home

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Open Thread.

< New Jobless Claims 424K | New York Cops Acquitted of Rape Charges >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    See powerful DK post by Military Tracy: (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:04:06 PM EST
    Kudos to Military Tracy (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by republicratitarian on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:39:04 PM EST
    Her efforts to support the NFTT should be applauded.

    Having deployed a couple of years ago to Iraq as a First Sergeant in the National Guard I can say that simple care packages and notes from faceless strangers back in the states are a huge moral boosters. The items are always welcome, I remember the one and only time a jumbo pack of my brand of disposable razors was in one, I thought I had struck gold. The Shopettes on some bases are extremely limited.

    There are many different organizations that do care packages and all are deserving of support. You never know what that one item you donate (Gilette Custom Plus Pivot Dispoable lol) can make in a soldier/sailor/airman/Marines daily life.

    Thanks MT!!

    Parent

    Thanks, Tracy (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Dadler on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:09:53 PM EST
    And thanks, Occulus.

    Though I may not agree with her on everything, I am ever grateful for the honest and unvarnished perspective Tracy provides.  It is the human that makes us connect, not the technology.  When it gets down to it.  Paper or keystroke.  It's the revelation, the courage of conviction and kin and everything flesh in our hearts.

    It makes me think of my own family who have been deeply involved in Iraq and Af/Pak.  I think of a sweet little brother, who has gone through so much.  Thank you, Tracy, you're a genuinely appreciated soul here.

    Parent

    Thank you oculus (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 26, 2011 at 03:54:43 PM EST
    Because we had so many NFTT diaries up today Onomastic asked me to repost it over Memorial Day weekend.  I had never done a diary that I had connected to NFTT, and I tend to write a little edgy about things I choose to write about so Onomastic had been going over it making sure that I fit the bill for NFTT.  Then I got my wires crossed thinking that I should put it up this morning, and they already had a few NFTT diaries going up and the list at DKos was pretty crushed all at the same time.  NFTT is having a hard time this year raising the funds they need for their care packages that mostly go out to the lowly poorly paid enlisted soldiers.  So I will republish it over Memorial Day weekend too and hopefully get some needed mileage and exposure for NFTT.  We had a little party this weekend and my husband cooked some steaks for a newly returned home Army Ranger.  He's just a kid, but even this kid, when you begin to list everything he has done in the past three or four years...it's staggering.  Even he is tired.  I'm glad he's home.  I hope he gets some good recuperation and down time, he lost friends and it was hard.  I was looking through some of his photos and in one he had a picture of his wife and his two little tiny kids taped up in his FOB cubicle and he had circled the picture with a black sharpie and written next to it were the words "Reason to Live".

    Parent
    Fiction and non-fiction by Dadler (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:33:26 PM EST
    ny police officers (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CST on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:37:07 PM EST
    found not guilty of raping drunken women they "helped into her apartment"

    Lack of DNA evidence, among other things was an issue.  I have no idea if the officers are guilty or not, that being said, I find this statement... weird:

    "Although the defense never conceded that the two had sex, a central point of argument in the case was whether the woman was too drunk to consent to sex. Under the prosecutors' theory of rape, they had to prove that the woman was physically unable to consent to sex, meaning that she was either unconscious or unable to speak when she was penetrated.

    Defense lawyers pointed to surveillance footage of the woman walking on her own as she entered the building in front of the officers as evidence that she was conscious and able to communicate. They also contrasted what the woman told some friends shortly after the alleged rape -- that she thought she was raped -- with the certainty that she was expressing on the witness stand. Her spotty recollection of that night, the defense said, was enough to raise reasonable doubt over whether she was raped."

    So she was not too drunk to consent, but she was too drunk to be a reliable witness.  Seems like a pretty obvious contradiction there.

    She told friends she "thought" she was (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:46:46 PM EST
    raped.  That is strong impeachment evidence.  Let's see how many commenters here who are urging withholding of judgment re IMF defendant are willing to accept the jury's verdict here.

    Parent
    The officers... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kdog on Thu May 26, 2011 at 02:56:49 PM EST
    placed a phony 911 call to justify going back to the woman's apartment.  

    Something inappropriate went down, we can almost be sure of that, but I can see where reasonable doubt exists.  Rape is a difficult crime to prove sometimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

    My recurring wonder about this case is how things would have been different if cab drivers weren't forbidden by rule from helping a fare, mandated to call 911 for "help".  911 is not synonymous with help I'm afraid.


    Parent

    Thus proving my point, buddy. :) (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2011 at 03:17:04 PM EST
    what point? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CST on Thu May 26, 2011 at 03:24:46 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure the argument is not "they are cops they must be guilty" but "based on what we know it sounds like something shady happened"

    Do you disagree with the latter statement?  Do you really think the cops did absolutely nothing wrong?  Because the cops own statements (not the one they retracted, but the one they made in court) suggest they were definitely out of line.

    That does not mean they should have been convicted of rape, but they most certainly should not be employed as cops.

    Parent

    I would hope... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by kdog on Thu May 26, 2011 at 03:30:41 PM EST
    the admission they placed a phony 911 call to justify revisiting the woman's apartment will cost them their badges and pensions.  

    It's a crime for us to do it, not that there is anything resembling equality under the law in this city/state/country/world or anything:)


    Parent

    My comment (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2011 at 03:28:55 PM EST
    "They were cops, so they must be guilty!"

    Parent
    And for the record (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2011 at 03:29:53 PM EST
    The did get convicted of other charges and could face jail time, so they won't be cops anymore.

    Parent
    so what you're really saying (none / 0) (#54)
    by CST on Thu May 26, 2011 at 03:37:16 PM EST
    and what everyone else is saying

    is they are guilty (of "x" - not rape) because they are guilty

    not because they are cops

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2011 at 03:46:28 PM EST
    My point, which was originally snark, is that the belief held by some is that because they are cops, they automatically guilty if they are ever charged with anything.  Going along with oculus point of wondering if the commenters around here would accept the jury's verdict.

    These guys sound like tools and should be kicked off the force.

    Parent

    I guess I just don't think (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Thu May 26, 2011 at 03:58:34 PM EST
    your point was "proven".

    Everyone has accepted the verdict.

    Parent

    Since it was originally snark (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2011 at 04:02:07 PM EST
    It makes sense within the context (see below).

    There's nothing to "prove" really, except the fact that some folks around here will twist themselves into 42 different kinds of logic to justify behavior when someone is found guilty, but if it's a cop or prosecutor on trial, the whole presumption of innocence before the trial goes out the window and acquittals are always questioned.

    Just snarking at the double standard - and it didn't really require this much discussion.

    Parent

    I freely admit my prejudice... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by kdog on Thu May 26, 2011 at 04:35:23 PM EST
    can you admit yours?  

    Parent
    Cabbies would be stupid (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2011 at 03:28:27 PM EST
    to go into someone's apartment alone with them.  Besides the obvious danger of being harmed, they could be accused of theft, assault, rape, etc.

    My father used to own a small airport shuttle service.  He had lots of older widows as passengers, so when he brought them home, he would go in their house and take their bags in, turn on their lights, and check around to see if everything was all right for them to come in - until my mom pointed out that all it would take is for someone to claim something was missing or that she was assaulted.  Then he started just taking their bag up to the porch and leaving it when they got out of the van.

    Parent

    I am a trusting sort... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Thu May 26, 2011 at 03:38:31 PM EST
    as long as you don't have a badge and arrest powers:)...if I'm driving a cab and got a stone cold drunk fare I will help them to their door as a basic human courtesy, if I get burned by the assumed liability so be it...I did the right thing, come what may.

    I sure as hell ain't calling the cops, my stance on dropping dimes is well known...I'd call for an ambulance if necessary, but not via 911, direct to the volunteer ambulance corps or local fire department.  911 would probably send the cops, and what if the drunk has weed in their pocket?  I'd never forgive myself.

    Parent

    But, but... (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:49:52 PM EST
    The defendants were cops - they must be guilty!

    Parent
    Hope springs eternal. (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:53:41 PM EST
    From the article (none / 0) (#15)
    by CST on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:55:20 PM EST
    I think it's pretty clear why the jury ruled the way it did.  I think they were correct in that ruling based on the evidence (or lack there of) present - innocent until - and all that.

    I just found the defense argument... interesting.  D@mned if you do, d@mned if you don't.

    The officer also told her on tape that he did in fact have $ex with her.

    Parent

    Not that I'm defending him, (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:57:17 PM EST
    but he also told her something like 24 times on that same tape that he didn't have sex with her.

    Parent
    yup (none / 0) (#17)
    by CST on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    that was more in response to "She told friends she "thought" she was raped".  She later said something like 24 times that she was in fact raped.

    Lack of evidence favors the defendent, as it should.  Just pointing out the he said/she said "disparity" can go both ways here.

    Parent

    Thanks, I only skimmed the article. (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:20:34 PM EST
    Effects of torture, no doubt. (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:00:01 PM EST
    was the defense that no sex took place, or was it that the sex was consensual?

    Parent
    Defendant(s) claimed no sex... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Thu May 26, 2011 at 04:43:11 PM EST
    but admitted to a kiss and serenading the accuser with Bon Jovi lyrics, said the accuser was grinding up on him and other flirtatous things.

    On one of the accusers homemade recordings he admitted to using a condom, later claiming it was a lie to appease the accuser.

    Whatever happened pretty crazy freakin' case.

    Parent

    Please tell me (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by lilburro on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    these guys are still not employed as police officers.  Anywhere.

    Parent
    Very "interesting" result (none / 0) (#19)
    by ks on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    To add to what you stated, the cops didn't just help her into her apartment.  They were so concerned about her, they left and and came back several times just to check on her.  Yeah...

    One of the cops testified that he kissed her forehead and fondled her in bed while she had  only her underwear on and he later had sex with her while wearing a condom.  He claimed  because he was having issues with alcohol, that he developled a "rappaport" with her.  Uh huh....

    If these guys weren't cops, though they probably won't be for longer, they would've been under the jail by now.      

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lilburro on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:02:40 PM EST
    police officers should never be "cuddling" you.  For any reason.  "Rapport" or no.  WTF

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:23:23 PM EST
    If they were famous movie directors, they would be living in France.

    Parent
    Only if (none / 0) (#35)
    by Zorba on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:49:40 PM EST
    the female was 13 years old.

    Parent
    And if it was a 13 year old boy, (none / 0) (#39)
    by observed on Thu May 26, 2011 at 02:20:50 PM EST
    the perp would be in Oman.

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#40)
    by ks on Thu May 26, 2011 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    Rich and/or powerful figures, whether literally or ficuratively, get the breaks.  That's not news is it?  

    Parent
    Interesting editorial (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:46:44 PM EST
    From The Economist, arguing that part of the blame for the situation that DSK finds himself in is because of the attitude of many Socialist party members - who are supposed to be "for the people".

    On the left in particular, there seems to be a prevailing code under which to refuse sexual advances, even when unwelcome, is somehow bourgeois. Many grandees reacted to Mr Strauss-Kahn's arrest with horror, not at the accusations, but at the humiliation of an untried powerful figure. Bernard-Henri Lévy, a philosopher who once defended Roman Polanski's right not to be jailed in America for unlawful sex with a minor, railed against the judge who "pretended to take [DSK] for a subject of justice like any other". "Nobody died," snorted Jack Lang, a Socialist ex-culture minister. Few had a good word for the hotel maid; some treated her claims with equal disdain. One left-wing editor, Jean-François Kahn, even dismissed the encounter as a "troussage de domestique", a reference to an aristocratic entitlement to extract sexual favours from domestic staff. All this leaves the troubling impression of an elite that believes itself exempt from ordinary rules (although both Mr Lang and Mr Kahn apologised for their comments).

    And this article from the Guardian makes a very good point:

    One very important fact has been largely absent from the coverage of the sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and, until latterly, leading candidate to be the next president of France. The hotel housekeeper whom he allegedly assaulted was represented by a union.

    The reason that this is an important part of the story is that it is likely that Strauss-Kahn's alleged victim might not have felt confident enough to pursue the issue with either her supervisors or law enforcement agencies, if she had not been protected by a union contract. The vast majority of hotel workers in the United States, like most workers in the private sector, do not enjoy this protection.

    SNIP

    There is a special irony to this situation given Dominique Strauss-Kahn's prior position. The IMF, along with other pillars of the economic establishment, has long pushed for reducing the rights of workers at their workplace. Specifically, they have pushed countries around the world to adopt measures that weaken the power of unions. The IMF has also urged western European countries to eliminate or weaken laws that prevent employers from firing workers at will. These laws, along with unions, are seen as "labour market rigidities" that prevent labour markets from operating efficiently.


    So I guess that (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Zorba on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:53:16 PM EST
    "troussage de domestique" is the latter-day equivalent of "Droit du seigneur."


    Parent
    The "Marriage of Figaro." The Count (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:50:38 PM EST
    was only trying to collect on his right to have sex with his maid before she married.

    It is interesting whom Levy chooses to defend in public.  

    Must learn more about the IMF.  Isn't this the group poorer countries are always trying to persuade to forgive loans?

    Parent

    And, for a long while (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by christinep on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:19:09 PM EST
    Almaviva's wife stood back too in her finery. As an aside, oculus: One of my favorites, and "Dove Sono" captures the personal anguish.

    I thought of the bumbling Count with his arrogance...at first. Art & life. But the real-life arrogance does give the lie to the charm of the culture that would lead to this situation. The wit of Suzanna or the drudgery of the toiling, often isolated hotel maid?

    Parent

    Here's a starter (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:53:27 PM EST
    The Socialist candidate (none / 0) (#28)
    by lilburro on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:23:49 PM EST
    is a Union buster?

    Parent
    Looks like it (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    gotta love (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:31:11 PM EST
    the new world order

    Parent
    Also is a better reason (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:35:49 PM EST
    than "maybe she was trying to shake him down for money."

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:59:28 PM EST
    The fact is that most hotel workers are not unionized and may fear for their jobs in this kind of (alleged) situation.  This woman apparently is protected by her union, so she was strong enough to come forward immediately.

    Kinda dispels the myth that she was looking to shake him down, which is why she came forward.

    Parent

    I have a compliment (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2011 at 03:05:37 PM EST
    for ABG when he comes around. ABG I don't find you an especially good advocate for Obama but honestly you are 1000x better than the Obama supporters at the big orange.

    I'm just glad to have a new buddy... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu May 26, 2011 at 03:15:00 PM EST
    in the pc police debates...double kudos for ABG.

    Parent
    Wonkette on the Gingrich interest-free (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:29:11 PM EST
    account at Tiffany's:  link

    The current Gingrich spouse was a high level staffer for House Ag. Comm., whose jurisdiction includes mining on public lands, an activity as to which Tiffany is effected re silver mining.  

    If they ever met Newt (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ruffian on Thu May 26, 2011 at 07:27:22 PM EST
    They dance to forget

    Parent
    Princess Sparkle Pony (none / 0) (#10)
    by lilburro on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:48:03 PM EST
    has also been providing Calista coverage.

    Newt kind of fascinates me.  I'm not sure there is anyone more hypocritical on earth right now.

    Parent

    Newt (none / 0) (#64)
    by sj on Thu May 26, 2011 at 04:47:20 PM EST
    I know exactly what you mean.  Every now and then a human peaks out for just a moment and he will make an honest statement.  It makes me do a double take every time even though I know his innate GinGrinch-ness will bobble right back up to the surface.

    Parent
    He fascinates me (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by lilburro on Thu May 26, 2011 at 10:53:32 PM EST
    because I never see that!  He's like some gross, American Machiavelli.  He provides enough material to turn Seth Meyers' "Really?" sketch into a feature film.

    Parent
    The Paul (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2011 at 06:09:11 AM EST
    Ryan hand turkeys are hilarious! You would think that all that money that has been spent on Tiffany's and botox might have been better used for a nose job.

    Parent
    Click through the archives (none / 0) (#84)
    by lilburro on Fri May 27, 2011 at 12:33:03 PM EST
    there are Condi hand turkeys too.  Wonkette, Rising Hegemon, Princess Sparkle Pony, and Dependable Renegade...I love them all.

    Parent
    Chinese prisoners forced to game for guards (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Thu May 26, 2011 at 12:45:35 PM EST
    kdog, what say you? (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:03:31 PM EST
    You need to ask? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dadler on Thu May 26, 2011 at 01:28:44 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    Advocating (none / 0) (#41)
    by mmc9431 on Thu May 26, 2011 at 02:34:29 PM EST
    Gutting Medicare sure won't help Republicans in Florida. Florida will definitely be in play in 2012.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#42)
    by mmc9431 on Thu May 26, 2011 at 02:35:12 PM EST
    Wrong thread! Stupid computer

    Parent
    The more (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2011 at 02:56:41 PM EST
    hubris I see at the big orange the more I think that Obama is going to lose in '12. Most of them don't seem to think that the economy is going to be an issue.

    Supreme Court (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2011 at 03:22:01 PM EST
    backs Arizona immigration law that punishes business for hiring undocumented workers.

    The Supreme Court has backed an Arizona law that punishes businesses hiring illegal immigrants, a law that opponents, including the Obama administration, say steps on traditional federal oversight over immigration matters.

    The 5-3 ruling Thursday is a victory for supporters of immigration reform on the state level.

    It was the first high court challenge to a variety of recent state laws cracking down on illegal immigrants, an issue that has become a political lightning rod.

    The outcome could serve as a judicial warmup for a separate high-profile challenge to a more controversial Arizona immigration reform law working its way through lower courts. That statute would, among other things, give local police a greater role in arresting suspected illegal immigrants.

    The hiring case turned on whether state law tramples on federal authority.



    kdog (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2011 at 03:47:55 PM EST
    Sorry man - these people all deserve to have been arrested.

    My new favorite page on Huffpo.

    Agree to disagree... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Thu May 26, 2011 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    selling drugs is non-crime, even if you're a hammerhead doing it very very poorly.

    Imagine you're a visitor from another planet, no frame of reference of our way of life whatsoever, but you're a reasonably intelligent, logical, peaceful life form...and you land in a 7-11 parking lot Main St. USA right as a peace officer hauls off somebody's kid for selling a dub.

    Who would you call the intergalactic prick in such a situation?

    Parent

    Gonna disagree with you (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Fri May 27, 2011 at 12:19:08 PM EST
    You may wish selling drugs was a non-crime, and maybe that argument has merit, but as of right now it IS a crime, and these bozos knew it before they got caught.

    As I've said - you plays the game, you takes the consequences.

    Parent

    You are replying to a person appar. living (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by oculus on Fri May 27, 2011 at 12:23:33 PM EST
    in a different universe.

    Parent
    No... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Fri May 27, 2011 at 12:27:23 PM EST
    by any objective measure there is nothing criminal about it...hence my little hypothetical ya didn't answer.

    It's ok to admit E.T. would have to assume the law was the bad actor...that's no crime:)

    Parent

    ET (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Fri May 27, 2011 at 12:33:59 PM EST
    Could also think - "The inhabitants of this place are too stupid to follow rules that are clearly known to them, and that the police are being too easy by leadidng them away instead of vaporizing them on the spot."

    Parent
    Missed... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Fri May 27, 2011 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    the bit about E.T. being a intelligent logical peaceful being...thats what a homosapien might think.

    Parent
    ET managed to travel to Earth (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Fri May 27, 2011 at 01:08:05 PM EST
    didn't he/she?  :)

    Parent
    Huh... (none / 0) (#61)
    by lentinel on Thu May 26, 2011 at 04:32:51 PM EST
    WASHINGTON -- President Obama has quietly shifted to a goal of regime change in Libya, after first stating he wanted to protect civilians from massacres.

    I would have never guessed....

    "I don't think (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Zorba on Thu May 26, 2011 at 05:17:38 PM EST
    anyone could have predicted......"    ;-)

    Parent
    The House, meanwhile, is refusing to act (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Anne on Thu May 26, 2011 at 05:44:11 PM EST
    on Obama's request for an endorsement of the mission - does anyone really know what that mission is?

    Would it surprise anyone to know that the reason they haven't done anything is that they want to have...wait for it...bipartisan support.

    But, here's the best part:

    Obama did not cite the War Powers Act or ask for explicit authorization in his letter. The president wrote that the resolution he wanted "would demonstrate a unity of purpose among the political branches on this important national security matter."

    I guess the War Powers Act is just so last decade.

    Parent

    Oh, good grief. (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:32:32 PM EST
    The unity pony strikes again. What is with that?

    Parent
    Dang! (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by star on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:33:55 PM EST
    Obama is the master at speaking from both sides of his mouth.. Oh all the talk about 3rd Bush term in 08 - Did we not get just that???

    Parent
    I hope they don't vote on it at all (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by ruffian on Thu May 26, 2011 at 07:32:34 PM EST
    Leave him on his own on this one. National security my a**.

    Parent
    MIght (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2011 at 07:51:26 PM EST
    be the sole advantage of having a GOP congress. They don't feel obligated for vote for this kind of nonsense like the Dems would.

    Parent
    Syria's next....right (none / 0) (#68)
    by observed on Thu May 26, 2011 at 05:01:35 PM EST
    after Obama steps up to the plate and says the word "Medicare"

    Parent
    Help! (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Thu May 26, 2011 at 05:17:04 PM EST
    Do I buy oil long, short, parlay, hedge..?...I'm new at this game.  They shutdown Pokerstars so I thought I'd give etrade a try...I need gas money:)

    Parent
    Except now the Pres. is pushing Poland (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Sat May 28, 2011 at 01:55:40 PM EST
    to step up to the plate.

    Parent
    Roubini (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2011 at 07:56:25 PM EST
    says that the jobless rate will be 9.8% next year and that the economy will only grow at a rate of 2% next year.
    link