home

Sound Familiar?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2012
Posted on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 03:38:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Open Thread (plus snarky comment in the comments.)

< Wednesday Open Thread | Thursday Election Ads and Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sound Familiar? | 116 comments (116 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Barack Obama (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 03:39:03 PM EST
    who I am enthusiastically supporting for reelection, was not quite so "approving" of this message in the 2008 primaries.

    Snark now off.

    Who am I without (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 04:07:20 PM EST
    getting my PUMA on.  What a conundrum!  Snark now off.

    Save the world, vote Obama

    Parent

    was a huge Hillary fan (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by athyrio on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:37:04 PM EST
    for 2008 and now believe I have to support Obama and have already voted absentee for him and all dems in my state...I just adhor Romney and that made me break ranks with PUMA and vote accordingly...it is hard with this electoral college stuff as it impossible to have anyone else win but those two parties....Lets please get rid of the electoral college...

    Parent
    I figure we have about as much chance of (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:56:23 PM EST
    getting rid of the electoral college and really making our votes mean something as we do of having a strong multi-party system; I suspect there's a connection there.

    I share your feelings of abhorrence of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan; really, there aren't words to fully express just how much I can't stand them.

    I'm fortunate to live in a state that's so blue I can vote for Jill Stein, who best represents my interests.  But: as disappointing as it is to know that she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, her losing won't be nearly as upsetting as Romney winning.

    I know there are a lot of people here with reservations about Obama - and I'm certainly one of them, and vocally so - but I have to say that if I lived in a swing state, I'd probably be casting a vote for Obama if that was the only way to keep Romney and all the insane people he associates with out of power.

    Really sucks that we've come to the point where we're actually willing to vote for a status quo that also sucks, but it is what it is: suckingly sucky.

    Parent

    Multi-party system democracy (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Politalkix on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:10:38 PM EST
    is not a panacea. Israel has a multi-party political system, yet the country keeps moving rightward, each passing year. In the UK, the Liberal Democrats formed a coalition not with Labor but with the Tories to drive austerity on the people. In multi-party systems, politicians make all sorts of deals (sometimes even more cynical than we have in America).
    Any system (2 party or multi party) is as good as the people running it.


    Parent
    all the more reason to get rid... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:31:57 PM EST
    ...of the electoral college. str8 popular vote really eliminates parties trying to win swing states, which is currently just about on ethical par with pathological creeps trying to woo underage girls into their car. sure, str8 popular vote means the coasts rule at the national level, but that's where the most people live, and local representation, both at the statehouses and on capital hill in d.c., will still exist and, if anything, should become stronger and more important. still, even i know it all comes down to cash. without campaign finance rules that make the playing of the game serve the actual interests of the voters, well, we will continue to urinate into the wind and wonder what that vinegar taste is.

    Parent
    Capital Hill (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:32:48 PM EST
    Freudian finance slip.

    Parent
    How can we get all the insane people (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:00:31 AM EST
    Obama associates with out of power?  Can we say "fine, I'll vote for you but only if you ditch Geithner"?

    Parent
    On some level I see my vote as (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:15:48 PM EST
    a way to show whose team I want to be on. A GOP candidate could show me how to erase the deficit and bring world peace, but I would not vote for him if he did not break from the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter in no uncertain terms. I just don't want to be associated with them.

    Parent
    Adhor? (none / 0) (#65)
    by gaf on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 12:49:41 AM EST
    I just adhor Romney and that made me break ranks with PUMA and vote accordingly.

    Adhor - Is that a portmanteau of abhor and adore?


    Parent
    Think of it as ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 03:02:58 AM EST
    ... an internal love / hate dynamic.

    Parent
    This is my take on it... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Thanin on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:20:02 PM EST
    A vote for Obama now will most likely make it easier for Hillary in 2016 -- assuming she goes for it, which I think she will.

    Parent
    not about Hillary, IMO (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:55:57 AM EST
    4 more years of Obama could make it impossible for another democrat to win in 2016.  I think Bill is just doing what he thinks is best for the country.  Imagine that.

    Parent
    Interesting... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:37:44 AM EST
    So according to your own post, Clinton looks pretty stupid for believing Obama's reelection is what's best for the country.  Imagine that.

    Parent
    nope (1.00 / 1) (#105)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:02:24 PM EST
    not at all.  Continue making crap up in your head though, sooner or later you might get it right.

    Parent
    I'm completely confused (none / 0) (#92)
    by sj on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 11:09:41 AM EST
    by your take on that comment.  I've said many times that I believe (although hope I'm wrong) that a Republican is inevitable as the 45th president.  Either now or 4 years from now.  How does that prognostication mean Clinton looks pretty stupid for always -- at any given point -- doing what he thinks is best for the country?

    Parent
    I've got to agree with thanin on this one (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 11:31:46 AM EST
    Either teresa worded her comment terribly... or she thinks Obama is a terrible President and Clinton is clueless about what's good for the country.

    If the latter I'd say she's very wrong on both counts.

    Parent

    lol (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:27:10 PM EST
    jeesh.... why not just accept facts..... people are not happy with the last four years.  What I think of Obama has nothing to do with anything.  Read the polls.  Read the approval ratings. The only reason Obama is not getting his ass kicked all over the map is because Romney is the worst republican candidate of my lifetime.  He's barely human and he is neck and neck with the incumbent democrat. That's just sad.
    60 percent of people who are voting for Obama want BIG CHANGE from his first four years.  Obama said just yesterday, in so many words, that he is staying the course.  I was astounded, but it's what he said when asked. He said he understood that people were saying that they were frustrated with the pace of the recovery.  He either thinks the people are stupid or he doesn't give a damn what they/we want or think.  So, here's the thing, if Obama wins the next four years are going to look like the last four.  But even so, that is probably better for the country than if Romney wins.
      Bill being Bill and Hillary being Hillary, they would prefer the safety of the nation to Hillary having better chances at election in 2016.  
    Now, is that so hard to understand? Don't blame the wording of my post because you can not imagine politicians who would put the country before their own ambition.

    Parent
    So... (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 11:08:29 PM EST
    what about Obama's presidency in a second term would make it impossible for a democratic candidate winning in 2016?

    Parent
    read my comment (1.00 / 1) (#113)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:58:20 AM EST
    again and you tell me.  It's all there.  This will be a good reading comprehension exercise for you.

    Parent
    Ah... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Thanin on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 06:47:24 PM EST
    so you're either unable or unwilling to site specific policies that back up your "4 more years of Obama could make it impossible for another democrat to win in 2016" claim.

    Parent
    He didn't use the words (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:39:27 AM EST
    "stay the course" AND...the economy is beginning to show true signs of recovery.  You chose the words stay the course though, and those words go right back to the Iraq War and George W Bush in everyone's memory bank.  That is little bit offensive, because to be an American surviving this economy isn't fun and super sucks and there are dangers out there, but the sidewalks aren't littered with mutilated dead bodies every morning and the roads aren't full of IEDs that physically shred bodies.

    Parent
    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:26:00 AM EST
    ...and everyone seems to forget exactly where we were 4 years ago.  That idiotic line about you life being better, well anyone who owns a home or is in the market (401k) has roughly doubled their wealth in 4 years.

    And as much as I am upset with Obama on a lot of levels, I could retire in 4 years if, like Teresa seems to think, it's identical to the last 4.  Nearly double the value of my dwelling and 401k and for me, for most of us, that would be a huge economic windfall.  The only reason it wasn't, because Bush devalued those assets by one half, so essentially home & 401k owners are at the same point they were 8 years ago, not 4.  And since those gains/losses for most are unrealized, people seem to forget what their net worth was 4 years ago.

    But back to MT's comment, being beyond being a stupid Bush war policy, "stay the course" is an impossibility in regards to the economy.  Unlike the military, the President is not the Supreme Commandeer of a global economy.  People who have nothing to do with America, see Spain and Greece, can hold great influence over a global economy.  It would be humanly impossible to stay the course over a system that you have little control over.

    Parent

    Well said (none / 0) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:32:36 AM EST
    The President does only have so much say or control over which way and where our economy and the global economy sways.

    Parent
    give me a break (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 08:10:07 AM EST
    you aren't the only one here with ties to the wars in  Iraq and Afghanistan. I have a loved one who got blown up by an IED (spent lots of time in the hospital in Germany) and pulled his best friend from the Hummer, except only the top half of his buddy came out.  He was with five other men and he was the only one who lived.
    This young man, many years later, is still learning to deal with his PTSD.  
    I made it clear I was not quoting Obama.  But he did make it clear he was "staying the course" and that is NOT a phrase exclusive to Bush.  It is used all the time in many different ways by many different people.  It was used way before we ever heard of dubya and it will be used long after he is dead and gone.
    Come on MT, the leap to semi-outrage over word usage is so Democratic Underground.

    Parent
    I wasn't pulling the "served" card (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 10:01:32 AM EST
    Sorry it sounded that way. Nope, I'm pulling the "Luntz" card.  President Obama's performance concerning the economy is disgusting to align with Bush's performance and the Iraq War.

    Parent
    SELL IT (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:23:26 AM EST
    Always be closing :)

    Parent
    Who am I to talk, BTD? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 07:19:34 PM EST
    I supported friggin' John Edwards in the 2008 primaries, fer Pete's sake! Then my allegiance shifted to Hillary. I was 0 for 2.

    But once Barack Obama finally secured the nomination, I was all in, and I remain in his corner still. Horses and bayonets aside, there's no question that he's the better candidate.

    Parent

    Finally, the hopeful change... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 04:12:49 PM EST
    ...BTD's been waiting for. Ahem.

    Parent
    Not if you read Matt Bai (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 04:25:13 PM EST
    on front page today's NYT. Link

    apparently we've got it all wrong; Clinton is hurting Obama.

    Must be so, it's right there, front page and all.

    You knew you could always count on The Times to tell us what we need to know.

    CDS, alive and well at the "liberal" press.

    That may be the worst analysis I have (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 04:40:46 PM EST
    read this whole campaign. Clinton's advice to go after Mitt as a severe conservative worked all summer because it was obviously true and obviously what was odious about Romney. He had not begun the final round of shapeshifting yet - attacking him for that would have been premature and run false. Of course after the 1st debate when he obviously shook the etch a sketch it was more appropriate to go after that, while at the same time trying to get him back in the 'severe conservative' box. Both of which Obama has done, and Clinton would approve. I have not read Matt Bai in along time, and now I know why.

    Parent
    Ha (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 04:41:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Can't read it :( (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 05:28:21 PM EST
    I've exceeded my free reading for the month.

    Parent
    I did, too (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by sj on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 06:02:46 PM EST
    Then I saw that I wasn't signed in.  In fact I stopped signing in when they went behind the Paywall.  But (yay!) my account was still there.  I could sign in and keep reading.  And I didn't even have to use any of the hacks to do so.

    Parent
    throw out your new york times cookies (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by someTV on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 12:38:24 AM EST
    and then you start at zero again...working for me in firefox...

    Parent
    thanks for the hint (none / 0) (#107)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:38:40 PM EST
    I'll have to try that.


    Parent
    before I sucked it up (none / 0) (#108)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:20:51 PM EST
    and reached for my wallet, I used to get around the paywall by Googling the name of the article. Often times blogs will reproduce said article, and not, simply link to it.

    Worth a shot, worked for me.

    Parent

    DOJ sues BofA for $1B+ in 'Hustle' loan scam (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 06:02:51 PM EST
    ... developing ...

    Panda Goes Yard! (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 07:42:21 PM EST
    And just like that, the Giants are up! It's 1-0 in the bottom of the second.

    times 2 (none / 0) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:22:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Not only is Panda going off, ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:39:20 PM EST
    ... he's doing so against arguably the best pitcher in major league baseball.

    I wonder what the bandwagon-hopping ESPN punditocracy, which had said as late as this afternoon that Justin Verlander constituted a virtual lockdown for a Tigers' victory in Game 1, are thinking right now with their boy trailing, 4-0?

    Parent

    "But we were supposed to win not lose." (none / 0) (#19)
    by caseyOR on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:51:40 PM EST
    A young Cardinals fan learns the sad lesson of baseball. Your team can lose. And sometimes the thought that "there's always next year," just does not comfort a fan.

    Zorba and MO Blue, I thought of the two of you when I saw this video. Buck up, girls, there's always next year. :-)

    Parent

    Ah, well, what can I say? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:59:35 PM EST
    I love baseball.  Sometimes your team wins, sometimes it doesn't.  I learned that many years ago.  Was I unhappy that the Cards lost?  Absolutely.  But at the end of the day, I am a National League die-hard, so I support the Giants.  Go, San Francisco!  
    And it is 6-0 SF, bottom of the 6th.  Go, Giants!  Go, National League!

    Parent
    Having lived in San Francisco, I've got a (none / 0) (#24)
    by caseyOR on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:06:00 PM EST
    soft spot for the Giants. There's nothing like having to battle the freezing temps and wild winds of late July at the 'Stick to firm up one's team loyalty.   :-)

     So, yeah, GO, GIANTS!!

    Parent

    We lived in San Francisco (none / 0) (#25)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:10:18 PM EST
    when our kids were born, and Son Zorba has always been a San Francisco fan, football and baseball both.  We were screaming for opposite teams during the National League play-offs, but since SF won, we are now rooting for the same team.      ;-)

    Parent
    Moved to SF out of HS (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:22:09 PM EST
    always considered it "my city". Now I'm back 20yrs later and rooting for the Giants again :D

    Would have preferred a Yankee/Giants game, but I'm down with putting the Tigers to bed . . . lol!~

    I must say, much easier watching night games on this coast!

    Parent

    The problem with those kind of predictions (none / 0) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:54:30 PM EST
    Verlander had previously had 2 career World Series starts, lost them both, and had an ERA of 8.18.

    Small sample size but tonight's start blends right into those previous stats. I suspect he'll be much better back in Detroit though. (but I wouldn't bet on it)

    Parent

    Times 3 (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:43:01 PM EST


    Parent
    In a league with Babe Ruth, (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Peter G on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:02:38 PM EST
    Reggie Jackson, and Pujols.

    Parent
    Colorado Update (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:22:22 PM EST
    Denver media estimated last night's Romney crowd with the free Kid Rock concert at 10,000.

    They estimated today's Obama rally crowd at City Park with no free concert at 16,000.

    But wasn't the venue capacity ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:48:36 PM EST
    ... at last night's event capped at 10,000 by the fire marshal?

    Further, there were supposedly 25,000 tickets distributed by the Romney campaign for last night's concert, which means that there were probably an awful lot of people who were refused entry, and were instead left standing at the doors.

    That's very poor event planning on the part of the campaign, and one can only wonder what those who were turned away last night were thinking about Romney afterward.

    Parent

    I think more likely (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:00:41 PM EST
    you give away 25,000 hoping 10,000 will show up. If you remember, when they had the Univision Meet The Candidates Forum at the University of Miami, Romney refused to go on unless they let him bus in supporters (which was against thew rules laid out by the host) because locally he couldn't gather enough interest to fill the venue.

    Parent
    Exactly. No one would hand out 25k tickets (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:12:39 PM EST
    to Red Rocks if they expected even half that many to show up.  A routine check of the venue capacity by the advance team would tell them that.

    Parent
    I think the best thing I've seen all day (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:35:04 PM EST
    is this PSA intro'd by Lesley Gore, and using her song "You Don't Own Me."

    It was always a great song, but is particularly relevant today.

    A couple of years older than me (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peter G on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:01:24 PM EST
    in my home town, was Lesley. Great to see and hear her again.  Thanks, Anne.

    Parent
    After Romney conitunes his endorsement (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:18:45 PM EST
    of Richard Mourdock, John McCain does what John McCain always does...he manages to take a shot at Romney and draw more attention to the situation by withdrawing his endorsement of Richard Mourdock.

    Thank you Senator, please proceed

    Most excellent. Maybe he will suggest (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:24:24 PM EST
    Romney suspend his campaign until it is sorted out.

    Parent
    My compliments (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:42:11 PM EST
    to indy in sc and ruffian for two great comments this morning which make them look like psychics tonight:

    "Sometimes when your enemy is self-destructing, you just have to get out of the way and let it happen." - indy in sc

    "I think Obama and his immediate team have been very disciplined about letting them hang themselves." - ruffian

    Parent

    oh thank you... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:51:47 PM EST
    I really have been impressed. After years of cringing waiting for some lame Dem response to GOP gaffes, it is refreshing to not be quite so worried. I know Obama's cool style is not for everyone, but I have come to like it in a lot of situations.

    Parent
    He's on Leno right now (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:55:25 PM EST
    and cool as a cucumber (think I just showed my age)

    Parent
    Wow, I guess he is on for the whole show (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:21:03 PM EST
    Doing great, really. Nailed the Mourdock queston - very succinct - rape is rape (did not get into any god issues) , and then pivot to male pols should not be making health care decisions for women, and then the supreme court. Huge applause.  He is now going to take audience questions and facebook questions, Probably as many people watching this as that debate the other night too.

    Parent
    Male pols... (1.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:36:14 PM EST
    should not be...making health decisions for women?
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't "male pols" voted into office by an electorate that mostly consists of women?
    And isn't the government involved in health care? How could "male pols" possibly NOT have anything to do with the "health care of women"?

    The cognitive dissonance involved in your thinking impresses me.

    I support Roe V Wade because I support a Right of Privacy. I don't need to pretend that male pols should have to defer to female bodies but not male bodies when it comes to making use of tax payer monies or when it comes to making laws that concern healthcare for populations that include the opposite sex. If the federal or state governments get involved in healthcare at all they are going to have to deal with both women and men.

    Parent

    Perhaps it would make more sense to (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:42:16 AM EST
    you if it were stated as, "health decisions need to be made between the patient and the doctor, not in the halls of Congress."

    While women legislators are just as capable of believing they have the right to eliminate women's choices, by and large it has been men who have been spouting off about the decisions women should and should not be able to make - and worse, some of their comments have revealed a level of ignorance that should disqualify them from being able to hold elective office.  Yes, there are some equally ignorant voters who will do their best to keep them in office, but that doesn't speak to the rightness of these candidates' positions as much as it does to the ignorance of the electorate.

    My suggestion to the Todd Akins and Mourdocks and to the women who don't support the right of all women to make their own decisions is simple: if you believe abortion is wrong, don't have one.  If the fetal cells in question are not implanted in your uterus, it's not your call.  Express an opinion?  Pass judgment?  Have at it.  But what women decide is best for them is no one else's business.

    As for the decisions about what the government is or isn't going to spend money on, I have no idea why we cater to the wishes of those who don't want "their" tax dollars being spent on abortions, but ignore the vastly larger numbers who don't want "their" tax dollars spent on wars and drone-killings and the like.

    Parent

    I feel the exact same way regarding another key (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Farmboy on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:25:18 AM EST
    issue.

    "Educational decisions need to be made between educators and communities, not in the halls of Congress."

    This holds true because for the most part, congresscritters are not professionals in fields other than law and politics, and therefore IMO aren't qualified to make decisions on their own about other fields. This doesn't stop them, of course, but it should.

    Parent

    And Beyond M/F (none / 0) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:42:58 AM EST
    Bringing god's supposed opinion in the debate is what should really offend everyone, believers and non-believers, male and female.

    If people think it's wrong, that is fine, but when they pretend to know the will of some mythological being, well then it's time to tell them to STFU and let their all powerful being sort it out.

    And not to point out the obvious, but one would think all powerful and all knowing god would have had the foresight to include abortion in the bible if it was this fricken important.

    Because all of this BS boils down to what a bunch of idiots think god wants, which.... surprise, surprise is exactly what they want.  It's a GD miracle.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#85)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:25:56 AM EST
    Keep theology out of politics.

    Parent
    Absolutely. He loses me at 'god's will' (none / 0) (#88)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:42:44 AM EST
    no matter what the issue.

    Parent
    Moreover, I accept the crutch of Roe v Wade (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:46:51 AM EST
    becase at the moment it is needed. But I really believe that a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy should be no more dependent on one SCOTUS decision than is her right to have heart surgery. But of course we are far from the legislative revolution needed to make that position a 'given'.

    Parent
    come on (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:01:58 AM EST
    you know what Ruffian meant. What part of male health care do politicians get involved in making moral choices about?  Do they tell men when they can use Viagra or have vasectomies? Neither male NOR female pols should be making decisions for women about abortion or birth control. But since there are no issues like that for men, it is particular galling to have to listen to male pols talk about abortion and birth control.  Yes absolutely they should defer. None of their business and they can't possibly understand the issues or ramifications.  

    Parent
    We are far from M/F parity in legislative bodies (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:12:31 AM EST
    Until then , I think male politicians should tread very lightly where their policy decisions affect only the health of women. If there is ever a strong majority of female pols, I would expect the same of them when it comes to male health issues. Each side needs to go out of their way to learn about the other and take their opinions into account when there is not equal representation in the process.

    Parent
    I know in this era of parsing words and ignoring (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:18:53 AM EST
    any level of context it is dangerous to talk in any kind of shorthand...people will willfully misunderstand your point. But I'm pretty sure most people know what Obama meant, and what I meant.

    Parent
    Well.. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:34:46 AM EST
    Now, now, the "patriarch " giveth, not just taketh away:

    http://www.change.org/petitions/the-president-of-the-united-states-stop-sexism-in-the-affordable-car e-act

    Still,  I agree with you that doctors diagnoses and prognosis should be safe from political interference regardless of the sex involved.

    Parent

    Ha - don't worry, I did not notice (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:06:12 PM EST
    I'll turn it on, maybe too late.

    Parent
    You missed his line on Trump (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:25:22 PM EST
    I damn near fell off the chair laughing. Can't say it though in case anyone on the west coast plans to
    watch.

    He also gets asked about Richard Mourdock and nails the answer.

    All in all he's doing a very good job and next he's off to Vegas for a late night rally.

    Parent

    Dang, I'll catch it on replay or something (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:27:59 PM EST
    Love the 'cure for Romnesia' answer too.

    Really getting a chance to be fun and personable.

    West coasters, tune in.

    Parent

    Will do! (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:30:38 PM EST
    Thanks for mentioning it folks! Roxy! doesn't look to be winding down any time in the next couple hours, so now I'll have something to watch :D

    Parent
    Don't miss the start (none / 0) (#60)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:51:58 PM EST


    Parent
    I'll put Roxy! to bed (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 12:02:35 AM EST
    right before so I can unwind and enjoy a glass of wine while watching before bed :) She's a pistol tonight, lol!~

    Parent
    Speaking of lame Dem responses, (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:04:41 PM EST
    I thought of Tom Daschle the other day for some reason. Wonder what he is up to? I thought he was an Obama advisor of some kind but I am glad he is nowhere near a microphone.

    Parent
    A few thoughts: (none / 0) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:28:25 AM EST
    ruffian: "I thought of Tom Daschle the other day for some reason."

    Oh, my! What brought that on? Are you running a fever?

    "Wonder what he is up to?"

    He's a highly paid lobbyist in D.C. for the insurance industry. I know, what a surprise, eh?

    "I thought he was an Obama advisor of some kind ..."

    No, he isn't. But once upon a time, he really, really wanted to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. Unfortunately, his multiple failures to disclose requisite personal financial information in a timely manner proved that the only position for which he qualified was Under-Secretary of State for Obfuscation and Conflicts of Interest.

    "... but I am glad he is nowhere near a microphone."

    Amen to that!

    Parent

    He detests Romney (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:20:51 PM EST
    It's so funny.

    Parent
    gotta laugh (none / 0) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 10:38:10 PM EST
    Two days ago they thought they were on top of the world. Now they are getting ready to throw darts at each other.

    Parent
    Big arrest in CO of 17 year old... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by magster on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:02:05 PM EST
    ... who allegedly kidnapped and killed a 10 year old girl. Based on his alleged full confession and the discovery of body parts in his house, sounds like they have the right guy. Thought, wish the perp was the stereotypical monster instead of a teenager. Relief that he's off the street (as he allegedly tried to do a similar thing in May) but another teen who will probably do life. Pretty depressing all around.....

    Supposedly turned in by his mom... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by magster on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:18:52 PM EST
    ... how hard of a call must that have been?? Can't even imagine ....

    Parent
    Well (1.00 / 8) (#47)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:06:15 PM EST
    While I'm fine with looking into extenuating circumstances and mental illness...

    It's sad that predominant reaction to this on this blog will be that the "lil child" at the "tender age" of 17 couldn't possibly know that killing/dismembering was wrong and so he shouldn't get any kind of adult sentence whatsoever and should just be released so he can "turn his life around". Ya know, because being against jailing MJ users or 12 year olds means that you have to be against jailing anyone under 18 for any reason.

    I wouldn't be surprised if some other dissenter tried to link this to the "war on women" meme.

    Parent

    Poor taste... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by magster on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:12:04 PM EST
    this has nothing to do with politics or the "war on women".

    Parent
    Hey, I can tie it (1.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:25:24 PM EST
    I was only being half tongue-in cheek, I've seen some pretty hyperbolic stuff.

    The tie on would be that this was a boy who murdered a girl because of pick one or all of them:
    A. Rape culture
    B. Patriarchy
    C. Just another example of Boys Being Boys
    D. The Incredible Hulk like violence that Dwells Within most males

    And yes, I've seen some pretty ridiculous arguments using those memes. Of course YOU wouldn't like my tongue-in-cheek humor, you probably believe some of those things.

    Regardless, the predominant reaction on THIS blog, I think will be to excuse the perpetrator due to his "tender" age, and I'm against that. This is a crime that unless there are extenuating circumstances or a mental illness is involved should be punished pretty harshly. Yes, I said that terrible, terrible word: punished. Spare him his life for his monstrosity, but you don't have to spare him free use of his murderous hands or other body parts.


    Parent

    Are you drunk? (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by magster on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:27:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Nah (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:46:28 PM EST
    I've just seen too many posts about crimes concerning minors including 16 and 17 year old rapists and murderers where it has been argued as to how horrible is the very thought that they should be locked up, let alone executed - like we used to do in the "barbarous" days prior to 2008 or something like that. I can sort of get behind limiting the death penalty to adults (though I personally have no issue with 16 or 17 year olds being eligible), but its the absolute immunity to any kind of punishment that some here seem to want to give teens that has always astounded me.

    Parent
    This is a criminal defense blog (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 12:11:40 AM EST
    You don't have to agree with all the points of view expressed here in that regard (I often don't) but that is no reason to go off half baked.

    Parent
    Then you must be ... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:52:18 AM EST
    ... stoned from sniffing spray paint. You know perfectly well that this is a progressive Democratic / criminal defense-oriented blog. Yet over the past few days in particular, you seem  hellbent to provoke its host and her guests.

    Parent
    please illustrate (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 04:39:01 PM EST
    its the absolute immunity to any kind of punishment that some here seem to want to give teens


    Parent
    As a fellow white male, ... (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:57:30 AM EST
    ... I feel your pain.  It's hard for us, ...

    ... always being blamed, ... always made the victims, ...

    Heh.

    Parent

    ....And the Never Ending Harships of.... (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:15:25 AM EST
    ...getting preferential treatment, and getting the best jobs, and getting paid more, and running nearly all companies, and the government, and being portrayed as honest and stand-up, and always getting a pass from the police, it's just so hard for us white guy to take.

    Being on top of the food chain is some much responsibility that I feel at times, it's just too much good fortune to take.

    Please, Slayersrezo, I need to use your fainting couch, my head....

    Parent

    I get the "best" jobs? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:43:46 AM EST
    Since when?
    That's not ever applied in my life.

    Oh wait, I forgot the fact that all the CEO's of the big fortune 500 companies call me for my opinion at all hours and they invite me into the "good old boys" club, want me to marry their daughters , and give me lots of $ just for breathing.
    And Donald? Well, if you ask him, he's white. And he thinks most white people (particularly white guys being the "White Knight" that he is) are stupid. But he works for me, and makes sure that society is set up JUST for me.

    And I must have imagined the two times I've been handcuffed, the "no knock" raid on my house about 2 years ago (found nothing, it was because someone saw my brother showing off his new rifle), and all my interactions with cops (both white AND black, fancy that!) that have been less than respectful. Don't I know that "Officer Friendly" is always on my side?

    I mean seriously, it really feels funny being basically relegated to non-existence, because I don't fit into the "top ten percent" model that most of you idiots seem to think all white males fall into. I mean, I've already said I'm poor and I live in a mostly minority city and that I've had plenty of time to see what "progressives" think my life is like and have found they are mostly full of shit.

    But go back to your religion and forget I ever said anything.


    Parent

    Well, just a thought (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by sj on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 11:14:14 AM EST
    but your hostility (which vibrates even on a web page) may have as much or more to do with remaining in your current circumstances as the original handicap of poverty.

    But go back to lashing out and forget I ever said anything.

    Parent

    Personal attacks (none / 0) (#95)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    and armchair psychoanalyzing aren't arguments, sj.

     Please stop letting Bill Gates or (to use a fictional example) Gordon Gekko speak for me. Neither of those men (the real and the fictional) has anything in common with me, and they probably don't or wouldn't even care that men like me exist. I also hate most of the Republican and Democratic platforms (not that the corrupt candidates ever fullfill most of those planks, but I digress), so I'm rather unrepresented politically.

    Being told I have no problems or that all my problems are my own fault IS a problem.
    And it's a game I'm not willing to play.

    Parent

    Your Resume... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 11:47:43 AM EST
    ...speaks loud and clear.

    Parent
    You've seen my resume? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 12:43:55 PM EST
    Since it's marked "private" on various job-boards...
    STALKER!!!!

    Parent
    No one said EVERY white male ... (4.75 / 4) (#94)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 11:26:46 AM EST
    ... is going to succeed.

    Money-saving tip - There's a couple of farm/animal feed stores off Route 70 just west of Charm City.  You can buy your straw in bulk.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#96)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 11:29:59 AM EST
    The rhetoric is that:
    A. All white males are successful
    B. They all hang together, with the richest ones working for the poorest ones to "lift them up" via unfair advantages and crap

    And "B" is why "A" is often asserted.

    Neither of these things are true.

    Parent

    Only in your head (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 12:10:08 PM EST
    My actual statement was snarking about white males who are claiming to be persecuted because they are white and/or male.

    They're just funny.

    Parent

    If you're referring to Scott's ... (4.75 / 4) (#101)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 12:17:59 PM EST
    ... statement, you may want to read it again.

    No one, ... repeat, ... no one ... has claimed that "all white males are successful" or that the rich ones all hang together with the poor ones and give them unfair advantages.

    Maybe if you stuck with what people are actually saying, rather than your reinterpretation of what they're saying, it would make things easier ...

    ... and save some serious $$ on straw.

    Parent

    please prove (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 04:40:56 PM EST
    the predominant reaction on THIS blog, I think will be to excuse the perpetrator due to his "tender" age,


    Parent
    You are On a Roll with... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:50:35 AM EST
    ...the idiocity today.  

    It's time you put on ring on that strawman, you two have been inseparable lately.

    Parent

    Ha. Leno asked Obama what Trump has.. (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by magster on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 12:08:14 AM EST
    .. against him, and Obama said it dates back to the days when they grew up together in Kenya.

    HA HA HA HA (1.00 / 6) (#44)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:02:11 PM EST
    I thought "voter fraud" never happened and was ALWAYS (meaning in every single case!) a Republican plot to Suppress Minority Votes!

    http://news.yahoo.com/congressmans-son-leaves-campaign-wake-video-235322231--election.html

    God, the two parties disgust me as do their apologists.
    Explain away guys/gals. And be sure to throw the words racist in there somewhere too.

    Sorry... (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:34:07 AM EST
    ...but discussing a plan is miles apart from actually doing it.

    Don't you get tired of being an idiot, 24/7.

    Just in case you missed it, there was no voter fraud in the link you seem to think proves something.

    Racist.

    Parent

    LOL (1.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:49:45 AM EST
    I know, because "just discussing it", means that NO ONE has EVER done it anywhere!
    Wow, what a maroon!, to quote an old cartoon.
    Now let's see...

    ONE racist...
    let's keep counting

    Parent

    More nonsense (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:50:30 AM EST
    You seem to think your link is evidence of some type of voter fraud.

    As usual, ... you would be wrong.

    BTW - No one is arguing that "voter fraud never happened".  The argument is that Republicans are using are using evidence-free claims of imagined voter fraud in order to suppress the vote of groups that are likely to vote against them.

    See the difference?

    But those absolute/straw arguments sure are easier to knock down ...

    Parent

    Actually YMAN (1.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:53:15 AM EST
    There IS no difference.

    If there was, then moderate attempts (such as free ID cards mailed to everyone) to fight voter fraud wouldn't be so contentious on this site.

    Nope, if you can't PROVE it happened (and often even if you can because that's "the past" and so it doesn't count) you aren't supposed to do anything to make sure it doesn't.

    I support efforts to reduce voting fraud, and I support mitigating the effects of any such efforts on the poor and uneducated.


    Parent

    Guess you can't (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 11:32:55 AM EST
    ... see the difference.  Seems incredibly easy, but ...

    BTW - I'd be happy to take a look at your evidence of "voter fraud" ... if you had any.  Otherwise, your support for "mitigating" the effects on the poor and uneducated are just more crocodile tears in support of Republican attempts to suppress voter turnout.

    Parent

    More nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:52:23 AM EST
    You seem to think your link is evidence of some type of voter fraud.

    As usual, ... you would be wrong.

    BTW - No one is arguing that "voter fraud never happened".  The argument is that Republicans are using are using evidence-free claims of imagined voter fraud in order to suppress the vote of groups that are likely to vote against them.

    See the difference?

    But those absolute/straw arguments sure are easier to knock down ...

    Parent

    I caught a blurb recently (none / 0) (#12)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 08:13:00 PM EST
    on how the Obama campaign was being outspent and still has more TV spots than Romney. It all came down to advance planning, advance media buys by knowing in advance where you needed to be, and buying them through the campaign which gets a discount rate as opposed to PACs and political parties.

    Romney on the other hand goes with last minute scattershot planning and mostly through the Republican Party and PACs

    The Washington Post today goes into more detail. $10 million less spent by Obama so far in October and they got 15,000 more spots.

    Praying it pays off for Obama. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 09:13:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, one piece of encouraging news (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 24, 2012 at 11:19:03 PM EST
    is that they said (some news program) that approximately 5 million votes have already been cast and their poll indicated they went 2 to 1, Obama.

    Parent
    Sound Familiar? | 116 comments (116 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment