Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread

Open Thread.

< Free Money For Everybody . . . Except You | Thursday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    RIP, Patrice O'Neal (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 04:11:35 PM EST
    A great comedian leaves us far too early in his stay.  Brought it bigtime at the Charlie Sheen roast, best of the bunch if you ask me.  

    Here he is doing a bit about pretty white girls and Natalee Holloway.  It's a classic piece of American comedy.  (LINK)

    We'll miss you, P.

    I was really looking forward... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Addison on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 06:33:55 PM EST
    ...to his "Guide to White People" series. It had immense promise. Here's the bit on Radiohead's Creep: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1qKy4cMPUI

    Hilarious, insightful, brilliant stuff.


    Sad (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 09:40:18 PM EST
    Too many that bring enjoyment to others thru laughter leave us so soon.  One of my favorites for sure.

    Classic. (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 04:35:21 PM EST
    After a years long (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 04:44:51 PM EST
    battle against cancer of the attitude, the united states finally threw in the towel and shot itself in the head today. Doctors have removed the feeding tubes and will let the patient expire naturally.

    Live man on the street interviews indicate that most people either never noticed, or yawned and went shopping. Or changed the channel.

    Well, this is a little disturbing. (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 07:22:15 PM EST
    From today's WH press briefing:

    TAPPER: I've heard from a lot of Democrats in the last few weeks who are concerned about President Obama possibly granting an exemption to Catholic churches, hospitals and universities from the requirement that all insurance plans cover contraception. I'm wondering if you can shed any light on this decision. I know the president has not yet made a decision, but I think these Democrats, a lot of them in the abortion rights community, are concerned that this is even being discussed. Could you explain why the president is considering an exemption and what's going into his decision-making?

    CARNEY: Well, part of the process, Jake, as you know, was seeking and receiving public input before the guidelines that were announced by the secretary of Health and Human Services would go into effect. That process did result in public input, and as well as resulted in numerous comments from various folks who have concerns with this -- about this issue.

    The president has -- this decision has not yet been made. You can be sure that we want -- we want to strike the right balance between expanding coverage of preventive services and respecting religious beliefs. And that's the balance that will be sought as this decision is made.

    Anyone feeling particularly confident that the president will stick to his commitment require insurance plans to cover birth control?

    Yeah, me neither.

    I'm sure (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 07:45:03 PM EST
    Obama will cave on that too. This is almost a classic example of why you have to have separation of church and state. You're never going to be able to work things out like this.

    Were we thinking of making (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by the capstan on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:55:33 PM EST
    the pill mandatory?

    " You can be sure that we want -- we want to strike the right balance between expanding coverage of preventive services and respecting religious beliefs. "


    Well something surely needs (none / 0) (#21)
    by Amiss on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 09:36:56 PM EST
    to be done with some of these "mothers" on public aid. Not usual for me to stick my nose in that, but I have a neighbor daughter that is 18, and she is about to pop her third baby out. When I mentioned having her tubes tied, she told me they wouldnt with someone her age. She stays pregnant so she doesnt have to work, she lives with the father and there is no housekeeping going on. Call DCFS? He lied his arse off and said they werent his. It is just disgusting.

    I've read your comment probably (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:17:34 AM EST
    four or five times, and I still don't see what it has to do with the president possibly deciding to allow Catholic hospitals, schools and other Catholic organizations to invoke a conscience-clause exception that would allow the insurance plans they offer to their employees to not include coverage for birth control.

    I mean, in order for this pending decision to have any relevance to your neighbor, she would have to be working for a Catholic-affiliated employer, and according to your comment, she is in the baby-production business.  You say that you suggested she consider having her tubes tied, but did you mention that she could obtain birth control for herself or her baby-daddy through the local Planned Parenthood?  Seems like that would be an option for her, and one that is less permanent than tubal ligation.  But, according to you, baby production is how she earns her government assistance, so that really wouldn't be an option for her.

    But, whatever, that's really not where I was going with my original comment; I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that just because an employer is affiliated with the Catholic Church doesn't mean its employees are all Catholic.

    If the president decides to give in on this issue, he may score points with the Catholic Church, but he will also end up hurting untold numbers of women who deserve the opportunity to address their reproductive health care no differently than any other aspect of their health.


    me too (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:27:07 AM EST
    I don't understand how that comment is relevant to Obama offering exemptions to the Catholic Church unless maybe her neighbor is a Catholic?

    Exactly. This already happened (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:33:13 AM EST
    in my former town to thousands of non-Catholic employees of a hospital that was purchased by/merged with a Catholic hospital.  

    The employees of the former hospital lost their contraceptive coverage -- and, of course, a huge proportion of any hospital's employees are women.  Um, allow me to point out that male employees did not lose any coverage, including for Viagra. . . .

    Now, that was a big town, but in many small towns, the only hospital in town is Catholic -- the only place for many hospital workers to work -- and, by the way, Catholic hospitals are growing fast and taking over a lot of formerly nonsectarian hospitals.  Other institutions, too; I suspect that this will apply to employees of many nursing homes and other Catholic employers.

    So this will hamper health insurance coverage for millions of workers across the country, but I fully expect President Champion of Health Care to be just fine with it, because he is not fine with women's reproductive choice, as he has shown again and again.


    Where are Their Competitors ? (none / 0) (#102)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:57:47 AM EST
    This is one thing that drive me nuts about Corporate America, they seem to fight us tooth and nail using every dirty, yet legal trick in the book.  Yet when a competitor is about to get a huge advantage, crickets.  Where's the commercials, the lobbyists, distorting and twisting the truth for their own selfish interests.

    It's like there is some unwritten code to never use your enormous resources to go after a competitor's luck in legislation.  And speaking of, how is this not a legislative decision ?  Obama as Commander-in-Chief can't move military prisoners without Congresses OK, yet he can deny millions of women access to birth control, WTF.

    I can't think of anything more anti-business then letting a huge segment decide their obligation to customers based on 'morality', which just so happens to help their bottom lines.  And the Catholic Church no less, as if their own church morality has been so stellar they are deserving of some special exemption.  Sorry, but they are exactly dead last in morality exemptions in my book.

    And for Amiss.
    What a load, either you are being untruthful or you are areal scumbag with this gem, "When I mentioned having her tubes tied..."  

    Is this normal conversation for you, bringing up sterilization to your pregnant neighbor ?  It's so scummy I have a hard time believing it's the truth.


    The poor are to blame for the (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 09:39:45 PM EST
    bad economy.....

    Wasn't this part of Welfare Reform (none / 0) (#24)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 10:05:19 PM EST
    under Bill?

    No more benefits likes this for multiple kids when on public assistance.


    why is this woman a "mother" (none / 0) (#25)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 10:16:36 PM EST
    & not a mother?

    & do you really think that being pregnant & being a mother (or even a "mother") is not work?

    have you inspected her house with white gloves, to be sure that there is "no housekeeping going on"?

    rhetorical questions aside, i'm amazed that you feel so entitled to judge this woman, to the point of suggesting that she get her tubes tied

    this seems to come down to a consumer complaint - apparently you think you're not getting what you think you paid for


    In know you understand this but (none / 0) (#33)
    by coast on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:14:15 AM EST
    just want to be clear, that they are only talking about expanding the exemption for affiliated religious institutions and not the wholesale removal of the requirement to cover abortion as a preventative service.

    And I know that you know that (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:19:52 AM EST
    the more access women have to birth control, the less likely they are to get pregnant, and therefore the less likely they are to seek abortion services.

    I understand your point. Do the employees (none / 0) (#101)
    by coast on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:52:36 AM EST
    currently not have access to contraception services?

    it is not covered by their insurance (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by CST on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:10:10 PM EST
    So i guess it depends on your definition of access.  No one can prevent them from buying it but that doesn't mean they can afford it.

    So you are saying (none / 0) (#105)
    by coast on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:21:37 PM EST
    that at $15 to $50 per month, contraception is at a price point that one must make a choice between paying for the pill or .... what?   Mind you that these would be working employees.

    this also applies to colleges (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by CST on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:23:41 PM EST
    catholic ones.

    I specifically recall being a broke @ss college kid who didn't know where the next $5 for dinner was going to come from, nevermind birth control.

    And no, I don't think you should have to choose betweeen buying dinner or getting pregnant.  Because news flash - people have sex.

    Other news flash - just because you're employed doesn't mean you have "extra" money.  How many of these employees are living paycheck to paycheck?  In America?  Probably too many.


    How many people losing their homes (none / 0) (#108)
    by sj on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:37:33 PM EST
    are presently employed?

    So your are trying to equate (none / 0) (#110)
    by coast on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:04:48 PM EST
    an expense that is often 30 to 50% of one's take home pay to this?  Really?

    Being deliberately obtuse is quite unlike you (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by sj on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:14:26 PM EST
    What I am saying is that when one is forced to rob Peter (energy costs) to pay Paul (mortgage or rent), paying for Ortho-Novum at any price can drop to the wayside.

    I've had to make those types of decisions. Thankfully not for a while.

    So yes.  Really.


    That's a might casual "only" (none / 0) (#72)
    by sj on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:51:11 AM EST
    you have in there.
    they are only talking about expanding the exemption for affiliated religious institutions
    As noted elsewhere on this thread some communities are served only by an "affiliated religious institution."

    For starters.


    I believe you are talking about providing (none / 0) (#99)
    by coast on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:47:38 AM EST
    services, which this has nothing to do with.  The issue here is whether the law should require religious affiliated institutions to provide insurance to its employees that will cover contraception.  If I'm wrong about your point, please explain how the comment regarding communities being served by only by an affiliated religous institution has any relevance in this discussion.

    Ah. Fair enough (none / 0) (#104)
    by sj on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:16:05 PM EST
    I had confused myself.  Thank you.

    But now that I'm unconfused, I'm just as appalled at the possible exemption.  And I still think the "only" is a pretty casual dismissal of those female employees.


    Why are you appalled? (none / 0) (#106)
    by coast on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:31:19 PM EST
    Employees at these organizations currently do not have coverage that provides for contraception.  Heck my coverage doesn't currently offer it.  "Only" is I guess my way of stating the fact that the number of those impacted by the exemption is minute compared to the number of individuals who will obtain coverage for the services.

    I think it's appalling (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by sj on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:36:38 PM EST
    You're being accustomed to the lack (I have no idea if you have the need) doesn't make it okay.  It's a Big Deal.  Family planning is a Big Deal.  And reliable contraception can be expensive.  It shouldn't be on the short list of "what can I not pay this month?".

    It would make (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:23:57 PM EST
    more sense if they didn't pay for viagara. When they pay for Viagara and not contraception they look really stupid and really sexist. Secondly, it seems to me to be pennywise and pound foolish to not pay for contraception as having a baby is waaaayy more expensive than a pack of pills.

    Totally agree. (none / 0) (#123)
    by coast on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:51:06 PM EST
    As Carney said, "they were looking for (none / 0) (#97)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:41:06 AM EST
    public input" and they got it--from  NYC, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who after a meeting with the President (private in-put, in this case)  said "Mr. Obama is very open to sensitivities of the Catholic community."   Churches are exempt, but this is a call for  "broadening".      

    Toasty Thursday morning here. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by observed on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 08:57:17 PM EST
    The temperature is 16F.
    I was feeling sluggish as I got up; now I see that it's the oppressive heat getting to me.

    my condolences, Donald (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 09:14:12 PM EST
    thamk you for sharing this little sketch of your mentor

    any Kaiser Permanente members here? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 09:34:51 PM EST
    have you received a robocall that begins by asking you for your medical record number & your birth date?

    i got one from 877-737-4709 & hung up

    then i called back & found out that it really was Kaiser, where some genius has decided it's a good idea to make robocalls at random to Kaiser members, reminding them to get routine screening tests

    idiotic, imo, to insitute a policy that mimics a phishing scheme - & even though it's apparently not a phishing scheme, it does encourage the recipents of such calls to lower their guard with other unsolicited callers who are running such schemes

    i gave the "service representative" a polite earful & followed that up with a less polite screenful to Kaiser Member Services

    told them i want the robocalls to stop & promised to bring this stupid policy to the attention of as many Kaiser members as possible, through print & online media

    just doing here what i said i would do

    Yo, Addams Family (none / 0) (#109)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:40:10 PM EST
    Thanks for the warning about robo-calls   As a Kaiser member, I would also resent such an approach  and would say so (as you did.)

    i hope you will say so (none / 0) (#119)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:29:32 PM EST
    to your Kaiser Member Services division

    apparently Kaiser is not alone in this - a number of HMOs & insurance companies have turned patients' contact info (& for all i know their medical records or access to same) over to call centers like the one that robo-contacted me

    the excuse is that "not everyone has online access"

    but a postcard will do


    Newt says that he also defeated Communism (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:19:16 AM EST
    Morning Joe is beating the crap out of him over saying that, says it is so insulting to Reagan, Bush I, the pope, Gorbachev, and too many real cold warriors to mention for Newt to say something like that.  Joe himself says that Newt was nothing more than some kind of cold war backbencher.

    I believe he said "help" (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:12:09 AM EST
    But don't blame the house Repub on MSNBC. He has to toe the other party's line.

    I guess you missed that part about (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:47:18 AM EST
    leading the effort.  Gatorade boy is an important leadership role I suppose.  So is towel boy.

    That's (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:33:15 AM EST
    about what Gingrich is good for--hauling around Gatorade. LOL.

    Jim, I hope you are successful (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:58:37 AM EST
    in defending Newt.....for right now.....

    JFK did more than the others (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:57:16 AM EST
    Not only stopping missiles from being installed in Cuba, but also the start of arms control and detente with the Test Ban Treaty......

    And Truman and Dean Acheson authored the Containment Doctrine.  Conservatives would have tried to go to war.....They would have pushed the button during the Cuban Missile Crisis.


    LOL - to quote Melissa on Andrew Sullivan: (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 06:49:05 AM EST
    He's even more obsessed with the contents of black people's skulls than he is with the contents of Sarah Palin's uterus.


    We are remodeling our kitchen now (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:47:57 AM EST
    Ugh....it's going to be a sucky soup and food in paper bags week because it is in pieces now.  But the news is on all the time while we work.

    I watched Ali Velshi this weekend do some kind of Language of Money thing with Christina Romans.  They were showing people where they could put their money and they had icons.  One was a mattress, and that is a bad place where your money doesn't grow at all. Then there was stocks and bonds where your money MAY grow, they were honest and did say MAY and neither Ali or Christina had sure bets.  What Christina and Ali refused to say though is that you MAY lose your money putting it into stocks and bonds and if you had put it into your mattress you would have ended up with more money at the end of that day :)

    And now that crazy bastard Cramer has declared this a squatters economy.  Squatters have disposable income, squatters are job creators he says, let's all squat.  The world has gone nucking futz all the way around.

    And as for the 57 state thing (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CST on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:49:11 AM EST
    There is a huge difference between making a mistake/misstatement, and proudly trumpeting your ignorance.

    No reasonable person thinks Obama doesn't know there are 50 states.  So he slipped up.  But he's not on TV afterward trying to convince everyone that there are in fact 57 states.  The GOP seems to double down on the ignorance every time they make a mistake.  Rather than saying "yea, we messed up, misspoke, etc..." they do things like say "who the hell cares, no one needs to know that" or "I know what I'm talking about you need to read your constitution" when they've clearly been proven wrong.

    The difference is that (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:53:53 AM EST
    you are willing to give Obama a "gimme" and a bad day pass.

    You aren't willing to do that for Cain, or any other Repub.

    But don't feel you are alone. The Repubs won't give Obama a pass, either.


    No Jim (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by CST on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:07:04 AM EST
    that's not the difference.  I outlined it pretty clearly and definitively in my post.  If you would like to address what I actually wrote instead of some notion of what you think I mean we can have that conversation.  But if you plan on putting words and motives into me that I do not have and did not write I'm not going to bother with you.

    If Cain had asked for a bad day pass I would give him that.  He did not, he asked for an ignorance pass, and that is something he cannot have.


    Actually, the difference is ... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:11:03 AM EST
    ... that Obama misspoke when he was talking about visiting 47 of the 57 continental states - unless, of course, someone actually believes he doesn't know there are 50 states.

    Cain, OTOH, revels in his ignorance of basic foreign affairs knowledge - apart from his mockery of failing to know foreign leaders (Becki-becki-becki-stan), he thinks the US recognizes Taiwan, he can't answer basic questions about critical, world issues (Libya), and he thinks "Cuban" is a language.

    Maybe he just thinks everyone should speak "American" ...


    China. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Addison on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:16:46 AM EST
    At least Herman Cain is wise enough to know that must feel threatened by a China that's working to develop nuclear capability.


    Barack Obama acts as if China already has nuclear weapons! The fool!


    We must be very careful (none / 0) (#90)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:27:13 AM EST
    They could get it any day, now!

    Uri Gellar (none / 0) (#94)
    by Addison on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:34:56 AM EST
    But, even though they are a threat and we must feel threatened, we must also have clarity. You see, China is not an adversary regime like Venezuela or a rival like Russia, but a "competitor".

    Watching Cain (attempt to) speak extemporaneously about anything related to foreign policy is like watching those videos of Uri Gellar getting exposed. Just faux-expertise and fumbling embarrassment for everyone involved.


    Flashback - The Amazing Randi.... (none / 0) (#134)
    by desertswine on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:59:09 PM EST
    one of my childhood heroes.

    Seminar: Alan Rickman spitting out (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 04:29:06 PM EST
    his lines. Just the slightest hint of a smile @ curtain  call.

    sooooooo jealous (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 06:20:17 PM EST
    Are you really in the same room with him?

    Second row. And (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 07:41:48 PM EST
    and he didn't chew up the scenery    

    What is this I don't even (none / 0) (#7)
    by Addison on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 06:53:19 PM EST
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57334304-503544/herman-cain-spotlights-friends-danger-across- globe/

    http://www.hermancain.com/uploads/Cain_Foreign_Policy_Brochure_WEB.pdf [larger PDF version on page 2]

    I sort of have to offer it without comment, because I am speechless on the actual substance. Oh, except that the lines between the countries represent "Facebook connections" that "light up the world with friendship"!

    I sort of wish he were still a serious contender so that this could knock him out of contention.

    I love how he gets so defensive (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CST on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:43:31 AM EST
    about not knowing the names of leaders.  "Do you?"  No Herman Cain, I do not know the leader of uzi uzi stan.  But I'm not the one running for president.

    This notion that our presidents should be "average Joes" is obsurd.  If you want that kind of power you should be way better than average.

    So yea, Herman Cain, if we were having a cup of coffee and you didn't know who the leader of a foreign country is (or how to pronounce it), that's fine, I don't really care.  But if you want to be Mr. Top Dog, you have to do better than that.  I'm so done with this notion that ignorance is a good thing.


    So not knowing the name (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:59:23 AM EST
    of a relatively obscure country's leader's name


    Didn't Obama just refer to the Iranian British embassy as the English embassy?


    You know what? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:29:15 PM EST
    It's not that he doesn't know the leader of some obscure country he doesn't even know what the policies are of OUR OWN COUNTRY. He did not know what the wet foot/dry foot policy was w/r/t to Cuba. I mean if you are seriously running for President isn't that something that you should know? He didn't know what was going on with Libya. I'm not running for President but I could answer those questions. Cain is not a serious candidate. He's a clown trying to get money from the masses.

    Uzbekistan (none / 0) (#78)
    by Addison on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:03:52 AM EST
    Cain could've just said the president was "Islam" and it would've been correct. Ironically, his anti-Muslim bigotry could have saved him if only he'd gone all in...

    And your proof (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:12:58 AM EST
    of this anti-Muslim bigotry Cain supposedly has?

    LMGTFY (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Addison on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:23:04 AM EST
    Good links (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by sj on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:31:48 AM EST
    But Jeralyn may ask you to repost using the link button instead of posting the entire URL.  Long URLs can skew the site.

    Good to know. I'll link or bitly them from now on (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Addison on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:36:17 AM EST
    Looks to me like he (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    "I have had one very well-known Muslim voice say to me directly that a majority of Muslims share the extremist views,

    has chosen to believe what someone told him.

    It also looks to me like he is concerned with the US becoming, like England, a country with Sharia courts.

    It also looks to me like he believes in the First Amendment so I see no effort to suppress anyone's faith.

    We will disagree. But I see no sign of bigotry.


    asdf (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Addison on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:59:49 PM EST
    He chose to believe what one anonymous, possibly fictitious, person told him (i.e. he finally heard what he wanted to hear). CHOSE it over numerous other people in the community well-placed to given an opinion, and over MANY surveys and studies which show most American Muslims are not prone to radicalism in the slightest.

    He is concerned about "Sharia law" being implemented in the US through the appointment of Muslims to public service, despite the fact that this bigoted fear-mongering is so baseless even Chris Christie feels safe calling it out as baseless.

    He actively supports the bigoted efforts of local government to suppress the exercise of the Muslim religion via denying permits freely given to Christians, therefore he's in favor of the Federal 1st amendment (because he said so).

    All these things are evidence he is NOT bigoted?

    Strange logic.


    "Looks to YOU" - heh (none / 0) (#117)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    Like Mel Gibson talking about David Duke and saying he sees "no sign of bigotry".

    Wonder if Cain has been to many (none / 0) (#118)
    by observed on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:28:31 PM EST

    How about ... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:25:16 AM EST
    ... when Cain accused Rep. Keith Ellison of pledging loyalty to Allah, rather than the US Constitution?  Or when he said he wouldn't appoint a Muslim to his administration?  Or when he talks about his fear of a doctor with a name that sounds like he might be Muslim?  Then there's his claim that Muslim values are incompatible with American values.  Then there's his claim that a majprity of American Muslims are "extremists".

    That should get you started...


    no (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    as an individual issue it does not disqualify.  It raises questions but those can be answered if the person is a serious candidate and shows a grasp of foreign policy knowledge beyond that.

    Going on national TV and mocking the name of a nation because you don't know the name of the leader absolutely disqualifies you.

    BTW it's Uzbekistan.  I'm not running for president and I did not use google for that.


    If I want to write about (1.00 / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:11:47 AM EST
    a relatively obscure country that has more or less emerged from obscurity since the break up of the Soviet Union, which the Obama administration seems to be content with it reforming, then I would go to Wiki for a start.

    But I think our President should know the difference between British and English.

    Of course he did send the bust back......


    has the president been on national tv (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by CST on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:15:08 AM EST
    trumpeting the fact that britain is england and no one should care or know what he's talking about?


    Well then, wtf are you talking about.

    If you wanted to write about uzbekistan, yea, you might go to wiki.  But then I wouldn't vote for you for president either.


    What the what?? (1.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:28:48 PM EST
    Can't write with a vulgarity???

    The point is the double standard.


    stop lying (none / 0) (#116)
    by CST on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:32:59 PM EST
    about (misrepresenting) my posts.

    wtf is not a vulgarity? (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:04:35 PM EST
    The things I learn.

    not what i was referring to (none / 0) (#125)
    by CST on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:34:32 PM EST
    Yes, I was absolutely swearing at you.  But the filters don't like that so I abbreviated.  I'm talking about your representation of my political argument where I oppose those who are arrogant about their ignorance and you keep claiming I'm pissed about mistakes.

    That is a lie as its not what I'm saying.  At least, I assume its a lie since I do believe you are capable of reading comprehension.  If you are not capable of that, my apologies, you aren't a liar, just incompetent.


    Actually I've reached the point in this (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:41:16 PM EST
    conversation where I don't think I understood what you thought you said.

    But I do understand your desire to be insulting.

    No problem. It defines you.

    But just for the record, I understood your point re Obama -British - English embassy and TV...

    Problem  is, he was on TV.

    Good night!


    I apologize then (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by CST on Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 09:47:05 AM EST
    as I do not think you are incompetent either.  

    But you do that a lot where you constantly argue over points that no one is making but you.  I got frustrated and annoyed but my apologies if what I was writing wasn't clear.  I'm just done with you putting words into my posts/mouth.  Because you do that a lot, and yes, sometimes I snap, which is probably uncalled for.


    "Relatively obscure country" (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:59:50 PM EST
    Yeah. It's not too obscure to anyone in national security, national defense, national intelligence, the justice department, congress, or the presidential administration. Uz-beki-beki-beki-bekistan is now infamous for being one of the countries where Bush and Cheney disappeared detainees on rendition flights. To be tortured, for phuck's sake. Something that ANYONE running for president would know. But Cain can't be bothered to pretend he's ever heard of it.

    Really Jim. You simply embarrass yourself every time you bring up this nonsense with Cain.


    I am amazed (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 09:04:50 PM EST
    that any supposed learned person has any problem understanding the differences.

    I think they can. They just want something to attack with.


    I'm amazed at some people's knee-jerk (none / 0) (#14)
    by observed on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 09:13:33 PM EST
    defense of Cain against the obvious evidence that he is a half-wit clown.

    What is the chance that Cain could (none / 0) (#16)
    by observed on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 09:15:13 PM EST
    answer questions like: what is the number 1 agricultural export of Brazil; or, what is the biggest sector of Kazakhstan's economy.
    These are both gimme questions, and I bet Cain has no clue.
    I label the Cain campaign an "enemy" of rational discourse.

    Kaza-kaka-zaza-zaka-stan-stan? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Addison on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 09:27:47 PM EST
    Why should we (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 10:57:51 PM EST
    care??? If he doesn't know, there are plenty of experts around for hire.

    You mistake knowledge for wisdom.

    Two separate things.

    I mean we have the smartest man in the world as President, now.

    How's that working out?

    BTW - I'm not a Cain supporter. I am an Anybody But Obama supporter.


    Oh, Lord. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Addison on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 11:03:45 PM EST
    Wait, do you think Cain made this map? No, his current "experts" did and he signed off -- so the whole campaign gets to look idiotic; and maybe ready to run for a seat on Lancaster PA's city council. In any case, mistaking wisdom for knowledge? Do you feel the map displays any sort of wisdom whatsoever?! You spin in such strange incoherent circles only to support people you say you don't support.

    That's my point (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 11:18:38 PM EST
    He needed an expert so he got an expert.

    You don't agree with his expert? Perhaps you can hire an expert.

    And don't misunderstand. When I say I am an ABO supporter, Cain is in the mix. Heck, my next door neighbor Charlie is in the mix.

    The map? Wisdom? It's a snapshot of what someone sees as our current relationships. I haven't studied it closely, but in general, I don't see any glaring mistakes.

    But, if you want smarts and detailed knowledge... we always have Newt.



    Gingrich is a despicable (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 11:52:07 PM EST
    human being....

    Do you want a doctor who is (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:43:35 AM EST
    brilliant.... or do you want a doctor you "like."

    The two are not necessarily the same.

    You know, I think it amusing that according to the Demos, the only person who can beat Obama is Romney. That makes me think of a pro football team being asked.... Who do you want to play in the Super Bowl?  I bet the answer would be, "The Colts!"

    And Cain is too dumb. And Newt is too mean.

    Me? I ask, "Can we stand 4 more years of this?"


    I'll take the brilliant one (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:21:26 AM EST
    Of course, ...

    ... Newt is neither.


    Sorry new phone--unintentional. (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:17:33 PM EST
    It did not seem like you (none / 0) (#129)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:26:33 PM EST
    It was because of that a rather interesting development.......kept me guessing...

    As many here have opined, IMO Gingrich (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:43:42 PM EST
    Hasn't a snowballs chance

    So, I would have thought (none / 0) (#133)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:47:03 PM EST
    But at least right now he is way ahead of Romney and there isn't much time to catch up.....

    Are Republicans really stupid enough to nominate someone like Sharron Angle?


    Oh please (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:05:50 AM EST
    I don't think you actually believe that.

    If it was our intent to obtain control of Iraq's oil, why have we done what we have done?

    As for foreign policy, I agree. 10 names out of the Memphis phone book could do a better job that the Obama administration's collection of know nothings.


    You forgot to add (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:28:51 AM EST
    ".....who knows what he is speaking about."



    Why should we care???? (none / 0) (#30)
    by observed on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:54:26 AM EST
    I'm talking BASIC level of comprehension of the world.
    The idea that geography doesn't matter for Presidential candidates is dangerous.

    The man has a degreee (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:23:41 AM EST
    in mathematics, so I think he has a knowledge of geography.

    BTW - Are you able to explain high speed data transmission? No? Then obviously your opinions/thoughts transmitted over the Internet aren't to be trusted.


    Since when (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:37:23 AM EST
    does having a degree in mathematics translate into knowledge of geography?

    Latitude and longitude? (none / 0) (#130)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:29:21 PM EST
    I just love this comment about math and geography.

    Think about the word "relevance" (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by observed on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:14:19 AM EST
    Knowledge of BASIC geography is important for a world political leader. Anyone who doesn't know that Brazil is a gonzo coffee producer, or that Kazakhstan has enormous energy reserves, really doesn't know shiit.

    Oh, really? (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:35:12 AM EST
    Prove that he doesn't have one.

    And while you are at it, prove that Obama doesn't think there are 57 states and knows the difference between the British and English embassies... in Iran.

    BTW - Degrees in mathematics aren't passed out because the student happens to agree with the latest PC positions being pimped by the professor and department.


    Prove that he does (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:43:54 AM EST
    At this point, given Cain's demonstrated inability to answer basic foreign policy questions, his invention of a new, foreign language, and the fact that he doesn't even know that the US does not recognize Taiwan, the burden is on those who claim he does have a basic knowledge of the world to "prove it".

    Good luck with that one.

    BTW - Degrees in mathematics also aren't passed out because the student has demonstrated a knowledge of geography.


    Sadly, I know something about (none / 0) (#91)
    by observed on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:29:50 AM EST
    how degrees in mathematics are handed out. Aside from elite institutions, mathematics is mostly a loser's degree for people who can't get into the science or engineering program they want.
    A B.S. in mathematics which isn't from a very strong state school or Ivy League caliber school means shiit.
    Unfortunate, but true.

    N.B.: obviously a person with a math (none / 0) (#93)
    by observed on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:34:14 AM EST
    degree COULD be good, but possessing a bachelor's degree signifies very little, as specified above.

    hahaha ouch (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:40:59 AM EST
    I don't know much about math degrees in general, but I do have an engineering degree and while you may have some context that I don't have, this strikes me as not quite fair.  My core math classes were the hardest classes I took in undergrad.  I can't imagine they get easier as you get more in depth.  Engineering deals with math on a more practical level which is almost a more basic level, imo.

    That being said, I don't know much about how "math degress are handed out" and the institution I went to does not exactly have a reputation for being easy (you work for them now).

    Honestly the first thing I think of when I hear math major is "boring as $hit and probably has the personality of a brick".  They might be very smart at what they do, but have limited practical and social abilities.


    People who get math degrees are largely (none / 0) (#98)
    by observed on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:45:28 AM EST
    people who couldn't get their preferred degrees.
    The ones whose first choice was math can be fine; the others can be rather weak, compared to engineering or physics majors.
    In fact, if you  teach at a good engineering school, your better math students will probably be eng. majors, at the upper levels.
    Sorry, that's just the way it is.

    I guess that makes sense (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:51:44 AM EST
    just because it is a hard subject does not mean that the better students choose to study it.

    Chripes I saw that all the time with defections from engineering to business.  Some of them did that because they couldn't quite cut it, but a lot of them did it just because they wanted to make more money.   I guess a similar thing would apply from math to engineering/physics.


    Really? (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:40:43 PM EST
    A degree in Math impresses me.....

    Not worth anything....


    I know that electrial engineering was really, really tough....I thought Math was like that.

    Shows I know sh**t about these programs of study.


    Maybe you would like (1.00 / 2) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:16:31 AM EST
    to compare your starting point in life with Cain's starting point and then compare your respective resumes.

    You can start with the name of the corporation you were CEO.

    BTW - I find your making fun of his manner of speaking borderline racist.


    His "manner of speaking" ... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:50:59 AM EST
    ... when cavalierly mocking the significance of his own lack of basic, foreign affairs ("Becki-becki-becki-stan") has nothing to do with his race, it has everything to do with his ignorance.

    ... but conservatives do love a chance to play the race card.


    You'll be getting a lot more 1's from now on. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Addison on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:36:46 AM EST
    BTW - I find your making fun of his manner of speaking borderline racist.

    Oh, I see. You're simply a troll.

    Where Cain started is not the point, where he ended up (running for president) is the point. Cain's issues vis-a-vis his disqualifying statements (or stutterings, or silences) on foreign policy are far more about the Peter Principle than privilege.

    And overtly race-baiting by linking Cain's close-minded mocking of a different-sounding name to his race (as if black Americans specifically can't say "Uzbekistan"!) was a bridge too far, and a bit too obvious.

    I truly hope Jeralyn removes you from this site. You are here solely to troll the users here.


    Oh, a troll because I (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    note what I see?

    And you accuse me because I noted what Donald wrote? I mean he was the one mocking Cain's speech.

    Face facts. Cain is being attacked because he has struck a cord with American voters. He had to be destroyed and the attacks have been relentless.

    BTW - I don't write for approval so drop all the 1's you like if that will make you feel better.


    Good for you! (none / 0) (#74)
    by Addison on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:54:22 AM EST
    Donald mocked Cain's speech, yes. Because it showed that Cain thought funny-sounding countries were not worth his time or effort. You didn't note that mocking, however, you conjured a racist motive out of thin air.

    You can have your opinion on why Cain is being "attacked". I believe it's for inherent moral and intellectual weakness, which went unexposed for too long and erupted once he got to frontrunner status as the newest un-Mitt. That seems more reasonable that your paranoia, which ridiculously envisions Cain as a sort of martyred folk hero.

    And you mistake my motives. I won't be giving you 1's to express disapproval, I'll still use words for that. I'll be tagging selected comments with 1's merely to highlight them for Jeralyn in the hopes that she'll witness your pattern of trolling-for-trolling's sake and that someday you'll be banned.


    Actually I have noticed Donald's mocking (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:06:08 AM EST
    and over the top comments for quite some time. He can't just write that he finds Cain unqualified, he has to mock him:

    It's been made painfully obvious that Herman Cain couldn't find his own a$$ in broad daylight with both hands, a full-length mirror and illustrated directions, let alone "Ubeki-beki-beki-stan" on a globe.

    And if you can't see the difference between the media treatment Obama received and what Cain, or any of the ABO candidates, then you have your eyes closed.

    And the treatment doesn't bother me. Have at'em! But don't neglect the other side!

    And no, you'll be giving 1's because you disagree with my comments. So let's don't try and hide motives.


    Logic fail (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:33:20 AM EST
    ... on at least two levels.

    A question that should be asked in all 57 (none / 0) (#49)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:48:36 AM EST

    You can't see the difference ... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    ... between misspeaking when referring to traveling to 47 of the 48 continental states and a lack of knowledge basic foreign affairs?



    No joke, It sure is when you have (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:58:53 AM EST
    over a hundred thousand soldiers in Afghanistan and at the very least an equal number of civilian contractors in support roles...and now Pakistan is really pissed at you and you can't get about 40% of your supplies to your troops and you don't know who runs Ubekibekistanstan and you never cared.

    I'll just assume as well that since you don't know how to pronounce the name of the country, you don't really know where the phuck it is on a map either :)  I'm feeling really sorry for that CIC's troops, feeling really bad for them.


    Heh and a tut tut (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:10:15 AM EST
    It isn't Cain who is CIC.

    Thank all the Gods too (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:42:15 AM EST
    And he shouldn't ever be CIC.  With as much as he cares about and knows about what is happening globally, I'm certain if he were CIC he would have not been concerned about Osama bin Laden either.  You'd have to care first.

    Then he wouldn't have (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:50:01 AM EST
    attacked Afghanistan in 2001 and then Iraq.

    I think you would have like that or at the least, Iraq.


    Who wouldn't have? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:24:05 AM EST
    What in the world are you talking about now?

    You said (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:18:35 PM EST
    I'm certain if he were CIC he would have not been concerned about Osama bin Laden either.  You'd have to care first.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Addison on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 09:26:26 PM EST
    Not sure what you're talking about. If you're somehow criticizing me or CBS and not Herman Cain's campaign, wow...

    This map is absurdly reductive. If he was still in it at all, this map disqualifies him once and for all from the nomination on foreign policy grounds. He had a chance to flesh out his position outside of the harsh glare of extemporaneous speaking and he comes up with this?! It only reinforces the idea that he (and his team!) knows absolutely nothing about foreign policy beyond some cartoonish, limited, and inconsistent labels. Can you imagine any serious presidential candidate releasing a map of international Facebook connections with "friend" and "rival" overlaid?

    It's like an AP Comparative Government powerpoint slide from a C+ presentation. It's ridiculous.


    Dana Milbank (none / 0) (#17)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 09:22:48 PM EST
    clutches his pearls

    that's going around today at the Washington Post

    Support for Tea Party drops even lower (none / 0) (#38)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:28:24 AM EST
    Baaawaaaa (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:41:49 AM EST
    Some Republicans will admit that the Tea party is a problem while others will not. Most people I talk to though think the tea party is just plain creepy.

    The gun range near my acreage that was (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Farmboy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:07:20 AM EST
    started by a Tea Party member has toned down its advertising recently. Their hand-painted billboard on the road used to read something along the lines of, "Join up to take back our country from the Muslim Kenyan Usurper! He wants to take your guns and lock you up in camps!" References to God, the 2nd amendment, and FEMA were painted around the edges.

    Recently they painted it over. Now it simply reads, "Freedom Range."


    Awww shucks (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:34:04 AM EST