home

Tuesday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 08:45:52 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'll be in court and then at the DNC Media Walk-Through at the Pepsi Center. Here's an open thread -- all topics are welcome.

< Herbert Must Reading Today | To Be A Fighting Centrist >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Open Thread | 80 comments (80 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Dan'l Pearl suspect dies post interrogation (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by scribe on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:58:46 AM EST
    From the as-yet not-totally-Murdochized WSJ (to which I don't subscribe, so all you get is), the lede:

    A long-sought suspect in the slaying of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was secretly detained and interrogated by U.S. and Pakistani intelligence agencies before he died earlier this year, say U.S. and Pakistani law- enforcement officials.

    The revelation about the suspect, Saud Memon, suggests that the interrogation may have played a role in his death, say lawyers and human- rights advocates who have accused the Bush administration of colluding with Islamabad in illegally arresting and detaining scores of suspected terrorists since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    In short, the government likely tortured this guy to death, rather than have him actually stand trial.  Must have been a real spunky mess to clean up over in the offices at the WH and Blair House.

    For anyone still counting, that adds murder-by-torture and conspiracy to do so to the list of the crimes the present administration and its headmen have perpetrated*.  Last time I checked the statute book, that would mean Bushie and Deadeye have picked up (some) exposure to capital punishment.  So, now we see why writing "Waterboarding is torture.  Torture is wrong." gets government (CIA) contractors fired, their clearances pulled and their blogs taken down.  (You really should read all the background linked in thru EW's post.)  And why Mukasey was such a blob of jelly refusing to be nailed to a wall.

    Not that this wasn't inevitable, but you'd think they might have lost their virginity over torturing suspects to death in a less-prominent case.  

    Unless, of course, they already had and we just hadn't yet heard of it.

    -
    * Not for nothing, German radio made an editorial decision late last week, changing the title which they applied in their reporting to Pakistan's Musharraf from "President" to "Despot".

    Ya think so?? (3.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:52:48 PM EST
    In short, the government likely tortured this guy to death,

    Wow.

    The revelation about the suspect, Saud Memon, suggests that the interrogation may have played a role in his death, say lawyers and human- rights advocates who have accused the Bush administration

    Well, that settles it for me. No doubt. None. Nadda. For sure. That's it.

    Parent

    Glad you agree, Jim. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by scribe on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:03:15 PM EST
    It looks like your exposure here to sense and daylight is starting to peel the scales from your eyes.  I, for one, am heartened by that development.

    Parent
    One scale down, (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:05:12 PM EST
    only a couple thousand more to go.

    Parent
    Nicely put, though (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by scribe on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:44:55 PM EST
    one will remember that snakes usually shed their skin pretty much all at once.  Once things get started, it moves pretty fast.  All of this leads to the conclusion that one day Jim will wake up renewed and then be found later that afternoon ponying up 10% of his income to the ACLU.

    Parent
    heh (1.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:56:37 PM EST
    I see that you match Jondee in the ability to recognize sarcasm...

    And there I was thinking better of you...

    ;-)

    Parent

    jondee (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:27:47 PM EST
    scribe is smart enough to know sarcasm when he sees it.

    I am not sure about you. So let me help.

    Sarcasm Alert!!

    Parent

    There is nothing too good for my (1.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:26:35 PM EST
    friends.

    And there is no doubt that your learned comments have been eagerly followed by yours truly, and contributed greatly to my education.

    Yes sir. They have. Really. Believe me. Sure.

    Parent

    Are you being (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 04:28:48 PM EST
    sarcastic again, Jim?

    Your scintilating bon mots are so nuanced and ripe with undertones and ironic intricacies, that sometimes its difficult to tell.

    Parent

    Video (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:22:20 PM EST
    Jason Leopold | An Interview With Valerie Plame
    Former covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson would still like to know the identity of the CIA official who passed her name to the office of Vice President Dick Cheney in the spring of 2003, and "under what circumstances."

    That's just one of several unanswered questions Plame Wilson has been trying to figure out in the years since several senior officials in the Bush administration leaked her name to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and a handful of other journalists. That leak ended her two-decade CIA career.

    "I'd like to know, why did Novak go with my maiden name, Plame, in his original article?" Plame Wilson said during an hour-long, two-part interview with Truthout. "I always thought that was strange. When I married, I took my married name. And then he [Novak] used Valerie Plame [in his column]. It was only the CIA who knew that I worked for them, and my maiden name."
    That's a good question. (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 08:35:15 PM EST
    Do you think that her driving to work at Langley each day might have been a clue??

    Parent
    Liar PPJ (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 10:51:45 PM EST
    ....driving to work at Langley each day....
    You are intentionally repating wingnut spin to spread misinformation through the net.

    Disgusting.

    For one it is a non-seqittur and two it is a meaningless claim without proof.

    Even Armitage acknowledged that she was a secret agent.  Heckuva job ppj.

    Parent

    What??? (1.00 / 2) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 11:32:23 AM EST
    Get serious potty mouth. She worked at Langley. How do you think she got there??

    Bicycle? Beam me up??? Wiggle her nose???

    BTW - Try to remember..her explanation on how she got her husband sent to Niger...She was at her desk in Langley when someone wandered by....

    BTW - I know your frustrated, but using the L word is a no-no.

    Parent

    Dishonest To The Core (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by squeaky on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 12:57:51 PM EST
    Liars like PPJ (Rove wannabes) make blanket claims that have no basis in reality in order to smear by innuendo.
     
    driving to work at Langley each day

     to top it off even if there was a basis in reality for ppj's echo chamber lie, it does nothing to prove his point that she was not a covert agent. It is non-sequitur smear.

    Parent
    You just can't get it stepped on enough (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 03:18:21 PM EST
    can you.

    Here you go.

    While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.

    Link

    Now. Check this out. Those are her words. CIA Headquarters are in Langley.

    How do you think she got there??? Wiggle her nose?
    Have Scotty beam her up? Private limo?? Taxi?? Helicopter? Bicycle?? Walked??

    Though she traveled regularly, Ms. Wilson, who speaks French, German and Greek, had been working for some time at agency headquarters in Langley, Va. And her marriage to a senior American diplomat, Mr. Wilson, ended any pretense of having no government ties.

    NYT

    True, the CIA recalled her from Europe in 1997, fearing that her name might have been passed to the Russians by the mole Aldrich Ames. But, she writes, she still took different routes to work each day, "traveled domestically and abroad using a variety of aliases" and continued to hope for another foreign posting.

    WaPost

    No charge for the education, but you could contribute $10 bucks to TL in my name...

    Hahahahahahah and a snicker.

    hehehe

    Parent

    Liar And Twist Case (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by squeaky on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 04:14:50 PM EST
    You show no proof that she traveled to Langley each day, which means every day for over five years according to your BS smear. Oh right, you are totally dishonest, your word games are transparent and only make you look the fool that you are.

    Parent
    Making things up again, eh?? (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 06:33:22 PM EST
    I see that you are making things up again.

    You show no proof that she traveled to Langley each day, which means every day for over five years

    I didn't say that, and you again show your SOP of:

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    My comment was that she worked at Langley. And obviously when she did, she drove. Each day.

    And you know what I was saying because you responded.

     

    You are intentionally repating wingnut spin to spread misinformation through the net.

    I then provided you with three examples that she worked at Langley and in fact, she has said that she changed routes because she was fearful.

    The issue was and is that the fact that she worked at Langley contributed to her not having a cover. I gave you a comment, and a link.

    You have absolutely no regard for the truth, and your feeble attempt at parsing to defend your argument is laughable.

    Your worth is only in that your continued actions define you.

    So please keep up the attacks. Especially the ones when you misquote me and try to parse a point that is so easily proven wrong.

    Parent

    HAahahahahaa (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by squeaky on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 09:40:26 PM EST
    You are not fooling anyone but yourself.

    Parent
    Still hoping, are you? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 06:43:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Mmmm. Off your meds again, huh... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 03:42:52 PM EST


    Parent
    In spite of your dishonest trolling and (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 01:07:32 PM EST
    subject changing attempts, Plame's question is still what is the "identity of the CIA official who passed her name to the office of Vice President Dick Cheney in the spring of 2003, and "under what circumstances."

    I seem to recall various suggestions here for what should be done with "leakers", as well....

    But let's not go there, huh? We might be raising some uncomfortable questions again about Bush and Cheney and another leak.

    Parent

    hehe (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 15, 2007 at 02:41:39 PM EST
    Well, why don't you call up Cheney and ask?

    Parent
    Chalabi Is Baaaack (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 01:14:23 PM EST
    And the LA Times does a PR puff piece on him:

    Chalabi espouses free-market doctrine as the best way to cure the area's ills, a prescription that would buoy his neoconservative benefactors if they were here to hear it.

    "Everyone is looking for employment with the government," he says. "This is a dead end. It's not possible. We need to get the economy going. Construction projects are needed."

    With a billon dollars in seed money from the Iraqi government for housing projects and a loan program to help residents buy a home, he says, "we would have no unemployment."

    LA (BS) Times

    Not a bad word about the guy who stole the last billion that he got his hands on. Heckuva job....

    How far back do Chalabi (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:18:30 PM EST
    and Paul Wolfowitz go? I understand they both attended U. Of Chicago grad school at roughly the same time.

    Parent
    Not just "roughly the same time" (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 02:33:18 PM EST
    Right Web of Intelligence Reformers
    Paul Wolfowitz, Ahmad Chalabi, and Zalmay Khalilzad are three other University of Chicago alumni who played central roles in shaping the intelligence cited by President Bush in his decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.
    ...
    Wolfowitz, Chalabi, and Khalizad all studied under nuclear strategist Albert Wohstetter at the University of Chicago. Wohstetter, a RAND nuclear weapons analyst who was an advocate of a flexible nuclear weapons strategy with precision-guide bombs, was also a mentor to Richard Perle.

    Ahmad Chalabi, who headed the U.S.-funded expatriate group called the Iraqi National Congress, became one of the main sources of information for the OSP and the vice president's office. Positioning himself to lead the post-Saddam Hussein government, Chalabi was a dubious ally. Although he claimed to represent the internal opposition to the Saddam Hussein regime, Chalabi had not been inside Iraq for 45 years after his family left when he was twelve. Born into a wealthy banking family in Iraq, Chalabi has been much closer to U.S. neocons and other hawks than to the Iraqi Shiites he claimed to represent. The poster boy of neocon policy wonks, Chalabi is an outlaw--having been sentence in abstentia by a Jordanian court for bank fraud after his Petra Bank folded in 1992.



    Parent
    Gosh (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 05:26:26 PM EST
    The LaLa Times somehow left all those details out. Makes the guy seem downright cuddly.

    Our liberal press does it again.

    Parent

    Just a few "minor" details, of course... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 05:54:25 PM EST
    LA Times used to be pretty good, I seem to recall.

    Parent
    Maybe their firewall (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 06:08:49 PM EST
    blocks their reporters from using google now...

    Parent
    Er (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 06:27:31 PM EST
    I think that it is their paymasters. Fingers in the ears singing lalalalalalalal, I can't hear you is their firewall. The piece is a paid puff propaganda piece most likely generated from our state department via Jonah Goldberg.

    Parent
    Well, it ::is:: hard work, too ;-) (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 06:35:12 PM EST
    I mean it must have taken me 1, maybe even 2 minutes, to find out all I needed to know about Chalabi. I'm worn out now after that.

    But they are pros. But then of course it would have taken them even longer to insert that quote into their article.

    Unless their paymasters didn't want them to...

    Parent

    Police State Stories.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 09:11:50 AM EST
    Lots of action on the police state front.

    Granny gets strip-searched...I hope this trooper loses his badge and funny hat.

    5-0 is watching school kids on live feed....uber-creepy.

    Black Wednesday for local poker...Cope get greasy paws on a nice chunk a change and a bunch of plasma tv's.  Armed freakin' robbery.

    yeah... time to crack down (1.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:57:52 PM EST
    on all you evileeeeeeee gamblers..

    Wonder when they'll start raiding the quickie marts selling Lotto Tickets??

    Parent

    That's "good" gaming.... (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:12:54 PM EST
    meaning the state is running book, hence it must be good:)

    The least they could do is not tax lotto winnings, since lotto players are subsidizing public education, at least in theory.  In practice, I suspect lotto players are subsidizing cronyism in state lotto commisions.  

    Parent

    But wait!!!!! (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:50:37 PM EST
    These are millionaires!!!

    If you win a million bucks on lotto, and take it in cash... Powerball keeps $500,000 and gives you $500,000..

    The Feds will take approximately 36% or $320,000..

    Colorado will take approximately 4.75% or $23,750..

    leaving you with $156,250..

    And I don't know if medicare is held out..

    Parent

    Eh. (none / 0) (#21)
    by scribe on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:18:29 PM EST
    I recently played poker, and had none of these worries.  Then again, the players included a cop or two, a county commissioner, and a couple of ward leaders from the dominant local party.

    The cops raiding the games seem to have some sort of animus against them.  One is compelled to wonder why, exactly.

    Parent

    Money gets lost??? (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:38:47 PM EST
    New plasma tv's for the precint break room, or the den at home?

    It's not like raiding a crack house, where the police are also sure to find cash, but may get shot at.  Poker game raids are relatively risk-free licenses to steal.

    Parent

    Priorities... (none / 0) (#2)
    by desertswine on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:16:43 AM EST
    Someday we'll get it right.

    WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Tuesday signed a big increase in the Pentagon's non- war budget, and vetoed a spending measure for health and education programs prized by congressional Democrats.

    Remember when Dubya said... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:39:14 AM EST
    ...the best thing we could do post 9/11 was to keep shopping and consuming?  We should spend our money on stuff, but the government shouldn't spend money on our national health and education.  Don't you get it?  Silly liberal.

    Parent
    i have to admit, (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:21:24 AM EST
    in this day and age, that anyone would be that obviously stupid, and assume they'd get away with it, amazes me. did this trooper think the lady wouldn't say anything to anyone? or, did he just assume no one would believe her? or, as is more likely, he just didn't give a rat's patoot?

    as far as the illegal poker dens, well hell, it least it kept these guys off the streets. doesn't that count for a socially redeeming aspect?

    Most likely.... (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:54:22 AM EST
    the trooper just wanted to see a set of t*ts.  

    I've met and befriended some of the cardroom managers who got pinched, the way the police spokesman portrays them is flat out false.  These aren't nefarious loan-sharking leeches preying on problem gamblers, they are poker players themselves providing a service for a fee.  Ambitious free-market entrepenuers.  The way the police fabricate their intentions tells me that it is all about the asset forfeiture.  They need to scare the public with a bunch of bs lest they lose their asset-seizing cash cow amid public outcry about misplaced priorities.

    It isn't about redeeming social value, it's about freedom.  

    Parent

    PJ Harvey time (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:31:20 AM EST
    Her new album is a radical departure as she takes on the character of grieving Victorian widow.  You gotta love this lady.  Come on, who plays the autohard anymore?

    Some oddball and beautiful new music.

    um, that would be the autoharP (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:34:39 AM EST
    ahem.

    Parent
    Of course, the real important news... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:54:33 AM EST
    ...is college hoops season is upon us!!  You hear me, Big Tent?  I'll be thinking of your gator loving ace when I'm fifth row at the USD/UNLV tilt this Saturday at the JCP.  But, really, it's UCLA's year.

    The JCP (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    Short for the Jenny Craig Pavilion.  Otherwise known as the Slim Gym.

    Parent
    A California initiative (none / 0) (#9)
    by Patrick on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 10:55:39 AM EST
    to change the way we award electoral votes,looks like it might make it to the ballot.   If it does, it has broad support.  

    Unless every state adopts this... (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:13:53 AM EST
    It is a disaster for California.  And I don't think your linked article evidenced broad support.  The support was mostly Republican.   While I am certainly keen to the theoretical fairness of awarding electoral votes proportionally, it is only fair if enacted in concert with all states, and in concert with serious election fraud protections we don't currently enjoy.  Turn the greatest state in the Union into a bunch of little hamlets to be divied up and nickel and dimed, and therefore diminished nationally, and it's just not good for the state or the nation.  However, were this proposal nationwide in scope, I don't think the Republican party would support it.  They can exploit California right now, and that's all they care about.

    Parent
    The point of the initiative is not (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by scribe on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:46:01 AM EST
    whether it is "good for California" or "Bad for California", but to steal 20 electoral votes from the Democratic column and put them in the Republican column.

    Otherwise, why would one of Rudy Cue Ball's biggest fundraisers quit his campaign and immediately go to work on this initiative?  They sure as h*ll don't care a whit about fairness.

    Take a look at the cast of characters and you'll see they're all big-time Repug money dumpers who know the only way they have a prayer of stealing the next election is to monkey with the system.  As it looks now, they surely are not going to get Ohio's 20 electoral votes this time around, so they have to make them up somewhere to make The Math work.

    Parent

    Patrick Knows That (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:49:40 AM EST
    Which is why he supports the measure, and the cueball ghoul.

    Parent
    Just wanting to keep straight (none / 0) (#16)
    by scribe on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:59:49 AM EST
    the particulars of both the measure and the jokers supporting it.

    Parent
    That's a low blow squeaky... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 12:29:41 PM EST
    maybe my man Patrick wants his voice heard, just like I'd like mine heard.  I ain't voting for Hillary, Obama, or Edwards...but when it comes electoral college time one of those three is getting every electoral vote from our state.  That ain't right.

    Sure, the measure in California is politically motivated, but if we can't scrap the electoral college alltogether splitting electoral votes to better represent the voice of the people is the next best thing.

    Parent

    Hey (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    I am all for scrapping the electoral college. The reason that it was started was to give small states a leg up against big states. Now that is obsolete. It is near impossible to get the supermajority to change it because of the small states who now have an unfair advantage. One person one vote is the way it should be.

    The measure in CA is unfair and verges on criminal, it is gerymandering on steriods. As for the ghoul, I would be shocked if Patrick did not favor the ghoul for POTUS.

    Parent

    Read Up (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:41:46 PM EST
    On the initative before you support the BS:

    The Electoral College should be done away with, but in the meantime, any reforms should improve the system, not make it worse. If California abandons its winner-take-all rule while red states like Texas do not, it will be hard for a Democratic nominee to assemble an Electoral College majority, even if he or she wins a sizable majority of the popular vote. That appears to be just what the backers of the California idea have in mind.

    NYT

    It is a campaign based on misinformation in typical republican double speak style. It is meant to insure permanant GOP rule. It plays on those who would like to ditch the electoral system but in fact makes the electoral system even less representative and more unfair.

    Parent

    We are in agreement then my friend.... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:50:47 PM EST
    that the electoral college should be scrapped in all 50 states.  Unfortunately, that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

    Sure, the Republicans are pushing it for all the wrong reasons, but if you're a conservative voter in Cali this gives your vote meaning, and all votes should have meaning.  Would you have a problem with Texas doing the same, likely to the benefit of Dems, because it's unfair to the Repubs on a national level?

    Besides, maybe other states would follow Cali's lead if it passes, and election results would better represent the voice of the people.  That is infinitely more important than which crooked party-beholden s.o.b wins in '08, at least in my book.

    Parent

    The CA Initiave (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:10:08 PM EST
    It republican dirty tricks. I would not support the democrats doing it either, and they have tried in NC. But the sheer misinformation is par for the course for the GOP up is down. Instead of making things more fair, which is their claim,  the scam will make CA less fair.

    Parent
    Huh. (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:19:40 PM EST
    Maybe my vote will mean something this time.

    Parent
    Gerrymandering? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Patrick on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:51:58 PM EST
    You've got to be kidding right?The democrats draw the congressional districts.  

      Actually, I don't support him getting the nomination, and since I live in California, my POTUS vote means nothing unless I happen to support a democrat.

        I think this is a great idea.  And in the not too distant past (Of course that's relative) the R's carried California.

        And as far as being concerned about what you think of me, well, let's just say you rank right down there with Edgir.  I'm happy to be on whatever side you aren't.

    Parent

    Rigged Game (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:35:29 PM EST
    So much for you being fair. I guess it is just a type of greed that wingnuts have. The sports equivalent would be to give one team a twenty game advantage over the rest of the teams in a given sport.
    Guaranteed win forever. Nice.

    Parent
    The electoral college needs to.... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 11:36:41 AM EST
    go, period.  It screws whoever holds a minority opinion in their state out of their voice.

    Parent
    And without it (1.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:47:38 PM EST
    the minority on a national basis cannot win.

    Parent
    Exactly.... (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:41:11 PM EST
    see the 2000 election.  The guy who the lesser number of Americans voted for won.

    Whoever gets the most votes should win, period.

    Parent

    That is called a pure democracy.. (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:55:01 PM EST
    We are a constitutional republic..

    Pure democracies have a history of failing because the minorities are essentially shut out with no chance to win.

    It becomes worse when you have culture issues involved... think NYC life vs small town Nebraska..

    Parent

    But wouldn't.... (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:31:53 PM EST
    state and local elections, iow smaller samples, kind of offset the negative effects of a pure democracy on the federal level?

    Besides, we have the blessed Bill of Rights to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, could it be that other pure democracies have had problems because they lack such a beautiful document?

    Parent

    Nope (1.00 / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:53:06 PM EST
    The BOR has nothing to do with appointing AG's, FEC, judges, etc... Those are the things that set the tone of the government.

    So no, the ability to elect a sheriff doesn't replace the ability to elect a President.

    Parent

    No thanks (none / 0) (#56)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 07:34:35 PM EST

    Just because dead folks can vote in Chicago does not mean they should be able to cancel legit votes in other states.  

    Would you be comfortable if Utah gave six year olds the vote?

    Parent

    Income disparity (none / 0) (#19)
    by Aaron on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Blacks Trail in Growth of Income


    Here's the deal (1.00 / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 01:55:53 PM EST
    .
    Another is that marriage rates are lower for blacks than for whites, so black children may be more likely to grow up to be single parents.

    Black, white or green with yellow stripes, early pregancies and single parents is a ticket straight to low income.

    Parent

    Of course it is PPJ (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:18:33 PM EST
    but if gov't would just not allow the rest of us to make more money, or take our money to give to others then it wouldn't be as noticable and we wouldn't have to judge anyone's choices in life.

    It's pretty simple, it's called liberalism.

    Parent

    Im personally tired of all those (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:42:00 PM EST
    liberals that take my money and give it to over-charging contractors (with guaranteed contracts) and "lose" billions while the simpltons in the U.S
    occupy themselves with worring about welfare mothers.

    It's pretty simple, it's called sheer idiocy.

    Parent

    I'm tired too. (1.00 / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:58:11 PM EST
    Wasn't it Algore reduced the size of government by increasing it??

    As for simpleton's, I see you can't connect that my comment was not negative towards welfare mothers, but that is a sure ticket for young women to become welfare mothers.

    Try this. You have a fire. Remove the fuel.

    Guess what. Fire out.

    I have never claimed to know how to remove the fuel.

    Do you know how to reform government contracting rules????

    Parent

    Amen jondee.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:52:36 PM EST
    I'm always amazed at how the biggest welfare whores imaginable never get noticed by our right-leaning friends.

    Parent
    So I guess your (none / 0) (#48)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:29:38 PM EST
    point is if we "waste" money in Iraq we should "waste" it hear as well?

    Parent
    I'm not sure.... (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    if health insurance for kids, or food stamps for kids could be called a waste.  Should their parents be taking take of such things, yes, but I can't call it a waste.

    The epic corporate welfare scam going down in Iraq? That's a freakin' waste.

    Parent

    NPR had a story this AM (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:17:08 PM EST
    that blacks and latinos continue to lag whites and asians academically, despite decades of efforts to rectify that, and that even middle-income blacks and latinos lag poor whites and asians academically.

    I've also heard there is a pretty direct relationship between education and income.

    Parent

    Reallly? (1.00 / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 05:59:07 PM EST
    What a concept.

    Parent
    Armitage apoligizes for leakeing (none / 0) (#31)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:21:02 PM EST
    Plame's name to Novak.

    How amazing this wasn't even mentioned on TL after the hundreds of posts that where put up during the Fitzmas holidays .

    Can we finally admit that he leaked the name and this was a ridiculous witch hunt or do we just want to keep hoping that Rove, Cheney and Bush did something bad?

    Admiting it was a "leak" (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 02:32:16 PM EST
    is quite an improvment over you guy's former position: when "everyone in Washington already knew who she worked for" etc etc

    Now all you need to do is provide a plausible explanation for the leak.

    Parent

    Ask Armirage. (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 06:00:10 PM EST


    Parent
    We don't have to prove (none / 0) (#47)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 03:28:08 PM EST
    anything.   That's how the criminal justice system works last time I checked.

    Fitzgerald had the burden of proof to proove a crime that invovled the original investigation and he couldn't.  


    Parent

    Your "leak" admittance (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:13:06 PM EST
    is enough self incrimination for the present.

    What happened to the "everybody knew.." b.s, Slado?

    Did Rush change the narrative so that you were just compelled (against your will), to follow suit?

    Parent

    Ellen DeGeneres, member of several unions - (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 04:15:14 PM EST
    including the striking writer's union - is crossing her union's picket lines.

    Tuesday Open Thread | 80 comments (80 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment