Friday Open Thread

Meatloaf skewers "America the Beautiful" at Mitt's campaign rally. As TMZ says, it was a "musical train wreck." Check out Mitt's reaction.

I'll be in court today, this is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Zimmerman Gag Order: The Defense Is Not the Problem | Saturday College Football Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What happened at Intrade Tuesday? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:45:27 AM EST
    There was a strong move towards Romney the morning after the foreign policy debate and the blog stories right away were that Obama didn't seal the deal and Romney was on the move.

    In reality, Romney was never favored and is more of a longshot now at Intrade than he was before the final debate began.

    What really happened Tuesday morning at Intrade? After losing the Monday night debate, the free market of gambling was likely circumvented by a Romney supporter that invested the financial equivalent of 20 thirty second ads to create a narrative that Romney had momentum, but once the Romney shares were sold back he/she only lost a little over the cost of one TV spot.

    Why pull a silly stunt like that? The small Intrade market is often mentioned in US News while the very large Betfair market isn't. It's easy to manipulate the price at Intrade and create a story, which is likely what happened, and thus create a bigger splash than the cost of one TV spot ever could.

    While Tuesday at Intrade made the news, there is no mention at all as the price has reverted back to the mean around the globe with Obama favored more strongly now than he was prior to the final debate.

    fake surge for romney? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Philly on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 12:00:57 PM EST
    Washington Post article

    What's most interesting to me about this burst of activity is that it swung the dial closer towards Romney for only about 6 minutes, before the prediction market self-corrected.

    Which media outlets covered this supposed surge?


    I believe Nate Silver mentioned it in one of his (none / 0) (#10)
    by Angel on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 12:16:55 PM EST
    recent posts.  Anyway, I did read about this and the person said it was an obvious attempt to manipulate.  Emphasis on obvious.  

    Pending Disaster Capitalism... (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 12:24:01 PM EST
    strikes again, gearing up for Big Sandy....anybody got any morphine? ;)

    Since late yesterday we've sold approx. 2000 sump pumps, and emergency truck shipment due in for 5000 more, already all pre-sold.  Another emergency truck coming tomorrow for 5000 more, half pre-sold.  And thats just the basic 1/3 HP Sump Pump...selling a ton of 1/2 HP's, battery back-ups, hydro powered backups, check valves, you name it.  Damn near a fiscal quarter's worth of sales in less than a day.  Bossman hit the lotto again.

    I'm losing my f*ckin' lid...Calgon take me away!!!

    Note to Mitt Romney...good thing the pump company we rep manufactures right here in the USA, or else we'd be waiting 8-12 weeks for an emergency delivery instead of 24 hours.  Domestic Manufacturing....it's a national security issue as well as an economic one.

    In Other Words (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 12:44:18 PM EST
    "The pump don't work 'cause the vandals....", shipped the jobs to China ?

    I sense kdog may have to work this (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:05:32 PM EST

    And I quote: (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:26:13 PM EST
    Another emergency truck coming tomorrow for 5000 more, half pre-sold.

    Ah, yes, that's a lotta pumps on a Sat! (none / 0) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:10:13 PM EST

    Well, it's what's going to happen (none / 0) (#49)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:34:10 PM EST
    Sunday thru mid-week: Hurricane Sandy

    An extremely rare and dangerous storm will turn in from the Atlantic, putting 60 million people in its path and could lead to billions of dollars in damage.

    The worst of the storm will be Monday through Tuesday, but the storm's aftermath may linger days later. Conditions will deteriorate from the mid-Atlantic to southern New England Sunday and Sunday night.


    Sandy has the potential to bring historic storm surge flooding near and north of the center.

    It is possible areas from New York City and Long Island to New Jersey, the Delmarva and into the Philadelphia areas have some of their worst coastal flooding on record, depending on exactly where the storm tracks.

    Communities, neighborhoods, roads, rail yards, subway stations and other low-lying areas near the coast, generally north of the track can take on feet of salt water.

    AccuWeather.com meteorologists are expecting a storm surge of 5 to 10 feet, but locally higher levels are possible near and just north of the storm track.


    Sandy will be more like a large nor'easter on steroids. It could have the strength of a Category 1 or 2 hurricane. Tropical storm and hurricane-force wind gusts will extend out hundreds of miles from the center, so focusing on the center alone in terms of the severity for wind and rain is not recommended.

    Expected track

    You all may not hear much from us northeast/mid-Atlantic TL-ers from Sunday forward, but maybe that's good news?


    today when my dog (none / 0) (#71)
    by Amiss on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:44:48 PM EST
    and I went for a walk (we live approx. 5 miles from coast) we already had the wind and news had said before we went out that it was 512 miles from us. Wind was not severe and its been cloudy but that's about it. We are on a tums. Watch tip tomorrow nite.

    Hope it doesn't mess up the cocktail party!


    Sump pumps (none / 0) (#28)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:51:22 PM EST
    aren't going to do them a whole heck of a lot of good if they lose their electricity.  Not unless they're buying generators, too, and stocking up on gasoline.
    And I'm surprised that these people didn't already have sump pumps.  It's not like hurricanes don't come up the Eastern Coast on occasion.  Heck, we've had both a sump pump and a generator for going on 30 years now, as long as we've lived here.  (Of course, we also have plenty of canned food, a wood stove, a wood-fired grill and two smokers, and a propane cooker.  Never can be too careful when you live way out in the boonies.)
    But think of it this way, Dog.  At least the company you work for is doing well.  Maybe they'll give you a raise.  {{Fingers crossed for good luck for you}}

    Our neighbor is one of those people (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:13:41 PM EST
    Who blames everything that happens on her property on others.  She came over and told my husband that our washing machine water was draining out on her property a few months ago when we had been getting a lot of rain.  We didn't build this house so we freaked a little, we have a septic system and I care for it carefully.  Maybe it was going unchallenged because our gray water was going somewhere else.

    Husband ran over there and the water was running from something underground in the middle of her property.  My husband explained to her that it wasn't possible that this was coming from our property, and he told her that it was from her sump pump.  She told him she didn't have a sump pump and he had to tell her that if she has a basement in Alabama she has a sump pump :)

    Do they have enough time to properly install a sump pump?


    Who knows? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:25:36 PM EST
    I guess they'll find out.  Maybe the hard way.    ;-)
    Yes, some people are way too willing to blame others.  "Can't be my fault, must be somebody else's fault."
    Looks like you have a "charming" neighbor.  I'm sorry.

    Bingo! no juice -> no pump. (none / 0) (#173)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:17:54 AM EST
    So you need a generator, fresh gas for a week of running, and enough engine oil to change at 50 or so hour intervals.  And most importantly, someplace to pump the water to.

    During a deluge a couple of years ago I was treated to the spectacle of neighbors pumping their yards into each others' yards.  

    It didn't end well.


    Way to take one for the team kdog! (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:44:26 PM EST
    I hope FEMA takes this opportunity to shine a week before election day!

    Drone of Silence (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 12:28:23 PM EST
    An excellent piece (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:54:46 PM EST
    Thanks for posting it. Maybe someday the "Majority of Americans" will think it's important to ponder these things. And isn't it interesting that the terms used are so fitting for the ultra surveillance world of "1984." I mean, really... The kill list is now being termed the "Disposition Matrix"???

    Disposition Matrix (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:21:59 PM EST
    Sickening. One wonders what they call the list for domestic hellraisers? Gotta be one somewhere. But maybe I'm just paranoid.  Ahem.

    Even paranoids are right sometimes. (none / 0) (#174)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:19:40 AM EST
    After all, it's so much easier to spy here than overseas, thanks to our very pliant Telcos and ISPs.

    Follow the bouncing ball (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:03:16 PM EST
    I have no idea what Romney is planning, but here is the current schedule of stops for Obama the early part of next week:

    Monday (with Bill Clinton):
    Orlando, FL
    Youngstown, OH
    Prince William County, VA

    Colorado Springs, CO
    Green Bay, WI

    Cincinnati, OH
    Akron, OH

    Mucho Ohio... (none / 0) (#46)
    by magster on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:25:52 PM EST
    Orlando! I will have to look into that! (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:52:01 PM EST
    Rally at UCF's Memory Mall (none / 0) (#86)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:22:37 PM EST
    Filling this out may get them to email you a ticket, but I'm betting they just tell you where to pick up tickets.

    It's an outdoor event

    Here's some info on the event
    Doors open at 9am Monday

    Tickets available at 9am Saturday morning at these locations (one per person).

    OFA- FL East Orange Field Office, 3151 N. Alafaya Trail Suite 102

    BVL Community Park, 419 Buena Ventura Boulevard.

    Southside Church of Christ, 4701 Raleigh Street.

    Kaley Square Park, 2106 Westmoreland Drive.

    Barber Park, 3701 Gatlin Avenue.

    Parkside/Coventry Park, 2730 Coventry Lane


    Will the storm (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:29:10 PM EST
    mess up that schedule?

    Hate to see the joint appearances with Bill Clinton messed up.


    Biden in Wisconsin today (none / 0) (#115)
    by Towanda on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:32:57 PM EST
    in Oshkosh -- right after announcement of a huge layoff by a local company, ouch.

    Romney in Wisconsin on Monday, not sure where.

    Wisconsin has come back to so close and crucial, it seems, from some prognostications I read.  I've seen it rated as second most important to win, behind Ohio, but I cannot quite see why.

    Anyway, yes, Obama to Green Bay next week -- but too late, I fear, to have impact there, and it's crucial to winning Wisconsin.  Milwaukee and Madison just aren't enough anymore.  And Green Bay often goes red in bad times, and these are very bad times in Wisconsin (recently rated the worst state for new jobs and in other ways, which is the fault of the red governor Walker for his war with Obama, but a lot of voters won't see it).

    I would like to see attention to the La Crosse area, which Gore and Kerry worked so well to win.  But . . . not happening.  I really don't know how much can be done to undo the long year when Obama would not come to the state, even repeatedly coming right up to the borders but not setting those comfy shoes across the border.

    We'll just have to see.  It's hard to read here.  And with some of the most draconian voter suppression laws, and Diebold machines that are illegal but Walker is doing nothing about that, natcherly, and . . . well, we just have to hope for a hiatus from the bad economic reports here, the daily reports of plant closings, etc.


    Wisconsin is important (none / 0) (#129)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:07:01 PM EST
    because without Wisconsin "and" Ohio Romney doesn't have much of a path right now. Even with Ohio and Wisconsin Romney still needs to flip one of Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, or Nevada and Obama leads in all 6 of those states right now.

    Obama is just popping in to hold his ground. Romney is desperately trying to make a comeback.

    It's why Romney is advertising in Minneapolis right now. It has nothing to do with Minnesota and everything to do with trying to grab votes in western Wisconsin and northern Iowa.

    Romney is trying to thread a needle and the needle keeps moving on him as Obama takes back the lead in nearly every swing state.


    That;'s a simpler explanation (none / 0) (#141)
    by Towanda on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:48:54 PM EST
    than any I've read; thanks.  Positioning it from the perspective of the Romney "path" makes it more clear than the prognostications that made me wonder why the heck Obama needed Wisconsin.  The problem probably arises from my reading of the leading paper in Wisconsin, which is anti-Obama -- and so, so much of the political reporting is obfuscated.

    No idea ... but we know what he loves (none / 0) (#187)
    by Menanna on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 10:34:00 AM EST
    All starting with B, he loves:

    Big Bird,
    and Oh-
    Bama's foreng policy


    How could you forget (none / 0) (#192)
    by Towanda on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 11:19:57 AM EST

    He loves babies so much that he wants more women to have more babies -- whether by their daddies, by their rapists, whatever.  Just as long as they stay breeding, barefoot, and in the kitchen . . . and in poverty, not in school or at work.


    Assuming you are absolutely right (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:50:33 PM EST
    and the CIA should have attempted a rescue earlier. What is your larger point? Mistakes were made? OK, I'll grant you that.

    Were you going to vote for Obama before this incident, and this changed your mind?

    ESteel & Slado (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Politalkix on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 09:08:03 PM EST
    Did you ever find out the truth about why there was a cover up relating to the circumstances of Pat Tillman's death?

    I am granting you the truth for the sake of (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 09:14:13 PM EST
    argument. It was horrible and the administration screwed up. Now what?

    How could the administration have (none / 0) (#183)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 08:18:36 AM EST
    Sent forces in without creating an international incident?  I feel our President is damned if he does what he must do to protect and serve and he's damned if he doesn't.  

    The couch quarterback here (none / 0) (#185)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 09:36:29 AM EST
    Is out of bed and he is super duper questioning the Spectre gunship overhead.  He says it doesn't pass the common sense test.  He demanded to know who said such a thing so I started to attempt to find a credible source for the story and could find nothing...nothing that we would consider credible.

    He says that he could be wrong, stranger things have happened, he gives it a 4% chance of being the reality.  If anything was overhead he says it was unmanned videoing or a much higher speed aircraft which could also be used to lazer something in.

    Soooooo, this story could be mostly if not all B.S. planted at an October surprise time.

    My spouse said the chances of a Spectre gunship being overhead while our ambassador is being killed in a 7 hour fire fight and never firing is in his couched opinion ZERO.


    I think you and Slado just answered ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:18:55 PM EST
    ... your own question.

    Esteel (none / 0) (#97)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:43:30 PM EST
    Maybe we should be a little more patient is all I am saying.  Example of why:

    ""We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi.  Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.  In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night--and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.""


    Perhaps the fact that this was a Foxnews exclusive should give you some pause.


    Oh, please. (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:36:48 PM EST
    You're nothing more than a concern troll, and your ham-handed attempts to manipulate the facts of this tragedy -- on behalf of a Republican candidate who already has enough demonstrable problems with his own veracity on the subject, no less! -- are simply embarrassing.

    Well, you should be. (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:17:40 PM EST
    Only a fool wouldn't.

    You're also being childish. And that's ... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:09:07 PM EST
    ... about par for the course nowadays when it comes to GOP politics. Good day.

    Donald, speaking of childish....... (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:36:27 AM EST
    thanks in no small part to grey matter-deficient a**hats like you and your fellow right-wing moonbats,

    "New information" - heh (none / 0) (#188)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 11:00:05 AM EST
    Fox News is not a source of information.

    So now you want to go with anonymous, uncorroborated allegations because you want to believe them instead of CIA officials who are on the record.



    Spouse says that the claim about (none / 0) (#194)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:02:30 PM EST
    a Spectre gunship loitering overhead is almost impossible to believe.  Even if the two Spectre's are still in Italy that were part of our America's initial Odyssey Dawn mission.  Those aircraft would never be held in Libya, only Italy.  They are prop driven aircraft that are sent up during well planned missions where they have enough time to get to the location.  He doesn't remember their actual top speed, but you wouldn't send them into an emergency situation from Italy to Libya and he would be dumbstruck if they were just loitering in Libya lately for no reason.  We wouldn't send some with the speed capability of a Cessna he said.

    There are other aircraft easily available in the area and ready to go that could have been deployed in an emergency defender fashion, so whoever started this rumor obviously didn't know enough about combat aircraft to create a plausible rumor to parade around at the end of October before a Presidential election.


    Sorry for typos (none / 0) (#195)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:03:08 PM EST
    I should proof read :)

    These stories ... (none / 0) (#196)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:31:36 PM EST
    ... don't even pass the sniff test, let alone any actual scrutiny.  They supposedly brought in a couple of them to assist in Operation Unified Protector back in March, but they wouldn't have them just flying around over Libya "just in case".

    BTW - Max speed on a Spectre/A-130 is 260 knots (@ 300 mph)


    We checked the NATO (none / 0) (#197)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:45:57 PM EST
    aircraft commitments for what the U.S. committed to the NATO mission and the two Spectre aren't on the list.  They were on the list when we led the Libya mission.  After looking around it looks like there are a couple in Italy but they aren't committed to the Libya mission, and we haven't found which airbases they are housed at. There are three different possibilities, varying distances from Benghazi.  The closest would have taken the aircraft at least 2 hours to arrive.

    And it hasn't been confirmed that we even had permission to enter Libyan airspace to take on the attackers.


    were at a Italian base who's name I can't remember. It started with an "S." Spicoli? Kidding about the name, of course, but I'm too lazy to google.

    OK, it was Sigonella, Italy. (none / 0) (#199)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 02:41:23 PM EST
    From Signonella, Italy
    to Benghazi, Libya

    Measure in : miles
    Distance as the Crow Flies : 468.576
    Distance by Land Transport : 1430.347

    468 miles/300 mph = 1hr 33mins.


    If they flew the whole way top speed (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 06:03:35 PM EST
    without adding in take off and or landing protocols if needed or refueling.  As a pilots wife I have long learned that speed and distance does not equal how long this will take to do.

    Cool and freaky pumpkin carvings (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:30:20 PM EST
    Those are great! Thanks! (none / 0) (#95)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:35:44 PM EST
    The Las Vegas Sun has ... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:11:32 PM EST
    ... endorsed President Obama's re-election today:

    "While Romney and his positions remain murky, we know what Obama stands for, and his policies have been aimed at restoring the economy and helping all Americans. His administration's actions -- including the auto industry bailout and the stimulus -- are the only reasons the country's woes haven't gotten worse. Of course, his term hasn't been all we had hoped. For example, we would have liked to have seen bolder leadership on domestic issues, but he faced some incredible challenges, including an economic crisis that no one fully understood and an opposition party that has gone to incredible lengths to polarize the nation.

    "Despite a Democratic Congress in Obama's first two years, Senate Republicans effectively used the threat of filibuster in incredible numbers to obstruct progress. Once the Republicans won control of the House two years ago, the obstruction became worse -- to the nation's detriment. We are especially troubled that the Republican Party was more focused on making Obama a 'one-term president' than on working to stimulate the economy.


    "The president also has shown a strong hand in foreign policy. The killing of Osama bin Laden showed incredible courage, from the president on down. The coalitions he formed have worked, and his efforts to bring the troops home from the Middle East and wrap up the military's actions are welcome.

    "Overall, the country is on the mend, but the middle class, small businesses and home­owners need more help. We see only one candidate who has the experience, plans and vision to provide that help. The Sun endorses Barack Obama."

    Detroit Tigers lost without the DH (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:34:44 PM EST
    Music to this ... (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:49:48 PM EST
    National League fan's ears.

    The chances of the Tigers winning (none / 0) (#137)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:26:23 PM EST
    based on the historical average of teams that lost the first two games is only 20%. That's slightly worse than the chance Nate Silver gives Romney of winning right now.

    On the upside for the Tigers, they are headed home to play. Romney has to play the rest on the road.


    Being a National League fan in NYC ... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:53:20 PM EST
    the last few years is much harder than running a political campaign.



    Even as a Giants fan (none / 0) (#144)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:56:11 PM EST
    you've got to give Verlander props for

    this picture

    I retrieve those props (none / 0) (#145)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 07:01:06 PM EST
    it's photoshopped from

    this original


    Yes, it's a fake (none / 0) (#148)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 07:28:19 PM EST
    I was very suspicious from the first, because I certainly did not believe that Verlander was going to give any props to Panda.
    Go, Giants!

    CNN released poll showing O + 4 in Ohio.... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by magster on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:13:59 PM EST
    ...  but ran chryon stating that it's a tie, though the margin of error was only 3.5 %.

    Got a screen grab? (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:49:49 PM EST
    You could create a mini tempest among the faithful with that one.

    Here is a screenshot (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Erehwon on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 08:51:47 PM EST
    h/t Hunter

    As the Big Dog said, basic arithmetic skills are lacking ... not to mention statistics.


    Well, honestly, what do you expect from ... (none / 0) (#138)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:30:44 PM EST
    ... a cable network whose executives hired the oily likes of Piers Morgan, apparently because they think that British accents imply gravitas?

    I'm not quite sure of your (4.20 / 5) (#32)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:58:07 PM EST
     point, let's say everything you said is true, does it in anyway make Romney a better choice on Foriegn Policy than Obama? Um, no-- seriously, how many Americans do you think die within a week of a hypothetical Romeny Admin doing something stupid in Iran? 1000, 10,000? Because Iran is massively larger than Iraq, better armed than Iraq and frankly despite having perhaps the most western oriented young population in the Middle East (excepting Israel) willing to line up and fight the US to the last man

    Better take that fantasy... (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by magster on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:51:41 PM EST
    ... to a conservative blog so that you can vote for Romney louder and harder.

    CBS News (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by magster on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:43:53 PM EST
    Even if the team had been ready in time, confusion about what was happening on the ground in Benghazi -- and State Department concerns about violating Libyan sovereignty -- made a military rescue mission impractical, the officials say.

    It's easy to Monday Morning QB something. Everyone who is not trying to turn this into an "opportunity" for Romney recognizes that the short time frame and the uncertainty about what was even happening made any sort of Hollywood style rescue a high risk fantasy. Your commnets betray the same cynical glee that Romney foresaw when he openly desired an Iran hostage type of situation to exploit as an election opportunity.


    ESteel, maybe you and your omniscient pals (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:30:34 AM EST
    ... should work up a time machine, squeeze your no doubt couch-potatoed and heavily larded bodies into your old Blackwater unifoms, go back and using your now perfect intel, rescue the ambassador yourself.

    Hey man (none / 0) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:18:43 PM EST
    nobody can beat Waldo.

    The airbase is (2.67 / 3) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 07:55:03 PM EST
    Naval Air Station Sigonella, Sicily.

    And we now know that:

    Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. "


    So the CIA didn't.

    The Dept of State didn't.

    The military didn't.

    The President didn't.

    I guess Waldo did it.


    Thats not my point (2.33 / 3) (#38)
    by Slado on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:06:28 PM EST
    My point is under any other circumstance, meaning any other president other than Obama the Washington press would be all over this.

    It's not a comment on Romney its a comment on Obama's adminsitration.

    Here's what we now know...

    1. Not enough security before
    2. Multiple attacks and requests for more security denied by state
    3. Admin knew in real time that the attack was most likely by terrorists
    4. Admin and president spent two weeks covering this up and pretending it had something to do with the video
    5. CIA denied forces to help the forces on the ground during the attack while we had video surveillance from a drone

    That has the makings for some hard investigative reporting.

    Washington was set on fire by the media for the outing of a CIA officer.

    We had people die because of bumbling by this administration and nobody cares.

    Not saying Romney would be better, not saying Obama could have done anything better but how would we know?   The press (other than fox) refuses to pay it any attention.


    Lame.... (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by magster on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:15:32 PM EST
    The whole "anyone besides Obama would be getting press attention about this" is total cr@p. Quit pretending to be Mr. Neutral. The only reason you are bringing up this topic on this blog at this stage of the election is to troll and make stuff up about Obama.



    Really (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:42:12 PM EST
    huh, how hard the did the press hit Bush for ignoring glaring warnings of an attack that left 3000+ Americans dead? I seem to remember the press rallying around the President.

    Bunches and bunches and bunches.. (2.67 / 3) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 07:45:07 PM EST
    The problem was:

    RICHARD CLARKE:Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

    Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998.And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

    What this shows is that Clinton had let three very important issues slide for two years. You have to wonder if Clinton had supported the Northern Alliance in its fight with the Taliban would OBL ever been able to be in Afghanistan in the first place?

    And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

    This shows that the claim that Bush didn't immediately go after OBL to be a complete fiction.

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    Again we see Bush taking action. Just days of him becoming President he decided to increase the CIA's resources 500%.

    Let's review.

    (Angle)QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the -- general animus against the foreign policy?

    CLARKE:I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.

    JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

    CLARKE: All of that's correct.


    Now, let's just forget about the fact that in the May time frame we had an international incident with Communist China. Our leaders must be able to focus on several things at once. I think the Left says it is Obama playing 11 Dimensional Chess. (sarcasm alert)

    Anyway. What did this ramped up activity yield in the way of intelligence? Let's look at another interview. This time with Condi Rice, Bush's NSA. The subject is a meeting on July 5, 2001.

    "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."


    Now that was 31 days prior to the infamous PDB that the Left likes to refer and claim that Bush paid no attention. OF COURSE HE DIDN'T. HE ALREADY KNEW WHAT THE BRIEFER WAS SAYING 31 DAYS BEFORE. The guy was lucky. If I had been Bush I would have fired him on the spot for wasting my time and then fired his boss for wasting my time in a CYA exercise.


    What the Right Can't Do... (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:50:28 PM EST
    ...is tie any of to an actual bad call by our President.  They are only pointing out the very bureaucracies that plague all governments, the very bureaucracy they make up of around 50%.

    The whole thing stinks IMO, but the blame is systemic, as in this or that needed to approved for this and that action.  The right keeps acting like Obama was around the corner making bad decision after bad decision and then lying about them.  Too partisan, or too stupid to realize that some of those bad calls were made people who have nothing to do with politics, who have served under D&R Presidents.

    It's why the only ones who have their panties in a bunch over it is Fox and their idiot brigade, not because it's some media conspiracy to help Obama win an election.  

    If only they cared so much about the 5000 in Iraq as the 4 in Benghazi, that whole mess could have been shut down before it began and the people who actually did make bad calls, and who actually lied, could have been ousted before they burned the country to the ground.


    Oh, absolutely! (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:15:25 PM EST
    "And it never failed that during the dry years the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way."
    - John Steinbeck, East of Eden (Viking Press, 1952)

    That's why it's so vitally important to blithely accept without question Fox News' repeated misrepresentations of fact about the Benghazi tragedy, and to listen intently to the disingenuous pleadings of the very same people who (a) first dropped the ball on the 9-11 terrorist attacks, and then (b) willfully misled the entire country about their patently false rationale for war in Iraq -- two ghastly mistakes that ultimately cost nearly 10,000 Americans their lives.

    It's no small wonder, Slado, why the country has teetered on the calamitous brink of political impass for the better part of two years now, thanks in no small part to grey matter-deficient a**hats like you and your fellow right-wing moonbats, who are apparently too busy admiring your own wholly manufactured points of view to either notice or care that you've somehow managed to wedge your heads up your own rear ends.

    After all, if you can accept without qualification John Sununu's contention last night that Gen. Colin Powell is only endorsing President Obama's re-election because both men are black, then it only logically follows that Republican rodeo clowns like you and Sununu are similarly supporting Gov. Romney's candidacy because he's white.

    Roat repetition of fact-free falsehoods don't subsequently render them true, I don't care how loudly or for how long you continue to assert them.


    "Roat?" (none / 0) (#94)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:33:55 PM EST
    "Roat," of course, refers to ... (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:16:13 PM EST
    ... Mr. Roat (Alan Arkin) in Terence Young's classic 1967 thriller "Wait Until Dark," who's one of the great villains of the silver screen. We just watched it again last night, and that's probably why I typed "Roat" instead of "Rote."

    Spoiler alert: That film's climactic confrontation between Arkin and co-star Audrey Hepburn -- who was never better as the blind housewife Susie Hendrix -- has to be considered, in my estimation, one of the truly scariest moments in the history of American cinema.


    It made me think of "stoat" (none / 0) (#136)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:25:23 PM EST
    which is semi- on my mind cuz one one of my kids is deep into the Redwall series...

    Concur on that final scene (none / 0) (#156)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 09:12:02 PM EST
    I've never seen a dorm TV lounge full of girls scream so loud.  Fun memory.

    The first time I saw... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:25:14 PM EST
    ...  "Wait Until Dark" was also in college, while I was traveling with the UW baseball team on a road trip to Palo Alto to play Stanford.

    When that climactic scene began, a graduate assistant coach who had already seen the movie snuck up behind me on all fours, and then as Alan Arkin leaped out of the dark shadows of the hallway, he grabbed my ankle. I yelled -- okay, I probably screamed -- and practically jumped out of my skin and hit the ceiling, knocking over the chair I was sitting in, and I ended up flat on my ass on the hotel room floor, to the delight and laughter of everyone else in the room.

    Ah, fun times. As they say, if you can't have a good laugh at someone else's expense, then who can you laugh at?

    I don't think I've ever met anyone who's seen the film and said that he or she wasn't at least horribly startled by that scene.


    I LOVE "Wait Until Dark" (none / 0) (#161)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:07:53 PM EST
    what a suspenseful movie.  And Redwall is great, too.  I was obsessed with those books when I was younger.

    Of course. I mean, "rote." (none / 0) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:38:27 PM EST
    My bad.

    You are wasting your breath (1.80 / 5) (#27)
    by Slado on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:31:09 PM EST
    The pro-Obama side of the dial can't be bothered to notice, at least not until at after the election.

    We have no idea what the story is (3.00 / 4) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:10:43 PM EST
    We only have conservatives jumping on every asserted fact that portrays Obama and his team in a bad light.

    Makes sense to wait until after the election to deal with this actually.

    Bottom line: should Benghazi change who you vote for in this election regardless of which way you lean? No.

    So the only reason to push it now is for short term political gain.  It'll take some time to sort out.


    With Bush there were (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:53:43 PM EST
    so many scandals and embarrassments to be concerned with that it was unnecessary to consider them on the merits prematurely.  As they ripened they only confirmed the worst. Many were still working on the arsenic in the drinking water before the remaining came cascading down upon us.

    Your "purely hypothetical" is WAY off (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:33:13 PM EST



    Or perhaps, in the words of Confucious, (none / 0) (#147)
    by DFLer on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 07:27:43 PM EST
    "Let many things pass, without being duped"

    What if Obama could cure cancer (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by magster on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:46:45 PM EST
    but chose not to because it would swing the election? What if Obama was born in Kenya? What if Obama is part of satanically inspired UN plot to dominate the world?

    My God, what if!!!!?????


    Would knowing that (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 08:27:35 PM EST
    Mitt cheated on his taxes, was guilty of corruption in the 2002 Winter Games and was planning on launching a land invasion of Iran within 6 months of being inaugurated change your vote? You know hypothetically?

    No (none / 0) (#80)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:06:09 PM EST
    But the rush to judgment is far premature.

    ABG is not the person you want to be (4.00 / 4) (#112)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:19:18 PM EST
    asking that question of; he doesn't have much interest in seeking the truth/answers to difficult questions, especially if it threatens Obama politically.  Mostly, he's about finding a poll that proves whatever it is isn't an issue, and approving of whatever strategy skews the politics in Obama's favor, regardless of how that affects anyone or anything else.  He'd prefer that people just zip it and pretend there are no difficult questions - and even if there were, Obama's got it all under control.

    Any topic (none / 0) (#184)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 09:23:53 AM EST
    Is a chance to bash eh Anne?

    If it were not hypothetical... (none / 0) (#165)
    by unitron on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 01:58:09 AM EST
    ...then I'd want to know about it ASAP, and I'd want to know what possible reason he could have had for such behavior, other than out and out mental illness.

    I'd still vote for him, though, to keep The Romney out.

    Then we could have a quick impeachment and conviction, and argue about who President Biden should choose as his new veep.


    Were they drunk? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:37:03 AM EST
    I mean obviously Romney wasn't, and he's not sure what to do in the middle of a bunch of partiers.  But the way he jerked his head back when exposed closely to some of the breath in that crowd makes me wonder what the hell they were doing to warm up :)

    the cat in the cowboy hat starts in too high of a (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by DFLer on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:41:48 AM EST
    key, then chickens out on the chorus...taking the lower harmony note. Had they already sung the first verse, or something?

    meatloaf has ALWAYS sucked, imho


    And is that Ted Nugent (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:41:14 AM EST
    In an old hat he found in a dumpster?

    The Romney rally, by the way, also included (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:46:41 AM EST
    The Romney rally, by the way, also included country singers Big and Rich and Randy Owen of the band Alabama. At the end, the performers joined Romney on stage to sing America the Beautiful.
    No idea which ones are which.

    Looks Like Him (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 12:51:50 PM EST
    The only one the two who don't look they work full time at the circus was Mitt and the guy with the black hat.  Did Meatloaf go gospel ?

    I can't imagine Mitt is going on stage with Nugent, but it sure looks like him.  I would be more interested in what he said than the jack@ss version of 'America the Beautiful'.

    And lastly, I guess the right got over their problem with Mitt looking very uncomfortable amongst them.  He looks like he's rather being getting water-boarded than in the middle of that idiot fest.


    Good lord. Were they drunk? (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:39:43 AM EST

    new link (none / 0) (#154)
    by Peter G on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 08:52:54 PM EST
    Good God Almighty (none / 0) (#6)
    by easilydistracted on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:46:00 AM EST

    Meatloaf looks like Belushi... (none / 0) (#9)
    by magster on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 12:09:02 PM EST
    drunkenly singing Louis Louis in the screen shot.

    Singing? (none / 0) (#11)
    by easilydistracted on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 12:17:41 PM EST
    Is Meatloaf (none / 0) (#15)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 12:41:07 PM EST
    still around?  Why?
    This isn't the first time he's acted bizarrely (or drunkenly?) in public.  A few years ago at London's Q Awards, he was supposedly taken to the hospital after the ceremony.  His people said
    it was actually an attack of vertigo that was plaguing him, and was having an adverse effect on his balance as well as his ability to speak.
     Not that he was drunk.
    Well, excessive drinking can also cause vertigo, after all.

    Wonder what Meatloaf's position on choice... (none / 0) (#20)
    by magster on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:09:28 PM EST
    .... would be if his dashboard lights paradise resulted in a untalented "peanut" in his gf's uterus.

    Come On... (none / 0) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:22:57 PM EST
    ...that song isn't an if, the guy had to marry the girl if he wanted the goodies.  Not that I agree with any of the R non-sense, but the song certainly follows their abstinence theme.

    Maybe "I'd Lie for You (And That's the Truth)" or "Two Out of Three Ain't Bad".


    I'm biased because I've always hated that song... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by magster on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:45:19 PM EST
    ... that it's singer and songwriter is endorsing Romney is validation of my contempt.

    As a baseball fan (none / 0) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:57:37 PM EST
    I always liked it. Who doesn't like Phil Rizzuto. Not to mention going two for three often enough will put you in the Baseball Hall of Fame, although probably not the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

    Then again, given the choice of Meatloaf singing way off key or Katy Perry in a latex ballot dress...Well, meatloaf just doesn't sound as appetizing anymore.


    I Like His Music... (none / 0) (#77)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:57:18 PM EST
    ...just like I like Eastwood or Voight.  I don't know them as human beings, but I know I hate the words coming out of their mouths around this time.

    I will say that I have always hated the Nuges music, and I love animals, add in his political inanity, and that just seals the deal.  I don't even like hearing his name.


    Well, everyone knows exactly ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:33:13 PM EST
    ... where I stand this election season, and I'll freely admit that as one-hit wonders go, Meat Loaf's album "Bat Out of Hell" really kicked some serious a$$ back in its day.

    That said, I'd also offer to the few remaining undecided voters observing today's GOP campaign event in Ohio that contrary to Meat Loaf's apparent notion, (a) it's no longer 1976, and (b) Mitt Romney is hardly a thoughtful Republican moderate in the best traditions of the late Gerald Ford and Earl Warren.


    You seem to be confusing... (none / 0) (#167)
    by unitron on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 02:14:56 AM EST
    ...Jim Steinman with Meatloaf.

    Or was Steinman there also?


    Wonder how many "boyfriends" forced (none / 0) (#22)
    by magster on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:13:18 PM EST
    or relentlessly pressured a "paradise" in a car (as God intended).

    Mitt's reaction was good. What else could he (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 12:21:56 PM EST
    do but laugh?  I'm sure he was glad to hear someone sing worse than him.

    Its unamurikan to laugh at our (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 12:50:41 PM EST
    national anthem, isn't it?  Kind of like flag burning?  And where is Mitt's flag pin?

    It's "unamurikan"... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 12:55:26 PM EST
    ...to not know what our National Anthem is, just saying..... it's not America the Beautiful.

    I'll give you a pass in that it's nearly impossible to know what they are singing, but the name is in the post.


    It appears it is unamurikan (none / 0) (#158)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 09:16:22 PM EST
    to laugh or talk about anything but the tragedy in Benghazi. Mitt should be ashamed of himself.

    Commenter on Kos stated.... (none / 0) (#23)
    by magster on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:15:31 PM EST
    Gallup LV poll on October 26, 2000 had Bush over Gore by 13 (remember Gore won the nat'l popular vote).

    actually you're wrong (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by observed on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    The difference was statistically significant, according to the definition.
    Your error is of the same category as thinking that surveying 1000 people out of the whole population can't give a meaningful prediction about votes, since it' such a statistically insignificant number.

    Agreed. It is a statistical (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:39:45 PM EST
    certainty that the popular vote went to Gore.  And, the difference (543,895 votes) was statistically significant at 0.5%.  Gore had 50,999,897 (48.37%)  Bush (50,456,002 (47.87%) and Nader 2,882, 955 (2.74%).  The difference is small in the practical sense of a definitive popular choice and Nader's vote tally put neither Gore nor Bush over 50%.  But, popular vote is count data and the results were statistically significant in Gore's favor.

    The flawed assumption is that (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by observed on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:35:41 PM EST
    you know what you are talking about, when you throw about terms.

    Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 votes (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:27:02 PM EST
    I have seen conservatives "unskew" current polling.

    Now, we have the "unskewing" of actual vote tallies that have been certified as final.

    See, if you are a conservative you really can live in your own reality.


    There was no recount nationally (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:12:08 AM EST
    The national numbers were certified.

    Those are facts.

    You theorize that if there were a recount, then certain things would have happened or not.

    Gore won the popular vote uneil you prove otherwise, and you have not.

    Unreal defiance of reality.


    The link is not mine (none / 0) (#162)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:09:07 AM EST
    Spooky how that happened.

    If my uncle were a woman (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:08:38 PM EST
    he would be my aunt--but....    It is true that if there had been national recounts and if there were differences in the counts there would have been different results--but...

    So? (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:37:47 AM EST
    Recount the country.

    Big deal.

    This is our futures and our lives we're talking about.

    I'd rather take the time to recount than turn it over to a partisan supreme court to fk us up for decades to come.


    The case to make for your (none / 0) (#191)
    by KeysDan on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 11:18:51 AM EST
    position should not be based on statistical analysis, but rather, on your interpretation of that analysis.  The popular vote for Gore was a statistical certainty. However, the difference in certified vote tallies was small (543,895 votes, expressed in terms of percentage, a national difference of 0.5 %).  Because the difference was small does not mean it was not statistically significant.  The sample size was absolute--the entire universe of votes tallied.  Questioning this universe is more difficult in challenging the statistical certainty and reliability  than questioning a purported representative sample or its size.

    Your argument, aside from the what ifs, seems to rest with the small differences in voting tallies. But, small differences that are statistically significant still need an interpretation.  For example, in testing new drug A against old drug B, the difference  may be statistically significant  (null hypothesis is rejected, the difference is not based on chance and chance alone) but practically the results are determined not to be significant, based on interpretation (e.g., A is more toxic, A is more expensive ).  

    Hence, my suggestion that since the difference in voting is small, your argument could rest on the differences being small in the practical sense of a definitive popular choice, and with Nader's contribution to the tally, neither Gore nor Bush achieved over 50%.  

    But, this argument, I suppose, is not one that would be attractive to Tea Party types, since it would involve appreciation for mathematics and science.  Easier to make the point, apparently, by misapplying statistics.


    Remember, the Bush DUI story ... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:02:12 PM EST
    broke after the 26th.  Before that the numbers seemed to be trending toward Bush.  The DUI not only stopped but appeared to reverse that trend.

    When (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:35:16 AM EST
    that story broke, and it was quickly spun as a "dirty trick" by the media in general, I knew we were in big trouble.

    Holy sheet, it's sunny in Pacifica today! (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:19:46 PM EST
    It's usually fogged in or at least very overcast and gloomy.  Time to take a break from my little research gig (south africa documentary) to walk Buster on the beach. Wahoo!

    Pacifica Webcam.

    Beautiful up my way also :) (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:38:15 PM EST
    Just finished my project, so when Roxy! wakes up, we're headed to the marina. I could use a nice mindless casual stroll for an hour or 2.

    Okay, I'm inspired. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:59:19 PM EST
    I just called my friend (and former boss) over at the legislature, and we're going to cut out early this afternoon and go surfing out at Diamond Head. It's just too beautiful a day to stay cooped up in an office, and the surf's up.

    Lovely, Dadler (none / 0) (#30)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:55:15 PM EST
    We're all flying right out to join you.   ;-)

    We might have to leave pronto... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:12:42 PM EST
    I think the phrase "batten down the hatches" is going to be more than operative by Sunday; I am not liking what i'm seeing of storm track and expected rainfall and winds.

    The checklist: water, batteries, flashlights in good order.  Get as much out of the gutters as possible - lots of leaves there now, I would guess.  Going to put some bottled water in the freezer, make sure the doggies and kitty have enough food.  Check for: reading material, booze and food that doesn't have to be cooked or heated.  Cell phones fully charged.

    I guess we can be glad it's not snow, huh?


    My thoughts are with you and Zorba (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:20:58 PM EST
    Reminds me of the old vocal warmup we used to do before shows in my theatre days: "We'll weather the weather, whatever the weather, whether we like it or not." Peace to the east.

    Well, it was (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:56:33 PM EST
    snow about this time last year, as you will remember- we lost electricity and could not get off our road for two days because of downed trees.  It took us three or so months before we were done cleaning up all the downed trees and branches on our property.
    We're always prepared.  Food, water, batteries, a generator, a hand- cranked radio, etc.  Also plenty of booze.  Can't do without that!  LOL!

    From My Little Hurrican Experience... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:04:45 PM EST
    ...I would say the most valuable commodity is ice or the ability to make it.  We had loads of booze, but damn, on day 3 when the ice was gone, drinking became a chore to even the professionals I hang with.

    A generator would have been a gift from the gods.


    We plug our generator (none / 0) (#119)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:37:57 PM EST
    right into our refrigerator and freezer, to save the food. Ice is never a problem here, Scott.

    Courtesy of Hawaii Civil Defense and ... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:35:05 PM EST
    ... the American Red Cross, here's the recommended checklist for hurricane preparedness.

    I wish...... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by vml68 on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:01:00 PM EST
    We're all flying right out to join you.   ;-)

    My DH will be flying out to Dadler's part of the world on Sunday morning,assuming his flight does not get cancelled. I will be home taking care of my poor furbaby who broke his leg...:-(. Hoping the electricity does not go out. Atleast, I do not have to worry about flooding since we live on the second floor!


    Oh, I'm sorry! (none / 0) (#121)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:38:58 PM EST
    I hope that your furry one is doing okay!

    Drones (none / 0) (#29)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:55:09 PM EST
    Hate going back to the old thread for a number of reasons so I will ask here:

    If not drones, then how do you deal with a terrorist our special forces cannot reach?

    Do we have to fight today? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:59:54 PM EST
    Can't we fight about drones after Nov. 6th?  Because no matter who wins we get drones.  The election has no chance of ending drone use, just probably oversight and whether or not attorneys argue over each shot taken or some kid sitting in Arizona makes the shot with no oversight at all and almost no intel either.

    If we don't have sufficient oversight now, (none / 0) (#45)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:25:38 PM EST
    it's not going to magically begin after the election; this is not a fight I expect any of us ordinary folks to ever win.

    In the meantime, I guess bored people like poking at Glenn - which is really what that's all about - and doing a fair amount of droning themselves.

    Me, I'm just hoping Hurricane Sandy doesn't do what it looks like it wants to do, which is come right across MD...


    I'm saying you have oversight (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:43:11 PM EST
    You have oversight now that you did not have under Bush, and Romney would hand everything to the same people Bush did.  I know you aren't happy with Obama's methods, but he has methods and it isn't all madness and civilian contractors aren't making any drone shots.  Our President is personally responsible for each and every one.  That kind of responsibility is huge in my book.

    Bush set a very low bar, MT. (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by caseyOR on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:44:00 PM EST
    He was so bad that I think Obama looks good to many just by comparison. i do think that when, and if, people really start to examine Obama's policies with regard to drones and the kill list they will not be supportive.

    I believe you that Obama is a million times better for the military and military families than Bush. And that is a good thing. However, separate from the military family issue, Obama's war on terror policies are not good for the country as a whole.


    How do you expect him to address (none / 0) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:23:35 AM EST
    Al Qaeda then?

    Yeah, and the French Kings signed (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:42:44 AM EST
    each Lettre de Cachet personally.

    If Romney wins ... (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:43:58 PM EST
    suddenly a bunch of anti-drone advocates will leap out of the closest.  They'll try to cover the hypocrisy with claims that Romney's use of drones is "different".  It won't be.

    Ordinary Americans (1.75 / 4) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:29:43 PM EST
    Do not have an issue with the drone program.


    I agree though.  Nothing will change on it in the short term and it is not a distinction between Mitt and Obama.  No need to discuss.


    There are plenty of ordinary Americans (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:38:14 PM EST
    who have an issue with it. but there you go again, relying on polls to support these declarations of certainty.

    "no need to discuss," and yet...there you were, looking to stir more sh!t.

    I'd suggest you make that your Halloween costume, but you'd get tired of explaining that, no, you weren't supposed to be an upside-down Good Humor ice cream bar.


    A majority of Americans support (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:43:45 PM EST
    Obama's drone program though Anne.

    So that makes it right? (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:01:31 PM EST
    I'd venture to guess, Tracy, that "the majority of Americans" have no idea what's involved, how the process is being handled, how in the dark the Congress is, how Star Chamber the target selection is - they mostly have been told that we're "keeping America safe," and that makes it a less-than-informed decision.  Whenever the rumblings get a little too loud, the FBI whips out another sting operation to distract people.

    It comforts me not at all that Obama is personally responsible, Tracy, any more than it would comfort me if Mitt Romney and his brain trust of neo-cons were observing the same process and making the same claims of personal responsibility.


    Maybe if the "majority of Americans" (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:33:44 PM EST
    took five seconds to learn this:

    A new study released last week by researchers at New York University and Stanford law schools found that terrorists only account for one out of every 50 deaths (2 percent) at the hand of unmanned drones in Pakistan. The survey confirms fear that this method of combat has killed significantly more civilians than suggested.

    The study recommends that the US conduct "a fundamental re-evaluation of current targeted killing practices," which leaves 49 civilians dead with each targeted terrorist.

    "Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological," the study writes.

    Additionally, the study found that the CIA has been "double striking" targets, thereby killing first responders that come to the scene of the attack.

    The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has found that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, drone strikes killed between 2,562 and 3,325 people in Pakistan - including children.

    they would have responded differently? Then again, maybe not. Lots of Americans love bombastic displays of superiority, in it's in their DNA. Too bad the facts don't seem to matter to these "ordinary Americans" who are, in actuality, the same old same old people who just prefer to stay ignorant about such dirty details. That way they don't have to muddy their pretty little minds up with what the government does in their name.

    Collateral damage? What's that? One terrorist for every 49 innocent civilians? Don't bother me now, I'm busy hanging my flag on the front of the house.


    I understand that many people (none / 0) (#168)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:22:12 AM EST
    don't like drone use, but that study is horribly flawed as far as the methods used to arrive at figures.  Please see here.

    Not about hanging flag in front of the house (none / 0) (#193)
    by Politalkix on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 11:45:04 AM EST
    Even if you assume that the number of civilian deaths that you have quoted from drone attacks is accurate (other sources dispute it), it is many times lower per year than the number of violent deaths that have occured in Pakistan due to sectarian killings (Sunni Vs Shias and Ahmediyas and non-Muslim minorities) and political killings (PPP, PML, MQM, MMM Tehreek-e-Insaf, Jamaat-e-Islami, etc) over a period of many years.
    Pakistani politicians and violent fundamentalists use "drone attacks" as a boogeyman to cover for all the violence they unleash on its own citizens (apart from what they do against citizens of other countries) in the same way neo-conservatives do against "Islamofascists".
    We pretended that we could just disengage from th at region between 1989-2001 and live in peace. Unfortunately this utopian version did not materialize and blew up in our faces on Sept 11, 2001.
    BHO and HRC have got it right. Even if the use of drones is not the best solution in a very bad situation, it is better than most alternatives. Putting additional troops on the ground (as BHO did in Afghanistan) is a more humane solution, unfortunately most of our fellow citizens (particularly those on the left in our political spectrum) are very opposed to nation building in other countries.

    Link, please. (none / 0) (#166)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 02:06:57 AM EST
    google (none / 0) (#169)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:22:26 AM EST
    Anne (none / 0) (#81)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:11:59 PM EST
    Where do you get "ordinary Americans".  That's a huge generalization.

    At least I am pointing to polls to back up my thoughts.  YOu are pointing to what you believe ordinary Americans want with no factual support.

    Look, I don't want to battle you for the next few weeks. You feel one way about drones and others feel another way.  

    We both agree that there is little difference between the candidates on this issue.  Why battle over it now?


    This (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:38:46 PM EST
     "You feel one way about drones and others feel another way."

    is a deliberate attempt to portray Anne as being the only one who feels this way, when there are all theses "others" that feel another way.

    Get a clue:
     It's not just Anne who has serious concerns about this policy which is killing 49 innocents for every one terrorist.  

    But you've got your troll agenda, as usual, so proceed with the b.s. Only BTD will ban you from the threads.


    shoephone (1.50 / 2) (#100)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:45:51 PM EST
    You are trying way too hard to start something where there is nothing.

    Please consider my post revised as follows:

    "You feel one way about drones and I feel another way."


    "Some people feel one way about drones and others feel another way."

    Feel better?  Happy Friday


    Oh, please. Every word you write (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:00:55 PM EST
    has "agenda" attached to it. And in typical trollish fashion, you start a conversation about a prickly subject and when people start to challenge it, you just turn around and say "oh, but I don't want to fight with you, we're never going to agree, blah, blah, blah f*cking blah."

    Different day, same old trollish b.s..


    The (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:33:17 AM EST
    only thing I surmise, since this "guy" is obviously an operative, shill or as BTD called him, a troll, is that after the election we will be seeing considerably less of him.

    We'll be stuck with Romney or Obama, but at least we might be let up from this person.


    Please don't go there. (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:43:40 PM EST
    I'd like to think that I'm an ordinary American, and while I fully support the president's re-election, I very much do have a problem with the unfettered use of drone strikes by this administration.

    I happen to consider drone strikes to be nothing more than war by electro-technical proxy. And while it might certainly be expedient to use drones in place of actual boots on the ground from a short-term perspective, such a misguided policy of ad hoc drone use holds very rich potential to incur the collective anger and wrath of those peoples who find themselves in the crosshairs, for succeeding generations to come.



    For me it goes farther ... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:48:26 PM EST
    it's one of the reasons I decided not to support Obama.

    And there's another word for the extralegal killing of people (including US citizens and minors)without a trial, or even a finding of fact, and that word isn't "war".


    If I had to guess, given ... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:23:34 PM EST
    ... pretty much everything you've ever posted about this president which I've read here at TL, I'd say the odds are better than even that Barack Obama never enjoyed your support in the first place.

    I voted for him in '08! (none / 0) (#139)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:33:29 PM EST
    So much for your powers of reasoning.

    I (none / 0) (#176)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:24:45 AM EST
    couldn't vote for him, but I did have hopes for him.

    DIdn't work out so well from my perspective.


    And (none / 0) (#175)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:22:45 AM EST
    so fkng what if Obama never enjoyed his or mine or anybody's support in the first place.

    As I have said, Obama's pandering and schnanigans slobbering over Lieberman, touring with Donnie McClurkin with foisting that homophobe idiot Rick Warren upon us at the inaugural pretty much turned me off.

    Still, I had hope.
    I even had hope for W.
    What else can you do?

    But there was no let up.
    Things kept going in the same direction.
    30,000 troops to Afghanistan - for what?
    Indefinite detention without charge or trial.
    Constant mincing of words.
    The gap between the rich and the rest widening exponentially.
    Holder lobbying for the renewal of the patriot act.
    Obama and Holder making sure that Bush and Cheney are never prosecuted for their manifest crimes against the country and against humanity.
    Holder busting pot clinics.

    Who needs this?

    In sum, Obama did not enjoy my support going in, and he has done nothing to earn it either.


    Average American (1.00 / 1) (#102)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:51:03 PM EST
    I didn't use that term. Anne did in an attempt to make it appear that most people disagree with the drone program while an insensitive elite cabal is working to keep it going despite the objections of the common man.

    The reality is, whether a person supports the program or not, it has the support of the majority of Americans by a fairly large margin.  So when people ask why it is not an issue, the reality is that most people are comfortable with it.  

    The fact that a majority supports the program doesn't make it right. A majority supported segregation at one point.

    But it does mean that using the concept of the "average american" to imply that most people oppose the drone program is wrong.

    If you were to ask 100 people randomly on the street, most people would disagree with the anti-drone position.  That's really the only point.


    But, ABG, you did indeed use the term ... (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:18:15 PM EST
    ... "[o]rdinary Americans," and clearly said that they don't have a problem with drone strikes (see your comment #48).

    I would simply offer that folks who do express their concerns about it, such as Anne and myself, should hardly be categorized as fringe political elements. That's all.



    To put a finer point on it (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:57:20 PM EST
    In February, an ABC/WaPo poll found that 83% of the country supported the drone program.

    But look at the opinions of the folks on the left:

    "But fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.

    Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high, dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al- Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen.


    It's not a campaign issue because for the most part, the majority agrees with it.


    Who (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:30:43 AM EST
    cares what you say 83% think about something?

    How many people were for intermarriage at one time?
    How many for integration of schools?
    How many people are for the death penalty?
    How many people voted for GW Bush - twice?

    Millions of people can be on the wrong side (from my perspective as a citizen) of an issue.

    Telling me how many idiots there are supporting something in which I do not believe or goes against my human sensibilities isn't going to do anything to change what my mind and conscience tell me.

    You like Drones?
    Have a ball with the 83%.


    Phooey (none / 0) (#172)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:12:02 AM EST
    You like to pretend that you know what most Americans think or feel while you sit on your keister typing.

    Just give your opinion and split.

    And I will add that anyone who uses phrases like "ordinary Americans" is an elitist republican at heart.


    Polls (none / 0) (#31)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:58:03 PM EST
    For what it is worth, Obama passed 50% approval on Gallop.

    My criteria for an Obama win a few years back:

    • Unemployment in the 7s
    • 50% approval
    • Economy getting better
    • War in Iraq over

    Fingers crossed though.

    Carlos Andres Gomez is a sexy beast (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:52:43 PM EST
    Kdog, you must read his book 'Man Up' and tell us if it is the real deal!  Should all the girls who care read it too?  That guy's dance card has to be completely FULL though...wowza!

    video removed (none / 0) (#66)
    by Amiss on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:25:26 PM EST
    by User.

    It's all over (none / 0) (#68)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:39:10 PM EST
    That was really a gross spectacle. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Angel on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 07:14:27 PM EST
    It was just plain (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 07:42:12 PM EST
    embarrassing. I really liked his songs back in the 70's but it sounds like he does not even have a voice left anymore.

    When you treat war and violence... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:24:30 PM EST
    ...as a first resort, when you venture into hell, what do you expect to happen?  As if Dubya or the neo-cons would've fared better, please.  War is chaos and insanity, the attempt to make it anything other than that is absurd denial of the childish sort.  

    Still very windy (none / 0) (#171)
    by fishcamp on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:08:07 AM EST
    here in the Florida Keys on Saturday morning.  Sorry to hear the storm may be heading towards you Anne.

    Site Violator (none / 0) (#190)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 11:15:35 AM EST
    Posting on several threads.

    If they flew the whole way top speed (none / 0) (#202)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:26:36 PM EST
    [new] If they flew the whole way top speed (none / 0) (#201)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 03:03:35 PM PST
    without adding in take off and or landing protocols if needed or refueling.  As a pilots wife I have long learned that speed and distance does not equal how long this will take to do.
    Of course. I would assume that our armed forces generally keep their planes fueled and armed and ready to go in this type of arena, but of course there some flight/safety/what have you protocols that add time to the speed/distance calculation.