home

Friday Night Open Thread

I just spent 8 hours drafting and filing a single 15 page motion with 6 exhibits culled from more than 30,000 pages of discovery. I think my brain is too fried to blog. The TL kid is on his way over for dinner -- looks like we'll be barbecuing in the rain. He's bringing "presents", which I'll bet are the extra reams of xerox paper and highlighters I asked him to pick up for me.

How was your day? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< The Next Progressive Fight? What Fight? | Saturday College Football Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Joe Wilson (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by hilts on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 07:26:45 PM EST
    Joe Wilson must apologize for his despicable heckling of Barrack Obama on the floor of the House of Reps. His written apology was as phony as a $3 dollar bill. TPM reported that Wilson was expressing gratitude for support he received for his heckling.  Wilson also appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show where Hannity defended his behavior.  Wilson disgraced himself, the Republican Party and Congress.  Anything less than a public apology on the floor of the House from Wilson is aabsolutely unacceptable.

    I don't get the histrionics (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 07:49:06 PM EST
    Even if he publically apologized on the floor of the House it's obvious he wouldn't mean it. So what purpose would such a public shaming serve? It was boorish behavior, but it seems to me that flogging it too much only brings more money to his coffers and inflates his ego.

    Parent
    It can have a pretty dramatic effect... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 08:22:44 PM EST
    ...as we here in Colorado witnessed with Doug Bruce kicking a photographer on the floor of the House.  

    He was rather defiant in his non-apology apologies and had the lunatic fringe singing his praises.  However, when he was forced to stand and receive his censure, the tide of public opinion came crashing down on him.  

    In Doug's case, no publicity was bad, up until it finally convinced the greater voting public that he was nothing more than a self-serving bully.  The censure was what finally did the trick in that regard.  

    Parent

    Wilson and the repubs boxed the dems (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by JDM in NYC on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 08:15:16 PM EST
    into a corner. There are excellent arguments in favor of covering everybody, legal or not. By forcing us to defend Obama, to prove he's not a liar, we lose the opportunity to have that discussion, and so we are forced to accept the republican position. Of course we get to have lots of fun outrage, so that's ok.

    Parent
    Wilson's 'outburst' was stagecraft (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 01:05:56 AM EST
    done for the express purpose of upstaging Obama for this week's news cycle. Some Democrats may choose to see that as a blessing since it takes the spotlight off the shortcomings of Obama's health insurance reform plan.  

    Both Greenwald and Digby agree that Wilson's dreck doesn't warrant all the media-mongering outrage. Than again, some Congressional Dems might actually prefer pushing back against Wilson rather than pushing back against the President's betrayal of the public mandate for an health care option equivalent to Medicare for everybody.

    Parent

    I think you give Wilson too much credit (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Spamlet on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 01:10:50 AM EST
    The guy just went off, imo. A reactionary character in every sense of the word. Agree, though, that the media outrage has become a tedious miniseries.

    Parent
    Point taken, but I try not to misunderestimate (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 03:49:54 AM EST
    the opposition. In any event, whether or not Wilson's actions were premeditated, the follow-through remains the same. It provided an excuse to shift the focus of the debate, it changed the subject, created a distraction - whatever.

    Fact is, the GOP, the Blue Dogs, the "centrists", Obama, Rahm, most of the Congressional Dems, many so-called progressives - and most importantly the health lobby - all have a common interest. Meaning, they would rather spend these remaining days talking about ANYTHING other than the death of the Medicare equivalent public option.

    We, the public, are left to talk among ourselves. Imo, we would be wise to keep talking about what we wanted from the outset - that's the thing everybody in The Village is hoping to drown in the bathtub with this outpouring of poutrage over Wilson.

    FWIW, I find Wilson beneath contempt. He's a tool, but he's a tool that we'd be better off not using against ourselves.


    Parent

    Oh pleaseeeeeeeeeee (2.67 / 3) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 08:36:44 PM EST
    We have had Harry Reid calling Bush a liar, and refusing to apologize. We have had the Demos boo Bush during his 2005 State of The Union speech...and you complain?

    And the fact is that Obama was wrong. There is nothing in any bill that has passed and two amendments to keep illegals have been defeated by Democrats.

    If the Democrats can't take this without whining what will they do when a real test comes??

    Wilson should have patted his behind and told them to kiss it. Then, if the House took action he should turn around and show them what he thinks, just as Barney Frank did when he was taken to task for his transgressions.

    Face it. We have problems. And the solution isn't claiming that we can save our way out of them. I mean if we can.... why in the world haven't we? The Demos have had control of both houses since February 2007.

    All the whining about this is hypocritical.

    Parent

    Yes he should (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 08:41:35 PM EST
    that is ABSOLUTELY what Wilson should do.

    In fact I would pay him to do it.

    Parent

    I third this (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 09:41:55 PM EST
    I think Wilson should go ahead and keep acting like an immature dolt and an inconsiderate boob. It helped his opponent rake in over $100,000 in one evening.

    Go Joe Wilson, shreik yourself into irrelevancy!

    http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/09/tell-joe-wilson-goodbye-.html

    Parent

    Looks like people are paying (2.00 / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:59:29 PM EST
    With a political arms race in full force, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) has raised almost $750,000 in less than 48 hours since his shout of "You lie!" to President Obama during the Wednesday address to Congress, almost matching the Internet-fueled haul of his likely Democratic opponent.

    WaPost

    Parent

    operative words being (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:06:06 AM EST
    almost as much as his opponent. It means your guy has made less than the guy he is running against. Perhaps he can use the money to pay himself back since he had to borrow $250,000 from himself.

    Latest poll comissioned has Miller in a deadheat with him.

    Parent

    He aint my guy (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 04:45:00 AM EST
    and what I want is for the system to be shaken up. Too many "safe" seats and too many politicians calling each other "the honorable" when everyone knows they aren't.

    Let's look at what Wilson and Reid did. Both challenged the President. Wow. I mean how terrible of them to tell an elected official they don't believe what the dude has said. (sarcasm alert)

    BTW - You may note that the administration has now admitted that Wilson had a point.

    Today, for the first time as far as we know, the administration is backing a provision that would require proof of citizenship before someone could enroll in a plan selected on the exchange.

    Here, the administration also concedes that hospitals would be compensated with public funds for the care of undocumented immigrants.

    MSNBC

    That's a $1,000,000,000,000 dollars worth of fraud they are talking about and few are upset with the government paying it, yet many are upset with Wilson for holding Obama's feet to the fire. Without that happening this issue would have slid on by.

    The question, as we all know, arises from the Wilson "You lie" outburst, and the core claim that notwithstanding specific bill language barring illegal immigrants from participating in the "exchange," as a practical matter, there is no way of verifying the citizenship of applicants -- which is the current state of play. Republicans say that then means illegal immigrants would end up being enrolled in plans -- bill language or no bill language.


    Parent
    That's how much fraud? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by JDM in NYC on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 10:11:03 AM EST
    One trillion dollars will go to giving medical care to those nefarious "illegals?" Really? Wow. That is appalling. Just appalling.

    I'm curious, though- I know that the conservatives believe any "undocumented" person should be denied health care, but how does H1N1 feel about them? Does H1N1 check papers before infecting a host? And if it turns out that H1N1 doesn't care who it infects, can we at least pass a law that will make sure that, if H1N1 "goes illegal," it will not "go back" and infect "legals?'

    Parent

    The only reason Obama said (none / 0) (#53)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 06:45:08 AM EST
    he had a point was because the guy was a Republican and Obama seems to have some sort of sick fascination with them.

    As someone else has already pointed out, there was indeed already in the bill being offered a statement saying the benefits didn't apply to illegal aliens. The reason the GOP has its panties in a wad is that they want people to have to provide proof of pedigree and are howling how horrible it would be if there was no enforcement mechanism. Isn't it a darn shame they aren't as happy to have enforcement provisions when there is a corp or LLC after somethings name. Then of course, we're supposed to use the honor system. It's positively absurd.

    Parent

    The White House disagrees (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:06:05 AM EST
    with you. Read the article.

    But I am glad to see you showing your colors. Open borders, eh?

    Parent

    The WH is being run by a moron (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 05:20:07 PM EST
    most of this country was created by immigrants. If I would choose to punish anyone it would be the corporastions that encourage them to come here to get cheap labor,not kids or people who are just trying to make their lives better. Furthermore, our immigration system is broken. It is positively unacceptable to make someone wait 10 years to have their family here while some business utilizes them like a kleenex.

    My colors were never hiding to begin with.

    Parent

    Did you agree that Reid did right? (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 09:13:31 PM EST
    The boo birds in '05? Barney's actions??

    If so you have my respect. Politics is a tough game. The only thing I could even imagine Obama doing that was right would be to come up with a single payer health care bill but he has got into the insurance corp's tank.

    Parent

    Shrug (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 09:33:18 PM EST
    You think all these things are equivalent.  The public does not.  In politics, the public's opinion is what counts.

    Parent
    No, I don't think the public sees this (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 09:36:08 PM EST
    the way you think. And there is a lot of media around to help them see the total picture.

    Parent
    Like I said (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 09:49:29 PM EST
    I strongly encourage Wilson to double down.

    Parent
    Instead of Sideshow Bob (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 09:55:13 PM EST
    South Carolina has Sideshow Joe. Apparently he was overcome by the spirit and couldn't control his sponteniety.

    Parent
    I hate to break this to you (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 09:59:35 PM EST
    The majority of the public conssidered Bush to have honesty issues. That kinda stuff happens when it comes to people's attention that you cherry picked intel or outed a CIA or played politics with the AG's office.

    I don't think your side has quite enough evidence to make the case that Obama, the President, is a liar.

    I say this as someone who has no great love for the guy by the way.

    Parent

    Time is on our side (2.00 / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:20:23 PM EST
    whatever "our" side is... You may note that I didn't approve of Wilson's actions, just noted that they are not unique.

    And yes, I'd like to see him double down, make a big show of it, present the facts and maybe, just maybe, people will see that Obama is no different than any other politician. Based on his approval rating trend line I think that is well underway.

    BTW - DO you have any proof of your claims that he cherry picked??

    And why do you talk about the AG's as if a Democrat never fired all of them when he took office?? Do you not remember Clinton???

    I confess that I have grown grouchy over politics as usual, and speaking as someone whose household medical bills with Medicare and Supplemental insurance is around $15000 this year (and last) watching the "dance of the usual" has become sickening.

    Parent

    Meh (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:29:55 PM EST
    I'm betting time ain't on either party's side. The number of Independants are growing and people are getting downright tired of the BS from both sides of the aisle. I suspect kabuki theater is eventually going to experience a shutdown. I'm just hoping it is before there is bloodshed caused by either sides inflammatory rhethoric.

    Parent
    we aint too far apart (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:45:08 PM EST
    All of it (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by weltec2 on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:59:36 PM EST
    on Fox News.

    Parent
    Me Too (none / 0) (#13)
    by daring grace on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 08:53:31 PM EST
    I've got my checkbook open.

    Or maybe he's got a Paypal account...

    Parent

    Nothing in any bill, really? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Radix on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 01:40:54 AM EST
    Section 246 of H.R. 3200 states "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."  

    Parent
    The administration has (2.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 04:45:55 AM EST
    conceded the point. See above.

    Parent
    Doesn't expain the language (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Radix on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 07:27:03 PM EST
    from bill that I posted. So in fact there was language already in the bill that prohibited people, in this country illegally, from receiving benefit from this legislation.

    Parent
    My bad, sorry. :) (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by Radix on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 07:36:21 PM EST
    We wanted to see the movie '9' (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:12:31 PM EST
    tonight but it isn't playing any place in Enterprise.  We went to dinner though as a family.  Spending as much family time as we can for the next few days.  It did bum me out that there was a lot of coverage today of waning support for the Afghanistan mission.  I'm concerned because we can't do this in half measures.  We had no business in Iraq and we didn't put the boots on the ground to even do it if we did have business there.  We have business Afghanistan and we can't do it by giving it half measures.  Send all the soldiers they need now or bring all the soldiers home now.  Anything less is only going to get a greater number of people killed all the way around.

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:33:48 PM EST
    half measures were all we could really afford. From a respource standpoint(money and people leastways) Afghanistan was a bad idea. Particularly when you look at the history of that region. This would have been different had we done this during a time of economic prosperity(back before Dubya passed tax cut after tax cut) but as it stands we can't even afford to fix our own country, let alone someone elses.

    Parent
    Necessary (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 11:39:12 PM EST
    IMHO, after 9/11.  Once they let bin Laden and his buddies get away at Tora Bora, though, there was no more point.

    But as far as I'm concerned, deciding to go after the Afghanistan regime that had harbored bin Laden was one of the very few things Bush did absolutely right.

    Parent

    You can't go back (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:08:46 AM EST
    the idea that because Bush screwed up our chance at Afghanistan that we could go back and fix the mistakes is the same wrongheaded thinking I suspect that got us into Iraq(many people believed we should have finished Saddam during the Gulf War). Time does not exist in a vacumn.

    Furthermore, cutting taxes while expecting to fund the military on two fronts- monumentally dumb decision.

    Parent

    a regime didn't harbor AQ (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dadler on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 08:54:27 AM EST
    maybe a few thousand people helped protect a few AQ idiots.  huge difference when you're talking about a invading an entire country with the rock solid history being a superpower graveyard.  for some things in life there are NO answers, ever, or solutions, that is what makes life hard to live.  we would have been better off simply responding with massive, unrivaled acts of generosity toward the place, instead we chose mass murder and pathological stupidity.  

    Parent
    Er, no (none / 0) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 11:26:02 AM EST
    The Taliban, which was firmly and totally in control of most of Afghanistan and all of its government explicitly and as a matter of policy harbored bin Laden and al Qaeda and refused to give him up either before or after 9/11.

    Parent
    Our whole entire foreign policy is (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 05:28:04 PM EST
    FUBAR. The country went back and forth over whether the  Taliban was an actual legitimate government. We paid them off while condemning the fact they were indeed an unelected representative government. That being said, at least in Afghanistan there was a consensus among the international community that something should be done about their refusal to hand over a person who took thousands of lives, unlike with Iraq.

    Parent
    gryfalcon happens to (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 10:03:43 PM EST
    be correct.

    Parent
    Not quite entirely (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 11:00:52 PM EST
    They offered to give him up, just not to us. Which doesn't negate the fact that we routinely paid them to decimate poppy fields. I'll say it again, our foreign policy is fubar. We are often willing to get in bed with really bad people/groups of people and then act like we are completely and thoroughly shocked when their behavior is abyssmal. Case in point, Saddam Hussien, who was our friend when he was willing to assasinate Iranians for us, and then we acted like it was some shock that he'd assasinate dissidents in his own country. Uh, Duh.

    The only thing to our credit on Afghanistan was the fact that the international community agreed that the Taliban crossed a line which was promptly squandered by an ADD President who couldn't wait more than 2 weeks to gather intelligence, actually make a plan that dealt with borders in a somewhat hostile region, and trusted a guy who had ties with a region not known for acting in our interests(among other errors in judgement regarding Iraq).

    Parent

    As Richard Clarke told us (2.00 / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 08:36:32 AM EST
    Clinton waited two years... and we got 9/11.

    You can always find an excuse to do nothing.

    Parent

    Your source doesn't seem to be aware (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:02:41 PM EST
    of what Clarke said before he wrote a book and became a darling of the Left. Rather depend on people telling us what Clarke said let's read what he actually said.

    WASHINGTON --  The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

    <snip>

    (Clarke)Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

    As I wrote, Clinton dithered for two years. Clarke nailed it in the interview which you seem to never have read, although I have posted it several times.

    Now, what else did Clarke tell us Bush did immediately?

    (Clarke)And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

    And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda

    To summarize:

    JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

    CLARKE: All of that's correct.

    ANGLE: OK.

    Link to Clarke Interview transcript

    Parent

    DA, please stop with the personal insults (2.00 / 0) (#122)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 01:02:53 PM EST
    I don't want to have to close the thread, but I will.

    Parent
    shhhhh (2.00 / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 11:54:07 AM EST
    Don't start bringing facts into this.

    Parent
    Facts (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 11:03:16 PM EST
    The fact was Saddam Hussein and AlQueda weren't friends. Saddam Hussein, despite being a major control freak and an @sshat was largely SECULAR, not a radical islamic.

    Translation: George W Bush took his eye off the ball if indeed your argument is that we are waging a war against "radical" Islam(and all the people who aren't radical just appear to be getting in our way).

    Parent

    No, they were friends (2.00 / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 08:30:20 AM EST
    Neither were we with the Soviets in WWII or OBL's minions when we used them to bleed the Soviets.

    As Fitzgerald told the 9/11 Commission, it was an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of thing.

    Geopolitics make strange bedfellows.

    Parent

    You should read (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:48:35 AM EST
    the words:

    FITZGERALD: And the question of relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda is an interesting one. I don't have information post-2001 when I got involved in a trial, and I don't have information post-September 11th. I can tell you what led to that inclusion in that sealed indictment in May and then when we superseded, which meant we broadened the charges in the Fall, we dropped that language.

    And then:

    We did understand from people, including al-Fadl -- and my recollection is that he would have described this most likely in public at the trial that we had, but I can't tell you that for sure; that was a few years ago -- that at a certain point they decided that they wouldn't work against each other and that we believed a fellow in al Qaeda named Mondu Saleem (ph), Abu Harzai (ph) the Iraqi, tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn't work against each other. Sort of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    Link

    Quite simply you seek to find no fault with Saddam because you hate Bush. It is the same reason that many on the Left tolerate the honor killings, gay hangings and other evil things practiced by some, not all, Muslims. They see a hatred they share. A hatred of Bush. A hatred of some of the culture, not all but some, of the culture of the West. It is "an enemy of my enemy is my friend."


    Parent

    Perhas you did not read (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 01:21:24 PM EST
    Quite simply you seek to find no fault with Saddam because you hate Bush. It is the same reason that many on the Left tolerate the honor killings, gay hangings and other evil things practiced by some, not all, Muslims. They see a hatred they share. A hatred of Bush. A hatred of some of the culture, not all but some, of the culture of the West. It is "an enemy of my enemy is my friend."

    BTW - In case you still don't know, the invasion of Iraq was pre-emptive.

    Parent

    Do you understand that (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 03:43:12 PM EST
    "not all but many" and "many" excludes some?

    And since we did invade and since Saddam was not allowed to get back into the WMD business, which is what Kay said he was trying to do, you have nothing to compare too.

    What would replacing NYC cost?

    Parent

    The economy was in the tank (2.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:49:46 PM EST
    before 9/11 and it just got worse.. The NASDAQ ran off 50% between 3/2000 and 3/01...and I only remember one set of tax cuts..

    Parent
    2001 and then again in 2003 (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 11:01:03 PM EST
    Evidently it wasn't in the tank enough to stop Bush from enacting tax cuts in an extremely partisan manner. He didn't have any illusion of bipartisanship.

    Parent
    Funny thing happened (2.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 04:51:51 AM EST
    ............the economy took off after the tax cuts.
    Of course the cuts had no effect..

    Parent
    Uh, the housing bubble started in 1999... (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:50:42 AM EST
    Published: Thursday, September 30, 1999

    In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

    The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good

    Of course some understood the risk.

    In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

    ''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

    NYTimes Link

    And then Bush tried to fix it and you-know-who stopped it.

    September 11, 2003
    The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

    <snip>

    ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

    Link

    Parent

    The Repubs had a vefry slim majority (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 11:52:54 AM EST
    and at least they tried, as the tried on Social Security reform. Neither worked. The housing bubble burst while the Fed was increasing rates in 2007. They tried to reverse the trend and had stopped the bleeding by March of 2008.

    But oil prices, driven by speculators emboldened by the fact that a Democrat Congress would not allow new drilling in the US, started in April 2008 to drastically bid up prices to a record of around $145 a barrel by mid-July. $4.00 gasoline finished off the economy.

    Nancy Pelosi and Barney should be proud. And you should be proud of them!

    Parent

    The speculators were trading (2.00 / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 10:02:00 PM EST
    on a market of expectations and fear. The fact that there never was a real shortage had nothing to do with anything. They were depending on the Democratic Congressional majority to keep voting down all attempts to open up new oil sources. And the Demos did, three times in April-May if my memory serves.....When Bush finally, and way late in my mind, canceled the EO the speculation bubble was burst but by then it was too late. The economy was destroyed.

    Yet Nancy and Harry did what they wanted to do. They destroyed the economy to elect Obama. The problem now is that they must govern and make things happen.

    That isn't working out to well, eh? Reid looks to be out of a job next year and Obama's numbers are trending down as people realize what he has done.

    Parent

    No link? (2.00 / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 08:18:55 AM EST
    And yes, I do love to make fun if the worst Speaker we have ever had. A SP should be appointed,.

    Parent
    Ignore what? (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 03:39:07 PM EST
    There was no link to ignore...

    BTW - What does "Mandatory Link" mean? Or does that match your statist belief that you are in control?

    And natural a free market blog of unknown qualification would deny that speculation caused the problem. To admit would be counter to their bias.

    There was no glut because demand was matching supply and the price just kept getting bid up and up until the bubble burst.

    Parent

    You know, I agree with you re Afghanistan (2.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:22:28 PM EST
    but do you see the connection between the actions of the Left re Iraq and the lack of support for Afghanistan?

    Parent
    Kinda sorta (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Steve M on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:16:01 AM EST
    do you see the connection between the actions of Bush re Iraq and the lack of support for Afghanistan?

    Parent
    I see the Left's (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 04:50:34 AM EST
    highly visible actions re Iraq telling the Taliban to not give up.

    Parent
    You wanna know why... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Dadler on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:13:40 AM EST
    ...a whole lot of Afghanis of all stripes won't give up against us?  Watch a a documentary like, say, TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE.  Watch it, if you can bring yourself to be disgusted by the "Greatest Nation on Earth" act in a manner befitting the "Dumbest Nation on Earth."  I will, however, be surprised if you do watch it and can manage to comment on it in an objective, self-critical manner.

    Watch the entire film online for free.

    Parent

    Your position hasn't changed, has it? (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 10:00:19 AM EST
    You said it all with your Vietnam comment here about three years ago.

    Parent
    right, and i want my brother to die (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Dadler on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 10:11:37 AM EST
    jim, i offered you a free look at a quite eye-opening documentary.  i asked you to watch it and comment on it.  you respond with a complete non-sequitor.  you wanna reccomend something for me to watch or read, please do, we can trade things and then discuss them.

    as for vietnam, please explain how, 8 years in, with no end in sight, this is not currently a quagmire.

    i'll wait patiently for you to reccommend something for me, while i wait patiently for you to comment on this one little documentary i linked you to.  

    pretty simple, let's see if we can do it.

    peace.

    Parent

    peace? (2.00 / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:09:02 PM EST
    Sorry, but I know your position in advance so I see no reason for us to engage in a "did-did not" discussion.

    And your Vietnam comment was just mirrored re Afghanistan.

    I maintain, as you know, that we are in a culture war with radical Islam as well as a shooting war with radical Muslims. You either win or lose wars.

    The war started years ago but was launched in modern times by Jimmy Carter's failure to support the Shah and the resulting take over of Iran and our decisions to let the radicals have a free run for 22 years.

    Parent

    No Jim I don't (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 07:29:01 AM EST
    I will not ever just jump on the war bandwagon for any war.  I don't expect anyone else to either.  Our nation has been hurt from so much of Bush's mindless war.  We are damaged.  We can't even pull out of Iraq in a direct manner because the damn place is such a mess now. Our military has been damaged but I'm reluctant to type that because who wants to fuel anyone gunning for them right now.  The soldiers that remain in service now though, they are up for this fight or they would not still be in the military.  I don't think Obama is going to do Afghanistan in half measures because he can't deal with pressure and nobody pressures like the Pentagon when they believe they need something from a Lefty President. It just bums me though a little.  My spouse is leaving in days.  It is hard to watch leaders discussing half measures that can only worsen this fight.  I'll get over it though.  Fight this fight or don't fight this fight, those are the working options. Most of the leftwing was clear on Iraq....don't fight this fight.  After we got Saddam we had no military reason to stay, but we stayed.....for oil that would never be and that was never ours.

    Parent
    If I remember correctly you were (2.00 / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:17:12 AM EST
    demonstrating with Sheehan.

    And I am sorry that you don't see the connection between the Left's actions and the Taliban's belief that they can win a political battle inside the US.

    Separations are tough. Having been through them I have empathy for you. I wish you the best and hope your husband comes back safe and sound.

    Parent

    What does demonstrating with Sheehan mean (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:32:38 PM EST
    exactly Jim?  The protest was about "What Noble Cause?"  And the White House threatened to arrest her for making her protest that asked that question.  That was why I went.  All we wanted was an answer to that Bush Bull$hit.  There was Code Pink, Several Vietnam Vet associations, there were so many different factions there and they only had in common "What Noble Cause?"  It was a simple question that the arrogant a$$ couldn't answer because there wasn't one.  He just loved to say it in speeches though, even though it was figment of his own imagination.

    Parent
    Sheehan was anti-war the Iraqi war (2.00 / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:58:13 PM EST
    I say again. Do you not see  the connection between the Left's actions and the Taliban's belief they can win in Afghanistan because the Left will demand withdrawal?

    Parent
    The war in Iraq was idiocy (none / 0) (#110)
    by cawaltz on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:18:33 AM EST
    The fact that Sheehan and Militarytracy protested it makes them intelligent and prescient. You keep acting as if Iraq and Afghanistan are the same. They are not. One leadership was largely secular, the other was/is being run by radicals. One was "preemptive", the other was a direct result of action or inaction by the leadership of the country. One had the consensus of international community, the other was the coalition of the paid off. The only thing they have remotely similar is the region they occupy and the fact that each has somewhat porous borders that can be utilized to the advantage of the people who actually live there, in a region fairly hostile to American culture. The Taliban, not only has the capability of operating in Afghanistan but in Pakistan. Likewise Sunnis get help from Saudis, Shiite from Iran, Kurds have alliances in TurkeyZ(much to Turkey chagrin).

    Oh and by the way the Afghanis would be able to look at history and know they could wait out their opponents. It isn't like it isn't what they did to Russia. The idea of being able to wait someone out isn't a new one. It's actually somewhat what occured HERE when we were fighting the Brits while they were having to split their attention between us and France(which basically one could argue Bush actually repeated by splitting OUR attention between Afghanistan and Iraq)

    By the way you practically need a scorecard to understaqnd the region and you are way oversimplifying it with your belief that the area is monolithic.

    Oh and for the record do you want to guess whose side we were on when the Taliban was fighting Russia? C'mon take a guess. As I said our foreign policy is short sighted

     

    Parent

    There were plenty of Repubs who joined (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:57:19 AM EST
    the fellow travelers about Vietnam so there should be no surprise about Will. Besides, he was being removed from the A List parties and needs to get in the Left's good graces.

    ;-)

    And of course the demonstrations helped al-Qaeda. Or do you opine that if we had pro US military demonstrations in say SA or Iran it would improve the morale of our troops and hurt the morale of the radicals??

    Parent

    hehehe that's (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 10:03:45 AM EST
    And of course the demonstrations helped al-Qaeda. Or do you opine that if we had pro US military demonstrations in say SA or Iran it would not improve the morale of our troops and hurt the morale of the radicals?

    Parent
    not nearly as much as (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 05:35:53 PM EST
    the war in Iraq helped AQ. Following that little disaster recruiting increased. Isn't it odd how mowing down people's families and blowing up their houses tend to agitate people? The idea you win against radicals by blowing up everything is kind of like operating with a chainsaw.

    Parent
    Fox News 9/11 documentary (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:27:57 PM EST
    tonight is, suprisingly, really superb.  It only falls down towards the very end when there's a bit of fantasy Bush worship.

    But otherwise, it's extremely well done.  No narration, just clips of on-air coverage plus some behind-the-scenes tape, interspersed with after-the-fact interviews with survivors and reporters, plus radio transmission from cops, firefightes and airplane/airline people.  It's not heavily dramatized, just told simply and vividly by the people who experienced it.

    There's a lot of tape I'd never seen before, plus they don't shy away from showing the people jumping from the towers, which I've always felt is essential to telling the story but the other networks have all deep-sixed since a few hours after it happened.

    I find myself always drawn to watch these documentaries-- partly because I missed it completely in real time, didn't find out about it until it was all over and both towers were long down.  But a big part for me is that I still can't really emotionally or intellectually entirely grapple with it.

    Anyway, I expect they'll repeat this a few times over the weekend and I wanted to recommend it.  It's extremely well done.  (No commercials, btw, and very little of the Fox anchors, just the reporters on the scene.)

    Thanks for the recommend... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by otherlisa on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 01:46:43 AM EST
    I'll look for it.

    Parent
    oooh I feel your pain (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by nolo on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 11:03:51 PM EST
    I finished a 22 page dispositive motion brief on a 1983 action at about 7:00 tonight -- had about two days to get my head around it -- and am also fried.  Hope dinner with the TL kid was as beautiful as my night of relaxing with my love and watching Lost . . .

    The supercilious attitude of that link (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 04:58:07 AM EST
    makes me cringe.

    Really, the take home message there is that the Messenger in Chief and his cohort bear no blame for obfuscating the terms of the debate formerly known as health care reform.

    The real problem, all along, has been those "dumb people over 45" who believed "braying Republicans" who said Obama wanted to "execute the elderly". The big speech on Wednesday evidently convinced those "dumb people" that Obama isn't the grim reaper. I guess that would be quite a relief.

    But what about all the presumably smart people, over and/or under 45, who didn't buy the grim reaper bit in the first place. i.e. the well-informed and well-educated readers of Talk Left. Seemed to me that we were all in quite the tizzy - especially AFTER the big speech. So who got it right - we or the 'dummies'?

    Dark Avenger, you totes misunderstood my comment (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 01:55:08 PM EST
    I said most of us here at TL were in "quite the tizzy" after Obama's big speech to Congress. Meaning, there was a prevailing state of agitation and confusion. In other words, the speech had a perturbing effect on a lot of us who are, presumably, 'high-information' voters.

    That response stands in contrast to the response of the folks who are referenced in the TPM link:

    An overnight poll by AARP shows that Obama's speech on health care helped resolve the concerns of many people over 45 dumb enough to believe braying Republicans that the Administration planned on executing the elderly.

    So, TPM is now quite pleased that those allegedly "dumb people" were, evidently, reassured by the speech. That's rather paradoxical isn't it? Considering that a lot of presumably smart people found the speech deeply un-reassuring.

    More to the point, I have a HUGE problem with characterizing frightened and confused voters as "dumb people" - especially when those people are in a highly vulnerable demographic - such as the elderly - which by TPM standards is anybody over 45.

    I'm saying that the TL state of bewilderment isn't somehow superior to other people who were/are also thoroughly bewildered about health insurance reform - which is a matter of life and death, even for PLUS (people like us) who don't believe there will be Obama squad "death panels".

    Parent

    Well yeah, consider my self-evident moniker... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 03:49:24 PM EST
    If I had, as you stated:
    brought back the 10 Commandments from Mt. Sinai

    I would probably be asking, as you stated:

    "I know that's what God wrote, but what did He mean?"

    In fact I would be asking, "WTF did He mean?". Are you suggesting that Obama's health insurance reform plan is as 'clear' as the bible?

    BTW, I've absolutely intended no offense to you here in my comments. So, I trust you aren't getting personal with me on the god thing. Peace.

    Parent

    You didn't know that the moniker (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 04:44:39 PM EST
    "Foxhole Atheist" means I'm an atheist? If that's not clear to you, how can you fault some poor folks for being muddled about the health insurance reform 'debate'. I kid, I kid.

    Without any disharmonious intent, I have to say I disagree with your seemingly dismissive assessment that:

    Talk Left is beginning to be like the old joke if you put 3(ethnic/religious group of your choice) in a room alone, 4 arguments immediately break out.

    I don't think TL looks like a "joke" of any age, let alone an "old" joke. Meaning a joke over the age of 45, if we're defining old in accordance with the definition currently used by the man formerly known as WKJM. Henceforth, TMFKAWKJM. Now, on to the Catskills - speaking of old - OY.
     

    Parent

    C'mon I was joking about your joke - seriously! (none / 0) (#101)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 08:48:26 PM EST
    By way of closure: the issue remains that Josh Marshall jumped on the bandwagon and bashed "dumb people, over 45" for coming to negative conclusions about Obama's health insurance reform plan.

    I think Marshall made an error in judgment by going that route and you have argued otherwise. That being said, let's keep our sense of humor and just agree to disagree on this particular subject. Peace.

    Parent

    So be it :-) (none / 0) (#104)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:33:48 PM EST
    Just for fun (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jbindc on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:21:42 AM EST
    Remember the Obama's date night to NY back in May?  The costs are in (well, not all the costs, as the DoD and the Air Force haven't replied to requests for information on transportation costs), and they total $11,648.17.
     in extra Secret Service costs.

    Trivial (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Steve M on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 10:56:45 AM EST
    as I assumed when I declined to care at the time.

    Parent
    Trivial, Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 11:47:50 AM EST
    I'm surprised that kind of protection etc. doesn't cost more, frankly.

    Parent
    One man's trivial (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 11:56:46 AM EST
    is another man's issue.

    Parent
    Perception, perception, perception... (none / 0) (#87)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 03:05:23 PM EST
    Nancy Reagan (that rail-thin clothes horse), wore a cloth coat - a red CLOTH COAT I tell you - to Reagan's 1981 Swearing In Ceremony - in January - in DC. There's wasn't even a speck of fur trim on that coat.

    It was a very big deal at the time, all the papers said so. Why? Mrs. Reagan was 'showing respect' for the dire state of the 'Carter economy' - it scored countless political points. There was a second term - not  attributable to the cloth coat, mind you. More so to a million other trivial, symbolic gestures that had a cumulative effect on public perception. (Never mind that Nance subsequently spent millions on designer duds.)

    BTW, Rove advised GW Bush to emulate Reagan's image to the T. Ergo, two-termer W put on the hat, purchased a ranch during the 2000 campaign, talked real folksy, and made a bit to-do about clearing brush for the next 8 years.

    No, the Obama's shouldn't buy a ranch. But Obama runs the risk of selling the farm if he continues to pay respect to Reagan's policies while emulating Kennedy's Camelot style. Imo, that is a losing combination in these hard times.

    Parent

    Okay, I'll Play (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 04:54:43 PM EST
    There are some people around TL who don't like Obama or anyone or anything connected to him.

    That's cool.

    Their posts are usually pretty predictable contemptuous slams, often credible criticisms but also fairly frequently nonsense like this one.

    Why do I call it nonsense as a criticism?

    Because as someone pointed out above huge travel and security expenses (official and otherwise) become part of the price that taxpayers pay when we elect a president. It's a given.

    If Obama doesn't manage to turn the economy around enough by next year's midterms, this $11K price tag is not going to be the thing that hangs him. And staying close to home in a flamboyant display of Dickensian frugality won't matter to voters either.

     If most voters feel the country is on track by then, nobody but Joe and Josie the plumbers are going to recall this, let alone care about it.

    It's a non-issue even now to most people except the ones at Judicial Watch  

    It's funny. The last time I recall hearing about them myself was when they sued to keep SoS Clinton from assuming her cabinet seat:

    Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State

    Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)). The lawsuit maintains that Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States.

    JW is, if nothing else, consistent in the nonsensical sources of their outrage.

    Parent

    That's cool, I don't mind if you disagree (none / 0) (#103)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:31:40 PM EST
    with this:
    Obama runs the risk of giving away the farm if he continues to pay respect to Reagan's policies while emulating Kennedy's Camelot style. Imo, that is a losing combination in these hard times.

    The whole Obama date thing is BEYOND tee-dee-ous. It's the bigger picture that gives some people pause.

    Parent

    Also Cool (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:03:46 AM EST
    As I wrote, there are plenty of substantive reasons, 'big picture' as well as minute detailed policy concerns to question and criticize Obama.

    I share some of them myself and had concerns/criticisms about him even as I supported him in the primaries and before he was elected.

    It's this outrage expressed over relatively small expenditures while there ARE so many more important issues to address that makes me snort, because it's the trivial effluvia of who-cares.

    Parent

    I don't care (2.00 / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 03:54:05 PM EST
    if Obama spends a million or so to take his wife on a date.. But some people do. Especially people who can't buy food for their family.

    After all, he promised change. Not "Lifestyle's of the Rich and Famous."

    And yes. I do not like him.

    Parent

    If I Couldn't Buy Food For My Family (none / 0) (#129)
    by daring grace on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 06:46:13 PM EST
    today I might be paying attention to details like the 11K price tag for security for the Obamas' 'date night'. And minding it.

    But to tell you the truth, I'd be cursing out the years of profligate Republican rule that brought our economy to its knees even more.

    THAT would be more directly responsible for taking the food from my family's table.

    Parent

    Then you should remember (1.00 / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 09:22:48 PM EST
    that when the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress oil was around $55, unemployment was under 5% and the DJIA around 13500 and going up...

    By the middle of July 2008,  a short 17 months later, oil was $145, gasoline was $4.00 a gallon, unemployment was 6% and going up and the Dow was falling faster than anyone thought possible...

    So if Obama can just get us back to some of that bad bad bad old Repub economy he will a hero.

    So far it looks like his ability to do that is slim and none.

    Parent

    Here's a good word for it: Poutrage. (none / 0) (#131)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:18:56 PM EST
    Defined as a combination of pouting and faux outrage over minutiae/trivia - usually with the intent of diverting attention away from more substantive issues.

    FWIW: from my perspective, regarding the Obama Camelot/Kennedy trope...I just lost interest. So, no argument here.

    Parent

    I would call that stepping in doggy-doo... (none / 0) (#135)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 09:51:39 PM EST
    Make that "giving away the farm"... (none / 0) (#88)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 03:07:55 PM EST
    Shhhhhhh (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:52:29 AM EST
    Kings and Queens do as they please.

    Parent
    Kings and Queens do as they please (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 11:55:14 AM EST
    Hm, (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 07:55:32 PM EST
    my work has been kind of light today. Hopefully, I wont be bogged down with work this weekend like i was last.

    I will be, same as last (none / 0) (#4)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 08:08:56 PM EST
    Got an email last night . . .

    Which reminds me, I need to do some serious downloading, lol!~

    Thankfully, tomorrow morning is my weekly CSA PU and it's chicken PU day ta boot. My chicken raiser also has necks and organs for me (um, my pets!). We're also getting the last of the peaches and 2 types of apples.  I'll be able to fit some kitchen time in to break up the work BS. Should be a good sports weekend also between baseball and football. Work will be key to get done, but at least I can take some breaks that will keep me in the happy zone and I have sports to fill out the background :)

    Parent

    Nope... (none / 0) (#5)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 08:12:46 PM EST
    ...no way I'm going to fall for that old "it's going to rain" ploy again!  You're just trying to get me all excited and then dash my hopes again.

    Fool me once, red sky at night and all that.

    Late tonight or tomorrow I might be more gullible.

    Jeter just broke Lou's record (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 08:25:33 PM EST
    most ever hits for a Yankee!!!

    And the Dot could care less, lol!~ She's sleeping on me and snoring . . .  even through my cheers!!!

    I'm with Dot. :) (none / 0) (#9)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 08:33:06 PM EST
    Yanquees?  Snore... A real pennant race, now that's excitement!

    I am waiting o the edge of my seat for BTD's fearless college football predictions tomorrow though...

    Parent

    Big deal here ;) (none / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 08:49:05 PM EST
    I have been watching him since Yankee day one. One of the things I like about the Yanks is their history and history in the making.

    So the Rockies are watching the Giants? Do I have that right? Haven't been following the NL as much. Mets and all . . .

    I never got into college football as much. My college team was the 49ers, lol!~ That's what happens when you go to art school in SF  ;) Yes, we were those crazy kids in the parking lot splatter painting a banner for the game  . . .  Our "team" started winning Super Bowls while I was in college!

    Parent

    4.5 games up on the Giants... (none / 0) (#14)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 09:06:07 PM EST
    ...for the wild-card and 2 games behind the Dodgers for the Division lead.  We start a big 9 game West Coast road trip tonight--the Padres, the Giants and the D'backs.  Then a 3 game series in LA to end the season.  It's make or break time!

    Since the Bronco's will pretty much be a college level team this year, it's nice to have something exciting happening here.

    Parent

    You know it is possible (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 09:17:11 PM EST
    that the Rockies could win the division... wouldn't that be something! I'd have to visit friends in Denver!

    Parent
    Ok, that sounds (none / 0) (#18)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 09:24:07 PM EST
    too fun!!! Enjoy it!!!

    Parent
    Any performance (none / 0) (#38)
    by eric on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:03:32 AM EST
    enhancing substances involved?

    Parent
    I should have guessed... (none / 0) (#73)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 11:06:51 AM EST
    ...that he would set the record against my beloved and downtrodden Orioles!

    Parent