Friday Night Open Thread: Goodbye Twinkies

It's official. Hostess will stop making Twinkies. We were warned. Predictably, grocery stores today are reporting a run on Twinkies. I bought a box when the first alert came out in January, and ate them all within two days. Not this time.

Adis Medunjanin was sentenced to life in prison for his role in the thwarted New York Subway attacks. Najibullah Zazi, who testified against him as part of a plea deal, will be sentenced in December.

Gen. David Petraeus testified before a closed session of Congress today. Reports vary on what he said about terrorism. The Washington Post makes no reference to him saying al Qaida was directly involved, only that at some point the CIA came to believe "associates of al-Qaeda" were involved. Reuters reports the same. CNN, on the other hand, goes with a different version by Rep. Peter King, burying that it is only King's version until the second paragraph. [More...]

Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified on Capitol Hill Friday that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in September was an act of terrorism committed by al Qaeda-linked militants.

That's according to U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, who spoke to reporters after a closed hearing in the House, which lasted an hour and 20 minutes.

King, who has zero credibility on any topic in my view, still can't distinguish between al Qaida and other militant groups who merely may be associated with it in some fashion. All terrorists are the same to him, and all terrorist acts are committed by al Qaeda. If a group shares al Qaida's ideology and commits a terrorist act, that doesn't mean the act was committed by al Qaida.

Peter King has been eating too many Twinkies. Someone needs to remind him the election is over and his side lost. No one wants to hear his talking points.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Tampa Releases Jill Kelley E-Mails:"Hostess with the Mostest" Edition | Saturday College Football Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I want to hear what else Romney said (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by observed on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:30:47 PM EST
    about Hispanics. Apparently there's something worse than what we already know out there.
    I really like Romney as head of the Republican Party. I hope he holds on to his leadership role over the next 4 years.

    You have to wonder ... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:52:39 AM EST
    ... what got his burritos in a twist about Latinos. Did a boy named Lopez once fight back and beat Mittens up when he and his Cranbrook buddies attempted to cop a feel of the boy's sister?

    I've said it before and will say it again. Mitt Romney is one of the most thoroughly repulsive major presidential candidates I've seen in my own lifetime, ranked right up there with Richard Nixon and George Wallace.


    What I've heard in my local news (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by scribe on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:46:40 AM EST
    (where a Hostess plant is in the station's coverage area) is that while Hostess is blaming the nationwide strike for management's decision to close, the cause of the strike was that every week, pension deductions were coming out of employee paychecks but somehow never making it to the pension fund.

    Suspicion is that the rights, etc. to Hostess and its products will be sold to some new entity, which will then pick up and continue the business but only after making everyone apply for the job, at a new, lower pay rate and without any of the prior benefits.

    In other words, Hostess management decided to Bain their own company.

    From "Monthly Operating Reports" (none / 0) (#37)
    by Rojas on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:34:29 AM EST
    On June 19, 2012, the Court also ruled (the "BCT Order") that the Debtors have no obligation to contribute to the Bakery and Confectionary Union and Industry Pension Fund as such fund had assessed withdrawal liability prepetition. On June 28, 2012, the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union and affiliated local unions appealed the BCT Order.  The appeal is currently pending before the District Court.

    The problem isn't as much that (none / 0) (#69)
    by scribe on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:39:43 PM EST
    the Court ruled the company didn't have to contribute to the pension funds, bad as that was.

    The problem is that the money kept being withheld from the employee paychecks.  Gawd knows where it went.


    Didn't they also want to reduce (none / 0) (#71)
    by nycstray on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:21:47 PM EST
    wages and benefits? Seems I heard a worker on TV saying something about an additional $689pm would come out of his check, so he was staying on strike and not caving.

    The contract offered (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:56:18 PM EST
    to the bakers was cutting their benefits, eliminating the pension, two holidays per year, increasing the employee deduction for health care, and an immediate 8% paycut. Starting pay for bakers at Hostess...$10 an hour before the loss of benefits and paycut.

    File for bankruptcy twice in the last ten years, increase the pay of executives, screw the little guy making your product...yup that's a typical case of twinkie down economics gone bad.

    I'm not always behind unions but in this case I would have walked in a heartbeat.


    I read the increase in employee (none / 0) (#74)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 04:41:27 PM EST
    health care contributions was going up 17%.

    I would have walked out too. This is a company that has filed for bankruptcy twice and was run by an incredibly incompetent and corrupt management team.

    Jon Talton, from the Seattle Times, gives a good run-down of what led to Hostess' failure.


    Quite a bit more detail (none / 0) (#76)
    by Rojas on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 09:42:52 AM EST
    Very (4.67 / 3) (#18)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 05:13:41 AM EST
    unfortunate convergence of events:

    Legalization of pot on the way in, and Twinkies on the way out.

    Is there, like, something wrong ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:39:38 AM EST
    ... with a bag of Chips Ahoy cookies and / or a quart of Ben & Jerry's finest?

    I dunno. (none / 0) (#59)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:47:07 AM EST
    Is there?

    Not when the bong's out. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:56:17 AM EST
    I've even been known to settle for Fig Newtons or a bag of Ruffles in a pinch.

    Hey, I know this dates me, but whatever (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    happened to Screaming Yellow Zonkers? Are those still around? Do the kids still eat those when in the throes of herb-induced hunger?

    For myself, I was quite taken with the copy written on the box. While I acknowledge the copy was, perhaps, not nearly as clever and funny as I thought at the time, I'm not sure I want to know that for a fact.  :-)


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:26:36 PM EST
    Jeralyn: "It's official. Hostess will stop making Twinkies. We were warned."

    And somewhere in Golden Gate National Cemetery in San Bruno CA, Dan White is probably rolling over in his grave.

    Jeralyn: "King, who has zero credibility on any topic in my view ..."

    Peter King has long been a one-man clown car who's driving on only three wheels, each of which are missing several lugnuts.

    Why anyone in his Long Island, NY district would take this walking rectal cavity at all seriously -- never mind repeatedly re-electing him to represent them in Congress -- is totally beyond me. It must be due to all the preservatives found in Hostess products.

    The so-called "Twinkie defense" (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 09:37:09 PM EST
    from the notorious Moscone-Milk murder case against Dan White is and always was a myth.

    As was White's claim of diminished capacity. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:27:57 AM EST
    While his defense team never specifically cited "Twinkies" as the primary causal effect of his crimes, they nevertheless mounted a defense which claimed, in part, that Dan White was suffering from depression, as evidenced by his consumption of unhealthy foods.

    It was only after his release from prison in 1984 that White later admitted to premeditation in the murders of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk.

    Frank Falzon, an SFPD homicide detective and friend of Dan White who took White's official statement after the former supervisor had surrendered to the police in Nov. 1978, told the San Jose Mercury News 20 years later that he met with White in 1984, after White had served five years of his seven-year sentence for two counts of involuntary manslaughter.

    Falzon said that at that 1984 meeting, White confessed that not only were the assassinations of Moscone and Milk premeditated, but that he had also planned to kill Supervisor Carol Ruth Silver and then-State Assembly Speaker Willie Brown that day as well.

    Falzon quoted White thusly: "I was on a mission. I wanted four of them. Carol Ruth Silver, she was the biggest snake ... and Willie Brown, he was masterminding the whole thing." He later added that at no time did White ever express remorse for the deaths of Moscone and Milk.

    Motivated by revenge against those individuals whom he saw as thwarting his ambitions and making his life miserable, Daniel J. White was solely responsible for perhaps the most tragic single event in California political history -- and yet he somehow managed to get off with an absurdly light sentence, given the magnitude of his crimes.

    It's really no small wonder why, even 27 years after his own suicide at age 39 in Oct. 1985, White remains one of the most hated figures in San Francisco history according to the San Francisco Weekly, even outpolling his contemporary in notoriety, Jim Jones of the People's Temple.

    In the aftermath of White's trial, the California legislature subsequently outlawed the diminished capacity defense in criminal law.


    That was a horrible month, Nov. 1978. (none / 0) (#13)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:52:20 AM EST
    First the deaths at Jonestown on the 17th, then nine days later the killings of Milk and Moscone. Everyone was in a state of shock.

    And the final blow was the ridiculously light sentence Dan White received.


    I was a senior in high school at the time. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:01:04 AM EST
    San Francisco suffered some tremendous body blows that month, with the assassination of Congressman Leo Ryan at Jonestown immediately followed by the mass suicides and murders there, then the twin assassination of Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk at City Hall.

    And say whay you will about her, but then-Board of Supervisors President Dianne Feinstein deserves considerable credit and praise for rising to the occasion and holding things together in the hours, days and weeks following the assassinations, first as acting mayor and then as mayor in her own right. It should be noted that she was the one who first discovered Harvey Milk's body, almost immediately after hearing the shots from down the hall from her office.

    The official announcement from a visibly shaken Feinstein to an equally stunned media then swarming City Hall early that afternoon, that Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk had been killed and that former Supervisor Dan White was the primary suspect, remains one of the most haunting and enduring pieces of video footage from that awful day.


    My husband and I (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 03:26:21 PM EST
    were living and working in San Francisco at the time.  We lived in Harvey Milk's district.  We had even met Harvey- his camera shop was just down the street from our bank. He was incredibly accessible. We were unbelievably saddened by his assassination, and infuriated by Dan White's puny sentence.  As were many in the city.

    I was in the city that day (none / 0) (#80)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:14:44 PM EST
    hadn't moved there yet (iirc). First year of college and was working when it happened. I remember walking out of the building and the shock was felt from the streets. Really didn't know what to do at the time. . . .

    Interesting that we were in SF at the same time. I wonder if we crossed paths . . .  :) I SWORE I would never live anywhere else.


    That clip was put into (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 10:04:28 PM EST
    the Forged from Tragedy ad....

    Scary separated-at-birth possibility (none / 0) (#4)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:04:57 PM EST
    It pains me to say it, because I love the Aussie guy who plays Walter Bishop on "Fringe" so much, but...

    If Peter King was not actually a crazed, angry creepo, he could be mistaken for actor John Noble's twin brother.


    I do not miss P King's mouth on my (none / 0) (#5)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:06:01 PM EST
    local news. One good thing about moving back to the other coast (among others!) :)

    I'm one of those terrible people who (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:19:34 PM EST
    read "Goodbye Twinkies" and immediately thought of the Tampa Twins...and how glad I will be when the news cycle no longer contains as many stories about these women as it does about the equally annoying "looming fiscal cliff."

    GOP war on women continues unabated (none / 0) (#7)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:48:31 PM EST
    The emboldened women in the House (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by shoephone on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 11:05:03 PM EST
    and Senate are, in essence, telling these GOP pigs to #*&! off and die. And I love it. The pigs have no idea what they have unleashed this election season. They won't change, they can't change.

    McCain has made a complete fool of himself with his criticisms of Susan Rice. He has the unmitigated gaul to say she is unintelligent??? The guy who chose Sarah Palin, the dumbest, most unqualified woman in politics, to be his running mate? He thinks this nonsense is going to help him? With what constituency?


    Forget Palin. McCain is not very bright. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by caseyOR on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 11:39:31 PM EST
    Seriously, have you ever really listened to him talk? He has the slimmest grasp of issues. Mostly, he knows just enough about an issue to yak about it on the Sunday talk shows. No depth, none at all, which makes him a perfect fit for the hosts and other guests on Sunday morning.

    This is a man who graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at Annapolis. That's right, he was 894 out of 899 midshipmen. I doubt he would have been admitted to the Naval Academy were he not the son and grandson of admirals. He is the ultimate legacy admission.

    And he is one of the meanest people in D.C., which is saying something. He is a nasty piece of work.


    894 out of 899? Couldn't care less (1.67 / 3) (#31)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:07:44 AM EST
    Four plus years in, we don't know anything about our President's grades. I suspect they weren't great, or we would've heard them by now.

    He obviously wasn't a legacy admission, but he might've been an affirmative action admission (based on lack of any substantive info, and general admission that he wasn't much of a student in his early years). I couldn't care less. He's obviously incredibly intelligent and capable. He belonged at Columbia and Harvard, whether through academics or a helping hand. It would actually be great evidence of the effectiveness of affirmative action if it were true.

    If you found out tomorrow that he was last in his class at Columbia, or Harvard, would you care? What if his grades at Occidental wouldn't have gotten him admitted to Beauty School, let alone Columbia? You know you wouldn't care. Maybe he was too busy thinking great thoughts to study.

    Same for McCain. Maybe he was thinking great thoughts. Maybe he was banging cheerleaders. Don't know, don't care. He's served his country admirably, and paid the price.


    BHO (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:31:13 AM EST
    graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. So we already know that he was within the top 10% in his class.
    McCain finished 894 out of 899.
    Excitableboy-There is a lot of offensive material in your post. It provides a window to your thought processes. You are the kind of harvest that the Hannitys, Limbaughs and Becks have cultivated over the years.

    The Fox crew wouldn't want me (1.50 / 2) (#68)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:42:15 PM EST
    I can't stand Sean Hannity, and think Limbaugh is a noxious gasbag. Beck, I have no real opinion of; not aware enough of his work.

    What part was offensive? The part where I said he was incredibly intelligent and capable? The part where I said he belonged there, whether it was through his earlier grades or not? I honestly don't see anything offensive. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

    I didn't say he didn't earn his way in, just that I didn't know what his grades were, in reference to the McCain ranking. If you feel it offensive of me to state that he may have benefited from AA, that's just ridiculous. One of its aims is to help deserving but possibly top-of-the-class minorities. In fact, I said that IF it helped the future president get into any of these schools, it was proof of its worth.

    Regarding the legacy, I definitely forgot about his father being a Harvard grad, but it wasn't out of malice. I think of legacies as being the purview of rich white boys, endowments, contributions, good-ole-boy network, all that.


    Your ignorance is showing (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:42:15 AM EST
    along with other aspects that the incorrect assumptions in your statement "He obviously wasn't a legacy admission, but he might've been an affirmative action admission..." inplies.

    Obama's father - Barack Hussein Obama Sr. - was a Harvard Graduate.  Specifically he had a Master's in Economics.

    i.e. Obama qualified as a legacy admission.

    You might want to expand your knowledge before making erroneous statements on this site.


    The president was head of ... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:51:09 AM EST
    ... the Harvard Law Review. That particular honor is not bestowed via affirmative action or even lottery, so you might take that into account when assessing the man's academic credentials.

    With regards to legacy appointments and class rankings in the military academies, suffice to say the following:

    • It was once made known to Your Truly at the beginning of my senior year in high school that an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy was mine for the asking, by sole virtue of the high esteem in which my late father was held by then-ranking members of the U.S. Marine Corps, and I turned it down because I wouldn't be able to play baseball there and instead accepted a scholarship to the University of Washington (whereupon the Naval Academy repaid the presumed slight by sending its football team with Napoleon MacAllum to Seattle to royally kick the Huskies' a$$es in the season opener of my freshman year); and

    • The vainglorious cavalryman Gen. George A. Custer finished dead last in his class at West Point, and I think we most all remember from our history books how that particular congressional appointment eventually turned out.

    Law Review (1.33 / 3) (#64)
    by diogenes on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 12:52:22 PM EST
    Much was made of President Obama being the FIRST black president of the Harvard Law Review.  This begs the question of whether he would have been president if he were white.  In all likelihood, the students felt "ready to pick a black" and picked one who seemed adequate, not necessarily the most qualified.
    Of course one could say the same about how Obama won the presidential nomination over Hillary...

    The bigotry of diogenes is indicative (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:11:27 PM EST
    of the rot that has set in his party. Do you ask the same question when a white male is chosen as the President of his class or company even when his achievements in academics or sports are less than those of Asian, Jewish or African Americans or women?

    Poor Diogenes! (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:27:52 PM EST
    In his worldview, AAs can only achieve something when Caucasian Americans let him have something for which he just "seems adequate" but is not the "most qualified" (of course in his world, only Caucasian Americans with his close mindedness can decide who is the "most qualified"). No wonder people like him are flailing around now and have not been able to figure out what hit them!

    And, you have to wonder (none / 0) (#10)
    by NYShooter on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 12:12:09 AM EST
    what, in human psychology, makes a person so convoluted. I mean, this guy was shot down,  imprisoned (and tortured) by the North Vietnamese for many years. Of all people who should have a somewhat enlightened position regarding war, and its brutality, McCain would be a prime candidate.

    And yet, it seems to have had the opposite effect.

    Truly tragic.


    He does seem, though... (none / 0) (#14)
    by unitron on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:32:46 AM EST
    ...to have occasionally shown a little sanity on the question of torture.

    Which he backtracks on later (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:49:16 AM EST
    Maybe that is what has led to him becoming truly crazy acting, losing his religion. A religion that he paid for in being abused in ways the rest of us can't really fathom.

    No kidding (none / 0) (#11)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 12:50:06 AM EST
    I often refer to him as McCrazy.

    Isn't it stunning how all the GOPers are becoming completely unhinged since the election?


    Somehow, I knew this (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 05:47:50 AM EST
    would be racist and sexist.  Luckily sacking Michael Vick is not racist- yet.  

    They called her unqualified and not very bright, (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:45:20 AM EST
    among other things. She is a Rhodes Scholar, among other things.

    Yes, and Ambassador Rice (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    holds a masters (1988) and a doctorate in philosophy (1990) from New College, Oxford University.  And, then there is that baccalaureate degree from Stanford.  Dr. Rice is a distinguished and accomplished woman.  

    Where is the (none / 0) (#26)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:11:45 AM EST

    Graduates of Stanford, who were awarded (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Peter G on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:42:21 AM EST
    a Rhodes scholarship, are not pretty much never publicly described as lacking intelligence unless they are African-American. That's where you will find the racism, just in case that was a serious question.

    How about (none / 0) (#32)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:10:50 AM EST
    graduates of Yale, and Harvard Business? Who went on to become governors, and two-term presidents? Nobody would ever say

    sorry, I'm laughing too hard to finish this.


    GW Bush? (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:26:06 AM EST
    Are you seriously trying to compare Bush (a mediocre student with a 1206 SAT score who was admitted to Yale/Harvard because he was a legacy and the son of a Congressman/Senator/Ambassador) with Susan Rice, who was valedictorian of her high school, a Truman scholar in college, Phi Beta Kappa member and Rhodes cholar?

    Because that would be seriously funny.


    Who knew (1.00 / 2) (#33)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:13:33 AM EST
    George Bush was black?

    Or do you want to pretend it's the Rhodes Scholarship that changes everything?


    Wait a minute. (2.33 / 3) (#34)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:20:28 AM EST
    We know that if she were white, this would be an obvious case of sexism. In the general pantheon of grievances, race trumps sex, so we shift to racism. But what if it's sexism to someone who just happens to be African-American?

    Do we know if she's heterosexual? What if this is really just homophobia?

    It's so hard to know who to hate these days; I need a guide.


    No, actually, you don't seem to need a guide (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Peter G on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:40:16 AM EST
    You seem to have it down pat.

    The dog whistles are not hard to notice (none / 0) (#29)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:32:29 AM EST
    When Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to the Supreme Court the same nonsense of "not smart enough" was uttered by conservatives and their lapdogs in the media. When Elizabeth Warren decided to run for the Senate, Scott Brown and Republicans seemed fixated on her native American heritage. They tried their best to falsely portray her as an "affirmative action candidate" who used her Cherokee heritage to advance her professional career.
    Some of the idiotic and sexist things that many conservatives regularly spout about HRC, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Elena Kagan and others show them up to be the sexist pigs that they are.  

    Elizabeth Warren (1.67 / 6) (#40)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:44:59 AM EST
    Sorry, she wouldn't have been elected dog catcher if she had an R next to her name. That hiring directory she put her name into wasn't for people who have vague, somewhere-back-in-history minority ancestry. It was for MINORITIES -- in her case, actual Native Americans. People who live their life as Native Americans, belong to tribes, have suffered discrimination personally or whose immediate families have been held back because of the ravages of racism.

    Those directories are to help right past wrongs (or to get affirmative hiring kudos -- tomato, tomahto), not so white people can say 'my Mom says my great-great-great something or other was an Injun, so I must be a minority'. It's not what her mother told her as a kid, it's what she knowingly did as an adult. And it was incredibly transparent to anyone but the most partisan hack.

    If Scott Brown had done what she did, he would've lost by 100 points, not the 8 or so he did. But this is Massachusetts...


    In the words of William Shakespeare (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:44:07 AM EST
    who gives a f*ck?

    The bottomline, imho is, Warren is human being with a couple of warts, and Brown is ideologically committed to being a wart with a human buried so deeply you'd need to drill a hole to find him.



    Please (none / 0) (#22)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:37:37 AM EST
    It's not a war on women to go after someone who happens to be a woman.

    If she's the first one to be called untrustworthy, unqualified, or not very bright, then apparently the political discourse has been much more civil than I've been led to believe.

    Honestly, I thought part of equal rights was the right to be treated like everyone else.


    Oh, give me a break. Oh what planet have you been (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:06:00 AM EST
    living? Personhood laws?  More abortion restrictions?  Defunding Planned Parenthood?  Withholding insurance coverage for women's contraception?  Rape legislation?  Defunding Head Start and other programs that single mothers rely on?  In the first six months of 2011, states enacted 162 new provisions related to reproductive health and rights.  This is just more of the GOP machine trying to restrict what women can do with their own bodies and their own lives.  We're sick of it and this election was another turning point in this long battle.  

    If you think women have equal rights in this country you are delusional.  


    Angel (1.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:53:03 AM EST
    Will you STOP CONFUSING STATE LAWS and policies -often pushed with the approval of the majority of FEMALE voters in those states - with some sort of federal program to disenfranchise the dominant voting block of all of their reproductive rights?

    And will you please stop using the language of WAR - which is an activity in which people DIE - to describe policies you don't like?

    I suppose you could honestly say there's a "War on Abortion" in the sense that the people (including oh so many women!) who want to restrict or overturn the procedure have been "fighting" legislatively for years to gain their current partial successes. The people involved would even be ok with that terminology.

    But "war on women"? That imputes guilt to me as a man for stuff I almost totally don't even support, and I resent the hell out of that. It also totally ignores the vast amount of time, votes, and money that women have given to the causes which you so despise. In short, it's just another way of :
    A. Making women into a single class and assuming your view speaks for ALL of them
    B. Letting them off the hook for their own actions and complicity in things you hate

    I really wish this would stop. You need to learn to make a better case and get more of those "pro-life" women and men over to your side rather than spitting on the little girls killed in Afghanistan for reading or the soldiers killed in Afghanistan  with your ridiculous overhyped meme of oppression in America.


    You have any effin clue regarding ... (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:35:13 AM EST
    slayerzero: "But 'war on women'?"

    ... the fate of countless numbers of young women who opted for so-called "back-alley abortions" between the years of 1903 and 1972, when the right to abortion was non-existent and illegal throughout this country?

    Probably not. Your kind never do, when there's a rhetorical point to be scored or a political opportunity to be mined.

    If your own conscience is so hot and bothered by the thought of women terminating pregnancies legally, upon demand and without apology, then I'd suggest that you hurry over to the nearest Catholic church, light a candle, bow down on bended knee and say a couple hundred Hail Marys.

    Beyond that, any possible decisions a woman might render regarding the ultimate disposition of her own pregnancy is strictly the exclusive purview of both her and her attending physician, and is absolutely and positively none of your personal concern.

    You and your busybody friends over on the right really need to butt out of other people's personal lives and mind your own godd*mned business. Seriously. Otherwise you might wake up one day to discover that the rest of us have decided to commence waging a "war upon you."

    And speaking for myself only as a Roman Catholic who's unabashedly and unapologetically pro-choice, that's all I'm going to say on the subject. Aloha.


    Are you trying to argue with me (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:57:08 AM EST
    Or put words in my mouth and thoughts in my head?

    Seriously, Donald, how many times do I have to post that I support Roe V Wade on here before you "get it"? How many times do I have to post that I don't watch Fox News on here before you understand that I'm not some caricature you are banging around in your head? Stop lying about me and my positions.

    Last I heard the year is 2012, not 1972. In 1972, I was all of one year old, and I'm sorry but I'm not going to allow you to bring up stuff in the quite distant past and assert it's the same as now. That was 2 freaking generations ago! Nixon was President the last time your comment was meaningful.

    I'm not even going to get into the rest of your overwrought prose.


    I'm sorry, (none / 0) (#41)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:47:10 AM EST
    what part of your tirade had to do with Susan Rice?

    The backlash part (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:51:26 AM EST
    Let's Play A Game (none / 0) (#23)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:57:11 AM EST
    I see a lot of of good discourse on this site, but a lot more old-fashioned insults and mudslinging. Since it's a left-dominated site, it's mostly against Republicans, which is fine. But it all gets tiresome; I'd like to see more ideas.

    So on the Susan Rice deal, let's play a game called What If A Republican Did It.

    Put aside all the animosity towards the other political side and ask yourself: why was she sent out as the face of this thing? As the president himself said, SHE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BENGHAZI. She has nothing to do with the State Dept., nothing to do with Libya, nothing to do with Intelligence. If you want to cite her job as ambassador to the UN, that's possible, but a more than a little ridiculous. In that case she should be the spokesperson for anything anywhere.

    There were so many other people who would've been better choices: Hillary Clinton, David Petraeus, Tom Donilon, John Brennan. Why not White House spokesman Jay Carney, or even David Axelrod.


    "What If A Republican Did It?" (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:12:45 AM EST
    Tell me about Condoleeza Rice and the August 6, 2001, Daily Briefing Memo, then I'll play your little game.  Why weren't Republicans as concerned about that as they are about Susan Rice speaking about Benghazi?  

    That's what I mean. (1.00 / 2) (#43)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:50:13 AM EST
    You've got a great point, but I'm not talking about Republicans. I'm talking about Dems in general, and this site's commenters in particular, and what's happening now, not eight years ago. Pretend the Republicans put Susan Rice out there, and see where your intelligence takes you.

    ExcitableBoy (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Amiss on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 04:32:42 AM EST
    You are a. Chatterer and this site has rules against them.
    Perhaps you should learn to read and abide by rules before coming to this site and pasting. Kinda likes people in glass houses and all.

    What if a Republican did what? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:56:10 AM EST
    What did Susan Rice do?  I take offense to your train of thought because every attack upon representatives of our country is singular with its own specific details to be dealt with.

    If a Republican (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:17:20 AM EST
    Did what?  Read the statement to the press?  

    Since none of your "acceptable" sources wrote the statement, which was the CIA's "official" position, why would it matter who reads it to you?

    What if a Republican started a war that cost a trillion dollars and killed 4500 Americans and another 100,000 (or so) brown people and heh-heh, you'll never believe this, but it was all a mistake, because, heh-heh, there weren't any WMD.

    Why that guy would be impeached in a heartbeat, wouldn't he?

    Wouldn't he?


    Again, (none / 0) (#46)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:52:43 AM EST
    fine point, but what are the rules? Can't question or scrutinize ANYTHING that happens now because Bush's admin sucked?

    I don't see anywhere that I defended Bush, the Iraq war, the designated hitter rule, or anything else. Does anybody want to address what I'm actually talking about?


    What are the rules? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:41:07 AM EST
    After "logic," how many do you need?

    Wait for it... (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:56:25 AM EST
    Next they will accuse of watching Fox News exclusively, or being a "dittohead".
    Tiptoe VERY cautiously lest you get tarred with the KKK or "sexist pig" tags as well.

    The majority of commenters here are pretty darn predictable.


    It is the rote recitation (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 07:58:29 PM EST
    of conservative talking points.  Not much can be learned about objective reality from reading such posts.    You can learn about the conservative mindset, if one is so inclined.

    It is not my site, but for me, these posts are tiresome and needless.  

    The underlying problem is that there is a lack of good faith in such posts....  


    I'm not sure we can say... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by unitron on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 12:23:27 PM EST
    ...that someone with the title "Ambassador" has nothing to do with the State Department or that the State Department has nothing to do with them.

    Even if we accept your premise as true, ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:07:58 AM EST
    ... what's your point?

    Her involvement is evidence of what, exactly?


    Exactly! (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:59:08 AM EST
    Susan Rice's involvement is quite obviously clear evidence of something, it's just that the congressional Republicans haven't quite decided yet what the offical party line du jour on it should be.

    I think the Rs are being too tough on her. (none / 0) (#52)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:07:44 AM EST
    I think she was hung out to dry by the admin, told to sell a bill of goods that was false.

    I don't think she really knew that, it's not her area of expertise. Which I think is WHY she was used. I'd like someone to come with a plausibe answer as to why she was sent out instead of all the people who could've and should've taken her place.

    But I think the basic Republican stance is that she should have known it was a load of crap (she's much smarter than I am, and I knew it was a load of crap), and that she shouldn't have been the one to deliver it. And that even if she didn't, she shouldn't be the Sec of State. That's not my opinion, I haven't looked at it enough to come to a conclusion. I actually try to take my positions seriously.


    But I do believe (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:16:43 AM EST
    that HER statement that a coordinated, successful military attack on our consulate on the anniversary of 9/11 had ANYTHING to do with a spontaneous protest was really, really, really stupid.

    There are bigger fish to fry here. The State Dept, and definitely the CIA, have a lot to answer for. And in this instance, I don't give a rats' a$$ about Condoleeza Rice, George Bush, Iraq, etc. Past injustices can't blind us to present ones. Four brave people died, and we have consulates and embassies all over the world in potential danger. We need answers.


    The answer is that you (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:32:59 AM EST
    can't protect ALL these consulates and embassies and military bases all over the world all the time and pretend to still be able to adhere to a national path of 'enlightened self interest' while also marshalling the resources to create anything like a safe, livable, sane environment here at home.

    It didn't work out for Rome and it sure as hell can't for the U.S today.


    Sure, Susan Rice has been groomed (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:02:43 PM EST
    for years to replace Hillary.  I saw it as a natural progression, giving her more publicity and getting her ready.

    I saw it as a way of promoting Susan Rice, giving her some face time on television to boost her career.

    But, of course, for the conspiracy nuts who cannot come to grips with Obama's victory, they go into the Impeachment/Scandal mode, just as they did with Bill Clinton after he won re-election.

    A complete lack of good faith.  A complete witchhunt.


    thank you (none / 0) (#51)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:59:54 AM EST
    An actual substantive reply (asking what I think her involvement was).

    It seems a little strange to me that the administration would send out someone with no connection to the matter at hand, to go on five morning news shows to push a narrative that was, we know now, demonstrably false (we didn't have an adequate level of secutiy, it had nothing to do with a video, etc.), and I would argue they had to know then was demonstrably false. But I see nothing to show she knew it. I believe she was used because she had plausible (and actually true) deniability, for one thing.

    Remember, we didn't know, but they did, about all the security concerns, the British and Red Cross already pulling out, the prior small attacks on the consulate, the strengthening of the militias in the area. Later reporting has made all that clear. Plus they had the real-time drone footage showing NO protest.


    We actually don't know ... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 04:32:12 PM EST
    ... many of the things you're claiming, and Rice's statements were entirely consistent with the assessments made by our intelligence agencies and analysts at the time.  Moreover, Rice always qualified her statements, making clear that they were only an initial assessment and we should wait for further information to be developed through the investigation.

    Your claims that these statements were knowingly false is baseless.


    Here's some good news: (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:45:14 AM EST
    And 450 miles to the north, ... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:52:45 AM EST
    ... Dan Lungren also conceded defeat in his bid for re-election to the U.S. House, at the hands of Democrat Ami Bera.

    And, let's please not forget that voters in San Diego last week also elected that city's first Democratic mayor in 20 years. The almost complete marginalization of the once-dominant GOP in modern California politics remains the most inexplicably under-reported story of the 2012 elections.