Thursday Open Thread

I'm busy at work and BTD will be away for a few days.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Guantanamo Detainee Sues for Public Release of Torture Tapes | Feds Warn 23 Colo. Marijuana Dispensaries to Shut Down >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    From the now closed open thread before this one (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:39:38 PM EST
    I'm with Donald, I want to know more about this air tight dog kennel.  It can't be possible that the use of it leads to a living dog emerging at the end of the journey.  I'm no millionaire though.  Maybe he was having air pumped into it? In the pitch black?  Or was it pitch black in that air tight zone?  Did the kennel have windows capable of taking high velocity impact from road debris?  I just can't get my noodle to stop asking air tight dog kennel questions.

    BREAKING related to this (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 08:30:23 PM EST
    there is a brand new "santorum" styled google bomb.

    is to be defined as

    1.) to defecate in terror.


    maybe the dog (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:05:15 PM EST
    is actually stuffed

    Here is, IMO, the best cover of The Beatles (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:21:52 PM EST
    song When I'm 64. Sung by a one-man a cappella quartet.

    Maybe it's because I am just a couple of weeks shy of my 60th birthday, but this song resonates with me in a way it simply did not do when I was 20 or 30 or even 40.

    I found the link for this video over at Avedon Carol's Sideshow.

    Finally, a REAL instance of election fraud (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:31:21 PM EST
    Hope they nail (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by sj on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:58:36 PM EST
    his @$$ to the wall.

    Heh (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:14:32 AM EST
    O'Keefe, founder of Project Veritas, told the Herald in their original story that he did it to expose New Hampshire's lax system of checks and balances.

    And then we have this.


    The point is that ... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:38:36 AM EST
    ... O'Keefe is pushing the winger myth of a need for voter ID laws based upon winger myths of election fraud.  Rich in irony, ... but lost on some, apparently.

    And then we have this - 8 Republican officials arrested for voter fraud.

    That was easy ...


    the frame (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 02:04:40 PM EST
    Public Perceptions of a Rich-Poor Conflict on the Rise

    Wherever that political debate leads, a new Pew Research Center poll finds that the "issue of class conflict has captured a growing share of the national consciousness," with 66 percent of public believing there are strong or very strong conflicts in America between poor people and reach people. That result represents a 19 point increase since 2009.

    um (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 02:06:20 PM EST
    reach people

    that WAS a cut and paste.
    that increase of around 20% literally show up in almost every demographic.  even republicans.


    Thanks Captain (none / 0) (#3)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 02:44:12 PM EST
    This may be the debate so many of us wanted out in the public forum.  Not dress; not hair-do; not "who do you want to have a beer with"; not any of these goofballs pseudo issues.

    The whole basic question of where to go--and how to do so--has long been deferred in this century. I need to read the new E.J. Dionne column addressing what kind of capitalism the country should follow.


    I wonder if it is (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 02:52:42 PM EST
    naive to hope that this election will be about those issues.  a real discussion about where the country is going to go.

    I dont think its impossible.  most of the trash has been taken out on Obama and it is in the process of being taken out on Willard.  this could be a very interesting and enlightening campaign.

    and it may be a swim in the sewer.  

    either way I think we win.


    The Problem... (none / 0) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 03:31:07 PM EST
    While the survey results show a significant shift in public perceptions of class conflict in American life, they do not necessarily signal an increase in grievances toward the wealthy. It is possible that individuals who see more conflict between the classes think that anger toward the rich is misdirected. Nor do these data suggest growing support for government measures to reduce income inequality.


    People are simply noticing that a lot of other people are fed up with Wall Street, for example, but they don't think the government should intervene, or that it's even a problem.  

    They are simply noticing more conflict.


    you are welcome (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 03:39:14 PM EST
    to your interpretation.  that would not be mine.

    It is possible that individuals who see more conflict between the classes think that anger toward the rich is misdirected.

    sure I suppose thats possible.  personally I think that sounds like something Romney would say


    Not My Interpetation (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 03:55:15 PM EST
    It's the people who took the survey, Pew Research.  If you don't agree fine, but dismissing them when you linked to it is rather lopsided.

    I would love for it to indicate people want change, but it doesn't.  Take it up with the nitwits they surveyed who see a the conflict but don't want the government to resolve it.


    that paragraph in the article (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 03:57:40 PM EST
    was in the nature of explain what was polled.  thats all.
    if you would like to believe that 66% of americans think that poor rich people are being piled on,
    please do so.

    1. Explaining what was polled (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:22:52 PM EST
    hardly merits dismissiveness; without interpretation of data, data are just numbers.

    And I see nothing in what Scott says to suggest the belief that you ascribe to him.  He is continuing discussion of the information that you provided, which would suggest that he shares your interest in it, so why not further discussion rather than shut it down, and with untruths?


    I believe what I said (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:27:07 PM EST
    is believe what you like.  you want to discuss it knock yourself out.  I think I made pretty clear what I think the numbers mean.

    Since 80% of the posts on TL (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:56:52 PM EST
    are yours these days, I think it's you "knocking yourself out."

    I realize you feel you're the Pied Piper here, but I find your dismissive "knock yourself out" response to anyone (including me) who doesn't high five your mostly adolescent  comments to be rude to the point of being vulger.

    We've had thread hi-jackers before, but, since I don't do groupies you can drool your inconsiderate, mind-blowing, repetitive blather for those that do.

    I'm outta here. Ciao


    I think even Jeralyn would find (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:22:46 PM EST
    83 comments today alone - so far - to be beyond excessive.

    At times, he just talks to himself when no one responds.



    See, posting information (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Towanda on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:45:03 AM EST
    is supposed to mean that you want to discuss it, so it would be good to see you knock yourself out to maintain a thread that you start.  Try it; it's called conversation.

    I post too many comments (none / 0) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 08:11:47 AM EST
    I dont post enough comments

    I have an idea.  I will post exactly as many as I wish and you can do the same.



    better and better (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 03:24:42 PM EST
    Gingrich threatens to sue TV stations that air pro-Romney attack ad

    Newt Gingrich's campaign is threatening to sue South Carolina and Florida television stations that air an ad by a pro-Romney super-PAC claiming Gingrich was "fined" $300,000 for ethics violations during the 1990s.

    Gingrich campaign attorney Stefan Passantino called the commercial "a defamatory communication which exposes this station to potential civil liability" in a letter sent to television stations, NBC Politics reports.

    Passantino goes on to demand that stations refuse and cease airing the advertisements.

    I think we all know this is not going to happen.
    what I would guess this is, considering the hand wringing in some republican circles about his attacks on Mitt, is so he can use Mitts ads as justification for airing his own.

    go Newt


    Newt Gingrich is not getting the nomination. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 03:56:12 PM EST
    For one, he's got plenty of his own baggage, and none of it makes him look presidential.

    For another, his personal life - littered with adulterous relationships and multiple marriages - just can't compete with Romney's picture-perfect family (even if there's a creepy "Stepford" feeling about them).

    And his non-political working life does not cast him in the role of Paragon of Corporate Virtue - if you don't think what he got paid by Freddie Mac during the height of the mortgage/housing bubble isn't going to be an issue, you're kidding yourself.

    I know you want the worst candidate possible, so as to make Obama's return to the WH a walk in the park, but it's just not going to happen that way.  And really, why should it?  Why shouldn't Obama have to work at getting another 4 years - why shouldn't he feel pressure to perform up to his rhetoric?  Why on earth would you want Obama to feel he had a mandate to get back to being the conservative he really is?

    Be careful what you wish for, Captain.


    heh (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 03:59:57 PM EST
    first, I know very well Newt is not getting the nomination.  even republicans are not that stupid.
    as for the rest of that, whatever.

    Shorter: (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:11:51 PM EST
    Just blog-clog with pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey posts.

    Huh? The longer version of this (none / 0) (#18)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:15:42 PM EST
    would be helpful.

    It was a reply to #14 (none / 0) (#20)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:18:46 PM EST
    not your comment.

    Yes, I know (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:19:52 PM EST
    But I am still trying to figure out what you were trying to say.

    why dont you (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:20:30 PM EST
    drop the infantile crap and make your pathetic arguments?

    I've clearly made my position known (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:57:58 PM EST
    in other threads.  You post and post and post comments that are void of any rational analysis, contradict previous statements to include even responding to your own comments.  

    The sub-thread just above regarding the Pew polling is another perfect example.  You start the discussion, someone uses your linked information and you completely ignore both rational discussion but then take the "infantile" positions of "what ever" "blah blah blah".

    Blog clogging.  


    whatever (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:08:54 PM EST
    I prefer to not get sucked into pointless back and forth when possible.

    whatever.... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:07:30 PM EST
    But thanks for the 5 rating on the post Capt!  I do appreciate it.

    The idea is to have Newt to kick (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:35:47 PM EST
    around a little while longer--that is the gist of the post to which you pinned your pin the tail on the donkey post.

    And if Newt wishes to bring up Bain some more, that is just fine.....


    you know that (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:38:42 PM EST
    I know that.  everyone who afaiac matters knows that.
    I feel absolutely no obligation to justify for explain myself the the republican ODS sufferers

    Good grief, (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:39:14 PM EST
    The Captain is the latest Obama supporter to be put in the  barrel.

    If you are the least bit supportive of Obama, this is the reaction....

    And, interesting that we have a conservative teaming up with others here who are anti-Obama...


    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:57:22 PM EST
    Cappy is slinging it at his adversaries...

    Can't we just argue facts?

    For example:
    I don't like indefinite detention without charge or trial for American Citizens. Obama just signed it into law. It will be hanging over us for generations.

    I don't like my Justice Department grabbing Twitter records from citizens whose only offense is that they were volunteers for WikiLeaks.

    Obama goes along with the above.

    So, where do we go from here?

    No name calling.


    I dont like them either (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:00:41 PM EST
    so what is the logical extension of that?  elect a republican?

    sorry.  been there.


    ans what exactly would I be (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:01:36 PM EST
    "slinging"  just out of curiosity?

    Example (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 06:49:41 AM EST
    ...drop the infantile crap and make your pathetic arguments"
    ...drop the infantile crap and make your pathetic arguments"

    Not very civil, imo.


    thanks for the support (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:42:46 PM EST
    but to quote Mitt.  I have broad shoulders.

    Mitt talks in sound bites (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:49:22 PM EST
    that he has poll tested.

    A speech is  a bunch of such disojointed sound bites....

    And when he talks fom the "heart," you get the truly weird:  Only the important money people should talk about income inequality "in quiet."


    Sound bites... (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:02:10 PM EST
    You mean like "change you can believe in"...
    or "We are the ones we've been waiting for"...

    so (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:03:07 PM EST
    elect a republican then?

    Vote (none / 0) (#86)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:29:40 PM EST
    for whomever you wish.

    very generous of you (none / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 09:39:10 PM EST
    I believe I will

    come on (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:52:00 PM EST
    admit it.  you tear up when he recites america the beautiful.

    I do.  but its from giggling.


    He makes even good stuff (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:55:31 PM EST
    sound bad.

    What are they going to do for his big convention speech?


    oh he does speeches ok (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:59:44 PM EST
    which is why, you notice, he had notes in NH which he did not have in Iowa which pretty much everyone agrees was a total disaster.

    this is why debates will be fun.


    Im sorry (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:18:22 PM EST
    am I messing with your meme?

    Ah, you forgot this is an (none / 0) (#24)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:20:48 PM EST
    anti-Obama blog and you should not mess with that.

    too late (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:23:07 PM EST
    And Rick Perry (none / 0) (#15)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:11:23 PM EST
    Let him go on too.

    Mitt v. Jon Huntsman (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:17:56 PM EST
    They should both be the same--same background, religion and resume but they are not....

    There was something about Huntsman.  Gay friendly.  Accepts global warming.  A little research showed he is no longer the staunch Mormon Romney is.  Huntsman openly questions his faith--a big no-no in Mormon circles.  Huntsman is very close to the Episcopal Church.

    Then the battle of the suns.....It was a subtext during the last debate cycle.  Hunstman, when he says his suns are in the Navy, is taking a subtle jab at Romney.  Background:  Huntsman's sons did not go on LDS Missions, a sign of impending heresy in Mormon circcles as every male is supposed to go on one.  They joined the Navy. Mitt got a deferment from Vietnam based on his Mission in France, and has said that his sons did not serve in the military in the wake of 9/11 but had served their country in other ways.....

    Subtle, I know, but it is point of rivalry that is playing out.....  


    all true (none / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:26:30 PM EST
    but imagine you are a republican.  I know, but stay with me.  first many of the things you mention:

    Gay friendly.  Accepts global warming.

    for example are not exactly pluses.  but it really comes down to one thing, and I heard this over and over, the fact that he worked for Obama and even more importantly called him a great leader for gods sake, well.  I think you see my point.
    in their atrophied brains it makes perfect sense that if you worked for him and respected him as a leader you simply would be incapable of doing the hatchet job they want to see.
    just MO


    The reason Huntsman is like (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:28:23 PM EST
    that imo is that he is less religious than Mitt....such is the thesis here.

    but isnt it hard (none / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:36:36 PM EST
    to imagine Romney having any deeply held beliefs?
    it is for me.  he has craven opportunist written all over him.

    I still go back to the comment (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:43:47 PM EST
    on Hugh Hewitt's blog four years ago--when he used to take comments--that Mitt is 100% faithful to his wife and his Church, and everything else is up for grabs.

    He used up all his constancy and true beliefs...and he even pretty much says that when challenged on his flip-flopping by saying he has been faithful to his wife and church.

    And, Mitt's pro-choice dalliance?  He got express permission from LDS Church leaders based on political expediency to further his political ambitions, which no doubt inlcude being President, as his father ran for President.

    Ask Mitt about the White Horse Prophecy--I'll bet $10,000 he sees himself as such a vessel of Mormon destiny.  Mitt is a Manchurian Mormon candidate.


    is it fair to observe (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:00:26 PM EST
    that the uneasiness the evangelicals feel may not be of off base after all?  I had not seen that Hugh quote but I bet they have

    Hewitt is Romney's biggest backer (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:07:23 PM EST
    He supported him in 2008 and wrote a book about him....I think it is Hewitt's way of getting an "in" with the person he hopes will be President.

    It was an anonymous commentator on Hewitt's blog, not Hewitt himself...who made what I consider a fairly trenchant observation.


    Jon Huntsman seems to have (none / 0) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:13:20 PM EST
    changed his tone on climate change in recent days.  Huntsman, at the Heritage Foundation, said that the "scientific community owes us more" on the issue and that not enough solid research exists to "formulate policies based on global warming."   But, yes, he does come across as less plastic than Mittens.  As for the expression "gay friendly", I do hope that we will soon relegate it to the dust bin of history:   just supplant "gay" with any other and its condescension becomes evident, such as, I am ___friendly. I'll insert "Mormon" for illustration.

    we are saved (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:36:20 PM EST
    Stephen Colbert is running for president.  Jon Stewart is heading his superpac.

    all apparently because of the fact he is polling ahead of Huntsman in SC.


    Rachel Maddow just (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 08:48:37 PM EST
    said "gay-friendly."

    You assume the only way to influence (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:14:43 PM EST
    policy and Obama is to not vote for him or defeat him.

    This assumption underlies much of your commentary.

    But it is not true.  The Occupy movement shows how policy can be influenced without defeating Obama.


    I think I understand the point you are (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:22:15 PM EST
    trying to make here. Might I suggest it would be a better point if there was any evidence that the Occupy movement has influenced any actual policy. I don't mean any actual speeches, but actual policy changes and decisions by Obama.

    I can't think of any, but, sadly, I don't know everything. So, if you have some examples, please share.


    It has changed the terms of the debate (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:29:50 PM EST
    which is huge by itself....

    That has in turn led imo to Obama's ability to face down the Congressional Republicans over the payaroll tax cut and the extension of unemployment benefits.


    Big deal. (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:50:15 PM EST
    He got a two month extension.
    And as part of the deal, Congressional Republicans got and approved language requiring that a construction permit be issued for the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days unless the president determined the pipeline was not in the national interest.

    Do you think that Obama will turn the pipeline down?
    Maybe. But I don't think so.

    And the extension will expire.

    Square One.

    If this is the best example of "Obama facing down the Republicans" we got, I don't think too much of it.


    this is not exactly correct (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:55:17 PM EST
    they got an agreement for an expedited decision on the pipeline I believe.  which is not the same thing.  who know if he will approve it but the state department said it was not enough time.  we will see.
    and as for facing down republicans, I think if you asked them about getting their a$$es handed to them over the tax extensions, which btw is about to happen again, they would disagree.  at least in private

    I expect more facing down in the year to come.


    Some "facing down". (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:35:10 PM EST
    He gave away the store - for an extension.
    An extension in trade for something permanent.

    If he wanted to face down the right wing --- how about sticking to his guns on Gitmo?

    How about observing his pledge not to sign any health care bill that did not include a public option?

    There are two ways to see Obama imo.
    Either he is weak, or he is actually in concert with the conservatives.
    I believe that both are true.


    The pipeline will be approved (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:23:05 PM EST
    As an ardent environmentalist, I know a losing fight when I see it.   Piplelines split the Democrats:  greens v. unions.....

    The Alaskan pipeline--built in a far more environmentally sensitive area when those who support the environment had more clout--shows us what the outcome of this fight over a pipeline through Red State America will be.

    Two month extension and another bite at the apple....I think he will get another extension.


    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:27:33 PM EST
    "he'll" get another extension. Maybe. If he's even interested.

    But I believe we'll get a pipeline mess for sure.

    As I said, if this is the example that Obama people want to give to illustrate "Obama backing down the Republicans", I think it is a transparently pathetic one.


    ok (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:33:40 PM EST
    the truth is he probably doenst care that much about stopping the pipeline.  honestly I have some questions about the resistance to it myself.  is it better to transport it by boat or train?  cant they go around the aquifer?  anyway

    my point is, and you are going to hate it, is that he used it as a bargaining chip and got the republicans to "force" him to do what one of his biggest supporters, big labor, wanted him to do anyway and at the same time give him cover from the environmentalists.

    politics.  its a b!tch isnt it?


    You got it (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:35:53 PM EST
    The Pipeline was going to be built anyway (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:35:24 PM EST
    At least he got something for it...but he had to make the Republicans think he was against it, and so if he gives them the pipeline, others like you assume he "caved."

    Major Garrett agrees with this theory and even goes further by explaining a timeline where Obama deliberately delayed the pipeline decision until December, while he always intended to approve it, just to have it as a bargaining chip....

    If Obama does not approve the pipeline, I would be very surprised.


    Pipeline was used as a bargaining chip (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:23:39 PM EST
    there's a "debate"? (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 08:30:04 PM EST
    really? you mean the premasticated media pablum du jour?

    i can't speak for other Occupy sites, but where i live, Occupy has become a self-involved, parasitic, elitist circle jerk

    i'd say that Occupy Oakland is a joke, but it isn't funny

    sorry, that's just my (very well informed) opinion


    speaking of that last part (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:32:23 PM EST
    havent heard much of that lately.  the deadline is approaching.

    That;'s a good point, if as casey says (none / 0) (#31)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:27:55 PM EST
    we see influence on policy.  It would make sense, as so far, we certainly have seen evidence that Occupy has changed the media meme -- from national debt and the deficit to income equality -- and changing the media meme ought to have impact on policy.  I just don't see it yet, but I cannot think of any such changes.  If there have been, I also would like to know that change has brought hope!  

    soooo (none / 0) (#6)
    by CST on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 03:29:10 PM EST
    what do people think about SOPA?

    It's blowing up all over "the internet".

    Any fears that TL might get shutdown?

    I don't think it will actually pass.  Especially if the interwebs follow through on the blackout/protest.  Google - you listening?  That means you.

    Any Bill Lama Smith Introduces... (none / 0) (#9)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 03:44:03 PM EST
     ...is certainly not good for the consumer and definitely a windfall for some special interest.

    The internet does not need more police who work for fat cats chasing kids around for copyright non-sense.

    Not sure how it relates to TL.


    I think the idea is (none / 0) (#10)
    by CST on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 03:48:20 PM EST
    they can shut down any site that links to pirated content.

    So if someone on TL were to post a link they could shut down the site.


    Even worse than that. Under SOPA any its that (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:18:49 PM EST
    someone claims is somehow, however negligibly, connected to piracy can be shut down immediately, no warning and no hearing. Not just shut down, either, completely disappeared from the toobz.

    And buried in SOPA's many dense pages are clauses that make it so simple to shut down a site that just about anybody with any power does not like. Shut down political sites just as easily as piracy sites.


    yea I'm kind of surprised (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CST on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:22:25 PM EST
    it hasn't come up around here.

    I feel like this is one of those bills where noone voting on it has any clue what the repercusions of it could be, or how the internet works.

    All the major news networks have avoided talking about it thus far, probably since Viacom and other media companies are the ones supporting the bill.


    funny (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:25:31 PM EST
    not around the screen much lately and I actually had not been paying attention to this while I have heard of it.  so I googled and this is the first sentence to come up:

    But the Texas Republican . .



    also (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:29:01 PM EST
    after reading that wired article I do not think we need worry much.

    probably not (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:39:30 PM EST
    but there are a lot of D co-sponsers on there.

    Enough to make me nervous.  Especially considering how damaging it could be.


    it just seems impossible (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:07:21 PM EST
    but admittedly many thing that once seemed impossible have come to pass.

    Donald, here tis! (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:49:16 PM EST
    At 3:29 seconds, Mr. Messina proudly announces that the money raised for both the re-election and Democrat National Committee was raised "globally".  This violates election laws which restrict campaign contributions from outside the United States


    Here's one that covers the 2008 election.

    Need more?

    Any source that (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:41:35 PM EST
    talks about the "Democrat" National Committee is suspect.

    Americans live abroad, you know.....


    just make sure (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:44:10 PM EST
    you have good virus protection if you follow his links.  sort of like vacationing in amsterdam.

    Got it, think I'll pass (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:50:36 PM EST
    Okay, I guess (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:52:06 PM EST
    some evil Rightie just faked the video press release...

    You guys are sooooooo in denial.



    The Press Release was fine (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:10:03 PM EST
    and didn't say anything remarkable at all.....

    It is all the right wing Gellerisms that you have to rely on.....

    Would you rely on a blog entry by Michael Moore for proving a conspiracy?  


    What I did was provide a video (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 09:20:56 PM EST
    of an Obama dude saying that contributions have came from around the world. "Globally."

    Then I threw you folks a couple of links re the 2008 election.

    I can throw you more, but the fact is that, as good Obama voters, and let's don't kid each other, you will vote for him, you won't admit that he was caught taking money from outside the US in 2008.

    The rules are not for Obama. He has a higher calling than obeying such trivial things.


    I pointed this out before (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 09:37:46 PM EST
    but perhaps it was too brief to be noticed.

    Many Americans live overseas.  They are entitled to contribute.  By saying "global" contributions have been made, as what was said in the Press Release, there is no admission of wrongdoing at all.

    Your other sources are uber biased and dwell on perhaps a couple of problems....



    Read the American Thinker (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:24:33 AM EST

    Despite dropping the groundbreaking bombshell  story of "Palestinian" brothers from the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza who donated $33,000 to Obama's campaign, no big media picked up the story. Jihadis donating to Obama from Gaza? Could there be a bigger story?  Foreign donations are illegal, but this story was all  that and so much more. The "Palestinian" brothers were proud and vocal of their "love" for Obama. Their vocal support on behalf of "Palestinians"  spoke volumes to Obama's campaign.

    And yet still no media.

    But Obama pricked up his ears. He smelled trouble and while no media asked, he answered anyway. Sen. Obama's campaign immediately scrambled and contended they had returned the  $33,500 in illegal contributions from Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza, despite the fact that records do not show that it was returned and the brothers said they have not received any money. Having gone through all of Obama's refunds redesignations etc, no refund was made to Osama, Hossam, or Edwan Monir in the Rafah refugee camp. And still no media.


    Digging deeper, all sorts of very bizarre activity jumped at us. Dr and JJ continued to break it down and pull data from various sources. We found  Rebecca Kurth contributed $3,137.38 to the Obama Campaign in 112 donations, including 34 separate donations recorded in one day,  

    How about this gibberish donor on the 30th of April in 2008.

    A donor named  Hbkjb, jkbkj

    City: Jkbjnj Works for:  Kuman Bank (doesn't exist)

    Occupation:  Balanon Jalalan Amount:  $1,077.23

    or the donor Doodad, The # of transactions = 1,044

    The $ contributed = $10,780.00

    This Doodad character works for FDGFDGF and occupation is DFGFDG

    It happened in 2008 and it is happening again.


    "DFGFDG" (none / 0) (#157)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 04:07:08 PM EST
    That sure is easy to type.

    No, you didn't (none / 0) (#132)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 07:51:53 AM EST
    What I did was provide a video of an Obama dude saying that contributions have came from around the world. "Globally."

    First, "globally" has several meanings apart from "around the world".  It means "across-the-board, overall, the whole, universally", etc.  Moreover, even if Messina was using the term "globally" to mean (as you assume) "around the world", there are over 4 million Americans living abroad (not including military and government employees), all of whom can make campaign contributions legally.

    Fail ... again.

    BTW - If you really think that Obama's national campaign manager was stupid enough to post a video admitting to illegal campaign contributions, you should contact the FEC right away and file a complaint.

    I'm sure they would appreciate the laugh.


    man (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:06:16 PM EST
    I do love following your links

    Pam Geller (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:43:36 PM EST
    Now, that is a reputable source....

    Hahahahahahahaha ... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:17:22 PM EST
    Yes - Obama's campaign manager is so stupid he posted a video on Youtube admitting they received illegal campaign contributions.

    or, ...

    ... when Messina said "... globally, we raised more than 86 million dollars ...", he was using "globally" in the generic sense of the "across-the-board, overall, the whole, universally", etc. - particularly since it was immediately preceded by "Now let's step back and take a look at the larger budget picture ..."

    You're funny.


    Geller's latest (none / 0) (#136)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 08:23:52 AM EST
    She's defending the marines who urinated on the corpses of the Taliban fighters.

    Donald, if you want to claim (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 09:28:54 AM EST
    she is lying in the American Thinker article and ignore her, be my guest.

    Of course no one has proven her wrong.

    Take off the blinders, Donald. Obama ran a Chicago style campaign in 2008 and thinks he can get away with it again.  


    the republicans (none / 0) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:13:50 PM EST
    really need better lunatics.  they used to have better lunatics.

    Now, now, Donald (none / 0) (#156)
    by Zorba on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:51:49 PM EST
    Surely you must admit that Pamela Geller is every bit as sane and reasonable as Orly Taitz.   ;-)

    I just caught the end of Tweetys show (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:33:20 PM EST
    (because Al Sharpton is a guilty pleasure of mine)
    and his end of the show rant was thought provoking.
    well, maybe not that exactly but anyway,
    his question was what would the Obama people be doing and thinking if democrats were calling him a Kenyan Colonialist, calling for him to show his birth certificate or suggesting he is a muslim?
    which is sort of the equivalent of what is happening to Romney right now.

    there is some truth in that. the answer is I think they would be sh!tting bricks.  which is a happy happy thought.

    Kenyan Colonialist-- (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:52:52 PM EST
    Cambridge Corporatist....Kinda sound alike....

    Heh, don't eff with Newt (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:54:18 PM EST
    Something about payback being....not nice....

    you know (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:56:56 PM EST
    if it was just Newt . . .
    Perry is being his wing man with vulture capitalism.

    The Taliban says that the (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:37:42 PM EST
    tape of the Marines will not hurt Afghanistan talks.  I had to wonder this morning discovering that this had gone on youtube at this time that someone was hoping to undermine all that.

    good evidence (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:41:33 PM EST
    they get what is at stake.  and a good sign.

    I was wondering if the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist and others recently would play into it in any way.

    no one is exactly saying "gosh I wonder who did that"  


    I'm not sure the Taliban cares much (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 09:13:40 PM EST
    about Iran and prevents them going nuclear.  Af/Pak Pashtun affairs yes, the affairs of Iran not so much.  Since they actually have Saudi connections, they don't want Iran to have anything nuclear either.  Iran is very isolated in the Middle East where allies are concerned.  We probably granted them their biggest ally these days, and that would be Iraq.  Prior to us though, Iraq couldn't really be placed in that column either.

    btw (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 09:18:56 PM EST
    Palin has now joined the axis of evil with Perry and Gingrich.  so now its Palin, Gingrich and Perry against basically the republican party.

    Sarah Palin says Republican criticism of Romney's Bain record is fair

    seriously.  does it get better?


    See what happens when you take (none / 0) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 09:30:16 PM EST
    a moment to make a little dinner?  Palin could not just stand there and let Perry and Gingrich rake in tea partying southern fried Super pac all alone.  Chaps me how Yankee Palin gets a free pass around here.  I never will.  She was born so far North of the Mason-Dixon line she's practically a Soviet spy :)  But she's great, more Southern than I can ever hope to be :)

    Limits of Power (none / 0) (#53)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:47:01 PM EST
    The cause really:

    "Conservatives continue to make up the largest segment of political views in the country, outnumbering liberals nearly two-to-one, according to a new poll Thursday. The Gallup survey found that 40 percent of Americans consider themselves conservative; 35 percent consider themselves moderate; and 21 percent see themselves as liberal. The figures did not change from 2010."


    I would say (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:49:10 PM EST
    that breakdown certainly reflects the people gallup surveys.  and their results reflect it.  not so sure about reality.

    So (none / 0) (#70)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:04:00 PM EST
    that explains Obama's rightward lilt.



    So (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:05:19 PM EST
    we should just give up and give the WH to Mitt since that says everything.

    At this point, (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:10:22 PM EST
    sad to say, I don't care to whom the WH is given.

    In any case, I don't feel that it is we, the people, that are doing the giving.


    somehow (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:07:56 PM EST
    I dont think that was his point

    No (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:47:22 PM EST
    I know it's not his point but he actually makes me think of voting for the GOP. I mean he's continually reminding us that nothing liberal can be done and thinks like Obama that liberals are silly children who should be continually put down that he actually is a great advocate for the GOP, in fact I have said before that he's a better advocate than Jim or BTAL could ever be.

    "better advocate than Jim or BTAL" (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:54:15 PM EST
    we are not talking about a very high bar are we.

    I would imagine that he observes, rightly, that the country is becoming more conservative.  its true it is.  or at least its politics is and I believe that is because many people who would be liberal are cut off from the system.  one of the great things Obama did was to get a small number of them off the couch.
    this year I think the excessive overreach of republicans in state after state will have a similar effect.


    But the (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:29:01 PM EST
    country is NOT becoming more conservative. Read the issue polls. Conservative issues are not popular. Forget labels and talk about issues and if you believe that the country is becoming more conservative then there's really no point in reelecting Obama because what is he going to do? The same thing that a Republican would do is what you're pretty much saying.

    One (none / 0) (#73)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:07:43 PM EST
    reason the figures did not change from 2010 is that Obama is himself a conservative reactionary.

    So there is no leadership toward liberalism.

    Bush, as rotten as he was, led the nation into a right wing conservative nightmare - and we have no one to lead us out of it.


    somebody (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:09:10 PM EST
    needs a hug

    The American (none / 0) (#78)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:18:41 PM EST
    people need and deserve a hug.
    A big warm heartfelt one.

    And what we're getting is our heating subsidies cut.


    I have been heating with wood (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:29:09 PM EST
    its great and its free. or if you cant cut your own as I have been its still pretty cheap. if it possible you should try it.  (this is a sincere response)

    Your (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:38:30 PM EST
    response may be sincere, but it does not address the reality of a coldhearted government putting the health and welfare of its citizens in the back of the bus.

    What you're saying is, "let 'em chop wood".


    really really (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:42:47 PM EST
    needs a hug

    on heating with wood (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:41:55 PM EST
    I am finding I really like it.  I first thought it would be a pain but I am not finding it to be.  the house is insulated well enough that its not that cold when I wake up in the morning.  and I have heat that I can turn for for a few minutes if needed but the little stove heats the place up really fast and heats it really well.  much better than I actually expected.

    and possibly the coolest part is that I find that I really like keeping the fire going.  there is something very primal about it.  its way cooler than just turning a knob.  to participate.  to know exactly what goes into heating the house is actually really cool.


    Ah, Capt (none / 0) (#112)
    by sj on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:52:51 PM EST
    Here is a comment I'm interested in.  Do you chop your own wood?  My folks were thrilled to get a real vintage wood burning stove (one that you cook on) in their home post-retirment.  It really was great for cooking and kept the house warm and cozy, but that chopping wood thing became an issue as they aged.

    I have been yes. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 08:12:58 PM EST
    its really easy here because there was a horrific ice storm here maybe two or three years ago that destroyed thousands if not millions of trees.  and since I live in the country the ones that were not blocking a road or a driveway for the most part are where they fell.  and pretty much everyone is happy to have you take them off their land.  they have been down long enough to be perfectly "seasoned" which means dry enough to burn well.  so thats what I have been doing.  finding a down tree and cutting it up and bringing it home.  fortunately my relatives have all the necessary things like trailers to do this.  and I already had a couple of chain saws.  I have not paid a penny for heating this winter and dont expect to.

    I get the part about not always being able to do that.  it is a bit of work.  but it gets me off the couch.  but here a "rick" which is 4 feet tall and 8 feet long is 40 or 50 dollars.  and that is enough to last for weeks so even if you have to buy wood its not that bad.  in fact with the economy so bad and so many people out of work lots of people are doing what I described in the first paragraph and selling it.  it sort of gives you an idea of how bad the ice storm actually was that we have all been doing this for months and havent made a dent in the available down trees.  in fact people I suppose did it last winter and maybe even the winter before.  it was a epic ice storm.

    I am all for heating with wood.  I live in an all electric house and my bill went from 175-200 bucks a month in the summer to 60-70 now.


    Aren't you concerned about (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 09:24:13 PM EST
    pollution??? Your carbon foot print is at least a city block big.



    Hmmmm. I was wondering about that too.. (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:17:53 AM EST
    as I mentioned (none / 0) (#133)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 08:10:40 AM EST
    the wood I have been using in deadfall.  it would be burned in any case.  if not cut up and used for heating it would be dozed into a pile and burned.  so by using it for heating I and others are in fact not using the fossil fuel based regular home heating and therefor we are reducing the ultimate footprint.

    and fortunately there is enough deadfall all around me to last for years.



    CA is concerned w/air quality and (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 08:20:55 AM EST
    wood burning fireplaces.

    I know (none / 0) (#137)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 08:39:47 AM EST
    like I said

    it would be burned in any case.

    Chainsaws? (none / 0) (#125)
    by sj on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 09:36:09 PM EST
    And I was picturing you in your red, plaid flannel shirt hefting an axe.  And here you are using chainsaws?  Aren't chainsaws for wimps?

    I kid.  I know wood is heavy no matter how you cut it.  And after you cut it you have to lift it.  Usually at least twice.


    honestly (none / 0) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 09:46:14 PM EST
    its not the cutting that bothers me.  chainsaws make that a snap.  even the lifting is not that bad.  its the splitting.  that sucks. and that is where the ax comes in.  so far I have been really lucky and finding downed trees that have a diameter small enough to use without splitting.

    and no jim I am not concerned about that.  your republican buddies have told me thats bunk.


    Well, first I will just note that (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:03:49 AM EST
    all downed trees are not burned. Many are just crushed and pushed into gullies and big piles and left to decay. They make excellent habitat for small animals, birds, snakes, lizards, etc.

    I had  11 trees come down 4/27 when the tornadoes came through and have cut them up, etc with my 20" and 14" Poulan. Wish you had been around.(If you want to learn small engine repair, buy a Poulan.) Thankfully only one was close to the house and only two went across the driveway and only one across the road.

    And since I do not believe in the man made global warming hoax I don't care if you burn wood. We have two fireplaces and use one at Christmas. The other is closed off.

    But....you can't defend burning wood if you believe in MMGW unless circumstances dictate you can't use public utilities.

    BTW - When you run out of the small stuff you will need to split the larger pieces. Buy yourself a couple of wedges and a splitting ax and a maul. A spuger and a crowbar is useful for lifting/leveraging. To avoid having your saw's bar  pinched and caught in bigger trunks, you can "V" cut on opposite sides. Slow, but effective. You can also use the wedge to keep the two sides apart.

    And be careful. If you hit a nail driven in a tree years ago to hold a wire, etc., the blade will kick back with astonishing force. And never, never, never straddle what your cutting.


    around here they are burned (none / 0) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:37:01 AM EST
    and millions of trees already have been within a 100 mile radius of here if not smaller.  as I said, it was an epic I storm.  the internet in loaded with pictures of it if you google.

    the way dead fall is cleared here is to doze it into a big pile and burn it.  since lots of people around here use wood for heat the deadfall that was possible to leave, that is not blocking anything or a danger to live stock, was left precisely for that purpose.  because believe it or not we hicks do have some awareness of the pollution but to be honest it probably had just as much to do with the fact that it is a convenient way to get fuel.

    the fact is many people around here heat with wood because they can not afford to do anything else.  fortunately that is not me yet but it is very nice to have an extra 100 or so each month being on unemployment.
    you want people to use something besides wood.  simple.  make fuel available that they can afford because most would happily not use it.


    The facts are (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 11:02:38 AM EST
    that all wood is not burned any place by anyone.

    Such an absolute claim is obviously not correct.

    And yes, "around here" some dead fall, or cleared for agriculture, etc., is burned.

    And I would also like a $100 or so extra a month.

    Maybe if all the environmental extremists hadn't have shut down drilling and all MMGW hoaxers hadn't joined them....and Obama hadn't changed the rules in 2/09.... gasoline would be around $1.50 a gallon instead of the current $3.35 (local).

    BTW - High oil prices hurt the rural poor more than others because

    1. They have older vehicles.

    2. They must drive because public transportation is mostly non-existent.

    Unfortunately no matter how much money we waste on crony capitalism for solar, wind and ethanol, research has not yet found a solution.

    whatever (none / 0) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 11:07:57 AM EST
    Im sure you know more about what happened here than I do.
    but for anyone interested in this I found this.
    Northwest Arkansas Ice Storm 2009
    This isn't a video to watch, but rather to listen. It was taken just as the worse of the ice storm was coming through. The crackling noise is the freezing rain and the loud pops, which sound like gun fire, are actually trees snapping under the weight of the ice. The rustling noise are small branches falling.

    I have heard video from locals much worse than this.
    it literally sounded like fireworks.  unfortunately I they didnt post them to the web and this one is they best I could find.  all the best sounds happened on what was probably the night before this was taken.

    sorry bad link (none / 0) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 11:16:43 AM EST
    btw (none / 0) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 11:32:06 AM EST
    Ice storms like this is precisely the reason that I, like almost everyone else here, choose to have at least the option of wood heat.
    I have an all electric home.  after that storm the power was off here for almost a month.  and for some parts of the state for more than three months.

    I have a generator to keep my fish alive but it wont provide  heat.


    I didn't say a word about the ice storm (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 01:08:10 PM EST
    so I can't figure why you bring it up.

    My point was and is, not all downed timber is burned.

    And you can get bottled gas.


    "Maybe" - heh (none / 0) (#152)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 12:02:58 PM EST
    Maybe if all the environmental extremists hadn't have shut down drilling and all MMGW hoaxers hadn't joined them....and Obama hadn't changed the rules in 2/09.... gasoline would be around $1.50 a gallon instead of the current $3.35 (local).

    "Maybe" the Easter Bunny is real.  "Maybe" - if that had any basis in truth - you would be able to post a link to a single, oil industry analyst who supports that fairy tale.


    a btw (none / 0) (#146)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:42:14 AM EST

    Many are just crushed and pushed into gullies and big piles and left to decay.

    dont know where you live but that doesnt happen here at all and in this case the sheer volume of the deadfall would make that totally impossible.  the storm happened in midwinter of 2009 I came home for thanksgiving the following year 2010 and every road was lined with piles of deadfall so high you could not see over them.  for miles and miles in every direction.  that was all taken by the national guard and others to central locations and burned.


    google search (none / 0) (#147)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:44:48 AM EST
    Capt Howdy (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:59:22 PM EST
    Maybe this will help you understand my comment from the other thread.

    Marc Rich (born December 18, 1934) is an international commodities trader and entrepreneur.[1] He is best known for founding the commodities company Glencore. He was indicted in the United States on federal charges of illegally making oil deals with Iran during the late 1970s-early 1980s Iran hostage crisis and tax evasion. He was in Switzerland at the time of the indictment and has never returned to the U.S.

    He subsequently received a presidential pardon from U.S. President Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001, Clinton's last day in office.

    Perhaps you were too young in 2001 to remember. Or perhaps you shut out hurtful memories.

    I really wish I cared (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:01:45 PM EST
    what your point is.  but I honestly dont.`

    Just general dirt dredging (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:22:43 PM EST
    If we are going to do that, can I raise Watergate again?

    Or Iran-Contra?

    Or no WMD and Joe Wilson?


    You can raise (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:06:38 AM EST
    the Titanic if you wish.

    And I can do the same.


    The pinhead has a website (none / 0) (#159)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 12:46:06 PM EST
    with a cartoon of Uncle Sam getting ready to blow his head off with a gun marked "liberalism" and "Islam"..

    And Pam Kahane Geller is probably one of his more reasonable sources of information..


    have people been talking about this here (none / 0) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 08:17:16 PM EST
    Montana Case Could Challenge Citizens United Ruling

    Just shy of two years after the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, a Montana legal challenge has set the stage for the high court to revisit its landmark decision to deregulate corporate political spending.
    The Montana Supreme Court last week rejected a constitutional challenge to the state's century-old prohibition on independent corporate campaign expenditures. That Montana statute was technically nullified when the U.S. Supreme Court threw out federal limits on independent corporate and union political spending in 2010.

    to brodie from the twinkie thread... (none / 0) (#118)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 08:39:40 PM EST
    Though disclosing it would probably ruin (what's left of) my pristine reputation here.  Mighty controversial left field source, well outside of the mainstream, the stuff of which angry mobs are formed.

    I got a kick out of that! 99% of my friends are artists, art historians, theorists, curators, gallererists/dealers etc, so I know about guarding one's reputation! It takes work. Good luck!

    I really enjoyed your comment about the peace symbol and googled it and visited some out of main stream sites myself. I was really surprised to learn of how the symbol was constructed using flag semaphore language. That seems like a really bad idea. For one thing it is not a common language - it is a learned visual alphabet and not a common one at that. The resulting image, however, DOES read in the common visual language. I thought of two references right away. 1) (the earlier) an upside down crucifixion (St Peter) and 2) the "Hanged Man" from the later Tarot. Maybe even Leonardo's "Vitruvian Man" inverted. In all cases the human figure is upside down. Hardly an image for "Peace" as we think of it now.

    I cannot attest for this site, (seems to be a tarot interpretive site) ....but, it is interesting that the writer calls the "Hanging Man" a card about shaming. Makes a good case for it and even includes a picture of a fresco by Giovanni da Modena in the cathedral of San Petronio in Bologna (which I've never seen and now wish even more that I had money and time to travel.) Anyhoo, if "shaming" is part of the visual interpretation of the symbol, then that would make sense in that one could read it as being about shaming governments to disarm.

    Thx for the kind remarks Z. (none / 0) (#141)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 10:06:27 AM EST
    I was hoping for a few more takers on my post, but one is better than none.  And the proposed new peace symbol and explanation about the badly flawed one we've used for half a century rings true to me.  I'm even thinking of adding that new symbol as a patch to go on one of my vintage pieces of clothing from the 60s to see if I get any reaction with the person in the street.

    As for the source, no, nothing to do with tarot.

    Thanks again for your comments.