we need to focus on about the founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn’t existed, to everybody — not all equally instantly — and it was their progress that we need to look at,” said Rounds, whose website identifies him as a Vietnam War veteran of the Air Force and FedEx retiree who became a lawyer in 1995.

It's nearly impossible to describe how much this garbage pisses me off.

You got to ro-o-oll me and call me the tumblr whites (Phil D.), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:43 (six years ago) Permalink

"made-up criticism"?????????????????????????????????

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:45 (six years ago) Permalink

it was just a little slavery

Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:48 (six years ago) Permalink

"not all equally instantly." I mean the fucking zen koan beauty of that is just . . .

You got to ro-o-oll me and call me the tumblr whites (Phil D.), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:49 (six years ago) Permalink

"Look, the Indians weren't even USING that land, so how much of an intrusion was it, really?"

You got to ro-o-oll me and call me the tumblr whites (Phil D.), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:49 (six years ago) Permalink

how does he reconcile equally instant equality with slavery

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:52 (six years ago) Permalink

And as if on cue:

Veto override gives parents more control over what their kids are taught

CONCORD - The Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would give parents greater control over course materials taught in schools.

Both the House and Senate voted to override the governor's veto of HB 542, which requires school districts to adopt policies to allow "an exception to specific course material based on a parent's or legal guardian's determination that the material is objectionable."

The House failed in an attempt in to override the veto in its last session in November. But after voting to reconsider the measure, the House passed the override on Wednesday 255 to 122, meeting the two-thirds requirement.

The Senate then voted 17-5 to override the governor.

The bill was inspired by a controversy at Bedford High School, where parents of a student objected to the book, “Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In America.”

That's a great fucking book and should be required reading in every HS social science curriculum btw.

You got to ro-o-oll me and call me the tumblr whites (Phil D.), Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:55 (six years ago) Permalink

I frankly think of that as not only anti-social but it could lead to something akin to child-endangerment.

Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Thursday, 26 January 2012 17:07 (six years ago) Permalink

does this jan brewer finger pointing at elitist thin skinned petulant kenyan president work on anyone other than lizard brain gop folk?

strongly recommend. unless you're a bitch (mayor jingleberries), Thursday, 26 January 2012 19:19 (six years ago) Permalink

no

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Thursday, 26 January 2012 19:20 (six years ago) Permalink

I love that he's the divider.

Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Thursday, 26 January 2012 19:25 (six years ago) Permalink

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/01/obamas-strategic-tarmac-attack.html

President Obama’s people have portrayed his tarmac confrontation with Arizona's Jan Brewer as a kind of accidental blowup stemming from his pique that her book allegedly misrepresented a private conversation they had. If it’s an accident, though, it’s a pretty fortuitous one.

Arizona is one of the few states Obama lost in 2008 where his campaign thinks it can compete in 2012. He’s no longer running against a favorite son, and the fast-growing Latino population might give him a shot. But in Arizona, and elsewhere, Obama need to energize Latinos, who tend to vote at low rates.

The Republican strategy is sort of a miniature version of their broader legislative strategy. Republicans, along with a handful of conservative Democrats, blocked comprehensive immigration reform and then blocked even the modest DREAM Act, and their message is that Latinos should vote for them because Obama failed to carry out his campaign promise to pass those bills. It’s actually quite clever.

Since Obama can’t get anything passed through Congress, one option is to simply clarify that he opposes the GOP’s most draconian elements. So: A public shouting match with a governor who’s unpopular with Arizonans in general and despised by Latinos. (Her job approval with Arizona Latinos is minus 40.)

An accident? I doubt it.

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 26 January 2012 19:29 (six years ago) Permalink

(Her job approval with Arizona Latinos is minus 40.)

lolizona

Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2012 19:33 (six years ago) Permalink

stupid people tend to be conservative lol

altho I don't trust IQ tests as a measure of anything whatsoever and iirc not too many people here do

Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2012 20:01 (six years ago) Permalink

i was just about to post that, with a similar caution

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Thursday, 26 January 2012 20:08 (six years ago) Permalink

3,710 comments

o_O

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 26 January 2012 20:09 (six years ago) Permalink

enh, afaik IQ tests are vastly different than the (funnily, in this case) racist/classist/etc tests of old

i had one recently as part of a neuropsych evaluation and it was a lot more about mensa-style problem solving and less about cultural literacy and the like

point being: i am quite happy to accept the relevance of IQ tests if it means i get to call conservatives stupid

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Thursday, 26 January 2012 20:09 (six years ago) Permalink

Trolling my bro-in-law in the "conservatives are too stupid to make me a grilled cheese sandwich, much less govern a city, state or nation" is the only thing that manages to shake him from his usual calm. Which is obviously catnip to me.

"Blue" Meme Tyranny (WmC), Thursday, 26 January 2012 20:16 (six years ago) Permalink

My nephew was a senior in high school in North Carolina during the 2008 election season. They had a mock debate in his civcs class in which my nephew was assigned the role of Obama, another student was McCain, and the teacher was the moderator.

My nephew supported McCain/Palin and wound up voting for them (argh) but in the role of Obama, one of his arguments was that Palin lacked experience. His teacher - the moderator - cut him off and lectured the class about how scary it was that Obama, who was likely a Muslim, was willing to negotiate w/ terrorists and how Palin's experience as governor made her more qualified than BHO. When they resumed the debate, my nephew was instructed to make clear that he was saying only what the other side would probably say.

Je55e, Friday, 27 January 2012 18:59 (six years ago) Permalink

good luck usa

WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Friday, 27 January 2012 19:22 (six years ago) Permalink

I suppose if we all get to call conservatives stupid based on that study, then we might have to swallow The Bell Curve, too. I prefer to call some of their ideas stupid based on the thought process by which they arrived at them and the arguments used to defend them. Much less of a mine field.

Aimless, Friday, 27 January 2012 19:49 (six years ago) Permalink

3,710 comments

over 24,000 now

mookieproof, Friday, 27 January 2012 19:53 (six years ago) Permalink

mental!

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 27 January 2012 19:59 (six years ago) Permalink

Panetta confirms use of Stalinism vs "terrorism"

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/30/leon_panettas_explicitly_authoritarian_decree/singleton/

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Monday, 30 January 2012 15:12 (six years ago) Permalink

oh no not a strongly worded letter!

Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 30 January 2012 20:59 (six years ago) Permalink

lol they won't have the votes by then

Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 30 January 2012 21:24 (six years ago) Permalink

Greenwald will be mocking that, if he has not already.

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 20:34 (six years ago) Permalink

Big New Yorker piece based on internal White House memos and such on the failure of Obama's attempt to be "post-partisan"

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 20:35 (six years ago) Permalink

4 out of 13 ain't bad i guess

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16806006

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 31 January 2012 20:46 (six years ago) Permalink

great news, everybody!

The nation's leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is halting its partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates — creating a bitter rift, linked to the abortion debate, between two iconic organizations that have assisted millions of women.

The change will mean a cutoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, mainly for breast exams.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/31/146160911/susan-g-komen-halts-grants-to-planned-parenthood

bnw, Tuesday, 31 January 2012 23:02 (six years ago) Permalink

i need to read up on that, seems truly gross.

but on first glance "hundreds of thousands of dollars" doesn't seem like a whole lot of money

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 00:00 (six years ago) Permalink

It's blowing up all over Twitter and the feminist blogs I read. And even beyond the money, it's the kowtowing to right-wing bullying that's pissing people off. It's going to be an absolute PR disaster for Komen, and why organizations insist on scoring own-goals like this for no legitimate reason whatsoever is a mystery.

You got to ro-o-oll me and call me the tumblr whites (Phil D.), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 01:03 (six years ago) Permalink

"How come no research into mega-dose IV vitamin C for cancer? There are studies proving its efficacy. Hey Komen, how come you haven't consulted with TV star Suzanne Somers about her breast cancer cure from European mistletoe extract injections? She wrote a bestseller about it."

?

dead precedents politics as usual (Hunt3r), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 04:17 (six years ago) Permalink

i need to read up on that, seems truly gross.

but on first glance "hundreds of thousands of dollars" doesn't seem like a whole lot of money

Interesting, "gross" is how other FB and Twitter friends have described it. OTM description.

I didn't renown before today that Santorum claims that abortions cause breast cancer, which, what the fucking christ.

garbage corn fan (Je55e), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 05:55 (six years ago) Permalink

Oh yeah, that's been a huge - and, obvs, widely debunked - anti-choicer talking point for a few years now.

After the Komen news broke yesterday left blogger TBogg tweeted: "Tomorrow should see a wave of links to discredited studies asserting that abortion causes breast cancer. #justmakingshitup"

You got to ro-o-oll me and call me the tumblr whites (Phil D.), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 10:29 (six years ago) Permalink

He also suggests:

We’ve  done this before, but you can make a donation to Planned Parenthood and request a thank you card be sent to

Karen Handel
Senior VP of Fail
c/o Susan G. Komen Foundation
P.O. Box 650309
Dallas, TX 75265-0309

(UPDATE) From a reader:

Hi TBogg,

Just made a donation of 50 clams, but I would have loved to have gifted it to Karen Handel as you suggested in your post. maybe you could update the post to let people know that they need to do it as an “Honorary Giving” rather than a “One Time Gift”, which doesn’t offer the choice to send a card

You got to ro-o-oll me and call me the tumblr whites (Phil D.), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 10:31 (six years ago) Permalink

I didn't renown before today that Santorum claims that abortions cause breast cancer, which, what the fucking christ.

― garbage corn fan (Je55e), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 05:55 (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

fwiw the backstory with this is that there are studies suggesting that while you're pregnant, your susceptibility to breast cancer decreases; therefore, in stopping being pregnant - having an abortion - your likelihood of getting cancer reverts to its pre-pregnancy norm. it was a cheap kinda conspiracy theory for quite a while but afaik had sorta fallen out of use; as well as obviously not being a causal thing, the key issue w/it is that it concerns the same 'risk' that one inherits by a) just not getting pregnant or b) having a baby

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 11:09 (six years ago) Permalink

a spin on the new Obama task force that NY attorney General Schneiderman will be involved with, investigating fraudulent mortgage practices (Schneiderman, and the California and Delaware AGs had resisted the Obama effort to reach a quick settlement)

For three years, the Obama administration had not wished to pursue such a course. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner did not want to subject Wall Street to this kind of poking around through its records, much less to prosecutions that could compel major banks to be restructured. But over the past year, as Schneiderman hung tough, the political winds shifted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eric-schneiderman-new-york-ag-shaped-drive-to-hold-banks-accountable/2012/01/30/gIQAjWxCgQ_story.html

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 1 February 2012 16:07 (six years ago) Permalink

I need coffee because at first I was all "why did his parents name him General"

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 16:09 (six years ago) Permalink

like Sargent Shriver?

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 16:10 (six years ago) Permalink

that's such a great name. it's like a chaucer character or something

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 16:10 (six years ago) Permalink

shades of Major Major Major Major

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 16:12 (six years ago) Permalink

ha

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 1 February 2012 16:22 (six years ago) Permalink

My friend, who is in the army and has been stationed in Germany for almost 2 years, went back to Mobile for the first time since he left over Christmas. He went to a bar and when the cops saw he was using a German drivers license for an ID, they immediately threw him to the ground, stuck their knee in his back, and cuffed him. I'm surprised the general outrage at the law and its enforcement hasn't been greater tbh.

encarta it (Gukbe), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 22:48 (six years ago) Permalink

cops were stationed in the bar?

buzza, Wednesday, 1 February 2012 22:51 (six years ago) Permalink

they were outside the bar. most of the bars in the downtown area are on a couple of blocks and they have cops stationed there every weekend night. they were standing by the doorman for whatever reason and saw it.

encarta it (Gukbe), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 22:53 (six years ago) Permalink

When he finally fished out his military ID they let him go.

encarta it (Gukbe), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 22:54 (six years ago) Permalink

btw he is white and he speaks with a pretty thick southern drawl so at least it wasn't profiling, right?

encarta it (Gukbe), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 22:55 (six years ago) Permalink

and Alabama is usually such a progressive state.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 22:57 (six years ago) Permalink

Germany has such a violent past, I can really see the need there.

Aimless, Wednesday, 1 February 2012 23:17 (six years ago) Permalink

he might have been a mercedes-benz executive

dayo, Wednesday, 1 February 2012 23:26 (six years ago) Permalink

Wait, it's not illegal to be a German tourist in Alabama, now, is it?

Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 23:28 (six years ago) Permalink

it has been since 1917.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 23:30 (six years ago) Permalink

My point is that, whether they determine that someone is there illegally or not, being a foreigner shouldn't be enough on it's own to warrant getting thrown to the ground.

Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 23:32 (six years ago) Permalink

being a foreigner is the first step someone takes towards being there illegally. it's a slippery slope and I can see why they'd want to play it safe.

iatee, Wednesday, 1 February 2012 23:34 (six years ago) Permalink

well, remember: Germans are responsible for Hitler and Klaus Nomi.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 23:36 (six years ago) Permalink

Yeah 'cause illegal German immigration to Alabama is such a problem.

Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 23:37 (six years ago) Permalink

you let one in, next thing you know the place is littered with Udo Kiers and Rutger Hauers

Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 23:39 (six years ago) Permalink

I sure hope the USMNT doesn't plan to play there any time soon.

Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 23:46 (six years ago) Permalink

Germans don't wear deodorant in America.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 23:52 (six years ago) Permalink

Revenge for two world wars?

Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 23:55 (six years ago) Permalink

Officer Wiesenthal, Mobile PD

buzza, Wednesday, 1 February 2012 23:57 (six years ago) Permalink

guys the immigration law in bama basically requires cops to do that to anyone that can't show proof of citizenship or work papers

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Wednesday, 1 February 2012 23:58 (six years ago) Permalink

well there's a subtle but noticeable difference between checking papers and throwing ppl to the floor

mookieproof, Thursday, 2 February 2012 00:05 (six years ago) Permalink

yah. i mean the real difficulty he had initially was that his Alabama Drivers License had expired while he was stationed in Germany.

encarta it (Gukbe), Thursday, 2 February 2012 00:10 (six years ago) Permalink

Which part of Mobile?

Put another Juggle in, in the Juggalodeon (kingfish), Thursday, 2 February 2012 00:13 (six years ago) Permalink

Dauphin Street.

encarta it (Gukbe), Thursday, 2 February 2012 00:14 (six years ago) Permalink

Well that just makes sense, then; can't be too vigilant in protecting the Wintzell's

Put another Juggle in, in the Juggalodeon (kingfish), Thursday, 2 February 2012 00:17 (six years ago) Permalink

was this guy's last name Farragut?

brownie, Thursday, 2 February 2012 00:33 (six years ago) Permalink

you let one in, next thing you know the place is littered with Udo Kiers and Rutger Hauers

dilly goose, rutger hauer is dutch

wad of baloney (Eisbaer), Thursday, 2 February 2012 00:48 (six years ago) Permalink

slippery slope etc

Full Frontal Newtity (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 February 2012 00:51 (six years ago) Permalink

all these moments will be lost in time, like tears . . . in alabama

mookieproof, Thursday, 2 February 2012 01:26 (six years ago) Permalink

JessicaValenti Jessica Valenti Komen VP retweeted (then deleted) message saying "pro-abortion" groups should "cry me a river" yfrog.com/kkzyuyp via @KatieMStack

http://yfrog.com/kkzyuyp

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 2 February 2012 16:35 (six years ago) Permalink

the complete lack of self-awareness is sort of breathtaking

max, Thursday, 2 February 2012 16:38 (six years ago) Permalink

karen handel ran for governor of GA in 2010, endorsed by sarah palin

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 2 February 2012 16:40 (six years ago) Permalink

Komen, the marketing juggernaut that brought the world the ubiquitous pink ribbon campaign, says it cut-off Planned Parenthood because of a newly adopted foundation rule prohibiting it from funding any group that is under formal investigation by a government body. (Planned Parenthood is being investigated by Rep. Cliff Stearns, an anti-abortion Florida Republican, who says he is trying to learn if the group spent public money to provide abortions.)

But three sources with direct knowledge of the Komen decision-making process told me that the rule was adopted in order to create an excuse to cut-off Planned Parenthood. (Komen gives out grants to roughly 2,000 organizations, and the new "no-investigations" rule applies to only one so far.)

one wonders if karen handel, or someone else, had a way of finding cliff stearns' phone number?

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 2 February 2012 16:41 (six years ago) Permalink

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/lieberman_cantor_defend_capitol_hills_inside_traders/

Shocking, I know

curmudgeon, Thursday, 2 February 2012 18:46 (six years ago) Permalink

hurrah, ACLU sues over the "secret" assassinations that O boasts about to Jay Leno:

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/aclu_sues_obama_administration_over_assassination_secrecy/singleton/

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 2 February 2012 18:57 (six years ago) Permalink

This is an interesting post about the Komen's bumbling handling of their PR mess. Their initial silence and apparent lack of interest in controlling the story! http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2012/02/01/the-accidental-rebranding-of-komen-for-the-cure/

but on first glance "hundreds of thousands of dollars" doesn't seem like a whole lot of money

The WaPo story says: According to Planned Parenthood, its centers performed more than 4 million breast exams over the past five years, including nearly 170,000 as a result of Komen grants.

garbage corn fan (Je55e), Thursday, 2 February 2012 19:45 (six years ago) Permalink

This week's Sully outburst.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 February 2012 19:49 (six years ago) Permalink

Mike Bloomberg just donated 250k to Planned Parenthood, according to Carolyn Ryan of the NYT.

polyphonic, Thursday, 2 February 2012 20:41 (six years ago) Permalink

x-post--Shouldn't Morbs be thanking Obama for reducing US combat involvement in Afghanistan a year early?

curmudgeon, Thursday, 2 February 2012 20:57 (six years ago) Permalink

I'm really disappointed in Susan G. Komen for the Cure®. That's not what I expect from Susan G. Komen for the Cure®. I always thought Susan G. Komen for the Cure® put women's health first. I guess I never really knew Susan G. Komen for the Cure®.

buzza, Thursday, 2 February 2012 21:05 (six years ago) Permalink

believing L Panetta is a v dangerous thing, mudgey

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 2 February 2012 21:08 (six years ago) Permalink

Shouldn't Morbs be thanking Obama for reducing US combat involvement in Afghanistan a year early?

after sending in 60,000 troops in the first place? It's like being told you're getting slapped, then being told you should thank the abuser for stopping.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 February 2012 21:08 (six years ago) Permalink

that too, and I'm sure the drones will keep flying and hey there's Iran to look fwd to, perpetual war for perpetual 'peace'

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 2 February 2012 21:12 (six years ago) Permalink

we've been scowling at Iran a lot lately.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 February 2012 21:14 (six years ago) Permalink

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/02/02/what-does-romneys-tough-talk-on-afghanistan-mean/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

A vote for Romney will ensure that we stay tough on the Taliban until they are defeated (or at least for a year or two past Obama's designated time)

curmudgeon, Thursday, 2 February 2012 21:52 (six years ago) Permalink

that too, and I'm sure the drones will keep flying and hey there's Iran to look fwd to, perpetual war for perpetual 'peace'

― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, February 2, 2012 9:12 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't see Iran as a good candidate for a war of choice. Obama isn't dumb enough to get involved there without Iran forcing him to. Maybe we'll have "incidents" or whatever but war with Iran is nuts. Better to pick a teetering dictatorship somewhere else.

Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 2 February 2012 22:28 (six years ago) Permalink

i can't remember whether it was here we were discussing the pp/komen thing but fox news is teaching the controversy re: the gross irresponsible factually indefensible breast cancer thing:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/02/anti-abortion-groups-cite-cancer-abortion-link-to-explain-komens-split-with/

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Thursday, 2 February 2012 23:00 (six years ago) Permalink

Obama isn't dumb enough to get involved there without Iran forcing him to

We kind of already are involved...?

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 February 2012 23:03 (six years ago) Permalink

That's basically Santorum's take, isn't it schlump?

Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Thursday, 2 February 2012 23:06 (six years ago) Permalink

We kind of already are involved...?

This isn't anything particularly new. We've been going back and forth with Tehran over this since 2005.

Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Thursday, 2 February 2012 23:10 (six years ago) Permalink

That's basically Santorum's take, isn't it schlump?

― Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Thursday, 2 February 2012 23:06 (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i hadn't heard any of the candidates push it - it isn't a 'controversy' so it isn't really the tactic to pursue, although obv that didn't stop bachmann & the hpv vaccine etc. would be interested to hear if santorum's used it.

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Thursday, 2 February 2012 23:31 (six years ago) Permalink

The consequences of redistricting in North Carolina—one of the most important swing states in the country—could determine who controls Congress and the presidency in 2012. Democrats hold seven of the state's thirteen Congressional seats, but after redistricting they could control only three—the largest shift for Republicans at the Congressional level in any state this year. Though Obama won eight of the thirteen districts, under the new maps his vote would be contained in only three heavily Democratic districts—all of which would have voted 68 percent or higher for the president in 2008—while the rest of the districts would have favored John McCain by 55 percent or more. "GOP candidates could win just over half of the statewide vote for Congress and end up with 62 percent to 77 percent of the seats," found John Hood, president of the conservative John Locke Foundation.

How the GOP Is Resegregating the South

mookieproof, Thursday, 2 February 2012 23:58 (six years ago) Permalink

Alex Boisvert @al_ex_b
Komen For The Cure = One Motherfucker #anagrams

jaymc, Friday, 3 February 2012 13:29 (six years ago) Permalink

Komen just restored funding to PP per CNN

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Friday, 3 February 2012 16:26 (six years ago) Permalink

Well, that worked out badly for them, didn't it.

one little aioli (Laurel), Friday, 3 February 2012 16:27 (six years ago) Permalink

By which I mean FFFFFFF UUUUUUUUU !!!!!!

one little aioli (Laurel), Friday, 3 February 2012 16:27 (six years ago) Permalink

PP got a ton more donations too!

dayo, Friday, 3 February 2012 16:28 (six years ago) Permalink

I know it wasn't a coordinated PR stunt but I like entertaining the idea that it was

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 16:30 (six years ago) Permalink

I know! Best possible outcome.

one little aioli (Laurel), Friday, 3 February 2012 16:30 (six years ago) Permalink

I'm so pleased for PP and for the women who will get medical care b/c of the donated money, but I am positively GLEEFUL at the message it sends that they had to re-instate the funding in this atmosphere, because jesus christ but there's not much be gleeful about in women's health issues these days.

one little aioli (Laurel), Friday, 3 February 2012 16:31 (six years ago) Permalink

man some people better be getting fired at komen, what a fucking pr disaster.

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 16:33 (six years ago) Permalink

just to make it official and make you feel like you're on top of the social media wave

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/02/report-komen-reverses-decision-to-cut-planned-parenthood-funding/1

dayo, Friday, 3 February 2012 16:36 (six years ago) Permalink

man some people better be getting fired at komen, what a fucking pr disaster.

― iatee, Friday, February 3, 2012 11:33 AM (4 minutes ago)

typical job killing socialist here

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Friday, 3 February 2012 16:38 (six years ago) Permalink

If Rosie is on the ballot, I will recant my abstention intentions and vote for her. (She was making noise about doing this last summer.)

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 16:47 (six years ago) Permalink

LOL! I can't believe I'm going to be voting for Roseanne!

Today is Cocaine's Birthday! (Drugs A. Money), Friday, 3 February 2012 16:51 (six years ago) Permalink

But three sources with direct knowledge of the Komen decision-making process told me that the rule was adopted in order to create an excuse to cut off Planned Parenthood. (Komen gives out grants to roughly 2,000 organizations, and the new "no investigations" rule applies to only one so far.)But three sources with direct knowledge of the Komen decision-making process told me that the rule was adopted in order to create an excuse to cut off Planned Parenthood. (Komen gives out grants to roughly 2,000 organizations, and the new "no investigations" rule applies to only one so far.) The decision to create a rule that would cut funding to Planned Parenthood, according to these sources, was driven by the organization's new senior vice president for public policy, Karen Handel, a former gubernatorial candidate from Georgia who is staunchly anti-abortion and who has said that since she is "pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood." (The Komen grants to Planned Parenthood did not pay for abortion or contraception services, only cancer detection, according to all parties involved.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/top-susan-g-komen-official-resigned-over-planned-parenthood-cave-in-updated-with-statement-from-ex-komen-official/252405/

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 3 February 2012 17:02 (six years ago) Permalink

The consequences of redistricting in North Carolina—one of the most important swing states in the country—could determine who controls Congress and the presidency in 2012.

OK, I'm confused. Does NC or any other state assign their electoral votes for president based on who wins the most congressional districts?

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 17:50 (six years ago) Permalink

I'm pretty sure at least a couple of states assign their electoral votes on a per-district basis. Not at all common, though.

Aimless, Friday, 3 February 2012 17:56 (six years ago) Permalink

lol at any of you planning on voting for Roseanne and lol at her for running

Mordy, Friday, 3 February 2012 17:58 (six years ago) Permalink

I might! p sure Minnesota won't be plumping for Romney

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Friday, 3 February 2012 18:03 (six years ago) Permalink

xxpostif you live in a solidly blue or red state i say go for it!

but if you're in anything approaching a swing state >:(

your dominican divorce (will), Friday, 3 February 2012 18:04 (six years ago) Permalink

seriously considering voting for Roseanne

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 February 2012 18:06 (six years ago) Permalink

as many of us said on F'book when the NDAA was signed: fuck Obama. AND DON'T BACKPEDAL.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 18:09 (six years ago) Permalink

A more potent rallying cry if you had a better electoral system.

Andrew Farrell, Friday, 3 February 2012 18:15 (six years ago) Permalink

oh who cares - morbz lives in NY, he can vote for whoever he wants. surely tho there's another third party candidate who deserves your vote more than Roseanne???

Mordy, Friday, 3 February 2012 18:17 (six years ago) Permalink

have you seen the third party candidates recently

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 February 2012 18:18 (six years ago) Permalink

not since last election, but it's hard to imagine there's no one better.

Mordy, Friday, 3 February 2012 18:19 (six years ago) Permalink

you are welcome to write me in if you'd like

mookieproof, Friday, 3 February 2012 18:20 (six years ago) Permalink

OK, I'm confused. Does NC or any other state assign their electoral votes for president based on who wins the most congressional districts?

maine, nebraska. I think nc dems almost got a system like this in 2007 but didn't. either way nc not gonna be a deciding state.

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 18:27 (six years ago) Permalink

Roseanne has to get the Green Party nomination b4 any of you can actually vote for her.

jaymc, Friday, 3 February 2012 18:27 (six years ago) Permalink

my bad

Today is Cocaine's Birthday! (Drugs A. Money), Friday, 3 February 2012 18:28 (six years ago) Permalink

wow, heretofore I have actually underestimated what a fraud the presidential election is.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 18:30 (six years ago) Permalink

it's not a fraud if you live in like four states, you actually get to decide the fate of the free world

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 18:30 (six years ago) Permalink

I might! p sure Minnesota won't be plumping for Romney

― i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Friday, February 3, 2012 12:03 PM (27 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^^^dude, this is how we elected Ventura

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 3 February 2012 18:32 (six years ago) Permalink

ha I was just about to post "TS: President Barr vs Governor Ventura" but I got distracted by an M.I.A video

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 18:33 (six years ago) Permalink

I actually like RB. I liked her show and it got better when she gained more controll. I don't care about her politics or her nut farm and I think the fact that she might be on a ballot is almost as shameful as the Republican primaries.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 3 February 2012 18:37 (six years ago) Permalink

Do you think Roseanne wd pick Ginsburg or Sotomayor to swear her in?

If the goal of the candidacy and the vote is to send a message on behalf of the 99%, it's hard to think of a more appropriate ("better") candidate than Roseanne, who is perhaps their biggest voice in US culture in the last 30 years.

I think Obama being renominated uncontested is shameful.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 18:44 (six years ago) Permalink

what year is this? 1995?

Mordy, Friday, 3 February 2012 18:47 (six years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I am with you on RB and her voice. But voice /= competent governing. lol at voting to "send a message". Have you ever seen how people parse those "messages" from the voter? And what message does voting for a third party send anyway? Was it the same message with Perot as it was with Nader?

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 3 February 2012 18:52 (six years ago) Permalink

Morbz loves the shame

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 February 2012 18:53 (six years ago) Permalink

I think Obama being renominated uncontested is shameful.

otm.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 3 February 2012 18:53 (six years ago) Permalink

perot and nader were also arguably washed-up from their professions when they ran, too. and roseanne isn't that much worse than either reagan or schwarzeneggar when those clods began their political careers.

i'll at least listen to what roseanne has to say.

wad of baloney (Eisbaer), Friday, 3 February 2012 18:58 (six years ago) Permalink

I have to go soon, but I'm def in the 'morbz otm' camp

Today is Cocaine's Birthday! (Drugs A. Money), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:01 (six years ago) Permalink

voice /= competent governing.

oh, spare me from the competence we've had the last 30+ years.

also, she's not going to win.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:02 (six years ago) Permalink

even if you want obama flanked from the left, there's no widely-agreed-upon figure that could do that job atm.

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 19:03 (six years ago) Permalink

was gonna say (pace frank zappa in 1988 or so), even if roseanne doesn't know shit from shinola how could she do much worse -- what's she gonna do, crash the world economy or start a pointless war or use the Constitution for toilet paper or something like that?!?

wad of baloney (Eisbaer), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:05 (six years ago) Permalink

are we seriously talking about how roseanne would run things if she became president

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 19:05 (six years ago) Permalink

no, we are talking about how Nixon through Obama have run things since they've been President.

wad of baloney (Eisbaer), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:06 (six years ago) Permalink

anyway, like morbz said she isn't going to be President anyway ... she might not even get nominated.

wad of baloney (Eisbaer), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:08 (six years ago) Permalink

she needs a super pac

curmudgeon, Friday, 3 February 2012 19:15 (six years ago) Permalink

All that happens to make things run (all the people that are doing the right things that we agree with and don't pay attention to) comes from soldiers slogging through the tedium. wrt some celebrity giving voice to the 99% and effecting change, how many bumper stickers u got on your car demonstrating your unconventional life choices and serious thinking?

She won't win anyway.

Yeah this is probably a dumb argument and I'll stop agitating from my side. I just don't think Obama/Rosanne is a for real dichotomy.
I'll just leave off with I like Rosanne and stick to other subjects.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:24 (six years ago) Permalink

i know it is possible to go too far the other way & get all C'MON IT'S EASY TO BE PRESIDENT but i don't think it's totally w/o merit to be into the idea of like a non-politician president; I remember in the is barack obama a sociopath thread the conclusion being, probably no, but most agreeing that to want to be president you are probably gonna be kinda weird, kinda unbalanced, already. i don't know that someone - like idk anything about roseanne - less demographically inclined/entitled towards politics would be so awful, provided that their approach to governing was to like hire people who knew shit, defer to experts, stay true to their goals in a kind of 'don't be evil' sense, &c. i'm sure there are people here who know a lot more about it than i do, & i'm sorta uncomfortable at implying that with the gender switch there was too much of a change otherwise, but afaik rwandan governance has really benefited from the kind of previously untried, largely female (emphasising this bc it's true of rwanda, not bc it's true of roseanne), seemingly collaborative rule it has inherited & tried over the past decade, for a variety of reasons.

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:25 (six years ago) Permalink

there's no such thing as 'experts'

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 19:26 (six years ago) Permalink

'experts' in economic, foreign policy, domestic policy etc. are all on some level ideological. there's no way to avoid making political decisions when you are in politics just cause you're going w/ 'experts'.

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 19:28 (six years ago) Permalink

Herman Cain disagrees

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:30 (six years ago) Permalink

'sending a message' is well nigh useless in politics and roseanne is not going to be a good carrier of one either.

that said i look forward to her being interviewed by megyn kelly or whoever

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:36 (six years ago) Permalink

i don't think roseanne barr will be able to successfully challenge obama from the left, and i don't think she'll have any impact whatsoever on his campaign platform. i also think that on balance, she would damage the viability of the Green Party because so many people are going to think this is hilarious, if they hear of it at all.

Z S, Friday, 3 February 2012 19:36 (six years ago) Permalink

the real question is will she fart and grab her crotch at the swearing in ceremony

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:37 (six years ago) Permalink

will she swear?

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:38 (six years ago) Permalink

xpost i say that not as a green party-basher but as someone who wishes the Green Party could field a candidate that successfully shifted Obama to the left on pretty much anything, but particularly environmental issues.

Z S, Friday, 3 February 2012 19:38 (six years ago) Permalink

I dig the Green Party and was registered with them for awhile but they just are not a national force. shit, they're barely even a local force (although Matt Gonzales came close)

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:41 (six years ago) Permalink

the problem I have with challenges Obama from the left is the last big visible person to do it, Ralph Nader, couldn't actually get too far into it without making odious racial comments and then hooking up with notorious self-aggrandizing starfucker Cornell West, who apparently has more teeth than he has self-respect

if I thought someone would actually put forward a platform that could get attention that wasn't predicated upon "he's not a good black person", I would be more interested, but since this is America that's exactly what is going to happen and watching a bunch of white dudes pine for that bullshit here is actually a good reminder for me about what you guys find important vs what I find important

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:42 (six years ago) Permalink

if I thought someone would actually put forward a platform that could get attention that wasn't predicated upon "he's not a good black person"

you think this is where Morbz is coming from...?

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:45 (six years ago) Permalink

ows has prob done more to successfully challenge the democrats from the left than any 3rd party ever has or will (outside of like, sf)

but people are really obsessed w/ 'parties' in a country where they p much don't matter

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 19:45 (six years ago) Permalink

parties don't matter?

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:46 (six years ago) Permalink

watching a bunch of white dudes pine for that bullshit here is actually a good reminder for me about what you guys find important vs what I find important

did someone upthread actually suggest that they'd prefer a candidate that ran a campaign based upon "he's not a good black person"?

Z S, Friday, 3 February 2012 19:46 (six years ago) Permalink

but people are really obsessed w/ 'parties' in a country where they p much don't matter

lol waht

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:47 (six years ago) Permalink

Dan, what's important about reelecting Obama in a sentence, seriously? I could buy the "less short-term pain" argument if I didn't believe both parties are leading us to precisely the same destination.

Changing the president is not the major order of business from any angle (on the left-of-Dem-mainstream position, I mean).

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:49 (six years ago) Permalink

the real political games are played outside of the party system, parties are essentially a way to deal the fact that first-past-the-post voting makes elections w/ more than 2 people chaotic. anyone can call themselves a republican or democrat w/ whatever the fuck views they have. nobody claims kucinich isn't a democrat or ron paul isn't a republican.

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 19:50 (six years ago) Permalink

the prob for libertarians or the hard left is that there aren't very many places that will elect ron paul or kucinich, not the 'party system'

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 19:51 (six years ago) Permalink

anyway 4 the record I am as left wing as morbs I just blame americans and not politicians

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 19:54 (six years ago) Permalink

dunno what you mean by the 'party system' exactly but the two party establishments that we have wield an incredible amount of power, including deciding who gets to be president and (mostly) who gets to be in congress.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:54 (six years ago) Permalink

anyone can call themselves a republican or democrat w/ whatever the fuck views they have.

this is not how the parties work, fwiw

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:56 (six years ago) Permalink

Arlen Specter, Joe Lieberman etc

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:56 (six years ago) Permalink

right they funnel money here and there they operate as structures in the system but policy-wise they're not very important

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 19:56 (six years ago) Permalink

Arlen Specter, Joe Lieberman etc

uh yeah...exactly?

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 19:57 (six years ago) Permalink

but policy-wise they're not very important

u r high

Party discipline, particularly in the Senate, is a major player in policy.

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, 3 February 2012 19:59 (six years ago) Permalink

party discipline exists as a strategic tool and not because the republican or democratic parties actually believe anything

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:00 (six years ago) Permalink

shirts vs skins

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:03 (six years ago) Permalink

"parties don't matter" /= "parties don't actually believe anything"
not that you could make the latter case with the GOP anyway

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:04 (six years ago) Permalink

Dan, what's important about reelecting Obama in a sentence, seriously? I could buy the "less short-term pain" argument if I didn't believe both parties are leading us to precisely the same destination.

- I believe the majority of the jobs policies Obama wants to put into place make sense. I also believe that the economy is making tentative steps towards a good rebound and I don't think any of the Republican candidates have ideas that would nurture it.

- I believe that Obama has done much more good than harm with his foreign policy. I do not see any of the Republican candidates continuing to garner as much international goodwill from the western world or using the military with anything approaching the precision and sensitivity that Obama has exercised.

- I believe the social policies enacted during this administration, particularly the passing of a universal healthcare bill and the burgeoning expansion of gay rights, will be actively blocked by a Republican executive branch. I also believe the immigration issues will become much, much worse and the war against women will be accelerated.

- I don't think any of the Republican candidates give two shits about education.

- I don't think putting centrist judges who lean left on the Supreme Court is a bad thing; in fact, I think it is a very good thing.

The erosion of privacy in this country, the rise of indefinite detention and the codification of "money=law" are things I am unhappy about. My unhappiness with these things does not supersede my overall satisfaction with the agenda Obama has laid out, even if many of his successes are further to the right than I want them to be.

Given the list of people who are likely to be the next President and the platforms they are running on, I think you are a fucking idiot if you actively want Obama to lose. And that's the charitable line of thought.

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:06 (six years ago) Permalink

parties don't matter in a sense that 'creating a new party' doesn't change anything in the long-run, tho the transition period would be fun. it takes over for the gop or dems and it would just turn into them. the interest groups, voters and basic political structures are the same. 'democrat' is just a word, it means nothing, but guess what, same is true w/ 'green party'.

no, if you really want change you need to think about what's wrong w/ the constitution not what's wrong w/ the party system.

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:09 (six years ago) Permalink

also what's wrong w/ the american people and american culture

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:11 (six years ago) Permalink

using the military with anything approaching the precision and sensitivity that Obama has exercised.

Yeah, this is the only point where we are galaxies apart. But I am cautious about not conflating the platforms people run on with what's going to happen, so I see Actual Romney and Actual Obama as being much closer than their personas.

I do not actively want Obama to lose, or win.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:18 (six years ago) Permalink

what's important about reelecting Obama in a sentence

Must say my first thought was: Elena Kagan vs. Joseph Alito & John Roberts. And yes, morbs, I know Kagan's record.

Aimless, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:20 (six years ago) Permalink

btw I appreciate the thoughtful response DJP, it's more than I'm used to hearing. I understand your judgments (I think) whatever different conclusions we draw.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:24 (six years ago) Permalink

i saw an interesting statement from daniel larison, criticizing the dimwit 'americans elect' outfit:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/01/31/the-bad-joke-that-is-americans-elect/

The extraordinary thing about the obliviousness of professional “centrists” is that they are dedicated to organizing a third-party alternative with no apparent awareness that every remotely successful third-party alternative began as a more radical version of one of the two established parties. Perot’s challenge was a bit different, but even Perot appealed to the constituencies ignored by Bush and Clinton by making their issues his own, especially popular discontent over NAFTA. By contrast, Americans Elect is an organization dedicated to the proposition that Thomas Friedman has his finger on the pulse of America.

i guess i'd never thought of that before. i mean, it's only happened a couple times in two centuries but it's something to think about.

arguably the southern realignment from the 60s to the 80s is sort of like getting two new parties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States#Fifth_Party_System

i'd honestly argue we're in the "sixth party system" now

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:25 (six years ago) Permalink

thanks Morbs; contrary to appearances to prefer to converse rather than snipe!

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:26 (six years ago) Permalink

also I can't type

to prefer I do prefer

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:26 (six years ago) Permalink

I was putting together a long post, but I generally agree with what DJP said. I mean, holy shit, for all of Obama's post-partisan enthusiasms and centrism, he has effectively been the most leftist president in my lifetime. I am very critical of Obama on many issues, especially around erosion of constitutional limits on the executive branch and some weak negotiating, but there are a lot of things I'm genuinely happy about. I support Obama for a second term, and I see no actuall candidates that are better.

Also, I do believe in running candidates form the left in primary races, but only if I genuinely believe in the candidate and I want them to win the primary and the general. I've donated to blue dog challengers, but not because I think they're going to shift the incumbent to the left. I think that's some weird fantasy shit.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:27 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah I agree with DJP's summation of Obama's record to-date

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:28 (six years ago) Permalink

despite the notable exclusion of any reference to climate change/energy policy

xp

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:29 (six years ago) Permalink

i'd agree with Dan's list

my only caveat would be: i think there is a slim possibility that the paulist/tea party mood of the GOP might lead a republican administration to be harder in some material way on big financial firms, which might have positive effects following.

but that's too big mights. it's really more a look on a potential bright side should obama lose.

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:30 (six years ago) Permalink

tbh I am not a presidential scholar and I was very young at the time, but given the treatment of history I have a hard time imagining Carter being to the right of Obama

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:30 (six years ago) Permalink

the paulist/tea party mood of the GOP might lead a republican administration to be harder in some material way on big financial firms

romney? romney would be harder on financial firms? I mean...

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:31 (six years ago) Permalink

I was going to say it can get tedious arguing with the good doctor but that would be a lie; I enjoy it to be honest. I not only agree w/Dan but I think everyone is kind of ingorning the fact that the POTUS is not only President of the Republic but the chief executive of the Federal Government and civil service and w/o a party whence to source job candidates, a third party President is going to have a terrible time just staffing their cabinet.

That's not necessarily an insuperable barrier to a Ron Paul, who'd be gutting the govmt anyway but Rosanne would probably spend a good deal of time just figuring out where the fuse boxes are.

Quand le déshonneur est public, il faut que la vengeance soit (Michael White), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:32 (six years ago) Permalink

his wife and ron paul's wife have become quite close, i hear

xp

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:33 (six years ago) Permalink

djp otm

mookieproof, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:35 (six years ago) Permalink

I wouldn't count pres romney out for being more centrist in policy w/ pretty much every single issue outside of that one, 'finance is good' seems to be the closest thing to a non-mormon belief than he has.

xp

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:36 (six years ago) Permalink

even the mormon shit, who knows

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:37 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah you're right about that

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:37 (six years ago) Permalink

99% of pols are 'hard or soft' on issues depending on public pressure they receive. The MSM's message on political activity for Joe & Jane Doe is you vote (esp for president), then sit back and root for your guy til the next election. We'll see to what degree the OWS movement changes this.

Also, if a left/populist party ever managed 10-15% in a prez election, the Dems would. Shit. Themselves.

Obama's putative "precision" with drones just makes me think of Captain Haddock with the rocket launcher in Tintin.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:39 (six years ago) Permalink

I was thinking less about "Obama's" precision with drones and more the size and capabilities of the teams he sent to get bin Laden and the team that took out the Somali pirates

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:41 (six years ago) Permalink

the paulist/tea party mood of the GOP might lead a republican administration to be harder in some material way on big financial firms

Nah, their states rights libertarianism will lead them to want to have less federal regulation over business. They just dislike the big federal government

curmudgeon, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:41 (six years ago) Permalink

a world where a far leftist populist party could get 10-15% support is a world where the dems would be much more left-wing.

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 20:42 (six years ago) Permalink

'zackly. So, go Roseanne.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:44 (six years ago) Permalink

i have a grand theory obama's miseries w/r/t war, surveillance and the law are all based on domestic political fears, but i have no real proof, just a feeling.

like, cheney pulled all this shit because he was legit interested in eternal global dominance. obama is paranoid about anything going wrong on his watch while cheney is still looking and ultimately doesn't trust anyone to cut him a break or understand anything. so, more secrecy, more mercs, more drones, more special ops, more secret law, etc etc

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:44 (six years ago) Permalink

a world where roseanne gets 10-15% support is a world with roseanne still on television

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:45 (six years ago) Permalink

(by far leftist I assume you mean Ted Kennedy types) xxxp

ah, the deep-in-his-heart argument... could we swear an organ in?

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:46 (six years ago) Permalink

a world where roseanne gets 10-15% support is a world with roseanne still on television

or a world where every state in the country is like MN circa 1998

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:47 (six years ago) Permalink

xp to continue my lil' theory all the stuff about his post-american tranzi charater is bullshit too, if that were true he could have sold afghanistan to india and china and the whole world would be better off, but no, it's "ours" so "we" have to "finish it" or whatever, nobody else can be trusted

this isn't a "deep in his heart" argument! he doesn't trust anyone except himself and like four people from chicago! this is pretty clear!

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:48 (six years ago) Permalink

goole, if you are right on your "Cheney's watching" argument, then why did Obama say in the 2008 campaign that "we're not a country that detains ppl without a trial"? was he that 'naive'?

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:49 (six years ago) Permalink

or was he just lying? (easy answer)

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:50 (six years ago) Permalink

I actually have no trouble believing there's classified information out there that you don't get to see until you are President that could change your mind about the usefulness of indefinite detention.

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:50 (six years ago) Permalink

what's going on w/roseanne??

dave coolier (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:51 (six years ago) Permalink

and that's an unrebuttable argument, so well played! xp

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:51 (six years ago) Permalink

she is seeking the Presidential nomination of the Green Party

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:51 (six years ago) Permalink

she's one of 2 finalists.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:52 (six years ago) Permalink

btw goole, by your theory, when Cheney said on TV last summer that he was glad O had "seen the light" on terror and detention, Obama turned to Bill Daley and heaved a sigh of relief?

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:53 (six years ago) Permalink

well if DJP's argument is unknowable then neither is yours...

i think he naively underestimated how cheney-fied the CIA and military was and how hard their stance was on forgetting torture ever happened. my reading is that john brennan said, ok you can send people into pakistan or you can have a 'get right with god' moment on the darkside stuff, pick one.

i don't think holder really knew what kind of a shitshow a terror trial in new york would cause either.

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 20:55 (six years ago) Permalink

I actually have no trouble believing there's classified information out there that you don't get to see until you are President that could change your mind about the usefulness of indefinite detention.

i don't doubt the 'usefulness' of indefinite detention, just its legality and morality.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:00 (six years ago) Permalink

legality follows usefulness, as it has throughout the history of man

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:05 (six years ago) Permalink

the Geneva Conventions were not created because they were that useful

curmudgeon, Friday, 3 February 2012 21:13 (six years ago) Permalink

The writers of the constitution knew some of the language there was not useful, so I don't exactly agree with you DJP

curmudgeon, Friday, 3 February 2012 21:14 (six years ago) Permalink

How useful were the guys we let out of Guantanamo after 4-5 years who didn't do anything, and have told their stories in the media?

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:14 (six years ago) Permalink

habeas corpus isn't really that useful to most ppl in authority

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:15 (six years ago) Permalink

FWIW, if anyone cares and in an attempt to not make this a filibuster -- the reasons why i am even willing to consider a third party (i was quite vehemently anti-Nader back in the day, before he went on TV and made his odious racial comments about Obama) are: (1) the solidification of "money=power" and everything that goes with that; (2) the shit economy (usually my #1 concern and very closely tied in with "money=power"); and (3) i have no more faith in Obama, left to his own devices anyway. his administration's appalling record on civil liberties is important, but admittedly secondary for me. (i'm mixed on foreign policy - pre-Bush, i was a bit more hawkish than some liberal/lefties; but i don't agree with the overall continuance of the Bush-Cheney way of thinking).

so there you are.

wad of baloney (Eisbaer), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:19 (six years ago) Permalink

so am I completely mistaken in my impression that the economy overall has been slowly improving over the past 12 months (at least, in states where they didn't enact laws that caused $11B worth of labor to flee)?

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:22 (six years ago) Permalink

tbh I am not a presidential scholar and I was very young at the time, but given the treatment of history I have a hard time imagining Carter being to the right of Obama

― I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, February 3, 2012 2:30 PM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Carter ran as a centrist, to the right of McGovern. He was anti-abortion, he deregulated the airlines, he stayed within the continuum of our cold-war national defence strategy, our military and CIA were all over South America and the Middle East, he oversaw huge tax cuts to corporations. He lost favor with the unions who felt betrayed, and he was criticized form the left during his presidency, just like Clinton and Obama.

I think maybe he was generally to the left of Obama during his presidency, but I think Obama has effected more liberal gains in policy than Carter did.

I think Carter is an amazing humanitarian, and I don't want to detract form his accomplishments both during and after his presidency, but I think he was much less a liberal president than we remember.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:24 (six years ago) Permalink

economy's in better shape, I think unemployment's down a little & the GOP has been kicking itself in the balls every day before live news cameras for several months

even haters like me get huge lols from how fucked the GOP is

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:24 (six years ago) Permalink

The economy ios getting better and we are in much better shape then the austerity fetishists on the other side of the pond.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:24 (six years ago) Permalink

Krugman and others who seem to know more about the economy agree that we have made economic progress, but we could have made more. On the economy as with civil liberties, Obama made promises in 2008 that he has not kept. With a different economic team without Geithner we could have made more progress. Obama has gone after whistleblowers but not Wall Street.

Obama's refusal to release the legal argument for killing Americans abroad, and for putting them on secret lists, may make the CIA and the Pentagon happy but it is not consistent with his 2008 campaign or American ideals. But I'm still a hold your nose and vote for the least objectionable candidate who will win.

curmudgeon, Friday, 3 February 2012 21:26 (six years ago) Permalink

carter's term in office offers a useful demonstration of what happens to a president who isn't supported by his party.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:26 (six years ago) Permalink

and more than just a lack of faith in Obama, i have no more faith in the Democratic Party. i can no longer tolerate the gabbnebized mess that that sorry pack of clowns has become.

and yes, the economy has been slowly improving ... i'll even concede we've gone about it better than the Europeans (b/c at least early on during the crisis we didn't kick Keynesianism to the curb). i am also convinced that until the "money=law" problem that the OWS has been on about these past few months is satisfactorily resolved that we'll be right back in the same jam at some point.

wad of baloney (Eisbaer), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:27 (six years ago) Permalink

have a grand theory obama's miseries w/r/t war, surveillance and the law are all based on domestic political fears, but i have no real proof, just a feeling. like, cheney pulled all this shit because he was legit interested in eternal global dominance. obama is paranoid about anything going wrong on his watch

Agree 100%, and expressed very similar sentiments on some thread about a year, year-and-a-half ago. Obama is afraid to call attention to himself by majorly reversing course on anything because he's a) a Democrat, b) an egghead, and c) black. The political strategy has been completely wasted in terms of Republicans, who go ahead and obstruct legislation and caricature him as an appeaser and such regardless. It may make a difference in terms of voters in the middle; I think many of them will see the bizarre disconnect between what Republicans say about Obama in terms of foreign policy and what he actually does.

That's all politcal, of course. The morality of what he's been doing is another issue, and I understand the anger.

Also agree with most all of DJP's long post, but simply stopped trying to say any of that stuff in politcal threads because it wasn't worth being ridiculed for.

clemenza, Friday, 3 February 2012 21:29 (six years ago) Permalink

well if DJP's argument is unknowable then neither is yours...

OK I give up, what's my argument?

I believe Carter was "anti-abortion" in the same way as Mario Cuomo was -- personally thinks it's morally untenable but didn't do anything to restrict it.

Carter jacked up military spending after Ford lowered it, and his UN ambassador Andrew Young didn't even vote for tough sanctions against South Africa. "Human rights" my ass.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:30 (six years ago) Permalink

srsly I'm not sure what "unknowable" thing yer talkin' about in my argument

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:31 (six years ago) Permalink

Your argument is that Obama always intended to keep up with indefinite detention and that he lied about it so he could lefties to vote for him, which is a conclusion based on these facts:

- Obama said he was against indefinite detention on the campaign trail
- after getting into office his position changed

You can definitively say "Obama went back on his word." You can definitively say "Obama did not follow through on his campaign promise." You cannot say "Obama lied to us" because that is assigning intent to the facts.

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:34 (six years ago) Permalink

(Just as goole is assigning intent to the facts re: his conspiracy, only goole acknowledged that he was assigning intent.)

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:35 (six years ago) Permalink

there's no point in speculating about any politician's private motives. i would guess that obama probably feels a little more guilty about doing it than bush did, but it doesn't change the fact that both of them carried out essentially the same policy.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:39 (six years ago) Permalink

Obama's SEC as discussed in today's NY Times:

Even as the Securities and Exchange Commission has stepped up its investigations of Wall Street, the agency has repeatedly allowed the biggest firms to avoid punishments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/business/sec-is-avoiding-tough-sanctions-for-large-banks.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

curmudgeon, Friday, 3 February 2012 21:43 (six years ago) Permalink

i would guess that obama probably feels a little more guilty about doing it than bush did

heh see i wouldn't even go this far in the speculation!

for all his blindness the story that has emerged (i mean, who knows anything ultimately) was that bush was personally quite shocked, if only by the surprise, by stuff like abu ghraib. obama has some kind of sense of himself as making tough lincolnoid decisions that will appear judicious to history.

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:46 (six years ago) Permalink

that's the kind of times-speak that pays for yves smith's traffic...

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:47 (six years ago) Permalink

I don't care a fig why Obama decided to be Bush Plus on detention OR what his motives are. (When a modern US president does something morally right, it's always pure coincidence.)

yeah, thinking we know much at all about these cats from reading about em is wishful, at least til the postmortems come out. (Or tapes. Hours and hours of tapes.)

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:49 (six years ago) Permalink

thanks for the link, curmudgeon -- i mean, really, i don't even see how investigating (let alone prosecuting) wrongdoing such as that surrounding the financial crisis is even an ideological question. i suspect the reasons are twofold: (a) Obama and the Democrats don't want to cut down the Wall Street money tree; and (b) ambitious SEC personnel who don't want to rock the boat b/c of consideration (a) and b/c they have plans to work for Wall Street (or the BigLaw firms that defend them).

wad of baloney (Eisbaer), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:51 (six years ago) Permalink

Federal judges in New York and Wisconsin recently criticized the S.E.C. for its habit of settling cases by allowing companies to promise not to violate the law in the future.

This shit is some bad bad shit. It's time to clean house at the SEC.

Aimless, Friday, 3 February 2012 21:52 (six years ago) Permalink

regulatory capture :(

Mordy, Friday, 3 February 2012 21:53 (six years ago) Permalink

follow the money = the only effort i expend in trying to suss out politicians' motives. all the rest is pointless mental wank.

also, regulatory capture points to institutional rot much deeper than a single election can cure.

wad of baloney (Eisbaer), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:54 (six years ago) Permalink

mic check

taking a personal day on May 1 for sure

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:55 (six years ago) Permalink

you think there would be, if not money, serious political capital in being an anti-finance elliot ness figure. elizabeth warren's donation bucket says as much.

she seems unlikely to be interested in whores also.

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 3 February 2012 21:56 (six years ago) Permalink

there's never going to be enough money in being anti-finance as there will be in being pro-finance alas.

Mordy, Friday, 3 February 2012 21:57 (six years ago) Permalink

When Obama wanted to do that "Grand bargain" (cutting entitlements and such in exchange for some token tax increases) the argument was that he wanted to look like the "reasonable adult". Too often on many items it seems he believes that a centrist approach is the only "reasonable adult" option. Ok SEC we will just settle with these firms...

curmudgeon, Friday, 3 February 2012 22:00 (six years ago) Permalink

the SEC and other regulatory agencies pay a decent salary and have good benefits (well, until the GOP starts screaming about overpaid federal bureaucrats and Obama dutifully signs onto the cause the way he did with "entitlement reform"). but no, not as much as a hedge fund or a white-shoe law firm will -- nor should they (the taxpayers won't stand for it).

wad of baloney (Eisbaer), Friday, 3 February 2012 22:00 (six years ago) Permalink

(When a modern US president does something morally right, it's always pure coincidence.)

Really? This is where your position starts to look less and less principled than lazy. What did Bush get for expanding AIDS treatment in Africa?

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Friday, 3 February 2012 22:01 (six years ago) Permalink

continued fealty from the religious right, for starters.

wad of baloney (Eisbaer), Friday, 3 February 2012 22:02 (six years ago) Permalink

kinda wish we had message boards in 1937...

Mordy, Friday, 3 February 2012 22:02 (six years ago) Permalink

I think any president elected in the wake of the 2nd biggest economic meltdown in US history (and one with international ramifications every bit as large as the GD) is going to put the economy first, quite naturally. That Obama has done this is not suprising but that he's done it and passed healthcare reform is quite ambitious.

The real institutional capture is that nobody wants to mess w/finance when everybody's doing well and no-one dares mess w/them when times aren't doing so well. I just don't see OWS having the same intensity and breadth if unemployment were under 6%.

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Friday, 3 February 2012 22:06 (six years ago) Permalink

there's never going to be enough money in being anti-finance as there will be in being pro-finance alas.

The Rudy Guiliani Story!

What did Bush get for expanding AIDS treatment in Africa?

good press, future markets.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 February 2012 22:23 (six years ago) Permalink

not to be a pedant, but i don't want to let "anti-finance" slip unnoticed: it's not about being anti-finance, it's about being anti-FRAUD (esp when the cost of such fraud ends up on the taxpayers' shoulders).

wad of baloney (Eisbaer), Friday, 3 February 2012 22:46 (six years ago) Permalink

I think any president elected in the wake of the 2nd biggest economic meltdown in US history (and one with international ramifications every bit as large as the GD) is going to put the economy first, quite naturally. That Obama has done this is not suprising but that he's done it and passed healthcare reform is quite ambitious.

my biggest beef w/ obama is in him not putting the economy first *enough*

iatee, Friday, 3 February 2012 23:22 (six years ago) Permalink

i kind of agree with parts of, or the spirit of, the post this is from, but idk whatthe heck this means:

- I don't think putting centrist judges who lean left on the Supreme Court is a bad thing; in fact, I think it is a very good thing.

other major beef was the "usefulness of indef. detention" post but JD already called you out on that one

(don't mean to seem like i'm picking on you but you had the longest posts so this is your prize)

tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Saturday, 4 February 2012 00:45 (six years ago) Permalink

http://i41.tinypic.com/icjnk7.jpg

there are a few nuggets in this image, if you really dig

Z S, Monday, 6 February 2012 14:27 (six years ago) Permalink

oh ew

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, 6 February 2012 14:32 (six years ago) Permalink

is that rush limbaugh??

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Monday, 6 February 2012 14:32 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah, the krafts were at his wedding

max, Monday, 6 February 2012 14:35 (six years ago) Permalink

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/soaking-poor-state-state

Surprise surprise, state taxes are not very progressive

curmudgeon, Monday, 6 February 2012 17:05 (six years ago) Permalink

it looks like Limbaugh is "digging for treasure" (so to speak) in that pic.

it might look subversive, but it's actually crap ... crap does exist (Eisbaer), Monday, 6 February 2012 17:11 (six years ago) Permalink

excerpt from latest moveon.org petition:

President Obama, I oppose your appointment of Michael Taylor, a former VP and lobbyist for Monsanto, the widely criticized genetically modified (GM) food multinational, as senior advisor to the commissioner at the FDA. Taylor is the same person who as a high ranking official at the FDA in the 1990s promoted allowing genetically modified organisms into the U.S. food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety or risks. This is a travesty.
Taylor was in charge of policy for Monsanto's now-discredited GM bovine growth hormone (rBGH), which is opposed by many medical and hospital organizations. It was Michael Taylor who pursued a policy that milk from rBGH-treated cows should not be labeled with disclosures. Michael Taylor and Monsanto do not belong in our government.
President Obama, Monsanto has been seen as a foe to family-based agriculture, the backbone of America, by introducing dangerous changes to plants and animals and by using strong-arm legal tactics against farmers for decades. Naturally occurring plant and animal species are permanently threatened by the introduction of DNA and hormonal modification, Monsanto's core businesses.

curmudgeon, Monday, 6 February 2012 18:09 (six years ago) Permalink

Report: US drones target rescuers, funeral attendees

A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.

Although the drone attacks were started under the Bush administration in 2004, they have been stepped up enormously under Obama.

There have been 260 attacks by unmanned Predators or Reapers in Pakistan by Obama’s administration – averaging one every four days.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/singleton/

ANONYMOUS "senior American counterterrorism official" tells NYT: "One must wonder why an effort that has so carefully gone after terrorists who plot to kill civilians has been subjected to so much misinformation. Let’s be under no illusions — there are a number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al Qaeda succeed."

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/06/top_official_drone_critics_are_al_qaeda_enablers/singleton/

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 February 2012 18:44 (six years ago) Permalink

Getting a full picture of the drone campaign is difficult. It is classified as top secret, and Obama administration officials have refused to make public even the much-disputed legal opinions underpinning it. --from the NY Times

curmudgeon, Monday, 6 February 2012 18:47 (six years ago) Permalink

"it is difficult, are we supposed to ask somebody else?"

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 February 2012 18:48 (six years ago) Permalink

I wonder if the ACLU lawsuit re the legal memos will get anywhere? I doubt it.

curmudgeon, Monday, 6 February 2012 19:08 (six years ago) Permalink

don't hold your breath. Justice Department will probably make some appeal to top-secret details that nobody else can look at and the judges will go "welp, can't argue with that, you'll just have to take my word for it"

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 6 February 2012 19:19 (six years ago) Permalink

also if the president says it's legal, it is - B.Milhous Obama

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 February 2012 19:46 (six years ago) Permalink

http://debbiespenditnow.com/#anchor3

the Debbie Spend it Now ad/website/campaign is pretty awful, but i do have to express some admiration for the cool little animated shit that flies around in the background of the website, behind the text

Z S, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 05:42 (six years ago) Permalink

is there anything in this besides momentary embarrassment? not sure what to think, potential GOP attack ad fodder but what else??

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/politics/major-obama-donors-are-tied-to-pepe-cardona-mexican-fugitive.html?hp

buzza, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 05:50 (six years ago) Permalink

just momentary embarrassment.

How about the Republican's latest negotiation tool re extending the payroll taxes again. More extraneous demands:

At the behest of the manufacturing lobby, for example, Republican negotiators still want to delay an environmental regulation that would require industrial boilers and incinerators to release less mercury, lead and soot. What does that have to do with the payroll tax cut? Nothing, of course; Republicans are simply trying to get Democrats to pay a price for something they want.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/opinion/the-payroll-tax-fight.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 14:28 (six years ago) Permalink

If this glowing piece from Sunday's Washington Post Business section is credible, Gene Sperling is the White House's liberal economic guy--trying to push Geithner slightly leftward and advocating to Obama for job-creation ideas

When Obama tapped him as Treasury secretary, Geithner asked Sperling to join as a no-title adviser. “The great thing about him was he was willing to come help do anything,” Geithner said. Sperling asked to be Treasury’s top adviser on fiscal policy. But he also encouraged Geithner — who was focused on stabilizing the financial system and faced critics who accused him of being too sympathetic to Wall Street — to pay more attention to populist ideas such as curbing executive pay.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gene-b-sperling-obamas-jobs-creator/2012/01/17/gIQAJ8KXqQ_story.html

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 14:33 (six years ago) Permalink

so glad Congress is authorizing drones to be flown in the US ugh way to go you stupid assholes

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:22 (six years ago) Permalink

gotta get em ready for use on the Occupy Conventions

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:36 (six years ago) Permalink

would it be hilar if people figured out how to shoot them down?

Waxahachie Swap (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:37 (six years ago) Permalink

^ srs question

Waxahachie Swap (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:37 (six years ago) Permalink

or would it be like for sumter

Waxahachie Swap (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:37 (six years ago) Permalink

The FAA is also required under the bill to provide military, commercial and privately-owned drones with expanded access to U.S. airspace currently reserved for manned aircraft by Sept. 30, 2015. That means permitting unmanned drones controlled by remote operators on the ground to fly in the same airspace as airliners, cargo planes, business jets and private aircraft.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-congress-oks-faa-bill-allowing-drones-in-us-gps-air-traffic-control-20120207,0,3563340.story

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:44 (six years ago) Permalink

I want my own drone

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:45 (six years ago) Permalink

PRIVATELY-OWNED DRONES

argh

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:46 (six years ago) Permalink

Lots of issues involved in this bill

The labor provision, which was opposed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, became the principal issue holding up the bill. A compromise reached two weeks ago by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, allows the mediation board's rules to stand, but it also toughens some lesser requirements that must be met in order to hold a union organizing election.

While the compromise was acceptable to some unions, more than a dozen other unions that represent airline industry workers — including the Teamsters, Communications Workers, Machinists and Flight Attendants — complained the deal was reached without their input and urged its rejection.

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:48 (six years ago) Permalink

PRIVATELY-OWNED DRONES

argh

Well you can presently fly remote-controlled model airplanes, this just becomes an issue of air traffic.

Also, prownes?

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:53 (six years ago) Permalink

PRIVATELY-OWNED DRONES

superfluous hyphen

mookieproof, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:57 (six years ago) Permalink

unmanned cargo aircraft isn't such a bad idea

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 16:58 (six years ago) Permalink

unmanned cargo aircraft isn't such a bad idea

Apparently 'they' have been saying that for ages. The pilots of commercial carriers are basically just hostages.

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:01 (six years ago) Permalink

I totally want a drone. I could put a slim jim and some little debbies in it and fly it to DJP in Boston and be all here are your intergalactic snacks in a robot voice.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:09 (six years ago) Permalink

good morning!

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:12 (six years ago) Permalink

if drones are allowed over the US, just a matter of time before one is hacked by anonymous and crashes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1tAYmMjLdY (dayo), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:57 (six years ago) Permalink

preferably when [redacted]

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:59 (six years ago) Permalink

DIY drones

Z S, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:27 (six years ago) Permalink

I don't have a problem with private drones anymore than I do with private aircraft

govt drones are more sinister if you ask me.

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:42 (six years ago) Permalink

the pilot of a private aircraft is much more likely to be responsible about its use if he or she is inside it imo

mookieproof, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:44 (six years ago) Permalink

Yeah, that's why I referred to them as hostages

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:47 (six years ago) Permalink

eh bring on the robots

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:50 (six years ago) Permalink

given that it'll likely be very easy to make a DIY drone in yr garage v soon, I'd rather they be allowed and regulated (as air traffic is today) and made useful, and not outlawed. Or worse, allowed to be used by only rhe govt and a v narrow slice of the private sector. I really don't understand how drones would be bad aside from cluttering the airways

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:54 (six years ago) Permalink

some dubious syntax there but I think u get me

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:55 (six years ago) Permalink

that Monsanto dude appt. is a fucking embarrassment btw not like there's anything anybody can do about it but seriously

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:57 (six years ago) Permalink

I have problems with, say, Donald Trump owning a drone.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:57 (six years ago) Permalink

private security drone armies

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:58 (six years ago) Permalink

I would prob start watching the apprentice tbh

iatee, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:58 (six years ago) Permalink

why? srs q. Xp

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:58 (six years ago) Permalink

private security drone armies

I would assume that ARMED drones would be illegal

bear in mind my def of "drone" is "robot that flys"

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 18:59 (six years ago) Permalink

what if drones started falling from the sky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1tAYmMjLdY (dayo), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:00 (six years ago) Permalink

oh no

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:01 (six years ago) Permalink

don't really want to find out what, say, the Oakland Police Department would do with armed drones fwiw

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:02 (six years ago) Permalink

basically this comes down to me having real, serious problems with the militarization of law enforcement in this country - police departments are armed and trained as if they are serving in warzones, it's fucked up.

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:04 (six years ago) Permalink

this drone thing reminds me of recent things like this and this

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:05 (six years ago) Permalink

Oh, it's worse than you think, Shakey: Now college campus police departments are getting SWAT teams. A solution in search of a problem.

http://nineronline.com/2011/unc-charlotte-swat-team-%E2%80%93-an-asset-we-hope-to-never-use/

You got to ro-o-oll me and call me the tumblr whites (Phil D.), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:07 (six years ago) Permalink

I would totally build a drone that throws rocks at the police drones.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:08 (six years ago) Permalink

basically this comes down to me having real, serious problems with the militarization of law enforcement in this country - police departments are armed and trained as if they are serving in warzones, it's fucked up.

dude I feel u 1000% which is why govt drone usage is creepier than Donald trump

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:09 (six years ago) Permalink

I would assume that ARMED drones would be illegal

I guess I'm not making this assumption. private security firms carry weapons.

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:12 (six years ago) Permalink

Yeah, but private security firms don't have gunships.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:14 (six years ago) Permalink

or at least those that operate domestically.

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:15 (six years ago) Permalink

I should change that to private security firms operating within the borders of the USA. Because, you know, xe or whatever they are now.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:15 (six years ago) Permalink

oops. yup.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:16 (six years ago) Permalink

I assumed for this whole discussion "drone" meant a plane w/ missiles on it. Why else would you have one?

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:19 (six years ago) Permalink

snacks

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:20 (six years ago) Permalink

Why else would you have one?

surveillance. helping nancy grace catch child murderers? I dunno.

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:28 (six years ago) Permalink

Nancy Grace's drones would zip around the country, slut-shaming left and right

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:30 (six years ago) Permalink

I got a drone RIGHT HERE for you guys.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:31 (six years ago) Permalink

traffic, news, weather, science, injuring smaller numbers of people at air shows...

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:33 (six years ago) Permalink

I was hoping u were going for "Fugue for Tinhorns" xp

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:34 (six years ago) Permalink

In other news:

A federal appeals panel in San Francisco ruled Tuesday that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional right to equal protection. The panel overturned Proposition 8, which was approved by 52 percent of the state’s voters in 2008 and amended the state’s constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruled-unconstitutional/2012/02/07/gIQAMNwkwQ_story.html

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 19:37 (six years ago) Permalink

Pasrkker is such a hack. I'd rather get rick-rolled.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:11 (six years ago) Permalink

Gerson and Parker. Apparently anti-choice and anti-contraception views and policies are constitutional, the reverse are not. Parker wanting people to cry the blues for the now-departed Komen official is comical.

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:15 (six years ago) Permalink

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_02/catholics_the_contraception_ma035251.php

Mark Shields, also Catholic, opined on the PBS NewsHour: “The fallout is cataclysmic for the White House and for the president.”

But:
Glad to see that public polling has been showing support for the decision.

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:46 (six years ago) Permalink

cataclysmic oh please

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:48 (six years ago) Permalink

Cokie Roberts was moaning on NPR too

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:51 (six years ago) Permalink

about how bad this was for Obama. Hopefully the poll results will stay the same even if these inside the beltway folks are not happy

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:52 (six years ago) Permalink

this is a blip in the newscycle, will be forgotten next week

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:53 (six years ago) Permalink

Moanie was coking

Shields and Roberts, the two freshest thinkers in the punditocracy

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:55 (six years ago) Permalink

Whitehouse all blowed up, President Obama hair and jacket singed, holding a smoking IUD.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:58 (six years ago) Permalink

blip in the newscycle, will be forgotten next week

Catholics who regularly attend mass may not be allowed to forget about this, depending on how incensed the bishop is over it. bcz catholics make up a chunk of the trad dem coalition, esp in the industrial eastern states like Pennsylvania, this may be more than a blip - although "cataclysmic" is not quite right, either.

Aimless, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 21:04 (six years ago) Permalink

this is a blip in the newscycle, will be forgotten next week

― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier

Romney, Gingrich, Santorum et. al. are trying to keep this Obama hates Christians and religious freedom meme alive too.

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 21:04 (six years ago) Permalink

Religious freedom in USA: "Ground Zero Mosque" vs health provider "conscientious objectors" to rubbers

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 21:05 (six years ago) Permalink

Polls show that as many as 98 percent of Catholic women in the United States have used birth control, despite the church's teachings.

Mordy, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 21:06 (six years ago) Permalink

We all knew Obama hated xians way before this. There's probably about 2 dozen chain emails going around with all sorts of facts. This will be a blip. I don't worry about long memories in USA, beyond obsessive haters.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 21:10 (six years ago) Permalink

it kinda depends on which states the mad catholics are in

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 21:11 (six years ago) Permalink

Romney, Gingrich, Santorum et. al. are trying to keep this Obama hates Christians and religious freedom meme alive too.

they have caucus/primary votes coming up, after which there will be at least one less of them

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 21:13 (six years ago) Permalink

and yeah very few people in this country are actually anti-birth control

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 21:14 (six years ago) Permalink

And the people who are for real anti birth control, how many of them vote Democratic? That's a pretty hard-core social conservative to be on the other side in this age of extreme polarization.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 21:18 (six years ago) Permalink

Top Democrats are openly calling into doubt the chances that Congressional negotiators will reach an agreement to renew the payroll tax cut for the rest of the year—before it expires at the end of the month.

from TPM

I see that Digby and others are already worrying for me about how Dems may screw this up in order to reach a deal---

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 February 2012 22:03 (six years ago) Permalink

in a better world, Dems would realize they have the GOP over a barrel public opinion-wise, and just refuse to accept any GOP quid-pro-quo demands, let the GOP vote down the extension, and then rake them over the coals in the fall

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 22:07 (six years ago) Permalink

the Dems are not known for political wiles though

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 22:08 (six years ago) Permalink

that's putting it mildly

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 22:13 (six years ago) Permalink

Yeah, they would be so blindsided by the "The Democrats just raised your taxes with 8% unemployment!" ads, they'd never be able to react. Because you know that's exactly what the GOP would have at the ready when the extension failed.

You got to ro-o-oll me and call me the tumblr whites (Phil D.), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:05 (six years ago) Permalink

except that in this case it's the GOP that would be raising taxes...? as they would be explicitly voting against a tax break?

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:12 (six years ago) Permalink

But they would blame it on the failures of Harry Reid and Obama to "work together" and "overecome partisanship" to accomplish an extension.. They're famous for that kind of crap.

You got to ro-o-oll me and call me the tumblr whites (Phil D.), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:15 (six years ago) Permalink

that's so transparently false tho. Dems would just say "we voted for the tax break. The GOP voted against it. end of story"

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:15 (six years ago) Permalink

hypothetically

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:15 (six years ago) Permalink

Hypothetically Americans aren't morons swayed by the words of fucking Mitch McConnell but... welp.

Frobisher (Viceroy), Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:43 (six years ago) Permalink

taking bets?

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 16:38 (six years ago) Permalink

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/everybody-loves-drones

nice, america

diln (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 17:29 (six years ago) Permalink

*sigh*

The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 18:51 (six years ago) Permalink

looooooooove me, love me, love me.... xp

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 19:26 (six years ago) Permalink

To expand on Shakey's point:

The Democratic Party owes a sincere apology to George Bush, Dick Cheney and company for enthusiastically embracing many of the very Terrorism policies which caused them to hurl such vehement invective at the GOP for all those years. And progressives who support the views of the majority as expressed by this poll should never be listened to again the next time they want to pretend to oppose civilian slaughter and civil liberties assaults when perpetrated by the next Republican President (it should be noted that roughly 35% of liberals, a non-trivial amount, say they oppose these Obama policies).

One final point: I’ve often made the case that one of the most consequential aspects of the Obama legacy is that he has transformed what was once known as “right-wing shredding of the Constitution” into bipartisan consensus, and this is exactly what I mean. When one of the two major parties supports a certain policy and the other party pretends to oppose it — as happened with these radical War on Terror policies during the Bush years — then public opinion is divisive on the question, sharply split. But once the policy becomes the hallmark of both political parties, then public opinion becomes robust in support of it.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 19:39 (six years ago) Permalink

that post is sort of hystrionic (quel surprise) but his point is valid

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 19:42 (six years ago) Permalink

er Greenwald's post that is

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 19:42 (six years ago) Permalink

american liberals 'not actually very left-wing' is not some shocka, it's why we are where we are

iatee, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 19:45 (six years ago) Permalink

voters I mean

iatee, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 19:45 (six years ago) Permalink

Greenwald's complete disconnect from the realities of american political opinion is impressive even for a Liberaltarian who lives in Brazil.

Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:15 (six years ago) Permalink

god only knows what a 'liberaltarian' is

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:18 (six years ago) Permalink

the hypocrisy on this point is pretty blatant Matt, I don't get what "realities" are being elided here

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:20 (six years ago) Permalink

or is it just that you don't think he should be shocked

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:20 (six years ago) Permalink

nobody's a hypocrite cause nobody's a liberal

iatee, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:22 (six years ago) Permalink

GG really thinks that there were a ton of "progressives" who thought Gitmo, civil liberties etc. were a big deal and voted for Obama in large part because of it.

1. the number of these people is small, too small to be judged from these polls

2. if we could do a poll of these people, most of them would be disappointed with Obama, and very few would now suddenly support civil liberties violations.

But GG probably chats with 2 or 3 of these people online so he's really pissed.

Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:27 (six years ago) Permalink

yes sadly i think GG overestimates how much the civil liberties grodiness was animating liberals in 2006 or 08

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:28 (six years ago) Permalink

i think he is right about various kinds of media basically ignoring this issue now that a liberal is president however

the number of people saying they support guantanamo's operation is legit surprising

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:29 (six years ago) Permalink

I'm reasonably certain there's poll data showing a shift among liberals both pre- and post-Obama election

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:30 (six years ago) Permalink

the % of people who could actually tell you what guantanamo is, why it exists, how it operates is probably pretty low

iatee, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:30 (six years ago) Permalink

like I wouldn't be surprised if < 50% would know what country it's in

iatee, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:31 (six years ago) Permalink

GG really thinks that there were a ton of "progressives" who thought Gitmo, civil liberties etc. were a big deal

He explicitly says these ppl were posturing/pretending to care about these matters when BushCheney were in charge.

Turns out all they really do care about is gay pride proclamations, abortion/contraception, and the prez being "cool."

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:39 (six years ago) Permalink

the fact that they're idiots doesn't make them not hypocrites though

diln (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:40 (six years ago) Permalink

xp

otherwise i pretty much agree

diln (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:40 (six years ago) Permalink

He explicitly says these ppl were posturing/pretending to care about these matters when BushCheney were in charge.

Turns out all they really do care about is gay pride proclamations, abortion/contraception, and the prez being "cool."

― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, February 8, 2012 8:39 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

even in this construct, those people aren't suddenly OK with Gitmo, they're just supporting Obama anyway. These polls don't reflect Gitmo hypocrites.

Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 20:43 (six years ago) Permalink

GG really thinks that there were a ton of "progressives" who thought Gitmo, civil liberties etc. were a big deal and voted for Obama in large part because of it.

1. the number of these people is small, too small to be judged from these polls

no idea where you're getting your info from but i've never met a single self-defined progressive OR liberal who wasn't at least kind of bothered by the bush admin's policies on civil liberties, espec. gitmo.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 21:30 (six years ago) Permalink

seriously cannot remember encountering a single 'liberal' person, outside of maybe a fuckin' joe klein article or something, that insisted that bush was doing a stellar job on the civil liberties front.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 21:33 (six years ago) Permalink

'I don't know anyone who voted for nixon' etc.

iatee, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 21:34 (six years ago) Permalink

Matt also did not hear the applause in every Bam '08 "I will close Guantanamo" speech

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 21:36 (six years ago) Permalink

Matt, you're being real disingenuous. Every liberal friend in '05 specifically mentioned Bush's civil liberties violations (and Iraq) as his most egregious cins.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 21:38 (six years ago) Permalink

xpost that applause was just a tiny portion of the audience clapping really loudly

Z S, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 21:41 (six years ago) Permalink

also they were shouting boo-urns

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 21:42 (six years ago) Permalink

Maybe Matt can visit the OWS thread and enlighten them on their complete disconnect from the American political system.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 21:54 (six years ago) Permalink

Matt, you're being real disingenuous. Every liberal friend in '05 specifically mentioned Bush's civil liberties violations (and Iraq) as his most egregious cins.

― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, February 8, 2012 9:38 PM (48 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Iraq>>>>>civil liberties violations

Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:27 (six years ago) Permalink

your liberal friends are a scintilla in a poll of "Democrats." and I presume hardly any of them are now ok with Gitmo remaining open.

Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:28 (six years ago) Permalink

your liberal friends are a scintilla in a poll of "Democrats." and I presume hardly any of them are now ok with Gitmo remaining open.

Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:28 (six years ago) Permalink

You can't untangle the war in Iraq and the diminishing of civil liberties in a national security state primed for war. That's like bemoaning MLK for "abandoning" civil rights to concentrate on the Vietnam War -- they were both connected!

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:29 (six years ago) Permalink

remember Alec Baldwin's line from The Departed? "PATRIOT ACT!!!"

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:30 (six years ago) Permalink

GG really thinks that there were a ton of "progressives" who thought Gitmo, civil liberties etc. were a big deal and voted for Obama in large part because of it.
1. the number of these people is small, too small to be judged from these polls

no idea where you're getting your info from but i've never met a single self-defined progressive OR liberal who wasn't at least kind of bothered by the bush admin's policies on civil liberties, espec. gitmo.

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, February 8, 2012 9:30 PM (58 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"kind of bothered"

Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:31 (six years ago) Permalink

GG is arguing against a phantom progressive who pretended to be upset by Gitmo but is now supporting it. Where are these people? This poll doesn't show them, it shows a much broader portrait of Democrats and the public at large. Passionate Liberaltarians are a small part of that larger whole, and hardly any of them were frontin' on Gitmo.

Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:33 (six years ago) Permalink

uh have you read his links, dude?

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:34 (six years ago) Permalink

and he's been writing about the silence of liberals who weren't so quiet when Bush was in the Oval Office for three years now. There's a search engine.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:35 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah, um read the poll a little more closely dude

xp

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:36 (six years ago) Permalink

DUDE

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:36 (six years ago) Permalink

Does GG really think people now "support" Gitmo and think it's hunky dory when they used to "pretend" it was awful? It's more complicated than that and a broad poll of the Democratic electorate does not show this kind of rampant hypocrisy. People are ok with Obama not closing it because they realized how complicated closing it would be, because they weren't that passionate about it in the first place etc.

Does anyone know someone who actually was pretending to be upset about Gitmo but now thinks it's ok? It's an absurd straw man.

Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:43 (six years ago) Permalink

he has a better case on drone strikes, but that's a hypothetical.

Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:46 (six years ago) Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_020412.html

This is the breakdown of the poll data as linked by Greenwald. As far as I can tell, the relevant data is here:

13. Changing topics, thinking about the following decisions of the Obama administration, please tell me whether you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove.

2/4/12 - Summary Table

--- Approve ---- -- Disapprove -- No
NET Str. Smwt. NET Smwt. Str. op.
a. Keeping open the prison at Guantanamo
Bay for terrorist suspects 70 42 28 24 12 13 5
b. The drawdown of U.S. troops from
Afghanistan 78 56 23 19 10 9 2
c. The use of unmanned, “drone” aircraft
against terrorist suspects overseas 83 59 23 11 7 4 6

42% of all respondents strongly approve and 28% somewhat approve. I don't see any demographic breakdown in the data about left/Democratic voters anywhere; Greenwald seems to be taking the quoted excerpt of the article on faith without any link to corroborating evidence. (I have no reason to doubt those figures but I'm not going to base a screed on a quote with no numbers behind it.)

What I do take away from the data presented is that of these three positions, people disapprove of Guantanamo the most but not at levels that would cost Obama the election, which strikes me as accurate.

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:48 (six years ago) Permalink

I am not happy about Gitmo but I have a certain understanding that a POTUS cannot just ride roughshod over the 'establishment' w/o losing a lot of political capital, esp a Democrat in a period of paranoid hysteria. I would have preferred a more agressive look-in on Wall Street practices, too, but again, not easy when you have the second largest financial slowdown in US history and ppl are clamoring to get the economy restarted a lot more loudly than they are for justice. Call me jaded, if you wish, but a lot of this hard stuff will be easier during a second term. I'd prefer he be bold about ditching Afghanistan, frankly, so we can quit the 'war on terror' and return to treating terrorists as psychotic murderers subject to our justice system instead of boosting them into an army or whatever the fcuk Cheney decided they were.

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:54 (six years ago) Permalink

a lot of this hard stuff will be easier during a second term.

this is the opposite of jaded imho

I'd prefer he be bold about ditching Afghanistan, frankly, so we can quit the 'war on terror' and return to treating terrorists as psychotic murderers subject to our justice system instead of boosting them into an army or whatever the fcuk Cheney decided they were.

but... current Obama policy is to treat them as psychotic murderers completely outside ANY justice system!

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 23:00 (six years ago) Permalink

Most second terms are a wash though. There is little reason to hope any president will Do The Hard Stuff then.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 23:12 (six years ago) Permalink

i can't think of any president who pursued more progressive policies in his second term than his first -- most of FDR's second term was spent dealing with fallout from the court-packing fiasco.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 23:17 (six years ago) Permalink

Most second terms are a wash though.

Despite Issa's best efforts, I've yet to see the kind of corruption that usually messes w/a second term. It might be there and it might distract him, but at least he'd be somewhat freer to talk about these subjects publicly.

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 23:20 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah it never happens. most you can hope for is some foreign policy successes. anything requiring congressional cooperation basically won't happen.

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 23:21 (six years ago) Permalink

He can discuss them but he's a lame duck and the Congress knows it.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 23:21 (six years ago) Permalink

and Gitmo isn't getting closed without congress's help - they're the ones who fucked up all previous efforts to close it in the first place

xp

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 February 2012 23:22 (six years ago) Permalink

big fan of the filing of reproductive rights alongside other airhead fauxgressive concerns like HRC parties and obama al green youtubes. truly artisanal work.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (pharmacy), Thursday, 9 February 2012 00:41 (six years ago) Permalink

let's not discuss the Human Rights Campaign on this thread -- I might get poisonous.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:02 (six years ago) Permalink

Maybe Matt can visit the OWS thread and enlighten them on their complete disconnect from the American political system.

as somebody who spent plenty of time at zuccotti park, my biggest thought always was 'there aren't too many people here, all things considered'

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:03 (six years ago) Permalink

i'm not holding my breath waiting for a "better and more progressive!!" Obama his second term, either. we'll be lucky to get Clinton's second term (minus Monicagate).

it might look subversive, but it's actually crap ... crap does exist (Eisbaer), Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:13 (six years ago) Permalink

just wanted to pipe in to say that i think glenn greenwald is up there with my least favorite human beings in the world but he's probably right about obama supporters changing their mind about gitmo before + after election. i think it's sad, but telling about the American (and maybe World) public. that said, his broader implicit point (i assume from numerous other articles i've read by him, i haven't read this particular one) that this makes liberals just like conservatives is incorrect. there is still a much larger critical-of-Obama left than there was a critical-of-Bush right, including mr greenwald himself. the problem is that he enjoys pretending like he's one voice shouting into the darkness when actually there's a bunch of ppl who agree with him, who write similar things (i'm sure if he wasn't on vacation, sullivan would be quoting this article approvingly). it's nowhere near the majority of the democratic party, but it's growing.

Mordy, Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:17 (six years ago) Permalink

there is still a much larger critical-of-Obama left than there was a critical-of-Bush right, including mr greenwald himself.

Agreed, and the White House knows it or knew it (e.g. Rahm Emmanuel shaking fingers at "fucking retarded" liberals). Unimaginable when Bush and Ronnie stuck their fingers in the press' asshole.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:23 (six years ago) Permalink

i don't think there is a lot of statistical evidence for that group of people

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:23 (six years ago) Permalink

don't get me wrong, I would be cool w/ those people existing. the world would be a better place if those people existed. it's just...they mostly don't

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:26 (six years ago) Permalink

a lot of this hard stuff will be easier during a second term

*bangs head repeatedly against the wall*

I love how building an evidentiary case of things we know to be true from everyday life is frequently required in this courtroom on this board.

he's probably right about obama supporters changing their mind about gitmo before + after election.

ie YES

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:30 (six years ago) Permalink

24% of Americans disapprove somewhat, or strongly, about keeping open the prison at Guantanamo Bay for terrorist suspects. xp

Mordy, Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:31 (six years ago) Permalink

the people you talk to on a daily basis are not a very representative sample set of americans, morbs

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:31 (six years ago) Permalink

oh thank God

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:32 (six years ago) Permalink

On an average weekday I don't talk to any people beyond transactions and professional matters...

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:35 (six years ago) Permalink

regardless they're people who live in or near NYC which means they are politically a couple miles away from the American center. Rudy and Bloomberg are left-wing dems in half the states in the country.

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:37 (six years ago) Permalink

I wish this were its own country too so we did not have to have a political system where we compromised w/ the crazy people that live elsewhere but ultimately that is how things work

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:38 (six years ago) Permalink

and yet, morbz, you also complain about getting the stink-eye whenever you badmouth Obama to your liberal/progressive/whatevah acquaintances ...

it might look subversive, but it's actually crap ... crap does exist (Eisbaer), Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:38 (six years ago) Permalink

I think the "vast" difference between NYers and the mainland cavedwellers is exaggerated in political matters. Most of the people we are discussing (voting Dem until they die, every time) had the same Pavlovian response to the Dream Warrior.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:42 (six years ago) Permalink

people here vote straight-ticket dem because the real election happens before the general election and is a contest people who are more left-wing than generic american dem. when everyone's the same party, party doesn't matter and means basically nothing.

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:47 (six years ago) Permalink

context among people*

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:48 (six years ago) Permalink

contest err

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:48 (six years ago) Permalink

I was talkin bout the means-nothin-presidency

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:49 (six years ago) Permalink

well if someone super-left wing was running for president as a dem, nyc would vote for them. the problem is the rest of the country.

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:51 (six years ago) Permalink

hell you could prob run in nyc as a dem. it just really doesn't mean anything, it's a organizational tool, there's no philosophy here to hate. the things you need to hate are:
a. everyone in america
b. the constitution

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:53 (six years ago) Permalink

what would be legally required to close guantanamo as a detention center? i have the sense that the bush administration created it largely by fiat? what is congress's authority over it now?

(i am not making excuses for bho, just curious)

mookieproof, Thursday, 9 February 2012 01:55 (six years ago) Permalink

well if someone super-left wing was running for president as a dem, nyc would vote for them. the problem is the rest of the country.

don't buy this at all.

1.) obama basically ran on a "super left-wing" platform and still won by a decent margin. (no, he wasn't kucinich, but if promising to pass universal health care, end the war in iraq, and close gitmo aren't "super left-wing" policies, i don't know what is.)
2.) "super left-wing" is basically in the eye of the beholder. the fact that the political establishment has agreed, say, that closing gitmo is an extremist "left-wing" policy doesn't mean that this instantly becomes the prevailing view of most americans.
3.) it's really problematic to use polls to make sweeping statements about what "most americans" believe because ppl's answers are largely dependent on the way poll questions are worded. i.e., ppl are more likely to respond favorably when asked if the government should 'do more to help poor people' than they are if asked if the government should 'spend more on welfare programs.'

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:38 (six years ago) Permalink

I wish this were its own country too so we did not have to have a political system where we compromised w/ the crazy people that live elsewhere but ultimately that is how things work

you guys elected Bloomberg, I'm not sure you're really as well-positioned to throw stones as you think dude

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:56 (six years ago) Permalink

bloomberg's pretty left-wing, like further than the dems on a lot of stuff w/ the exception a few 'admittedly kinda important' issues. and still woulda lost two of the three elections if staten island didn't exist.

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:06 (six years ago) Permalink

exception of

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:06 (six years ago) Permalink

man iatee your bizarro clubhouse version of the world has gone from offensive to fascinating for me. it's always "those bad people from this place I hate" who're the problem, whether the issue's local, national, or global. v. silly + unuseful lens thru which to view the world imo

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:09 (six years ago) Permalink

what do you think of the dems aero

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:09 (six years ago) Permalink

how do you like that obama dude

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:10 (six years ago) Permalink

staten island is a bastion of liberalism?!?

it might look subversive, but it's actually crap ... crap does exist (Eisbaer), Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:11 (six years ago) Permalink

you and me, we're against the same things, I hate the cause you hate the effect

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:11 (six years ago) Permalink

eis, staten island is a bastion of suburban conservativism that's just big enough to allow left-wing gop pols to swing some nyc elections

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:13 (six years ago) Permalink

haha otm re: bloomberg

there is, on a day-to-day level in a major city, a lot to be said for making the trains run on time tho. (no i am not excusing his convention/ows/other behavior.)

a big problem with the gop is that they're so against the idea of government that they won't even bother administrating it.

mookieproof, Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:14 (six years ago) Permalink

I don't think we're actually against the same things in the sense that I don't hate everybody who's not exactly like me

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:16 (six years ago) Permalink

Bloomie isn't 'left wing' by any standard cept conventionally pro-gay/Planned Parenthood etc (plus he's one hilarious liar on rich/poor issues: "ppl on Wall Street make $45-50 G") and he would've lost last time if the Dems hadn't nominated a nobody who was in bed with him.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:16 (six years ago) Permalink

or if he didn't get to spend like $400 per nyc voter on ads

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:17 (six years ago) Permalink

but mostly, staten island

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:17 (six years ago) Permalink

actually i think he's pissed at how close he came to losing to a nobody

mookieproof, Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:19 (six years ago) Permalink

bloomberg's pretty left-wing, like further than the dems on a lot of stuff w/ the exception a few 'admittedly kinda important' issues. and still woulda lost two of the three elections if staten island didn't exist.

You are totally insane, you know this right

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:22 (six years ago) Permalink

aero you've managed to abstract your hardcore leftism into this thing where , idk, the voters and people in america really have no relation to what should and can happen, and it's just those 'not hard enough left public figures' who are the cause of all our problems. that's v. convenient, it's all due to some powerful forces and some dudes in suits on tv and the good-hearted american people are just being tricked. no - it's not the fact that a very high % of people in america believe that women should not ever be able to get an abortion, ever - no, that has no effect on american policy at all. it's the mysterious forces and sell-out dems. america is actually packed w/ good-hearted pro-choice socialists, they're just all hiding under rocks, waiting for the magic third party to appear.

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:22 (six years ago) Permalink

bloomberg pushed for congestion pricing, very strict gun control laws, gay marriage, he's against the death penalty etc. etc.

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:25 (six years ago) Permalink

honestly the scenario you're spinning out of air (which neither I nor anyone else believes) is still less batshit insane than "all the dumb ppl in [town/county/state/country] are the problem" - I know you can't actually imagine that even as logically possible, because you've been drunk on "the people in [region/locality] are so stupid!" for so long so there is no point in even arguing, I'm just commenting that it's fascinating, because it's so transparently a 1) foolish and 2) losing argument but it's like your absolute go-to in every scenario. the bad people from the bad places. if only we could be rid of them. <--- never ever get anywhere with that line of thinking + it's wrong in the first place but neither of these disqualifiers offset the apparent sweetness of the argt for you. it's just weird is all!

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:52 (six years ago) Permalink

whew. i was worried for a second that this clusterfuck wasn't actually going to happen.

Mordy, Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:53 (six years ago) Permalink

lol

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 03:54 (six years ago) Permalink

when you call out american policy makers you are calling out the people who voted for them. you can pretend that you're not, that the senator from oklahoma really has *nothing to do* with the people and culture of oklahoma. he's just this dude, there. what an asshole, right? but you're just abstracting the issue. american politics is making a big grand compromise w/ 'the bad people in the bad places'. it sucks, we do it, that's why things are the way they are.

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:03 (six years ago) Permalink

I know that that's what you think! it's literally insane, tossing out the many other things about American politics that don't suit your pet notion! that is what is really interesting about yr whole deal, the amount of sheer effort you have to put into your unworking, wrong, utterly ridiculous "bad people/bad places" weird post-Marxist hangover ideology!

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:08 (six years ago) Permalink

"there's no money in politics...the electorate never shifts...if it does, thank the good people from the good places...there's literally nothing else in play besides the voters, they're really running the show...these fuckin' rubble...you can admit it or not, but they're scum...their individual donations are really the engine that drives the whole machine...gotta re-wire that machine for their own good...the days grow hot, O Babylon...'tis cool beneath thy villow trees"

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:11 (six years ago) Permalink

tbh I do not have to put very much effort into this ideology "on the whole, people vote for politicians who represent and enact their policy beleifs"

I have some pretty crazy beliefs, no doubt, but the 'voting has something to do w/ politics' theory has many proponents

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:11 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah dude "on the whole, voting is a complex behavior with many variables in play" would be a much safer & truer assertion

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:13 (six years ago) Permalink

as w/ many things, it might be on an individual level, when millions of people do it they follow fairly predictable patterns

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:14 (six years ago) Permalink

the overwhelming pattern being "they vote for someone who best represents their political beliefs"

it's crazy but I'm the one not being patronizing towards millions of people atm

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:16 (six years ago) Permalink

aero is it mistaken to think that the voters in some states are more hostile to abortion rights than those in other states?

mookieproof, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:20 (six years ago) Permalink

all those people *tricked* into being pro-life...by uh...money! ads! the machine! it's not like there are people in america w/ different beliefs than us, there are just people who were tricked. by money.

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:21 (six years ago) Permalink

aero is it mistaken to think that the voters in some states are more hostile to abortion rights than those in other states?

this particular question seems moot to me, since the right to choose is hardly ever approachable at the voting level, unless you're tracking candidates and their positions w/the voters, which, again, is really complex: how you frame the question of abortion has as much to do with a voter's response as the issue iteself (same's true with a lot of social issues eg welfar). in iatee's world, the many people who've had abortions but still vote pro-life don't really exist, because the world is easily explained: there's good people (us, we live here) and scummy people (them, they live there). iatee will always believe this & there's no point engaging him on it at all but "staten island" was just too hilarious to ignore, I'm sure he's got a bunch of charts n stats that prove staten island really is the great satan or something tho

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:26 (six years ago) Permalink

"iteself" seems to have borrowed an "e" from "welfar" but if it works for them who'm I to judge

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:27 (six years ago) Permalink

I can look for one but I really don't think anyone needs a chart to prove that xp

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:27 (six years ago) Permalink

some1 else reminded me of this /nostalker

ice cr?m it's a democracy. America votes in a guy, they not only get what they deserve, they get what they explicitly asked for. and it's not like there weren't plenty of voices around warning that the candidates were going to fuck shit up proper - this is a democracy, again! vote in somebody who's not a fucking sociopath, get a better deal imo, otherwise you get what you voted for & urged others to vote for

― pathos of the unwarranted encore (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Monday, October 31, 2011 10:00 PM (3 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:32 (six years ago) Permalink

so ppl have basically homogenous views throughout the 50 states? that doesn't seem right.

mookieproof, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:33 (six years ago) Permalink

lol "the electorate gets what it votes for" is what I say. "the electorate gets what it votes for, those horrible subhumans" is your uniquely batshit variant on that

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:34 (six years ago) Permalink

lol dude Reagan got a 2nd term. sorry to "condescend" to an asshole electorate that actually gave a guy who'd been ruining the country for four years another four years to dig the whole deeper.
― pathos of the unwarranted encore (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned)

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:35 (six years ago) Permalink

hmmmm

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:35 (six years ago) Permalink

I'm sure he's got a bunch of charts n stats that prove staten island really is the great satan or something tho

staten island does kinda suck, though.

it might look subversive, but it's actually crap ... crap does exist (Eisbaer), Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:38 (six years ago) Permalink

I went to high school in Staten Island. Prince's Bay. We hung out in New Dorp. New Doooorp. The train is free there. That's pretty cool. It smells like garbage in the summer. Less cool.

Mordy, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:40 (six years ago) Permalink

so ppl have basically homogenous views throughout the 50 states? that doesn't seem right.

oh no - they shift all the time for a lot of reasons - states go from pro-labor to anti depending on the economy, how effective the unions are in their work, clever phrasing like "right to work" (who doesn't believe in the right to work?) in ballot measures, etc., for example. states get tilted pro- or anti-choice when a Republican legislature gets out its pen and starts redistricting; this is going on now in a number of states, the one I live in included. whole educational curricula go fundamentalist when the right/wrong people end up on local schoolboards. much of this has to either with long-term regional strategies of the party that take into account local economies, movement of the population imo. It's my understanding that Thomas Frank's book about Kansas talks a lot about this sort of thing but I haven't read it so I don't know for sure

no point in drawing this out I just feel obligated to holler "bullshit" when iatee finds another neighborhood to demonize

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:41 (six years ago) Permalink

They have houses with waterfalls where the water flows over the front of the house.

Mordy, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:42 (six years ago) Permalink

by neighborhood you mean 'another old thread where you said exactly the opposite of what you're saying now', right xp

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:44 (six years ago) Permalink

it remains the case that the voters get what they ask for, and they're assholes if they vote in assholes. for iatee, those assholes have gotta come from places he can draw a line around & point to or all the fun goes out of stuff

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:44 (six years ago) Permalink

I do love that you've so completely conceded the question that the best you can do is "you're inconsistent with a previous position"

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:44 (six years ago) Permalink

no I haven't conceded the question, I just agree w/ historic you

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:45 (six years ago) Permalink

They have houses with waterfalls where the water flows over the front of the house.

man I wish I understood this reference because it is kinda cosmic-sounding to me

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:47 (six years ago) Permalink

chillwave moderne

buzza, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:48 (six years ago) Permalink

no I haven't conceded the question, I just agree w/ historic you

lol I'm less inclined to flee from the argt at hand than you evidently but iirc ppl's objections there were "you realize you sound like iatee here right?" and I had to go to great pains to differentiate between wholesale cynicism (me) vs. consistent classism (you)

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:49 (six years ago) Permalink

we're all classist to some extent. not very helpful with this discussion, though it helps me to figure out my own head wr2 politics and such.

it might look subversive, but it's actually crap ... crap does exist (Eisbaer), Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:54 (six years ago) Permalink

that's the thing, you fail at being a cynic which is why it's so frustrating to watch you interact w/ politics. it's just a never-ending disillusionment. it's not in your personality tbh. morbs is a cynic and he's pretty good at it and at least his political views are consistent ("hate everybody").

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:55 (six years ago) Permalink

if you want to be a cynic forget about ~what is good and right in the world~ when you click on the politics thread and read up on game theory and interest groups

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 04:57 (six years ago) Permalink

it's not ~cynical~ to blame everything on the two party system, its lazy and simplistic. or maybe it's entry-lev cynicism, idk

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:00 (six years ago) Permalink

it's true - cynicism isn't really native to me, I feel let down again & again + that's sort of just how I'm wired to be, that's a fair cop. I know you really really wanna tether your thread dig-up to your own consistenly pathological "these people from this place are bad, ignorant people" schtick & I also know that you're convinced of yr righteousness on that front so why bother any more than I should bother trying to convince you of its woeful ignorance

yet the very failed cynicism you cite necessitates that we'll be revisiting this argument the next time you locate a city, county, state, country or region - it won't be hard! there's only the one Paris and the one NY, minus those wicked people in Staten Island! - to make sweeping generalities about

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:02 (six years ago) Permalink

watching you descend into condescending ad-homs in these argts would be more rewarding if I were a true cynic, too, it's true - instead I just feel bad

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:04 (six years ago) Permalink

omg scroll up and tally your condescending ad homs

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:05 (six years ago) Permalink

chillwave moderne

buzza I want you to know that this didn't pass unappreciated btw

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:08 (six years ago) Permalink

aero i <3 u but i think you are being unreasonably unreasonable here

mookieproof, Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:12 (six years ago) Permalink

ps "you're kinda bad at being cynical and that's why you'll never understand politics" is prob the single ad hommiest thing I have said to you on years of debates. there's nothing wrong w/ being a romantic, it benefits you in other aspects of life and makes you an interesting person to read on like 95% of subjects. it's just a fundamentally poor way to understand how politics - any politics, anywhere - works.

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:15 (six years ago) Permalink

in years*

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:15 (six years ago) Permalink

aero i <3 u but i think you are being unreasonably unreasonable here

impossible

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:20 (six years ago) Permalink

ps "you're kinda bad at being cynical and that's why you'll never understand politics" is prob the single ad hommiest thing I have said to you on years of debates. there's nothing wrong w/ being a romantic, it benefits you in other aspects of life and makes you an interesting person to read on like 95% of subjects. it's just a fundamentally poor way to understand how politics - any politics, anywhere - works.

btw I'm sure this is all true? it's just like not germane to what I'm on about, which is your insistence on this weird bad-people deal which I oughta just type "sigh" to and be done with but the very naivete you cite coupled with our general other-spheres compatibility sort of obligates me by my nature to say "oh come on you can't actually think that way" every damn time

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:38 (six years ago) Permalink

though I'd say 95% of subjects is a pretty generous estimate, ty

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:41 (six years ago) Permalink

impossible

i know!

mookieproof, Thursday, 9 February 2012 05:50 (six years ago) Permalink

I think republicans are 'bad people' because I don't think you can really be a morally sound person because the only thing the gop sells in 2012 is morally bankrupt policy. you can be stupid or you can be bad. I don't think every single person in oklahoma is a weird-bad person, believe it or not. but a lot of them are racist, a lot of them are homophobic, a lot of them genuinely would be fine w/ a woman dying instead of getting an abortion. you can pretend those people don't exist, and america is nothing but good-hearted souls, that there is nothing crass, heartless, vain, warmongering in our culture itself. but pretending that makes american politics a lot more confusing. why would such a great place consistently elect horrible people? etc.

outside of this I think you confuse my disgust w/ poor urban planning w/ a disgust for people who live places.

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 06:05 (six years ago) Permalink

er rewrite the first sentence:

I think republicans are 'bad people' because the only thing the gop sells in 2012 is morally bankrupt policy.

iatee, Thursday, 9 February 2012 06:06 (six years ago) Permalink

jeez I fall asleep listening to a baseball podcast and look what happens.

SI did vote somethin like 75% for Giuliani, but admittedly I skew closer to George Carlin's "we suck."

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 February 2012 08:14 (six years ago) Permalink

They have houses with waterfalls where the water flows over the front of the house.

― Mordy, Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:42 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

http://hellogiggles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/twin_peaks_twin_peaks_fire_walk_with_me_1991_reference.jpeg

Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 9 February 2012 09:10 (six years ago) Permalink

They have houses with waterfalls where the water flows over the front of the house.

― Mordy, Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:42 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

http://hellogiggles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/twin_peaks_twin_peaks_fire_walk_with_me_1991_reference.jpeg

Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 9 February 2012 09:10 (six years ago) Permalink

Can we get back to the bit where Obamacare / Iraq / Gitmo are "super left-wing" policies? Because as someone outside the US, that shit is fascinating.

Like is "nationalise" an ab-word that obliterates any word put next to it, which cannot be put into a sentence?

Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 9 February 2012 09:13 (six years ago) Permalink

(writing this from NHS dentist's waiting room, feeling kind of smug)

Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 9 February 2012 09:14 (six years ago) Permalink

oh shit dental death squad fghsxzzz

Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 9 February 2012 09:14 (six years ago) Permalink

Can we get back to the bit where Obamacare / Iraq / Gitmo are "super left-wing" policies? Because as someone outside the US, that shit is fascinating.

― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, February 9, 2012 9:13 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

imo they aren't. Bush was close to closing gitmo in 2008 and backed off, in part, because it was so complicated to do so. Iraq drawdown is bipartisan in the extreme.

and every democrat promises broad healthcare reform. Clinton promised it and no one thought he was wildly left wing.

Obama didn't run as a liberal Democrat. Why would he?

Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 9 February 2012 09:20 (six years ago) Permalink

even if he was a liberal democrat, it would be in his best interest to pretend he was a centrist.

Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 9 February 2012 09:30 (six years ago) Permalink

I recall at least one 2008 appearance where he explicitly called himself "progressive."

Sorry, most libs who voted for him thought he was liberal, eyes and ears notwithstanding.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 February 2012 12:48 (six years ago) Permalink

Don't make fun of the president's ears.

clemenza, Thursday, 9 February 2012 13:27 (six years ago) Permalink

Republicans to issue report on Gitmo, including their outrage on this:

While the Obama administration overhauled the transfer policies, the report said the changes were inadequate to sufficiently mitigate risks. The December 2010 report said that of 66 detainees transferred under President Obama, five — including two ordered released by courts — were “suspected” of having re-engaged or “confirmed” as having done so, for a combined rate of about 7.5 percent.

Under Bush: A December 2010 intelligence report said that of the 600 detainees transferred out — mostly during the Bush administration — 13.5 percent were “confirmed” as having re-engaged in hostile activity and 11.5 percent were “suspected” of doing so; nearly half of those are now dead or back in custody. Last year, Mr. Clapper said the combined figure was 27 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/us/gop-report-criticizes-transfers-from-guantanamo.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha22

curmudgeon, Thursday, 9 February 2012 14:32 (six years ago) Permalink

btw calling Obama's 2008 positions "far left" -- plz cut that shit, Cokie Roberts and "Fox & Friends" do not get to rewrite the dictionary.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 February 2012 14:57 (six years ago) Permalink

"nationalise"

Americans do recognize this spelling

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Thursday, 9 February 2012 15:03 (six years ago) Permalink

not, I meant

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Thursday, 9 February 2012 15:04 (six years ago) Permalink

giving up politics on ILE & Facebook for Lent

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 February 2012 19:39 (six years ago) Permalink

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2012/02/09/schneiderman-victims-share-your-thoughts-on-the-settlement/

Not everyone's happy with the Obama and state attny gens settlement

curmudgeon, Thursday, 9 February 2012 20:18 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah i still have to make my way through the yves smith fury about that

kinda wish there were more finance-critical bloggers that didn't read like they went through a keyboard a week from whiteknuckle damage

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 9 February 2012 20:20 (six years ago) Permalink

Wells Fargo, Citi, Ally/GMAC, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America just sealed a deal with 49 State Attorneys General that will release them from liability for out-right defrauding millions of homeowners. In exchange, families defrauded by the banks can apply for what amounts to 2 months rent ($1,800-$2,000) compensation for losing their homes.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 9 February 2012 20:20 (six years ago) Permalink

I heard the Maryland Attorney General on the radio defending this and insisting that he and the NY, California and Delaware attorney generals improved this and made it strong--pushing the amount up from 6 billion to 26 billion and making other changes

curmudgeon, Thursday, 9 February 2012 20:29 (six years ago) Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/faq-the-foreclosure-settlement/2011/08/25/gIQAcvGV1Q_blog.html

The deal is currently worth $26 billion. Is that really a lot of money? Depends what you mean by “a lot of money.” The deal is the largest of its kind since a multi-state agreement with the tobacco industry in 1998. But that deal was worth around $350 billion in today’s dollars. It’s also not a lot of money compared to the $700 billion in underwater mortgage debt, or the bailout of the banks that issue and bought the debt in the first place.

The settlement increased in size thanks to the participation of California and New York’s attorneys general, who had been holdouts. However, some critics say the amount is relatively paltry, given the extent of the nation’s housing crisis.

What’s in it for the banks? The banks have been operating under a cloud of legal uncertainty over their exposure to bad mortgages that were not properly documented. That has hurt banks’ stock prices and tied up capital. As part of today’s deal, officials have promised not to pursue certain mortgage-related claims against the targeted banks.

So are they off the hook entirely? No. One reason the deal is relatively small is that it doesn’t fully end the banks’ legal liability. New York AG Eric Schneiderman, for instance, is able to move forward with his lawsuit.

curmudgeon, Thursday, 9 February 2012 20:48 (six years ago) Permalink

I have no reason to doubt Harris will aggressively go after the banks on behalf of California.

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 February 2012 21:02 (six years ago) Permalink

“‘I was thinking about how sexy it would be to kiss you,’” world renowned pickup artist Wayne Elise told a group of young Rick Santorum fans. “You can say that (to a girl), it’s a cool.”

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/professional-pick-up-artist-teaches-cpac-crowd-how-to-run-game.php

I DIED, Thursday, 9 February 2012 21:26 (six years ago) Permalink

it's a cool

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 9 February 2012 21:28 (six years ago) Permalink

giving up politics on ILE & Facebook for Lent

― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, February 9, 2012 1:39 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Mordy, Thursday, 9 February 2012 23:22 (six years ago) Permalink

lol Lent doesn't start until the 22nd

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Thursday, 9 February 2012 23:24 (six years ago) Permalink

oh, didn't realize. i'll just update my calendar then...

Mordy, Thursday, 9 February 2012 23:26 (six years ago) Permalink

(altho i guess i did realize that since we're going to NOLA soon during mardi gras and i know that's like the last hurrah before lent.)

Mordy, Thursday, 9 February 2012 23:27 (six years ago) Permalink

positively Wilsonian....

Jesus!

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Thursday, 9 February 2012 23:39 (six years ago) Permalink

A+ trolling, someone buy this dude a beer:

Mississippi State Rep. Steve Holland has had a busy afternoon. After we reported his introduction of H.B. 150 yesterday, a bill that aims to rename the Gulf of Mexico the very pro-'Merican, Onion-worthy title "Gulf of America," the Democrat's office has been flooded with press calls to respond to, essentially, "what the hell are you doing?"

Turns out Holland has a bit of a goof streak going on. He called Gambit to tell us the bill is his tongue-in-cheek single-finger salute to mock his Republican peers obsessed with illegal immigration.

"That's exactly what it is," he says. He's throwing the bill into session with his Republican counterparts, who he says should be focused on helping "feed, clothe and educate children, take care of older adults, provide economic development and high systems in this state, and all the hell they want to talk about is running illegal immigrants out, and drug testing welfare and Medicaid recipients — all superfluous crap as far as I'm concerned. So I thought I'd just join them with a bill to chew on, saying the Gulf of America instead of the Gulf of Mexico, since everything Mexican and Hispanic is 'so bad.' Nothing but a 'spamalot' bill is all it is. Tongue-in-cheek."

Despite his ruse, he's drawn ire from Café Con Leche, a GOP group of Minnesota Latinos who demanded Holland withdraw the bill, which the group dubs anti-Mexican. Café Con Leche suggested Holland rename the Mississippi River “Lincoln River,” while he’s at it. But his home state hasn't peeped yet.

"Nobody in Mississippi has responded, but I've been responding to phone calls all over the world," Holland says. "Maybe I didn't think about it, but hell, I've been here 29 years, I got to try and have some fun as best I can with all these jerks."

Speaking of fun, you might catch Holland at Mardi Gras.

"I'm coming into New Orleans the week after next to raise hell," he says. "Just time to have my New Orleans fix. I go once a quarter. I love it."

The Large Hardon Collider (Phil D.), Friday, 10 February 2012 01:09 (six years ago) Permalink

lol Mordy can't wait

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 February 2012 01:29 (six years ago) Permalink

positively Wilsonian....

Jesus!

judge for yourself:

One of the things to which he paid particular attention at this time was the matter of the pardon of Eugene V. Debs. The day that the recommendation for pardon arrived at the White House, he looked it over and examined it carefully, and said: "I will never consent to the pardon of this man. I know that in certain quarters of the country there is a popular demand for the pardon of Debs, but it shall never be accomplished with my consent. Were I to consent to it, I should never be able to look into the faces of the mothers of this country who sent their boys to the other side. While the flower of American youth was pouring out its blood to vindicate the cause of civilization, this man, Debs, stood behind the lines, sniping, attacking, and denouncing them. Before the war he had a perfect right to exercise his freedom of speech and to express his own opinion, but once the Congress of the United States declared war, silence on his part would have been the proper course to pursue. I know there will be a great deal of denunciation of me for refusing this pardon. They will say I am cold-blooded and indifferent, but it will make no impression on me. This man was a traitor to his country and he will never be pardoned during my administration."

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 10 February 2012 01:35 (six years ago) Permalink

"They will say I am cold-blooded and indifferent, but it will make no impression on me."

The crazy thing is that he probably meant this to be taken unironically.

Aimless, Friday, 10 February 2012 01:55 (six years ago) Permalink

wmc's real name is Steve Holland?

mookieproof, Friday, 10 February 2012 03:11 (six years ago) Permalink

lol

Steamtable Willie (WmC), Friday, 10 February 2012 03:46 (six years ago) Permalink

Was really hoping dude would turn out to be director "Savage" Steve Holland in a new career phase, but alas.

The Large Hardon Collider (Phil D.), Friday, 10 February 2012 11:34 (six years ago) Permalink

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule/

One source familiar with the decision described the accommodation as “Hawaii-plus,” insisting that it’s better than the Hawaii plan — for both sides.

In Hawaii the employer is responsible for referring employees to places where they can obtain the contraception; Catholic leaders call that material cooperation with evil. But what the White House will likely announce later today is that the relationship between the religious employer and the insurance company will not need to have any component involving contraception. The insurance company will reach out on its own to the women employees. This is better for both sides, the source says, since the religious organizations do not have to deal with medical care to which they object, and women employees will not have to be dependent upon an organization hostile to that care in order to obtain it.

curmudgeon, Friday, 10 February 2012 14:27 (six years ago) Permalink

David Frum:

The Contraception Fight
by David Frum Feb 9, 2012 12:00 PM EST

Print
Email
Comments (27)

136081892AW002_SEBELIUS_HOL

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius (R) takes questions as Director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Richard Gilfillan (L) looks on during a news conference December 19, 2011, Alex Wong / Getty Images

Glendower:

I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

Hotspur:

Why, so can I, or so can any man;

But will they come when you do call for them?

- Henry IV, Part 1.

As Republicans go to war over including contraception in health plans, they are repeating to themselves a reassuring mantra:

"This is not a contraception issue. This is not a social issue. This is a constitutional issue."

The idea is that they are not against contraception. They are only against requiring any employer or plan to provide contraception if that employer or plan conscientiously objects to contraception.

So they say, so they may sincerely believe.

But politics is not only about what you say. It is also about what your intended audience will hear.

If the audience is paying attention, for example, it will notice that Republicans are not proposing to allow employers and plans to refuse to cover blood transfusions if they conscientiously object to them (although there are religious groups that do). Or vaccinations (although there are individuals who conscientiously object to those as well). Or medicines derived from animal experimentation. (Ditto.)

No, Marco Rubio's Religious Freedom Restoration bill provides for one conscientious exemption only: contraception and sterilization.

Which means it will be very hard if not impossible to persuade the target audience that this debate is not in fact about contraception. Everybody quite sure that's a wise debate to have?

The Large Hardon Collider (Phil D.), Friday, 10 February 2012 15:18 (six years ago) Permalink

ha what the hell do republican voters care about jehovahs witnesses

diln (k3vin k.), Friday, 10 February 2012 15:30 (six years ago) Permalink

obvs they don't but it's just nice to have them publicly called on their bullshit.

The Large Hardon Collider (Phil D.), Friday, 10 February 2012 15:30 (six years ago) Permalink

Seriously, how the fuck can all these religious organizations get so many tax exemptions and then have the chutzpah to complain about shit?

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 February 2012 15:51 (six years ago) Permalink

Also, you'd think a nation of people with 2 kids a family, give or take, pretty much settles the stance on birth control. It'd be a different debate if we were all running around with dozens of kids underfoot per household, like in "Meaning of Life."

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 February 2012 15:53 (six years ago) Permalink

A line from my old standup act identified the primary birth-control method in Catholic marriages as "mutual disgust"

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 February 2012 16:07 (six years ago) Permalink

q: what do you call ppl who practice the 'mutual disgust' method of birth-control?
a: divorcees!

Mordy, Friday, 10 February 2012 16:12 (six years ago) Permalink

rmde at this nonsense

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 February 2012 17:05 (six years ago) Permalink

Shakey you said this story would blow over quickly, and maybe Obama's accommodation compromise will help that happen. Nah, the Catholic bishops and the Republicans will be ranting about Obama denying first amendment freedom of religion rights from here on, even with today's action (which has now gotten Obama some of that "reasonable adult" attention that he so loves)

curmudgeon, Friday, 10 February 2012 22:52 (six years ago) Permalink

I can't see this having legs really - it's only been in the news cycle for what, two days now? let's keep some perspective.

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 February 2012 22:54 (six years ago) Permalink

Has Mitt Romney proclaimed himself the anti-contraception candidate yet?

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 February 2012 22:59 (six years ago) Permalink

two days? i've been hearing about this for at least two weeks now

i love pinfold cricket (gbx), Saturday, 11 February 2012 01:06 (six years ago) Permalink

This will disappear next week to be replaced by something equally ephemeral. No one will discuss Iran and drone rockets.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 11 February 2012 01:56 (six years ago) Permalink

If you don't have CNN or FOX, this problem is meaningless.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 11 February 2012 01:56 (six years ago) Permalink

problem = the miniscule percentage of Catholics ready to break from Obama over diaphragms and colored condoms.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 11 February 2012 01:57 (six years ago) Permalink

Obama's introduction on friday of the accomodation himself rather than having it done via press release shows though that the White House is more worried about this than Shakey is!

There seems to high percentage of Catholic inside the Beltway media types fixated on this--Chris Matthews, EJ Dionne, hmmm is Cokie Roberts...

curmudgeon, Saturday, 11 February 2012 14:38 (six years ago) Permalink

If you don't have CNN or FOX, this problem is meaningless.

― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, February 11, 2012

Unless you work at a Catholic-owned hospital, but yeah otherwise you could say this about just about any political thing we discuss here

curmudgeon, Saturday, 11 February 2012 14:39 (six years ago) Permalink

"When you wear that blue condom, I go wild!"

The Austerity of PONIES (beachville), Saturday, 11 February 2012 14:43 (six years ago) Permalink

you could say this about just about any political thing we discuss here

Except, you know, the important stuff.

Biden was among those reportedly telling O to backtrack, I-tol-ya-so ad nauseum.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 11 February 2012 15:53 (six years ago) Permalink

i don't defer to Beltway media types about substantive policy (esp since they've been laughably wrong about such things by and large), and i'm damn sure not going to defer to their take on Catholicism or Catholic voters.

by itself, this flap isn't going to swing anyone but grannies who go to novenas (who probably weren't too keen on voting for Obama anyway).

it might look subversive, but it's actually crap ... crap does exist (Eisbaer), Saturday, 11 February 2012 22:01 (six years ago) Permalink

A good pol never leaves a potential vote on the table. Even a small slice of novena-attending grannies is worth making an effort, if it looks like a net gainer.

Aimless, Saturday, 11 February 2012 22:53 (six years ago) Permalink

my mother is an 83-yo granny who hauls a rosary. I'm sure she'll vote for Obama (again) as long as my sister drives her to the poll and tells her to.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 12 February 2012 00:42 (six years ago) Permalink

you should drive her to the polls and tell her to vote for roseanne

mookieproof, Sunday, 12 February 2012 00:53 (six years ago) Permalink

roseanne-ary

brownie, Sunday, 12 February 2012 01:04 (six years ago) Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

Almost half of all Americans lived in households that received government benefits in 2010, according to the Census Bureau. The share climbed from 37.7 percent in 1998 to 44.5 percent in 2006, before the recession, to 48.5 percent in 2010.

The trend reflects the expansion of the safety net. When the earned-income credit was introduced in 1975, eligibility was limited to households making the current equivalent of up to $26,997. In 2010, it was available to families making up to $49,317. The maximum payout, meanwhile, quadrupled on an inflation-adjusted basis.

Interesting long piece. I was thinking about it as I saw on Facebook an annoying forwarded photo thing saying: "Got my tax form returned, the government did not like me listing as my dependents, 12 million illegal immigrants, x million on disability, x million on and so on." Conservatives are convinced all these folks are lucky duckies living it up on these far less than six figure amounts. But some want to work and some are Tea party types themselves in denial.

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 15:10 (six years ago) Permalink

great opening: "Back in 2006, before the Obama administration made leak prosecutions routine..."

How are future Supreme Court appointments such a re-election vote crutch for a regime that has such contempt for a free press?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/sunday-review/a-high-tech-war-on-leaks.html

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Monday, 13 February 2012 16:19 (six years ago) Permalink

The White House's fixation on prosecuting whistleblower leak cases is horrible, but again how is enabling Romney or whatever GOPer to appoint Supreme court judges going to make things better. If we had had a Dem in office instead of Bush a more moderate (or even kinda liberal) Supreme Court could act as a screen to prevent such constitution damaging actions.

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:26 (six years ago) Permalink

could have

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:26 (six years ago) Permalink

acted

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:26 (six years ago) Permalink

You're presuming that justices vote the way their presidents want them to. Besides, a liberal judge is apt to rein in King Obama.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:27 (six years ago) Permalink

Morbz wants things to get WORSE curmodgeon, not better

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:28 (six years ago) Permalink

The revolution will then happen and the Mets will win the World Series again and Morbz will be on top of the world

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:30 (six years ago) Permalink

Also: no president interested in legacies and such would return the extra-constitutional powers bequeathed to him. Any GOP or Dem successor to Obama would at best continue but probably worsen this state of affairs.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:31 (six years ago) Permalink

yep, these powers will not be limited/rescinded without a massive fight, would be a huge showdown between the judiciary and executive

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:32 (six years ago) Permalink

Obama has made things worse in the prosecuting of whistleblowers and in many civil liberty areas, yes. Re the unintend consequences of appointing judges, other than HW Bush's appoinment of Souter, which appointees in the last 30 years have done other than what was expected?

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:34 (six years ago) Permalink

as Bob Dole would say, stop lying about my record.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:35 (six years ago) Permalink

Re the unintend consequences of appointing judges, other than HW Bush's appoinment of Souter, which appointees in the last 30 years have done other than what was expected?

Kennedy, although expectations were low (third pick after Bork and Douglas Ginsberg).

Too soon to judge Sotomayor and Kagan.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:38 (six years ago) Permalink

doesn't even make sense to compare them because judges today are picked *specifically with the goal of not having unexpected consequences*

iatee, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:39 (six years ago) Permalink

Kennedy still largely agrees with the other conservatives

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:40 (six years ago) Permalink

doesn't even make sense to compare them because judges today are picked *specifically with the goal of not having unexpected consequences*

... when was this not a goal

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:41 (six years ago) Permalink

it wasn't as explicitly a goal recently

iatee, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:42 (six years ago) Permalink

There are various books claiming that the Republican presidential appointment of Earl Warren, who became a liberal favorite, was not thought out the way most of the current appointments have been done.

Some liberal and left wing groups worry that Sotomayor and Kagan will be less than liberal despite all the analysis of their history.

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 17:45 (six years ago) Permalink

You're not going to stop either-or'ing every goddamn issue where both wings of the duopoly break the limits of tolerability... but plz do so anyway. Let's just get a second party, albeit one different from Tom Friedman's, by any means necessary.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:45 (six years ago) Permalink

Oh, there's a long list of justices whose decisions didn't square with the president's, starting with Samuel Chase, whom Jefferson's Dems in Congress tried to impeach.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:47 (six years ago) Permalink

... when was this not a goal

― I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Monday, February 13, 2012 12:41 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark

sometimes judges were picked based on their 'jurisprudence' (i.e. cardozo, who received unanimous support from both parties)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1tAYmMjLdY (dayo), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:59 (six years ago) Permalink

or justices were picked for "balance" (i.e. we need a Catholic, a southerner, a Jew).

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 February 2012 18:01 (six years ago) Permalink

doesn't even make sense to compare them because judges today are picked *specifically with the goal of not having unexpected consequences*

... when was this not a goal

― I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Monday, 13 February 2012 17:41 (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"& so, mr president, we have our shortlist. and now, if you will close your eyes, put your hand in the bag and withdraw only one additional name"

quick brown fox triangle (schlump), Monday, 13 February 2012 18:08 (six years ago) Permalink

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17014744

Obama budget that the House will oppose released today (plus arm sales to Bahrain story below):

the plan would levy a new $61bn tax on financial institutions, in an effort to recover the costs of the financial bailout. And it would raise a further $41bn by cutting tax breaks for oil, gas and coal companies.

Token items like this keep me in the voting for Obama camp (no matter how annoyed I was this morning re this item I heard on the Democracy Now radio program and just read about elsewhere: The Obama administration has quietly moved forward with a new package of arms sales to the regime in Bahrain, after international pressure forced them to delay its planned $53 million arms sale. Using legal loopholes that only require congressional authorization for sales of $1 million or more, the administration split the arms package and moved forward with the new sales without notifying the public.

Human Rights Watch has condemned Obama’s support for this repression, saying in a press release that the “decision to move forward on a $1 million arms sale to Bahrain sends the wrong signal to a country that is engaged in serious human rights abuses

http://presstv.com/usdetail/225971.html

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:20 (six years ago) Permalink

"reasonable adult" moderate.....grrrrrrr

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 19:21 (six years ago) Permalink

Will DJP or Tim3llison or someone defend the Bahrain thing, or explain it to naive me? Does Obama really believe this military aid is a "carrot" that will get Bahrain to shape up, or that this aid is somehow necessary to counteract Iran or help the US maintain a presence in that part of the world?

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 20:20 (six years ago) Permalink

why is it incumbent upon me to defend the Bahrain thing

fuck off

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Monday, 13 February 2012 20:21 (six years ago) Permalink

black people are the most responsible for obama's decisions iirc

iatee, Monday, 13 February 2012 20:22 (six years ago) Permalink

I didn't realize that saying Obama is the candidate most in line with my political beliefs with the best chance of winning automatically means I approve of every fucking thing his administration does

well actually I did realize that, which is why I shouldn't be on these threads because oftentimes you guys are fucking morons

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Monday, 13 February 2012 20:24 (six years ago) Permalink

I won't defend weapons sales but it's pretty obvious why Obama thinks it's important to prop up the Bahrain regime - to annoy Iran and keep them from becoming the running the country by proxy

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 February 2012 20:25 (six years ago) Permalink

I hear he's trading arms for handos

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Monday, 13 February 2012 20:30 (six years ago) Permalink

Um, I said Tim3llison (whose race I do not know) or someone too, but sorry for singling anyone out. My error. Shakey, do you think this will really annoy Iran though?

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 21:01 (six years ago) Permalink

Annoy is probably the wrong word. I'm pretty sure this is merely to warn them.

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Monday, 13 February 2012 21:04 (six years ago) Permalink

Iran will totally see this as (yet another) aggressive move to assert US hegemony in the region, no doubt about it

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 February 2012 21:05 (six years ago) Permalink

It also makes sense in the contect of the long-standing enmity between Sunni Arab kingdoms and the Shia Persian Islamic Republic

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Monday, 13 February 2012 21:12 (six years ago) Permalink

So the citizens of Bahrain are screwed--either they have their own current autocratic regime or one controlled by Iran.

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 21:13 (six years ago) Permalink

mostly

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 February 2012 21:14 (six years ago) Permalink

would probably prefer Iran tho, given the shi'a majority

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 February 2012 21:14 (six years ago) Permalink

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/gop-drops-demand-for-offsetting-payroll-tax-cut.php

Can we believe TPM or its sources on this?

curmudgeon, Monday, 13 February 2012 21:21 (six years ago) Permalink

dude

max, Monday, 13 February 2012 21:28 (six years ago) Permalink

its source is... an official statement

max, Monday, 13 February 2012 21:28 (six years ago) Permalink

will lol if Tea Party morons buck Boehner on this

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 February 2012 21:32 (six years ago) Permalink

its source is... an official statement

― max, Monday, February 13, 2012 3:28 PM (8 minutes ago)

Yeah, but it's an offical statement from Republican leaders. How do we know we can trust it?!

Steamtable Willie (WmC), Monday, 13 February 2012 21:37 (six years ago) Permalink

Whenever a flood of fresh new faces sweeps into Congress on a tide of public reaction, the tide usually goes out in the next election and many are swept back out to sea. I look for at least half the new tea party reps to swim with that outgoing tide, not against it.

Aimless, Monday, 13 February 2012 21:43 (six years ago) Permalink

WmC otm

Boehner is such a shitty caucus leader, it's unbelievable

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 February 2012 21:43 (six years ago) Permalink

I can't imagine anyone else doing any better

iatee, Monday, 13 February 2012 21:44 (six years ago) Permalink

from the gop's pov

iatee, Monday, 13 February 2012 21:44 (six years ago) Permalink

Cantor's got some ideas...

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 February 2012 21:48 (six years ago) Permalink

when I call Boehner a shitty speaker, I don't just mean in terms of crafting legislation or holding his caucus together - he's shitty simply from an administrative standpoint. he can't count votes. how many times has he opened his mouth and proposed something, only to be forced to recant later by the rank-and-file? That shit just looks bad.

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 13 February 2012 21:50 (six years ago) Permalink

China's VP visiting the White House today:

The rest of Xi’s visit will likely be similarly scripted — heavy on protocol and heavily restricted when it comes to access to the media and the public. No press conferences are planned.

The goal, for the Chinese, is to protect Xi from potential embarrassment, especially from protestors.

“We know their pattern, it’s predictable,” said Tenzin Dolkar of Students for a Free Tibet, one of several groups planning to protest in front of the White House on Tuesday when Xi visits. “But even just knowing what day he’ll be here is more than enough. We know his haunts.”

...

On Thursday, Xi will focus largely on agricultural issues, with a symposium organized by the USDA. On Friday he will rejoin Biden in Los Angeles to visit a school teaching Chinese and meet with members of the business community.

Lastly, for those elite protesters willing to shell out serious money for courtside seats, Xi is also widely rumored to be planning a last stop at a Lakers game.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/as-chinas-xi-visits-us-details-still-under-wraps/2012/02/13/gIQAlLheBR_blog.html?hpid=z2

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 16:57 (six years ago) Permalink

not just a VP - future premier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1tAYmMjLdY (dayo), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 17:30 (six years ago) Permalink

er, president

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1tAYmMjLdY (dayo), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 17:31 (six years ago) Permalink

ceo, w/e

ploppawheelie V (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 17:33 (six years ago) Permalink

China sentences dissident to 7 years for poetry
BEIJING -- A Chinese court has sentenced a dissident writer to seven years in prison over a poem he wrote urging his countrymen to gather at a public square, a human rights group said Friday. The hefty sentence comes ahead of next week's visit to the U.S. by Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping — widely expected to be China's next leader — where he is likely to face questions on human rights.

The U.S. government on Friday voiced deep concern over Zhu Yufu's reported sentencing and the recent convictions of three other dissidents who have received nine- and 10-year prison terms for subversion or inciting subversion over the last few months

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/china/national-news/2012/02/12/331378/China-sentences.htm

http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2012/02/13/poets-peaceniks-and-protesters-meet-chinas-leading-dissidents/#zhu-yufu

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 14 February 2012 17:42 (six years ago) Permalink

there's a thread for that

rolling buried alive in china 2012

but yeah, I can't really see the US pushing XJP on this at all when he comes to visit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1tAYmMjLdY (dayo), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 17:46 (six years ago) Permalink

I can't really see the US pushing him on it at all, ever.

#1 Inspector Spacetime Fanboy (Viceroy), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 19:44 (six years ago) Permalink

http://ussc.edu.au/blogs/Are-red-states-addicted-to-government-spending

With interesting quote from Yglesias, down below:

The poor Mississippians subsidised by rich New Yorkers aren't hypocrites at all. They vote according to their self-interest — for the party that wants to maintain transfers to them. However, on election day, their middle and upper income neighbours are more likely to vote Republican than middle and upper income people New York.

Matt Yglesias, meanwhile, has a good explanation of how federal transfer help even the well-off in red states:

One is that high-income people living in low-income states are generally very conservative in their political ideology but probably benefit more from federal income support programs more than they realize. If you own fast food franchises in the Nashville area, for example, you're going to form a self-perception as a self-reliant businessman but the existence of Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit are helping to ensure that your customers have adequate income to sometimes eat at your Taco Bell. These chains of dependency snake even longer. If you sell luxury cars in Florida, many of your customers are probably medical professionals who are earning high incomes because other people have Medicare benefits. The aggregate geographic transfer patterns, in other words, do make a real difference to the economic life of the nation. The existence of transfer payments props up the entire local economies of low-income, low-productivity parts of the country.

Low income Mississippians aren't decrying government spending while relying on the taxes of rich liberals. But middle-class Mississippians might get more out of government spending than they thought.

http://ussc.edu.au/blogs/Are-red-states-addicted-to-government-spending

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 14:54 (six years ago) Permalink

eh they can only be voting for their self-interest if they're
a. conscious of it
b. they're not doing some cognitive dissonance thing

iatee, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 15:01 (six years ago) Permalink

what we need to do is just rename everything 'government benefits'

you're not getting social security anymore, you're getting your 'government benefits check'. you're not getting a tax credit, you're getting a government benefits credit. also all highways are renamed to like 'government benefits route 23'

iatee, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 15:04 (six years ago) Permalink

robbery? call the police government benefit
flames engulfing your home? call the fire government benefit

I spend a lot of time thinking about apricots (DJP), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 15:07 (six years ago) Permalink

but yeah there's a difference between cagey voters who are cackling and secretly thinking 'have cake and eat it too' and people who genuinely think that they hate cake but have been eating nothing but cheesecake for 10 years and just never really understood that cheesecake is a form of cake, or maybe just decided not to think about it when the subject came up.

iatee, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 15:14 (six years ago) Permalink

"guvmint, hands off my Social Security" etc

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 15:17 (six years ago) Permalink

I like that government benefits idea.

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 15:26 (six years ago) Permalink

men & women in uniform: GI GB

Mordy, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 15:27 (six years ago) Permalink

I'm an elite government benefits special forces soldier

iatee, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 15:28 (six years ago) Permalink

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/CBGB_club_facade.jpg/250px-CBGB_club_facade.jpg

Country, Blues and Government Benefits

(someone else do the OMFUG part, I'm lazy)

The Large Hardon Collider (Phil D.), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 15:35 (six years ago) Permalink

but yeah there's a difference between cagey voters who are cackling and secretly thinking 'have cake and eat it too' and people who genuinely think that they hate cake but have been eating nothing but cheesecake for 10 years and just never really understood that cheesecake is a form of cake, or maybe just decided not to think about it when the subject came up.

― iatee, Wednesday, February 15, 2012 10:14 AM (1 hour ago)

hahahaha

ploppawheelie V (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 16:26 (six years ago) Permalink

but yeah there's a difference between cagey voters who are cackling and secretly thinking 'have cake and eat it too' and people who genuinely think that they hate cake but have been eating nothing but cheesecake for 10 years and just never really understood that cheesecake is a form of cake, or maybe just decided not to think about it when the subject came up.

lol ... you're still describing morons, though.

Puppenmeister Meisterpuppen (Eisbaer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 16:57 (six years ago) Permalink

CORRECTION: In an earlier version of this story, the president's tweet was incorrectly attributed to Bo, the Obama's dog. When the president personally writes a tweet, he signs the messages with his initials ("bo"). We regret the error

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:05 (six years ago) Permalink

That's from the Huffington Post

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:06 (six years ago) Permalink

huff huff post

#1 Inspector Spacetime Fanboy (Viceroy), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:36 (six years ago) Permalink

was gratified to hear this

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 16 February 2012 17:15 (six years ago) Permalink

er, read whatever

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 16 February 2012 17:16 (six years ago) Permalink

Interesting. I'm glad Mark and Susie are making a stink about this

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Thursday, 16 February 2012 17:19 (six years ago) Permalink

The Democrats, who could have easily afforded the $5,000-a-plate Obama fundraiser, stood on the curb outside the W Hotel as Buell delivered a tough assessment of the president: "I don't know where he stands on anything," she said.

Though I appreciate her not running into his arms, I think he's made it fairly clear where he stands....

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 16 February 2012 17:23 (six years ago) Permalink

Joe Kennedy III goin for Barney Frank's seat apparently

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 16 February 2012 19:04 (six years ago) Permalink

A+ trolling from Michael Steele and The Root/Slate, calling for the end of black history month:

http://www.theroot.com/views/black-history-month-again

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 16 February 2012 20:06 (six years ago) Permalink

Up next: Michael Steele has his appendix removed, in protest.

Cosy Moments (Aimless), Thursday, 16 February 2012 20:14 (six years ago) Permalink

Well, this is not a black history month it's an AMERICAN HISTORY month.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 16 February 2012 20:14 (six years ago) Permalink

payroll tax cut extended:

The agreement came together this week after House Republicans dropped a key demand Monday, saying they would accept the extended payroll tax cut without spending cuts elsewhere in the budget to cover the measure's roughly $100 billion cost.

so glad the GOP made that big stink in December and all they got out of it was forcing Obama's hand to cancel the Keystone pipeline. way to go fucknuts.

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 17 February 2012 18:41 (six years ago) Permalink

the incompetency on display is hilarious/sad

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 17 February 2012 18:42 (six years ago) Permalink

The Michigan emergency manager debacle is really scary. This is the guy in charge:

Schimmel is also a former adjunct scholar and director of municipal finance at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank that shares his enthusiasm for privatizing public services. The center has received funding from the foundations of conservative billionaire Charles Koch, the Walton family, and Dick DeVos, the former CEO of Amway who ran as a Michigan Republican gubernatorial candidate in 2006. ... "Our goal is to outlaw government collective bargaining in Michigan," wrote Mackinac's legislative analyst in an email to a Republican state representative last summer.

drawn to them like a moth toward a spanakopita (Laurel), Friday, 17 February 2012 18:47 (six years ago) Permalink

Keystone decision was just delayed amirite

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 17 February 2012 18:48 (six years ago) Permalink

xp I can't convince my parents at all that this isn't a good step for failed cities that are so corrupt (and this has racism in it btw) that they've been in the red for (x) years, and need a businessman to come in and balance their budgets.

drawn to them like a moth toward a spanakopita (Laurel), Friday, 17 February 2012 18:48 (six years ago) Permalink

Keystone decision was just delayed amirite

no. State Dept said they can't complete the review and denied the application - they will have to reapply

max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 17 February 2012 18:52 (six years ago) Permalink

xp I can't convince my parents at all that this isn't a good step for failed cities that are so corrupt (and this has racism in it btw) that they've been in the red for (x) years, and need a businessman to come in and balance their budgets.

Maybe you should remind them that it basically amounts to rule by regency and we fought a fucking war of independence to get away from that shit.

But probably swear less, IDK...

#1 Inspector Spacetime Fanboy (Viceroy), Friday, 17 February 2012 22:44 (six years ago) Permalink

Just keep referring to the "emergency manager" as what he really is, an appointed Regent of the Governor his Lordship.

#1 Inspector Spacetime Fanboy (Viceroy), Friday, 17 February 2012 22:46 (six years ago) Permalink

aw look at the cute widdle idealists

Obama was interrupted twice by critics of his policies who raised their voices and rushed toward the stage before they were removed.

As Obama hailed the end of the Iraq war and efforts to “focus on the terrorists” in Afghanistan, one woman stood and shouted repeatedly, “stop the killing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

She was swiftly pushed out of the auditorium by an event worker and police officer.

Later, as Obama spoke about regulatory protections put in place under his administration, another guest stormed down one of the aisles shouting. “We don’t want deepwater drilling here,” she yelled as a police officer nudged her to the exit.

Obama made light of the episode.

“This is what San Francisco is always about,” he said, drawing laughter and applause. “There’s always something going on in San Francisco. Folks are not shy about sharing their ideas in San Francisco. It’s fun.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/heckled-obama-at-california-fundraiser-theres-always-something-going-on-in-san-francisco/

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 18 February 2012 10:15 (six years ago) Permalink

Laurel & Viceroy otm. I thought this point was particularly salient:

Emergency managers aren't new in Michigan, which has been in dire financial straits for decades. Public Act 4 (officially titled the Local Government and School District Fiscal Accountability Act) beefed up a 1990 law that brought in state-appointed managers to several cities in the 2000s, without much success at stemming the flow of population, jobs, and tax revenue. Pontiac has been under some form of state-appointed management since 2009. Schimmel's predecessor laid off dozens of police officers, hired the county sheriff to patrol the city, and dismissed Mayor Leon Jukowski (whom Schimmel has rehired as a consultant paid at half his previous $104,000 salary). During that time, Pontiac's credit rating had dropped from B to triple-C. "They aren't creating revenue," Williams says of the managers. "You can't just cut your way out of a deficit."

Michigan has turned into a laboratory for recession spending cuts, and turns out it is exactly what is NOT needed...

kvetcher in the rye (Drugs A. Money), Saturday, 18 February 2012 16:53 (six years ago) Permalink

A pissed Tom Harkin.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 18 February 2012 18:44 (six years ago) Permalink

hmmm maybe they should regulate speculation then...?

kvetcher in the rye (Drugs A. Money), Saturday, 18 February 2012 21:21 (six years ago) Permalink

ya I can't think of any other reason for gas to ever get expensive other than speculation

iatee, Saturday, 18 February 2012 21:22 (six years ago) Permalink

that's the cool thing about infinite resources like oil, they stay cheap forever (til speculators start fucking things up)

iatee, Saturday, 18 February 2012 21:25 (six years ago) Permalink

speculation plays a small role, supply/demand drives the price

tmi but (Z S), Saturday, 18 February 2012 21:41 (six years ago) Permalink

I believe I read somewhere recently that the recent upticks in price at the pump are, in fact, NOT demand-driven but are the result of speculation, but I'm damned if I can find the link. If only there were some large assemblage of people - let's call them "journalists" - who might have the resources to look into such of thing and might have found it relevant to the news at hand.

A Full Torgo Apparition (Phil D.), Saturday, 18 February 2012 22:08 (six years ago) Permalink

Ah, here's one article, from Jan. 23:

#COVINGTON -- Gas prices continue to rise nationwide, despite declining oil prices and demand, but the rate of increase is slowing, according to a spokeswoman with AAA Auto Club South.

#The national average for a gallon of regular gasoline is $3.38, according to AAA. That's an increase of nearly 16 cents from a month ago and 27 cents from a year ago. In Georgia, the average price is $3.41 per gallon.

#"(The increase) is not specific to one state. We're seeing that nationwide. It's pretty common that prices increase after the first of the year," usually because the market rallies with optimism that the economy will improve, said AAA spokeswoman Jessica Brady. Another factor driving up prices of late is the threat from Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf to block oil shipments.

#Prices are not rising with the rapidity they did at the first of the year, when they jumped as much as 10 to 15 cents in one week, Brady said. But retail prices are still increasing, though oil prices have dropped and demand is the lowest it's been in a decade.

#"It's speculation, not the basic fundamentals of supply and demand," controlling prices at the pump, Brady said. "If that was the case, prices would be much lower. Demand is at a 10-year low. It's not having the effect it should on the market."

A Full Torgo Apparition (Phil D.), Saturday, 18 February 2012 22:11 (six years ago) Permalink

well yeah, if iran hadn't threatened to cut off oil to the EU last week, there wouldn't have been the jump in prices. but the broader rise in prices over the last decade is driven by demand increasing at a greater rate than supply, which is stagnating.

Demand is at a 10-year low. It's not having the effect it should on the market.

that would be true if oil was a U.S. market, but it's a global market. U.S. demand is at a 10-year low, but in the developing world continues to increase put pressure on stagnating global production, which sets the overall trend of rising prices.

tmi but (Z S), Saturday, 18 February 2012 22:17 (six years ago) Permalink

can't imagine why the aaa club of the south would be biased on this issue zach, I'm pretty sure america is the only place w/ cars

iatee, Saturday, 18 February 2012 22:24 (six years ago) Permalink

ha ha

curmudgeon, Saturday, 18 February 2012 23:24 (six years ago) Permalink

arg, totally butchered my last sentence there but it should read "but in the developing world demand continues to increase, put pressure on stagnating global production and sets the overall trend of rising prices."

tmi but (Z S), Saturday, 18 February 2012 23:33 (six years ago) Permalink

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/images/2006/10/19/dmu_head_in_hands_315x420.jpg

when i put that into google image search i initially typed "hand in heads", no joke. you all are too kind to put up with me

tmi but (Z S), Saturday, 18 February 2012 23:35 (six years ago) Permalink

I'd be wary about "head in hands" too tbh

iatee, Saturday, 18 February 2012 23:38 (six years ago) Permalink

Two-part Clinton American Experience on PBS this week:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/clinton/

clemenza, Sunday, 19 February 2012 05:30 (six years ago) Permalink

Tea Party Sue

http://i.imgur.com/x9VBR.jpg

Chris S, Sunday, 19 February 2012 09:32 (six years ago) Permalink

Jumped the gun on the Clinton documentary--it's tonight and tomorrow night. From the department of stuff-you-can't-make-up: it's directed and written by a guy named Barak Goodman.

clemenza, Monday, 20 February 2012 13:51 (six years ago) Permalink

I posted the NYT's review in the Bill Clinton thread revived last night.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 20 February 2012 13:55 (six years ago) Permalink

Thanks, will read. Really looking forward to this--it was 20 years ago, but I remember the Nixon American Experience as being excellent.

clemenza, Monday, 20 February 2012 14:04 (six years ago) Permalink

The Mississippi State House of Representatives has introduced a new Personhood Bill today, even though it got swatted down 58-42 in the general election in November.

House Concurrent Resolution 61: http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2012/pdf/history/HC/HC0061.xml

Steamtable Willie (WmC), Monday, 20 February 2012 23:00 (six years ago) Permalink

xp: gas prices

Gasoline prices have pretty much fully decoupled from the oft quoted WTI/Cushing futures contract (which represents only supplies to the midcontinent) and more closely follow the worldwide Brent contract (which represents imports at both coasts). This graph is a bit old but gives an idea of the spread:

http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/world-average-brent-and-wti-oil-prices.png

A few refiners in Oklahoma-Colorado-Missouri are benefiting from the spread, but for the most part, refiner margins haven't budged:

http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/retail-gasoline-and-refiners-acquistion-cost.png

The recent spike in Brent is of course due to the EU boycott of Iran. China is getting the Iranian oil at a discount (to fill their growing strategic reserve) and EU refiners have had to bid against the US for West African etc. oil.

Pauper Management Improved (Sanpaku), Monday, 20 February 2012 23:50 (six years ago) Permalink

and our old friends on Wall Street are betting on oil securities.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 20 February 2012 23:52 (six years ago) Permalink

yes alfred, nothing but ~conspiracies~ getting in between you and your suv

iatee, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 01:00 (six years ago) Permalink

you would be the guy not to enjoy the Donald Sutherland part of JFK.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 01:10 (six years ago) Permalink

no need for conspiracies; do it all out in the open, we're busy w/ our iPads.

Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 05:22 (six years ago) Permalink

bread and circuits

I Want to Edit My Profile... (Hunt3r), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 05:48 (six years ago) Permalink

Reading Eon by Greg Bear, not really knowing anything about it, and was surprised by the role Ralph Nader takes in it (first time I saw 'Naderite' I figured it was a coincidence). Like his imagined future where Nader brings down the USSR almost as much as the GOP's 'Reagan brought down the Evil Empire' account.

windborne grey frogs (dowd), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 20:55 (six years ago) Permalink

Top picture: gas prices since Feb. 2011. Bottom picture: graph that FOX News aired today

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/countyfair/aaa-gasprices.jpg

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/countyfair/fnc-an-20120220-gasprices.jpg

A Full Torgo Apparition (Phil D.), Wednesday, 22 February 2012 00:26 (six years ago) Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-to-propose-lowering-corporate-tax-rate-to-28-percent/2012/02/22/gIQA1sjdSR_story.html?hpid=z1

What could happen is they'll lower the rate but not get rid of the loopholes. The actual effective corporate tax rate right now is pretty low because of all of the deductions. But you folks know that.

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 16:51 (six years ago) Permalink

Everything that's wrong with Ohio, politics, Republicans, the media, and Jay Leno, all in one handy story!

Ohio House Speaker William G. Batchelder said today he will not apologize for a joke made at a recent GOP event suggesting President Barack Obama should be jailed.

Batchelder, a Republican from Medina who leads the House of Representatives, made the comment Saturday at the Summit County Republican Party Lincoln Day Dinner, according to the Washington Post.

Batchelder was introducing Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum when he cracked a joke about whether Obama, a Democrat, should be re-elected.

“The liberals are asking us to give Obama more time. And I think 25-to-life would be a good start,” said Batchelder, according to the Post.

Today, Democratic Rep. Vernon Sykes, of Akron, called on Batchelder to apologize immediately.

"Speaker Batchelder's recent comments are absolutely deplorable," Sykes said in a statement released this morning. "I would expect my longtime friend, colleague and the Speaker of the Ohio House to respect the office of the President of the United States regardless of party affiliation."

Batchelder refused to apologize for his comments over the weekend.

"While some are trying to twist a harmless joke into an opportunity to attack me, make no mistake that I have deep respect for the presidency and the integrity of the office, regardless who holds it," Batchelder said in a statement this afternoon.

"I will not apologize for the joke, but I will apologize to my friend and colleague who apparently considered it more than a joke."

The statement from Batchelder's office noted that late-night TV host Jay Leno recently made a similar joke.

Batchelder said he will refrain from repeating jokes from Leno and other comedians.

http://media.cleveland.com/obrien_impact/photo/9726205-small.jpg

A Full Torgo Apparition (Phil D.), Wednesday, 22 February 2012 21:21 (six years ago) Permalink

That does sound like a Leno joke.

_______________

Lazy Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus read a report from 3rd Way, a moderate Dem group, and she's using it to blame liberals for all of the elections Dems have lost since 1972.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrates-must-chase-independents-to-win/2012/02/21/gIQA74p3RR_story.html?hpid=z3

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 21:29 (six years ago) Permalink

a guy who looks like his own caricature

xp

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Wednesday, 22 February 2012 21:31 (six years ago) Permalink

trying to figure out if my folks/family know Vernon Sykes

(thinks and smiles) (DJP), Wednesday, 22 February 2012 21:34 (six years ago) Permalink

It's not a Leno joke. It is however from a rightwong email circulating that claims it's a Leno joke.

Mordy, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 21:34 (six years ago) Permalink

Ruth Marcus is a pimple on the backside of journalism.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 22 February 2012 22:12 (six years ago) Permalink

russ feingold has been named a co-chair of obama's re-election campaign

ploppawheelie V (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 22 February 2012 23:36 (six years ago) Permalink

these "3rd way" moderate Dems are rather like conservatives in that they have the same answer for everything and for every circumstance (for the conservatives, it's no-tax-hikes-ever, and for the 3rd way lot it's "dirty smelly hippie libs won't make it with 'independents').

why the fuck do we continue to pay these people any mind?!?

Puppenmeister Meisterpuppen (Eisbaer), Thursday, 23 February 2012 01:02 (six years ago) Permalink

cuz they outnumber us

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 23 February 2012 01:04 (six years ago) Permalink

yup

iatee, Thursday, 23 February 2012 01:09 (six years ago) Permalink

interesting development. but, the tenth amendment center? yuck!

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:17 (six years ago) Permalink

odd poll from PPP asks americans of their impressions of the fifty states:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_022112.pdf

Over the course of four months starting last October, PPP asked
American voters nationally what their impressions of each state are. Hawaii came out on top, by far, with California bringing up the rear.

Americans generally have a favorable view of most states. Only five are in negative territory, led by California (27% favorable and 44% unfavorable), Illinois (19-29), New Jersey (25-32), Mississippi (22-28), and Utah (24-27). Only seven other states have netpositive
ratings in the single digits, and another breaks even (Louisiana).

54% see Hawaii positively and only 10% negatively, followed in the top ten by Colorado (44-9), Tennessee (48-14), South Dakota (42-8), Virginia (45-13), Montana (39-7), Alaska (46-17), Oregon (43-14), and North Carolina and Pennsylvania (each 40-11). Ten others are in positive territory by at least 21 points.

Women have a higher opinion of New York by 27 points more than men, Massachusetts by 22 points, Delaware and California by 16, New Hampshire by 15, Vermont and Illinois by 13, and Connecticut by 11, while men see North Dakota more favorably by 17 points, South Carolina by 15, Wyoming 14, Montana 13, and Iowa and South Dakota 10.

Democrats’ favorite states include Hawaii, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Colorado, and New York, and their least favorites are led by Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi. Republicans love Alaska and Texas, and absolutely hate California, followed distantly by Illinois and Massachusetts. So the greatest partisan gap is for California, which Democrats like 91 points more than Republicans do, followed by
Texas, which is favored more by Republicans by 82 points.

Black voters dislike 10 of the 14 Southern states.

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:22 (six years ago) Permalink

forgive by bad pagination there

net favorability ratings:

http://motherjones.com/files/images/blog_states_favorable_0.jpg

WI at #12 and MN at #40 is hurting me in my heart

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:23 (six years ago) Permalink

interesting development. but, the tenth amendment center? yuck!

I sympathize but, really, screw nullification, esp coming out of Virginia. Do they really want their capital burned down again?

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:30 (six years ago) Permalink

I suspect that Hawaii's popularity has very little to do with its politics or its people.

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:31 (six years ago) Permalink

haha new jersey

ploppawheelie V (k3vin k.), Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:32 (six years ago) Permalink

I suspect that Hawaii's popularity has very little to do with its politics or its people.

i have to assume the same goes for TN.

it's smdh time in America (will), Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:35 (six years ago) Permalink

WI at #12 and MN at #40 is hurting me in my heart

I don't even understand how this happened

(thinks and smiles) (DJP), Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:38 (six years ago) Permalink

one explanation could be that conservatives are more likely to incorporate their political views on a state in determining their opinion on the state so the whole wisconsin thing made conservatives 'like wisconsin'?

iatee, Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:40 (six years ago) Permalink

Alaska and Virginia placements perplex me, too.

le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:41 (six years ago) Permalink

I think there are a lot of opinion variables getting mixed up and the poll would seem like it had more logic to it if it were limited to a certain demographic

iatee, Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:42 (six years ago) Permalink

wisconsin: uh beer, 'that 70s show', v powerful cheese ad lobby, the packers. could be some partisan effects w/r/t the governor there.

minnesota: cold as hell, 'fargo', woeful & hateable sports teams. idk!

xps i think just throwing everthing together is part of the charm of this poll.

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:43 (six years ago) Permalink

haha oh yeah the packers, that's prob not a minor thing tbh

iatee, Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:44 (six years ago) Permalink

in any case most people have very few concrete opinions on these things, like I am pretty sure my dad and grandmother do not have an 'opinion' on north dakota

iatee, Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:46 (six years ago) Permalink

lol at the gender split on the Dakotas. Wonder if this has anything to do with awareness of anti choice laws.

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:47 (six years ago) Permalink

I seriously doubt more than 10% of america could tell you which of the two dakotas was passing anti choice laws

iatee, Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:49 (six years ago) Permalink

what % could tell you which dakota was north or south of the other

Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:50 (six years ago) Permalink

a decent %, at least 60

iatee, Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:51 (six years ago) Permalink

a blog i work for did a series about "worst states" and we were all supposed to vote and i had no idea how to rate some of them. i have to have an opinion about arkansas? i mean get real

max, Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:52 (six years ago) Permalink

haha yeah and like, max is a 'person on the internet' with 'opinions', like ilx is filled w/ people who are desperate for reasons to make long lists ranking things, most people genuinely do not have these kinda desires or view of the world so lots of polls that assume they do end up being nonsense.

iatee, Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:54 (six years ago) Permalink

I nabbed some amazing fried chicken & pecan pie at a gas station in AR, so 9 out of 10

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:55 (six years ago) Permalink

I think most people prob do have 'an opinion' on california, texas, hawaii, 'new york', the place they live, the places nearby

iatee, Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:55 (six years ago) Permalink

what a weird pie (xp)

(thinks and smiles) (DJP), Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:56 (six years ago) Permalink

my ultimate strategy was to give nj 10 and no other state higher than 5

it still ended up in the bottom 10. well top 10.

max, Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:57 (six years ago) Permalink

no joek i would try that pie

it's smdh time in America (will), Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:58 (six years ago) Permalink

nj welcomes america's hatred

http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2010/10/chris-christie.jpg

Puppenmeister Meisterpuppen (Eisbaer), Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:59 (six years ago) Permalink

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_02/big_tent_tensions035593.php#

Ruth Marcus should read this from Ed Kilgore who has taken Steve Benen's spot at Washington Monthly when Benen moved on:

Do “liberal party activists” control the agenda of the Democratic Party? I don’t think so.

I must have missed the moment when the major Democratic candidates for president in 2008 (or for that matter, 2004) embraced the single-payer approach to universal health coverage that is undoubtedly popular among “liberal party activists.” I also failed to notice newly elected president Barack Obama supporting nationalization of the banks, or a multi-trillion dollar economic stimulus package, or reversal of Bush administration policies on surveillance, at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009. Obama sure did go to the mats on behalf of the “public option” on health insurance—in itself considered a major compromise by “liberal party activists”—when the deal when down on health reform, didn’t he? And hey, Democratic congressional leaders most definitely saluted when “liberal party activists” demanded crackdowns on or actual expulsion of Blue Dog Democrats who were voting against major party legislation, didn’t they?

curmudgeon, Thursday, 23 February 2012 20:28 (six years ago) Permalink

*sigh* no mention of climate change/energy policy

erotic war comedy pollster (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 23 February 2012 20:36 (six years ago) Permalink

I found chicken fried pecan pie, pecan crusted southern-fried chicken & deep-fried chicken pot pie, but no fried chicken & pecan pie. All of these things look amazing tho

Unleash the Chang (he did what!) (Austerity Ponies), Thursday, 23 February 2012 21:43 (six years ago) Permalink

I want all of the pies

Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 23 February 2012 21:51 (six years ago) Permalink

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73218.html#ixzz1nFQ624H9

He continued, “This ‘tax policy’ is an example as well as today’s speech on his ‘energy policy’ shall be. Here is the bottom line, last night it took 70 dollars to fill the tank of my 2008 H3 Hummer, what is it costing you? What does it cost the president to fill his gas tank?”

iatee, Friday, 24 February 2012 15:15 (six years ago) Permalink

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

robbery by sudden snatching (DJP), Friday, 24 February 2012 15:21 (six years ago) Permalink

Allen West is so dumb, I get the idea he thinks that Barack Obama himself has a gas tank. Not his car, him.

A Full Torgo Apparition (Phil D.), Friday, 24 February 2012 15:25 (six years ago) Permalink

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-court-obamatre81n0mq-20120224,0,349579.story

Barack Obama is close to becoming the first president in at least half a century to finish a full term without making an appointment to a U.S. appeals court, considered second in importance only to the Supreme Court.

When the U.S. Senate returns next week, a new chapter in the fight over judicial nominations will begin, with the stakes especially high for the Washington, D.C.-based court that hears challenges to government regulations, including those on environmental law and civil rights. The D.C. Circuit, as it is called, is also often a springboard to the Supreme Court where four of the current nine justices served on the D.C. Circuit.

Obama's failure to put anyone on the 11-judge D.C. Circuit, where three vacancies now exist, reflects both rising partisanship and Obama's early priorities.

...

Senate Republicans blocked the Democratic president's one nominee to the D.C. Circuit in December, and the administration has yet to offer any new candidates.

curmudgeon, Friday, 24 February 2012 22:47 (six years ago) Permalink

why should he bother, really. GOP will just block them.

Artful Dodderer (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 24 February 2012 22:48 (six years ago) Permalink

holy wow, i didn't realize he hadn't filled ANY appellate positions

ploppawheelie V (k3vin k.), Friday, 24 February 2012 22:51 (six years ago) Permalink

There is poor phrasing by the writer in that article. Obama has gotten some appellate court nominees appointed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

curmudgeon, Friday, 24 February 2012 23:11 (six years ago) Permalink

yeah I figure he's referring specifically to the DC circuit

Artful Dodderer (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 24 February 2012 23:14 (six years ago) Permalink

i bet an editor added that comma. fireable offense imo.

the "intenterface" (difficult listening hour), Saturday, 25 February 2012 00:48 (six years ago) Permalink

they were like WHAT'S GOING ON, THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ALMOST THIRTY WORDS, IN THIS SENTENCE, AND THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY COMMAS, HOW WILL PEOPLE READ IT

the "intenterface" (difficult listening hour), Saturday, 25 February 2012 00:51 (six years ago) Permalink

i have personal issues w/ commas

the "intenterface" (difficult listening hour), Saturday, 25 February 2012 00:53 (six years ago) Permalink

i've given all i have but i'm still on the payroll

the "intenterface" (difficult listening hour), Saturday, 25 February 2012 00:54 (six years ago) Permalink

whoa this is nuts! ANONYMOUS & WIKILEAKS vs. STRATFOR

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/27/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-anonymous

http://www.newsday.com/business/technology/wikileaks-publishes-leaked-stratfor-emails-1.3560346

cnbc says it's 'reminiscent a spy novel'

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46535884

first reaction from a TPM reader is... more 'like newsmax'

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/02/lordy_lordy_lordy.php

(i'm super curious about these but tbh i'm kinda paranoid about reading wikileaks.org at work)

goole, Monday, 27 February 2012 16:10 (six years ago) Permalink

oh crap i didn't realize that newsday link was paywalled. sorry bout that.

goole, Monday, 27 February 2012 16:16 (six years ago) Permalink

Could be fun (but it's wrong--hacker obtained stuff!). Partnering with Goldman Sachs, communication with Karl Rove, and a terminology memo containing stuff like:

A "Barium Meal" is defined this way: "When there is a leak, feed bits of radioactive (traceable, false) information to suspects. See which bit leaks. You will know who leaked it. The leaker will know you know. Livens up a dull day like nothing else we’ve ever seen. Bring the kids."

And a “Code Crypt,” in turn, is described as “the code name and control of a source in encrypted form. If this confuses you, it’s working.”

The spy lingo glossary is just one document amid an enormous cache from Stratfor, an Austin, Texas-based private intelligence company that counts government agencies and some of the world’s biggest companies among its clients.

curmudgeon, Monday, 27 February 2012 16:17 (six years ago) Permalink

Rick Perlstein's latest.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 February 2012 00:57 (six years ago) Permalink

Here's the problem: Even if Obamaism works on its own terms – that is, if Sullivan is right that Obama’s presidency is precisely on course – it can't stop Republicans from wrecking the country. Instead, it may end up abetting them.

To understand why, let's look at Ronald Reagan. Barack Obama has famously cited him as a role model for how transformative a president can be. Well, what did he transform, and how did he do it? Here's how: He planted an ideological flag. From the start, he relentlessly identified America's malaise with a villain, one that had a name, or two names – liberalism, the Democratic Party – and a face – that of James Earl Carter. Reagan's argument was, on its face, absurd. For all Carter's stumbles as president, the economic crisis he inherited had been incubated under two Republican presidents, Nixon and Ford (see this historical masterpiece for an account of Nixon's role in wrecking the economy), and via a war in Vietnam that Reagan had supported and celebrated. What's more, to arrest the economy's slide, Jimmy Carter did something rather heroic and self-sacrificing, well summarized here: He appointed Paul Volcker as Federal Reserve chairman with a mandate to squeeze the money supply, which induced the recession that helped defeat Carter – as Carter knew it might – but which also slayed the inflation dragon and, by 1983-84, long after Carter had lost to Reagan, saved the economy.

In office, Reagan, on the level of policy, endorsed Carter's economics by reappointing Volcker. But on the level of politics, in one of the greatest acts of broad-gauged mendacity in presidential history, he blamed Carter for the economic failure, tied that failure to liberal ideology and its supposed embrace of "big government" (Carter in fact took on big government), and gave conservatism credit for every success. Deregulation and supply-side tax-cuts brought us "morning in America," he said. That was bullshit, but it won him a reelection landslide against Walter Mondale, Carter's VP, whom he labeled "Vice President Malaise."

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 February 2012 01:02 (six years ago) Permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h874BPSnbWc

buzza, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 01:33 (six years ago) Permalink

holy shit Obama is really getting ready to enjoy himself this summer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=inxnx2fPg2g

unlistenable in philly (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, 28 February 2012 21:58 (six years ago) Permalink

Oh, look: Olympia Snowe, the one Republican who has single-handedly made numerous votes "bipartisan" is not seeking reelection.

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 22:27 (six years ago) Permalink

Correct me but I thought she and Susan Collins had merged into one bipartisan senator...?

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 February 2012 22:29 (six years ago) Permalink

Intrade Obama re-election is at $6.14. $3.86 profit if he wins - I really wish I had money to plow into betting on the election.

Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 28 February 2012 22:39 (six years ago) Permalink

Let Morbs be your bookie.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 28 February 2012 22:43 (six years ago) Permalink

I dunno about that Perlstein piece - he's right in terms of the legislative/negotiation process and how the GOP gets to move the goalposts to the right. Obama on the campaign trail, however, is all too fond of calling out republican ideology as extreme, painting the Democratic party as different etc. It may all just be empty rhetoric, but he does do it.

Artful Dodderer (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 28 February 2012 22:48 (six years ago) Permalink

so it's sort of a mixed bag. The GOP is also destroying itself by demanding this ideological purity, so it's not like it's a game they can just play forever - it's crippling them legislatively (they can't pass anything) and they are going to lose the next Prez election.

Artful Dodderer (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 28 February 2012 22:49 (six years ago) Permalink

god that UAW clip is amazing portent of things to come, Romney does not have a fucking prayer.

Artful Dodderer (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 28 February 2012 22:51 (six years ago) Permalink

(morbz)

talk is cheap

(/morbz)

der Truthahn des Giftes (Eisbaer), Tuesday, 28 February 2012 22:57 (six years ago) Permalink

good fucking riddance olympia snowe

ploppawheelie V (k3vin k.), Tuesday, 28 February 2012 22:59 (six years ago) Permalink

^^^

maybe they will just elect a Democrat now

Artful Dodderer (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 28 February 2012 23:03 (six years ago) Permalink

they can get pretty teabaggy in Maine, tho