home

Thursday Afternoon Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:29:30 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Thanks to Big Tent Democrat for keeping us up to date on Florida and Michigan.

As for other news, check out the new ACLU blog. Lots of bloggers including Christy of Firedoglake, McJoan of Daily Kos, Marcy (Empty Wheel), Nicole of Crooks and Liars and Glenn Greenwald of Salon have posts up on torture.

My post is "The Unfriendly Skies of Ghost Air."

Colorado is under tornado watches and warnings today. A few have already hit down, the University of Northern Colorado is on lockdown. The city of Windsor so far has gotten hit the worst. At one school, they evacuated the kids and put them in the vault at the bank next door. Baseball size hail is expected. Denver right now is fine, but we're on a tornado watch too and severe thunderstorms with hail are coming. 40,000 are without power. The local tv stations have suspended regular programming to cover it.

More...

I have a big brief due tomorrow a court hearing to prepare for. This is an open thread for topics other than Michigan and Florida.

Comments now closed.

< Obama Talks . . . About The Florida Delegates | More On the Malign Acceptance of Sexism >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | 205 comments (205 topical)
    Jeralyn, be safe. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:44:07 PM EST


    ditto that--sorry to hear abt, the bad weather (none / 0) (#58)
    by kempis on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:14:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    keep under cover. (none / 0) (#143)
    by scribe on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:09:49 PM EST
    And hope the power holds until you get your brief done and filed.

    A few years back, we had grape to walnut sized hail (3 waves, each bigger than the last) which left my then-car (an Escort) with a wonderfully textured corrugated roof and hood.  I was glad I'd saved my old steel mill hard hat, since I had to wear it outside to pull the car in under cover.

    And about the hard had I'd been told to "throw that darn thing out", since "you'll never need it and it's just taking up space."

    [ Parent ]

    Karl Rove subpoenaed by House.. (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:45:56 PM EST
    A subpoena has been served on Karl Rove by the House Judiciary Committee. Finally, Congress is starting to take steps to clean up the mess in this administration.
    The committee ordered Rove to appear July 10 to testify on allegations he was a key player in pressing the Justice Department to dismiss some U.S. attorneys and to prosecute Democrats

    It had authorized the subpoena earlier, but only delivered it Thursday after Rove's attorney said he would not appear voluntarily, Chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, said in a written statement.

    Just thought y'all would be interested in this..hehehe.

    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Monda on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    unfortunately anything will happen to Rove from the Hill.  Watched yesterday a hearing with oil companies.  It was a joke.  

    [ Parent ]
    Two things (none / 0) (#104)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:43:56 PM EST
    First of all, they seemed so unsorry for the greed. But then they got to the crust of the matter. We need to open up drilling in Alaska and the Pacific Rim. Wow, shades of 1976. The world is running out of oil. Let's drill in Alaska and make a pipe line. Yep,and guess what, they were only yoking. There is plenty of oil.

    I found it interesting that CNN.com had a picture of these guys and a big headline. I read the story and 10 minutes went back to quote from it and it was gone.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, how I wish (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:57:40 PM EST
    we still had a functioning Justice Department!

    I used to follow these developments with breathless excitement. Now I know the Dems have no muscle in the DOJ to enforce these subpoenas.

    KKKarl is rubbing his pasty little hands together and chortling in his slimy den.

    [ Parent ]

    I used to follow them closely too (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:00:03 PM EST
    before someone kidnapped Josh Marshll

    [ Parent ]
    "kidnapped Josh Marshll" (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:22:48 PM EST
    I am starting to think "pod people" are involved.
    it really is the only believable explaination.

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed! (none / 0) (#66)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:19:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hmph, you'd think this was an election year (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:09:25 PM EST
    Dems revolt me.

    If they want to change the narrative about themselves, the time to do it was before the WH festooned a float with unanswered Leahy subpoenas and roared up and down in front of his house with the subpoena'd no-shows yelling "Suck it, P!"

    [ Parent ]

    I still want him flogged while he's reading it (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:04:52 PM EST
    I know ... I should be above such ideass but it's Karl Rove!!!

    :-D

    [ Parent ]

    HIGHLY DOUBT (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by athyrio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:47:25 PM EST
    I HIGHLY doubt Hillary would want the VP slot and that is why I think Obama's handlers are saying no to her in advance as they know she wouldn't accept it even if offered...

    It's a talking point (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:50:10 PM EST
    to make the nomination race appear over.

    MSNBC got the memo and spent all day talking about whether Hillary would take the VP.

    [ Parent ]

    Huff Post claims Bill Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:50:41 PM EST
    is campaigning for Hillary Clinton to get the VP slot.  (But, I didn't open the link.)

    [ Parent ]
    If she wants it, she's clearly earned it. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:51:39 PM EST
    Obama really is a narcassist.

    [ Parent ]
    I would argue that his narcissism (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:55:38 PM EST
    would prevent him from taking the VP spot, which would be more than he deserved at this point.

    I think his wife just hates both Clintons, as do many of the New Plutocratic Party who surround Obama.

    Whatever the reason, Clinton-as-Veep is na ga hapin.

    [ Parent ]

    I want her to stay in the Senate (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by nycstray on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:12:22 PM EST
    if she's not the nom.

    He can go win/lose on his own.

    [ Parent ]

    I think (none / 0) (#169)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:56:00 PM EST
    she will stay in the Senate if she loses. I saw Lanny Davis on FOX, yeah I can't believe I watch FOX either, and he said that he still thought she could win but that if she didn't he thought she would do quite well as the Jr. Senator from New York in Bobby Kennedy's seat. And that's what I hope she will do if and when.

    [ Parent ]
    Ya gotta love all this (2.00 / 12) (#49)
    by jondee on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:11:05 PM EST
    crap about "selfishness" and "narcissism", with a not much more than a roaring silence in regard to policy as if that aspect were all but irrelevant.

    Vote for your fav feel-good personality. What is this, an installment of Rock of Love?

    When one starts to see the level of gross stupidity that the spinmeisters and media hucksters have reduced the electorate to, it's no wonder that many of you were so convinced 8 years ago that that coke-addled fratboy was "a consensus builder" (without necessarily knowing what a consensus builder was).

    Is "narcissism" the new uppity, btw? Im starting to suspect that it is.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:14:38 PM EST
    isn't campaigning on policy. If he was you might have a point. He certainly can't seem to explain what his stances are in debates and frankly looks bored talking about it.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama does policy? (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Fabian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:15:52 PM EST
    Has he given up on the Biographical Narrative about how he pulled himself up by his single mother's bootstraps yet?

    [ Parent ]
    LOL, thanks. (none / 0) (#142)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:09:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Classic Obamabot. (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:16:28 PM EST
    We are stupid, Republican AND racist.

    Feeeeeeeel the unity!

    [ Parent ]

    You don't know jondee.... (3.00 / 2) (#107)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:45:25 PM EST
    he's not an Obama-bot or a Clinton-ista...he calls 'em as he sees 'em...his principles are consistent in and out of election season.

    I wish everybody was like that...

    [ Parent ]

    But K-Dog... (2.33 / 3) (#134)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:02:03 PM EST
    ...these people don't care if jondee has been around here long, long before they "discovered" TL.  They only care that he isn't a part of the current cult o' personality and therefore, an Obamabot.  

    Didn't you get that memo?  

    [ Parent ]

    oBot trolls use others' Cheetoh Central IDs here (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:09:55 PM EST
    Cheap way to feign cred. (Ah yes, the Obama campaign is all about class ain't it?)

    I know the ID borrowing for a fact since a stupid oPod used my own ex-handle to pranced around me and fearmonger about some of "my" top concerns posted at Cheetoh HQ.

    How repellant. It's like Obama WANTS to lose the general election.

    [ Parent ]

    Really (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:12:29 PM EST
    can you provide us with posts on this site that have come from "obot" cheetoh id's here? WE like specific examples as opposed to blanket accusations with no supporting evidence, unlike the current administration.

    [ Parent ]
    Read my post, eedjit (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:17:20 PM EST
    When someone uses MY OWN HANDLE from Cheetoh HQ unaware that I used it there for many years, I'm comfortable making that statement.

    It's certainly got more tangible evidence behind it than some of the Psychic Friends' mind-melds and chorused truthiness that pass for "factual" bases at the Cheesy Place.

    [ Parent ]

    why call me an idiot (1.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:19:59 PM EST
    is it because your weren't loved as a child? It must be. I can tell by the way you type. Please just give us the links and provide evidence that there is some sort of conspiracy.

    [ Parent ]
    As per above, your Mind Melds are really off (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:29:13 PM EST
    The Obama campaign of Self Help and Psycho Caca instead of policies really targets his audience well.

    Your analyses are idiotic, your comprehension level is dim, and my observation at least has some connection to objective reality.

    [ Parent ]

    seriously (1.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:32:29 PM EST
    a little self help for you might go a long way, maybe start with Dr. Phil. But not until you provide EVIDENCE that obamas campaign is taking over online identities. If you cannot, I can only assume you see invisible helicopters outside your window at night and that scares me a bit.

    [ Parent ]
    Yea... (none / 0) (#150)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    "It's like Obama WANTS to lose the general election. "

    Even if what you say is true, it's not like Obama personally told the person to do this.  

    Can we PLEASE stop attributing bloggers remarks to campaigns.

    [ Parent ]

    I judge not by the orangeness of oBots' fingers (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:22:57 PM EST
    ... but squawking point content of their posts.

    When a gaggle descent here with with the squawking points and linking to Cheetoh Central I conclude from the forensics that, whether by accident or design, that meeting of disasterous campaign and doofus level of follower is destined to be:

    the most expensive landslide loss in history.  

    [ Parent ]

    wow that is great (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:33:21 PM EST
    is your name Emerson?

    [ Parent ]
    Agree (2.33 / 3) (#177)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:26:58 PM EST
    TL has become a schoolyard of Clinton fanboy refugees fighting all the imaginary kossaks and if anyone steps in to say this is nuts the pile on starts.

    Insults are fine when it comes to Obama, and yes I agree with Jondee that narcissism seems to be the new uppity.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you fricken kidding me? (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:49:26 PM EST
    That's absurd.  I think he's a narcassist.  How dare you associate that with a racial slur.  This has become so unhealthy.  It's literally impossible for anyone to express a negative opinion of Obama without someone saying it's racist.  

    [ Parent ]
    BS (1.00 / 1) (#186)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:14:54 PM EST
    Narcissism is a mental illness. He is no more for himself than either Clinton, Edwards or most sucessful pols.

    Uppity is a slur for Black person, usually a male, who is acting as if he thinks more of himself than he should be thinking.

    Calling only Obama narcissistic, even though he thinks no more of himself than other Pols think of themselves, is akin to calling Obama uppity.

    [ Parent ]

    Totally out of line, insulting (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:23:51 PM EST
    and ridiculous.  You and I share different impressions of Obama.  Mine isn't based on racial stereotypes, it's my impression of the man.

    [ Parent ]
    OK (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:29:20 PM EST
    If someone called Hillary a b*tch of shrill, will you argue that they were just being succinct?

    [ Parent ]
    B*tch is a gender charged word. (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:36:21 PM EST
    Narcassist is not at all racially charged.

    [ Parent ]
    Definitely (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:26:09 PM EST
    People use 'narcissism' when what they really mean is 'racist slur'. Feel better?

    [ Parent ]
    They over-use Narcissist to mean 'Shaddap!' too (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:37:20 PM EST
    As in, 'Why aren't you paying attention to mmmmeeeeeeeee!!!' ("Jeez, what a baby," I keep telling my 18-month old nephew, who has no business tossing around big words.)

    [ Parent ]
    Jondee (2.14 / 7) (#86)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:30:30 PM EST
    The hillheads here do not like when someone speaks ill of them. They are completely within their right to provide a constant stream of personal attacks but you are not. Let me do it for you. There are like 10 of them, completely unrepresentative of rational Hillary supporters, and are in need of assistance. John McCain has a wonderful pay as you go health plan that I am sure they will all be supporting because they ain't gonna go so they figure they are saving lots of dough. Every office, every blog, every church, every social club has them. They are a the misery club. Can't really hate em for it, but their comments do make normal people nauseous....

    [ Parent ]
    Not quite as nauseous (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:35:06 PM EST
    as Jondee's arguments on another thread supporting polygamist father's rights to pass their adolescent girls around for sexual favors.

    Unity 08!

    [ Parent ]

    I have not seen that comment (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:45:16 PM EST
    But if it has to do with the ruling that the texas police were wrong in taking those children, I support fully. While I don't agree with the tenets of their religion and believe that child endangerment laws should be enforced, I believe they should be done legally and not en masse. Taking those kids from their mothers is reprehensible. I am all for investigating to protect those children but it must be done with proper cause and legally.

    [ Parent ]
    It never occurs to you (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:37:07 PM EST
    that people might actually have legitimate reasons for not wanting to vote for Obama, does it?

    Could you be more condescending? Sweetie?

    And if someone has a temper tantrum and starts throwing around accusations that commenters here are racist, stupid and Republican, then we're supposed to pretend it didn't happen?

    You are really from another planet here.


    [ Parent ]

    Actually, that sounds exactly like this planet. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by leis on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:42:49 PM EST
    Unfortunately.

    And we aren't supposed to pretend it didn't happen, we are supposed to vote for their guy, cause turns out they actually need "the misery club".  

    What emissaries of stupidity.

    [ Parent ]

    blame your SD's (3.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:47:54 PM EST
    they are voting for Obama. Blame the media, they never gave Hillary a fair shake. Blame the 46% of the voters that voted for the him. Reasonable. But the name calling by the "misery club" on this blog is nauseating. The level of discourse for this group of ten is embarassing. Personally, I think they should all smoke a little herb and eat some oreos, doesn't make Obama go away but feels really good.

    [ Parent ]
    No, if Obama is the nominee (none / 0) (#119)
    by leis on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:53:24 PM EST
    it will be the GE that makes him go away.

    [ Parent ]
    Really (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:55:27 PM EST
    what were your predictions 7 months ago? I am on record on this site more than a year ago saying that Hillary will not win the nom. Where were you? I hope you stay around so in 6 months i can repost this and ask you where your head is.

    [ Parent ]
    awwwww, he called us 'toots' (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:06:37 PM EST
    I just love it when you guys expose your true ugly insides for everyone to see again.

    [ Parent ]
    I believe (3.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:40:46 PM EST
    Jondees comments were about the media, nothing about race and did not call anyone stupid. Now if you feel stupid, that is really your issue not Jondees. I am from planet Zxycor, and men are called sweetie there, it is a refreshing twist to see men subjugated, although I must admit, that is why I left there.

    [ Parent ]
    Now, you not only WORM Obama but other (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by leis on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:50:07 PM EST
    Obama supporters as well.  

    She was not talking about the media. She said the media turned us into a bunch of people who were too stupid to know that Bush was evil incarnate and she also said we didn't know what a consensus builder is.

    But hello we are the low information group, what do you expect?  

    I wonder if Jondee knows what incarnate means?

    [ Parent ]

    yes you are correct (4.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:52:33 PM EST
    i took it as a swipe at the media but it is a swipe at the electorate for electing bush

    [ Parent ]
    Your belief is unsupported by fact then. (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:51:53 PM EST
    Jondee implictly made an accusation of racism with the whole 'narcissism' means 'uppity' now BS. And his entire comment was steeped in his holier-than-thou attitude of how stupid every voter that doesn't agree with his views is.

    So much for your beliefs. Read it again and believe whatever you want.

    [ Parent ]

    i guess you could (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:53:49 PM EST
    take the race angle on uppity, but I didn't. i think it is a fair argument

    [ Parent ]
    Riiiiiiiight (none / 0) (#126)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:58:12 PM EST
    let's all pretend he didn't mean anything racial by 'uppity'. wow, you're smart.

    [ Parent ]
    I have debated with Jondee (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:59:07 PM EST
    for years and I just didn't take it that way. I said you have a fair argument and Jondee should respond. Just not how I read it.

    [ Parent ]
    and I am very smart (none / 0) (#131)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:59:40 PM EST
    my mummy tells me so.

    [ Parent ]
    Hopefully (none / 0) (#124)
    by befuddled on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:55:35 PM EST
    because of a massive karmaslide.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not voting for Obama... (none / 0) (#163)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:36:32 PM EST
    though If I'm not mistaken J prefers Obama but will vote for the Democrat.  Me?  Kerry is the last Democrat I will ever vote for, and I decided that long before this election season began.

    I have reasons not to vote for Obama, and they are the same reasons I will not vote for Hillary or McCain.  I've posted them a thousand times, but I wouldn't want to interrupt the team sports exhibition with issues again, you can look 'em up if you care.

    [ Parent ]

    well none of the ca's (none / 0) (#170)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:58:23 PM EST
    represent my views on the military industrial complex, incarceration insanity, complete failure of the drug war, equal rights for homosexuals (not portions of equal rights), free healthcare and college for all and quality education for those of us not born into money. So my vote for years has been the "not that guy" vote....

    [ Parent ]
    "Not that guy" got old (none / 0) (#171)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:06:26 PM EST
    for me bro...it feels better to vote for somebody, even if they get one percent.

    Though this year it's looking like 5-15 percent with all the pissed off D's.

    [ Parent ]

    I did that in the 80's (none / 0) (#172)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:11:02 PM EST
    and first part of the 90's. In Illinois the Dem wins every time so I felt as if I was doing it because it was "safe". I campaigned early for O because I loved his book and if he did 20% of what was in the book it would be hugely progressive, but I know the routine. Once in office they suffer from striangulation.

    [ Parent ]
    You can say that again... (none / 0) (#174)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:19:10 PM EST
    Figureheads inheriting the machine.

    I'd kill to see a monkeywrench get in there, but it would take a miracle.

    [ Parent ]

    People Here Are Tired Of Being Accused Of (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:22:16 PM EST
    being a racist every time they dare to criticize Obama. Tired of words that have never been racists suddenly becoming racial slurs.  Since when is narcissistic the same as uppity? That is what Jondee said and that is why there is this strong of an objection. The fact that you support Jondee's behavior says a lot about you.

    [ Parent ]
    Too Much Kool Aid? (none / 0) (#191)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:26:58 PM EST
    Since when is calling a candidate names, or mentally ill, a legitimate criticism.

    I think it is usually referred to as an ad hominim, aka the lowest form of attack.

    [ Parent ]

    Objecting To "ad hominim" attacks, (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:06:48 PM EST
    if that is how they interpret the remark, is one thing, turning it into a racial slur is something else again.

    Also, labeling any criticism of Obama as racial is very harmful to Obama's campaign whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Hey, if Obama supporters want to continue that practice, then by all means have fun now and pay the price in November.

    [ Parent ]

    Any Criticism? (1.00 / 1) (#200)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:19:18 PM EST
    First of all this is not a criticism, it is, at best, namecalling. Second, calling a specific comment akin to uppity is not even remotely close to this:
    Also, labeling any criticism of Obama as racial is very harmful to Obama's campaign whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

    This kind of apology is a typical nod and wink. You would be screaming bloody murder if anyone used that argument against specific sexist comments against Hillary.  

    [ Parent ]

    Please Show Me The Dictionary That (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:39:00 PM EST
    uses uppity in its definition for narcissistic.  Do you deny that uppity is considered a racial slur?  It is not a nod and a wink to anything. It is a flat out statement that trying to turn words that do not have a racial meaning into a racial slur is not only stupid but counterproductive.

    This is my last comment to you. So you can have the last word.

    [ Parent ]

    You know... (none / 0) (#199)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:10:20 PM EST
    I disagree with ya on this one squeaky...I believe we should call all the candidates more names...pikers, stooges, dirty crooked sob's:)

    "There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president."

    "The two real political parties in America are the Winners and the Losers. The people don't acknowledge this. They claim membership in two imaginary parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, instead."

    - Kurt Vonnegut



    [ Parent ]
    I've Got No Problem (1.00 / 1) (#202)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:32:27 PM EST
    With your examples, but calling Obama uppity, shiftless or any code words that appeal to racist stereotypes is cowardly, imo. There is a big difference in saying all who run for PUTUS have to be nuts, than saying Hillary is a b*itch because she acted exactly the other male candidates and stood up for herself in bold language. I not think I have ever heard you call a specific person a name in that way.

    [ Parent ]
    OMFG! (none / 0) (#204)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:38:27 PM EST
    For crying out loud, NO ONE called Obama uppity! This is like some freaking psychotic game of telephone.

    This whole ridiculous thread occurred because someone voiced their opinion that Obama behaved narcissisticly, which then was made into an imaginary slur of uppity, which then became racist slur. Jeezus F. Christ.

    [ Parent ]

    I try to mind my tongue... (none / 0) (#206)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:46:48 PM EST
    and not say things too lightly merely out of respect for others, but I also would like the entire language at my disposal without being accused of racism/sexism/pick your-ism without cause.

    In addition to showing each other respect not to offend, we should show each other the respect not to take offense without regard to tone, context, and meaning at the use of certain pc buzz words.

     

    [ Parent ]

    I second that sh*t..... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:48:49 PM EST
    Please let this three-ring circus be over soon so we can get on with perpetual war and police state tyranny without all the pissin' and moanin'.

    [ Parent ]
    I bet PPJ, Patrick, SUO (none / 0) (#144)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:09:50 PM EST
    are laughing their arses off reading the posts here. Haven't heard from PPJ in a long while, I hope he is ok.

    [ Parent ]
    I've seen him in a couple of threads... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:13:50 PM EST
    ...lately.  Still the same old PPJ.  The funny thing is that none of the newbies here know that he is the original TL troll.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah but i still love him (none / 0) (#156)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:21:10 PM EST
    like a sick old uncle.

    [ Parent ]
    Me too.... (none / 0) (#164)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:41:33 PM EST
    I love PPJ.  I bust his chops on his blog sometimes.  He hams it up in the comments like we all do, but I think he's a decent human being with whacky views.

    The same could certainly be said of me I hope.

    This is gonna sound cheesy but I miss the old crew...remember fred dawes?  I hope he's allright.

    [ Parent ]

    Naw... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:51:43 PM EST
    ...you're just Obamobot (or so I hear).  :>)

    I miss the old crew as well.  Ah well, what's an OG to do?

     

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah Mile.... (none / 0) (#173)
    by kdog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:15:39 PM EST
    Axelrod said my check is in the mail:)

    Groupthink is a helluva drug...this election is like a "2 Minutes Hate".  On this site's comments Obama is Goldstein, on other's Clinton is.  

    [ Parent ]

    My check comes from... (none / 0) (#197)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 22, 2008 at 06:47:21 PM EST
    ...the ghost of Huey P. Newton himself.  Who knew there were such riches to be made being a latte drinking, hard working white, creative class, racist and/or sexist elitist.

     

    [ Parent ]

    You nailed that one, Jl! (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:23:57 PM EST
    I usually avoid threads of 100+ comments (like this one) but I saw kdog's name under the "recent comments" and figured he'd say something interesting. Which he did, as usual.

    fwiw, I saw a ppj post on the "don't ask don't tell" thread this AM. It's a decent read.

    Can't wait for this election to be over and TL gets back to threads of 30-40 comments with almost every one having actual value...

    [ Parent ]

    excuse me (none / 0) (#153)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:19:06 PM EST
    but I think you mean 11.

    [ Parent ]
    Feh (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:01:51 PM EST
    I doubt that's true. Why would she want to be on a losing ticket?

    [ Parent ]
    He wins, she's set to be next pres. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:03:03 PM EST
    He loses, she's best positioned to be next nominee.  It's a win-win for her.

    [ Parent ]
    Looked how well that strategy worked for (none / 0) (#42)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:06:30 PM EST
    John Edwards!

    [ Parent ]
    She's not John Edwards. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:07:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    John Edwards isn't John Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Regency on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:20:02 PM EST
    I don't see Bill (and yes I'm making this about him) being able to campaign this hard again in 4 years. This was a once in a lifetime thing. I just don't think it'll be like it was again.

    I think this is her shot; it's already made history and may still do more.  But she won't do it again.

    Maybe I'm just not hopeful enough.

    [ Parent ]

    "Edwards isn't John Edwards" (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:23:56 PM EST
    pod people

    [ Parent ]
    I want HRC to put WJC on the SCOTUS (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:11:27 PM EST
    I pray for it nightly just to see all those right wing heads explode like overripe honeydews.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm from Canada - so maybe I don't understand how (none / 0) (#102)
    by Just another person on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:43:12 PM EST
    SCOTUS works. But doesn't a Supreme Court justice have to have some experience being a judge? I know people tend to think otherwise, what with the Harriet Myers nomination, but you'd think that a justice in the highest court of the land should have some experience judging, no?

    Or am I ignorant about WJC's resume?

    [ Parent ]

    The only job in the judiciary branch (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by scribe on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:20:45 PM EST
    which requires - as a matter of law (constitutional or otherwise) - the appointee to be "learned in the law" (or anything similar) is the post of Solicitor General.  That's the lawyer who represents the US before the Supreme Court and is often asked by the Supreme Court to file briefs stating the government's position on a particular issue before the Court.

    But, as to judges - nope.  You could be the President's dog groomer (nothing against dog groomers - I like them) and never have spent a day in the courtroom, but if the Senate gives a majority yes vote, become a federal judge or Supreme Court justice.

    For what it's worth - if you want some wingnuts' heads to explode sometime, go poke around and see how many of the current Supreme Court justices have done things (before being appointed) like try cases to a jury (for real - not as some pro bono thing), defend an actual murder case, or any of the things real lawyers do every day.  I think the last one who'd actually defended a real murder case was Thurgood Marshall, when he was one of the few black lawyers anywhere.

    Supreme Court justices are often politicians, particularly (in the past) ones the President wants to get off the stage.  Salmon Chase had been Lincoln's Treasury Secretary and was perceived as a threat to his renomination.  A seat on the Court opened up, and Chase went into it.  William O. Douglas had been an early head of the SEC and probably offended a lot of the money people - to the point where FDR needed to move him elsewhere with WWII coming.  McReynolds had been an AG (IIRC, for Wilson) and a pain.  And so on.

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting (none / 0) (#183)
    by Just another person on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:55:43 PM EST
    Supreme Court justices are often politicians, particularly (in the past) ones the President wants to get off the stage.

    Is that why there has been speculation of having Hillary Clinton made a SCOTUS justice? As in here?

    [ Parent ]
    No, there are no rules for Justices (1.00 / 1) (#141)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:09:19 PM EST
    They do not have to have judicial experience, or even law degrees.  See Earl Warren.

    [ Parent ]
    It just boggles the mind... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Just another person on Thu May 22, 2008 at 05:56:54 PM EST
    I understand that history had many justices that weren't trained in the law (I'm thinking the House of Lords mostly), but you'd think that would have changed with time.

    [ Parent ]
    The office of POTUS is all-powerful now (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:50:42 PM EST
    ... it comes with a magic constitution-disappearing, rule of domestic and int'l law disappearing, every accumulated legal precedent disappearing crayon.

    Hillary will be Empress (and divine in every sense.)

    [ Parent ]

    She would want the VP, at one tiny condition: (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 22, 2008 at 02:51:44 PM EST
    is the President Position is ABOLISHED!

    [ Parent ]
    That's not a good strategy IMO (none / 0) (#96)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:40:29 PM EST
    If he's trying to look tough, he's going to fail.  Majority of AAs want Clinton as VP, women might be attracted to the ticket with Clinton on it, the working class who have selected Clinton are going to feel dismissed.  If that's a strategy, it's an extremely p!ss poor one IMO.

    Dukakis on Fox discussing how to pick a VP.....  Dukakis: Get it down to 4, vet them, do it right, it's the right choice.  Gore was not a regional choice...  Q likeability- Obama would not pick Clinton (Bill) would he?  Dukakis: repeat careful thoughtful process will get the correct choice.  Q: if Hillary Clinton, would that calm sides down, it's been divisive, would that decide it?  Dukakis:  No.  Dems sound like cats fighting the night before, but in the morning all they were doing was making more cats.  We made more democrats.

    Sounds like a no from Dukakis on the joint ticket.

    [ Parent ]

    More Trouble For The DNC.... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:01:03 PM EST
    http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/05/florida_dems_sue_the_dnc.html

    Oh (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:05:40 PM EST
    this election is so lost. Obama's already a goner and Hillary is looking less likely to win if she gets the nomination. Such great hopes dashed by the chicago machine. Oh well, good thing is it'll give us a chance to dump all the losers.

    [ Parent ]
    there wasd another suit earlier that got (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:11:18 PM EST
    dismissed.  My non-lawyer summary: The court did not think the laws applied in political party delegate selection rules.

    I suspect this will meet the same fate, but good for them for keeping the pressure on the DNC and making them spend some money on it.  Who's punished now?

    [ Parent ]

    What if the state pays for it? (none / 0) (#75)
    by goldberry on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:23:34 PM EST
    Who footed the bill for the primary?  And didn't the Florida legislature set the date?  To me, that sounds like there was direct involvement by the state and should come under the purview of election law.  Of course, IANAL so I could just be talking out of my ass.  

    [ Parent ]
    The state let everyone vote (none / 0) (#89)
    by ruffian on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:33:28 PM EST
    their only role in the primary, as I understand it, is to provide the means and opportunity to vote. The DNC uses the results as it will. The other court did not seem to think they had jurisdiction over that.  

    IANAL either, so your talking ass is as good as mine ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Obama & McCain on climate change (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:05:58 PM EST
    AudacityofHypocrisy.com

    On The Campaign Trail, Obama Attacked McCain, Saying It Was "Breathtaking" For Him To Address Climate Change:

    Obama: "It is truly breathtaking for John McCain to talk about combating climate change while voting against virtually every recent effort to actually invest in clean energy." (Ben Smith, "Obama On McCain Speech: 'Breathtaking,' Not In A Good Way," Politico's "Ben Smith" Blog, www.politico.com, 5/12/08)

    But In 2005, Obama Praised McCain's Leadership On Climate Change:

    Obama: "So what can we do to protect our planet? The first step is to adopt the McCain-Lieberman amendment. This bipartisan approach is not only good environmental policy, it's good economic policy." (Sen. Barack Obama, Congressional Record, 6/22/05, p. S7008)

    Eh (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:07:44 PM EST
    I knew it was coming: the effette waffling liberal. I guess they'll be playing those Iran tapes soon. Iran was a threat before it wasn't or something like that.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama was for (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by madamab on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:29:13 PM EST
    McCain before he was against him!

    Oyyyyyyy.

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't Obama vote for Cheney's (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by abfabdem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:00:39 PM EST
    energy bill?  And Exelon is a major contributor of Obama's.

    [ Parent ]
    yes! we can thank Obama for $5 gas (none / 0) (#166)
    by Josey on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:46:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    McCain just rejected Hagee's endorsement (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:09:06 PM EST
    with a statement saying that his remarks about the holocaust were reprehensible.  He then said that he had not previously known about these statements when he accepted the endorsement.

    He also said that he wants to emphasize that Hagee had never been his pastor, and he never had a personal relationship with him, like Sen. Obama and Pastor Wright.

    Ouch.  This puts Obama in a pinch, IMHO.

    And how ridiculous to expect us to believe he didn't know about those statements until now.  (Not that I believe a word that McCain says about anything). But again, Obama did the same damn thing and set himself up for this.  

    The Hagee = Wright arguments are ridiculous (none / 0) (#110)
    by Exeter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:47:54 PM EST
    And frankly, bad strategery by Obama-- does he really want this standard for he campaign? If so, then EVERYONE that has endorsed Obama will get the same treatment.

    [ Parent ]
    For the life of me (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:56:43 PM EST
    I can't understand why Obama handled the Wright situation the way he did.  I appreciate the personal aspects of it, and that he had a long relationship with the man, etc.  But it was just bad politics all the way around.  I feel no schadenfreude about the Pastor Wright situation.  Instead I feel dread about what they are going to do with it during the GE.

    This was a masterful counterpunch by McCain.  I have to give him that.  I just hope Wright can keep his mouth shut and think about someone other than himself for a change.

    [ Parent ]

    Amusing (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by lentinel on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:11:34 PM EST
    I had a most enlightening experience yesterday over at C&L.

    They printed a story about what a scoundrel Joe Lieberman was.

    I posted a response saying they shouldn't pick on Lieberman. I said that Lieberman had a good heart and a keen intellect. I added that the voters of Connecticut showed good sense in sending him back to the Senate.

    The response was interesting. I was called a troll. An idiot. And other things I don't wish to reproduce here.

    Then, I pointed out that I was actually quoting what Barack Obama said about Joe Lieberman when he campaigned for his reelection to the Senate in 2006.

    For that, I was called a troll, an idiot, and other things I don't wish to reproduce here.

    Go figure.

    Um (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:18:36 PM EST
    I have a lower opinion of you than I did before.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:49:04 PM EST
    That's kind of a funny stunt.

    [ Parent ]
    BTW, McCain's site enlists astro-trolls to turf (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 03:59:14 PM EST
    ... liberal, moderate, conservative and "other" web=sites with his daily talking points.

    What a stupid tactic. As we've seen here, trolling just p!sses people off more and tends to draw out and emphasize the opposite argument more.

    TeamObama unleashed the pester power of oBots here months ago; no doubt that was a contributing factor in coalescing and strengthening support behind HRC. (I was neutral before. Now I'd walk onto the battlefield for HRC or at least lick some envelopes and knock on doors.)

    [ Parent ]

    I love this (none / 0) (#137)
    by CST on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:05:09 PM EST
    "TeamObama unleashed the pester power of oBots here months ago"

    Guess what, some of us do this for our OWN reasons.  Not because "TeamObama" told us too.  Believe it or not, people who comes here are individuals, and I'm willing to bet none of those "oBots" you mention get paid to blog, or give a crap whether their candidate wants them to or not.

    Frankly, if more "oBots" listened to their candidate we would be in a lot better shape today.

    [ Parent ]

    So what? Astro-trolls are astro-trolls (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ellie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:13:25 PM EST
    They exist, they follow instructions well, and they pester in gaggles and choruses.

    I couldn't care less what your motivations and beliefs are.

    [ Parent ]

    You're a real class act.... (