Monday Morning Open Thread

Busy day. Open Thread.

< Breaking Bad Finale Update: The Season of Gus Fring | AQAP Confirms al-Awlaki's Death and Issues New Threats >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Let's ship jobs of the future to Korea (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 11:26:10 AM EST
    The Korea FTA is the biggest "free trade" deal since NAFTA. Even government studies show it will increase our trade deficit and it's projected to cost 159,000 U.S. jobs just in its first seven years. Hardest hit would be "jobs of the future" sectors, such as solar, high-speed trains and computer-related manufacturing. Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world for trade unionists; since President George W. Bush signed this deal in 2007, the number of unionists assassinated has risen to 51 last year - more than the rest of thee world combined. Violence against and forced displacements of Afro-Colombians has intensified since the FTA was signed and Afro-Colombian communities have led the opposition to the pact in Colombia. And Panama, with a history of failing to protect workers' rights, is known as a tax haven for money launderers and tax dodgers. The deal with Panama would eliminate the tools we now have to try to collect the desperately needed revenue U.S. tax-dodgers now hide in Panama.

    Obama did not follow through on his promise to insist on passage of Trade Assistance Agreements (TAAs) to aid displaced workers before submitting the deals to Congress. Therefore, the rule that passed the House will have them voting on the TAAs only after votes have been taken on the Columbia, Korea and Panama deals. So the White House gave up any leverage it had with the GOP to get them passed. link

    "Free Trade"... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 11:39:56 AM EST
    like anarchy, requires a world much closer to perfection than the one we live in.

    I rocked my own sign on Saturday MO...

    "I'm a capitalist in search of a free market and equality under the law."  

    Thought I'd do my small part to refute the mainstream media memo that all the protestors are Marxists.


    Very good sign (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 12:15:53 PM EST
    Mine would be to the effect of "I'm not jealous of you - I just don't want you to rob me'.

    Nice... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:20:19 PM EST
    just thought up another...

    "Hey Herman Cain, I'm blaming myself for not participating in my democracy sooner. Won't make that mistake again!"


    Good one. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:08:41 PM EST
    I also like the sign that said...

    "Lost my job. Found an Occupation"


    Very good... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:21:46 PM EST
    the 1% may be more creative when it comes to financial schemes and frauds, but we've got 'em beat cold in craetivity with the written word.

    Also (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:23:54 PM EST
    they'll be up panic creek if people just stop using their banks.

    Critical component... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:31:55 PM EST
    to this movement, absolutely.

    Fairness, a conscience, greater good...these concepts are a foreign language to banksters and grifters, the only language they speak is money.  So if we are to succeed we must speak with our money as well as our hearts and our minds.

    No checking, no savings, no swiping, no gambling on retirement with a 401k...money talks, bullsh*t walks.

    A national strike wouldn't hurt either.  


    Those Greeks (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:41:33 PM EST
    have provided the world with philosophical inspiration and clear reasoning for eons: General strike brings Greece to a standstill as public sector closes down

    And Paul Krugman writes yesterday on the Panic of the Plutocrats

    Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees -- basically, they're still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.

    This special treatment can't bear close scrutiny -- and therefore, as they see it, there must be no close scrutiny. Anyone who points out the obvious, no matter how calmly and moderately, must be demonized and driven from the stage. In fact, the more reasonable and moderate a critic sounds, the more urgently he or she must be demonized, hence the frantic sliming of Elizabeth Warren.


    So who's really being un-American here? Not the protesters, who are simply trying to get their voices heard. No, the real extremists here are America's oligarchs, who want to suppress any criticism of the sources of their wealth.

    Credit unions rule! (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 12:36:02 AM EST
    I'm in the process of switching over to one now-- free checking, no fees, treatment like a human being and not a dollar bill, etc.

    I belong to one only because my (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 04:08:16 AM EST
    husband did when we married.  I used to bank at the same bank that my grandparents always did.  Sort of a habit, it was familiar and I suppose comforted me in some way.  But it was bought and sold into the big guys while I was still banking with them, and it actually became painful to be their customer.  For some reason I chose the safety in building familiarity rather than take my business to a credit union.  One was pointed out to me that was available to me, but the building was modest...not sexy in any way.  So I stayed stupidly in pain.

    I look back now and wonder why?  Why was I such a glutton for punishment?  Everybody in the military uses credit unions, they are the only banking establishments on post.  So it was in the normal course of events that I came to be the customer of one, but it was such a relief too and it remains so.


    Love it (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:27:29 PM EST
    Great sign, Kdog! (none / 0) (#141)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 12:34:31 AM EST
    SSDD (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:24:49 PM EST
    And when we vote we will choose between pathetic and insane.

    red state vs blue state (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CST on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 12:48:25 PM EST
    link 1

    "In Republican debates, former Governor Mitt Romney has taken to comparing his dismal task in governing Massachusetts with the advantages that Rick Perry had governing the "terrific state'' of Texas."

    Link 2

    "What does it say that most of the 10 poorest states are Republican?"

    Republican are against "Class Warfare" (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:39:26 PM EST
    except when they embrace it.

    Rick Perry's newest web video is a slick, dramatic attack on Mitt Romney's health care record, but the jab that stands out is aimed at Romney's personal wealth.

    "Even the richest man can't buy back his past," the video says.

    Perry has talked extensively about his humble upbringing in Paint Creek, Texas, which contrasts with Romney's privileged background. link

    Re link 2 (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:38:10 PM EST
    I can tell you why that is. It's because the south is trickle down plantation apostles when it comes to economics.

    yea (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:51:03 PM EST
    I like that he asks the question but doesn't attempt to answer it.  Seems fairly straight forward to me.  Poor economic policy creates poor people.

    Re link 1 - Apparently the Boston globe is now making people "subscribe" to read the online version. You can sign up for free, I haven't paid anything, but maybe I should rethink linking to them since people can't read it easily.

    It's basically a chart showing a comparison of economic indicators in Texas and MA.  I bet you can guess which state is doing better.


    Can you also guess (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:57:03 PM EST
    which state has more agriculture and more illegal immigrants working at very low wages so you and MA residents can have those cheap veggies and fruits?

    The other thing is that I pay the same attention of Cafferty as I do Hannity. Same songs, different slants. Only thing is that Hannity has a bigger audience.


    California? (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:08:24 PM EST
    not sure what your point is.

    Pay people better wages and we'll pay more for our food.

    And if we can't, we will fight for higher wages - and most likely win.


    Where did the stats come from? (none / 0) (#145)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 12:55:04 AM EST
    Just curious because my state, VT, depends pretty heavily on those incredibly hard-working Mexican guys, most of them illegal, to keep our dairy farms going, given the impossible price competition from the Midwest factory-farmed milk.

    Don't know what the solution to this is, frankly.  All I know is they work their butts off and keep an awful lot of our remaining small farms from going under.


    sorry (none / 0) (#43)
    by CST on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:58:13 PM EST
    not just economic indicators.

    It's not the Globe, though (none / 0) (#144)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 12:51:44 AM EST
    It's "Boston.com," which only has some of the Globe's content, so I'm told.

    I moved out of state a few years ago and only read the Globe on-line to keep in touch, so paying for a full on-line subscription ain't on.  You can't tell from the daily email I get from the Globe which of the articles are available for free on Boston.com, so I'm probably just going to unsubscribe.



    Link 1

    What does it say that most (8) of the 10 states in the worst financial condition are blue, and the 5 worst are the bluest of the blue (Illinois, New York, Connecticut, California and New Jersey)?


    bluest of the blue? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CST on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:00:58 PM EST
    I beg to differ.

    I guess it also depends on your definition of "worst financial condition".

    Personally, I would put # of people living in poverty, # of people without healthcare, and # of people who don't have access to basic services above "debt rating" when describing a worse financial condition.


    As I said, we could do this all day... (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:25:44 PM EST
    ...but I don't think either of us really wants to waste the time.

    we can do this all day (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:31:51 PM EST
    But the results don't change.  It's only the priorities that do.

    Not really sure what your comment means... (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:37:14 PM EST
    I mean that (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by CST on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:55:04 PM EST
    things aren't equal.

    You aren't refuting the data, you are refuting the definiton of "better/worse" based on a different set of priorities.

    For example, if I say "dolphins are better swimmers than monkeys" and you say "yea, but monkeys can eat bananas" - you aren't refuting my statement about dolphins as much as saying you think it's more important to eat bananas than it is to swim fast.


    Well, actually, (none / 0) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:04:13 PM EST
    my point was a little broader than that. My point was that you can post links all day that "prove" that dolphins > monkeys, and I can post links all day that "prove" the opposite.

    Why bother?


    I bother (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by CST on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:14:04 PM EST
    because I think most people agree that swimming>bananas.

    And you can "prove" that monkeys can eat bananas better than dolphins all day long, but that's not going to change the end result.


    after eating them. Don't you listen to your mother?

    I thought about (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CST on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:24:29 PM EST
    adding a "disclosure"

    I love bananas, monkeys are cool too, dolphins seem nice, kind of ambivalent about swimming

    no animals or bananas were harmed during the writing of these posts

    But if we're talking about politics, yes, I listen to my mother.  That's where I first learned that dolphins>monkeys.  And that I really need to be more vigilant about wearing sunblock.


    Only if by "worst financial condition" (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:34:25 PM EST
    ... you're talking about state budget deficits over the past couple of years - since the recession began.  Those 8 states were hit the hardest by the recession because they are also some of the highest income states - therefore they also suffered some of the largest declines in tax revenue.  Of course, if you look at more than the past 3 years, they weren't in the "worst financial condition".  Not to mention the fact that these states have much better public services, education systems, jobs, etc.

    Yep, we could do this all day (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    both my links and CST's.

    Knowing you, I'm sure you'll respond with what you'll consider the conclusive witty zinger that you feel proves that blue > red.

    Have at it. I've been through this enough times, both blue > red and red > blue, that the uselessness of it makes it of no interest to me any more...


    All depends on your priorities (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 08:52:01 PM EST
    Personally, I'd take the short-term, budget deficits in exchange for good schools, better jobs, better educated workforce, better public services any day of the week.

    Really? And so you (none / 0) (#147)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:00:54 AM EST
    posted about it therefore why?

    Uh, maybe that those states (none / 0) (#146)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 12:59:48 AM EST
    have some of the highest-income people who get that income in the stock market and took a (very temporary) big hit in the crash?  We had the same thing in my state (VT), and the rapidity with which the incomes of those high-wealth individuals bounced back after the crash is absolutely breath-taking.

    Is there SOME possibility (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 04:00:24 PM EST
    that anytime soon I can turn the news on and the flavor of the day WON'T be seeking ways to delegitimize OWS?

    No. n/t (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by caseyOR on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 04:08:27 PM EST
    Can't you ask us a hard question? (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 08:07:13 PM EST
    They can't admit they have been ignoring the (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 08:09:13 PM EST
    biggest story of the last 10 years- the systematic fleecing of the American public. Look over there - a terrorist!

    Or a socialist! (none / 0) (#150)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:26:14 AM EST
    Hank Williams Jr (none / 0) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 11:31:24 AM EST
    I can't believe they fired Hank.  To me the real dig of all of this was on Boehner for golfing with 'Hitler'.

    They had to do something, and a week seemed to be enough to make a point.  But to can him, to me it seems like they were waiting for a reason.  Clearly Hank has some issues and I suspect those 'socialist commie clowns' at ESPN had enough.

    That being said, is there a republican alive who understands the First Amendment.  Idiot and idiot keeps claiming they violated Hank's FA rights.

    And the best news of all, we wrote a song to be out this week about Fox & Friends gotcha journalism.

    To be the right of Fox must require a total reality detachment, which judging from the clip, pretty much describes HW Jr.

    You'd think... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 11:44:14 AM EST
    those screaming "first amendment" would bow down before their corporate overlords...no such thing as free speech in a corporation, and I thought Repubs adored their corporations?

    Yes - a corporation itself has (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 12:11:30 PM EST
    free speech - being a person and all - but they don't have to guarantee it to their employees.

    Russ Feingold intervies on OWS (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:11:12 PM EST
    heh (none / 0) (#6)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 11:54:02 AM EST
    NY State Senators Say We've Got Too Much Free Speech; Introduce Bill To Fix That

    Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege -- a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.

    Wow. I had no idea anyone would ever (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 12:10:08 PM EST
    propose such a thing. We really are in seriously bad shape in this country.

    I Would Put that in the GrandStanding file (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:08:59 PM EST
    If they start modifying freedom of speech, the first ones locked up will be politicians in campaign mode.

    The second, all the Grandstanding members of Congress on the Senate/House floor.


    And "Government" pulls neck and neck... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 12:01:19 PM EST
    with "Corporation" in the Grade I Crooked Tyrannical Stakes!

    Hey now, corporations are people too :) (none / 0) (#11)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 12:12:39 PM EST
    How was the OWS? I saw your post about your sign.

    It's beautiful baby... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:08:28 PM EST
    just beautiful...akin to a spiritual experience.

    I'm a natural loner of sorts, I've never felt such comraderie and fellowship with my fellow humans as I have in my two visits with OWS.  I look forward to many more visits...there is hope for this joint yet.  I am literally high on hope.

    I urge everyone to get a first hand take with their nearest installment, don't listen to or watch the news, the media don't have a clue.


    Yes, seems to me they were waring for a reason (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 12:08:23 PM EST
    too. I think his schtick was just getting old. Was for me anyway (after the first two weeks). I was surprised ESPN ever made it a "permanent" fixture to begin with.

    and yes - it is a given that Obama is Hitler! To critique Boehner however - going too far for Fox and Friends! I don't think Williams is to their right, just does not have their practices knowledge of where the line is drawn of what you can get away with on the air.


    heh (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 12:32:26 PM EST
    Hate to be a purist but Fox and Friends didn't fire Hank. ESPN did.

    Of course the following wasn't a problem for ESPN. See what Mike Tyson said about Palin.

    ESPN allows Mike Tyson to describe the raping of Sarah Palin"



    Nothing about "rape" in there.. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:58:35 PM EST
    of course, to the average unreconstructecd, yearning-for-antebellum-days Teapartier, it's always rape whenever a black man and a white woman get together..

    was it the Coretta Scott King funeral (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:03:32 PM EST
    Limbaugh was talking about when he said "we have have a bet in the office about how many of the women (at the funeral) are going to get picked up, and how many'll give birth nine months from now.."?

    Can you tell me why (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 07:37:48 PM EST
    you bring up Limbaugh????

    Must you always play the race card.


    I don't know.. (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:44:41 PM EST
    I guess because he's a racist pos pitching to other racist poses -- and because you get more defensive than one of Madaonna's attack dogs whenever anyone criticizes him..

    Not the most elevated of reasons, I'll readily admit..



    I love how it's o.k (none / 0) (#179)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:20:19 PM EST
    to bring Mike Tyson into a conversation about media hypocrisy in tolerating degraded rhetoric, but not Rush Almighty..

    And in case you were wondering, Jim, I could give a sh*t about your mommy-they're-picking-on-me-again claims about "the race card", and who's "stalking" and "shadowing" you..



    Actually (none / 0) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:10:52 PM EST
    Hank claims he quit. So none of this is really an issue at all.

    Soooo true. Kardashians. HWJr., (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:22:25 PM EST
    so many non issues.  

    You can't quit (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:33:10 PM EST
    we fired you!

    The statement from ESPN this morning read: ""We have decided to part ways with Hank Williams, Jr. We appreciate his contributions over the past years. The success of Monday Night Football has always been about the games and that will continue."‬‬



    Part ways (none / 0) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:46:12 PM EST
    is a standard line whereby whatever contract was in place is no longer valid as both sides agree to tear it up (in writing).

    As Hank was a private contractor he can't be fired. He could only be released from a contract should he choose to leave and ESPN agreed. If what you say is true, and Hank wanted to fight ESPN for breaking a contract and be paid for the remainder of the term, he surely could. Or if what Hank said is true, ESPN could fight to force hm to live up to his contractual obligation.

    More likely, as ESPN has stated, they have agreed to part ways. Much ado about nothing and nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment.


    Oh Please (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:51:44 PM EST
    Quit parsing.

    ESPN fired him.

    And the only thing it has to do with freedom of speech is that ESPN disagreed with what he said.

    That's ESPN's right.


    Fired or Quit or Parted Ways (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:03:44 PM EST
    I look forward to the intro by Barry Sanders tonight for the Lions first appearance on MNF in ten years, although I'll probably miss it while watching baseball.

    Usually (none / 0) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:50:21 PM EST
    The talent can't quit because they are obligated to perform, but the their corporate masters always have some sort of conduct clause so they can break the contract if the talent does something detrimental to their brand.

    thanks - I didn't realize that (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:29:01 PM EST
    I thought fox did too.

    Sigh (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:26:21 PM EST
    The point was not just what Tyson said.

    But that ESPN didn't shut it down in mid sentence and, since they did not, suspend or fire the people responsible for letting him ramble on.

    But nice try at reframing.

    And when you hire Limbaugh you have to know that you are hiring politics.

    So why think he will change?


    And..... (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:28:55 PM EST
    Williams's contract with ESPN was terminated because people don't tune in to ESPN to get caught up in political gossip, they go there for sports. It's a refuge, as it were.

    Uh, the comments were made on FNC. And all Williams did was sing the intro on MNF.


    And...... (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:30:30 PM EST
    WARNING: Vicious Stereotyping Ahead! -- someone whose family probably has more broken appliances littering their front yard, than there are ones working inside the house, or whose brother-in-law is also his uncle. I just consider the source, roll my eyes and move on.

    No surprise. It's what you do.


    Actually I think it is people (2.00 / 2) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:17:32 PM EST
    like you who seem to think they have God's own truth and just love to be at their nasty best that display their true ignorance.

    Again you enter a discussion, add nothing to the subject under discussion and immediately demonstrate your need to puff up your imagined macho self worth by making nasty comments.

    I wonder what type of personal life you have. Do you act in the real world the way you act in the cyber world?

    Do you walk around insulting people from some part of the world you demonstrate you know nothing about?

    I hope not.


    Well, Donald does work (none / 0) (#131)
    by Towanda on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 08:37:36 PM EST
    in politics.

    lol. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 08:54:53 PM EST
    ;-) That's a good'un (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 10:20:22 PM EST
    What Donald Said (none / 0) (#161)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 08:33:09 AM EST
    ... times two.

    I guarantee Mike Tyson is not from Jim's mind, one of his masters, Limbaugh I'm guessing, used it and Jim though it was such a great idea, he brought it here.  And now he can't believe we aren't as gullible as he is and think the comparison is ridiculous.

    I will say this, Jim is in rare form today, must have taken his anti-comatose meds today because lately he's just just been hiding in the bushes.  Today he is full of pisss & vinegar, me thinks Hank hit a little too close to home, in age and general sanity, or rather lack of it.


    I think what I wrote. (none / 0) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 09:07:42 AM EST
    Too bad you can't read.

    Hank had every right to say what he said.

    Limbaugh had every right to say what he said.

    ESPN had the right to fire them.

    You have been around now for about what... 18 months?? And you still haven't figured out I am a social liberal... so as soon as you want to defend something... though heavens knows why you would want to attack me for noting the above and pointing out ESPN is hypocritical for letting Tyson remain on the air.... I do not know.

    So what's your response? That I listen to Limbaugh?

    That is so typical of the Left. Make a claim that someone has read a book or listened to a speech...

    Come on off the reservation Scott. You ain't gonna learn anything new talking to yourselg.


    Mike Tyson? (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:26:32 PM EST
    How on earht is this a Progressive problem?

    It isn't, of course (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by sj on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:42:43 PM EST
    It just the typical chum jim likes to throw out to obscure the complete lack of lucidity in his comments.

    It was a demonstration that on one (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 07:36:44 PM EST
    hand ESPN zaps someone for criticizing the President and the Speaker of the house...

    And ignores someone describing the rape of a well known female Right wing political opponent and ex-candidate for Vice President of the United States.

    It is called "double standard." AKA Hypocritical.

    Try asking for fairness.


    How can you only blame Fox (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 11:48:41 AM EST
    for doing what MSNBC, CNN, et al do. Ask an open ended question and wait for the "guest" to make a dumb statement.

    Did Hank have the right to say what he said? Yes.

    Did ESPN have the right to fire him? Assuming there are no contractual protections for Hank, yes.

    In all such situations do both sides claim the speaker's "free speech" rights have been violated? Yes. (Remember the Dixie Chicks?)

    Do I blame ESPN? Yes. Insulting politicians is a much bigger sport than football and almost always more entertaining than whatever is on MNFB.

    Hank was often more enjoyable than the game and the commentators who have become just paid shills for the NFL.

    Dandy, Howard and Frank! We miss you!


    Yep - he was only being baited (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 12:14:22 PM EST
    if being given air time is called being baited.

    Seriously? (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by sj on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:36:54 PM EST
    You're bringing up the Dixie Chicks?  Oh brother.

    I bring them up only to remind (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:05:42 PM EST
    us all that when ever some entertainer/athlete/actor makes some bone headed statement that's sure to anger people on the other side into demanding they be dismissed.....

    The "Offenders" and those on their side yell "Free Speech."

    Of course Williams had no free speech right to PO his corporate masters and the NFL just as the Dixie Chicks had no free speech right to PO millions of those on the Right.

    Think "Fair for the Goose... fair for the Gander."


    Fair for the goose? (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:17:34 PM EST
    How many death threats has Hank Williams received?

    I think one side is a little more civil than the other regarding free speech.


    Don't know about Hank (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:35:53 PM EST
    But if you are arguing the extremists on the Left haven't launched their fair share....

    Well, pardon the giggle.


    pardon the giggle.."ralliers" (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 04:00:01 PM EST
    On Planet Wingnut, one person becomes "ralliers"..

    Can't even make a legitimate (if repetitive) point, without mixing in a lie or distortion..

    Just like the "rape" of that unsullied, magnolia blossom Sarah.



    Ah, so now you tell us (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:07:59 PM EST
    that rape of Republican women is okay?

    That's what Tyson was describing.

    That's a bit much, don't you think?

    Shame on you for every rape victim in the world.

    And do you tell us there was only one person at the demonstration?

    Really? I think you should look again.

    In the meantime, why don't you Google "Wisconsin teacher death threats?"


    Straw men, much? (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:18:51 PM EST
    Here's a hint: Sarah Palin wasn't raped. (The use of quotes around the word in jondee's comment was your first clue...)

    There was only one person ... (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 09:01:05 PM EST
    ... who made the remarks at the demonstration, and the sponsors of the rally condemned the remarks.  The wingers on the right and Tea Partiers can't condemn their crazies because there wouldn't be enough of them left.

    Really? (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 10:18:10 PM EST

    No more.

    I'm laughing at you so hard my sides hurt.


    The truth makes you laugh? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 08:06:17 AM EST
    How strange ... could be an allergic reaction in your case.

    Better go see the doc.


    ONE person (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:40:49 PM EST
    made the comment that you ascribe (for maximum wingnut propaganda value) to "ralliers", and you obviously need to pick up that big, fat, secular-humanist tome entitled "Dictionary", and look up the definition of the word "rape". As far as I'm able to discern, what Tyson coarsely described was a consentual encounter.

    One person ISNT "ralliers" and a consensual sex act isnt "rape".


    In case you guys haven't read what Tyson said (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 07:29:38 PM EST
    He went from describing a consensual relationship that has been denied.... but let's just focus on Tyson describing a consensual relationship to describing very aggressive violent activities of two different men, neither of which, in Tyson's description, had asked for permission.

    Folks, that's called a description of rape.

    The ESPN person just let it slide. Shame on him.

    And shame on you for not understanding that what Tyson did was describe rape.

    BTW - I left out any reference to sex because rape is not sex.


    What?!? (none / 0) (#136)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 09:10:05 PM EST
    Tyson was talking about "raping" Palin because, in his crude description he didn't specify that the men had 'asked for permission"?!?

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Tyson's comments were crude and vulgar, but he wasn't calling for Palin (or "Republican women") to be "raped".


    Well, well (none / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 10:16:57 PM EST
    I would have never guess that you try and claim what is obvious.

    (That was sarcasm.)

    Tyson never mentions a relationship or that permission should be asked..  He just launches into a vulgar description of a violent attack.

    That's not consensual sex he is speaking about. That's rape. Pure plain and simple rape.

    Why do you try and defend him?? I mean, his rape comments aren't even the issue. The issue is that ESPN let him say what he said.

    Have you no shame??


    I just find it funny ... (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 08:23:38 AM EST
    ... when wingers feel the need to exaggerate and engage in hyperbole rather than the facts ... some do it regularly.

    Tyson's comments, while crude and vulgar, were not describing "rape".  They were discussing Glen Rice's consentual (alleged) sexual encounter with Sarah Palin and Tyson suggested that, while Rice was a nice guy, she should have had sex with someone like Dennis Rodman, because the sex would have been rougher (describing it in detail).  Then Tyson said:

    Most of these girls- most of them in life in general... every white girl, uppity middle class [say] `get me a black man before I get into this white world.


    Now, unless you think Tyson was claiming that white girls want to rape black men, he was talking about consentual sex, not rape.  Unless, of course we use your "logic" and claim that, because he didn't explicitly say these girls would get consent from black men, he was talking about white girls needing to rape black men.  Yeah, I know ...

    ... ridiculous.

    Yet you think that Mike Tyson would talk about raping Sarah Palin on the air and the entire media would miss it, while you caught it.


    Even more ridiculous.

    BTW - Palin never denied the encounter with Rice, as you claimed.  Todd Palin denounced the book in general, but never addressed the Rice encounter.  Unless, of course, ...

    ... you have a link to evidence that says otherwise.


    Nonsense (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 08:54:54 AM EST
    If I suggest that Bob take John's money without mentioning that John agrees to it...

    Then I am describing robbery.

    "She wanted it."

    Is part and parcel of every thing Tyson is saying.

    Why don't you quit defending such heinous acts and remember what it took women so long to pound into the heads of too many men.

    No means no.


    Utter nonsense (none / 0) (#173)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 10:04:32 AM EST
    Tyson was talking about it in the context of consensual sex between Palin and Glen Rice.  He then discussed his theory about many white women wanting to "get me a black man", also without explicitly stating that the black men in question would be consenting to have sex.  Maybe your silly theory is right.  Maybe Tyson actually thinks that middle-class white women are trying to rape black men.  Maybe every news outlet in the world missed Tyson's "rape" comments but you!

    Hey - did you hear about Ashton Kutcher's (alleged) affair with Sara Leal?  Not really my thing, but so many news articles about it, none of which mention her consent.  OMG - it must have been rape!!!

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    I know, I know ...

    ... but you make it so hard to stop laughing ...


    "Sarah Belle your hair (none / 0) (#175)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:34:36 PM EST
    is golden brown, I seen your black man comin' round.."

    I think that pretty well sums up Jim's problem.


    I think what'd (none / 0) (#176)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:39:00 PM EST
    okay and possibly very therapuetic, would be if some Republican women thought about, say, a four-way with Levi Johnson, Mr T., and last year's Belmont Stakes winner.

    But, it'd obviously have to be on a strictly voluntary basis.


    oy (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by sj on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:44:04 PM EST
    Jim prefers to answer his own questions (none / 0) (#140)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 10:36:40 PM EST
    "Did Hank have the right to say what he said?"

    "Did ESPN have the right to fire him?"

    "....do both sides claim......"

     "Do I blame ESPN? "

    "Was Howard and Dandy "fluff?"

    But, he "coaches little league."


    Come on down (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 08:59:49 AM EST
    we need someone to work the concession stand.

    Your snark has become typical of you.

    And Yes, I asked and answered typical questions as a way of making a point and fostering a reasonable debate.

    Too bad you can't join in.


    And some on the Right claim (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:48:41 PM EST
    that the award was a political prize just as Obama's Nobel was political.

    Was the Chick's? Don't know. Don't care.

    Was Obama's? Think so. Don't care.


    Who claims that, Jim? (none / 0) (#115)
    by sj on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:40:13 PM EST
    Unnamed sources are either lazy of mind or completely dishonest no matter who does it.  "Some say" they're fine.  But actually they're sloppy and they let anyone say anything with all sorts of arrogant and foolish self-righteousness.  

    Because, after all, you don't even have to to confirm that "some [say]|[claim]" something or other.  You can just assume it's true.  And it is, because once you've said it, you have created your very own "some [say]|[claim]" territory.  At that point you can cite yourself and have it be true.  The absolute height of self-referential bullsh!t. Or rather its nadir.

    Because mostly "some say" things that let anyone talk out of their a$$.  Speak for yourself or find links to citations with names of real people.  This lazy "some [say]|[claim] on the [left]|[right]" cr@p gets seriously old.  I don't care who does it.


    Jeez (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 07:32:47 PM EST
    Both of these were all over the Internet. What's next? Wanting a link to the sun coming up?

    And disputing a factual comment that shouldn't need further discussion is just a way of reframing.


    Fine (none / 0) (#153)
    by sj on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:12:30 AM EST
    Learn how to link to them.  Link til the sun comes up or down.  I don't care.  Just link.  You never substantiate your claims with any links at all.  Credible or not credible.  You just talk.  Talk talk talk talk talk.  If it's a fact, then prove it.

    Jeez.  How hard is it.  You've learned how to use the other buttons well enough.


    I Googled (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 09:19:21 AM EST
    Obama nobel prize political and got 44,100,000 hits.

    I googled Dixie Chicks prize political and got 668,000 hits.

    And here I was thinking I was have a discourse with informed people.


    668,00 hits?!? wow (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 09:50:53 AM EST
    Sounds impressive.  I also Googled "Dixie Chicks prize political", but the "668,000" results weren't so compelling.  Lots of stuff about their "political" comments, awards they've won, "political" controversy, "political" fallout, etc., but not much support for your claims.  In the first 3 pages of results, the only post claiming their Grammy Prize was a "political" award was from you (on page 3).



    So fine (none / 0) (#178)
    by sj on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:09:46 PM EST
    link to your search.  You just looo-o-o-ve to miss the point.  And then get oh so outraged.  (I can practically see you puffing your cheeks and pulling at your overalls while standing on tip-toe).

    In any case, you're not alone in that, and that day I felt like essentially saying that I see your tactic for the cr@p that it is, and rather than skipping your comments (as I usually do) I'm going to say so.

    I have days like that.


    My point was simple (none / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 10:38:31 PM EST
    Both the Left and the Right go into their "How dare company X do anything to my free speech...."

    When, as I pointed out, the company has that right.

    That you and Yman would try and dispute that is laughable.

    Why, outside of a desire to just be disagreeable, I don't know.

    If you want to debate something, pick a subject that doesn't make you look so inept.


    Not even close, Jim (none / 0) (#182)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 08:18:05 AM EST
    I wasn't arguing that companies can't restrict speech (within lawful limits) of their employees.  Of course they have that right.  I was pointing out that your "evidence" of 668,000 hits when Googling 'Dixie Chicks prize political' isn't really evidence of what you claim it to be.  Heck, you can Google almost any generic terms and get 680,000 hits - particularly with a celebrity - there are over 3 million hits for "Jim flawed logic" alone.

    The fact that you claim I was making an argument I clearly was not making makes you look inept at reading.


    But I do agree in one respect, however (none / 0) (#183)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 08:19:17 AM EST
    Your point was quite simple.

    Your total discourse on (none / 0) (#184)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 08:43:26 AM EST
    this is just meant to try and reframe the argument.

    The question is, what is this sickness that you have??

    Why are you my Shadow??


    "Sickness"??? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 08:46:08 AM EST
    It's called "logic", Jim.

    You should try it.


    I take it back (none / 0) (#154)
    by sj on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:16:35 AM EST
    You did offer a link today.  Of course you picked a youtube video rather than news.  But still. It's a link.  So mea culpa.

    Uh the video (none / 0) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 09:21:51 AM EST
    is of a demonstration in which, among other threats, it is demanded that Clarence Thomas be lynched.

    You may find the demand for the lynching of a SC justice to be a non-event.

    Some of us don't.


    he should be in jail (none / 0) (#174)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:31:27 PM EST
    he and Il Duce Scalia both.

    They degraded what used to be considered a sacred office to the level of a couple of Nixonian dirty tricksters snuck in through the kitchen entrance for the purposes of stealing an election.

    They're both of apiece with the scum that tried to sabotage the '68 Peace Talks, burglarized Watergate, stole Carter's debate notes, cut secret deals with the Iranians, peeked into Clintons underwear etc etc


    I'm so out of it, I never (none / 0) (#143)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 12:43:33 AM EST
    heard of them before the brouhaha, and as a result of the news coverage, I discovered I really, really liked their music a lot.  I agree with you.  Extremely painful for them, but they did come out on the other side with a lot broader fan base, including old farts like me.

    Lucky for me I did not need CW radio to become (none / 0) (#163)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 08:48:14 AM EST
    a big fan of theirs. Happened into free tickets for one of their concerts way before the controversy and got hooked. Bought all the CDs up to that point, and have since.

    BTW last year the sisters recorded a CD under the name Court Yard Hounds, and all of the Dixie Chicks are featured on the new bluegrass CD Steve Martin did with a band called Rare Bird Alert. All good stuff.


    I Didn't Blame Anyone (none / 0) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:40:05 PM EST
    Hank is blaming Fox.

    I could care less, just thought it was over the top, which is somewhat the opposite of what you claim I said.

    But thanks for the totally off topic rant that made no sense.

    Couple of notes.

    • The Dixie Chicks didn't get fired and then claim their employer violated their rights.  Plus they were actually in a different country which means the US Constitution has no bearing.
    • There was a contract and Hank violated the conduct clause.
    • And no offense Jim, but save the Hank is better then football for a non football fan.  I love the game and could do with out all the fluff you like.

    I find that (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:15:04 PM EST
    the game is now covered with Fluff mostly dispensed by people who act like It Is The Most Important Thing In Creation.

    It's a game. If it is fun to watch it is fun to watch. If it is not then things like this:

    That's the first INT Brady has ever thrown in the Red Zone while playing at home.

    Won't help it.

    And yes, the Chicks and their fans of the Left were unhappy with the stations refusing to play their songs.

    And Scott.... It is an open thread.

    Kinda hard to be off topic.


    Speaking for myself only (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 08:38:07 AM EST
    I was not mad about the radio stations refusing to play their songs, if they could have done it without the hateful rhetoric. Stations omit songs all the time, but they don't act like doing so is a patriotic duty.

    i didn't see that from ESPN.


    Yeah, But it is a Football Game (none / 0) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:33:46 PM EST
    You can argue the merits of football, but I am tuning into football, not MTV or the CM station, or whatever the awards for commercials is called.

    No, football fans do not like fluff, the casual watchers love it, along with all the advertising wet dreams who tune into the Super Bowl for the commercials and the half time show.

    I am a fan.  I am also a fan of music, movies, and motorcycles, and like anything but life, it's not 'The Most Important Thing In Creation'.  More of a hobby I guess.

    I would pay a lot of money to watching pure football, no fluff.  I even venture out from time to time to watch the local talent, the Bulldogs.


    We may actually find (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:45:32 PM EST
    some common ground. I find that many fans, football and baseball alike, have never played the game so they have no idea as to what's good and what's bad.

    I prefer coaching Little League to watching baseball.

    I prefer watching my Grandson play both than watching any college or pro baseball or football game.

    Was Howard and Dandy "fluff?" Well, since then what broadcaster has had the nerve to sing, "Turn out the light... the party's over" when it is obvious to the whole world.



    Don Meredith (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:24:12 PM EST
    has quite a tragic side to him....

    Left the Cowboys after the Ice Bowl and two disappointing play off losses after that.....His team, however, became a Super Bowl winner just two years later.....If only he had stayed....

    Tono Romo reminds me of Meredith--same type of personality.....A care free demeanor that belies a competitive spirit.....And never getting there.


    according to some of his teammates (none / 0) (#180)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:48:50 PM EST
    Meredith used to talk the same way in the huddle that he did in the broadcast booth..

    "Daddy and Mommy didn't raise me up from the sandhills of West Texas ta lose in a game like this.."

    One of a kind.


    Read Paul Krugman today (none / 0) (#30)
    by kmblue on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:37:25 PM EST
    he nailed it--can someone pls post linky goodness--
    I always screw it up!

    They had to close comments in about 5 minutes, the reaction was so swift.

    I hope you want a link to (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:47:53 PM EST
    his op-ed Panic of the Plutocrats because that is what I am providing. Teasers:

    It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America's direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.
    The way to understand all of this is to realize that it's part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.  

    If this is not the correct link, you will have to provide me with a headline or another way to identify what you want.


    Here's where I think the message (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:02:02 PM EST
    get's screwed up:

    And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.

    Yes "they" benefit from tax loopholes, but even w/o those loopholes, "they" tax liability is based on a lower rate than those making less.  That's not fair.  


    Shorter Krugman... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 01:57:16 PM EST
    1%ers and their stooges have guilty f*ckin' consciences.

    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:04:20 PM EST
    Shorter Krugman:

    The 1%ers aren't done picking your pocket and want your attention focused elsewhere until they are done.



    Little of both:)... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:09:40 PM EST
    if they didn't know in their heart or hearts that they are in fact rigging the game and robbing people, they wouldn't react with the hysteria and the red scare redux nonsense.

    They know their guilty, so they slander the witnesses and victims.


    I seriously question that they (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:17:41 PM EST
    have a conscience let alone a guilty one.

    From what I have read they feel perfectly justified in using whatever means available to further enrich themselves. If you are not taking advantage of the system (screwing others), you are the stupid one and they are the righteous ones. And of course even those who have inherited their wealth, are rich and successful because of their great wisdom and hard work.    


    That's how they justify it... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:48:30 PM EST
    but one can only delude themselves so much...deep down they know, hence the fear OWS is creating.

    They obviously don't have a social conscience, but a guilty conscience they must....hence the defensiveness.


    If They Had Consciences... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:15:53 PM EST
    ... we wouldn't be here.

    They are defensive because no one, especially crooks, wants attention shone on them.  

    We are messing with their complicated income schemes, if those were to see the light of day they might actually have to.... gasp... work for a living making surf wages like the rest of us.


    Again... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:21:06 PM EST
    social conscience, of course not...as you said we wouldn't be here.

    Guilty conscience?  They must...or else they would be defending their practices instead of sliming the opposition.  They're greedy, not oblivious.


    Or put it this way... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:27:53 PM EST
    they know the gains are ill-gotten, but that's not gonna stop 'em.  Guilty as sin, they know it, but won't repent.

    Nah (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:36:07 PM EST
    a lot of 'em believe they're doing good.

    They're like vicious-means-to-a-beatific-end Bolsheviks.


    Yep. Conscience has nothing to do with it (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:23:47 PM EST
    Getting caught does. Losing the ability to bamboozle does.

    That's why a main point of OWS (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:24:20 PM EST
    is to show them that we know what is going on.

    A fair number of the folks (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:33:15 PM EST
    you're talking about have bought wholeheartedly into the we're-the-job-creators-and-society's-benefactors paradigm.."Capitalism: The Hidden Ideal"..etc

    So thier consciences are as pure and clear as the Himalyan headwaters of the sacred river; it is ye of little faith who have the problem..


    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:41:23 PM EST
    I'm probably projecting.

    Oh no doubt (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:50:13 PM EST
    some of them have rotten consciences..

    Probably nothin' that can't be quelled by a little Peruvian flake, China white, single malt, and a trip to the Emperor's Club though..


    If there is even a grain of truth to the (none / 0) (#94)
    by caseyOR on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:55:35 PM EST
    stories about Wall Street traders and their recreational choices, well, then a whole lot of the U.S. treasury is now invested coke and "gentlemen's entertainment", as it were. Is that rally a wise use of tax dollars?

    Thanks (none / 0) (#157)
    by kmblue on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 06:24:27 AM EST
    MO blue you did it right!

    How to Link (none / 0) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:10:53 PM EST
    Hit link button, paste link.  Hit OK.

    Add text in between the greater/less then symbols.

    (a href="http://www.talkleft.com")TALKLEFT LINK(/a)

    I changed the symbols to parentheses so it would post correctly


    Dadler the freeroll poker savant strikes again (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 02:31:26 PM EST
    In addition to TL gear... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:05:43 PM EST
    may I be so bold as to suggest some 99%er gear?

    The possibilities for catchy slogans are endless...honest gambles on cards v. dishonest gambles on lives and quality of lives.


    Finally got around to reading (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    your article 0 to $10,000 etc. (link in another thread) on your previous poker run.

    Not sure why it took me so long to read one of your articles but I really enjoyed that one. Glad you are sticking with your writing and hopefully, it will soon break for you in the same way as the poker run.  


    Congrats on the tourney (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 04:19:14 PM EST
    I read your article and your 0-$10,000, that was pretty awesome. I've played in Jacksonville before at their poker room, not too shabby. $1000 for expenses should be enough while you are there, just don't go "all in" your first night there, :)

    Hey, Dadler (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    Have you ever thought of or tried expanding your

    $0 to $10,000 Faster Than Jesus (LINK)

    into a screen play or movie - "You vs Jesus" kind of in the same vein as "Julie & Julia.?"

    Lot of scenes in your article are touching and/or funny with just enough vulnerable little guy beating the odds kind of thing to get an audience involved.

    (BTW, if you chose to pursue this and you make scads of money, I will provide you the address where you can send my cut for being your creative director) ;o)  



    Can't believe I'm reading this (none / 0) (#84)
    by brodie on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:35:45 PM EST
    and find the case the two sleuthing authors make to be impressive.  I refer to the recently published book Grey Wolf:  The Escape of Adolf Hitler, by Simon Dunstan and Gerrard Williams.  Well reasoned with US (FBI mostly) docs and elderly surviving eyewitnesses strongly suggesting AH and Eva Braun were spirited out of Germany several days before the Russians arrived at the bunker; two dopplegangers of the pair were brutally used, murdered, to deceive the Allies.

    South America was the carefully prepared destination, Martin Bormann having planned it since 1943 when he realized the Allies would prevail.  Argentina-Patagonia was selected, the site of an already fair sized German immigrant population.

    Gen Eisenhower apparently never bought the official story of suicide in the bunker; neither did Stalin whose soldiers were alleged to have found the Fuehrer's remains.

    Our OSS (Allen Dulles) may have been offered a back channel deal from Bormann prior to the end of the war:  namely advanced weaponry along with several German scientists responsible for same (including Von Braun), millions in gold bullion, and about a thousand years worth of some the most valuable western art looted from museums and private (mostly Jewish) holdings all of which the Nazis were prepared to destroy.  In return the Allies would allow safe escape for AH and Eva along with Bormann and several others.

    Hitler apparently lived until early 1962 according to the authors.

    Intriguing case from the roughly one third of the book I've read so far; substantially documented and footnoted.

    So, it sounds like you think this book (none / 0) (#93)
    by caseyOR on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 03:52:28 PM EST
    is credible and not a well-written conspiracy thriller. Right?

    And if it is true, how is it that the Israelis never figured it out? Because you know they would have blanketed S. America with every Mossad agent they had if they thought Hitler was alive and well and living in Patagonia.

    I'm not saying the book is carefully footnoted fiction. I haven't read it. I just get stuck on" what about the Israelis?"


    Ya gotta wait until the (none / 0) (#98)
    by BTAL on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 04:07:42 PM EST
    Indiana Jones chapter is revealed.  ;-)

    Israel didn't come into existence until (none / 0) (#102)
    by brodie on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 04:27:52 PM EST
    1948 or three years after the end of WW2 and the alleged escape of AH & Co.  And during their early formative years of statehood they would have been seriously focused on ensuring their survival with all the hostile Arab nations surrounding them.

    Note too that the Israeli govt was strangely reluctant to go after Eichmann even after numerous requests from a concentration camp survivor living in Argentina whose daughter had excellent first hand knowledge having dated one of Eichmann's sons down there.  Only years later when they could no longer (presumably) risk not acting did the Mossad go into action.


    I think they would have viewed (none / 0) (#149)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:25:33 AM EST
    Hitler himself differently.

    Doesn't it seem, though, that the Israelis (none / 0) (#155)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:42:44 AM EST
    would have been eager to hunt Hitler down if they knew he was alive?

    I know there was no Israel until 1948, and then they had many conflicts. Still, even if they weren't so eager to hunt down other Nazis (Eichmann), Hitler would have been too big a criminal to let go, I would think.


    I think we sometimes impute (none / 0) (#159)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 08:21:57 AM EST
    too much power, not to mention moral principle, to some govts or to their intel services.  The possibilities:

    1.  Israel knew but learned H was protected by layers of security and Argentine govt protection that would have been impossible or unacceptably costly to penetrate so did nothing.

    2.  Israel knew but learned its key ally the US had actually agreed to this outcome as per the Bormann offer, and didn't want to do anything which might undermine this vital friendship by exposing the pact with the devil.

    3.  Israel didn't know until very late when H was already in seriously declining health and so chose to let nature
    take its course.

    4.  Israel didn't know bec they refused to believe the many
    reports they undoubtedly received or that were published
    inthe world press -- a common human psychological
    phenomenon of preferring not to have to deal with unwelcome highly negative and disruptive news especially when it contradicts firmly held beliefs.

    Of these I think a combination of 1 and 2 is most likely.


    There's a riveting novel (none / 0) (#148)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:24:10 AM EST
    published years ago posited on vaguely this idea, that Hitler escaped (alone, though).  I'll try to find the title, which i can't remember right now, but it's got a terrific imagining of Hitler's personality.

    He does not end up in SAmerica, though, in this novel.  He gets a much more satisfying fate.


    The idea of AH escaping (none / 0) (#164)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 08:53:57 AM EST
    has been in the culture probably from the beginning.  Reading this book I'm almost startled at how many reports of his being alive inthe late 40s and 50s made it into the newspapers all over the world. And again we have the very early published comments by Ike and Stalin expressing strong doubts about the official story and asserting a belief that he was still alive.  Stalin said at Potsdam that he thought H had escaped either to Spain or to Argentina.  His top general also weighed in on August 6, 1945:  "We found no corpse that could be Hitler's."

    And the Soviets of course were the ones who had the only physical evidence (what turned out to be the skull of a female and not that of Eva Braun) and they were the ones who interrogated the Nazis who had been in the bunker in the final days.  Turns out they only told their interrogators what they thought they wanted to hear.

    Then in 1947 the eminent Brit historian Hugh Trevor Roper -- a former intelligence officer -- comes along with his allegedly definitive book The Last Days of Hitler which serves to chisel the official version in granite.  Same guy who years later would publicly validate as authentic the bogus "Hitler Diaries".

    I would skip the fictional accounts at this point and go right to the Dunstan-Williams nonfiction book which I'm finding compelling to a disturbing degree.


    And, dog bless America, another taser gun death (none / 0) (#101)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 04:23:55 PM EST
    Give the police (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 04:36:59 PM EST
    a weapon, and they will use it.  

    To further illustrate Zorba's point (none / 0) (#127)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 07:41:49 PM EST
    I offer you this. Which you can see (and almost hear) for yourself here.

    OWS (none / 0) (#105)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:04:54 PM EST
    In my town of ATL voted against allowing civil right pioneer John Lewis to speak before them.

    I am part of the 99% and fully support them and all of that but c'mon.  John Lewis (and the brick he took to the head during the civil rights movement) could probably provide a tip or two on what makes a successful protest work.  That was in bad form IMHO.

    Anyway, it feels like the movement is going to really hit its peak in the next week or so.  I hope something good happens as a result.  

    What part of (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:15:57 PM EST
    "not your father's revolution" do you not understand?

    Lewis is a great American, no doubt. But defensively framing this as a rejection of Lewis personally, instead of recognizing it as what it is -- the blossoming of a new model for a new generation in civil disobedience -- is reflexively short-sighted and thin-skinned. OWS'ers don't "need" John Lewis, or anyone else, to instruct them on how to make a protest work. The mere fact that the media, the corporate crooks, the politicians, and the old school DNC types (like you?) are so freakin' terrified of it shows that it's a protest that's working.

    I love witnessing the quaking in boots.

    OWS Forever.


    Been relying on Fox News (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:30:10 PM EST
    for your information again? Distortion of the facts. They voted that they would not interrupt their meeting for his speech but have him speak after the meeting was concluded. He had a previous engagement and could not stay.

    A tape of the incident that has received thousands of hits on YouTube shows that the group voted to allow Lewis to speak after it has completed its "agenda." Lewis, at not being allowed to speak immediately, is shown leaving the gathering.

    You hope (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:30:30 PM EST
    that the protests reach their peak in the next week or so - because you don't want these protests to end soon and not interfere with the reinstallation of your raison d'être.

    I hope that they reach their peak on September 3, 2012 in Charlotte.


    ::snicker:: (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by sj on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:51:54 PM EST
    I am part of the 99% and fully support them and all of that but c'mon.  

    I bet you don't even see the cognitive dissonance.  

    And what a novel idea -- that you would try to estimate when a "peak" would hit (unemployment, remember?) based on nothing but your own preferences.  

    You're back to being funny.


    Can't you just picture ABG (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 06:02:24 PM EST
    at the OWS site handing out Obama campaign literature and explaining why it was pragmatic for Obama to bail out Wall St. and to propose legislation for the 99% to sacrifice to pay for it.

    Hope he provides them with the text of Obama's latest response that the bankers did not do anything illegal. They were just being good businessmen.

    There was a time when forging documents was illegal but that was before the "Change we can believe in."


    I'd rather see Lewis support them from the (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 08:18:44 PM EST
    floor of the House. Those are the people that need a good talking to.

    Exactly. John Lewis is, sadly, (none / 0) (#132)
    by Towanda on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 08:45:14 PM EST
    part of the problem, despite his greatness in a past movement ong past now, as he may not have realized -- but maybe he will remember impatience and that of others with previous leaders then.  That was not fair to some of those leaders then, but others also wanted to just stop by, get applause, and not stay to go the distance.

    Perhaps a saying from the '60s will come back to him:  That if you're part of the problem, you can't be part of the solution.


    Lewis did not Ask to speak (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:29:33 AM EST
    There's several videos on YouTube of this.  He only showed up to see what was going on -- classic Lewis -- and when he did, the GA got to debating whether to invite him to speak, which he was willing to do if they wanted him to, and they decided against it (for very valid reasons.)

    He's not the least bit perturbed.  Why should you be?

    It's FOX that's making a big issue of this.


    You "fully support them and (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 09:13:22 AM EST
    all of that?"  "All of that?"  What does that mean?  Is that ABG-speak for, "I don't have the first clue what this rag-tag, leaderless `occupation' is up to, but it might be something Obama and the Dems can glom onto, co-opt, and suck the life out of, so better to be for it than against it?"

    Speaking for myself, I have no idea why on earth you would think there was even a snowball's chance in hell that anyone here would buy what you're selling, especially since it seems like this latest offering from you came right off of the Fox News wire.

    And while I have the utmost respect for John Lewis and his involvement in and contributions to the civil rights movement, I would also respectfully suggest that, as a member of a closed-loop Congress that has been shutting out ordinary people for far too long, he may actually have something to learn from the OWS participants, whether in Atlanta or elsewhere.

    If you bothered to educate yourself, you might know that - but why clutter up your head with "all of that" when you can just get your talking points from Fox and OFA?


    IMO Just another not so subtile (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 09:55:16 AM EST
    installment of those who are not avid supporters of Obama are from Appalachia. Just look at how they disrespected John Lewis. Truth be d@mned - there is an agenda to pursue.  

    Revolutions don't run on a pre-determined schedule (none / 0) (#118)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:42:59 PM EST
    Ahem, but that was exactly why the ATL (none / 0) (#120)
    by BTAL on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:52:17 PM EST
    group did not let Lewis speak.  They "voted" to follow their agenda and offered him time slot per the agenda.

    You missed my point (none / 0) (#122)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 06:03:54 PM EST
    It wasn't about when Lewis would speak. It was in response to ABG's insistence that the protests reach their zenith by next week.

    The Rev. Al Sharpton to broadcast (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 10, 2011 at 05:12:08 PM EST
    from OWS.  Ain't he a little late?

    He's been talking about it (none / 0) (#152)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:30:36 AM EST
    pretty much every night for quite a while now.  Broadcasting from there is frankly a bit of a stunt, and it does take a while to set up.